Predicting Next Republicans To Exit The Race
So we're down to the paltry number of "only" 15 Republican candidates for president, as Scott Walker has now joined Rick Perry on the sidelines of the race. I must admit, I'm doing a pretty horrible job of picking who will exit the race in what order, as when I wrote about the subject last month, neither man was on my list of the first five candidates I thought would drop out earliest. Both Perry and Walker had substantial support from the billionaire class, which meant both had plenty of funds pouring in to super PACs to support their candidacy. The problem for both men, in the end, turned out not to be lack of funds to air television ads, but rather lack of funds to keep the lights on and pay their official campaign staff. Before their respective exits, Perry put almost all his campaign staff on a volunteer basis (because he couldn't afford the payroll) and Walker announced he was pulling back everywhere but Iowa, and shrinking his campaign staff accordingly. So even with millions sitting in super PAC coffers, what killed their campaigns in the end was lack of financial support for the campaign itself.
This was not foreseen by much of anyone, least of all me. In that previous article I wrote:
Both Rick Santorum and Rick Perry seem to be out of money already (Perry reportedly just put all his campaign staffers on volunteer basis, since he couldn't make the payroll). But while running out of money usually stops a candidacy in its tracks, this is not always true. Some candidacies are closer to crusades than anything else -- true-believers in one cause or another that won't quit no matter what happens (at least, until the primaries get underway). And in the new Citizens United world, super PACs mean even a technically-broke candidate can still be out there running television ads. So picking the early exits isn't as easy as it might seem.
I then went on to more-or-less confidently predict:
Surprisingly, even with his current money troubles, I don't think Rick Perry will be among the first five to leave the race. Perry's campaign may be broke, but his super PAC has already raised at least $17 million, which many of the other candidates can't match.
Obviously, I was flat wrong, except for that bit about crusades. More on that in a moment. I picked the following as the first five Republicans to exit the race: Jim Gilmore, George Pataki, Lindsey Graham, Rick Santorum, and Bobby Jindal. What I failed to realize was the nature of the different campaigns that are out there -- whether successful or not. There are serious politicians running for president who care about their future in politics, and then there are others who either already have a secure political future or have no political future whatsoever. In either of those last two cases, calculations about future political careers don't really apply to the decision to get out of an unwinnable contest. In both cases -- secure political future or no political future -- there's not much to lose by staying in, to put it another way.
Even with all the money pouring into politics after the Citizens United case, there is still supposed to be a dividing line between actual campaign organizations and super PACs. There are some things that super PACs are not allowed to pay for -- although even these limits are going to be tested in this campaign by various candidates. Even so, things like renting an office, paying staff who schedule appearances and plan the campaign, traveling to and from those appearances, and all the other mundane nuts-and-bolts costs of campaigning absolutely must be paid for by the official campaign and not super PACs. This is why even with millions in a super PAC's bank account, Rick Perry and Scott Walker found it increasingly hard to pay their staff.
This only matters, of course, if a candidate is running a serious campaign for the presidency. It absolutely does not matter for candidates who never had a chance in the first place. If you're running just to see your name on the ballot, then it is irrelevant whether you even have any campaign appearances or staff. Likewise, if you're running on some personal crusade for an individual issue, you are likely not going to be stopped by having no money -- your cause is so great, you'll keep going no matter what happens, because you see the issue as larger than yourself.
With this in mind, let's try to predict who could leave the race next. To do so, I'm first going to divide the candidates up into three groups: vanity campaigns, crusaders, and serious candidates. On that last one, by "serious" I mean the attitude of the candidate, and not how popular or successful any particular campaign currently is (just to be clear).
I'd put six Republicans in the "vanity" category, three of whom are doing quite well right now and three of whom are not. The three who have not caught fire: Jim Gilmore, George Pataki, and Bobby Jindal. The three who are doing phenomenally well right now (they're leading the pack, in fact): Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, and Donald Trump. These six are thus currently both at the top and the bottom of the polls. That may, of course, change (it certainly has for Fiorina). But it doesn't change the fact that at heart all of these candidates were essentially running just to see their name on the ballot. Six months ago, nobody gave any of them any chance to actually win the race, but they didn't care and jumped in anyway.
In the "crusader" category, there are five candidates: Rick Santorum, Lindsey Graham, Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, and Ted Cruz. There are similarities between three of them (Santorum, Huckabee, and Cruz), who are all hoping to attract the Christian right, the Tea Party, or some combination of the two. Graham is running to become Field Marshal of America, in order to get America's foreign policy back on a "bomb as many countries as possible" strategy. Paul is largely following in the footsteps of his Libertarian father, challenging Republican orthodoxy on many issues. One way or another, all of these candidates are true believers in their cause, no matter what the polling says.
Which brings us to the "serious" (or perhaps "establishment" is a better term) candidates: Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, and Rick Perry. All of these men see a viable political future for themselves even if they don't win the nomination. Perhaps they'll run for senator or governor, or perhaps they'll just return to the elected position they already occupy. Either way, they're not just running as a lark, they truly thought they had a clear shot at victory.
Now, I realize that my placement of several candidates into these three categories is arguable. Bobby Jindal might be considered a serious candidate, for instance, or maybe Lindsey Graham belongs in that final category. Rick Perry might be classified a vanity candidate -- for the second time around, even. Maybe I've stacked the deck a little to support my final argument, in other words.
Even so, it struck me that the two who have already dropped out were both serious candidates. There is absolutely no reason why Jim Gilmore is still in the race, since he didn't even make either stage in the second Republican debate. What this tells me is that Gilmore (or Pataki, for that matter) likely won't be the next to exit. I could, however, see one of the three vanity candidates whose campaigns have taken off perhaps decide to drop out if and when their poll numbers crash back to single digits, to spare themselves embarrassment. But it's not really going out on a limb to say I don't think that Carson, Fiorina, or Trump will be among the next to leave the race, since it'll take awhile for any of their polling spikes to dissipate, should it eventually happen.
Of the crusaders, my gut feeling is that the first to go would be either Santorum, Graham, or Cruz. If polling within South Carolina or Texas started to show that Graham and Cruz were hurting their chances for re-election to the Senate, I could see them making a quick exit, in an effort to salvage their political future. Santorum is harder to make a case for, since he was one of the last Republicans to exit the race the last time he ran (though this was mostly due to his spike in polling happening after all the other "flavor of the month" candidates on the Republican side). But in reality, all of the crusaders look like they're having too much fun in the debates to pull the plug before the next one happens.
This leaves the serious candidates. Of these six, Walker and Perry are already out. Among the four remaining, there is one obvious choice for the next to go: Chris Christie. Christie's polling has been terrible, the niche he had planned to occupy (the loudest and most belligerent candidate in the race) has been completely taken over by Trump, and depending on the criteria used, he may not even make it to the primetime debate next time around, which would be a big demotion. Of the others, Jeb Bush is obviously in it for the long haul no matter what his polling looks like. John Kasich is enjoying a bit of a bump in polling in the crucial state of New Hampshire, so he'll likely stay in at least until their primary. This leaves Marco Rubio, who may indeed also stay in the race until the voting starts. However, Rubio is the only one with a very hard choice he'll soon have to make, because Florida forbids him from running for two offices simultaneously. This means that when the deadline for filing for office arrives, Rubio will have to choose between running for re-election as a senator and running for the presidency. If his polling hasn't budged by the time this deadline arrives, I could easily see him taking the safer route and attempting to continue his job in the Senate.
Taking all of this into account, I'm going to rashly predict the next three Republicans to exit the race. I realize I'm already 0-for-2 in doing so, but (much like the candidates currently polling at one percent or less) I'm sincerely hoping to improve those numbers. So my new prediction is that the first to exit will be Chris Christie. He'll slink back to New Jersey nursing thoughts of what might have been. Next out will be Bobby Jindal, who will run out of money and make news by laying off campaign staff (or putting them on a volunteer basis), just like Perry and Walker before him. And the third to get out, right before the Florida filing deadline, will be Marco Rubio, who will then jump into the Senate race to keep his seat.
Those are my humble predictions (very humble, I should say, after being so wrong in the first round). As always, feel free to share your picks in the comments. The way I figure it, with 14 Republican candidates still left to exit the race, sooner or later I'm going to guess at least a few of them right.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
What a weird day. The CEO of a fraudulent organization had to resign for selling an intentionally defective product even though he was apparently not even personally aware of the swindle. Meanwhile, the boss of an enormous trans-national criminal gang gets help from the president, congress, and the entire media to sell his defective product.
I'm already longing for the days of All Trump TV.
What does Donald have to do to get some attention? Speak to a JEB-like, half-empty conference hall in South Carolina?
I read that the filing deadline in Florida isn't till May 2016. That gives Rubio a lot of time and it will be interesting to see if he takes that long to decide. He could really jam up the GOP's chances of holding that senate seat.
I think that Rant Paul is in it for the long haul. He'll rely on the Paul cult to prop himself up. The Donald obviously is afraid that Paul will be a thorn in his side. At the debate, he had to know that Christie was number 11, but he attacked Paul instead.
Chris,
I must admit, I'm doing a pretty horrible job of picking who will exit the race in what order, as when I wrote about the subject last month, neither man was on my list of the first five candidates I thought would drop out earliest. Both Perry and Walker had substantial support from the billionaire class, which meant both had plenty of funds pouring in to super PACs to support their candidacy. The problem for both men, in the end, turned out not to be lack of funds to air television ads, but rather lack of funds to keep the lights on and pay their official campaign staff.
Maybe there is a lesson here.
Maybe the dollars propping up a campaign aren't nearly as important as the character of the candidate and the policies he or she is espousing.
And, just maybe, this is why none of the Republican candidates left standing has more than a snowballs chance in Hell of becoming the next POTUS.
I'd put six Republicans in the "vanity" category, three of whom are doing quite well right now and three of whom are not. The three who have not caught fire: Jim Gilmore, George Pataki, and Bobby Jindal. The three who are doing phenomenally well right now (they're leading the pack, in fact): Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, and Donald Trump. These six are thus currently both at the top and the bottom of the polls. That may, of course, change (it certainly has for Fiorina). But it doesn't change the fact that at heart all of these candidates were essentially running just to see their name on the ballot. Six months ago, nobody gave any of them any chance to actually win the race, but they didn't care and jumped in anyway.
I would have to dispute this..
To be able to make this statement, you would have to be able to read the mind of the candidates themselves..
Having said that.. Can't argue with your predictions because they make sense...
Michale
Maybe the dollars propping up a campaign aren't nearly as important as the character of the candidate and the policies he or she is espousing.
Interesting theory... I like it.. :D
And, just maybe, this is why none of the Republican candidates left standing has more than a snowballs chance in Hell of becoming the next POTUS.
If character is the litmus test, then how do you explain Hillary's front-runner status? :D
Michale
She doesn't have a lot of competition?
She doesn't have a lot of competition?
Touche' :D
But don't you think it's a sad state of the Democrat Party that they only "viable" candidate the Democrat Party can field is someone of Hillary's immoral, unethical and downright bad character??
I mean, what's the first word that pops into Joe Sixpack's head when you say TRUMP...
Arrogant prick...
What's the first word that pops into Joe Sixpack's head when you say HILLARY...
Filthy liar....
Of the two choices, an arrogant prick or a filthy liar, which one is better for POTUS....
The choice is clear...
At least to a political agnostic such as myself..
Michale
I had a dream last night.. I got up this morning and logged into DRUDGE and say big bold 122point type..
HILLARY QUITS!!
But alas, it was just a dream....
Or was it?? :D
Michale
Remember before how ya'all claimed that Hillary could easily beat any GOP candidate and I said just wait until Hillary's email server scandal percolates...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/24/carly-fiorina-tops-hillary-clinton-head-head-match/
It's tough being right all....er.... most of the time.. :D
Michale
Gilmore. Pataki and Santorum are running for President???!!!! Why has no one been informed?
Crusader Candidates who never quit. I prefer the term Zombie Candidates. Lurching around in the statistical noise, looking for brains to turn into zombie voters. The politically undead. Difficult to eradicate due to low maintenance needs and viral marketing strategy. Zombie voters tend to show up at Thanksgiving family gatherings. A drunk uncle/aunt is a political zombie that doesn't ever get around to voting.
"a political agnostic such as myself.."
There are no agnostics in Fox Holes.
There are no agnostics in Fox Holes.
Er..... uh...... I got nuthin'... :D
Michale
"The problem for both men, in the end, turned out not to be lack of funds to air television ads, but rather lack of funds to keep the lights on and pay their official campaign staff."
In the case of the strikingly under performing Walker, was this a case of the ventriloquist removing his hand from the dummy and putting "Scotty" back in the traveling case? Somehow, I never got the impression Walker was his own man. Sometimes it takes a prank to reveal it.
Good morning. I thought you might enjoy that. Yoinks and away.
"This leaves Marco Rubio, who may indeed also stay in the race until the voting starts. However, Rubio is the only one with a very hard choice he'll soon have to make, because Florida forbids him from running for two offices simultaneously."
Very hard indeed, because I think he has a decent underdog shot at claiming the nomination. Rubio is climbing in the polls, but the polls are lagging indicators this early in the cycle. Rubio is now number two in the Betfair prediction market with a win probability of around 22% and still climbing, Bush is still on top trending flat around 35% Rubio's rise is at the expensive of Trump, 10% trending sharply down, Carson 5%,trending down and to a lesser extent Fiorina, who looks to be leveling out at 9-10%. Rubio is the Republican Establishment Spare, should Bush falter. Over at the Democratic Nomination, Biden is trending up as a credible alternative to Clinton, at the expense of Sanders, who is having a rough week at the market.
The Betfair market is doing a good job of anticipating the aggregated polling trends, which I have come to expect this early in the election cycle.
M-8
Expanding on your terminology:
Arrogant Liar: Fiorina
Filthy Prick: Christie
Choices, choices, at the Political Walmart :-)
Arrogant Liar: Fiorina
And the evidence to support such a conclusion is... what exactly??
I don't mind arrogance in a person as long as it is earned...
"Of course I'm arrogant!! I've EARNED it!!"
-Q
:D
Michale
Walker didn't make the decision to drop out of the race. He'd just announced that he would be focusing on Iowa and scheduling more fundraising appearances so he had every intention of continuing.
However, Walker has always been a Koch puppet. They wouldn't have taken kindly to his drop in the polls (lower than 1%), his poor interview and debate performances and, the last straw, Trump exposing to national media what a failure Walker is as governor and all the lies he's told.
So the Kochs have told Walker they are turning off his money spigot, thereby forcing him out of the race. They will now turn their attention to one of the other four candidates they have been watching: Fiorina, Rubio, Bush and Cruz. Both Paul and Kasich were included in their group early on but both have been dropped since.
Also, one of the reasons Perry's campaign went broke is because Cruz was able to successfully poach his major Texas donors. This happened in the wake of the Republican backlash against Perry after he attacked Trump. I think Perry was shocked by the ferocity of that backlash which flooded his FaceBook page and campaign website.
As for the next one to drop out, I keep saying it will be Rand Paul but he's hanging in there. He'll probably follow his old man and stick around to the bitter end. I agree with Trump though: I think Paul is a nasty piece of work.
Santorum is another who just hangs in there, this time without a hope. I think Lindsey Graham is being advised by his 'adoptive' father, John McCain who is telling him to stick it out and Lindey is being the obedient son.
Christie is a narcissist who is following a plan. I don't know that he's psychologically able to pull out, at least not before the NH primary. Jeb's in it for the long haul and has plenty of money behind him. Rubio has already stated that he will not run for re-election. I guess he might change his mind but not before May next year.
Fiorina has badly damaged every company she's ever worked for and can't get another job which is why she's turned to politics. She might as well stay in it for something to do because she's never going to get another job. Likewise Jindal, Pataki and Gilmore have nothing better to do either.
Carson is doing well in the polls so no reason for him to drop out. Trump, hopefully, will stay on top for a while yet. Cruz is in it for the long haul and has plenty of backing. I'd like to see Huckabee drop out but he probably won't for a while yet.
That leaves... no-one! I think the remaining 15 will stay in for a couple of months yet. :-)
I agree with Trump though:
I'm glad I got that in writing! :D hehehehehe J/K
Christie is a narcissist who is following a plan.
The "plan" worked for Obama, a fellow narcissist... :D
Fiorina has badly damaged every company she's ever worked for and can't get another job which is why she's turned to politics.
Yea, that's the story from the Left...
The facts are quite different...
That leaves... no-one! I think the remaining 15 will stay in for a couple of months yet. :-)
I love it when people have the strength of their convictions to go on the record..
My motto has always been, "I may disagree with what you say, but I respect you for not shirking from saying it.."
:D
Michale
Michale,
Various media fact-checked the second GOP debate. This one is FactCheck.org which comes to the same conclusions as the others but combines various statements into one article, including two of Fiorina's statements:
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/09/factchecking-the-cnn-republican-debate/
Fiorina has badly damaged every company she's ever worked for and can't get another job which is why she's turned to politics.
Yea, that's the story from the Left...
The facts are quite different...
What "facts" you say??
Well, I am glad you asked.. :D
First of all, Fiorina was hired by HP on July 19, 1999 - just before the dot-com technology stock crash that affected almost all tech stocks back then. She was not responsible for the dot-com crash, so let's see how she did compared to some of her colleagues in the tech world at the time...
But before we compare, let's use an accurate barometer. And stock price is NOT an accurate barometer. Why? Because if one knows anything about corporate finance (which I do not), companies will often issue stock splits to reduce the price of their stock - especially when they are growing. And a 2-for-1 stock split will initially cut the stock price in half - even when the company is doing well. Not a good measure by itself.
The more accurate measure is to compare the market capitalization of companies, or the stock price x the number of shares outstanding. And a stock split will not change the market cap of a company by itself.
So let's see how HP's market cap did against other top tech companies during her term from July 19, 1999 to February 10, 2005:
- HP market cap declined by 32.22%. Not good, but considering the dot-com crash, understandable.
- Intel market cap dropped 34.52%
- IBM market cap dropped 37.32%
- Microsoft market cap dropped 43.59%
And Xerox??? It’s market cap dropped 62.23%.
And all of those competitors were run by experienced MEN.
Now let's take a look at all those thousands of jobs the Left claims Fiorina "shipped overseas." If you look at the record, almost all of the layoffs were due to eliminating redundant jobs as a result of the Compaq merger. When you merge two companies, you do not need twice as many accountants or twice as many HR people. So if you were familiar with mergers, you would know that eliminating redundant jobs is very common. Trump's buddy, Carl Icahn, was a master at that tactic.
But the important point is that those jobs were not "shipped overseas." What jobs HP created overseas were a direct result of trying to open international markets to bolster corporate revenues during the dot-com recession. So they hired thousands of sales and application engineers to aggressively pursue foreign market opportunities.
So people like the Left, who don't bother to look beyond the headlines, see only that thousands of domestic jobs were eliminated, and thousands of foreign jobs were created - thus, the Left (and the idiot "journalists" who report this nonsense) jump to the conclusion that the eliminated jobs were somehow sent overseas. Which of course, is ludicrous.
Finally, while Carly did end up laying off around 34,000 people during her 5 years at the helm, her layoffs are not even on the top 20 worst layoffs of all time. No, the worst of all time belongs to Louis B. Gerstner of IBM, supposedly considered the greatest CEO of all-time, where he laid off over 60,000 IBM employees essentially at one time. And they were not a result of redundant job elimination due to a merger.
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
And while you let that sink into your limited mind, here's one other fun fact - many people complain that Carly left HP with a severance package of over $21 million. Yet no one seems to notice that her "golden parachute" was not even in the same ballpark as her male counterparts - such as Gerstner's $189 million, or GE's Jack Welch at a whopping $417 million.
moneymorning.com/2013/0...
The point is that Fiorina actually managed HP through the dot-com crash much more adroitly than her male counterparts with other top technology companies - and the subsequent growth rate of HP's recovery outpaced virtually all of its direct competitors.
For the record, that is a CnP from someone else's comment that I did not get the name to attribute... I added some edits to take the bite off, as the original commenter was not a very... er.. polite commenter. :D
Michale
Do you really want to compare Fiorina's off the cuff remark on the Planned Parenthood videos (which ARE nasty and perverse, even if they don't show explicitely word for word and scene for scene what Fiornina stated) with Hillary's CONSTANT, DOCUMENTED and PROVEN lies???
Com'on... Be real...
Michale
And while you let that sink into your limited mind, here's one other fun fact - many people complain that Carly left HP with a severance package of over $21 million. Yet no one seems to notice that her "golden parachute" was not even in the same ballpark as her male counterparts - such as Gerstner's $189 million, or GE's Jack Welch at a whopping $417 million.
Ooops, I missed one.. Please know that that was NOT me saying that, MS... :D
Michale
Why don't we Fact Check the Democrat Party debates??
Oh... That's right...
There hasn't been any...
What is Hillary so afraid of??? :D
Michale
And the evidence to support such a conclusion is... what exactly??
Which conclusion? The lying or the arrogant? :-)
The lying...
As I mentioned to Mopshell, if all you have is hyperbole..... please....
"He's been busted twice for insubordination!"
"General, I have seen your own file... Please... "
-STARGATE ATLANTIS
:D
Michale
I am also constrained to point out that, in a recent poll, Carly beats Hillary... :D
I'm just sayin'...
Michale
M-27
Do you have a copyright on hyperbole???!!!! Dang, I should of thought of that! Advantage Michael!!!
M-27
You have a copyright on hyperbole???!!!! Dang, I should of thought of that! Mind if ask - what did pay for it? Regardless, good move, advantage Michael!!!
Hmmmm- think I'll put in a bid for the sarcasm franchise... bet John Oliver owns it.
Do you have a copyright on hyperbole???!!!! Dang, I should of thought of that! Advantage Michael!!!
Ya lost me... I need another beer... :D
Michale
TS,
Let me put it this way..
Do you have any evidence of a Fiorina "lie" that is as well documented and blatant as say, "If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan." and "I welcome the public debate on domestic surveillance"..
Do you have anything from Fiorina that is in the same universe as that??
Michale
Michale,
I also agree with Trump regarding Fiorina and I'm very surprised to find you calling him a liar. By the way, Fiorina was fired by HP and she has not been able to find another job since.
I also agree with Trump regarding Fiorina and I'm very surprised to find you calling him a liar.
I didn't call him a liar..
Trump (and you, incidentally) rendered an opinion and I posted the facts of the issue that would indicate that Trump's (and your) opinion is without merit..
By the way, Fiorina was fired by HP and she has not been able to find another job since.
The same could be said for Hillary.. :D
It's spin.. Nothing more..
Michale
Regardless of what you think of Clinton, she's never been fired by a board of directors for being incompetent.
Fiorina, on the other hand, was fired by HP, admits it, and has been unemployed since early 2005 - more than a decade. She said herself that she put her résumé out there, even on LinkdIn, and got no takers. That's because no business would touch her with a barge pole.
So she decided to try politics. She ran for senate five years ago and lost. It took her four years to get around to paying her campaign staff too. Since then she still hasn't been able to get a job in her field of business management so she's trying politics again.
Since Trump would have much better access to information than you or me, why do you think you're right and he's wrong? You really think your sources are better than his? Also, Trump didn't give an opinion; he stated facts about Fiorina's time in business and surely that's something he should know about.
Several times now you've expressed your opinion of Trump as being a very successful business man yet you're now saying he's wrong when it comes to his factual assessment of another business person? You really think you're a better judge of business success than Trump? How are your qualifications better than his?
Incidentally, Trump also exposed Scott Walker whom you seem to like early in the race. Are you claiming that Trump was wrong about Walker too?