2012 Republican Primary in Review: October 2011

Each month, Elephant Watcher recaps the activity that occurred in the Republican primary during the previous month. Follow these links to read earlier recaps: May, June, July, August, September.

Some very important developments took place at the very beginning of October. First, the field became completely settled as the remaining potential candidates announced they would not run: Chris Christie on October 4th and Sarah Palin on the 5th. Second, the Republican Party in Florida broke the national Republican Party's rules by pushing its primary up to January 31st. This caused all of the early primary states to push their dates forward as well. The result was that an entire month of the pre-Iowa primary season was eliminated. Instead of October opening with four months until Iowa, it was down to three.

The most important development that took place at the beginning of the month was that Christie officially declared he would not run. This shifted the entire balance of the race. Christie was the candidate most likely to win, since he had the unique ability to attract both establishment Republicans and Tea Partiers. Rather than entering the race and filling the vacuum, Christie's refusal to run made the void permanent: Republicans would never be satisfied with the field for 2012. Instead, they would search for the "least bad option."

But Christie was also the final obstacle in Mitt Romney's path to win the nomination. Mike Huckabee promised a populist, Southern, Evangelical alternative to Romney, but he did not run. Mitch Daniels and Tim Pawlenty both had the ability to serve as conservative "consensus candidates" who could satisfy (if not excite) both wings of the Republican Party. Daniels didn't run, and Pawlenty left the race prematurely. With Christie out, there were no longer any highly electable candidates in the race besides Romney (and Jon Huntsman, perpetually left in Romney's shadow).

With Romney a lock to win New Hampshire and the establishment wing of the Party, and with the rest of the field either unelectable or lacking conservative credentials of their own, Romney was set to win by default. On October 5th, Elephant Watcher was able to project that Mitt Romney would win the Republican 2012 presidential nomination.

The rest of October was marked by the continued slide of Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann, and the rise of Herman Cain. Perry, who had led the polls just a month earlier, sunk to fourth, fifth, and even sixth place in Iowa polls. Bachmann, who led during the summer, was essentially tied with Perry in single-digits in the state. But Cain rose to the top of both the Iowa polls and national primary polls.

Perry and Bachmann's crash also created an opening for Romney, who led or tied with Cain in later Iowa polls. Before October, Romney placed all of his resources in New Hampshire. Now, Romney's 2008 dream of a knocking out his competitors with a one-two punch in Iowa and New Hampshire looks like a realistic possibility--perhaps even a probability.

The two debates in October cemented Bachmann and Perry's status as second-tier candidates. Cain and Romney were resilient. But by the end of October, Cain was beginning to show signs of weakness. Unlike Romney and the previously-crashed candidates, Cain had never been challenged or vetted in any way. Under heavier scrutiny, Cain made a series of low-impact gaffes. His "9-9-9" tax plan became less popular the more people looked into it, prompting Cain to rethink the idea. And as October came to a close, a sexual harassment scandal from Cain's past came to light, with inconclusive results. Anti-Romney voters already cast about once more for alternatives, like Newt Gingrich, who was rising but still low in the polls.

In summary, October was the month in which Romney--lucky so far--saw his path to the nomination open completely. Since voters will become even more focused on electability as Iowa approaches, and since there are no conservative alternatives who are highly electable, Romney has likely triumphed. The nomination is his to lose. Elephant Watcher calculates that Romney's odds of winning the Republican nomination are currently 65%.

Who Will Win the Iowa Caucus in 2012?

Back in June, we considered the question of who will win the Iowa Caucus in 2012 by taking a look at the different scenarios that could take place. Much has changed in the last four months. Chris Christie's decision not to run means the "united party" scenario cannot play out: No candidate remains who can unite both wings of the Republican Party. Likewise, the "consensus candidate" scenario cannot occur, since Tim Pawlenty dropped out of the race: There is no establishment candidate who is inoffensive to the Tea Party. The removal of these two scenarios from the political chessboard has greatly enhanced the likelihood that Mitt Romney will win the nomination, since those were the scenarios he feared the most.

Meanwhile, the "moderately electable Tea Partier" scenario is less likely to occur, since Rick Perry's campaign has crashed. The future may allow Rick Santorum to step up and fill Perry's shoes, but he is currently nowhere in the polls. The two remaining scenarios are that Romney wins Iowa, or that an unelectable Tea Partier wins Iowa. In either case, Romney is the favorite to win the nomination.

Here is where the candidates currently stand in Iowa:

Iowa Caucus
10/26 Des Moines Reg -- Cain 23, Romney 22, Paul 12, Bachmann 8
10/25 CNN/Time -- Romney 24, Cain 21, Paul 12, Gingrich 10
10/19 Hawkeye/UIowa --Cain 37, Romney 27, Paul 11, Gingrich 8
10/19 Rasmussen -- Cain 28, Romney 21, Paul 10, Gingrich 9
10/16 Insider Adv -- Cain 26, Romney 18, Gingrich 12, Bachmann 11

Additional Iowa polling in the future may help us determine whether Herman Cain's lead over Romney has indeed disappeared, as the two most recent polls suggest. Until then, we may assume the following basic facts, which are present in each poll: Cain and Romney are leading in Iowa. Between the two of them, it's a close race. They are far ahead of the rest of the candidates, who are polling about 10% or less. Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich are probably at the front of the second-tier, with Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry not far behind.

Cain is the current Anti-Romney-in-Chief, but there are factors holding him back. The Tea Party vote is split. Romney remains within striking distance of winning Iowa. History suggests that voters will move in Romney's direction as voting day approaches, since primary voters--including those in Iowa--prefer to vote for electable candidates. If the past debates are any indication, Romney will benefit from additional debates in November and December.

In conclusion, Romney should probably be considered the favorite to win Iowa at the moment. He is a weak frontrunner, but Cain is a very weak alternative. The Anti-Romney vote may coalesce around someone, but Romney has advantages of his own. Romney should be happy with the situation in Iowa at the moment. A resurgent Perry or an ascendant Santorum would be the biggest threats to his winning the nomination, and neither is polling well.

How Did Michele Bachmann's Campaign Collapse?

Bachmann

In a recent post, we considered Rick Perry's terrible poll numbers: Perry is in third, fourth, or fifth even in his strongest states, and he has failed to take second in any recent poll. If Perry's numbers are terrible, then Michele Bachmann's are abysmal. Bachmann is currently in sixth in many polls. Even in her one "good" state--Iowa, where she has pinned all her hopes--she is in fifth. She has only managed to get to fourth place in one recent Iowa poll.

That's quite a collapse for Bachmann. During the summer, she was in first place in most Iowa polls. After Perry entered the race, she was still running second for a few weeks. Elephant Watcher has always voiced skepticism concerning Bachmann's campaign: She has never been given above a three percent chance of winning the nomination, and she is currently rated at 1%. Still, what happened to Bachmann?

Bachmann's central liability is the fact that she is considered unelectable. She has never won state-wide office and is prone to gaffes. Her reputation among independent voters is that of an extremist or a laughing stock. Her central asset is the purity of her conservative record. As for rhetorical skill, she is weak. What this adds up to is a candidate who can be easily cast aside and replaced if another conservative comes along who is either electable or rhetorically gifted.

Perry greatly assisted in the downfall of Bachmann. Before the attacks on his conservative credentials began in the September debates, he was viewed as an electable alternative to Bachmann. As soon as Perry entered the race in August, Bachmann's supporters immediately jumped ship. During September, Perry began to fall due to attacks against his conservatism and electability. But the former Bachmann supporters didn't jump back. By that point, their attention was already shifting to Herman Cain.

Cain, like Bachmann, is considered unelectable. But unlike Bachmann, Cain possesses charisma. Among the original Bachmann supporters, some wanted a more electable candidate, and they went to Perry. The rest, who demanded ideological purity, went to Cain. Since no one had yet attacked Cain's conservatism, voters assumed Cain was simply a charismatic version of Bachmann.

Meanwhile, perhaps a slice of Bachmann's former support went over to Newt Gingrich. Since he is neither viewed as ideologically pure or highly electable, we might suppose that he simply represents another "not Mitt Romney" figure. At the same time, voters experiencing an early "strategic shift" (putting the desire to defeat Barack Obama above all else) went to Mitt Romney.

If you want someone ideologically pure, you go to charismatic Cain (until someone attacks his conservatism, that is). If you want someone mostly conservative with more credentials than Bachmann, you go to Perry. If you want someone who can beat Obama, you go to Romney. If you're too disgusted by Romney's flip-flops to go to him (yet), you go to Gingrich. Bachmann has thus been squeezed out entirely.

More Debates to Be Scheduled: Who Benefits?

Originally, the first contest in the 2012 Republican presidential primary--the Iowa Caucus--was scheduled to take place in early February 2012. In advance of Iowa, there were to be three debates held in January, two in December, and one in November. But the Florida Primary moved its own date up to January 31, forcing the other early states to move a month early. Now the sponsors of the debates originally scheduled for January are moving the debates up, too. In addition, good ratings for the most recent Republican primary debates have prompted debate sponsors (like CNN and Fox News) to schedule additional debates.

Now, instead of one debate in November, there may be as many as three; in December, there may be as many as five primary debates; in January, prior to the Florida Primary, there could be as many as six more. Which candidates benefit from all of these additional debates?

As a general rule, candidates who are behind in the polls want there to be as many debates as possible. Each debate represents an opportunity to shake things up. If you're behind, debates allow you to change that. Ordinarily, a candidate who is in the lead would rather there be fewer debates so that the status quo is less likely to be disturbed. Also, minor candidates--who have few resources--prefer as many debates as possible, since they are opportunities to get free TV time and to be taken seriously.

Mitt Romney is considered by most observers, including Elephant Watcher, to be the frontrunner in this race. Based upon the principles described above, wouldn't Romney have the most to lose by the scheduling of all these new debates? Not necessarily. One obvious principle not included in the preceding paragraph is the that candidates who are skilled debaters welcome the debates. Though Romney lacks charisma, and though he has occasionally been rattled by attacks at the debates, he has proven to be a skilled debater. The results speak for themselves: Before the September debates, he was polling behind, and now he's the frontrunner. If Romney can continue to deliver better debate performances than his foes--especially Rick Perry--then he is almost guaranteed the nomination.

Perry has proven to be the worst of the debaters. Again, the "before and after" picture of the polls speaks for itself. Yet if Perry can improve, the additional debates provide him additional opportunities to recover. His poll numbers at the moment are terrible. If Perry is at least mediocre in the future debates, the memory of his truly disastrous debate performances will fade. But if Perry is unable to articulate his thoughts in future debates, they will obliterate him.

Herman Cain is an interesting case. His entire campaign relied upon the debates, since he had no resources (and apparently little interest in running a conventional campaign). Yet he has peaked too soon. If he continues to poll well, the debates will simply provide an opportunity for him to be grilled by his opponents (and the debate moderators). He is good when speaking from his own turf, but otherwise he falls apart.

Newt Gingrich is often considered the best debater in the group. He usually gets a lot of applause at debates, and his poll numbers have risen a bit. In reality, however, Gingrich has done little debating at the debates. He has tended not to attack or argue with his opponents, preferring instead to go for the easy applause line. Thus, Gingrich is somewhat untested. If Gingrich is as good at debates as advertised, and if he were to engage his opponents, the extra debates will be a boon to Gingrich. A word of caution: Gingrich has not yet been attacked by his opponents.

The remaining minor candidates have benefited little from the debates thus far. If Cain crashes early enough, the Tea Party will be in the market for a new favorite. This will open up an opportunity for Rick Santorum to move up in the polls based on his debate performances. If something unexpected happens and Romney becomes vulnerable, perhaps Jon Huntsman will have an opportunity of his own. Meanwhile, Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul have little hope.

Rick Perry's Terrible Poll Numbers

On paper, Rick Perry has the potential to be a strong candidate in the race for the Republican 2012 presidential nomination: He is currently in office, he has been governor of the largest red state for the last ten years, there is a record of strong job growth in his state, he has a history of winning state-wide elections, he has a lot of financial backing from powerful Republican fundraisers, he is willing to "talk tough" against the Democrats, and he is generally considered to be a conservative.

Perry's "on-paper" credentials catapulted him to the front of the pack, but he has since collapsed. By showing his inability to debate and by making controversial attacks against social security, his perceived electability fell. By appearing soft on illegal immigration and attempting to force the HPV vaccine, his perceived conservatism fell.

Being undermined on both electability and conservatism is a deadly combination. Today's poll round-up will focus on just how far Perry has fallen. The following national and early state polls were conducted within the last two weeks. Perry's rank will be bolded on each poll.

National Primary Polls
10/17 Associated Press -- Romney 30, Cain 26, Perry 13, Paul 8
10/16 CNN/Opinion Research -- Romney 26, Cain 25, Perry 13, Paul 9
10/12 Rasmussen -- Romney 29, Cain 29, Gingrich 10, Perry 9
10/10 PPP (D) -- Cain 30, Romney 22, Gingrich 15, Perry 14
10/10 NBC/WSJ -- Cain 27, Romney 23, Perry 16, Paul 11
10/10 Reuters/Ipsos -- Romney 23, Cain 19, Paul 13, Perry 10

Iowa Caucus
10/19 Hawkeye/UIowa --Cain 37, Romney 27, Paul 11, Gingrich 8 (5th)
10/19 Rasmussen -- Cain 28, Romney 21, Paul 10, Gingrich 9 (5th)
10/16 Insider Adv -- Cain 26, Romney 18, Gingrich 12, Bachmann 11 (5th)
10/10 PPP (D) -- Cain 30, Romney 22, Paul 10, Perry 9

New Hampshire Primary
10/16 Insider Adv -- Romney 39, Cain 24, Paul 11, Huntsman 5 (5th)
10/13 Magellan (R) -- Romney 41, Cain 20, Paul 10, Huntsman 6 (5th)

South Carolina Primary
10/16 Insider Adv -- Cain 32, Romney 16, Perry 12, Gingrich 8
10/13 NBC/Marist -- Cain 31, Romney 28, Perry 10, Gingrich 7
10/10 ARG -- Cain 26, Romney 25, Perry 15, Gingrich 8

Florida Primary
10/16 Insider Adv -- Romney 33, Cain 30, Gingrich 12, Perry 3
10/12 NBC/Marist -- Romney 33, Cain 32, Perry 9, Gingrich 6
10/12 ARG -- Cain 34, Romney 28, Gingrich 11, Perry 5

These polls indicate that Perry is actually weakest in the earliest states; his national numbers are weak, but stronger than his Iowa and New Hampshire numbers. Were Perry to lose in Iowa and be crushed in New Hampshire, as the current polls suggest he would be, Perry would fall further behind in South Carolina and Florida. Perry has a long way to climb back, and he will need to get past Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich to do it. So far he has exhibited no inclination to do anything beyond attacking Mitt Romney.

Will Mitt Romney Shift Resources to Iowa?

According to the latest reporting, Mitt Romney has finally begun to make appearances in Iowa, and he may be shifting resources there (e.g. hiring staff, buying TV time on Iowan stations, etc.). What does this say about the state of the 2012 Republican presidential primary, and what are the implications if Romney does focus more on Iowa?

From the beginning of the primary season, the early contests have been divided into two groups: Those perceived to be in Tea Party favorite states, and those in establishment states. Iowa represented the best hope for (potential) candidates like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry, while New Hampshire would be won by an establishment candidate such as Romney or Chris Christie. As many of the establishment-friendly personalities dropped out of the race, New Hampshire became a stronghold for Romney. Meanwhile, Iowa became split among various Tea Party favorites--and Romney.

As Iowa polls have shown different frontrunners in that state each month, Romney has managed to hold onto a core group of voters. This has usually kept him in second place, though when Tea Party flavors-of-the-month crashed, Romney occasionally polled first. Meanwhile, Romney has enjoyed a commanding lead over all opponents in every New Hampshire poll taken this year.

In 2008, Romney learned that taking second place counts for little if you can't take first in one of the early contests. As a result, Romney has poured all of his resources into New Hampshire, guaranteeing him a win. He has avoided putting too much into Iowa, where he lost in 2008. Yet the prospect of winning Iowa must be tempting, since a Romney win in Iowa would guarantee him a swift nomination victory. If Romney has already guaranteed himself a win in New Hampshire, he has a free hand to move resources into Iowa. Over time, it will become more and more tempting.

Judging from the polls, Romney is always within striking distance of winning Iowa. If he puts resources into the state, he may increase in the polls. If he continues winning debates, he will rise even more. And in the weeks before votes are cast, a "strategic shift" will take place, with voters switching their support toward candidates they perceive as best able to defeat Barack Obama--in other words, a pro-Romney shift.

On the other hand, Romney has fared well in the Iowa polls partly due to the split among the different anti-Romney candidates. As voting day approaches, voters also shift in favor of the leading contenders. When the anti-Romney vote coalesces, it may become much more difficult for Romney to take first. If they remain divided, it will be easier. In either case, much will depend on just how effective Romney's resources are, once they are employed.

Will Newt Gingrich Be the Next Flavor of the Month?

Gingrich

From the beginning of the primary season, Mitt Romney has been the default "next in line" choice for the Republican Party. Because of Romney's flaws, the Party has been searching for an alternative. The reason why the Party--particularly those in the Tea Party who feel Romney is too liberal--has jumped from one candidate to the next is that there is no proper alternative to Romney. Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, Mitch Daniels, and Tim Pawlenty could have been alternatives, but they are not running. Republican primary voters have gone from one flavor of the month to next, causing a spike in various candidates' poll numbers, only to watch them crash when they discover that candidate's flaws. First it was Herman Cain, then Michele Bachmann, then Rick Perry, then Herman Cain again (since few people were paying attention to the race when Cain was first popular).

As Elephant Watcher explained prior to this week's debate, Herman Cain is unlikely to win. He is simply too prone to gaffes, and he provides his opponents with plenty of ammunition to use against him. Cain's poll numbers are likely to drop within the next few weeks as Cain's negatives become more clear. This presents the Tea Party wing with the same old problem: Where do their votes go now?

Since they have already considered and dismissed Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, they may try Newt Gingrich next. Despite Gingrich's high name recognition, he has long been under-performing in the polls. Three months ago, we considered the question of why Newt Gingrich's poll numbers are so low. At that time, Elephant Watcher correctly predicted that Gingrich's numbers would begin to rise in September. The debates allowed Gingrich to reintroduce himself to voters, and his numbers have risen, especially in Florida primary polls and national primary polls.

However, Gingrich is unlikely to succeed. He already suffers from the same problem of a "two-front war" that Elephant Watcher correctly predicted would damage Rick Perry in August. The problem is this: Republicans want a candidate who is electable and conservative. They may forgive a candidate for being an unreliable conservative if he is electable. They may even forgive him for lacking electability to a degree if he is conservative. But they will not choose a candidate if they doubt both his electability and conservatism.

The Tea Party dismissed Gingrich early on because of his image as an unreliable conservative, an impression captured best in a commercial he did in which he sat next to Nancy Pelosi on a couch. Though Gingrich is good at debates, the doubts about his ideological purity remain, just as they do for Romney. Gingrich also suffers from concerns about his electability. He has immense personal baggage and political baggage. Match-up polls of Gingrich vs. Obama tend to have Barack Obama winning by double-digits.

The dilemma is that a voter willing to compromise on conservatism will support an electable candidate like Romney, and a voter who only cares about ideological purity will support someone like Bachmann (or maybe Perry or Cain). This leaves Gingrich without a solid base.

Who Won the Republican Debate on October 18th?

Tonight's debate will likely reinforce Mitt Romney's status as the frontrunner in the 2012 Republican presidential primary. His closest competitor in the current polls, Herman Cain, was under heavy fire for his "9-9-9" tax plan. Being attacked for the first time, Cain seemed to lose his spark of charisma during the debate. Rick Perry continues to have difficulty articulating his thoughts, and he unwisely engaged in petty personal attacks against Romney. As Elephant Watcher observed yesterday, Perry should be focusing on his real competitor in Iowa and South Carolina: Herman Cain. Perry did himself no favors. Although Romney showed real annoyance (with Perry) for the first time, and although Romney took some heat, he generally remained calm and in control. If Republican voters want to choose the most "presidential" candidate, they will have no other choice than Romney.

The debate opened by asking every candidate to explain what they did not like about Herman Cain's "9-9-9" tax plan. The response was a difficult test for Cain: Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and even Rick Perry, Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney attacked his plan. Clearly they all view Cain as a larger threat, thanks to Cain's performance in recent polls. Cain attempted to address their concerns (about the national sales tax component of the plan), but was overwhelmed. The candidates did damage to Cain right out of the gate.

Next, for the seventh time, Romney was attacked on Romneycare. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich brought some new attacks against Romneycare, based on the failings of the Massachusetts plan. Romney emerged from the exchanges with confidence, though he did not do as good a job drawing distinctions between Romneycare and Obamacare. Perhaps he has done it in so many previous debates that he felt the need to avoid being repetitive. This was a mistake; many viewers simply have not watched previous debates. Romney acquitted himself well, but he took some heat. This was yet another example of how Romney's refusal to disavow Romneycare is a gift that keeps on giving for his opponents.

The debate got very heated when the subject turned to illegal immigration. Perry, still apparently believing that he is competing in the first tier, issued personal attacks against Romney. Perry accused Romney of being soft on illegal immigration by hiring illegal immigrants; it was the same negative attack (referring to a lawn mowing company) that failed to work for Rudy Giuliani when he tried it four years ago. Romney responded well, but was clearly annoyed by Perry's insistence on interrupting him. It was probably the most contentious moment of any debate so far. The audience, a very pro-Romney crowd from Nevada, agreed with Romney. Later in the debate, Perry brought up the issue yet again, and was booed by the audience.

Michele Bachmann remained tangential to the debate. For example, after the heated illegal immigration exchange between Romney and Perry, Bachmann claimed that the person who had real troubles was Barack Obama, because his aunt and uncle are illegal immigrants.

The Nevada crowd received plenty of pandering by the candidates on the issue of Yucca Mountain, a potential respository for nuclear waste. Nevadans oppose having nuclear waste at the site. Ron Paul, Perry, and Romney agreed. Romney did the best pandering, however.

Throughout the debate, Rick Santorum stuck to his theme of faith and family. He is waiting to pick up the pieces of the Evangelical vote in Iowa, whenever it might become available. Ron Paul was more rational in this debate (by his own standards), and was repeatedly applauded for his statements on the economy. The other candidates ignored him. Newt Gingrich did well and received plenty of applause, but once again he refused to tangle with the candidates who are ahead of him in the polls.

Jon Huntsman, so often invisible, was literally impossible to see tonight: He boycotted the debate. He was not mentioned by anyone, including the debate moderator, who let his absence go without comment.

Second October Primary Debate Tomorrow on CNN

It has only been a week since the last primary debate, but another will be held tomorrow on CNN at 8:00pm Eastern. This will be the final debate for the month of October.

Unlike the last debate, this one will be held on a cable channel most viewers are familiar with, so the ratings will be much higher. The stakes are higher as well. The impressions left by the candidates at tomorrow's debate will be left in many voters' minds until November.

In a sense, tomorrow's debate will be a repeat of last week's. The challenges faced by the various candidates are largely the same, and they will be given another opportunity to meet them. For Rick Perry, this means he has one final opportunity to do well in a debate. If he fails again, his supporters may not give him another chance. The primary calendar has been moved up to early January, and the Iowa Caucus may be held on January 3rd. Unless debates are rescheduled, there will be few debates between now and then. If Perry has another poor showing, he may simply run out of time.

For Mitt Romney, tomorrow's debate is an opportunity to cement his frontrunner status. He has done well in all of the previous debates (especially the last few). The other candidates seem incapable of derailing Romney, and they appear to be struggling to come up with new ways to attack him. For example, Romney has been attacked for his support of Romneycare at each of the six debates he's attended. It's unlikely that the seventh time will be the charm. If Romney gives another good performance, he will enjoy a positive media narrative for several weeks. He may be perceived as inevitable.

Herman Cain will be at the center of the debate. He is doing very well in the Iowa and South Carolina polls, and is even leading in some national primary polls. Yet he is almost entirely untested. In the past, Cain has shown weakness whenever he has been probed; he is clearly not a professional politician. If the other candidates decide to go on the attack, Cain will suffer tremendously. So far, the other candidates have not viewed him as a threat, and have left him alone. That will change tomorrow evening.

Ever since Perry got into the race, he has viewed Romney as his main competitor. Even after falling behind Cain in the latest polls, Perry has spent his time and money on attacking Romney. Now, perhaps, Perry will be forced to swallow his pride and admit that he's behind Cain. He needs to stop pretending he's still a first-tier candidate: The latest polling in early primary states (Iowa, South Carolina, Florida) have Rick Perry polling third, fourth, or even fifth place. Perry is no longer in a two-man race with Romney, no matter how much he would like it to be true. Perry must admit to himself that he needs to attack and defeat Cain if he is to get back into the race. If Perry focuses on attacking Romney instead, he will look pathetic.

The minor candidates are in a similar position. Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum have little incentive to attack Romney or Perry now. Their attacks have helped cripple the Perry campaign, and Romney will be waiting in New Hampshire for the winner of Iowa. The present obstacle to the minor candidates is Herman Cain. To defeat him, they need to do to Cain what they did to Perry: successfully question his conservatism.

Can Herman Cain Really Win the Republican Nomination?

Cain

Herman Cain has enjoyed a sudden spike in his poll numbers, both in national primary polls and some early primary state polls (in Iowa, South Carolina, and Florida). But Cain's higher poll numbers have not been matched by a corresponding increase in Elephant Watcher's calculation of Cain's odds of winning the Republican nomination. Though Cain's odds may increase in future recalculations, he is still low, at 4%. Why is Cain unlikely to win, and why do his poll numbers overstate his support?

Cain is the latest in a long series of candidates whose poll numbers spiked, only to crash later. In April, Elephant Watcher explained why Donald Trump was unlikely to win despite polling well. A few months after Trump's crash, Michele Bachmann rose in the polls. Elephant Watcher then explained why Bachmann is unlikely to win. A few months later, Bachmann's numbers crashed in the face of a rising Rick Perry. Elephant Watcher responded by explaining why Perry is unlikely to win. Perry's numbers have crashed, and his support has gone to Cain. Now it's Cain's turn to be examined.

As with other candidates, Cain has been given a media honeymoon. Unlike Mitt Romney, whose flaws everyone is aware of, Cain is largely an unknown. He has received attention because of his charisma, but most voters haven't considered the disadvantages to nominating him. Until now, most haven't considered Cain a serious candidate. Now, by virtue of his poll numbers, he is. As time goes on, the media scrutiny will intensify.

Similarly, other candidates have felt little need to attack Cain, because they didn't consider him a real competitor. They were more afraid of alienating voters by unnecessarily attacking Cain. With Cain leading Bachmann and Perry in both national and early state polls, that will change. Perry has always considered Romney to be his chief opponent, and has spent millions of dollars on attack ads. Can Perry continue that strategy when Cain is taking away all his votes?

The authenticity of Cain's conservatism is untested. Voters have assumed that he is as conservative as it gets; he is a Tea Party favorite, after all. Once Cain's opponents research him, they may find that Cain, like every other candidate in the field (except perhaps Bachmann), has taken some very un-conservative positions over the years. And since Cain's electability is already doubtful, he could find himself in the same two-front war that destroyed Perry last month.

Cain is also prone to gaffes. Since Cain has never held elective office and is essentially brand new to politics, he tends to be less informed about various issues than, for example, Romney is. Earlier this year, Cain made a series of gaffes that helped enable Bachmann to take (temporarily) his Tea Party voters. At the moment, debate moderators, interviewers, and Cain's opponents seem more comfortable attacking his "9-9-9" tax plan. The trouble with that course is that Cain is familiar with his own tax plan, just as Mike Huckabee was comfortable fielding attacks against his religion in 2007-08. When Cain is asked about more obscure matters, he is likely to falter. On the other hand, his "9-9-9" plan is certainly open to attack, especially the sales tax component.

Cain will suffer in the coming months due to what we call the "strategic shift." As voting day approaches, voters become more strategic in their thinking. They put aside hopes of electing the candidate they like best, and they focus more on choosing a candidate who can win a general election. Unfortunately for Cain, his main rival will be Romney, who is perceived as highly electable. Cain is perceived as unelectable. The strategic shift will be punishing. If Cain were to win Iowa, it would spark a panic among Republicans who want to beat Barack Obama. They will flock to Romney.