The race for the Republican nomination has seen more ups, downs, and overall unpredictability than Rick Perry’s debate performances (okay, sorry to all the Perry backers, but I couldn’t resist). However, one things has remained constant: the prediction that the anti-Romney faction of the party will eventually rally around a candidate and propel him/her to victory.

So far, this has failed to sustainably materialize, for various reasons. However, The Hill reports that it may finally have begun:

A coalition of conservatives is working to organize the disparate groups opposing Mitt Romney as the Republican presidential nominee.

…The group’s website, NotMittRomney.com, launched this week. [Spokesman Ali] Akbar said that although the group is open to becoming a political action committee in the future, right now it is focused on becoming an online gathering place for the anti-Romney movement.

…Akbar hopes the effort will help provide a framework to gather leaders behind the conservative candidate who will eventually become the movement’s preferred option to Romney.

“We’re treading water until this viable candidate presents him- or herself,” Akbar said, suggesting it will happen sometime after Florida’s primary on Jan. 31.

…Erickson is not a part of the anti-Romney coalition, but it has gathered prominent right-wing bloggers such as John Hawkins and Atlas Shrugs’s Pamela Geller, as well as activists working against Romney with opposition campaigns in early-voting states such as Iowa and New Hampshire.

The NotMittRomney coalition is focusing on Iowa first, and eventually Florida. The group is fundraising quietly but has not yet met the required limit to file as a political action committee with the Federal Election Commission. “This is about building a coalition first,” said Akbar.

The goal of the coalition is not to draw together various anti-Romney efforts under one umbrella but to help them communicate. Grassroots and online organizations proved to be effective in gathering force behind the Tea Party movement in 2009, and the coalition intends to take advantage of tools such as social media, according to Akbar.

This certainly looks like something we should monitor in the coming weeks; after all, less than two months exist until the Iowa Caucuses, so anti-Romney Republicans have little time to spare. The uncertainty regarding Herman Cain’s future, the numerous questions surrounding Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry’s verbal miscues, Michele Bachmann’s recent irrelevance, and the inability of any other candidate to break into the top tier leave plenty of variables in the equation.

However, for the very vocal segment of the GOP that remains steadfastly skeptical or downright hostile toward Mitt, their hopes of (in their mind) saving the party – and the country – from him may very well depend on a large-scale organizing effort like this one.

Stay tuned.

PPP (D) Mississippi 2012 Presidential Survey

• Mitt Romney 54% (46%)
• Barack Obama 36% (40%)

• Rick Perry 55%
• Barack Obama 38%

• Herman Cain 54%
• Barack Obama 37%

• Newt Gingrich 54% (48%)
• Barack Obama 38% (42%)

• Ron Paul 52%
• Barack Obama 37%

• Michele Bachmann 52%
• Barack Obama 40%

(more…)

The Cain campaign reported today they have raised more than $9 million so far in the fourth quarter — roughly six weeks — and that 25% of that ($2.25 million) has come in since allegations of sexual harassment were made public on October 30.

Those are highly impressive numbers, and great news for a campaign that ended Q3 with just over a million dollars in the bank. (And that only after Cain put in roughly three quarters of a million of his own money.) Back on October 15 here at Race, I wrote that I would be surprised if Cain pulled in $10 million in Q4. I stand publicly corrected – and impressed. For all of Cain’s problems in this race, it certainly does not look like money will be one of them.

They’re ridiculously old, and I don’t know why these groups sat on the results this long before releasing them, but here’s some more early state poll numbers:

GS Strategy Group / AARP Iowa Caucus Survey

• Cain – 25%
• Romney – 22%
• Paul – 8%
• Bachmann – 7%
• Gingrich – 6%
• Perry – 5%
• Santorum – 4%
• Huntsman – 1%
• Undecided – 23%

New Hampshire Primary Survey:

• Romney – 43%
• Cain – 18%
• Paul – 9%
• Gingrich – 5%
• Bachmann – 3%
• Perry – 3%
• Huntsman – 3%
• Santorum – 1%
• Undecided – 15%

South Carolina Primary:

• Cain – 28%
• Romney – 27%
• Perry – 8%
• Gingrich – 7%
• Paul – 5%
• Bachmann – 3%
• Huntsman – 2%
• Santorum – 1%
• Undecided – 20%

Florida Primary:

• Romney – 31%
• Cain – 29%
• Gingrich – 12%
• Perry – 9%
• Paul – 3%
• Bachmann – 1%
• Huntsman – 1%
• Santorum – 1%
• Undecided – 14%

Surveys of 400 primary voters (IA, NH, and SC) or 500 primary voters (FL) were conducted Oct 17-18 (IA, NH) and Oct 18-19 (SC, FL). All surveys have a margin of error of +/-4.9%, except FL which is +/-4.4%.

Mitt Romney has Restore our Future.

Rick Perry has Make Us Great Again.

Michele Bachmann has Keep Conservatives United.

Herman Cain has Americans for Herman Cain.

Ron Paul has Revolution.

Jon Huntsman has Our Destiny.

And now, Newt Gingrich joins the fray with the backing of his very own Super PAC, begun just last night: Solutions 2012.

As always, with any reporting of Super PACs, we feel compelled to remind you: Super PACs can in no way collaborate or collude with candidates. They are independent entities that do not (or are supposed to not) have any contact with the official campaigns or any members therein. Thus, they are a double-edged sword: they present literally unlimited funding potential in support of candidates, but are somewhat loose cannons who cannot play into a campaign’s larger strategy. But this is a sign of Newt’s seriousness in this campaign now, and if some rich donors jump on board, this PAC may have the ability to make up for the fundraising that has, thus far, been sorely lacking in Gingrich’s campaign. (At the end of Q3 he had just $300,000 cash on hand with $1.2 million in debt.)

Quinnipiac Ohio 2012 Presidential Survey

REPUBLICAN PRIMARY

• Herman Cain 25% (28%) {7%} [7%]
• Mitt Romney 20% (23%) {25%} [19%]
• Newt Gingrich 11% (7%) {6%} [6%]
• Ron Paul 9% (8%) {6%} [6%]
• Michele Bachmann 4% (4%) {4%} [16%]
• Rick Perry 4% (4%) {21%} [8%]
• Jon Huntsman 2% (2%) {2%} [1%]
• Rick Santorum 1% (1%) {4%} [3%]
• Don’t know 20% (18%) {22%} [31%]

Suppose the primary came down to a choice between Herman Cain and Mitt Romney, for whom would you vote?

• Herman Cain 47%
• Mitt Romney 39%

(more…)

Quinnipiac Pennsylvania 2012 Presidential Survey

REPUBLICAN NOMINATION

• Herman Cain 17% {5%} (4%) [8%]
• Mitt Romney 17% {18%} (21%) [21%]
• Newt Gingrich 13% {4%} (4%) [5%]
• Rick Santorum 13% {12%} (14%) [16%]
• Rick Perry 5% {16%} (8%)
• Ron Paul 5% {5%} (5%) [6%]
• Michele Bachmann 2% {6%} (11%) [5%]
• Jon Huntsman 2% {2%} (1%) [1%]
• Someone else (vol.) 2% {2%} (3%) [2%]
• Wouldn’t vote (vol.) 2% {2%} (2%) [3%]
• Don’t know 21% {19%} (14%) [17%]

Suppose the primary came down to a choice between Herman Cain and Mitt Romney, for whom would you vote?

• Mitt Romney 42%
• Herman Cain 41%

(more…)

Just when you think Perry can’t possibly look any worse in a debate setting, he tops himself once again last night.

Gingrich moves up to second place this week on the heels of Perry’s “oops” moment and Cain’s continued troubles — while Perry slips all the way to fifth:

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

UPDATE: Today (last night, really) marks the first time in this primary campaign that there has not been more than one candidate in double digits on the Intrade board.

Quinnipiac Florida 2012 Presidential Survey

REPUBLICAN NOMINATION

• Herman Cain 27% {8%} (9%)
• Mitt Romney 21% {22%} (24%)
• Newt Gingrich 17% {8%} (5%)
• Rick Perry 5% {31%} (14%)
• Michele Bachmann 4% {7%} (7%)
• Ron Paul 3% {6%} (10%)
• Rick Santorum 1% {2%} (1%)
• Jon Huntsman 1% {2%} (1%)
• Someone else (Vol) 2% {1%} (3%)
• Wouldn’t vote (Vol) 3% {1%} (3%)
• Don’t know 16% {13%} (19%)

Suppose the primary came down to a choice between Herman Cain and Mitt Romney, for whom would you vote?

• Herman Cain 45%
• Mitt Romney 39%

(more…)

Here’s CNBC’s tease on the debate:

ROCHESTER, Mich. — High unemployment, a teetering economy and Europe on the brink sets a daunting backdrop for Wednesday’s debate for a Republican presidential field without a clear leader.

Oh, and throw in some saucy allegations of sexual misconduct against one of the leading candidates and it adds up to what should be an eventful night.

The GOP race thus far has amounted to a carousel of flavors-of-the-week, with voters unsure whether to pick quick-witted businessmen, dapper ex-governors or darlings of the tea party right.

CNBC is moderating the debate at Oakland University, which is nestled in a tony suburb that both supported President Obama in 2008 and, two years later, Republican Gov. Rick Snyder, who has waged war with the state’s labor unions.

The debates have become fairly pedestrian affairs as of late. But as many as five sexual harassment allegations against front-runner Herman Cain could change that.

The debate can be viewed online here.

And as always, have at it in the comments!

A couple of FPP’s have been offered earlier today regarding yesterday’s elections and what they may or may not foretell about 2012.  My view is that, taking all the results in various states in the aggregate, we experienced more of a status quo election than one suggesting a “throw the bums out” trend or one seeking some kind of significant change in economic or social policy.  The election was not a victory for the Democrats or the Republicans, but rather, illustrated the power and importance of the independents or swing voters.

In my own state of Virginia, many, including a prominent liberal radio commentator in the D.C. area expected the GOP win 3 and maybe 4 state senate seats which would have given the Republicans complete operational control of the state government.  A similar forecast had been made by University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato.  Yet, the best that can now be hoped for is a tie in the state Senate assuming we win the very close race currently heading for recount.  Obama is not popular in Virginia and Governor McDonnell enjoys wide popularity which was believed to suggest that a Republican victory in the state senate races was likely.  The GOP fell short in three of the targeted districts within Northern Virginia–the suburbs and exurbs of D.C. which had once been reliably Republican but which have been steadily trending Democrat during the last fifteen years.  One race which was thought to hold some promise involved an attractive well financed businesswoman candidate running in one of the more upscale suburban districts. Her Democrat opponent, another woman best described as a liberal semi-career politician, won by a wider margin than I would have expected.  This afternoon I talked with a few folks who were former colleagues in the Reagan Administration and who reside in that district.  A couple of them mentioned that some of their neighbors agreed that the Republican was clearly the better candidate but expressed concern as to what a total GOP-controlled government might look like in terms of policy and whether they could be trusted to stay focused on the economic priorities.  It is hard to know how widespread this feeling was but it may have worked against us in some of the crucial districts.

As writer Dave Gaultier has already pointed out, the referendum in Ohio was little short of a disaster for us.  While it is hard to predict the implications for 2012, it seems clear that issue framing, communication, and organization was deficient.  In addition, the Ohio result could make Colorado, New Mexico, and New Hampshire even more important for the GOP next year.

Finally, there was the “Personhood Amendment” in Mississippi, the margin of defeat of which surprised its opponents.  The results there, combined with the special election in Iowa, which some Republican/conservative activists tried to frame around the gay marriage issue, suggests that voters are in no mood for any kind of focus on a right-wing social agenda or that such holds the key to Republican Party victory, even in socially conservative states.

In conclusion, while the suburbs may not have been friendly to Democrats in yesterday’s elections, they were not particularly friendly to Republicans either.  Rather, the critical independent swing voters remain skeptical of both parties and appear more interested in credible candidates who offer some realistic possibility for addressing their real concerns.  I predict that this will carry through the election next year and determine the winner.

I’ve recently written a post critical of Rick Santorum’s “more conservative than thou” campaign for the Whitehouse. Probably the most common comment in response was “Why even talk about Rick Santorum?” There was a time when the junior senator from Pennsylvania was one of conservatism’s more innovative thinkers. In cleaning out my inbox, I found a transcript of a speech Senator Santorum gave at the Heritage Foundation in the fall of 2005. I repost it here, because it’s strikingly different in tone and emphasis from Santorum for President 2012. There’s a real attempt in the 2005 speech to grappel with the future of conservatism, and what conservatism has to say to the poor in particular. It’s not a message a lot of commenters here at R412 are going to like, as it’s pretty non-libertarian. But it’s one that would have been powerful and interesting in 2012, differentiating Santorum from the other presidential hopefuls, and helping him stand out in a crowd which seems afraid to propose anything different. I don’t think that sticking to a “conservative social justice” message would have gotten Rick the nomination. I do think it would have, at the very least, added something substantive to the race which has been lacking, and helped push Republicans to deal with issues we often overlook.

The Conservative Future: Compassion

Nov 17, 2005

by Sen. Rick Santorum ( bio | archive )

We live in a time of unprecedented conservative power in the United States. For the last decade, Republicans have controlled both houses of Congress. For 17 of the past 25 years we have controlled the White House. And for the last four-and-a-half years we have controlled both the legislative and executive branches of government.
It has been a period marked by achievements, at home and abroad. Welfare has been reformed and millions of families have found the freedom of work and home ownership. Taxes have been reduced, and despite the recession, 9/11, intense global competition and nature’s fury, the economy is growing. And democracy is spreading throughout the world as free peoples are turning once-outlaw regimes into new allies.

Yet after a decade of Republican control in Washington, we have not reduced the size of government, there is no balanced budget amendment, and pork-barrel and self-interest politics have grown. Special interest groups haven’t been defeated or tamed, they are thriving.

Now is the time for midcourse corrections to ensure the success of the conservative movement, as well as the American experiment. With that mission in mind, I would like to make a few suggestions of my own.

Intellectual conservatism was once defined by two clear goals – the defeat of communism and the reduction in the size, scope and sweep of government. There are three observations I’d like to make about this conservatism.

(more…)

Rasmussen Florida 2012 GOP Primary Survey

• Herman Cain 30%
• Mitt Romney 24%
• Newt Gingrich 19%

Note: No other candidate is in double digits.

Survey of 788 likely Republican primary voters was conducted November 8, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

SurveyUSA/KSTP Minnesota 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 45%
• Mitt Romney 39%

• Barack Obama 48%
• Herman Cain 35%

• Barack Obama 48%
• Rick Perry 35%

• Barack Obama 48%
• Ron Paul 35%

• Barack Obama 57% [53%] (57%)
• Michele Bachmann 29% [39%] (32%)

Survey of 543 registered voters was conducted November 2-7, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 4.3 percentage points.  Party ID breakdown: 30% Democrat; 24% Republican; 45% Independent.  Results from the poll conducted June 15-17, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted May 23-24, 2011 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

PPP (D) Ohio 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 50% [46%] (45%) {46%} [46%] (44%)
• Mitt Romney 41% [46%] (43%) {42%} [40%] (42%)

• Barack Obama 50% [48%] (47%)
• Herman Cain 39% [45%] (39%)

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

• Barack Obama 51% [49%] (48%)
• Michele Bachmann 37% [40%] (41%)

• Barack Obama 50% [48%]
• Ron Paul 36% [40%]

• Barack Obama 53% [50%] (45%)
• Rick Perry 36% [41%] (41%)

(more…)

Rasmussen 2012 Presidential Survey

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

Survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted November 7-8, 2011.  The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.  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.

Clemson University South Carolina Republican Primary Survey

• Romney – 22%
• Cain – 20%
• Gingrich – 10%
• Perry – 9%
• Paul – 4%
• Bachmann – 3%
• Huntsman – 1%
• Santorum – 1%
• Undecided – 31%

Survey of 600 likely primary voters was conducted Oct 27 – Nov 7.

Crossroads GPS, an arm of the Super PAC American Crossroads, is up with a new television ad today in five key swing states: Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Take a look:

At first, I was slightly perplexed by this ad. Why was a Republican PAC running an ad entitled “Two Presidents” – about Bill Clinton and Barack Obama? Why was a GOP group setting up Bill Clinton as the foil in this presidential drama? Then the brilliance of this ad came shining through.

To understand the full depth of this ad, we must travel back to the mid 1980s. The Democratic Party was in somewhat of a turmoil after Jimmy Carter’s dismal term and Reagan’s landslide victory in 1980. They nominated uber-liberal Walter Mondale in 1984 and watched, panic-stricken, as Reagan pulled out an even bigger landslide victory in 1984. Deciding that they were done playing to the fringe elements of their party, the Democrats veered toward centrist moderation in an attempt to rebrand themselves and sell themselves to the American people anew.

Senator Gary Hart from Colorado became their poster boy. He placed second to Mondale in the 1984 primaries, and was an appealing, centrist, moderate candidate upon whom the new Democratic revolution could be built. He was on track to win the 1988 primaries before an extramarital affair sidelined his candidacy. Uber-liberal Michael Dukakis ended up winning the nomination, and the Democrats again lost the general election by a large margin.

In late 1991, however, an appealing, young, moderate southern Governor jumped into the Democratic primary – and ended up not only winning the primary but also the White House. The Democratic revolution and rebranding, originally scheduled to take place in 1988, began instead in 1992 with the ascendancy of Governor Bill Clinton to the highest office of the land. Clinton was elected on the backs of the so-called “New Democrats” and the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) – both groups rejecting the liberal extremism that the Democrats had turned to over the previous three decades.

Bill Clinton ran a campaign and, ostensibly, a White House based on this new “third way” of centrism in national politics. After Clinton became the only Democratic President to be re-elected since FDR, people really began to sit up and take notice of the New Democrats, and Bill and Hillary gained quite the following in Democratic circles. After Bill’s extramarital follies, sympathy especially went out to Hillary for all she had to endure.

Thus, when it came time for choosing a Democratic nominee in 2007/08 – after eight years of having George W Bush in the White House instead of New Democrat Al Gore – the Democratic Party looked poised once again to choose the DLC candidate in Hillary Clinton. Clinton had chaired the DLC for a while during Bush’s tenure as President. She got endorsements from other DLC chairs, including the highly touted endorsement from centrist Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana. But in a long, bitter fight (which produced the PUMA* movement), she eventually lost to the charismatic newcomer Barack Obama.

Fast forward three years now, to present day. The electric atmosphere of hope and change that surrounded Obama’s candidacy – and initially his presidency – has dissipated. The President who once enjoyed sky-high approval ratings (as much as 70 or 80% in some polls) now languishes in the low- to mid-forties. And it makes sense that many of those who are disaffected would be the DLC / Clinton type of Democrats who must be wondering “What if…?” right about now.

And so in comes American Crossroads with their latest ad presenting Bill Clinton as a foil to Barack Obama. In this spot, they make the implicit argument: Obama is too liberal. You’ve been through this before. Remember Mondale? Dukakis? You had your chance to continue the centrist Democratic revolution, but Obama took that away from you. Hillary and Bill in the White House would have turned out so differently…

The goal of this ad isn’t to connect with Republican voters (although labeling Obama as a tax-raiser will have that bonus side effect). It’s not to connect with the shrinking number of vehement Obama supporters. It’s purpose — brilliant in concept — is to connect with those who wanted Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic nominee in 2008. It is to connect with the DLC and New Democrat types who yearn for a vibrant, healthy centrist party. The goal of this ad is to either get those voters to vote against Obama next year, or, absent that, at least get them to not show up to vote for him.

That’s where the placement of this ad comes into play. Let’s look at who won the states where Crossroads is running this ad in the 2008 Democratic primary: Florida? Clinton. Ohio? Clinton. Pennsylvania? Clinton. In fact, those were three of Clinton’s strongest states in the primaries. Obama won Colorado and North Carolina, but those states are going to be very close when it comes to the general election – and depressing the turnout for Obama even a little bit could tip those states to the red column next year.

This ad does a fantastic job of implicitly dredging up the debate over the future of the Democratic Party and making a large faction of the Democrats question their choice of Obama in 2008. Will it be enough to make them question the choice in 2012? Here’s hoping.

*PUMA stood for “party unity my ass” and was an outlet for disaffected Clinton supporters and DLC-types who did not want to fall in line behind Obama after Hillary lost the nomination. Eventually, the movement died out as the DLC and Hillary herself finally endorsed Obama and Bill Clinton gave a much-touted unity speech at the DNC. This ad seeks to tap into any angst that remains from that movement, and stoke its fire once again.

R4’12′s CNBC GOP presidential debate open forum will be going live at 7:30pm EST. The debate itself begins at 8:00pm EST and will be streamed online at CNBC.com.

Romney is running a new ad. Once more, he focuses on our primary target, Barack Obama. It’s a good ad. It could have been put out by the NRC. It’s an ad that could work for any one of our candidates.

It once again brings the focus back to the main issues of this campaign — the stagnant economy, the out of control spending, and our high unemployment. It says to the American people, it’s up to you where this country will be headed for the next four years. It’s your choice.

This ad could have been run November 5, 2012, the day before Election Day next year. Mitt is running it now.

Amidst all the (deserved) hoopla over the Ohio initiative and (misunderstood) hoopla over the Mississippi personhood initiative, it’s worth taking a look at some of the other local elections last night. In particular, I draw your attention to Virginia and Pennsylvania. If current trends hold, Republicans look set to gain two seats, thereby tying the state senate, and making Lieutenant Governor Bill Boling the tie-breaking vote in the senate. Republicans also picked up at least half a dozen seats in the VA house of delegates.

This was a pretty decent night for VA Republicans, and this includes Republicans in suburban and exurban communities. Republicans ran a couple of very close senate races in the Northern Virginia suburbs, and it’s also worth noting that, in suburban/exurban Loudoun county, the board of supervisors increased from 5-4 Democratic control to a 9-0 Republican blow-out. In Pennsylvania, Republicans also improved their local representation in all of the “five counties” around Philadelphia accept Montgomery, and a number of local office-holders threatening congressional runs against Republican freshman Mike FitzPatrick suffered electoral bruising (H/T red racing horses). What this indicates to me is that the suburbs, a source of real strength for Obama, haven’t yet returned to the Democratic fold.

Granted, it wasn’t as bad a night for suburban Democrats as 2009 or 2010, but the fact that there really wasn’t much of a suburban drift for Democrats should still worry the President’s reelection campaign. For Republicans, suburban voters will be a necessary target this election. We need a candidate who can appeal to these swingy folks, keep white working class voters on-board and, for the future if nothing else, chip away at Obama’s support among Hispanic/Latino voters. I’ve previously been skeptical of the argument from cultural cues, but if the suburbs are really in play, it might behoove Republicans to nominate a candidate who is at least difficult for the Obama campaign to demonize in affluent, culturally moderate areas. And it would be good to pick a Vice-President with a similar broad appeal. As much as I don’t want to lose him as my governor, could this be Bob McDonnell’s hour? And as much as conservatives have qualms about settling for him, might Mitt Romney be the only candidate left standing who can win in the suburbs?

(This post has been updated to remove inaccurate information about VA senate seats picked up by Republicans).

Tonight’s off-year elections come complete with a depressing development out of Ohio, as a massive majority of the state’s voters cast ballots to repeal Republican reforms to public sector collective bargaining:

In a political blow to GOP Gov. John Kasich, voters handily rejected the law, which would have limited the bargaining abilities of 350,000 unionized public workers. With more than a quarter of the votes counted late Tuesday, 63 percent of votes were to reject the law.

Given Gov. Scott Walker’s successes at keeping the public behind his own attempts to reform the public sector in Wisconsin, as demonstrated by the Prosser victory earlier this year, as well as by the Democrats’ failed attempt to win control of the Wisconsin state senate via recall elections, today’s results in Ohio call into question the political potency of Gov. John Kasich. A former congressional bean counter, Kasich made a brief run for the presidency during the 2000 election cycle, culminating in a lackluster and short-lived single-digit candidacy. It’s certainly possible that John Kasich is simply a poor politician who was ushered into office during the wave election of 2010 and who lacks the necessary skills to move the dials of public opinion rightward in the state of Ohio.

Whatever the case, this sort of lopsided result may suggest that Ohio will be significantly less “red” in the coming election cycle than it has been in the last few presidential elections. It’s possible for Republicans to win the White House without Ohio, but to construct such a scenario is challenging. The reality is that a Republican victory will probably include the state of Ohio, though it’s not outside the realm of possibility that Ohio actually gives Republicans a narrower margin of victory than a few formerly bluer states such as Wisconsin and New Hampshire.

Herman Cain’s $999,000 Iowa Money Bomb has hit its a goal, a full 28 hours early with contributions inching above the $1,000,000 mark.

Part One:



Part Two:

PPP (D) Ohio 2012 GOP Primary Survey

• Herman Cain 34% {34%} [10%] (13%)
• Newt Gingrich 20% {14%} [8%] (16%)
• Mitt Romney 19% {19%} [20%] (23%)
• Rick Perry 5% {5%} [21%]
• Ron Paul 5% {7%} [8%] (13%)
• Michele Bachmann 4% {6%} [14%] (11%)
• Jon Huntsman 2% {1%} [1%] (0%)
• Rick Santorum 1% {1%}
• Gary Johnson 1% {0%}
• Someone else/Not sure 9% {12%} [16%] (18%)

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

• Strongly committed to that candidate 36% {29%}
• Might end up supporting someone else 64% {71%}

(more…)

Rasmussen 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 44% (45%) {44%} [49%] (43%) {44%} [46%] (41%) {43%} [44%] (45%)
• Rick Perry 35% (38%) {36%} [35%] (37%) {38%} [39%] (44%) {40%} [39%] (28%)

Survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted November 5-6, 2011.  The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted October 26-27, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted October 18-19, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted October 10-11, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted September 30 – October 1, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted September 22-23, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted September 14-15, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted August 29-30, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted August 17-22, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted July 6-7, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted May 1-14, 2011 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

Unraveling.

The Daily (a Rupert Murdoch iPad magazine) has been given the green light to reveal the identity of “woman #2″ in the Herman Cain sexual harassment suit. She is Karen Kraushaar, a registered Republican, accomplished equestrian, and government spokeswoman.

Mrs. Kraushaar confirmed her identity not only to The Daily, but also to NPR. She told both outlets that she still does not want to discuss the details of the charges she brought against Cain, because according to her brother-in-law, “She doesn’t like all the attention.” She is revealing her identity now to help “make sure that the record is straight.”

According to Karen Kraushaar’s attorney, Joel Bennett, Sharon Bialek’s claims (made public yesterday) were “very similar” in nature to the incident that occurred between Kraushaar and Cain:

“It corroborates the claim,” Mr. Bennett said of Ms. Bialek’s allegation. Asked whether that meant that Mr. Cain had physically touched his client inappropriately, Mr. Bennett said “I can’t get more specific” but added that “I can say it is corroborating.”

The willingness for Karen Kraushaar to come forward and identify herself after Sharon Bialek did the same compounds the problems for Herman Cain and for his campaign. No longer can Cain and his defenders trot out the line that these are “anonymous” charges. Two of the four charges now have faces and names (and a fifth charge – about an inappropriate dinner invitation – is sourced by a woman publicly on the record as well).

Cain’s response to Sharon Bialek has been, quite bluntly, mystifyingly horrendous. The Cain campaign blasted an email to supporters attempting to destroy Bialek’s credibility by pointing to what they must have considered some of her poor life choices: noting she had declared bankruptcy twice, for instance; that she was involved in a paternity lawsuit in the late 1990s; and that she had held (gasp!) seven jobs over the course of the past seventeen years. Nothing about the charges were said at all, just attacks against the woman’s personal life.

Now, Cain has a choice to make. In half an hour, he is going to hold a press conference to deny these harassment charges. America now knows another woman’s face, name, and story. Will he impugn her character as well? (By the accounts thus far, that will be much more difficult to do with Mrs. Kraushaar, who appears to be quite a stand-up woman based on the descriptions available.) Or will he actually address the charges these women are bringing against him?

What Cain should do is what he should have done at the beginning of this whole mess: tell the truth.

Here is the list of women charging Cain with harassment:

• Woman #1 was allegedly asked by Herman Cain to come up to her hotel room. She got a $35,000 payout/settlement/severance package after lodging her complaints. Herman Cain claims to remember nothing about this woman, the incidents, or her complaints;
• Woman #2 is Karen Kraushaar (who, according to Cain, is the same height as his wife). She received a $45,000 severance package and left the NRA after bringing accusations against Cain that were similar to Bialek’s (see Woman #4);
• Woman #3 allegedly, according to two other witnesses, was taken by Herman Cain from another NRA event at a restaurant back to Cain’s apartment where she spent the night with him; and
• Woman #4 is Sharon Bialek, who came forward publicly on Monday with liberal attorney Gloria Allred and gave the most detailed description of the accusations against Cain. Cain also pleads forgetfulness when asked about Bialek, saying he can’t remember ever even talking to her.

UPDATE: Karen Kraushaar tells CNN and Politico that she is not interested in doing any interviews, but she would like to hold a joint press conference with the other three accusers if they are interested:

“That would be my preference, that we all go together in a joint press conference,” she said, noting that she’s turned down interview requests from a number of TV news shows. Kraushaar said she had not talked to the other women about such an idea and that such a plan would be executed by their attorneys.