This one surprised me a little bit. The latest FOX News Poll pits McCain against Hillary Clinton and then against Barack Obama. Here were the results:

“Thinking ahead to the next presidential election, if the 2008 general election were held today and the candidates were Democrat [see below] and Republican [see below], for whom would you vote?” Names rotated
?	?	?	?	?	.	?
?	?	John McCain (R)	Hillary Clinton (D)	Other (vol.)/ Unsure	?	?
?	?	%	%	%	?	?
?	10/24-25/06 LV	45	39	15	?	?
?	8/29-30/06	47	39	13	?	?
?	5/16-18/06	46	42	13	?	?
?	3/14-15/06	50	39	11	?	?
?	2/7-8/06	51	38	11	?	?
?	9/27-28/05	49	38	12	?	?
?	11/16-17/04	53	37	10	?	?
?	?	?	?	?	.	?
?	?	John McCain (R)	Barack Obama (D)	Other (vol.)/ Unsure	?	?
?	?	%	%	%	?	?
?	10/24-25/06 LV	41	38	21

Obama only loses to McCain by?the slimmest 3% margin, while Hillary loses by 6% margin, which is slowly slimming as well.? Obama doesn’t do as good a job at getting votes for himself as Hillary does, most likely because A). his extreme liberal record sets off moderates, and B). he is not as well known on the issues and as a leader as Hillary is.? He does, however, keep McCain’s support noticeably lower than Hillary is able to.? Notice his lack of support doesn’t translate into votes for McCain, but, to the contrary, drives both McCain voters and Democratic voters into the Unsure column.? While, for a junior senator with little experience and little national exposure, a 38-41 margin against McCain is an impressive base statistic, I think the Unsures would break heavily for McCain once the nation sees just how far to the left Obama’s record?is.

As an added bonus, we get to see how a McCain-Giuliani ticket would fair against a Clinton-Obama ticket:

“Let’s say the Democratic ticket is Hillary Clinton for president and Barack Obama for vice president, and the Republican ticket is John McCain for president and Rudy Giuliani for vice president. If you were voting today, how would you vote?” Tickets rotated
?	?	?	?	?	.	?
?	?	McCain/ Giuliani (R)	Clinton/ Obama (D)	Wouldn’t Vote (vol.)	Unsure	?
?	?	%	%	%	%	?
?	10/24-25/06 LV	48	40	3	8

Adding Obama to Clinton’s ticket boosts her overall score by 1 point.? Adding Giuliani to his ticket boosts McCain’s overall score by 3 and gives McCain a 2-point wider margin of victory, probably because Giuliani would help mobilize the conservative base, where Rudy is extremely popular.? Obama would probably also help mobilize the Democrats’ liberal base who are put off by Hillary’s attempts to act moderate.

Personally, I just don’t see either Clinton or Obama being on the Democratic ticket in 2008.? Clinton is a guaranteed loser (with very high name recognition, meaning she has little room to grow) and Obama is far too inexperienced to last long in one of the hottest and most unforgiving elections in decades.

Also, as delineated in my previous post, I believe historical precedent will give Giuliani the top slot on the ticket in 2008, which means that McCain will probably not be on the ticket at all, because, first of all, I don’t think McCain is humble enough to accept second place, and second of all, I think Giuliani will want to pick a running mate with a solid conserative record to help ensure his ticket will be acceptable to the GOP’s base in the general election.

Although now I am curious.? I would like to see some polling pitting Rudy against Obama.

Almost every presidential poll from early 2005 until now has shown Rudy Giuliani or John McCain (Giuliani more often than McCain) to be the frontrunner for the GOP nomination, with the only other potential challenger being Condoleezza Rice (whom most assume will not run).? So the question is, are we looking pretty much at a Rudy Giuliani as the Republican nominee already, a year and a half away from the Republican National Convention?? Is it true that the GOP “always” nominates frontrunners?? To answer this question with some empirical evidence, I scoured Gallup’s (who are arguably one of the most accurate polling companies anywhere) archives and looked at the first survey following the mid-term election that asked Republicans about their nominee preferences in the past 40 years.? (Note: I exclude years in which the GOP has an incumbent President available) Here’s what I found: (more…)

As a matter of politics, I think it is strategically and tactically brilliant?for the White House, Republican National Committee, NRCC, and NRSC?to be sending talking points to and coordinating with the various conservative radio talk show and conservative television show hosts, which we are getting specific reports about this election cycle (though insiders and sophisticated outsiders realize that this has been going on for awhile on both sides of the political aisle). President George W. Bush has reportedly held White House meetings for some of these conservative media types that are not listed on his public schedule and the administration has approved single day, en masse, on-site, select?broadcasts by conservative radio and television shows from?the White House lawn close to election day during the last few cycles as a sort of conservative media campaign day that GOP administration members and elected representatives have made themselves available to appear on. Some of these media hosts are now even doing fundraisers for various Republican candidates across the country, and it is becoming clear that those media hosts most willing to toe the GOP talking points line are the ones who are being granted interviews with top government officials that can bolster their shows’ ratings. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow is headlining fundraisers this election cycle, which is (as far as I know) unprecedented for someone in that position.

As a journalistic matter, however, I am not certain that this is a good idea,?no matter how?much it helps the Republican Party. My assumption is that radio and television show hosts should be honest about their political proclivities (which conservatives in such positions do a lot better than liberals from my experience), but should also maintain enough journalistic independence to call things as they see them regardless and resist the temptation to become partisan conduits for specific campaigns and parties. The last thing I personally want in a media host is for them to be a knee-jerk, subjective cheerleader for any particular ideology, even the one I espouse,?before they are an objective analyst. I think Republicans would be justifiably outraged if the Washington Post did fundraisers at their headquarters for Democrat candidates.

I could identify specific media names here, but I won’t. Suffice it to say I have been most impressed by those conservative media hosts who have declined invitations to sit down with other journalists in the presence of the President for these Republican?campaign klatches?out of fear that their journalistic independence would be compromised – and let us be clear that these are not traditional press briefings as much as they are ideological communications coordination efforts, which is why only select conservative journalists are invited and the meetings?never make the President’s published schedule.

Without a doubt, you cannot trust media outlets like the Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, or CNN?because they cannot come close to being objective. But is the answer to divide up the Fourth Estate into an ideological civil war of battle stations right and left such that conservative radio and television hosts cannot come close to being objective either? How can?you trust the conservative media host for information and analysis who rarely has a criticism of the Republican Party, a Republican administration, or a Republican congress? Yeah, it happens on the other side as well, as the hatchet jobs CNN has done broadcasting tape?provided them by?insurgents of snipers?shooting United States soliders in Iraq and setting up Lynn Cheney for a surprise attack interview by Wolf Blitzer are the most recent? examples?of, but I have a vested interest in trying to fix my side first and think my side should be better and take the lead in any event.

I am all for partisanship because I think debate is the best way to communicate and clarify ideas and policies. I have always disagreed with those who claim that there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two major parties; I think saying such is just an excuse for political laziness and frustration. But for the sake of civility and objectivity there are components of the system that have to remain above the political fray.

Our system of government has traditionally relied on an independent judiciary, which is constitutionally mandated and protected, and media for reasons which are as efficacious as they are obvious. In a political environment where everything is becoming partisan, I think we are coming dangerously close to abandoning the latter, which is protected only by tradition and the marketplace. And if that happens, it won’t be surprising that the former will experience even more deterioration than we have seen since the Bork confirmation hearings, at which point everything related to public service and mass communication will be?effectively associated as an?advocate for one side or the other. And when that happens I think both sides and all of us will have lost.

I think this relates to the theme of this site because 2008 may be – and, again, this could well be more a matter of hope on my part than belief – a time when voters actually do reward candidates and campaigns that are different and put the health of the system above selfish ambition, and run in such a way that they can govern afterwards and avoid triumphing over the remains of a scorched earth.

Strategic Vision Washington, Oct. 27th-29th, 2006

For the 2008 Republican Presidential Nomination whom would you support? (Republicans Only)

Rudy Giuliani 44%
John McCain 21%
Mitt Romney 8%
Newt Gingrich 8%
Bill Frist 2%
George Allen 1%
Rick Santorum 1%
George Pataki 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
Undecided 13%

For the 2008 Democratic Presidential Nomination whom would you support? (Democrats Only)

Hillary Clinton 33%
Al Gore 21%
John Edwards 9%
Russ Feingold 7%
Barack Obama 7%
John Kerry 5%
Wesley Clark 3%
Joseph Biden 1%
Bill Richardson 1%
Evan Bayh 1%
Ed Rendell 1%
Tom Vilsack 1%
Christopher Dodd 1%
Undecided 9%

Strategic Vision New Jersey, Oct. 27th-29th, 2006

Who would you support for the Republican nomination in 2008? (Republicans only)

Rudy Giuliani 48%
John McCain 23%
Mitt Romney 6%
Newt Gingrich 6%
George Pataki 1%
Bill Frist 1%
Rick Santorum 1%
George Allen 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
Undecided 12%

Who is your first choice for the Democratic nomination in 2008? (Democrats only)

Hillary Clinton 31%
Al Gore 20%
Barack Obama 14%
John Edwards 8%
John Kerry 5%
Russ Feingold 4%
Christopher Dodd 4%
Joseph Biden 1%
Wesley Clark 1%
Ed Rendell 1%
Bill Richardson 1%
Tom Vilsack 1%
Evan Bayh 1%
Undecided 8%

Strategic Vision Wisconsin, Oct. 27th-29th, 2006

Who is your choice for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2008? (Tommy Thompson excluded; Republicans only)

Rudy Giuliani 38%
John McCain 27%
Mitt Romney 10%
Newt Gingrich 7%
Bill Frist 1%
George Allen 1%
Rick Santorum 1%
George Pataki 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
Undecided 13%

Who is your choice for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008? (Russ Feingold excluded; Democrats only)

Hillary Clinton 30%
Al Gore 26%
Barack Obama 11%
John Edwards 10%
John Kerry 4%
Joseph Biden 1%
Wesley Clark 1%
Tom Vilsack 1%
Evan Bayh 1%
Ed Rendell 1%
Bill Richardson 1%
Christopher Dodd 1%
Undecided 12%

Last week, it looked as if things were finally starting to break toward the Republicans in the myriad of races that will collectively be decided upon just one week from today.? Had I written this projection a couple of days ago, I probably would’ve agreed with Scott Elliott of Election Projection, who predicts a 51-49 GOP Senate and a 219-216 Democratic House.? In fact, as of Sunday, my own projections were almost identical to Scott’s.? It looked as if the GOP was prepped to weather a bad year provided the GOTV effort kept a few marginal House seats in line, like PA-06, NM-01, and IN-09.

Then something interesting happened.? Nearly all of the polling that’s taken place over the last few days has shown a clear shift in favor of the Democrats.? You can see for yourself over at Real Clear Politics.? The movement isn’t particularly significant, but it’s significant enough to basically solidify Democratic control of the House and pull the Senate back into electoral limbo.

As such, my projections with just one week to go before the polls open are as follows:

Senate: 50R, 48D, 2I

House: 212R, 223D

Governorships: 21R, 29D

In the Senate, it’s becoming increasingly clear that GOP held seats PA, RI, MT, and OH are all gone.? There was some hope for MT a week ago, but Burns has yet to poll ahead of him in a single poll and at least one poll has Tester at 51%.? Moreover, the Democratic trio of NJ/MD/MI now appears to be safely in the blue column.? That brings us down to 51 seats, with VA, MO, and TN still up for grabs.

Bob Corker has opened up a comfortable lead in TN according to the most recent polling.? CNN has Corker ahead by 8, which is a fairly significant lead.? TN has a history of electing competent Republicans of the Corker variety (see Alexander, Lamar and Thompson, Fred) and it’s likely that the GOP will hold that seat.

Contrast TN with VA, where George Allen is prepared to lose to Jim Webb by 4-5 points.? Both CNN and Rasmussen show Webb ahead, and both are very credible pollsters.? My guess is that the apathetic undecideds — those who wake up in late October and realize that an election is afoot — are breaking heavily for Webb due to all of the mini-scandals that have tarnished Allen this year.

That means that control of the Senate will hinge on MO, where the two most recent polls show Talent and McCaskill in a dead-heat.? The race is exactly tied, which means a few voters in the middle of the country will determine who organizes the Senate in 2007.? I still call this one for Talent due to the fact that Zogby still shows him ahead by 2 and that we haven’t seen McCaskill ahead in any poll?for awhile now.? Admittedly though, this could go either way.

In the states, Democrats are now poised to pick up OH, NY, AR, CO, MA, MD, and MN, with the caveat that Ehrlich and Pawlenty could hold on in their respective states.? To make matters worse for Republicans, polls over the last few days have shown the GOP-held states of AK and ID within the margin of error for control of their respective governor’s mansions.? That means that Democrats will pick up a minimum of 5 governorships and a maximum of 9.? The most likely gain then becomes 7, hence my projection of 29 Democratic governors post-election.

In the House, I count 14 seats that are basically gone and another dozen or so seats that could go either way.? For the GOP to hold the House, they’d have to win pretty much every tossup.? Not likely.? Moreover, while a couple of potential GOP pickups appear to be materializing in Georgia, these sleepers are offset by the sleeper House races in ID and WY, where Democrats are in striking distance to capture these GOP held seats in the west that nobody thought were in play.?

What are my preliminary thoughts on all of this?? It’s become clear that the GOP’s base is now in the south.? Republicans are holding those fledgling seats they won in 2000-2004 in the south while losing veteran congresspersons throughout the northeast, the midwest, and now?the west.? In short, the south is now the region that votes Republican when no one else does.? This is fairly significant considering that as late as 2004, John Kerry and the Democrats believed that they actually had a shot at capturing a few southern states.? The south was America’s swing region for the latter part of the 20th Century.? It is now one party’s base region.

America’s new swing regions appear to be the upper midwest and the southwest, with the possibility that the mountain west will come along for the ride.? The mountain west and southwest were once reliably Republican, and the upper midwest voted largely for Ford and Reagan and Bush 41.? But American politics has been reorganized in such a way that these regions are now the ones that both parties will be fighting for, with the Dems based in the northeast and west coast and the GOP based in the south.? This will likely mean a significant shift in the types of policies proposed by both parties as victory becomes contingent on winning the Main Street bean counters in the upper midwest and the leave-me-alone types in the west.??One silver lining of this election could result from?both parties?trying to?claim the mantle of small government-ism in subsequent years due to the new topography.

Finally, I maintain my belief that Speaker Pelosi means a Republican president in 2008 just as Speaker Gingrich meant a Democratic president in 1996.? Electability will become of paramount importance in the wake of the impending disaster.

I will do one more update before the polls open here on the east, but things don’t look good today for the GOP.

George Allen goes from presidential frontrunner to being out of politics? That’s what’s about to happen if you believe the most recent polling. The latest is Rasmussen which?has Webb +5. A CNN poll from 4 days ago had Webb +4. The RCP average is now at Webb +1.

?

We have heard the rumors this past week that Republican National Committee (RNC)?Chairman Ken Mehlman is likely to leave his current position, will probably?open up his own political consulting firm, and could end up on the 2008 presidential campaign staff of Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

And Mehlman may be just the start of some real sparks that could ignite in the competition for top GOP campaign talent among the contending 2008 presidential campaigns once the mid-term elections are over on November 7.

Start with the President George W. Bush political team that has won two presidential elections and one midterm election. There is a tremendous value at the presidential campaign level in having staffers who have done such national campaigns before – especially if they have been recent and successful. These are the people who will be most in demand by GOP 2008 hopefuls.

The conventional wisdom is that Karl Rove will sit out 2008 unless Governor Jeb Bush runs, though The Architect has always been fond of Senator Bill Frist, a likely presidential contender this next time. Rove has simply given no indication whatsoever that he is interested in jumping back into the next national campaign unless Jeb runs, which appears unlikely.

We have already talked about Ken Mehlman, who would be cherished by any Republican presidential campaign.

Mark McKinnon, the media specialist for the last two Bush-Cheney campaigns, is already committed to Senator John McCain in 2008.

Terry Nelson, the Bush-Cheney ‘04 Political Director, is also already committed to Senator John McCain in 2008.

And do not forget or underestimate Ralph Reed, one of the best GOP political minds in the country and the Bush-Cheney ‘04 Southern Regional Coordinator, who has yet to sign on with any 2008 operation. Reed certainly took some hits in his failed Lieutenant Governor primary run in Georgia this cycle, largely based on his connections to Jack Abramoff. But his organizational, strategic, and tactical talent would be welcome by any 2008 GOP aspirant regardless of his recent troubles.

Matthew Dowd, the Chief Strategist for the Bush-Cheney ‘04 campaign, is currently performing the same duty for the re-election campaign of California Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. In the immediate aftermath of the 2004 elections, Dowd claimed that he had no desire to ever run another national campaign. But subsequently we find him still in the campaign business and not running for Controller in Texas as he had talked about. Dowd would be a huge get for any GOP presidential campaign?in 2008, though it might take some?convincing.

Likewise, Steve Schmidt, a veteran of the President George W. Bush presidential campaigns and White House political affairs office, is helping run the Schwarzenegger re-election campaign as its day-to-day manager and is not committed to any 2008 GOP presidential candidate yet. Schmidt (36) is considered to be the best up-and-coming, young political talent on the Republican side, and it is almost certain that he signs on with somebody’s 2008 GOP presidential operation.

I hasten to add that early in their political careers both Dowd and Schmidt, like their colleague McKinnon, worked for Democrats. I wonder if that fact, coupled with their very bipartisan strategy that has catapulted Schwarzenegger to a substantial lead in California, makes them prime targets for a Giuliani campaign?

Finally, among those outside the President George W. Bush sphere, it will be interesting to see what Mike Murphy ends up doing in 2008. Murphy, who has served as chief strategist for the McCain presidential campaign and the?gubernatorial campaigns of Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush, and who is one of the really talented people in the political consulting business on the Republican side, has said that if both McCain and Romney run in 2008 he will stay out of the race. Currently, in addition to political consulting, Murphy is attempting a career as a Hollywood screenwriter. But when the competition?heats up in the 2008 cycle it will be interesting to see if Murphy has truly lost the bug and is capable of staying away.

Former RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie and GOP uber-spokesperson Mary Matalin are connected to the Senator George Allen organization. But let’s see where they end up if Allen becomes a non-factor in 2008, as many are predicting in the wake of his struggles to win re-election to the U.S. Senate this cycle.

The bottom line is that the Mehlman rumors have encouraged Giuliani supporters that it is not too late for their man to make up the organizational head start McCain and?Romney have crafted. But the reality is that there are?quite a few?other top political talents who are uncommitted for 2008?and could also change the GOP presidential campaign organizational balance of power if they sign on. Those mentioned herein are just a few of the more notable ones, and it is my guess that they end up with either Giuliani, McCain, or Romney – who are emerging as the GOP?Big Three for 2008 – if they choose to suit up again for this next presidential campaign.

It?ought to get real interesting starting on November 8.

Hat tip to Kavon for getting the inside scoop on this earlier this morning.

Duncan Hunter has now officially announced his intention to be a candidate for the 2008 presidential race, according to the International Herald Tribune:

Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said Monday he was taking the initial step in a bid for the presidency in 2008.

Hunter, who has represented the San Diego area district for 26 years, announced the surprise bid at a news conference in front of supporters on the San Diego waterfront.

Hunter said that as he finishes his final two years in the House of Representatives, “I’m also going to prepare to run for president of the United States in 2008.”

“This is going to be a long road, it’s a challenging road, there’s going to be some rough and tumble, but I think it’s the right thing to do for our country,” Hunter said.

Hunter’s bid surprised some Republican leaders in Washington. He had not been discussed as one of the many candidates considering a presidential bid, including Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.

Analysts quickly characterized Hunter’s candidacy as a long shot.

Hunter, 58, became chairman of the House Armed Services Committee in 2003 ‘ a position he would lose should Democrats take control of the House after the Nov. 7 midterm election. By making an announcement now, he can begin raising money while still heading the committee.

It’s funny that we have to say this, but Hunter is really a late entry.? He has a lot of hard, up-hill work to do to catch up with the established candidates.? Perhaps a Seventh,?Eighth, Ninth, or Tenth?on the Power Rankings would suffice…?

Hat tip Rudyblogger:

The Washington Post’s Kathleen Parker told NBC’s Chris Matthews on Sunday that RNC Chair Ken Mehlman #quot;is going to be leaving the National Republican Committee, possibly heading over to the Giuliani camp.#quot; That would be big news.

Game, set, and match to Rudy in one fell swoop in the campaign hire dept. if that comes to pass. I think we may have found out why Rudy appeared to be in no hurry to engage McCain and Romney in the staffing and endorsement wars- he has landed the biggest fish of them all.

UPDATE by RudyBlogger: While this would indeed be incredible news if true, I’m not willing to bet the house on it. Kathleen Parker just doesn’t seem to be the kind of source who would be in a position to break a story like this. Call me paranoid, but an opposing camp would love nothing more than to have a rumor like this out there only to find out that Mehlman stayed neutral or went to another camp, spinning it as a huge loss for Giuliani. I’m not putting on my party hat just yet.

Obamamania is really starting to get on this blogger’s nerves. Finally we?have?a dissent on Obama “measuring the drapes” in the Oval Office from Peter A.?Brown of the Quinnipiac Polling Institute in RCP today:

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois is the flavor of the month among Democrats who are seeking an alternative to Sen. Hillary Clinton for president in 2008.

As much as the Republicans would like to see Sen. Clinton as the Democratic nominee, believing she is quite beatable, they probably wouldn’t be upset to see Obama as their opponent either.

Actually, they might even like running against him better.

The articulate and attractive Obama has captured the imagination of some in the Democratic Party and many in the news media. Time Magazine put him on its cover with the headline “Why Barack Obama could be THE NEXT PRESIDENT (Their emphasis)”

Many see him as charismatic, and his admirers view him as the embodiment of their American Dream. He is the son of a white mother and black father, and has been able to bridge the racial divide, an admirable quality.

Truth be told, they see him as less polarizing than Sen. Clinton, whom most Democrats admire. But many hope she won’t run in 2008 because they don’t think she can win.

Hence the search for an alternative. Many were especially disappointed when former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner concluded he could not defeat Sen. Clinton for the nomination and decided to spend more time with his family.

The other potential Democratic nominees include old standbys like 2004 nominee John Kerry, perhaps 2000 nominee Al Gore. There are also several Washington D.C. hands that are not as well-known, yet would never fit the definition of a fresh face.

Obama is certainly that. He has been a U.S. senator for only two years and was in the Illinois Senate seven years before that. He has a liberal voting record, but those swooning over him think he talks like a moderate.

Now, many of these people said similar things about Kerry in 2004. But that’s because they live in New York, Washington, D.C and Los Angeles, not Jacksonville, Cincinnati or Kansas City, where the definitions apparently differ.

Among those who know who Obama is – a minority, and disproportionately those who would fit the definition of political junkie — he is quite popular. But he is a blank slate to most Americans.

Obama is at best a more charismatic version of the kind of losing Democratic candidates we have seen in recent decades. The only Democrats elected president since 1960 have been Southerners, and the most recent ones, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, were able to convince voters they were ideological moderates.

The closest Obama can come to having Southern roots is representing the South Side of Chicago in the Illinois Senate. Some may think he talks like a moderate without the partisanship that has made Congress a vicious place these days, but his voting record makes it more difficult to make that case in the Sun Belt, where a Democratic must break through in order to win the White House.

The well-respected National Journal compares members of Congress to their colleagues on a variety of issues on a liberal/conservative scale. Obama ranks high on the liberal scale, slightly more liberal on defense, economic and foreign policy than Sen. Clinton, and slightly less so on social issues.

Perhaps his inspiring appeal and personal charm will make him a better presidential candidate than many who have shared his general philosophy in the past. Maybe the country has changed its views and values.

Maybe the fact that Obama has spent little time in Washington, none in the military nor had any other kind of relevant foreign policy credentials won’t matter in the face of his personal charm.

Maybe, but one gets the feeling the Republicans would be more than happy to take the chance

?

??

There are a couple of very good articles out today with respect to Governor Mitt Romney’s quest for the presidency in 2008. The first one, from Al Hunt of Bloomberg News, makes the case that Romney is positioned, through a combination of performance and a lack of competition for the niche, to be the consensus Republican presidential champion of movement conservatives in 2008.

For myself, while I find the Hunt analysis plausible – especially given the historic antipathy of many conservatives toward Senator John McCain and prior to Mayor Rudy Giuliani?being queried in a campaign environment on?his prior, left-leaning positions on abortion, gays, guns – I still believe that the question of his Mormon faith (which Hunt underscores with polling data indicating that one-third of Republicans and Independents will not vote for a Mormon for president) could potentially derail his candidacy.

The second article, by Kimberly Atkins of the Boston Herald, reports on the buzz that Romney is interested in selecting Governor Jeb Bush of Florida as his 2008 running mate. This buzz has been fueled by the recent Romney hiring for his Commwealth PAC of Bush aides Sally Bradshaw and Ann Woods Herberger.

Again, I personally find the Atkins analysis plausible, though I question whether the electorate in 2008?might not?have had enough of dynasty candidates on the?national level – Bushes, Doles, Clintons – given the inevitable agendas, grudges, and prejudices they bring from past elections and administrations of their relatives. I am thinking – or perhaps it is more akin to hoping – that voters in 2008 are going to be looking for fresh approaches, ideas, and faces. We’ll see.

Liz Mair, Editor of GOPPROGRESS and occasional?guest blogger here at R4′08 has penned an excellent analysis of the situation on the ground from New Hampshire in regards to ‘08. Liz has?spent much of the past 10 days live blogging from the campaign trail in New England and has provided some of the best coverage out there. If you haven’t already, please click the link to GOPPROGRESS to read her dispatches from the road.??

With regards to ‘08, Liz writes:

A couple of interesting tidbits have come out over the last couple of days relating to Rudy Giuliani, and his 2008 prospects. The upshot is, I can see Rudy adopting a smart strategy–and one that could yield real dividends for him, even if that’s not immediately obvious right now.

Tidbit no. 1 is yesterday, the New York Daily News ran a story entitled “McCain makes hay while Rudy ponders a run.”

The point of this story was to demonstrate that McCain is trumping Rudy in what some observers call the “staff primary,” especially in New Hampshire, where, just last week, a whopping 50 state legislators signed on to aid McCain’s PAC, Straight Talk America.

Larry Sabato has claimed this is evidence that “McCain is leapfrogging Giuliani in his own backyard.” Well, actually, it’s more like McCain leapfrogging Romney in his own backyard, since New Hampshire is a long way from New York (trust me, I’ve done the Concord to NYC drive in one day), but neighbors Massachusetts. But the point is this: a lot of observers think Giuliani’s being too pondering, too slow, and just frankly not showing the dedication McCain is because he hasn’t done nearly as much to make headway in New Hampshire, in particular.

Let me go out on a limb here and suggest something else.

New Hampshire is territory owned by McCain. That has been the case since 2000, and it’s not going to change unless an Act of God occurs. Rudy’s no dummy, and he’s bound to know that.

He also knows, that while it will be nigh on impossible for anyone to knock McCain out of the no. 1 position in New Hampshire, he’s currently sitting comfortably in second place, a position he should be able to hold easily given that the next in-line contender is Mitt Romney, a man already known to Granite Staters because they get Boston TV, and whom they don’t seem much interested in. It took the injection of roughly $1,000,000 via an RGA “Kerry Healey” ad touting Mitt Romney that was broadcast in New Hampshire, for Romney to see even a minute bounce in his poll numbers in the state, which bodes pretty badly for the conservative-inclined, blue state Governor.

Rudy will be well aware of all this, so it seems to me a good strategy on his part to keep doing what he has been doing with regard to New Hampshire, albeit with an increasing step-up as we get closer to the beginning of 2008.

Why? Well, he’s not wasting resources on New Hampshire where he can’t win outright. He’s focusing on other places, where polls suggest he has more of a chance, while he does enough in new Hampshire to keep his name on people’s tongues and in their minds. In essence, he’s gunning for first elsewhere, specifically, in states where McCain does not have a clear and unchangeable lead, and where Romney lacks one, too, despite many visits, mass hires, and a lot of press. Like South Carolina.

This leads on to tidbit no. 2.

Tidbit no. 2 is Byron York’s South Carolian Poll, published yesterday, which probably made for downright troubling news for the Romney camp, and just so-so news for McCain. On the flipside, that poll made for outright fabulous news for Rudy.
Why? Well, the poll shows in no uncertain terms that Rudy–yes, New Yorker, pro-choice, gay-friendly, occasional drag-wearing Rudy–is positioned better than any other likely 2008 contender in the state.

Rudy has name ID just short of McCain and Newt Gingrich (93%), yet he has a higher favorable rating than any other likely GOP 2008 contender. Let me say that again. Rudy Giuliani has a higher favorable rating in South Carolina than any other likely GOP 2008 contender–higher than McCain, higher than Romney, and higher than Gingrich.

This is astonishing. Rudy has a 78% favorable rating, and just a 10% unfavorable rating, compared to McCain with a 65% favorable rating, but a 23% unfavorable rating, Newt with a 53% favorable rating and a 31% unfavorable rating, and Romney with a 41% favorable rating and an 11% unfavorable rating.

Now, sure, one thing those numbers tell you is that Romney isn’t well enough known in the state yet for people to say “favorable” or “unfavorable.” That will change with time, I am sure, but his camp have got to be worried, given the amount of attention that has been focused on the state (somewhere they must feel is an easy place to try to kill off McCain, rightly or wrongly), that 60% of those polled have never even heard of him. It begs the question: what is their press and grassroots operation up to, exactly?

The numbers are also notable in that they show that what is, in my view, a larger than expected percentage of voters favorable to McCain, but still, given the effort he’s put into turning South Carolina in his direction, it’s worrying that a social liberal has seemingly strolled in, and charmed a lot of voters. His unfavorable rating is also not so great, though it will probably be nudged down a bit with time.

Of course, as Race 4 2008 has noted, the impressions the public have of McCain, Rudy and Newt are relatively fixed and unshapeable at this stage. While McCain will always remind a few South Carolina voters of 2000 (not overly helpful), Rudy will always remind them of hope and triumph in the face of the 9/11 attacks (brilliant). And I know that Rudy has been doing a lot to talk to voters and GOP activists face to face about his views on social matters–probably their only real concern regarding a Giuliani candidacy. And while being frank about his views on abortion (which, given that he is a pro-choicer who seems to support the position that abortion is an issue for the states, not the federal government, aren’t turning out to be so bad for him anyway), he’s also been being frank about his views on things like school choice–which is a big concern for many Christian conservatives who want to educate their children in line with their own beliefs, whether that means chartering a school, using school vouchers to send their kids private or parochial, or homeschooling.

From where I sit, it looks like Rudy’s employing a pretty smart strategy for a guy who seems to still be mulling it over. Sure, it may not be enough to push him over the finishing line (he won’t beat McCain in New Hampshire, and he’s probably got no shot in Michigan), but then again, some funny old things happen in the course of Presidential primaries. Like a candidate that many moderates and libertarian-leaners feel is their best philosophical match getting support from those furthest to the right (even if it turns out to be enough to only let him finish second, in the end).

One thing this poll does tell me, for sure, is that Romney is going to have to work his cotton socks off to get anywhere in two of the most important states: NH and SC. New Hampshire is probably a lost cause, and is perhaps best ignored in favor of focusing on South Carolina, where it seems like there is the most potential for him to do well. That being said, of course, it is a sad fact that there may be only so far a Mormon can go in a state, many of whose evangelical voters don’t even seem too big on Catholics (a much more known quantity than Mormons in terms of their theology). Romney may turn out to be too much, too soon for Palmetto staters, while McCain and Giuliani may both come out looking just about right.

In any event, Giuliani is playing it smart from now, from where I sit.

I have not had an occasion to agree with Liz very often lately (I could not disagree with her more strongly?regarding conservatism and Gay Marriage). However, I believe she hit one out of the park with this analysis. I have always believed that Rudy entering the race kills the chance for any other candidate not named McCain to win the Republican nomination.

Between media frontrunner John McCain, and polling frontrunner Rudy Giuliani, how many votes are going to be left to split between Mitt, Newt, Frist, Brownback, Pataki,?Allen (if he wins and if he runs),?etc…?

McCain will probably win the two early primaries of NH and MI. Rudy is leading in current polling in IA right now (despite Romney practically living in Iowa for the past six-months). That leaves the the rest of the field fighting for scraps.

The history of the Republican nomination process has been well discussed here at R4′08. You have to got back nearly?45 years?to find a GOP presidential nominee who wasn’t: A.) The guy who came in 2nd the last time; or B.) “The Frontrunner” as presumed by status (George H.W. Bush as Veep) or polling (George W. Bush). ???

To believe that Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Bill Frist, or any other GOP?hopeful will garner the nomination is to completely deny historical precedant. I could buy it?if there was a candidate who could unite several critical wings of the Republican Party- say for instance Jeb Bush, who could unite the So-Cons, Economic Conservatives, and the GWOT Hawk?Wing of the GOP. However, there just isn’t that guy in this race (and no, Mitt Romney does not qualify here as?any candidate who already has Evangelical Pro-Life?groups actively working to?defeat him cannot by definition be a unity candidate).

So I’m sticking to my guns here. If Rudy enters the race it’s a two-man showdown between him and McCain. If he?declines to run all bets are off. ???????

?

Rep Hunter is expected to hold a press conference today to announce his intention to seek the 2008 Republican nomination:

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., plans to announce Monday that he’s considering a presidential run in 2008, according to a Republican official.

Hunter told Fox News Channel Sunday, “I’m going to make an announcement about a national campaign in ‘08.” He didn’t elaborate, other than to say it would be made from the waterfront “where I started my humble career in 1980.”

A Republican official said Hunter planned to announce that he was forming an exploratory committee, which would allow him to begin raising money and organizing supporters in early Republican primary states such as Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. The official didn’t want to speak on the record ahead of Hunter’s announcement.

Hunter’s announcement came as a surprise to leadership in the Republican Party in Washington. He had not been discussed as one of the many candidates considering a presidential bid, among them Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.

Hunter, a 13-term incumbent who represents the San Diego suburbs, is a strong conservative who’s focused on supporting the military, particularly the country’s troops, and on stopping illegal immigration. He’s a stubborn advocate for those causes, pushing for completion of the western portion of a U.S.-Mexico border fence over objections from Democrats and environmentalists.

It takes nary a glance at my pantheon of ex-girlfriends to infer that I have an affinity for smart, strong women, which is why I just must post this excellent interview?with political observer and uber-intellectual, Camille Paglia.? Most of the interview doesn’t concern 2008; the article basically details Camille’s current view of American politics, in which she continues to self-identify as a Democrat despite basically proclaiming herself a libertarian-style Republican in principle.? That said, it’s a fascinating read, and w/r/t 2008, there was at least one pertinent passage that jumped out at me.? Says Camille:

“I was so distressed when I heard that Mark Warner had dropped out of the presidential race. I thought he was going to bring fresh blood into the primaries. Are we really left with the same old tired nags and with robo-Hillary leading the pack?”

Camille’s viewpoint on the rest of the Democratic field is equally dismal.? Edwards, she says, is far too inexperienced to be trusted with the job.? And she recognizes the inability of the northeastern Kerry-esque elitists to win Middle America.

But I can’t get that description — “Robo-Hillary”?— out of my head.? It seems to sum up quite well the general personality clash Hillary will experience with the nation in 2008 and, ironically, comes from the mouth of an ardent feminist.? I lack the knowledge on the subject to engage in psychobabble about all of this, but I think this does show one thing above all, and that’s that Hillary will have a hard time convincing voters who couldn’t vote Democrat in the last few elections that they should all of a sudden change their minds about the party.? I think this is equally true if Dems win at least one house of Congress this fall.? Ironically, Speaker Pelosi in 2006 almost certainly means a Republican president in 2008, and that’s doubly true if Hillary’s the nominee.

I’ve been trying to nail down this poll all day, and South Carolina expert Byron York finally delivers it.

Much to even my surprise, Rudy has far and away the highest favorable ratings among South Carolina Republicans.

Candidate Heard of Favorable Unfavorable
John McCain 96% 65% 23%
Newt Gingrich 95% 53% 31%
Rudy Giuliani 93% 78% 10%
George Pataki 69% 35% 18%
Bill Frist 66% 43% 21%
Mitt Romney 40% 41% 11%
George Allen 37% 38% 11%
Mike Huckabee 16% ‘ ‘

Convert it to the net rating and it’s Rudy +68%, McCain +42%, Romney +30%, Allen +27%, Frist +22%, Gingrich +21%, Pataki +17%. It’s true that there’s a New Yorker in this race who will never sell in the South. Except his name is George Pataki. Moderate New Yorkers bookend this poll in terms of favorability.

People carp about “name ID” skewing polls like this. I agree 100%. Romney or Huckabee just aren’t where they’ll be in February of ‘08. But a legitimate comparison can be made between candidates who are well known (Rudy, McCain, Newt), those who are moderately well known (Pataki, Frist), and those who are complete unknowns (Romney, Allen, Huckabee).

Among the universally well known candidates, Rudy beats McCain who beats Newt. Because they’ve been on the public stage for years, opinions of these leaders are the hardest to change. While opinions of these leaders are likely to take somewhat of a beating, their public personas are to some extent firm and fixed. McCain won’t become a conservative hero. Rudy will never lose that association with 9/11.

In the welterweight category, Frist and Pataki have been on the public stage as “supporting actors” and have managed to rack up pretty high unfavorables, a fact that probably dooms their bids. Though there are theoretically 30% or 40% of Republicans who haven’t heard of them who can be moved, everyone basically agrees that these two are dead in the water because of the baggage they’ve already collected manifested by their inability to move beyond a 2-1 favorable ratio.

It’s not a coincidence that those considered the brightest stars in the field (at one point or another) share the fact of low name ID. They’re clean slates. They can introduce themselves to the electorate on their own terms. They could easily rocket up to Giuliani/McCain heights by extending their 3 and 4-1 edge in favorability with the 60% who don’t know them. Romney’s nearly 4-to-1 favorable ratio has got to be encouraging from the standpoint of knocking down the LDS issue as a problem for his bid in the South.

Perhaps a more accurate measure might be the ratio of favorables to unfavorables. They are:

Rudy 7.8 / 1
Romney 3.7 / 1
Allen 3.5 / 1
McCain 2.8 /1
Frist 2.1 / 1
Pataki 1.9 /1
Newt 1.7 / 1

You’ll notice that McCain hovers not too far above DOA status.

During a May 26, 2005 interview on CNN’s?Inside Politics?Senator Hilllary?Clinton said, “Well, I don’t know many Democrats who support gay marriage. In fact, I don’t and haven’t for, you know, years before I became a Senator.”

That was then. Now Senator Clinton tells a group of gay elected officials that she will support gay marriage if the governor and state legislature legalize it by statute in the state of New York.

Solutions America, Rudy’s PAC, adds another member to the staff as former Rove aide Margaret Hoover comes on board:

Rudy Giuliani has hired a new fund-raiser who used to work for top presidential adviser Karl Rove – the latest sign the former mayor may be eying the White House.

Margaret Hoover, 28, made $10,000 last month as the new deputy finance director for Solutions America, Giuliani’s federal political action committee, records show.

Hoover’s r?sum? includes working on intergovernmental affairs for Rove – widely considered to be the mastermind behind President Bush’s two election wins – and working for Bush’s 2004 campaign operation.

Giuliani is quietly building a campaign organization — one that can raise the money to be competitive. More than endorsements, what solidified George W. Bush as 2000’s frontrunner was the $30 million+ monster second quarter in ‘99.

Also of note: finance head-honcho Anne Dickerson (former director of Rangers & Pioneers for Bush-Cheney) was ostensibly brought on board to raise money for Solutions America, but the PAC hasn’t been raising all that much money the last couple of months, while Dickerson has continued to earn a monthly fee (and is now expanding her operation with Hoover). Something tells me there’s a lot of ‘08 work going on behind the scenes.

Rudy critics, taking occasional breaks from their McCain-Romney pissing match, like to point out areas where Rudy’s level of activity is low. But the recent fundraising reflects the fact that Rudy isn’t someone who needs to buy himself into the good graces of his party. And he now has more cash-on-hand to prepare for an ‘08 run than anyone in the field, while simultaneously strengthening his position in early trial heat polls.

Incidentally, this isn’t the first Rove protege Rudy has hired. Three years ago, Giuliani brought on Chris Henick, former #2 to the Architect himself. Read this resume and tell me if there is any doubt in your mind that Rudy intends to compete in the South:

(Joined Giuliani Partners in Spring 2003) Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy to the Senior Advisor (Karl Rove), Jan. 2001-Dec. 2002.  Deputy Director of Strategy on Bush’s 2000  presidential campaign.  Managing Director and Principal at the Washington lobbying firm of Barbour Griffith & Rogers, 1995 through April 2000.  Executive director of the Republican Governors Association 1991-95.  Southern director at the RNC through 1990.  Managed Congressman Alec McMillan (R-NC)’s 1986 re-election campaign.  Worked for Congressman Trent Lott.  Executive director for Mississippi Reagan/Bush ??84.  Political director for the Mississippi Republican Party.  Field organization director for Haley Barbour’s unsuccessful 1982 U.S. Senate bid.  Field representative on the Reagan/Bush 1980 campaign.  Attended University of Mississippi )eventually received B.A. in Liberal Studies from Georgetown University).  Born and raised in Yazoo City, MS.

While my belief thusfar has been that George Allen, though he is having to battle hard to hold on to his Senate seat, will ultimately win, this assumption is becoming increasingly challenged.? I still believe Virginians will side with Allen in the end, and maybe the new discoveries about Webb’s child-sex fiction will help tip the scales a bit, but the latest poll from L.A. Times/Bloomberg is not good news for Allen.

In it, Allen loses to Webb by three points, 44% to 47%.? Granted, LATB is not as trustworthy a polling company as, say, Mason-Dixon when it comes to this race, but these results shouldn’t be taken lightly.? We’ve often speculated that Allen would win by such a slim margin he would have no chance at being taken seriously in 2008, but now there is the minor, yet ominous, possibility that Allen might not run in 2008 because he lost his job.? This is serious, folks.? Allen’s Senate seat is crucial, and most pundits have kept this seat in the GOP column with little doubt.? But, if Allen, in some kind of fluke, actually loses, it might just put the entire Republican majority in the Senate in jeopardy, something almost everyone has assumed the Republicans would retain.

For all the GOP’s new television ads and cascades of funds that they’ve been unleashing in the final stages of this election, Republicans in key campaigns seem not to be improving, but slowly slipping.? Even with the rebounding economy, the glimmers of hope in post-war Iraq management, and the now-clear threat that is being posed to us by the remainders of the?Axis of Evil that have vindicated Bush’s warnings in 2002, Republicans are still struggling.? Now that polls show that Americans trust Democrats more than Republicans on issues of national security, terrorism, and Iraq, perhaps Republicans shouldn’t keep trying to make this a one-issue election by focusing on these things.? Perhaps Republicans need a complete different change of strategy.? If we don’t do something differently, we might just feel the rebounds of 2006 in 2008 as well, and that would be disasterous.? The Allen v. Webb race could be a bellweather of things to come, and we must take it seriously.

John McIntyre penned a fascinating piece?for RCP today regarding a possibly unfolding scenario for in?the ‘08 race.

McIntyre starts off with a pretty big assumption however, one that is not shared by myself or many of the writers on this blog; that assumption being that McCain is more likely than not to win the GOP nomination (he tiptoes around this by pinning it to 2006?of course, but you can read it between the lines.)

Regarding McCain:

…McCain who has had the best several weeks of any candidate, in either party. The North Korean nuke provided McCain with an opportunity to burnish his national security pedigree and, more importantly from a nomination standpoint, an opportunity to be partisan.

McCain’s overtly less-partisan style may win him points with the beltway media and Independents but it is a big-time negative with the conservative base he is going to need to win the GOP nomination. His recent attacks on the Clintons over North Korea warmed conservative attitudes toward McCain measurably.

But even better for McCain than Kim Jong-Il’s nuke, the Foley scandal destroyed Republican momentum at a critical time in the campaign and completely threw the GOP back on its heels heading into the midterm homestretch. With the possibility of a Democratic takeover of Congress having risen considerably these last few weeks, McCain is well positioned to pick up the pieces from a dispirited and angry Republican party if they indeed lose two weeks from today.

At the end of the day, McCain’s biggest appeal to Republicans in the fight for the nomination will be his claim (credibly) that he can win in 2008. And a Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid could be all McCain needs to convince enough nervous conservatives to get behind him to ensure blowing the Democrats out of the water in 2008.

So where do Hillary, Obama, and the machiavellian twists come in??

Which brings us to the Clintons and where the Democratic race for the nomination stands. The Clintons are the 800-pound gorilla in the Democratic field, and as long as Hillary Clinton is running for president it is difficult to see how anybody else ends up with the nomination. But while that assertion holds true, there is no question that Hillary’s grip on the nomination has slipped these last 12 months, and she is not as much the lock she was a year ago.

What is really fascinating when gaming out the Clintons’ strategy to win back the White House is how they deal with the very real possibility of a McCain nomination. And, really, the only way Hillary Clinton can “deal” with a McCain nomination and still preserve her White House options is NOT to run in 2008.

This brings us to Barack Obama and “Meet the Press.”

MR. HARWOOD: … I talked to a former top aide to Bill Clinton last night who said Barack Obama will run in 2008, Hillary Clinton will not. So we’ll see what happens there.

MR. RUSSERT: Hillary Clinton will not?

MR. HARWOOD: That was his prediction.

Obama is clearly the hottest thing to hit the Democratic Party and the Washington media in a long time, which means he is a clear threat to the Clintons’ dominance of the party. If Hillary passes up her ‘08 opportunity because of a calculated decision, she is a loser to John McCain in a general election. She does not want to have to face a red-hot and primed Obama in the 2012 primaries. Better to let Obama get his shot in 2008 and have him go down against McCain.

To play with this scenario further, a President McCain might really be one of the best ways for Hillary Clinton to win the presidency. The seeds for Bill Clinton’s successful White House run were laid with the open warfare between conservatives and the first President Bush, epitomized by Pat Buchanan’s sizable 35 percent in the 1992 New Hampshire GOP primary. Given McCain’s temperament and history there is a very good chance conservatives would be thoroughly disgusted with a President McCain heading into 2012, laying the table perfectly for Hillary Clinton to win the White House after 12 years of Republican rule.

This may all be a little Machiavellian for some, but the chess pieces are moving on the 2008 presidential board. With the odds of McCain winning the GOP nomination greatly improved by a Republican rout in ‘06, the possibility that Hillary Clinton may indeed take a pass on 2008 has to be more seriously considered.

McIntyre’s scenario is a great illustration?of why I fear a McCain nomination/presidency. I can envision four-years of President McCain arguing with his own?party over Immigraiton, signing the Kyoto Treaty,?and letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire, among others things that will deeply anger the conservative base.

Most people believe?that Al Gore’s downfall in 2000?was mainly caused by the fallout of Monicagate and other Clinton scandals. Although those factors did contribute significantly, they were not the root cause.?

The truth that lies?behind that loss of a sitting Vice President, whose term stretched over 8 years of “peace”?and economic prosperity,?is in?Bill Clinton’s triangulation of foreign and domestic policies that drove dependable Democratic voters to The Greens (for the best analysis of effect of Triangulation?on the Democratic Party, please read Christopher Hitchens’ seminal “No One Left to Lie To“, which in addition to being required reading for?truly understanding the “Clinton Years”, is the most devestating political biography I have ever read… bar none. Pretty?big feat for a book of only 150 pages!)

The President of the Unites States is the leader?of his party in addition to being?the leader of our country. John McCain is an honorable man?and an?American Hero. His being a “Good Republican” however, is the subject of much debate.

It’s a debate that we must have, for the consequences (as the Democrats are discovering) can be?far reaching. ??

Strategic Vision is polling fast and furious now.

No real surprises… Rudy still leads the pack for the GOP, with Gore, Edwards, and now Obama fighting for 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place respectively for the Dems.???

Strategic Vision Georgia, Oct. 20th-22nd, 2006

For the 2008 Republican Presidential Nomination whom would you support? (Republicans Only)

Rudy Giuliani 31%
John McCain 22%
Newt Gingrich 17%
Mitt Romney 8%
Bill Frist 3%
George Allen 1%
Rick Santorum 1%
George Pataki 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
Undecided 15%

For the 2008 Democratic Presidential Nomination whom would you support? (Democrats Only)

Hillary Clinton 28%
Al Gore 19%
Barack Obama 15%
John Edwards 11%
Wesley Clark 2%
John Kerry 2%
Russ Feingold 2%
Evan Bayh 1%
Joseph Biden 1%
Bill Richardson 1%
Ed Rendell 1%
Tom Vilsack 1%
Chris Dodd 1%
Undecided 15%

Strategic Vision Florida, Oct. 20th-22nd, 2006

Who is your first choice for the Republican nomination in 2008? (Republicans only)

Rudy Giuliani 45%
John McCain 28%
Mitt Romney 8%
Newt Gingrich 4%
Bill Frist 2%
George Allen 1%
George Pataki 1%
Rick Santorum 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
Undecided 9%

Who is your first choice for the Democratic nomination in 2008? (Democrats only)

Hillary Clinton 30%
Al Gore 20%
John Edwards 12%
Barack Obama 10%
John Kerry 7%
Russ Feingold 3%
Wesley Clark 3%
Joseph Biden 1%
Bill Richardson 1%
Ed Rendell 1%
Tom Vilsack 1%
Evan Bayh 1%
Christopher Dodd 1%
Undecided 9%

?

Mayor Rudy Giuliani has added Margaret Hoover, the great-granddaughter of President Herbert Hoover and a former White House aide under Karl Rove, as an aide to chief fund-raiser Anne Dickinson for his Solutions America PAC according to David Saltonstall of the New York Post in today’s edition.

While Mayor Giuliani is moving very slowly, this is another?step, albeit a small one, toward developing a staff that can potentially serve him in a 2008 presidential campaign. We’ll see.

It’s time once again for my weekly election projection.? With just two short weeks to go until Decision 2006, Republicans appear to have stopped the bleeding, but there’s still much work to be done to hold the House.? The numbers, as always, are taken from my own reading of all the recent scientific polls on each race.? Here’s how I see the election playing out if it were held today.

Senate: 50R, 48D, 2I

House: 215R, 220D

Governorships: 22R, 28D

I’ve finally given in and flipped Jim Talent’s Senate seat over to the Dems.? Talent is polling horribly for an incumbent; even though I think he’s avoided the political errors of Santorum, Burns, etc, it’s clear that most Missouri voters disagree.? And that’s a real shame.? Talent’s a good man, but probably gone as of November.

I’ve also seen movement towards Corker in TN, proving Kavon’s theory from last week that the GOP lean of the state would carry Corker over the finish line, despite the presence of the young, interesting Harold Ford.? It now looks as if the Dems hold all of their current Senate seats, take PA, MT, RI, OH, and MO, and end up with a net five seat gain — one seat away from a majority.? This will allow Republicans to remain in control of the chamber thanks to Vice President Cheney’s tie-breaking vote, but it means that a Democratic president in 2008 would flip the chamber without having to win a single additional seat.? Moreover, since we’re defending far more seats than the Democrats in the 2008 Senate elections (we won a net?4 seats in the last two elections in which that particular cycle was up), it’s more than likely that the Dems will gain a seat or two anyway in 2008, regardless of whatever else happens that year.? Unfortunately, the next Republican president will almost certainly have to deal with a Democratic Senate.

The GOP picks up one governorship this week due to the horrid numbers of Oregon’s incumbent Democratic governor.? Even though his GOP challenger doesn’t actually lead him in many recent polls, undecideds do break for the challenger in races involving incumbents at this point in the game.? So the GOP picks up OR but loses CO, AR, NY, MA, MD, OH, and MN.

The House polls are interesting.? I count about 13 GOP seats that are gone, about 9 that could go either way, and a single Democratic seat in Indiana that’s a virtual tossup.? I think it’s curious that so many pundits are calling this a 20 or 30 seat game.? The Dems are going to have a good year, but they’re not going to win all of the tossups.? And even if they did, they would end up well short of where many in the MSM are predicting they’ll end up.? I split the tossups down the middle and gave the Dems a net 17 seat gain, which would provide Speaker Pelosi with a five seat majority.? I think this is much more likely than the MSM fantasies we’ve been seeing on other projection sites.? That said, Scott Elliott is one of the best in the business and he has the Dems at 222, which also wouldn’t surprise me.? The one thing no one seems to show is a GOP victory in the House, but if they can start taking some of these tossups off the table, they won’t be far away from a narrow win.

Just what exactly is Rudy Giuliani trying to accomplish by going from state to state, giving fundraising speeches, making ads for various candidates, and donating to local campaigns?? There seems to be two schools of thought regarding the strategy that Rudy is utilizing here. (more…)

From the Boston Globe:

One of Governor Mitt Romney’s biggest supporters in Utah, developer Kem Gardner, is taking responsibility for the political fallout from the Globe’s disclosures of discussions among Romney aides and Mormon Church leaders about an effort to build Mormon support for the governor’s probable presidential bid.

“I’m to blame for this whole mess,” Gardner, a close friend of Romney’s, was quoted as saying in yesterday’s edition of The Salt Lake Tribune. But Gardner also termed the discussion between the two camps innocent and said a Romney political consultant had overstated its significance, the paper reported.

Last week, the Globe reported that members of Romney’s political team and leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had consulted on building a nationwide network of Mormon supporters. The Globe report was based in part on confidential e-mails from Don Stirling, a Romney consultant, stating that Gardner and church leaders were instrumental in the talks.

But Gardner, in the interview with the Tribune, said Stirling’s descriptions were overblown. “We know Mitt can’t use the church,” he was quoted as saying. “Nobody wants a Mormon presidential campaign. It would kill us with the evangelical groups.”

Holly Mullen of the Salt Lake Tribune is looking on the bright side however:

After the weekend dust-up over whether the LDS Church has been directly involved in Mitt Romney’s embryonic 2008 presidential campaign, we got an answer late Sunday. Any perception that church leaders are participating in or authorizing fundraising for the effort falls squarely on Salt Lake City commercial developer and Romney friend Kem Gardner, who insists he really messed up.

Meanwhile, we can all rub the sting in our biceps for a moment and wait for the next injection. Because what just came out of the Romney camp – whether the Massachusetts guv and former 2002 Winter Games guru knows it or not – is one big inoculation for the public.

Campaign wonks, or any college kid earning a political science degree, soon learns the concept of “inoculation.” A candidate goes on the offense early by naming the biggest problem he or she might face in the campaign. By laying out the worst on the table, long before an opponent or critic grabs the opportunity to do so, the candidate “inoculates” the public against the revelation looking much harsher in the future.

It’s the political version of scratching the electorate’s skin with a bit of cowpox virus to protect it from an infection to come. The next time the news surfaces, the public will feel just a tad more immune from the shock.

I have to agree with Mullen. This news came at the best possible time for Romney and will be long forgotten by the time the campaign gets into full swing.

So says the Boston Globe:

As Senator John McCain travels the nation on behalf of Republican candidates, his proposal to send tens of thousands of additional US troops to Iraq is making things awkward for some of the congressional candidates he’s campaigning for. His stance is also shaping the early stages of the 2008 presidential campaign.

As public support for the war dwindles, it is hard to find any Republican candidates who publicly agree with McCain, an Arizona Republican who is among the party’s brightest hopes for the presidency in 2008. While staunch military supporters such as Virginia’s Republican senators, John W. Warner and George Allen, have begun to suggest a change of course in Iraq with fewer US troops, McCain’s proposal to add troops has distanced him from the mainstream of his party.

McCain aides say the senator, a Vietnam veteran and former POW who remembers serving in an unpopular war, is acting on the courage of his convictions without regard to the political ramifications. Since the war began, he has repeatedly urged the Bush administration to send more troops to Iraq, and he says he still believes that is the best way to secure the country.

“My view — which is clearly a minority view — has been, for a long period of time, that we need more troops on the ground,” McCain said last week while campaigning for a GOP House candidate in Iowa. “We need to put down what is now a classic insurgency.”

But establishing himself as perhaps his party’s biggest Iraq hawk has increasingly isolated McCain within the GOP ranks, and could harm his 2008 presidential prospects if the war remains as unpopular as it is now, political analysts say.

“What McCain is doing now is suicidal,” said Alan Wolfe, a political science professor at Boston College. “There’s just no chance that in 2008 we’re going to have a democratic, peaceful Iraq that’s saying, ‘Thank you so much for sending those extra 100,000 troops.’ He wants to be admired as Mr. Integrity, but he’s hurting himself with many independent voters, and many Republicans.”

Well, leave it to the left-of-Pravda Boston Globe to publically call out Sen. McCain on one of the issues in which he agrees with the Conservative wing of his party.??

If the Dem nominee is Hillary Clinton, which candidate do you think Americans will trust the most on issues of National Defense? The choice will be clear after a thorough examination of the 8 years of utter and complete failure which is?the Clinton record in this area.

-Thanks to R4′08 reader LJ for the tip!?

Strategic Vision Pennsylvania, Oct. 20th-23rd, 2006

Who is your choice for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2008? (Republicans only)

Rudy Giuliani 47%
John McCain 24%
Newt Gingrich 8%
Mitt Romney 6%
Bill Frist 2%
George Allen 1%
Rick Santorum 1%
George Pataki 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
Undecided 9%

Who is your choice for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008? (Democrats only.)

Hillary Clinton 28%
Al Gore 17%
Barack Obama 15%
John Edwards 10%
John Kerry 6%
Russ Feingold 4%
Wesley Clark 2%
Joseph Biden 1%
Christopher Dodd 1%
Ed Rendell 1%
Evan Bayh 1%
Bill Richardson 1%
Tom Vilsack 1%
Undecided 12%

Strategic Vision Michigan, Oct. 20th-23rd, 2006

For the 2008 Republican Presidential Nomination whom would you support? (Republicans Only)

John McCain 39%
Rudy Giuliani 25%
Mitt Romney 15%
Newt Gingrich 6%
Bill Frist 2%
George Allen 1%
George Pataki 1%
Rick Santorum 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
Undecided 9%

For the 2008 Democratic Presidential Nomination whom would you support? (Democrats Only)

Hillary Clinton 30%
Al Gore 22%
John Edwards 13%
Barack Obama 12%
Russ Feingold 4%
John Kerry 3%
Wesley Clark 2%
Joseph Biden 1%
Evan Bayh 1%
Tom Vilsak 1%
Bill Richardson 1%
Ed Rendell 1%
Christopher Dodd 1%
Undecided 8%

With Obama included in the polls for the first time for Strategic Vision, we see him coming in 3rd & 4th place respectively. I think this is shows that there may be?some credence to the opinion that much of the Obama hype is media driven.

My weekly 2006 projections will be released tomorrow evening.? They will show Democrats taking the House while Republicans hold the Senate.? This, of course, comes with all the caveats about turn-out, etc.? But all else being equal, there’s now a very strong chance one-party rule in Washington ends in 2007.

After the election, you’re going to hear a variety of pundits and prognosticators argue one or both of the following things: 1) the post-9/11 GOP realignment was a fiction and/or 2) 2006 marked the beginning of a Democratic realignment.

Don’t believe either of them.

I’ll link to some helpful maps tomorrow, but 2006 is no realignment.? It’s a good Democratic year.? The political topography of the country isn’t changing; the south and interior west are?still “redder” than the Great Lakes states and the southwest, which in turn?are still “redder” than the northeast and the west coast.? It’s just that everything is a bit more blue than it was in 2002 and 2004.? Dark red areas have become light red, light red states are purple, purple territory is light blue, and so on.? Again, the country will remain aligned the same way as it has been since 9/11.? We’re not going to see, for example, New Jersey turn red while Texas turns blue.? What we are seeing is a uniform national shift toward the blue end of the spectrum due to the anti-GOP sentiment?in the country right now.? Like I said: a good Democratic year.? And in 2008, we could easily see the opposite with a shift back toward all things red.

But wait!? How can the post-9/11 alignment remain intact despite the GOP losing the House?? Doesn’t the majority party almost always have control of both houses of Congress?

This is a historical fallacy based on the assumption that all majority coalitions will operate just like the New Deal coalition.? From 1932-1968, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for 32 of 36 years.? This is actually the exception and not the rule when it comes to political alignments.? Contrast this period with that of 1860-1896, or with 1968-2004.? During those two 36-year periods, government was most often divided between the two parties.? And during the 36-year period of 1896-1932, the one that is most similar to our current period, the Republican majority coalition lost the House for?8 of 36 years and the Senate for 6 of 36 years.? And all of this despite the fact that Republicans were the party of the regions of the country that were the most pro-growth and that were spearheading the new economy, just like today.

On November 8th, you may wake up to a Democratic House, but you won’t be waking up to a Democratic nation.

In the past, I’ve noticed that NewsMax tends to feature Rudy Giuliani quite a lot. Since their material tends towards the outrageous and attention-grabbing, I strongly suspect it’s because he makes better copy, and sells more magazines and ads than any of the other 2008 candidates.

NewsMax tips their hand yet again with the cover story on their latest magazine, “Yes, Rudy Can Win” which is like a flood of Rudy analysis and speculation after wandering in the desert that it is the Brain-Dead Beltway Media (BDBM). It begins with an exhaustive cover article (it’s better than you expect) that covers his years as Mayor, the challenges and opportunities of a Presidential race, and long on-the-record musings from Ralph Reed. Also included is a calendar by Hotline editor John Mercurio on how a Rudy candidacy could unfold, and memos on a Rudy candidacy from Dick Morris and James Carville.

So, let’s begin.

The piece isn’t online, so I’ve transcribed the best, most politically meaningful clips here. (more…)

I just have to weigh in on all of this Obama ‘08 nonsense (HT: Woody).? The MSM seems to be salivating over a run by the first-term Illinois senator.??This is likely due to the hunger on the Left for an Anti-Hillary.? There’s a very good chance that the Democrats will control the Senate in 2009 (more on this later) regardless of what happens this year.? And if the Dems win a large enough majority in the House this year, they can probably hold it until the next reapportionment after the 2010 census in 2012.? That means a Democratic president elected in 2008 has a very good chance right now of governing alongside two Democratic houses of Congress, at least for a couple of years.? This, of course, would make the quasi-socialist relics that staff the upper echelons of the MSM positively giddy, as it would be their best hope for Bush’s Churchill to be followed by an American version of Attlee, the PM who completely socialized Britain following WWII.

Hillary Rodham, is, of course, the closest thing to Attlee in the current Democratic field.? But doubts about her electability?were old news two years ago.? Contrast shrill, unelectable Hillary with the charming, optimistic Obama and liberals think they’ve found a savior: their own Ronald Reagan to ride in from the West on a white horse and lead a leftist crusade to remake America.

The notion that Obama is a Reagan of the Left is, of course, nonsense.? Note the distinctions.

* Reagan was a two-term governor of a large state.? Obama is a first-term senator.

* Reagan’s candidacy was built on a political philosophy communicated through a strong and persuasive personality.? Obama’s candidacy has its foundation in a personality that has yet to articulate any clear political philosophy.

* Reagan helped to further the Nixonian goal of reorganizing American politics by creating a new conservatism that appealed to vast numbers of exiled conservative Democrats.? Obama has done nothing to revise, renew, or revitalize liberalism in any of its forms.

There is absolutely no evidence for the notion that Obama?will realign American politics, create millions of “Obama Republicans,” and win 49 states in just a few short years.? To the contrary, the Obama hype seems to be based on nothing more than personality cult, which admittedly has been known to win an election or two, but which cannot create the seismic changes that many on the Left are likely hoping will result from an Obama run.??The Left?would be wise to?wait and see where Obama actually stands on the issues, and how the American people react to those stances, before initiating a coronation.

“You ever see a picture of her back then? Whew. I don’t know why Bill married her.”

-GOP NY Senate candidate John Spencer, taking extra care to?ensure that Hillary beats him by more than 30 points.

Is there some?unwritten rule that anyone who runs against Hillary has?to be a political idiot?