In the last few Presidential elections the majority of candidates have been incumbents to some office (Governor, Senator, Vice President) when they ran for office.

However it looks like none of the 2012 Republican candidates will be officeholders.

Palin has bowed out.

Huckabee, Romney, Pawlenty will all be former Governors.

Haley Barbour’s term as Governor ends in 2011. Jindal’s term ends the same time making it unlikely he’d run for re-election _and_ the GOP nomination at the same time.

Are there any realistic 2012 nominees who may run from a sitting office?

I’ve heard Rudy mentioned but I think it’s unlikely he’ll run for Governor then leave his state to run for President a few weeks after being sworn in. That’s ignoring the likelihood that he isn’t Governor of New York in 2011.

Here are a few of my thoughts on what today’s surprise announcement means for the 2012 Republican nomination contest. I hope that everyone who reads this post remembers that I have not endorsed any candidate in this race, and feel I that I am quite far from being able to make that decision.

Question: So does this move mean that Sarah Palin is really running for President? I am hearing reports that she is done with politics…

Answer: Sarah Palin is, without a doubt, running for president in 2012. Disavow yourself of any notions to the contrary right now. Her speech today was, essentially, the first speech of her presidential campaign. She would not have dismissed Bill McAlister and replaced him with a spokesman who she felt was better able to handle the national media if she was through with politics.

You can also dismiss any rumor emanating from the MSM that Palin is through with politics, as these are likely intentional misdirections from Palin allies who undoubtedly keeled over with laughter upon seeing them reported on MSNBC.

Question: So why couldn’t Palin fulfill her term AND run for president in 2012?  Doesn’t there just have to be some scandal that is ready to break that would derail her governorship, prompting this move?

Answer: It is highly unlikely that there is a scandal on the horizon that prompted Palin to resign. Sarah Palin is a fighter would would be far more likely to remain in office and fight to clear her name that to run away into private life.

The answer to this question is actually rather simple. Palin knows that she will need to spend a great deal of time traveling the country in 2010 to campaign for Republican candidates. It is by this process that political capital is amassed and critical future endorsements are sealed. The problem is that she simply cannot do this while she is Governor of Alaska due to the time it takes to travel to the “Lower 48.”

Think about how much time it would take for her to travel and campaign for someone in Iowa: a commercial flight lasts over seven-hours one-way from Anchorage to Des Moines (and Gov. Palin does insist on traveling economy class on commercial flights for non-Alaska related business.) This means that she would spend nearly 15 hours just in travel time for a campaign stop in Iowa! It is twelve-hours one-way from Alaska to New Hampshire. So there is simply no way that Sarah Palin could campaign for Republican candidates across the nation while being Governor of Alaska.

This is the reason that she is resigning, not just announcing that she will only serve one-term. Her resignation is, in fact, the slam-dunk evidence that she is all in for 2012 (although I have no doubt that a desire to get her family out of the headlines is a strong motivating force for her as well.)

Question: Won’t resigning before serving a full-term hurt her presidential aspirations?

Answer: The current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue was a U.S. Senator for a year and change before ditching that job to run for President full-time. Obama’s election should end the argument for significant experience in public service as a requisite for running for president for the near future.

Palin has been governor for two-and-a-half years now. That compares very favorably with Obama’s career experience before assuming the presidency.

It is an open question as to how her decision to not fulfill a full-term of the job she was elected to will be perceived by voters. However, for the reasons I outlined above, Palin really had no choice but to resign if she wanted to run in 2012.

Question: So now that we know that Sarah Palin is running for President, what effect do you think this will have on the GOP primary race itself? Does any candidate have a clear path to the nomination?

Answer: It is hard to speculate until we know what the 2012 primary calendar will be, which we won’t know for some time. What if the California and Michigan primaries are held in May? Or the Florida Primary is in June? Will the Michigan Primary return to its more formal, later date?

I think we can surmise a few things at even this early date:

First off, a primary calendar along the lines of 2008, with many high delegate Northeastern states plus California following the first four contests of IA, NH, NV & SC, would help Mitt Romney against Sarah Palin quite a bit. However, it is extremely unlikely that the 2008 calendar with be repeated in 2012 with no serious Democratic primary contest. The frontloading phenomenon that made a Super-Duper Tuesday possible in 2008 was the product of a bipartisan effort in various state legislatures. There is no reason for Democrats to collaborate with Republicans this time around to re-create such a calendar.

Secondly, Mitt Romney’s path to the nomination mirrors John McCain’s. It is fairly easy to imagine Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee canceling each other out in the race (as Huck, Fred, and Romney did the last time) allowing Mitt Romney to win the nomination by reassembling the majority coalition that propelled John McCain to the nomination.

This will require Gov. Romney to adopt a different tone in this campaign than the one he did the last time around. Can he be the brilliant, innovative, competent and technocractic problem-solver that we thought he’d campaign as in 2008? Or will he once again decide to try to fight outside of his arena in a futile effort to become the candidate of social conservatives (anyone remember the government mandated anti-porn V-Chips in every computer sold in America?)  Romney will find even less success in this effort this time around against Sarah Palin–of this I can be sure.

Thirdly, this move by Palin makes Mike Huckabee the most important person in Republican politics for the time being, as the impact of his decision regarding whether to run for President will profoundly alter the race.

If he runs, he will likely engage Sarah Palin in a fight to the death over the Conservative Wing of the GOP, which in turn leads to a scenario where absolutely anything can happen. Who wins Iowa if Huckabee runs? Who wins South Carolina? What happens if Romney, as expected, carries New Hampshire and Nevada easily while Palin and Huckabee expend a tremendous amount of their resources to win IA and SC? Does Huckabee’s entrance into the race ensure that Mitt Romney travels the “McCain Path” to the GOP nomination?

Question: Could Huckabee’s refusal to run in 2012 result in a Sarah Palin landslide in route to the Republican nomination?

Answer: Well, there is an argument to be made that it could.

Palin without Huckabee in the race would likely dominate among self-identified “conservatives” (leading, perhaps, to the ironic scenario in which Romney supporters champion open primaries after decrying them in 2008.)

The Iowa Supreme Court’s decision to legalize Gay Marriage makes it even harder for Romney to win Iowa this time around, as the most active traditional marriage advocates in Iowa are already highly suspicious of Romney’s actions as Governor of Massachusetts when Gay Marriage became legal in that state on his watch (although there are rumors that these same people are less than thrilled with Palin after her recent Alaskan Supreme Court  nomination–and, of course, there is really nothing more that could have been done by Gov. Romney after the MA Supreme court ruling.)

Gov. Romney also faces a major hurdle in South Carolina, which has been the definitive contest in the GOP nomination race since 1980. Many expected him to fair well there after gaining the endorsement of Sen. Jim DeMint, as well as allocating significant financial resources to the state. However, Gov. Romney was forced to resign from the contest in the week leading up to the primary, which resulted in a disappointing 4th place finish.

So if Palin is greatly favored to win IA and SC in a “Huckless” primary fight, why shouldn’t she be favored to win the nomination outright? Especially considering the fact that she will be armed with the resources to match Romney penny-for-penny in organizing the caucus states (as well as with the lesson learned by Hillary Clinton regarding the importance of this.)

The answer, I think, is that many Republicans will be able to imagine Mitt Romney defeating the sitting President of the United States in the debates. An event, where it to come to pass, that could play as big a role in Republican victory as Ronald Reagan’s defeat of President Jimmy Carter in their sole debate of the 1980 election.

I think that it is more difficult for rank-in-file Republicans to image Sarah Palin giving such a performance at this point in time. That does not mean that she is incapable of such a performance, however, should her dominating performances in the 2006 Alaskan Gubernatorial debates be any guide.

The bottom line is that it is a long, long, ways until 2012–and there are certainly events yet to unfold that will profoundly influence the race (Newt Gingrich’s eventual entrance for example.)

But one of the most significant events of this race did indeed unfold today, July 3rd, 2009.  For it is this day that we gained the knowledge that Sarah Palin was, indeed, going to run for President.

___________________________________________________________________________

This post is dedicated to the memory of Dean Barnett, who was the originator of the FAQ format in the Blogosphere.-KWN

Michael Barone has a new piece over at the American titled “The GOP’s Real Problems for 2012″. He writes:

Nonetheless I still think Republicans are going to have a hard time coming up with a strong presidential nominee in 2012, as I reflect on their difficulty in doing so in 2008. For as I look back on that Republican nominating contest, it seems to me that none of the Republican candidates had a good strategy for winning the nomination. And if a candidate does not win the nomination, it does not really matter how strong he (or she) would be in the general election.

Sensible enough huh?  He then lays out 5 implications for 2012, based on each of the major candidates’ 2008 runs. 

1.  (From McCain):  you can’t hope to win by waiting for every other candidate’s strategy to fail unless you have an in with Lady Luck.

2.  (From Rudy):  You cannot wait too long to compete. If you bypass New Hampshire, you must compete in Iowa, or vice versa, or very soon thereafter.

3.  (From teh Fred):  Either compete strongly and early enough in Iowa to make a good showing in the straw poll or stay out of Iowa altogether (as John McCain did, to not significant detriment, in 2000 and effectively did, to no significant detriment, in 2008).

4.  (From Huckabee):  Huckabee or a candidate with a similar profile can corner the votes of evangelical and born-again Christians and, starting with Iowa, can round up a significant number of delegates…But otherwise he is in the position of Jesse Jackson in the 1984 and 1988 Democratic contests, able to run a significant second or third thanks to strong support from one of the party’s core constituencies but unable to run first.

5.  (From Romney): Run as yourself. Emphasize your strengths and avoid contests that are not suited to them. This will not guarantee victory, but it will make a victory in the battle for the nomination worth more in the general election, since you will not have to visibly pirouette from appealing to a relatively narrow primary electorate to the much broader (and potentially expandable) electorate you will face in the fall.

This is all pretty good advice, but I worry about the underlying argument; that Republican possibilities are likely to be weak general election candidates because they ran poor primary campaigns.  In the first place, I’m not sure Barone is right about his individual criticisms (and read the whole article to see exactly what he has to say).  It’s obvious, of course, that Rudy shouldn’t have held everything til Flordia.  It’s more obvious in retrospect, but it wasn’t exactly hard to figure out even then.  Plenty of folks who wished Rudy no ill (myself included) pointed out the strategic flaw months before everything broke down.  Still.  His strategy was, in large part, dictated by his circumstances.  When you’re a gun-control supporting, pro-choice, city-dwelling, hawk, you’re bound to struggle in Christian Iowa or dovish, libertarian New Hampshire. 

Clearly Romney’s attempt to position himself as THE conservative floundered, and left him wearing two scarlett F’s on his neatly tailored suit.  Still.  When you’re a Massachusetts Mormon in a party dominated by Southern Christians, playing the moderate isn’t exactly a great long-term strategy. 

Undoubtedly Mike Huckabee was hurt by the narrowness of the pastor tag.  Still.  He was a pastor.  Even when he dropped the Onward Christian Soldier stuff, and adopted the Friendly Neighbor Looking Out for the Little Guy schtick, he was still seen as Pastor Mike. 

A lot of these criticisms are not examples of flawed campaigns, but rather of flawed candidates.  No matter how you rolled the Massachusetts Mormon dice, in 2008, in the Republican Party, you just weren’t likely to hit a 7 or 11.  While candidates aren’t slaves to their environment, they can’t simply re-write their careers and lives to fit a new situation. 

So in one sense Barone is right enough: we simply don’t have many potential candidates who are in a good position to naturally do the sort of things necessary to both win over the current Republican electorate, and put together a campaign strategy which gels with the moment.  Retreads like Huckabee and Romney and Palin may be slightly better fits in 2012, but it ought to be clear by now that they won’t be perfect fits.  Heading into 2012, we need to look for a candidate who’s already, more or less, where he needs to be to meet the moment.  Our success, or lack thereof, on that front will dictate both our campaign strategy and our “problems”.

First, a word about what elitism is not. I’m not sure whether it’s my lack of clarity in writing or because populists have preconceived notion about what an elitist is that they have trouble discarding — perhaps it’s a little of both — but there seems to be a lot of misconceptions about my line of thinking.

In my last post, I tried to clarify my thoughts on Sarah Palin’s populism in relation to Benjamin Franklin’s elitism. I went to great lengths to assure Adam Graham that it had absolutely nothing to do with her lack of formal education — which I think is largely a waste of time to the self-motivated man — but everything to do with her lack of pursuit of excellence. Kavon immediately replied to me, saying that I would probably think less of him (or of Ronald Reagan) because of his lack of formal education.

Um…

Elitism, in its virtuous form, is a state of mind. It is about setting one’s self apart from the masses to pursue intelligence, wisdom, achievement, and excellence. It is not content with simply being satisfied with one’s birth lot, but is always striving to reach the next step on the ladder. It is self-reliant. It is morally searching and fearless, and rejects misguided notions of egalitarianism. A professional truck driver who philosophizes on the side, partakes in learned and intellectually honest political debate online, and builds a comfortable life for himself can potentially be an elitist. A professor who advocates reparations for slavery, postmodern Marxism, and single-payer health care may not be.

Modern liberalism and virtuous elitism are incompatible. Modern liberalism spits upon productive achievement, fetishizes egalitarianism, and celebrates the average rather than the exceptional.

So does populist ‘conservatism.’

There is nothing wrong with being a ‘Joe Six-Pack,’ necessarily, but why glorify his experiences? Why say that being a professor, a senator, a political consultant, a reporter — is not a “real job”? Despite the abundance of high-profile exceptions, most people actually work their way up from the bottom to be senators, governors, and even presidents. Instead of using her position to speak of the virtues of exceptionalism, Sarah Palin has used her position to tell the lower classes to, essentially, be content with their lot. That there’s something virtuous in their experiences. [Edit: And that Adam Graham thinks that Veterans' Day is not a celebration of excellence is appalling.]

It’s ironic that populist conservatives claim to admire the Founding Fathers — they were no Joe Six-Packs. They were penetrating thinkers, accomplished authors, philosophers, seasoned statesmen.

The point is not, to echo my earlier statement, that there are lots of neo-Franklins running around. It’s that Sarah Palin shows absolutely no desire to emulate the ideal of Franklin. She’s not even bothering, according to people like William Kristol, to consult with foreign policy experts in preparation for her 2012 run. So I suppose she’s just going to wing it. I don’t think it makes me some sort of snob to suggest that our commander-in-chief should know a thing or two about foreign policy before entering the Oval Office. (Note that I said know a thing or two. I did not say have served in a high-ranking university position concerning foreign policy.)

Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina — these men and women have shown that they care about the Franklin Ideal. They are men and women of excellence, regardless of what you want to say about their politics. They have their low points — both personally and in their politics — but they do not rebuke the virtuous elitist ideal; they have an unquenchable desire to excel.

That is what I want to see in our candidates: a desire to excel.

And that’s what makes me so depressed about the rise of Sarah Palin.

There’s much to debate in Alex’s post on Benjamin Franklin.

I could, I suppose right a snarky and sarcastic post writing how party elites would never support Abraham Lincoln today due to Lincoln’s lack of formal education and use that as an argument to suggest that the Republican Party needs to reject the Mitt Romneys of the world in order to choose candidates who only have three years of formal education.

In essence, the argument seems to be that elitism is good in and of itself. It certainly isn’t. The elites are not just the Founding Fathers, but every aristocracy that has ever trod the face of Planet Earth. To defend elitism as virtuous in itself would be to defend the tyranny of kings throughout the ages and every regime.

Was the Tamany Hall machine in New York good because it was elite? What about the Daley Machine in Chicago? Certainly, the elite can be wise and intelligent, it can also be crass, boorish, and selfish. An elite is no greater than its character and no greater than the values it represents.

Of the Founding Fathers and current politicians, Alex writes:

But the elitism of the Founders is why we’re supposed to admire them. They were intellectuals. Men of distinction. men of both word and action. Men who, on the whole, were both virtuous and slayers of established dogma. Pick up The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin — or a copy of Poor Richard’s Almanack, even. Even making adjustments for the archaic writing, can you imagine Sarah Palin writing such a tome? Of course you can’t. Not even she can. That’s why she hired a ghostwriter.

No, I can’t imagine Sarah Palin writing as well as Benjamin Franklin, and I can’t imagine George Will or Rudy Giuliani doing it either. There is no analog to compare Franklin. No comparison will come off favorably, or anything less than abysmal for the person who is being compared.  So thus, the thrust of the piece was to compare people to the founders without actually bringing out someone who was worthy to even shine Ben Franklin’s shoes.

The worst comparsion, one can make in defense of today’s party elite is to the Founding Fathers as today’s elites are a bunch of shallow, oversexed, unprincipled midgets whose letters and learning are being used to no end but the unwitting destruction of the work of giants.  

The great wisdom of the Founders fills volumes. The great wisdom of today’s elites could be copied on to a matchbook.

In 18 point font.

In more Iowa buzz, Mike Pence has plans to appear at an event in Cedar Rapids on July 24th.  Perhaps he’ll take the role of the obligatory Congressman in the mix of 2012 candidates.

Today, Dick Cheney gave his two cents on possible future Republican presidential candidates:

But I think from the standpoint of the party, we’ve got some great talent out there, young people coming along that are going to do a superb job. I always remind people that in adversity, there’s opportunity. You get people like Paul Ryan from Wisconsin, Rob Portman from Ohio, Jon Huntsman from Utah and so forth. We’ve got some very talented folks coming along. And I think that it’s just a matter of time before the party begins to sort of  firm up around a few key individuals, and we’ll hear big things from them in the future.

Unless public opinion shifts dramatically in the near future, Portman would experience tremendous difficulty in overcoming the Scarlet B(ush) opponents would attach to him.  Many people have already discussed Huntsman’s viability.  I would argue that Ryan holds the most promise of Cheney’s trio.  He deserves a prominent role in the party’s rebuilding effort.

As people have mentioned in the comments sections, Gov. Pawlenty has stated that he will accept the Minnesota Supreme Court’s ruling on the Coleman-Franken ballot battle:

“I’m going to follow the direction of the court,” he said during an appearance on CNN. “We expect that ruling any day now. I also expect them to give guidance and direction as to the certificate of election. I’m prepared to sign it as soon as they give the green light.”

And finally, Politico has published an article detailing how Gov. Romney’s former campaign workers stand ready to mobilize should he decide to run in 2012:

In addition to the full-time employees the former Massachusetts governor has at his Boston-based Free & Strong America PAC, the early primary states and Washington are filled with former staffers and supporters who are in regular contact with one another.

Whenever Romney has a major TV appearance or pens an opinion piece, a PAC staffer, Will Ritter, circulates the news to an e-mail list of the former governor’s extended political family.

The Washington-based alumni have a regular monthly luncheon, are working on another reunion-like event around a 2009 candidate later this year and always make sure their former candidate is briefed on the latest political doings.

When Romney does a high-profile Sunday show like he did yesterday, for example, that means that former communications aides such as Matt Rhoades and Kevin Madden will join PAC spokesman and longtime adviser Eric Fehrnstrom to help prepare their old boss, either in person or over the phone. When he’s delivering a speech, as he did earlier this month on national security, other former campaign officials such as media consultants Russ Schriefer and Stuart Stevens are brought in.

And when the former governor is in Washington for reasons other than a public appearance, an even broader extended network of advisers is often alerted, including such figures as longtime lobbyist and GOP strategist Ron Kaufman.

Romney enjoys an equally strong following in many of the early primary states.

“I’m going be a Mitt guy until he tells me he’s not running for president,” said Jim Merrill, who ran Romney’s New Hampshire primary campaign and said he still gets excited e-mails from local activists every time the former governor is on TV.

Mitt Romney’s fans and detractors enjoy shouting at each other over the benefits and drawbacks of Massachusett’s health plan, and about what Romney should get the credit and blame for in regard to it. Here’s some fuel for the fire, a Rasmussen Poll of Massachusetts voters about the plan:

Massachusetts Survey of 500 Likely Voters, Conducted April 16, 2009

1. Has Healthcare reform in Massachusetts been a success or a failure?

• 26% Success
• 37% Failure
• 37% Not sure

2. Has healthcare reform in Massachusetts made healthcare more affordable, less affordable or has there been no change?

• 21% More affordable
• 27% Less affordable
• 44% There has been no change
• 8% Not sure

3. Under healthcare reform is the quality of healthcare getting better, getting worse or is it about the same?

• 10% Getting better
• 29% Getting worse
• 53% It’s about the same
• 8% Not sure

NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

The numbers are not very good. Romney’s detractors say the problems are largely his fault, while his supporters say it was the best program possible in a very liberal state, and has been undermined since his departure. While I’m only so-so on Romney, I’m sympathetic to the latter viewpoint — at least the part about being the best program possible. Whichever is the case, however, Romney’s opponents will use his healthcare program against him in the primaries, and this poll will help their arguments.

For those who say I never say anything nice about Mitt Romney, mark today on your calendar. He raised some great points on Mark Sanford:

Discussing disgraced South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a fellow Republican, said governors and other national leaders are expected “to live by a higher standard because … the culture of the nation can be hurt by their failings.

“Seeing this family become healed is our highest priority,” Romney said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“At the same time, and not commenting particularly on Governor Sanford, … people in public life ought to be held to a higher standard. … I heard one … former governor say, ‘Well, everybody makes mistakes.’ Well, that’s true.

“But not all mistakes are the same. And not everybody is a governor or a senator or a president. And we expect [those] people to live by a higher standard, because what they do is going to be magnified, their families are going to be hurt more by what they do, the things they care about will be hurt, and the culture of the nation and the people who follow them will be hurt.”

Or to use a scriptural quote. “To whom much is given, much shall be required.” It’s very well-put by Governor Romney and lays out a very reasonable standard without being self-righteous.

Looking forward to 2012 we all assume Mitt Romney is going to run.

However what if he doesn’t for personal or family reasons?

While Romney picked up a lot of his votes by default (being the preferred candidate of talk radio post-Iowa) he certainly does have a loyal base of support.

While some of Romney’s supporters might drift to Palin or Huckabee, it seems a greater number would be looking for someone else.

Would a Romney endorsement be important for the primary?

I could see a lot of the loyal Romney base being influenced by a Romney endorsement. That’s probably as many as half of Romney’s voters being moved by his endorsement.

Who would Romney be likely to endorse?

I have my suspicions where Romney’s Rolodex would end up if he didn’t run.

Ann Romney, Tim and Mary Pawlenty

Overlooked by the politically punditry is the impact of the Sanford scandal on the 2012 GOP primary.

Sanford’s candidacy in 2012 was to have had major implications on the importance of New Hampshire, Iowa and Nevada.  It also increased the risk of a lengthy primary fight that could have bankrupted the party and further drove a wedge between moderates and conservatives.  For serious Republican candidates, the South Carolina  primary is the launching pad to the nomination.  Most recently, the South Carolina primary was credited for saving the floundering campaign of Governor George W. Bush in 2000 and solidifying the comeback for Senator McCain in 2008. 

In South Carolina, the Republican party was facing a repeat of the 1992 Iowa caucuses, where major Democratic candidates abstained from the contest, as favorite son Tom Harkin campaigned for President in his home State.  Sanford’s withdrawal from 2012 not only allows the Republican party to avoid a lengthy contest, but it benefits the candidacy of Governor Sarah Palin.

Anti-Palin, liberal Republican David Frum agrees that the Sanford withdrawal benefits Governor Palin.

It’s plain enough who the losers are in the Mark Sanford story: the governor, his family and loved ones. But there are winners too – the surviving GOP presidential candidates relieved of one more competitor in the crowded right edge of the party field. Who is likeliest to benefit? 

Nominations are open. My guess: Gov. Sarah Palin.    

—

Palin’s best hope is to quickly consolidate a conservative following and frame the choice as one between a “true conservative” and an unacceptably moderate Romney. Entry into the race by a Mike Huckabee, a Mark Sanford, a Newt Gingrich or a Bobby Jindal – each with their own credible conservative credentials – adds to the difficulty of her not-easy task. The fewer such entrants the better. Now there will be one fewer.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter.

Pew Research Republican Favorability Ratings

Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

• Mitt Romney 40% / 28% (+12%)
• Michael Steele 23% / 14% (+9%)
• Sarah Palin 45% / 44% (+1%)
• Newt Gingrich 35% / 38% (-3%)

Among Republicans

• Sarah Palin 73% / 17% (+56%)
• Mitt Romney 57% / 18% (+39%)
• Newt Gingrich 55% / 22% (+33%)
• Michael Steele 28% / 14% (+14%)

Among Independents

• Mitt Romney 44% / 25% (+19%)
• Michael Steele 26% / 13% (+13%)
• Sarah Palin 46% / ~44% (+2%)
• Newt Gingrich 37% / 38% (-1%)

College Graduates+

• Mitt Romney 46% / 36% (+10%)
• Sarah Palin 41% / 52% (-11%)

High School Diploma or Less

• Sarah Palin 48% / 36% (+12%)
• Mitt Romney 33% / 25% (+8%)

Survey of 1,502 adults was conducted June 10-14. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. For the subsample of 401 Republicans, the margin of error is +/- 5.5 percentage points.

(more…)

PPP (D) 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 50% [52%] (49%)
• Mike Huckabee 43% [39%] (42%)

• Barack Obama 49% [53%] (52%)
• Newt Gingrich 41% [36%] (39%)

• Barack Obama 48% [53%] (50%)
• Mitt Romney 40% [35%] (39%)

• Barack Obama 52% [56%] (53%)
• Sarah Palin 40% [37%] (41%)

Among Republicans

• Huckabee 79% [74%] (77%)
• Obama 17% [15%] (13%)

• Gingrich 76% [73%] (75%)
• Obama 16% [16%] (14%)

• Romney 74% [66%] (71%)
• Obama 19% [18%] (16%)

• Palin 72% [65%] (71%)
• Obama 18% [27%] (21%)

Among Independents

• Huckabee 46% [35%] (37%)
• Obama 40% [55%] (53%)

• Gingrich 42% [31%] (38%)
• Obama 41% [54%] (54%)

• Romney 42% [30%] (35%)
• Obama 35% [55%] (52%)

• Obama 46% [52%] (51%)
• Palin 41% [37%] (44%)

Among Men

• Huckabee 48% [41%] (47%)
• Obama 45% [50%] (46%)

• Gingrich 46% [40%] (44%)
• Obama 46% [50%] (48%)

• Obama 46% [49%] (49%)
• Romney 44% [38%] (44%)

• Obama 48% [53%] (49%)
• Palin 44% [41%] (47%)

Among Women

• Obama 54% [54%] (52%)
• Huckabee 37% [36%] (37%)

• Obama 53% [56%] (56%)
• Gingrich 36% [32%] (33%)

• Obama 55% [58%] (56%)
• Palin 36% [34%] (36%)

• Obama 50% [56%] (52%)
• Romney 37% [31%] (34%)

Obama Job Approval

• Approve 52% [55%] (53%)
• Disapprove 44% [38%] (41%)

Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

• Mike Huckabee 43% [44%] (42%) / 34% [32%] (34%) {+9%}
• Mitt Romney 41% [40%] (40%) / 36% [36%] (35%) {+5%}
• Sarah Palin 43% [42%] (42%) / 49% [50%] (49%) {-6%}
• Newt Gingrich 35% [30%] (36%) / 46% [47%] (44%) {-11%}

Among Conservatives

• Sarah Palin 72% [73%] (67%) / 21% [17%] (20%) {+51%}
• Mike Huckabee 68% [60%] (56%) / 17% [19%] (18%) {+51%}
• Newt Gingrich 61% [51%] (59%) / 23% [22%] (18%) {+38%}
• Mitt Romney 58% [59%] (54%) / 22% [18%] (19%) {+36%}

Among Moderates

• Mike Huckabee 33% [40%] (36%) / 38% [36%] (41%) {-5%}
• Mitt Romney 35% [35%] (34%) / 40% [42%] (44%) {-5%}
• Sarah Palin 33% [29%] (28%) / 58% [64%] (67%) {-25%}
• Newt Gingrich 23% [21%] (23%) / 53% [58%] (60%) {-30%}

Survey of 638 voters was conducted June 12-16. The margin of error is +/-3.9 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted May 14-18 are in brackets; from April 17-19, in parentheses. Party ID breakdown: 43% [40%] (D), 34% [34%] (R), 23% [26%] (I). Ideological breakdown: 46% [47%] Moderate, 38% [38%] Conservative, 16% [15%] Liberal.

H/T: Tommy Boy, for defeating yours truly in a wager over just how well (or poorly) Palin would be perceived by moderates in the aftermath of the brouhaha between the Alaskan governor and David Letterman. So, for those of you who roll their eyes at an irrelevant, meaningless poll taken nearly three and a half years before the next presidential election, just know that there was something genuinely at ’steak’.

In the way too voluminous comments section  on my last post, many Romney supporters have tried to extrapolate predictions for 2012 based on Romney’s 2008 performance v. Mike Huckabee. It was a beautiful thread with attempts to expel states from the South, but I think there are two key points that get missed that make 2008 a less helpful measure of 2012.

1) Money: Romney raised and spent more than $100 million. Huckabee raised $16 million. As such, Romney had more money for travel, more money for campaign ads, more money for staffers, more money for everything. Romney had the money to build a 50 state organization. Huckabee did not.

When the money topic has been raised in the past, there have been two responses:

a) The money doesn’t matter. Huckabee could have as much money as Romney and it would make no difference. Of course the idea is absurd. If raising money didn’t matter, then every candidate would live off the land. There’s no reason to spend the effort needed to raise $107 million, when you could win just as easily with $30 million. I’ll believe that money doesn’t matter on the day I hear Mitt Romney forswear fundraising. If Huckabee had more money, he’d have had more paid people, more people working full time for the campaign in places like Florida and South Carolina.

b) Money is a measure of popular support: The argument goes that Huckabee’s inability to raise $107 million is a sign that Huckabee lacks popular support. This is silly. In reality, Romney simply moved more in moneyed circles from his work on Wall Street.

The fact is that 2008 won’t be 2012. If Romney faces Huckabee, he won’t be facing the Governor of a small state best known in the dieting community, he’ll be facing a commentator whose been on more than 500 radio stations and served as Sean Hannity’s regular Friday Night thing for 2 years. If Romney faces Palin, he’ll be facing a woman who can draw huge crowds and who, on the day she was chosen for the GOP nomination for VP raised $10 million. The money edge will be severely weakened in 2012.

2) Media Declarations: The media took Mitt Romney seriously as a Presidential candidate long before the public even knew who he was. Not so with Huckabee who the media accepted as a great story, but whose seriousness was downplayed from the New Hampshire Primary onward. After South Carolina, many who liked Huckabee abandonned him and voted to “Stop McCain.”

Looking at nationwide polling, it would be hard to seriously argue that Huckabee couldn’t get the nomination in 2012, so his efforts would be treated with a whole different level of seriousness from the get-go.  Romney had the good fortune to be paired against a pro-choice liberal (Rudy Giuliani was three times the nominee of New York’s Liberal Party for Mayor of New York)  and the most hated men among the conservative base (John McCain.) Romney will have no such luck in 2012.

3) Time: Romney was beginning the process of running for President in 2005, with Huckabee not getting started until 2007 with no nationwide base of support or name recognition. For Both Huckabee and Palin, 2012 would be far different.

When looking at 2008, there are a lot of What If questions that occur, “What if Huckabee were better known? What if he’d won South Carolina? What if he had more money?”  Change these variables and the entire 2008 nomination contest is turned on its head. A Huck-Romney rematch will come on far different lines, so would a Romney-Palin race.

As a final note, I noted many people pledging they would not back Mike Huckabee for President if he’s the GOP nominee. Such protestations are silly. Many more made that stance with John McCain, few kept to it.

If Obama is beatable in 2012, it will mean some things have gone drastically wrong:  For example,  the U.S. savagely attacked by terrorists, the economy in shambles, rioting in the streets, attempts to nationalize health care. If the election ultimately comes down to Huckabee-Obama, how many LDS church members are going to vote for a choice that means doom for the nation over a grudge?

In a poll in February, 2008 when bad feelings towards Huckabee were at their worse, Utah did say it would have for Obama 58-42% over Huckabee. However, they also indicated they would vote Huckabee over  Hillary Clinton 59-41%. At the time, Mormons were most steamed at Huckabee and Obama was no as they hopey-changey one and many details hadn’t come out about him.  When given the clear known liberal, voters stood firm despite not being too happy with Huckabee. If this is the case when LDS voters are the most angry, that given a known liberal or Huckabee, they’ll choose Huckabee, I think we can count Utah in the safe column.  And given the number of folks who supported McCain despite not being too happy with him, I think most people on this blog who go after Huck relentlessly would still end up voting for him, so the promises of “Never” seem silly.

Mike Potemra over at the Corner makes a bold prediction:

Four years from now, Mitt Romney will be president of the United States.

His basis for the prediction:

My reasoning is as follows. Point One: The Obama team, while still basking in honeymoon-level approval ratings today, has pointed itself in a direction that will result in disappointed hopes for the American people. They have drastically overpromised, and their policies—even if they are not outright disastrous—will end up inciting more passionate discontent than passionate support. Point Two: The Republicans always nominate for president the candidate who’s next in line, even if that person is deeply unpopular (e.g., the GOP base’s hatred for John McCain did not prevent him from being nominated; he was the guy who lost to Bush in 2000, ergo…). In 2008, the runner-up was Romney.

Potermo’s getting out the chicken blood and ready to begin practicing voodo punditry. We could argue over who actually finished second, but as I’ve explained before the next in line meme is pretty much useless for this election.

The meme has a 28 year history and let’s review.

Reagan was 2nd in 1976, and was nominated in 1980. Bush I was 2nd in 1980 and was nominated in 1988. Bob Dole was 2nd in 1988 and was nominated in 1996. And in 1996, Pat Buchanan finished second and was elected President in 2000.

Oh wait a s second, but he wasn’t. Of course, there were other problems that intervened in the power of finishing 2nd and allowed George W. Bush to be the nominee.

Neither Reagan, Bush, Dole, or McCain faced a returning rival from the previous campaign with name recognition, a track record of running and winning several primaries.

Neither had to deal with a defeated Vice-Presidential nominee who is capable of generating as much enthusiasm and money as Sarah Palin.

Huckabee, Palin, and Romney all stand at the starting gate on pretty much equal footing. If Romney becomes an overwhelming frontrunner, it’ll be because potential opponents like Huckabee and Palin didn’t run as happened in 1996 with Bob Dole when Jack Kemp (who led him in several trial heats) and Dan Quayle both sat out the election. If that happens, it’ll indicate that both think Obama is likely to win re-election, which would indicate that Romney won’t be President.

The fact is that the Redskins game has more predictive power than the 2nd place meme.

“What does a free and strong America mean to you?”

Essay Contest: Sit in the Romney Family Seats at Fenway

——–

First off, I want to thank you for staying involved with the Free and Strong America PAC. Your support has enabled my dad to continue being a strong voice for conservatism – traveling and speaking out on our shared ideals and supporting Republican candidates throughout the country.

This movement isn’t about my dad or any one candidate that we’re supporting, however. It’s about you. And we want to hear what these ideals mean to you. That’s why today I’m announcing a mini-essay contest.

The best submission will receive an all-expense paid trip for 2 to join me in the Romney family seats at Fenway Park for a Red Sox game. And four runner-ups will receive a baseball personally autographed by my dad.

How do you qualify? Simply (1) visit www.FreeStrongAmerica.com/essay for complete details and to see a special video message from my dad, (2) contribute at least $50 to my dad’s PAC, and (3) email your 250-words-or-less answer to the question “What does a free and strong America mean to you?” to Essay@FreeStrongAmerica.com. The five best submissions will be featured on FreeStrongAmerica.com, and the author of the best answer, as decided by us, will win the baseball trip.

The contest ends June 24th, so get writing. It’s only 250 words. That’s fewer words than are contained in this email. We’re looking forward to hearing from you.

- Tagg Romney

No.

But Matthew E. Miller seems to think so, in the comments section of today’s open thread:

I find it very interesting that so many of the folks who DEMAND that we listen to the clueless Republican establishment in places like Florida, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, absolutely refuse to follow the establishment choice at the National level. Mitt Romney is THE electable Republican. He’ll save us money. He can win over centrists. The powers that be have spoken. Fall in line or be branded an extremist./sarc

But, of course the pragmatists don’t really mean it. They’re happy enough to dictate the pragmatic necessities for folks in other states, but when the choice affects them- at the national level and with a Presidential possibility- they want to have their cake and eat it too, same as everyone else.

First of all, what could possibly be the motivation behind this wanting the cake and eating it, too? Do you think we just get off on bossing the other states around? Do you think we would really rather see Specter than Toomey in Pennsylvania? I don’t get the point.

But I’ll address the point of inconsistency and hypocrisy: the essence of pragmatism is taking what you can get, where you can get it. Of course I’m content to tell people in Pennsylvania and New Jersey to accept moderates when looking at their senators and congressmen. Tom Coburn types can’t possibly win in New Jersey. If they could, I’d support them over the Chris Christies of the world. I’m certainly not content to watch party members shoot themselves in their feet for the sake of “principle” — especially not when the rest of us have to suffer the consequences. They’d rather lose and be right than win and be partially right. But do you want us to be a majority party or not?

The national level isn’t part of an army of 100, though. The national level is where we choose a leader to carry our banner: a leader who unites us, one who represents the sum total of our philosophy as it stands. We have to be much more discerning about our national leaders, as their influence is unparalleled. And should he be elected president, he’ll be setting the agenda and getting people to fall in line. Senator Crist won’t really move the party to the left; President Crist would. I would gladly support Crist for Senate if it appears Rubio can’t win, but I would never support him for the presidency over someone like Rubio.

Moreover, we can win at a national level with a down-the-line conservative, so long as he can communicate well. Whether Romney can do is this a legitimate debate, but it’s certainly not hypocritical or inconsistent to deny Romney over someone else on “electability” grounds, when our national leader isn’t just one of one hundred.

CNN/Opinion Research 2012 GOP Nomination

• Mike Huckabee 22% (26%)
• Sarah Palin 21% (29%)
• Mitt Romney 21% (21%)
• Newt Gingrich 13% (N/A)
• Jeb Bush 6% (N/A)
• Someone Else 10% (10%)

Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

• Colin Powell 70% / 18% (+52%)
• John McCain 58% / 37% (+21%)
• Mike Huckabee 45% / 25% (+20%)
• Mitt Romney 42% / 29% (+13%)
• Sarah Palin 46% / 43% (+3%)
• Newt Gingrich 36% / 35% (+1%)
• Michael Steele 20% / 24% (-4%)
• Jeb Bush 33% / 40% (-7%)
• George W. Bush 41% / 57% (-16%)
• Dick Cheney 37% / 55% (-18%)
• Rush Limbaugh 30% / 53% (-23%)

Survey of 1,010 adults, including a subsample of Republicans was conducted May 14-17. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Favorability results are comprised of all adults surveyed. Results from the poll conducted February 18-19 are in parentheses.

H/T: Tommy Boy

The following are excerpts from Gov. Romney’s “The Care of Freedom” address to The Heritage Foundation’s “Protect America” event at the U.S. Navy Memorial:

On North Korea and missile defense:

Freedom is threatened not just by those who aspire to world leadership, but also by the rogue and malevolent. North Korea has made it abundantly clear that they are not only intent on perfecting nuclear weapons, but they are contemptuous of the concerns of the United States and the world at large. It was no accident that they launched their missile while the President was addressing nuclear non-proliferation, and executed their nuclear test to coincide with Memorial Day. The message is clear: the on-again, off-again talks and diplomacy and agreements have been nothing but stalling maneuvers. While diplomats celebrate yet another agreement, convinced that all their work has made the world safer, North Korea continues down the nuclear path Kim Jong Il has long pursued.

Arrogant, delusional tyrants can not be stopped by earnest words and furrowed brows. Action, strong bold action coming from a position of strength and determination, is the only effective deterrent.

It is time to apply comprehensive, regime-crippling sanctions to North Korea . Assets should be seized; international financial capabilities terminated. North Korea should be recategorized as a state sponsor of terror. And, most importantly, the President should immediately reverse his recent decisions and strongly support completing our ballistic missile defense system.

Missile defense is a non-nuclear, entirely defensive system designed to protect not just America but the world from a catastrophic attack. Yet the President plans to cut the missile defense budget by 15 percent, cut funding for missile defense sites in Europe by 80 percent, and reduce the number of planned interceptors in Alaska . That is a grave miscalculation, given the provocations from North Korea , Iran ’s near-nuclear status, Pakistan ’s instability, and the complete failure of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

(more…)

As a follow-up to my revised likelihood ratings, one thing I was criticized for was that my probability picks for the four most probable picks seemed low. Indeed, compared to the latest rankings from Alex, Max, and Matt,  my numbers are incredibly low:

Wow, certainties of 85% or over on all counts except for Alex on Tim Pawlenty and Matt on Sarah Palin. My colleagues may be possessed of a better crystal ball than I am, but assigning such incredible probabilities two years in advance seems to really underestimate all the things that can happen between now and the Presidential campaign.  I think my conservative approach on setting odds will be borne out:

There are several common possibilities that could prevent a campaign:

1. The candidate doesn’t believe there’s an opening:  Someone may want to run, but they’ll pass on the rigamarole of running for President, if there’s little chance of success. Witness 2000 when John Kerry decided not to run in the Democratic Primaries because he knew he had no chance of beating Al Gore that year. Ditto Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt.
2. Health Problems of Candidate or Family: With these four candidates, we’re dealing with people in their 40s-60s. What could go wrong with them and their families healthwise over the course of two years is a huge factor.

In addition, each potential candidate has specific issues that could prevent them running.

Neither Huckabee or Pawlenty are personally wealthy and this could be a very good time to be in the private sector.  Sarah Palin isn’t wealthy either, but will be once her book is published. Mitt Romney spent a big chunk of the family fortune on the last campaign and really has to have a feeling that he’ll do something better thist time around to spend the money it’ll take for 2012.

State Government is also a factor. I’ve already talked about Sarah Palin. If she doesn’t extricate herself from that zoo called “Alaska State Government” with its constant slew of expsnive frivolous ethics complaints, there’s no way Palin can run for President.  Pawlenty has hinted that he won’t be running for President if he’s re-elected Minnesota Governor. In both cases, if Palin and Pawlenty get out of dodge, I think I can safely increase their odds of running by 10% each.

Then there’s children. Governor Pawlenty will still have a daughter at home in 2012, Governor Palin will have three children at home.

In addition, Pawlenty’s got to ask where he’s going to raise the money for a campaign. I think for Palin, Huckabee, and Romney, it’s pretty clear, but I honestly don’t know with Pawlenty.

These are things that people look at and I think probabilities to reflect these big questions, so I’m going to respectfully disagree with my colleagues here and maintain that this far out, you cannot be too sure about anyone. Based on these charts, you have to ask what odds they would have given on George Allen or Bill Frist running in 2008 at this time in 2005.

From the official release:

The nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is troubling. Her public statements make it clear she has an expansive view of the role of the judiciary. Historically, the Court is where judges interpret the Constitution and apply the law. It should never be the place “where policy is made,” as Judge Sotomayor has said. Like any nominee, she deserves a fair and thorough hearing. What the American public deserves is a judge who will put the law above her own personal political philosophy.

It’s about time to update my previous rankings from last March with some thoughts on how events have changed the likelihood of different candidates running for President. Please note that candidate likelihood is what we’re talking about, not whether the candidate’s going to win.

Probable Candidates:

1-Mike Huckabee-61% (+2)

Huckabeeis now on more than 500 radio stations. On top of that, he continued to grow stronger in the conservative media world with somewhat kinder words from Rush Limbaugh. That, plus I think his handling of the NCNA issue was adept. The group, because of its launch and the controversy coming out of that launch was doomed to fail and Huckabee got on the right side, the side of the base in rejecting the notion. As Erick Erickson suggested, conservative success is going to come by running against the Republicans in Washington, DC, and Huckabee did that well.

2-Mitt Romney-56% (+1%)

Romney continues to look like he’s going to make a run and his involvement in NCNA really suggested that I think the NCNA has not turned out well at all for Mitt Romney. Republican voters have 69% disapproval of the Republicans in Congress, Mitt Romney wrapped his arms around these people and that he let himself be part of the NCNA and did not really get out in front of this issue and control it. As a result he took fire from Rush Limbaugh, who endorsed him in 2008. Romney’s involvement in the  NCNA did not have to be a negative, in fact it could have been a big positive . He did a poor job managing his image and managing the story and his involvement in it.

Plausible Candidates

3) Tim Pawlenty-53% (+5)

Heretofore, the idea of Pawlenty for President for non-Minnesotans has been akin to kissing your sister. I think the Wall Street Journal piece has done a world of good for Pawlenty by showing him as a fiscal conservative warrior who got what he wanted from the state legislature. Pawlenty does have some problems that will make some conservatives uneasy, but I look at him as a Pragmatist’s Mark Sanford who could take some votes from Sanford, Romney, and perhaps some from Huckabee.

4) Sarah Palin 48% (+1)

Sarah Palin emerged from Alaska, and her visit to Indiaina showed the love for her in middle America from the Party’s base is still strong.  Early concerns about her not being listed in the NCNA led to a stirring defense from El Rushbo. However, I don’t think her ranking will go any higher than 48% until she works out whether she’s running for re-election or not and this is something that people who love Sarah Palin need to face reality on. There’s no way, Sarah Palin cannot run for President and be Governor of Alaska at the same point and it’s not just practicality of government, but the poison politics of the left.

The left in that state has determined to hit her with frivolous ethics complaints until they bankrupt her. She left the state on the last weekend of the legislative session to go to Indiana and she got hit with an ethics complaint. What is going to happen if she’s running for President during the height of the legislative session in 2012, when the primaries and caucuses are being held? There’s no way, gang.  Running for President as an incumbent Governor of Alaska with the abuse of the ethics system up there is a fool’s errand, and I don’t believe Sarah Palin is a fool. Her decision for 2012, has got to happen late 2009, early 2010.

5) John Thune-45%

Nothing happened to change Thune’s standing one way or another.

  (more…)

Tim Pawlenty – 99%

He’s running, he’s been running ever since McCain put him on the short list, and with Huntsman in China and Crist headed to D.C., Pawlenty will step into their void with not only the ability to win over moderates but with far better conservative credentials, all wrapped up in a blue-collar package that has won him two-terms in a blue state that even Reagan couldn’t win.

Potential VPs: John Thune, David Petraeus, Bobby Jindal, Jack Keane, Tom Ridge

Mike Huckabee- 99%

Has Huck ever stopped running?  I’m surprised he didn’t announce his run at the 2008 convention.  The guy has never stopped campaigning, his TV show is basically a glorified weekly campaign ad, and he is already headed to Iowa for a book tour.  Huck is in, and in many ways, he was never out.

Potential VPs: Tim Pawlenty, John Thune, Tom Ridge, David Petraeus, Jack Keane

Mitt Romney – 95%

Mitt is in, and he is gaining the backing of the congressional establishment more each week.  He seems to be the guy gaining the most favors with candidates across the country, and like Huckabee, has never seemed to stop campaigning.  I know some feel that if Obama seems unbeatable that Mitt won’t run, but I doubt that scenario.  Decisions to run for President need to come 2 years out, and it’s impossible to determine that far out what the eventual position of Obama will be. This is what i call the ‘Cuomo Rule’, which is if you have the chance to run, no matter how bleak the polls, you take the chance.  If  Cuomo had run despite Bush 41’s high numbers, he would have been President. Eventually the economy turned, Perot entered, 41 forgot how much milk costs, and the country turned to the last clown standing.  When the chance comes, you run, let the polls be damned. The only reason Mitt is not as much a mortal lock as T-Paw and Huck is because of Anne’s multiple sclerosis, and there is no way to be sure what her condition will be 3 1/2 years out.  Unlike silky John Edwards, Mitt is clearly devoted to Anne, and would give up anything and everything for her, and that includes his presidential ambitions.

Potential VPs: Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal, John Thune, Tom Ridge

Sarah Palin – 90%

She is another one who seems to have continued campaigning endlessly. With a book due out in 2010, and an army of devoted Sarah-worshippers, she is in.  Palin seems to have multiple potential motives, from wanting to prove her critics wrong, to avenging her family, to wanting to actually serve the country, to wanting to make some big money.  All are plausible reasons for her to enter, but which reason motivates her will likely decide the outcome of a bid.  If she is in to sell books it will be obvious and she will fade. If she is in just to spite the media, it will likely backfire.  However, if she comes in with a team of elite operatives and a staff worthy of a serious campaign, having done the preparation needed at this level, and goes on to prove herself in interviews and debates, then her candidacy could move from punchline to serious threat. 

Potential VPs:  David Petraeus, Jack Keane, John Thune

(more…)

Tim Pawlenty- 95%

He’s  taken on the responsibility for unilaterally trimming 2.7 billion in budget, which would make for Minnesota’s first decrease in spending, in real terms, in….well, decades.  He recently ostentatiously vetoed a 400 million program to provide health care to folks making under $8000 dollars a year.  He’s acting fairly peculiarly if he wants to try to become the first 3-term Governor ever, of a state that voted for Obama by 10 points.

Potential VPs:  Jindal

Mike Huckabee – 90%

He desperately wants to be President and he’s polling about as well as any GOP’er in the primaries and the general.  He continually declines to run for the Senate, an inexplicable move unless he has something more significant planned.

Potential VPs: Jindal, Pawlenty

Mitt Romney- 85%

Unlike Alex, I don’t think a Romney run is a lock.  I think, of all the major candidates, Romney’s the most likely to be scared away by a seemingly “unbeatable” Obama.  Romney isn’t one to believe in his ability to, through sheer force of will or through providence, overcome impossible odds.  If Obama looks unbeatable, Huckabee will run anyway, just like he continued running after Super Tuesday.  Romney will at least weigh his options.

Potential VPs:  Jindal, Pawlenty

Mark Sanford – 75%

Sanford’s doing all sorts of highly visible things and he’s making a compelling case for his candidacy.  Plus, the libertarian niche is wide-open.  Still, a few years ago he swore he’d never run for office again, and he doesn’t exactly seem to burn with ambition.  It makes sense for him to run but, as with luminaries like Tom Coburn, he may just not want it.

Potential VPs:  Jindal, Pawlenty

John Thune – 70%

There’s always some Senator running; he seems the most likely player.

Potential VPs:  Jindal, Pawlenty

Sarah Palin – 65%

How does she get together a capable team when only 5% of the GOP establishment thinks she’s our most promising Governor?  She has an incredibly narrow window to prove that she’s a different candidate, and it’s hard to imagine her pulling that off with a cadre of Alaskan advisers.  I suspect she knows this and it’ll weigh heavily on her decision.

Potential VPs: Jindal, Pawlenty, Huntsman

Newt Gingrich – 50%

Like I’ve said before: if Gingrich runs, there’s an even chance he’s just playing stalking horse for Bobby.  He has no chance of becoming President; he must know this.

Potential VPs: Jindal, Pawlenty

Haley Barbour – 30%

He’s received grades of C and D from CATO the last 4 years.  After agreeing to a cigarette tax hike, he’ll probably be in the D category for the second straight 2 year window.  Governors like Pawlenty and Sanford are demonstrably more conservative than him on virtually score.  Is there really room for another  Southern fiscal moderate/liberal?  But, yeah he probably wants it.

Jon Huntsman – 20%

Unlike  Alex, I think this pretty much rules Huntsman out.  There were a cadre of Weaver moderate type advisers ready to help Huntsman put together a run.  They’ll be looking elsewhere soon.  Also, it’s hard to imagine Huntsman spending less than 2 years in China.

Bobby Jindal – 20%

If Newt’s a stalking horse, maybe.

Jeb Bush – 5%

No.

Potential VPs: Dick Cheney

Charlie Crist – 5%

No….no.

Potential VPs: Rob Simmons, Richard Simmons

All the rest: Who cares?

Mitt Romney – 99%

Is there any question that Mittens is in?

Barring unforeseen family matters, he’s running. He’s been writing up articles, showing up on television, appearing on conservative radio shows, keeping his PAC running smoothly, and remains an active Republican voice. He’s got the support of the establishment at this point, and, quite frankly, 2012 is his last chance. He’s an ambitious man and he very well could win the nomination — which, like the 1992 Democratic nomination, may be worth having after all.

Potential VPs: Jindal, Huckabee, Thune, Whitman, Cantor

Mike Huckabee- 92%

If Mike Huckabee doesn’t run, it will only be because he thinks that it’s better to wait. Hey, he’s young — why fight Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney for the chance to run against an incumbent? But waiting is risky. Even assuming that President Obama is re-elected in 2012, more religious leaders will inevitably emerge in the interim. And it’s pretty hard to sustain your profile for a full decade. Huckabee has a high-profile media gig and remains an active voice for religious conservatives. The probability of him not running seems ridiculously low. He also needs a split primary to win the nomination, so he’ll probably just hope that Palin fizzles out early. Huck’s in.

Potential VPs: Romney, Jindal, Sanford, Thune, Kyl, Cantor, Ridge

Sarah Palin – 88%

Now this woman is a novelty. She’s got legions of adoring fans ready to crawl over shattered glass for her, and she needs to tap into that energy before it goes away. She’s young and needs time to mature, but who cares? Not her. Not her fans. Certainly not the media. You can’t blink, man. It’s probably 2012 or never for Palin. She’s going to need to get re-elected governor by a landslide (which is likely), get a host of credible foreign policy hawks on her team, and she’ll be good to go for a credible run.

Potential VPs: Giuliani, Romney, Sanford, Perry, Ridge (Her dream VP would be Petraeus, but keep dreaming, Sarah)

Mark Sanford – 85%

Sanford has emerged as one of President Obama’s most vocal critics on spending policy. Think that’s an accident? Already a favorite of the libertarian right, he’s endeared himself even more by getting on board with the Tea Party crowd. Make no mistake about it: Sanford is going to run as the outsider, take-no-prisoners free marketeer. The big question mark is whether he’s willing to shift right on foreign policy to appease that plank of the party. If he manages to win the nomination — which isn’t completely crazy — might he want to tap a Giuliani type as VP? Hmm…

Potential VPs: Thune, Giuliani, Kyl, Crist, Ridge

Tim Pawlenty...

(more…)

In a surprise announcement, Florida Agriculture Commissioner Charles Bronson has declared that he will not run for governor “at this time”.  Barring some unforeseen circumstance that causes Bronson to change his mind and throw his hat in the ring, the announcement virtually paves Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum’s way to the Republican nomination.

Chris Cillizza reports that Haley Barbour will travel to Iowa to participate in a Republican fundraiser on June 25th:

Barbour’s decision to travel to the Hawkeye State indicates that rumbles that he has not ruled out a presidential bid in 2012 are justified.

Barbour allies insist that this trip is one of many he will make to states with competitive gubernatorial races in 2010 and nothing more should be read into it.

No matter what Barbour or his people say about the trip, however, always remember the Fix mantra about presidential politics: No politician — we can’t emphasize that strongly enough — goes to Iowa by accident. Doesn’t happen.

Cillizza has a point.

Finally, Gov. Romney has written an op-ed for National Review, in which he provides commentary on the Obama vs. Cheney war of words regarding national security:

Two speeches, two very different men. Former Vice President Cheney seeks no political future. He speaks from the vantage of one who witnessed the killing of our fellow citizens, who deliberated and defined the strategy that would successfully prevent further murders of our fellow Americans.

His address today was direct, well-reasoned, and convincing.

President Obama, on the other hand, continues to speak as a politician. Contrary to the advice I and others gave him, he has placed two of his top political consultants in the West Wing, looking to them to opine on matters of national security. Barack Obama is having a hard time going from politician to president. His speech and his policies have one foot in campaign mode and another in presidential mode. He struggles to explain how he is keeping faith with the liberal advocates who promoted his campaign but in doing so, he breaks faith with the interests of the American people. When it comes to protecting the nation, we have a conflicted president. And his address today was more tortured than the enhanced interrogation techniques he decries.

It is laughable to suggest that Guantanamo is a meaningful aid in terrorist recruiting. Before Guantanamo came the first bombing of the World Trade Center, the bombing at Riyadh, the attacks on Khobar, the bombing of our embassies, the Cole. There will always be rallying cries for recruitment whether it is the existence of Israel or the freedoms enjoyed by Americans. Appeasement has not ever, does not now, and will never satisfy a foe who looks to destroy freedom and rule the world.

Vice President Cheney has been the target of every media, from mainstream to comic. But he spoke today as before without regard to the politics but with abiding respect for the truth. Barack Obama is still hanging on to the campaign trail. He said that the last thing he thinks about when he goes to sleep at night is keeping America safe. That’s a big difference with Vice President Cheney—when it came to protecting Americans, he never went to sleep.

Keep the good stuff coming, Mitt.

PPP (D) 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 52% (49%)
• Mike Huckabee 39% (42%)

• Barack Obama 53% (50%)
• Mitt Romney 35% (39%)

• Barack Obama 56% (53%)
• Sarah Palin 37% (41%)

• Barack Obama 53% (52%)
• Newt Gingrich 36% (39%)

Obama Job Approval

• Approve 55% (53%)
• Disapprove 38% (41%)

Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

• Mike Huckabee 44% (42%) / 32% (34%) [+12%]
• Mitt Romney 40% (40%) / 36% (35%) [+4%]
• Sarah Palin 42% (42%) / 50% (49%) [-8%]
• Newt Gingrich 30% (36%) / 47% (44%) [-17%]

Among Conservatives

• Sarah Palin 73% / 17% (+56%)
• Mike Huckabee 60% / 19% (+41%)
• Mitt Romney 59% / 18% (+41%)
• Newt Gingrich 51% / 22% (+29%)

Among Moderates

• Mike Huckabee 40% / 36% (+4%)
• Mitt Romney 35% / 42% (-7%)
• Sarah Palin 29% / 64% (-35%)
• Newt Gingrich 21% / 58% (-37%)

Survey of 1,000 voters was conducted May 14-18. The margin of error is +/-3.1 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted April 17-19 are in parentheses. Party ID breakdown: 40% (D), 34% (R), 26% (I). Ideological breakdown: 47% Moderate, 38% Conservative, 15% Liberal.

H/T: Tommy Boy

From a PolitickerNY 2012 handicapping piece:

Mitt Romney: 2-1.

History makes him the favorite. Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole and John McCain all finished second in G.O.P. primary races before turning around and claiming the nomination the next time it came open.

Please, someone stop repeating this meme. It just doesn’t work.

Ronald Reagan “came in second” out of two candidates in 1976 after running a go-nowhere campaign in 1968. He took on an unpopular, unelected sitting president with some measure of credibility. Yes, I suppose he “came in second” last time and used his name recognition and standing amongst the conservative movement’s loyalists — which all of the 2012 frontrunners have, to some degree or another — to bolster his 1980 bid. But it must be remembered that not only was he the consensus candidate in 1980 — something that won’t exist in 2012 — but he was the only candidate in 1976 other than Gerald Ford. This will prove important below.

George H.W. Bush didn’t win the nomination because he came in second in the 1980 primaries. He won the nomination because he was Ronald Reagan’s vice-president. Period. Without Reagan’s legacy, it’s doubtful that he would have walked into the nomination as smoothly as he did.

Bob Dole is the exception that proves the rule. He came in second in the last set of contested primaries, but using the 1976 Reagan-as-heir-apparent line of thinking, why didn’t Pat Buchanan win the nomination in 1996, given that he ran against Bush in 1992 and mounted a credible campaign in 1996? And if it’s the last set of contested primaries — that is, no incumbent — that counts, then why is Reagan’s 1976 run counted?

What was George W. Bush? How, exactly, was he the candidate “next in line”? Hell, why wasn’t Pat Buchanan the next in line? He clearly came in 2nd in 1996. What about Jack Kemp? Could Jack Kemp have won the nomination if he ran? Of course not. Give me a break. Being the son of a former president does not make you the next in line. If so, is Jeb Bush the next in line, then? Do elected family members of former presidents trump former primary winners?

John McCain’s primary trimph was by no means inevitable. A few thousand votes the other way in New Hampshire or South Carolina and John McCain would have been eliminated. He walked a tightrope to the nomination. Nobody “fell in line” behind John McCain. He never even won a majority of the votes before Super Tuesday. One different move by Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee along the way and McCain could have been denied the nomination. What if McCain had lost South Carolina, perhaps leading to Charlie Crist and Mel Martinez endorsing Rudy Giuliani? What if Mitt Romney had won New Hampshire, leading to a Michigan blowout and a siphoning of votes from McCain in South Carolina, snowballing into a Florida win? To speak of McCain’s win as inevitable is history being rewritten under our noses.

So please: stop trying to square the circle of this next-in-line myth. It just doesn’t fit the facts.

Hey, this might strike some as completely random, but I was — as I’m prone to do — thinking about politics this evening and something struck me: why do we call certain politicians by their first names? Sarah Palin is “Sarah.” Hillary Clinton is “Hillary.” Condoleezza Rice is “Condi.”

It’s not TeamPalin.org, for instance: it’s TeamSarah.org.

Hillary Clinton’s signs proclaimed “Hillary for President!” rather than “Clinton for President.”

My gosh, those are all women — this is clearly sexist! Nobody dreams of calling Governor Sanford or Senator McCain by their first names!

Woah, woah — slow down there, horsey. Many of us call Rudy Giuliani “Rudy” and Mitt Romney “Mitt.” Nobody would dream of calling Senator McCain by his first name because there are approximately ten billion “Johns” in the world. We call politicians by their first names when their names are distinct. You can’t speak of, for instance, “Michael.” Michael Steele? Michael Bloomberg? Michael, uh, Huckabee?

In contrast, there’s only one Sarah. There’s only one Condi. There’s only one Mitt — thank God. (Sadly, there are two Clintons, so we call her “Hillary” in order to differentiate.) Ike for President! There’s only one “Ike”! (And only one “Eisenhower,” for that matter.) And when it doesn’t work to use a last name — John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy — we’ll even go so far as to abbreviate! JFK and RFK. Phew! The bullet of potential momentary confusion, dodged. [EDIT: Oh my...bullet...Kennedy...wow. Didn't even catch that! And we all know that mentioning bullets in the same sentence as a Kennedy gets you a public whipping, right, Hillary?]

But what of Obama? No one ever calls him “Barack.” Why is that? They always call him “Obama.” But there’s no other Barack out there to confuse him with. Ah, but you forget, dear reader, that “Obama” is such a catchy last name! That’s the science to that.

And that’s my important post for today.

     Many conservatives, notably the Club for Growth, are not fond of Mike Huckabee because they see him as too liberal on economic issues.  He did raise taxes and increase spending as Governor.  However, a new poll by Public Policy Polling indicates that he, along with Mitt Romney, are more popular with the public than Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich.  Gingrich is no surprise.  He was never popular with the general public when he was Speaker except at the very beginning, but he was always popular with the base.  Palin seems to have blown her opportunity to develop a good reputation with the public. 

     Huckabee has a net favorability rating of +8.  Romney is not far behind at +5.  Palin has a -7, and Gingrich has a -8.  Palin only a -10 with women, but she is still in negative territory at a -3 with men.  Huckabee also does the best against Obama though all four candidates trail.  Obama is more popular than any GOP contender with a +12 favorability.  It should be noted that Obama is still in his first year which is typically a honeymoon phase.  However, Huckabee manages to keep Obama under the magic 50% mark, trailing him 49-42.  Romney trails 50-39.  Palin trails 53-41, and Gingrich is behind 52-39.  Is a ticket led by Mike Huckabee the key to victory in 2012?