Thursday night is the first debate of the 2016 Presidential Primary. As we all know, Trump has vaulted to the top of the polls since announcing (around 25%). As background of the current situation on the primary dynamics, I think there is merit in seeing who Trumps rapid rise came from by comparing the FoxNews poll before Trump announced (6-2-15) and the most recent poll (8-2-15).
Trump: +22%
Walker: -3%
Carson: -4%
Cruz: -2%
Rubio: -2%
Paul: -4%
Christie: -2%
Perry: -3%
Graham: -2%
The candidates who seem to be unaffected by Trump are:
Bush: +3%
Kasich: +1%
Huckabee, Santorum, Jindal, Fiorina: 0%
What does this mean:
1) It establishes a benchmark on movement from the upcoming debates.
2) It identifies the bottom tier candidates who have to show some movement or they will have trouble with money and attracting organization. Bottom tier as measured with current support @ 3% or below: Christie, Kasich, Perry, Santorum, Jindal, Fiorina, Graham. Including undecided, this bottom-tier represents 21% of the GOP primary voters.
3) I said a few months ago that I wouldn’t start paying attention until the top three candidates exceed 50%. Right now, FoxNews has Trump, Bush, & Walker at 50% and the average of recent polls these three are @ 45%. If after this debate, support for the bottom tier drifts to the top three, we might hit that 50% much sooner than I expected. If that occurs, I suspect the bottom tier will quickly fade/disappear and it will be most interesting to see where their supporters will gravitate. When a candidate gets to 40%, they start winning individual state primaries at a faster clip than anyone else and start racking up delegate votes.
4) It gives an indication of the candidates (those who declined) who during the last two months didn’t have messages that added support, who currently have soft support, and who may be at risk of falling away sooner than later.
5) It is doubtful ANYONE will “win” the Fox Debate in any way that will be long-lasting but MANY can lose it (ala Perry, Bachman, Gingrich, Huntsman in the last cycle’s Fox Debate in Sioux City).
6) #5 aside, there can be winners who get “gravitas bumps.” Fiorina, Carson, & Trump as the “non-politicos.” Paul, Kasich, & Jindal as the intellectual policy wonks. Walker & Cruz as the biggest contrasts to Obama within the “politicos.”
7) What is the impact of the bottom tier debate (Santorum, Jindal, Fiorina, Graham, Pataki and Perry)? Will it have enough viewership? Does the smaller quantity on the debate panel give them a better opportunity to shine?
8) Who gains by Trump leading in the polls? I think Bush and Walker because nobody will focus on attacking them. Bush and Walker just need to not get injured and wait until the field is winnowed down as they need others support to drift to them.
9) Debate dynamics. It will be interesting to see if one person focuses on Trump (ala Gingrich’s focus on Romney), if the preponderance of candidates do (ala the 1980 New Hampshire debate against Reagan), or if they ignore him or just roll their eyes at him (ala the Democrats and John Edwards). Watch Perry who seems the most opposed to Trump’s presence to be most likely to focus on Trump.
10) Look ahead to the General Election. In 2012, Republican debate participants made a lot of assertions why they would be best to run against Obama. Will they do the same with regard to Clinton? Or will they ignore her thinking she is not going to be the nominee because of her current problems?
11) Who has the most to lose (besides leader Trump)?
- Huckabee & Santorum because they have “been there done that.”
- Senate Quad (Cruz, Rubio, Paul, Graham) because neither distancing themselves or embracing their colleagues/body will net gains and potentially more to lose, making the line for them to walk quite treacherous.
- Governors not named Walker (Christie, Kasich, Perry, Jindal) because they have to first stand-out among themselves before worrying about Walker which is again a treacherous walk.
- Fiorina as the only woman. If she can’t get a bump here, will she ever?
- See #8. Playing it too safe can be Bush’s & Walker’s undoing.
12) Wildcard Issue which can impact the debate by making a candidate stand-out as “Presidential:” Iran Nuclear Deal. More than Obamacare, defunding Planned Parenthood, deficit/budget, or economy, I think this issue has the most potential to capture new support.
13) To be in the “Top 10,” FoxNews went down to 3% support in the polls. I think the next threshold will be 8-9% to be in the new threshold of “Top 7 or 8” which puts Cruz, Rubio & Paul on the bubble. I’m thinking Rubio & Paul are most likely to pull the trigger and drop out if they don’t get a bump because they are also up for re-election to the Senate.
14) Final comments: Carson, Cruz, Perry, Santorum, & Fiorina will stick around through Iowa & New Hampshire because they have no downside in staying in not matter what. Kasich, Jindal, & Graham lose standing if they ride the horse with little chance of succeeding.
Sidenote: I selected FoxNews as a baseline because they are most likely to have a poll hitting the streets upon conclusion of the debates as they are the hosts. And, more importantly, methodologies of the polls are the same taking out as variables underlying assumptions of turn-out so to some degree we are comparing apples to apples.
Oh, the luscious irony of a quotation from such an intelligent man in this blog.
I thought you said Trump was over after the McCain comments. Thanks for the analysis.
Trump may be over and he may not be. That is why we have campaigns. The GOP is experiencing something we have little experience with (large pool of generally capable and attractive candidates). Speculating with any degree of certainty on how it sits at a deeper level when the field is winnowed is little more than a wild guess because there is so little experience and information available. Someone who likes Trump is likely to speculate his star will continue to rise. Someone who doesn’t like Trump is likely to speculate he has peaked. In either case, the assessment is more grounded in one’s desire/perspective than objective analysis.
If Trump’s support is driven because he has name ID, being the current leader doesn’t mean much because those who stay in the race will ultimately get comparable name ID stats. If the 75% of Republican who support someone else find him unattractive, being the current leader doesn’t mean much. If his support is from people who are aware of his views, agree with him, and those views will attract support from the other candidates, being the leader is significant.
At this stage of the campaign, top-line support often is less relevant than “second-line” support as in who is everyone’s second choice. For instance, let’s pretend Rick Perry (currently under 3%) was the second choice of 50% of the party primary voters, he would look dead today but if the right people dropped out soon enough, he’d likely get the nomination. Right now, there is little information on “second choice” available except the rumor Rubio leads that category. But we don’t know if he leads it by a lot or by a little and who is close behind. (Troy)
One slight quibble, Troy (because otherwise I’m really enjoying your analysis)… the other candidates may “ultimately get comparable name ID stats” via more frequent media exposure, but I’m skeptical that they will be able to achieve Trumps almost mystical “iconic” status as a brand.
He’s always had a certain celebrity status that gets him on the society mag covers and the dirt-bag tabloids, probably because he’s had a life-long aspiration to be numbered in that crowd.
He’s practically mythological… which is mysterious to me, because I personally can’t think of a single thing he’s ever done that I would call “patriotic” or “statesman” like.
My impression is that he’s wildly popular for being an up-front, greedy, selfish bastard, and that there is a certain group people of people who admire him for that because they think of themselves in a similar way… “what’s good for me is good for everybody.”
I don’t think it’s possible for any of the other candidates to reach that level of “almost-admirable depravity.” Nor, hopefully would they want to.
We only need one “The Donald,” just like we only need one “P.T. Barnum” or one “The Fonz.”
I hope Walker does not play it safe. Aside from that, I think the first debate will be more substantive than the main attraction. Look for more than one to shine.
I agree playing it too safe will make him look un-Presidential. At the same time, he is like a baseball/soccer team that has already qualified for “bracket play” while yet still in “pool play.” Injuries is all he has to avoid (and playing it too safe can be such an injury) and he doesn’t have to be aggressive on the base paths. (Troy)
Trump will most likely continue to entertain (and alarm) us in the debate. Making it all the more impossible for any of the other candidates less Jeb to gain any ground.
This is all that the current Trump experience is about. Trump is doing the dirty work for the Bush crowd to keep any other candidate from gaining any traction.
Eventually, Trump will subside by his own design and the GOP will be left with Jeb as their only answer.
In 2012, Trump was the “hatchet man” for the GOP establishment by trying to give continued life to the “Birther” issue and now he is being used to clear the deck for Jeb.
The political calculus here is so obvious, but instead everyone treats Trump as if he is for real…. He is not. Also, notice how in the aforementioned polling data that outside of Trump, Jeb is the biggest benefactor of this “Trumpethon”…. Image that (?)….
I agree that Bush and Walker are the beneficiaries of Trump but I don’t think that is Trump’s intent. If anything, I think he is mostly in the race to deny Bush. He just doesn’t know he is helping. (Troy)
Well, Trump is no idiot. Trump’s 2012 obsession with the “Birther” issue may not been to the advantage of the Bush family (because a Romney victory would have pushed Jeb out to 2020 at best), but it could have helped other GOP established candidates. However, his displayed talent for political theatrics in 2012 I think was recognized by the Bush crowd and is now being put into full force by them or at least with their acquiescence.
Historically, the Bushes have finessed others and or events to dictate the political narrative so as to gain or retain power. Perhaps all politicians have tried this, but for the Bushes it is their mainstay and it has worked for them at times. Whether it be denying other Republicans in 1980 to debate Reagan accept for GWH Bush in the New Hampshire primary (their one major failed attempt at this strategy), Willie Horton in ’88, 9/11 and the fake yellow cake Iraq War in 2004, or Trump in 2015/6 the Bush political playbook is once again in use and in full force now.
Bill,
I agree. Much of his what I called “name ID” support is actually as you said “brand support.”
The question is will a majority want that “brand” to be President. I doubt it. “Brands” that win are ones the include “cares about me” and as you said Trump’s brand is fundamentally and openly narcissistic.
For instance, does anyone really think a family values social conservative is going to support a “brand” that dumped the mother of his children for a trophy wife and then dumped the first trophy for a newer model? An evangelical or Catholic Christian is going to go for a “brand” that has never confessed a sin? At way to many levels this is a “brand” too consistent with what is wrong with our culture and not what is right with it. These and a number of other fundamentals of the “brand” preclude him from being the second choice to a broad swath of GOP primary voters.
Rubio is in my mind the most unsmearable by the Drive Bys (as a Hispanic rooted here by his own parents, he owns the immigration issue) along with a possible Walker/Florina ticket bringing in a non-politician which it appears America finds so refreshing in Trump. Trump changes the debate context which all the candidates will be forced to answer to.
Of course Walker is on his own for now but the seed has been planted. This first debate will bring ideas and verbal gaffs and skills which will carry forward.
Trump is still a joke, and I take solace in the fact that at one point Herman Cain and Michelle Bachman were seen as heirs apparent in the last primary. I absolutely agree with you that Bush and Walker are benefiting from Trump’s early lead as well because they are getting zero focus from unfriendly sources.
Dicta it used to be when a well heeled business person spoke the truth we listened. Many Americans are damn tired of the political rhetoric we get blasted by every election. But when “Help” in the form of “Free Stuff” becomes more important to us than getting Government out of the way so the free markets actually work we will continue electing opportunists.
Carly blew away everyone. She obviously understood the rules of the game and played better than anyone.
Perry did well but was over-shadowed. Graham appealed to the hawks. The rest took up space which is hard for me to say about Santorum.