Will Trump win any primaries or caucuses?

[Mr. Morden]

Despite his polling lead, most here (as judging by our polls on this) don't regard Trump as the most likely person to win the 2016 GOP presidential nomination.  This is also the CW reflected in futures markets.  The markets give him a less than 10% chance of being the nominee.

So presumably his polling #s will collapse at some point.  But when?  Will he win a single primary?  Or will his poll collapse come before Iowa, either knocking him out of the race completely or giving him a string of 2nd or 3rd place finishes?

[Leinad]

No, he won't. Walker's leading a lot in Iowa, where people more conservative than Trump often do well, Jeb's leading in New Hampshire, and Trump's doing terrible in South Carolina. After those, lots of the other people will have dropped out, and the real front-runners will emerge. Trump won't be able to catch up.

Now, I think he'll gets 2nds and 3rds, probably. And, unless he gets bored, he'll probably stay in the race for a while.

[heatmaster]

He will be the 2016 version of John Connolly,  a lot of money & hype and nothing to show for it. He's a summer fad and he has probably peaked.

[Iosif]

Everybody is assuming/hoping the Trump lovefest is just a phase and he'll fall back down to Earth at some point. He's gained in the polls since the McCain comments. He's durable, rich and has been consistently ahead (by a lot) in the polls for weeks. The Republicans have nominated unelectable buffoons before for the Senate multiple times. Why not Trump?

[Mr. Morden]

The Republicans have nominated unelectable buffoons before for the Senate multiple times. Why not Trump?

Because 1) The party doesn't really care that much about whether an unelectable buffoon gets nominated in one or two Senate races, but cares a lot about whether someone like that gets nominated for president, as the latter has an enormous impact on the party as a whole, 2) many/most primary voters have very weak allegiance to any particular candidate, can be influenced by party actors into not voting for someone they think is toxic, because of #1, 3) the field will be winnowed, and Trump's favorability #s and name recognition suggest that he has less room for growth than the others, once people start dropping out, 4) we've seen this before with Forbes, Cain, etc….businessmen with no experience in elective office often lead the polls for a while in the summer/fall before the primaries, then crash and burn.  Why should this time be different?  5) Senate primary campaigns are short, crazy things can happen with a burst of momentum at the right time, etc.  Presidential primaries are long, drawn out affairs in which fluky outcomes are less likely...

I could go on with 6, 7, etc., but here is a Jonathan Bernstein column that makes some of my points:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-07-30/no-trump-can-t-win-yes-clinton-can-

[Likely Voter]

Before I could answer that question I would have to know if Trump actually wants to be the nominee and to be President. The working assumption was he only flirted with running for publicity, and then it was that he was only running for publicity. Yet he is now the clear front-runner with broad support in national and early states. If he is in this for publicity, then one would imagine that he would have to self-sabotage his campaign, or at the very least slowly let it die by retreating from doing events,  press and/or skipping debates.

But if he is seriously considering being President, I see no reason why he couldnt turn his current status into winning at least a single state. He gets more free media than anyone and has hyuge resources for paid media if the need arises. He does need to build a more robust campaign and GOTV operation, especially in IA, but again he has hyyge resources.

But I still get back to actually not knowing if he really wants to win.

[Torie]

With so many candidates, sure, it's possible that Trump will come in first in one of the early primaries. But it's all wild speculation at this point really. It will be interesting to see this Thursday just how facile Trump is with policy issues. One thing that really stood out to me last night, was how well Fiorina handled the question about the economic collapse in 2007, giving a nice tour de horizon of banks too big to fail, FANNIE and FREDDIE, etc. Trump needs to do that sort of thing on an issue or two: he needs to display some real depth of knowledge.

Oh, regarding the interesting question posed immediately above, about whether or not Trump really wants to win, my thought is that motivations can change over time. Campaigns change candidates. So while Trump may have gotten in just for the buzz, as time goes by, he might really become a true believer in himself (as opposed to it being a mere egomaniacal veneer), a man of destiny.

[Bojack Horseman]

I think he'll maybe win one or two states, kind of like Newt Gingrich did four years ago. Right now, Trump has a 14-point lead over Jeb Bush in Arizona. Obviously that will change between now and the primaries/caucuses.

If I had to throw out a prediction, I think Trump will carry New Hampshire. I also have a feeling that Huckabee and Cruz will carry their home states, respectively.

[Leinad]

Everybody is assuming/hoping the Trump lovefest is just a phase and he'll fall back down to Earth at some point. He's gained in the polls since the McCain comments. He's durable, rich and has been consistently ahead (by a lot) in the polls for weeks. The Republicans have nominated unelectable buffoons before for the Senate multiple times. Why not Trump?

Because you still need to get 50% of the delegates at the convention to vote for you in order to win, and he won't do that. Yes, I see his 20% in the polls, and I bet he'll keep that for a while, even if he continues making gaffes. I said at the time of the McCain gaffe that it wouldn't hurt him--i.e. I've been comparatively bullish on Trump. But he doesn't have enough overall support to win.

He won't have any establishment support, and it's hard to beat the establishment, probably impossible, without a broad coalition of non-establishment voters. Most of those non-establishment voters, in the Republican party, are conservative, and Donald Trump just isn't a real conservative. This will become evident in the debates.

[Bull Moose Base]

2) many/most primary voters have very weak allegiance to any particular candidate, can be influenced by party actors into not voting for someone they think is toxic, because of #1, 3) the field will be winnowed, and Trump's favorability #s and name recognition suggest that he has less room for growth than the others, once people start dropping out,

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-07-30/no-trump-can-t-win-yes-clinton-can-

Read that Bernstein article and the NYT article linked within on how party actors herd voters to their preferred candidates. Here's the key paragraph on the dynamics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First of all, polling does play a role in the dynamics as outlined here so it's inconsistent to use that to support an argument that polling doesn't matter. Except to argue it doesn't matter until party actors start attempting to influence it I suppose, but they already are and not especially effectively. News of Bush's dominance in fundraising hasn't surged him into the lead.

I think one of the problems with using past cycles for analysis is that campaign finance, how voters consume news and wider attitudes about party leaders have changed rapidly. Even 8 years ago, Giuliani had attracted more donors and built higher polling than McCain who slayed him. And things have continued to change dramatically since then. With donation limits effectively repealed by the SC and Super PACs and a handful of mega-donors able to level the playing field, we see Ted Cruz outraising everyone except Bush, but enough to compete with Bush. That's a huge difference from most past candidates despised by party leaders. After Gingrich won South Carolina and surged into the lead in Florida (despite party leaders rallying to Romney against Gingrich), Romney drowned him in vicious ads, outspending him 5:1. Trump is his own mega-donor and, if he's willing to spend, can match Bush for example.

I'd also say the ability of endorsements to influence voters may be weaker. The Republican Party methodically marshaled every prominent person to pounce on Trump after his attack on McCain, join the consensus that his comments disqualify him and he should probably step aside and his polling lead grows. Guys like Tom Coburn come out for Rubio who plummets.

And primary voters are also much more fragmented on how they consume their news than they were in the last decades of the 20th Century.  Breitbart and FOX News have more sway.

I'm still skeptical Trump will win a primary because he's a crazy person who can say anything at any given moment. But I think party leaders' influence has likely waned. Or, put another way, they've frayed and some strands are pulling pariah candidates.

[The Mikado]

I wouldn't be shocked to see Trump win New Hampshire. If Scott Walker's campaign continues to be moribund and dull, Iowa might even be in play.

The big difference between Trump and other outsider candidates is that Trump has basically unlimited resources for his campaign. Cutting him off from big donors affects Donald Trump not at all if he wants to open his wallet.

[Crumpets]

Looking at the schedule, I think there's no way he drops out before Nevada where he has a very good chance, even with middling national poll numbers. If he's still in the top-tier, I think he also has an outside chance at New Hampshire, especially if Jeb runs into issues. Super Tuesday doesn't look too Trump-friendly, so unless he's the frontrunner or close to it by then, I have a hard time seeing him staying in (as a Republican) much longer. 

[DrScholl]

Trump is doing what he can to secure enough hardcore support to win primaries, so yes, I think he will win some primaries or caucuses. You have to remember that all he needs is a plurality, which he can achieve.

[Progressive]

Also, the party apparatus is scared of him. If they push him too hard or make him look bad (aside from the job he's doing himself), he'll threaten a third party run for as long as he can and send their polls into a spiral.

[ElectionsGuy]

No

[Maxwell]

I stand by my no.

[Kingpoleon]

I wouldn't be shocked to see Trump win New Hampshire. If Scott Walker's campaign continues to be moribund and dull, Iowa might even be in play.

The big difference between Trump and other outsider candidates is that Trump has basically unlimited resources for his campaign. Cutting him off from big donors affects Donald Trump not at all if he wants to open his wallet.

Like President Hermain Cain?... Oh wait. President Steve For- no, gosh darn it. $25,000,000 Rudy Guilian... Ah, I see.

Primary August Polls:
2012: Rick Perry & Barack Obama -> Mitt Romney & Barack Obama
2008: Rudy Guiliani & Hillary Clinton -> John McCain & Barack Obama
2004: George W. Bush & Howard Dean -> George W. Bush & John Kerry

Why You Should Ignore The Republican Presidential Primary Polls*

*March, pre-Trumpmania

[The Mikado]

I wouldn't be shocked to see Trump win New Hampshire. If Scott Walker's campaign continues to be moribund and dull, Iowa might even be in play.

The big difference between Trump and other outsider candidates is that Trump has basically unlimited resources for his campaign. Cutting him off from big donors affects Donald Trump not at all if he wants to open his wallet.

Like President Hermain Cain?... Oh wait. President Steve For- no, gosh darn it. $25,000,000 Rudy Guilian... Ah, I see.

Primary August Polls:
2012: Rick Perry & Barack Obama -> Mitt Romney & Barack Obama
2008: Rudy Guiliani & Hillary Clinton -> John McCain & Barack Obama
2004: George W. Bush & Howard Dean -> George W. Bush & John Kerry

Why You Should Ignore The Republican Presidential Primary Polls*

*March, pre-Trumpmania

Steve Forbes won two primaries in 1996 (Delaware and Arizona). The question at stake here is whether Trump will win any primaries...I don't think Forbes is an example in your favor here.

[andrew_c]

Maybe one or two, where anti-establishment votes coalesce around Trump.

[Republican Michigander]

Possible, but I'm going with "no" for now. Only chance is others splitting vote or if it's a "stop Bush" vote.

Trump's base is mostly "disaffecteds" who don't always vote. It's not "Tea party." It's not "establishment." It's not "moderates." It's not Christian conservatives.

 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Even 8 years ago, Giuliani had attracted more donors and built higher polling than McCain who slayed him. And things have continued to change dramatically since then.

McCain did not slay Giuliani as such implies that they went head to head and one bested the other. Though Rudy's people would have loved for a nationwide single primary day, such didn't exist and it was fought out state by state. Rudy and McCain rarely ever attacked each other during the debates that I recall, whilst Romney and the others attacked both of them. In the end, Rudy's decision to pull out of New Hampshire in favor of Florida created the opening for McCain to beat Romney in New Hampshire. Had Rudy stayed in New Hampshire it is possible he could have come in second and knocked McCain out by relagating him to third. Rudy did more to defeat himself and nominate McCain than anything McCain did to "slay Giuliani".

[tgards79]

Yes, I think he could win New Hampshire, but he will have to ease off on the bombast and develop some real policies to do so.  I think Walker has Iowa unless he implodes.