Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - 2015-2016 Republican Primary Season

flere-imsaho · 02-24-2016, 07:19 AM

After reading Nate Silver's analysis, which is a good & short read btw, another thing occurred to me:

Before Iowa a lot of us posited that Trump's support might be fickle, in the sense that they might not show up to the polls. Iowa supported this theory, but Trump rebounded in NH. Silver has also pointed out that Trump fares terribly among late-deciding voters.

I think what this tells us is that Trump has a solid core of support that isn't going anywhere (in fact, has been in place since he started leading polls - and hasn't given up that lead, nationally - last July). Yes, there was a chance they could have been disillusioned by early losses, but now that Trump's gone 3 of 4, I'd say that train has left the station. Now they know they're on the bandwagon, and Trump's clearly the best cheerleader in the field.

I guess what I'm predicting is that the 30-40% (nationally) that's consistently polling for Trump is simply going to keep turning out for him, with some state variations. An anti-Trump candidate is going to have to find a way to cobble together a coalition that gets over that number.

Edit: Key points from Nate Silver's analysis:

1. Trump beat Cruz again with white, born-again or evangelical Christians, as he did in NH (no one cares) and SC (a big deal). My comment: should Cruz drop out, how much of his support actually goes to Trump? If Cruz continues to underperform, is it possible Trump actually makes a deal with Cruz for his support, which seems more likely than a Rubio-Cruz deal?

2. Rubio got blown out by Trump in a state that once upon a time was considered favorable for him. My comment: Rubio's done very well from a "narrative" standpoint, this election, starting with his surprise result in Iowa. But Trump clearly and unambiguously won the narrative in Nevada.

3. News organizations indicate that big conservative money is still currently sitting on the sidelines. My comment: Why? Trump doesn't need them. Cruz doesn't (really) need them. Rubio's the only other viable candidate at this stage. Why not pour the money in and go for broke? The obvious answer seems to be that they don't think he's any more likely to win than Bush was. Perhaps better to be prepared to back the final candidate in the general in order to get an ROI on their money. This is terrible news for Rubio, given indications that he might be almost out of money.

02-24-2016, 07:19 AM	#3204
flere-imsaho Coordinator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Chicagoland	After reading Nate Silver's analysis, which is a good & short read btw, another thing occurred to me: Before Iowa a lot of us posited that Trump's support might be fickle, in the sense that they might not show up to the polls. Iowa supported this theory, but Trump rebounded in NH. Silver has also pointed out that Trump fares terribly among late-deciding voters. I think what this tells us is that Trump has a solid core of support that isn't going anywhere (in fact, has been in place since he started leading polls - and hasn't given up that lead, nationally - last July). Yes, there was a chance they could have been disillusioned by early losses, but now that Trump's gone 3 of 4, I'd say that train has left the station. Now they know they're on the bandwagon, and Trump's clearly the best cheerleader in the field. I guess what I'm predicting is that the 30-40% (nationally) that's consistently polling for Trump is simply going to keep turning out for him, with some state variations. An anti-Trump candidate is going to have to find a way to cobble together a coalition that gets over that number. Edit: Key points from Nate Silver's analysis: 1. Trump beat Cruz again with white, born-again or evangelical Christians, as he did in NH (no one cares) and SC (a big deal). My comment: should Cruz drop out, how much of his support actually goes to Trump? If Cruz continues to underperform, is it possible Trump actually makes a deal with Cruz for his support, which seems more likely than a Rubio-Cruz deal? 2. Rubio got blown out by Trump in a state that once upon a time was considered favorable for him. My comment: Rubio's done very well from a "narrative" standpoint, this election, starting with his surprise result in Iowa. But Trump clearly and unambiguously won the narrative in Nevada. 3. News organizations indicate that big conservative money is still currently sitting on the sidelines. My comment: Why? Trump doesn't need them. Cruz doesn't (really) need them. Rubio's the only other viable candidate at this stage. Why not pour the money in and go for broke? The obvious answer seems to be that they don't think he's any more likely to win than Bush was. Perhaps better to be prepared to back the final candidate in the general in order to get an ROI on their money. This is terrible news for Rubio, given indications that he might be almost out of money. Last edited by flere-imsaho : 02-24-2016 at 07:26 AM.