The Bain Analysis of Romney's Campaign

Romney

When Mitt Romney worked at Bain & Company, the consulting firm where he started his career, he was taught to examine companies in a particular manner. Bain consultants studied failing companies by accumulating a very large amount of data, and then formulated ideas for how improvements could be made. The consultants debated these ideas, always taking care to support their assertions with data. When Romney planned his run for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, he probably analyzed his failed 2008 run in much the same way that he had examined failed companies. Based on the changes Romney made in 2012, what lessons can we deduce he learned from 2008?

Romney has said that one of his lessons from 2008 was that people didn't have a clear idea of what his message was. In 2012, his basic campaign message was repeated over and over: The election is going to be about jobs and the economy, and his private-sector experience made him the most qualified to turn things around.

If you're going to make a pitch to voters, it's a good idea to make sure the voters know what the pitch is. Romney succeeded; some other candidates succeeded, while others failed. Jon Huntsman and Tim Pawlenty may have been the worst at defining a clear message for their campaigns. Rick Perry did a relatively poor job, and his message was quickly swallowed by his disastrous debate performances. Others, like Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, eventually defined themselves, but their messages were unattractive. Gingrich's pitch was that he was the best candidate to debate Barack Obama, but it turned out Gingrich wasn't that good at debates. Santorum wanted to focus on the family and values, but most voters weren't interested. Herman Cain succeeded at getting his "9-9-9" message out, but he went too far, defining himself too narrowly.

Another change Romney made in 2012 was to focus all of his attention on one early state, New Hampshire. In 2008, he spread his resources and attempted to land knock-out blows by doing well in Iowa and New Hampshire, as well as some later contests. Romney was able to get second place in both IA and NH, but it didn't do him much good. He concluded that taking first place was absolutely essential. Among IA, NH, and South Carolina, his choice was obvious: He had to stake everything on NH. He did put some last-minute resources into IA when the opportunity presented itself, but otherwise he ignored the state. It's no use spreading resources if you don't get any real credit for second place.

What about the manner in which Romney conducted his campaign? For those who followed both the 2008 and 2012 Republican primaries, it was apparent that Romney gave better debate performances during his second run. While it should be obvious that debates are important, Romney seems to have put in the extra effort. He may have taken a cue from 2008, when Mike Huckabee vaulted from polling near 0% to taking IA and nearly South Carolina and the nomination. Huckabee had no resources or name recognition, but he did very well in the debates. Others didn't take the debates so seriously: It's been reported that Perry spent almost no time preparing for them, and it showed.

In 2008, the various campaigns treated the primary season like an arms race, spending money long before voters even began paying attention. They had assumed that the primary season would last from early 2007 all the way through early 2008, and they didn't want to be left behind. But they misjudged the voters, most of whom didn't start following the race until 2008. Even the early-state voters didn't take notice until the autumn of 2007, and their engagement really ramped up only by December.

It appears Romney learned that lesson. Rather than blanketing the early states with ads at the beginning of 2011, he ramped up his efforts toward the end of 2011. Most telling was the fact that Romney didn't launch his deluge of negative ads (for which he had become infamous in 2008) until a couple weeks before the Iowa Caucus. He allowed Gingrich to get far ahead in the polls, and then viciously cut him down. By contrast, the Romney of 2008 attacked every candidate who got ahead of him even for a moment, and he made enemies. The Romney of 2012 was perfectly happy to see Cain or Ron Paul or Michele Bachmann do well for awhile, and if they fell of their own weight, he didn't make enemies of them.

The candidate who could have benefited the most from that lesson was Pawlenty. He spent more money than he took in, trying as hard as he could to get traction in early-to-mid 2011. The problem was that voters didn't even notice. Even worse, he spent large sums of money trying to win the Ames straw poll in August. When he failed to win, his campaign was in debt and he decided to drop out--a fatal mistake. Bachmann won Ames, but it turned out Ames didn't matter. In 2008, Romney also spent a lot of money to win the Ames straw poll, and it didn't do him any good, either.

It's conventional wisdom that Republicans always nominate the "next in line." They prefer to nominate the runner-up from the previous primary, it seems (Reagan, Bush Sr., Dole, McCain, Romney). But perhaps the real reason this occurs so frequently is that the candidates learn from the mistakes they made the first time around. In the future, candidates would do well to learn from the mistakes of past candidates, rather than spending time and money making them on their own.

Michele Bachmann Quits the Race

Bachmann

In the wake of her sixth-place finish in the Iowa Caucus, Michele Bachmann announced that she was withdrawing from the race. As with Herman Cain's departure, the technical term used is "suspending" her campaign, but it's safe to say she won't return. Bachmann had put all of her time and resources into competing in Iowa, which also happened to be the state of her birth. In August, Bachmann won the Ames straw poll. When the time came to vote, the only person she beat was Jon Huntsman, who was expressly not competing there.

Once again, this reinforces Iowa's non-wildcard history, which we examined back in June. Iowans may flirt with an outrageous candidate for awhile--in this case bringing her to the top of the polls in the summer and giving her the win in the Ames straw poll--but when voting day approaches, Iowans shift toward electable candidates.

Bachmann's inherent weaknesses as a candidate, particularly her lack of electability, doomed her campaign from the beginning. Her early feud with Sarah Palin didn't help matters. Elephant Watcher never gave Bachmann more than a 3% chance of winning the nomination, and set her to 0% about six weeks ago.

Bachmann's departure should give a slight boost to other Anti-Romney candidates by distributing her votes among them. However, Bachmann was already polling badly in the rest of the early states, so there are few votes to distribute.

Romney Wins Iowa Caucus, in Virtual Tie with Santorum

Mitt Romney won the Iowa Caucus on Tuesday, beating out Rick Santorum by a ludicrously narrow margin of 8 votes. Aside from Jon Huntsman, Santorum was the only candidate who never finished first in an Iowa poll. His late rise came at the last possible moment to give him a win--almost. At the final tally, Romney won 30,015 votes to Santorum's 30,007. The following are the vote percentages for each candidate:

Iowa Caucus Results
Romney -- 24.6%
Santorum -- 24.5%
Paul -- 21%
Gingrich -- 13%
Perry -- 10%
Bachmann -- 5%
Huntsman -- 1%

As Elephant Watcher predicted on Monday, Santorum's late momentum gave him the edge needed to outperform his polling and (almost) take first. For the past few weeks, Santorum had the distinction of being one of only three candidates in the race whom Elephant Watcher gave a greater than zero percent chance of winning the nomination. On Tuesday, he demonstrated why. From the start of the race, Santorum was nowhere in the polls--even in Iowa--and was written off by nearly everyone. However, the destruction of one Tea Party candidate after another left Santorum the most natural candidate for the role.

As explained in Monday's preview of Iowa, both Santorum and Romney will claim victory. Romney's campaign will say that he achieved a win in a fundamentally "anti-Romney" state and predict a win for Romney in New Hampshire. Santorum's near-tie will enable him to finally raise his profile elsewhere. Though he's hardly set foot outside of Iowa, he will be able to make the case that all of the anti-Romney voters should rally behind him. Elephant Watcher expects Santorum's numbers to rise nationally and in all of the early states.

The other winner of the night was the state of Iowa, which avoided disaster by not giving Ron Paul (or Michele Bachmann) a win. Back in June, we observed that the history of the Iowa Caucus shows the state is unfairly maligned as a breeding ground for "wildcard" candidates, and that the state's voters actually place a premium on traditional, electable candidates. Tonight's result, particularly with Romney getting first place, is another demonstration of that. Now perhaps the pundits will spare a few kind words about the sober-minded, moderate Iowa voters. However, the anti-Iowa sentiment will return in election cycles to come.

The big loser of the night is Newt Gingrich, who failed to outperform his declining poll numbers. Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann should also be disappointed, as they failed to catch up to Gingrich. New Hampshire's primary will take place next week, and Romney's remaining rivals can spend that time attacking Romney if they like, but afterward they will all need to battle Santorum in South Carolina for the title of chief Anti-Romney.

How did we get here, with Santorum coming from behind to (almost) squeak out a win? It was the first step of Santorum's "winning scenario," charted by Elephant Watcher, along with the rest of the candidates' winning scenarios, back in April:

Scenario: "The 7-10 Split"
Santorum raises his profile among social conservatives in Iowa by focusing on a controversial issue where few dare to tread. Few see Santorum as a threat. As time passes, it becomes increasingly clear that Iowa is hopelessly split among several different candidates. Despite a low vote total in absolute terms, Santorum pulls off an upset in Iowa. Somewhat befuddled, social conservatives and the Tea Party wing see little choice but to rally behind him after a "RINO" wins New Hampshire.

Now comes the real test for Santorum--whether the Tea Party is, in fact, willing to overlook the non-conservative aspects of Santorum's political past. If his conservative credentials are too tarnished by attacks against him, then Romney's electability (along with campaign infrastructure, establishment support, etc.) will easily trump him. In the meantime, Santorum will need to explain to conservative voters who have never heard of him why they should abandon the other Anti-Romneys and support him.

Tomorrow: The Iowa Caucus

On Tuesday, the voting finally begins. The political landscape in Iowa has been very fluid this season. If one includes non-runner Mike Huckabee, seven different candidates have led in the polls at various times: Huckabee, Romney, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, and Paul. And Santorum has come close. It's the complete opposite of New Hampshire, where Mitt Romney has led in every single poll conducted. With one day to go, Iowa is still fluid: Three candidates are in a near-tie in the final polling:

Iowa Caucus
01/01 PPP (D) -- Paul 20, Romney 19, Santorum 18, Gingrich 14
01/01 Insider Adv -- Romney 23, Paul 22, Santorum 18, Gingrich 16
12/30 Des Moines Reg -- Romney 24, Paul 22, Santorum 15, Gingrich 12
12/29 WeAskAmerica -- Romney 24, Santorum 17, Paul 14, Gingrich 13
12/28 NBC/Marist -- Romney 23, Paul 21, Santorum 15, Perry 14
12/28 ARG -- Romney 22, Gingrich 17, Paul 17, Santorum 11
12/28 Rasmussen -- Romney 23, Paul 22, Santorum 16, Gingrich 13
12/28 Insider Adv -- Romney 17, Paul 17, Gingrich 17, Santorum 13
12/27 CNN/Time -- Romney 25, Paul 22, Santorum 16, Gingrich 14
12/27 PPP (D) -- Paul 24, Romney 20, Gingrich 13, Bachmann 11

It's impossible to say for certain who the winner will be. Romney has a very slight lead in most of the polls, has organization, and has the best electability argument. Ron Paul is close behind, and his supporters are intense. Rick Santorum is in third, but has the late momentum and is the most likely to benefit from the coalescing of low-polling Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann. Despite trailing by a few points, Santorum may actually have the edge.

Taking first in Iowa would be a boost for any of the three leading candidates. The size of the boost usually depends on whether the candidate exceeded expectations, and the size of the margin of victory. In this case, no one knows which candidate will win. The only expectation is that it will be close.

In one sense, Santorum is likely to benefit even if he doesn't take first place: He's ahead of other Anti-Romneys like Gingrich, Perry, and Bachmann. He'll have an argument to stay in the race. Ron Paul is going to stay in the race no matter what, and a victory for him would only serve to de-legitimize the Iowa Caucus.

Romney's team will have the most flexible spin on the results. Romney carefully avoided expending too many resources in Iowa, because he wanted to keep expectations low. But he also spent enough to make it possible to win. Obviously a win in Iowa would be an enormous boost to the idea that Romney is the frontrunner. A second-place finish, especially if it's close, would also be taken as a win. If Santorum wins, Romney's campaign would argue something to the effect of, "Iowa is an Evangelical state, and the Evangelical candidate only barely beat Romney." If Paul wins, Romney's campaign would argue that Romney was the highest-ranking sane candidate, and that Iowans should be disregarded. A third place finish behind both Santorum and Paul would be disappointing, but if Paul is close to winning, that fact would be used to attack Iowa's credibility.

Among the lower-tier, it will also be competitive: Bachmann wants to beat Perry to claim her status as the chief Tea Partier. Perry wants to avoid that, and would like to beat Gingrich to claim his status as the chief Southerner to compete in South Carolina.

Iowa Remains Divided

The Iowa Caucus is imminent: Voting takes place in less than two weeks. Iowans have had plenty of time to rally around a single candidate. They could have united behind the overall Republican frontrunner, Mitt Romney. If they found Romney unacceptable, they could have united behind a single Anti-Romney, selecting the one they felt was the strongest of the remaining candidates. In 2008, Iowans did precisely that, and they gave Mike Huckabee a big win over Romney. This time, Iowa is divided.

A group of influential Evangelical leaders met in Iowa in an attempt to decide which candidate they would unite behind; they ultimately did not endorse a single candidate. The picture was different four years ago when Huckabee was the obvious choice. Back then, Romney had been leading the polls in Iowa for months--then Huckabee went from a low-polling candidate (like Rick Santorum has been this year) to a mid-level candidate in October. Once Huckabee was a realistic choice, his numbers exploded in the "Huckaboom," launching him past Romney by the end of November. It became a two-man race in Iowa, and Huckabee's lead expanded to double-digits in some polls by mid-December.

In mid-December 2007, Romney unleashed a torrent of attack ads against Huckabee--much as he did against Newt Gingrich in mid-December 2011. Huckabee's numbers dipped, and Romney retook a slight lead in some polls by the end of December. But unlike Gingrich, Huckabee never fell too far, staying around 30%. He recovered, the polls favored him again, and he won Iowa 34% to Romney's 25%.

This time around, Gingrich looked to become the Anti-Romney, but his poll numbers fell from an average of 30 to an average of 15, placing him behind both Romney and Ron Paul. Conservative, mostly Evangelical Anti-Romney forces in Iowa have gravitated to a number of other candidates: Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum are all polling around 10 points each. If the voters supporting those three plus Gingrich concentrated around one candidate, as they did with Huckabee in 2008, Romney would be finished in Iowa.

Why the disunity? As with the Republican field in general, each of the Anti-Romney candidates is flawed. And each one appeals to a different segment of the Evangelical Anti-Romney bloc. For those who care little about electability, Bachmann is a pure policy conservative. For those who demand an established, well-funded, experienced candidate, Perry is the obvious choice. For those spooked by electability concerns and bad debate performances from the previous two, Santorum makes sense. For those who think Santorum just can't win because he's a low-polling nobody, Gingrich is the one with the best chance of out-polling Romney. But Gingrich is ill-suited to play the role of an Evangelical conservative, aside from the fact that his name is not Mitt Romney.

What if Huckabee had run for president again this year? Probably all four of those groups would have lined up behind him, and winning Iowa would have been a breeze. But Huckabee didn't run, so Iowa is divided. Ordinarily, low-polling candidates will lose all support at the very end, as voters strategically coalesce. This year, however, the four Anti-Romneys are each polling just high enough to survive.

Why Do Candidates Keep Crashing?

The 2012 Republican presidential primary season has been a rollercoaster, with seemingly each month bringing a new candidate to the top of the polls--only to crash a few weeks later. First, in April, it was Donald Trump. During the summer, Michele Bachmann experienced a brief moment in the sun (though only in Iowa). Rick Perry topped the polls in August and found his way back down by the end of September. Herman Cain rose in his place, but by the end of November he was a spent force. In the meantime, Newt Gingrich rose to heights not even reached by Perry, only to find his lead rapidly diminishing in mid-December.

Presidential primaries often feature ups and downs, and comeback stories are not infrequent. But the phenomenon is unusually pronounced this season. What's the reason? There are two basic factors at work: The field's lack of an "acceptable" nominee, and the way voters react to new candidates.

First we will consider the way Republican primary voters tend to greet candidates with whom they are not very familiar. Voters seem to make positive assumptions about their candidates. Simply by virtue of a candidate's presence on the stage, voters assume that the candidate--barring evidence to the contrary--is a "legitimate" one. A proper Republican candidate is both conservative and electable, and voters presume that anyone on the stage possesses both qualities.

In fact, it seems that voters are very optimistic in their assumptions. While virtually all Republican officeholders have taken a few positions that aren't conservative, voters have an "innocent until proven guilty" approach: The candidate has never strayed from conservatism. It's up to the media and the other candidates to prove otherwise. Similarly, a candidate is presumed electable.

The reality is far different. Trump was neither conservative nor electable, Bachmann was unelectable, Perry had holes in his conservatism and proved more incapable in debates than anyone could have imagined, Cain was so unelectable that he had to quit, and Gingrich is vulnerable on both attributes. Once each of these candidates got high enough in the polls, the media and other candidates illuminated the voters.

By contrast, Mitt Romney's numbers have been remarkably steady over the course of the primary. That's because voters already got to know him during the 2008 primary. If there's something you don't like about Romney, you probably knew about it before the 2012 primary began--you didn't hear about it for the first time this year in a negative ad.

The second factor has to do with the current crop of candidates. As Elephant Watcher observed at the beginning of the primary season, there is a void in the field: No single candidate is capable of both exciting the Tea Party wing and pleasing the establishment wing of the Republican Party. Chris Christie was capable of doing both, but he declined to run. Mitch Daniels and Tim Pawlenty were capable of at least being acceptable to both wings of the Party, but Daniels declined to run and Pawlenty quit prematurely.

The result is that there is no "acceptable" candidate in the field. This means each time a frontrunner came under attack, the voters could learn something that made the candidate unacceptable, and the candidate's poll numbers took a nosedive. If there was a broadly acceptable candidate, he would have survived the vetting process and remained in the lead. This season, that couldn't occur.

Once a candidate wins enough state contests and clinches the nomination, Republicans are likely to put aside their doubts and rally around the candidate. But that won't happen while it's still time for the voters to shop.

Who Won the Republican Debate on December 15th?

Tonight's debate had no especially memorable soundbites or gaffes. The candidates largely avoided attacking each other, with the exception of some extended duels between Michele Bachmann and Newt Gingrich, and when various candidates criticized Ron Paul's foreign policy. Gingrich did well on many occasions, but he took heat from Bachmann on the millions Gingrich made from Freddie Mac.

Mitt Romney changed his strategy for the debate: He chose not to go on the offensive against Gingrich. Instead, Romney directed his energy toward bolstering his economic credentials and attacking Barack Obama. Apparently Romney is pleased by the effect his negative ads have had against Gingrich, so rather than taking on Gingrich during debates (where Gingrich is strong), Romney focused on building himself up.

Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, and Jon Huntsman were irrelevant during the debate. Surprisingly, Perry didn't attack Romney or Gingrich. Bachmann, on the other hand, was on the attack constantly. She gained plenty of airtime by going one-on-one against Gingrich on both Freddie Mac and partial-birth abortion. Gingrich didn't bleed when he was bitten, but his answers on Freddie Mac were unconvincing. Bachmann probably scored more points by attacking Paul after Paul emphasized his lack of concern over Iranian nuclear weapons.

What was the result? Gingrich and Romney both did well; Gingrich had some difficulty handling Bachmann's attacks but also threw plenty of red meat to the base. There was no clear winner. However, the bigger picture is that the debates have been Gingrich's turf, while Romney's advantage has been with TV ads, campaign infrastructure, and establishment support, all of which have hurt Gingrich. Therefore, one might say that Gingrich needs to be a clear winner in the debates in order to keep up with Romney--especially if Romney is not hurt during a debate. As for the minor candidates, Paul's remarks on foreign policy may hurt him, and Bachmann might siphon a few votes from Gingrich.

Who Won the Republican Debate on December 10th?

If Newt Gingrich's rivals hoped to crush him during tonight's debate, they did not succeed. Gingrich was finally criticized and challenged during this debate, and he repelled the attacks ably. In some one-on-one exchanges, Mitt Romney had the edge over Gingrich. If the race becomes an extended two-man fight between the two, Romney may have the advantage in one-on-one debates. For now, however, the debates are clearly not going to destroy Gingrich's momentum.

Michele Bachmann likely benefited from extra air time, as she always seemed to be in the middle of an attack against another candidate. Bachmann took over Herman Cain's role as the representative of the Tea Party.

The biggest loser of the night was Jon Huntsman, who was not even invited to the debate. Earlier this year, we answered the question of how they decide who gets invited to debates. The invitations are based on poll numbers, and Huntsman didn't meet the new threshold. After all these months, Huntsman has not been able to get his poll numbers high enough to remain on stage--even Rick Santorum is polling better. It's impossible for a candidate to compete under those conditions, so Huntsman is finished.

As for specifics, one moment that will probably get some media attention was when Rick Perry challenged Romney on the issue of Romneycare. Although one might expect all the candidates to team up against Gingrich--who is heavily favored in the polls--Perry acted as though it were the middle of September, attacking Romney. During a dispute about what Romney wrote about the individual mandate in his book, Romney challenged Perry by asking if he would bet $10,000 on it. Perry hesitated, and Romney claimed victory. Since one of Romney's vulnerabilities is being seen as too wealthy and out of touch with regular Americans, it was a definite gaffe.

Romney performed better in his exchanges with Gingrich; Romney managed to criticize Gingrich and some of Gingrich's odd ideas (like a lunar base) without appearing negative. In response, Gingrich went negative against Romney and was booed by the audience. Perhaps the best illustration of the contrast between the two men was the issue of Gingrich's controversial remark about the Palestinians being "an invented people." Romney emphasized that he was the more sober candidate, while Gingrich claimed to be someone who would tell the truth even if it "caused some confusion."

The debate moderators decided to ask each of the candidates about marital fidelity. Obviously this was aimed at Gingrich's multiple affairs and failed marriages. The other candidates emphasized the importance of faithfulness. Gingrich's turn came last, and he gave a good answer about finding redemption for his past mistakes.

The media's conclusion is likely to be that Gingrich's rivals failed to deliver a "knock-out punch" against Gingrich. Clearly, Gingrich's opponents will need to find another way to tear his candidacy down if they intend to defeat him.

Republican Primary Debate Tomorrow on CBS

Just a few days after their last appearance, the Republican candidates will return to the debate stage tomorrow evening. The debate will be sponsored by CBS and will air on the network at 8:00pm Eastern. The candidates will get a reprieve after that--the next debate shouldn't take place for another couple weeks.

As with the two closely-scheduled debates in October, tomorrow's debate will serve as a rematch. Rick Perry will desperately want to rehabilitate himself after his disastrous performance at the Republican debate on November the ninth. Herman Cain will probably face questions about his sexual harassment scandal again. And the minor candidates will have a chance to rethink their strategy of not challenging the frontrunners.

Perry will probably have some prepared joke about his gaffe at the last debate. But there is no recovering from the mistake he made. Perry's only hope is to fly under the radar and hope the frontrunners destroy themselves. He could try criticizing the candidates who lead him in the polls, but he may as well avoid embarrassing himself.

Newt Gingrich has advanced toward the top tier, but he is not there yet; the polls show Cain and Mitt Romney with a comfortable lead over Gingrich. To break through, Gingrich needs to challenge one or both of them. While he has gotten applause in the past by attacking the debate moderators, the act is wearing thin. He risks getting a reputation for needless grouchiness.

As for Cain, the debate moderators have their work cut out for them. Since the sexual harassment scandal has been the biggest news of the month, they have a journalistic responsibility to ask him about it. But the moderators at the last debate were shouted down by the crowd. The moderators will need to find some clever new approach. It's difficult to imagine the audience behaving any differently than they did at the last debate, however. If they really want to take Cain down a peg, they should ask him about subjects he's unfamiliar with--almost everything other than "9-9-9." Speaking of which, Cain's charisma has carried him thus far, but he must avoid answering every question with a reference to his "9-9-9" plan.

There is little incentive for Romney to attack Cain or Gingrich. He should attempt to appear presidential, no matter how much he is challenged. With any luck, he will be able to avoid drawing fire: Both Cain and Gingrich dislike going on the offensive, and the rest of the field (barring Jon Huntsman) needs to take votes from Cain to win Iowa.

Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum need to do what they have thus far failed even to attempt: attack Cain's conservative credentials. They criticized Cain's "9-9-9" plan in October, but they never questioned whether Cain is the true, pure conservative that the Tea Party demands. They won't beat Cain on charisma, and Bachmann certainly can't beat Cain on electability. Santorum would have difficulty making the electability case, since Tea Partiers have rejected the concept so far (otherwise they wouldn't be supporting Cain). The only remaining option is to prove that Cain is not a true Tea Partier. As time goes on, that's a more difficult sell. It's easier to attack Gingrich on that score, but leapfrogging him almost seems pointless. Time is running out, and they need to eliminate Cain sooner rather than later.

2012 Republican Primary in Review: October 2011

Each month, Elephant Watcher recaps the activity that occurred in the Republican primary during the previous month. Follow these links to read earlier recaps: May, June, July, August, September.

Some very important developments took place at the very beginning of October. First, the field became completely settled as the remaining potential candidates announced they would not run: Chris Christie on October 4th and Sarah Palin on the 5th. Second, the Republican Party in Florida broke the national Republican Party's rules by pushing its primary up to January 31st. This caused all of the early primary states to push their dates forward as well. The result was that an entire month of the pre-Iowa primary season was eliminated. Instead of October opening with four months until Iowa, it was down to three.

The most important development that took place at the beginning of the month was that Christie officially declared he would not run. This shifted the entire balance of the race. Christie was the candidate most likely to win, since he had the unique ability to attract both establishment Republicans and Tea Partiers. Rather than entering the race and filling the vacuum, Christie's refusal to run made the void permanent: Republicans would never be satisfied with the field for 2012. Instead, they would search for the "least bad option."

But Christie was also the final obstacle in Mitt Romney's path to win the nomination. Mike Huckabee promised a populist, Southern, Evangelical alternative to Romney, but he did not run. Mitch Daniels and Tim Pawlenty both had the ability to serve as conservative "consensus candidates" who could satisfy (if not excite) both wings of the Republican Party. Daniels didn't run, and Pawlenty left the race prematurely. With Christie out, there were no longer any highly electable candidates in the race besides Romney (and Jon Huntsman, perpetually left in Romney's shadow).

With Romney a lock to win New Hampshire and the establishment wing of the Party, and with the rest of the field either unelectable or lacking conservative credentials of their own, Romney was set to win by default. On October 5th, Elephant Watcher was able to project that Mitt Romney would win the Republican 2012 presidential nomination.

The rest of October was marked by the continued slide of Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann, and the rise of Herman Cain. Perry, who had led the polls just a month earlier, sunk to fourth, fifth, and even sixth place in Iowa polls. Bachmann, who led during the summer, was essentially tied with Perry in single-digits in the state. But Cain rose to the top of both the Iowa polls and national primary polls.

Perry and Bachmann's crash also created an opening for Romney, who led or tied with Cain in later Iowa polls. Before October, Romney placed all of his resources in New Hampshire. Now, Romney's 2008 dream of a knocking out his competitors with a one-two punch in Iowa and New Hampshire looks like a realistic possibility--perhaps even a probability.

The two debates in October cemented Bachmann and Perry's status as second-tier candidates. Cain and Romney were resilient. But by the end of October, Cain was beginning to show signs of weakness. Unlike Romney and the previously-crashed candidates, Cain had never been challenged or vetted in any way. Under heavier scrutiny, Cain made a series of low-impact gaffes. His "9-9-9" tax plan became less popular the more people looked into it, prompting Cain to rethink the idea. And as October came to a close, a sexual harassment scandal from Cain's past came to light, with inconclusive results. Anti-Romney voters already cast about once more for alternatives, like Newt Gingrich, who was rising but still low in the polls.

In summary, October was the month in which Romney--lucky so far--saw his path to the nomination open completely. Since voters will become even more focused on electability as Iowa approaches, and since there are no conservative alternatives who are highly electable, Romney has likely triumphed. The nomination is his to lose. Elephant Watcher calculates that Romney's odds of winning the Republican nomination are currently 65%.

How Did Michele Bachmann's Campaign Collapse?

Bachmann

In a recent post, we considered Rick Perry's terrible poll numbers: Perry is in third, fourth, or fifth even in his strongest states, and he has failed to take second in any recent poll. If Perry's numbers are terrible, then Michele Bachmann's are abysmal. Bachmann is currently in sixth in many polls. Even in her one "good" state--Iowa, where she has pinned all her hopes--she is in fifth. She has only managed to get to fourth place in one recent Iowa poll.

That's quite a collapse for Bachmann. During the summer, she was in first place in most Iowa polls. After Perry entered the race, she was still running second for a few weeks. Elephant Watcher has always voiced skepticism concerning Bachmann's campaign: She has never been given above a three percent chance of winning the nomination, and she is currently rated at 1%. Still, what happened to Bachmann?

Bachmann's central liability is the fact that she is considered unelectable. She has never won state-wide office and is prone to gaffes. Her reputation among independent voters is that of an extremist or a laughing stock. Her central asset is the purity of her conservative record. As for rhetorical skill, she is weak. What this adds up to is a candidate who can be easily cast aside and replaced if another conservative comes along who is either electable or rhetorically gifted.

Perry greatly assisted in the downfall of Bachmann. Before the attacks on his conservative credentials began in the September debates, he was viewed as an electable alternative to Bachmann. As soon as Perry entered the race in August, Bachmann's supporters immediately jumped ship. During September, Perry began to fall due to attacks against his conservatism and electability. But the former Bachmann supporters didn't jump back. By that point, their attention was already shifting to Herman Cain.

Cain, like Bachmann, is considered unelectable. But unlike Bachmann, Cain possesses charisma. Among the original Bachmann supporters, some wanted a more electable candidate, and they went to Perry. The rest, who demanded ideological purity, went to Cain. Since no one had yet attacked Cain's conservatism, voters assumed Cain was simply a charismatic version of Bachmann.

Meanwhile, perhaps a slice of Bachmann's former support went over to Newt Gingrich. Since he is neither viewed as ideologically pure or highly electable, we might suppose that he simply represents another "not Mitt Romney" figure. At the same time, voters experiencing an early "strategic shift" (putting the desire to defeat Barack Obama above all else) went to Mitt Romney.

If you want someone ideologically pure, you go to charismatic Cain (until someone attacks his conservatism, that is). If you want someone mostly conservative with more credentials than Bachmann, you go to Perry. If you want someone who can beat Obama, you go to Romney. If you're too disgusted by Romney's flip-flops to go to him (yet), you go to Gingrich. Bachmann has thus been squeezed out entirely.

Who Won the Republican Debate on October 18th?

Tonight's debate will likely reinforce Mitt Romney's status as the frontrunner in the 2012 Republican presidential primary. His closest competitor in the current polls, Herman Cain, was under heavy fire for his "9-9-9" tax plan. Being attacked for the first time, Cain seemed to lose his spark of charisma during the debate. Rick Perry continues to have difficulty articulating his thoughts, and he unwisely engaged in petty personal attacks against Romney. As Elephant Watcher observed yesterday, Perry should be focusing on his real competitor in Iowa and South Carolina: Herman Cain. Perry did himself no favors. Although Romney showed real annoyance (with Perry) for the first time, and although Romney took some heat, he generally remained calm and in control. If Republican voters want to choose the most "presidential" candidate, they will have no other choice than Romney.

The debate opened by asking every candidate to explain what they did not like about Herman Cain's "9-9-9" tax plan. The response was a difficult test for Cain: Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and even Rick Perry, Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney attacked his plan. Clearly they all view Cain as a larger threat, thanks to Cain's performance in recent polls. Cain attempted to address their concerns (about the national sales tax component of the plan), but was overwhelmed. The candidates did damage to Cain right out of the gate.

Next, for the seventh time, Romney was attacked on Romneycare. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich brought some new attacks against Romneycare, based on the failings of the Massachusetts plan. Romney emerged from the exchanges with confidence, though he did not do as good a job drawing distinctions between Romneycare and Obamacare. Perhaps he has done it in so many previous debates that he felt the need to avoid being repetitive. This was a mistake; many viewers simply have not watched previous debates. Romney acquitted himself well, but he took some heat. This was yet another example of how Romney's refusal to disavow Romneycare is a gift that keeps on giving for his opponents.

The debate got very heated when the subject turned to illegal immigration. Perry, still apparently believing that he is competing in the first tier, issued personal attacks against Romney. Perry accused Romney of being soft on illegal immigration by hiring illegal immigrants; it was the same negative attack (referring to a lawn mowing company) that failed to work for Rudy Giuliani when he tried it four years ago. Romney responded well, but was clearly annoyed by Perry's insistence on interrupting him. It was probably the most contentious moment of any debate so far. The audience, a very pro-Romney crowd from Nevada, agreed with Romney. Later in the debate, Perry brought up the issue yet again, and was booed by the audience.

Michele Bachmann remained tangential to the debate. For example, after the heated illegal immigration exchange between Romney and Perry, Bachmann claimed that the person who had real troubles was Barack Obama, because his aunt and uncle are illegal immigrants.

The Nevada crowd received plenty of pandering by the candidates on the issue of Yucca Mountain, a potential respository for nuclear waste. Nevadans oppose having nuclear waste at the site. Ron Paul, Perry, and Romney agreed. Romney did the best pandering, however.

Throughout the debate, Rick Santorum stuck to his theme of faith and family. He is waiting to pick up the pieces of the Evangelical vote in Iowa, whenever it might become available. Ron Paul was more rational in this debate (by his own standards), and was repeatedly applauded for his statements on the economy. The other candidates ignored him. Newt Gingrich did well and received plenty of applause, but once again he refused to tangle with the candidates who are ahead of him in the polls.

Jon Huntsman, so often invisible, was literally impossible to see tonight: He boycotted the debate. He was not mentioned by anyone, including the debate moderator, who let his absence go without comment.

Can Herman Cain Really Win the Republican Nomination?

Cain

Herman Cain has enjoyed a sudden spike in his poll numbers, both in national primary polls and some early primary state polls (in Iowa, South Carolina, and Florida). But Cain's higher poll numbers have not been matched by a corresponding increase in Elephant Watcher's calculation of Cain's odds of winning the Republican nomination. Though Cain's odds may increase in future recalculations, he is still low, at 4%. Why is Cain unlikely to win, and why do his poll numbers overstate his support?

Cain is the latest in a long series of candidates whose poll numbers spiked, only to crash later. In April, Elephant Watcher explained why Donald Trump was unlikely to win despite polling well. A few months after Trump's crash, Michele Bachmann rose in the polls. Elephant Watcher then explained why Bachmann is unlikely to win. A few months later, Bachmann's numbers crashed in the face of a rising Rick Perry. Elephant Watcher responded by explaining why Perry is unlikely to win. Perry's numbers have crashed, and his support has gone to Cain. Now it's Cain's turn to be examined.

As with other candidates, Cain has been given a media honeymoon. Unlike Mitt Romney, whose flaws everyone is aware of, Cain is largely an unknown. He has received attention because of his charisma, but most voters haven't considered the disadvantages to nominating him. Until now, most haven't considered Cain a serious candidate. Now, by virtue of his poll numbers, he is. As time goes on, the media scrutiny will intensify.

Similarly, other candidates have felt little need to attack Cain, because they didn't consider him a real competitor. They were more afraid of alienating voters by unnecessarily attacking Cain. With Cain leading Bachmann and Perry in both national and early state polls, that will change. Perry has always considered Romney to be his chief opponent, and has spent millions of dollars on attack ads. Can Perry continue that strategy when Cain is taking away all his votes?

The authenticity of Cain's conservatism is untested. Voters have assumed that he is as conservative as it gets; he is a Tea Party favorite, after all. Once Cain's opponents research him, they may find that Cain, like every other candidate in the field (except perhaps Bachmann), has taken some very un-conservative positions over the years. And since Cain's electability is already doubtful, he could find himself in the same two-front war that destroyed Perry last month.

Cain is also prone to gaffes. Since Cain has never held elective office and is essentially brand new to politics, he tends to be less informed about various issues than, for example, Romney is. Earlier this year, Cain made a series of gaffes that helped enable Bachmann to take (temporarily) his Tea Party voters. At the moment, debate moderators, interviewers, and Cain's opponents seem more comfortable attacking his "9-9-9" tax plan. The trouble with that course is that Cain is familiar with his own tax plan, just as Mike Huckabee was comfortable fielding attacks against his religion in 2007-08. When Cain is asked about more obscure matters, he is likely to falter. On the other hand, his "9-9-9" plan is certainly open to attack, especially the sales tax component.

Cain will suffer in the coming months due to what we call the "strategic shift." As voting day approaches, voters become more strategic in their thinking. They put aside hopes of electing the candidate they like best, and they focus more on choosing a candidate who can win a general election. Unfortunately for Cain, his main rival will be Romney, who is perceived as highly electable. Cain is perceived as unelectable. The strategic shift will be punishing. If Cain were to win Iowa, it would spark a panic among Republicans who want to beat Barack Obama. They will flock to Romney.

Who Won the Republican Debate on October 11th?

Who won the latest Republican debate? Going into the debate, Mitt Romney was the frontrunner. After the debate, he remains the frontrunner. Of all the candidates, Romney appeared the most presidential. He is becoming increasingly skilled in debates. Other candidates attempted to challenge Romney on a number of occasions, but he used them as opportunities to promote his candidacy. In some ways, Herman Cain was in the center of the debate. The crowd enjoyed Cain, but he runs the risk of becoming a one-note candidate, known only for his "9-9-9" plan. As for Rick Perry, he was not harmed as he was in previous debates, but he was flat. He seemed afraid of hurting himself. Romney and Cain were comfortable.

The Republican debate this evening had an unusual format. Rather than having each candidate at his own podium, as in all the previous debates, the candidates were seated at one big table. In the past, this format has been known to encourage the candidates to be a bit more civil. For some reason, candidates are less comfortable attacking each other when seated together.

For the first half of the debate, the candidates were indeed fairly civil. They used their responses to go into in-depth discussions of the issues, rather than attack each other. For the first half, there were none of the extended duels that we saw in the September debates (especially between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry).

During the second half of the debate, another unusual debate format was implemented: The candidates were instructed to ask questions of each other, rather than answer questions from the debate moderators. This gave the candidates an opportunity to attack each other.

Several candidates did decide Herman Cain was enough of a threat to attack him. Specifically, they criticized his "9-9-9" plan, saying it is impractical and unlikely to pass Congress. Rick Santorum sarcastically asked the audience whether they would approve of the sales tax portion. Santorum also attacked Cain for lacking experience. Michele Bachmann, odd as ever, made a "number of the beast" reference, noting that the plan is "6-6-6" if turned upside-down.

Though Cain's "9-9-9" plan was criticized, he stood firm. The crowd clearly enjoyed Cain's answers. Unfortunately for Perry, they enjoyed Cain much more than him. Perry missed an opportunity to hurt Cain, who is increasingly climbing in the polls in Perry's states. Ron Paul, being Ron Paul, only participated in a sideshow by attacking Cain for being connected to the Federal Reserve. But perhaps Cain hurt himself the most: Though everyone is now familiar with his plan, Cain runs the risk of becoming a one-note candidate.

Michele Bachmann savaged Rick Perry by questioning him about his lack of conservatism, particularly on spending. Most of the candidates attempted to attack Romney. But Romney was able to use these questions as opportunities to outline his economic plans. For the sixth debate in a row, Romney was asked about Romneycare (this time by Perry). Once more, Romney easily swatted away the question by distinguishing Romneycare from Obamacare--this time referring to Chris Christie's defense of Romney.

Romney did particularly well in answering Jon Huntsman's question about Bain Capital, a company criticized for laying off workers. Romney explained that Bain started many businesses, and he named several of them, including some large businesses like Staples.

Romney was the only candidate to use a clever tactic: Instead of attempting to harm a candidate with a question, he sent an open-ended softball question to Michele Bachmann. Romney obviously hopes to attack Perry by helping Bachmann. Romney's strategy allowed him to avoid looking contentious while also denying Perry a chance to speak.

In general, the minor candidates--except for Cain, if he can still be considered a minor candidate--did not have much opportunity to break out from the pack. Romney was the clear winner of the debate. While Perry did not harm himself, he was unable to do damage to his competitors. Perry is behind and is not catching up.

Mitt Romney Leads the Polls; Herman Cain Rises

With the September debates well behind us and the October debates to begin fairly soon, it's time for another look at the recent polls, including national primary polls and early state polls. Whenever possible, it's best to review polling data in groups rather than putting too much stock in each new poll. Individual polls can be--and often are--flawed. But if all the polls say the same thing, there's probably something to it.

There has been little polling in the early states, but several national polls have been conducted recently. Here's what the polls say:

National Primary Polls
10/04 Pew Research -- Romney 22, Perry 17, Cain 13, Paul 12
10/03 Quinnipiac -- Romney 22, Cain 17, Perry 14, Gingrich 8
10/02 ABC/Wash Post -- Romney 25, Cain 17, Perry 17, Gingrich 9
10/02 CBS News -- Romney 17, Cain 17, Perry 12, Gingrich 8
09/27 Fox News -- Romney 23, Perry 19, Cain 17, Gingrich 11

Iowa Caucus
09/27 ARG -- Romney 21, Bachmann 15, Perry 14, Paul 12

New Hampshire Primary
10/06 UNH/WMUR -- Romney 37, Cain 12, Paul 9, Giuliani 8

Florida Primary
09/27 SurveyUSA -- Romney 27, Cain 25, Perry 13, Gingrich 6

The first thing that should stand out is the fact that Mitt Romney is leading in every single poll, both national and state-by-state, including the Iowa poll. That feat might have been more difficult to pull off if South Carolina had been polled recently, as Romney tends not to do as well there. In one poll (the national CBS News one), Herman Cain is tied with Romney for first. That's the outlier of the bunch.

It's obvious that the Romney camp should be happy. About a month and a half ago, Rick Perry led in the Republican primary polls, at least the national ones. Now Romney is back on top. Leading in Iowa should be particularly encouraging--though it's only one poll--because if Romney takes Iowa, the race is over.

On the other hand, Romney's lead is quite small. Aside from the New Hampshire poll, Romney leads by no more than a handful of points. Moreover, putting the NH poll aside again, Romney has a ceiling of 27 points. Nationally, he tends to poll in the low 20s. That's not where a strong frontrunner polls.

Even so, Romney's position is even stronger than the polls indicate. In explaining who will win the Republican primary in 2012, we noted that voters make their strategic shift only in the weeks before the votes are cast. Romney's chief virtue is his high perceived electability. Thus, it's only in the future that voters will be saying "I just want someone who can beat Barack Obama, so I'll support Romney." Until then, voters will consider unelectable candidates. Romney's poll numbers are likely to spike in December.

There are other interesting tidbits to be gleaned from the latest polls: Rick Perry is certainly down, and Herman Cain has gone up dramatically. It seems most of Perry's support has gone to Cain, as opposed to Romney or Michele Bachmann. Since Bachmann is gunning for the same voters as Perry, that's a terrible sign for Bachmann. Whether Cain can hold onto his numbers will be the subject of a future post.

Not to be missed is the fact that Newt Gingrich is pulling into fourth place. Partly he benefits from high name recognition, but it also has to do with his debate performances. Voters have negative memories of Gingrich, and they like him better on stage. They have essentially been reintroduced to him. Unfortunately for Gingrich, he is a distant fourth, and he has no early state in which to play. But at least he's better off than Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman, who so far are nowhere to be seen. As for Michele Bachmann, these are truly awful numbers.

Intrade Odds: Mitt Romney Dominates the Competition

Now that Chris Christie and Sarah Palin have finally departed, it's time for another look at the Intrade odds. It has been just over two weeks since the Republican primary debate on September 22nd, after which Rick Perry suffered a tremendous loss in support. There has been ample time for that development to sink in for the Intrade market on the 2012 Republican nomination.

Mitt Romney's lead has grown, especially since Christie's odds vaporized. Romney has climbed to 61.5%. That's more than double what he had prior to the September debates, and actually much higher than any candidate--including Romney himself--posted earlier this year. Before now, frontrunners tended to top out at about 40%.

Intrade investors have experienced no second thoughts about Perry's decline. In fact, Perry's support has eroded several more points since last time we checked: Perry is down to 19.1%. Thus, Romney has more than triple the odds of his nearest competitor. Interestingly, the Intrade odds on the nomination are beginning to look much more like Elephant Watcher's assessment of the odds of each candidate winning the Republican primary.

In third place, Herman Cain has 7.0%, and everyone else is under 5%. Cain has benefited from some good polling recently, but Intrade investors are clearly skeptical about his chances. They still perceive Perry to be in second place. Michele Bachmann is far behind at 1.4%. The investors have little faith in Rick Santorum's ability to break out of the pack: He's at 0.5%. This reflects the Intrade markets' emphasis on polling data. Santorum may have gotten some attention at recent debates, but his poll numbers have gone nowhere--yet.

Finally, a shift has occurred for the first time in the Intrade markets on the individual state contests. In the Iowa Intrade market, Perry's advantage has shrunk to 41% over Romney's 27%. Bachmann, who once dominated the Iowa polls, is down to 18%. Cain has only an 11% chance, which clearly reflects some error in the Intrade market. If Cain has a 7% chance of winning the nomination, surely he should have greater than an 11% chance of winning Iowa, which would be crucial for him?

The New Hampshire Intrade market has Romney dominating with nearly an 80% chance to win. No one else is even in double-digits there.

The news is much better for Perry in the South Carolina Intrade market, where he is given 71% to Romney's 30%. There's also evidence of market inefficiency here, as Cain is given only 12.5%. (The total figures don't always add up to 100% due to the difference between buy and sell orders on low-volume markets.)

The Florida Intrade market is interesting. It has Perry and Romney tied at about 40% each. Florida often serves as a tie-breaker, and surely if Romney had as great a chance at winning the nomination as Intrade believes, Romney ought to be the favorite in Florida. The latest Florida primary polls also show Romney ahead. The Intrade market may reflect an assumption that Perry has an advantage in a Southern state, and perhaps that Romney would prevail in a drawn-out contest, even if Perry wins the tie-breaker.

2012 Republican Primary in Review: September 2011

Each month, Elephant Watcher recaps the activity that occurred in the Republican primary during the previous month. Follow these links to read earlier recaps: May, June, July, August.

September marked the beginning of Phase Three of the Republican primary. From this point forward, the candidates had a real chance to speak with the voters in early primary states, who had just begun to pay attention. Primary debates, which had taken place only intermittently during the earlier phases of the campaign, dominated the timeline. There were three debates scheduled in September, and the candidates would be put to the test.

Rick Perry started the month in a fairly strong position. He was the frontrunner in all of the national primary polls. In reality, Perry's status as the frontrunner was exaggerated: While easily leading South Carolina polls, he only had a tenuous lead in Iowa, and he was dominated by Mitt Romney in New Hampshire. Nevertheless, the Perry-as-frontrunner meme took hold. Only half a month after entering the race, Perry was considered by most observers to be well ahead of Romney.

It didn't take long for Perry to get himself into trouble. During the Republican debate on September 7th, he had harsh words for Social Security. Romney performed better, and Intrade investors put the two candidates at parity. Meanwhile, Michele Bachmann seemed to vanish.

Less than a week later, at the Republican debate on September 12th, Perry stumbled again. He took heat from minor candidates, including Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann, for not being conservative enough. Perry found it difficult to parry these attacks. Romney seemed presidential by comparison.

In response to Perry's weak performances at the first two debates, the media narrative placed Perry and Romney in roughly equivalent positions, calling it a "two-man race." But it was clear that the momentum was with Romney, who fared better in each debate.

At the Republican debate on September 22nd, Perry suffered his third strike. Not only was he repeatedly attacked by Santorum and counter-attacked by Romney at every turn, Perry had difficulty speaking coherently. The cumulative effect of Perry's three weak debate performances was disastrous.

Although there were few polls being conducted (especially in early primary states), Perry's supporters sensed trouble and began looking elsewhere. Bachmann was unable to take advantage in Iowa as she, too, seemed to be wasting away into irrelevance. By comparison, Herman Cain and Santorum looked appealing to those looking for a new Anti-Romney.

As Perry crashed and burned, speculation about the possibility of Chris Christie announcing he will run for president reached a fever pitch. Although Christie had previously denied that he would run (with each denial made in an unconvincing manner), new reports repeatedly indicated that Christie was reconsidering. The Anti-Romney forces, especially those among the Republican establishment, begged Christie to enter the race. As the month closed, all eyes were on Christie. His decision promised to produce a seismic shift in the race. Elephant Watcher calculates that Christie's odds of winning the Republican nomination are 57%.

Can Rick Santorum Become the Next Mike Huckabee?

Santorum

Since Rick Perry entered the race, the Republican primary has often been described as a two-man race: Mitt Romney vs. Rick Perry. The catastrophic results of Rick Perry's debate performances have yet to be fully measured, but they change the character of the race. But the primary's bipolar nature likely remains (unless Chris Christie announces he's running for president).

From the start, it's been Romney vs. the Anti-Romney candidate. For awhile, Perry seemed to be the obvious Anti-Romney, and the national primary polls suggested he would be a strong Anti-Romney at that. If Perry's collapse is as severe as it seems, the race would be Romney vs. Anti-Romney, with no clear Anti-Romney in sight. Indeed, if no strong candidate could fill the Anti-Romney role, the race might become unipolar: A weak field with Romney a heavy favorite to win.

Primary races tend to abhor a vacuum, however. Rather than allowing the vote to be split evenly among similar candidates, primary voters in early states tend to coalesce. Thus, history suggests that someone will become the Anti-Romney, though the race still may not be that close. If Perry slides out of the Anti-Romney position, it's anyone's guess as to whom the replacement will be.

Aside from Romney, the one candidate who benefited from the most recent debates was Rick Santorum. He was perceived as strong in his attacks against Perry; Michele Bachmann faded. Could Santorum become the next Mike Huckabee, a candidate whose strong debate performances lifted him up from polling 0% to winning Iowa?

At first glance, it looks like Santorum is the only candidate who's conservative and has moderate perceived electability: Bachmann, Cain, and Paul are viewed as unelectable. There are concerns about Gingrich's electability and conservatism. Huntsman's not running in Iowa. Perry is crashing. That only leaves Romney and Santorum.

But there are two reasons to think Santorum will have great difficulty playing the Huckabee role. First, Santorum is no Mike Huckabee. Santorum lacks Huckabee's charm and rhetorical skill. While a genuine social conservative, Santorum is not poised to win Evangelicals like Huckabee, a preacher who was constantly asked to defend his Christian beliefs in the debates.

Second, Santorum faces more rivalry for the right wing in Iowa than Huckabee did. Huckabee's competition was unsuited to win Evangelicals: John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney. There was no equivalent of Rick Perry in 2008. Santorum would not only need to beat Romney, but also Perry, as well as Tea Party favorites Bachmann and Cain.

The possibility is there for Santorum, but it's a very difficult road. Santorum would need to prove he can do more than attack and act outraged. He would need many, many strong debate performances. And he has not yet been attacked by any other candidate.

Rick Perry's Intrade Odds Crumble

In the wake of the third September primary debate last night, Rick Perry's odds on the Intrade market for the 2012 Republican nomination have taken a dive. This marks the third time that debates have resulted in Perry losing ground on Intrade. Meanwhile, for every point Perry has gone down, Mitt Romney has gone up.

Romney's Intrade odds have risen to 43.9%. Perry's numbers are down to 26.9%. This change represents a far more radical shift on the Intrade market than occurred after any of the other debates. Apparently the investors believe in the rule of "three strikes and you're out."

To put this into its proper context, Perry was leading Romney by about 10 points prior to the September debates, 40% to 30%. After the three debates, Romney leads Perry by 17 points. That's a 27-point shift. It's particularly remarkable considering Perry still leads in all of the national primary polls. That being said, there have unfortunately been very few polls (especially state polls) released this month. But it's clear where Intrade thinks this race is going, and the investors want to get ahead of the polls.

The rest of the candidates are in the single digits. Intrade has an especially dim view of Michele Bachmann these days: She's down to 1.8%. During the summer, when she was leading in Iowa polls, Bachmann had gotten as high as 18%. In other words, Bachmann has lost nine-tenths of her market value.

As for the state primary markets, Intrade has not changed much. The investors still believe Perry will win Iowa and South Carolina, while Romney will win New Hampshire. Judging by the overall odds, they simply believe Romney has the staying power needed to win the nomination. They haven't been impressed by Perry's debate performances. Unless the race is knocked off its present course, Romney will reclaim his status as frontrunner.

Who Won the Republican Debate on September 22nd?

Tonight's debate was Rick Perry's last chance to prove that he can get through a debate without taking damage. By the end of the debate, the verdict was somewhat clear. Perry did not make any major stumbles, but he was damaged more than he was helped by the debate. As a result, it seems likely that future debates will be more harmful to Perry than helpful. One more debate might not make much difference, but there are many more of them to come. Perry's support is bound to decline. Mitt Romney will be the chief beneficiary.

Perry was attacked for his stance on Social Security (which he backed away from), but particularly on illegal immigration. Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum both savaged Perry for supporting tuition discounts for illegal immigrants. Santorum also attacked Perry for refusing to support a fence on the U.S.-Mexican border. Perry responded well at first, but seemed to crater as the attacks continued.

Perry employed an interesting strategy: Going on the offensive against Romney. Time and again, Perry attacked Romney. He did this despite the fact that Perry is not attempting to run in Romney's stronghold of New Hampshire. Apparently Perry realized that the best way to bolster his own conservative credentials was to contrast himself with Romney's ostensibly more moderate positions.

When Romney and Perry debated, Romney generally did better. He did not crush Perry in their one-on-one interactions, however. Perry smartly put Romney on defense; Romney is better on the offense than defense. But Romney easily brushed aside Perry's attacks on Romneycare, and Romney counter-attacked fairly well.

Mitt Romney decided not to pick fights with Perry. Instead, he attacked Barack Obama. Romney did better in presenting himself as an aggressive conservative than in previous debates; he seems to be improving, despite the attacks from Perry.

Michele Bachmann again attacked Perry on the HPV vaccine, but she took few opportunities to attack Perry otherwise. Bachmann seems to have a real difficulty in staying focused. As with the debate on September 7th, Bachmann was inconsequential most of the time. Unlike Santorum, Bachmann didn't have a strategy.

The minor candidates needed to find a way to break through. Rick Santorum had the stand-out performance, especially when he went on the offensive against Perry. Santorum has polled nearly 0% thus far, and he's probably hoping to be the next Mike Huckabee, a candidate who came from nowhere due to good debate performances. Santorum should be helped by his debate performance tonight, but he will need to keep it up if he intends to dethrone Perry in Iowa.

In the final analysis, the debate primarily helped Santorum for what he did, and helped Romney by default. Romney debated well, but he took heat from Perry. That's unhelpful to Romney, but Perry was hurt more. Since Romney is primarily in competition with Perry for the "frontrunner" title, the debate was a net benefit to Romney.