Monthly Archives: December 2011

Parsing the Iowa Poll: Why It’s Good News for Newt

By now most of the media outlets have picked up on the Des Moines Register poll that was released last night, but I want to address a couple of points that may have been missed in the extensive media coverage. First, it’s worth reminding everyone that polling a caucus state is much more difficult than for a regular primary because the polling outfit has to sample the population of likely caucus voters, which is quite small. Part of the reason the Des Moines poll garners so much attention is that it generally has a good track record in forecasting the caucus results. (The paper has been running this poll going back to the Reagan years, so they have some experience in polling Iowa caucuses). Nonetheless, there are lots of assumptions built into the forecast that leave room for error. And, there’s still a month and several Republican debates to go. Note that only 28% of those polled in Iowa say their mind is made up. A lot can happen to change the dynamics on the ground there.

With those caveats, I want to highlight a couple of interesting findings from the actual poll. As I noted in my last post, not only does Gingrich lead among likely caucus voters with 25%, he is the second choice of 18% of the survey respondents, which also leads the field. In terms of second choice candidates, Romney is second with 15%, and Perry third at 12%.

Gingrich also has the second fewest votes for “least liked”, with only 6% of respondents designating him as such. Santorum leads with only 4% choosing him as least liked. Romney and Bachmann, however, tie for the lead as least liked, with both getting 15%.

When asked which of the candidates whom they haven’t seen they would most like to see, Gingrich leads the field with 26% of respondents saying he’s the one they want to meet. That suggests that he has potential to win over more voters. Romney, in contrast, is grouped down with the rest of the field with 15% of respondents saying he’s the candidate they most want to meet.

When asked about various candidate qualities, Gingrich is the overwhelming choice as the most knowledgeable (58%), most experienced (58%) and most like Ronald Reagan (28%). No one else comes close in these categories. He also has a slim lead over Romney (22-20%) as most likely to turn the economy around. Finally, Gingrich finishes first as the candidate most likely to bring change, with 27%, followed by Paul at 18%.

However, it is not all bad news for Romney. He is viewed as the most “presidential” (34%) and “most electable” (38%). Gingrich is a respectable second in those categories.

On the whole, the internals of this poll are more favorable to Gingrich than even the top number showing Gingrich in the lead. And they raise a critical question for Romney: Is it even worth devoting resources to Iowa, thus raising media expectations that may be hard to meet? The answer, I think, may turn on whether Romney calculates that his superior resources will allow him to turn out the vote in numbers greater than suggested by this poll, and that Gingrich will be unable to translate his polling support into actual votes. Keep in mind that four years ago this calculation didn’t work in Romney’s favor, as Iowan conservatives coalesced behind Huckabee even though Romney spent scads of money in the state. In looking at the poll results, I can see this same dynamic unfolding in January, with many caucus participants opting for their second choice option. Note that this poll was in the field before Cain announced that he was suspending his campaign. The wildcard is Paul, but as I noted yesterday, while I’m sure he’s going to win his 15-18%, the polling results indicate that may be his ceiling; he’s the second choice of only 7% of likely caucus goers.

I’ve discussed in previous posts how Romney might change his strategy to take on Gingrich, so won’t belabor the point here. Interestingly, the Republican establishment continues to believe – or to hope – that Gingrich’s candidacy is flawed, and that he will implode, ceding the field to Romney. But if I’m Mitt, I would pay less attention to what the experts keep saying, and more to what the polls indicate is actually going to happen in Iowa.

Holy Iowa! The Mitt Has Hit the Fan!

For the night owls among you, the Des Moines Register has released its latest Iowa caucus poll and it is good news for Newt – and bad news for Romney. Given the late hour, I’ll give you the highlights now and present a more detailed analysis tomorrow (actually, later today!) As of now, the survey shows Gingrich in the lead with 25% of likely Republican voters. Here’s the kicker: Ron Paul is in a virtual tie with Romney – Paul is second at 18%, with Romney in third with 16%. Note: this poll was taken before Cain announced he was suspending his campaign. (The poll consists of 401 likely caucus participants and has a margin of error of just under 5%.) . Bachmann and Cain are at 8%, Perry and Santorum at 6%, and Huntsman, who is not campaigning in Iowa, trails the field with 2%.

It’s hard to exaggerate just how good this poll is for Gingrich. First, consider that he has gained 18% since the last Register poll conducted Oct. 23-26. In that poll, Cain led the field with 23%. Romney was in a virtual tie at 22%. Gingrich was in single digits at 8%. This latest poll suggests that much of Cain’s support has migrated to Gingrich. With Cain’s decision today to suspend his campaign, I expect Gingrich will gain additional support.

Second, most respondents choose Gingrich as their second choice. All told, 43% of those polled list Gingrich as either their first or second choice. This means that Gingrich is likely to take most of Cain’s remaining support (and who will Cain endorse?) and if other candidates falter, Gingrich is most likely to benefit.

Third, Romney has lost 6% in Iowa just at the moment he has decided to go all in. His first television ad just went up, and a campaign spokesperson acknowledged that Mitt was in the Iowa race to win before walking back that statement a bit later in order to play the expectations game. But make no mistake about it – if Romney finishes behind Gingrich AND Paul, it will raise serious questions regarding his candidacy – and about the judgment of the Republican establishment and the punditocracy that swears Gingrich’s support will not hold.

Keep in mind, however, that a lot can happen in 30 days. Eleven percent of those polled say they are uncommitted, and 60% indicate they are willing to change their mind. I expect Mitt and the other Republicans to bring out the heavy artillery against Newt in the next month. The next two Republican debates will also be crucial. But for now, if I’m Mitt, I am very worried.

I’ll have a more detailed analysis tomorrow…. .

Will You End Up in Guantanamo Bay Prison?

The focus on the Republican nomination battle threatens to overshadow a fascinating debate that unfolded this past week on Capitol Hill – one that crossed party lines and raised the possibility of a rare presidential veto. The dispute centers on provisions in the $662 military authorization bill that lays out military policy and related spending parameters for the next fiscal year. In an unusual coalition, libertarian-minded Senate Republicans including Rand Paul joined with liberal Democrats such as Diane Feinstein to fight a provision in the bill that would allow the military to hold suspected terrorists indefinitely, without the right to trial – even if they are American citizens captured on American soil. Senators backing the provision, including Republicans Lindsey Graham and John McCain, and Democrat Carl Levin who chairs the Senate Armed Services committee, said its inclusion signified recognition that the War on Terror was taking place here at home as well as overseas. As Graham put it: “It is not unfair to make an American citizen account for the fact that they decided to help Al Qaeda to kill us all and hold them as long as it takes to find intelligence about what may be coming next. And when they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.’” That view, they argue, is consistent with the Supreme Court ruling in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld allowing the government to hold Americans as enemy combatants. But critics including Paul argue that allowing the military to hold Americans captured within the United States without trial is a dangerous expansion of police powers and a violation of civil liberties.

Ultimately, the differences were papered over by an amendment that appears to give the president some flexibility to move suspected terrorists from military to civilian custody and which states that nothing in the legislation would alter existing law when it came to military detention of U.S. citizens and those captured on American soil.

Despite the overwhelming Senate support for passage (the bill passed 93-7 and will be reconciled with a House version. Senators voting nay included three Democrats, three Republicans and one independent), however, President Obama is still threatening to veto the bill in its current form. However, if administration spokespersons are to be believed, Obama’s objection is based not so much on concern for civil liberties as it is on preserving the president’s authority and flexibility in fighting the war on terror. According to White House press secretary Jay Carney, “Counterterrorism officials from the Republican and Democratic administrations have said that the language in this bill would jeopardize national security by restricting flexibility in our fight against Al Qaeda.” (The administration also objects to language in the bill that would restrict any transfer of detainees out of Guantanamo Bay prison for the next year.) For these reasons, the President is still threatening to veto the bill, which now goes to the Republican-controlled House where it is unlikely to be amended in a way that satisfies the President’s concerns. If not, this sets up an interesting scenario in which the President may have to decide whether to stick by his veto threat and hope that partisan loyalties kick in to prevent a rare veto override.

The debate over the authorization bill is another reminder of a point that you have heard me make before: that when it comes to national security issues and the War on Terror, President Obama’s views are much closer to his predecessor’s George W. Bush’s than they are to candidate Obama’s. The reason, of course, is that once in office,the president – as the elected official that comes closest to embodying national sovereignty – feels the pressure of protecting the nation from attack much more acutely than anyone else. That pressure drives them to seek maximum flexibility in their ability to respond to external threats, and to resist any provision that appears to constrain their authority. This is why Obama’s conduct of the War on Terror has followed so closely in Bush’s footsteps – both are motivated by the same institutional incentives and concerns.

The Senate debate, however, also illustrates a second point. We often array elected officials along a single ideological line, from most conservative to most liberal. Think Bernie Sanders at one end and Jim DeMint at the other. In so doing, we are suggesting that those individuals at the farthest ends of the spectrum have the greatest divergence in ideology. But on some issues, including this authorization bill, that ideological model is misleading. Instead, it is better to think of legislators arrayed in a circle, with libertarian Republicans and progressive Democrats sitting much closer together, say, at the top of the circle, joined together in their resistance to strong government and support for civil liberties. At the “bottom” of the circle are Republicans like Graham and Democrats like Levin who share an affinity for strengthening the government’s ability to protect the nation’s security.

For Obama, however, the central issue is not the clash of civil liberties and national security – it is the relative authority of the President versus Congress to conduct the War on Terror. That explains why he has stuck by his veto threat despite the legislative compromise. And it raises an interesting test of power. To date he has issued only two presidential vetoes, by far the lowest number of any President in the modern era. His predecessor George W. Bush issued 12, and saw Congress override four – a historically high percentage of overrides. On average, presidential vetoes are overridden about 7% of the time. These figures, however, underplay the use of veto threats as a bargaining tool. In the 110^th (2007-08) Congress alone, Bush issued more than 100 veto threats. I’ve not calculated Obama’s veto threats, but it is easy enough to do by going to the White House’s website and looking under its Statements of Administrative Policy (SAP’s) listings. Those should include veto threats. Note that most veto threats are relatively less publicized and often are issued early in the legislative process. This latest veto threat, in contrast,seems to have attracted quite a bit of press attention. It will be interesting to see whether, if the current authorization language remains unchanged, Obama will stick to his guns.

Meanwhile, keep those election predictions coming – there’s a free t-shirt at stake!

Conjuring the Ghost of Cain

If, as all signs indicate, Herman (The Herminator) Cain terminates his campaign tomorrow, this is likely more good news for Gingrich. That is because, as I suggested in this earlier post, most of the survey data suggests that a significant plurality of Cain’s supporters will throw their allegiance to the Newtster. Already the Des Moines Register is hyping a poll of likely Iowa caucus voters, to be released tomorrow, that shows Cain’s support dropping into single digits, down from a high of 23% last October and this is before Cain will have announced the end of his campaign. What the news story does not say is whether Newt has continued gaining in Iowa, but I’m guessing that will be the lead when the poll is released. If so, whither Mitt? And will Paul continue to draw his 12%? Stay tuned as I’ll be on with the results as soon as they are posted.

If tomorrow’s Iowa poll does indicate that Newt is widening his lead, it will be fascinating to see how the media spins this. Because so far, the mainstream bloggers and their media counterparts are simply not buying into the Gingrich polling results. The prevailing sentiment is captured in Dana Milbank’s Washington Post column from a couple of weeks ago titled, “Why Gingrich Won’t Last”. (See also Michael Tomasky’s article here.) Since these columns were published, Gingrich has widened his lead in national polls and in Iowa, South Carolina and Florida. And yet today, a poll of the National Journal’s insiders indicates that most them doubt Newt’s staying power. So, for that matter, do you. To date none of the predictions submitted have Newt winning this nomination. Instead, all of you continue to put your money on Romney, despite the fact that he hasn’t broken 25% outside of New Hampshire in this, his second time around the track. (By the way, that leaves the prediction field wide open for those Not-Romney advocates!)

Here’s why I think Newt may actually win Iowa. First, although it is true he doesn’t have much of a ground game there (he only opened his Iowa headquarters on Wednesday, although plans are in the works for an additional 6 offices), he has used his surge in the polls to begin raking in some big money. According to Gingrich aides, his campaign took in the same amount of money this past month as it did in the previous half year, and it has raised $5.5 million so far in this fourth quarter, compared to $2.9 million raised through the end of September. And while it is true that he only has seven staff members in Iowa, Romney has about the same number, although the Mittster has much more money.

And while he hasn’t visited the state as frequently as Bachmann or Santorum, he has been there many more times than Romney. Interestingly, as this map shows, Newt has focused most of his visits in the major media markets, particularly Des Moines, reflecting his emphasis on stretching the dollar by relying on free media as much as possible. (The dots are where he’s visited – bigger dots mean more visits. All data from the Des Moines campaign tracker.)

Now compare that to Santorum’s visits.

And now Bachmann’s.

As you can see, Santorum and to a lesser extent Bachmann have opted for the more traditional meet and greet strategy by criss-crossing the state much more than Gingrich. And that, I think, is going to help Gingrich because both Santorum and Bachmann are vying for the same voters, and thus are likely to split the social conservative vote in contrast to 2008, when it all went to Huckabee. Of course, critics contend that Romney will use his money to flood Iowa with supporters come January who will go door-to-door to bring out the caucus vote. Maybe, but I can’t help remember similar predictions for Howard Dean in 2004 that proved wildly optimistic. He also flooded Iowa with volunteers, and they proved a major problem since many of them didn’t have the foggiest understanding of Iowan’s concerns.

The wildcard here is Paul, who some say has the strongest and most committed ground game in Iowa. The problem for him is that he seems to max out at about 15% of the vote. Let’s say he pulls in 15% and Romney, by dint of his ground game and money, gets 25%. Assuming Santorum and Bachmann split the conservative vote at, say, 8% and 12% respectively, and Perry pulls in 10%, Newt could win this thing with only 30% of the vote. That’s not implausible, particularly if he picks up most of Cain’s backers. (Warning: back of the envelope musings – you shouldn’t wager on these numbers.)

Thirty days and counting. The next two Republican debates may prove crucial. Meanwhile, what of Herman Cain?

He’s paying the ferryman to take him across the river….let’s hope that will ease the pain.

And no, I’m not related….

Who Wears the Mitts In This Family?

Another day, another set of encouraging poll results for Newt, and discouraging ones for Mitt. This time an automated Rasmussen poll of likely Republican voters nationwide has Newt handily beating the rest of the field with 38% compared to Mitt’s second-place 17%. This is Newt’s largest lead in any nationwide survey so far. (I’m not going to start parsing the internals of the various polls this early in the process – you’ll get plenty of that later on.) And it simply adds to his polling momentum – the RealClear Politics composite polling average shows Newt’s survey support (he is in green) heading north, while Mitt (purple) and the Herminator (red) go South.

As I noted in an earlier post, although I’ve been touting Newt’s debate-based surge for some time now, the media-driven conventional wisdom has been slow to adjust to events on the ground. Only now are they showing signs that they recognize that Newt’s polling arc is not likely to follow the same pattern as that exhibited by previous “Not Mitt” candidates. In their defense, however, the speed of ascent, and his evident staying power, took even the Newtster by surprise. In an hour long interview – more like an extended “infomercial” – with conservative talk show host Sean Hannity before an appreciative South Carolina audience last night, Gingrich admitted that his intended strategy had been to stay in the race until South Carolina, where he then hoped to make his move with a strong showing. Instead, he is now the undisputed frontrunner.

Which raises the question: did he peak too soon? And what does Mitt intend to do about it? I suggested yesterday that it was time for Mitt to put up his, er, dukes and start directly targeting Newt. Media reports from today suggest that Mitt and his advisers are finally recognizing the difficulty of running a classic front-runner’s race when by all indications you are no longer the front runner. Indeed, as Newt put it last night, the race has turned quickly from Mitt versus non-Mitt to Newt vs. non-Newt – with Mitt in real danger of not being the non-Newt. But, how to respond? Evidently Mitt and his Merry Mittsters are debating how to take on Gingrich directly without mussing Mitt’s hair.

While Mitt dithers, Ron Paul isn’t waiting, as the following campaign ad (hat tip to Peter) indicates (cue dramatic music!):

Despite the annoying music, the Paul video succinctly spells out the major talking points that will undoubtedly be at the heart of any future attacks on Gingrich’s record: his work for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, his more moderate stance on many issues, his ad with Pelosi recognizing global warming (a “mistake” Gingrich openly confessed last night), his support of health care mandates, his criticism of the Ryan plan as “right wing social engineering” and, of course, his messy personal life.

To this point, Newt seems to have developed a set of talking points designed to respond to these criticisms. It remains to be seen whether those talking points will be enough to blunt the impact of these attacks which are sure to escalate in intensity in the next few weeks. As of now, Mitt still seems reluctant to muss his hair with direct attacks on Newt, so he may rely on surrogates like Chris Christie to carry his dirty water for him, and hope that the other Republican hopefuls will follow Paul’s lead and launch their own broadside at Newt’s very broad side. In the meantime, I expect to see lots of Romney ads featuring his wife and family (no messy personal life there!) and constant references to his private sector experience. The problem is that this may not be enough to overcome the persistent skepticism among Republican voters regarding Romney’s own inconsistencies – a skepticism that dates back at least four years and which seems to have set the Mittster’s ceiling of support at about 25% of likely Republican voters.

Meanwhile, how will Gingrich adjust to front-runner status? Critics are waiting for him to implode – to engage in the self-centered, petty behavior that contributed to his downfall as House Speaker. To this point, however, we’ve seen a new, wiser, more mature Newt, one who while still showing flashes of smugness and intellectual condescension, has also managed to come across as mellower and more introspective. Already he has instructed his staff to avoid critiquing Romney, continuing his steady adherence to Reagan’s 11^th commandment. Meanwhile, he may have his sights set on a bigger target: a poll released today shows that for the first time Newt has pulled even with the President in a national survey of likely voters.

So, which is it? Will Newt solidify his lead in the next month in preparation for the Iowa caucuses? Or is he destined to follow the downward trajectory experienced by the other non-Mitt’s who temporarily shot to the top of the pack. Are we seeing a new Newt, or will he relapse into the bombastic bomb-thrower of yore, as critics contend (and hope!)

I know what Newt thinks – he told ABC’s Jake Tapper this afternoon that “I’m going to be the nominee. It’s very hard not to look at the recent polls and think that the odds are very high I’m going to be the nominee.”

Is Newt right? Are we looking at a Gingrich-Obama slugfest this fall? If not, then who will be the Republican nominee? It’s time to stake out a claim. At stake: one “It’s the Fundamentals, Stupid” t-shirt to the person who can tell me who will win the Republican nomination. To make it more interesting, you must tell me the order in which the 8 Republican candidates will finish, based on the candidate’s delegate totals when the race finishes or the candidate drops out.

Ready?

Game on.