The Institute of 2012 GOP nomination Intrade rankings

[Mr. Morden]

And now Ryan collapses again, as the Weekly Standard says he's really really not running:

Up: Perry, Romney, Huntsman
Down: Palin, Ryan

Perry 35.9
Romney 31.5
Huntsman 7.0
Palin 5.5
Bachmann 5.4
Paul 3.0
Christie 2.1
Giuliani 2.0
Pataki 2.0
Gingrich 1.0
Ryan 0.6
Bolton 0.5
Cain 0.5
Rubio 0.5
Johnson 0.4

Iowa

Perry 47.0
Bachmann 28.0
Palin 8.3
Paul 8.1
Romney 5.0

New Hampshire

Romney 46.0
Perry 25.0
Huntsman 10.0
Paul 10.0
Bachmann 5.9

South Carolina

Perry 60.0
Bachmann 13.0
Palin 9.0
Romney 8.0
Huntsman 6.0

[Simfan34]

Pataki-mentum didn't go too far, eh?

[Mr. Morden]

Pataki drops to 0.1 on news that he's not running; Perry expands his lead, and Palin rebounds to 3rd place.

Up: Perry, Palin, Christie
Down: Romney, Pataki

Perry 37.9
Romney 29.5
Palin 8.1
Huntsman 6.5
Bachmann 5.0
Paul 3.8
Christie 3.1
Giuliani 2.3
Gingrich 1.0
Rubio 0.5
Cain 0.4
Johnson 0.4
Bolton 0.3
Santorum 0.3

Winning Individual

Obama 51.9
Perry 18.5
Romney 13.4
Paul 3.1
Palin 3.0
Huntsman 2.6
Clinton 2.4
Bachmann 2.0
Gingrich 0.6
Biden 0.5
Trump 0.5

[Bull Moose Base]

Pataki drops to 0.1 on news that he's not running; Perry expands his lead, and Palin rebounds to 3rd place.

Up: Perry, Palin, Christie
Down: Romney, Pataki

Perry 37.9
Romney 29.5
Palin 8.1
Huntsman 6.5
Bachmann 5.0
Paul 3.8
Christie 3.1
Giuliani 2.3
Gingrich 1.0
Rubio 0.5
Cain 0.4
Johnson 0.4
Bolton 0.3
Santorum 0.3

Winning Individual

Obama 51.9
Perry 18.5
Romney 13.4
Paul 3.1
Palin 3.0
Huntsman 2.6
Clinton 2.4
Bachmann 2.0
Gingrich 0.6
Biden 0.5
Trump 0.5

Bachmann and Clinton are too low here.  Perry trips himself up or the economy double dips are both fairly plausible scenarios that would strongly boost each (though I don't think Hillary will run unless Obama bows out).

Paul, Gingrich, Huntsman, Palin can't win.

[ag]

Clinton ... too low here. 

As Obama dying in office is pretty much a necessary condition for Clinton winning the presidency in 2012, is it that you believe something has to happen to the President? Because, unless this is happening, the set of states in which Obama doesn't get the nomination is pretty much a subset of the set of states in which most Republicans would win in a landslide against any Democrat.

[Bull Moose Base]

Clinton ... too low here. 

As Obama dying in office is pretty much a necessary condition for Clinton winning the presidency in 2012, is it that you believe something has to happen to the President? Because, unless this is happening, the set of states in which Obama doesn't get the nomination is pretty much a subset of the set of states in which most Republicans would win in a landslide against any Democrat.

Not at all.  Most economists I've seen estimate a 1 in 3 chance of a new recession.  Assume for the sake of argument that's correct.  I'd say if it happened, there's maybe 1 in 3 is a reasonable estimate that the country's confidence in Obama ends up so battered that he faces insurmountable pressure to give up his re-election campaign.  So I'd call it 10% chance that Obama isn't the nominee in which case I think Hillary would very likely be.  Unlikely to be sure but I think much higher likelihood than people are thinking.  5-10% chance.

[Mr. Morden]

Clinton ... too low here. 

As Obama dying in office is pretty much a necessary condition for Clinton winning the presidency in 2012, is it that you believe something has to happen to the President? Because, unless this is happening, the set of states in which Obama doesn't get the nomination is pretty much a subset of the set of states in which most Republicans would win in a landslide against any Democrat.

Not at all.  Most economists I've seen estimate a 1 in 3 chance of a new recession.  Assume for the sake of argument that's correct.  I'd say if it happened, there's maybe 1 in 3 is a reasonable estimate that the country's confidence in Obama ends up so battered that he faces insurmountable pressure to give up his re-election campaign.  So I'd call it 10% chance that Obama isn't the nominee in which case I think Hillary would very likely be.  Unlikely to be sure but I think much higher likelihood than people are thinking.  5-10% chance.

But then would her chances of winning the GE really be so great?

(Btw, Intrade has Clinton at a 5.0% chance of being the nominee, and a 2.4% chance of being elected president in the general election.)

[Bull Moose Base]

Clinton ... too low here.  

As Obama dying in office is pretty much a necessary condition for Clinton winning the presidency in 2012, is it that you believe something has to happen to the President? Because, unless this is happening, the set of states in which Obama doesn't get the nomination is pretty much a subset of the set of states in which most Republicans would win in a landslide against any Democrat.

Not at all.  Most economists I've seen estimate a 1 in 3 chance of a new recession.  Assume for the sake of argument that's correct.  I'd say if it happened, there's maybe 1 in 3 is a reasonable estimate that the country's confidence in Obama ends up so battered that he faces insurmountable pressure to give up his re-election campaign.  So I'd call it 10% chance that Obama isn't the nominee in which case I think Hillary would very likely be.  Unlikely to be sure but I think much higher likelihood than people are thinking.  5-10% chance.

But then would her chances of winning the GE really be so great?

(Btw, Intrade has Clinton at a 5.0% chance of being the nominee, and a 2.4% chance of being elected president in the general election.)

I think they would, yes.  I think it's likely Obama either frames the debate to boost his approvals a couple points and/or gets lucky and avoids a new dip.  But if not, I think his own approvals bear the brunt of it and switching to Hillary is the equivalent of switching to Cuomo in NY and she probably coasts in the general.

*Factor into my analysis that my (biased?) take on the GOP is that I don't think Obama will have that hard a time getting re-elected if things stay on the course they're on: creeping growth.  Even Romney is less electable than polls are showing in my opinion.

[Politico]

Clinton ... too low here.  

As Obama dying in office is pretty much a necessary condition for Clinton winning the presidency in 2012, is it that you believe something has to happen to the President? Because, unless this is happening, the set of states in which Obama doesn't get the nomination is pretty much a subset of the set of states in which most Republicans would win in a landslide against any Democrat.

Not at all.  Most economists I've seen estimate a 1 in 3 chance of a new recession.  Assume for the sake of argument that's correct.  I'd say if it happened, there's maybe 1 in 3 is a reasonable estimate that the country's confidence in Obama ends up so battered that he faces insurmountable pressure to give up his re-election campaign.  So I'd call it 10% chance that Obama isn't the nominee in which case I think Hillary would very likely be.  Unlikely to be sure but I think much higher likelihood than people are thinking.  5-10% chance.

Good post, but I disagree on the last point. If this scenario unfolds, the Democrats are pretty much screwed, so I think Clinton would rather sit out until 2016 rather than run and lose in 2012.

It is either Obama, Biden (If, god forbid, Obama died), or the GOP.

[Averroës Nix]

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?

[TheGlobalizer]

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.

[ag]

As Obama dying in office is pretty much a necessary condition for Clinton winning the presidency in 2012, 

Not at all.  Most economists I've seen estimate a 1 in 3 chance of a new recession.  Assume for the sake of argument that's correct.  I'd say if it happened, there's maybe 1 in 3 is a reasonable estimate that the country's confidence in Obama ends up so battered that he faces insurmountable pressure to give up his re-election campaign.  So I'd call it 10% chance that Obama isn't the nominee in which case I think Hillary would very likely be. 
[/quote]

If all those eventualities were to come to pass, Clinton's (or, for that matter, any Democrats) probability of winning would be, rougly, equal, to the probability of the Republican candidate being found in bed with a dead underage boy during the weekend before the election. Not impossible, but very unlikely.

[Mr. Morden]

Up: Romney
Down: Palin

Perry 38.5
Romney 31.1
Huntsman 7.0
Palin 6.5
Bachmann 4.4
Paul 3.4
Christie 2.7
Giuliani 1.9
Gingrich 1.5
Cain 0.6
Ryan 0.6
Johnson 0.5
Bolton 0.4
J. Bush 0.3
Santorum 0.3

Four years ago at this time:

Democrats
Clinton 67.5
Obama 16.8
Edwards 7.2
Gore 6.9
Richardson 1.2
Biden 0.5
Dodd 0.2

Republicans
Giuliani 38.5
Romney 23.6
Thompson 22.9
McCain 4.2
Paul 4.0
Huckabee 3.5
Gingrich 3.2
Rice 0.5
Hagel 0.3
Tancredo 0.1
J. Bush 0.1

[Simfan34]

A portent, eh?

[Averroës Nix]

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.

[TheGlobalizer]

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.

[Ⓐ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"

[Mr. Morden]

Final pre-debate update.  Perry+Romney combine for more than 70 now.  And Paul is now narrowly ahead of Bachmann for 5th place.

GOP nominee

Perry 39.0
Romney 32.9
Huntsman 7.0
Palin 6.0
Paul 4.0
Bachmann 3.9
Christie 2.6
Gingrich 1.5
Giuliani 1.1
Cain 0.9
Johnson 0.5
J. Bush 0.3
Rubio 0.3
Ryan 0.3
Santorum 0.3

Dem. nominee

Obama 90.5
Clinton 6.0
Biden 3.0

Winning party

Dems 50.7
GOP 47.6
other 1.8

[Mr. Morden]

Post-debate update: Romney narrows the gap, but Perry still slightly ahead.

Up: Romney
Down: Perry

Perry 37.9
Romney 35.1
Huntsman 6.7
Palin 5.8
Paul 3.4
Bachmann 3.0
Christie 1.9
Gingrich 1.5
Giuliani 1.1
Cain 0.5
Johnson 0.5
J. Bush 0.3
Rubio 0.3
Santorum 0.3

Will the following potential candidates run?

Palin 25.3
Giuliani 12.0
Christie 6.0

[Mr. Morden]

And just now Romney overtook Perry, and is back in the lead:

Romney 36.8
Perry 35.5

[ag]

Yeah, Romney seems to stay up

Romney 36.7
Perry 34.7
Huntsman 7.1
Palin 5.0
Bachmann 3.2
Paul 3.1
Gingrich 1.5
Christie 1.2
Giuliani 1.0
Cain 0.6
Johnson 0.6
J. Bush 0.3
Rubio 0.2
Santorum 0.2
Bolton 0.2
Ryan 0.2
Jindal 0.2

[Politico]

Perhaps most interesting, Obama just fell below 50% on InTrade for winning the 2012 election (Currently trading at 49.9%). I believe this is the first time this has ever happened?

[Middle-aged Europe]

Perhaps most interesting, Obama just fell below 50% on InTrade for winning the 2012 election (Currently trading at 49.9%). I believe this is the first time this has ever happened?

No, has already happened a couple of times in August.

[Mr. Morden]

Perhaps most interesting, Obama just fell below 50% on InTrade for winning the 2012 election (Currently trading at 49.9%). I believe this is the first time this has ever happened?

No, has already happened a couple of times in August.

Indeed, it's happened before.

At the moment, Obama is at 49.6 to win reelection, but the Democratic Party is at 50.1 to win the presidency, as there's a slight chance that a Democrat other than Obama wins the election.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Romny has no path to the nomination...short him