2012 Republican Primary in Review: January 2012

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

January 2012 was the month of the early primary states. By tying for first in Iowa, easily winning New Hampshire, and decisively defeating his remaining opponents in Florida, Mitt Romney secured his position as the prohibitive favorite to win the nomination.

As January began, the situation in Iowa was unclear. Romney, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum all had reasons to be optimistic. Newt Gingrich, who had been leading in Iowa only a few weeks earlier, had been devastated by his rivals' negative ads. With no opportunities to debate, Gingrich could not respond. At last, Santorum was given the chance to be the Evangelical Anti-Romney in Iowa. His surge began at the last possible moment; it was spotted by Rick Perry and Paul, who quickly responded with the first attacks ever made against Santorum.

It was a race against time for Santorum, and he lost. Romney managed to squeak out a win in Iowa on January 3rd, beating Santorum by 8 votes. Santorum's spike in the polls was impressive, but so was Romney's ability to make a last-minute play for the state--one he had largely written off since his defeat there in 2008. A recount later found that Santorum had actually won the state by a handful of votes, but he was unable to get the kind of big win that he needed to propel him above Gingrich elsewhere in the country. Santorum was an Iowa-only candidate. Michele Bachmann fared even worse, and she quit the race.

Romney was expected to win the New Hampshire Primary, where he had dominated the polls all year. On January 7th, the candidates finally returned to the debate stage, but they didn't take the opportunity to attack Romney. He easily won the debate; on January 10th he won New Hampshire just as easily. Santorum and Gingrich tied each other for a distant fourth.

Romney's wins in Iowa and New Hampshire gave him a huge bounce in the polls--even in South Carolina, by far the most anti-Romney of the early states. The media began to speculate that Romney might simply win every contest. Seeing no path forward, Jon Huntsman dropped out of the race.

Gingrich and Perry shifted entirely to the offensive against Romney. Their main line of attack was to condemn Romney's success at Bain Capital, a private equity firm. Although they seemed to be scoring points at first, the attacks backfired: They sounded like anti-capitalist critics from the left, and were forced to retreat.

On January 16th, the first of two pre-South Carolina debates took place. Gingrich was given a prime opportunity to attack the liberal media after one liberal moderator all but accused him of being a racist. In attacking the media, Gingrich looked like a genuine Tea Party conservative--enabling voters to overlook his impure record. But that wasn't all: Gingrich was well ahead of Santorum in the polls, and Perry dropped out of the race to endorse Gingrich. It was clear that if anyone would be the alternative to Romney, Gingrich was it. The Anti-Romney vote coalesced, and Gingrich began to surge in the polls.

On January 19th, Gingrich was able to launch a broadside against the liberal media at another debate, when he was asked about his ex-wife's accusations. As with Herman Cain's sex scandal a few months earlier, it took some time before the issue would sink in and drive women voters away from Gingrich. Meanwhile, Romney--who had been able to defeat the Bain criticism--was badly damaged because he refused to release his tax returns. When questioned about it during the debates, he was evasive and defensive. South Carolina's voters began to question Romney's electability: Was he hiding something that would sink him in the general election?

Gingrich won a landslide victory in South Carolina on January 21st. In response, the media narrative shifted dramatically. Romney was no longer the inevitable Republican nominee. Gingrich had the momentum, it seemed. After being left for dead a second time in the campaign, Gingrich had made a comeback. He retook the lead in the Florida polls, a state Romney badly needed to win.

But the situation was not nearly as dire for Romney as it appeared. Despite having been at a severe disadvantage in South Carolina, Romney had nearly doubled his share of the vote there, compared to his run in 2008. And the damage to his electability argument was very superficial: All he had to do was release his tax returns, which he did the following week. As it turned out, there were no skeletons in his closet. Romney had merely been stubborn in failing to release them earlier.

But the Romney campaign knew they had to turn things around. They pulled out all the stops, pouring millions of dollars into negative ads against Gingrich in Florida. As in Iowa, the attacks had a big impact. But Gingrich's real vulnerability lay in the very thing he claimed to be his greatest strength--his debating ability. As Elephant Watcher predicted, Gingrich was not able to debate very well when actually challenged by his opponents. On January 23rd, Gingrich's performance was lackluster. On January 26th, it was disastrous. Romney won the debate by repeatedly hammering Gingrich, who was unable to respond.

In the days following the debates, Romney soared in the Florida polls. Voters' concerns about Romney's electability and toughness were dispelled. By contrast, Gingrich's campaign was left in ruins. Gingrich began to lash out, complaining about the negative ads while taking an increasingly negative tone in interviews. For weeks, Gingrich had claimed that he was the most electable candidate because he was the best man to face Barack Obama in a debate. But after losing two debates, Gingrich found himself making all kinds of excuses for why he was unable to debate properly. All the while, Florida was drenched in attack ads.

On January 31st, Floridians cast their votes in the primary. Romney won an overwhelming victory. Gingrich vowed to fight on, but the situation seemed hopeless. Florida had been very receptive to Gingrich in the past, and was his best hope for building momentum going into a longer race. Romney, having proven he could destroy Gingrich on neutral ground, looked to be in total control.

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).

Who Won the Republican Debate on January 7th?

When answering the question of "who won tonight's debate?" this season, most of the time the answer has been mixed. This time, that's not the case. Mitt Romney overwhelmingly won the debate. It was perhaps the most one-sided debate so far, such that nearly every observer would agree that Romney was the winner.

It was expected that most of the candidates would spend their time attacking Romney. Although there were moments when most of the candidates were critical of Romney, they didn't devote much time to it. During the first half-hour in particular, the Anti-Romneys found themselves attacking each other instead. When Romney was criticized, he did not take the bait, but instead calmly made the case for why he should be president. It's clear that he was attempting to look presidential, and he succeeded in doing so more than the other candidates did.

No new attacks against Romney were laid out. There was some criticism of Romney's tenure at Bain Capital, which Romney dealt with even more effectively than in previous debates where the issue was raised. Romney listed specific companies that Bain helped start, and listed statistics of tens of thousands of jobs created by those companies. Romney also scored big against the debate moderator, George Stephanopoulos, who pressed Romney on whether states have the right to ban contraception. Romney found himself laughing at the absurdity of the question, since no state wants to ban contraception. It would be an understatement to say the audience was in Romney's corner. Stephanopoulos embarrassed himself.

The most contentious moments of the debate took place when Ron Paul got into extended fights with Rick Santorum (accusing Santorum of too much spending and taking money from lobbyists) and Newt Gingrich (accusing Gingrich of being a "chickenhawk" for not serving in the military). It was very evident that Gingrich and Paul do not like each other.

There were some odd moments. Rick Perry, falling back into the pattern of making at least one gaffe per night, said that if America did not return to Iraq, Iran would go back into Iraq "literally at the speed of light." Paul claimed that after communists in China murdered 100 million of their own people, America broke the ice with them by playing ping-pong. And in the middle of one response, Jon Huntsman randomly spoke in Chinese for no apparent reason.

Tonight was Rick Santorum's first opportunity to play a starring role in a debate. He gave a vanilla performance: Not bad, but not especially good. It was to his detriment that he was put on the defensive by Paul, as opposed to putting Romney on the defensive. If the other candidates were supposed to provide New Hampshire a reason not to hand the state to Romney, they did not provide it. Instead, they gave New Hampshire an excuse to deliver Romney a landslide.

Primary Debate Tomorrow on ABC

The first primary debate since mid-December will take place tomorrow on ABC at 9:00pm Eastern. The Republican field has been winnowed down to six candidates: Gingrich, Huntsman, Paul, Perry, Romney, and Santorum. The debate will take place just a few days before the New Hampshire primary, where Mitt Romney has been leading in the polls by a significant margin all year. Romney's competitors will be tempted to make him a punching bag. Rick Santorum probably sees himself as the chief Anti-Romney, Newt Gingrich is reportedly steaming after his loss in Iowa, and for Jon Huntsman, it will be the last chance to be relevant. Rick Perry has historically enjoyed going on the attack against Romney, but if his strategy is based soley on South Carolina, he may realize he needs to attack Santorum instead.

Romney has a familiar frontrunner's challenge: How do you deal with a debate where everyone is attacking you, again and again? Though Romney has never experienced the spike-and-crash that others have--leading some to wrongly suggest that he hasn't been vetted yet--Romney should be used to being attacked. The key is to answer the opponent's substantive arguments, but not to show annoyance. Romney has gone both routes in past debates. Sometimes he is disciplined and is able to parry the attacks with good humor; other times he lets his opponents get under his skin. The latter leads to mistakes, like Romney's $10,000 challenge to Perry in a December debate. The debate will therefore be an important test for Romney, because most everyone will be trying to make him stumble.

Is the pile-on-Romney strategy appropriate in this case? For Santorum it probably is, as Gingrich may be falling under his own weight (one South Carolina poll shows Santorum slightly ahead of Gingrich). For Gingrich and Perry, the answer is no. Their target should be Santorum, who threatens to unite the Anti-Romney voters under his own banner. To stand a chance, they must launch an assault on Santorum that brings them down to their own post-crash polling level.

What should viewers look for in the debate? Romney has been criticized over Romneycare and his tenure at Bain Capital in multiple debates, but his opponents may come up with new material. The other thing to watch for is how Santorum's new position affects the dynamic. In previous debates, he was irrelevant and often whined about it. Now he has the chance to show what he can do with a starring role. And attacks against Santorum will be entirely new territory.

The 2012 Republican Primary: Phase Four

Back in May, Elephant Watcher broke down the long primary season into four phases. In Phase One, most of the potential candidates made the decision of whether to enter the race, and if so, they got their operations up and running. During the summer, Phase Two, the field took shape and the candidates plotted out their campaign strategies. Then, in Phase Three, the candidates participated in numerous debates, where they were put to the test for the first time. Some candidates, like Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, succeeded. Others, like Rick Perry, fell far short of expectations. And most, like Jon Huntsman and Michele Bachmann, couldn't gain any traction.

Now, as the Christmas season comes to a close, Phase Four has begun. Before, voters in Iowa and New Hampshire were the only ones watching. From this point forward, the rest of the country will start tuning in. Whatever the result of the Iowa Caucus, it will make headlines. Then it will be New Hampshire, then South Carolina, then Florida.

Phase Three narrowed the field to just a few candidates who have a decent chance of winning early states. The polls show Romney, Gingrich, and Ron Paul within striking distance in Iowa. In New Hampshire, Romney is alone at the top. South Carolina will be influenced by the results of the previous two states: If Gingrich wins Iowa, he probably wins in South Carolina; if Gingrich fails in Iowa, he may still win South Carolina but it will be closer. Florida will be decisive if Romney wins there, otherwise Romney will be preparing for a long campaign against Gingrich.

If the minor candidates fail to win any of the first three states, they will start dropping out. An Iowa-centric candidate like Rick Santorum may even drop out after failing to win the first contest. Huntsman may drop out after losing New Hampshire. Some, like Paul and perhaps Bachmann, are running to make a point, and will stay in until the bitter end.

The debates were critical in Phase Three, and they will still be important in Phase Four. There will be one or two debates held before each of the contests after Iowa. With candidates dropping out and debate sponsors setting stricter requirements for participation, the leading candidates will have many opportunities for one-on-one arguments. The two frontrunners today, Romney and Gingrich, are both skilled debaters. Now we'll find out how good they are at getting votes.

The Myth of Mitt Romney's 25-Point Ceiling

Romney

Although most political analysts (and polled Americans) agree that Mitt Romney will win the Republican nomination, it's increasingly become the conventional wisdom that Romney suffers from a ceiling of 25% of the Republican electorate. The idea is that Romney has been unable to break out in the national primary polls, and has consistently polled at or below 25%. Meanwhile, the other 75% has been desperately looking for an Anti-Romney and won't support Romney under any circumstances.

It's true that the national primary polls have consistently put Romney in the low-to-mid 20s, with Romney rarely polling above 25%. But is there any truth to the idea that there is a uniquely anti-Romney ceiling of 25% that prevents him from getting votes from the other three-quarters of Republicans? Not really. The concept is flawed for a number of reasons.

Perhaps the most important flaw in the 25% ceiling is that Romney regularly polls well above 25% in early state primary polls. As we've discussed at length in the past, polls in the early states are far more important than national primary polls: The voters in early states pay attention sooner, the candidates actually campaign there, and the results of the early state contests influence the electorate in the later states.

The New Hampshire primary polls always have Romney far above the 25% ceiling. Romney tends to poll about 40% in New Hampshire, regardless of the pollster, and across a long period of time. Indeed, Romney rarely gets below 35% in any of these polls. No other candidate has gotten such high numbers in any state.

The counterargument is that New Hampshire is unique. But there are only a few states in which the candidates are actually competing: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida, and Nevada. For the most part, the candidates are currently focusing on just Iowa and New Hampshire. To suggest that New Hampshire doesn't count is effectively tossing out half the field for little or no reason. More likely, the reason that Romney does so well in New Hampshire is not that New Hampshire is so unique, but because it's the only state in which Romney has really campaigned.

The Florida primary polls have also repeatedly given Romney above 25%, particularly in October. There's been little polling in Nevada, but Romney likely gets more than his "ceiling" in that state as well.

The second big flaw in the theory is the fact that the other candidates have failed to break 25% in the national primary polls. Only Rick Perry, who enjoyed a brief honeymoon in September, managed to break 25% in the polls for awhile. If none of the other candidates can break 25%, why would Romney be the one who suffers from a ceiling? Wouldn't all of the other candidates have the same Anti-Candidate problem with 75% of the electorate?

The third problem with the ceiling theory is that it doesn't account for how difficult it is to poll more than 25% of the electorate in a multi-candidate race--especially when you throw in a large percentage of undecided voters who don't select any of the candidates. If, say, 20% of those polled are undecided, one needs to get 3/8 of the remainder to poll at a mere 30%. It's not easy to get 3/8 when there are eight candidates in the race. Getting that high essentially means you win, unless it's a two-man race.

After the first few primaries, the field will be whittled down to two or three (or perhaps one) candidates. Voters will then coalesce around the survivors and push them above 25%. The Anti-Romney vote will coalesce, but so will the Anti-Anti-Romney vote. (Which is to say, for example, if Newt Gingrich won Iowa, the Anti-Gingrich vote would coalesce around Romney in the same way that the Anti-Romney vote coalesces around Gingrich.)

Having debunked the myth of the 25% ceiling, it's also worth pointing out a historical trend: As voting day approaches, voters tend to move toward a more electable choice, even if the candidate is less exciting. Viewing the current field, the only candidate in the running who's considered very electable is Mitt Romney. His current numbers in New Hampshire guarantee him victory there, and the "strategic shift" will likely boost his numbers in Iowa, as well.

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.

Will Mitt Romney Shift Resources to Iowa?

According to the latest reporting, Mitt Romney has finally begun to make appearances in Iowa, and he may be shifting resources there (e.g. hiring staff, buying TV time on Iowan stations, etc.). What does this say about the state of the 2012 Republican presidential primary, and what are the implications if Romney does focus more on Iowa?

From the beginning of the primary season, the early contests have been divided into two groups: Those perceived to be in Tea Party favorite states, and those in establishment states. Iowa represented the best hope for (potential) candidates like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry, while New Hampshire would be won by an establishment candidate such as Romney or Chris Christie. As many of the establishment-friendly personalities dropped out of the race, New Hampshire became a stronghold for Romney. Meanwhile, Iowa became split among various Tea Party favorites--and Romney.

As Iowa polls have shown different frontrunners in that state each month, Romney has managed to hold onto a core group of voters. This has usually kept him in second place, though when Tea Party flavors-of-the-month crashed, Romney occasionally polled first. Meanwhile, Romney has enjoyed a commanding lead over all opponents in every New Hampshire poll taken this year.

In 2008, Romney learned that taking second place counts for little if you can't take first in one of the early contests. As a result, Romney has poured all of his resources into New Hampshire, guaranteeing him a win. He has avoided putting too much into Iowa, where he lost in 2008. Yet the prospect of winning Iowa must be tempting, since a Romney win in Iowa would guarantee him a swift nomination victory. If Romney has already guaranteed himself a win in New Hampshire, he has a free hand to move resources into Iowa. Over time, it will become more and more tempting.

Judging from the polls, Romney is always within striking distance of winning Iowa. If he puts resources into the state, he may increase in the polls. If he continues winning debates, he will rise even more. And in the weeks before votes are cast, a "strategic shift" will take place, with voters switching their support toward candidates they perceive as best able to defeat Barack Obama--in other words, a pro-Romney shift.

On the other hand, Romney has fared well in the Iowa polls partly due to the split among the different anti-Romney candidates. As voting day approaches, voters also shift in favor of the leading contenders. When the anti-Romney vote coalesces, it may become much more difficult for Romney to take first. If they remain divided, it will be easier. In either case, much will depend on just how effective Romney's resources are, once they are employed.

Intrade Odds: Mitt Romney Dominates the Competition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Have Attacks Against Mitt Romney Been Ineffective?

Romney

Traditionally, whichever candidate leads in the national primary polls suffers attacks from the other candidates. After Mike Huckabee declined to join the race in May 2011, Mitt Romney jumped to the top of the national polls. He was knocked out of the first place position in August when Rick Perry entered the race and replaced him as the purported frontrunner. In the meantime, frontrunner Romney was attacked; now it's Perry's turn.

But there's been a difference in the effectiveness of the attacks against various candidates. In April, when Donald Trump was doing well in some national polls, he was quickly cut down by attacks against his authenticity. When Michele Bachmann entered the race and began doing well in Iowa, she was swiftly humbled by attacks against her electability. Bachmann's fall allowed her to be overtaken by Perry. Now Perry has been on the receiving end of attacks against his electability and conservatism. It's likely he'll fall from his comfortable frontrunner position in the polls.

Romney, too, suffered a fall in the polls. The shallow depth of Romney's support was seen when Perry was able to easily replace him as the leader in the polls. There's been a contrast, however. Prior to Perry's entry, Romney's poll numbers were not worn down by three months of attacks against him. Also, unlike other candidates who have gone down and stayed down, Romney is going back up. That's most clearly seen in Mitt Romney's Intrade odds, and it's likely to be seen in future polls.

Why the difference? Romney's main weakness has always been Romneycare. He erred in failing to repudiate it, and debate moderators have asked him about it in all four debates. The reason Romney has not been hurt more by Romneycare is that he is far better prepared to defend himself than other candidates are prepared to attack him. Romney's answers are well-rehearsed. His opponents' attacks are not. The exchanges on Romneycare have all followed some variation of the following pattern:

1. Debate moderator asks Romney about Romneycare.
2. Romney defends himself and reiterates his commitment to repealing Obamacare.
3. Opponent says that Obamacare was modeled on Romneycare.
4. Romney refutes this by listing differences between Romneycare and Obamacare.
5. Opponent stammers, "Come on, we know they're the same."

To defeat Romney, opponents need to have as substantive and well-rehearsed counter-points for step #5 as Romney has for steps #2 and #4. The same could be said for other attacks aimed against Romney, e.g. criticisms of his work for Bain Capital, where Romney either created jobs or fired people, depending upon the source.

Another reason Romney's position appears to be impregnable is the fact that he's running in New Hampshire, rather than Iowa. In Iowa, many candidates are staking the lives of their campaigns. Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, and (unwisely) Newt Gingrich all see themselves in a do-or-die situation in Iowa. Perry is competing there as if he needs to win, though he's likely to win South Carolina even if he loses Iowa. In New Hampshire, Romney is basically by himself. Only Huntsman is targeting New Hampshire, and he's hardly in the race.

Thus, the configuration of the early primaries has been to Romney's advantage: The other candidates have less incentive to attack him, as their top priority is defeating competitors in Iowa. Until the Iowa Caucus, Romney will not be the focus of their attacks. And that's a long time from now.

Intrade Odds: Mitt Romney Retakes the Lead

After Rick Perry entered the race and jumped to a big lead in all the national primary polls, Intrade odds put Rick Perry in first. But in the wake of Perry's first debate appearance, the Intrade market on the 2012 Republican nomination has shifted considerably.

At Perry's height, he was at roughly 39%, with Romney down to 30%, and everyone else in single-digits. As is usually the case, the Intrade market reflected the latest national primary polls, and the conventional wisdom that the primary was a two-man race with Perry in front. Since the debate, Mitt Romney has retaken the lead. It is interesting to see how the market has changed, even though no new polls have been conducted to show Romney in the lead (yet). Instead, Intrade's reaction was based entirely upon its verdict of who won the debate.

Intrade has Romney in the lead--albeit a very small lead--at 37.7%. Perry is on his heels at 36.4%. It's essentially a coin-flip between the two men. Elephant Watcher is now curious to see how Intrade will react to the next primary debate, to be held in a few days.

All of the other candidates are still in single-digits: Jon Huntsman, despite his poor poll numbers, is at 6.1%. Sarah Palin, not in the race, has teased her way to 5.4%. The biggest change is Michele Bachmann, who had been something of a third wheel by virtue of her strong poll numbers in Iowa. Bachmann has collapsed completely, down to 2.9%. Perry's candidacy, perhaps combined with Bachmann's irrelevance in the September 7th debate, has mortally wounded Bachmann in Intrade's eyes.

Do the Intrade markets on the early primaries reflect these changes? Yes. Before, Bachmann and Perry were approximately tied in the Iowa Caucus market. Now Perry dominates her, 52.0% to 20.0%. And without Iowa, Bachmann is nothing. Intrade's South Carolina market has Perry at 65.0% and Bachmann at merely 4.0%.

That explains Bachmann's fall, but what about Romney's tie with Perry in the odds of winning the nomination? The New Hampshire market has Romney with a huge lead, 60.0% to Perry's 24.5%. Thus, Intrade investors expect Perry to win Iowa and South Carolina, Romney to win New Hampshire, and a completely hazy future following those contests.

The State of the States

A few days ago we did a round-up of the latest national 2012 Republican primary polls. The primary will actually take place in a series of state-by-state contests, with each state's results influencing subsequent contests. This means it is more important to look at the state of the race in each state. If history is any indication, the results of the first four contests will shape the rest of the primary--if not decide the winner completely.

Today, we will examine the latest polls in each of the four early primaries. Polls which were conducted after Rick Perry's entry on August 13th will be in bold, as they are the ones which should be taken most seriously.

As always, all of the early state primary polls can be found on the Primaries page.

Iowa Caucus
08/23 Magellan (R) -- Perry 24, Bachmann 22, Romney 19, Paul 9
08/22 WPA (R-Perry) -- Perry 23, Bachmann 20, Romney 16, Paul 9
08/21 PPP (D) -- Perry 21, Romney 18, Bachmann 15, Paul 12
08/04 Rasmussen -- Bachmann 22, Romney 21, Paul 16, Perry 12
07/12 Magellan (R) -- Bachmann 29, Romney 16, Pawlenty 8, Cain 8
07/11 ARG -- Bachmann 21, Romney 18, Paul 14, Palin 11
07/07 Mason-Dixon -- Bachmann 32, Romney 29, Pawlenty 7, Santorum 6

In Iowa, Perry holds onto a small lead over Michele Bachmann and Mitt Romney. What's most clear is that Bachmann has fallen as Perry gained, and that both Bachmann and Romney are within striking distance of first place.

Time favors electable candidates, as voters make strategic decisions toward the end of the race. That's good for Romney and bad for Perry and (especially) Bachmann. The good news for Perry is that voters also tend to leave low-polling candidates at the very end. If Perry is able to get a substantial lead over Bachmann, her support will fall away at the last moment and rally around Perry.

Assuming Chris Christie doesn't jump into the race, either Perry or Romney could win Iowa. For the moment, the odds favor Perry, but not overwhelmingly.

New Hampshire Primary
08/16 Magellan (R) -- Romney 36, Perry 18, Paul 14, Bachmann 10
07/13 ARG -- Romney 29, Bachmann 12, Giuliani 9, Palin 8
07/05 PPP (D) -- Romney 25, Bachmann 18, Palin 11, Paul 9
07/01 UNH/WMUR -- Romney 35, Bachmann 12, Paul 7, Giuliani 7

Thus far, Romney has always managed to hold a giant lead in New Hampshire. Were he to win Iowa, his lead would grow further, and he would likely win the Republican nomination with ease. If Perry wins Iowa, Perry's numbers in New Hampshire will likely increase; Bachmann's defeat to Perry in Iowa would also result in Bachmann's numbers (such as they are) in New Hampshire to decrease. Thus, a Perry win in Iowa would make the contest in New Hampshire closer.

At this time, no one expects a winner in New Hampshire other than Romney. Instead, pundits will focus on the size of his win. If Perry comes close in New Hampshire, Romney will be seen as losing to an extent.

Nevada Caucus
07/31 PPP (D) -- Romney 31, Perry 18, Bachmann 10, Palin 10

Almost no polling has been conducted in Nevada (and none after Perry's entry), which reflects the lesser importance that Nevada is usually given, despite its place in the schedule. In 2008, Romney easily carried Nevada, thanks to overwhelming support from the Mormon vote. As with New Hampshire, pundits--to the extent that they consider the results in Nevada much at all--will be looking at the size of Romney's win.

South Carolina Primary
08/23 Magellan (R) -- Perry 31, Romney 20, Bachmann 14, Cain 9
07/17 ARG -- Romney 25, Palin 16, Bachmann 13, Cain 10

Very little polling has been done in South Carolina. Its polling does not seem to be a twin of Iowa's, mainly owing to Bachmann's lesser strength here than Iowa, the state of her birth. If Bachmann loses to Perry in Iowa, Perry's lead over her in South Carolina will balloon. Bachmann's candidacy could be crushed here, removing her as a threat to Perry. (That doesn't necessarily mean she will quit the race, however.)

Perry, as the Southerner in the race, is expected to win in South Carolina. In some ways, South Carolina is the reverse of New Hampshire; people will scrutinize the size of Perry's win. If Romney gets close, it will be a loss of sorts for Perry.

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.

Why Is Newt Gingrich Doing So Badly in the Polls?

Gingrich

Of all the declared candidates with high name recognition--Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney--Gingrich has fared the worst in the polls. This is particularly true when you exclude Paul, who cannot win, from consideration. In the early state primary polls, Gingrich has struggled to even make fourth place. He has done even worse since Bachmann entered the race in mid-June.

Given the fact that Gingrich has such high name recognition, why is he doing so badly in the polls? After all, we know that early polling is often a function of name recognition, as most voters know next to nothing about the low-recognition candidates--if they've even heard of them. As we've detailed on a number of occasions, Gingrich stumbled out of the gate, and the media has generally written him off as a serious candidate. But there's more to it than that.

Although the name Gingrich is familiar to most voters, the Gingrich running for president in 2012 is not the same as the man who resigned in defeat in the late '90s. Nor is he the same Gingrich as the one who attempted to reach the middle and soften his partisan image with commercials where he sat on a couch with Nancy Pelosi and Al Sharpton. Gingrich faces a unique challenge: He must reinvent himself so that he is perceived differently by people who already know a fair bit about him.

Thus, Gingrich is probably more comparable to one of the candidates with low name recognition. Like them, he must introduce himself to the voters of early primary states. He must win them over in town hall meetings, speeches, and debate performances. That being the case, he is unlikely to rise in the polls until much later: Even early primary voters are not paying attention to the race during Phase Two of the primary. But if Gingrich does well enough in the many debates over the course of Phase Three, he will rise in the polls.

Gingrich's other issue is that none of the early primary states really suits him the way it may suit others. Gingrich is not a Tea Party candidate, or an establishment candidate, or even really a Southern candidate. Some feel he is too bitterly partisan, while many others think he is a RINO. Elephant Watcher believes that as long as a candidate faces serious questions about whether he is conservative enough to be a "true" Republican nominee, he's better off running in New Hampshire than Iowa or South Carolina. Thus, Gingrich must compete against Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman in New Hampshire. That's a tall order. Elephant Watcher calculates that Gingrich currently has a 2% chance of winning the nomination.

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.

Why Is Michele Bachmann Unlikely to Win?

Bachmann

Although Michele Bachmann has gained in the polls, she has not gained much in the Elephant Watcher ranking of candidates. She is currently given only a 2% chance of winning the nomination. Why?

When Elephant Watcher began analyzing the 2012 Republican presidential primary, a similar post was needed to explain Donald Trump's low ranking. At the time, he was doing very well in the polls, too. Perhaps the best way to answer the Bachmann question is to thoroughly list the hurdles she must overcome before she can win the nomination.

1. Media Onslaught. Bachmann is despised by the media--on both the left and the right. For the moment, the media views her poll numbers as a symbol of the Republican field's weakness. But if she continues to post good numbers, they will consider her a more serious threat. Public curiosity about her well grow, and media scrutiny will intensify.

2. Name Recognition Advantage Fades. She may not be as famous as Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin, but Bachmann has a lot of name recognition. This accounts for a large portion of her polling. Consider: Other than Romney, the only candidates in the race with greater name recognition than Bachmann are Newt Gingrich (has a lot of baggage, suffered disastrous campaign setbacks, lacks a natural constituency) and Ron Paul (cannot win). Everyone else is essentially unknown. When early primary voters begin paying attention to the race, the name recognition advantage will fade, allowing candidates like Herman Cain and Tim Pawlenty to chew away at Bachmann's support.

3. New Candidates. If a candidate has both Tea Party support and is considered significantly more electable than Bachmann, that candidate will seriously threaten Bachmann. At the moment, the other Tea Party favorite is Cain, who is likewise considered unelectable. But if Rick Perry, Chris Christie, or both enter the race, Bachmann has a big problem on her hands.

4. Unforced Errors. It's a long time between now and the Iowa Caucus, which Bachmann must win. Every time Bachmann makes a gaffe, the media will endlessly replay it to build the narrative that Bachmann is unserious, weird, or cannot win. It's difficult enough for a disciplined candidate to avoid mistakes. Bachmann has a history of gaffes, and must avoid them from now on. Each error will be a high-profile one.

5. Frontrunner-itis. If Bachmann continues to do well, other candidates will begin to attack her. Bachmann is not the only candidate who needs a win in Iowa. The gloves will come off as the date of the Iowa Caucus approaches.

6. Electability Valued. As Iowa draws near, voters tend to coalesce around an electable candidate. The winners of the Iowa Caucus have been considered electable, and not always conservative. Even those who initially support a charismatic or exciting candidate often switch to a more sober choice at the last moment.

7. Strategic Voter Shock. If Bachmann does manage to win Iowa, it will create a panic among strategic voters (i.e. those who want an electable candidate, even if he's not the most conservative in the field). They will flock to whomever is leading in New Hampshire (most likely Romney), where he will have an anti-Bachmann firewall, even if they don't like him very much. Everyone who is afraid of giving away the 2012 general election will coalesce around the New Hampshire winner to defeat Bachmann. A grinding battle will ensue and last for the remainder of the primary season.

None of these difficulties are yet accounted for in the early polls. Thus, Bachmann's support is greatly exaggerated. Vaulting over the hurdles in front of Bachmann will be no easy feat.

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.