Dial testing and follow-up focus groups with 50 swing voters in Denver, Colorado show that President Obama’s populist defense of the middle class and their priorities in his State of the Union scored with voters. The President generated strong responses on energy, education and foreign policy, but most important, he made impressive gains on a range of economic measures. These swing voters, even the Republicans, responded enthusiastically to his call for a “Buffet Rule” that would require the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share. As one participant put it, “I agree with his tax reform – the 1 percent should shoulder more of the burden than the other 99 percent. He [Obama] talked about being all for one, one for all – that really resonated for me.” These dial focus groups make it very clear that defending further tax cuts for those at the top of the economic spectrum puts Republicans in Congress and on the Presidential campaign trail well outside of the American mainstream.
These voters overwhelmingly liked what they heard from Obama– even those who voted against him in 2008 appreciated the address. But they continued to show deep skepticism that the President would be able to translate these words into actions. The more Democratic participants mostly blamed Republican obstructionism while the more Republican participants insisted that Obama might talk a good game, but his actions in office did not reflect the words in this speech. But participants across the political spectrum all agreed that Washington is broken and that progress on the important issues would be difficult until Congress addresses the corrupting influence of lobbyists and special interests.
This was not the easiest audience for Obama; although slightly more participants voted for him than McCain in 2008, it was a significantly Republican-leaning group (44 percent Republican, 32 percent Democratic). At the outset, these voters were split 50/50 on Obama’s job performance and just 50 percent gave him a favorable personal rating. But the President gained ground after the speech; his job rating rose 8 points and his personal standing jumped 16 points, to 66 percent favorable.

(Cross-posted from the Huffington Post)
In his 2012 State of the Union Address, Barack Obama issued a ringing call for government to take the lead in rebuilding an economy that works for all Americans and to revive the promise of a more cooperative politics that carried him to the White House in 2008. While many of the specific measures he urged are likely to resonate with the public, it remains to be seen whether he can persuade the majority of Americans to set aside their long-festering mistrust of government and give him a mandate to pursue an aggressive policy agenda.
What about the specifics? In advance of President Obama’s State of the Union address, I laid out five things to listen for. Against that template, let’s look more closely at what he said.
#1: For better or worse, an incumbent president’s record is at the heart of his reelection prospects. He cannot run away from that record; he must run on it. So what is the narrative that links the crises of 2008-2009 and the disappointments of 2010-2011 to our hopes for a brighter future?
Toward the beginning of his speech, Obama offered his account of our recent economic history. Even before the recession, he said, jobs began going overseas while wages and incomes for most American were stagnating. And then the crisis hit, sparked by mortgages sold to people who couldn’t afford them and inadequately regulated financial institutions who made bad bets with other people’s money. He reminded the country that in the six months before he took office, the economy lost four million jobs, and another four million in the early months of his presidency. Since then, however, the private sector — led by manufacturing — has created millions of new jobs. And so, he concluded, “The state of our Union is getting stronger. And we’ve come too far to turn back now.” Rather than changing course, the task before us is to “build on this momentum.”
#2: The American people know that the U.S. economy has changed fundamentally and that the “success story” of the future will differ from those in the past. But what is that story?
In broad terms, Obama is betting on the continued revival of U.S. manufacturing, backed by targeted public investments in sectors such as clean energy and infrastructure. As he has before, he called for a major effort in the areas of education and training as well as support for basic research. While globalization is here to stay, he added, we cannot allow our competitors to victimize us with unfair trade practices, and he advocated a new Trade Enforcement Unit that will be charged with investigating “unfair trade practices in countries like China.” And to accelerate domestic job creation, he urged corporate tax reform that ends subsidies for outsourcing while reducing taxes for companies that remain, and hire, in America.
#3: The plight of hard-working Americans — those struggling to remain in the middle class and those struggling to get there — must be front and center. How did the president frame his appeal to this bedrock of our economy and society?
As he did in his Kansas speech last month, Obama invoked a country and economy where “everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.” Symbolizing these principles, he called for tax reforms that follow the “Buffett rule” — namely, “If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes.” At the same time, the president virtually dropped the theme of inequality, which had figured centrally in the Kansas speech. This was a wise shift: in America’s public culture, the principle of fair opportunity is more powerful than is equality of wealth and income.
#4: Public trust in our governing institutions is at or near all-time lows. To the extent that Obama’s agenda revolves around an activist government, how did he seek to persuade Americans that its policies can actually improve their lives?
While acknowledging public cynicism about government and calling for reforms of Congress and the executive branch, the president appeared to be hoping that the content of his economic agenda would trump doubts about the effectiveness of the public sector. He may well be underestimating the intensity of negative public sentiment and overestimating its willingness to accept what many will portray as a new burst of activism.
#5: Barack Obama is not just a candidate; he’s the president, and the people expect him to speak as the president. How did he balance his strategy of drawing the line with the Republicans against the imperative of conducting himself as the president of all the people?
For the most part, Obama addressed the country as president rather than party leader. While giving no ground on his key priorities, he spoke of differences between the parties more in sorrow than in anger and tried to identify some common ground, even on the core issue of the role of government. He called on everyone to “lower the temperature in this town” and to “end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign of mutual destruction.” And he observed that “when we act together, there is nothing the United States of America can’t achieve.
Throughout his speech, Obama invoked the principles of fairness, collective action, and common purpose. Conspicuously absent was the theme on which the Republican Party rests its case — namely, individual liberty — a contrast that prefigures a 2012 general election waged over clashing partisan orientations as well as competing accounts of the president’s record.

TDS co-editor Ruy Teixeira, one of the top experts on demographics and political opinion, has an important post up at The New Republic, “Why Obama’s Re-Election Hinges On the Hispanic Vote.” Teixeira, author of “Red, Blue, & Purple America: The Future of Election Demographics,” explains why a high turnout among Hispanic voters, while important, is not all that President Obama needs from this constituency for re-election:

…My estimates suggest that Obama needs to get at least 75 percent of the minority vote in 2012 to have a secure basis for re-election, given likely drop-off in his white support…Hispanics, the second largest component of the minority vote, could be more problematic for Obama. They lack the special tie to Obama that black voters have and they have historically been more variable in their support for Democratic candidates. Moreover, there is significant discontent about Obama’s failure to deliver on immigration reform and the high level of deportations that have taken place on his watch. Obama’s approval rating among Hispanics has been hovering around 50 percent for a number of months, an unimpressive rating among a group that was supposed to be one of his strengths.

At present, notes Teixeira, Obama has an impressive edge with Latino voters, despite the aforementioned concerns:

While Hispanics may not be completely delighted with Obama’s performance, though, they find him strongly preferable to his prospective GOP opponents…Hispanic support for Obama in 2012 may well replicate–or even exceed–the wide margin he received from these voters in 2008 (67-31). In a major survey by the Pew Hispanic Center–the gold standard for polling on Hispanics–Obama defeats Romney by 45 points (68-23), a margin 9 points greater than in 2008 (his margin is a little larger against other Republicans). The survey also finds the Democrats’ party identification advantage among Hispanics at 47 points (67-20), the greatest margin the Pew Hispanic Center has ever measured.

And the Republican frontrunner is helping Obama keep his edge:

…Romney has been aggressively conservative in an effort to outflank his more ideological opponents. He’s promised to veto the DREAM Act if it comes to his desk as president, opposes in-state college tuition for illegal immigrants, and rejects any path to citizenship for the undocumented. More generally, he has consistently sneered at any sign of softness among his primary opponents on these issues, raising the specter of an increasing flood of illegal immigrants coddled by the law and provided with benefits they don’t deserve.

Teixeira sees bright prospects for the President if he can secure the strong support of Hispanic voters:

If Hispanic support for the President winds up as strong as it now appears and their turnout holds up–giving Obama at least 75 percent of what should be around 28 percent of the entire vote–the benefits to the Obama campaign would be huge. Crucially, it would give him considerable leeway to lose white support but still win the popular vote. In fact, my estimates indicate that Obama, with this level of minority support, could do just as badly as John Kerry did with the white working class (a 23 point deficit) and white college graduates (an 11 point deficit) and still defeat his opponent. The current level of Hispanic support for the President even suggests that he might come close to matching his 80-percent overall support from minority voters in 2008. If that occurs, he has even more leeway to lose white votes. Amazingly, he could approach the levels at which Congressional Democrats lost these two groups in 2010 (30 points and 19 points, respectively) and still win the popular vote.

As Teixeira points out, however, electoral votes are a little trickier. But Latino strength in “the new swing states of the Southwest–Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico” give Obama a significant edge:

…In these three states, Hispanics dominate the minority vote, which averages 36 percent of voters…If Obama does manage to hold them in addition to the five “easiest” Midwest/Rust Belt states (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa), he would likely be only be two electoral votes short of victory, even without Ohio or any of the New South states (Florida, North Carolina, Virginia).

Teixeira concludes that “The prospects simply look too good for Hispanic support for Obama,” adding that “…Republicans have sacrificed more than they anticipated by ratcheting up the anti-immigrant rhetoric during the primary season; they may have sacrificed the election.”

Overview
This first Democracy Corps national survey of the New Year shows Republicans at risk at every level.[1] On the ballot, Republicans are in serious danger. For the first time since the 2010 election, Democrats have taken the lead in the congressional vote and this poll shows that third-party defections on the Presidential ballot could prove devastating for the Republicans. The intensity gap has shifted in the Democrats’ favor and Democrats have moved closer to parity on the economy, reaching their highest level of trust since October 2010.
Voters are watching
More than half of all voters (53 percent) say that the more they watch the Republicans in Congress, the less they like what the Republicans have to offer; only 39 percent say they like it more – a 14 point margin. The country is equally repelled by the Republican presidential contest (53 to 38 percent). The style of their politics and governance is driving away independents. And more than half of white non-college voters who were key to Republicans wins in 2010[2] do not like what the Republicans in Congress are offering–a staggering result.
Republicans in Congress lead race to the bottom
John Boehner and the Republicans in Congress are leading the crash.
◦For the first time in two years, Democrats are winning the Congressional ballot (48 to 45 percent), the result of a major shift among independents. Democrats are now winning independents by 6 points – a net 13-point shift among independents since October and a net 23-point shift since August. In June, Democrats were losing independent men by a margin of 29 points. Democrats are now winning this demographic by two points. In 2010, Democrats lost seniors by a 23-point margin. That gap has closed to just 10 points.
◦John Boehner’s favorability has fallen off significantly–43 percent now give the Speaker a negative rating, with three in 10 voters giving him a very negative rating (under 25 on our 100-point scale).
◦Two-thirds of all voters now say they disapprove of this Republican Congress and its approval rating has hit a new low in our tracking–25 percent. The decline has come from a complete drop-off of those who “strongly approve” of this Republican Congress–down to 8 percent, also the lowest in our tracking.
◦The Republicans have lost their advantage on the economy. Democrats now trail Republicans on which party would do a better job on the economy by only two points, a net 5-point shift since October. While most improvements in this poll are due to Republicans faltering, here Democrats have gained 5 points on trust to handle the economy.
The Presidential Contest Full of Peril
The race for president remains very close, though showing the first signs of improvement for the president. With his approval rating at 44 percent and vote at 48 percent, you have a close contest. But Obama’s strong support is up 4 points, has more winnable voters than Romney and has made some important recent gains with key swing groups. Obama is now winning 39 percent of white-non college voters, his highest total among that group in a year. Among independents, Obama now wins by two points –a net 10-point increase since October and an astonishing 18-point increase since August.
Romney is not popular – only 30 percent of all voters, and only 26 percent of independents, give him a warm, favorable rating. Obama, on the other hand, remains personally popular, with nearly 50 percent giving him a warm, favorable rating. As a result, Mitt Romney has not been able to energize voters. Voters, especially Republicans, are ready to bolt to independent candidates in large numbers — indeed, remarkable numbers.
Our poll shows that as a third-party candidate, Ron Paul would take 19 percent of the vote in a matchup against Obama and Romney. Almost all of this comes at Romney’s expense. Nearly tied in a head-to-head matchup against the President, Romney’s vote plummets when Paul is added to the ballot, losing 13 points of his vote share.
We also tested matchups between Obama, Romney, and three independent candidates: Ron Paul, Donald Trump, and Michael Bloomberg. Together, these three take 24 percent of the vote. While Romney’s support drops off in the face of a third-party challenge, Obama remains strong at 42 percent (10 points ahead of Romney). Thirty-two percent of Romney voters in the two-way matchup defect to one of the three independent candidates; only 12 percent of Obama voters defect.
These independent candidates have traction in key subgroups – 30 percent of white non-college and 35 percent of suburban voters chose one of the three independent candidates in this 5-way matchup.
Intensity Gap
We have seen a major change on intensity. Obama and Romney have equal numbers of strong supporters — with strong support for the President up 4 points since October. Conversely, strong support for Romney among white non-college voters has decreased 5 points since October. Additionally, there is growing opposition to Republicans – strong disapproval of the Republican Congress is now 9 points higher than strong disapproval of President Obama.

Harold Meyerson’s WaPo op-ed, “Obama vs. Romney: Who will blue-collar Americans hate less?” raises what may prove to be the most important strategic consideration of 2012. Meyerson sees both Romney and Obama hobbled with elitist images that will be very difficult for either candidate to shake:

…A Romney-Obama contest would pit the very personification of the two elites that generations of Americans have been brought up to loathe: the paper-shuffling, unfeeling banker, utterly out of touch with most Americans’ concerns, and who comes from inherited wealth to boot; and the cool, academic social engineer who is culturally estranged from the white working class and isn’t opposed to governments helping racial minorities.

Meyerson limns Romney’s image with devastating accuracy

Romney is the model of everything in modern American capitalism that makes people pine for the kinder, gentler capitalism that his father personified. As the head of American Motors, George Romney, Mitt’s pop, made cars. Mitt makes deals. As Michael Tomasky noted this week, George Romney refused a bonus of $100,000 after American Motors had a good year in 1960, saying that no top executive needed to make more than his $225,000 annual salary ($1.4 million today). Romney the lesser has a fortune estimated in the hundreds of millions for his work in private equity, extracting vast amounts of money from the firms — successful and not — that Bain Capital took over. The younger gets all manner of tax breaks that his father never could, apparently availing himself of the special rate for private equity and hedge fund managers that, he admits, has brought his rate down to around 15 percent.
Worse yet, Romney comes off as a walking, talking compendium of upper-class cluelessness. His offer of a $10,000 bet to Texas Gov. Rick Perry, his dismissal of his yearly speaker fees (around $370,000) as pocket money, his equation of corporations and people — these and other off-the-gold-cufflink comments depict a guy whose points of intersection with the lives of most Americans are few and far between. A rich kid who became a bean counter: Could anything be worse?

But Obama’s image in blue collar America is also problematic:

In the demonology of the American right, however, there surely is something worse: a liberal, cultural elitist who sees — from the ivory tower — the mission of government as catering to (lazy) minorities…Barack Obama seems sent by central casting to embody the target of neo-classic, racist right populism. Think of George Wallace’s attacks on not only minorities but also on their enablers — “pointy-head bureaucrats,” professors and elitist journalists…who had no understanding of or sympathy for the white working class…
In his own way, Obama has as little of the common touch as Romney. In the faux populism of the right, his lack of affinity for certain blue-collar pleasures (He can’t bowl! He doesn’t hunt!), his concern for climate change and other supposed abstractions, are all depicted as signs of contempt for blue-collar lives. Add Rick Santorum’s attack on Obama’s remark that it would be a good thing if every American went to college — a comment, Santorum said, that reeked of hubris and elitism by denigrating workers — to Gingrich’s labeling of Obama as the food-stamp president, and it’s abundantly apparent how the right will go after Obama this fall.

Meyerson notes that “The white working class may be a shrinking segment of the American electorate, but it’s still massive ‘ and “…these voters have moved steadily into the Republican column.” On a more optimistic note, Meyerson observes, “But with Romney as Obama’s opponent, the surge of blue-collar whites into Republican ranks may be smaller this year than GOP strategists have anticipated.” Meyerson concludes that 2012 seems ripe for a third party challenge “on the populist right,” more likely a Gingrich or Santorum than Paul.
Dems can hope that Meyerson has overstated the problems with Obama’s image among white blue collar voters. But the wise course would be to work on improving it.

This article by Democratic political strategist Robert Creamer, author of “Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win,” is cross-posted from HuffPo:
The last few weeks of the Republican Presidential road show has been dominated by discussion of Mitt Romney’s career as head of a Wall Street private equity firm — Bain Capital. Most people who enter politics have some previous career in the private sector — especially if they’re wealthy.
But Mitt Romney’s career on Wall Street — which he apparently hoped would allow him to tout his credentials as a “job creator” — will instead weigh down his election hopes like a massive millstone. There are six reasons why:
1). First and most important, attacks on Romney’s history at Bain are not “attacks on free enterprise” — or being “anti-business.” They are important for what they communicate about Mitt Romney and his values and the contrast that it poses with President Obama.
Barack Obama – like Mitt Romney — earned a degree at Harvard — and all of the opportunities that afforded. But when he graduated from law school, Obama went to work helping workers in the shadow of closed -down steel mills. Romney made millions for himself closing down steel mills.
The point is not just that workers were laid off, or jobs were outsourced — though they were. The point is not whether some of the ventures Romney funded succeeded and others failed. The point is that the impact of Romney’s business activity on the lives of ordinary people was incidental to his one and only goal: making huge sums of money for himself and a small group of his partners and investors.
Romney’s idea of success was embodied in that picture from two decades ago, with Romney at the center, surrounded by a squadron of Wall Street sharpies with money coming out of their pockets, their mouths and ears.
The point of the Bain story is that Romney would do whatever he could legally do to make money for himself and his crew. The effect of his decisions on the lives of ordinary people — or even the businesses in which they invested — was simply irrelevant. If shifting jobs overseas would make him and his friends more money – fine. If Bain could make millions by loading up a business with debt and bleeding it of cash — that was fine too — even if it meant that the business itself was ultimately forced to close. If buying a business and chopping it up into parts for resale would make him more money — so be it.
Improving the lives of ordinary workers — or of local communities — was never his goal. His goal was to make millions and millions of dollars for himself — often at other people’s expense. Instead of viewing ordinary workers as human beings who were parts of a team, he viewed them as “factors of production” — assets to be used when they helped him make money — objects to be discarded when that would fatten his bottom line.
Americans want a President who understands and cares about ordinary people — that’s not the Mitt Romney of Bain Capital.
2). If you were the Republican Party, you couldn’t pick a worse time to nominate a candidate with a resume as one of Wall Street’s “Masters of the Universe.”

Read more…

Ruth Marcus’s Washington Post column “The real battle for the soul of America” clarifies the stakes involved in GOP’s bid to retake the white house:

Romney asserts that President Obama wants to “fundamentally transform America,” turning the country “into a European-style entitlement society.” In fact, Romney and his Republican presidential rivals have a far more radical transformation in mind. They envision a dramatically shrunken federal government and a dangerously unraveled social safety net.
Theirs is not the self-styled compassionate conservatism of a George W. Bush…Republicans have traditionally favored state over federal involvement, but the degree of proposed retrenchment during the current campaign is remarkable — and troubling.

Marcus quotes from one of Romney’s demogogic government-bashing statements to underscore the danger posed by his agenda:

“Well, what we don’t need is to have a federal government saying we’re going to solve all the problems of poverty across the entire country, because what it means to be poor in Massachusetts is different than Montana and Mississippi and other places in the country,” Romney said.
“And that’s why these programs, all these federal programs that are bundled to help people and make sure we have a safety net, need to be brought together and sent back to the states. And let states that are closest to the needs of their own people craft the programs that are able to deal with the needs of those folks.”

Then there is Romney’s simplistic critique of important federal programs, including “food stamps, housing vouchers, Medicaid, emergency heating assistance.”

“What unfortunately happens is, with all the multiplicity of federal programs, you have massive overhead with government bureaucrats in Washington administering all these programs. Very little of the money that’s actually needed by those that really need help, those that can’t care for themselves, actually reaches them,” Romney added.

Marcus corrects:

Nice talking point, if it were true. As the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has demonstrated, the major programs for the poor are extraordinarily efficient, even taking into account state as well as federal administrative costs. In 2010, 96.2 percent of Medicaid spending went for care; 94.6 percent of food stamp spending went for food; and 90.9 percent of housing program dollars went to rental assistance for low-income tenants….the impact of their plans would be to shred the safety net. Making sure that doesn’t happen is the real battle for America’s soul.

Whether Romney’s problem is ignorance or dishonesty, it’s clear he won’t be bringing much “compassionate conservatism” to his presidential campaign.

The much-trumpeted ‘turnout gap’ favoring the GOP turns out to be more illusion than reality regarding key pro-Democratic constituencies, according to a new survey reported by Dean Debnam, CEO of Public Policy Polling (crosstabs here) :

The group of voters most excited about voting this year, tied with the Tea Party, is African Americans. The thought that black voters are going to stay home and let the country’s first black President lose for reelection because everything hasn’t gone perfect is wishful thinking on the part of Republicans. I will be surprised if there is any dropoff in turnout from African Americans this year.

As for another key Obama constituency, young voters, Debnam adds:

The group tied for the third most excited out of the 18 we looked at here? Young voters. And when you take a deeper look at the folks under 30 who say they’re ‘very excited’ about voting this fall, they support Obama by a 69-31 margin over a generic Republican opponent. Those folks are going to be out again this fall as well.

But Republicans do have an overall edge, though it’s not insurmountable, Debnam cautions:

There’s plenty of good news for Republicans on the enthusiasm front as well. Tea Partiers tie with African Americans for the highest level of enthusiasm. There are more Republicans (54%) who are ‘very excited’ about voting than Democrats (49%).

As Debnam concludes:

The desire to dump Obama may give GOP voters more of an incentive to get out to the polls than they had in 2008. But it’s kind of a given that Republicans come out and vote. Democratic constituencies tend to be the harder ones to engage and mobilize. But as much speculation as there’s been that they won’t be there for Obama this fall the way they were in 2008, our numbers disagree. If the GOP wins it’ll because they flipped independents and brought back out dormant 2008 voters, not because the Obama coalition stayed at home.

In other words, Republicans counting on a limp turnout of African Americans and young voters this year are very likely to be disappointed.

The following essay by Democratic political strategist Robert Creamer, is cross-posted from HuffPo.
To maximize their odds of reclaiming their hold on the White House, the Republican establishment believes they need two things:
• To nominate Mitt Romney;
• To effectively end the Republican nominating process as soon as possible.
Last night’s results from Iowa lower the odds they will get either.
In fact, what we saw in Iowa last night was the Republican base gagging on the Presidential candidate the Republican establishment is trying desperately to cram down their throats.
Romney – and Republican Super Pacs – spent millions of dollars trying to convince Republican caucus-goers that Romney should carry the Republican banner next fall. But in the end 75% said no. MSNBC’s Chis Matthews went so far as to argue that Romney is being rejected by the Republican electorate the way a body rejects foreign tissue.
In fact, most rank and file Republicans are so repulsed by Romney that they have test-driven virtually every possible alternative in the show room. Rick Santorum’s turn came just at the right time to catapult him into the position of the “anti-Romney” – giving him the right to carry the anybody-but-Romney banner in the battle ahead.
Here are the reasons why the Iowa results are such bad news for Republicans:
1). Sometimes when a candidate has a hard time winning the support of his base, the reasons actually make him more electable in a general election. That’s not true of Romney. The major factors weighing on his candidacy are just as toxic with persuadable General Election voters as they are with voters in the GOP primaries.
In interviews and focus groups, anti-Romney voters use words like “phony,” “fake,” “robotic,” “cold.” They think Romney has no core principles – that he will say anything to be elected – that he’s a flip-flopper. One Republican went so far as to say, “He’s Kerry without the medals.” That, of course, is an insult to Kerry – who has strong core principles – even though Karl Rove’s consistent attacks on his character gave a not-so-popular George Bush a second term in 2004.
And it doesn’t help – even with rank and file Republicans – that Romney is, in fact, the candidate of the Republican establishment – which, let us remember, is basically Wall Street and the CEO class. Romney is the poster boy for the 1%. He is the cold, calculating guy who made his fortune dismantling companies and laying off workers. He is a guy whose painted-on smile is set in concrete as he hands you your pink slip. Mitt Romney is about as empathetic as a rock.
2). The fact that one anti-Romney contender consolidated enough votes to fight him to a virtual tie in Iowa was a big blow to Romney’s chances for a quick victory. His forces had hoped to keep his opposition divided and appear as the obvious front runner even with 25% of the vote. Instead, Rick Santorum comes out of Iowa with the “big Mo.”
Santorum will carry that momentum into New Hampshire where he will begin to pick up the votes of the “also-rans.” Most Perry and Bachmann votes simply aren’t going to Romney. Since everyone thinks that Mitt is way ahead in his adopted home state of New Hampshire, Santorum is under no pressure to win. Romney is left competing with his own expectations – anything but a blowout will be considered a defeat.
If Santorum’s numbers materially improve from his pre-Iowa single digits – as they most certainly will – he will continue to carry that momentum into South Carolina where he should win handily. That’s particularly true if Perry officially drops out of the race and Bachmann continues to fade.
3). Gingrich as much as announced last night that he would be playing blocking back for Santorum. He will attack Romney viciously in the coming debates – while having nothing bad to say about his apparent rival for the “anti-Romney” mantel. A wounded Gingrich could be a great deal more dangerous to GOP prospects than frontrunner Gingrich was a few weeks ago.
4). Ron Paul has every incentive to continue his crusade to reshape America in Ayn Rand’s libertarian image. Paul probably hit his high water mark in Iowa, but he certainly has no reason to leave the race anytime soon and shows every inclination to continue to use his platform to promote “Austrian” economics and the gold standard. He has plenty of money and a solid core of activist support.
5). Much of Romney’s pitch to voters has been premised on his “electability” and “inevitability.” At the very least the “inevitability” argument is now gone.
Politics and momentum are often about self-fulfilling prophesies. The argument that “Romney is bound to be the nominee, so get with the program” is now toast – at least for the near term.
6). The new Republican delegate selection rules make it more likely that the nomination process will drag on for some time. Many states that used to have “winner take all” primaries now allocate delegates in proportion to the percentage of each candidate’s votes.
If Romney continues to top out at 25% or 30%– which nationally seems to be his ceiling – it’s hard for him to wrap up the nomination in the near future. You need 50% plus one of the delegates to seal the deal. If Paul and Santorum continue in the race – not to mention Gingrich – that isn’t going to happen any time soon. And if Santorum continues to surge, all bets are off.
7). From the Republican point of view, nothing good can come from a long, drawn-out nominating process.
His opponents will continue to pound Romney for being a phony flip-flopper – a charge that will devastate him in a General Election.
Romney will continue to tack to the right to compete for base voters. That will lead to more and more positions that disqualify him with big chunks of the electorate – like his recent statement that he would veto the DREAM act.
The DREAM Act is an iconic issue for Hispanics. According to a recent Pugh Poll, ninety-one percent of Hispanic voters support the DREAM act and 51% consider a immigration the most important issue facing their community. In a general election, Romney – or any other Republican – simply can’t win a majority of electoral votes without states with heavy Hispanic voting populations. Yet to win primary votes from Perry, Romney positioned himself as the most anti-immigration Republican candidates in recent American history.
Santorum has positions on reproductive rights that are way outside the American mainstream. Not only does he oppose abortion in virtually any circumstance, he wants to give states the right to ban contraception. That’s right, contraception – which is used at one time or another by 98% of American women. A long primary fight with Santorum will inevitably require Romney to tack in his direction on these issues as well.
8). Before it’s over, the Republican race will inevitably get more negative. Romney and his Super-Pacs used a fusillade of negative ads to stop Gingrich in Iowa. Presumably they will try to do the same to Santorum – and maybe even Paul. Santorum, with the help of his lead blocker Gingrich in the debates – will inevitably have to fight back.
In fact, the odds have just increased that the Republican nominating circus is about to become a vicious, no-holds-barred dog fight.
No, Wall Street’s “masters of the universe” and the other Republican poobahs cannot be pleased with the outcome of last night’s caucus in Iowa.
One thing is for sure, it’s not time to take down the GOP “Big Top.” This show will be in town for some time to come.

This item by Jonathan Bines, staff writer for Jimmy Kimmel Live appears in the Huffington Post
As we all know, 2011 was a difficult year in Washington — a year of gridlock, dysfunction and extremism. And, as we all also know, Democrats and Republicans are equally to blame. How do we know this? Because we have David Brooks, looking down upon the political scrum from his skybox high above midfield, to show us the symmetry lurking beneath the apparent chaos.
Call it Brooks’s Law of Political Equivalency: For any Republican/conservative/right-wing culpability, there is an equal and opposite Democratic/liberal/left-wing culpability: If the Republicans are beset by extremism and fanaticism, then the Democrats are beset by extremism and fanaticism. If the Republicans display intransigence, the Democrats display intransigence. If the Republicans are in thrall to a discredited economic theory, then the Democrats are in thrall to a discredited economic theory. If the Republicans exist in a media echo chamber, then the Democrats exist in a media echo chamber. And so on.
2011 offered a banner year for Brooks to expound his Law, and he did so brilliantly, as seen in the following 19 examples from this year’s columns: