Monthly Archives: January 2012

Newt’s National Post-Debate “Surge”: Does It Matter in South Carolina?

A day after Monday’s Republican debate, the general consensus within the punditocracy is that Newt was the clear winner.  The sentiment was captured in this post-debate analysis by the Washington Post’s Dan Balz: “The 16th debate of the GOP primary campaign produced one of the strongest performances in weeks by the struggling Gingrich. In contrast, through much of the night, Romney, the clear front-runner and, to many Republicans, the inevitable nominee, seemed either defensive or evasive. He redeemed himself in the final minutes, but he must be happy that factors beyond the exchanges will determine the outcome of the race.”

At least one poll seems to support this collective judgment; in the first post-debate poll I’ve seen, Rasmussen finds that Newt has jumped nationally by 11% in the last two weeks to close within three, 30-27% of Romney.  I’m guessing most of that climb came after Monday night. Not surprisingly, Newt went on the air yesterday in South Carolina with a new advertisement highlighting the most memorable point in the debate: the exchange between Gingrich and Juan Williams regarding food stamps, Obama and jobs – an exchange that brought the partisan crowd to their feet in a genuine red meat moment.  (Notice the cool background music!)

Last night on Fox, meanwhile, everybody’s favorite moosemeister, Sarah Palin came as close to endorsing Newt as one can by arguing that Tea Partiers should probably support him in South Carolina in order to extend the Republican race so that each candidate is fully vetted.

The question is: does any of this make any difference to the outcome in South Carolina?  And, given the prevailing media narrative (one supported by many political scientists) that has this race a lock for Romney, does South Carolina’s outcome even matter?  For what it’s worth, two more South Carolina polls were released yesterday – both in the field before Monday’s debate – and both show Romney comfortably ahead of the second-place Gingrich by about 30-20%.  But – keeping the Rasmussen poll in mind – can an impressive debate performance keyed to a well-funded advertising campaign cut into Romney’s lead in South Carolina? Earlier in the fall, during the invisible primary,  Gingrich rode a series of strong debate performances to the top of the polls, only to come crashing down as the other candidates’ exposed his record in a series of campaign ads.  But Gingrich’s debate-based polling boost took place when potential voters were just beginning to pay attention to the race.  Now, after Iowa and New Hampshire, information levels are higher, the media narrative has changed in a way that may make it less susceptible to alteration, and it’s not clear that the 16th debate will have nearly the impact of the earlier ones.

Hoping to build on the positive reviews of his debate performance, yesterday Gingrich called on his Republican opponents Rick Santorum and Rick Perry to clear the field so that the conservative vote won’t be splintered, thus allowing Romney to get the nomination.  But this plea will almost surely fall on deaf ears, particularly since it appears, if media reports are to be believed, that Iowa is set to certify its caucus results showing that Santorum, and not Romney, was the winner.  (If true, so much for the much ballyhooed media drumbeat that Romney is the first non-incumbent to ever win both Iowa and New Hampshire.)  That would mean that Santorum beat Gingrich in both Iowa and New Hampshire – hardly grounds for dropping out now in deference to Newt.

It’s unclear to me whether the Rasmussen national poll is anything more than an ephemeral bump in Gingrich’s standing based on the glowing reviews of his debate performance, and what significance it has for the South Carolina race.  In public comments, Gingrich has equivocated regarding whether he needs to win in South Carolina in order to stay in the race.  My guess is that if Romney wins with about 30% of the vote, but Gingrich is a close second, the Newtster will stay in.

All this suggests that Thursday’s debate, to be televised by CNN, looms even larger in terms of its potential impact on South Carolina’s Saturday primary.   Can Newt reprise Monday’s stellar performance?  Will Paul rebound from perhaps his worst debate so far?  Will Romney feel pressure to push back more aggressively against Newt?  What about the two Ricks – will we see Angry and Dopey, or Happy and Less Dopey (I’m joking, Perry supporters!)?  Questions, questions….alas, I have no answers.  We will all have to wait at least another day.

One thing I do know: Mitt’s team is not going to sit around to find out if this surge is real.  Expect a hard-hitting anti-Newt advertising spot to begin airing in South Carolina in the next three days.

Does Mitt Benefit If The Republican Field Is Winnowed?

Political scientists John Sides and Lyn Vavreck have an interesting post up at YouGov that pertains to one of the arguments I made in my South Carolina analysis yesterday. (Sides and Vavreck are two of the best around when it comes to election analysis.)  Drawing on national polling from the first week of January, they conclude that, “It simply is not the case that a vote for someone other than Romney is a vote against Romney.  As the field narrows, a Romney nomination becomes more inevitable, not less.” The reason why, they argue, is that while it may be true that a plurality of likely Republican voters prefer someone else to Romney, he is the preferred second choice of most of those anti-Romney voters.  As a result, he will gain support as the field is winnowed and those voters turn to their second choice.

I have not been paying attention to the national polling data as yet, so am not in a position to react to their findings. However, their data is consistent with some of the polling data I discussed in an earlier blog post regarding the state of the race in South Carolina. Drawing mostly on a Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey from Jan. 11-13, I noted that fully 58% of those surveyed wanted someone other than Romney to win in South Carolina.  However, unlike what Sides and Vavreck found in their national polls, Gingrich leads as the top second-choice candidate of 20% of South Carolina respondents, although Mitt is tied for second with Santorum and “someone else/not sure” with 16-17%.

Nonetheless – and consistent with the Sides/Vavreck argument regarding national polling – in head-to-head matchups South Carolina voters chose Romney over every other candidate, with Gingrich and Santorum losing to him by 48-37 (15% not sure) and 48-39 (13% not sure), respectively.

I have been arguing that as the Republican conservative/Tea Party field winnows, support will begin to coalesce around the non-Mitt candidate, but at least some of the South Carolina data, consistent with the Sides/Vavreck national polling, suggests otherwise – it shows that in a two-person race, Romney would still win, at least in South Carolina – even though Gingrich leads among second-choice candidates.

So, how do we reconcile these apparently different claims – does Romney benefit if the field winnows or not?  The key point to remember is that in polling data showing Romney gaining strength in a two-person race – the assumption is that it is a two-person race!  That is, there’s no Ron Paul running along with a Tea Party/conservative favorite from among Gingrich, Perry or Santorum. That’s unlikely to happen anytime soon even if two of the three card-carrying Tea Party/conservative members do quit the race.  Indeed, it’s likely that Ron Paul will carry the fight all the way to the convention. In short, my scenario is based on my belief that we are going to see a three-person race in the near future.  The question then becomes: how does that affect the campaign dynamics?  I can’t speak to national polling – it may be that Romney would still lead.  But in South Carolina the PPP poll does provide some information that might help tease out an answer. (Keep in mind that this poll was conducted almost five days before last night’s debate, so the numbers are old.)  The polling crosstabs indicates that Mitt does slightly better in a two-person race than in a three-person that includes Paul. Let’s play the polling numbers to see why (keeping in mind this is one poll in one state taken almost a week ago.  But it will serve to illustrate my broader point.)

Let’s assume that Perry and Santorum drop out, and their South Carolina supporters move straight to their second choices.  In this scenario Newt would pick up almost 9% more support, while Mitt would gain 7%, and Paul would gain 2.5%  So, this is consistent with the scenario I laid out that argues that if two of the three conservatives drop out, the remaining one – Newt – benefits the most. How much likely varies from state to state (and it may not hold nationally – I don’t have any data as yet.)

However, the dynamics are different if Paul drops out as well, because a plurality of Paul’s supporters (at least in South Carolina!) support Mitt; he gets 38% of Paul’s voters compared to 28% who would in theory switch to Newt if Paul dropped out.  If you combine them with the Huntsman voters (remember, he’s still in the race in this poll), you can see how in a straight matchup between Gingrich and Romney – with no Paul in the race – Romney still comes out ahead in South Carolina.  Presumably these are the same dynamics that Sides/Vavreck are finding at the national level.

Again, keep in mind all the caveats regarding the data here.  My larger point is that in assessing who benefits if the conservative/Tea Party three-some is winnowed to one, it likely matters if the analysis presumes Paul is still in the race as well (although I readily confess I haven’t done any national-level assessment of this presumption as yet).   Once we account for the second place preferences of all the candidates – including Paul and Huntsman – one can understand why a plurality of South Carolina voters oppose Mitt, and yet he wins in a hypothetical one-on-one matchup with any other candidate in that state.

Of course, that hypothetical two-person race is not going to happen on Saturday in South Carolina. And if Paul stays in the race – it may not happen for many weeks, thus rendering the two-person matchup question moot – at least for now.  And, if Mitt does begin losing to the anti-Mitt in a three-person race, who knows what impact that will have?  I don’t.

Live Blogging the South Carolina Debate

It’s 9 p.m. and we are on.

Note that with only five candidate, there will be time for more extended answers (and the rules are allowing answers to go as long as 1:30 minutes).

I laid out most of my analysis earlier today, but I think it will be interesting to see how far Perry, Santorum and Gingrich go in attacking Romney, and whether Romney is going to respond to direct attacks, or is going to try to stay above the fray.

In some respects, Romney has the easier job tonight.  He simply needs to stay calm, not get ruffled, and let the criticisms flow off his back. He’s a duck.  Quack-Quack.

Egged on by Moderator Brett, both Newt and Rick waste no time in attacking Mitt.  First it is his jobs record, and now Rick goes after the income tax issue.  This ought to be easy for Mitt to answer:  he should say “Yes, I’ll release them.”

Instead Mitt touts saving a steel mill in Indiana.  As for South Carolina losing steel milss  – he blames it on China’s unfair trade practices.

Evans (WSJ) – Is Huntsman right about negative advertisement?  Paul: No.  Not if you are pointing out someone record – he wishes he had more time to hurl more charges at Santorum.  Santorum is surprisingly frank about votes he wishes he had back (NCLB), or that he made in order to satisfy his constituents (against right-to-work laws).

9:21 – Santorum tries to turn a SuperPac ad against Mitt Romney by asking whether he would allow felons to vote.  This is actually a pretty effective exchange for Santorum and its the type of needling that has, in the past, flustered Romney. Very timely reference to Martin Luther King Day.

I have to think no one is going to do well here trying to distance himself from SuperPac ads.

9:27 FIRST COMMERCIAL BREAK

Well the tone has been set: it’s pick on Mitt night.  It’s always a fine line one walks in both trying to attack an opponent and yet not appearing too nasty.  On the other hand, this is likely the last stop for one or two of the Perry/Gingrich/Santorum trio.  I don’t think they can afford to sit back as in previous debates and let one of the other two do their dirty work for them.

Jon Huntsman is getting more air time tonight since he left the race than when he was in it.  (Did you hear Perry grunt in approval when Huntsman’s weather vane quote describing Romney was read?)    Give Romney credit – he’s trying to stay positive, and keep the focus on Obama.

9:33 Juan Williams’ question regarding voting rights simply gives Perry a chance to throw some red meat to the South Carolina voters.  Not a good use of Juan’s time.

9:27  At least once a debate, Newt encapsulates an issue in a simple, direct and entertaining manner – 99 months is an associate degree!  If only debates determined election outcomes, Newt would be far ahead.

Is it me, or did someone tell Mitt to talk directly into the camera this time around?   It’s as if he thinks he alone on the stage – and maybe that’s the point.

9:41  Give Paul credit – he knows what he believes, doesn’t back down – but is also skilled at making his issue stances seem almost reasonable no matter what your view.  His answer on cutting the military by bringing troops home and building more bases domestically is deceptively appealing…I really wonder if we are going to see a surge of support him right at the end.  On the other hand, his positions are so wildly unrealistic (we should return taxes to zero!) that you wonder how any supports him.  And yet the Paulistas love him.

9:46  Wow, this is a horrible answer to a simple question: will you release your taxes?  This is the Mitt from the old days – equivocating, non-answer answers.  Did he say he was going to release his taxes? I still don’t know….

Juan William’s two questions tonight are both really aimed at positioning for the general election and not especially pertinent to South Carolina.

Williams’ question regarding black unemployment is something Santorum is going to hit out of the park, because he’s been proselytizing on the issue for the entire campaign.

Williams’ question on racial disparity in drug arrests and sentences is another one that Paul has ranted….er…..discussed many many times before.  I’m not sure why Williams is offering up these relatively tame questions.  Unless Williams follow up by asking about the newsletters!

Williams persists.  Another question with a racial angle.  doesn’t Newt realize how offensive his “lack of work ethic” question is, especially to minorities. Turns out, Newt’s daughter was  a janitor.

Juan keeps digging – I’m not sure whether to give him credit for pursuing this angle or not.   Newt is taking charge of this debate here – You Go Newt!

BREAK TWO

Ok, that was Newt moment.  Question – how big a moment?  Is it a debate-winning moment?  If so, does it translate into votes?  If so, how much?

On to foreign policy.  Paul is always entertaining here. He can get really cranky.  Hmmm….this is not even vintage crankiness. He’s meandering a bit here.  wonder how the audience will react to this.  This is the type of answer that his supporters love, but which makes others cringe.  Paul is trying to make a fine point here, but I don’t think the distinction between capturing and assassinating is working.

And it leaves it wide open for Gingrich to make the obvious distinction between a political dissident and a terrorist.  Not Paul’s best moment.

Is it possible that Paul’s candidacy is sinking before his eyes?  I can’t believe this is helping his cause in South Carolina, especially when Newt channels his inner Andy Jackson. He suddenly looks old, not cool.

Santorum seems a bit off his game tonight – the answers aren’t flowing.

A question about the details of Turkey to Perry.  This is when we all hold our breath.  But he pivots to the foreign aid question to start.  Abolishing foreign aid is always a crowd pleaser, particularly since most people overstate how much aid we actually send out.

Boy, there are a lot of red meat moments tonight, aren’t there?  Toto, we aren’t in New Hampshire anymore.

Again, I just don’t think there’s much upside for basically arguing that the Taliban just want to be left alone, which is essentially what Paul argues.

Romney gets booed simply for saying he would have signed a bill that Obama signed – the military appropriations bill – but I think they are missing Romney’s point here.  He’s supporting the detainee provisions.

Again, familiar terrain for Paul – this is red meat for libertarians – but he almost sounds a bit too shrill in making the point.  I’m wondering if his brand of libertarianism plays as well in S.C. as it did in New Hampshire.   I think he’ll get more support focusing on spending issues, not civil libertarian ones.

On to housing….sometimes Perry’s simplistic answers are actually pretty good, as was this one basically laying some of the blame on the housing crisis on government interference.

Mitt is having his usual debate night performance: solid, a few applause lines, occasionally wonkinesh – nothing objectionable, but nothing particularly memorable either.  On the plus side, he rarely makes mistakes.  Quack, Quack!

The candidates are so enamored with their own plans that they are forgetting to attack their opponents.  Romney may yet escape unscathed if this keeps up.

Ah, I can count on Angry Rick  – he attacks both Newt and Mitt!  Good exchange here between Rick and Newt.  Policy oriented, clear distinctions on approaches to rescuing entitlements and cutting deficits.

Romney:  “Rick is right”?  Didn’t Rick just attack Romney for being too conservative by not means testing entitlements?  Never mind.

BREAK THREE

Assessments?  One thing to keep in mind that at some point voters begin to lock in their opinions, and support levels become less volatile.  I don’t know if we are quite there yet – the most recent polls I saw out of SC indicated that 30% of voters were still undecided.  But I wonder just how much these debate can move opinion at this stage of the election process.  On the other hand, this is the 17th debate I’ve watched, so maybe it is just me….

Ah, a gun question.  Romney shot varmints, remember.

Hey, Juan asks about Mitt’s recent varmint history!   Mitt can’t tell the difference between a moose and an elk.  (Hint: Rocky hangs out with the moose.)  Again, Mitt often seems less than authentic when it comes his personal narrative.

Once again Rick goes after Uncle Ron.  He has to be reading the polls as suggesting Paul is stealing his voters.   Rick seems to understand better than anyone on this stage that it’s not enough to push your own issues – you have to attack your opponents.

Ah, finally someone finally gets to the Pelosi/Gingrich unholy alliance – and Gingrich uses this to get back to Romney and the Superads.  Again, it seems like Newt is scoring points on this. But now Romney has his turn – he has his dander up, and does a nice job negating some of Newt’s thunder on this.  Let’s call this a draw.

By the way, Romney just called it “his superpac” – slip of the tongue, no doubt.  His larger point, however, is to embrace my argument regarding the futility of trying to regulate campaign spending.

Does border control matter as much to voters in South Carolina as it does to Rick Perry?

And Newt ends it with a crowd-pleasing attack on No Child Left Behind.

And that’s it – it’s all over except for the spin.  And we do it one more time on Thursday.  Can’t wait…..

Thoughts?

I thought Gingrich had the best moments, but his direct exchange with Romney on Bain, and on Superpacs, were essentially draws.  I thought his exchange with Santorumon entitlement reform was substantively meaty and informative.  On the whole, a strong night for Newt.

Santorum was not as smooth, but he was the most aggressive, with pointed attacks on Paul and Romney.  Will that help him at this stage?  I’m not sure, but some of his best points came on social issues which really are not at the center of this debate.

Paul look cranky and, at times tired – not to the degree that it would cost him support of the Paulistas, but I don’t think he was pulling in votes based on this performance.

Romney was Romney – strong on policy, with an occasional slip into wonkiness, steady overall but with that lingering sense that he was too politic by half.  This came out especially in his waffling on the tax issue, and his gun defense.

Big question to me is whether Newt’s stirring defense of his work ethic statements  – which got a standing ovation here – will play as well on the stump.

Perry?  Solid, with many applause lines – but I still think he was mostly an afterthought.  He is trying to portray himself as the outsider,  but it just doesn’t seem to be translating into polling support.

Ok, that’s it from here.  It will be interesting to see how the media frames this, particularly in light of the growing narrative that Romney is on the brink of closing this out (polling data notwithstandings).  I’ll be on tomorrow with a postmortem of the reaction.  But for now, it’s time to pour a scotch, sit back, and watch the exhausted candidates work the spin room.

Great participation tonight – thanks to all.  We do it all again on Thursday!

 

 

 

 

Huntsman, South Carolina and the State of the Race Before Tonight’s Debate

The only surprising aspect of Jon Huntsman’s decision to drop out of the campaign was its timing; as I noted during my live blogging of the New Hampshire primary, the results there showed little support for Huntsman among Republicans, making it clear that his days in this race were numbered.   Alas, his decision to drop out and endorse Romney will have at best a marginal impact on the race, most likely by giving a slight boost to Romney’s level of support.   In South Carolina, Huntsman was polling in the low single digits, and was even bested by faux candidate Stephen Colbert in one survey.  Most importantly, since Huntsman was largely competing with Romney for voters, his departure does little to solve the collective action problem that has prevented the Tea Party/fiscal conservatives from coalescing behind a non-Romney candidate.  Unless that dilemma is resolved along the lines I’ve suggested, Romney is likely to back into still another primary victory, thus lending further support to the media/party leader frame regarding Romney’s inevitable march to coronation.

Although polling in South Carolina remains fluid at this juncture five days before Saturday’s primary, with about a third of the voters still undecided, every recent poll shows Romney leading there, and Gingrich in second.  The good news for Gingrich is that fully 58% of South Carolinians surveyed by PPP don’t want Romney as the nominee.  Among those polled, moreover, Gingrich led as the second choice of 20% of respondents, beating out every other candidate.  Twenty-seven percent of Mitt’s supporters say they might switch to someone else – the highest of any candidate.  So there’s room for Gingrich’s support to grow.

The bad news for Gingrich, however, is that in a choice between Gingrich and Romney, Romney wins 48-37%, with 15% undecided.  Note that Gingrich does better in a head-to-head matchup with Romney than does any other Republican – except for Rick Santorum, who essentially matches Gingrich in the Romney matchup.  This suggests to me that Gingrich’s “baggage” is making evangelical Christians – who comprise more than 50% of likely South Carolinian voters – reluctant to support him, even as they oppose Romney. (In 2008 evangelicals constituted 60% of the Republican primary vote.)   If Gingrich is to close the gap, he has to win over these voters between now and Saturday.  But that is going to be very hard to do if both Santorum and Perry stay in the race.  Note that the social conservatives outnumber the roughly 30% who classify themselves as Tea Party supporters – a group with whom Gingrich polls well (keeping in mind that the two groups aren’t mutually exclusive).

So, where does the race stand, heading into tonight’s crucial South Carolina debate (on Fox News at 9 p.m., and yes, I’ll be live blogging.)   Santorum has seen his initial burst of polling support coming out of Iowa recede, and he’s now drawing about 12-15% in most polls, a distant third (with Paul who has similar polling numbers) to Romney’s roughly 30% and Gingrich’s 22%.  Note that the biggest issue for most social conservatives in South Carolina is the economy – not cultural issues, which Santorum has emphasized more than the other candidates. Perry, so far, is getting very little polling traction in South Carolina, with his numbers consistently in the single digits.  Despite this, he has more money than Santorum and has already vowed to continue campaigning in Florida, where he is already running advertising.

And so the basic problem for these three – Gingrich, Santorum and Perry – remains how to win over the support of the plurality of voters who oppose Romney.   Although Gingrich has previously described South Carolina as a must win state, my guess is he will back off that assertion if he finishes a strong second on Saturday.  He will use that to stake his claim as the primary non-Mitt alternative and hope that Santorum and/or Perry will aid his cause by dropping out before Florida’s Jan. 31 primary.

Keep in mind, however, that South Carolina is an open primary.  This means independents can participate.  Because there is no Democratic primary, I expect the percentage of independents who participate to easily eclipse the 18% who voted in 2008.  And those voters are largely backing either Romney – or Ron Paul.   And that’s why, once again, Paul is the potential spoiler in this race.  As I’ve noted in previous posts, he has expanded his coalition beyond his libertarian core and is drawing additional support from Tea Partiers concerned about the burgeoning budget deficit and government spending.  Polls show he is running about even with Romney among those who cite the deficit and government spending as the top issue, slightly ahead of Gingrich.

Bottom line?  Given the number of undecided voters, tonight’s debate is potentially critical to all the participants except perhaps for Paul, who seems destined to get his 15% from the Paulistas no matter what.  But I don’t expect it to resolve the core dilemma before Saturday that has enabled Romney to stay ahead of the field despite what appears to be lukewarm support.  For that to happen, at least two more of the three anti-Mitts need to be winnowed.

I’ll be on tonight, shortly before 9.  As always, I invite you to join in!

Polls Indicate That Romney is Running Away in South Carolina…And Tebow Likely to Win Today Too!

Is Romney gaining strength in South Carolina as this Huffington Post headline proclaims?  Two recent polls indicate that he is.

But both are likely wrong.

The first poll is an interactive voice response automated poll by New Frontier Strategy (NFS) that was conducted January 11-12.  It has Romney in a comfortable lead over Newt Gingrich, 31.7% to 23%.  Perhaps the most interesting result, however, is that Ron Paul is a distant fourth, with only 9% support.  (The margin of error is +/- 3.44%).

Candidate Support
Romney 31.72%
Gingrich 23.05%
Santorum 13.88%
Paul 9.67%
Perry 5.58%
Huntsman 4.34%
Undecided 11.77%

Note that Romney’s margin over Gingrich, and his overall level of support, is larger than recent polls in South Carolina have indicated, and Paul’s support is much lower.  The reason, I think, becomes apparent when we look at the NFS’s sample’s demographics.  Most noticeably, less than five percent of their sample includes individuals 40 years old or younger – precisely the age group from which Paul draws most of his support.  At the same time, those age 60 or older constitute a whopping 55% of the sample!  Note that Romney has done quite well among older voters. For comparison purposes, exit polls from the South Carolina Republican primary in 2008 indicate only 35% of voters were 60 or older, and 33% were under 45.  Based on this, I suspect this poll is heavily under sampling Paul voters, and oversampling Romney’s.

The second poll – and the one the Huffington Post article discusses under the headline “South Carolina Primary: Mitt Romney Opens Up Big Lead In The Palmetto State” – has Romney comfortably ahead with 37% of the vote, with Paul and Santorum tied for second at 16%.  In contrast to the NFS poll, this one has Gingrich way down at 12%.  Once again, however, there is good reason not to take this poll seriously, despite the Huffington Post’s headline: the online poll included 995 South Carolina registered voters, of which 398 were Republicans and 380 Democrats. The comparable totals from 2008, based on exit polls, were 80% Republicans and 2% Democrats.  Even though South Carolina is an open primary, it is highly unlikely that Democrats are going to turn out in numbers approaching 40% of the electorate – a proportion that would almost equal the Republican level of participation.  Once again, I suspect this poll is overstating Romney’s support and likely understating Gingrich’s.

Bottom line?  Tim Tebow’s chances of winning today are better than the likelihood that these polls are accurate.