Why a New Poll in Ohio Spells Trouble for Obama in 2012

• 
  

  William Galston

• July 23, 2011 | 12:00 am
• 
  

Over the past half-century,Ohio has been the quintessential bellwether state in presidential elections. That’s why the nascent Obama campaign should be paying careful attention to a Quinnipiac survey of the Buckeye state released this week, which shows the president with weak job approval numbers and an unimpressive lead over Mitt Romney. The Ohio results bolster the view that if the economy doesn’t improve before next November, a majority of the electorate may well be open to the idea of firing the man they placed in charge less than three years ago.

Ohio has gone with the winner in twelve of the past thirteen contests; the last Democrat to win the White House without carrying Ohio was John F. Kennedy. The last Republican to win the presidency without Ohio? In the 39 quadrennial cycles since the founding of the GOP, no Republican has ever been inaugurated without Ohio in his column. This isn’t because of the raw math of the electoral college; any armchair strategist can find a way for Obama to get to 270 electoral votes without the Midwestern state. It is rather that the formula for winning a national majority is essentially the same as for prevailing in Ohio.

Indeed, Ohio is a political bellwether because it is a microcosm of the country. Its economy is balanced, with shares of its workforce in manufacturing, construction, services, sales, education, health care, and the professions mirroring the national breakdown. Its demography looks a lot like America’s too. The median age of its population is 37.9 years (36.5 for the country); 13.6 percent of its population is over 65, but so is 12.6 percent of the country. African-Americans make up 11.7 percent of the population (12.4 percent of the country). Latinos constitute the only notable difference: 15.1 percent of the country, but only 2.6 percent of Ohioans. This is a double-edged sword for Obama. On the one hand, the paucity of Latinos in Ohio helps to explain why his margin in that state lagged slightly behind his share of the national vote. On the other hand, if the predicted drop-off in next year’s Latino vote comes to pass, it will have much less effect in Ohio than in any other large swing state. [All demographic figures are from the U.S. Census Bureau.]

Now for the Quinnipiac survey, released in two tranches on Wednesday and Thursday. To begin, it finds that the 2010 Republican tide has ebbed considerably. Newly elected governor John Kasich enjoys a woeful 35 percent approval rating, in part because his agenda is out of sync with that of the electorate. Although Ohioans think it’s fair to ask public employees to pay more for health insurance and pensions, only 34 percent support Kasich’s push to limit their collective bargaining rights. Fifty-eight percent think public employee unions should be able to bargain over health insurance, 56 percent oppose banning strikes by public employees, and 56 percent support a referendum to repeal Kasich’s changes to Ohio’s labor laws.

While Kasich made his mark in Washington as a leader on fiscal issues, the Ohio electorate is turning thumbs down on his budget as well. Yes, the people like the fact that the budget was balanced with spending cuts, not tax increases. Still, 54 percent of Ohioans disapprove of the way their governor is handling the budget. Fifty percent think that the newly approved fiscal plan is unfair to people like them; 34 percent think that the cuts go too far, versus only 25 percent who think that they didn’t go far enough; and only a third believe that the cuts will help the state’s economy.

In other words, if the 2012 election in Ohio were a referendum on Governor Kasich’s first two years, Obama would probably be home free. But there’s good reason to believe that it won’t be. Take health care. Fully 67 percent of Ohioans disapprove of the individual mandate in the new federal health care law—Obama’s signature domestic policy initiative. A proposed amendment to Ohio’s constitution blocking the mandate’s implementation may well pass and will certainly keep the electorate focused on that issue. In addition, 78 percent of Ohio’s voters (including 66 percent of Democrats) favor a state bill requiring would-be voters to show photo identification in order to cast their ballots, a change that Democratic operatives believe would reduce their margins in lower-income and minority communities.

This brings us to Obama’s chances. Fifty-eight percent of Ohio’s voters disapprove of his handling of the economy, despite the fact that Ohio unemployment has declined by two full percentage points—from 10.6 percent to 8.6 percent—since February of 2010, versus only 0.5 points (9.7 to 9.2 percent) for the country as a whole. Only 46 percent approve of the president’s overall job performance. The same percentage—46 percent overall, and 40 percent of Independents—feel that he deserves to be reelected. While the survey shows him way ahead of Tea Party favorites such as Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry, Obama’s edge over Mitt Romney is a barely significant four points, 45 to 41.

The most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey shows much the same thing: Obama’s job approval stands at 47 percent, and he leads Mitt Romney by 48 to 41 percent. And the generic question is revealing: Asked to choose between President Obama and the “Republican candidate,” 42 percent of voters said they’d probably vote for Obama, versus 39 percent who opted for the Republican candidate. But fully 10 percent—a share that hasn’t varied much this year—said that it would depend on the identity of Obama’s opponent.

Of course, it’s early, and as a useful Gallup analysis shows, an incumbent’s ratings in the twelfth quarter of his presidency are more predictive than are those in the tenth, the quarter that Obama has just completed. But it’s not too early to see the basic options for 2012. If the economy perks up even modestly, Obama wins. If not, we’re in for a repeat of 1980, when a majority of the electorate was willing to fire the incumbent, but not unless they felt comfortable with the challenger—a sentiment that didn’t crystallize until the pivotal Carter-Reagan debate. So if the Republicans manage to nominate a mainstream conservative who seems reasonable, they may well win. If they nominate Palin or Bachmann, they’ll commit creedal suicide, as each party ends up doing about once a generation. As for Rick Perry—the Republican flavor du jour—it remains to be seen whether he can become the party unifier who energizes the Tea Party base and Main Street conservatives without repelling the moderates and independents who will decide a close election.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Three Ways Obama Can Fix the Housing Crisis

What if the Right and the Left Are Both Wrong About Why the Economic Recovery Is So Slow? A New Theory.

Galston: Why Obama Should Seek an Interim Agreement on the Debt Ceiling

Principles for Lasting Federal Budget Reforms

by Jeffrey A. Miron
This article appeared in The Philadelphia Inquirer on July 22, 2011.

As Democrats and Republicans debate the U.S. debt situation, both sides seem more concerned about pandering to their respective bases than reining in the debt. Worse, much of the discussion addresses only the debt per se, not the broader question of what policies are good for the economy. These conditions are likely to yield only cosmetic fixes, some of which will make things worse over the long haul.

Congress and President Obama should consider the following 10 principles and guidelines for avoiding that outcome.
The debt problem is substantial and pressing: Congressional Budget Office projections show America's debt is exploding. Expenditures are growing much faster than the gross domestic product and tax revenues possibly could. Under the CBO's most plausible projections, the debt would reach 109 percent of GDP by 2023, and 190 percent of GDP by 2035. This is not a problem we can ignore or address with minor adjustments.

The federal budget includes numerous programs that ought to be eliminated regardless of the deficit.

Raising tax rates is a bad idea: By reducing the income of households and the profits of businesses, higher tax rates discourage consumption and investment, slowing the economy in the short run. By reducing hiring, savings, and investment, they reduce economic growth in the long run. And higher tax rates are undermined by tax evasion and avoidance, making them an inefficient way to raise revenues.
Reducing tax "expenditures" is a good idea: When the tax code favors particular kinds of consumption or specific industries, it reduces productivity by distorting market forces, just as government spending can. Those who support economic efficiency should therefore oppose such tax expenditures, regardless of how they affect revenue or whether they are paired with reductions in tax rates. Important examples include the mortgage-interest deduction, special tax treatment of employer-paid health insurance premiums, and tax breaks for both conventional and green energy.
Health care is the greatest driver of expenses: The CBO's analysis also indicates that rapidly increasing expenditures on Medicare, Medicaid, and insurance subsidies under Obamacare are the most important factors behind the exploding debt. Serious attempts to control the debt must reduce these programs' growth rates.
Higher deductibles reduce health spending: Slowing the growth of health expenditures is crucial, but not all fixes are created equal. Price controls and rationing, for example, generate huge inefficiencies.
Higher deductibles are a better approach. They not only reduce spending directly; they also encourage consumers to economize and comparison shop, generating competition, efficiency, and lower costs. This moves Medicare toward insuring against catastrophic costs and away from reimbursing all expenses.

Jeffrey A. Miron is senior lecturer and director of undergraduate studies at Harvard University and senior fellow at the Cato Institute. Miron is the author ofLibertarianism, from A to Z.

More by Jeffrey A. Miron

Much spending hurts the economy: The federal budget includes numerous programs that ought to be eliminated regardless of the deficit. Slashing them will not eliminate our debt woes, but it will reduce harm to the economy. Examples include federal spending on agricultural subsidies; Amtrak, high-speed rail to nowhere, and Big Dig-style boondoggles; arts, humanities, and public broadcasting; the Department of Education; the Small Business Administration; NASA; drug prohibition; foreign aid; and more.
The defense budget must be on the table: Federal expenditures should produce benefits in excess of costs. By that measure, it's hard to see how our continuing presence in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya makes sense, or why the United States should foot the bill for Western Europe's defense. We could save hundreds of billions of dollars a year without affecting our national security.
Reducing spending won't harm the recovery: Spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare should be slowed gradually over decades, not in the next year. In any case, there's no evidence that wasteful spending helps the economy.
The debt is only part of the problem: The United States could improve the economy in many ways independent of the debt outlook. These mainly involve scaling back regulatory excesses that hamper innovation and entrepreneurship. That won't solve the debt problem, but a more efficient economy means a bigger economic pie, which would help.
Cuts don't have to gut the safety net: None of these proposed policy changes would harm the truly needy. They do not touch Social Security, welfare, unemployment insurance, or disability insurance, and they suggest slowing, not gutting, Medicaid spending. The debate is not about the poor; it's about whether Washington or the citizenry controls spending.
The good news here is that there are many ways the United States can shrink its debt and improve its economy. Special interests aside, that would be a victory for everyone.

When Mr. Heat Comes to Washington

by Patrick J. Michaels


This article appeared on Forbes.com on July 21, 2011.

While the nation's southern region has been cooking for weeks, no one except the local sufferers seem to have taken much notice. But that's about to change. Mr. Heat has landed in Washington, D.C.

Any weather anomaly in our nation's capital acquires cosmic significance. A heavy snowstorm in January, 1996 made the coverNewsweek, which blamed global warming. It was world news when three big snowstorms hit in the winter of 2009-10. Climate alarmists again said they were caused by pernicious economic activity. Flatliners said they were evidence of global cooling ... and so it goes.
The National Weather Service is currently forecasting 103 degrees for Friday with a dewpoint of 72, which gives a "heat index" (a rough measure of physiological heat stress) of 116, hard into the "danger zone" for prolonged exposure or strenuous physical activity. As of now, that looks like the crest of this heatwave.

Patrick Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and author of Climate Coup: Global Warming's Invasion of our Government and our Lives.

More by Patrick J. Michaels

The cynics among us will point out that this is really pretty much a garden-variety peak-of-summer hot spell, and yes, we brought it upon ourselves by building dreaded cities, and that it has been much worse before "climate change" ever became an epithet. Further, what we are seeing is minor, weenie, dinky — compared to the great eastern heatwave of July and August 1930.
To see the real magnitude of the heat, check out the 1930 temperatures far away from DC's urban core. Down at McCormick Observatory in Charlottesville, which has several hundred feet of elevation on Washington (and therefore should be a couple of degrees cooler), the daily highs, beginning on July 19, were 103, 107, 106, 105, 97, 92, 102, 104, 93, 103, 106, 90, 95, 91, 97, 101, 106, 102, 90, 100, 99, 105 and 98.
DC's residents poured out of their ovens and set up quarters on the Mall and in Rock Creek Park. Minnesota congressman Charles Davis died of heatstroke. About half of Virginia's counties reported shortages of drinking water. Baptisms were suspended. 30 rattlesnakes ravaged a farm in Michigan, attacking turkeys for their blood. 300,000 acres of forest combusted in Virginia (the current annual average is around 10,000). Smoke + sunlight = ozone, making the air in 1930 truly vile.
Downtown, the Washington Post maintained an accurate thermometer in a newspaper kiosk, where the shade temperatures reached 110 on July 20 and August 9. Reasonably assuming a 72 degree dewpoint yields a heat index of 124. But Washington has warmed further since then from its urban heat island, so a downtown temperature/heat index of 113 and 127 would likely occur today under the meteorological conditions of 1930. About these nosebleed temperatures we're suffering in the Distric, almost all of Washington's summer warming is due to the city itself rather than to global change — summer high temperatures in nearby rural Virginia show no significant trend whatsoever.
I have noted in previous columns that heat-related deaths are indeed declining in every large U.S. urban area with the exception of cool Seattle. As urban heat becomes common, we adapt.
But there's one scary aspect: we are now dependent upon air conditioning. It used to be that the first heatwaves of summer produced disproportionate mortality, and then, as people got used to the heat, a similar warm spell killed fewer. We have probably lost some of our ability to acclimate because of our technology.
Loss of air conditioning creates big problems, this proven in the great Midwestern heatwave of 1995 (when the heat index reached a deadly 136 in southern Wisconsin). When Chicago bakes, there's always more mortality on the poorer South Side, where many older buildings lack air conditioning. In 1995, that wasn't the case, as a dry thunderstorm knocked out power early in the heatwave in the air-conditioned North Side, spreading mortality equally on both sides of the city.
Both extremely hot and cold temperatures stress our electrical grid to the breaking point, and there is precious little in reserve. Frigid winds in 1994 caused rolling brownouts in the East. A major power catastrophe was narrowly averted in 1999 when a brief but very intense heat pulse fortunately occurred on the Fourth of July. What will happen on the East Coast when the weather of 1930 repeats itself, as it surely will?
We simply haven't tested our power supply under such conditions, and we really don't have an infrastructure that can cope with such an event. While current heat in the eastern U.S. shouldn't cause any major power problems, it will certainly be used to draw Washington's attention to climate change. Perhaps we should be worrying instead about our electricity supply. Meanwhile, a repetition of 1930 awaits.

Michele Bachmann’s views are the real migraine

By JENEÉ OSTERHELDT

The Kansas City Star

Posted on Fri, Jul. 22, 2011 10:15 PM

There are a lot of reasons I would never vote for Michele Bachmann. But the fact that she gets migraines is not one of them.

Ever since the news broke that the presidential hopeful suffers from the severe headaches, a debate about whether that is a presidential disqualifier has taken over.

Really? We’re talking about migraines as a campaign killer? The argument against Barack Obama’s former cigarette habit is more plausible than this. (And I’m an Obama believer.)

But the truth is, many of us fall victim to the harsh head pain. Migraines aren’t a choice or a bad habit.

According to the Migraine Research Foundation, almost 25 percent of U.S. households include a person who suffers from migraines. Every 10 seconds, a headache or a migraine sends someone in the United States to the emergency room.

And for some people, migraines are incapacitating. It’s a collection of neurological symptoms that can last for days. Some people might come out of a migraine in an hour. For others, it can go on and on … ruthless. It’s different for everyone.

But Bachmann’s doctor has said her attacks aren’t an everyday thing. She knows the triggers to avoid and has medicine to treat the migraines when they strike.

People are acting like she is on 24/7 bed rest and quarantined, as if a migraine here and there is going to keep her from doing a great job. There’s not a single person in this country who isn’t sick at some point, including former presidents.

John F. Kennedy had Addison’s disease. Bill Clinton had hearing problems and other distractions, including an affair. I can’t help but wonder if this is an issue because Bachmann is a woman.

There are a lot of justifications for not supporting a candidate, but the occasional severe headache? Come on.

As I said, I’m anti-Bachmann. Why? Our beliefs don’t align.

She treats homosexuality like a plague, regards it as a choice and believes tolerance teaches kids to be gay. She linked swine flu to Democrats. She dismissed the Pigford case, a multibillion-dollar settlement paid to black farmers who were discriminated against, as a waste of government money.

And she signed a marriage pledge by the Family Leader, an Iowa-based conservative group that is homophobic and insinuated black children were better off during slavery than they are now, with President Obama leading the country.

The group has since apologized for the slavery portion of the pledge. Bachmann claimed it was never in the pledge she signed.

Riiiight.

But these are my reasons for viewing her as anything but the ideal candidate. I understand people respect her conservative views, her dedication to women and children and family. I get it. She just doesn’t do it for me. I won’t support her. You can. That’s all right.

Just have good reasons. Whenever these presidential campaigns take off, there is always unfortunate mudslinging and crazy antics designed to derail the potential candidates.

It’s disheartening. I’m no political pundit. I often clear out of the room when these kinds of debates stir. But every now and then, a button is pushed that I can’t turn off. And this migraine madness is one of them.

The right to vote is precious. We should use it wisely. Make your decision count. Don’t weigh it on the woman’s likeliness to get a migraine. If something this slight could derail a campaign instead of the major issues, well, that’s a headache.

Jon Huntsman plans more aggressive race

Republican candidate for U.S. President, former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, addresses campaign workers and supporters at his national campaign headquarters in Orlando, Florida, in this June 23, 2011 More...
Credit: REUTERS/Scott Audette/Files

By John Whitesides

WASHINGTON | Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:59pm EDT

(Reuters) - Republican Jon Huntsman plans a more aggressive approach on the 2012 campaign trail, boosting his profile and drawing sharper distinctions with rivals in an effort to enliven his sagging presidential bid.

Huntsman, who launched his White House candidacy with great fanfare last month but quickly fell flat, will make more public appearances and be more forceful in his critiques of President Barack Obama and his adversaries for the Republican nomination, spokesman Tim Miller said.

"It's going to be a more intense campaign schedule in the coming weeks as we draw sharper differences with Barack Obama and with our Republican rivals," Miller said Friday.

Miller portrayed the changes as "a natural evolution" from the early introductory phase of the campaign and not a direct result of Huntsman's dismal poll numbers or the lack of buzz about his campaign after his widely anticipated debut.

Huntsman's senior staff met in Washington Friday to discuss strategy, one day after campaign manager Susie Wiles stepped down in a development that drew fresh questions about Huntsman's future in the race.

Huntsman, a former Utah governor with a low national profile, draws poll numbers in the low single digits in a 2012 Republican field that has not drawn much enthusiasm from the party's rank and file. Huntsman served under Obama as U.S. ambassador to Chinabefore quitting this year to run for president.

MORE CANDIDATES

With former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney holding a fragile lead early in polls, many Republicans are hoping more candidates get in the race for the White House nomination. Texas Governor Rick Perry is expected to launch a White House bid in the next few weeks.

Huntsman has been criticized for a low profile on the campaign trail as he met with donors and potential supporters after returning from Beijing at the start of May.

He will step up the pace with a series of speeches in New Hampshire, Washington and Florida in the next week, Miller said, and will campaign heavily in New Hampshire before attending the August 11 Republican debate in Iowa.

Miller said Huntsman, who entered the race with a promise of civility, would be more aggressive in drawing contrasts between his record as governor of Utah and Obama's economic leadership, as well as the records of Romney and other rivals.

"He's going to talk about the record. There is nothing unusual or not civil about that," he said.

Huntsman, a Mormon, faces a difficult path to nomination in an increasingly conservative Republican Party. In addition to his Beijing work for Obama, as governor of Utah he supported same-sex civil unions and a regional cap-and-trade plan for greenhouse gas emissions that was not popular with conservatives.

He is skipping the kickoff nominating contest next February in Iowa, where the state party is dominated by social and religious conservatives, to concentrate on more moderate New Hampshire and sprawling Florida, where his headquarters is based in Orlando.

Miller said there have been no decisions by the campaign about Huntsman's advertising strategy going forward.

Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann and everyone else

 Posted at 03:10 PM ET, 07/22/2011

By Chris Cillizza

The Washington Post's Anqoinette Crosby sits down with reporter Amy Gardner to discuss whether Sarah Palin or Rep. Michele Bachmann would get more tea party support.

There are three tiers in the 2012 presidential field at the moment: former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is the first tier, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann comprises the second tier and everyone else running is clumped together in the third tier.

Romney, while not a lock to be the nominee, has put distance between himself and the rest of the field over the past six weeks or so with a solid debate performance in New Hampshire, a clear lead in the chase for campaign cash and, most importantly, a rigid message discipline that has kept him focused exclusively on President Obama’s handling of the economy.

Bachmann, too, has emerged from the pack thanks to strong polling in Iowa and a solid — if not spectacular first fundraising quarter. She is also benefiting from the growing sense that she has “it”, the undefinable quality, which is some combination of charisma, empathy and star power, that distinguishes great candidates from good ones.

As for the rest of the field, it’s a bit of a muddle.

Assuming he runs, Texas Gov. Rick Perry — suggested campaign slogan “ Texas Forever ” — has the best chance to break out of the pack and emerge as a real threat to Romney and Bachmann.

Perry, presumably, can raise enough money to be competitive — Texas is packed with wealthy Republican donors — and southern governors have fared well in Iowa’s caucuses in the past two competitive Republican elections.

Perry is all potential at the moment, however, and the flops of the two most recent highly-touted late entrants — Wes Clark in 2004 and Fred Thompson in 2008 — gives us pause about making too many grand predictions about Perry’s chances.

Both former governors Jon Huntsman (Utah) and Tim Pawlenty(Minn.) have to start showing movement in an early state or run the risk of going the way of Lamar Alexander in 1999 — a candidate with high expectations at the start of the race who never was able to live up to them.

Huntsman edges a spot ahead of Pawlenty on the Line this month simply because he has a bit more time to show movement.

For Pawlenty, his campaign will rest on his performance at the Ames Straw Poll on Aug. 13. Win it — or come in a close second — and he can turn the negative narrative surrounding his campaign around rapidly. Lose and he may not be able to sustain his candidacy.

Huntsman has to start moving in New Hampshire some time soon but since he has only been in the race a month — and is already on his second campaign manager! — he has more time to start his upward ascent in polls.

Beyond those five candidates, there’s virtually no distinction between the others running. All have some relatively small base of support and all will likely win some percentage of votes in the primaries and caucuses to come. But none are seen as viable as the Republican presidential nominee. At least not yet.

The number one ranked candidate is seen as the person with the best chances of carrying the Republican banner in the 2012 general election.

If you have thoughts on our rankings or have you own, let’s hear about it in the comments section below.

To the Line!

10. Newt Gingrich: The former House speaker’s campaign is in all kinds of trouble right now, but his biggest obstacle for the time being is money. Despite building a reputation as someone who could raise big money for all kinds of different ventures, it hasn’t translated to the campaign as Gingrich raised just $2.1 million in the second quarter. What’s worse is that his campaign spent even more than that, and has about $700,000 in debt – including about half a million dollars related to the use of private planes. Not good. (Previous ranking: 9)

9. Ron Paul: There is an outside shot that the Texas congressman could win the Ames Straw Poll. While we think its unlikely, Paul is the only candidate running at Ames who has done it before and, unlike last time, he will have all the money he needs to put his best foot forward. Paul is beloved by a relatively narrow band of the GOP. And he’s never shown any interest in trying to grow beyond that base of loyal supporters. (Previous ranking:10)

8. Rick Santorum: Santorum’s second-quarter fundraising number — $582,000 raised — is not going to make anybody take him more seriously. He is getting good reviews for his debate performances, but he has been eclipsed by the rise of Bachmann, who checks a lot of the same boxes as he does and is a fresher and more interesting face for the party. (Previous ranking: 8)

7. Herman Cain: Cain’s growth in this race has been stunted both by Bachmann and by his own missteps. Put plainly: Cain is proud of the fact that he’s not a politician, but it’s also exceedingly clear that he’s not a politician at times. Between raising his voice to a reporter, offeringconfusing answers about Muslims, losing staff and burning through all the money he raised in the second quarter, there’s plenty of evidence that he’s not ready for primetime. By the same token, he’s still in third place in Iowa, according to the most recent polls. (Previous ranking: 7)

6. Sarah Palin: All’s quiet on the Palin front, at least for now. After a much-hyped bus tour up the eastern seaboard re-ignited speculation about her presidential plans, the rest of the bus tour got put on (permanent?) hiatus. This has been a pattern with Palin, who seems to disappear and then re-insert herself into the presidential picture every few weeks. What’s clear though: there is no evidence that she’s actually ramping up a presidential campaign, and it’s getting to be about that time. One potential scenario: Palin stays out but offers an early endorsement of Perry. Now THAT would be interesting (Previous ranking: 6)

5. Tim Pawlenty: The former Minnesota governor needs a spark and he needs it soon. Pawlenty is all in for the Ames Straw Poll — running television ads and all but living in the state between now and Aug. 13. While the Pawlenty campaign is doing everything it can to downplay expectations in advance of the straw vote, it’s hard to see how anything other than a first or a close second place finish keeps him in the race. (Anything below that will make fundraising a near impossibility.) With so much riding on Ames, Pawlenty needs to have the best 22 days of his campaign between now and Aug. 13. (Previous ranking: 2)

4. Jon Huntsman: The decision to replace Susie Wiles as campaign manager on Thursday suggests that the former Utah governor wasn’t happy with the first month of his campaign. Huntsman’s is nowhere near where he needs to be in New Hampshire just yet and there appears to be an active debate within his campaign about whether he should start advertising in the Granite State to bump his numbers up. Whether he goes on TV or not, Huntsman needs to start showing progress — and soon. (Previous ranking: 4)

3. Rick Perry: The Texas governor seems to have stolen some of Bachmann’s buzz of late, but will he steal her path to victory too? Perry is looking like Bachmann’s most formidable opponent in Iowa should he get in — which it looks more and more like he will do. For Perry, the field has essentially shaken out too well for him not to run. The question now is whether he has the fire in the belly required and can adjust to federal campaign finance limits. (Previous ranking: 5)

2. Michele Bachmann: The Minnesota Republican Congresswoman’s meteoric rise in the race has been noithing short of remarkable, but there are several things weighing her down. One is plenty of disgruntled former staff. She has gone through lots of staff during her five-plus years in Congress, and not all of them are favorably inclined to her — hence the recent stories about her supposedly debilitating migraine headaches. The second is her family business, which her husband acknowledged will try to help gay men become straight if asked. That may not hurt her in Iowa and may actually make her even more of a hero among social conservatives, but it’s too juicy a story to not be a persistent pain for her campaign. (Previous ranking: 3)

1. Mitt Romney: Romney continues to put distance between himself and the rest of the field thanks to a laser-like message focus on President Obama’s handling of the economy. While some questions have been raised about whether Romney is taking it too slow in the race, it’s hard to argue with his early results. Romney remains something short of a strong frontunner as many donors and activists continue to sit on the sidelines and wait to see who else might get into the race. And, health care, which has dropped out of the news of late, is still a major hurdle to overcome for Romney. But, viewed broadly, he is clearly the class of the Republican field at the moment. (Previous ranking: 1)

Aaron Blake contributed to this report

Tim Pawlenty picks up gun appeal in Iowa Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59672.html#ixzz1SzNnQRUj

 Pawlenty is staging a last-ditch effort to revive his campaign’s prospects. | AP Photo

By KENDRA MARR | 7/22/11 1:27 PM EDT

Tim Pawlenty’s stepping up his appeal to gun owners in Iowa.

On Saturday, the former Minnesota governor will bring his RV tour to Searsboro to the Iowa Firearms Coalition Second Amendment Rally, making him the only 2012 contender to accept an invitation to an event that’s expected to draw about 1,300 people.

Gun issues aren’t major motivators for Iowa voters, but they’re certainly on the minds of the people who’ll attend next month’s Ames straw poll and the Iowa caucuses. And with Pawlenty staging a last-ditch effort to revive his campaign’s prospects, he’s looking to appeal to every potentially overlooked constituency he can.

Jeff Burkett, president of the Iowa Firearms Coalition, said his group doesn’t intend on endorsing a presidential candidate. But he also hasn’t ruled it out.

“Second Amendment rights should be in the top five issues of any presidential campaign,” said Burkett, who represents a couple thousand gun owners in the state. “It’s an extremely important part of history.”

Already on Wednesday, Pawlenty stopped at a shooting range on Wednesday, telling reporters that he frequently hunts deer and pheasant with his brother, who accompanied him on the trip. Then he trained a Glock 9mm pistol at three moving cardboard targets and emptied out about a half-dozen rounds.

“He handled the handgun fairly well,” said James Egeland, who owns the private range behind his home in Madrid, Iowa. “I don’t think he’s done it a lot, but I thought he did pretty well.”

The gun rights discussion is yet another way for Pawlenty to play up his executive experience out on the stump.

“Not only is he a strong proponent of the Second Amendment, he actually has a record delivering for gun owners,” said Pawlenty spokesman Alex Conant. “He’s the only governor who can say he signed a conceal-and-carry bill — twice.”

The governor earned an “A” rating from the NRA in his 2006 re-election run on the strength of a gun record that included that law requiring county sheriffs to issue handgun permits to almost any law abiding Minnesotans over the age of 21. (Then, after that law was struck down in the courts, Pawlenty signed another restoring the measure.)

Meanwhile, it’s been a while since Pawlenty’s competitors have tackled gun issues. Before launching their official 2012 bids, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, John Bolton and Herman Cain spoke at the National Rifle Association’s convention in Pittsburgh. On his first to New Hampshire, Jon Huntsman visited a gun shop.

The NRA, which is co-sponsoring the Saturday event, is mobilizing to push Second Amendments rights forward in a 2012 campaign conversation that’s so far been more focused on the economy, jobs and social conservative issues.

“If there’s one lesson that politicians have learned, it’s that it is good politics to be on the right side of the gun issue,” said Andrew Arulanandam, director of public affairs for the NRA. “Certainly gun owners and hunters are savvy, but more importantly, they’re a loyal voting bloc. Election year after election year they turn out in droves, and they vote for the pro-gun candidate.”

But, at this point, Iowa gun activists at least don’t see much difference between the GOP contenders’ positions on their issue.

“To me, they’re all about the same,” said Sean McClanahan, a Des Moines resident who’s the outgoing president of the Iowa Firearms Coalition.

Herman Cain says migraines a 'non-issue'

By ALEXANDER BURNS | 7/22/11 8:50 AM EDT

Joining Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul, the pizza man says Michele Bachmann's headache issue shouldn't be relevant to the 2012 campaign:

"If she's showing up for her events, and she's doing what she needs to do as a United States congresswoman, people shouldn't worry about her migraines," Cain told The Associated Press after a fundraiser for the New Hampshire GOP. "My wife has migraine headaches. I understand migraines. So I just think it's a non-issue."

Bachmann's health has become the focus of intense scrutiny in recent days after a media report claimed she suffers from sometimes-incapacitating headaches.

Continue Reading

Bachmann insists the health problem does not interfere with her ability to do her job. But other Republican presidential contenders, namely former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, suggested this week that the issue is a legitimate concern.

Cain did not follow suit Thursday night, although he and Bachmann are fighting to win over much the same bloc of tea party voters.

Cain's comments leave Pawlenty as the only 2012 candidate to suggest Bachmann's health is an area of concern, and even he walked those comments back in a subsequent Fox interview. As AP notes, Cain's response is notable, given how deeply Bachmann's rise has cut into his own base of support.

The Cain-Romney-Huntsman-Gingrich-Paul position is the safe one here, though: The migraine stories are in the public domain and if voters care about that kind of thing, the information is available. The only reason to push the story harder, right now, would be if you needed Bachmann to collapse relatively quickly