Republican Caucus Power Rankings for 11/21/11

Let me start with a few words of introduction. Since March I have been a contributor to the Power Rankings that were posted about every two weeks at the Iowa Independent. Major changes at that website caused the discontinuation of the Power Rankings, but with only six weeks left I wanted to continue my biweekly analysis of the Republican caucus race. Craig Robinson graciously agreed to post them here at The Iowa Republican.

The structure of my analysis is a bit different from the previously posted Power Rankings. I usually start out with an extended recap of the events of particular interest that occurred since the last ranking. I then follow with a ranking of what I think would be the top five finishers if the caucuses were held at the time of writing. My goal here is to take a hard look at the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates and to evaluate their chances for success come January 3. By way of full disclosure, I have not committed to a candidate.

The first item of interest in the last two weeks was the CNBC debate in Michigan. Perry’s prior debate performances had been a major factor in his sharp decline in the polls shortly after he entered the race in mid-August. Early in the debate Perry was having a solid performance, then came the “oops” moment. Perry stumbled while trying to remember the third of three federal departments that he wanted to eliminate. The moderators pressed him on it and he basically had a “brain freeze.” Many in my Twitter feed immediately wrote Perry off, and there’s no doubt that it was a bad moment, but it may not have been the death knell for his campaign. After the immediate reaction many started to recognize that such brain freezes happen to everyone. Even so, Perry had a lot of work to do to make up for that lapse. He started the next morning by going on the morning talk shows and facing the criticism directly. He went on Letterman that night and made fun of his lapse in a Top 10 list. He was also willing to poke fun at himself in campaign events. He even got a very good laugh line out of it at the next debate, where he had a very good performance. Perry did as much as one could to make lemonade out of lemons. He approached his mistake with humor and humility and I think that will go a long way with Iowans in getting past the mistake.

Cain had an oops moment of his own, of sorts. Over the last two weeks Cain was still dealing with the allegations of sexual harassment. Although many Republicans were still skeptical about the allegations, it may very well have put a ceiling on his support. More problematic for him were the lingering concerns about his depth of knowledge on some issues, particularly those involving foreign policy. The CBS/National Journal debate on November 12 focused on foreign policy and although Cain did not do poorly, he certainly didn’t shine. A bigger problem for Cain occurred when a video of his meeting with the editorial board of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel was posted. In one particular segment Cain was asked whether he supported President Obama’s actions in Libya. Cain paused and seemed to hesitate and stall for time. He claimed later that he had so many questions thrown at him that he needed to think about the answer and didn’t want to “shoot from the lip.” That would make sense, but it didn’t seem that the editorial board had been grilling him all that badly or that the question was all that complex. Moreover, the hesitation seemed to reinforce concerns about Cain’s lack of knowledge on foreign policy.

Cain seemed to compound this problem by announcing to the New Hampshire Union Leader that his meeting with their editorial board could not be recorded on video and could only be 20 minutes rather than an hour. The Union Leader pushed back on these limitations and it ended up that Cain didn’t make the meeting. The Union Leader claimed Cain skipped the meeting. Cain said it was just a scheduling mix-up. Either way, it looked bad for Cain and it got him bad press that he didn’t need.

As noted above, the CBS/National Journal debate focused on foreign policy. Perry needed a strong performance and got it. Even though more watched the CBS/NJ debate than the prior one where he had his brain freeze, the oops moment was endlessly replayed by other media. Cain didn’t have any really bad moments, but he needed to be stronger to convince people that he was sufficiently knowledgeable on foreign policy. Romney was steady, as usual. Several of the other candidates didn’t get many questions. It turns out this was purposeful on the part of CBS and there was a bit of a flap over it in the days following. Gingrich had a typically strong debate and given Cain’s weakness on the topic this seemed to mark the start of Gingrich’s surge in the polls.

The last major event during this period was the Thanksgiving Family Forum. Unlike the debates, the candidates who attended sat around the table and the Q&A seemed more like a discussion rather than a chance to spit out 60 second prepackaged answers. The purpose of the forum, as indicated by moderator Frank Luntz, was to get a closer look at the character of the candidates. Some on my Twitter feed didn’t seem to like the focus on feelings (“too much Dr. Phil”), but a candidate’s strength of character can often be more important than what he or she knows about some policy issue. Perry and Santorum seemed to have done the best in relating how they recognized a moment of weakness in themselves and learned from it. Ron Paul seemed detached from the discussions, which was odd given the passion he brings to many issues. Gingrich also seemed detached. During the forum Drew Cline of the New Hampshire Union Leader tweeted, “Newt tells emotional personal stories as if he’s narrating a documentary about some historical figure.”

The polls released during the last two weeks have reflected the fluidity of the race. As always, one must be aware of a poll’s sample (all voters, likely voters) and how well it represents the population demographically in terms of the percentages of those in the sample (men/women, D/R, old/young, etc.). I also tend to discount national polls more because the candidates are only campaigning in a few states at this point (even though they are getting national media coverage for many events). In addition, one can usually get a better feel for the state of the race by looking at trends over several polls rather than the results of any one poll.

At the start of this period Cain was still at the top of his surge, but even without the allegations made against him it seemed unlikely that he would maintain that position given his substantive weaknesses and other problems. Over the next two weeks Cain’s poll numbers began to drop and Gingrich began to rise. Romney was generally holding steady during this time. At one point Romney, Cain, and Gingrich were at the top of a few polls, including some specific to Iowa. One reporter asked me about this, noting that it seemed odd that three candidates who do not have much of a ground game in Iowa were leading. I told her that the reason was partly due to timing given the surge and fade that several of the candidates were experiencing. I also noted that it’s much easier to tell a pollster on the phone that you support a particular candidate than to actually turn out for that candidate on caucus night. Identifying supporters and making sure they turn out on caucus night is where a strong ground game comes into play.

With the above in mind, I’ll now turn to a ranking of the candidates as to how I think they would finish if the caucuses were held now. Let me note, however, that the GOP caucus race is much more fluid than in past years and there is likely to be movement as we enter the final weeks of the caucus campaign.

Romney has been steady in national polls for months. Many voters, and caucus-goers, don’t like him for a variety of reasons (apparent flip-flops, Romneycare, etc.), but he regularly polls in the low 20% range. Most Republicans want a candidate who can beat President Obama, but the search for a satisfactory “not-Romney” candidate continues. Bachmann and Perry surged and faded. Cain surged and now seems to be fading as well. Gingrich seems to be the next in line, but it’s unclear whether he will be able to capitalize on any such surge.

It’s well known that Romney has put little effort into Iowa this cycle. Although Romney has said that he wants to win Iowa, he also doesn’t want to raise expectations. Finishing below expectations in Iowa could hurt him in New Hampshire, which is a must win state for him. Thus, Romney has been quietly upping his ground game. He has opened an office in Iowa and his starting to reach out to old and new supporters. Even if these efforts only help to lock in that low 20% support, it could be enough for a win on caucus night if the rest of the field remains splintered.

I place Gingrich second based more on his potential at this point. He is currently enjoying an upswing in the polls, but he has a very meager ground game to turn that increased support into caucus-goers. Early on he said he wanted to run a different type of campaign, which led to the mass walkout of his staffers early in the summer. Gingrich seems to have gotten the message that as useful as new methods may be to reach caucus-goers, the traditional methods are still important. To that end he’s announced the opening of several campaign offices in Iowa and other early voting states. On the other hand, this announcement was made a few weeks ago and the offices still aren’t open. With the holidays approaching time is running short. Gingrich may have been one of the candidates who thought that a surge in the polls meant that he didn’t need to worry as much about a good ground game. My short response is: Good luck with that. If the caucuses were held today Gingrich might have enough support to finish well. I think, however, that without a solid ground game that support will fade as people take a closer look at him and begin to remember some of the reasons they didn’t consider him a strong candidate in the first place.

Paul’s supporters are the most loyal and intense of the candidates. They seem to be much more likely to turn out for him than the supporters for other candidates. Paul also has a good organization in Iowa. Nevertheless, there are limits to Paul’s appeal. Although many Republicans agree with Paul on fiscal issues, his positions on many national security and foreign policy issues do not resonate with the broader Republican base. Shrugging your shoulders about whether Iran gets a nuclear bomb or suggesting that Israel can fend for itself (as he did in previous debates) will not improve his standing with the majority of Republicans.

Turnout is a key to Paul’s finish on caucus night. His followers are more intense, so more likely to attend the caucuses. To the extent that other potential caucus-goers are not enthusiastic for another candidate they may be more likely to stay home. Also, Paul benefits to the extent that the not-Romney caucus-goers do not coalesce around a single candidate. Depending on these factors, I suspect he will finish between second and fourth on caucus night.

Perry stopped his downward spiral in the polls and is working to come back. He has a good organization in the state. Perhaps more important, he has the resources to stay in the race. He has been running several good ads in addition to his regular campaign events. His oops moment didn’t help, but it’s also given him an opportunity to show his character in the way he has handled it. If Gingrich fades, a top three finish in Iowa might allow Perry to do well enough in New Hampshire so that he can be a contender for the not-Romney vote in South Carolina.

Bachmann also has a fairly good ground game in Iowa. Unlike Perry, however, she never had the resources to capitalize on her support when it peaked around the time of the Ames Straw Poll. Some have suggested that Bachmann may get a second look given that Cain seems to be fading and that Gingrich might as well. I’m not so sure because her fade had more to do with substantive concerns than speaking skills.

Santorum has put more effort into Iowa than any of the other candidates. Campaigning in all of Iowa’s 99 counties may not seem like an efficient way to run a campaign, but it certainly shows a willingness to take his message to the people, which is supposed to be what the caucuses are all about. It seems a little odd, therefore, that he’s not doing better in Iowa polls. Even so, Santorum has gotten some key endorsements of late and he just might be the under-the-radar candidate this cycle. In addition, there’s always the chance that if Gingrich fades Santorum will be the next in line to surge (which might be perfectly timed for the January 3 caucuses).

Although Cain is still showing decent support in the polls, he has a very weak ground game. He recently indicated that he has doubled his staff and has 800 precinct captains identified, but it’s hard to judge the extent to which those captains are sufficiently organized for the caucuses.

....Perry and Santorum seemed to have done the best in relating how they recognized a moment of weakness in themselves and learned from it. Ron Paul seemed detached from the discussions, which was odd given the passion he brings to many issues. Gingrich also seemed detached. During the forum Drew Cline of the New Hampshire Union Leader tweeted, “Newt tells emotional personal stories as if he’s narrating a documentary about some historical figure.”

I've seen this and remarked on it too. With Ron Paul he's a red-hot blast that refuses to engage in the possibility that he could learn anything from anyone. And similarly, Newt knows that no one could possibly know more than he does and is in love with himself. Both of them strike me as narcissists -- and you do not want a narcissist as a U.S. president for 4 years, let alone 8.

[Romney] …….."Even if these efforts only help to lock in that low 20% support, it could be enough for a win on caucus night if the rest of the field remains splintered.

…….Also, Paul benefits to the extent that the not-Romney caucus-goers do not coalesce around a single candidate."

The History of Newt - Are Republicans ready to look past his transgressions?……”Believe it or not, his press secretary…insists Gingrich has gotten a grip on himself…”.

Thanksgiving Family Forum - November 18, 2011

p> Perry Ping....
IF you'd rather NOT be pinged FReepmail me.
IF you'd like to be added FReepmail me. Thanks.
*****************************************************************************************************************************************************

Per SD
This is just how Rick Perry is. After Hurricane Ike devastated my community, he came here to survey the damage. He did not just walk through here surrounded by security and news cameras and then make a speech. That's not Perry. He showed up in jeans and a work shirt, no cameras, no press conference, and he walked among all of us who had been hit. A hug, a pat on the shoulder, a listening ear, and an encouraging word. He saw to it that emergency shelters were being set up and food and water were available to everyone. When Obama/FEMA refused to help us, Governor Perry set up state funding to help us rebuild our homes and our lives. My home is at 'ground zero' where Ike came ashore. We all took tremendous damage. FEMA sent me a check two months later for $600 dollars. Governor Perry set up the Recovery Fund to help us all rebuild. That is what a true leader and a true Christian does. That's my Governor! I can't wait to see America under the caring wing of Rick Perry.

Gingrich seems to have gotten the message that as useful as new methods may be to reach caucus-goers, the traditional methods are still important. To that end he’s announced the opening of several campaign offices in Iowa and other early voting states. On the other hand, this announcement was made a few weeks ago and the offices still aren’t open.

Newt is great at expressing his ideas, but this is part of his Achilles heel. I think the other part is his support of liberal ideas against conservatives.

Perry has a good shot. I think Bachmann and Santorum drop out after IA & NH. Cain's lack of organization and decline in the polls may eliminate him after NH, but more likely it will be after SC & FL. If I'm correct, then voters will look at Newt vs. Perry for the conservative anti-Romney vote. Newt has been great in the debates, but when voters are reminded of all the instances he has not supported conservative principals his support will probably flatten and then begin to decline. I see Perry getting a surge because he is the more natural choice for the Bachmann, Santorum and Cain supporters.

Romney.....Even if these efforts only help to lock in that low 20% support, it could be enough for a win on caucus night if the rest of the field remains splintered.

The most critical line in that entire article.

This is bald-faced recognition that splintering the conservative vote gives us Romney.

We need Bachmann, Santorum, and the next lowest polling conservative to drop out of this race before the hand it to Romney via splintering.

Unless, of course, that is the strategy of the conservatives....loss through stupidity...or something like that.

Perhaps some of the conservatives are actually shills for others, and stay in just because that's what their arrangement with ______ calls for.

This is bald-faced recognition that splintering the conservative vote gives us Romney.

I think it is after FL that conservatives have to really take a look at consolidating their support. Why do it before any votes have been cast?

I think it will be after FL when we have to take a good look at Perry or Gingrich. My choice is Perry. I know you like Newt right now. Across the board Perry is the better conservative. Newt is the better speaker/communicator. I'm going to stick with substance, but I do understand why fellow conservatives want Newt.

As this article points out, Romney has now realized he must do well in Iowa or it might cut into his New Hampshire support. For conservatives, allowing Romney to pull a victory or 2nd in Iowa would be terrible.

Iowa is the state in which the evangelical impact is most felt. Sending a pro-choice candidate forward with the blessing of Iowa would be such a crime, because it would mean that obstinate conservatives refused to yield to common sense.

I agree that sending a pro-abortion candidate out of IA with a win would be a terrible mistake. However, the importance of IA and NH is over blown. Both of these states lean Rat. The states that best represent the country and especially the Pub party are SC & FL. If Romney wins there he will probably get the nomination.

I saw an article yesterday that said it's likely the primaries will be critical right up to the convention because the delegates in most states are being picked on a proportional basis not winner take all. If true conservatives might split their votes and still be able to consolidate behind one candidate. Also, if this is true the financial backing a candidate has will be the key. At some point a candidate who is not winning very many delegates has to decide if they want to bankrupt themself in their quest.

The key in either scenario (winner take all v. proportional) is to not let Romney get enough delegates prior to the convention. I watched Romney on TV last night and he is very smooth and creates a favorable image. Unfortunately, most people are not political junkies like we are and really don't know what he did as Gov, or what his beliefs are.

Since we’re talking the republican primary, we’re talking about those repubs who will actually caucus. In Iowa that has been the religious conservatives, and they tend to send forward a social conservative.

That was my point.

As to cross-over caucusing, if that’s permitted in Iowa, then with no Democrat challenge and Obama the victor, it is possible that many libs would cross over and give Romney a victory. That will be a problem in every state AND the reason our lesser polling candidates should give it up now.

If they don’t, I’ll know it had always been about THEM and not about the nation.

I’ll pick an arbitrary number of 5% as my cutoff polling on an average of major polls a month prior to the caucus. The RCP sometimes uses too few polls. Any valid poll must be of likely republican caucus voters and must have a large enough sample size to give a maximum of a 4% MOE.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.