The July Campaign Dead Zone

As Phase Two of the Republican primary plods along, it's worth taking a look at the overall timeline of the 2012 nomination race. July has been relatively inactive, even compared to May and June, several months before many people take interest in the primary. The good news is that early primary polling has picked up significantly this month. This may reflect the fact that the field is mostly settled, and pollsters don't have to worry about candidates dropping out of the race. Or it could reflect an interest in Michele Bachmann's spike in popularity, as most of the new polls come out of Iowa.

At any rate, activity in the 2012 primary has likely reached its lowest point this month. For reasons that will become clear in the timeline below, more will happen in August. In September, Phase Three will begin and campaign activity will gradually increase until someone wins the nomination next year. If the candidates can consider what they're currently doing a vacation, this is it. July will be their last opportunity to breathe.

The following is a timeline of the "structured" events that have occurred and are scheduled to occur until the early primaries begin. It does not include major news events (such as gaffes during interviews).

April 2011
04/25 -- Haley Barbour declines to run

May 2011
05/05 -- Primary debate
05/11 -- Newt Gingrich enters the race
05/13 -- Ron Paul enters the race
05/14 -- Mike Huckabee declines to run
05/16 -- Donald Trump declines to run
05/21 -- Herman Cain enters the race
05/22 -- Mitch Daniels declines to run
05/23 -- Tim Pawlenty enters the race

June 2011
06/02 -- Mitt Romney enters the race
06/06 -- Rick Santorum enters the race
06/13 -- Primary debate
06/13 -- Michele Bachmann enters the race
06/21 -- Jon Huntsman, Jr. enters the race

July 2011
[none]

August 2011
08/?? -- Rick Perry enters the race(?)
08/11 -- Primary debate
08/13 -- Ames Straw Poll

September 2011
09/?? -- Sarah Palin declines to run(?)
09/?? -- Chris Christie enters the race(?)
09/07 -- Primary debate
09/12 -- Primary debate
09/22 -- Primary debate

October 2011
10/11 -- Primary debate
10/18 -- Primary debate

November 2011
[debates to be announced?]

December 2011
12/10 -- Primary debate
12/?? -- Candidates break for Christmas

January 2012
01/12 -- Primary debate
01/19 -- Primary debate
01/30 -- Primary debate

February 2012
02/06 -- Iowa Caucus
02/14 -- New Hampshire Primary
02/18 -- Nevada Caucus
02/?? -- Primary debate
02/?? -- Primary debate
02/?? -- South Carolina Primary

March 2012
03/05 -- Primary debate
03/06 -- Later Primaries/Caucuses begin

Why Is Newt Gingrich Doing So Badly in the Polls?

Gingrich

Of all the declared candidates with high name recognition--Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney--Gingrich has fared the worst in the polls. This is particularly true when you exclude Paul, who cannot win, from consideration. In the early state primary polls, Gingrich has struggled to even make fourth place. He has done even worse since Bachmann entered the race in mid-June.

Given the fact that Gingrich has such high name recognition, why is he doing so badly in the polls? After all, we know that early polling is often a function of name recognition, as most voters know next to nothing about the low-recognition candidates--if they've even heard of them. As we've detailed on a number of occasions, Gingrich stumbled out of the gate, and the media has generally written him off as a serious candidate. But there's more to it than that.

Although the name Gingrich is familiar to most voters, the Gingrich running for president in 2012 is not the same as the man who resigned in defeat in the late '90s. Nor is he the same Gingrich as the one who attempted to reach the middle and soften his partisan image with commercials where he sat on a couch with Nancy Pelosi and Al Sharpton. Gingrich faces a unique challenge: He must reinvent himself so that he is perceived differently by people who already know a fair bit about him.

Thus, Gingrich is probably more comparable to one of the candidates with low name recognition. Like them, he must introduce himself to the voters of early primary states. He must win them over in town hall meetings, speeches, and debate performances. That being the case, he is unlikely to rise in the polls until much later: Even early primary voters are not paying attention to the race during Phase Two of the primary. But if Gingrich does well enough in the many debates over the course of Phase Three, he will rise in the polls.

Gingrich's other issue is that none of the early primary states really suits him the way it may suit others. Gingrich is not a Tea Party candidate, or an establishment candidate, or even really a Southern candidate. Some feel he is too bitterly partisan, while many others think he is a RINO. Elephant Watcher believes that as long as a candidate faces serious questions about whether he is conservative enough to be a "true" Republican nominee, he's better off running in New Hampshire than Iowa or South Carolina. Thus, Gingrich must compete against Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman in New Hampshire. That's a tall order. Elephant Watcher calculates that Gingrich currently has a 2% chance of winning the nomination.

When Is Sarah Palin Considered Out of the Race?

Palin

As you have probably noticed over the past few weeks, the media and the pundits have shifted their attention away from Sarah Palin and toward Michele Bachmann. Partly this is due to the fact that most people no longer believe that Palin will run. Nevertheless, Palin has never made any public statements--not even in response to interviewer questions--indicating that she will not run. She has remained equivocal.

This represents a conundrum for voters, especially those who would prefer to support Palin but have a few other options (like Bachmann). It also offers some confusion to pollsters, who must decide whether or not to include Palin as an option. There is no consensus. You can see thise confusion reflected in the recent round-up of national polls and from the current early primary polls (which are being updated much more frequently now). Some pollsters are including Palin, and others aren't. Additionally, some pollsters are releasing multiple sets of polls, with Palin and without.

In nearly every case where Palin is included, Bachmann is now leading her. But once again, these results are influenced by the fact that voters prefer to support candidates whom they believe are actually running. Palin may not have said she isn't running, but she hasn't taken any steps that indicate she will run.

For the time being, Elephant Watcher is including Palin in the "potentially running" category, rather than the "declined to run" category. Why? Because Palin, while not in the race, still exerts some influence. Bachmann may lead Palin in the polls, but Palin still gets a fair amount of support in them. Were Palin to step aside officially, Bachmann (and Cain) might get a boost in support.

On the other hand, Palin is under no obligation to say that she isn't running. The speculation keeps Palin in the public eye, which she prefers, so it's likely she will not officially declare herself out of the race until the last moment.

Consequently, Elephant Watcher will place her in the "declined to run" category under the following conditions:
(1) Palin states that she will not run, or
(2) Palin does not enter the race by some point in September, after which it is too late to run.

Jon Huntsman Attacks Mitt Romney

The Jon Huntsman campaign has begun seriously criticizing its chief rival in New Hampshire, Mitt Romney. According to a CNN report, Huntsman has been making a number of attacks against Romney's economic record, especially as pertains to jobs. He hasn't shied away from tough rhetoric: A Huntsman spokesman said that Romney's job creation record is "abysmal by every standard."

Remarks like that from campaign spokesmen do not mean as much as something from the candidate himself. Typically, a spokesman is more willing to make a harsh criticism because the candidate himself can disavow it if it misfires. Campaign staffers may also disagree as to the intensity of attacks the campaign should be making--recall, for instance, the apparent turmoil in the Tim Pawlenty campaign about whether he should "go negative."

But Huntsman has been willing to shed a little of his diplomatic aura by attacking Romney himself, especially when prompted to do so by reporters. When asked whether he agreed with his spokesman's statement, Huntsman responded: "Forty-seventh is forty-seventh; first is first...Let the facts speak for themselves." It's not as intensely negative as Pawlenty's attacks against Bachmann, but tougher than anything we had seen from Huntsman before.

Elephant Watcher has observed that Huntsman may have mixed motives for running for president. Huntsman may be planning a run in 2016, or perhaps jockeying for a Secretary of State appointment. Huntsman's attacks against Romney are only consistent with a serious effort at winning the presidency this time around. Perhaps even more noteworthy is the fact that Huntsman focused on the economy--jobs, no less--which is obviously tailored for the current political environment. It will be interesting to see whether he returns to talking about his foreign policy experience, which would be more relevant for a Secretary of State position (or even a 2016 presidential run).

The true test will be at the next major primary debate, scheduled for mid-August. It will be the first debate attended by Huntsman, and he may even be asked about his criticisms of Romney. As we saw with Pawlenty at the previous debate, a candidate may back down in person if he's not fully committed to an offensive strategy. It doesn't make much sense to "go negative" early, but for Huntsman, New Hampshire is everything. Romney is really his only competitor there. If there were many candidates who could gain from Romney's downfall, Huntsman would be wise to sit back and build himself up, but an offensive strategy makes sense in New Hampshire.

What could account for this sudden change in Huntsman? Perhaps it is Michele Bachmann's rise in the polls, which has as much to do with Romney's vulnerability as it does with anything attractive about Bachmann. Huntsman may see Romney as less than invincible.

Who Would Rick Perry's Campaign Hurt?

With the Republican field almost finalized, campaign speculation continues to focus on whether or not Texas governor Rick Perry will run for president. Political commentators and sources close to Perry are increasingly confident that he will indeed enter the race, most likely in August. If Perry does run, from whom would he take votes? Which candidates would be hurt the most by his entry?

Perry's campaign strategy would consist of winning Iowa and South Carolina; he would leave Mitt Romney to win New Hampshire uncontested. He would hope to win the support of the Tea Party and appeal to the middle by casting himself as a conservative who has substance (with the implication being that Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain lack substance). Perry would also make a point of criticizing President Obama and the Democrats in tough, blunt language, and would emphasize his record as an economic conservative in Texas.

From that sketch, it's possible to derive the basics of how a Perry candidacy would affect the race. First, since Perry would be pursuing Tea Party support, it would hurt Tea Party candidates. Bachmann and Cain would be in Perry's crosshairs. Would they really lose support to Perry? Yes, quite a bit of support. History tells us that voters prefer governors as president; more importantly, they never support business candidates or House Reps. Cain and Bachmann would lose a lot of Tea Party voters who want someone with more credible experience. They'll also be looking for someone who has won a state-wide race. Also note that the Tea Party is already a bit split, and adding Perry into the mix would split it further. It would be unsurprising if only one of either Cain or Bachmann survived a few months after Perry's entry.

What about Tim Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota? He's essentially trying to do the same thing Perry would, arguing he's a conservative (Tea Partier) who has the credibility to get elected. Pawlenty has a better electability argument than Perry, since Perry's similarity to George W. Bush and talk of secession will leave many voters cold. But at the same time, there's a reason why the field has a vacuum in it: Pawlenty isn't perceived as tough enough. He's a consensus candidate, but he lacks charisma and the "toughness" that people temporarily appreciated about Donald Trump. Thus, Pawlenty would be weakened by Perry as well.

Which brings us to Chris Christie. Christie has the ability to unite the Tea Party and the Republican establishment, and would be better at appealing to the establishment than Perry. But Christie would also be seeking to fill the same "strong leader" and "tough talk" attributes that Perry exudes and Pawlenty lacks. Because of concerns about electability, Perry would not be able to fill the vacuum the same way Christie can. But Perry would at least reduce the size of the vacuum. Any candidate who can do that would harm Christie's chances.

As we saw with the Iowa Caucus winner scenarios, Romney is most afraid of a highly electable candidate emerging from Iowa. Pawlenty and Christie are both threatening to Romney. Perry harms Pawlenty and Christie while not harming Romney. Therefore, Perry's candidacy would benefit Romney. Perry might be able to defeat Romney down the road, but Romney could at least make an electability argument against Perry that he can't bring against Pawlenty or Christie.

On the other hand, Perry's candidacy would harm the chances of Bachmann and Cain, either of whom Romney would like to see win Iowa. But since Bachmann and Cain are less likely to win Iowa,
it's a net benefit for Romney. He would gladly watch Bachmann and Cain burn if it means weakening Christie or Pawlenty.

Why Is Michele Bachmann Unlikely to Win?

Bachmann

Although Michele Bachmann has gained in the polls, she has not gained much in the Elephant Watcher ranking of candidates. She is currently given only a 2% chance of winning the nomination. Why?

When Elephant Watcher began analyzing the 2012 Republican presidential primary, a similar post was needed to explain Donald Trump's low ranking. At the time, he was doing very well in the polls, too. Perhaps the best way to answer the Bachmann question is to thoroughly list the hurdles she must overcome before she can win the nomination.

1. Media Onslaught. Bachmann is despised by the media--on both the left and the right. For the moment, the media views her poll numbers as a symbol of the Republican field's weakness. But if she continues to post good numbers, they will consider her a more serious threat. Public curiosity about her well grow, and media scrutiny will intensify.

2. Name Recognition Advantage Fades. She may not be as famous as Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin, but Bachmann has a lot of name recognition. This accounts for a large portion of her polling. Consider: Other than Romney, the only candidates in the race with greater name recognition than Bachmann are Newt Gingrich (has a lot of baggage, suffered disastrous campaign setbacks, lacks a natural constituency) and Ron Paul (cannot win). Everyone else is essentially unknown. When early primary voters begin paying attention to the race, the name recognition advantage will fade, allowing candidates like Herman Cain and Tim Pawlenty to chew away at Bachmann's support.

3. New Candidates. If a candidate has both Tea Party support and is considered significantly more electable than Bachmann, that candidate will seriously threaten Bachmann. At the moment, the other Tea Party favorite is Cain, who is likewise considered unelectable. But if Rick Perry, Chris Christie, or both enter the race, Bachmann has a big problem on her hands.

4. Unforced Errors. It's a long time between now and the Iowa Caucus, which Bachmann must win. Every time Bachmann makes a gaffe, the media will endlessly replay it to build the narrative that Bachmann is unserious, weird, or cannot win. It's difficult enough for a disciplined candidate to avoid mistakes. Bachmann has a history of gaffes, and must avoid them from now on. Each error will be a high-profile one.

5. Frontrunner-itis. If Bachmann continues to do well, other candidates will begin to attack her. Bachmann is not the only candidate who needs a win in Iowa. The gloves will come off as the date of the Iowa Caucus approaches.

6. Electability Valued. As Iowa draws near, voters tend to coalesce around an electable candidate. The winners of the Iowa Caucus have been considered electable, and not always conservative. Even those who initially support a charismatic or exciting candidate often switch to a more sober choice at the last moment.

7. Strategic Voter Shock. If Bachmann does manage to win Iowa, it will create a panic among strategic voters (i.e. those who want an electable candidate, even if he's not the most conservative in the field). They will flock to whomever is leading in New Hampshire (most likely Romney), where he will have an anti-Bachmann firewall, even if they don't like him very much. Everyone who is afraid of giving away the 2012 general election will coalesce around the New Hampshire winner to defeat Bachmann. A grinding battle will ensue and last for the remainder of the primary season.

None of these difficulties are yet accounted for in the early polls. Thus, Bachmann's support is greatly exaggerated. Vaulting over the hurdles in front of Bachmann will be no easy feat.

Tim Pawlenty Attacks Michele Bachmann on Meet The Press

Tim Pawlenty had his first major Meet The Press interview of the campaign season this Sunday. Although these interviews tend to address a wide range of topics, usually only a few excerpts will make news. It can be treacherous territory. Recall that back in May, Newt Gingrich stumbled out of the gate by making serious gaffes during a Meet The Press interview.

This time, the big news is that Pawlenty issued a fairly strong attack against his rival, Michele Bachmann. Pawlenty's precise words were that "[Bachmann's] record of accomplishment in Congress is non-existent." Although candidates frequently can (and must) contrast their accomplishments with their opponents', Pawlenty's statement was rather categorical: Bachmann has achieved nothing.

Was Pawlenty wise to make such a strong attack against Bachmann?

We've observed in the past that Pawlenty's campaign has a split personality. Sometimes he is criticized for being too "Minnesota nice" and failing to take a stand. Other times he seems to go overboard with his attacks. This reflects the challenge of a consensus candidate strategy. His aim is to be the last man standing. He must allow his opponents to devour each other, while he stays out of harm's way. But it's very easy to become impatient. The consensus candidate strategy does not pay off until near the end of the game. Up until that point, such a candidate will appear to be making little progress.

It seems that Pawlenty's enduringly low poll numbers have spooked his campaign, and Pawlenty is trying to appear more tough. There's value in appearing tough, as (potential) candidates like Chris Christie, Donald Trump, and Rick Perry have demonstrated. But it can't be an act. It's not natural for Pawlenty, and voters will see through it.

The more fundamental problem with Pawlenty's approach is that a candidate cannot build himself up by tearing others down--not when there are so many candidates in the field. Even if he did hurt Bachmann, the benefit would not necessarily go to him. In fact, "going negative" early will leave voters with a bad feeling about Pawlenty.

True, Pawlenty is competing for many of the same people who currently support Bachmann (at least in the polls). But that's all the more reason not to alienate those voters. It's a good idea for Pawlenty to show off his own accomplishments. That's a far cry from writing Bachmann off as "nonexistent" in Congress, however. Many of Bachmann's early supporters will likely find their way into the camps of other candidates later on. They may even eventually buy into the idea that Bachmann doesn't have a record of legislative accomplishments. Unfortunately for Pawlenty, they won't join his camp if they remember him as the guy who attacked Bachmann.

Should Rick Perry Attack George W. Bush?

Perry

As speculation grows about a presidential run by Texas governor Rick Perry, rumors have also arisen about a rift between Perry and George W. Bush. Perry has occasionally suggested that Bush was not a true fiscal conservative. Bush's inner circle is annoyed with Perry and believes it would only harm Perry to put distance between himself and Bush. Supposing Perry does run for president, would he be wise to criticize Bush, or should he try appealing to Bush supporters instead?

There are a number of reasons why Perry might want to attack Bush. First, Perry's greatest weakness is the fact that he resembles the unpopular former president: They were governors of the same state, Perry was appointed by Bush, and even their styles of speaking are similar. Many Republican voters are unreceptive by the idea of nominating another Texas governor. Other Republicans are more favorable to Perry, but fear that a Texas governor would not be electable in 2012. By attacking Bush, Perry might hope to draw a contrast, and distinguish himself from Bush. He knows that he must create his own identity, for he cannot win as a Bush clone.

Second, many in the Tea Party did see Bush (and his Republican Congress) as unfaithful to conservative principles. They feel Bush did not do enough to reign in government spending, and they were disturbed by various other Bush policies, such as the TARP bailout and Bush's proposed immigration reform. Perry could appeal to Tea Partiers by casting himself as a genuine conservative, and he cannot maintain conservative authenticity if he avoids criticizing Bush's policies.

What about the potential drawbacks to attacking Bush? Wouldn't he lose support among a vital constituency? After all, wouldn't Perry need all of the Bush supporters from Texas in his coalition?

Not really. Perry lost favor among Bush's inner circle years ago. The Bush crowd even attempted to end Perry's political career by supporting a Republican challenger (U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison) when Perry ran for reelection as Texas governor in 2010. Hutchison was highly favored in early polling and she became confident she would defeat Perry. As a result, she announced that she would resign her U.S. Senate seat prior to the gubernatorial election. Perry quickly announced that he would appoint Tea Party favorite Michael Williams as her replacement. (As governor, it would be Perry's job to appoint someone to fill the vacancy.) Williams would have been the only black U.S. Senator. However, Hutchison decided to renege on her pledge and remained in her seat. Perry dialed up his rhetoric and continued taking measures to appeal to the Tea Party crowd. When the Republican primary day arrived, Perry easily defeated Hutchison and was reelected.

Thus, not only did Perry win in Texas without Bush's supporters, but he won with them actively campaigning against him. If Perry ran, it's doubtful that Bush's inner circle would support him anyway; they are more likely to affiliate themselves with an establishment candidate like Mitt Romney.

Bush's supporters would be even less influential in states like Iowa and South Carolina than they are in Texas. Those early primary states are the ones that will decide Perry's fate. If he can win Tea Party support in those early contests by attacking Bush, he would be wise to do so.

Elephant Watcher Q&A, Part II

It's time for another round of Q&A with Elephant Watcher, to address some of the more commonly asked questions sent in by readers from around the world. For previous Q&A, see the following: Part I.

Q: Why isn't Gary Johnson (the former governor of New Mexico) included in the roster of candidates? He's in the race and has attended a primary debate.

In Part I, we addressed a similar set of questions about candidates like Allen West and Michele Bachmann (who was not yet in the race). The field of candidates is wide. Just as with the primary debates, the line has to be drawn somewhere. Candidates like Johnson or U.S. Congressman from Michigan Thaddeus McCotter do have more credentials than the "joke" perennial candidates who have never held office. If a candidate or potential candidate can have some impact on the race, Elephant Watcher is inclined to include him. Johnson attended the first debate, but it does not appear likely that he will be included in any future debates. Johnson is also rendered moot by the candidacy of fellow libertarian Ron Paul, who also has a 0% chance of winning the nomination but who has much higher poll numbers and will attend most of the debates.

The media pays no attention to Johnson because they do not believe his candidacy is viable. It may be unfair that Johnson will fade into obscurity, especially when the media's lack of attention to him makes that sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. But Johnson did have ample opportunity to make his case at the May 5th primary debate, and he failed. By contrast, Herman Cain succeeded.

Q: How can Tim Pawlenty have a better chance of winning the nomination than someone like Mitt Romney or Michele Bachmann? His poll numbers are consistently bad.

While we are still in Phase Two of the primary, poll numbers are less useful in predicting the outcome of the race. Candidates with little charisma or name recognition are unable to gain in the polls because few people--even in early primary states--are paying any attention to the race. Even Mike Huckabee, with his considerable rhetorical skills, was polling at about 0% at this time in the last presidential primary.

Instead, it is more useful to look at candidates' attributes and where they fit into the field of candidates. For detailed information of this kind about each of the candidates, see the Profiles page. A candidate like Bachmann or Romney will benefit from high name recognition in the early polls, but name recognition means less as time goes by. Early primary voters will inspect each candidate to find one who is perceived as very conservative and very electable. Voters currently have serious questions about Romney's conservatism, and they do not believe Bachmann can win the presidency. Those candidates will need to fix those problems to boost their chances of winning the nomination.

Meanwhile, Pawlenty's biggest perceived weakness is that he is a boring speaker. Judging by the most recent winners of the Republican presidential nomination (John McCain, George W. Bush, Bob Dole, and George H.W. Bush), this is not as big an obstacle.

Who Will Win the South Carolina Primary in 2012?

In previous posts we examined the possible winners of the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire Primary. Today, we will look at the primary that has been won by the eventual Republican presidential nominee in every election since 1980: South Carolina.

South Carolina has a reputation for being receptive to conservative candidates, particularly socially conservative ones. Today, the struggle in the Republican Party is between those who align with the Tea Party movement, and those whom the Tea Party members label "RINOs." South Carolina would not seem like a great place to campaign if you're a moderate, establishment Republican. But as we saw in the history of both Iowa and New Hampshire, South Carolina frequently votes for such candidates.

The following is a list of the winners of the South Carolina Primary since it began in 1980. (Years with incumbent presidents have been excluded, since the incumbent president won each time almost automatically.)

South Carolina
1980 -- Ronald Reagan
1988 -- George Bush, Sr.
1996 -- Bob Dole
2000 -- George W. Bush
2008 -- John McCain

Unlike Iowa and New Hampshire, South Carolina is heavily influenced by who wins earlier contests. This means that it's not just South Carolina whose preferences matter, but also Iowa's and New Hampshire's. Winning one of the earlier contests will give a candidate a big boost, and failing to win either will diminish a candidate. It should be said that in 2008, McCain only barely defeated Huckabee. But Huckabee and McCain had both won a contest before South Carolina.

Where does that leave South Carolina? Early polling is even less help here. There have been few South Carolina polls so far; only one has been taken since Mike Huckabee left the race. None have been taken since Michele Bachmann entered the race. Even worse, no South Carolina poll can take into account the effect of the results of the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary.

Still, we can at least set forth some basic scenarios, as with did with the other early contests.

Scenario #1: United Party. A candidate emerges who can unite both the Tea Party and establishment wings of the Republican Party.

As before, this is the Chris Christie scenario. If he wins Iowa and either wins or does well in New Hampshire, he will easily go on to win South Carolina and the Republican nomination.

Scenario #2: Frontrunner Wins. Mitt Romney has the campaign infrastructure built up sufficiently to compete everywhere, and no one is able to knock him down.

If Romney wins Iowa and New Hampshire, he will win South Carolina. Though South Carolinians may not like him very much, it will be almost impossible for an anti-Romney candidate to lose Iowa and come back to win South Carolina.

Scenario #3: Electable Anti-Romney. A highly electable candidate who is perceived as being to the right of Romney wins Iowa, but doesn't do as well in New Hampshire.

If the winner of Iowa is perceived as being just as electable as Romney, but more conservative than him, then that candidate is likely to win South Carolina. Tim Pawlenty is the candidate most likely to fit this description (putting aside Christie, of the "United Party" scenario).

Scenario #4: Moderately Electable Anti-Romney. A candidate to the right of Romney wins Iowa, but there is some real doubt as to whether he will be able to defeat President Obama in the general election. Then Romney wins New Hampshire.

If Rick Perry enters the race, then this scenario is made for him. If it occurs, Perry will argue that he's the man with the true conservative credentials. Romney will argue that he's the more electable one. It will be an interesting test. Perry may be able to squeeze out a win, since South Carolina is more favorable turf for him. Then Romney will spin that he did "better than expected" in the Southern state.

Scenario #5: Unelectable Anti-Romney. A Tea Partier with little chance of winning the general election manages to win in Iowa, while Romney wins New Hampshire.

This would be Bachmann's or Herman Cain's scenario. Romney hopes that voters will put a high premium on electability. As history has shown, voters tend to do this. It's possible that an insurgent Tea Partier will win anyway, and again Romney will attempt to spin the results.