Huntsman Drops Out, Endorses Romney

Huntsman

Jon Huntsman announced today that he was dropping out of the race. He also immediately endorsed Mitt Romney. The Campaign Status page has been updated to reflect Huntsman's departure; there are now only five candidates remaining. Huntsman needed a win in New Hampshire to really propel his campaign forward, and he came nowhere close. However, he remained in the race for a few additional days as a way of showing appreciation to the 17% of New Hampshirites who voted for him.

Huntsman's departure will have little impact on the race. For some time now, he has had a 0% chance of winning the nomination, and he has been polling at near zero in the remaining states. Huntsman's endorsement of Romney does add a small amount to the impression that Romney is inevitable. Of the candidates that have either dropped out or decided not to run, those who have decided to endorse (e.g. Christie, Huntsman, Pawlenty) have all endorsed Romney. Huntsman no longer being in the race also means one less opponent to attack Romney during the debates.

Huntsman was one of a few candidates to be considered "highly electable." Romney is now the only one of those to remain. Despite his electability and some enthusiasm on the part of establishment Republicans, Huntsman was unable to get anywhere in this race. According to Elephant Watcher's calculations, Huntsman's odds of winning the nomination never exceeded 3%.

Why did Huntsman fail? Partly it's because Huntsman was in Romney's shadow and needed Romney to make a major mistake. The main problem was that Huntsman chose to run to the left of Romney. Candidates have some power over how they're perceived, particularly if the candidate is unknown. Huntsman chose to enter the race by touting his belief in evolution and global warming. This decision, along with the fact that Huntsman was already somewhat vulnerable to being characterized as a "RINO," meant that he would always be perceived as the candidate to Romney's left. There was simply no room. In New Hampshire, voters either liked where Romney stood or they wanted someone to Romney's right. The Anti-Romney voters have always perceived Romney as too moderate, so Huntsman was always off the table. Accordingly, Huntsman has the distinction of being the only candidate in the race who never enjoyed a big bounce in the polls.

Debate on Fox News Tomorrow

Fox News will host the next primary debate, which takes place tomorrow at 9:00pm Eastern. Tomorrow's debate will be one of two to be held prior to the South Carolina Primary. The second debate will be on Thursday, and the voting will take place in South Carolina on Saturday. It's an important week: By the end of it, we should have a better sense of whether a single opponent can coalesce the Anti-Romney vote, or if Mitt Romney will cruise to victory.

Obviously the two debates represent a final opportunity to derail Romney's candidacy before the South Carolina Primary. Romney will be facing numerous attacks from his opponents. Given the amount of attention focused on Bain over the last week, Romney will be given ample opportunity to defend his tenure at the private equity firm. And Romney's opponents--Newt Gingrich in particular--will be given ample opportunity to criticize what Romney did at Bain.

Romney's best strategy is to focus on the reasons why his experience at Bain makes him an expert at creating jobs. He should avoid being put on the defensive, quickly returning to a specific list of companies Bain helped start and the tens of thousands of jobs created by them. Finally, he should cap his explanation by drawing a contrast between capitalism (represented by Bain) and big-government socialism (represented by those who think capitalism should not involve the risk of failure). If questioned about inaccuracy in attack ads against him, Romney should be able to specifically enumerate the falsehoods.

Gingrich has no choice but to stand by his attacks against Bain. The attacks against Bain may have been ill-considered, since Romney has plenty of vulnerabilities and criticizing those instead wouldn't have backfired. But Gingrich has put too much time and money into the anti-Bain line. If he attempts to change horses midstream and runs away from the anti-Bain narrative, Gingrich will look like he's completely surrendering.

Gingrich must take great care in his attacks against Bain. If he appears to be criticizing capitalism, or appears in any way to be making his attacks from a leftist perspective, it could doom his chances. Remember, Gingrich is attempting to appeal to those voters who think Romney is too far to the left. The debates, particularly tomorrow's debate, will be a crucial test: When Gingrich attacks Bain, will the audience end up booing him? If so, he is in deep trouble.

Though the debate will focus on Romney and Bain, there is another (arguably more important) undercurrent, the battle between Gingrich and Rick Santorum. Each man wants the other to be out of the race so that he can coalesce the Anti-Romney vote. Some recent polling suggested Gingrich pulling ahead of Santorum in South Carolina, which would enable him to take sole possession the Anti-Romney mantle. But there was also a poll (a gross outlier) muddying the waters by showing Santorum ahead of Gingrich. Meanwhile, a group of influential social conservative leaders decided on Saturday that they would be supporting Santorum.

Once again, Romney benefits from that ambiguity. The polls over the next few days will be decisive. Gingrich needs the numbers to show him with a comfortable lead over Santorum. Santorum needs the numbers to show a very quick shift in the opposite direction, so that he can get a comfortable lead over Gingrich in time to get Gingrich's supporters to switch. Otherwise, the vote will end up as it did in New Hampshire, with the two men splitting the Anti-Romney vote and giving Romney a victory. If the polls don't cooperate, it's vital that one or the other demonstrate a clear superiority in the debates. Tomorrow's debate is arguably the more important, because a very strong contrast on Monday could move the poll numbers by the end of the week, while Thursday is too late (polling would take place on Friday and wouldn't be reported practically until the voting begins).

Why Are Early States Allowed to Choose the Nominee?

One of the most common complaints voters have about the primary system is the disproportionate influence that the early states have on the process. Particularly when a voter's favored candidate does poorly, a voter wants to know why a state like Iowa or New Hampshire has such power. This year, for example, many pundits observed that if Mitt Romney wins South Carolina, he wins the nomination. Voters in later states are sometimes upset by things like this, and they wonder why just a few states get to have input.

It's true that the results of the early contests have an influence on the later states. People like a winner, and they don't like a loser. Wins in the early states propel a candidate, and very poor finishes can doom a candidate. But the early states do not exercise as much power as it may appear. The reason is that collectively, early states vote pretty much the same way that later states would collectively vote if given the opportunity. The results of early contests don't simply influence the rest of the country, they also reveal how the country in general will vote.

The early states represent different regions of the country: The Midwest (Iowa), Northeast (New Hampshire), South (South Carolina), and West (Nevada). Aside from South Carolina, they are swing states. Aside from Florida, they are small enough states for most candidates to be able to compete in without needing a lot of money. If one were to switch out Iowa for another Midwestern state, or South Carolina for another Southern state, the results might be a little different, but not that much different.

To factor out any peculiarities in an early state, voters weigh results differently. Where a state is really uniquely favorable to a candidate (e.g., if a former governor of Iowa wins Iowa, or if a black candidate wins South Carolina), people give the state's result less weight. Similarly, they take results more seriously if a candidate wins on unfavorable turf. In the present primary year, South Carolina is one of the most inhospitable states in the country for Romney. That's part of the reason political observers say it's the last chance for Romney to lose: If he can win in an anti-Romney state, he's likely to sweep most of the country.

One more thought about the way early contests reveal how the later states would vote anyway, if given the chance: Imagine a deck of playing cards divided into four stacks of thirteen cards each. The "spades" stack contains mostly spades and a few clubs; the "clubs" stack is mostly clubs and a few spades; the "hearts" stack is mostly hearts and a few diamonds; the "diamonds" stack is mostly diamonds and a few hearts. One of the four stacks is selected at random and represents the winner of the contest. The first two cards of that winning stack are flipped over, revealing two diamonds. At this point, even though only two of the 13 cards have been shown, we can immediately see that "spades" and "clubs" are not going to be the winner. This is analogous to the way the early contests winnow out a few obvious losers. We can also guess that it's very likely that "diamonds" is going to be the winner, though we can't be 100% sure yet.

If the third card is flipped and also shows a diamond, it's almost guaranteed that we are dealing with the "diamonds" stack. We don't need to go down the line and turn over the 10th, 11th, 12th, and 13th cards. By the time we're just a few cards in, we know what the later cards will reveal anyway. The only situation in which we would need to see every last card in the stack is if the stack were split almost evenly, with the final card breaking the tie. For our analogy, that would be like a presidential primary where two candidates are extremely close. (For reasons beyond the scope of this post, such a situation is extremely rare. Even in 2008, where Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama fought to the end, Obama was essentially guaranteed to win months before Clinton dropped out.)

Although politically-minded individuals in the later states may wish they got to participate earlier in the primary, they can rest assured that if the order of the states was shuffled, the final outcome would be no different.

South Carolina Scenarios

In the wake of a first place win (or tie) in Iowa, Mitt Romney vaulted to the top of the polls in South Carolina. It was the first time South Carolina had been polled since December 19th, when Newt Gingrich was still falling from his mid-December highs in the polls. The South Carolina polls had shown big leads for Gingrich for about a month, beginning in late November. Prior to that, Herman Cain was the leader in most South Carolina polls, benefiting from Rick Perry's decline in September. Romney only enjoyed a lead in South Carolina during the summer months, after Mike Huckabee announced he was out of the race, and before Perry announced he was in.

Romney's early-January leads in South Carolina polls contribute to the impression that he is an unstoppable frontrunner. The Intrade market even had Romney as a big favorite to win the South Carolina Primary. But is this realistic? What might unfold in the coming days?

Let's consider the range of possibilities. Romney's preferred scenario, naturally, would be to win South Carolina. He would also like Gingrich and Rick Santorum to finish very close together, as they did in New Hampshire. Maintaining a split between his two main rivals would continue to be very useful in Florida. If Romney were to win South Carolina and Florida by anything approaching convincing margins, the competition would essentially be over.

Polling in South Carolina suggests this could happen:

South Carolina Primary
01/11 Insider Adv -- Romney 23, Gingrich 21, Santorum 14, Paul 13
01/09 WeAskAmerica -- Romney 26, Gingrich 21, Santorum 13, Paul 8
01/07 PPP (D) -- Romney 30, Gingrich 23, Santorum 19, Paul 9
01/05 CNN/Time -- Romney 37, Santorum 19, Gingrich 18, Paul 12
01/05 ARG -- Romney 31, Santorum 24, Gingrich 24, Paul 9
01/05 Rasmussen -- Romney 27, Santorum 24, Gingrich 18, Paul 11

The numbers are good for Romney. The earlier polls in this group even show Gingrich and Santorum running close together. And Romney has broken through his mythical 25% ceiling. (Just days ago, it was still popular for pundits to believe in the ceiling; see the Elephant Watcher post from two months ago debunking the myth of Romney's 25-point ceiling.)

All that aside, a reality check is in order. Of the early primary states, South Carolina is the most inhospitable territory for Romney. In 2008, Romney got 25% in Iowa, about 30% in New Hampshire, 30% in Florida...and just 15% in South Carolina, a fourth-place finish. Granted, Romney had devoted fewer resources in South Carolina. Granted also that in 2008, Romney had just lost in Iowa and New Hampshire, as opposed to winning those two states this time around. But in 2008, Romney got twice his South Carolina vote share in Florida, and that was after three losses.

What this means is that if Romney does win, it is likely to be close. Under the circumstances, that would be a big accomplishment. However, the alternative scenario South Carolina presents is also a likely one, and it would unfold something like this:

Romney's worst-case scenario is that by the middle of next week, new polling makes it clear that Gingrich and Santorum are no longer close in South Carolina. Instead, Gingrich--though he may still have trouble out-polling Romney--is definitely out-polling Santorum. In response, in the days just before voting begins, South Carolina's Anti-Romney voters shift from Rick Perry and Santorum over to Gingrich, whom they are now convinced is the most likely candidate to beat Romney in that state. (The two debates next week may facilitate this.) The Anti-Romney voting having coalesced, Gingrich beats Romney and declares himself "the comeback kid" (or Gingrich's preferred version, "the comeback grandparent"). Pundits give Gingrich credit, and say variations of "the voters don't want this thing to be over yet, they're not sold on Romney," etc. Santorum's numbers slip, and Gingrich goes into Florida with a more convincing argument that he is the sole Anti-Romney. Indeed, it's arguably worse for Romney to come in second place than in third, because then Gingrich has even more clearly beaten Santorum.

Everything is up to the polling. For that scenario to occur, Gingrich must get a substantial lead over Santorum in South Carolina polls over the next several days.

Has Mitt Romney Been Vetted?

Romney

A few weeks ago, we explored the question of why so many candidates went boom and bust during the primary season. The answer was that voters assumed new candidates had some degree of conservatism and electability, but once they were vetted, voters learned otherwise. Mitt Romney, whom some have dubbed "the last not-Romney," is on the rise. What happens when Romney is vetted?

Although many opponents of Romney demanded to know why Romney wasn't being vetted like the other candidates were, the reality is that Romney was the only candidate who already had been vetted. The key test in determining whether a candidate has been vetted is if the average voter is already aware of the candidate's weaknesses. Even before the primary season began, voters were quite familiar with Romney's vulnerabilities.

A good contrast would be the difference in the way voters perceived Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney in early December, when Newtmania was at its peak. The conservative credentials of both Gingrich and Romney are suspect because each has flip-flopped on various issues. Gingrich was even an early supporter of the individual mandate for healthcare. But at the time, the average voter only knew about Romney's flip-flops, not Gingrich's. Until the barrage of attacks was unleashed against Gingrich, voters assumed he was a pure, Tea Party conservative. When voters learned the truth, Gingrich's numbers took a nosedive. Gingrich (or other candidates) couldn't do the same thing to Romney that he had done to Gingrich, because voters already knew the truth about Romney. In other words, Romney had already been vetted.

That doesn't mean attacks against Romney are completely ineffective. He can still lose support in response to a good negative ad, and he can still be forced into an awkward situation in a challenging debate. But it does mean that Romney's numbers are more likely to be stable--just as Romney's opponents, having now been vetted, are not likely to crash a second time.

It is interesting to note that Romney's opponents, particularly Gingrich and Perry, have now begun focusing their attacks on Romney's tenure at Bain Capital. Perhaps the most fascinating part is what they're not doing: They're not focusing the attacks on Romney's flip-flops or Romneycare. Why not attack Romney's Achilles' heel(s)? Romney's opponents may have come to the realization that they're not going to take Romney down by repeatedly saying what voters already know. If so, it's a tacit admission that Romney was already vetted and survived.

As for the Bain Capital line of attack, it's something of a desperate move. Until recently, Romney's opponents gave Bain little attention. During the September debates when Rick Perry squared off against Romney, Perry attacked Romney on many things, but not on Bain. Indeed, during one debate Perry even conceded that Romney created many jobs at Bain, but simply argued that his own job-creation record as governor of Texas was more impressive and relevant. In addition, Romney was attacked in a lot of different ways during the 2008 presidential primary, but his opponents pretty much left Bain alone.

If Romney's opponents in the 2008 and 2012 primaries didn't see fit to bring up Bain, it's probably because they judged it would be a weak attack. Those who criticize Bain (especially Gingrich) have already received backlash from conservatives--including some, like Rush Limbaugh, who do not favor Romney. Many conservatives feel that the attacks against Bain resemble attacks against capitalism from the left. The direction of an attack can be important. Recall that during the September debates, Perry lost a lot of his Tea Party support when he said that it was heartless to oppose in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. If a candidate sounds like he's coming from the left, the right turns off. That's a poor strategy for those opposing Romney, since the Anti-Romney voters are the ones who think Romney isn't far right enough.

Romney Wins New Hampshire; Rivals Split Vote

Mitt Romney won the New Hampshire Primary on Tuesday, a result which should come as no surprise. With 81% reporting, Romney won with 38%. Ron Paul came second, losing by about 15 points. Romney's margin of victory, though large, was less than many polls had suggested it could have been. The more important story is how Romney's main rivals for the nomination--Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum--will be weakened by the result. The following is the result, as of this posting, and an analysis of how the result will influence the race going forward:

New Hampshire Primary (81% reporting)
Romney -- 38%
Paul -- 23%
Huntsman -- 17%
Gingrich -- 10%
Santorum -- 10%
Perry -- 1%

Yesterday, Elephant Watcher predicted that if Romney finished in the 30s, it would be treated as an underwhelming victory, particularly if second-place was not far behind. After all, winning by 15 points is not a great performance when so many polls had indicated a win by 20 points or more. Some pundits will claim the result shows weakness on Romney's part, offering some version of "This is one of Romney's best states, he's been campaigning here all year (or for the past five years) and only beat his 2008 performance by a handful of points. Romney can't close the deal. He is a weak frontrunner. The voters want this thing to continue." Other pundits will also remark on Jon Huntsman's third-place finish, speculating on whether he can be yet another candidate to surge.

Although it's true that Romney would have preferred a bigger margin of victory, it's important to view the race in its proper context: Romney isn't running against himself or his poll numbers; he's running against Gingrich and Santorum.

From that perspective, Romney had a very good result. Romney's biggest fear is that either Gingrich or Santorum will beat the other convincingly, become the chief Anti-Romney, and coalesce all of the Anti-Romney vote. Therefore, Romney's best scenario was for Gingrich and Santorum to finish well behind himself, and as close to each other as possible. Gingrich and Santorum would then continue to split the Anti-Romney vote. New Hampshire voters gave Romney his wish: Gingrich and Santorum virtually tied at 10% each, an embarrassing and ambiguous finish.

What about Paul and Huntsman? Neither man has a chance of winning the nomination. Paul is viewed by most Republicans as a "kook." Huntsman, who finished barely high enough to justify remaining in the race, entered the race by making the unspeakably poor decision of running to the left of Romney. He will be unable to play an Anti-Romney role, because the Anti-Romney vote is comprised of people who think Romney is too far to the left, not too far to the right. Thus, Paul and Huntsman served only to diminish Gingrich and Santorum more.

Now the race moves to South Carolina. The contests in Iowa and New Hampshire have done nothing to clarify the Anti-Romney situation. Rather than providing Romney with one strong opponent, he has two evenly-matched opponents who weaken each other. Romney's campaign has been professional and disciplined. More important, he continues to be lucky.

New Hampshire Primary Tomorrow

Voters in New Hampshire will head to the polls on Tuesday for the New Hampshire Primary. The winner of the contest isn't in doubt: Mitt Romney has taken first place in every one of the dozens of New Hampshire polls conducted over the past year--most of the time by a sizable margin. The second-place candidate has alternated as various candidates went boom and bust, but Romney has consistently polled in the mid 30s to lower 40s. The question is who will take second, third, and fourth in the primary. The polls are unclear, with several candidates bunched together:

New Hampshire Primary
01/08 WMUR/UNH -- Romney 41, Paul 17, Huntsman 11, Santorum 11
01/08 PPP (D) -- Romney 35, Paul 18, Huntsman 16, Gingrich 12
01/07 Suffolk/7News -- Romney 35, Paul 20, Huntsman 11, Gingrich 9
01/07 ARG -- Romney 40, Huntsman 17, Paul 16, Santorum 12
01/05 NBC/Marist -- Romney 42, Paul 22, Santorum 13, Huntsman 9
01/05 Rasmussen -- Romney 42, Paul 18, Santorum 13, Huntsman 12
01/05 WMUR/UNH -- Romney 44, Paul 20, Santorum 8, Gingrich 8
01/04 Wash Times -- Romney 38, Paul 24, Santorum 11, Gingrich 9
01/04 Suffolk/7News -- Romney 41, Paul 18, Santorum 8, Gingrich 7

Ron Paul is in second in most polls. As in Iowa, he's polling in the upper 10s and low 20s. As expected, Rick Santorum got a bounce out of Iowa, but he has been unable to capitalize on that to get clear of Newt Gingrich, who is about tied with him in the polls. Jon Huntsman seems to be in about the same position as Santorum and Gingrich, though the PPP and ARG polls have him a few points ahead.

Huntsman is an interesting case. As a low-poller, strategic voters would ordinarily abandon him for their second choice. But many Huntsman supporters' second choice is Romney, who is guaranteed to win. Since Romney doesn't need the Huntsman votes, perhaps the Huntsman supporters will vote for their preferred candidate instead of shifting. This would serve to reward Huntsman for all the campaigning he has done in New Hampshire, and maybe to voice a bit of a protest against Romney's inevitable win.

Huntsman is the only candidate likely to drop out of the race in response to a poor performance. How well does he need to do to stay in the race? Though Elephant Watcher calculates Huntsman's chance of winning the nomination has been at zero percent for some time now, Huntsman may stay in for awhile if he exceeds expectations. A second-place finish would keep Huntsman in the race. A decent third would be a maybe. If Huntsman is in fourth when the ballots are counted, we should expect him to leave.

Santorum and Gingrich each desperately want to finish ahead of the other to gain a stronger position as the chief Anti-Romney in South Carolina. But instead, the polls have them right where Romney wants them: Far down and almost tied with each other. An ambiguous result means more splitting of Romney's opposition.

Finally, when Romney wins, the media will focus on the extent of his win. Finishing in the 40s will be treated as a good win. A few polls currently have Romney in the mid-30s, while the rest have him in the low 40s. If the numbers remain static, then adding in the undecided vote should give Romney a finish in the 40s. However, if New Hampshirites have last-minute thoughts, Romney ends up in the 30s. Particularly if second place is close, such a win will be treated as underwhelming. If Romney gets 50% or more, it will be treated as an overwhelming win and lead to more media proclaiming him the inevitable Republican nominee. Reaching the 50% mark would be difficult, even adding in the undecided vote, but is possible if someone like Huntsman sheds votes as they shift to second choice Romney (which hasn't happened so far).

Who Won the Republican Debate on January 7th?

When answering the question of "who won tonight's debate?" this season, most of the time the answer has been mixed. This time, that's not the case. Mitt Romney overwhelmingly won the debate. It was perhaps the most one-sided debate so far, such that nearly every observer would agree that Romney was the winner.

It was expected that most of the candidates would spend their time attacking Romney. Although there were moments when most of the candidates were critical of Romney, they didn't devote much time to it. During the first half-hour in particular, the Anti-Romneys found themselves attacking each other instead. When Romney was criticized, he did not take the bait, but instead calmly made the case for why he should be president. It's clear that he was attempting to look presidential, and he succeeded in doing so more than the other candidates did.

No new attacks against Romney were laid out. There was some criticism of Romney's tenure at Bain Capital, which Romney dealt with even more effectively than in previous debates where the issue was raised. Romney listed specific companies that Bain helped start, and listed statistics of tens of thousands of jobs created by those companies. Romney also scored big against the debate moderator, George Stephanopoulos, who pressed Romney on whether states have the right to ban contraception. Romney found himself laughing at the absurdity of the question, since no state wants to ban contraception. It would be an understatement to say the audience was in Romney's corner. Stephanopoulos embarrassed himself.

The most contentious moments of the debate took place when Ron Paul got into extended fights with Rick Santorum (accusing Santorum of too much spending and taking money from lobbyists) and Newt Gingrich (accusing Gingrich of being a "chickenhawk" for not serving in the military). It was very evident that Gingrich and Paul do not like each other.

There were some odd moments. Rick Perry, falling back into the pattern of making at least one gaffe per night, said that if America did not return to Iraq, Iran would go back into Iraq "literally at the speed of light." Paul claimed that after communists in China murdered 100 million of their own people, America broke the ice with them by playing ping-pong. And in the middle of one response, Jon Huntsman randomly spoke in Chinese for no apparent reason.

Tonight was Rick Santorum's first opportunity to play a starring role in a debate. He gave a vanilla performance: Not bad, but not especially good. It was to his detriment that he was put on the defensive by Paul, as opposed to putting Romney on the defensive. If the other candidates were supposed to provide New Hampshire a reason not to hand the state to Romney, they did not provide it. Instead, they gave New Hampshire an excuse to deliver Romney a landslide.

Primary Debate Tomorrow on ABC

The first primary debate since mid-December will take place tomorrow on ABC at 9:00pm Eastern. The Republican field has been winnowed down to six candidates: Gingrich, Huntsman, Paul, Perry, Romney, and Santorum. The debate will take place just a few days before the New Hampshire primary, where Mitt Romney has been leading in the polls by a significant margin all year. Romney's competitors will be tempted to make him a punching bag. Rick Santorum probably sees himself as the chief Anti-Romney, Newt Gingrich is reportedly steaming after his loss in Iowa, and for Jon Huntsman, it will be the last chance to be relevant. Rick Perry has historically enjoyed going on the attack against Romney, but if his strategy is based soley on South Carolina, he may realize he needs to attack Santorum instead.

Romney has a familiar frontrunner's challenge: How do you deal with a debate where everyone is attacking you, again and again? Though Romney has never experienced the spike-and-crash that others have--leading some to wrongly suggest that he hasn't been vetted yet--Romney should be used to being attacked. The key is to answer the opponent's substantive arguments, but not to show annoyance. Romney has gone both routes in past debates. Sometimes he is disciplined and is able to parry the attacks with good humor; other times he lets his opponents get under his skin. The latter leads to mistakes, like Romney's $10,000 challenge to Perry in a December debate. The debate will therefore be an important test for Romney, because most everyone will be trying to make him stumble.

Is the pile-on-Romney strategy appropriate in this case? For Santorum it probably is, as Gingrich may be falling under his own weight (one South Carolina poll shows Santorum slightly ahead of Gingrich). For Gingrich and Perry, the answer is no. Their target should be Santorum, who threatens to unite the Anti-Romney voters under his own banner. To stand a chance, they must launch an assault on Santorum that brings them down to their own post-crash polling level.

What should viewers look for in the debate? Romney has been criticized over Romneycare and his tenure at Bain Capital in multiple debates, but his opponents may come up with new material. The other thing to watch for is how Santorum's new position affects the dynamic. In previous debates, he was irrelevant and often whined about it. Now he has the chance to show what he can do with a starring role. And attacks against Santorum will be entirely new territory.

Intrade Odds: Mitt Romney Stands Unchallenged

We last reviewed the Intrade market on the Republican primary a few weeks ago, when Newt Gingrich's slide in the polls was first becoming apparent. At that time, Gingrich's Intrade odds crashed, and Mitt Romney held a commanding lead. Since then, the gap has only widened. Now, at 79.4%, Romney stands unchallenged at the top of the market. No other candidate is in double-digits.

Gingrich's fall in the (mostly Iowa) polls, and his poor showing in Iowa, have cut him down to 6.3%. Rick Perry's disappointing fifth-place finish in Iowa has dropped him to 1.7%. Ron Paul's supporters, who normally buoy his Intrade odds, have beaten a tactical retreat as well: Paul is at 2.6%.

What about Rick Santorum? As expected, he has risen noticeably. Before his movement in the polls last week, he was trading at only 0.5%. Compared to that, his numbers have skyrocketed. Looking at it any other way, his numbers are relatively modest: 6.4%, like Gingrich. It's clear that the Intrade investors are skeptical of Santorum for now, but he's likely to rise as Santorum's near-win in Iowa gets reflected in future polls. For now, Intraders think Romney is unstoppable.

The investors are bullish on Romney's performance in the next few states. In New Hampshire, he is trading at 94.1%. In South Carolina, one might think Romney's lower poll numbers would curb investors' enthusiasm. Not so: Romney is at 50.1%. Gingrich, who has a substantial lead in the (admittedly old) South Carolina polls, is only at 21%. Santorum is edging Gingrich out at 22.5% in that state. Thus, we can conclude many investors think Gingrich and Santorum are fairly evenly-matched, and that split will be to Romney's benefit.

The real headline is in the market for Florida's primary, where Romney is at 80%. If South Carolina slows Romney down a little, the investors think he'll take Florida and sail to victory.