Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman Odds Rise on Intrade

Now that Huckabee and Daniels have opted out of the 2012 Republican primary, it's time to check in with Intrade once again to see what it reveals. Though Intrade is not a reliable indicator of the future, it presents us with a picture of the conventional wisdom of the liberal Washington establishment. For previous posts examining Intrade, see the previous: One, Two, Three. Intrade's market for the 2012 Republican primary may be found here.

As with other candidates who made public declarations that they would not run, the odds for Mike Huckabee and Mitch Daniels have crashed to 0%. It's worth pointing out that candidates who have made unconvincing denials of their intentions to run (i.e., in response to interviewer questions rather than of their own initiative) have low odds, but not zero. Chris Christie and Rick Perry, for instance, are given about 2.3% by the market.

Newt Gingrich's stock on Intrade crashed almost as badly as the candidates who left the race. He is given 2.3%. That's on par with some people who say they're not running. Obviously Gingrich's fall was due to his terrible first weak of campainging. Did Gingrich's gaffes really doom his campaign? Maybe for those who follow politics closely, but most Republican primary voters are several months away from beginning to pay attention. It's common for politically-minded people to overreact to the temporary downs and ups of the 24-hour news cycle. Clearly this applies to Intrade investors.

Now for a look at the highest-rated candidates. A gulf has formed between the top three and everyone else. Mitt Romney is still the Intrade frontrunner at 28.3%. Tim Pawlenty has rocketed upward, and is not far behind at 25.0%. Intrade investors have correctly determined that most of Daniels' support will go to Pawlenty, who now has a much clearer path to victory in Iowa. It's long been the conventional view that Romney is the frontrunner. For second place to get so close is very impressive.

Jon Huntsman is in third, with 17.1%. Outside of the Washington establishment (and Utah, where he was governor), very few people have even heard of Huntsman. He has not officially started a campaign or even an exploratory committee. His high ranking reflects his status as a (newly-minted, perhaps temporary) darling of the Washington establishment.

Elephant Watcher will add Huntsman to the roster of candidates and conduct a full analysis if and when Huntsman runs (or forms an exploratory committee). For now, it is enough to say that his path to victory requires destroying Romney's campaign with a win in New Hampshire. Given Intrade's love of Romney, it's ironic that they would rate Huntsman so highly: One will doom the other in New Hampshire. Who wins Iowa, if not Pawlenty?

It's fair to say Intrade investors are more likely to discount the power of an Iowa/South Carolina strategy, even though it's a more natural fit than a New Hampshire/South Carolina strategy given the similarities between IA and SC. Intrade investors are also convinced that an electable candidate will win the Republican nomination.

When Will Jon Huntsman Announce? When Will Michele Bachmann Announce?

We've already seen one primary debate this season, but most "first tier" candidates decided not to participate. The second debate, hosted by CNN in New Hampshire, is scheduled for June 13th. Do all of the candidates who intend to run need to join the race before then?

There is some evidence to suggest the debate calendar does influence the actions of the candidates. Candidates who wished to participate in the May 5th debate were required to at least form presidential exploratory committees, and several of them took this step during April. Gingrich chose to announce his campaign shortly after the debate so that he would not be expected to participate in it. Several other candidates made yes-or-no decisions in the following days.

It's probable that the candidates with exploratory committees (Romney and Santorum) will make their official declarations in advance of the June 13th debate, although it's not required. Unlike the May 5th debate, it's expected that the "first tier" candidates will actually participate on June 13th.

If so, the June 13th debate will be the first real contest. The pressure will be on for the fence-sitters (people who have not ruled out a run but haven't made an exploratory committee) to join the race. Palin, Bachmann, and Huntsman should make up their minds within the month. If Palin does not intend to run, there is no particular timetable she needs to follow. Bachmann would like to ensure Palin is not running before she gets into the race herself. If no answer is forthcoming from Palin in the next few weeks, Bachmann may jump in anyway so she can participate in the debate.

Whether or not the June 13th debate will be a "real" debate would have been up to Romney, whose decision to opt out of the May 5th debate muted the event's importance. Romney may not actually be the most likely candidate to win the nomination, but he was perceived as the frontrunner. With Pawlenty's position enhanced by Daniels' departure, the pressure is on Romney. If he chooses not to participate this time, observers will be puzzled.

Pawlenty Makes It Official

Pawlenty

For the seventh time in the last few weeks, the Campaign Status page has been updated to reflect a candidate's official announcement. Pawlenty--who has long had an exploratory committee and made no secret of his intentions--declared his candidacy today.

Pawlenty has had great difficulty generating excitement about his campaign. But, at the very least, he has been respected as a legitimate contender. His perceived electability is high, and his record is about as conservative as any other candidate's. Pawlenty's main weakness has been his low name recognition, but that makes little difference in Iowa, where primary voters get to know all the candidates very well.

Pawlenty is widely viewed as a bland, generic Republican. That's not necessarily a barrier to winning the nomination, however. Primary voters chiefly care about electability and conservatism. As long as the "flashier" candidates are weak in those areas, Pawlenty can win.

There are two types of candidates who can sink the Pawlenty campaign. First, someone with similarly high perceived electability and conservatism, but who has the additional ability to get people enthusiastic. Chris Christie is most likely to fill this role. Second, someone who is like Pawlenty, but a little better. Mitch Daniels fit that description: He is a lot like Pawlenty, but is generally considered a more successful governor.

Pawlenty received a big--and well-timed--boost when Daniels announced he would not run. Pawlenty and Daniels would have both needed Iowa, and would have split each others' support. With Daniels out, Pawlenty is in a much stronger position to win Iowa and the nomination.

Pawlenty might have been able to beat Daniels in Iowa anyway, but it would have been close. By contrast, if Christie enters the race, Pawlenty is deep trouble.

News posts related to Pawlenty will have the Pawlenty "tag". For detailed assessment of Pawlenty's strengths, weaknesses, and strategy, view his Profile. Elephant Watcher calculates Pawlenty has a 15% chance of winning the nomination.

Daniels Out, Pawlenty Up

Daniels' decision not to run has altered the landscape of the race in a significant way. Each time this happens, Elephant Watcher will recalculate the odds and issue an explanation for the changes. Each candidate's chances of winning the nomination are determined based on whether his unique "winning scenario" is likely to occur. An explanation of these scenarios and a graph of the race's changes over time may be found on the Rankings page.

The short version: Pawlenty benefits the most, as he and Daniels were somewhat interchangeable. Another of Pawlenty's main competitors in Iowa is gone; even better, Daniels will no longer split their vote.

Christie +2% -- The loss of another decent candidate from the field creates a bigger vacuum--and a greater desire for someone new to fill it. Anyone looking for an electable candidate who doesn't like either Pawlenty or Romney will now be even more dissatisfied with the field.

Pawlenty +8% -- Daniels and Pawlenty were similar in that they each have high perceived electability and conservatism, but are not Tea Party favorites. They also lack charisma. With Daniels gone, Pawlenty may claim the mantle of "electability" in Iowa. Aside from Christie, Pawlenty now has the best chance of winning the Iowa Caucus. He is the chief anti-Romney.

Romney -2% -- When a candidate leaves the race, it normally benefits every other candidate. However, Daniels' departure increases the odds of Pawlenty winning Iowa, and this hurts Romney. Romney's best-case scenario--other than winning Iowa himself--is for an unelectable Tea Party candidate to win there, forcing the Republican establishment (and any other strategic voter) to support the winner of New Hampshire (likely Romney). If Pawlenty wins Iowa, there's no great urgency for these voters to support Romney.

Cain -- There's a net-zero for Cain. On one hand, Cain's competitor in Iowa is assisted, which is bad. On the other hand, Cain will move up in the polls and increase his chances of being included in the major primary debates. He needs this to gain an aura of legitimacy as a candidate--despite having never held elective office.

Gingrich -- Gingrich is largely unaffected, fighting battles of his own.

Palin -1% -- Palin's only hope of winning Iowa is if the "establishment approved" candidates have their votes split. With Daniels gone, this is less likely to occur.

Santorum -- Some of Daniels' supporters might go to Santorum, but not enough. He needs a split vote more than anyone, and it is less likely to occur. He is unaffected, since his chance of winning the nomination is already 0%.

Paul -- As with Santorum, he needs his competitors to be split. His chances of winning are also at 0%, so things can't get worse.

Why Didn't Mitch Daniels Run?

Daniels

Earlier today, Mitch Daniels released a written statement announcing that he will not run for president. The Campaign Status page has been updated yet again. The field appears to be solidifying rapidly.

Daniels, like the other three candidates who have announced they will not run, announced his decision in a convincing manner. Now only Christie and Palin remain on the roster in the "Potentially Running" category. Everyone else has officially entered the race, created an exploratory committee, or declined to run. If Palin or Christie decline to enter the race, they are likely to issue prepared statements like those made by Barbour, Daniels, Huckabee, and Trump.

Why did Daniels opt out of the race? In his statement, Daniels cited his family, and explained that his wife did not want him to run. It's actually quite common for a presidential candidate's wife to discourage her husband from running. More often than not, there is at least some resistance. Sometimes she changes her mind, sometimes not. Sometimes a candidate decides to run anyway. In this case, Daniels said that his wife had a "veto" he could not override.

Daniels, like Huckabee, had a reasonable chance of winning the nomination. Prior to his decision today, Daniels had a 7% chance of winning. Without Daniels in the mix, the race will change somewhat dramatically, especially in Iowa. This represents the biggest shake-up since Huckageddon.

As a result, Elephant Watcher will analyze the race once again and recalculate each candidate's odds of winning the nomination.

Herman Cain Officially Enters the Race

Cain

Herman Cain's presidential run is now official. Cain was one of the first candidates to open a presidential exploratory committee. As with Paul's announcement earlier this month, this was an expected development. Cain participated in the May 5th primary debate. The Campaign Status page has been updated once again.

Cain's challenge will be to increase his name recognition and convince voters that they can take a chance on a candidate who has never held elective office. Cain has plentiful executive experience in the business world. Can he successfully argue that this is enough, or even preferable to political experience? History says no. As we saw in an earlier post, no one made his way to the presidency using a business background during the 20th or 21st century. Every president had political experience except for General Dwight Eisenhower who was the Supreme Allied Commander during World War II (a job which, in many ways, did involve politics).

Luckily for Cain, his competitors lack his ability to excite audiences. Most of the field consists of drab candidates, especially now that Huckabee and Trump are gone. Cain will need to bring his charisma onto the stages of the major primary debates. To do that, he will need to get sufficiently high poll numbers to be allowed at the debates. If the May 5th debate is any indication, the bar will be set low enough--at first.

Though Cain's performance on May 5th wasn't his best, he still received the most positive attention. As the only black candidate in the race, he is guaranteed a certain amount of publicity, while other candidates will struggle to distinguish themselves from the pack. Cain was further bolstered by Huckabee's decision not to run, opening the field in Iowa and South Carolina. After Huckageddon, Cain's odds were boosted just enough to push him into the top 5 in Elephant Watcher's Rankings.

Bachmann, Christie, and Palin have yet to enter the race, so Cain may be able to use this time to gain traction among the Tea Party wing. The Republican establishment wing, on the other hand, will never accept Cain since a candidate without political experience will not be viewed as electable. Most primary voters are strategic as well, and Cain will need to convince them he can beat Obama.

News posts related to Cain will have the Cain "tag". For detailed assessment of Cain's strengths, weaknesses, and strategy, view his Profile. Elephant Watcher calculates Cain has a 5% chance of winning the nomination.

Is There Room for Rick Perry in the 2012 Republican Primary?

Perry

News coverage of the primary has gone into a seemingly endless pattern of introducing, examining, and discarding one potential candidate after another. The back-to-back departure of Huckabee and Trump from the race is bound to trigger a search for more candidates.

This week, it was widely reported that Texas governor Rick Perry has been looking into the viability of a presidential run. Perry likely took note of the fact that the absence of Barbour and Huckabee means few Southerners are in the race: Few people associate Gingrich with the South, and Cain is considered a second- or third-tier candidate (so far).

It's true that there is a vacuum to be filled; Republicans are not satisfied with the existing field of candidates. Even before Huckabee and Trump dropped out, influential Republican leaders were already desperate enough to ask Christie to get into the race, despite his insistence that he won't run. The state of the race strongly resembles the "winning scenario" for Christie, which is why his probability of winning is so high.

But one point must be understood: Republicans aren't dissatisfied because there aren't enough Southerners in the field. There is no great demand for a candidate to fill the "Southerner" slot. Rather, Republicans want someone who can unify the Party, generate enthusiasm, claim to be a genuine conservative, and defeat Obama. They don't really care where the candidate is from.

This is why Barbour was not able to gain support for his own candidacy. He was Southern enough and conservative enough, but he could not unite the Party, display charisma, or demonstrate electability. Perry would face the same challenges, should he decide to run. Perry has denied any interest in running, but only in response to interviewer questions. As we've already seen, a denial is only definitive when it comes in the form of a self-initiated announcement or press release. Perry could run, but lack of voter interest is likely to deter him.

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.

How Much Does Money Matter in a Political Campaign?

Mitt Romney held a major fundraiser Monday, collecting a total of more than $10 million for his campaign. Romney sought to establish himself as the frontrunner and overawe his competitors, none of whom can hope to match him in fundraising capability.

But what about the money itself? How much influence does money actually have in a political campaign? History tells us that the answer is: not as much as you might think.

Whether by accident or intelligent design, the early primary states are small, and the media markets relatively inexpensive. Moreover, early primary voters don't get their information from campaign ads. They watch the debates, they attend townhall events, and they often interact directly with the candidates themselves. All of this serves to diminish the influence of money.

The history of politics is littered with the failed campaigns of those who couldn't translate big money into big votes. In 2004, Howard Dean famously screamed after a disappointing third place in Iowa, despite having spent his huge money advantage. In 2008, Ron Paul was an impressive fundraiser, but he could not expand beyond his libertarian fanbase. The same year, Barack Obama outspent Hillary Clinton several times over during the Pennsylvania primary. But the voters simply preferred Hillary and handed her a huge win--even though Obama had all but wrapped up the nomination before the contest in Pennsylvania began.

And perhaps the most relevant example comes from Romney himself during the 2008 Republican primary. In Iowa, Romney spent twenty times as much money as Huckabee did. Yet Huckabee beat him all the same. Iowa voters watched Huckabee at the debates and liked what they saw. They weren't persuaded by Romney or his commercials.

Money plays a greater role further down the road, where bigger states have more expensive media markets and individual voters aren't as engaged in the process. Typically, however, a primary is decided by who wins in the first few states. Judging by their history, early primary voters just aren't for sale.

Gingrich's Campaign Off to a Rocky Start on Meet The Press

As you can see from Gingrich's Profile, he has medium perceived electability and medium perceived conservatism. His path to victory rests with leveraging his rhetorical skill (particularly during debates) to boost his perceived electability and conservatism. Gingrich appeared on Meet The Press last Sunday for the first major interview of his campaign, and he succeeded in doing precisely the opposite.

Gingrich criticized the Congressional Republicans' proposed budget, prompting the obvious negative response from Republican leaders. Even worse, he made some questionable remarks about the "individual mandate," the most hated component of Obamacare. When Gingrich was asked about his former support of the individual mandate, he suggested that he still supported some "variation" of it. After Gingrich was blasted in conservative media, he released a video stating he was unequivocally opposed to the individual mandate.

Gingrich's conservatism was already under fire, particularly due to his previous support of a cap and trade system. Gingrich had made a commercial with Nancy Pelosi while doing publicity in favor of cap and trade, and the resulting photograph of Gingrich sitting next to Pelosi will undoubtedly be plastered across every anti-Gingrich attack ad for the rest of the 2012 primary.

Perceived conservatism is not the only area where Gingrich is vulnerable. Earlier this year, Gingrich got negative press attention when he appeared to flip-flop on whether he supported intervening in Libya. Given his conflicting statements on the individual mandate, he may be painted as a flip-flopper--or simply dishonest.

Gingrich can only win New Hampshire by positioning himself to the right of Mitt Romney. There's no room to Romney's left. Nor can he even occupy the same space as Romney: Those who agree with Romney's views are more likely to support Romney than Gingrich because Romney is the "next in line" and has higher perceived electability.

The silver lining for Gingrich is that because fewer people are paying attention in the early months of the primary, gaffes have less impact. But they're still dangerous, and Gingrich needs to use his time wisely. As mentioned in the Profile, Gingrich needs to become a more disciplined campaigner. So far, there is no sign that he has. Elephant Watcher calculates that Gingrich has a 3% chance of winning the nomination.