Hey Hey, Ho Ho. This Romney Protest's Got to Go?

...or something like that.

FHQ will take the bait and fan the smoldering embers of the fire that is the 2012 Republican presidential primary race. First Read's Michael O'Brien actually brings up a fairly interesting question about the factors surrounding/likelihood of a protest vote against Mitt Romney throughout the rest of the primary calendar. No, I'm not going to dwell on the question of whether there will be a protest vote -- there will be¹ -- but FHQ will look at the factors that will likely play into Romney meeting or surpassing the mostly arbitrary 70% mark in the remaining primaries and caucuses. Let's look at the factors that may keep Romney under that particular share of the vote:

[...you know, before those inevitable stories about how weak Romney is because there are still voters voting against him.]

1. Opposition by numbers: Simply put, the number of active candidates still in the race matters in this instance. The more candidates involved, the higher the collective vote share. Ron Paul will get his share of the vote. If anything proved that, it was the Texas congressman's performance against John McCain in 2008. Paul's voters were never going to jump ship to Romney anyway. Gingrich is another matter. The former speaker will likely pull in some of the displaced Santorum vote, but so too will Romney. And Santorum is still on the ballot in most states. Some of those Santorum votes will stay home. Well, they may actually stay home or stay home by voting for Santorum -- their preferred candidate.
2. Open primaries: Now that the race is effectively over -- Eh, who am I kidding? It's over. -- Democrats are even less likely to cross over to vote in the Republican primary. However, Paul will continue to pull in both Libertarian-minded Republicans and independents in some of the more open primary states (see O'Brien's example of Idaho in 2008, Paul's high water mark in terms of vote share). 
3. Geography/evangelism: Yeah, it still matters.

The combination of these factors makes North Carolina, Indiana, West Virginia, Arkansas and Texas states to most closely watch for that 70% mark that other recent Republican nominees have been able to garner against only token opposition.²

--
¹ And to be clear, this will have no impact on the outcome of the Republican nomination. Romney will be the Republican nominee.

² Throw Rhode Island in for good measure, too. The Ocean state allows independents to participate. [Thanks to the Green Papers for the data on primary participation across states.]

Recent Posts:
Santorum Suspends: A Nomination Race in Context

Cart Before the Horse: Pennsylvania/Colorado Edition

Maine Legislature Exploring Presidential Primary Option for 2016

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

On the State of the Republican Nomination Race, Post-AL/MS

A few lingering thoughts from the aftermath of Tuesday night's/Wednesday morning's contests in Alabama, American Samoa, Hawaii and Mississippi:

1. Any day Santorum doesn't cut into Romney's delegate lead is an opportunity lost. 
2. Any day Romney doesn't grow his delegate lead is an opportunity lost.
3. Momentum is dead. ...until it isn't.
4. In-or-out Newt?

The story on Wednesday was the same story as the Wednesday following Super Tuesday. Delegates were on the line and no one cut into Mitt Romney's delegate advantage, but Romney also failed to break through once again in the South. FHQ has not pulled any punches in saying that Santorum has no mathematical shot at 1144 if the current dynamic in this race is extended through the rest of the race. None. But as I have also pointed out, that fact alone does not mean that Romney is a shoo in to get to a delegate majority himself.

I won't belabor the point in #1 above anymore as it is fairly obvious, but #2 deserves some attention.  Any series of contests that passes where Mitt Romney does not significantly increase his delegate lead -- inching closer to 1144 -- removes from the former Massachusetts governor another passel of delegates that a larger portion of which would serve as cushion for a solid frontrunner. Put another way, any time Romney is not hitting that seemingly magic number of 48% of the delegates, his campaign's job of getting him to the requisite number of delegates necessary to clinch the nomination gets slightly more difficult.

So, on Tuesday, Romney gained but he didn't gain. He added to his lead in the delegate count but did not necessarily help his chances of getting to the goal of 1144.

--
What we all witnessed Tuesday night was not momentum. There is no momentum in this race. Deep South voters did not exactly reject the notion of a Gingrich candidacy and they didn't exactly fully embrace Santorum (or Romney for that matter) either. The two candidates who would be expected to do well in the South did so well in the South. The presidential primary process in 2012 has progressed far enough now that we have a fair amount of data at our disposal. This is oversimplifying matters, but Mitt Romney is likely to do well in the west and in the northeast, Santorum has carved out a stronghold in the prairie states and stretching into the South and Newt Gingrich has been reduced to a niche southern candidate who is trying to play delegate spoiler.

No, Romney has still not answered the "Southern question" and he isn't likely to (at least not until maybe North Carolina at the earliest¹). But the take home here is that this is all rather predictable based on the regional alignment described above. We can kind of eyeball it and say that Santorum is likely to do well in Missouri and Louisiana later in March and that Maryland, DC, Delaware, New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut are states where Mitt Romney would be expected to do well. And that is the way the race has been. The volatile "swings" have not been all that volatile. Heck, they haven't really been swings so much as the establishment of a pattern in this race. There will only be momentum in this race when and if someone wins, and probably wins consistently thereafter, on another candidate's turf.

--
If you read closely enough, you will have already noted that FHQ made no mention of either the Rust Belt or the midwest. That is because that is the only area where the predictable is not all that predictable. Santorum has come close twice now to beating Romney on Romney turf, but failed to break through in either Michigan or Ohio. Illinois (March 20), Wisconsin (April 3) and Pennsylvania (April 24) offer Santorum an opportunity to change that.²

What potentially shakes all of this up is the presence or absence of Newt Gingrich in the race. If Gingrich is not in the game in Michigan or Ohio, it is not a stretch to see the overall balance shifting toward Santorum in those states. [I know. The Santorum campaign has been making this claim for weeks.] And that could be an issue again in Illinois or Wisconsin, where something like a second conservative candidate not being on the ballot could benefit the other conservative candidate if that candidate (Santorum) is close again against Romney in the popular vote.

The Gingrich impact is more black and white in states that look to be close, but outside of the Rust Belt, the former speaker's influence is more nuanced. Does that help/hurt Romney or Santorum? Well, that all depends on what the delegate selection rules are on the state level. To the extent that Gingrich is able to clear the necessary threshold in the popular vote to qualify for delegates, he is likely to hurt Romney/help Santorum (by hurting Romney) by peeling off delegates in proportional states. But in the few remaining (strictly) winner-take-all states and the winner-take-all by congressional district states, Gingrich's presence is likely to help Romney/hurt Santorum. Coming in third over and over again does nothing for Gingrich in those states. It nets him no delegates. But coming in third siphons off votes and potentially delegates from Santorum, helping Romney to gain delegates at a healthier clip.

...if Romney is presumably the one in the lead in that three candidate scenario.

Now, if Gingrich is out of the race, it does not necessarily reverse those trends above, but may in some cases. If Gingrich is out then the proportional state delegates are allocated among just two candidates. That is a plus for Romney and Santorum. It gets Romney closer to 1144 and Santorum closer to Romney if he is the beneficiary of a consolidation of the conservative vote and thus the delegate winner. You can see this more in a state like North Carolina than in a state like Rhode Island though; both of which are strictly proportional. In the winner-take-all by congressional district states, Santorum is again potentially able to take advantage of that consolidation to win some or more districts in states like Maryland or Wisconsin, but while still facing the possibility of losing the statewide vote and the at-large delegates in the process. [The bonus there is that quite a few of these winner-take-all by congressional district states are fairly blue and thus have a limited number of at-large delegates. Losing them, then, is not a killer if you are Rick Santorum.]

--
The bottom line is that this race is clearer now. We know where the candidates' strengths are now and where the true battlegrounds lie. We know that to settle this even further is going to take candidates winning on the others' turf. [This is more necessary for Santorum/Gingrich than for Romney.] We know that, right now, the only strategy Santorum and Gingrich have -- absent the sort of "winning on the other guy's turf" shake up described above -- is to keep Romney under 1144, sending this to the convention. We know that "keep Romney under 1144" is a suitable strategy when the candidate promoting it is winning, but is bound to be much less effective if they are not (and by extension someone is moving toward 1144). We know that Missouri and Louisiana are good targets for Santorum. We know that much of April shapes up well for Mitt Romney. We know that absent any shake up Romney is on track to get not only the most delegates but to get at or around the 1144 mark.

What we don't know is if Santorum can break through on Romney's turf. Illinois would be a good place to start. Otherwise time is -- and delegates are -- running out.

--
¹ North Carolina represents the last best hope more than likely for Romney to break through and avoid being the only potential Republican nominee to have been swept in the South during the primaries.

² Yes, the homestate advantage Santorum has in Pennsylvania might offset -- or more than offset -- what might be a slight Romney advantage in a state like the Keystone state.


Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Puerto Rico

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Hawaii

About that Santorum Campaign Delegate Strategy Memo

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

The (Delegate) Keys to Super Tuesday

FHQ had the honor of giving a brief talk on the 2012 presidential primary process at the Microsoft campus in Charlotte this afternoon. Even though I didn't really follow my notes -- yielding to the more fun Q&A session -- I thought I would share.¹

Here are the things FHQ will be looking for tomorrow night:

1. Ohio, meh. After talking up the importance of the Ohio primary in the wake of Michigan last week, it has become apparent to me that Ohio is no longer the "new hotness". FHQ can't get all that jazzed up about a non-fight. Look, Romney can't lose. If he wins the statewide race, Romney wins the most delegates. Unless Romney gets blown out there -- something the polls are not showing -- he will likely win or fairly evenly split the delegates. Again, meh. I know, I know. If he loses the statewide vote it looks bad. Eh, big deal. The Romney campaign will point toward the fact that it is a delegate race and that they have more delegates. As they said in their Saturday conference call chiding -- fairly or not -- the Santorum campaign for not being organized enough to fully get on the ballot, they -- the Romney campaign -- are more organized.  
2. Delegate margins. I know Ohio is a unique contest tomorrow; the only state without regional company or contest-type camaraderie, but it just will not offer much in the way of a delegate margin for any of the candidates. You know which states will? Virginia and maybe Idaho. Virginia is a no-brainer. That Gingrich and Santorum on the ballot there means that Romney will be able to emerge from the Old Dominion with, as I've said previously, a delegate margin that likely offsets the likely losses in the South. And if -- big IF -- Romney is able to get over 50% in the madhouse that is the new Idaho caucuses (more on that later today), then Idaho is likely going to provide the former Massachusetts governor with even more relief. So the next time Newt Gingrich says that Georgia is the biggest delegate prize on Super Tuesday, shout back that delegate margins are more important and Virginia and again, maybe, Idaho are much bigger on that score than a diluted Georgia primary that will likely allocate delegates to three candidates tomorrow. 
3. Tennessee, now there's the new hotness. Way back after the South Carolina primary (I know. Doesn't that seem like a hundred years ago?), I said that the fundamental question that had emerged was "Can Romney win in the South?" FHQ said then that Romney's ability to answer the "Southern question"would go a long way toward determining how long this fight for the Republican nomination would be. More importantly, I emphasized that it would determine how able Gingrich was to stay in the race. Well, Romney has not had another chance to revisit his loss in South Carolina -- or at least return to similar ground to quell any doubts. Tomorrow is the first chance and Tennessee looks to be Romney's best bet of answering the "Southern question". Romney will get delegates out of Tennessee but a symbolic win in the South would be a backbreaker in a lot of respects for the Gingrich and Santorum causes.
4. Thresholds, thresholds, thresholds. These 15% and 20% thresholds for receiving delegates in many of the states tomorrow is a big deal. Let me repeat that: It is a big deal. No, I don't think it affects anything other than at the margins, but if we are moving into the delegate counting terrain -- even if for a short period of time -- then the ways in which the delegate leader can use those rules to his advantage are noteworthy. The greater the number of candidates over that threshold, the smaller the delegate margins/piece of the delegate pie will be. If, for example, Romney is first or second but no worse, but it is only him and another candidate over 15% or 20% then Romney is only padding his delegate total. And while the margins may not increase greatly, it pushes the former Massachusetts governor closer to 1144.
5. Will it end tomorrow? No. But we are likely to surpass a significant hurdle tomorrow night and into Wednesday. FHQ will have more on that later. 

Ooh, cliffhanger.

--
¹ Yeah, I know. These primers are a dime a dozen the day before any primary day.

Recent Posts:
Race to 1144: Washington Caucuses

Fantasy Delegates

Texas Primary Set for May 29

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Visual Representation of the Argument from Non-Romneys, Post-Florida

1144 delegates needed to win.

Recent Posts:

Newt's Challenge & Problem: Becoming Huckabee+

A Winner-Take-All Primary for Texas Republicans?

I'll see your white knight and raise you a filing deadline. Why It's Too Late for Entry in the Republican Nomination Race

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Newt's Challenge & Problem: Becoming Huckabee+

On the heels of the South Carolina primary, FHQ speculated that one of the main questions that emerged from the Gingrich win/Romney loss was the Southern question. Romney did not win the South Carolina primary and even if could win in Florida -- It is something of a foregone conclusion at this point that the former Massachusetts governor will win tonight in the Sunshine state. -- and use that as a springboard to wins in contests in hospitable areas in February, that Southern question remains. Romney will not have another opportunity to win in the South until March 6.

[Sidenote follow up to that Southern question:
The way that post seemed to be interpreted by those that built off it was that FHQ was saying Romney couldn't wrap things up until that point at the earliest. I suppose that is part of it, but it is deeper than that. What I meant was that Gingrich and Santorum could use that as a rallying point for voters and more importantly donors. But that has a shelf life. If Romney wins in the South -- and he's guaranteed at least one win in Virginia where only Paul is on the ballot opposite him ¹ -- then that argument disappears. Support and contributions to the campaign also likely disappear or at the very least begin to drop off at that point. And keep in mind, FHQ is discussing this without accounting for any intra-party pressure on the candidates to drop out. In the past, those three things -- waning support, lower fundraising totals and pressure from the party -- often happen nearly simultaneously. That may happen this time as well. But it isn't about Romney wrapping things up so much as the way in which the others start to drop out, or arguments to stay in begin to disappear.]

The Gingrich campaign is mindful of this Southern question. In fact, the memo the campaign circulated on Monday about how a protracted primary battle might look was very heavy on the former Speaker doing well in the upcoming March contests in the region. And therein lies the trouble for the Gingrich campaign. Their hope is that a series of wins across the South evens the delegate total heading out of the contests. That may happen, but if that is the case, the Gingrich folks are going to run full on in a stiff wind. How is that any different than the strategy Mike Huckabee had in 2008? The former Arkansas governor came close to sweeping the region in 2008 and that got him nowhere. It had him out of the race in early March when McCain won on Huckabee's turf in Texas and in the process crossed the 50% plus one delegate threshold to become the presumptive nominee.

Now sure, the Gingrich folks would counter that the calendar is vastly different in 2012 than it was in 2008. There is no mammoth Super Tuesday a week from today's Florida primary like there was four years ago. However, Gingrich is going to have to find a way to win in a Romney state to effectively brush off the Huckabee comparison. February's line up of contests does not seem to offer too many opportunities for Gingrich and if Romney sweeps them all, the pressure is going to increase on the non-Romneys in that scenario to consider bowing out (...in the face of the Southern question for Romney).

If we are trying to game this out moving forward look for Gingrich wins in Romney states (as a signal of a protracted battle) and Romney wins in the South (as a signal that the process is winding down). As it is, Romney is playing the McCain part from 2008 and if the South is the only thing standing in the way, it won't be enough to stop a Romney nomination. The goal for Gingrich is to become Huckabee, but Huckabee plus.

--
¹ This will be an interesting test case of the Romney/not-Romney theory that has been floated around about this Republican nomination race. If there is a significant protest/anti-Romney movement within the Republican primary electorate, and the field has not winnowed anymore by that point, then that two-person Virginia primary becomes the best possible test.

Recent Posts:

A Winner-Take-All Primary for Texas Republicans?

I'll see your white knight and raise you a filing deadline. Why It's Too Late for Entry in the Republican Nomination Race

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Florida

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Musings on the Republican Nomination Race, Post-South Carolina

Where do we go from here?

Following the Gingrich victory in South Carolina, the race for the Republican presidential nomination has taken yet another turn. And this time, for the first time since probably early December, the contest is lodged in the gray area between being a momentum contest¹ and a delegate counting contest.² Truth be told, the line is often blurred between those two distinctions. Most nominations in the post-reform era have tended to be momentum contests with a frontrunner -- having been established in the invisible primary -- winning early and often and using those early wins as  springboard into a Super Tuesday series of contests to build a seemingly insurmountable lead (both in momentum and in delegates).

Due to the way the primary calendar is set up in 2012 and the current fits and starts nature of the dynamic in the race, however, this cycle is shaping up differently. The notion of Mitt Romney sweeping or nearly sweeping the January contests and putting the nomination race to rest are gone -- even with a Florida win. But the idea of a momentum contest -- one that will typically develop behind the frontrunner, no matter how nominal -- is not completely dead.  Romney remains the frontrunner. The former Massachusetts governor is viewed as the establishment choice and is the only candidate to this point to have placed in the top two in each of the first three contests. He is still the favorite to build a consensus around his candidacy -- just not as much as he was in the five days or so after the New Hampshire primary.

But the question remains just how will Romney, or any other candidate for that matter, build a consensus and win the nomination. There are two main avenues from FHQ's perspective; one narrow and one fairly broad. The narrow path to the nomination is that Mitt Romney bounces back from the South Carolina primary, wins Florida, uses his organizational advantage over Gingrich and Santorum in the February caucus states, and then wins in Arizona and Michigan. The broader path is one that devolves into a contest-by-contest struggle; a battle for delegates the end game of which is the point where one candidate has a wide enough delegate margin that cannot be overcome given the number of delegates to be allocated remaining. [See Norrander, 2000]

FHQ is conservative in how we approach these things. Our basic rules of thumb are: 1) No option is off the table until it is off the table. 2) Past precedent tells us that the frontrunner usually ends up the nominee. [See, Mayer 2003] Now, past is not necessarily prologue, especially when the dynamics, calendars and rules differ across such a comparatively small number of observations in the post-reform era. But in this case, FHQ sees the narrow path described above as the likely outcome; more likely than the delegate counting route.

The hold that has on our thinking, though, is very tenuous indeed. It is not far-fetched to see Romney rebounding from South Carolina to win in Florida on January 31. It is not far-fetched to foresee the former governor parlay that win into wins in the remaining February contests -- though that mid-February gap in the calendar is a great unknown in terms of these calculations. Previously, FHQ has argued that that February period with no contests would put significant strain on candidates financially. That view was predicated on a Romney (near-)sweep in January forcing amped up pressure on the remaining candidates to drop out. Gingrich's South Carolina win alleviates some of that potential pressure. A win allows a non-frontrunner candidate in these early stages to get his or her foot in the door for arguing viability. Romney, then, would have a more difficult time shutting the door on Gingrich and to some extent Santorum (if he can survive that long). [Ron Paul is in it for the long haul. That is why this discussion is light on the Texas congressman.]

But even a February sweep -- if we are constraining our view to the narrow path to the nomination -- is  likely not enough to close this out for Romney or more to the point, to force the others from the race. There is one lingering question coming out of South Carolina that cannot be answered until Super Tuesday/March 6 at the earliest. Even if Romney wins all of the February contests he is still vulnerable to the charge that he has not won in the South; a core constituency within the Republican Party.³ Now, that is not to suggest that Romney as the Republican nominee would struggle in the South in the general election. Yet, not winning in the reddest region of the country in the primary phase does signal that the part of the core of the party is not on board with the former Massachusetts governor's nomination. That may or may not be enough to "veto" a Romney nomination, but it does provide his opponents with a solid argument for staying in -- particularly if it is the same candidate (presumably Gingrich) winning there.

The other layer to this -- the one about which FHQ has received the most inquiries since Saturday -- how the rules for delegate allocation begin to affect all of this. To reiterate an earlier point, the rules are the exact same as they were in 2008 in each of the states with contests prior to March. To the extent we witness differences, it will be due to the dynamics of the race and not the delegate allocation rules. The changes brought about because of the new "proportionality" requirement on the Republican side begin to kick in once the calendar flips to March. Now, it is still too early to tell what impact those rules will have. Mainly, that is due to the fact that we just don't know which candidates -- or how many candidates, really -- will still be alive at that point. The modal response from the states to the RNC proportionality rule was to make the allocation of delegates conditional on a certain threshold of the vote. If a candidate receives at least 50% of the vote, then the allocation is winner-take-all (or the at-large delegate allocation is winner-take-all). But if no candidate crosses that bar, the allocation is proportional (overall or for just the at-large delegates). The more candidates that survive, in other words, the more likely it is that the allocation is proportional. It would be more difficult for one candidate to receive 50% of the vote. The double-edged sword of proportional allocation is that while it may make it harder -- take longer -- for the leading candidate to reach 1144 delegates (if triggered), it also makes it more difficult for those attempting to catch the leader as well. The margin (of delegates) for the winners is often not that large.

Taken together, the South questions and the proportionality requirement jumble the outlook for this race. Romney may or may not be required to win in the South to win the nomination. But winning there would go a long way toward forcing other candidates from the race and preventing the nomination from falling into a delegate count. The problem is that those two things -- the race turning South again and the potential proportionality kicking in -- hit at the same point. And that leaves us with any number of permutations for directions in which the race could go, whether taking the narrow path or broad path.

Will the rules matter? They always do, but they will really matter when and if Romney is unable to rebound and run off a series of February wins. That is what we should be looking at now.

--
¹ Defined by a candidate sweeping or nearly sweeping the early contests to overwhelm his or her opponents.

² Defined by a candidate at some point beyond the first handful of contests either crosses the 50% plus one delegate threshold or develops a big enough lead to force his or her opponents from the race at some point outside of the first handful of contests.

³ There are no southern primaries or caucuses after South Carolina until a series of contests on March 6.

Recent Posts:

Race to 1144: Iowa Caucuses Redux

Of Course Rick Santorum Won Iowa...

About Those Two Huntsman Delegates

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Jeb Bush is running for president.

No, Jeb Bush isn't running for president.

...yet, if you are to believe Rhodes Cook and Bill Kristol today.

[Sorry. FHQ had to have some fun.]

FHQ is as big a fan of wild speculation as anyone, but there is absolutely no evidence in the post-reform era that a candidate can jump into the nomination process midstream and end up being successful (defined as winning the nomination). Yes, I am fully aware that those in support of this theory are likely to throw the calendar and delegate math in my face. [I know. Me!?! How can the primary calendar be thrown in my face?]

Since the presidential nomination process was reformed ahead of the 1972 cycle, the calendar has become increasingly frontloaded -- more contests clustered at the beginning of the process. The calendar movement occurred in fits and starts across every cycle with the exception of maybe 1992 when slight shifts forward were counteracted by several southern states abandoning the failed -- from the perspective of the Democratic state governments that spearheaded the moves -- Southern Super Tuesday after 1988.

2012 is different, though.

The national party delegate selection rules and the actions of Florida (and Arizona and Michigan) yielded a presidential primary calendar unlike those witnessed throughout much of the post-reform era. 2012 is far more backloaded than earlier calendars and has a quick/early start followed by a lull in February. The only good parallels to 2012 are the very earliest calendars, and those are imperfect comparisons because they occurred during the transition period of the new nomination system. Candidates were still attempting to adapt to the new system and late entries were slightly more common. In the time since, however, the propensity of those on the outside of the process looking in to get into the race has trailed off dramatically.

It just doesn't happen. That does not mean that it cannot happen, it just means that is usually doesn't.

But let's look back at a calendar with a similar delegate math/progression and similar dynamics: the 1992 Democratic nomination race. I know. This comparison has been made before. Bear with FHQ here. Look at the calendar and the delegate progression through the 1992 cycle.

The calendar
There was a two week gap between New Hampshire and Super Tuesday in 1992 as compared to the two and a half week gap between Maine (Those caucus results won't be released until February 11.) and Arizona/Michigan on February 28.  Super Tuesday 2012 follows a week later.

The delegate math
Looking at the delegate math, 1992 and 2012 are also similar. There are three main spikes in each: Super Tuesday, April (the first week in 1992 and the fourth week in 2012) and the first week in June. Those are the big delegate days in each.

The dynamics
The clear similarity between the 1992 Democratic race and the 2012 Republican nomination race is that there is no clear frontrunner; not one that was firmly established in the invisible primary and maintained that position heading into and through the primary calendar. If ever there was a chance for voters to have some buyer's remorse and/or for an outsider (see Mario Cuomo) to jump in, it would have been during the 1992 cycle (see Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, "I didn't inhale."). And you know what? Voters in later states did exhibit some buyer's remorse. There was some movement toward Jerry Brown's candidacy, but in the end it wasn't enough to secure the nomination. In fact, it wasn't even close.

A few of caveats:
1) Let's please remember that Democrats then (and now) required the proportional allocation of delegates in all contests. That slows the process down and opens the door even further to the possibility of someone jumping in midstream. And while the RNC has changed the delegate allocation rules for the 2012 cycle, the impact of the change has been grossly overstated to this point. The picture remains incomplete, but state-by-state there are very few substantive changes in the method of delegate allocation as compared to 2008. The Republican nomination process may slow down, but it will be due more to the calendar than to those rules. As such, the 1992 Democratic nomination race serves as a good comparison point that actually offered a slightly greater opportunity -- according to Cook's metric -- to enter the race late.

2) This is a big one. FHQ alluded to the voters above and they all too often get left out of these thought exercises. Look, things change immeasurably once the first votes are cast. Once the votes have been cast and candidates actually start winning something -- You know, something other than straw polls and meaningless polls of states at the end of the process -- the mindset changes. Voters don't typically say, "Crap, Mitt Romney won Iowa. Who else is out there for me to vote for who isn't on the ballot yet in some of these later states?" And voters definitely don't say, "Crap, Newt Gingrich won Iowa and South Carolina and Mitt Romney won New Hampshire, Florida and Nevada. Who else is out there?" No, instead, voters start to either vote for the frontrunner (or someone else in the race -- see Ron Paul's support in the contests after McCain wrapped up the nomination on March 4, 2008.) or in the second scenario, they separate into camps a la the Democratic race in 2008. There may be some shopping around, but on the rare occasions when it occurs, it is shopping around for someone who is already in the race. Voters don't pine for some not in the race. If that was the case, would we not have seen someone else jump into challenge McCain in 2008?

3) The final piece of this puzzle is that we need to examine the conditions under which someone would actually jump into the 2012 race after the contests have actually begun. For 2012, one would have to think that the potential to divide the Republican Party in the scenario where Mitt Romney emerges early or to divide it further in the case that Romney and Gingrich are trading wins is enough to scare most away. If there was a silver bullet candidate out there, he or she would already be in the race. [I thought we settled this during the Chris Christie is reconsidering period.] In other words, it would take a consensus candidate who is not out there or doesn't want to run. Outside of that reality, it would take Obama going into free fall in the polls to possibly bring another Republican into the race. Economic growth projections are good for the first two quarters in 2012, but that could certainly be affected by the  Eurozone situation. Something could also happen on the international stage (Iran flares up for example.). But something like that is likely to help Obama, not hurt him (Rally 'round the flag effect) in the short term. And that underlines the fact that something like that needs to happen in the next couple of months. FHQ just doesn't see that.

--

Let me close by returning to the voters. If they begin to shop around once Romney and/or Gingrich begins winning contests then it will likely be for someone who is already out there and actually has some resources at his or her disposal. Who is that candidate? Well, Bernstein are you paying attention, it is likely to be Rick Perry playing the Jerry Brown role. But like Brown, Perry is likely to in that scenario play spoiler to either Gingrich or Romney than to actually win the nomination himself.

So, for the record, FHQ predicts that the field is set. Sorry Jeb supporters, but you'll have to wait until 2016.

Recent Posts:

Don't Necessarily Get to Used to the Idea of a June Presidential Primary in Ohio

[2012 Presidential Primary Calendar in Review] Part 1: How We Got Here -- The Legislation

Pending a Likely Waiver, Minnesota Democrats Will Caucus on February 7

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

The 2012 Candidates: Huck's out & Other Housekeeping

Let's belatedly update this list now that there have been a couple of noteworthy noes (Haley Barbour and Mike Huckabee), and just this past week a couple of formal yeses (Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul). Bad for southern governors, good for southern congressmen, apparently. Plus, Gary Johnson has jumped in since the last update as well.

With Huckabee out, Iowa has gotten more interesting and the race to be the not-Romney has lost another big name.

--

Democrats:

Barack Obama (announced: 4/4/11)

Republicans:

Michelle Bachmann

Haley Barbour (4/25/11)

John Bolton

Jeb Bush¹

Herman Cain (exploratory: 1/12/11)

Chris Christie¹

Mitch Daniels

Jim DeMint (3/24/11)

Newt Gingrich (exploratory: 3/4/11) (candidacy: 5/11/11)

Rudy Giuliani

Mike Huckabee (5/14/11)

Jon Huntsman

Bobby Jindal¹

Gary Johnson (candidacy: 4/21/11)

Roy Moore (exploratory: 4/18/11)

Sarah Palin

George Pataki (4/20/11)

Ron Paul (exploratory: 4/14/11) (candidacy: 5/13/11)

Tim Pawlenty (exploratory: 3/21/11)

Mike Pence (1/27/11)

Rick Perry¹

Buddy Roemer (exploratory: 3/3/11)

Mitt Romney (exploratory: 4/11/11)

Rick Santorum (exploratory 4/13/11)

John Thune (2/22/11)

--

¹ Christie and Bush (and to a lesser degree Perry and Jindal) continue to be listed as "undecided", despite their rather constant stream of noes, simply because they continue to be asked. Admittedly time is running out and the noes will become much more definitive relatively soon.

Thanks to Mystery Politico for the Pataki news. FHQ missed it entirely.

Recent Posts:

Moving Caucuses to March on the Rules Changes Agenda at Hawaii GOP Convention

A Follow Up on the April Presidential Primary in Texas: Signals from the Republican Party of Texas

Michigan GOP to Decide in August on Timing of 2012 Primary/Caucus

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Tumblr and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

The Links (4/20/11): Miscellany

Newt's staffing up in Iowa.

Sorry Roy Moore. You're getting the Buddy Roemer treatment (No separate 2012 Candidates post). For the record, as of April 18, the former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice formed an exploratory committee. For president.

Pawlenty's message could connect in South Carolina.

Chris Christie may want to move the New Jersey primary to June, and there may be a few bills that have been introduced in the legislature, but the guy behind the 2007 move to February isn't high on the idea.

Florida may cast a shadow over the 2012 Republican nomination race, but it isn't "just like in 2008."

The Economist has their obligatory primary calendar examination up. [Yes, FHQ is just vain enough to mention that.]

Huntsman ascendant?

Recent Posts:

An April Primary in Georgia?

Washington State House Passes Senate Bill to Cancel 2012 Presidential Primary

Senate Version of Tennessee Primary Bill Passes Committee

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Tumblr and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

The 2012 Candidates: Newt's In (?)

...with a website.

But it is a website announcing his intention to explore the option of exploring the exploration of the formation of an exploratory committee for the office of president of the United States. In a time when all that is out there officially are Herman Cain and Buddy Roemer candidacies, Newt Gingrich exploring anything remotely related to the presidency or a White House run is noteworthy (...especially for someone who has been lumped in with the first tier of candidates -- from a polling perspective). It may not be what the former Speaker wanted today to be about, but it'll be something to take to Iowa next week.

Let's update the list to include exploratory committee timing:

Michelle Bachmann

Haley Barbour

John Bolton

Jeb Bush

Herman Cain (exploratory: 1/12/11)

Chris Christie

Mitch Daniels

Jim DeMint

Newt Gingrich (exploratory: 3/3/11)

Rudy Giuliani

Mike Huckabee

Jon Huntsman

Bobby Jindal

Gary Johnson

Sarah Palin

George Pataki

Ron Paul

Tim Pawlenty

Mike Pence (1/27/11)

Rick Perry

Buddy Roemer (exploratory: 3/3/11)

Mitt Romney

Rick Santorum

John Thune (2/22/11)

--

A message from Newt and Callista (from NewtExplore2012.com):

America's greatness lies in 'We the People.'

We are a nation like no other. To remain so will require the dedicated participation of every citizen, of every neighborhood, of every background. This is the responsibility of a free people.

We are excited about exploring whether there is sufficient support for my potential candidacy for President of this exceptional country.

Recent Posts:

Is There a Utah Problem for the 2012 Primary Calendar?

Bill to Move Connecticut Presidential Primary to March Raised in Committee

A Two-Thirds Potomac Primary? DC Might Try to Align Primary with Maryland

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Tumblr and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

On Gingrich's Presidential Nomination System Comments

FHQ would be remiss if we did not at least make some effort to counter several points that Newt Gingrich raised in praising the current presidential nomination system on On the Record with Greta Van Susteren Thursday night. Gingrich is typically very sharp, but several of his comments suggest a fundamental misreading of the nomination system.

First of all, I agree with Gingrich's assessment that the system is not broken.

"I'm a fan of [the saying] 'if things aren't broke, don't fix em', and I believe the system that we have right now.... I think the system works reasonably well."

Despite all the issues that people have with certain states perpetually going first or with the perceived problems with frontloading (...etc.), the system does work. It still produces nominees for the parties who in turn give said parties a good, if not the best, shot at winning the White House given certain other structural factors (nature of the times, fatigue with the incumbent party, etc.). One may be tempted to argue that the Democrats, for instance, nominated Walter Mondale in 1984 and he was subsequently crushed in a Reagan landslide in November of that year. Democrats must have done something wrong, right? Not really. Aside from Ronald Reagan switching parties, the Democrats had no chance in that election no matter who the candidate was.

The system, then, isn't perfect, but it does the job the parties want it to do (see Cohen et al., 2008). Gingrich and FHQ are on the same page there, but that's where the agreements cease. The remaining points the former Speaker makes are either rooted in myth, outdated/obsolete or just aren't all that factual.

Gingrich on equal opportunity (quotations from GOP12):

".... In the opening weeks, you've been in the Midwest, you've been in the Northeast, and you've been in the South, and now -- with adding Nevada -- you've been in the West in the very first weeks, at an affordable pace for unknown candidates.

For somebody like Governor Pawlenty or Senator Thune, who are just starting out, or Senator Santorum.

If you don't have the scale of money that some candidates have, this is an enormously open and equal opportunity model to allow talent to emerge."

This is where my qualms are largest. To the extent that Pawlenty or Thune or Santorum has a shot at the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, it has less to do with gradually building momentum and fund-raising through wins in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada than it does with what's happening right now in the invisible primary. The only reason the line is at all blurred at this point in the process is that there is no clear frontrunner in this particular nomination race. That opens the door ever so slightly to saying that there is more opportunity for longer shot candidates, but not that there is equal opportunity.

And to go on and use the examples of Reagan's nomination in 1980 and Carter's in 1976 to highlight this conclusion is misguided at best. It assumes that virtually nothing has changed in nomination politics in the post-reform era. I can think of several political scientists who have made careers (or part of their careers) out of demonstrating how rules matter and how changes over the last four decades have changed the process in their research.

Do Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada matter? Yes, but first one should look toward whether the invisible primary produces a frontrunner first. What would determine a frontrunner? Above I mentioned fundraising, but along with that poll position and endorsements are also good indicators of where the nomination race may go (again, see Cohen et al., 2008). The premise there is that the party plays a large role in determining who its nominee will be. Of course, in the case of the 2012 Republican nomination race there is one mitigating circumstance that should also be considered. The party may always have its hand in the decision, but in this case the grassroots/Tea Party movement may wield more power relative to the establishment/party elites than in past Republican nomination contests.

With that said, there's a reason Gingrich is heading off to those early primary/caucus states. Yes the former Speaker knows wins there are important, but he and all the other candidates heading to those areas also know money, poll position and endorsements will matter first.

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Obama v. Gingrich (2012 Trial Heats, July '10)

[Click to Enlarge]

And Newt Gingrich?

The last of the Big Four routinely brought up the rear in terms of performance against Obama relative to the other three (Huckabee, Palin and Romney) during 2009. So far behind did the former speaker lag that Public Policy Polling dropped him from consideration. However, the Georgian did so well in some of the surveys of early primary/caucus states that they brought him back in 2010.

Not unlike the other three, Gingrich has seen President Obama's support dry up in these monthly glimpses into the state of the 2012 race. But it isn't all about Obama trailing off; Gingrich has crept up as well. His polling average is right on 40%, but his time-adjusted estimate brings the former speaker closer to Obama. Gingrich does not fare as well as Huckabee or Romney, but bests Palin against Obama. He settles in just in between both extremes. What is lacking on Gingrich is that there are fewer polls and that PPP surveys make up three-quarters of the data on him. Now, to be fair, PPP makes up the majority of all the candidates' data, but some more variation would likely be helpful. As with the other candidates*, most of the non-PPP polls show Obama with a larger lead. Rasmussen is the exception. But Rasmussen has not asked the Gingrich question yet. Perhaps that will change as we near 2011 and the time when presidential announcements begin to be made.

2012 Presidential Trial Heat Polling (Obama v. Gingrich)
Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Obama	Gingrich	Undecided
Public Policy Polling	July 9-12, 2010	+/- 3.8%	667 likely voters	45	46	9
Public Policy Polling	June 4-7, 2010	+/- 3.8%	650 likely voters	47	39	14
Public Policy Polling	May 7-9, 2010	+/- %	707 likely voters	49	42	9
Public Policy Polling	April 9-11, 2010	+/- 3.9%	622 likely voters	45	45	10
CNN	April 9-11, 2010	+/- 3.5%	907 reg. voters	55	43	--
Clarus Research	March 17-20, 2010	+/- 3%	1050 reg. voters	48	36	16
Clarus Research	Aug. 14-18, 2009	+/- 3.1%	1003 voters	52	34	15
Public Policy Polling	Aug. 14-17, 2009	+/- 3.3%	909 likely voters	49	41	10
Public Policy Polling	July 15-16, 2009	+/- 4.1%	577 likely voters	50	42	9
Public Policy Polling	June 12-16, 2009	+/- 3.9%	638 likely voters	49	41	10
Public Policy Polling	May 14-18, 2009	+/- 3.1%	1000 likely voters	53	36	11
Public Policy Polling	April 17-19, 2009	+/- 3.7%	686 likely voters	52	39	9
Average				49.45	40.00	--
Regression Average				46.82	42.24	--

*This seems to hurt Palin the most. She is the candidate most often polled against Obama by other polling firms.

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Romney still ahead in New Hampshire (2012) -- July 2010

No surprises here:

Romney: 31%

Gingrich: 14%

Paul: 13%

Huckabee: 12%

Palin: 9%

Pawlenty: 3%

Daniels: 1%

Someone else: 5%

Undecided: 11%

Poll: Public Policy Polling

Sample: 415 Republican voters

Margin of Error: +/- 4.81%

Conducted: July 23-25, 2010

I won't dwell on these results. More than anything, they simply maintain the status quo: Romney looks good in New Hampshire. Ho hum. However, I will add one note of caution. This was a survey of Republican voters in the Granite state. It does not in any way account for the mass of independents that will surely participate in the Republican primary with Democrats idle in 2012. The argument could be made that Romney would benefit even more from the inclusion of independents. Yet, New Hampshire primary voters have been known to be, oh, I don't want to say quirky, but willing to take a flyer on someone other than the frontrunner. While there is no definitive frontrunner for the Republican nomination at this point, Romney is the New Hampshire frontrunner and that gains him some points in laying claim to that tag at the national level.

Speaking of Romney, FHQ will have an update -- with graphics -- of his trial heat numbers against Obama later today.

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

PPP: 2012 Trial Heats (July '10): GOP Candidates Sweep Past Obama

Public Policy Polling [pdf] today released the numbers on their monthly national survey on the 2012 presidential election. From all indications, President Obama is losing independents; something that has been seen in recent approval numbers as well. Obama trails (Gingrich, Huckabee, Romney) or ties (Palin) all four of the major Republican candidates.

Here's the breakdown:

Obama: 45

Gingrich: 46

Not sure: 9

Obama: 45

Huckabee: 47

Not sure: 8

Obama: 46

Palin: 46

Not sure: 9

Obama: 43

Romney: 46

Not sure: 11

Tom Jensen puts the numbers in perspective well at the conclusion of his post on the poll:

Obviously 2012 is a long ways off and the immediate relevance of these numbers is limited. It's possible we'll look back on polls like this 28 months from now after Obama's been reelected and laugh. But it's also possible that we'll look back on the summer of 2010 after he's been defeated and see it as the time when his prospects for reelection really took a turn for the worse. For now there's really no way to tell.

No way to tell indeed, but those traditional indicators of presidential electoral success -- presidential approval and the economy -- certainly aren't hurting the GOP's prospects at the moment.

[Note: I hope to have an update of the monthly graphs up sometime this evening, but if not, they'll be up in the morning. As I mentioned on Twitter yesterday, FHQ is woefully behind on those figures. Rest assured, it is on our To-Do list.]

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

It's too bad Kentucky's primary is so late

From GOP12:

A new Magellan Strategies survey (pdf) has Sarah Palin leading her prospective 2012 rivals in Kentucky.

1. Sarah Palin 28%

2. Mike Huckabee 24%

3. Mitt Romney 16%

4. Newt Gingrich 12%

5. Ron Paul 4%

6. Tim Pawlenty 2%

If Sarah Palin wins Kentucky in 2012, she'll already be the Republican nominee. But that's all FHQ is willing to say. As of now Kentucky is scheduled to hold a May 22 presidential primary in 2012.

New (Well, Old) Rasmussen 2012 GOP Primary Poll: Huckabee's Tops

[Click to Enlarge]

Huckabee: 29%
Romney: 24%
Palin: 18%
Gingrich: 14%
Pawlenty: 4%

Polling Firm: Rasmussen
Margin of Error: +/- 4%
Sample: 750 likely GOP primary voters (nationally)
Conducted: October 15, 2009


Last Friday, Rasmussen released a look at the (very early -- Had to say it.) 2012 Republican presidential nomination race. This is the first such poll in nearly two months -- the head-to-head trial heat polls against President Obama are done more frequently -- but it seems to be showing the same picture with, perhaps, a slightly different spin. First of all, Mike Huckabee has traded positions with Mitt Romney, taking over the top spot for the first time since a July ABC/Washington Post poll had the former Arkansas governor in the lead. Still, we're operating with the same working group of contenders intact.

Or are we?

Though we've had but two polls (this Rasmussen one included) since August showing a widening gap between Sarah Palin and the top threesome, I'm on the verge of saying that there are two lead groups: the Huckabee/Romney group and the Palin/Gingrich group. The former has been consistently in the 20-30% range throughout the polling conducted since the presidential election a year ago. The latter group has been fairly consistently within the low 20% range and lower. Is the former Alaska governor settling into a position in the upper teens now? Only additional polling will tell us that for sure, but I think it is on the table now for consideration. Last week's Gallup numbers on Palin seem to echo this. Granted, that is a national poll of her approval and not a poll of likely Republican primary voters for 2012. Still, Palin has been in a better position overall prior to now.

Is it all bad for the former vice presidential nominee? Well, yeah it is, because she is also getting beaten handily in head-to-head Republican primary match ups against both Huckabee and Romney as well. Here are those numbers (also from the same Rasmussen poll) as well as the Romney/Huckabee trial heat:

Romney: 52%
Palin: 37%
undecided: 11%

Huckabee: 55%
Palin: 35%
undecided: 10%

Romney: 39%
Huckabee: 44%
undecided: 17%

Polling Firm: Rasmussen
Margin of Error: +/- 4%
Sample: 750 likely Republican primary voters
Conducted: October 15, 2009

A couple of notes about these, to me, somewhat strange polls. [The numbers are fine. They make sense, but I'm still trying to figure out why these particular match ups were polled. It just seems strange. But I think FHQ was the one that said it liked the information. Can't have it both ways, FHQ.] First, when Palin isn't among the list of candidates the undecided group shoots up to the high teens from the low double digits. Is that indicative of folks voting for someone other than Palin or just a signal that people are moving toward her? Sure, the temptation is to say that it is probably some of both, but look closely. Romney and Huckabee's numbers stay steady against Palin, but drop in her absence. Is that overwhelming proof that respondents are taking an "anybody but Palin" approach? No, it isn't, but there is some of that in there.

The second caveat contradicts that point, though. If we look at the figure Rasmussen loves to track on a daily basis in his Twitter account and apply it to Palin (and the other Republicans) instead of President Obama, we see that more people strongly favorable of Palin compared to those very unfavorable of her. Now, Obama has been stuck at around -10 in this (approval) rating for a long while, but Palin and the Republicans are a different story (and should be among an entirely Republican sample). The bottom line, though is that Palin is +31 by that metric (strongly favorable - strongly unfavorable). That bests Romney (+30) but pales in comparison to Huckabee's +43 rating. Of course, that there is such a difference between Romney and Huckabee on this measure (while Romney and Palin are close) yet Romney and Huckabee have similar positions relative to Palin likely says that there is some choose "anybody but Palin" activity in this sample.

Now let's see if Rasmussen releases any trial heats against Obama in the next couple of days. Public Policy Polling is set to release their numbers on that front on Thursday.


Recent Posts:
The Week Ahead

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (10/16/09)

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (10/15/09)