Rick Santorum will be endorsed by Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz on Friday. From The Hill:

The endorsement is a welcome get for Santorum — and a big one for his campaign. It suggests his dogged focus on performing well in the coveted early caucus state is paying off. The announcement came the same day that Santorum touted a number of other Iowa endorsement and backers. Among that list is Jim Gibbons, the former head wrestling coach at Iowa State University, which a Santorum campaign official said is playing particularly well among Iowa voters.

David Brooks, in his latest New York Times column, argues that Newt Gingrich is an even bigger ‘big government republican’ than himself.

Of all the major Republicans, the one who comes closest to my worldview is Newt Gingrich. Despite his erratically shifting views and odd phases, he continually returns to this core political refrain: He talks about using government in energetic but limited ways to increase growth, dynamism and social mobility.

As he said in 2007, “It’s not a point of view libertarians would embrace, but I am more in the Alexander Hamilton-Teddy Roosevelt tradition of conservatism. I recognize that there are times when you need government to help spur private enterprise and economic development.”

In the first place, Gingrich loves government more than I do. He has no Hayekian modesty to restrain his faith in statist endeavor. For example, he has called for “a massive new program to build a permanent lunar colony to exploit the Moon’s resources.” He has suggested that “a mirror system in space could provide the light equivalent of many full moons so that there would be no need for nighttime lighting of the highways.”

As we approach the next presidential debate and the next European crisis, each of which seems curiously connected to each other, here are some brief notes:

Even as the breathless, sensational “old” stories about Newt Gingrich now pour out like an Alpine avalanche into the various news media, the former speaker’s poll numbers appear to be rising, not falling as conventional wisdom might have predicted they would. Is it possible that the public tolerance of private and matrimonial gossip masquerading as substantial “news” has reached a natural limit? Is this a warning to the Obama organization that their purported investment in a massive negative campaign planned against the eventual Republican nominee (whoever it might be) may not work out as planned? I have long maintained that in Mr. Gingrich’s case particularly, his much-ballyhooed “baggage” might be mostly ignored by voters if they were worried and fearful enough about the economy and the security of the nation, and if they had lost any remaining confidence in the incumbent president. Is that where we are? Is that why the Gingrich “bubble” seems to be not only enduring, but growing?

The Corzine scandal is going to be huge. Does any rational human being believe that a man who reportedly was worth $400 million, and then was elected a US. senator, and after that, was elected governor of New Jersey, doesn’t know what happened to the enormous amount of money lost and missing from the corporation he led as C.E.O.?

Those following the European economic crisis have perhaps noted a certain pattern, that is, the crisis over the currency and debt reaches a critical moment at which resolution seems imminent, only to be papered over for a few months, then weeks, and now days until the next “absolutely critical” moment? How many of these moments does the European Union and the euro currency have left? Some British observers are lamenting their apparent exclusion from the decision-making now led by Germany and France because in a fortuitous moment the British decided not to adopt the euro, but to keep their pound sterling. The British dilemma is, of course, that the outcome of the continental problems profoundly affects their own prospects, especially since the Obama administration has allowed the “special relationship” between the U.S. and Great Britain to deteriorate and wither. Isn’t is curious that many British observers, including some who are not Tories, are now openly pining for a “new” Margaret Thatcher, just as a number of U.S. observers, including some who are not right wingers, are pining for a “new” Ronald Reagan? I even know one endangered incumbent who is pining for a “new” Teddy Roosevelt. San Juan Hill, anyone?

Like a skin blister, the situation in the Middle East is approaching some dramatic release of historic pressure. Are we months away from it, weeks, days or even hours?

Why do media commentators keep reviving stories of new candidates entering the presidential election, and prognosticating that there will be one or more serious third party candidates in the November, 2012 election? Needless to say, anything is possible, and there are always numerous minor candidates on any November presidential ballot, but is there really a significant candidate outside the two major parties? Mayor Bloomberg? Ralph Nader? Ron Paul? Alec Baldwin? Madonna? Derek Jeter? Theoretically, some one or two could be “spoilers,” (and with a relatively tiny number of votes cast for him nationally, Mr. Nader did make the difference in 2000; and Mr. Perot, with many more votes cast for him, made a difference in 1992), but economic conditions are probably too troubling for voters likely to dabble this cycle. The election will be a referendum (if not a plebiscite) on President Obama.

___________________________________________________________________________

-Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site.

Intrade

Romney to win GOP nomination: 45.6
Gingrich to win GOP nomination: 35.5
Huntsman to win GOP nomination: 7.4
Obama to win reelection: 50.2
Iowa Caucuses Winner: Gingrich 55.4
New Hampshire Primary Winner: Romney 72.0

Polling:

Obama Approval (RCP): 43.4% / 51.4% (-8.2%)
GOP Nomination (RCP): Gingrich +9.5
Gallup Daily Tracking GOP Nomination: Gingrich 34%, Romney 25%

If you only read three things about the race today, read these:

• What GOP Voters Are Thinking as Voting Grows Near
• The Mitts Come Off: Romney Camp Slams Gingrich
• Ron Paul Trying to Expand His Iowa Base

And as always, have at it in the comments. Anything goes…

Physicists are expected to make an announcement next week concerning the definitive discovery of the God particle.  This may very well become the issue du jour in the run up to the Iowa Caucuses and in the South Carolina primary, so all candidates and their surrogates should get prepared with their statements.  :)

Rasmussen 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 45% {43%} [46%] (50%) {44%} [49%] (48%) {49%} [47%]
• Newt Gingrich 40% {45%} [40%] (38%) {38%} [34%] (30%) {37%} [39%]

Among Independents

• Barack Obama 40%
• Newt Gingrich 37%

Among Men

• Newt Gingrich 47%
• Barack Obama 40%

Among Women

• Barack Obama 49%
• Newt Gingrich 34%

Survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted December 6-7, 2011.  The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.  Results from the poll conducted November 28-29, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted November 19-20, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted November 11-12, 2011 are in parentheses.  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

Fox News 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 44% [42%] {45%} (47%) [48%] {48%}
• Mitt Romney 42% [44%] {42%} (41%) [41%] {41%}

• Barack Obama 46% [46%] [53%] {55%}
• Newt Gingrich 40% [41%] [34%] {35%}

Survey of 911 registered voters was conducted by Anderson Robbins Research (D)/Shaw & Company Research (R) December 5-7, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.  Results from the poll conducted November 13-15, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted September 25-27, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted July 17-19, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted June 5-7, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted February 7-9, 2011 are in curly brackets.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

Fox News 2012 GOP Nomination Poll

• Newt Gingrich 36% (23%) {12%} [11%] (3%) {9%} [9%]
• Mitt Romney 23% (22%) {20%} [23%] (22%) {26%} [26%]
• Ron Paul 12% (8%) {9%} [6%] (8%) {10%} [10%]
• Rick Perry 8% (7%) {10%} [19%] (29%)
• Michele Bachmann 5% (6%) {3%} [3%] (8%) {13%} [15%]
• Rick Santorum 4% (2%) {3%} [3%] (4%) {4%} [4%]
• Jon Huntsman 2% (3%) {0%} [4%] (1%) {2%} [2%]
• Gary Johnson 0% (0%) {0%} [0%] (0%) {1%} [1%]
• Fred Karger 0% (0%) {0%} [0%] {0%} [0%]
• Buddy Roemer 0% (0%) {0%} [0%] (1%)
• Too soon to say 6% (7%) {11%} [5%] (6%) {8%} [7%]
• Don’t know 2% (5%) {5%} [7%] (10%) {9%} [13%]

(more…)

SurveyUSA Georgia 2012 Presidential Poll

REPUBLICAN PRIMARY

• Newt Gingrich 65%
• Mitt Romney 12%
• Michele Bachmann 5%
• Ron Paul 5%
• Rick Perry 4%
• Rick Santorum 1%
• Jon Huntsman 1%
• Other 2%
• Undecided 6%

By the time the Georgia Primary is held, if the only two Republican candidates left on the ballot are Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, which ONE would you vote for?

• Newt Gingrich 73%
• Mitt Romney 18%
• Undecided 9%

(more…)

Survey USA Florida 2012 Presidential Survey

REPUBLICAN NOMINATION

• Gingrich 45%
• Romney 23%
• Bachmann 6%
• Perry 5%
• Paul 4%
• Huntsman 3%
• Santorum 2%
• Other 3%
• Undecided 9%

By the time the Florida Primary is held, if the only two Republican candidates left on the ballot are Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, which ONE would you vote for?

• Gingrich 57%
• Romney 30%

Survey of 500 Likely Republican Primary Voters, conducted December 5-6, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 4.38 percentage points.

SUSA makes the following observations:

• Among those who describe themselves as moderate, Romney leads 3:2.
• Among those who tell SurveyUSA they are “very conservative,” Gingrich leads 3:1.
• Among Evangelicals, Gingrich leads 5:2.
• Among members of the Tea Party, Gingrich leads 5:2.
• Among pro-life voters, Gingrich leads 5:2.
• Gingrich leads by 20 or more points in every region of the state except Southeast Florida, where Romney runs 3 points ahead of Gingrich.
• Gingrich’s Favorability among likely Florida primary voters is now an extraordinary Plus 54.
• Romney’s Favorability among likely Florida primary voters is now Plus 30.
• By contrast, and as a point of differentiation, Ron Paul’s favorability is Minus 11, Rick Perry’s favorability is Minus 9.

A couple of other notes I’ll add:

SUSA asked Romney and Gingrich voters if they would be enthusiastic about their choice or have reservations. There was little difference, with 63% of Romney’s voters and 62% of Gingrich’s being enthusiastic.

Odd but meaningless point: SUSA lists the MoE at 4.5 at some places in the poll, 4.4 at others, and 4.3 at still others – all on the full 500 sample. I calculated 4.38, so that’s what it says above. Obviously, the MoE is larger on subsamples, such as the Romney/Gingrich voters and those mentioned in SUSA’s bullet points above.

Public Policy Polling’s Tom Jensen contends that Romney’s strength in the critical swing state of Colorado is a significant advantage to the GOP versus a Gingrich nod:

Our new Colorado poll is more evidence that the Newt surge could be disastrous for GOP hopes of beating Barack Obama next year.

Despite winning the state by 9 points in 2008, Obama is unpopular there now. Only 45% of voters approve of him to 50% disapproving. PPP found Obama winning white voters there in his first election, but now his approval with them stands at a middling 42/54. He’s actually doing well with independents, who approve of him by a 49/42 margin, but with Democrats he’s at only 76/18.

Republicans can win Colorado next year- they just have to nominate Mitt Romney if they want to do it. If he was the GOP candidate it would be a toss up in the state, as he trails Obama only 47-45. Where Gingrich trails by 24 points with independents, Romney has only a 12 point deficit. Where Gingrich wins over only 11% of Democrats, Romney gets 14%. And even with Republicans where Gingrich gets 82% of his own party’s vote, Romney gets 84%.

This is the trend we’re seeing in our general election polling. Democrats and independents are much more inclined to vote for Romney than Gingrich. And even though Republican voters like Gingrich much better than Romney overall, there are fewer Republicans reluctant to vote for Romney in the general election than there are who are hesitant to vote for Newt. The GOP’s move toward supporting Gingrich is seriously endangering its chances of winning in the fall.

Full story here.

PPP (D) North Carolina 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 46%
• Mitt Romney 46%

• Barack Obama 49%
• Newt Gingrich 45%

• Barack Obama 47%
  
• Ron Paul 42%

• Barack Obama 50%
• Rick Perry 42%

Note: In 2008, John McCain received 49% of the vote in North Carolina. In 2004, George W. Bush received 56% of the vote in NC.

(more…)

Gallup Daily Tracking Poll, National Republican Primary

• Gingrich – 34% (36)
• Romney – 25% (23)
• Paul – 10% (9)
• Bachmann – 7% (6)
• Perry – 5% (6)
• Santorum – 2% (3)
• Huntsman – 1% (1)

Survey of 1,219 registered voters was conducted Dec 3-7.

The WSJ has an editorial highlighting  a core feature of Newt Gingrich’s political career: a propensity for proposing fundamentally transformational solutions which are nothing of the kind.  They specifically take on his entitlement plans.  The money-section addresses his failure on Medicare reform.  Bolded parts are mine.

After denouncing Paul Ryan’s premium support Medicare reform as “right-wing social engineering” in May, Mr. Gingrich now says he supports it as long as it is only voluntary. As with Social Security, people could continue to receive today’s unreformed, open-ended benefits if they preferred. This model may be politically safer and perhaps more saleable to voters, but it also does little to improve the status quo. Why would anyone leave the all-you-can-eat buffet without an incentive to choose cost-conscious options?

Mitt Romney also says he’ll leave fee-for-service Medicare untouched, but the key difference is that under his plan all seniors would receive the same defined contribution. They’d pay the marginal cost above this fixed subsidy, increasing competition for the health-care dollar among insurers and hospitals, doctors and other providers.

Mr. Gingrich’s plan is merely a gloss on Medicare Advantage, which has done some modest good as one out of four beneficiaries have moved to private options but without turning the fiscal battleship. At least on Medicare, Mr. Romney is the bolder reformer.

And while the Journal, like most conservatives, is intrigued by Gingrich’s plan to allow younger workers to invest a portion of the payroll tax in private accounts, they note the problem with this sort of reform.  In a way, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (sorry Rick Perry, it wasn’t personal), with younger workers funding current retirees.   If you allow younger workers to opt out, and don’t do anything to address the fundamental costs of the program, you end up with gaping budget holes.  And indeed, this is what happened in Chile initially.  The Brookings Institution notes:

But simply adding these unfunded benefits to the deficit would be dangerous; it would increase the yearly deficit to more than 10% of GDP, which would be worse than the deficit in Greece.

Of course, Chile dealt with this problem simply. Their dictatorial regime paid the transition costs through fiscal austerity deeper than any mainstream American voice would advocate, and by selling off some nationalized industries. These are not practical options for the United States.

The Chilean model might well be a good idea but it is emphatically not a means to address the financial shortfall in Social Security.  What does Newt think about the actual options to address this shortfall?  Well, here’s how Newt’s own website contrasts his ideas with Romney’s.

Romney:

Require government-mandated increase in retirement age and means testing.

Newt:

Under the Gingrich Plan, any American who wants to enjoy the existing Social Security system will be able to do so.

Romney:

Introduce new means testing formula that will reduce future benefits for upper- and middle-income Americans.

Newt:

The Gingrich plan rejects the notion that cutting benefits is the only way to preserve Medicare and Social Security, and will not support means testing that will pare back Americans’ hard earned benefits.

Romney:

Raise the retirement age

Newt:

Gingrich believes there is no need to raise the current retirement age. Workers who own personal accounts will have control over how and when they retire. Americans will determine their own retirement age, with market incentives to delay it as long as possible.

So no to raising the retirement age, no to means testing, no to cutting benefits, and yes to implementing a system that will impose massive short-term transitional costs during a debt crisis.

Quinnipiac Florida 2012 Presidential Survey

REPUBLICAN NOMINATION

• Newt Gingrich 35% [17%] {8%} (5%)
• Mitt Romney 22% [21%] {22%} (24%)
• Ron Paul 8% [3%] {6%} (10%)
• Michele Bachmann 4% [4%] {7%} (7%)
• Rick Perry 4% [5%] {31%} (14%)
• Rick Santorum 2% [1%] {2%} (1%)
• Jon Huntsman 2% [1%] {2%} (1%)
• Someone else (Vol) 1% [2%] {1%} (3%)
• Wouldn’t vote (Vol) 3% [3%] {1%} (3%)
• Don’t know 12% [16%] {13%} (19%)

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

• Newt Gingrich 52%
• Mitt Romney 34%

(more…)

Per Jonathan Martin, Romney SuperPAC Restore Our Future will spend $3.1 million on TV and radio ads in Iowa in a “sustained campaign.”

Here’s the first ad, which begins airing today:

Ten more state representatives from New Hampshire have endorsed Mitt Romney this morning:

“Governor Romney has the executive experience and skills that are needed to defeat President Obama and turn around our economy. He is clearly the strongest Republican candidate and the most qualified person to lead our party in 2012,” said Deputy Majority Leader Shawn Jasper. “Mitt is running the type of traditional New Hampshire campaign that Granite Staters expect from presidential candidates. He is taking nothing for granted and working hard to earn every vote. I am proud to support Governor Romney and his campaign to cut spending, lower taxes and create jobs.”

New Hampshire State Representatives Endorsing Governor Romney :

Deputy House Majority Leader Shawn Jasper (R-Hudson)
State Representative Betsy McKinney (R-Londonderry)
State Representative Frank Tilton (R-Laconia)
State Representative Jim Devine (R-Sandown)
State Representative Donald Flanders (R-Laconia)
State Representative Dennis Reed (Franklin)
State Representative Jane Johnson (R-Swanzey)
State Representative Chris Christensen (R-Merrimack)
State Representative Larry Emerton (R-Goffstown)
State Representative John Byrnes (R-Swanzey)

As the Romney campaign notes, “Governor Romney now has the support of 58 New Hampshire State Representatives, 9 State Senators, 4 out of 5 Executive Councilors and 7 out of 10 Sheriffs.”

(Newt Gingrich, by comparison, has the support of 8 state representatives.)

Shifting to Tennessee, Romney continues to build on his momentum in this Super Tuesday state, adding 13 additional state representatives and a former Governor to the list of his Volunteer State endorsers:

“Today, our nation desperately needs a strong and principled leader like Mitt Romney,” said Governor Dunn, who serves as the Romney campaign’s Honorary Chairman in Tennessee. “President Obama’s policies have turned our economy upside down, and Americans are suffering because of his failed leadership. But Mitt Romney knows what to do. He is the right man at the right time. I am proud to support him.”

Announcing his support, House Majority Leader Gerald McCormick from Chattanooga said, “Mitt Romney has shown his ability to tackle and solve big problems, as a successful businessman, as the rescuer of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, and as the Governor of Massachusetts. Now we need his strong leadership in Washington to help fix the mess we find ourselves in, and to get our economy moving again.”

“I am proud to support Mitt Romney for President,” said State Representative Mark White from Memphis. “If the Republican Party fails to nominate a candidate who can win, we will not get a second chance. So while I supported Governor Rick Perry early in this campaign, I now support and endorse Mitt Romney for President. I believe he is the one candidate who can beat Barack Obama, with the experience we need to create jobs, pump life into the economy and put America back on strong footing.”

Earlier this week, Romney announced endorsements from Tennessee Congressmen Jimmy Duncan, Diane Black and Phil Roe.

Tennessee Leaders Endorsing Mitt Romney Today:

State Representative Mark White – Vice Chair, House Consumer and Employee Affairs Committee, and Assistant House Republican Floor Leader – Memphis
Former Governor Winfield Dunn – Nashville
State Representative Curtis Halford – Secretary, House Agriculture Committee – Dyer
State Representative Mike Harrison – Vice Chair, House Finance, Ways and Means Committee – Rogersville
State Representative Ryan Haynes – Vice Chair, House State and Local Government Committee, and Assistant House Republican Caucus Chairman – Knoxville
State Representative Julia Hurley – Lenoir City
State Representative Curtis Johnson – Chair, House Ethics Committee – Clarksville
State Representative Pat Marsh – Secretary, House Commerce Committee – Shelbyville
State Representative Gerald McCormick — House Majority Leader – Chattanooga
State Representative Steve McDaniel — Deputy House Speaker – Parkers Crossroads
State Representative Steve McManus – Chair, House Commerce Committee – Cordova
State Representative Richard Montgomery – Chair, House Education Committee – Sevierville
State Representative Barrett Rich — House Republican Whip, and Vice Chair, House Government Operations Committee – Somerville
State Representative Charles Sargent – Chair, House Finance, Ways and Means Committee — Franklin

Anne Manning, a former staffer during Newt Gingrich’s first run for office, has come forward to retell the story about her affair with the former Speaker, a story she first unveiled in 1995. From the Daily Caller:

Anne Manning says that she had an adulterous relationship with Gingrich 34 years ago. At the time, he was married to his first wife, Jackie Battley, and campaigning for Congress with the slogan “Let Our Family Represent Your Family.”

Manning told the National Enquirer that she performed a sexual act on Gingrich in a Washington, D.C. hotel room, but adds that they didn’t have sex so that “he could say he had not slept with me.”

“He always talks about being big on family values but he doesn’t practice what he preaches,” Manning said, according to London’s Daily Mail newspaper. “I wasn’t planning to say a word about him, but voters need to know what sort of man they’re being asked to support.”

Manning first alleged in 1995 that she had had an affair with Gingrich, telling Vanity Fair, “We had oral sex. He prefers that modus operandi because then he can say, ‘I never slept with her.’”

One has to wonder if this is just the beginning of women coming forward to tell their own Gingrich stories, a situation that mirrors what happened to former GOP candidate Herman Cain.

Quinnipiac Ohio 2012 Presidential Survey

REPUBLICAN PRIMARY

• Newt Gingrich 36% [11%] (7%) {6%} [6%]
• Mitt Romney 18% [20%] (23%) {25%} [19%]
• Ron Paul 7% [9%] (8%) {6%} [6%]
• Michele Bachmann 5% [4%] (4%) {4%} [16%]
• Rick Perry 4% [4%] (4%) {21%} [8%]
• Rick Santorum 2% [1%] (1%) {4%} [3%]
• Jon Huntsman 1% [2%] (2%) {2%} [1%]
• Don’t know 15% [20%] (18%) {22%} [31%]

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

• Newt Gingrich 55%
• Mitt Romney 28%

(more…)

Quinnipiac Pennsylvania 2012 Presidential Survey

REPUBLICAN NOMINATION

• Newt Gingrich 31% [13%] {4%} (4%) [5%]
• Mitt Romney 17% [17%] {18%} (21%) [21%]
• Rick Santorum 9% [13%] {12%} (14%) [16%]
• Ron Paul 7% [5%] {5%} (5%) [6%]
• Michele Bachmann 3% [2%] {6%} (11%) [5%]
• Jon Huntsman 3% [2%] {2%} (1%) [1%]
• Rick Perry 3% [5%] {16%} (8%)
• Someone else (vol.) 2% [2%] {2%} (3%) [2%]
• Wouldn’t vote (vol.) 4% [2%] {2%} (2%) [3%]
• Don’t know 18% [21%] {19%} (14%) [17%]

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

• Newt Gingrich 50%
• Mitt Romney 31%

(more…)

In yet another sign of Democrat glee at the prospect of facing the deposed former Speaker of the House, Democratic National Committee communications director Brad Woodhouse rode to Gingrich’s defense against Mitt Romney today in his latest memo:

Mitt Romney woke up this morning channeling the inner tea party voices of the likes of Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich for one reason and one reason alone: to try to gin up interest for a campaign that has rarely found the support of more than 25 percent of the primary electorate. After all, what’s a candidate to do when he’s been campaigning for president for half a decade but still has 75 to 80 percent of voters in HIS OWN party who prefer someone else – almost anyone else – to him?

The Romney campaign also signaled today that they are ready to get negative and personal – preparing to send out surrogates to attack Newt Gingrich’s private life in a desperate attempt to block his path to victory.

The problem for Mitt Romney is his latest reinvention is no more likely to be successful than the last, or the one before that …

Today’s PPP poll out of the swing state of Colorado showing all of the candidates in the GOP presidential field losing to President Obama is certainly a rude awakening to those hoping to unseat the president next year. And yet these numbers out of Colorado are not the exception, but the rule, when it comes to recent purple state polling data. The president routinely leads, or is statistically tied with, his GOP challengers in states like Florida, Ohio, Iowa, and New Hampshire, all states won at least once by George W. Bush in the 2000s. But despite all of that, the president’s party seems to be suffering massive losses on the ground in these very swing states when it comes to partisan self-identification. But how can this be? Is President Obama really more popular than his party as a whole? Not according to the president’s job approval, which remains mired in the lower-to-mid 40s. And yet a president with a 43 percent approval rating seems favored to win re-election at a time when his party is bleeding voters and unemployment remains at historic highs. What gives?

I believe that President Obama is benefiting from the inability of the Republican Party to transform itself at the national level in a way that is more consistent with the America of 2011 than the America of 1971, 1981, or 1991. Much like the Democrats of the 1970s and 1980s, there is an obvious disconnect between the party’s grassroots and the face of the party at the national, and especially the presidential, level. In the 1970s and 1980s, Democrats controlled the House of Representatives fully 100 percent of the time. Indeed, the Democratic Party enjoyed two midterm “wave” elections during that period — one in 1974 and another in 1986 — that demonstrated just how comfortable Americans were with their Democratic officeholders at the congressional, state, and local levels of government. But at the presidential level, Democrats were at their post-New Deal low point during that era, losing 49 states to Republicans in not one, but two presidential elections. There was clearly a difference in the way Americans perceived their local Democratic elected officials and the leadership of the Democratic Party at the national level.

Today, this dynamic seems to exist yet again in American politics, only this time, it’s the Republicans who are the more trusted party the closer the office is to the grassroots, while the Democrats continue to be voters’ preference when it comes to high profile Senate races and the presidency. This was the story of 2010, after all, when Republicans won more seats in the House than they had captured in decades, but lost key Senate races, including races against incumbent Democrats in purple states with job approval ratings well below 50 percent. The lesson of 2010, it seemed, was that voters trust their generic Republican politicians running for local, state, or congressional office, but they do not trust the controversial lightning rods put forth as the national face of the party, such as Sharron Angle and Ken Buck.

Voters here seem to be drawing a distinction between the Republican Party at the grassroots and the mixed up mish-mash of the Republican Party at the national level, which is a sort of three-headed hydra comprised of talk radio bomb throwers, uncompromising interest group spokespersons, and quirky Baby Boomer politicians with a host of personal resentments in tow. This is quite similar to the way that Americans viewed the Democratic Party during the ’70s and ’80s — distinguishing between the normal Democrats at the grassroots, and the combination of shrill interest groups and Jesse Jackson-esque politicians trying to lead the party nationally. That distinction hurt the Democrats the farther the race from the local level. Democrats controlled the White House for only 4 years during the ’70s and ’80s, and lost the Senate for 6 of those years, tending to lose high profile Senate races that garnered lots of attention. In other words, pretty much the reverse of what’s happening now.

As such, if President Obama wins next year, it will largely be due to the Republicans’ inability to convince Americans that the Republican Party that exists in the precincts on the ground is the same Republican Party that exists at the highest levels of power in Washington, something that becomes difficult to argue given that the national GOP and its allies in the media often seem like a three ring circus. As contributor Matthew E. Miller pointed out the other day, on the subject of non-white voting patterns:

Culturally, these groups have more in common with conservatism then their voting patterns would suggest, so we ought to be doing better. But persistent poverty (at least among Hispanics and Blacks) hasn’t helped our cause. I suspect our poor showing among Asian voters is more complicated. On the one hand, the party of merit and achievement ought to be fairly appealing to a culture that worships merit and achievement. On the other hand, half of the party believes the earth is 6000 years old (I’m not judging). There are plenty of Christian Asians but I find it hard to envision a party whose Presidential Candidates sing gospel songs at press conferences, ever being a comfortable home for a majority of Asians. I think if we finally saw the transformation at the Presidential Level, which the party has been experiencing for decades at the intellectual level- that is, if the religiosity of the Party was primarily the quiet, intellectual religiosity of Catholics like Paul Ryan and Bill Buckley- that might change, but for now it’s hard to see much compatibility.

The reality is that the national leadership of the Republican Party, and that includes its partners in the media and on K Street, are running to lead an America that doesn’t exist anymore, just as the folks at the top of the Democratic Party were doing the same in the 1970s and 1980s. Then, the Democrats were ever convinced that just one more election could be squeezed out of the tired old coalition of union households, racial minorities, and the Vietnam-era college crowd. Today, the Republicans at the highest levels of the party continue to believe that the keys to victory lie in uniting white seniors with their angry, middle aged, yet equally white counterparts, and topping it all off by pretending that 1980s televangelists are still all the rage.

A Republican Party that gains the trust of voters at the national and presidential level is one that leaves behind the resentments and rhetoric of the Boomer-era and transitions into a party that understands the sensibilities of the present day. It is unfortunate that the GOP presidential field this year lacks a candidate from Generation X, and it is equally unfortunate that the loudest voices in the party and in its media and interest group allies are those that represent and reinforce Boomer-era points of view. If Republicans lose next year’s presidential election, and do so while continuing to make gains locally and organizationally, the result will be the further realization of the toxicity of the conservative movement’s national leadership and the need for a forced retirement on the part of the self-appointed leaders of the movement and the party so that some serious re-branding and re-thinking can be done.

Yesterday, in the thread about the Colorado PPP poll, commenter Matt MWS posted the following:

If Newt is leading Mitt in Colorado, that means the RomNots have breached the curtain wall. I would like to see a new NV poll to see if they have stormed into the castle itself. If so, then all that remains for the Rombots is the Keep itself- New Hampshire.

Ask and ye shall receive. Well, ye shall receive at least a piece of what ye ask for.

I came across a poll of Nevada’s new CD4 (dated 11/30-12/1). The apparent purpose of the poll was to determine Danny Tarkanian’s strength against possible Democratic opponents, but it also asked about presidential preferences, with the following results:

• Gingrich – 39%
• Romney – 34%
• Cain – 6%
• Paul – 6%
• Perry – 3%
• Bachmann – 2%
• Huntsman – 1%
• Santorum – 1%
• Undecided/None – 8%

There are several caveats:

• Romney and Gingrich are within MoE, which is 5.4
• This is just one of Nevada’s four districts
• The district is concentrated on Las Vegas – I don’t know Nevada well, but my assumption would be that Vegas is less Mormon than some of the rural areas
• Most important: this is a poll of Likely Voters in the Republican primary, which does not necessarily mean likely attendees at the caucus

So take this poll with at least four grains of salt; it should be viewed as just a straw in the wind, to mix metaphors. Nonetheless, taken with the straws from Colorado and Montana, it is a not unreasonable conclusion that Romney is weaker in the Mountain West than was previously believed.

Intrade

Romney to win GOP nomination: 45.7
Gingrich to win GOP nomination: 35.2
Huntsman to win GOP nomination: 8.1
Obama to win reelection: 50.1
Iowa Caucuses Winner: Gingrich 55.0
New Hampshire Primary Winner: Romney 71.0

Polling:

Obama Approval (RCP): 43.2% / 51.4% (-8.2%)
GOP Nomination (RCP): Gingrich +10.5
Gallup Daily Tracking GOP Nomination: Gingrich 36%, Romney 23%

If you only read three things about the race today, read these:

• Battleground-State Voters Leaving the Democratic Party
• Iowa Republican Caucus: The Myth of Organization
• This is what a real market crash looks like

And as always, have at it in the comments. Anything goes…

Also, Gov. Palin encourages Mitt Romney and other candidates to reach out to the Tea Party:

Sarah Palin told Fox Business Network today that she will not be endorsing a candidate in the next few weeks.

“Not before Iowa,” Palin said, in an interview set to air at 10 p.m. EST on FBN. “And Iowa’s not the end of the road. It’s the beginning of the road really. Newt Gingrich, I believe, has risen in the polls because he has been a bit more successful than Romney in reaching out to that base of constitutional conservatives who are part of the tea party movement. He hasn’t been afraid of that movement. He has been engaged in that movement most recently in order for them to hear his solutions and there’s been some forgiveness then on the part of Tea Party Patriots for some of the things in Gingrich’s past.”

“Romney and others need to reach out and convince Tea Party Patriots and constitutional conservatives that he truly believes in smaller, smarter government,” she added.

Full story at NRO.