The Institute of 2012 GOP nomination Intrade rankings

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Intrade is very unreliable for the time being since no campaigns are being mounted, no one is announcing, and everyone is waiting for the first shot to go off. Most of the buying and selling now is almost certainly short, not long (if Romney, Pawlenty, and Bachmann are the frontrunners, I will eat my own shoes).

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

For Huntsman, I think you'll see a further bump as the NH buzz around him grows, the question will be how he plays in IA.

IMO, Romney will be a distant memory in a few months.  I'm perplexed that he has as much support as he has, and it seems like it's based almost entirely on name recognition and his perma-campaign.  I think a lot of that will shift over to Pawlenty as his name recognition grows.

Bachmann will, I think, make a solid run at this.

If I'm handicapping, I think those three are the standout candidates for later this year, with Gingrich, Paul, Cain, and possibly Johnson rattling around at the margins.  Then it's a question of whether other notables (Palin, Christie, Perry) jump in.

Johnson is effectively acting as Paul's more liberal and less libertarian sock puppet. He will make Paul seem less lonely on the stage with his beliefs, he will be propped up by Paul when he says something bad, and eventually he will look at the 5% at best he is getting in the polls and endorse Paul.

Romney, as you said, is likely to fade. He might hold onto his support, but he is kind of reminding me of 2007 Giuliani: looks great on paper and the polls, but has enough problems that, when exposed widely, will sink like a stone.

Pawlenty is really overrated IMO. I mean, okay, he is the other "moderate" with credibility, but has anyone else noticed how he has been trying to push himself to the right by stealing Ron Paul's talking points? I mean, he was talking about the evils of "fiat currency" just the other day like a reborn Austrian economist, its like he is taking the "the winner of the primary will be the Republican other than Ron Paul who sounds the most like Ron Paul" article to heart. Beyond his attempts at repositioning himself, I doubt he will pick up enough of Romney's support. Romney might be a dirty liberal who gets the moderate support, but he is at least charismatic and good looking enough to fool enough conservatives into backing him and to make people like him. Watching T-Paw speak is, frankly, more boring than watching paint dry on most occasions. If Romney really collapsed he might jump to fourth, third, or second (depending on the strength of the opposition) to a "true conservative" like Bachmann, Paul, Palin, etc etc.

Bachmann's strength depends on two things; media spotlight and Sarah Palin. If the media doesn't pay any attention, like Palin, she will flounder and drop (and with her support not being very high to start, she will likely be forgotten even if everything else goes her way). If the media glares right at her like with Palin, she might get publicity and support, but it will also tear her up and probably make her look like an idiot, which will hurt her very much in picking up support after maybe 20% (with no Palin) and will destroy any chances in a general election. Next, if Palin runs, Bachmann and Palin will steal each other's votes, if Bachmann positions herself well she might end with about 8%, leaving Palin with somewhere between 8-10%, and someone else will take advantage of the situation and storm ahead (depending on the fate of Romney, that someone could be Cain, Paul, maybe T-Paw, but almost certainly not universally hated Gingrich). If Palin doesn't run and endorses Cain, Paul or someone else, then Bachmann will be in trouble fighting a fellow strong conservative. If Palin doesn't run and endorses no one or endorses Bachmann, she might benefit enough to manage a victory.

I will go through those other three very fast: Palin depends, inversely, on Bachmann. Also, I suspect that the longer she sticks around, the less enthusiastic her base gets. Her advantage is a reasonably loyal (if, compared to those of Huckabee, Romney, or Paul, disorganized) base, but it will fall away if she doesn't continue to loudly strut about. She might do well, might not. Christie already said he wouldn't run very clearly; if he ran away, he would be attacked for that over and over. Anyway, he isn't an especially strong candidate even ignoring that, and he is probably aiming to wait for Obama to leave for a better chance at winning in 2016. Perry is very heavily disliked; even in Texas, he is being crushed by just about everyone, including the other Texan in the race, Paul. Outside of Texas, I would be surprised if he broke 4%.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Ames straw poll

Bachmann 58.8
Paul 20.0
other (essentially Cain + Perry) 8.0
Pawlenty 5.0
Romney 4.3
Palin 3.0
Christie 0.6
Huntsman 0.6

Is it better to short Bachmann in the caucuses or the straw poll?  Or is she really >50% chance to win the straw poll?

Better to short Bachmann in the straw poll, at least. I seriously doubt she is going to win it.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Whoa! Huntsman lost 3.5. Why?

Because he doesn't have any popular support whatsoever and it is becoming rapidly evident that he doesn't have the policies that will let him do anything except bring Romney down with him.

Cain has also managed to end his own fad, to be replaced by Bachmann. She might do marginally better, but I suspect she will destroy herself as well, and damned if I know who will replace HER.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Paul wins
Paul either moves to second or becomes a stronger third, but his polling numbers begin to climb while Bachmann and T-Paw decline. Maybe this would put him somewhere between the 16-20% range? Depends on the margin of victory and possibly turnout.

Bachmann wins
Bachmann climbs back to first and gets a boost in growth, while Paul levels off and Pawlenty crumbles.

Pawlenty wins
Pawlenty gains a huge boost in polling while Bachmann falls apart and Paul levels. Maybe third place?

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Huntsman above Paul is surprising.

Huntsman has always been above Paul.

It was surprising when Huntsman hadn't announced, it was surprising when Huntsman was polling at 1% to Paul's 8%, and it is still surprising while Huntsman is polling 3% to Paul's 12%

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Huntsman's numbers are kind of unbelievable. There is no reason for him to be hovering between 5-10%.

The guy has run a horrible campaign and his favorability is about 20-40 nationally in his own party. I know that he got a lot of media attention early in the summer - but that has tapered off recently. Why buy Huntsman?

Basically, because the GOP talks with its heart and votes with its head.  The GOP has a storied history of lunatics in its midst yet still selecting centrist presidential candidates.

I agree, with the added qualifier that the party won't nominate a candidate who doesn't appeal to its electorate. Which is why I think that Romney and Perry are the only realistic potential nominees.

Huntsman's problem is not that he is a moderate, or that he's unqualified. He has conservative positions on most issues, and he has executive experience. But he's running a poor campaign, that's been alienating to voters. Nor have donors shown that they're willing to support him yet.

With regard to his Intrade odds, he doesn't inspire the kind of media circus that Palin or Nachmann do, and he doesn't have the fervent support of Paul. Nor is he a "grass is greener" kind of candidate like Christie. So I wouldn't buy Huntsman expecting his odds o periodically inflate unrealistically.

And that's why I don't understand how he's hovering in third or fourth at between 6 and 8 percent.

I think he's there because all of the leading GOP candidates are horrible.  Romney was a borderline joke and a flip-flopper in 2008, and now he's the mainstream candidate?  Religious conservatives were a forgotten group in 2008, and now they're the definition of mainstream conservativism?

I don't think so.  The GOP bench was ruined by Bush and the few people left showed their tin ears in 2008.  The lingerers are controlling the debate now, but they are not representative of the Tea Party movement as originally constituted and the socially-moderate economic conservatives don't have much of a voice (or interest) at the moment.

In a normal year with some elite GOP candidates, Huntsman would be ~3 or less.  Right now, there's a subgroup betting that the shrill nutjobs will implode and the usual GOP statesman will rise to the top, and not everyone in that subgroup thinks the statesman will be Romney.

My perspective, anyway.

Huntsman's views could attract maybe 20% of the electorate in the best of conditions this year (A Romney endorsement, the opposition acting really stupid, etc).

I mean, even if Perry and Romney failed, Bachmann, Paul and Cain would take their spots and continue business as usual. Were Huntsman a good campaigner and reasonably charismatic he might push his support up to Cain levels, but he isn't a good campaigner at all and his only support comes from media sources attempting to inflate him as a "serious candidate"

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

and also this:

Aside from a major scandal or a new entry into the race, here are the odds on winning the GOP nomination:

Perry: 95%
Paul: 5% (if the economy goes to hell in a handbasket, people might be desperate enough to have a revolution against government)
everyone else: 0%

Well, going by that jmfcst said that Perry can't win, his new odds are

Paul: 100%
everyone else: 0%

ITS OFFICIAL: JMFCST PREDICTS A PAUL VICTORY

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

That is the answer to a question of "Why did you support him", when the issue deals more with "How" and "When". My question is, would it not have been more advisable to hold back somewhat until the debates? You did say, "he was invisible as Governor". Wouldn't knowing such tend to bring on bit of caution amongst the jmfcst's of the world?

And getting back to the answer you did give, it sounds like the critieria for "settling" for a candidate towards the end of the process, which seems out of place in August and September of the previous year.

Remind me again what the harm was in taking Perry for a spin?...It was basically, "Ok, you've got a good resume, and I understand you've pledged to be a social and fiscal conservative...so, well make you are nominee if you can carry on a conversation…what’s that?  You can’t talk?...Next!  What?  We’re out of viable conservative candidates who have political experience?  Who is left?  A business man?  Then send in the business man.  He can speak clearly, actually says something when he speaks, has a good biography, and seems to be a true believer.  If he can tone it down a bit and keep speaking from the heart, then it looks like he’ll be the nominee."

So, again, what was the problem in seeing if Perry had what it took?  What, exactly, is the problem you’re attempting to solve?  Are you saying I should settle for Romney who only gives speeches full of slogans and empty words and who has NO IDEA what he would do if voted POTUS?  Or, are you complaining how quickly we gave up on Bachmann and Perry?  Should we have given Bachmann and Perry an extra two months?  You may think the process is erratic, but the GOP base is simply being systematic in its interview process. 

It seems to me, Herman Cain has caused many blue avatars to blow a gasket and veer towards the hackish side of thought.

If you want, I can dig up an old quote explaining why (back when EVERYONE thought Perry was all that) Perry wasn't even a real frontrunner, let alone potential winner.

The long and the short of it comes down to:

-A lot of positions that are practically unjustifiable in a Republican primary
-No particular strengths that the other candidates don't have
-Sounds like a complete idiot in debates
-Was being hyped up like crazy by the media

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

The long and the short of it comes down to:

-A lot of positions that are practically unjustifiable in a Republican primary
-No particular strengths that the other candidates don't have
-Sounds like a complete idiot in debates
-Was being hyped up like crazy by the media

You could actually make a strong case that every current member of the Republican field meets most of these criteria (or has at some point).

That applies, to some extent, to Bachmann and Cain as well. However, both of them are infinitely better than Perry. Fortunately for my predictive record, however, I predicted their declines for the same reasons (and this is also why I suspect Cain will fall, though some of his views will be more of a problem than debate performances).

Romney's problem is that he also has several weak issues, he is just fortunate that most of the field doesn't want to attack him. I guarantee you, if someone besides that idiot Perry launched a real attack that consisted of more than "YOU DID ROMNEYCARE AND THATS LIKE OBAMACARE", he would begin to show some damage and would begin losing it. He is reasonably charismatic when he is in control and when he is being attacked by someone he is capable of controlling (again, Perry; though Perry managed to get a very good shot off at the beginning of the last debate).

Santorum is a relic of an older time, when a Republican's first duty was to "spreading freedom" or "promoting God" over "shrinking government", and where a Republican who wanted to increase spending wouldn't be lynched. He also comes off as a bigoted bible-thumper (with the bonus of being a Catholic, so actual Evangelicals will have problems backing him regardless). Thus, he can't become a flavour of the month (unless he sees the light in small government or something).

Johnson is being blocked from the debates constantly, and basically constitutes a younger, more boring and more left wing Ron Paul. I suspect he'll eventually drop out and throw his support to Paul (I still remember when you silly lemmings kept thinking Paul would be backing Johnson).

Gingrich is interesting enough, but he isn't running to win, he's running to sell his books and get his name in the media. If he actually tried to mount a campaign, he'd run straight onto two big problems; his multi-million dollar debt and his lack of a campaign infrastructure.

Cain is an old flavour of the month in new packaging. No longer is he clueless about every issue! However, he hasn't radically changed, and thus is more or less riding off of a good performance in Florida. He has no campaign infrastructure and lacks cash, not to mention that he has a fair amount of policies that could cause him extreme discomfort if anyone brought them up (eg. supporting TARP). He's a placeholder flavour in what is effectively a vacuum of anti-Romney voters.

Paul's doing fine. He hasn't had big dips, and has the best infrastructure right now to pick up the anti-Romney vote (at least unless Perry's brain or Cain's wallet quadruples in size). He's unlikely to get any big influxes of media support, but he has a solid enough campaign to survive without it until the other candidates wither away.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That casual attitude can also cause problems.

As I recall, Cain's fall was a combination of:

-The business with "I wouldn't let any of them Muslims into MY cabinet without a background check!"

-The "Romney is okay, but he's a Mormon, and back in Atlanta they say Mormons are evil"

-"Afghanistan? Uh, I don't really know, so I'll go read a book or something"

I suspect the spotlight will cause him to make more gaffes, but time alone should get rid of his current popularity to some degree.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

I suspect the spotlight will cause him to make more gaffes, but time alone should get rid of his current popularity to some degree.

Sound analysis, IMO. Forgive me if you've mentioned this before, but do you then expect a Romney victory?

More likely than anything else, but it certainly isn't guaranteed even with the current field. Romney just isn't that strong of a candidate, and has just been profiting from the media attempting to prop up a parade of anti-Romney candidates that make him look reasonable. His support is extremely soft, and if he ever makes a Perry style gaffe then he is as good as gone.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Santorum is a relic of an older time, when a Republican's first duty was to "spreading freedom" or "promoting God" over "shrinking government", and where a Republican who wanted to increase spending wouldn't be lynched. He also comes off as a bigoted bible-thumper (with the bonus of being a Catholic, so actual Evangelicals will have problems backing him regardless). Thus, he can't become a flavour of the month (unless he sees the light in small government or something).

Trust me, none of those reasons are why Santorum hasn't been giving a chance...rather it is because he was a hack (who seemed to look for opportunities to be a hack) while in the Senate...therefore, no one like me is going to give him a chance.  He's burned his bridges.

This again proves my point behind the Cain surge. Perry, Santorum and Bachmann all have records in government that can be picked apart and revealed to be lacking purity. Cain is a clean slate and a pundit. He just has to pander to what the dittoheads want to hear...and it is working

Supported TARP, basically laughed at people predicting a housing collapse a few days before it occurred

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Whoa, I got to go visit Intrade and buy me some Cain.

Buying a black man? Have you no shame?

Anyway, Newt can have November, if Paul can have December.

Funny thing is, it seems every Paul supporter and their moms saw the Newt surge coming. Well maybe not their moms.

Power of deduction. You can tell who the next flavour is because he/she gets lots of media coverage, is considered a "Small government conservative", isn't Romney, and hasn't been a flavour before and said stupid things recently. Thus, it can't be Huntsman because he's a moderate, it can't be Santorum because he thinks the GOP is still in 1992-2008 mode of "big government conservatism", it can't be Perry or Bachmann because they have managed to say stupid things throughout the campaign, and it can't be Paul because the media wouldn't cover him seriously even if he won Iowa and New Hampshire. Thus, Gingrich is the only one left.

Gingrich might be interesting. He has substance and understanding that Cain lacked, so he'll probably have more lasting power. However, he also has a bunch of problems that Cain also lacked that he's picked up from being important back in the 90s, when Republicans were supposed to be "moderate" and "progressive" (The biggest one I can think of would be Gingrich sitting on a love couch with Nancy Pelosi to talk about cap and trade)

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Newt and Paul are on the rise.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Ron Paul is now in 3rd place.

I suspect its that 18% when running as an indie. If all those hypothetical voters voted for him in the primary, he would probably sweep it (even though most of them are probably not in either party, many of the important caucuses and primaries allow indies to vote in them).

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Betting markets not impressed by Gingrich's latest poll numbers.  And Santorum now ties Bachmann for the GOP nomination.

Romney 69.9
Gingrich 12.4
Huntsman 4.8
Paul 4.8
Cain 3.0
Perry 3.0
Bachmann 1.0
Santorum 1.0
Palin 0.4
Christie 0.2
Daniels 0.2
Johnson 0.2

Winning party

Dems 50.8
GOP 47.0
other 2.2

The following candidate will win at least one primary:

Gingrich 49.9
Cain 35.0
Paul 24.1
Perry 11.0

Romney to win all five of the first five primaries / caucuses: 20.9

LMAO Paul above Perry. Who would have thunk it ?

I totally called it back when Perry was popular

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Why the crap are people betting so much on Huntsman. They do realize he needs to win the REPUBLICAN primary right? The moderates have already thrown themselves behind Romney.

Huntsman can't win, so he's dumping his fortune on Intrade to make other rich people donate to him and to earn him a profit when he drops out.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

The ModernBourbon Democrats make their predictions (which aren't much different from a couple months ago, unlike the jmfcsts):

Gingrich: 30%
Romney: 40%
Paul: 30%
Everyone else: Very small number (if, say, Paul has a heart attack, Gingrich is stabbed by a vengeful ex wife relative, Romney is blown up by terrorists, etc)

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

The ModernBourbon Democrats make their predictions (which aren't much different from a couple months ago, unlike the jmfcsts):

Gingrich: 30%
Romney: 40%
Paul: 30%
Everyone else: Very small number (if, say, Paul has a heart attack, Gingrich is stabbed by a vengeful ex wife relative, Romney is blown up by terrorists, etc)

Do you really think Paul has a real shot at nomination??

Yes. He's been slowly creeping up in polling numbers, easily has the best organization/grassroots, and could probably dominate even in caucus states he's weak in. Especially considering so many don't support him now because they don't think he can beat Romney (or Obama), winning Iowa would change that.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

It's all about the electable status. He wins Iowa, and he becomes electable. Romney lost Iowa last time and became unelectable.

I don't think you know what "electable" is.

He already performs great against Obama, but he's rarely considered because there is little view that he can beat Romney to get to Obama.

However, if he wins Iowa, the "Ron Paul has a 10% ceiling and is going nowhere" view disappears. Depending on South Carolina and New Hampshire, he could knock out Gingrich (easier, with a win in South Carolina) or Romney (harder but far more worthwhile, with a win in New Hampshire). A Paul vs Gingrich contest (with a win in NH) would strongly favour Paul in most of the west and midwest (where his biggest areas of support eg. Washington, Idaho, Montana are) as well as the northeast, which is really all he needs to win. A Paul vs Romney contest would be trickier, but Romney's strongest areas are also often heavily contested by Paul (Nevada, Maine, etc), and I doubt the anti-Romney voters in the south would suddenly jump ship to Romney if Gingrich failed twice.

So I'll elaborate with more detailed percentages:
Paul wins Iowa: 50% (to 40% to Newt and 10% to Romney, justified by his good polling numbers, lack of chances to lose them short of sudden attacks which would legitimize him as a candidate, and likely superior turnout).
If Paul loses Iowa, chances of nomination are maybe 1% (Maybe a strong second could keep him up enough for close wins in caucus states and a decent position in a brokered convention). If he wins, they are about 50%.
Paul wins NH (after Iowa obviously): 30% (to Romney's 60% and Gingrich's 10%, justified by his strong presence there and momentum)
Paul wins nomination if he wins NH or loses: 70%/40% (He could beat Romney alone, but it'd be harder than Gingrich, though a NH win would give huge momentum after Iowa)
Paul wins SC: 40% (no candidate strongholds or massive focus here, but it's not an environment favourable to Paul unless he's already won Iowa)
Paul wins nomination if he wins SC: 60%/45% (Gingrich is easier to beat than Romney, but SC is right before Florida, which he won't win no matter what but could perform okay in, and Nevada which he could)
Paul wins nomination if he wins all of the above: 80% (No opposition left in practical terms, unlikely to lose barring incredible mischief on part of GOP officials)

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

It's all about the electable status. He wins Iowa, and he becomes electable. Romney lost Iowa last time and became unelectable.

I don't think you know what "electable" is.

You haven't been paying attention. I'll try to make it easy.

People say "Paul no electable!"

Paul win Iowa!

People say "Paul maybe electable. We vote Paul."

Even if we assume that your hackish fantasy will come true, winning nomination doesn't make one electable in general election.

No, the polls indicate that he is electable in the general election, especially with the independents who are generally more favourable to him than any other Republican (including Romney). Is it a hackish fantasy to think a Romney win in Iowa would seal the deal for him to win the nomination?

Besides that, the fact that Paul has the unique ability to slide to the left of Obama (when it comes to foreign policy especially) when needed gives him a strength outside the Republican base that the rest of the field lacks.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ever watch the news? Whenever Paul is mentioned, count how many times "unelectable", "gadfly", "perennial candidate" or some variation thereof is mentioned, then compare it to an actual unelectable candidate like Perry, Bachmann or Santorum and see how often its used to describe them. Anyhow,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

With a crowded field like this, practically no one is capable of getting more than 1/3rd of the vote anyway short of a calamity. If Gingrich won Iowa by that margin (and that's almost certainly what he'll win it by if he wins it at all), I doubt you'd claim that "it proves nothing because Gingrich only won by a little bit".

Remember when Obama narrowly won Iowa, or when McCain slid past a 13% nationwide polling average to dominate the rest of the election? The earlier states paint the picture for the later ones, and the margin of victory is only a bonus.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, news coverage.

National security and foreign policy aren't deal breakers with the Republicans, especially not when the economy is the biggest issue. Gingrich and Romney both have many, many more differences from the "mainstream" than Paul, and their issues actually stem from the biggest issues (backing TARP, previously opposing gun rights, stabbing fellow Republicans in the back, etc).

Anyway, even going by polling, Republican support for foreign wars is pretty low. IIRC a poll came out a while back showing at least half of Republicans retrospectively think the war in Iraq was a bad idea and that the war in Afghanistan should be ended soon.

There is no reason to think that a single area of disagreement in what happens to be a fairly minor issue with what is at best a slim majority of the party is causing Republicans to refuse to accept him.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Gingrich would be a good buy, provided you believe he will win some states on Super Tuesday.

Doubtful. Missouri, maybe, but that strikes me as more of Santorum's kinda state so no.