Before I begin, I am fully aware that in writing this article I run the risk of joining the myriad of lay and professional social commentators who have errantly predicted the fall of Donald Trump, and as such, this article is written and should be read with a healthy dose of humility and skepticism. Nevertheless, I still believe that which has been predicted from the beginning – the fall of Donald Trump – is still inevitable. Donald Trump will not win the Republican nomination.
Now, yes, he is currently dominating the field and has been for months. Yes, he leads the field by an RCP average of 15 points nationally, 15 points in South Carolina, 18 points in New Hampshire, and is just about neck and neck with Ted Cruz in Iowa. No, those are no small amounts, nor are they insignificant statistics. Yes, if it was any other candidate (think Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders two months ago) the race would already be called. But for reasons inherent both to Trump as a candidate and his base as a demographic, I suspect Trump’s standing nationally is not nearly as strong as his current polling indicates.
First, the base. Yes, it is undeniably formidable, and it represents a major movement that poses a real threat to Democrats and Establishment Republicans alike. But as it stands, it isn’t currently large enough to win him the nomination. State-to-state, Trump has largely failed to breach a ceiling of support that has held pretty consistently at around 30 percent, and even assuming Trump manages to turn out 100 percent of his supporters to the polls (which he won’t, for reasons I’ll explain in a moment), 30 percent support is not enough to win him the nomination once the field begins to narrow. Once support begins to consolidate around two to three candidates, he’ll need to significantly increase his voter base in order to maintain his lead, which, after taking into account his remarkably high familiarity and low favorability ratings, seems doubtful.
And to reiterate, this is assuming every single Trump supporter turns out to vote – which is not only patently unrealistic for any candidate, it’s even more unlikely for Trump, whose base consists of voters who historically don’t vote in high percentages.
But there’s another reason inherent to the Donald himself that poses the most significant threat to his candidacy. Thus far, Trump’s greatest attraction isn’t that he’s a conservative (he isn’t one), his religion (he doesn’t follow one), his great policy ideas (he has none), or his great political track record (again, none). He’s a bloviating authoritarian populist demagogue who has managed to channel a large amount of populist anger at the status quo extremely well. And he wins because he convinces his supporters he’s not only the champion they need, but the only one who can win.
And as a result he’s been able to coast through the primary on naught else but an aura of invincibility and polling results to prove it. His main weapon, his only weapon, is that he wins. He’s a gilded candidate, shiny, lustrous and classy, but void of substance.
So then don’t try to beat Trump with substance. His supporters don’t care. You can’t beat Trump by winning the battle of ideologies. You can’t beat Trump by calling his voters racist. You can’t beat Trump by publishing even the most coordinated of conservative takedowns. You beat Trump by beating his image, in an actual election, where people actually vote, where it actually matters. When you take down Trump’s aura of infallibility, you take down all he has.
This will happen eventually, but it could happen as soon as Iowa, which Trump could easily lose. Here’s how.
For one, voting at a caucus takes a relatively long amount of time and often happens in the middle of the winter, which means only the most dedicated and passionate voters turn out to vote. In Iowa, these voters are conservative evangelicals, which is bad for Trump and good for Cruz. One doesn’t have to look far to understand the skewed impact these voters can have on the Iowa caucus. Mike Huckabee won there in 2008, and Rick Santorum in 2012.
Furthermore, Iowa’s significance, like the first game of the World Series, isn’t that it’s a great predictor of the eventual winner (again, ask Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum) but that it’s first. The winner is afforded a great deal momentum moving into New Hampshire and the later caucuses. Historically, this hasn’t really mattered. But neither has history yet witnessed the curious case of Donald Trump. And it’s precisely because he has so overwhelmingly championed himself under the auspices of invincibility that he has so much more to lose when he finally does.
This loss may or may not happen in Iowa – I think it might – but it will happen eventually. This isn’t, however, to understate the importance of the Trump movement and its possible ramifications on the current state of American politics. But as for the man himself, alas, no, Trump will not win the 2016 Republican nomination, nor will he go quietly into the night. His fall will just be, well, much more yuge than was originally thought.
Will Leathers is a sophomore majoring in management information systems. His column runs biweekly.
