Ross Douthat Has a Theory of How Trump Loses That's Worthy of More Respect

My trouble with the Nate Silvers, Harry Entens, and Ezra Kleins of the world is not just that they don't think Trump will ultimately win the GOP nomination-which I agree is quite plausible-but that they have this theory that he basically does a total bellyflop and can't win a single primary.

"But there's another model of failure. Trump could just ... not win. He could lose the Iowa caucuses. He could fall short in New Hampshire. A loss in any early state might lead to a loss in every state. Losing a presidential primary is often like going bankrupt: It happens slowly, then all at once."

"But this is, I think, what will happen to Trump. He will lead until he doesn't. His fall will be quick, and it won't obey the apparent rules of his rise. If there is a reason for it, it will fundamentally be, "People get more pragmatic the closer they get to an actual vote." As much as Republicans tell pollsters they think Trump can win the general election, I am skeptical they will truly believe that come Election Day."

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/01/but-what-if-trump-does-win-nh.html

Yes, the GOP base sure has demonstrated their penchant for pragmatism. 

Again, I think it's certainly a very arguable point that Trump doesn't ultimately win-the GOP will do what it can to keep him off and I could imagine them being successful-though it might lead to such blowback that it would be almost as harmful as him being on the ticket in the first place. 

But I don't get this 'His support just dissolves over night and goes to Marco Rubio.'

On the other hand I find Ross Douthat's theory of what a Trump loss might look like much more plausible than Ezra Klein's bellyflop because that's what happened to Howard dean theory. 

"Now I agree with Klein that this sudden-decline scenario is very plausible. But as someone who recently confessed to having dramatically underestimated Trump’s political talents, I think it’s worth trying to do a little better, and describe how Trump could fail to get the Republican nomination even if he doesn’t have a Dean-like plunge."

"Suppose that his support is more robust than Dean’s, suppose that the Trump constituency doesn’t give a fig about pragmatism. How does Trump lose then?"

"Here’s how. Yes, Trump leads all the national polls, and he keeps busting through what look like ceilings. But (unlike Dean) he doesn’t lead in Iowa, and his ceiling there looks very stable: He’s been hovering around 25 percent since September, and he’s never broken 30 percent."

"He does lead in New Hampshire, but there, too, his poll numbers have been relatively flat since August, and he tops out around 30 percent. Likewise South Carolina, where his polling has hovered in the 30 percent to 35 percent range since he grabbed the spotlight last summer."

"There is no credible scenario in which a consistent 30 percent of the vote will deliver the delegates required to be the Republican nominee. So for Trump to lose, he doesn’t actually have to collapse; he just has to fail to expand his support. And in the states where candidates are actually campaigning, voters are paying the most attention, and the polling screens for likely voters are tightening, he hasn’t expanded his support meaningfully since he first climbed into the lead."

"Foolish pundit that I may be, I don’t think he will. Instead, I think that Ted Cruz will continue to consolidate evangelicals as Ben Carson fades, and someone (probably Marco Rubio) will eventually consolidate the moderate-conservative vote — which is currently splintered among five candidates in New Hampshire, but which if it were consolidated would very easily beat Trump’s total in that state."

"At which point — again, assuming that Trump doesn’t fade or collapse — we’ll have a three-way race, one in which the Donald could still win some states, could still pile up delegates, could even have a chance of pushing the race all the way to the convention — but would not, could not, emerge as the nominee."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/opinion/campaign-stops/how-donald-trump-loses.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

I find the idea of a three way race-with say, Trump, Cruz, and Rubio- that could go up the convention very plausible.

I will say this. I'm not entirely persuaded that Trump has topped out. He actually has been rising-his national polls have clearly risen from around 25 percent to 35 percent since his Muslim ban plan.

Even at the state level, his support has been cresting. He's now at 27 percent in Iowa which is considerably higher than where it was during the Ben Carson surge.

As for Rubio, it's not totally assured that there will be an Establishment candidate. It's very important for the Establishment that one of their candidates breaks out in NH, if not then maybe the Establishment never gets a candidate-is stuck with a Trump-Cruz race.

Sam Wang makes this observation:

"Am I saying that Donald Trump is inevitable? Not quite. However, I do have something to say about another candidate:

"Unless Marco Rubio gets the lead out, he is on the edge of serious trouble."

"The Republican Party’s state-by-state delegate selection rules penalize candidates who fall below a threshold of support that is often 15% or 20%. In a future post I will examine how this Procrustean rule affects each candidate’s likely delegate total. By simulating the state-by-state rules, I will show that a candidate with Rubio’s current level of support (12-13% nationally, in Iowa, and in New Hampshire) is at risk of having virtually no support by Super Tuesday, a major turning point of the campaign. Stay tuned for a full explanation with graphs."

http://election.princeton.edu/2016/01/05/what-december-polls-can-tell-us-about-the-gop-nomination/?platform=hootsuite

If this ends up a two man race with just Trump and Cruz I'm even less sure about the relative odds-though I'd love either as Hillary's opponent.