Found this little nugget in a piece about Huck in the Politico today.

Apparently he’s leading the pack with GOPers…

Gallup’s survey of Republicans found that 71 percent would consider voting for him, more than for Palin, Romney or others. The same survey found that he’s the only Republican whom even 50 percent of Americans say they think is qualified to be president.

And here are the numbers from Gallup…

First, would you vote for a specific candidate?

Then, is the candidate qualified?

Yet more bad news for Palin on that one, and it’s unlikely she’ll ever be able to undo the damage she did to her image last year.

But let’s get back to Huck, specifically his character. Here’s an interesting sidenote in that Politico piece on the Club For Growth…

Huckabee met in the spring with Pat Toomey, then the president of the Wall Street-backed Club for Growth, which had attacked him during the 2008 campaign for raising taxes in Arkansas.

“It wasn’t very productive,” he said of the meeting. “I realized then that these guys are just what I thought they were — they’re pay for play, and they do it anonymously on behalf of people who don’t want to be known as the funders of these hit operations. I find that repulsive.”

No surprise there, but a round of applause for Huck’s bluntness. That’s what I like about him: he’s honest. Well, as honest as any politician can be.

And while I don’t agree with a lot of what he says, I think he’d make good decisions if given all the facts. This alone makes him formidable in 2012. But would he be able to split the evangelical base with Palin and still beat Romney? Perhaps…and it would be the Ron Paul crowd he could attract with his Fair Tax idea and getting rid of the IRS.

I can’t wait to find out.

Unlikely, but he’s making noises yet again.

From C-Span via Politics Daily:

C-SPAN: “If you were to run, what factors would you take into account? What would lead you to think about running?”

GINGRICH: “Callista and I are going to think about this in February 2011. And we are going to reach out to all of our friends around the country. And we’ll decide, if there’s a requirement as citizens that we run, I suspect we probably will. And if there’s not a requirement, if other people have filled the vacuum, I suspect we won’t.”

Here’s the thing…Newt knows he’d never win. His personal skeletons are simply too numerous and he doesn’t have mainstream appeal.

Still, as a VP candidate? I could see a Romney/Gingrich ticket being compelling to fiscal moderates.

See, Gingrich is like Cheney and Biden in that way. You’d never put him up for the top spot because he couldn’t win, but having that brain power behind the top guy/gal? All of a sudden his personal skeletons melt away…even though he’s still a heartbeat from the Oval Office.

What do you think?

Today, the perfunctory, “next in line” theory suggests that the most likely GOP nominee will be former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. While Romney dropped-out of the 2008 campaign earlier than Mike Huckabee, most conservatives concede that Romney finished in second place – and that is certainly the view held by the McCainiacs. So, by the logic that led to the nominations of McCain and Dole, it’s Romney’s turn. Even if rank-and-file conservatives find him less than perfect concede that he’s paid his dues.

But what about the other model? Who is this year’s Goldwater — and, just maybe, our Reagan? Who is the person movement conservatives really want? It sure ain’t Mike Huckabee. And it might be Sarah Palin.

Palin is the only potential candidate on the Republican side with star power. It’s hard to quantify that trait, but Reagan had it. Ever since his time, Republicans have been convinced that charisma is king. And, as a friend recently told me, “When liberals continuously deride her, many conservatives take it as an attack upon themselves.” That’s a powerful rallying mechanism. Nominating Palin is a way for conservatives to stick it to Eastern elites.

Of course, that doesn’t mean the Republicans would win; Goldwater certainly didn’t. If Obama is going to be tough to beat, the question becomes almost a philosophical one: If you’re going to lose anyway, is it better to lose atop the horse you really want to ride?

If you ask me (and if you are still reading this then you have done so by default), based on Lewis’ assumptions, Mitt Romney will be the candidate of choice for the Republican party.

Sure, he’s not perfect, but what candidate is? It’s not necessarily that he will win over the hearts and minds of the GOP faithful. Rather, it’s that he’s a better choice than Sarah Palin. For one glaring reason…

Sarah Palin quit her job. Period. All Mitt Romney has to do is run ads that say, ‘I finished the job in Massachusetts — you may not always agree with me, but at least you know that I’ll stick around’.

Game. Set. Match.

Looks like Christmas is coming early this year!

From The AP:

Harper publisher Jonathan Burnham says the former Alaska governor invested herself deeply and passionately in the project. He says the book contains fascinating detail.

The 400-page book is the first for Palin, who has been an object of fascination since Republican Sen. John McCain chose her as his running mate during his 2008 presidential bid. The book will be called “Going Rogue: An American Life.”

A huge first printing of 1.5 million copies has been commissioned by Harper, an imprint of HarperCollins.

Folks, she’s laying some serious groundwork for a 2012 run. There’s really no other reason why she would quit her position as Governor, give speeches in China and write a memoir.

But the question remains…will she be going for the GOP nomination or will she be “going rogue?”

Sorry, I had to…

Public Policy Polling pitted the top Republicans (including Jeb Bush) against Obama in a hypothetical matchup and found that the former Arkansas Governor’s folksy ways puts him at the top of the pack. And this makes sense. Huckabee is amiable, has some ideas that at least sound new (get rid of the IRS, FAIR tax) and…ummm…did I mention he’s folksy?

From PPP:

Huckabee comes the closest, trailing Obama 48-41. In the six months PPP has run this poll he has been the most competitive Republican every time. Obama’s lead has increased from 47-44 over the former Arkansas Governor a month ago.

Mitt Romney does next best, down 48-39. In some ways he looks like a stronger general candidate than a primary one though. He has the best favorability of the GOP quartet with Democrats and independents, but only 50% of Republicans have a positive opinion of him compared to 70% for Mike Huckabee and 69% for Sarah Palin. Will he be able to connect well enough with the GOP base to snag the nomination?

And here’s how they all break out:

• Obama/Huckabee – 48/41 – Obama +7
• Obama/Romney – 48/39 – Obama +9
• Obama/Bush – 50/37 – Obama +13
• Obama/Palin – 53/38 – Obama + 15

Yes, the thought of Palin scares more people than the thought of another Bush. But both campaigns are DOA. Guaranteed.

To me, the Romney/Huckabee matchup will be the story. Huckabee obviously has the base locked up tight because he’s so overtly religious, but he scares independents. So he’ll have to do a lot of work to reach out to moderates. Still, it won’t be easy. However, even though Romney appeals to fiscal independents, the base doesn’t trust him. Romney’s saving grace? Palin. She could fragment Huckabee’s support just enough to let the more moderate Romney run away with it…much like Edwards did to Clinton so Obama could thread the needle.

Regardless, I’m anxious for 2012. Can you tell? :-)

But last week the undead meme was walking again:

The GOP’s Best Weapon In 2010
History Makes The Case For Divided Government
By Gary Andres

Morris Fiorina is a political scientist that wrote the definitive text on Divided Government, titled appropriately enough – “Divided Government“. His comment in this piece goes directly to the raison d’être for my blog. To seek an answer to this never-ending question – “Rather than trusting the partisan balancing choice to a subconscious impulse, would we not be much better off if a few percentage of the electorate simply voted consciously for divided government?” And to promote that divided government voting heuristic.

On that topic, two more recent articles on the same general theme:

Swing time is coming for Dems, GOP
By: Noemie Emery Examiner Columnist

THE REAL REASON AMERICANS ARE ANGRY
It’s the big government, stupid.
by Matt Welch

A side benefit of watching the undead specter of divided government haunt the media again – We are no longer hearing about how the United States is really a “center-left” country.

It may be a bit early for these proclamations and conclusions. We are still more than a year away from the midterms. I still think it will take until 2012 to get there, but when Chris Dodd, Arlen Specter, and Harry Reid are all in trouble, we can safely say that divided government is rising from the grave.

Cross posted from “Divided We Stand United We Fall“

Favorable / Unfavorable
Newt Gingrich: 33 / 42
Mike Huckabee: 45 / 28
Sarah Palin: 40 / 49
Mitt Romney: 37 / 34

2012 President
Obama 49%, Gingrich 41%
Obama 47%, Huckabee 44%
Obama 52%, Palin 38%
Obama 47%, Romney 40%

What is most notable to me are the 2012 presidential match-ups. Mike Huckabee is the favorite right now — over Gingrich or Romney. What is that all about?

It seems that most hardcore conservatives that I know or read claim that they loathe the Huckster (and the Club For Growth certainly has a disdain for him). Most seem to favor either Gingrich or Romney. Heck, B-Diddy [an über-conservative contributor at my blog] and I even had a conversation wherein he described a Romney/Gingrich “dream ticket” for 2012. I’m not sure about that idea, but what I do know is that Huckabee has some kind of traction for 2012 already — especially since Sarah Palin continues to embarrass herself and other Republicans.

So the question remains; are Republicans going to warm to Mike Huckabee?

I never thought Romney stood a chance in 2008, mostly because of a combination of his “Mormon problem” and his rather abrupt conversion to hard core conservatism, which left many Republicans wondering how sincere he was in those beliefs. Personally, I liked the Massachusetts version of Romney a lot better than the one who wanted to be President, but McCain’s poor showing last fall has left a lot of Republicans with a bad case of buyer’s remorse, and they may be looking at Mitt with some new found love in their eyes next time around. This new book will probably serve as the unofficial launching point for his campaign and get him back out on the circuit of Sunday morning chat festivals to make his case to Republicans for another grab at the brass ring.

For the most part, I agree.

I didn’t see the “Mormon Problem” as much of a issue for Romney — particularly after he gave his ‘religion speech’ (a la JFK). I know that there were some conservatives who felt that Romney was party to nothing more than a cult, but most mainstreamers (the Michelle Malkins and Ann Coulters of the world) clearly had no problem with Romney’s Mormonism.

What bothered me about Mitt Romney was not his faith, but rather his devotion to his principles (or lack thereof).

The Romney who was governor of Massachusetts seemed more reasonable to me — not unlike current gubernatorial contender Charles D. Baker — in that he was more moderate in much of his approach to social policies (while maintaining conservative stances on fiscal issues). The abrupt and seemingly calculated, err, transformation to über-conservatism left me with a slimy-used-car-salesman impression. I felt that Romney was being insincere and switching his stance on several key issues to appeal to the far-right base of the party.

By the time the Republican presidential primaries roll-around in 2012, some time will have passed and it’s likely that most Republicans won’t question Romney on his conservative bonafides. Especially if the Limbaughs, Coulters and Hannitys of the movement get behind him…

[cross-posted at ThePajamaPundit.com]

A new NBC/WSJ poll has some sobering news for both of the 2012 hopefuls.

From MSNBC:

Palin stepped down from office on Sunday, and could be eyeing a presidential bid in 2012. But according to the poll, a whopping 67 percent of Americans — and 43 percent of Republicans — say they would not like to see her president someday.

By comparison, 50 percent of the public — and 33 percent of Republicans — say they don’t want to see Mitt Romney, another possible 2012 contender, become president.

I’ve always thought Palin was box office poison when it came to the national stage, but these numbers about Romney surprise me. 33 percent? Really?

Maybe a guy like Pawlenty could breakthrough in 2012 after all.

Not only that, Palin has the most favorable numbers among Republicans and Republican leaning Independents…

Genuinely, I don’t get Republican’s fascination with Palin. Especially after her implosion a couple weeks ago, which was before this poll was conducted.

Long story short, the GOP better hope she doesn’t run. Because if she does it seems like she has a genuine chance at capturing the nomination. But there’s no way moderates and independents will make her the POTUS. Not a chance in hell.

This one’s a puzzler.

The potential 2012 candidate who has the least foreign policy knowledge since George W. Bush is the #1 choice for GOPers when it comes to keep us safe?

More at True/Slant.

“There are tens of millions of pro-choice Republicans that are just as good Republicans as I am, and we need to support them. That’s what party building is about, and don’t think that is giving up your principles.”
- Haley Barbour testing the waters for 2012

No doubt this is encouraging, but are base Republicans really ready to listen to this? Especially the highly religious, pro life base. To them abortion is akin to genocide and since it took the GOP decades to wedge those voters to the polls year after year, there’s little likelihood they’ll be able to back away from that play and convince them to focus on other issues.

Here’s more from Barbour…

Party building is about addition and multiplication, not subtraction and division, Barbour said at a party fundraiser in Des Moines. The GOP must be inclusive, he argued, and that idea extends to even the most divisive political issues. To make his point, Barbour pointed out that he helped pass several anti-abortion bills as governor, eventually garnering his state the reputation as “the safest place in the nation for an unborn child.” But he said there are good Republicans who don’t agree with him on the issue. [...]

But if Iowa’s GOP wants to have any chance of defeating an incumbent, it must stick together. The party should also strive to be inclusive, Barbour said, adding that the need to build coalitions and to attract voters means it is not the time to focus on “purity.”

“There are a lot more things that unite us than do divide us,” Barbour said. “Or as President Reagan used to say, remember that a fellow that agrees with you 80 percent of the time is your friend. He’s not some 20-percent traitor.”

Well put. But does anybody really think they’ll be able to turn it around by 2012?

Me neither.

If Sarah Palin really does have presidential aspirations, today’s move was the worst she ever could have made.

I discuss why over at True/Slant.

2012 is already ramping up for some folks.

From Radio Iowa:

A friend of mine in Des Moines, Iowa, got a phone call last night, testing out the names of potential 2012 GOP presidential candidates. It was an automated survey and did not indicate who the sponsor of the call might be, “but it was quite apparent it was a GOP call,” my friend reports. “…The survey started off by asking what I thought the most important issue facing America today might be, then rolled right into, ‘Who would you vote for in the 2012 Presidential primary?’ — offering choices of Huckabee, Palin, Gingrich, Jindal, and JEB BUSH.” (Her boldface type, not mine).

The call also gauged what voters thought of Obama’s job performance.

I think it’s pretty obvious that this is the work of somebody in the GOP. In fact, Jeb Bush’s people could be behind it since he’s rarely ever mentioned as a candidate and Tim Pawlenty is more visible at this point.

So that begs the question…would a guy like Jeb have a chance in a post-Dubya world?

More as it develops…

Here he is on fiscal conservatism…

“If you’re going to be, for example, the party of fiscal discipline and be the person who’s talking about fiscal responsibility, then you better do that. Hypocrisy doesn’t sell. And, the Republicans have to be true to their values, true to their principles and walk the walk.”

I don’t know…Pawlenty just isn’t doing it for me. Perhaps a viable VP pick, but Presidential material?

At least he acknowledges that the Republican brand is damaged.

NPR’s Ken Rudin ranks the 21 Republican governors (Mark Sanford is still on the list) and their chances…

I’ve decided, in a completely unscientific, data-free exercise, to rate the GOP governors in terms of their likelihood of ever reaching the White House (not necessarily in 2012, but sometime in the future).

I readily concede that my list will not universally be agreed on. You may completely dismiss it. I confess I don’t share the optimism about the national future of Alaska’s Sarah Palin as many Republicans do. And note that I have Nevada’s Jim Gibbons last on the list — even below Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is constitutionally ineligible.

And here are his top 10…

1. Tim Pawlenty (MN)
2. Jon Huntsman (UT)
3. Haley Barbour (MS)
4. Bobby Jindal (LA)
5. Charlie Crist (FL)
6. Mitch Daniels (IN)
7. Sarah Palin (AK)
8. Rick Perry (TX)
9. Mark Sanford (SC)
10. Jodi Rell (CT)

Personally, I think Sanford needs to be dropped down to the bottom. He won’t make a comeback. No way, no how.

My top picks are Huntsman, Pawlenty and Jindal…although Jindal better step up his game. Let’s remember that Obama knocked it out of the park at the 2004 Democratic convention with his speech, and Jindal has been seriously underperforming. However, I could see him making his first run in 2016 and then possibly making a real run for it in 2020.

Question for the comments: What are your picks?

(h/t: Political Wire)

Naw, he’s not running for President.

No, not at all.

From The Times-Picayune:

A group of Gov. Bobby Jindal’s political supporters, including an uncle of the governor’s wife, Supriya Jindal, are forming a federal political action committee to support a presidential run by the 38-year-old Republican.

The governor is aware of the operations of Jindal For President Draft Council Inc., but is not directly involved, according to organizers Rama Mohanty, a Southern University professor, and Dan Kyle, a former legislative auditor and failed GOP candidate in several bids for office.

“They are supportive of what we are doing,” Mohanty said of the Jindal team.

But, as mentioned in the article, I think Jindal has his eye more on 2016 than 2012. The field is too crowded in 2012 and he’s simply too young. Best to let Romney, Palin and Huckabee fight it out and then position yourself as the conservative Obama once Obama is out of office.

It’s still early yet in Obama presidency, but given that he’s above 50% in many states that didn’t vote go for him this fall…there’s some significance here.

From FiveThirtyEight:

Obama’s approval equals or exceeds 50 percent in all of the states that he won on November 4th, plus Arizona (10 electoral votes), Arkansas (6), Georgia (15), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (9), Missouri (11), South Dakota (3) and Tennessee (11). [...]

There are a couple of places, though, where there is a little bit of a suggestion that Obama is overperforming or underperforming. His approval ratings are somewhat slack in the Southwest relative to his election day totals, although it is hard to reach a definitive conclusion since we only have one poll to look at in Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico. Conversely, there are some signs that Obama is overperforming in the Inner South or what we sometimes call the “Highlands” region — states like Kentucky, Tennessee, and Arkansas. These are places where Obama appeared to suffer somewhat owing to racial animus. I have theorized before that Obama might gain ground in these states as the manifest familiarity of his Presidency displaced the fear of his otherness. It is too early to confirm or refute that hypothesis, but we perhaps shouldn’t completely rule out the possibility that Obama could be competitive in some of these states in 2012.

I still think that 2012 will hinge on the economy. If it gets better, Obama is a lock. If not, the GOP has an opening. But let’s remember that Bush was still reelected in 2004, even with the Iraq War becoming increasingly unpopular.

Also, when you look at the stable of candidates the GOP will field, only Romney seems like a viable choice. Palin is a joke and Huckabee is too religious. And a guy like Pawlenty, while interesting, doesn’t have the charisma or backing.

But what about a guy like Charlie Crist?

More as it develops…

From Gallup…

Here’s how that breaks out…

More than 6 in 10 Republicans today are white conservatives, while most of the rest are whites with other ideological leanings; only 11% of Republicans are Hispanics, or are blacks or members of other races. By contrast, only 12% of Democrats are white conservatives, while about half are white moderates or liberals and a third are nonwhite.

Yikes.

So will they continue to ignore the fact that our country is getting more diverse and appeal only to their base, or will they actually adopt a big tent strategy and lose some of the wedge issues?

I have my doubts that they’ll do that by 2010 because there’s not much more ground they can lose in the House and Senate so they’ll probably hold their ground for the most part. But those are local races. And come 2012, they could be in for a drubbing if the economy turns around.

So what’s the DNC doing with info like this?

Why, targeting red states that at one time seemed completely unwinnable, what else?

For instance…take Texas:

Obama lost to Republican presidential candidate John McCain by 11 percentage points and close to 1 million votes. Still, that margin is less than more than half of what it was when the state’s favored son George W. Bush was on the presidential ballot.

In his letter Monday, [DNC Chairman Tim] Kaine specifically cited Texas’ large Hispanic organization and the grassroots infrastructure put in place by the Obama campaign in 2008 as reasons the traditionally-considered red state may turn blue.

“In so many ways, I believe Texas is poised to move towards our column, just as Virginia has,” Kaine said.

Could it happen?

Well, did you think Obama would take Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana and a district in Nebraska? And let’s not forget that McCain barely won in states like Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Missouri.

I’m just saying…

]]> http://donklephant.com/2009/06/01/gallup-republican-party-now-almost-all-white/feed/ 9 http://donklephant.com/2009/05/18/quote-of-the-day-2012-blowout/ http://donklephant.com/2009/05/18/quote-of-the-day-2012-blowout/#comments Mon, 18 May 2009 22:43:13 +0000 Justin Gardner http://donklephant.com/?p=14854

“If it’s 2012 and our party is defined by Palin and Limbaugh and Cheney, then we’re headed for a blowout. That’s just the truth.”
- A GOP strategist for John McCain and Jon Huntsman

Here’s more about Hunstman specifically and Obama’s savvy move to make him ambassador to China…

Now, Huntsman’s decision to accept the president’s invitation to serve as ambassador to China effectively means he is out of the 2012 contest. “President Obama is smart to try to get him out of play, because he’s the real thing,” says Quinn. Weaver says Obama came up with pretty much the only job that Huntsman would have accepted. “Had it been a cabinet post or any kind of political situation, he would have flatly turned it down,” Weaver says. “But this China post — he’s uniquely qualified to serve.” As a young man, Huntsman went to Taiwan as a Mormon missionary, where he learned the language and developed a lifelong interest in China. In the 1990s, Huntsman also served briefly as U.S. ambassador to Singapore.

In addition to being out of the 2012 presidential race, Huntsman is also out of the ongoing debate over the future of the Republican party. Quinn, who met with Huntsman during the visit to South Carolina, says the Utah governor “seemed to be highly motivated to try to re-brand the Republican party as an institution that can win elections all across the country.” Now, Huntsman won’t be doing that, not only because it would not be a proper role for an ambassador but also because he will be thousands of miles away in Beijing.

Personally, I think the GOP is headed for a massive defeat if they get somebody like Huckabee too. Romney is really the only one who can offer a much more fiscally conservative agenda, while putting the social issues to the side. But since the field will most likely be so fragmented going into 2012 because the GOP doesn’t have any clear leader, it could drag on a while.

Regardless of any political bloodbath in 2012, Huntsman is well positioned for 2016 if he wants to run. Because Biden won’t run and the Dems will most likely be feeling the ill effects of too much power at that point. Or that’s just my guess. Perhaps the deficits will come down and it’ll be a shoo-in for a Dem successor.

What do you think?

]]> http://donklephant.com/2009/05/18/quote-of-the-day-2012-blowout/feed/ 16