Well, this is an interesting twist on things. Exactly one week ago, NBC/WSJ released a national Republican primary poll that we reported here at Race. In the midst of that survey, they identified 102 respondents who were willing to be re-contacted and re-surveyed one week later to see how the race was changing.

So the numbers below are how those 102 respondents answered a few days ago, and the numbers in parentheses are how they answered a week or so ago during the initial survey. Yes, the sample size is small, but doing a completely non-random sample is an interesting take on measuring how a race is changing — something that, to the best of my knowledge, hasn’t been done before.

NBC/WSJ National Republican Primary Re-Survey

• Romney – 32% (27)
• Cain – 27% (28)
• Gingrich – 22% (17)
• Paul – 9% (10)
• Perry – 4% (8)
• Bachmann – 2% (4)
• Santorum – 2% (4)
• Huntsman – 1% (1)

Initial survey of 102 Republican voters was taken as part of a larger survey on Nov 3-5. Re-survey was conducted Nov 10-12.

SurveyUSA California 2012 Presidential Poll

• Barack Obama 50%
• Mitt Romney 39%

• Barack Obama 56%
• Newt Gingrich 32%

What if your choice was between the Democratic ticket of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and the Republican Ticket of Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, who would you vote for?

• Obama/Biden 52%
• Romney/Gingrich 38%

What if your choice was between the Democratic ticket of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and the Republican Ticket of Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, who would you vote for?

• Obama/Clinton 57%
• Romney/Gingrich 35%

What if your choice was between Democratic ticket of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and the Republican Ticket of Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, who would you vote for?

• Obama/Biden 53%
• Gingrich/Romney 35%

What if your choice was between the Democratic ticket of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and the Republican Ticket of Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, who would you vote for?

• Obama/Clinton 57%
• Gingrich/Romney 33%

Survey of 800 adults was conducted November 10, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 38% Democrat; 26% Republican; 35% Independent. Political ideology: 48% Moderate; 26% Conservative; 21% Liberal.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

The decision is expected in July.

SurveyUSA Kansas 2012 Presidential Survey

• Mitt Romney 56%
• Barack Obama 31%

• Newt Gingrich 52%
• Barack Obama 35%

What if your choice was between the Democratic ticket of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and the Republican Ticket of Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, who would you vote for?

• Romney/Gingrich 56%
• Obama/Biden 32%

What if your choice was between the Democratic ticket of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and the Republican Ticket of Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, who would you vote for?

• Romney/Gingrich 56%
• Obama/Clinton 34%

What if your choice was between Democratic ticket of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and the Republican Ticket of Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, who would you vote for?

• Gingrich/Romney 53%
• Obama/Biden 34%

What if your choice was between the Democratic ticket of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and the Republican Ticket of Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, who would you vote for?

• Gingrich/Romney 52%
• Obama/Clinton 34%

Survey of 800 adults was conducted November 10, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 41% Republican; 25% Democrat; 33% Independent. Political ideology: 40% Moderate; 39% Conservative; 15% Liberal.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

Politico / George Washington University Battleground Poll

• Cain – 27%
• Romney – 25%
• Gingrich – 14%
• Perry – 14%
• Paul – 5%
• Bachmann – 2%
• Santorum – 2%
• Huntsman – *
• Johnson – *
• Undecided – 9%

Second Choice:

• Gingrich – 20%
• Romney – 20%
• Cain – 16%
• Perry – 13%
• Paul – 8%
• Bachmann – 6%
• Santorum – 4%
• Huntsman – 3%
• Johnson – *

Regardless of who you plan to vote for, who do you think is going to win the Republican nomination?

• Romney – 48%
• Cain – 22%
• Perry – 6%
• Gingrich – 3%
• All others – *

Survey of 436 registered Republicans was conducted Nov 6-9.

The topline results — Cain 27, Romney 25 — don’t show the whole picture for this poll, however. According to an accompanying Politico article, on the first day of the survey, Nov 6, Cain led with 40%. The next day Cain fell to 22%, and the final day of the poll he received just 19%.

That’s the Cain Collapse™ captured over the course of just four days, folks.

The reverse was true for Mitt Romney: on the final day of the survey (November 9), a full 40% of respondents chose Mitt Romney.

I have suggested that the sum of all the pre-primary/caucus debates this year have constituted, in real terms, the first virtual primary of the 2012 presidential campaign cycle. I realize no actual votes have been cast, but the “debates primary” has, in effect, reduced the relatively large field of major candidates (including 10 announced and a half dozen unannounced hopefuls to two or three. I suspect that, by the time Iowans vote in their caucus on January 3 (only a few weeks away), the field will only be 3-5 active candidates, and only two finalists. The race may be over following the Florida primary in February (or sooner).

The most recent debate (in South Carolina) only reinforced my view, as frontrunner Mitt Romney and emerging final challenger Newt Gingrich performed the best, and strengthened their positions. To be fair, Rick Perry, after a series of poor and finally disastrous debate performances, did the best he has so far, but, like Tim Pawlenty (now withdrawn), Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain, Mr. Perry’s moment in the political sun has likely set, at least for this cycle.

The odds for the eventual nominee in Tampa next year still greatly favor Mr. Romney who has run a cautiously flawless campaign so far. Mr. Gingrich, as I and many others observed, has staged a remarkable comeback, thanks primarily to his debate performances, but he will have to demonstrate extraordinary self-discipline and skill from here on to have even a chance to pull an upset.

One of the signs that the Republican nomination is settling into a climactic stage before the voting has begun is that the liberal Old Media institutions have begun a drumbeat of personal attacks on Romney and Gingrich. These attacks, immediately previously directed at Herman Cain, appear to be concentrated, in Mr. Romney’s case, on his management of the companies he ran in the private business world; and, in Mr. Gingrich’s case, on his personal life more than 15 years ago. In the latter instance, many of the old “scandals” have proven to be myths (most notably his divorce confrontation with his first wife on her “cancer deathbed.” Not only is that first wife still alive, but her daughter, an eyewitness, says the confrontation never happened.) Mr Romney’s “scandals,” it would appear, are based on his successful management decisions that included firing employees and consolidating operations.

Following the Cain allegations, and the fact that the Old Media has virtually ignored serious allegations made about Senator Obama before the election, and the increasing number of scandals tied to him as President (the Solyndra case being only one of these), it has been suggested that the voting public, particularly the all-important independent and centrist voting public will pay less and less attention to media attempts to stir up sensational gossip and allegations against only one side.

It is an interesting irony that most of the many GOP presidential debates so far this year have been broadcast and managed by Old Media outlets, producers and media stars acting as moderators. Overwhelmingly, they are liberals who make no attempt to hide their preference for the Democrats and Mr Obama. Much of their efforts have thus been perceived, especially by Republicans and more neutral observers, as biased and unfair. Yet the debates’ frequency has drawn increasingly large audiences, and their impact has been to give the underfunded candidates and their underfunded party an enormous amount of free “advertising” and publicity. Mr. Gingrich, particularly, had no money after his early flub over Paul Ryan, and yet he was able to regroup until the debates have now brought in a flood of campaign funds (reportedly $1 million last week alone) just in time to finance serious efforts in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

In spite of all of this, it is critically important to remember that the presidential election of 2012 will not be about nominee Mitt Romney, nominee Newt Gingrich, or if by an unexpected turn of events, any other Republican nominee. A second-term election of a first-term president is almost always about them, that is, the voters’ evaluation of whether or not the incumbent president merits another four years in office. We can turn out endless analyses of the candidates in an election, but the journalists who do this are really writing for their own small community. It won’t just be the economy alone, but the whole condition of American life, including unemployment levels, degrees of inflation, pension fund stability, affordability of health care, Obamacare, interest rates, the stock market, crises in Europe Asia and the Middle East, and the reputation of the U.S. as a world leader that will determine how Americans feel about Barack Obama and his presidency.

That is where the ball is in play. The rest is diversion on the sidelines.

_________________________________________________________________________________

-Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site.

The following was taken from a blog at MittRomney.Com:

President Obama has accomplished what no other president in modern history has: unemployment above 8% for each full month of his presidency, one million home foreclosures, $15 trillion in debt, and the loss of our prized AAA credit rating. In their desperation to hold onto power, the Obama political machine will say and do anything to distract from President Obama’s abysmal economic record.

In recent weeks, the president’s rhetoric has gone from clueless to divisive. And his campaign machine has turned all of its focus towards their greatest threat: a conservative businessman that knows how the real economy works.

By looking at what the Democrats are saying, it’s hard to misconstrue their obsession with Governor Romney:

• …[T]he Democrats referenced Mitt Romney in 24 of the 31 posts on their debate watch commentary website. No other GOP candidate was mentioned by name (emphasis added).

• Ben LaBolt, Press Secretary for Obama for America, references Mitt Romney in 24 of his last 28 tweets on Twitter.

• Over the last 10 days, DNC Press Secretary Melanie Roussell has made mention of Mitt Romney over 50 times.

• In the last 10 days, over half of all blog posts at democrats.org mention Mitt Romney.

• In recent weeks, the DNC has released 26 attack videos on their YouTube channels. Unsurprisingly, all 26 videos have only one target — Mitt Romney.

It’s easy to see why Mitt is on their mind. With Governor Romney’s record of creating jobs and turning around businesses in the private sector, saving the 2002 Winter Games, and balancing the Massachusetts budget every year as governor, can you blame them? Democrats realize that Mitt Romney is the only Republican who can defeat President Obama in 2012.

Nice logo.

While their rhetorical spin might be debatable — they are the main Romney site after all — the facts they cite are nonetheless quite revealing. It would appear that Obama and his people are beginning to focus their attacks almost exclusively upon Mitt Romney. If you couple that with the fact that Intrade now has Mitt at 71% to win the nomination, one gets the distinct impression that the smart money is starting to coalesce around Romney. Mark Halperin of Time Magazine wrote just today, “As we hit the homestretch, there is a palpable sense (reflected in polling data) among voters, press, pundits, and even late-night comics that Romney is the most likely to win the nomination.”

Time magazine’s Mark Halperin is certainly no Romney supporter. He has written more than one article critical of Mitt including at least one that could be classified as hit piece. So what to make of his latest blurb entitled, “The Romney Advantage”:

He’s the early-state, polling and fundraising leader, who may be poised to win both Iowa and New Hampshire and end this thing early, without a serious challenge from anyone.

But no non-incumbent of either party has won a presidential nomination without an existential scare (or two) on the road to victory and it is hard to imagine one of the weakest frontrunners in modern American history breaking that pattern.

And, yet, Romney has a lot of secret weapons up his sleeve that will help him end the nomination fight at the start — or serve him well if he ends up in an extended battle with one or more rivals.

1. Iowa muscle: In a late-starting cycle where even the best organized candidates have laughably little in place compared to past years, Romney’s team has been quietly working for months, with a small paid staff and tons of supporters from 2008, to put together what could be the best organization in the race. Not bad for a guy who has kept expectations low by barely visiting the Hawkeye State.

…

3. The inoculation against Romneycare: Although Romney’s Massachusetts health care venture will certainly come up again, most likely in paid communication, for now, what was thought to be a crippling liability is barely mentioned in the debates and on the campaign trail, either by Romney’s rivals or voters. By getting so much oxygen early on, before most citizens were paying attention, the controversial plan became an asked-and-answered issue in the minds of much of the press.

4. Media cards to play: Romney has pursued a low-profile strategy, turning down most interviews across all categories and platforms. But if he gets in trouble, he can turn to earned media to try to bail himself out. Because he has created pent-up demand, Romney could appear on “60 Minutes,” get ample time on “Meet the Press” and adorn front pages and magazine covers pretty much whenever he chooses.

5. Endorsements galore: State, federal and local officials from sea to shining sea already have told the Romney campaign they are ready to publicly sign on with Mitt, but for a variety of tactical reasons, the campaign is holding them in reserve, to roll out as needed. They can be used to show momentum leading up to the January voting, or serve as a firewall if Romney stumbles.

…

Halperin lists a total of ten advantages that Mitt has over his fellow candidates. I’ve only cited the four that has been obvious to me for some time now.

(more…)

Just returned from my annual trip to Washington DC with my 8th graders and was once again awed by the wealth of educational experienced there offered at no out of pocket cost. Notice I did not say it was free. I am fully aware that the Smithsonian, monuments and various educational centers are paid for with tax dollars. However, I think this is a good use of our tax money and would support more of it. Where that money should come from is the budget of the Department of Education.

For anyone following the recent GOP presidential debates the idea of eliminating the Department of Education will come as no surprise. Ron Paul has long made the case for killing it, and Rick Perry added it to his plan as well. (At least I think he did; he of course wasn’t too sure of what he thought). This has actually been a rallying cry in the conservative movement for decades.

I do not disagree with the idea that the D.O.E. is actually detrimental to public schools. It puts out unfunded mandates, tries to micro-manage local curricula and generally meddles in the way all overly-large bureaucracies do. A local school will almost always be run better by the locality.

One example is in the federal push towards technology. While there are certainly benefits to teaching technology to our students, the government works at such a necesarily slow pace that by the time ideas and procedures filter down to the local level they are often already outdated. And that is to say nothing of the fact that it is in reality impossible to train students for the jobs of the future. If recent history has taught us anything it is that we can not predict what the jobs of the future will actually be with any technical certainty.

Schools need to focus on teaching what is timeless: critical thinking, rhetoric, logic and problem solving. No matter what changes the future may bring, these skills will always stand by our students.

The liberal knee-jerk reaction to the idea of eliminating the fed from public education is to cry out that if we do we would have public schools resorting to teaching creationism or some other hot button issue.

To this I respond, so what?

What is the goal of a school? It is to foster intellectual curiosity and provide students with the tools to satiate that curiosity. No single curricula point is going to derail that. There are plenty of well educated, thoughtful and honest citizens of this country who hold that creationism is true. Just because I personally do not agree with them, does it really make me a better citizen, community member or productive member of society? Of course not.

Where I differ from the Rick Perrys and Ron Pauls of the world is that I still believe the federal government has a role to play in educating the citizenry. This is what my recent journey to our nation’s capital reminded me. The fed gets the most bang for it’s buck when it focuses on grand scale education rather than micro-managing the day to day teaching of students. The Smithsonian Museums are a perfect example of public education spending done right. Here anyone can go to view, learn and participate in a variety of educational activities.

I live in Massachusetts and in Boston we have an excellent science museum. However, if you are a family of four or five the cost of visiting this museum can be prohibitive. If the government wants to foster true intellectual curiosity in an egalitarian fashion why not subsidize a museum rather than throw money into a black hole of bureaucratic red tape throughout the public school system.

Another idea based off of the DC model would be to fund state historical museums/living history centers. Even the most jaded American can’t help but feel some pride when visiting the Jefferson or Lincoln Memorial in Washington. Why couldn’t this concept be duplicated on a more local scale?

The Occupy crowd have clearly gone too far, but one of their underlying motives is understandable. They have a lack of connection to the system. They have no sense of community, no sense of being in this together. Therefore they operate from a more selfish, “what-can-the-government-do-for-me perspective. The government should do more to foster a sense of national pride.

I am not naive. I am also not suggesting that a few museums are going to solve our nation’s problems. But I am suggesting that we may want to look at how we promote intellectual curiosity and civic pride and that perhaps re-purposing the D.O.E. could be a place to start.

After all at it’s core a conservative is one who wants to conserve. Our collective past and educational future need conservation too.Cutting spending is always good, but sometimes spending smartly also helps.

2012 Republican Presidential Nomination

2012 Iowa Republican Caucus

2012 New Hampshire Republican Primary

New Hampshire – Not Displaying Romney

This weekend on The Chris Matthews Show, journalist Nia-Malika Henderson reported that “Chris Christie will continue to be Mitt Romney’s bodyguard” over the course of Romney’s presidential campaign, and that Team Romney views Christie as essentially someone who can go on the attack against Romney’s opponents, allowing Mitt to stay positive. It seems to me that Christie is being groomed for the role of “attack dog,” a common trait of running mates on presidential tickets. Could this be a sign that Christie has made it to the vice presidential “short list” of Candidate Romney? If so, Republicans could do a lot worse than a Romney/Christie ticket, which in addition to giving Romney a second-to-none attack dog, would broaden the ticket’s appeal to many of those working class urban Northerners who are less than happy with President Obama, and who probably wish Hillary were president. It also seems that a Romney/Christie ticket would be ideal for winning voters in places like Bucks County, Pennsylvania, which could tip the Keystone State into the Romney column and deny the president any chance of re-election.

I missed the debate last night. I was obligated to be somewhere else. In such situations, I’ve found that Intrade to be as good as any other source for scoring a debate. There is very little spin. Personal biases and prejudices are balanced out. All that is left is the desire to make a buck on what you really, honestly think is going to happen.

Here are how things currently stand on Intrade as to who will win the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination:

“All others combined” includes everyone who can’t even crack 1%.

Here it is in graphical form:

Here is the pie chart I made just five weeks ago dated October 6th. (The year typo was in the original):

Contrasting the two charts we can see that Romney isn’t going away on Intrade. In fact, he is gathering steam. He is almost up to three out of every four Intrade traders betting that he is going to be the nominee. The only real difference from a month ago is Perry was the then great hope of the not-Romney crowd, followed by Cain. Gingrich didn’t even make the top five overall.

Now Gingrich is the only not-Romney that is scoring in double digits. Perry, Cain, Paul, and Huntsman are all polling within 1% of each other. The four of them are closely clustered around an average score of 3.5.

(more…)

-The debate will be streamed online at CBSNews.com and NationalJournal.com and will begin at 8pm EST.

Here’s a teaser from CBS News:

1. Can Rick Perry clear the low bar of expectations? Almost every debate has been a challenge for the Texas governor, but after Wednesday night’s face plant in Michigan, there’s really nowhere for him to go but up. He’s tried to make light of he stumbles and turn them into strengths, saying he’s not slick, that he speaks from the heart. That’s all well and good, but the danger for Perry is that voters already have formed an opinion of him–and that based on his past performances, they lack confidence that he is either capable or can persuasively carry the conservative message to victory. Debates matter to voters: In our new poll, 76 percent of Republicans said the candidate’s performance was important in deciding their vote.

You don’t have to be a championship debater–the pundits and the media never gave the debate points George W. Bush. But Bush clearly passed the threshold that he was qualified to be president. In debates, he was able to connect with voters and communicate his message in a way Perry so far has not.

2. Will Newt Gingrich contain himself? Gingrich is the flip side of Perry: He scores the debate points, and he conveys intelligence and knowledge. His poll numbers, as a result, have steadily risen, and he’s now tied for second with Mitt Romney. But Gingrich can go too far and come across as arrogant and distant–the professor who wants to lecture to show how smart he is. That could turn off voters who are looking for hopeful optimism. He should perform well tonight in a debate focused on serious and complex matters of foreign policy. But he can’t be overconfident to the point that he seems egotistical.

3. Can Cain get back on message? Considering the blows Cain has taken in the past two weeks, it’s remarkable he is still standing–much less holding onto the lead in the new CBS poll. But that poll also shows voters have doubts about Cain’s qualifications to be commander in chief, and especially in an international crisis. Romney and Gingrich get points there, while Cain slips to third. He has a huge opportunity tonight to show voters he more than the 9-9-9 candidate, that he not only can present solutions to America’s economic problems, but also has a level of knowledge on international issues and can tackle serious foreign policy issues.

4. Will Romney be able to pick up more support? Voters think Romney has the best chance to beat Barack Obama by a 2-to-1 margin, and he has been declared a winner in nearly every debate. Voters say they’re confident Romney could go head-to-head with Obama, and it’s proven that with his performances. His command of the facts should serve him well tonight, especially when confronted with difficult foreign policy issues. But Romney is playing it safe when primary voters are looking for bold action.

5. Will anyone emerge as the obvious alternative to Romney? For months, Romney has been playing a version of prevent defense–and as any football fan knows, a prevent defense can kill you if your opponent refuses to quit and somehow starts firing on all cylinders. So far that hasn’t happened in this race. We’ve seen a couple of bursts here and there, but no one has managed to consistently score. It looks like Gingrich may be moving into a head-to-head race with Romney, but Cain is still in it. And with Perry’s war chest, he could get back in the game if he can turn in a good debate or two–and somehow turn the narrative that while he may be a capable governor, he simply isn’t ready to be president of the United States. As Gingrich said on CBS yesterday, this isn’t a governor’s race–it’s a race for President. If Perry can get himself in the right race, starting tonight by showing he can handle tough foreign policy questions, he could still challenge Romney.

And as always, have at it in the comments!

Race 4 2012′s South Carolina foreign policy debate open forum will be going live at 7:30pm EST. The debate will be televised live on CBS and streamed online at CBSNews.com.

The unusual number of Republican presidential candidate debates so far has, in effect, served as the first primary of the 2012 cycle. The number of debates has grown since 1960 when the televised debate between GOP nominee Richard Nixon faced Democratic nominee John F. Kennedy. The impact of television was decisive that year inasmuch as polls indicate that the majority of those voters who heard the debate on radio thought that Nixon had won, but more of those who saw the debate on television thought Kennedy had won.

Since that time, the number of debates has increased significantly, and soon became vital part of the nomination process itself. This year, with only a contest on the GOP side, there have been an astonishing number of debates, and their audiences beyond the live attendees (via radio, TV, and podcasts) have grown to significant numbers.

This immediate and repeated exposure has clearly influenced opinion polls (perhaps most dramatically last week when Texas Governor Rick Perry had a brief memory lapse during a debate in Michigan). This became the biggest national political story, even eclipsing the non-debate crisis in the campaign of Herman Cain following sexual harassment allegations against him.

It is true that no actual votes are cast in the “debates primary,” but it is now inescapable that by means of the polls, and the seemingly endless print and broadcast analyses of the debates, there is an equivalent primary/ caucus process provided by the series of debates that precede Iowa and New Hampshire.

With the great number of these pre-primary debates that have occurred (and will yet occur) in 2011, this “debates primary” now becomes an institutional part of the presidential election cycle.

When Governor Perry, after his early poor performance in the first debates he participated in, said he was not going to participate in further debates, there was such a complaint in the media that he had to reverse himself.

Some have suggested that debating skills are not intrinsic to becoming a good president. But now this point is moot, since it is an inevitable part of the nominating and final election process.

Even as late as the first quarter of the 20th century, presidential candidates did not campaign very much across the country. Part of the reason was that the communications and transportation technology did not allow for it. The airplane, radio, television and internet revolutions have each since enabled candidates and nominees to reach more and more voters easily and rapidly.

The rise of the presidential primary and caucus in the past 50 years created a more immediate and personal style of campaigning as presidential aspirants were required to visit more individual states and, in the case of Iowa, New Hampshire, and other smaller states, to perform so-called “retail campaigning,” that is, meet with individual and small groups of voters. A recent variation of this, the town meeting format, has become a popular campaign technique, and has required candidates to display certain skills hitherto not part of presidential campaigns.

Now we have the debate format, and the skills it requires, to be a central, vital and most important early component of a presidential candidate seeking his or her party’s nomination. But, while political advertising, straw polls, town meetings and talk show appearances are still important parts of any campaign, the debate cycle has emerged as a much more dispositive part of the presidential campaign before the actual primaries and caucuses take place. In fact, these debates have become the first actual primary, influencing large numbers of voters before any votes are cast, reducing the number of candidates to only the most competitive.

This also accounts for the standings of former Governor Romney and former Speaker Gingrich at the top of current polls to date in 2011. Each of them has, during the debates so far, shown the most skill, knowledge of the issues and stage presence to be considered the “winners” of the debates, and in the case of Mr. Gingrich, enabled him to recover dramatically from earlier campaign mistakes and controversies.

Political figures who want to be president of the United States in the future, and their campaign strategists, will have to take the “debates primary” into consideration before deciding to step up to the national stage.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

-Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site.

CBS News 2012 GOP Nomination Survey

Which one of these candidates do you trust most to handle an international crisis?

• Newt Gingrich 31%
• Mitt Romney 19%
• Rick Perry 9%
• Herman Cain 8%
• Jon Huntsman 4%
• Michele Bachmann 3%
• Ron Paul 3%
• Rick Santorum 3%
• None of them (vol.) 5%
• Don’t know 15%

Which one of these candidates do you think is most qualified to be Commander-in-Chief?

• Mitt Romney 26%
• Newt Gingrich 21%
• Herman Cain 11%
• Rick Perry 9%
• Michele Bachmann 5%
• Ron Paul 4%
• Jon Huntsman 2%
• Rick Santorum 2%
• All of them (vol.) 1%
• None of them (vol.) 4%
• Don’t know 15%

Survey of 382 registered Republican primary voters was conducted November 6-10, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 5 percentage points.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

SurveyUSA Pennsylvania 2012 Presidential Poll

• Mitt Romney 44%
• Barack Obama 44%

• Barack Obama 47%
• Newt Gingrich 40%

What if your choice was between the Democratic ticket of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and the Republican Ticket of Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, who would you vote for?

• Obama/Biden 46%
• Romney/Gingrich 45%

What if your choice was between the Democratic ticket of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and the Republican Ticket of Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, who would you vote for?

• Obama/Clinton 50%
• Romney/Gingrich 41%

What if your choice was between Democratic ticket of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and the Republican Ticket of Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, who would you vote for?

• Obama/Biden 46%
• Gingrich/Romney 42%

What if your choice was between the Democratic ticket of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and the Republican Ticket of Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, who would you vote for?

• Obama/Clinton 50%
• Gingrich/Romney 40%

Survey of 800 adults was conducted November 10, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 38% Democrat; 31% Republican; 30% Independent. Political ideology: 45% Moderate; 34% Conservative; 18% Liberal.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

Rasmussen 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 43%
• Mitt Romney 42%
  

(more…)

Last year the Republicans here in Nevada choose Sharron Angle to go up against the unpopular Harry Reid. She ran perhaps one of the poorest campaigns I’ve ever seen from a major candidate for a major office . She lost

A myth has grown up from that campaign that it was all the Tea Party’s fault. If it hadn’t been for them “thrusting” Angle upon us, Harry Reid would have been toast. While it is certainly true that Sharron did have the Tea Party’s support, it was not that support that got her the nomination. It was the other candidates.

There were three top candidates for the nomination last year, Sue Lowden, Danny Tarkanian, and Sharron Angle. Sue Lowden started out on top. Tarkanian was second with Angle third. All things being equal, that is how they would have finished.

But Lowden and Tarkanian both ran very poor campaigns. Lowden kept making little amateur mistakes like using a van donated by a supporter for campaign uses. That’s a donation in kind above the legal limit, and it got her into trouble. Tarkanian’s biggest mistake was going negative almost immediately. He did little else but attack Sue Lowden. He never really gave much of a reason for anyone to actually vote for him. He only gave us reasons not to vote for Lowden. Sharron Angle, on the other hand, ran almost a perfect campaign. I can’t remember a single mistake she made during the primary.

Nevada Republicans knew that whoever got the nomination was going to have to run a tight, effective race to send Reid packing, and the only one in the primary who came close to doing that was Sharron Angle. So we selected her to be our nominee to defeat Harry Reid.

But it was not to be. Angle’s general election campaign was one mistake after another.  She never really got it together. It led me and other Nevadans to wonder exactly what happened? Did she hire Lowden’s and Tarkanian’s campaign staff to run her general campaign? Did she think that after a tough primary fight that she was just going to coast to a general election win over the most powerful man in the U.S. Senate? Did she get complacent when she kept reading polls that said she was winning easily by a minimum of five points?

I feel it safe to say that if Angle had run her primary campaign like she ran her general campaign, we would likely have had Sue Lowden as our nominee last year, not Angle. Could Lowden have defeated Harry Reid? Perhaps. She couldn’t have done much worse than Sharron Angle did. That is for certain.

(more…)

The AP reveals today that Mitt Romney has filmed a television campaign ad at a sheet-metal plant in Dubuque, Iowa. The news is interesting, because one of the remaining unknowns about this primary is how hard Romney will choose to play in the Hawkeye State. Now, a bit of strategy for you aspiring campaign managers out there: any good campaign will have an ad or two “in the can” — that is, an ad that has been shot, edited, finalized and ready to go up on the air at a moment’s notice if need be. So this news does not necessarily mean that Romney will be airing TV ads in Iowa anytime soon. What it does mean is that he could if he wanted to.

And it’s easy to see why the temptation may be growing in the Romney campaign to land a knockout punch in Iowa. Cain is finally falling apart under the weight of his gaffes and the harassment scandal. Consider: Cain used to poll in the mid-to high-20s in national polls, even hitting 30% in a couple of them. This morning’s two polls showed two markedly different horse races, but they were consistent in showing Cain falling to just 17-18% of the vote. That’s a hard fall. Cain’s numbers in Iowa don’t look any better, either. Cain was over 30% in the RCP average for Iowa once upon a time. Since then, he’s slid down to 23% — and the most recent poll this morning had him at 19%.

As Cain bleeds support, Romney’s other main rival, Rick Perry, just suffered on of the top 5 most embarrassing debate moments in modern political history and more or less ensured his comeback campaign was doomed. It was clear that Romney had always viewed Perry as his strongest (or only?) competition in the race; with Perry’s self-imposed death by a thousand shotgun blasts Romney must view an ever-widening lane for him to travel down to secure the GOP nomination.

Huntsman isn’t catching on in New Hampshire (at least not yet, if he ever does). Bachmann, Santorum, and Paul will never win, and everybody knows that. That leaves just one man in between Mitt Romney and the nomination: Newt Gingrich. And if it really does come down to Romney vs. Gingrich in Iowa, Mitt has to be feeling pretty good about his chances for one reason: organization.

The bottom line of caucuses is organization, and that is clearly Romney’s strong suit. In 2008, Romney built his campaign on organizing for caucuses, and despite losing all the early states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida, Romney still blew his competitors out of the water in caucus states like Maine, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, Colorado, North Dakota, and Alaska. In fact, other than Iowa, there was not a single caucus state Romney lost in 2008 before he dropped out of the race.

So what happened in Iowa in 2008? The evangelical community banded together behind one of their own and organized for Mike Huckabee. The FairTax folks also came in and did some organizing as well. And Huckabee, with little official organization of his own, pulled off a 9 point upset.

This time around, it’s pretty tough to see evangelicals coalescing in the same way and lining up behind Newt Gingrich, the twice divorced Catholic whose cultural cues are far removed from that community. And as the AP notes, “[Gingrich] has little structure in place for the organizationally intensive caucuses, which require people to show up for gatherings on a midwinter night.” There are 1,784 precincts in Iowa, and a perfectly organized campaign will have precinct captains in each one helping to get out the vote. Gingrich has just 52 days, including the Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years holidays, to get some sort of ground organization together. Instead, he appears to be taking a page out of the Herman Cain playbook and will return to Iowa next week to – get this – do a screening of his documentary and a book signing.

Cain is slipping. Perry is down and out. Gingrich is rising as his new main rival. And so in comes Romney surveying the landscape – and he cuts a campaign ad to air in Iowa.

Just in case.

This from the Washington Post (emphasis added):

…

As Perry was free-falling into the abyss of lost thoughts Wednesday night, he turned to his fellow contestants as if to say, “Please, someone, can’t you tell me what I think?”

Unhelpfully, Ron Paul suggested there were really five agencies he should cut. And then someone did try to help him, and this to me was the most memorable moment of the evening. From somewhere on the panel, a voice reached out to the struggling Texan, a suggestion that might help Perry gather himself and emerge from this utter humiliation.

The voice belonged to Mitt Romney. As Perry’s brain was hardening into arctic pack ice, Romney suggested that maybe the third agency he wanted to eliminate was the EPA. Yeah, that’s it! But no, it wasn’t. Pressed by Harwood, Perry said it wasn’t the EPA, but blast if he could remember what it was. (Later he said it was Energy.)

Romney’s suggestion when most of the others were squirmingly silent was an act of pure kindness and self-sacrificing generosity. It was not especially noticeable. But if you were Rick Perry in that moment, you were well aware that Romney was the one who tried to save you. When Perry finally said, “Oops,” it was Romney toward whom he looked.

Small, but not insignificant, this gesture of active empathy tells much about the man who extended it. He’s a nice guy in a season of nastiness, a trait that may also be his greatest political failing.

…

Humility is a tough trait to communicate in a presidential campaign that requires confident self-promotion, though it is often apparent in Romney’s debate face. He looks at others respectfully when they are speaking, and his expression betrays patience and even a hopefulness that they will do well. Romney isn’t shy in reminding voters of his own accomplishments, but there are stories out there that tell another side to his character. Here’s one related to me recently by someone close to the campaign:

Romney was shooting an ad on a hot day in a staffer’s yard. While the photo shoot was being set up, Romney was asked to bide time in the cooler shade of the staffer’s garage. When the staffer retrieved Romney 30 minutes later, he discovered that the candidate had swept and organized his garage.

Here is a simple question. Who else among the current field of candidates can you imagine doing that in a staffer’s garage when no one was looking? That is an honest question. I would sincerely like to know.

I am reminded of the story from the 2002 Olympics. A traffic snafu had developed. Mitt drove up in his car, got out in the snow and wind and began directing traffic. After an officer came by to relieve him, Mitt then went and found the source of the problem and fixed it.

Later, in 2008 when he was running for President, he was in California visiting his son in the aftermath of those terrible wildfires they had. Mitt went out without fanfare — no press, no staffers — rolled up his sleeves and went to work.

Is there any other 2012 hopeful that have those sorts of stories being told about them? I know Palin helped out earlier this year somewhere, but she’s not running. Anyone else?

Mitt is also the candidate who has been flying coach class for decades, not just when he’s running for office. Once last year when a candidate for Governor in Georgia(?) asked a big name to speak at her final big campaign event of the primary, it cost the campaign nearly $100,000 to fly that person round-trip to the state by private jet. Mitt nearly always flew coach — a whole lot cheaper on the campaign he was helping out.

Mitt solves problems. That is what he does. It’s his innate nature to do so. He can’t help it.  Which is why I often wonder at those who insist that when elected President he’s just going sit around accepting the status quo. Just what do those people who make this claim  suggest a man of his energy, intelligence, and drive to fix things is going to do for four long years? Pick his nose?

That simply is not Mitt. It never has been. He’s a problem solver. It’s what gets him up in the morning.

***Update***

As pointed out by Ci2Eye below, Mitt is still being the gentleman about Perry’s flub. ABC news reports Mitt saying the following today:

“Most times in the debates I’m concentrated on my own performance and my own mistakes,” the former Massachusetts governor said on Friday while campaigning at a barbeque restaurant in South Carolina . “I can think of a few, but I’m not going to rehearse them for you. We all make mistakes and I’m more concerned about my own than anybody else’s, and I wish Rick the very best.”

Also Cain has relaunched his website with a far more attractive look.

This picture was on Cain’s Twitter account with Reince Priebus stopping by before the debate and sharing a scripture off of his smart phone:

“No weapon formed against you shall prosper, and every tongue which rises against you in judgment you shall condemn.

This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is from Me,” says the LORD.”

According to Cain, the scripture was Isaiah 54:17 which reads, “”No weapon formed against you shall prosper, and every tongue which rises against you in judgment you shall condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is from Me,” says the LORD.”

InsiderAdvantage (R) South Carolina 2012 GOP Primary Survey

• Herman Cain 25.6% (32.0%)
• Newt Gingrich 18.9% (7.8%)
• Mitt Romney 16.1% (16.4%)
• Rick Perry 6.1% (12.4%)
• Michele Bachmann 4.7% (5.8%)
• Ron Paul 3.1% (6.6%)
• Rick Santorum 1.6%
• Someone else 4.0% (3.7%)
• No opinion 19.8% (14.7%)

Among Men

• Herman Cain 27.7% (36.7%)
• Newt Gingrich 25.9% (6.9%)
• Mitt Romney 15.9% (15.6%)
• Michele Bachmann 8.9% (4.1%)
• Ron Paul 3.9% (9.1%)
• Rick Perry 2.5% (14.7%)
• Rick Santorum 0.2%
• Someone else 3.7% (4.9%)
• No opinion 11.3% (7.3%)

Among Women

• Herman Cain 23.7% (27.4%)
• Mitt Romney 16.2% (17.2%)
• Newt Gingrich 12.2% (8.6%)
• Rick Perry 9.7% (10.3%)
• Rick Santorum 2.9%
• Ron Paul 2.4% (4.2%)
• Michele Bachmann 0.6% (7.3%)
• Someone else 4.3% (2.6%)
• No opinion 28.0% (21.8%)

Survey of 457 likely South Carolina GOP primary voters was conducted November 8, 2011.  Party ID breakdown: 75% Republican; 20.8% Independent; 3.9% Democrat. Results from the poll conducted October 16, 2011 are in parentheses.

InsiderAdvantage (R) Iowa 2012 GOP Caucus Poll

• Herman Cain 23.3% [29.6%] (26.4%)
• Mitt Romney 18.7% [14.9%] (18.1%)
• Newt Gingrich 14.5% [11.7%] (12.1%)
• Ron Paul 11.4% [8.7%] (9.6%)
• Rick Perry 8.8% [5.6%] (5.8%)
• Michele Bachmann 5.4% [7.8%] (11.0%)
• Rick Santorum 3.4%
• Someone else 1.7% [5.5%] (3.0%)
• No opinion 12.8% [14.2%] (13.1%)

Among Men

• Herman Cain 31.4% [30.4%] (32.5%)
• Mitt Romney 19.1% [12.6%] (14.9%)
• Newt Gingrich 14.2% [13.3%] (12.8%)
• Ron Paul 14.0% [10.6%] (13.2%)
• Rick Perry 8.1% [4.6%] (6.0%)
• Michele Bachmann 5.9% [10.4%] (10.1%)
• Rick Santorum 0.6%
• Someone else 1.0% [8.1%] (3.1%)
• No opinion 5.7% [8.4%] (5.8%)

Among Women

• Mitt Romney 18.4% [17.1%] (21.2%)
• Herman Cain 15.5% [28.9%] (20.6%)
• Newt Gingrich 14.7% [10.2%] (11.5%)
• Rick Perry 9.4% [6.5%] (5.6%)
• Ron Paul 9.0% [6.9%] (6.1%)
• Rick Santorum 6.2%
• Michele Bachmann 5.0% [5.3%] (11.8%)
• Someone else 2.4% [3.1%] (3.0%)
• No opinion 19.4% [19.8%] (20.0%)

Survey of 436 likely Iowa GOP caucus-goers was conducted November 8, 2011.  Party ID breakdown: 73.2% [76.5%] Republican; 24.1% [20.7%] Independent; 2.8% [2.8%] Democrat.  Results from the poll conducted November 3, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted October 16, 2011 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

CBS News 2012 GOP Nomination Survey

• Herman Cain 18% (25%) [17%] {5%}
• Mitt Romney 15% (21%) [17%] {16%}
• Newt Gingrich 15% (10%) [8%] {7%}
• Rick Perry 8% (6%) [12%] {23%}
• Ron Paul 5% (8%) [7%] {5%}
• Michele Bachmann 4% (2%) [4%] {7%}
• Rick Santorum 2% (1%) [3%] {1%}
• Jon Huntsman 1% (1%) [2%] {1%}
• Someone else 14% (12%) [10%] {11%}
• Undecided/Don’t know 17% (14%) [18%] {22%}

Among Men

• Herman Cain 21% (22%)
• Newt Gingrich 19% (11%)
• Mitt Romney 15% (23%)

Among Women

• Mitt Romney 16% (19%)
• Herman Cain 15% (28%)
• Newt Gingrich 10% (9%)

Mind Made Up Whom to Support?

• Yes 28%
• Too early 72%

Survey of 382 registered Republican primary voters was conducted November 6-10, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted October 19-24, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted September 28 – October 2, 2011 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 10-15, 2011 are in curly brackets.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

McClatchy-Marist 2012 GOP Nomination Survey

• Mitt Romney 23% (22%)
• Newt Gingrich 19% (6%)
• Herman Cain 17% (5%)
• Ron Paul 10% (7%)
• Rick Perry 8% (30%)
• Michele Bachmann 5% (12%)
• Jon Huntsman 1% (1%)
• Rick Santorum 1% (2%)
• Undecided 17% (15%)

Survey of 347 Republicans (65%) and Republican-leaning independents (35%) was conducted November 8-10, 2011. The margin of error is ± 5.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted September 13-14, 2011 are in parentheses

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

Ron Paul is making a play for Nevada. I live in the state. In the past two days I’ve heard two radio spots for him, received a fairly expensive Ron Paul mailing, and just last night I got a polling phone call from his campaign.

The other campaigns? Nothing. I’ve not heard or seen from any of them in months. The last time was three or four months ago when I got a telephone call asking me if I would like to join a “Mitt Romney telephone town hall”. Since then, there hasn’t been anything from anybody.

So count Ron Paul as the first 2012 GOP hopeful to get serious about the Silver State.