Saturday, January 09, 2016

Trump over 50% in head-to-head against rest of Republican field

Hypothetical primary among Republicans with Trump and Cruz as the only options:


Between Trump and Rubio:


Previous data show Trump easily beating ¡Jabe! and Carson by even wider margins. And this is among Republicans--in states with open primaries, Trump's numbers will improve further still (Texas, where Cruz has a home field advantage, is an one of those open primaries).

The prospect of the field being winnowed down to Trump and a single non-Trumpian candidate no longer is enough to get the establishment there. While Trump has dominated for several months, only in the last couple of weeks has crossed the 50% threshold against the entire field. When Reuters began polling on the mano a mano match ups in mid-December, both Rubio and Cruz were beating Trump. That is no longer the case. Trump's support isn't leveling off, let alone attenuating. To the contrary, it's still growing.

The nomination is now genuinely Trump's to lose. The first week of February will see a media manufactured dethroning when Cruz probably places first in Iowa, but the faux narrative will take a one-two punch in New Hampshire and South Carolina when Trump wins both states by substantial margins. Nevada, another state Trump will win, is just a few days later. Then the results will start pouring in rapidly and Trump's national advantage will really begin to manifest itself in the delegate counts.

This presumes no successful malfeasance by party operatives, of course. There will be future attempts, but Trump has almost effortlessly frustrated the ones that have been tried so far, and the smart money says that he'll continue to do the same going forward.

For your viewing pleasure, Trump reframing protester activity at a recent rally (jump to the 25m44s mark):



15 comments:

Patung said...

Follow the money .... betting markets have trump nowhere near likely to win the presidency, not even fav for nomination, hope they're wrong but

Anonymous said...

Betting markets bought us sub-prime.

Of course gamblers don't favor Trump! He takes them daily...casinos aren't money losing very long. Then there's the Stock Market gamblers who want endless QE.

Of course gamblers hate Trump.

vxxc

Dan said...

I've said it before... I honestly believe that some establishment campaign spending is going into the betting markets against Trump.

Bush has 50 million to blow and ads sure aren't working. I wouldn't be surprised if some of it is going there, to create an impression of winning.

Audacious Epigone said...

Patung,

Some of what I think regarding those odds are here.

Parenthetically, Trump is, narrowly, the current favorite for the Republican nomination at PredictIt.

That a 10% return can still be made simply betting against ¡Jabe! winning the nomination definitely makes Dan's belief sound quite plausible to me.

Agnostic had a great post a month or so ago critiquing the shortcomings of Big Data. I suspect he's on the mark and they're off of it. I've tried to chronicle some of those misses here. Social media has potentially become an enormous game changer that Big Data isn't picking up on.

Consider this if you haven't seen it. ¡Jabe! has no chance at all, yet there is a substantial number of people--¡Jabe! puppet masters or otherwise--who think he is going to pull it off (or are at least trying to create a self-fulfilling prophecy).

Big Data also presumes that Trump's support is similar to that of Giuliani or Huckabee in previous nominations with regards to polling data. But no one was apprehensive about telling pollsters that they were voting for either of those guys. There are people who are telling pollsters that about Trump.

Dan said...

One interesting thing is that Donald Trump is being attacked as 'not a conservative' by his rivals.

Wouldn't this help him in the general?

But on that topic, I think it is pretty clear he has the mentality of a conservative. By that I mean he combines nostalgia and pessimism. With those two cornerstones, it seems unlikely that someone would go left.

Nobody of a properly pessimistic mind would think its a good idea to let in a million young Syrian men to see what happens. Or in America's case, empty the prisons as even some Republicans are wont to do.

If pessimism is at the heart of conservatism then Trump is teaching people to be genuinely conservative and making it cool again.

And yet, he combines that pessimism with being a great entertainer. And more, people love an outsider to go to Washington and rile things up. Has there ever been someone more anti-establishment in modern memory?

Oh yuck, what a mess. I just creamed my shorts. ;-)

Audacious Epigone said...

He has, on multiple occasions, alluded to the demographic changes in Europe as being problematic. "Paris doesn't look like Paris anymore", "Merkel has destroyed Germany, it's not even recognizable", etc.

There is nothing more conservative than immigration restriction, and Trump is instinctively skeptical of demographic change. Even in his campaign, he made the appearance with the black pastors and those two shrieking black women (he's even brought them on stage a few times), and of course his main appeal is to middle and working class white America. He is pitching to old America, not to the evitable new America the CultMarx crew wants.

Dan said...

Rand Paul, who was just kicked off the grown up table for the next debate, has this update.

https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/686705628883083268/photo/1

He says has over 1000 precinct captains in Iowa, and a 500 person leadership team in Iowa.

I find that astonishing, considering that Paul is at 2% in Iowa. That means that each of his precinct captains has only managed to grab one supporter.

Dan said...

I have to wonder what life is like in Iowa and NH during primary season. Iowa gets only around 100,000 caucus-goers, and yet Rand Paul with his negligible support has a 1000 person team?

There was that awesome and widely reported campaign event why my old governor Martin O'Malley had one attendee. He spend an hour one-on-one with that guy and still did not get that guy's vote.

I really ought to get over to Iowa so I can give O'Malley a piece of my mind for an hour. He'll just sit there meekly. I can't do that with my wife because she'll argue back! Maybe O'Malley will even buy me dinner.


Audacious Epigone said...

Or it just means he's lying, which I'd suspect is closer to the reality.

I heard Trump reference that in Vermont. Bizarre.

Jason Malloy said...

England's betfair is probably the best prediction market for the 2016 election. John Stossel recently released this page that updates the betfair odds every 5 minutes. Trump is the leading primary candidate.

Jason Malloy said...

And of course Clinton has much higher odds than any GOP candidate right now. She's a shoo-in for the Dem primary while there are still multiple real contenders for the Rep nomination. It's illusionary.

Audacious Epigone said...

Jason,

Could be, although looking at the movement history, all of those odds looking strikingly similar to those on PredictIt.org, except about two weeks behind the curve. Trump, who was trading in third at ~28% when I maxed out my wager a month ago, is now in the lead by 11 points at 39%, with Rubio in second at 28% and Cruz having fallen all the way to 16%.

Yes, the Democrats are big favorites, with 73% between Hillary and Sanders. Sanders is actually showing the second best odds after Clinton, with Trump in third.

Jason Malloy said...

To be clear I was responding to first comment about the prediction markets by Patung.

1. Trump not leading in primary. Wrong.

2. Behind Hillary for election. Obvious why. Irrelevant right now.

Jason Malloy said...

By the way, the market predictions are changing by the day, so they don't justify much emotional investment. A lot is going to happen between now and the election, and we (collectively and individually) are not necessarily limited to bystander roles in how those events unfold.

This quote sounds much too good for Karl Rove, but I find it inspirational regardless of its provenance:

"... when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

Audacious Epigone said...

we (collectively and individually) are not necessarily limited to bystander roles in how those events unfold

Inspirational in its own right, and also of crucial importance.