CNN/ORC 2012 GOP Nomination Survey

• Mitt Romney 17% [24%] {15%} (11%) [18%] {18%} (20%) [21%] {20%} (22%)
• Michele Bachmann 15% [4%] {7%} (5%)
• Sarah Palin 15% [20%] {13%} (12%) [12%] {19%} (14%) [18%] {15%} (18%)
• Rudy Giuliani 14% [12%] {16%}
• Ron Paul 9% [7%] {12%} (7%) [8%] {7%} (7%) [10%] {8%} (8%)
• Herman Cain 8% [10%] {10%}
• Newt Gingrich 4% [10%] {8%} (11%) [14%] {10%} (12%) [15%] {14%} (8%)
• Tim Pawlenty 4% [3%] {5%} (2%) [3%] {3%} (3%) [3%] {2%} (5%)
• Rick Santorum 3% [1%] {2%} (2%) [3%] {1%} (2%) [2%] {3%} (5%)
• Jon Huntsman 1% [1%] {1%}
• Gary Johnson 1% {1%}
• Someone else (vol.) 1% [2%] {3%} (3%) [4%] {5%} (7%) [6%] {5%} (8%)
• None/No one (vol.) 8% [2%] {5%} (4%) [3%] {4%} (4%) [0%] {5%} (2%)
• No opinion 2% [3%] {2%} (1%) [2%] {2%} (6%) [4%] {1%} (3%)

(more…)

The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza has a column entitled, “The Fix”. A regular feature is his “Power Rankings”. They are interesting as long as you remember that they are just one man’s opinion.

Here are his latest rankings of the GOP 2012 hopefuls:

1. Mitt Romney. -Previous 1-
2. Michele Bachman. -Previous 3-
3. Rick Perry. -Previous 5-
4. Jon Huntsman. -Previous 4-
5. Tim Pawlenty. -Previous 2-
6. Sarah Palin. -Previous 6-
7. Hermann Cain. -Previous 7-
8. Rick Santorum. -Previous 8-
9. Ron Paul. -Previous 10-
10. Newt Gingrich. -Previous 9-

I believe this is the first time this cycle that Cillizza has had no movement in or out of the top ten. The field is gelling.

Here are some interesting excerpts from the article:

There are three tiers in the 2012 presidential field at the moment: former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is the first tier, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann comprises the second tier and everyone else running is clumped together in the third tier.

…

Sarah Palin: All’s quiet on the Palin front, at least for now. After a much-hyped bus tour up the eastern seaboard re-ignited speculation about her presidential plans, the rest of the bus tour got put on (permanent?) hiatus. This has been a pattern with Palin, who seems to disappear and then re-insert herself into the presidential picture every few weeks. What’s clear though: there is no evidence that she’s actually ramping up a presidential campaign, and it’s getting to be about that time

Tim Pawlenty: The former Minnesota governor needs a spark and he needs it soon. Pawlenty is all in for the Ames Straw Poll — running television ads and all but living in the state between now and Aug. 13. While the Pawlenty campaign is doing everything it can to downplay expectations in advance of the straw vote, it’s hard to see how anything other than a first or a close second place finish keeps him in the race. (Anything below that will make fundraising a near impossibility.) With so much riding on Ames, Pawlenty needs to have the best 22 days of his campaign between now and Aug. 13.

I do not understand the fascination that liberal media types have with Huntsman. Huntsman continues to poll abysmally nearly everywhere, including Utah! Yet here Cillizza places him at fourth. Okay… Whatever you say, Chris.

Following their analysis of fellow libertarian Republican Gov. Gary Johnson‘s record, the Club for Growth has released their Presidential White Papers on Congressman Ron Paul.

On taxes:

Ron Paul’s record on taxes is excellent, epitomized by his rallying cry for phasing out the IRS.

On spending:

Rep. Paul’s strong belief in limited government translated into an impressive list of votes against increased federal spending.

On trade:

While he supports free trade in theory, Rep. Paul chafes at the government’s role in the process, arguing that “We don’t need government agreements to have free trade.  We merely need to lower or eliminate taxes on the American people, without regard to what other nations do.”

On entitlements:

Rep. Paul’s limited-government philosophy found a particularly useful victim in the country’s entitlement programs.  Long in favor of reducing individual dependence on government, Rep. Paul was a vociferous opponent of Medicare Part D, calling it “firmly in keeping with the failed New Deal and Great Society programs of the utopian left.”

The Club for Growth summarizes Ron Paul thusly:

When it comes to limited government, there are few champions as steadfast and principled as Representative Ron Paul.  In the House of Representatives, he plays a very useful role constantly challenging the status quo and reminding his colleagues, despite their frequent indifference, that our Constitution was meant to limit the power of government.  On taxes, regulation, and political free speech his record is outstanding.  While his recent pork votes are troubling, the vast majority of his anti-spending votes reflect a longstanding desire to cut government down to size.

But Ron Paul is a purist, too often at the cost of real accomplishments on free trade, school choice, entitlement reform, and tort reform.  It is perfectly legitimate, and in fact vital, that think tanks, free-market groups, and individual members of Congress develop and propose idealized solutions.  But presidents have the responsibility of making progress, and often, Ron Paul opposes progress because, in his mind, the progress is not perfect.  In these cases, although for very different reasons, Ron Paul is practically often aligned with the most left-wing Democrats, voting against important, albeit imperfect, pro-growth legislation.

Ron Paul is, undoubtedly, ideologically committed to pro-growth, limited government policies.  But his insistence on opposing all but the perfect means that under a Ron Paul presidency we might never get a chance to pursue the good too.

This has been something of a momentous week in the Jon Huntsman for President Campaign. It comes with a piece of good news and bad news. First, the good news (this came in an email to my personal account so that’s why there isn’t going to be a link:

Hello

My history in the conservative movement began in 1980, when Ronald Reagan appointed me U.S. Attorney for South Carolina. More recently, I was honored to serve as South Carolina’s attorney general for eight years.

Today, the future of freedom in America is threatened. As Republicans, we simply must nominate a candidate who can defeat Barack Obama in the November election.

You and I both have seen politicians come and go. I can assure you that Jon Huntsman is not just another politician. I know him well. And I believe he is the new conservative leader our country needs in this enormously important election.

Last week, Gov. Huntsman’s campaign launched a national effort to identify 5,000 conservative leaders who are 100% committed to backing Jon Huntsman in his campaign to defeat President Obama.

I signed up immediately.

I’m asking you to join me in signing this important Petition of Support. On the petition, I have included an outline of where Jon Huntsman stands on the big issues America is facing today and a summary of his background. Please sign today at ConservativesForHuntsman.com. And please ask your family and friends to do the same.

With you in the fight to elect Gov. Huntsman, we can take the White House back and save the future of freedom in America. But we must join together now. I hope to hear from you soon.

Sincerely,

Henry McMaster

McMaster ran for Governor of South Carolina in 2010, with the support of Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, but he did endorse Nikki Haley during her run-off against former Congressman Gresham Barrett. Along with the family of the late Governor Carroll Campbell, this is a pretty good endorsement for Governor Huntsman and does prove that he is going to put an emphasis on the Palmetto State.

Along with the good news however, there is also some bad news:

The Fix brings word that Susie Wiles, the Florida political operative and former campaign manager to Gov. Rick Scott, has stepped down from her position atop Jon Huntsman’s presidential campaign

Obviously there is something that needs to change in the Huntsman campaign. If the Governor is over 5% in any poll, anywhere outside of Utah (which he still loses), I haven’t seen it. The Governor was always going to have some difficulties being the most moderate candidate trying to appeal to a very conservative electorate. If Huntsman wants to emerge as the major contender many (including your humble author) thought he would be, then this change could be help. We’ll soon see what changes will be brought to the Huntsman campaign.

From the official release:

“I join with all Americans in expressing my horror at the violence in Norway today. Freedom loving people everywhere must remain vigilant in a world where terrorism threatens our way of life. My heart goes out to the victims and their families.”

PPP (D) New Jersey 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 53% (52%)
• Mitt Romney 39% (37%)

• Barack Obama 56% (55%)
• Chris Christie 39% (38%)

• Barack Obama 55%
• Michele Bachmann 35%

• Barack Obama 54%
• Tim Pawlenty 32%

• Barack Obama 55%
• Herman Cain 29%

• Barack Obama 59% (59%)
• Sarah Palin 33% (29%)

(more…)

Rasmussen 2012 Presidential Survey

• Mitt Romney 43% {40%} [44%] (44%)
• Barack Obama 42% {45%} [42%] (44%)

• Barack Obama 41% {42%} [44%]
• Ron Paul 37% {34%} [35%]

• Barack Obama 44%
• Rudy Giuliani 39%

• Barack Obama 44% (45%)
• Rick Perry 39% (28%)

• Barack Obama 46% (49%)
• Michele Bachmann 39% (27%)

• Barack Obama 44% (43%)
• Chris Christie 37% (35%)

• Barack Obama 47% {48%} [49%] (46%)
• Sarah Palin 38% {38%} [38%] (43%)

• Barack Obama 44% {45%} [47%]
• Tim Pawlenty 32% {35%} [32%]

• Barack Obama 45%
• Rick Santorum 31%

• Barack Obama 44% {42%} [43%]
• Jon Huntsman 28% {31%} [33%]

• Barack Obama 48% {49%} [47%]
• Newt Gingrich 30% {37%} [39%]

• Barack Obama 49% {43%} [42%]
• Herman Cain 28% {25%} [25%]

Surveys of 1,000 likely voters were conducted between June 24 and July 17, 2011.  The margin of error for each survey is +/- 3 percentage points.  Results from the polls conducted May 1-14, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted between March 6 and March 31, 2011 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted between January 3 and February 1, 2011 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted November 24, 2009 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

For those who don’t know, multiple terrorist attacks have struck Norway today.  At this point, it is believed that 7 have died in a  car bomb explosion at a government building in Oslo, and somewhere between 5-30 individuals have been killed by a gunman at a youth camp.  Our thoughts, and wishes for speedy justice and healing, go out to our Norwegian friends on this tragic day.

For some time now, speculation has swirled around what strategy Mitt Romney would pursue in Iowa. Many people have proclaimed that he was going to skip Iowa altogether, while others have insisted that he was going to barely put in an appearance. ABC News has just released a report revealing Romney’s actual Iowa playbook. It includes a number of extensive quotes from several of Mitt’s senior Iowa campaign workers:

He’s not participating in next month’s straw poll in Ames, Iowa, but Mitt Romney is making moves to suggest that he won’t lie down and cede the state to GOP presidential challengers Michele Bachmann or Tim Pawlenty.

He announced this week five additions to his Iowa campaign team and held a tele-town hall with Iowa voters. His footprint is light — his only visit to the state this year was before he officially announced his presidential campaign — but he’s not ignoring the crucial first caucus state, despite tamping down expectations.

According to a report from the Des Moines Register and confirmed by the Romney campaign in Iowa, he spoke with nearly 10,000 Iowans during the tele-town hall and told them that despite skipping the straw poll, he will visit Iowa for the state fair next month. He’ll also be in the state for the Fox News debate in August and his Iowa team says that although he will leave the state right after the debate, he’ll be back to campaign sometime after that. On the tele-town hall, he told the Iowans listening in, “you won’t be seeing too little of us.”

…

Romney Iowa campaign consultant David Kochel says … “We don’t have to be advertising in advance of the straw poll and all throughout the months before the caucuses because we already have very high name ID. Many Iowa Republicans already know how they feel about Gov. Romney. We’ve got a pretty good level of support right now and what we need to do is take the volunteer component of the campaign, give it more energy, bring Gov. Romney back not only for the debate and for the state fair he will be going to, but after that, try and demonstrate we want their support and we need their help. … We’re not going to take things for granted. We are going to work for it.  We’re hoping that we are going to be successful and do very well in Iowa, but we will do it with a fraction of the resources that we spent in 2007 and 2008.

There is much, much more in the original article. Be sure and read the whole thing.

During the 1980′s Ronald Reagan brought an entire generation of young voters into the GOP.  The oldest and most conservative presidential candidate in modern times won one of the largest percentages of voters in the 18-29 age group of any presidential candidate during the last half of the 20th century.  This was very important for the GOP because voting habits form early and when a person establishes a pattern of favoring one party over the other they tend not to change without good reason.  Yet, beginning in 1992 young voters (both first timers and those who had first voted in 1984 or 1988) began abandoning the GOP at an increasing rate culminating with the substantial Obama win in 2008.  Most young voters today comprise what is called the millennial generation, those coming of age in the 21st century, and the millennial generation is very large indeed.  So, a major challenge for the GOP is winning over a significant portion of millennial voters and late generation-Xers (now in their ’30s) who voted for Obama last time and who were previously turned-off by the GOP “brand.”

Fox News contributor, Margaret Hoover, is out with a new book entitled American Individualism: How a New Generation of Conservatives Can Save the Republican Party. Ms. Hoover offers a summary of her book in today’s Wall Street Journal.  A number of her points are worth emphasis:

As the Republican field jockeys for position in the 2012 presidential primaries, it is no surprise to hear the candidates trying to bolster their authority by invoking the name of Ronald Reagan. Yet one critical demographic group will not automatically respond to Reagan’s name: Young voters of the millennial generation, so named because they are the first to come of age in the new millennium. The oldest members of this generation were just 8 years old when Reagan left office, so Republican candidates can’t assume that invoking his name will win them over.  But the eventual Republican nominee should strive to emulate the Gipper by finding a way to connect conservatism to this rising generation of voters.

Of course that becomes the hard part and there is not going to be one or even two easy answers, but there are some guidelines from Reagan that would be helpful.  First is to understand the politics of aspiration.  People, especially young people, want a bright future and want to believe or at least hope that tomorrow will be better than today.  Reagan was a master at this, and it is how he connected so well with average folks.  Second is to understand that elections are won by addition, not subtraction.  Reagan practiced the politics of inclusion not exclusion.  He took his message of freedom, individual choice, and less government to anyone, any group, who would listen.  He never tried to exclude anyone from his coalition.  This is a very important point because—let’s be honest—there are some in the present conservative/GOP coalition who attempt to seek dominance primarily by dictating who must be excluded or who cannot be allowed in the room or at the table (so to speak).  That strategy or tactic is bad long term, and it does not play well with younger voters.

Following are particularly important points from Ms. Hoover:

Reagan brought an entire generation to the Republican Party in 1980, and in 1984 he won the youth vote by 20%. The GOP needs this kind of revolution again if it hopes to recapture the White House and create a sustained majority.

The millennials—born between the beginning of the Reagan era and the end of the Clinton presidency—are the largest age group in America today, numbering approximately 80 million. There are 17 million more millennials than Baby Boomers and 27 million more than Generation Xers (ages 31-45).

Millennials voted two-to-one for Barack Obama and also broke hard for John Kerry in 2004—and partisan identification typically solidifies after three presidential election cycles. Thus the next presidential election is critical. Republicans have 16 months to make their case before millennials cast the vote that could make them Democrats or independents for the rest of their lives.

To have any chance at winning young Americans over in 2012, Republicans must understand what makes millennials tick. While it’s risky to generalize about an entire demographic group, here are three important characteristics of the millennial profile:

• Millennials have been hit worse by the Great Recession than any other age cohort. Fully 37% of millennials are unemployed or underemployed, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Republican nominee should make the case directly to millennials that President Obama’s policies are perpetuating generational theft, while worsening the chances for job creation.

• Millennial politics are pragmatic, not ideological. This demographic group includes a higher number of independents (38%) than any other generation, followed by Democrats (37%) and Republicans (22%), according to Pew Research Center findings published in 2010. The millennials’ overwhelming support for Barack Obama in 2008 was a reflection of Republican brand damage, rather than an endorsement of big-government liberalism. Consider that 40% of millennials call themselves moderate and don’t favor an activist role for government in helping the poor, according to Pew.

Republicans therefore have a golden opportunity to win back millennials by articulating positive and pragmatic solutions to issues that affect them—starting with job creation, spending reform, entitlement reform and education reform.

• Millennials are the most diverse and least traditional generation in America. They are 40% nonwhite, have the highest number of single-parent households, and are the least affiliated with organized religion.

In order to win this generation over, Republicans need to minimize their emphasis on social issues and focus instead on jobs, jobs and jobs.

Ms. Hoover closes with the following observation for the GOP:

With a focus on positive, pragmatic alternatives to the tried-and-failed policies of the Obama administration, Republicans have a chance to win back the youth vote. But the party will have to make a persuasive case that it offers the hope and change millennials have been waiting for.

Read the entire Hoover column here.

Most electoral attention in the past few months has been on the developing presidential election of 2012, but there is another important political story next year which may dramatically shape the term of 2013-2017 regardless of whom is elected president.

There are 23 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independent seats up next year, and only 10 Republican seats. Moreover, many of those Democratic seats are vulnerable while few, if any, of the GOP seats are.

If President Obama remains in as much political trouble as he is in now, and the economy fails to make a clear rebound, including unemployment continuing at levels of 6-10%, the results in the U.S. senate and house elections will dwarf even the remarkable outcome of 2010 when the GOP took decisive control of the U.S. house and made major gains in the U.S. Senate. It would be easy to predict conservative control of the U.S. senate in that scenario, even a level of GOP control that would close off cloture debate (60 seats).

I would like to suggest, however, that even if the economy turns around sufficiently, and the Republican ticket is weak, a re-elected Barack would face not only another GOP-controlled U.S. house, but a GOP-controlled senate as well.

How could that be possible? I have two major reasons. First, historically, presidential elections do not often produce equivalent results in the house and senate races. A review of recent “landslide” presidential elections demonstrates that, although the party of the winning candidate makes gains, those gains are often much more modest than the popular or electoral presidential vote. Second, even in a best-case scenario for Mr. Obama in 2012, there is very little evidence that he would have any notable coat tails in the congressional elections. Mr. Obama’s re-election, however narrow, would be a personal triumph for him (and a damning comment on Republicans for selecting such a weak ticket to oppose him), but a state-by-state appraisal indicates that many Democrats running for re-election or election to fill the seats of retiring members will be running on their own (as many did in 2010).

Let me be specific, although this is only a preliminary look at races not yet fully formed:

Six incumbent senators have already announced their retirements. Of these, only retiring Democratic seats are vulnerable.

The ten Republican seats up in 2012, including incumbents running for re-election, show so far none in the “vulnerable” category, although the seat of retiring Senator Jon Kyl (Arizona) and recently appointed Senator Dean Heller (Nevada) could become competitive by next year. In addition, Senator Richard Lugar (Indiana) is being challenged by conservatives in his own party.

In contrast, several Democratic seats are already quite vulnerable. Retiring Senator Kent Conrad (North Dakota), retiring Senator Herb Kohl (Wisconsin), retiring Senator Jim Webb (Virginia) and retiring Senator Jeff Bingamon (New Mexico) could easily be replaced by Republicans. Incumbents running for re-election, including Senator Ben Nelson (Nebraska), Senator Claire McCaskill (Missouri), and Senator Bill Nelson (Florida) are in deep trouble, and, as matters look now, will be replaced by conservative Republicans. Additionally, Democratic incumbents either retiring or running for re-election in Hawaii, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, Washington and Connecticut appear to have strong Republican challenges ahead.

I realize that predictions this far away from election day (15 months) are always very speculative, and that historical events can always intervene to change a political environment relatively rapidly. We also do not even know who will be on the Republican ticket. So I am not predicting specific numbers in the GOP pick-up pf the senate. On the other hand, the remarkable imbalance of incumbent seats being contested in 2012, the vulnerability of so many Democrats, the prospects of the economy, and the lack of vulnerability among the few Republican seats up for election, enables me to predict this far ahead that there will be a new majority leader of the U.S. senate that first week of January, 2013, and many more gains for the conservatives no matter the outcome of the presidential election.

______________________________________________________________________________________

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

FOX News 2012 Presidential Survey

REPUBLICAN NOMINATION (Potential Candidates)

• Mitt Romney 17% (18%) {23%} [19%] (14%)
• Rick Perry 14% (13%)
• Michele Bachmann 10% (11%) {4%} [3%] (2%)
• Rudy Giuliani 9% (10%) {13%} (9%)
• Sarah Palin 9% (8%) {12%} [9%] (12%)
• Ron Paul 9% (7%) {5%} [7%] (3%)
• Herman Cain 5% (5%) {7%} [4%] (2%)
• Newt Gingrich 4% (3%) {7%} [7%] (7%)
• Tim Pawlenty 2% (3%) {5%} [3%] (4%)
• Rick Santorum 2% (2%) {4%} [3%] (2%)
• Jon Huntsman 1% (3%) {2%} [1%] (1%)
• Gary Johnson 0% (1%) {0%} [1%] (1%)
• Buddy Roemer 0% (0%) {1%} [0%]
• Fred Karger 0% (0%) {0%} [1%]
• Thaddeus McCotter 0% (0%)
• Roy Moore 0% (0%) {0%} [1%]
• Too soon to say 6% (6%) {5%} [9%] (5%)
• Don’t know 9% (4%) {7%} [4%] (8%)

REPUBLICAN NOMINATION (Actual Candidates Only)

• Mitt Romney 26%
• Michele Bachmann 15%
• Ron Paul 10%
• Newt Gingrich 9%
• Herman Cain 9%
• Rick Santorum 4%
• Tim Pawlenty 3%
• Jon Huntsman 2%
• Gary Johnson 1%
• Thaddeus McCotter 0%
• Fred Karger 0%
• Unsure 20%

(more…)

The Club for Growth continues their Presidential White Papers series with former two-term New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson.

On taxes:

Overall, Governor Johnson has an excellent record on taxes and consistently pushed for tax cuts despite having to deal with the liberal New Mexico Legislature.  Late in his second term, the Cato Institute found that Johnson was one of “four governors proposing or enacting the largest income tax rate cuts during their tenures.”

On spending:

Governor Johnson was one of the most anti-spending governors in New Mexico history.

On entitlements:

Governor Johnson has an excellent record of holding down the exploding growth of entitlement programs that now cripple state budgets.

On trade:

On trade, Johnson “generally supports NAFTA and other free-trade agreements,”  In a June 9 segment on John Stossel’s program on Fox Business, Johnson “debated” Obama impersonator Reggie Brown and said he wanted “no tariffs, no restrictions” on trade.

On education:

Governor Johnson has a consistent record of support for school choice and vouchers. Governor Johnson proposed giving every student in the entire state of New Mexico vouchers worth $3,500. . . . He supports eliminating the Department of Education and wants universal school choice.

Club for Growth summarizes Gov. Johnson thusly:

As John Stossel noted in a recent column, Gary Johnson “was missing from last week’s Republican presidential debate, and that’s too bad. He’s an announced candidate who was a two-term governor of New Mexico, and he makes a case for strongly limited government.”   Until or unless Johnson rises in the polls, people may not hear Johnson’s views in future Republican primary debates either.

With few exceptions, Governor Johnson’s tenure as New Mexico’s Governor and his public record since that time has revealed a generally pro-growth attitude. We are slightly concerned that, like fellow libertarian Congressman Ron Paul, that he may harbor anti-free trade sentiments. Governor Johnson deserves special praise for his consistent use of his veto-pen as Governor. We believe that Governor Johnson would most likely be a pro-growth President if elected.

This is a very fair assessment of Gov. Johnson’s record over his two terms in New Mexico.  Gov. Johnson does suffer from the same need to precisely explain his stance on trade legislation that Ron Paul suffers from.  While both Johnson and Paul are staunchly in favor of free trade, they both have fears that the thousands of pages of regulations that often go along with “free trade” bills might outweigh the benefits of the increased trade.  However, the Club for Growth notes that Gov. Johnson supports “no tariffs” or “restrictions on trade” whatsoever.

Quinnipiac Ohio 2012 Presidential Survey

REPUBLICAN NOMINATION

• Mitt Romney 16%
• Sarah Palin 15%
• Michele Bachmann 11%
• Rick Perry 8%
• Herman Cain 6%
• Ron Paul 5%
• Newt Gingrich 4%
• Tim Pawlenty 3%
• Rick Santorum 2%
• Jon Huntsman 1%
• Thaddeus McCotter 0%
• Don’t know 28%

(more…)

Rasmussen 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 44% (45%)
• Rick Perry 39% (28%)

• Barack Obama 46% (49%)
• Michele Bachmann 39% (27%)

Surveys of 1,000 likely voters were conducted July 6-7 and July 8-9, 2011. The margin of error for each survey is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the polls conducted May 1-14, 2011 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

In an email to his distribution list, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee took a shot at emerging GOP contender Rick Perry.  Huckabee’s attack appeared to be linked to bitterness over the Texas governor’s decision to back former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani in 2008 over his fellow southern governor.

Meanwhile, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, is still flirting with a run, and it’s the type of flirting even his wife approves of. The Dallas Morning News reports that a campaign button collector ordered a “Perry for Governor 2010” button from Perry’s office. What he got back was a button, all pressed and ready to go, that reads, “Perry – President – 2012.” So if Perry’s not running, then that button will be a REAL collector’s item. For all his new found commitment to hyper-conservatism, he’ll get to explain why he supported pro-abortion, pro-same sex marriage Rudy Guiliani last time.

Could this mean an endorsement could be coming T-Paw’s way? Or will Huck be swept up in Bachmania?

Washington Post/ABC News 2012 Presidential Survey

REPUBLICAN NOMINATION

• Mitt Romney 26% {21%} [16%]
• Sarah Palin 16% {17%} [5%]
• Michele Bachmann 13% {3%} [1%]
• Rick Perry 8% {3%}
• Ron Paul 7% {6%} [2%]
• Herman Cain 7% {4%}
• Newt Gingrich 4% {6%} [2%]
• Jon Huntsman 3% {1%} [0%]
• Tim Pawlenty 2% {4%} [1%]
• Rick Santorum 2% {1%} [0%]
• Other 1% {3%} [5%]
• No one/None of them 1% {5%} [12%]
• No opinion 8% {14%} [33%]

(more…)

A longtime friend of mine who just retired from a senior GOP staff position on the Senate Budget Committee was commenting to me recently that politics seems to be merging with professional wrestling.  I thought that was an interesting analogy and the more I thought about it the more accurate it seemed, especially as both political parties and their respective polemic camps attempt to distract their constituents from the fact that little is being accomplished at the federal level.

The dustup this week between Reps. Wasserman-Schultz (who just happens to be DNC Chairman) and the freshman firebrand Rep. Allen West (R-Fla) is turning into quite the professional wrestling match all for the bedazzlement of their respective ideological bases and for the enrichment of their respective cash coffers (or more accurately, those of their professional fundraisers).  As blogger Chris Moody at The Ticket has observed, “There’s gold in them there political spats.”

This initially began as a comment on the thread I started earlier today, about the new TV ad Tim Pawlenty will roll out in the Des Moines and Ames markets tomorrow (thanks, Smack, for that info!), but as it grew longer and longer, I decided to convert it into a separate post. Without further ado…

I’ve made it no secret that I like T-Paw a lot. On a personality level, I identify far more with him than the other candidates in the race. I also believe his record can stand up to any Republican governor when considering context. He has a greater chance than anyone else of uniting the party’s factions and maybe even expanding its appeal to new demographics. And last but not least, he has offered the most pro-growth economic policy proposals of anyone in the field.

For all these reasons, it truly pains me to see him struggling so much with polling and fundraising. While I certainly don’t consider him anywhere near hopeless, I really believe he has missed out on numerous opportunities to continue and even build the momentum he had when he began his candidacy.

As a student of marketing and branding, I attribute his languishing in the national (and, to a lesser extent, the Iowa) polls to mistakes involving what our own Matt Coulter and others have described: failing to utilize his biography to define himself and help him stand out from the other candidates.

To the average voter who doesn’t follow the minutiae of campaigns, no discernible T-Paw “brand” exists. How would they view his positioning in relation to the other candidates? Those who want to embrace principle and ideological primal screams can look to someone like Michele Bachmann or Ron Paul. Mitt Romney has, for the most part, cornered the “competent executive” market, with four-plus years of campaigning to tell the public about his experience as a business executive, CEO of the Winter Olympics, and Governor of Massachusetts. Unless they know about Pawlenty’s background through their own research or from a campaign event, what about him would legitimately compel them to move away from the aforementioned alternatives (or Perry/Palin/Giuliani, potentially)?

In the opinion of this humble observer, I have always considered it rather obvious that Pawlenty’s durable competitive advantage (to invoke a commonly used business term) centers squarely on his background. He has a biography unique to the candidate field – one that includes humble beginnings, hardship, and inspiring depictions of the American Dream. The best thing his campaign advisors could do is simply let T-Paw be T-Paw. Let his fabled retail skills come through and shine. Let him do what won him so much electoral success in Minnesota.

In a time when voters feel anxious, downtrodden, and downright frightened for their economic futures – not to mention forgotten by Washington, one can easily envision voters responding to T-Paw’s working-class past. It offers the potential to distinguish him from the other candidates and forge the visceral, emotional, and personal connection with voters that he will need to finally gain traction in the polls and follow through on all the promise and organizational support we saw when he launched his bid for the presidency.

The Pawlenty campaign will release the following TV ad tomorrow:

Unfortunately, I don’t know any specifics regarding the buy totals or where it will run. If our resident T-Pawper, Smackdaddy, was in the country and had computer access, I’m sure he could help us out in that area.

Perhaps the nature of the campaign (Bachmann becoming Pawlenty’s primary competition in Iowa) have necessitated it, but I have grown concerned that T-Paw has not really emphasized the key strength he has as a candidate: his unique background. In these trying economic times, voters can identify with a candidate who they believe has experienced the difficulties of an uncertain financial future – someone who “knows what it’s like”. From what I can see, Pawlenty hasn’t stressed this and has, instead, hammered on his gubernatorial record – an entirely legitimate and impressive attribute, but not one that can take the necessary step of endearing him to voters and connecting with them on a personal level.

Perhaps, then, it should come as little surprise that T-Paw has managed to compile strong favorability numbers but not gain traction in the Iowa horserace polls.

PPP has released their national vs. Obama for the month of July. It doesn’t look good for Obama.

First the top line:

(vs. Obama)	Obama	Candidate	UnDec	Diff
Romney	45	45	10	0
Bachmann	48	41	11	-7
Pawlenty	48	39	13	-9
Cain	48	36	16	-12
Palin	53	37	9	-16

Romney is tied with Obama. Bachmann, the flavor of the month, is still seven points back near Pawlenty’s -9. Cain continues to struggle, and Palin assumes her usual place in the rear.

Here are the trends for their national vs. Obama poll for this year

	(7/20)	(6/13)	(5/11)	(4/13)	(3/15)	(2/16)	(1/20)
Romney	0	-2	-5	-6	-5	-5	-5
Bachmann	-7	–	–	–	–	–	–
Pawlenty	-9	-11	–	–	–	–	–
Cain	-12	-10	–	–	–	–	–
Palin	-16	-14	-17	-18	-15	-18	-17

Over the past year Romney has improved to the point of tying with the President. Palin is practically unchanged from January. She is still nearly 20 points behind the President.

Finally, here is an interesting crosstab that PPP provides on their blog post announcing this poll. It shows the percentage of the Undecided in the first table that approve or disapprove of the job Obama is doing. It is most enlightening:

(Undecided vs. Obama)	Approve Obama	Disapprove Obama	Diff
Romney	21	61	40
Bachmann	10	67	57
Pawlenty	9	75	66
Cain	8	76	68
Palin	5	84	79

This drives home the point that the vast majority of those who haven’t made up their minds on whom to vote for do not like Obama’s job performance. If you add those undecideds who approve of him to his vote number and add those who disapprove to his opponent’s number, you get the following version of the first table:

(Undecided added)	Obama	Candidate	Diff
Romney	48	52	4
Pawlenty	50	50	0
Bachmann	51	49	-2
Cain	51	49	-2
Palin	54	46	-8

Suddenly, Romney leads by four. Pawlenty, Bachmann, and Cain are all looking good, and even Palin is well within striking distance.

Things do not look good for the President; that is for sure. Even PPP headlines this poll as “Obama in perilous shape “. If he cannot get this economy turned around, he is headed for a one-and-out.

For more details, see Kavon’s post below.

***Update:  CraigS pointed out an error in the tabulation. It has been corrected. Thanks Craig. ***

PPP (D) 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 45%
• Mitt Romney 45%

• Barack Obama 48%
• Michele Bachmann 41%

• Barack Obama 48%
• Tim Pawlenty 39%

• Barack Obama 48%
• Herman Cain 36%

• Barack Obama 53%
  
• Sarah Palin 37%

(more…)

Rasmussen 2012 Presidential Survey

• Mitt Romney 43% {40%} [44%] (44%)
• Barack Obama 42% {45%} [42%] (44%)

Survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted July 14-15, 2011.  The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted March 6-9, 2011 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted between January 3 and February 1, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted November 24, 2009 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Romney leads by seven among men but trails by five among women. The president leads among voters under 40 while Romney has the edge among older voters.

The former Governor leads by eight among unaffiliated voters and picks up 78% of the Republican vote. The president earns 84% of the vote from his own party.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum, Johnson, and McCotter will be debating via Twitter today at http://140townhall.com starting at 3 pm EST.  Follow along with commentary here.

Twitter users are voting for who they thought won the debate: http://twitter.com/#!/search/realtime/@140townhall

PPP (D) Pennsylvania 2012 GOP Primary Survey

Given the choices of Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum, who would you most like to see as the Republican candidate for President next year?

• Michele Bachmann 24%
• Mitt Romney 17%
• Rick Santorum 14%
• Herman Cain 10%
• Ron Paul 9%
• Rick Perry 8%
• Newt Gingrich 6%
• Jon Huntsman 3%
• Tim Pawlenty 1%
• Someone else/Not sure 8%

(more…)

Using the FEC website, I did a little sleuthing to see how the Republican presidential candidates were faring in the money race amongst early voters in early primary/caucus states.  Here’s what I found:

New Hampshire

1. Mitt Romney – $98,775
2. Ron Paul – $32,996
3. Tim Pawlenty – $18,535
4. Gary Johnson – $10,250
5. Herman Cain – $9,650
6. Rick Santorum – $7,550
7. Michele Bachmann – $4,913
8. Newt Gingrich – $1,330

Iowa:

1. Mitt Romney – $39,075
2. Ron Paul – $30,774
3. Herman Cain – $11,900
4. Tim Pawlenty – $9,300
5. Michele Bachmann – $5,950
6. Newt Gingrich – $4,435
7. Rick Santorum – $4,250

South Carolina:

1. Rick Santorum – $35,255
2. Mitt Romney – $21,000
3. Ron Paul – $16,678
4. Newt Gingrich – $11,900
5. Herman Cain – $10,425
6. Michele Bachmann – $7,600
7. Tim Pawenty – $2,050
8. Gary Johnson – $201

Nevada

1. Mitt Romney – $176,990
2. Tim Pawlenty – $59,750
3. Ron Paul – $50,263
4. Michele Bachmann – $22,301
5. Newt Gingrich – $13,700
6. Herman Cain – $10,643
7. Rick Santorum – $7,500
8. Gary Johnson – $2,500

Florida

1. Mitt Romney – $1,491,628
2. Tim Pawlenty – $167,299
3. Ron Paul – $145,112
4. Newt Gingrich – $122,290
5. Herman Cain – $91,065
6. Michele Bachmann – $49,453
7. Rick Santorum – $34,600
8. Gary Johnson – $2,100

TCJ Research Iowa 2012 Republican Caucus Survey

• Michele Bachmann 33%
• Tim Pawlenty 13%
• Mitt Romney 12%
• Ron Paul 7%
• Herman Cain 5%
• Newt Gingrich 4%
• Rick Santorum 2%
• Jon Huntsman 1%
• Gary Johnson 0%%
• Undecided 23%

Survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted July 14-15, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.