2012: 538 Looks At Sarah Palin Vs. Mitt Romney Vs. Mike Huckabee Vs. Field

It's posts like this one that keep me going back to FiveThirtyEight. This kind of electoral and poll analysis play to his statistical strength. The rest, wherein he invokes his liberal condescension and plays Obama apologist, makes me want to bang my head against the wall, repeatedly. There's nothing learned in those posts and the tone makes them practically unreadable.

Back to his 2012 Republican primary post: There is a lot about this race that is unknown, like, who's going to run? There are so many names out there, even guessing who might be in it in 2012 is a crapshoot. Now add to that the difficulty of analyzing the prospects of various candidates who may or may not be running in 2012.

Of the 3 mentioned in the post title, readers know my preference: Romney, then Palin, and I don't care for Huckabee at all, and I'd love to vote for General Petraeus, though it's unlikely he runs.

The whole post is worth reading, I'll just excerpt the part on Romney:

Conversely, Mitt Romney's paths might look something like this, and are probably somewhat more straightforward than Palin's.

Romney Plan A. Win Iowa. Win New Hampshire. Game over.

Romney Plan B-1. (If Palin is knocked out) Lose Iowa. Win New Hampshire. Win Nevada. Sweep orange states on the basis of organizational strength. Veer slightly to the left, emphasizing electability and cleaning up in delegate-rich states like California and New York. You probably outlast a Southern opponent like Huckabee, perhaps even fairly easily. A Midwesterner that could win states like Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania might be more challenging.

Romney Plan B-2. (If Palin survives) Lose Iowa. Win New Hampshire. Win Nevada. Split orange states with Palin on the basis of organizational strength. Hope that gold or purple states came up next, in which case you should build up a substantial delegate lead. If so, the party infrastructure may start to close ranks around you. If green states come up instead, Palin is tougher and you're in for a war of attrition with flagging momentum.

I'm headed to CPAC next week and will get to listen to Romney and a number of the other potential Republican candidates in 2012. I'll also get a sense of base enthusiasm for 2010 and a number of other things.

Watch for lots of CPAC-related posts 18-20 February.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Checking In With Tim Pawlenty

All you guys who hate social conservatives (Mike Huckabee), conservatives whose positions have changed/evolved over the years (Mitt Romney) and otherwise smart people who occasionally say dumb things (Sarah Palin--but you still love Average-Joe Biden!), are going to love Tim Pawlenty.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has been quietly assembling the blueprint of a presidential campaign and will announce Thursday the support of a group of high-level political strategists and donors, complemented by a handful of top new media consultants, POLITICO has learned.

Pawlenty, under the radar of D.C.’s political community, has locked up some of the key operatives who engineered then-President George W. Bush’s reelection campaign — a significant feat for a little-known Midwestern politician.

The moves underscore, and will lend credence to, the emerging belief among many establishment Republicans that Pawlenty is becoming the sole viable alternative to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a potential Republican primary rival. The Minnesota governor has even gone so far as to contact some of Romney’s former supporters.

Congratulations to Liz Mair, a friend of this blog, who has joined Gov. Pawlenty's PAC.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Conservatism 2.0

Billed as "a discussion about the future of conservatism," Pajamas Media's TV outlet, the aptly named, PJTV, will broadcast a round table discussion featuring Mike Huckabee, Glenn Reynolds, Dr. Helen Smith, Michelle Malking and some college conservatives & Young Republicans.

If you're a subscriber, check it out. I don't know if it will be made available to non-subscribers or not.

I'm meant to contribute in some manner, but it remains to be seen exactly how much I'll be seen--that is to say, my part might get cut. If it does, I'll update later and fill you in on what I said that they thought wasn't worth airing.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

McCain/Huckabee vs. Romney

Whence the animus, John and Mike?

Last night we received a thoughtful email from longtime reader, Matt Perkins. In it, he asked, "why is [there] so much bitterness and rancor aimed at Romney from the McCain & Huckabee camps?" It's a good question. And we're not sure we know the answer.

This morning, we watched Huckabee supporter, big smile sporter, and all around conservative bad-A, Chuck Norris on one of the network talk shows. Asked about his man Mike Huckabee and the results of Super Tuesday, Norris said that if Huckabee had $40M of his own money to spend, he would be the Republican frontrunner.

So is plain old class warfare and jealousy of Romney's personal wealth prompting the rancor between the Huckabee and Romney camps? Maybe.

Huckabee is the one who famously referred to Romney as the "guy who fired them (average joe)." This kind of rhetoric mirrors the talking points of the left. But what do we draw from this? Maybe Huckabee really is the populist and less the conservative that Romney's ads have indicated.

Romney's largesse has permitted him to produce and run ads which criticize both John McCain and Mike Huckabee. We've watched these ads. Sure, they're hard hitting. But they don't seem dishonest. They certainly haven't been personal--certainly not personal in the way that Huckabee's use of Romney's Mormonism was personal.

Unlike Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, Mitt Romney didn't have national name recognition. Unlike Mike Huckabee, Romney didn't have a ready-made group of Evangelical voters. Mormons don't have nearly the numbers. At least, not outside of Utah. What Romney did have was money. And he did what unknown candidates have always done--run ads attacking the other candidates.

We don't mind attack ads. We relish them, in fact, and wrote as much a few weeks ago. But some voters (pansies) and other candidates (wimps) don't like them. We suspect that these ads and Romney's money combined to create the animus that seems to exist between McCain/Huckabee and Romney.

Huckabee's recent combination with McCain can be explained by self interest. He knows he has zero chance of being the Republican nominee, but if he helps McCain knock off Romney, he could very well end up as McCain's running mate.


--->Programming notes:

• This Saturday at 4:30pm MST on Dish Channel 9403 & DirectTV Channel 374 (click here for additional programming availability in your area) our profile will run on the program "BYU Weekly." Tell your friends.


• We recently concluded an interview with former RNC Communications Director and current GOP consultant, Brian Jones. Thanks to Mr. Jones for being so gracious. Stay tuned for a post with all the good stuff.

If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Neverending Super Tuesday

Like yesterday's post about John McCain, we've got a number of disjointed thoughts about Super Tuesday and the race in general. We couldn't fit it all into one, coherent post, and we wanted to be able to update it throughout the day, so we're going to semi-regularly update this post for the rest of the night. Check back often.

(scroll down for updates)

- On the way back from Alta, we listened to the Sean Hannity show. Sean, as many of you know, has become an ardent Romney supporter. He couldn't stop talking about the smoke-filled, back room deal between Mike Huckabee and John McCain in West Virginia. Of course what they did was legal and a part of both parties' political history, but that doesn't mean that anyone has to like it.

- John McCain consistently misrepresents Mitt Romney's position. Before Florida he tried to convince voters Romney would set a withdrawal date for troops in Iraq. Either he was being disingenuous or he is too stupid to understand a simple sentence. Since we think Senator McCain is a smart man, we vote for the former.

McCain is at it again.

Supposedly by comparing John McCain's candidacy to Bob Dole's--the fact that Dole was also viewed as next-in-line and eventually lost--Mitt Romney is supposed to have disparaged Dole's military hero status and his service to America. We listened to Romney's comments and our considered response is: yeah, right.

Talk about a wilful suspension of basic listening skills. There was nothing that could have been construed as a criticism of Dole's military service. Zilch.

There is plenty of room for McCain to criticize Romney about his record. He doesn't need to be deceitful. In our eyes, this man of principle loses a bit of his luster.


*Update 6:29pm MST: Looks like Arizona is tighter than McCain would like. Jim Geraghty (see the link) reports that anti-amnesty folks and Mormons are coming out in support of Romney. If Evangelicals, African-Americans, and women can play identity politics, why can't Mormons?


**Update 10:25pm MST: We said our piece at the Provo City Council meeting. Property rights, liberty and the unintended consequences and costs of regulation--we think we may have been a little too theoretical. 3 members of the council responded to our comments. Their responses ranged from mildly interested, to lecturing, to completely dismissive.

Afterwards we commented for a story to appear in tomorrow's edition of the Salt Lake Tribune. We also appeared on camera for BYU's noon o'clock news show. Be sure to tune in.

Yes, we are a media whore.


***Update 11:12pm MST: How 'bout that Mike Huckabee?


****Update 11:29pm MST: Jane Fleming Kleeb of the Young Voter PAC and some gimmicky MTV get-out-the-vote thing is the single most irritating/annoying/shrill liberal commentator on television.

Yes, Jane, the surge is working.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Here's Romney!

With the ineffable Fred Thompson out, the Mitt Romney surge is on. And the pundits said it couldn't or wouldn't be done.

Real Clear Politics shows Romney in a close second behind John McCain in Florida. And the thing to keep in mind here is the trend: Romney is trending upwards while McCain is holding steady or declining slightly.

Looking ahead, it seems Romney may win simply because of his wide appeal:

Giuliani and McCain both appeal to foreign policy conservatives (read: hawks), fiscal conservatives (McCain to a greater extent than Giuliani), and independents.

Huckabee appeals to social conservatives.

Romney appeals to foreign policy hawks (less so than either Giuliani or McCain). All three would follow similar courses in Iraq and the War on Terror.

Romney's business experience and tax cutting ways while governor in Massachusetts make him appealing to fiscal conservatives--maybe moreso than either McCain or Giuliani.

Perhaps most importantly, Romney established his social conservatism bona fides. Pro-lifers and the defense of marriage crowd may not believe him the way they believe Mike Huckabee or believed Fred Thompson, but they will certainly prefer him to either Giuliani or McCain (less so with McCain).

On Hannity and Colmes tonight, Alan Colmes asked Romney if he felt like emphasizing his social conservatism had been a waste of time. 'With the economy on a precipice,' Colmes asked, 'wouldn't it have been wiser to have highlighted his business acumen as a unique qualifier?' Romney pointed out that social issues were important in early states, but admitted the economy may be the dominant issue going forward and, fortunately, he was strong there.

We agree (and wrote as much last week) that saving the economy could be a winning message going forward. But it was important to Romney's campaign that he distinguish himself from Giuliani (the longtime frontrunner) and to a lesser extent McCain as a social conservative. By splitting the social conservative vote and winning the fiscal conservatives, Romney might be able to winnow off enough of the foreign policy independents to win the Republican nomination--especially in states which limit voting in the Republican race to Republicans.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Farewell Fred

Yesterday, we were sad to learn that Fred Thompson had exited the race for the Republican nomination. Fred Thomson, we hardly knew thee.

Of course, part of the reason we hardly knew Fred Thompson was because he didn't do a very good job of selling himself to voters. That part, we wont miss.

Thompson held the promise of being the conservative Republican voters could rally around once they soured on the politics of Rudy Giuliani or John McCain. It was not to be.

We read almost daily that the current crop of candidates is a poor one. We heartily disagree. John McCain, the "maverick" (the MSM loves Republican "mavericks") Senator from Arizona brings strong principles (with which we sometimes disagree) and a strong track record of leadership on foreign policy and fiscal policy. He was a war hero.

Rudy Giuliani is America's mayor. When 9/11 shook us to the core, we took strength from his strength.

Fred Thompson was on TV. Ronald Reagan was also an actor. We loved his traditional conservatism.

Mike Huckabee is an incredible speaker and dynamic politician.

Mitt Romney, well, Mitt saved the Salt Lake Olympics, rejuvenated Bain & Co., and brought health care to the masses in Massachusetts, whatever.

The Republican field is a talented one. And, feeling generous today, so is the Democratic field. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, (not John Edwards) and Bill Richardson all strike us as more capable and talented candidates than John Kerry, Vietnam war veteran.

(true, that is not saying much).


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

South Carolina, Nevada, &c.

- We watched Mike Huckabee on Hannity and Colmes today and were impressed, again, with his articulate affability. This guy can talk. And he's friendly. Our brother, who had not heard him speak before, was equally impressed. If only he were a truly conservative candidate.

- A friend called today and informed us that she is a precinct captain for Mitt Romney. She was proud to report that she had persuaded 7 friends to go with her to her caucus in Nevada. It's good to see that not everyone is jaded about presidential politics.

- We'd actually like to see Fred Thompson win South Carolina. Like everyone else, we had great hopes for candidate Thompson--thought he might be able to channel some sort of inner/actor-Ronald Reagan mojo and unite and galvanize Republicans everywhere. He didn't. Instead he constantly reminds us in word ('I don't really care to be President, but if I made it, it'd be cool') and deed (seemingly lazy/lackadaisical campaigning) that he doesn't seem serious about the whole thing. If Fred would actually show that he wants this thing, people might take him seriously and vote for him. Maybe.

- Good to see Bill Clinton on the campaign trail. CNN showed him berating some poor reporter. Doesn't he know that the MSM loves Democrats--especially him? We suppose the reporter was probably guilty of straying from the usual questions:

Reporter: Why are you so awesome?
Bill Clinton: [affects southern accent] When I was President the economy was strong and the world loved us.
Reporter: [dog-begging-for-food look]
Bill Clinton: No more questions?
Reporter: Would you sign my book? [hands over well-worn copy of "My Life"]
Bill Clinton: [signs "Bill Clinton, & "vote for me", scratches out "me" writes "Hillary" ]


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Hillary Clinton is a racist

Or at least, she'll use race or anything else to her political advantage. This much we know.

This morning, while getting ready to leave, we watched Fox News Sunday with Brit Hume, Juan Williams, Mara Liasson and hosted by Chris Wallace. We were particularly interested when they turned their attention to the latest spat between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Quick review: Hillary said Obama was no Martin Luther King Jr., and that anyway, it was Lyndon Johnson who passed important Civil Rights legislation.

Drudge is carrying the most recent headlines:

• Dems try, but fail, to transcend race
• War of words
• BET Founder/Hillary Supporter Slams Obama in S Carolina; raises drug use

Chris Wallace and Brit Hume got Juan Williams to admit that Hillary and her surrogates were trying to "remind" people of Obama's race. But to what end? They tried to push him to follow his thinking to its logical conclusion, but he would not. Bill Kristol stepped in and filled in the blanks: it was, simply, because Hillary thought she could gain from this bigoted "reminder." The same way Mike Huckabee gained from mentioning that, 'well, don't Mormons think that Jesus and the Devil are brothers?'

Was it because she thinks Democratic voters are racist? Maybe.

Did she do it because she is racist? Probably not overtly so. She does seem to believe that they need "taking care of." That, like her MLK allusion, she thinks blacks are capable only of making nice speeches but that it's left to the whites--like her and Lyndon Johnson--to do what's best for the African-American community.

This last point seems most likely to us. It fits the overall narrative of the nanny state Hillary would try to create were she (oh, the horror) elected President.

And if this is the case, where is the outrage from the unelected "leaders" of the black community? Where's Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson with sanctimonious calls for Clinton's withdrawal from the race?

We have no time nor patience for this type of racism (or any type of racism for that matter)--that Lyndon Johnson did what MLK Jr. could not or even that the same is true today--that blacks somehow need Hillary Clinton. That they need her to tell them what to think and how to vote.

What must independent minded African-Americans like Clarence Thomas be thinking? If only more people would take their cues from he and Thomas Sowell rather than following the liberal Clinton/Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson stereotype.



If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Romney's 20 to 1 Spending Advantage

MSM analysis of Romney's loss in Iowa has everyone raving about how you can't "buy elections." They point to the huge amount spent by Romney vs. the pittance spent by Pastor Huck and wax poetic about the "wise Iowan voters" who proved money wasn't everything. Whatever.

Romney may have had an incredibly well-financed and well-organized campaign. We grant all that. But it's not as though Huckabee simply showed up, filmed an ad with a floating cross, and won. This narrative ignores the ginormous elephant in the room: Evangelicals. It wasn't just that, for the first time in our memory, Republicans played identity politics, it's that Evangelicals leaders in Iowa actively campaigned for Mike Huckabee. Here was Huckabee's well-financed, well-organized campaign. And this one has been in place for decades.

It's ironic that the same group (Evangelicals) who made bigoted statements about Romney's religion and worried about how it would affect his Presidency, so blatantly played politics with their religion. Huckabee has been a part of this hypocrisy--making overt statements about Romney's religion, while riding his own to electoral success in Iowa. What's even more ridiculous is the fact that Romney's politics (if you believe his current position) more closely mirrors the priorities of social conservatives than do Huckabee's politics. Huck raised taxes, expanded government, and freed convicts (many of them murderers) at a terrific rate. No, Evangelicals voted for Pastor Huck because he and their leaders insinuated that God wanted them to.

And they did so illegally. The IRS would never go after these church'ss, but just because they wouldn't doesn't mean it's right.

This would never happen in an LDS Church. Mormon doctrine and official church position proscribes the endorsement of candidates or the use of church buildings, rolls, etc., for use by any campaign. Can you imagine the uproar if Mitt or his surrogates went from LDS chapel to LDS chapel, getting out the vote and trying to garner donations?

Say what you will (and our friends have) about Mormons voting for Mitt, but at least his politics (again, if you believe him to be sincere) match conservative Mormon beliefs. Here, there is no hypocritical contradiction between his positions and their politics as there is with Huck and the Evangelicals.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Another take on Romney's "big loss"

From a Drudge Report-linked article (hat tip: Matt Lybbert) at a Washington Post blog comes this interesting take on Romney's performance in the Iowa caucus (note: scroll to the first comment).

Turn Rich Lowry's numbers around and you'd see something very interesting - if Utah was the first caucus and 60% of caucusers were Mormons and Mitt only got 1/3 of the vote and only won by 9 points, you'd say he lost. You'd say that even if his opponent had spent millions more. I hate to sound like a sore loser, but the media response doesn't make sense to me. Given the favorable circumstances, I think Huckabee lost and Mitt won.

No, we're not drinking the kool-aid, we just thought this was an interesting way of giving context to the outcome. Furthermore, and importantly for all those of us who were angry with the evangelicals and homeschoolers, this seems to indicate that evangelical voters are not blindly following Huck. Romney got nearly 20% of the Evangelical vote, Huck got 45%, and the remaining 35% was spread among the other candidates. Despite what will undoubtedly be the MSM company line, sanity and rational thought do exist among the religious right.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

If Jimmy Carter Were Running Today

He'd be a Republican and his name would be Mike Huckabee. Huckabee holds Democrat-like positions on foreign, domestic, and fiscal policy. It's one thing to nominate a principled conservative who ends up losing to a Democrat, it's something else altogether when the candidate wins simply because he's a (former) Baptist minister.

Mike Huckabee is a loser in the general election.

- Congrats to Ron Paul for winning 10%. We don't agree with many of Paul's positions, but his presence in the race forces the rest of the candidates to make sure they are true to conservatism's small-government roots.

- The big winner is John McCain, a candidate we admire, not Mike Huckabee. McCain was already trending well in New Hampshire polls, and Romney's performance in Iowa can only help him.

- The big, big story tonight is not the 3rd place finish by Shrillary, but the win by Barack Hussein Obama--the first black man to win a Presidential primary. We don't like his politics or even the candidate, but this is moment is good history. Congratulations, Senator Obama.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.