And finally, you can view your Pressimus profile by clicking on your profile image, and selecting your profile, and you can customize your Pressimus settings by selecting settings.
Watch quick explainer video
Finish
X

Request Invitation




Submit
Close
Submit
Stream by
Pressimus Post
@PressimusPost
A curated news stream run by journalists, academics, industry specialists, and thoughtful human beings -- A special Pressimus community project
PressimusPost
News Feed

Publication: Pressimus Post
Readability View
Press View
Show oldest first
Pressimus Post
@PressimusPost
A curated news stream run by journalists, academics, industry specialists, and thoughtful human beings -- A special Pressimus community project
PressimusPost
What Really Happened In Iowa?! The Myths And The Takeaways

I've already read lots of terrible analysis of last night's Iowa Caucus written by "professional journalists," and even worse analysis written on social media, so I had to chime in on what actually happened in Iowa and what we can expect to happen in New Hampshire.

Let's start with the myths.

Myth #1 - Ted Cruz "Upset" Donald Trump"

Somewhere, political pundits who have never heard of Des Moines before last night are writing about how everyone thought Trump would win Iowa and he was crushed by Cruz who came out of nowhere. In fact, the opposite is true. Cruz has been polling very well in Iowa for weeks, and even before that period of time the best political pundits expected Cruz to do very well in Iowa.

Why? It comes down to style, religion, and an established ground game. Ted Cruz has experience campaigning for George W. Bush in Iowa, but more importantly he is a well-know advocate for all of the things Iowa voters respect -- he's vocally evangelical and fiercely independent. Like Rick Santorum who won Iowa in 2012 and Mike Huckabee who won in 2008, Cruz strikes all the right chords there.

Trump, on the other hand, has had to convince people that he is religious, defended Planned Parenthood recently, and is thought by some to really be pro-choice.  No political pundits who understand these elections would have guessed, without looking at the polls, that Trump was in the lead. 

But wasn't Trump in the lead the whole time in the polls? Sure, but as I've been writing, pundits always expected that to change. When Cruz closed ground in the polls (in many polls he was within the margin of error) many expected that Donald Trump could lose Iowa. 

Myth #2 - So Ted Cruz is the front runner?

When I talk about bad analysis. this is what I'm talking about.

In 2012, Rick Santorum beat Mitt Romney by a narrow margin and people said Romney's campaign was toast (Ron Paul came in a close third). Nobody remembers this because Romney won 42 states, Santorum won 11, and Paul won one.

In 2008, Mike Huckabee won by 9 percentage points over Romney, with Fred Thompson coming in a distant third, effectively tied with John McCain who easily went on to become the Republican nominee.

When candidates who won Iowa went on to win the nomination it is largely because they were already doing well in the national polls. The evangelical-conservatism seen in people like Santorum and Cruz and Huckabee is a tough sell in large parts of the country, and certainly does not get you far in New Hampshire.

This brings us to the polls -- Ted Cruz is simply not doing that well nationally, nor in New Hampshire,  and few pundits think he could win the nomination. Does that mean it's impossible? No, but Cruz gained in the polls in Iowa while staying the same almost everywhere else. 

Myth #3 - The Polls Were Wrong

No, they weren't. Actually, they were pretty good. RealClearPolitics put Hillary Clinton about 4% above Bernie Sanders with an averaged margin on error of somewhere between 3% and 6%. Pundits and pollsters who understand Iowa were calling that a virtual tie with a slight advantage for Clinton, and that's almost exactly what we got.

A very similar pattern was playing out on the Republican side, but something else happened that's worth discussing.

As my previous analysis here has constantly reminded, traditional thinking has been that undecided voters would break for a more moderate and traditional candidate -- a candidate like Marco Rubio. The polls that came out in the days right before the election showed this for the first time, a quick spike for Rubio. 

PressimusPost
Trump Polling Below Cruz, Rubio A Strong 3rd In Early #Iowa Results
As we just reported, Donald Trump is currently polling at a close second in Iowa.  As I have reported, at length, Trump does not need to win Iowa to win the other states, and a Cruz victory does little to push Trump off of the pedestal since Cruz is polling poorly in many other states and is an …

Not only do polls have a margin of error, they are also always taken days before they are released, so quick movement is hard to capture. Rubio did about 6% better than he did in the latest polls, but he had gained about 6% in a week, whereas both Trump and Cruz took large dips in the days before the election.

Rubio's win is significant, as I will get to, but the polls were pretty good. There's a reason, though, that polls don't determine election results. 

Now, let's talk about what really happened.

Most Important Takeaways From Iowa's Caucus

1. Donald Trump has to do well in New Hampshire

I said it before the election, but with decisive leads in every state where there is polling data, Donald Trump did not need to win in Iowa. In fact, it's been the only state where the race has even been close. Many, including me, have stressed that Trump's losing to Cruz in Iowa was a possibility.

But if Trump were to lose in New Hampshire, then he could be in trouble. Other more traditional candidates have better ground games and more endorsements that can easily make up ground if the race is tight enough. If Trump loses two in a row people may begin to doubt that he is a real candidate. The traditional candidates will then do what they do best.

2. If you want Trump and/or Cruz to lose, you need someone else to win New Hampshire

If Trump trounces his opposition in New Hampshire (he's currently up by about 22 points), then that could give him the momentum to win South Carolina as well (he's up 16 points, though Cruz is sure to get a bounce). The reality is that the Trump campaign has been a juggernaut, and if someone wants to stop it then they need to do it soon.

3. The problem with crowded fields

If Ted Cruz wins New Hampshire, or maybe comes in a close second, then he could gain ground in South Carolina -- his next competitive state. But Cruz is polling at a sinking-third place in the Granite State. John Kasich, who could do well in New Hampshire and is currently in second, is basically doing well nowhere else. Marco Rubio, who had a great showing in Iowa, will surely gain momentum, but he's currently in fifth place in New Hampshire.

Since Cruz is not really someone we think of when we think if a New Hampshire voter (really, neither is Rubio but he's closer to the archetype than Cruz) it's probably not realistic to think that he can pick up twenty points there in a week. But with all of the other candidates vying for the same set of votes, it's hard to see who can beat Trump in New Hampshire. Rubio's in fifth there for a reason.

But among the pack of Bush, Kasich, Rubio, Christie, and so on, the reality is that there are both policy and personality differences between all of these candidates that make it unlikely that any of them would quickly adopt the idea of dropping out. There's no sign of a thinner pack going into New Hampshire which is only seven days away, and it's not clear how removing a single one of these candidates could help sort out the field.

In other words, if you think Donald Trump is going to lose, there are plenty of pundits and bet makers who think you are wrong, though Rubio's surge has likely changed the odds a lot.

4. The Democratic race just got real

Going into Iowa the Clinton camp must have realized that Sanders holds a decisive lead in New Hampshire and Iowa was their chance to change that. The narrative now is that Sanders nearly unseated Clinton and her campaign is falling apart (there are plenty of reasons, the argument goes, why she did not win in 2008). Sanders will likely hold his ground in New Hampshire -- it's hard to imagine how Clinton can gain momentum by nearly losing last night. Clinton still owns a good lead in South Carolina that Sanders is unlikely to close, but this could mean that going into Super Tuesday (March 1) Clinton could be extremely vulnerable and her best strategy was to soundly defeat Sanders so that he could be dismissed, much like Trump, as an upstart and not a legitimate candidate. It will be hard to make that argument after his near-victory in Iowa and a resounding triumph in New England.

6. Politics is about ideas, not numbers, and Iowa is unique

Yes, I've just written several hundred words about numbers and stats and polls and probabilities, but I actually hate this aspect of politics. Politics should be about the discussion of ideas, policies that will change the direction of our country, our society, and our world, either for the better or for the worse. Voters may (will) be swayed by momentum because our political system has become like professional sports where people want to pick the winners and losers. It's one of the basest parts of our political system.

Like sports, though, every win feels like inevitability and every loss feels like the end of the world. The reality is that Iowa is not even the first game, but it's more like the first quarter of the first game. What happens in the first quarter could set the tone for the entire rest of the season, though. Momentum exposes the cracks in a team or a candidate, but the best candidates, and the best teams, will react and win the day.

Don't overthink Iowa. The state is simply not representative of the rest of the union. Don't underthink it, either. Sanders looks like a contender and Clinton should be worried, but Clinton is still the favorite to win and Sanders is still the underdog. Trump could have walked away with this election, but now it looks like he'll have to work for it.

The GOP establishment needs to take a serious look at the scoreboard and make decisions about how best to use its players. Eleven candidates are still in this race, but only three, or maybe four, are showing any signs of life. The establishment hates Trump, and Cruz, for good reasons, but they have not yet formed a strategy to take down either one.

No, voters should not treat politics like sports -- it's so much more important than that. But if you're in the business of getting people elected, that's exactly how you should be viewing yesterday's election.

7. I missed #5

And so did you. Politics is unpredictable. If you want a candidate to win, go work to make that happen because anything is possible. But hurry up because the game is already underway.


http://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/primaries/iowa
2016-02-02 15:48:11
Read last night's liveblog for more Iowa news and analysis here: 

Iowa Caucus Liveblog

Cruz Wins #Iowa , Trump In Second, Marco Rubio In A Strong Third According to poll results it looks clear that Ted Cruz will carry Iowa with about a 3.3% lead. Trump will come in second, about a percentage-point-and-a-half above Marco Rubio.

View full page →
Feb 02, 2016 20:49 (GMT)
-- James Miller
Pressimus Post
@PressimusPost
A curated news stream run by journalists, academics, industry specialists, and thoughtful human beings -- A special Pressimus community project
PressimusPost
Trump Is The White Supremacist's Candidate, And He's Now Favored To Win Iowa

There's a long history of candidates winning the Iowa Caucus and getting crushed in the following elections. But right now Donald Trump is dominating the polls nationally and in all non-Iowa early-voting states. Trump does not need to win Iowa to win the GOP nomination, but if he does win that may be vindication for many of those who are considering voting for him that they are not alone.

I've been spreading the alarm that Donald Trump could win the GOP nomination for quite some time (oldest updates first). 

PressimusPost
Are Carson Voters Now Donald Trump Voters?
Conventional wisdom remains that neither Ben Carson nor Donald Trump will resonate with traditional voters, most of whom are still undecided, and so their huge leads in national polling will quickly disintegrate as election day nears. This has been the mantra of analysts like Nate Silver at fivethi…
PressimusPost
Trump Is Gaining Ground, Rubio Is Nowhere
The conventional wisdom is STILL that Donald Trump will not win the GOP nomination. Why? The thinking, briefly, goes like this: Trump is not a conventional conservative, and his supporters are highly galvanized, so the theory is that anyone not already decided for Trump will vote for someone e…
PressimusPost
John Kasich Surges In New Hampshire, But Is That Good News For Trump?
As readers of this thread know by now, I give Trump a much better chance of winning the GOP nomination than many pundits (like fivethirtyeight.com). The basic logic of many analysts is that Trump's supporters are already vocally declaring support, and many others who are undecided will throw their …
In our latest assessment we stress that, according to our own reading of the data, Trump is favored to win Iowa (by a slim margin, which could easily turn) and perhaps every other state.
PressimusPost
Yes, Donald Trump Really Could Be The Republican Nominee For President
Yes, really, honestly, truly, Donald Trump could win the Republican nomination. In fact, some betting agencies now have him as the "odds-on favorite" meaning that if you bet on Trump to win the GOP nomination, and he wins, then you will actually lose money. Donald Trump has been ahead in the nat…
Listeners to The Interpreter's podcast also know that I've discussed Trump's chances at length, even devoting part of an entire episode to him: 

Russian Aircraft Fall, Donald Trump Rises - This Week's Interpreter Podcast

Turkey has shot down a Russian jet in Syria, ISIS has conducted a massive attack in Europe, the world is debating how to solve the crisis in the Middle East, and Russia has once again made its way back into the headlines.

View full page →
Jan 29, 2016 03:22 (GMT)
But I've also discussed how dangerous Donald Trump is. He's ruining America's reputation abroad, fueling anti-American hatred in the Middle East and elsewhere, and he's key allies with other far-right populists who are a growing movement in Europe. He's also defended Russian President Vladimir Putin whom a British inquiry says probably personally ordered the assassination of a British citizen on British soil:
Last week he retweeted a white supremacist:
PressimusPost
Donald Trump Just Promoted A White Supremacist Scare Account
As a journalist I know that the old adage "Retweet ≠ endorsement" disclaimer on your Twitter account only goes so far. For instance, if you are not only retweeting but  agreeing with a person, and that person is spreading racial hatred, the disclaimer begins to sound a lot like the "I was just …
And new evidence suggests that the majority of Twitter accounts that Trump promotes also follow leading white supremacist accounts:

Data: 62% of the people Donald Trump RTed this week follow multiple White Supremacist accounts

When most political candidates get endorsed by unsavory characters, they distance themselves quickly. Not Donald Trump. Two weeks ago the leading Republican candidate for US President was widely criticized for retweeting a white supremacist Twitter user with the name "@WhiteGenocideTM," whose linked website sung Hitler's praises.

View full page →
Jan 29, 2016 03:27 (GMT)

Scared yet? You should be. The long-time and entrenched skeptics of Donald Trump's chances of winning the GOP nomination, Nate Silver and his crew at fivethirtyeight.com, now believe for the first time that Donald Trump is the candidate who is most likely to win Monday's Iowa caucus. According to FiveThirtyEight, Trump has a 54% chance of winning in New Hampshire, which doesn't sound that impressive until you consider that his closest competitor is Ted Cruz and he's only got a 14% chance of winning

I've said that I am not endorsing a candidate in this election but would instead focus on individual issues. I am reneging that promise, however, because I do not believe that Trump's ignorant xenophobia has any place in American politics.

Trump is dangerous. If you are a Republican, I urge you to find a different candidate to vote for. If you are not a Republican but live in an area where there are open elections, consider voting in the Republican primary in order to endorse a different candidate. As a registered Massachusetts independent, I have that ability, and I will be voting using the Republican ballot for the first time in my memory, perhaps ever. It's that important.

But you'll have to wait for a little while longer before you read which candidate I'll endorse. 

-- James Miller

Pressimus Post
@PressimusPost
A curated news stream run by journalists, academics, industry specialists, and thoughtful human beings -- A special Pressimus community project
PressimusPost
Yes, Donald Trump Really Could Be The Republican Nominee For President

Yes, really, honestly, truly, Donald Trump could win the Republican nomination. In fact, some betting agencies now have him as the "odds-on favorite" meaning that if you bet on Trump to win the GOP nomination, and he wins, then you will actually lose money.

Donald Trump has been ahead in the national polls since last July. Except for a period of about two weeks, there has been a significant amount of space between Trump and his nearest competitor during that entire time.

For most of that period of time Ben Carson was a dominating second place, but he has now fallen to fourth and continues to drop. Scott Walker had a brief surge in August, but he quickly caved and is now out of the race. Following a good debate appearance, in September, Carly Fiorina jumped from nowhere to third place -- most recent polling has her in dead last place now. Marco Rubio's campaign has had its ups and downs but has never appeared like it has had traction. The only candidate besides Trump who has gained ground since last fall is Ted Cruz, currently polling at number two and the only candidate besides Carson who has been in second place since Trump took his lead last summer. 

Going by national polls alone, there's only one word for Trump's performance over the last six months -- dominant. 

For that entire time, some pundits have warned that Trump's numbers only reflect those who are being polled who have already chosen a candidate. The traditional thinking is that Trump's people have already declared -- they are, after all, a pretty fired-up bunch. Support for other candidates may be softer, with voters choices more fluid. Since Trump has never polled above 50%, pundits pointed out that the majority of polled voters are not expressing their support for Trump. 

Since most voters are still undecided, even a week before the Iowa caucus, and since Trump's supporters are vocal, the theory goes that last-minute deciders will break overwhelmingly for more traditional candidates. 

The polls, then, are misleading, and when election time nears then Trump will lose ground.

I have never subscribed to this theory. I've always felt that Trump's lead was significant, though until a month or so ago I was far from confident that Trump would win the nomination. I am now highly confident that the pundits have been wrong all along and Trump will have a very strong showing at the polls. The voters decide who wins elections, not the pollsters, and nothing is set in stone (until it is), but with the election in Iowa less than one week away, Trump's opponents have much to fear. 

Before we analyse the latest national polls, we should point out the raw numbers. RealClearPolitics, which uses a formula to weight and average different polls, has Trump opening up a commanding lead: 

2016-01-26 21:22:11

Not only is Trump not losing ground, he's gaining it and all other candidates, except maybe Ted Cruz, are losing ground. 

National polls, however, don't tell us much. The American primary system is complex, but is state-by-state, meaning that the polling inside individual states is more important than the national polls.

The problem, though, is that Trump is ahead in every early-voting state.

At the moment, all eyes are on the February 1 Iowa Caucus, the first state to vote. The caucus system is not like an open election -- voters get together and discuss who their choice is. This means that the polls do not indicate who will come out on top of this horse-trading process. What they do show, however, is a jump in support for Trump, and a total lack of enthusiasm for any candidate besides Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. 

2016-01-26 21:29:38

Ted Cruz, an evangelical Christian, has long been favored to win in Iowa. But today Trump picked up a crucial endorsement -- from Liberty University president Reverend Jerry Falwell Jr.

Trump is posting a dominant lead in many other states, and Ted Cruz's Christian fundamentalism and firebrand politics don't sit well with many voters and GOP leaders, certainly not in a state like New Hampshire, where the second primary is being held just 8 days after Iowa.  A sound defeat in Iowa could jeopardize Trump's momentum elsewhere, but a win in Iowa could have the opposite effect. 

Digging behind Trump's numbers in Iowa, we see that he is gaining ground in every subgroup.  Washington Post explains:

Cruz is still over-performing with conservatives and tea partiers (meaning that his support among those groups is 11 and seven points higher than his overall support), but Trump gained 11 and 17 points with those groups over the past two weeks. Cruz's support among the groups fell.

So what's going on? This is the same polling firm and the same methodology. But the voter pool is slightly different.


But that's risky for him. As we've noted, self-reporting of whether people will get to the polls is not always accurate and tends to depend on past voting behavior more than anything. In the new Fox poll, Trump gets 34 percent of Iowans, but 43 percent of those who will be going to caucus for the first time. Perhaps they will. But people who haven't voted before are a lot less likely to vote than people who vote all the time, for perhaps obvious reasons. 


Two weeks ago, the percentage of respondents saying they would "definitely" go out and caucus on Feb. 1 was 59 percent. In this new poll, that dropped to 54 percent, meaning a 10-point swing toward those who would say they will "probably" go to the caucus. Two weeks ago, Trump trailed Cruz by six points among those who would probably vote. Now he leads with that group by 15 — more than his overall lead against Cruz.

Ordinarily we'd be skeptical of these numbers, as The Washington Post points out, but the reality is that the graphic below shows that Trump's support is wide and widening:


Poll: Donald Trump gained 15 points on Ted Cruz in Iowa in two weeks

Earlier this month, Fox News released a poll showing Ted Cruz leading Donald Trump by four points. The two had a sizable lead over everyone else in the state, and the poll was confirming what others were showing: Cruz had an advantage. On Sunday, Fox released another Iowa poll, with substantially different results.

View full page →
Jan 27, 2016 02:47 (GMT)

A new poll from CNN shows Trump opening up a wide lead nationally as well, topping 40% for the first time. CNN's numbers also show a strong "enthusiasm gap" between Trump and other candidates:

Trump's supporters are more likely than those backing other candidates to say that they've definitely made up their mind (70% of Trump's supporters say they are locked in compared with 40% who back other candidates). 

And the prospect of a Trump candidacy generates more enthusiasm overall (40% of Republican voters say they would be enthusiastic about a Trump nomination) than the possibility of Cruz (25% enthusiastic) or Rubio (18% enthusiastic) at the head of the ticket.


Trump's dominance continues when voters assess which of the GOP candidates would best handle top issues.


Trump holds his widest advantage on handling the economy: 60% of GOP voters say Trump would best handle it, a 48-point lead over Ted Cruz. Likewise, Trump has a 55% to 16% edge on handling illegal immigration.


His margin is smaller, though still significant, on handling foreign policy. Republican voters in the poll rated terrorism their most important issue in considering a candidate for president: 49% called it "extremely important," outpacing the share calling the economy, government spending or illegal immigration as central to their vote.

This last point is important -- right now it's the economy, not foreign policy, making headlines. And as we've pointed out in the past, Trump has gained ground in the wake of previous terrorist attacks, most notably the attacks in Paris, so it's not clear that external news factors could weaken Trump's support.

Poll: Donald Trump dominates GOP field, hits 41% - CNNPolitics.com

And more than two-thirds of Republicans say he's the candidate most likely to capture their party's presidential nomination. Trump has topped the 40% mark for the first time in CNN/ORC polling, standing at 41%. That more than doubles the support of his nearest competitor, Texas Sen.

View full page →
Jan 27, 2016 02:53 (GMT)

Even fivethirtyeight.com, which has been highly skeptical of Trump's chances from the start, is warming to the idea that Trump could win. According to their "Polls-plus-forecast" analysis, which combines poll numbers (which Trump is winning) to their own subjective analysis of the race (wherein Trump is losing) Trump has a 42% chance of winning in Iowa to Ted Cruz's 49%. Trump has a 30%+ lead in New Hampshire and South Carolina, the next two primary elections. 

Then there are the Las Vegas polls -- the odds of Trump winning the nomination, according to leading bet-making websites, are now one-sided. On some websites Trump is now the "odds-on" favorite, meaning that he is so heavily favored that if you bet on Trump to win and he wins you'd lose money. 

-- James Miller

Pressimus Post
@PressimusPost
A curated news stream run by journalists, academics, industry specialists, and thoughtful human beings -- A special Pressimus community project
PressimusPost
Donald Trump Just Promoted A White Supremacist Scare Account

As a journalist I know that the old adage "Retweet ≠ endorsement" disclaimer on your Twitter account only goes so far. For instance, if you are not only retweeting but  agreeing with a person, and that person is spreading racial hatred, the disclaimer begins to sound a lot like the "I was just following orders" mantra that creeps into the language of a lot of people who are doing very bad things.

And so today Donald Trump's Twitter account not only retweeted an obvious white supremacist, it spread a meme by an account that has a well-known racist slogan in its Twitter handle. 

WhiteGenocideTM? A screenshot in case it disappears: 
2016-01-22 16:22:11

Who is "WhiteGenocideTM", AKA "Donald Trumpovitz"? Just the top section of his Twitter page shows several obvious signs that this lowlife should not be promoted by a man who says he is qualified to be President of the United states. From the "get the fuck out of my country" banner, to a tweet about how Jews "do not belong in the movement," to a profile picture that seems to indicate that this man thinks Trump may be Hitler-esque which is why he's worthy of supporting, it should have been immediately obvious to Trump or whoever is running his campaign that this is not the kind of person you give an RT to.

Let's just take a look at some of WhiteGenocideTM's recent tweets, shall we (screen captured so they won't go away):

2016-01-22 16:22:08
2016-01-22 16:22:10
2016-01-22 16:27:49

I'm sure a deep-dive of this account, which may or may not be too much to ask of any candidate, would find even more vile stuff, but the point here is that just a quick glance at this Twitter account, or even the handle "White Genocide," should have clued Trump's people into realizing the nature of this account.

So here's the question: was this a reckless accidental  promotion of white supremacy, or the deliberate promotion of it? I think the answer is obvious, but either option is unacceptable.

-- James Miller

Pressimus Post
@PressimusPost
A curated news stream run by journalists, academics, industry specialists, and thoughtful human beings -- A special Pressimus community project
PressimusPost
John Kasich Surges In New Hampshire, But Is That Good News For Trump?

As readers of this thread know by now, I give Trump a much better chance of winning the GOP nomination than many pundits (like fivethirtyeight.com). The basic logic of many analysts is that Trump's supporters are already vocally declaring support, and many others who are undecided will throw their support to someone else when the time comes. As I've explained, I respect this theory but I also believe that both the numbers and anecdotal observation suggest that Trump could win.

Yesterday I pointed out that, with the Iowa Caucus right around the corner, the trend lines in the polling numbers show no evidence that Trump is losing ground -- the opposite is true. Furthermore, the theory that a more moderate and traditional Republican (Rubio is often mentioned, as are Bush and Kasich) will win those undecided Republican voters over, but there's no sign of that happening yet either. 


Trump Is Gaining Ground, Rubio Is Nowhere

The conventional wisdom is STILL that Donald Trump will not win the GOP nomination. Why? The thinking, briefly, goes like this: Trump is not a conventional conservative, and his supporters are highly galvanized, so the theory is that anyone not already decided for Trump will vote for someone else.

View full page →
Jan 20, 2016 21:59 (GMT)

In Iowa Trump is currently leading, with Cruz effectively tied but perhaps losing some momentum. Because the Iowa Caucus is, well, a caucus and not a traditional election, who knows how this ends, but there is a huge gap between Trump and Cruz at the top and Rubio, then Carson, who are both leading the bottom of the pack. 

New Hampshire is the second election. There's little chance of a Cruz win there (he's in 4th place), and so unless the polls are way off Trump looks to come in 1st or 2nd in the first two elections. Since he's way ahead in the polls elsewhere, such a result could catapult him into the nomination. As I've also pointed out (link above), Rubio is not in second place anywhere but New Hampshire, and he's been losing ground there. 

Now, he's not even in second place in New Hampshire.

Much to my surprise, a candidate I've overlooked  recently has spiked in the Granite State and appears to be rapidly gaining momentum -- John Kasich, a much more moderate and traditional Republican whom many initially though should be polling better in New England (in fact he was in 2nd for a while). Here's the latest poll from RealClearPolitics.com:

2016-01-20 17:11:59

In fact The New York Times has an article about how Kasich has climbed into the race in New Hampshire:

On Wednesday, he will address the New Hampshire House of Representatives in Concord on Wednesday. Two of his rivals for the Republican nomination, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, will also address lawmakers.

On Sunday, Mr. Kasich was endorsed by The Telegraph of Nashua, which cited his experience as both an executive and a congressman. And on Friday, he won the backing of The Portsmouth Herald and Foster’s Daily Democrat; in a joint editorial, the newspapers wrote that “in a race awash in half-truths and exaggerations, Kasich can stand on his record of accomplishment without the need to embellish it.”

While polls have shown Donald J. Trump with a wide lead in the state, Mr. Kasich is counting on a strong showing behind Mr. Trump to catapult his candidacy into the spotlight.

In a Monmouth University poll conducted Jan. 7 to 10, Mr. Kasich, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and Mr. Rubio were in close competition for second place.



John Kasich Keeps to New Hampshire Amid Some Signs of Life

With attention focused on his rivals and the attacks they sling at one another, Gov. John R. Kasich of Ohio is finding some signs of hope in New Hampshire. Mr. Kasich has devoted significant time and attention to the state, where the primary is Feb.

View full page →
Jan 20, 2016 22:13 (GMT)

Those looking to endorse a candidate who can beat Trump, however, might note that Kasich is competing with several other "moderates" for the non-Trump vote. The question then becomes whether if one or more of these candidates drops out whether the GOP could cobble together an anti-Trump coalition candidate. Apart, they could divide the moderate GOP vote, allowing Trump to stay on top. 

If all moderate candidates stay in the race, not only could these non-Trump candidates split the moderate vote, they could split the delegates, allowing Trump and/or Cruz to open a sizable lead. 

But there are sharp differences between Rubio, Kasich, Bush, Christie, and others -- differences in their personalities, their histories, and their policies. So which of these candidates blinks first? And does it happen soon enough?

By the way, many gambling websites are giving Trump a very strong chance of winning the Republican nomination at this point. Paddypower.com has Trump at 5/4, meaning if you bet $4 you'll win $5. On the same website, Rubio is 9/4, Crus 7/2, Bush is 10/1 and Christie is 18/1. John Kasich is a distant 66/1 -- lower odds than some candidates who are not even running like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. On the Sky betting network, referenced by many pundits, Trump is at 11/8, Rubio is 9/4, Cruz is 10/3, and Kasich a distant 66/1.

Check more odds here

-- James Miller

X

Acknowledgements