When No Means No: How A Candidate Convincingly Declines to Run

As you can see from the Campaign Status page, none of the prospective candidates has officially declared he is running for president--despite several having participated in a presidential debate.

Many of the candidates have formed presidential exploratory committees, and only one on the roster (Barbour) is categorized as "declined to run." This leaves some of the most well-known candidates in the nebulous "potentially running" category. One of these--Christie--has repeatedly stated he is not running. Others have not said one way or the other. How does a candidate convincingly deny that he is running for president?

The first rule is that simply declaring that one will not run for president is not enough. Today, Barack Obama is the best-known example of this principle: On October 22, 2006, Obama appeared on "Meet the Press" and said definitively that he would not run for president. Less than four months later, Obama officially announced he was running for president; he was likely preparing for the run long before that.

If a denial isn't enough, how can one can tell if a candidate is out of the race? There are a number of ways. First, a candidate who is already in the race would only withdraw if he meant it. Unless that person is Ross Perot, it simply would not make sense to get into the race and then get out if he really wanted to run. The same is true of someone who creates a presidential exploratory committee and then declines to run. Officially endorsing another candidate is one other way to make a permanent exit from the race.

A denial is also persuasive if it takes place after a candidate declares he is interested in running, or is considering it. Barbour fit into that category. For several months, Barbour attempted to create interest in his potential candidacy. When he announced he was out of the race, he knew it would put an end to that interest. Making that announcement only made sense because he had, in fact, decided not to run.

On that point, an unprompted announcement or released statement is far more trustworthy than a response to an interviewer's question (as when Obama was questioned on "Meet the Press"). Potential candidates like Huckabee and Palin will likely release statements about their intentions during the next few months. If they say they are not running, they're not running.

Ironically, the denial of an intention to run is least believable when it is consistent. During the period when Obama was denying his intention to run, he did not waffle, suggest he "might" be running, or say he would make up his mind later. He consistently denied it and moved on. The purpose was to avoid appearing presumptuous. It was simply too soon for Obama to run, because he had been elected senator so recently.

Christie faces a similar dilemma. Since he only took office in January 2010, it would appear presumptuous--neglectful of his office, even--for him to announce he is running. He can only enter the race if he is essentially drafted by the Party. The Party cannot claim to be out of options until the race is already underway. Thus, the only way for Christie to convincingly decline to run would be to either officially endorse another candidate, or remain out of the race beyond late 2011 (perhaps October or November), when it would be too late to run.

Iowa's GOP Donors Schedule Meeting to Beg Christie to Run for President

Christie

Associated Press reports that a group of influential big-money donors from Iowa will meet with Christie to plead with him to run for president. The story may be read here.

Summary: Prominent Republican donors from Iowa are scheduled to meet with Christie on May 31st. The stated goal of the meeting is for them to persuade Christie to run for president. The Iowan group is not satisfied with the current field of candidates; they believe they need someone who would both make a great president and be a great campaigner. Christie agreed to host the gathering at the governor's mansion in New Jersey. But Christie's spokesman says this does not mean Christie is hinting toward a run.

Analysis: As the article suggests, this is the latest sign--among many--that Republicans are divided and dissatisfied with the field thus far. No candidate has yet been able to unify the Party. As we discussed in a previous post, it's not just that Republicans are divided among different candidates and prefer their own. Rather, many Republicans find other candidates completely unacceptable.

At this point in the campaign, influential fundraisers such as the Iowan group would normally be picking a candidate (if they had not already done so). The contenders are eager to put their campaign infrastructure in place, and that takes money. They cannot go forward without the support of their donors. The fact that these donors would not only say "no" to the current candidates, but actually go to the lengths of meeting with someone who (repeatedly) said he would not run, shows how dire the situation is. Some might say it is a slap in the face of candidates like Romney and Pawlenty. It is doubly insulting coming on the heels of the Republican Party's first primary debate.

The article contains insights as to the kind of candidate the Republicans are seeking. They want someone who shares their conservatism, but that is not enough. They also want someone who can run a great campaign and beat Obama. Clearly, they do not yet see someone in the race who possesses both of those qualities.

The fundraisers' decision to arrange this meeting suggests they do not believe Christie when he denies he has an interest in running--or at least, that they believe he might reconsider. Christie's willingness to host such a meeting shows they have good reason to think so. After all, the donors made no secret of the meeting's sole purpose--to convince Christie to run--and he agreed to it. This is the clearest sign yet that Christie is indeed entertaining a run for the presidency. It is also the most public. Indeed, it was Christie's own spokesman who released this information to the Associated Press.

These are precisely the kinds of entreaties by prominent Republicans that Christie needs as an excuse to run. But the field is not yet fully developed: The primary will not begin in earnest until August-September. If Republicans are still as skeptical about the field then as they are now, Christie ought to feel comfortable about his chances of winning the nomination. So far, there are no indications that Republicans are changing their view of the field. Rather, the desperation appears to be growing. As such, Elephant Watcher calculates Christie has a 60% chance of winning the nomination.

Most Republicans Believe Trump's Candidacy Is A Publicity Stunt

Trump

Since his "media honeymoon" ended a few weeks ago, it seems Trump has been the recipient of a never-ending supply of bad news: Polls showing Republicans opposed to him, polls showing the general electorate opposed to him, polls showing his New Hampshire competitor Romney with much better poll numbers than his, fumbling during interviews, being mocked at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, and a failure to pivot off of the birth certificate issue.

As explained in Trump's Profile, his two main challenges are to convince Republicans that he is a conservative and that he is electable. But most voters doubt the Trump is even a serious candidate: According to a new Rasmussen poll, 61% of Americans believe Trump is seeking publicity rather than actually running for president. This includes 56% of Republicans.

The numbers reflect ill will toward Trump among the electorate. People who want to vote for Trump are more likely to believe he is running; Republicans who believe Trump is faking it hope Trump is faking it. They fear Trump will make the primary into a circus and embarrass the Party. Or worse, that he will get the nomination and hand Obama an easy victory.

There is a small glimmer of hope for Trump here: If and when he actually does run for president, people may view him differently. He may get a second wind. He badly needs another chance to convince Republicans that he is for real.

After Obama released his birth certificate, Trump had an opportunity to move on to something more substantive. But events did not cooperate: After Trump was humiliated at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, Osama bin Laden was killed. This effectively sucked away all of the media oxygen. Even Trump, with his well-honed ability to get TV time for himself, could not hope to get on the air to talk about China or OPEC in such an environment. Trump's disappearance from the media leaves people with the impression that he is broken and in full retreat.

In politics, memories are short. You may be down, but you are almost never out. Comebacks happen all the time. But until Trump proves himself capable of gaining perceived conservatism and perceived electability, his odds of victory remain slim. Elephant Watcher calculates Trump has a 1% chance of winning the nomination.

2008 vs. 2012 - Romney

Romney

In a previous post, Elephant Watcher examined how Huckabee's starting position for the 2012 race differs from when he ran in 2008. It's worth conducting a similar analysis of the Romney campaign.

Many of Romney's strengths (listed in his Profile) are the same as in 2008. The Republican establishment favors Romney, even though they have fears about whether conservatives will accept him. He is still likely to have a well-funded and well-organized campaign. This will be Romney's last real chance to become president, so he'll be even more willing to spend his own money than in 2008.

Romney has one new strength: He has branded himself the "economics" candidate. If the economy remains in focus during the primary, it will be to his advantage. During the 2008 run, Romney struggled to brand himself, floundering about for a central theme to his campaign. He finally settled on the economy, but it was too late in the game. This time, Romney is ready.

Then there is the issue of Romney's liberal record from his term as governor of Massachusetts. Last time, Romney was hammered for flipping from moderate to conservative. Romney's opponents were able to put the "flip-flopper" label on Romney very effectively. This time, Romney has at least been consistent for an additional few years. He will not be quite as much of a "flip-flopper," but his sincerity will still be suspect.

Romney has an additional problem: The Tea Party strongly dislikes and distrusts him. No one can say exactly how much influence the Tea Party will have in the primary; it will likely depend on whether Tea Partiers rally behind a single candidate.

Romney's biggest problem, of course, is Romneycare--the Obamacare-like legislation Romney enacted in Massachusetts. It was a problem last time, but it will overshadow everything else this time. It is possible for Romney to employ a strategy that will minimize the Romneycare problem, but he has not yet discovered it. The strategy is discussed in Romney's Profile.

Finally, Romney has the chance to use what he has learned about the early primaries from his last run. During the 2008 race, Romney split his resources, attempting to win both Iowa and New Hampshire and coast to victory. Romney seriously underestimated how weak he was in Iowa, wasting resources that would have been better spent in New Hampshire. His second-place finishes in both states did not impress voters. Romney did not anticipate a long, protracted campaign. This time around, expect Romney to put all of his focus on winning New Hampshire. Early polls suggest he should do well there.

In summary, Romney has some new strengths but also some new weaknesses. But he has the ability to mitigate some of his weaknesses--should his campaign be conducted wisely. Elephant Watcher calculates Romney has a 10% chance of winning the nomination.

Republicans Already Opposed to Some Candidates

The 2012 Republican primary has not yet begun in earnest, and voters are unlikely to see attack ads against Republican candidates for quite some time. Yet recent polling by Rasmussen shows that many Republicans are already opposed to certain candidates.

Rasmussen presented voters with a list of candidates and asked them which ones they would "definitely vote for," "probably vote for," "definitely vote against," and "probably vote against." (Participants were apparently allowed to select more than one candidate whom they would "definitely vote for.") Rasmussen released some of the results of this poll here.

Most candidates received from 20-30% "definitely vote for" ratings, and combined "definitely" and "probably vote for" ratings of around 50-60%. Chris Christie received the highest "definitely vote for" rating of any of the candidates: 30%.

More revealing were the percentages of Republicans who said they would either "probably" or "definitely" vote against a candidate:

Would Probably or Definitely Vote Against:
Trump 48%
Palin 39%
Gingrich 39%
Christie 22%

The poll suggests a polarized electorate. Almost half of Republicans have dismissed Trump. It appears Trump has had difficulty persuading voters that he is genuinely conservative, serious, or electable. As Elephant Watcher explained in a previous post, these difficulties have kept Trump's odds of winning the nomination extremely low, despite some decent national primary poll numbers.

Gingrich and Palin both show weakness in this poll, with nearly 40% of Republicans already opposed to them.

Christie performs much better, with only 22% of Republicans giving him negative marks. Christie's high positive rating and low negative rating reflect what was suggested in Christie's profile: He has enthusiastic supporters and few detractors.

Unless another candidate--one who is willing to jump into the field early--is able to similarly rally support while not alienating significant blocs of the Republican party, Christie is in good shape to win. Elephant Watcher has calculated the odds of each candidate winning the nomination: Christie at 60%; Trump, Palin, and Gingrich range from 1-3%.

Who Won the Republican Debate?

The first primary debate of the season was held on May 5th in South Carolina. Only five candidates chose to participate: Cain, Paul, Pawlenty, Santorum, and former governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson. Political commentators suggest that Pawlenty was the only "top tier" candidate who attended. In fairness to Paul, however, his loyal constituency is usually enough to get him the poll numbers needed for a debate invitation (until the requirements are tightened later in the season).

The other candidates--Cain, Santorum, and Johnson--will need to boost their poll numbers to ensure they get a chance to participate in the debates to come. Johnson's numbers are so poor that he has not even been included in the Elephant Watcher roster of candidates. As for the others, you may see a more detailed analysis of their strengths, weaknesses, and strategies on their Profiles.

So who won the debate? In a political debate, of course, there is no such thing as "winning the argument." Instead, candidates aim to achieve certain goals. In this case--even for Pawlenty--the goal was to attract media attention. The debates also present an opportunity for the candidates to prove their rhetorical ability. So who succeeded?

No candidate performed in an outstanding way. Two candidates, Santorum and Johnson, performed poorly. But Cain, Paul, and Pawlenty each achieved what they set out to do:

Cain--who has never held elective office--managed to look like a respectable candidate who deserved to share the stage with the professional politicians. Most likely he did not generate quite as much excitement as he would have hoped, however.

Paul performed for his fans, and he gave them exactly what they wanted. Paul seeks to keep his constituency intact and enthusiastic. Thus far he has not shown any inclination toward expanding his base.

Pawlenty did not make any major stumbles, did not pick fights, and performed ably. He is often criticized as a boring candidate, but he avoided being too stiff. He was the most polished of the candidates. Arguably he did the best job.

As for the candidates who did not perform as well: Santorum's only strength is his social conservatism, which he was not able to use to articulate a reason why he ought to be president. Johnson had a somewhat embarrassing debate. At one point, he complained about not getting enough questions (though actually each candidate was given a fair share), which calls to mind the abortive candidacy of Mike Gravel in 2008 (who was referenced in an earlier post about debates).

In summary, the debate produced little of any particular note. It was the first debate, and it showed: It seemed like something of a warm-up exercise. If a candidate seeks to propel himself into the lead with a good debate performance, he will need to show something more.

First Primary Debate to Be Held Today

A debate sponsored by the South Carolina GOP and Fox News will be held this evening at 9:00pm ET. This marks the first primary debate of the season; previously scheduled debates were postponed due to lack of candidates willing to participate.

Some might say this first debate does not really "count" because many of the Republican candidates will not be participating. That's no surprise. After all, as the Campaign Status page shows, no one has officially declared a presidential run yet. Candidates who have merely formed exploratory committees are permitted to participate.

There are other requirements for inclusion in this debate. In a previous post, we took a look at how it's determined who gets included in the debates. Here, one of the requirements is polling an average of at least 1% in five national primary polls. Virtually any serious candidate ought to meet the requirement.

However, being invited does not meet a candidate must attend. Several of those leading the polls have already decided not to participate. Some, like Huckabee, cannot appear for contractual reasons; he would need to terminate his lucrative Fox News contract first. Others, like Romney and Gingrich, could appear but will not.

Refusing to participate is a means of depriving the debate of its legitimacy. This is normally done when a marginal group tries to host a debate but does not have the resources to televise it. Here, Romney and others realize there is little to gain. If Romney's chief rival will be Huckabee, for instance, there is no point in appearing in a forum where he cannot attack Huckabee and others can attack Romney.

Here, some candidates may be concerned that the debate isn't exclusive enough. For example, Herman Cain will be able to participate, but might be excluded from future debates by more stringent poll requirements. If Romney and other leading contenders appeared at this debate, it would draw a larger audience, thereby giving a bigger platform to Cain.

Cain's strategy requires him to participate in the major debates. Because so few of the leading candidates will be attending, this debate cannot be considered one of the "major" ones. Nevertheless, Elephant Watcher will monitor the debate to see what develops.

Phases of the 2012 Republican Primary, Or: Why Isn't Anyone in the Race Yet?

At this time in 2007, the 2008 Democratic and Republican primaries were in full swing. This time around, not even one of the major contenders has officially declared he's running yet, and some of the primary debates have been postponed due to lack of participants. To understand what's happening, we must take a look at the four different phases of the primary season.

The phase we are currently in might be called the pre-pre-pre-game. Few (if any) of the serious candidates have officially declared they're running, but several have established presidential exploratory committees to pave the way. This phase is likely to last until the summer.

Over the course of the summer, nearly all of the candidates should officially declare that they are running. Some will make official announcements that they have declined to run. Once the participants are finally known, the race will take shape.

The third phase will begin in September, around Labor Day. Late entrants (such as Christie) may announce their candidacy at this time. From this point forward, there will be a high level of energy in the campaign and primary debates will be frequent. During this period, voters in early primary states will be paying close attention to the race.

In January of 2012, with only a month to go before the Iowa Caucus, the primary will take center stage. This is the fourth phase, and it will last until a candidate wins the Republican nomination. Up until this point, few people will have been paying much attention to the race, aside from early primary voters and people very interested in politics.

Back in 2007, none of the candidates understood any of this. They thought the sooner they started campaigning, the better. There was sort of an "arms race," with none of the candidates wanting to fall behind. In reality, their efforts in the winter, spring, and even summer of 2007 were mostly wasted. By campaigning so long before most people were paying attention, they were building sandcastles next to the water: The money and effort they put in seemed to have no lasting impact.

It is easier to see it in hindsight: Rudy Giuliani spent plenty of money throughout 2007 but got nowhere. Mike Huckabee experienced a sudden "boom" in popularity toward the end of 2007, because that was when people were actually starting to pay attention in Iowa. Fred Thompson was criticized for getting into the race later, in the late summer of 2007, but it was his lack of enthusiasm once he was in the race that doomed his campaign.

This time, the candidates understand there is little point in doing too much before the summer. Campaigning is not only exhausting to the candidates; it is expensive (especially if it means terminating a contract with Fox News). When a candidate's campaign is started too early, it often spends money faster than it can raise it, rather than building up assets over time.

Thus, the candidates have collectively made an unstated agreement with each other to hold off beginning the race until later. Most candidates already decideded months (or years) ago that they were going to run, but some are genuinely still making up their minds based on who else is running.

Rasmussen Poll Experiment Yields Interesting Results

In an earlier post, we examined why national primary polls are much less helpful than polls of individual states. A recent national primary poll done by Rasmussen illustrates another big problem with national primary polls: The decision of which candidates to include has a big influence on the results.

Most national primary polls have shown Huckabee, Romney, and Trump with good numbers; Palin and Gingrich follow. Rasmussen's experiment was to see what happened when all of these names except Romney were excluded, and some other candidates were included. Participants also had the option of choosing "some other candidate" or "not sure." These were the results:

4/26 Rasmussen
Romney 27%
Christie 26%
Ryan 12%
Pawlenty 8%
Daniels 4%
Perry 3%
Huntsman 2%
Some other candidate 6%
Not sure 12%

The poll is enlightening for two reasons. First is how high Christie ranks in the poll. Normally you don't see Christie anywhere in the polls, because he is not included as an option. Christie appeared on the national scene in 2010, and his only participation in the race thus far has been to repeatedly deny he is running. On the other hand, Romney has been running for president since 2007. Voters know he is in the race, and he is often spoken of as a frontrunner. Yet he is in a dead heat with Christie.

Even more interesting is how few participants chose the "some other candidate" option: only 6%. This raises the question: Where are all of the Huckabee voters? Trump? Palin? Gingrich? A more typical Rasmussen poll has those four excluded candidates getting a total of 52% of the vote!

Apparently the people who normally choose Huckabee, Trump, Palin, and Gingrich are not really committed those candidates. Or perhaps they simply prefer Christie (or one of the other candidates who were included in the poll). It's also possible that poll participants simply don't like picking a "some other candidate" option.

In any of these cases, the Republican field is in a state of disarray. The polls may not be able to shed much light, because the choice of options leads to even more confusion. Rasmussen's experiment provides additional proof that conditions are favorable for a late entry by Christie. For the reasons explained on the Rankings page, Elephant Watcher calculates that Christie has a 60% chance of winning the nomination.

After Bin Laden, Should Republicans Be Afraid to Run Against Obama in 2012?

As discussed in a previous post, the elimination of Bin Laden is unlikely to change the kind of candidate Republican primary voters select. But will would-be candidates decide not to run, fearing Obama's reelection is inevitable? Should they?

Obama will receive a bounce in his approval ratings, and discussion of Bin Laden's death will consume media attention for some time. The Republican primary will "pause" while this happens. Some liberal journalists and political commentators will suggest Obama is invincible. As a result, it is possible some Republican candidates who were uncertain of whether to run will decide to pass. But some candidates will remember their history.

In 1991, the first President Bush won a smashing victory against Iraq in the first Gulf War. Many Democrats had opposed the war and were humiliated. Bush's approval rating jumped to 90%. The conventional wisdom was that Bush's reelection was inevitable. As a result, leading Democratic contenders decided not to enter the race.

A year later, of course, the situation had completely changed: Voters were focused on the weak economy and Bush's approval fell so low that a strange man named Ross Perot presented a serious challenge. Bill Clinton had been brave enough to enter the race in spite of Bush's earlier strength, and was rewarded with the presidency.

In the long run, Obama is probably no more likely to be reelected than he was before Bin Laden's death. Obama cannot be easily criticized as "soft" on counter-terrorism, but Obama's willingness to authorize predator strikes in Pakistan was one of the areas where Republicans had already given him credit. Republicans have instead spent Obama's term focused on attacking his domestic policy. Still, Obama should expect a reprieve from being characterized as a weak leader.

For awhile, at least. Bin Laden's death will encourage an ever-increasing segment of the Democratic Party (and the population at large) to demand an exit from Afghanistan. The removal of Bin Laden will not make this any easier for Obama to accomplish, however: Coalition forces are fighting a resurgent Taliban--which was never led by Bin Laden.

Thus, if Obama refuses to withdraw from Afghanistan, he will be criticized (especially by his base). If he tries to withdraw some troops and the military situation deteriorates, he will also be criticized. Perversely, it's not inconceivable that Bin Laden's death will, in the long run, present Obama with a political challenge instead of a benefit.

For the moment, no one knows how many of the Republican contenders are aware of this. If they lack judgment, they may be spooked out of the race. As with the Democratic contenders who opted out in 1992, they will regret it.