Iowa and NH GOP caucus/primary voters’ inclinations appear to be far more stable than all the OMG – Trump hair pulling suggests. Trump at 25% in Iowa and near 30% in NH is entirely predictable. And, yes, he’s not yet near his potential ceiling in either state.
There are differences between these voters in IA and NH, but perhaps not as many as past results appear to indicate. Looking at the results from 1980-2012, the voting inclinations appear to me to be more primal than self-descriptions by the voters themselves. Where this gets somewhat fuzzier is the secondary primal inclination when none of the candidates fit the highest (or lowest) order inclination. For example, anti-immigration primal inclination has always been present but not so well articulated and defined as it has become this year. In those years did it default to the better racist or split up into other categories?
So, the segmented primary voter groups that I see are:
- Party elites choice (PETS): Iowa 10% and NH 10%
- Experience/expertise w/slight preference for moderates (TEES). These voters take pride in doing their own evaluation of the candidates. Iowa 10% and NH 15%.
- Anti-party elites (ANTS): Iowa 10% and NH 15%.
- Religious fundamentalists –
a) Rigid (GODS): Iowa 10% and NH 5%
b) Flexible (FGDS): Iowa 10% and NH 5%
- Richie-Rich (latent monarchists) (RCHS): Iowa 10% and NH 10%.
- Not a Politician (NAPS): Iowa 10% and NH 5%
- Isolationist (ISTS): Iowa 5% and NH 10%
- Internationalists/Interventionists (WARS): Iowa 5% and NH 5%.
- Racist (RACS): Iowa 5% and NH 5%
- Anti-immigrant (AIMS): Iowa 5% and NH 5%
- Free-floating sector (FFSS) can attach to any of the above or a separate category of “good neighbor” or nostalgia for a candidate in a prior run: Iowa 10% and NH 10%. At this point in the 2016 race, it’s “free floating.” Perry isn’t better the second time around. Nor is a third Paul run welcomed. Their might have been some “good neighbor” operating a couple of months ago for Walker, but that seems to have dissipated. And any residual value for a Bush and/or Texas is getting slim to none.
How many sectors a candidate needs to own in a specific election cycle to win in Iowa and/or NH will vary by the number of other candidates and their individual ability to lock up sectors.
Consider 2000 and Steve Forbes who garnered 31% of the vote in IA and 13% in NH. In Iowa he “owned” the ANTS, NAPS, and RCHS (30%); whereas in NH he owned only a small portion of the NAPS and all of the RCHS.
At this point in both states, Trump appears to have locked up RCHS, AIMS and RACS. That’s 20%. To that he’s only added another 3% from the ANTS, NAPS, and FFSS sectors. In NH, he’s added 8% — more ANTS there to draw from and is likely getting a higher proportion of NAPS.
The two candidates that help Trump the most are Carson and Fiorina.
The anti-Trump GOP has a few obvious problems. First the candidates with greater than five years (as of 1/16) in high public office (GOV or SEN) are mostly scrapping the bottom of the barrel. Three of those have been out of office since 1/07. Mr. Oops will only be one year out of office but apparently nobody misses him. And Mr. “why not?” has turned into “why?” Thus, no one candidate owns TEES.
Bush and Rubio are splitting PETS (which appears to be higher in SC).
With the exception of Trump, Carson, Fiorina, and Huck, and with PETS provisionally occupied, the others are all trawling in the same sectors. (Have the “fundies” noticed that Carson is a Seventh Day Advantist? Not exactly one of them.) “Buy out” any one or more of the lessers, and who gains?
Graham and Perry > Bush
Santorum and Jindal > ??? (if it’s a Catholic vote then Bush)
Christie > Walker
Rubio > Bush (most likely)
Bush > ??? (Rubio and Kasich?)
Huck > Carson and Cruz?
Paul > could default to Trump and/or Cruz
Fiorina > scatters among all the other anti-women candidates
Cruz > Walker and Trump
These guys are between a rock and prayer rug for the implosion of Trump. Then things will get even crazier.