Who will drop out, and when?
Tiny New Hampshire is always a very volatile and difficult-to-predict state. Its Republican voters are also considered somewhat atypical; more libertarian-leaning, with fewer social conservatives and more fiscal conservatives. But it does have a primary that occurs early in the game, and that gives it an exaggerated significance. New Hampshire’s primary really is primary, at least in the temporal sense.
So, for what it’s worth, let’s look at a recent poll in the state. It was taken December 20-22, with 600 Republican or lean Republican respondents interviewed by landline or cell phone, which is a pretty big sample for a state as small as NH.
Trump is still in the lead, but has fallen there to 21 per cent among likely Republican primary voters. In New Hampshire, a large percentage of people who are really members of one party or another do not register for a party, in order to give them flexibility in primary voting. Rubio is next with 15, and Cruz has 10, but Christie gets a whopping 12 and Kasich (of all people) has 13 percent of the vote.
That last peculiarity makes me wonder what would happen if Kasich dropped out. Not that he’d do so before the primary in New Hampshire, the place where he is probably polling best. He’s sunk a lot of time and effort into the state, and if the polls are any indication (always a question mark) it’s paid off for him. But doing well in New Hampshire does not a victory make, and at some point Kasich is going to have to drop out.
After that, where would his votes go? And the same could be asked of many of the others. If enough of the votes go to Trump, it could be game over with a Trump nomination. If they are dispersed evenly among the others, it would dilute the effect. But if the bulk of the dropouts’ votes go to one or two candidates, that could be a race-changer and ultimately give one of them the win.
Trump also has by far the highest “would not consider” percentage, something I’ve noticed in many polls. That’s why the very last question on that poll is that sort of thing I tend to look at: “I’m going to read the list of candidates again and for each one I’d like you to tell me if the candidate is someone you would consider voting for in the primary or is someone you would never vote for in the primary.” Trump has by far the highest “would never vote for”: 57% of respondents. Next up is Jeb Bush at 47%, followed by Rand Paul at 40%. In contrast, Carson (17%), Christie(15%), and Cruz (12%), as well as Fiorina (16%), are in the teens on that score. Rubio comes in lowest at 11%—who all must be commenters on conservative blogs, because there he’s often hated.
Having read other polls in other places that ask that same question, my recollection is that these New Hampshire results are not atypical of other “will consider or would not consider” results. I think this will be an issue of increasing importance as the race goes on and candidates finally—finally—drop out.
They will drop out, won’t they? Except for Jeb. His money can keep the non-energizer bunny going for a long, long time.
Another question: Would a candidate drop out in consideration for a deal and endorsement of a higher polling candidate?
I could see Bush doing that for Rubio, but what would Jeb get? He can’t be VP because they are both citizens of FL. Maybe State if he wants it, but more likely tax and other favors for his donors. More of the same.
Cornhead:
Interesting to contemplate who, among the current crop of candidates, would be willing to settle for nomination as VP or one of the cabinet positions.
Jeb would not settle for anything less than president. Nor would Trump.
Christie? Maybe VP or Atty. General?
Carson? VP for sure, maybe Surgeon General or some other cabinet position.
Kasich? Anything, he’ll take anything. Same with Huckabee.
Carly? VP for sure, maybe State or Defense.
Rubio? VP for sure: he’d still be young enough to succeed after four or eight years. Maybe a cabinet position.
Cruz? VP, maybe Atty General or Supreme Court.
And so on through the list, including Bernie, who would be happy to be VP while Hillary would not.
But it has always seemed to me the most successful administrations were staffed just below the top level with businessmen (women) and university professors. For that I see a Cruz administration filled with university people, because he can tolerate the intellectual competitiveness, while someone like Christie or Trump, not so much.
That title put the HR Pufnstuf theme in my head.
Thanks.
New Hampshire’s “Republican voters are also considered somewhat atypical; more libertarian-leaning, with fewer social conservatives and more fiscal conservatives.”
That sounds an awful lot like the majority of independents…
“Trump has by far the highest “would never vote for”: 57% of respondents.”
That appears to say that 57% of Republican voters and those inclined to vote Republican would rather have Hillary Clinton as President. Since abstaining from a nominated Trump would actively help to ensure the election of Hillary Clinton.
But anyone who would rather have Clinton as President than Trump is NOT a conservative. Trump may well ruin the country, Hillary will complete the ruin of our country.
“these New Hampshire results are not atypical of other “will consider or would not consider” results.”
If an accurate picture of the public, it indicates that perhaps 35% of Americans are knowledgeable, conservative supporters of the Constitution.
Knowledgeable that is of the Leftist agenda of Hillary Clinton and, who fully support our Constitutional system.
Hello, I must be going
Kasich is doing well in New Hampshire. It doesn’t surprise me. I watched him do a two hour town hall there on C-SPAN. In that format he did very well – much better than the big stage debates where he gets little time and has to plead for time and attention. He’s a fiscal conservative, but tends to be socially compassionate. The latter trait signals to me that he’s all for government benefits for those who are needy. Which tends to make it difficult to be fiscally conservative. He wants to balance the budget by doing away with or shrinking bloated bureaucracies like Education, Energy, HHS, EPA, etc. All good, but hard to actually do.
It’s becoming apparent that, at this point, Rubio seems to have the least negatives versus the positives in many voters’ minds. I see him as a smooth talker, well-informed, but still lacking the experience/gravitas to be a great President. But he would be head and shoulders over Hillary. I’m thinking we should not sacrifice the good/possible in favor of the perfect. IMO, there is no perfect candidate on the GOP side, but all (yes, even Paul) are vastly better than HRC or Bernie.
Amanda Carpenter, Conservative Review: “Huckabee has said he will drop out of the presidential race if he doesn’t make at least a third place finish in Iowa.”
Kasich will be out after the SEC primary.
Geoffrey Britain:
Reread the actual question being asked of the poll respondents. It only concerned voting in the primaries, not the general. So your observations about Clinton don’t apply here.
neo,
Ah. Hopefully an important, if not proven… distinction.
Some thoughts on telephone polling:
” a landline-only sample conducted for the 2014 elections would miss about three-fifths of the American public” (according to the N.H.I.S.)
“cellphones generally have separate exchanges from landlines” so how do the pollsters know where the respondents really live? Personally, I know several people whose cell number is in a different area code from where they live.
And here’s the biggie:
“In 2014 the response rate has fallen to 8 percent. (according to Pew).
I would add that young people who are more likely to answer a call from an unknown number are less likely to vote.
The distinction between ‘fiscal’ and ‘social’ conservatives is like the distinction between accountants and priests.
One cannot be a fiscal conservative without the moral and ethical guidance that social conservatism provides unless one is a mere soulless bean counter (“So much for the underclass; so much for the 1%; the account balances!”).
All of us Oh-So-Smart conservatives had better take Roger Simon’s thinking to heart.
World War III has begun.
https://pjmedia.com/diaryofamadvoter/2016/1/2/2016-year-of-the-chinese-curse/2
Note what he does and does not say about Trump.
Thanks for the analysis. Interesting.
The MSM don’t talk too much about Trump’s negative polling, Those who are not in the tank for him, tend to talk about their personal reaction.
I still think Kasich is well qualified for the job. Kasich, Christie, and Bush, in no particular order considering qualifications alone. Not that I have soured on Carly, but it doesn’t look promising.
The debate format has been a near disaster. Will be interesting to see how the ground campaigns play out.
A little bit of an aside here . . .
neo writes, “let’s look at a recent poll in the state. It was taken December 20-22, with 600 Republican or lean Republican respondents interviewed by landline or cell phone, which is a pretty big sample for a state as small as NH.”
I know neo is referring to the fact that in a small state, it can be more difficult to come up with a reliable sample of as many as 600 respondents, as compared with finding a sample of 600 in a very populous state.
I am about to address a point of information a little different from that consideration. Can any (other) math geeks out there validate what I’m about to suggest?
A poll of, in this instance, 600 respondents will have essentially the same margin of error, without regard to the size of the population being sampled.
In more lay person terms now, a poll of 600 respondents will have essentially the same margin of error whether it’s New Hampshire or Texas people being polled.
I write “essentially” because strictly speaking, the margin of error *is* a function of the size of the population after all. Strictly speaking, a finite population correction (FPC) comes into play, but this correction is significant only should the sample be as large as, say, 5 percent of the entire population.
Otherwise, i.e., in most sampling circumstances, the FPC is insignificant, and the margin of error will in fact be independent of the size of the population being sampled — independent of whether it’s New Hampshire or Texas under consideration.
Oldflyer:
“I still think Kasich is well qualified for the job.”
Governor Romney was extraordinarily well qualified. I would enthusiastically vote for him again.
The problem is when the qualification to campaign for President seems to diverge from the qualification for the job of President.
“I still think Kasich is well qualified for the job. Kasich, Christie, and Bush, in no particular order considering qualifications alone.” OldFlyer
Can a problem be solved as long as denial as to the identity of the problem remains?
All three would do little to retard illegal immigration. None have indicated that they understand that it is the majority of illegals having little desire to assimilate into American culture that is the problem with illegal immigrants.
None of those three have yet to indicate that they understand, even in the slightest, that Islam itself is the true source of Islamic terrorism.
Can a candidate who hasn’t a clue on the major issues be truly considered qualified?
Is any quality in a candidate more important than a clear understanding of the issues?
The election of RINOs ensures the continued dissolution of America because they either don’t get it and at this late date almost certainly never will or… simply don’t care.
Geoffrey B:
I vote “they simply don’t care.” They are not stupid enough not to get it.
They resemble Obama, who simply does not care for this country. They leave him at it. See Paul Ryan. Pass that Omnibus Bill.
After New Hampshire, you will be down to three is my best guess. Right now, I would wager those three will be Trump, Rubio, and Cruz. The rest of the field literally needs to win New Hampshire in order to continue in any significant manner.
I just look at the schedule, and beyond New Hampshire, what primary or caucus before March 8th are candidates like Bush, Christie, and Kasich going to win, or even finish second in? It just looks hopeless for them unless they break through and win in New Hampshire. The only thing going for them is that New Hampshire voters like to give jolting surprises.
The Iowa and NH primaries are the only “polls” I’m interested in. Everything else is too variable and uncertain to know anything for a fact.
Less than a month to go before we start getting clarity.
As it stands now, 30 days from the Iowa caucus, Cruz will draw first blood. I hope it will be by a margin of at least 10%. Next, I hope trump comes in 3rd. Then onto NH where I hope Cruz is in the top three with no one pulling off a clear victory. That brings us to SC where I believe Cruz has an ideological advantage. After SC it will be a contest between no more than three candidates.
Pingback:Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove
I have a gut feeling and dread that Trump is going to win all the early primaries, but by a plurality only. What cinched it for him was the budget sell out by Ryan, that combined with his tough stand on sealing the border. No one believes Republican office holders any longer. Who cares what they profess ideologically when they don’t follow through? The farce they are presenting us this month by voting to repeal Obamacare is just more proof of their duplicity. What fools do they take us for? Trump will win because of the disgust factor. Who drops out after New Hampshire is beside the point.
NH voters *love* to send a message
Pat Buchanan won one time
& don’t forget Eugene Mccarthy
Speaking of Pat Buchanan, I was reading an interview from summer of him which was on EWTN (Catholic network). Buchanan was supportive of Trump overall and said that people feel the political class has failed them and when in DC, nothing happens – nothing gets done. Trump isn’t part of that class and has a history of getting things done.
WRT/people who support Trump not being the ones who go to the polls, could this thinking perhaps compel them to go? Similar to how some blacks actually registered to vote for Obama.
Cruz-lover here, but could live with Donald Trump.
My guess is we will have 6 candidates after those early states:Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Fiorina, Carson, Bush. It is all down to money. Bush will eventually have to drop out b/c he won’t win any state at all and support will go to someone else.
Looking forward to the process!