This past weekend on The Chris Matthews Show, John Heilemann of New York Magazine reported that a Newt nomination would result in an “80 percent” chance of at least one major third party candidate entering the race, based on the premise that I and others have been floating in recent weeks that a Newt/Obama race would leave a huge portion of the electorate unhappy with its choices. Heilemann suggested that we could see multiple third party candidates enter the race, including Michael Bloomberg, Ron Paul, and a Blue Dog Democrat such as Evan Bayh garnering the nomination of “Americans Elect,” which plans to be on the ballot in all 50 states. As such, we could actually end up seeing not just a four party election, as I suggested last week, but a five party general election, with the field, from left-to-right, looking something like this: Bloomberg (I), Obama (D), Bayh or Blue Dog equivalent (AE), Gingrich (R), Ron Paul or Gary Johnson (L). In this sort of election, anything could happen, and a hung Electoral College wouldn’t be out of the question. Is this a sign of the fall of the American republic or simply the reasoning of bored political junkies?

According to the Missouri Secretary of State’s office, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich failed to file the appropriate paperwork to qualify for the state’s primary. As a result, Gingrich’s name will not appear on the ballot on Feb. 7, 2012. Many claim this is a sign of the campaign’s structural problems and organizational deficiencies, while Gingrich claims that he chose to deliberately miss the primary in the Show Me State.

Gallup 2012 Republican Nomination Survey

I’d like you to think about the Republican nomination for president in the 2012 election. Please tell me if you would find _______________ to be an acceptable nominee for president from the Republican Party, or not.

Newt Gingrich

• Acceptable 62%
• Not acceptable 34%

Mitt Romney

• Acceptable 54%
• Not acceptable 41%

Rick Perry

• Acceptable 41%
• Not acceptable 52%

Michele Bachmann

• Acceptable 37%
• Not acceptable 56%

Ron Paul

• Acceptable 34%
• Not acceptable 62%

Jon Huntsman

• Acceptable 28%
• Not acceptable 58%

Rick Santorum

• Acceptable 27%
• Not acceptable 62%

Survey of 464 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents was conducted November 28 – December 1, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 6 percentage points.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

Quayle says Romney is “the most credible candidate in the race,” will officially endorse tomorrow during Romney’s trip to Arizona:

Former Vice President Dan Quayle is endorsing Mitt Romney for president.

Republican officials on Monday told The Associated Press that Quayle plans to announce his support for the former Massachusetts governor Tuesday afternoon.

Romney has an event scheduled Tuesday in Paradise Valley, Ariz., where Quayle has a home.

Quayle served as vice president under President George H.W. Bush. He was a House member from Indiana for two terms and a U.S. senator.

A GOP official familiar with Quayle’s thinking says the former vice president is backing Romney because he views Romney as the most credible candidate in the race. The official requested anonymity to discuss Quayle’s endorsement ahead of the official announcement.

By the way, investors are cooling off a little on Gingrich over at Intrade. Newt is down more than 4 points today while Romney is up 1. Romney’s lead over Gingrich, which had slipped into single digits over the past week, is now back up to 17 points.

Rasmussen 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 41% {39%} [43%] (44%) {42%} [43%]
• Jon Huntsman 34% {32%} [35%] (28%) {31%} [33%]

Survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted December 2-3, 2011.  The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.  Results from the poll conducted October 20-21, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted September 16-17, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted July 2, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted March 30-31, 2011 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted January 31 – February 1, 2011 are in square brackets.

Inside the numbers:

The president draws support from 80% of Democrats, while Huntsman is favored by just 61% of Republicans. Obama holds a slight 34% to 30% lead among voters not affiliated with either political party, but 36% of these voters either prefer a different candidate or are undecided.

Among conservatives, 60% like Huntsman, but 21% like some other candidate. Obama captures 51% of moderates and 77% of liberals.

Women favor the president by a 10-point margin, while men are almost evenly divided. Those under 40 tend to support Obama. Huntsman runs strongest among middle-aged voters.

Among voters who have served in the military, Huntsman holds a 41% to 32% advantage over the president. Those voters who have never served support Obama 43% to 32%. Similarly, voters who have immediate family members currently serving give the nod to Huntsman, while those who do not have family currently in the military favor the president.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

Iowans for Christian Leaders in Government has released its second anti-Newt Gingrich video. Their first ad hit Gingrich on his personal life, while this one focuses on his position on climate change. This is the same Iowa group responsible for anti-Newt fliers trashing the former Speaker for his multiple marriages.

Breach of Trust, the eight-year-old memoir of former congressman and current Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn has been given new life due to the dramatic rise of former Speaker Newt Gingrich in the 2012 race. Coburn’s book is particularly critical of both Gingrich’s leadership and his conservative credentials. Some key passages from Dave Weigel:

Gingrich was dismissive. “Gingrich talked a lot about the importance of listening,” writes Coburn, “but he was often not interested in discussing our ideas.” Coburn recalls some advice he gave the speaker about how to negotiate, drawing from his experience running a medical supplies company. “In response,” writes Coburn, “he offered one of his classic reactions to a freshman’s proposal: ‘Hmmmm.’”

The failed 1994-1995 shutdown destroyed the speaker’s cred. “Before the government shutdown we thought Newt Gingrich was invincible,” writes Coburn. “After the shutdown, however, he was like a whipped dog who still barked, yet cowered, in Clinton’s presence.”

Coburn explains how a pack of rebels defeated a 1997 rule that would have allowed an increase in committee budgets, to help Dan Burton’s oversight committee — knee-deep in the Clinton scandals — do its work. Gingrich, outraged, demands that the members speak up at a caucus meeting. “The eleven geniuses who thought they knew more than the rest of the Congress are going to come up and explain their votes,” he says. According to Coburn, the wiley rebels win over the conference with their speeches. “Gingrich’s vitriolic response to us bringing down the rule for the bill confirmed to us that he was willing to trade our principles for a short term political advantage over the Democrats,” writes Coburn

Gingrich was a liar: In 1996 convinced Transportation chairman Bud Schuster to hold a bill to make it easier to violate spending caps. “If your decisions are based on not losing a position,” writes Coburn, “you cannot effectively serve the best interests of the country.”

When Gingrich resigned in 1998, he attacked some rebel Republicans as “cannibanals.” Coburn shook his head. “From the perspective of many members of the Class of 1994,” he writes, “it was Gingrich who had drained the lifeblood from the Republican revolution with some of his political decisions.”

Over the past couple of weeks, I feel that the quality of discourse in the comments section has reached an all-time low in the five-year history of this site. Since I believe that the quality of the comments on Race42008/Race42012 was one of the main factors in our becoming one of the most vibrant conservative communities in the Blogosphere, I feel that I must take action to preserve what we have built here over the past 5 years. The following is Race42012′s newly updated comment policy (changes are in bold):

1. Comments may not contain profanity or use suggestive sexual language
2. Comments must be cogent to the subject of the post
2. Comments may not attack the family members of candidates or a candidate’s religion or religious beliefs (or lack therof)
3. Comments may not advertise other websites (spamming)
4. Comments may not inflame the tone of the converation unnecessarily (trolling) or contain ad hominem attacks against the author or other commentors.
5. Readers are limited to 4 comments per post (excluding open threads)

A couple of additional important changes…

• I do my best to monitor the site as much as I can, but I cannot always be online. So from this point froward, frontpagers are authorized (and encouraged) to monitor/edit/delete any comment on their posts which violate Race42012′s comment policy.

• Race42012′s comment policy applies to the Race42012 Staff as well as our readers.

I will usually give three warnings before banning a reader from commenting. Some actions, however, may result in an ban without a prior warning. The only person with the power to ban a reader permanently will be myself.

I also reserve the right to seek legal remedy should a person who is banned from commenting attempt to circumvent the ban. I am dead serious about this. There are plenty of websites on the Internet, if you are unable to behavior yourself here there are many other outlets available for you to utilize.

Our updated comment policy is effective immediately and will pertain to the comments on this and any post going forward.

Consider this an open thread…

It’s been a month since the last endorsement chart update, so here we go…!

In the 2008 primary campaign, Romney garnered a total of 47 congressional endorsements. With this update, he officially surpasses that number with a total of 50 so far — with many more coming down the pipe. Romney has gained 17 endorsements on the chart in the past month; meanwhile, his competitors have remained stagnant. Perry gained a couple of RNC delegates, Gingrich gained one congressman, and everyone else came up empty.

The endorsement categories are below, and the list of the endorsers are below the fold — including many who did not get front page posts here at Race when they endorsed. Remember, this chart does not take into account every endorsement a candidate announces – it is simply an attempt to keep track of some of the more important ones. It is not the end all, be all of candidate endorsements, but hopefully it is a useful tool.

• Group 1: Sitting Governors
• Group 2: Current U.S. Senators and Representatives
• Group 3: Current Lt Governors, Attorneys General, other notable statewide officeholders
• Group 4: Former Governors, U.S. Senators, and U.S. Representatives
• Group 5: RNC Members

Names are below the fold. As always, if I missed anyone let me know in the comments.

(more…)

This morning, Mitt Romney announced the endorsement of three US Reps from Tennessee: Jimmy Duncan, Diane Black and Phil Roe.

Announcing his support, the dean of the Tennessee delegation, Congressman Jimmy Duncan said, “Citizens in both the Volunteer State and across the nation are suffering from unemployment, and in 2012, we must elect a leader who can help get more folks working again. Mitt Romney is that leader. With his background as a conservative businessman, I believe strongly that Governor Romney is the best candidate to defeat President Obama, turn the economy around, and lead America into prosperity once again.”

“Mitt Romney has a skill set that uniquely qualifies him to lead the United States at this critical time in our history,” said Congresswoman Diane Black. “From his experience in the private sector to his accomplishments as the governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney knows how to balance a budget and create jobs. I am proud to offer him my support.”

“I am supporting Mitt Romney because he is the proven, conservative leader who will focus on strengthening our economy, getting spending under control, reducing the debt, and putting Americans back to work. He knows how to run a business, and he understands how to create jobs and help small businesses succeed,” said Congressman Phil Roe. “As a physician, I’m also pleased that Governor Romney is committed to repealing the President’s deeply flawed heath care plan that will put Washington bureaucrats between patients and their doctors. I am proud to support Mitt Romney for President.”

He also released the endorsements of two more New Hampshire county sheriffs, Wayne Estes (R-Strafford County) and Gerald Marcou (R-Coos County). These two join five other sheriffs from the Granite State in endorsing Romney. Remember, as Politico noted last week when Romney unveiled three more sheriff endorsements, “Sheriffs are key endorsements in New Hampshire because they control large county organizations.” Many of the sheriffs supported John McCain’s winning bid in 2008.

With just 28 days until the Iowa caucuses, we should start to see a lot of endorsement announcements in the next few weeks.

Romney continues his slide as Gingrich continues his climb this week — although both seem to have leveled off and plateaued over the past couple of days. Investors seem to be pulling back a little, waiting to see if Gingrich survives the onslaught of attacks that have just begun coming his way. If the polls continue to show leads for Gingrich in Iowa, South Carolina, and Florida in 2-3 weeks, however, we will undoubtedly see Gingrich rocket past Romney to take first place.

Oh, and in an interesting footnote: once upon a time, Jon Huntsman was in third place on the trading boards (behind Romney and Pawlenty). That was before he opened his mouth and began his campaign. Now, however, due to a considerable lack of quality competition to Gingrich and Romney, he finds himself back in third place. I’ve been saying for a while now that Huntsman has a chance to be trouble in New Hampshire. It should be interesting to see what happens as voters really begin to pay attention now that the first actual voting is drawing closer. (Bonus points for whoever can decipher the subtitle to this post.)

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

Here are the (incredibly lightly traded) early state primaries:

Iowa

• Gingrich – 58.3
• Paul – 20.8
• Romney – 14.7

New Hampshire

• Romney – 70.0
• Gingrich – 14.5
• Huntsman – 7.9

South Carolina

• Gingrich – 68.0
• Romney – 29.9
• Perry – 9.0

Reflecting departing Rep. Barney Frank’s glee at the prospect of facing Newt Gingrich in the 2012 election, former Speaker and current House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi hinted at the potential future disclosure of damaging reports on GOP front-runner Newt Gingrich. Pelosi, a member of the investigative committee that looked deeply into Gingrich’s dealings, knows the GOP candidate’s past well, even better than those former colleagues, like Sen. Tom Coburn, who tend to recite the more infamous Gingrich horror stories. From TPM:

Pelosi knows more about Gingrich than perhaps any other major national political figure. She was a senior Democrat when Gingrich was House Speaker, served on the ethics committee that investigated Gingrich for tax cheating and campaign finance violations, and even cut a 2008 ad with him on the importance of addressing global climate change.

“I like Barney Frank’s quote the best, where he said ‘I never thought I’d live such a good life that I would see Newt Gingrich be the nominee of the Republican party,’” Pelosi said in an exclusive interview Friday. “That quote I think spoke for a lot of us.”

Pelosi didn’t go into detail about Gingrich’s past transgressions, but she tipped her hand. “One of these days we’ll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich,” Pelosi said. “I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff.”

Poll Position brings us the very first post-Cain national primary survey:

Poll Position National Republican Primary

• Gingrich – 36.6% (32.1)
• Romney – 23.4% (23.2)
• Paul – 7.1% (5.6)
• Bachmann – 6.2% (4.1)
• Perry – 3.2% (4.9)
• Huntsman – 2.4% (2.7)
• Santorum – 2.0% (-)
• Undecided – 15.1% (11.1)

Survey of 502 likely primary voters (+/-4% MoE) was conducted Dec 4. Numbers in parentheses are from their poll conducted Nov 27.

A video making the rounds today, reminding everyone that as easy as it was for the DNC to make a “flip-flop” ad against Romney, it will be just as easy to do the same to Gingrich.

I’m not a particular fan of Ron Paul, and I’m not going to vote for him, but I do kind of like this add:

No word on the size of the buy, but Politico reports it will be…ahem…big.

Hat-tip: I Like Mike Huckabee 2012

Sources tell FOX 5 News in Atlanta that Herman Cain will endorse Newt Gingrich tomorrow.

Hat-tip: The Argo Journal

It’s been said that every RomNot candidate in the Republican field has had his fifteen minutes of fame among Republican primary voters this season, excepting perhaps Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum, the former of whom has been relegated to RINO status by the broader Republican electorate, and the latter of whom is virtually indistinguishable from his character on SNL. But there remains one other candidate who has yet to have his month in the sun, and that candidate is currently polling third in Iowa and third in New Hampshire among Republican primary voters. I am referring, of course, to Rep. Ron Paul.

The same Republican opinion makers who have swooned over each and every flavor of the month this season have largely ignored Dr. Paul. They shouldn’t. The longtime Texas congressman sports a far more coherent ideology, much more interesting policies, and in many ways a more admirable personal life than the Parade of Not-Romney Horribles who have seen their numbers wax and wane over the course of the year. Indeed, so convinced are the stodgy old opinion makers that the GOP nominee must thread the needle of the Republican Party built by George W. Bush — one that rests on NeoCons and evangelicals and the Deep South, oh my! — that the thought of a GOP nominee whose political orientations scream West Texas, and not East Texas, is simply outside the realm of possibility in the minds of the conservative establishment, which has forgotten, in its senility, that the party of Reagan and Laxalt was one that had far more in common with Ron Paul’s Texas than the Lone Star State of George W. Bush.

One of the first books I read upon developing an interest in American politics as a teenager was Bare Knuckles and Back Rooms by the now infamous political consultant, Ed Rollins. Today, Rollins is known to most as the fellow who seems intent on sabotaging his own candidates’ campaigns. But back in his prime, Rollins was a mover and shaker within the Reagan presidential campaign. In any case, I recall Rollins describing in his book the way in which the self-appointed wise old men of the Republican Party talked Reagan out of selecting a fellow Reagan Republican to join him on the presidential ticket in 1980. These old party hands were convinced that the Northeastern Rockefeller crew were the Republican Party, and that Reagan was simply going to have to play ball and select one of their own. Reagan believed them, and that led to the nomination of George H.W. Bush for vice president in 1980, and to 12 years of Bush presidencies down the road.

Of course, given that Reagan decimated Carter in 1980, and won 49 states against Mondale in 1984, it’s probably safe to say that George H.W. Bush probably wasn’t the deciding factor in the presidential elections of the 1980s. In fact, Reagan probably would’ve done just fine selecting one of his own to join him on the ticket in 1980, as Ronald Reagan changed the map, and the electorate that year. He didn’t simply accept the Republican Party as it existed. He moved the tectonic plates around. He created a party that suited him, not the other way about. And then, as now, the old grey hairs in Washington just can’t seem to imagine such a template change even being possible, even though most of them are in Washington as the result of such a template change at some point in American political history.

That’s all a very long-winded way of explaining why, I think, pretty much everyone in the chattering classes is ignoring Ron Paul, despite his seemingly strong showings in key early states. And maybe they’ll end up being right. But with Cain dropping out, and with Newt’s status as a very tenuous new frontrunner, and with Paul’s organizational strength in Iowa, the notion of a Paul win in the Hawkeye State doesn’t seem completely unreasonable. And then what? A close second in New Hampshire? That would set up an MSM narrative of a two-man race going into South Carolina between Romney and Ron Paul. What if Paul wins South Carolina? What then? Does Romney really beat Paul in a two-man race? We’ve seen what happens whenever Mitt is polled against other RomNots one-on-one. Would Paul produce the same dynamic, consolidating the majority of the party against Romney?

It probably won’t happen. It’s a political junkie’s early December musings, to be sure. But still, if things shake out just right, we could be looking at another Republican nominee from Texas heading the ticket next year. Just not one named Bush or Perry.

Herman Cain’s campaign came to an end yesterday. Was it a necessary end from a political standpoint? I don’t think so. I do think that this latest allegation did pack a punch? Cain detractors and cynics will argue it was because it was true. I think far more charitably, it was a harmful and devestating betrayal by someone Cain viewed as a friend, coupled with the negative impact on his family, and the fact that the media narrative had shoved him off message. Regaining his footing would have been difficult. The type of campaign he’d been running would no longer work. The only option would have been to hunker down in Iowa and hope for a comeback kid style turnaround.

But it wasn’t to be. Some thoughts:

The 24/7 News cycle will be the death of our Republic:  The 24/7 news cycle has been a killer this campaign season as well as the media mindset that developed around it. The signal event that knocked Cain out of first place was an eleven second pause in an editorial board meeting. In the information age, I guess  that pause is an eternity.

The media coverage and mass hysteria that followed was absurd. One reason we consider the Founding Fathers and Lincoln great is that they were not having microphones constantly shoved in their face. Among the Founding generation of leaders was there none that had an awkward pause or mis-spoke. Certainly they did, but the journalists of their era did not make that the story as the concern was about the substance of the candidacy. Certainly, Cain hurt himself on several occasions, but Cain’s critique of a nitpicky media is valid.

The cycle turned uglier with the stories serving as fuel for ugly gossips. I’ve seen rumors of all sorts of things including illegitimate child, not reported in the press, and with no substantive basis being flouted across the Internet in the comments of news stories. While it could take weeks or months to spread malicious gossip and let the rumors take on a life of their own. We do it in hours. Therefore, it seems that the prime contribution of the information age to politics is that we are far more efficient gossips than our grandparents.

As for the news media itself, the media’s prime offense in Cain’s sexual harassment/affair allegations is that rather than them seeing their goal as reporting the truth, they really believed they’d done their job by reporting the allegations.  Whether the allegations against Cain are true or not, the evidence for them was so flimsy that pretty much anyone could be similarly framed. File this as an illustration of, “Why good people don’t run.”

The Campaign Staff Conundrum: Much has been written about the failings of Cain’s staff in the campaign. I honestly cannot blame them for what happened. It’s a common challenge for non-traditional presidential candidates at work.

There are a limited number of top dollar campaign consultants out there who are extemely competent, skilled, and are experienced at what they do. There are many reasons why these type of people are not going to be available to a non-traditional long shot candidate. First, is pure math. These campaigns typically have less resources not only to pay the consultants, but also to run the campaign. Secondly, consultants may not feel like they can even handle some non-traditional candidates, let alone bring them to victory.

So what’s the non-traditional candidate to do? Find the best consultants he can and make do. Usually, these folks are true believers who work for less than the top flight consultants. If all goes well, candidate and staff gel and they’re able to gain traction. Usually, all doesn’t go well. In Cain’s case, up until the allegations, it went remarkably well. Block’s campaign  strategy had Cain at one point leading in 17 of the first 24 states to vote.

Unfortunately, the wheels came off as the campaign moved into constant crisis management mode and no one on staff was prepared for it. Was it Cain’s fault? Cain had no money to hire when consultants were avialable and then when Cain had money that he could have hired someone topflight, the best people were not available.

Perhaps, the biggest confusion is on the part of the American people. Americans, in general don’t have a high opinion of political spin doctors and the whole political establishment is held disdainfully, which explains part of Cain’s rise. However, these consultants provide support and advice that help candidates to succeed. Ultimately, Cain rose as high as he did because it wasn’t a traditional politician running a traditional campaign and ultimately he was forced out because he wasn’t a traditional politician running a traditional campaign.

Return to Sender?:  Rick Lowry of National Review has called for Herman Cain to return all of the contributions the campaign is sitting on, “His suspended campaign is presumably still sitting on millions of dollars of contributions. Cain owes it to his supporters to endeavor to return that money to all those people who gave it to him in good faith.” 
 
As someone who gave money to the Cain campaign, I’ll say, “No, he doesn’t owe it to us.”  No campaign that has run any length of time has turned around and started to issue refunds. There was no term by which we were promised to get our money back if Cain was forced out of the race. I knew full well that Cain might not make it to the White House. That was a risk I took. I’d rather not be patronized by people like Lowry who think I got bamboozled into thinking this was a sure thing.

In addition, how exactly is the refund process going to work? You refund the last people to give to the campaign? Or the first? Or do you retire all the campaign expenses, figure out what percentage of the funds raised remain after subtracting the costs of issuing tens of thousands of checks to people who haven’t asked for them and don’t want them?  It’d be a massive operation that will probably not be worth it to anyone other than big dollar contributors.

Like with other folks with a campaign surplus left, Cain will be able to use the money to support campaigns across the country financially.

Where Do Cain Supporters Go Next: Regardless of where Cain goes, Newt Gingrich stands a good chance of picking up a lot of support from Cain supporters initially. Though Cain’s departure from the race means that Gingrich will be up next for a full on media examination, and there’s a lot of problems there to cover.

For my part, I plan on adopting no candidate prior to the New Hampshire Primary. I absolutely will not support Gingrich in the GOP Primary unless perhaps the only alternative is Ron Paul. If it comes down to a simple Gingrich-Romney race, I’m supporting Romney.

Of course, it won’t be until after New Hampshire that we know if that is the actual state of the race. Given that Newt Gingrich’s rise from first to third has occurred over the last couple of weeks, it’s far from certain that he’ll be among the final two. There remain three outside shots that have a chance of unseating Gingrich:

Rick Perry: Probably the best chance in the field to dethrone Gingrich. He is improving in his debate performances, and he made a good case in the Huckabee forum for people to take a second look at him. Still, hsi one statement on the border casts a shadow on his campaign.

Michele Bachmann: She has a good grasp of some issues, particularly on foreign policy, but seems too hooked on talking points and gets into way too many pointless conflicts such as the allegation that she stole the email list of a group of Iowa Homeschoolers.

Rick Santorum: Stacy McCain’s apparent new favorite as well as another conservative blogger who backed the Cain campaign.  I like Santorum though he has had some ugly moments in the debates. My big question is money. To call his fundraising enemic is an insult to enemic fundraisers everywhere. While he jibes with a lot of social conservatives, he’s raising money like Alan Keyes with $189,000 cash on hand. How that wins Iowa, I don’t know. And a bigger mystery is how he manages to survive if he finishes strong in Iowa with Florida coming up at the end of the month.

One of the arguments used frequently by supporters of Speaker Gingrich in trying to convince Republican voters to support him is “just think of what a debate between Obama and Gingrich will be like”. This argument has proven quite persuasive to many Republicans and it’s not hard to see why. Gingrich has had many solid debate performances and he has proven very effective at tapping into Republican emotions and sentiments. Surely, the logic goes, he will prove equally adept at doing this in a general election against an opponent he can easily contrast with? Right? Well, the answer might not make Gingrichites very happy.

It is important to remember that there is a huge difference between debating in Republican primaries and debating in the general election. In primaries, you have only to convince enough people who already agree with your position. Candidates debating in front of Republican audiences don’t need to explain why we should repeal Obamacare since all Republicans think it is a disastrously bad piece of legislation. Candidates don’t have to explain why they support the Ryan Plan since it is universally accepted by Republicans. A general election debate is very different. Not only will partisan Republicans be watching, but so will Democrats and more importantly, independents. Throwing out conservative red meat might earn you applause at a GOP forum in New Hampshire, but that is not the case in October 2012. Our nominee is going to have to be a persuader as well as a great pontificator. Also, there is no applause at a general election debate; which has been one way to Gingrich has gathered steam during debates.

Another critical factor of Newt’s debate performances has been insulting the moderators. Again, this works well in Republican audiences; after all, most Republicans hate the media and think of them as Obama toadies. But, like the above, things are different in a general election debate. That isn’t the time to tell Reporter A, B, or C that they are an idiot. The people watching the general election debates don’t just want a partisan who can bash the moderator; they want a President. Whining about how stupid the media are or their questions are is not presidential. It makes the nominee look small and small candidates don’t win elections.

That last point is perhaps the most important. Our nominee will be going on stage with the sitting President of the United States. Regardless of Republican feelings about Barack Obama, he is still the President. It is nothing really to debate an ex-Senator or an ex-Governor. It is something to debate the President of the United States. I’m not saying treat him with kid gloves; every disastrous policy of the Obama Administration should be brought up, but the nominee needs to remember who they are debating. In other words, have a sense of the moment. When Gingrich sparred with Bill Clinton in the past, particularly during the 1995 shutdown, he forgot who he was dealing with.

There are certainly other issues. The fact that Gingrich’s rise has been almost universally attributed to his many debate performances will be undercut in a general election where the maximum number of debates will be three. Gingrich’s desire for 7 “Lincoln-Douglas Debates” won’t happen, no matter how often he brings the idea up. And, what should be another concern, Gingrich has shown in the past that his very muscular ego and hyperbolic use of history can easily overtake him on the spot. Is it hard to believe that Gingrich will say something totally out of left field that may gel with Republicans, but shock the wider electorate?

Republicans who support Speaker Gingrich may get their wish and see him square off with President Obama. And they may find out that they have been cursed with getting exactly what they want.

Herewith the latest update of the ever-changing national polls. Unless you’ve been hiding in a cave, you’re aware that Newt Gingrich is now well out front. On the other hand, if you went into that cave in July, when it looked as if Gingrich was about to disappear off the bottom of the chart, this news no doubt comes as rather a shock.

The charts show the candidates’ average, at a given point in time, in the five most recent random-sampling polls. The first chart shows all activity, the second shows only month-end figures.

The similarity of the upward lines for Perry, Cain, and Gingrich are striking, of course. However, as I noted a few weeks ago in this post, the three cases are not identical.

NOTE: Trolling, name-calling, and other offensive or pointless comments will be deleted.

NBC News-Marist New Hampshire 2012 Presidential Survey

• Mitt Romney 46% (49%)
• Barack Obama 43% (40%)

• Barack Obama 44%
• Ron Paul 42%

• Barack Obama 49%
• Newt Gingrich 39%

• Barack Obama 51% (46%)
• Rick Perry 36% (40%)

• Barack Obama 53%
• Michele Bachmann 33%

• Barack Obama 53%
• Herman Cain 30%

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing as president?

• Approve 40% (38%)
• Disapprove 52% (53%)

Survey of 1,144 registered voters was conducted November 28-30, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 2.9 percentage points.  Results from the poll conducted October 3-5, 2011 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

NBC News-Marist Iowa 2012 Presidential Survey

• Ron Paul 42%
• Barack Obama 42%

• Barack Obama 46% (43%)
• Mitt Romney 39% (40%)

• Barack Obama 47%
• Newt Gingrich 37%

• Barack Obama 48% (46%)
• Rick Perry 37% (37%)

• Barack Obama 50%
• Herman Cain 32%

• Barack Obama 54%
• Michele Bachmann 31%

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing as president?

• Approve 43% (42%)
• Disapprove 46% (47%)

Survey of 1,503 registered voters was conducted November 27-29, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 2.5 percentage points.  Results from the poll conducted October 3-5, 2011 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

A top advisor to Herman Cain, speaking on the condition of anonymity, tells Politico that Cain plans to endorse before the Iowa Caucuses and that the frontrunner for the endorsement at this point in time is Newt Gingrich:

A top adviser to Herman Cain says the former presidential candidate plans to endorse one of his ex-rivals, most likely New Gingrich, this month in order to have an impact before the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3.

“He wants to play ‘who to endorse’ for a while,” said the adviser, who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to speak bluntly. “Then he’ll probably be endorsing somebody in a couple weeks — before the caucuses…. I’d say he’s going to endorse Newt Gingrich,” the adviser said.

The two have a relationship that goes back to Gingrich’s tenure as Speaker of the House, when he appointed Cain to the National Commission on Economic Growth and Tax Reform Commission (known as the “Kemp Commission”), which reported in 1996.

The adviser said Cain would like to play a role in the campaign, and in a Republican administration if his party wins the White House.

“He can go into the African-American community, and there’s a lot of African Americans who like Herman Cain,” the adviser said. “I’ve seen him in churches — this guy can preach. And he can represent the successful black businessmen.”’

A Cain endorsement would get heavy news coverage and would add to the momentum for Gingrich, who finished a clear first in separate polls of Iowa primary voters released this weekend by the Des Moines Register and NBC/Marist.

Be sure to read the whole piece here.

Here’s a snippet from the editorial announcing the endorsement:

In our endorsement of Mitt Romney before the Iowa Caucuses four years ago, we wrote of America’s need for a president possessed of “energy, intellect, vision, charisma and experience” to lead the nation in meeting “formidable, complex, divisive, political and dangerous” challenges.

Since then, the nation’s challenges – in particular, its domestic economic challenges – have grown still more acute.

Within this year’s Republican presidential field, Romney again stands out as the candidate who is best prepared through experience, skills and qualities to lead the country. Today the Journal endorses the businessman, former Massachusetts governor and former Winter Olympics CEO in the Jan. 3 caucuses.

The 2012 election for president is, first and foremost, about the economy, jobs and the federal budget. Whether it’s Barack Obama or a Republican, stark realities face the winner.

~snip~

We do not question Romney’s conservative credentials, whether the issue is economics, national defense or social issues. In Romney, the nation would get a candidate committed to reduced taxes, reduced spending and reduced regulation. He advocates for hiking defense spending to 4 percent of GDP and increasing active-duty forces by 10,000, and we trust him in taking the 3 a.m. national security call. If it’s a “family values” candidate you want, Romney is a good and decent man of integrity who lives the values he espouses. By virtue of his bid for president in both 2008 and 2012, no candidate in this year’s Republican field has been vetted like Romney. If no skeleton has been discovered in his closet to this point, it’s likely there isn’t one.

Through a plethora of summer and fall Republican debates, we have taken the measure of the candidates alongside one another, as well. In each one, Romney has been poised, informed and reasoned. In our view, his debate performances also have set him apart from the rest of the pack.

Bottom line: We believed a Romney-vs.-Obama general election campaign would best serve the nation in 2008, and we believe the same is true in 2012.

Be sure to read the entire piece here.

NBC News-Marist New Hampshire 2012 GOP Primary Poll

• Mitt Romney 39% (45%)
• Newt Gingrich 23% (4%)
• Ron Paul 16% (13%)
• Jon Huntsman 9% (5%)
• Rick Perry 3% (7%)
• Michele Bachmann 3% (3%)
• Herman Cain 2% (13%)
• Rick Santorum 1% (1%)
• Undecided 4% (8%)

Second Choice

• Newt Gingrich 24%
• Mitt Romney 24%
• Ron Paul 11%
• Jon Huntsman 8%
• Rick Perry 7%
• Herman Cain 7%
• Michele Bachmann 5%
• Rick Santorum 4%
• Undecided 9%

Survey of 696 likely GOP primary voters was conducted November 28-30, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 3.7 percentage points.  Results from the poll conducted October 3-5, 2011 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

NBC News-Marist Iowa 2012 GOP Caucus Poll

• Newt Gingrich 26% (5%)
• Mitt Romney 18% (26%)
• Ron Paul 17% (12%)
• Herman Cain 9% (20%)
• Rick Perry 9% (11%)
• Michele Bachmann 5% (11%)
• Rick Santorum 5% (3%)
• Jon Huntsman 2% (1%)
• Undecided 9% (10%)

Second Choice

• Newt Gingrich 19%
• Mitt Romney 17%
• Michele Bachmann 12%
• Rick Perry 11%
• Herman Cain 11%
• Ron Paul 10%
• Rick Santorum 8%
• Jon Huntsman 3%
• Undecided 9%

Survey of 425 likely GOP caucus-goers was conducted November 27-29, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 4.8 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted October 3-5, 2011 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

With less than a month to go before the Iowa caucus, and after almost a year of campaign preliminaries, the race for the Republican nomination for president will now seem to move quickly. This appears to be the psychological rule: As the moment of voting approaches, the velocity of events and perceived time increases noticeably.

This has not been a cycle that has been kind to conventional wisdom. Now the most persistent example of this kind of thinking, that is, that Mitt Romney’s poll numbers have been constant and will lead to his victory, will be tested. It is undeniable that the former Massachusetts governor and persistent 2012 frontrunner’s poll numbers have fluctuated within a relatively narrow range in lower double digits (15-25%) in most polls to this date, but what will happen now that actual voting results are posted and disseminated?

A lot may depend on the Iowa caucus results. Either a win for Romney or his latest major challenger, Newt Gingrich, could set a quick resolution of the GOP contest into motion, with unstoppable momentum building from Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida. A third outcome, a not impossible win in Iowa by Ron Paul, would make Iowa more or less irrelevant to the final outcome, and lead only one week later to New Hampshire having even more influence than usual, probably helping Mr. Romney more than his rivals because of his current big lead in that state.

Mr. Gingrich has been riding a huge wave in recent days, but as any surfer will tell you, the greater the wave, the greater the risk of falling. Mr. Gingrich needs a win in Iowa, or at the least, he needs to finish ahead of Mr. Romney in Iowa. Considering the newly-energized Romney Iowa campaign effort, and Mr. Gingrich’s lack (until now) of a serious organization in that state, the explosion upward of Mr. Gingrich’s poll numbers across the nation could begin to bust if high expectations are not realized in the first state to actually vote in the presidential race.

The facts on the ground are well-known. Mr. Romney is a familiar face in Iowa, having competed there in 2008, winning the 2007 straw poll and coming in second in the 2008 caucus voting to Mike Huckabee (the surprise winner). Until recently he had not activated his Iowa organization, but he has the contacts, staff and funds to raise this organization from dormancy. Ron Paul not only competed heavily in 2008 in Iowa, he has developed a loyal and noticeable statewide effort for 2012; His political base in Iowa, a caucus state, has more potential impact than any of his efforts in a primary state where sheer numbers prevail over intensity and loyalty. Mr. Paul’s poll numbers in Iowa have continued to be strong, and if his campaign here is not overshadowed by a strong (but late) Romney push, or the surge for Mr. Gingrich, he could conceivably win the Iowa caucus. Considering Mr. Paul’s isolationist foreign policy views, and his narrow libertarian preoccupations, it is difficult to imagine where his campaign could go next for anything more than a third, fourth or worse finish in subsequent primaries.

Mr. Gingrich’s name is well-known in Iowa, partly from his years as speaker of the House in Congress, and from his frequent appearances in the state during the past year. But his incipient organization here was placed on hold earlier in the year when most of his campaign staff resigned. The secret to success in the Iowa caucus has always been organization. That is the nature of any caucus state where only the most interested voters turn out. Mr. Gingrich in recent weeks has been beefing up his organizational efforts in New Hampshire and South Carolina, both good longer-term strategies, but only now, with less than a month to go, is he attempting to transform his surge in the polls in Iowa into election night success. Complicating his efforts are the campaigns of Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum, each of whom have created active organizations in Iowa.

Conventional wisdom does not look kindly to Mr. Gingrich’s prospects, then, in Iowa. On the other hand, he is now enjoying a surge not only in the polls, but in his fundraising (which had been lagging all summer), he does have some key Iowa endorsements, and he has consistently campaigned in Iowa over the past year. The bottom m line is that he needs to finish ahead of Mr. Romney in Iowa, do well in New Hampshire, and begin winning primaries in South Carolina and Florida.

An alternative scenario to the it’s-all-over-after-Florida hypothesis, is that no one candidate develops overwhelming momentum the first month, and a replay of the 2008 Democratic nomination race calendar takes place, with the two leading 2012 GOP candidates fighting it out all the way to the Tampa convention next September, or to the end of the primaries in June. That is a scenario little discussed so far, but it would be the consequence of Republican voters not making a decision, as they usually do, in the first month or so of the primary/caucus season.

We’ll know which scenario will prevail soon enough.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

-Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site.

The Des Moines Register/Selzer & Co. 2012 Iowa Republican Caucuses Poll

• Newt Gingrich 25%
• Ron Paul 18%
• Mitt Romney 16%
• Michele Bachmann 8%
• Herman Cain 8%
• Rick Perry 6%
• Rick Santorum 6%
• Jon Huntsman 2%

Selzer & Co. of Des Moines conducted the poll of 401 likely Republican caucusgoers Nov. 27-30. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points.

The forum will be broadcast live on FOX News. Please refrain from posting links to any website which broadcasts a pirated feed of the event. Posting such a link will result in a permanent banning from Race42012, so you have been warned…

Other than that, have at it in the comments!