Trump has a vastly higher name recognition than Ted Cruz for example (a gap of 17%). Meanwhile Ted Cruz smokes Trump in net favorability.
Posted on 02/08/2016 12:23:53 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Two-and-one-half months before last week's Iowa Caucus, columnist S.A. Miller of The Washington Times noted what could be called "The Trump Effect" on poll numbers with an article entitled "Donald Trump seen unlikely to win in Iowa despite poll numbers":
Laura Kamienski, a Republican Party caucus precinct representative for Hiawatha District in Cedar Rapids ... said she expects a surprise in the caucus this cycle similar to former Sen. Rick Santorum's unexpected win in 2012. Mr. Santorum is back in the 2016 Republican race but is polling near the bottom of the crowded field in Iowa and nationally.
...Pollsters defended their survey methods and stood by their numbers. But some credited Mr. Trump's dominance in polls to his near-universal name recognition as star of the hit TV shows "The Apprentice" and "Celebrity Apprentice."
Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski dismissed any doubt about the poll numbers. He said it was coming from the same "political pundits who have been wrong every step of the way" about Mr. Trump's candidacy, including predicting he would fade after the summer... He also noted that they had hired the Iowa organizer from Mr. Santrorum's 2012 campaign, Chuck Laudner, who is considered one of the most formidable grass-roots organizers and get-out-the-vote strategists in the state.
At the time, Trump and Carson were dominating the polls in Iowa. As it turned out, Kamienski -- who pointed out that she had seen no real evidence of large-scale Trump support -- astutely predicted a surprise in February. That turned out to be case as Ted Cruz walked away the victor by a significant margin.
The critical question that Miller and others have raised is the possibility that some poll respondents choose Trump based not upon policy positions but because they recognize his name.
In my non-scientific discussions with various registered voters, I have discovered a rather significant percentage who are unfamiliar with the name of any GOP candidate, except for that of Donald Trump.
Mention Trump's name, however, and you see faces light up. The recognition and the reality show association is immediate. Quite a few are able to parrot Trump's (in)famous quote from The Apprentice -- "You're fired!" -- but know little else of the candidate's background or political preferences.
Of course, many Trump advocates are quite familiar with the candidate and are certainly energized to vote. A Trump advocate observed after a November speech by the GOP frontrunner that many of the attendees "are not simply gawkers or fans of his TV shows."
I suspect that many of these people are frustrated with the additional burdens and strife that Obama and the federal government have inflicted upon them; they are turning out as a result of Trump's fame and the role he portrayed on his reality television show.
The term "low-information voter" may be too harsh, but I suspect that many Trump supporters feel the increased problems weighing them down but they can't exactly identify the cause nor the origin of their problems.
They are not aware of imminent crises here and abroad, but they have then taken Trump's reality show role and are applying it to the real world. They then conclude in their own minds that whatever the reason for the problems, Donald has always been successful dealing with it on TV and they extend that notion to Donald being the answer in present world circumstances.
These folks have stayed glued to the television for so long that they are convinced that the Donald is the solution to their problems. They have, however, come to the realization that they cannot change the channel.
With that said, it is also likely that many poll respondents who offer Trump as their preferred candidate do so only because they recognize his name.
This could provide insight into Trump's inability to meet the pollsters' predictions in Iowa and it could portend further disappointment for the billionaire real estate investor.
It may also explain Trump's lowering of expectations in New Hampshire over the past several days.
Like Trump landed real hard on his butt when he got his ass handed to him in Iowa?
You make a good point for sure…but don’t forget that Trump did get a lot of voters out in Iowa.
Nope. Trump kept tweeting the CNN poll which had him winning by 11% with just a few days to go.
Not to mention you crazy Trumpbots kept insisting that Trump's shindig for veterans which was also attended by Huckabee and Said was going to get him more votes than if he had attended the GOP debate. Now you are saying the exact opposite. You can't have it both ways
Perhaps you will explain to me how Donald Trump is going to win in a general election when he has the highest negatives of any candidate in history?
In Iowa, which is the state the article is discussing, Huckabee won the 2008 caucus; Santorum won 2012. One would assume that they have better name recognition than say, Gilmore. Trump's been a celebrity for decades. Maybe I'm being naive/idealistic/whatever, but if I was being asked in a political poll who I was voting for, and I'm so low information that all I have to make a choice is name recognition, I would pick Huckabee or Santorum because I should recognize their names as politicians.
Big difference between a fan and a person who is committed enough to get out and vote on primary day. We’ll get a good idea Tuesday and will know the extent of the effect after South Carolina.
He won’t win. In a two person debate he’ll be torn apart even by Hillary or Sanders.
Name recognition is why candidates spend a fortune in print ads and yard signs. Every candidate lives and breathes name recognition, IMO.
Huckabee had a successful TV show, everyone knows the Bush name .....name recognition isn’t working for them.
So many haters are acting like Trump came in last in Iowa. Why do they continually think they can brainwash us into believing their fabricated story lines?
You fail to mention that we had record voter turnout this year up over 50% . These new voters never voted for Santorum or Huckabee. Plus of course those who voted this year are not exactly the same as those who voted in 2008 and 2012.
There is no question some of Trump’s poll numbers are from much higher name recognition.
Except they never say this about Cankles. We’ll see after tomorrow.
However, they can’t explain why Cruz’s poll numbers have stagnated since Carsongate.
Trump has a vastly higher name recognition than Ted Cruz for example (a gap of 17%). Meanwhile Ted Cruz smokes Trump in net favorability.
I’d agree, except that Trump’s Republican poll numbers were TERRIBLE before he announced and just when he announced...why weren’t his numbers ‘inflated’ then, everyone already knew who he was BEFORE he ran.
And then he mentioned the wall and they started going up, and up, and up...
So New Hampshire will be the REAL TEST. If Trump makes it to 35%, then his numbers CLEARLY are real. If 30-35, then maybe, if lower, then maybe some merit here.
Iowa didn’t mean jack, given how they vote versus how they poll. Until pollsters start including the ‘evangelical factor’ in polling, which basically means adjusting the candidate’s apparent level of support either up or down up to 5 points, depending on their ‘religious creds’, they will never get it right. Had they done this the past 3 rounds, they would have predicted the winner.
...and actually I think it’s more likely we’ll see a repeat of 1980, where people being polled didn’t want to let it be known that they were ready to vote for the ‘extremist’, so they just said Carter. In fact, the polling just prior to election night all said “too close to call”.
I think we’ll see that effect as people publicly say one thing regarding how they’ll vote, but privately vote in the way they see best, which, of course, means Trump.
Trump should win this easily. If not he is going the way of Paul, Pataki etc
Or not
For a guy who was going to fade away and had no ground game at all in Iowa,Trump seems to be confounding the pundit class
Time will tell all
Trump draws a lot of big crowds which I believe shows that it’s more than name recognition. I think Trump will do well this week but they should put more effort in the get out the vote.
Sometimes people see a candidate way ahead in the polls and they assume there guy will win anyway, so why bother going out in the cold to vote? Hopefully this won’t happen with Trump.
Then you don’t understand how angry folks are at the DC establishment
I guess the author’s theory doesn’t apply to the Clinton/Sanders race.
Iowa is a screwy system that makes voting harder and allows for funny business. The candidate that spends the most time and money organizing volunteers and dragging people to the polls wins. Cruz probably had a second home there for the past 2 years and Trump still came in a close second. Iowa is a joke, I wish all candidates would start ignoring it and lower it’s status.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.