The State of the Republican Primary
We’re more than a week past the first Republican debate. That means that we can take a look at the polling and see how the mayhem in Milwaukee shook things up. The short answer is that the debate didn’t do much to change the needle.
For polling trends, I usually look beyond the individual polls to FiveThirtyEight and Real Clear Politics, two sites that consolidate and average a variety of polling. Looking at polling averages weeds out outlier polls and allows users to step back and take in a wider view of the forest rather than focusing on each individual tree.
The big picture is that Donald Trump still owns the race. On August 23, the two sites had Trump at 52.1 and 55.4 percent respectively. Today, he stands at 50.3 and 53.6 percent. No one else comes close.
Even with the indictments, his no-show at the debate, and loads of negative press, Trump still has a commanding lead over the Republican field. His bad week may have cost him about two points, which is meaningless at this stage.
The next biggest story is that the debate did not save Ron DeSantis. FiveThirtyEight’s average puts DeSantis at 14.8 percent which is on par with his position going into the debate. Real Clear Politics gives him a marginal decline from 14.8 to 13.5 percent, which fits with the broader picture of DeSantis’s fall from a high of about 31 percent last winter. DeSantis continues to run a distant second but may give up that spot soon.
Vivek Ramaswamy, the mini-Trump, holds third place. Ramaswamy began to surge in mid-August before the debate but may have peaked. He hovered just below 10 percent in the FiveThirtyEight average but only reached about seven percent on Real Clear Politics. Many Republicans lauded Ramaswamy’s debate performance, but he has failed to make a case as to why Republican voters should pick him over Trump, who is of course still in the race.
Interestingly, a fellow church member who forwards me a lot of Trump cheerleading stuff had started sending me pro-Ramaswamy links before the debate. Since then, it has shifted to “Do you trust Vivek? I did until people started pointing things out.” The comments are particularly interesting. I think that MAGA sees Vivek as a threat to Trump so watch for the backlash.
Haley and Pence posted gains in the polling averages since the debate. Haley showed a sharp increase that averages about three points. She ended with a 5.6 from FiveThirtyEight and 4.9 from Real Clear Politics.
Pence’s gain was smaller, less than half a point. His final share was almost identical at both platforms with an average of 4.5.
Most of the numbers, while not exactly the same between the two sites, show the same trends. Chris Christie, however, had an interesting split decision. In FiveThirtyEight’s average, Christie gained 0.3 to end August at 3.6 percent. In the Real Clear Politics estimation, he lost half a point to finish at 2.5 percent. This probably reflects different weighting by the averaging sites as well as decisions on which polls to include or exclude.
Of the top-tier candidates, Tim Scott was the clear loser. Scott lost ground in both averages to end at 3.0 percent on FiveThirtyEight and 2.4 percent in Real Clear Politics. Both sites showed a loss of just over half a point.
There were, of course, other candidates at the debate, but I’m not going to talk about them because they don’t matter. If Doug Burgum or Asa Hutchinson starts to surge, we’ll take a closer look at them then.
At this point, Trump is pretty clearly the guy to beat. There are some interesting developments though. A Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 45 percent of Republicans would not vote for Trump if he was “convicted of a felony crime by a jury.” Thirty-five percent said they would vote for him anyway.
This poll has made waves because of the trial date for Trump’s election tampering case in federal court. A judge recently set the date to open that trial for March 4, 2024. This is the day before the Super Tuesday primary elections. Many Republicans think the date of the trial is dirty pool, but judges don’t typically take a defendant’s schedule into mind when setting trial dates.
I’ll also note that the prosecution had asked for a January trial date while the Trump team wanted a long delay. The judge’s decision may have been influenced by Trump attorney and spokesperson Alina Habbe, who said on Fox News, “You don’t have to prep much when you’ve done nothing wrong.”
Further, the trial is not going to be a quick one and Trump is unlikely to be convicted before the end of the primary season. The Washington Post points out that both sides expect to take four to six weeks to present their cases, which would put the closing date of the trial near the end of the primary season.
While his legal affairs might keep Trump off the campaign trail, just a similar case would keep any average American out of work or school, the evidence so far is that Trump does not need to campaign to win Republican votes. And Trump won’t be off the political radar as there will undoubtedly be wall-to-wall coverage of the (yet another) trial of the century. (I expect about three or four trials of the century over the next couple of years, more if a celebrity is involved in a murder.)
Ross Duthout, a conservative columnist at the New York Times, thinks that the trial date is actually a boon to Trump, in part because Republicans, including Trump’s opponents in the primary, have a knee-jerk tendency to rally around The Former Guy when he is criticized or attacked.
“To beat Trump in the primaries, challengers would need part of that bloc to resist the rallying impulse and swing their way instead,” Duthout writes. “So timing Trump’s prosecution but not the final outcome of the trial to some of the most important primaries seems more likely to cement his nomination than to finally make his poll numbers collapse.”
The bigger problem might be if Trump is convicted, which in my view is a strong possibility but not a sure thing in this case. If the trial concludes at the end of the primary season with Trump in his current strong frontrunner position, Republicans could find themselves with a convict as a candidate. Biden’s 2020 pandemic campaign would seem extravagant and uninhibited compared to a campaign in which the candidate was in prison.
I’ll wager that in that case, the number of Republicans willing to vote for a candidate with a felony conviction would rise from 35 percent to about 90 percent. At least he’s not a “socialist” or a “groomer,” they’ll say.
“It’s all political,” the party of “lock her up!” will rationalize.
But Republicans have the opportunity to avoid such a fate. The best alternative is to use a corollary to the Buckley Rule and pick the best and most conservative candidate who is not under indictment. At this point, I’d say that the candidate who best fits that test is Nikki Haley (although this is not an endorsement), but she has a long, hard climb to even become a viable challenger to the embattled former president.
I didn’t expect much from the debate but a collection of movement in polls that doesn’t even exceed the margin of error managed to go under my already low bar of expectation.
That Douthat piece rankled me a bit because he writes it as if he thinks that anyone on the Democratic side of the partisan gulf has any power at all to influence when the fishing trial date is set. IANAL but my understanding is none of them do. So a mistake by whom?
The interesting thing about this is if Trump is the nominee and he loses even 10% of the right wing vote then he’s cooked. Not only cooked but in near landslide loss territory unless the lost votes end up concentrated in urban areas.Report
Looking at the photo, its remarkable how unremakable it is.
Even with the caveat that political rallies are always filled with hyperbolic and breathles rhetoric to fire up the base, it is clear that the idea that the Republican party is an insurrectionist revolutionary faction is no longer a harsh accusation but a self-professed description.
Not every Republican openly professes that they are a revolutionary dedicated to overthrowing an illegitimate and tyrannical regime, but those who do are accepted and embraced as fellow travelers on a journey to a common destination.
And its true that if ever any of these words ever met with the whiff of gunpowder almost all of their adherents would instanly melt away like cotton candy in th rain, as evidenced by the Jan 6 defendents sobbing in court and insisting they were simple morons led astray.
But the rest of us citizens need to remember that it was always this way, in both revolutions which fail and ones which succeed.
The vast majority of American colonists, Southern Confederates, Russian peasants and Vietnamese had no real desire to go off and kill or get killed. But memoirs tell us that at some point thre was a critical mass where going along with the speaker shouting incendiary words just seemed easier than not.
And we also know from history that it takes only a small number of insurrectionists to bring an established order to its knees and make it ungovernable.Report
I guess the thing that would be helpful for me, a non-Republican non-Primary voter, would be less horse-race reporting and more taxonomy reporting.
It would require someone who really understands Republican politics and Republican Policy preferences in addition to parsing the Primary rhetoric into some sort of hypothesis on what, say, Niki Haley is positioning… and, to what extent and which parts of that seem to resonate, and which seem to fall flat — and to which segments of the electorate.
Douthat (contra North) is good at this in general, but I don’t think he has the stomach for trying to parse the daily gibberish of Republican primary utterances. But ‘someone’ should. Ideally someone paid, and not just a friendly contributor to a group blog. 🙂
So, I’m accusing myself of the bad taste of writing a comment on the column I wish someone had written, rather than what is written. No offence.
Ultimately, horserace analysis without taxonomy analysis is kinda beneficial to politicians like Trump who are ‘momentum’ candidates and thrive on attention, but wither on analysis. Now, I *also* maybe even *primarily* blame the candidates themselves who seem averse to staking out a theme/direction/reason for their candidacy merely hoping to inherit the ‘brand’ if/when Trump implodes. It’s a (slightly) different type of the Political Malpractice we saw in 2016, but malpractice it remains.Report
Got an hour? This is exactly what you’re describing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uH61uLlahxMReport
Thanks, I worked through it; it seems a decent breakdown of the debate from a Republican perspective, but ‘Lane Theory’ is horse race theory with one level of abstraction. And his lanes aren’t really taxonomically useful as far as policy and campaign direction go. ‘Trump’ and ‘Trump Adjacent’, don’t tell us as much as he thinks they do… not when it comes to policy and message.Report
I think as long as Trump is alive and not incarcerated this is kind of like looking for the taxonomy of various Peronists while Juan Peron is still leading the party. They may exist, and it may become important later, but I’m not sure it can factionalize into distinct groups while the man himself is still calling the shots.Report
Hey, there’s no need to bring the Pope into this…
[that’s a Peronist joke for an audience of one]
But I digress. Sure, it’s like running against an incumbent president; that’s a tough nut to crack in any circumstance; though, this nut already has some cracks, so not impossible.
But, that’s my point… if you’re running a campaign against an incumbent the ‘swim lanes’ at the lowest level are Incumbent, Incumbent Adjacent, Incumbent by Necessity, and Never Incumbent.
The answer will be: Incumbent.
If you’re campaigning into this, you have to break the swim lanes. Remember, there wasn’t a Trump Lane until Trump invented it. Now… I’ve said a thousand times (before and after) that it was political malpractice not to adapt to Trump’s ‘Policy’ positions that created his lane. And part of me suspects that everyone on the stage is owned by their donors who want the party, but not the changed policies. By their standard, Trump 1 was a pretty good payoff — because he delivered on the Old Party goals and didn’t do anything that earned him his Swim Lane. That’s a crack that’s exploitable. But I don’t think any of these Republican Retreads even see the crack.
Trump further confounds things because he’s willing to flip-flop on policies or hold incoherent policy positions… or, in 2020 actually abolish the Party Platform entirely. But that’s both the challenge and the Oppty.
If I’m RDS or Haley or Scott, what’s the collection of ‘popular’ policies I can take from Trump and box him into running on his record of ‘Tax Cuts for Billionaires’ and set yourself up as ‘Trustworthy’ on these Six Things. [Will their donors fund them? Maybe not — but that’s worth the 4th estate sussing out]
I’ll fully admit that modern politics does *not* favor a [detailed] Policy Oriented approach — too easy to pick-apart the details — which is why I’m not saying they need to go 9-9-9 or M4A … but rather, what’s the *story* on the priorities and deliverables are you getting by going with Haley that you *wouldn’t* get in going with Trump? Other than Not-being-Trump, it’s not coming through.
If I were a Republican who didn’t want Trump, I’d help them form winnable narratives.Report
I would be doing the same, though again, as long as Trump Lives (politically) it may not be possible.
However in the spirit of the discussion, and while I hate to do it on someone else’s OP, I thought this was an interesting and humorous take on each candidate’s capital ‘M’ Message to primary voters:
https://imightbewrong.substack.com/p/what-each-republican-candidates-message?pos=7&utm_source=%2Fbrowse%2Frecommendations&utm_medium=reader2
I didn’t watch the debates, and obviously the piece is coming from an outsider to the GOP, but maybe someone who did watch it can confirm or deny the veracity.Report
Heh, funny, but yes… I mean, no, not that, but yes.Report
Primaries are like wrestling development meetings, where each candidate chooses his persona. That part of it isn’t fundamentally serious. Usually, most candidates if they became president would make a few different choices (Cabinet, executive orders, et cetera) but would have to follow Congress’s lead on laws and adapt to whatever foreign policy challenges come up.
Of the five candidates who could win the nomination (Trump, DeSantis, Christie, Scott, and Haley) the main differences would be the following:
– Trump would do whatever he felt like, based on who offended him earlier that day.
– DeSantis would be more of a fighter on social issues, and might take the budget seriously.
– Christie and Scott, I got nothing.
– Haley is more aggressive on foreign policy, more of a compromiser on social issues.
Shapiro’s lanes are Trumpers, Traditional GOP, Liberal Wing, and Trump Adjacent. I think they correspond to Trump loyalists, conservatives, moderates/liberals, and undecideds. The middle two represent the traditional Republican divide. The first are the populist nationalist types, and the last could be anyone.Report