There was a post last night that offered several (plausible) explanations for why Mitt Romney’s campaign is collapsing.
Quite fairly, Romney’s supporters questioned the premise of the post — Romney isn’t collapsing, they argued. I actually had the same reaction to the post, though it was largely that the imprecise term ‘collapse’ was too strong — my sense has been that Romney is in a ‘decline’ — equally imprecise, I admit.
So I decided to check out my opinion with some actual numbers. This chart is based on creating a rolling average of the most recent five national polls as of the indicated date. The source of the data is RCP. Obviously, this method creates anomalies, since there are periods of many polls (four this month) and other periods with few (winter 2009-10), but I think it will be of interest nonetheless.
So, is Romney in decline/collapse? Yes and no.
Yes, from his high point in spring 2009 he has been in steady decline. But no, he’s really not doing substantially worse than his main competitors.
Huckabee has had a bit of a resurgence over the past few months (about which his cheerleaders are crowing loudly), but in context, as the chart shows, it appears to be no more than the brief bumps all three have had previously. From his peak to his trough just before this bump, Huckabee’s decline was actually sharper than Romney’s.
Palin has the steadiest and worst decline, accentuated by a recent sharp drop after a period of stabilization in the second half of 2010 (during which she got ahead of Huckabee occasionally during his bottoming out).
The most interesting point, I think, is that they’re all down. In part because the pollsters are now including more competitors, but in part (in my opinion) because there’s little enthusiasm for any of them.
Update: I added Gingrich from the point where he began to be routinely included in polls. There are modest adjustments to his first few data points because of a poll he was omitted from, but it doesn’t alter the line much.
March 5th, 2011 at 2:03 pm
Well done, Bob.
I would add that Newt is ALSO well off his highs. So ALL of the Big 4 are in a secular bear market (to use a little stock market lingo). It’s further evidence that a growing number of Republicans are asking, “Is there anyone else?”
March 5th, 2011 at 2:14 pm
Really, I think this shows that there is a quest for an alternative candidate. All of the Big Four have serious flaws, ones that are either crippling in the primaries and/or the general election.
I think though, that the quest for the “perfect candidate” is going to end in failure. Like the Democrats in 1992 or 2004, at this point we have no front-runner and no consensus nominee. It’s going to be a brawl fro the nomination.
March 5th, 2011 at 2:24 pm
Matt: I didn’t include Gingrich because he was omitted from some of the earlier polls — these three were the only one included in all, and so offered the fairest comparison.
But yes — Gingrich is in equal (or worse) decline. I may re-do the chart including Gingrich with some adjustments for the omissions.
March 5th, 2011 at 2:26 pm
Note that at their peak in late ’09, the Big 3 peaked collectively at about 72% combined. Now they combine for about 52%. They have lost a quarter of their market share.
March 5th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/4947/primaries.jpg
an even better look…Huckabee and Romney trade the lead on and off, sometimes Gingrich and romney move opposite, sometimes they move up or down together. Its a close race.
Overall, I think its far more difficult to remain a die hard while the race isn’t going on, and some people who jumped on to support Huckabee or Romney or Palin after 2008 have now stepped back to consider their options.
All candidates have their drawbacks, and there are always those who people run to wondering if they could be “it”, only to step back disappointed later on.
March 5th, 2011 at 2:29 pm
Polls last year had fewer alternatives, so the “more competitors” argument is pretty persuasive. There are a lot of people not in any given camp who are searching for someone to be enthusiastic about, but I haven’t noticed any decline in enthusiasm among those in Romney’s camp.
The people who supported him last time, for the most part are still supporting him. For every poll that shows him declining in recent months, I can show a poll where he’s ascending. He seems to have found a floor of core support, below which he hasn’t gone. To invoke the language of Mathematics, 17 or 18% for him appears to be a lower boundary condition.
With the constant barrage of criticism aimed at him from ubiquitous quarters, his sustained strength is pretty remarkable.
March 5th, 2011 at 2:56 pm
The “alternative” candidates who have yet to go through the gauntlet of a national campaign will sooner or later see their own flaws come to light once under the microscope. Every statement will be examined for possible meaning and spin.
We don’t yet know how they will hold up under such scrutiny.
March 5th, 2011 at 2:57 pm
Nice work, Bob..
The latest four month time period surge from November 2010 to to March today equals about a FOUR point bump which is pretty good for the Huck camp. Although we want more!
Same period, Mitt down a point, Palin down four.
So my take away is: Huck has had a EIGHT point recent swing upwards compared to the ‘Cuda, but a plus FIVE vis-à-vis Romney.
March 5th, 2011 at 2:59 pm
#8:
And have you stopped to think, that in more than a year of his own, weekly television show, in which he has not had to face any unwanted scrutiny, and has had the abiliy the portray himself, others, and the issues in the manner most favorable to himself, he has only managed a 5-pt. uptick against a frontrunner who has not only been largely out of hte spotlight, but who has been routinely criticized by both the media and the conservative wing, and who is said to be a raging liberal?
March 5th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
I sure would advice him to not announce in April, more like july and pocket those 3 months to close the window on anybody else jumping in late + remove the incoming arrows others running will slam him with. With huck giving him the open to announce in july, it would be downright idiotic to put himself out in april
March 5th, 2011 at 3:15 pm
“I sure would advice him to not announce in April, more like july ”
Only a month before Ames? Thats lunacy.
Romney is giving a big speech in NH today….I expect he’ll announce his comittee in a couple of weeks, followed by a formal kick off before Easter.
March 5th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
I still think it’s 70/30, Huck get’s in around summer and about three months later than any of the other big four with Romney announcing April right after Newt.
I think Huck will let them cannibalize each other for awhile.
As for Palin, she’ll take a pass this cycle, imo.
March 5th, 2011 at 3:23 pm
Newt’s been graphed by Bob now. Ouch!
March 5th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
Matt #4: Yes, collectively the Not-So-Big 3 have declined from 72% a year ago to 53% today. The Not-So-Big 4 peaked at 83% in July and are at 63% today.
Dave #6: “Polls last year had fewer alternatives, so the “more competitors” argument is pretty persuasive.”
Absolutely agree.
“There are a lot of people not in any given camp who are searching for someone to be enthusiastic about, but I haven’t noticed any decline in enthusiasm among those in Romney’s camp.”
Again agree. Nor have I noticed a decline in Huckabee or Palin enthusiasm. One could even make a point that as a camp shrinks, the remaining members are the most enthusiastic.
Certainly smaller groups (e.g., Paul) are often the most enthusiastic of all.
Unfortunately, the enthusiasm of die-hards, while a positive, can’t win elections unless it proves contagious. We’re not seeing any sign of that here.
“With the constant barrage of criticism aimed at him from ubiquitous quarters, his sustained strength is pretty remarkable.”
Palin supporters could say the same. In fact, they do — constantly. But the question is whether the candidate stands up under the attention/criticism. See chart.
Hamaca #7: “We don’t yet know how they will hold up under such scrutiny.”
Totally agree. Only time will tell.
Craig #8: “So my take away is: Huck has had a EIGHT point recent swing upwards compared to the ‘Cuda, but a plus FIVE vis-à-vis Romney.”
Which totally misses the point — but I expected that.
March 5th, 2011 at 3:34 pm
Was Palin’s most recent decline due to the egregiously unfair attacks after the Tucson shootings?
Looking at her line, she declined from last March to July, then held steady until January. I can’t remember, but did she perhaps have less campaigning and media exposure during March-July than she did from July-January? I don’t recall more criticism than usual between March and July.
If so, continue this thought: If she runs for President, she’ll have more exposure than she did from July-January, so if she held steady then, could she improve her numbers by actually running? And if she sits back and doesn’t run, will her numbers stagnate or fall further?
So perhaps the question for her is, Why wait, if it won’t change anything? Run now if that’s the only way to change her poll numbers.
March 5th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
I LOLED when I saw this…
March 5th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
To those of you like snarky Bob who think Huck’s three month rise is phony: Huck will handle the MSNBC’s and other liberals just fine while watching from the comfort of his number one rated show on Fox the Republican candidates cannibalize each other 24/7: April, May, June, and July.
It’s brilliant.
March 5th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
P.S. By “exposure” I of course meant Palin doing her own campaigning and getting her message out. I didn’t mean negative articles or comments made by the media at any time just because they’re looking for a Republican to attack today. At least if she runs, she might have the chance to drive the narrative, rather than leave it up to the liberal media to teach people how to remember her.
March 5th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
Bob.
Sorry that Cato dislikes Daniels so much but join the club.
March 5th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Romney doesn’t need to worry about no ames straw poll. He needs to avoid taking hits and leaving an opening for person x to jump in cause folks don’t like the first batch. The longer the process drags out the better spot he is in. Huck gets it, the company men around romney don’t if he goes ahead with an april announcement.
March 5th, 2011 at 4:47 pm
#20:
The “don’t do anything that might damage you” strategy was what nearly caused Ronald Reagan to be defeated in 1980 and George W. Bush in 2000. Both were much stronger frontrunners than Romney and they felt that they could just fly above the rest of the field. Turns out the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire thought differently.
If Romney is confident about his ideas and organization and is comfortable addressing the questions and concerns of voters, then he has no reason to try and avoid them or his competition.
March 5th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
20
blue,
We usually agree, no change here. I think both Mitt & Mike should skip Ames this time around thus rendering it irrelevant. Neither guy has much to gain by winning it, why create an opening for a lesser known, like huck in ’08?
March 5th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
I think Romney’s CPAC speech, which got very tepid reviews, was very much a don’t rock the boat effort. However, I think it’s pretty clear that the mood of the party is not don’t rock the boat.
But the additional problem, as Jonathan notes, is that Romney is not much of a front-runner (if at all) and that this is very early for that sort of strategy. It’s equivalent to going into a prevent defense with a 7-0 lead early in the second quarter.
March 5th, 2011 at 5:08 pm
“However, I think it’s pretty clear that the mood of the party is not don’t rock the boat.”
This is true as well….Obama is doing quite enough to shrled his own chances of reelection to bits – why expose yourself?
But I think a much bigger thing is…besides Romney and Gingrich…we don’t really know which big names are running, and the strategy that the candidates will have to chase is very dependent on who they are running against.
March 5th, 2011 at 5:10 pm
Bob,
Mitt’s speech at CPAC was extremely well received. Both Ballrooms were packed for the event, and it received sustained standing ovations in each one. This is borne out by the CPAC straw poll results, in which Mitt blew away all of the other serious contenders for the nomination.
He’s running on the economy, not running out the clock.
March 5th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
#25:
Dave, Romney’s speech might have been well-received in the ballrooms, but let’s face it; Daniels was the real winner at CPAC. His “new red menace” was the line of the Conference, making it into the mainstream media and earning him praise for his speech, something that doesn’t usually happen. CPAC was Daniels’s coming out party and the new person at the party always receives more interest than someone who’s been around for a while.
That’s part of why I think a “ride above the herd” strategy is doomed to fail. It creates an opening for someone else to slip in.
March 5th, 2011 at 5:38 pm
Jonathan,
I’ve heard that Daniels was the winner there, and I liked his speech, but I haven’t seen any tangible evidence that he’s moved out of the second tier…..or, for that matter, that he’s moved at all. The intangibles suggest that he won’t enter the fray, as he seems determined to ride out the current storm in Indiana.
March 5th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
#27:
Dave, I will say that Daniels failed to capitalize on the coverage he got from his speech. He should have gone out and done some more speeches or done more press interviews or something along those lines. I maintain he won at CPAC, but I do agree that he didn’t do much with it.
March 5th, 2011 at 8:06 pm
Nice work and good post Bob.
March 5th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
#17…What’s with you Craig?
Bob does a good job posting a data (facts) based analysis with no spin and you don’t buy it?
The whole point was to show that Romney is not “collapsing” but that all the leading candidates, for whatever reason, are on decline.
Yeah, Huckabee has an up tick right now….but nobody knows if it wlll last….especially since Huckabee is currently in a gaffe and spin phase.
Bod decidedly did not predict the future…
March 5th, 2011 at 8:19 pm
#21….Exactly…..which is why I don’t understand what Huckabee is doing…
March 5th, 2011 at 8:35 pm
I agree that Romney has been in play it safe mode, and I wasn’t much impressed with his CPAC speech.
I think the play it safe strategy is more in response to the MSM’s nebulous desire to prop up Obama rather than a response to the competition.
Daniels’ speech was popular among the Right, but usual suspects in the Press deadpaned it…to much religious stuff, etc., etc., so I can kind of see Romney’s strategy.
Unlike the die-hard RINO hunters on the Right, Reagan knew, and Romney understands, that as a politician you have to win to effect change. We need the independents and the middle to beat Obama……period.
Throwing out the right red meat to get a score of 100 among ultra-conservatives/libertarians will get us 4 more years of Obama…
But yes, Romney better get to the “beef” pretty soon or he won’t expand his support.
March 5th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
8.Craig for Huck in 2012 Says:
March 5th, 2011 at 2:57 pm
9.Matthew Kilburn Says:
March 5th, 2011 at 2:59 pm
===
Nope.
March 5th, 2011 at 8:46 pm
Because you win with what God given talents you’ve got.
Instead of whining about what others are blessed with.
March 5th, 2011 at 8:54 pm
As Huck says, “my race, my pace.”
March 5th, 2011 at 9:16 pm
So I was playing president forever today(something i haven’t done in a long time)…and i lost both times with Huckabee…someone who i’ve won with and lost with a bunch. Anyways, i was playing the 08 campaign, and i lost Iowa to Romney, lost New Hampshire to Tancredo, but won michigan, south carolina and florida….only to then lose the nomination to Guiliani. I thought it was very funny…because it was an impossible scenario. Tancredo couldn’t win jack, and Guliani was ruined after losing Florida. But i guess without McCain winning anything early…that Guliani capitalized on the moderate support. It was an interesting scenario.
March 5th, 2011 at 9:21 pm
[...] link [...]
March 5th, 2011 at 9:31 pm
23. Bob, “It’s equivalent to going into a prevent defense with a 7-0 lead early in the second quarter.”
I always love sporting analogies. In this case, I’m seeing it more as the preseason and only giving your starters limited minutes–perhaps even just the first few series.
March 5th, 2011 at 9:55 pm
#38…….Yep
March 5th, 2011 at 9:59 pm
Jerald,
“I agree that Romney has been in play it safe mode, and I wasn’t much impressed with his CPAC speech.”
I respect the candor there. I watched the video, and thought, “The Rombots better hope this isn’t a preview of his stump speech.” He’s going to have to do better than platitudes and Obama bashing, especially if someone like Daniels is pushing the debate.
March 5th, 2011 at 10:01 pm
….I’m back to thinking Daniels won’t run though. It’s such a seesaw. It may be up to Pawlenty to push the debate on entitlement reform. I hope he’s up to it. For all his overhyped reputation, I don’t think it will be Newt. He’s too busy tilting at windmills as he panders to SoCons he’ll never get.
March 5th, 2011 at 10:34 pm
MWS,
I agree on Daniels…and to be honest, i think the worst thing that could happen to romney, is for Daniels and Huck to both not run. I think T-Paw explodes in that scenario…wins Iowa…and can play better down south than Romney can. Evangelical territory could be friendly to him if there is no strong southerner in the contest.
March 5th, 2011 at 10:49 pm
watered,
TPaw’s path seems to be getting clearer and clearer. David Brooks said recently that for all practical purposes, this race may be Pawlenty vs. Romney (he thinks Daniels, Palin, and Huck all take a pass). In that very plausible scenario, I like TPaw’s chances.
I imagine Pawlenty is praying that Daniels and Huck stay out. In that case, if he plays his hand right, he can build a winning coalition of SoCons, fiscal hawks, and good government moderates.
March 5th, 2011 at 10:50 pm
…..how overtly Pawlenty courts the Tea Party may depend on whether Palin runs.
March 5th, 2011 at 10:56 pm
I thought CPAC showed that Daniels was running, plus his comments that he’d step aside if somebody addresses the big issues — but that nobody is doing so.
But I honestly don’t know. He seems to be one of those rare politicians who really doesn’t care about being president. I think that’s one of the things many of us like about him — it’s so different from an Obama or Romney. To say nothing of the ludicrous ambitions of nobodies like Roemer or Santorum.
March 5th, 2011 at 11:04 pm
Expanding on #45, I recall reading somewhere a comment about the presidency that was along the lines of Groucho’s famous statement that he wouldn’t belong to a club that would admit people like him: It was to the effect that anyone who was arrogant enough to think that he should be president, and who enjoys power enough to want the office — is probably a very dangerous person to give it to.
March 5th, 2011 at 11:09 pm
Bob,
I was thinking of that Groucho comment while reading #45.
Great minds…….
March 6th, 2011 at 4:21 am
I disagree with Jerald on his comment
“Unlike the die-hard RINO hunters on the Right, Reagan knew, and Romney understands, that as a politician you have to win to effect change. We need the independents and the middle to beat Obama……period.
Throwing out the right red meat to get a score of 100 among ultra-conservatives/libertarians will get us 4 more years of Obama…”
It is playing to the moderate and the center not standing firm on principal and message that loses elections. For instance Ford, Dole, McCain as opposed to Reagan, 1994 Republican Congress, and the recent congress of 2010. We need not have a Rino to be our spokesperson or we will be sure to lose. We have a champion of conservative principals and we are more likely to have victory.
March 6th, 2011 at 5:16 am
#48….Benjamin…no body is talking about not standing firm on principle and message….but……the principle and message has to be true enough and broad enough to attack more than a sliver of the electorate.
A handful of hard-right folks might think their line of reasoning is the one true way, but if the rest of the right leaning folks don’t agree with them, there could be problems at the ballot box.
We need to be as inclusive and practical as possible without abandoning our core values……but that doesn’t mean the core values have to be overly narrow…
March 6th, 2011 at 8:30 am
Jerald,
I watched Mitt’s CPAC speech, and it was all red meat. It was a string of platitudes and Obama bashing. I think he spent about 80% of it ripping Obama. If he proposed anything more substantive than “We have to get America working again” I must have missed it. Now with his similar speech in NH yesterday, it appears Mitt’s strategy is to run as Ann Coulter Jr.
March 6th, 2011 at 8:54 am
Jerald: “Unlike the die-hard RINO hunters on the Right, Reagan knew, and Romney understands, that as a politician you have to win to effect change.” — no offense to all my many friends on here but this is the best comment I have read on this website in a long time.
@Matt – I’ll say right now that I’m waiting for a lot more from Romney. I hope that right now since he is a non-candidate he is going more the red meat route in speeches but once he becomes an “official” candidate that he gets back to fixing the economy. I suppose he needs a couple of “red meat” clips for his advertising in IA and SC.
April 1st, 2011 at 10:44 pm
[...] Romney was ‘collapsing’. I decided to look into the idea, and came up with this post (Is Romney Collapsing? No More Than Others). The numbers were based on rolling averages (most recent five polls) going back to late [...]
July 7th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
[...] When I started doing this series of posts, back in March, it was to explore a popular meme of the moment, which was being phased as “Is Romney Collapsing?” [...]
August 3rd, 2011 at 6:57 am
Oxycontin….
Oxycontin….