Gallup Republican National Primary

• Romney – 24 (17)
• Palin – 16% (17)
• Cain – 9% (8)
• Paul – 7% (10)
• Pawlenty – 6% (6)
• Santorum – 6% (2)
• Bachmann – 5% (5)
• Gingrich – 5% (9)
• Johnson – 2% (2)
• Huntsman – 1% (2)
• Other / No Opinion – 18% (22)

Without Palin:

• Romney – 27% (19)
• Cain – 10% (8)
• Gingrich – 9% (12)
• Paul – 9% (12)
• Bachmann – 7% (7)
• Pawlenty – 6% (7)
• Santorum – 6% (2)
• Johnson – 2% (2)
• Huntsman – 2% (3)
• Other / No Opinion – 21% (25)

Survey of 851 registered Republicans and Republican-leaning independents was conducted June 8-11. Numbers in parentheses are from Gallup’s previous poll which ended May 24.

This would be the first poll that is entirely post-Pawlenty’s economic announcement, and two and a half of the four days of polling was after Gingrich’s staff quit.

If you want to see an election that has the potential to be a referendum on President Obama’s stewardship of the economy become an election about social issues, prospective presidential contender Rick Perry is your man:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a potential 2012 presidential candidate, accused the Obama administration on Sunday of transforming abortion into a U.S. export and breaking faith with the nation’s founding principles by supporting taxpayer-funded embryonic stem cell research.

The conservative Republican has long been at odds with President Barack Obama’s stand on reproductive rights and stem cell research, but his remarks at an anti-abortion rally amounted to a political introduction to a mostly Hispanic crowd of about 5,000 at a downtown arena.

The governor had dismissed talk that he would seek the GOP nomination next year, but he re-ignited speculation about two weeks ago with an off-the-cuff remark: “I’m going to think about it.” Since then, two of Perry’s former top political advisers fled Newt Gingrich’s troubled presidential campaign, while Perry scheduled trips to Los Angeles, New York and New Orleans that could raise his national profile.

In Los Angeles, Perry never mentioned the presidential election, and he avoided a gaggle of reporters and TV crews seeking interviews. His office said the stop was planned long ago.

“This is not a political event,” said spokesman Mark Miner.

Perry was greeted warmly by the crowd, and left to a standing ovation.

“Every life is precious,” Perry said, as his remarks were repeated by a translator in Spanish. He said the direction of stem cell research under the Obama administration was “turning the remains of unborn children into nothing more than raw material.”

Now, I’m not saying that the Republican presidential nominee shouldn’t be a three-legged stool conservative. Of course he or she should be. Throwing one wing of the party under the bus is tantamount to re-electing Obama. But Perry, like many Southern politicians, is used to running in a political environment where debates over religion and culture are very public, and where being high octane on social issues is rewarded by voters. This sort of strategy tends to be a death knell north of the Ohio River, as demonstrated by the way that George W. Bush began to bleed support the minute he crossed that geographic threshold, winning only the traditional Republican state of Indiana decidedly, and taking Ohio and Iowa by a hair in 2004.

I don’t think I’m being too presumptious in suggesting that Obama’s Achilles’ Heel is the economy. That should be the foremost line of attack against the president, with the social stuff the subject of targeted mailings and such to the GOP’s evangelical and socially conservative supporters. Re-assure the voters who care about social issues that President Pawlenty (or whoever) will absolutely reverse the Mexico City policy, appoint conservative judges, sign pro-life legislation, and so forth. But don’t make it the centerpiece of a campaign that Republicans can and will win on the issues of jobs and growth.

As I’ve said before, Rick Perry is a strong, charismatic, pro-growth governor with a Texas-sized personality. But he simply won’t play in the suburbs of Pennsylvania.

Most pundits and observers of the GOP primary race have assumed Tim Pawlenty would not directly attack Mitt Romney on the issue of MassCare. Given Pawlenty’s campaign strategy of presenting an optimistic and positive message, and given his past flirtations with and positive words about a MassCare-style plan as Governor of Minnesota, it was generally accepted that Pawlenty would allow surrogates and lesser candidates to take Romney on head-on.

Pawlenty himself even said that if “elbows start getting thrown, I’m not averse to getting in the corner and start throwing some myself. But we’re not going to start that process.”

Well, as Alexander Burns notes, “So much for not throwing the first punch“:

Tim Pawlenty went on offense against Mitt Romney on the eve of the first New Hampshire presidential debate, tying the former Massachusetts governor to national health care reform on “Fox News Sunday.”

“President Obama said that he designed Obamacare after Romneycare and basically made it Obamneycare,” Pawlenty said. “What I don’t understand is that they both continue to defend it.”

My take: this may be Pawlenty’s first major unforced error of the campaign. After a nearly flawless campaign rollout and a decently well received speech on economics, for Pawlenty to turn around and do this may cost him.

Pawlenty attacking “Obamneycare” makes him seem less presidential, less serious as a candidate, and completely forfeits his strategy of being the positive, above the fray candidate — ceding that ground entirely to Mitt Romney. Pawlenty has nothing to gain by going negative already, especially this early in the campaign. The only thing it really does is makes him look desperate, and it is way too early to be desperate.

I have said before that I see a lot of Romney ’07 in Pawlenty ’11, and this is one more area where Pawlenty seems intent on repeating the Romney run – mistakes and all. Apparently Pawlenty has forgotten what happened to Mitt’s numbers when he launched those “comparison ads” against Huckabee in Iowa and McCain in New Hampshire…

Additional Miscellany will no doubt find its way into the comments.

Some Orphaned Daniels Supporters Choosing Huntsman

It was reported by several sources that the former ‘Students for Daniels’ group, which had attracted some attention by running Draft Mitch ads, has endorsed Jon Huntsman. That isn’t exactly true – the group declined to endorse anyone, but several of the founders and most of the chapters did choose Huntsman. Here’s HuffPo:

When Students for Daniels found out that the Indiana governor was not going to run for the GOP presidential nomination, they turned their attention to deciding which former governor they would endorse as their second choice: Massachusetts’ Mitt Romney, Minnesota’s Tim Pawlenty or Utah’s Jon Huntsman.

Romney eliminated himself by enthusiastically backing federal subsidies for ethanol production, said Max Eden, the 22-year-old Yale University graduate who helped co-found of the now 68-chapter-strong college political group.

When it came down to choosing between Pawlenty and Huntsman, they said it was the latter’s focus on the national debt that helped them decide in his favor.

This group obviously isn’t going to turn an election, but I think their choosing Huntsman over Pawlenty on the basis of ‘focus on the national debt’ is interesting. I suspect they are not untypical of former Daniels supporters in being turned off by the emphasis Pawlenty put on social issues until recently. One of the founders is quoted thus:

“[Pawlenty] seems like a fine candidate,” Knowles said. “But in terms of the ways in which he speaks about the debt, I think Governor Huntsman is, all in all, a better candidate.”

“When Governor Huntsman speaks, our generation’s issue is the first word out of his mouth. When Governor Pawlenty speaks, it’s the fifth,” he said. “Gov Pawlenty’s campaign just seems less focused … their whole campaign has been a little nebulous.”

Chicago Mercantile Exchange May Drop First Word in Name

Okay, probably not. But they are thinking, as are other Illinois businesses, about leaving the state, because of the hostile attitude of the state government toward business. Rahm Emanuel says that he’ll keep them here, and I don’t doubt he will. He’s a deal-maker by trade, and he’ll come up with a deal that will satisfy CME, just as Pat Quinn will find a way to keep Caterpillar.

But while that will cover their butts by preventing the embarrassment of high-profile companies making their way, noisily, to the exit, it won’t create any jobs. Because, as just about everybody except liberals know, jobs are created by small businesses, and small businesses are the ones being destroyed (or prevented from starting) by Illinois’ high taxes. But the businesses that never start up don’t get headlines.

For a further taste of politics Chicago-style, Richard Daley’s son made hundreds of thousands in a sweetheart deal for airport wireless:

For years, City Hall maintained that Mayor Richard M. Daley’s son, Patrick Daley, had no financial stake in the deal that brought wireless Internet service to city-owned O’Hare Airport and Midway Airport.

But it turns out that the younger Daley still reaped a windfall of $708,999 when Concourse Communications was sold in 2006, less than a year after the Chicago company signed the multimillion-dollar Wi-Fi contract with his father’s administration, company documents obtained by the Chicago Sun-Times show.

Why is the NAACP fighting African Americans?

The Washington Post feigns shock at seeing the NAACP backing teachers’ unions against black schoolchildren:

The images are jarring. Photos of children with signs saying “NAACP, drop the lawsuit” and “NAACP, unite us, don’t divide us.” Video clips of parents, teachers and community leaders urging the NAACP to put the education of children first and to stop supporting the status quo.

It was so jarring because these children, parents and community leaders were black. Thousands of black Harlem residents rallied in the street May 26 protesting the NAACP.

What’s the issue? The NYC education department is seeking to close a bunch of bad schools (predominantly in black neighborhoods) and replace them with charter schools. The unions and the NAACP are suing to stop the closures. Why? Because protecting union jobs is more important than educating kids. I’m surprised only that the Post is surprised that that is the unions’ priority, and that aligning with their union allies is the NAACP’s priority.

Bye-Bye, Bounce

This is the week when President Obama’s Bin Laden bounce finally disappeared completely. He’s now +1.1 in the RCP average – he was about the same, -0.2, on the day Bin Laden went to collect his virgins. He’s +2 in the latest Gallup, he was +1; he’s -6 at Rasmussen, he was +/- 0; He’s 0 at CNN, he was +5; and so on. I point this out only because I’m so seldom right, I need to highlight my correct calls. I’m really amazed that anyone thought an event like that would trump continuing bad economic news.

In related news, Robert Reich ain’t stupid – he knows it’s the economy:

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich said, “You know, I think, Eliot, that the president does have to get out in front on the jobs situation. I don’t think the new White House can any longer pretend that the economy is on a recovery path. I mean the recovery really has stalled. There is every evidence of a major stall here.

“And the president has got to say, look, here are my ideas for getting us out of the stall. Even if those ideas can’t go very far. Even if Republicans will oppose them, he has got to, not only for the purpose of helping average Americans, but also for the political optics.

“He’s got to actually show that he is being active and proactive with regard to jobs and wages.”

Good advice. Too bad Obama can’t follow it, because he has no ideas.

Quickly Noted

Global food crisis looms ahead

The Hindu reports from India. The crisis will mean death in many parts of the world. In the US, thankfully, it will only drive additional inflation. Yet another reason (if more were needed) to stop the insanity of turning food into gasoline.

Gates Rebukes European Allies in Farewell Speech

I doubt that there are many Americans, whatever their views on international military issues, who are not tired of giving Europe a free ride. “The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress, and in the American body politic writ large, to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources … to be serious and capable partners in their own defense.” Long overdue words.

Because Self-Determination Is Such an Outdated Concept

President Obama and Hillary Clinton have decided to throw the UK and the people of the Falkland Islands under the bus. Excuse me — Las Malvinas.

Census Finds 1.3 Million Fewer Nuclear Families

The item being from Advertising Age, they report the development in terms of its marketing impact.

Bureau of Labor Statistics spending data show that 79% of married with children families are homeowners. They spend $11,700 more each year on consumer goods than married couples with no kids, $31,700 more than single parents and $39,100 more than single people.

But the political and social impact is significant to folks like us. Interesting that the nine states where there was an increase in nuclear families are all Republican (or at least battleground) states.

So says prominent Stanford economist John Taylor, the “possible next Fed chief“:

As stated in the speech, “5% growth is not some pie-in-the-sky number.” One way to see why is by dissecting the number into its two parts using basic economics. As we teach in Economics 1, economic growth equals employment growth plus productivity growth. Productivity is the amount of goods and services that workers produce on average in a given period of time. Thus, higher economic growth can come from higher employment growth or from higher productivity growth.

…Now if we add the 2.7 percent productivity growth to the 2 percent employment growth [which Taylor explains in the article], we get 4.7 percent economic growth, which is within reaching distance of—or simply rounds up to—the 5 percent target set by Governor Pawlenty. Thus, five percent growth is a good goal to aspire to, whereas 3 or 4 percent would be too little and 6 or 7 percent too much.

…You can see how the types of pro-growth policies in the Pawlenty plan would work toward the goal by reducing spending growth enough to balance the budget without tax increases and thereby remove threats of a debt crisis; by lowering marginal tax rates to spur hiring and job growth; by scaling back unnecessary new regulations which impede private investment and higher productivity, and by restoring sound monetary policy to remove uncertainty about inflation or another financial crisis.

In the interest of fair use, I left out the steps Taylor walks through to arrive at his estimates of 2.7% productivity growth and 2% employment growth, but I encourage all to read it.

Quite a few political followers – including many within our Race42012 community – have nitpicked Pawlenty’s call for 5% growth, so it certainly benefits his campaign to see a high-profile economist provide a well-reasoned defense. And as the Governor himself has noted, he has offered the 5% number as a goal, not an assumption. From the viewpoint of this humble observer, it pains and saddens me to see America resigned to stagflation and anemic growth – at best – over the coming decades. It is unacceptable for the greatest nation in the history of the world, and it makes the election of a Republican in 2012 all the more important.

While many continue to carp about Tim Pawlenty’s economic plan for the nation, arguing that there are still “i’s” that need to be dotted and “t’s” that must be crossed, I think that Daniel Henninger of The Wall Street Journal has it right that T-Paw has pulled off a real coup with his plan, largely because Pawlenty has managed to change the conversation to a topic that Republicans should be able to dominate: the economy. Money quote:

Whether Gov. Pawlenty’s prescriptions—dramatically lower individual and corporate taxes, zero taxes on capital gains and dividends, sunset provisions for federal regulations and a growth-rate target of 5%—are provable as solutions is politically beside the point at this moment. As substantive brand differentiation, the Pawlenty speech was a success.

There is, however, a serious policy implication inside the Pawlenty proposals. We are heading toward an election fought over the economy. That’s good because ultimately this means the subject is growth. The one consensus that exists across the political spectrum is that strong economic growth eases many problems—from the entitlement burden to the tragedy of high youth unemployment.

The battle will be fought over economic growth and how we get it—Obama’s way or something close to the opposite of Obama’s way. On one hand is Barack Obama’s government-led “investment” mix, embedded with spending raised to 24% of GDP. On the other is the alternative GOP vision, which is starting to gel.

Pawlenty’s plan is more directional than nuts and bolts. It’s less of an adventure in accounting than it is a big-picture document suggesting where America’s economic and fiscal policy must go. And in that sense, it presents a clear contrast with Obama’s governance, putting Pawlenty in a sort of Reagan position, circa 1980, and making Mitt Romney something of a George H.W. Bush figure from that same year. Romney becomes the Republican that the Beltway establishment “could live with” as an incumbent Democratic president continues to see his future slip away along with so much of the country’s wealth. Meanwhile, Pawlenty becomes the candidate of movement conservatives who want to win.

But the real story is that T-Paw has changed the subject from MediScare to jobs and growth. A month ago, the narrative was that Obama wants to take your paycheck, while Paul Ryan wants to take your Medicare. To most Americans, who are not ideologues and who don’t view entitlements in the way that conservatives do, this was a sign that both parties were out of touch, and that no one understood that it was still the economy, stupid. Now, the narrative is starting to change a bit, with moves like that of Gov. Pawlenty framing the national debate into one over competing visions for economic growth, instead of the former debate over how to divide the scraps that remain. Due to Obama’s abysmal record on the jobs issue, this is an argument that Republicans can win, even without getting specific on all the details, and even while downplaying some of the Ryanesque cuts that are absolutely going to have to be a part of any realistic fiscal plan. After all, the nuts and bolts of what we now refer to as the “Reagan Tax Cut” of 1981 were far less important during the race against President Carter in 1980 than were the competing visions that Reagan and Carter had for our country. Similarly, if Pawlenty can make this election about “the vision thing,” (another Bush 41-ism) he can not only win the GOP nomination for the presidency, he can beat the president.

University of New Hampshire/Boston Globe Republican New Hampshire Primary

• Romney – 41% (33)
• Giuliani – 9% (6)
• Paul – 6% (9)
• Palin – 5% (5)
• Bachmann – 4% (4)
• Cain – 4% (4)
• Gingrich – 3% (7)
• Huntsman – 3% (4)
• Santorum – 3% (2)
• Pawlenty – 3% (6)
• Johnson – 1% (*)

Survey of an unspecified number of “likely GOP primary voters” was conducted June 1-8. Numbers in parentheses are from the UNH poll completed May 22.

Despite the slower start to this campaign season, here’s a line from the poll results that has to give everyone but Romney cause for concern: “Republicans said they are more interested in the race than they were at this point in 2007.” In 2007, the race had been going for five months already by this time, their air waves had been saturated with ads, and they had seen a couple debates.

The good news for all the other candidates: 76% of respondents said they weren’t positive who they were going to vote for.

In the last election season, I enjoyed RealClearPolitics’s rolling averages of support each of the candidates received, along with the line chart showing the progression of each candidates’ support throughout the year.  One of the things that have sometimes bothered me a bit about their charts, however, is that they often leave out polls that I think are worth factoring in, and choose not to show candidates who could very well take off later on in the season.  Their current chart, for instance, leaves out a couple of the underdog candidates, and they haven’t yet brought back the line chart.  So, until they do, I’ll post Race42012′s own list of rolling poll averages (that will be a bit more comprehensive than RCP’s), along with our own trend-line chart:

2012 Republican Presidential Nomination

UPDATE: I backtracked the data a little bit and gave the trend-lines since March.  Hopefully that gives a slightly better view of how the race has changed in recent months.

Farleigh Dickinson University National Republican Primary

• Romney – 27%
• Gingrich – 9%
• Cain – 8%
• Bachmann – 7%
• Paul – 5%
• Pawlenty – 4%
• Santorum – 2%

With Palin

• Romney – 26%
• Palin – 11%
• Cain – 9%
• Bachmann – 6%
• Gingrich – 5%
• Paul – 4%
• Pawlenty – 4%
• Santorum – 3%

Survey of 509 registered Republican voters was done June 1-7 and has a margin of error of +/-4.5%.

The link above also has a sample that includes Christie for whatever reason. Mitt’s lead increases to a full 20 points if Christie runs.

Public Policy Polling recently surveyed how popular each of the 2012 Republican presidential contenders are in their respective home states:

Name – Favorability/Unfavorability – Net

• Gary Johnson (NM) 44/32 +12
• Newt Gingrich (GA) 39/47 -8
• Herman Cain (GA) 28/37 -8
• Rick Perry (TX) 42/50 -8
• Rick Santorum (PA) 37/47 -10
• Mitt Romney (MA) 40/52 -12
• Tim Pawlenty (MN) 40/53 -13
• Sarah Palin (AK) 33/58 -25
• Michele Bachmann (MN) 33/59 -26

Yesterday PPP reported the results of their vs. Obama poll for the state of South Carolina. The results are as follows:

Mitt Romney lead Obama by nearly double digits. The only other hopeful that was in positive territory was non-candidate Jim DeMint. Herman Cain managed a tie. All others trailed Obama, with Sarah Palin claiming the Red Lantern.

Here are the ideology cross tabs:

Romney leads or ties for the lead with all but the Most Conservatives where DeMint takes first place. Romney only takes second with them. It is interesting that our candidates do considerably better amongst the Very Liberals than they do amongst the Somewhat Liberals.

Here are the gender cross tabs:

Romney leads here, but DeMint and Gingrich have the smallest spreads. Once again we see the phenomena noted many different places where woman are harsher towards Sarah Palin than men are.

And finally, here are the cross tabs by party:

Romney leads all comers here, as well. Palin trails everyone, the sole exception being with the Democrats where she ties for last place with Newt Gingrich.

South Carolina plays a pivotal role in the nomination process. Right now, it is Romney’s to lose. However, the campaign is barely getting started. Nothing is cast in stone yet. There is a long way to go.

PolitiFact decided to address one of the biggest claims of Herman Cain’s campaign – that he helped turn around Godfather’s Pizza. Their finding? That the claim was “Mostly True.” Here’s a quote from the middle of the article addressing these claims:

Jeff Campbell is the retired Pillsbury executive who selected Cain to run Godfather’s. Reached by PolitiFact at his home in San Diego, he said there was no doubt in his mind that Cain turned Godfather’s around.

“He was the best thing that happened to Godfather’s in a long time,” Campbell said.

Cain has said that the chain returned to profitability within 14 months of his arrival. That number wasn’t possible for PolitiFact to independently confirm because the chain did not report its profits as a stand-alone unit, but industry analysts do not dispute that Cain stabilized the company.

Technomic, a research and consulting firm focused on the restaurant industry, has research data on Godfather’s going back to the 1970s. At PolitiFact’s request, vice president Darren Tristano examined the revenues and franchise numbers for Godfather’s during the time Cain headed it from 1986 to 1995. It’s not possible to determine profitability from those numbers, but they do show Godfather’s place in the market, particularly in comparison with its competitors.

“It’s really hard from that period to find a strong positive or a strong negative. It’s more like ‘steady the course,’” Tristano said. Still, “steady the course” isn’t bad for a company that was troubled to start out with and in an industry that’s punishingly competitive, analysts said.

Godfather’s position was particularly perilous. It wasn’t as big as chains like Pizza Hut and Domino’s, and it also had to compete with locally owned mom-and-pops in just about every market.

It’s a very interesting article and tells you quite a bit about Cain’s tenure at Pillsbury and Godfather’s Pizza. The bottom line is that there’s a lot of truth to the claim that Cain turned Godfather’s Pizza around. Is that enough to make him qualified to be President? That’s up to primary voters to decide.

_______________________________________________________

-Matt Newman is a conservative blogger from Maryland who blogs at Old Line Elephant and Tweets far too often.

Released by the campaign today:

Quite Reaganesque, if you ask me. The video does a nice job of capturing the optimistic, uplifting parts of the speech, in addition to emphasizing the serious business cred Jack Welch’s statements lend.

Romney gets his first sitting governor:

Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman is sticking by his man.

Heineman has, for the second time, endorsed Mitt Romney for the Republican presidential nomination.

….

Romney underscored Heineman’s pro-business credentials in the announcement. “Governor Heineman shares my principles of promoting job creation and getting our exploding deficits under control,” Romney said.

Heineman said he believes Romney, with his experience as a governor, has what it takes to meet the nation’s challenges. “Mitt Romney has a proven record of balancing budgets, keeping taxes low, and creating an environment for job growth,” Heineman said.

 

Well, this didn’t take long:

Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty’s presidential campaign announced today that former Governor Sonny Perdue will join its national efforts. Until today, Gov. Perdue was Newt Gingrich’s national campaign co-chair.

“Tim Pawlenty is a great man, he was a phenomenal governor, and he is the person I now believe stands the greatest chance of defeating President Obama. He is the only candidate who has laid out a real plan to grow the American economy, and his track record in Minnesota is proof he’s the right man for the job,” Perdue said.

And the bloodletting continues… Astonishingly, Gingrich claims he intends to continue his campaign. Perhaps Purdue, a former Chairman of the Republican Governors Association, will use that connection to lure Haley Barbour over to Team Pawlenty? Stay tuned.

Regardless, bringing on a prominent former southern governor should help bolster Pawlenty’s standing in South Carolina. Adding Joe Wilson doesn’t hurt, either.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Mitt Romney will not be competing in the Ames, IA straw poll scheduled for the 13th of August this year.

Mitt Romney will skip a key early test for Republican presidential candidates by forgoing the Iowa straw poll in mid-August, a decision that could recast the contest in the nation’s first presidential nominating state.

The Iowa straw poll, held in Ames, is one of the landmark events of the nominating contest. Mr. Romney’s decision sends the clearest signal yet that he doesn’t want to wade deeply into the social issues that carry particular weight with Iowa Republicans and instead intends to present himself to voters nationally as a successful businessman who can improve the economy.

Mr. Romney’s campaign said he would still compete in Iowa’s caucuses, now slated for February, 2012. But the former Massachusetts governor’s absence from the Aug. 13 straw poll will likely diminish his chances, some Iowa officials say, while raising the odds that whoever wins the poll will be best positioned to claim the status as Mr. Romney’s top rival for the nomination.

Perhaps he is thinking of 2008 where he spent a ton of money on the straw poll and won it, only to see Mike Huckabee win the caucuses by nearly double digits. That represented an extremely very poor return on investment for him, and Mitt is never one to make the same mistake twice.

At first glance this looks like be a mistake. Iowans do like their straw poll, and they don’t cotton to people who don’t participate in it. Mitt’s bypassing Ames and concentrating on New Hampshire only makes New Hampshire that much more of a make-or-break for him.

On the other hand, if Mitt fails to win New Hampshire, it would all be over for him regardless of how he finishes in Iowa. So perhaps deemphasizing Iowa and focusing on New Hampshire is the correct strategy after all. McCain followed that strategy in 2008, and it didn’t seem to hurt him much.

Ross Douthat is the sort of person with whom I either wholeheartedly agree, or vehemently disagree, and I fall into the latter category with regard to his feelings on Pawlenty’s economic plan for the nation. Douthat, who is part of the “thought leader/Beltway Conservative” crowd, believes that T-Paw-nomics is a mixture of antequated Reaganism and political dodge ball when it comes to the hard choices. Here’s Ross:

Pawlenty is talking about his plan for a rate-lowering, base-broadening tax reform, and he pitches this as a “one-third cut in the bottom rate … to allow younger — middle — and lower-income families to save and build wealth.” But you’ll search the rest of the speech in vain for anything else that’s addressed so explicitly to middle class concerns. Instead, most of Pawlenty’s agenda is a mix of “half-remembered bits of Reaganism,” transparent gimmicks (a balanced-budget amendment that caps spending at 18 percent of G.D.P.) and straightforward magical thinking, in which cutting taxes on business, investment and high-earners leads to 5 percent growth every year for a decade — something that neither the Reagan nor the Clinton booms came close to achieving — which in turn goes a long way toward closing the budget deficit, happily, before we have to start in on painful cuts.

…

Pawlenty seems to use his supply-side growth projections as a substitute for Medicare reform instead of adding them on as gravy. Reading it, you would think that the Bush economy was a huge, roaring success, since Pawlenty has little to say about the pocketbook issues that helped elect Barack Obama in the first place (wage stagnation, health care costs, etc.). And reading the excited reception that the speech is getting from movement organs, it’s clear that a great many conservatives have learned next to nothing from the trends that turned them out of office just a few short years ago.

First of all, the substantive difference between T-Paw-nomics and Ryan-omics is a hair’s breadth. Okay, perhaps a bit more than a hair’s breadth, but both plans involve fundamental tax reform, in which the tax base is broadened and rates are lowered, and major spending cuts, where domestic spending is hardest hit, and where Medicare is at least partially privatized. The difference lies largely in how the respective plans are being sold.

Paul Ryan’s economic blueprint for the nation includes tax simplification, with a top marginal rate of 25 percent. Tim Pawlenty’s economic plan involves flattening the tax code as well, with a top rate of 25 percent. Paul Ryan would make up for lost revenue by getting rid of deductions and loopholes. So would Pawlenty. Paul Ryan cuts lots and lots of domestic spending. So does Pawlenty. Paul Ryan transforms Medicare into a premium support plan, allowing Americans to purchase any one of a number of regulated private insurance plans instead of receiving a blank check from the government for all health care costs. Pawlenty hasn’t officially released his Medicare reform plan yet, but he has suggested that it will include an optional version of something like the Ryan plan, and for those who prefer traditional Medicare, a payment reform scheme that will lower the cost to the government, probably by reimbursing medical professionals for results instead of for the number of procedures performed. Pawlenty also wants to raise the Social Security retirement age, something that Ryan doesn’t include in his most recent economic blueprint but has mentioned previously.

The biggest difference between these plans lies in their respective marketing strategies. Paul Ryan ran the numbers, presented them to the American people via PowerPoint, and expected Americans to be adult enough to appreciate both the growth and the cuts that he was proposing. They weren’t. The special election in NY-26 proves that. As an ancestral Republican district that lies in the heart of the Rust Belt, NY-26 is exactly the sort of place that Republicans are going to have to win if they are going to build a sustainable majority. The GOP’s recent loss in the district, particularly in the wake of a vibrant MediScare campaign by the Democrat in the race, demonstrates that Republicans are not going to be able to take the nation along with it on an “eat your vegetables” austerity-only campaign. Indeed, the sparse polling that emanated from the race in NY-26 suggested that Republicans had not only lost on the issue of Medicare, but also on the issue of growth, with the plurality of voters casting ballots on jobs going for the Tea Party candidate. That’s a one-two knockout punch that the GOP cannot afford nationally.

As such, Pawlenty has done something a bit different. He has sold his plan not in the dour, icy manner of his fellow Northern curmudgeons, but in a sunny, optimistic, Reagan-esque manner. Instead of selling cuts, he’s selling growth. Instead of selling changes, he’s selling choices. Instead of selling all of the tax deductions that are going to disappear, he’s selling the newer, lower tax rates that will appear. It’s no coincidence, then, that the buzz over the past few days has been that the Reagan supply-sider crowd has been taking a second look at Pawlenty.

Bringing the conversation back to the Beltway opinion leaders’ condescension towards the Pawlenty plan, it becomes clear that Republicans simply can’t win with the folks who lie within the chattering classes of our nation’s capital. If a Republican takes the Ryan approach and talks straight to Americans, he is deemed harsh or unrealistic, a courageous truth-teller who is simply too austere for the American people. On the other hand, if a Republican talks optimism and growth, he becomes a fool, a panderer, or someone who lacks the serious mind needed to lead our nation. The reality is that there is no pleasing the Beltway crowd for Republicans, absent becoming Democrats.

What the Beltway establishment decided long ago, unfortunately, is that the only solution to all of our nation’s problems is to raise taxes by 50 percent, institute a heavily rationed single-payer health care system, and essentially become a Western European-style social democracy. This sort of Beltway-itis works its way into the psyche of Republicans and Democrats alike who remain within its bounds for too long a time. As such, maybe it’s time for Republicans to flip the bird to the Beltway establishment and take a message of growth and optimism directly to the American people, especially since the American people are still the ones who get to decide elections. Hey, it worked for Reagan.

According to a cryptic one-line story over at CBS, Texas Gov. Rick Perry is about to throw his Texas-sized hat into the ring. Whatever one thinks of Gov. Perry, the presence of a high octane, charismatic, Southern evangelical in the race is sure to scatter the field.

According to AP, Newt Gingrich’s entire staff has resigned.

Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich’s campaign manager, senior strategists and key aides in early delegate-selection states all resigned on Thursday, a mass exodus that leaves his hopes of winning the Republican nomination in tatters.

Rick Tyler, Gingrich’s spokesman, said he, campaign manager Rob Johnson and senior strategists had resigned, along with aides in the early primary and caucus states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Other officials said Gingrich was informed that his entire high command was quitting in a meeting earlier in the day. They cited differences over the direction of the campaign but were not more specific.

The officials declined to be identified by name, saying they were not authorized to discuss private conversations.

Gingrich told the group he intends to stay in the race, they added.

More info as it develops.

Update: AP has updated their story (thanks, Metro). Same link:

In addition to Tyler, Johnson and Rials, aides who quit include senior adviser Sam Dawson, South Carolina director Katon Dawson, and New Hampshire director Dave Carney. The entire full-time staff in Iowa, six aides, also quit.

One of them, political director Will Rogers, left last week out of dissatisfaction with the direction of the campaign.

He said that as of May 31, the day he announced he was quitting, the candidate had not scheduled any campaign days in the state. The Iowa caucuses traditionally begin the delegate selection process, and assembling a network of supporters is an arduous process that usually requires a candidate’s frequent presence.

A comment from one of the aides is interesting: “I think the world of him, but at the end of the day we just could not see a clear path to win, and there was a question of commitment.”

Fresh off getting married, a honey moon and settling back into life, I’m back with another “quick hit” post, collecting all the news that’s fit to print from the 458 other federal races in 2012, as well as some gubernatorial nuggets of interest.

1. TX-Sen, TX-Rep: The Texas senate primary has been an absolute heart-breaker for many, because of the presence of two conservative rock-stars in the race, former railroad commissioner Michael Williams and Soliciter-General Ted Cruz. As the fiscal conservative clans unite around Cruz, however, it looks like Williams may be seeking other opportunities. The current TX redistricting plan sets up an open seat based out of Williams’ home town of Arlington, and rumor has it he may be switching races as soon as this map is finalized. This would be a real coup for Cruz, particularly if a double-endorsement is in the works. Should this occur, look for Jim DeMint to very quickly endorse Cruz (following Freedom Works and the Club for Growth), and making him the candidate with the most conservative muscle behind him. Additionally, if Rick Perry does indeed run for the Whitehouse, the possibility of an open-seat governor’s race may keep LT-Gov David Dewhurst out of the senate race.

2. OH-Sen: Former state Senator Kevin Coughlin has, as was expected, entered the race against ultra-liberal first-term Senator Sherrod Brown. From his resume, Coughlin looks like a pragmatic legislator with experience running and winning in heavily-Dem territory. Treasurer Josh Mandel and former Secretary of State and 2006 gubernatorial nominee Ken Blackwell are also mulling the race. Speaking of Blackwell, he made a few waves by endorsing Florida senate candidate Adam Hasner, a favor which Hasner has yet to return (of course, Blackwell’s not in the race yet, so Hasner’s non-endorsement probably doesn’t mean much).

3. FL-Sen: Mike Haridopolos can’t win for losing. His most recent piece of bad news was entirely self-inflicted, a very bad interview with Orlando talkshow host Ray Junior in which he refused–multiple times–to take a position for or against the Ryan plan. Meanwhile, former interim senator George LeMieux is getting milage out of his previous time in the senate, via a fund-raising event held with nineteen of his former senate colleagues, at which he seems to have brought in a ton of money. And the race could get at least one more entry, as Ruth Chris Steakhouse CEO and former congressional candidate Craig Miller is actively considering entering what is already a pretty crowded primary.

4. MO-Gov: Ouch! LT. Gov. Peter Kinder, the likely GOP nominee for governor in 2012, is getting absolutely no love from other folks within the MOGOP, who leaked some devastating stuff to David Catanese at politico questioning Kinder’s ability to win. On one hand, you’ve got to question the good sense of people doing this much damage to the presumptive nominee. On the other hand, Kinder’s campaign has been remarkably fumble-fingered. One wonders if people like Ann Wagner, Ed Martin, John Brunner and so on are considering switching races? That said, Governor Nixon’s approval ratings look pretty good, so it’d certainly be a crap-shoot.

5. CA-Rep. So, a funny thing happened on the way to the Democratic corronation in CA-36, when tea party candidate Craig Huey took second place in the jungle primary here. Now, polling in the district shows Huey only five points behind Janice Hahn, which is perhaps part of the reason Hahn is trying desperately to tie Huey to Sarah Palin. This special election has been a massive sleeper, but a five point race in a district as blue as CA-36 is noteworthy. In other CA-Rep news, Bob Filner (D) is leaving the house to run for mayor of Sandiego in 2012. Who knows what this district (or any district in CA for that matter) will look like post-redistricting, but an open seat has to be easier for Republicans than beating an incumbent (minus a scandal, of course).

6. NY-Rep. The loss of Jane Corwin to Kathy Hochul in NY-26 was disappointing, frustrating, irritating, etc, etc. But with Anthony Weiner’s recent public implosion, Republicans may have an outside shot at retaking his seat. Josh Kraushar of the Hotline notices a surge in Republican voting from 2000 to the present in this district, and fingers judge Noach Dear as a potential candidate. Discussion also swirls around Weiner as a potential redistricting casualty. If Weiner should resign, and if a Republican were to win the seat, what would this mean for redistricting? Would Democrats agree to the dismantling of Hochul’s district, in exchange for the destruction of their newly-one seat? While NY-26 is pretty hard to dismantle (partially because it’s so big), there are potential issues with Weiner’s seat as well, as it borders a couple of VRA seats, and dismantling it would require some of the old bulls in suburban NY to take on slightly more conservative territory. Regardless, Hochul’s reelection is by no means guaranteed, with Obama at the top of the ticket and an actual voting record in the house to defend.

7. OK-02: Democrat Dan Boren is the first straight-up retirement of the cycle, creating a real potential pick-up opportunity for Republicans. OK-02 is the reddest district Democrats hold, and Boren was one of three Democrats to vote in favor of repealing healthcare. Democrats have about the best recruit they can get in former Rep. Brad Carson, but expect Republicans to make a serious play for this seat. State Rep. George Faught (who’s son is, apparently, blogger Jamison Faught), is apparently already thinking about the race, and state senator Josh Brecheen has also been mentioned as a potential candidate.

8. Redistricting: The knives are out, as states begin slicing and dicing the congressional districts of their representatives, and it looks like this cycle will be no-holds-barred. The opening salvo was fired by Illinois, in which the Democratic legislature jerrymandered– or in this case, demomandered– to their hearts content (court challenge likely). Texas fired the next shot, in which Republicans did the same thing, but in reverse, leaving civil rights groups screaming over the lack of a second Hispanic VRA seat (court challenge almost guaranteed). And nobody knows what California’s commission-drawn map will look like. Republicans’ best shot at redistricting-oriented pick-ups probably comes in North Carolina, where the legislature has a real shot at undoing the Democratic-friendly map of 2000, but GA, PA, UT and a few other states provide real pick-up opportunities. ?And then there’s Florida, whose fair districts initiative complicates a Republican jerrymander, but still has to pass a challenge in the courts. (please make suggestions regarding your state in the comments). This will be an ongoing story in 2011/2012, and one which may significantly impact the 2012 house landscape.

(Authors Note: I intended to edit this immediately upon posting, but was unavoidably pulled away from my computer; sorry for the delay in revising).

CBS News has released a poll on the 2012 GOP hopefuls. Beyond the usual Fav/Unfav metric with which long time readers know I have little patience, they asked a most interesting question, “Do You Want to See Sarah Palin Run for President?”

They broke the results down by Republicans, Tea Party Supporters, and All Voters. Here are the results:

Here are the results in graphics form:

This represents a very significant problem for Mrs. Palin. If the majority of the people you are hoping to appeal to (namely Republican and especially Tea Party Supporters) don’t wish you to run, what then? If you run, you are going to have to convince all those people that they were wrong. That is never an easy thing to do, especially when you are as well known and recognized as Sarah Palin.

America has had nearly four years to make up their minds on Governor Palin. She has been in the news continually. She has been discussed to death. Changing all those people’s minds will be a daunting task.

There is one question that needs to be asked. Why are the Tea Party Supporters, the very people everyone says support Palin the most, so reluctant to see her run? Does that make sense?

It looks like Mitt Romney may be losing yet another supporter to Tim Pawlenty, this time in the person of General Electric CEO Jack Welch:

A couple of observations. First, the fact that the Who’s Who of the business community are starting to warm up to Pawlenty suggests that his economic plan is far from the Bush-tax-cut-on-steroids that Democrats are suggesting. Wall Street tends to be filled with pragmatic types, many of whom were warm to bland centrists like the Clintons, and none of whom want the country to go bankrupt. These are folks who understand what “flattening the tax code” really means, and they know that it’s not going to bust the budget in the manner that Pawenty’s opponents are suggesting, both because of the increased revenue that will be brought in via the elimination of tax deductions and loopholes, and also because of the growth that will result from a more efficient allocation of capital in a flat(ter) tax world.

Secondly, I suspect that the “Democrats for T-Paw” that Welch is referring to include a lot of former Hillary supporters who thought they were getting Bill Clinton’s third term when they voted for Obama. One of Pawlenty’s positives is that he has the potential to attract the sort of centrist voters that we now call Clinton Democrats, a carve-out of the electorate that includes both white collar New Economy types and suburban soccer moms, as well as blue collar voters in Appalachia. Both groups liked Bill Clinton because he was, at the same time, smart and self-made, a guy who seemingly belonged in the suburbs, but had working class roots. Oh, and because he came across as balanced, normal, and, well, not a wingnut or a moonbat. Pawlenty checks all those boxes as well, which is why I can see the former Minnesota governor snagging perhaps more than a few votes from Clinton Democrats in a general election, almost all of whom went for Obama in November of 2008.

Several times in recent months, I have suggested that a political scenario could occur, a la Lyndon Johnson in 1968, whereby President Obama would choose not to run for a second term in 2012. I agree that such a scenario does not seem likely at the moment, but the economy is so fragile and, according to many respected economists, in such bad shape that in relatively short time the president’s support could, for all intents and purposes, evaporate. Although the international environment remains fragile as well, and Mr. Obama has had few real successes in this arena, I do not think foreign policy alone could motivate such a withdrawal. But what if the stock market took another nosedive, more banks failed, more U.S. industries faltered and most importantly, what little public confidence remained in the domestic economy turned to implacable pessimism? More bailouts are not an option. There is simply no money left for artificial techniques to keep investments and investors afloat. It would be an economic shipwreck in uncharted waters.

I want to stress that, at this moment, such a scenario seems remote. While the economy, and economic indicators are not good, in fact many are disturbing, this outcome would be so unprecedented that none of us, Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives, those pro-Obama or anti-Obama wish it to happen. Everyone would suffer greatly if the economy took a dramatic downturn at this moment. Everyone.

That does not mean, however, that it cannot happen. The unfunded debt in the U.S. is alone a scary statistic, Most unnerving of all, most of the solutions to our economic problems put forward by Mr. Obama and his allies in Congress actually make our problems worse.

So if I may be permitted to speculate on a Lyndon Johnson-styled “retirement” by President Obama, I will ask the question: What then?

In 1968, President Johnson’s political decision was precipitated by the growing success of Senator Eugene McCarthy’s antiwar challenge to his renomination. Eventually, Senator Robert Kennedy sought the nomination. After Mr. Kennedy was assassinated, Vice President Hubert Humphrey entered the race and eventually won the nomination, only to be defeated by Richard Nixon in the November election. Only when Mr. Humphrey broke with President Johnson on Vietnam, however, did he begin to rise in the polls. His comeback fell short, although many observers say that if he had another week, he would have won.

The first name that comes to mind as a replacement for Mr Obama would be Vice President Joe Biden, but Mr. Biden does not have the wide support that Mr. Humphrey had (after his distinguished career), nor could Mr. Biden credibly denounce the Obama economic policies, having been so much part of them.

The second name that comes to mind is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In 2008, Mrs. Clinton was the odds-on favorite to win the Democratic nomination and the presidency, Although very much part of the Obama foreign policy, she would not be closely associated with the president’s economic policy, and might be more credible if she denounced it.

Now we step outside the obvious Democratic names. In reality, if conditions became so bad that Mr. Obama had to withdraw, I think it would be more likely for the Democrats to name someone not part of the administration.

The first name that occurs to me is Senator Mark Warner of Virginia. He has been a governor as well as senator, and a successful businessman. A centrist Democrat, he would return the party to the Bill Clinton mode of governance. Mr. Warner was seriously mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2008, and clearly seems to have the gravitas for the Oval Office. A fresh face, and not associated with Mr. Obama, he could be a serious Democratic nominee in 2012 if Mr. Obama withdrew.

There are other figures in the Democratic Party who might be seriously considered in these circumstances. Although he has only been governor of New York for a short time, Mr. Cuomo has emerged as a centrist figure. He was a prominent attorney general of New York, and a cabinet office in the Clinton administration. His father Mario Cuomo was one of the iconic figures in the Democratic party in the 1980’s and 1990’s, and was himself prominently mentioned for president in 1988 and 1992.

After Mr. Cuomo, the list of possibilities lacks widespread recognition and experience. Some figures from the recent past, including Bill Richardson of New Mexico, Bob Kerry of Nebraska, could be considered, but would be unlikely nominees.

In terms of stature, temperament and experience, the Democrats, in the wake of an unexpected Obama withdrawal, would seem likely to turn to Mr. Warner. I’m sure he would deny any interest now, and I’m equally sure that most Democrats are not even considering the possibility, but I continue to think that the deterioration of the economy makes my speculation here worth filing in he back of the reader’s mind and consciousness.

We live in a time, and circumstances, when almost anything can happen.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

-Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site, The Prairie Editor Blog.

Last night on the O’Reilly Factor, Dick Morris says Romney is “absolutely incredible” and “Reaganesque” – and says the race “may well come down to Romney against Bachmann.”

He continues, “I don’t count out Herman Cain, I do count out Tim Pawlenty.”

Of course, given the past “success” rate of Morris’ predictions, it is now time for Team Romney and Team Bachmann to panic.

Meanwhile, MSNBC’s political desk comes up with Five Reasons to Take Bachmann Seriously, and even goes so far as to call her “a female Huckabee who can raise money.” Their five reasons:

1. She is running
2. She’ll raise lots of money
3. She’ll stand out at the debates
4. She will probably be the only female in the field
5. She can fill the Tea Party void

Seems like rather weak reasoning to me, but hey – as a Romney guy, I say “Go Michelle!”

Per Bill Kristol, Hizzoner has made the decision to run for president:

I’m told by two reliable sources that Rudy Giuliani intends to run for the GOP nomination for president in 2012. He may throw his hat in the ring soon.

Rudy’s theory of the race: In the fall of 2007, he decided he couldn’t compete with both Mitt Romney and John McCain in New Hampshire, and disastrously decided to try to pull back there and pitch his tent in Florida. This year, he’ll commit everything to New Hampshire, where he thinks he has a good shot at beating Romney—whom he criticized there earlier this week. He then thinks he can beat whichever more socially conservative candidate(s) is left by winning what are still likely to be winner-take-all primaries in big states like California, New York, and New Jersey.

Rudy’s message: I’m tough enough to put our fiscal house in order and to protect us from enemies abroad. The U.S. in 2012 is in bad shape—like New York in 1993. The budget crisis is as severe—and seemingly intractable—as the crime/welfare crisis was in New York then. Rudy dealt with that when people said it couldn’t be done. He’ll deal with this.

Read the rest here.

Chris Christie’s lucky day? Politico has the scoop:

Newark Mayor Cory Booker is quietly laying the groundwork for a U.S. Senate bid “if the lane opens up,” according to a source close to him.

The creation of a federal political action committee — CoryPAC – is the first concrete step Booker has taken to indicate his interest.

This represents terrific news for Gov. Christie, as many view Booker as the greatest threat to his re-election prospects. Furthermore, if Booker opts for the Senate, instead of the governor’s office, he would merely replace an incumbent Democrat, instead of a Republican.

Change is from the previous update one week ago:

Only candidates who have announced an exploratory committee or a candidacy, or who have greater than a 3% chance at the nomination are included. Yellow indicates an exploratory committee; green indicates an official candidacy.

Not a whole lot of movement this week, as investors await the next major shakeup in the campaign landscape. That shakeup could go by the name of Perry, Palin, Giuliani, or McCotter… or a lousy debate performance or airing of campaign ads that move poll numbers…

Good news for the Pawlenty camp this morning:

“Governor Pawlenty is the best man to get our nation back on the right track,” said Congressman Wilson. “As South Carolinians get to know Governor Pawlenty, as I have, they will see someone with a remarkable record of conservative accomplishments in a politically tough state for Republicans, and someone who has the kind of bold vision for America’s future that we need to defeat Barack Obama.”

“Congressman Wilson has been a strong conservative voice for the people of South Carolina over the past decade,” Governor Pawlenty said. ”I am honored to receive his support in this campaign to restore America.”

Wilson, of “You Lie!” fame, brings some serious conservative street cred to Pawlenty’s efforts in the vital state of South Carolina.

Dueling polls, brought to you by FOX News and Reuters this afternoon.

First, one that verifies the Quinnipiac poll from this morning showing Romney with a new double digit lead over his nearest competitor:

Anderson Robbins Research (D) / Shaw & Co. Research (R) / FOX News National Republican Primary

• Romney – 23% (19)
• Giuliani – 13% (-)
• Palin – 12% (9)
• Cain – 7% (4)
• Gingrich – 7% (7)
• Pawlenty – 5% (3)
• Paul – 5% (7)
• Bachmann – 4% (3)
• Santorum – 4% (3)
• Huntsman – 2% (1)
• Roemer – 1% (0)
• Johnson – 0% (1)
• Karger – 0% (1)
• Moore – 0% (1)
• Someone else / Don’t know – 13%

General Election Matchups

• Obama – 48%
• Romney – 41%

• Obama – 56%
• Palin – 35%

• Obama – 53%
• Gingrich – 34%

• Obama – 47%
• Giuliani – 43%

• Obama – 50%
• Pawlenty – 32%

Survey of 912 registered voters and 333 likely Republican primary voters was done June 5-7. General election matchups have a margin of error of +/-3%; primary matchups have a margin of error of +/-5.5%.

Second, a poll that will make all the Palinistas in the crowd happy and drive the Pawlenty folks to drink:

Reuters/Ipsos National Republican Primary

• Palin – 22%
• Romney – 20%
• Cain – 7%
• Paul – 7%
• Perry – 6%
• Bachmann – 6%
• Gingrich – 6%
• Huntsman – 2%
• Pawlenty – 2%

Survey of 1,138 adults, 948 registered voters, and an unspecified number of GOP primary voters was conducted June 3-6 and has a margin of error of +/-3% (presumably for the largest sample group).

Details on that Ipsos poll are difficult to come by. The link provided above links to C4P, only because they are the only site I could find with the complete numbers for all candidates.

By this point in the 2008 primary campaign, Mitt Romney had come from nearly zero name recognition to building a sizable first-place lead in Iowa and New Hampshire. In the first week of June 2007, he was in double digits (between 10-14%) in four different national polls.

What does that mean for the race for 2012?

Nothing.

Yet.

This race was not only slower to get started than the race for 2008, it is also slower in developing than previous races as well. And I am particularly talking about one specific area: campaign advertisements.

Candidates can do all the meet and greets and forums they want, but it is televised campaign ads that are going to move the numbers in this next stage of the campaign — especially in this season in between Memorial Day and Labor Day. Televised ads not only get primary play as commercials, they get secondary play when the news media reports on them. This is how millions of people will get their first introduction to the candidates.

Four years ago, Mitt Romney began airing television ads immediately following his campaign kickoff in February 2007. He saturated the market in Iowa and New Hampshire long before anyone else got on the air, and that (combined with some spectacular debate performances) led to his summer leads in the two early states.

This year, no major candidate (that I’m aware of) has produced a single campaign ad for TV. There have been a spattering of web ads, but those hardly ever get and kind of widespread play. But no TV ads whatsoever. Why?

Romney is presumably not running ads because he doesn’t have to. He’s got 90% name recognition. He leads in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, and Florida. Why spend the money and risk overexposure (one of his major problems in 2007/2008)?

Pawlenty is a little tougher to figure out. It would seem like he would want to be running ads right now when no one else is. There are a few possibilities: either money is tighter than expected and he doesn’t want to spend it on ads; he has plenty of money but wants to conserve it for when the campaign truly begins; or three, his campaign has deliberately chosen to focus on other strategies – i.e. spending a ton at the Ames Straw Poll, hiring large staff teams, or some other expenses he has deemed more important.

The rest of the candidates are probably hobbled by financial restraints at the moment, except for Palin, Huntsman, and Bachmann – and they haven’t officially entered the race yet.

For whatever reason, campaign ad season has not begun yet. When it does, that will be the next true game change moment of this primary campaign.