Romney's Pick for Vice President? Part III

Christie

In Part II, we discussed the possibility of Rob Portman being chosen as Mitt Romney's VP. The conventional wisdom is that Portman would be a "less risky" option, and that Romney hopes to avoid a repeat of the Sarah Palin debacle. But as we explained, none of Romney's choices carry similar risks to Palin--because they will all be fully vetted and have all participated in numerous televised interviews. But what are the potential upsides and downsides to potential VPs like Marco Rubio and Chris Christie, and what other options are available?

According to the Intrade odds on vice presidential nominees, the next most likely option after Portman is U.S. Senator Marco Rubio from Florida. Rubio served in Florida government for a little over a decade, rising to the office of Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives. In 2010, he ran for the U.S. Senate against the Republican governor, Charlie Crist. Rubio was viewed as the Tea Party challenger in the race, and he won overwhelmingly.

There are a number of reasons why Rubio is presumed to be high on Romney's list of potential VPs. First, Rubio would be the first Hispanic ever to be on a major party presidential ticket. The question of what effect this would have on the Hispanic vote in the general election is very controversial (and very important), and will be addressed in a future post. For now it's enough to say that Rubio would help Romney's ticket appeal to the Hispanic vote, a demographic where Romney is currently weak.

Rubio is from Florida, the nation's largest swing state. Unlike Romney, Rubio represents the conservative or Tea Party wing of the Republican Party. At age 41, Rubio belongs to a younger generation of Republicans, while Romney would return the presidency to the first wave of Baby Boomers. And while Romney was raised in a wealthy background, Rubio has working class roots.

In all of these important ways, Rubio would balance the ticket. The downside to Rubio is that he has only been a U.S. Senator for about a year and a half. According to conventional wisdom, Rubio's inexperience will undermine Romney's central theme, which is that Barack Obama had too little understanding of the economy before rising to the presidency. To be sure, this is Rubio's biggest weakness; if Rubio had been elected to his current office a few years ago, he would be guaranteed the VP position.

On the other hand, Rubio was in an important office in Florida prior to his being a U.S. Senator. And Rubio's intelligence, along with his strength in interviews and debates, will greatly--or entirely--offset his lack of experience, even if it doesn't stop Obama's attacks. Indeed, if the Obama campaign overreaches by comparing Rubio to Palin, it may backfire terribly, offending many Hispanic voters. In addition, Rubio's youth helps reinforce the idea that Romney will take the country in a new direction, rather than being a return to the days of George W. Bush.

What about Chris Christie? Christie served as Attorney General for the District of New Jersey during the 2000s, until he was elected New Jersey Governor in 2009. Christie considered running for president in 2012, but he had been governor just a bit too briefly. Though somewhat new to the national scene, Christie would not be vulnerable to claims that he lacks experience; he is several years older than Rubio and has accomplished much during his two and a half years as governor.

On the surface, Christie does not appear well-positioned to balance Romney's ticket. They are both from the Northeast; there is little hope of bringing many Northeastern states into the Republican fold. Though considered more conservative than Romney, Christie does not represent the Tea Party wing of the party in the same way that Rubio or a traditional conservative would. The fact that Christie is from the Northeast tends to amplify conservatives' concerns. And, of course, Christie is another white male.

Upon closer examination, there is a case to be made that Christie would balance the ticket. While Romney exudes wealth and privilege, Christie appeals to the common man. In New Jersey, Christie has been unusually effective in winning over working class voters--essentially the "Reagan Democrats" that Romney had trouble with during the Republican primary. Christie has unique rhetorical gifts. Unlike Romney, he is charismatic and adept at talking tough while sounding reasonable enough to persuade. Christie's aggressiveness on particular issues (taxes, spending, teachers' unions) has gone a long way toward persuading conservatives that he is one of them. Like Rubio, Christie represents a new direction and a genuine effort toward limiting the size of government.

There are a number of other potential VPs Romney could pick. If Romney is inclined to pick someone who is not a white man, it's likely that his options are "preempted" by Rubio. For example, the 2010 midterm saw the election of several women and minorities, but they would be vulnerable to the same criticism about inexperience, while lacking Rubio's strengths. Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal has a bit more experience, but is also young. An Indian-American, Jindal wouldn't appeal to an extra ethnic group with many votes; he is not nearly as effective a communicator as Rubio. (Jindal also endorsed Rick Perry for president.)

Finally, Romney could go with "none of the above," picking someone at the top of nobody's list. But Portman, Rubio, and Christie each make sense from different perspectives. In Elephant Watcher's view, either Rubio or Christie would help boost the Republican ticket in 2012, while Portman would do it some harm.

Romney's Pick for Vice President? Part II

Portman

In Part I, we considered who might be quickly eliminated from Mitt Romney's list of potential vice presidents. In this post, we will take a closer look at some of the "frontrunners" for the VP pick, and how Romney might choose among them.

The Intrade market on Romney's VP selection has Rob Portman and Marco Rubio far above the rest. After eliminating Mitch Daniels and Tim Pawlenty, Chris Christie holds a slight edge among those who remain. What's the reasoning behind the perception that Portman has the best chance, and why is Rubio ranked so high? Is Christie a reasonable option, or would he fail to balance the ticket?

The conventional wisdom is that Portman, a U.S. Senator from Ohio, has the best chance of being picked because he is not a "risky" option. Portman is an experienced politician who long served in Ohio government. He also served as the U.S. Trade Representative for a year under President George W. Bush, and another year as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Consequently, he has a reputation for being knowledgeable about the economy. He is not associated with any scandals.

According to conventional wisdom, Portman would not really add anything to the ticket, though he hails from an important swing state and would reinforce Romney's campaign theme of economic expertise. He would be described as "another boring white guy" and would not add charisma to the ticket, but at least he would not harm it. The idea is that Romney may be receptive to a boring, safe choice after John McCain's disastrous experience with Sarah Palin in 2008.

Though Romney may in fact be thinking along those lines, Elephant Watcher believes that it would be a mistake to do so. The analysis of why Portman carries less risk is based on a fundamentally flawed understanding of how Palin was chosen and why she carried risk. In 2008, McCain made a last-minute decision to consider Palin for VP. There was no time to conduct a normal vetting of Palin. According to those who conducted the vetting, the McCain team only had time to do some light research on Palin, mostly on the Internet. They did not travel to Alaska or interview Palin's colleagues. This was risky, because they simply didn't know much about Palin before choosing her for VP.

By contrast, each of Romney's potential VP candidates will be thoroughly vetted. If they find skeletons in a candidate's closet, he will be eliminated from consideration. If not, they will go forward. In either case, Romney won't be taking a risk on an unknown candidate.

In addition, Palin was risky because she was untested by the media. She had not been grilled by liberal interviewers or appeared on Meet The Press. (Indeed, after all these years she still hasn't been on Meet The Press.) Since no one could guess how Palin would perform, McCain took a risk. It proved to be a catastrophic mistake, as the interviews revealed she was unprepared for the office.

Once again, by contrast, even relative newcomers like Rubio and Christie do not carry this risk. Within months of becoming a U.S. Senator, Rubio had already appeared on Meet The Press; Christie has been on the show multiple times. Both have been on countless other televised interviews--by friendly and hostile interviewers--and have acquitted themselves well.

The alternatives to Portman may not be "risky," but what about the idea that Portman has no drawbacks? This, too, is untrue. As we explained in an earlier post on how VP nominees are chosen, choosing among potential VPs always entails trade-offs. If Christie or Rubio have upsides that Portman doesn't, then the lack of those upsides is, in effect, a downside for Portman.

More importantly, Portman does have one major weakness: His association with the economic policies of the Bush administration. Since Portman served as the OMB director while Bush was president, it would be easier for Barack Obama to characterize Romney as a Bush retread. As we explained in the Candidate Rankings, Obama's odds of winning reelection are highest if he is able to convince voters that Romney would simply repeat Bush's economic policies. For that reason, Portman must be considered a VP pick with a dangerous flaw--not a "safe" option.

What about Christie and Rubio, and other potential VP picks? We will continue our examination in Part III.

Romney's Pick for Vice President? Part I

Yesterday we discussed the manner in which vice presidential nominees are chosen by presidential candidates. Candidates generally look for a VP who will balance the ticket by appealing to another segment of the country (or faction of their political party). Often, a VP is chosen who is perceived to offset or "fill in" a weakness in the presidential candidate. How might Mitt Romney apply these factors to his own choice for VP?

Speculating on Romney's VP selection process has two major difficulties. First, the selection process entails a large degree of "vetting" potential candidates--probing for weaknesses, digging up dirt, etc. Once the VP choice is made, it really can't be un-made. The presidential candidate wants to know everything unappealing about a potential VP before the choice is made. Naturally, all the research that takes place during the vetting process is secret. Political analysts are generally not privy to what is revealed, so they can't have much insight--unless there are no "show stoppers" revealed in the vetting.

The second difficulty inherent in speculation about the VP selection is that it is a task performed solely by the presidential candidate himself. Romney will have many people assisting him, but the choice will be Romney's alone. As we saw last year when various Republicans were deciding whether or not to run for president, it's not always easy to predict what a candidate will do. The voting public behaves in ways that can be measured and analyzed, but the decision of a single person is harder to guess.

Any examination of the VP selection process must admit these major difficulties. A potential VP pick could appear to be perfect in every way, but if skeletons are unearthed during the vetting, he'll be kicked off the list and no one will know about it. Similarly, no one outside Romney's inner circle knows how he really feels about each of the potential VPs. Nor do they know how Romney perceives himself--and therefore, they don't know how Romney thinks he should be "balanced."

The first step every candidate takes in choosing a VP is to draft a list of names. The list is then shortened and shortened again, as the candidate goes about the process of elimination. As we mentioned in the overview of the Intrade market for Republican VP nominee, there is a very large number of potential candidates. Though Rob Portman and Marco Rubio stand above the rest in terms of Intrade odds, there are a lot of people given some percentage of being chosen.

According to the Intrade market, the next names on the list are Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, and Chris Christie. These names should be familiar for readers of Elephant Watcher, since each of them were potential contenders for the presidency. They chose not to run (Pawlenty entered the race but dropped out early).

Daniels can likely be crossed off the list. He chose not to run because of personal/family issues, and those same issues will keep him from being considered for VP. In the same vein, we can eliminate the names of others who could have run but for various reasons chose not to, like Haley Barbour, Mike Huckabee, and Sarah Palin.

Christie is a different story. He didn't run in 2012 because it was just a little too early. If he had become governor a year or two earlier, he might well be the Republican presidential nominee. Having spent an additional year as governor of New Jersey, he's less likely to disqualify himself. He won't be cut from the list--not yet.

If a candidate runs and does very well, he may be chosen as VP for the sake of party unity, or because his success showed his strong qualities. Pawlenty's failed run doesn't qualify. If anything, it made him look worse, because voters could have gravitated toward him but didn't.

As for the rest of those who ran in 2012? If the Republican primary revealed anything, it was the weakness of the field. Nearly everyone had serious electability issues. Simply reading the list of candidates can make a Republican wince: Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum. None of these will be chosen. Jon Huntsman may have been electable, but he ran to the left of Romney and thus cannot be considered.

Even after making all of these cuts, there are still many potential VPs left standing. In Part II, we will take a closer look at how Romney might choose among them.

How Should a VP Nominee Be Chosen?

The first big decision made by every presidential candidate is the selection of his vice presidential running mate. By the time the Republican Party holds its convention on August 27th, Mitt Romney will have decided who gets the VP slot. What factors do--and should--presidential candidates weigh when making this decision?

Judging by the history of VP selections, the main goal is choosing someone who balances the ticket. A candidate is always eager to unite his political party. If he is viewed as a member of one wing of the party, he'll often choose a VP from the other wing. If he "belongs" to a certain region of the country, he'll choose someone from another region. Every presidential candidate has certain salient characteristics, including weaknesses. Often a candidate will choose a VP who provides a contrast. If a candidate is too old, he'll pick someone young. If he lacks experience, he'll pick someone who has a lot of experience. And so on.

It's striking just how often this rule holds true. Consider some recent VP selections and how they were intended to balance the ticket: In 2008, John McCain chose Sarah Palin (young, conservative) and Barack Obama chose Joe Biden (old, experienced, white). In 2004, John Kerry chose John Edwards (young, Southern). In 2000, George W. Bush chose Dick Cheney (experienced). In 1996, Bob Dole chose Jack Kemp (young, conservative). In 1988, George Bush Sr. chose Dan Quayle (young, Midwestern). In 1980, Ronald Reagan chose George Bush Sr. (moderate). Most famously, John F. Kennedy chose Lyndon Johnson in 1960 to help him win votes in the South.

A different method of choosing a VP is to pick someone who reinforces the qualities of the presidential candidate. Instead of balance, this might be called "doubling down." As a general rule, candidates don't do this. Since voters pay most of their attention to the presidential candidate rather than the VP pick, it's difficult for the VP to "add" anything through repetition. A VP's qualities only shine through when set in a contrast. For example, it's unlikely that Obama would have improved his share of the black vote by selecting a black running mate. Nor would a wing of a political party be extra-energized by having both members of the ticket from that wing. If there were a bonus effect, it would certainly be offset by alienating (or failing to energize) the other wing.

For an example of the "double down" approach, one might cite 1992, when Bill Clinton chose Al Gore, who was also young, moderate, and (somewhat) Southern. However, even in that case it's probable Clinton sought to balance the ticket: Gore was one of only 10 Democratic senators who voted in favor of the First Persian Gulf War. Clinton was under fire for being a draft-dodger who had protested the Vietnam War in Moscow; choosing Gore, a hawk, made sense as a balancing maneuver.

Nevertheless, a candidate must be careful not to choose a VP whose qualities undermine the candidate's message. In 2008, McCain's entire argument (almost) was that he was very experienced, and Obama wasn't. McCain then chose Palin, whose main weakness was that she lacked experience. But even in that case, the Republican ticket increased in the polls--until voters discovered just how inexperienced Palin was.

This leads to the final principle, which might be called the "Do No Harm" principle. The idea is that even a good VP probably can't add much to the ticket, but a bad VP can drag a ticket down. There's no question about the damage a VP can do if a VP has major weaknesses (e.g. Palin, whom many voters couldn't imagine being president) or is the subject of a scandal (e.g. Thomas Eagleton, removed from George McGovern's ticket in 1972 after the discovery that he had undergone electroshock therapy and had been diagnosed with "suicidal tendencies").

An aggressive form of the "Do No Harm" philosophy says that a VP can rarely do any good, but can easily do harm, so a candidate should choose the "safest" VP nominee possible--even if it's known he will add nothing to the ticket. This philosophy is questionable. It's difficult to empirically determine whether VPs of the past added nothing to the ticket, since there's no way to test what would have happened if a different VP were chosen. Even measuring poll numbers before and after the VP selection is tricky, because the VP selection usually occurs during or just before the party's convention, which may cause a "bounce" of its own. Instead, one must simply use common sense: Does balancing the ticket enable a candidate to reach a broader array of voters? Yes.

Once we accept that a VP can have a positive impact on a ticket's chance of victory, it's no longer possible to take the view that a candidate should only seek to minimize risk. By its very nature, the value of a VP selection is comparative--it must be weighed in comparison to other potential VP selections. For example, suppose a candidate can choose between two possible VPs. VP #1 would not alter the ticket's poll numbers either way. VP #2 would increase the ticket's poll numbers by five points. Would choosing VP #1 "Do No Harm"? The answer is no, even though the ticket's poll numbers don't go down. It's still a loss of five points that the ticket would have gotten if VP #2 had been chosen. Viewed in that context, VP #1 no longer appears a "safe" choice.

In summary, a candidate should choose the VP who best enables him to maximize the number of voters the ticket can attract. He must balance the ticket, but without undermining the fundamental message of the campaign. He should avoid doing harm to the ticket, while also keeping in mind that it's "harm" to not pick a VP who would add something to the ticket.

Intrade Odds: Barack Obama in the Lead

As with the Republican primary, which has essentially concluded, Intrade has a market for the presidential race. There are actually two markets for the general election at Intrade: One for which party will win the presidency, and one for which individual will win the presidency. It's better to look at the party market than the individual market; the individual market will always have a few percent floating around for remote possibilities like Barack Obama or Mitt Romney not winning their party's nomination.

Intrade currently posts a 55.9% chance for the Democrats to win, and 43.2% for the Republicans. Intrade has always been skeptical of the Republicans' chance of beating Obama in 2012. Intrade only briefly gave the Republicans as much as 50% to win, in early October last year. That moment of optimism was likely triggered by the downfall of Rick Perry in the polls at about that time. Intrade felt confident Romney would win the nomination, and obviously felt he would be a stronger general election candidate. But the long primary season seems to have worn away their confidence, such as it was.

In spite of this, Intrade's view of Romney's chances has gone up slightly in the last few weeks. For months, they had the Republican Party in the upper-'30s. Apparently a few weeks of watching close poll numbers between Romney and Obama has caused them to give Romney more credit.

Also of note is the Intrade market for Republican vice presidential nominee. U.S. Senator Rob Portman from Ohio currently leads with a 27.5% chance of being selected. U.S. Senator Marco Rubio from Florida is second with 22.1%. Everyone else is far below; there's a huge pack of potential candidates in single-digits. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is at 6.8%, and somehow Tim Pawlenty is in fourth at 6.2%. Rubio was once the clear favorite on Intrade, running in the '30s. But since April or so, his numbers have gone down in favor of Portman.

How should these numbers be interpreted? Intrade is a pretty good indicator of conventional wisdom. Intrade investors tend to lean left and reflect the opinions of Washington, D.C. Democrats. Very often the investors are not Americans (American law related to Intrade makes processing payments more cumbersome). They would tend to be influenced by their home countries' media, which is usually even farther-left than American media.

Therefore, unlike the Republican primary Intrade markets, in which the investors had less emotional stake, we can expect that Obama's odds will be inflated relative to what they probably ought to be. Democrats tend to overestimate their chance of victory in presidential elections: In every recent presidential election aside from 1984, Democrats have been confident of victory. (Republicans, if anything, tend to be more pessimistic than circumstances warrant.)

What about the VP nominee market? Portman's rise (at the expense of Rubio) has come from increasing buzz out of Washington political commentators. Unless the Romney camp is deliberately leaking information about their selection process--which is unlikely at this stage--the buzz around Portman may not actually reflect Romney's decision-making. In fact, it may be an attempt to influence it.

Left-leaning Intrade investors may be acting out of optimism even in the VP market. As we explained in the Candidate Rankings, Obama's most likely scenario for victory is one in which he successfully paints Romney as a retread of George W. Bush in terms of economic policy. The selection of Portman as VP would be very advantageous to Obama for this reason. By contrast, choosing Rubio would reinforce the idea that Romney intends to take the country in a new direction--while harming Obama in Florida and among Hispanics.

Why National Polls Are More Important Than State Polls in a General Election

Now that Elephant Watcher's coverage of the general election has begun, the Polls page has been added, listing and averaging the most recent polls. But the Polls page only includes national polls, not polls of individual states. Those who followed the Republican primary would have noticed that the opposite was true then, when Elephant Watcher continually provided polling data for the early state contests (e.g. Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina), but not national primary polls. Why the difference?

As we explained last year, state polls are more useful during a primary. That's because states vote one after the other during a primary, with the outcome of early contests influencing the outcome of later contests. Also, candidates only campaign in the early states (at first), and early state voters pay attention to the race earlier. None of these factors apply in a general election, since the entire country has the same voting day--this year, on November 6th.

For the general election, there are many reasons why state polls are actually much less useful than national polls, even if the state being polled is a swing state. First, state polls tend to be less accurate than national polls. Most pollsters are geared toward polling the country; they do not have as much experience polling one state, and they may not have very good infrastructure in place for it. State polls are less frequent--and it's better to rely on multiple polls rather than a single poll. The infrequency of state polling also leads to the use of out-of-date polls: A newspaper column may categorize a state as being a "swing state" or a "safe Democratic state" based on a poll from a few months ago, simply because there aren't any recent polls there. In addition, desperation for state polling can result in less-reputable pollsters getting their state poll widely published, while national polls are generally reported only if the pollster is well-established.

Even when state polls are frequent and accurate, there are other problems to consider. No one state decides the outcome of a general election. The electoral college total for each candidate is determined by the outcome of all 50 states (and the District of Columbia). If one's focus is narrowed to the swing states, there are still always multiple combinations that can result in the same winner. Thus, cobbling together an electoral college prediction will depend not only on good polling for one state, but for many states. Moreover, when states are very competitive, the uncertainty increases. For example, if polls show a dead heat in several states, one would need to create electoral college projections that somehow manage to call each race accurately.

All of this means that judging the state of the presidential race is far more difficult using state polls than simply using national polls. But what about the fact that the winner is determined by the electoral college rather than the popular vote? For all practical purposes, it doesn't matter. History demonstrates that if a candidate wins the popular vote by at least one point, he is virtually guaranteed to win the electoral college. Even in the 2000 race, where Al Gore won the popular vote by half a point, he was a few hundred votes from victory in Florida. The difference in the popular vote in that race was largely due to low voter turnout in the solid red states of the South where George W. Bush was guaranteed to win; Republican get-out-the-vote efforts in those areas increased in subsequent elections to prevent another mismatch between the popular vote and electoral college winner.

In other words, it's extremely unlikely that the winner of the popular vote will fail to win the presidency, even in a very close race. Since state polls are less accurate, and since electoral college projections rely on calling multiple races, it makes far more sense to follow national polls.

General Election Coverage Begins

Elephant Watcher's coverage of the general election for the 2012 presidential race begins today. Though there are still a few remaining primary contests in the Republican presidential primary, Mitt Romney has already accumulated a majority of the total delegates; Romney is guaranteed the Republican nomination. Information on the Republican primary results may continue to be accessed on the Primaries page.

The main pages of the website have been updated for the general election. The Campaign Status page indicates each party's nominees for president and vice president. The Candidate Profiles page contains profiles for the presidential and vice presidential nominees, as well as each ticket's strengths, weaknesses, and optimal strategies. The Candidate Rankings page now calculates Romney's and Barack Obama's odds of becoming president, based upon their winning scenarios. Finally, the Primaries page has been replaced by the Polls page, which provides the most recent national polls, along with an adjusted average. All of the pages for the Republican primary will still be available in archived form, with links provided at the top of the corresponding page.

The general election has begun, but most voters will not begin to pay close attention to the race until late in the summer, when the parties hold their conventions (August 27-30 for the Republicans, September 3-6 for the Democrats). Until then, the race will be in flux, especially since Romney has not yet selected his vice presidential running mate.

Nevertheless, Elephant Watcher has conducted an initial analysis of the race and has calculated that Mitt Romney's odds of winning the presidency now stand at 65%. Since there is no chance of a third party candidate winning, Obama's chance of victory is 35%.

Romney's odds of winning may seem surprisingly high, given the closeness of the national election polls (even accounting for the registered vs. likely voter issue), Romney's lower odds on Intrade (to be covered in a future post), and the fact that Obama is an incumbent.

However, as with the 2012 Republican primary, Elephant Watcher's calculations are not determined merely by studying the polls and conventional wisdom. Instead, likely scenarios for each candidate's victory are constructed and then compared to reality. Obama's main difficulty is that most voters (1) want a change in the direction of the economy, (2) don't think Obama is capable of providing that change, and (3) do view Romney as a viable alternative.

However, the race remains fluid. Each candidate has at least one plausible path to victory, and they have not yet begun to exhaust their opportunities for employing their strategies. Each candidate's odds of winning the presidency will go up or down depending on how well they perform in the race. Elephant Watcher will periodically recalculate the odds and provide relevant updates.

Decisive Moments of the Campaign, Part II

Continued from Part I.

Newt Gingrich Destroyed by Attack Ads (December 10th - December 20th). After Herman Cain and Rick Perry self-destructed in early November, the Anti-Romney vote coalesced behind Gingrich. Gingrich then enjoyed a commanding lead over everyone else in the national and early state polls; it was the longest sustained lead held by an Anti-Romney during the primary season. Romney could have gone on the attack, but he held his fire for what seemed like an interminable period of time. Suddenly, in early-to-mid December, the Romney campaign unloaded a deluge of attack ads against Gingrich, particularly in Iowa. But would the attacks prove effective in changing Iowans' minds about Gingrich? They did. Gingrich's numbers went into a death spiral as voters learned about Gingrich's lack of conservatism and lack of electability. Gingrich placed fourth in Iowa, preventing him from winning the Iowa-South Carolina combination of which every anti-establishment candidate dreams.

Rick Santorum Runs out of Time (December 27th - January 3rd). Romney's attacks against Gingrich were timed to knock out Gingrich close enough to the Iowa Caucus so that another competitor wouldn't have enough time to rise up in his place. Before Christmas, Santorum was barely reaching double-digits, and usually didn't make the top four. After Christmas, Santorum's numbers started to climb, as Iowans considered him a more electable alternative to Perry and Gingrich. On the day of the Iowa Caucus, Santorum out-performed even his rising poll numbers. Unfortunately, he had just barely run out of time. It was reported that Romney beat Santorum by a handful of votes; they tied at 25% each. A later count showed Santorum had actually won by a handful of votes. If the contest had been held a day or two later, Santorum would have won and gotten a bounce, perhaps claiming the mantle of chief Anti-Romney. Instead, Romney was reported the winner, and Santorum wouldn't rise again until after Gingrich had been decisively defeated in Florida. By that time, Santorum had to make up a lot of ground.

Mitt Romney Beats Newt Gingrich at the Florida Debate (January 26th). After Gingrich rallied the base in debates and won the South Carolina Primary, the tide appeared to have shifted radically against Romney. A corrected tally in Iowa showed that Romney had narrowly lost there, meaning he had only won one of the first three contests. Polls in Florida showed Gingrich in the lead. Not only was Romney not going to wrap up the nomination quickly--he might even lose. But on January 26th, Romney scored a huge win against Gingrich at the final pre-Florida debate. Gingrich had claimed to be the best candidate to debate Barack Obama, but Romney obliterated Gingrich. The debate demonstrated that Gingrich actually wasn't a very good debater, and that Romney was much stronger than most voters realized. Romney went on to trounce Gingrich in the Florida Primary by 14 points, sealing his frontrunner status and taking Gingrich out of the race.

Mitt Romney Wins Michigan and Ohio (February 28th - March 6th). During the month of February 2012, the Anti-Romney vote rapidly shifted from Gingrich to Santorum. Voters are disinclined to change horses midstream, but they were desperate. Gingrich was viewed as a spent force. Santorum was the only candidate remaining who had not been vetted; voters gave him the benefit of the doubt and assumed he was a decent, electable candidate. Romney's weakness in the Midwest shone through as Santorum topped the polls in Michigan and Ohio. The Romney campaign responded by attacking Santorum's conservative credentials. Unlike the assault against Gingrich, they did not get personal and did not attack Santorum's electability. This was a mistake, and Santorum's numbers eroded only slowly, as the news media gradually did more stories about Santorum's extreme social views. It was enough--barely. Romney beat Santorum by three points in Michigan, and beat him again in Ohio by just one point. Having lost two important contests in the Midwest, Santorum could no longer hope to put together a delegate majority. After Ohio, Romney was all but guaranteed to win the nomination.

Decisive Moments of the Campaign, Part I

As we continue our restrospective of the 2012 Republican primary, we would like to put a spotlight on several key moments of the campaign. An event may be considered "decisive" if, having gone differently, it likely would have altered the final outcome of the primary--or at least significantly changed the trajectory of the campaign. The events described will be listed roughly in chronological order. Since events further down the road have less potential to cause change (due to delegates being "locked in," etc.), they may be considered somewhat in order of their decisiveness, as well.

Candidates Choose Not to Run (May 14th - October 4th). Each presidential primary campaign is unique because the dynamic of the playing field is determined by who is playing. Generally speaking, if a politician is capable of winning the presidential nomination--and particularly if he's likely to win--he will run. For various reasons, a number of serious potential competitors opted not to run this season. In the case of three men--Mike Huckabee, Mitch Daniels, and Chris Christie--their absence was decisive. Any of the three had a real chance to defeat Mitt Romney. At least one of them, Chris Christie (arguments can be made for all three), was more likely than not going to defeat Romney. If that weren't enough, if any of the three had entered the race, the shape of the race would have been dramatically different, even if Romney ultimately won.

Tim Pawlenty Quits Early (August 14th). According to the Elephant Watcher calculation of the odds, only one candidate who entered the race ever had higher odds of winning the nomination than Romney. That candidate was Tim Pawlenty, who ended up quitting much sooner than anyone else. Pawlenty quit because his campaign was spending itself into debt while failing to get good poll numbers or win the Ames straw poll. Unlike Romney, who had learned from his 2008 run, Pawlenty's campaign was in a hurry, and it acted as though voters were making up their minds during the summer of 2011. They were not. What if Pawlenty had taken a more steady approach? In hindsight, we can see that Pawlenty probably would have beaten Romney. Though he lacked any exciting qualities, Pawlenty had a solidly conservative record and was at least as electable as Romney. In the end, he would have been acceptable to both wings of the Republican Party. When we consider how well Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum did in spite of all their failings, it's pretty clear that someone like Pawlenty, who lacked their weaknesses, would have won.

Mitt Romney Beats Rick Perry in the Debates (September 7th - September 22nd). Though a lot of media attention was devoted to Rick Perry's later "oops" gaffe, Perry had already been defeated during the more decisive September debates. Romney's campaign always considered Perry to be the biggest threat. Perry was the only candidate capable of running a first-class, professional campaign. Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum were all running long-shot vanity campaigns. By September, Pawlenty was already out. That left Perry, who owned a Texas-sized chunk of the Republican establishment and donor networks, second only to Romney. During the September debates, Perry was aggressive. He sought out one-on-one battles with Romney and occasionally scored points against him. But Romney consistently out-classed Perry, who had a tendency to make at least one memorable gaffe per debate. Perry also seemed to get worse over time. The third strike, the debate on September 22nd, knocked Perry out. Before the September debates, Perry had a solid lead over Romney in the polls. After them, Romney held the lead.

Rick Perry Says "Oops" (November 9th). Though Romney maintained a lead over Perry from the end of September onward, Perry's catastrophic "oops" gaffe at the November 9th debate still had an important impact on the race. By November, Perry was in a weakened position. However, there was a possibility that he could recover at some point. He might not have been able to win, but he could have played a role as one of the--if not the chief--Anti-Romney candidates. Only voters in the early states paid attention to the September/October debates. Recall that Gingrich was able to bounce back and win South Carolina after early defeats. Santorum, too, experienced a resurgence in February 2012. Supposing Perry had not made his "oops" gaffe, which became the most famous primary debate gaffe in political history, he might have been able to muddy the waters in Iowa, South Carolina, or beyond. Gingrich and Santorum both needed Perry out of the way in order to make their big gains. Without the "oops," Santorum may have been forced to drop out after losing Iowa.

In Part II, we will explore the remaining moments which we consider to have been decisive in the 2012 Republican presidential primary.

Newt Gingrich Calls It Quits

Gingrich

Newt Gingrich announced today that he, like Rick Santorum, has suspended his campaign and is conceding the race to Mitt Romney. The Campaign Status page has been updated to reflect Gingrich's departure; only Romney and Ron Paul remain in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. Gingrich's concession will have little impact on the race, since his campaign was already dead in the water. However, it does help ensure that Romney will win the Southern primary contests in May by a wide margin. If Gingrich or Santorum had remained in the race and scored a large protest vote, it would have embarrassed Romney. Now, the only potential recipient of protest votes will be Paul, who appeals to few voters.

Gingrich had a lot of ups and downs in the race. He stumbled out of the gate with a poor performance on "Meet the Press" in May 2011. He was written off by most observers, but he steadily gained attention with his strong debate performances. Yet Gingrich did not "debate" his opponents in the traditional sense; he did not attack or get into arguments with his competitors. Instead, he presented "red meat" to the base in an interesting and articulate fashion. Gingrich, like so many others in the race, waited his turn as candidates crashed and burned. When Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain all cratered, Gingrich's numbers rose. By the end of November 2011, he was in the lead.

For a time, Gingrich had truly impressive poll numbers. In December, he was leading by a substantial margin in national primary polls as well as the state polls in Iowa, South Carolina, and Florida. Romney's campaign held firm, refusing to unleash its attack ads until mid-December, when they believed Iowa voters were really making up their minds. The attacks had an extraordinary impact, proving Gingrich had feet of clay. Gingrich crashed just in time for Santorum's numbers to go up, leading to a virtual tie in Iowa between Romney and Santorum.

The Gingrich rollercoaster wasn't finished, however. After Gingrich did badly in both the Iowa and New Hampshire contests, he suddenly rose again to win the South Carolina Primary by 12 points. He had done well in the debates again (particularly by attacking the liberal moderators), and he benefited from his regional connection. Romney inadvertently helped Gingrich by making some unforced errors, like not releasing his tax returns and not launching attack ads against Gingrich as he had in Iowa.

But once Romney's campaign returned to form, Gingrich was crushed in Florida. Republican voters clearly had reservations about Romney, but they were more afraid of selecting a candidate with Gingrich's doubtful electability. Nor could Gingrich's debate performances save him once Romney started taking an aggressive posture in the debates: Gingrich was good at expounding on various topics, but he wasn't very good at debating an opponent head-to-head. After Florida, the anti-Romney vote switched horses to Santorum and never looked back.

What will Gingrich's legacy be? He proved the importance of debates in the primary process. He also demonstrated Republican voters' preference for electability over red meat. Gingrich saw himself as a man locked in mortal combat with Romney, but ultimately Gingrich served to help Romney. Gingrich was the second-to-last Anti-Romney candidate. Santorum, the final Anti-Romney, was a stronger one, since he had fewer electability issues (though he did have some). Gingrich essentially took up space that Santorum needed. Gingrich's rise and fall in Iowa delayed Santorum's own rise, preventing Santorum from getting his needed clear-cut victory there. And Gingrich's victory in South Carolina prevented Santorum from gaining any steam until February. Gingrich also took some delegates that otherwise would have gone to Santorum. If Santorum had gotten those delegates, the race would have appeared closer, and Santorum probably would have performed better in late February, when Romney started beating him.