State Primary Polls After Huckageddon

As we've seen, the 2012 Republican primary field changed dramatically with Huckageddon, Mike Huckabee's departure from the race. Other candidates (Donald Trump and Mitch Daniels) also dropped out during May. We had been receiving a steady stream of polling data, but recently there have been few state primary polls released. This is likely because pollsters didn't want to waste their time polling people on candidates who might then drop out.

Post-Huckageddon, there have been only a few state primary polls. You can view all of the state primary polls for the early primary states on the Primaries page. How does the race stand in the polling now that Huckabee's gone? And are early polls--even state ones--useful?

Here are the three state polls that have been released since Huckageddon. Note that two of them are by Public Policy Polling (PPP), a Democratic pollster:

Iowa
05/30 PPP (D) -- Romney 21, Palin 15, Cain 15, Gingrich 12

New Hampshire
05/22 CNN/WMUR -- Romney 32, Paul 9, Giuliani 6, Gingrich 6

South Carolina
06/05 PPP (D) -- Romney 27, Palin 18, Gingrich 12, Cain 12

Obviously these polls look excellent for Mitt Romney, who leads in each state by a considerable margin. They're good for Herman Cain as well, who is moving from obscurity into the field (though not the top). Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich also do surprisingly well, considering all the heat Gingrich has taken, and the fact that Palin appears unlikely to run.

If the polls could be taken at face value, Romney will easily win the nomination. Unfortunately for Romney, they can't be taken at face value. As with the polls that showed Donald Trump doing well earlier this year, early polls measure name recognition most of all. Indeed, the "internals" of the PPP polls show that when they hypothetically poll the race without Palin, Romney gets more of her voters than the other candidates. What kind of voter would have Palin as his first choice and Romney as second choice? Someone who merely picks a candidate whom he can identify.

But toward the end of this year, as the primaries draw near, candidates who have low name recognition will become known to the early primary voters. Candidates who relied on high name recognition will fade. This occurred in late 2007, when Rudy Giuliani (who was the Republican's frontrunner according to early polls) and Hillary Clinton (who led her Democratic opponents by 20+ points most of the year) declined dramatically.

The polls do have their uses, however. Comparing apples to apples works: You can compare the numbers of candidates who both have high name recognition. For example, we can see that Romney is ahead of Palin and Gingrich. It's not as if Romney is ahead of them because he has higher name recognition.

You can also see that Cain, who lacks name recognition, is doing better than the other low-recognition candidates (like Bachmann and Pawlenty). There are some caveats, of course: Cain only appears on polls done by one firm (PPP), and only one poll per state. Also, Cain has shown vulnerabilities that could sink his campaign. Moreover, candidates who rely on charisma and excitement tend to have artificially-boosted numbers. After an ecstatic period, primary voters often settle down to a more sober, strategic choice. In 2004 for example, Democrats often said they "dated Dean, but married Kerry." That is, they liked Howard Dean and supported him in early polls, but they ultimately went with John Kerry, whom they considered more electable.

How Much Has Sarah Palin Hurt Michele Bachmann's Campaign?

Palin

According to conventional wisdom, there's only enough room for either Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann in the 2012 Republican primary, but not both of them. The thinking goes that they're both very conservative women who appeal to the Tea Party but no one else. If both ran, they would split each others' votes. Sometimes the conventional wisdom is wrong. In this case, however, it is correct. As we have observed previously, Bachmann planned to get into the race only after determining that Palin would not run; Palin did not announce either way; Bachmann was stuck on the sidelines; Herman Cain took advantage of the vacuum. Bachmann was then forced to accept an invitation to a primary debate without first hearing Palin's decision.

Palin has still not announced whether she will run for president in 2012. Instead, she made a very highly-publicized tour of the northeast in early June. For some, this heightened speculation that she would run. But the fact that Fox News condoned the tour by not dropping her contract suggests that it was never a prelude to a run. As a result, others speculated that Palin had discreetly informed Fox News that she will not be running.

In one sense, it doesn't matter whose speculations are correct. As long as Palin stays out of the race without declaring her intention one way or the other, she will consume media time and get attention that would otherwise go to others, including Bachmann. Though some of Palin's fans have moved on to candidates who are in the race, many Palin supporters are absolutely convinced that she will run. Until she says otherwise, they will not be joining the Bachmann camp.

The conventional wisdom that Palin would split Bachmann's support is even more correct than most pundits realized: Even from outside of the race, Palin is still splitting Bachmann's support. Meanwhile, Cain has taken full advantage of the absence of Bachmann and Palin to build up his own Tea Party base. Before the May 5th debate, Cain was largely unknown, even to many Tea Partiers. Bachmann would have started out with an advantage. Now it is Bachmann who must make up for lost time, all while Palin continues to cast a shadow over the race.

One might be inclined to ask why Palin is doing this. If she does want to run, why would she take so long in saying so--even to the point of causing Bachmann to get into the race? After all, if Palin had declared by now, Bachmann would have declined to run. By delaying, Palin is allowing another candidate to get into the race, splitting her support. The fact that Palin has made no moves to keep Bachmann out of the race is the best evidence that she has no intention of running. Palin's supporters are quick to say that she is special and doesn't have to play by the normal rules. But just because she doesn't have to do something doesn't mean it makes sense for her not to do it.

If Palin doesn't want to run, why not say so and let Bachmann go forward? If they are so similar, why wouldn't Palin want to help Bachmann instead of hurting her? One possibility is that Palin is acting in her own best interest without regard to Bachmann. It may hurt Bachmann for Palin to get publicity, but it helps Palin. The other possibility is that Palin actually wants to harm Bachmann's chances. If Palin doesn't run, it's because she knows she can't win. Seeing Bachmann--whom Palin may view as a lesser version of herself--go on and win the race would be deeply embarrassing, and make Palin regret her own decision not to run. Additionally, Palin wants to be seen as the most prominent woman in the Tea Party movement.

Though Palin may see Bachmann as a representative of herself in the race, Elephant Watcher would not be surprised to see Palin work against her. If so, Palin may eventually support Cain, handing him the mantle of the Tea Party movement. On the other hand, Palin may stick with her pattern of endorsing "mama grizzlies," and endorse Bachmann--only when it's clear Bachmann can't win and replace her.

Rick Santorum Announces He's Running for President

Santorum

Rick Santorum made his official entry into the race today. This represents a new milestone on the road toward Iowa: All six candidates who had formed exploratory committees have now officially announced they're running. As you can see from the Campaign Status page, they're also the only six in the race. (Michele Bachmann, however, is scheduled to appear at a primary debate this month.)

Santorum is something of a tragic figure in the 2012 Republican primary. He and Ron Paul have the lowest odds of winning the nomination. But unlike Paul, a libertarian gimmick candidate who runs merely to make a point, Santorum actually wants to win. Until his defeat in the rout of 2006, Santorum served continuously as either a U.S. House Rep or a U.S. Senator for sixteen years. And yet, almost no one takes him seriously.

Santorum's problem is that whatever strategy he may wish to employ, someone else is already doing it better than he is. If he wanted to cast himself as a Tea Party candidate, Herman Cain or Michele Bachmann already do it with more authenticity and grassroots enthusiasm. If Santorum wanted to play the role of the serious, electable statesman, Tim Pawlenty or Mitt Romney have him beat there, too. Wherever he turns, he is less conservative, or less electable, or less rhetorically gifted than his opponent.

The debate on May 5th, in which Santorum participated, provided a powerful illustration of his dire situation. Only four other candidates appeared, and Santorum still couldn't get any attention. Pawlenty and Cain were enough to drown him out. From there, the field only became more crowded.

Iowa is where Santorum's candidacy will fight and die. He will attempt to fill the niche of the social conservative, but several others will be doing the same thing, and better. It's not unlikely that Santorum will be the first announced candidate to drop out of the race. He may not even make it to the day of the Iowa Caucus.

News posts related to Santorum will have the Santorum "tag". For detailed assessment of Santorum's strengths, weaknesses, and strategy, view his Profile. Elephant Watcher calculates Santorum has a 0% chance of winning the nomination.

Can Herman Cain Become a Serious Candidate?

Cain

Luck plays an important role in politics. Candidates can rise or fall based on circumstances beyond their control. Last month, Tim Pawlenty benefited from the departure of some important competitors. May wasn't a bad month for Herman Cain, either.

Cain's main weakness has been (and always will be) the fact that he has never held elective office. He has business experience, but no political experience. Typically, this kind of candidate would not even be allowed onto the stage, let alone win the competition. It's not for no reason that a "businessman" candidate has not won the presidency in recent history. To get any kind of media attention, a candidate must at least have won a U.S. House seat (or be otherwise well-known, like Donald Trump). Even being a governor is sometimes not enough, as former New Mexico governor and political non-entity Gary Johnson would attest.

Combined with Cain's low name recognition, there was a real doubt about whether Cain would be taken seriously, even at the level of someone like Ron Paul. But as the race stands today, Cain has cleared that hurdle. He may not be given much of a chance to win, but he will be included in the primary debates, and he can't be ignored. Why?

Partly it was due to luck. Cain's affiliation with the Tea Party and his being the only black candidate were just enough to get him the poll numbers needed for an invite to the May 5th primary debate. Many of the "top-tier" candidates decided to skip the debate, but just enough people showed up to give it some legitimacy. When people tuned in, they took note of Cain. After all, the only other people there were Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, and Gary Johnson. Of those, only Pawlenty had a non-zero chance of winning the nomination. Even better, none of them had any charisma or Tea Party credentials. As we've noted before, Sarah Palin kept herself and Michele Bachmann out of the race at the time.

Cain's campaign could have been over before it started, if he had not been allowed access to the debates. That danger has passed. But there is still one gigantic hurdle between Cain and a "serious" candidacy: He must persuade voters that business experience is just as legitimate as political experience. Otherwise, his perceived electability will continue to be low. The Republican establishment fears that Iowans may give an unelectable candidate a win, but this is unlikely. In a future post, we'll explore why that is.

Televised debates have a way of legitimizing a candidacy. As long as you aren't too extreme (like Ron Paul or, for the Democrats, Dennis Kucinich), sharing the stage with a "serious" candidate raises you up to his level. Now that Cain's poll numbers ensure future debate invitations, he'll always be a factor. He's in the running, and has a chance to make his case. Solid performances at the debates will make Cain look more and more like a "real" candidate each time.

Still, Cain is vulnerable to charges that his inexperience leaves him ill-equipped to run for the presidency. His previous gaffes revealed that he may not be as informed as he needs to be. Since blood is in the water, he needs to appear even more knowledgeable than the rest of the field. Otherwise he will not be able to boost his perceived electability. Only time will tell if Cain's up to the challenge. Elephant Watcher calculates that Cain has a 5% chance of winning the nomination.

Michele Bachmann to Appear at June 13th Debate

Bachmann

As Elephant Watcher predicted, Michele Bachmann has decided to accept CNN's invitation to the next major primary debate, which will take place in New Hampshire on June 13th. Bachmann wanted to wait to jump into the race only after Sarah Palin announced she would not run. However, Bachmann realized she could not afford to wait any longer: If Herman Cain were again the only Tea Party favorite at a debate, Bachmann would lose even more support.

Bachmann has been added to the Elephant Watcher roster of candidates. She has been analyzed and her odds of winning the nomination have been calculated. Bachmann's Profile may be found here. Bachmann currently has a 1% chance of winning the nomination. Palin's chances have dropped by 1%.

According to CNN, there will be seven participants at the June 13th debate: The five men who have already officially declared they are running (Cain, Gingrich, Paul, Pawlenty, Romney), the one who has an exploratory committee (Santorum), and Bachmann. CNN's invitations were based on "objective criteria," which they list here. Note that unlike the May 5th debate, candidates were not required to form exploratory committees first. CNN was probably eager to allow Bachmann to attend, since they enjoy reporting gaffes made by the congresswoman.

As Elephant Watcher expected, CNN was eager to trim the field by removing an unimportant candidate, former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, who had attended the May 5th debate. CNN's criteria were likely chosen with this purpose in mind.

Also of note is the fact that an invitation was offered to Jon Huntsman, Jr., but it was declined. He is apparently still making up his mind whether or not to actually run. His refusal to attend the debate suggests there is a real chance he could decide against it: Huntsman has low name-recognition and could use a boost in visibility.

The Effect of Gender and Race on the Race, Part II

Continued from Part I.

Last time, we saw that women and minority candidates--provided their policy positions line up with the voters--tend to have an advantage in Republican primaries: They are able to distinguish themselves from the crowd and get more media attention. To what extent does this apply to the candidates in the 2012 Republican presidential primary?

The effect is somewhat muted. Though most Republicans have not heard of half the candidates running for president, early primary voters tend to familiarize themselves with all the contenders by the time voting day arrives. Standing out from the crowd is always a good thing, but when the voters know all of the candidates, the effect of race and gender is not as dramatic.

There's no question that being the only non-white candidate in the field has helped raise Herman Cain's visibility. Other "businessman" candidates with no political experience have not fared as well as Cain, and have not gotten the poll numbers necessary to be invited to major primary debates (Donald Trump, more of a celebrity than anything else, provides the exception). On the other hand, Cain is also unique because until Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann gets into the race, he is the only Tea Party favorite in the race, and he has the greatest ability to excite crowds.

What about the idea that Barack Obama being the first black president hurts future black candidates? The fact that Obama is black is unhelpful for Cain in one sense, but it has nothing to do with Obama's job performance or politics. Rather, the fact that there has already been a black president simply takes away some of the history-making appeal that Cain would have otherwise enjoyed. Many first-time voters specifically went to the polls to help elect the first black president. Obama benefited from that in a way that no future black candidate ever can.

There is likely to be one woman running in the primary; either Bachmann or Palin will run, but probably not both. And it's already clear that Cain will be the only minority candidate in the running. Interestingly, all three are Tea Party candidates with low perceived electability, and will be competing for the same voters. This further blunts the impact of a gender/race advantage, because they will split each other's votes.

The electability issue also plays a role. A candidate who is neither white nor male is often perceived to be more electable, especially where a Republican minority candidate can make inroads into a Democratic constituency. But with Bachmann, Cain, and Palin, all suffer from low perceived electability. Few Republicans will think that Bachmann is an electable candidate who can appeal to independent women voters. And few believe that Cain would be able to put much of a dent in Obama's black support.

The effect of race and gender can play out differently from election to election, depending on the particular dynamics of the field. For a contrast with the present field, imagine if Tim Pawlenty or Mitt Romney were Hispanic--they would immediately move toward the front of the pack as uniquely electable. Or suppose there were two candidates trying to appeal to the same wing of the Party, but one were a woman. If they were otherwise similar, the woman would have the edge.

Mitt Romney Announces He's Running for President

Romney

Mitt Romney's presidential run became official today. When Elephant Watcher began analyzing the 2012 Republican primary back in April, six candidates had presidential exploratory committees, and six candidates were in the "potentially running" category. As you can see from the Campaign Status page, five of the six with presidential exploratory committees have now become official candidates (the odd man out is Rick Santorum, who has yet to make a declaration). Of the six who were classified as "potentially running," four have declared they will not enter the race. No one has entered the race without first forming an exploratory committee.

That doesn't mean there will be no exceptions to the rule. In an earlier post, we noted that some candidates have good reason for their inactivity thus far: Chris Christie will pursue a late entrant strategy, Michele Bachmann has been waiting for Sarah Palin to announce one way or the other, and Jon Huntsman, Jr. only just arrived back from his Ambassador post in China. Sarah Palin is the exception: She has not made any formal moves toward running, and she has no compelling reason for this delay--unless she's not running.

In any event, Romney has entered the race and will likely attend the primary debate coming up on June 13th. He has a lot of work to do. He will come under heavy fire for ineffectually defending Romneycare. Romney's debate performance will be a good indication of how badly his strategy will hurt him. Romney will need to use every bit of his verbal gymnastic skill to get out of the debate without being laughed at by the audience.

Though pundits will declare Romney is the current frontrunner, things aren't as easy as they may appear. Mike Huckabee's withdrawal removes one big obstacle from the race, but the threat posed by Tim Pawlenty may be even greater. The Republican establishment was never willing to embrace Huckabee, but they might go over to Pawlenty's camp if they're dissatisfied with Romney. If Pawlenty wins Iowa, there's no real reason for them to rally around Romney.

It's likely that Romney and Pawlenty will engage in an "alpha male" competition to see who can appear tougher. Romney will flex his financial muscles (as he has before). But to begin with, Romney and Pawlenty will see who can attack President Obama the most. Then, they will start attacking each other.

News posts related to Romney will have the Romney "tag". For detailed assessment of Romney's strengths, weaknesses, and strategy, view his Profile. Elephant Watcher calculates Romney has a 10% chance of winning the nomination.

2012 Republican Primary in Review: May 2011

Click here for the Elephant Watcher News archive for the month of May, 2011.

Considering how far away the early primaries are, the month of May '11 was fairly active. The race saw a transition from the first phase to second phase of the campaign, with many--but not all--potential candidates making their intentions official. The field started to take shape, but was still incomplete when June arrived.

A month is a long time in politics. As May began, the two men who dominated the headlines were Donald Trump and Osama bin Laden. Neither man appears very relevant in politics today. As the pundits eventually learned, Elephant Watcher's prediction was correct: Bin Laden's death had no lasting impact, and President Obama's bounce in the polls dissipated rapidly.

In early May, Republican leaders were concerned that Trump's eccentricity would turn the primary into a circus. They also agonized over the weakness of the field, with no one candidate capable of exciting or unifying the Party. Elephant Watcher was skeptical of Trump's chances, owing to Trump's low perceived conservatism and electability. Trump, it seems, came around to Elephant Watcher's point of view: Trump's high numbers in national primary polls were an illusion, so there was no point in his making a run for it. Trump exited the field on May 16th, and the Party breathed a sigh of relief.

However, Elephant Watcher concurred with the Party's concerns about a vacuum in the field, and held to the projection that Chris Christie had the best chance of winning the nomination by making a late entry.

Few candidates attended the primary debate on May 5th, but it provided a platform for Herman Cain, who boosted his visibility. Cain took advantage of the two Tea Party favorites being MIA for the month: Sarah Palin refused to make her intentions known, which also kept Michele Bachmann in limbo. With the two women out of the picture, the Tea Party began to gravitate toward Cain.

The other big story was the series of fortuitous events enhancing Tim Pawlenty's stature. Iowa favorite Mike Huckabee shook up the race by announcing on May 14th that he would not run. On May 22nd, Mitch Daniels followed suit. These departures created an opening in Iowa for Pawlenty as the "electable" alternative to Mitt Romney. Even better, after Newt Gingrich officially entered the race on May 11th, he shot himself in the foot during his first interview. Romney was the victim of similar self-sabotage during his botched attempt to explain Romneycare during a speech on May 12th.

Though Pawlenty's stock rose, he was not able to translate his strong campaign position into a loyal following. He remained low in the polls. Instead of rallying behind Pawlenty, Republicans looked toward candidates not yet in the race. Among the Washington establishment, most of the talk centered around Jon Huntsman, Jr. His stock rapidly increased on Intrade. However, Huntsman did not actually form an exploratory committee or make official plans to join the race--yet. While the establishment spoke of the race as having three "serious" candidates (Romney, Pawlenty, and Huntsman), Huntsman remained an unknown outside the Beltway.

By the end of the month, the vacuum in the field still existed. The consensus only grew that new players needed to join the game. Christie's chances of winning the nomination rose slightly from 60% to 65%.

Time is running out for the remaining candidates. They have only a few more months to convince the voters that the field is already acceptable. Otherwise, the Christie juggernaut may arrive and flatten them all.

The Effect of Gender and Race on the Race, Part I

The candidacy of Herman Cain and the candidacies of Michele Bachmann and/or Sarah Palin represent the first time that the Republican Party might nominate a presidential candidate who is not a white man. Is being non-white or a woman an asset or an obstacle? How big of a role will it play in the nominating process?

Many Democratic political commentators believe that the Republican Party generally possesses a bias against women and minorities. They are skeptical that Republicans would vote for a candidate who is not white and male, even if the candidate would otherwise be better than the alternatives. It's also conventional wisdom among Democrats that the Tea Party is especially bigoted. If true, Bachmann, Cain, and Palin would face extra difficulty winning the nomination.

The evidence suggests that these Democrats are mistaken, especially with regard to the Tea Party. The midterm election of 2010 saw many more women and minorities nominated by the Republican Party than in previous years. Partly this was because the Tea Party brought in new candidates, many of whom had not worked their way up the political ranks. This meant there was less of a reliance on the "old boys' networks" that had been built in past decades. Thus, the recent increase of women and minorities in Republican politics was more readily apparent.

It also displayed the Republican voters' focus on policy positions over "identity politics." Rather than voting for candidates who shared their demographic traits, Republican voters wanted someone who agreed with them on the issues. Political experience was actually a liability for some of the older (more frequently white and male) candidates, who had made compromises over the years.

As it turned out, not being white and/or male was an asset in many cases. In primary fields--especially at the state and local level--candidates tend to blur together, and they struggle to differentiate themselves. Being the only woman or minority in the field enabled some candidates to increase their visibility and, therefore, their chances of victory.

Given the results of the 2010 primaries, why is it so common for left-leaning political commentators to believe Republicans are less likely to vote for someone who is not a white man? For most Democrats, the prime factor is ignorance. Few Democrats are fully aware of what occurred during the 2010 election. The commentators themselves, however--who actually did follow the race and should be aware of its results--are motivated by a desire to maintain moral superiority over their opponents. If Republicans are bigoted, they are inferior; Democrats are righteous. This feeling is particularly attractive to Democrats who eschew "traditional morality" and feel a need to compensate.

Generalities aside, how will race and gender affect a presidential primary? One with Bachmann, Cain, and Palin in particular? We'll take a closer look in Part II.

Who or What is a RINO?

Diceros bicornis

Whenever a group of conservatives discuss the Republican primary field, the term "RINO" is likely to make an appearance. "RINO" stands for "Republican In Name Only," and is a disparaging term used to cast doubt on the authenticity of a politician's conservatism. But what does RINO mean in practice, and who is really a RINO?

Conservatives are frustrated by how often the Republican Party is represented by politicians who are not "genuine" conservatives. In the last several years, the Party nominated George Bush Sr., Bob Dole, and John McCain--all of whom are widely considered RINOs. Even George W. Bush inspired a feeling of betrayal among conservatives who felt he was not fiscally conservative enough. The Republican-controlled Congress at the time faced the same criticism. In many ways, the Tea Party resulted from the buildup of this frustration.

The Tea Party wing of the Republican Party is fearful that yet another RINO will win the 2012 primary. Are their fears justified? Let us consider the Elephant Watcher roster of candidates and the information contained in their Profiles. Each candidate is ranked on a scale of 1-3 on his "perceived conservatism."

Only Donald Trump (before he left the race) was given a low ranking; there were real doubts about whether he was even a Republican, let alone a conservative. Three active candidates have a medium ranking. These face consistent criticism from the right about their conservative credentials: Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney. Paul is rarely the subject of much conversation, but Gingrich and Romney are frequently labeled RINOs. Recently, Gingrich and Romney have made blunders that reinforced this negative perception.

But it doesn't end there. Even most of the candidates with high perceived conservatism are tagged with the RINO epithet--at least, in certain quarters. Chris Christie is critiqued on gun control, Mitch Daniels (before departing) for his "truce" remark, Tim Pawlenty for once supporting cap-and-trade, and Rick Santorum as an accomplice to the big-spending Republican Congress.

Are all of these people really Democrats in disguise? Most primary voters are unlikely to see it that way. Polling has been done on which candidates Republicans will not support. For most, the attitude seems to be something to the effect of, "If Chris Christie is a RINO, then we need more RINOs."

Taken at face value, "RINO" appears to mean, roughly, "Anyone who is not Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann." Tea Party favorite Herman Cain has not yet been tarred as a RINO, but given enough time, even he might be. (It's worth pointing out that each of these RINO-proof candidates has low perceived electability. That suggests the term is being employed against others as a kind of defense mechanism.) Enthusiastic supporters of one candidate or another are a bit too quick to dismiss every other candidate as a RINO. When one hears the label being used, it should be taken with a grain of salt.