Civis Analytics national: Trump 16% Carson 11% Bush 9% Rubio 7% Huck 7% Cruz 7%

[Mr. Morden]

Unfortunately, I can’t find any write-up of the full #s for this, but the NY Times was given access to a poll conducted by Civis Analytics.  What’s unique about this poll is that they used an actual list of registered voters, and checked whether the people had actually voted before in past elections.  Thus they can define “likely voters” by whether the person has actually voted, rather than just relying on the honesty of the respondent as to whether they’re voters.  The poll was conducted Aug. 10-19.

Nate Cohn mentions just a few results here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/us/politics/why-donald-trump-wont-fold-polls-and-people-speak.html?ref=topics&_r=0

For all registered voters who identified as Republicans, the poll found:

Trump 16%
Carson 11%
Bush 10%

Those are the only names mentioned in the story.  But Cohn also says that the support of Trump, Bush, and Carson is higher among people who haven’t actually voted in recent elections, and lower among those who have.  I guess that means that several other candidates are in the opposite situation (more support among people who actually vote than those who don’t).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[weixiaobao]

"As expected, Mr. Trump performed best among less-frequent voters."

So either, he will bring more people to vote.  Or his voters could be too lazy and forget to vote on primary/caucus dates.

[Mehmentum]

"As expected, Mr. Trump performed best among less-frequent voters."

So either, he will bring more people to vote.  Or his voters could be too lazy and forget to vote on primary/caucus dates.

Yeah, basically there are 2 ways to spin this.

1.) He attracts low information voters, when push comes to shove, they won't turn out.

or

2.) He's bringing in people who were disillusioned with the political process.  These people normally don't vote, but they will vote for him.

[Likely Voter]

This polling methodology is interesting and I believe this is the way most campaign polls are done.   

It is no surprise that Trump voters are not regular voters. We have seen this phenomenon before with candidates who claim to be able to expand voter roles and bring in new voters but it is very rare that one actually does it, notably Obama in 2008, especially in caucus states. But that requires a very big and sophisticated GOTV machine.  And I just don't see Trump putting one of those together. If he maintains a huge lead then he wont need it but when the race tightens, he will and I suspect he wont have the organization to put him over the top.

[HillOfANight]

I think Hillary fell into to his trap in 2008, only polling past Iowa voters, and then Obama beat her. It seems like Trump will bring lots of new or casual voters, assuming he can maintain momentum.

[Mr. Morden]

Nate Cohn's latest column has the full #s:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/27/upshot/theres-evidence-that-trumps-polling-support-is-overstated.html?ref=topics

Trump 16%
Carson 11%
Bush 9%
Rubio 7%
Huckabee 7%
Cruz 7%
Walker 5%
Fiorina 3%
Kasich 3%
Paul 3%
Christie 2%
Perry 2%
Santorum 1%
Jindal, Pataki, Gilmore, Graham 0%

Note again that this is among "registered voters who identify as Republicans".  And this is among *actual* registered voters, as determined by voting lists, whereas some polls just ask the respondent if they're registered, and take their word for it.

They also found that some of the candidates do better among Republican primary voters who have actually voted in recent elections (as determined from voter lists) than among the sample of all adults identifying as Republicans.  Those who do better among actual voters by at least one percentage point:

Fiorina +3.4%
Walker +1.4%
Kasich +1.4%
Paul +1.0%
Huckabee 1.0%

And those who do worse:

Trump -1.8%
Christie -1.8%
Carson -2.5%
Bush -3.1%