2/9/16, "Why Donald Trump Won Twice in One Night," NY Times, Nate Cohn, The Upshot
"Donald Trump won New Hampshire on Tuesday night, and not just because he finished with the most votes.
The
results extend his biggest advantage: a deeply divided opposition. They
all but ensure that several mainstream Republicans will remain in the
race — perhaps even long enough for Mr. Trump to take a big delegate
lead on Super Tuesday, March 1.
As
recently as a few days ago, New Hampshire seemed as if it could produce
the opposite effect. Marco Rubio had just taken a strong third in the
Iowa caucuses, and a handful of polls showed him moving into the upper
teens and into a strong second place in New Hampshire.
Instead, Mr. Rubio fared poorly in the last debate.
He is currently in fifth place in the New Hampshire returns, trailing
John Kasich, who is currently in second place, Ted Cruz and even Jeb
Bush by a meaningful margin.
Mr.
Trump could not have asked for much more. If you were ranking
Republicans in terms of their chances to defeat Mr. Trump and Mr. Cruz,
you would probably list Mr. Rubio, Mr. Bush and Mr. Kasich. Yet they
appear likeliest to finish tonight in exactly the opposite order —
maximizing the likelihood that all three stay in the race.
.............
The
presence of so many viable, mainstream Republican candidates poses a
huge challenge to the party’s establishment. Most obviously, the three
have split mainstream voters and donors, and will continue to do so.
But
it is even worse: They have used their donors’ money to viciously
attack one another, instead of Mr. Trump.
The
strong showing for Mr. Kasich is particularly inconvenient for the
party. His appeal is narrowly concentrated among moderate voters, who
are overrepresented in New Hampshire. He doesn’t have the broad appeal
or organization necessary to turn his New Hampshire strength into a
serious race.
But
his showing in New Hampshire could be enough to prevent a Republican
with broader appeal, like Mr. Rubio, from consolidating the coalition of
mainstream conservatives and well-educated moderate voters who could
eventually defeat Mr. Cruz or Mr. Trump.
Mr.
Bush and particularly Mr. Rubio have the potential to build broader
coalitions. But both have now failed to capitalize on huge
opportunities; there are well-founded doubts about both candidates,
which will make it harder for voters and party leaders to coalesce
behind either.
..........
..........
All
of this could change just as quickly as Mr. Rubio’s fortunes changed
over the last week. But there’s no question that tonight’s result means
it will take longer for the party to rally around one candidate — and
raises the possibility that it will simply never happen. A continued
split among the mainstream candidates would not only increase the
possibility that Trump wins the nomination, but also the prospect that
no candidate will amass a majority of delegates before the convention.
Mr.
Cruz failed to demonstrate any meaningful appeal beyond the base of
self-described “very conservative” and evangelical voters who helped him
win Iowa. He holds just 12 percent of the vote. That’s modestly above
past winners of Iowa who have gone on to lose this primary, like Mike
Huckabee, who won 11 percent in New Hampshire, or Rick Santorum, who won
9 percent.
Mr. Cruz won just 4 percent of moderate voters and just 9 percent of “somewhat conservative” voters.
The
weakness of Mr. Trump’s opposition should not detract from his own
performance. He currently holds around 34 percent of the vote — above
the 31 percent he held in pre-election polls.
After
Mr. Trump’s disappointing showing in Iowa — he underperformed the polls
by seven percentage points — it was reasonable to wonder whether he
could maintain the support of voters as they headed to the ballot box,
or whether he could turn out his supporters without a strong field
organization. If he had finished poorly in New Hampshire, doubts would
have risen about his chances elsewhere.
Whatever
explained his underwhelming showing in Iowa certainly wasn’t at play in
New Hampshire, and there’s no reason to be sure it will happen in the
next Republican contest, South Carolina."
================
Ed. note: Please excuse wide gaps between paragraphs which I've been unable to correct. Links to the article should work. Google personnel dislike free speech. As a result, they vandalize even the smallest of blogs.
================
Ed. note: Please excuse wide gaps between paragraphs which I've been unable to correct. Links to the article should work. Google personnel dislike free speech. As a result, they vandalize even the smallest of blogs.
..............
No comments:
Post a Comment