Intrade's Obama vs. Romney, Holding Steady

Despite the heat taken by Mitt Romney from all the Bain Capital attacks, the Intrade market on the 2012 race is holding steady, almost unchanged over the last two weeks. The market gives Barack Obama a 56.2% chance of winning reelection, with Romney at 43% to win. This margin of 13.2 points is actually narrower than the 14.9 point lead enjoyed by Obama when we last checked in, at the beginning of July.

How can we explain the Intrade investors' behavior? The numbers appear to confirm the hypothesis that this particular Intrade market reacts almost exclusively to the polls, specifically, the RealClearPolitics average of national polls. The RCP average is similar to what it was earlier this month--perhaps even showing a slightly closer race. This shouldn't imply that the Bain narratives will have no effect, however: Little polling has been done since the latest Bain attacks captured the headlines.

The power of the RCP average rests in the fact that it is widely read and very simple: It's just an average of the most recent national polls. RCP does nothing to account for the difference between registered voter and likely voter polls, though it does limit its use of daily tracking polls.

If the RCP hypothesis is correct, we can expect that big campaign stories will have minimal impact until they are reflected in the poll average--and poll averages necessarily lag behind events. Only a truly obvious shift in the campaign should be able to overcome this, such as a clear win in the debates or a massive scandal.

Meanwhile, the Intrade market on the Republican VP nominee has changed in the past two weeks. Rob Portman still has the lead at 29.1%, but Tim Pawlenty has made a comeback to 23.8%. Pawlenty's comeback appears to have been triggered in part by an item on The Drudge Report about Romney having already made his VP decision; the headline linked to a story about Pawlenty.

Minor players in the VP market have also shifted. Marco Rubio is down to 9.1%, while Bobby Jindal and Paul Ryan are up to 7.2% and 6.9%. Condoleezza Rice has jumped from almost nothing up to 6.0%. It's likely that Rubio's fall was the result of the gain by the latter three contenders, who may be viewed as sort of "risky" picks, like Rubio.

As with Pawlenty, the Rice gain was driven by an unsourced item in Drudge suggesting that Rice was a surprise frontrunner among the potential VPs. The Rice market went to 15% before the storm died down. The Intrade market remains skeptical about Rice because she has so many weaknesses: She is associated with the George W. Bush administration, especially its most unpopular policies (the war in Iraq, torture, etc.).

Chris Christie, who once had been one of the frontrunners on the Intrade VP market, has completely collapsed to 1.8%. In part, that may be due to the fact that others have been speculated about in the media more than Christie has of late. The most recent crash was probably also precipitated by yet another item in Drudge, which showed Christie in an angry altercation with a random passerby on the New Jersey boardwalk. Christie's chief weakness, particularly from a "Romney perspective" has always been his perceived volatility.

Romney's Pick for Vice President? Part III

Christie

In Part II, we discussed the possibility of Rob Portman being chosen as Mitt Romney's VP. The conventional wisdom is that Portman would be a "less risky" option, and that Romney hopes to avoid a repeat of the Sarah Palin debacle. But as we explained, none of Romney's choices carry similar risks to Palin--because they will all be fully vetted and have all participated in numerous televised interviews. But what are the potential upsides and downsides to potential VPs like Marco Rubio and Chris Christie, and what other options are available?

According to the Intrade odds on vice presidential nominees, the next most likely option after Portman is U.S. Senator Marco Rubio from Florida. Rubio served in Florida government for a little over a decade, rising to the office of Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives. In 2010, he ran for the U.S. Senate against the Republican governor, Charlie Crist. Rubio was viewed as the Tea Party challenger in the race, and he won overwhelmingly.

There are a number of reasons why Rubio is presumed to be high on Romney's list of potential VPs. First, Rubio would be the first Hispanic ever to be on a major party presidential ticket. The question of what effect this would have on the Hispanic vote in the general election is very controversial (and very important), and will be addressed in a future post. For now it's enough to say that Rubio would help Romney's ticket appeal to the Hispanic vote, a demographic where Romney is currently weak.

Rubio is from Florida, the nation's largest swing state. Unlike Romney, Rubio represents the conservative or Tea Party wing of the Republican Party. At age 41, Rubio belongs to a younger generation of Republicans, while Romney would return the presidency to the first wave of Baby Boomers. And while Romney was raised in a wealthy background, Rubio has working class roots.

In all of these important ways, Rubio would balance the ticket. The downside to Rubio is that he has only been a U.S. Senator for about a year and a half. According to conventional wisdom, Rubio's inexperience will undermine Romney's central theme, which is that Barack Obama had too little understanding of the economy before rising to the presidency. To be sure, this is Rubio's biggest weakness; if Rubio had been elected to his current office a few years ago, he would be guaranteed the VP position.

On the other hand, Rubio was in an important office in Florida prior to his being a U.S. Senator. And Rubio's intelligence, along with his strength in interviews and debates, will greatly--or entirely--offset his lack of experience, even if it doesn't stop Obama's attacks. Indeed, if the Obama campaign overreaches by comparing Rubio to Palin, it may backfire terribly, offending many Hispanic voters. In addition, Rubio's youth helps reinforce the idea that Romney will take the country in a new direction, rather than being a return to the days of George W. Bush.

What about Chris Christie? Christie served as Attorney General for the District of New Jersey during the 2000s, until he was elected New Jersey Governor in 2009. Christie considered running for president in 2012, but he had been governor just a bit too briefly. Though somewhat new to the national scene, Christie would not be vulnerable to claims that he lacks experience; he is several years older than Rubio and has accomplished much during his two and a half years as governor.

On the surface, Christie does not appear well-positioned to balance Romney's ticket. They are both from the Northeast; there is little hope of bringing many Northeastern states into the Republican fold. Though considered more conservative than Romney, Christie does not represent the Tea Party wing of the party in the same way that Rubio or a traditional conservative would. The fact that Christie is from the Northeast tends to amplify conservatives' concerns. And, of course, Christie is another white male.

Upon closer examination, there is a case to be made that Christie would balance the ticket. While Romney exudes wealth and privilege, Christie appeals to the common man. In New Jersey, Christie has been unusually effective in winning over working class voters--essentially the "Reagan Democrats" that Romney had trouble with during the Republican primary. Christie has unique rhetorical gifts. Unlike Romney, he is charismatic and adept at talking tough while sounding reasonable enough to persuade. Christie's aggressiveness on particular issues (taxes, spending, teachers' unions) has gone a long way toward persuading conservatives that he is one of them. Like Rubio, Christie represents a new direction and a genuine effort toward limiting the size of government.

There are a number of other potential VPs Romney could pick. If Romney is inclined to pick someone who is not a white man, it's likely that his options are "preempted" by Rubio. For example, the 2010 midterm saw the election of several women and minorities, but they would be vulnerable to the same criticism about inexperience, while lacking Rubio's strengths. Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal has a bit more experience, but is also young. An Indian-American, Jindal wouldn't appeal to an extra ethnic group with many votes; he is not nearly as effective a communicator as Rubio. (Jindal also endorsed Rick Perry for president.)

Finally, Romney could go with "none of the above," picking someone at the top of nobody's list. But Portman, Rubio, and Christie each make sense from different perspectives. In Elephant Watcher's view, either Rubio or Christie would help boost the Republican ticket in 2012, while Portman would do it some harm.

Romney's Pick for Vice President? Part II

Portman

In Part I, we considered who might be quickly eliminated from Mitt Romney's list of potential vice presidents. In this post, we will take a closer look at some of the "frontrunners" for the VP pick, and how Romney might choose among them.

The Intrade market on Romney's VP selection has Rob Portman and Marco Rubio far above the rest. After eliminating Mitch Daniels and Tim Pawlenty, Chris Christie holds a slight edge among those who remain. What's the reasoning behind the perception that Portman has the best chance, and why is Rubio ranked so high? Is Christie a reasonable option, or would he fail to balance the ticket?

The conventional wisdom is that Portman, a U.S. Senator from Ohio, has the best chance of being picked because he is not a "risky" option. Portman is an experienced politician who long served in Ohio government. He also served as the U.S. Trade Representative for a year under President George W. Bush, and another year as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Consequently, he has a reputation for being knowledgeable about the economy. He is not associated with any scandals.

According to conventional wisdom, Portman would not really add anything to the ticket, though he hails from an important swing state and would reinforce Romney's campaign theme of economic expertise. He would be described as "another boring white guy" and would not add charisma to the ticket, but at least he would not harm it. The idea is that Romney may be receptive to a boring, safe choice after John McCain's disastrous experience with Sarah Palin in 2008.

Though Romney may in fact be thinking along those lines, Elephant Watcher believes that it would be a mistake to do so. The analysis of why Portman carries less risk is based on a fundamentally flawed understanding of how Palin was chosen and why she carried risk. In 2008, McCain made a last-minute decision to consider Palin for VP. There was no time to conduct a normal vetting of Palin. According to those who conducted the vetting, the McCain team only had time to do some light research on Palin, mostly on the Internet. They did not travel to Alaska or interview Palin's colleagues. This was risky, because they simply didn't know much about Palin before choosing her for VP.

By contrast, each of Romney's potential VP candidates will be thoroughly vetted. If they find skeletons in a candidate's closet, he will be eliminated from consideration. If not, they will go forward. In either case, Romney won't be taking a risk on an unknown candidate.

In addition, Palin was risky because she was untested by the media. She had not been grilled by liberal interviewers or appeared on Meet The Press. (Indeed, after all these years she still hasn't been on Meet The Press.) Since no one could guess how Palin would perform, McCain took a risk. It proved to be a catastrophic mistake, as the interviews revealed she was unprepared for the office.

Once again, by contrast, even relative newcomers like Rubio and Christie do not carry this risk. Within months of becoming a U.S. Senator, Rubio had already appeared on Meet The Press; Christie has been on the show multiple times. Both have been on countless other televised interviews--by friendly and hostile interviewers--and have acquitted themselves well.

The alternatives to Portman may not be "risky," but what about the idea that Portman has no drawbacks? This, too, is untrue. As we explained in an earlier post on how VP nominees are chosen, choosing among potential VPs always entails trade-offs. If Christie or Rubio have upsides that Portman doesn't, then the lack of those upsides is, in effect, a downside for Portman.

More importantly, Portman does have one major weakness: His association with the economic policies of the Bush administration. Since Portman served as the OMB director while Bush was president, it would be easier for Barack Obama to characterize Romney as a Bush retread. As we explained in the Candidate Rankings, Obama's odds of winning reelection are highest if he is able to convince voters that Romney would simply repeat Bush's economic policies. For that reason, Portman must be considered a VP pick with a dangerous flaw--not a "safe" option.

What about Christie and Rubio, and other potential VP picks? We will continue our examination in Part III.

Romney's Pick for Vice President? Part I

Yesterday we discussed the manner in which vice presidential nominees are chosen by presidential candidates. Candidates generally look for a VP who will balance the ticket by appealing to another segment of the country (or faction of their political party). Often, a VP is chosen who is perceived to offset or "fill in" a weakness in the presidential candidate. How might Mitt Romney apply these factors to his own choice for VP?

Speculating on Romney's VP selection process has two major difficulties. First, the selection process entails a large degree of "vetting" potential candidates--probing for weaknesses, digging up dirt, etc. Once the VP choice is made, it really can't be un-made. The presidential candidate wants to know everything unappealing about a potential VP before the choice is made. Naturally, all the research that takes place during the vetting process is secret. Political analysts are generally not privy to what is revealed, so they can't have much insight--unless there are no "show stoppers" revealed in the vetting.

The second difficulty inherent in speculation about the VP selection is that it is a task performed solely by the presidential candidate himself. Romney will have many people assisting him, but the choice will be Romney's alone. As we saw last year when various Republicans were deciding whether or not to run for president, it's not always easy to predict what a candidate will do. The voting public behaves in ways that can be measured and analyzed, but the decision of a single person is harder to guess.

Any examination of the VP selection process must admit these major difficulties. A potential VP pick could appear to be perfect in every way, but if skeletons are unearthed during the vetting, he'll be kicked off the list and no one will know about it. Similarly, no one outside Romney's inner circle knows how he really feels about each of the potential VPs. Nor do they know how Romney perceives himself--and therefore, they don't know how Romney thinks he should be "balanced."

The first step every candidate takes in choosing a VP is to draft a list of names. The list is then shortened and shortened again, as the candidate goes about the process of elimination. As we mentioned in the overview of the Intrade market for Republican VP nominee, there is a very large number of potential candidates. Though Rob Portman and Marco Rubio stand above the rest in terms of Intrade odds, there are a lot of people given some percentage of being chosen.

According to the Intrade market, the next names on the list are Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, and Chris Christie. These names should be familiar for readers of Elephant Watcher, since each of them were potential contenders for the presidency. They chose not to run (Pawlenty entered the race but dropped out early).

Daniels can likely be crossed off the list. He chose not to run because of personal/family issues, and those same issues will keep him from being considered for VP. In the same vein, we can eliminate the names of others who could have run but for various reasons chose not to, like Haley Barbour, Mike Huckabee, and Sarah Palin.

Christie is a different story. He didn't run in 2012 because it was just a little too early. If he had become governor a year or two earlier, he might well be the Republican presidential nominee. Having spent an additional year as governor of New Jersey, he's less likely to disqualify himself. He won't be cut from the list--not yet.

If a candidate runs and does very well, he may be chosen as VP for the sake of party unity, or because his success showed his strong qualities. Pawlenty's failed run doesn't qualify. If anything, it made him look worse, because voters could have gravitated toward him but didn't.

As for the rest of those who ran in 2012? If the Republican primary revealed anything, it was the weakness of the field. Nearly everyone had serious electability issues. Simply reading the list of candidates can make a Republican wince: Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum. None of these will be chosen. Jon Huntsman may have been electable, but he ran to the left of Romney and thus cannot be considered.

Even after making all of these cuts, there are still many potential VPs left standing. In Part II, we will take a closer look at how Romney might choose among them.

Rick Santorum Declines on Intrade

About two weeks ago, Rick Santorum had risen to 18% on the Intrade market for the Republican nomination. It was the highest Santorum reached. Since then, he has lost almost two-thirds of that, dropping to 7%. Much of that decline occurred in the last several days. Intrade investors were not impressed by his performance at the February 22nd debate, and they smelled weakness in the latest polls coming out of Michigan and Arizona.

Intrade investors are now increasingly confident that Mitt Romney will win the nomination. Aside from a brief period of post-South Carolina panic, Romney has been trading at 70% or more for a long time; Santorum's decline has brought Romney back up to 79.7%.

Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul are still well behind, trading at 3.2% and 3.1%, respectively. Those four men are the only candidates in the race, but there are now two more individuals getting a small piece of the Intrade action. Chris Christie and Jeb Bush are each trading in the single-digits. Christie is at 1%, and Bush is actually managing to pull in 2.7 percent--almost as high as Paul and Gingrich. Are Christie and Bush planning to get in the race? No. But their numbers reflect the possibility of a contested or brokered convention, a scenario in which none of the current candidates gets a majority of the delegates and a total meltdown ensues.

Meanwhile, the Intrade markets for state contests are much more favorable for Romney than they were two weeks ago. Romney is given a 95% chance of winning Arizona and a 76.7% chance of winning Michigan. Intrade investors were always skeptical of the earlier polls showing Santorum way up in Michigan, but he had gotten as high as 60% to win when the Santorum surge was cresting.

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%.

Chris Christie Announces He Is Not Running for President

Christie

In a long-awaited announcement of his intentions, Chris Christie held a press conference today and declared that he will not be a candidate for the presidency in 2012. Christie cited his commitment to the state of New Jersey as the sole reason for his deciding not to run. He said that he could never get past the idea of leaving the state early.

Christie's announcement finally places him in the "declined to run" category on the Campaign Status page. Only Sarah Palin remains as a candidate who has not officially declared her intentions.

Christie has long held that he would not run, and repeatedly--emphatically--denied that he would enter the race. But Elephant Watcher dismissed those denials because they were not made in a convincing manner. Today, Christie met the criteria for an actual denial. Until now, Christie only denied his intentions in response to questions. Today's press conference, like Mike Huckabee's prepared TV statement and the written statements by Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels, and Donald Trump, was was initiated by the candidate himself.

If Christie's previous denials had meant anything, it would not have been necessary for Christie to hold a press conference today. Christie's actions, consistent with the criteria for a "convincing denial," have vindicated the criteria, which may be used as a guide in future election seasons. If a candidate makes a denial only in response to someone else's question (e.g. during a TV interview or public Q&A session), it is not on his own timetable, and therefore carries no weight.

Christie's departure changes the race dramatically. Elephant Watcher has recalculated the odds of each candidate winning the Republican primary, and a detailed analysis will be released in a future post.

Why didn't Christie run? Many political commentators will point to the difficulty of entering the race so late in the game. If Christie's decision was primarily governed by his wife's veto, and if his wife changed her mind too late in the game, then perhaps there is some merit to that argument. However, it is more likely that there were other factors. A late run would be more difficult, but not by much. Christie's odds of winning the nomination were still great, since most voters are influenced by the debates and the candidates' fundamental attributes. Most voters, even a large percentage of those in early primary states, have not even begun paying attention to the race. Thus, if Christie wanted to run and win, he could have done it.

It's more likely that Christie's decision was, as he said, influenced by his commitment to the state of New Jersey. Christie has only served a bit more than a year and a half out of his four-year term. Christie's concern and love for New Jersey is genuine. Running for president now would have essentially ended Christie's governorship, given the time commitment. Even if Christie lost the Republican presidential primary and dropped out a few months from now, New Jerseyans would never look at him the same way. Christie may have also been influenced by new polling that suggests he can win reelection in New Jersey.

Furthermore, Christie must have felt that the country does not need him to run. If the frontrunner or strongest candidates were unelectable and/or unacceptable to Christie, he would have felt a greater need to run. For now, Mitt Romney is the frontrunner, and Christie likely approves of Romney. Romney's strong showing in the debates not only would have made Romney look better in Christie's eyes, but would also have made Romney appear a more formidable primary opponent. Were Christie to run, he would have needed to defeat Romney in New Hampshire.

Ultimately, this was a case of poor timing. Christie has unusually powerful rhetorical gifts, and he is an effective politician. If he had become New Jersey's governor a few years earlier, it is likely that he would be the next president of the United States. Now it is questionable whether he will ever have the chance to run for the presidency. If Romney wins the presidency in 2012, Christie cannot run in 2016; if not, Marco Rubio may still pose an insurmountable obstacle in 2016 or 2020, having potentially served as Romney's vice president and/or running mate.

Only time will tell whether Christie will live to regret today's decision.

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%.

Chris Christie Preparing to Announce Whether He Will Run for President?

Christie

In the wake of Rick Perry's disastrous performance in the September debates, there is renewed pressure on Chris Christie to enter the race. Republicans have long felt that there was a void in the field, an absence of a candidate who could unite the Tea Party and Republican establishment. Perry intended to fill that vacuum. But Rick Perry was badly hurt by the debates. Perry was supposed to save the Party from Michele Bachmann; now Republicans hope Christie will save the Party from Perry (and Mitt Romney).

It has now been reported by many media outlets--led by NewsMax--that Christie will announce whether he will run for president within the next several days. According to the reports, Christie has been secretly meeting with top Republican donors, whose money has remained on the sidelines thus far. Contrary to his public denials, Christie supposedly told the donors he has not yet made up his mind whether he will run.

Christie's aides have denied the reports. Intrade investors' speculations are increasing, however. On the Intrade market for the odds of Christie running for president, there has been a sharp spike since the reports. Intrade has been skeptical of Christie from the beginning: His odds of entering the race have consistently been below 5%. In the last 24 hours, they have jumped to over 20%.

But supposing the reports are true, what would it mean? It would not guarantee that Christie will actually enter the race. Rather, it would mean the following:

1. Christie will make a definitive announcement within the next several days.
2. Christie's denials up until this point have been meaningless.

While most have taken Christie's repeated denials of intention to run at face value, Elephant Watcher has cautioned that none of Christie's denials were made in a convincing manner, the formula by which candidates actually decline to run. Both Barack Obama and Rick Perry also emphatically denied any intention to run for president--before entering the race.

Christie's decision will have an extraordinary impact on the outcome of the Republican primary. Even if NewsMax's report is untrue, Christie is under immense pressure to run. The next few weeks are critical.

2012 Republican Primary in Review: August 2011

The Elephant Watcher news archive for the month of August, 2011.

The race for the Republican nomination for president underwent some significant changes during the month of August: Rick Perry jumped into the race, Tim Pawlenty quit, and the national poll numbers moved heavily in favor of Perry.

The primary awoke from the July campaign "dead zone" on August 11th, when the field assembled for its first debate since mid-June. Mitt Romney was able to play the role of the front-runner, remaining above the fray as he had been during the preceding months. Meanwhile, Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann firmly planted themselves in the fray by attacking each other.

On August 13th, the Ames straw poll was conducted. Bachmann barely defeated Ron Paul, denying Paul a rare chance to get in the headlines. Pawlenty's third-place finish convinced him to quit the race, the first official candidate to do so this season.

That same day, hoping to steal headlines, Perry announced his entry. Almost immediately, Perry leaped to the top of the polls, knocking Romney out of the top spot nationally. In Iowa, Perry took a small lead; in South Carolina, he took a large lead. But in Romney's stronghold of New Hampshire, Perry could make little headway.

Political observers reacted to these developments by characterizing the primary as a two-man race between Perry and Romney. Perry's ill-considered gaffes reinforced the existing concern about his electability. The Republican establishment proved receptive to Perry's economic record of job creation in Texas, but the electability issue prevented them from throwing their support behind him. Meanwhile, Romney's support proved soft.

Toward the end of August, there was increased chatter--particularly among the Republican establishment--about the need for an additional candidate. Chris Christie made no indication that he was going to enter the race. The Tea Party wing of the Republican Party was heartened by Perry's entry, but Perry did not prove himself capable of uniting the whole of the Party. Christie remained the favorite to win the nomination, though his odds dipped somewhat. Elephant Watcher calculates that Christie has a 57% chance of winning the nomination.

Increased Buzz About Potential Chris Christie Run

Christie

In a two-part series several weeks ago, we pondered whether Chris Christie is running for president. The conclusion was that Christie has the motive and means to run, but whether 2012 presents an opportunity is up to Christie and his family. The reason why someone as new to the national stage as Christie could run, and the reason why he could win despite entering the race so late is simple: There is a vacuum in the field of Republican candidates.

The reason Republicans are dissatisfied with their choices and perceive the vacuum is that no single candidate excites both the establishment wing and the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party, aside from Christie. Tim Pawlenty was acceptable to both wings (and exciting to neither), but he took himself out of the race.

Rick Perry sensed the void in the field and decided to jump into the race, hoping to fill it. Can Perry fill the void? On the one hand, he should be able to excite the Tea Party wing, which has tended to like him. On the other hand, the Republican establishment has always been troubled by concerns about Perry's electability. They do, however, generally appreciate his economic record in Texas.

Shortly after Perry entered the race, he made headlines with a remark that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve would be treated "ugly" in Texas and that printing more money before the election would be "almost treasonous." The Republican establishment immediately became concerned that Perry could be prone to extreme language and, combined with the problem of being another Texas governor, unelectable.

While the Republican establishment has not yet made up its mind about Perry, doubts about his electability have fueled more talk that Christie is needed to save the Republican Party and defeat Barack Obama. Increasingly, buzz about a potential run by Christie has found its way into the political conversation. Christie himself, however, has made no public indication that he is more open to running than before. (Though he's avoided making any convincing denials of his intention to run.)

The Christie talk isn't just a repudiation of Perry. It also demonstrates how "soft" the support is for Mitt Romney. If the establishment were satisfied with Romney, there would be no need for Christie--and certainly no need to even consider Perry.

Speculation about Christie has prompted some political strategists to research the last possible date someone could enter the race in time to meet the filing deadlines for all primaries. That date is apparently October 14th, the deadline for the Michigan primary (though Michigan will not be one of the early primaries). Elephant Watcher believes that a candidate is very unlikely to enter the race much later than the beginning of October. Until then, dissatisfied Republicans will probably spend more than a little time wondering about Christie's intentions.

Perry In, Pawlenty Out

For the first time in nearly two months, the landscape of the Republican primary has significantly changed. Rick Perry's entry and Tim Pawlenty's exit both made an impact. Elephant Watcher has recalculated the odds of each candidate's chances of winning the nomination.

Bachmann +1% -- Perry's entry may not snuff out Bachmann's loyal base, but it puts a ceiling on her chances in Iowa. Fortunately for her, the electable Tim Pawlenty is no longer a factor there.

Cain -2% -- Cain has suffered from Bachmann's hogging of the Tea Party spotlight, but Perry makes matters much worse. Cain will struggle to get any attention.

Christie -9% -- Perry hopes to fill the vacuum in the race. Though he may not succeed, his presence will, for a time at least, diminish the Republicans' hunger for a new candidate. Pawlenty's departure adds to the void of electable conservatives, but his time was to come later, and Christie's decision on whether or not to run will need to be made soon.

Gingrich -- Like Cain, Gingrich will struggle for attention now that Perry is taking up much of the oxygen. Gingrich has failed to demonstrate that he knows he must make his stand in New Hampshire, not Iowa. But there are many debates left on the calendar.

Huntsman -- Though Huntsman should benefit from the electable Pawlenty's departure, he has not been able to make any progress against Romney. Unless he goes on the attack, he will need to hope for self-destruction on Romney's part.

Palin -1% -- Few serious observers have seen any sign that Palin intends to run; if she ever did, Bachmann stole her thunder. But Perry puts the final nail in her coffin. Palin now has a zero percent chance of becoming the Republican nominee.

Paul -- Ron Paul can never be the Republican nominee, and that will not change unless a mass extinction event occurs.

Pawlenty -15% -- Pawlenty suffered from Perry's entry, which allowed another candidate to suck up all the oxygen in Iowa and present an alternative to Bachmann. Pawlenty still had a chance to win, but he forfeited it by quitting the race.

Perry +16% -- Perry already had a strong chance to win Iowa, and Pawlenty's departure increased it all the more. Aside from Christie and Romney, no highly electable candidate is competing there. Perry's real challenge is to defeat the winner of New Hampshire, who will argue Perry is not so electable.

Romney +10% -- With Pawlenty out, only Christie and Huntsman can seriously argue they are as electable as Romney. Christie may not run, and Huntsman may not run very hard.

Santorum -- Try as he might, Santorum cannot appear on anyone's radar, and that's no way to win an election.

Rick Perry Officially Enters the Race

Perry

At long last, Rick Perry has formally entered the race for the Republican nomination. As Elephant Watcher predicted back in June, Perry timed his entry to just barely avoid the August debate and the Ames straw poll, and thereby overshadow both. Perry's candidacy will become the central focus of the primary for some time to come. The Campaign Status page has been updated for the first time since Huntsman's entry. Now all that remains is for Sarah Palin and Chris Christie to make formal announcements about their intentions--which they may not do.

Perry's mission is to fill the vacuum that has long existed in the Republican field: He wants to unify the Republican establishment and the Tea Party wings of the Republican Party. While Christie could do the job easily, Perry will struggle, as there are real concerns about his ability to win the general election. The Republican establishment will likely come to a consensus about what they think of Perry during the coming weeks. Is he the savior of the Party, or is he just another George W. Bush?

Perry's campaign strategy is to win Iowa and South Carolina, leaving New Hampshire to Mitt Romney. Thus, Perry will do battle with the likes of Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain, who lack perceived electability even more than Perry does. While Perry may not be as electable as Tim Pawlenty, he will certainly take away some of Pawlenty's electability argument. Perry is another candidate who must self-destruct in order for Pawlenty to win.

While Perry does not have much in the way of rhetorical skill or charisma, neither does most of the rest of the field: Christie is not in the race (yet), and Mike Huckabee bowed out back in May. Perry will attempt to use his "tough" demeanor to make up the difference.

Elephant Watcher has added Perry to the roster of candidates and recalculated each candidate's odds of winning the nomination. As Perry's entry fundamentally shakes up the race, a detailed explanation of his effect on the odds will come in a later post.

News posts related to Perry will have the Perry "tag". For detailed assessment of Perry's strengths, weaknesses, and strategy, view his Profile. Elephant Watcher calculates Perry has a 14% chance of winning the nomination.

2012 Republican Primary in Review: July 2011

The Elephant Watcher News archive for the month of July, 2011.

In July, the contest for the Republican nomination for president entered the dead zone, a period of relative inactivity. No candidates joined or departed during the month. Nor were there any debates or (obviously) contests.

Nevertheless, there were a few important developments that took place during in the July doldrums. Michele Bachmann surged in the polls, particularly in Iowa. There was increased polling of the early primary states in early-to-mid-July. That polling suggested Bachmann was in first in Iowa, and second place (to Mitt Romney) elsewhere.

The polling came to a halt in mid-July, however. Bachmann got increased visibility and media attention, but she was not able to establish herself as a credible, electable candidate. Nor was she able to do anything to ward off the increasing threat of a Rick Perry candidacy, which would surely encroach upon her Tea Party support.

The other important development was, of course, Perry. Though he made no official announcement entering the race, it became increasingly clear that he intends to run. Taking advantage of the Republican voters' desire for someone to fill the void, Perry gained support under the radar. On the Intrade markets, he entered direct competition with Romney for frontrunner status, while Bachmann's numbers waned.

Meanwhile, other candidates attempted to get some attention, but they could not. Without any debates to appear at, and with voting day so far away, few in the country paid much attention to the Republican primary.

Despite increased focus on the possibility of a Perry run, no one was able to challenge Chris Christie's status as the one potential candidate who can unite the Republican establishment and Tea Party. The only obstacle in Christie's path is the question of whether he will actually enter the race. Across July, Elephant Watcher's calculation of the odds was unchanged: Christie maintained a huge lead with a 66% chance of winning the nomination.

Who Would Rick Perry's Campaign Hurt?

With the Republican field almost finalized, campaign speculation continues to focus on whether or not Texas governor Rick Perry will run for president. Political commentators and sources close to Perry are increasingly confident that he will indeed enter the race, most likely in August. If Perry does run, from whom would he take votes? Which candidates would be hurt the most by his entry?

Perry's campaign strategy would consist of winning Iowa and South Carolina; he would leave Mitt Romney to win New Hampshire uncontested. He would hope to win the support of the Tea Party and appeal to the middle by casting himself as a conservative who has substance (with the implication being that Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain lack substance). Perry would also make a point of criticizing President Obama and the Democrats in tough, blunt language, and would emphasize his record as an economic conservative in Texas.

From that sketch, it's possible to derive the basics of how a Perry candidacy would affect the race. First, since Perry would be pursuing Tea Party support, it would hurt Tea Party candidates. Bachmann and Cain would be in Perry's crosshairs. Would they really lose support to Perry? Yes, quite a bit of support. History tells us that voters prefer governors as president; more importantly, they never support business candidates or House Reps. Cain and Bachmann would lose a lot of Tea Party voters who want someone with more credible experience. They'll also be looking for someone who has won a state-wide race. Also note that the Tea Party is already a bit split, and adding Perry into the mix would split it further. It would be unsurprising if only one of either Cain or Bachmann survived a few months after Perry's entry.

What about Tim Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota? He's essentially trying to do the same thing Perry would, arguing he's a conservative (Tea Partier) who has the credibility to get elected. Pawlenty has a better electability argument than Perry, since Perry's similarity to George W. Bush and talk of secession will leave many voters cold. But at the same time, there's a reason why the field has a vacuum in it: Pawlenty isn't perceived as tough enough. He's a consensus candidate, but he lacks charisma and the "toughness" that people temporarily appreciated about Donald Trump. Thus, Pawlenty would be weakened by Perry as well.

Which brings us to Chris Christie. Christie has the ability to unite the Tea Party and the Republican establishment, and would be better at appealing to the establishment than Perry. But Christie would also be seeking to fill the same "strong leader" and "tough talk" attributes that Perry exudes and Pawlenty lacks. Because of concerns about electability, Perry would not be able to fill the vacuum the same way Christie can. But Perry would at least reduce the size of the vacuum. Any candidate who can do that would harm Christie's chances.

As we saw with the Iowa Caucus winner scenarios, Romney is most afraid of a highly electable candidate emerging from Iowa. Pawlenty and Christie are both threatening to Romney. Perry harms Pawlenty and Christie while not harming Romney. Therefore, Perry's candidacy would benefit Romney. Perry might be able to defeat Romney down the road, but Romney could at least make an electability argument against Perry that he can't bring against Pawlenty or Christie.

On the other hand, Perry's candidacy would harm the chances of Bachmann and Cain, either of whom Romney would like to see win Iowa. But since Bachmann and Cain are less likely to win Iowa,
it's a net benefit for Romney. He would gladly watch Bachmann and Cain burn if it means weakening Christie or Pawlenty.

Who Will Win the South Carolina Primary in 2012?

In previous posts we examined the possible winners of the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire Primary. Today, we will look at the primary that has been won by the eventual Republican presidential nominee in every election since 1980: South Carolina.

South Carolina has a reputation for being receptive to conservative candidates, particularly socially conservative ones. Today, the struggle in the Republican Party is between those who align with the Tea Party movement, and those whom the Tea Party members label "RINOs." South Carolina would not seem like a great place to campaign if you're a moderate, establishment Republican. But as we saw in the history of both Iowa and New Hampshire, South Carolina frequently votes for such candidates.

The following is a list of the winners of the South Carolina Primary since it began in 1980. (Years with incumbent presidents have been excluded, since the incumbent president won each time almost automatically.)

South Carolina
1980 -- Ronald Reagan
1988 -- George Bush, Sr.
1996 -- Bob Dole
2000 -- George W. Bush
2008 -- John McCain

Unlike Iowa and New Hampshire, South Carolina is heavily influenced by who wins earlier contests. This means that it's not just South Carolina whose preferences matter, but also Iowa's and New Hampshire's. Winning one of the earlier contests will give a candidate a big boost, and failing to win either will diminish a candidate. It should be said that in 2008, McCain only barely defeated Huckabee. But Huckabee and McCain had both won a contest before South Carolina.

Where does that leave South Carolina? Early polling is even less help here. There have been few South Carolina polls so far; only one has been taken since Mike Huckabee left the race. None have been taken since Michele Bachmann entered the race. Even worse, no South Carolina poll can take into account the effect of the results of the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary.

Still, we can at least set forth some basic scenarios, as with did with the other early contests.

Scenario #1: United Party. A candidate emerges who can unite both the Tea Party and establishment wings of the Republican Party.

As before, this is the Chris Christie scenario. If he wins Iowa and either wins or does well in New Hampshire, he will easily go on to win South Carolina and the Republican nomination.

Scenario #2: Frontrunner Wins. Mitt Romney has the campaign infrastructure built up sufficiently to compete everywhere, and no one is able to knock him down.

If Romney wins Iowa and New Hampshire, he will win South Carolina. Though South Carolinians may not like him very much, it will be almost impossible for an anti-Romney candidate to lose Iowa and come back to win South Carolina.

Scenario #3: Electable Anti-Romney. A highly electable candidate who is perceived as being to the right of Romney wins Iowa, but doesn't do as well in New Hampshire.

If the winner of Iowa is perceived as being just as electable as Romney, but more conservative than him, then that candidate is likely to win South Carolina. Tim Pawlenty is the candidate most likely to fit this description (putting aside Christie, of the "United Party" scenario).

Scenario #4: Moderately Electable Anti-Romney. A candidate to the right of Romney wins Iowa, but there is some real doubt as to whether he will be able to defeat President Obama in the general election. Then Romney wins New Hampshire.

If Rick Perry enters the race, then this scenario is made for him. If it occurs, Perry will argue that he's the man with the true conservative credentials. Romney will argue that he's the more electable one. It will be an interesting test. Perry may be able to squeeze out a win, since South Carolina is more favorable turf for him. Then Romney will spin that he did "better than expected" in the Southern state.

Scenario #5: Unelectable Anti-Romney. A Tea Partier with little chance of winning the general election manages to win in Iowa, while Romney wins New Hampshire.

This would be Bachmann's or Herman Cain's scenario. Romney hopes that voters will put a high premium on electability. As history has shown, voters tend to do this. It's possible that an insurgent Tea Partier will win anyway, and again Romney will attempt to spin the results.

New Hampshire Poll Shows Mitt Romney's Competitor Is Chris Christie

From the beginning, Elephant Watcher has cautioned that early polls are problematic for a number of reasons. One of the biggest issues is that a poll's results can be skewed simply by a pollster's choice of which candidates to include. Whenever a pollster chooses to include an unusual set of candidates, particularly if Chris Christie is one of them, it's worth taking a closer look.

Public Policy Polling, a Democratic pollster, has released a new poll of New Hampshire. One might expect a Democratic pollster's results to lean left, such as that moderate candidates overperform. However, as we saw in our polling round-up a few days ago, PPP's polls tend to skew in favor of candidates like Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain. (Then again, a Democratic pollster might want to push candidates perceived to be unable to defeat President Obama in the general election.)

At any rate, PPP did a New Hampshire poll that included some candidates who either say they aren't running or are unlikely to run, including Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Rudy Giuliani, and Chris Christie. Here are the results:

New Hampshire
Mitt Romney 26
Chris Christie 20
Michele Bachmann 14
Rudy Giuliani 9
Jeb Bush 8
Sarah Palin 8
Tim Pawlenty 5
Paul Ryan 3

Although Christie has repeatedly said he's not running, though most pundits assume he won't, and although New Hampshire is widely considered a Romney stronghold, Christie trails by only 6 points. This demonstrates an impressive amount of latent support for Christie--and vulnerability for Romney. Were Christie to run, Romney would need to pour every resource he has into New Hampshire. This is another good reason why Romney shouldn't gamble too much on Iowa. If he loses New Hampshire, his campaign is over.

Another interesting finding from PPP's data is the level of support Christie receives from Tea Partiers. Christie is governor of New Jersey and has generally avoided alienating social moderates. The Republican establishment views him favorably. But, in fact, it is the Tea Party that supports him most. Of those who identify with the Tea Party movement, 81% view him favorably and 7% unfavorably. Even Michele Bachmann, the "Queen of the Tea Party," only posts comparable numbers: 86% favorable, 11% unfavorable. No other candidate comes close. Sarah Palin receives 70% to 19%. Romney gets 59% favorable, 34% unfavorable.

That data suggests that Christie's Tea Party opponents will be hard pressed to call him a "RINO" or a moderate. As Christie is so uniquely poised to gain support from both wings of the Party, he has the best position in the race. Elephant Watcher calculates that Christie currently has a 66% chance of winning the nomination.

Who Will Win the New Hampshire Primary in 2012?

Previously, we took a look at the different scenarios of who might win the Iowa Caucus. There were quite a few different possibilities; the field is wide open. The contest in New Hampshire will be almost as important as the one in Iowa, but it has fewer players.

Listed roughly in order of their probability, the following are the basic New Hampshire scenarios, followed by a discussion of the implications:

Scenario #1: United Party. A new candidate enters the race who is able to unify and excite both the Tea Party and the Republican establishment.

Once again, this is the Chris Christie scenario. If Christie enters the race and wins Iowa, it's likely that he will take New Hampshire as well, or come close to it. This is a "game over" possibility: If it occurs, the 2012 Republican nomination becomes a coronation, and the race comes to a rapid conclusion.

Scenario #2: Romney Holds His Lead. Mitt Romney, who has maintained a significant lead in the New Hampshire polls, wins with relative ease.

There are a number of reasons why Romney might maintain his lead. It could be because an unelectable candidate wins Iowa, scaring people into making sure an electable candidate wins New Hampshire. Or it could be because New Hampshirites are unbothered by Romneycare and think he's a good candidate.

Scenario #3: Huntsman Takes Out Romney. Jon Huntsman, whose entire strategy is based around New Hampshire, manages to convince New Hampshirites that he makes a better establishment candidate than Romney.

If Huntsman aggressively pursues the presidency in 2012 (as opposed to some other job), he might be able to beat Romney. New Hampshire's voters may want someone new.

Scenario #4: Pawlenty's Dream. Tim Pawlenty becomes the last man standing, a true consensus candidate. After Pawlenty wins Iowa, Romney implodes, and Pawlenty either takes New Hampshire or does well there.

Given the level of Republicans' dissatisfaction with the candidates they know, this is a possibility. They don't really know Pawlenty yet, so they don't have much chance to dislike him. But they do believe he's electable and to the right of Romney.

What should immediately stand out is that each of these scenarios involves a candidate (Christie, Romney, Huntsman, or Pawlenty) winning New Hampshire who is classified as highly electable on his Profile. It's not that New Hampshire inherently prefers electable establishment candidates more than Iowa; history has shown us that it isn't the case. It simply turned out that way.

Since Republican primary voters place a premium on electability, it's likely that the New Hampshire winner will win the nomination--but only if the Iowa winner (assuming it's a different person) has questionable electability. New Hampshire-centric candidates should fear someone like Christie or Pawlenty winning Iowa, but should not be too frightened by Michele Bachmann or Herman Cain. Rick Perry would present a more balanced matchup.

Is Chris Christie Running for President? Part II

Christie

Continued from Part I.

What kind of analysis can we employ to make a guess about whether a potential candidate will actually run for president? Ultimately it is a "guess," especially when a candidate has the ability to change his mind, but there are three factors worth looking at: Motive, means, and opportunity. In popular culture, these are the elements needed to prove that a suspect committed a crime. Perhaps unnervingly, they can also be used to predict someone's presidential intentions.

The first element, motive, refers to a candidate's desire to run for president and to become president. For most high-level politicians, motive is assumed. It's rare for someone to gain high political office without first possessing a lot of ambition. That's because politics is a difficult business, and ambition is needed to motivate a politician to get through the difficult times.

But motive isn't always present. As we mentioned in Part I, Mike Huckabee decided not to run because for whatever reason, his heart wasn't in it. In 2008, Fred Thompson did run, but he did so in a half-hearted way because he wasn't fully committed. A large portion of Newt Gingrich's campaign staff quit, apparently feeling Gingrich wasn't taking the campaign seriously enough. Other examples include those who lack a desire to get into politics. General David Petraeus has been asked about whether he might run for president, but it's clear he's not interested. Donald Trump could have gotten involved in politics, but he'd rather stick with the business world.

What about Chris Christie? While he denies he'll run for president this time, he won't close the door on 2016. That's a strong hint that he has a desire to become president--if not now, then later. When interviewed by Piers Morgan on CNN earlier this month, Morgan visited Christie's high school and observed that Christie was "president of everything" when he was a student. It's fair to say Christie possesses the motive to run for president.

The second element, means, refers to a candidate's political abilities. Specifically, a candidate possesses the means if he is capable of winning the presidential nomination of his party and winning a general election. Since we're dealing with a candidate's own decision whether to run, this is a matter of his perception. If a candidate thinks he has the capability of winning the presidency, he has the means.

Politicians who operate at a high level not only possess ambition, but also ego. Usually they think they can become president unless there's evidence to the contrary: lack of popularity, low poll numbers, etc. If Sarah Palin finally decides not to run, it will be because she's seen enough polls to convince her she lacks the means to win--her negatives are too high.

As for Christie, he's largely answered this question. Earlier this year, Christie claimed in an interview that politically-minded people had been coming to him plotting out a course where he could win. Christie explained that he already knew that he could win the nomination and the presidency. Christie's popularity, combined with positive feedback from Republicans around the country and political commentators, have almost certainly convinced Christie he is presidential material. It's fair to say Christie thinks he possesses the means.

The final element, opportunity, refers to timing. If a candidate thinks he has the means to become president, does he think he can win this election? Again, it's a matter of the candidate's own perception.

Even the best and most confident politicians can feel the timing isn't right. If the incumbent president is a member of your own party, it's unlikely you'll run against him. You'll wait for the next election instead. Likewise, if you think the other party's incumbent is unbeatable for reelection, you'll take a pass. In 1992, nearly all of the top Democratic contenders thought George Bush, Sr. was unbeatable after America won the Persian Gulf War. They skipped the election and were stunned to see Bill Clinton win. In 2004, Hillary Clinton knew she could win the nomination of her party, but thought George W. Bush was too difficult to defeat. She felt 2008 was her opportunity. And there are a number of rising stars in the Republican Party today who intend to run in 2016 or 2020, when they have more experience.

Christie, too, probably did not originally think he had the opportunity to run in 2012. He was too new to the national scene, and wanted to serve out a full term as New Jersey's governor. But then videos of Christie went "viral" and he became a favorite of both the Tea Party and establishment wings of the Republican Party. When the Republican 2012 field became settled, voters were dissatisfied with the available choices. And President Obama's approval ratings flatlined, making the Republican nomination very attractive.

Christie's remarks about "knowing" he can win were directed at the 2012 nomination and presidency. On that basis, it may be fair to say Christie knows he has the opportunity. Over the next few months, which comprise Phase Two of the primary, Republicans will decide whether they are still dissatisfied with the candidates already in the race. If things continue as they are, Christie should feel he has the motive, means, and opportunity to become president.

On the other hand, as we saw with Mitch Daniels, family matters. Christie's wife and children could decide it's too soon, and Christie might give them veto power. They could have already done so. But families can change their minds, too. Especially if, by September, the Republican Party still thinks it needs Christie.

2012 Republican Primary in Review: June 2011

The Elephant Watcher News archive for the month of June, 2011.

In June, the contest for the Republican nomination for president entered Phase Two, and the field of candidates was almost finalized. Over the course of the month, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman, and Michele Bachmann all officially entered the race. Meanwhile, Sarah Palin stayed out of the race, leading many to conclude that she will not run; she made no commitment either way.

The key moment of the month was the debate on June 13th. It was the first major debate of the primary season, though five candidates (including Gary Johnson) debated in early May. Conventional wisdom crystallized about the relative strength of some of the candidates. Mitt Romney, who topped all of the state primary polls after Mike Huckabee's departure in May, solidified his position as the frontrunner. He was not seriously attacked on the Romneycare issue. Tim Pawlenty appeared weak at the debate for failing to challenge Romney. His low poll numbers gave his campaign the impression of being in dire shape.

Michele Bachmann's appearance at the debate, combined with Sarah Palin's absence, marked a transition. Before, much attention was given to Palin. Bachmann shied away from getting into the race because she feared Palin might run. With no official word from Palin, Bachmann jumped into the race. A feud developed between the two, particularly after Bachmann's campaign manager, Ed Rollins, made disparaging remarks about Palin. But Bachmann was composed at the debate and did well in an Iowa poll. By the end of the month, the media turned its attention away from Palin and toward Bachmann.

Meanwhile, Herman Cain struggled to maintain his position as the Tea Party's favorite candidate. Before Bachmann got into the race, he got plenty of attention. Unfortunately, journalists and voters sensed weakness in Cain as they got a closer look at him. With Cain's honeymoon period wearing off and Bachmann's honeymoon beginning, Cain quickly lost ground.

June was a disaster for Newt Gingrich, whose campaign suffered a series of mass resignations. Gingrich kept calm and carried on, but was written off by the media. The campaigns of Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman struggled to get off the ground. While Huntsman at least got some media attention, no one could quite articulate why Huntsman was running.

Rick Perry showed increasing signs of entering the race. He had previously denied that he would run, but suggested he might change his mind. A vacuum remained in the race, as most Republicans felt that the field of candidates was unsatisfactory. Perry likely perceived mixed reactions from voters as to whether they thought he could fill the void.

Chris Christie remained in the public eye, but under the radar as far as the 2012 primary was concerned. He was repeatedly questioned by interviewers whether he would run, and he continued to deny that he would. Elephant Watcher's calculation of the odds was relatively unchanged throughout the month; Christie maintained a huge lead with a 66% chance of winning the nomination. By the end of June, the sense of a void in the field was as great as ever. But Perry may attempt to fill it before Christie can.