Huntsman Drops Out, Endorses Romney

Huntsman

Jon Huntsman announced today that he was dropping out of the race. He also immediately endorsed Mitt Romney. The Campaign Status page has been updated to reflect Huntsman's departure; there are now only five candidates remaining. Huntsman needed a win in New Hampshire to really propel his campaign forward, and he came nowhere close. However, he remained in the race for a few additional days as a way of showing appreciation to the 17% of New Hampshirites who voted for him.

Huntsman's departure will have little impact on the race. For some time now, he has had a 0% chance of winning the nomination, and he has been polling at near zero in the remaining states. Huntsman's endorsement of Romney does add a small amount to the impression that Romney is inevitable. Of the candidates that have either dropped out or decided not to run, those who have decided to endorse (e.g. Christie, Huntsman, Pawlenty) have all endorsed Romney. Huntsman no longer being in the race also means one less opponent to attack Romney during the debates.

Huntsman was one of a few candidates to be considered "highly electable." Romney is now the only one of those to remain. Despite his electability and some enthusiasm on the part of establishment Republicans, Huntsman was unable to get anywhere in this race. According to Elephant Watcher's calculations, Huntsman's odds of winning the nomination never exceeded 3%.

Why did Huntsman fail? Partly it's because Huntsman was in Romney's shadow and needed Romney to make a major mistake. The main problem was that Huntsman chose to run to the left of Romney. Candidates have some power over how they're perceived, particularly if the candidate is unknown. Huntsman chose to enter the race by touting his belief in evolution and global warming. This decision, along with the fact that Huntsman was already somewhat vulnerable to being characterized as a "RINO," meant that he would always be perceived as the candidate to Romney's left. There was simply no room. In New Hampshire, voters either liked where Romney stood or they wanted someone to Romney's right. The Anti-Romney voters have always perceived Romney as too moderate, so Huntsman was always off the table. Accordingly, Huntsman has the distinction of being the only candidate in the race who never enjoyed a big bounce in the polls.

Romney Wins New Hampshire; Rivals Split Vote

Mitt Romney won the New Hampshire Primary on Tuesday, a result which should come as no surprise. With 81% reporting, Romney won with 38%. Ron Paul came second, losing by about 15 points. Romney's margin of victory, though large, was less than many polls had suggested it could have been. The more important story is how Romney's main rivals for the nomination--Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum--will be weakened by the result. The following is the result, as of this posting, and an analysis of how the result will influence the race going forward:

New Hampshire Primary (81% reporting)
Romney -- 38%
Paul -- 23%
Huntsman -- 17%
Gingrich -- 10%
Santorum -- 10%
Perry -- 1%

Yesterday, Elephant Watcher predicted that if Romney finished in the 30s, it would be treated as an underwhelming victory, particularly if second-place was not far behind. After all, winning by 15 points is not a great performance when so many polls had indicated a win by 20 points or more. Some pundits will claim the result shows weakness on Romney's part, offering some version of "This is one of Romney's best states, he's been campaigning here all year (or for the past five years) and only beat his 2008 performance by a handful of points. Romney can't close the deal. He is a weak frontrunner. The voters want this thing to continue." Other pundits will also remark on Jon Huntsman's third-place finish, speculating on whether he can be yet another candidate to surge.

Although it's true that Romney would have preferred a bigger margin of victory, it's important to view the race in its proper context: Romney isn't running against himself or his poll numbers; he's running against Gingrich and Santorum.

From that perspective, Romney had a very good result. Romney's biggest fear is that either Gingrich or Santorum will beat the other convincingly, become the chief Anti-Romney, and coalesce all of the Anti-Romney vote. Therefore, Romney's best scenario was for Gingrich and Santorum to finish well behind himself, and as close to each other as possible. Gingrich and Santorum would then continue to split the Anti-Romney vote. New Hampshire voters gave Romney his wish: Gingrich and Santorum virtually tied at 10% each, an embarrassing and ambiguous finish.

What about Paul and Huntsman? Neither man has a chance of winning the nomination. Paul is viewed by most Republicans as a "kook." Huntsman, who finished barely high enough to justify remaining in the race, entered the race by making the unspeakably poor decision of running to the left of Romney. He will be unable to play an Anti-Romney role, because the Anti-Romney vote is comprised of people who think Romney is too far to the left, not too far to the right. Thus, Paul and Huntsman served only to diminish Gingrich and Santorum more.

Now the race moves to South Carolina. The contests in Iowa and New Hampshire have done nothing to clarify the Anti-Romney situation. Rather than providing Romney with one strong opponent, he has two evenly-matched opponents who weaken each other. Romney's campaign has been professional and disciplined. More important, he continues to be lucky.

New Hampshire Primary Tomorrow

Voters in New Hampshire will head to the polls on Tuesday for the New Hampshire Primary. The winner of the contest isn't in doubt: Mitt Romney has taken first place in every one of the dozens of New Hampshire polls conducted over the past year--most of the time by a sizable margin. The second-place candidate has alternated as various candidates went boom and bust, but Romney has consistently polled in the mid 30s to lower 40s. The question is who will take second, third, and fourth in the primary. The polls are unclear, with several candidates bunched together:

New Hampshire Primary
01/08 WMUR/UNH -- Romney 41, Paul 17, Huntsman 11, Santorum 11
01/08 PPP (D) -- Romney 35, Paul 18, Huntsman 16, Gingrich 12
01/07 Suffolk/7News -- Romney 35, Paul 20, Huntsman 11, Gingrich 9
01/07 ARG -- Romney 40, Huntsman 17, Paul 16, Santorum 12
01/05 NBC/Marist -- Romney 42, Paul 22, Santorum 13, Huntsman 9
01/05 Rasmussen -- Romney 42, Paul 18, Santorum 13, Huntsman 12
01/05 WMUR/UNH -- Romney 44, Paul 20, Santorum 8, Gingrich 8
01/04 Wash Times -- Romney 38, Paul 24, Santorum 11, Gingrich 9
01/04 Suffolk/7News -- Romney 41, Paul 18, Santorum 8, Gingrich 7

Ron Paul is in second in most polls. As in Iowa, he's polling in the upper 10s and low 20s. As expected, Rick Santorum got a bounce out of Iowa, but he has been unable to capitalize on that to get clear of Newt Gingrich, who is about tied with him in the polls. Jon Huntsman seems to be in about the same position as Santorum and Gingrich, though the PPP and ARG polls have him a few points ahead.

Huntsman is an interesting case. As a low-poller, strategic voters would ordinarily abandon him for their second choice. But many Huntsman supporters' second choice is Romney, who is guaranteed to win. Since Romney doesn't need the Huntsman votes, perhaps the Huntsman supporters will vote for their preferred candidate instead of shifting. This would serve to reward Huntsman for all the campaigning he has done in New Hampshire, and maybe to voice a bit of a protest against Romney's inevitable win.

Huntsman is the only candidate likely to drop out of the race in response to a poor performance. How well does he need to do to stay in the race? Though Elephant Watcher calculates Huntsman's chance of winning the nomination has been at zero percent for some time now, Huntsman may stay in for awhile if he exceeds expectations. A second-place finish would keep Huntsman in the race. A decent third would be a maybe. If Huntsman is in fourth when the ballots are counted, we should expect him to leave.

Santorum and Gingrich each desperately want to finish ahead of the other to gain a stronger position as the chief Anti-Romney in South Carolina. But instead, the polls have them right where Romney wants them: Far down and almost tied with each other. An ambiguous result means more splitting of Romney's opposition.

Finally, when Romney wins, the media will focus on the extent of his win. Finishing in the 40s will be treated as a good win. A few polls currently have Romney in the mid-30s, while the rest have him in the low 40s. If the numbers remain static, then adding in the undecided vote should give Romney a finish in the 40s. However, if New Hampshirites have last-minute thoughts, Romney ends up in the 30s. Particularly if second place is close, such a win will be treated as underwhelming. If Romney gets 50% or more, it will be treated as an overwhelming win and lead to more media proclaiming him the inevitable Republican nominee. Reaching the 50% mark would be difficult, even adding in the undecided vote, but is possible if someone like Huntsman sheds votes as they shift to second choice Romney (which hasn't happened so far).

More Candidates Drop to Zero

For a minor candidate--one who is not close to leading in any state--time is the most precious resource. A minor candidate needs time in order to try something, anything, to change the dynamic of the race. The Iowa Caucus is only a few weeks away. Time has almost run out. As a result, the game is now over for most of the minor candidates.

Though many of the candidates will stick around--some, like Ron Paul, all the way until the convention--the field has been winnowed down to Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. After last night's debate, the odds of each Republican's winning the nomination have been recalculated. Two more candidates, Rick Perry and Jon Huntsman, have fallen to zero percent. Here are the recent changes:

Huntsman -2% -- As Huntsman learned at last night's debate, the barrier to entry for the debates goes up as voting day draws closer. Huntsman's numbers were not high enough to give him access to the debate, and you can't win without appearing at debates. Huntsman was focused on taking down Romney to create an opening in New Hampshire, but he's out of time.

Perry -2% -- The debates have not been kind to Rick Perry. He was already on life support after the first several took their toll, and he has done nothing to revive himself. With many Tea Partiers flocking to Gingrich and the rest either skeptical of Perry's conservatism or electability, Perry has been squeezed out. He lost his two-front war on both fronts.

Santorum -1% -- Santorum needs to hope that eventually the conservative Evangelicals in Iowa lose faith in Gingrich. If they do, they only have one more candidate to try out: Santorum. Gingrich's fall will need to happen quickly.

Romney -2% -- Romney's inherent attributes as a candidate make him stronger than Gingrich and more likely to win a protracted war. Unlike Gingrich, Romney's "negatives" are already priced in: Voters already know what they don't like about Romney, so he's unlikely to fall. But the burden is on Romney to take Gingrich down before voters go to the polls. Each day that passes without a successful attack on Gingrich is a day Romney can't afford to waste.

Gingrich +7% -- Gingrich's situation is the opposite of Romney's. As the leader in the polls, Gingrich wants time to fly as quickly as possible. So far he has not been damaged, and he can see Iowa on the horizon.

Who Won the Republican Debate on December 10th?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Who Will Win the New Hampshire Primary in 2012?

Today we continue our series on the early primary states. A few days ago, we took an updated look at who will win the Iowa Caucus. The next state is New Hampshire, which recently confirmed it will hold its primary on January 10, 2012.

There are far fewer candidates who are competitive in New Hampshire than in Iowa. Back in July, when we first considered who will win the New Hampshire primary, there were more options. But Chris Christie declined to run and Tim Pawlenty dropped out. Either of those men, had they won Iowa, would have then become very competitive (or favored) to win New Hampshire. Jon Huntsman, while still probably enjoying a good reputation in New Hampshire, has completely failed to get out of Mitt Romney's shadow. At the same time, Romney has proven to be a more formidable candidate than he first appeared. The only scenario remaining is that Romney holds his lead and wins New Hampshire.

The latest New Hampshire polls reinforce the impression:

New Hampshire Primary
10/25 Rasmussen -- Romney 41, Cain 17, Paul 11, Gingrich 8
10/25 CNN/Time -- Romney 40, Cain 13, Paul 12, Huntsman 6
10/16 Insider Adv -- Romney 39, Cain 24, Paul 11, Huntsman 5
10/13 Magellan (R) -- Romney 41, Cain 20, Paul 10, Huntsman 6

With remarkable consistency, all of the pollsters have Romney at about 40%. In a race with so many participants, a candidate polling at 40% is guaranteed victory. These aren't the first good polls for Romney, either: Every single New Hampshire poll taken this year has shown Romney in the lead. After 22 polls, Romney has to be feeling pretty comfortable. His margin over second place has also been consistently large: Romney has been in the mid-30s to upper 40s in each poll, and no other candidate has reached 30%. Herman Cain has barely broken into the 20s (later falling into the 10s), and that is as high any other candidate has gotten.

If Romney wins Iowa, he will sweep to victory. What if someone else wins Iowa? The only other candidates who could win Iowa have issues with poor perceived electability. The Iowa winner will get a bump in New Hampshire, but Romney will get a bump from people concerned about nominating a winner. For example, if Cain won Iowa, the anti-Romney vote would coalesce around Cain. But the anti-Cain vote would coalesce around Romney.

Thus, Romney has a bit of a failsafe: If someone else wins Iowa, the "strategic panic" voters feel would give Romney a bump to counteract the bump that the Iowa winner gets. Romney is therefore guaranteed to win New Hampshire, and the only question is his margin of victory. Romney will be under pressure to have a pretty big win. He will still be putting resources into New Hampshire to make sure the margin is convincing, but he will be increasingly tempted to go for a win in Iowa and settle the matter early.

How Did the Republican Primary Become a Two-Man Race?

Up until a month or two ago, it was common to hear political pundits say that this was "the most open Republican field" they had ever seen. The consensus was that it's anyone's game, and that no one could tell who the nominee was going to be. Today, political observers are equally confident that the 2012 Republican primary is a two-man race between Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. How did this happen, and why have other candidates failed to gain any traction?

To begin with, we should take a look at the list of candidates for the Republican nomination on the Campaign Status page. There are eight candidates officially in the race. A few months ago, there were several more on the table. State and national polls showed Mike Huckabee was in a strong position to win, but he declined to run. Establishment-friendly governors Mitch Daniels and Tim Pawlenty also exited the race or declined to run. Sarah Palin, who would make waves regardless of her ability to win, has apparently declined to run, though she has not made an official announcement as such. And of course, Chris Christie, who is a strong favorite to win the nomination, has not entered the race or made a convincing declaration he won't run.

If we put aside the seven candidates on the Campaign Status page who are not officially in the race, the answer becomes easier to see. Eight candidates are in the race, and only two of them have any real chance of winning the nomination. Why? Candidates are judged based on their perceived conservatism and perceived electability, which are ranked on the Candidate Profiles page. The following is the process of elimination:

There are no candidates currently in the race who possess both strong perceived conservatism and strong perceived electability. Therefore, the Republican Party's choice is to pick either a candidate with moderate perceived electability and strong perceived conservatism, or a candidate with strong perceived electability and moderate perceived conservatism. This eliminates four of the eight candidates: Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, and Ron Paul are considered very unlikely to be able to win a general election; they have weak perceived electability. Newt Gingrich's conservatism and electability are both under question; he is moderate on both.

The remaining candidates are the electable ones (Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney) and the conservative ones (Rick Perry and Rick Santorum). Romney has far more name recognition than Huntsman. If a voter wants someone who can win, they have little reason to shift from Romney to Huntsman. The voter may prefer Huntsman's economic record, but unless Huntsman catches fire, there's no reason to make that jump. After all, a Romney voter wouldn't want to vote for Huntsman if it would split the vote and let Perry win. Voters of a type tend to coalesce around a candidate to prevent this from happening.

As for the "conservative" type, Perry has far more name recognition than Santorum. Arguably Santorum is more conservative than Perry, but so is Bachmann. Santorum is therefore stifled in Iowa by candidates who beat him on conservatism (Bachmann and perhaps Cain), electability (Romney and perhaps Perry), and name recognition (Bachmann, Perry, Romney, Gingrich, and Ron Paul). Again, voters of a type tend to coalesce, so if you're looking for a conservative you'll go with Perry, and purists will go with Bachmann.

This leaves the race with two candidates, Romney and Perry, who lead in either electability or conservatism without sacrificing too much of the other quality. History suggests the more electable candidate will win. Perry must work hard to bring up his perceived electability and avoid taking too much damage from "pure" conservatives like Bachmann.

Who Won the Republican Debate on September 12th?

As the second Republican primary debate in less than a week, tonight's event served as a sort of re-match for Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. Who won this time, and were the other candidates, like Michele Bachmann, able to make any progress?

Perry and Romney were more evenly matched when they debated each other. Perry was more confident and sure-footed than his first debate performance, but Romney was also strong. Romney was more articulate and specific in his answers; Perry at least staunched the bleeding from the last debate. But Perry was harmed far more by his exchanges with other candidates.

As Elephant Watcher anticipated, Perry's first big test was how to deal with the fallout from his "Social Security is a Ponzi scheme" remarks. Perry explained that he felt Social Security as it is currently designed will ultimately fail, and that something needs to be done to fix it. This is the response he should have given last time. Perry toned down the overheated rhetoric of the previous debate. He was clearly on the defensive, but he was much more able in this debate.

Romney chose to go on the offensive against Perry. He asked Perry about the assertions in his book that Social Security is unconstitutional and should be transferred from the federal to state government. Perry was unfazed and gave as good as he got. Romney erred in attacking Perry so directly; it made him look negative.

Romney was asked about Romneycare, just as he has in all his previous debates. Debate moderators do not seem to tire of asking him about it. Romney gave a strong response, contrasting Romneycare with Obamacare. Perry and Michele Bachmann criticized him, but they were no better prepared than before, and Romney won the issue.

During the September 7th debate, Bachmann declined to attack Perry. This time, she went on the offensive. She offered a sharp critique of Perry's attempt to require girls to take a vaccine for a cancer-causing STD. Perry attempted to explain that the program allowed parents to "opt out," but he did not get the point across. Bachmann, along with Rick Santorum denounced him for trying to "force girls to take an injection." Perry was shaken.

Bachmann and Santorum also joined forces to attack Perry on immigration policy. They accused him of supporting illegal immigrants by providing subsidies for their college education. Perry was booed by an otherwise friendly audience.

Newt Gingrich once again won great applause by saying that Barack Obama scares Americans far more than Perry or Romney. But Gingrich again failed to explain why he should be president instead of the other candidates. He really needed to go on the offensive, despite the risks, because he needs to bring the "major" candidates down to his level. Gingrich arguably had the best answers of any candidate, but if he's not considered in the running, it won't do him any good.

Jon Huntsman gave a stronger debate performance than in the two previous debates. He gave a clear argument for why he should be chosen over Perry and Romney: Utah--when he served as governor--had the highest job growth rate of any state in the country. But like the other "minor" candidates, Huntsman needs to find a way to get himself into the top tier before anyone will pay attention.

What was the overall impact of the debate? While Perry healed some of the damage he inflicted upon himself regarding Social Security, new wounds were opened by Bachmann and Santorum's attacks against his conservative credentials. If they can keep up the attacks, Perry will need to fight a war on two fronts. As Perry lost, Romney gained by default--and by a disciplined debate performance. Bachmann has a long way to go toward bringing down Perry in Iowa, but she may realize that she scored some points by attacking him. Perry needs to be concerned going forward, as the debates have not been good to him.

Who Won the Republican Debate on September 7th?

Perhaps the first "true" debate of the primary season was held tonight, with all of the candidates participating (barring a late entry by Chris Christie or Sarah Palin). Who used the debate most effectively, and who found himself damaged by it?

The main event, of course, was Rick Perry's initiation into the race. Since Perry was in the lead of all national primary polls going into the event, expectations were high. It's difficult to stand out when there are seven other candidates sharing the stage. Perry's performance was mixed. He appeared disciplined and presidential most of the time. Despite it being his first debate, he seemed fairly comfortable and affable. He was not as smooth as Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney, but he was not awkward, either. But he spent most of the debate on the defensive due to the attacks against him--sometimes by the candidates, and sometimes by the moderators.

Perry waded into treacherous waters on the issue of Social Security, which he repeatedly and emphatically called a "Ponzi scheme" as it currently operates. Instead of attacking a system so many voters rely on, he should have said that he would focus on fixing it. That's essentially what Romney did, getting the better of the argument. Perry's remarks may well come back to haunt him, and it was the one moment during the debate when Perry appeared too hot-tempered to be electable.

Oddly, Michele Bachmann did not go on the attack against Perry as she had against Tim Pawlenty in last month's debate. She missed the opportunity to cast doubt on Perry's conservatism. The debate moderators seemed to give Bachmann fewer questions, but her choice to give Perry a pass was inexplicable.

Romney decided to engage with Perry when prompted, but did not go out of his way to attack. Instead, he wisely focused on attacking Obama. Nevertheless, the debate opened with an extended duel between Romney and Perry. It was a draw. Perry and Romney were both well-prepared and anticipated each other's talking points. Later, Romney appeared magnanimous when he was asked about Perry's unpopular vaccine program; instead of attacking Perry, Romney suggested that Perry's heart was in the right place but probably would have done things differently given a second chance.

Once again, Romney was questioned about his healthcare reform in Massachusetts, commonly known as "Romneycare." This time the questioning was even more extensive, particularly on the individual mandate, which requires individuals to purchase healthcare. Romney defended himself well, arguing that in Massachusetts there was a problem with "free riders," but that he would repeal Obamacare. The other candidates engaged Romney, but they did not seem to have specific, prepared avenues of attack.

The remaining candidates struggled to make themselves relevant in what is more and more a two-man race. An interesting moment occurred when Gingrich said he would not allow the liberal media to manipulate Republicans into attacking each other; he encouraged the audience by saying everyone on the stage would be united in preventing Barack Obama from getting a second term. It was the biggest applause line of the night.

Ron Paul took the opportunity to occasionally attack Perry. The first time it occurred, Perry struck back, which was unwise, as it gave Paul time to reply. Later, the candidates ignored Paul and allowed him to marginalize himself.

Jon Huntsman was not a potent force in the debate, but he was much stronger than during his first appearance in August. He even took a few opportunities to attack Romney, his competitor in New Hampshire. But if voters do not view Huntsman as a real contender to win, few will notice, as he is too understated to grab attention.

Herman Cain was also more polished than before, but he had few opportunities to make an impact. Rick Santorum was in the same position.

Who was helped by the debate? Mitt Romney will likely be viewed as a more electable, presidential-seeming candidate than Rick Perry. Perry defended himself well during most of the debate, but the exchange on Social Security and Perry's hesitant, halting answers toward the end of the debate could lower his stock. Bachmann's apparent irrelevance likely made her another candidate harmed by the debate.

Rick Perry Takes the Lead on Intrade

The last few weeks have been rather eventful, so it's time to take another look at the Intrade market on the 2012 Republican nomination, where Intrade investors place bets on the outcome of the primary.

Last month, the Intrade investors perceived a two-man race between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, with Romney still holding onto a small lead. Prior to the Perry boom, Romney had held a comfortable lead for quite a long time. Now Intrade puts Perry in the lead, with a 36.0% chance of victory. Romney is not far behind with 31.0%.

And what of Michele Bachmann, fresh off her win at the Ames straw poll? Apparently the Intrade investors don't think too highly of the straw poll. Rather than seeing Bachmann in closer competition with Perry and Romney, Intrade actually has lower numbers for Bachmann than before: 5.8%. Intrade appears more certain than ever that the primary is a two-man race. Bachmann's 5.8% is tied with Jon Huntsman for the third-highest percentage. With Tim Pawlenty out of the race, Intrade says it's Perry, Romney...and everyone else, way behind.

How did the investors arrive at this conclusion? Although Perry is doing well in some national polls, he has not yet polled well in any early state primaries; few such primary polls have been taken since Perry entered the race. We can take a deeper look into the mind of Intrade investors by examining their markets for the early primaries.

In the Intrade market for the Iowa Caucus, Bachmann is virtually tied with Perry at about 38%. Everyone else is far behind. Meanwhile, on the New Hampshire Intrade market, Romney sits comfortably at 44%, with Perry down in the 20s.

But if Perry and Bachmann have an equal chance of winning the Iowa Caucus, how can Perry have such a higher percentage chance of winning the nomination? In the South Carolina Intrade market, Perry has a 60% chance, with Bachmann down at 13%. Thus, we can conclude that the Intrade investors believe even if Bachmann wins Iowa, it will be a fluke corrected by the voters of South Carolina.

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.

Who Won the Republican Debate on August 11th?

The third primary debate was held tonight. Which candidates helped themselves, and who ended the night in a worse position?

Tonight was Jon Huntsman's first appearance at a primary debate. Unlike Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain, who offered "red meat to the base" during their first appearances, Huntsman just fit in. Being a firebrand is simply not in Huntsman's personality, and he never attacked Mitt Romney, the man standing in his way in New Hampshire. Huntsman also suffered from receiving few questions. It's still unclear whether Huntsman is willing to do what's necessary to make a genuine run for the presidency.

Herman Cain, whose debate appearances are essentially the whole of his campaign, had trouble breaking out from the crowd, just as he did at the June 13th debate. The "Tea Party candidate" focus appears to have gone entirely over to Bachmann and Rick Perry, who is not yet in the race. Cain may fear his moment has passed.

Newt Gingrich, another candidate whose campaign relies solely on the debates, also missed an opportunity to make a real splash tonight. He made no missteps, but he did not effectively engage the other candidates. As we've observed before, Newt Gingrich needs to go on the offensive to leverage his debate talent. Rather than engaging the other candidates, he spent more time attacking the debate moderators.

The main event of the debate was the battle between Minnesotans Michele Bachmann and Tim Pawlenty. Pawlenty was more willing to engage with an opponent, and he wisely stuck to his record. At first, rather than attacking Bachmann personally, he contrasted his executive experience with hers. He was fairly tough when he attacked her "non-existent record."

Bachmann struck back with specific attacks against Pawlenty's policies as governor of Minnesota, and it was clear that she had prepared for this debate battle. And fortunately for Bachmann, the crowd was on her side, as her fans packed the room. When Pawlenty responded, he was more harsh, accusing Bachmann of having a history of making false statements. The crowd was not pleased. Even if Pawlenty had the better of the argument, Bachmann may have appeared the winner to many observers, based on the crowd reaction. It's clear Republicans do not wish to see the candidates go too negative (against each other) just yet.

As one might expect, Mitt Romney was asked about his defense of Romneycare again. Once more, he deflected the question with his well-rehearsed argument about the differences between Romneycare and Obamacare. The moderators seemed more willing to argue with him than the moderators of the June 13th debate. But a debate is really about the candidates. Pawlenty did attack Romney, but he was not able to do any damage, and it did not develop into an extended duel like his conflict with Bachmann.

Ron Paul seemed more awkward and uncomfortable during the debate than normal, yet he was the recipient of a surprisingly large amount of airtime. Poor Rick Santorum, who made a complaint about not getting enough questions, received the distinction of having the Gary Johnson / Mike Gravel moment, and it always makes the whining candidate look smaller. But Santorum did get far more opportunities than usual to get his message out, and he was stronger than in previous debates.

There were no game-changing moments. Romney was likely pleased that he got the opportunity to showcase his economic views. Rick Perry was likely pleased that two of his main competitors in Iowa (Bachmann and Pawlenty) were attacking each other. Indeed, Perry may have been the real winner of the debate.

Primary Debate Tomorrow in Ames Iowa

Fox News is hosting a primary debate in Ames, Iowa tomorrow evening. This time around, eight candidates will participate (the eight "officially running" candidates listed on the Campaign Status page): Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Huntsman, Paul, Pawlenty, Romney, and Santorum. Each of these candidates have attended at least one previous debate, except for Jon Huntsman. The former governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson, was not invited to attend; he may well find himself excluded from the remaining debates.

Since this is Huntsman's first debate appearance, it will give him an opportunity to make a good--or bad--first impression. First impressions in debates can be useful; Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain each boosted their visibility and popularity following their initial debate performances. Most people have never seen or heard Huntsman, so he will have the task of introducing himself to the public on a solid footing. But it may be difficult for him to get attention, given how many players are on the stage.

Tomorrow's debate will be at an awkward time in the race: Most watchers' eyes are on Rick Perry, who is poised to enter the race. But as Elephant Watcher predicted back in June, Perry will enter the race immediately after the debate and the Ames straw poll, in order to blunt their impact. Thus, Perry will be on everyone's mind, but he won't be present. This may give the impression that the debate (and Ames straw poll) are sort of a waste of time.

There are a few things to watch for, however. Tim Pawlenty's criticism of Bachmann in recent weeks may encourage the debate moderators to stoke a fight between the two. Sarah Palin appears to have dropped off the radar entirely, so a new "feud" will need to be developed. Pawlenty is in a difficult position: He stands to lose much and gain little by attacking Bachmann, but because he refused to attack Mitt Romney during the June debate, he will be tagged as a timid candidate if he runs from another fight.

Meanwhile, both Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain will need to make full use of their debate platforms to re-energize their campaigns and get media attention. Otherwise, they'll descend from the field of view. Romney, on the other hand, will attempt to stay above the fray. The big question for Romney will be whether he is forced to address the Romneycare issue more fully, or if he gets another pass.

Intrade Odds: Rick Perry Soars, Michele Bachmann Past Her Peak?

In the weeks since our last visit to the Intrade market on the 2012 Republican nomination, the race has taken a new shape. According to Intrade's investors, the primary has become something of a two-man race: Mitt Romney versus Rick Perry.

Romney is still in the lead with 33.7%. But he's only just ahead of his nearest competitor now: Perry has jumped up to 28.5%. Previously, Romney had enjoyed a very comfortable lead; now, it's a race. The odds have been influenced by continued reports from Texas that Perry does intend to run for president. If and when he does officially get into the race, it's likely that Perry will increases his chances even more.

The other shift in the dynamic is how Intrade investors view Michele Bachmann. A few weeks ago, she peaked at over 18% and was tied for second with Perry. Now, her odds have shrunk to 9.1%. A couple things have happened. First, negative press about Bachmann has diminished the perception that she is a credible candidate. Second, the character of the average Intrade investor has reasserted itself. Intrade investors tend to reflect the conventional wisdom of the Washington establishment. They may hope someone as unelectable as Bachmann wins the nomination (to help the Democratic Party's chances of retaining control of the presidency). But they tend to have a bias in favor of traditional, establishment candidates.

Thus, Bachmann--even in spite of her polling of late--has fallen to a second-tier, which she shares with Tim Pawlenty and even Jon Huntsman, who are at 6.0% and 8.0%, respectively. Intrade investors are more likely to think of Perry, a three-term governor of a major state, as a real contender. The Intrade market for the Iowa Caucus reflects the change: Bachmann still has decent odds at 41.0%, but Perry has more than doubled his previous odds to 30.0%.

Though the wisdom of the Intrade investors is easy to critique, they must be given credit for doing more than simply looking at the recent poll numbers. They correctly perceive the potential in Perry, and they show signs of understanding Bachmann's challenges.

Jon Huntsman Attacks Mitt Romney

The Jon Huntsman campaign has begun seriously criticizing its chief rival in New Hampshire, Mitt Romney. According to a CNN report, Huntsman has been making a number of attacks against Romney's economic record, especially as pertains to jobs. He hasn't shied away from tough rhetoric: A Huntsman spokesman said that Romney's job creation record is "abysmal by every standard."

Remarks like that from campaign spokesmen do not mean as much as something from the candidate himself. Typically, a spokesman is more willing to make a harsh criticism because the candidate himself can disavow it if it misfires. Campaign staffers may also disagree as to the intensity of attacks the campaign should be making--recall, for instance, the apparent turmoil in the Tim Pawlenty campaign about whether he should "go negative."

But Huntsman has been willing to shed a little of his diplomatic aura by attacking Romney himself, especially when prompted to do so by reporters. When asked whether he agreed with his spokesman's statement, Huntsman responded: "Forty-seventh is forty-seventh; first is first...Let the facts speak for themselves." It's not as intensely negative as Pawlenty's attacks against Bachmann, but tougher than anything we had seen from Huntsman before.

Elephant Watcher has observed that Huntsman may have mixed motives for running for president. Huntsman may be planning a run in 2016, or perhaps jockeying for a Secretary of State appointment. Huntsman's attacks against Romney are only consistent with a serious effort at winning the presidency this time around. Perhaps even more noteworthy is the fact that Huntsman focused on the economy--jobs, no less--which is obviously tailored for the current political environment. It will be interesting to see whether he returns to talking about his foreign policy experience, which would be more relevant for a Secretary of State position (or even a 2016 presidential run).

The true test will be at the next major primary debate, scheduled for mid-August. It will be the first debate attended by Huntsman, and he may even be asked about his criticisms of Romney. As we saw with Pawlenty at the previous debate, a candidate may back down in person if he's not fully committed to an offensive strategy. It doesn't make much sense to "go negative" early, but for Huntsman, New Hampshire is everything. Romney is really his only competitor there. If there were many candidates who could gain from Romney's downfall, Huntsman would be wise to sit back and build himself up, but an offensive strategy makes sense in New Hampshire.

What could account for this sudden change in Huntsman? Perhaps it is Michele Bachmann's rise in the polls, which has as much to do with Romney's vulnerability as it does with anything attractive about Bachmann. Huntsman may see Romney as less than invincible.

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.

What Job Is Jon Huntsman Running For?

Huntsman

Jon Huntsman, Jr. entered the race to little fanfare last month. Though he is a favorite of the Washington establishment, few people took much notice of his campaign, and he made little effort to get notice. Huntsman deliberately timed his entry into the race after the June 13th debate, even though he had been preparing for the run in advance of it. Huntsman, unlike most other candidates, entered the race realizing how low his poll numbers were, and how difficult it would be to win the nomination. By contrast, candidates like Tim Pawlenty and Herman Cain made preparations for their campaigns before there was any good polling data. They took a leap of faith, not knowing how voters would respond to them--or even whom their opponents would be. Why would Huntsman get into the race if he knew in advance how slim his chances would be?

As Elephant Watcher observed when Huntsman made his announcement, it's possible that Huntsman feels there's a benefit to running even if he doesn't win. If, say, Mitt Romney wins the nomination and President Obama is reelected in 2012, there will be an opening for a Republican to run in 2016 with no incumbent opponent from either party. Since the Republican Party has a history of nominating the runner-up from the previous nomination contest (or at least someone who has run before), it could be to Huntsman's benefit in 2016 if he ran in 2012.

Another theory is that Jon Huntsman, with his considerable diplomatic and foreign policy experience, is actually running for the position of secretary of state. If one of his opponents wins the Republican nomination and defeats Obama, that new Republican president could appoint Huntsman as his secretary of state. The idea goes that by running for the nomination and failing, Huntsman still raises his visibility and gets many opportunities to advertise his diplomatic credentials.

The third theory is the most obvious one, that Huntsman intends to win the presidency in 2012. The odds may be against him, but he does have a path to victory: through Romney. If Huntsman can topple Romney in New Hampshire, he will replace Romney and have a shot at the nomination. Anyone who wins the Republican nomination, especially if he is highly electable, stands a good chance at winning the general election.

It may be possible to deduce from Huntsman's behavior which of the jobs he's after. Each of these theories requires a different scenario. Let's start by looking at the first scenario, where Huntsman intends to run for president in 2016. This requires Obama to win reelection. Thus, we would expect Huntsman to spend a lot less time attacking Obama. Normally a candidate spends a lot of time criticizing the incumbent of the other party, but in this scenario Huntsman actually wants Obama to win reelection. Huntsman may even want to spend more time attacking his Republican opponents, though he would want to avoid making permanent enemies.

If Huntsman wants to be secretary of state, he needs for Obama to lose. Thus, he may be more willing to attack Obama. He would be a lot less willing to attack the Republican whom he thinks will win the nomination; after all, that would be the person who wins the general election and appoints Huntsman secretary of state. The biggest hint of all would be if Huntsman spends a lot of his campaign talking about foreign policy. As we've observed numerous times, the 2012 election will be about the economy. Huntsman has a conservative economic record, so it's not as though he needs to avoid that topic in lieu of discussing foreign policy. But if Huntsman wants to be appointed secretary of state, it would make more sense for him to advertise his diplomatic and foreign policy credentials.

Finally, if Huntsman truly intends to win the presidency in 2012, he will need to attack Romney and Obama. He needs both of them to lose for himself to win. And he will focus more on economic policy, since that will be the issue voters look at when picking their president.

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.