The two ads below will both run in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina, along with radio versions of both in all four states as well. The buy is in the “multi millions” of dollars. For Paul, who ended the third quarter with just $3.5 million, spending well over half your bank account on an ad campaign is a huge gamble.

PPP (D) Hawaii 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 59%
• Mitt Romney 32%

• Barack Obama 63%
• Herman Cain 30%

• Barack Obama 61%
• Ron Paul 28%

• Barack Obama 63%
• Rick Perry 28%

• Barack Obama 64%
• Michele Bachmann 28%

• Barack Obama 64%
• Newt Gingrich 27%

(more…)

I’ll be on the Real Side at with Joe Messina at around 2:12 PM PT to discuss,  “How Conservatives Kill Tax Reform.” You can listen online at the website

Former Iowa GOP Chair Steve Grubbs joins the Herman Cain campaign to coordinate his efforts in Iowa. In addition to being the former State Party chair, Grubbs has an interesting record in Presidential politics – leading Bob Dole’s successful effort to win the Iowa caucus in 1996. Grubbs had the following to say about joining the Cain campaign:

“We tried a community organizer as president, maybe it’s time we put a CEO in the White House. I’ve had the good fortune to work with Bob Dole, Steve Forbes and Tommy Thompson and I can honestly say that I’ve never quite seen the groundswell of excitement that I’m seeing for Herman Cain. I’ve looked at the Cain campaign organization and while there’s a lot of work to do, it has the ingredients to win. Herman Cain has deep support in Iowa and that makes the job of finding precinct leaders easier…Mitt Romney has five years behind his organization in Iowa and that makes him the frontrunner, but the momentum of the Cain campaign is only getting stronger and the enthusiasm for Herman’s vision to turn our country around is only getting louder.”

PPP (D) Ohio 2012 Presidential Survey

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

• Barack Obama 48% (47%)
• Herman Cain 45% (39%)

• Barack Obama 48%
• Ron Paul 40%

• Barack Obama 49% (48%)
• Michele Bachmann 40% (41%)

• Barack Obama 50% (45%)
• Rick Perry 41% (41%)

• Barack Obama 51% {49%} [50%] (47%)
• Newt Gingrich 40% {40%} [38%] (41%)

(more…)

Rasmussen 2012 Iowa Republican Caucuses Poll

• Herman Cain 28% (4)
• Mitt Romney 21% (17)
• Ron Paul 10% (14)
• Newt Gingrich 9% (2)
• Michele Bachmann 8% (18)
• Rick Perry 7% (29)
• Rick Santorum 4% (4)
• Jon Huntsman 2% (3)
• Not Sure 8%
• Other 4%

The survey of 800 Likely Iowa Republican Caucus Participants was conducted on October 19, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. Numbers in parentheses are from the August 31 poll.

Coming to a congressional district near you, a look at how the OWS protests could devastate the Democrats’ chances in 2012.

Romney’s been in a holding pattern all week. Perry is up, largely, I suspect, because Cain is down and Perry is the only viable anti-Romney left in the race. Will Perry’s +5 this past week translate into further gains for him? Or will Romney finally be able to consolidate the support in the polls that the investors thought he would, and show that he deserves his 66 points on the trading board?

Only candidates who have announced an official candidacy or who have greater than a 3% chance at the nomination are included.

The Romney campaign released an ad just yesterday attacking Rick Perry. That ad has now been pulled from YouTube.

I can only think of three reasons for pulling the ad:

1. Copyright issues with some of the video and/or audio used.
2. Some low to mid-level flunky released it without consulting senior people.
3. The response was far too negative.

Whatever the reason or combination thereof, it represents the first real stumble of a heretofore well-oiled, smoothly running campaign machine. Compared to the trips, stumbles, and pratfalls coming from the other campaigns, it’s a relatively minor thing. However, for a campaign that is based almost totally upon flawless competence, it is going to leave a mark. Mitt can ill afford very many of these.

Romney seldom makes the same mistake twice. We will be watching.

***Update***

CNN has revealed that they objected to use of their copyright content. That is why the ad was pulled.

The ad titled “Ready to Lead?” was taken down late Wednesday, apparently after a complaint from CNN. Andrea Saul, a spokesman for the former Massachusetts governor, said, “While the use of the CNN clips was fully within our rights under the law, we respect and appreciate the role CNN has played as host in debates over the last several months. For this reason, we are honoring their request to remove the video.”

In a statement, CNN said that the network, “did not consent to the use of its copyrighted material for this ad, and CNN objects to the use of its talent in any campaign ad. We respectfully requested that the Romney campaign not use CNN material in their campaign ads and they complied.”

So the next question is, will it reappear in some similar form? I am betting that it doesn’t. But, we shall see.

Our own Matt Coulter posted up a quote from Cain that seems to imply that he’s personally pro-life, but pro-choice. That’s not the case. A full review of the transcript between Cain and Piers Morgan paints a different picture. Here’s the encounter:

MORGAN: Abortion. What’s your view of abortion?

CAIN: I believe that life begins at conception. And abortion under no circumstances. And here’s why –

MORGAN: No circumstances?

CAIN: No circumstances.

MORGAN: Because many of your fellow candidates — some of them qualify that.

CAIN: They qualify but –

MORGAN: Rape and incest.

CAIN: Rape and incest.

MORGAN: Are you honestly saying — again, it’s a tricky question, I know.

CAIN: Ask the tricky question.

MORGAN: But you’ve had children, grandchildren. If one of your female children, grand children was raped, you would honestly want her to bring up that baby as her own?

CAIN: You’re mixing two things here, Piers?

MORGAN: Why?

CAIN: You’re mixing –

MORGAN: That’s what it comes down to.

CAIN: No, it comes down to it’s not the government’s role or anybody else’s role to make that decision. Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidents, you’re not talking about that big a number. So what I’m saying is it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make.

Not me as president, not some politician, not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family. And whatever they decide, they decide. I shouldn’t have to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive issue.

Cain was clearly talking about the exceptions many accept regarding rape / incest. To claim otherwise is to seriously twist Cain’s words, especially after his first answer was that he opposes abortion in all other circumstances.

EDIT: 10:44 10/20/11 – I unintentionally edited out the last two statements of the exchange between Morgan and Cain. Here’s the details:

MORGAN: By expressing the view that you expressed, you are effectively — you might be president. You can’t hide behind now the mask, if you don’t mind me saying, of being the pizza guy. You might be the president of United States of America. So your views on these things become exponentially massively more important. They become a directive to the nation.

CAIN: No they don’t. I can have an opinion on an issue without it being a directive on the nation. The government shouldn’t be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to social decisions that they need to make.

Taken in full context that still implies to me that he was referring to rape / incest. As I mentioned in the comments:

A) Cain says that abortion is wrong under all circumstances.
B) Cain implies that it can be legal under the situation of rape / incest from his nuanced answer.
C) Cain says that he can hold an opinion (i.e. opposition to abortion under all circumstances including rape / incest) without making it a directive of the nation

My understanding is that last statement applies to the rape / incest exception. I think Cain needs to clarify, but that is still my understanding of the exchange. Feel free to disagree, but until we get confirmation from Cain who has historically been very pro-life that he meant otherwise, I’m ready to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Oh, boy…

Tonight, Herman Cain sat down with CNN’s Piers Morgan to discuss his stance on a variety of issues. And it would appear that, where abortion is concerned, Cain is “anti-abortion in all cases,” yet “pro-choice.”

Click the link to watch the video of the exchange. Here’s the transcript of Cain’s answer:

CAIN: “It comes down to is, it’s not the government’s role — or anybody else’s role — to make that decision. Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidents, you’re not talking about that big a number. So what I’m saying is, it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make. Not me as president. Not some politician. Not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family. And whatever they decide, they decide. I shouldn’t try to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive decision.

********************************

“I can have an opinion on an issue without it being a directive on the nation. The government shouldn’t be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to a social decision that they need to make.”

Just when you thought things couldn’t get more interesting…

H/T The Argo Journal

UPDATE: It’s been requested of me, and it is certainly more than fair, to point out that the original question Herman Cain was responding to was about abortion in the case of rape. Specifically, that is what his “statistical incidents” line is referring to. However, it seems clear that Cain’s second answer (underneath the asterisks), which was not in response to a question about rape, makes clear that he holds the same position on abortion that John Kerry did in 2004 and that Mitt Romney did in 2002. As always, and as I said in this post, watch the video. You can judge for yourself from the context of the interview.

Azimuth Polling Group Texas Republican Primary Survey

• Cain- 33%
• Paul-19%
• Perry-18%
• Romney-7%
• Gingrich-5%
• Johnson-3%
• Huntsman-3%
• Bachmann-1%
• Roemer-1%
• Karger-0%
• Undecided-7%

Poll of 844 Republican voters (MoE +/- 3%)  in Texas via Direct email and phone calls.

Take this poll with a grain of salt. Azimuth emailed and called 4372 Texas Republican voters and less than 1/5 responded, producing this survey.  If anything, it is representative of people in Texas who are engaged enough to really care about the race at this point. Still any poll that shows Perry in 3rd place in Texas is noteworthy.

The Nevada Republican Central Committee will meet on Saturday for a long-planned meeting. At that meeting, however, Politico is reporting the Central Committee will more than likely vote to move the Nevada Caucus off of Saturday, January 14.

The January 14 date was chosen by the smaller Executive Committee, where only one person voted against the date: RNC committeewoman Heidi Smith. Now, the Central Committee – with about 200 members – is set to overturn the Executive Committee decision and move the caucus. The only question that remains is to what date it will be moved.

If Heidi Smith has her way, they will place the caucus on February 4. However, others are opposed to moving it into February because it means losing their number three spot in the early state lineup.

This news comes on the heels of two days of negotiations with RNC Chairman Reince Preibus. In return for moving the caucus, Priebus reportedly promised Governor Bob List that Nevada would be given official “early status” in future calendars.

Obviously, if Nevada moves back to February 4, it will be a big disappointment for the Romney campaign, who is counting on momentum out of Nevada to propel him through South Carolina into Florida. If they decide to move back to January 17, the calendar looks much more favorable to Romney. We’ll know on Saturday, and then Gardner should officially set New Hampshire on January 10 soon after that.

UPDATE: The Las Vegas Sun has more details on the discussions between Reince Priebus and the Nevada delegation. Apparently, the deal that Priebus presented to Nevada involves them moving specifically to February 4, 2012. The RNC specifically asked Nevada to “give up its number 3 spot this year”, and in return, “Nevada would receive promises of stricter future sanctions to protect its early state status in the long term.”

If the Nevada GOP Central Committee end up taking this deal – and it appears likely they will – then this is awful news for the Romney campaign. The primary calendar will move from Iowa to New Hampshire and then to South Carolina — nearly two weeks later, when any momentum out of New Hampshire will likely be lost. Nevada would kick off the Romney February portion of the calendar, now including NV, CO, MN, ME, AZ, and MI. Mitt would be favored to win all six at the moment, but if he loses two of the first three contests that will have an impact on the trajectory of the race heading into February.

Associated Press-GfK National Republican Primary

• Romney – 30%
• Cain – 26%
• Perry – 13%
• Paul – 8%
• Gingrich – 7%
• Bachmann – 4%
• Huntsman – 2%
• Santorum – 2%
• Undecided – 7%

Favorability Ratings Among All Adults:

• Romney – 49/37
• Cain – 43/32
• Paul – 38/35
• Huntsman – 22/28
• Perry – 38/44
• Santorum – 25/32
• Bachmann – 35/44
• Gingrich – 35/51

General Election Matchups (Among Adults)

• Obama – 48%
• Romney – 45%

• Obama – 48%
• Cain – 43%

• Obama – 50%
• Perry – 42%

Survey of 1,000 adults (MoE +/-4%) and 431 registered Republicans and Republican-leaning independents was conducted October 13-17.

I missed the debate last night, but just watched it online and thought I’d throw out a few observations for conversation.

The most important part of last night’s debate, in my opinion, is the fact that it was the last debate for the next three weeks. After having five debates in six weeks’ time, we (and the candidates) get a much needed respite from them. However, the debates have functioned in this race as the major game change vehicles, and so that means whatever happened last night will largely be the impression that the voters carry with them for the next three weeks.

I’ve long been a fan of issuing grades for debates rather than simply saying who won and who lost (which oversimplifies things a bit), so here is my report card:

Gingrich: A
Gingrich is lucky to have had five debates in the last six weeks: they have allowed him to completely turn around his flailing campaign. Debates are where this man excels and where he brandishes his credentials as the GOP’s elder statesman. He was the adult in a roomful of squabbling teenagers last night and presented ideas with clarity and depth. His weakest moment came in a small (comparatively speaking) dust-up with Romney over individual mandates. He ended the debate on the highest note, though, when he said “bickering is probably not the road to the White House” and rebuked Anderson Cooper for his moderating style — and then said he would challenge President Obama to seven three hour Lincoln-Douglas debates if he were the nominee. Just brilliant. Gingrich will never get the votes to become the Republican nominee, but he is earning a plenitude of respect from his showing at these venues. It is to Gingrich’s detriment that we will be debate-less for three weeks.

Romney: A-
Romney’s performance will largely be a Rorschach test of sorts for voters. From my perspective, he looked incredibly weak when discussing healthcare with Rick Santorum (a topic he has had strong answers to in previous debates, but he seemed to stray from his “defend Romneycare” script last night); however, he looked incredibly strong taking down Rick Perry. But the interwebs are ablaze this morning with an equal mix of “Romney blew it” and “Romney was amazing” articles. He allowed himself to get dragged down into the fight with Perry, but there was little else he could have done to respond to Perry’s attacks. Romney didn’t help himself last night, but he didn’t really hurt himself either. The friendly audience reaction (Nevada really is Mitt Country) will help massage any damaging moments for people who watch the videos. Since no one else (specifically Cain and Perry) helped themselves either, it’s good enough for an A-.

Bachmann: B+
Well, there’s the Michele Bachmann we saw back at the beginning of the season in that New Hampshire debate. Where has she been hiding all these months? She chose the best time to look alive again, leaving the voters with a strong impression for the next three weeks. Standing up to Ron Paul on foreign aid to Israel was a brilliant move (but one she almost rendered inconsequential with her suggestion that Iraq reimburse America for the cost of their liberation). Ultimately, there’s just no path for Bachmann to the nomination, but she appears to understand that. She is desperately breathing life into her Iowa campaign, but with her stepping in to save Romney during his healthcare misfire it’s clear she sees her role in this race as helping Romney achieve victory.

Paul: B-
Ron Paul looked a little less crazy than usual last night, but that’s not saying much. His responses on the question of eliminating foreign aid delved into the realm of ridiculously unrealistic, like a majority of his views on foreign policy that he espouses during these debates. He did get a lot of favorable reactions from the audience, however, showing that he will once again probably finish second in the libertarian-minded Nevada caucuses.

Perry: C+
This was probably Rick Perry’s best debate performance so far — but all that essentially means is that he was able to string two coherent thoughts together without drooling on himself. Once again, the first half of the debate was his strongest performance and he began falling apart in the second half. But this time around, he didn’t have any horrid moments that stood out above the rest as in previous debates. This time around, he just came off as his stuttering, pausing, unintelligent self. Getting booed by the audience about half a dozen times can’t feel good, either. But he did show his fundraisers and supporters that he is more than willing to fight for this nomination, something they desperately needed to see from him. Given his vast bank account of campaign funds, he showed last night that he will still be a force to be reckoned with in this race – for better or for worse.

Cain: C
I think the air began coming out of the Herman Cain balloon last night. He was attacked relentlessly over his 9-9-9 plan by everybody on the stage. (Newt Gingrich actually shone when he prefaced his critique of the plan with words of gratitude and respect for Cain.) All Cain was ever able to say in return was, “That’s not true! It’s not true!” He gave no plausible reasons why the attacks weren’t true. You almost began to feel sorry for the guy after awhile, with six other folks teaming up on him like that. Then the debate moved into immigration, and the audience actually applauded Anderson Cooper for pointing out Cain’s befuddling, complex stance on an electric border fence. Finally, the debate moved onto foreign policy where Cain was once again shown as a lightweight on the issue of negotiating with terrorists, even forgetting words that he had spoken just hours earlier and contradicting his own positions when he realized what he had done. I’d expect more interviewers to ask Cain questions on foreign policy — doesn’t matter what, just any question on foreign policy — as he has proven completely unable to answer any thrown his way thus far. Not a good night for Cain last night.

Santorum: D+
Rick Santorum has pretty much done the polar opposite of Michele Bachmann in this string of debates. She got lost in the crowd for most of them until she came out strong last night; Santorum, on the other hand, performed incredibly strong in the previous debates but flopped last night. As I’ve noted here at Race before, Santorum was really impressing me with some of his solid debate performances, but not last night. Last night he was the angry attack dog, nipping at anybody and everybody on stage. It’s clear that, having only $180,000 cash on hand and gaining absolutely no traction in the polls whatsoever, that Santorum is in the last death throes of his campaign and trying desperately to do something. Anything. Last night was not pretty for Santorum, and given the three-week break now, I’d be surprised if he’s on the stage in Michigan for the next debate.

CNN has the story:

A group launched a new effort Tuesday night dedicated to supporting Hermain Cain’s candidacy in the early-voting states.

The Super PAC – dubbed the 999 PAC – is run by Republican campaign veteran Jordan Gehrke. He pledges to raise enough money to hire “experienced operatives to staff Cain in for the early states, operatives who have experience winning.”

He identifies those states as Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, Michigan, Arizona and Florida.

Under Federal Election Commission rules, a “Super PAC” or super political action committee can accept unlimited donations but must report its contributors and cannot coordinate with a candidate.

Here’s the video that the group released during last night’s debate announcing their launch:



Be sure to head over to CNN for the complete story.

-Posted from Townhall.com

In 2004, hundreds of Mormons crowded into the Provo Tabernacle and listened intently as the speaker, who was not a member of the LDS faith, exclaimed, “We have sinned against you.”

Was this Bryant Gumbel apologizing for slighting the BYU Cougar’s 1984 NCAAF title? No, it was noted evangelical scholar Richard J. Mouw, President of the Fuller Theological Seminary.

In the rush of news articles examining the awkward tension brought about by Pastor Jeffress remarks at the Values Voters Conference is an unnoticed but significant thaw in the troubled relations between Evangelicals and Mormons.

(more…)

Cain adviser Stephen Moore said that based on public opposition to the idea of a national sales tax, he’d recommend to Cain to change his 9-9-9 plan. Instead of a 9% sales tax component, it would be replaced with a 9% payroll tax component – thus remaining a 9-9-9 plan. While Moore doesn’t speak for Cain, he does plan to discuss this with Cain as a potential alternative to his current 9-9-9 strategy. I’m unsure how I feel about the swap out myself. Again, it would be interesting to see a detailed analysis on the subject. Here’s an excerpt from the Fox News article:

…[E]conomic adviser Stephen Moore said earlier that he intends to tell Cain to drop the sales tax portion of the plan and replace it with a 9 percent payroll tax, which would disappear under the current proposal.

“When we designed this plan, I thought people would go along with the 9 percent sales tax. But the point is they won’t. And why not just do a payroll tax? It’s the devil we know, it’s the devil we already have,” Moore said.

He said he was “surprised” at how “hostile” people were to the sales tax component, which he called a good idea that simply won’t fly with the public.

“I love the idea,” Moore said over the weekend on economist Larry Kudlow’s radio show. “But I’ve come to the conclusion that the American people and the voters do not want a national sales tax.”

Dropping the last “9″ would naturally blow a revenue hole in Cain’s proposal. So Moore, also a writer with The Wall Street Journal, said replacing it with the payroll tax would be “a total winner.”

Calls to Moore were not immediately returned, and he did not indicate how the payroll tax would be paid. Currently, employees pay a combined 7.65 percent to cover Medicare and Social Security while the employer matches it with another 7.65 percent.

Cain’s easy-to-understand tax plan helped him gain attention on the campaign trail and at recent debate, and no doubt fueled his rise to frontrunner status alongside former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. But now that Cain is at the front of the field, his tax plan is coming under intense scrutiny.

_______________________________________________________

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

Gallup 2012 GOP Favorability Survey

Among Republicans/GOP-Leaning Independents Who Recognize CandidateFavorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Herman Cain 76% /14% {+62%}
• Mitt Romney 67% /23%  {+44%}
• Newt Gingrich 67% /27% {+40%}
• Rick Santorum 62% /23%  {+39%}
• Rick Perry 60% /30% {+30%}
• Michele Bachmann 57% /33%  {+24%}
• Jon Huntsman 52%/34% {+18%}
• Ron Paul 53%/36%  {+17%}

(more…)

NBC News/Marist Poll 2012 Florida Republican Presidential Primary

• Hermann Cain 32%
• Mitt Romney 31%
• Rick Perry 8%
• Ron Paul 6%
• Newt Gingrich 6%
• Undecided 11%

Potential Republican primary electorate (POTREP=1): n=748, MOE +/-3.6%; Likely Voters: n=524, MOE +/-4.3%

NBC News/Marist Poll 2012 South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary

• Herman Cain 30%
• Mitt Romney 26%
• Rick Perry 9%
• Newt Gingrich 6%
• Michele Bachmann 5%
• Ron Paul 5%
• Undecided 15%

Potential Republican primary electorate (POTREP=1): n=992, MOE +/-3.1%; Likely Voters: n=639, MOE +/-3.9%

From the get-go CNN moderator Anderson Cooper was a bad choice for the moderator of the GOP debate and not just because of bias.

The former reality TV show host clearly didn’t know how to treat a campaign for the Presidency with dignity. The introductions were not unlike what we’ll see before Game 1 of the World Series tomorrow, and to cap it off, we had the National Anthem.

Cooper was not so much a moderator, as he was a provoker. Rather than viewing the debates as an opportunity to educate the voters, Cooper’s questions set out to draw Republican candidates in cage fight style confrontations and it worked several times, but none drew more blood and more of the Jerry Springer style politics that Cooper was striving for than this confrontation between Romney and Perry.

Lets be clear here, Perry was out of line from the beginning. Perry supporters can take heart in the fact that he stayed awake for nearly half the debate, only lapsing into incoherency towards the end of the debate. Unfortunately, most of the time in this debate, while he wasn’t asleep, he looked anything but presidential. Shouting matches and downright rudeness characterized Perry’s performance. It looked anything but Presidential.

However, Romney’s response didn’t help. On one hand, he dispelled SNL Romney’s statement, “I”m incapable of rage,” with a response that included getting into Rick Perry’s personal space and putting his hand on Perry’s shoulder in a very agressive away.

For many Republican voters, the gumption of Romney might be appreciated  except it was accompanied by whining about the debate rules and appealing to the moderator by name. “Anderson!” in a tone not too dissimilar from a child crying, “Mom, make him stop!”

Many folks at home saw what Sarah Palin saw. Her kids were fussing at each other during the debate and she had moments when she could tell the debate from her kids fighting each other and couldn’t tell which would make the most sense.

Much of the after-debate was about who won the debate. On the fine points of a college debating judge, the case can always be made for Newt Gingrich, with a nod to Michele Bachmann doing nicely. In reality, debates are about moments. When we look back at recent presidential debates, we don’t remember the debates on points, what stands out are those moments.

“I’m paying for this microphone…” and “There you go again.” (Reagan ’80)

“Where’s the beef?” (Mondate ’84 to Gary Hart.)

Governor, would you support the death penalty for someone who murdered and raped your wife? (Bernard Shaw to Michael Dukakis)

“Can we leave character out of it?” (The pony tail guy in 1992)

Even from this year’s debates, we remember the defining moments. Bachmann going overbnpard on Gardisil. Perry saying opponents of in-state tuition for illegals had no heart, Cain talking how he was able to survive Stage IV cancer thanks to our current health care system.

Any doubt as to what the defining moment of this debate will be? The one thing people will remember. As Allahpundit remarked that this was “the closest America has ever come to an actual fistfight breaking out during a debate.”

This was bad for the party and bad for the country. Anything that can be done?

1) Stop doing so many debates-particularly with so many candidates in the race. It’s very hard for someone to truly “win” the debate when candidates aren’t all asked the same questions and you can go half an hour with hearing from someone.

2) Candidates should insist on the majority of campaigns approving of the moderator. Really, there’s no excuse for Anderson Cooper being the moderators. To Fox News’ credit, they don’t send Sean Hannity to moderate debates. They send less biased hard news people and the other networks could do the same.

3) Questions that will actually inform voters rather than driving candidates nuts.

Of course, the odds of any of this happening are slim. Lesser known candidate willl go to any debate sponsored by virtually anyone, so they can get their name out and if the major candidates don’t follow suit they’re exposed to charges of being chicken and dodging debates.

Republican and Tea Party organizations seem willing to partner with anyone willing to offer an event airtime without thought to how edifying the performance will be. Truth is that Republicans would do better to let respected local jounalists ask the questions and let C-Span air the debates.

You can watch the  CNN/Western Republican Leadership Conference debate on cable/satellite on CNN or online here.

As always, have at it in the comments!

ABC News/Washington Post 2012 Favorability Survey

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Herman Cain 31% / 27% {+4%}
• Mitt Romney 33% (33%) / 36% (31%) {-3%}
• Rick Perry 26% (23%) / 38% (31%) {-12%}

Among Conservative Republicans

• Herman Cain 58% / 19% {+39%}
• Mitt Romney 60% (57%) / 25% (17%) {+35%}
• Rick Perry 55% (55%) / 26% (7%) {+29%}

Survey of 1,009 adults was conducted October 13-16, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points.  Results from the poll conducted September 14-18, 2011 are in parentheses.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

PPP (D) Hawaii 2012 GOP Primary Survey

• Herman Cain 36%
• Mitt Romney 24%
• Newt Gingrich 8%
• Rick Perry 8%
• Michele Bachmann 6%
• Ron Paul 4%
• Jon Huntsman 1%
• Rick Santorum 1%
• Gary Johnson 1%
• Someone else/Not sure 11%

(more…)

Whatever dude…

Paul Collins, New Hampshire Senior Advisor to Jon Huntsman for President, issued the following statement in response to the Romney campaign’s comments on the Nevada boycott:

“It is clear that Governor Romney’s campaign is not backing away from its efforts to undermine New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation tradition. While I respect Representative Hess, his comments today regarding the Nevada boycott couldn’t be further from the truth. Governor Huntsman has shown leadership by taking a stand for New Hampshire and I’m encouraged that other candidates have followed him by boycotting Nevada’s caucuses. The only ploy at work here is the Romney campaign’s ploy to game the primary system to their benefit. Fortunately, Governor Huntsman is willing to stand up for New Hampshire’s tradition and importance in the primary process.”

The bottom line is that Jon Huntsman has about the same chance of winning Nevada as I do, and this is little more than a transparent attempt to injure Romney in New Hampshire. In the end, I rather doubt that New Hampshirites will pay much attention. Especially considering how little attention they have been paying to Jon Huntsman up to this point.

A New Foreign Policy Debate
Apparently 20 Republican debates wasn’t enough for some folks, as CNN this morning announced that they will be teaming up with the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute to host a debate in November. The interesting thing about this one: it is the only one currently scheduled which will focus entirely on foreign policy issues.

New Hampshire Primary Debates Tentatively Set
In other debate news… we are finally getting a little clarity after the chaotic calendar shuffle. ABC News and NBC News have clarified a couple of scheduling notes as far as their New Hampshire debates next January – both stations are assuming that Bill Gardner will place the NH primary on a Tuesday. ABC has announced their debate from Manchester will be held the Saturday evening prior to the primary; NBC announced that their debate in Concord will take place the Sunday morning prior.

This means that in between the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, the remaining candidates will be forced to do back-to-back debates about twelve hours apart from one another. Not sure who thought this was a good idea… (NBC reportedly scheduled their debate for a Sunday morning before ABC scheduled theirs for the night before.) All of this, of course, is predicated on the hope that Gardner will choose the best of his disappointing options and just schedule the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, January 10.

Florida Primary Debates Locked In
Other date confirmations are trickling in following the primary calendar shuffle as well. NBC News and the St Petersberg Times have confirmed the new date of their Florida debate – the debate was originally planned for the evening prior to the Florida primary, and they have decided to keep that schedule even with Florida moving up to January 31. So that debate is now locked in at January 30. And CNN has announced that their Florida debate will be moved to January 26 to accommodate the earlier Florida primary.

One of Two South Carolina Debates Set
And finally, CNN has confirmed that they will keep their South Carolina debate, originally planned for January 19, on that same date. It worked out well for CNN – they had originally planned the debate to be a part of the Southern GOP Leadership Conference, and now by keeping it on the same date they get to be just two days before the actual SC primary as well. So far, all FOX News has said is that their SC debate will be held “in the days leading up to the primary.”

Slowly but surely, we are seeing this primary calendar come into focus. It appears that the final things we are waiting on is Gardner to set the New Hampshire primary, the Des Moines Register to reset their Iowa debate, and FOX News to set their Iowa and South Carolina debates.

(Any date marked with an asterisk below is subject to change. Those are educated guesses as to when those events will fall on the calendar.)

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.

PPP (D) Ohio 2012 GOP Primary Survey

• Herman Cain 34% [10%] (13%)
• Mitt Romney 19% [20%] (23%)
• Newt Gingrich 14% [8%] (16%)
• Ron Paul 7% [8%] (13%)
• Michele Bachmann 6% [14%] (11%)
• Rick Perry 5% [21%]
• Jon Huntsman 1% [1%] (0%)
• Rick Santorum 1%
• Gary Johnson 0%
• Someone else/Not sure 12% [16%] (18%)

(more…)