What will happen to Trump when the field narrows?

[ElectionsGuy]

Will he collapse, or still lead, or become statistically tied? I've been wondering this for awhile. The real question is what percentage of the non-Trump vote will go to Trump in 6-way, 5-way, 4-way, 3-way, or head to head match-ups? Trump has the highest number of people that would vote for him, and also one of the highest that wouldn't vote for him. That suggests he has a high floor, low ceiling, so I see the narrowing of the field as part of his demise.

This all, is assuming he's still in this thing for real when the field narrows, which is still doubtful.

[Mister Mets]

I think his numbers will stay the same. There may be a decline, although that would largely be due to other reasons.

The bigger question is what happens to the numbers of the other candidates. Someone will probably get more support than the others, just because this is what typically happens in elections, and they'll be able to surpass Trump.

[Jacobtm]

Hopefully Trump continues to sh**t on everyone who comes at him.

Let's get it down to Trump vs. Bush as soon as possible, so Trump can destroy Bush on his ties to the Mexican oligarchy and his support for open-borders.

If Republicans choose open-borders Jeb instead of Trump, well, say hello to the Clinton Administration.

[Gass3268]

Will he collapse, or still lead, or become statistically tied? I've been wondering this for awhile. The real question is what percentage of the non-Trump vote will go to Trump in 6-way, 5-way, 4-way, 3-way, or head to head match-ups? Trump has the highest number of people that would vote for him, and also one of the highest that wouldn't vote for him. That suggests he has a high floor, low ceiling, so I see the narrowing of the field as part of his demise.

This all, is assuming he's still in this thing for real when the field narrows, which is still doubtful.

Depends when folks start to drop off. If they drop off after Trump wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, it could be too late to stop him.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

Realistically whose support would go to Trump after they drop out? Cruz? I can't see anyone else's support going to him.

[Jacobtm]

Realistically whose support would go to Trump after they drop out? Cruz? I can't see anyone else's support going to him.

Plenty of people who otherwise wouldn't vote are supporting Trump.

This isn't a zero-sum game, considering how many eligible voters typically do not vote in primaries and caucuses.

[Mehmentum]

The NC PPP poll sheds some light on this.

In a head to head against Carson, Trump is at 35%.  Against Walker and Rubio Trump is 43%.  Against Bush, Trump is ahead at 50%.

Kinda puts a damper on the idea that Trump has a hard 25% ceiling.  Trump's ceiling really depends on who the field narrows down to.  His success at the point depends heavily on who he's against and how many people are in the field.  

[Fuzzy Bear]

Ultimately, Trump will not be nominated.  As the field winnows, there will be rallying around one candidate, and unprecedented pressure from the GOP establishment to do so. 

As to which candidate that would be, I would tend to think Marco Rubio.  Kasich appears to be an afterthought and nominating Rubio would kind of be the GOP's way of having their cake and eating it, too.  Bush has too many negatives, but Rubio is a Bushie at heart. 

[Jacobtm]

Trump got the most views for a debate ever, and you think people will "rally" around Rubio?

Who the hell is excited about any of these Republican candidates in real life? Trump is the only one people "rally" around.

[pho]

If you break the polls down to establishment vs anti-establishment, you see the establishment losing badly. From that, its easy to imagine a scenario where Trump 50+1 in a head to head. Unfortunately for Trump, winning a delegate count isn't as simple as 50+1. The establishment won't go down without screaming bloody murder at the convention. It will get ugly.

[Mehmentum]

But how likely is it that the field narrows to one candidate?  On Super Tuesday 2008 there were 3 major Republican candidates, on Super Tuesday 2012, there were 4.  Given how divided the field is, it seems very plausible that 3 or more candidates stay in it for the long haul.

[Fuzzy Bear]

But how likely is it that the field narrows to one candidate?  On Super Tuesday 2008 there were 3 major Republican candidates, on Super Tuesday 2012, there were 4.  Given how divided the field is, it seems very plausible that 3 or more candidates stay in it for the long haul.

Trump is making it "Do or die!" for the GOP establishment.  These are desperate times, and they call for desperate measures. 

I guarantee you that this year, both candidates on the GOP national ticket will be candidates that waged active campaigns for the Presidency.  Most of the GOP candidates in the field are vested in the GOP establishment, and the ones that aren't (Cruz and Paul) are not doing well at all.  (I've been waiting for Cruz to take off a bit, but it really isn't happening.)  If a candidate who is struggling doesn't fold his tent early in order to enable the establishment to circle in on Trump, he'll "nevah work in dis bidness again".

[eric82oslo]

Hopefully Trump continues to sh**t on everyone who comes at him.

Let's get it down to Trump vs. Bush as soon as possible, so Trump can destroy Bush on his ties to the Mexican oligarchy and his support for open-borders.

If Republicans choose open-borders Jeb instead of Trump, well, say hello to the Clinton Administration.

Thes days you can't win presidential elections with less than 25% of the latino vote, so you're wrong there buddy.

[Jacobtm]

Thes days you can't win presidential elections with less than 25% of the latino vote, so you're wrong there buddy.

Yea Jeb is going to win because of the Hispanic vote, right.

If Romney won 70% of the Hispanic vote, he still would have lost.

If he just upped his share of the white vote by 4% he would have won.

Focusing on the Hispanic vote is a straight #cuckservative tactic.

[Averroës Nix]

Anyone who's likely to drop out before Iowa is polling in the low single digits, anyway. You could lose half a dozen candidates (Gilmore, Pataki, Santorum, Perry, Christie, Graham, and probably even more) without changing the electoral landscape much for the top 3-5. By the time enough candidates have dropped out to free up a sun substantial share of support other factors will have changed the state of the race.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Thes days you can't win presidential elections with less than 25% of the latino vote, so you're wrong there buddy.

Yea Jeb is going to win because of the Hispanic vote, right.

If Romney won 70% of the Hispanic vote, he still would have lost.

If he just upped his share of the white vote by 4% he would have won.

Focusing on the Hispanic vote is a straight #cuckservative tactic.

Getting 4% more of the white vote is near impossible. The last republican presidential nominee to win 63%+ of the white vote was Ronald Reagan in his 1984 landslide. H.W. Bush in '88 and GWB in '04 only got 60% and 58% respectively.

The solution for Republicans is not to rely solely on the white vote. They need to get their black showing back to what it was in '04 (11% R, 5 points above Romney's showing. 2-4 of these percentage points will come automatically for any competent R nominee due to the fact that the Democrats are no longer running a black candidate), get their Hispanic and Asian vote share up to the high 30's, then improve a point or two among whites.

[ElectionsGuy]

Thes days you can't win presidential elections with less than 25% of the latino vote, so you're wrong there buddy.

Yea Jeb is going to win because of the Hispanic vote, right.

If Romney won 70% of the Hispanic vote, he still would have lost.

If he just upped his share of the white vote by 4% he would have won.

Focusing on the Hispanic vote is a straight #cuckservative tactic.

No, Romney would've got 52%.

He would've won if he got 63% of the white vote too, but in a few more elections that won't be enough with Blacks going >90% D and Hispanics >70% D. Republicans don't need to let go of their conservative positions to reach out to Hispanics. All they need to do is recognize their existence, stop using alienating language that makes them sound xenephobic, and explain solutions in a way as to help the little guy. That alone can get them 10% more Latino vote.

[eric82oslo]

Thes days you can't win presidential elections with less than 25% of the latino vote, so you're wrong there buddy.

Yea Jeb is going to win because of the Hispanic vote, right.

If Romney won 70% of the Hispanic vote, he still would have lost.

If he just upped his share of the white vote by 4% he would have won.

Focusing on the Hispanic vote is a straight #cuckservative tactic.

Romney wouldn't have won the election if he did 4% better with white voters. Everything else being equal, he would have needed a 5.4% larger margin with whites. In other words he'd need to expand his white margin from 20% to 25.4%, which would have been way more impressive than even Reagan's landslide 1984 victory. And even then he would only have won the popular vote by less than 0.1%. In order to win the electoral college as well, the only way to actually become president, Romney would in fact have needed to win white voters by a 27.5% margin. I think Reagan's 84 win - his landslide 49 states victory - was only driven by a 23% white margin.

[mencken]

Thes days you can't win presidential elections with less than 25% of the latino vote, so you're wrong there buddy.

Yea Jeb is going to win because of the Hispanic vote, right.

If Romney won 70% of the Hispanic vote, he still would have lost.

If he just upped his share of the white vote by 4% he would have won.

Focusing on the Hispanic vote is a straight #cuckservative tactic.

Getting 4% more of the white vote is near impossible. The last republican presidential nominee to win 63%+ of the white vote was Ronald Reagan in his 1984 landslide. H.W. Bush in '88 and GWB in '04 only got 60% and 58% respectively.

The solution for Republicans is not to rely solely on the white vote. They need to get their black showing back to what it was in '04 (11% R, 5 points above Romney's showing. 2-4 of these percentage points will come automatically for any competent R nominee due to the fact that the Democrats are no longer running a black candidate), get their Hispanic and Asian vote share up to the high 30's, then improve a point or two among whites.

The idea that Reagan's performance is the Republicans' ceiling for the white vote falls apart when you examine it on a state level. Romney lost it in New Hampshire and Iowa (both racially homogeneous enough that a victory in the white vote is tantamount to election), low 50s in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Colorado (increasing this to 55, 55 and 58 respectively would win those states), high 50s in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Nevada (59, 61, and 61 respectively would win these, although Nevada's rapid importation of Californians might make this a lost cause) and 61 in Florida and Virginia (unimpressive for Southern states, although Virginia has a problem with DC transplants). I would think an outreach to Midwestern white voters would be far more effective than trying to grab a few percentage points from each demographic in hopes that the numbers work out in the end, at least so long as we live under an Electoral College regime.

In the long term, the Republicans must either assimilate Hispanics into greater White culture (as was done with the Germans, Irish, and Italians for the most part), which seems to be the point of trying to ensure that most of them come through legal channels.

[Mehmentum]

Thes days you can't win presidential elections with less than 25% of the latino vote, so you're wrong there buddy.

Yea Jeb is going to win because of the Hispanic vote, right.

If Romney won 70% of the Hispanic vote, he still would have lost.

If he just upped his share of the white vote by 4% he would have won.

Focusing on the Hispanic vote is a straight #cuckservative tactic.

Getting 4% more of the white vote is near impossible. The last republican presidential nominee to win 63%+ of the white vote was Ronald Reagan in his 1984 landslide. H.W. Bush in '88 and GWB in '04 only got 60% and 58% respectively.

The solution for Republicans is not to rely solely on the white vote. They need to get their black showing back to what it was in '04 (11% R, 5 points above Romney's showing. 2-4 of these percentage points will come automatically for any competent R nominee due to the fact that the Democrats are no longer running a black candidate), get their Hispanic and Asian vote share up to the high 30's, then improve a point or two among whites.

The idea that Reagan's performance is the Republicans' ceiling for the white vote falls apart when you examine it on a state level. Romney lost it in New Hampshire and Iowa (both racially homogeneous enough that a victory in the white vote is tantamount to election), low 50s in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Colorado (increasing this to 55, 55 and 58 respectively would win those states), high 50s in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Nevada (59, 61, and 61 respectively would win these, although Nevada's rapid importation of Californians might make this a lost cause) and 61 in Florida and Virginia (unimpressive for Southern states, although Virginia has a problem with DC transplants). I would think an outreach to Midwestern white voters would be far more effective than trying to grab a few percentage points from each demographic in hopes that the numbers work out in the end, at least so long as we live under an Electoral College regime.

In the long term, the Republicans must either assimilate Hispanics into greater White culture (as was done with the Germans, Irish, and Italians for the most part), which seems to be the point of trying to ensure that most of them come through legal channels.

Assimilating Hispanics will happen... in a generation or two.  I don't think the GOP wants to wait that long.

As for focusing on Midwestern whites, I have a feeling that might require some policy changes the base won't be happy about.  The other major problem with betting it all on the Midwest is that this:

is still a Democratic victory (2012, flipping all semi-competitive Midwestern states).

Florida is the problem.  The GOP needs to win Florida and if they're getting crushed with Hispanics it makes that job very hard.