Should Romney Attack Obama's Character? Part I

Obama

There exists a perception among many Republicans that in 2008, despite winning the Democratic primary and the presidential election, Barack Obama somehow managed to avoid being vetted. The idea goes that Obama was treated with unusual tenderness by the media, and that John McCain ran an ineffectual campaign, so that the vetting which would ordinarily occur did not occur. Shortly before his death in early 2012, Internet media tycoon Andrew Breitbart spoke to this concept when he declared, "This election, we're going to vet him." What does this mean? Should Mitt Romney make personal attacks against Obama, or would this be ineffective, since voters have already elected Obama?

There is some truth to the idea that Obama was not given as thorough a vetting as one would normally expect of a presidential candidate. There are a number of different reasons why this occurred. First, Obama was very new to the national stage. In 2004, he won a U.S. Senate race in Illinois by default when his Republican opponent was forced to drop out of the race due to a scandal. Obama took office in January 2005 and declared his run for the presidency barely more than two years later. Normally, a serious presidential candidate is in the public spotlight for some time before he can run for president, but Obama was not.

For much of the Democratic primary, all assumed Hillary Clinton would be the party's nominee--as did Hillary herself. Obama was viewed as the obvious choice for vice president. Hillary also knew that if she won the nomination, she would be placed under enormous pressure to choose Obama for VP. Her inevitability, combined with the fact that she planned to have Obama on her ticket, meant that she had very little incentive to attack Obama during the primary. And Obama didn't do much to attack Hillary. It seemed as though he were running for VP. It wasn't until late 2007, shortly before the Iowa Caucus, that Obama caught fire in the polls. As it turned out, he made a serious run for the presidency, and he won Iowa.

In early 2008, as Hillary finally realized the danger she was in, her campaign began to float attacks against Obama. In most cases, these attacks quickly backfired. Often, a campaign will avoid this kind of blowback, because the media will vet the candidates independently. Hillary publicly complained that the media was too soft on Obama. The left-leaning media did show affection for him, but they weren't alone: Much of the right-wing media also viewed Obama as the lesser of two evils, compared to Hillary.

Finally, the Reverend Wright scandal broke, and Obama's campaign did a poor job handling it. But by then it was too late: The delegate math made it virtually impossible for Obama to lose. Continuing to dig into Obama's past would have been self-destructive for the Democratic Party--and for the left-leaning media.

There is also some truth to the idea that McCain's campaign did not fully vet Obama. Generally speaking, McCain's campaign was lackluster. Famously, it failed to vet its own VP nominee, Sarah Palin. But McCain also made the decision to declare most personal attacks against Obama off-limits. The Reverend Wright scandal had done more harm to Obama than anything else during the Democratic primary. But McCain announced that he would fire any member of his campaign who mentioned Reverend Wright or even spoke Obama's middle name (Hussein).

Since the media and McCain's campaign both declined to take a "no-holds barred" approach, attacks on Obama's history and character were left to the right-leaning media, particularly the Internet. But just as Americans began to pay attention to the race, the media oxygen was consumed by the emergence of Sarah Palin (who was vetted by the media) and the economic crisis.

Thus, Obama manged to be elected president without most voters becoming too familiar with his background. After Obama became president, the Internet became the vehicle by which rumors--true and false--circulated about him. The nature of the Internet and Obama's far-right detractors made a credible post-campaign vetting impossible. Questions about Obama's birth, school records, illegal drug use, associations with extremists and socialists, etc. lingered.

Voters may not have known much about Obama's past, but the fact remained that Obama was President of the United States. Obama's near omnipresence in the media (especially toward the beginning of his term) did not give one the impression that he was secretive--far from it. There may be plenty of unused mud to sling at Obama that would normally have been used in 2008, but is there any point in using it in 2012? We will discuss that question in Part II.

Romney's Pick for Vice President? Part II

Portman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sarah Palin Announces She Will Not Run for President

Palin

Sarah Palin released a written statement today explaining that she will not run for president in 2012. The long-awaited announcement, coming only a day after Chris Christie's own, finally puts all speculation to an end: There are eight Republicans running for president, and all the rest have declined to run--except for Tim Pawlenty, who withdrew a few months after entering the race. The field is set in stone. It will not change until the next candidate withdraws from the race, likely after the Iowa Caucus.

It's worth contrasting Palin with the other five candidates who declined to enter the race. Haley Barbour announced his intentions in April, while Mike Huckabee, Mitch Daniels, and Donald Trump did the same back in May. Only Sarah Palin and Chris Christie waited until the last possible moment to make their announcements. But while Christie was genuinely undecided until the night before his press conference, Palin likely made her final decision no later than early June of this year.

Why? Unlike the actual late entrants, Palin never had any reason to delay getting into the race. Michele Bachmann had to wait because she feared Palin getting in the race; Jon Huntsman had to return from his post in China; Rick Perry had to at least serve some time in his third term as Texas governor. By contrast, Palin would have had every reason to get in early. In fact, it would have been vital for her to get in the race early enough to prevent Bachmann from getting in and splitting her vote. Unlike the others on the Fox News payroll (Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Mike Huckabee), Palin was never required to make a public decision in May. She may have made private assurances to Fox News that she was not going to run.

Thus, it is fair to assume that Palin has spent the last several months confident that she would not run. Why didn't she make her announcement? Palin enjoyed the media attention. Her high profile was also necessary for her to continue making an income as a conservative firebrand. Unlike the other candidates, Palin manipulated her supporters into getting their hopes up, only to dash them in the end.

Why didn't Palin run? There were two good reasons. First, all of the polls showed that Palin had no chance of winning either the Republican primary or the general election. It wasn't a close call; it was overwhelming. Palin had no desire to be humiliated in an unsuccessful run which would have lasted for the better part of a year. Second, Palin realized that she could make more money for less work by being a political celebrity rather than a political candidate. The year after her failed run for the vice presidency, Palin abruptly announced that she was resigning from her position as governor of Alaska. She then set about making money that she could not have legally made while serving as governor. Her resignation was one of the prime factors that made her incapable of winning the Republican presidential primary. Indeed, at that point she may have already decided against running for president.

What will be the effect on the race now that Palin isn't running? There will be little impact. Nearly all Republican voters either discounted her or did not plan to vote for her. There are therefore few votes to redistribute. Only the diehard Palin supporters remained. Those votes are likely to go to other unelectable Tea Party candidates, such as Herman Cain. Michele Bachmann is an obvious choice for disaffected Palin supporters, but the feud between Bachmann and Palin poisoned the well.

Elephant Watcher has long calculated that Palin's odds of winning the nomination were 0%. Thus, her departure does not raise any other candidate's chances of winning.

Could Sarah Palin Jump into the Race?

Palin

During the early months of the Republican primary, there was much speculation that Sarah Palin might run for president. In fact, she was viewed as a frontrunner of sorts, especially on Intrade. But as time passed and many other candidates did get into the race, Palin stayed out. Michele Bachmann, who had decided not to run if Palin did, put her campaign on hold, waiting to see what Palin would do. By mid-June, Bachmann had determined that Palin was almost certainly not going to run, and she declared her own candidacy. For the past few months, the consensus has been that Palin, though she continually asserts that she might run, is out.

Part of the reason for the consensus is that Palin, unlike everyone else who delayed entry (Bachmann, Jon Huntsman, Rick Perry, potentially Chris Christie), Palin had no reason to delay. If she were going to run, there would be no reason for her to wait until everyone else had entered the race. In fact, she had very good reason to get in on time: to keep Bachmann out. If Palin had intended to run, her delays not only frittered away her time, they invited Bachmann into the race; Bachmann would almost certainly split her constituency.

There was also some "crying wolf": Palin's bus tour during the summer, her appearance at a pro-Palin movie premiering in Iowa, etc. The media covered Palin, and she didn't make any movements toward running. At last, they tired of being manipulated. Unlike polls earlier this year, current polls rarely include Palin.

It's fair to conclude that Palin decided earlier this year that she would not run for president. There were early signs, as she let hints slip in bits and pieces in various interviews. Palin recognized that general election polls and Republican primary polls showed she was too polarizing. She was very unlikely to win the nomination, and almost certain to lose the general election. Since she could not win, there was little point in running. There was plenty of downside: She would lose the opportunity to make money, and her reputation would be tarnished.

But, once again, political commentators are suggesting Palin might indeed jump into the race. Some have said that her schedule in September looks like a candidate's. Others believe she will announce her candidacy on September 3rd. What could explain this?

Partly these rumors can be chalked up to wishful thinking. The media finds it easy to cover Palin, and if she actually did run for the presidency, it would sell a lot of newspapers. Liberals are keen to see Palin run because they enjoy attacking Palin, they like that Palin's image casts the Republican Party in a negative light, and because they would like to see Barack Obama beat her in a general election. Some Republicans would also like to see her run. Palin fans, of course, want her to run. But supporters of Perry and Mitt Romney also want to see Palin run, because it would split Bachmann's vote and ensure Bachmann could not win Iowa.

Still others have floated Palin's name because they want Chris Christie to run, and it's easier to write about that when they can disguise their intention by talking about how "other candidates" might run (e.g. Paul Ryan).

Ultimately, however, the rumors about Palin persist because she still could run, if she wanted to do it. Unlike Mike Huckabee or Mitch Daniels, she has never made a declaration that she will not run. And although Palin did earlier decide not to run, she could change her mind. She may have seen Bachmann doing well in the (Iowa) polls and stealing her position as the "Alpha Female" of the right wing. Palin decided not to run because she believed she couldn't win. She also thinks Bachmann can't win. And if Bachmann can do well in Iowa polls and win the Iowa straw poll, perhaps Palin would be motivated to enter the race, purely out of spite. Time will tell.

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.

When Is Sarah Palin Considered Out of the Race?

Palin

As you have probably noticed over the past few weeks, the media and the pundits have shifted their attention away from Sarah Palin and toward Michele Bachmann. Partly this is due to the fact that most people no longer believe that Palin will run. Nevertheless, Palin has never made any public statements--not even in response to interviewer questions--indicating that she will not run. She has remained equivocal.

This represents a conundrum for voters, especially those who would prefer to support Palin but have a few other options (like Bachmann). It also offers some confusion to pollsters, who must decide whether or not to include Palin as an option. There is no consensus. You can see thise confusion reflected in the recent round-up of national polls and from the current early primary polls (which are being updated much more frequently now). Some pollsters are including Palin, and others aren't. Additionally, some pollsters are releasing multiple sets of polls, with Palin and without.

In nearly every case where Palin is included, Bachmann is now leading her. But once again, these results are influenced by the fact that voters prefer to support candidates whom they believe are actually running. Palin may not have said she isn't running, but she hasn't taken any steps that indicate she will run.

For the time being, Elephant Watcher is including Palin in the "potentially running" category, rather than the "declined to run" category. Why? Because Palin, while not in the race, still exerts some influence. Bachmann may lead Palin in the polls, but Palin still gets a fair amount of support in them. Were Palin to step aside officially, Bachmann (and Cain) might get a boost in support.

On the other hand, Palin is under no obligation to say that she isn't running. The speculation keeps Palin in the public eye, which she prefers, so it's likely she will not officially declare herself out of the race until the last moment.

Consequently, Elephant Watcher will place her in the "declined to run" category under the following conditions:
(1) Palin states that she will not run, or
(2) Palin does not enter the race by some point in September, after which it is too late to run.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michele Bachmann Surges in the Polls

Over half a month has past since Michele Bachmann entered the race at the June 13th primary debate. That's enough time for a lot of polls to be taken that reflect Bachmann's entry. Most of the polls are national primary polls, but there have been some state primary polls taken, as well. Bachmann has surged in the polls since the debate. It's worth taking a closer look to determine how well she's doing, and whether the polls accurately reflect her position in the race. First we'll look at national primary polls:

National Primary Polls
06/14 Rasmussen -- Romney 33, Bachmann 19, Cain 10, Gingrich 9
06/21 Zogby -- Bachmann 24, Cain 15, Romney 15, Paul 13
06/23 Marist -- Romney 19, Giuliani 13, Perry 13, Palin 11
06/28 Fox News -- Romney 18, Perry 13, Bachmann 11, Giuliani 10

Next, the most recent polls of early primaries:

Iowa
06/22 Des Moines Register -- Romney 23, Bachmann 22, Cain 10, Gingrich 7

New Hampshire
06/25 Suffolk/7News -- Romney 36, Bachmann 11, Paul 8, Giuliani 5
06/15 Magellan (R) -- Romney 42, Bachmann 10, Paul 10, Palin 7

Finally, random primary polls from later state contests. For some reason, Public Policy Polling (PPP) has been a busy bee:

Floria
06/19 PPP (D) -- Romney 27, Bachmann 17, Palin 17, Cain 10

New Mexico
06/26 PPP (D) -- Bachmann 22, Romney 22, Palin 14, Cain 10

Oregon
06/21 PPP (D) -- Romney 28, Bachmann 18, Palin 16, Paul 9

So what do all of these polls tell us? First, that Mitt Romney is leading in the early polls. Second, that PPP and Zogby polls seem to love Bachmann. Looking at the state polls, you would think Bachmann is in second place. But the national primary polls have a lot of variance, with potential candidates like Rick Perry and Rudy Giuliani mixing things up.

Earlier this year, we saw how problematic early national primary polls are. The same could be said for state polls of later contests, such as the ones PPP is aggressively polling. People simply aren't paying much attention to the race yet, and by the time they do, their opinions will be shaped by the results of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. That's why it's best to concentrate on polling data in those early states.

Of course, the 2012 primary is only in Phase Two, when even the voters of early primary states have not begun paying attention. Polls are heavily influenced by name recognition and can be warped by the decision of the pollster on which candidates to include. Note, for instance, that some of the polls include Sarah Palin and some do not. Some include Perry or Giuliani, while others don't. And none include Chris Christie. As a demonstration of the strange results, consider the Zogby and Marist national primary polls: Zogby has Bachmann in first place, while Marist doesn't even have her in the top four.

What we can tell is that Bachmann is in a stronger starting position than other well-known candidates, like Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul, and probably Sarah Palin and Rudy Giuliani. Romney is doing better, but depending upon the poll, isn't doing better by much.

Perhaps the most reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from all of these polls is that the race is wide open. Romney does not have a prohibitive lead, even against someone with Bachmann's weaknesses. And the polls including people like Perry, Palin, and Giuliani show that people aren't clear on who is running yet. All of this reinforces the idea that there is a vacuum in the field. One candidate has not arrived yet who can unite the Republican Party.

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.

Which Campaign Is the Most Disciplined?

Political campaigns have to deal with a lot of things outside of their control: Current events, attitudes of hostile media, actions of competitors, etc. One thing campaigns can control, in theory, is their candidate. Disciplined candidates stay "on message," avoiding gaffes, flip-flops, and unforced errors. If a candidate is both disciplined enough and skilled enough, he can talk about the subjects he wants to talk about--his areas of expertise--instead of what an interviewer or debate moderator wants to talk about.

Which of the Republican campaigns this year have shown the most discipline, and which have shown a lack of discipline?

High Discipline

Chris Christie is following a "late entrant" strategy, which requires him to stay out of the race until at least September. It also requires him to fly under the radar for the time being and avoid suspicion that he's planning a run. Thus far, Christie has issued simple denials in response to each of the many inquiries he's received about his presidential ambitions. So far, many people want him to run, but few think he actually will. President Obama's team recently ordered opposition on Christie because they believe he's likely to run, but they were embarrassed by a skeptical media when the story broke. Intrade investors have been convinced by Christie's denials, and they only give him a 10% chance of running. (Until May they gave Rick Perry the same probability.)

Mitt Romney, though his strategy for dealing with Romneycare may be lacking, has stuck to his position. Romney's reputation as the frontrunner has been bolstered by his lack of gaffes and his determination to stay on topic. He has branded himself the "economics candidate," and quickly returns the subject back to that area whenever he's asked about anything else. Romney offered a good example of his campaign discipline when he was interviewed recently by Piers Morgan on CNN: Asked about the Mormon church's view on homosexuality, Romney simply declined to engage, stating that he would not be a spokesman for his church during the campaign.

Moderate Discipline

Michele Bachmann is known for being gaffe-prone, but has not embarrassed herself in the short time she's been campaigning. Her debate performance on June 13th showed her discipline. The fact that she was disorganized enough to announce her candidacy while at the debate showed her lack of discipline. She has only begun to face media scrutiny.

Herman Cain has largely stayed out of trouble, especially considering his lack of political experience. But he's taken heat for some gaffes that demonstrated his lack of familiarity with the issues. It's likely Cain could be damaged even more if the media scrutinize his knowledge further. Only his campaign discipline has kept him alive.

Tim Pawlenty has avoided making enemies. He's also avoided gaffes, but not entirely. As we addressed in a previous post, his campaign still appears to be making up its mind about whether to go on the offensive or not.

Low Discipline

Newt Gingrich is perhaps the best example of a candidate who has been undone by a lack of discipline. He began his campaign with damaging gaffes on Meet The Press, and his staff was rocked by two rounds of mass resignations. While his debate answers on June 13th showed he has some depth, his mind also has a tendency to wander. See, for example, Gingrich's remark about how if the private sector had taken over from NASA years ago, we would today have a permanent base on the moon. It's entirely unclear what the focus of the Gingrich campaign is.

Sarah Palin is probably not running, so it may be unfair to include her on this list. However, if she were considering a run, her recent actions are baffling. By delaying her candidacy, she encouraged Bachmann to get into the race, which would only split the Palin vote. Palin's bus tour across the Northeast resulted in a disastrous gaffe about the history of Paul Revere, which she then attempted to defend. Then the bus tour reached an unceremonious end, which Palin blamed on jury duty.

Note: Jon Huntsman has not been included on this list as he has only just entered the race; Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are irrelevant.

The 2012 Republican Primary: Phase Two

Several weeks ago, we explained the different phases of the primary process. While political observers (including those who would follow a blog such as this) have been paying attention to the race, few others have. There is quite a disconnect between those who follow politics and those who don't. The country at large will not take note of the Republican primary until just before or after the Iowa Caucus in February 2012. Before then, most people will not even be familiar with the names of all the candidates (if even then).

During the 2008 primary the trend toward longer and longer political campaigns reached its limit: Candidates spent millions while most voters--even those in early primary states--hardly noticed. This time around, the candidates are being a bit more cautious.

We have, at last, reached the middle of the second phase of the primary season. During Phase One, most candidates had not yet declared. Phase Two began in late May and early June, as the field took shape. The entry of Jon Huntsman, Jr. likely marks the end of the beginning. From now on, campaign news should revolve around interviews, debates, and campaign events rather than official announcements of candidates getting in or out of the race.

Phase Three will begin in September, after Labor Day. By then, every candidate should be in the race, aside from those who are deliberately pursuing a "late entrant" strategy. During Phase Three, primary debates will take place once every couple weeks. And for the first time, people other than political junkies will actually pay attention to the race. The voters of early primary states will fully engage and investigate the candidates, though they probably won't make up their minds until November or December. Finally, Phase Four will begin at about the time of the Iowa Caucus.

For those who follow Republican primary news on a day-to-day basis, that sounds like a long way off, and it is. Because so much can happen between now and then, and because so few people will pay attention (let alone throw their support behind a candidate) until then, polls have limited use. They merely tell us about a candidate's starting point.

What can we watch for during the long summer of Phase Two? Though the field is largely settled, there are still some questions to be answered. Two "potentially running" candidates remain on the Elephant Watcher roster: Chris Christie and Sarah Palin. One other candidate, Rick Perry, remains in the undecided category. These are the candidates to watch over the next few months.

While Palin is unlikely to run given the fact that she made no effort to keep Michele Bachmann out, Palin is still technically in limbo. This summer, she could very well announce that she's not running. Or she could decide not to say anything. Were she to remain silent, however, there is a limit beyond which people will stop paying attention to her: After more debates take place without her in July and August. Afterward, Bachmann will completely eclipse her.

Perry is likely to make an announcement by the end of August. Iowa's Ames Straw Poll will take place in August, and while it is unscientific to say the least, it always gets headlines. Perry may jump into the race immediately after Ames, since he wouldn't have much time to prepare in advance of it, and to overshadow the headlines of the straw poll's winner.

As for Christie, his strategy involves a late entry, and he is unlikely to announce before September. However, Christie may do certain things to generate buzz in advance of that, especially if he senses Perry picking up too much steam. After all, both of them seek to fill the vacuum in the field. Christie could appear at events in Iowa or New Hampshire, or simply make remarks suggesting he's more open to a run than he was before. For example, he might say that he's dissatisfied with the field of candidates. If the current trend continues, he won't be the only one who feels that way.

Has Michele Bachmann Been Underestimated?

Bachmann

One of the few stories that emerged from the June 13th primary debate in New Hampshire was the introduction of Michele Bachmann to the race. The story wasn't merely that Bachmann entered the race, but that she performed surprisingly well during the debate. There are some early indications that Bachmann's poll numbers may have leaped into the second-tier: still far behind Romney, but surprisingly high compared to other candidates.

Among the mainstream media, Bachmann is widely considered both an extremist and a gaffe-prone, unintelligent laughingstock. Among the Republican establishment, she is considered a loose cannon and completely unelectable. Meanwhile, the Tea Party holds Bachmann in high esteem, though some dedicated Sarah Palin fans view her as a threat to Palin's candidacy. The Tea Party scoffs at the opinions of the mainstream media and the Republican establishment. History shows, however, that the opinions of Democrats, Independents, and moderate Republicans do have considerable influence on the early primaries (including Iowa), where "electable" candidates almost always win.

Elephant Watcher's analysis of Bachmann shows that she suffers from low perceived electability. Moreover, she has been rated "low" in rhetorical ability, and Elephant Watcher's latest calculations show her with only a 1% chance of winning the nomination. But given Bachmann's reasonably strong performance in the June 13th debate, has Bachmann been underestimated?

Bachmann's campaign has two main tasks. First, she must unite the Tea Party wing by proving Herman Cain is less serious (i.e. informed, electable) than she, and bringing in Palin fans once they're willing to accept that Palin's not running. Second, Bachmann must expand her coalition beyond the Tea Party by improving her perceived electability. During the debate, she took steps toward both of these goals. Can she continue?

The road ahead is not as smooth as the first debate was. Bachmann greatly benefited from low expectations and easy questions from the debate moderator. She was also unchallenged by her competitors, since attacking other candidates during early debates is uncommon. Her candidacy has also been unchallenged by the mainstream media thus far. Though they've always despised her, they will not begin to dig into her past and begins serious attack until her poll numbers increase and she becomes a threat to win Iowa. In addition, Bachmann has not subjected herself to interviews by liberal journalists. Recall that Sarah Palin was extremely popular and appeared invincible--until she was interviewed. Bachmann may delay these interviews, but all Republican candidates eventually do them.

On that note, there is a possibility that Bachmann may improve her rhetorical skill rating on her Profile. During the debate, she appeared to at least have "moderate" rhetorical skill. However, rhetorical skill encompasses not only the ability to provide answers at a debate, but also "give and take" with a hostile audience, such as an interview with a liberal journalist. If Bachmann can emerge from such interviews relatively unscathed, her rating will increase.

Bachmann may have what it takes to defeat Herman Cain, but it is still early. New candidates get a bit of a honeymoon period. Afterward, voters start looking at their flaws. The next few months will be a critical period: It should become clear whether Cain or Bachmann is more likely to rally the Tea Party. And if Rick Perry enters the race, it will open up a new set of challenges for both of them.

Rick Perry's Intrade Odds Rise, Newt Gingrich Crashes

With the first major primary debate of the season behind us, it's time for another look at Intrade, the betting market where investors can lay wagers on the 2012 Republican nomination. Intrade's page on the primary may be found here.

Since the last time we looked at Intrade, Mitt Romney has solidified his position as the frontrunner. He is given 33.6%, which is almost 20 points higher than the next-highest candidate. Tim Pawlenty and Jon Huntsman remain in the next tier, but they have fallen since last time, to 12.5% and 12.0%, respectively.

There is a newcomer who is quickly rising on Intrade: Rick Perry. Perry barely registered on Intrade just a few weeks ago. Now he's up to 15.0%, slightly ahead of Pawlenty and Huntsman. This is a reaction to the recent speculation about Perry entering the race. It's intensified, especially since some of the key staffers who left Newt Gingrich's campaign are former Perry aides. Intrade gives Perry almost an 80% chance of running for president. That number is unusually high for speculation about a new candidate. It's not inconceivable that someone connected to Perry's campaign is one of the investors, and is making some easy money based off what he knows his boss will do.

Gingrich's numbers crashed last time, but they managed to crash again in the wake of his mass campaign staff resignations. Gingrich is now down to 1.5%, which puts him out of the top-tier or second-tier, into the "miscellaneous" and "probably not running" category. Apparently his debate performance didn't help him much in the eyes of the Intrade investors.

The Tea Party crew--Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and Herman Cain--are all in the single-digits and roughly split, with Bachmann slightly ahead. Intrade investors tend to follow the conventional wisdom of the Washington establishment, and they are skeptical of Tea Partiers' chances. The leading candidates (even including Perry) are in the traditional, "electable" mold.

Previously, we took a look at the past winners of Iowa and New Hampshire. They were almost always traditional, electable candidates, so Intrade investors may be on to something. The question is which electable candidate is likely to win the nomination. So far, Intrade is betting Romney, with Perry, Pawlenty, and Huntsman in a three-way tie for second. They seem to realize the potential for an anti-Romney (after all, Romney's at considerably less than 50%), but they don't know who it will turn out to be.

National Primary Polls Show Mitt Romney Leading, Tea Party Candidates Rising

In previous posts, we have seen why national primary polls need to be viewed with skepticism. With few people paying attention early on, name recognition becomes a bigger factor than it will be on voting day. National primary polls also fail to account for the impact that winning (or losing) early states has on the candidates' support.

But national primary polls can be useful in comparing apples to apples: If two candidates both have high name recognition, the one leading in the poll is probably in a stronger position. The same is true for comparing two candidates who lack name recognition. Also, if a candidate lacks name recognition but is still beating a well-known opponent, the well-known opponent is in trouble.

Today we will take a look at some recent national primary polls. Note that only one of these, taken by Rasmussen, was conducted after the June 13th debate:

06/14 Rasmussen -- Romney 33, Bachmann 19, Cain 10, Gingrich 9, Paul 7, Pawlenty 6
06/13 NBC/WSJ -- Romney 30, Palin 14, Cain 12, Perry 8, Paul 7, Gingrich 6
06/12 PPP (D) -- Romney 22, Cain 17, Palin 15, Gingrich 9, Pawlenty 9, Bachmann 8

A familiar difficulty in interpreting these polls is the fact that they're influenced by which candidates are included. For example, the Rasmussen poll excludes Sarah Palin, and the NBC/WSJ poll includes Rick Perry.

Comparing apples to apples, Mitt Romney is clearly in a stronger position than Sarah Palin or (especially) Newt Gingrich. All have high name recognition, but Romney leads. Among those with low name recognition, Herman Cain is leading Michele Bachmann, but not if Sarah Palin is excluded. Palin's harmful influence on the Bachmann campaign continues. The Rasmussen poll may also be indicating a bump for Bachmann post-debate, so it will be important to monitor these numbers as future polls are released.

The polls also show Tim Pawlenty struggling to keep up with Cain and Bachmann. Still, the more flamboyant and less electable candidates do tend to fade over time. Cain has taken damage from gaffes in interviews already, and Bachmann has not yet faced cross-examination by the hostile media.

The poll including Rick Perry shows a surprising amount of support, given how little coverage he's had, and Bachmann--who hardly ranks in that poll--may have somehow lost support to him. Given all the recent speculation, Perry may be included in more polls, and he will no doubt be watching them carefully.

Michele Bachmann Announces She's Running for President

Bachmann

At yesterday's primary debate in New Hampshire, Michele Bachmann announced that she had filed the paperwork necessary to become a presidential candidate. She still plans to make an official announcement, but given the fact that she essentially announced during the debate, her announcement speech will be superfluous. This shows poor organizational skills on the part of Bachmann's campaign: She could have gotten more media attention had she announced earlier.

Bachmann's poor timing was partly Sarah Palin's fault. Bachmann did not want to enter the race if Palin was, since they would simply split each other's vote and guarantee neither could win. Bachmann waited as long as possible, allowing Palin time to make up her mind. When it became clear Palin wasn't going to announce either way, Bachmann decided she had to enter the race anyway so she could attend the debate; Bachmann didn't want to give Herman Cain another opportunity to gather Tea Party support unopposed. This is precisely the sequence of events Elephant Watcher predicted a few weeks ago.

Bachmann will dedicate all of her attention to Iowa. If she loses there, her race is over. Bachmann will compete for the Tea Party vote, as her low perceived electability guarantees the establishment (and strategic voters) will not support her. As it becomes more clear that Palin will not run, Bachmann will compete against Cain.

As Bachmann demonstrated during yesterday's debate, she has the ability to sound like a reasonable, articulate candidate. She sounded more confident and informed than Cain did. However, Bachmann has not undertaken the gauntlet of TV interviews that Cain has. It remains to be seen whether Bachmann can emerge from hostile interviews unscathed. Her history suggests she will run into trouble, but sometimes candidates can become more skilled with practice.

There is still the Palin problem. Since Palin made no effort to attend the debates or prevent Bachmann from running, it becomes increasingly unlikely that Palin will run. But that doesn't mean Palin's fans will accept this fact right away. Palin supporters tend to be very loyal, and they won't jump into the Bachmann camp so easily. Bachmann is still in Palin's shadow, and Palin's fans may even begin to resent Bachmann for attempting to replace her.

If Bachmann is to succeed in Iowa, she'll need the full weight of the Tea Party behind her--including those who currently support either Palin or Cain. If Palin is willing to admit that she's not running, it will help Bachmann's coalition grow. Unfortunately for Bachmann, Palin follows Palin's schedule and no one else's.

As long as Bachmann avoids alienating Palin fans, she has plenty of opportunity to create a Tea Party coalition. Toward the end of this year, Tea Partiers in Iowa will make their final decision. Palin will have long since made the announcement she's not running (or it will simply be obviously too late). If Bachmann can prove she's the more serious candidate, she can defeat Cain and siphon his support. Barring a spectacular flame-out on Cain's part, she won't get all of his supporters on her side, but the Tea Party will coalesce around one or the other to maximize the chance of a Tea Party victory.

But it is not enough. Iowa winners need to prove they're electable. It's a long time between now and the Iowa Caucus. If Bachmann is to succeed, she must remain as disciplined and prepared during every public appearance as she was for the debate.

News posts related to Bachmann will have the Bachmann "tag". For detailed assessment of Bachmann's strengths, weaknesses, and strategy, view her Profile. Elephant Watcher calculates Bachmann has a 1% chance of winning the nomination.

Feud Between Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann Is Dangerous Territory

The possibility of a rift between Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann is something we have discussed extensively. The two have essentially the same potential base of support, so a conflict was inevitable if one didn't drop out of the race quickly. The only question is whether the feud will simmer underneath the surface, or if it will become more public.

Earlier this week, the Bachmann campaign was proud to announce that they had hired Ed Rollins as her chief campaign manager. Rollins is considered by all to be a skilled political operator. He has worked on several "insurgent" campaigns like the one Bachmann plans; Rollins managed Huckabee's almost-successful run in 2008.

Rollins quickly proved himself a potential liability. During a radio interview, Rollins made several disparaging remarks about Sarah Palin. He criticized Palin for lacking substance and quitting her job as governor of Alaska. Obviously, Rollins was attempting to contrast Bachmann with Palin, to show that Bachmann is a more serious candidate than Palin. Rollins is no doubt aware that Bachmann lacks perceived electability, and that frequent comparisons between Bachmann and the also-unelectable Palin make matters worse.

Bachmann immediately received negative feedback as a result of the story, with Tea Partiers calling on Bachmann to fire Rollins. It should go without saying that Bachmann will not fire Rollins; her campaign needs every bit of firepower it can get, and she would look weak. Bachmann did release a written statement saying that she respects and admires Palin. It remains to be seen how quickly Palin fans will get over it and support Bachmann if Palin doesn't run.

Though it appears more and more likely that Palin will not run (Bachmann wouldn't bother running if Palin was going to), the Rollins debacle highlights a real challenge for Bachmann: Contrasting herself with Palin without alienating the Palin fans she needs. Bachmann's true opponent is Herman Cain, not Palin. If Palin runs, they will split each others' support and Bachmann has no real chance anyway. If Palin doesn't run, Bachmann will need to compete against Cain.

Directly criticizing Palin is suicide for Bachmann. If she is more substantive than Palin, the phrase "show, don't tell" comes to mind. Voters will decide for themselves (largely based on debates and interviews) whether Bachmann is indeed more intelligent than Palin. They won't make that determination based on a statement from Bachmann's campaign manager.

Supposing a feud between Palin and Bachmann continues, Palin supporters will easily find their way into the Cain camp. Indeed, Palin herself could end up endorsing Cain. After all, Palin has a long history of feuding with people who cross her, and she does not forgive easily.

State Primary Polls After Huckageddon

As we've seen, the 2012 Republican primary field changed dramatically with Huckageddon, Mike Huckabee's departure from the race. Other candidates (Donald Trump and Mitch Daniels) also dropped out during May. We had been receiving a steady stream of polling data, but recently there have been few state primary polls released. This is likely because pollsters didn't want to waste their time polling people on candidates who might then drop out.

Post-Huckageddon, there have been only a few state primary polls. You can view all of the state primary polls for the early primary states on the Primaries page. How does the race stand in the polling now that Huckabee's gone? And are early polls--even state ones--useful?

Here are the three state polls that have been released since Huckageddon. Note that two of them are by Public Policy Polling (PPP), a Democratic pollster:

Iowa
05/30 PPP (D) -- Romney 21, Palin 15, Cain 15, Gingrich 12

New Hampshire
05/22 CNN/WMUR -- Romney 32, Paul 9, Giuliani 6, Gingrich 6

South Carolina
06/05 PPP (D) -- Romney 27, Palin 18, Gingrich 12, Cain 12

Obviously these polls look excellent for Mitt Romney, who leads in each state by a considerable margin. They're good for Herman Cain as well, who is moving from obscurity into the field (though not the top). Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich also do surprisingly well, considering all the heat Gingrich has taken, and the fact that Palin appears unlikely to run.

If the polls could be taken at face value, Romney will easily win the nomination. Unfortunately for Romney, they can't be taken at face value. As with the polls that showed Donald Trump doing well earlier this year, early polls measure name recognition most of all. Indeed, the "internals" of the PPP polls show that when they hypothetically poll the race without Palin, Romney gets more of her voters than the other candidates. What kind of voter would have Palin as his first choice and Romney as second choice? Someone who merely picks a candidate whom he can identify.

But toward the end of this year, as the primaries draw near, candidates who have low name recognition will become known to the early primary voters. Candidates who relied on high name recognition will fade. This occurred in late 2007, when Rudy Giuliani (who was the Republican's frontrunner according to early polls) and Hillary Clinton (who led her Democratic opponents by 20+ points most of the year) declined dramatically.

The polls do have their uses, however. Comparing apples to apples works: You can compare the numbers of candidates who both have high name recognition. For example, we can see that Romney is ahead of Palin and Gingrich. It's not as if Romney is ahead of them because he has higher name recognition.

You can also see that Cain, who lacks name recognition, is doing better than the other low-recognition candidates (like Bachmann and Pawlenty). There are some caveats, of course: Cain only appears on polls done by one firm (PPP), and only one poll per state. Also, Cain has shown vulnerabilities that could sink his campaign. Moreover, candidates who rely on charisma and excitement tend to have artificially-boosted numbers. After an ecstatic period, primary voters often settle down to a more sober, strategic choice. In 2004 for example, Democrats often said they "dated Dean, but married Kerry." That is, they liked Howard Dean and supported him in early polls, but they ultimately went with John Kerry, whom they considered more electable.

How Much Has Sarah Palin Hurt Michele Bachmann's Campaign?

Palin

According to conventional wisdom, there's only enough room for either Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann in the 2012 Republican primary, but not both of them. The thinking goes that they're both very conservative women who appeal to the Tea Party but no one else. If both ran, they would split each others' votes. Sometimes the conventional wisdom is wrong. In this case, however, it is correct. As we have observed previously, Bachmann planned to get into the race only after determining that Palin would not run; Palin did not announce either way; Bachmann was stuck on the sidelines; Herman Cain took advantage of the vacuum. Bachmann was then forced to accept an invitation to a primary debate without first hearing Palin's decision.

Palin has still not announced whether she will run for president in 2012. Instead, she made a very highly-publicized tour of the northeast in early June. For some, this heightened speculation that she would run. But the fact that Fox News condoned the tour by not dropping her contract suggests that it was never a prelude to a run. As a result, others speculated that Palin had discreetly informed Fox News that she will not be running.

In one sense, it doesn't matter whose speculations are correct. As long as Palin stays out of the race without declaring her intention one way or the other, she will consume media time and get attention that would otherwise go to others, including Bachmann. Though some of Palin's fans have moved on to candidates who are in the race, many Palin supporters are absolutely convinced that she will run. Until she says otherwise, they will not be joining the Bachmann camp.

The conventional wisdom that Palin would split Bachmann's support is even more correct than most pundits realized: Even from outside of the race, Palin is still splitting Bachmann's support. Meanwhile, Cain has taken full advantage of the absence of Bachmann and Palin to build up his own Tea Party base. Before the May 5th debate, Cain was largely unknown, even to many Tea Partiers. Bachmann would have started out with an advantage. Now it is Bachmann who must make up for lost time, all while Palin continues to cast a shadow over the race.

One might be inclined to ask why Palin is doing this. If she does want to run, why would she take so long in saying so--even to the point of causing Bachmann to get into the race? After all, if Palin had declared by now, Bachmann would have declined to run. By delaying, Palin is allowing another candidate to get into the race, splitting her support. The fact that Palin has made no moves to keep Bachmann out of the race is the best evidence that she has no intention of running. Palin's supporters are quick to say that she is special and doesn't have to play by the normal rules. But just because she doesn't have to do something doesn't mean it makes sense for her not to do it.

If Palin doesn't want to run, why not say so and let Bachmann go forward? If they are so similar, why wouldn't Palin want to help Bachmann instead of hurting her? One possibility is that Palin is acting in her own best interest without regard to Bachmann. It may hurt Bachmann for Palin to get publicity, but it helps Palin. The other possibility is that Palin actually wants to harm Bachmann's chances. If Palin doesn't run, it's because she knows she can't win. Seeing Bachmann--whom Palin may view as a lesser version of herself--go on and win the race would be deeply embarrassing, and make Palin regret her own decision not to run. Additionally, Palin wants to be seen as the most prominent woman in the Tea Party movement.

Though Palin may see Bachmann as a representative of herself in the race, Elephant Watcher would not be surprised to see Palin work against her. If so, Palin may eventually support Cain, handing him the mantle of the Tea Party movement. On the other hand, Palin may stick with her pattern of endorsing "mama grizzlies," and endorse Bachmann--only when it's clear Bachmann can't win and replace her.

Michele Bachmann to Appear at June 13th Debate

Bachmann

As Elephant Watcher predicted, Michele Bachmann has decided to accept CNN's invitation to the next major primary debate, which will take place in New Hampshire on June 13th. Bachmann wanted to wait to jump into the race only after Sarah Palin announced she would not run. However, Bachmann realized she could not afford to wait any longer: If Herman Cain were again the only Tea Party favorite at a debate, Bachmann would lose even more support.

Bachmann has been added to the Elephant Watcher roster of candidates. She has been analyzed and her odds of winning the nomination have been calculated. Bachmann's Profile may be found here. Bachmann currently has a 1% chance of winning the nomination. Palin's chances have dropped by 1%.

According to CNN, there will be seven participants at the June 13th debate: The five men who have already officially declared they are running (Cain, Gingrich, Paul, Pawlenty, Romney), the one who has an exploratory committee (Santorum), and Bachmann. CNN's invitations were based on "objective criteria," which they list here. Note that unlike the May 5th debate, candidates were not required to form exploratory committees first. CNN was probably eager to allow Bachmann to attend, since they enjoy reporting gaffes made by the congresswoman.

As Elephant Watcher expected, CNN was eager to trim the field by removing an unimportant candidate, former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, who had attended the May 5th debate. CNN's criteria were likely chosen with this purpose in mind.

Also of note is the fact that an invitation was offered to Jon Huntsman, Jr., but it was declined. He is apparently still making up his mind whether or not to actually run. His refusal to attend the debate suggests there is a real chance he could decide against it: Huntsman has low name-recognition and could use a boost in visibility.

The Effect of Gender and Race on the Race, Part II

Continued from Part I.

Last time, we saw that women and minority candidates--provided their policy positions line up with the voters--tend to have an advantage in Republican primaries: They are able to distinguish themselves from the crowd and get more media attention. To what extent does this apply to the candidates in the 2012 Republican presidential primary?

The effect is somewhat muted. Though most Republicans have not heard of half the candidates running for president, early primary voters tend to familiarize themselves with all the contenders by the time voting day arrives. Standing out from the crowd is always a good thing, but when the voters know all of the candidates, the effect of race and gender is not as dramatic.

There's no question that being the only non-white candidate in the field has helped raise Herman Cain's visibility. Other "businessman" candidates with no political experience have not fared as well as Cain, and have not gotten the poll numbers necessary to be invited to major primary debates (Donald Trump, more of a celebrity than anything else, provides the exception). On the other hand, Cain is also unique because until Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann gets into the race, he is the only Tea Party favorite in the race, and he has the greatest ability to excite crowds.

What about the idea that Barack Obama being the first black president hurts future black candidates? The fact that Obama is black is unhelpful for Cain in one sense, but it has nothing to do with Obama's job performance or politics. Rather, the fact that there has already been a black president simply takes away some of the history-making appeal that Cain would have otherwise enjoyed. Many first-time voters specifically went to the polls to help elect the first black president. Obama benefited from that in a way that no future black candidate ever can.

There is likely to be one woman running in the primary; either Bachmann or Palin will run, but probably not both. And it's already clear that Cain will be the only minority candidate in the running. Interestingly, all three are Tea Party candidates with low perceived electability, and will be competing for the same voters. This further blunts the impact of a gender/race advantage, because they will split each other's votes.

The electability issue also plays a role. A candidate who is neither white nor male is often perceived to be more electable, especially where a Republican minority candidate can make inroads into a Democratic constituency. But with Bachmann, Cain, and Palin, all suffer from low perceived electability. Few Republicans will think that Bachmann is an electable candidate who can appeal to independent women voters. And few believe that Cain would be able to put much of a dent in Obama's black support.

The effect of race and gender can play out differently from election to election, depending on the particular dynamics of the field. For a contrast with the present field, imagine if Tim Pawlenty or Mitt Romney were Hispanic--they would immediately move toward the front of the pack as uniquely electable. Or suppose there were two candidates trying to appeal to the same wing of the Party, but one were a woman. If they were otherwise similar, the woman would have the edge.