Governing through Reason
The 2012 Republican Primary Field: February 23, 2012
Sixes
The NotNotRomney revival amongst the Republican primary field continues.
Former Massachusetts Governor Willard “Mitt” Romney is still in first place in the estimation of Intraders (but not in national polls). Still, the evident Republican dissatisfaction with Romney persists.
Throughout the fall of 2011 and early 2012, a succession of NotRomneys appeared. Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, Representative Michele Bachmann (R-Stillwater, MN), Texas Governor Rick Perry, Herman Cain, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, then former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) all wore the NotRomney crown. Two current NotRomneys occupy the second tier: Santorum and Gingrich. Representative Ron Paul (R-Lake Jackson, TX), as always, stands alone.
Last week’s new trend, the NotNotRomney, is still developing. Since it’s too late to enter the primary race, these are essentially bets on a brokered convention. For a few days there, it looked like there were going to be not one but two NotNotRomneys joining former Florida Governor John Ellis “Jeb” Bush, last week’s NotNotRomney. Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, however, faded in the stretch, and left New Jersey Governor Chris Christie as this week’s new NotNotRomney. Except he’s a retread — both Daniels and Christie were summertime NotRomneys and now they are reborn as NotNotRomneys.
If we start with 100 percent and subtract the Intrade percentages for Romney and the NotRomneys (Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul), then the residual NotNotRomney percentage is 6.6 percent. That means Intraders figure there’s about a one in 15 chance of a brokered convention.
I’ve listed the potential Republican candidates below, in order of their Intrade percentages, from highest to lowest. In each case, the polling numbers are given in parentheses after the candidate’s name, rounded to the nearest whole number, followed by the change from last month:
RCP = the most recent (February 8–21) available Real Clear Politics national aggregated polling data.
In = Intrade February 22.
Arizona and Michigan hold primaries on February 28. I’ve also included polling data from those states:
AZ = NBC/Marist Poll of likely Arizona voters, released February 22.
MI = NBC/Marist Poll of likely Michigan voters, released February 22.
In the interest of space and clarity, I’ve dropped the May-October monthly standings columns. The horserace standings now start in November, but you can go to the January 5 article to see the entire set going back to May, 2011.
| Candidate | Nov | Dec | Jan 5 | Jan 12 | Jan 19 | Jan 25 | Feb 2 | Feb 9 | Feb 16 | Feb 23 |
| Romney | 1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
| Santorum | none |
none |
3 (tie) |
4 (tie) |
none |
4 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
| Gingrich | 2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
| Paul | 4 (tie) |
3 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
| Bush, J | none |
none |
none |
none |
none |
none |
none |
none |
5 |
5 |
| Christie | none |
none |
none |
none |
none |
none |
none |
none |
none |
6 |
1. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (RCP 28% 0; In 75% 0; AZ 43% +5; MI 37% +4)
Romney was struggling in state polling last week. He seems to have regained ground this week. He was born in Michigan, and his father was President of American Motors and Governor. Those family ties seem to have buoyed his numbers going into the last week before the primary. He remains strong in Arizona. Nate Silver has Romney as an 89 percent favorite in Arizona and as a 48 percent underdog in Michigan.
2. Former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) (RCP 34% 0; In 11% –5; AZ 27% –4; MI 35% –8)
Last week, it looked like Santorum was in line to pull of an upset in Romney’s native state of Michigan and give Romney a close run in Arizona. More recent polls, however, have Santorum fading badly in both states. Nate Silver has Santorum as a 52 to 48 percent favorite over Romney in Michigan, or essentially tied with Romney. However, Santorum is fading, and if this trend continues through Election Day February 28 in Michigan, Santorum may lose. In Arizona, much of the polling has already taken place in early voting so a Santorum loss may be locked in.
3. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (RCP 14% –1; In 5% +1; AZ 16% +1; MI 8% –3)
Gingrich had a good debate last night but it won’t be enough to get him a win in either of the February 28 states. Intraders now figure that Gingrich is less likely to get the nomination than the chance that the convention will go past the first ballot.
4. Representative Ron Paul (R-Lake Jackson, TX) (RCP 12% 0; In 3% 0; AZ 11% 0; MI 13% +5)
Mr. (or Doctor) Consistency continues his consistent run. No significant change in Rep. Paul’s numbers this week.
5. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush (RCP no data; In 3% +1%; no poll data)
Jeb Bush is up a tick, but at these odds (actually 2.5 percent before rounding), a small tick looks like a bigger deal than it should. Still, Bush is the favorite of the “brokered convention” bettors, probably because they figure he has the home field advantage with the Republican Convention in Tampa this year.
6. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (RCP no data; In 1% +1%; no poll data)
Christie enjoyed a surge this summer, and there’s a new surge in February. He has shown no interest in being drafted at a brokered convention, so this is likely a pipe dream. He and Daniels were tied at 0.9 percent earlier in the week, but Daniels has faded to 0.7 percent while Christie “surged” to 1.2 percent. Still, that’s a pretty thin reed to hang on.
Related articles
- The 2012 Republican Primary Field: February 16, 2012 (logarchism.com)
- Q-poll: Santorum up 9 over Romney (hotair.com)
- New Poll: All knotted up in Michigan (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com)
- Romney faces high stakes as Santorum moves on Michigan — Fox News (foxnews.com)
- Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney tied in GOP presidential field: poll (pennlive.com)
- Poll: Men, evangelicals boost Santorum — CNN (cnn.com)
- Reëlection Watch: February 2012 (logarchism.com)
-
#2 written by GROG 1 year ago
-
Again, the appeal of Christie is bafflin’, comparing him to the god awful 2012 Rep field notwithstanding. When p555 said he had charisma some time ago it was somewhat amusing.
So recapping, just like a year ago, the nomination “”“appears””” to be mittens by default given his laughable competition, including Christie, who’s a one term gov at best.
Indeed, as “we” wait to see which Rep wannabe limps across the finish line …
>
Feb. 23, 2012
Rasmussen Tracking ~ Obama 49, Romney 39
Rasmussen Tracking ~ Obama 48, Santorum 41 -
#4 written by Max aka Birdpilot 1 year ago
-
#5 written by GROG 1 year ago
That’s a common lament. And there’s one big, simple, overpowering, factual reason why someone has “no chance of winning”.
It’s because the vast majority of Americans disagree with that candidates views.
I disagree. It has much more to do with who has more money and who looks and sounds better on television.
-
#6 written by parksie555 1 year ago
That’s odd Maxie, Gallup seems to believe that a majority of Americans support Romney over Obama for president in 2012.
Doesn’t really follow that a vast majority of Americans disagree with his views, does it?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/152918/Romney-Santorum-Closely-Matched-Against-Obama-Nationally.aspx
Even crazy Rick Santorum is within a point of your boy.
But I hear from the Ministry of Plenty that the economy is great! -
#7 written by GROG 1 year ago
-
#9 written by Max aka Birdpilot 1 year ago
My friend parksie,
Son, had you been paying attention, you would know what that part of the discussion was about. But, since you’re clueless, a clue:
GROG was NOT talking about candidates already elected to a national or statewide office, or those with sufficient support to have a reasonably large donor base.
Sorry you missed it.
BUT, since you bring up the Obama/Romney poll, AND you decided to cherrypick the SINGLE SOLITARY poll to publish that fits your dreams, let’s look at RCP average of polls and just a few others’ current results. ((Sorry to wake you up)RCP Average
2⁄8 — 2⁄22
–
49.0
43.9
Obama +5.1Rasmussen Tracking
2⁄20 — 2⁄22
1500 LV
49
39
Obama +10Associated Press/GfK
2⁄16 — 2⁄20
1000 A
51
43
Obama +8USA Today/Gallup
2⁄16 — 2⁄19
898 RV
46
50
Romney +4Quinnipiac
2⁄14 — 2⁄20
2605 RV
46
44
Obama +2Democracy Corps (D)
2⁄11 — 2⁄14
1000 LV
49
45
Obama +4CNN/Opinion Research
2⁄10 — 2⁄13
937 RV
51
46
Obama +5CBS News/NY Times
2⁄8 — 2⁄13
1604 RV
48
42
Obama +6PPP (D)
2⁄9 — 2⁄12
1200 RV
49
42
Obama +7Pew Research
2⁄8 — 2⁄12
1172 RV
52
44
Obama +8BTW, GROG, I didn’t only quote Raz. I quoted NINE polls, EIGHT of which are counter to Gallop.
Best.
-
#10 written by parksie555 1 year ago
-
#14 written by curious jane 1 year ago
There is still so much chatter about a brokered convention and another choice to run, one would think the current 4 would be a bit disheartened. Mitt must really feel bad because he has been trying for soooo long. If Christie says no and is firm behind Romney, would Rubio be a good fit to run against Obama?
-
Jane
mittens should feel disheartened ’cause he’s running against (3) frickin’ rejects and still can’t seal the deal lol.
>
Of course mittens, himself, was rejected in 2008, losing badly to another flip/flopping, having no core values RINO. Indeed, as there’s a reason he came in 2nd to McCain ie the vast majority of conservatives don’t like him, regardless of his ever changing political positions.
-
#16 written by Max aka Birdpilot 1 year ago
pasksie, parksie, parksie,
Love you like a brother, my friend and defend your right to post your opinions against anyone! But, dude! C’mon!
GROG did not mention Romney as unelectable. I did not mention Romney as unelectable. NO one on this list, at least in the course of this thread has mentioned Romney as unelectable.
So you create an issue based on the premise that SOMEONE here says that Romney is unelectable? And to “prove” this (actually) false premise, you cherry pick ONE, the ONLY, poll, out of NINE current national polls (with the average of polls @ +5 AGAINST you) that agrees with you.
And you expect us to what, exactly? -
In so many words, I’ve said mittens is unelectable. Just to be fair to p555.
>
btw, the actual presidential campaign doesn’t start until after Labor Day. Dukakis being ahead of Bush41 by (17) points in a Gallup poll after the 1988 Dem convention, eventially losing to Bush41 by (8) points, notwithstanding.
As things can change quickly in politics ~ stay tuned!
-
#18 written by Max aka Birdpilot 1 year ago
GROG,
Max was referring to Newt.
Thanks for the back-up, my friend. But in all honesty, I was, by implication, also including folks like Paul, Huntsman, John Anderson, Perot, Wallace, Nader, etc.
Folks who have ideas, and ideals, that have fervent supporters and in cases, really good ideas. But don’t, and never will, have enough supporters in enough states with enough money and enough organization, to ever be a viable presidential candidate.
-
I worked for the John Anderson campaign in San Francisco when I lived there. Warm memories, but even then we knew (like my ancestors knew) it was a Lost Cause. I supported Carter in 1976, but not again in 1980, and I couldn’t support Reagan.
I supported the man, and thought he had the right ideas for America, but at no time did I think mine was the majority (or even a plurality) view.
-
curious jane,
There is still so much chatter about a brokered convention
There is, but I think Santorum just about singlehandedly sunk that prospect last night. Granted, Republicans seem to be pretty lukewarm about the choices they have, and that’s probably going to have some (how much?) impact on Republican turnout in November.
-
I have to disagree with you (sort of), Michael. Nate Silver has Santorum as a favorite in Michigan, and does a good job of explaining the reasons why. There are a lot of social conservatives in the Republican Party in Michigan, and we’ve seen over and over that auto workers, just like anyone else, will use the Cognitive Dissonance Centers in their brains to vote against their own economic interests.
I think Santorum will take Michigan, and Romney will take Arizona. Then it will be up to Super Tuesday to decide whether the race continues to June or stops there.
I don’t see a brokered convention, but rather, a 2008 Democratic-style brokering of the nomination outside the convention.
-
I have to disagree with you …
Ditto as Santo is wayyy ahead in TX, competitive in CA etc. and even if mittens got 50% from now until the end of primary season, which he isn’t ~ Romney, at the earliest, couldn’t wrap up the nomination ’til June.
Again, there’s a reason mittens is having problems ie conservatives don’t like him and many despise him.
-
#23 written by parksie555 1 year ago
-
Monotreme,
I saw Nate’s article, too. I still think Romney’s going to pull it off, though just barely. The reason I say this is that we have yet to see the results of last night’s debate in any polling (unless you count Intrade). Prior to the debate, Santorum was already faltering, though the decline may be slowing some. At this point, my read of the tea leaves is that things were going to be close enough that Santorum needed to show a lack of vulnerability last night. But he showed a great deal of vulnerability, which makes his role as NotRomney look NotSoSolid.But this all brings up a point that hasn’t been discussed anywhere that I’ve read…let’s say Michigan ends up a statistical tie, like Iowa did, but with Romney “winning” by, say, a few hundred votes. Is that enough to either say it’s game over, and Romney gets the nomination, or is it still a long slog ahead in March?
shiloh,
Santo is wayyy ahead in TX
And that might matter in 2013 when they have their primary. Seriously, though, I suspect Texas wasn’t so enthused about Santorum back when Gingrich was the top dog. We’ll have to see how things shake out on Super Tuesday before we have a sense of how Texans are likely to vote…if they ever get a chance.
even if mittens got 50% from now until the end of primary season, which he isn’t ~ Romney, at the earliest, couldn’t wrap up the nomination ’til June.
Technically, Bush didn’t secure the nomination until late, too. But after he won South Carolina, it was a foregone conclusion. The unofficial wrapup can be more powerful than the official one.
-
parksie,
Still thought the Gallup result was intriguing though. Hard to believe Santorum within a point.
When one data point looks out of place compared to the others around it, chances are the one data point is an outlier. Theoretically, it could be the start of a large swing trend, but absent any particularly strong input, I find it hard to believe.
Granted, a lot of Americans are only too happy to believe that gasoline prices are rising because Obama did or didn’t do something, and maybe that’s enough. Or maybe the birth control issue was enough. But I really don’t see either of them, or both in concert, being enough to do the trick. Do you?
-
MW
The fact it’s close in MI, mittens home state, amplifies his many problems w/conservatives. btw, Nate has Santo winning Ohio w/91% certainty. I have it at 100%.
MW, you remind me of the lemmings at the conservative blog I frequent as you have now become an apologist for mittens.
As stated above, he’s running against (3) frickin’ train wrecks and still can’t seal the deal!
-
Incidentally, it took 39 states, two territories, and DC voting before the nomination was wrapped up for McCain in 2008. The difference was that they had that race to the head of the line, with 21 states voting on February 5. So the 39th state voted on March 4.
This time, the 39th state votes on April 24.
-
shiloh,
I’m hardly an apologist for Romney. I’d prefer Santorum get the nomination, because I think he’d be much easier to beat in the general. And I certainly don’t think Romney’s a strong candidate by any means. It’s just that the bench of NotRomneys is empty. Ron Paul’s not going to get to play that role (except, by default, in Virginia). But I just don’t see enough organization going on to force a decision to be made at the convention. -
#29 written by curious jane 1 year ago
I know they are all anti-union, but one of them really slammed the UAW by name, a few times during the debate, more or less blaming them for the financial probems of the industry. I was in the other room and I think it was Romney or Santorum. I know there are not many unions left but they still are a big factor and mobilized early for the upcomming election.
-
MW
Re: VA, Romney’s competition is soooo frickin’ bad lol only mittens and Paul managed to get their names on the ballot. Gingrich probably would have easily won VA except he wasn’t a serious enough candidate to do the necessary “leg work” to qualify. Oops!
So obviously Paul is a much more serious candidate than Santo, Newt, bachmann, Perry, etc.
Damned w/faint praise!
-
#31 written by parksie555 1 year ago
MWeiss — I dunno. But neither one helped.
What has Obama built his recent surge on? Largely one number — unemployment figures for January. Dropping below 9.0 % was certainly pyschologically significant. Solid performance by the Dow in January has helped, also some evidence housing is recovering. But pretty thin reeds to win an election on.
Just as it didn’t take much to push Obama into the lead, it won’t take much to push him back to underdog status. -
#32 written by Max aka Birdpilot 1 year ago
Largely one number
Yes, well, I’d throw in a 2nd number: initial unemployment claims @ 4-year low.
And a third: Dow @ 12985
And a 4th: S&P @ 1363, Both at 4-year highs
And a 5th: Inflation <4%
And a 6th: 0, the number of combat troops in Iraq
And a 7th: 26, the age that children may stay on parents health insuranceI’ll let that do, for now.
-
#33 written by WA7th 1 year ago
If my goal as a hypothetical NotRomney voter is to prolong the flogging of Mitt by the maximum number of others for the maximum number of days, last week I probably would have gone Santo, but this week I think I would vote Newt. I think Paul is already in for the long haul because he has already outperformed everyone’s expectations, including his own, so he doesn’t need my vote to help convince him to stay in.
I’m still undecided how to make my actual NotRomney vote hurt Mitt most, but I only have another week to flip coins and do catbox pattern readings.
-
#34 written by Max aka Birdpilot 1 year ago
-
parksie said,
What has Obama built his recent surge on?
That’s a faulty premise, in my opinion. It’s not a surge; look at the numbers for the “bin Laden bounce” and that looks surge-like. A step function, with a 5-percentage-point step up, and a similarly swift step down just a couple of weeks later.
He had a similar surge in disapproval in September 2010, which probably helped cost the Democrats the House in that election cycle.
What has happened since fall 2011 is not a surge. This is a long, slow slog towards a 50⁄50 approval/disapproval, which is where he’s likely to stay. For an incumbent, that is probably good enough. Carter was at 30–35% in October 1980, and Reagan was a much better opponent than anything the current Republicans have on offer, Carter was damaged by a bruising primary battle with Kennedy and the Iranian Hostage Crisis, and even with all that the election was actually closer in the popular vote than people remember (-10% for Carter) because the electoral vote was a landslide. (For comparison, Obama won over McCain by 7+%.)
Intrade and IEM both have Obama at about 60% for re-election. I’d say that sounds about right.
-
parksie,
What has Obama built his recent surge on?
See, I think you’ve missed the point. It’s not a “recent surge”. It’s a three month consistent trend in the case of Obama vs. Romney, and a four month consistent (long-term) trend in his approval rating.
Now, there are plenty of things that could reverse the trend, but it’s not a recent surge (using the sub-month timeline you described) by any means.
-
#37 written by Jean 1 year ago
An interesting analysis from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget showing the national debt impacts of the campaign proposals of all four candidates remaining in the GOP presidential contest.The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, has been housed at the non-partisan, non-profit New America Foundation the past nine years. It comprises a bipartisan array of former members of Congress, former members of the federal executive branch and prominent businesspeople.
http://crfb.org/sites/default/files/primary_numbers.pdf
-
Again, Bush43 had 48% Gallup job approval Oct. 31, 2004 and won re-election 50.7/48.3 ie the power of incumbency. And one could easily argue as bad a candidate Kerry was, mittens and Santo are worse.
Of course Bush still had the 9⁄11 hate/division/fear mongering/misinformation turdblossom meme working in his favor. Oh the irony of cheney/bush getting caught w/their pants down on 9⁄11.
And yes Mono, there are no Reagan’s on the horizon for the party of Lincoln.
-
#39 written by dawolf 1 year ago
@ MW
”(Santorum)…With no more debates scheduled, he has to come up with a Hail Mary pass for Michigan, or it will be all over for him.“
I’m sorry but I just don’t agree with that. Michigan is Romney’s home state — anything other than a solid win for Romney is bad news for Romney, and therefore good news for the others. Arizona is already priced in.I think it’s going to Super Tuesday with all 4 candidates, regardless of what happens between now and then.
-
-
#41 written by Armchair Warlord 1 year ago
-
#42 written by Jean 1 year ago
Michael,
I’d love to be able to compare those four to Obama’s proposed budget, too.
It sounds like you’ll get your wish. The CRFB notes, “This edition’s focus on the four Republican candidates reflects the current public attention to the Republican primary contest. President Obama’s proposals will be included and evaluated under the same method in future analyses.“
-
You must be logged in to post a comment.
- Comment Feed for this Post
Last night, Santorum had his one shot to prove that he belonged at center stage, and deserved the nomination.
He failed.
With no more debates scheduled, he has to come up with a Hail Mary pass for Michigan, or it will be all over for him. Given that he was already on a falling trajectory there, I can’t imagine that his debate performance will help him. We may have just witnessed the end of the real primary battle.