Why Trump's lead is deceiving

[Torie]

I am putting this up, just in case Lief missed this most excellent article.

[King]

So the argument is natonal polls are stupid outliers. Okay. But Trump leads in Iowa, NH, and SC comfortably and still hasn't had a challenger emerge.

Obama was already moving to catch Hillary and attacking her by December 2007.

Trump is still all alone versus a fragmented field.

[Landslide Lyndon]

So the argument is natonal polls are stupid outliers. Okay. But Trump leads in Iowa, NH, and SC comfortably and still hasn't had a challenger emerge.

Obama was already moving to catch Hillary and attacking her by December 2007.

Trump is still all alone versus a fragmented field.

Yeah, it's not like Trump is a Giuliani-like candidate, strong at the national level but going nowhere in the early states.

[Torie]

Well the idea is that the Pub primary polls are very, very poor, at picking up likely voters. The thesis is that Trump "voters" are disproportionately non voters. We shall see.

[Tender Branson]

Well the idea is that the Pub primary polls are very, very poor, at picking up likely voters. The thesis is that Trump "voters" are disproportionately non voters. We shall see.

I'm not sure about this article or your opinion. Even though I want Trump to go down eventually, I think he has staying power and he does a "good job" (like Europe's Far-Right populists) to cultivate his voters and to make sure they actually turn out and vote for him in the primaries. Similar to Obama's campaign in 2007/08. Even though Trump's supporters are working class, low-information, pissed-off younger voters - they might actually turn out this time after almost never doing so before. We shall see, as you said.

[Nym90]

So many people focus on the fact that Trump's support hasn't collapsed. But it doesn't have to collapse; he has to expand it from his current 25-30% to 50%, since the field will eventually consolidate. For a candidate as polarizing as Trump, it will be difficult to gain support from voters not currently backing him.

The only realistic chance he has of being the nominee is if the field remains large and fractured enough that he can win primaries with 25% of the vote.

[Bull Moose Base]

So many people focus on the fact that Trump's support hasn't collapsed. But it doesn't have to collapse; he has to expand it from his current 25-30% to 50%, since the field will eventually consolidate. For a candidate as polarizing as Trump, it will be difficult to gain support from voters not currently backing him.

The only realistic chance he has of being the nominee is if the field remains large and fractured enough that he can win primaries with 25% of the vote.

This argument is often made by the Trump skeptics. It's a bit ironic since an earlier argument was that no one like Trump has ever won the nomination, but now they're arguing we're likely to see a different situation that as far as I can tell has no precedent: a strong poll leader stall and get passed by another surging candidate.

Polls actually show that Trump still has room to grow. One-on-one surveys polling Trump vs another Republican have been all over the place but they range from Trump winning big (double digit win vs Rubio one-on-onefor example) to a close race. And while the number of Republicans who say they've ruled out voting for Trump is higher than for most candidates, it's still well below 50%. (Also below 50% is the combined current support for Rubio, Christie, Bush and Kasich, not that 100% of it will end up behind one candidate.)

I feel guilty about it- since Trump and Cruz are both frightening- but from an entertainment standpoint, I want to see the establishment get shut out of a win as long as possible. If after Nevada, all 4 states have been won by some combo of Trump and Cruz, it'll be the ultimate test of "the party decides" theory. Even them rallying to Cruz to stop Trump would refute the theory. And though I wouldn't bet on it, if Christie can oust Rubio as the establishment horse (he's been busy attacking him as inexperienced and lacking depth), the race coming down to Trump vs Christie would be amazing.

[King]

Well the idea is that the Pub primary polls are very, very poor, at picking up likely voters. The thesis is that Trump "voters" are disproportionately non voters. We shall see.

All fine arguments for 3-4 months ago, but you're running out of time.

This week is the four year anniversary of when Santorum hit double digits in IA polls for the first time to begin his surge to the caucus victory.  In a Dec 6, 2007 Newsweek poll, Huckabee had 36% on the GOP side and Obama had passed Hillary to take a 35-29 lead in the Dem caucus.

McCain tied Romney in NH polls on Dec 16th. Romney had a 15 point lead in Dec 2011 and won the state by 17.

It's getting close to time for something to happen. If an opponent in a football game goes up 2 TDs in the first quarter, it's okay to say there's still a chance to come back, but 6 minutes left in the 4th quarter and it's still 21-6, you're going to need to score now or it's done.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Well the idea is that the Pub primary polls are very, very poor, at picking up likely voters. The thesis is that Trump "voters" are disproportionately non voters. We shall see.

I'm not sure about this article or your opinion. Even though I want Trump to go down eventually, I think he has staying power and he does a "good job" (like Europe's Far-Right populists) to cultivate his voters and to make sure they actually turn out and vote for him in the primaries. Similar to Obama's campaign in 2007/08. Even though Trump's supporters are working class, low-information, pissed-off younger voters - they might actually turn out this time after almost never doing so before. We shall see, as you said.

Same demographics as Bernie Supporters lol

[Maxwell]

You guys are ing pathetic. Just admit Trump is ahead.

[Bull Moose Base]

Well the idea is that the Pub primary polls are very, very poor, at picking up likely voters. The thesis is that Trump "voters" are disproportionately non voters. We shall see.

I'm not sure about this article or your opinion. Even though I want Trump to go down eventually, I think he has staying power and he does a "good job" (like Europe's Far-Right populists) to cultivate his voters and to make sure they actually turn out and vote for him in the primaries. Similar to Obama's campaign in 2007/08. Even though Trump's supporters are working class, low-information, pissed-off younger voters - they might actually turn out this time after almost never doing so before. We shall see, as you said.

Same demographics as Bernie Supporters lol

Sanders actually does better among college-educated voters. Trump is the opposite.

[RI]

So many people focus on the fact that Trump's support hasn't collapsed. But it doesn't have to collapse; he has to expand it from his current 25-30% to 50%, since the field will eventually consolidate. For a candidate as polarizing as Trump, it will be difficult to gain support from voters not currently backing him.

The only realistic chance he has of being the nominee is if the field remains large and fractured enough that he can win primaries with 25% of the vote.

Trump never has to reach 50% to win:

McCain only received 47% of the popular vote in 2008.
Dukakis only got 42% of the popular vote in 1988.
Mondale won in 1984 with only 38% of the popular vote.
Carter got 39.5% in 1976.
McGovern only received about 25% in 1972.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Well the idea is that the Pub primary polls are very, very poor, at picking up likely voters. The thesis is that Trump "voters" are disproportionately non voters. We shall see.

I'm not sure about this article or your opinion. Even though I want Trump to go down eventually, I think he has staying power and he does a "good job" (like Europe's Far-Right populists) to cultivate his voters and to make sure they actually turn out and vote for him in the primaries. Similar to Obama's campaign in 2007/08. Even though Trump's supporters are working class, low-information, pissed-off younger voters - they might actually turn out this time after almost never doing so before. We shall see, as you said.

Same demographics as Bernie Supporters lol

Sanders actually does better among college-educated voters. Trump is the opposite.

Both Trump and Sanders will lose in the primaries

[Dwarven Dragon]

Well the idea is that the Pub primary polls are very, very poor, at picking up likely voters. The thesis is that Trump "voters" are disproportionately non voters. We shall see.

All fine arguments for 3-4 months ago, but you're running out of time.

This week is the four year anniversary of when Santorum hit double digits in IA polls for the first time to begin his surge to the caucus victory.  In a Dec 6, 2007 Newsweek poll, Huckabee had 36% on the GOP side and Obama had passed Hillary to take a 35-29 lead in the Dem caucus.

McCain tied Romney in NH polls on Dec 16th. Romney had a 15 point lead in Dec 2011 and won the state by 17.

It's getting close to time for something to happen. If an opponent in a football game goes up 2 TDs in the first quarter, it's okay to say there's still a chance to come back, but 6 minutes left in the 4th quarter and it's still 21-6, you're going to need to score now or it's done.

You've fallen to the common error of forgetting that we need to look one month earlier into 2011/2007 to get an accurate picture, since the primaries are starting a month later this time. It's not the "6 minutes left in the 4th quarter" point yet, that comes in January.

So, Let's look at early November, not early/mid December.

Santorum in Iowa: 3% http://weaskamerica.com/2011/11/07/iowa-cainnewt/

Huckabee in Iowa: 21%
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_111307.pdf

McCain in NH: 18 points behind Romney
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_111307.pdf

Romney in NH: Up 23, with Huntsman still in single digits

http://www.businessweek.com/pdf/poll11-16-11.pdf

Obama in IA: 3 Points behind Clinton
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_111307.pdf

Moral of the story: There's still plenty of time for things to change.

[King]

We could move things a month back, but there's also significantly less debates scheduled between now and Iowa than there were 4 or 8 years ago and significantly more media coverage of the campaign at this point there was 4 or 8 years ago. Obama, Santorum, McCain and Huckabee were putting up great performances on the debate stage and making headlines that put them in position. Nothing is happening in non-Trump circles.

Trump's percentages in these states are also much more significant than Romney 2011 or even Hillary 2007 in some cases.

Trump is doing really, really well, and the question for people like Torie is if Jeb were putting up these numbers right now would they have the same dismissive reaction?

[OkThen]

We could move things a month back, but there's also significantly less debates scheduled between now and Iowa than there were 4 or 8 years ago and significantly more media coverage of the campaign at this point there was 4 or 8 years ago. Obama, Santorum, McCain and Huckabee were putting up great performances on the debate stage and making headlines that put them in position. Nothing is happening in non-Trump circles.

Trump's percentages in these states are also much more significant than Romney 2011 or even Hillary 2007 in some cases.

Trump is doing really, really well, and the question for people like Torie is if Jeb were putting up these numbers right now would they have the same dismissive reaction?

Definitely not. And if Jeb or Rubio were in Trump's spot I bet you anything there would be no undercard debate, and debate entry criteria would magically be much tougher.

[Mr. Morden]

This argument is often made by the Trump skeptics. It's a bit ironic since an earlier argument was that no one like Trump has ever won the nomination, but now they're arguing we're likely to see a different situation that as far as I can tell has no precedent: a strong poll leader stall and get passed by another surging candidate.

Right, except all previous "strong poll leaders" had party elites who either enthusiastically supported them or at least were willing to settle on them.  Not parties who would fight tooth and nail to stop them.  Also, which of these previous poll leaders also led the field in the "I will not vote for this person under any circumstances" option?  See, no matter happens from this point on, it will have "no precedent".

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Coming soon to the 2016 board: "Why the Trump primary wins are deceiving", "Why the Trump debate wins are deceiving", "Why the Trump victory in the electoral college is deceiving".

[°Leprechaun's Rainbow]

February 1.
Then we can talk about it.

[Bull Moose Base]

Mr. Morden, I agree we're in unchartered territory, which makes this race so compelling.

As far as the late timing of Santorum's, McCain's and to some extent Obama's surges, keep in mind that before they surged, the states they would go on to win were generally led by similar candidates. That is, even when Santorum was in low single digits in IA, it was usually Huckabee, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich leading. McCain trailed Romney and Giuliani. That's consistent with this cycle where the candidates who have been the biggest threats to Trump in an early state overlap with his appeal- Carson an outsider, Cruz an immigration hardliner. Not saying Rubio can't possibly win a state that now likes Trump but his situation is a little different. It's maybe more similar to Kerry 2004 but Dean losing doesn't mean he had a great chance to win. He obviously did. I think the same is true of Trump now.

[Torie]

We could move things a month back, but there's also significantly less debates scheduled between now and Iowa than there were 4 or 8 years ago and significantly more media coverage of the campaign at this point there was 4 or 8 years ago. Obama, Santorum, McCain and Huckabee were putting up great performances on the debate stage and making headlines that put them in position. Nothing is happening in non-Trump circles.

Trump's percentages in these states are also much more significant than Romney 2011 or even Hillary 2007 in some cases.

Trump is doing really, really well, and the question for people like Torie is if Jeb were putting up these numbers right now would they have the same dismissive reaction?

No, of course not, because Jeb is a mainstream establishment candidate who is seemingly qualified. Trump is none of those things. And if Jeb were putting up Trump's numbers, that would mean that he is not the pathetic candidate that he is, and was articulate, incisive, creative, and charismatic. He is none of those things either.

[Torie]

Coming soon to the 2016 board: "Why the Trump primary wins are deceiving", "Why the Trump debate wins are deceiving", "Why the Trump victory in the electoral college is deceiving".

LOL. I was thinking of putting up a post which read that Trump won't win the nomination. If he wins the nomination, he won't win the election. If he wins the election, he stole it.

[pbrower2a]

So many people focus on the fact that Trump's support hasn't collapsed. But it doesn't have to collapse; he has to expand it from his current 25-30% to 50%, since the field will eventually consolidate. For a candidate as polarizing as Trump, it will be difficult to gain support from voters not currently backing him.

The only realistic chance he has of being the nominee is if the field remains large and fractured enough that he can win primaries with 25% of the vote.

Is there any indication that the Republican field won't be fragmented as it is now in February or March?

Donald Trump says much that many Republicans want to hear. That Democrats despise this agenda matters little.

[Maxwell]

Coming soon to the 2016 board: "Why the Trump primary wins are deceiving", "Why the Trump debate wins are deceiving", "Why the Trump victory in the electoral college is deceiving".

LOL. I was thinking of putting up a post which read that Trump won't win the nomination. If he wins the nomination, he won't win the election. If he wins the election, he stole it.

Yes. It, of course, referring to America's heart, because America loves TRUMP.

President Trump, get used to saying it.

[DrScholl]

This is nothing but a bunch of theories thrown out to dismiss polling that the establishment doesn't want to believe. By the logic in the article every single poll could be called in accurate for anecdotal reasons.