FOX News Poll: 2012 is All About Huckabee and Romney

Here are the numbers from the FOX News/Opinion Dynamics poll:

Among Republicans:
Huckabee: 20%
Romney: 18%
Gingrich: 14%
Palin: 13%
Giuliani:12%
Sanford: 4%
Jeb Bush: 3%
Jindal: 3%

Among Independents:
Giuliani: 19%
Huckabee: 16%
Romney: 12%
Palin: 10%
Gingrich: 5%
Jindal: 2%
Jeb Bush: 2%
Sanford: 2%

Sure, I could have put Giuliani in that byline at the top as well, but this is the first time he's been polled in the handful of 2012 polls. That isn't anything monumental, but the total lack of chatter around a repeat bid for America's Mayor, to me, is telling. And let's not get started on this Giuliani thing again anyway. It isn't like 2008 turned out well for him. Polling propped up something that wasn't there. We can argue about the merits of Google Trends data all day, but it does show that while Rudy was up in the polls, he wasn't drawing many web searches. Regardless, if he continues to poll like this, the former New York mayor may consider throwing his hat in the ring.

[And yes, the 2012 GOP candidate emergence post with April data is long overdue. I haven't forgotten loyal FHQ readers.]

But what about Huckabee and Romney? And hey, I've gotten this far in to a post on 2012 without mentioning Sarah Palin.

Let's deal with the former first. These are more solid polling numbers for Huckabee. The thing that is striking to me is that the former Arkansas governor is doing so well (relatively speaking -- It is just 16%.) among independents polled by FOX. Giuliani besting him with that particular group isn't a shock, but seeing Huckabee atop the list of remaining prospective GOP candidates for 2012 is still something I need to think some about. This is the guy whose stalking horse in the January RNC chair race, Chip Saltsman, was dubbed, along with fellow southerner, Katon Dawson, a symbol of the Republican Party's inability to stretch its success any further than the South. I thought Huckabee would be there in 2012, but I didn't see support necessarily coming from this direction.

For Romney, it's good but not great news. He's among the top candidates, but not tops. And he's still losing to a guy who was able to beat his money with better organization in Iowa in 2008. The former Massachusetts governor is still within the margin of error of Huckabee with both groups sampled in the poll.

And Sarah Palin? In 2009, three years before the contests begin for the 2012 cycle, the presidential nomination race is all about name recognition, and it says something that the power of the former vice presidential candidate's name has decayed to the point that she is barely garnering double digits in one of these polls. There are a lot of names in this poll, but for someone who was a potential number two, not to mention someone with such a loyal following among conservatives, this is yet further evidence of the Alaska governor's 2009 slide.

Finally, it is nice to see Mark Sanford included in the polling. The South Carolina governor's name has been in the news because of his reaction to the Obama administration's stimulus plan, and has been mentioned in the context of a 2012 run, but he hadn't appeared in any polls as of yet. Also, it is nice of FOX to throw in the Jeb Bush wildcard to test for Bush fatigue. It looks like it is still too soon for another Bush. Yeah, it has only been four months since the last one left office. I think that qualifies as too soon.

Hat tip to GOP12 for the link.


Recent Posts:
Time Running Out for Frontloading Bills in 2009

Much Ado About Nothing in Texas

Back in Business

Time Running Out for Frontloading Bills in 2009

As was witnessed recently here in Georgia, a bill to shift the Peach state's presidential primary back to March for 2012 was introduced on the last day of the General Assembly's session. The intent in that instance was to introduce the bill in order for it to carry over to the 2010 session, but it got FHQ thinking about the time left in other states where frontloading (or backloading) bills have been introduced. And in reality, there isn't much time left.

Frontloading Bills (2009 Legislative Session)
State	Bill	Status	Session Adjourns	Description
Arkansas	HB 1021	passed	May 1	moves presidential primary from first Tuesday in February to the Tuesday after the third Monday in May
Florida	HB 759/SB 2304	died in committee	May 8	moves presidential primary from last Tuesday in January to the second Tuesday in March
Georgia	HB 848	carried over to 2010 session	April 4	moves presidential primary from first Tuesday in February to first Tuesday in March
Illinois	HB 2308/SB 46	in committee	year-round	moves state and local primaries from first Tuesday in February to third Tuesday in March/first Tuesday in June
Indiana	SCR 28	passed Senate, no action in House	April 29	forms commission to investigate moving presidential primary
Minnesota	HF 31/SF 157	in committee -- House/out with "Do Pass" -- Senate	May 18	creates presidential primary and moves to first Tuesday in February
New Hampshire	HB 341	in committee	July 1	allows only Iowa caucus to precede presidential primary
New Jersey	A 2413	in committee	year-round	moves presidential primary from first Tuesday in February to first Tuesday in June
North Carolina	S 150	in committee	early July	moves presidential primary from first Tuesday after first Monday in May to first Tuesday in February
North Dakota	SB 2288	passed	May 2	eliminates state involvement in presidential preference caucus
Oklahoma	HB 1340	in committee	May 29	shifts financial burden of presidential primary from state to state parties
Oregon	SB 412	in committee	late June	moves presidential primary from third Tuesday in May to first Tuesday in February
Texas	HB 246	in committee	June 1	moves presidential primary from first Tuesday in March to first Tuesday in February
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures

Arkansas and North Dakota were able to move on their respective bills prior to the close of their legislative sessions and Indiana's Senate was able to sign off on a resolution forming a committee to examine the possibility of frontloading. In the remaining states, however, things are either dead or stuck in committee.

Florida's adjournment last week killed the two bills proposed to move the state's controversially scheduled primary back to spot in line with both parties (2008) nomination rules. Frontloading bills in North Carolina, Oregon and Texas have all been left twisting in the wind in committee while the bill to eliminate the separate February presidential primary in New Jersey has met the same fate. The difference -- and it is a slight one considering the New Jersey bill was one introduced in 2008 and will die prior to elections there this fall -- is that the clock is running out in North Carolina, Oregon and Texas. By the middle of July, all three states' legislatures will have adjourned and without action, will kill these bills in the process.

Meanwhile, the creation of a presidential primary in Minnesota is down to its last week with the legislature closing up shop next week on May 18. The Senate bill has emerged from the committee concerned with elections with a "Do Pass" designation and has been re-referred to the Finance Committee, but the House bill has gone nowhere since being introduced in January.

In Oklahoma, the bill to have parties pay for their own presidential primaries -- something that has elicited more and more talk recently -- like the Minnesota House bill mentioned above, hasn't seen any action since being introduced. That isn't really the type of momentum you'd like to see if you're a proponent of this measure before the session goes sine die at the end of the month.

Similarly, the two bills to separate state and local primaries from the presidential primary and shift them to later dates in Illinois have been stuck in committee as well. Like New Jersey, though, the legislature in the Land of Lincoln is a professional legislature (For those outside of political science, that professional refers to a legislator's duties being his or her main profession, not that a part-time legislaure is any more or less professional than a full-time one.). The clock then, won't run out until the next election changes the membership of the chambers.

Finally, the bill in New Hampshire stipulating that only Iowa's caucuses could precede the Granite state's presidential primary is likewise stalled in committee.

None of this is particularly surprising given that 1) it is still really early for 2012 primary movement and 2) most states are playing the wait-and-see game with how the parties will set their nomination rules for the 2012 cycle. And that largely fits with the cyclical logic espouced here. Of course, if that trend holds, we should expect to see even fewer bills regarding presidential primaries introduced next year.

Woe is FHQ, woe is FHQ! Eh, we'll find something to talk about.


Recent Posts:
Much Ado About Nothing in Texas

Back in Business

Open Thread: Home Renovation Edition

Much Ado About Nothing in Texas

All that talk about a public hearing and all the Texas House Elections Committee did was punt the decision on the bill (HB 246) to a later date.

Here is the reading from the April 27 meeting's minutes:

HB 246

The chair laid out HB 246.

The chair recognized Representative Alonzo to explain the measure.

Testimony taken/registration recorded. (See attached witness list.)

The chair recognized Representative Alonzo to close on the measure.

The bill was left pending without objection.

Now, I still need to go back and look at the video of this on the Texas legislature's web site, but I can say this: The witness list is pretty telling. Texas Secretary of State Elizabeth Winn weighed in on the bill, and then a host of folks came forward (vocally or not) as against the measure.

How many were for it? Zero, nada, zilch. That says something. It may be that Republicans in the state ultimately come to the table and help push this frontloading bill (moving the presidential primary from the first week in March to the first week in February 2012) through, but there won't be any happy campers on the local level.

FHQ will continue to track the progress and I should be able to augment this picture a bit soon with a bit of an addition to this and other legislative movement on the frontloading, er... front.


Recent Posts:
Back in Business

Open Thread: Home Renovation Edition

Forget You Saw That...

Back in Business

FHQ is now back. I apologize for the absence, but with the new job, it was unavoidable. I'll have something new up shortly.

Ooh, May is off to a slooooooow start.


Recent Posts:
Open Thread: Home Renovation Edition

Forget You Saw That...

Are Clinton and Obama Still Fighting? The Texas Primary-Caucus is Back

Open Thread: Home Renovation Edition

You've likely noticed that it has been quiet around here the last few days. Not only is it the end of the semester, but we're in the midst of a whirlwind renovation to get the house ready to go on the market. Hopefully things will be somewhat back to normal tomorrow or Thursday.

Having said that, I thought I'd open up the comments for talk on Souter's replacement, Rubio running for Senate in Florida, and if you want to, you can continue talking about the New Hampshire situation.


Recent Posts:
Forget You Saw That...

Are Clinton and Obama Still Fighting? The Texas Primary-Caucus is Back

Democracy for the People

Forget You Saw That...

If you saw the post on the situation in New Hampshire, disregard the information. According to the New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair, Ray Buckley, the news was not true about the gay marriage vote and the Granite state's primary.

EDIT: I should probably add -- in the interest of not totally confusing everyone who didn't catch the original post -- that the issue in question was the DNC strong-arming hesitant Democratic state legislators into voting to pass the gay marriage bill wending its way through the General Court by threatening New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary status.


Recent Posts:
Are Clinton and Obama Still Fighting? The Texas Primary-Caucus is Back

Democracy for the People

More Party Switchers?

Are Clinton and Obama Still Fighting? The Texas Primary-Caucus is Back

Are big changes coming to the Democratic presidential nomination structure in the state that defines big?

Well, it depends on who you ask. On the one hand:

"There won't be anything dramatic," Sen. Royce West, D-Dallas (head of the Texas Democratic Party's committee looking into the issue), predicted.

On the other:

"I'm a taxpayer; I am paying for that primary," (committee member and Clinton-supporter, Linda) Burgess said. "I don't care if it's the Republican Party, Democratic Party or Polka-Dotted Party. I don't want any party to change the outcome of any election I'm paying for."

The argument here is over the controversial Texas Democratic primary-caucus system, or at least the caucus end of the structure. Advocates (and they seem to be Obama supporters) contend that the party building exercise that is the caucus is a worthwhile endeavor, but those with a negative view of the system (and they appear to be Clinton supporters) point toward the (un)representativeness of the caucus and the disproportionate impact in the delegate allocation.

Now, as I pointed out after last November's elections, the Texas Democratic Party was holding public hearings on the issue and the committee dealing with those is due to issue a report to the party's Executive Committee this summer. At that point a change may be made.

If I'm guessing, though, I'm going to have to side with Sen. West on this one. I just don't expect any fundamental changes. The longer caucus proponents -- and according to the Austin American-Statesman article there are plenty within the state party's power structure -- drag this thing out, the less salient an issue it becomes. Does anyone remember the tumult after Jesse Jackson beat 1988 Texas primary winner, Michael Dukakis, in the caucuses? The answer is no. Sure, that's because Jackson's win in the caucuses didn't overturn Dukakis' primary victory, but that actually strengthens the caucus proponents' argument here. That means that a close, almost tied nomination race is a requirement for this discrepancy to even be consequential. And we just don't see that happen that often.

The Texas Democratic Party is listening, but I don't think they'll do anything about the caucus. Let's be honest: Despite the talk about grassroots party building, the caucus was put in place -- much like the superdelegates at the national level -- to give the party a larger say in who got how many of the state's delegates. In the event, then, that there is a division between who the party wants as nominee and who the rank and file primary voters want, the party has a bit of an insurance policy. The party won't always win out, but if it is close enough the party will get its way.

All this draws on and expands upon a study I've cited in this space before. Scott Meinke, Jeffrey Staton and Steven Wuhs (gated) examined the effect the ideological convergence between state parties and potential primary/caucus voters has on how open a state's delegate selection event is. The idea, then is that the less those two groups converge ideologically, the less open the process will be (read: caucuses) and the more ideological overlap there is between citizens and state parties, the more open the process will be. Now, they were talking ideological convergence and what I'm discussing here is more candidate preference convergence. Yeah, those are pretty much the same thing, but in the case of Obama-Clinton, the underlying issue wasn't necessarily ideologically-based. That was a candidate-based division -- two candidates very similar ideologically.

So, will Texas Democrats make a change? I don't think so. If the party wants a caucus, the party will have a caucus. And it won't be a big deal in 2012 because Obama is likely going to be the only candidate on the ballot. In (uh, 1988, 2008), oh say, 2028 it might be a problem, but this Obama-Clinton thing will be ancient history by then.


Recent Posts:
Democracy for the People

More Party Switchers?

Open Thread: Specter Switch

Democracy for the People

...or FHQ readers at least.

Recently I changed up the "Links" section here by replacing the default setting (Well, default when I started this endeavor a couple of years ago.) with a widget that cues up the most recent entry at the sites I read the most. I also moved that section from the right sidebar to the left one under the frontloading trend maps. Here's a screenshot:

[Click to Enlarge]

Anyway, it strikes me as somewhat unfair that I get to pick what's in that section. So I thought I'd open the comments section up to suggestions for additions to that area. I mean, we do have a community of readers here and it is my preference that everyone have a stake in FHQ -- a minority stake, but a stake nonetheless. I put it to you, then, FHQ readers both vocal and silent: Are there sites you'd like to see included in that space and, if so, what are they?

A couple of notes:
1) The sites have to be blog-like in that the widget requires an RSS feed. Some standard sites won't work. For example, CQ is frustratingly out of the loop for whatever reason. UPDATE: Well, maybe that wasn't a good example. Maybe, just maybe I wasn't trying hard enough to add CQ. Ha! [Hat tip to Matt from DemConWatch for the proper link.] CQ's now up.
2) There are only so many sites we can include before it gets overwhelmingly cluttered. That doesn't prevent you from suggesting something, but I feel the need to offer that disclaimer.

Anyway, have at it. The suggestion box is now open.


Recent Posts:
More Party Switchers?

Open Thread: Specter Switch

Indiana Sec. of State on 2012 Presidential Primary

More Party Switchers?

Jack asks:

"How does this (Specter) impact the chances of more switches? I've seen speculation about Snowe. Your take?

"I don't really think the idea of Snowe switching parties makes much sense. Specter switched because of electoral pressure to do so. Jeffords switched at a time when control of the Senate was in the balance. Neither of these incentives are available to Snowe, Collins, Inhofe or whoever would consider switching."

There are two lines of thought on either of the Maine senators switching:

1) You're right that there is definitely an electoral connection (sorry David Mayhew) here. Michael Steele can talk about targeting Collins or Snowe because of their votes, but how is he going to strengthen the bench in Maine and cultivate candidates to the right of either one of them that could win? That pressure existed with Specter, but not with Collins and Snowe. But...

2) It could be that one or both of them just simply gets sick being a part of a party that is philosophically different from themselves. Specter spoke along those lines, but I don't know that anyone took him too terribly seriously there. His was a move of electoral survival. As I said above, that doesn't really exist in Snowe's or Collins' case.

However, the Democrats are pushing the agenda now and the matters that they bring up for a vote could continually put Snowe and Collins in the uncomfortable position of having to decide between their convictions and their party. The more that happens, the more likely, I'd say, they are to reconsider their positions within the Republican Caucus.

The flip side is the extent to which they are on board with what the Obama administration is pushing. If either was totally in line with Obama, one or both of them would likely already have switched. But again, we're talking about the extent to which they are with Obama. It isn't one hundred percent and it isn't zero either. [I may have to look at some of their votes for a better idea, but that's a job for another day -- or another blogger. Ha!]

Ultimately, I think they'll stick it out (famous last words), but there's no doubt in my mind that they are being asked. The Democrats in the Senate would be foolish not to.

It never hurts to ask. The worst they can say is, "no," or maybe, "NO!" after the one hundredth time or so.


Recent Posts:
Open Thread: Specter Switch

Indiana Sec. of State on 2012 Presidential Primary

There Are Deciders and Then There Are...

Open Thread: Specter Switch

Well, Pennsylvania got slightly bluer today with Arlen Specter's surprising, yet not-so-surprising shift into the Democratic Caucus in the Senate. The way things were going, this was likely the only choice Specter had.

...if he was/is still interested in working in the Senate. Twenty-one points down is twenty-one points down. That's a tough row to hoe when you are talking about an incumbent and a primary polling deficit. Not that Chris Dodd is in an ideal position, but at least his polling deficit is against a potential general election opponent in 2010; not quite as threatening. Specter, I'm sure, saw the writing on the wall.


Thoughts?
Here's one: Seth Masket over at Enik Rising sums the move up nicely.

Here's another from Josh Marshall (via Seth): I completely forgot that Pennsylvania is a closed primary state. That certainly would have made Specter's prospects of re-election that much dimmer if he would have continued on that route.

Yet another: Michael Steele on Specter's departure. (h/t GOP12 for the link)

While we're on Specter, let me add a funny anecdote to this discussion:
A couple of summers ago I took a grading gig within the department to help out one of our faculty members. It was an intro to American government class made up completely of incoming freshmen. So this was their first college experience. Following a week of lectures on the branches of government and their attendant checks and balances we had an exam. One of the questions asked was about the checks between Congress and the Supreme Court. We had that week discussed Senate confirmation of judicial appointments and nestled in that discussion was a side note about Specter's role in the Clarence Thomas hearings -- specifically his questioning of Anita Hill and the backlash that created. Now, you have the proper context, but it took me a while in the midst of reading all these exams to figure out who one the students was referring to when mentioning Karl Inspector.

Karl Inspector?

Then the light bulb came on: Oh, Arl-en Spector.


Recent Posts:
Indiana Sec. of State on 2012 Presidential Primary

There Are Deciders and Then There Are...

"Real" Republicans and the Implications for the 2012 GOP Nomination