US Conservative Politics Blog

Update 11:15PM est: Deb Fischer is starting to pull away in the senate primary race in Nebraska, and has been declared the winner of the GOP Primary. AG Bruning, the establishment pick, was expected to walk away with this race as little as two weeks ago. It's Fischer 40.2% to 36% for Bruning. Tonight's math formula is Palin > the establishment > Jim DeMint + Freedom Works + Club for Growth.

Update 10:37PM est: Deb Fischer takes the lead in Nebraska. 38.6%-37.2%. Ted Cruz smiling, Dan Llijenquist glad to be last int he primary cycle. Tons of momentum could be headed his way

Update 10:25PM est: Returns show the gap now just 1.2% with 38.1% for Bruning, and 36.9% Fischer.

Update 10:15PM est: With 32% of the vote in, Palin-backed Senate candidate Deb Fisher is within 3% of establishment pick Bruning. The lead has narrowed to 39-36%. Stenberg, who was endorsed by most other tea party groups, is in distant 3rd at 21%. Palin power? Note: The only two general election polls done featuring Fischer vs Democrat Bob Kerrey had Fischer winning by 10 and 12 points, despite low name recognition.

Original Post: In the May 15th Nebraska Republican primary for Senate, John Bruning was the establishment favorite. Jim DeMint and a number of tea party organizations backed a second candidate, former Attorney General Don Stenberg. But days after a poll found a third candidate, Deb Fischer, trailing by 16 points, Sarah Palin gave a surprise endorsement of the underfunded underdog.

Many naysayers have dismissed Palin's influence, instead suggesting that her endorsements had little effect as the candidates were rising in the polls anyway. But the coincidences are far too many and the number of out-of-nowhere candidates to win (or come darn close to winning) are simply too plentiful to ignore. In 2010, it was Governor Nikki Haley in South Carolina, Joe Miller in Alaska, and Karen Handel in Georgia (among many others) who were given big boosts in their eventual underdog primary bids.

Most notably, Sarah Palin did not endorse a candidate for President in 2012, though both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum claimed at one point or another they had her support. (Palin stated she voted for Newt in Alaska, but her "keep the race going" strategy was hardly a ringing endorsement.)

In addition to Fischer in Nebraska, Texas Republican Ted Cruz is touting his Palin endorsement as he attempts to pull a Rubio in Texas and defeat the establishment candidate in the Senate Primary. Two weeks ago, Richard Mourdock ousted longtime US Senator/professional RINO Richard Lugar in the senate primary in Indiana. While many expected to win late, his Palin endorsement was most buzzworthy and his 20+ point margin was much greater than anyone anticipated.

The 2010 tea party rebound in Wisconsin has helped put the state back into battleground status for 2012. Could Republicans sweep the gubernatorial, senate, and presidential race in 2010? The most recent Wisconsin polls find:

+ Scott Walker has a 5-point lead in his recall election battle in the Governor's race. This reflects the exact margin he won by during the 2010 tea party revolution.

+ Former Governor Tommy Thompson has a commanding 12-point lead against his Democratic opponent in the senate race, while Mark Neumann leads by 2. The seat is being retired by Democrat Herb Kohl and could be the second senate seat steal for Republicans in Wisconsin since Obama's 2008 victory.

+ President Obama has fallen below 50% in the state, and Mitt Romney's deficit in the state has fallen from 17 points in March, to 9 points in April, to just 4 points now. Obama's current lead in the state is just 49-45%. He won the state 56-42% just four years ago.

Does anyone really even care that much about gay marriage? If you can't find work, are paying $4 a gallon for gas, have a loved one fighting in Afghanistan, and are struggling with rising food costs, is this really what anyone cares about? It's very relieving to know that the economic crisis is over, because the only thing the Democrats want to talk about is birth control, gay marriage, and Mitt Romney's 1980's road trip with his dog, Seamus. So with Obama's orchestrated gay marriage roll out, Americans have to suffer yet another distraction from everything Obama has done (and failed to do) over the past four years.

But shouldn't gays be more insulted than anything over Obama's laugh-out-loud "evolution" on the issue? Everyone knew Obama was lying during the 2008 campaign when he claimed to believe marriage was between a man and a woman. If he were courageous, he would have been honest then. But it didn't matter. Obama was embarrassed of his position on gays and lied about it. Honestly, his opposition to gay marriage was about as sincere as his pledge to not raise taxes (ha), to not hire lobbyists (haha), or to go through the budget with "a scalpel" (not enough ha-has in the world).

The internal polling for Obama must be brutal. His political strength -- the under-30 crowd -- can't find work and the newness of Obama has worn off. He's trailing Romney, a supposedly wooden, woman-hating, unlikeable, out-of-touch rich guy by 3 and 4 points according to Rasmussen and Gallup daily tracking polls. (But worry not, two other polls give Obama leads by oversampling Democrats by 9 and 8 points).

So here we are. Obama has suddenly "evolved" on the issue of gay marriage, and is now bullying those who held the same position he did just a few days ago. And with Obama's announcement came his promise to do absolutely nothing. For the first time in history, Obama comes out with a federalist argument on an issue, so at least that is some progress. And with a few sweet-talked words, the money poured in and Obama's 2008 gay marriage base has come back home. And he didn't even have to actually do anything in return. As Condoleezza Rice once commented about being a black, female republican: "I'd rather be ignored than patronized." Obama believes that there are enough single-issue voters who will once again fall for his sweet-talking campaign tactics, as he makes the same promises in 2012 that he did in 2008. He could be right.

Not surprisingly, the top 10 business-friendly states, according to analysis by the magazine Chief Executive, are also some of the most conservative states in the country. Hanging at the bottom of the list are liberal, union-run states.

Ranking in the top ten are Texas, Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee, Indiana, Virginia, South Carolina, Utah, and Arizona. Moat of these states have low taxes, business incentives, right-to-work laws, and conservative legislatures or governors. They are all also top Romney-targeted states in the upcoming elections.

The bottom ten are California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and Hawaii. These states tend to have higher taxation, big labor influence, and liberal leadership. Also, all 10 voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama in 2008.

On Tuesday, Richard Mourdock has the opportunity to kick-start nationwide tea party momentum in his quest to oust longtime moderate incumbent Richard Lugar. A Victory for Mourdock in Indiana's US Senate primary could have coat-tails and help tea party candidates in other races, mainly Ted Cruz in Texas and Dan Llijenquist in Utah.

It's also important to remind voters that the tea party does not exist to defeat one man, but to defeat candidates, both Republican and Democrat, who regularly oppose economic, religious, and personal freedoms.

While Mourdock has been endorsed by all the right people including FreedomWorks, the Club for Growth, and Sarah Palin, Mourdock has received the typical establishment backing. Mourdock claims that Indianans should vote for him because he can win, and Mourdock will lose. Well, Mourdock is no Christine O'Donnell and Indiana is not Delaware. Mourdock has won statewide, his Democratic opponent would be an Obamacare and stimulus backer, and political momentum in the state is clearly on the GOP's side (in 2010, the Republicans took back the other previously Democratic-held senate seat in a 15-point landslide.

Quinnipiac University released three new "swing state" polls for Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania and all show troubling signs for Obama. Most worrisome for Obama (and promising for conservatives) is that he is polling under 50% in all three states: 42% in Florida, 44% in Ohio, and 47% in Pennsylvania.

Despite multiple "official" visits, the power of incumbency, being against an opponent supposedly nobody likes, and having not been campaigned against yet, those numbers are incredibly weak. But dig into the numbers, and you find that it gets even worse for Obama as the pollsters weight the data to favor Obama in every possible way.

Florida:

The poll shows Romney leads Obama by 44-43%, after figures are weighted. (In weighting, pollsters can alter the data to reflect what they believe the actual election turnout will be, so as to minimize the effect of skewed polling samples. This estimate can be quite subjective). Before weighting, Romney's lead was larger. So, how did the pollster weight the Florida data? The Republican sample was weighted to be only 28% despite being 36% in 2010 (a "Republican year") and 34% in 2008 (a "Democrat year").

The weighting also reflects the pollsters opinion that Democrat turnout will be 3% higher than Republican turnout, 3% points higher than it was in 2010 and equal to 2008. So even by weighting to Democrat-favorable 2008 turnout figures (unlikely to be repeated in 2012), Obama is still trailing.

Ohio:

In Ohio, it's more of the same, but even a lot worse. While the poll shows Obama winning by just 44-42%, those figures also reflect very favorable Obama assumptions. Once again, the polling sample is weighted to drop Republican turnout to a shockingly low 24% while it was 37% in 2010 and 31% in 2008. Meanwhile, the pollster kept Democrat turnout at 36%, exactly where it was in 2010 and only 3 points less than 2010.

So while turnout in 2010 saw Republicans at 37% to 36% for Democrats, this poll "weights" the turnout to be 36% for Democrats and 24% for Republicans. And even then, Obama's lead is just 2%. If you weight the Ohio numbers to actual 2010 turnout, Romney leads 48-42%. So, a lot of these polls reflect only how pollsters prefer to "weight them." But in any case, a weighted sample of 24% for Republicans is extremely low.

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania is much of the same. While Republicans made up 37% of the electorate in both 2008 and 2010, the pollster once again weights the information so that Republican turnout is just 29%. The Democrat have a 7 point margin advantage in the weighted sample, equal to 2008 (and more than double the 3 point advantage of 2010). Here, Obama is still at only 47%, even though he scored 55% of the PA vote in 2008 (and even though a large chunk of the GOP has apparently moved out of the state according to the pollster).

Bottom Line

Polling is as much subjective as it is objective. After collecting scientific data (polls) pollsters can then alter that data to reflect whatever turnout they expect. In all three swing state polls, the samples were weighted to favor Obama, and were very similar or even more generous than 2008 turnout. Even the weighted numbers show very good signs for the tea party, opponents of Obamacare, freedom lovers, and Romney, and very troubling signs for Obama.

Sure the Presidential Primary is over, but now the fun really begins as the tea party seeks to take more seats in the US Senate.

Indiana holds a GOP primary on May 8th. Richard Mourdock is challenging longtime Senator Dick Lugar.

Texas holds a GOP Primary on May 29th. Ted Cruz looks to pull a Marco Rubio-ish come from nowhere victory

Utah holds a GOP primary on June 26th. Dan Liljenquist shoots to defeat Orrin Hatch for the 2nd straight GOP incumbent defeat in the state.

More: Read all of the Tea Party Primary Details

While not yet technically official, Mitt Romney's victory in the 2012 GOP nomination was one of the easier victories in recent history. The race seemed to drag on for longer than in previous years as result of a complicated delegate system and a stretched-out primary calendar. Here is a look at some of the realities and myths surrounding Romney's apparent victory.

Read More: 5 Myths and Realities About Mitt Romney's 2012 GOP Victory

Update (8:53 PM): All States essentially called for Romney as he notches easy wins across the board. Ann Romney gives a great introduction to Mitt and shows she is leaps and bounds the best first lady candidate the Republicans have had in decades. Why she is a sure game-changer this year. Romney delivers a strong pro-economic message, while the Obama campaign continues bored and tired "Republicans hate women; Republicans hate Dogs; Republicans hate immigrants" attacks. Romney speach summed up: "It's the economy. And we are not stupid."

Update (8:30 PM): It may be early in the counting process, but Newt Gingrich is doing worse in the Rhode Island Republican Primary (6.5% of the vote) than "Uncommitted" (9.5% of the vote) is doing against Obama in the Democratic primary. The mighty Ron Paul is easily outperforming Gingrich in Rhode Island and Connecticut. But both states have already been called for Romney, who leads with 60%+ of the vote in each.

Not too long ago, Tuesday's were the greatest days in politics. Tuesday, Jan. 3 2012 kicked off the GOP primary as Rick Santorum surprised the field by winning the "first in the nation" caucus. Romney rebounded a Tuesday later by taking a win in New Hampshire, the "first in the nation primary." Then there was Florida, on Tuesday the 31st, as Newt was dealt a devastating blow by the Romney campaign in the "first in the penalized by the RNC primary." You get the point (all without even mentioning "Super Tuesday."

Today a handful of states voted in the GOP Primary, including biggies New York and Pennsylvania along with Connecticut, Delaware, and Rhode Island. But there is no polling, no build-up, no breathless "this is a must-win state for fill-in-the-blank" columns. The attack ads have dissipated. It's game over. (No, no, no. Not technically, but yes. It is.)

So, here is a "Where are They Now" and follow up to all of the great contenders of the 2012 GOP Primary that gave us almost a year of excitement.

Newt Gingrich: The closest contender after the closest contender to Romney, Newt is millions in debt but has vowed to battle all the way to Tampa. Newt misses the days of being carpet-bombed by Mitt Romney and eviscerated by SuperPAC's and is currently "insulted" that camp Romney is ignoring him altogether. If he asks nicely, Restore Our Future might throw a web attack ad his way. For the eternally optimistic Newtons, here's a bit about his Delaware efforts.

Rick Santorum: On the "yes I dropped out but pay attention to me anyway" front, Santorum will be appearing on CNN tonight (Piers Morgan, 9:30 PM!) to probably not endorse Mitt Romney. While Santorum was definitely the luckiest of the anti-Romney candidates (peaking right before Iowa), I'm not so sure of the long-term attachment of the people who supported him.

Ron Paul: I'm not sure he has conceded the 1988 election yet, but no future GOP primary will be the same without Ron Paul. This has without a doubt been his most successful run yet. Paul is currently in Texas, soaking in the broad support and accolades of college students (half of whom will turn around and vote for Obama in November). But at least he is having fun and his campaign isn't in debt. (Oh, and now he passes the torch to Rand, who will launch presidential bids for the next 4 decades.)

Mitt Romney: After insulting Newt Gingrich by only attacking President Obama, Romney will be delivering an insultingly-titled speech in New Hampshire tonight named "A Better America Begins Today." Doesn't he know he hasn't won the primary yet? All 57 states haven't voted yet, and Newt is guaranteed to finish top-3 in the rest of them. (I kid, I kid.)

And now that a year of obsessing over the GOP nomination is complete, the process for obsessing over the vice presidential nominee selection can now being. Here' to a solid 4 months of that.

Photo: Bryan Mullenix, Getty Images

As the debate over who presumptive nominee Mitt Romney should pick as his running-mate gets into full swing, a question also remains about how valuable the selection really is. Read about the top VP contenders for 2012.

How important a bottom-of-the-ticket nominee is may be overstated. Typically, pundits ask what state or demographic a nominee might bring, as well as what experience void the individual may fill. Both Sarah Palin and Geraldine Ferarro failed to carry their lackluster presidential nominees very far. In 2004, John Edwards was supposed to be the young, attractive, allegedly Kennedy-esque candidate to put John Kerry over the top. That didn't work out so well either.

Yet the list of past vice-presidents reads like an all-star induction into the boring hall of fame: Dick Cheney, Al Gore, and Joe Biden have held the spot for nearly 20 years. So while many are hoping for an exciting or out-of-the-box kind of pick, historically those have not worked out so well.

A recent poll finds former Bush Secretary of State Condi Rice tops a poll of Republican voters with 26%, followed closely by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie at 21%, while Marco Rubio and Rick Santorum are chosen by 14% of Republican voters.

Read about the top VP contenders for 2012.