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.

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? :-)

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.

Honestly, I’ve been less and less inclined to believe Rasmussen’s number over the past few months since they’ve shown extremely high negatives for Obama when no other polls were showing the same.

And now we have Obama tied with Romney for 2012 after the President has made virtually no big missteps?

Hmmm…

Not only that, Obama only bests Sarah Palin by 6%, in a 48% to 42% race?

Come on…

Here are some more suspect numbers…

When Romney is the Republican nominee, he beats Obama among unaffiliated voters 48% to 41%. But when Palin is the GOP candidate, unaffiliated voters prefer Obama by a 47% to 41% margin.

Men prefer the Republican over Obama whether it’s Romney or Palin, while women like the president better in both match-ups. Palin continues to fare more poorly among women than her male rivals.

Obama is only pulling 41% of Indys when pitted against Romney? And Palin pulls 41%?

Sure, Independents are wary of Obama right now, but he hasn’t dropped that far out of favor.

Also, Independents fear Palin like the plague. There’s no way they’ve swung back this much for her after this disastrous last month. Not a chance.

Do know that I’m more than willing to accept that Obama’s number have slipped, but not by this much and this fast. No way, no how.

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.

Yes, he apparently is the gift that keeps on giving. (His words, not mine.)

Here’s what Steele said today in answer to a caller on Bill Bennett’s show:

Yeah, but let me ask you. Ok, Jay, I’m there with you. But remember, it was the base that rejected Mitt because of his switch on pro-life, from pro-choice to pro-life. It was the base that rejected Mitt because it had issues with Mormonism. It was the base that rejected Mitch, Mitt, because they thought he was back and forth and waffling on those very economic issues you’re talking about. So, I mean, I hear what you’re saying, but before we even got to a primary vote, the base had made very clear they had issues with Mitt because if they didn’t, he would have defeated John McCain in those primaries in which he lost.

It’s about ten pounds of dumb in a five pound bag for the Chairman of the Republican National Committee to go around saying stuff like that. Especially since Romney is a clear frontrunner in 2012 and quite possibly the Republicans’ best chance at getting into the White House.

If Steele were a political pundit, it would be a different story. But he’s not and he should know better.

Obviously, Romney is none too pleased:

“Sometimes when you shoot from the hip, you miss the target,” said Romney spokesman Eric Ferhnstrom. “This is one of those times.”

And already Republican pundits are calling for Steele to step down.

Jay Cost:

The party cannot afford to have its national committee chairman doubling as a controversial pundit. It’s time for Michael Steele to resign.

Allahpundit:

It’s one thing to be ineffective as chairman — losing NY-20, for instance, which wasn’t really his fault — but it’s another to beclown your way into becoming a national punchline. More than anything right now, the GOP needs to project competence and gravitas; Steele’s done the opposite, out-gaffeing even Biden over the past three months, with his klutzy digression about the base’s disdain for Mormonism just the latest example.

Ace of Spades:

I have defended this guy at every turn. Or, well, most turns. This is the last straw. Michael Steele is the latest person who needs to learn the lesson It’s not all about you, dude.

He seems to believe that he is so magnificently charming and persuasive that he can gain voters by being overly candid and overly “interesting” as a speaker. And, if he had one quarter of the charisma he seems to believe he’s been blessed with, he might be right.

But he doesn’t, and he’s wrong. He’s not particularly charismatic and he does not have the skills to turn these dangerous statements into rapport-building assets. They just continue to gather on the ground like unexploded grenades.

No doubt there will be more follow-on tomorrow.

Hmmm, wonder why he’d be interested in doing that…

From National Journal:

Former MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R), who is writing a book on the direction of the country and has signed on to be one of the national spokesmen for the upstart National Council for a New America, which aims to revive the GOP, appears to be taking a third step in possibly positioning for another run for the White House–making his primary residence at the family home in New Hampshire, the site of the first-in-the-nation presidential contest.

Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said that the former governor is in the process of opening up the Lake Winnipesaukee house this month and “will be spending more time on the East Coast.” Since last year’s election, Romney has been busy selling houses in Utah and Belmont, MA.

Asked where Romney will establish a primary residence for the purposes of paying taxes and voting, Fehrnstrom demurred. “I have no announcements to make on residency,” he said. “He just recently closed on selling his Belmont house and, as of now, he’s still registered to vote in Massachusetts.”

Here’s the thing…Romney knows Mike Huckabee has a lock on Iowa in 2012 and so he absolutely needs to win New Hampshire to go on to claim the GOP crown.

So this is a pretty smart strategic move because he can have that state locked down tight by the time primary season rolls around. And that means he can then focus on other contests beyond that one to get the momentum going into Super Tuesday.

More as it develops…

(NOTE: I misread the poll results. The poll is among ALL voters. I’ll strike what isn’t relevant anymore, but most of my comments weren’t about the Republican nature of this poll anyway. Sorry for the confusion and thanks to Simon for pointing this out.)

This was a bit of a surprise, especially considering that only Republican voters were polled, but it shows who’s leading the pack in a couple years.

Basically, Huckabee is in a surprisingly good position, but Romney, Palin and Gingrich all have double digit deficits.

From Public Policy Polling:

Huckabee fares the best of the top Republican contenders at this point in time, trailing Obama 49-42. That margin is basically the same as what Obama won by against John McCain in November. Huckabee also has the best favorability numbers of the Republican quartet at 42/34. Even after running for President last year a quarter of the country doesn’t have an opinion about him one way or the other.

Sarah Palin’s numbers are an interesting conundrum. She easily has the best favorability among Republicans voters, with 76% saying they have a positive opinion of her. The other three range from 60-67 with the party base. But she also has the largest percentage of GOP voters- 21%- who say they would vote for Obama if she ended up being the party nominee. So for the folks in the party who don’t like her that feeling is strong enough they’d rather vote for a Democrat. It adds up to a 12 point deficit for her, 53-41. Overall the electorate has a negative opinion of Palin, 42/49.

The low 60% favorability rating among GOP voters belongs to Mitt Romney, certainly an indication that securing the nomination is likely to once again be a struggle for him. He is viewed favorably by the largest numbers of Democrats for any of the Republican candidates in the survey, at 27%. He trails Obama 50-39.

Obama: 49%
Huckabee: 42%
Obama +7

Obama: 50%
Romney: 39%
Obama +11

Obama: 53%
Palin: 41%
Obama +12

Obama: 52%
Gingrich: 39%
Obama +13

All the normal caveats apply here that it’s too early, etc., but if Obama is under 50% and Huckabee is only 7% behind, well, the GOP will take note of that. But if Huckabee genuinely gets the nod as the candidate, I think it would tear the GOP in two for the foreseeable future since it would seem like the religious right’s candidate.

Since he’s not holding an elected office right now, he’s the most well positioned of any of the 2012 hopefuls to be THE voice of opposition. Because he can present ideas galore and none of them have to pass any test or go before any vote.

And now, well, there’s this:

The former Massachusetts governor and 2008 Republican presidential candidate is speaking at a political fundraiser Tuesday in Chicago. Other high-profile speaking events follow this week.

Despite those engagements and other signals that he’s positioning himself for another presidential bid, Romney insists that “this is a quiet time.”

Yes, quiet time usually involves talking up a storm at fundraisers and high-profile speaking events. That’s usually how I like to stay quiet.

We all know that Republicans are looking for a new Reagan and Romney’s the closest thing they’ll get. He knows that.

So get ready for Mitt in 2012. It’s already happening.

With Jindal’s epic fail already in the rear view and Palin’s relevancy quickly fading, the GOP will be looking for the standard bearer for 2012. And guess who’s at the front of the pack?

From Politico:

While others may be indecisive or distracted, he’s already, quietly, clearly focused on solidifying his position inside the party, backing House Republicans through his PAC and appearing at CPAC this week.

And he has a crucial advantage over almost all the other Republican candidates who are mentioned: He’s not in office, and doesn’t have to spend the next two years (at least) raising taxes, cutting services, and/or borrowing huge sums. He’s free to articulate a clear voice of opposiiton, and to position himself to play the role of the turnaround specialist if he can make the case that Obama hasn’t delivered.

All that’s true, but Romney needs to be proposing bold new ideas beyond tax cuts. Because if he doesn’t, if he simply tells the party faithful what they want to hear, he may very well get the nomination, but he’ll be set up for failure in 2012.

As if this were any surprise, but does Mitt really want to be known as the perennial presidential candidate? And especially in 2012, when it’s extremely likely that the economy will have picked back up, more jobs will be created and the GOP’s message will still be out of touch.

Wouldn’t he rather let Huckabee and Palin drive that car off the cliff?

From Boston Globe:

Republican Mitt Romney is laying the groundwork for a possible White House campaign in 2012, hiring a team of staff members and consultants with money from a fund-raising committee he established with the ostensible purpose of supporting other GOP candidates.

The former Massachusetts governor has raised $2.1 million for his Free and Strong America political action committee. But only 12 percent of the money has been spent distributing checks to Romney’s fellow Republicans around the country.

Instead, the largest chunk of the money has gone to support Romney’s political ambitions, paying for salaries and consulting fees to over a half-dozen of Romney’s longtime political aides, according to a Globe review of expenditures.

Everybody wants to be Reagan, but Reagan had a powerful message and a national mood behind him. What will the GOP have?

More as it develops…

That’s what he apparently claimed a couple weeks ago.

From the Post-Gazette via Politico:

“I think it’s quite unlikely that I would run for office again,” he said. “I gave this my best effort. My experience in politics is that the window opens rarely. It opened for me. I stepped through it, got on the stage and did my darnedest to win the nomination. John McCain was successful and I was not.”

Adding that he’d prefer to contribute outside electoral politics, Romney reiterated: “If I were a betting person, I’d say I’m not going to be running again.”

Maybe backing off of the 2012 race isn’t such a bad idea. After all, 2016 would probably be a better bet at this point given Obama’s massive win.

Still…if Romney waits 8 years he’ll be 69 and there will probably be another superstar in the GOP like Bobby Jindal who’ll be poised to lead them out of the wilderness. So maybe 2012 is Romney’s best bet.

We shall see…

Sure, Mitt has his sights set on 2012, but he still manages to lay out some ideas that Obama should take to heart.

On governing…

Any management advice for the next president? How does he rally a depressed nation to meet the challenges we face?

He should forget entirely about reelection and focus solely on helping the nation at a critical time. He should dismiss the people who helped him win the election and bring in people who are above politics and above party. He should surround himself with statesmen and economists, businesspeople and leaders. In some ways it would be beneficial if our presidency consisted of only one term. That way the President would think about his legacy and the future of the country rather than reelection and partisanship.

Good advice, and my hope is that Obama will stack his cabinet with the kind of folks that represent a true cross section of the political spectrum.

However, does this “one term” talk reveal a 2012 strategy for Mitt? Many thought McCain should have said he’d only run for one term, and that could have worked.

Of course, many more advise against that, and for obvious reasons. Folks don’t think they have to work with you if you’re only in there for 4 years. And in the current political reality, people start running for president almost a year and a half before election day.

Still, the idea of one term could resonate in 4 years if the economy doesn’t pick back up and Romney has an able bodied conservative like Tim Pawlenty on his ticket who could succeed him. After all, what does the VP do except travel across the country pushing the President’s agenda?

Some more advice on American economic exceptionalism…

When you talk about making America more competitive, what do you have in mind?

First, America must substantially improve our education system. We’ve fallen behind, particularly in areas of math and science.

Second, we’re going to have to remedy our disproportionate health care cost disadvantage. America spends far more than any other nation as a percent of GDP on health care. This effectively is an enormous tax on the economy and on our businesses.

Third, our national debt is excessive and our entitlement obligations pass a massive burden onto the next generation.

Fourth, tax and regulatory policies weigh down our ability to compete. Specifically, our products carry an embedded tax which makes American goods less competitive abroad and at home.

Fifth, America’s apparent retrenchment from the concept of open, free and fair trade could put us further behind other nations that are aggressively seeking trade relations around the world.

Sixth, our lack of an effective energy policy drains our economy by approximately half a trillion dollars a year.

And, finally, the blow that Wall Street has taken may make us less competitive in financing entrepreneurship.

The first and second points I agree with. Education and health care reform need to happen soon.

However, while I agree that our national debt is getting out of control, removing our safety nets won’t help America becoming more competitive. In fact, I think it’ll be just the opposite and we obviously can’t depend on the stock market for private accounts. Just imagine in the future if we would have some sort of massive collapse when a large number of folks are set to retire. It just wouldn’t work.

His fourth and fifth points are certainly valid, but all countries tax their goods and game the trade system, so making sure we’re competitive can sometimes mean controls that don’t seem market driven at first glance, but are actually dictated by the gamed markets in other parts of the world.

The sixth point about energy…I completely agree and so does Obama. But something tells me that Romney wouldn’t approve of government investment in green energy infrastructure. But maybe I’m wrong there.

And to the last point…of course we need to make sure capital continues to flow so our markets can compete, but how we go about it is imperative. My gut tells me that he would have gone along with the economic rescue package, but I don’t have definitive proof so I’ll reserve judgement.

In any event, some good thoughts here from the former Governor.

More as it develops…in 2011. :-)

In any event, NBC and the Wall Street Journal did a poll and guess who topped their list?

That’s right: Mitt Romney.

I wrote yesterday about how he was already starting his bid during the campaign itself and it actually got picked up by Real Clear Politics.

Here’s more from First Read:

NBC-WSJ GOP pollster Neil Newhouse did a post-election survey last night, and here’s what he found: Just 12% of those surveyed believed Palin should be the GOP’s new leader; instead 29% of voters said Romney, followed by 20% who say Huckabee.

Among GOPers, it was Romney 33%, Huckabee 20% and Palin 18%.

I don’t think she’ll try it. Especially after the Georgetown cocktail crowd getd done destroying her folksy reputation.

No, best to hang back in Alaska for another 8 years and be the challenger in 2016.

Yes, Palin’s on the list, but she ranks third behind Romney and Huckabee. And with a field like that, does she really think she can overcome the perceptions that have formed about her during this election cycle?

From Newsweek:

If John McCain is not elected president, which one of the following three possible candidates would you be most likely to support for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012?

Romney: 35%
Huckabee: 26%
Palin: 20%

Interesting numbers, right? And certainly not unexpected.

But check out how the numbers break out when we look at the preferences between Traditional Republicans and Social Issue Republicans…

Traditional Republicans
Romney: 42%
Huckabee: 23%
Palin: 19%

Social Issue Republicans
Huckabee: 31%
Romney: 30%
Palin: 23%

What does this tell me? Palin doesn’t have a chance. Huckabee will take Iowa again and Romney will take New Hampshire. And what state’s left for her to build momentum? South Carolina? Not likely. Huckabee will easily out “folk” her during the debates.

And ultimately, I think the Traditional Republicans are going to try and reclaim their party in 2012. So that doesn’t leave her any room to make a serious bid.

One last data point…Republicans apparently want her to run for President in 2012 by 44% to 38%. Preference break out like this…

Traditional Republicans
Yes: 42%
No: 40%

Social Issue Republicans
Yes: 52%
No: 34%

Interestingly enough, Huckabee better try and convince her to not run because she’ll doom his chances.

Still, it’s best Sarah sits the next one out and focuses on 2016. That is, if she even wants the job.

Additionally, we criticize both campaigns on their respective weaknesses and offer some unsolicited advice for improvement.

And much more…

[Listen Online] or [Download]

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us (mail at 2008central dot net) questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

Does that sound like a bad deal to you?

Also, concerning Palin, I bet Romney wants “Sarah Palin to be Sarah Palin.” Because if she does that, McCain will lose handily and it’ll set up Romney perfectly for a 2012 run when the economy will STILL be on the front burner as the topic du jour.

Yep, that was a prediction.

In the last few days, as bad financial news has piled up, McCain has seemed more than just unfocused, he’s seemed clueless. I’ll let the Wall Street Journal lay out the problem:

Flip-flopping between assertions that the economy is fundamentally strong and populist promises to rip apart its financial plumbing creates confusion about what exactly Mr. McCain really thinks.
…
The problem with Senator McCain’s blustery Wall Street broadsides is that they don’t offer an explanation for what is happening. How is it supposed to reassure people to hear Mr. McCain intone, as he did yesterday, the words “derivatives” and “credit default swaps” as if it’s the first time he’d ever heard of them?

McCain is completely lacking a narrative. Barack Obama, on the other hand, is cruising along on the usual liberal canards of blaming the conservatives and punishing the rich. That may not be a real solution but it is a solid narrative that plays well in an election.

I can’t help but think, had McCain chosen someone like Mitt Romney as his running mate, he’d have someone out on the trail delivering a coherent economic message. For all the enthusiasm Sarah Palin has brought to the party, her deficiencies are already becoming apparent. She’s helped McCain close the excitement gap but she’s does done nothing to shore up his policy weaknesses.

McCain needs to get his economic ideas in order before the debates. Without a clear conservative narrative, McCain will let Obama win with a simplistic liberal one.

Sources told FOX News that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney will not be McCain’s choice, even though Romney is scheduled to appear at the Dayton rally.

The focus now is on Alaska Govenor Sarah Palin who reportedly arrived in Dayton by Gulfstream last night.

If it is Palin it would be, all at the same time, a surprising, risky, and very, very interesting choice.

Update: ABC News reports that Palin’s office says she’s still in Alaska:

ABC News’ Kate McCarthy Reports: As vice presidential speculation swirls, Gov. Sarah Palin is watching the fireworks from her home in Wasilla, Alaska.

(…)

The Governor’s spokesperson, Sharon Leighow, tells ABC News she’s going to the State Fair in Anchorage, Alaska.

Going to the state fair ? Didn’t Tim Pawlenty use that excuse too ?

Of course, Pawlenty did it in person and it’s early enough in Alaska right now that a “she’s still at home” story is hard to verify unless she actually walks out her front door to get the morning paper.