Nate Silver Forecasts Iowa and NH

Search

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
15,948
Tokens
[h=1]Who’s Winning Iowa And New Hampshire?[/h][h=2]Our two forecasts give differing perspectives.[/h]By NATE SILVER

primaryforecast_methodology_6.png

We launched our forecasts for the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries today. For much more detail about how this all works, you can read here. But our premise is that, given the challenges inherent in predicting the primaries, we’ll be publishing two models instead of pretending we’ve found a magic bullet:

  • The first model, which we call polls-only, is based only on polls from one particular state. (Iowa polls in the case of Iowa, for example.) It’s basically an updated version of the model we used for the primariesfour years ago.
  • The second model, polls-plus, also considers endorsements and national polls, in addition to state polls, and tries to consider the effect that Iowa and New Hampshire could have on subsequent state contests. (National polls aren’t necessarily a positive for a candidate in the polls-plus model; instead, it’s a bearish indicator when a candidate’s state polls trail his national numbers.)
Historically, polls-plus would have been somewhat more accurate, but it’s pretty close — so we think the models are most useful when looked at together. Indeed, they present different perspectives on the races this year, mostly because of that endorsements variable, which helps Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio but hurts Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. If you take a strictly empirical view of the primaries, accounting for the establishment’s historical tendency to win out in the end, you’ll probably prefer the polls-plus model. If you think “this time is different” — or you’re a Trump or a Bernie fan — you’ll probably like polls-only instead.
Let’s go through the four races we’re forecasting so far:
Iowa Republicans. Before the new year, Ted Cruz appeared to have a narrow polling lead over Trump, but that’s less clear now, with several recent polls showing a small advantage for Trump instead. In fact, the polls-only forecast now has the race as a dead heat, giving both Trump and Cruz a 42 percent chance of winning Iowa.
Cruz retains an edge in the polls-plus forecast, however; it likes him because his Iowa polls exceed his national polls (while the opposite is true for Trump). Polls-plus gives Cruz a 49 percent chance of winning Iowa, to Trump’s 28 percent.
What about an upset in Iowa? Given how volatile the polls can be there, it’s too soon to completely write off third-placed Rubio. He has an 18 percent chance of winning Iowa according to polls-plus and a 9 percent chance based on polls-only. Other candidates, however — including Ben Carson, who is sinking so much that he’s at risk of dropping out, according to the model — are true long shots.
Iowa Democrats. Because public opinion can shift rapidly in the primaries, our models put a lot of emphasis on the most recent polls. That’s good news for Sanders, who has been neck and neck with Clinton in Iowa polls published this month after trailing her for most of last year. In fact, the race is nearly a tossup: He now has a 45 percent chance of winning Iowa according to polls-only, although the polls-plus model, noting Clinton’s dominance in endorsements, is more skeptical of Sanders, giving him a 27 percent chance instead.
New Hampshire Republicans. Of the four races we’re forecasting right now, this one is probably the most interesting, even though it also features the clearest leader: Trump, who has led almost every New Hampshire poll since July.
Let’s start with the good news for Trump. Not only is he leading — he’s also gained a bit in the latest New Hampshire polls, polling at about 30 percent recently, compared with 26 percent in December.
Nonetheless, it’s early in New Hampshire, and there are five other candidates besides Trump who have at least a semi-credible path to victory there. Thus, recognizing the uncertainty in the race, the polls-only model has Trump with a 55 percent chance to win the state: pretty good, but still barely better than a coin flip.
The polls-plus model also has Trump as the front-runner but puts his chances lower, at 39 percent, in part because it gives decent odds to a number of candidates from the moderate and establishment parts of the GOP. Collectively, Rubio, John Kasich, Chris Christie and Jeb Bush have a 47 percent chance of winning New Hampshire. Among that group, Rubio has the best chance (23 percent), while Kasich’s fortunes (11 percent) have been rising. Bush’s chances are just 6 percent, on the other hand, and have continued to fall.
It’s also conceivable that Cruz could win New Hampshire, especially after a big win in Iowa.
New Hampshire Democrats. Here, there’s a split between the models. Sanders is a 73 percent favorite according to polls-only, while polls-plus — noting Clinton’s advantage in endorsements and that she’s favored in Iowa — gives Clinton the slightest edge, with a 53 percent chance to Sanders’s 47 percent. Essentially, she’d be following the path that Al Gore took over Bill Bradley in 2000, when an Iowa victory propelled him to a narrow victory in the Granite State. But the polls-plus model is designed to lower the effect of the endorsements variable to zero by election day in each state. So if Clinton keeps falling in New Hampshire and Iowa polls instead of rising, the establishment may not be able to bail her out, and she’ll have to contemplate the possibility of being swept in both states.
Forecasts will be coming soon in other states like South Carolina once more polling becomes available in them.
 

New member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
2,625
Tokens
The establishment Beltway Group almost committed campaign suicide by Ryan, McConnell & Priebus
by giving the OK to Niki Haley to blast Trump in the rebuttal to Obama's SOTU speech. First Obama
torches Trump and in the Republican rebuttal Haley bashes Trump.

How could they showcase someone like Haley in the first place & then have her lambast the candidate
who is leading her party in the race for the nomination after Obama did the same thing, it seems that
these Indian ethnics who they showcase during the rebuttals fall flat on there faces. First Jindal a few
years ago now Haley, though Jindal as bad as he was didn't seem like a traitor to the cause!
 

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
26,039
Tokens
The fact that Obama even talks about Trump is all that needs to be heard.
 

Life's a bitch, then you die!
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
28,910
Tokens
The establishment Beltway Group almost committed campaign suicide by Ryan, McConnell & Priebus
by giving the OK to Niki Haley to blast Trump in the rebuttal to Obama's SOTU speech. First Obama
torches Trump and in the Republican rebuttal Haley bashes Trump.

How could they showcase someone like Haley in the first place & then have her lambast the candidate
who is leading her party in the race for the nomination after Obama did the same thing, it seems that
these Indian ethnics who they showcase during the rebuttals fall flat on there faces. First Jindal a few
years ago now Haley, though Jindal as bad as he was didn't seem like a traitor to the cause!
Trump is doing a number on everyone. The elitist RINOS are frustrated because they don’t know to handle him. The media can’t get enough of him and that allows him to control the news cycle, it’s Trump all day, every day. Hillary brings up women’s rights, Trump brings up Bill. Every time he makes a controversial statement the PC talking heads ring their hands and he becomes more popular.


When Trump announced his candidacy everyone laughed, he’s not serious, no one will vote for him, he can’t win.


That was 8 months ago and not only is he still standing, he’s leading in all the polls. Who’s laughing now?
 

Rx Normal
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
52,421
Tokens
Trump is doing a number on everyone. The elitist RINOS are frustrated because they don’t know to handle him. The media can’t get enough of him and that allows him to control the news cycle, it’s Trump all day, every day. Hillary brings up women’s rights, Trump brings up Bill. Every time he makes a controversial statement the PC talking heads ring their hands and he becomes more popular.

When Trump announced his candidacy everyone laughed, he’s not serious, no one will vote for him, he can’t win.

That was 8 months ago and not only is he still standing, he’s leading in all the polls. Who’s laughing now?

He's put on a clinic on how to handle the socialists and their gaystream media minions.

Do you think anyone in the GOPe is paying attention and taking notes? Highly doubtful.
 

Life's a bitch, then you die!
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
28,910
Tokens
He's put on a clinic on how to handle the socialists and their gaystream media minions.

Do you think anyone in the GOPe is paying attention and taking notes? Highly doubtful.
Yes,I knew that was a rhetorical question. :)
 

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
23,902
Tokens
[h=1]Sanders winning millennial women from Clinton[/h]
Bernie Sanders has a 19-point lead over Hillary Clinton among Democratic and independent women ages 18 to 34, according to a USA Today/Rock the Vote poll.
The Vermont senator, who has been surging in the polls in the last two weeks, won 50 percent compared to Clinton’s 31 percent among millennial women.


:):)
 

Rx Normal
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
52,421
Tokens
hillary.jpg


I was really hoping Granny would implode after she secured the nomination. Looks like it's happening earlier than 2008, which didn't happen until after Iowa and New Hampshire.

Let's face it, she's a total corrupt criminal bitch who should be rotting in jail....but Bernie is worse. That's how crazy the Democrat party is right now! :neenee:
 

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
23,902
Tokens
[h=1]WMUR poll: Sanders soars to commanding lead over Clinton in New Hampshire[/h]
Sanders leads Clinton 60 percent to 33 percent in the latest WMUR/CNN New Hampshire Primary Poll, with former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley at 1 percent and 6 percent undecided.

:):)

I guess sending Slick Willy out there really helped.
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
15,948
Tokens


2016 ELECTION 6:30 AM JAN 20, 2016
Is The Bernie Sanders Surge Real?

A FIVETHIRTYEIGHT CHAT

In this week’s 2016 Slack chat, the FiveThirtyEight politics team contemplates the “Bernie Bump.”[SUP]1[/SUP] As always, the transcript below has been lightly edited.

micah (Micah Cohen, politics editor): Last week was a pretty good one for Bernie Sanders. Polls came out showing him closing in on Hillary Clinton in Iowa, and he continues to lead in New Hampshire. Weirdly, there wasn’t any obvious piece of news that would explain a Sanders surge. So, is it real?
natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): It seems pretty clear that he’s gained ground in Iowa. Less clear in national polls. Somewhere in between in New Hampshire.
harry (Harry Enten, senior political writer): Well, I’m not sure he’s gained ground in Iowa as much as Clinton has lost ground, according to the Des Moines Register poll. It is clear that the race is tighter in Iowa. Nationally, I do think Sanders has gained, but Clinton still holds a rather clear lead (15 to 20 percentage points). In New Hampshire, Sanders is ahead, but is it by 5 or 10 percentage points? I don’t know.
clare.malone (Clare Malone, senior political writer): I think that people started looking more seriously at Sanders in December, and I’m not really sure why. Maybe it was his campaign ramping up advertising in early states, being in the news more for the data breach (not that that was a good thing for Bernie, but he did try to spin it into “the DNC is trying to mute me”). Who knows! But he’s now being talked about as a serious candidate, where for a while he was sort of being treated more in the vein of a Dennis Kucinich.
natesilver: FWIW, our FiveThirtyEight national polling average (which we’re not publishing yet — stay tuned) has Clinton up 22 percentage points. Although that was before the Monmouth poll released today, which might tighten things a bit. But somewhere in the high teens or perhaps low 20s nationally is where the race seems to be. By contrast, our averaging method would have had Clinton up by 25 points at the end of December.
So that suggests some tightening, but not as much as the media narrative — which is pretty blatantly cherry-picking which polls it emphasizes — seems to imply.
micah: But this, at least in Iowa, doesn’t seem to be a case of “the media is making all this up.”
natesilver: Indeed — our Iowa polling average now has Clinton up by 5 points, compared with 16 points at the end of December.
harry: Well, the most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found Clinton gaining over Sanders nationally.
micah: Does anyone have other explanations for the tightening in Iowa? Just more people tuning in? Change in tone of the media, as Clare said?
harry: How about the fact that Sanders has been outspending Clinton on television advertisements?
clare.malone: I think there’s probably a lot of that, and I also think there’s something to be said for the fact that people like Bernie’s idealistic version of the Democratic Party. But that’s also the luxury of being a voter in an early state, right? They feel like they can champion a guy who might not be mainstream but who can change the tenor of the race a bit. Whereas someone who’s voting in March might be more inclined to think of his vote in pragmatic terms — who’s going to actually win the general election?
natesilver: In Iowa, the demographics are pretty good for Sanders — as good as in New Hampshire, pretty much. He has a good ground game. People don’t have a lot of reason not to vote for him. The phrase “natural tightening” can be pretty meaningless, but I think it applies reasonably well here.
harry: Indeed, the favorable ratings for Clinton and Sanders are nearly identical in Iowa. Voters like both candidates. It’s doesn’t take a lot for them to shift between the candidates.
micah: And I think Clare’s right that the tone of the coverage of Sanders has shifted: People are taking him more seriously now.
clare.malone: The race getting tighter in Iowa has a lot to do with more people leaving the Clinton camp and saying that they’re undecided, so there’s still time for them to run back to her, but also just as much time for the Bernie momentum narrative to continue, which is helped along by … media like us! Slack chats changing the course of history, guys. This is big stuff.
harry: YUGE STUFF!
natesilver: Would you rather be the candidate (Sanders) whom the media ignores or the candidate (Clinton) whom the media interprets everything as being bad news for?
clare.malone: Ooh, primary election “would you rather.” This could be a MILLION-DOLLAR IDEA.
micah: The media doesn’t ignore Bernie.
clare.malone: I would always rather be the underdog, aka Bernie.
micah: I’d rather be Martin O’Malley.
clare.malone: Managing your expectations is key in politics, as in life.
natesilver: Our data suggests that Sanders is a little under-covered relative to his standing in the polls.
micah: That data is old.
clare.malone: SNAP!
harry: Micah throwing da shade.
micah: All right, so let’s posit that the tightening of the race in Iowa and (to a lesser extent) the nation is real and lasting. Sanders leads in New Hampshire. Is Sanders a real threat to win the nomination now?
natesilver: Define real.
clare.malone: I think that’s definitely going to change over the next week or so. The New York Times had a big piece this morning about how the Clinton campaign is changing its strategy given the Bernie bump (which, incidentally, sounds like a really fun dance move, no?).
harry: My New York accent is real. My ability to drive is also real, but not really real.
micah: Real means >25 percent chance.
natesilver: Sell.
micah: 20 percent.
harry: Sell.
natesilver: Still selling.
micah: [let’s give the #feeltheberners a moment to leave an angry comment]
15 percent.
natesilver: That’s about where Betfair has it, for what it’s worth.
harry: I’m sorry, but — knowing I’ve been paid off by my corporate overlords — here’s what I see: There’s just little-to-no sign that Clinton has lost any traction among black voters. The most recent YouGov poll has her up 75 percent to 18 percent among black Democrats. The most recent Morning Consult poll has her ahead 71 percent to 14 percent. The most recentMonmouth poll has her up 71 percent to 21 percent among non-white voters. Sanders would need to close that gap to have any chance in South Carolina. And remember, Clinton was only up by 7 percentage points at this point among non-white voters in the 2008 cycle.
natesilver: Indeed. That, along with her support from the party establishment, is why Clinton is the heavy favorite. But at what point does the price on Bernie become attractive to you?
If I could get him at 20-1 (implying about a 5 percent chance of winning), I’d take it.
harry: Yes. I think that’s fair.
clare.malone: This is a real down-at-the-betting-window Slack chat, isn’t it?
micah: Here’s the real question for me. For Sanders to win the nomination, he probably needs to win Iowa AND New Hampshire. And that’s eminently possible.
But if that happens, how much does that reset the race? You can imagine the media shitstorm that would follow, but is that shitstorm enough to hurt Clinton with non-white voters?
clare.malone: No, I don’t think so, Micah. Those are two pretty white states, right? I think Clinton would still be able to make her broad appeal, and, sure, she might have to do some big rebranding, maybe hitting heavier on a progressive economic message, playing up the whole thing about how Bernie is going to dismantle Obamacare, etc. — that to me, from the looks of the debate, is going to be one way that she hits him, gets the message across that he’s more “pie in the sky” idealist than “get it done” politician.
natesilver: Yeah, I think he needs both. Given its demographics and how much voter enthusiasm matters in a caucus, Iowa should be among the easier states in the country for him to win. If he can’t win in Iowa, I don’t think he’s competitive in enough places to make it a real race, although he could still win New Hampshire.
As far as forecasting the severity of the shitstorm, I’m of two minds. On the one hand, the media will absolutely eat up the story of the “inevitable” Clinton losing Iowa to a septuagenarian self-described socialist. On the other hand, Clinton’s media coverage is always something of a shitstorm. With a few exceptions, the Beltway consensus for months was that Joe Biden needed to jump into the race because Clinton was doomed. That proved to be profoundly flawed. And it depressed Clinton’s numbers in the polls, but not to the point where she ever trailed Sanders.
harry: Here’s what Sanders needs to do: Win caucuses out West (and polling out there suggests he could do so) and some Northern primaries. Then, he needs to combine that with doing better in the outer South (Kentucky, Oklahoma, Tennessee, West Virginia) than President Obama did. That’s the way this works. He won’t be able to recapture the Obama coalition in the Deep South.
micah: Are you all surprised that Sanders has gotten this close?
clare.malone: I don’t think it’s really all that surprising. I actually think, as crazy as it might sound, that Donald Trump and Sanders are trying to appeal to similar forces fomenting in the American population; people are frustrated with the way things are going, they are skeptical of big institutions (banks!), and they want to see a different kind of leadership. Of course, Trump’s way of courting this is instilling fear in people, and Sanders’s way of courting this is righteous, idealistic governmental revolution. They’re both populist movements, albeit with undertones of authoritarianism in one.
natesilver: I don’t think it’s that surprising. First, as we’ve been saying for six months now, the first two states happen to be pretty favorable for Bernie.
Second, there are a lot of people, including the media and Democratic interest groups, who have a strong incentive for there to be a competitive Democratic race, or at least some semblance of one. To get a little more wonky still, the median voter theorem would imply that two-candidate races should be at least reasonably close.
Third, history suggests that even “inevitable” candidates, like Bob Dole ’96 and George W. Bush ’00, lose a few states. Al Gore ’00 was the only one to sweep all 50. But he nearly lost New Hampshire to Bill Bradley. And if you’d read the press coverage of that race 16 years ago, you’d see plenty of articles about how Bradley was surging and it was time for Gore to panic.
harry: Sure, and both Dole and Bush used South Carolina as a firewall, just as Clinton might.
natesilver: Maybe this is all coming out as more skeptical about Bernie than I’m intending it to be. The case for Bernie is that (i) he could win Iowa and New Hampshire, which (ii) could produce huge momentum and very favorable press coverage, and (iii) he has enough money and a good enough ground game to run a long campaign, and (iv) well then, who knows, maybe this time really is different?
How do you translate that into a probability? That’s difficult. There’s a reason we’re trying to model the primaries one state at a time, instead of issuing an overall forecast.
harry: We won’t know if Bernie is for real until he wins Iowa. If he does, then let’s see where his support with non-white voters goes. Until then, it’s a lot of hypotheticals. And I’ve found that this season, hypotheticals have a weird way of playing out.
Check out the latest polls and forecasts for the 2016 presidential primaries.

Footnotes


  • Trademark Clare Malone, 2016. ^


Nate Silver is the founder and editor in chief of FiveThirtyEight. @natesilver538

Harry Enten is a senior political writer and analyst for FiveThirtyEight. @forecasterenten

Clare Malone is a senior political writer for FiveThirtyEight. @claremalone

Micah Cohen is the politics editor. @micahcohen



 

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
23,902
Tokens
(Reuters) - Billionaire environmental activist Tom Steyer said he is not ready to endorse Hillary Clinton, and he would be open to supporting her main rival, Bernie Sanders, if he becomes the Democratic nominee for president.
One of the biggest Democratic donors, Steyer could help Clinton boost her standing among environmentalist activists who are a key constituency within the Democratic Party. Clinton is locked in tight races with Sanders in Iowa and New Hampshire, which both have early nominating contests.


:):):):):):):):)
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
15,948
Tokens
2016 ELECTION 12:09 PM JAN 21, 2016
[h=1]One Big Reason To Be Less Skeptical Of Trump[/h]By NATE SILVER

505736840-1.jpg
Donald Trump speaks at Hansen Agriculture Student Learning Center at Iowa State University on Tuesday in Ames, Iowa.
AARON P. BERNSTEIN / GETTY IMAGES


In a nomination race like the Republican one, you could draw up a list of reasons to be skeptical of any candidate’s chances. Here are some reasons to be skeptical about Ted Cruz’s position in Iowa, for example. Here’s why Marco Rubio’s strategy looks increasingly precarious. There are also good reasons to be skeptical about Donald Trump’s chances of winning the Republican nomination:

But the reason I’ve been especially skeptical about Trump for most of the election cycle isn’t listed above. Nor is it because I expected Trump to spontaneously combust in national polls. Instead, I was skeptical because I assumed that influential Republicans would do almost anything they could to prevent him from being nominated.
I’m in the midst of working on a long review of the book “The Party Decides,” so we’ll save some of the detail for that forthcoming article. But the textbook on Trump is that he’d be a failure along virtually every dimension that party elites normally consider when choosing a nominee: electability (Trump is extremely unpopular with general election voters); ideological reliability (like Sarah Palin, Trump’s a “maverick”); having traditional qualifications for the job; and so forth. Even if the GOP is mostly in disarray, my assumption was that it would muster whatever strength it had to try to stop Trump.
But so far, the party isn’t doing much to stop Trump. Instead, it’s making such an effort against Cruz. Consider:

  • The governor of Iowa, Terry Branstad, said he wanted Cruz defeated.
  • Bob Dole warned of “cataclysmic” losses if Cruz was the nominee, and said Trump would fare better.
  • Mitch McConnell and other Republicans senators have been decidedly unhelpful to Cruz when discussing his constitutional eligibility to be president.
  • An anti-Cruz PAC has formed, with plans to run advertisements in Iowa. (By contrast, no PAC advertising has run against Trump so far in January.)
You can find lots of other examples like these. It’s the type of coordinated, multifront action that seems right out of the “The Party Decides.” If, like me, you expected something like this to happen to Trump instead of Cruz, you have to revisit your assumptions. Thus, I’m now much less skeptical of Trump’s chances of becoming the nominee.

Can we take this a step farther, in fact? Can we say that the party hasdecided … for Trump?
I’ve seen some headlines to that effect, but they’re premature and possibly wrong. So far, the GOP’s actions are conspicuously anti-Cruz more than they are pro-Trump. For example, although former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin just endorsed Trump, no current Republican governors or members of Congress have.
Instead, it may be that Republicans think of Cruz as the more immediate threat, and then plan to turn around and attack Trump later. But that’s a high-degree-of-difficulty caper to pull off. For one thing, Trump, who’s in a much better position in the polls than Cruz in states after Iowa, could rack up several wins in a row if he takes the Hawkeye State.
Just as important, there are few signs that Republicans have much of a strategy for whom to back apart from Trump. Four “establishment lane” candidates — Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, John Kasich and Rubio — are tightly packed in New Hampshire polls. That could potentially change before New Hampshire votes because of tactical voting.[SUP]2[/SUP] And whichever of these candidates perform worst in the early states will probably drop out.
But Republican party elites seem indifferent among these four candidates, when in my view some are more capable than others of eventually defeating Trump and Cruz:

  • Rubio would seem to have the best shot. He’s easily the most conservative of the four, has the best favorability ratings and can make perhaps the best electability argument. His ground game may not be very good, but he has a decent amount of cash on hand.
  • Bush and Christie probably rank next, in some order. It’s hard to imagine Republican voters coming all the way around to the patricianBush after flirting with bad-boy Trump for so long — especially when Bush’s favorability numbers with Republican voters are in the tank. But remember that those dalliances with Trump are hypothetical, only contemplated in polls and not yet actuated with votes. Perhaps the Republican electorate that shows up to vote is more like the 2012 version, which supported Mitt Romney. It’s a long shot, but if it happens, Bush will have plenty of money and organization to extend the race.
  • If the GOP electorate is in an angrier mood, then Christie’s personality overlaps the most with Trump’s. He’s a good debater, and his favorability ratings are on the upswing, although still just middling. But Christie entered the race with a lot of baggage that will receive more scrutiny if he surges in the polls. He also doesn’t have much of an organization beyond New Hampshire.
  • Kasich’s outlook seems the worst of the four, combining Bush’s lack of appeal to conservatives with Christie’s lack of organization beyond New Hampshire. The one qualification to this is that Kasich has a more conservative track record than he lets on.[SUP]3[/SUP]
So if I were ranking the four establishment candidates’ chances of eventually defeating Trump and Cruz, I’d put Rubio first and Kasich last. But if I were ranking them in terms of who seems to have the most momentumright now, the order would be just the opposite. Kasich has gained 3 or 4 percentage points in New Hampshire polls over the past month, while Rubio has declined slightly in New Hampshire and national polls, and his once-steady flow of endorsements has turned into a trickle.
These differences might seem pretty minor — there’s room for near-daily momentum shifts before New Hampshire votes. Obviously, it’s also possible that Republicans’ efforts to stop Cruz in Iowa will backfire.
Things are lining up better for Trump than I would have imagined, however. It’s not his continued presence in the race that surprises me so much as the lack of a concerted effort to stop him.

[h=2]Footnotes[/h]
  • Relatedly, Trump’s lead on the ballot test despite mediocre favorability numbers seems partly tied to his domination of national news coverage. If other candidates catch up in news coverage, they could catch up in the polls, too. ^
  • You may recall how Rick Santorum broke out from a pack of like-minded candidates before the Iowa caucuses four years ago. ^
  • Could he pirouette back toward the right of the party after spending most of the campaign trying to be the next Jon Huntsman? Kasich’s strategy strikes me as too cute by half, but as one of the lesser-known Republican candidates, perhaps he has room to remake his image. ^

 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,946
Messages
13,575,480
Members
100,886
Latest member
ranajeet
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com