[Posted by Karl] The last polls had Mitt Romney poised to win the New Hampshire primary easily, sitting at 33-35% of the vote. The only danger for Romney is expectations ; if he came in below 30%, after polling above 40% less than a week ago, the chatter will be about losing momentum. Nevertheless, a win is a win. Gallup suggests that since 1976, the leader in their national polling after New Hampshire has ultimately won the nomination. The data almost equally suggests that the national frontrunner before Iowa is a good bet to win the nomination, with the exception of 2008. The unusual fluidity of 2008 is about the best hope for those in the NotRomney camp, in the sense that we could be in a period where grassroots satisfaction with the “next-in-line” nature of the GOP nomination is making it more difficult for an early frontrunner to win. But that’s a relatively slender reed: the current Gallup national trends look roughly similar to those of 2008, with Romney taking the McCain spot. Indeed, the current poll average in South Carolina also looks roughly similar, although the surging Rick Santorum and falling New Gingrich both look as strong as Huckabee looked against McCain. Romney will try to essentially sew up the nomination there, which underscores the importance of for Romney of not underperforming in New Hampshire. Right now, 60% of registered Republicans and leaners think Romney will be the nominee. But if Romney looks weak on Wednesday, Santorum may continue to rise at Newt’s expense in the 10 days to South Carolina. If Santorum were to win the Palmetto State – or even manage the sort of photo finish we saw in Iowa — we might be in for an unpleasant discussion of whether Romney’s Mormonism is dragging him down against the more openly religious Santorum in more conservative states. At least, you can bet that would be the establishment angle on it. –Karl
Read more:
New Hampshire and after
[Posted by Karl] Rick Santorum is looking to distinguish himself from his GOP rivals, particularly Mitt Romney, on taxes: If there’s any doubt that insurgent GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum is gunning for the mantle of blue-collar conservative, just take a gander at his tax plan: Families with children would receive triple the current tax exemption, and companies that manufacture goods in America would not be taxed at all. The populist proposals, which set him apart from his rivals, are key components of Santorum’s “faith, family and freedom” agenda that resonated in Iowa and which he now hopes will draw blue-collar voter support in New Hampshire. “I believe in cutting taxes. I believe in balancing budgets. … But I also believe we as Republicans have to look at those who are not doing well in our society by just cutting taxes and balancing budgets,” Santorum said Tuesday after coming within eight votes of front-runner Mitt Romney in the Iowa caucus. As we will see, there’s far less difference between Santorunomics and Romneynomics than the former Pennsylvania Senator has tried to create with rhetorical jabs at supply-siders. The differences fall mostly into the two categories identified above. First, he wants a pro-natalist tax policy in the mold of economist Jacob Stein. That’s unsurprising, given Santorum’s generally Catholic approach to public policy. It appeals directly to middle-class families, which is good campaign politics — on the surface, anyway. On closer examination, there would be budgetary and political obstacles to passing this type of proposal. Moreover, it is far from clear that this tax policy would actually do anything about falling fertility rates , which are part of human development in the modern age. That development, spurred in no small part by respecting innovation and entrepreneurial drive, may decrease fertility rates, but it also yields enormous benefits for families. Second, Santorum supports a hugely differential corporate tax rate of 17.5 percent for all but manufacturers, who would pay zero. Again, this is unsurprising from someone campaigning as the grandson of a coal miner. Again, the surface politics are good, given the importance of working-class voters, particularly white working-class voters , to the electoral calculations of both major parties this year. However, the Tax Foundation calls it possibly the worst idea of any of the Republican candidates , for several reasons. Indeed, the Tax Foundation gives Santorunomics a grade of “D+”. Unfortunately, Romneynomics does not grade out much better, earning a “C-” from the group. The, er, bright spot here is that either would be better than Obamanomics, which by their criteria should flunk. –Karl
Read more here:
Romneynomics vs Santorunomics
Along with Jim Antle , Quin Hillyer and Aaron Goldstein, I want to wish our departing friend and colleague, Joseph Lawler , all the best in his new editorial endeavor at RealClear Politics . Joe may be young, but he’s also a sharp-eyed editor. I’ve been published well over a thousand times in dozens of publications; and one thing I’ve learned is the importance of a good editor and a second set of eyes. No matter how good a writer you are (or think that you are!), it’s always helpful to have someone else review your work. Especially when you keep very busy, as I do, it’s easy sometimes to mistake your half-baked ideas with publishable prose. Joe has been a very patient, and typically very helpful, editor. He’s got a bright future ahead of him. I wish him the best.
More:
Joseph Lawler: Editor on the Move!
[Posted by Karl] At least, that’s the latest from PPP : There has been some major movement in the Republican Presidential race in Iowa over the last week, with what was a 9 point lead for Newt Gingrich now all the way down to a single point. Gingrich is at 22% to 21% for Paul with Mitt Romney at 16%, Michele Bachmann at 11%, Rick Perry at 9%, Rick Santorum at 8%, Jon Huntsman at 5%, and Gary Johnson at 1%. *** Young voters, independents, and folks who haven’t voted in caucuses before is an unusual coalition for a Republican candidate…the big question is whether these folks will really come out and vote…if they do, we could be in for a big upset. Paul’s supporters are considerably more committed to him than Gingrich’s are. 77% of current Paul voters say they’re definitely going to vote for him, compared to only 54% for Gingrich. Romney has much more solid support than Gingrich as well, 67% of his voters saying they’re with him for the long haul. Among only voters who say their mind’s totally made up, 29% support Paul to 21% for Gingrich, 18% for Romney, and 11% for Bachmann. Will those committed Paulians turn out? Iowa political activists — and Gov. Terry Branstad – rate Paul’s campaign organization as the best in the state. Gingrich and Romney, not so much . Does organization still matter in Iowa ? We are about to find out. The WaPo’s Chris Cillizza (sort of) asks: “You know who this benefits?” A Paul victory in Iowa would be a dream come true for Romney. Why? Because Paul, like former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee in 2008, has far less obvious appeal in the states beyond Iowa and would likely struggle to build his caucus victory into a broader national campaign. Simply put: The less Iowa matters, the better for Team Romney. And a Paul victory there, while intriguing and a case study for political scientists for years to come, would almost certainly mean that the real race for the nomination begins a week later in New Hampshire. The matchup to watch in Iowa then isn’t Newt vs Mitt. It’s Newt vs Ron. Or so Mitt hopes. On the other hand, GOP fundraiser/consultant Nathan Wurtzel can think of arguments where Paul’s rise helps Gingrich or Perry (although the PPP poll suggests it doesn’t help Newt in IA). Moreover, I would note that we kept seeing polls suggesting Romney is a second-choice vote for many… and yet, voters keep selecting alternate candidates as their first choice, don’t they? If Paul somehow pulls out a win in Iowa, the real winners may be people tired of the importance pols and pundits have placed on the Iowa caucuses. –Karl
View post:
Gingrich fades, Paul surges in Iowa?
Barack Obama has never had a limited view of his importance to America. This is a man who wrote two – two – books about himself before he ever held a real job. His nomination made his wife finally feel pride in her country. On the last night of the …
See the original post:
DONATELLI: Remember who we’re fighting
