SurveyUSA 2012 Presidential Poll

• Barack Obama 46%
• Mitt Romney 44%

• Barack Obama 51%
• Newt Gingrich 40%

Among Independents

• Barack Obama 43%
• Mitt Romney 43%

• Barack Obama 52%
• Newt Gingrich 36%

(more…)

Quinnipiac New Jersey 2012 Presidential Survey

REPUBLICAN NOMINATION

• Mitt Romney 29% (28%)
• Newt Gingrich 22% (5%)
• Herman Cain 12% (17%)
• Ron Paul 6% (11%)
• Jon Huntsman 4% (2%)
• Rick Perry 3% (7%)
• Michele Bachmann 3% (4%)
• Rick Santorum 1% (1%)
• Someone else (vol.) 2% (3%)
• Wouldn’t vote (vol.) 2% (2%)
• Don’t know 16% (18%)

GENERAL ELECTION

• Barack Obama 49% (47%)
• Mitt Romney 40% (41%)

• Barack Obama 53%
• Newt Gingrich 34%

• Barack Obama 55% (47%)
• Herman Cain 32% (38%)

• Barack Obama 54% (49%)
• Rick Perry 31% (36%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Mitt Romney 39% (35%) / 29% (31%) {+10%}
• Barack Obama 50% (47%) / 44% (47%) {+6%}
• Newt Gingrich 28% / 47% {-19%}
• Herman Cain 23% (25%) / 46% (20%) {-23%}
• Rick Perry 13% (19%) / 48% (39%) {-35%}

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

• Approve 48% (43%)
• Disapprove 48% (52%)

Do you feel that Barack Obama deserves to be reelected, or do you feel that he does not deserve to be reelected?

• Yes/Deserves 50% (47%)
• No/Does not 45% (48%)

Survey of 1,788 registered voters, including a subsample of 548 registered Republicans, was conducted November 9-14, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 2.3 percentage points among all registered voters; +/- 4.2 percentage points among registered Republicans. Party ID breakdown: 34% (33%) Democrat; 25% (24%) Republican; 34% (37%) Independent; 4% (4%) Other.  Results from the poll conducted October 5-10, 2011 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

PPP/Daily Kos/SEIU (D) Political Survey

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Barack Obama?

• Favorable 47%
• Unfavorable 48%

Among Democrats

• Favorable 82%
• Unfavorable 12%

Among Republicans

• Favorable 9%
• Unfavorable 89%

Among Independents

• Favorable 43%
• Unfavorable 48%

(more…)

Bloomberg/Selzer 2012 New Hampshire GOP Primary Survey

• Romney – 40%
• Paul – 17%
• Gingrich – 11%
• Cain – 8%
• Huntsman – 7%
• Perry – 3%
• Bachmann – 2%
• Santorum – 1%
• Undecided – 10%

General Election Matchup

• Romney – 50%
• Obama – 40%

Survey of 504 likely primary voters (margin of error +-4.4%) and 1,111 adults was taken Nov 10-12.

McClatchy-Marist 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 47%
• Newt Gingrich 45%

• Barack Obama 48% (46%) [46%] {46%} (46%) [51%] (44%)
• Mitt Romney 44% (44%) [41%] {42%} (45%) [38%] (46%)

• Barack Obama 49%
• Ron Paul 41%

• Barack Obama 49%
• Herman Cain 39%

• Barack Obama 51% (50%) [52%] {48%}
• Rick Perry 40% (41%) [33%] {39%}

• Barack Obama 54% (53%) [52%] {49%}
• Michele Bachmann 35% (40%) [35%] {37%}

Survey of 872 registered voters was conducted November 8-10, 2011. The margin of error is ± 3.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted September 13-14, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted August 2-4, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted June 15-23, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted April 10-14, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted January 6-10, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 2-8, 2010 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

Courtesy of Gallup comes the latest favorable/unfavorable numbers for the GOP presidential contenders:

Looking at the chart, something immediately jumps out at you: Mitt Romney has the highest favorables of any candidate in the race. He also has the lowest unfavorables of any candidate. This is a fantastic place for a frontrunner to be sitting.

But if you were to spend your time in the blogosphere or listening to talk radio, you would think that Romney’s unfavorables within the ranks of the GOP were through the roof. Folks like Rush Limbaugh, Erick Erickson, and a handful of other conservative media folks (aptly described by other writers here at Race as carney barkers) rail against Romney with the burning passion of a thousand suns. To hear them tell it, Romney as the GOP nominee would spell the end of conservatism, the Republican Party, and the world in general. And there is a community of blog commenters who seem eager to follow in their footsteps.

Here’s the deal, though: not only are Romney’s unfavorable numbers the lowest of any candidate, his strongly unfavorable number – where these bloggers and media voices would easily find a home – clocks in at just 5%. Five percent.

For all the doom and gloom these folks cast over Romney, Gallup has provided the perfect response: congratulations, you are the 5%.

Do Republicans love Romney? Nope. We don’t. Let’s be honest – just 16% of us love him. But another 51% of us like the guy for that total of 67% in the chart above. For all the sound and fury coming from a tiny minority of our party, you’d think the Republicans were gathering pitchforks ready to storm the castle gates. Instead, the majority of us are sitting here wondering what all the fuss is about. Third party challenges if Romney is the nominee? Please. If there was no legitimate third party challenge to John McCain — who was ridiculously more moderate than Romney — then there will not be one to Mitt Romney.

No, I suspect Romney’s likely nomination concerns the 5% because it reveals something about the world to them that they don’t like. They cannot believe that an overwhelming majority of people in their own party don’t see the world the way they do. They spend their time around others in the 5%: calling into radio shows and frequenting blogs which reinforce their idea that everyone hates Romney, and then are troubled when presented with the fact that 95% of us aren’t like them. I suspect that if, as appears will happen, Romney wins the nomination in a couple months, these people will echo Pauline Kael’s famous line when Richard Nixon won in 1972: “I can’t believe [he] won. I don’t know anyone who voted for him.” Romney’s popularity concerns Rush Limbaugh and the other conservative media voices because it represents an increasing loss of their power. They have to realize they are being painted into a corner, preaching to a increasingly smaller congregation at the Church of Pure and Angry Conservatism™. As they watch their weekly listener (and unique website visitor) traffic decline before their eyes, they are making the choice to play to those who remain.

Is Romney a perfect candidate? Far from it. He is flawed. Often in deeper ways than the 16% who love him want to admit. But so is every candidate who is running (or could have run). So this morning, I encourage all of you — whether you find yourself in the 16%, the 5%, or somewhere in between — to just keep some perspective. The majority of the party likes Romney. More than any other candidate, as a matter of fact. And that’s something you won’t hear if you just listen to the 5%.

Gallup 2012 GOP Favorability Survey

Among Republicans/GOP-Leaning Independents Who Recognize Candidate

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Mitt Romney 67%/24%  {+43%}
• Herman Cain 66%26%  {+40%}
• Newt Gingrich 65%/26%  {+39%}
• Rick Santorum 60% /26%  {+34%}
• Ron Paul 56%/34%  {+22%}
• Michele Bachmann 55%/36% {+19%}
• Rick Perry 54% /36% {+18%}
• Jon Huntsman 51%/35%  {+16%}

(more…)

Bloomberg reports:

Newt Gingrich made between $1.6 million and $1.8 million in consulting fees from two contracts with mortgage company Freddie Mac, according to two people familiar with the arrangement.

The total amount is significantly larger than the $300,000 payment from Freddie Mac that Gingrich was asked about during a Republican presidential debate on Nov. 9 sponsored by CNBC, and more than was disclosed in the middle of congressional investigations into the housing industry collapse.

Gingrich’s business relationship with Freddie Mac spanned a period of eight years. When asked at the debate what he did to earn a $300,000 payment in 2006, the former speaker said he “offered them advice on precisely what they didn’t do,” and warned the company that its lending practices were “insane.” Former Freddie Mac executives who worked with Gingrich dispute that account.

…

And so it begins. This is what happens when you are at or near the top of a Presidential race, especially a Republican one. The nail that works itself up is the one that attracts the hammers.

Yesterday, our favorite publication, the New York Times, released a fascinating article that detailed the disillusionment and disenchantment with President Obama that has overcome young voters since 2008:

Across this state [Nevada] — and in others where young voters were the fuel of the Obama organization, voting for him two to one over John McCain — the enthusiastic engine of the 2008 campaign has run up against the reality of a deadened job market for college students.

Interviews here and across the country suggest that most of his college supporters of 2008 are still inclined to vote for him. But the Obama ground army of 2008 is hardly ready to jump back into the trenches, potentially depriving Mr. Obama of what had been an important force in his victory.

…Mark Triola, who was president of Young Democrats of Nevada in 2008, said at the time, the Democratic organization at U.N.L.V. was about three times as big as the Republican organization. By last year, he said, they were about equal, a trend that students there say has not changed this year.

…Jolie Glaser, a gung-ho supporter of Mr. Obama in 2008 when she attended college at Stanford University, has taken to doing volunteer work for a children’s cancer foundation as she looks for a job in the nonprofit sector. Her enthusiasm for the president has dampened.

“It’s hard to be a passionate follower of him,” she said. “It’s easier to be a thoughtful supporter.”

Sarah Farr, 20, a communications student, could devote endless energy to helping Mr. Obama as a student here four years ago. But now, with graduation approaching in 2013, she said that was the last thing she and her friends who also worked for him were contemplating.

“I don’t have as much enthusiasm this time as I did last time,” Ms. Farr said. “Everybody is just focused on themselves and trying to get through school.”

“I’m scared that the major I’m getting won’t be helpful in the future,” she said. “That terrifies me. I’m terrified that by the time I graduate, there won’t be jobs. That’s very nerve-racking.”

And even those who remain strongly supportive of Mr. Obama here say they see little chance of his winning this state.

Any Republican with an asserted desire to expand the party’s demographic appeal and fold young Americans back into the tent must heed those words. As many political scientists and pundits have argued, voters who adopt a party early typically remain in its corner throughout their lives. I can’t speak to his accuracy, but I’ve heard David Frum claim that it typically takes two presidential elections to solidify voting behavior. If he has correct information, the 2012 election could represent a point of no return for the Republican Party – a monumental inflection point in American political behavior, if I may be so bold. In the last election, young voters went two-for-one for President Obama. Strike one for us. Now, as the NYT article above suggests, these voters may have become up for grabs. If we lose them again in 2012 we may lose them for good.

If I haven’t already made it clear, I’ll just come right out and say it: Republicans ignore this dynamic at their own peril. We either devote ample thought and consideration to what kind of candidate and messaging will bring young Americans over to our side, or we place ourselves at the mercy of demographic trends.

With that in mind, which candidates have the greatest potential appeal to young voters? Research has shown that age has an inverse correlation with a voter’s independent streak. As the NYT article clearly illustrates, young Americans far and away care about the economy and jobs more than the other issues. Therefore, it stands to reason that a candidate with a forward-looking agenda focused on economic growth, income mobility, and expanded opportunity – not a campaign based simply on ideological warfare against those dastardly liberals and squishy moderates – would enjoy the greatest chance of success. Now, the question becomes, who fits those descriptions? I have my thoughts on this matter, but I’d love to hear yours.

This morning, the rumor mill began working in overdrive when this listing appeared on FoxNews.com:

The wording at the end of that tease — “Palin reveals her 2012 pick On The Record” — led many to believe Palin will be endorsing a GOP candidate tonight. Others said that she was merely answering the other question in the tease: which Republican candidate has the best chance of beating Barack Obama? And still others said the answer to the two questions were one and the same.

Then this afternoon, Greta Van Susteren revealed on her own website that Donald Trump would also be a guest on tonight’s program — and she teased the show with just one simple question: “Who does Donald support for President?”

So tonight, on On The Record at 10:00 eastern, Sarah Palin and Donald Trump may or may not be endorsing somebody for the GOP nomination. My guess? Since we hadn’t heard anything about this until today, there will not end up being any endorsements offered. Plus, I can’t see either one of these celebrities announcing as big a decision as this during a 10pm time slot. This is most likely just a great way for FOX to get some publicity and get some more viewers tonight. But, I could be wrong. In this wacky primary season, crazier things have happened.

Who do they endorse tonight, if anyone? And the next question, then, is this: what are Palin and Trump’s endorsements worth?

PPP (D) California 2012 GOP Primary Survey

• Newt Gingrich 33% (18%) {15%} [21%] (28%)
• Mitt Romney 23% (22%) {25%} [24%] (25%)
• Herman Cain 22%
• Rick Perry 6%
• Ron Paul 5% (10%)
• Michele Bachmann 3%
• Gary Johnson 2%
• Jon Huntsman 1%
• Rick Santorum 1%
• Someone else/Not sure 5% (12%) {19%}

Would you say you are strongly committed to that candidate, or might you end up supporting someone else?

• Strongly committed to that candidate 45%
• Might end up supporting someone else 55%

Second Choice

• Newt Gingrich 19%
• Herman Cain 15%
• Mitt Romney 15%
• Michele Bachmann 11%
• Rick Perry 9%
• Ron Paul 4%
• Jon Huntsman 3%
• Gary Johnson 2%
• Rick Santorum 2%
• Someone else/Not sure 19%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Newt Gingrich 68% (56%) / 26% (23%) {+42%}
• Herman Cain 64% / 25% {+39%}
• Mitt Romney 55% (59%) / 33% (22%) {+22%}
• Michele Bachmann 51% / 31% {+20%}
• Rick Perry 34% / 48% {-14%}
• Ron Paul 30% / 58% {-28%}

Survey of 316 usual California Republican primary voters was conducted November 10-13, 2011.  The margin of error is +/- 5.5 percentage points.  Political ideology: 44% Very conservative; 39% Somewhat conservative; 14% Moderate; 3% Somewhat liberal.  Results from the poll conducted January 28-30, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted October 29-31, 2010 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted September 14-16, 2010 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted May 21-23, 2010 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

There is a widely accepted idea that Mitt Romney’s opponents (aka ‘the Flavors of the Month’, aka ‘Anybody But Romney’) are pretty much interchangeable, and that what we are seeing currently with Newt Gingrich is just a replay of what has happened in the past few months with Rick Perry and Herman Cain. I have bought into this idea at times myself.

I still mostly accept it, but an examination of the trend lines shows an anomaly that calls into question whether the pattern is the same in all three cases. Certainly, Gingrich’s rise parallels (thus far) Perry’s and Cain’s, and Cain’s decline parallels (thus far) Perry’s. However, what is interesting is not the opponent’s trend lines, but Romney’s.

The chart below shows the average polling figures for Romney, Perry, Cain, and Gingrich from June (when Perry began being included regularly in polls) to today. The numbers shown are each candidate’s average over the preceding five polls (a total of almost sixty polls are included).

During the time period (represented by line A) that Perry was rising so dramatically, Romney’s poll average fell from about 25% to 16%. When Perry collapsed (line B), Romney gained back all he had lost, and at the end of that second time period we see Romney peak at 26%. Since then (line C), Romney has again lost half of the regained support and is now at 21%.

You see the anomaly, of course – during Cain’s rise, Romney was gaining support, not staying flat, as one would expect. His peak in October came at exactly the same time that Cain peaked. And now he’s losing support at the same time Cain is.

Perry lost over twenty points in support during his fall, but almost half of that (about ten points) went to Romney, not Cain. It appears that Perry took over one-third of Romney’s support during period A, that all of that support returned during period B, and that now much of it is again deserting Romney.

Why is that?

I don’t know. The ugly explanation (the one I would offer if I were writing this for MSNBC) is that those nine or ten percent are racists. Besides their skin color, however, another significant difference between Perry and Gingrich on the one hand and Cain on the other, is that the former are more or less traditional politicians – people who have held high office – while Cain is not. Either of these, or a combination, or other possibilities, might explain what’s happening.

Whatever the reason, however, there appears to be a non-trivial number of Republicans who are not in favor of Anybody But Romney – merely Almost Anybody But Romney.

PPP (D) 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 46%
• Mitt Romney 43%

• Barack Obama 49%
• Newt Gingrich 43%

• Barack Obama 47%
• Ron Paul 41%

• Barack Obama 48%
• Herman Cain 41%

• Barack Obama 49%
  
• Rick Perry 39%

• Barack Obama 50%
  
• Michele Bachmann 39%

(more…)

Rasmussen 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 50% {44%} [49%] (48%) {49%} [47%]
• Newt Gingrich 38% {38%} [34%] (30%) {37%} [39%]

Survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted November 11-12, 2011.  The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.  Results from the poll conducted November 3-4, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted October 12-13, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the polls conducted June 24-25, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted March 18-19, 2011 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted January 15-16, 2011 are in square brackets.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

Here’s the video from Newt on Hannity last night.

At a private, closed-to-the-press fundraiser in Florida yesterday, Mitt Romney reportedly struck a quite candid tone as he discussed his campaign’s early state strategy. The St. Petersberg Times interviewed half a dozen folks who were in attendance, and they revealed some of the insider thinking going on in the Romney campaign — and it is pretty fascinating stuff:

Romney said after airing ads in Iowa for nearly an entire year during the 2008 campaign, he has not run any spots to date. Romney told the crowd his campaign calculus was that he could spend nothing and come in fourth or spend a bit and finish second or third. He guessed that Republicans could split the first three events, which would make Florida particularly important.

Romney predicted a Tea Party favorite would win Iowa and that he would take New Hampshire, according to interviews with six people in the audience. Romney told the crowd he would seal the nomination by then winning Florida’s Republican contest.

Romney also looked ahead to a general election campaign against President Barack Obama, predicting that the former Massachusetts governor could win the general election if he caputures Florida, Ohio and Michigan.

Since this was a private event with no press, this can’t be seen as lowering expectations. This is a surprisingly honest assessment by Romney of the race, of his chances in Iowa, and of his internal strategy in light of those realities. It’s interesting that the Romney campaign’s assumption is that his floor is fourth place in Iowa, that he will not try for the win, and that by “spending a bit” he is willing to settle for second or third place. It’s also interesting to confirm what many pundits have guessed to be the case: Romney’s calculated gamble is that NH + FL will equal the nomination. That very well may be the case, depending on who wins Iowa and South Carolina – and if those states are won by the same person.

Rasmussen 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 46% {48%} [43%] (44%) {41%} [42%] (39%) {42%} [43%]
• Herman Cain 36% {37%} [38%] (38%) {43%} [39%] (34%) {35%} [25%]

Survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted November 13-14, 2011.  The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.  Results from the poll conducted November 7-8, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted October 30-31, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted October 21-22, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted October 14-15, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted October 6-7, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted September 26-27, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted August 23-24, 2011 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted March 26-27, 2011 are in square brackets.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

Siena College New York 2012 Presidential Survey

REPUBLICAN NOMINATION

• Mitt Romney 32% (18%)
• Herman Cain 15% (1%)
• Newt Gingrich 12% (3%)
• Michele Bachmann 9% (9%)
• Ron Paul 9% (8%)
• Rick Perry 9% (6%)
• Don’t know/No opinion 15% (9%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Mitt Romney 58% (52%) / 28% (29%) {+30%}
• Herman Cain 44% (22%) / 39% (14%) {+5%}
• Newt Gingrich 46% (34%) / 44% (55%) {+2%}
• Michele Bachmann 35% (42%) / 37% (29%) {-2%}
• Ron Paul 33% (33%) / 37% (32%) {-4%}
• Rick Perry 30% (24%) / 48% (18%) {-18%}

(more…)

Bloomberg/Selzer & Co. Iowa 2012 GOP Caucus Survey

• Herman Cain 20% [23%] (10%)
• Ron Paul 19% [12%] (7%)
• Mitt Romney 18% [22%] (23%)
• Newt Gingrich 17% [7%] (7%)
• Rick Perry 7% [7%]
• Michele Bachmann 5% [8%] (22%)
• Rick Santorum 3% [5%] (4%)
• Jon Huntsman 1% [1%] (2%)

Survey of 503 likely Republican caucus-goers was conducted November 10-12, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 4.4 percentage points.  Results from the poll conducted October 23-26, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted June 19-22, 2011 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

NBC reports that Rick Perry will be introducing a plan today to “uproot” the three branches of government:

BETTENDORF, Iowa — Previewing an address he will deliver Tuesday morning in Eastern Iowa, Gov. Rick Perry on Monday night promised to ”uproot” the three branches of government and institute wide-reaching reforms throughout the federal apparatus.

“Tomorrow I’m going to unveil a plan to uproot all three branches of government and overhaul Washington,” he said in an address to the Scott County GOP, adding that his plan will ”touch each branch of government, because they each have contributed to the demise of America.”

Perry said his reform proposal will target ”lifetime federal judges who arrogantly rewrite our laws from the bench,” as well as the ”permanent bureaucracy of the executive branch, which thwarts the will of the American people to advance a big government agenda.” And he pledged to outline “dramatic reforms for a Congress that not only spends too much but is IN Washington too much.”

…

The Texas governor, who rode an anti-Washington wave to victory in his 2010 gubernatorial re-election race, noted that the DC metro area has not suffered from the same recession that closed stores on Main Streets all over the country.

“That’s because all those lobbyists, that’s because all those overpaid czars and bureaucrats haven’t suffered one bit while we’ve been going through one of the worst economies that this country’s ever seen,” he said.

…

It would appear that Rick has finally figured out that basing his campaign on attacking rivals and swaggering everywhere hasn’t been working so he’s moved on to proposing actual ideas. That is always an encouraging sign. However, I do have a few concerns with what he is saying.

(more…)

I try not to front page all the individual legislators that endorse presidential candidates, but I’ve got to highlight this one just because she is my Representative from the wonderful state of Wyoming: Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) has thrown her support behind Mitt Romney.

Lummis was a welcome replacement here in the Cowboy State for the much-maligned Barbara Cubin back in 2008. Then in 2010, Lummis was one of the original members of Michele Bachmann’s Tea Party caucus (you know, the group that supposedly doesn’t like Mitt Romney).

She may be most well known nationally, however, for this bit on the Colbert Report. Heh.

Also announced today was an endorsement from Robert Dold (R-IL), giving Romney all three of the Illinois Representatives who have endorsed thus far in the race.

Our Destiny PAC, the Jon Huntsman super PAC, will start airing the following ad in New Hampshire tomorrow:

The indispensable Chris Cillizza adds:

Our Destiny PAC has yet to file a report detailing either its donors or financial activities with the Federal Election Commission. It was officially formed in late August and boasts Fred Davis, the ad maker behind Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) 2008 presidential campaign, as its main strategist.

A source close to the ad buy suggested it would be “substantial” but would not discuss specifics. One GOP media buyer said the initial expenditure was $132,000 in the Manchester (N.H.) medi market but the group has also bought time in Boston and Burling, Vermont — meaning it is likely in excess of $500,000.

At first glance, this seems like yet another attack piece from the Huntsman faction. However, once you move past the initial frames, things start to get more positive, and Huntsman’s major achievements flash across the screen. For a candidate who most voters don’t even know, he’ll need more of this if he hopes to gain any measurable traction in the Granite State. After all, as many here and elsewhere have noted, people rarely, if ever, simply cast a vote for someone out of protest against another candidate; rather, they need at least some reason to vote for someone.

Despite his initial struggles, Huntsman doesn’t appear ready to throw in the towel. Perhaps he believes President Obama will win re-election, prompting the party to seek a more moderate standard-bearer in 2016 and thus giving him plenty of reason to continue positioning himself as the heir to John McCain. Maybe he wants to remain relevant to increase his chances of landing a Veep or Secretary of State spot. Maybe he has simply become a victim of delusion.

Whatever the case, pondering Huntsman’s situation reminded me of an intriguing piece I read a couple months ago, from everybody’s favorite Republican, David Frum. At the time, Frum surmised that Huntsman’s speech to the Florida CPAC conference may portend the Ambassador running to Mitt’s right in an end-around attempt to become the Tea Party-backed Romney alternative.

Similar whispers have popped up more recently. And with the unexpected (to say the least) volatility of the Tea Party vote throughout this nomination process, it would behoove us to at least avoid dismissing the idea out of hand.

After all, it’s not too hard to imagine; notwithstanding his confrontational rhetoric toward the party base, Huntsman does sport arguably the strongest records of any candidate on some key Republican issues, such as life, taxes, and guns. And if the primary polling has taught us anything, it’s that the Tea Party support remains incredibly fluid and receptive to rhetoric and tone (to that point, none other than Erick Erickson has already started expressing openness toward J-Hunt). Therefore, Huntsman could conceivably charge after the base by emphasizing the highlights of his resume as he introduces himself to voters (and especially New Hampshirites).

He could also take an even bigger risk and attempt to ideologically position himself as a fusion of a conservative populist (a niche that no candidate has truly seized) and a McCain-esque, Independent-friendly maverick. It sounds inherently contradictory and would certainly prove difficult, but it’s actually not impossible, especially in this current political environment.

First and foremost, a candidate with this strategy would have to rail against concentrated power in virtually all forms – big government, big corporations, an adventurous foreign policy, etc. They would have to describe themselves as pro-market, not simply pro-business. Huntsman has already taken a step in this direction with his tax proposal, as it would remove the myriad deductions and credits in the tax code that distort markets, pick winners and losers, and place power in the hands of a select few instead of empowering individuals with more equitable opportunity to pursue their happiness.

A candidate like Huntsman could also thread the aforementioned ideological needle by advocating means desirable to Independents to achieve ends favored by Conservatives, and vice versa. As a means to reduce the deficit (desired by Conservatives), he could call for combining or eliminating federal programs and departments, which he would describe with Independent-friendly adjectives like “wasteful”, “excessive”, and “duplicative”, in addition to describing his intentions to reduce America’s military footprint in economic and cost-benefit terms. On the issue of entitlements (hot-button for Conservatives), he could call for his own version of a bipartisan panel directed to devise a plan to “strengthen” entitlements and make them more “sustainable” (money for Independents, who also love bipartisanship). As a means to create jobs (what Independents want first and foremost), he could trumpet his tax plan (embraced by Conservatives). On the social front, he could align himself with the polling trends we’ve seen emerge by playing up his pro-life record, especially in the primary, and then re-affirming his support for same-sex civil unions in a general election. And throughout the endeavor, he could remind voters of the “courage” he has shown in “standing up to the entrenched interests in all areas of government” and “addressing tough issues [such as the environment in Utah] by bringing all sides together and taking innovative approaches”.

These represent only a few examples that would become available to the Ambassador (or does he prefer Governor?) if he adopted this strategy. Of course, in the end, he would face two enormous – and potentially insurmountable – obstacles: his service in the Obama administration (the scarlet “O”, if you will) and his even-mannered disposition (too vanilla for the Republican electorate, to the less charitable). However, I would argue again that the polling thus far in this race has showed us that nearly any candidate can pique the interest of the Tea Party with the right wording and emotion.

Critics may also charge that this approach would require Huntsman to change past positions. Now, I don’t purport to know enough about his background to categorically discount this claim, but I would counter that with so few people knowing much about him, he could avoid the flip-flopper perception surprisingly easily by making it a point to define his record on his own terms.

It remains a remote possibility that Huntsman will win the nomination. However, a possibility still exists, should he choose an appropriate strategy and, of course, fall in the good graces of Lady Luck

Herman Cain supports collective bargaining for public employee unions, blanks on whether federal employees are already able to bargain collectively, and forgets his position on Libya.

The Polling Company (R) Iowa 2012 GOP Caucus Survey

• Herman Cain 20%
• Newt Gingrich 19%
• Mitt Romney 14%
• Michele Bachmann 10%
• Ron Paul 10%
• Rick Perry 5%
• Rick Santorum 4%
• Jon Huntsman 2%
• Gary Johnson 1%
• Undecided 13%

Survey of 501 likely Republican caucus-goers was conducted November 11-13, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 4.4 percentage points.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

Dick Morris accidentally met up with Mitt Romney in a restaurant at the Detroit airport last Friday. Here is Dick’s report on that chance meeting:

Dick reports that Romney appeared quite loose, very relaxed, and in control. Mitt seemed pleased with the way the campaign has been going. Dick mentions that he was very impressed and feels that Mitt would make a great president.

Posted without comment:

PPP (D) 2012 GOP Nomination Survey

• Newt Gingrich 28%
• Herman Cain 25%
• Mitt Romney 18% 
• Rick Perry 6%
• Michele Bachmann 5% 
• Ron Paul 5%
• Jon Huntsman 3%
• Rick Santorum 1%
• Gary Johnson 1%

(more…)

PPP Tweets:

Our national poll, out this afternoon, finds Newt Gingrich taking the lead in the GOP race.

CNN/ORC 2012 Presidential Poll

REPUBLICAN NOMINATION

• Mitt Romney 24%
• Newt Gingrich 22%
• Herman Cain 14%
• Rick Perry 12%
• Ron Paul 8%
• Michele Bachmann 6%
• Jon Huntsman 3%
• Rick Santorum 3%
• Someone else (vol.) 1%
• None/No one (vol.) 4%
• No opinion 4%

(more…)