Rasmussen has released a poll today that shows that Newt Gingrich’s lead in Iowa has collapsed. Assuming for the time being that this collapse is for real, and that this poll is not an outlier, the movement shown in the poll is quite interesting.

Here is a breakdown of the movement the poll shows in the past month:

Three things stick out from these numbers:

1. Everyone but Gingrich went up.
2. Gingrich’s loss was in double digits.
3. Paul’s increased the most. He doubled Romney’s and Perry’s increase.

I have to say that Ron Paul now has a legitimate shot at taking Iowa. He is only five points back from the leader. And he nearly doubled his support from 10 to 18 percent. THAT is impressive.

Perry is once more in double digits. He has been working extremely hard in Iowa and has been rewarded with an increase of support of four percentage points.

The other guy who went up four points is Romney. He has returned to his steady-state low to middle twenties plateau. His supporters call it his floor. His detractors call it his ceiling. Whatever it is, his steady level of support in this extremely volatile year has been nothing short of remarkable.

The Iowa Caucuses are going to take place during the heart of a Midwestern winter. Under those circumstances, ask yourselves’ this question. If you were a candidate, which scenario would you prefer:

1. Supporters who have been rock-solid in your favor for months and months, even years.
2. Supporters who have essentially settled upon you in the last week or two primarily because they aren’t entirely happy with the other guy.

I know which one I would prefer if I were running. And if the results of this poll remain accurate (a very, very big “if” this year), I would think that any ABM candidate is going to have to have support in the high twenties to out-caucus Mitt Romney.

The joker in this deck, of course, is Ron Paul. His supporters are notoriously loyal and active. He might just pull off the Iowan Upset. We shall see.

One thing is for certain. The two and a half weeks before the Iowa caucuses are not going to be boring.

Politico asks the following (emphasis added):

Is Newt Gingrich taking Iowa seriously?

IOWA CITY, Iowa — Newt Gingrich’s improbable comeback may fall short if he doesn’t win Iowa — and there are signs he’s not taking the threat of defeat seriously enough.

Gingrich is getting pounded on Iowa TV by both a pro-Mitt Romney super PAC and Ron Paul’s campaign and is doing little to fight back against ads which take direct aim at him. Less than three weeks before the caucuses, the former speaker is airing a single commercial with little money behind it.

And while Gingrich’s top rivals here flood the airwaves, three of his lesser challengers — all vying for the same swath of undecided conservative votes — began barnstorming the state in an intensive retail push before the January 3rd vote.

Gingrich’s response suggests a lack of urgency: on Wednesday he held a wonky seminar on brain science in this liberal college town. He had plans to return to Washington for a book-signing after Thursday’s debate in Sioux City, without scheduling any public events in the conservative-heavy northwest corner of the state.

…

Gingrich promised to do more retail events – he teased a post-Christmas bus tour – and said he’d do more ads.

But he also offered a mix of nonchalance and high-road confidence in explaining that he didn’t have enough money to match his rivals’ ad campaign and, in any event, wasn’t inclined to engage in traditional back-and-forth on the airwaves.

…

[B]y taking such a strong lead here and nationally after the collapse of Herman Cain’s campaign, Gingrich raised his own expectations. If the caucuses turn out to be an effective tie against Paul, and perhaps Romney, they may not offer the momentum he needs as the race moves east.

“If he fails to meet those expectations, it’ll be real hard for him going forward,” said former state GOP chair and Cain backer Steve Grubbs of Gingrich. “But this is the week that decides whether Newt Gingrich is the nominee or not. If in the next seven or eight days, between the Romney super PAC and Ron Paul, he absorbs thousands of points of negative TV and is still standing then I don’t see what could take him down between Christmas and January 3rd.”

…

Gingrich promised to run an unconventional campaign. If downplaying Iowa when he has a definite chance to win it is his deliberate strategy, then he is fulfilling his promise.

Today’s Rasmussen poll should act as a wake-up call if nothing else.  Let’s see if Newt wakes up.

Gallup 2012 GOP Nomination Daily Tracking Poll

• Newt Gingrich 29% {31%} [31%] (33%) {33%} [35%] (37%) {34%} [36%] (37%)
• Mitt Romney 24% {23%} [22%] (23%) {23%} [23%] (23%) {25%} [23%] (22%)
• Ron Paul 10% {9%} [8%] (8%) {9%} [9%] (9%) {10%} [9%] (8%)
• Michele Bachmann 7% {6%} [6%] (6%) {5%} [6%] (6%) {7%} [6%] (6%)
• Rick Perry 5% {6%} [7%] (6%) {6%} [6%] (6%) {5%} [6%] (7%)
• Rick Santorum 4% {4%} [4%] (3%) {2%} [3%] (2%) {2%} [3%] (3%)
• Jon Huntsman 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 10-14, 2011. The margin of error is ± 3 percentage points. 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, 2011 are 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 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

Continuing on yesterday’s theme of how this craziest of election cycles could get crazier still, let’s look at how Jon Huntsman could end up as the Republican nominee.

Nate Silver beat me to this one in Tuesday’s NY Times. I agree with him that this is not a high probability, but that it’s a bit higher than it was a few weeks ago.

Huntsman has actually begun to show some signs of life – though 5% is not all that lively. In the previous eighty or so national polls in which he was included, Huntsman had never hit 5% until the NBC/WSJ poll released Tuesday. And then, amazingly, it happened again in yesterday’s Reuters/Ipsos poll. I go by the rule that once is probably an accident, twice can be a coincidence, but the third is a trend. Show me another 5% and I may believe.

Similarly, in the first twenty-four New Hampshire polls listed at RCP, Huntsman hit 10% once. Now he’s been in double digits in four of the last six, including getting into nose-bleed territory at 13% in the latest Suffolk.

Okay, so you’re still not convinced that Huntsman, after months of total futility, is about to break out? Neither am I. But he does have a path to victory, and it’s not all that complicated. Unlikely, but not complicated.

It basically consists of a variation on yesterday’s Weird Scenario about a Late Entrant, with Huntsman filling in for the Late Entrant.

In this scenario, Romney and Gingrich rip each other to shreds in Iowa (as they seem intent on doing). Let’s say Gingrich ekes out a close win over Paul with Romney in a virtual tie with Perry and Bachmann, but the order in Iowa doesn’t matter too much, as long as it’s reasonably close. The important point is that they throw lots of garbage, and then come to New Hampshire bloodied and muddied and continuing to shout insults at each other, while the stolid Yankees hold their noses at the stench entering their state. Huntsman agrees with them that it is all very sad what has happened to the party and tsk-tsks about dirty campaigning. The disgusted voters give Huntsman a narrow win over Romney with Gingrich and Paul a little ways back.

At this point, we invoke the Late Entrant scenario, but with the party establishment turning to Huntsman as the only way to stop Gingrich and Romney from tearing the party apart on the road to Tampa, instead of trying to talk a Bobby Jindal or Mitch Daniels into doing the job. Huntsman has an advantage over a Late Entrant in that he has presumably established some sort of shadow organization in some of the early states (at least meeting the entry deadlines), and he could more quickly ramp up a campaign.

Huntsman would of course do poorly in South Carolina and probably wouldn’t contest it. We’ll say Gingrich wins there, although he might be bleeding so badly at this point that Paul or even Perry takes it, making a real muddle of things. For Huntsman, everything would turn on Florida, and Florida would turn on Jeb Bush. If that pillar of the establishment campaigns by Huntsman’s side, the race would be pretty close to over by the time the polls close in Florida.

Paul would go on, of course, and perhaps the ghosts of Gingrich and Romney would make it through Super Tuesday, but wins in New Hampshire and Florida, solid establishment support, and crippled opponents would make Huntsman (dare we say it?) inevitable.

Race42012′s FOX News/Iowa GOP debate open forum be be going live at 8:30pm EST. The debate will be broadcast on cable TV on FOX News and streamed online at FOXNews.com.

Suffolk University/7NEWS New Hampshire 2012 GOP Nomination Poll

• Mitt Romney 38% (41%) {41%} [36%] (35%)
• Newt Gingrich 20% (14%) {4%} [2%] (3%)
• Jon Huntsman 13% (9%) {10%} [4%] (0%)
• Ron Paul 8% (14%) {14%} [8%] (8%)
• Michele Bachmann 3% (1%) {5%} [11%] (3%)
• Rick Santorum 2% (3%) {1%} [1%] (2%)
• Buddy Roemer 2% (1%) {1%} [0%] (0%)
• Rick Perry 1% (2%) {8%} [2%]
• Gary Johnson 1% (0%) {0%} [0%] (1%)
• Fred Karger 0% (1%) {0%} [0%] (0%)
• Undecided 11% (9%) {11%} [21%] (13%)

(more…)

Newt has a new ad going up in Iowa. The transcript is below the video.

“These are challenging and important times for America. We want and deserve solutions. Others seem to be more focused on attacks rather than moving the country forward. That’s up to them. I believe bold ideas and new solutions will unleash America’s creative spirit. When I was Speaker, our budget was balanced and 11 million jobs were created. We can do it again and rebuild the America we love. I’m Newt Gingrich and I approve this message.”

Wow….

Rasmussen Iowa 2012 GOP Caucus Poll

• Mitt Romney 23% (19%) {21%} [17%] (21%)
• Newt Gingrich 20% (32%) {9%} [2%] (5%)
• Ron Paul 18% (10%) {10%} [14%] (16%)
• Rick Perry 10% (6%) {7%} [29%] (12%)
• Michele Bachmann 9% (6%) {8%} [18%] (22%)
• Rick Santorum 6% (5%) {4%} [4%]
• Jon Huntsman 5% (2%) {2%} [3%] (2%)

Survey of 750 likely Iowa Republican Caucus participants was conducted December 13, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted November 15, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted October 19, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted August 31, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted August 4, 2011 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

Update – Byron York has more on Gingrich’s slide:

In mostly private conversations, well-connected Iowa Republicans say they have sensed a drop-off in support for Gingrich in the last few days. (See Signs of Gingrich slipping in Iowa?) “People are saying OK, let’s reassess this,” one insider says of voter opinion on Gingrich. “Is this really a decision we want to make? What I’m hearing is thinking about the general election and the unpredictable nature of him as our nominee. I don’t have any empirical data to back it up, but it’s just a feeling I’ve gotten in the last 24 hours.”

Gingrich has been the target of a barrage of attack ads on Iowa television and radio, particularly from Paul, Romney, and Perry. The consensus among Iowa GOP insiders is that those ads are beginning to take a toll. “That stuff has an impact, where people are at least going to pause” in their enthusiasm for Gingrich, says Bob vander Plaats, an influential Iowa social conservative leader.

The Weekly Standard reports on some of the rumors swirling around the web:

My better half stumbles across some interesting reports from people in New Hampshire:

So a writer I follow who lives in New Hampshire just tweeted:

@publicroad: I live in NH & just got a robocall polling me about what I think about Romney vs. Gingrich vs. *Jeb Bush*.

Other folks are reporting the same polling is taking place in New Hampshire.

Other reports have popped up like this:

Ken Merrifield, the mayor of Franklin, noted on Facebook last night that he was “just phone-surveyed about Jeb Bush for President.” The caller mentioned “consistent conservative twice.”

And from Erick Erickson:

Third person today tells me they got polled in New Hampshire and the list of candidates was Romney, Newt, and Jeb Bush.

So is this just a firm like PPP trolling for dissatisfaction, or is the hope of a late entry alive once more?

A week ago Newt Gingrich offered another musing attack on Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan.  Here’s the relevant bit:

Gingrich: And in fact, Callista has known him since he was an intern, and he and I talked after Meet the Press was blown totally out of proportion. What I was saying was an answer to a very specific question which was if there’s a program which is very, very unpopular should Republican’s impose it? And my answer is no. When we pass Welfare Reform 92% of the country favored it, including 88% of people on welfare. Reagan ran to be a popular president, not to maximize suicide.

So apparently Paul Ryan’s plan was likely to “maximize suicide”.  I understand Newt’s concern.  Frankly, our world historical, fundamentally transformational figure, didn’t want to get ahead of the American people.  Well, today Ryan offered one response:

“This is not the 1990s,” Ryan says. “The ‘Mediscare’ is not working and we should not back down from this fight. I, for one, believe the country is ready, they’re hungry for it. They are ready to hear real solutions. We shouldn’t wait around for the status quo to become popular.”

Tomorrow, according to the NYT, he offers another.  A bi-partisan premium support model:

A Democratic senator, Ron Wyden of Oregon, and a Republican member of the House, Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, unveiled a bipartisan plan on Wednesday to revamp Medicare and make a fixed federal contribution to the cost of coverage for each beneficiary…

The proposal would make major structural changes in Medicare and limit the government’s open-ended financial commitment to the program.

Under the proposal, known as premium support, Medicare would subsidize premiums charged by private insurers that care for beneficiaries under contract with the government.

Congress would establish an insurance exchange for Medicare beneficiaries. Private plans would compete with the traditional Medicare program and would have to provide at least the same benefits. The federal contribution in each region would be based on the cost of the second-cheapest option, whether that was a private plan or traditional Medicare.

In addition, the growth of Medicare would be capped. In general, spending would not be allowed to increase more than the growth of the economy, plus one percentage point — a slower rate of increase than Medicare has historically experienced.

Imagine that.  Ryan led.  Pursued “right-wing social engineering”.  Committed maximum suicide.  And somehow managed to emerge, alive, and with a prominent Democratic supporter, offering up a plan that is scarcely less conservative than the one Newt condemned.  Incidentally, as Yuval Levin notes, this plan appears to be substantively identical (though more detailed) to one Romney outlined a few weeks ago.

PPP (D) New Mexico 2012 GOP Primary Poll

• Newt Gingrich 39% (6%)
• Mitt Romney 14% (18%)
• Gary Johnson 11% (13%)
• Rick Perry 8%
• Ron Paul 8% (5%)
• Michele Bachmann 6% (21%)
• Rick Santorum 3%
• Jon Huntsman 2% (4%)
• Someone else/Not sure 9% (13%)

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

• Strongly committed to that candidate 48%
• Might end up supporting someone else 52%

Second Choice

• Newt Gingrich 16%
• Michele Bachmann 13%
• Mitt Romney 12%
• Rick Perry 9%
• Gary Johnson 6%
• Ron Paul 5%
• Rick Santorum 3%
• Jon Huntsman 1%
• Someone else/Not sure 33%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Newt Gingrich 65% [53%] / 25% [30%] {+40%}
• Michele Bachmann 48% (50%) / 33% (24%) {+15%}
• Gary Johnson 49% (47%) [46%] / 37% (40%) [33%] {+12%}
• Rick Perry 46% / 38% {+8%}
• Mitt Romney 47% (50%) [56%] / 41% (31%) [29%] {+6%}
• Ron Paul 33% / 49% {-16%}

Do you consider yourself to be a member of the Tea Party?

• Yes 34%
• No 53%

Survey of 300 usual New Mexico Republican primary voters was conducted December 10-12, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 5.7 percentage points. Political ideology: 43% (43%) Very conservative; 36% (36%) Somewhat conservative; 17% (14%) Moderate; 3% (6%) Somewhat liberal; 1% (1%) Very liberal. Results from the poll conducted June 23-26, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted February 4-6, 2011 are in square brackets.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

Under the sweeping byline of “The Editors,” National Review has offered a simple message for Republican primary voters this evening: do not nominate Newt Gingrich.

We fear that to nominate former Speaker Newt Gingrich, the frontrunner in the polls, would be to blow this opportunity. We say that mindful of his opponents’ imperfections — and of his own virtues, which have been on display during his amazing comeback. Very few people with a personal history like his — two divorces, two marriages to former mistresses — have ever tried running for president. Gingrich himself has never run for a statewide office, let alone a national one, and has not run for anything since 1998. That year he was kicked out by his colleagues, the most conservative ones especially, who had lost confidence in him. During his time as Speaker, he was one of the most unpopular figures in public life. Just a few months ago his campaign seemed dead after a series of gaffes and resignations. That Gingrich now tops the polls is a tribute to his perseverance, and to Republicans’ admiration for his intellectual fecundity…

Gingrich’s colleagues were, however, right to bring his tenure to an end. His character flaws — his impulsiveness, his grandiosity, his weakness for half-baked (and not especially conservative) ideas — made him a poor Speaker of the House. Again and again he combined incendiary rhetoric with irresolute action, bringing Republicans all the political costs of a hardline position without actually taking one. Again and again he put his own interests above those of the causes he championed in public…

[T]here is reason to doubt that he has changed. Each week we see the same traits that weakened Republicans from 1995 through 1998: I’d vote for Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform; Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform is radical right-wing social engineering; I apologize for saying that, and no one should quote what I said because I was wrong; actually, what I said was right all along but nobody understood me. I helped defeat Communism; anyone who made money in the ’80s and ’90s owes me; I’m like Reagan and Thatcher. Local community boards should decide what to do with illegal immigrants. Freddie Mac paid me all that money to tell them how stupid they were. Enough. Gingrich has always said he wants to transform the country. He appears unable to transform, or even govern, himself.

The editorial goes on to discount the Perry and Bachmann candidacies as well, and says this race (read: their internal discussions as to who to endorse) ultimately comes down to three people: Huntsman, Romney, and Santorum. They promise their endorsement “in the weeks to come,” and end with this gem:

At the moment we think it important to urge Republicans to have the good sense to reject a hasty marriage to Gingrich, which would risk dissolving in acrimony.

As they say on the internets, be sure to read the whole thing.

From the Op-Ed:

And so conservatives now have a crucial choice in the most important election since 1860. They would do well to recall the good advice of William F. Buckley Jr, who said that whenever two or more candidates claiming to be ideological soul mates are seeking endorsement, conservatives should support the one most likely to win. Buckley’s admonition is doubly important, now that the 2012 Republican presidential race has become a two-man race between Romney and Gingrich. The Washington Examiner believes Romney can defeat Obama, but Gingrich cannot. And Romney the businessman is far better suited to the nation’s highest office — by temperament, experience, and cast of mind — than Gingrich the consummate Washington insider. …

~

The fact is, Gingrich is part of the problem, not part of the solution. He has tried mightily to shift attention away from his Washington insider status, saying, “I have never done lobbying of any kind.” But that claim simply does not square with the facts, especially concerning Gingrich’s lobbying Republicans in Congress for a new Medicare entitlement in 2003. As The Washington Examiner’s Timothy P. Carney reported recently, “the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America confirmed that they paid Gingrich. Bloomberg News cited sources from leading drug companies Astra Zeneca and Pfizer saying that those companies had also hired Gingrich.” Gingrich’s foundation, Center for Healthcare Transformation, received an estimated $37 million from health industry interests seeking to be heard in Washington.

~

In a race against Obama, we believe Romney will make a compelling case that he would be a strong and successful president. Here are three reasons why:

First, when Romney sat down with this newspaper’s editorial board, it became clear that he has thought long and carefully about what he would do as president and how he would do it from Day One. Just as Reagan lost in 1976, then spent the next four years methodically preparing to try again and for the day he would become president, Romney has spent the last four years thinking carefully about how he would be president.

Remember, Obama thought long and hard about getting elected president, but once there, he let Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and legions of industry lobbyists and campaign donors shape his economic stimulus program and the bulk of Obamacare. By contrast, Romney will on his first day in office send to Congress five major initiatives designed to boost job creation, and he will sign a series of executive orders designed to get government’s boot off the economy’s neck.

Second, our economy is broken. Based on his long years of experience creating thousands of jobs here in the private sector, Romney knows how to fix the economy. As he says every day on the campaign trail, “government doesn’t create jobs, the private sector does.” To that end, he promises to cut individual and corporate taxes, reform the tax code to encourage growth and investment, and expand free trade. He pledges to slash unnecessary federal regulation and unleash America’s vast energy resources to create jobs and free us from dependence on nations that are hostile to our country. He will, in short, follow in Reagan’s footsteps to get America working again.

Third, and perhaps most important, Romney will bring back to the Oval Office a faith in the ability of every individual to achieve his or her greatest hopes, and an unwavering pride in America and its limitless potential for greatness. He understands the American dream because his family has lived it. His father, George Romney, rose from humble roots to run a Detroit auto company and win election as governor of Michigan before running for the presidency. Mitt Romney made his own fortune in business, turned the floundering 2002 Winter Olympics into a financial success, and later that year won the governorship of Massachusetts. He has a capacious but disciplined intellect; he drives himself relentlessly but leads without using his whip hand; in line with Mormon practice, he gives 10 percent of his money to his church; he has been married to his high school sweetheart for 42 years and has five admirable children and 16 grandchildren.

Be sure to read the whole thing.

There’s been a lot of fun and interesting speculation recently here and elsewhere about the likelihood of a third party candidate playing a major role in the 2012 election. This is actually an issue I’ve thought a lot about, and in this post, I’ll try to sum up my thoughts, and then provide a brief ranking of those individuals who I think might actually credibly make third party runs.

There are basically three ways to run third party in the U.S. The first is to run either to the left or right of the two major parties. It’s fair to say this is almost guaranteed not to be a winning strategy, as the dramatically unsuccessful bids of Ralph Nadir and Pat Buchanan can attest. The second is to attempt to run as a bland, inoffensive centrist figure. This is an idea which most self-proclaimed moderates love in principal, but in practice, it’s difficult if not impossible to run and win with such a campaign. Bland, inoffensive centrism is great in theory, but it lacks a core constituency, and, as countless Republican and Democratic primaries have demonstrated, technocracy is far from inspiring. The third, and in my view most viable path for a would-be third party candidate is to find an under-served ideological constituency. In a two-party system, there are always going to be people who feel that their particular mix of views is unrepresented, leaving a necessary “lesser of two evils” calculation. Ross Perot ran such a campaign in 1992, and appealed to economic populists who did not resonate with Democrats on cultural issues. One could argue that John Anderson’s appeal to fiscally conservative social moderates in 1980 was similar, or one might classify him in the “bland, inoffensive centrist” category.

In my view, there are two great under-served ideological groups in the U.S. today. The first is the oft-discussed fiscally conservative, socially liberal voter. Many, both Republicans and Democrats, claim to serve such a constituency, but the reality is that, particularly among Republicans, the most moderate members of the caucus on social issues tend also to be economically more in line with Democrats as well. There are a few exceptions–Rob Simmons of Connecticut was a fiscally conservative social liberal for example–but fewer than you might think. A fiscally conservative, socially moderate candidate would probably need to create a coalition of flinty New Englanders and libertarian-leaners from the mountain west. The question, for such a candidate, would be how well he or she might play in the big states of New York and California. The second under-served ideological constituency in the U.S. is the polar opposite of the first: socially conservative economic populists. This political conjunction has deep roots in American political soil; William Jennings Bryan was such a figure as far back as the 1890s. I would argue that Ross Perot, while not a purist on so-con issues, created such a coalition. Republicans such as Chris Smith (R-nj), Thad McCotter (R-MI) and Democrats such as Bart Stupak (D-MI), Jim Oberstar (D-MN) and Dan Lippinsky (D-IL) fall into this category (you could probably also make arguments for Joe Manchin and Jason Altmeyer). This coalition would also look odd to modern eyes accustomed to the traditional two-party divide, as it would play very very well in rust belt states (OH, WI, MI, MN and PA), but could also appeal to large swaths of the African-American and Hispanic communities. In particular, studies by the Pugh Hispanic Center have consistently shown Hispanic voters to be, on average, more economically interventionist and socially conservative than the norm. This would require populists to tread very carefully on immigration, and conduct real Hispanic outreach, finding a way to be tough on border security without alienating Hispanics. However unlikely this might seem at present, stranger things–such as the defection of African-Americans to the Democrats of 1932–have happened.

Ideologically, then, what you really have in the U.S. is a four-party system, or rather four orientations. For convenience sake, I’ll identify them as conservative, liberal, libertarian and populist. (I haven’t mentioned foreign policy, because I could see credible libertarians and populists being on either side of the interventionist/non-interventionist divide). Based on this quick overview, here are my thoughts on those candidates most likely to run, and the different ideological bases to which they might appeal:

1. Gary Johnson. Likelihood of runn: High to moderate. Ideological orientation: libertarian.

A Gary Johnson run would probably be the purest expression of the fiscally conservative, socially liberal or “libertarian” orientation possible in modern American politics. Johnson, who hails from the mountain west libertarian region mentioned above, is already rumbling about a potential third party challenge, and for a pro-choice supporter of drug legalization, this is actually not a bad idea, as his candidacy is unlikely to gain much if any traction in the socially conservative GOP. The trick for Johnson would be finding a runningmate who can help him appeal, culturally, to the flinty New Englanders and Wall Street New Yorkers he’ll need to make his coalition complete. The ideal runningmate for Johnson is a pro-choice fiscal hawk from NY or CT.

2. Mike Bloomberg. Likelihood of run: moderate. Ideological orientation: centrist/liberal.

Mike Bloomberg would absolutely love to run for the brass ring; the question is: does he have a natural constituency? It’s been argued that he’s a natural fit for the fiscally conservative socially liberal crowd, but he’s really not. Anyone who earns the nickname “Nurse Bloomberg” as mayor is probably unlikely to appeal to the hard-core libertarian set. Bloomberg would essentially be the candidate of the one percent–irritated with Obama’s demonization but uncomfortable with the socially conservative GOP. If not careful, Bloomberg could easily fall into the “bland, inoffensive centrist” category, and inoffensive people stopped getting elected president after Coolidge. For Bloomberg, a certain amount of reinvention would be necessary. He’s got the money for it, if he can come up with the political will. Were he to run and try to appeal to the under-served libertarians, retired, and relatively young conservative Dan Boren might be a near ideal running mate, though there’s also something to be said for Artur Davis. Evan Bayh is very very unlikely, in my opinion, to ever shove his thumb that firmly in the party’s eye.

3. Jon Huntsman. Likelihood of run: moderate to low. Ideological orientation: moderate conservative/libertarian.

Jon Huntsman probably isn’t going to pull the trigger on a third party run. But, if he did, how would he do it? My guess: run a campaign geared at fiscally conservative social moderates, without alienating so-cons. Huntsman is in a unique position, in that he’s a pretty rock-ribbed pro-lifer who nevertheless has made a direct appeal for social moderates (witness his comments on climate change and “believing in science”). On fiscal issues, Huntsman’s economic plan is actually pretty darned conservative. He could also differentiate himself from both Obama and the GOP nominee by running on a realist foreign policy, which might pick up voters hesitant on intervention without turning off voters who think Ron Paul’s idea of foreign policy is a bridge too far. J-Hunt’s biggest problems are two-fold, and they’re related. First, moving from the Obama administration to a lackluster run at the Republican nomination to a third party run kind of looks like crass political opportunism. Second, Huntsman has still not presented a compelling justification for his breech with the Obama administration, and in a general election, he would need to do so in a way which would not alienate disillusioned Obama 2008 voters.

4. Donald Trump. Likelihood of run: moderate to low. Ideological orientation: who the heck knows/populist?

So, just for the sake of argument, let’s assume the Donald’s flirtation with politics isn’t the combination of boredom and ego trip we all assume it to be at present? How would Trump actually run? Given everything we’ve heard from him thus far, he seems inclined to go for the populist mantle. You don’t bash trade with China if you’re trying to appeal to the creative jet-setting class, you do it if you’re going for the rust belt. Clearly, the Donald could fund such a campaign, and it’s very plausible that he could bang the populist drum. But, remember, social conservatism is the second essential ingredient of the populist stew. And on that score, I don’t really see Trump making the sale. Social conservatives are likely to look at his somewhat colorful and checkered personal history and…fire him from their personal consideration.

5. Virgil Good. Likelihood of run: high to moderate. Ideological orientation: populist.

Virgil Good was the classic southern Democrat-turned-Republican, but his threat to run third party in 2010 for his old house seat in Virginia (Good lost by like 600 votes to Tom Perillo in 2008) shows that the Republican turn might not have fully stuck. Good has been sorta kinda flirting with the Constitution Party this winter. If Good did pull the trigger, he’d have two options: try to run to the right of the GOP nominee, or embrace the populist mantle full-on. I think the latter is far more likely, given Virgil’s past history. Good’s problems? First, lack of name recognition. Second, his previous record of immigration nativism might make him a hard cell to Hispanics, and for a populist presidential candidate, such a cell would be an essential part of coalition-building.

To be clear, I’m about 99.9999 percent certain I’ll be voting for the Republican nominee in November 2012. But the potential for third-party runs are the stuff of political junkie’s dreams. And given the incredibly high levels of public dissatisfaction with the two parties right now, I think we’re rapidly approaching the point at which a credible third party candidate can actually run and win. Rightly or wrongly, the public has a “pox on both their houses” attitude toward the two parties, as the three wave elections in a row we’ve just experienced should tell you. But turning that general dissatisfaction into a real, viable third party candidacy would be a very very tall order.

Have I missed any candidates or misidentified any political coalitions? Let me know in the comments.

PPP (D) Virginia 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 48% (47%) {51%} [48%] (48%)
• Mitt Romney 42% (43%) {40%} [42%] (43%)

• Barack Obama 50% {54%} [51%] (52%)
• Newt Gingrich 43% {37%} [39%] (41%)

• Barack Obama 48%
• Ron Paul 40%

• Barack Obama 51% (48%)
• Rick Perry 41% (39%)

• Barack Obama 52% (49%)
• Michele Bachmann 39% (40%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Mitt Romney 33% (34%) {35%} [33%] (33%) / 52% (49%) {43%} [48%] (46%) {-19%}
• Newt Gingrich 31% {26%} [29%] (32%) / 55% {54%} [56%] (53%) {-24%}
• Michele Bachmann 28% (30%) / 53% (49%) {-25%}
• Ron Paul 21% / 57% {-36%}
• Rick Perry 20% (25%) / 61% (35%) {-41%}

Do you approve or disapprove of President Barack Obama’s job performance?

• Approve 48% (47%) {51%} [48%] (50%)
• Disapprove 47% (48%) {44%} [45%] (45%)

Survey of 600 Virginia voters was conducted December 11-13, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 4.0 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 36% (36%) {34%} [34%] (35%) Republican; 33% (35%) {37%} [39%] (36%) Democrat; 31% (30%) {29%} [27%] (30%) Independent/Other. Political ideology: 34% (30%) {31%} [32%] Moderate; 24% (21%) {22%} [25%] Somewhat conservative; 18% (20%) {21%} [16%] Very conservative; 15% (18%) {18%} [16%] Somewhat liberal; 9% (11%) {8%} [11%] Very liberal. Results from the poll conducted July 21-24, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted May 5-8, 2011 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted February 24-27, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted November 10-13, 2010 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

Gallup 2012 GOP Nomination Daily Tracking Poll

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

Survey of at least 1,000 registered Republicans and Republican-leaning independents was conducted December 9-13, 2011. The margin of error is ± 3 percentage points. 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 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 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

Rasmussen 2012 Presidential Poll

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

Survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted December 12-13, 2011.  The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.  Results from the poll conducted December 6-7, 2011 are in parentheses.  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

Susquehanna (R) Pennsylvania 2012 GOP Primary Poll

• Newt Gingrich 35%
• Mitt Romney 18%
• Rick Santorum 18%
• Ron Paul 8%
• Michele Bachmann 6%
• Rick Perry 2%
• Undecided 14%

Survey of 1,106 registered Republican voters was conducted December 7-11, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 2.95 percentage points

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

PPIC California 2012 GOP Primary Poll

• Newt Gingrich 33%
• Mitt Romney 25%
• Ron Paul 9%
• Michele Bachmann 7%
• Rick Perry 4%
• Rick Santorum 4%
• Jon Huntsman 2%
• Someone else 1%
• Don’t know 16%

Survey of 286 likely GOP primary voters was conducted November 29 – December 5, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 8.1 percentage points.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

The turmoil of the Republican nomination process, and the unhappiness of a large part of the party with all the choices, has led to recent speculation that we might have a brokered convention and/or the nominee might be someone not in the current field.

In the interests of full disclosure, I must note that I am not an unbiased observer on this point, since I count myself among those who look at the current field with disappointment (well, okay, ‘disappointment’ is a weak word – ‘revulsion’ is more like it).

Sean Trende assessed the possibility of a brokered convention, and rated the chances as low, which I think is fair. But that there is any realistic chance is remarkable – it has been sixty years since either party’s convention has gone past the first ballot.

So what are the factors that could cause a brokered convention this time?

• The two leading candidates are deeply flawed in the eyes of many in the party
• A substantial portion of the delegates will be selected by proportional methods
• There is a strong third candidate (Ron Paul) who has the resources and the will to stay in to the bitter end

The factor that, added to the above, may mean a late entrant has a chance to emerge as the nominee from a brokered convention is that the nominating process is back-loaded.

• Several large states are going late, with winner-take-all delegations
• A significant number of states have relatively late filing deadlines

Let’s examine that last point first, because it brings into question the idea that it is now impossible to enter the race. Let’s say that someone decided to enter after Iowa and New Hampshire (it would, of course, have to be someone who has the name and the establishment support to credibly do so). The following fifteen states have filing deadlines three weeks or more after New Hampshire votes, giving time (maybe) to get on the ballot:

• Arkansas (3/1 deadline) – 36 delegates
• California (3/23) – 172
• Connecticut (3/2) – 28
• Delaware (2/24) – 17
• Indiana (2/10) – 46
• Kentucky (1/31) – 45
• Montana (3/12) – 26
• Nebraska (3/7) – 35
• New Jersey (4/2) – 50
• New Mexico (3/16) – 23
• New York (2/9) – 95
• Oregon (3/6) – 29
• Pennsylvania (2/14) – 72
• South Dakota (3/27) – 28
• Utah (3/15) – 40

These states have a total of 742 delegates and most vote in April-June, giving a new candidate time to campaign. The strategy would probably be to concentrate on New York and Pennsylvania, which vote in April. Victories there would lead to May-June wins in other states (see the chart on Sean’s article for voting dates). A candidate who captured a big piece of the 742 delegates could prevent anyone else from getting the nomination and would go to the convention with a strong argument as to why he (to randomly select a pronoun) should be the compromise choice.

Let’s say that when the dust settles in June, the scoreboard looks something like this:

• 800 Gingrich
• 800 Romney
• 400 Late Entrant
• 200 Paul
• 88 Everybody Else

In this scenario, Romney and Gingrich have so soiled each other that they are unacceptable to too much of the party and are too wounded to battle Obama. After a nasty campaign, it’s unlikely that 350 Romney delegates could be persuaded to switch to Gingrich, or vice versa. That leaves Late Entrant and Paul. We know it won’t be Paul, so …

As the headline should make clear, this is not a prediction. I’m not even saying it is at all likely. But I do think it is just barely possible, and its slim chances seem to be growing.

This has been the strangest campaign I’ve seen in my five decades of following politics. There’s no reason to think it can’t get weirder still.

One final point: Can we put a name to the Late Entrant? The obvious choices are Daniels, Christie, Ryan, and Jindal. My pick, of course, would be Daniels, but unless the Women’s Caucus of the Daniels household has had an epiphany, that isn’t happening. Christie has endorsed Romney and this scenario involves Romney staying in all the way (I don’t see a brokered convention if he’s knocked out early), so eliminate Christie.

Jindal would be possible if Perry is eliminated after Iowa or New Hampshire. Ryan has not endorsed, so he could still get in. John Thune? Suggestions are welcomed.

Here are a few other assessments of the chances for a brokered convention or a Late Entrant: Brian Bolduc in National Review, Rhodes Cook at the Crystal Ball, Nate Silver at NYT.

Quin Hillyer, who has been a voice of sanity in this Brave Newt World we seem to have stumbled into, has a new post recommending something I’ve been calling for since the beginning of the primary process: a Bobby Jindal Presidential candidacy.  He writes:

Talk is heating up about the need for a new entrant in the Republican presidential sweepstakes…

A name I am increasingly hearing is that of Bobby Jindal, subject of glowing reviews in the past three or so months by Fred Barnes, Jim Geraghty, Michael Barone, Chris Cillizza,  and Yours Truly.

Here’s the key thing: There is not an elected official in the country who knows health care policy as well as Jindal, and once the Supreme Court decides the Obamacare case, health care will be front and center in the campaign…If Republicans want somebody who not only will oppose Obamacare (that’s an easy thing to do), but also to be able to outline a positive alternative and explain it understandably, nobody, not even Paul Ryan, can do it better than Bobby Jindal.

Rhodes Cook, of Sabato’s Crystal Ball, lays out a lengthy case for why a late entrant, even now, could win the nomination.  He writes:

But next year, the arrangement of the primary calendar is much different. It is less condensed at the front, much more loaded with events at the back, with the prospect of a viable, late-starting candidate quite real…

But the elongated layout of the nominating calendar this time provides the opportunity for a late-starting candidate to emerge. Should Mitt Romney stumble badly in the January events in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida, another establishment Republican could enter the race in early February and still compete directly in states with at least 1,200 of the 2,282 or so GOP delegates. Many of them will be up for grabs after April 1 when statewide winner-take-all is possible.

Here’s his eye-popping chart on the delegate counts.

That’s right: nearly 60% of the delegates are awarded after March 6th.  A late entry with the right profile- someone able to raise, say, 15 million for a non-competitive re-election bid- could plausibly steal enough delegates to send the race to the second ballot.  At which point, the established candidates, bruised and broken by over a year of negative campaigning, would be distinct underdogs.

As it turns out, today is the 4 year anniversary of my 2008 endorsement.  This should come as no surprise to those who follow the comments section but, if my primary were held today, I would cast the same ballot.  Holman Jenkins’ WSJ editorial does a good job of  highlighting why, between Romney and Gingrich- two peas in a pod in many respects- Romney is the obvious choice.  Here’s the key section:

Our world that’s coming is a world of narrowing, not widening, choices. It’s a world that suits Mr. Romney’s skills and history, his knack for operating within constraints and making choices based on data, data, data. Mr. Obama lives in the same world, of course, but is unequipped to deal with it given his dubious gifts for execution, execution, execution. Also, given his inclination to seek refuge in a clueless reverie of big new programs at a time when the resources simply don’t exist.

Nor is there a Big Idea that can transform our unhappy prospects. Lunar mining will not rescue Medicare. People like Mr. Gingrich play a useful role in politics: It’s good to be able to talk thrillingly about history, civilization. But they make bad—perhaps we should say, unnecessary—presidents. When ideas are new and unfamiliar, they’re not executable. When they’re executable we need people who can execute.

The consensus for painful reform comes when the status quo hits the wall. It’s a myth that we don’t know what our choices are. That’s the Romney moment. His strong suit has always been to do what everyone else has put off.

Yet, execution doesn’t convince skeptics or fire-up troops; it doesn’t speak to steadiness or conviction; it doesn’t win hearts.  In politics, “moments” are created as much by voters as candidates.  Romney, like Mr. Gingrich, has made too many compromises and calculations.  Romney, like Mr. Gingrich, has sacrificed the public weal for easy encomiums.  We may not need Big Ideas but we need Big Men.  Whatever Romney has been in his private life, in public he has not been Big.  Not Big enough.  Not for these times.  If the Republican Party sours on Gingrich, as they should, and remains sour on Romney, as they may, maybe we’ll have an opportunity to elect a Big Man.  Bobby Jindal is as good a candidate as any.

Reuters/Ipsos 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 48% {43%} [49%] (48%)
• Mitt Romney 40% {44%} [43%] (40%)

• Barack Obama 51%
• Newt Gingrich 38%

• Barack Obama 50% {47%} [50%]
• Rick Perry 37% {41%} [42%]

Survey of 921 registered voters was conducted December 8-12, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 3.2 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted October 31 – November 3, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted September 8-12, 2011 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted May 5-9, 2011 are in parentheses.

Reuters/Ipsos 2012 GOP Nomination Poll

• Newt Gingrich 25% [7%] (4%)
• Mitt Romney 18% [21%] (18%)
• Rick Perry 12% [9%] (5%)
• Ron Paul 12% [12%] (8%)
• Michele Bachmann 8% [5%] (5%)
• Jon Huntsman 4% [2%] (2%)
• Rick Santorum 4%
• None/Other 6% [9%] (11%)
• Don’t know/Not sure 10% [13%] (18%)

Among Republicans Only

• Newt Gingrich 28% [7%] (6%)
• Mitt Romney 18% [23%] (20%)
• Rick Perry 12% [10%] (6%)
• Ron Paul 12% [13%] (7%)
• Michele Bachmann 10% [5%] (6%)
• Jon Huntsman 5% [2%] (2%)
• Rick Santorum 4%
• None/Other 4% [7%] (8%)
• Don’t know/Not sure 8% [13%] (13%)

Regardless of your personal preference, if the Republican Presidential Primaries came down to these two candidates, for which one would you vote?

• Newt Gingrich 48%
• Mitt Romney 38%

Among Republicans Only

• Newt Gingrich 52%
• Mitt Romney 39%

Survey of 510 registered Republicans and GOP-leaning independent voters, was conducted December 8-12, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 4.7 percentage points among Republicans.  Results from the poll conducted October 6-10, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted June 3-6, 2011 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

AP-GfK 2012 Presidential Survey

REPUBLICAN NOMINATION

• Newt Gingrich 33% [7%]
• Mitt Romney 27% [30%]
• Michele Bachmann 9% [4%]
• Ron Paul 9% [8%]
• Rick Perry 6% [13%]
• Rick Santorum 3% [2%]
• Jon Huntsman 2% [2%]
• None of them (Vol) 6% [2%]
• Don’t know (Vol) 6% [7%]

GENERAL ELECTION

• Barack Obama 47% [48%]
• Mitt Romney 46% [45%]

• Barack Obama 51%
• Newt Gingrich 42%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Mitt Romney 48% [49%] (39%) {45%} [45%] (41%) / 39% [37%] (41%) {35%} [35%] (33%) {+9%}
• Ron Paul 37% [38%] (37%) {39%} [36%] / 36% [35%] (36%) {31%} [35%] {+1%}
• Jon Huntsman 26% [22%] (17%) {18%} [18%] (19%) / 30% [28%] (28%) {21%} [15%] (14%) {-4%}
• Rick Santorum 25% [25%] (20%) {25%} [24%] (23%) / 31% [32%] (31%) {27%} [25%] (21%) {-6%}
• Newt Gingrich 40% [35%] (27%) {26%} [35%] (40%) / 47% [51%] (57%) {59%} [47%] (42%){-7%}
• Michele Bachmann 32% [35%] (35%) {37%} [30%] (30%) / 45% [44%] (43%) {28%} [29%] (27%) {-13%}
• Rick Perry 28% [38%] (33%) {22%} / 49% [44%] (36%) {25%} {-21%}

Survey of 1,000 adults (80% of whom are registered to vote), including a subsample of 460 Republicans and GOP-leaning independents, was conducted December 8-12, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points among all adults. Results from the poll conducted October 13-17, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted August 18-22, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted June 16-20, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted May 5-9, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted March 24-28, 2011 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

While former Governor Romney’s victory in the 2002 MA governor’s race was a nice victory at the time for the GOP, it was not really all that out of the ordinary as some like Ann Coulter are making it out to be.  As Philip Klein points out, the GOP had won the MA governor’s mansion for the three prior elections running up to Romney’s victory in 2002.

To be sure, there are arguments you can make as to why Romney could win the presidency. But whatever arguments there are in favor of Romney’s chances of beating Obama, his 2002 victory in Massachusetts is not a good indicator, for two primary reasons. One, even though Massachusetts is a very liberal state, it isn’t unheard of for voters there to elect Republican governors. In fact, Romney’s 2002 election was the last in a a string of GOP victories in Massachusetts gubernatorial races dating back to 1990 — William Weld winning two of them and Paul Cellucci winning one. Weld was actually reelected in 1994 with 71 percent of the vote, the same year Romney lost his Senate race to Ted Kennedy by 17 points. This isn’t a knock on Romney’s performance in 1994, by the way, I’m just pointing out that it wasn’t unheard of for Massachusetts citizens to vote for Republican governors while electing Democrats by wide margins in federal races.

This morning in an interview on FOX News, Mitt Romney directly and strongly responded to Newt Gingrich’s surprising and ill-advised attack against Romney’s time at Bain Capital – and Romney masterfully used the attack to reinforce a powerful contrast between himself and the Speaker:

Gingrich “doesn’t understand the economy if he doesn’t understand that sometimes businesses succeed and sometimes businesses fail.
It is, after all, the distinguishing feature in my background that, unlike Speaker Gingrich who spent his life in Washington, I spent my life creating jobs.”

As investors digest Gingrich’s comments, they are increasingly bearish on Newt’s chances. Despite some positive poll numbers (including hitting 40% nationally), Gingrich has collapsed nearly ten points on the Intrade boards in just the past two days, while Romney has rebounded up – re-opening the twenty-point lead he once held over Gingrich. This represents a 16-point swing in Romney’s favor over the past couple of days. The question now is: how much longer until Gingrich’s poll numbers follow suit? Intrade predicted the Perry and Cain collapses about two weeks before they showed up in the polls.

USA Today/Gallup 2012 Presidential Survey

NATIONAL

• Barack Obama 47% {47%} [47%] (46%)
• Mitt Romney 46% {47%} [49%] (48%)

• Barack Obama 50%
• Newt Gingrich 44%

SWING STATES

• Mitt Romney 48%
• Barack Obama 43% 

• Newt Gingrich 48%
• Barack Obama 45%

National survey of 883 registered voters was conducted December 6-7, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points.  Swing state survey of 1,132 registered voters, living in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin, was conducted November 30 – December 7, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted October 26-27, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted September 15-18, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted August 17-18, 2011 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

The Romney Campaign released a new attack ad against former Speaker Newt Gingrich, hitting the Georgia republican on his climate change advocacy with Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi and it’s connection to former Vice President Al Gore.

Team Romney also unveiled a new website, www.NewtandNancy.com, that continues the line of attack coined from Rep. Paul Ryan, “With friends like Newt, who needs The Left”, as well as www.unreliableleader.com.

As segments of the GOP have moved more towards Paul’s views we have the first rumblings that he could actually pull off a win. Internal polling from Mitt Romney and Rick Perry shows Newt Gingrich slipping, according to Politico.

“Sources didn’t provide specific numbers on how far he’s slipped, but it’s perceptible in both camps’ numbers… The person who is holding strong, according to the internal numbers, is Paul, who has a true shot of winning the caucuses, according to several Iowa Republican insiders surveying ground games and energy.”