We have concentrated almost exclusively upon what Mitt Romney’s and Rick Perry’s strategy might be in tonight’s upcoming debate. Well, what about Herman Cain? What will be his strategy? Does he go after Romney? Does he go after Perry? Or does he a bit of both?

Attacking Mitt makes some sense. Cain is the current “not-Mitt”. He also has the advantage of a number of Mitt supporters liking the cut of his jib. Another reason to go after Romney is Mitt is the frontrunner. It is a truism that you always want to attack the guy in front of you, not behind you.

So he has very good reasons to attack Mitt. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that he will train most of his fire on Rick, not Mitt.

Why? Relative vulnerability primarily. Mitt has been attacked and beat on for four years now. His support hasn’t gone up much, but it hasn’t gone done much either. It has remained quite steady. It is going to be hard to move the needle on Romney more than a few points. Rick Perry, on the other hand, shot to the top of the pack and has fallen even faster than he rose. He has very little solid support. And any support Cain can peal from Perry will likely go to him as the “not-Mitt”.

Finally, it’s personal.  Cain does not like Perry, period. He just doesn’t respect the man. I can well imagine that whether he wins the nomination or not, slamming the door once and for all in the face of what he sees as a blustering fool would give an intelligent man like Herman a great deal of personal satisfaction.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that he will ignore Romney, but if Cain does go on the attack, I suspect that the majority of his ammunition will be sent Perry’s way.

Let the games begin!

Christie’s endorsement of Romney has brought much predictable howling and anguish.  Some of the more thoughtful critiques, such as the one offered by the Washington Examiner’s Philip Klein, point to the seeming disconnect between Christie’s desire for entitlement reform and his decision to endorse a candidate who’s sole contribution to the debate, so far, has been to attack a fellow Republican from the left.  But most of the newfound Christie critics are anything but thoughtful and have decided that, not only is Christie’s endorsement uneventful, but predictable given that “RINOS endorse RINOS”.  This is, I suppose, the best of a bad line of defenses for an anti-Romney brigade whose position is rapidly deteriorating.  But, for the record, let’s recap.

Pawlenty runs for President.  He has strong-establishment support, combined with a record and history solidly to Romney’s right.  He’s rejected as too boring or something.  Meanwhile, the right falls for various phantom candidates- Trump, Palin- who eat up huge chunks of the electorate.  They swoon for non-traditional candidates like Bachmann and Cain who, history suggests, don’t have a prayer.  Then finally, when they manage to drag a real political player into the race, they pick Rick Perry, the king of talking good.  At no point in this process did the extablishment “stymie” them or rig things for Romney.  The establishment begged first Barbour, then Daniels, then Ryan, then Christie to enter the race.   They did this, no doubt, because it looked like a random homeless person off the street could jump in the race and instantly eclipse Romney.  Christie and co. did not want a “moderate” or a “centrist” or a “RINO”.  They wanted a conservative who could win the Presidency.

After O’Donnell, Buck, and Angle- right-wing revolts with disastrous consequences- there was no appetite in establishment circles to back the guy who created the blue-print for Obamacare.  That’s why Romney’s fundraising has been mediocre.  That’s why every week saw a new draft movement.  And had the right managed to produce one major office holder who could string together a complete sentence without getting lost and befuddled, Romney would be ancient history and the establishment would have made peace with the tea party.  But there’s only so much you can ask from a group of people who- like Christie- win elections for a living.  PPP currently has Rick Perry’s favorables a 23-57.  Those are not numbers with which one topples an incumbent President, even a desperately unpopular one.  Chris Christie didn’t endorse Romney because the men are simpatico, or because Christie secretly yearns for moderate nominee.  He endorsed Romney because there’s no one else.

From the official release:

“This is the most important election in generations. Whether we are able to fix our economy and get our country on the right track will have ramifications for decades. We cannot afford to continue on our current path. Mitt Romney has a life history of coming into struggling organizations and turning them around. Right now, we need someone like him in the White House to fundamentally change our economy and reverse three years of failed policies. Unlike our current president, Mitt Romney understands the economy from the inside out. Fixing the economy will not be easy, but Mitt has shown throughout his life that he has the leadership ability and expertise to lead our country toward a recovery. Republicans should recognize the importance of this election and realize that if they are serious about regaining the White House, Mitt Romney is the only candidate to back.”

Here is a Perry spokesman’s response:

“Gov. Perry has the utmost respect for Gov. Christie and looks forward to his help unseating President Obama next year. Until then, Gov. Perry will continue traveling the country talking about job creation and getting America working again. Rick Perry is the only candidate with a proven record of job creation, restraining spending, and lowering taxes to encourage strong economic growth and opportunity.” – Ray Sullivan, Perry Campaign Communications Director.

Public Policy Polling 2012 Iowa Caucus Poll

• Herman Cain 30%
• Mitt Romney 22%
• Ron Paul 10%
• Rick Perry 9%
• Michele Bachmann 8%
• Newt Gingrich 8%
• Rick Santorum 5%
• Jon Huntsman 1%
• Gary Johnson 1%

PPP surveyed 311 probable Iowa caucusgoers from October 7th to 10th. The margin of error for the survey is +/-5.6%. This poll was not paid for or authorized by any campaign or political organization. PPP surveys are conducted through automated telephone interviews.

Inside the numbers:

Better news for Cain even than his lead is that his supporters are much more solidly committed than Romney’s. 50% of them say they will definitely vote for him compared to only 34% who say the same for his co-front runner. When you look at the race just among voters who say they are firmly committed Cain’s lead expands to 19 points at 38% to 19% for Romney, 13% for Paul, and 12% for Perry.

One final note on Cain- in addition to having the lead in Iowa he might also have the most room to grow- 16% of voters say he’s their second choice compared to only 12% who say that for Romney and 11% for Perry. Cain is notably the next choice for both Bachmann and Santorum supporters, perhaps the candidates most likely to not actually still be in the race by the time Iowa voting comes around.

Big news day today:

In other news on doors shutting, Rudy Giuliani announced at a Long Island Association event just now that he’s not running for president.

Asked by the group’s president Kevin Law about reports that he had sent messages to New Hampshire supporters to keep their powder dry, Giuliani joked that they must have gone missing, according to one attendee.

And he added definitively, “If it’s too late for Chris Christie, it’s too late for me.”

Read the rest here.

Carl Cameron of FOX News is reporting that the “special guest” mentioned in an campaign email that was just sent out just moments ago is none other than Gov. Chris Christie.

Boston, MA – Today at 3:00pm, Mitt Romney and a special guest will address supporters ahead of the Bloomberg/Washington Post Debate in Hanover, New Hampshire. The following event will be open to the press:

Hat-tip: Mass Con

Doing the same thing over and over again expecting differing results.

I see where Romney detractors have once again gone to the well of RomneyCare. The topic has been discussed ad nauseum for at least four years now. Practically every commentary written about Romney’s chances at winning the nomination since at least 2007 has mentioned it. The results? Romney has the lead for the 2012 GOP nomination.

Yet here are his detractors once again thinking that this time they’ll get him. They are convinced that this time it’s going to be different. This time it will work. This time people will be be convinced to look elsewhere.

Remember the last debate? Mitt was attacked on MassCare which allowed him to defend it in detail. And guess what happened? In the focus group immediately after the debate, a number of the participants remarked that they had never heard him explain it before. They were now perfectly satisfied with it. So it proved a net gain for Romney.

So if — once again — Mitt opponents attack him on MassCare tonight, allowing Mitt — once again — to defend it in detail, what do you think will happen once again? Using past history as a guide, it won’t hurt him much and might actually end up strengthening him a bit.

One of these days his detractors might realize that that well ran dry ages ago.

Yet hope springs eternal…

Politico reports:

Michele Bachmann, who has had a staff contraction in recent weeks, has also closed her campaign offices in Old Town, Virginia, sources told POLITICO.

Clearly the Bachmann campaign is reeling. While I’m not so sure that Ed Rollins was doing his candidate much good at the time of departure, she’s lost serious steam. Bachmann does have a case to stick around through at least the next few debates, and maybe through Iowa, where despite her recent fall she remains in double digits according to the latest polling. But her promise to stick around until New Hampshire deserves some thought.

At some point, a candidate has to do some soul-searching, particularly if the candidate is a sitting officeholder who holds a seat in Congresss. Is her campaign really the best way she can contribute to the national debate? To quote that great political strategist Kenny Rogers, “You’ve got to know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em,” and Bachmann is getting pretty close to folding time.

Bad news for Romney here:

Newly obtained White House records provide fresh details on how senior Obama administration officials used Mitt Romney’s landmark health-care law in Massachusetts as a model for the new federal law, including recruiting some of Romney’s own health care advisers and experts to help craft the act now derided by Republicans as “Obamacare.”

The records, gleaned from White House visitor logs reviewed by NBC News, show that senior White House officials had a dozen meetings in 2009 with three health-care advisers and experts who helped shape the health care reform law signed by Romney in 2006, when the Republican presidential candidate was governor of Massachusetts. One of those meetings, on July 20, 2009, was in the Oval Office and presided over by President Barack Obama, the records show.

“The White House wanted to lean a lot on what we’d done in Massachusetts,” said Jon Gruber, an MIT economist who advised the Romney administration on health care and who attended five meetings at the Obama White House in 2009, including the meeting with the president. “They really wanted to know how we can take that same approach we used in Massachusetts and turn that into a national model.”

While this may be a liability for Romney now, it’ll be even worse if Romney makes it into a General Election Campaign, as he’ll try to criticize Obamacare, only to have Obama remind him that Romney’s Massachusetts health care advisors provided vital assistance in getting the thing ready.  (Hat Tip: Hot Air.)

Quinnipiac Virginia Republican Primary

• Cain – 21% (6)
• Romney – 21% (19)
• Perry – 11% (25)
• Paul – 9% (8)
• Bachmann – 7% (5)
• Gingrich – 7% (4)
• Santorum – 2% (2)
• Huntsman – 1% (1)

General Election Matchups

• Romney – 45%
• Obama – 44%

• Obama – 47%
• Perry – 42%

• Obama – 45%
• Cain – 43%

Favorability Ratings (Among all voters)

• Romney – 38/29
• Perry – 22/35
• Cain – 30/15

Survey of 345 Republican voters (+/-5.3%) and 1,459 registered voters (+/-2.6%) was conducted October 5-9. Numbers from the survey ending September 15 are in parentheses.

South Carolina Amercan Research Group Republican Primary Poll

• Cain 26%
• Romney 25%
• Perry 15%
• Gingrich 8%
• Paul 7%
• Bachmann 5%
• Santorum 1%
• Johnson 0%
• Huntsman 0%
• Other 1%
• Undecided 12%

Survey of 600 Likely Republican Primary Voters, Conducted October 5-10.

After 2008, I’m somewhat dubious of ARG’s polls. Still, this is an interesting result as since 1980, the winner of South Carolina has won the GOP Nomination and shows Cain’s continued momentum.

MSNBC is reporting the latest Marist Poll for both Iowa and New Hampshire showing Mitt Romney on top in both states. The full raw data is not available yet, but here are the numbers reported so far in the article.

First the horse race numbers:

For Iowa:

• Romney: 23
• Cain: 20
• Paul: 11
• Perry: 10
• Bachmann: 10
• Undecided: 16

For New Hampshire:

• Romney: 44
• Cain: 13
• Paul: 13
• Perry: 6
• Huntsman: 5
• Undecided: 11

The vs. Obama numbers are as follows:

(more…)

Many Ron Paul supporters are upset about those who challenge the legitimacy of Ron Paul’s straw poll victories. The thought is that straw polls have been historically important, yet victories like Paul’s win at the Values Voter Summit are called into question or devalued.

The problem with Ron Paul’s Straw Poll victories is that the only value of straw polls is if they legitimately measure a sample of some constituency.  If a straw poll is done of delegates to the Florida Republican Convention as the Florida Straw Poll was, it can be seen as an indicator as to where Florida’s GOP grassroots leadership is. The problem with Paul’s victories is that they often totally spoil the sample.

The Values Voters Straw Poll is a case in point. If the Straw Poll means anything, it indicates where certain grassroots social conservative leaders (with a particular bent towards those in the DC area) are in their thinking on the Presidential race. What happens if you add 600 Libertarians who disagree with much of what the Values Voters believe and are only there to vote for Ron Paul? It totally negates any value that could be obtained from the straw poll. It’s as if the Yankees were holding a convention and voting for their favorite Yankee and 800 Giants fans showed up and voted for Willie Mays and Willie Mays won as the best Yankee despite never playing for the Club.

Of course, there are caucus states where the straw polls do have some relevance. Caucuses are often matters of organization and intensity and so are straw polls. That’s why many are looking for Ron Paul to do very well in Iowa after the second place finish in the straw poll. 

But when straw poll “wins” only indicate that a candidate’s supporters are willing to buy tickets and show no gain in a larger constituency, they’re as irrelevant as a web poll.

There has been much ink spilled in the past week since Chris Christie’s announcement about how Romney is a weak frontrunner. How no matter what he does, he can’t seem to break through that mystical 25% barrier. That three quarters of the Republican Party want anybody but Romney.

The numbers would seem to bear this out, if you accept the argument. The last time Romney was above 25% in a national poll was back in July before Rick Perry joined the fray. But even then, his RCP average topped out at exactly 25.0. So what’s going on? Is Romney really that repelling to most of the Republican Party?

I would argue there’s something else going on. Something much simpler – so much so that it is being overlooked.

This year’s primary campaign was the latest any primary campaign has started since 1992. And not only did it get started late, it has been incredibly low-key as far as media saturation.

In 2007, for instance, by this point in the campaign Romney had spent nearly $10 million on TV campaign ads. This year? Zero. McCain, Thompson, Huckabee, and Ron Paul were all running millions of dollars worth of ads as well. This year, Ron Paul has been the only candidate with any sort of major ad buy whatsoever – and even that is just recently and only to the tune of $2 million total.

Well, you might say, the candidates are getting plenty of unpaid, free media exposure, what with their web ads and debates and news coverage. You might say that, but you’d be wrong. One of the most fascinating studies I’ve seen this political season so far comes courtesy of Pew Research. They asked respondents an open-ended question: name somebody running for President in the Republican primary. The percentage of Americans that could do that?

Just 54% – the lowest for a GOP primary in the history of the survey.

But it gets even more interesting than that: of those who could name someone, only 27% could name Mitt Romney. (Only 28% could name Rick Perry.)

Now let’s compare that 27% to the past frontrunners — something Pew was nice enough to do for us in their findings — and I think we’ll see why the 25% “ceiling,” well, isn’t.

In 2007, for instance, 45% could name Rudy Giuliani and 30% could name Romney.

Yes, you read that correctly: a larger percentage of voters could name Romney as a candidate for President four years ago than could do so today. That is how low-key this primary campaign has actually been.

Going back further, 54% could name Dubya at this point in 1999. 51% could name Dole in 1995. Massively different than 2011. We political junkies might not understand it, but the public is just not tuned into the race yet this year. If only 27% can even name you as a Presidential candidate, how can you be expected to get the support of more than 25%? (There’s not a direct correlation between the two percentages, but there definitely is an indirect one.)

Another way to look at this is to watch the number of undecideds in the national primary polls. In the Washington Post/Bloomberg poll released today, undecided weighed in at 29%. In the Gallup poll this afternoon, 20% said they didn’t know yet.

Now compare that to mid-October 2007. A Gallup poll done Oct 12-14, 2007 showed a whopping 9% undecided. In a CBS News poll done Oct 12-16, just 7% were undecided. In other words, four years ago half to a quarter of the number of voters were undecided as compared to this year. That’s the effect of starting the 2008 campaign months earlier and saturating the media with tens of millions of dollars of ads.

The data is clear: we have a voting population this year that has not engaged with this primary campaign yet. That, more than anything else, accounts for Romney’s “ceiling.” Now if that ceiling still holds after tens of millions of dollars of advertising, and when the undecideds in the national polls dip into the single digits, then Romney has cause for worry. Until then, let’s not forget just how disengaged “normal” Americans are at this point from this comparatively low-key campaign.

When pundits  and even commenters talk about 2012, they often sound like they’re fighting the last war.  People talk about the race ending on Super Tuesday. That’s so 2008. In reality, this thing has the potential to go quite a while, just like the Democrats did in 2008. In fact, it was designed that way.

Let’s take a look:

December/January-Iowa/New Hampshire/Nevada/South Carolina/Florida

These five states have been where most of the focus of conversation has been. And really, candidates need to win in some of these to be viable.  Probably, by January 31st, we’ll have 2-3 viable candidates plus Ron Paul (unless Mitt sweeps them all.)

Something to remember about these contests. First, all of them will use proportional delegate allocation. Second, all of them have been penalized (with the exception of Iowa) with losing half their delegates for going so early.  

February: Minnesota, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, and Arizona

This is a bit of a dead zone in the midst of the primary campaign with three caucuses at the start of the month and two Primaries at the end of it.  Romney, in the last campaign, had the organizational resources to sweep most Caucuses after Iowa and may be able to do so again. Although, the strong showing by Herman Cain in the Midwest Republican Leadership Conference Straw Poll may give Cain the inside track.

Regardless, the value of the Caucuses are dubious as there’s no delegates at stake.  In addition, the two primaries are once again proportionally allocated, and once again are penalized with half their delegates.

March 3rd: Washington

March 6th Super Tuesday: Alaska, Georgia, Idaho*, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, and Virginia

Still, a lot of states voting this year on Super Tuesday, but definitely not as impressive as back in 2008 with the 24 state half nation primary. As for the notion of the race being over on Super Tuesday, it’s safe to say it won’ t be technically over. 

If a candidates dominates these first first two 22 contests, it’s conceivable that the other serious contenders could graciously step out of the race to unite the party, but no candidate is going to be close to having enough delegates to wrap up the nomination because all the contests heretofore have been proportional. Democrats in races like 1988, 1992, and 2004 have stood aside for a candidate who looks sure to win the nomination because all that’s ahead for Democrats is more proportional contests, Republicans will have some winner-take-all contests ahead including California’s.

 March 10th: Kansas, Virgin Islands, and Wyoming Caucuses

March 13th:  Alabama, Hawaii,  Mississippi,

March 17th: Missouri

March 20th: ?Illinois

March 24th: Louisiana

And we must note again that all of these contests must be proportional.  But in April, they can become winner-take-all:

April 3rd: Maryland, Wisconsin, Washington, DC

April 24th: Connecticutt, Delaware, New York, and Pennsylvania

April 24th marks a second Super Tuesday. Perhaps, with the presence of New York, Connecticutt, and Delaware, it could be called RINO Tuesday.  Regardless, this region has set itself up as being able to hand out a lot of momentum, if this thing goes long enough.

May 8th: Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia

May 15th: Nebraska, Oregon

May 22nd: Arkansas and Kentucky

June 5th: California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, and South Dakota

June 26th: Utah

I should note that not every state that can go winner-take-all will. In fact, many of these later-voting states traditionally use proportional allocation (such as Arkansas.) Still, there’s quite a few delegates to be picked up in a close race.

The way the primary calendar is set up, Perry and Romney are financially positioned to be able to slug things out for as long as it takes. Ron Paul can live off the land with next to no money as he continues to spread his message to all comers.  For a candidate like Herman Cain, it’s critical that he do two things: 1) have success in an early primary and 2) that success translates into dollars.

For all candidates other than Paul, if campaigns are going to continue through March and into April, they need to have some serious chance of victory.

The Romney campaign is probably best positioned with this calendar to outlive some early stumbles. If after Super Tuesday, Romney has lost more contests than he has won, he can look forward to April and winner-take-all Northeastern Mid-Atlantic states. Though, there’s a limit to how much he can count on that. If he does what he did last time and loses everywhere but in Caucuses and in Michigan and Massachusetts, the odds of him coming out victorious will be pretty thin.

A conservative is going to have problems if they’re a bit behind Romney to begin with, because those seven contests in April are going to be key and there are probably only two of them (Wisconsin and Pennsylvania) that any conservative could hope to compete in.

This calendar raises a lot of questions, and it probably means that a lot of the analysis given based on prior campaign is probably a little off.

Heh:

Mitt Romney’s affection for Herman Cain has been well documented, at POLITICO and elsewhere. Romney took it to the next level at a New Hampshire town hall this evening.

“We each have our own experiences, he’s a great guy. Vote for either one of us and you’ll be happy,” Romney said, per POLITICO’s Reid Epstein.

Romney also called Cain a “terrific guy” and said voters should “give him a good look.”

Read the rest here.

PPP (D) Nebraska 2012 Presidential Survey

• Mitt Romney 51% (49%)
• Barack Obama 38% (37%)

• Ron Paul 47%
• Barack Obama 37%

• Michele Bachmann 49%
• Barack Obama 41%

• Newt Gingrich 48% (48%)
• Barack Obama 41% (40%)

• Rick Perry 48%
• Barack Obama 41%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Mitt Romney 35% (38%) / 47% (35%) {-12%}
• Michele Bachmann 30% / 49% {-19%}
• Newt Gingrich 31% (34%) / 52% (43%) {-21%}
• Ron Paul 26% / 50% {-24%}
• Rick Perry 25% / 53% {-28%}

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

• Approve 35% (38%)
• Disapprove 61% (56%)

Survey of 739 Nebraska voters was conducted September 30 – October 2, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 3.6 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 51% (52%) Republican; 32% (34%) Democrat; 17% (14%) Independent/Other. Political ideology: 27% Moderate; 24% Very conservative; 23% Somewhat conservative; 15% Somewhat liberal; 11% Very liberal.  Results from the poll conducted January 26-27, 2011 are in parentheses.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

Gallup National Republican Primary

• Romney – 20%
• Cain – 18%
• Perry – 15%
• Paul – 8%
• Gingrich – 7%
• Bachmann-5%
• Santorum – 3%
• Huntsman – 2%
• Other-1%
• Undecided – 20%

Survey 1,064 Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents, conducted October 3-7th
 

Former Governor and 3-time Ambassador Jon Huntsman laid out his vision for American foreign policy in a speech in New Hampshire today. You can view his speech here

The Huntsman 2012 campaign website has also rolled out much more detail on the foreign policy front. Both his speech and his website focus on five main priorities:

1.) Strengthen America’s Core

2.) Aggressive Promotion of Trade Liberalization

3.) Getting Strategic Power Relationships Right

4.) Taking Care of Our Own Neighborhood

5.) Creating a Modern Defense and Military

There are sections on Africa, Latin America, NATO, and other regions as well. Even if you don’t intend on voting for Governor Huntsman, I’d encourage everyone to look at his foreign policy vision as well as those of the other candidates. One of the folks on the debate stage is going to be the next President of the United States. It pays to know what they believe America’s role in the world should be.

Washington Post/Bloomberg National Republican Primary

• Romney – 24%
• Cain – 16%
• Perry – 13%
• Paul – 6%
• Bachmann – 4%
• Gingrich – 3%
• Santorum – 1%
• Huntsman – 0%
• Undecided – 29%

Survey of 391 Republicans and Repbulican-leaners was conducted Oct 6-9 with a margin of error of +/-6%.

Harvard / St. Anselm Republican New Hampshire Primary

• Romney – 38%
• Cain – 20%
• Paul – 13%
• Gingrich – 5%
• Huntsman – 4%
• Perry – 4%
• Bachmann – 3%
• Johnson – 1%
• Santorum – 1%

Favorability Ratings (Among Republicans):

• Romney – 75/21
• Paul – 57/36
• Bachmann – 44/46
• Perry – 43/41
• Huntsman – 29/25

Survey of 648 likely voters was conducted October 2-6 and has a margin of error of +/-4.4%.

Takeaways: Huntsman’s surge has become Huntsman’s stall; Perry’s sixth place showing from the previous NH poll is confirmed; Bachmann is toast; Cain is Romney’s only competition in New Hampshire – which has to make Romney very happy.

An interesting report here:

Beneath the conventional wisdom, the expectations game and the evolving dynamics of a newly settled GOP presidential field, there lies a stark reality here: Less than 100 days before the nation’s first presidential primary election, the state’s fickle voters haven’t tuned into the race…

“Many primary voters aren’t truly paying attention to the race right now,” says Michael Dennehy, a New Hampshire-based Republican operative who led Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign four years ago.

The story goes on to describe how ten women in a focus group who were regular voters could only name two-three candidates running (Romney, Perry, and Ron Paul) and that the recent WMUR poll showed only eleven percent of the state”s voters had firmly committed to one candidate.

This means that Romney’s lead in the state is soft and based primarily on name recognition, which leaves a big opening for candidates such as Cain and Huntsman.

The Romney campaign announced the endorsement of two big name and well-respected former Senators this morning: Florida’s Mel Martinez and New Hampshire’s Judd Gregg.

Martinez endorsed McCain over Romney four years ago; Gregg endorsed Romney in 2008 as well. Both will add some heft to Romney’s campaign efforts in two vital early states.

Remember Buddy Roemer? He’s still running for President, you know. He’s the former Governor of Louisiana who came in third place for reelection in their jungle primary behind David Duke. But, I digress.

Roemer has decided to embrace the left leaning “Occupy Wall Street” protest. So much so, that he plans to join them in New York City. Here’s a string of statements that Politico compiled from his Twitter account:

I am concerned and outraged, as are many, at Wall Street greed. I will be joining Occupy Wall Street NYC Tuesday to see it firsthand. #ows

My decision to join Occupy Wall Street is to put an end to #OWS bashing by fellow GOP candidates. I want to hear the stories of protestors.

It’s about time Americans rose up against institutional corruption. I want to stand by them. Wall Street must be held accountable. #ows #p2

I’m a Harvard economist and biz school grad. I have never seen our economy or political system this broken or corrupt. Enough is enough. #p2

For those who aren’t on Twitter all the time like me, the #p2 hashtag is the progressive hashtag. So, he’s aligning himself with a liberal movement and advertising it through a progressive hashtag on Twitter…while running in the Republican primary as a conservative Republican. Allow me to sit back here and scratch my head at the logic behind this move by Roemer which just feels like a desperate cry for attention.

_______________________________________________________

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

U.S. Representative Michael Grimm became the first member of the New York congressional delegation to endorse a 2012 contender tonight by throwing his support behind Mitt Romney. More interesting than that factoid, though, is that Grimm is reportedly “very close” to Rudy Giuliani. One may wonder just how much Giuliani hates Romney versus how much he’d like to be involved in federal politics…

Always fascinating is the manner in which British and American political trends seem to flow in tandem, a dynamic that seems resolute to continue unabated. Despite President Obama’s attempt to form a “special relationship” with U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron, manufacturing similarities between the two in order to provide a sense of validity to Obama’s own failed presidency, the reality is that President Obama is much more similar to ousted Labourite Gordon Brown than Cameron. Obama and Brown both emanated from the unreformed Old Left in their respective parties, and like Prime Minister Brown, I suspect that President Obama’s bid for re-election will not end well for the current White House occupant. Barring any major changes in the dynamics of the race for the Republican nomination over the next couple of months, an Obama loss will mean a Romney presidency, and that will give both the U.S. and the U.K. a very similar type of leader, one who, for better or for worse, breaks both from the revolutionary style of his party’s base and from the policy orientation of the opposition party.

The path that took the nations of the Anglosphere on both sides of the Pond to this moment has been similar for everyone involved. The Anglosphere’s rejection of Continental European models of social democracy three decades ago led to the rule of Reagan and Thatcher, who did their best to steer the Anglosphere onto a trajectory somewhat different from the rest of the Western world. Both were followed by tepid and somewhat embattled successors in George H.W. Bush and John Major, each haplessly reigning in the shadow of his predecessor. Then came the great NeoLiberal moment, with Bill Clinton and Tony Blair promising a Third Way for the Anglosphere that would marry economic freedom with domestic largesse, the latter financed via loose credit. George W. Bush then came onto the scene and continued the NeoLiberal domestic policies of buy-now, pay-later, adding to the credit card a series of adventures in the Middle East, efforts which were supported and endorsed by Blair.

By the late 2000s, though, the NeoLiberal-NeoConservative dream had been decimated from within, as easy credit turned into bad credit, resulting in a financial collapse, and as the denizens residing in the sands of Arabia stubbornly refused to trade Sharia for Snooki. This collapse in both economic confidence and geopolitical prowess took down both the Houses of Bush and Clinton and left the Anglosphere with two leftists who just happened to be in the right place at the right time: Gordon Brown and Barack Obama.

The notion that the Anglosphere longed to return to a pre-Reagan/Thatcher political model though was soon upended, as was demonstrated by Brown’s quick exit from 10 Downing and President Obama’s brief honeymoon prior to losing public confidence and giving Republicans their largest House majority in many decades. Were Congress able to call a vote of no-confidence in the Executive Branch, Obama would already be gone. And as things currently stand, the candidate who will depose Obama on behalf of the Republican Party bears many striking similarities to the current British Prime Minister who ended Brown’s reign and brought the Tories back to power.

Both Cameron and Romney emanate from upper-income backgrounds, a fact that was used against Cameron in his bid for Prime Minister and that has and will continue to be used against Romney as well. Both bring with them the sense of Noblesse Oblige that prevents them from taking on entitlements in the manner that more middle class conservative politicians such as Reagan and Thatcher were able to pull off. With the exception of Romney’s brief flirtation with the world of v-chips in personal computers during his 2008 campaign, neither Cameron nor Romney seem particularly angry at modern culture, and both are sufficiently urbane as to avoid the knuckle-dragger image that scares away urban and suburban educated swing voters.

Interestingly, both Cameron’s campaign last year and Romney’s campaign this year have involved reassuring voters that they will protect their nations’ most popular entitlements. Cameron specifically ran an ad campaign promising to “cut the deficit, not the NHS,” referring to the British National Health Service, something of a third rail over in the U.K. Meanwhile, Romney, when contrasting himself with Gov. Perry in recent weeks, has deemed himself the candidate who wants to “save Social Security.” In a way, both Cameron and Romney are running campaigns that give validation to core elements of the 20th Century welfare state of their respective nations, breaking from the more revolutionary elements of their parties that are seeking a more transformational endeavor.

Whatever one thinks of this approach, the reality is that David Cameron is now the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the leader of the Conservative Party, and that Mitt Romney will probably be the next President of the United States and the leader of the Republican Party. What lies ahead is anyone’s guess though. The fact that Labour now leads Cameron’s Tories in polls of British voters shows the difficulty that any conservative leader will face amidst continued economic malaise and unpopular spending cuts. The moment President Romney takes office, his demise will become the primary goal of such diverse figures as Hillary Clinton and Gov. Andrew Cuomo, all of whom will be humming “Hail to the Chief” as they prepare for the race for 2016. It’s certainly possible that both Cameron and Romney will succeed in their efforts to chart a new, center-right approach to governance in their respective nations that is neither a diet version of their left-wing opposition nor a storm-the-palaces approach as desired by those on their right flank. It’s also possible that such a strategy will end up pleasing no one, angering everyone, and paving the way for the return of Labour and the Democrats to the helm of the Anglosphere later in the decade.

Constitution of the United States of America

Article. II.

Section. I.

Clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Political columnist George Will is out with a column today that discusses the move afoot in the Pennsylvania legislature to change the way the State has traditionally allocated its Electoral College votes in presidential elections.  Should Pennsylvania proceed with the proposal to allocate its votes by Congressional District (plus two at large), other states may make changes to their selection and allocation methodology, others may not, thus setting off a new dimension in the Red vs Blue struggle for Electoral College majorities.  The outcome could be very difficult to predict with regards to which party may benefit or what the larger impact on the presidential election process might be.

I believe that Will makes some very good arguments in his warning against proceeding down this path, but his column seems to neglect the point that the US Constitution empowers the legislatures of the several states to appoint Electors and/or determine the manner in which they are chosen.  This fine point was often overlooked until the Florida 2000 election recount at which time calling the legislature into session to appoint Electors was considered.

This is not trivial business.  Thoughtful comments are encouraged.

2012 Republican Presidential Nomination

Another day, another straw poll victory for Herman Cain:

St. Paul–Herman Cain topped the Republican Presidential Straw Poll conducted at the Midwest Leadership Conference, which concluded today, October 8. Conference attendees from throughout the Midwest, MLC volunteers and event vendors participated in the balloting.

Herman Cain captured 52.6 percent of the vote followed by Michele Bachmann with 12.2 percent and Mitt Romney at 11.1 percent.

Rick Perry captured 4%. Gingrich 3%, and others further back.  Due to recent complaints, about lack of coverage, I note that Gary Johnson received 0.2% of the vote.

Cain addressed the conference on Saturday and took questions at the event, which definitely helped. The Conference drew attended from a wide swath of the country, but it being in Minnesota probably helped Michele Bachmann.

I should note that Ron Paul did get 10.7% at this event and also his supporters successfully bought enough tickets to win the Value Voters Straw Poll in Washington.