Has there ever been a candidate with Trump's poll numbers that faded?

[Saint Milei]

This man is at 38 percent according to Reuters. Do people honestly expect him to become a bust and not last?

[Pandaguineapig]

Howard dean, Rudy Giuliani, Steve Forbes, and Hillary Clinton

[Lief 🗽]

Howard dean, Rudy Giuliani, Steve Forbes, and Hillary Clinton

None of these candidates' polling numbers, nationally and in the early states, were as strong as TRUMP's at this point in the election. Maybe Clinton's were, I'd have to check, but that was basically a two-way (three with Edwards) race, unlike the GOP primary this year.

[Pandaguineapig]

In fact now that I think about it usually candidates who are leading when the primaries start don't usually win

[Pandaguineapig]

Howard dean, Rudy Giuliani, Steve Forbes, and Hillary Clinton

None of these candidates' polling numbers, nationally and in the early states, were as strong as TRUMP's at this point in the election. Maybe Clinton's were, I'd have to check, but that was basically a two-way (three with Edwards) race, unlike the GOP primary this year.

Who are you going to ironically support when Trump loses?

[Lief 🗽]

In fact now that I think about it usually candidates who are leading when the primaries start don't usually win

Yes, it is increasingly looking like Jeb Bush won't win.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

Howard dean, Rudy Giuliani, Steve Forbes, and Hillary Clinton

None of these candidates' polling numbers, nationally and in the early states, were as strong as TRUMP's at this point in the election. Maybe Clinton's were, I'd have to check, but that was basically a two-way (three with Edwards) race, unlike the GOP primary this year.

Who are you going to ironically support when Trump loses?

Absurd hypotheticals should have no place on this board. We should be discussing who Trump is going to tap for VP at this point.

[Pandaguineapig]

Howard dean, Rudy Giuliani, Steve Forbes, and Hillary Clinton

None of these candidates' polling numbers, nationally and in the early states, were as strong as TRUMP's at this point in the election. Maybe Clinton's were, I'd have to check, but that was basically a two-way (three with Edwards) race, unlike the GOP primary this year.

Who are you going to ironically support when Trump loses?

Absurd hypotheticals should have no place on this board. We should be discussing who Trump is going to tap for VP at this point.

Lol

[The Mikado]

Howard dean, Rudy Giuliani, Steve Forbes, and Hillary Clinton

Dean especially never really broke out of the low 20s, and Forbes didn't hold the lead for a significant chunk of 1995 in the 96 race. Giuliani is a fair point, but unlike Trump, had no support in Iowa or New Hampshire. Trump is currently narrowly leading IA and massively leading NH. As for Clinton, like pointed out before, that was a 2 1/2 candidate race. Clinton came in third in Iowa with 30% of the vote...the winner of Iowa in the GOP 2016 primary will be lucky to hit that number.

Think about it this way. Bernie Sanders could lose Iowa by 30 points, 65-35 (due to the 15% threshold at each station, O'Malley won't even register), and Sanders' humiliating defeat would still be a higher vote share than the winner of the GOP contest in Iowa. That's the difference between a two way race and a 14 way race.

[Sbane]

Trump is not going to fade. That being said, it remains to be seen whether he can get a majority of the Republican vote. About 40% are reflexively not going to vote for him because they are the "establishment". Then you have another 25-30% of the Republican electorate that might agree with Trump but don't want to vote for him for one reason or another, mostly because he is an asshole. Currently they are split between Cruz and Carson. If Carson continues to fade, Cruz could consolidate those voters and win Iowa, thus peeling off support from Trump as well. If they continue to split that vote, Trump likely wins the nomination.

[Adam Griffin]

Howard dean, Rudy Giuliani, Steve Forbes, and Hillary Clinton

Dean especially never really broke out of the low 20s, and Forbes didn't hold the lead for a significant chunk of 1995 in the 96 race. Giuliani is a fair point, but unlike Trump, had no support in Iowa or New Hampshire. Trump is currently narrowly leading IA and massively leading NH. As for Clinton, like pointed out before, that was a 2 1/2 candidate race. Clinton came in third in Iowa with 30% of the vote...the winner of Iowa in the GOP 2016 primary will be lucky to hit that number.

Think about it this way. Bernie Sanders could lose Iowa by 30 points, 65-35 (due to the 15% threshold at each station, O'Malley won't even register), and Sanders' humiliating defeat would still be a higher vote share than the winner of the GOP contest in Iowa. That's the difference between a two way race and a 14 way race.

It's also worth pointing out that in contrast, Trump is still polling 10-15 points higher than Romney was at this point, when that was a 6-person race.

Trump's stability in the polls looks remarkably similar to Romney's throughout 2011-2012, except that Trump is polling even higher than Romney in an even bigger clusterf[inks].

[Volrath50]

It's also worth pointing out that in contrast, Trump is still polling 10-15 points higher than Romney was at this point, when that was a 6-person race.

Trump's stability in the polls looks remarkably similar to Romney's throughout 2011-2012, except that Trump is polling even higher than Romney in an even bigger clusterf[inks].

Heh, seeing that 2012 graph again reminds me just how insane the 2012 primary season was, with candidate after candidate going from nothing to leading the polls almost literally overnight and then crashing almost as hard. This season is much more stable, the "surges" like Carson's are much slower, more gradual, and never take the poll lead. The closest we've had to such an overnight surge was Fiorina's, and that only got her tied for second, briefly.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

Trump is not going to fade. That being said, it remains to be seen whether he can get a majority of the Republican vote. About 40% are reflexively not going to vote for him because they are the "establishment". Then you have another 25-30% of the Republican electorate that might agree with Trump but don't want to vote for him for one reason or another, mostly because he is an asshole. Currently they are split between Cruz and Carson. If Carson continues to fade, Cruz could consolidate those voters and win Iowa, thus peeling off support from Trump as well. If they continue to split that vote, Trump likely wins the nomination.

Sorry for deviating a bit off topic

What is stated above and this
 while others have collapsed in the past such as Herman Cain in 2012, none of these candidates had such a long and stable lead, Trump has  consistently led  nearly uninterrupted for about  4 months. 

Comparing this to last year several candidates  (Herman
Cain, Newt Gingrich,Mitt Romney )  had  the lead  for short periods  of time, but none of them were   commanding leads.

The issue with trump is while he is consistently scoring between 27%-35% on average. Is that he is  not showing consistent growth, as an example he may poll at 38 or 42 percent in one poll then poll  at 28% in the next. This volatility in poll numbers may give an idea of Trumps base, Trump scored once a 20% in early November his lowest since an October 1st poll, however has much more consistently showed a low point of anywhere from 23%-27%. We might come to assume that Trump has a strong  base of around 25% of the GOP electorate. This may be a little low but does keep in mind the volatility in polling numbers. Keep in mind that the base does not include all possible or leaning voters, but instead just those that are  fairly committed to voting for Trump.

My point is this, even if we assume that Trumps base is lets say between 30-35%, he would not have to go down to loose the GOP nomination.,( in reality it is fairly unlikely Trump totally bottoms out. ))Instead without a candidate that is really that closely comparable to Trump, (even the other anti-establishment candidates are each unique in their own way, ) trump may be unable to grow his base of support something he needs to do if he wants to win the nomination.  It is entirely possible Trump does this as other candidates drop out, and while Trump's base for some reason could collapse, it is much more probable if he looses the nomination, it is because he fails to expand his voting base.   




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_Republican_Party_2012_presidential_primaries

[Ljube]

Trump could pick one of his opponents (say Carson) as VP early on and unite the support of the two. Carson would be particularly well suited for this because his and Trunp's support overlap. Another option is for him to pick Cruz, whom Trump hasn't attacked so far.

[Bull Moose Base]

There was just a poll out today showing him beating Rubio high 50s to low 40s in a 2-man race. What's the evidence he wouldn't be able to grow his #s or a previous similar example? Clinton maybe? She lost as Obama became better known and scored an Iowa win. She and Giuliani lost in different manners but both to similar rivals as themselves (except fewer dealbreakers with the base). That precedent should be a bit more encouraging for Cruz than for Rubio (or anyone else). I'll take a wild guess that somewhere between a third and a half of people now telling pollsters they'd vote for Rubio consider support for amnesty a dealbreaker and have no clue of his role in the immigration reform bill. Some of those would be satisfied with his flip but many wouldn't and there's arguably better reason to doubt his ability to expand than Trump's.

[tpfkaw]

Here's all the previous primary poll trendlines. Ed Muskie '72 and Gary Hart '88 had ~35% in November.

[perdedor]

Here's all the previous primary poll trendlines. Ed Muskie '72 and Gary Hart '88 had ~35% in November.

They aren't comparable. Muskie and Hart were both brought down by self-inflicted wounds. Nothing Trump does himself will hurt his poll numbers.

[Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez]

Trump may be overtaken as the field narrows, but he won't "fade".  He may be stopped at the convention; the GOP Establishment probably will have the ability to do this, although it would come at the price of the GOP airing their dirty linen in a way not seen at a major party convention since 1976, or even 1968.  Trump and his supporters will make the opposition win ugly.

Who are these silly people saying Trump will "fade"?  What fiction do these people believe in that causes them to believe that folks are just lying to pollsters, or need to see ever so much more before they come to their senses and abandon Trump?  Do they have pictures of Trump with Jared Fogle (the disgraced Subway pitchman) at a computer or Pee Wee Herman at an arcade?  Really, given the endurance of Trump's numbers through all of his verbal bombshells, wouldn't it take something as awful and bizzare for folks to lose their taste for Trump?

All of Trump's enemies are at least 3 months behind the curve.  Think about that and how the race has gone so far.  Trump's smarter than his enemies, and he's made them all look foolish.  He won't win because of the fact that this matter is decided at a convention.  But he won't fade.

[mencken]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/rick-perry-fell-harder-than-anyone-and-hes-the-first-to-try-again/

Quite a few, actually.

[Mr. Morden]

Dean was above 30 in a few national polls.  His peak in the Gallup poll was the Dec. 11-13, 2003 sample:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/10051/rally-bush-wake-saddam-husseins-capture.aspx

Dean 33%
Lieberman 12%
Clark 11%
Kerry 10%
Gephardt 9%
Sharpton 5%
Edwards 4%

And of course, Dean ended up winning only his home state of Vermont, while Kerry won 46 states.

But yeah, that poll was something of an outlier.  I don't see a running average for the 2004 primary race polls at the moment.  Maybe RCP has it archived?

It is difficult to know where exactly Trump is right now, since there's such a huge divergence between the internet and the phone polls.  Previous cycles didn't have nearly this many internet polls.  In any case, Trump losing doesn't require him to crash so hard that he hits Dean levels of hilarity.  He could fade somewhat and still win ~15 states, but that's not enough to win the nomination.

[Likely Voter]

Here is 2004 data
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm

Deans rise started in October and by December he was in the mid to high 20s. His national lead seems to have held until he lost Iowa.

[Landslide Lyndon]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/rick-perry-fell-harder-than-anyone-and-hes-the-first-to-try-again/

Quite a few, actually.

Not comparable. Perry's lead was more modest and didn't last for long.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Ted Kennedy 1980 and Hillary Clinton 2008.
Kennedy actually led Carter 58-25 at one point.  At her peak, Hillary led Obama 48-21.

[Gustaf]

A lot of people are overlooking an important fact in these comparisons and that is that the primaries are starting later this year. IIRC, the 2012 primaries started right after New Year, like January 2nd or something. This year it's in February. So a 2012 comparison should be put back about 1 month to be relevant.

[SillyAmerican]

All of Trump's enemies are at least 3 months behind the curve.  Think about that and how the race has gone so far.  Trump's smarter than his enemies, and he's made them all look foolish.  He won't win because of the fact that this matter is decided at a convention.  But he won't fade.

Yup, this sums up the situation quite nicely. Trump is keenly aware that he needs to tread lightly for the next few months, and I don't see any chance of his stumbling anytime soon. It promises to be a very interesting convention...