The Myth of Mitt Romney's 25-Point Ceiling

Romney

Although most political analysts (and polled Americans) agree that Mitt Romney will win the Republican nomination, it's increasingly become the conventional wisdom that Romney suffers from a ceiling of 25% of the Republican electorate. The idea is that Romney has been unable to break out in the national primary polls, and has consistently polled at or below 25%. Meanwhile, the other 75% has been desperately looking for an Anti-Romney and won't support Romney under any circumstances.

It's true that the national primary polls have consistently put Romney in the low-to-mid 20s, with Romney rarely polling above 25%. But is there any truth to the idea that there is a uniquely anti-Romney ceiling of 25% that prevents him from getting votes from the other three-quarters of Republicans? Not really. The concept is flawed for a number of reasons.

Perhaps the most important flaw in the 25% ceiling is that Romney regularly polls well above 25% in early state primary polls. As we've discussed at length in the past, polls in the early states are far more important than national primary polls: The voters in early states pay attention sooner, the candidates actually campaign there, and the results of the early state contests influence the electorate in the later states.

The New Hampshire primary polls always have Romney far above the 25% ceiling. Romney tends to poll about 40% in New Hampshire, regardless of the pollster, and across a long period of time. Indeed, Romney rarely gets below 35% in any of these polls. No other candidate has gotten such high numbers in any state.

The counterargument is that New Hampshire is unique. But there are only a few states in which the candidates are actually competing: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida, and Nevada. For the most part, the candidates are currently focusing on just Iowa and New Hampshire. To suggest that New Hampshire doesn't count is effectively tossing out half the field for little or no reason. More likely, the reason that Romney does so well in New Hampshire is not that New Hampshire is so unique, but because it's the only state in which Romney has really campaigned.

The Florida primary polls have also repeatedly given Romney above 25%, particularly in October. There's been little polling in Nevada, but Romney likely gets more than his "ceiling" in that state as well.

The second big flaw in the theory is the fact that the other candidates have failed to break 25% in the national primary polls. Only Rick Perry, who enjoyed a brief honeymoon in September, managed to break 25% in the polls for awhile. If none of the other candidates can break 25%, why would Romney be the one who suffers from a ceiling? Wouldn't all of the other candidates have the same Anti-Candidate problem with 75% of the electorate?

The third problem with the ceiling theory is that it doesn't account for how difficult it is to poll more than 25% of the electorate in a multi-candidate race--especially when you throw in a large percentage of undecided voters who don't select any of the candidates. If, say, 20% of those polled are undecided, one needs to get 3/8 of the remainder to poll at a mere 30%. It's not easy to get 3/8 when there are eight candidates in the race. Getting that high essentially means you win, unless it's a two-man race.

After the first few primaries, the field will be whittled down to two or three (or perhaps one) candidates. Voters will then coalesce around the survivors and push them above 25%. The Anti-Romney vote will coalesce, but so will the Anti-Anti-Romney vote. (Which is to say, for example, if Newt Gingrich won Iowa, the Anti-Gingrich vote would coalesce around Romney in the same way that the Anti-Romney vote coalesces around Gingrich.)

Having debunked the myth of the 25% ceiling, it's also worth pointing out a historical trend: As voting day approaches, voters tend to move toward a more electable choice, even if the candidate is less exciting. Viewing the current field, the only candidate in the running who's considered very electable is Mitt Romney. His current numbers in New Hampshire guarantee him victory there, and the "strategic shift" will likely boost his numbers in Iowa, as well.

Intrade Odds: Newt Gingrich Up, Rick Perry Down

We last examined the Intrade market on the 2012 Republican nomination shortly before the two mid-November debates. In today's update, we'll see how the debates have altered the Intrade market's perception of the race.

As far as the frontrunner is concerned, the debates had no impact. Mitt Romney dominated the field before, and his numbers are unchanged. Romney stands atop the field at 69.6%. By contrast, the lesser candidates have been shuffled. The big change is that Rick Perry, who has been on a decline since he first participated in a debate in September, has finally been ground into dust. Before the debates, he stood at 40%. After the September debates, he dropped to 20%. He slid down to 10% as it became clear he would not recover in October. Now, after Perry's gaffe at the November 9th debate, he has lost nearly all of his support. Perry is currently trading at 3.7%.

Newt Gingrich rose at Perry's expense. He now stands at 14.3%. Just a month ago, he was in the low single-digits; now he's in second place, albeit a very distant second. Herman Cain has slid to 4.0%. That's not much of a drop considering the sexual harassment scandal, but Intrade has always been very skeptical of unconventional candidates like Cain. Still, it's interesting to see that Perry is now behind both Gingrich and Cain. Also in the mire of the three percent range are Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman, at 3.2% and 3.1%. Michele Bachmann has long since been pronounced dead, and she trades at 1.0%. Rick Santorum--who may be okay on paper--is nowhere in the polls, so he is at 0.4%.

The Iowa Caucus market has changed more dramatically. While Romney is still at about 40%, Gingrich is now in second at 21%. Cain has fallen to 15.2%, and Perry is at 7.5%. This reflects the fact that the Intrade market believes someone has to have a chance of beating Romney in Iowa. If it's not Cain or Perry anymore, and if it's not Bachmann or Santorum, that leaves Gingrich. This is despite the fact that Gingrich has not done well in Iowa polls (aside from an outlier or two).

The New Hampshire market still says Romney has it in the bag. South Carolina has behaved like Iowa, with Gingrich picking up Cain and Perry's slack. The Florida Intrade market is still traded too little to be efficient, but Romney has catapulted to 65% there. The Nevada market looks like the New Hampshire one, with Romney dominating.

Who Won the Republican Debate on November 12th?

Tonight's debate on foreign policy had few fireworks or major gaffes. The candidates did not attack each other and normally did not even challenge each other. If it is remembered at, it will be remembered for a few general impressions: Rick Perry was shaky, Herman Cain was shakier, Mitt Romney was decent, and Newt Gingrich did well.

The format of the debate was a bit odd: Only the first hour was televised on all CBS stations; the last half-hour was streamed on the internet. The entire debate was focused on foreign policy questions. The economy and other traditional areas of debate (e.g. social policy, candidate vulnerabilities, etc.) were not addressed. At the very least, this allowed Cain to avoid being asked about his sexual harassment scandal, which would have been off-topic.

The candidates avoided making gaffes of the kind that would be replayed over and over. In general, Cain seemed uncertain, as he has little knowledge of foreign policy. Perry avoided any dynamite gaffes, but spoke in a halting manner. Bizarrely, Perry addressed some of his answers to "Mitt," even though Romney was not asked the same question or involved in any way in the exchange. As Elephant Watcher predicted, Perry made a couple jokes about the infamous Rick Perry gaffe at the November 9th debate.

Occasionally the candidates did disagree with each other. Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul marginalized themselves as the two "doves" on the stage. Meanwhile, Huntsman and Rick Santorum both complained about receiving few questions, though the questions were evenly distributed. This kind of whining is counter-productive. It is up to the candidates to make the best use of their questions, even if they are limited (as Mike Huckabee's were in the early debates in the last primary season). Santorum undermined himself, as otherwise his answers were strong.

Newt Gingrich performed the best out of the candidates. He repeated his strategy of criticizing the questions he was asked, though he toned it down a bit and appeared less grouchy than the previous debate. He appeared to have the most thorough understanding of the topics. He received the most applause.

The candidates will not have another debate for some time, and this one demonstrated Gingrich's superiority to Cain. If Gingrich rises at the expense of Cain, debates like these will accelerate it.

Republican Primary Debate Tomorrow on CBS

Just a few days after their last appearance, the Republican candidates will return to the debate stage tomorrow evening. The debate will be sponsored by CBS and will air on the network at 8:00pm Eastern. The candidates will get a reprieve after that--the next debate shouldn't take place for another couple weeks.

As with the two closely-scheduled debates in October, tomorrow's debate will serve as a rematch. Rick Perry will desperately want to rehabilitate himself after his disastrous performance at the Republican debate on November the ninth. Herman Cain will probably face questions about his sexual harassment scandal again. And the minor candidates will have a chance to rethink their strategy of not challenging the frontrunners.

Perry will probably have some prepared joke about his gaffe at the last debate. But there is no recovering from the mistake he made. Perry's only hope is to fly under the radar and hope the frontrunners destroy themselves. He could try criticizing the candidates who lead him in the polls, but he may as well avoid embarrassing himself.

Newt Gingrich has advanced toward the top tier, but he is not there yet; the polls show Cain and Mitt Romney with a comfortable lead over Gingrich. To break through, Gingrich needs to challenge one or both of them. While he has gotten applause in the past by attacking the debate moderators, the act is wearing thin. He risks getting a reputation for needless grouchiness.

As for Cain, the debate moderators have their work cut out for them. Since the sexual harassment scandal has been the biggest news of the month, they have a journalistic responsibility to ask him about it. But the moderators at the last debate were shouted down by the crowd. The moderators will need to find some clever new approach. It's difficult to imagine the audience behaving any differently than they did at the last debate, however. If they really want to take Cain down a peg, they should ask him about subjects he's unfamiliar with--almost everything other than "9-9-9." Speaking of which, Cain's charisma has carried him thus far, but he must avoid answering every question with a reference to his "9-9-9" plan.

There is little incentive for Romney to attack Cain or Gingrich. He should attempt to appear presidential, no matter how much he is challenged. With any luck, he will be able to avoid drawing fire: Both Cain and Gingrich dislike going on the offensive, and the rest of the field (barring Jon Huntsman) needs to take votes from Cain to win Iowa.

Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum need to do what they have thus far failed even to attempt: attack Cain's conservative credentials. They criticized Cain's "9-9-9" plan in October, but they never questioned whether Cain is the true, pure conservative that the Tea Party demands. They won't beat Cain on charisma, and Bachmann certainly can't beat Cain on electability. Santorum would have difficulty making the electability case, since Tea Partiers have rejected the concept so far (otherwise they wouldn't be supporting Cain). The only remaining option is to prove that Cain is not a true Tea Partier. As time goes on, that's a more difficult sell. It's easier to attack Gingrich on that score, but leapfrogging him almost seems pointless. Time is running out, and they need to eliminate Cain sooner rather than later.

Who Won the Republican Debate on November 9th?

Tonight's debate was very civil, with the candidates unwilling to attack each other and with the audience applauding almost every answer. In some ways, the debate preserved the status quo: Without candidates engaging each other, it is difficult to shake things up. Since Mitt Romney is the frontrunner, preserving the status quo is to his benefit.

Most of the candidates performed well. Rick Perry was the exception. In the most disastrous moment of any debate, Perry found himself unable to remember which federal agency he wanted to eliminate. He was able to name the first two, and then halted when trying to name the third. It is difficult to describe in words just how awkward this became. Even when prompted by his fellow candidates, Perry was unable to remember the third agency. The moderators incredulously asked Perry if he could not remember. Finally, Perry had to admit that he had no idea what it was. Perry only recalled the agency's name later on in the debate, when answering another question. But Perry's spectacular failure will undoubtedly be replayed endlessly on television. It feeds into every negative narrative that already exists about Perry. It may well be the final set of nails in Perry's coffin. It could become one of the most famous debate moments in American history--unless Perry does even worse in a future debate.

Herman Cain succeeded in remaining his usual charismatic self. When the debate moderators attempted to bring up the sexual harassment scandal, the audience booed. When the moderators asked Romney what he thought of the scandal, he wisely refused to play along. The audience cheered when the moderators changed the topic back to the economy. It's clear that most Republicans still do not believe there is any truth to the accusations against Cain. Rather than shifting to a "fall of Cain" narrative, the media may be forced to admit that Cain appears to be riding out the storm. However, what the audience at a Republican debate feels publicly and what the Republican voters actually feel as time goes on are two different things.

Newt Gingrich was expected by many political observers to have another good debate performance. While Gingrich gave good answers, he did not stand out among the other candidates, who also (generally) gave good answers. Gingrich was, once again, unwilling to challenge his opponents. Gingrich also repeated his longstanding habit of criticizing the moderators for their questions. He was unusually grumpy toward them during this debate.

Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann did well, but they did not have any means of knocking down a candidate leading them in the polls. They must hope that Perry's self-destruction helps them, but it may well send voters toward Cain or Gingrich by default. Meanwhile, Romney remains at the top of the pack.

Republican Debate Tomorrow on CNBC

The first Republican primary debate of the month will be held tomorrow evening at 8:00pm Eastern. The debate will be aired on CNBC and is expected to focus on the economy. Tomorrow's debate will put an end to the three-week break in debates that the candidates have enjoyed since the debate on October 18th.

Things have changed during the intervening weeks. Mitt Romney and Herman Cain have consistently appeared at the top of the polls, with the rest of the candidates far behind. Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann have solidified their positions as second-tier candidates, and hope is running out. Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich has moved up in the polls to at least be at the top of the second tier. Despite the polls, Cain has suffered terrible press from the sexual harassment scandal and is looking vulnerable. The scandal has only intensified in recent days. As Elephant Watcher anticipated, damaging new details have come forth just before the debate.

At the time of the October debates, the other Tea Party candidates could at least pretend that Cain wasn't really beating them in the polls. After weeks of new polls and media coverage reinforcing the idea that Cain is at the top, the other Tea Party candidates can deny it no longer. Perry, Bachmann, and Rick Santorum must view Cain as their chief opponent. Now, with the Cain scandal making headlines every day, it's time to strike. They must attack Cain and eliminate him in order to compete for the Anti-Romney position.

For Cain's part, he will have to find a way to deal with the elephant in the living room. The debate moderators, even if they focus on the economy, must surely ask Cain about the scandal. (This will be true at the upcoming debates as well.) Most likely, Cain will refuse to address the matter further and say he wants to get back to focusing on the issues that Americans really care about. He will receive loud applause from a Republican base that simply does not believe the accusations are true (yet).

Even so, political observers will be watching for any sign that Cain has been shaken or weakened by the scandal. The next media narrative will be the fall of Cain, so Cain must be his usual upbeat, charismatic self if he is to avoid negative coverage.

In theory, Romney can continue to play the role of the already-victorious general election candidate and stay above the fray. But in the past, rivals (particularly Perry) have ignored Cain and focused their attacks on Romney. If they believe Cain is bound to fall anyway due to the scandal, they may focus on Romney even now. Romney should avoid letting others see his feathers ruffled as they were at the last debate. If Romney appears the most presidential, it will be counted as a win.

Gingrich has the biggest strategic decision to make. So far, he has avoided attacking other candidates. Finally, he is going up in the polls. But that's because other candidates have gone down. And he is still in the second tier. For several months, Elephant Watcher has argued that Gingrich's performance in the debates should be more aggressive and focused on demonstrating why he should get the nominee rather than someone else. If Gingrich only acts as a cheerleader who says everyone on the stage would be better than Barack Obama, then voters will simply go to Romney (who has the best chance of winning a general election). Having seen his numbers rise, Gingrich may decide it's time to truly engage in a debate against his opponents. If so, it will be his first real test in a debate.

Intrade Odds: Newt Gingrich Rising, Slightly

Since our last look at the Intrade market on the 2012 Republican nomination nearly a month ago, Mitt Romney has maintained his dominant position. Romney is currently trading at 69.4%, and the man in second place--Rick Perry--is at 9.9%. The two leading candidates are at the same place they were last time, but that's to Romney's advantage: It's less than two months until the voting begins. If you're not in first place, less time means fewer opportunities to change things. Romney is happy to see the clock run out.

Only one other candidate is above 5% now. Newt Gingrich has risen to 8%. Previously, Gingrich had tended to trade at 1-3%. Gingrich's modest rise in the national primary polls is responsible for the change. Gingrich is actually now beating Herman Cain in the Intrade odds. This is interesting because Cain is doing much, much better in the polls than Gingrich or Perry. Indeed, Cain is ahead of Romney in many polls. It's apparent that Intrade investors are willing to look far beyond today's poll numbers--at least where Cain is concerned. As Elephant Watcher has repeated over the months, Intrade investors tend to view politics from an establishment perspective. Cain is an outsider to say the least, so Intrade investors put little stock in him. But Cain was trading a bit higher before the sexual harassment scandal hit the headlines. Cain fell to 4.7% by this morning, and after news broke of another accuser against Cain, he quickly fell to 2.4%.

Meanwhile, Intrade investors are fairly bullish about Romney's chance to win the Iowa Caucus. They give him a 40% chance of doing so, while Cain registers 17.5% and Perry is at 12.5%. Once again, the investors are looking beyond the poll numbers to give Romney such an advantage over Cain. Naturally, if they believe Romney has a 40% chance of winning Iowa, he dominates in the overall odds of winning the nomination.

In the market on the New Hampshire Primary, Intrade investors rate Romney at about 90% to win. That's a fairly straightforward reading of the New Hampshire Primary polls, all of which have Romney in the lead by a comfortable margin. Meanwhile, the markets for the South Carolina and Florida primaries have Romney in first at 50% each. Romney should be weaker in South Carolina than in Florida, especially given Romney's odds of winning the overall nomination, so that points to some market inefficiency in the Florida market.

In summary, Intrade investors are dismissive of Cain's good poll numbers and are very skeptical about his candidacy. They essentially mirror Elephant Watcher's calculation of Romney and Cain's odds of winning the Republican 2012 nomination. The race isn't over, but the end is near.

Who Will Win the New Hampshire Primary in 2012?

Today we continue our series on the early primary states. A few days ago, we took an updated look at who will win the Iowa Caucus. The next state is New Hampshire, which recently confirmed it will hold its primary on January 10, 2012.

There are far fewer candidates who are competitive in New Hampshire than in Iowa. Back in July, when we first considered who will win the New Hampshire primary, there were more options. But Chris Christie declined to run and Tim Pawlenty dropped out. Either of those men, had they won Iowa, would have then become very competitive (or favored) to win New Hampshire. Jon Huntsman, while still probably enjoying a good reputation in New Hampshire, has completely failed to get out of Mitt Romney's shadow. At the same time, Romney has proven to be a more formidable candidate than he first appeared. The only scenario remaining is that Romney holds his lead and wins New Hampshire.

The latest New Hampshire polls reinforce the impression:

New Hampshire Primary
10/25 Rasmussen -- Romney 41, Cain 17, Paul 11, Gingrich 8
10/25 CNN/Time -- Romney 40, Cain 13, Paul 12, Huntsman 6
10/16 Insider Adv -- Romney 39, Cain 24, Paul 11, Huntsman 5
10/13 Magellan (R) -- Romney 41, Cain 20, Paul 10, Huntsman 6

With remarkable consistency, all of the pollsters have Romney at about 40%. In a race with so many participants, a candidate polling at 40% is guaranteed victory. These aren't the first good polls for Romney, either: Every single New Hampshire poll taken this year has shown Romney in the lead. After 22 polls, Romney has to be feeling pretty comfortable. His margin over second place has also been consistently large: Romney has been in the mid-30s to upper 40s in each poll, and no other candidate has reached 30%. Herman Cain has barely broken into the 20s (later falling into the 10s), and that is as high any other candidate has gotten.

If Romney wins Iowa, he will sweep to victory. What if someone else wins Iowa? The only other candidates who could win Iowa have issues with poor perceived electability. The Iowa winner will get a bump in New Hampshire, but Romney will get a bump from people concerned about nominating a winner. For example, if Cain won Iowa, the anti-Romney vote would coalesce around Cain. But the anti-Cain vote would coalesce around Romney.

Thus, Romney has a bit of a failsafe: If someone else wins Iowa, the "strategic panic" voters feel would give Romney a bump to counteract the bump that the Iowa winner gets. Romney is therefore guaranteed to win New Hampshire, and the only question is his margin of victory. Romney will be under pressure to have a pretty big win. He will still be putting resources into New Hampshire to make sure the margin is convincing, but he will be increasingly tempted to go for a win in Iowa and settle the matter early.

How Much Will the Sexual Harassment Scandal Hurt Herman Cain?

Cain

Earlier this week, news reports surfaced about Herman Cain having been accused of sexual harassment in the late '90s. Thus far, the reports are that the National Restaurant Association--where Cain worked at the time--settled cases with two female employees who had accused Cain in separate incidents. Cain's campaign responded by saying that the accusations had been false, and that Cain was either unaware of or uninvolved with the settlement agreements. The identity of the women in question remains undisclosed, and the women have not come forward due to confidentiality agreements (and likely an unwillingness to enter the public spotlight).

Cain's campaign then accused Rick Perry's campaign of having leaked the reports to the media. Perry's campaign denied it, attempting to shift the blame to Mitt Romney's campaign (which also denied involvement). Meanwhile, conservative media largely defended Cain, suggesting the charges were false or exaggerated, and that the liberal media was trying to attack Cain unfairly.

How much will the scandal hurt Cain? A scandal can harm a candidate in one of two ways. A severe scandal may undermine a candidate's strengths, calling into question the basis for the candidate's appeal. A scandal can also contribute to known weaknesses of a candidate, reinforcing a negative perception that already exists about him.

The present scandal, if severe enough, could harm Cain's candidacy in both ways. Cain's strengths are his conservatism and charisma. If people believe Cain is guilty of sexual harassment, it tarnishes the image people have of his personality. The second way it could harm Cain is by contributing to a preexisting perception that Cain is unelectable. Whether the scandal is severe or mild, it adds more weight to the argument that Cain should not win the nomination because he will lose the general election against Barack Obama.

There have been few polls taken since the news broke, but those that have been taken do not show any signs of Cain suffering damage from this scandal. Polls suggest that, for now, Republicans generally do not believe that Cain was guilty of sexual harassment. They believe that the charges were trumped up and that Cain is simply the victim of an attack by the liberal media. If new details or evidence surface, and people believe the accusations were well-founded, then Cain will suffer much heavier damage.

To some extent, the damage may be less than it will appear in the future. A few weeks ago, Elephant Watcher explained why Herman Cain will not win the Republican nomination. Cain's poll numbers were already likely to fall in the near future, even before news of the scandal broke. As Cain's numbers fall, observers may incorrectly attribute all of Cain's decline to the scandal.

Regardless, Cain will be on "damage control" for the near future. There are two primary debates scheduled to take place next week, and Cain will almost certainly be asked about the scandal. If damaging new information surfaces prior to those debates, Cain will be trapped in the media spotlight and forced to answer questions he would rather ignore.

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%.