The Quasi's have an article this morning on just how unorthodox Trump's campaign is: no opposition research, no polling, no television advertising, very little spending-And he has 30%-40% of the GOP vote. He had the certainty, the utter confidence, that that would work. (?) That is astonishing.
There is one more orthodoxy he is bucking and I think this is going to bite him: GOTV, especially important in Iowa. There is such an investment of time, such a commitment, that caucus-goers must make that unless a campaign has a dedicated "ground game" to get supporters to the caucuses, high poll numbers don't help.
However, the unorthodoxy of caucus system and what it takes to win has diminished Iowa's influence. Who won Iowa in 2008, Mike Huckabee or somebody? No legs at all. Winning the Iowa caucuses has become less demonstration of true political appeal than skill at one precise campaign task, getting out the vote. So, if Trump loses Iowa to, say, Ted Cruz, it's not like losing New Hampshire.
GOTV does not have that distorted and distorting importance in a primary state. New Hampshire can boost an unorthodox candidate but its influence, while greater, has waned also. Paul Tsongas won there, Pat Buchanan too; Bill Clinton lost there. Didn't mean much. This year New Hampshire is very likely where Chris Christie and Jeb Bush make their last stands: if they are beaten badly in New Hampshire they cannot go on. So, they are poring resources into the state. I think Bush will do okay in New Hampshire, stay alive, I don't think Christie.
What if Trump does poorly in both Iowa and New Hampshire? It will not be the end of his campaign. The number of delegates chosen in both combined is minuscule and he has proven that he can outlive orthodox obituaries. Super Tuesday is where Trump has his sights set.
There is one more orthodoxy he is bucking and I think this is going to bite him: GOTV, especially important in Iowa. There is such an investment of time, such a commitment, that caucus-goers must make that unless a campaign has a dedicated "ground game" to get supporters to the caucuses, high poll numbers don't help.
However, the unorthodoxy of caucus system and what it takes to win has diminished Iowa's influence. Who won Iowa in 2008, Mike Huckabee or somebody? No legs at all. Winning the Iowa caucuses has become less demonstration of true political appeal than skill at one precise campaign task, getting out the vote. So, if Trump loses Iowa to, say, Ted Cruz, it's not like losing New Hampshire.
GOTV does not have that distorted and distorting importance in a primary state. New Hampshire can boost an unorthodox candidate but its influence, while greater, has waned also. Paul Tsongas won there, Pat Buchanan too; Bill Clinton lost there. Didn't mean much. This year New Hampshire is very likely where Chris Christie and Jeb Bush make their last stands: if they are beaten badly in New Hampshire they cannot go on. So, they are poring resources into the state. I think Bush will do okay in New Hampshire, stay alive, I don't think Christie.
What if Trump does poorly in both Iowa and New Hampshire? It will not be the end of his campaign. The number of delegates chosen in both combined is minuscule and he has proven that he can outlive orthodox obituaries. Super Tuesday is where Trump has his sights set.
