Can Rick Perry Be Counted Out Already?

Perry

It has been just over a week since the Republican primary debate on September 22nd. Rick Perry, who was considered the frontrunner after entering the race in August, has lost a lot of ground. The establishment view is that Perry is not electable, and that he is terrible at debates. Since that third September debate, Rick Perry's Intrade odds have collapsed. Prior to his first debate, Intrade investors gave Perry a 40% chance of winning the Republican nomination--ten points more than Mitt Romney. Now they give him only a 21% chance. By contrast, Romney has received positive reviews. But is Perry really out of the race?

Elephant Watcher agrees that Perry's debate performances have lowered his odds of winning the nomination while raising Romney's odds. Prior to the debates, Elephant Watcher's calculation of the odds had 18% for Romney and 16% for Perry; it is now 22% for Romney and 12% for Perry.

But even if Perry does not win the nomination, it is unlikely that he will collapse completely. He may still have a significant impact on the race, especially in Iowa and South Carolina. Perry remains as a significant obstacle to any other potential Anti-Romney candidate. Rick Santorum and Herman Cain have both been touted by anti-Romney commentators as potential replacements. They will need to get past Perry first, and he will not make it easy.

Despite his disastrous debate performances, Perry is still famously skilled at the so-called "retail politics" that occurs in the early primary states: Face-to-face meetings with individuals and small groups. Perry is well-funded. At least for now, Perry rivals even Romney when it comes to his "political machine." Despite the new concerns about Perry's electability, he is still considered more electable than Cain or Michele Bachmann; Santorum remains an unknown.

It's also possible that Perry can rehabilitate his image in future debates. On the one hand, Perry's poor performances in all three debates indicate that he is simply bad at debating. This may not change. But that doesn't mean Perry cannot improve. His campaign almost certainly realizes that his future depends on improving in debates. That should force Perry to focus. Expectations for Perry are so low now that any improvement may be seen as a positive, even if Perry is not outstanding. If he fails to shoot himself in the foot at the next debate, his campaign will undoubtedly hail him as "the comeback kid" and attempt to push a "redemption" narrative in the media.

If another candidate wishes to replace Perry as the chief Anti-Romney figure, he must convincingly lead Perry in the polls for awhile. Only then will Perry's numbers crash and support coalesce around Perry's replacement.

Should Tim Pawlenty Regret Quitting Early?

Pawlenty

In a word, yes.

Tim Pawlenty ended his campaign for president last month after placing third in the Ames straw poll. At the time, Elephant Watcher criticized Pawlenty's campaign for failing to understand what type of candidate Pawlenty was (or should have been): The last man standing, a consensus candidate who emerged after his rivals self-destructed.

Recent events have made it clear that Pawlenty missed a valuable opportunity. After Rick Perry crashed and burned in the debates, the search has been on for a suitable replacement. The Anti-Romney forces have been desperate to find someone capable of preventing Romney from winning. Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Huntsman, Paul, and now Perry are judged not up to the task. Chris Christie is formidable, but he may not run. Rick Santorum is, for now, not on the radar. Who's left?

If Pawlenty were still in the race, it's likely that attention would have shifted in his direction. He was considered more electable and more conservative than the alternatives who didn't quit. Despite being mocked for his low poll numbers, Pawlenty would now be considered prominent by comparison: Pawlenty always polled much better in Iowa than Santorum and Cain. Even the Ames straw poll, which led to Pawlenty's quitting early, had Pawlenty with a sizable lead over Santorum, Cain--and Romney.

Thus, Pawlenty would have been next in line to win Iowa. He needed Bachmann and Perry to crash, and they did. He would have faced Romney, who is only half-heartedly participating in Iowa. Pawlenty would have been the favorite to win Iowa, and maybe the nomination and the presidency.

Pawlenty's mistake should be a lesson for future candidates. The primary season is very long, and the dynamics of the race tend to change. To take advantage, a candidate must stay in the race. Perhaps in future primaries, candidates will be less willing to drop out--at least until the Iowa Caucus. It makes little sense to drop out in response to a third-place finish in the Ames straw poll.

Can Rick Santorum Become the Next Mike Huckabee?

Santorum

Since Rick Perry entered the race, the Republican primary has often been described as a two-man race: Mitt Romney vs. Rick Perry. The catastrophic results of Rick Perry's debate performances have yet to be fully measured, but they change the character of the race. But the primary's bipolar nature likely remains (unless Chris Christie announces he's running for president).

From the start, it's been Romney vs. the Anti-Romney candidate. For awhile, Perry seemed to be the obvious Anti-Romney, and the national primary polls suggested he would be a strong Anti-Romney at that. If Perry's collapse is as severe as it seems, the race would be Romney vs. Anti-Romney, with no clear Anti-Romney in sight. Indeed, if no strong candidate could fill the Anti-Romney role, the race might become unipolar: A weak field with Romney a heavy favorite to win.

Primary races tend to abhor a vacuum, however. Rather than allowing the vote to be split evenly among similar candidates, primary voters in early states tend to coalesce. Thus, history suggests that someone will become the Anti-Romney, though the race still may not be that close. If Perry slides out of the Anti-Romney position, it's anyone's guess as to whom the replacement will be.

Aside from Romney, the one candidate who benefited from the most recent debates was Rick Santorum. He was perceived as strong in his attacks against Perry; Michele Bachmann faded. Could Santorum become the next Mike Huckabee, a candidate whose strong debate performances lifted him up from polling 0% to winning Iowa?

At first glance, it looks like Santorum is the only candidate who's conservative and has moderate perceived electability: Bachmann, Cain, and Paul are viewed as unelectable. There are concerns about Gingrich's electability and conservatism. Huntsman's not running in Iowa. Perry is crashing. That only leaves Romney and Santorum.

But there are two reasons to think Santorum will have great difficulty playing the Huckabee role. First, Santorum is no Mike Huckabee. Santorum lacks Huckabee's charm and rhetorical skill. While a genuine social conservative, Santorum is not poised to win Evangelicals like Huckabee, a preacher who was constantly asked to defend his Christian beliefs in the debates.

Second, Santorum faces more rivalry for the right wing in Iowa than Huckabee did. Huckabee's competition was unsuited to win Evangelicals: John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney. There was no equivalent of Rick Perry in 2008. Santorum would not only need to beat Romney, but also Perry, as well as Tea Party favorites Bachmann and Cain.

The possibility is there for Santorum, but it's a very difficult road. Santorum would need to prove he can do more than attack and act outraged. He would need many, many strong debate performances. And he has not yet been attacked by any other candidate.

Chris Christie Preparing to Announce Whether He Will Run for President?

Christie

In the wake of Rick Perry's disastrous performance in the September debates, there is renewed pressure on Chris Christie to enter the race. Republicans have long felt that there was a void in the field, an absence of a candidate who could unite the Tea Party and Republican establishment. Perry intended to fill that vacuum. But Rick Perry was badly hurt by the debates. Perry was supposed to save the Party from Michele Bachmann; now Republicans hope Christie will save the Party from Perry (and Mitt Romney).

It has now been reported by many media outlets--led by NewsMax--that Christie will announce whether he will run for president within the next several days. According to the reports, Christie has been secretly meeting with top Republican donors, whose money has remained on the sidelines thus far. Contrary to his public denials, Christie supposedly told the donors he has not yet made up his mind whether he will run.

Christie's aides have denied the reports. Intrade investors' speculations are increasing, however. On the Intrade market for the odds of Christie running for president, there has been a sharp spike since the reports. Intrade has been skeptical of Christie from the beginning: His odds of entering the race have consistently been below 5%. In the last 24 hours, they have jumped to over 20%.

But supposing the reports are true, what would it mean? It would not guarantee that Christie will actually enter the race. Rather, it would mean the following:

1. Christie will make a definitive announcement within the next several days.
2. Christie's denials up until this point have been meaningless.

While most have taken Christie's repeated denials of intention to run at face value, Elephant Watcher has cautioned that none of Christie's denials were made in a convincing manner, the formula by which candidates actually decline to run. Both Barack Obama and Rick Perry also emphatically denied any intention to run for president--before entering the race.

Christie's decision will have an extraordinary impact on the outcome of the Republican primary. Even if NewsMax's report is untrue, Christie is under immense pressure to run. The next few weeks are critical.

Rick Perry's Intrade Odds Crumble

In the wake of the third September primary debate last night, Rick Perry's odds on the Intrade market for the 2012 Republican nomination have taken a dive. This marks the third time that debates have resulted in Perry losing ground on Intrade. Meanwhile, for every point Perry has gone down, Mitt Romney has gone up.

Romney's Intrade odds have risen to 43.9%. Perry's numbers are down to 26.9%. This change represents a far more radical shift on the Intrade market than occurred after any of the other debates. Apparently the investors believe in the rule of "three strikes and you're out."

To put this into its proper context, Perry was leading Romney by about 10 points prior to the September debates, 40% to 30%. After the three debates, Romney leads Perry by 17 points. That's a 27-point shift. It's particularly remarkable considering Perry still leads in all of the national primary polls. That being said, there have unfortunately been very few polls (especially state polls) released this month. But it's clear where Intrade thinks this race is going, and the investors want to get ahead of the polls.

The rest of the candidates are in the single digits. Intrade has an especially dim view of Michele Bachmann these days: She's down to 1.8%. During the summer, when she was leading in Iowa polls, Bachmann had gotten as high as 18%. In other words, Bachmann has lost nine-tenths of her market value.

As for the state primary markets, Intrade has not changed much. The investors still believe Perry will win Iowa and South Carolina, while Romney will win New Hampshire. Judging by the overall odds, they simply believe Romney has the staying power needed to win the nomination. They haven't been impressed by Perry's debate performances. Unless the race is knocked off its present course, Romney will reclaim his status as frontrunner.

Who Won the Republican Debate on September 22nd?

Tonight's debate was Rick Perry's last chance to prove that he can get through a debate without taking damage. By the end of the debate, the verdict was somewhat clear. Perry did not make any major stumbles, but he was damaged more than he was helped by the debate. As a result, it seems likely that future debates will be more harmful to Perry than helpful. One more debate might not make much difference, but there are many more of them to come. Perry's support is bound to decline. Mitt Romney will be the chief beneficiary.

Perry was attacked for his stance on Social Security (which he backed away from), but particularly on illegal immigration. Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum both savaged Perry for supporting tuition discounts for illegal immigrants. Santorum also attacked Perry for refusing to support a fence on the U.S.-Mexican border. Perry responded well at first, but seemed to crater as the attacks continued.

Perry employed an interesting strategy: Going on the offensive against Romney. Time and again, Perry attacked Romney. He did this despite the fact that Perry is not attempting to run in Romney's stronghold of New Hampshire. Apparently Perry realized that the best way to bolster his own conservative credentials was to contrast himself with Romney's ostensibly more moderate positions.

When Romney and Perry debated, Romney generally did better. He did not crush Perry in their one-on-one interactions, however. Perry smartly put Romney on defense; Romney is better on the offense than defense. But Romney easily brushed aside Perry's attacks on Romneycare, and Romney counter-attacked fairly well.

Mitt Romney decided not to pick fights with Perry. Instead, he attacked Barack Obama. Romney did better in presenting himself as an aggressive conservative than in previous debates; he seems to be improving, despite the attacks from Perry.

Michele Bachmann again attacked Perry on the HPV vaccine, but she took few opportunities to attack Perry otherwise. Bachmann seems to have a real difficulty in staying focused. As with the debate on September 7th, Bachmann was inconsequential most of the time. Unlike Santorum, Bachmann didn't have a strategy.

The minor candidates needed to find a way to break through. Rick Santorum had the stand-out performance, especially when he went on the offensive against Perry. Santorum has polled nearly 0% thus far, and he's probably hoping to be the next Mike Huckabee, a candidate who came from nowhere due to good debate performances. Santorum should be helped by his debate performance tonight, but he will need to keep it up if he intends to dethrone Perry in Iowa.

In the final analysis, the debate primarily helped Santorum for what he did, and helped Romney by default. Romney debated well, but he took heat from Perry. That's unhelpful to Romney, but Perry was hurt more. Since Romney is primarily in competition with Perry for the "frontrunner" title, the debate was a net benefit to Romney.

Third September Primary Debate Tomorrow

Fox News will host a primary debate Thursday at 9:00pm Eastern. As with other recent debates, the eight Republican candidates in the race will appear. It has been reported that Gary Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico, may also qualify for an invitation to the debate. Johnson participated in the debate on May 5th, but has not been invited back since, due to his low poll numbers. If Johnson is able to attend the debate, it will be a result of a quirk in the invitation standards. Elephant Watcher has previously written about the debate admission requirements and how they can lead to unintended invitations.

Johnson was never added to the Elephant Watcher roster of candidates; since Johnson is unlikely to be invited to future debates, and since he has so little support that he's rarely included as an option by pollsters, there is no reason to include him. Including Johnson, there will be nine candidates at the Fox debate. With numbers this large, and with the media perception that the race is essentially Rick Perry vs. Mitt Romney, the debate moderaters will be tempted to give unequal time. Thus far, they have addressed the issue by giving candidates an equal number of questions, but allowing candidates who are mentioned in other candidates' responses to have some rebuttal time. The assumption is that only important candidates (and perhaps only the frontrunner) will be directly attacked, thus giving important candidates extra time without any provable bias on the part of the debate moderators.

The debate tomorrow evening, the third for Rick Perry, will be a defining moment. Perry has attended two debates and has suffered in both of them. If Perry loses ground in yet another debate, there will be two important results. First, it will provide strong evidence that Perry is simply a very poor debater. If so, Perry will continue to lose ground at the many future debates, and grievous harm will be inflicted upon his campaign. Second, it will suggest to voters that Perry is a poor candidate. That perception, even without Perry having yet performed badly at future debates, will do immediate damage. In other words, tomorrow's debate will be Perry's last chance to prove he can escape from a debate unscathed.

For Mitt Romney, the debate will be an interesting test of whether debate moderators and other candidates will continue to attack him on Romneycare. So far, Romney has attended four debates, and Romneycare was brought up at all four--to little effect. If Romney is not asked about Romneycare, it may indicate the issue is losing steam. That would be a very good sign for Romney.

Finally, the debate will be worth watching to see if attacks against Perry's conservative credentials are repeated. In the first debate this month, Michele Bachmann inexplicably gave Perry a pass. But in the second debate, Bachmann joined with Rick Santorum and Ron Paul in attacking Perry's record (on the HPV vaccine and illegal immigration in particular). Will they recognize how effective their attacks were, and intensify them tomorrow? Probably. And this will form a pattern.

Meanwhile, Romney's best strategy will be to build himself up rather than attacking Perry's electability. Romney should stand back and appear presidential allowing Bachmann & Company to attack Perry's conservatism. Romney and his advisors have so far responded to poll numbers in robotic fashion, however, unthinkingly attacking Perry because he is ahead in national polls.

For the minor candidates (those not close to winning any early states, i.e. candidates other than Perry, Romney, or Bachmann), tomorrow will be one of a dwindling number of chances they have to break out of the pack.

2008 vs. 2012 - Ron Paul

Paul

In previous posts, we compared the starting position of Mike Huckabee in 2008 compared to 2012 (before he announced he would not run in 2012) and a similar analysis of Mitt Romney in 2008 compared to 2012. Elephant Watcher would be remiss if the same treatment were not given to the other 2008 candidate reappearing for the 2012 race: Ron Paul.

The Elephant Watcher profile of Ron Paul reveals that he has many weaknesses. Paul is arguably the weakest candidate in the field; he is not given a high rank on any of the three candidate attributes (perceived conservatism, perceived electability, and rhetorical skill). Paul also lacks any geographical advantage that might help him win an early primary. Accordingly, Elephant Watcher has calculated that Ron Paul's odds of winning the Republican nomination are 0%.

The polls of early primary states demonstrate the extent of Paul's challenge: He has failed to place first or second in any poll in any state. He does, however, manage third place in some New Hampshire primary polls. Paul tends to poll well, considering his handicaps. However, his numbers never increase, and they reflect his enthusiastic--but static--base of libertarian support. Paul's numbers are healthy enough to ensure that he will be invited to primary debates for a long time to come, whether the debate sponsors like it or (more likely) not.

What about the 2008 vs. 2012 comparison? In some ways, Paul is better off now than he was four years ago. He has greater name recognition, and he has the benefit of experiencing a presidential primary. His support among libertarians has not diminished. Instead, he has been branded as the "official" libertarian. Gary Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico who was only invited to the first debate back in May, was quickly shuffled aside in favor of Paul. One of Paul's greatest weaknesses, his opposition to American intervention abroad, has been mitigated by the general unpopularity of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. It is not shocking to hear a Republican candidate say the troops need to begin returning from Afghanistan.

By and large, Paul's weaknesses from 2008 remain. As Paul learned during the Republican primary debate on September 12th, conservative audiences still boo if you claim American foreign policy caused the 9/11 attacks. But Paul's more fundamental problem is that he doesn't care what Republicans think or feel. He has little strategy at all, though his occasional criticisms of Rick Perry appear to be prompted by campaign advisors. Otherwise, Paul's campaign actions are random. Paul's lack of strategy is likely a result of his understanding that he cannot win the nomination.

Since Paul is viewed as unelectable while simultaneously alienating most Republicans, he will always be limited to a small, core group. Many of the primaries will not award delegates on a winner-take-all basis, so Paul will be able to amass some number of delegates. If the primary goes all the way to the convention, one can count on Paul taking the opportunity to make noise. Like his campaign, the noise will have little impact.

How Did the Republican Primary Become a Two-Man Race?

Up until a month or two ago, it was common to hear political pundits say that this was "the most open Republican field" they had ever seen. The consensus was that it's anyone's game, and that no one could tell who the nominee was going to be. Today, political observers are equally confident that the 2012 Republican primary is a two-man race between Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. How did this happen, and why have other candidates failed to gain any traction?

To begin with, we should take a look at the list of candidates for the Republican nomination on the Campaign Status page. There are eight candidates officially in the race. A few months ago, there were several more on the table. State and national polls showed Mike Huckabee was in a strong position to win, but he declined to run. Establishment-friendly governors Mitch Daniels and Tim Pawlenty also exited the race or declined to run. Sarah Palin, who would make waves regardless of her ability to win, has apparently declined to run, though she has not made an official announcement as such. And of course, Chris Christie, who is a strong favorite to win the nomination, has not entered the race or made a convincing declaration he won't run.

If we put aside the seven candidates on the Campaign Status page who are not officially in the race, the answer becomes easier to see. Eight candidates are in the race, and only two of them have any real chance of winning the nomination. Why? Candidates are judged based on their perceived conservatism and perceived electability, which are ranked on the Candidate Profiles page. The following is the process of elimination:

There are no candidates currently in the race who possess both strong perceived conservatism and strong perceived electability. Therefore, the Republican Party's choice is to pick either a candidate with moderate perceived electability and strong perceived conservatism, or a candidate with strong perceived electability and moderate perceived conservatism. This eliminates four of the eight candidates: Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, and Ron Paul are considered very unlikely to be able to win a general election; they have weak perceived electability. Newt Gingrich's conservatism and electability are both under question; he is moderate on both.

The remaining candidates are the electable ones (Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney) and the conservative ones (Rick Perry and Rick Santorum). Romney has far more name recognition than Huntsman. If a voter wants someone who can win, they have little reason to shift from Romney to Huntsman. The voter may prefer Huntsman's economic record, but unless Huntsman catches fire, there's no reason to make that jump. After all, a Romney voter wouldn't want to vote for Huntsman if it would split the vote and let Perry win. Voters of a type tend to coalesce around a candidate to prevent this from happening.

As for the "conservative" type, Perry has far more name recognition than Santorum. Arguably Santorum is more conservative than Perry, but so is Bachmann. Santorum is therefore stifled in Iowa by candidates who beat him on conservatism (Bachmann and perhaps Cain), electability (Romney and perhaps Perry), and name recognition (Bachmann, Perry, Romney, Gingrich, and Ron Paul). Again, voters of a type tend to coalesce, so if you're looking for a conservative you'll go with Perry, and purists will go with Bachmann.

This leaves the race with two candidates, Romney and Perry, who lead in either electability or conservatism without sacrificing too much of the other quality. History suggests the more electable candidate will win. Perry must work hard to bring up his perceived electability and avoid taking too much damage from "pure" conservatives like Bachmann.

Why Have Attacks Against Mitt Romney Been Ineffective?

Romney

Traditionally, whichever candidate leads in the national primary polls suffers attacks from the other candidates. After Mike Huckabee declined to join the race in May 2011, Mitt Romney jumped to the top of the national polls. He was knocked out of the first place position in August when Rick Perry entered the race and replaced him as the purported frontrunner. In the meantime, frontrunner Romney was attacked; now it's Perry's turn.

But there's been a difference in the effectiveness of the attacks against various candidates. In April, when Donald Trump was doing well in some national polls, he was quickly cut down by attacks against his authenticity. When Michele Bachmann entered the race and began doing well in Iowa, she was swiftly humbled by attacks against her electability. Bachmann's fall allowed her to be overtaken by Perry. Now Perry has been on the receiving end of attacks against his electability and conservatism. It's likely he'll fall from his comfortable frontrunner position in the polls.

Romney, too, suffered a fall in the polls. The shallow depth of Romney's support was seen when Perry was able to easily replace him as the leader in the polls. There's been a contrast, however. Prior to Perry's entry, Romney's poll numbers were not worn down by three months of attacks against him. Also, unlike other candidates who have gone down and stayed down, Romney is going back up. That's most clearly seen in Mitt Romney's Intrade odds, and it's likely to be seen in future polls.

Why the difference? Romney's main weakness has always been Romneycare. He erred in failing to repudiate it, and debate moderators have asked him about it in all four debates. The reason Romney has not been hurt more by Romneycare is that he is far better prepared to defend himself than other candidates are prepared to attack him. Romney's answers are well-rehearsed. His opponents' attacks are not. The exchanges on Romneycare have all followed some variation of the following pattern:

1. Debate moderator asks Romney about Romneycare.
2. Romney defends himself and reiterates his commitment to repealing Obamacare.
3. Opponent says that Obamacare was modeled on Romneycare.
4. Romney refutes this by listing differences between Romneycare and Obamacare.
5. Opponent stammers, "Come on, we know they're the same."

To defeat Romney, opponents need to have as substantive and well-rehearsed counter-points for step #5 as Romney has for steps #2 and #4. The same could be said for other attacks aimed against Romney, e.g. criticisms of his work for Bain Capital, where Romney either created jobs or fired people, depending upon the source.

Another reason Romney's position appears to be impregnable is the fact that he's running in New Hampshire, rather than Iowa. In Iowa, many candidates are staking the lives of their campaigns. Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, and (unwisely) Newt Gingrich all see themselves in a do-or-die situation in Iowa. Perry is competing there as if he needs to win, though he's likely to win South Carolina even if he loses Iowa. In New Hampshire, Romney is basically by himself. Only Huntsman is targeting New Hampshire, and he's hardly in the race.

Thus, the configuration of the early primaries has been to Romney's advantage: The other candidates have less incentive to attack him, as their top priority is defeating competitors in Iowa. Until the Iowa Caucus, Romney will not be the focus of their attacks. And that's a long time from now.