Michele Bachmann to Appear at June 13th Debate

Bachmann

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued from Part I.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mitt Romney Announces He's Running for President

Romney

Mitt Romney's presidential run became official today. When Elephant Watcher began analyzing the 2012 Republican primary back in April, six candidates had presidential exploratory committees, and six candidates were in the "potentially running" category. As you can see from the Campaign Status page, five of the six with presidential exploratory committees have now become official candidates (the odd man out is Rick Santorum, who has yet to make a declaration). Of the six who were classified as "potentially running," four have declared they will not enter the race. No one has entered the race without first forming an exploratory committee.

That doesn't mean there will be no exceptions to the rule. In an earlier post, we noted that some candidates have good reason for their inactivity thus far: Chris Christie will pursue a late entrant strategy, Michele Bachmann has been waiting for Sarah Palin to announce one way or the other, and Jon Huntsman, Jr. only just arrived back from his Ambassador post in China. Sarah Palin is the exception: She has not made any formal moves toward running, and she has no compelling reason for this delay--unless she's not running.

In any event, Romney has entered the race and will likely attend the primary debate coming up on June 13th. He has a lot of work to do. He will come under heavy fire for ineffectually defending Romneycare. Romney's debate performance will be a good indication of how badly his strategy will hurt him. Romney will need to use every bit of his verbal gymnastic skill to get out of the debate without being laughed at by the audience.

Though pundits will declare Romney is the current frontrunner, things aren't as easy as they may appear. Mike Huckabee's withdrawal removes one big obstacle from the race, but the threat posed by Tim Pawlenty may be even greater. The Republican establishment was never willing to embrace Huckabee, but they might go over to Pawlenty's camp if they're dissatisfied with Romney. If Pawlenty wins Iowa, there's no real reason for them to rally around Romney.

It's likely that Romney and Pawlenty will engage in an "alpha male" competition to see who can appear tougher. Romney will flex his financial muscles (as he has before). But to begin with, Romney and Pawlenty will see who can attack President Obama the most. Then, they will start attacking each other.

News posts related to Romney will have the Romney "tag". For detailed assessment of Romney's strengths, weaknesses, and strategy, view his Profile. Elephant Watcher calculates Romney has a 10% chance of winning the nomination.

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.

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

The candidacy of Herman Cain and the candidacies of Michele Bachmann and/or Sarah Palin represent the first time that the Republican Party might nominate a presidential candidate who is not a white man. Is being non-white or a woman an asset or an obstacle? How big of a role will it play in the nominating process?

Many Democratic political commentators believe that the Republican Party generally possesses a bias against women and minorities. They are skeptical that Republicans would vote for a candidate who is not white and male, even if the candidate would otherwise be better than the alternatives. It's also conventional wisdom among Democrats that the Tea Party is especially bigoted. If true, Bachmann, Cain, and Palin would face extra difficulty winning the nomination.

The evidence suggests that these Democrats are mistaken, especially with regard to the Tea Party. The midterm election of 2010 saw many more women and minorities nominated by the Republican Party than in previous years. Partly this was because the Tea Party brought in new candidates, many of whom had not worked their way up the political ranks. This meant there was less of a reliance on the "old boys' networks" that had been built in past decades. Thus, the recent increase of women and minorities in Republican politics was more readily apparent.

It also displayed the Republican voters' focus on policy positions over "identity politics." Rather than voting for candidates who shared their demographic traits, Republican voters wanted someone who agreed with them on the issues. Political experience was actually a liability for some of the older (more frequently white and male) candidates, who had made compromises over the years.

As it turned out, not being white and/or male was an asset in many cases. In primary fields--especially at the state and local level--candidates tend to blur together, and they struggle to differentiate themselves. Being the only woman or minority in the field enabled some candidates to increase their visibility and, therefore, their chances of victory.

Given the results of the 2010 primaries, why is it so common for left-leaning political commentators to believe Republicans are less likely to vote for someone who is not a white man? For most Democrats, the prime factor is ignorance. Few Democrats are fully aware of what occurred during the 2010 election. The commentators themselves, however--who actually did follow the race and should be aware of its results--are motivated by a desire to maintain moral superiority over their opponents. If Republicans are bigoted, they are inferior; Democrats are righteous. This feeling is particularly attractive to Democrats who eschew "traditional morality" and feel a need to compensate.

Generalities aside, how will race and gender affect a presidential primary? One with Bachmann, Cain, and Palin in particular? We'll take a closer look in Part II.

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.

The Rise of Tim Pawlenty

Every so often, Elephant Watcher will review the strategy of a particular candidate and see how it has played out over the previous weeks. Each candidate's optimal strategy is outlined on the Profiles page. For an analysis of each candidate's position based on that strategy, check the Rankings page.

Over the past few weeks, Pawlenty's odds of winning the nomination have increased dramatically, from 4% to 15%; from fifth place to second. Pawlenty's strategy is to be the "last man standing," to be acceptable and inoffensive to all factions, even if he is not able to excite any of them. Pawlenty must wait out the competition, hoping they devour themselves. Then, when the dust settles, he takes center stage.

It's hard to imagine a better sequence of events for Pawlenty than what has actually unfolded: First, several of Pawlenty's competitors have chosen not to run. Among them was Mike Huckabee, who was the Iowa favorite. Then Mitch Daniels--Pawlenty's chief competitor for the "consensus candidate" position--bowed out of the race. Donald Trump, who probably never stood a chance, nonetheless exited politics by flaming out in spectacular fashion.

That wasn't all. Newt Gingrich entered the race and immediately caught heat for major gaffes during his first interview on Meet The Press. Just a few days earlier, Mitt Romney sabotaged his own campaign with a strategically unsound quasi-defense of Romneycare.

What did Pawlenty do? Essentially nothing. He has always been present, but never obnoxious. As Gingrich learned, this is more difficult than it sounds. It requires discipline on the part of the candidate. Time is on Pawlenty's side, and he needs to take few risks.

All that having been said, this strategy does have its downsides. It is a passive strategy, and the candidate's future is not under his own control. Pawlenty must hope that the other candidates harm themselves, and there's little he can do to make that happen. The "last man standing" strategy requires luck. So far, Pawlenty has had plenty of it.

But the race is far from over, and the candidates still in the race have time to rehabilitate themselves. Pawlenty, too, has time to break discipline make mistakes of his own. And Pawlenty is still at the mercy of Chris Christie. Christie, with his late-entry strategy, will come under less scrutiny than the rest of the candidates until he jumps in. If Christie does not self-destruct, Pawlenty has little chance of victory.

Will Rudy Giuliani Run? Will Paul Ryan? Rick Perry?

The departure of Donald Trump, Mike Huckabee, and Mitch Daniels from the 2012 primary has added to the consensus that the field is either weak or incomplete. Increasingly, political commentators suggest that some additional candidates may enter the race as late entrants. Why would someone enter late, and who could pull it off? Today we'll take a look at Rudy Giuliani, Paul Ryan, and Rick Perry, all of whom have been the focus of speculation these days.

A late entrant is usually someone who needs to be given an excuse to get into the field. Most commonly, it's a candidate who's new to the national scene, needs to show there's no one else on the horizon who's better, and wants to tack on additional months of experience in office. Barack Obama had only been a U.S. Senator for about two years before his run for president, and he wanted to wait as late as possible. So he continually denied he was running up until he was ready to announce.

The same could be true of Chris Christie and Ryan; they're both new to the national scene. As for Perry, a late entry would also make more sense: Texas reelected him last November, and starting a presidential run immediately afterward would have been a bit awkward.

This leaves us with Giuliani. He has no particular reason to run later than the other candidates in the field. If people wanted to support another Giuliani campaign, they already would have. This suggests Giuliani will not run. He would need to win New Hampshire, where competition will be stiff. In 2008, Giuliani skipped the four early primaries to focus on Florida. This was a dreadful mistake, but it was also due to the fact that he couldn't get traction elsewhere. There's little reason to think he would gain more traction this time. If anything, voters will be even less receptive to a candidate branded as "the anti-terrorism guy".

What about Ryan? In one way, it would make sense. A late-entry candidate should be someone who, like Christie, is acceptable to both the Tea Party and establishment wings of the Republican Party. On the other hand, Ryan is seen as more of a "policy wonk" (i.e. a nerd) than someone who fires up a crowd. A late entrant should be someone who has a more charismatic personality than Tim Pawlenty, who is already filling the "acceptable to both wings" role. In addition, Ryan is only a U.S. House Representative, so his perceived electability will be lower.

Ryan is also best known for his failed attempt at reforming Medicare this year. Most voters have only heard of him in that context. His attempt did not fail simply because it did not pass; after all, a Democratic president meant it was guaranteed not to pass. It failed because it did not persuade voters. The Republican Congress of the 1990s succeeded with welfare reform because it was so popular that it made President Clinton look bad for vetoing it. Clinton was then forced to change his mind and sign--even embrace--welfare reform. Ryan's supporters called his Medicare reform "brave" and "adult," but they did not call it "compelling," "ingenious," "effective," or "popular." There is no such thing as "brave" legislation; it's either persuasive or not. Ryan's plan did not convince voters, so it must be counted as a failure.

As for Perry, we have already seen that simply being a Southerner does not guarantee him an opening. However, Perry is more likely to enter the race than either Giuliani or Ryan. He can more easily claim to be a "stronger version of Pawlenty." On the other hand, his being another governor of Texas (and tied to George W. Bush) will be a big turn-off, even to Republicans. He might still be able to defeat someone like Pawlenty, but it will depress Perry's poll numbers and make him less likely to enter the race. Simply put, few people are clamoring for Perry to run. He doesn't have a base, even though he's had ample time in politics to develop one. He may want to run, but he won't be tempted unless his poll numbers rise.

Did Herman Cain's Gaffes on the 'Right of Return' and al-Awlaki Hurt Him?

Herman Cain's fortunes have improved over the last few weeks. The departure of other candidates, and the reluctance of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann to enter the race early, have made room for the Tea Party favorite. Cain's name recognition has increased, though he will need to deal with unified establishment opposition in Iowa in the form of Tim Pawlenty.

Cain is likely to receive more media attention--and scrutiny--in the near future. If he is able to hold up to the pressure, he may be able to improve perceptions about his candidacy's legitimacy. If not, he may be marginalized more than he already is.

Cain was interviewed on Fox News Sunday this week. When asked about the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, it became clear that he was unfamiliar with the "right of return" aspect of the debate (referring to the right of Palestinian refugees to return to lands they left during the mid-20th century). Later this week, Cain admitted that he had not known what the right of return was during that interview.

In a less-publicized gaffe, Cain revealed during an interview with The Atlantic this week that he was unfamiliar with President Obama's policy of killing "enemy combatants," even if they are American citizens (specifically, Anwar al-Awlaki).

Gaffes like these, if they become a pattern, will be fatal to Cain's candidacy. Since Cain has never held elective office, most voters view him as unelectable. Cain must combat this perception by appearing as informed--if not more so--than all the other candidates.

Cain's candidacy has not been weakened much yet, as few voters are paying attention. Gaffes that occur close to election time can be devastating, while gaffes that occur early in the campaign season are often forgotten. But this is more true of isolated gaffes. Gaffes that form a pattern create a "narrative," and it can be very hard to shake the negative impression they leave. Should Cain continue to make similar gaffes in the future, Republican primary voters will abandon him at the first opportunity.

Is Sarah Palin Helping Herman Cain?

Palin

The past few weeks have seen the 2012 Republican primary field take shape. The Campaign Status page shows that nearly all of the candidates have either entered the race, formed a presidential exploratory committee, or declined to run. Christie's strategy involves a late entry, so he will remain in the "potentially running" category for at least a few more months. Jon Huntsman, Jr., who is not yet included in our roster of candidates, has only recently returned from his post as U.S. Ambassador to China, which explains why he's getting a slow start. As we've observed earlier, Michele Bachmann has delayed because she wants to ensure Sarah Palin is not running before she decides to enter the race herself.

That leaves one candidate: Sarah Palin. She has been sphinx-like about her intentions. If she intends to run, she has financial incentive to delay announcing, because she can keep her contract with Fox News longer. But the same could have been said for Mike Huckabee, who announced his intention not to run earlier this month. And Palin's potential campaign has arguably been wounded by making people think she will not run, since her support then goes to other Tea Party favorites. That damage outweighs the benefit of a few months of paychecks from Fox, though she will still get a bounce if/when she declares her candidacy.

If Palin does not intend to run, she can theoretically put off making an announcement until whenever she feels like it. There are no real drawbacks. Thus, the more time passes before an announcement, the more likely the announcement will be that Palin is not running.

Meanwhile, Bachmann eagerly awaits Palin's decision. The longer Palin waits, the more it harms Bachmann. She, too, will get a bounce if/when she announces she's running. But in the meantime, the Tea Party will be looking at other candidates. One candidate in particular stands to benefit: Herman Cain.

Cain will certainly rely on the Tea Party to gain steam for his candidacy. He has low perceived electability, just as Bachmann and Palin do. History shows that most Republican primary voters care a great deal about electability. But some do not, especially voters who identify more as "Tea Party" than Republican. They want someone who can inspire them with fiery rhetoric. And they'd rather have a candidate with little or no political experience than one who disagrees with them on some issues.

Bachmann, Cain, and Palin will compete for these voters. As long as Bachmann is stuck waiting on the sidelines, they will flock to the previously unknown Cain. There's no question that Bachmann would have preferred to participate in the May 5th debate. She did not attend, and Cain used the event to his advantage. Bachmann will not want the same thing to happen at the June 13th debate.

Ultimately, all of this benefits the "electable" candidates--particularly Tim Pawlenty, who will focus on Iowa. It increases Cain's strength, spliting the vote that might otherwise be united behind Bachmann or Palin. It also increases the probability that a frustrated Bachmann might jump into the race only to find that Palin is running, splitting the vote further.