Quinnipiac 2012 Presidential Survey

• Mitt Romney 46% (45%) {41%} [41%] (45%)
• Barack Obama 42% (45%) {47%} [47%] (44%)

• Barack Obama 45% (45%) {50%}
• Rick Perry 44% (42%) {37%}

Among Independents

• Mitt Romney 45% (46%) {42%} [38%] (46%)
• Barack Obama 40% (40%) {40%} [45%] (35%)

• Barack Obama 43% (42%) {46%}
• Rick Perry 42% (40%) {36%}

(more…)

In an interesting development, RedState Editor in Chief Erick Erickson, along with Brent Bozell with For America, Ned Ryun with American Majority, and Drew Ryun with American Majority Action are inviting the GOP 2012 candidates for a sit down. What kind of sit down? A 2 hour sit down with Erickson and Brent Bozell to discuss, individually – not as a group – the issues. The point would be to delve deeper into the nuances of the issues facing America and those that are important to the conservative movement in an honest, one-on-one dialogue. Here’s the letter he sent to each campaign:

Dear Candidates:

This letter is written on behalf of Brent Bozell with For America, Ned Ryun with American Majority, Drew Ryun with American Majority Action, and myself.

Combined we give voice to millions of conservative activists across the country and know that most conservatives believe we have not had a chance to have a real vetting of candidates in Campaign 2012 because of the lack of substance in most of the debates.

Consequently, we would like to provide a unique opportunity for the candidates. On the attached page we describe the details of the conversation.

Please note that these would be individual conversations and not all candidates present at the same time. We will work with each candidate’s schedule to provide an evening for each candidate individually.

The conversation will be before an audience coordinated with conservatives in the metro-Atlanta area and the candidates’ own campaigns. It would be broadcast live on WSB radio, the largest talk radio station in the country. It would also be streamed live on the internet with the ability to embed on campaign websites and a television feed would be available without restriction for use by broadcast networks.

Given the desire to do these one on one with the candidates, we will work to accommodate the candidates’ schedules. You may contact me at the address, phone number, and email address above. We hope Congresswoman Bachmann would be willing to sit and discuss her vision for the country in a conversation led by conservatives for conservatives.

I have enclosed a more specific page on what we are offering.

Sincerely yours,

Erick-Woods Erickson
Editor, RedState.com

Honestly? I think this is an excellent idea and I hope the candidates all agree to it. Individual sit downs to give them the opportunity to talk about the issues would be great.

It seems like all of the R412 posters are coming out of the woodwork to announce who they’re supporting. So, in the interests of full disclosure, here’s, not so much my endorsement, but what I’d like to see happen.

First, some background to my thinking. There are two generally acknowledged factions in the current Republican party: establishment and tea party. I believe each faction has it’s strengths and weaknesses. The establishment favors policy-oriented, culturally-inoffensive technocrats, who will govern in a right-of-center manner. Their focus is less on first principals and more on institutional reform. The GOP establishment is probably one of the least populist factions in modern American politics today. Not to say that the establishment is elitist–though some do have these tendencies–but they aren’t interested in catering to the whims and passions of the base. This can be both a good and a bad thing; sometimes populism leads us down paths which are counter-productive (immigration restrictionism) or irrelevant (Ron Paul’s foreign policy and end the fed rhetoric). On the other hand, being too far away from populism can lead to echo chamber thinking or groupthink, which is never desirable. Think of the GOP establishment–for those who are historically-minded–as descendants of the old-school Federalists.

The Tea Party is from a different tradition altogether. At it’s core, the tea party represents a fusion of small government and traditionalist populism. It distrusts career politicians, and wants to shrink government, not tinker with it. Tea partiers often seem to care more about principals than the business of winning elections and governing. This can be a good thing; without principal, after all, what’s the point of governing? But the movement’s anti-establishment populism can sometimes lead it down blind alleys, or to support outsider candidates with little chance of actually winning the election.

I bring all this up because I think that, in Mitt Romney and Herman Cain, we have found two candidates who represent the best that both establishment and tea party have to offer. Mitt Romney is an extremely talented technocrat, with business and government experience. The knock on him is that, like the establishment, he doesn’t hue closely enough to the principals of the Republican party and conservative movement. Herman Cain is a principled firebrand, with a strong private sector resume, a heap of charisma and, like Allen West and Marco Rubio before him, a uniquely powerful story of the American dream. Cain represents, to the tea party, everything they want to believe about America, and as such, has a very raw, powerful emotional appeal. The knock on him is that he lacks experience in the actual mechanics of government, and in particular experience with foreign policy.

So, what I hope to see is a good, clean fight between Romney and Cain, where each candidate will bring out the best that establishment and tea party have to offer, without beating each other to death, as these two factions have a tendency to do. I like them both, I think either would make a great president, and aside from Rick Santorum–who I think is much smarter than almost anyone gives him credit for–I have serious problems with each of the other contenders. So let’s see Romney and Cain have a good, clean, defining fight for the nomination.

Then, let’s see the winner pick the runner up as his VP. Of course, there are others who might make good VP picks for either man: Jon Huntsman for Cain, Marco Rubio for Romney, Bob McDonnell for either, but why? On Romney’s side, Rubio is still very young, has plenty of time, and would probably be well-advised to at least finish out his term. Huntsman, by contrast, can bring foreign policy gravitas, but not nearly the institutional support within the party that Romney can bring. And as a (somewhat selfish) Virginian, I’d like to see McDonnell finish his term then beat Mark Warner for senate in 2014. Romney and Cain each complement the weaknesses of the other: experience with passion, wonkishness with charisma, southern fire-eater with cool,collected northeasterner. Finally, Americans love a “team of rivals”, and in an election cycle with a jobs jobs jobs focus, two CEOs who have turned around more companies between them than Barack Obama’s regulations can kill in a year might just be the contrast Americans are looking for. So once the good clean fight has run it’s course, I’d like to see the winner pick the runner-up as his VP, and then role on to victory in November.

Following the disclosures by fellow FPP’s, I am declaring my intentions to vote for Gov. Mitt Romney in my state’s primary next year.   Gov. Romney has proven himself a competent, intelligent executive with the turn-around skill-set needed to dig our nation’s economy out of the ditch.  The former Massachusetts governor has the intellect, the work ethic, and the managerial talents that this country has been lacking for more than a decade.  His great success in both the private and public sector is the rare combination of accomplishments that a president at this time in our nation’s history needs.  The governor has proven himself a team builder, a problem solver, a fixer of the highest caliber, and I fully trust in his ability to get our economy working again.

Gov. Romney also has an important opportunity to change the shape of the electoral college map that has defined several of our last presidential elections.  He has a chance to put states in play that haven’t voted Republican since the 1980′s.  So to maximize that potential and to enhance our ability as a party to grow beyond our Southern Strategy, I also support New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie for Vice President.  As a man more qualified than Sen. Marco Rubio and more charismatic than Gov. Bob McDonnell, Chris Christie would boost Gov. Romney’s potential in a number of states that could realign the electoral map.  Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and New Jersey would no longer be safe states for the Democrats, but rather new battleground states.  Just as Obama/Biden was able to expand the map in 2008, I encourage Gov. Romney to do the same in 2012.

The result, I believe, will be the governing mandate a Romney/Christie administration will need to make the tough choices and serious reforms our country desperately needs.

ABC News has the story:

According to a source with knowledge of the inner workings of SarahPAC, inside the Palin world it’s still a possibility that she might run. However, as the deadline approaches not even her staff knows what she will decide.

ABC News has separately learned that the Palin team is well aware of the filing deadlines and are keeping abreast of the changes in the deadline. Politico reported Tuesday that a law firm that employs an attorney representing SarahPAC had been making calls to early states inquiring about presidential filing deadlines. SarahPAC would not confirm the report to ABC News. When reached by ABC News, Mark Braden—the attorney mentioned in the Politico report—would also not comment or confirm the report or that he even works with Palin.

Be sure to read the whole thing.

First, it was all the fundraisers and money folks. Now we are getting word of all the elected officials who are lining up to back Romney after Christie’s announcement signaled the end of the waiting game.

Three future speakers of the Florida House – Will Weatherford, Chris Dorworth and Richard Corcoran – had supported Tim Pawlenty. They remained neutral after T-Paw’s exit until yesterday afternoon when they endorsed Mitt Romney. Also, the Speaker of the House in Alabama joined Alabama’s Lt Governor, a U.S. Congressman, and four other state Representatives in endorsing Romney this morning.

Additionally, there is a really great article over at Politico entitled, “Mitt’s Moment” that has a very honest, glass half-full and half-empty look at the state of the race for Romney right now. In the midst of that article, they mention that Team Romney fielded more than 20 phone calls from people interested in endorsing Mitt yesterday. That list includes six Senators, four members of Congress, and an unspecified number of Governors and former Cabinet secretaries. The Romney campaign did not say who those 20 people were, but they will be rolling out those endorsements in the coming weeks.

This is either a potential game changer, or the last bit of really good news Perry will receive in this primary: his team is reporting a massive haul of $17 million for Q3. Yes, it was all low-hanging fruit. Yes, it was less than Romney raised in Q2. But Perry only had half the quarter to raise it. And it just might push pause on the narrative that Perry’s candidacy is on the ropes.

Combined with Romney and Paul’s totals that have been leaked, then, we have our first edition of the Q3 Fundraising Leaderboard!

UPDATE: Herman Cain says he raised $2.1 million in Q3, roughly the same amount he raised in Q2. However, his campaign says his fundraising was lagging at the beginning of the quarter but “surged” after the Florida straw poll.

With Kavon Nikrad’s endorsement for Mitt Romney and Dave G’ seconding of the nomination, and Matt Newman’s bold declaration for Herman Cain,  it seems a type for front page posters to take a stand or at least reveal where they’re at.

At this point, now about three months from the first in the nation primaries and caucuses and primaries, I remain undecided, but intrigued by Mr. Cain. Like Matt Newman, I do not want to take the path of least resistance with Mr. Romney.  While Mr. Romney would be far better than Obama and would be good enough to vote for, this is a year when good enough isn’t good enough. America faces a crisis of confidence and uncertainty about who we are as a nation.

I do not doubt his ability to win under the right circumstances. I doubt the courage and political ability of Romney to take on tough challenges. Indeed, some of Mr. Romney’s recent demagoguery over Social Security would give Democrats added political ammunition that would make working on these issues almost impossible. I doubt his ability to inspire our nation.

Could Herman Cain be the man for the job? He might be. He has an optimism, born of adversity, and a confidence in this country that is deeply affecting.  Cain is not a political insider. He is not a shapeshifter. He is a man who is ready to fight what he believes in and able to go to the American people. He is charismatic and a reminder of the ideals we’ve held about American opportunity. A Herman Cain presidency would lead us away from the culture of victimization. Cain fully understands the vital economic and social issues facing.

A Herman Cain presidency would have risk, but also great potential to help America right the ship.

A Mitt Romney only offers us the hope that our government will oppress us less than it has during the last four years. For this reason, I won’t back Mitt Romney during the primaries.

However, despite my current enthusiasm for Mr. Cain, I am hesitant to go full bore. During the course of this campaign, I’ve leaned towards several candidates: Pawlenty, Cain, Bachmann, Perry, and I’ve even considered Jon Huntsman.  Listening to Cain’s audiobook gave me cause for pause. He was writing about how his dominating performance in a debate catapulted him into polls and created massive interest in his campaign. However, he wasn’t referring to the recent Florida debate, he was referred to the first GOP debate in South Carolina during the Spring. Cain then shot himself in the foot by getting drawn off-topic to talk about a mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee and Muslim and gay political appointees. Cain was written off for politically dead, by people who failed to realize that outside of political geeks, few people were even paying attention to either the gaffes or the surge.

Now after stumbles by Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, Cain finds himself surging. The surge seems bigger than prior waves, but will it last? How can he manage to win Iowa?  Or can he win without Iowa? Is he going to last this time or will he flame out?  For my part, I want to see Cain show that he can maintain his standing before I cast in with him.

As improbable as it might seem right now. Rick Perry could come back or Michele Bachmann could breathe life into her campaign by winning Iowa. And Cain could collapse. Given the course of this tumultuous campaign, I’m holding back for now. I want to see some more updates and how Cain handles the support that’s coming in. At some point,  I’ll have to pick a candidate, take a risk, and have faith in a campaign to win and it may well be Mr. Cain.

Herman Cain represents something very new and fresh in Republican politics given that we’ve nominated sons of wealth and power or long-time DC hacks in every Presidential election since 1984.  Let’s see if he can maintain momentum in these next few debates.

In 2008, I was so incredibly disappointed to see Obama as the President-elect. I was also incredibly disappointed hearing McCain giving his most effective and passionate speech…in his concession. But, I was hopeful. I was hopeful that this man would be what he claimed to be – post-partisan and willing to work across party lines. I had misplaced hopes.

Here in Maryland in 2010, I had two choices in the Republican primary for Governor. One candidate had all the government experience (Ehrlich) – he was a former Governor, former Congressman, and had strong support by many established Republicans throughout the state. The other, was a relatively unknown successful businessman (Brian Murphy) who ran on a detailed, decidedly fiscally conservative platform. When it came to social issues, he didn’t sidestep – he acknowledged his views on the issues. He was open, honest, and came from the private sector wanting to fix the public sector. He had a positive platform with specific things he wanted to do. Ehrlich, ran on a platform of not being the incumbent Governor and promising to bring things back to before the O’Malley was in office. Murphy had very low name recognition, Ehrlich had near universal name recognition. I voted for the businessman. He lost the primary. Ehrlich went on to lose the general election by a larger margin than he lost in a much worse political environment in 2006. I see the 2012 primary in much the same way.

We have a safe choice in Mitt Romney. I have no doubt that he will be an epic fundraiser, could be an excellent general election candidate, and would be a far superior President than Barack Obama. But, I don’t want the safe choice. I want Herman Cain as the nominee.

Herman Cain is a self-made man. A literal rocket scientist, Cain first worked developing fire control systems for the U.S. Navy. After success there, Cain moved to the private sector finding vast success in the world of business – turning around an entire region for Burger King and later Godfather’s Pizza. After earning the respect of his peers, Cain was selected to be President of the National Restaurant Association. Following success here, he moved on to the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, later becoming their Chair. He then retired from the business world and jumped into talk radio, again – proving to be successful. This is the background that Cain is running on – his experience living the American dream and his extensive executive experience in the private sector.

Herman Cain believes in America. He believes that America’s best years are ahead of us. He’s also running for something. He’s not running just against Barack Obama, he’s running to be a President, to be the chief executive of this nation. He’s running with specific ideas; you may disagree with them, but Cain’s ideas have become more specific each day. Cain is a problem solver who has beaten cancer and can beat Obama.

He’s not a polished politician, but has oratory skills unmatched by his competitors. He sometimes shoots from the hip. He doesn’t have foreign policy experience, but then again neither do any of the current candidates except Jon Huntsman. Cain knows how to delegate and I have no doubt would surround himself with the right people to fill in his knowledge gaps. He’s not the safe choice; but I don’t want the safe choice. I want Mr. Herman Cain and I believe in his campaign. I’m ready to take a chance on Cain and I think he can win. Feel free to disagree.

Side Note: As Kavon pointed out his preference, I felt that I should go ahead and do the same here.

_______________________________________________________

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

Well, that’s it then. Gov. Christie’s decision to forego a presidential run has put an end to the conservative establishment’s search for a white knight to enter the race and take the nomination by acclamation. The bundlers who have been on hold all year waiting for Mr. Christie, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Ryan, or Mr. Bush (Jeb, that is) to jump into the race now realize that they’ve been waiting for Godot, and are acting accordingly as they begin to move towards the candidates who are actually running for president. With the establishment throwing in the towel, only Sarah Palin remains a potential late entry into the race, something that seems increasingly unlikely given the imminent filing deadlines for key early primaries.

As such, the field is set. And, given the choices before me, I therefore second the endorsement made earlier today by Managing Editor Kavon W. Nikrad and call on the Republican Party to nominate Gov. Mitt Romney for President of the United States.

My reasons for selecting Gov. Romney as my candidate are similar to those laid out by Kavon in his endorsement, so I won’t extrapolate on those points further. Instead, I will use this piece to focus on one key area in which Romney stands head-and-shoulders above his competition, and that is his ability to expand the GOP electoral map beyond the traditional “red states” that regularly leave Republicans struggling to break 270 electoral votes during presidential elections. This is as much a demographic problem for Republicans as it is a geographic problem, as the reason that Republicans have been struggling in the North and the West, and now in the New South and the Mountain West, has everything to do with the GOP’s inability since the Clinton years to appeal to educated whites, soccer moms, and once up-for-grabs minorities such as Asians. These are groups that voted for Reagan/Bush in the ’80s, but which Bill Clinton welcomed into the Democratic Party and which haven’t strayed since, at least not during a presidential election year. I believe that Gov. Romney is the sort of candidate who could change all of that.

If President Obama has accomplished anything over the past few years, it’s that he’s left the Clinton Coalition in tatters. The story of the 2009-2011 elections have been one of groups such as suburban whites, Jewish voters, and urban blue collar voters rejecting the Democratic Party after getting a whiff of the sorts of policies that have come out of the unreformed, leftist leadership of Obama/Pelosi/Reid. While there is no perfect Republican candidate who could appeal to all of these groups, Gov. Romney, who has won an election in a blue state, has the best chance of picking up enough of these formerly “blue” voters to truly change the electoral template that has been in place since 1992.

Again, Gov. Romney is not going to have the same appeal to Hispanic voters that, say, Sen. Marco Rubio would have. Nor will he have the same fella-next-door appeal to blue collar whites that, say, Gov. Chris Christie would have. But neither Marco Rubio nor Chris Christie are running for president. And out of those candidates who are running for president, Mitt Romney has demonstrated his ability to win “blue” voters, and brings with him the cultural cues that will appeal to at least one major swing voting bloc, college-educated urban and suburban whites who were brought into Team Blue by President Clinton and who have been kicked out of the nest by President Obama. These suburban voters were vital to the GOP’s wins in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Wisconsin in 2010-11, and have also been the reason that states like Virginia and North Carolina have been trending blue, as Northern voters continue to migrate to areas like Northern Virginia and North Carolina’s Research Triangle in search of a better life. The key to winning all of these states next year will lie in the suburbs, and Gov. Romney is an ideal candidate to appeal to such voters.

I believe that Gov. Romney, if nominated, will almost certainly defeat President Obama, and will probably do so while winning close to 35 states. The fact that Gov. Romney trails President Obama by only two points in a state like Connecticut confirms my view that Gov. Romney is the right kind of candidate, with the right kind of campaign, for a year in which the Democrats are running a president for re-election with a 40 percent approval rating. An election such as this does not require polarization in order for the challenging party to win, but a broadly acceptable nominee put forth by the party out of power. Gov. Romney is such a nominee. It is for these and many other reasons that I endorse Mitt Romney for President of the United States.

Fellow wonks, here comes some meat on the foreign policy front. First, from Governor Romney:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney will give a major foreign policy speech on Friday that will outline his strategy in a “world of growing threats” at the Citadel, the famous military college in Charleston, South Carolina.

His campaign says his speech will be on par in significance to his economic plan that he unveiled in Las Vegas, Nevada last month…

Then, Governor/Ambassador Huntsman:

GOP presidential candidate Jon Huntsman plans to deliver his first major foreign policy address in Manchester next week, Primary Status has learned.

Huntsman, the former Utah governor who also served as the U.S. Ambassador to China until earlier this year, will deliver the address on Oct. 10 at 11 a.m. at Southern New Hampshire University’s Walker Auditorium…

Foreign policy has taken a distinct back seat in the campaign so far. In a way this is understandable due to the current economic woes. However, with the unstable situation in Europe causing fluctuations on Wall Street, foreign policy has a material effect on the economic situation at home. Not to mention the importance of our relationship with China and India, the events of the Arab Spring, and the other challenges confronting our nation abroad. At the very least, it will be interesting to hear the two Governors lay out their visions for America’s role in the world. Unlike the current President, I have little doubt that these two candidates won’t be using the phrase “leading from behind”.

CBS News 2012 Republican Primary Poll

• Mitt Romney 17%
• Herman Cain 17%
• Rick Perry 12%
• Newt Gingrich 8%
• Ron Paul 7%
• Michele Bachmann 4%
• Rick Santorum 3%
• Jon Huntsman 2%
• Undecided/Don’t Know 18%

This poll was conducted by telephone from September 28-October 2, 2011 among 1,012 adults nationwide. 903 interviews were conducted with registered voters and 324 with voters who said they plan to vote in a Republican primary.

With the PPP polls that came out today, we have some serious indication that Herman Cain may be here to stay as a contender. He’s leading in three states, two of which (West Virginia and North Carolina) should have been Rick Perry territory. I don’t recall Michele Bachmann leading anywhere outside of Iowa.

But the interest in Cain may be best evidence by the number of folks to put down money in the midst of tough economic times to read Cain’s new book, This is Herman Cain. The results from Amazon are huge. Cain’s book not only tops Amazon’s Political Memoir’ and overall Memoir category but is the 8th highest selling book on Amazon. But that’s not all.  The Kindle version of Cain’s book is selling nearly just as well. In fact, the publisher listed  the Kindle version in the books category and at times, the Kindle version has been ahead of the hardback in terms of sales.  (Another testimony to the rise of Ebooks.)

While Cain still faces many challenges as a candidate, what’s becoming increasingly clear is that he has the interest and attention of the American people. Now it’ll be up to him to take advantage of that.

***

Post-Script:

Any story like this is almost sure to generate comments allegging that a candidate with a book is only running for President to sell books. This is flummery, particularly in Cain’s case. Cain is already well-off and could be very comfortable  living off nothing more than fees from delivering inspirational speechs.

Those words were spoken today by Georgette Mosbacher, RNC Finance Co-Chair and huge GOP fundraiser, after Chris Christie’s announcement. The “we” is all the big bundlers, fundraisers, and money folks who have been sitting on the sidelines waiting for the field to be set — and that quote represents the coalescing around Mitt Romney that is expected to happen rather quickly now. Mosbacher went on to say:

“I think tomorrow, we’ll be contacting one another and probably put something together with Romney… And I would say that the race is now Romney and Obama. Quite frankly, the enthusiasm wasn’t there at the outset. He’s less conservative than a lot of us would like. However, our first and foremost goal is to defeat Obama. And we do believe Romney, in terms of independents, will be a strong candidate. We will coalesce behind him now… the time has come to get behind him… Tomorrow I’ll be on the phone all day. Quite frankly, it’ll be easier, because now we know who it is who will be our nominee. So we will pull our Rolodexes out and get to work.”

Fellow bundler and sideline-sitter John Catsimatidis added, “I’m going to go with Mitt Romney. I don’t think Perry has it in him to do it. He’s a lot better than Sarah Palin, but not a lot lot better.”

Ouch.

In related news, Romney also scored another major fundraiser from the Draft Christie movement: Ken Langone. Langone is the founder of Home Depot and is described as a “titan” in the political money scene. He backed Rudy Giuliani in 2008, helping Giuliani out raise the other candidates. There is evidence that a great deal of the money that had sat on the sidelines so far in this race will now fall into Romney’s coffers.

Rick Perry, for his part, got the endorsement of another Draft Christie member: Gary Kirke, a west Iowa investor and casino owner who had also been sitting on the sidelines until this afternoon.

PPP (D) Nebraska 2012 GOP Primary Survey

• Herman Cain 30%
• Newt Gingrich 16% (18%)
• Mitt Romney 13% (15%)
• Michele Bachmann 10%
• Rick Perry 10%
• Ron Paul 5% (8%)
• Rick Santorum 4%
• Jon Huntsman 2%
• Someone else/Undecided 10% (12%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Newt Gingrich 49% (50%) / 32% (24%) {+17%}
• Michele Bachmann 44% / 31% {+13%}
• Mitt Romney 45% (51%) / 34% (23%) {+11%}
• Rick Perry 35% / 35% {0%}
• Ron Paul 25% / 46% {-21%}

Survey of 400 usual Nebraska Republican primary voters was conducted September 30 – October 2, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 4.9 percentage points.  Political ideology: 40% Very conservative; 34% Somewhat conservative; 18% Moderate; 6% Somewhat liberal; 3% Very liberal.  Results from the poll conducted January 26-27, 2011 are in parentheses.

PPP (D) West Virginia 2012 GOP Primary Survey

• Herman Cain 24% (6%)
• Newt Gingrich 18% (11%)
• Mitt Romney 16% (14%)
• Rick Perry 15% (33%)
• Michele Bachmann 8% (11%)
• Ron Paul 6% (7%)
• Rick Santorum 3% (4%)
• Jon Huntsman 1% (1%)
• Someone else/Undecided 9% (13%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Michele Bachmann 46% (46%) / 21% (21%) {+25%}
• Newt Gingrich 50% (41%) {52%} [57%] (60%) / 26% (36%) {21%} [20%] (19%) {+24%}
• Mitt Romney 42% (37%) {56%} [51%] (56%) / 27% (31%) {18%} [23%] (18%) {+15%}
• Rick Perry 38% (52%) / 25% (9%) {+13%}
• Ron Paul 23% / 43% {-20%}

Survey of 300 Republican primary voters was conducted September 30 – October 2, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 6.1 percentage points.  Political ideology: 43% (44%) {41%} [41%] Very conservative; 38% (38%) {40%} [34%] Somewhat conservative; 12% (13%) {11%} [18%] Moderate; 4% (2%) {5%} [6%] Somewhat liberal; 3% (2%) {2%} [2%] Very liberal.  Results from the poll conducted September 1-4, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted May 11-12, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted April 21-24, 2011 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted January 20-23, 2011 are in parentheses.

PPP (D) North Carolina 2012 GOP Primary Survey

• Herman Cain 27% {9%} [9%] (9%) {21%}
• Newt Gingrich 17% {8%} [11%] (9%) {14%}
• Mitt Romney 17% {12%} [16%] (23%) {25%}
• Rick Perry 15% {35%} [17%] (14%)
• Michele Bachmann 6% {8%} [17%] (22%) {10%}
• Ron Paul 6% {10%} [11%] (6%) {9%}
• Rick Santorum 2% {4%}
• Jon Huntsman 2% {2%} [2%] (2%) {1%}
• Someone else/Undecided 8% {12%} [13%] (10%) {10%}

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Newt Gingrich 58% {42%} {38%} [55%] (62%) {61%} [63%] / 31% {43%} {47%} [25%] (18%) {21%} [21%] {+27%}
• Mitt Romney 50% {45%} [46%] (56%) {53%} [56%] (50%) {57%} [49%] / 31% {38%} [35%] (28%) {30%} [24%] (26%) {22%} [23%] {+19%}
• Rick Perry 44% {61%} [40%] / 37% {17%} [16%] {+7%}
• Michele Bachmann 41% {47%} [45%] (55%) / 39% {33%} [30%] (27%) {+2%}
• Ron Paul 34% / 45% {-11%}

Survey of 400 North Carolina Republican primary voters was conducted September 30 – October 3, 2011.  The margin of error is +/- 4.9 percentage points.  Political ideology: 42% {43%} [42%] (43%) {39%} Very conservative; 37% {36%} [37%] (39%) {37%} Somewhat conservative; 16% {14%} [15%] (15%) {17%} Moderate; 4% {4%} [2%] (2%) {4%} Somewhat liberal; 2% {2%} [3%] (1%) {3%} Very liberal.  Results from the poll conducted September 1-4, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted August 4-7, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted July 7-10, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted June 8-11, 2011 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted February 16-21, 2011 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted January 20-23, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted December 17-19, 2010 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted November 19-21, 2010 are in square brackets.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock (pun intentional), you’ve probably heard the story of the hunting site for Rick Perry and the racially charged name for the place. Here’s the really short version of the story: Perry and his family paid for hunting rights to a camp that had a racially tinged name; Perry’s father saw the name, despite not owning the property, painted over it and actually moved the rock to ensure it was no longer visible; Perry and family no longer have hunting rights to said camp, haven’t for years. That’s the whole story.

That’s not exactly how we knew about it when it first came out via the Washington Post when Herman Cain responded to a question about how he felt about the situation. The Post made it sound as though the Perry’s owned it and had been fine with the name for years. This lead to Cain, when questioned on the matter to respond with, “There isn’t a more vile, negative word than the ‘n word,’ and for him to leave it there as long as they did is just plain insensitive to a lot of black people in this country.” He’s right, there isn’t a more vile word. He was wrong about it having to do with Perry.

Monday he responded again after all the facts were discussed publicly. This time, Cain had the following to say, “I really don’t care about that word…They painted over it. End of story! I accept Gov. Perry’s response on that.” In essence, what Cain was saying was that – he believes Rick Perry’s description of the event more than the Washington Post’s description.

For me, the issue ends here. Cain used poor choice of words over the weekend before all the facts were available. When they were, Cain clarified his response saying that he trusted Rick Perry. I honestly hope this issue just ends here.

Insider Advantage (R) Georgia Primary

• Cain – 41% (15)
• Gingrich – 17% (9)
• Romney – 10% (6)
• Perry – 9% (24)
• Paul – 5% (5)
• Bachmann – 1% (8)
• Huntsman – 1% (1)
• Other – 4% (4)
• Undecided – 12% (20)

Survey of 678 registered Republicans has a margin of error of +/-3%. Numbers from the IA poll ending August 20 are in parentheses.

Quinnipiac National Republican Primary

• Romney – 22% (18)
• Cain – 17% (5)
• Perry – 14% (24)
• Palin – 9% (11)
• Gingrich – 8% (3)
• Paul – 6% (9)
• Bachmann – 3% (10)
• Santorum – 3% (1)
• Huntsman – 1% (1)

Survey of 927 Republican voters was conducted Sept 27-Oct 3 and has a margin of error of +/-3.2%. Numbers from their mid-August poll are in parentheses.

This is the third national poll now showing Perry collapsing, Romney regaining the top spot, and Cain rocketing up the charts. Here is what that looks like in visual form, courtesy of RCP:

Perry’s fall is actually worse than that, too: the latest average still includes a pre-Florida debate poll. When that poll is taken out of the equation Perry’s average tumbles an additional 4 points down to 16.7%. Cain should actually move ahead of Perry in the averages with the next poll that is released.

A guest editorial on C4P by Nancy Labonete:

A Third Party Run By Sarah Palin May Not Be Far-Fetched
…

In a blog post “Which Title Doesn’t Gov. Palin Need?” C4P’s Adrienne Ross questioned whether the title Sarah Palin was referring to was that of “President” or simply the “GOP nominee.” She then presented an interesting theory that perhaps the governor was considering a third party run? Ms. Ross’ article created as much of commenters’ reactions as the governor’s remarks. Given her prominent role in politics, her public writings on national policies heavy on details, quick missives on pertinent issues on the social media, her high-profile bus tours and speeches, a much prolonged decision-making process on whether she’d run or not may seem like a sign of hesitancy. But the possibility of an independent run does make sense and to delay the anouncement of her candidacy may simply be part of a bigger plan. Sarah Palin promised this to be a very unconventional election cycle.

Creating a third party fits that narrative.

…

To what end? Personally, I have too much respect for Sarah to think that she would do this. She would have to know that any third party run by her would siphon votes from the Republican nominee which would guarantee a shoe-in by Obama next year. Does she spite the Republican Party that much? I highly doubt it.

I suspect that this is a Palin supporter who is focusing more upon what they are fantasizing and wanting and less upon what Sarah really wants. Sarah Palin is her own woman, just as Chris Christie is his own man. She is not going to be buffaloed into running a race that she doesn’t want to run. If she doesn’t think she should run, she will not run.

A quick scan through the comments over at C4P shows a rough ratio of three-to-one against. Even the majority of C4Pers recognize the folly in this. Good for them.

Just to be clear, I do not think that divulging who I will vote for in my state caucus is any big deal. Mainly, I just wish to be upfront about it in the interest of full disclosure. However,  the decision to formally announce which candidate I will support for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination was a difficult one for me to make due to my position as Managing Editor of this site. I have always wanted Race42012.com to be a forum where all Republican presidential candidates are treated equally and fairly, and where the supporters of all candidates feel welcome. I realize that I have achieved varying degrees of success in this regard throughout the years. However, I can honestly say that this has not been the case due to a lack of effort or commitment on my part. So I am fully aware that the act of publicly endorsing a candidate comes with the risk of appearing to undermine one of the core principles which has guided me in managing this site.

So why announce my decision now? Mainly because I feel that I owe it to the readers of Race42012 to be honest regarding where I stand. I feel that it would be wrong for me to continue to manage Race, claiming to be undecided, but knowing full well who I will vote for in the Minnesota Republican Caucuses come February 7^th, 2012. From the beginning of the 2008 cycle, I made it clear that I was a supporter of Rudy Giuliani, and I believe that my decision to be upfront with about it was the correct one. My public support of Hizzoner did not prevent me from being invited to travel with the campaigns of Gov. Mike Huckabee and then Sen. Sam Brownback, nor did it inhibit Race42008 from becoming one of the most vibrant and intellectually diverse political communities in the Blogosphere.

I am now able to wholeheartedly endorse Mitt Romney because the two obstacles which have always prevented me from supporting him: the scorched-earth, negative campaign tactics that were employed against his fellow Republican candidates in the 2008 cycle, and the insufficient detail as to exactly how he would repeal and replace Obamacare as President, have been addressed to my satisfaction. Also, I wanted to wait to make my decision until the field was set and I had given enough time for each candidate to make their case.

It has been clear from the outset of the campaign that Gov. Romney will, as Michael Medved often says, focus like a laser beam on Barack Obama’s extremely poor economic record as President. It is now evident that Romney has learned a crucial lesson from his last campaign, namely, that you do not win the GOP presidential nomination by infuriating the supporters of other candidates whose votes you will need when their chosen candidate drops out of the race. This, of course, is exactly what happened the last time and is one of the primary reasons why John McCain won the nomination rather than Mitt; as every time a candidate dropped out of the race, his supporters flocked to the candidate who they felt would have the best chance of “stopping Romney.”

When I see the way in which Gov. Romney is conducting his current campaign, where his focus is on the President’s record and not on his GOP competitors, I see a frontrunner, a nominee, and a President. I have full confidence that Gov. Romney and his team understands that this election will be a referendum on the economic record of Barack Obama, and have no fear that Romney will be side-tracked into territory where he is clearly not a good fit. There will be no calls for V-chips in personal computers or anti-pornography web ads this time around. Romney is committed to hammering President Obama on the main concern of the vast majority of Americans: jobs.

Regarding Obamacare, the release of Romney’s health care reform plan assuaged my concerns that Gov. Romney did not intend to do away with the most onerous aspects of PPACA (Obamacare’s legal name). You may remember that about a year-and-a-half ago, my story on a question I posed to Gov. Romney at a booksigning in Bloomington, MN made national headlines when I reported that Mitt told me that his newly announced initiative to “Repeal and Replace” the “worst aspects of Obamacare” did not include the repeal of the Individual Mandate/Pre-existing Exclusion in the act. These provisions form the heart-and-soul of PPACA, and any legislation which did not include the repeal of both of these elements would amount to mere window dressing.

Romney’s new repeal initiative does away with the Individual Mandate completely and provides for reasonable Pre-existing Exclusions; ones which will allow people with pre-existing conditions to obtain health insurance coverage without destroying the private health insurance market.  The plan is also market-based and pro-growth. Upon close inspection, it does not differ in any substantial way from the reforms I have suggested that Republicans propose since the passage of PPACA.

Of the other Republican presidential candidates, I have nothing but good things to say. Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann,  Jon Huntsman, et al…, would all make excellent presidents – and I would proudly vote for any of them against Barack Obama. But it is clear to me that Mitt Romney has learned much from his 2008 campaign and fully understands how to mount a successful primary and general election campaign this time around. Perhaps the insight which comes from running and losing once before is the real reason why Republicans always seem to nominate the guy who “came in 2^nd the last time”? The experience undoubtedly helped Romney, who is running a truly “First-Class” Republican presidential campaign. In the end, I have no doubt that Gov. Romney can form a coalition of Republican, Independent, and “moderate” voters that is necessary to defeat Barack Obama come November, 2012.

Perhaps the most common theme espoused by candidates in U.S. Presidential elections is that Americans face a choice between preserving the greatness of our nation or enabling its inevitable decline. Rarely have these claims held any truth. However, Barack Obama’s ideology and conception of America’s place in the world is unique among the historical offerings of Democratic Party. The American Dream is indeed on life support and cannot withstand four more years of an Obama presidency.

Of all the available choices, I believe that Mitt Romney stands the best chance of defeating Barack Obama and preserving the promise of America for generations to come.  Mitt Romney has asked all of us to “believe in America” once again. In the end, I must admit that I believe in Mitt and his ability to return our nation to greatness.

Watch the non-announcement announcement live on C-SPAN.

I am normally don’t pay that much attention to Intrade. It’s interesting to be sure, but it’s barely a notch above a straw poll in my book. Nevertheless, “WOW, just Wow!”

Romney shot above 50% this morning on the news that Christie is staying out, and he is heading for 60%. As of right now here are the numbers:

• Romney: 57.9
• Perry: 20.1
• Cain: 5.9
• Palin: 3.9
• Huntsman: 3.9
• Paul: 2.4

Everybody else is down in the noise below 1.5%.

As always, take this with a grain of salt. There is still a lot of time between now and the first caucuses and primaries.

Rasmussen reports that membership in the two parties is for all practical purposes dead even with the Republicans maintaining a miniscule 0.2% lead. Here are their results:

• Republicans: 33.9%
• Democrats: 33.7%
• Neither one: 32.4%

This cannot be good news for the President and his party only thirteen months from the 2012 elections. It’s not all peaches and cream for the Republicans, either. The number of people not affiliated with either party is almost one third of the electorate. We have to sell more than half of those on our nominees if we want to emerge victorious Nov 7, 2012.

National Review has the scoop.

Washington Post/ABC News National Republican Primary

• Romney – 25% (25)
• Cain – 16% (4)
• Perry – 16% (29)
• Paul – 11% (10)
• Bachmann – 7% (8)
• Gingrich – 7% (6)
• Santorum – 2% (3)
• Huntsman – 1% (1)
• Undecided/Other/None – 14% (12)

If Christie Runs:

• Romney – 22%
• Perry – 15%
• Cain – 14%
• Christie – 11%
• Paul – 11%
• Gingrich – 7%
• Bachmann – 6%
• Santorum – 2%
• Huntsman – 1%

If Christie and Palin Both Run:

• Romney – 21%
• Cain – 14%
• Perry – 14%
• Christie – 10%
• Palin – 9%
• Paul – 9%
• Gingrich – 6%
• Bachmann – 4%
• Santorum – 1%
• Huntsman – 1%

General Election Matchups:

• Romney – 48%
• Obama – 46%

• Christie – 45%
• Obama – 45%

• Obama – 49%
• Perry – 46%

Survey was conducted September 29-October 2. Numbers from the poll ending September 1 are in parentheses.

Well, this certainly adds a new level of interesting to the will-he-or-won’t-he game:

One assurance took the form of a pledge Mr. Christie made to Meg Whitman, the newly appointed Hewlett-Packard Co. chief executive, said two people familiar with the matter. As a condition of Ms. Whitman’s hosting a high-priced fund-raiser for him, Mr. Christie said he wouldn’t enter the Republican presidential contest, these people said.

Mr. Christie agreed to those terms earlier in September, the people with knowledge of the situation said. Ms. Whitman is a prominent supporter of GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney’s…

People involved in planning the Whitman event, which took place the next day, say that Mr. Christie called Ms. Whitman earlier last month to ask if she would host an event around the time of the Reagan Library speech. Ms. Whitman said she would host the fund-raiser if Mr. Christie could assure her he wasn’t going to run for president, two people close to Ms. Whitman said. “There were repeated conversations, and it was contingent that he not run for president,” one person said.

So the question of the night is: does this mean Christie won’t run, or does it mean he will break his promise?

Things are not looking good for the winner of the Ames, IA, straw poll. From the AP:

More top aides to Republican Michele Bachmann are quitting her presidential campaign, raising questions about the viability of her White House bid.

The major departures are pollster Ed Goeas and senior adviser Andy Parrish.

…

Bachmann’s deputy press secretary also transferred back to the congressional office. So has her scheduler.

Last month, Bachmann’s campaign manager and his deputy stepped down within weeks of her Iowa GOP straw poll victory.

This was in the LATimes yesterday:

Bachmann has dropped in the polls here [Iowa], as she has nationally. Top advisors have left or been forced out. Reports of lackluster fundraising were bolstered by her campaign’s plea to supporters last week for “emergency” contributions. 

At an event in Cedar Rapids, aides handed out leftover brochures asking for support at the straw poll, more than a month ago.

…

Recent events have drawn low turnouts. And she continues to make gaffes.

Remember, this is in Iowa, her must-win state, the state in which she has placed all her marbles. If she can’t turn this thing around soon, she won’t last long.

FEC filings are due out in less than two weeks. An anemic fundraising report could spell doom for her chances.

That makes next week’s debate one of critical importance for her. It represents what might be her last chance of turning this thing around. Barring a real knock-em-dead performance, she might not last until Thanksgiving.

With all the recent early state movement, it is time for the latest installment of our one-stop-shop for primary calendar information. Forcing the calendar backwards into January not only caused chaos among the early states, it also is wreaking havoc on the debate schedule.

What you see below is my educated guess as to where the debates will now land. Some of them, such as the FOX News / Iowa GOP debate on Dec 27, 2011 are scheduled in tandem with wherever the primaries or caucuses end up. In the case of that FOX debate, it is scheduled to take place exactly one week before the Iowa caucuses. ABC and NBC both scheduled their New Hampshire debates (currently listed as Jan 4-9) to take place in between the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary.

Other debates are scheduled to coincide with an event, such as the CNN debate on January 19. It just so happens that the Southern Leadership Conference falls two days before the new South Carolina primary, so that worked out well for them. Of course, FOX scheduled their SC debate for the eve of the primary, so we’ll see if the two organizations do any sort of negotiating so the candidates aren’t doing two debates in a row.

And finally, any date marked with an asterisk below is subject to change. Those are, again, educated guesses as to when those events will fall on the calendar. Isn’t this fun?

Did I miss an event? Let me know in the comments. Please note that this calendar contains only the major Republican debates, not the myriad of “forums” that various groups sponsor throughout the primary season.