Only Romney Survives Super Tuesday?

Sorry for not inserting a snappy graphic for this post, but despite the bland look, it really is a bombshell. According to reports I'm hearing from knowledgeable sources, there is some really big trouble brewing for most candidates not named Romney around access to Super Tuesday contests and beyond. Most of us have heard about the failure of Newt, Perry, and Santorum to make it onto the VA ballot, effectively surrendering more than 40 delegates to Romney before ST even begins. But that failure to responsibly manage their campaigns goes to other campaigns as well. I believe Santorum missed the DC deadline. I hear he is also in trouble for IL, and maybe other March primaries. Some estimates are as high as missing 40% of the March primaries. Keep your eyes open for filing deadlines and who makes it and who doesn't.

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

Merry Christmas Everyone!

Merry Christmas and a Happy Holiday Season Everyone!

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

FL Insider Poll: Romney Strongest

Fla Insider Poll: Mitt Romney seen as strongest candidate to beat Barack Obama in Florida

Florida’s most experienced political professionals are closely divided on whether Rick Perry or Mitt Romney will win Florida’s Republican presidential primary, but overwhelmingly they see Romney as the stronger candidate to beat Barack Obama in Florida.

More than 100 of Florida’s sharpest political minds participated in the latest St. Petersburg Times Florida Insider Poll - including campaign consultants, lobbyists, activists - and the results were striking: Two thirds of Democrats and two thirds of Republicans pegged Romney as the stronger general election candidate, though Republicans were considerably more confident than Democrats that Perry would win Florida’s crucial presidential primary early next year. Half the Republicans predicted Romney would win the primary and 41 percent predicted Perry. Among Democrats, 56 percent expected Perry to win the primary and 37 percent said Romney.

"Lets face it, Rick Perry is comfort food! Like pot roast, mashed potatoes, and extra gravy it feels good going down, then comes indigestion in the morning. Mitt is more of a balanced diet, high on vegetables, low on sweets, a recipe that is likely to win the blue ribbon on election day," said one Republican.

From a Democrat: "As a Democrat,Huntsman clearly scares me more than Romney (who I chose), but he's got as much chance of the nomination as Charlie Crist has being Republican of the Year. In the end, the GOP will get it right and pick Romney over Perry, when they figure out that Perry is just too crazy for a general election. If they do nominate Perry, Obama will almost certainly be reelected."

The survey included 54 Republicans, 43 Democrats and seven people not registered to either party. It was taken after last week’s debate in Tampa ...

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

Plotting the Candidates

I take the idea for this chart from Nate Silver's article at NYT. looking at how Rick Perry measures up.

I have modified Silver's perspective by exchanging the "interested in running" consideration in favor of "nominatability." Buckley advised to nominate the most conservative person who was electable. I think electability is the strongest current we have in this election cycle, our desire to be rid of Obama is so great. I'm looking for your feedback on the chart. Does it properly position each candidate? Does it help us to understand the race better?

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

The Invisible Primary (that still selects the nominee)

Jay Cost, of the Weekly Standard, wrote an incredibly insightful article yesterday on how nominees are really selected. He contrasted the So far this old method (pre-1970) where nominees were selected by the party establishment with the more open primary system that is in place now. Surprise, surprise, nothing has changed. In the new system of primaries and caucuses, since the new system was dialed in in 1980, the candidate that the party establishment settles on has invariably won, with perhaps only the exception of Barack Obama.

This outcome should not be surprising, since it is always and exclusively the party establishment that sets the rules by which nominees are chosen.

What Cost says is determinative is the ability to develop broad-based party support and the ability to raise money. To know who is winning this invisible primary, watch for who is gaining the most endorsements and who is raising the most money. Interestingly, the Mainstream Media does not seem to be directly determinative, except as it lends free publicity that builds name recognition.

The party support lifts the candidate in two ways. First, it puts its stamp of approval on the candidate in countless interviews and Sunday morning talk shows in a way that indicates the candidate has been vetted and is considered serious and trustworthy. Second, it mobilizes the party workers in the numerous states that activates and energizes the normal political operations to build local support and gets out the vote.

The ability to raise money, which comes incrementally, as the elite send signals that support is coalescing around this candidate or that. That money is then used to build name identification and finally the swell in the polls with the masses. Without it, the campaign dries up.

Tim Pawlenty is only the latest casualty of this process. Cain, Gingrich, Santorum, Paul, Johnson, and Roemer seem already to have been rejected by the establishment, though they trudge on in their respective quixotic quests. We will know soon enough about Huntsman, whether he has raised enough money to begin to signal establishment acceptance. I would bet against it, if only on the basis that party regulars are hardly likely to reward his participation in the Obama administration. There is nothing so compelling about him, or so unacceptable about others, that compels them to overlook that fact. He is not so much fishy as he is Viche.

Bachmann is unlikely to win their support, seeing as they have already rejected her for leadership, influence, and voice in the House of Representatives. It remains to be seen, and that of course is the whole point of the Tea Party raison d'etre, if a parallel power base can be developed that will/can compete and supply the money, political army, and adult validation required to win the nomination.

As of the middle of August, we come down to Romney and Perry. I think what we are seeing in press today, and likely for the next couple months, is the argument the establishment is having about him, which we roughly label "vetting." The result of that argument will be that he reaches a tipping point of support or that he is rejected, as Pawlenty was.

With that in mind, the current contributions and comments from party establishment spokesmen can be interpretted. Rove and Weiner are definitively signaling that he is not preferred by what was the Bush team. Watch for how the establishment respond to his gaffes. If they cut his legs out, you will know that they are making the case that he should be rejected. If they defend him, that he is to be chosen and supported.

Another indicator is the swell of rumors and buzz over the potential announcements of Ryan or Christie. I believe those are deliberate coded messages to indicate Perry isn't acceptable and to keep their powder dry. If it works, Perry will not assimilate the endorsements of the establishment, both visible and invisible. He will receive gentle criticism and rebuke in the commentary. ("That comment wasn't presidential.") His fundraising will sputter after having gathered the low-hanging fruit.

Romney may be the reluctant nominee. Not that he himself is in any way reluctant, but that the establishment is reluctant yet to validate him completely. If you will, Romney is the nominee in waiting, in the way McCain was. He is acceptable to the establishment. He has no sin so mortal as to disqualify him. His strongest argument? He continues to best Obama in head-to-head polls and so appears electable.

Remember back to the discussion about Romneycare. How many people have come back to defend him, or at least stay judgement? Many, meaning that the establishment is unwilling to disqualify him, yet.

So, unless Jeb is able to coax Paul Ryan off the sidelines, Romney will begin to garner the establishment support by Fall, in both positive signals on Sunday morning and in an acceleration of fundraising from establishment bundlers.

(The last half of this post is my reaction on Cost's comments. I recommend reading the whole article here.)

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

Obama at Record Low Approval with Rasmussen

 (right click the chart, open in a new tab to see  larger view)

I've been tracking Scott Rasmussen's Approval Poll for President Obama since Inauguration Day. He tracks "Strongly Approves" and "Strongly Disapproves" as well as the more generic "Approves" and "Disapproves." In the chart above, I have represented approval in light and dark blue and disapproval in light and dark red. There is a narrow white band between the two colors that shows the undecideds. Rasmussen uses the difference between the two "strongly" numbers as a way of measuring relative intensity of support.

Because there can be so much variability from day to day, I have constructed a chart that looks at the data as a seven day rolling average.

The horizontal red line about one fourth of the way down from the top is the "registered Republican" level as of Inauguration Day. The horizontal blue line about one third of the way up from the bottom represents the "registered Democrat" level on ID.

Today's "Strongly Approves" average is 20.6%, the lowest since ID. The "Strongly Disapproves" average today is 42.3. It is not the highest level since ID. That was 9/11/10 when the number was 45.9. But today is the highest absolute difference between the two numbers (42.3-20.6=21.7) as well as the highest ratio of SA/SD. At 2.06, it is the first time "Strongly Disapproves" has been more than twice "Strongly Approves."

If I had numbers like that, I'd go on an RV vacation. Happy Trails, President Obama!

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

Bachmann not a favorite of the MSM

I am given to understand that this is an early copy of next week's Newsweek cover. You can probably tell from the "deer in the headlights" looks, that Newsweek was not trying to flatter Michele or to make her look "presidential." Not quite as "photogenic" as Jon Huntsman made her out to be last week.

Seeing the picture made me wonder how quickly she will earn the "Tina Fey" treatment from SNL. We all remember her Palin impersonations from the 2008 campaign, based largely on her striking resemblance to Gov. Palin.

So, the question I have is, how soon will it be before Kristen Wiig begins impersonating Michele Bachmann? Certainly, there is a resemblance between the two.

 But Wiig also has the ability to play the "nut job," which is likely to be the characterization chosen.

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

Jon Huntsman's campaign: Inside the 'drama'

I don't have time to comment, but check out this Politico article that details at length (8 pages) the meltdown inside the Huntsman campaign being orchestrated by the dysfunctional John Weaver. 

 Question: Can Jon Huntsman overcome the campaign missteps and failures to this point in time to resuscitate his fundraising, re-energize his organization, and deliver a compelling message to win over NH voters?

I say "no."

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

Obama doesn't want to raise taxes (He'll wait until he's re-elected)

Do you want to bet the above clip shows up in a GOP ad?

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

The Specter of Fund Raising and a Contrast of Campaigns

"Newt Gingrich can raise the money." That's what many said in the anticipated run up to his announcement.

Winning presidential elections is about raising a candidate's profile with the voting public, and that often comes down to raising money. So, Gingrich's success at raising money through his section 527 American Solutions for Winning the Future led many to believe that he would be a formidable candidate. Quarter after Quarter, his fund raising dwarfed even Romney's, though much was made of the different tax codes and contribution limits between the legal entities.

Now, we hear that part of the reason his campaign staff resigned en masse this week is that he wasn't raising any money. We read this from a Washington Post article this morning,

"On the other side was a team of political operatives shocked by the flamboyance of the candidate’s stumbles, his resistance to their advice and the dire state of his campaign finances. While he was away on a lavish vacation that they had warned him not to take, they drafted a memo raising the possibility of a graceful exit from the race."

Evidently, the vaunted fund raising never materialized because funding a campaign means doing the hard work of asking people one by one to give you money. I believe it was a distaste for this kind of work that largely kept Mike Huckabee out of the race.

The question for me is "where is Mitt Romney?" Day after day, Huntsman, Pawlenty, Paul, Cain and others post schedules of dozens of public avails in obscure places in IA, NH, and SC. Romney pokes his head up about once a week, but is otherwise pretty quiet. What's he up to?

I think we all now he is a virtually non-stop effort to raise money, in venues small and large, across the country. By the end of June, he will have held fund raisers in more than half the states in the nation, many of them more than once. He will have met with big bundlers in intimate gatherings of a few dozen and in large receptions of hundreds where the admission was as little as $100.00.

The rest of the Gingrich story is/was of a candidate undisciplined in his message and calendar and unrealistic in his view of the campaign, his strategic objectives, and the tactical execution to win.

In contrast, Romney this week announced that he would not be attending any of the straw polls, specifically in IA, FL, and MI. It was a powerful exhibition of a disciplined campaign acting on their plan. Here are some of the ramifications I see in the announcement:
1. It will save the campaign nearly $5,000,000 in expenses that have a debatable impact on the caucus/primary outcome, especially for a well-known candidate.
2. It lowers expectations for Romney in IA, but leaves him able to accelerate in IA after the straw poll
3. It puts huge pressure on Pawlenty to win the straw poll, thereby forcing him to spend mega bucks and time in IA that he might otherwise wish to spend in NH and SC.

Behind the Scenes of Passing Romneycare - A Balanced View

Much has been written about Romneycare, most of which cannot be considered reliable. In many cases, it has been out-right dishonest, designed from the beginning to deceive.

This article from the Boston Globe, certainly no cheerleader for Romney, posted this morning, is the first of a five part series looking at how it became law and its ramifications in the subsequent 5 years. Since I have no idea of what will be in the next 4 installments, I don't think I can be accused of cherry-picking an especially favorable telling of the story. From what I read of the first installment, I recommend its reading to all.

Is Gingrich Done?

This article was posted on Huffington Post this morning re: the blowback from Newt's MTP comments Sunday.

In the "Wallet Primary" it seems like Newt is losing. From the article...

"The last 48 hours have called into question if Newt can even make it to July 4, because his fundraising is going to dry up," said one veteran Republican strategist. "No serious finance bundler is now going to step forward in such an organized campaign and take a leadership role."

Another Republican operative said he had spoken with an old friend of Gingrich's in the South who had been planning a fundraiser for the campaign. There were 18 co-chairs for the event until Gingrich's appearance on "Meet the Press" Sunday, where he labeled Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-Wisc.) proposed budget "radical" and "right-wing social engineering."

"He said like 13 of them dropped off within 24 hours of 'Meet the Press,'" the GOP source told The Huffington Post.

The full impact on Gingrich’s fundraising will not be clear until mid-July, when second-quarter reports are due to be filed with the Federal Election Commission. A disappointing haul could be a knockout blow.


If the money dries up before mid-summer, there will be no campaign. He won't make it to Straw Poll.

Seems kind of ironic that Newt was lecturing Sarah Palin in January about keeping her comments more disciplined.

Romney on the Money Trail

Now comes news that the Romney fund-raising juggernaut has finally been unleashed with this report of two events in NYC this week. The tale of the tape is that Mitt Romney raised more than $1,000,000 from two event in a single day.



Here is Jonathan Martin's report, he the senior political reporter for Politico.



There has been a great deal of speculation about Romney's fund raising prospects in the coming campaign cycle. His Free and Strong America PAC was by far the most successful at raising money, but that was pre-campaign, and the money could not be used in his presidential campaign. There have also been reports of establishment money sitting on the sidelines waiting for the "right" candidate. Well, Romney isn't waiting on them.



And this event was a fairly quiet affair, unlike the publicized call-a-thon later this month in Las Vegas, or the numerous regional fund-raisers that have been scheduled around the country for the remainder of the second quarter for the Romney network of supporters.

Romney's Invisible Campaign

Thought many would love to see this report of Romney's behind the scenes work to secure the money he'll need to win the nomination. There are many who are anticipating him to raise more than $25 million in the first 90 days.

This WSJ article from tomorrow gives a bit of a glimpse of the work that is going on.

The article can be read here.

The case against Mike Huckabee

Chris Cillizza, of the Washington Post, continued his series of the pros and cons of prospective GOP candidates in 2012 with this entry on the compelling case against Mike Huckabee to win the nomination.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/case-forcase-against/the-case-against-mike-huckabee.html?wprss=thefix

Briefly, his points, in his own words (modestly edited), are:

1. A (non) organization man: Huckabee hasn't built any larger-scale campaign operation much beyond the spartan group he relied on in 2008. While his non-formal organization worked in Iowa, it also ensured that he could not capitalize on the momentum his caucus win should have created for him. Huckabee flailed in New Hampshire, narrowly missed a win in South Carolina and was helpless to match the efforts of former Gov. Mitt Romney (Mass.) and Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) in Florida. Huckabee's unwillingness to build that sort of operation heading into 2012 means that even if he could pull off another Iowa caucus win, he would likely fail to capitalize on it. Again.

2. Money matters: Huckabee's unwillingness or inability to put together a serious organization is his unwillingness or inability to put the pieces in place to raise the tens of millions he would need to compete seriously. In 2008, Huckabee raised $16 million for his campaign, a sum that was dwarfed by the likes of Romney, McCain and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. While Huckabee's communications skills allowed him to excel in retail campaign states like Iowa and, to a lesser extent, South Carolina, he was non-competitive in larger states -- Florida, for one -- where millions were needed to reach voters on the airwaves. If the the race goes beyond the first three states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, Huckabee looks almost certain to watch as he is drastically outspent by rivals more committed to the cash collection process. Again.

3. The pardon problem: Huckabee's pardon commutation of the sentence of Maurice Clemmons, a man who murdered four police officers in Seattle, Washington in 2009, is a major problem. Huckabee either pardoned or commuted the sentences of more than 1,000 people --- more than three time as many as the state's three previous governors combined. That's an opposition researcher's dream.

4. Fiscal conservative?: Huckabee's fiscal record has rankled many leaders in fiscal conservative circles; the CATO Institute gave Huckabee an "F" in its 2006 fiscal policy report card -- one of only two Republican governors to earn that "distinction". The influential Club for Growth, too, made clear its antipathy toward Huckabee in the last election when it spent more than $500,000 attempting to stop his momentum in Iowa. Huckabee did raise taxes -- including the sales tax -- during his time as governor and, while he rightly notes it was done with bipartisan support and led to a budget surplus in the state, that may not satisfy die-hard fiscal conservatives. Huckabee faced relatively little scrutiny on his tax record during the 2008 primary fight but it would almost certainly be prime fodder for his opponents this time around.

5. A "serious" hurdle: Huckabee made his name during the last presidential race with his sunny demeanor and his comedic timing. But, a winning smile and a terrific personality alone won't get you elected president. While it's an indisputable fact that Huckabee has high favorable numbers among voters, real questions remain as to whether there is a difference between liking him and believing he can be president. (Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin may well face a similar problem if she runs in 2012 too.) Huckabee, then, must walk a tight rope -- stay true to the optimistic funny man that proved so winning in 2008 while also showing people that he is ready and able to be the leader of the free world. Huckabee is an able politician but that may be too difficult a challenge even for him.


Now, my comments:
Sounds like the beginning of internal messaging sessions for his potential competitors. In IA first, and then in SC, candidates like Pawlenty, Barbour, Gingrich, and Santorum are going to have to go after Huck's base in order to survive. (In fairness, they will have to come after Romney's base in NH, if for no other reason than that it is the largest.) They will spend tens of millions of dollars each to undermine Huck and to recast him. For that matter, if he were the nominee, Obama would spend hundreds of millions of dollars to do the same thing. And Cillizza's point is that Huck will have minimal organization and money with which to respond.

Huck's strength in 2008 was using the pre-existing social networks (church and home school) to go "viral". Those networks took decades to build. They are incredibly cohesive, and that made them very effective at coalescing around a single candidate. But they are also incredibly insular, sticking mostly to others like themselves, culturally, geographically, and demographically. Cillizza's point about how to make it work after SC goes to these points. While candidates have a year to lay the groundwork for the first four contests, thereafter the campaign accelerates in both time and money. As a result, the candidate is favored who has the most money and the most effective organization, or the most flexible and nimble.

Since the previous four contests have already winnowed out the marginal and superficial players, the remaining candidates can no longer survive on niche constituencies or geographies. The candidate has to move beyond cohesive constituencies to adhesive constituencies. (I just made that metaphor up, remembering what my chemistry prof taught me about the properties of cohesion and adhesion.)

I would add one other point to the five Cillizza raises: The Issues.

Not only must each candidate fight the battles on the geographic battlefields dictated by the primary calendar, they must also fight it on the battlefields of the issues the electorate feel are most compelling. Huck continues to fight on the battlefields of social issues. Witness his dressing down of Mitch Daniels on suggesting a "truce" on social issues while we solve the economic ones, as well as calling out the President over the non-defense of DOMA. During the 2010 cycle, Huck built his network out with candidates and supporters who were unapologetic values warriors. That identity makes him genuine for SoCons, but leaves the remaining voters suspicious at best.

As we move into 2012, if those issues drive the political conversation nationally, especially as the electoral calendar moves larger from Super Tuesday and into the general election, then Huck is in good shape. But, if as polls continue to show, the conversation is about jobs, taxes, deficits, and size of government, Huck will not be seen as an authentic voice or candidate. Expect Pawlenty, Barbour, Gingrich, and Santorum to drive a wedge in the SoCons to say that while all five of them are fight authentic SoCons, one of them other than Huck is the real deal for economic issues.

If and when Romney comes after Huck, expect him to choose those issues as the battlefield he wants to fight the fight on.

Ric Pugmire

The Morality of "Taking"

The battle is joined and the middle ground is evaporating as the excesses won by public-sector unions are being spotlighted and scrutinized in the face of irreconcilable budget deficits in virtually every state in the union. (I don't mean that to be hyperbolic.) The progressive talking points are that this is about the working man and about the kids and all sorts of nonsense. In all of this, I think we are missing two fundamental points that go to the heart the issue: a) what should be the basis of compensation, and b) what should be the basis of taxation?

To the first point, I offer a couple of semi-rhetorical questions.

1) Are the skills/time/talent rendered to the government (and by that I mean "the people") inherently more valuable than the same skills/time/talent rendered in the private sector. (Are public teachers worth more than private? Are government engineers (etc.) worth more than those working in the private sector?)

2) Assuming that we can find no reason why a free market would value the same services rendered in the same economy differently, why isn't there a law that prohibits paying ANY government employee more than the value of those contributions in the private sector?

3) Since risk and interruption are an inherent quality of employment value, and since a public sector job, not immediately responsive to market fluctuations, is more stable and enduring than a private sector job, shouldn't we be compensating those positions at the private sector rate times a number less than one? (Example: a civil engineer with 15 years experience in the private sector averages $90,000 in TOTAL (inclusive of all benefits) annual compensation. In the private sector, that engineer is likely to have employment interruption for 1 year every 10 years. If a public sector civil engineer is likely to have NO employment interruption in 10 years, is there a justification for paying him/her $90,000 x 90%?)

To the second point, of taxation, what gives a government the moral right to seize property from its citizens to pay its employees MORE than they would earn in the private sector?

I return to the example of civil engineers. What gives the government the moral justification to seize property (taxes) from the private sector engineer (earning total compensation of $90,000 annually) in order to pay the government engineer a total compensation of $150,000? For that matter, what gives them the right to offer tenure or any other benefit not afforded generally?

Whatever one may think of unions generally, and their economic and moral role in a free society, and as a counterpoint to the holders of capital, how is it conscionable to allow such power in the face of government, whose capital is held by us all jointly?

Ric Pugmire