Winning Small

Despite close victories in Alabama and Mississippi, Rick Santorum could very easily find himself further behind Mitt Romney in terms of the delegate count as a result of Tuesday's primaries.  Why?  In part because of Romney's crushing win in Hawaii.

Santorum's problem is that, for many of the significant primaries he wins, his margin of victory is small, and, in most states, this small margin of victory translates to a much smaller delegate lead.  For example, Santorum's win in Oklahoma only netted him one delegate over Romney (14-13), and his Mississippi victory looks likely to do so as well.  While Santorum has had some large margins of victory in a few states (such as Kansas and North Dakota), many of his victories are small ones; about half of his margins of victory are under six points, and many of his wins have come in relatively smaller states.  These victories are enough to maintain media momentum, but they do not rack up the delegates.

Romney, on the other hand, has had numerous large margins of victory in numerous big states.  He netted 38 delegates in Massachusetts, 50 delegates in Florida (a winner-take-all state), 16 delegates in Ohio (35-19 over Santorum), and so forth.  Romney does have some smaller delegate margins in a number of states, but he also has had numerous big wins; these large wins in part account for his large delegate lead over Santorum and Gingrich.

In some ways, Rick Santorum finds himself in the position of Hillary Clinton in 2008 (though he is not running nearly as strongly as Clinton did): she won numerous big states (such as California and New York), but she didn't have as many crushing victory margins as Obama did.  Obama used these big margins to get a significant delegate lead that Clinton was never able to overcome.

Under a proportional system, winning big matters.  Obama used that to his advantage in 2008.  So far, this emphasis on winning big has helped Romney.  It remains to be seen whether this trend will continue in the future.  It perhaps should be noted, though, that many of the upcoming winner-take-all states are territory that would seem rather friendly to Romney (such as New Jersey and Utah).  Moreover, if we keep seeing three-way Southern splits in the future (thanks in part to Newt Gingrich), it seems unlikely that Santorum will net many delegates on Romney from that region.

(All delegate estimates come from CNN)

Gingrich-Perry?

Carl Cameron reports on the following rumors:

Sources close to the Gingrich campaign say preliminary "what-if" conversations are underway that could lead to a Gingrich-Perry ticket being announced prior to the  Republican National Convention at the end of August.
Gingrich insiders hope forming a predetermined ticket with Perry will unite the evangelical, Tea Party and very conservative voters that make up the core of the GOP.
As discussions got underway, a spokesman for Texas Gov. Rick Perry released a statement saying, "Gov. Perry thinks Newt Gingrich is the strongest conservative to debate and defeat President Obama and truly overhaul Washington. The speculation is humbling but premature."

Such a plan might also help Gingrich with the conservative blogosphere, much of which was very sympathetic to Perry.

 

Meanwhile, it's a close race in Tuesday's Alabama Republican primary, with Gingrich seeming to have a one-point lead (if even that) over Romney and Santorum.  And, according to the most recent Rasmussen poll, Romney leads both Gingrich and Santorum in Mississippi.

Time to Go Industrial?

As Mitt Romney struggles in the polls against his Republican rivals (particularly Rick Santorum) for the GOP nomination, it may be time for him to focus more on industrial policy.  Romney has obviously done a lot of thinking on manufacturing policy, so he perhaps should put that thinking to use.  Romney's recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, which slams the People's Republic of China for its distortion of the market, suggests that he may be moving in that direction.

Attending to industrial policy could be one way of helping Romney change the public perception that he represents the interests of the top 1%.  According to recent polls, many voters think that Romney's policies would benefit the rich more than those of any other GOP presidential candidate; even 50% of Tea Partiers think that he favors the rich over the poor and middle class.  There's something ironic about this perception, since many on the ideological, "purist" right have hammered Romney's policies as being too sympathetic to the middle class.  But politics is filled with ironies; it's the job of a candidate to address those ironies and change the narrative.  Focusing on restoring the health of the industrial middle class may be one avenue for narrative change.

A defense of manufacturing policy could also pay electoral dividends in Rust Belt states like Michigan and Ohio, where Santorum (who is also trying to stake out territory in manufacturing policy) is running neck-and-neck with---if not outpacing---Romney.  These areas saw manufacturing as a source of wealth, and declines in manufacturing have hit many of these state economies hard.

Say Romney were to run an ad like this:

[Open on Romney in an abandoned, mostly empty warehouse that used to be a factory]

Romney: In 1998, this factory in -------, Michigan provided nearly a thousand middle-class jobs.  A few years later, it was closed down, and a new factory opened up in China.  This story has been repeated in small towns and cities across America for years, and, though it may complain, Washington has chosen not to deal with this issue in a serious way.  Middle America has paid the price for Washington's negligence.

Well, it's time to change that.  Americans are a hard-working people, and, given a level playing field, we can succeed at almost any task.  But the playing field is not level.  When countries manipulate their currencies, violate intellectual property rights, give illegal subsidies to native industries, and raise unfair barriers to US products, the American worker suffers.  As president, I will take steps to correct these trade imbalances, even if I have to step on some toes to do it.  I support the free market, but a lot of the stuff we're seeing is not part of the free market. 

When I'm president, I'll work to ensure that this [gesturing to empty building] is not America's future.  Working together, we can turn this country around and safeguard for future generations the legacy of economic opportunity passed down to us.

Unlike complaining about, say, Santorum voting to increase the debt ceiling, an ad like this would focus on an affirmative case for Romney.  It would help shift the broader political debate from being a process-oriented one (who's up today? will negative attacks backfire?) to a substance-oriented one.

A mastery of policy details is one of Romney's strengths.  To reinvigorate his campaign, he needs to enunciate and defend a distinctive policy vision.

Getting the Message

A new CBS poll adds to the chorus of polls suggesting that the fierce GOP primary is, for the moment at least, taking its toll on all GOP candidates.  This poll shows the following:

The new survey shows the president leading Romney by six points, 48 percent to 42 percent, among registered voters. Last month, the two men were tied at 45 percent each.
Mr. Obama's lead over former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who has surged to a lead in national polls, is eight points: 49 percent to 41 percent.
Romney's drop in support against the president is attributable to a shift among independents. Last month, independents favored the former Massachusetts governor by eight points over Mr. Obama. In the new survey, Mr. Obama holds the edge, leading Romney among independents by nine points.
The president holds double-digit leads over the other two GOP candidates in the race, Rep. Ron Paul and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Mr. Obama leads Paul 50 percent to 39 percent - an 11 point margin - and he leads Gingrich 54 percent to 36 percent, a difference of 18 points.

Romney's electability argument has perhaps been dinged a little---not because other candidates are rising in the polls vs. Obama but because Romney has sunk (though he still outperforms other GOP candidates by a couple points or so, according to most polls).  Some of this decline is due no doubt to the nastiness of the primary raising the negatives of all candidates, particularly alienating independents.  Perhaps, when the primary season ends, and the race moves on to the general election, some of those negative associations will fade into the background.

Still, it's worth noting that, in the middle of February 2008, amidst the hard-fought Democratic primary of that year, Obama led McCain by at least half a dozen points according to most polls.  He ended up winning in November by a little over 7 points.  The GOP had better hope that the trend will be different in 2012 (and it has plenty of reasons for this hope).

PA in Play?

Some new polling from the state of Pennsylvania suggests that Santorum is solidifying his support there and is now tied with Romney for the GOP race.  Romney still outperforms Santorum by about 6 points in a possible head-to-head match-up against President Obama:

The statewide poll of 500 Republicans showed Santorum's support more than doubled from 14 percent six weeks ago to 30 percent, putting him in a statistical dead heat with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who increased his support to 29 percent from 18 percent. Santorum's gain was former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's loss, as his numbers here plunged from 35 percent to 13 percent....

Alone among the four Republican hopefuls, Romney was about even with Obama, with 45 percent to the president's 43 percent, in a head-to-head matchup in a poll of 800 Republicans and Democrats in Pennsylvania. Against Santorum, Obama was slightly ahead, 47 percent to 43 percent, among that group in the poll with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.46 percent.

Obama is polling below 50 in a state that has been a key Democratic hold.  If Pennsylvania is in play, the president's reelection bid could face some significant difficulties.  Pennsylvania last went Republican in 1988, when George HW Bush trounced Mike Dukakis.

Big Win for Santorum

Santorum's victories in Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado provide a big boost for his campaign.  Romney had lowered expectations for last night, but the size of his losses (and his loss itself and Colorado) were a blow to the campaign.

Newt Gingrich, however, may have been the biggest loser last night.  Now, there is no incentive for Santorum to drop out, and Gingrich's claim to be the leading alternative to Romney is considerably weakened.

Showdown in Jacksonville

A few brief points on tonight's debate:

• Gingrich built up a lot of expectations going into the debate, but he often seemed unable to counter Romney's jabs.  His attempt to turn the debate on Wolf Blitzer spun back at him.  These increased expectations made his uneven debate performance seem like more of a defeat.
• Santorum stole some of Gingrich's thunder in his attacks on Romney.  With Gingrich losing support by the day (if recent polling is to be believed), Santorum may find himself gaining in this race.  It might be too early to count Santorum out.
• This was a good night for Romney.  He pushed at Gingrich in a focused, yet restrained, way.  He didn't seem blustery (for the most part) but in command of details and facts.  He often caused Gingrich to back down and swung hard at Barack Obama.  This was one of Romney's sharpest debates.

Florida Shifts

Tonight's debate was an interesting one.  Gingrich has apparently tried to go back to Newt 2.0 mode, by turning down the vitriol and righteous indignation.  It's unclear how convinced voters will be by this change, however, since it comes after Newt 1.0's explosive reappearance in South Carolina.

Romney's attacks seemed to unsettle Gingrich.  At one point, the former Speaker had to pause for a few moments to collect his thoughts to respond.  The famously loquacious politician was at an apparent loss for words.  Romney hit Gingrich hard on his connections to Freddie Mac and his record as Speaker.  Though Gingrich tried, he seemed unable to beat off Romney's criticisms fully.  Meanwhile, Romney kept turning the course of the debate to the failures of the Obama administration and emphasizing Romney's own conservative bona fides (for example, his strong stand on immigration enforcement).

Santorum stressed that his own record was one of consistent conservatism.  He didn't pile on Gingrich, but he didn't refrain from criticizing him either.

It's clear that Gingrich got no winning soundbite moments out of this debate.  His campaign in South Carolina depended upon those.  The lack of fire in this debate may slow Gingrich's momentum.  For the past week, the narrative of his campaign has been one of explosive growth; it's hard to see how tonight will add to that growth rate.  Any slowing in his support could be a signal that momentum has begun to be reversed.  And Romney was able to land some effective blows tonight, muddying Gingrich's claim that he is the true conservative.  Gingrich walked into this debate with great expectations, and he didn't actually deliver.  This was an attempt to sell himself as a candidate who can still win in a restrained debate.  We'll have to see whether the public buys this image.

Triumph of Style

Ross Douthat wonders where he can find the ideas in an "idea-oriented" campaign:

I have, for my sins, watched Gingrich make his pitch across what feels like seventeen thousand Republican primary debates, and I am at a loss to identify the “big ideas” and “big solutions” that he is supposedly campaigning on. Yes, he has an implausible supply-side tax plan, but you never hear him talk about it. He has technically signed on to some form of entitlement reform, but you never hear him talk about that, either. Instead, so far as I can tell, his “idea-oriented” campaign consists almost entirely of promising to hold Lincoln-Douglas-style debates with President Obama, grandstanding about media bias and moderator stupidity, defending his history of ideological flexibility much more smoothly than Mitt Romney, and then occasionally throwing out a wonky-sounding notion (like, say, outsourcing E-Verify to American Express) that’s more glib than genuinely significant. His last-minute momentum in South Carolina, which last night’s debate did nothing to derail, has been generated almost exclusively by the politics of ressentiment: If he wins the Palmetto State primary, it will be because conservative voters don’t much like the mainstream press, and Gingrich has mastered the art of taking tough questions and turning them into dudgeon-rich denunciations of the liberal media and all its works.

Meanwhile, the Politico explores the reasons for Gingrich's rise in South Carolina.  This report also comes down to questions of style.

Gingrich's campaign has always been a very style-driven one.  Even the flaws popularly imputed to Gingrich tend to focus more on questions of image than those of substance: he called Paul Ryan's budget "right-wing social engineering" or sat on the couch with Pelosi.  Those public relations specters have haunted his candidacy, in some respects far more than actual policy positions (such as his plan to give local boards the ability to legalize "undocumented" immigrants or his position that the president can ignore Supreme Court rulings at will or his---past---support for cap-and-trade).

Running on style has helped Gingrich in a variety of ways.  Filled with thirty-second soundbites, the debate structure of this cycle has encouraged this emphasis on style.  The limitations of these fora have empowered the one-liner (though some interesting substantive points have been brought up as well).  And Gingrich has mastered the ability to pour a distillation of disdain and wrath into a few sentences.  For many frustrated "conservatives," this concoction is the sweetest of candies.

Much of the grassroots right has expressed a great desire for a bare-knuckles fighter and a primordial cage match between progressivism and "true conservatism," and Gingrich has blithely volunteered to be the anointed gladiator.  Moreover, his aggression toward the media and the left has helped differentiate him from Romney.  Gingrich has had as many "flip-flops" as Romney (if not more), but his casting of himself as the antithesis of "the establishment" has given him a brand that can ignore those petty distinctions of policy.

Early on, style almost broke Gingrich's candidacy.  Then, late in 2011, style elevated him.  A sustained attention to Gingrich's record interrupted this rise, leading to the ascent of Santorum in Iowa.  In order to restore his position, Gingrich has embraced his role as the anti: anti-media, anti-Obama, anti-Romney, anti-establishment, anti-"vulture capitalism," anti-settling, and anti-ending the primary.  By casting himself as the great NOT, Gingrich can play into the frustrations of those looking for the "perfect" candidate.  This stylistic approach has given new life to his campaign.  We'll have to see how much it helps him in South Carolina tomorrow night.

Splitting the Vote

Much anti-Romney analysis claims that the multiple candidates running against Romney are splitting the Republican vote and allowing the "Massachusetts Moderate" (not sure if this phrase has been trademarked by Gingrich yet or not) to beat a divided field.  Polling before might have backed up this claim (when various not-Romneys beat Romney in a one-on-one polling match-up), but it now tells a different story.

For example, recent YouGov polling showed Romney beating Santorum 58%-42% and beating Gingrich 66%-34% nationally.  A CNN poll of Republicans nationwide released on Friday showed Romney beating Santorum 60%-37% and beating Gingrich 59%-37%.  This trend also carries over into many statewide races.  In South Carolina, a PPP poll shows Romney with a five-point lead against the whole field.  Match-ups where Romney is pitted against a single other Republican see his margin of victory grow considerably.  He leads Gingrich 48%-37%, Paul 63%-28%, Perry 56%-31%, and Santorum 48%-39%.

Many supporters of one not-Romney feel more comfortable with Romney rather than another not-Romney.  So, at this point, it seems as though a full field could be hurting Romney more than helping him. A multiplicity of opponents can attack Romney (sometimes in contradictory ways) and hope to pull his polling numbers down enough to allow one of the not-Romneys to win.  At this time, however, polling seems to suggest that Republicans would rally around Romney more than they would around any of his GOP rivals.

Federal Judge Denies Perry, Gingrich et al Request for Injunction in Virginia

Rick Perry, joined by Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, and Rick Santorum, filed a lawsuit challenging the ballot requirements of the Republican Party of Virginia.  Currently, only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul have fulfilled Virginia's requirements and will be on the March 6 primary ballot.

U.S. District Judge John Gibney (an Obama appointee) has ruled against these campaigns.  The principal reason for Gibney's ruling seems to be the doctrine of laches (when a plaintiff takes an unreasonable amount of time to claim a legal defense of his or her rights).

Gibney seems to suggest that, in his opinion, Virginia's requirement that only those who are eligible to register to vote can circulate petitions for a candidate is an abridgement of the First Amendment.  However, requiring 10,000 signatures with at least 400 signatures from each Congressional district is not an unconstitutional burden.  If the campaigns had filed a lawsuit against this purported abridgement of First Amendment rights earlier (such as in August or September or October), Gibney probably would have ruled this requirement unconstitutional.

However, the candidates did not do that.  As Gibney writes:

They plaintiffs could have challenged the Virginia law at that time. Instead, they waited until after the time to gather petitions had ended and they had lost the political battle to be on the ballot; then, on the eve of the printing of absentee ballots, they decided to challenge Virginia's laws. In essence, they played the game, lost, and then complained that the rules were unfair.

Because they waited so long, Gibney has denied their request for an injunction.

Some other interesting details come out in this.  One is that the Virginia State Board of Elections does not seem to know the exact number of signatures that either Gingrich or Perry got.  However, Perry's camp only admits that it submitted more than 6,000 signatures, and the Board agrees that it was less than 10,000.  Gingrich's camp says it submitted 11,050 signatures, but the Board determined that fewer than 10,000 were valid.  These details seem to suggest no evidence for a RINO establishment conspiracy to keep Perry and Gingrich off the ballot.

Gibney's ruling also notes that Jerry Kilgore, a former Attorney General of Virginia and the Virginia campaign chair for Perry, got over 13,000 valid signatures on a "shoestring budget" in his race for AG in 1997.

We'll have to see whether/how these campaigns appeal this ruling.

Beating Expectations

If someone had predicted a little over a month ago that Romney would have won in both Iowa and New Hampshire, more than a few people would have dismissed that notion as a little delusional.  Yet here we are.  With nearly around 40% of the vote (and a 15+-point margin), Romney cruises to victory in New Hampshire, becoming the first non-incumbent Republican to win both the Iowa and the New Hampshire primaries.  I thought Romney would need at least a 10-point win to maintain his momentum, and it looks like he got it.

Exit poll data shows what a crushing victory this was for Romney.  Among registered Republican voters, he got 48% of the vote, outpacing by over thirty points his nearest rival (Ron Paul at 15%).  Romney's win did not come purely from a coalition of independents and moderate Republicans (though he did win registered independents as well, beating Paul 32-30).  Self-described conservative and very conservative voters overwhelmingly preferred him to other candidates.  Moreover, he won by eighteen points those New Hampshire voters who support the "Tea Party": Granite State "Tea Partiers" have claimed that Romney is their man.  Ironically, Gingrich and Perry's hectoring attacks upon Romney's record in the private sector may help unify conservative support behind Romney.

Ron Paul's second-place finish was fueled by young people, new voters, and independents.  Among registered Republicans, he didn't get above 15%, but independents and Democrats helped lift him to second place.

Jon Huntsman bet it all on New Hampshire and came in at around 17%---and could only get to 10% of registered Republican voters.  Huntsman has said he's staying in, but he's hovering around 2% or 3% in South Carolina, Florida, and nationally.    New Hampshire was the sort of territory most favorable to Huntsman, so those states will be a long march for him.  We'll have to see over the next few days whether his numbers increase or not---if there's a bump, perhaps we could be seeing the beginning of Huntsmentum.

No doubt Team Santorum finds tonight's results a little unpleasant.  But a near-tie with Gingrich for fourth place definitely keeps his campaign viable.  Unlike either Gingrich or Perry, Santorum has performed very strongly in one of the first two key primary battles and respectably in the other.  He goes into South Carolina with some vigor in his step.  Unlike New Hampshire, South Carolina will be a key testing ground for his candidacy.

All Tied Up

In the wake of the Iowa caucuses, what matters now is not the exact order of Romney, Santorum, and Paul; the numbers are very close. What does matter is the range between the candidates. Iowa gives us basically a tie between Romney and Santorum, with both at around 25%. Ron Paul comes out a strong third at around 21%. Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, and Huntsman, who did not even campaign in Iowa, fall far behind.

Romney did not sew up the nomination tonight, but he took a significant step down the road to the nomination. A few months ago, Romney was polling in the high teens and low twenties in Iowa. Since July, he has had relatively few days where he was in the lead. So a tie today is a not-insignificant accomplishment. It is, however, a limited one: he still remains under 26%. A big win in New Hampshire would be helpful for Romney in breaking the Romney-ceiling narrative. And Romney's people shouldn't be too depressed about the fact that Romney performed at about the same level in 2008 in Iowa: Reagan lost the Iowa caucuses to Ford in 1976 and lost them again to George HW Bush in 1980---he couldn't get above 30% in 1980. Somehow, Reagan still won the nomination, and the presidency, in 1980.

This is a hard night for Rick Perry. He spent more than any other candidate in Iowa and is stuck in fifth place. With Perry's declaration that he is going back to Texas to re-access his path to the nomination, his campaign is in critical condition. Newt Gingrich can't be too happy, either. A few weeks after boasting that he would be the nominee, he is stuck with a disappointing fourth-place showing. Moreover, the path to the nomination for Michele Bachmann now seems almost totally closed down.

Independents were responsible for Ron Paul's performance tonight. Among Republicans, the entrance poll reports the following: 28% Santorum, 27% Romney, and 14% Paul. Among independents, however, the numbers were 44% Paul, 18% Romney, and 13% Santorum. The "independent" number shows a big increase from the 2008 Republican caucuses; with the Democratic caucuses uncontested this year, many Democratic-leaners may have come out for Paul. Due to a number of reasons, it seems quite clear that many Democrats would love to run against Paul.

And, of course, this was a very good night for Rick Santorum. The outstanding question is whether Iowa is a one-off or a route to the nomination. For George W. Bush, it was the latter. For Mike Huckabee, it was the former. Look to see whether Rick Santorum's numbers rise in national polling over the next few days. If they do, those looking for a not-Romney might rally around him.

Santorum has wisely decided to contest the New Hampshire primary. Expanding his brand there will be crucial for maintaining his momentum. There's a reason why many Perry supporters and Gingrich supporters are deriding Santorum's chances of getting the nomination: he's a serious threat to them. If momentum starts to accrue to Santorum, we might see Gingrich and, possibly, Perry focus their fire on him rather than on Romney. We might also see Gingrich choose instead to focus on tearing down Romney in order to keep him from getting the nomination---whether that leads to a Gingrich victory or not. Santorum's victory speech tonight presents a less angry Santorum, one focusing on economic growth and social optimism. Like Romney, he has won in Democratic-leaning areas before.

A few points about the future:

The January 10 New Hampshire Primary: Look at Santorum's and Huntsman's performances. A decent showing in New Hampshire can keep Santorum nationally viable. Huntsman needs a strong showing to keep his campaign vital.

The January 21 South Carolina Primary: This could be a bloody, bloody battlefield. It's hard to see how both Gingrich and Perry make it out of this primary, if they both make it to that point. Perry is especially vulnerable here; Gingrich could have strong, though not winning, numbers and still limp on to Florida. A Romney win here would almost guarantee him the nomination, though he in no way needs to win in order to maintain his leading status. Santorum's numbers will also bear watching.

Stumbles, Survivor, and Synthesis

Some thoughts about tonight's debate:

Though there wasn't a massive pile-on as in the last debate, Perry continued to lose ground, and most of his wounds were self-inflicted. The shadow of George W. Bush loomed larger over Rick Perry tonight. Perry's verbal stumbles and with-me-or-you're-a-bigot tone on immigration issues might have reminded activists and conservative politicos a little too much of the former Republican occupant of the White House. If Perry seems like George W. Bush Part II, he won't be able to clinch the GOP nomination, let alone the presidency. Moreover, his attacks on Romney often fell flat or wandered. Perry needs to sharpen his approach if he wants to gain here.

Romney followed his usual strategy of survivor in this debate: he didn't let anything get to him and didn't indulge in political napalm. He just kept insisting on his message. Romney did seem to have a few moments of sputtering, though. They might have added to his sense of authenticity, but they also made him seem less steady on his rhetorical feet. Romney's survivor strategy has paid off in the past couple debates. He's blunted the rise of Rick Perry and kept the Texas governor from running away with the race this early. Time will tell if this will allow him to wrest away the primary polling lead.

Santorum stood out in this debate. He had few striking exchanges (on immigration with Perry and foreign policy with Huntsman). I don't know how much these debate performances will translate into polling benefits for him, but he's definitely keeping his place at the table.

Gingrich is still plowing along. His comity tactics seem to help give his ideas a stage at these debates---and finding that stage may be more of a priority for Gingrich at the moment than the GOP nomination.

Johnson had a good line, perhaps good enough for him to stay in the debates. Cain had some other good points. I think Huntsman still wanders sometimes, but he seems to be keeping his campaign viable. Ron Paul was himself. Bachmann struggled to find her voice again.

Coasting Stops

The fight between Perry and Romney continues. Perry came into this debate confident in his conservative bona fides and hoped to use the weight of that confidence to steamroll Romney. The former Massachusetts governor, for his part, responded with an array of facts, figures, and arguments.

The Social Security component was interesting. Romney ended up highlighting the distinction that many Perry partisans are trying to obscure: while Romney and many others have suggested that the financing of Social Security may be a problem, Perry in his most recent book has claimed that Social Security seems to be in some way contrary to the Constitution. Romney tried to get an answer out of Perry about whether he still thought Social Security was unconstitutional, but Perry seemed focused on avoiding answering that. If he wants to win the nomination and go on to the presidency, Perry is going to have to clarify his position on Social Security. Does he want to reform it (as he now says) or does he think it's an unconstitutional abomination? Even in a rabidly pro-Perry audience (at least in the beginning), Perry seemed to stumble at certain points in this exchange. The audiences at debates with Obama won't be so congenial.

Santorum and Bachmann have realized an electoral reality: their only path to the nomination is through Rick Perry. Bachmann knew she had a rough debate last week. So she came into this one looking for some moments, and she found them. She went beyond criticizing Perry's Gardasil executive order as an overreach; she suggested it was due to undue corporate influence. That's probably the most personal slam Perry has faced yet in the race posed by a rival. She also didn't let Perry slide on his immigration record.

Bachmann regained her stride in this debate, and Santorum found it. Between hitting Perry, going toe-to-toe with Ron Paul, and offering relatively detailed answers to policy questions, Santorum positioned himself as a solid, competent conservative who is also electable (hence his persistent emphases on his ability to win in Pennsylvania). Some pundits might find Santorum's references to events of the 1990s to be dated, but many voters (left, right, and center) look back on the 90s with fondness. Santorum may be trying to offer a path back to prosperity.

As with the last debate, Gingrich played the conciliator. As with the last debate, Ron Paul couldn't wait to attack Perry as a conservative pretender, hitting him on increasing Texas taxes and spending.

Bachmann and Santorum may have succeeded in putting a few chips in the conservative finish of Rick Perry's reputation. Perry has been greatly helped by the aura of authentic conservatism. If that sense is challenged, he could struggle more as a candidate.

In order to distract from last week's Social Security debate, many Perry supporters went on attack against Romney, accusing him of taking from the Democratic playbook (apparently defending the Constitutionality of Social Security is supposed to be the purview of Democrats now?). If those attacks are doubled down on over the next few days, we might have an indication of how concerned Perry's camp is over this debate.

I'd guess Perry lost ground tonight with the right (over immigration and Gardasil) and the center (over Social Security). Romney held his own. Bachmann and Santorum gained. I think the primary is still very fluid (as it should be). And there might still be room for other candidates to jump in.