Donald Trump: Come Kiss the Ring

It must be very tough to campaign when your primary reason for being on the stage, i.e. familial legacy, is also completely toxic to any chance you have of winning.

 

According to Real Clear Politics average of the polls, on this date in 2011, Rick Perry led the Republican field at 21.0 percent, followed by Romney (18.5), Ron Paul (9.7), Bachmann (9.5) Newt Gingrich (5.5) and Cain (5.0).

Here's the difference. Perry, Cain, Bachman (who never led, BTW -- her peak was a distant No. 2 behind Romney (24.2-14.0) in July 2011), etc., all had a spike, but it rose and fell quickly. Trump's path so far looks most like Romney's -- consistently the leader (or in Romney's case, at worst a strong second) in every poll. He's made it through a debate. He's survived the kind of controversial statements that have quickly destroyed others -- and his numbers keep rising.

Small, you're right. It's way early and anything can happen. But a lot has already happened, and here Trump is.

I hope I'm wrong, but I'm having a hard time seeing what he could say or do that could derail him. Maybe another candidate will surge, but it seems to me that's going to be a tough climb.

2012 - 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination | RealClearPolitics

 

I don't see why Trump winning the GOP nomination would be such an outlandish proposition. Isn't this the problem the GOP faces in governor and congressional races across the country -- the disconnect between popularity with the base and electability in the non-GOP population?

The other thing about comparing to previous moon-shot candidates is they were all dependent on fundraising, so when party leaders decided to dry up the money, that was it. No such concerns for Trump.

He's probably comparable to Perot more than anybody, except Perot jumped in late and was never ahead.

 

Vox argues that Trump currently isn't much different from Gingrich or Giuliani - yet, anyway:
These charts show why Donald Trump’s poll lead is less impressive than it looks

 

Trump also has the advantage that people have "known" him for 25 years. Most of the negatives are baked in. I don't know what he or another candidate could say that would change that, short of Trump ripping Reagan at the Reagan library debate....even then.

 

This may be just me, but I don't see Trump as all that reflective of "the base."

 

The source of fivethirtyeight's pessimism: A lot of Republicans don't like Trump (pull is only of Republicans):

 

Well, considering Republican governors outnumber Democrats 31-18, and the GOP controls both houses of Congress (including its largest House majority since 1928), I don't think the Republicans really have a problem winning governor and congressional races across the country right now.

 

And yet he leads in the "First Choice" category.

 

He isn't. But see my earlier post -- they see him as being able to get things done, whereas the "real" conservative candidates talk a good game, then do nothing.

 

Yes. But that's not the point. The point is that with a lot of republicans not liking him, he might be 20%'s first choice, but those unfavorable ratings will kill him when the field narrows and everyone whose first choice is gone needs to find another candidate. It gives him a ceiling that's lower than someone who's only looked at unfavorably by 9% of Republicans.

 

One of the key questions is whether can he maintain a lead once the large field starts to winnow down and supporters of candidates who have dropped out must choose a new horse to back. Trump's negative polling numbers seem to indicate that he would falter in a smaller field.