Believe it or not, ten days from today marks the end of the third quarter – and when the candidates’ latest fundraising efforts will be measured. The actual reports are due to the FEC on October 15, but most campaigns will unofficially release the numbers before that date. Here are the rumors that have slowly begun trickling in regarding the candidates’ totals:

• Perry‘s campaign has indicated that they will most likely hit their $10 million goal for the third quarter, which would put them slightly above Romney’s pace from the second quarter (Romney raised $18.4 million; Perry had half the third quarter to work with).
• Santorum‘s campaign has indicated that they will, once again, bring in less than $1 million this quarter.
• Huntsman‘s campaign is apparently in financial shambles, if the resignation/firing of his top fundraising directors a couple weeks ago are any indication. At the same time, sources reported that Huntsman has had to loan at least an additional $500,000 to the campaign just to make payroll this month (he loaned the campaign roughly $2 million last quarter). Huntsman has also moved his resources out of the expensive state of Florida, into the smaller and less expensive state of New Hampshire – where he will make his final stand a la McCain 2008. If he makes it that far.

The real focus, of course, will be on whether or not Romney and Perry can keep pace with one another’s fundraising. Everything else will be a sideshow.

This fundraising report, however, has historically been another winnowing mark for the field. In 2008, Sam Brownback dropped out of the race after releasing his Q3 numbers. In 2000, Elizabeth Dole did the same.(Also in 2000, Pat Buchanan famously dropped out after the Q3 reports to run on the Reform Party ticket.) So the question this time around is: will anyone drop out, and if so, who?

UPDATE: A “source close to” the Romney campaign tells Reuters that Romney’s third quarter figure is likely to be less than $10 million. If Perry raises more than Romney, in half the time, expect Perry to gain a lot of momentum (along with the support of some big money men in the party).

PPP (D) Texas 2012 Presidential Survey

• Rick Perry 51% [45%] (45%)
• Barack Obama 44% [47%] (45%)

• Mitt Romney 47% [50%] (49%)
• Barack Obama 41% [42%] (42%)

• Ron Paul 43% [45%]
• Barack Obama 42% [40%]

• Barack Obama 46% (43%)
• Newt Gingrich 45% (48%)

• Barack Obama 45% [44%]
• Michele Bachmann 43% [47%]

Note: In 2008, John McCain received 55% of the vote in Texas. In 2004, George W. Bush received 61% of the vote in TX.

(more…)

Drip… drip… drip…

Forty endorsements from Maine this afternoon, including the Attorney General, Senate Majority Leader, two of the three RNC Committee members, two former House Leaders, two former state party chairs, and a former U.S. Congressman. A good batch of endorsements for Team Romney. This is a well-planned steady drip of endorsements being executed by the Romney campaign.

List of names below the fold:

UPDATE: The Romney campaign entered their “ramp-up” phase of this campaign at the beginning of September, and part of that phase was to be the roll-out of their endorsements. If you look back over the past couple weeks, you can see just how deliberate and planned these announcements have been:

• Sept 2 – Bettencourt (NH House Majority Leader)
• Sept 5 – Loftis (SC State Treasurer)
• Sept 8 – Twelve endorsements from CO, 25 from MD, Richardville (MI Senate Majority Leader), and Morse (NH State Senator)
• Sept 12 – Pawlenty
• Sept 13 – Thirty-three (of thirty-six Republican) legislators from Massachusetts
• Sept 14 – Twenty-four plus from Arizona, including Attorney General, House Speaker, and Secretary of State
• Sept 15 – Anuzis
• Sept 16 – Five additional legislators from New Hampshire
• Sept 19 – Flake, nine from Michigan, twenty-two from Georgia
• Sept 20 – Blunt, forty from Maine

We’re starting to get into some of the bigger names now, like Flake and Blunt. It will be interesting to see whose endorsements the Romney campaign has up their sleeves for the rest of the month.

(more…)

Rasmussen 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 44% [40%] (43%) {46%} [42%] {45%} [42%] (44%)
• Mitt Romney 41% [43%] (39%) {38%} [43%] {40%} [44%] (44%)

Survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted September 18-19, 2011.  The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.  Results from the poll conducted September 10-11, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted August 25-26, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the polls conducted August 17-22, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the polls conducted between July 14-15, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted March 6-9, 2011 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted January 3-4, 2011 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted November 24, 2009 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Romney edges the president by five points among male voters but loses among female voters by 10. Voters under 40 prefer Obama, while older voters generally tend to favor the Republican.
Union members support the president over Romney by a three-to-one margin.

Both candidates carry roughly 80% of the voters in their respective parties. Voters not affiliated with either of the parties are evenly divided, but 23% of these voters are either undecided or like another candidate in the race.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

PPP (D) Massachusetts 2012 Senatorial Survey

• Elizabeth Warren (D) 46% [32%]
• Scott Brown (R) 44% [47%]

• Scott Brown (R) 48% [50%]
• Alan Khazei (D) 33% [31%]

• Scott Brown (R) 47% [48%]
• Setti Warren (D) 32% [23%]

• Scott Brown (R) 49% [48%]
• Bob Massie (D) 31% [25%]

• Scott Brown (R) 50%
• Tom Conroy (D) 31%

(more…)

Winthrop University South Carolina Republican Primary

Among Republicans and Republican Leaners:

• Perry – 29.8%
• Romney – 26.5%
• Cain – 6.8%
• Palin – 6.3%
• Gingrich – 4.6%
• Bachmann – 4.2%
• Paul – 4.2%
• Santorum – 2.6%
• Huntsman – 1.3%
• Other/Not sure – 12.9%

Among those “definitely” voting in the primary:

• Perry – 30.5%
• Romney – 27.3%
• Cain – 7.7%
• Palin – 5.8%
• Gingrich – 5.3%
• Paul – 4.2%
• Bachmann – 3.5%
• Huntsman – 1.6%
• Santorum – 1.5%
• Other / Not sure – 11.3%

Survey of 596 Republicans and Republican leaners was conducted Sept 11-18 and has a margin of error of 4.01%. Among those “definitely” planning to vote in the primary, the margin of error is 4.57%.

Well, we’ve had dozens of endorsements since the last endorsement chart update, so it’s high time we deliver the up-to-date version to you.

The endorsement categories are below, and the list of the endorsers are below the fold. Remember, this does not take into account every endorsement a candidate announces – it is simply an attempt to keep track of some of the more important ones. Therefore, it is not the end all, be all of candidate endorsements – but hopefully it is a useful tool.

• Group 1: Sitting Governors
• Group 2: Current U.S. Senators and Representatives
• Group 3: Current Lt Governors, Attorney Generals, other notable statewide officeholders
• Group 4: Former Governors, U.S. Senators, and U.S. Representatives
• Group 5: RNC Members

As always, if I missed one let me know in the comments.

An interesting sidenote to this update: the endorsements are trickling in much more slowly than they did in 2008. By this point last cycle Romney already had 68 endorsements as tracked by this chart, McCain had 40, Fred Thompson had 25, and Giuliani had 24. Compare that to 41 for Romney so far and 14 for Perry.

UPDATE: Updated with the Maine endorsements, listed above, that were released this afternoon.

(more…)

The steady drip of endorsements continues from Team Romney this morning, as they announce the support of Senator Roy Blunt. Blunt will head up Romney’s Congressional Team, working to “secure support of Republican members” in the House and Senate.

UPDATE: The Des Moines Register notes:

Blunt played a similar role in George W. Bush’s campaign leading into 2000… A well-known, pre-tea party Republican may be what Romney needs to circle up the wagons of establishment Republicans against Rick Perry, a newcomer to the national stage.

Magellan Strategies (R) Pennsylvania 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 50%
• Mitt Romney 40%
• Undecided 10%

• Barack Obama 52%
• Rick Perry 37%
• Undecided 11%

(more…)

Rasmussen 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 43% (44%) {42%} [43%]
• Jon Huntsman 35% (28%) {31%} [33%]

Survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted September 16-17, 2011.  The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.  Results from the poll conducted July 2, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted March 30-31, 2011 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted January 31 – February 1, 2011 are in square brackets.

Inside the numbers:

Obama leads Huntsman by six points among male voters who are generally more receptive to Republican candidates and by 11 among female voters.

Huntsman carries just 65% of the GOP vote, while 86% of Democrats support the president. Among voters not affiliated with either of the major parties, Obama leads by a narrow 34% to 30%, but roughly one-third of these voters (35%) are either undecided or prefer some other candidate.

Only 57% of conservatives favor Huntsman, while 55% of moderates and 74% of liberals like the president.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

Hat-tip: The Argo Journal

It has been a day full of endorsements for Mitt Romney, and late this afternoon he announced the backing of eight more state legislators from Michigan — including the Speaker of the House Jase Bolger.

The full list of endorsees is below the fold. The eight legislators announced today join the 19 others, including the Senate Majority Leader, who have previously announced support for Romney. Obviously, releasing the Flake endorsement from Arizona and these endorsements from Michigan today is intended to send a message: it will be difficult to stop Romney on February 28, 2012.

(more…)

The rumors that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is considering a 2012 bid for the White House are harder to kill than a vampire on HBO’s True Blood. And despite the governor’s continued insistence that he has no plans to run, conservative media types, Beltway wonks, and emissaries from the House of Bush (see Gerson, Michael) continue to float Christie’s name as a possible deus ex machina who could parachute into the race and thread the needle between the emotion-driven Tea Party and the nuts-and-bolts Republican establishment. Indeed, if Gov. Christie were to announce a presidential run in the next couple of weeks, he would be emulating a governor who threw his hat into the ring for the Democratic presidential nomination almost precisely two decades prior. And like Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, Gov. Christie would be bringing with him a unique combination of personal traits and political skills that would allow him to open up large swaths of the American electorate to his political party.

Both Gov. Clinton and Gov. Christie hailed from “enemy territory,” as it were. Clinton’s roots in the Deep South were pivotal in his ability to package himself as a new sort of Democrat, i.e., a Democrat who understood the concerns and the culture of Americans who voted for Reagan/Bush in the ’80s. While the concept of red states and blue states had yet to be formulated at the time, the Deep South constituted the region that had undergone a dramatic shift towards the Republicans beginning in the 1960s, with Barry Goldwater’s failed presidential run garnering him only six states: Arizona, and a handful of states in the heart of Dixie. Following Goldwater’s loss was Nixon’s Southern Strategy, and then the mass conversion of conservative Southern Democrats into Reagan Republicans in the late ’70s and early ’80s. By 1990, it was clear that the Democrats had lost Dixie, hence the need for a Democratic nominee who understood the region’s values and cultural cues.

Similarly, Gov. Christie comes from the Northeast, a region that was once comprised of proud Yankee Republicans. Yet as recently as 2010, the region that once gave Alf Landon his only electoral votes in his race against FDR seemed hopeless for Republicans, with the supposedly competitive House races in states like Maine and Connecticut falling into the Democrats’ column. Gov. Christie, though, managed to win a gubernatorial election in midnight blue New Jersey not only as a Republican, but as a conservative, and has governed as the same with striking results. As such, Gov. Christie has demonstrated the ability to communicate red ideas to blue voters, in blue lingo and with blue cultural cues, just as Bill Clinton was able to sell blue ideas wrapped in a bright red bow to Middle America, which had rejected Democratic policies throughout the ’70s and ’80s. That’s because Bill Clinton understood his audience in the South and in Rural America, just as Gov. Christie will be a natural communicating to Northerners and to Suburban America.

But the comparisons don’t end there. Bill Clinton seemingly emanated from the rural South, a region that Democrats desperately needed to start winning back in order to remain relevant back in the ’90s. Chris Christie gives off the vibe of a working class, urban Northerner, similar to Rudy Giuliani. The white working class in the urban North is absolutely winnable by the GOP in 2012, but only with the right candidate, as these voters should not be confused with rural Northerners, nor with working class Southerners, all of whom bring with them distinct cultural cues and a slightly different set of priorities. Additionally, both Clinton and Christie seemed as if their respective working class roots had been refined by a strong education and a hearty dose of natural talent, something that made Bill Clinton the favorite of suburban women, and that could help Christie among suburban men, particularly educated professionals who believe in evolution but not in higher taxes.

Indeed, a Christie nomination in 2012 would be a real coup for the Republicans, just as Clinton’s nomination was for the Democrats in 1992. Clinton flipped entire swaths of the electoral map that had been written off for Democrats. Christie would have the potential to do the same for Republicans, as Pennsylvania and New Hampshire prepare to fall into the governor’s lap. Moreover, both Clinton and Christie bring with them a certain charisma, a personal touch that exudes authenticity, something that all politicians desire but that few can generate in any credible manner.

To be sure, should Gov. Christie decide not to take the plunge, I will be supporting Gov. Romney for president, who I believe will probably easily beat the president as well. If Christie is the Bill Clinton of this race, Romney is the race’s Paul Tsongas. Like Romney, Tsongas was viewed as a centrist, reasonable politician who probably would have beaten President Bush in 1992. But those were also the reasons that Tsongas couldn’t close the deal with the Democratic base, a problem that Romney seems to be running into in his quest to become the nominee. A Rick Perry nomination, on the other hand, would be the equivalent of the Democrats bringing back Michael Dukakis to run against President Bush in 1992. Both Dukakis and Perry give off cultural cues that only resonate with the voters already inclined to vote for their respective political party, and both haven’t a clue how to communicate their ideas to voters who aren’t from their party’s base region. Would Dukakis have beaten a flailing President Bush in 1992? Who knows. The point is that it would have been a crapshoot at best. Meanwhile, Tsongas likely would have won, and Clinton did win. In any case, we’ll know in at most a month, given various filing deadlines, whether Gov. Christie is truly reconsidering his series of Shermanesque statements about the race for 2012.

Invoking class warfare backfired on both Al Gore and John Kerry and will torpedo Barack Obama says Mark Penn:

When Al Gore faced a close presidential race in 2000, he abandoned running on peace and prosperity in favor of the people vs. the powerful, only to see his lead evaporate. When John Kerry was facing a tough race in 2004, he spent the last few months after the convention tacking to the left on the Iraq war and other issues to stimulate the base, only to fall even farther behind.But when Bill Clinton was facing the fight of his political life in his 1996 re-election, he got rid of all the class warfare language used by traditional Democrats, got behind welfare reform and the balanced budget, and supported a strong, activist government that spent and taxed less rather than more. As a result, Clinton trounced the Republican nominee and was the first Democrat to serve a full eight years since Roosevelt. And the country got behind the president.

Obama’s team actually believes that in the last six months they have courted independent voters and that didn’t work, so now they are turning to activating the base with higher taxes on the wealthy. However, he never made any meaningful appeal to those voters in terms they would understand. He supported extending the Bush tax cuts, temporarily zoomed up in the polls, and then promptly repudiated what he had done, only to then fall back down.

The 2010 mid-term elections were fought over Obama’s healthcare plan and on his plan to raise taxes on the wealthy by ending the Bush tax cuts. The results were, in his own words, a “shellacking.” After his most recent speech to Congress, voters in New York City’s Ninth Congressional District just elected a Republican for the first time since 1920.

And now, Obama is pressing the case for higher taxes, following in the footsteps of Walter Mondale. Higher taxes always seem to poll well, but in reality the country sees that as a last resort.

Be sure to read the entire piece here.

Yikes:

Recent polling shows President Obama attracting between 39% and 46% of the vote against a variety of potential Republican challengers. Despite those relatively low levels of support, the president has never trailed a Republican by more than three percentage points and has enjoyed large double-digit leads in some match-ups.

But always there are a decent number of voters who say they prefer a third option or are undecided. Currently, among those who are undecided, just 34% approve of the way the president has handled his job, while 64% disapprove. Among those who prefer a third option rather than Obama or a particular GOP candidate, the president’s numbers are even weaker: 13% approve, and 87% disapprove.

Put it all together, and the president earns approval from just 22% of those who currently are uncommitted to either a Republican candidate or Obama. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of this group disapprove. These figures include three percent (3%) who Strongly Approve of the president’s performance and 49% who Strongly Disapprove.

Read the rest here.

The old cliche of “Be careful what you wish for” has a corollary: “Be careful about what is predicted.” Last January I made the astonishing, almost reckless-appearing prediction that President Obama might not run for re-election. This was greeted by, shall we say, extreme skepticism from both Democrats and Republicans who perhaps thought I had drunk some hallucinatory drug-infused punch while attending a tea party. Now, nine months later, my prediction not only seems credible, it is growing more and more probable by the day. After the “impossible” upset of a Jewish Democrat in a special election in NY-9, a district which had not elected a Republican since 1920, Democrats across the nation are seeing the prospects of an historic landslide defeat in 2012 if Barack Obama is at the head of the ticket. Liberal editorialists are now calling for him to withdraw. Many in the media who had been infatuated with him, are now openly criticizing the president. His poll numbers are sinking to the lows for his presidency. The pressure is mounting for him to call it quits after one term.

Most Republicans and conservatives, for whom the Obama presidency has been a nightmare, are encouraged by this turn of events (although no one, on the right or the left, should feel good about the nation’s domestic and international decline).

I would suggest, however, that if Mr. Obama does indeed withdraw from running for re-election in 2012, the prospects for Republicans might not seem so hopeful as they might seem now. This is because the Democrats would be given the opportunity to nominate a “fresh face” who is not beholden to the Obama administration’s failures and woes, and might yet snatch victory in 2012 from a likely defeat.

Of course, early polls have Secretary of State Hillary Clinton leading the list of possible 2012 Democratic candidates, followed by Vice President Joe Biden. It is almost pure name recognition, and tells us little about what might happen if there were a contest. Most observers might also fall into the trap of predicting Mrs. Clinton’s nomination. I would suggest that she, like Mr. Biden, would have to defend the Obama record, especially since he would still be president during the entire presidential campaign. As Hubert Humphrey learned in 1968, that can be a toxic situation. Moreover, Mrs. Clinton inparticular would have to defend her own foreign policy failures in Honduras, Argentina and the Middle East.

If an open contest for the Democratic nomination were to develop in the next few months, significant Democrats without the burden of the Obama administration’s record would likely come forward. I am thinking not only of Governor Andrew Cuomo, perhaps the most exciting new face in the party, but also U.S. Senator Mark Warner of Virginia and former U.S. Senator Evan Bayh from Indiana. Freshman Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia, a former governor and a prominent Obama critic within the Democratic Party, could also emerge as a serious candidate.

What do all these potential “fresh face” candidates have in common? They are not radical liberals, but instead more moderate figures (as Bill Clinton was in 1992). They would not have to defend Obamacare and the president’s Middle East policies.

I still believe that Republicans win the U.S. senate in 2012, regardless of who wins the presidency, and maintain control of the U.S. House, but if Mr. Obama were not at the top of the ticket, the presidential race outcome might not be so rosy for the Republicans.

___________________________________________________________________________________

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

USA Today/Gallup National Republican Primary

• Perry – 31% (29)
• Romney – 24% (17)
• Paul – 13% (13)
• Bachmann – 5% (10)
• Cain – 5% (4)
• Gingrich – 5% (4)
• Santorum – 2% (3)
• Huntsman – 1% (1)

General Election Matchups:

• Romney – 49%
• Obama – 47%

• Obama – 50%
• Perry – 45%

Survey of 439 registered Republican voters (MoE +/-6%) and 889 registered voters (MoE +/-4%) was taken Sept 15-18. Numbers from the Gallup poll ending August 21 are in parentheses.

Other numbers from inside the poll: 44% of Americans say they definitely would not vote for Rick Perry; 35% say the same of Mitt Romney. Meanwhile, 53% of Republicans say they would vote in the primaries for whoever has the best chance of beating Obama; 43% say they would vote for whoever agrees with them on “almost all issues”.

Hat-tip: Breitbart.tv

In addition to the Jeff Flake endorsement from Arizona this morning, Team Romney has rolled out 22 new endorsements from the state of Georgia. The full list is below the fold, but some of the more important endorsers include the three men who led the Georgia campaigns of George W. Bush, Bob Dole, and George H.W. Bush, as well as former Governor Sonny Perdue’s Chief of Staff. (Gov Perdue endorsed Tim Pawlenty earlier in the race; could a Perdue endorsement of Romney be in the works as well?)

(more…)

This morning, team Romney announced the support of US Representative, and Senate candidate, Jeff Flake:

“I am proud to announce Congressman Flake’s support,” said Mitt Romney. “Having such a strong advocate for the taxpayer on my Arizona team will be crucial as I reach out to voters across the state and spread my pro-growth message.”

“This election will be an important moment in our nation’s history,” said Congressman Flake. “The next president will be charged with reversing the failed policies of the last three years and making sure the future is as bright for our children as it was for the generations before them. Mitt Romney has the experience and vision to get our country on the right path again. Whether it was his time as governor or as a successful businessman, Mitt Romney has shown that he has the economic knowledge to create the environment for businesses to start hiring again.”

Flake is a conservative icon, making this a big “get” for Romney in the now-early state of Arizona. In 2008, Flake endorsed his home-state candidate John McCain.

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey notes over at Hot Air:

Flake’s endorsement might have an outsized impact on the perceptions of Romney in this Tea Party environment. Flake’s credentials as a small-government conservative are nearly unimpeachable; while a lot of Republicans claim to have been Tea Party before Tea Party was cool, Flake is the genuine article. He fought his own party as much as the opposition in attempting to end pork-barrel spending, and got locked out of the Appropriations Committee for his efforts until this session. He was an early banner-carrier for Porkbusters on Capitol Hill, and eventually began looking like a prophet when the GOP lost Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008. Flake has provided a consistent voice for smaller government, dramatic cuts to spending, and a return to federalism.

One might have expected Flake to gravitate more towards his Tea Party colleague Michele Bachmann, or perhaps Rick Perry. Choosing Romney seems counter-intuitive, especially with RomneyCare on the record. That may give the endorsement even more power among small-government conservatives who admire Flake’s independence and enthusiasm for their cause.

What do Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and Herman Cain all have in common? Besides the fact they are all running for President this year, they all share something else as well: their endorsement of Mitt Romney in the 2008 GOP primary.

All three are now “rivals” to Mitt Romney in the current primary season – and I use that term loosely, because none of the three have thrown up anything but token and generic attacks against the once-front runner. As everyone knows, politics is largely an iceberg game: what we get to see is only about 10% of what actually goes on behind the scenes. Deals are struck. Quid pro quos are offered, accepted, and fulfilled. Backs are scratched. And the public is blissfully unaware (which, on a side note, is precisely why books like The Politician and Game Change are incredibly fascinating to me).

I have been wondering lately: what if these three play a deeper role in the 2012 primary? What if they all plan on endorsing Romney again when they eventually drop out of the race (provided Rick Perry isn’t the far and away favorite to win at the time), and they plan to do as much damage to Romney’s rivals as they can until that time?

It doesn’t seem overly or ridiculously outlandish when you think about it. Romney knows how the game is played. He watched his rivals make deals and team up against him in 2008. So what is to stop him from seizing the same opportunity this time around? To approach Bachmann, Santorum, and Cain and offer them something — positions in his administration, debt repayment, who knows? — in return for a non-aggression pact of sorts, along with an eventual endorsement?

I began thinking about this scenario again when I read Jonathan Martin’s piece over at Politico, Rick Perry’s pain is Mitt Romney’s gain:

Mitt Romney’s path to the Republican nomination became clearer [last] Monday night — and it had little to do with his attacks on Rick Perry over Social Security. Instead, it was the fire Perry took from the right at the CNN-Tea Party Express debate that suddenly seemed more threatening to the Texas governor’s chances than Romney.

Perry was sharply criticized by Michele Bachmann for his support of vaccinating girls against HPV and whether he did so as a favor to an aide-turned-lobbyist and a pharmaceutical firm, he was hit by Rick Santorum for his opposition to a border fence and backing of Texas legislation to give the children of illegal immigrants in-state college tuition, and he was dinged by Ron Paul over whether taxes have gone up in Texas…

That might be the Texan’s chief vulnerability and his main rival’s best hope: that the Republican undercard of Bachmann, Santorum and Paul remain in the race to bloody Perry so much on his right flank that Romney can consolidate enough of the GOP establishment to eke out a plurality victory.

It’s true: aside from (rightfully) taking on Perry as being too extreme on social security, Romney has been content to let the “undercard” do all the dirty work for him against the Texas Governor. Meanwhile, Romney gets to appear Presidential while Perry fights downward, getting muddied and bloodied in the trenches.

There is quite the contrast between the virtually non-existent, half-hearted attacks from the undercard against Romney when he was the double digit frontrunner, and the harsh attacks they are now leveling at the new frontrunner. I have a feeling it has something to do with how Romney is deftly maneuvering through the system this time around.

But it’s not only the current undercard that carries a hint of promise for the Massachusetts Governor. Having Tim Pawlenty in the Romney camp now is powerful news for two of the most important states in the nominating process: Iowa and South Carolina.

In Iowa, all the rumors were pointing toward Governor Branstad endorsing either Tim Pawlenty or Mitt Romney. As reported here on Race back in February, Branstad was “generally counted in the Pawlenty camp” by those plugged in with Iowa politics. But Branstad also had deep ties to Romney – Romney endorsed him for Governor in 2010 when Branstad was running against conservative firebrand Bob Vander Plaats (whom Mike Huckabee endorsed). Romney’s PAC loaded Branstad with cash via multiple donations. Even more significant, however, was the fact that many Romney campaign hands from 2008 went to Iowa to work for Branstad’s campaign in 2010. Additionally, Branstad’s former chief of staff Bob Rafferty signed onto the Romney campaign last month. It’s not difficult to see, with all these personal ties and with Pawlenty there to nudge him over the top, an eventual Branstad endorsement of Romney in Iowa.

And further south, Pawlenty again gives Romney some leverage in the first-in-the-south primary. As Kavon reported back in May here on Race, South Carolina operatives were quoted as saying Governor Nikki Haley was “in the bag for Pawlenty” — a sentiment echoed at the time by at least a half dozen South Carolina insiders. Among other connections between Pawlenty and Haley was the fact that Haley’s political adviser signed on to be Pawlenty’s pollster. So now I have to guess Mitt Romney will be sending (or has sent) Tim Pawlenty down to South Carolina in order to woo the Governor’s affection… Oh, and when it comes to getting Governor Haley’s endorsement, it also can’t hurt that just a couple days ago, Romney gained endorsements from the former NRLB chairman and Boeing’s lead counsel in the current NRLB case, and added both to his campaign team.

The bottom line is this: in 2008, Romney watched his chance at the nomination slip away in part because he failed to consolidate the support of his rivals (to put it nicely). Not being one to make the same mistake twice, it is easy to imagine a scenario where Bachmann, Cain, and Santorum are all backing Mitt, and where surprise endorser Pawlenty is being utilized to leverage some key endorsements in the early states.

With President Obama’s approval among young voters dipping to all-time lows, the Republican Party – most notably, the College Republican National Committee – has sensed an opportunity to take back some of the support it has ceded to Democrats in the last two decades:

The young people in the ad look dissatisfied and pouty. Barack Obama’s voice and the words “winning the future,” from one of his old campaign speeches, echo in the background.

“You’re LOSING my future,” says one young man.

The ad, which has aired during sportscasts, reality TV shows and late-night comedy programs popular with younger people, was produced for the College Republican National Committee. It is an attempt to play on the fears that haunt college students, that they won’t find jobs and will be living with less than their parents did.

Their fears aren’t exclusive to their generation. But given that it seems to taken hold in a voting bloc that helped elect Obama with a wave of hope and change, there could be an opening for Republicans, unless the president vbnbcan find a way to get young people fired up again.

For those who wish to view the ad the article mentioned, here it is:

You’ll notice that not once does the ad mention social issues. I would consider this a very wise strategy, as most young voters have bought into the false characterization of the GOP the media has created – of an organization concerned first and foremost with imposing a socially conservative agenda driven by faith, not rational thought, on an unobliging populace (in short, the culture wars taken to an extreme). Now, that may qualify as a slight exaggeration, but it does capture the general viewpoint of young voters. By couching its appeal to young Americans in fiscal and economic concerns, the party can broaden its ranks without abandoning the socially conservative tenets of its platform and thus antagonizing a vital component of its coalition.

2012 Republican Presidential Nomination

It’s probably the case that Rick Perry has peaked.  How hard and fast his star will fall depends on how well he maintains himself from here on out.  By staying aloof but substantive, Perry could manage to level off a few points ahead of Romney.  It might be wise for Perry, at this point, to completely ignore his Republican competitors and launch an all-out offensive against Obama, trying to convey himself as the best general election choice.  I’ve been surprised at how quickly Romney went into attack mode against Perry, and kind of disappointed at the weakness of some of Romney’s anti-Perry arguments (Criticizing the “Social Security is a Ponzi scheme” comment in this Tea Party day and age?  Really?  Does Romney not know that most of the conservative base these days agrees with Perry on this?).

In any case, I think it would also be wisest for Romney to ignore Perry, focus on Obama, and just wait for Perry to trip up (Perry’s debate performances have, after all, been horribly painful to watch–I can almost see the gears in his brain struggling to turn during those long, awkward pauses).  History favors a Romney nomination anyway.

Bachmann seems to be leveling, after most of the star dust from her first debate performance was shaken loose by several weeks of attacks by Democrats and startled Republican competitors.  Gingrich’s “be everybody’s friend but the media’s” strategy also seems to be paying a little bit of dividend, as his slide into single digits has halted, and he has seen a slight uptick in support over the past couple weeks.

Meanwhile, Huntsman’s failure to gain polling traction is becoming so worrisome that some news sources have pointed out he’s actually risking missing the cut for some of the upcoming debates.  Johnson, on the other hand, after being inexplicably removed from CNN’s polls (right after tying with Cain and doubling Santorum/Huntsman’s support) can look forward to being added to PPP’s polling to replace Sarah Palin, for whom the window to enter has all but passed.

Many people have come to the conclusion that the Republican race is already down to two: Mitt Romney v. Rick Perry. The other candidates, so conventional wisdom says, are just window dressing who really have no chance of making a big splash when the primaries begin. Well, if past Republican history is any indication, this conventional wisdom is completely wrong.

Republican history shows that GOP presidential primaries never narrow down to two this quickly. In every past Republican primary, there has always been a strong 3rd candidate to rival the two front-runners. In 1980, John Anderson nearly won Vermont and Massachusetts against both George Bush and Ronald Reagan. In 1988, Pat Robertson was the third man in the Bush v. Dole battle. In 1996, Dole faced Buchanan, Forbes and Alexander, and the first three all won primaries. In 2000, Bush fought McCain in New Hampshire, after he had to face Steve Forbes in Iowa. In 2008 we all remember it being a McCain v. Romney v. Huckabee fight. In short, Republican primaries always have a third man performing strongly before the race narrows down to two. This naturally raises the question though; who will be the third person in the Republican race?

Well, let’s look at the remainder of the field:

Bachmann: The Minnesota Congresswoman is the most obvious choice. After winning the Ames Straw Poll and knocking out Tim Pawlenty, Bachmann has significantly faded since Perry jumped into the race. She appeared to gain some of it back in the last debate by raking Perry across the coals over the HPV vaccine. However, Bachmann’s penchant for not knowing when to shut up appeared afterwards when she began openly saying that the vaccine causes retardation, something repudiated by every scientist who weighed in on it. Bachmann is a flamethrower, and you know what they say about playing with fire. There is still a chance Bachmann will implode before Iowa, which leaves the door open for another third candidate.

Paul: It’s clear that Ron Paul has a…err…fervent following. It’s also clear that he really dislikes Governor Perry. The two Texans have brawled in both debates that Perry has been in. However, what’s abundantly obvious is that Ron Paul is simply not acceptable to the majority of Republicans because of his isolationist foreign policy. Paul, sometimes called the grandfather of the Tea Party, was booed at the Tea Party Debate when he reiterated his belief that the U.S. was responsible for 9/11. Ron Paul has his supporters, and they are passionate for their man. But, there are not enough of them for Paul to be anything but a spoiler.

Santorum: Rick Santorum came in 4th place in Ames and won a straw poll in his home state of Pennsylvania. Santorum is both a strong foreign policy conservative and a social con, making him acceptable to the majority of the Republican electorate. The Pennsylvanian has had some strong debate performances, but he’s struggled to gain any traction in the polls. If Bachmann implodes and her forces are looking for a home in Iowa away from Rick Perry, they might gravitate to Senator Santorum.

Cain: Much like Rick Santorum, Herman Cain has an opportunity to gain the support of Bachmannites if the Minnesotan implodes. Cain has maintained a core of around 5% in the polls. Cain burst onto the scene after the South Carolina debate but then stumbled and has since struggled to regain momentum. With Bachmann increasingly going head-to-head with Rick Perry, there might be an opening for Herman Cain. After all, John Kerry and John Edwards only began rising in Iowa when Gephardt and Dean tore each other to shreds in 2004.

Gingrich: Ever since the en masse resignation of his campaign staff, the former Speaker has struggled to be perceived as a strong candidate. The accusation that Gingrich is completely undisciplined seemed to be confirmed. Despite this Gingrich, like Cain, is keeping around 5% of the electorate. Gingrich has also shown to be one of the best debaters in the Republican field. Gingrich has tried to assume the role of elder statesman, going after the media for trying to divide the Republicans. If the race becomes particularly nasty, especially between the frontrunners, Gingrich’s calls for party unity might start to resonate with the GOP electorate.

Huntsman: The dream scenario for the Perry campaign would be seeing Jon Huntsman start rising in the polls. The former Utah Governor has been hot and cold in the debates, but he has so far been unable to raise his standings in the polls. Recently, the Huntsman campaign has started to scale down their activities in Florida to put everything into New Hampshire, trying to replicate the McCain strategy. Huntsman’s best, and probably only, hope is to start eating into Romney’s New Hampshire base and winning enough independents to pull off an upset.

Whether these scenarios happen or something completely different comes into fruition, it would be ignoring past history to assume that the GOP race is already down to two.

CNN reports that another prominent politician – one who will award one of the most highly sought-after endorsements of the 2012 election cycle – has supported HPV vaccines in the past:

As the debate over Texas Gov. Rick Perry mandating the HPV vaccine continues between Republican presidential candidates, a woman whose endorsement is coveted by all them, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, has her own complicated history on the issue.

In 2007, shortly before Perry issued an executive order requiring that schoolgirls be vaccinated against the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus, or HPV, that causes most cervical cancers, Haley was throwing her support behind a similar bill in South Carolina. At the time she was in her second term as a state representative.

State Rep. Joan Brady introduced the Cervical Cancer Prevention Act in South Carolina, and the Republican corralled more than 60 legislators, including Haley, to sponsor the bill. Unlike the executive order for which Perry is taking heat, this legislative mandate did not include a provision for parents to opt out of inoculating their daughters.

Within months, fierce opposition mounted, and legislative records back up accounts from sources who recall sponsors “dropping like flies” before a unanimous vote killed the bill on April 18, 2007.

…State Rep. Kris Crawford, a physician who led the debate to discredit the policy resulting in the bill’s demise, said even though Haley voted against the bill like everybody else he wondered why she didn’t remove herself as a bill sponsor if she opposed the mandate.

Now, do I take this as a signal that Haley favors Perry for the nomination? Absolutely not. However, intellectual honesty mandates (pun most certainly intended) that we acknowledge that more elected officials than Perry have past dealings with this issue.

For the record, I don’t see Haley making an endorsement until after at least New Hampshire. With so much influence over the nominating process, she would risk too much by going out on a limb and backing a candidate who has not proven they can win one of the first two contests. A much more prudent strategy would involve gambling that she could play a Charlie Crist-like role, waiting long enough to push a certain individual over the top in a close race.

CBS / New York Times National Republican Primary

• Perry – 23%
• Romney – 16%
• Bachmann – 7%
• Gingrich – 7%
• Cain – 5%
• Paul – 5%
• Palin – 3%
• Huntsman – 1%
• Santorum – 1%

Survey of 747 Republican primary voters was conducted Sept 10-15.

Two-term New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson today unveiled an ambitious plan to bike across the entire state of New Hampshire, holding town hall meetings in over 20 Granite State cities, while raising an extra $200,000 during the week to be directly invested in primetime NH television ads, radio ads, several billboards, direct mailings, and lit drops, with the goal of raising his polling numbers in the early primary state to the 5-10% range in short order.

The trip not only highlights Gov. Johnson’s laser-like commitment to New Hampshire, but also his rigorous regimen of physical discipline and ambitious goal-setting–a quality the Governor often parallels with how he would get America back on the right fiscal track as President.  While other candidates outspend Johnson by a factor of anywhere from 32-1 (Romney) to 2-1 (Santorum), and the dinosaur media networks struggle to find cute ways to exclude the two-term Governor and 20-year entrepreneur, while still including those like Cain, Santorum, and Huntsman, who are now tied with or below Johnson in recent polls, Johnson continues to slog it out in the first in the nation primary state.

As his polling and fundraising numbers continue to improve, particularly in New Hampshire, it will be interesting to see how long it takes for the media to realize Gov. Johnson is a candidate to be taken seriously.

YouGov National Republican Primary

	Sep 3-6	Sep 10-13
Perry	29%	24%
Romney	13%	17%
Giuliani	9%	8%
Palin	8%	8%
Paul	8%	8%
Cain	5%	7%
Bachmann	5%	5%
Gingrich	3%	5%
Huntsman	5%	2%
Santorum	1%	2%
Other / None	14%	14%

If the choice were just between Rick Perry and Mitt Romney:

• Perry – 41%
• Romney – 38%

Please note that the movement indicated above takes into account the first debate (on Sept 7). The second sample has three days of polling prior to the second debate (on Sept 12) and just one done after it. So according to YouGov, there was a nine-point swing to Romney in the aftermath of the first debate leading into the second one.

Quinnipiac Connecticut Republican Primary

• Romney – 37%
• Perry – 19%
• Bachmann – 8%
• Palin – 4%
• Cain – 3%
• Paul – 3%
• Huntsman – 2%
• Santorum – 1%

General Election Matchups:

• Obama – 49%
• Romney – 36%

• Obama – 52%
• Perry – 33%

Favorability Ratings Among Repbulicans:

• Romney – 64/11
• Perry – 41/8

Favorability Among Independents:

• Romney – 31/25
• Perry – 14/29

Favorability Among General Election Population:

• Romney – 34/28
• Perry – 16/33

Survey was taken Sept 8-13 of 332 registered Republicans (margin of error +/-5.4%) and 1,230 registered voters (margin of error +/-2.8%).

Rasmussen Reports General Election Matchup

• Obama – 46% (41)
• Perry – 39% (44)

Survey of 1,000 likely voters was taken Sept 14-15 and has a margin of error of +/-3%. Numbers in parentheses are from their September 1 poll.

Two debate debacles = a ten point swing away from Rick Perry. For comparison sake, here are the recently polled general election matchups with Romney and Bachmann:

• Romney – 43% (39)
• Obama – 40% (43)

• Obama – 46% (46)
• Bachmann – 33% (38)