Mitt Romney is the most intellectual of the leading Republican presidential candidates (Romney, Cain, Perry). That can’t be questioned. His masterful debate performances – capped by the October 18th debate’s one-on-one destruction of Perry – have evinced quick-wittedness, a deep grasp of policy issues, and an ability to capably communicate.

His background substantiates his intellectualism: Stanford, Harvard, Boston Consulting Group, Bain Capital, Bain Consulting, etc. To the extent that Romney had a fault in the 2008 campaign it was that he appeared so smart and so capable that people questioned his emotional sensitivity (Remember Mike Huckabee’s quote: “Mitt Romney looks like the guy that fires you.”)

At my debate watching party, hardly any of the DC young Republicans present disputed Romney’s intellectual gravitas. A few wondered, however, whether it matters if our nominee is a heavyweight intellectual.

It does matter. It matters quite a bit. Consider the following:

Presidential success:

The most direct way in which intellectualism matters is its link to successful governance. Even considering the exception of the current president, there is substantial evidence that presidential IQ and presidential success are strongly tied. See Professor Dean Keith Simonton of UC Davis work on this subject as a good example.

Elections 1 – College educated voters:

Intelligence matters before presidents even get to the oval office. Many voters in 2008 cited the Republican Party’s seeming anti-intellectualism (best embodied in Sarah Palin) as a reason for voting Democrat. The numbers bore this out: the 2008 election marked the first time that the Democratic candidate performed better than the Republican candidate among college educated voters (50 percent to 48 percent). When it comes to advanced degree holders, the numbers are worse, and they’re moving in the wrong direction. In 1988, Republicans won this category 50-48. In 2004, Democrats won 55-44. In 2008, Democrats won again, 58-40.

Elections 2 – Young voters:

Young voters are becoming increasingly synonymous with college educated. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 27.8 percent of college aged Americans went to college in 1985. That number shot up to 39 percent by 2005. And just like America’s overall college graduates, young people are trending Democrat.

In 1988, 52 percent of 18-29 year olds voted Republican. In 2004, 54 percent went Democrat. In 2008, 66 percent voted for President Obama. These voters often cite the Republican Party’s incompatibility with the values they learn in college (belief in the scientific method, power of learning, belief in global warming) as reasons for voting Democrat.

Elections 3 – Profile of a president:

Writing for the Wall Street Journal in 2008, Lawrence B. Lindsey argued that character traits are more important than policy papers. And indeed, this is how many American voters make their selection. Included in these character traits is, of course, intelligence. Polls differ on where it ranks relative to other characteristics, but it almost always ranks in the top five.

Elections 4 – Journalists:

As much as Republicans may try to deny it, the mainstream media matters. It’s still widely read and viewed, and it still has an impact on how candidates and issues are perceived. To win over journalists, it helps for a candidate to be liberal, but it also helps to be the candidate that journalists consider something of a peer – a person who can level with them on weighty topics of public policy, but then switch gears to discuss literature or philosophy.

Consider David Brooks – a professed conservative – who recently admitted at a Toqueville Forum speech at Georgetown University that he got “a tingling sensation in his leg” when he discovered that President Obama could discuss the philosophies of Ronald Niebuhr Reinhold Niebuhr at length.

The albatross of anti-intellectualism has haunted the Republican Party for far too long. It has directly affected our electoral success, and it has caused many Americans to wonder whether we can handle the complexity of the current economic crisis. To shed this image – to return to the party of American Enterprise Institute and the Wall Street Journal – we fortunately have an easy, and excellent, solution: Name Mitt Romney as the 2012 nominee.

A new poll from the American Jewish Committee shows further erosion of President Obama’s Jewish support. Only 45 percent of American Jews approve of “the way President Barack Obama has handled his job as President,” and 48 percent disapprove. This is an even worse statistic than the 40 percent Jewish disapproval that Gallup reported last week.

Even more damning, the AJC survey suggests that this disapproval might not simply stem from general economic woes: 53 percent of those surveyed disapprove “of the Obama Administration’s handling of U.S.-Israel relations.” And a plurality – 45 percent – disapprove “of the Obama Administration’s handling of the Iran nuclear issue.”

This runs opposite the story that Obama supporters have spun since NY-9. The loss of the Jewish vote in NY-9, they argue, stemmed from unrepresentative Orthodox Jews who voted on gay marriage and former Representative Anthony Weiner. It had nothing to do with Obama’s Israel policy.

Whoops. Gallup and now AJC have proved this wrong. It seems that the Administration’s unceasing public chastisements of Israel and its meek approach toward Iran do matter to American Jews. And this, in turn, should matter to Obama. American Jews, though only four percent of the vote, finance a good chunk of the Democratic political engine.

Ron Kampeas estimates “that Jewish donors provide between one-third and two-thirds of the party’s money.” David Freedlander claims that “nearly 60 percent of the money raised by the Democratic National Committee is donated by Jews,” and Steven Windmueller says that “Jewish donors have generated as much as 45 cents of every dollar raised by Democrats.”

But while Obama’s Jewish problem might mean fewer votes and less money for his 2012 reelection, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the Republican Party will pick up loads of Jewish votes and money. According to the same AJC poll, if “Barack Obama is the Democratic candidate and Mitt Romney the Republican candidate,” Jews would favor Obama 50 to 32. Matched against Rick Perry, Jews would favor Obama 55 to 25, and Obama would slaughter Bachmann 59 to 19 percent.

True, each of these percentages represents a precipitous decline from Obama’s 78 percent share of the Jewish vote in 2008, but the beneficiary is not the Republican candidate as much as it is the “neither” survey option.

For Republicans to take full advantage of Obama’s Jewish problem, they will have to name the right candidate (Romney looks better than Perry) while continuing to press their advantage on Israel and softening their social positions. This especially means no more public group Christian prayers from Rick Perry – something that even drew criticism from the conservative, Jewish Washington Post commentator Jennifer Rubin.

It’s unrealistic to expect candidates at this point to focus on Israel or cool it on gay marriage – the Republican primary is in full swing and the Jewish Republican primary vote is virtually nonexistent. But when the time comes for the general election, the Republican candidate will have to make a real effort to get the Jewish vote and money. Yes, it now seems definite that Jews are upset with Obama. But this doesn’t mean they’re ready to go Republican.

President Obama, the Republican Jewish Coalition, and Ed Koch are all doing their best to push Jewish voters away from the Democratic Party. These efforts are having effect. In NY-9, Jewish voters turned from the Jewish Democratic candidate to hand the victory to his Catholic Republican rival Bob Turner. Only days later, a Gallup poll put Jewish disapproval of Obama at 40 percent.

But these efforts can swiftly be reversed by one man: Rick Perry.

If the Republicans nominate Rick Perry as their presidential nominee, expect at least 75 percent of Jews to vote for President Obama in 2012, despite their concerns for Israel. As Jonthan Tobin writes at Commentary’s blog, “Most American Jews fear evangelicals more than Hamas or Hezbollah.” But it’s not just Perry’s devout Christianity per se that could bother Jews; it’s also the social policy ramifications of this religious outlook. As of late, Perry has become much more absolutist and outspoken about social policies, setting off alarms in the heads of many Jewish voters.

Gay Marriage

Start with gay marriage. Perry recently reversed his position from support of states’ rights (“Our friends in New York six weeks ago passed a statute that said marriage can be between two people of the same sex. And you know what? That’s New York, and that’s their business, and that’s fine with me.”) to supporting a federal ban (“I am for the federal marriage amendment [banning gay marriage]. And that’s about as sharp a point as I could put on it”). In contrast, 67 percent of Jews fully support gay marriage, and 78 percent of Jews opposed California’s Proposition 8 banning gay marriage.

Abortion

Abortion is another important issue to Jewish voters, and according to a 2000 study, 88 percent of Jews are pro-choice. Perry, however, supports a federal amendment against abortion. According to Perry spokesperson Katherine Cesinger, “The governor has long supported overturning Roe v. Wade, and would support amending the U.S. Constitution … to protect innocent life.”

Secularism

Jews are also passionately secular, only 16 percent go to synagogue at least once a month. It’s not surprising then that Jews are overwhelmingly opposed to any sort of commingling of religion and state. Rick Perry’s public group prayer session bothered even conservative Jewish pundit Jennifer Rubin, “His use of public office to promote the Christian event, was, to me, inappropriate … Would he do this in the Oval Office?” Even more Jews raised eyebrows when Perry claimed he had “been called” to run for President.

…

Jews, like all other Americans, will probably put the economy and jobs at the top of their voting issues. But Israel and social issues are also likely to factor in. If Perry is named the Republican candidate in 2012, independent and moderate Jews will be left in a hard place: either vote for the devil you know (Obama), or the devil you don’t (Perry). Unfortunately for Perry, most people choose, as the maxim goes, the devil they know.

New York’s 9th congressional district is somewhere between 25 and 40 percent Jewish (according to three difference sources, 25 percent; 30 percent; 40 percent). Regardless, it’s the most Jewish district in the country, and because of this large Jewish presence, the district has three registered Democrats for everyone one registered Republican. Republicans have not held the district since 1922.

Everything changed last night. We Republicans won the Jewish vote, and as a result, we won the special election. But did we win the Jewish vote in NY-09 the right way? In a way that can readily translate to other Jewish voters nationwide?

If we won on the merits of the economy and/or Israel, the answer is an emphatic yes. If the victory came as a result of the discussion of gay marriage or former NY-09 Democratic Representative Anthony Weiner’s indiscretions, then don’t take this election as an indicator of the national Jewish vote.

Economy and Israel – transferrable

Writing on this blog, David Frum suggests that “The Democratic defeat in NY-09 can be summed up in two words: ‘economy’ and ‘Israel.’”

If this is the case, great. These issues are transferrable. Jews nationwide, like everyone in the country, rate the economy as the most important political issue.

Israel certainly has at least some influence on the Jewish vote – consider that after four years of a miserable Israel posture, President Carter’s share of the Jewish vote fell from 71 percent to 45 percent. George H.W. Bush, who was similarly lukewarm on Israel, won 35 percent of the Jewish vote in 1988; in 1992, he won 11 percent.

Proof of the economy’s influence is readily apparent. Obama’s approval rating in the district is at a pathetic 31 percent, suggesting that broad issues are at hand. Also, most exit polls again put economy as the top issue.

The proof that Israel mattered strongly is less conclusive. Advocates of the theory point to New York City’s former Jewish Democratic Mayor Ed Koch, who has argued that Jews should abandon President Obama as a result of his miserable Israel policies. Others have said that advertisements criticizing Obama’s Israel policies – such as these New York billboards raised by The Emergency Committee for Israel – played an instrumental role in the Jewish vote. Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, claims with confidence that Obama’s Israel policy helped Republicans win the election.

Gay Marriage and Weiner – non-transferrable

A competing theory – voiced by DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz among others – suggests that Jews in NY-09 are anomalous; they are disproportionately Orthodox. Ben Smith at Politico corroborates this; he estimates that 32 percent of the Jews in NY-09 are Orthodox. Nationwide, only 10 percent of Jews are Orthodox.

Although a plurality of American Orthodox Jews still identify as Democrat, they tend to be more socially conservative than their non-Orthodox Jewish peers. Wasserman Schultz suggests that these Jews abandoned the Democratic Party in this election both because of the Democratic candidate’s strong support for gay marriage and because of the crude sexual indiscretions of Weiner – two subjects that don’t play well with social conservatives.

This tactic – winning Jews through social conservatism – is not likely to do well with national Jewish audiences. Quite the opposite; Jews are very socially liberal and strongly favor gay marriage. In 2007, The New York Times reported that 67 percent of Jews support gay marriage; and the Los Angeles Times reports that 78 percent of Jews opposed California’s Proposition 8; this opposition outstripped all other religious and ethnic groups.

It remains to be seen what NY-09 bodes for the future of the Jewish vote. Until we know more about what caused NY-09 Jews (and preferably the non-Orthodox ones) to abandon the Democratic Party, the safe bet is that American Jews will continue to vote Democrat at rates above 70 percent. Jeffrey Goldberg, writing at The Atlantic, takes this safe bet.

But I’ll take the risk. I guess that NY-09 has something fundamental to it. Either NY-09 Jews are so fed up – like everyone else – with the economy that it trampled their normal allegiances, or President Obama has sunk to the level of President Carter and gone beyond acceptable “tough love” for Israel. Liberal, pro-gay marriage Democrats have run in NY-09 before, and they have won the support of the majority of NY-09 Jews. This time, however, most of the black hats (Orthodox Jews) showed up at the Republican victory party. I say the Jewish vote is changing; look for it to drop as low as 65 percent Democrat in the 2012 election (allowing for the right Republican candidate).

Can the Jewish vote be decisive in swing states? Nathan Guttman has argued that it can’t in an article for the July/August issue of Moment Magazine. But does this claim survive scrutiny?

In the article, Nathan Guttman “debunks” five myths of the Jewish vote in U.S. Presidential elections:

Myth: Polling Jewish voters can predict how Jews will vote.

Myth: Jews are becoming increasingly Republican.

Myth: Jews can tip a swing state.

Myth: Jewish money bankrolls election campaigns.

Myth: Israel is a deciding factor for Jewish voters.

We’ll dedicate this post to myth three, both because the number three is of special significance in Judaism and because numbers one, two, and five don’t really matter if the Jewish vote can’t tip swing states.

If the Jewish vote can’t tip swing states, then the Jewish vote amounts to very little importance.  Jews account for approximately two percent of the U.S. population, and about four percent of the electorate, a number that is too small to be of great significance to the popular vote.

But then there are Jew-heavy states.  In a previous article (for Haaretz), Guttman names New York, California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Florida as homes to large Jewish populations.  For a slightly different list, Anat Hakim, writing for the Los Angeles Times, identifies “nine states where the size of the Jewish population was larger than the size of victory for either President Bush or Sen. John Kerry in 2004:  Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.”

To prove that Jews can tip swing states, it needs to be shown that Jews can tip one of these states.  Let’s choose Florida.  Amusingly, it was Guttman himself who, in a 2003 article, pointed out the importance of the Floridian Jewish vote:

There remains only Florida, the Democrats’ trauma in the 2000 elections, where it is estimated that Bush succeeded in the last elections in enlisting 35 percent of the Jewish voters and in winning, after a lengthy legal wrangle, in the state and in the country as a whole.  Florida is a key state in the 2004 elections, and the forecast is that Bush will have to succeed there [if] he is to win; therefore the elderly Jewish voters who live in the coastal areas of the state are important to him.

If the Jewish vote in Florida had kept to the nationwide Jewish average (79 percent, Gore; 21 percent, Bush) then Gore would have easily won Florida.  As noted in a 2008 Slate article on the subject, “In Florida, Jews make up around 5 percent of the voting population – more than enough to swing a close race. (If all the South Florida Jewish voters who intended to support Al Gore and Joe Lieberman in 2000 had actually cast their votes properly, Gore would have won.)”

This phenomenon is not specific to Florida in 2000.  Jews make up approximately 3 percent of the voting population of Pennsylvania, a state that John Kerry won in 2004 by fewer than 200,000 votes.  In the same election, George W. Bush beat Kerry in Florida by fewer than 400,000 votes.  As Guttman concedes in his Moment article, “Ohio is also a state where Jewish voters could play a role in a close race.”

The behavior of the Obama campaign should also caution against Guttman’s assertion that the Jewish vote is of limited importance.  Since the President’s 1967 border speech in the spring, and especially in recent weeks, the president’s campaign team has ramped up its Jewish outreach efforts.  Conspicuous among these efforts is the recruitment of Alan Solow, former head of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, to stump for Obama.  The campaign clearly wants something from American Jews — be it their votes, their money, or both.

Guttman is right to say that “the vast majority of Jewish voters vote in states that aren’t really in play, like New York and California, and their vote will hardly be noticed.”  But the Jewish vote should not be dismissed entirely.  Jews can play a role in close races in key states, and, if polls can be believed, 2012 will be a close race.  Rest assured that President Obama will do everything in his power to make sure that he doesn’t lose this close race because of a few old Jewish voters in Florida.

In an AP interview on Saturday, Rick Perry managed to swiftly steer into two topics – gay marriage and evolution – on which his views will likely alienate young and educated voters should he make it into the general election.

On gay marriage, Perry said  “I am for the federal marriage amendment.  And that’s about as sharp a point as I could put on it.”  The referred to federal marriage amendment would outlaw individual states – such as New York – from granting marriage licenses to gay couples.  This new statement is indeed a sharp point, and it is also a sharp contrast with Perry’s previously expressed tolerance for gay marriage as a state issue.

His shift in position also puts him on the opposite side of young voters.  According to a Gallup poll, “70 percent of those between 18 and 34” support gay marriage.  Other studies – such as this one by Pew – estimate youth support to be lower, but still in favor of gay marriage.

And as I’ve noted in the past, a study by my organization, RK Research, confirms youth hostility toward the Republican Party’s opposition to gay marriage. The surveyed college students (taken as a subset of young voters), when asked to rate the Republican Party on 25 issues, gave the Party a score of 3.8 (1 – the worst, 10 – the best) on gay rights, dead last of the 25 issues.

On evolution, Perry noted that he is skeptical of the theory, and, accordingly, he appointed an evolutionary skeptic to chair the Texas State Board of Education.   This too puts him on the opposite side of most young Americans.  In 2006, Gallup reported that 43 percent – under half – of 18 to 29 year olds believed that God created humans in their present form and evolution played no part in the development of man.

Perry’s latest pronouncement also serves to reaffirm the Republican Party’s descent among the educated.  The 2008 election marked the first presidential election since polling companies started collecting data on degree holders in which voters with a college degree favored the Democratic candidate (50-48).  As for those with post graduate education, the Democrats have won this category since 1988, but the gap is spreading, and in 2008, the Democrats defeated the Republicans 58-40 (see this page for election data).

Perry’s perspective on gay marriage and evolution – if emblematic of the Republican position – will not improve the Party’s standing among the college educated.   As noted by Pew, college graduates are more likely to favor gay marriage than those without a college degree.  And the same 2006 Gallup poll on evolution showed that only 38 percent of college graduates and 25 percent of those with postgraduate education believe that evolution has played no part in man’s creation.

Policy positions should of course not be made based on simple opinion polls; rather, they should be grounded in principles and social science.  But if Rick Perry and the Republican Party are trying to capture some of the groups they struggled with in 2008 – such as young voters and educated voters – then they’re going about it the wrong way.

Another Roberts-led Supreme Court term has ended, and another journalistic “the-Court-is-overwhelmingly-and-blatantly-pro-business” season has begun.  Consider the following article titles and segments written in the past two weeks:

“The Supreme Court, which winds up its term Monday, has once again shown itself to be highly skeptical of large lawsuits against big business, regardless of whether the suits are intended to protect workers, consumers or the environment.”  David Savage, The Los Angeles Times.  June 25, 2011.

“Analysis: Big business scores key Supreme Court term wins.”  James Vicini, Reuters. June 28, 2011.

“Corporations and the court: America’s Supreme Court is the most business-friendly for decades.” The Economist.  June 23, 2011.

Given such media outcry, it’s no surprise that Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) took the opportunity to call for a Judiciary committee hearing ominously named, “Barriers to Justice and Accountability:  How the Supreme Court’s Recent Rulings Will Affect Corporate Behavior.”

But these articles and this hearing offend logic on two grounds:

1) The notion that the Court is supposed to call cases 50-50 to be considered fair. Consider a baseball umpire.  If a pitcher throws 75 strikes in a row and the umpire calls 75 strikes in a row, is the umpire blatantly biased toward strikes?  No.  The umpire’s job is to call strikes if they are within the strike zone.  Similarly, the job of the justices is to frame the law and to rule on how the issue fits (or does not fit) within the law.  The framework is not pro-business verse anti-business, but consistent with law verse inconsistent.

2) What numbers are these pro-business complaints coming from? Even if we accept the premise of the journalists and Leahy that the Court’s posture can be judged simply based on number of decisions that favor big business verse number of decisions that hurt big business, the numbers still don’t support the proffered hypothesis.  According to Richard Samp, who spoke at a recent Washington Legal Foundation seminar, “Of the 27 decisions, 13 came out the way the business community was hoping, and 13 came out the other way.”  Samp even went so far as to say that “the Court was far more friendly to plaintiffs suing businesses when the issue before the court was the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims, rather than whether the plaintiff and his lawyers should be permitted to make use of a procedural device.”

At the same seminar, Peter Keisler of Sidley Austin LLP claimed that the pro/anti-business framework is a “completely inaccurate description of how judges think about their work.”  Keisler pointed to Justice Breyer – one not often accused of being pro-business – as somebody who does not think the Court’s attitude toward business has changed over time.  And Keisler also called the Chamber of Commerce’s record at the Court – 57 percent victory – as “good, but not overwhelming.”

The Supreme Court already received unmerited insult from the executive branch at the 2010 State of the Union.  We don’t now need unfounded criticism from the legislative branch at today’s hearing.

Which Republican Party policies do college students (as a segment of young voters) specifically like and dislike?  To find out, my organization (RK Research) has so far surveyed 1,000 students at colleges throughout the country and tabulated their entries on 25 different policy issues.  The results – available here – are not complete but they begin to paint a picture of what “College Republicanism” looks like:

1)    College students don’t hate everything about the Republican Party. Especially in the free response section, respondents expressed approval of the party’s position on national security and its notions of limited government, economic liberty, and pro-entrepreneurial policies.

2)    It’s the economy stupid. General unemployment is 9.1 percent.  The unemployment rate for those less than 25 years old is 19 percent (or higher in some polls).  Understandably, college students are worried about their job prospects, and they rate the issue highly important.  The party that reclaims the mantle of economic competence will make major gains with college voters.  More on this topic:  “CNN Debate: Young Voters Win.”

3)    Opposition to gay marriage is a losing issue.  Although gay rights ranked low in importance for the average student, it ranked very important for some students, and almost all students ranked the Republican Party’s performance on gay rights as terrible, worst or second-to-worst of the 25 issues presented.  This data is consistent with reports from Pew, CIRCLE, and other polling organizations that have found that young people are far more accepting of gay marriage than older generations.  More on this topic: “Gay marriage issue poses long term challenge for GOP.”

4)    The environment matters.  Respondents rated both “environment” and “energy” to be of high importance.  If the Republican Party is to win college students, it can no longer casually dismiss these issues, treat them as unimportant, or deny their existence.  Climate change and energy scarcity must be addressed – but they can be addressed in a pro-market Republican-friendly way.

5)    Education.  Education policy at both the college level and the university level is of great importance to young voters.  In the free response section, many voters cited “No Child Left Behind” as one the least-liked issues of the Republican Party.  Conversely, many respondents noted “increased school choice” as a Republican policy strength.  Republicans need to codify an education policy consistent with its principles and then ensure that it is competently administered.

6)    Health Care.  Many students cited Republican opposition to federal health care reform – “Obamacare” – as a top Republican issue.  However, this does not carry the day.  Health care is so important to college students (and to all voters) that the Republicans need develop a cogent plan that voters can understand and rally behind.  No college student wrote about health care in terms of what the Republican Party offered, only what the Republican Party opposed.

If you try to match these six characteristics to a Republican candidate, the best fit, by far, is Jon Huntsman.  To go down the list:

1) Issue priority.  Huntsman’s campaign will revolve around the economy, China, and national security – the issues where college students trust the Republican Party.

2) Economy.  Huntsman is a true fiscal conservative responsible for massive tax cuts in Utah, managing the Utah budget, and winning business environment awards from Forbes;

3) Gay rights.  Huntsman is a social moderate who has long supported civil unions for gays;

4) Environment. Huntsman cares greatly about the environment, but realizes it must be addressed in a business-friendly way, and he has learned that cap and trade is not the solution.

5) Education.  Huntsman has repeatedly said that school choice is a top priority and that the public school system must be injected with competition.

6) Healthcare.  As Governor, Huntsman made healthcare reform a priority, and he signed into law a health care system that allows Utahns to take defined contributions from their employers and buy coverage on their own. The Heritage Foundation called it the “blueprint for consumer focused health care reform.”

Add to this Huntsman’s youth, and his “coolness,” and you have the model candidate for College Republicanism.

When asked about the subject of gay marriage at the CNN Monday night Republican debate, Governor Romney responded appropriately by saying, “Well … we ought to be talking about the economy and jobs,” instead of gay marriage.  But for whatever reason, host John King insisted on making the “gay question” the only question that each of the candidates addressed: “Let me start at this end, we’ll just go right through.  Are you a George W. Bush Republican, meaning a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, or a Dick Cheney [Republican] who … said this should … be a state’s decision?”

Bachmann reaffirmed her belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, but that gay marriage should be left to the states.

Cain also left things to individual states.  When pressed on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT), he said he would never have overturned it.

Pawlenty departed from the gay marriage question (but he has spoken against it in times past) and said deference should be shown to the military on DADT.

This moved the discussion to DADT, a policy to which Paul said, “I would not work to overthrow it.  We have to remember, rights don’t come in groups.  We shouldn’t have gay rights.  Rights come as individuals.”

Following the caveat Romney made above, the former Massachusetts Governor said: “I believe that DADT should have been kept in place until conflict (Iraq/Afghanistan) was over.”

And Gingrich responded: “Well, I think it’s very powerful that both the Army and the Marines overwhelmingly opposed changing [DADT].  And as president … I would list to the commanders.”

These statements alone didn’t yield much insight on positions on gay marriage – three of the six panelists deferred to the well-being of the armed forces.  But certainly none of the candidates offered a voice of strong support of gay marriage or even civil unions.

This might play be a wise posture to take for the Republican primary.  According to an article at Poll Watch Daily, “85 percent of Staunch Conservatives and 72 percent of Main Street Republicans oppose the right of gays and lesbians to marry.”

But opposition to gay marriage is of dubious electoral efficacy when it comes to the general election.  The Los Angeles Times wrote in May that five recent polls showed the majority of Americans to support gay marriage, including a Gallup poll that said 53 percent of Americans support the rights of gays and lesbians to legally marry.

This trend has led some Republican strategists to worry that gay marriage is increasingly a losing issue for the Republican Party.  In a New York Times article, Republican strategist Steve Schmidt said, “The Republican Party is shrinking.  One of the reasons it is shrinking is because there are large demographics in this country that view the party as intolerant or not relevant to them.  Politics is about addition.”

Young voters in particular seem apt to punish the party for its stance on gay marriage.  The same Gallup poll cited above showed that “70 percent of those between 18 and 34” support gay marriage.   Other studies – such as this one by Pew – estimate youth support to be lower, but still in favor of gay marriage.  RK Research confirms youth hostility toward the Republican Party’s position on gay marriage in its study of college students and the Republican Party.  The surveyed students, when asked to rate the Republican party on 25 issues, gave the party a score of 3.8 (1 – the worst, 10 – the best) on gay rights, dead last of the 25 issues.

The actual convictions and beliefs of the candidates aside, the issue of gay marriage poses a difficult question for the Republican candidates.  Do they hit the gay issue hard in the primary, only to have it potentially haunt them in the general election?  Or do they withhold antagonism toward gay marriage at the risk of upsetting much of the Republican base?

Perhaps the best strategy though is to stick with Romney’s plan and focus on the economy and the nation’s 9.1 percent unemployment rate.

Huntsman will help the Party stay economically focused — it’s his favorite subject.  When asked what he is proud of as a governor, he cites the $225 million tax cut he signed, Utah’s 3.5 percent growth rate over the past five years, and the Forbes awards Utah won for business environment.  Almost half of American voters think that the economy is the most important issue of the day.  There’s no reason to think that Huntsman won’t give the people what they want.

Youth Appeal: In 2008, 66 percent of young voters (18-29) voted for President Obama.  In 2010, without President Obama on the ticket, young voters favored the Democratic Party over the Republican Party, 54 to 40 percent. Clearly, the Republican Party could use some help with young voters.

Huntsman can provide this help. Even if he’s not the eventual candidate, he will make the group as a whole look less stodgy.  He’s only 51; he’s an avid outdoorsman and mountain biker; he spent a number of years in a rock band as an electric keyboardist; and it doesn’t hurt that he recently led South Carolina in its “kick ass” cheer at graduation.

Keeping It Calm: According to Time Magazine, Huntsman is one of the few politicians to possess the same cool demeanor as President Obama.  Added to this, Huntsman has already declared that insulting President Obama (or competing Republicans) will not factor largely (if at all) into his campaign.  Say what you will about the electoral efficacy of this strategy, but it will help the Republican contenders temper their collective image for the 82 percent of Americans who say they are “fed up with partisan bickering in Washington.”

Whether or not Jon Huntsman is the eventual Republican candidate, there’s strong reason to believe that by simply entering the race, he’s helping the party.