Originally posted on The Five Pilgrims
One
day before the Iowa caucuses, Emerson College released the final Iowa
poll. Its results were a little narrower than most of its immediate
predecessors, but it showed the same thing they did: Donald Trump, the
blustery real estate magnate who was firmly ensconced as the Republican
frontrunner despite his many departures from small-government
conservatism, with a lead over Ted Cruz. Real Clear Politics, likely the
best-known aggregator of polling data, had Trump with a 4.7-point lead
over Cruz, and the renowned political statistics blog FiveThirtyEight’s
most likely predicted outcome was a narrow Trump victory. A weighted
average of the polls showed the same thing, and better still, pulled
Trump outside the reported margin of error for the weighted estimate.
There was, perhaps, a little cause
for alarm within Trump’s camp. Both of the most recent polls from Iowa
showed Cruz narrowing the margin to within the poll’s error, but even
so, neither predicted that Cruz would take the lead. Trump’s
unconventional campaign focused on rallies and top-down momentum, rather
than grassroots and legwork, appeared to have upset conventional wisdom
and would notch up a victory before anyone else had a chance to go on
the board.
The polls were wrong. Cruz not only won, he won with a record number of votes and by more than 3%
– a commanding margin in a race with ten other candidates. The margin
between Cruz and Trump was actually wider than the margin between Trump
and the third-place finisher, Marco Rubio. Every poll showed Trump with a
lead, many with a lead greater than the margin of error, and every poll
was wrong.
The total breakdown of polling
isn’t necessarily a new thing – caucuses are hard to predict – but it is
worse this year than in the past. In 2008 a weighted average would have
predicted the actual winner, Mike Huckabee, and even in 2012, when Rick
Santorum pulled off one of the more shocking come-from-behind victories
in recent memory, polls showed the surge, and a plot of the pre-caucus
trajectory would have predicted the eventual outcome. This year neither
the actual numbers nor the trajectory would have predicted the winner.
The polls were simply wrong.
There will undoubtedly be many
post-mortems trying to explain why the pollsters failed today, but
there’s a simple enough explanation: Trump’s support is the political
equivalent of a rice cake – crunchy, usually very noisy, air. He
presented a platform as schizophrenic as his campaign, a muddled, angry
caricature of what a New York-liberal might imagine to be conservatism.
Pushing an isolationist view on the borders and a nationalist, even bloodthirsty, foreign policy, at the same time that he advocated positively socialist positions on issues like healthcare and a fascist stance
on religious expression, Trump simultaneously attempted to appeal to
the Republican conservative base and emphatically rejected crucial
elements of a conservative worldview. His campaign preparation showed
the same inattention to detail, eschewing hard work in favor of exciting
rallies and passing over a well-developed organization in favor of
slip-shod tweet-storms. He targeted a particular subset of voters, those
who had not thought out their positions clearly enough to recognize the
caricature.
It turns out, people too lazy to
think through a consistent, coherent philosophy of government aren’t
likely to be diligent enough to spend three hours casting a vote.
Trump’s no idiot, although he clearly thinks his supporters are,
and he’ll adapt. Future states will be primaries, which appeal to
Trump’s brand of voters more than more time-consuming caucuses, and
Trump will undoubtedly work to solidify his organization in the future.
Tonight, though, it doesn’t matter. Trump’s “yuge” lead in the polls was
finally put to the test, and it collapsed under pressure. There’s a
long road ahead – Iowa only controls a little more than 1% of the total
delegates – but first blood and the confidence to forge ahead regardless
of the polls goes to the underestimated senator from Texas.
Labels: Election 2016, Politics
0 comments:
Post a Comment