GOP Drop Out Watch

The first votes in the Republican presidential race won’t be cast for more than five months, but already a trio of candidates who entered the contest with the potential to chug their way to the front of the pack appear in danger of running out of steam.

Former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who was the last man standing when the other alternatives to frontrunner Mitt Romney had faded in 2012; Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, a favorite of the libertarian wing of the party; and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a popular figure in his home state — are all having trouble in the polls.

How long before they start to head for the exit?

Santorum has had trouble raising money. His campaign has brought in about $600,000.

Paul and Perry have had more success at fundraising, but Perry reportedly cannot pay all of his campaign workers.

“That’s never a good sign,” remarked University of Northern Iowa political science professor Justin Holmes.

In the 2012 Republican presidential contest, both businessman Herman Cain and former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson cut short their aspirations for the GOP nomination before any votes had been cast. Former Rep. Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota suspended her campaign shortly after a dismal sixth place finish in the Iowa caucuses.

Money may end up less of an issue than their simple failure to attract a following, because the traditional rules of presidential politics may not apply this year.

But money may end up as less of an issue than their simple failure to attract a following, because the traditional rules of presidential politics may not apply this year.

The reason is the expanding role of so-called “super political action committees,” theoretically independent of campaigns but closely aligned with them. Almost every presidential candidate has one.

Under normal campaign rules, candidates must raise money in small amounts from a large number of donors. That means candidates who could not demonstrate viability in the so-called “money primary” usually dropped out before or shortly after the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary.

Super PACs, however, can raise unlimited amounts of money. That means candidates in this election might be able to keep campaigns running much longer than in past cycles on the strength of a few wealthy contributors, said Candice Nelson, academic director of the Campaign Management Institute at American University in Washington, D.C.

“We’re kind of in a whole new world this cycle because of super PACs,” she said.

Technically, super PACs cannot coordinate with the campaigns, and in the past two elections have mostly limited their activities to television commercials. But Nelson said super PACs have grown their purview this year.

Perry appears to be testing how far the law can be stretched. His super PAC, Opportunity and Freedom PAC, reportedly will take over some of the functions from the campaign.

As of the end of July, Perry had raised just $1.1 million directly, but PACs backing him had hauled in $13.9 million.

Super PACs aligned with Paul have raised $6.9 million, to go with $4.2 million his campaign had in the bank at the end of the month.

That should be enough to keep them in the race at least until the early primaries, Nelson said. What’s more, she added, some candidates with smaller fundraising operations — such as former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorna — have begun to catch fire in the polls.

Money can’t buy you love, and you can’t pay voters to support you when Gallup calls.

If Fiorina continues to poll well, her fundraising should pick up, Nelson said

“It’s still pretty fluid,” she said.

But money can’t buy you love, and you can’t pay voters to support you when Gallup calls.

And as desperation builds, Paul and Perry have tried to gain notice by attacking frontrunner Donald Trump.

“I’d say the candidates who were trailing had an incentive to glom onto some of Trump’s media coverage by attacking him,” University of California at Los Angeles professor Tim Groeling said in an email to LifeZette. “They are fading and trying to arrest that, probably unsuccessfully.”

Groeling, an expert on negative campaigning, said that he does not doubt that those candidates mean what they say about Trump. But he said the tone and timing are strategic.

As desperation builds, Paul and Perry have tried to gain notice by attacking frontrunner Donald Trump.

Perry last month called Trump a “cancer on conservatism” and has kept up the attacks. On Saturday, his campaign released a statement blasting Trump for his comments about Fox News host Megyn Kelly following the GOP debate.

“Donald Trump has proven once again that he doesn’t have the temperament to hold our nation’s highest office,” he stated.

In the debate, Paul was the most aggressive in taking on Trump, accusing him of buying politicians and hedging his bets on the Clintons before the affair was 2 minutes old.

So far, it hasn’t worked at all. Perry and Paul have not gained any traction from the barbs. Perry has been mired in the 1 percent to 2 percent range for weeks. Paul, meanwhile, stands at 4.5 percent in the latest Real Clear Politics polling average. That is down from 11.3 percent on Feb. 22.

Holmes, the Northern Iowa professor, said it is difficult to say whether going negative on Trump has hurt Perry and Paul, or merely failed to reverse a trend already under way.

“There are a lot of forces at work … Especially with Perry, he’s just sort of been sputtering,” he said.

For the 2016 candidates who consistently languish at the bottom of the polls, super PACS or not, a failure to build momentum could spell an early exit from the 2016 presidential sweepstakes.