Why Trump's lead is deceiving

[Landslide Lyndon]

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".

The thing is that for TRUMP (and Cruz) the enmity of the establishment is a feature, not a bug. Their entire candidacies are based upon the notion that they are the outsiders who want to upend the status quo and that's why Washington elites are so bitterly opposed to them.

[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".

The thing is that for TRUMP (and Cruz) the enmity of the establishment is a feature, not a bug. Their entire candidacies are based upon the notion that they are the outsiders who want to upend the status quo and that's why Washington elites are so bitterly opposed to them.

But I was talking about why Trump is different from other candidates with similar poll #s, thus casting doubt on whether you can use past results as an example.  You seem to be saying "Yes, he's different.  But he might be different in a way that's better for him rather than worse."  OK, sure.  He might.  Or he might not.  We don't know, that's my point.  Trump is different enough from those other candidates that we can't necessarily use them as a guide.

[Migrant Crime]

Is Torie actually Jeb! in disguise?

[Sir Mohamed]

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.

In a poll from two weeks ago he beat each other GOPer by a three way race comfortably (Reuters polls).

[Mr. Morden]

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.

In a poll from two weeks ago he beat each other GOPer by a three way race comfortably (Reuters polls).

Reuters seems like a sketchy pollster though.  Other polls have shown more mixed results.  For example, PPP’s recent NH poll included some 3- and 4-way matchups in which Cruz and Rubio saw their #s double in some of those matchups, while Trump maintained his lead, but saw it shrink.  If you believe those #s, it wouldn’t necessarily take that much for other candidates to catch up to Trump if we get a lot of dropouts.  Then you’ve got the UMass national poll, which tracked 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th choices, and concluded that if many of the 2nd and 3rd tier candidates dropped out, it would benefit Cruz and Rubio much more than Trump:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=223104.msg4807261#msg4807261

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then you’ve got Quinnipiac, among others, for whom Trump leads the field in the “I would not vote for this person under any circumstances” category, with the self-described “moderate” category simultaneously being Trump’s biggest source of support and the biggest source of “would not vote for this person” group.

These are all basically hypotheticals that voters are being asked to consider (“who would you support if the choices were narrowed in *this* way?”), and so I’m not sure how reliable any of it is.  But looking at those polls, you can easily see how the 2nd and 3rd tier candidates fading or dropping out completely might help Cruz and Rubio more than Trump.  Whether that’s enough for them to win, I don’t know.

[pbrower2a]

Trump is not going to make headway into Democratic voters in the general election. He is not going to fare better among minority voters, and he is going to insult the sensibilities of more white educated voters who recognize him as an unprincipled, glory-seeking demagogue. 

[Adam Griffin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...

This guy is a paid pollster - just let that sink in for a moment.

Also, a large chunk of the premise of this article hinges on the notion that the difference between RVs & LVs is unprecedentedly yuuuge. Presumably by a factor of 3 or more for it to be anywhere near relevant.

What a bunch of garbage, pass, etc.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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

Based on what?  Sanders has slipped in polls, but Trump hasn't, so what is your prediction based on?

To say, with any assuredness, that Trump won't be nominated at this point, requires inside information of secret agreements amongst Establishment Republicans as to how stop him.  This would require all the Establishment candidates, plus Fiorina, to agree to back ONE contender, and for every non-elected delegate to go along.  This cannot happen in a back room; it will play out in the media, and it won't be pretty for the GOP.  There is no reason to believe that Trump won't come to the convention with the single largest bloc of delegates as, say, George Wallace may have done in 1972 with the Democrats had he not been shot.  What's it going to do to the GOP when they have to publicly screw over the candidate in their party with the most voter popularity?

[Slander and/or Libel]

The assertion that all establishment support is going to coalesce behind one candidate (presumably of Jeb, Kasich, Rubio or Christie) ignores the fact that none of them is really surging right now, so all of them have the incentive to stay in and keep attacking each other in the hopes of cannibalizing support. Sure, Christie's only polling in the low single digits, but that only puts him a couple of points behind Jeb and Kasich, so why not stay in and hope one of them collapses? Why not help try to make them collapse? Same logic goes for all of them.

[ConservativeVoter16]

Polls won't matter until about January 20 or January 25 2016. Donald Trump is leading in the polls because he is generating the most buzz, he's getting the most attention. But in the end, it's about ground game. No one thought Rick Santorum was going to be a factor in 2012, but he had a great ground game in Iowa.

As to the establishment, they'll be behind Marco Rubio. Jeb Bush is a terrible retail politician and there is some Bush fatigue, John Kasich is probably not as acceptable at the country club as Marco Rubio.

[King]

Polls won't matter until about January 20 or January 25 2016. Donald Trump is leading in the polls because he is generating the most buzz, he's getting the most attention. But in the end, it's about ground game. No one thought Rick Santorum was going to be a factor in 2012, but he had a great ground game in Iowa.

Trump is making huge investments in ground game. That's where most of his money is being spent. He's completely forgoing advertising.

[ConservativeVoter16]

Polls won't matter until about January 20 or January 25 2016. Donald Trump is leading in the polls because he is generating the most buzz, he's getting the most attention. But in the end, it's about ground game. No one thought Rick Santorum was going to be a factor in 2012, but he had a great ground game in Iowa.

Trump is making huge investments in ground game. That's where most of his money is being spent. He's completely forgoing advertising.

It remains to be seen how effective his ground game is. Mitt Romney did the same in 2012 and Rick Santorum still beat him, albeit by 20 votes, with a fraction of the money.

[Gallium]

Polls won't matter until about January 20 or January 25 2016. Donald Trump is leading in the polls because he is generating the most buzz, he's getting the most attention. But in the end, it's about ground game. No one thought Rick Santorum was going to be a factor in 2012, but he had a great ground game in Iowa.

Trump is making huge investments in ground game. That's where most of his money is being spent. He's completely forgoing advertising.

It remains to be seen how effective his ground game is. Mitt Romney did the same in 2012 and Rick Santorum still beat him, albeit by 20 votes, with a fraction of the money.

Trump's literally hired Santorum's Iowa state director.

[King]

And, again, if Jeb was drawing 10,000 or 20,000 people to rallies, there wouldn't be skepticism of his ground game.

[heatmaster]

Has anyone actually asked this question, are the polling organization's commissioning these samplings; utilizing systematic or random error methods? Are those being polled, actually registered voters? Can anyone be actually sure if these same voters being polled are actually serious in there responses? Is the polling data reliable? Whose commissioning these polls? Are the respondents doing so in person or anonymously over the phone? Is it Quinnipac or RCP? Why I ask these questions is this, could it not be, for the sake of argument, a case of voters or those involved in the samplings, are claiming one thing in the polling data and might not just vote the way they claim they will or probably not vote at all? Might it not be mischief making? Considering who Trump is, might it not be celebrity identification? Voters are liars and from personal experience, I have engaged in deception, by offering up falsehoods on the phone...well that's inaccurate. Mostly I wouldn't be paying too much attention to the question and give the pollster any old answer. Most pollsters use suspect methods, if they are pro-something or anti - something and are operating from a agenda paradigm. The questions are leading and they are looking for a particular response. Beware! Trump is getting the 36% or so, not because of his political position's,  but because of celebrity factors. No one really knows where he stands, he's basically getting a free pass and polling the numbers he is polling due to the fact, that no one takes him seriously.  If they did, do you believe he would be doing as well as he is?

[Maxwell]

And, again, if Jeb was drawing 10,000 or 20,000 people to rallies, there wouldn't be skepticism of his ground game.

Jeb raised enough money, he could probably pay his audience to show up.

[Pandaguineapig]

Polls won't matter until about January 20 or January 25 2016. Donald Trump is leading in the polls because he is generating the most buzz, he's getting the most attention. But in the end, it's about ground game. No one thought Rick Santorum was going to be a factor in 2012, but he had a great ground game in Iowa.

Trump is making huge investments in ground game. That's where most of his money is being spent. He's completely forgoing advertising.

His ground game is made up of high school dropouts who spam on Twitter rather than a legitimate operation

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Polls won't matter until about January 20 or January 25 2016. Donald Trump is leading in the polls because he is generating the most buzz, he's getting the most attention. But in the end, it's about ground game. No one thought Rick Santorum was going to be a factor in 2012, but he had a great ground game in Iowa.

Trump is making huge investments in ground game. That's where most of his money is being spent. He's completely forgoing advertising.

His ground game is made up of high school dropouts who spam on Twitter rather than a legitimate operation

More elitism! Keep it coming! Let's see how much less legitimate a poor person's vote is!!!

[Pandaguineapig]

Polls won't matter until about January 20 or January 25 2016. Donald Trump is leading in the polls because he is generating the most buzz, he's getting the most attention. But in the end, it's about ground game. No one thought Rick Santorum was going to be a factor in 2012, but he had a great ground game in Iowa.

Trump is making huge investments in ground game. That's where most of his money is being spent. He's completely forgoing advertising.

His ground game is made up of high school dropouts who spam on Twitter rather than a legitimate operation

More elitism! Keep it coming! Let's see how much less legitimate a poor person's vote is!!!

It's not elitism to point out that Trump supporters are uneducated and not very clever. All they hear is a man squealing about "illegals" and that makes their rascal scooter seats wet. No matter though since Cruz and Rubio will win once people who actually vote show up.