The Institute of 2012 GOP nomination Intrade rankings

[Bull Moose Base]

Thune surge:

Romney 24.8
Palin 23.2
Thune 20.0
Pawlenty 10.0
Huckabee 7.9
Paul 4.4

Why has Pawlenty plummeted since December?

Pawlenty again flips with Palin for 2nd place; Huckabee rebounds slightly, but is still down from where he was pre-Clemmons:

Romney 23.0
Pawlenty 19.2
Palin 17.1
Thune 12.0
Huckabee 9.8
Barbour 7.5
Gingrich 7.1
Daniels 4.9

Because Thune has surged?  Also, since the earlier one, Daniels finally leaves the door open on a run... and drops off the board.  (Though I get that Thune's not drawing a challenger boosted him.)  You'd think that healthcare reform passing and the stream of articles tying it to RomneyCare would boost all his rivals more than it did.  I'm sort of led to the conclusion that intrade movements are random or driven by people not paying attention.  Unless, Thune insiders who know something we don't went on a shopping spree.

[Bull Moose Base]

Daniels slowly declined into Jan/Feb as I guess people started believing the denials, then peaked in late Feb / early March after he finally left the door open to a run.  Since then, he's been declining.  I'm not exactly sure why T-Paw has dropped, though I guess some people might argue that he looks a bit too desperate for the job......as he seems to be criss-crossing the nation non-stop appearing at GOP events, and it's only April 2010 and he still has a job as governor.  It's possible that people were expecting him to have a bigger payoff for his efforts by now (see, e.g., his anemic showing at CPAC), but I think concerns like that are overblown.

But I agree that most of the movement on Intrade at this early stage is random.  I'm just keeping it updated for the historical record, so we can compare back to what it was doing in 2010 18 months from now.  Once the campaign is in full swing next year, the trends will start to look more reasonable as the trading volume increases.

I kind of buy that explanation actually.  Pawlenty has been essentially campaigning and the lack of interest in him does seem kind of palpable.  Whereas Thune is newer and shinier.  It's sort of the difference between a girl having a first date with a guy she has bigger expectations for vs. a second date with a guy who was pretty boring and a bad kisser the first time around.  (Mary Pawlenty may take umbrage at my analogy.  Maybe T-Paw is great in the sack for all we know.)  That said, as you've pointed out, most primary voters are probably yet to absorb the similarity between ObamaCare and RomneyCare, so his numbers should still fall relative to Pawlenty's.   I assume anyone buying on intrade are as much horse race junkies as we are.  Even so...

Daniels' drop could be a product of his recent C-SPAN interview, where he sounded only nominally interested in running.

Yeah, I don't know that that C-SPAN interview got Super Bowl like ratings exactly.  I posted it on this board and you were the only person to respond.  Unless you were the buyer who'd been driving up Daniels's price in February...

[Bull Moose Base]

Surprised Palin remains so high.  She's far better known than any other Republican and I think she's only led a single poll out of many taken.  And I don't see how Thune can be so far ahead of Pawlenty without doing all that much to indicate he even wants to run.

[Bull Moose Base]

Thune is a future leader but he is very green, like Obama was in 2008, so Thune will need a lot of breaks to beat the more campaign experienced and leadership in Romney.

By the 2012 election, Thune will have spent 6 years in the House and 8 in the Senate.  That's at least as much experience than most serious presidential candidates.  Heck, look at the top 3 Democratic contenders in 2008: Clinton had 8 years in the Senate, Edwards 6 and Obama 4.  None of them had held any other office higher than state legislator.  Romney has all of one 4 year term as MA governor.  Compared to that, I'd hardly call Thune "very green".

If anything, Thune's weakness is having too much experience, in the form of consistently voting with Bush and for the bailouts.  Bush isn't the albatross he is in a Democratic primary of course or general election, but association with him could maybe even be a negative in the Republican 2012 primary where the party seems eager to distance themselves from his tenure.  It will be interesting to see how the subject of Bush is treated in that primary and whether the media puts Republican candidates on the spot as far as assessing his record.

[Bull Moose Base]

I think it's unclear whether running is good for Palin Inc. or not.  There's a risk of fading in relevance or being eclipsed by new personalities if she doesn't, and there's also one of damaging her brand in a losing primary campaign.  I think what kind of loss would make a big difference: Giuliani-style would be a mess; Hillary-style would be good publicity.  I agree that Giuliani's case is different in that there is more about him voters did not know than Palin and more that did not fit the party line than in Palin's case.  So I think such an embarrassing loss is possible but less likely.  I suspect unlike Giuliani, she could win a chunk of states- especially if no strong Southern candidate runs.  Because she can afford to get in late, I would bet she'll base her decision on how business goes in the next year.  And I am personally betting on it going poorly.  I see low ratings for her Discovery Channel show and other TV appearances and probably even disappointing book sales, since it won't be boosted by the public's appetite for gossip.  If that ends up the case, I'd bet she smells the threat of becoming irrelevant and jumps in.

[Bull Moose Base]

Romney 28.5
Palin 18.5
Thune 16.1
Pawlenty 10.5
Daniels 8.3
Gingrich 8.0
Huckabee 6.9
Jeb Bush 5.1
Pence 5.0
Paul 4.6
Jindal 3.9
Barbour 2.9
Christie 2.5
Perry 2.0
others under 2.0

I'm liking the Daniels jump to fifth.  I don't know why anyone would by Jeb Bush but besides that this seems like a pretty good list.

From August 2006:

About a month since we last posted the numbers, net change from 7/25 in ()

Democrats

Clinton 40.5 (-1.9)
Warner 18.5 (-0.5)
Gore 15.0 (+0.2)
Edwards 9.0 (0)
Feingold 3.6 (+1.3)
Kerry 3.3 (0)
Obama 2.2 (+0.2)
Bayh 2.2 (+ ~0.4)
Others under 2.0

Republicans

McCain 38.0 (-0.4)
Giuliani 16.0 (+1.5)
Romney 13.2 (+2.8 )
Allen 13.0 (-3.5)
Rice 5.9 (+0.9)
Gingrich 3.2 (+0.5)
Huckabee 2.2 (-0.4)
Others under 2.0

Well, they called the Republican last time 'round, though Obama below Kerry is kind of surprising.  Good reminder that we usually screw up when trying to see the future.

More than half the Dems on that 2006 list didn't run and the eventual president was way back at 2.2 (as was the GOP winner of Iowa).  Overall, the GOP predictions were closer which fits the trend that historically, their primary has been more predictable, less dark horses succeeding than the Democrats.

Daniels's recent call for a truce on "social issues" and his recent co-signing a letter asking for the extension of stimulus funds could potentially deflate support in a Republican primary.

Jeb and Jindal have ruled themselves out.

Huckabee, once again, too low for a guy who until further notice is the favorite in both Iowa and South Carolina contests.

[Bull Moose Base]

The high Warner numbers are quite astounding.

His and Obama's numbers should have been switched.  I realize that's easy to say in hindsight.  But I was speculating Obama as 2008 nominee as early as late 2004.  He'd hit his convention speech out of the park and was a best-selling author by 2006, was a TV regular and in high demand for campaign appearances.  The previous cycle had seen an anti-Iraq war candidate, less known than Obama was in 2006, emerge as a frontrunner and raise a lot of money.  It was obvious Obama was as decent a bet for 2004 as anyone save Hillary.

Whereas Warner?  That makes no sense to me.  I also think his chances at being the Democratic nominee in 2016 are overblown.

[Bull Moose Base]

Wow.  I'm surprised Obama got no attention given how quickly people make that jump now on someone like Scott Brown.  I guess that's a reaction to Obama's fast rise then. 

I don't think Obama was looking at as good chances if he waited to run.  If his next opportunity would have been 2016, there could have been an incumbent Democratic VP (or even president) running for the nomination or maybe a tough-to-beat Republican president running for re-election.  Not that running against was Hillary a great scenario either but it was better.  I also think Obama's campaign rhetoric wouldn't have been as intoxicating if he had been older and in Washington for longer.

[Bull Moose Base]

Well, think of it this way.  When was the last time someone ran for president just four years into his first Senate term, with no prior experience with statewide or national office?  (Not counting joke 3rd tier candidates.)  I can't think of any examples for decades going back before Obama.  Even Edwards was running at the end of his six year term.  If something hasn't happened for decades, people tend to not expect it to happen again soon.

Also note that Obama himself ruled out a run:

link

and was making no moves for towards a campaign until October 2006.  Predicting that he would run would've been at least as much of a longshot as predicting that Bobby Jindal will run in 2012.  Jindal of course was getting some buzz last year, but none now, as he's ruled it out as much as Obama did in 2004/5, and he's making no moves towards building a campaign.

Hm.  I never saw that and obviously my reaction to it now is tainted by hindsight but I would have been skeptical of it in the way I am of Hillary's no's re:2016: little choice but to answer that way.  Obama can't say he's open to a 2008 run right after his 2004 election without looking kind of obnoxious and I wouldn't have taken the "not running" very seriously.

True it hadn't happened before but Obama's situation was comparable to 2 relatively successful 2004 candidates:

Edwards, who was completing his first term but still began running in the middle of it, and Dean, who used the "Always against Iraq" credit to power himself to the lead in fundraising even if he didn't convert on that.  I'd say Obama in 2006 was in a plainly stronger position than those guys heading into 2004.  Much more famous, had already shown himself to be on another plane as an orator.  And it should have been easy to see that he'd attract media attention and excitement as potentially the first black president- much as you have correctly pointed out in another thread, that even if Sarah Palin were not the VP nominee in 08 but ran in 2012, she'd still become an instant celebrity then.  (And arguably have a better chance.)

Jindal's case is different than Obama because Jindal's situation is basically either/or with a gubernatorial re-election campaign.  I think his case is more like Daniels with people wanting him to run.  Except Daniels throwing cold water on running seems more sincere to me if not definitive.

[Bull Moose Base]

I'm curious where Daniels would be if he were as transparently running as Pawlenty is.

[Bull Moose Base]

From August 2006:

About a month since we last posted the numbers, net change from 7/25 in ()

Democrats

Clinton 40.5 (-1.9)
Warner 18.5 (-0.5)
Gore 15.0 (+0.2)
Edwards 9.0 (0)
Feingold 3.6 (+1.3)
Kerry 3.3 (0)
Obama 2.2 (+0.2)
Bayh 2.2 (+ ~0.4)
Others under 2.0

Republicans

McCain 38.0 (-0.4)
Giuliani 16.0 (+1.5)
Romney 13.2 (+2.8 )
Allen 13.0 (-3.5)
Rice 5.9 (+0.9)
Gingrich 3.2 (+0.5)
Huckabee 2.2 (-0.4)
Others under 2.0

At roughly this time four years ago, Obama was at 5.0 and McCain was at 38.4:

Democratic:

Clinton 48.1
Gore 17.0
Edwards 13.9
Obama 5.0
Kerry 3.3
Bayh 3.1
Feingold 2.5
Richardson 2.4
Biden 1.7
Vilsack 1.2
Clark 1.0

Republicans:

McCain 38.4
Giulani 18.6
Romney 15.0
Allen 6.6
Huckabee 6.3
Rice 4.0
Gingrich 3.0
Frist 1.7
Brownback 1.2

Wait, why did Mark Warner disappear from August to October?

[Bull Moose Base]

GOP nomination:

Romney 24.8
Palin 18.9
Thune 13.6
Pawlenty 7.8
Huckabee 6.2
Gingrich 5.6
J. Bush 5.5
Daniels 4.9
Christie 3.9
Ryan 3.2
Rubio 2.7
Barbour 2.6
Paul 2.0
Johnson 1.6
Pence 1.5

Winning party:

Dems 60.0
GOP 42.0
3rd party / indy 3.4

Thune looks like he's falling prey to the curse of winning 100% of the vote.

And... Pence lower than Johnson!  That's a guy whose buyers have heard he's running for governor.

[Bull Moose Base]

Oh, oops.

In any case, no House member has won the White House directly since James Garfield, I think.

Not just that but a bunch of the better-knowns- Palin, Huckabee, Gingrich- are likely to pull from the same voters and donors he'd need.  Plus, likely well-funded lower-tierers Thune and Santorum.  And Daniels.  Not clear how many of those folks will run but it's probably enough to make winning the gub. nomination seem much easier to pull off.

[Bull Moose Base]

Huckabee gains:

Romney 22.7
Palin 20.3
Thune 12.0
Huckabee 9.0
Pawlenty 6.8
Gingrich 5.0
J. Bush 4.6
Barbour 4.0
Christie 3.2
Daniels 3.0
Rubio 1.9

He's still undervalued.  I'd switch him with Thune.  Odd how much Thune has dropped for no apparent reason.  Pence is undervalued too.  I assume the guber. rumors.  Or maybe GOP gaining power in Midterms.

[Bull Moose Base]

Don't follow the logic of Daniels rising after the tax cut debate is rescheduled for 2012 when advocating  their permanence will be requisite to winning the nomination, unless Daniels is prepared to do that, contradicting earlier statements.  The only recent good wind for him is that the Supreme Court case on the insurance mandate looks likely to happen close to or during the primary and the timing could suck for Romney, notwithstanding his hooting and hollering for it to be struck down.  Actually, those two events in the past week would bode well for Pawlenty.  Except his problematic pardon also happened in the past week.  I wonder if Palin will ever lead intrade before Iowa.

PS can Americns get away with betting on intrade?

[Bull Moose Base]

I wonder if intrade is corrupted by the press Thune got off it that was picked up by Colbert.  It has the effect of momentum detection akin to polls but is much easier for a candidate's people to tamper with.  Though it'd be embarrassing to get busted. As for Palin I'm not convinced she couldn't both do another season for TLC and run.  Also, I don't know Huckabee's ratings but I've expected FOX to make him a generous offer because his reupping would have an indirect boost to network wide ratings assuming his absence from the 2012 race helps a Palin candidacy.

[Bull Moose Base]

Democratic nominee
Obama 84.0
Clinton 6.1

Republican nominee
Romney 19.1
Palin 16.6
Thune 11.9
Daniels 8.1
Huckabee 7.8
Pawlenty 6.1
Pence 5.1
Gingrich 5.0
Barbour 2.7
Huntsman 2.7
Christie 2.6
Rubio 2.0
Paul 1.7
Johnson 1.4

That's close to the lowest for Palin in about a year, and close to the lowest for Romney in about two years.  "Palin to run for President in 2012" is down to 58.0, which is about its lowest point in six months.

Four years ago:

Democrats
Clinton 47.7
Obama 21.1
Edwards 14.8
Gore 6.9
Richardson 1.8
Kerry 1.6
Biden 1.6
Vilsack 1.3
Clark 1.1
Warner 0.8
Dodd 0.7


Republicans
McCain 48.2
Giuliani 16.6
Romney 16.3
Huckabee 4.4
Gingrich 3.1
Brownback 2.0
Rice 1.9
Hagel 1.5
Cheney 0.9
Thompson 0.8
Bush 0.7
Allen 0.5
Pataki 0.5

Top 3 Republican candidates put together = lower than Hillary alone or McCain alone, 4 years ago.

[Bull Moose Base]

Palin's share price is having a bit of a meltdown today.  It's down to its lowest price since Summer 2009, shortly after she resigned as governor.  Daniels has been surging this past week, and is now up to a tie for third place with Thune:

Romney 19.6
Palin 13.5
Daniels 10.0
Thune 10.0
Huckabee 9.4
Pawlenty 6.5
Gingrich 5.0
Pence 4.0
Huntsman 3.9
Christie 2.4
Barbour 2.1
Paul 1.8
Rubio 1.5
Johnson 1.4

Will Palin run for president?
yes 55.5
(lowest it's been in many months)

Yeah, she's over.  The Right's inevitable "Don't blame us" push back won't be enough.

[Bull Moose Base]

Sorry Joe, the shooter is clearly a Democrat Party supporter.

That's why the media isn't providing very much in terms of information because this is a Democrat on Democrat crime.  It doesn't fit the narrative that the Democrat Party wanted.

Not true.

Anyway, it's the optics of the optics.  The GOP leaders (including the Red State leader) have the excuse they've been looking for to write her off.  Maybe I'm wrong but I have a hard time seeing how the coming GOP talking points on Palin don't tank her polling and dissuade her from running.

[Bull Moose Base]

Palin is now 11 and change, barely above Thune, Daniels and Huckabee.  Let's hope for her sake she didn't delete TLC's number.

[Bull Moose Base]

Up: Romney, Thune, Huckabee, Bachmann, Huntsman
Down: Pence (drops to 0.1), Pawlenty

GOP nomination
Romney 22.5
Thune 12.9
Palin 12.8
Huckabee 9.8
Pawlenty 9.8
Daniels 7.9
Gingrich 4.7
Bachmann 4.0
Barbour 3.0
Huntsman 3.0
Giuliani 2.9
Christie 1.9
DeMint 1.7
Trump 1.6
Johnson 1.5

Winning individual
Obama 62.2
Romney 12.0
Thune 6.5
Huckabee 5.9
Daniels 5.0
Pawlenty 5.0
Palin 4.5
Biden 2.0

Hillary Clinton to be Dem. VP nominee 15.0
Marco Rubio to be GOP VP nominee 24.9
Chris Christie to be GOP VP nominee 11.0
Palin to run for president 60.6
Trump to run for president 32.0

Which figure do you use?  Bid or Ask?  And what's the difference again?  I'm glad I was too lazy to figure it out and put $ on Pence which I'd been meaning to.

[Bull Moose Base]

This is a weird race when #s 2-4 (and 6) on intrade seem about as likely to skip the race as they are to run.  I assume the Thune drop is off the noise about his cold feet.

[Bull Moose Base]

Mm... Skeptical Gingrich will announce in March.  What for?  There are no repercussions from not following the timing he laid out when he thought everyone else would be in by then.  Also think he's presumed to be  running so an announced run wont change his trades.  Maybe a small bump.

[Bull Moose Base]

Guess I'm wrong on newt.  Thought he'd avoid campaign finance laws longer.   Anything happen to suddenly drop Palin to run?  Seems random.  She's speaking in India in March which seems un-Paliny if she wasn't trying to build up her image for a run.

[Bull Moose Base]

Daniels goes up?

Is that shocking news?

I'd argue it makes little sense for him to go up in the past week.  In fact the only Daniels activity in the past week has been bucking the party and killing Indiana's new anti-union bills.  He could get past that in a primary but why would it boost his price?  Seems wrong.  He also hasn't made any new moves toward running.  His price is comparable to Pawlenty who is basically already running and comparably strong on paper if not stronger.

I also don't see why Palin's loss (whatever drove it in past week I'm not clear on) should be Daniels's gain.  Don't see her supporters going to him if she doesn't run or flops but to someone who'd be tougher for him to beat than Palin.  I actually think Daniels and Palin's chances are correlated.  I think his best path is if he clears out the grown-up wing while she does the Tea Party side.  And her best path might be the same thing.  So one's momentum should help the other.