Rasmussen Florida 2012 Presidential Poll

• Mitt Romney 46%
• Barack Obama 42%

• Barack Obama 45%
• Newt Gingrich 43%

• Barack Obama 46%
• Herman Cain 37%

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted November 17, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

A confluence of events has the potential to deliver Ron Paul a surprise victory in the upcoming Iowa Caucuses:

Evangelical powerbrokers hosted a secret meeting in Iowa for conservative religious leaders last week to take a second look at some of the candidates who might be a viable alternative to Mitt Romney, Business Insider has learned from sources with knowledge of the event.

According to a source, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, and Ron Paul all spoke at the event, which brought together some of Iowa’s most influential evangelical pastors. Organized by the powerful Christian activist David Lane, the two-day conference was a feeble attempt to recapture some of the evangelical energy behind Mike Huckabee’s Iowa caucus win in 2008.

…But a source at the conference told Business Insider that the meetings only confirmed that “evangelicals have lost their cohesion — they don’t trust their leaders.”

With evangelical support split between his lower-tier rivals, however, just a small portion of the Christian vote could be all Paul needs to break his ceiling and become a real contender in the 2012 race.

As an Iowa resident, I can attest to how hard Paul has played in the state, with radio ads blanketing the airwaves and rather large-scale TV ad buys. He has also made active attempts to attract 2008 Mike Huckabee supporters by emphasizing his pro-life and other culturally conservative positions.

When you couple this with the fluid and fractured state of the race, it becomes entirely conceivable that Paul’s well-developed campaign organization and ardent supporters (the latter unmatched by any other candidate) could propel him to a narrow victory in Iowa. That would make things even MORE interesting in this nominating process, which has already confounded a great deal of conventional political wisdom.

In 2009, a bellwether special election was being held in NY-23. Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman was battling with Democrat Bill Owens and Republican Dede Scozzafava. Scozzafava was a liberal, period. After flailing in the polls, Scozzafava dropped out and endorsed the Democrat. She has since endorsed other Democrats for public office.

Newt endorsed Scozzafava early on and, in fact, recorded ads for her. So did John Faso, Jeb Hensarling, and Jim Tedisco, not exactly liberal all-stars. That said, a number of conservatives have had problems with Newt over his endorsement. Not Hoffman, who’s forgiven Newt. Here’s an excerpt from an the Salon piece:

So what does Hoffman think? Is Newt to be trusted?

“I support all the candidates running right at the moment,” said Hoffman. “Any one of them would better than the current president, and that definitely includes Newt Gingrich. Newt apologized to me for not endorsing me, and that’s water over the dam, I think.”

Right before the election, Gingrich apologized publicly for endorsing Scozzafava. Sometime after the election, he called Hoffman to tell him personally.

“He was very sincere in his apology,” said Hoffman. “He was given misinformation as to what this race was all about, and what the other candidate was all about. The people in this district, the sort of local leaders who had endorsed Scozzafava, fed him the wrong information. I don’t think it was an error in his judgement. I would adivse other conservative republicans: Don’t hold this against him.”

_______________________________________________________

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

Matt Newman posted parts of Herman Cain’s endorsement column for Mitt Romney and asked a question, “What’s changed between ’08 and today?”

The answer is found in the first graph of Cain’s column which wasn’t posted here. Cain begins his endorsement article this way:

The dynamics of political party connections, the political process itself and public perceptions have once again yielded the top two contenders of each major party in the 2008 presidential race. And once again, the public can only hope that the ultimate winner of the White House will be a candidate with the most leadership substance.

This endorsement article came on February 4, 2008, the day before Super Tuesday and was written towards the view of a Presidential race that had come down to A (Mitt Romney) v. B (John McCain). This was commonly held by many conservatives. Fred Thompson was out, Mike Huckabee had been written off (though Huckabee would show the experts wrong on that), and for many folks it was a question of one or the other.  Cain saw Romney as the best of two choices. But was Herman Cain’s heart with Romney throughout the process? No. In January 0f 2008, Cain wrote a check for the-then federal maximum of $2300 to Mike Huckabee. But given the McCain v. Romney dichotomy, that was his choice.

Cain has not run a hard-edged campaign against Romney. Indeed, given certain A v. B scenarios, he might endorse Romney again, or he might not. Regardless, it’s fatuous to pretend that Cain was a big Romney booster, out campaigning for the guy when: 1) his endorsement came the day before Romney’s last primaries and 2) he gave $2300 to Mike Huckabee.

In 2008, Chuck Baldwin was the Constitution Party nominee for President. Well, that’ didn’t work out. But he’s set his goals slightly lower for this election cycle:

On Wednesday, November 16, 2011, Montana Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Fanning and I held a press conference in downtown Kalispell, Montana, and announced that he and I are running for Montana Governor and Lieutenant Governor in the 2012 Montana elections. Needless to say, I am very honored to have had Bob invite me to join his campaign. In fact, he is the only candidate for governor that I believe in enough to run with.

That’s right Baldwin is running for Lieutenant Governor of Montana as a Republican. At this rate, I’ll be writing about his campaign for Flathead County Commissioner in 2016.

EPIC-MRA Michigan 2012 GOP Primary Poll

• Mitt Romney 34% (32%)
• Newt Gingrich 20% (5%)
• Herman Cain 13%
• Ron Paul 8% (5%)
• Rick Perry 5% (17%)
• Michele Bachmann 3% (12%)
• Jon Huntsman 2%
• Rick Santorum 2%
• Undecided 13% (16%)

Survey of 259 likely primary voters was conducted November 13-16, 2011. The margin of error is +/-6.1 percentage points.  Results from the poll conducted August 13-16, 2011 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

-Hat-tip: The Argo Journal

Rasmussen Florida 2012 Senate Poll

• Connie Mack (R) 43%
• Bill Nelson (D) 39%

• Bill Nelson (D) 39%
• George LeMieux (R) 33%

• Bill Nelson (D) 40%
• Adam Hasner (R) 31%

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted November 17, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points.

-

Smart Politics, a political blog from the University of Minnesota, has watched the last seven Republican debates – going back to Rick Perry’s entrance into the race – and compiled a very interesting piece of data. They counted the number of times each candidate was attacked during the debates, and the result paints an interesting picture:

This chart is getting a lot of publicity this morning because of the first and last candidates on that list. Romney has been attacked more than anyone else, and still manages to retain his frontrunner status. On the flipside is the new flavor of the month, Gingrich – who has not been attacked a single time at one of these debates. Such is the life of a once-also-ran, who is now rising to the top of the pack. When folks say Gingrich has not been vetted, this kind of thing is exactly what they are talking about. As Smart Politics notes, some of the candidates -most notably Michele Bachmann – are already beginning to go after Gingrich on the campaign trail – something that is likely to carry over into the final three debates before Iowa.

NH Journal/Magellan Strategies (R) New Hampshire 2012 GOP Primary Poll

• Mitt Romney 29%
  
• Newt Gingrich 27%
• Ron Paul 16%
• Herman Cain 10%
• Jon Huntsman 8%
• Michele Bachmann 2%
• Rick Perry 2%
• Rick Santorum 1%
• Some other candidate 2%
• Undecided 3%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Newt Gingrich 59% [45%] (29%) {29%} [52%] / 31% [45%] (60%) {62%} [32%] {+28%}
  
• Mitt Romney 60% [68%] (66%) {69%} [73%] / 32% [22%] (24%) {22%} [16%] {+28%}
• Ron Paul 49% [37%] (39%) {40%} [41%] / 32% [48%] (47%) {47%} [29%] {+17%}
• Herman Cain 39% [62%] (36%) {39%} / 51% [25%] (34%) {30%} {-12%}
• Jon Huntsman 30% [24%] (20%) {14%} / 43% [49%] (47%) {36%} {-13%}
• Rick Santorum 28% [33%] (30%) {33%} [27%] / 48% [44%] (42%) {36%} [20%] {-20%}
• Michele Bachmann 29% [33%] (49%) {55%} / 57% [56%] (39%) {28%} {-28%}
• Rick Perry 21% [19%] (51%) / 66% [66%] (27%) {-45%}

Survey of 746 likely Republican primary voters was conducted November 15-16, 2011.  The margin of error is +/- 3.59 percentage points.  Party ID breakdown: 60% [68%] (70%) {74%} [67%] (66%) Republican; 40% [32%] (30%) {26%} [33%] (34%) Independent.  Political ideology: Conservative 61% [60%] (65%) {63%} [81%] (68%); Moderate 33% [36%] (30%) {32%} [15%] (26%); Liberal 4% [3%] (4%) {4%} [1%] (6%).  Click here to view crosstabs.  Results from the poll conducted October 12-13, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted August 15-16, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted June 14-15, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 4, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted May 25, 2010 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

(more…)

From POLITICO:

North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven and his wife Mikey will endorse Mitt Romney today. The couple will jointly chair the former governor’s campaign in the Flickertail state. Hoeven, a popular conservative elected to the Senate last November, spent a decade as governor. “Mitt Romney has laid out conservative solutions…and I look forward to working with him to ensure that North Dakota is a leader in our country’s economic revitalization,” he says in a forthcoming statement.

From Blog4President:

Boston, MA – Romney for President today filed the required paperwork necessary for Mitt Romney to participate in the Nevada Republican Caucus. Lieutenant Governor Brian Krolicki, Mitt Romney’s Nevada State Co-Chair, delivered the paperwork to the Nevada Republican Party.

“This next election is one of the most important in generations, and for Nevada the ramifications are profound and clear – our wounded state cannot continue to endure the current administration’s recklessly chosen path that has led to higher unemployment and falling incomes. Today’s filing is one small, but highly important, step as Mitt Romney’s team in Nevada works to help him bring positive change to our state and to the rest of the country. Only someone with Governor Romney’s deep understanding of the economy and job creation can reverse the failed policies of the last three years and begin to rejuvenate our country.”

Our Governor Brian Sandoval did the same thing that  Governor Jindal of Louisiana did. He endorsed Rick Perry when he was the flavor-of-the-month three FOTMs ago. Our Lieutenant Governor on the other hand supports Mitt Romney.

I haven’t heard Sandoval talking much about his endorsement recently. Curious that…

Recently found the link to Herman Cain’s endorsement of Mitt Romney from 2008. Found it interesting and decided to post it up here. Here’s an excerpt:

My vote is for Mitt Romney.

History is important, but the future is more important. Making history is nice, but nice can’t make critical decisions. The success of this country in the future will be shaped by the leadership abilities of the next president.

Our success will not be based on opinion polls, pandering to the uninformed voters, promising emotional quick fixes over common sense, nitpicking of opponents’ past records or mastering the art of the media sound bite. Success will come from focusing on the right problems and solving those problems. That will mean making tough decisions about some problems that have been with us for decades. It will also mean taking a tough stand on new problems and challenges.

That’s what leaders do.

Mitt Romney has done that as a chief executive officer in business, as a governor and as head of the U.S. Olympics. He has done so while balancing political consequences, but not compromising fundamental principles of the founding of this country or free-market economics. We have prospered as a nation by strengthening those principles, and will not remain strong if we allow those principles to become diluted with a lack of leadership.

Anyone who wishes to find a reason not to vote for Romney can easily find one. But the reasons to vote for him are far more compelling. He has successfully managed a real business with other people’s money and some of his own. He has balanced budgets. He successfully led a turnaround situation with the Olympics. And he has spent more of his career outside government than inside.

The question I’m sure a lot of people still have for Herman Cain is…what’s changed between ’08 and today?

PPP (D) California 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 57% (56%)
• Mitt Romney 36% (36%)

• Barack Obama 57%
• Ron Paul 32%

• Barack Obama 60% (58%)
• Newt Gingrich 34% (34%)

• Barack Obama 60%
• Michele Bachmann 31%

• Barack Obama 60%
• Rick Perry 31%

• Barack Obama 61%
• Herman Cain 32%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Mitt Romney 32% (32%) / 53% (46%) {-21%}
• Michele Bachmann 30% / 53% {-23%}
• Newt Gingrich 31% (25%) / 58% (55%) {-27%}
• Herman Cain 30% / 57% {-27%}
• Ron Paul 25% / 56% {-31%}
• Rick Perry 16% / 69% {-53%}

(more…)

I said early on I didn’t want a safe choice for 2012. Well, now that unsafe choice has gotten to the point where I can no longer stand behind him. It’s not just the claims, it’s the fact that Cain has been unable to run a functional campaign. Cain’s draw was that he was an outsider who was going to surround himself with the right people. The way he’s run his campaign has shown that he’s unable or unwilling to surround himself with the right people. So, what of the other candidates? As the title of the post implies, I’m undecided and let me tell you why.

Bachmann – Michele is pretty good on fiscal issues, but comes across as a kook. Why? Well, when you imply 9-9-9 is the sign of the devil, you’ve pretty much made yourself written off.

Huntsman – Huntsman has a pretty solid platform. He has a solid tenure as Governor, but governed as far to the left as was possible in the state of Utah. Other problems? He keeps poking conservatives in the eye with specifically targeted comments (ex “I believe in science”) and the fact that he was running for President (or planning to) while serving as Ambassador to China is upsetting to me. I’ve discussed this at length before. This bugs me, seriously. I could vote for him in the general, but I won’t in the primary.

Johnson – Gary Johnson has an excellent record as governor. He founded a 1 man company that turned into the biggest construction firm in New Mexico, which is far more impressive than the experience of a lot of different candidates. That said, he’s pro-choice, he’s known as the “pot” candidate, and is unable to raise money. At all. Johnson can’t get the nomination because no one has given him the chance and he’s unable to raise any funds.

Mitt – Romney has an incredible ground game, is focused on Obama, a decent campaigner, and has the same type of business experience I loved in Herman Cain. The problem? Inconsistent on fiscal issues and Masscare. Both of which led me to not vote for him in 2008, and it’s part of the reason I’m still undecided on him now. Also, I frankly don’t know if I can trust him. He comes across as disingenuous to me and in the debates came across as condescending. Then again, Obama’s always condescending. So, I could still vote for him, but again – undecided.

Newt – Newt is a fascinating candidate. Great debater, former Speaker of the House who helped lead the country in the right direction (pun intended) on fiscal issues and led to serious national reform. But he’s on his third wife with a history of infidelity and he’s been inconsistent historically on fiscal issues. He’s a brain power is unmatched, but as I said – inconsistent on fiscal issues. So, I could vote for him – but still undecided.

Paul – I will not vote for Ron Paul in the primary. Ever. Even if he’s the only one left in the primary. In that case, I would write in George H.W. Bush.

Perry – Perry has some great experience. He was a pretty solid Governor of Texas. 40% of the jobs created in the US in the past 2 years were created in Texas – that’s hard to overlook. That said, Perry is a terrible debater which could be awful against Obama in the general election. Also, there’s the Texas DREAM Act, which as a strong opponent of it here in Maryland who supported the effort to put it on the ballot / overturn it – this is a problem. Deal breaker? No, but an issue for me. Again, I’m undecided on Perry in the primary – but of course would vote for him in the general election.

Santorum – I actually don’t mind Rick Santorum. But, he couldn’t win reelection in Pennsylvania. He comes across angry and agitated in every single debate. He is inconsistent on fiscal issues. And, frankly, his active campaigning for future turncoat Arlen Specter is disappointing. Honestly, Santorum has very little money and does not have a clear path to the nomination. Also, his name is a filthy expression online that will be tough to combat should he get the nomination.

So, I’m back to being undecided. If the primary were held today, I’m not sure who I’d vote for when I got into the voting booth. Maybe Newt. Maybe Rick Perry. Maybe Romney – I’m not sure. What I do know is that I’m waiting to be wowed by the candidates.

_______________________________________________________

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

Pew Research National Republican Primary Survey

• Romney – 23%
• Cain – 22%
• Gingrich – 16%
• Paul – 8%
• Perry – 8%
• Bachmann – 5%
• Santorum – 2%
• Huntsman – 1%
• Undecided – 14%

General Election Matchups

• Obama – 47%
• Romney – 45%

• Obama – 53%
• Perry – 42%

• Obama – 54%
• Cain – 42%

• Obama – 54%
• Gingrich – 42%

Among Independents:

• Romney – 53%
• Obama – 41%

• Obama – 48%
• Perry – 45%

• Obama – 50%
• Cain – 45%

• Obama – 52%
• Gingrich – 42%

Among Republicans:

• Romney – 87%
• Obama – 8%

• Perry – 81%
• Obama – 12%

• Cain – 80%
• Obama – 13%

• Gingrich – 86%
• Obama – 10%

Among Democrats:

• Romney – 11%
• Obama – 88%

• Perry – 10%
• Obama – 89%

• Cain – 8%
• Obama – 91%

• Gingrich – 8%
• Obama – 90%

This poll was conducted November 9-14 — but it gets interesting because Pew breaks down the first three days of the poll and compares them to the second three days:

So there’s the Cain collapse and the beginning of the Gingrich surge captured on tape.

Cuing the “Ann Coulter is a RINO!” cries:

If Not Romney, Who? If Not Now, When?

So now, apparently, we have to go through the cycle of the media pushing Newt Gingrich. This is going to be fantastic.

In addition to having an affair in the middle of Clinton’s impeachment; apologizing to Jesse Jackson on behalf of J.C. Watts — one of two black Republicans then in Congress –- for having criticized “poverty pimps,” and then inviting Jackson to a State of the Union address; cutting a global warming commercial with Nancy Pelosi; supporting George Soros’ candidate Dede Scozzafava in a congressional special election; appearing in public with the Rev. Al Sharpton to promote nonspecific education reform; and calling Paul Ryan’s plan to save Social Security “right-wing social engineering,” we found out this week that Gingrich was a recipient of Freddie Mac political money…

The mainstream media keep pushing alternatives to Mitt Romney not only because they are terrified of running against him, but also because they want to keep Republicans fighting, allowing Democrats to get a four-month jump on us…

[Romney] is not part of the Washington establishment, so he won’t be caught taking money from Freddie Mac or cutting commercials with Nancy Pelosi. Also, Romney will be the first Republican presidential nominee since Ronald Reagan who can talk. Liberals are going to have to dust off their playbook from 30 years ago to figure out how to run against a Republican who isn’t a tongue-tied marble-mouth…

Instead of sitting on our thumbs, wishing Ronald Reagan were around, or chasing the latest mechanical rabbit flashed by the media, conservatives ought to start rallying around Romney as the only Republican who has a shot at beating Obama.

Indeed, Coulter (no relation) echoes what many folks here at Race have been saying for months: Romney isn’t perfect, but he’s easily the best candidate running. As they say around the internets, read the whole thing.

And that paragraph on Gingrich is just brutal. All she left out were the 84 ethics violations that were levied against him as Speaker of the House. I have wondered ever since Gingrich began his rise in the polls how long it was going to take before the name “Dede Scozzafava” got thrown out there. If there is one thing that ought to stop the angry Tea Party wing of the GOP in their tracks, it would have to be the NY-23 special election, and Newt’s role in that debacle.

Rasmussen 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 45% {48%} [46%] (46%) {43%} [46%] (49%)
• Michele Bachmann 33% {32%} [33%] (38%) {39%} [39%] (27%)

Survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted November 15-16, 2011.  The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.  Results from the poll conducted September 20-21, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted September 12-13, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted August 27-28, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted August 17-22, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted July 8-9, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the polls conducted May 1-14, 2011 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

Boom!

Rasmussen Iowa 2012 GOP Caucus Survey

• Newt Gingrich 32% {9%} [2%] (5%)
• Mitt Romney 19% {21%} [17%] (21%)
• Herman Cain 13% {28%} [4%] (4%)
• Ron Paul 10% {10%} [14%] (16%)
• Michele Bachmann 6% {8%} [18%] (22%)
• Rick Perry 6% {7%} [29%] (12%)
• Rick Santorum 5% {4%} [4%]
• Jon Huntsman 2% {2%} [3%] (2%)

Survey of 700 likely Iowa Republican Caucus participants was conducted November 15, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points.  Results from the poll conducted October 19, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted August 31, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted August 4, 2011 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

USC/LA Times California 2012 Presidential Poll

REPUBLICAN PRIMARY

• Mitt Romney 27% (22%)
• Herman Cain 20% (4%)
• Newt Gingrich 14% (6%)
• Ron Paul 6% (11%)
• Rick Perry 3% (22%)
• Michele Bachmann 2% (10%)
• Jon Huntsman 1% (1%)
• Rick Santorum 1% (1%)
• Other 1% (1%)
• Undecided 22% (15%)

GENERAL ELECTION

• Barack Obama 52% (54%)
• Mitt Romney 35% (35%)

• Barack Obama 54%
• Herman Cain 31%

• Barack Obama 55% (56%)
• Rick Perry 31% (32%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the job being done by Barack Obama as president?

• Strongly approve 22% (23%)
• Somewhat approve 29% (27%)
• Somewhat disapprove 12% (13%)
• Strongly disapprove 29% (30%)

Survey of 1,500 registered voters, including a subsample of 434 registered Republicans, was conducted October 30 – November 9, 2011 by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner (D). The margin of error is +/- 2.52 percentage points among all registered voters; +/- 4.5 percentage points among registered Republican voters. Click here to view crosstabs.  Party ID: 45% Democrat; 28% Republican; 25% Independent.  Ideology: 36% Moderate; 32% Conservative; 26% Liberal.  Results from the poll conducted August 17-28, 2011 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

The Houston Chronicle has an interesting article up this morning about Rick Perry’s fundraising woes in light of his continued debate gaffes:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s campaign fundraising has gone into a tailspin as a result of poor debate performances and plunging poll numbers, jeopardizing his position as the best-funded Republican presidential candidate of 2012…

But Perry’s loyal backers are running into resistance from Republican donors. One Perry fundraiser, who asked not to be named, said he received 15 RSVPs for a recent event from potential donors saying they might attend. But after a gaffe-marred Perry debate performance, none showed up…

For good reason. The RealClearPolitics.com average of recent national polls places Perry fourth at 9.9 percent, down from his peak of 31.8 percent on Sept. 13. More ominously, new polls in the first two states to select presidential convention delegates show Perry languishing in fifth place in Iowa and New Hampshire as fellow Texan Ron Paul rocketed to second place…

Another Perry fundraiser said he expects the Texas governor to raise between $3 million and $5 million in the final three months of 2012 — less than one-third of what he generated in the first six weeks of his candidacy…

Perry reported having $15 million in the bank on Oct. 1 — more than any other candidate in the massive GOP field — but that number may be misleading because his campaign delayed payments of some salaries and other expenses until after the previous reporting period ended.

So thus far in Q4, Herman Cain – he of the Libya pause – has raised $10 million, and Newt Gingrich has raised $3 million. Meanwhile, Rick Perry has raised… what? A million and a half or so? Perry is spending millions of dollars on Iowa, New Hampshire, and national television and radio ads as we speak. If those ads fail to move his poll numbers, he simply will not have the money to compete come January or February.

UPDATE: Larry Sabato has updated his 2012 Presidential Possibilities rankings this morning, and the major move was dropping Perry down into the “pretender” category. Meanwhile, Cain slipped and Gingrich rose:

The Conteders
1. Romney
2. Gingrich
3. Cain

The Pretenders
4. Perry
5. Paul
6. Santorum
7. Bachmann
8. Huntsman
9. Johnson
10. Roemer

ISU/Gazette/KCRG Iowa 2012 GOP Caucus Poll

• Herman Cain 24.5%
• Ron Paul 20.4%
• Mitt Romney 16.3%
• Rick Perry 7.9%
• Michele Bachmann 7.6%
• Newt Gingrich 4.8%
• Rick Santorum 4.7%
• Jon Huntsman 0.0%
• Other 5.8%
• Can’t Decide 8.1%

(more…)

Gingrich roared up on the Intrade board over the last week, topping out at nearly 15 points. But then, the inevitable began happening: people were reminded (or informed) of his baggage — specifically this week, his nearly $2 million contract with Freddie Mac — and he, like all the rest before him, began the slide back into single digits. Just as with Perry and Cain, it will probably take a couple weeks for the poll numbers to follow suit, but Gingrich’s rise and fall may be the quickest of the Mitt-alternatives thus far in the race. So although Newt is up slightly from last week, he is down about five points from his peak.

Meanwhile, Cain’s non-pregnant pause and meandering answer on Libya shoved him down a little more, and Perry is still struggling to recover after his “oops” moment cemented the worst of the stereotypes about him. With Perry and Cain flailing, Ron Paul moves into third place by default:

Only candidates who appear on early state primary ballots are included.

Since we are just 46 days away from the Iowa caucus now, here are the (incredibly lightly traded) early state primary numbers:

Iowa

• Romney – 35.9
• Paul – 26.1
• Gingrich – 18.6
• Cain – 11.5

New Hampshire

• Romney – 88.5
• Huntsman – 5.0
• Paul – 4.5
• Gingrich – 4.3

South Carolina

• Romney – 43.0
• Gingrich – 25.0
• Cain – 11.0
• Paul – 8.9

In my previous post welcoming Newt Gingrich to the big leagues, I made mention of the old proverb that it’s the nail that works itself up that attracts the hammers. Well, the hammering on Newt is just getting started. From the Washington Examiner:

Newt Gingrich spent the last decade being paid by big business to convince conservatives to support big-government policies that would profit his clients.

Gingrich’s consulting firm racked up $1.6 million in fees from the government-sponsored enterprise Freddie Mac, we learned this week from Bloomberg News. Gingrich’s job was to help Freddie Mac win over conservatives to this market-distorting, bubble-fueling, housing-subsidy entity, which is now officially owned by the federal government.

We also know that Growth Energy, an ethanol lobby, paid $312,500 to the Gingrich Group in 2009, according to the group’s tax filing. Growth Energy lobbies to preserve many ethanol subsidies and create new ones. Gingrich has consistently supported ethanol subsidies, despite his professed allegiance to the free market.

But there may be much more to Gingrich’s advocacy work than has been reported so far. For instance, a former employee of the nation’s biggest drug lobby told me Gingrich was being paid by the drug industry during the 2003 debate over the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

While the Bush White House and the Republican congressional leadership supported a bill creating a new entitlement for all seniors, Washington conservatives mostly opposed the bill. Gingrich went around Washington at the time plumping for the bill to free-market groups and activists.

“In the height of the debate,” one conservative opponent of the bill told me, “Newt was calling around” selling the bill as a great conservative measure even though it was a new federal entitlement.

Bob Moffitt of the Heritage Foundation, another veteran of the Medicare drug battle, tells me that early in the debate Gingrich favored a Medicare drug benefit only for the poor. The drug lobby, however, had settled on backing a drug benefit for everyone on Medicare. Gingrich soon changed his tune, and began pushing the universal benefit.

…

In Congress, Gingrich was famously harsh toward moderate Republicans. He once attacked the more compromise-oriented Sen. Bob Dole, R-Kan., as “the tax collector for the welfare state.” But with clients ranging from subsidy-suckling ethanol producers to government-created backstops for Realtors and banks, Gingrich cashed in by becoming the house conservative of the corporate-welfare state.

…

I rather suspect that there is a whole lot more of this sort of thing headed our way. Newt is well known for his fluid definition of Conservatism, and his love for the finer things in life. Some of the things he’s been involved with have bordered on out and out scams.

I remember a story breaking a year or so ago about a foundation that Gingrich set up. They would send letters to doctors over Newt’s signature congratulating them on being pillars of their communities.  They then invited the recipients to an awards dinner where they and their peers would be honored with a certificate signed by Newt himself. All they had to do was send in a sizable check — $5000 sticks in my mind — to cover the cost of the dinner.

You have to admire Newt’s ingenuousness and drive in chasing a buck. But as the spotlight focuses on him as one of the frontrunners of the 2012 Republican presidential contest, more and more of his past dealings — good and bad — are going to be brought to light.

Can he withstand the scrutiny? We are about to find out.

Citing a crowded debate schedule, the Des Moines Register has pulled the plug on their debate planned for December 19. Instead, they will be joining ABC News and the Iowa GOP as co-sponsors of the December 10 debate.

The elimination of a debate means there are now just four debates remaining before the voting begins:

UPDATE: The CNN / Arizona GOP debate originally scheduled for Nov 30 has been moved back to February (hat tip to reader ilfigo). CNN requested the change to put the debate closer to the Arizona primary, and the Arizona GOP agreed. So that leaves just three debates before the votes start coming in.

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.

FOX News/Anderson Robbins Research/Shaw & Company Research National Republican Primary Survey

• Gingrich – 23% (12)
• Romney – 22% (20)
• Cain – 15% (24)
• Paul – 8% (9)
• Perry – 7% (10)
• Bachmann – 6% (3)
• Huntsman – 3% (0)
• Santorum – 2% (3)
• Johnson – 0% (0)
• Roemer – 0% (0)
• Too Soon / Undecided – 12% (16)

General Election Matchups:

• Romney – 44%
• Obama – 42%

• Obama – 46%
• Gingrich – 41%

• Obama – 47%
• Cain – 38%

Survey of 353 likely Republican primary voters (margin of error +/-5%) and 914 registered voters (+/-3%) was conducted Nov 13-15. Numbers from the survey conducted Oct 23-25 are in parentheses.

On more than one occasion this year I have brought to the attention of the Race 4 2012 community the accomplishments of some of those who made important contributions to the successes of the Reagan Revolution of the 1980s.  I now call your attention to Dr. Fred Ikle who served as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy during both Reagan terms.  As noted in the Wall Street Journal editorial of November 16 entitled Fred Ikle, “The Cold War ended with a glorious whimper 20 years ago, which means that too few young Americans will have heard of the contributions of Fred Iklé, who died late last week at age 87.”

I served as Dr. Ikle’s Special Assistant during the second term and had the good fortune of learning from him and working with him on one of the most interesting projects of that time:   President Reagan’s Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy which not only served as a blueprint for future US defense strategy planning but was prescient in its forecasting of profound geopolitical and technological changes that lay ahead and their probable impact on US national security.  As observed in today’s Washington Post, Ikle was a leading member of Reagan’s brain trust and his elite national security team.  In fact, he had provided regular advice to candidate Reagan from 1977 onward.  As USD Policy, Dr. Ikle presided over the Pentagon’s policy-strategy directorate that included other such luminaries as Richard Perle and Bing West (author of several recent books about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan).

He was a native of Switzerland who came to the US in 1946, and I can personally attest that Fred Ikle was Swiss to the core.  A reserved, rather modest man, sometimes of few words but of great depth and brilliant intellect.  Highly accomplished and well respected in his field, he had worked at the legendary RAND Corporation strategic think-tank in the 1950′s and later taught at both Harvard and MIT.  Dr. Ikle was very proud of his association with and service to Ronald Reagan, but in addition, he lent advice and help to numerous right-thinking Republican senators and Congressman during that time, understanding that prudent national security policy involved the Congress as much as the administration.  Unlike some uber-intellectuals and policy wonks who, regardless of their political-philosophical leanings, tend to consider themselves above partisan politics, Dr. Ikle was quite willing to speak to various Republican Party organizations and did so fairly often.

The Wall Street Journal editorial summed up Ikle’s accomplishments nicely as follows:

The Cold War ended with a glorious whimper 20 years ago, which means that too few young Americans will have heard of the contributions of Fred Iklé, who died late last week at age 87. The far-seeing defense strategist was one of those who helped win that long twilight struggle, as it was once known, without a U.S.-Soviet nuclear exchange.

Along with the late, great Albert Wohlstetter, Iklé (pron. Eclay) was among those who fashioned U.S. nuclear deterrence strategy during the most dangerous days of the Cold War. They resisted the arms-control fads of the 1970s as naive and dangerous. Instead they focused on maintaining a credible deterrent against Soviet adventurism, while also making the U.S. arsenal and the world in general less dangerous.

As undersecretary for defense policy from 1981 to 1987, Iklé was present at the creation of the strategic defense initiative, the deployment of midrange nuclear missiles in Europe and other decisions that persuaded the Soviets they couldn’t win a competition with the West.

Inside the Pentagon, he was among those who pushed to provide arms and especially Stinger missiles to the Afghans who fought against the Soviet invasion. Such U.S. support was a turning point in the Afghan struggle, and arguably in the entire Cold War, as the Soviets began to doubt their ability to prevail. Amid America’s current fight in Afghanistan, it’s fashionable to deride U.S. support for the Afghan freedom fighters in the 1980s as the beginning of al Qaeda. But the rise of al Qaeda had many causes, and victory in the Cold War liberated millions while sparing countless potential casualties.

In the late 1980s, Iklé combined with Wohlstetter to produce a strategy document called “Discriminate Deterrence” that was remarkably prescient in foreseeing U.S. military needs in the post-Cold War era. It promoted stealth aircraft, precision-guided missiles fired from standoff weapons, smaller satellites and other technologies that have done so much to improve America’s ability to project force while doing less collateral damage to noncombatants.

Iklé’s wisdom often informed these columns over the years, though he sought no credit. Born in Switzerland before coming to America in 1946, Fred Iklé both benefited from U.S. freedom and helped immeasurably to preserve it.

Fred, thank you for your contribution to America and to the success of the Reagan Administration, and especially, for the opportunity to work for you.

From the official release:

Boston, MA – Mitt Romney today announced the support of eight State Senators from Nevada.

“I am honored to have the support of these dedicated public servants in Nevada,” said Mitt Romney. “Nevada has been hit particularly hard by the national policies of the last three years. We will work together to reverse those failed policies and bring jobs back to Nevada and the rest of the country.”

“With unemployment soaring, Nevadans need new leadership in the White House,” said State Senate President Lt. Governor Brian Krolicki. “With his deep understanding of how the economy works, Mitt Romney is the best candidate to reverse President Obama’s failed policies.”

Announcing his support, State Senate Republican Leader Mike McGinness said, “Mitt Romney continues to show that he is the most prepared candidate to not only defeat President Obama, but also rescue our economy. In order to leave our children and grandchildren with a balanced budget and an economy that creates jobs, we must elect a conservative leader with experience in the private sector. Mitt Romney is that leader.”

“President Obama’s economic policies have failed the citizens of Nevada. Nevadans cannot afford four more years of these policies, which have resulted in high unemployment and foreclosure rates,” said State Senator Michael Roberson. “Mitt Romney has the private sector background, along with his experience as Governor of Massachusetts, to balance the budget, create jobs, and provide the stability in Washington that will guarantee American exceptionalism.”

State Senators Endorsing Mitt Romney:

· State Senator Greg Brower

· State Senator Barbara Cegavske

· State Senator Elizabeth Halseth

· State Senator Joe Hardy

· State Senator Ben Kieckhefer

· State Senator Mike McGinness

· State Senator Dean Rhoads

· State Senator Michael Roberson

Nevada Leaders Already Endorsing Mitt Romney:

· Lt. Governor Brian Krolicki, Nevada State Co-Chair

· Congressman Joe Heck, Nevada State Co-Chair

· Congressman Mark Amodei

· Assemblyman Ed Goedhart

· Assemblyman Scott Hammond

· Assemblyman Cresent Hardy

· Assemblyman Pat Hickey

· Assemblyman Kelly Kite

· Assemblyman Pete Livermore

· Assemblyman Mark Sherwood

· Assemblyman Lynn Stewart

· Assemblywoman Melissa Woodbury