PPP (D) 2012 Presidential Poll (3rd-Party Edition)

If the candidates for President next year were Democrat Barack Obama, Republican Mitt Romney, and Sarah Palin running as an independent, who would you vote for?

• Barack Obama 47%
• Mitt Romney 26%
• Sarah Palin 21%
• Undecided 6%

If the candidates for President next year were Democrat Barack Obama, Republican Mitt Romney, and Donald Trump running as an independent, who would you vote for?

• Barack Obama 46%
• Mitt Romney 30%
• Donald Trump 18%
• Undecided 5%

If the candidates for President next year were Democrat Barack Obama, Republican Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul running as an independent, who would you vote for?

• Barack Obama 45%
• Mitt Romney 33%
• Ron Paul 15%
• Undecided 8%

If the candidates for President next year were Democrat Barack Obama, Republican Mitt Romney, and Michael Bloomberg running as an independent, who would you vote for?

• Barack Obama 42%
• Mitt Romney 42%
• Michael Bloomberg 10%
• Undecided 7%

If the candidates for President next year were Democrat Barack Obama, Republican Mitt Romney, and Jon Huntsman running as an independent, who would you vote for?

• Barack Obama 46%
• Mitt Romney 40%
• Jon Huntsman 7%
• Undecided 7%

If the candidates for President next year were Democrat Barack Obama, Republican Mitt Romney, and Ralph Nader running as an independent, who would you vote for?

• Barack Obama 45%
• Mitt Romney 41%
• Ralph Nader 7%
• Undecided 7%

If the candidates for President next year were Democrat Barack Obama, Republican Mitt Romney, and Bernie Sanders running as an independent, who would you vote for?

• Barack Obama 45%
• Mitt Romney 41%
• Bernie Sanders 5%
• Undecided 9%

(more…)

AP-GfK 2012 Favorability Survey

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Rudy Giuliani 50% / 40% {+10%}
• Ron Paul 37% / 36% {+1%}
• Mitt Romney 39% / 41%  {-2%}
• Rick Perry 33% / 36%  {-3%}
• Herman Cain 21% / 27% {-6%}
• Michele Bachmann 35% / 43% {-8%}
• Rick Santorum 20% / 31% {-11%}
• Jon Huntsman 17% / 28% {-11%}
• Sarah Palin 36% / 59%{-23%}
• Newt Gingrich 27% / {-30%}

(more…)

Former New York State Governor George Pataki will not be running for President according to Politico. Here’s the piece:

Former New York Gov. George Pataki has decided not to seek the Republican nomination for president, sources confirm.

It’s hard to say what, if any, impact this has on the GOP primaries. Few believed until this month that Pataki was really serious about getting into the race. And even then, it wasn’t obvious where the moderate, pro-environment, abortion rights-supporting Pataki would find a niche in the field.

That’s exactly it. There was no place for him in the primary and no real path to the nomination for a candidate like Pataki. That and his record was not the greatest in the world. 10 out of the 12 years he was in office, he did not produce an on-time budget. Pataki’s conservative credentials diminished in each consecutive term in office. As a former NYS resident, I’m okay with him not running.

Continuing his series of impassioned defenses of himself and his proposals, today Mitt Romney had a confrontation with a town hall attendee in New Hampshire:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKXKElB9Kms[/youtube]
I don’t purport to know if Romney has actively tried to show more emotion like this on the campaign trail this year or if it has just “happened”, but these outbursts may help to address his chief weakness in the primaries: the “enthusiasm gap”.

After all, Mitt’s new top competitor, Rick Perry, largely owes his rise in the polls to his ability to connect with the base on an emotional, visceral level. If Romney can evoke at least some of this kind of reaction from primary voters with these shows of passion, it will certainly enhance his chances of outlasting the rest of the field.

Magellan Iowa Republican Caucuses

• Perry – 24% (-)
• Bachmann – 22% (29%)
• Romney – 19% (16)
• Paul – 9% (5)
• Cain – 6% (8)
• Gingrich – 4% (5)
• Santorum – 4% (3)
• Huntsman – 1% (-)
• Undecided – 8% (24)

Favorability Ratings

• Perry – 55/20
• Bachmann – 60/27
• Romney – 49/33
• Cain – 42/27
• Santorum – 37/28
• Paul – 33/47
• Gingrich – 38/46
• Huntsman – 7/49

Survey of 676 likely caucus goers was conducted August 22-23, and has a margin of error of +/-3.77%. Numbers from the July 13 survey are in parentheses.

PPP (D) Ohio 2012 GOP Primary Survey

• Rick Perry 21%
• Mitt Romney 18% (21%) {18%} [15%] (14%)
• Sarah Palin 11% (16%) {15%} [21%] (20%)
• Michele Bachmann 10% (10%)
• Herman Cain 8% (12%)
• Newt Gingrich 7% (12%) {16%} [18%] (19%)
• Ron Paul 7% (9%) {7%} [6%]
• Jon Huntsman 1% (1%)
• Someone else/Undecided 15% (15%) {13%} [11%] (18%)

(more…)

Pew Research 2012 Presidential Survey

Among Voters Who’ve Heard of Candidate

How much of a chance is there that you would vote for ____________ if he/she is a candidate for president in 2012 — is there a good chance, some chance, or no chance?

Mitt Romney

• Good chance 16% (17%)
• Some chance 38% (34%)
• No chance 42% (44%)

Rick Perry

• Good chance 19%
• Some chance 28%
• No chance 47%

Herman Cain

• Good chance 20% (23%)
• Some chance 22% (25%)
• No chance 53% (41%)

Ron Paul

• Good chance 14% (9%)
• Some chance 28% (26%)
• No chance 53% (60%)

Michele Bachmann

• Good chance 14% (14%)
• Some chance 25% (26%)
• No chance 56% (51%)

Rick Santorum

• Good chance 11% (11%)
• Some chance 23% (27%)
• No chance 59% (51%)

Jon Huntsman

• Good chance 9% (8%)
• Some chance 25% (27%)
• No chance 59% (49%)

Newt Gingrich

• Good chance 8% (9%)
• Some chance 23% (24%)
• No chance 66% (63%)

Sarah Palin

• Good chance 13% (14%)
• Some chance 19% (20%)
• No chance 67% (63%)

Name recognition

• Sarah Palin 97%
• Mitt Romney 87%
• Newt Gingrich 87%
• Michele Bachmann 84%
• Ron Paul 76%
• Rick Perry 71%
• Rick Santorum 46%
• Herman Cain 41%
• Jon Huntsman 39%

(more…)

I always get excited when someone other than PPP does a poll… and I get even more excited when that someone is Mason-Dixon, a top-notch outfit if there ever was one. Here’s their latest from the key battleground of Florida:

Mason-Dixon Florida Republican Primary

• Romney – 28% (23)
• Perry – 21% (-)
• Bachmann – 13% (1)
• Cain – 7% (-)
• Gingrich – 5% (11)
• Paul – 4% (3)
• Santorum – 2% (1)
• Huntsman – 0% (-)
• Undecided – 17%

General Election Matchups

• Romney – 51% (48%)
• Obama – 43% (43)

• Perry – 46%
• Obama – 45%

• Obama – 46%
• Bachmann – 44%

Survey of 300 likely Republican primary voters was conducted August 18-22 and has a margin of error of +/-5.8%. For the general election matchups, 625 registered voters were surveyed with a margin or error of +/-4%.

Numbers from their April 11 poll, which included Huckabee, Trump, Daniels, and Barbour, are in parentheses.

Last evening we received the sad news that Steve Jobs felt it necessary to resign as CEO of Apple for health reasons. It is always useful and fun, I think, when we can celebrate an “only in America” success story. Steve Jobs is one of the three most consequential entrepreneur CEO’s in American history alongside Thomas Edison and Henry Ford. Each combined vision, innovation, and focused business skills. Each led the development of innovations that changed the way people lived and worked. And, in each case, individual free choice was enhanced to the detriment of centralized authority. The Macintosh Computer was truly revolutionary in that it provided the individual with access to an easy to use highly functional desk top computer. The iPhone enabled the mobile Internet and autonomous but “networked” individuals.

Consider the role that the iPhone must have played in facilitating the Egyptian and Libyan uprisings. Totalitarian regimes the world over now have to consider the power that these devices provide the individual. Sure, they can try to turn them off or suppress their use in some way, but to do so becomes problematical and would attract further unfavorable attention to the regime in question.

Many of you have probably seen clips of the famous Apple 1984 Super Bowl TV commercial that introduced the Macintosh.

It is an outstanding play on the theme of individual empowerment over centralized authority. So, for those who have never seen it, take a look. For those who have, it’s always fun to watch it again. Enjoy!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8[/youtube]

The Reason Foundation has partnered with the Rupe Group to release the first Reason-Rupe presidential poll.  They took their time compiling and releasing this data, so keep in mind the fact that it straddles Perry’s announcement and Pawlenty’s withdrawal:

2012 Republican Presidential Nomination

• Mitt Romney 20%
• Rick Perry 18%
• Sarah Palin 12%
• Michele Bachmann 8%
• Rudy Giuliani 8%
• Ron Paul 7%
• Herman Cain 4%
• Newt Gingrich 3%
• Tim Pawlenty 2%
• Jon Huntsman 1%
• Gary Johnson *%
• Rick Santorum *%
• Undecided 16%

Poll info: The Reason-Rupe Q3 2011 poll collected a nationally representative sample of 1200 respondents, aged 18 and older from all 50 states and the District of Columbia using live telephone interviews from August 9th-18th 2011. The margin of sampling error for this poll is ± 3 percent. The margin of error for the GOP presidential race numbers is ± 4.79%. Interviews were conducted with respondents using both landline (790) and mobile phones (410). Landline respondents were randomly selected within households based on the adult who had the most recent birthday. Sample was weighted by gender, age, ethnicity, and Census region, based on the most recent US Census data. The sampling frame included landline and mobile phone numbers generated using Random Digit Dialing (RDD) methods and randomly selected numbers from a directory listed sample.

The latest Gallup Poll on the 2012 Republican presidential nomination contains some fascinating insights into the immense gaps between younger and older GOPers.  Check out the horse race according to age:

Amongst the people who are going to comprise the bulk of the mainstream GOP in 20-40 years, Ron Paul is far and away the frontrunner, with 29% of the vote.  Perry follows at 21%, with Bachmann at 12%, and Romney in a distant fourth place at 11%.

This younger generation is a generation that has a stomach for severe fiscal austerity, that is culturally modern, and that is fed up with endless, pointless wars.  They’re comfortable supporting a candidate who promises to slash entitlements, because they know they’re not going to get any of the benefits they’re supposedly paying for.  They gladly support a candidate who wants to roll back the big-government foreign policy, because they’ve been used and abused in unnecessary wars and nation-building.  They’re fine with voting for a guy who’s going to end the War on Drugs, because they–like their great grandparents did–see that prohibition has been a complete failure.

Paul and Bachmann, two of the most anti-establishment, fiscally conservative, state sovereignty-supporting, non-interventionist voices in the current Republican line-up (apart from Johnson), both poll best among this group.  Combined, they make up 41% of this electorate.  Factor in the support for other socially moderate candidates (Giuliani, Huntsman, Pataki, Johnson), and even–to an extent–the supporters of Palin, who would basically de-fund marijuana prohibition and pare down the Patriot Act, and this sounds the death knell for the Moral Majority, government-in-your-bedroom Republicans.

If the GOP wishes to survive, it will have to acknowledge this fact and prepare to significantly transform itself (and I do believe I see the beginnings of this process taking place).  The era of the Moral Majority is over.  The era of neoconservatism is over.  The era of sacred financial cows is over.  Paul, Bachmann, and Johnson are to tomorrow’s GOP, what Reagan, McCain, and Bush were to yesterday’s GOP.

If you haven’t seen Sen. Marco Rubio’s recent speech at the Reagan Presidential Library, you’re in for a real treat:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BypW8Ev3lM&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/youtube]
He stumbled with his delivery at times but still managed to turn in an outstanding performance. This man has become one of the most, if not THE most, articulate advocates and defenders of conservatism and American exceptionalism. No wonder he will end up on the VP shortlist of any potential Republican nominee. It’s only a matter of time before he becomes President himself.

From Iowa Politics:

Pataki to make “major announcement” in Iowa this weekend

DES MOINES — Former New York Gov. George Pataki appears poised to enter the race for the 2012 Republican nomination for president, with an announcement scheduled this weekend in Iowa.

Pataki on Monday evening became the third candidate confirming his attendance at this Saturday’s Polk County Republican Picnic and Road to the White House 2012 Presidential Forum.

“We just got confirmation that Governor George Pataki is also attending and may have a major announcement,” Darrell Kearney, senior finance officer for the Polk County Republicans, told IowaPolitics.com.

The Iowa Republican offers the following in the form of analysis:

If, on the off chance (again, sarcasm), Pataki will announce he will be running for President, it could not have come at a worse time for front runner Mitt Romney, the former Governor of Massachusetts. With recent Iowa, New Hampshire, and now national polls showing Conservative Texas Governor Rick Perry may be stealing the front-runner label, Romney simply can’t afford to start splitting the party establishment vote with the more moderate Pataki.

The biggest impact in Iowa though (where Romney is not currently campaigning), could be how the Iowa Republican establishment reacts. Governor Terry Branstad and his allies, known to be more idealogically moderate, looked to be signaling recently that they might be inclined to support the Texas Governor, despite Perry’s Tea Party credentials. Will the Brandstad group, who has already tried to lure New Jersey Governor Chris Christie into the race, instead get behind Pataki; the lone, viable moderate who will be running in our state?

Yesterday was the Day of Endorsements in the GOP primary race: Mitt Romney won some love from Camp Pawlenty, Iowa, and New Hampshire; Huntsman got a nod from Georgia, and Perry nabbed an important Florida leader.

In addition to picking up the backing of Vin Weber, Romney was also endorsed by two other former Pawlenty supporters: Iowa State Representative Linda Miller and Dallas County (Iowa) Recorder Chad Airhart. Two other Iowa political activists endorsed Romney yesterday as well – Kristin Moran and Jacqui Norman – for a total of four Iowa endorsements.

Adding to his nods from Team T-Paw and Iowa, Romney was also endorsed by former New Hampshire Senate President Tom Eaton, a big name in New Hampshire politics. During some of Romney’s campaign stops in New Hampshire yesterday, he previewed what is likely to become a key line in his stump speech as he attempts to regain some momentum and blunt the ascension of Rick Perry:

“There will also be some differences, and in my case I won’t just have been somebody who watched jobs be created, I actually created jobs. I’ve had that experience. I spent my life in the private sector. I’m a business guy; I’m a conservative businessman; I’m not a lifelong politician,” Romney said. “I spent four years in government. I joke that I didn’t inhale.”

Meanwhile, Jon Huntsman visited the homestate of Gingrich and Cain to speak to their state House of Representatives. While there, Huntsman announced the support of the longest-serving Republican in the state House, Earl Ehrhart. Ehrhart’s son is currently serving with Huntsman’s son at the Naval Academy, so the family connections probably mean this endorsement isn’t quite the big shot in the arm the Huntsman campaign is looking for as they try desperately to gain traction in the race.

And finally, Rick Perry got in on the endorsement action as well, landing a big get in the key battleground state of Florida: speaker of the House Dean Cannon. As Politico notes, “The Republican legislator is one of the highest profile figures in Florida politics, and his backing will help Perry establish a beachhead of official-side support in the Sunshine State. Cannon will also play a key role in determining the date of the Florida primary, which is currently set for Jan. 31, in violation of Republican National Committee rules.”

Rick Perry’s entry into the presidential race has been acclaimed by many conservative bloggers, many of whom would like to shove everyone else out of the race to focus on Mitt v. Perry.

However, during this conservative media honeymoon, some have taken to pointing out the pitfalls in Perry’s Candidacy. Some of these have been shotgun-like allegations, firing out a lot of problems, some salient, and others are laughable with some falling in between. So where do Perry’s real liabilities lie? Let us sift them. We’ll start with the ones that are actually likely to dog Perry on the campaign trail and then turn and look at those that are non-sensical or nitpicky.

The Big Issues:

The Texas Spending and Debt Issue: With the nation alarmed at run-away debt and spending, Perry’s Texas record present some serious questions. During Perry’s Time as Governor, the State’s debt increased from $13.7 billion to more than $30 billion with Perry being a leading voice for the state taking on more debt for transportation projects and cancer research. In addition to this, spending increased substantially under Perry from $49 billion to $90 billion.

This looks bad, but some of it can be explained. The increase in spending could be explained by inflation and an increasing number of citizens using government services. In addition, there are a variety of issues that go on in the State of Texas such as court ruling that aren’t national knowledge. Perry pushing more debt on the state is far more problematic and can be used by skilled opponents to suggest that Perry lacks what it takes to address the debt problems in Washington.

Illegal Immigration: Perry has been soft on the issue, supporting in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. Mike Huckabee faced similar problems in 2012. Huckabee pivoted with a very strong stand for building a border fence. The question has been whether Perry would similarly pivot.  The answer seems to be, “No.”

Perry called the idea of a border fence, “ridiculous.” Perry has also opposed the use of e-verify and gained the scorn of immigration reform advocates like Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Co.) and Numbers USA. While the immigration issue does not have near the salience it did back in 2007, it’s still an important issue, from economic, national security, and a cultural standpoint among those people Perry needs to ultimately win to get the nomination.

The Trans-Texas Corridor: The unpopular Texas road boondoggle is a combination of these issues.  Not only was the project a major financial boondoggle that cost upward of $150 billion, it also stoked fears around national sovereignty and property rights due to the potential to seize hundreds of thousands of acres of land.

Secondary Issues:

Gardisil: Perry’s decision to issue an executive order requring pre-teen girls get mandatory HPV vaccines is one he said was a wrong one in retrospect as he got out in front of the voters. However, not everyone is buying it, including Columnist Michelle Malkin, though to be fair Malkin is rarely forgiving of any political error.

The big issue with Gardisilis not so much the issue itself, but how it plays into a greater pattern of conduct in office for Perry. In both the case of Gardisil and the Trans-Texas Corridor, Perry leapt into gradiose government projects that were ill-considered and premature at best. In defense of Perry, one Texas blogger writes, “Agree or disagree, at least he listened to the people and backed off. ”

This is an inaccurate defense. Perry did not “back off” in light of public concern. In the cases of TTC and Gardisil, his grandiose move was defeated by the legislature and he accepted his defeat, but after months and years of fighting over these ill-advised efforts.

Crony Capitalism: The Wall Street Journal gave this storysome play, which points out that a fund established at Perry’s behest to bring high tech jobs to Texas has sent $16 million (out of $200 million appropriated) “ to firms in which major Perry contributors were either investors or officers.”   The story itself would require some clever campaign work to make it seem scandalous. But given that the Gardisil story also includes of an element of a former Perry Chief of Staff having gone to work for Merck, there’s clearly room for a narrative that Perry uses government as a way to pay off his contributors.

Minor Issue:

Raised Taxes: Rick Perry has stated he has a record of not raising taxes. Polifact called him on this, citing several instance of Perry tax increases:

* House Bill 3667, which Perry signed into law on June 16, 2001, enacting a 2 percent tax on the retail sale of fireworks to help fund a rural volunteer fire department insurance fund. The new levy was projected to generate $848,000 over the next two years; it ended up raising about $1.4 million in that period.

* Senate Bill 5, which Perry signed into law June 15, 2001, creating the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan Fund as part of an effort to help reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides, which are air pollutants. Revenue for the fund was generated through “several new charges,” including a tax of 1 percent on the purchase or rental of diesel equipment.

* House Bill 1365, signed by the governor on June 22, 2003, made tweaks in the emissions reduction fund to bring in more money. With the changes, the report says, the impact to the fund was projected to be $234.9 million in 2004-05.

They also cited a tax shift that the legislator proposed and passed, reducing property taxes while raising cigarette taxes, the franchise tax, and changed the taxing of used car sales. This was even excluded as a Tax Increase by Americans for Tax Reform.

The three tax increases Perry signed are so small and insignificant it’ll be difficult to make a splash if you’re honest with them. I suppose you could have an ad saying, “Governor Perry has raised taxes three times.” But Perry can come back with the truth about the issues and this is pretty much a non-starter.

Nitpicking the Texas Jobs Record: This has already been done with questions about what type of jobs were created, the general wage condition, and the public safety net in Texas. I don’t think it’ll be a particularly effective line of attack in the Republican Primary, though if Perry makes the general election, you can expect Democrats to “mess with Texas” a lot.  However, if the economyremains in the tank, I don’t think the attack will do much better in the general.

Rick Perry and Radical Islam: Since Perry’s entry into the race, the debate has raged back and forth over Perry’s involvement with the Ismalis, Texas Curriculum on Radical Islam, and the extent of his involvement with Americans for Tax Reform leader Grover Norquist, who has some ties to some unsavory Islamic figures. The efforts on both sides are a bit esoteric, but this is an issue that could be upgraded. It’s pretty darn toxic for a presidential candidate to touch this themselves, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see this issue raised if Perry remains viable. See these posts for the Pro-Perry and Anti-Perry takes.

Irrelevant Issues:

Texas Education Level: Oddly enough, this is one of the complaints raised by libertarian site Infowars, which also criticized Perry’s taxing, spending, and debt levels. Not sure what they thought he should have done different. given the perimeters. The reason why this will be irrelevant are: 1) Voters’ are not primarily concerned with education and 2) The President has little impact on education policy.  No Presidential Candidate has lost an election because his state”s SAT scores were too low.

Perry and the Bilderbergers:  If you’re upset about Rick Perry speaking to the Bilderberg conference, you’re probably already voting for Ron Paul. 

Executions: One bright side for the media to a Perry run is that they can recycle the attacks they made on George W. Bush. Chief on them is Texas’ death penalty and how so many prisoners are put to death in Texas. It didn’t do anything to Bush and the issue is unlikely to phase Perry. In addition, if there are any issues with any of the execution done under Perry, he has a host of limits on his own power to intervene.

Gay Rumors: Actually wasn’t aware there were any of these until I saw ithis post about what Perry’s critics were saying. Apparently such allegations stem from Perry having been a Yell leader at Texas A&M. The rumor doesn’t have any actual substance too it but for radical gay activists, it’s a fantasy come true to find an opponent of same sex marriage is actually homosexual. Unfortunately, this is reality and in reality, there’s no evidence.

Conclusion:

Perry is probably better than many candidates, but a lot of questions remain. One thing many critics had right is that Perry, unlike many of the other candidates, has not been “vetted” by the voters and the media. 2 weeks in, the Perry record has not been subjected to widespread scrutiny. No need to fear though, a competitive campaign guarantees that a candidate’s record will be examined and challenged.

When Obama took office, the national debt stood at $10.6 trillion.

Since then, it has risen to $14.6 trillion.

That is irresponsible and unpatriotic of the President. But don’t just take my word for it…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q[/youtube]

And to top it off, Obama complained about Bush adding $4 trillion in debt over eight years. Our current commander-in-chief has achieved that feat in less than half the time!

We all know how much Obama loves calling the actions of his administration “unprecedented”. Well, he can add this to the list.

PPP (D) Iowa 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 49% (49%) [45%] (47%)
• Mitt Romney 39% (40%) [41%] (41%)

• Barack Obama 51%
• Rick Perry 38%

• Barack Obama 51%
• Michele Bachmann 34%

• Barack Obama 51% (50%)
• Herman Cain 33% (32%)

• Barack Obama 54% (55%) [53%] (53%)
• Sarah Palin 33% (35%) [36%] (37%)

(more…)

PPP (D) Wisconsin 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 47% {51%} [48%] (46%)
• Mitt Romney 42% {39%} [38%] (42%)

• Barack Obama 50%
• Rick Perry 40%

• Barack Obama 51%
• Michele Bachmann 39%

• Barack Obama 52% {55%} [54%] (52%)
• Sarah Palin 40% {36%} [35%] (38%)

• Barack Obama 50%
• Herman Cain 36%

(more…)

PPP (D) 2012 GOP Nomination Survey

If the candidates for President next year were Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum, who would you vote for?

• Rick Perry 27% (11%)
• Mitt Romney 17% (20%) {22%} [16%] (24%) {22%} [20%]
• Sarah Palin 13% (12%) {15%} [16%] (17%) {15%} [19%]
• Michele Bachmann 10% (16%) {8%} [9%] (8%) {5%}
• Herman Cain 7% (10%) {17%} [12%]
• Newt Gingrich 7% (6%) {9%} [9%] (20%) {20%} [18%]
• Ron Paul 6% (9%) {7%} [9%] (12%) {12%} [12%]
• Rick Santorum 3%
• Jon Huntsman 2% (2%) {1%} [4%]

(more…)

Gallup 2012 GOP Nomination Survey

• Rick Perry 25% {15%}
• Mitt Romney 14% {17%}
• Sarah Palin 11% {12%}
• Ron Paul 11% {8%}
• Rudy Giuliani 9% {11%}
• Michele Bachmann 7% {11%}
• Herman Cain 4% {3%}
• Newt Gingrich 3% {3%}
• Rick Santorum 3% {2%}
• Jon Huntsman 1% {2%}
• Other 1% {1%}
• No preference 12% {14%}

(more…)

Rasmussen 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 43% [44%] (45%)
• Rick Perry 40% [39%] (28%)
• Some other candidate 10%
• Not sure 7%

• Barack Obama 43% [46%] (49%)
• Michele Bachmann 39% [39%] (27%)
• Some other candidate 12%
• Not sure 7%

• Barack Obama 46% [42%] {45%} [42%] (44%)
• Mitt Romney 38% [43%] {40%} [44%] (44%)
• Some other candidate 8%
• Not sure 9%

Surveys of 1,000 likely voters were conducted August 17-22, 2011.  The margin of error for each survey is +/- 3 percentage points.  Results from the poll conducted between June 24 and July 17, 2011 are in square brackets.  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.

Inside the numbers:

Perry leads Obama by 69 percentage points among Republicans. Bachmann leads by 61 among GOP voters and Romney by 59. The president leads all three among unaffiliated voters. However, the president’s support among unaffiliateds ranges from 41% to 44% and a quarter of unaffiliateds remain either undecided or interested in a third party option.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

That’s the conclusion that I reach after reading excerpts from a recent interview with the former Florida governor:

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush warned the Republican presidential hopefuls against ideological intransigence and knee-jerk opposition to President Barack Obama on Tuesday, saying they risk turning off middle-of-the-road voters.

Asked by Fox News host Neil Cavuto if some Republicans go too far in their criticism of Obama, Bush said flatly, “I do. I think when you start ascribing bad motives to the guy, that’s wrong. It turns off people who want solutions.

“It’s fine to criticize him, that’s politics,” said Bush, the younger brother of former President George W. Bush, who again reiterated that he won’t run for president himself. “But just to stop there isn’t enough. You have to win with ideas, you have to win with policies. … He’s made a situation that was bad worse. He’s deserving of criticism for that. He’s not deserving of criticism for the common cold on up.”

“If you’re a conservative, you have to persuade. You can’t just be against the president,” he added.

Breaking with the GOP field, Bush said he’d be willing to accept new revenues as part of a deficit-reduction package.

My emphasis on all counts.

Jeb’s positioning would make him a non-starter among Republicans this year, who want anger, not optimism, emotion, not ideas, and who have been convinced by talk radio that any Republican who doesn’t call the president names, in full fourth grade jacket, is a latte-sipping RINO with slacks that are way too neatly pressed for any self-respecting Real American. Moreover, Jeb’s admission that the government will need greater revenue in order to close the deficit puts him in opposition to every other Republican running this year, who, as we learned from the last debate of GOP presidential candidates, are opposed to any sort of tax increase, regardless of the spending cuts that come along with it. And of course, in this post-Norquist world, flattening the tax code is now a “tax hike,” as it eliminates deductions, thus raising taxes on some individuals.

All of this suggests to me that the Bushes are betting that Obama will win a second term, and that by positioning himself as the “I told you so” statesman in the party, Jeb will be able to pick up the pieces if the strategy of “taking it to Obama” turns out to be a dud.

As Politico’s Alexander Burns’ notes, Huntsman and Santorum’s exclusion from the event is surprising considering how much time they have devoted to campaigning in South Carolina:

The Advisory Committee of the American Principles Project Palmetto Freedom Forum extended official invitations to the following top Republican contenders today: Minnesota U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann, Businessman Herman Cain, Former Speaker of the U.S. House Newt Gingrich, Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, Texas U.S. Representative Ron Paul, Texas Governor Rick Perry, and Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. All of these candidates were at or above the 5% threshold in the realclearpolitics.com 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination RCP average at 1pm this afternoon, and therefore all qualified for invitations to the Labor Day afternoon event. Qualified candidates will have until Wednesday, August 24th at 5pm to confirm their attendance with the Advisory Committee.

“I am very excited about the initial response and thrilled to be able to already announce that Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Ron Paul and Rick Perry have confirmed their attendance in Columbia for this important event. This forum will allow candidates to get past the 30 second sound bites and have an open dialogue with concerned citizens. Hopefully, this event will be an important part of the process to choose the next President of the United States,” said U.S. Senator Jim DeMint.

Hat-tip: The Argo Journal

Update: Romney has declined DeMint’s invitation.

Huge “get” for Team Romney. Is Weber “President Romney’s” future Chief-of-Staff?

Mitt Romney today announced that former Minnesota Congressman Vin Weber will serve as Special Adviser on Policy. In that capacity, he will be a senior member of Governor Romney’s policy team and will provide advice on foreign and economic policy.

“I am proud to have Vin’s support,” said Mitt Romney. “Vin will be a trusted adviser and I look forward to working with him to help get our country moving in the right direction again.”

Announcing his support, Vin Weber said, “It is an honor to again work with Mitt Romney. At such a critical time in our nation’s history, it is important that we have someone with his background to lead the country. After three years of failed policies, Mitt Romney’s record of leadership is what we need to strengthen the country both at home and abroad.”

Vin Weber Was A Member Of The U.S. House Of Representatives From 1981 To 1993. Weber most recently served as a Co-Chairman of Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty’s presidential campaign. In 2004, Weber served as Plains States Regional Chairman for George Bush’s campaign and in 2008 was a Policy Chairman for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign. Currently, Weber is a Managing Partner of Clark & Weinstock.

Scott Conroy over at RCP has the scoop:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry was scheduled to make a round of phone calls on Tuesday afternoon to a group of prominent Iowa Republican donors who have spent the past several months trying to persuade New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie to enter the presidential race.

The phone conversations with Perry come as Christie remains unlikely to reconsider his often colorfully stated assertion that he has neither the desire nor the readiness to make a White House run – despite pleas from a wide swath of influential Republicans to change his mind.

Unless Christie reverses his posture dramatically in the coming days, at least one of the Iowa heavy hitters who made a late-May trek to the New Jersey governor’s mansion to try to woo him appears inclined to offer his allegiances to the Texan.

“Right now, it’s a wide open race and I haven’t seen anybody catch fire yet, but out of the chute, I think Perry is looking the best,” Des Moines businessman Gary Kirke, a member of the group that urged Christie to run, told RCP. “If I had to make a drop-dead decision today, I’d go for Perry.”

Be sure to read the whole piece here.

Gallup 2012 Name Recognition/GOP Favorability Survey

Name Recognition

• Sarah Palin 97%
  
• Rudy Giuliani 91%
• Mitt Romney 86%
• Newt Gingrich 85%
• Michele Bachmann 83%
• Ron Paul 78%
• Rick Perry 67%
• Rick Santorum 51%
• Herman Cain 47%
• Jon Huntsman 40%

(more…)

Magellan Strategies (R) Florida 2012 Presidential Survey

• Mitt Romney 49%
• Barack Obama 39%

• Rick Perry 46%
• Barack Obama 39%

• Michele Bachmann 43%
• Barack Obama 42%

(more…)

PPP (D) 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 45%
• Mitt Romney 45%

• Barack Obama 49%
• Rick Perry 43%

• Barack Obama 50%
  
• Michele Bachmann 42%

• Barack Obama 49%
  
• Herman Cain 39%

• Barack Obama 53%
  
• Sarah Palin 40%

(more…)

Sorry, Iowa GOP. Not many folks are going to care about your Ames straw poll in the future.

In fact, not many care about it this year now, either.

The race for the Republican nomination is setting up to be a showdown between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry. Both men bypassed the straw poll on their potential routes to the nomination.

Even if you were to expand the field beyond these two, however, the irrelevance of Ames comes into sharper focus. According to the investors over at Intrade, the four people with the greatest chance of securing the GOP nod — with a combined chance of close to 85% — all have one thing in common: they put zero effort into Ames.

What did Ames provide its entrants this year? Nothing but a kick in the teeth. Bachmann got no bump in the polls or increase in momentum after winning the event outright. In fact, she was sliding prior to the vote; she continues to slide a week and a half later. She peaked at around 15% or so in national polls prior to Ames. Now, according to the RCP average, she’s down to about 9%. In Iowa, she hit high 20s and low 30s before Ames. Now, two polls show her at nearly half that: 15% in one, 17% in another. Bachmann is fading into obscurity, upstaged by her non-Ames opponents.

What of Ron Paul? He nearly surprised the GOP establishment with a win at Ames, falling short by just 150 votes. But since then, he’s sunk back down into single digits in the national polls as well. Tim Pawlenty? His massive expenditure of energy and money got him a one-way ticket out of the race altogether. Rick Santorum? Herman Cain? Most of America still responds, “Who?” when given those names.

In the leadup to Ames, I predicted that Rick Perry’s entrance into the race would completely overshadow whatever happened in Iowa that Saturday. According to a new Pew study, that prediction proved correct. Taking every news story that pertained to the 2012 election last week, they discovered that Rick Perry was the subject of 55% of them. The next closest Republican in the news? Mitt Romney, who accounted for 6% of the stories last week.

In other words, Rick Perry dominated. No one heard or cared about Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, or Tim Pawlenty. The top two newsmakers on the GOP side during the week immediately proceeding Ames were two candidates that didn’t even compete there.

This highlights the simple cost-benefit analysis Romney (and others) used when deciding to compete at Ames this time around. The costs were immense: a million dollars (at least) and all your campaign time, focus, and energy spent in a tiny town in Iowa. The benefits, on the other hand, were minuscule at best.

Which is why fewer and fewer candidates will compete there in the future. Ames was a fun tradition (to watch and to poke fun at) while it lasted — but it has now become irrelevant.