There are many efforts going on to “game out” the Republican presidential nomination, but I have only seen one effort to actually graph out the impact of a narrowing field. It’s from the Washington Post, and entails allocation of second- and third- (and, presumably, so on …) preferences to the candidates remaining in the field.
Here is Phase I (before South Carolina):
Then Phase II:
And finally Phase III:
Pretty clearly, there is no one closely challenging Donald Trump until the race is down to two candidates.
At which point the issue would be “is there enough time left?” to still deny Trump. Some say yes and some say no.
But there are a few considerations worth considering:
Potential anti-Trump factors:
Trump: When opposition to prior frontrunners collapsed in GOP primaries, it was in favor of leading candidates who were unconditionally “commander-in-chief-ly” [GHW Bush, Dole, McCain, Romney], or the son of one who didn’t appear initially to be disqualified on that score [GW Bush, sitting governor of a major state]. Trump is many things, but half the Republicans don’t think he’s “presidential” [and Democrats and Independents … well ... as Lynyrd Skynyrd once said "I know a little ... and baby I can guess the rest"]. This may account for the polls showing Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz both beating Trump head-to-head by a greater amount than the “allocation” graph above.
Conceptual: Polls are static. Campaigns are dynamic. Rubio has led the field throughout in “untapped upside.” Can it be tapped? Meanwhile the much-anticipated “Trump takedown” (painting him as unacceptable to the base) has yet to occur. In other words, Trump may have “untapped downside.” Jeb! Bush! spent tens of millions of his money! trying to keep Rubio’s upside untapped – and that, combined with Rubio’s own stumbles, greatly delayed his ability to get traction. On the other hand, reports indicate only 4 percent of the money spent so far has been used on negative messages against Trump. The “fundamentals” indicate Rubio should be more popular and Trump less popular, but it hasn’t happened yet. [Is Rubio the Dustin Ackley of politics?]
Potential pro-Trump factors:
Rubio (1): Despite all of the painting of Rubio as the “Establishment” candidate, he is actually more conservative than that crowd usually adopts. And John Kasich is still on the ballot to soak up any votes of those seeking a more moderate option. Thus Rubio may not sponge up the non-Trump voters as cleanly as it may initially seem.
Rubio (2): Despite all the painting of Rubio as “more conservative than the Establishment” (as I just did), on one of the main issues for the conservative base (immigration) he is on the moderate side, and that happens to be the issue on which Trump went way right. And Ted Cruz remains on the ballot as a non-Trump candidate who is also adopting a harder line on immigration.
And personalities and tactics come into play too. Trump’s larger-than-life-dealmaker persona, and unlimited media access, seems to have the rare ability to turn negatives into positives (at least so far). Rubio, meanwhile, wants to be the positive, forward-looking guy and not an attack dog.
If there is to be a scorched-earth firebombing of Trump, Rubio doesn’t appear interested in being the guy to launch it.
***
There is great potential for the dynamic to change, and, in particular, to “revert to the [Rubio-Establishment-favoring, Trump-disfavoring] fundamentals” as Nate Silver and many others have predicted that it eventually would. But just because something is unprecedented doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Trump winning in direct defiance of the leadership of the party he’s trying to win would be one of those cases. Typically, “the party decides” rather than having someone foisted upon it.
Thus, two questions:
-- Will it get down to two major candidates with enough time left for the non-Trump candidate to prevail?
-- Even if there is time, will the non-Trump candidate actually prevail?
Some may be familiar with the use of game theory as a useful approach to these types of problems. Here’s one analysis of how the non-Trump candidates face an ongoing “prisoner’s dilemma” that prevented an effective anti-Trump effort from forming. And the Washington Post went ahead and mapped it out in "game-theoretical" format:
Now I agree that the current situation is defined by the above "prisoner's dilemma" ... but ... it only got that way due to earlier strategic failings.
And, thanks to brilliant insight from the Weekly Standard's Jonathan V. Last, we can call it the "2008 Beijing Marathon Error." Here's his article. In the 2008 women’s Olympic marathon, a 38-year-old Romanian runner named Constantina Dita took the lead, and all of the “major” competitors let her go as they jockeyed for position among each other. They all assumed there was no chance she could hold the lead. By the time they realized Dita wasn’t going fade (and she took advantage of a tactical opportunity on a part of the course where she wasn’t visible to the trailing pack), it was too late for her to be caught. Maybe 99 times out of 100 she loses, but she's the one with gold in her drawer.
Likewise Trump. All the other campaigns thought they could let him run point until it was time for the "real candidates" to "reel him in."
As Rick Perry once said: Oops.
***
Nevertheless, political scientists from Stanford have concluded that Trump can’t make it to a majority given the apparent limits on his support. But others say the opposite.
The historical record is that opposition to frontrunners eventually collapses as the campaign goes deeper into March, but, as I noted, that is not really applicable to Trump (since he does not have the party establishment trying to "whip" the voters into bringing that about, and because he has such high negatives among those not supporting him).
But, because of that record, we don’t know if a frontrunner can actually be dislodged from that status by a challenger who stumbled out of the gate and has yet to shake off “the pack.” [True, Bill Clinton came out of “the pack” after a troubled start in 1992, but that race didn’t have a clear frontrunner like Trump.]
So what happens from here will be pretty much unprecedented.
