Romney Chooses Paul Ryan for VP

Ryan

Mitt Romney announced today that he had chosen his vice presidential running mate: Paul Ryan, the U.S. House member from Wisconsin and current chairman of the House Budget Committee. The selection of Ryan came as a surprise to most observers. While Ryan had some supporters, most viewed Tim Pawlenty or Rob Portman as more likely choices. Recall that just yesterday, Intrade gave Ryan a less than 15% chance of being picked, while Portman was at 34.9% and Pawlenty was at 20%. After Intrade confidently, wrongly predicted that Obamacare's individual mandate would be overruled by the Supreme Court, one must continue to be skeptical about Intrade's ability to predict "secret" decisions.

In previous examinations of the VP decision-making process, we noted two popular theories: The first was the "first do no harm" theory that a "safe" choice should be made because a VP can hurt but not really help a ticket. The second theory is that a VP can help by broadening the appeal of the ticket.

The Ryan decision is perplexing in some ways, because he seems to be the worst of both worlds. On the one hand, he was widely regarded as a "risky" pick because of the big negative he carries: Ryan is associated with a very unpopular budget plan that involved privatizing Medicare. Indeed, "associated" may be an understatement, since it was known as the "Ryan Plan." Thus, Ryan fails the "do no harm" test. But on the other hand, he doesn't seem to have many qualities that would broaden the appeal of the ticket. Unlike Marco Rubio, who would have appealed to many independents (particularly Hispanics), Ryan would tend, if anything, to alienate independents.

It might also be noted that Ryan is young and looks young, and that his highest elected office is that of a U.S. House member--which does not require winning a state-wide election. However, since Ryan has held that office since 1999, he is less vulnerable to criticisms of being inexperienced, despite being about the same age as Rubio.

So why was Ryan chosen? There are a number of factors that likely weighed heavily in Romney's mind. First, the trial balloons on Romney and Portman earlier this summer fell flat. Second, polls have suggested that Barack Obama has held a slight lead over Romney throughout the race. Such polls are of registered voters rather than likely voters, but perhaps Romney's campaign is as led by the RealClearPolitics average as Intrade is. Also, some very recent polls show Obama with a bigger lead. Putting these two things together, Romney may have been persuaded that he needs a "game changing" VP, just as John McCain concluded four years ago.

Then there are the attributes that favor Ryan. Among Tea Partiers and hardcore conservatives, Ryan is considered a genuine conservative, not a "RINO." No doubt Romney chose Ryan in part to balance the ticket and energize his base. Unlike many on the far right, Ryan is not considered a "kook," but an intelligent and articulate, hard-working legislator. Ryan's youth and energy would also be seen as qualities that help balance the ticket. Though it's unlikely to make much difference, Ryan provides geographic balance as well: He's from Wisconsin, a Midwestern swing state. Finally, Ryan would probably have little difficulty beating Joe Biden in a debate.

The irony of the Ryan selection is that during the Republican primary, Romney went out of his way to avoid appearing too aggressively conservative on fiscal issues. Recall that for a long time, Romney avoided endorsing tax cuts for the rich; he only changed his mind when his campaign appeared vulnerable later on, when he needed to appeal to conservatives. The selection of Ryan is a full embrace of fiscal conservatism, including its most unpopular elements. Yet Romney may have felt that since he already spoke favorably of the Ryan Plan, he was stuck anyway.

Putting it all together, how will Ryan's selection impact the dynamic of the race? On balance, it will hurt Romney. By choosing Ryan, Romney has played directly into Obama's current strategy of class warfare. The Obama campaign can go on the offensive, claiming that a Romney/Ryan victory would result in the end of Medicare. By contrast, Ryan doesn't carry any constituency of his own to counter his downside. Arguably he could help energize the base, but there is historical evidence to suggest that the base turns out anyway, and candidates win the presidency by winning independents. On the surface, it appears Ryan will hurt rather than help with independents.

It will be some time before we can fully determine how a Ryan VP candidacy will play, and how Americans respond to him. For the moment, it is Elephant Watcher's determination that Romney's odds of winning the presidency have declined modestly.

Intrade: Obama Up, Portman Up

Barack Obama has improved slightly on his lead in the Intrade market on the 2012 race since our last review in mid-July. The market gives Obama a 58.8% chance of victory, with Mitt Romney at 41%, for a margin of 17.8 points. Once more, we can see the Intrade market is strongly correlated with the RealClearPolitics average of national polls.

As was the case in our last review, the RCP average gave the Intrade market an odd result, due to the quirks of RCP's methodology. Because RCP puts a big emphasis on using multiple pollsters, as opposed to multiple polls, it is forced to use older polls. For example, as of this writing, the RCP average includes a CBS/NYT poll that ran from July 11th to 16th; some of that data is nearly a month old. Other polls have data from as much as three weeks ago.

In mid-July, Romney was doing worse in the then-current polls, but was doing better on Intrade, because the RCP average at the time didn't have a chance to catch up. By contrast, the Elephant Watcher average of polls puts a greater emphasis on current polling data, even if this means using multiple polls by Gallup and Rasmussen, which are the only firms polling with frequency. Remember, polls are intended to be a "snapshot" of the race as it stands today, not how it stands partly today and partly a month ago.

Meanwhile, as the announcement day approaches, the Intrade market on Romney's VP remains split. But Rob Portman has improved on his lead, to 34.9%. Tim Pawlenty is in second at 20%, while Paul Ryan has jumped to 14.6% and Marco Rubio is stuck at 12%. A lower-tier of potential veeps is clustered in mid-single-digits: John Thune at 5.2% and Bob McDonnell, Chris Christie, and Bobby Jindal all at about 4%.

It's curious: Rob Portman is known to have a key weakness in his ties to the George W. Bush administration, and there has been little in the way of "buzz" or trial balloons about him in the media. Yet Portman is consistently at the top of the Intrade VP market. It could be a case of wishful thinking on the part of liberal investors who see Portman as an easy target. But the consistency of Portman's lead must make one wonder whether there is something to it.

Intrade's Obama vs. Romney, Holding Steady

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intrade Odds: Barack Obama Rebounds

The Intrade market for the presidential election gives Barack Obama a 57.2% chance of winning reelection, while Mitt Romney has a 42.3% chance of victory. This suggests a relatively close race at the moment, but Obama's edge in the Intrade odds has widened since our last review a few weeks ago. Obama now has a lead of 14.9 points; that's almost double the 8.1 point lead he enjoyed in mid-June. Obama's lead had been narrowing until recently.

The shift likely reflects the attitude that the Obamacare ruling will affect the election, and that Obama benefits from his signature program being upheld. Before the ruling, most Intrade investors had assumed the individual mandate would be ruled unconstitutional.

In addition, there has been some slight movement toward Obama in the national polls. That shift is more apparent in the Elephant Watcher average of general election polls, which takes into account the difference between registered voter and likely voter polls. The poll average had shown Romney with a nearly 3-point lead in late June; Obama now has a slight lead for the first time.

The Republican VP Intrade market has also seen some movement since the aftermath of the rumors about Tim Pawlenty for VP. Rob Portman is back on top at 25.3%. Pawlenty is still in second, but has dropped to 14.5%, just ahead of Marco Rubio at 13.7%. Some new players have risen: John Thune, a U.S. Senator from South Dakota is at 7.5%, and Paul Ryan, a U.S. Representative from Wisconsin is at 6.2%. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is tied with Chris Christie at 5.0%.

The VP shuffle suggests Intrade investors have soured a bit on the Pawlenty rumors. Apparently, they perceive that the news about Pawlenty was not met with much enthusiasm, so Romney's campaign is looking for another "safe white guy" to pick. Like Pawlenty, John Thune could fit the bill. Paul Ryan is less "safe," but Pawlenty's loss is presumably Ryan's gain. The same could be said for Bobby Jindal, another of the "young guns" of the party. Rubio has recovered somewhat from the news report that he wasn't being vetted for the position, but it's unlikely he'll rise to his former heights without assistance from another news report.

2012 Election in Review: June 2012

Each month, Elephant Watcher recaps the activity that occurred in the general election during the previous month. Follow these links to read recaps from the Republican primary: May 2011, June, July, August, September, October, November, December, January 2012, February, March, April.

Generally speaking, the presidential campaign was quiet during the month of June. Each candidate toured the country, raised money, and plotted out his strategy. Mitt Romney's strategy, essentially unchanged since the Republican primary, was to attack Barack Obama's handling of the economy. Throughout the month, Romney gave few hints that he would pursue a different direction. With no economic news indicating a robust recovery in the works, Romney had little incentive to abandon his original plan.

In the absence of real campaign news, much speculation swirled about concerning Romney's choice of vice presidential running-mate. U.S. Senators Rob Portman and Marco Rubio remained favorites on Intrade, but Tim Pawlenty stepped into focus amidst rumors that Rubio was not even being vetted. Romney later denied the report, claiming Rubio was, in fact, being vetted for the position. But at the end of the month, the identity of the VP was either securely under wraps or still undetermined.

Obama, for his part, skirmished with Romney by criticizing Romney's actions while head of Bain Capital. These attacks backfired after prominent Democrats--including an Obama surrogate--defended private equity firms in general. Though Obama experimented with accusing Romney of wanting to return to Bush-era policies, he tended to favor the "class warfare" line. By June's end, the Obama team's strategy did not yet appear to be fixed.

On June 28th, the Supreme Court ruled Obamacare constitutional--by declaring it a tax. Romney responded by attacking Obamacare, repeating his calls for "repeal and replace." For the first time, Romney was able to say that only by voting Romney could America avoid Obamacare. In the days following the decision, it became apparent that the country could become engaged in a lengthy debate over Obamacare for a second time. Polls suggested that the healthcare plan had not become any more popular since it was passed in 2010.

When Does the General Election Really Begin?

For several weeks now, Mitt Romney has held enough delegates to ensure that he will be the Republican Party's presidential nominee. The Democratic Party, of course, has had its own nominee's name set in stone for much longer. There's no doubt that the 2012 race has shifted from the primary season to the general election season. So why does it seem like nothing is happening?

A year ago, the Republican primary season was experiencing its own lazy summer phase. For the past few elections, candidates have made efforts to extend the calendar, seeking an edge on their rivals. Like participants in an arms race, they attempted to raise and spend more money earlier and earlier in advance of voting day. This was particularly true in the parties' primaries. Twenty-four hour cable news networks with lots of time to fill also had a stake in extending the campaign seasons, and they scheduled as many televised debates as the candidates would allow. But the truth is that only the voters themselves decide how long the campaigns really last, because campaigns don't truly begin until the voters are paying attention. If voters aren't watching, then spending money on TV ads and campaign events is a waste.

The rule of thumb is that in a general election, voters begin paying attention in early September, about two months prior to election day. Interest ramps up in October, when the debates take place. By the end of October, the whole world is watching the election.

There's only one thing that forces the voters to pay attention earlier: The party conventions. At the conventions, the parties' nominees give their first big speeches of the campaign. The non-incumbent candidates can make additional headlines when they choose their vice presidential nominees. This is usually done shortly before the party convention.

But the political parties both recognize that although the conventions could be used to grab voters' attention earlier in the season, it's best to schedule them as late as possible. By holding the conventions later, they maximize the number of people inclined to pay attention. Candidates usually get a bounce in the polls from their conventions, and there's a perception that "he who bounces last bounces best." In 2008, the Republican Party held its convention beginning September 1st, the latest a convention had ever been scheduled.

The backloading of the party conventions shortens the active campaign season. In 2012, it's the Democrats' turn to hold their convention last, beginning on September 3rd. The Republican convention won't be held much earlier--it's scheduled for the week of August 27th. That sets the stage for a long summer during which voters will likely remain asleep, so not much can happen.

Romney has the option of selecting his VP well in advance of the convention. In 2004, for instance, John Kerry announced John Edwards as his VP nearly three weeks before the convention. By contrast, Sarah Palin was announced only a few days before John McCain's convention in 2008. There's a perception that choosing the VP earlier could be beneficial, because the VP can hold campaign events, make media appearances, and raise money. If the VP is truly beneficial to the ticket, it's never to early to begin helping. On the other hand, the earlier the VP is chosen, the less time the candidate has to make the choice--and vet the potential VP.

Most likely, Romney will not announce his VP choice until the beginning of August. He could wait, as McCain and others have done, until just prior to the convention. But given how early the Romney campaign began the selection process, it seems they will probably make the announcement on a schedule similar to the one used by Kerry in 2004. That would suggest an announcement around August 6th, three weeks prior to the convention.

Could they do it even earlier? Yes, if they are comfortable with their VP choice. If the rumors about Tim Pawlenty being chosen for vice president are true, he will have been fully vetted and ready to launch in July. But vetting isn't the only consideration: Romney's campaign will also need to consider how the Republican Party will react to the choice. If news of the possibility of Pawlenty on the ticket was met with an underwhelming response, Romney's campaign is second-guessing itself and exploring alternatives. In that case, an early August announcement remains likely.

Will Tim Pawlenty Be Romney's VP?

Pawlenty

Though it may be several weeks before Mitt Romney officially announces his selection for vice president, rumors abound that Tim Pawlenty will be chosen. The increased buzz about Pawlenty has been driven by a new report from ABC News that the Romney campaign is not putting Marco Rubio through the vetting process. According to the report, Rubio has not been asked to complete questionnaires or provide basic information to the Romney campaign. If Romney's campaign were even considering Rubio, these would be the first steps they would take; since they aren't taking these steps, the conclusion being drawn is that Rubio is not in the running for VP.

The Intrade market on the VP choice has reacted swiftly to the news. Only a few days ago, we reviewed the latest Intrade odds for president and VP: Rob Portman was at 23% for VP, with Rubio at 19%, and Pawlenty at 8.2%. Now, Portman is trading at 24% (little change), but Pawlenty has skyrocketed to 19.9% and Rubio has crashed to 6.8%.

But why is it Pawlenty in particular who would benefit from a Rubio crash? During our review of the Intrade markets last week, Elephant Watcher detected some slight upward movement in the Pawlenty for VP Intrade market and offered an explanation: Pawlenty may be viewed as an even "safer" version of Portman, given that Pawlenty doesn't have ties to the George W. Bush administration.

This month, we thoroughly examined the reasoning behind the "do no harm" theory for VP, the same theory that had brought Portman to the top of the Intrade market. Pawlenty is the epitome of the "do no harm" candidate, as he has no offensive qualities and (presumably) no skeletons in the closet. During the 2012 Republican primary, he had the opportunity to become the consensus candidate, exciting no one but alienating no one, either. But Pawlenty ran a terrible campaign, and he senselessly dropped out of the race early.

The basic problem with the "do no harm" theory is that choosing a VP is a trade-off. If Candidate A helps the ticket, Candidate B hurts the ticket, and Candidate C does neither, both Candidates B and C do harm, because they represent a missed opportunity to help the ticket by choosing Candidate A. Thus, choosing Pawlenty would harm Romney's ticket even if Pawlenty doesn't offend anyone, if Romney loses the opportunity to help the ticket by choosing someone better able to attract votes.

Another way to judge the impact of a Pawlenty VP selection is to consider the reaction of Democrats. If Pawlenty were chosen, how would Democrats feel when they heard the news? Most likely, they would be delighted. Democrats do not fear Pawlenty because they know he will not energize Republicans or broaden the appeal of Romney's ticket.

Is there anything positive about a Pawlenty vice presidential nomination? To the extent that the "do no harm" path should be followed, he fills the role well. It's unlikely that anyone will have real misgivings about Pawlenty or question whether he is qualified for the job. Pawlenty's selection would not help Barack Obama attack Romney as "Bush's Third Term." Pawlenty is not a conservative firebrand, but he will not be seen as a RINO except to the most extreme elements of the right. Nor is Pawlenty too old.

Even so, the selection of Pawlenty would leave many conservatives cold. Pawlenty may not be a RINO, but he will not inspire anyone. Conservatives' lack of enthusiasm for Romney is a problem, one that the VP slot is needed to fix. Pawlenty would not fix the problem. A cautious approach is not always the safest one.

Intrade Odds: Romney Closing on Obama

The Intrade market on the presidential race shows a tighter contest than it did when we last looked at Mitt Romney and Barack Obama's Intrade odds. Obama currently stands at 53.9%; Romney is at 45.8%. Obama retains the edge, most likely because he retains a small lead in unadjusted registered voter polls (a closer look at the Obama vs. Romney polls suggests a slight Romney edge).

Intrade is basically declaring the race a coin flip today, with neither candidate far from the 50% mark. For the last several weeks, the trend has been in Romney's favor: Two weeks ago Obama's lead was 12.7 points, and now it's down to 8.1 points. Until late May, Intrade had the race stable with Obama enjoying a greater than 20 point lead. The race could continue to narrow on Intrade, but it's difficult to see Obama going below 50% any time soon.

The Intrade market on VP nominee has changed a bit. Rob Portman and Marco Rubio are still in first and second, far above the rest of the pack. But in the last two weeks, they have both fallen. Portman is at 23% and Rubio is at 19%; Portman's fallen by 4.5 points and Rubio by 3.

The second-tier is comprised of Tim Pawlenty at 8.2%, Chris Christie at 6.9%, Mitch Daniels at 6.7%, and Bobby Jindal at 5.8%. Can anything explain these numbers? It's likely based on rumor and speculation, because the Romney campaign has not yet released any hints on the identity of the VP pick. One possibility is that Pawlenty and Daniels are viewed as substitutes for Portman. Earlier, we wrote about the possibility of Rob Portman being chosen as Romney's vice presidential nominee. The reasoning behind a Portman pick is that he is bland, but safe. But given Portman's ties to the George W. Bush administration, he's not necessarily safe, because his presence on the ticket would aid Obama in making the "Romney is Bush's Third Term" attack.

If Romney is looking for a bland, safe pick, he might go with Pawlenty or Daniels as substitutes. He might also prefer them because they are former governors, while Portman is a senator. But this is simply Intrade reasoning; Daniels couldn't run for president because of family issues, so those issues ought to make him "unsafe." Pawlenty is the more logical choice, if one buys into the notion of choosing a a placeholder VP.

Romney's Pick for Vice President? Part I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Decisive Moments of the Campaign, Part I

As we continue our restrospective of the 2012 Republican primary, we would like to put a spotlight on several key moments of the campaign. An event may be considered "decisive" if, having gone differently, it likely would have altered the final outcome of the primary--or at least significantly changed the trajectory of the campaign. The events described will be listed roughly in chronological order. Since events further down the road have less potential to cause change (due to delegates being "locked in," etc.), they may be considered somewhat in order of their decisiveness, as well.

Candidates Choose Not to Run (May 14th - October 4th). Each presidential primary campaign is unique because the dynamic of the playing field is determined by who is playing. Generally speaking, if a politician is capable of winning the presidential nomination--and particularly if he's likely to win--he will run. For various reasons, a number of serious potential competitors opted not to run this season. In the case of three men--Mike Huckabee, Mitch Daniels, and Chris Christie--their absence was decisive. Any of the three had a real chance to defeat Mitt Romney. At least one of them, Chris Christie (arguments can be made for all three), was more likely than not going to defeat Romney. If that weren't enough, if any of the three had entered the race, the shape of the race would have been dramatically different, even if Romney ultimately won.

Tim Pawlenty Quits Early (August 14th). According to the Elephant Watcher calculation of the odds, only one candidate who entered the race ever had higher odds of winning the nomination than Romney. That candidate was Tim Pawlenty, who ended up quitting much sooner than anyone else. Pawlenty quit because his campaign was spending itself into debt while failing to get good poll numbers or win the Ames straw poll. Unlike Romney, who had learned from his 2008 run, Pawlenty's campaign was in a hurry, and it acted as though voters were making up their minds during the summer of 2011. They were not. What if Pawlenty had taken a more steady approach? In hindsight, we can see that Pawlenty probably would have beaten Romney. Though he lacked any exciting qualities, Pawlenty had a solidly conservative record and was at least as electable as Romney. In the end, he would have been acceptable to both wings of the Republican Party. When we consider how well Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum did in spite of all their failings, it's pretty clear that someone like Pawlenty, who lacked their weaknesses, would have won.

Mitt Romney Beats Rick Perry in the Debates (September 7th - September 22nd). Though a lot of media attention was devoted to Rick Perry's later "oops" gaffe, Perry had already been defeated during the more decisive September debates. Romney's campaign always considered Perry to be the biggest threat. Perry was the only candidate capable of running a first-class, professional campaign. Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum were all running long-shot vanity campaigns. By September, Pawlenty was already out. That left Perry, who owned a Texas-sized chunk of the Republican establishment and donor networks, second only to Romney. During the September debates, Perry was aggressive. He sought out one-on-one battles with Romney and occasionally scored points against him. But Romney consistently out-classed Perry, who had a tendency to make at least one memorable gaffe per debate. Perry also seemed to get worse over time. The third strike, the debate on September 22nd, knocked Perry out. Before the September debates, Perry had a solid lead over Romney in the polls. After them, Romney held the lead.

Rick Perry Says "Oops" (November 9th). Though Romney maintained a lead over Perry from the end of September onward, Perry's catastrophic "oops" gaffe at the November 9th debate still had an important impact on the race. By November, Perry was in a weakened position. However, there was a possibility that he could recover at some point. He might not have been able to win, but he could have played a role as one of the--if not the chief--Anti-Romney candidates. Only voters in the early states paid attention to the September/October debates. Recall that Gingrich was able to bounce back and win South Carolina after early defeats. Santorum, too, experienced a resurgence in February 2012. Supposing Perry had not made his "oops" gaffe, which became the most famous primary debate gaffe in political history, he might have been able to muddy the waters in Iowa, South Carolina, or beyond. Gingrich and Santorum both needed Perry out of the way in order to make their big gains. Without the "oops," Santorum may have been forced to drop out after losing Iowa.

In Part II, we will explore the remaining moments which we consider to have been decisive in the 2012 Republican presidential primary.

The Bain Analysis of Romney's Campaign

Romney

When Mitt Romney worked at Bain & Company, the consulting firm where he started his career, he was taught to examine companies in a particular manner. Bain consultants studied failing companies by accumulating a very large amount of data, and then formulated ideas for how improvements could be made. The consultants debated these ideas, always taking care to support their assertions with data. When Romney planned his run for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, he probably analyzed his failed 2008 run in much the same way that he had examined failed companies. Based on the changes Romney made in 2012, what lessons can we deduce he learned from 2008?

Romney has said that one of his lessons from 2008 was that people didn't have a clear idea of what his message was. In 2012, his basic campaign message was repeated over and over: The election is going to be about jobs and the economy, and his private-sector experience made him the most qualified to turn things around.

If you're going to make a pitch to voters, it's a good idea to make sure the voters know what the pitch is. Romney succeeded; some other candidates succeeded, while others failed. Jon Huntsman and Tim Pawlenty may have been the worst at defining a clear message for their campaigns. Rick Perry did a relatively poor job, and his message was quickly swallowed by his disastrous debate performances. Others, like Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, eventually defined themselves, but their messages were unattractive. Gingrich's pitch was that he was the best candidate to debate Barack Obama, but it turned out Gingrich wasn't that good at debates. Santorum wanted to focus on the family and values, but most voters weren't interested. Herman Cain succeeded at getting his "9-9-9" message out, but he went too far, defining himself too narrowly.

Another change Romney made in 2012 was to focus all of his attention on one early state, New Hampshire. In 2008, he spread his resources and attempted to land knock-out blows by doing well in Iowa and New Hampshire, as well as some later contests. Romney was able to get second place in both IA and NH, but it didn't do him much good. He concluded that taking first place was absolutely essential. Among IA, NH, and South Carolina, his choice was obvious: He had to stake everything on NH. He did put some last-minute resources into IA when the opportunity presented itself, but otherwise he ignored the state. It's no use spreading resources if you don't get any real credit for second place.

What about the manner in which Romney conducted his campaign? For those who followed both the 2008 and 2012 Republican primaries, it was apparent that Romney gave better debate performances during his second run. While it should be obvious that debates are important, Romney seems to have put in the extra effort. He may have taken a cue from 2008, when Mike Huckabee vaulted from polling near 0% to taking IA and nearly South Carolina and the nomination. Huckabee had no resources or name recognition, but he did very well in the debates. Others didn't take the debates so seriously: It's been reported that Perry spent almost no time preparing for them, and it showed.

In 2008, the various campaigns treated the primary season like an arms race, spending money long before voters even began paying attention. They had assumed that the primary season would last from early 2007 all the way through early 2008, and they didn't want to be left behind. But they misjudged the voters, most of whom didn't start following the race until 2008. Even the early-state voters didn't take notice until the autumn of 2007, and their engagement really ramped up only by December.

It appears Romney learned that lesson. Rather than blanketing the early states with ads at the beginning of 2011, he ramped up his efforts toward the end of 2011. Most telling was the fact that Romney didn't launch his deluge of negative ads (for which he had become infamous in 2008) until a couple weeks before the Iowa Caucus. He allowed Gingrich to get far ahead in the polls, and then viciously cut him down. By contrast, the Romney of 2008 attacked every candidate who got ahead of him even for a moment, and he made enemies. The Romney of 2012 was perfectly happy to see Cain or Ron Paul or Michele Bachmann do well for awhile, and if they fell of their own weight, he didn't make enemies of them.

The candidate who could have benefited the most from that lesson was Pawlenty. He spent more money than he took in, trying as hard as he could to get traction in early-to-mid 2011. The problem was that voters didn't even notice. Even worse, he spent large sums of money trying to win the Ames straw poll in August. When he failed to win, his campaign was in debt and he decided to drop out--a fatal mistake. Bachmann won Ames, but it turned out Ames didn't matter. In 2008, Romney also spent a lot of money to win the Ames straw poll, and it didn't do him any good, either.

It's conventional wisdom that Republicans always nominate the "next in line." They prefer to nominate the runner-up from the previous primary, it seems (Reagan, Bush Sr., Dole, McCain, Romney). But perhaps the real reason this occurs so frequently is that the candidates learn from the mistakes they made the first time around. In the future, candidates would do well to learn from the mistakes of past candidates, rather than spending time and money making them on their own.

Romney vs. Santorum, Part 1

In September 2011, the Republican presidential primary looked like a two-man race between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry. In December 2011 and January 2012, it looked like a two-man race between Romney and Newt Gingrich. Now it's become a race between Romney and Rick Santorum. How will voters decide between the two candidates? What will the candidates need to do in order to win this battle?

Every Republican presidential primary is different, but winning the primary always comes down to two different factors: Electability and conservatism. Republicans want a candidate who will win, and one who will govern as a conservative after he wins. In theory, it's that simple. If one candidate can claim to be the most conservative and the most electable among the field, he will win the nomination. But most of the time, one candidate doesn't possess more electability and conservatism than all the rest of the candidates, so the voters must weigh the two factors.

Which do voters care about more, electability or conservatism? History suggests the answer is electability. Republicans often nominate a candidate who is viewed as a "RINO," but rarely one who is viewed as too extreme or inexperienced to be elected. But more than that, electability is seen as a baseline qualification. It's not a virtue; it's a requirement. And it shouldn't be too difficult to be considered electable: All it requires is a decent amount of high-level government experience, not being viewed as an extremist politically, and not coming across as a strange, scandalous, or stupid person.

But of the nine Republicans who ran for president this cycle (Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Huntsman, Paul, Pawlenty, Perry, Romney, Santorum), there was an unusually large number who lacked the basic qualification of electability. Bachmann, Cain, and Paul were considered extremely unelectable. Gingrich and, increasingly as time went on, Perry also fell into the camp. Huntsman, Pawlenty, and Romney all seemed to be electable. Santorum was left somewhere in between.

Of the three who were considered obviously electable, Huntsman and Romney had questionable conservatism. That left Tim Pawlenty as the only candidate in the field who was both very conservative and electable--and he quit the race back in August 2011. It's no wonder Republicans have long felt that their field this year is weak. They are in disbelief that the Party could not produce even one candidate who met their basic requirements, let alone inspire them.

Now that the field has been narrowed to a duel between Romney and Santorum, voters will need to determine the conservatism and electability of each one, and determine how to weigh the factors. How will they go about doing this? We will discuss that process in Part 2.

Should Tim Pawlenty Regret Quitting Early?

Pawlenty

In a word, yes.

Tim Pawlenty ended his campaign for president last month after placing third in the Ames straw poll. At the time, Elephant Watcher criticized Pawlenty's campaign for failing to understand what type of candidate Pawlenty was (or should have been): The last man standing, a consensus candidate who emerged after his rivals self-destructed.

Recent events have made it clear that Pawlenty missed a valuable opportunity. After Rick Perry crashed and burned in the debates, the search has been on for a suitable replacement. The Anti-Romney forces have been desperate to find someone capable of preventing Romney from winning. Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Huntsman, Paul, and now Perry are judged not up to the task. Chris Christie is formidable, but he may not run. Rick Santorum is, for now, not on the radar. Who's left?

If Pawlenty were still in the race, it's likely that attention would have shifted in his direction. He was considered more electable and more conservative than the alternatives who didn't quit. Despite being mocked for his low poll numbers, Pawlenty would now be considered prominent by comparison: Pawlenty always polled much better in Iowa than Santorum and Cain. Even the Ames straw poll, which led to Pawlenty's quitting early, had Pawlenty with a sizable lead over Santorum, Cain--and Romney.

Thus, Pawlenty would have been next in line to win Iowa. He needed Bachmann and Perry to crash, and they did. He would have faced Romney, who is only half-heartedly participating in Iowa. Pawlenty would have been the favorite to win Iowa, and maybe the nomination and the presidency.

Pawlenty's mistake should be a lesson for future candidates. The primary season is very long, and the dynamics of the race tend to change. To take advantage, a candidate must stay in the race. Perhaps in future primaries, candidates will be less willing to drop out--at least until the Iowa Caucus. It makes little sense to drop out in response to a third-place finish in the Ames straw poll.

Primary Debate Tomorrow on MSNBC

A primary debate, hosted by NBC and Politico, will be held tomorrow evening. The eight Republican presidential candidates officially in the race are scheduled to attend. This will be the first debate appearance for Rick Perry, and the first debate that Tim Pawlenty will not attend (because he quit the race last month).

Perry will be the center of attention. Despite the fact that Perry leads the national primary polls, many Republican primary voters will be seeing the man for the first time at this debate. The pressure will be on Perry to prove he has the intelligence and presidential demeanor necessary to be an electable candidate.

There's some speculation that Perry may opt out of the debate at the last moment, due to the problem with wildfires in Texas, where Perry still serves as governor. If Perry chose not to attend, he would be badly damaged. Not only would he be viewed as a coward, but it would set a dangerous precedent. Perry will continue to serve as governor of Texas all through the primary season and the general election, should he become the Republican nominee. If Perry were to stop campaigning each time something occurs in Texas, he could be viewed as an unreliable candidate.

Assuming Perry attends--and perhaps even if he does not--it will be important to see how the other candidates interact with Perry. Michele Bachmann must attack Perry in order to gain ground against him in Iowa, which is a do-or-die contest for her. Perry will be forced to handle Bachmann. He must parry her attacks without appearing too condescending. He must also avoid counter-attacking in such a way that he appears too negative, as Tim Pawlenty learned during the August debate.

Mitt Romney must decide whether or not to attack Perry. As we argued a few days ago, it's not in Romney's best interest to be the deliverer of the "Perry is a RINO" message, since he would appear hypocritical and invite counter-attacks from Perry. But Romney's advisors may be feeling too much pressure from the national polls where Perry leads Romney.

As always, it will also be important to see how Romney handles any attacks against Romneycare, which continues to be his chief liability. He has managed to glide past the issue several times before, but the fact that it can be brought back again and again is evidence that Romney's best strategy would have been to disavow Romneycare and admit it was a mistake.

The other candidates in the race will have a major challenge: They must find a way to break out of the mold of the three-way race developing among Bachmann, Perry, and Romney. To become relevant, they need to build themselves up, but fewer people will be paying attention. They may decide to dogpile on Perry, which is a traditional development when one candidate leads in all the national polls.

Should Mitt Romney Attack Rick Perry Now?

The next Republican primary debate is scheduled for this Wednesday. The debate is significant because it will be the first attended by Rick Perry. Voters in early primary states will begin to pay more attention, and they're eager to learn more about Perry, who leads in the polls.

We've written about why Perry will be attacked by Michele Bachmann and Mitt Romney over the course of the primary. Bachmann has already begun to attack Perry for not being a genuine conservative. During the upcoming debate, it's very likely that Bachmann will attack Perry. After all, Perry is ahead in the Iowa Caucus polls. But should Romney attack Perry during the debate? How much effort should Romney expend on attacking Perry at this point in the campaign?

Romney's advisors, if they are unwise, will tell Romney that he must assault Perry. They will argue that because Rick Perry leads in national polls, Romney must attack the new frontrunner. If Romney's advisors are more clever, they will counsel Romney to remain above the fray, avoiding attacks against Perry for now. Why?

The fundamental structure of the race between Perry and Romney is that Perry is viewed as a more genuine conservative, and Romney is viewed as more electable. Both genuine conservatism and electability are important to primary voters. It's unclear which candidate will win if they remain in their current state. If the perception of Perry as a genuine conservative weakens, he will approach Romney on that variable--that is, they will be seen as somewhat more equally genuine in their conservatism. If they are tied on that factor, then Romney wins due to superior electability. Thus, Romney would like people to scrutinize Perry's record. He would like voters to harbor doubts about whether Perry is as conservative as claimed.

But Romney is not the best person to make such attacks. Since Romney still has the stigma of being a flip-flopper and an opportunist, he will be viewed as a hypocrite if he questions whether Perry is a genuine conservative. Bachmann, on the other hand, will not. Bachmann and Sarah Palin are basically the only two people on the planet who are not accused of meeting the definition of a RINO. Bachmann's conservative credentials are beyond doubt.

The conclusion is that Romney should allow Bachmann to do the work for him. She is in a better position to accuse Perry of being a RINO. It's also useful for Romney to avoid being the guy who "goes negative." When you attack another candidate--even successfully--you still lose some points, and you make enemies of people you'll need later on down the road. Going negative also makes a candidate look petty and unpresidential. Additionally, Perry would have more difficulty counter-attacking Bachmann, since Perry might reveal some disdain toward women. Perry probably doesn't take Bachmann very seriously, and if he is condescending toward her, it could make him look like a misogynist.

Would a "pacifist" strategy make Romney appear weak, as Tim Pawlenty was accused of being? Unlikely. Pawlenty was harmed by the fact that he had been attacking Romney when Romney wasn't there, but wouldn't attack Romney to his face. Romney has, so far, avoided making any real attacks against Perry. Romney should defend himself, but he will not appear weak by declining to initiate attacks against Perry.

2012 Republican Primary in Review: August 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Tim Pawlenty Quits the Race

Pawlenty

Tim Pawlenty announced today that he has ended his campaign for the presidency. He explained that he simply could not see a pathway to victory, and that he had failed to get the boost he needed from the Ames straw poll (in which he placed third). This marks the first time that a candidate who entered the race has quit, and the Campaign Status page has been updated accordingly.

The Ames straw poll is sometimes referred to as the "graveyard" of campaigns, because although the winner doesn't always go forward to victory, candidates who perform very poorly often quit after Ames. Apparently Pawlenty had decided in advance that he would only remain in the race if he placed first or second (or perhaps a very close third) at Ames.

The fact that Pawlenty is the first candidate to quit is ironic, because his optimal role in the primary was to be the "last man standing," the candidate who remained after the rest of the field destroyed itself. But by the end of June, Elephant Watcher noted that Pawlenty's campaign was schizophrenic and showed signs that it didn't have a proper strategy. Rather than avoiding enemies and playing the role of the consensus candidate, Pawlenty was increasingly attacking others.

Pawlenty's decision to quit early was also ill-advised. A candidate with the "last man standing" strategy needs patience, as he is unlikely to pick up steam until the end of the campaign. Instead, Pawlenty quit the race before it had even begun. During Phase Two of the primary, even voters in early states like Iowa and New Hampshire are not yet paying close attention to the race.

This serves as a good demonstration of the fact that political candidates and their advisors are very fallible. One might expect those who run for the presidency to know quite a lot about campaign strategy. But as Rudy Giuliani showed in 2008 with his "Florida first" strategy, it's possible for candidates to be completely clueless. Pawlenty's inability to grasp what kind of candidate he was doomed his campaign.

A detailed analysis of how Pawlenty's departure affects the race will be the subject of a future post.

Michele Bachmann Wins Ames Straw Poll

Michele Bachmann received the most votes in the Ames straw poll, a voting event that occurs during August before the primaries. The event has no formal impact; candidates do not win any delegates from the straw poll. The straw poll is also completely unlike the Iowa Caucus. Instead, only a small number of votes are cast by people who have been bussed to Ames, Iowa. Most often, "voters" in the straw poll are paid to attend. The straw poll results sometimes reflect the strength of candidates, however: In 2008, Mitt Romney won the straw poll, and Mike Huckabee came in a surprise second. (Huckabee won first and Romney placed second in the Iowa Caucus.)

Fewer than 17,000 votes were cast in the straw poll. Several candidates did not participate, including Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Jon Huntsman (though they received write-in votes). The results were as follows:

Ames Straw Poll
Bachmann 4,823
Paul 4,671
Pawlenty 2,293
Santorum 1,657
Cain 1,456
Perry 718 (write-in)
Romney 567 (write-in)
Gingrich 385
Huntsman 69 (write-in)

Bachmann was expected to win. The very close second-place finish of Ron Paul, who is not a serious candidate and has no chance of winning Iowa, emphasizes the fact that the straw poll is not necessarily attached to the reality of voters on the ground. The non-participation of Romney and Perry further minimizes the importance of the results--by those campaigns' design.

Tim Pawlenty will likely be disappointed, as he hoped to finish higher. His entire campaign strategy relies on Iowa. However, his actual scenario for winning does not involve doing well early on. Instead, he would serve as a consensus candidate after the others have torn each other apart or self-destructed. With such a scenario, the candidate cannot be impatient; if Pawlenty does well in the Iowa Caucus, his poll numbers will not reflect his strength until the end of the year.

Herman Cain and Rick Santorum, to say nothing of Newt Gingrich, also under-performed.

The only likely impact of Bachmann's win--if there is any impact--will be to irritate many in the Republican establishment. Mainstream Republican voters have grown tired of fearing the possible nomination of Bachmann, which they believe would result in a guaranteed win for Barack Obama. Perry and Romney will both be warning voters that if they don't get the nomination, Bachmann could.

Rick Perry Officially Enters the Race

Perry

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

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

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

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

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

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