Is Bachmann even 2nd tier anymore?

[King]

She did not seem even close to relevant tonight.  If I didn't know the polls, I would say she was last place among the field (maybe ahead of Johnson) just on how much interest and applause she generated.

Dividing up the nine:

1st Tier: Perry, Romney, Paul (distant, but he's locked in at 3rd)
2nd Tier: Cain, Huntsman, Santorum
3rd Tier: Gingrich, Bachmann, Johnson

[redcommander]

No. She needed a repeat of last debate's preformance and she didn't give it.

[Pyro]

She is sharply losing popularity among Republicans. Thank Perry for that.

[tmthforu94]

I'd say so. I think 2nd tier would be Cain, Gingrich, and Bachmann, going mainly off polling. She still has a realistic chance at winning Iowa and isn't polling horrible nationwide. Huntsman, after devoting all resources for the past few months in New Hampshire, has finally broken 10%, but still trails by nearly 30 points and is only garnering a couple percentages nationwide. Santorum, there's no realistic path for him to win the nomination other than all the other "Tea Party" candidates completely imploding.

[Simfan34]

I say swap Gingrich for Santorum and you're spot on.

[NVGonzalez]

She barely is. Sooner or later it will change.

[Likely Voter]

Perry and Romney are taking up so much of the attention that the race has become the Romney/Perry tier and everyone else.

[cavalcade]

Just eyeballing RCP...

I'd say so. I think 2nd tier would be Cain, Gingrich, and Bachmann.

and Paul.  He's a lot closer to Bachmann and co than to Romney and Perry.

[nhmagic]

Not really - I'm very disappointed that she hasnt taken the time to develop a platform.  She doesn't have a jobs plan or much of a plan at all.  I appreciate her zeal to repeal Obamacare and I hope it rubs off on everyone else, but you have to have substance at this point and there isnt anything there.

I really wonder what her advisers are telling her....

[Averroës Nix]

Depends on how you define the tiers. Here's what I usually mean when I refer to them:

Tier I: Clear contender to win.
Tier II: Type A - Could be a contender (has the right background), but hasn't caught on yet; also includes Type B - candidates with regional or factional appeal but who aren't likely to win the nomination.
Tier III: Candidate with enough support to be included in many polls & debates, but not as strong as a candidate in the second tier.
Tier IV: Candidates who don't appear in debates, don't receive media coverage, and who have little or no base of support.

Here's how I'd rank the 2012 Republicans:

Tier I: Romney, Perry
Tier II: Pawlenty (he was a Type A pre-drop out), Palin (she would be a Type B if she announced), and maybe Paul (obviously Type B)
Tier III: Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum, Huntsman; Johnson is a borderline case
Tier IV: McCotter, Roemer, Karger, numerous others

Before Perry announced, Bachmann was unquestionably in Tier I or II - but only because there was a vacuum to be filled and Pawlenty couldn't do it. It's clear that she's not even a factional leader at this point (no surprise, the Tea Party vote is split between her and several other candidates).

[Wonkish1]

1st Tier: Romney, Perry
2nd Tier: Cain, Gingrich, Paul(because he's not going anywhere)
3rd Tier: Santorum, Bachmann, Huntsman, Johnson

That Huntsman poll in NH was junk and I would never consider anybody with a consistent under 2% nationally in the polls as a 2nd Tier candidate. That is a placement by someone that just wants Huntsman to be in the 2nd Tier.

[Zarn]

1st Tier A: Perry, Romney
1st Tier B: Paul (he did not implode like two of those 2nd Tier candidates)
2nd Tier: Cain, Gingrich, Bachmann
3rd Tier: Johnson, Huntsman, Santorum

[Averroës Nix]

That Huntsman poll in NH was junk and I would never consider anybody with a consistent under 2% nationally in the polls as a 2nd Tier candidate. That is a placement by someone that just wants Huntsman to be in the 2nd Tier.

Who wants to bet that criteria for participation in the next debate will be something like "at least 3% in 3 national polls or over 10% in IA or NH."

I'm not sure I've ever seen a candidacy that enjoys so much media-driven success while having practically no popular support.

[Bull Moose Base]

Don't overcomplicate it.  There's only two tiers: Romney/Perry, then there's everyone else who can't win.  But it's kind of interesting to speculate what would have happened if Perry never got in.  Would she still be in his place as the main conservative alternative to Romney? Would Pawlenty have caught her by now or have dropped out even with no Perry?  Would Santorum have taken a turn as flavor of the month?  Would someone else have gotten in?  Would Romney have a double digit lead?  I'd bet Romney and her would still be polling pretty close.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

My guess is she'll perform similarly to Edwards in 2008, while Romney and Perry fight will be like Obama v. Hillary duel (but we don't know who's Obama and who's Hillary here yet).

[Averroës Nix]

Don't overcomplicate it.  There's only two tiers: Romney/Perry, then there's everyone else who can't win.  But it's kind of interesting to speculate what would have happened if Perry never got in.  Would she still be in his place as the main conservative alternative to Romney? Would Pawlenty have caught her by now or have dropped out even with no Perry?  Would Santorum have taken a turn as flavor of the month?  Would someone else have gotten in?  Would Romney have a double digit lead?  I'd bet Romney and her would still be polling pretty close.

Well said.

Without Perry, I think the race would have continued to be a case of "Romney vs. the field." Bachmann would still fade, and Romney would be polling at 30-35% with a bunch of other candidates at 5-15%. Occasionally someone might get close 20% if they were having a good month, but it would never last. Eventually, Republicans would accept Romney as inevitable (and their only real choice), and by Florida he'd have no more than token opposition.

There'd be rampant speculation about the field expanding among pundits through the end of October. Probably wouldn't affect whatever Palin's decision-making process is, but I'm sure that she'd get more attention. But no one would join: the objects of speculation would be either people who have issued Shermanesques (Christie, Ryan, and presumably under this set of circumstances, Perry) and candidates who decided not to run (Daniels, Barbour, Thune, Huckabee, Pence). I really can't imagine any of them entering so late - though it's possible that some in the second group decided not to run because they knew that Perry was likely to do so (the same applies to TPaw's dropping out).

You know what? Even with Perry in the race, I'm not convinced that Pawlenty should have dropped out. I think he'd still have a chance if he were still in this, assuming he could show a pulse.

[Bull Moose Base]

Don't overcomplicate it.  There's only two tiers: Romney/Perry, then there's everyone else who can't win.  But it's kind of interesting to speculate what would have happened if Perry never got in.  Would she still be in his place as the main conservative alternative to Romney? Would Pawlenty have caught her by now or have dropped out even with no Perry?  Would Santorum have taken a turn as flavor of the month?  Would someone else have gotten in?  Would Romney have a double digit lead?  I'd bet Romney and her would still be polling pretty close.

Well said.

Without Perry, I think the race would have continued to be a case of "Romney vs. the field." Bachmann would still fade, and Romney would be polling at 30-35% with a bunch of other candidates at 5-15%. Occasionally someone might get close 20% if they were having a good month, but it would never last. Eventually, Republicans would accept Romney as inevitable (and their only real choice), and by Florida he'd have no more than token opposition.

There'd be rampant speculation about the field expanding among pundits through the end of October. Probably wouldn't affect whatever Palin's decision-making process is, but I'm sure that she'd get more attention. But no one would join: the objects of speculation would be either people who have issued Shermanesques (Christie, Ryan, and presumably under this set of circumstances, Perry) and candidates who decided not to run (Daniels, Barbour, Thune, Huckabee, Pence). I really can't imagine any of them entering so late - though it's possible that some in the second group decided not to run because they knew that Perry was likely to do so (the same applies to TPaw's dropping out).

You know what? Even with Perry in the race, I'm not convinced that Pawlenty should have dropped out. I think he'd still have a chance if he were still in this, assuming he could show a pulse.

I think I agree Pawlenty pulled plug too early.  Reportedly, Pawlenty's campaign was in debt but I think he'd be looking like a better choice to many right now.  One of the reasons I think Perry won't crumble even though the media is shredding him today is that there's no serious candidate remaining for the non-libertarian, social conservative, Tea-friendly voters to rally around.  Pawlenty would have been a plausible fallback right now.  He's a long-term governor like Perry but a stronger debater, infamous whiff notwithstanding, and probably feels more electable.  I actually bet Pawlenty had VP or 2016 in mind for most of the past couple years until the economy stalled again this summer and Obama's approvals dipped under 40.  But by that time, he was out of money and oxygen.  You'd think a guy who was involved in McCain's 2008 campaign would know better.  He may still be angling for VP and it's not so unlikely if Romney is the nominee but with many other options, and Romney's own nomination far from certain, he'd need a lot of lucky bounces.