Is Chris Christie Running for President? Part I

Christie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which Campaign Is the Most Disciplined?

Political campaigns have to deal with a lot of things outside of their control: Current events, attitudes of hostile media, actions of competitors, etc. One thing campaigns can control, in theory, is their candidate. Disciplined candidates stay "on message," avoiding gaffes, flip-flops, and unforced errors. If a candidate is both disciplined enough and skilled enough, he can talk about the subjects he wants to talk about--his areas of expertise--instead of what an interviewer or debate moderator wants to talk about.

Which of the Republican campaigns this year have shown the most discipline, and which have shown a lack of discipline?

High Discipline

Chris Christie is following a "late entrant" strategy, which requires him to stay out of the race until at least September. It also requires him to fly under the radar for the time being and avoid suspicion that he's planning a run. Thus far, Christie has issued simple denials in response to each of the many inquiries he's received about his presidential ambitions. So far, many people want him to run, but few think he actually will. President Obama's team recently ordered opposition on Christie because they believe he's likely to run, but they were embarrassed by a skeptical media when the story broke. Intrade investors have been convinced by Christie's denials, and they only give him a 10% chance of running. (Until May they gave Rick Perry the same probability.)

Mitt Romney, though his strategy for dealing with Romneycare may be lacking, has stuck to his position. Romney's reputation as the frontrunner has been bolstered by his lack of gaffes and his determination to stay on topic. He has branded himself the "economics candidate," and quickly returns the subject back to that area whenever he's asked about anything else. Romney offered a good example of his campaign discipline when he was interviewed recently by Piers Morgan on CNN: Asked about the Mormon church's view on homosexuality, Romney simply declined to engage, stating that he would not be a spokesman for his church during the campaign.

Moderate Discipline

Michele Bachmann is known for being gaffe-prone, but has not embarrassed herself in the short time she's been campaigning. Her debate performance on June 13th showed her discipline. The fact that she was disorganized enough to announce her candidacy while at the debate showed her lack of discipline. She has only begun to face media scrutiny.

Herman Cain has largely stayed out of trouble, especially considering his lack of political experience. But he's taken heat for some gaffes that demonstrated his lack of familiarity with the issues. It's likely Cain could be damaged even more if the media scrutinize his knowledge further. Only his campaign discipline has kept him alive.

Tim Pawlenty has avoided making enemies. He's also avoided gaffes, but not entirely. As we addressed in a previous post, his campaign still appears to be making up its mind about whether to go on the offensive or not.

Low Discipline

Newt Gingrich is perhaps the best example of a candidate who has been undone by a lack of discipline. He began his campaign with damaging gaffes on Meet The Press, and his staff was rocked by two rounds of mass resignations. While his debate answers on June 13th showed he has some depth, his mind also has a tendency to wander. See, for example, Gingrich's remark about how if the private sector had taken over from NASA years ago, we would today have a permanent base on the moon. It's entirely unclear what the focus of the Gingrich campaign is.

Sarah Palin is probably not running, so it may be unfair to include her on this list. However, if she were considering a run, her recent actions are baffling. By delaying her candidacy, she encouraged Bachmann to get into the race, which would only split the Palin vote. Palin's bus tour across the Northeast resulted in a disastrous gaffe about the history of Paul Revere, which she then attempted to defend. Then the bus tour reached an unceremonious end, which Palin blamed on jury duty.

Note: Jon Huntsman has not been included on this list as he has only just entered the race; Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are irrelevant.

Michele Bachmann Denies She's a 'Flake'

In a speech in Iowa today, Michele Bachmann officially announced that she's running for president. Bachmann already made that announcement during the June 13th debate. The confusion stems from poor timing on Bachmann's part; she needed to participate in the debate, but she had not planned for her campaign to begin yet. Thus, Bachmann officially entered the race twice.

During yesterday's interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, Wallace asked Bachmann an unusual question: "Are you a flake?" Wallace was essentially asking whether Bachmann, given her history of gaffes and her poor reputation among many in Washington, was actually a serious candidate. Bachmann was offended and said as much, but she remained calm and recited her résumé.

On its own, Wallace's question means little, but it typifies the attitude of the Washington establishment toward Bachmann: They believe she is sort of a joke. Bachmann likely felt Fox News was a safe place for an early interview. If Wallace's dismissive attitude is any indication, Bachmann will find no safe havens anywhere in the traditional news media. It's worth pointing out that Herman Cain, who has never held elective office, is treated with less disrespect than Bachmann.

It's not only journalists who have a dim view of Bachmann. The Republican establishment believes she cannot win a general election and that her nomination would be a supreme embarrassment to the Party. On the other hand, some of the establishment are Mitt Romney supporters who believe a win by Bachmann in Iowa would scare voters into supporting Romney in New Hampshire.

Even so, the higher Bachmann goes, the more pushback she will receive. Unlike Cain, Bachmann has not yet been subjected to much scrutiny. For the moment, Bachmann is enjoying a honeymoon period. She's new to the race and voters are interested in her, and her negative attributes have not yet been put on display. Earlier this year both Herman Cain and Donald Trump experienced similar honeymoons.

Bachmann has seen her poll numbers rise since the debate. The Des Moines Register just released its Iowa Caucus poll. As you can see from our Primaries page, where all Iowa Caucus polls are collected, few other polls have been taken of Iowa. The Des Moines Register is generally considered the best Iowa pollster; most pollsters are national, and few are set up to poll just for this contest. Bachmann did well in this poll, which did not include Sarah Palin or Rick Perry:

06/22 Des Moines Register (Iowa Caucus)
Romney 23
Bachmann 22
Cain 10
Gingrich 7
Paul 7
Pawlenty 6
Santorum 4
Huntsman 2

Note that a single poll means little, and that name recognition is a big factor at this point. Still, numbers like this will attract a lot of attention to the Bachmann campaign. Her honeymoon period is likely to end soon, and she will be subjected to a lot of flak from the media. Time will tell whether she can maintain her composure, as she has thus far.

Can Mitt Romney Set the Debate Schedule?

Mitt Romney recently announced that he would not attend the next primary debate, which is scheduled for July 10th. At the same time, Romney announced that he would be attending several other primary debates, which are scheduled for August, September, and October. Romney's campaign offered, as one reason for not attending, that the July debate sponsors had not yet secured a TV deal. Obviously few candidates have much incentive to attend debates that don't appear on television. But suppose Romney decided not to attend some of the televised debates? Can he leverage his supposed frontrunner status to set the debate schedule?

There are good reasons why a frontrunner might want to avoid debates. Frontrunners want, most of all, to maintain their lead. Debates present opportunities for change. A frontrunner may make a serious gaffe, or may be outshined by a competitor. By contrast, there are few chances for a frontrunner to really expand his lead. Romney in particular has reason to worry about debates, as they allow moderators (or other candidates) to challenge him on Romneycare. In addition, candidates perceived as frontrunners are often attacked by every other candidate at a debate--especially during the later debates.

All things considered, Romney has ample incentive to cull down the debate schedule. Could he get away with it? Would the media decide that a debate without the frontrunner wouldn't really "count"? And could Romney's absence lead other candidates to follow suit, skipping the debate to avoid looking like a second-tier candidate?

Precedent is mixed. Recall that Romney declined to attend the first primary debate on May 5th. The media largely downplayed the importance of the event. Newt Gingrich decided not to attend either, timing the beginning of his campaign for immediately after the debate. Of the purported first-tier candidates, only Tim Pawlenty appeared.

But there are good reasons why May 5th won't repeat itself. Recall that at the time, potential candidates like Mike Huckabee, Donald Trump, Mitch Daniels, and Sarah Palin had not yet made it clear that they weren't running. Also, Michele Bachmann and Jon Huntsman weren't in the race (for reasons that had nothing to do with that debate). Now the field is largely settled, with only Rick Perry and Chris Christie looming on the horizon. If Romney opts out and no one else does, it won't look like a "second-tier only" debate. It will just look like Romney's missing.

Despite its perceived unimportance, the May 5th debate had an impact on the race: It allowed Herman Cain to step forward as the chief Tea Party candidate. His poll numbers immediately shot up after the appearance. Indeed, the absence of other candidates only meant Cain got even more TV time. Bachmann, despite having planned to announce her candidacy later in the month, made sure to attend the June 13th debate to avoid giving Cain a second such opportunity. If Romney does attempt to skip televised debates, other candidates have every reason to show up anyway and trumpet their campaigns--and prevent other candidates from hogging airtime.

There's one other factor to consider: Just because Romney's not there doesn't mean other candidates can't attack him. If anything, they would be more comfortable criticizing him, since they know he can't defend himself. And he can be criticized for not showing up.

Is Tim Pawlenty's Campaign Schizophrenic?

Pawlenty

Political debates are designed to allow candidates to discuss substantive issues. But people usually remember only a few moments of a debate, key answers or phrases that stood out from everything else. After the primary debate on June 13th, commentators became fixated on one thing Tim Pawlenty did not do: He did not challenge Mitt Romney on Romneycare when prompted to do so.

As we've discussed, there's nothing unusual about candidates refusing to attack each other during early debates. What made Pawlenty's pacifism stand out is the fact that he had criticized Romneycare the day before during a televised interview. Some observers reasoned, then, that Pawlenty was simply too intimidated to attack Romney face to face. This made Pawlenty look weak. Afterward, Pawlenty said in an interview that he had made a mistake by not taking Romney on more directly. Was Pawlenty being sheepish, or was something else going on?

One possibility is that there is a real indecision about strategy in the Pawlenty camp. In Pawlenty's Profile, you can see that his optimal strategy is to avoid making enemies, and let the other candidates self-destruct. On the Rankings page, you can see Pawlenty's likeliest scenario for victory is to be the last man standing: He lacks the ability to excite people, but he offends neither wing of the Party.

That strategy is passive. It relies on other candidates to beat each other up (or shoot themselves in the foot). If Pawlenty were to engage in direct combat with other candidates, he might alienate factions of the party. Then he would have difficulty being the consensus candidate. Pawlenty's strategy yielded some fruit over the past two months as various candidates either declined to run or harmed themselves. Pawlenty's odds of winning the nomination rose from 4% up to 15%.

But Pawlenty's campaign staff are likely to be looking at polls, and Pawlenty has not performed well in those. In the opinion of Elephant Watcher, Pawlenty will probably continue to have difficulty in the polls until much later this year, since even early primary voters won't be paying much attention to the race. If people aren't paying attention, it's hard for a little-known candidate to raise his profile, especially if he lacks charisma.

Pawlenty's advisors may well believe that Pawlenty must go on the offensive more, and become a more provocative candidate. They're probably pressuring him to go after the frontrunner, Romney. This could explain why sometimes he's willing to attack others (particularly in media like Twitter where people on his team may be writing under his name). The "Obamneycare" line that he used during the interview prior to the debate was almost certainly fed to Pawlenty by an advisor.

On the other hand, that kind of fiery rhetoric may not suit Pawlenty's personality. In addition, campaign advisors tend to not to agree with each other on everything. Like the electorate itself, they often break into factions. Some of Pawlenty's advisors tell him to attack, and others tell him to avoid fights. Still others tell him he should fight, but to save the effort for later in the campaign.

Whatever decision Pawlenty makes, it's important for a candidate to appear decisive and consistent. It's better to stick to a less-than-perfect strategy than to flounder about looking for a perfect one. Voters want to see a candidate who knows what he's doing.

The 2012 Republican Primary: Phase Two

Several weeks ago, we explained the different phases of the primary process. While political observers (including those who would follow a blog such as this) have been paying attention to the race, few others have. There is quite a disconnect between those who follow politics and those who don't. The country at large will not take note of the Republican primary until just before or after the Iowa Caucus in February 2012. Before then, most people will not even be familiar with the names of all the candidates (if even then).

During the 2008 primary the trend toward longer and longer political campaigns reached its limit: Candidates spent millions while most voters--even those in early primary states--hardly noticed. This time around, the candidates are being a bit more cautious.

We have, at last, reached the middle of the second phase of the primary season. During Phase One, most candidates had not yet declared. Phase Two began in late May and early June, as the field took shape. The entry of Jon Huntsman, Jr. likely marks the end of the beginning. From now on, campaign news should revolve around interviews, debates, and campaign events rather than official announcements of candidates getting in or out of the race.

Phase Three will begin in September, after Labor Day. By then, every candidate should be in the race, aside from those who are deliberately pursuing a "late entrant" strategy. During Phase Three, primary debates will take place once every couple weeks. And for the first time, people other than political junkies will actually pay attention to the race. The voters of early primary states will fully engage and investigate the candidates, though they probably won't make up their minds until November or December. Finally, Phase Four will begin at about the time of the Iowa Caucus.

For those who follow Republican primary news on a day-to-day basis, that sounds like a long way off, and it is. Because so much can happen between now and then, and because so few people will pay attention (let alone throw their support behind a candidate) until then, polls have limited use. They merely tell us about a candidate's starting point.

What can we watch for during the long summer of Phase Two? Though the field is largely settled, there are still some questions to be answered. Two "potentially running" candidates remain on the Elephant Watcher roster: Chris Christie and Sarah Palin. One other candidate, Rick Perry, remains in the undecided category. These are the candidates to watch over the next few months.

While Palin is unlikely to run given the fact that she made no effort to keep Michele Bachmann out, Palin is still technically in limbo. This summer, she could very well announce that she's not running. Or she could decide not to say anything. Were she to remain silent, however, there is a limit beyond which people will stop paying attention to her: After more debates take place without her in July and August. Afterward, Bachmann will completely eclipse her.

Perry is likely to make an announcement by the end of August. Iowa's Ames Straw Poll will take place in August, and while it is unscientific to say the least, it always gets headlines. Perry may jump into the race immediately after Ames, since he wouldn't have much time to prepare in advance of it, and to overshadow the headlines of the straw poll's winner.

As for Christie, his strategy involves a late entry, and he is unlikely to announce before September. However, Christie may do certain things to generate buzz in advance of that, especially if he senses Perry picking up too much steam. After all, both of them seek to fill the vacuum in the field. Christie could appear at events in Iowa or New Hampshire, or simply make remarks suggesting he's more open to a run than he was before. For example, he might say that he's dissatisfied with the field of candidates. If the current trend continues, he won't be the only one who feels that way.

Poll Shows Christie Beating Romney By Wide Margin

The conventional wisdom that Mitt Romney is a "clear frontrunner" has taken root among political pundits. But a new poll suggests that Republican voters simply prefer candidates who aren't in the race yet, and that Romney is quite vulnerable.

In the past, we have seen how poll results can be dramatically different based upon which candidates a pollster chooses to include. The latest polling experiment puts Romney in a head-to-head matchup against various candidates, including those who have not yet declared they're running. (No, Sarah Palin wasn't one of them.) The poll, conducted by IBOPE Zogby/Newsmax, pits Romney against Chris Christie and Rick Perry. Here's how they performed, among likely Republican primary voters:

Romney vs. Christie
Christie 62
Romney 19
Not sure 19

Romney vs. Perry
Perry 55
Romney 22
Not sure 23

A word of caution: Zogby's polling has a checkered history, to say the least. But given the sheer size of the lead, it can't all be explained by poor sampling. In particular, it's interesting to note how badly Romney is trailing Christie, even though Christie has repeatedly (but not convincingly) said he's not running. Perry is also doing very well, though Perry has been a lot more open about his presidential ambitions.

The poll further breaks down the dynamics among different groups: conservative, moderate, and liberal Republicans:

Romney vs. Christie
Conservatives: Christie 65, Romney 17
Moderates: Christie 58, Romney 28
Liberals: Romney 38, Christie 22

Romney vs. Perry
Conservatives: Perry 62, Romney 16
Moderates: Romney 46, Perry 37
Liberals: Romney 58, Perry 3

Romney is weakest among conservatives and strongest among liberals. Perry is extremely weak among liberals, but strong among conservatives. Christie performs the best among conservatives and moderates. Romney beats Christie among liberals, but only by 12 points.

The poll further reinforces the notion that Republicans are dissatisfied with the current field and its supposed frontrunner. It also shows that Christie is best able to unify the different segments of the Party. For this reason, Christie would be the favorite to win, were he to jump into the race. Elephant Watcher calculates that Christie currently has a 66% chance of winning the nomination.

Who Will Win the Iowa Caucus in 2012?

In our previous examination of the history of the Iowa Caucus, we saw that Iowa tends to choose candidates whom they view as electable. This runs against the conventional wisdom that Iowa favors socially conservative "wildcard" candidates. But what are the possible scenarios for 2012, and who would the winner of New Hampshire (i.e. Mitt Romney or Jon Huntsman) want to win Iowa?

Listed roughly in order of their probability, the following are the basic Iowa scenarios, and a discussion of whether the New Hampshire winner (we'll assume Romney) would like them to occur:

Scenario #1: United Party. A new candidate enters the race who is able to unify and excite both the Tea Party and the Republican establishment.

Chris Christie is most likely to fill this role. This is the nightmare scenario for Romney, as Christie could go on to win New Hampshire (or do well there). The Republican establishment is only likely to support a highly electable candidate. If a candidate is both electable enough to gain the establishment's support while also being conservative enough to excite the Tea Party, then Romney is toast.

Scenario #2: Moderately Electable Tea Partier. A candidate who is popular with the Tea Party is able to become credible enough to be perceived as moderately electable. He peels off enough support from strategic voters in Iowa to win.

While Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain hope to fill this role, it's more likely to be a new candidate, such as Rick Perry. While Romney certainly fears a candidate who is both exciting and somewhat electable, all is not lost: Unlike the first scenario, Romney can still make the electability argument. A moderately electable candidate is better than an unelectable candidate, but will voters want to take any risk of President Obama winning? They may prefer a highly electable candidate (Romney) to a moderately electable one, even if Romney is less conservative.

Scenario #3: Consensus Candidate. A candidate who is inoffensive to both wings of the Party wins, despite not being able to generate excitement. It's a compromise.

This is Tim Pawlenty's scenario. Romney has much to fear from this one as well, since both candidates are perceived as highly electable. In addition, Pawlenty is perceived as more conservative. This leaves Romney with few arguments. Pawlenty is not exciting, but neither is Romney.

Scenario #4: Frontrunner Wins. Romney has the campaign infrastructure built up sufficiently to compete everywhere, and no one is able to knock him down.

Romney's dream scenario, of course, is to start with a win in Iowa. From there, he would easily win New Hampshire, and win the nomination without much of a fight. He attempted this in 2008, but Mike Huckabee beat him in Iowa--causing Romney to fall short in New Hampshire as well. If Romney's opposition is split enough, this scenario could take place.

Scenario #5: Tea Party Wildcard. The Tea Party is more influential than previously supposed, and voters vote with their hearts instead of their heads. Electability goes out the window, and Iowa chooses the most conservative candidate available.

Here is where Bachmann and Cain are more likely to fit in, as it would be difficult for them to persuade voters they're electable, given their job experience. Aside from winning Iowa himself, this is the scenario Romney most hopes for. He could make a strong case that the Iowa winner can't beat Obama. Thus the Republicans must either vote for Romney or let Obama win.

Who is Jon Huntsman? Another Candidate Enters the Race

Huntsman

To the delight of many establishment Republicans, Jon Huntsman, Jr. has finally announced that he is indeed running for president. Huntsman and Michele Bachmann are the only two candidates thus far who have jumped immediately into the race without first forming a presidential exploratory committee. The Campaign Status page has been updated once again. Unless Rick Perry tosses his hat into the ring soon, it may be a long time before the field changes again.

Polls suggest that Mitt Romney is the default choice of the establishment and moderate Republicans. But they have been seeking another candidate, one without Romney's baggage (Romneycare, flip-flops, lack of charisma). They may find Huntsman to be a suitable alternative. But Huntsman comes with baggage of his own, as he has been criticized for being too moderate/liberal on environmental issues and gay rights. Huntsman served under President Obama as the U.S. Ambassador to China, and he made public statements after the 2008 election attacking the Republican Party for being too far right. This came at the very moment the Tea Party moved the Republican Party to the right (and, in 2010, to victory).

Huntsman seems to be aware that his campaign strategy must be to destroy and replace Romney in New Hampshire. They will be engaged in a duel; only one of them may survive the New Hampshire primary. One is reminded of Winston Churchill's famous remark during the Second World War: "I have only one purpose, the destruction of Hitler, and my life is much simplified thereby." Hyperbole aside, that is the attitude Huntsman will need to adopt in order to win. Romney is the presumptive frontrunner, leads in all New Hampshire polls by a mile, and has plenty of money and campaign experience. Huntsman polls at nearly zero percent and is an unknown quantity to most voters.

If Huntsman is serious about becoming the Republican nominee, he must put aside his diplomatic tendencies and go fully on the offensive against Romney. Huntsman's conservative credentials may be in doubt, but he never created anything like Romneycare. It's obvious that Huntsman should relentlessly assail Romney's Achilles heel.

On the other hand, it's possible that Huntsman is not serious about winning. He may have calculated that he has little chance of defeating Romney. Then why run? There's long been speculation that Huntsman really wanted to run in 2016. If Huntsman believes in the conventional wisdom that Republicans prefer to nominate someone who has run before, then 2012 could serve as Huntsman's practice run. If this is the case, then expect Huntsman to leave his opponents (and Obama) in peace.

Elephant Watcher has added Huntsman to the roster of candidates and recalculated each candidate's odds of winning the nomination. Romney and Huntsman are to be locked in mortal combat in New Hampshire, and Romney is favored to win. Huntsman is thereby given a 2% chance of winning the nomination; Romney's chances drop by the same amount to 8%. If Huntsman is willing and able to draw blood against Romney in the debates to come, that balance of power won't be tilted so heavily in Romney's favor. In an unrelated adjustment, Michele Bachmann's odds have risen from 1% to 2% at the expense of Herman Cain.

News posts related to Huntsman will have the Huntsman "tag". For detailed assessment of Huntsman's strengths, weaknesses, and strategy, view his Profile. Elephant Watcher calculates Huntsman has a 2% chance of winning the nomination.

Newt Gingrich's Challenge: Win the Debates

Last month, we took a look at how well Tim Pawlenty is employing his campaign strategy so far. Today, we will examine Newt Gingrich. 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.

Even before he entered the race, Gingrich had a lot of obstacles in his path to winning the nomination. He is seen by many as a man of the past. His efforts to reinvent himself by embracing the climate change issue alienated many conservatives. His history of adultery alienated others. And there isn't an early primary state that's exactly tailor-made for him. In fact, Gingrich's campaign doesn't seem to be sure whether he should place all of his chips on Iowa or on New Hampshire.

After getting into the race, Gingrich suffered from gaffes during a major interview, attempted to backpedal, went on vacation, and lost nearly his entire campaign staff to a mass resignation. The conventional wisdom is that Gingrich's campaign is DOA: Dead On Arrival. This view is reflected by his odds on Intrade. It's also reflected in both state primary polling and national primary polling, where he trails candidates with equal or lesser name recognition.

What can Gingrich do? He needs to win the debates.

Gingrich's one advantage is that he is more comfortable and well-trained in a televised debate setting than any other candidate. He showed this during the June 13th debate, even though it took place just days after his campaign staff quit and he was written off in the media.

The good news is that there will be about a dozen more primary debates before the Iowa Caucus. The bad news is that even if Gingrich gave the best debate performance of all the candidates each time, it would still not be enough. There are simply too many headwinds against Gingrich, and too many candidates sharing the stage. Even if Gingrich gave the best answers, other candidates would probably give pretty good answers, too.

Desperate times call for desperate measures. Gingrich needs to use the debates as an opportunity to go on the offensive. He must criticize his opponents, challenge them, and engage them in one-on-one confrontations during the debates. The debate formats usually aren't designed for this, especially in the early debates with many candidates, but debate moderators often allow it to take place anyway. They know it gets ratings.

Gingrich will need to put his faith entirely in his debating skills. The only way for him to win is for voters to think, "I like [Candidate X], but every time he got into an argument with Gingrich, Gingrich won."

It would be risky and a bit unorthodox. As we pointed out after the June 13th debate, early debates are civil, because there are risks associated with attacking other candidates. For Gingrich, however, the odds are stacked against him so heavily that it's more risky to take a traditional course. And there is no prize for second place. He must push all his chips into the middle of the table and hope for the best.