Past Performance in Presidential Primaries as a Benchmark in Future Contests

Fair or not (and FHQ leans to the latter), Mitt Romney's vote total/percentage last week in Iowa being so close to the former Massachusetts governor's total/percentage from the caucuses in 2008 has set off at least some expectations-setting chatter about the now-versus-then in other states. FHQ has followed the presidential primary process for a long time and I don't know that I have ever seen this particular metric pop up in the past. The reality is that we just simply don't have that many viable but ultimately failing candidates from one cycle coming back to be viable candidates in the immediately subsequent cycle (emphasis on viable and immediately).

The best corollaries we have in the post-reform era on the Republican side are Ronald Reagan (1976 and 1980), George H. W. Bush (1980 and 1988), Bob Dole (1988 and 1996) and John McCain (2000 and 2008).¹  And right off the bat, one gets into all the "yeah, buts". In Reagan's case, the race was a two person battle between the would-be 40th president and the sitting, but unelected president, Gerald Ford. That two person contest is tough to equate with the multi-candidate race in 1980. For the remaining examples, there is a lag that encompasses three total presidential election cycles instead of two back-to-back. In other words, the comparisons are being made with eight years, not four, in between the two points of observation.

To FHQ, these sorts of benchmarks are very tricky because of how many caveats can be involved. Are they more trouble than they are worth? Let's have a look at the early states with similar positions on the calendar from one comparison point to another for Republican candidates, 1976-2012:

Past Primary Performance by State (Early) in Republican Races (1976-2012)
Candidate/ Year/ State	% of vote (point #1)	% of vote (point #2)	Won State (point #1)	Won State (point #2)	Mulit-candidate? (point #1)	Mulit-candidate? (point #2)	Dem. Race? (point #1)	Dem. Race? (point #2)	Open Primary?
Reagan  (1976/1980)
Iowa	43	30	--	--	--	√	√	√	√
New Hampshire	48	50	--	√	--	√	√	√	√
Massachusetts	34	29	--	--	--	√	√	√	√
Florida	47	56	--	√	--	√	√	√	--
Bush  (1980/1988)
Iowa	32	19	√	--	√	√	√	√	√
New Hampshire	23	38	--	√	√	√	√	√	√
South Carolina	15	49	--	√	√	√	√	√	√
Dole  (1988/1996)
Iowa	37	26	√	√	√	√	√	--	√
New Hampshire	29	26	--	--	√	√	√	--	√
South Dakota	55	45	√	√	√	√	√	--	--
South Carolina	21	45	--	√	√	√	√	--	√
McCain (2000/2008)
Iowa	5	13	--	--	√	√	√	√	√
New Hampshire	48	37	√	√	√	√	√	√	√
South Carolina	42	33	--	√	√	√	√	√	√
Romney  (2008/2012)
Iowa	25	25	--	√	√	√	√	--	√
New Hampshire	32	??			√	√	√	--	√
South Carolina	15	??			√	√	√	--	√
Florida	31	??			√	√	√	--	--

Now, everyone will probably get the most out of the first few columns with the vote percentages and win rates. But I'm hard-pressed not to include other relevant considerations here like whether or not the race was a multi-candidate race, which party had nomination races and whether or not the state had an open/semi-open/semi-closed primary allowing particularly independents to vote. Again, if there are multiple candidates, then there are more candidates vying for a piece of the pie. The result is typically, but not always, a smaller share of the vote for the winner (and other participants). That Reagan's percentage of the vote in New Hampshire went up between 1976 and 1980 despite the race having gone from two candidates in the former to multiple candidates in the latter is noteworthy, for example. That the former president went down in Iowa under similar circumstances is more understandable.

Additionally, the combination of if the Democratic Party simultaneously held a contested nomination race and if any given state allowed independents to vote in the primary matters. If, in one cycle Democrats were involved and peeled votes away from the Republican contest in an open state, but were not in the next contest of comparison, it could have an impact across races/cycles. There are not all that many examples of this occurring as the Democratic Party has had so many contested nomination races in an otherwise Republican era of presidencies. 1996 offers our best hope, and Dole's   numbers went up in South Carolina from a Democratic-contested year like 1988 to one where the Republicans were the only game in town in 1996. FHQ is skeptical just how much of an impact the presence of Democrats in 1988 and their absence in 1996 had on that. [Overall, this is a factor that is likely to play a larger role -- hypothetically -- in New Hampshire if it was to play a role at all. There's no evidence of that above.]

As for whether a candidate improved or declined from cycle to the next in the early states, it is a coin flip in the 14 state cases above. In seven cases, the candidate improved and in the remaining seven cases the candidate lost ground from one cycle to the next. And not even a tiebreaker works if one wants to throw Romney's Iowa performances into the mix. Romney essentially tied his vote percentage from 2008 last week in Iowa. Five of the cases saw an improvement from one cycle to the next lead to a victory for a candidate. But in four other cases, candidates lost ground and either won or still won across the sequential comparison points.

But the question remains: Is this a good metric for setting expectations much less examining performance for a repeat candidate across cycles? The record is mixed, but if ever there was a candidate/cycle combination where it would work, it would be Romney in 2012. But FHQ just isn't sold on whether even that would be effective. So, while we will hear at least some discussion about Mitt Romney's share of the vote -- particularly in New Hampshire tomorrow -- in 2008 (32%) as a means of setting the expectations for the former Massachusetts governor in 2012, it may be flawed simply because independents will flock to the Republican contest while the Democratic primary remains idle.

Fair or not, when you are the frontrunner and basically playing a home game all comparison points will be examined.

...and FHQ is fine with that so long as caveats are added.

--
¹ Incidentally, along with Romney (2008 and 2012) that is all of the competitive Republican nomination races in the time since the McGovern-Fraser reforms.

Recent Posts:

The Psychology of the 2012 Republican Nomination Coverage

Housekeeping: Flip Flop

[2012 Presidential Primary Calendar in Review] Part 3: Where We Go From Here -- The 2016 Presidential Primary Calendar

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

The Psychology of the 2012 Republican Nomination Coverage

Last night Nate Silver tweeted:

Starting to think that "25% is a ceiling for Romney" is the most overrated/incorrect meme of the cycle.

To which FHQ responded:

The 25% ceiling combined with the "proportional" rules changes has built a powerful myth in this race.

I'm sure that the 140 characters or less captured my thoughts parsimoniously enough, but let FHQ expand upon that statement because it has an overarching bearing on the psychology of the coverage of this race. Look, FHQ has railed against the myth of Republican proportionality since February of last year. That many have ignored the rules changes and more importantly their potential impact relative to the rules in past cycles has propped up this illusion that the Republican presidential nomination process just has to extend longer than in the past. It might but that notion is no more inevitable than a Mitt Romney nomination at this point. Well, in actuality, it is less likely as the two are mutually exclusive.

But there it is in the backs of the minds of a great many folks. That perception that the race is likely to continue -- and it stretches into the campaigns themselves. In combination with the all-too falsely concocted idea that Romney has a ceiling in this race, the proportionality/protracted campaign myth creates the perception that not only will the race go on, but that there is a significant faction of Republican primary voters opposed to Romney. Now, that perceived divisiveness on top of a lengthy nomination fight is the stuff that sells papers and magazines and gets people to click on any given link, but it doesn't really capture the true nature of the race currently. It just doesn't.

I don't know that it is the ceiling so much as the talking point surrounding the converse -- that 75% of the electorate is in opposition to Romney -- is the crux of the problem. Truth be told, up to 75% of the Republican primary may be in opposition, but the number is likely much lower. Many voters are still shopping around and as the field continues to winnow and when and if Romney continues to win contests, most are going to move over to the former Massachusetts governor. They just are. Most Republicans will line up behind the presumptive, near-inevitable, last one standing -- whatever you want to call it -- nominee.

To be sure, there are simultaneously stories out there discussing Romney's inevitability alongside those mentioning a protracted fight and that sets up the two sides of a media coverage spectrum. The needle is moving more and more toward inevitability now despite the myths that have propped up Romney's limited reach among Republicans and a rules-induced lengthy battle for the nomination.

Recent Posts:

Housekeeping: Flip Flop

[2012 Presidential Primary Calendar in Review] Part 3: Where We Go From Here -- The 2016 Presidential Primary Calendar

Minnesota Democrats Set for February 7 Caucuses

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.

Mindful of Huckabee in 2008, Will Romney Go on the Attack in 2012?

Michael D. Shear at The Caucus asks:

Is it time for Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, to turn his firepower on Representative Michele Bachmann?

Four years ago, Mr. Romney’s shot at the Republican nomination was dealt a nearly fatal blow when Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, emerged late in the game as a favorite of conservatives to win the Iowa caucuses.

Well, for the answer, we can go in a couple of directions. First of all, 2012 is not 2008. Mitt Romney's strategy for 2012 is fundamentally different than the direction the former Massachusetts governor's campaign took in 2008. Iowa was a big part of the 2008 strategy, and while the Hawkeye state is not completely off the radar for Romney in 2012, the state has been deemphasized. Romney will take his trips to states like Iowa and South Carolina, but his campaign has taken a calculated risk in deemphasizing them. If he can win them, great, but the Romney camp is betting that Romney can raise a boatload of money and win New Hampshire and Nevada (and perhaps rogue Florida and rogue Michigan as well), and if that doesn't winnow the field down to Romney and some token opposition, those wins (and money) will propel him into Super Tuesday.

Secondly, the political science literature tells us that it is a fool's errand for a frontrunner to go on the attack (see particularly Haynes, Flowers and Gurian, 2002). Why? There's no need to stoop to the level of your opponents' level. It is a sign of vulnerability. Now, this isn't to say that a frontrunner won't respond/attack if attacked, but generally we see that frontrunners act as if they are above the fray. Leave the attacking to someone else.

Let's put those two pieces together now. If Iowa has been downgraded strategically within the Romney campaign, then why go on the attack there? Nominal or not, Romney is the frontrunner in the race for the 2012 Republican nomination (as of June 2011 -- That could certainly change.). It just does not make a whole lot of sense for the former Massachusetts governor to attack Bachmann or anyone else in Iowa or anywhere else. Iowa is much more important to some other candidates. If anyone is going to attack Bachmann, it should probably be Tim Pawlenty or anyone else gunning for a caucus win in the Hawkeye state. And that's why Romney won't attack Bachmann. This isn't 2008 and Bachmann is not Huckabee. She doesn't represent to Romney what Huckabee did in 2008 anyway.

Recent Posts:

Wisconsin Assembly Has Until Thursday to Pass Presidential Primary Bill, Avoid Delay

New Jersey Senate Budget Committee Sends Bills to Eliminate Separate Presidential Primary to the Floor

Gubernatorial Signature Expected on New York Presidential Primary Bill

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

The 2012 Candidates (6/3/11)

Added:

Candidacy announcements: Cain, Pawlenty, Romney

Out: Daniels, Trump

New classifications: "latest denials"¹, "reconsidering"

--

Democrats:

Barack Obama (announced: 4/4/11)

Republicans:

Michelle Bachmann

Haley Barbour (4/25/11)

John Bolton

Jeb Bush (latest denial: 5/23/11)

Herman Cain (exploratory: 1/12/11) (candidacy: 5/21/11)

Chris Christie (latest denial: 6/1/11)

Mitch Daniels (5/22/11)

Jim DeMint (latest denials: 3/24/11, 6/1/11)

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

Rudy Giuliani

Mike Huckabee (5/14/11)

Jon Huntsman

Bobby Jindal (12/8/10)

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) (candidacy: 5/23/11)

Mike Pence (1/27/11)

Rick Perry (latest denials: 4/15/11, 5/20/11) (reconsidering: 5/25/11)

Buddy Roemer (exploratory: 3/3/11)

Mitt Romney (exploratory: 4/11/11) (candidacy: 6/2/11)

Rick Santorum (exploratory 4/13/11)

John Thune (2/22/11)

Donald Trump (5/16/11)

--

¹ This classification has been added for prospective candidates who have been repeatedly asked and denied and intention to run for president (ie: Christie, Bush). Prospective candidates who have issued definitive answers but about whom rumors have forced more recent denials are also included in this categorization (ie: DeMint).

Recent Posts:

Missouri State Rep Raises Specter of Gubernatorial Veto on Presidential Primary Bill

New Jersey State Senate Committee Votes in Favor of June Presidential Primary Bills

The Big Advantage New Hampshire Has Over Florida on Primary Scheduling

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

The 2012 Candidates: Santorum's In

Former Pennsylvania senator, Rick Santorum, threw his hat in the Republican nomination ring on On the Record with Greta VanSusteren tonight. No [exploratory] website, no video. Just a traditional television launch. He becomes the sixth Republican to announce the formation of an exploratory committee with the intent of exploring a bid for the White House. The senator's natural constituency among the early states is probably in Iowa and South Carolina -- He did win a straw poll in Greenville County, South Carolina over the weekend -- but even then he will face an uphill battle. He fills a niche on social issues possibly to the right of some of the other candidates, but may struggle to differentiate himself from them on economic matters, where the general election battle is likely to be waged. But in the primaries, invisible or otherwise, Santorum may serve the purpose of pulling some of his colleagues to the right on certain issues.

In other words, he may make some of the debates interesting, but won't ultimately go anywhere in terms of winning the nomination next year.

--

Democrats:

Barack Obama (announced: 4/4/11)

Republicans:

Michelle Bachmann

Haley Barbour

John Bolton

Jeb Bush

Herman Cain (exploratory: 1/12/11)

Chris Christie

Mitch Daniels

Jim DeMint (3/24/11)

Newt Gingrich (exploratory: 3/4/11)

Rudy Giuliani

Mike Huckabee

Jon Huntsman

Bobby Jindal

Gary Johnson

Sarah Palin

George Pataki

Ron Paul

Tim Pawlenty (exploratory: 3/21/11)

Mike Pence (1/27/11)

Rick Perry

Buddy Roemer (exploratory: 3/3/11)

Mitt Romney (exploratory: 4/11/11)

Rick Santorum (exploratory 4/13/11)

John Thune (2/22/11)

Recent Posts:

The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (4/13/11)

Bill Introduced in Michigan House to Move Presidential Primary to January

Michigan Democrats Not Looking to Repeat 2008 Opt for May Caucuses

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

The 2012 Candidates: Mitt's In

A week after Obama launched his reelection bid Romney goes exploring.

This one is just about as much of a surprise as Obama's video announcement was a week ago. But the former Massachusetts governor is in the race for the Republican nomination and is already catching some flak on a day that Iowa and New Hampshire Democrats were celebrating the anniversary of Romneycare. The latter makes it an interesting day for an announcement.

Romney remains a potentially formidable opponent for Obama in the general election, but that isn't really the former governor's problem; appealing to and garnering enough support among the Republican primary electorate is.

Here's more on Romney from Jonathan Bernstein, Jack Pitney and Eric Ostermeier.

--

Democrats:

Barack Obama (announced: 4/4/11)

Republicans:

Michelle Bachmann

Haley Barbour

John Bolton

Jeb Bush

Herman Cain (exploratory: 1/12/11)

Chris Christie

Mitch Daniels

Jim DeMint (3/24/11)

Newt Gingrich (exploratory: 3/4/11)

Rudy Giuliani

Mike Huckabee

Jon Huntsman

Bobby Jindal

Gary Johnson

Sarah Palin

George Pataki

Ron Paul

Tim Pawlenty (exploratory: 3/21/11)

Mike Pence (1/27/11)

Rick Perry

Buddy Roemer (exploratory: 3/3/11)

Mitt Romney (exploratory: 4/11/11)

Rick Santorum

John Thune (2/22/11)

Recent Posts:

New Look FHQ

The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (4/8/11)

Oklahoma Senate Unanimously Passes House March Primary Bill

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

A Good, Old-Fashioned Conspiracy Theory of 2012 Primary Movement

There has been no lack of state legislative action to move or cancel 2012 presidential primaries during the first two months of 2011. With the national parties coordinating the development of the calendar aspect of their respective delegate selection rules -- settling on a first Tuesday in March start date for all non-exempt states -- most of that proposed movement in active legislation in state legislatures is backward and not forward thus far in the 2012 cycle. That can have implications for how the candidates approach certain states strategically. Depending on how the calendar ends up, and which states are where, certain candidates could have advantages over their counterparts. Most of this discussion has focused on the first four states; that Romney might skip Iowa or that he will do well in New Hampshire and Nevada. But what is missing is a look at what might happen after that. Much of that will, of course, depend on what states end up forming that second tier of contests behind the four exempt states. That is why the evolution of this particular primary calendar is consequential.

Where does the formation of the second tier currently stand? Some states have proposed legislation to shift the dates on which their presidential primaries are held, yet others have not. Is there any pattern that has emerged in the states where legislation has been introduced and those early states that have to this point remained inactive?

[Click to Enlarge]

Well, actually there is. There are 18 primary states with 2012 contests currently scheduled out of compliance with national party rules. That list expands to 19 if Washington, DC is included. Of those 19 states (highlighted in yellow and green in the map above), eight have proposed legislation to move their presidential primaries back (Those states marked by a black circle.). Ten of those states were states in which Mike Huckabee either won the primary or placed second to John McCain. The remaining nine states were ones where Mitt Romney either won or came in second to McCain.

While the overall division is nearly even, the distribution of states with legislation to move primaries to later dates saw decidedly more Huckabee support than Romney support in the early 2008 contests. Six of the eight states with legislation work its way through state legislatures were Huckabee states. And of the two Romney states one, Florida, has shown a certain resistance to moving despite Democrats having proposed legislation to move the primary back into compliance.

If the seven states with active legislation to move their primaries move back (excluding Florida) that would leave a second tier of 12 states; eight where Romney enjoyed success in 2008 and four where Huckabee won or was the runner-up. Now sure, it is early in the state legislative session, but there is an interesting pattern that has surfaced behind the states that have been either active or inactive in moving their 2012 delegate selection events.

Have at it Romney supporters and detractors.

Recent Posts:

Is Florida Culpable in a Potential 2012 Primary Mess?

Thune's Out

From California, The Best Primary Bill Introduction Yet

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

Mitt Romney's already got trouble in Nevada?

Is it already time to poke holes in the chances of a nominal frontrunner for one of the parties' presidential nominations? Who had February 13th in the pool?

FHQ could deride the story on Romney in Nevada that appeared on the Boston Globe's Political Intelligence blog for coming way too early, but on a weekend when CPAC straw poll results are being overhyped, it is actually in the right place (see full item below). The take-home is that Romney will likely find it difficult to repeat his Silver state performance from 2008. Matt Viser attributes that to Ron Paul/Tea Party support in the Nevada leftover from 2008 and 2010 (more on Paul's supporters and the impact they had on the 2008 Nevada Republican convention here), and while that is not off the mark, it misses one very important piece of the puzzle from the last cycle.

The former Massachusetts governor was able to exploit the Nevada caucuses for a number of reasons (a general popularity in the west, religion, organization -- especially in western caucus states), but the fact that most of Romney's opponents were focused on the South Carolina Republican primary on the same day had as much of an influence on the results in both those states as anything else. If, given the rules changes nationally (Republican rules placing the Nevada caucuses third in the process) and within the state (the party making the first step of the caucus binding in terms of delegate allocation -- a change from 2008), Nevada has the spotlight to itself, then it should not only likely be understood that the 2012 candidates will pay more attention to the Silver state, but that Mitt Romney will find it difficult to crack the 50% barrier in the 2012 Nevada caucuses.

As for FHQ, we are still skeptical that the South Carolina Republican Party will actually cede its traditional third in line position in the Republican nomination process for Nevada. It should be noted that the Republican rules, unlike the Democratic rules, provide no dates for any of the exempt nominating contests; only that they should have a position in February ahead of all the other contests that are supposed to begin in March. But that's a story for another time.

--

Nevada could be daunting task for Romney

by Matt Viser, Globe staff

LAS VEGAS — Mitt Romney has a lot riding on Nevada as he readies his early-state strategy for a possible Republican primary campaign, but changes in the state’s caucus rules and surge of Tea Party activism will make the state a tougher environment for him than 2008, when Romney romped with more than 50 percent of the vote.

Nevada falls third in the tentative primary schedule, and it holds outsized importance for the former Massachusetts governor. If he runs for president, as appears likely, he would not be expected to win the early states of Iowa or South Carolina.

Under almost any scenario, that means he must win in New Hampshire. And Nevada, falling just after the Granite State, would present the second key test of his strength.
By the numbers, Romney — who is scheduled to visit Las Vegas on Monday — should perform strongly in the Silver State. An estimated 7.5 percent of Nevada residents share Romney’s Mormon faith, and exit polls showed Mormons accounted for one in four caucus voters in 2008.

But while he would start the 2012 Nevada contest with a formidable organization and as the overwhelming favorite, the landscape in this Western state is more hostile.

Seeking to become more than a primary backwater bypassed by most candidates, Nevada changed its caucus rules for next year’s campaign to make the outcome binding on its delegates to the Republican National Convention.

The intent was to increase the state’s prominence in the primaries, and it’s working. Nevada is attracting stronger interest from such would-be candidates as Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty, who have made early visits and are planning more.

The rightward tug of insurgents in the Republican Party, meanwhile, has added a measure of anti-establishment volatility to the Nevada electorate that was largely absent four years ago and could seriously hurt Romney, whose health care plan in Massachusetts, used as the model for the national overhaul last year, is widely despised by conservatives.

‘‘Mitt Romney has a strong Mormon base of support in Nevada that will continue,’’ said Chuck Muth, a conservative activist who is planning to host candidate forums at a bar with a mechanical bull, just south of the Vegas strip. ‘‘The biggest hurdle for Mitt Romney to overcome is RomneyCare.’’

Romney, who is expected to announce his candidacy in the spring, declined requests for an interview. Like most other potential candidates, Romney has been quietly testing the waters for a run. He appeared Sunday in Washington at the Conservative Political Action Conference, an annual event that attracts many presidential aspirants. He will travel to Las Vegas on Monday to speak at a business convention on the strip.

Romney is ahead in the polls in Nevada and his supporters maintain he can attract Tea Party support by talking about fiscal conservatism and other issues important to the party’s right wing.

‘‘No one candidate is going to get every Tea Party vote in Nevada,’’ said Ryan Erwin, a top political consultant in the state who is prepared to lead Romney’s state operation. ‘‘But regardless of whether we are talking about activists in the Tea Party movement or those who simply share the philosophy, voters focused on balanced budgets and fiscal restraint in Nevada are largely Romney people.’’

Romney has been defending the 2006 Massachusetts health plan, the signature accomplishment of his gubernatorial administration, as an example of a state exercising its powers to solve problems within its borders. He criticizes the Obama plan, by contrast, as a federal overreach that usurps states’ rights.

That argument has yet to appease Tea Party activists.

Sharron Angle, the Tea Party candidate who stunned the GOP by winning Nevada’s Senate primary last year before losing to Majority Leader Harry Reid, would not criticize Romney directly in an interview. But she said the Massachusetts health plan will be a factor in the Nevada election.

‘‘It failed, and we know that this Obamacare is unconstitutional,’’ she said. ‘‘I think that those kinds of things are going to come into play during the presidential election.’’
Surveys of Republican Nevada voters have shown Romney with a moderate lead. A poll conducted last month by Public Policy Polling put Romney at 31 percent, compared to Sarah Palin (19 percent), Gingrich (18 percent), and Mike Huckabee (14 percent).

‘‘The 800-pound gorilla in Republican politics is Mitt Romney,’’ said David Damore, a political science professor at the University of Nevada Las Vegas. ‘‘You’re going to see him run the traditional top down organization and count on his religious affiliation. But he’s got a lot of issues to overcome.’’

While the mood is uncertain a year before the Nevada caucus (tentatively scheduled for Feb. 18, 2012), a billboard on I-215 leaving Las Vegas warns of the some of the dangers for establishment candidates like Romney: ‘‘Ron Paul 2012.’’ The Texas Republican congressman finished second behind Romney four years ago, and conservative activists want him back in the race.

Paul’s last high-profile trip to the state was in 2009. But several Tea Party favorites — Representative Michele Bachmann, of Minnesota, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, and former Godfather’s Pizza executive Herman Cain — have made multiple visits to the state in recent months. Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, a Mormon who is resigning as US ambassador to China and weighing a run for president, could cut into Romney’s church support.

High unemployment, which at 14 percent was the worst in the country in December, and foreclosures are big issues in Nevada and helped fuel voter anger in 2010.
With few formally declared candidates and a year to go, voters have yet to seriously tune in to presidential politics. In a dozen interviews with Nevada Republicans, support for Romney was mixed.

‘‘The key issue here is jobs, jobs, jobs,’’ said Robert Sulliman, a security services manager. ‘‘Who better to make things happen than Mitt Romney?’’

But those who identified themselves as aligned with the Tea Party tended to oppose him.
‘‘I’m not a fan,’’ said Bettye Gilmour, a 67-year-old retired social worker. ‘‘He’s very presidential looking, but he’s too much of a politician.’’

Romney’s organization has not yet geared up in Nevada — but it is ready to go on short notice, said his supporters. His team still has its database of voter identification files — called ‘‘Romney Connect’’ — that will give him a big head start. Romney’s son Josh has been staying in touch with former campaign workers.

Recent Posts:

New Bill Introduced to Eliminate Separate Presidential Primary in New Jersey

Florida Primary: Are Governor Scott and the GOP Leadership in the General Assembly Really "At Odds"?

Bills Introduced in Both Chambers to Move Tennessee Presidential Primary to March

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

So Mitt Romney Might Skip Iowa

As FHQ tweeted a little while ago, strategically, this would be less than wise. Yet, there it is: Romney's advisers are talking (or floating a trial balloon) about skipping the Republican nomination race's first contest. First, let's look at why this is a bad idea. Then we can look at why it is, as I called it, a trial balloon.

Why skipping Iowa is a bad move

In many ways, a presidential nomination race, particularly one without a clear frontrunner, is about expectations. This point is debated in the political science literature, but this is why the caveat about the presence of a clear frontrunner is an important distinction to make. Regardless of expectations and the comparison to actual results when the inevitably come in at the beginning of primary and caucus season, a clear frontrunner from the invisible primary typically emerges as the nominee. The George W. Bush experience from 2000 is a good example. Candidates, Lamar Alexander and Liddy Dole among them, were dropping out of the race prior to even Iowa and New Hampshire and they were citing Bush's financial advantage. The expectation heading into primary season, then, was that Bush was going to run away with the Republican nomination. He did, but not before John McCain defied those expectations and crushed Bush by 19 points in the New Hampshire primary. McCain also peeled off a few additional victories, but in the end Bush's institutional support within the party was too great.

But 2012 doesn't have a clear frontrunner. If there is a frontrunner, Romney is, at least according to conventional wisdom (something that isn't necessarily trustworthy), the nominal frontrunner. So what would skipping Iowa mean? Is it a sign of weakness from the nascent Romney campaign? Is it a signal that Romney is focusing on New Hampshire? Is it a nod to the fact that Iowa is likely to support a "more conservative" candidate? FHQ is of the opinion that it is none of the above, but I'll hold off on that for a moment. Skipping Iowa is a bad idea precisely because it raises the expectations in New Hampshire. And that's something that polls and straw polls are already doing for the former Massachusetts governor. Romney, in other words, would have nowhere to go but down. That's fine if you're George W. Bush in 2000, but Mitt Romney doesn't have that sort of cushion heading into the home stretch of the invisible primary and into the actual contests next year.

It is a lose-lose situation. Romney loses Iowa by virtue of having skipped it and then is potentially likely to "lose" New Hampshire in the expectations game. That's not the kind of start you want if you are the frontrunner, no matter how nominal.

Why the skipping Iowa story is just that -- a story

As Jonathan Bernstein rightly pointed out in a response to my aforementioned tweet, this story is all about expectations, but about lowering them in Iowa not raising them in New Hampshire. The tendency here is to compare what's going on now to what happened with those candidates who ran in 2008. For Romney (and Huckabee) there had been a lot of activity to this point in 2008 in Iowa. Both were intent on doing well at the Ames Straw Poll in August 2007. Their resource allocations -- visits to the Hawkeye state and expenditures there -- reflected that. So did the eventual results. Romney edged Huckabee in the straw poll in August and the reversed positions in the January caucuses. So they should be doing what John Edwards did before 2008, right? [No, not that. I mean the actual campaigning.] Camping out in Iowa and basically putting all your eggs in that one basket. Well, that didn't work out so well for Edwards. Despite the presence there from 2004 onward, it didn't yield him anything other than second place in Iowa in 2008 (and barely at that. Clinton finished a fraction of percentage point behind the former vice presidential nominee.).

Despite the fact that the dynamics are different between 2008 and 2012, that tendency still remains: What did Romney do in 2008 in Iowa and what is he doing now for 2012? Romney learned a lesson from Iowa in 2008: Don't spend so much. Well, he really doesn't have to. He is a known quantity now and wasn't before 2008. All in all, then, this is an effort to lowball the Iowa effort in 2012. If the expectation is that Romney won't be a presence there, then any visit he makes or money his campaign spends there is seen as a net positive.

After all it still remains quite possible that social conservative caucus-goers in the state will split their vote if they cannot coalesce behind one candidate. And Mitt Romney, who still has something of a leftover campaign structure in the state, can emerge, if not with a victory, then a solid showing that will help him heading into subsequent contests.

UPDATE: Jonathan Bernstein adds his two cents as well. [I may be quicker than you, JB, but David beat me to it.]

Tom Jensen at Public Policy Polling has more but from a polling perspective.

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

Romney Takes New Hampshire GOP Straw Poll

Former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney, won Saturday's straw poll of New Hampshire Republicans by a more than three to one margin over his next closest competitor, Texas representative, Ron Paul. In a crowded field of candidates, Romney emerged with 35% of the vote (273 total votes cast of the 493 members in attendance -- 55% turnout) and won despite Tea Party-aligned state party chair candidate, Jack Kimball, winning that race. In other words, even with some Tea Party atmosphere to the proceedings, Romney -- not necessarily a favorite of the movement that grew from the grassroots up following President Obama's victory in the 2008 election -- won and did so by a margin that largely reflects what polls of the early primary state have shown.

Mitt Romney: 35%

Ron Paul: 11%

Tim Pawlenty: 8%

Sarah Palin: 7%

Michelle Bachmann: 5%

Jim DeMint: 5%

Herman Cain: 4%

Chris Christie: 3%

Rick Santorum: 3%

Mitch Daniels: 3%

Newt Gingrich: 3%

Mike Huckabee: 3%

Mike Pence: 3%

Rudy Giuliani: 2%

Judd Gregg: 2%

Gary Johnson: 2%

Other: 2%

Donald Trump: 1%

Haley Barbour: 1%

Jon Huntsman: ~1% 0*

John Thune: ~1% 0*

There isn't much to read into this other than the Romney-Tea Party angle discussed above. The fact that 220 members opted to sit on the sidelines is noteworthy, but may only indicate that it is still a little too early.

*I just got a nice email from James Pindell, the political director from WMUR, the station which held the straw poll vote. Jon Huntsman and John Thune not only got less than 1% of the straw poll vote, they each got 0 votes. That correction has been made in the results above.

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

It WILL NOT Happen!

Tom Harkin and the 1992 Democratic nomination are ancient history.

FHQ is as guilty as most in the 2012 gazing. [We've been doing since November 2008.] However, this speculation on Mitt Romney and New Hampshire seems misguided to me. Yes, it is way too early and yes, that lead Romney holds in the Granite state may not hold over the next two years. Yet, even if it does, it would be suicide for any of the prospective Republican candidates to skip the state. This has not happened since 1992 when Democratic candidates opted to cede Iowa to favorite son, Tom Harkin. Actually it has happened. Rudy Giuliani skipped Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina to focus on Florida. And how did that work out? Not well. Once McCain won the Sunshine state primary on January 29, 2008, Giuliani was done. Why pass up a chance to put a major kink in the Romney armor in early 2012?

Look, Karl Rove's "attack you opponent's strength" is now among the dominant strategies in campaign politics. To pass up challenging Romney in New Hampshire is to pass up an opportunity to completely undermine his presidential candidacy. Let's not forget that running for president is about winning, but depending on the cycle winning is defined differently. In a George W. Bush in 2000 type of race, it is about overwhelming your competition on your way to the nomination. In more competitive races, though, it is important to win, but also important to beat expectations.

The Republican nomination race in 2012 will be competitive, and the expectations -- given the polls of the state that have trickled out since 2008 -- Romney is "supposed" to win handily. Of course, Bill Clinton was "supposed" to get swamped in the Granite state in 1992. Yet, all we talk about is his comeback and second place finish. Who won that primary? Why President Paul Tsongas, of course. No, Tsongas didn't win the 1992 Democratic nomination despite the win in New Hampshire. Bill Clinton did and taught us a valuable lesson about expectations in presidential nomination races.

• Obama wasn't supposed to win Iowa in 2008, but he did by seven points.

• McCain was supposedly done in the summer of 2007, yet his fourth place finish -- given the resources he had spent in Iowa -- was seen as a fairly good result.

• John Edwards had to win South Carolina in 2008 after winning there in 2004. But he didn't and that was a damning indictment on his candidacy.

Yes, these are all examples from 2008, but the premise can be extended to other cycles as well. Expectations matter in the context of presidential primaries and caucuses and will continue to matter. The expectation in November 2010 is that Romney is going to win in New Hampshire in 2012. There's a long way to go and Romney may win in the Granite state, but how much he wins by in a competitive race (for the nomination) will have a say in who the eventual nominee is.

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

Pence for President Gets and Assist from the Value Voters Straw Poll

Indiana congressmen, Mike Pence, just topped the fifth Value Voters Summit straw poll (723 voters) for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. [No, the group isn't expressly aligned with the Republican Party, so it was for the whole thing and not just the GOP nomination. However, there weren't a whole lot of Democrats in attendance.] Here's how the ledger looked when members of the group had cast their votes:

• Mike Pence (24%)
• Mike Huckabee (22%)
• Mitt Romney (13%)
• Newt Gingrich (10%)
• Sarah Palin (7%)
• Rick Santorum (5%)
• Jim DeMint (5%)
• Bobby Jindal (2%)
• Mitch Daniels (2%)
• Chris Christie (2%)
• John Thune (2%)
• Bob McDonnell (1%)
• Marco Rubio (1%)
• Paul Ryan (1%)
• Haley Barbour (1%)
• Ron Paul (1%)
• Jan Brewer (less than 1%)

Pence is the real surprise here. If you were going to pick a Hoosier to have a good shot at the Republican nomination, you might have opted for Mitch Daniels instead of Pence. Yet, there Pence is, having doubled his share of the vote from last year's straw poll, on top. Sure Sarah Palin is on the low end in terms of share of the vote, but she was not in attendance. Neither was Tim Pawlenty, who pulled his name off the ballot because he wasn't going to be there. The Minnesota governor was in a similar position to Pence a year ago and there is no telling how he would have fared this year. Finally, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney essentially maintained similar shares of the straw poll vote as they did in 2009.

Does this result prompt Pence to jump in? Well, it is a little early still, but it might give him something to think about. Once the calendar turns to 2011, we will start seeing Republicans line up to throw their hat in the ring for the nomination. That's the next step.

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

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

[Click to Enlarge]

Among the four candidate who are surveyed most frequently in hypothetical 2012 general election match ups against President Obama, Mitt Romney does the best. [Yes, that spoils the Gingrich results on some level, but so be it.] The former Massachusetts governor's numbers are on par with Mike Huckabee's as measured by both the straight average of polls conducted and the regression trend estimate, but Romney actually leads Obama in the latter -- the only candidate to do so. While Romney tended to keep Obama's level of support at low levels as compared to most of the other Republicans polled, the 2008 presidential candidate also failed to muster much support of his own during the first half on 2009. Since July of last year, though, Romney has fared far better against Obama compared to the other Republicans across a variety of polling houses.

That consistency across polls has boosted Romney, whereas his closest competitor -- at least by our measure -- Mike Huckabee has been very consistent in the Public Policy Polling surveys while lagging in other polls. Again, that speaks toward Romney's inching upward more than it speaks to Huckabee falling. For all intents and purposes, the two hold a very similar position in relation to Obama in a potential general election race. Romney has some establishment support within the Republican Party, perhaps even similar to what McCain enjoyed in 2008. However, Romney looked good heading into the 2008 primary season too only to fall by the wayside once McCain was able to string together victories in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida heading into the pivotal Super Tuesday states. He will have to show a lot of establishment support if he wants to avoid that fate again.

2012 Presidential Trial Heat Polling (Obama v. Romney)
Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Obama	Romney	Undecided
Politico [Internet]	July 9-14, 2010	+/- 3.1%	1011 likely voters	39	35	26
Public Policy Polling	July 9-12, 2010	+/- 3.8%	667 likely voters	43	46	11
Public Policy Polling	June 4-7, 2010	+/- 3.8%	650 likely voters	45	42	13
Public Policy Polling	May 7-9, 2010	+/- %	707 likely voters	46	44	11
Public Policy Polling	April 9-11, 2010	+/- 3.9%	622 likely voters	44	45	10
CNN	April 9-11, 2010	+/- 3.5%	907 reg. voters	53	45	--
Clarus Research	March 17-20, 2010	+/- 3%	1050 reg. voters	45	41	14
Public Policy Polling	March 12-14, 2010	+/- 2.6%	1403 likely voters	44	44	12
Harris [Internet]	March 10-12, 2010	+/- --%	2344 adults	46	39	15
Public Policy Polling	Feb. 13-15, 2010	+/- 3.5%	743 likely voters	45	43	12
Public Policy Polling	Jan. 18-19, 2010	+/- 2.8%	1151 likely voters	44	42	15
Public Policy Polling	Dec. 4-7, 2009	+/- 2.8%	1253 likely voters	47	42	12
Rasmussen	Nov. 24, 2009	+/- 3.5%	800 likely voters	44	44	5
Public Policy Polling	Nov. 13-15, 2009	+/- 3%	1066 likely voters	48	43	9
Public Policy Polling	Oct. 16-19, 2009	+/- 3.5%	766 likely voters	48	40	12
Public Policy Polling	Sept. 18-21, 2009	+/- 3.9%	621 likely voters	48	39	13
Clarus Research	Aug. 14-18, 2009	+/- 3.1%	1003 voters	47	38	15
Public Policy Polling	Aug. 14-17, 2009	+/- 3.3%	909 likely voters	47	40	12
Rasmussen	July 16-17, 2009	+/- 3%	1000 likely voters	45	45	3
Public Policy Polling	July 15-16, 2009	+/- 4.1%	577 likely voters	49	40	11
Public Policy Polling	June 12-16, 2009	+/- 3.9%	638 likely voters	48	40	12
Public Policy Polling	May 14-18, 2009	+/- 3.1%	1000 likely voters	53	35	12
Public Policy Polling	April 17-19, 2009	+/- 3.7%	686 likely voters	50	39	11
Average				46.3	41.18	--
Regression Average				42.97	43.04	--

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