Primary Debate Tomorrow in Ames Iowa

Fox News is hosting a primary debate in Ames, Iowa tomorrow evening. This time around, eight candidates will participate (the eight "officially running" candidates listed on the Campaign Status page): Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Huntsman, Paul, Pawlenty, Romney, and Santorum. Each of these candidates have attended at least one previous debate, except for Jon Huntsman. The former governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson, was not invited to attend; he may well find himself excluded from the remaining debates.

Since this is Huntsman's first debate appearance, it will give him an opportunity to make a good--or bad--first impression. First impressions in debates can be useful; Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain each boosted their visibility and popularity following their initial debate performances. Most people have never seen or heard Huntsman, so he will have the task of introducing himself to the public on a solid footing. But it may be difficult for him to get attention, given how many players are on the stage.

Tomorrow's debate will be at an awkward time in the race: Most watchers' eyes are on Rick Perry, who is poised to enter the race. But as Elephant Watcher predicted back in June, Perry will enter the race immediately after the debate and the Ames straw poll, in order to blunt their impact. Thus, Perry will be on everyone's mind, but he won't be present. This may give the impression that the debate (and Ames straw poll) are sort of a waste of time.

There are a few things to watch for, however. Tim Pawlenty's criticism of Bachmann in recent weeks may encourage the debate moderators to stoke a fight between the two. Sarah Palin appears to have dropped off the radar entirely, so a new "feud" will need to be developed. Pawlenty is in a difficult position: He stands to lose much and gain little by attacking Bachmann, but because he refused to attack Mitt Romney during the June debate, he will be tagged as a timid candidate if he runs from another fight.

Meanwhile, both Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain will need to make full use of their debate platforms to re-energize their campaigns and get media attention. Otherwise, they'll descend from the field of view. Romney, on the other hand, will attempt to stay above the fray. The big question for Romney will be whether he is forced to address the Romneycare issue more fully, or if he gets another pass.

2012 Republican Primary in Review: July 2011

The Elephant Watcher News archive for the month of July, 2011.

In July, the contest for the Republican nomination for president entered the dead zone, a period of relative inactivity. No candidates joined or departed during the month. Nor were there any debates or (obviously) contests.

Nevertheless, there were a few important developments that took place during in the July doldrums. Michele Bachmann surged in the polls, particularly in Iowa. There was increased polling of the early primary states in early-to-mid-July. That polling suggested Bachmann was in first in Iowa, and second place (to Mitt Romney) elsewhere.

The polling came to a halt in mid-July, however. Bachmann got increased visibility and media attention, but she was not able to establish herself as a credible, electable candidate. Nor was she able to do anything to ward off the increasing threat of a Rick Perry candidacy, which would surely encroach upon her Tea Party support.

The other important development was, of course, Perry. Though he made no official announcement entering the race, it became increasingly clear that he intends to run. Taking advantage of the Republican voters' desire for someone to fill the void, Perry gained support under the radar. On the Intrade markets, he entered direct competition with Romney for frontrunner status, while Bachmann's numbers waned.

Meanwhile, other candidates attempted to get some attention, but they could not. Without any debates to appear at, and with voting day so far away, few in the country paid much attention to the Republican primary.

Despite increased focus on the possibility of a Perry run, no one was able to challenge Chris Christie's status as the one potential candidate who can unite the Republican establishment and Tea Party. The only obstacle in Christie's path is the question of whether he will actually enter the race. Across July, Elephant Watcher's calculation of the odds was unchanged: Christie maintained a huge lead with a 66% chance of winning the nomination.

Intrade Odds: Rick Perry Soars, Michele Bachmann Past Her Peak?

In the weeks since our last visit to the Intrade market on the 2012 Republican nomination, the race has taken a new shape. According to Intrade's investors, the primary has become something of a two-man race: Mitt Romney versus Rick Perry.

Romney is still in the lead with 33.7%. But he's only just ahead of his nearest competitor now: Perry has jumped up to 28.5%. Previously, Romney had enjoyed a very comfortable lead; now, it's a race. The odds have been influenced by continued reports from Texas that Perry does intend to run for president. If and when he does officially get into the race, it's likely that Perry will increases his chances even more.

The other shift in the dynamic is how Intrade investors view Michele Bachmann. A few weeks ago, she peaked at over 18% and was tied for second with Perry. Now, her odds have shrunk to 9.1%. A couple things have happened. First, negative press about Bachmann has diminished the perception that she is a credible candidate. Second, the character of the average Intrade investor has reasserted itself. Intrade investors tend to reflect the conventional wisdom of the Washington establishment. They may hope someone as unelectable as Bachmann wins the nomination (to help the Democratic Party's chances of retaining control of the presidency). But they tend to have a bias in favor of traditional, establishment candidates.

Thus, Bachmann--even in spite of her polling of late--has fallen to a second-tier, which she shares with Tim Pawlenty and even Jon Huntsman, who are at 6.0% and 8.0%, respectively. Intrade investors are more likely to think of Perry, a three-term governor of a major state, as a real contender. The Intrade market for the Iowa Caucus reflects the change: Bachmann still has decent odds at 41.0%, but Perry has more than doubled his previous odds to 30.0%.

Though the wisdom of the Intrade investors is easy to critique, they must be given credit for doing more than simply looking at the recent poll numbers. They correctly perceive the potential in Perry, and they show signs of understanding Bachmann's challenges.

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.