Mitt Romney's Tax Returns, Part I

In keeping with the class warfare strategy that sparked an additional round of Bain attacks, Barack Obama's campaign has been calling on Mitt Romney to release his tax returns for the last ten years. So far, Romney has refused, releasing returns for the last two years only. Romney argues that he has released all of the information that's legally required, and that Obama would merely use any additional disclosure as the subject of distortions, distractions, and attacks. However, even some prominent Republicans (albeit including Republicans who arguably never supported Romney in the first place) have called on Romney to release the returns now so that the matter can be put to rest.

Those who followed the Republican primary will recall that Romney's tax returns became an issue back in January of this year. Just prior to the South Carolina primary, some of Romney's rivals demanded that Romney release his tax returns. At the time, Romney had not released any returns; he also had not released any during his run for governor of Massachusetts. Romney's answer was that he was not planning to release any tax returns, but that he might consider doing so later.

The tax return issue hurt Romney badly in South Carolina. Romney appeared evasive, and voters wondered what he was hiding. Granted, such issues are more important in a primary than a general election. In a primary, voters are chiefly concerned with electability--the ability of a candidate to compete in a general election. They don't want any hidden skeletons that will knock their party's nominee out of the race. In a general election, electability is no longer a campaign issue, because voters are choosing a president rather than a candidate. In other words, voters are choosing someone to run the country, not someone to win future votes. Character issues play a role, but they are weighed according to their substance rather than their appearance.

The Romney tax return issue was resolved before the Florida primary. Romney understood his image of electability had taken a beating, so he quickly and quietly released two years of tax returns--the same as other candidates were doing. Contrary to expectation, there were no bombshells. Romney could be criticized for paying a low rate and for using tax shelters, but there was no evidence of anything illegal. The matter was dropped, and Romney went on to win Florida, knocking rival Newt Gingrich out of the race.

Why did anyone care about Romney's tax returns in the first place? Because voters were curious why Romney wasn't releasing them, and their imaginations took flight. The tax return issue is reminiscent of the "birther" controversy that came to a head in the spring of 2011. For more than two years, Obama refused to release his long-form birth certificate. Because the birther issue existed in the realm of conspiracy "kooks," few paid it much attention. It's likely that Obama's refusal to release his birth certificate was a political ploy intended to string along the kooks and trap any unwary Republicans who allowed themselves to be dragged in.

But in 2011, Donald Trump began openly questioning Obama's status as a natural-born citizen. The issue found its way into the mainstream. Obama persisted in his refusal to release his birth certificate, and Obama supporters struggled to explain why. Voters also became curious, because they couldn't think of any logical reason why it shouldn't be released. Their imaginations ran wild, and polls began to show a large percentage of Americans unsure about Obama's birthplace. Obama was therefore forced to release his birth certificate--leaving observers wondering what the big deal was.

Now that Obama has resurrected the tax return issue, how will it affect the general election? We will discuss that in Part II.

Why Do Candidates Keep Crashing?

The 2012 Republican presidential primary season has been a rollercoaster, with seemingly each month bringing a new candidate to the top of the polls--only to crash a few weeks later. First, in April, it was Donald Trump. During the summer, Michele Bachmann experienced a brief moment in the sun (though only in Iowa). Rick Perry topped the polls in August and found his way back down by the end of September. Herman Cain rose in his place, but by the end of November he was a spent force. In the meantime, Newt Gingrich rose to heights not even reached by Perry, only to find his lead rapidly diminishing in mid-December.

Presidential primaries often feature ups and downs, and comeback stories are not infrequent. But the phenomenon is unusually pronounced this season. What's the reason? There are two basic factors at work: The field's lack of an "acceptable" nominee, and the way voters react to new candidates.

First we will consider the way Republican primary voters tend to greet candidates with whom they are not very familiar. Voters seem to make positive assumptions about their candidates. Simply by virtue of a candidate's presence on the stage, voters assume that the candidate--barring evidence to the contrary--is a "legitimate" one. A proper Republican candidate is both conservative and electable, and voters presume that anyone on the stage possesses both qualities.

In fact, it seems that voters are very optimistic in their assumptions. While virtually all Republican officeholders have taken a few positions that aren't conservative, voters have an "innocent until proven guilty" approach: The candidate has never strayed from conservatism. It's up to the media and the other candidates to prove otherwise. Similarly, a candidate is presumed electable.

The reality is far different. Trump was neither conservative nor electable, Bachmann was unelectable, Perry had holes in his conservatism and proved more incapable in debates than anyone could have imagined, Cain was so unelectable that he had to quit, and Gingrich is vulnerable on both attributes. Once each of these candidates got high enough in the polls, the media and other candidates illuminated the voters.

By contrast, Mitt Romney's numbers have been remarkably steady over the course of the primary. That's because voters already got to know him during the 2008 primary. If there's something you don't like about Romney, you probably knew about it before the 2012 primary began--you didn't hear about it for the first time this year in a negative ad.

The second factor has to do with the current crop of candidates. As Elephant Watcher observed at the beginning of the primary season, there is a void in the field: No single candidate is capable of both exciting the Tea Party wing and pleasing the establishment wing of the Republican Party. Chris Christie was capable of doing both, but he declined to run. Mitch Daniels and Tim Pawlenty were capable of at least being acceptable to both wings of the Party, but Daniels declined to run and Pawlenty quit prematurely.

The result is that there is no "acceptable" candidate in the field. This means each time a frontrunner came under attack, the voters could learn something that made the candidate unacceptable, and the candidate's poll numbers took a nosedive. If there was a broadly acceptable candidate, he would have survived the vetting process and remained in the lead. This season, that couldn't occur.

Once a candidate wins enough state contests and clinches the nomination, Republicans are likely to put aside their doubts and rally around the candidate. But that won't happen while it's still time for the voters to shop.

Is Chris Christie Running for President? Part I

Christie

When one considers the various scenarios of how the 2012 Republican primary could turn out, there's one big unknown that looms over it all: Will Chris Christie enter the race? He has been asked the question countless times, and he has been consistent in denying that he intends to run. But he has made a careful point of not denying his intentions in what Elephant Watcher terms a "convincing manner." By contrast: Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels, Mike Huckabee, and Donald Trump have all exited the race in the appropriate fashion, and have been placed into the "declined to run" category on the Campaign Status page.

To put it another way, Christie has only denied his intentions to run in the same way that Barack Obama denied he would run in 2008, and Rick Perry denied he would run in 2012. Perry changed his mind and is considering a run. Obama changed his mind and is currently president. But while Christie hasn't taken himself out of the race, that doesn't mean he will run. It only means he hasn't decided yet. So will Christie run?

Predicting whether a candidate will run can be a very tricky business. Sometimes the candidate himself doesn't know. Often the decision hinges on personal matters, such as whether the candidate's spouse or children are willing to support him. Earlier this year, Mitch Daniels was considered a strong candidate for president, but he declined to run. Daniels explained that he wanted to run, but his wife and daughters were against it. One might question the logic: If Daniels' wife was so afraid of publicity, why would she allow him to run for governor? Clearly, emotions play a role. Mike Huckabee, who was in an even stronger position to run than Daniels, announced that he would not run, either. He never gave a clear explanation for his decision. He just said that his "heart said 'no.'"

What about using Intrade, which bills itself as "The World's Leading Prediction Market"? On Intrade, investors can take bets on whether candidates will run. From the beginning, Elephant Watcher has cautioned readers that Intrade markets aren't a reliable predictor of election results, for a number of reasons. Intrade markets tend to react to events rather than predicting them.

Intrade investors are relatively certain that Christie won't run. Intrade gives Christie a 10% chance of entering the race. Intrade gave Christie a higher chance last year, before he started making repeated denials. Apparently Intrade investors take Christie at his word.

They also took Rick Perry at his word, until his word changed. Until mid-May, Intrade investors gave Perry a 10% chance of running, just like Christie. When Perry began suggesting he was reconsidering a run, his Intrade market skyrocketed. It now stands at around 75%. Again, that's a reaction rather than a prediction.

Intrade investors fared no better when it came to anticipating that a candidate wouldn't run. Consider the four candidates who were placed into the "declined to run" category. Intrade's predictions? Haley Barbour was given a 70% chance of running until the day he announced he wasn't. Mike Huckabee was given nearly a 60% chance of running until he made a similar announcement. (In January '11, Intrade gave Huckabee an 80% chance.) Donald Trump topped out at over 60% in mid-May, just before he bowed out of the race. As for Mitch Daniels, Intrade priced him at 70% until the day he announced his decision not to run.

We can't read Christie's mind, and neither can Intrade. Are there any factors that can at least assist us in making a prediction about whether Christie will run? We will examine this question in Part II.

2012 Republican Primary in Review: May 2011

Click here for the Elephant Watcher News archive for the month of May, 2011.

Considering how far away the early primaries are, the month of May '11 was fairly active. The race saw a transition from the first phase to second phase of the campaign, with many--but not all--potential candidates making their intentions official. The field started to take shape, but was still incomplete when June arrived.

A month is a long time in politics. As May began, the two men who dominated the headlines were Donald Trump and Osama bin Laden. Neither man appears very relevant in politics today. As the pundits eventually learned, Elephant Watcher's prediction was correct: Bin Laden's death had no lasting impact, and President Obama's bounce in the polls dissipated rapidly.

In early May, Republican leaders were concerned that Trump's eccentricity would turn the primary into a circus. They also agonized over the weakness of the field, with no one candidate capable of exciting or unifying the Party. Elephant Watcher was skeptical of Trump's chances, owing to Trump's low perceived conservatism and electability. Trump, it seems, came around to Elephant Watcher's point of view: Trump's high numbers in national primary polls were an illusion, so there was no point in his making a run for it. Trump exited the field on May 16th, and the Party breathed a sigh of relief.

However, Elephant Watcher concurred with the Party's concerns about a vacuum in the field, and held to the projection that Chris Christie had the best chance of winning the nomination by making a late entry.

Few candidates attended the primary debate on May 5th, but it provided a platform for Herman Cain, who boosted his visibility. Cain took advantage of the two Tea Party favorites being MIA for the month: Sarah Palin refused to make her intentions known, which also kept Michele Bachmann in limbo. With the two women out of the picture, the Tea Party began to gravitate toward Cain.

The other big story was the series of fortuitous events enhancing Tim Pawlenty's stature. Iowa favorite Mike Huckabee shook up the race by announcing on May 14th that he would not run. On May 22nd, Mitch Daniels followed suit. These departures created an opening in Iowa for Pawlenty as the "electable" alternative to Mitt Romney. Even better, after Newt Gingrich officially entered the race on May 11th, he shot himself in the foot during his first interview. Romney was the victim of similar self-sabotage during his botched attempt to explain Romneycare during a speech on May 12th.

Though Pawlenty's stock rose, he was not able to translate his strong campaign position into a loyal following. He remained low in the polls. Instead of rallying behind Pawlenty, Republicans looked toward candidates not yet in the race. Among the Washington establishment, most of the talk centered around Jon Huntsman, Jr. His stock rapidly increased on Intrade. However, Huntsman did not actually form an exploratory committee or make official plans to join the race--yet. While the establishment spoke of the race as having three "serious" candidates (Romney, Pawlenty, and Huntsman), Huntsman remained an unknown outside the Beltway.

By the end of the month, the vacuum in the field still existed. The consensus only grew that new players needed to join the game. Christie's chances of winning the nomination rose slightly from 60% to 65%.

Time is running out for the remaining candidates. They have only a few more months to convince the voters that the field is already acceptable. Otherwise, the Christie juggernaut may arrive and flatten them all.

Who or What is a RINO?

Diceros bicornis

Whenever a group of conservatives discuss the Republican primary field, the term "RINO" is likely to make an appearance. "RINO" stands for "Republican In Name Only," and is a disparaging term used to cast doubt on the authenticity of a politician's conservatism. But what does RINO mean in practice, and who is really a RINO?

Conservatives are frustrated by how often the Republican Party is represented by politicians who are not "genuine" conservatives. In the last several years, the Party nominated George Bush Sr., Bob Dole, and John McCain--all of whom are widely considered RINOs. Even George W. Bush inspired a feeling of betrayal among conservatives who felt he was not fiscally conservative enough. The Republican-controlled Congress at the time faced the same criticism. In many ways, the Tea Party resulted from the buildup of this frustration.

The Tea Party wing of the Republican Party is fearful that yet another RINO will win the 2012 primary. Are their fears justified? Let us consider the Elephant Watcher roster of candidates and the information contained in their Profiles. Each candidate is ranked on a scale of 1-3 on his "perceived conservatism."

Only Donald Trump (before he left the race) was given a low ranking; there were real doubts about whether he was even a Republican, let alone a conservative. Three active candidates have a medium ranking. These face consistent criticism from the right about their conservative credentials: Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney. Paul is rarely the subject of much conversation, but Gingrich and Romney are frequently labeled RINOs. Recently, Gingrich and Romney have made blunders that reinforced this negative perception.

But it doesn't end there. Even most of the candidates with high perceived conservatism are tagged with the RINO epithet--at least, in certain quarters. Chris Christie is critiqued on gun control, Mitch Daniels (before departing) for his "truce" remark, Tim Pawlenty for once supporting cap-and-trade, and Rick Santorum as an accomplice to the big-spending Republican Congress.

Are all of these people really Democrats in disguise? Most primary voters are unlikely to see it that way. Polling has been done on which candidates Republicans will not support. For most, the attitude seems to be something to the effect of, "If Chris Christie is a RINO, then we need more RINOs."

Taken at face value, "RINO" appears to mean, roughly, "Anyone who is not Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann." Tea Party favorite Herman Cain has not yet been tarred as a RINO, but given enough time, even he might be. (It's worth pointing out that each of these RINO-proof candidates has low perceived electability. That suggests the term is being employed against others as a kind of defense mechanism.) Enthusiastic supporters of one candidate or another are a bit too quick to dismiss every other candidate as a RINO. When one hears the label being used, it should be taken with a grain of salt.

Elephant Watcher Q&A, Part I

As you may have noticed, Elephant Watcher's News page--especially on slow news days--often addresses common questions about the election process. For example, previous posts have discussed subjects such as the usefulness of national primary polls, how it's determined which candidates get included in a debate, the significance of Intrade, and others.

From time to time, we will also answer collections of questions sent by our readers. Elephant Watcher receives hundreds of e-mails, so it would be impossible to answer them all. However, if a similar question is asked by many different people, it may be addressed in a post like this one. Elephant Watcher's contact e-mail is linked here.

Q: How did you know Donald Trump's candidacy would collapse? You gave him a 1% chance of winning even when he was first place in the polls.

As with other candidates we profiled, Trump's challenges were identified early on, and explored further in a post dedicated to the subject. Trump suffered from low perceived conservatism and low perceived electability. A candidate possessing even one of those problems faces a significant hurdle. The Elephant Watcher calculation of Trump's odds was based on that fundamental assessment.

Q: Why are the rankings and odds so steady? What would it take to change them?

This question was more common prior to Huckageddon, when Huckabee's departure rattled the primary field. If an important candidate leaves the field suddenly, or if someone new appears, it can alter the odds. Otherwise, candidates demonstrate either ability or inability to face their unique challenges (like Trump's, described in the answer to the previous question). On the Profile page, you can see each candidate's strengths and weaknesses. Some candidates will overcome their weaknesses, while others will self-immolate. In the beginning, the Rankings are more stable, since fewer primary voters are paying attention to the race. Gaffes, etc. have less impact.

Q: How can Chris Christie be included if he says he's not running?

The roster would be incomplete without Christie for the same reason that a 2008 roster would be incomplete without Obama--despite the fact that Obama had said he was not running. Elephant Watcher has developed criteria to determine whether a candidate is actually staying out of the race. Note that Barbour, Huckabee, and Trump--the three who convincingly declined to run thus far--have all met the criteria, issuing carefully-prepared statements on their own. Christie has only made denials in response to interviewer questions. He has not yet met the criteria of a candidate who truly intends not to run.

Q: Where's Allen West's profile (or some other candidate's)?

This topic was addressed--specifically related to Michele Bachmann's potential candidacy--in an earlier post. It's likely a few additional candidates (like Bachmann and Huntsman) will enter the race and be added to the Elephant Watcher roster. At this point, the roster is complete enough so that it's only necessary to update it if/when new candidates actually announce a run or exploratory committee. Allen West has done neither. But the 2012 Republican primary may still have a few surprises in store.

Donald Trump Announces He Will Not Run

Trump

Trump released a written statement today declaring that he will not seek the presidency. This marks the fourth declaration--in or out--by candidates in the last several days, further reinforcing the notion that the field is taking shape. The Campaign Status page will be continually updated as candidates join or leave the field.

Why won't Trump run? In his written remarks, Trump said that business is his passion, and that his decision was made despite strong poll numbers. Actually, Trump's support has been in a state of collapse. Trump declined to run for the reason almost everyone else does: He does not believe he can win the nomination.

Elephant Watcher was a "Trump skeptic" from the beginning, never giving Trump more than a 1% chance of victory. His vulnerabilities were clear from the start, regardless of national primary polls. It was bad enough that he was not viewed as an electable candidate; his identity as a Republican was also in doubt.

Consequently, Trump's departure alters the field only slightly. Christie has taken Trump's 1%, bringing Christie up to a 63% chance of winning the nomination. Christie will step in and take the role from Trump of the brash, "tell it like it is" candidate.

Was Trump's candidacy just a publicity stunt? Probably not. Trump did gin up a lot of publicity and controversy, but he also did a lot of behind-the-scenes work that would not have made sense if he was not seriously considering a run. Most likely, Trump tested the waters at first, was thrilled by his high poll numbers (for awhile he led in the national primary polls), and set to work on a run for the presidency. Then, as it became more clear that Republicans were not buying his candidacy, he decided to save himself the humiliation (and work) of a failed presidential run.

What's the Best Job Experience for Running for President?

During a recent radio interview, Chris Christie was asked what kind of person he would support for president. Governor Christie replied that, preferably, the Republican nominee should be a governor. Historically, governors have fared well at the polls. It's not difficult to see why: Both the presidency and a governorship are executive positions. They are tasked with managing government, not voting on legislation as a Senator or House Representative would.

Of course, governors are not the only kind of candidates who win, and they are far from the only type of candidates who run. Nevertheless, primary voters do value electability, and the type of office held by a candidate does factor into electability. You may view the experience and perceived electability of all the Republican contenders on the Profiles page.

It's worth taking a look at the roster of Republican candidates in light of this factor. The following is a list of the candidates arranged by the type of offices they held. Afterward, we will compare it to the experience of the men who have been elected president.

Vice Presidents (0)
[none]

Governors (5)
Christie
Daniels
Palin
Pawlenty
Romney

Senators (1)
Santorum

House Reps (2)
Gingrich
Paul

Cabinet (0)
[none]

Military (0)
[none]

Business/Unconventional (2)
Cain
Trump

Christie should approve of such a governor-heavy field. But what about the men who have actually won the presidency? The following are the highest offices achieved by the men who were elected president during the 20th and 21st centuries. The list does not include those who did not win their first terms (i.e. they inherited the presidency due to death or resignation of the incumbent).

Vice Presidents (2)
Bush Sr.
Nixon

Governors (6)
Bush Jr.
Carter
Clinton
Reagan
Roosevelt
Wilson

Senators (3)
Harding
Kennedy
Obama

House Reps (0)
[none]

Cabinet (2)
Hoover
Taft

Military (1)
Eisenhower

Business/Unconventional (0)
[none]

There is a clear preference for governors, but a slight majority of the presidents held some other kind of office. What we do not see are House Representatives or men from a business (or unconventional) background. The challenges for House Reps is that they have not proven themselves capable of winning a state-wide election; they only need to win in their district. Senators, on the other hand, must win state-wide. Obviously winning the presidency requires the ability to win over a diverse coalition, and that may account for the difference.

For the current field of Republican candidates, precedent favors the governors. History is a hurdle for Cain, Gingrich, Paul, and Trump. Interestingly, according to Elephant Watcher's present calculation, the four most likely candidates to win the nomination are all governors.

Who Benefits Now That Huckabee's Not Running?

Huckabee's decision not to run provides the 2012 Republican primary with its first dramatic shake-up. In the aftermath of Huckageddon, Elephant Watcher has recalculated the odds of the nomination battle. Huckabee had a 12% chance of victory which is now dispersed among the candidates. For a full analysis and graph of the Elephant Watcher projection of the candidates' odds, see the Rankings page.

The following is an explanation for why each candidate did (or didn't) improve his chances of winning the nomination now that Huckabee is no longer a contender:

No one candidate got a big bounce from Huckabee's exit. Huckabee was leading the polls in Iowa and South Carolina, which presumably helps whomever is in second place there. The problem? There is no clear second place in those states. (See all the early state primary polling on the Primaries page.) There is also no "Huckabee Jr." candidate who will step exactly into his shoes. Instead, many candidates will benefit a little.

Christie +2% -- He benefits from any sense that there is a vacuum in the field. Huckabee's departure also removes an obstacle from Iowa, where Christie will need to prove he is not over-hyped. But other candidates will move in to fill the void. Christie's role is to be the one candidate who can unite the Tea Party and Republican establishment; Huckabee never played the role.

Romney +2% -- Though Romney is not interested in Iowa or South Carolina as much, Huckabee's absence lessens the possibility that the same person will with both states. This makes a New Hampshire strategy a bit more viable. There's little overlap between the Romney and Huckabee constituencies, but without Huckabee in the race, it's easier for Romney to claim the mantle of "next in line." Also, Romney will perform better in the IA and SC polls now, though it may be an illusion based on his name recognition.

Daniels +2% and Pawlenty +3% -- These two candidates were behind Huckabee in Iowa and each have high electability. Neither is objectionable to the Iowa voters and can at least claim to be serious candidates. Arguably, they benefit the most from Huckabee's departure. However, they are fighting over the same oxygen, and the gain is split between them. Pawlenty gets a slight edge because Huckabee's social conservatives may be wary of Daniels' earlier gaffe about a "truce" on social issues (see this earlier post).

Cain +2% -- Though much further down in the polls and perceived electability, Cain benefits because he shares some attributes with Huckabee that might help him pick up the pieces: He's a populist, Southern, rhetorically-gifted outsider who will rely on the debates to create campaign buzz. Without Huckabee above him on the poll list, it will be that much easier for Cain to get invited to the primary debates.

Palin +1% -- Like Huckabee, she is somewhat popular among evangelical Christians and needs to win Iowa. But Huckabee's supporters already had the option of moving over to Team Sarah and had not chosen to do so.

The following candidates do not receive an increase in their chances of winning the nomination:

Gingrich -- He may be fooled into thinking he should spend his resources in Iowa, but the reality is that social conservatives there will not accept him. He will need to rely on a New Hampshire strategy.

Trump -- Trump will also need to rely on a New Hampshire strategy.

Santorum -- In theory he should be able to attract Huckabee's social conservatives, but they will tend to gravitate toward someone with a higher profile.

Paul -- He has his own constituency and is unlikely to broaden it regardless of who drops out of the race.

Who is Jon Huntsman? Intrade Revisited

In two previous posts, we examined Intrade, the "investment" site where people can place bets on political events. As we saw, Intrade is not very good at predicting election outcomes long in advance, but is a good indicator of the conventional wisdom according to the Washington establishment (particularly liberals). From time to time, we will revisit Intrade to see what its investors think about the Republican primary. Intrade's page on the Republican primary may be found here.

Several of the leading candidates are in the same position as they were the last time we checked Intrade. Romney remains in the lead with 25%, Pawlenty is second with 16.5%, and Daniels has 11.7%.

There are some interesting changes, too. Jon Huntsman, Jr. has risen from nowhere up to 12%, putting him in third place. One might be tempted to ask, "Who is Jon Huntsman, and what did he do lately?" Huntsman is the former governor of Utah and was, until recently, the U.S. Ambassador to China under Obama. Huntsman is not even included in the Elephant Watcher roster of candidates. If and when he forms a presidential exploratory committee or announces a run, he will be promptly analyzed and ranked by Elephant Watcher.

There are two potential explanations for Huntsman's sudden appearance. First, the Washington establishment has become aware that Huntsman is definitely planning a run for the presidency. But why is he ranked so high, when he never appears in the polls? Huntsman has not yet received a full assessment by Elephant Watcher; for now it is enough to say that he faces an uphill battle to win the nomination. The answer is simple: Huntsman has the approval of the Washington establishment. Some of his more moderate-to-liberal positions may also appeal to the Intrade investors, who tend to be more liberal.

The second potential explanation is that some of Huntsman's supporters may be placing bets on Huntsman to manipulate the market for publicity's sake. It is an unconventional approach, but it is not unheard of: The volume of trading is low enough that a candidate (or his fans) could bump up his numbers if so inclined.

Trump's numbers on Intrade, unsurprisingly, have crashed. He was at 8.5% and is now down below 4%. All of the recent bad news has taken its toll on Trump.

Meanwhile, Cain's appearance at the May 5th primary debate earned him some attention. He is still at only 3.9%, but he was at close to 0% before the debate.

As for Huckabee, his numbers have cratered. Intrade gives him 3%, down from his high of nearly 10%. This crash took place shortly after the news broke that Huckabee would announce his decision whether to run. Conventional wisdom rules Intrade: Obviously most investors took the news as a sign Huckabee is not running.

Most Republicans Believe Trump's Candidacy Is A Publicity Stunt

Trump

Since his "media honeymoon" ended a few weeks ago, it seems Trump has been the recipient of a never-ending supply of bad news: Polls showing Republicans opposed to him, polls showing the general electorate opposed to him, polls showing his New Hampshire competitor Romney with much better poll numbers than his, fumbling during interviews, being mocked at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, and a failure to pivot off of the birth certificate issue.

As explained in Trump's Profile, his two main challenges are to convince Republicans that he is a conservative and that he is electable. But most voters doubt the Trump is even a serious candidate: According to a new Rasmussen poll, 61% of Americans believe Trump is seeking publicity rather than actually running for president. This includes 56% of Republicans.

The numbers reflect ill will toward Trump among the electorate. People who want to vote for Trump are more likely to believe he is running; Republicans who believe Trump is faking it hope Trump is faking it. They fear Trump will make the primary into a circus and embarrass the Party. Or worse, that he will get the nomination and hand Obama an easy victory.

There is a small glimmer of hope for Trump here: If and when he actually does run for president, people may view him differently. He may get a second wind. He badly needs another chance to convince Republicans that he is for real.

After Obama released his birth certificate, Trump had an opportunity to move on to something more substantive. But events did not cooperate: After Trump was humiliated at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, Osama bin Laden was killed. This effectively sucked away all of the media oxygen. Even Trump, with his well-honed ability to get TV time for himself, could not hope to get on the air to talk about China or OPEC in such an environment. Trump's disappearance from the media leaves people with the impression that he is broken and in full retreat.

In politics, memories are short. You may be down, but you are almost never out. Comebacks happen all the time. But until Trump proves himself capable of gaining perceived conservatism and perceived electability, his odds of victory remain slim. Elephant Watcher calculates Trump has a 1% chance of winning the nomination.

Republicans Already Opposed to Some Candidates

The 2012 Republican primary has not yet begun in earnest, and voters are unlikely to see attack ads against Republican candidates for quite some time. Yet recent polling by Rasmussen shows that many Republicans are already opposed to certain candidates.

Rasmussen presented voters with a list of candidates and asked them which ones they would "definitely vote for," "probably vote for," "definitely vote against," and "probably vote against." (Participants were apparently allowed to select more than one candidate whom they would "definitely vote for.") Rasmussen released some of the results of this poll here.

Most candidates received from 20-30% "definitely vote for" ratings, and combined "definitely" and "probably vote for" ratings of around 50-60%. Chris Christie received the highest "definitely vote for" rating of any of the candidates: 30%.

More revealing were the percentages of Republicans who said they would either "probably" or "definitely" vote against a candidate:

Would Probably or Definitely Vote Against:
Trump 48%
Palin 39%
Gingrich 39%
Christie 22%

The poll suggests a polarized electorate. Almost half of Republicans have dismissed Trump. It appears Trump has had difficulty persuading voters that he is genuinely conservative, serious, or electable. As Elephant Watcher explained in a previous post, these difficulties have kept Trump's odds of winning the nomination extremely low, despite some decent national primary poll numbers.

Gingrich and Palin both show weakness in this poll, with nearly 40% of Republicans already opposed to them.

Christie performs much better, with only 22% of Republicans giving him negative marks. Christie's high positive rating and low negative rating reflect what was suggested in Christie's profile: He has enthusiastic supporters and few detractors.

Unless another candidate--one who is willing to jump into the field early--is able to similarly rally support while not alienating significant blocs of the Republican party, Christie is in good shape to win. Elephant Watcher has calculated the odds of each candidate winning the nomination: Christie at 60%; Trump, Palin, and Gingrich range from 1-3%.

After Trump Debut, Field Still Wide Open for Christie

Christie

The New York Times reports that Republican leaders, activists and donors are encouraging more candidates to get into the race. The story is located here.

Summary: Republican leaders believe Obama is beatable, but they fear a weak field of candidates will prevent them from taking advantage of the opportunity. They perceive a void in the field, and are appalled that Trump has gotten so much attention; Trump's actions have embarrassed the Party. Some are encouraging Mitch Daniels to get into the race. Mike Huckabee is reportedly telling his own supporters to be patient. Meanwhile, prominent Republicans are hopeful that some candidates who publicly said they are not running will get into the race anyway. Among these candidates is Chris Christie.

Analysis: When it comes to selecting a nominee for president, the Republican Party is currently divided and dissatisfied. There is a distinction between these two attributes: They are divided because support is split among many different candidates, with no one candidate picking up much steam; they are dissatisfied because they are not enthusiastic about their current options.

There is a void waiting to be filled. Republicans are open to the prospect of a new candidate who will both unite the Party and give them a reason to be enthusiastic. This is not the first time a Party has been presented with this challenge. Sometimes the void is filled, sometimes not. The most recent example is the Republican field in 2008, where no one filled the void. John McCain was sort of a consensus candidate, but he could neither unite nor excite the Party.

Trump had the opportunity to try filling the void, but he has so far failed (due to the challenges outlined in a previous post). He certainly filled the empty space in terms of media attention. But now that Trump has come under increasing scrutiny and attacks from all sides, it does not appear he was able to gain the traction he needed during that window of opportunity. There is still as big a vacuum as ever.

These are precisely the conditions that Christie needs. Due to his responsibilities in New Jersey--where he took office in January 2010--he cannot appear to pursue a presidential run so early. Instead, the Party must exhaust all of its options and beg Christie to "save" it by entering the race at the last possible moment.

As long as the Republican primary voters feel as they currently do, it is probable Christie will enter the race and win the nomination. On April 17, Elephant Watcher analyzed the political landscape and projected Christie would win the nomination. No significant changes have occurred since then. Elephant Watcher calculates Christie has a 60% chance of winning the nomination.

Obama Releases Birth Certificate: Does It Help or Hurt Trump?

Trump

Trump first gained significant media attention for his (potential) presidential run by pursuing the "birther" issue. Trump questioned why Obama would not release the birth certificate, and also questioned Obama's refusal to release other records (e.g. college transcripts). Trump's attacks resonated with Republican voters. They also stirred up enough doubt among the general public that Obama felt he needed to release his birth certificate, after more than two years of stonewalling.

As discussed in an earlier post, Trump can only win the Republican nomination if he improves his perceived electability and convinces voters that he is a genuine conservative. The "birther" issue does not help Trump in either of those areas.

When Obama released his birth certificate, it provided Trump a good reason to move on to other matters. Indeed, Trump's first act was to call a press conference and declare victory. That's not to say there will be no fallout: Trump had insisted he hired private investigators, and that he heard the birth certificate was missing.

Trump's calls for Obama's education records may be met with more skepticism from the press now that Obama has at least released something, even if it was unrelated to the new demands. In addition, some may attempt to drag Trump back into the controversy if "birthers" question the authenticity of the birth certificate.

Nevertheless, Trump was given a much-needed escape hatch. He has the opportunity to engage on other issues, ones which may help him improve his perceived electability and perceived conservatism. Whether Trump takes the opportunity, and whether he is successful, are other matters entirely. Elephant Watcher still calculates that Trump has a 1% chance of winning the Republican nomination.

High Negatives Imperil Palin, Trump

A new Gallup poll sheds light on the challenges faced by Palin and Trump in establishing perceived electability.

According to Gallup's poll of all Americans (i.e. not limited to Republican primary voters), 64% say they will "definitely not vote for" Trump. For Palin it was 65%. Gallup also asked about Huckabee, Romney, and Obama. Each of those received about 45% in the "definitely not vote for" category.

This establishes a clear divide between groups of candidates who may be considered "electable" and those who cannot. Elephant Watcher has given both Palin and Trump a low perceived electability rating.

Possessing low perceived electability is a serious handicap in a primary fight. Republicans may agree with Palin's views, for instance, but are less likely to vote for her in the primary if they think she can't win the general election. Among Republicans, 46% said they would "definitely not vote for" Trump. Beyond Trump's electability issues, this number also reflects the fact that more Republicans are aware of Trump's less-than-conservative political history.

37% of Republicans said they would "definitely not vote for" Palin. For Romney, the number was 26%; for Huckabee it was 22%.

Trump's number is particularly enlightening. Nearly half of Republicans say they are certain not to vote for him--about double the number who say the same about Huckabee. Trump has a following, but he's also starting out with a lot more opposition than other candidates. He has less room to carve out a constituency. Elephant Watcher currently gives Trump only a 1% chance of winning the nomination.

Early New Hampshire Polls Solid for Romney

As always, all of the latest state polls for early primaries are available on the Primaries page. There are still very few polls being done in New Hampshire. Only two of them have been conducted since Trump's political media appearances began:

4/21 ARG -- Romney 32, Trump 17, Gingrich 8, Giuliani 8
4/03 PPP (D) -- Romney 27, Trump 21, Gingrich 12, Huckabee 12
2/14 WMUR/UNH -- Romney 40, Huckabee 7, Pawlenty 7, Palin 6

Individual polls mean little because the chance of inaccuracy is so high. But if they are all in agreement upon a certain point, it's likely to be true. Here, the conclusion to be drawn is that Romney will start the race in very good shape in New Hampshire.

Romney is at about the magic number of 30. In a race with several candidates, polling at 30% usually guarantees victory. The polls suggest that serious opposition to Romney is divided between Trump and Gingrich. For Romney to be threatened by either, one of the two will probably need to bow out of the entire race or flame out in spectacular fashion.

It was argued in a previous post that Trump is likely to have already reached something of a high-water mark: From now on, more and more voters will discover Trump's historic lack of commitment to the Republican party. By contrast, Romney's weaknesses (Romneycare, flip-flopping for the 2008 race) are already known to most primary voters.

As noted in the Candidate Rankings, New Hampshire is a do-or-die state for Gingrich, Romney, and Trump.

Barring a run by Christie, superb debate performances by Gingrich, a radical transformation of Trump, or truly inept handling of the Romneycare issue by Romney, it would seem at this point Romney has New Hampshire in the bag. The likelihood of one or more of those occurring--in particular a Christie run--is substantial. Even if Romney won New Hampshire, he would still need to face off against the winner(s) of Iowa and South Carolina. Elephant Watcher calculates Romney currently has a 10% chance of winning the nomination.

Early Iowa Polls Look Good for Huckabee

Previously on Elephant Watcher: Polls of the early primary states are more important than national polls.

Very little polling has been done in Iowa so far, but numbers are beginning to trickle in. Stay up to date on the polling for Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina on the Elephant Watcher Primaries page.

Four different polls have been conducted in Iowa from March to present. Individually, state polls must be taken with a grain of salt, due to their small sample size and often unproven pollsters. Taken together, they can present a reliable picture of how the race stands.

All but one show Huckabee with a commanding lead:

4/19 ARG -- Huckabee 18, Romney 17, Gingrich 12, Trump 10
4/17 PPP (D) -- Huckabee 27, Romney 16, Trump 14, Gingrich 9
4/04 Neighborhood (R) -- Huckabee 21, Romney 14, Trump 9, Gingrich 8
3/11 WeAskAmerica -- Huckabee 20, Palin 14, Gingrich 14, Romney 13

(The April 19 poll showing Huckabee with only a 1 point lead appears to be an oddball "outlier" poll: It also has Giuliani of all people at 8%, with Palin at 4%. Unless we've traveled back in time to 2007, it's hard to accept any poll showing Giuliani with double Palin's numbers in Iowa.)

Note that the poll from March 11 was taken before Trump's (potential) candidacy started making headlines, and the poll from April 4 partly so. Though Trump is likely to receive a bounce in support if/when he announces he is officially in the race, and though he has the potential to transform himself into a serious candidate, April 17 may end up being roughly the height of Trump's campaign. Up to that point, Trump had something like a "media honeymoon" as far as Republican media is concerned. Trump received positive attention for attacking Obama, his history as a non-Republican had not yet come to light, and mud was not yet being slung.

At any rate, if Trump were to pick up steam in Iowa before the inevitable pushback, that was when it would have happened. Yet the April 17 poll shows Huckabee with a wide lead--the largest of any of the polls--and reaching toward 30 points. (In a four or five-man race, polling at 30 almost guarantees victory.)

The April 17 poll has Trump splitting the support of Huckabee's opponents, but not Huckabee. The poll suggests Huckabee may have established a solid constituency, still loyal from his previous win in 2008. If so, and if Huckabee's base is as large as the poll indicates, his opponents will have great difficulty defeating him in Iowa. It's unlikely, for instance, that Romney could do something new that would close the gap. Only an unexpected late entrant (Christie) could threaten Huckabee's support.

Note: Huckabee has not yet even announced an exploratory committee. If/when he does, he will likely receive a bit of a bounce, since there is some doubt among voters whether he is running.

Elephant Watcher will keep a sharp eye on future Iowa polls to determine whether Huckabee's base is as loyal and sizable as the April 17 poll makes it out to be.

Trump Fumbles During Interview on Abortion

LifeNews, a Pro-Life organization, opined that Trump "faltered" on the question of privacy during an interview April 19th.

Summary: During a discussion of his switch to becoming pro-life, Trump was asked about whether there is a right to privacy in the Constitution. Trump expressed confusion about the connection, apparently unaware that Roe v. Wade established a right to abortion through an implied right to privacy in the Constitution. LifeNews expressed skepticism about Trump's beliefs and his familiarity with the abortion debate.

Analysis: In a previous post, Elephant Watcher explained that in order for Trump to advance in the field, he must establish himself as a genuine conservative and as an electable candidate. The results of Trump's interview suggest that he is struggling in both areas.

Conservative candidates are generally pro-life, and are at least acquainted with the fundamentals of the debate. Specifically, they believe the Supreme Court overreached in Roe v. Wade: It invented a right to abortion by appealing to an "implied" right to privacy.

It is vital for Trump to appear well-versed in politics, otherwise he runs the risk of being tarnished as an uninformed, unserious--and thereby unelectable--candidate. The fact that he made this blunder during questions about his newly conservative beliefs adds insult to injury.

The good news for Trump is that gaffes hurt less when they take place early. He still has plenty of time to recover. But first impressions matter also, and Trump has yet to establish himself as an electable conservative.

Trump's unfamiliarity with the abortion debate reveals a vulnerability not yet exploited by journalists. Thus far they have asked him persistent questions about the "birther" issue. Now it's possible they may attempt to "Couric" him. (Recall that Palin's image was harmed when she was unable to answer Couric's specific questions about what newspapers she read and, ironically, Supreme Court decisions.)

If journalists are able to draw Trump into quizzes about the world of politics, his chances of winning the nomination will fall.

Why Is Trump Unlikely to Win?

Trump

A few recent polls have shown excellent results for Donald Trump, particularly an April 10th poll from Public Policy Polling (a firm affiliated with the Democratic Party): A national primary poll, it showed 26% for Trump, 17% for Huckabee, 15% for Romney and 11% for Gingrich.

Many readers have asked why these polls are not boosting Trump's chances of winning the nomination. Elephant Watcher currently gives Trump only a 1% chance of victory. Trump is ranked below several candidates who are polling much worse than he is.

In a future Elephant Watcher post, we will discuss whether and to what degree national primary polls (as opposed to polling Iowa, New Hampshire, etc.) are useful. For now, it is enough to say these polls show Trump has the capacity to make a decent showing, but not that he is likely to do so.

As explained in Trump's profile, his main weaknesses are that he is not perceived as conservative or electable. Those familiar with Trump's record are aware of his changing views, and many Tea Partiers are asking Trump "Where were you during the fight against Obamacare, the rise of the Tea Party movement, and the 2010 elections?" Early primary voters are likely to become very familiar with the record of each candidate as each election day draws near.

What do the current polls say about these weaknesses--perceived lack of conservatism and electability? The answer is nothing. They reflect Trump's name recognition, the fact that people like what he is saying (and how he is saying it), and their dissatisfaction with the other candidates.

For Trump's probability of winning the nomination to increase, Elephant Watcher will need to see evidence that voters have learned of and forgiven Trump's pre-Republican record, or that Trump's perceived electability has increased. Until then, Trump will have difficulty competing.