Who Won the Republican Debate on June 13th?

In a primary debate, the candidates compete against each other--but they primarily compete against themselves. As we saw in the pre-debate post, each candidate had his own set of goals. Who achieved what he set out to do, and how did the performances measure up?

Newt Gingrich caught a lucky break: He was not asked about the mass exodus of his campaign staff. Instead, he was asked about his earlier criticisms of Paul Ryan's budget plan during a Meet The Press interview. Gingrich was able to adequately respond that his remarks were taken out of context. Gingrich gave a solid debate performance overall, even if no particular moments stood out. If he was still reeling from the defection of his staff, he did not let it show. Actually, Gingrich was quite comfortable on the stage.

Mitt Romney was asked about his recent defense of Romneycare. He would not divorce himself from Romneycare, but he was able to draw a number of specific distinctions between his plan and Obamacare, in rapid-fire fashion. Obviously he had practiced this response. Romney avoided the individual mandate issue entirely, but the average voter likely would have come away with the impression that the plans were different. Romney benefited again when the debate moderator invited Tim Pawlenty to criticize Romneycare and Pawlenty retreated from the opportunity. The question remains: Will Romney be forced to defend Romneycare at every debate, or will he be able to move on from it?

Tim Pawlenty was questioned about his recently-unveiled economic plan to cut taxes and create economic growth. Naturally, the liberal CNN debate moderator was skeptical. By contrast, the crowd of Republicans liked what they heard. Pawlenty actually received more applause from the audience than most. He stayed out of trouble--if anything, he was too cautious about criticizing the other contenders.

Ron Paul was true to form and spoke his mind. Unfortunately for Paul, his his fans--who normally manage to get seats in the audience at primary debates--seemed absent. He didn't get the laughter and applause he normally does. The other candidates wisely stayed out of his way.

Rick Santorum gave a decent performance, but remained a non-factor. He could not distinguish himself from the others.

The big event of the night was the Tea Party duel between Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain. As explained in the previous post, both of these candidates have the capacity to generate excitement among the Tea Party wing, but it's likely that the Tea Party will gravitate toward the one who appears more electable. In this case, it was essentially a draw--Bachmann had a slight edge, perhaps. Both Cain and Bachmann avoided making major gaffes. Cain appeared no more or less informed than the other candidates. In the minds of non-strategic voters, Cain has as much right to be considered as the rest--despite having never held elective office.

As for Bachmann, she gave a very disciplined, polished performance. She avoided giving voters a reason to think she is the extremist that the left claims she is. If anything, she was more sober and sedate than one would expect from the firebrand. Instead, she emphasized her economic conservatism and her work in Congress. Bachmann did create one awkward moment by announcing that she had filed paperwork to enter the race officially. (The Campaign Status page has been updated to reflect this.) She should have entered the race before the debate rather than during it. Her delay in entering the race has given Cain ample opportunity to steal from her base, and she will struggle to get back into the driver's seat. Luckily for Bachmann, the moderator did not ask her any questions about Sarah Palin.

So who did the best? Overall, Cain and Bachmann probably got biggest boost from the debate, for the reasons provided above. They needed to look like serious candidates, and they did. Romney succeeded in skating by the Romneycare issue; any time he can do this, it's a plus for him. The surprise winner of the debate was Gingrich, who did not look at all like a defeated candidate.

The candidates still show signs of being new to the game. Most of them will improve over the next few months; it usually takes a few debates before presidential contenders become comfortable with the format. And they will grow more willing to attack each other as the pressure mounts.

First Major Primary Debate Tonight in New Hampshire

CNN is hosting a primary debate in New Hampshire tonight; it will be broadcast on the network at 8:00pm Eastern. Seven candidates have accepted invitations to participate. They include all six of the candidates officially in the race (Cain, Gingrich, Paul, Pawlenty, Romney, and Santorum), plus Michele Bachmann. Unlike the May 5th debate hosted by Fox News, CNN did not require participants to create a presidential exploratory committee. No doubt CNN was eager to get Bachmann and Sarah Palin in on the action. However, Palin declined to attend, as did Jon Huntsman, who was also invited. Both are still considering whether they want to run for president. CNN raised the poll requirements slightly so as to exclude former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, who appeared at the Fox News debate. For more information on how debate invitations work, see our earlier post.

This will be the first true debate of the primary season, and the first debate appearance for Bachmann, Gingrich, and Romney. With seven candidates, it will be interesting to see if CNN favors the more well-known candidates, or if they divide the number of questions evenly. At the May 5th debate--which had only five participants--Fox News gave each candidate the same number of questions. During the 2008 primary season, there were often as many as ten Republicans at each debate, and only the top-tier candidates got a decent amount of attention. The pressure will be on CNN to give each candidate an equal chance: There are seven candidates, which is more than they would like, but the field is wide open.

The stakes are highest for Newt Gingrich, as his entire campaign strategy rests on his ability to out-debate opponents, and his campaign staff resigned en masse only a few days ago. At this point, the very survival of his candidacy is questionable.

The debate will also be very important for Bachmann and Herman Cain, who will vie for the hearts and minds of the Tea Party crowd. Cain got a lot of attention at the previous debate, but it was easy to stand out with so few other candidates. After Cain's recent gaffes, the CNN moderators will be eager to probe his knowledge and find a gap. Bachmann will try to steal some of Cain's enthusiasm, but she's known for making gaffes of her own. Whichever candidate can appear to be the more serious will emerge in a stronger position.

Another point of interest will be the battle between Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney. They may not be willing to attack each other openly so soon, but each will try to play the role of the "senior statesman" (or as it's frequently called today, "the adult in the room"). They are the two candidates with the most perceived electability. If Romney stumbles, some of his establishment support may find itself drifting toward the Pawlenty camp.

Rick Santorum is frequently overlooked. He will need to make every effort to get attention. If he doesn't get it at a debate, he won't get it elsewhere. Ron Paul, meanwhile, will likely use his debate platform however he sees fit and have some fun.

Can Michele Bachmann Win Iowa?

The idea that Iowa could play a "wildcard" role in the 2012 Republican primary has become more popular of late. It is increasingly common to hear pundits suggest that a fringe candidate could win Iowa and, potentially, the nomination. The Republican establishment is nervous about the influence of the Tea Party and social conservatives: During the 2010 midterms, Republicans lost some important races (e.g. in Nevada and Delaware) due to the nomination of unelectable Tea Party favorites. Their nightmare is that the same could happen in a presidential race. Some establishment Republicans have even suggested that New Hampshire should be given more priority, as it has (supposedly) more sober-minded voters.

Michele Bachmann, with her ties to Iowa, Tea Party credentials, and low perceived electability make her the subject of the establishment's fears. (In time, similar fears may arise concerning Herman Cain.)

But do Iowans actually have a history of voting for unelectable candidates? Let's consider the winners of the Iowa Caucus since the modern primary system was established in 1980. For the sake of comparison, we will also look at the winners of the New Hampshire primary. Incumbent presidents have been omitted from these lists, as they won almost automatically in each case.

Iowa
1980 -- George Bush Sr.
1988 -- Bob Dole
1996 -- Bob Dole
2000 -- George Bush Jr.
2008 -- Mike Huckabee

As the list reveals, Iowa's adventurous spirit is highly exaggerated. Indeed, many Tea Partiers reviewing the list of winners would say that Iowa is a state full of "RINO"s. Only Huckabee might be seen as a sort of "insurgent" candidate, but even then it's a stretch. Huckabee was a governor for 10 years and was not known for his extreme positions. (In fact, Huckabee was mightily criticized by the Republican establishment for being too moderate on economic issues.) Nor was Huckabee viewed as unelectable. His executive experience and affable, articulate presentation most likely made him more electable than John McCain, who won the nomination that year.

Now let's consider the New Hampshire winners.

New Hampshire
1980 -- Ronald Reagan
1988 -- George Bush Sr.
1996 -- Pat Buchanan
2000 -- John McCain
2008 -- John McCain

Many Tea Partiers view New Hampshire as RINO territory. And several liberal-to-moderate Republicans did win the state. But Buchanan won there in 1996, and in 1980 Reagan--then seen by many Democrats as too extreme to win a general election--placed first.

Thus, the history of Iowa shows that its voters place a high premium on electability, and its winners are not always conservative. It is just as willing as New Hampshire to select a RINO, and perhaps moreso.

That doesn't mean a Tea Partier or a staunch conservative can never win in Iowa. But it does suggest that for Bachmann to stand a chance, she must first improve her perceived electability. Iowa does not have a history of taking risks.

Where is Jon Huntsman, Jr.?

Huntsman

One of the biggest disconnects between the way political pundits and Republican primary voters view the race involves Jon Huntsman, Jr. Huntsman recently returned from his post as U.S. Ambassador to China and began making moves toward a presidential run. After Mitch Daniels declined to run, it became the conventional wisdom among the Washington establishment that the three biggest players in the race were Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, and Huntsman. The odds on Intrade reflected this perception. All of this leaves the average Republican voter asking the question, "Where is he? Where's Huntsman?"

As you can see from the Campaign Status page, Huntsman has not yet formed an exploratory committee or announced a run for president. Until he does so, he will not even appear on the Elephant Watcher roster. Unlike Michele Bachmann, Huntsman decided he would not even appear at the June 13th primary debate, a debate which will effectively be the first of the season (many candidates bowed out of the previous one).

One of Huntsman's greatest weaknesses at the moment is his lack of name recognition. It's hard to ask a voter to support a candidate about whom they know little or nothing. Conventional wisdom says that Huntsman is one of the top three candidates in the race, yet it's unclear whether Huntsman will actually run. Perhaps he will, but if he had already decided he was going to run, he probably would have made plans to participate in the upcoming debate.

Otherwise, it's difficult to understand why a candidate with such a low profile would pass up a free, important opportunity to raise it. Though Elephant Watcher has not yet conducted a full analysis of Huntsman, it's readily apparent to all that he will be competing in New Hampshire against Romney for the "establishment candidate" position. If Huntsman appeared at the debate and did well, he could undermine Mitt Romney's campaign just as it's getting started. Or at least he could create the impression that Romney's not alone in New Hampshire. Recall that at the May 5th debate, Herman Cain alone represented the Tea Party, and he helped prevent Michele Bachmann from shoring up the Tea Party in Iowa. Huntsman could have worked toward the same goal at the upcoming debate.

Huntsman has also been very guarded in his interviews. He has assiduously avoided criticizing President Obama. When asked whether Obama is a good president, Huntsman replied, "History will show how effective he is." Of course, historians will not be the ones who decide whether Obama will get a second term; American voters will. One of the easiest ways for a candidate to get applause (and party credibility) during a primary is to attack the other party's candidate. Romney has done this, Huntsman has not. In fact, Huntsman has suggested that he need not attack Obama by name during the campaign. Either Huntsman is having trouble shedding the role of the diplomat, or he's hedging his bets.

Most likely, Huntsman is still looking for signs that his candidacy stands a chance against Romney. It's easy for a pundit to look at the field and say Huntsman has a chance, or to plunk down a few dollars in Huntsman stock on Intrade. There's little risk. For the candidate himself, there's plenty of risk. A presidential run involves an extraordinary amount of time, money, and effort. If a candidate does poorly, his reputation (and ego) take a big hit. In 2008, Rudy Giuliani failed in dramatic fashion, winning not a single state in the Republican primary. He still hasn't recovered.

Given the risk, Huntsman would probably like to see some evidence in the polls that he has support. He won't find it there. The trouble is that a candidate with low name recognition can't get good poll numbers unless he actually gets into the race. There are too many candidates. Even voters who like Huntsman will select someone else on a poll if they don't know for sure he's running. Pollsters may also decline to include Huntsman as a poll option until he does make his run official.

Primary debates form deadlines of sorts. They put definite dates into a long campaign season that the candidates otherwise calendar themselves. As Elephant Watcher anticipated, the June 13th deadline has spurred several candidates to make official announcements, and has even forced Bachmann to effectively get into the race. Huntsman has passed this time. The next primary debate is tentatively scheduled for mid-July. Huntsman will probably make his decision before then.

Why Did Newt Gingrich's Campaign Staff Resign?

Gingrich

It seems as if Newt Gingrich's campaign is cursed. Within a month of officially announcing his candidacy, Gingrich has suffered two meltdowns. The first occurred during his Meet The Press interview, just after he entered the race, when he committed serious gaffes. Though gaffes made early in a race have less of an impact, it was a bad way to reintroduce himself to the public after being out of office for so long.

The second meltdown occurred yesterday, when most of Gingrich's campaign staff--including high-ranking operatives and staff in each of the early primary states--resigned from the campaign en masse. They offered no explanation, though they did say that Gingrich told them he would remain in the race.

Some observers have noted that some of Gingrich's high-ranking campaign aides have ties to Texas governor Rick Perry, who is considering a run. Others have suggested aides may be irritated or baffled by Gingrich's campaign gaffes and his sudden, two-week luxury cruise in the Mediterranean.

A mass resignation such as this probably cannot be fully explained by either of those. While some campaign aides may have ties to Perry, it's unlikely they could convince everyone in the campaign to switch sides unless there was another compelling reason. Also, early mistakes (or early vacations) in a campaign are probably insufficient to provoke such widespread chaos. Instead, it's probable that there is much more to the story. For example, Gingrich may be involved in some catastrophic scandal (typically a sex scandal). Or he may be entertaining second thoughts about running, in which case he will drop out of the race before the upcoming debate.

It's not uncommon for top aides to be replaced during a campaign. Some candidates (like John Kerry in 2004) have replaced campaign staff several times and still won the nomination. But such a wide-scale resignation reinforces the notion that Gingrich lacks the discipline to run his campaign properly.

This couldn't have come at a worse time for Gingrich, whose first appearance at a primary debate will take place on June 13th. Gingrich's entire strategy relies on debate performances. It's obvious what Gingrich will be asked about now.

Elephant Watcher has calculated that Gingrich's chances of winning the nomination have eroded slightly from 3% down to 2%. Chris Christie is the beneficiary, as the 2012 Republican primary is becoming something of a comedy of errors. This is the first time that the odds have required recalculation from an event other than a candidate exiting or entering the field.

Feud Between Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann Is Dangerous Territory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State Primary Polls After Huckageddon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rick Santorum Announces He's Running for President

Santorum

Rick Santorum made his official entry into the race today. This represents a new milestone on the road toward Iowa: All six candidates who had formed exploratory committees have now officially announced they're running. As you can see from the Campaign Status page, they're also the only six in the race. (Michele Bachmann, however, is scheduled to appear at a primary debate this month.)

Santorum is something of a tragic figure in the 2012 Republican primary. He and Ron Paul have the lowest odds of winning the nomination. But unlike Paul, a libertarian gimmick candidate who runs merely to make a point, Santorum actually wants to win. Until his defeat in the rout of 2006, Santorum served continuously as either a U.S. House Rep or a U.S. Senator for sixteen years. And yet, almost no one takes him seriously.

Santorum's problem is that whatever strategy he may wish to employ, someone else is already doing it better than he is. If he wanted to cast himself as a Tea Party candidate, Herman Cain or Michele Bachmann already do it with more authenticity and grassroots enthusiasm. If Santorum wanted to play the role of the serious, electable statesman, Tim Pawlenty or Mitt Romney have him beat there, too. Wherever he turns, he is less conservative, or less electable, or less rhetorically gifted than his opponent.

The debate on May 5th, in which Santorum participated, provided a powerful illustration of his dire situation. Only four other candidates appeared, and Santorum still couldn't get any attention. Pawlenty and Cain were enough to drown him out. From there, the field only became more crowded.

Iowa is where Santorum's candidacy will fight and die. He will attempt to fill the niche of the social conservative, but several others will be doing the same thing, and better. It's not unlikely that Santorum will be the first announced candidate to drop out of the race. He may not even make it to the day of the Iowa Caucus.

News posts related to Santorum will have the Santorum "tag". For detailed assessment of Santorum's strengths, weaknesses, and strategy, view his Profile. Elephant Watcher calculates Santorum has a 0% chance of winning the nomination.

Can Herman Cain Become a Serious Candidate?

Cain

Luck plays an important role in politics. Candidates can rise or fall based on circumstances beyond their control. Last month, Tim Pawlenty benefited from the departure of some important competitors. May wasn't a bad month for Herman Cain, either.

Cain's main weakness has been (and always will be) the fact that he has never held elective office. He has business experience, but no political experience. Typically, this kind of candidate would not even be allowed onto the stage, let alone win the competition. It's not for no reason that a "businessman" candidate has not won the presidency in recent history. To get any kind of media attention, a candidate must at least have won a U.S. House seat (or be otherwise well-known, like Donald Trump). Even being a governor is sometimes not enough, as former New Mexico governor and political non-entity Gary Johnson would attest.

Combined with Cain's low name recognition, there was a real doubt about whether Cain would be taken seriously, even at the level of someone like Ron Paul. But as the race stands today, Cain has cleared that hurdle. He may not be given much of a chance to win, but he will be included in the primary debates, and he can't be ignored. Why?

Partly it was due to luck. Cain's affiliation with the Tea Party and his being the only black candidate were just enough to get him the poll numbers needed for an invite to the May 5th primary debate. Many of the "top-tier" candidates decided to skip the debate, but just enough people showed up to give it some legitimacy. When people tuned in, they took note of Cain. After all, the only other people there were Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, and Gary Johnson. Of those, only Pawlenty had a non-zero chance of winning the nomination. Even better, none of them had any charisma or Tea Party credentials. As we've noted before, Sarah Palin kept herself and Michele Bachmann out of the race at the time.

Cain's campaign could have been over before it started, if he had not been allowed access to the debates. That danger has passed. But there is still one gigantic hurdle between Cain and a "serious" candidacy: He must persuade voters that business experience is just as legitimate as political experience. Otherwise, his perceived electability will continue to be low. The Republican establishment fears that Iowans may give an unelectable candidate a win, but this is unlikely. In a future post, we'll explore why that is.

Televised debates have a way of legitimizing a candidacy. As long as you aren't too extreme (like Ron Paul or, for the Democrats, Dennis Kucinich), sharing the stage with a "serious" candidate raises you up to his level. Now that Cain's poll numbers ensure future debate invitations, he'll always be a factor. He's in the running, and has a chance to make his case. Solid performances at the debates will make Cain look more and more like a "real" candidate each time.

Still, Cain is vulnerable to charges that his inexperience leaves him ill-equipped to run for the presidency. His previous gaffes revealed that he may not be as informed as he needs to be. Since blood is in the water, he needs to appear even more knowledgeable than the rest of the field. Otherwise he will not be able to boost his perceived electability. Only time will tell if Cain's up to the challenge. Elephant Watcher calculates that Cain has a 5% chance of winning the nomination.