9 days until Iowa…

Intrade

Romney to win GOP nomination: 69.1
Gingrich to win GOP nomination: 9.0
Ron Paul to win GOP Nomination: 8.1

Obama to win reelection: 51.9
Iowa Caucuses Winner: Paul 52.4 – Romney 27.7 – Newt Gingrich 12.4
New Hampshire Primary Winner: Romney 79.0 – Paul 17.0 – Huntsman 4.8
South Carolina Primary Winner: Romney 40.0 – Gingrich 27.6 – Perry 19.9

Polling:

Obama Approval (RCP): 46.7% / 48.6% (-1.9%)
GOP Nomination (RCP): Gingrich +3.4
Gallup Daily Tracking GOP Nomination: Gingrich 26%, Romney 22%

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

Just got this email from the Perry campaign:

Dear Friend & Supporter, 

As 2011 comes to a close, The Perry Family wants to wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. May 2012 be the best year yet for you and yours, and for this nation we love.

 

Have a blessed Christmas,
The Perry Family

I just got the following message in an email. With a bit of format tweaking, here it is:

As Ann and I head home to celebrate Christmas with our family, we want to wish you and your loved ones a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Best,

Mitt Romney

The news that all but 2 of the Republican candidates for President are not on the ballot in Virginia has created a mini firestorm this Christmas Eve. Reports have that Gingrich will try to mount a write-in campaign while Rick Perry might take this matter to court. All I can say on this matter is this; it’s not Virginia’s fault. After all, Newt has been a candidate since before the summer and Perry has been in the race since August. It’s not like these candidates didn’t know the filing deadline was coming.

Are the ballot requirement rules tougher in the Old Dominion than elsewhere? Sure they are, but these candidates are running for President of the United States. Becoming the Republican nominee or President requires hard work, money and an organization. If these candidates can’t muster the organization and support to just qualify for ballot status, how are they going to organize a campaign for the general election? Our current President, despite his weaknesses, is a good campaigner and built an extremely impressive political organization last time around. Now that that has merged with the Democratic Party, it’s even more formidable. Do we as Republicans really want to be led by a nominee who can’t even meet the ballot requirement for the Virginia Primary? How will their organization be in Ohio or Florida or Pennsylvania when it comes time for the fall campaign?

So don’t blame the Commonwealth of Virginia for the travails of Messrs. Gingrich and Perry (not to mention Bachmann, Santorum or Huntsman). They knew about the deadline and chose to focus on other things. If they want someone to blame, all they need to do is look in a mirror.

As Newt Gingrich plummets and the single-digit candidates languish, the presidential race is shaping up to be a two-man race: Ron Paul (the Iowa frontrunner) and Mitt Romney (the New Hampshire frontrunner).

Romney has faced his fair share of attacks for his records and statements, but the heat is just beginning to turn up on Paul. At one time, it was thought that Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy and laissez-faire social policy were his biggest liabilities. As voters everywhere, from the right to the left, grow tired of the endless wars and nation building, and as a majority of Americans now support full legalization for hemp and legal equality for gays, the country has found Paul to be more mainstream and tuned in to the average American household than previously assumed. The conventionally estimated “ceiling” of Paul’s support seems to be shattered anew each week, as Paul’s support rises with no end in sight.

The one hurdle that threatens to cause the most trouble for Congressman Paul consists of a series of newsletters that were published under his name during the early 1990’s. While the bulk of the newsletters consisted of sermons on economics, lessons in constitutional interpretation, and financial advice, there are a good handful of quotes that are, to say the least, despicable. Everything from calling Martin Luther King, Jr. a communist philanderer, to saying that only “5% of blacks have sensible political opinions,” to referring to blacks as “animals,” to salivating over a coming “race war.”

While these quotes would be damning for Paul’s campaign had they actually been written by Ron Paul himself as the header on the newsletter implied they were, there is no corroborating evidence that Ron Paul ever used this kind of language or espoused these kinds of opinions elsewhere at any time. Even Austin, Texas’s NAACP President Nelson Linder, a 20-year friend of Paul’s, has come to the Congressman’s defense on this issue. There is evidence that Paul occasionally read content in the newsletters during this time, and was aware that there were some controversial statements being made, but it appears Paul was not aware at the time of the full extent of the problem. Faulting him for not taking a more controlling attitude over the newsletter that bore his namesake is a legitimate criticism, but making Paul out to be an actual racist is quite a challenge.

Paul was one of the congressmen who voted for the establishment of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day as a federal holiday in November, 1979, possibly a rare exception to his lifelong strict constitutionalism (seeing as the Constitution does not authorize Congress to declare holidays for the entire nation, and seeing as giving federal bureaucrats paid holidays is not entirely fiscally conservative). Rep. Paul voted for the holiday at a time when Rep. Newt Gingrich opposed the idea. Ron Paul has time and again held up King as a personal hero to emulate, has always referred to all people as valuable individuals, and has never savored the thought of any “race wars” or aggressive violence of any sort (even garnering some criticism for expressing concern about the unsober way in which many reacted to the violent deaths of enemies like bin Laden or Qaddafi).

But if the grotesque utterings that pockmark those newsletters did not come from the pen of Congressman Paul, then whose are they? The answer has been a poorly kept secret among libertarian circles for years: self-professed “paleolibertarian” writer Lew Rockwell, of LewRockwell.com. A 2008 Reason article received word from a half dozen libertarian activists close to Paul who confirmed that Rockwell was the chief writer of the racist newsletter articles. Paul’s opponents have been reluctant to pin the racist remarks on Rockwell because they’d rather try to pin it on Paul, and Paul himself has been reluctant to shove the blame off on Rockwell because that’s not Paul’s style. As a libertarian who does not worship at the altar of demigods like Rockwell, however, I have no qualms about pointing out the emperor’s nakedness.

The evidence is plain enough for anyone to find.

Take the 1992 quotes about the “communist philanderer” Martin Luther King Jr. and his alleged “Hate Whitey Day”. Where have we heard this garbage before? Just months prior, in 1991, Lew Rockwell wrote an article in his own “Free Market” newsletter entitled “The Economics of Martin Luther King, Jr.”, which starts off with the sentence: “We’re supposed to venerate Martin Luther King, Jr., but that’s not easy for a believer in economic liberty.” The article goes on to excoriate King’s political beliefs, calling King a “Marxist,” saying King disliked the idea of entrepreneurship, and accusing King of intentionally pushing policies he knew would “create social conflict”.

In a May 1992 article in Rockwell’s “Free Market,” entitled “A New View of Civil Rights,” Rockwell continues this kind of language, saying that civil rights “have made us poorer and angrier,” and “must be junked.” During this time period, Rockwell also penned a pro-discrimination manifesto called “Repeal ‘64” (as in, the Civil Rights Act of 1964), in which Rockwell uses the kind of “black”-“white”, “us vs. them” collectivist thinking that Rep. Paul insists on avoiding. “White males,” says Rockwell, “are no longer fooled by the euphemisms.” Civil rights legislation, claims Rockwell, is about “denying economic opportunity to [white males] in order to benefit others.” Rockwell sounds positively David Duke-ian near the end of the article, when he proclaims “we also need to give up the notion of a ‘color-blind society’ – a goal as absurdly utopian as socialism itself.”

In a January 1992 article in Rockwell’s personal publication, in which Rockwell describes what he would do each day on his first 30 days as President, Rockwell gives curiously high priority to dismantling civil rights legislation, doing so on Days Eight and Nine.

In one of Rockwell’s more warped, pro-segregation rants in March, 1994, he fulminates over the small, Texan town of Vidor where four blacks had recently been chased out of town by hostile racists, and a new black family moving into town had to be escorted in by police. Rockwell was, of course, angry about the police escort for the blacks, not about the racist threat in the town.

Rockwell’s racist, twisted sense of justice was on display following the Rodney King beating, when he published in the Los Angeles Times an article with the title, “It’s Safe Streets Versus Urban Terror”, along with the repulsive, un-libertarian byline: “In the ‘50s, rampant crime didn’t exist because offenders feared what the police would do”. For any street criminal, Rockwell prescribes a police beating immediately after arrest, and another beating at the station. He also muses that perhaps video cameras should be banned in public, so that police can carry on these beatings undisturbed and without accountability. Rockwell’s comparisons of inner city troublemakers as “depraved infants” and “terrorists” would be perfectly valid, if the piece wasn’t in direct response to the Rodney King incident, with its obvious racial overtones. Rockwell does admit that the Rodney King beating was a tad excessive, but claims “that’s not the issue.” He writes that police beatings are “not a pleasant sight,” but equates such actions with “surgery” to remove “cancer.”

The style of writing and subject matter are undeniably similar to the racist articles peppering the newsletter that used Ron Paul’s name. Even if, by some unlikely coincidence, Rockwell was not actually the guilty ghostwriter for the Ron Paul newsletter, Rockwell has enough other unsavory work under his belt that deserves a full-throated apology.

Lew Rockwell needs to organize a televised press conference as soon as possible, take full responsibility for the racist, anti-libertarian content in the newsletters, apologize for, and fully repudiate them, and then completely disassociate and distance himself from venerable enterprises like the Ludwig von Mises Institute and the Ron Paul 2012 campaign, so as not to further tarnish these innocent parties. Rockwell, while claiming to be a fan of Ron Paul (though not a Ron Paul voter, because he considers voting to be “immoral”), has done more damage to Ron Paul’s presidential efforts than any other single person. Ron Paul has taken the heat and the responsibility for Mr. Rockwell long enough. Paul has apologized for and repudiated the newsletters, so why can’t Rockwell? I join countless other Paul supporters and lovers of the free market and individual liberty, in demanding that Rockwell come clean now and end his cowardly charade that threatens to damage the reputation of the congressman he claims to admire.

While Newt Gingrich swung back through his home state of Virginia for a ballot drive, he also held a rally for his supporters. Unfortunately, only 10 individuals showed up, reports CBS:

One question: Were the crowd control stanchions really necessary?

From the VA-GOP’s official Twitter page:

After verification, RPV has determined that Newt Gingrich did not submit required 10k signatures and has not qualified for the VA primary.

He couldn’t even manage to get on the ballot of his home state.

This means that barring legal challenges and the like, as of today, there will be only two names on the Virginia Super-Tuesday Republican Primary Ballot: Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.

(h/t Ci2Eye)

*Update*

The news gets worse for Gingrich and Perry.

This is the quote from Virginia law (emphasis added):

C. At all elections except primary elections it shall be lawful for any voter to vote for any person other than the listed candidates for the office by writing or hand printing the person’s name on the official ballot.

In plain English, write-in names on primary ballots are illegal in Virginia. So the only hope Newt and Rick have of getting on the ballot in Virginia is a legal challenge.

ARG Iowa 2012 GOP Caucus Poll

• Ron Paul 21% [17%] (16%) {12%} [14%] (3%)
• Mitt Romney 20% [17%] (20%) {21%} [18%] (17%)
• Newt Gingrich 19% [22%] (27%) {8%} [8%] (12%)
• Rick Perry 9% [13%] (5%) {14%} [2%]
• Michele Bachmann 8% [7%] (6%) {15%} [21%] (9%)
• Jon Huntsman 6% [5%] (3%) {1%} [3%] (0%)
• Rick Santorum 4% [7%] (6%) {2%} [5%] (2%)
• Buddy Roemer 1% [0%] (0%) {1%} [0%] (0%)
• Other 0% [1%] (0%) {1%} [2%]
• Undecided 12% [12%] (11%) {15%} [10%] (8%)

Among Likely GOP Caucus-Goers Saying They Will Definitely Participate in the Caucus (83%)

• Newt Gingrich 22%
  
• Mitt Romney 20%
• Ron Paul 17%
• Rick Perry 10%
• Michele Bachmann 8%
• Jon Huntsman 5%
• Rick Santorum 5%
• Buddy Roemer 1%
• Other 0%
• Undecided 12%

 

(more…)

From the Washington Examiner:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry failed to get on Virginia’s presidential primary ballot after the state Republican Party determined Friday that he didn’t submit at least 10,000 valid signatures. The GOP earlier announced former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Texas Rep. Ron Paul will be on the ballot.

An announcement from the party on former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s petitions is expected Friday evening.

The state GOP verified Friday that Romney and Paul turned in petitions with enough valid signatures, including 400 from each of Virginia’s 11 congressional districts, to get their names on the March 6 primary ballot.

Perry submitted 11,911 signatures to Virginia election officials Thursday, which means 2,000 or more signatures were deemed invalid. Gingrich had about 800 fewer signatures than Perry so there’s no guarantee he would meet the 10,000-name threshold.

The rest of the field — former Sen. Rick Santorum, Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman — failed to file petitions by Thursday’s deadline and won’t be on the ballot. The Democratic Party of Virginia certified President Obama’s petitions, which included more than 15,000 signatures, Friday.

So far the only sure names are Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. Gingrich submitted 800 fewer signatures than Perry, so he is definitely shaky.

One ironic note of interest: I am informed that Mark Levin is a resident of Virginia. If Gingrich doesn’t make it on the ballot, that means Mr. Levin  has to vote for either Paul or Romney in his primary.

From Politico:

Newt Gingrich has expressed confidence that he’s reached the threshold to make the Virginia primary ballot, but GOP insiders familiar with the process say it’s no sure thing.

The short version: Gingrich may not ultimately have enough signatures from registered voters on his petition.

The former speaker turned in 11,050 signatures from Virginians, which would seemingly be enough to meet the 10,000 signature minimum the commonwealth requires of candidates to get on the March 6 primary ballot.

But those 11,050 are going to be matched against the the registered voter rolls and many are likely to be thrown out. And of the 10,000 valid signatures, at least 400 a piece must come from each of Virginia’s 11 congressional districts. Given Gingrich’s admitted last-minute “scramble” to get on the ballot — using paid contractors instead of volunteers — it’s likely that he’ll have quite a few signatures thrown out.

“There’s no way that a candidate who submitted fewer than 12K signatures will be left with the 10K statutory minimum,” wrote one veteran Virginia GOP operative not involved in the race.

…

Here is the “money quote”:

Gingrich would need about a 90 percent verification rate to clear 10,000 legitimate signatures.   A source familiar with Romney’s campaign said they assessed approximately a third of their 16,026 VIrginia signatures and found something short of 90 percent verification against the registered voter rolls.   And Romney backers collected many of their signatures at polling places during this year’s primary and general elections in Virginia whereas Gingrich picked up many of his outside retail stores in the last few days.   Needless to say, registered voters are more easily found at the polls than outside a Wal-Mart.

…

I am reminded of that old saying:

“There are three kinds of people in this world. People who make things happen. People who watch things happen. And people who wonder what happened.”

It is obvious what group Mitt falls into.

Another strong ad from Team Paul. Personally, I’m amazed at how well Paul has stayed on message during this campaign season. If he keeps it up, Iowa is his.

Remember last week when we were puzzled at why Bob Vander Plaats would endorse Rick Santorum; the candidate who seemed to make the least sense? Well, here is a possible explanation uncovered by ABCNews:

DAVENPORT, Iowa — An Iowa Christian conservative leader who bestowed his highly sought-after endorsement on presidential candidate Rick Santorum this week is now at the center of a controversy over whether he asked for cash in exchange for his public support.

Less than 48-hours after receiving the backing of Bob Vander Plaats, the head of the prominent evangelical group The Family Leader, Santorum disclosed that the prominent Iowan told him he needed money to make the most out of the endorsement.

And sources familiar with talks between the conservative heavyweight and representatives from several of the Republican presidential campaigns went a step further, describing Vander Plaats’ tactics as corrupt.

“Clearly the endorsement was for sale — without a doubt,” one source said.

…

Essentially the pitch that BVP apparently made to the various campaigns was in order to play his endorsement as big as possible, he was going to need some money to finance it.

BVP’s group is denying it, of course, but even Santorum admits that money was discussed in their endorsement negotiations.

I will end this post with the same comment I made at the close of my previous post on the subject:

Didn’t Sarah Palin refuse to endorse Vander Plaats last year for governor and supported Terry Branstad instead? (So did Mitt as I recall.) I’m beginning to see why.

An article over at MRC caught my eye. It was entitled: Leaders of Congress Follow Mitt Romney

… [T]he most missed story of last week was Gov. Romney’s health care victories.First, Romney’s proposal to reform Medicare got a big boost when it was adopted and sponsored by two very prominent members of congress, Rep. Paul Ryan (R) and Senator Ron Wyden (D) of Oregon. Paul Ryan is the popular conservative chairman of the House Budget Committee and is ranked as one of conservatives most influential voices on economic policy. Wyden serves on the Senate Budget and Finance Committees and is a health care expert in his own right. Wyden was widely considered as a top candidate to become HHR secretary under Obama. The fact that both of these leaders adopted Romney’s proposal speaks volumes about the quality of Romney’s plan and Romney’s ability to lead and develop bold yet realistic goals that will get things done for the American people.Even Newt Gingrich, Romney’s chief rival for the nomination, praised the Ryan-Wyden health care bill as a “major breakthrough” in the last GOP debate in Iowa saying:

++
Now, Gov. Romney, frankly, came up with a very good plan which allowed for the maintenance of the current (Medicare) system. Paul Ryan has adopted that, and I think in a very brave act by Senator Wyden, you now have a Democrat willing to co-sponsor the bill. I’ve endorsed the concept today. I think it is a big step forward and I think Gov. Romney deserves some of the credit for having helped figure out a way to make this thing workable.
++

That was just Mitt’s first victory. The second came when Obama finally gave in and allowed individual states to better tailor their healthcare to their own individual needs:

…

The New York Times said this:

++
“In a major surprise on the politically charged new health care law, the Obama administration said Friday that it would not define a single uniform set of ‘essential health benefits’ that must be provided by insurers for tens of millions of Americans. Instead, it will allow each state to specify the benefits within broad categories.”
++

…

From the beginning, Romney has been pushing the Obama administration to allow greater flexibility to states, and in fact, what Romney ultimately wants is for each state to have the same degree of freedom that he had in Massachusetts to design and implement their own plans. One of the primary reasons Romney opposed ObamaCare is because it violated state sovereignty by taking away each state’s ability to create a unique plan, and then test that new plan in the ‘laboratories of democracy.’ Even though Obama’s move does not allow the full freedom that Romney would like, it represents a huge concession to Romney and the Republicans.

So Mitt Romney hasn’t even been nominated yet, yet he is already having a big impact on the discussions in Washington. Even Newt Gingrich acknowledges that.

While I ponder what to make of the new Ron Paul surge, I wanted to thank  blogger Adam Holland for finding this nugget.  In the past, I have tended to be more forgiving of Paul’s foreign policy views, but the recent re-visitation of the letters and his responses to them have left me feeling uneasy about his rise in the polls.  I am posting Holland’s complete article below:

According to a contemporaneous blog post by a Ron Paul supporter, Ron Paul appeared on the nation’s most popular white supremacist radio program, The Political Cesspool. That program is associated with the Council of Conservative Citizens (formerly known as the White Citizens Councils) and had been supportive of David Duke and others of that ilk. It’s sponsors include the Institute for Historical Review, the nation’s largest organization devoted to Holocaust denial.

The blog post announcing Ron Paul’s appearance on the show reads as follows:

One of the only truly conservative Congressmen in office today, Ron Paul, will be doing a live interview on The Political Cesspool www.thepoliticalcesspool.org tonight. The show is from 7-8 PM Central time and can be heard locally (Memphis) on 1380 AM WLRM or the live stream or archives if you miss it live will be at www.thepoliticalcesspool.org. No matter what your opinion of the Cesspool is you will not want to miss this interview. I have heard that No Child Left Behind and possible Bush impeachment will be discussed, but I am not 100% sure on that. Tune in to find out.

Oddly, the recording of that day’s interview does not appear in the show’s otherwise meticulous archives. Searching the August 2006 archives  reveals the one day gap in their records. Could it be that the people at Political Cesspool scrubbed Ron Paul from their archives because they understand that an appearance on their show might damage his reputation?

Gallup 2012 GOP Nomination Daily Tracking Poll

• Newt Gingrich 26% (27%) {25%} [25%] (26%) {28%} [28%] (29%) {31%} [31%] (33%) {33%} [35%] (37%) {34%} [36%](37%)
• Mitt Romney 22% (21%) {23%} [23%] (24%) {24%} [24%] (24%) {23%} [22%] (23%) {23%} [23%] (23%) {25%} [23%] (22%)
• Ron Paul 13% (12%) {12%} [12%] (11%) {10%} [10%] (10%) {9%} [8%] (8%) {9%} [9%] (9%) {10%} [9%] (8%)
• Rick Perry 8% (7%) {8%} [8%] (7%) {6%} [6%] (5%) {6%} [7%] (6%) {6%} [6%] (6%) {5%} [6%] (7%)
• Michele Bachmann 6% (6%) {7%} [6%] (7%) {7%} [8%] (7%) {6%} [6%] (6%) {5%} [6%] (6%) {7%} [6%] (6%)
• Rick Santorum 3% (4%) {4%} [4%] (4%) {4%} [4%] (4%) {4%} [4%] (3%) {2%} [3%] (2%) {2%} [3%] (3%)
• Jon Huntsman 1% (1%) {2%} [2%] (2%) {2%} [2%] (2%) {2%} [2%] (2%) {2%} [2%] (1%) {1%} [1%] (1%)

Survey of at least 1,000 registered Republicans and Republican-leaning independents was conducted December 18-22, 2011. The margin of error is ± 3 percentage points.  Results from the poll conductedDecember 17-21, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted December 15-20, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 14-19, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 13-18, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted December 12-17, 2011are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 11-16, 2011 are in Results from the poll conducted December 10-14, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted December 9-13, 2011are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted December 8-12, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted December 7-11, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted December 6-10, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conductedDecember 5-9, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 4-8, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted December 3-7, 2011 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted December 2-6, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 1-5, 2011 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

Ron Paul, the Libertarian congressman from Texas may have peaked almost two weeks before the Iowa caucus. If he does not win there, than who can and will win?

No one knows with any certainty, but many Republican caucus voters seem only half-heartedly behind their favorite candidate. The campaigns themselves are playing an elaborate game of creating low expectations for their results in the voting. So many political poll bubbles have come and gone that the presumption of the final order is back almost to the beginning when Mitt Romney was the sole frontrunner nationally and Mr. Paul the most residual challenger in Iowa.

Iowa Republicans are, for the most part, very conservative, and include many rural, evangelical and other social conservative voters. The party establishment, however, is more moderate, and is led by by popular multi-termed Governor Terry Branstad. After a considerable hiatus during which he served as a college president, Branstad returned in the GOP landslide of 2010 to the state capitol.

Pockets of very liberal voters, especially in Iowa City (the home of the University of Iowa), Quad Cities and Des Moines with its large number of labor union employees, exist throughout the state. Many Iowa farmers are populists and progressive, a tradition that exists all over the prairie states of North and South Dakota, Montana, Minnesota and Iowa.

In fact, a number of other farm voters, as well as Iowa suburban voters, defy standard ideological and party categories, and fit into the peculiar libertarian and isolationist tradition that has existed since the last century in this region.

These voters make up much of the base of Ron Paul’s support.

A new Iowa, however, includes highly-educated, white collar voters who are younger, more affluent, and freer from political stereotypes than their parents and grandparents. Less fundamentalist in their religious views than older Iowa generations, but not as liberal as many students, high school and college teachers, new ethnic voters recently moved into the state, and activist union members, they compose a relatively new voting bloc. These voters tend to support Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and might have supported Jon Huntsman had he competed in the state, or would have supported Tim Pawlenty had he remained in the contest.

It is this voting bloc, along with undecided conservatives, who make up the large number of Iowa Republicans who are not truly committed yet to a particular candidate. I suspect that relatively few of them are drawn to Ron Paul. If they stay home, or split among the other candidates, Mr Paul will win Iowa. But if they coalesce around Romney, Gingrich, or Perry in the closing days of the campaign, the results could be quite surprising.

This unanswered question about who will turn out on January 3 is the source of this cycle’s nagging mystery of what will happen in Iowa in 2012.

______________________________________________________________________

-Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site.

Rasmussen 2012 Presidential Poll

• Barack Obama 48% (45%) {48%} [46%] (46%) {43%} [46%] (49%)
• Michele Bachmann 35% (33%) {32%} [33%] (38%) {39%} [39%] (27%)

Survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted December 22, 2011.  The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.  Results from the poll conducted November 15-16, 2011 are in Results from the poll conducted September 20-21, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted September 12-13, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted August 27-28, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted August 17-22, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted July 8-9, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the polls conducted May 1-14, 2011 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Obama leads Bachmann by 17 points among male voters and 10 points among female voters.

Among voters not affiliated with either political party, the president leads the congresswoman 43% to 29%.

The president draws his strongest support from voters under 30, but he bests Bachmann among voters in all age groups.

Bachmann is favored among Evangelical Christians and Catholics, while other Protestants and voters of other religions lean toward Obama.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

Gallup 2012 GOP Favorability Survey

Among Republicans/GOP-Leaning Independents Who Recognize Candidate

Positive Intensity Score (Strongly Favorable minus Strongly Unfavorable)

• Newt Gingrich +14% [+20%] {+20%} (+17%) [+14%] {+12%} (+12%) [+13%] {+13%} (+11%) [+10%] {+10%} (+7%) [+7%] {+7%} (+4%) [+3%] {+2%} (+1%) [+3%] {+4%}
• Mitt Romney +12% [+9%] {+11%} (+10%) [+10%] {+12%} (+13%) [+15%] {+14%} (+13%) [+14%] {+15%} (+16%) [+12%] {+11%} (+14%) [+15%] {+14%} (+15%) [18%] {+17%}
• Rick Santorum +11% [+7%] {+6%} (+5%) [+6%] {+8%} (+8%) [+10%] {+10%} (+8%) [+11%] {+10%} (+8%) [+10%] {+10%} (+7%) [+6%] {+5%} (+7%) [+11%] {+12%}
• Ron Paul +6% [+2%] {+2%} (+4%) [+6%] {+6%} (+5%) [+2%] {+2%} (+3%) [+6%] {+7%} (+7%) [+6%] {+6%} (+9%) [+11%] {+9%} (+8%) [+9%] {+8%}
• Michele Bachmann +2% [+2%] {+1%} (+1%) [+3%] {+3%} (+3%) [+4%] {+4%} (+5%) [+8%] {+11%} (+10%) [+11%] {+13%} (+16%) [+20%] {+18%} (+14%) [+18%] {+21%}
• Rick Perry +1% [0%] {+2%} (0%) [+3%] {+6%} (+5%) [+4%] {+7%} (+15%) [+22%] {+24%} (+24%) [+25%] {+25%} (+22%) [+23%] {+23%} (+24%) [+23%] {+21%}
• Jon Huntsman 0% [-2%] {-2%} (-3%) [-3%] {-2%} (-2%) [+1%] {+1%} (-1%) [+1%] {+2%} (-1%) [-2%] {+1%} (+2%) [+4%] {+6%} (+5%) [+3%] {+2%}

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

Quinnipiac Virginia Political Survey

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bob McDonnell is handling his job as Governor?

• Approve 57%
• Disapprove 21%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bob McDonnell is handling the state budget?

• Approve 53%
• Disapprove 29%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Mark Warner is handling his job as United States Senator?

• Approve 62%
• Disapprove 23%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Jim Webb is handling his job as United States Senator?

• Approve 48%
• Disapprove 29%

 

(more…)

LVRJ/8NewsNow/UNLV Nevada 2012 Senate Poll

• Shelley Berkley (D)  44.4%
• Dean Heller (R) 43.2%
• Neither 5.4%
• Don’t know 6.9%

Survey of 600 registered voters was conducted December 12-20, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

11 days until Iowa…

Intrade

Romney to win GOP nomination: 69.0
Gingrich to win GOP nomination: 12.0
Ron Paul to win GOP Nomination: 7.8
Obama to win reelection: 51.9
Iowa Caucuses Winner: Paul 45.0 – Romney 34.2 – Newt Gingrich 10.0
New Hampshire Primary Winner: Romney 78.5 – Paul 13.0 – Huntsman 6.0
South Carolina Primary Winner: Romney 48.9 – Gingrich 25.0 – Perry 15.0

Polling:

Obama Approval (RCP): 46.9% / 48.4% (-1.5%)
GOP Nomination (RCP): Gingrich +3.8
Gallup Daily Tracking GOP Nomination: Gingrich 27%, Romney 21%

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

Rasmussen 2012 Presidential Poll

• Barack Obama 44% (42%) {42%} [42%] (44%) {43%} [42%](42%) {43%} [43%] (42%) {44%} [40%] (43%) {46%} [42%] {45%} [42%] (44%)
• Mitt Romney 41% (43%) {45%} [40%] (38%) {42%} [41%] (44%) {42%} [41%] (44%) {41%} [43%] (39%) {38%} [43%] {40%} [44%] (44%)

Survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted December 20-21, 2011.  The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.  Results from the poll conducted December 14-15, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted December 8-9, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted November 30 – December 1, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted November 21-22, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted November 9-10, 2011 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted November 1-2, 2011are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted October 24-25, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted October 16-17, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted October 8-9, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conductedSeptember 28-29, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted September 18-19, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted September 10-11, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted August 25-26, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the polls conducted August 17-22, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the polls conducted between July 14-15, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted March 6-9, 2011 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted January 3-4, 2011 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted November 24, 2009 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

The esteemed Larry Sabato brings the official word via Twitter:

@LarrySabato

Bachmann, Huntsman, Santorum fail to make Virginia GOP ballot (March 6).

2 minutes ago via web

Feel free to mock and disregard these candidates from here on out.

UPDATE: Sabato follows up with this tweet: “As difficult as VA qualifying is, I can’t take seriously any POTUS campaign failing to get on 12th largest state ballot.” I agree.

He “likes” Perry as well, but no longer feels that he is viable:

Former President George H.W. Bush has given an “unofficial” endorsement to Mitt Romney in the race for the Republican presidential nomination.
“I think Romney is the best choice for us,” Mr. Bush told the Houston Chronicle. He then addressed a fellow Texan in the presidential race, Gov. Rick Perry. “I like Perry, but he doesn’t seem to be going anywhere; he’s not surging forward.”

A spokesman for Mr. Bush tells CBS News his expression of support for Mitt Romney should be viewed as an “unofficial” endorsement. The spokesman says Mr. Obama “expressed his preference” when asked by a reporter.

The spokesman says there will be no press release or press conference for the 87-year-old former president to announce an official endorsement.

Jim Appleby, an aide to the former president, told CBS News of the comments: “It is not an endorsement. It is a personal feeling toward Governor Romney.”

Appleby said the former president was at lunch yesterday with “a couple of friends from the Chronicle” and agreed to answer their questions on the record. He also said Mr. Bush is not ramping up for a formal endorsement.

“The article kind of speaks for itself,” he said.

At least some are taking the comments as an endorsement, however – even if it is unofficial. Riding on the Romney bus, former New Hampshire governor and George H.W. Bush White House chief of staff John Sununu told CBS News and the National Journal, “an endorsement from former President Bush is about as good as you can get.”

As an elder statesman in the party, Mr. Bush’s support symbolizes Romney’s appeal among many establishment Republicans when much of the primary fight so far has focused on the conservative base.

Mr. Bush told the Chronicle that he is drawn to Romney’s “stability, experience, principles,” adding, “He’s a fine person.”

“I just think he’s mature and reasonable – not a bomb-thrower,” he added. Mr. Bush has long known Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, and also knew Romney’s father George Romney, the former Michigan governor.

Be sure to read the full piece at CBS News here.

Gallup 2012 GOP Nomination Daily Tracking Poll

• Newt Gingrich 27% {25%} [25%] (26%) {28%} [28%] (29%) {31%} [31%] (33%) {33%} [35%] (37%) {34%} [36%] (37%)
• Mitt Romney 21% {23%} [23%] (24%) {24%} [24%] (24%) {23%} [22%] (23%) {23%} [23%] (23%) {25%} [23%] (22%)
• Ron Paul 12% {12%} [12%] (11%) {10%} [10%] (10%) {9%} [8%] (8%) {9%} [9%] (9%) {10%} [9%] (8%)
• Rick Perry 7% {8%} [8%] (7%) {6%} [6%] (5%) {6%} [7%] (6%) {6%} [6%] (6%) {5%} [6%] (7%)
• Michele Bachmann 6% {7%} [6%] (7%) {7%} [8%] (7%) {6%} [6%] (6%) {5%} [6%] (6%) {7%} [6%] (6%)
• Rick Santorum 4% {4%} [4%] (4%) {4%} [4%] (4%) {4%} [4%] (3%) {2%} [3%] (2%) {2%} [3%] (3%)
• Jon Huntsman 1% {2%} [2%] (2%) {2%} [2%] (2%) {2%} [2%] (2%) {2%} [2%] (1%) {1%} [1%] (1%)

Survey of at least 1,000 registered Republicans and Republican-leaning independents was conducted December 17-21, 2011. The margin of error is ± 3 percentage points.  Results from the poll conductedDecember 15-20, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 14-19, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 13-18, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted December 12-17, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 11-16, 2011 are in Results from the poll conducted December 10-14, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted December 9-13, 2011 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted December 8-12, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted December 7-11, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted December 6-10, 2011are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 5-9, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 4-8, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conductedDecember 3-7, 2011 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted December 2-6, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 1-5, 2011 are in parentheses.

-–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

While Ron Paul definitely needs to assure voters that his failure to pay more attention to the content of newsletters being published under his name will not in some way be mirrored in his administration, I join Nelson Linder, NAACP President (of Austin, Texas — Congressman Paul’s home district) and one who has known Paul for two decades, in stating the obvious fact that Ron Paul is not a racist, and has never–on any other verifiable occasion–used the kind of language or espoused the kind of ideas in those questionable snippets from the newsletters. Minorities have a friend in Ron Paul, because Ron Paul treats everyone as individuals rather than as collectives, and that is why Ron Paul consistently receives the highest proportion of minority voters of any Republican candidate.

Because they have arguably the most difficult ballot access laws in the country, all eyes are on the state of Virginia today. The filing deadline for the March 6 primary is the end of business today, and to get on the ballot candidates must have secured over 10,000 voter signatures (including at least 400 from each of the 11 congressional districts across the state).

Yesterday, Gingrich abruptly left Iowa to travel to Virginia in order to launch a massive signature collection effort. Derided for his lack of organization, his campaign scrambled at the last minute — offering staffers $1 for every signature they collected and doing huge numbers of robocalls across the state (many for events that were already in progress or already over). In the end, however, the efforts worked and Gingrich turned in petitions with 12,000 signatures today. (For comparison sake, Romney turned in petitions with over 16,000 signatures earlier in the week.)

Gingrich still may or may not make it on the ballot — at least 10,000 of those signatures have to be proven valid, and there has to be at least 400 from each district — but he appears safe for the moment.

Other candidates may not be as lucky, though… rumors are swirling that at least three other candidates are not going to get the 10,000 signatures by the end of the day: Huntsman, Bachmann, and Santorum.

Of course, the effect this has on the race is debatable — it would be surprising if any of those three candidates are still in the race come March 6. What it does show, however, is the importance of campaign organization. Mistakes such as this led to more negative press for Gingrich at a time he could hardly afford it, and now today the negative stories about Huntsman, Bachmann, and Santorum will stunt any momentum they may have had heading into the Christmas season as well (not to mention the cost to the campaigns of ignoring Iowa while they focus on Virginia this late in the game).

LVRJ/8NewsNow/UNLV Nevada 2012 Presidential Poll

REPUBLICAN CAUCUS

• Mitt Romney 33.1%
• Newt Gingrich 29.2%
• Ron Paul 12.7%
• Michele Bachmann 5.0%
• Rick Santorum 3.4%
• Jon Huntsman 2.9%
• Rick Perry 2.5%

GENERAL ELECTION

• Barack Obama 45.7%
• Mitt Romney 39.8%

• Barack Obama 45.4%
• Ron Paul 35.7%

• Barack Obama 47.3%
• Newt Gingrich 35.4%

• Barack Obama 49.3%
• Rick Santorum 30.9%

• Barack Obama 48.8%
• Jon Huntsman 30.1%

• Barack Obama 50.8%
• Rick Perry 31.1%

• Barack Obama 50.2%
• Michele Bachmann 27.1%

Survey of 600 registered voters, including a subsample of 224 registered Republicans, was conducted December 12-20, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points among all registered voters; +/- 6.6 percentage points among registered Republicans.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal