Iowa, the nomination, the election: predictions, predictions
Shortly after the debate last night, commenter “The Other Chuck” noted that some evangelicals and conservatives had endorsed Trump in Iowa, and then added:
Should this con artist win Iowa he will be the nominee and probably president.
Sorry, Other Chuck, I don’t mean to pick on you. I don’t even mean to pick on the Original Chuck. I picked your comment because I see so many similar statements all over the blogosphere, and they puzzle me.
Some of them don’t puzzle me at all. Some are from trolls who are pro-Trump and trying to create a steamroller effect of inevitability, engendering gloom in people who support other candidates. The hope is that supporters of other candidates will lose energy, stay home, not work as hard for their guy, and surrender to their fate. Another motive is to cheer on the Trump troops: “Trump, Trump, he’s our man, if he can’t do it, NOBODY CAN!!!”
That’s not The Other Chuck, of course, who’s made it clear he’s not a Trump supporter. He might be part of that second group, the ones who’ve lost heart because they’ve heard so many times about how Trump will win the whole thing is he wins Iowa. Or he might have come to that conclusion on his own—as many people have—for his own logical reasons. There are probably plenty of people of each type, adding to the swelling chorus.
As for me, I call it like I see it. Trump could certainly win Iowa, the nomination, and even the general. But I think the first is most likely, the second somewhat less likely and does not follow from the first, and the third unlikely and follows from neither (although the nomination is, of course, a necessary prerequisite for winning the whole thing; I doubt Trump would win as a third-party candidate, if only because of the way the electoral college works).
Iowa has never been a typical state, nor have its primary results been especially predictive. I think, however, that what Chuck and the others mean is that Trump winning the Iowa primary is exactly what one would not expect, given its Republican population and their belief system. So if he does win, that means his appeal is enormous.
But all polls in all the states where Trump is leading (and which have been polled) say approximately the same thing: 1/3 of the GOP primary voters want him. Basically, the GOP primary voters are voting 1/3 for Trump and 2/3 against Trump.
The important question is which other candidates will drop out and when, and where their votes will go if and when they do. If no one drops out for a long time, or if very few do, and the non-Trumpian 2/3 of the votes continue to be split so very many ways, Trump could win the nomination. Or, it could go to a brokered convention (oh, wouldn’t that be fun). Once people start dropping out, however, their votes will go to someone else, and according to polls where people choose a #2, most of those votes wouldn’t go to Trump.
So unless he starts winning outright, with majorities, it’s still up in the air. Which isn’t to say that Trump can’t win. Of course he can. But it remains to be seen, and I don’t see that Iowa is any sort of special predictor.
That leaves is with the general. As I’ve written many times in many posts, Trump does the worst in head-to-head polls against all the Democrats who might run in the general, and usually the Democrats beat him. In the same polls, Rubio does the best by far against Democrats who might be nominated. And no, Trump does not appeal to black voters or Democrat voters more than the other GOP candidates do; if anything, he appeals less. You may hate those facts, and you may discount them and say they don’t matter, or you may like them, but right now there’s no indication that Trump would win in a general election if he were to be the nominee.
Is it a myth that Trump appeals to Reagan Democrats?
Cornhead:
Polls—all the evidence we have right now—indicate Trump appeals less than the other GOP candidates do to Democrats (Rubio appeals the most to them). No polls attempt to poll Reagan Democrats, although I seem to remember reading an article that tried to say that they probably liked Trump, based on Trump’s support in states purported to have a lot of Reagan Democrats. Faulty reasoning; no evidence, although it certainly may be true.
As for Independents, I’ve seen polls where he does okay with them (can’t remember if he does better than most of the other candidates with them, but that’s not my recollection), and polls where he does more poorly with them than the other candidates do.
From where does Trump’s strength come? It seems to be disaffected, angry Republicans, and some Independents, and a smattering of Democrats (fewer Democrats than for the other candidates).
See this and this, for example. I think I wrote a few others, but I can’t locate them right now.
You need to close your italics tag in the post. Feel free to delete this.
HTML Bully:
Thanks. Fixed it.
“Reagan Democrats” were white, blue-collar voters of the 1980s who had historically voted Democratic, but had become disaffected by the countercultural takeover of the party in the 1970s (think George McGovern) combined with the dismal economic performance of the Carter administration. Thirty years later, a lot of them are dead, the remainder have become Republicans. (I.e., the majority of socially conservative working class white people are Republicans.) Trump appeals strongly to this group, but they vote Republican anyway.
In the Democratic coalition, the “Reagan Democrats” have been replaced by (i) non-whites and (ii) middle to upper-middle class suburbanites. Trump doesn’t particularly appeal to either group.
y81:
The Reagan Democrats who became Republicans are no longer Reagan Democrats. It’s been almost thirty years since Reagan left office. If they’ve been Republicans all that time, they’re changers and Republicans.
I don’t doubt that many of the survivors among them are supporting Trump. But that’s not what articles saying that Democrats support Trump are talking about. I would imagine that, were Trump to be elected, most (not all, by any means) of the Republicans would vote for him, enthusiastically or holding their noses. To win the whole thing, he has to get enough actual Independents and actual Democrats away from Hillary or Sanders or Biden.
I disagree with this, “but right now there’s no indication that Trump would win in a general election if he were to be the nominee.”
Just read today that many Union leaders are worried because a huge number of their members will vote Trump. Here’s the NYT about it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/30/business/donald-trump-unions.html
There are others in recent days with similar information.
I have mentioned before that looking at nationwide polls about who would vote for whom don’t really give you a full picture of how an election will fall out. We need state-by-state numbers to really know which Republican candidate has the edge.
If the above article is seeing a trend, that could toss some states to the Republicans in the NE and Midwest that are typically close, such as OH or PA. That’s a big deal.
I also see Trump making inroads with black voters, as indicated here:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/how-donald-trump-defeats-hillary-clinton-217868
and here:
http://qz.com/597346/they-find-him-fascinating-republicans-think-trump-has-a-chance-with-black-voters/
K-E:
Boy, I get tired of repeating and repeating the same thing.
I’ve looked at poll after poll: no evidence for either Democrats or blacks for Trump. In fact, he does worse than the other GOP candidates with them.
Every article I’ve ever read that says otherwise is based on feeling and speculation. I’ve written on that topic of blacks re Trump time and again. Read this, for example, where I analyze that Politico article you linked to.
I have no doubt that some union members like Trump. What is their previous political affiliation? How many? How does that compare to whether they like the other GOP candidates?
No one even tries to say. It’s a bunch of people saying they fear it, they suspect it, they worry about it, there’s “some support,” and a lot of interest in him, yada yada yada.
Meanwhile, the polls tell a different story.
Let me add that all liberal media outlets want to hype Trump, because they think he’s least likely to win the general. So they have published a series of stories saying so-and-so thinks he might do well with Democrats. It’s like bait for Republicans. I have yet to see any hard figures on it, except the ones I cite, which don’t support it.
I don’t doubt it could be true, or it could end up being true. But it’s not been shown to be true so far—au contraire.
It seems counter-intuitive that union members would go for Trump. Although I have not done specific research, I have seen no evidence that he is strongly pro-union; and the documented cases of him –or his contractors–employing immigrant labor certainly do not support that he is. I am sure he talks big; but, union leadership are not political neophytes, and they do have ways of influencing the rank and file when crunch time comes.
It may not be entirely fair, but to me Trump supporters seem to be of the “mad as hell, tear it all down, throw them all out, and then figure out what to do” stripe. Or else they are Democrat mischief makers who find it very easy to game the polls and con the media. There are also the media types who love Trump because he creates turmoil, and turmoil is good for ratings. Also gives them something to talk about that doesn’t require too much thought.
I will repeat myself. Let’s see some actual votes, and then make some judgements.
Pat D Says:
January 29th, 2016 at 4:20 pm
I predicted a 50 percent.drop compared to the last Fox News debate. That happened. Comparing to Fox Business News is wrong because the base audiences are very different.
Most of the Iowa networks were broadcasting Trump live. Having. the last two Iowa winners on stage was a great move.
He has raised five million and counting.
Meanwhile Cruz had a bad night.
How many ways did Trump win? I count four.
I, for one, do not want to have yet another Democrat’s favorite Republican running for Pres. The fact that the Dems favor Rubio is a clear sign that I should oppose him.
K-E Says:
January 29th, 2016 at 3:40 pm
Politico is Leftist.
The Left WANTS to run against Trump.
Hence the shilling.
They KNOW that Trump infuriates their pals — on the Left.
tgwt:
Just as you should have opposed Reagan, who won by being appealing to Democrats?
You are falling into a trap.
tgwt Says:
January 29th, 2016 at 4:50 pm
I, for one, do not want to have yet another Democrat’s favorite Republican running for Pres. The fact that the Dems favor Rubio is a clear sign that I should oppose him.
Rubio’s tied directly into Fox News by kinship.
His media dame is the daughter of the fellow that runs the Fox debates — and provided all of the questions spouted last night.
Rupert Murdoch wants open borders — wide open.
He owns both the WSJ and Fox.
That he’s supporting Rubio is a ‘tell’ that Rubio has no intention of throttling immigration.
Rubio is going to square that circle by simply increasing the number of immigrants that can come in legally.
Poof, no more illegal immigration.
Oldflyer Says:
January 29th, 2016 at 4:39 pm
It may not be entirely fair, but to me Trump supporters seem to be of the “mad as hell, tear it all down, throw them all out, and then figure out what to do” stripe.
Or else they are Democrat mischief makers who find it very easy to game the polls and con the media. There are also the media types who love Trump because he creates (GOP) turmoil, and turmoil is good for ratings.
&&&&
Over at ZeroHedge and Chateau Heartiste — bastions of mud slinging, anti-Semitism, and Alternate thought — more towards Anarchy — you’ll find no end of keyboard warriors that fit your description.
They’re rabidly against the GOPe — the GOP — Conservatives — and have so posted for many, many months.
With the onset of Trump — they are happier than pigs in a mud bath.
I would deem them extremists,… snark princes.
They are plainly unhappy with the rest of the field.
Since I believe that ZeroHedge is a front for the SVR (KGB) psy ops — I’d put real money betting that many pseudonyms are Moscow’s keyboard warriors.
PatD:
By the way, Trump not only has been stingy with his own money over the years in terms of philanthropy, but he has only contributed one million this time (probably from his fund, to which he contributes little in the first place).
What do I mean, “only”? Whether the million is from his own money or his fund, it goes like this: a million is not the same for Trump as it would be for most people. If he has a worth of $10 billion as he claims, that million dollar contribution would be the equivalent of someone with a worth of $50,000 giving a $5 charitable contribution. If he “only” has a $5 billion worth, as many others claim, that million would be the equivalent of a $10 donation. At least, that’s what I get when I did the math quickly.
As far as Trump’s past contributions to military causes, take a look:
Of course, if you’re talking about Trump’s benefit rally last night in terms of propaganda, that’s a different story. And he’s got legions of citizen propagandists such as you working round the clock, on blog after blog, and Twitter and such, to spread the propaganda work of his great magnanimity. The fact that it’s a recent political ploy—well, let’s keep quiet about that.
And see this:
Maybe he’ll hold a rally for the Clinton Foundation next.
I will see Trump Sunday afternoon. I plan to observe a caucus on Monday night.
Cornhead,
Thanks for doing the hard work (seeing Trump) that many of us couldn’t endure.
neo-neocon says:
“tgwt:
Just as you should have opposed Reagan, who won by being appealing to Democrats?
You are falling into a trap.”
Well, like most 11 years olds at the time, I was much more interested in skateboards than I was in politics.
Besides, I think a lot has changed since Reagan
Sean Trende’s 3 part series on Trump, over at RCP, is interesting.
‘right now there’s no indication that Trump would win in a general election if he were to be the nominee.’
So, how well do polls almost a year out from an election predict the results? I don’t know but my guess is not very well.
However, certain aspects of the polls such as Trump’s overall low favorability rating worry me. That said, a narcissist is still a better choice than a criminal sociopath.
Personally, I favor a Cruz/Rubio ticket and if these two guys got together they could beat anything the Democrats put against them. So come on guys, for the good of the nation…
Thanks, KLSmith, for pointing out the Trende pieces.
Just read the last one, and he makes an important point about “the impact that political correctness has on people who feel silenced because they don’t know how to talk” — ‘Why the hell can’t we call them illegal immigrants? Says who?’ And Trump is the only candidate who unambiguously calls this out.”
I saw some interviews that CNN did at a Trump rally a couple of days ago, and most of those interviewed made a comment about this feeling of being “silenced”. It’s something very personal and deep inside people.
tgwt:
Yes, but now that you’re a bit older, you should pay attention to history and learn from it. Maybe you won’t fall into so many traps that way.
neo-neocon:
What exactly is this “trap” you keep talking about?
Also, what is it about me that you think I have done nothing else but fall into traps all my life?
tgwt:
I’m sort of teasing you.
This is your first day of commenting on this blog, and I pointed out that you were falling into a trap by generalizing that, if a candidate is doing better than the other candidates with Democrats, that means he/she is a candidate you should oppose:
That this is a trap is proven by the fact that such reasoning would have had you voting against Reagan, and opposing him in comments sections of blogs had such things existed back then—and had you not been just eleven years old at the time.
If you don’t like Rubio or his policies, you don’t have to support him. I suspect you don’t like his policies and his past re immigration. But the fact that some Democrats support him is not a reason to withdraw your support, in and of itself, and such reasoning would have led you to not support Reagan.
Obviously, since you’ve never been here before, I have no idea how often you fall into such traps. As I said, I was sort of joking.
I call them illegal aliens because they are aliens and they came here illegally. Simple, no? One can fight against the PC meme without being rude and crude. Just be accurate.
Cruz was using the term in 2011.
But things like that just get lost in all the yelling.
In fact, I think I recall quite a few of the candidates using it. Did they make a big point about the fact that they were using it? I can’t figure out a way to search for that information without taking an unbelievable amount of time to do it.
neo-neocon:
Got it. I have often thought about being teased by the cute woman behind the apple, but it was always in a different way.
About Rubio, yeah, I have never liked him, guess I should have made that a bit more clear.
Also, I’m doing a bit of teasing here myself.
tgwt:
I guess even though we’re not tweeting here, there’s still room for snark. 🙂
I guess it hit me last night seeing Huckabee and Santorum standing on stage with Trump. Why in the world would people like them give tacit support to this man? They are the last two Republican winners in Iowa so their approval means something, and they are the last two I would expect to go over to his side.
The other thing that stood out was the fact that Trump could get over $5 million in donations for his veterans benefit in less than a day. He made a few phone calls and the cash poured in. It was all for show even if some good will come out of it, but he is wrapping himself in the flag and people are buying it, hook, line, and sinker. Remember that picture I linked a few days ago showing Trump touching the cheek of a veteran without arms? He’s playing to a country sick of losing wars. Every move is calculated to win over people emotionally. This is very powerful stuff.
The Other Chuck:
I see all that sickening stuff, too. Trump is very smart about all of those things, and he knows exactly what he’s doing.
The American public has been dumbed down and people on the right have also ended up shell-shocked (in the metaphoric sense) from 7 years of GOP impotence in the face of Obama. I say “impotence” (another metaphor, by the way!) because I think it’s a combination of some of them not having the guts or the principles, and the rest of them just coming up against not having the ability to stop him because of the filibuster, Harry Reid, executive action, etc., and with their only recourse to shut down the government, a move they think Obama would win. But the people have blamed them, and the people are tremendously angry, and ready to believe in someone like Trump who knows every con man’s and liar’s and thug’s trick in the book.
It is disillusioning, because perhaps you thought the right was immune. It’s not. We’ve watched the rage and irrationality and desperation build and build for years, and this is the fruit. People are not rational animals, although they’re capable of rationality. They are emotional, and that often overrides anything else.
As for Santorum and Huckabee, I think it’s two things going on. They know they’re not going anywhere anymore on their own. They had their chance. They want to hitch their wagon to a winner. They are politicians, first and foremost, and politicians are politicians—they may have some integrity, but most of them can be seduced by fame or promises. They see a winner in Trump, above all else. They want to jump on the gravy train, plus perhaps they are afraid if they don’t, he’ll smear them.
That’s what Trump does. You’re on my side or you’re the enemy. It doesn’t even matter if they don’t have skeletons in their closet for him to expose, he’ll make some up. And he’ll probably get away with it.
Power corrupts. Trump seems powerful, and he has no morals in that sense—he will lie about anyone and anything to get his way. I mean that literally.
But—and this is what my post was about—I see no reason to say that it’s over. If only most of the GOP contenders would drop out, I’m convinced (rightly or wrongly) that Trump would become #2 in the race to someone, probably Rubio or Cruz. Will that happen? I don’t know. Will it be too late? I don’t know. He can buy endorsements, but he can’t buy all the votes. But momentum means something, too; I understand that. And more people will want to jump onboard, in order to not be left behind (or destroyed) if and when he wins.
That’s how tyrants operate. You are right to be worried. But it’s not inevitable by any means.
I have spent a lot of my time, gas money, and tire rubber over the last few weeks to promote Cruz. I am the Cruz caucus captain for my precinct, I am an old standby and hope my reputation can be persuasive. The donald must go down, Iowa is the firewall. Does Cruz winning Iowa mean he will be the eventual nominee? Of course not, but it will deflate the donald’s hot air balloon. That is the important first step.
trump is incapable of accepting defeat graciously. I want to see a foaming at the mouth, crazy trump imploding on twitter. Next I want to see hrc in handcuffs.
Neo, of course it’s not inevitable. But I’m afraid that if Trump pulls off a win Monday the momentum will carry him all the way. You make good, logical points both in the article and the response above. I especially agree with you that the public has been dumbed down and the right is shell shocked after 7 years of Obama and a quisling congress.
Marco today in CB. I will submit a report to Power Line.
Neo:
“It is disillusioning, because perhaps you thought the right was immune. It’s not.”
People is people. The game is the game. No population is immune to it.
Where you can take heart is, by the same token, no population is immune to it. Your competition is not immune to it. They’re beatable by the same method they’re assailing you.
Activism works for anyone for any cause. You needn’t only lose the game. You can win it – anyone can. But in order to win it, you must play the game to win. Not playing virtually guarantees you’ll lose the evolutionary race, because no population is immune to it.
The Other Chuck:
“He’s playing to a country sick of losing wars.”
That goes to why it’s critical for mainstream conservatives of the Right to set the record straight on the Iraq intervention and the War on Terror in the same vein, and clarify that President Obama deviated from President Bush.
For example, see the answer to “Was Operation Iraqi Freedom a strategic blunder or a strategic victory?”.
In their campaign against mainstream conservatives and the GOP, the alt-Right is asserting a reductive “Jacksonian America” narrative that falsely conflates Bush and Obama’s conduct as Commanders in Chief.
Despite the best efforts of opponents within and without the nation and the West, the American leader of the free world was succeeding when Bush handed off the War on Terror to Obama. Most of all with the Iraq intervention, which was paradigmatic, Bush approached the War on Terror as the strong-horse American leader of the free world.
As such, Obama faced the equivalent of Eisenhower’s choice when picking up post-WW2 from Truman. Ike stayed the course from Truman and, more than that, strengthened American leadership. Contra Ike, Obama changed course from Bush and weakened American leadership.
Yet with their “Jacksonian America” narrative that effectively justifies further American retreat, the alt-Right would convince Americans that Bush and Obama’s conduct are of a kind.
The challenge for mainstream conservatives addressing a “country sick of losing wars” is to restore the paradigm of strong-horse American leadership of the free world that’s opposed by the Left and alt-Right.
Re-lay the foundation. The key to re-normalize strong-horse American leadership of the free world is setting the record straight and de-stigmatizing the Iraq intervention in order to restore the fundamental principles of American leadership that characterized the mission.
If the Right fails to secure the foundational premise that America (under Bush) was right on Iraq, then “a country sick of losing wars” will be compelled to turn to an alternative. If not the Left alternative, then the alt-Right alternative.
Eric, you’re speaking to the galleries. I know that Obama screwed up in Iraq and elsewhere. I also agree that without the world’s reigning superpower willing to keep a semblance of order all kinds of bad things will happen, and eventually we will be forced to intervene when the mess ends at our doorstep. The problem is that Obama and now Trump have made it all to easy for war weary people to say to hell with it. Trump is playing to that isolationist/America first streak. By highlighting maimed veterans he’s bringing the emotional heart ache front and center. Everyone knows he was against the Iraq war from the beginning, and that he blames Bush. All the talk in the world and all the logically written pieces will not reach people who have turned off to it.
Neo-neocon: Regarding our colloquy above, I agree with you totally, except I would go further and state that a majority of the still living Reagan Democrats have, in fact, become Republicans. (Although in New York City, where I live, some of them may not have changed their party registration, as the Republican primaries are usually not that significant.) But we both agree, getting their votes will not win the election: Romney got their votes, and so will any Republican.
I predict the Left will ship in a couple of buses from Chicago and St Louis, to Iowa.
I wonder if Iowa’s political organizations are watching the roads.