Election 2012: GOP handicapping developments

No sooner had I started writing down Jeb Bush's prospects than those prospects began to start looking up.

With the early resignation of US Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL), Bush's name went under the spotlight as a possible interim replacement. He's now officially disclaimed interest, but it's good "pre-trail" publicity, as it points up the fact that he's previously won two statewide elections and is still well thought of in that key state.

Bush's name also appeared on a survey sent out by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, asking respondents about their 2012 presidential preferences. Other names listed on the "proxy ballot" included Mississippi governor Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels (governor of Indiana), Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman (US ambassador to China and former governor of Utah), Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, Pawlenty and Mitt Romney.

I'm bumping Jeb up from 5% to 10% on the old KN@PPSTER-o-Meter, and taking that 5% out of Huckabee's (3%) and Gingrich's (2%) hides.

I'm also replacing Fred Thompson's name and mug shot with a question mark, and keeping Thompson's former 5% on it. Henceforth, until things shake out quite a bit more, that question mark will represent the entire "also possibly running" pack, to include Thompson, Barbour, Ron Paul (or a Paul movement "heir"), and oddball possibles like former US Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), who's setting up for an Iowa stump tour this fall.

Hell, the eventual nominee may resolve out of that question mark. But at this early date, I still think we're looking at a likely Huckabee/Gingrich shootout with Huckabee prevailing.

Election 2012, GOP handicapping update

The latest adjustments to my GOP 2012 presidential nomination odds line:

I've downgraded Jeb Bush -- the Tucker Carlson interview was good, but I've heard nothing from him since, and the early game is important. Down 5% to 10%.

Ditto Fred Thompson. His candidacy has been pretty much notional on my part, and the longer it stays that way the less likely it is to become reality, or to get anywhere if it does become reality. Down 10% to 5%.

Tim Pawlenty is definitely starting to pull up into the pack. He's been elected vice chair of the Republican Governors Association. He's making forceful speeches to the RNC and chumming it up with party leaders in key states. He's definitely on the trail. See Matthew Berger at The Faster Times for an argument on his behalf.

I still don't see Pawlenty as a likely nominee, but he's got more mojo than I initially credited him with and he's busting his ass to make himself a contender. Up 10% to 11%.

Newt Gingrich gains 5% on "wow, did you see the size of that machine?" grounds.

No, I'm not downgrading Mike Huckabee, his less than stellar fundraising efforts notwithstanding. His TV and radio exposure more than make up for the gap between his take and the war chests of Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin. They're concentrating on raising money to make themselves look good later. He's making himself look good now. He's still the man to beat. 35% and steady.

I'm still thinking that this will come down to Gingrich or Huckabee, with Pawlenty in good shape for the VP slot.

Election 2012: Adjust!

Based in part on some Rasmussen numbers (hat tip -- David Weigel), some significant adjustments to the odds:

- I've taken Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty down from 5% to 1%. As any number of analysists have pointed out -- I think it was Dick Morris talking about Hillary Clinton who first caught my eye with it -- "unfavorables" are at least as important as "favorables" in evaluating a candidate, and a candidate with unfavorables in the 35% or higher range might as well pack it in. Pawlenty's unfavorables are at 34%, his favorables are only at 38% ... and this is before he's really moved into the fight, and a year after the GOP's national convention was held in his state, giving him a chance to showcase himself. I don't see him going anywhere but down from those numbers, and I expect to take him completely off the board soon.

- Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, gets a 5% boost, up to 25%. I was surprised to see his favorable ratings at 65 ... I'd anticipated more in the 50 range. I also expected his unfavorables to be right up against that 35 "doomed, doomed" number, but he came in six points under at 29. He's aggressively promoting himself, and it's working.

- I was surprised to not see Bobby Jindal or Fred Thompson in the Rasmussen field. As much buzz as Jindal's had, I think it was a mistake to exclude him and I haven't adjusted his number. Apparently I over-estimated Thompson's continuing cachet; I've taken him down to 15%, but still think he may throw in and do well.

- I'm now thinking that I got a little prematurely and impulsively bullish on Jeb Bush. Rasmussen didn't bother to include him, and the other McCain usually serves as a pretty good mood barometer for the GOP's Feral Confederate Chihuahua faction. Downgraded from 15% to 10%.

- As has been pointed out, I was probably unfair to Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney by starting them at zero. I still don't think either of them will be viable candidates for the GOP's nomination come 2012, but the numbers say I'm wrong, at least for now. I've redistributed the left-over percentages to them, 5% and 4% respectively, by way of acknowledging that they seem, at least for the moment, to have a shot.

- The Rasmussen numbers confirm my contention that Mike Huckabee is the guy to beat. He has the highest favorable ratings (78%) and the lowest unfavorable ratings (17%) in the field. He's keeping his mug on TV and his voice on radio, and seldom a day goes by that I don't see email promo stuff from him -- stuff which I assume goes to a VERY large list. He stays at 35%, but with a definite bullet.

A lot can change in three years, but as of right now my guess is that we'll end up seeing a Huckabee/Gingrich faceoff for the GOP's 2012 nomination. Huckabee will play it populist and "outside the Beltway;" Gingrich will trot out the latest version of his highbrow/wonky take on Reaganism.

Election 2012: Bush, upgraded

Tucker Carlson interviews Jeb Bush, and Bush displays perfect pitch for a 2012 prospect dipping his toe in the 2009 waters.

In response to the "why not run?" bait:

Frankly I don't wake up each day assuming I'm the solution to life's problems. I think there will be emerging people who have a combination of great ideas, a great ability to communicate those ideas in a relevant way to people, and the ambition necessary to run. You need all three. I am content to be part of the larger effort that creates the fertile ground for those candidates to run.

Circumspect, not coquettish. Door's open a crack, but no wink, wink, nudge play.

This is good stuff, and it's candidate stuff:

- He postures the GOP as having a communication problem, not an ideological problem.

- He never lets the audience forget that he has eight years of experience in the executive saddle as governor of a large state.

- He reminds everyone that he's a Republican who can make bank with the growing Hispanic voter demographic.

- He gets some "regular guy" bumps in there, referring to the necessity of providing for his family's financial security and letting Carlson note that he drove himself to the interview. With his last name, that's something he has to work at -- his personal net worth upon leaving the governorship was reportedly "only" $1.3 million, down from a high of $2 million, but he comes from a monied family (Dad's net worth is in the $25 million range).

- When asked about GOP leaders, he name-checks Gingrich and Jindal, but pointedly ignores the three people most likely to be identified as 2012 contenders at the moment: Huckabee, Palin and Romney.

I wouldn't say he's running, but he's definitely not definitely not running. He's being mindful of what to say and what not to say, keeping his options open and building his cred with modest presentation instead of flash. In other words, good early strategy.

Over on the right you'll see my little "contenders" graphic again, this time with my percentage evaluations of each candidate's chance of securing the 2012 GOP nomination. In subsequent iterations, the numbers will shift as my opinion shifts.

[follow this topic at memeorandum]

Election 2012: Early GOP Handicapping

The 2012 GOP nomination field is already starting to come together in peoples' minds. Is it too early to start eyeballing the horses and making tentative predictions? I don't think it is.

The graphic to the right features eight faces that fit. No, they haven't declared, and some of them may not do so, but that doesn't mean they're not in contention. They've all got buzz to one degree or another as of right now; no one would be surprised to see any or all of them throw their hats in the ring.

I removed one face from the field before I even got the graphic together: Mississippi governor Haley Barbour's. He's apparently already on the stump, but IMO he's just got too much baggage to make it past the Iowa straw poll. I could be wrong. You may see him in future "field pics."

From the top:

Jeb Bush: He's the first Republican to ever manage election to a second term as governor of Florida. He's popular with conservatives. He's popular with Hispanic voters, and especially with the Cuban community. I don't think he'll run, though. Even four years of Obama is probably not going to be enough to give the Bush name a nice ring to the American ear again. It would be an uphill run, and the Bush boys seem to prefer that "sense of inevitability" in their campaigns.

Newt Gingrich: He futzed around with the idea of running in 2008 -- so much so that by Decision Time, everyone was tired of his futzing and the other candidates had left him behind. I think he's learned his lesson, I think he'll get in the 2012 race early and without reservations, and I think he'll do well. I don't think he'll win the nomination, but he's one of three candidates whom I believe might win it.

Mike Huckabee: This is the man to beat. You don't believe me, do you? Just you wait and see. He's got the executive experience (two terms as governor of Arkansas). He's got the populist chops. He gets "I told you so" credit for staying in longer and fighting John McCain harder than any other Republican in 2008. He's keeping his mug out front, but not so far out front as to get it slapped silly in the off-season. When he comes out ... well, like I said, just you wait and see.

Bobby Jindal: Maybe he'll run, maybe he won't. If he does, he'll be an early cull. Unfortunately, he probably won't have a shot at the VP slot, either, since the nominee will be a southern male and will be looking for a running mate from the north or west.

Sarah Palin: I won't be surprised if she runs. I will be surprised if she makes it past the first turn in the primaries as more than comic relief. Even if she manages to hold on to her weird "rock star" shininess for two more years (highly unlikely -- she passed out of "Las Vegas Comeback Special Elvis" territory some time ago and is headed for "Anyone Seen Big White Jumpsuit Elvis? I Think He's In The Bathroom ..." country at ludicrous speed), she'll be running against opponents who haven't resigned from public office twice without completing their terms, and who will be very keen to mention that at every opportunity. She's toast.

Tim Pawlenty: He's going to run. He's going to lose. But if he can avoid getting caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy or dropping the f-bomb in debate, he's got a good shot at the veep nomination. The top slot will go to a conservative southerner; a northern/midwest governor who tries to sell himself as "moderate" fills the bill out nicely.

Mitt Romney: Not a chance. I've already explained why.

Fred Thompson: My third "contender" pick -- but see "Gingrich, Newt" above and double the emphasis. If he wants in, he can't afford to dick around until late 2011 before saying so. He needs to announce early, and be out there throwing hands even earlier (like, say, yesterday). Otherwise, Huckabee and Gingrich will steal a march on him and his campaign will, once again, be over before it gets started.

Right now my money's on Huckabee ... but the campaigns won't be in full swing for two more years and a lot can change in two years. If "national security" issues move back to the forefront in a big way, Wonk Hawk from Hell Newt Gingrich or solid, comforting, "Reaganesque" Thompson may get an inside track.

Well, there you have it. That's the way I see it as of today. I'm sure that I'll see it differently as things progress, and that I'll say so ... but I don't memory hole my predictions when I get it wrong. If I've got it way wrong, well, this post will remain here for you to make fun of in perpetuity.

--

Photo Credits:

Jeb Bush -- Government of Florida, public domain
Newt Gingrich -- KyleCassidy, GNU Free Documentation License
Mike Huckabee -- David Ball, used with permission
Bobby Jindal -- Government, public domain
Sarah Palin -- J.delanoy, Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0
Tim Pawlenty -- Office of Governor Tim Pawlenty, used with permission
Mitt Romney -- Mitt Romney Media, Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported
Fred Thompson -- US Senate, public domain

Nevada, South Carolina predictions

As of last October, I had Ron Paul picked to place second in South Carolina and first in Nevada.

Those picks were messed up for much bigger reasons than "the newsletter affair." If anything, that mini-scandal may help Paul in South Carolina ... but it's mostly a fringe teapot tempest (yes, I admit to being "fringe"). My main screw-ups were assuming that Thompson would not be a factor by this point, and that Huckabee wouldn't be a factor at all.

So, first, my absurd and outdated October predictions:

Nevada

1st - Paul (~40%)
2nd - McCain (~30%)
3rd - Romney (~20%)
4th - Giuliani (~10%)

South Carolina

1st - McCain (~35%)
2nd - Paul (~30%)
3rd - Romney (~25%)
4th - Giuliani (~10%)

Now my revised predictions (and yes, so far I've been about as wrong as it's possible to get -- I had also predicted McCain to win Michigan, and stuck by that one, but didn't blog on it).

Nevada:

1st - McCain (~30%)
2nd - Romney (~26%)
3rd - Paul (~14%)
4th - Huckabee (~12%)
5th - Thompson (~10%)
6th - Giuliani (~8%)

South Carolina:

1st - McCain (~32%)
2nd - Huckabee (~24%)
3rd and 4th - Too close to call, Romney and Thompson both in the 15% range
5th - Paul (~10%)
6th - Giuliani (~4%)

I won't be terribly surprised if Paul does better that I predict in either state, or if Romney upsets McCain in Nevada. I will be surprised if Thompson places better than a distant third in either state, or if Giuliani breaks out of single digits in either state.

I still don't expect Giuliani to make a comeback start in Florida. He'll do better there than he has so far, but he'll be struggling with Romney for a second place finish behind McCain, and almost certainly losing that struggle. Good riddance to bad rubbish. "Super Duper Tuesday" will effectively be a McCain/Romney showdown, advantage McCain. Giuliani might boost Romney a wee bit if he has the brains to cut a deal and do the "drop, endorse" routine, unwisely choosing Romney as his partner. But I'm still convinced that McCain will get the GOP nod.

New Hampshire primary picks

Back in October, I had New Hampshire called as follows:

1st - McCain (~35%)
2nd - Paul (~30%)
3rd - Romney (~25%)
4th - Giuliani (~20%)

With the rise of Huckabee, the fall of Giuliani, and the inexplicable staying power of the substanceless Thompson, I'm updating that prediction ... but it's not changing as much as you'd think:

1st - McCain (~30%)
2nd and 3rd - Paul and Romney in a close and unpredictable fight, (average 23% each)
4th - Thompson (~10%)
5th - Huckabee (~8%)
6th - Giuliani (5%)
7th - Hunter (~1%)

I originally had Romney picked in third, but I've got mixed feelings about him now. He wasn't able to buy victory in Iowa as I predicted he would do, and Thompson is cutting into his "let's vote safe and comfortable" market share. On the other hand, he's picking up some of Giuliani's lost "establishment" mojo, and I suspect that there's some Huckabee backlash brewing for Tuesday. Huck was the "real conservative protest vote" darling for a bit, but not many people are shithouse rat crazy enough to actually want him to win.

Democrat side: Clear win for Obama, Edwards in credible second, Clinton back in third and does not manage a "comeback kid" turnaround a la Bill.

Of course I'm 0 for 2 on the GOP side and 0 for 1 on the Democrat side so far, so I wouldn't advise running these picks and a fist full of cash over to your bookie.

Any way you cut it, my October picks are becoming less and less relevant. There's blood on the floor now and it's slippery all around, but I don't see Giuliani pulling anything like my October prediction in Michigan, or Paul doing as badly there as I initially predicted. How Romney does is largely up to how Thompson and Huckabee do in New Hampshire. I certainly won't be pulling for Romney, but I'll be honest: Huck scares me, and Giuliani would scare me if he was still a factor.

On the Democrat side, it's getting more and more interesting. I predict an anti-Obama backlash after New Hampshire, but Edwards rather than Clinton will be the beneficiary.