Donald Trump: in the top half of the GOP field, both nationally and in pivotal New Hampshire.
Much has been made of the field of prospects expected to vie for the Republican presidential nomination. Words like "deep" and "strong" are getting bandied about with a fair amount of regularity.
One of the earliest hymns of praise about the GOP field of contenders came over a year ago, courtesy of a March 2014 CPAC post-game column in the Daily Beast by former Bush ad-man Mark McKinnon:
Contrary to conventional media wisdom, this week’s CPAC proved Republicans are likely going to put a formidable team on the presidential field in 2016—and they’ll have at least one advantage going into the election: Their primaries are going to be much more interesting, dramatic and entertaining than the Democratic primaries.
McKinnon's second point may well be true—it is undeniable that, unless something dramatically changes, the GOP primary fight will get infinitely more attention than the Democratic one, and
could give the eventual nominee a great deal more attention.
(Of course, Mitt Romney proved in 2012 that being at front and center in the public whirlwind of a competitive primary fight is not always an asset).
Jump below the fold for more.
Despite the recent evolution of the "conventional media wisdom," McKinnon's first point is still quite debatable. Herein lies my evidence:
Exhibit A: A Monmouth national poll of the Republican primary conducted in early April placed the highly entertaining Donald Trump, often lampooned in the press as the Democratic dream candidate for 2016, in a tie for fourth place in the very crowded field of potential GOP candidates (Monmouth polled a whopping 17 unique candidates).
Among the so-called "heavyweights" that Trump polled ahead of (admittedly, incrementally so in most cases): Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Marco Rubio, and Chris Christie.
Exhibit B: A new poll of the critical early state of New Hampshire shows Trump in fifth place out of 11 candidates. The poll was conducted by a Republican firm (Reach Communications) on behalf of NH1, and was conducted last week.
Among the "top tier" Republicans who fell behind Trump in the Granite State were: Rubio, Christie, and Perry (who notched an awesome 2 percent, fractionally behind Carly Fiorina), as well as Ben Carson.
How do we reconcile the common characterization of the GOP field as loaded with talent with the fact that more than half of that Murderer's Row trails a media punchline whose prospects for election are so dim that the bulk of pollsters don't even bother to include him in surveys?
EXPLANATION #1—THIS FIELD OF REPUBLICANS ISN'T ALL THAT SPECIAL, AFTER ALL
Given the rather laudatory assessments of the GOP field as of late, this headline from Gallup definitely raises some eyebrows:
"GOP Field for 2016 Lacks Star Power of Past Campaigns"
The analysis notably excluded 2004 (Bush was an unopposed incumbent) and 2012 (when, oddly, they didn't ask for fav/unfavs in the same format). But in every other election year dating back to 1996, they looked at how the GOP field stacked up with their own party's voters at this early stage. The bottom line: the current crew of Republicans is not particularly beloved among their own partisans. To wit, the most popular Republican according to Gallup (Mike Huckabee, with a net plus-40 favorability) would've been no better than the third most popular Republican in either 2000 or 2008.
Among the entirety of the electorate, the numbers are even worse:
(click to expand)
This may be the "class of the field" for the GOP, but electoral successes in 2014 notwithstanding, the brand name is still pretty damned lousy. And it seems to have trickled down to the bigger names within the party. Which is how someone like Donald Trump, whose favorability numbers are pretty dismal (when political pollsters even bother to include him, that is), can still manage to finish mid-pack. He may be unpopular (his net fav/unfav was the lowest of all 17 GOP contenders in the national Monmouth poll), but he is far from alone in that regard.
EXPLANATION #2—BIGGER MIGHT NOT BE BETTER FOR THE GOP CLASS OF 2016
In his piece on the 2016 Republican field, Sean Trende made an interesting point:
2016 really is the deepest GOP field in a very, very long time. In fact, it isn’t even close. To be clear, that doesn’t mean that eventual candidate is (or will be) the strongest Republican nominee ever. (...) It just means that number eight is unusually strong. In 1996, eighth place in Iowa was businessman Morry Taylor. In 2008, it was Alan Keyes (who placed fourth in 2000). This year, eighth place will probably be a candidate we now see as a legitimate contender for the nomination.
Ideology aside, the GOP has two problems with its field that Trende (either directly or indirectly) identifies: Republicans have a ton of potential nominees in their field, but none of them are clearly superior, nor are they betting favorites over the Democrats. It is not a classic "seven dwarves" field (because all of them are, to some extent, "name-brand" candidates), but it presents real challenges for the GOP going forward.
For one thing (and this is the real danger for the GOP), it wouldn't take a great deal of a tailwind for Donald Trump to move from mid-pack to contender.
Consider: In the two polls above, Trump was polling at pretty modest percentages (7-8 percent). But the leader, in both cases, were at 23 percent or less. Third place, in both cases, was under 15 percent. That's what happens when you get a large field with no clear and unambiguous lead pack. If Trump makes a big splash if/when he announces his run, and could somehow manage to pick up just a half dozen points, he could be in the top two. And the GOP establishment would shit themselves blind at that approximate moment.
Furthermore, looking ahead to when actual voting occurs, another challenge arises for the GOP. With that large a field, and no colossus in the bunch, some big names are going to be on the brink of elimination before the reporters head south from snowy New Hampshire. That means that while the field is big, it may thin out. Fast. For example, can a Chris Christie or a Marco Rubio survive two consecutive sixth-place finishes? It is more than plausible to suggest such a brutal start for a one-time "first-tier" contender, given the dispersion of support here.
And this is where Trump can become dangerous, should he run. A lot of the Republicans in this field would probably opt to bow out gracefully, in order to maintain a shiny record for good behavior in case they angle for a future run, or a cabinet post, or a bid for another office. Trump is not encumbered by that. He isn't using a 2016 bid, should he make one, to be someone's secretary of the treasury. So he can stay in as long as he likes. And every second he is in the public conversation, it must be argued, helps the Democrats.
EXPLANATION #3: TRUMP'S SUPPORT ISN'T HUGE, BUT IT PROBABLY AIN'T SOFT
Donald Trump, I would suggest, has one advantage that the rest of the potential candidates in the GOP field lack: there really isn't anyone in the field like him. Some of these "first-tier" candidates could see their polling support bleed to their close ideological cousins in the field, should the pre-primary season news cycle go south on them. For example, it is not hard to see Chris Christie's early travails impacting his polling performance on the GOP side. Given that, it is not crazy to suggest that some of his support has bled to ... say ... Jeb Bush.
But Trump has been the unceasing expression of the Republican id for so damned long that it is kind of hard to see his supporters flooding the exits should the early primary schedule prove unkind of him. After all, where would they go?
What's more, that tendency for ceaseless "did he really say that?" moments means that Trump will likely, should he run, not lack for media attention, while some of his rivals will get consigned to an occasional whisper as their poll numbers sag. Not to be mean, but if Mike Huckabee or Marco Rubio is in seventh place, will there be a great demand for stories about them? Trump, by contrast, will always be entertaining, no matter where his poll numbers lie.
Now, having said all this, let's stipulate two things: (1) Donald Trump is almost certainly less than 50/50 to even run for president, and (2) he ain't gonna be the GOP nominee even if he does run. But it cannot be denied that the fact that, when he is polled, he beats some "big names" on the GOP side, underscores two apparent challenges for the GOP—their "first tier" isn't as formidable as they might appear, and the fragmented nature of that "first tier" means that the prospects for a very unexpected outcome are real.