National Primary Polls Show Mitt Romney Leading, Tea Party Candidates Rising

In previous posts, we have seen why national primary polls need to be viewed with skepticism. With few people paying attention early on, name recognition becomes a bigger factor than it will be on voting day. National primary polls also fail to account for the impact that winning (or losing) early states has on the candidates' support.

But national primary polls can be useful in comparing apples to apples: If two candidates both have high name recognition, the one leading in the poll is probably in a stronger position. The same is true for comparing two candidates who lack name recognition. Also, if a candidate lacks name recognition but is still beating a well-known opponent, the well-known opponent is in trouble.

Today we will take a look at some recent national primary polls. Note that only one of these, taken by Rasmussen, was conducted after the June 13th debate:

06/14 Rasmussen -- Romney 33, Bachmann 19, Cain 10, Gingrich 9, Paul 7, Pawlenty 6
06/13 NBC/WSJ -- Romney 30, Palin 14, Cain 12, Perry 8, Paul 7, Gingrich 6
06/12 PPP (D) -- Romney 22, Cain 17, Palin 15, Gingrich 9, Pawlenty 9, Bachmann 8

A familiar difficulty in interpreting these polls is the fact that they're influenced by which candidates are included. For example, the Rasmussen poll excludes Sarah Palin, and the NBC/WSJ poll includes Rick Perry.

Comparing apples to apples, Mitt Romney is clearly in a stronger position than Sarah Palin or (especially) Newt Gingrich. All have high name recognition, but Romney leads. Among those with low name recognition, Herman Cain is leading Michele Bachmann, but not if Sarah Palin is excluded. Palin's harmful influence on the Bachmann campaign continues. The Rasmussen poll may also be indicating a bump for Bachmann post-debate, so it will be important to monitor these numbers as future polls are released.

The polls also show Tim Pawlenty struggling to keep up with Cain and Bachmann. Still, the more flamboyant and less electable candidates do tend to fade over time. Cain has taken damage from gaffes in interviews already, and Bachmann has not yet faced cross-examination by the hostile media.

The poll including Rick Perry shows a surprising amount of support, given how little coverage he's had, and Bachmann--who hardly ranks in that poll--may have somehow lost support to him. Given all the recent speculation, Perry may be included in more polls, and he will no doubt be watching them carefully.

Can Mitt Romney Really Get a Free Pass on Romneycare?

Romney

The conventional wisdom coming out of the first major primary debate is that Mitt Romney secured his position as the frontrunner. Romney was questioned about his Achilles' heel, Romneycare, and he emerged unscathed. Romney fired off a list of ways that Romneycare is dissimilar to Obamacare, and was not asked any follow-up questions by the moderator. The moderator then asked Tim Pawlenty about Pawlenty's recent assertions that Romneycare and Obamacare are alike (calling them "Obamneycare"). Instead of hitting Romney, Pawlenty backed away from his own remarks. The debate moved on, never to address the issue again.

As Elephant Watcher pointed out in Romney's Profile, Romney's main challenge will be dealing with Romneycare. Certainly Romney has some other weaknesses, such as his history of flip-flopping, being distrusted, and his Mormon faith. None of them compare to the problem of his instituting a policy so similar to the reviled Obama health care plan. After all, opposition to Obamacare was what united the Republican opposition leading up to the 2010 midterms and fueled the Tea Party. But at the debate, it appeared to be little more than a speed bump.

Nor was Romney criticized by the other candidates in any way. He is currently leading in all the state polls, but the rest of the field didn't lift a finger to challenge him. This leads one to ask the question: Are they really going to let Romney get away with this?

In a word, no. The first debates do not normally reflect that dynamics of a long presidential primary. Candidates are much less willing to attack each other. In the 2008 primary, for example, Barack Obama repeatedly refused to attack Hillary Clinton for several months--even though she was the undisputed frontrunner and 20+ points ahead of him in the polls. But as the date of the Iowa Caucus drew near, the criticism of Hillary intensified. In the end, Hillary lost Iowa. The Republican debates were not so different. They were very civil, and few candidates wished to speak ill of the others. At first. But it didn't last long. By the time South Carolina rolled around, Fred Thompson was practically accusing Mike Huckabee of being a Democrat.

There are a number of reasons why the candidates play nice in the beginning. No one wants to be known as the candidate who "went negative" first. Nor does anyone want to shoulder the risks of attacking the frontrunner while everyone else shares the benefit of the frontrunner being taken down. It's also important not to alienate the supporters of the frontrunner, who you'll eventually need in your coalition.

Long story short, the campaign is going to get rough several months down the road. Candidates will be more than willing to unleash their ammunition against Romney--especially if he still leads in the polls. Moderators of future debates will likely ask Romney about Romneycare again and again (unless Romney gets lucky). The issue will also be brought up because the constitutionality of Obamacare is being determined by appellate courts (and later, the Supreme Court). That will keep Obamacare--and therefore, Romneycare--in the headlines during the primary.

Can Rick Perry Steal Chris Christie's Thunder?

Perry

As we've observed many times before, Republicans are deeply dissatisfied with the state of the 2012 presidential primary field. There is a vacuum waiting to be filled: Voters want someone who can excite and unify both the Tea Party and establishment wings of the Party. Since no candidate already in the race fits the bill, Republicans have hopped from one potential candidate to the next. The past two months have witnessed speculation about a host of different individuals: Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, Rudy Giuliani, Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman, Jr., Paul Ryan, and the list goes on.

Elephant Watcher's analysis of the field--backed up later by polling data--indicates that Christie is the candidate most likely to fill the void successfully. Given how closely the current state of the race resembles Christie's winning scenario, it's no surprise that Christie is projected to win the nomination.

But that doesn't mean other candidates might not attempt to enter the race and fill the void. A few weeks ago, we suggested that Perry was more likely than others to give it a shot. But as with Huntsman's careful deliberations, it's one thing to see an opening--and quite another to risk the humiliation of an unsuccessful run.

Perry will likely do a lot of investigating to determine whether he has a feasible candidacy. He'll make a lot of phone calls and exhaustively pore over obscure polling data where he's actually listed as an option. Unlike Christie, who occasionally posts good numbers despite having repeatedly denied his intention to run, Perry will find no signs of support in polls. He has little visibility outside of Texas, and voters are disinclined to support another Texas governor.

And yet, the void remains to be filled. Perry's low poll numbers are the result of his low profile. He has obstacles, but other candidates have them, too. If Perry is willing to throw the dice, he may find that voters are willing to overlook his weaknesses and view him as a stronger version of Pawlenty. Provided the Tea Party candidates (Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann) are unable to increase their perceived electability, a lot of the more strategic-minded conservatives could cast their lot with Perry. But voters will only give him a second look if he actually gets into the race.

If Perry wants to be president and has the courage to take a gamble, he will ignore the polls and jump into the race. There are no guarantees. But he must act quickly, and enter the race during the summer. By the time Christie is prepared to make a move in September, people won't be looking to Perry to fill the gap anymore.

Michele Bachmann Announces She's Running for President

Bachmann

At yesterday's primary debate in New Hampshire, Michele Bachmann announced that she had filed the paperwork necessary to become a presidential candidate. She still plans to make an official announcement, but given the fact that she essentially announced during the debate, her announcement speech will be superfluous. This shows poor organizational skills on the part of Bachmann's campaign: She could have gotten more media attention had she announced earlier.

Bachmann's poor timing was partly Sarah Palin's fault. Bachmann did not want to enter the race if Palin was, since they would simply split each other's vote and guarantee neither could win. Bachmann waited as long as possible, allowing Palin time to make up her mind. When it became clear Palin wasn't going to announce either way, Bachmann decided she had to enter the race anyway so she could attend the debate; Bachmann didn't want to give Herman Cain another opportunity to gather Tea Party support unopposed. This is precisely the sequence of events Elephant Watcher predicted a few weeks ago.

Bachmann will dedicate all of her attention to Iowa. If she loses there, her race is over. Bachmann will compete for the Tea Party vote, as her low perceived electability guarantees the establishment (and strategic voters) will not support her. As it becomes more clear that Palin will not run, Bachmann will compete against Cain.

As Bachmann demonstrated during yesterday's debate, she has the ability to sound like a reasonable, articulate candidate. She sounded more confident and informed than Cain did. However, Bachmann has not undertaken the gauntlet of TV interviews that Cain has. It remains to be seen whether Bachmann can emerge from hostile interviews unscathed. Her history suggests she will run into trouble, but sometimes candidates can become more skilled with practice.

There is still the Palin problem. Since Palin made no effort to attend the debates or prevent Bachmann from running, it becomes increasingly unlikely that Palin will run. But that doesn't mean Palin's fans will accept this fact right away. Palin supporters tend to be very loyal, and they won't jump into the Bachmann camp so easily. Bachmann is still in Palin's shadow, and Palin's fans may even begin to resent Bachmann for attempting to replace her.

If Bachmann is to succeed in Iowa, she'll need the full weight of the Tea Party behind her--including those who currently support either Palin or Cain. If Palin is willing to admit that she's not running, it will help Bachmann's coalition grow. Unfortunately for Bachmann, Palin follows Palin's schedule and no one else's.

As long as Bachmann avoids alienating Palin fans, she has plenty of opportunity to create a Tea Party coalition. Toward the end of this year, Tea Partiers in Iowa will make their final decision. Palin will have long since made the announcement she's not running (or it will simply be obviously too late). If Bachmann can prove she's the more serious candidate, she can defeat Cain and siphon his support. Barring a spectacular flame-out on Cain's part, she won't get all of his supporters on her side, but the Tea Party will coalesce around one or the other to maximize the chance of a Tea Party victory.

But it is not enough. Iowa winners need to prove they're electable. It's a long time between now and the Iowa Caucus. If Bachmann is to succeed, she must remain as disciplined and prepared during every public appearance as she was for the debate.

News posts related to Bachmann will have the Bachmann "tag". For detailed assessment of Bachmann's strengths, weaknesses, and strategy, view her Profile. Elephant Watcher calculates Bachmann has a 1% chance of winning the nomination.

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.