Republican voters are a long way from making up their minds

TRUMP DEMANDS THAT YOU VOTE AGAINST YOUR OWN INTERESTS

Not so fast. There is a long history of nomination battles that suggests we might be in for a wild, unpredictable ride.

Most recently, President Joe Biden began as the favorite in the Democratic primary in 2020. Yet a series of inept debate performances led to his poll position collapsing. He was all but left for dead by the time of the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, but then he suddenly and sharply rebounded with a victory in South Carolina. Nobody could have predicted that in the spring of 2019.

For most of 2007, Hillary Clinton was widely believed to be the prohibitive favorite to win the Democratic nomination, but Barack Obama’s victories in Iowa and South Carolina scrambled the calculus, leading to a knock-down, drag-out fight that didn’t end until the last primaries in June 2008. Nobody could have predicted that in the spring of 2007.

John Kerry in 2004 was likewise a surprise victory. After having been ignored for much of 2003, his narrow victory in the Iowa caucuses catapulted him to the top of the field, and he easily triumphed. Nobody could have predicted that in the spring of 2003. One can also look at Bill Clinton in 1992 and Jimmy Carter in 1976. Nobody could have predicted their triumphs in the springs of 1991 and 1975, respectively.

Lest one thinks this merely a Democratic phenomenon, the Republican primaries have also been unpredictable, although not as much. John McCain was considered a major candidate when he announced for the presidency in 2007, but his numbers faded badly over the year. Like Biden, he was seemingly left for dead, but a victory in New Hampshire rejuvenated his flagging campaign and led him to victory.

Ronald Reagan was considered the runaway front-runner in 1980, but he lost the Iowa caucuses to George H.W. Bush and needed a victory in New Hampshire to regain momentum. And in 1976, he broke late against Gerald Ford, winning in North Carolina and making a bid for the nomination.

There are two important, related lessons to be drawn from this history. First, voter opinion is much more fluid in primary elections than in general elections. This should make sense. After all, partisanship is the predominant anchor for more than 80% of the electorate in the general election. People vote their party — in the vast majority of cases, that’s all there is to it. In primaries, partisanship is irrelevant because all the candidates are in the same party. More voters are up for grabs in primaries, and voter impressions of the candidates are subject to change as they get to know them. Few primary candidates, especially nonincumbent politicians, enter the race as national figures. And then there’s the fact that the states don’t all vote at the same time, so the winnowing of candidates over the course of the primaries means plenty of voters will have to move to their second or third preferred choice by the time they cast a ballot.

In fact, the 2024 primary so far has, if anything, reinforced the fluidity argument. Currently, Trump has a wide lead over DeSantis, but this is a recent development. In March, several polls had DeSantis in the lead. It was only after Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg indicted Trump that the former president’s lead grew. The polls could only swing so wildly if many voters are still up for grabs — a transition to a more pro-Trump theme in the news they consumed induced a shift in their sentiments. There are swings like this in a general election campaign, but they are usually not so dramatic because fewer voters are truly up for grabs. Some candidates haven’t entered the race yet — including DeSantis. The Florida governor has been taking hits from other candidates, suggesting their understanding of his strength once he jumps in, and he has yet to hit back. Others have yet to criticize anyone directly but Biden.

Experientially, if you have ever watched any of these previous campaigns closely, there has often been a subtle but real “vibe shift.” Kerry seemed to catch fire late in Iowa in 2004. Voters likewise gave McCain a second look late in the cycle and reconsidered. Something seemed to happen with Obama just before the Iowa caucuses in 2007. Reagan’s famous, “I am paying for this microphone, Mr. Green!” at a New Hampshire debate seemed to revive his flagging campaign. These moments matter because voter preferences are not locked in place by partisanship.

Second, there is no substitute for winning. The polls right now are predominantly national polls of Republican voters, but there is no nationwide primary. Rather, the contest happens in stages across states, with the first four battles — Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada — being particularly important. Historically speaking, these states serve as cues for the rest of the party electorate. These are the places where voters get to take a close look at the candidates, to “kick the tires,” as the saying goes. Their verdicts have historically been influential. Voters look at who wins these places more favorably, as winners. A candidate who loses all four has no chance of victory. A candidate who wins all four is probably a lock. A split decision among the four can yield different kinds of contests.

While it is true that early polling leaders often end up winning the nomination, almost all of them were put through their paces sooner or later. Walter Mondale in 1984 was an early leader on the Democratic side, but he found himself in a tough battle with Gary Hart that lasted through much of the primary season. In 2000, both Al Gore and George W. Bush had substantial leads, but their paths to victory were not cleared until they won the decisive contests in New Hampshire (for Gore) and South Carolina (for Bush).

Outside of years when an incumbent president is running for reelection, primary voters usually insist on a close inspection of all the major candidates. While Trump holds a lead right now in the national polls, overall, he must be disappointed with the situation. He had hoped to waltz to the nomination, as he did in 2020. But by all appearances, a wide swath of the Republican Party is open to an alternative. If Trump wants to be the nominee, he must fight for it.

And like all primary contests, 2024 will have its unique contours. Several major questions are yet answered. Can DeSantis, Haley, or Scott mount a credible challenge for the nomination? Such a candidacy requires a combination of excellent fundraising, good staff and support, as well as a resonant message. That is no guarantee all of them will or any of them will. Historically, many candidates have enjoyed one or two of these advantages but could not put the whole package together — think Republican Fred Thompson in 2008 or Democrat Mike Bloomberg in 2020. Assuming that one of them can, where is the Republican electorate this year? Is a critical mass of it committed to Trump that it will give him the benefit of the doubt, or will it be open to the alternatives?

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Right now, nobody knows. The polling may suggest Trump has a definitive lead, but that might be less than meets the eye. Many Republican donors are sour on the former president, and the Washington Examiner’s Salena Zito, in her detailed reporting of voters throughout Pennsylvania, has found an openness to alternatives.

We will just have to wait and see. As the old World War I song goes, “It’s a long way to Tipperary. It’s a long way to go.” For the GOP, it’s a long way to the nomination. It’s a long way to go.

Jay Cost is a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a visiting scholar at Grove City College.