Seven weeks to New Hampshire, who's gonna win it?

[Mr. Morden]

That also seems to show Kerry having an unusually strong support level in Iowa and New Hampshire compared to his national support - which doesn't seem to compare with Bush or Rubio.

The Kerry 2004 scenario would apply more to Cruz.  Kerry wins Iowa, gets a big polling boost, and wins New Hampshire.  The boost was actually far larger than Kerry needed--he ended up winning NH by double digits.  A smaller boost than that would still be enough to put Cruz in striking distance.

McCain 2008 would apply more to Bush or Christie or Rubio this time around.  McCain consolidated support in "his lane" and overtook Romney.  Romney himself didn't actually drop that much.  It's more that McCain sucked up support from other candidates and caught up to Romney that way.

Other examples: I don't remember exactly, but I think Bush may have still been at least slightly ahead of McCain in New Hampshire polls at this point in 1999.  If McCain led, it wasn't by very much.  But McCain ended up winning the state by 19 points.  In December 1995, Buchanan was at something like 10% in the New Hampshire polls.  He ended up (barely) winning the state, based largely on momentum just from coming in an unexpectedly strong 2nd place in Iowa.

The point isn't to draw a 1:1 analogy between this election cycle and one of the previous ones.  Just pointing out how common it is for leads like the one that Trump currently holds in New Hampshire to evaporate.  So he's in the mid-20s and has a ~14 point lead over a divided field, or something like that.  With the primary being a month and a half away, there's still plenty of time for that lead to go up in smoke.  Not saying that it will.  But stuff like that happens all the time in presidential primaries, as in the examples I just gave.

[Holmes]

One thing to remember about 2004 was that New Hampshire went from supporting one neighbouring New Englander to another neighbouring New Englander after he won Iowa. Trump is probably the closest to a New Englander on the Republican side, whereas Cruz is one of the farthest. Yes, he might get a bump if he wins Iowa, but the Republican candidates who've been living in the state for the past few months (Christie, Kasich) will be close behind - and may even get a better showing than him.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Who voted for Pataki? LOL

[mencken]

That also seems to show Kerry having an unusually strong support level in Iowa and New Hampshire compared to his national support - which doesn't seem to compare with Bush or Rubio.

The Kerry 2004 scenario would apply more to Cruz.  Kerry wins Iowa, gets a big polling boost, and wins New Hampshire.  The boost was actually far larger than Kerry needed--he ended up winning NH by double digits.  A smaller boost than that would still be enough to put Cruz in striking distance.

McCain 2008 would apply more to Bush or Christie or Rubio this time around.  McCain consolidated support in "his lane" and overtook Romney.  Romney himself didn't actually drop that much.  It's more that McCain sucked up support from other candidates and caught up to Romney that way.

Other examples: I don't remember exactly, but I think Bush may have still been at least slightly ahead of McCain in New Hampshire polls at this point in 1999.  If McCain led, it wasn't by very much.  But McCain ended up winning the state by 19 points.  In December 1995, Buchanan was at something like 10% in the New Hampshire polls.  He ended up (barely) winning the state, based largely on momentum just from coming in an unexpectedly strong 2nd place in Iowa.

The point isn't to draw a 1:1 analogy between this election cycle and one of the previous ones.  Just pointing out how common it is for leads like the one that Trump currently holds in New Hampshire to evaporate.  So he's in the mid-20s and has a ~14 point lead over a divided field, or something like that.  With the primary being a month and a half away, there's still plenty of time for that lead to go up in smoke.  Not saying that it will.  But stuff like that happens all the time in presidential primaries, as in the examples I just gave.

Surely with three candidates in the moderate lane staking everything in New Hampshire, one candidate dominating that lane nationally, and one candidate poised to get a boost from Iowa, it makes more sense at this point to call the guy consistently leading in the high 20s a favorite, rather than one of the five longshots? There is also precedent for the original frontrunner to win the state as expected (Romney 2012, Tsongas 1992), albeit interrupted by a temporary loss of the lead (Clinton 2008, Bush 1988, Reagan 1980).

[Mr. Morden]

Surely with three candidates in the moderate lane staking everything in New Hampshire, one candidate dominating that lane nationally, and one candidate poised to get a boost from Iowa, it makes more sense at this point to call the guy consistently leading in the high 20s a favorite, rather than one of the five longshots? There is also precedent for the original frontrunner to win the state as expected (Romney 2012, Tsongas 1992), albeit interrupted by a temporary loss of the lead (Clinton 2008, Bush 1988, Reagan 1980).

Oh sure, I do think Trump is the favorite to win New Hampshire.  Just trying to point out that his lead there is more tenuous then some here tend to make it out to be.  People so often seem to forget that, unlike in general election races, big double digit shifts of support in the primaries are fairly common...even for candidates who appeared "stable" for months.

[mencken]

Surely with three candidates in the moderate lane staking everything in New Hampshire, one candidate dominating that lane nationally, and one candidate poised to get a boost from Iowa, it makes more sense at this point to call the guy consistently leading in the high 20s a favorite, rather than one of the five longshots? There is also precedent for the original frontrunner to win the state as expected (Romney 2012, Tsongas 1992), albeit interrupted by a temporary loss of the lead (Clinton 2008, Bush 1988, Reagan 1980).

Oh sure, I do think Trump is the favorite to win New Hampshire.  Just trying to point out that his lead there is more tenuous then some here tend to make it out to be.  People so often seem to forget that, unlike in general election races, big double digit shifts of support in the primaries are fairly common...even for candidates who appeared "stable" for months.

Would you buy or short my 1:2 odds?

[Maxwell]

That also seems to show Kerry having an unusually strong support level in Iowa and New Hampshire compared to his national support - which doesn't seem to compare with Bush or Rubio.

The Kerry 2004 scenario would apply more to Cruz.  Kerry wins Iowa, gets a big polling boost, and wins New Hampshire.  The boost was actually far larger than Kerry needed--he ended up winning NH by double digits.  A smaller boost than that would still be enough to put Cruz in striking distance.

McCain 2008 would apply more to Bush or Christie or Rubio this time around.  McCain consolidated support in "his lane" and overtook Romney.  Romney himself didn't actually drop that much.  It's more that McCain sucked up support from other candidates and caught up to Romney that way.

Other examples: I don't remember exactly, but I think Bush may have still been at least slightly ahead of McCain in New Hampshire polls at this point in 1999.  If McCain led, it wasn't by very much.  But McCain ended up winning the state by 19 points.  In December 1995, Buchanan was at something like 10% in the New Hampshire polls.  He ended up (barely) winning the state, based largely on momentum just from coming in an unexpectedly strong 2nd place in Iowa.

The point isn't to draw a 1:1 analogy between this election cycle and one of the previous ones.  Just pointing out how common it is for leads like the one that Trump currently holds in New Hampshire to evaporate.  So he's in the mid-20s and has a ~14 point lead over a divided field, or something like that.  With the primary being a month and a half away, there's still plenty of time for that lead to go up in smoke.  Not saying that it will.  But stuff like that happens all the time in presidential primaries, as in the examples I just gave.

Fair enough.

[Bull Moose Base]

Surely with three candidates in the moderate lane staking everything in New Hampshire, one candidate dominating that lane nationally, and one candidate poised to get a boost from Iowa, it makes more sense at this point to call the guy consistently leading in the high 20s a favorite, rather than one of the five longshots? There is also precedent for the original frontrunner to win the state as expected (Romney 2012, Tsongas 1992), albeit interrupted by a temporary loss of the lead (Clinton 2008, Bush 1988, Reagan 1980).

Oh sure, I do think Trump is the favorite to win New Hampshire.  Just trying to point out that his lead there is more tenuous then some here tend to make it out to be.  People so often seem to forget that, unlike in general election races, big double digit shifts of support in the primaries are fairly common...even for candidates who appeared "stable" for months.

Would you buy or short my 1:2 odds?

Are you just basing it on this poll?

1:2 sounds about right to me.
I'd maybe bet on Rubio at 5:1,
Cruz and Christie each 17:1
Bush and Kasich 35:1

[mencken]

Surely with three candidates in the moderate lane staking everything in New Hampshire, one candidate dominating that lane nationally, and one candidate poised to get a boost from Iowa, it makes more sense at this point to call the guy consistently leading in the high 20s a favorite, rather than one of the five longshots? There is also precedent for the original frontrunner to win the state as expected (Romney 2012, Tsongas 1992), albeit interrupted by a temporary loss of the lead (Clinton 2008, Bush 1988, Reagan 1980).

Oh sure, I do think Trump is the favorite to win New Hampshire.  Just trying to point out that his lead there is more tenuous then some here tend to make it out to be.  People so often seem to forget that, unlike in general election races, big double digit shifts of support in the primaries are fairly common...even for candidates who appeared "stable" for months.

Would you buy or short my 1:2 odds?

Are you just basing it on this poll?

1:2 sounds about right to me.
I'd maybe bet on Rubio at 5:1,
Cruz and Christie each 17:1
Bush and Kasich 35:1

The poll coincidentally aligns with my semi-subjective assessment.

[Mr. Morden]

Surely with three candidates in the moderate lane staking everything in New Hampshire, one candidate dominating that lane nationally, and one candidate poised to get a boost from Iowa, it makes more sense at this point to call the guy consistently leading in the high 20s a favorite, rather than one of the five longshots? There is also precedent for the original frontrunner to win the state as expected (Romney 2012, Tsongas 1992), albeit interrupted by a temporary loss of the lead (Clinton 2008, Bush 1988, Reagan 1980).

Oh sure, I do think Trump is the favorite to win New Hampshire.  Just trying to point out that his lead there is more tenuous then some here tend to make it out to be.  People so often seem to forget that, unlike in general election races, big double digit shifts of support in the primaries are fairly common...even for candidates who appeared "stable" for months.

Would you buy or short my 1:2 odds?

Short.  I'd probably put his chances below 50/50, to be honest.  (But still higher than anyone else's.)  Given the history of the New Hampshire primary, I can't really go higher than that on someone who's only polling in the 20s (in most polls).  Too many ways for one of his many opponents to catch up to him.  And given his lackadaisical response to Cruz catching him in Iowa (he still hasn't put up a single TV ad there, or anywhere else, has he?), I don't have a lot of faith in him to have a good counter if someone also closes the gap on him in New Hampshire.

Trump losing both Iowa and New Hampshire would be interesting.  But just like I'm not convinced Trump winning early would create a big bandwagon effect that would have his national poll #s soaring to 50%+, I'm also not convinced that him losing early would cause his national support to crumble to nothing.  It would drop, but he wouldn't fade away to nothing, I think.  Momentum (either positive or negative) may not matter as much to candidates who are as polarizing as him.

[Kingpoleon]

Surely with three candidates in the moderate lane staking everything in New Hampshire, one candidate dominating that lane nationally, and one candidate poised to get a boost from Iowa, it makes more sense at this point to call the guy consistently leading in the high 20s a favorite, rather than one of the five longshots? There is also precedent for the original frontrunner to win the state as expected (Romney 2012, Tsongas 1992), albeit interrupted by a temporary loss of the lead (Clinton 2008, Bush 1988, Reagan 1980).

Oh sure, I do think Trump is the favorite to win New Hampshire.  Just trying to point out that his lead there is more tenuous then some here tend to make it out to be.  People so often seem to forget that, unlike in general election races, big double digit shifts of support in the primaries are fairly common...even for candidates who appeared "stable" for months.

Would you buy or short my 1:2 odds?

Are you just basing it on this poll?

1:2 sounds about right to me.
I'd maybe bet on Rubio at 5:1,
Cruz and Christie each 17:1
Bush and Kasich 35:1

I'd sell Rubio and buy Christie and Kasich.

[JMT]

I think Trump wins NH. Christie comes in second, and Cruz comes in third due to some momentum coming off his first place finish in Iowa. But even though I think Cruz wins Iowa, I don't think it affects the NH results in a large way. Trump will do well enough in Iowa to stay relevant and seems strong in NH. After Cruz wins IA and Trump wins NH the establishment starts to freak out, and many candidates (Bush, Kasich, Fiorina, Paul etc) drop out. The establishment then backs either Rubio or Christie. I ultimately think this race comes down to Cruz or Rubio in later states (South Carolina, Nevada, Super Tuesday states) and who knows who ends up as the nominee. But I'm predicting the overall nominee will be Rubio or Cruz

[Bull Moose Base]

Merry Christiemas! Remember when most here thought Christie would come in 2nd in NH? He even got 12 votes to win it (twice as many as Rubio). Now he's fighting to crack Top 5 and avoid indictment.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

What's the point of bumping a thread from back when the Nefarious Nine were the Terrifying Thirteen / Organization XIII?