2012 Update: Gallup Sees No Front Runner, Boston Globe on Romney in New Hampshire

Gallup Dismayed - GOP Field is Tied! Huckabee, Palin Romney - photo credit: freedomslighthouse.net

Gallup, in a study of GOP Frontrunners from 1952 forward, finds that the 2012 “potential candidates” offer no clear frontrunner, in what Gallup terms as an “anomaly” this late in the game. However, in 2008, McCain was paired with Rudy Giuliani, who bested McCain at this stage of the “campaign”, with McCain emerging after Giuliani dropped out of the race, and the New Hampshire and Iowa contests were past. It was the South Carolina primary that gave McCain the green light he needed in order to emerge as a front-runner in the eventual field that included both Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.

As of the last Gallup Survey taken in February, Huckabee led both Romney and Palin by 2 points, in other words, a statistical tie. Herein lies the conundrum faced by pollsters, there are three strong contenders for the 2012 GOP nomination, none of which have formally announced. Palin has hinted at running, and has made a staff change to her PAC that indicates she may most likely run. Huckabee, with the release of a book and subsequent book tour across early caucus states, as well as the South Carolina battleground, will decide late (in terms of an actual announcement), in June or July of 2011. Romney is declared in all but making the statement official, the former MA Govenor came out this past week with the declaration that he was the most qualified GOP candidate. Although some politico’s may find this to be a negative for the GOP, the fact of the matter is, that overall, a healthy field of strong candidates (and that does not take into account those who have not yet emerged and maybe just as strong as the current well-known three), offers Conservative and Conservative leaning voters the more options than in previous contests, and delaying a formal announcement while laying groundwork for a campaign, is akin to having money in the bank. What will break or make the eventual nominee (which said person will not necessarily emerge until after the South Carolina primary or later for that matter) will be a cohesive effort on the part of all conservative wings of the GOP party to coalesce behind that person – something that may or may not happen, similar in scope to the 2008, doomed from the get-go, GOP nominee.

In 2008, with the taint of the Republican Brand, it was unlikely that whoever ran on the ticket would win the election. However, since the tide has turned, and it is the Democrat brand that is in that position, there will be little difference in who eventually takes the nominee, even if the matter is not settled until the GOP convention.

Strategically, it makes sense that the nominee be delayed over time, giving President Obama no clear rival until the 11th hour – in this scenario, Obama would have to contrast his policy against three or four (unnamed GOP), which would further waste resources. Additionally, if the President’s approval ratings for 2011 do not improve over 2012, it will not matter which front-runner emerges, that individual will most probably be the next U.S. President. Although, it will be a battle, the Gallup favorability ratings for 2010, show few states that will not fall to the GOP, should those numbers hold (currently 10). Gallup, it should be noted is a conservative polling firm, and by conservative, one is not referring to political ideology rather methodology – taking pains to go neither to the right nor the left.

The Boston Globe’s article on Mitt Romney in New Hampshire declares Govenor Romney a “novice no more”, by virtue of his previous run, and offers that he is in a better position to define himself more so than in 2008, as the issues then were less to his abilities (war in Iraq) than now, where the issue is the economy. That said, the article goes on to describe him as more comfortable, rather than “stiff”, as in 2008, but rightly suggests that his greatest hurdle will be his institution of mandated health care (Commonwealth Care) that was morphed into Obama Care on the national level.

There are, of course, differences, however, should Romney emerge as the nominee, it would take the debate over Mandated Health Care off the table, so to speak. Lastly, the subject of Romney’s religion comes into play – the Globe sees his Mormon faith as a deterrent in early states such as Iowa and South Carolina – that said, a quick review of recent (less than 50 years), proves that when the opposition is viewed as not desirable for the nation, and the frontrunner is a Mormon, that faith has little or nothing to do with electability. In 1972, one Richard Nixon, Mormon was elected to the Presidency taking every state with the exception of Massachusetts.

The aforementioned belies the Globes perception that the candidates electability may hinge on religion, whereby, history proves otherwise. In addition, as this nations laws demands a separation of church and state, with freedom of religion the root of the of the formation of the colonies which eventually became these United States, one must understand that, try and the opposition might, regardless of a Presidential Candidates personal choice of religion is concerned, it is that persons perceived ability of governing, that will rule the day. In this opinion, when one has a defined religion, it bodes well for the candidate, rather than detracts, going to personal character and conviction of a named faith. Those that would put labels on Catholics (Kennedy), Mormons (Nixon), and George W. Bush) (Methodist), may have done so but to little avail. ( source adherents.com)

In 2011 (to date), we have Obama (Christian), Romney (Mormon), Huckabee (Baptist), and Palin (Non-Declared Christian – (lack of sources offering a clear definition). In the end run, it will not be a candidate’s religious preference, it will be based on the state of the national electorate and the candidates perceived ability to govern effectively.