Rasmussen published a GOP presidential nomination poll yesterday with Governor Mike Huckabee in the lead (29%), Romney behind 5% in second (24%). with Palin in a more distant third (17%). This is indeed good news for Mike Huckabee and fans, but I would caution them, and anyone else, not to become too invested in polls like this so far out. Much can and will change. And yes I would be saying the same thing even if Romney were in the top spot in the poll right now. The only thing one gains from winning polls this early in the game is a big target on their back and negative publicity from opposing parties or factions.

In early 2006 Rasmussen did a similar poll for the 2008 GOP nomination. The results: Rudy 24%, Condi Rice 18%, and McCain at 17%. Well, we all know who ended up winning. But in the interim Rudy, McCain, Romney and Huckabee all took turns leading in the national polls. Two of those were not even on the radar in the 2006 poll (Romney and Huckabee). It’s possible that Pawlenty, and perhaps even Santorum, could make such a run and we’ll be looking at an entirely different field in 2011. I recall that Romney was at single digits for all of 2006 and the early part of 2007, and was constantly being poked-fun at as “the single digit candidate”. For that reason I caution all to watch out if Pawlenty’s campaign gains traction. I still believe Romney has the advantage at this point, but the competitors are not as far behind as they were before.

There are many other tangibles and intangibles that factor into how well a candidate is preparing for a distant election besides the national polls: PAC fundraising performance, media appearances, Op-Eds, speeches, authoring books, PAC organization strength, campaigning for and making alliances with fellow candidates for GOP offices, etc. Having a TV show with millions of weekly viewers, plus a radio show, is certainly helping in Huckabee’s case, as is evident from the poll. They are an advantageous luxury the others won’t be able to have. The shows I’m sure are a great net positive, but there are some minor downsides as well: less free time to raise funds for the PAC and campaign on the behalf of others.

Congrats to Huckabee, the victor of the day.

The results from Rasmussen:

These numbers reflect an improvement for Huckabee since July when the three candidates were virtually even. Huckabee’s gain appears to be Palin’s loss as Romney’s support has barely changed.

The numbers for Huckabee and Romney look even stronger when GOP voters were asked which candidate they would least like to see get the nomination. Pawlenty came on top in that category with 28%. Palin was second at 21% while 20% named Gingrich. Romney and Huckabee were in the single digits with 9% and 8% respectively.

Huckabee and Romney are viewed favorably by 78% of Republican voters, Palin by 75%. Gingrich earns favorably reviews from 69% while Pawlenty is less well known and gets a positive assessment from 45% of Republicans.

…

Republican voters are very confident their nominee could be the next President of the United States. Eighty-one percent (81%) of the GOP faithful say that it’s at least somewhat likely the Republican nominee will defeat Barack Obama in 2012. Fifty percent (50%) say it’s Very Likely.

~Nate Gunderson

UPDATE: Some interesting head-to-head match-ups plus favorables/unfavorables are posted at Race42012.com.

National Review’s thoughtful writer, Ramesh Ponnuru, gives a refreshing and honest apprisal of Romney’s past, present, and future as a presidential candidate in Romney Reboots. Not afraid to say where 2008 went wrong and how 2012 looks more promising, Ponnuru’s experience and informed opinion are backed up with conversations with Mitt and his Staff.

In the early stages of the undeclared race for the Republican presidential nomination, Mitt Romney is the frontrunner. The former governor of Massachusetts has the best-developed national network of supporters of any of the potential candidates. He is the one doing the most party-building across the country; of his potential rivals, only Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty comes close. He is the one to whom other Republicans are most likely to turn for answers on economic policy, and on many issues he is the only one giving them. When the auto companies came to Washington only Romney had a plan (“Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check,” he wrote in the New York Times).

He knows more about a larger range of policy issues than most of the other Republican candidates. All the candidates can, presumably, say something plausible about Afghanistan; not many can give a credible answer to a question about the role mark-to-market accounting rules played in the financial crisis, as Romney recently did in an interview with me.

A Republican strategist with no ties to Romney recently heard him speak and came away impressed by how much better a speaker he has become. “His stump speech has gotten very, very good. It’s very honed.” In a recent Rasmussen poll, Romney narrowly beat Sarah Palin as the candidate Republican voters most favored. Even the narrowness of that win may work to his advantage. Romney is not so far out in front that he has to worry about meeting high expectations. Nor has he ever made himself the center of attention. Thus he has avoided much criticism and kept voters from getting bored with him. He has been detached and analytical rather than angry.

Romney still has his old-fashioned leading-man looks. He is seasoned. (Only once in the last 50 years have Republicans won with a nominee making his first run for president.) And his aides think they have learned from the mistakes they made in 2007 and 2008. Romney has had an excellent 2009.

Thereafter follows a thorough re-hashing of 2008, from political positioning to religious affiliations. It really is a good read . . . and it ends with:

He gives every sign that he is in the race. The weekend I met with him, Romney addressed the Family Research Council’s Values Voter Summit; did separate fundraising events for Republican candidates for governor, lieutenant governor, and state representative in Virginia; spoke at a conference of the Foreign Policy Institute; and sat down with at least two other reporters. His book, No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, comes out next spring.

Romney believes that Republicans are on the rebound, thanks to President Obama. “I think the concern about the direction he is taking America in foreign policy and domestic policy is mounting. . . . I don’t think for a minute that the country subscribes to President Obama’s foreign policy. . . . I don’t think the country is enamored with the idea of a single-payer health-care system. . . . I don’t think the country wants a cap-and-trade program that could cost the average American family $1,761 [a year].”

Earlier in the interview, he spoke about his primary campaign and McCain’s general-election campaign in 2008. “I heard something from [former HHS] secretary Mike Leavitt which has stuck with me. . . . He said he was watching the ABC Wide World of Sports years ago with the surfing championships. The commentator said that to win the surfing championships requires a person of extraordinary skill and a good wave.” Few have ever doubted that Mitt Romney is a person of extraordinary skill.

A well-known bit of history:  Republicans tend to nominate the guy that came close to winning in the prior election.  Come 2012, that man will be Romney.

In a well-written article by Richard Albert at The Hill, the historical trends of Republican nominations are reviewed, and some very interesting things are discussed.  He begins by pointing out that Palin and Pawlenty have done well generating media buzz by announcing the printing of a book and the formation of a PAC, respectively. (Be it known that Romney has a book, is releasing another book, and formed a PAC long ago.)  Richard goes further in depth by pointing out that despite strategic moves by other Republican nominee hopefuls, Romney has history on his side:

Compelling though they may be as prospective candidates, Palin and Pawlenty still lag far behind the leader in the race to carry the Republican banner in the next presidential election: Mitt Romney. But Romney is ahead of the pack thanks largely to a prominent blemish on his otherwise sterling resume: He lost the nomination in 2008.

It is a peculiar fact of modern political history that past failure in the Republican primaries is often an indication of future success. Unlike the Democratic Party, which often confers the nomination upon first-time candidates — think, for example, of Walter Mondale in 1984, Michael Dukakis in 1988, Bill Clinton in 1992, John Kerry in 2004 and of course Barack Obama in 2008 — the Republican Party has a record of nominating battle-tested candidates who did not win the race their first time around the bend.

Consider the list of Republican presidential nominees since 1980. Of the five nominees, four had previously lost the nomination, often to a prior loser. The most recent nominee, McCain, lost to Bush in 2000. Bob Dole, the victor in 1996, was defeated in 1988 by George H.W. Bush, who had lost in 1980 to Ronald Reagan, who had himself tasted defeat in 1976 at the hands of Gerald Ford.

This is more than simple coincidence. Losing candidates win their second time around (or in Dole’s case, his third) precisely because they never stop campaigning. Of course, they do not run an overt or visible campaign but instead a covert campaign narrowly targeted to party leaders and opinion shapers.

Romney has been doing just that, choosing wisely not to rely only on the cycle of history to win the nomination. Just after bowing out of the 2008 Republican race, Romney founded a political action committee, Free and Strong America, that has allowed him to raise money at a rapid pace.

That has allowed Romney to collect IOUs in crucial primary and caucus states at an even faster clip. He has moreover kept intact the core of his campaign staff, and it stands at the ready to deploy at his call.

When viewed alongside his frequent public appearances on television and in print, and his attendance at private conservative gatherings, it should come as no surprise that recent polls show Romney maintaining an edge over other prospective candidates, including Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal and both Palin and Pawlenty.

All of this paints a promising portrait of Romney’s prospects for 2012. It remains to be seen whether he will actually run. But given what we know about history —namely, that it tends to repeat itself — two things are more likely than not: first, that Romney will run, and second, that he will win the Republican nomination.

Although I don’t believe that merely being ‘the next in line’ is by any means a legitimate credential, I would also argue that Romney is doing all the right things to beef his credentials. I can’t help but think that ever since Romney bowed out in early 2008, he’s been humming the lyrics of the old Rolling Stone’s cover, ‘Time is on my side’, knowing that as long as he maintains his presence, and continues to raise money and appeal as he has been, his nomination, as history would predict, is quite likely.

Here are those lyrics:

Time is On My Side, America.

Time is on my side, yes it is
Time is on my side, yes it is

Now you always say
That you want to be free
But you’ll come running back (said you would baby)
You’ll come running back (I said so many times before)
You’ll come running back to me

Go ahead, go ahead and light up the town
And baby, do everything your heart desires
Remember, Ill always be around
And I know, I know
Like I told you so many times before
You’re gonna come back, baby
cause I know
You’re gonna come back knocking
Yeah, knocking right on my door
Yes, yes!

Huck, Newt, Sarah & T-Paw

Solely for human interest I place this hypothetical situation before you: Romney does not run in 2012. There are four candidates who have composed formal campaigns to win the GOP nomination – Huckabee, Palin, Gingrich, and Pawlenty. You are standing in the booth, ballot in hand. Who do you cast it for? Sorry no write-ins here. (Of course this poll is aimed at Romney supporters, but if you are not among them feel free to vote up your candidate.)

 Loading ...

If you care to explain who you cast your vote for and why, please do so in the comments. Civility is required.

(BTW- I chose these four because they are in my opinion the most likely to run in 2012, though I don’t believe two of the above are actually going to do so. Can you guess which ones I’m thinking of?)

~Nate G.