According to Politico, the Paul campaign made a six figure buy to run this ad in multiple states, and is trying to get it run on MSNBC during the debate tomorrow night.

Renowned political scientist and election analyst Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia is out with an update on his assessment of the 2012 election. I find it hard to disagree with his current analysis, although I might be inclined to raise the odds a bit on Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, depending on the GOP ticket and the tone and character of the campaign.
Rather than comment further, read Sabato’s op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal here.

Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey is that rare political phenomenon in American politics, a natural communicator with intuitive appeal that reaches, because of his personality, outside his ideological base. (Only Ronald Reagan, in recent memory, is comparable.)

Mr. Christie emerged suddenly on the national stage when he won an upset victory over an entrenched and seemingly unbeatable New Jersey politician who had previously been a U.S. senator and, before that, a Wall Street mogul. The year was 2009, and it had been a very bad time for Republicans and conservatives. They had lost control of the Congress in 2006, and the presidency in 2008. Radically liberal ideas were not only resurfacing for the first time in a long while, they were being enacted and signed into law. Liberals, after two terms of President George W. Bush were claiming and expecting a full realignment in U.S. politics.

There were only three major election contests in the 2009 off-year elections, and they included the hitherto Democratic-dominated political battlefields of Massachusetts and Virginia, in addition to New Jersey. No one right of center seemed sanguine then about the political present and future.

But President Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid began misplaying their hands early by pushing for radical programs and avoiding the most pressing economic issues facing the nation. So less than one year after taking complete control of the government, the public began reacting against the Democratic leadership. The election of Republican Scott Brown was the first hard evidence of this reaction, and his defeat of a Democratic nominee for the “Ted Kennedy” senate seat in Massachusetts was a sensation. At the same time, two Republican candidates for governor, one in Virginia (Bob McDonnell) and one in New Jersey (Christie) won their races against favored Democratic candidates. The 2009 elections turned out to be an omen for the landslide win for Republicans in U.S. house and senate, state gubernatorial and legislature races the following year in 2010.

Brown, reflecting his state’s more liberal electorate, has disappointed some conservatives, but McDonnell has impressively turned Virginia around with his consistently right of center policies and programs. Perhaps most surprising of all three, Christie confronted liberal forces and groups memorably with both words and action, and has established himself as an emotional and ideological favorite of many Republicans outside his home state.

In the lead-up to the 2012 presidential campaign, Christie has been as frequently mentioned as a candidate as much or more than any other new GOP figure, but he has steadfastly (to the present time) resisted any attempts to bring him in as a candidate. He has maintained that he is only in the third year of his first term as governor, and that he still has children at home. On the other hand, he has increasingly appeared outside New Jersey to assist Republican candidates.

It was such an appearance in October, 2010 that Mr. Christie came to Minnesota to appear on behalf of the GOP ticket in the state. On a platform shared with three presidential candidates (Tim Pawlenty, Haley Barbour and Michele Bachmann) and several other conservative stars, Mr. Christie quickly dominated the proceedings with his inimitable “in your face” style that instantly charmed the assembled crowd, most of whom had neither heard of him nor seen him in person before. I had been skeptical of his ability to do it routinely before this occasion, even though I had seen him perform on several You Tube videos and newscasts. Since that time it has been much more of the same, most recently in his “Get the hell off the beach” warning to coastal residents and visitors to New Jersey just prior to the arrival of Hurricane Irene.

Governor Christie seems to be unflappable and uninitimidatable before the verbal onslaughts of individual liberals and liberal groups, most notably the labor unions which have hitherto dominated state and Democratic politics for a generation. I can think of no other Republican politician who can do this so well and so consistently. At the same time, he is establishing a remarkable record of instituting conservative polices in New Jersey. Of course, in the latter he is far from alone. Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin, Governor Mitch Daniels in Indiana, and Governor Bob McDonnell are doing at least as well, as are numerous other new Republican governors (and two notable Democratic ones, Governor Andrew Cuomo in New York and Governor Jerry Brown in his reprise as chief executive of “ungovernable” California).

Mr. Christie’s political record is also not without controversies, including his time as U.S. attorney of New Jersey (2000-08), and most recently with his appointment to the New Jersey supreme court of an Indian-American Muslim.

Others in his party have more political experience, longer conservative records, and more aesthetic appearance (Mr. Christie is easily the most portly major figure in the Republican party since William Howard Taft). But there is something magical, powerful and contemporaneously unique in his ability to communicate that singles Chris Christie out in American politics today. He is an unlikely combination of Fiorello LaGuardia, Winston Churchill and Everyman that points him eventually to a run for the presidency.

The only question is: will it be now or later?

_____________________________________________________________________

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

Mitt Romney is set to unveil his “plan for jobs and economic growth” tomorrow from Nevada, one of the hardest-hit states in the Great Recession. According to a preview he has given in a new USA Today Op-Ed piece, it promises to be a doozy:

Barack Obama has had his turn at fixing the American economy. Millions of unemployed Americans can judge by their own experiences what he has done and failed to do. For my part, I believe America can do better.

I have spent most of my career in the private sector starting new businesses and turning around ailing ones. Unlike career politicians who’ve never met a payroll, I know why jobs come and go.

Tomorrow, I will introduce a plan consisting of 59 specific proposals — including 10 concrete actions I will take on my first day in office — to turn around America’s economy. Each proposal is rooted in the conservative premise that government itself cannot create jobs. At best, government can provide a framework in which economic growth can occur. All too often, however, government gets in the way. The past three years of unparalleled government expansion have retaught that lesson all too well.

Amen to that, Governor. Some of those 59 proposals Romney hints at are as follows:

• Keep marginal income tax rates low; eliminate taxes on interest, dividends, and capital gains for middle income Americans
• Lower the corporate tax rate
• Eliminate “Obamacare”
• Limit every government agencies’ annual increase in regulatory costs to zero
• Eliminate any federal regulations that unduly burden job creation
• Fight labor union programs such as card check, and not tolerate federal intrusions like the NLRB filing suit against Boeing
• Implement one rational program for worker retraining — instead of funding 47 different programs run by nine different government agencies
• Cut the federal budget and place an “ironclad cap” on spending
• Press for a balanced budget amendment
• Rollback the number of federal government jobs (a sector that has grown 7% under Obama)

Those bullet points really don’t do the op-ed any justice, though. Make sure you read the whole thing.

Folks, tomorrow when Romney rolls out his plan, we will witness what is likely to be the most comprehensive plan in recent primary campaign history — on any subject. Back at the beginning of 2007, I was searching for a candidate to support when I heard Romney’s speech to the Detroit Economic Club. As I wrote here on Race back then, I got goosebumps listening to his speech. The level of detail in his proposals and the understanding of the economy he displayed are the reasons I originally became a Romney supporter. For fiscal/economic nerds like me, the unveiling of his plan tomorrow promises to be a similar experience.

I’ll close with these words which Cesar Conda penned for NRO back in 2007 – and are apropos today:

As a long-time member of the supply-side cabal, I’m convinced that Governor Romney is the best candidate to extend the Art Laffer–Jack Kemp–Ronald Reagan supply-side revolution into the 21st century. Unlike the other GOP presidential candidates, Mitt Romney learned about free-market capitalism not from textbooks or Washington policy debates, but by practicing it for 25 years as an entrepreneur in the private sector.

People have been trying to draw all manner of parallels between the Presidential election and a historic election. But, the more I keep looking at the GOP primary, the more I see parallels between it and the Democratic primary in 2004. How so? I’ll tell you.

Rick Perry as Howard Dean – Both men are outspoken, unapologetic about their views, and quickly became frontrunners. They are each Governors from base states that very rarely go the other way. Both were fairly successful in their home states. Both have taken views which are controversial to some in the middle and very much so to those on the other side. Both, in my opinion, had the best shot of winning in the general election. I am still convinced that Dean would have beaten Bush. He was energetic, consistent in his views, and had serious criticisms of the President that he could mount and explain how he would do things differently. In many ways Dean was the anti-Bush; Perry is in many ways the anti-Obama. A socially conservative, brash, shoot from the hip Governor with tons of experience against a heavily canned life-time legislator who talks at the people.

Mitt Romney as John Kerry - John Kerry was an uninspiring candidate who had difficulty attacking the President on the number one issue people cared about – the War in Iraq. Why? Kerry had supported it early on and appeared to be a “flip-flopper” when he switched his views on the issues. People didn’t trust Kerry, they just did not know what Kerry they were going to get. Fairly or unfairly, many people feel the same way about Mitt Romney. Romney’s not as exciting on the stump as some of the more flashy candidates. He, like John Kerry, is the generic candidate that they poll. He’s the safe choice. He won’t make the base super excited, but he won’t make them actively campaign against you.

Michele Bachmann as John Edwards – No, I don’t think Michele Bachmann is a cheater or has the personal issues John Edwards had. What Bachmann is, is a candidate who fires up the base with rhetoric that they can eat up. Her problem? Much like Edwards her experience is not very deep. I like Michele Bachmann, but like Edwards I’m unconvinced she can win the primary or the general election. That said, I can definitely see Bachmann included on the short list if a candidate wins who needs help rallying the base.

Ron Paul as Dennis Kucinich – Both are kookier candidates who have talked about aliens, new world orders, and other things that the average voter doesn’t care about hearing about. Both are members of Congress. Neither have a chance of getting the nomination. Ever.

Herman Cain as Al Sharpton – No, it’s not because they’re both black. Both of them are former Baptist Ministers who have a way with words when it comes to rallying up the base. Both of them have no political experience except for failed primary bids for public office. Both are great on the radio. Both are great at articulating exactly what base voters love to hear on the issues. Both have made the occasional comment that incites anger on the other side. But, there’s a flaw in this comparison. The biggest flaw is that Cain is a) a more serious contender than Sharpton ever was; b) is more articulate on the issues than Sharpton; and c) has a wealth of business experience which is far more relevant to the office of Presidency than Sharpton’s experience. I like Cain, a lot. I donated to his campaign early on. That said, I’m afraid that like Sharpton Cain does not have a clear path to the nomination. Unlike Sharpton, he may be considered for a cabinet post.

Jon Huntsman as Wesley Clark – Huntsman has very little place in the primary. He’s not a base exciter, he’s not the establishment choice, he’s not the safe choice. He just is. So was Wesley Clark. He looked like he could have a shot and the media love each of them. But, in the end neither of them received the nomination. Yea, I’m calling this one.

Newt Gingrich as Dick Gephardt - Both are former House leaders who have good ideas. Both seemed VERY early on like they had the potential to be solid candidates. Both of them were unable to capitalize on their experience to get the nomination. That’s right, calling this one too now – Gingrich won’t get the nomination.

That’s how I see the primary. At the moment, I can see Romney readily getting the nomination if we go for the safe choice. That said, I see the less safe choice, Rick Perry, as the more likely to win in the general election. His narrative, ability to excite the base, and the serious differences between him and the President would make it a more interesting and, in my opinion, more competitive election. This is not to say that I dislike the other contenders. I like Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Bachmann…and would vote for any of them. Romney may be able to win, Cain or Bachmann may be able to win. This is just the way I see it now.

You’ll notice that I did not mention Santorum, McCotter, or Johnson. Frankly, I’m surprised the Santorum / Johnson have not dropped out by now, specifically Johnson who has no money and no natural base of support with Ron Paul in the race. And McCotter? Well, he’s a vanity candidate who needed to make a big splash when he entered to have any chance. He didn’t.

Also, I apologize to Ron Paul fans. I have no beef with you, I just don’t like Ron Paul. The 80 year old believer in a New World Order who allowed racially charged / sexists pieces to be written in his name will not be the nominee. If the race came down to any of the other potential current candidates, I would vote for them over Ron Paul. Even Rick Santorum, Gary Johnson, Thad McCotter, or Roy Moore.

_______________________________________________________

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

USC/Los Angeles Times 2012 California Primary Poll

• Rick Perry 22%
• Mitt Romney 22%
• Ron Paul 11%
• Michele Bachmann 10%
• Newt Gingrich 6%
• Herman Cain 4%
• Rick Santorum 1%
• Jon Huntsman 1%

Taken August 17-28, 2011 among 453 registered Republicans.

CNN will be broadcasting the event live at 3pm EST. You can also watch the forum live via the player below.

As you may have heard, Gov. Rick Perry was forced to withdraw from the event due to wildifires in Texas. Here is the official statement on the withdrawal:

Gov. Perry is cancelling the remainder of his South Carolina schedule today, including the Palmetto Freedom Forum, and tomorrow’s California schedule to return to Texas. Gov. Perry’s first priority is to the people of Texas during this natural disaster. The Governor is in close communication with emergency operations officials regarding fires in Texas, including discussions with emergency management leaders over the weekend and this morning

Live streaming by Ustream

As always, have at it in the comments!

Mitt Romney’s speech at a Tea Party Express event in Concord, New Hampshire, may have provided a telling illustration of the fundamental political dynamics that may prevent him from fighting off Rick Perry for the Republican nomination:

If former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney came in search of elusive tea party mojo, he didn’t find it here at a small Tea Party Express rally, where a few dozen conservatives sat in lawn chairs and argued about Romney’s conservative bona fides.

…Romney’s supporters couldn’t have been more out of place at an event festooned with characters such as former Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle and the blunt symbols of the tea party movement — images of one stick figure shooting another under the heading “socialism” and of an automatic weapon with the legend, “Come and Get It.”

Romney’s supporters hail from a different Republican Party, said Bill Gordon, a retired software engineer from Lowden, who dressed his poodle in a blue Romney shirt.

“I want somebody’s who’s in the center who can pull people together from both sides,” he said. “We’ll tear this country apart if we swing all the way the other way — we already swung all the way left.”

The event reflected some tension inside the tea party movement, with the Tea Party Express — a PAC organized by a California GOP consultant — taking heat from other local groups over the decision to allow Romney to speak to the group.

“He’s all right,” said Tom Homer, a tea party member and retired postal worker who was among the few who hadn’t come to the rally with fixed views on Romney. “But yet, he’s Establishment.”

Despite early polls that showed Romney drawing a majority of the Tea Party’s support (which presumably came about because of his high name recognition), the activists that comprise the Tea Party and the Republican base simply may not view Mitt as “one of them”. The last quote in the above excerpt demonstrates this.

Many in the Tea Party don’t seem to believe that Romney understands their concerns and frustrations with the current state of American politics. They feel shut out by both political parties (hence, the frequent criticisms of the Republican establishment). They also fear Romney may pay lip service to their desire to drastically reduce the size and scope of the government but then simply continue the status quo if he becomes President. Stated differently, they feel he doesn’t reciprocate their intense, visceral outrage with Washington.

Perry, on the other hand, survived his recent re-election battle and has emerged as the new frontrunner specifically because he has mastered the art of speaking the Tea Party’s language. And that simple reality may end up propelling him to the Republican nomination.

Rasmussen 2012 Iowa Caucuses Survey

If the 2012 Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus were held today would you vote for Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman or Thad McCotter?

• Rick Perry 29%
• Michele Bachmann 18%
• Mitt Romney 17%
• Ron Paul 14%
• Rick Santorum 4%
• Herman Cain 4%
• Jon Huntman 3%
• Newt Gingrich 2%

The survey of 862 Likely Iowa Republican Caucus Participants was conducted on August 31, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC.

Inside the numbers:

Perry has the support of 45% of Tea Party voters, while Romney holds a slight 24% to 20% lead over Perry among those who are not members of the grass roots movement.

This Labor Day weekend, liberal union leaders throughout the country will likely be askings, “What is that conservatives have against unions?” The popular culture preaches their virtues, yet conservatives have stood firm in opposing union excesses, and clash constantly with the unions’ legislative agenda.

It’s easy for the left to stereotype conservatives as callous rich businessmen, Alex Keaton wannabes, or plain anti-worker. The truth is conservatives have five legitimate concerns with modern day labor unions.

1) Unions Tend Towards Tyranny

Thomas Jefferson fought to protect Virginians from being forced by the government to fund Churches. In the Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, Jefferson wrote, “to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.”

Jefferson’s use of sinful and tyrannical fits well with what unions across the country do. The ideal situation for unions is to have a union shop where employees have to join the union in order to work, or at least pay union dues, which makes them involuntary contributors to causes they may not support.

The National Education Association, for example, gave over $13 million to left wing advocacy groups. The NEA took money from conservative teachers living in states where union membership wasn’t optional and gave the money to People for the American Way, the Rainbow-Push Coalition, Media Matters, and the Human Rights campaign.

Even with no specific religious or ideological objection, many workers want no part of a union, but find themselves compelled. Such was the case with a sixteen year-old part time grocery store clerk who realized that union membership would be of no benefit to her and was bullied by the Union and threatened with losing her job.

Unions in the 21st Century want to take away the rights of individuals to make their own decisions and to force them to join the Union. Nothing illustrates this more than the failed efforts for Card Check legislation, which would have eliminated the secret ballot in union certification elections and opened the door to more intimidation.

2) Union Corruption

The links between organized labor and organized crime are well documented. These links did not end with the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa. In January, a grand jury handed down indictments against several union officials alleging mafia ties.

Beyond the Sopranos stuff, there remains a significant amounts of embezzlement unions. A Buffalo, New York Union President just entered a guilty plea this week. Another New York Union leader allegedly took her union for $42 million. In recent years, teachers Unions in Washington, Massachusetts, and Dade County, Florida have suffered major embezzlement scandals.

The sheer volume of union corruption is jaw-dropping. That alone should lead to a re-examination of public support for unions.

3) Encouraging Mediocrity and Shielding Bad Actors:

Unions are notorious for protecting the jobs of people who perform poorly or misbehave at work. Nowhere is this more evident than in New York’s public school system. Thanks to the lengthy process to dismiss incompetent and abusive teachers, “rubber rooms” are maintained in which more than 700 teachers sit around and get paid full salary for doing nothing at a cost of millions of dollars per year to the taxpayer.

Teachers unions also oppose merit pay plans, claiming whether students do well in class is entirely out of their control, when studies show teacher quality is the biggest determining factor in how much students learn.

Union attitudes towards achievement are a turn off to people who might otherwise consider the teaching profession. A world where the good teachers make as much as the bad teachers is not one which will attract the best quality workers.

4) Demands that Ruin Business

Unions have contributed to the bankruptcy of several great companies, including GM and Chrysler, as well as United Airlines. Public employees pensions have put many states, such as California, on the verge of bankruptcy. Unions often deem the survival of the business they work for as secondary to getting larger health and pay packages.

The biggest damage done to businesses by unions have involved pensions and retiree health plans, but Union demands have gone beyond that. Thanks to the UAW, while GM was struggling to survive, they had to continue to pay laid off workers for years in a “Job Bank,” where they drew full salary to watch television, play board games, and read.

There was a time when unions fought against legitimately poor working conditions and sweatshop wages. In the 21st Century, unions serve mainly to drive up the cost of doing business in America and send jobs overseas.

5) The Opponents of Reform

Want to make government work more efficiently and do a better job providing services? The unions will be opposed. Powerful public employees’ unions pour massive amounts of money into campaigns and lobbying to kill efforts to reduce and reform government.

This is particularly noteworthy in education, where teachers don’t want any hard reforms passed. The unions are such diehards on opposing reform, they twice booed the President for proposing even the most meager changes to increase educational performance.

The constant opposition of teacher’s unions killed D.C.’s opportunity scholarships, taking educational opportunity away from more than 200 schoolchildren. Across the country, many students remain trapped in schools where they will never achieve their full potential, or remain on never-ending waiting lists to get into Charter schools for one reason and one reason only.

The teacher’s unions want it that way.

One famous teacher’s union president once declared, “When schoolchildren start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of schoolchildren.” Opposition to school choice highlights this point.

The good news for conservatives this Labor Day is that the tide has begun to turn. As union membership declines and union excesses become more notorious, Americans are becoming less favorable in their views towards unions. However, conservatives have a long way to go to counteract the negative impact Unions have on our country.

So with everyone in Washington suddenly worried about jobs (only nearly four years after the recession started, over 2.5 years since President Obama took office, and eight months after the GOP became the majority in the House of Representatives), it’s clear what the debate and media focus will be full of this week. Romney, Huntsman, Obama, and the House GOP are leading the charge on this, and everyone else is bound to fall in line.

However, let’s not let a little thing like 9.1% average unemployment and 25% unemployment for teenagers take us away from the heart and soul of the 2012 race for many politicos: bashing the other team. And with that in mind, here is a three-fer to attack the President with:

1. Obama’s policies, a continuation of bad Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan and pretty much every other modern President’s policies on immigration, have let around seven million illegal immigrants take jobs in America. With Friday’s employment numbers showing 14 million Americans unemployed, this means illegal immigrants are preventing unemployment from being lower than five percent.

2. An audit of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) found $4.2 billion in tax refunds went to illegal immigrants. (H/T to Hot Air.) Claims for the program under which the tax refunds were given have jumped from $953 million in 2005 to $4.2 billion in 2010.

3. Obama should work with Republicans to simplify our tax code, eliminating this kind of improper use of taxpayer funds. He should stop doing a backdoor amnesty. And he should join with Republicans in giving law-abiding Americans the opportunities to find work that his stimulus, Cash for Clunkers and his many other failed programs have been unable to do.

The one-line takeaway: An IRS audit shows 4.2 billion of your tax dollars went to illegal immigrants because of a loophole, while PolitiFact says seven million illegal immigrants have taken your jobs. What is President Obama doing about this? He’s pushing a backdoor amnesty and playing golf.

P.S. This is why I stick to writing about the Debt-Paying Generation, jobs, etc. from a policy perspective, and bash both parties- I feel like my hands are dirty after such a party-hack post… I need to go wash my keyboard now.

This isn’t exactly a pleasant post to write or to contemplate. After all, the thought of President Obama gaining a second term is enough to make any Republican or conservative unhappy. However, beating an incumbent President is not easy; as has been pointed out before, Jimmy Carter was leading Ronald Reagan well into October of the 1980 election. In short, there is no guarantee that even the best candidate will beat the incumbent. That being said, it is probably a good time to think about what might happen to the Republican Party if we fail to unseat President Obama in 2012.

A lot of the party’s reaction will depend on who the Republican nominee will be. If the Party nominates an Establishment, more moderate candidate and they leave, the cry from the party’s right-wing will be loud and furious. “We picked a so-called electable candidate and look what it got us?!” There are two things that might happen; first, the right might wage an all-out war for control of the Party. After the moderate Richard Nixon lost to Jack Kennedy, the right engaged in a full-scale attempt to take over the Republican Party. If this were to happen, expect a unified right-wing effort to pick the next Republican nominee, one far more tailored to their wants and desires much like Barry Goldwater in 1964. The other track would be what happened after Bob Dole lost to Bill Clinton. After that election, the Republican Party was desperate to win, so the next election cycle did not feature any ideological holy war. The 2000 contest for the nomination was between the moderate John McCain and the Establishment George W. Bush. However, given the nature of the Republican electorate right now, particularly the right, the former reaction seems far more likely than the latter.

If the Republicans nominate a Tea Party, hard-core right-winger, and they lose, it will be that side who is discredited. Republicans, who so far have placed the ability to beat President Obama as their highest priority in the polls, will probably turn their anger at those who insisted on purity over electability. If that were to happen, then, like what happened in 1968, the Republican Party will nominate a more pragmatic figure, one who can unite the Party and win in 2016. In that sort of scenario, a candidate like Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal, or Chris Christie (if he manages to get reelected) becomes very appealing. A would-be leader would talk about modernizing the GOP, much like Tony Blair and David Cameron did in their parties in Britain after long periods in the wilderness.

A Republican defeat in 2012 would be a very bitter one, not just for the party, but for the country. A second term for Obama would mean that there would be no new path to economic recovery, no real attempt to reform entitlements, and no real effort at tackling our deficit or debt. Those don’t even include other important issues such as foreign policy or judicial appointments. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather not have Barack Obama appoint anymore Supreme Court Justices. So, for all the reasons, it is vitally important that the scenarios I outlined above, contingent on a Republican defeat in 2012, don’t come to pass.

Via Huff Puff ‘n Stuff:

On Sunday, former George W. Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie was “actively” weighing the option of jumping into the Republican presidential race amid voter discontent with the current field.

“I don’t think Republicans regard this as a strong field,” Gerson said, during an appearance on ABC’s “This Week.” “So there is still talk of people getting in the race. Not just [Sarah] Palin but last week, Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey was in Chicago and had two meetings with serious Republican groups from the Midwest.”

“He is actively, I think, considering getting in this race, which would throw things open once more,” he added. “But the desire for that to happen … it shows that they are not happy with the current field, they think it needs to be filled out in an important way. I don’t know if that is going to happen, but the desire for many Republicans to expand this field shows that they are not content with it.”

A member of the Bush inner circle, Gerson’s criticism of the Republican field demonstrates just how despondent the Bushes would be at a Perry nomination. Gerson seems to be all but leaving the keys to the Bush Establishment under Christie’s doormat, hoping that the governor will leap into the race, probably with a campaign-in-waiting already intact courtesy of the nation’s most powerful and prominent Republican family. This once again demonstrates that the anti-Perry forces in the GOP have no faith in Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, or anyone else in the field to prevent the Texas governor from garnering the nomination.

Whatever the case, if Christie does run, he will assuredly shake things up.

In Campaign Spot, Jim Geraghty links to this interesting question tweeted by Jeff Greenfield:

Will anyone vote for Obama in ’12 who did NOT in ’08. For GWB in ’04: women, (a few) more Jews, and evangelicals who stayed home in ’00.

In the comments to Geraghty’s post, a few people cited government employees and other people dependent on government checks. Both these groups likely voted heavily for Obama last time, of course, but each group has grown a bit, yielding more potential votes.

Other than that, it’s hard to see any potential new voters. Obama won by a big enough margin, of course, that he doesn’t really need new voters, and can even afford to lose a few million.

But let’s consider where he’ll lose: He’ll likely lose a great number of the unemployed (other than some of those who are now welfare-dependent), those whose family members are unemployed, and those who fear unemployment. This is a very large group.

He’s likely to lose many of the suburban middle-class managerials/professionals he did well among last time. These tend to be Republican in normal circumstances and are, I suspect, deeply regretting having strayed in 2008.

He will also suffer from flagging enthusiasm among some of his core voters — young people and ‘progressives’. The young&dumb crowd may not vote Republican – that would be very uncool, especially if the nominee is a staid establishment family man (Romney) or a redneck cowboy (Perry) – but I can’t imagine they’ll turn out in large numbers again in support of hope & change. Progressives will still vote for him as well, but the politically aware among them now know that he is incapable of the leadership required to enact their agenda. Again, many on the margins of this group will stay home.

Does anybody see any other groups that are likely to switch sides?

Please note that off-topic comments will be deleted.

2012 Republican Presidential Nomination

My main question, in regard to these numbers, is: How much longer will debate sponsors find a cute way to exclude Gov. Johnson from the debates, while including Amb. Huntsman?  (Case in point: NBC’s debate inclusion criteria is to have gotten 4% in any national poll, no matter how old.  Convenient, since the highest Gov. Johnson has reached in a national poll is 3%, while Huntsman reached 4% once in a single CNN poll.)  Would it really kill them to say that anyone who has been elected to federal or state-wide office as a Republican gets automatic entry into the Republican debates?  Would it be so horrible to have Johnson and McCotter taking up an extra few minutes out of a 2-hour debate?

According to the RCP average of all recent national polls of the GOP field, Gov. Rick Perry is now leading the pack by nearly 10 percentage points. That makes Perry the new GOP frontrunner, a status that may or may not last through primary season, but one that at least suggests it would be prudent to begin handicapping a Perry/Obama general election matchup. General election polling thus far has been sparse, which isn’t unreasonable given that polling a race 14 months in advance is fairly meaningless anyway. Still, the sample of Perry/Obama polls that have been released, surveying a handful of red, blue, and purple states, do suggest that a race between the president and the Texas governor would be a very, very close contest that may come down to a very small number of swing states.

So far, we’ve seen general election matchups between Perry and Obama polled in 7 states. Of those states, Perry is leading Obama in South Carolina, Kentucky, and in the two most recent polls in Florida. Obama is besting Perry in Iowa, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. North Carolina is giving us a split decision, with Obama leading Perry in the most recent PPP poll, but Perry leading Obama according to the Civitas Poll.

On balance, this seems to suggest that a Perry/Obama race would yield a traditional red/blue map, with the battle lines being drawn along the Ohio River and along the Rockies. Moreover, these results suggest that a Perry/Obama race would possibly be even more polarizing than the elections of the Bush years, during which states like Iowa, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania were at least in play for Republicans. In 2004, President Bush won Iowa by 1, lost Wisconsin by 1, and lost Pennsylvania by 2, all while winning Florida by 5. Perry seems poised to lose Iowa, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania in the high-single digits, or perhaps even low double-digits, while winning Florida by a modest margin. In other words, there will be a greater chasm between the red and blue states in a Perry/Obama race than there was in the Bush/Gore and Bush/Kerry races. This time, the blue states are going to be really, really blue, and the red states are going to be really, really red, with very little purple in between.

Indeed, the number of states that will likely be in play in such a race makes the 2004 election seem like a 50-state free-for-all. If Wisconsin, Iowa, and Pennsylvania are out of play in an Obama/Perry race, then Michigan, Minnesota, and New Hampshire are almost certainly out of play as well, given that each of those states is as blue, or more blue, than the blue states that have already been polled. Add to that group the solidly blue Northeast, the West Coast, and President Obama’s home state of Illinois, and the president pretty much has a solid floor of 252 electoral votes in a race against Perry.

Meanwhile, if Perry is winning back Florida and possibly North Carolina from the president’s column in 2008, that means that he’s also winning back Indiana, which was redder than Florida last time around. Add to Perry’s total all of the McCain states (I’m giving Perry North Carolina for good measure) and the governor starts with a hearty total of 235 electoral votes. Not too shabby either.

That means that the election will turn on at most five states: Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico. These states will determine who gets to be president. Three of these states — Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado — were redder than states like Iowa and Wisconsin in 2008, but bluer than states like Florida and North Carolina in 2008. In other words, they were to the left of states where Perry is currently beating Obama, but to the right of states where Obama is currently beating Perry. Nevada and New Mexico are states that experienced such massive swings between 2004 and 2008 — going from single-digit Bush states to double-digit Obama states — that I don’t think it’s fair to simply lump them into the Obama column, as they are clearly very volatile.

There are several potential endgames to all of this. Obama could win Ohio and the election would be over, as he would have garnered exactly 270 electoral votes. Perry could win Virginia, Ohio, and Colorado, giving him 275 electoral votes and the win. Perry could win Virginia and Ohio while Obama wins the Southwestern trio, giving Obama 272 electoral votes and a second term. The race becomes a coin-flip.

What do states like Virginia, Colorado, and Ohio have in common? They’re all dominated by white suburban voters, who gave Republicans varying degrees of support in 2010. As Sean Trende noted earlier this year:

…the Democrats’ problem in the industrial Midwest and in the Mountain West and “New South” are the same problem: It generally lies among college-educated, white voters. All other things being equal, they tended to swing more toward the Republicans (in 2010).

My guess is that the voters on the margins in the few swing states that would result from a Perry/Obama race would be, as Sean notes, college-educated whites (and perhaps some Hispanics) who feel culturally distant from Gov. Perry, but who have no faith left in President Obama. The decision that these voters ultimately make will be one that likely keeps pundits across the nation awake until the wee hours of Election Night in a nailbiter of a presidential election.

Politico refer to Rick Perry’s book, “Fed Up!” is a treasure trove for opposition research, where controversial views on the issues are laid out by him boldly. Not in a compromising manner, but very, very boldly with no compromise in mind. Here’s an excerpt from the Politico pice:

Small chunks of “Fed Up!” have already entered the political bloodstream, such as Perry’s description of Social Security as a “Ponzi scheme” and his talk of repealing the 16th Amendment, which permits a national income tax.

But that only scratches the surface of what’s inside Perry’s book, which is essentially a 185-page manifesto in favor of states’ rights and a dramatically scaled-back federal government. The strong ideological bent of the book isn’t necessarily the problem—it’s the sharp language and its exquisite suitability for attack ads that makes it so potentially dangerous to his candidacy, especially in a general election.

Perry faults Republicans for taking an “unprincipled” stance by voting in the wake of Sept. 11 to create the Department of Homeland Security, which he criticizes for its “massive” scale. (In the 2002 campaign, it was some Democrats who found themselves on the defensive for opposing the creation of DHS.)

He takes a prominent shot at the Medicare Part D drug benefit, a popular entitlement among senior citizens that was implemented by President George W. Bush and a Republican Congress, saying it “just expanded a broken program.”

In addition to describing the 16th Amendment as a “milestone on the road to serfdom,” Perry takes aim at the 17th Amendment, which allows the direct election of senators, as a measure that promoted fiscal irresponsibility.

Now I ask my staunch conservative friends – does this sound awful or awesome? If this is the type of platform that Perry is going to take, if these are the types of issues that Perry is going to bring up – I, for one, have no problem with that. He’s boldly taking on a state’s rights approach and supports major scale backs to the federal government that I think all of us on the right can support. I for one look forward to seeing the platform that Perry seriously puts forward – and would love to hear our reader’s thoughts on his book.

_______________________________________________________

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

Green Jobs
Even liberal news outlets, such as San Francisco’s NBC station, recognize that the failure of Solyndra this week is a major blow to Obama after his ceaseless talk about green jobs, and his equally ceaseless use of the word ‘investment’ as a euphemism for ‘government spending’ (if putting $535mil in a company like this is his idea of a good investment, I’m glad he’s not my financial advisor).

President Obama faces political catastrophe in the form of Solyndra — a San Francisco Bay area solar company that he touted as a gleaming example of green technology. It has announced it will declare Chapter 11 bankruptcy. More than 1,100 people will lose their jobs.

And Solyndra is not the only solar firm to go belly-up recently. Via EspressoPundit, here’s an interesting juxtaposition of headlines from a recent Arizona Republic:

It’s worth noting, by the way, that a major investor in Solyndra, George Kaiser, was a big donor to Obama in 2008. But I’m sure that played no role in Solyndra getting half a billion taxpayer dollars. As an aside, I guess one of the 1100 people who will be losing their jobs in the shutdown has already lost his/hers – the webmaster. I say that based on a look at their homepage. Perhaps the White House might loan them some help to get that image removed.

Even before the Solyndra shutdown, Walter Russell Mead had this excellent piece on the green jobs illusion. He offers several examples, of which I’ll cite only one:

On his recent jobs tour Obama stopped at a Johnson Controls plant in southern Michigan, which received $300 million in green grants and plans to create a whopping total of 150 jobs, at a cost of $2 million per position.

When, as Mead notes, even the New York Times has figured it out (“Federal and state efforts to stimulate creation of green jobs have largely failed, government records show”), you know that the game is over.

Related: Here’s a handy summary from Hotline of candidates’ positions on global warming. It’s already outdated, though; the same day it was published, Mitt Romney adjusted his position to being a bit more of a skeptic.

A Bit of Nostalgia
While wandering the streets near where I’m staying in the London burbs, I saw this sign at a gas station:

The prices induced a wave of nostalgia. They are, of course, in pounds per liter, and convert to about $8.35 per gallon – which should make you feel better if you’re driving somewhere this Labor Day weekend.

The Jewish Candidate
According to this article, sent to me by MWS, some Jewish donors are withholding funds from Mitt Romney because they would rather contribute to fellow Jew Michele Bachmann.

Some Jewish donors are telling fund-raisers for Romney, a Mormon, that while they like him, they’d rather open their wallets for the “Jewish candidate,” who they don’t realize is actually a Lutheran, The Post has learned.

“It’s a real problem,” one Romney fund-raiser said. “We’re working very hard in the Jewish community because of Obama’s Israel problem. This was surprising.”

I pass it along for amusement purposes, since I can’t really believe that any serious Jewish donor would not know that Bachmann isn’t Jewish.

Miscellaneous Miscellany

Should Ugly People Be Protected from Discrimination?
This guy thinks so. I’d love to know how they would determine who qualifies. Perhaps some version of ‘Hot or Not?’

Sixty Trips to Get a Permit
So this guy gets a permit to operate a food truck in Detroit. After making about sixty visits to city hall over a six month period. Does anyone have any questions about why Detroit is, er, Detroit?

Failed Candidates Who Changed History
C-SPAN is going to have a series starting this week on candidates (such as Barry Goldwater) who lost, but had a huge impact on the course of history (perhaps larger, in some cases, than the winner). Looks interesting, for history nerds like me. There’s a video and discussion of the show at the link.

The Outcome of Kelo
Kelo v. New London wasn’t merely a low point in the history of the Supreme Court, it appears to be a low point for New London as well. After stealing people’s homes and giving the property to a developer … the development failed and the city ended up with a big empty lot.

Rasmussen 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 47% [50%] (47%) {48%} [49%] (46%)
• Sarah Palin 35% [33%] (38%) {38%} [38%] (43%)

Among Independents

• Barack Obama 45% [51%]
• Sarah Palin 32% [30%]

Survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted August 31 – September 1, 2011.  The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.  Results from the poll conducted August 11-12, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted July 16-17, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted between March 10-13, 2011 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted between January 7-10, 2011 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted November 24, 2009 are in parentheses.

(more…)

PPP (D) Kentucky 2012 Presidential Survey

• Mitt Romney 48%
• Barack Obama 40%

• Rick Perry 49%
• Barack Obama 42%

• Michele Bachmann 46%
• Barack Obama 43%

• Barack Obama 47%
• Newt Gingrich 44%

• Barack Obama 48%
• Sarah Palin 44%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Rick Perry 35% / 41% {-6%}
• Mitt Romney 30% / 47% {-17%}
• Michele Bachmann 30% / 50% {-20%}
• Sarah Palin 33% / 58% {-25%}
• Newt Gingrich 22% / 63% {-41%}

Do you approve or disapprove of Barack Obama’s job performance?

• Approve 39%
• Disapprove 56%

Survey of 600 likely Kentucky voters was conducted August 25-28, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 55% Democrat; 36% Republican; 9% Independent/Other. Political ideology: 29% Moderate; 28% Somewhat conservative; 19% Very conservative; 17% Somewhat liberal; 8% Very liberal.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

Rasmussen Survey on Sarah Palin

Do you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable impression of Sarah Palin?

• Very favorable 12%
• Somewhat favorable 27%
• Somewhat unfavorable 18%
• Very unfavorable 40%

Is Sarah Palin qualified to be president of the United States?

• Yes, qualified 28% [23%] (26%)
• No, not qualified 61% [63%] (61%)
• Not sure 11% [15%] (13%)

Note: A plurality (48%) of Republicans says she is qualified for the White House. Eighty-nine percent (89%) of Democrats and 55% of unaffiliated voters say she isn’t. Ninety-six percent (96%) of the Political Class say Palin isn’t qualified to be president, a view shared by 53% of those in the Mainstream.

Would it be good for the Republicans or bad for the Republicans if Sarah Palin entered the race?

• Good for Republicans 18%
• Bad for Republicans 60%
• No impact 11%
• Not sure 12%

Note: Even most Republicans (52%) believe it would be bad for the GOP if Palin threw her hat in the ring, a view shared by 74% of Democrats and 54% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Tea Party members are almost evenly divided over the impact of a Palin run on the GOP, but non-members believe overwhelmingly that it would be bad.

Does the media treat Sarah Palin better than other candidates, worse than other candidates or about the same?

• Better 14%
• Worse 48%
• About the same 35%

Note: Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Republicans and 55% of unaffiliateds think Palin gets worse coverage than the others, but just 22% of Democrats share that assessment.

How likely is it that Sarah Palin will run for president in 2012?

• Very likely 13%
• Somewhat likely 34%
• Not too likely 30%
• Not at all likely 5%
• Undecided 18%

Survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted August 31 – September 1, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted June 2-3, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted June 17-18, 2010 are in parentheses.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

Mitt Romney’s campaign, which had heretofore made a point of steering clear of Tea Partiers, seems to have finally decided to try to tap into the movement.  The Daily Caller reports that Mitt Romney has asked to participate in the Tea Party Express bus tour as it rolls through New Hampshire during the Labor Day weekend.  Seems Rick Perry’s rise has jolted the Romney campaign into taking a slightly different strategy.  The only other candidates to have participated in the Tea Party Express tour are Michele Bachmann and Gary Johnson.

In this election cycle’s Republican field, deus ex machina may turn out to be spelled C-H-R-I-S-T-I-E:

Ryan confirmed he and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who also has repeatedly said he will not seek the Republican nomination, spoke this summer about the presidential sweepstakes.

“We did talk a couple of times. We know each other, and we have talked a little bit over the phone just about the state of the country.” He declined to talk details but said he would like to see Christie run.

Ryan said he thinks there is enough time for someone else to enter the race.

“It is not too late– look it is 2011 still. The election is in 2012. You know Iowa is not until January. So there is time. So I don’t think I’d say this late date. I think you saw the first tier of candidates. Now you see another tier of candidates, and I don’t see this as too late.”

I believe that an entry by Gov. Christie would prevent the inevitable Tea Party v. Establishment showdown that seems to be developing between Gov. Rick Perry and Gov. Mitt Romney, a polarizing bout that will ultimately result in both candidates playing to their respective bases, with an eventual nominee that seems foreign to the losing candidate’s supporters. In a Perry/Romney race, every ounce of pragmatism that is a necessary component of the record of a three-term governor of a large state will vanish overnight, leaving Perry as the candidate who embodies the passion and raw energy of his Tea Party base, but without ideas or solutions. Romney, meanwhile, will head in a direction that makes even his present Rose Garden strategy seem downright ideological. Romney’s base will necessarily become the dreaded Establishment, making his victory prima facie unacceptable to talk radio hosts who may just decide to depress general election turnout in the name of RINO-hunting.

Were Christie to parachute into the race, though, he could upend all of this, and run up the middle as an Establishment-friendly Republican who understands Tea Party concerns, but who is not of the Tea Party. Christie’s working class, Yankee cultural cues are pitch perfect for an election like this, where the GOP base is angry, and the swingin’ middle of the country is angry, but each is angry in a slightly different way. Christie can communicate Tea Party angst to both blue collar and suburban voters in the North in a way that someone like Rick Perry cannot, for the simple reason that Perry’s cultural cues are so far removed from the Yankee states that he seems like a caricature of a Republican, like someone who would appear on Saturday Night Live to poke fun at Republicans’ tendency to speak in a slow and deliberate Southern drawl, vocalize their religion, and appear for a photo-op shooting a pistol into the air.

With Christie, though, the Republican base gets a candidate who can communicate its message to the types of voters who will be disinclined to once again pull the lever for Obama but who view the contemporary GOP as something that they don’t quite understand or trust. Christie would come to the table with both passion and policies, ideology and ideas. Nominating Christie would be a real coup in the same way that nominating Bill Clinton was for Democrats in 1992, when large swaths of the electoral map began to flip for the first time in memory in favor of a Democratic Party led by a nominee from culturally unfriendly territory, with the sensibilities of both working class Americans and soccer moms. Christie would run that same kind of game this time around, but this time, it would be the GOP that would benefit.

Magellan Strategies (R) Nevada 2012 GOP Caucus Survey

• Rick Perry 29%
• Mitt Romney 24%
• Herman Cain 7%
• Michele Bachmann 6%
• Ron Paul 6%
• Newt Gingrich 5%
• Rick Santorum 1%
• Jon Huntsman 1%
• Some other candidate 2%
• Undecided 19%

(more…)

Franklin & Marshall Pennsylvania 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 36%
• Mitt Romney 30%
• Other 8%
• Don’t know 27%

• Barack Obama 39%
• Rick Santorum 31%
• Other 10%
• Do not know 20%

• Barack Obama 38%
• Rick Perry 27%
• Other 10%
• Don’t know 26%

• Barack Obama 42%
• Michele Bachmann 23%
• Other 12%
• Don’t know 22%

(more…)

Welcome to the seventh monthly update of Republican presidential polling trends.

As always, please note that the charts show the candidates’ average, at a given point in time, of the five most recent serious polls (interactive and other not generally recognized polls are excluded). The first chart shows all activity, the second shows only month-end figures.

Perry continues to skyrocket. The tiny downturn at the end of August in the first graph is actually the first time his rolling average dropped in fifteen polls dating back to early July. The second graph is very nearly a straight upward line.

It’s interesting to compare the current numbers with those at the time of Huckabee’s withdrawal. All the remaining candidates of course rose in the period immediately following Huckabee and Trump withdrawing, but most have returned to where they were at the time. The following chart shows the averages for major candidates as of the last poll taken before Huckabee’s withdrawal (a PPP dated May 8th) and today’s averages.

Romney, Palin, and Paul have seen effectively no change. Bachmann is up a bit and the others down a bit. Meaning practically none of the almost one-third of the electorate who supported Huckabee, Trump or Pawlenty four months ago have chosen to go to the former rivals of those candidates, most apparently choosing Perry (at least for now).

Via AP:

Employers stopped adding jobs in August, an alarming setback for an economy that has struggled to grow and might be at risk of another recession.

The government also reported that the unemployment rate remained at 9.1 percent. It was the weakest jobs report since September 2010.

Stocks tumbled on the news. The Dow Jones industrial average sank more than 190 points in early-morning trading.

Team Romney released the following statement in reaction to the news:

Today’s disappointing unemployment report is further proof that President Obama has failed. President Obama oversaw an economy that created zero jobs last month and that is unacceptable. In order to change the direction of this country, we need to change presidents. Americans need a conservative businessman to get this economy moving again, not career politicians. That is why I am running. Next week, I will lay out my specific plan to put America back to work.

Update: Here is Jon Huntsman’s statement -

Two days after I offered a plan with serious solutions that would create jobs and get our economy going, we learn of yet another month with zero job growth. There is no clearer sign that the President has failed and the theatrics around his far-too-late jobs speech demonstrate that he has no real plan to change course. In a country with 307 million people, zero job growth is unfathomable. It’s time for America to compete again and it’s time for a new President.

Update #2: Here is Perry’s statement:

“President Obama’s job-killing polices continue to wreak havoc on the American economy. The poor national jobs picture stands in stark contrast to Texas’ pro-jobs, limited government policies which helped make us the top job-producing state in the nation. Our country cannot afford four more years of economic misery, and I will continue to travel the county talking about ways to get American working again.”

PPP (D) South Carolina 2012 Presidential Survey

• Mitt Romney 53% [50%] (49%)
• Barack Obama 38% [41%] (42%)

• Rick Perry 49%
• Barack Obama 41%

• Newt Gingrich 45% [44%] (43%)
• Barack Obama 44% [46%] (44%)

• Barack Obama 44%
• Michele Bachmann 44%

• Barack Obama 45% [48%] (47%)
• Sarah Palin 45% [43%] (41%)

(more…)

Quinnipiac Political Survey

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as President?

• Approve 42% (47%) [47%] {52%} (46%) [42%]
• Disapprove 52% (46%) [46%] {40%} (48%) [48%]

Among Democrats

• Approve 77% (81%) [83%] {88%} (85%) [80%]
• Disapprove 18% (11%) [11%] {9%} (9%) [13%]

Among Republicans

• Approve 7% (13%) [13%] {18%} (11%) [9%]
• Disapprove 90% (83%) [82%] {74%} (86%) [81%]

Among Independents

• Approve 40% (40%) [46%] {47%} (41%) [39%]
• Disapprove 54% (53%) [43%] {41%} (52%) [50%]

(more…)