(NE=Northeast | S=South | MW=Midwest | W=West)

What I find interesting:

• Romney is right in the mix with all conservatives and GOP, but is far ahead of the pack with moderates and independents, which bodes very well for the general election and electability.
• Every poll I see shows that Romney consistency outperforms with men, but lacks with women.
• Palin does very poorly among independents at 3%. I would be very concerned about that if she goes to the general election.
• That big goose-egg (or dash) for Romney with the young crowd has to be a concern. Expanding online campaign to be more ‘hip’ is a must.
• Palin at 60% with 18-29? I have now idea why that would be so extraordinarily high.
• Romney continues to dominate the Northeast while Huckabee continues his reign in the South

What think you?

~Nate G.

Poll Source: Public Policy Polling, March 19, 2010 (PDF Press Release)

Yes, of course it is very early to place huge stock in such polls, but we can’t help but be drawn to any early indication of what might possibly happen in 2012. With that in mind I present the results of the Public Policy Polling’s survey of Florida Republican primary voters:

If the Republican candidates for President in 2012 were Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, and Mitt Romney who would you vote for?
52% Mitt Romney
21% Mike Huckabee
18% Sarah Palin
14% Undecided

I don’t think I need to remind our readers how important of state Florida in the primary schedules with it’s 57 winner-takes-all delegates. Cross-tabs from the survey show that results are basically the same whether the polled Republicans were of conservative, moderate, or liberal ideology.

Not to be excluded from the report is the great news that Romney also holds large lead in an identical poll Colorado. This one isn’t quite headline news as Romney overwhelmingly won Colorado in the 2008 primary caucus. The results for Colorado PPP poll:

Colorado:
44% Mitt Romney
25% Sarah Palin
17% Mike Huckabee
14% Undecided

For full results of the Florida and Colorado polls, including cross-tabs, click here.

Other recent polls:
PPP Texas:
32% Mitt Romney
29% Mike Huckabee
23% Sarah Palin
15% Undecided

PPP New Mexico:
33% Mitt Romney
32% Sarah Palin
18% Mike Huckabee
17% Undecided

For full results of the Feb. 26 Texas and New Mexico polls, including cross-tabs, click here.

Magellan Strategies California,
31% Romney
18% Palin
13% Huckabee
12% Gingrich
08% Paul
03% Other
03% Pawlenty
12% Undecided

For full results of the March 4 California poll, including cross-tabs, click here.

Mitt ‘12!

~Nate Gunderson

(HT to BOSMAN, one of our readers for the story.)

In the two videos below, Gov. Mitt Romney is grilled like I can’t recall him being grilled before on national television. In what could’ve been a disastrous moment that hurt Mitt’s chances to Bring America Back in 2012, Mitt actually comes out looking stronger and more equipped to take on the challenges our country faces. Chris Wallace brings up many of the studies and talking points used by the right and the left to attack what Mitt did as governor of Massachusetts to reform health care. Without skipping a beat, Mitt calmly and successfully explains point by point why his plan is different from Obamacare and why health care in Massachusetts still has a ways to go in regards to health care.

This interview may very well be the interview that we can direct people to for years to come whenever the question is raised about health care in Massachusetts. With this interview and Mitt’s recent interview with NPR I love the way Mitt is confronting his detractors head on and isn’t afraid to engage people on liberal leaning news organizations like NPR and MSNBC.

UPDATE: I very much enjoy the analysis at RightOSphere entitled: Hard Questions (You may need to register for the site *FREE* in order to read the article.)

Recent polling from Magellan Strategies indicates that both Governor Mitt Romney and Meg Whitman , former CEO of eBay.com, are in early pole position for their relative offices, or potential office I should say in the case of Governor Romney. California has a closed primary, meaning only registered Republicans can vote in the primary. As such the Magellan poll only included those who are registered GOP.

California is rich with GOP delegates with approx. 170 that get to vote in the RNC convention. Of those McCain received 158 delegates in the 2008 primary, while Romney earned 12, with 42% of the vote and 35%, respectively.

The results for Magellan’s early 2012 Presidential preference poll:

31% Romney
18% Palin
13% Huckabee
12% Gingrich
08% Paul
03% Other
03% Pawlenty
12% Undecided

That is a very healthy margin for Romney, and there could very well be similar results in February 2012, bringing a vast majority of those 170 delegates into Romney’s camp. Interesting enough the results included cross-tabs which showed the results among social conservatives to be very similar to those of the state-wide poll: 30% Romney ; 20% Palin ; 17% Huckabee. This disputes claims that Romney can’t do well among SoCons, and being a strong SoCon myself I find great satisfaction in that.

Now for the 2010 GOP Gubernatorial nominee poll results:

63% Meg Whitman !!!
12% Steve Poizner
04% Other
21% Undecided

Much could happen before the June 8 primary elections, but I think Whitman is almost a definite winner with nearly 2/3 of the entire vote. Meg Whitman as Governor would be an extraordinary benefit to the State of California with her extensive economic expertise as a business leader, but I can’t overlook the fact that it will also be a huge boon to Romney with Whitman in the Governorship.

Good Luck Whitman 2010 and Go Mitt 2012!!

~Nate Gunderson

Results of the full survey found here. HT GOP12.com

While Mitt Romney continues to impress Americans during the first week of his whirlwind book signing tour for No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, a date in April is worth noting. On April 9, 2010, Romney will address the Freedom Foundation of Minnesota and sign copies of his new book. Present on the same stage will be a Republican notable who some say could be a potential 2012 presidential rival and who has recently been critical of Romney’s Massachusetts health care plan. Neither men have declared intentions to run for the highest office in the land, but both are giving indications of that possibility. Will Gov Tim Pawlenty have a copy of Romney’s new book tucked under his arm? If so, I’m sure Gov Romney will be happy to cordially sign it for him.

Freedom Foundation:

Former Massachusetts Governor and 2008 presidential candidate Mitt Romney will visit the Twin Cities on April 9, 2010 to speak at a dinner sponsored by the Freedom Foundation of Minnesota (FFM) and sign copies of his newly released book. Joining Governor Romney for the event will be Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. The title of Governor Romney’s book is also the topic of his remarks: No Apology: The Case for American Greatness.

“The Freedom Foundation of Minnesota is both honored and excited to host two of our country’s most influential and important conservative leaders,” said Annette Meeks, CEO of the Freedom Foundation. “Governor Romney has been and continues to be one of the most powerful voices advancing free market policy alternatives. We’re planning an exciting evening where Minnesotans will hear Romney’s public policy ideas first hand.

“We are equally excited that Governor Tim Pawlenty will be joining us on April 9th. While Pawlenty’s public policy leadership is no secret to Minnesota conservatives, this will be the first major event where these two American leaders will appear on the same stage – a spectacular opportunity for the Freedom Foundation to highlight two dynamic American leaders.”

The event will be held at the Hotel Sofitel in Bloomington, beginning with a private reception and dinner. A dessert reception will precede remarks by the two governors with a book signing by Governor Romney to occur at the end of the evening. Registration details can be found at www.freedomfoundationofminnesota.com and tickets must be purchased in advance for all events.

I’m a little perturbed that FOX News released the results of the poll before it was announced before at CPAC. It came up on twitter almost a full 10 minutes before the actual announcement.

CPAC attendees have spoken and have chosen RON PAUL for their preference for the GOP nomination in 2012? Romney had won the contest in 2009, 2008, and 2007 (click here for results for all three years). The straw poll was open all Thursday and closed at 1:00 on Friday. This year is said to be different from previous years as there has not been much push or buzz to win the poll, though it’s obvious the Campaign for Liberty had their eye on the prize. Congratulations to Ron Paul and all of his supporters! We’ll see ya’ll again next year!

Here are the results:
Ron Paul 31%
Romney 22%
Palin 7%
Pawlenty 6%
Pence 5%
Gingrich 4%

This is the order of the candidates as it appeared on the CPAC 2010 ballot:
Haley Barbour
Mitch Daniels
Newt Gingrich
Mike Huckabee
Sarah Palin
Ron Paul
Tim Pawlenty
Mike Pence
Mitt Romney
Rick Santorum
John Thune
Other (write in)
Undecided

~Nate Gunderson

Allahpundit poses this question over at Hot Air. He bases this question on a blog posting by Ben Smith over at Politico indicating that Matt Rhodes, one of Mitt’s top staffers from the 2008 team, has taken over the Executive Director spot at Mitt’s Free and Strong America PAC.

I think most of us have been anticipating Mitt running again in 2012 (hence this blog). This development serves to reinforce our sense of anticipation. I am very excited about this prospect as I continue to believe that Mitt would be a great President, and that we need him now more than ever.

What I am not excited about, however, is the intra-party strife which will certainly arise from the primary season. By contrast, Allah is licking his chops over the possibility of a Mitt vs. Sarah vs. Huck cage match:

Just from the perspective of blogworthy content, I’m thrilled. A Huck vs. Palin race would be fascinating, but having Mitt in the mix all but guarantees a “centrist elites vs. populist conservatives” storyline for the nomination. Can’t. Wait.

Centrist?! The emerging meme of Mitt as some squishy “Obama in GOP clothing” centrist has been showing up more and more frequently. Having spent most of the 2008 primary season on the front lines of the blogosphere debunking false accusations and willful misrepresentations, I am dreading the coming onslaught from the mainstream media and whomever the primary opponents will ultimately be. Not because it is not a worthy cause, but rather, fighting these battles cause a type of pain akin to hitting your head against a wall over and over again with nothing to show for it (at least that’s what it feels like sometimes).

There will be plenty of time to make our case and debunk the myths. For now, let’s steel ourselves for what we know is coming. The time isn’t quite here yet, but it looks like it may be coming and we’re one step closer today.

One of the first reviews of Mitt Romney’s new book, No Apology: The Case for American Greatness came out yesterday from a fellow named David S. Bernstein from The Boston Phoenix. As it was (and still is) one of the only reviews of Mitt’s newest publication to hit the web, I found it to be quite insightful.

That said, the analytical tone Bernstein uses is rather tendentious and the picture he attempts to paint for Mitt’s future, especially with regards to the conservative south, is as abstract as a Picasso:

A critique of Bernstien’s misleading review and a more accurate synopsis of Mitt Romney’s future involvement in the South is provided by Mathew Continetti in his piece: Romney and the South:

[Bernstein] makes the questionable claim that “Romney is going to try to win without” Christian conservatives. And that means “skipping the South.”

Really? Religious conservatives make up a significant portion of the GOP electorate; winning the nomination without them is clearly a next-to-impossible task (McCain squeaked through because at first the religious conservatives split their vote among the various candidates). The South, moreover, is the geographic base of the Republican party — could a politician win the nomination with the Northeast, Midwest, Great Lakes, and Mountain States? Maybe, but he or she would have to sweep all those regions, which seems unlikely.

Romney is no dope; he understands how important the South is both in the Republican primary and in the general election.

Bernstein bases his claim on two pieces of evidence: (a) “Romney’s PAC has started ignoring southern pols” and (b) “most revealing is Romney’s decision not to attend this year’s Southern Republican Leadership Conference (SRLC) in April in New Orleans.”

Let’s look at these in reverse order. A spokesman for Romney’s Free and Strong America political action committee tells me the governor isn’t attending the SRLC because of a scheduling conflict. “The reason Mitt Romney is not attending the SRLC is because of conflicts with his book tour,” says Eric Fehrnstrom. “The book, No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, comes out March 2 and he’s on the road promoting it the entire month of March and half of April. During the SRLC, he’ll be in Philadelphia (World Affairs Council speech), New Hampshire (St. Anselm’s Institute of Politics speech and remarks to Politics and Eggs breakfast), Boston (Ford Hall Forum speech) and Minneapolis (book signing, Freedom Foundation speech).”

Nor does missing one conference signify rejection of an entire constituency. Sarah Palin made a highly publicized decision to skip next week’s Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C. Does that mean she thinks she can win the nomination without conservative support? Hardly. The same rule applies to Romney.

Despite Bernstein’s assertion to the contrary, Romney seems also to be paying attention to “Southern pols.” In 2009 he campaigned and fundraised for South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, Virginia governor Bob McDonnell, the Georgia House Republican Caucus, and the Duval County, Florida, GOP. This month, he’s scheduled to appear at a joint fundraiser for Georgia congressmen Westmoreland, Gingrey, and Price, and another for Florida Republican Rep. Connie Mack. Romney’s book tour (the full schedule hasn’t been released) will also take him through a variety of Southern locales.

Since losing the 2008 primary to John McCain, Romney has been expanding his political network. That expansion has not been limited to a particular area. Listen to him and his advisers: Romney will compete in the South.

Will southern Republicans vote for him? Now, that’s an entirely different question…

Does this group have a web presence yet?

~Aaron G.

UPDATE from Ross: 2012 Watch – Romney and the South

Share

(H/T: Race42012)

Gallup: Just off the top of your head, which Republican would you most like to see as the party’s candidate for president in the 2012 election?

Republicans and Republican-leaning independents: Romney!

OK, so everyone didn’t shout ‘Romney!’ in unison, but he did win the largest percentage. It is interesting to me that this was an open-ended question and no answers were suggested to respondents. One commenter at Race42012 makes an excellent observation:

This is best a measurement of the awareness of registered voters, where almost 2/3rds either don’t know or don’t have a clue. Of the 1/3rd who “may” be listening, Romney receives 44% and Palin 34%. No one else garners as much as 10%.

Also of note from the Gallup report is a little tidbit that speaks volumes of Romney’s electability in both the primary and general elections:

Whereas conservative (15%) and moderate or liberal (14%) Republicans are about equally likely to mention Romney as their preferred nominee, Palin is much more likely to be mentioned by conservatives (14%) than by moderates and liberals (3%). Conservatives generally outnumber moderates and liberals by about 2 to 1 within the Republican Party.

And lastly:

At this point, Romney and Palin can be considered the early front-runners for the GOP nomination, a position that has proven advantageous in most past Republican nomination campaigns.

My last thought: Did anyone notice Scott Brown’s name up there in 4th place above some who may actually run for office. This brings two thoughts to mind. One, very little people are actually paying attention this early in the game as Scott Brown will certainly not be running in 2012, nor will McCain (#3) for that matter. Two, as much as I like Scott Brown, isn’t it extremely premature to judge his qualification for the top office? Don’t many of us Republicans complain that Obama was an unknown entity when he began to run just two years into his first term as Senator? Let’s give him some time to prove his meddle, and not give into the mania of the day.

~Nate Gunderson

(Note: This is this my own analysis of things as I see it. I do not represent Romney’s PAC in any way, nor have any connection to them. But I am available for hire should they ever call on me. No, I kid.)

With the last bit of fundraising data in (the total number of donors to Romney’s PAC), we can now make a proper evaluation of the fundraising abilities of the 4 most-likely-to-run GOP candidates and their respective PAC’s. One major problem is that there are so many uncommon denominators in the results that there is no easy indication of a clear winner, nor of a clear loser.

First let’s look at the raw numbers. Before anyone gets too excited about it, you should recall that T-Paw’s PAC was only in operation in the fourth quarter, plus other variables that I will explain.

(*** Disbursed=expenditures COH= Cash on hand $ to Cand.= money given to GOP campaigns for office)

Review of performance:

Mitt Romney Mitt Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC, is the most cut and dry scenario we have of the four. His PAC was intact for the entire year. He didn’t have distraction or obligations that others did. The numbers here tell the most of the story. He raised money very well, and he notably spent more also. The story here that is not told in the numbers is even though most of the would-be GOP nominees gave about 2% to other GOP candidates for office, Romney’s impact on behalf of other GOP candidates can arguably claim to be the highest as he has had time and means to hold many fundraisers for them. A fundraiser bringing $200,000 (as some did) is of lot more value than the max $5000 his PAC can contribute directly to them. A few of the unseen benefits of Romney expenditures include items of great reward: freedom to travel as necessary to endorse, raise funds, do media appearances and speeches, and otherwise keep his name and face out there. Plus he is able to maintain he excellent campaign team through to the next election cycle, which is virtually the same team that helped propel Senator Scott Brown to victory.
Mitt Romney’s Grade: a (solid) B+ Romney raised the most (from the highest number of donors) and has the most cash on hand, but with his network and relative freedom that would be expected. Expectations are the only reason I don’t score him higher.

Sarah Palin SarahPAC didn’t quite pull in as much as the FSA-PAC, or from as many donors, be she certainly didn’t focus on it much because of a number of factors: SarahPAC didn’t form until a couple months into year (she was still Governor of AK at the beginning of ‘09), she focused some fundraising efforts on her legal funds rather than her PAC, and much focus of the year went to writing and touring for her new book. Even so she has a healthy amount of cash on hand that she’ll be able to disperse of more liberally (to conservatives) as we go throughout 2010. Also her star power is a huge asset at this time. She may not have raised as much, but it won’t matter as she can use some of her own new found wealth to more than compensate for a relatively small difference in total number of dollars raised.
Sarah Palin’s Grade: B- With a little more focus on her PAC she should be able rival Romney’s numbers. The decision to focus on that is hers to make. With her new contract with FOX News, I’m not sure if that will happen. But then again the net benefit of being on FOX may be more than any funds she can raise… unless her contract brings her to the point of over exposure. I believe there is some risk in that.

Tim Pawlenty T-Paw and his Freedom First PAC got a much later start than the rest but it has impressed with his good-sized catch. The high average dollars per donor shows that he does have at least some ties and connections that will be vital should he decide to run (I’m sure he has already decided.) Even so, one should not make that mistake of thinking that since he only had 1 quarter to raise funds that $1.3 Million x 4 = $5.2 Million for the year. Certainly as some donors begin to max out ($5000 max contribution) that rate cannot be continue to be sustained. One way to be certain is to see where we are at the end of June 2010, where it will be easier to compare apples to apples. One other item that limits his current freedom is that he is still a sitting Governor whereas the others are merely former Governors and are free to move about.
Tim Pawlenty’s Grade: A- Sometimes it’s not how much you’ve raised, but how you did compared to expectations. I expected some, but not that much, especially given his lower name recognition.

Mike Huckabee HuckPAC is a little harder to grade than the others for the reason that- yes, he’s got some boots on the ground, but does that make up for the relatively low fundraising? Huckabee also has a distraction with his show on FOX. That kind of weekly exposure should be a boon to name recognition, which it is as evidenced by him being right at the top of most polls, but it all needs to transfer into some increased ability to raise funds. Huckabee did great on meager funds in the 2008 election, and it may turn out similar for him in the 2010 primary, but such a plan would not work in the general election. Raising more funds will be a must for him at some point in the future.
Mike Huckabee’s Grade C+ In comparison to the amount that T-Paw raised in one quarter, and to Romney’s 3 times average dollars per donor, the fundraising is unimpressive. BUT… 16,000 donors is a very good number. I would think to give a lower grade otherwise.

Newt Gingrich: Newt? Hey, he doesn’t have a PAC. Yes, but many are quick to point out that his 527 (American Solutions for Winning the Future) raised $6.4 Million. That’s more than the others put together! … Yes, but a 527 group is a totally different animal. It does not have the $5000 donation limit that PAC’s have. They are also limited in that they cannot directly support (or oppose) candidates for office …. just for clarification.
Newt’s Gingrich’s grade N/A Apples to apples… Besides my guess is that he will only tease and hint at running, but will not enter the fray.

Result: Yes, in my opinion the winner by a slight degree is T-Paw, mostly because of the ever present “expectations”. Time will tell if his fundraising is sustainable. If it is, welcome to the top-tier.

~Nate Gunderson

One other note: we should see the low percentages of money given to other campaigns go up as we get closer to the 2010 elections. The year 2009 was more of a ‘fill up the treasure chest’ type of a year.

FEC filings (for you data geeks): Free and Strong America PAC, SarahPAC, Freedom First PAC, HuckPAC