I think the last two standing are bound to be one of the crazies and one of the establishment. Until it gets down to the last two, then, any candidate’s only real concern is beating everyone else in their category. If anything, this is even more true of the establishment candidates: Their supporters are sane, and support them for predictable reasons, so we can be certain that whenever one of them falls, their supporters will shift to another establishment candidate. It’s less certain that, say, Carson’s supporters will shift to Trump.
Here is some perspective from an actual Republican voter. Many of you have given some good analysis of the candidates and their prospects so far, but a lot of it is colored through a leftward prism. That sort of thinking is not going to be on the minds of GOP primary voters.
Speaking of perspective, I am a social libertarian and an economic and foreign policy conservative. I believe I have more in common with New Hampshire voters than those of Iowa. That said, here are my thoughts.
First, Trump cannot go away fast enough to suit me. I think he is in this for the ego trip and entertainment. I don’t see him slogging though a New Hampshire snowstorm in January to shake the hands of 25 people at a diner. His success is due to name recognition and a desire by some Republican voters to punish the establishment. He will drop out sometime after New Hampshire and before Super Tuesday.
Carson is dying a slow death as well. I think he has peaked. He will not survive Super Tuesday, which is essentially a national election in money, organization and scope.
The week after Super Tuesday will also consume the “kid table” crowd, bigger names like Carly Fiorina, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee. When is the last time any of them were relevant to the conversation? The argument could be made that Trump is sucking all the media oxygen, but none of those four are viable and they know it.
Those that remain will be the ones with money in the bank. This will be an endurance contest, not a sprint. Bush will stay in and hope to pick up supporters from the “establishment” lane. Bush, Kasich and Christie are in this group. One will thrive at the expense of the others.
Cruz will eventually have the conservative lane all to himself and he has a lot of cash. His delegate strategy is also sound and he is very smart. Discussing Cruz’s prospects are where I see most of the lefty bias in this thread. He will do better than most of of you think.
Rubio will try to straddle the establishment and conservative camps and generally succeed.
I believe that Rubio will be the eventual GOP nominee, with Cruz having the second highest chance. All of this depends on events of course, both internal and external to the campaigns.
What about Kasich, you ask? His new title will be “Mr. Vice President”. He is the perfect running mate for either Rubio or Cruz. Those predicting a Clinton victory are whistling past the graveyard.
As a liberal in Alabama (yes, we few, we hardy few), I concur completely with Evil One’s analysis, with the exception of his final sentence (Clinton is still the most likely winner against any Republican combination, IMHO). The only change I can see is that somehow Bush manages to outmanuver Rubio for the establishment vote and in that case I could see a Cruz Presidential run. But those odds are not getting any stronger in Jeb’s favor.
Interesting year coming up. Pleased to be listening to this group jabber-jaw about it for the next 11 months.
Rubio will beat out Cruz precisely because Rubio has a shot against Clinton and Cruz does not. Electability will ultimately prevail over conservative bona fides, just like it did for McCain and Romney.
Kasich is unlikely to be VP. The only box he checks is swing-state popularity since establishment credentials are probably harmful, and there’s a reason the last two VPs have been from those famous swing states Wyoming and Delaware. Rubio is likely to want someone with foreign policy credentials. Unfortunately for Rubio, the GOP is running a bit low on vetted politicians who are also well-respected foreign policy hands. I’d say Bob Corker, or maybe Tom Cotton. John Warner’s on the correct side of the Iran deal, so that’d be a no-go even though he would be a good pick.
Rubio/Cotton seems plausible to me. Cotton is young, of course (and quite crazy, but that’s beside the point). He’s an Army Ranger, Harvard J.D., and uberconservative.
I think you’re missing a big thing from your analysis, namely that Trump is so far ahead that he doesn’t need to slog it through Iowa and New Hampshire. Who’s really pushing him that he would feel the need to do that? Carson’s slipping, NH voters can’t stand Bush, and both Cruz and Rubio have about half the support Trump has. Maybe we’re reading too much into the billionaire thing, he certainly is used to the good life and won’t like to get his feet dirty. That doesn’t mean he won’t.
If we’re assuming that he’s doing it for ego, ask yourself this: what’s a bigger hit to his ego, that he called it quits by NH, has everyone laugh at him, weeks of pundits crowing about how they KNEW he would quit, and becomes even more of a laughingstock, and gets hated by the rabid GOP primary voters that adored him? Or he toughs it out for an extra month, maintain the lead, and does something no one in their right mind thought was even possible 6 months ago when they circus started? I don’t think Trump will quit this race, he’s in too deep already. His polls are still sky high, he says whatever he wants and that 27% of crazies still love him. What’s better for his ego and entertainment than to win Iowa and New Hampshire?
We could rename him ‘Alydar.’
But if Cruz wins two and Trump wins one, or vice versa, but Rubio manages to finish second to whichever of them wins in IA, NH, and SC, do you really think the money will flood into his campaign? And he’ll need money to be able to compete in the states he needs to win starting in mid-March.
Yeah, that would lift him up to 23% nationally. That would be a really strong showing now, but not exactly all that great, post-winnowing. In a 3-way race, 23% sucks.
One point we tend to miss is that we give a shit, and most Americans don’t. They don’t really watch the news, and certainly don’t go to message boards to thunder at dunderheads. We may well be wondering what they are thinking when they aren’t.
And I can’t pretend to have a clue how their minds work, if that is the word. To me, a man who doesn’t vote must shave with his eyes closed. But that’s just me, and some of us.
I think it’s way too early for either side to be comforted or panicked by polling. Salon isn’t exactly an unbiased source and this article is giving the leftward masses some red meat, including this unsourced paragraph of what appears to be the opinion of the writer rather than something based on fact:
“Clinton remains the most likely Democratic nominee, and despite her negative favorability ratings, she can easily beat any of the Republican nominees in a general election. Even Sanders, who is not out of the race by any stretch, has a convincing case as a general election candidate. For all the hysteria about Sanders’ “socialist” agenda, he’s still a safer alternative to the Republican candidates, as virtually every poll confirms.”
She can “easily beat any of the Republican nominees in a general election”? The data is all over the place according to RealClearPolitics. Many of the polls are within the margin of error. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html
The highest comedy is the statement that Sanders has “a convincing case as a general election candidate.” He is losing to Trump in two out of the three head to head polls. Trump and Sanders are equally unelectable.
Finally, there is the last sentence about “virtually every poll confirm(ing)” that Sanders is a “safer alternative” to the GOP candidates. First of all, what is a “safer alternative” and second, where is any supporting data other than the writer’s wishes?
I’m not so sure a Republican who doesn’t understand Trump’s appeal can give me insights I don’t already have.
He has managed to be the guy in the spotlight for five months now. He will go away when nobody’s paying attention to him anymore. That doesn’t seem to be on the verge of happening.
Hell, it’s obvious that Carson’s peaked. He may remain in the race past Iowa, but Iowa was his best chance to make an impact. He’s not going to win Iowa, or even come that close. And after Iowa, it won’t matter much whether he’s still running or not.
Again, it really doesn’t matter when they formally suspend their campaigns. Santorum and Huckabee are going nowhere already, and will probably have the sense to realize it when Iowa proves it to them. Same for Fiorina and Paul, only in NH rather than Iowa.
I expect NH to determine the survivor in the ‘Establishment’ lane. So for those that aren’t sufficiently funded to put a lot of money into NH and have money for later primaries, it’s a sprint.
It’s a big lane, and there may be room for two in that lane for quite awhile.
I fear that you’re right. IMHO, the key will be whether Rubio can score an early win (IA or NH). If so, his campaign has legs, and he’ll be able to hang in there until the calendar turns in his favor in mid-March. If not, then probably not.
Neither Rubio nor Cruz will pick Kasich as his running mate.
I think she wins big against anyone but Rubio - and the main risk factor with Rubio is that the MSM will re-enact 2000 with Rubio and Clinton in place of Bush and Gore, rather than giving each candidate and his/her policies equal scrutiny.
Yeah, the hated MSM could win this election for team R.
Not yet. I can’t figure Trump’s endgame at this point. I think he started this as an ego trip and is as surprised by anyone else at how well he’s doing. I imagine him having a “what now” conversation with himself about his poll numbers.
I think his time in the spotlight is based on a number of factors. He says outrageous and almost non-sensical things. “I like guys who weren’t captured”, in regard to McCain for example. What does that even mean? The media, which is used to carefully constructed candidates who stay “on message” go crazy over this and run with it. The idea of Trump as nominee also thrills those in the media on the left and they are more than happy to help the run continue for as long as possible. This contributes to his already high name recognition as early polling gets underway. Who else is a person who is poorly informed and not paying close attention going to mention when asked who they support?
I think a few things are going to happen shortly to let the air out of the Trump balloon.
First, his act will start to wear thin with people who actually follow politics and pay attention. He will make more illogical or outrageous statements and they will start to wear on his numbers. As people discover that there is not much substance behind the bluster, he will be taken less seriously.
Second, the people of Iowa and New Hampshire are well aware of their role in presidential politics. It’s one thing to tell a pollster you are supporting Trump. It’s quite another to stand up in front of your friends and neighbors and declare that he, of all people, is your choice. When it comes time to vote, I think other choices will be made.
Third, the GOP will go to great lengths to keep him from becoming the nominee. They can make it harder, and more expensive, for him in all kinds of ways. Whether he responds with pragmatism or stubbornness is an open question.
He’s having fun now at the top. Whether he is willing to spend the time and money to keep going when he is in third or fourth place is the question. I don’t think he will.
This of course is a trivial factor. Not that many people read Mother Jones and the like.
This happened months ago.
Except the GOP voters in IA and NH don’t have to do that. NH is strictly a primary, with secret ballot and all. Iowa is technically a caucus on the GOP side, but unlike the Dems, who have a bona fide caucus there, Republicans just come in, vote, and leave. I’m not sure if they vote openly or secretly (I assume the latter), but even if it’s openly, it’s the work of a minute, and then you’re back in your car and out of there.
Which would give him the justification he needs (and surely wants) for running as an independent. Which would all but guarantee a GOP loss in November, and the party knows it.
To say that Clinton is guaranteed the win is certainly overoptimism and probably dangerously complacent. But on the other hand, she’s still the definite favorite. Every unbiased measure still gives her over a 50% chance, and that’s even counting the possibility of Sanders winning the primary.
I quote Bruce Willis in Armageddon, sort of. Trump or Cruz won’t win the nomination. How do I know this? Because if they do, we’re screwed. So it obviously cannot happen.
In all seriousness though, Republicans do tend to come to their senses eventually. I don’t think anyone in the donor class has missed the polls showing Rubio as the best candidate to beat Clinton. I think at this point he’s the only one leading her in the RCP average, and has led her in 4 of the last 6 polls. He’s also the only candidate other than Carson with positive favorability(and since Carson’s chance seems to have passed, he’s no longer a contender).
Rubio is probably going to have to be the nominee simply because he’s the only guy who is plausible who is doing well enough to have a shot. Kasich and Christie and Bush are also plausible, but no one seems to care. Nominating Trump or Cruz means defeat. Nominating Rubio means a 50-50 shot if Nate Silver’s gut instinct is correct about the GOP’s overall chances.
BTW, Nate Silver and crew have their always interesting chats up about how Iowa would shake things out in the GOP race: Silver believes that if Rubio wins Iowa, the game is over: It’s 2004 on the Dem side all over again:
They also raise the possibility that if Cruz is the only hope to beat Trump, then the establishment may just resign themselves to him.
Nate’s probably right here, but I see little sign Rubio will win Iowa. The last two winners were Santorum and Huck, IIRC.
What happened to the Good Old Days where Hillary was going to lose to pretty much any reasonably possible GOP nominee, according to the head-to-head matchups?
And (a) I’m not so sure the donor class has much control over this nomination process (“remain calm - all is well!!”), and (b) I’m old enough to remember Barry Goldwater. In your heart, you know he’s right!
If the decision-making process here was rational - if the proverbial boys in the back room got to pick the GOP nominee at this point - no question but it would be Rubio.
And FWIW, I agree with what you said in your other post, that if Rubio wins Iowa, Rubio rolls to the nomination from there. I don’t think it would be as straighforward as 2004 on the Dem side, because Cruz would probably still win a bunch of the SEC primaries, and quite possibly SC, before the primary calendar moved to more Rubio-friendly territory. But after that, Rubio would roll.
The trick is winning Iowa. Cruz has a pretty big lead over Rubio there, he seems to have been the primary beneficiary of the support that Carson’s been bleeding, and Carson still has more supporters he’s going to be losing.
Nate Silver didn’t say that; it was Harry Enten, their senior political writer. Micah is Micah Cohen, deputy Politics editor. And what was actually said was:
It’s not clear to me that he’s saying Rubio will beat the Democrats like Bush beating Kerry. I think he’s saying that the Republican primary would work out like the 2004 Democratic primary - where it finally settled on a boring but basic candidate.
Well, reasonable is Bush, Rubio, Kasich, or Christie at this point and only one of those looks to have a chance right now, although none of the three are out of it yet. As Nate Silver said, Christie can still win via “bank shot”, as in Huck or Santorum have to win Iowa, thus causing the press to call Iowa a mulligan and making NH the main early race, a race Christie can win if no other candidates build up momentum heading into that state.
I think that all Rubio really needs to do is beat expectations as McCain did in 2008, but as you’ve pointed out a lot of the buzz around Rubio seems to be wishing. His campaigning hasn’t been great, his fundraising hasn’t been great, and his poll numbers have been adequate at best. At some point he has to make a big impression. Right now his strategy seems to be, “I’m the most broadly acceptable candidate in the race, so I’ll just wait for everyone to realize that.”
That’s what I meant. The 2004 Democratic field was crowded and looked like it might go on a long time without a clear frontrunner, but Kerry’s surprise win in Iowa pretty much ended the race right then and there. A Rubio win in Iowa would have a similar effect on the crowded Republican field.