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.

Herman Cain Quits the Race

Cain

Herman Cain announced today that he has decided to quit the race. As Elephant Watcher predicted several days ago, the most recent allegations against Cain doomed his campaign once and for all. It's one thing to deny an accusation, or even two accusations. But at some point, it becomes a case of "everyone is lying except me." Even Cain's supporters could no longer continue, and Cain's family likely encouraged him to withdraw from the race.

Though many have declined to run, Cain is only the second candidate to quit the Republican primary (the other being Tim Pawlenty, who inexplicably dropped out in August after finishing third in the Iowa straw poll). The Campaign Status page has been updated accordingly. The field has now been narrowed to seven candidates.

Newt Gingrich is the chief beneficiary of Cain's withdrawal. Although Cain's decline in the polls already helped Gingrich, who received most of Cain's former supporters, actually dropping out has an impact of its own. Even a candidate who's dead in the water can still receive 5-10% of the vote. With Cain's departure, even those votes will need to go elsewhere. It's also possible that Rick Santorum could benefit from the most hardcore Tea Partiers--those who see Gingrich as too much of a RINO.

When put into historical perspective, the destruction of Cain will be regarded as a victory for the primary process. Cain was given ample opportunity to display his best qualities, but his weaknesses were also vetted. Voters had the ability to learn about Cain and discover why he should never be a general election candidate. It's always best to learn that before a candidate becomes a nominee, rather than afterward.

2012 Republican Primary in Review: November 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, October.

The month of November saw the decline of Herman Cain, the rise of Newt Gingrich to the lead in the polls, and the annihilation of Rick Perry.

As the month began, the story dominating the political headlines was the Cain sexual harassment scandal. Though Republican voters were highly resistant to believing that Cain was guilty, Cain became vulnerable, and some of his supporters began switching over to the Gingrich camp. At the same time, Cain proved incapable of discussing foreign policy issues. To make matters worse, two of the three debates (on November 12th and 22nd) were focused entirely on foreign policy. Cain's numbers eroded.

Perry was already weak when November began. Cain had taken over the Tea Party segment of the Republican Party. But Perry absolutely finished himself off at the November 9th Republican debate, where he made an extraordinary gaffe by forgetting his own three-point list. Perry didn't quit the race, but he may as well have.

As the month wore on, the Tea Party segment of the Party and the Anti-Romney contingent increasingly gravitated toward Gingrich. They did not take a closer look at any of the other candidates; they all failed to gain traction. Mitt Romney retained his stronghold in New Hampshire, according to the polls. But as soon as Cain fell in Iowa and South Carolina, Gingrich picked up the slack in those states. The debates assisted Gingrich, who was as comfortable discussing foreign policy as Cain was uncomfortable. Gingrich's rise occurred even more rapidly than Cain's had during October.

At the close of the month, new allegations surfaced about Cain having a long-term affair with a woman who was willing to speak publicly about it. Cain did not drop out of the race, but admitted he was considering it. Cain's supporters--already buckling--then broke. Cain's numbers appeared ready to collapse as precipitously as Perry's had. All indications were that Cain's supporters would flock to Gingrich as the last remaining alternative to Romney.

But as November came to a close, the situation was not as bright for Gingrich or as dire for Romney as the polls made it appear. Gingrich remained completely unvetted, having not been attacked by his competitors or examined by the media. A month remained before the Iowa Caucus for Gingrich to fall under the weight of his personal and political baggage. Romney, having already been vetted (multiple times), remained secure in New Hampshire and the favorite to win the nomination. Elephant Watcher calculates that Romney's odds of winning the Republican nomination are currently 70%.

New Allegations Doom Herman Cain

Cain

A month after the original allegations of sexual harassment surfaced, Herman Cain appeared to be surviving, if not weathering the storm. His support was on a gradual decline--a decline which may have been more a result of Cain's foreign policy gaffes than his scandals. Though some of Cain's support was shifting to Newt Gingrich, Cain still polled at substantial numbers, particularly in Iowa and South Carolina. He might not have been able to win those states, but he could at least split some of the potential support for Gingrich and play a role as an Anti-Romney.

Now it appears Cain's campaign is in ruins. A woman came forward claiming a 13-year affair with Cain. She was able to produce some evidence of a personal connection to Cain, which Cain did not deny. Cain did deny that the affair took place. Unfortunately for Cain, this was one denial too many. Only the most fanatic Cain supporters will continue to believe that he is a serviceable general election candidate.

Early reporting suggests that Cain is considering whether or not to drop out of the race. Even if he does not quit, the fact that he considered it will also be counted against him. Herman Cain's odds of winning the nomination are now 0%, according to Elephant Watcher's most recent recalculation. Though Cain was at one point leading all of the national polls (and Iowa and South Carolina polls), Elephant Watcher never gave Cain more than a 5% chance of winning the nomination. Cain was weighed down too heavily by his inherent weaknesses as a candidate. Now those weaknesses have doomed his campaign.

Ironically, the person likely to benefit most from Cain's demise is Gingrich, who admitted to having affairs during both his first and second marriages: The Cain supporters who already left Cain largely went to Gingrich, and Mitt Romney obviously prefers to split his opponents' vote as many ways as possible. Cain's further drop is critical because it will push his numbers below the threshold at which his support will disappear entirely. Voters tend to abandon a candidate if his vote is not above, say, 10%, so that they may coalesce around their second choice.

Gingrich continues to be weighted down by issues of his own. Though he has inherited Cain's lead in the polls, and while he is better suited to win New Hampshire votes than Cain was, Gingrich is completely unvetted. No candidate has yet attacked Gingrich. For Gingrich's odds to rise with his poll numbers, he must first demonstrate that he is capable of surviving the same level of scrutiny that destroyed Cain.

Newt Gingrich Continues Rise on Intrade; Romney Falls

A few weeks ago, we took a look at the Intrade market on the 2012 Republican nomination. Since then, another debate was held and much buzz about Newt Gingrich's candidacy has buzzed. How has this affected the Intrade investors' perceptions of the race?

It's clear: Newt Gingrich's odds have risen at the expense of Mitt Romney's. Romney has finally fallen from his peak at about 70% and now stands at 57.0%. This is the first time Romney's odds have moved downward since the rise of Rick Perry in August. The Intrade investors never bought into the Herman Cain mania that swept the primary for about a month. But they're taking Gingrich more seriously.

Gingrich has risen to 21.1%, up from about 14% two weeks ago. A few weeks before that, Gingrich was in the low single-digits. It's worth noting that despite Gingrich's lead in the national polls, the Intrade market still has Gingrich a nearly 3:1 underdog in the race. Thus, they're following the polls, but they're taking them with a grain of salt. But unlike Cain, they think Gingrich has a real chance to win.

Meanwhile, the rest of the field is in the low single-digits. Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman each rose from 3-something percent to about 5.5%, apparently reflecting what investors perceived as good debate performances. No other candidate has climbed beyond 3%.

Where is Gingrich getting his strength in the early states? The Intrade market on the Iowa Caucus has Gingrich ahead of Romney, 35% to 25%. New Hampshire is still overwhelmingly Romney territory with 77%; Gingrich is at 12%. South Carolina has Gingrich and Romney nearly tied at 35%, but Florida has Romney the favorite at 50% to 24%.

Overall, the investors believe Iowa is a close race, with the edge going to Gingrich. New Hampshire is Romney's firewall, making him the only candidate guaranteed to win one of the early primaries. They have South Carolina at a push, perhaps hedging because there's been little polling there. Florida, which is sort of a tie-breaker, leans toward Romney as the overall odds for the nomination do.

Newt Gingrich Takes the Lead in National Primary Polls

Although national primary polls do not reflect the actual state of the race like early state primary polls do (the outcomes of early contests influence later ones, candidates are not campaigning in the later states, voters in the later states are not paying close attention yet, etc.), they can be useful to look at occasionally. Candidates do pay attention to the national primary polls and sometimes develop their strategies based upon them. For instance, if they see a frontrunner developing in the national polls, they may begin to attack him. The media also like to look at national polls and may create narratives based on them.

For an example of the latter, note that the "Herman Cain is falling" narrative reflects the national polls much more than the polls in Iowa, South Carolina, and Florida, where Cain has still shown strength of late. Granted, there has not been sufficient polling in South Carolina and Florida over the past few weeks, so any new developments may be caught in the national polls first.

The following are the most recent polls taken nationally for the Republican primary:

National Primary Polls
11/20 Gingrich 24, Romney 20, Cain 17, Perry 11 (CNN)
11/20 Gingrich 26, Romney 22, Cain 14, Perry 06 (Quinnipiac)
11/17 Gingrich 22, Romney 21, Cain 16, Paul 09 (Gallup/USA Today)
11/15 Gingrich 23, Romney 22, Cain 15, Paul 08 (Fox News)
11/14 Romney 23, Cain 22, Gingrich 16, Perry 08 (Pew Research)
11/13 Romney 24, Gingrich 22, Cain 14, Perry 12 (CNN)
11/13 Gingrich 28, Cain 25, Romney 18, Perry 06 (PPP (D))

The first thing that the reader should notice is that Newt Gingrich has taken the lead. The second thing he should notice is that Gingrich is only slightly ahead of Mitt Romney. Romney is within the margin of error in some of the polls, and indeed is in first place in some of the polls taken a week ago.

Next, the polls clearly show Cain in third place, several points behind Romney and Gingrich. This leaves the impression that Cain is a spent force, doomed to decline. But Cain's strength is frontloaded in Iowa and South Carolina. Unless or until Cain falls even further, Cain remains a factor. Specifically, he's splitting the Anti-Romney vote with Gingrich.

Over the next few weeks, Elephant Watcher will be paying close attention to whether Cain falls into oblivion. If not, it could represent the Tea Party purists finding fault with Gingrich. Like Romney, Gingrich's conservatism may be called into question. The voters who don't care about electability may hold onto Cain. Those who simply want an Anti-Romney will show less resistance and will jump easily from Cain to Gingrich.

It should be noted that Gingrich's strength is overestimated in the national primary polls because he has not been attacked or vetted yet. Once he comes under the scrutiny of the media and the other candidates, his numbers are likely to fall. In mid-October, we explained some of Newt Gingrich's vulnerabilities. Voters have not taken these into account yet. By contrast, voters have already taken Cain and Romney's weaknesses into account. When a candidate reaches proper frontrunner status (as Romney, Perry, and Cain did earlier this year), all of his opponents will attack him during the debates. Only Romney managed to survive the vetting process, and now it will be Gingrich's turn.

Who Won the Republican Debate on November 22nd?

Tonight's debate was a split decision: Newt Gingrich decisively won the first half, and Mitt Romney just as decisively won the second half.

The debate focused on national security and foreign policy. That's favorable turf for candidates like Romney and (especially) Gingrich, and unfavorable turf for Herman Cain. Cain did not make any big gaffes, but he often seemed on the verge of doing so. By contrast, Gingrich was right at home, particularly during the first half of the debate. Gingrich opened the debate by blasting Ron Paul, who said that terrorism should be treated as a criminal matter because it worked in the case of Timothy McVeigh. To great applause, Gingrich countered that McVeigh's terrorist attack succeeded, and that he would rather stop the attacks from occurring in the first place.

Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Santorum all avoided major gaffes as well. But they seemed to be increasingly irrelevant to the conversation. Months ago, Perry would have been lucky to have delivered an unremarkable performance, because at least it wouldn't have been a bad one. But now, so deep in the hole he made for himself, such a performance won't do. Perry is lost.

During the first half of the debate, Romney couldn't match Gingrich. At one point, Romney and Jon Huntsman argued about the level of troops in Afghanistan. It was a draw, but arguing with a low-polling candidate is only useful if you obliterate him. By engaging with Huntsman, Romney only raised Huntsman's profile. Overall, Huntsman did well, but his long-awaited improvement in debate has come too late. Huntsman just doesn't have enough time left to build up steam.

During the second half of the debate, the dynamic seemed to shift. Romney gave stronger answers, and Gingrich, though he still did well, began to show signs of vulnerability. When asked about illegal immigration, Gingrich gave an answer that suggested making illegal immigrants "legal" under certain circumstances, such as if they had lived in America for a long time, were members of a church, or had ties to their local community. Bachmann seemed perplexed by Gingrich's apparently (and suddenly) soft stance on illegal immigration.

At that point, Romney jumped into the fray. He emphasized his support for legal immigration, particularly for highly-skilled and highly-educated immigrants, such as those who earn advanced engineering degrees in the United States. Romney then suggested that it was important to halt illegal immigration by not creating "magnets" for it. When the moderator asked if that was what Gingrich was doing, Romney avoided addressing the specifics of Gingrich's plan and said that any widescale plan to make illegal immigrants "legal" would amount to amnesty, and it would be a step in the wrong direction. Gingrich did not appear to know how to defend himself.

It was the only time in the debate in which Gingrich and Romney tangled. It was not a heated exchange by any means, but it has the potential to harm Gingrich. Time will tell whether Bachmann, Romney, and other candidates call Gingrich's stance on illegal immigration into question. Recall that Perry's perceived softness on illegal immigration helped doom his candidacy.

Aside from that issue, Gingrich performed well, and he is likely to further bleed support from Cain. The question is whether the Tea Party will accept Gingrich after taking a closer look at his platform.

Republican Primary Debate on CNN Tuesday

The debates keep on coming. CNN will host a debate tomorrow at 8:00pm Eastern. The debate is being advertised as focused on "foreign policy and national security," which is interesting because the previous debate was solely about foreign policy. Judging by that last debate, most of the candidates differ little on foreign policy. On the other hand, the "national security" hook may bring in the subject of illegal immigration, a topic that ignited sparks during the September debates.

The key change that has taken place since the last debate is the shift in perceptions of Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich. The media narrative is that of an ascendant Gingrich and a declining Cain. Unfortunately for Cain, if the debate does focus on national security and foreign policy, it will not be a great opportunity for him. Cain has tended to make gaffes on foreign policy that reveal his lack of basic knowledge about the topic. Meanwhile, Gingrich can speak intelligently on any subject.

Since the candidates disagree so little on foreign policy and national security, and since the candidates' vulnerabilities are on other matters, it will be tricky for low-polling candidates to go on the attack. Last time, they really didn't do it at all. For people like Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and Rick Perry, it's necessary to do damage to the frontrunners to shake things up. Otherwise, they'll simply drift peaceably toward failure.

The one big event that every political observer would like to see is a proper debate between frontrunners Gingrich and Mitt Romney. Gingrich has always avoided tangling with his opponents. No one has ever had reason to attack him before, since he was nowhere in the polls. With the exception of the Perry boom in early September, Romney has never felt threatened enough to go on the offensive. After watching so many candidates self-destruct, Romney is probably even less inclined to attack anyone. Thus, we might have an odd dynamic where Romney and Gingrich are spliting the electorate but remaining passive. That's basically what we saw with Romney and Cain: Romney waited Cain out.

For candidates eager to score some easy points, Ron Paul is an ever-ready punching bag. Paul's opponents may have a contest to see who can show the most righteous indignation when Paul blames America for its foreign policy woes.

Intrade Odds: Newt Gingrich Up, Rick Perry Down

We last examined the Intrade market on the 2012 Republican nomination shortly before the two mid-November debates. In today's update, we'll see how the debates have altered the Intrade market's perception of the race.

As far as the frontrunner is concerned, the debates had no impact. Mitt Romney dominated the field before, and his numbers are unchanged. Romney stands atop the field at 69.6%. By contrast, the lesser candidates have been shuffled. The big change is that Rick Perry, who has been on a decline since he first participated in a debate in September, has finally been ground into dust. Before the debates, he stood at 40%. After the September debates, he dropped to 20%. He slid down to 10% as it became clear he would not recover in October. Now, after Perry's gaffe at the November 9th debate, he has lost nearly all of his support. Perry is currently trading at 3.7%.

Newt Gingrich rose at Perry's expense. He now stands at 14.3%. Just a month ago, he was in the low single-digits; now he's in second place, albeit a very distant second. Herman Cain has slid to 4.0%. That's not much of a drop considering the sexual harassment scandal, but Intrade has always been very skeptical of unconventional candidates like Cain. Still, it's interesting to see that Perry is now behind both Gingrich and Cain. Also in the mire of the three percent range are Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman, at 3.2% and 3.1%. Michele Bachmann has long since been pronounced dead, and she trades at 1.0%. Rick Santorum--who may be okay on paper--is nowhere in the polls, so he is at 0.4%.

The Iowa Caucus market has changed more dramatically. While Romney is still at about 40%, Gingrich is now in second at 21%. Cain has fallen to 15.2%, and Perry is at 7.5%. This reflects the fact that the Intrade market believes someone has to have a chance of beating Romney in Iowa. If it's not Cain or Perry anymore, and if it's not Bachmann or Santorum, that leaves Gingrich. This is despite the fact that Gingrich has not done well in Iowa polls (aside from an outlier or two).

The New Hampshire market still says Romney has it in the bag. South Carolina has behaved like Iowa, with Gingrich picking up Cain and Perry's slack. The Florida Intrade market is still traded too little to be efficient, but Romney has catapulted to 65% there. The Nevada market looks like the New Hampshire one, with Romney dominating.

Who Won the Republican Debate on November 12th?

Tonight's debate on foreign policy had few fireworks or major gaffes. The candidates did not attack each other and normally did not even challenge each other. If it is remembered at, it will be remembered for a few general impressions: Rick Perry was shaky, Herman Cain was shakier, Mitt Romney was decent, and Newt Gingrich did well.

The format of the debate was a bit odd: Only the first hour was televised on all CBS stations; the last half-hour was streamed on the internet. The entire debate was focused on foreign policy questions. The economy and other traditional areas of debate (e.g. social policy, candidate vulnerabilities, etc.) were not addressed. At the very least, this allowed Cain to avoid being asked about his sexual harassment scandal, which would have been off-topic.

The candidates avoided making gaffes of the kind that would be replayed over and over. In general, Cain seemed uncertain, as he has little knowledge of foreign policy. Perry avoided any dynamite gaffes, but spoke in a halting manner. Bizarrely, Perry addressed some of his answers to "Mitt," even though Romney was not asked the same question or involved in any way in the exchange. As Elephant Watcher predicted, Perry made a couple jokes about the infamous Rick Perry gaffe at the November 9th debate.

Occasionally the candidates did disagree with each other. Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul marginalized themselves as the two "doves" on the stage. Meanwhile, Huntsman and Rick Santorum both complained about receiving few questions, though the questions were evenly distributed. This kind of whining is counter-productive. It is up to the candidates to make the best use of their questions, even if they are limited (as Mike Huckabee's were in the early debates in the last primary season). Santorum undermined himself, as otherwise his answers were strong.

Newt Gingrich performed the best out of the candidates. He repeated his strategy of criticizing the questions he was asked, though he toned it down a bit and appeared less grouchy than the previous debate. He appeared to have the most thorough understanding of the topics. He received the most applause.

The candidates will not have another debate for some time, and this one demonstrated Gingrich's superiority to Cain. If Gingrich rises at the expense of Cain, debates like these will accelerate it.

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.

Who Won the Republican Debate on November 9th?

Tonight's debate was very civil, with the candidates unwilling to attack each other and with the audience applauding almost every answer. In some ways, the debate preserved the status quo: Without candidates engaging each other, it is difficult to shake things up. Since Mitt Romney is the frontrunner, preserving the status quo is to his benefit.

Most of the candidates performed well. Rick Perry was the exception. In the most disastrous moment of any debate, Perry found himself unable to remember which federal agency he wanted to eliminate. He was able to name the first two, and then halted when trying to name the third. It is difficult to describe in words just how awkward this became. Even when prompted by his fellow candidates, Perry was unable to remember the third agency. The moderators incredulously asked Perry if he could not remember. Finally, Perry had to admit that he had no idea what it was. Perry only recalled the agency's name later on in the debate, when answering another question. But Perry's spectacular failure will undoubtedly be replayed endlessly on television. It feeds into every negative narrative that already exists about Perry. It may well be the final set of nails in Perry's coffin. It could become one of the most famous debate moments in American history--unless Perry does even worse in a future debate.

Herman Cain succeeded in remaining his usual charismatic self. When the debate moderators attempted to bring up the sexual harassment scandal, the audience booed. When the moderators asked Romney what he thought of the scandal, he wisely refused to play along. The audience cheered when the moderators changed the topic back to the economy. It's clear that most Republicans still do not believe there is any truth to the accusations against Cain. Rather than shifting to a "fall of Cain" narrative, the media may be forced to admit that Cain appears to be riding out the storm. However, what the audience at a Republican debate feels publicly and what the Republican voters actually feel as time goes on are two different things.

Newt Gingrich was expected by many political observers to have another good debate performance. While Gingrich gave good answers, he did not stand out among the other candidates, who also (generally) gave good answers. Gingrich was, once again, unwilling to challenge his opponents. Gingrich also repeated his longstanding habit of criticizing the moderators for their questions. He was unusually grumpy toward them during this debate.

Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann did well, but they did not have any means of knocking down a candidate leading them in the polls. They must hope that Perry's self-destruction helps them, but it may well send voters toward Cain or Gingrich by default. Meanwhile, Romney remains at the top of the pack.

Republican Debate Tomorrow on CNBC

The first Republican primary debate of the month will be held tomorrow evening at 8:00pm Eastern. The debate will be aired on CNBC and is expected to focus on the economy. Tomorrow's debate will put an end to the three-week break in debates that the candidates have enjoyed since the debate on October 18th.

Things have changed during the intervening weeks. Mitt Romney and Herman Cain have consistently appeared at the top of the polls, with the rest of the candidates far behind. Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann have solidified their positions as second-tier candidates, and hope is running out. Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich has moved up in the polls to at least be at the top of the second tier. Despite the polls, Cain has suffered terrible press from the sexual harassment scandal and is looking vulnerable. The scandal has only intensified in recent days. As Elephant Watcher anticipated, damaging new details have come forth just before the debate.

At the time of the October debates, the other Tea Party candidates could at least pretend that Cain wasn't really beating them in the polls. After weeks of new polls and media coverage reinforcing the idea that Cain is at the top, the other Tea Party candidates can deny it no longer. Perry, Bachmann, and Rick Santorum must view Cain as their chief opponent. Now, with the Cain scandal making headlines every day, it's time to strike. They must attack Cain and eliminate him in order to compete for the Anti-Romney position.

For Cain's part, he will have to find a way to deal with the elephant in the living room. The debate moderators, even if they focus on the economy, must surely ask Cain about the scandal. (This will be true at the upcoming debates as well.) Most likely, Cain will refuse to address the matter further and say he wants to get back to focusing on the issues that Americans really care about. He will receive loud applause from a Republican base that simply does not believe the accusations are true (yet).

Even so, political observers will be watching for any sign that Cain has been shaken or weakened by the scandal. The next media narrative will be the fall of Cain, so Cain must be his usual upbeat, charismatic self if he is to avoid negative coverage.

In theory, Romney can continue to play the role of the already-victorious general election candidate and stay above the fray. But in the past, rivals (particularly Perry) have ignored Cain and focused their attacks on Romney. If they believe Cain is bound to fall anyway due to the scandal, they may focus on Romney even now. Romney should avoid letting others see his feathers ruffled as they were at the last debate. If Romney appears the most presidential, it will be counted as a win.

Gingrich has the biggest strategic decision to make. So far, he has avoided attacking other candidates. Finally, he is going up in the polls. But that's because other candidates have gone down. And he is still in the second tier. For several months, Elephant Watcher has argued that Gingrich's performance in the debates should be more aggressive and focused on demonstrating why he should get the nominee rather than someone else. If Gingrich only acts as a cheerleader who says everyone on the stage would be better than Barack Obama, then voters will simply go to Romney (who has the best chance of winning a general election). Having seen his numbers rise, Gingrich may decide it's time to truly engage in a debate against his opponents. If so, it will be his first real test in a debate.

Intrade Odds: Newt Gingrich Rising, Slightly

Since our last look at the Intrade market on the 2012 Republican nomination nearly a month ago, Mitt Romney has maintained his dominant position. Romney is currently trading at 69.4%, and the man in second place--Rick Perry--is at 9.9%. The two leading candidates are at the same place they were last time, but that's to Romney's advantage: It's less than two months until the voting begins. If you're not in first place, less time means fewer opportunities to change things. Romney is happy to see the clock run out.

Only one other candidate is above 5% now. Newt Gingrich has risen to 8%. Previously, Gingrich had tended to trade at 1-3%. Gingrich's modest rise in the national primary polls is responsible for the change. Gingrich is actually now beating Herman Cain in the Intrade odds. This is interesting because Cain is doing much, much better in the polls than Gingrich or Perry. Indeed, Cain is ahead of Romney in many polls. It's apparent that Intrade investors are willing to look far beyond today's poll numbers--at least where Cain is concerned. As Elephant Watcher has repeated over the months, Intrade investors tend to view politics from an establishment perspective. Cain is an outsider to say the least, so Intrade investors put little stock in him. But Cain was trading a bit higher before the sexual harassment scandal hit the headlines. Cain fell to 4.7% by this morning, and after news broke of another accuser against Cain, he quickly fell to 2.4%.

Meanwhile, Intrade investors are fairly bullish about Romney's chance to win the Iowa Caucus. They give him a 40% chance of doing so, while Cain registers 17.5% and Perry is at 12.5%. Once again, the investors are looking beyond the poll numbers to give Romney such an advantage over Cain. Naturally, if they believe Romney has a 40% chance of winning Iowa, he dominates in the overall odds of winning the nomination.

In the market on the New Hampshire Primary, Intrade investors rate Romney at about 90% to win. That's a fairly straightforward reading of the New Hampshire Primary polls, all of which have Romney in the lead by a comfortable margin. Meanwhile, the markets for the South Carolina and Florida primaries have Romney in first at 50% each. Romney should be weaker in South Carolina than in Florida, especially given Romney's odds of winning the overall nomination, so that points to some market inefficiency in the Florida market.

In summary, Intrade investors are dismissive of Cain's good poll numbers and are very skeptical about his candidacy. They essentially mirror Elephant Watcher's calculation of Romney and Cain's odds of winning the Republican 2012 nomination. The race isn't over, but the end is near.

How Much Will the Sexual Harassment Scandal Hurt Herman Cain?

Cain

Earlier this week, news reports surfaced about Herman Cain having been accused of sexual harassment in the late '90s. Thus far, the reports are that the National Restaurant Association--where Cain worked at the time--settled cases with two female employees who had accused Cain in separate incidents. Cain's campaign responded by saying that the accusations had been false, and that Cain was either unaware of or uninvolved with the settlement agreements. The identity of the women in question remains undisclosed, and the women have not come forward due to confidentiality agreements (and likely an unwillingness to enter the public spotlight).

Cain's campaign then accused Rick Perry's campaign of having leaked the reports to the media. Perry's campaign denied it, attempting to shift the blame to Mitt Romney's campaign (which also denied involvement). Meanwhile, conservative media largely defended Cain, suggesting the charges were false or exaggerated, and that the liberal media was trying to attack Cain unfairly.

How much will the scandal hurt Cain? A scandal can harm a candidate in one of two ways. A severe scandal may undermine a candidate's strengths, calling into question the basis for the candidate's appeal. A scandal can also contribute to known weaknesses of a candidate, reinforcing a negative perception that already exists about him.

The present scandal, if severe enough, could harm Cain's candidacy in both ways. Cain's strengths are his conservatism and charisma. If people believe Cain is guilty of sexual harassment, it tarnishes the image people have of his personality. The second way it could harm Cain is by contributing to a preexisting perception that Cain is unelectable. Whether the scandal is severe or mild, it adds more weight to the argument that Cain should not win the nomination because he will lose the general election against Barack Obama.

There have been few polls taken since the news broke, but those that have been taken do not show any signs of Cain suffering damage from this scandal. Polls suggest that, for now, Republicans generally do not believe that Cain was guilty of sexual harassment. They believe that the charges were trumped up and that Cain is simply the victim of an attack by the liberal media. If new details or evidence surface, and people believe the accusations were well-founded, then Cain will suffer much heavier damage.

To some extent, the damage may be less than it will appear in the future. A few weeks ago, Elephant Watcher explained why Herman Cain will not win the Republican nomination. Cain's poll numbers were already likely to fall in the near future, even before news of the scandal broke. As Cain's numbers fall, observers may incorrectly attribute all of Cain's decline to the scandal.

Regardless, Cain will be on "damage control" for the near future. There are two primary debates scheduled to take place next week, and Cain will almost certainly be asked about the scandal. If damaging new information surfaces prior to those debates, Cain will be trapped in the media spotlight and forced to answer questions he would rather ignore.

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%.

Who Will Win the Iowa Caucus in 2012?

Back in June, we considered the question of who will win the Iowa Caucus in 2012 by taking a look at the different scenarios that could take place. Much has changed in the last four months. Chris Christie's decision not to run means the "united party" scenario cannot play out: No candidate remains who can unite both wings of the Republican Party. Likewise, the "consensus candidate" scenario cannot occur, since Tim Pawlenty dropped out of the race: There is no establishment candidate who is inoffensive to the Tea Party. The removal of these two scenarios from the political chessboard has greatly enhanced the likelihood that Mitt Romney will win the nomination, since those were the scenarios he feared the most.

Meanwhile, the "moderately electable Tea Partier" scenario is less likely to occur, since Rick Perry's campaign has crashed. The future may allow Rick Santorum to step up and fill Perry's shoes, but he is currently nowhere in the polls. The two remaining scenarios are that Romney wins Iowa, or that an unelectable Tea Partier wins Iowa. In either case, Romney is the favorite to win the nomination.

Here is where the candidates currently stand in Iowa:

Iowa Caucus
10/26 Des Moines Reg -- Cain 23, Romney 22, Paul 12, Bachmann 8
10/25 CNN/Time -- Romney 24, Cain 21, Paul 12, Gingrich 10
10/19 Hawkeye/UIowa --Cain 37, Romney 27, Paul 11, Gingrich 8
10/19 Rasmussen -- Cain 28, Romney 21, Paul 10, Gingrich 9
10/16 Insider Adv -- Cain 26, Romney 18, Gingrich 12, Bachmann 11

Additional Iowa polling in the future may help us determine whether Herman Cain's lead over Romney has indeed disappeared, as the two most recent polls suggest. Until then, we may assume the following basic facts, which are present in each poll: Cain and Romney are leading in Iowa. Between the two of them, it's a close race. They are far ahead of the rest of the candidates, who are polling about 10% or less. Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich are probably at the front of the second-tier, with Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry not far behind.

Cain is the current Anti-Romney-in-Chief, but there are factors holding him back. The Tea Party vote is split. Romney remains within striking distance of winning Iowa. History suggests that voters will move in Romney's direction as voting day approaches, since primary voters--including those in Iowa--prefer to vote for electable candidates. If the past debates are any indication, Romney will benefit from additional debates in November and December.

In conclusion, Romney should probably be considered the favorite to win Iowa at the moment. He is a weak frontrunner, but Cain is a very weak alternative. The Anti-Romney vote may coalesce around someone, but Romney has advantages of his own. Romney should be happy with the situation in Iowa at the moment. A resurgent Perry or an ascendant Santorum would be the biggest threats to his winning the nomination, and neither is polling well.

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.

More Debates to Be Scheduled: Who Benefits?

Originally, the first contest in the 2012 Republican presidential primary--the Iowa Caucus--was scheduled to take place in early February 2012. In advance of Iowa, there were to be three debates held in January, two in December, and one in November. But the Florida Primary moved its own date up to January 31, forcing the other early states to move a month early. Now the sponsors of the debates originally scheduled for January are moving the debates up, too. In addition, good ratings for the most recent Republican primary debates have prompted debate sponsors (like CNN and Fox News) to schedule additional debates.

Now, instead of one debate in November, there may be as many as three; in December, there may be as many as five primary debates; in January, prior to the Florida Primary, there could be as many as six more. Which candidates benefit from all of these additional debates?

As a general rule, candidates who are behind in the polls want there to be as many debates as possible. Each debate represents an opportunity to shake things up. If you're behind, debates allow you to change that. Ordinarily, a candidate who is in the lead would rather there be fewer debates so that the status quo is less likely to be disturbed. Also, minor candidates--who have few resources--prefer as many debates as possible, since they are opportunities to get free TV time and to be taken seriously.

Mitt Romney is considered by most observers, including Elephant Watcher, to be the frontrunner in this race. Based upon the principles described above, wouldn't Romney have the most to lose by the scheduling of all these new debates? Not necessarily. One obvious principle not included in the preceding paragraph is the that candidates who are skilled debaters welcome the debates. Though Romney lacks charisma, and though he has occasionally been rattled by attacks at the debates, he has proven to be a skilled debater. The results speak for themselves: Before the September debates, he was polling behind, and now he's the frontrunner. If Romney can continue to deliver better debate performances than his foes--especially Rick Perry--then he is almost guaranteed the nomination.

Perry has proven to be the worst of the debaters. Again, the "before and after" picture of the polls speaks for itself. Yet if Perry can improve, the additional debates provide him additional opportunities to recover. His poll numbers at the moment are terrible. If Perry is at least mediocre in the future debates, the memory of his truly disastrous debate performances will fade. But if Perry is unable to articulate his thoughts in future debates, they will obliterate him.

Herman Cain is an interesting case. His entire campaign relied upon the debates, since he had no resources (and apparently little interest in running a conventional campaign). Yet he has peaked too soon. If he continues to poll well, the debates will simply provide an opportunity for him to be grilled by his opponents (and the debate moderators). He is good when speaking from his own turf, but otherwise he falls apart.

Newt Gingrich is often considered the best debater in the group. He usually gets a lot of applause at debates, and his poll numbers have risen a bit. In reality, however, Gingrich has done little debating at the debates. He has tended not to attack or argue with his opponents, preferring instead to go for the easy applause line. Thus, Gingrich is somewhat untested. If Gingrich is as good at debates as advertised, and if he were to engage his opponents, the extra debates will be a boon to Gingrich. A word of caution: Gingrich has not yet been attacked by his opponents.

The remaining minor candidates have benefited little from the debates thus far. If Cain crashes early enough, the Tea Party will be in the market for a new favorite. This will open up an opportunity for Rick Santorum to move up in the polls based on his debate performances. If something unexpected happens and Romney becomes vulnerable, perhaps Jon Huntsman will have an opportunity of his own. Meanwhile, Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul have little hope.

Will Newt Gingrich Be the Next Flavor of the Month?

Gingrich

From the beginning of the primary season, Mitt Romney has been the default "next in line" choice for the Republican Party. Because of Romney's flaws, the Party has been searching for an alternative. The reason why the Party--particularly those in the Tea Party who feel Romney is too liberal--has jumped from one candidate to the next is that there is no proper alternative to Romney. Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, Mitch Daniels, and Tim Pawlenty could have been alternatives, but they are not running. Republican primary voters have gone from one flavor of the month to next, causing a spike in various candidates' poll numbers, only to watch them crash when they discover that candidate's flaws. First it was Herman Cain, then Michele Bachmann, then Rick Perry, then Herman Cain again (since few people were paying attention to the race when Cain was first popular).

As Elephant Watcher explained prior to this week's debate, Herman Cain is unlikely to win. He is simply too prone to gaffes, and he provides his opponents with plenty of ammunition to use against him. Cain's poll numbers are likely to drop within the next few weeks as Cain's negatives become more clear. This presents the Tea Party wing with the same old problem: Where do their votes go now?

Since they have already considered and dismissed Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, they may try Newt Gingrich next. Despite Gingrich's high name recognition, he has long been under-performing in the polls. Three months ago, we considered the question of why Newt Gingrich's poll numbers are so low. At that time, Elephant Watcher correctly predicted that Gingrich's numbers would begin to rise in September. The debates allowed Gingrich to reintroduce himself to voters, and his numbers have risen, especially in Florida primary polls and national primary polls.

However, Gingrich is unlikely to succeed. He already suffers from the same problem of a "two-front war" that Elephant Watcher correctly predicted would damage Rick Perry in August. The problem is this: Republicans want a candidate who is electable and conservative. They may forgive a candidate for being an unreliable conservative if he is electable. They may even forgive him for lacking electability to a degree if he is conservative. But they will not choose a candidate if they doubt both his electability and conservatism.

The Tea Party dismissed Gingrich early on because of his image as an unreliable conservative, an impression captured best in a commercial he did in which he sat next to Nancy Pelosi on a couch. Though Gingrich is good at debates, the doubts about his ideological purity remain, just as they do for Romney. Gingrich also suffers from concerns about his electability. He has immense personal baggage and political baggage. Match-up polls of Gingrich vs. Obama tend to have Barack Obama winning by double-digits.

The dilemma is that a voter willing to compromise on conservatism will support an electable candidate like Romney, and a voter who only cares about ideological purity will support someone like Bachmann (or maybe Perry or Cain). This leaves Gingrich without a solid base.