Posted on 01/21/2016 6:11:35 AM PST by RoosterRedux
For months, the press and the Republican establishment alike have been expecting the Trump bubble to implode. Now that it's clear Trump isn't going anywhere, we're seeing stories about a long slog of a campaign or even a brokered convention. But there's a very real possibility that, far from those kinds of days of reckoning, Donald Trump could actually "run the table." Ironically, Trump not only could win -- he could win more decisively than any non-incumbent Republican contestant for the nomination since the dawn of the modern primary system.
Let's see how that might happen.
New Hampshire
First, let's look not at Iowa, but at New Hampshire. Trump has been leading in New Hampshire by double-digits since August. If those polls are to believed, Trump is poised not only to win, but to win decisively.
Conventional wisdom is that whichever establishment-friendly candidate places second -- at this point John Kasich is lined up behind Trump, but Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, and even Jeb Bush are all said to have a shot -- is going to be Trump's most-viable challenger for the nomination. But if Donald Trump dominates with 30 to 40 percent of the vote in New Hampshire, and they come in 15 to 20 points behind, how is that possible?
More logically, whoever wins Iowa is going to be Trump's biggest challenger, and if that candidate does poorly in New Hampshire then whoever comes in second there (assuming it's somebody else) will be a long-shot third for the nomination.
So let's look at Iowa.
(Excerpt) Read more at theweek.com ...
Ping
A small disappointment in the voting for Trump will result in a major loss for Trump.
Managing expectations is important. Because of how Trump speaks He will either win big or lose big, there is no in between.
Not a single vote has been cast and he has supposedly already won. Pride precedes a disaster, and an arrogant attitude precedes a fall.
Hurts like hell to back a luzer, doesn’t it?;-)
Says the poster while making bold, unsupported, predictions.
It's hard, cold facts. We can all (and do) dismiss one or two strange outlier polls as "not reprsentative," but not every poll from every state over a seven month period. I'd say that counts as "inevitable."
Learn it, love it.
Hey just stating my observations. Just giving my opinion from the viewpoint of not being a Trump Fan.
Live by the polls die by the polls.
I may be right or wrong. My words have the same value as yours. We will see come Iowa. My opinion Trump will disappoint and crater from there.
This will be interesting to see regardless.
I was commenting on your pride.
It’s. A movement!
Ok since you place so much value in polls how about this:
According to our latest polls-plus forecast, Ted Cruz has a 52% chance of winning the Iowa caucuses.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/iowa-republican/
The polls-plus model is based on state polls, national polls and endorsements. (National polls are used in a slightly unusual way; they’re a contrarian indicator. More about that later.) The polls-plus model also seeks to account for how the projected results in Iowa could affect the results in New Hampshire and how the results in those states could affect the results in subsequent contests.
In theory, the polls-plus model should be more accurate than the polls-only model, but it’s a pretty small difference; in our backtesting, polls-plus was more accurate at predicting a candidate’s actual result 57 percent of the time, while polls-only was more accurate 43 percent of the time. That’s something, but there are plenty of times when the polls-only model will give the more accurate answer. Therefore, we think the models are more useful when looked at together.
That’s not a poll. That’s Nate Silver’s little flawed analysis. You know Nate, the guy who badly blew the mid-term elections, the guy who badly blew the Israeli elections. That Nate.
That Nate is projecting that Trump has a 46% chance of winning New Hampshire, and 50% in South Carolina.
Oh. So now he’s not gonna get beat by Cruz? Not gonna be in second place?
Just gotta love how the LSM changes their predictions at the last minute all the time. Liars all of them.
Managing expectations is important.
____________________________________________________________
The article mentions that only the message was for Cruz.
He has built up expectations for Iowa so much that a loss there would be devastating and a minor win would be disappointing.
Well thanks to Trump that dynamic has changed. I think Trump’s original plan was to ignore Iowa because he had it in the bag. Because of declining poll numbers in Iowa, with two weeks to go he is hitting Iowa with everything he has. If Trump wins in Iowa, people will say that Cruz was hit hard by Trump’s birther and ethanol subsidy attacks. This eases the pressure on Cruz.
That's similar to Jeb liking his lowly position in the polls. No pressure.
Thanks for stopping by to let us know about your concerns.
(eye roll)
Awesome!!
Go Trump!!
That may be how Cruz supporters console themselves but it won’t matter in the end.
Experience taught me a few things.
One is to listen to your gut, no matter how good something sounds on paper.
The second is that you're generally better off sticking with what you know.
And the third is that sometimes your best investments are the ones you don't make.Donald Trump
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.
