GOP Michigan Update – Santorum Leads in Polling, Romney’s “Home Turf” – Romney Campaign – A Must Win for Romney Candidacy

Romney in sweater (casual) and Santorum in Suit (Presidential) image yahoo news.

It is not with a bit of déjà vu that the 2012 Mitt Romney Campaign is in some ways, similar to the 2008 Romney Campaign, the mains similarity is the scorched earth advertising policy when it comes to GOP opponents that are polling ahead of the former Bay State Governor. Other than that, it amounts to the number and position of states where Romney has won and especially where he has not – and when he has lost, in most cases it was with wide margins – with Mitt Romney it is, defined by regions, a love him, or leave him electorate. There are certain states, however, where it is anticipated that a candidate should be a “shoe-in”, and in Romney’s Case that is the State of Michigan (and on Super Tuesday, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts), however, recent Polls suggest that Romney may not win the all-important Michigan Primary – rather the former Senator from Pennsylvania, who is now seen as the front-runner, is leading Romney in polls outside of the margin of error.

The poll, conducted by the American Research Group show Rick Santorum leading with Romney in second, Gingrich in Third, Paul in 4th, and other and undecided at 1% and 6% respectively. The poll was conducted among Republican voters and Independents with the electoral makeup of the state fairly well represented. In a preference to vote question, Santorum leads Romney by double digits – and among gender, Santorum is evenly split between men and women (33% to 33%, while Romney has a slight edge over Santorum with Women (39%) but a huge deficit with men (17%). It is clear that Romney’s Michigan win may go the way of his Colorado and Minnesota wins (two states where they were confident Romney would win handily).

It has the campaigns somewhat rattled, according to an article in the Canadian Nanaimo Daily News Headline: “Romney campaign may need bailout in native state of Michigan” - from a new television ad picturing the Governor driving a New Chrysler, while attempting to explain his opposition to the auto bailout. However, in an op-ed in the Michigan papers,

In a separate op-ed published in Tuesday's Detroit News, Romney says he opposed the Obama administration's bailout of Chrysler and General Motors because it was "crony capitalism" that amounted to "an $85 billion sweetheart deal" for auto unions at the expense of company creditors.
"The indisputable good news is that Chrysler and General Motors are still in business," Romney writes. "The equally indisputable bad news is that all the defects in President Obama's management of the American economy are evident in what he did."

The most telling quote from that article comes at the close “"Romney is in the position now where he is having to defend the position that sounds a lot like what McCain said last time."

Romney’s PAC and his campaign intends to turn their attention to the rise of Santorum, however, they bought over one million dollars in advertising targeting Gingrich in Michigan, Romney is attempting to keep both Santorum from Winning and Gingrich from outperforming Romney – there is, by preference, the same distance between Gingrich and Romney in the American Research Poll as between Romney and Santorum, the front-runner. It is a strategists nightmare, and one in which, should Romney come in second in his home state it would be a major setback, however, to come in third, would be a confirmation that the man is not electable in a state that is considered his.

The Problem that Romney faces with Santorum, is twofold – one Romney continues to resonate on the low side with the base, doing better with moderates, and holding steady in the 20’s, secondly, Santorum knows manufacturing, and had done much to support U.S. Manufacturing (U.S. jobs) while in the Senate – (see Thomas.gov (the library of Congress to dispute claims made about Santorum’s voting record, especially by the Ron Paul Campaign). One need only search by candidate by year to find legislation that was sponsored (written) by that legislator and those that were co-sponsored, or supported by that legislator. The claims about big-government spending made by both Romney (who lobbied for billions for the U.S. Salt Lake Olympics), and Paul (who sponsored a host of bills on benefits for seniors among other projects (pork) for his district), fall flat when one views the records side by side). It is a case of the pot calling the kettle black in order to get a leg up.

Two is the question of electability - between Romney and Santorum, one might say that Santorum lost a Senate Race, after having won multiple races, however, one might say that Romney lost a senate Race and barely won the Governor’s race in Massachusetts, while also losing the 2008 bit for the GOP nomination – as of now, polls show Santorum has a slight edge over Romney nationally in the GOP, while polling against Obama (which changes daily), either besting the President, or doing somewhat better or somewhat worse (by one point) than Romney in head to head matchups (which to be sure are just for “fun” at this stage of the game). The main focus of the candidates now, is to win the base and the independents in order to secure the nomination – anything else is simply eyewash.

The fact of the matter is that Santorum is now surging, and at this stage in the game, that surge with a win in Michigan or several Super Tuesday States, would be enough to propel him to the confirmed front-runner. Romney is in the position where he has to play catch-up and normally the instinct is to use negative advertisements that are over the top – which, has worked in 2 of the states, it backfired in Iowa, where Romney literally helped Santorum by destroying the Gingrich Campaign, allowing Santorum to rise and beat Romney.

Santorum is now facing the vetting process that Gingrich faced, but there is little that is not an open book, or has not been brought to the forefront, the former Pennsylvania Senator is somewhat ‘squeaky’ clean in comparison to the other candidates – and he appeals to the bulk of the electorate those who work for a living or did work in – manufacturing. It is the loss of manufacturing, the chronic unemployment in the nation (although on paper improved somewhat), and the obvious passion with which Santorum addresses the need for manufacturing, and the jobs they would crate, that is resonating. Although the pundits and the inclination of the national GOP is that a front-runner should have been chosen in the first caucus, the fact is that the longer these candidates battle it out, and the longer they are vetted, they become the stronger candidate.

Watch the next debate: Feb. 22nd on CNN

Primaries: February 28th, Arizona and Michigan

ABC New Hampshire Debate Winner January 8 – Santorum and Huntsman, Romney Robotic, Gingrich – Perry shut out of Debate forum.

Santorum and Romney NH Debate 1 8 12 - image MSNBC

The ABC New Hampshire Debate which took place last evening and is being touted as a win for Romney by the media, is being viewed somewhat differently from those watching the debate and wondering why the Media is now “in the tank” for Romney (perhaps it’s his use of a teleprompter – see Iowa post-caucus speech, where he did not use his teleprompter as he wanted to “speak from the heart”), perhaps it’s the fact that Obama’s team is more prepared for Romney than any other candidate, or perhaps, just perhaps, they see an Obama defeat, and want the most progressive, moderate to win the nomination. However, the manner in which the placement of the candidates and the focus on certain candidates was done, it left one with the impression that Rick Santorum and John Huntsman were of most import (and this may have been done to polling placement as well, however – it did not help Mitt Romney or particularly hurt him nationally) – Ron Paul’s attacks on Santorum left no doubt that Santorum is now the front-runner, and although he has, from the beginning left Romney alone, it may be due to the fact that Paul perceived himself as the Anti-Romney.
It was, in truth, boring.

Those who consider themselves political junkies were looking for a fight and/or a contrast between the much hyped Gingrich-Romney feud, yet, Gingrich took few shots at Romney, most likely by design and most likely because he was not offered a chance. Rick Perry’s performance was standard Perry – he was sensible up until his comments on the Iraq War, stumbled a bit in some speech, but at this point in the game, know that all will be won or lost in SC. The next debate in less than one hour, on NBC’s “meet the press”, one may find it is not on one’s local listings as a debate. It will be interesting to see how this debate is formatted, (seating wise it may be expected to remain the same).

Therefore, the ABC debate winner was clearly Santorum, for his clear concise remarks, and his rebuttals and defense of attacks by Ron Paul. Second was Romney, by virtue of the length of time he took up during the debate, and his constant smile, - noted by some as “somewhat creepy, but it looks like he knows what he’s talking about, even though what he is saying makes little sense”. Thank God for DVR’s, as what this blogger found about Mitt Romney, is that not unlike McCain, he is the national sleeping pill, in this opinion, and having watched perhaps too many debates, his tone is steady, he never wavers, and he has the look of someone who is in Control, yet in a monochrome manner, which can be soothing – so much so that no one can possibly pay attention, and falls into a near coma as a result. It was the same tactic, and look, that was also evident in the DNC debates of 2008 – whereby Obama would look like he was talking and yet, Clinton has excitement on her side.
Here is the warning, it is the candidate that is inspiring and that will get out the vote, from both Conservatives and moderates and yes Democrats, not the monochrome, made for TV candidate, that will win the day in this election – when one has no contrast with one’s opponent as far as the general public perceives, then there is the old adage: better the devil we know, than the devil we don’t.

Judging from the responses, Santorum clearly won, and Romney is the guy that is most like Obama – this was not this bloggers first impression. The first impression was that Romney had won, based on steady answers, length of time, and the shut out of the most formidable debater (New Gingrich), however, after listening to others that were not as heavily vested, and reviewing the tapes, indeed, it is Santorum who was clearly the winner in this debate.

Iowa – Polling Varies to Extreme’s – Anyone’s Guess – Ground Game will Prevail – Ron Paul Organizational Strength

Iowa has been at the center of attention with newscasters touting poll after poll suggesting that Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and variations of Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum will be the likely winners of the first 2012 GOP caucus. The latest Insider Advantage poll taken on the 28th of December, shows Paul, Romney and Gingrich in a dead head with Santorum in a statistical 4 way tie within the margin of error. (Marginals PDF hereat Real Clear Politics) A number of polls suggest either a Paul, Romney, Santorum win or any combination one can conceive of those candidates running (with the exception of Huntsman whose focus is now on New Hampshire). It will be the first three placements in Iowa that will count towards any “political capital” going forward to New Hampshire, where Romney is leading in polls, but where, again, one cannot pinpoint, by current polls and the variance that is going to come out in the top tier. It will be the state of South Carolina that will forecast which of these candidates can stay in for the long haul, by the placement of the top two – going forward, the candidate that can hold the South and Midwest on Super Tuesday, will emerge as the front-runner (or front-runners as 2012 appears).

All the Super PAC’s and candidates cash on hand will count towards the battle, in the sense that those left with cash will be able to make those necessary appearances and run advertising in states where they are not known – which is where the crux of the matter lays. With the media 24/7 news cycle it is doubtful that anyone who isn’t living under a rock does not know who is running for the GOP nomination. Even in Massachusetts, the local news is bringing the Republican contest into the first half of the news cast, the focus on Iowa and New Hampshire being so strong, that the affiliates are running national stories on the early contests, including commentary from the local anchors. It appears to be message, message, message and who can appeal across the board to a wide range of voters, including the Democrats who are now considering (and not in a paranoid, Democrat Operative voting for the Republican to spoil the race for a specific candidate, type of way, but in a sincere and selective manner, in which they will, many for the first time, and many for the second time in a matter of 30 years, cross party lines) voting against every political instinct instilled in a Democrat – for a Republican to lead the nation.)

Nothing speaks to this stronger than the marginals of the Insider Advantage Poll, and as a resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (known as the bluest state), a Super Tuesday participant, one cannot help but wonder when those who always cast Massachusetts aside (with the exception of the 2009 special election for the Senate seat, won by Scott Brown) will finally poll the Commonwealth. It is not that Massachusetts would be a deciding factor in any Presidential contest (not withstanding the fact that the state offers 9 electoral votes, which, in a hotly contested race may make the difference), but it would offer a snapshot of the depth of the race, and which of the candidates those Massachusetts Independents (the largest portion of the electorate) were considering for the March 6th contest.

Who resonates, who is the candidate that will capture, not the Republican Party loyalists (otherwise known as the Country Club Republican Set (not unsimilar to those in similar positions in the Democrat Party), but those rank and file members who are making decisions based on the newscasts, the mailers, the candidates that show up in the state, and those that have volunteers in sufficient numbers to knock on doors.

One has to consider who has made appearances, that is likely to go a long way towards additional state and local news, and who has an established ground game. (See Campaign Tracker by the Washington Post – visits to States by Candidate noted in this interactive map). History will also play a factor, if one cannot succeed in the Southern States, one might as well be spitting into the wind, so to speak. Historically, those who have risen to the top of the pile, by virtue of either state wins in caucuses or primaries to win delegates at a convention, or those in a brokered convention, and who cannot, on their own merit, carry the South or the west, will choose a running mate that can – the exception being John McCain, a moderate who chose the conservative Govenor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, to boost the base. Consider the case of Kennedy, who chose Johnson in order to solidify the South, so important it was for that Massachusetts Democrat to have geographic representation in order to secure a win.

Therefore, one must look at strengths and weaknesses, endorsements being what they are, in the eyes of some, specifically those who are less inclined to watch the news more than once in a blue moon, or who pay little attention to the primaries, (this year, perhaps an exception). The GOP endorsements to date (running up to Iowa) have been made in large part to Mitt Romney and those endorsements have been mainly GOP establishment figures, Gingrich has received endorsements from, most recently a noted economics and Michael Reagan, Rick Santorum is being back by former Huckabee campaign personnel and certain evangelical leaders in the state, some of whom have gone so far as to suggest to other candidates that they drop out of the race. Ron Paul – has organization, the scope of which it is doubtful that anyone has bothered to look at with any seriousness – but they should.
Paul has, in the past, had the support of the youth vote (think Occupy Wall Street) but this has changed in the age of the Tea Party (think strict Constitutionalists) and now includes a wide spectrum of ages and individuals who are tired of “business as usual”.

A recent op-ed in the New Hampshire Union Leader by Publisher Joseph W. McQuaid entitled “Ron Paul is truly dangerous” speaks to the rise of the Paul Candidacy and the lack of media attention vis a vis Paul’s national security stance, one which many would conclude, as did Mr. McQuaid, are “dangerous” to the security of the nation. Mr. McQauid also points out that his appeal lays in his “domestic libertarian views” which “are quite attractive to some voters fed up with politics as usual”.

How organized is Paul? Take a look at one of the organizations that is backing Paul, to understand the scope of not only his campaign organization but what amounts to a “super pac” of supporters. The websites for reference are Young Americans for Liberty and the Campaing for Liberty (which boast 600,000 plus members). Granted this may not transform into votes, however, look back at the marginals of the Insider Advantage Poll to understand who is voting in the Iowa Caucus and those states through the end of March that offer proportional delegates to those placing, and open primaries where Independents and Democrats may vote and/or change affiliation to vote in the Republican Primary.

The Poll breakdown is shown below:


Insider Advantage Poll Iowa - click to enlarge

Iowa is of import as well as New Hampshire in measuring the depth of the organization of one Ron Paul versus the lack of grassroots organization of the establishment candidate Mitt Romney, leaving South Carolina and Florida to stop what may become a freight train. Those candidates that garner votes in sufficient numbers that cross party lines are at present: Paul, Gingrich and Bachmann, the three candidates that represent the most “outside of Washington” personas and are able to amass votes from all parties.

2012 GOP CNN Debate 11-22-11 – Debate Winner - Newt Gingrich - Bachmann Holds Own on National Security - Overview, Analysis – Full Video

Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, during the singing of the National Anthem CNN GOP Debate 11 22 11, image: The Hollywood Reporter



The 2012 GO National Security Debate was held last evening on CNN and co-sponsored by the the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. CNN made the broadcast available on the Armed Forces Network, CNN en Español, CNN International, CNN Radio and CNN.com. A full video appears below. It was without a doubt, along with the debates on the economy, one of the most important debates for the candidates to not only do well, but also to express their views on the protection of the nation, as well as how one would face the challenges that might arise now and in the future. Of all the candidates on that stage, the most qualified was apparent from the moment he took the first question, and that on individual is Newt Gingrich. Gingrich was steady, clear, precise, and above all, not over reactionary. He answered each question specifically and without rhetoric, which was perhaps, on points, the most measured responses from a candidate to date in this most interesting and qualified field. Surely in second place was Michele Bachmann, the Congressional Representative from the Minnesota 6th District and a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence was also clear in her responses, it was the gravitas displayed by Gingrich that gave him the clear lead. In this arena it was clear that Gingrich and Bachmann, were the the two who hold the most credentialed experience in national security.

The balance of the candidates:

Dr. Ron Paul, Congressional Representative, Texas, was true to his pure Libertarian ideology, which, in this debate arena, placed him at a slight disadvantage, he performs the best in debates on economics, as does Herman Cain, Businessman and CEO, who was clearly out of his depth in this arena, Jon Huntsman, Governor of Utah, understands China, perhaps better than the other candidates but is limited in his approach in the debate arena, focusing on that nation, and repetitious in his responses. Rick Santorum, the Senator from Pennsylvania who is most enthusiastic, also looks to his past in each answer, which, normally begins with (paraphrasing) “I’ve already done such and such…” (Wrote a piece of legislation or was part of a committee, etc.). To his credit, he is one of two that answered the following question, not only in a response as asked, but clearly and with accuracy. The Question (again paraphrasing: refer to video) what national security issue was not addressed in tonight’s debate? Santorum, the first to answer, brought up the clear and present danger in South America – Santorum, should the Republican Candidate be successful in the 2012 campaign, be assigned to a position that is most suited to his expertise – it would be a shame to waste that type of talent. Herman Cain answered pointedly but did not expound, and Newt Gingrich gave a clear three point answer to the question, as with all questions, leaving no doubt as to this meaning or intentions.

Mitt Romney, who is seen by some as the front runner and eventual nominee, was simply not prepared for this forum. He was too busy campaigning against Obama in his answers rather than clearly stating his positions. In addition, he made a few mistakes as to the state of certain nations (specifically Indonesia – where the security of that nation is at risk, especially from radical Islamic forces, so much so that it is in turmoil – see strategypage.com article from the 12th of November, 2011.) That said, other than getting tongue tied during an answer (which, one would not want to see in a debate against Barack Obama even though the current President had done the same in the past, during the 2008 Democrat primary), Romney stayed on “campaign”. This is something one should notice about Romney that perhaps has not be brought to light, however, the man is a patriot, one has to look past the clips of campaign Romney, or economic Romney, to the opening of each debate where the national anthem is played. Romney gains points for his appearance and his singing along (silently or otherwise) with passion and pride, one might add, to the National Anthem. That penchant to sing (or lip sync) the National Anthem is one thing noticed and noted, he truly loves this country. That is not to say the other candidate do so no more or no less, but in last night’s debate, one is remind ended of former 2008 Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton, who was caught on tape, singing along to the national anthem. It was a move than endeared her to those who value the nation and what it has to offer, and care less about a public display. Her critics were first to note her ability to sing, rather than praise her for her obvious patriotism. That said, Romney’s performance overall left him in the Perry category. Perry, also a patriot, was more out of his debate depth than Romney, and clearly not up for a national security debate.

This is one of two debates where it the answers are critical, the stance on the issues at hand should be measured, not reactionary and that clearly places on individual ahead: Newt Gingrich.

The tension: Where Newt gave the answer in a clear and specific manner, on illegal immigrants, and his heartfelt, and Catholic (Universal) view of compassion when it come to the family that has been in this nation for 25 years, has an extended family, and attends church, pays taxes, et. al. Gingrich proposes allowing them to stay in the United States and giving them a legal status (not citizenship), in addition, when one is in this nation illegally and joins the armed forces, that person should be allowed a path to citizenship. This is something that happens consistently with nationals from other nations who are here on visa’s, of any type. His answer was quickly seized upon by the other candidates as “amnesty”, yet, Gingrich held firm. It is without a doubt, a red meat question, when it comes to what to do with the millions of illegal immigrants living and working in our nation. It is without a doubt, the last “problem” any candidate has yet to give an answer to, and or if an answer has been given, has done anything about once installed in the Oval Office, and this is a failing of Presidents on both sides of the aisle, and goes back beyond Ronald Reagan. It was, as one of this blogs more right of center peers stated, a problem for Conservatives, and yet, what amazes this individual of Spanish decent, nothing is ever done, especially from those who spout the most vitriol against those here in our nation illegally. Therefore, the answer given last night by Gingrich, clear, fair and one which could be easily implemented would appeal to most moderates, those compassionate conservatives, and the Hispanic/Latino Community.

From a true left of center independent, watching this debate, Gingrich stood above the rest, in terms of intellect, and has now become “human”. Someone who is likable when need be and one who is tough as the occasion demands. The second choice – startling to this blogger was Bachmann. Startling because of the choices – in the conversation was the following that should give Gingrich the biggest boost. (Paraphrasing) With today’s economy and the state of the world, Gingrich is the best choice to lead the nation, I would not have thought so ten years ago, or ten months ago, but after seeing him in several debates, he is clearly the smartest in the room, and we need someone who is smart.
What might be most interesting about the two responses, one is an avowed Massachusetts Right Voting evangelical, the other, a New Yorker, who more often than not, votes along the alternative party line.

Two do not make a poll obviously, however, if the smartest man in the room, is the choice, even despite a disagreement on an answer on immigration which was immediately misquoted by candidates on stage, of two so diverse political voters, one has to ask, take away the party purists from the Democrats, and those left, are most likely leaning with Newt. Those on the right, are most likely forgiving Newt his past, and looking at him as the one to trounce the President in the debate arena, and in the polls (this is yet to occur, however as Romney has been given the most media attention as the “eventual nominee”, and polls are now just beginning to show Gingrich equal to or above Romney”, a first look by many will clearly move those numbers in Newts’ favor should his debate performance remain constant going into the Iowa primary.

The next debate will be held on December 10, 2011, co - sponsored by the Des Moines Register and the Iowa Republican Party and broadcast on ABC News at 9:00 PM eastern.

The Iowa Caucus is the first 2012 general election decision made, followed by New Hampshire, the first primary in the nation. Both will take place in early January, just six weeks or less from today.

CNN Debate Video