Joseph Sohm / Shutterstock.com

Featured eBooks
Digital First
Cyber Threats: Preparing States and Localities
Cybersecurity & the Road Ahead
Donald Trump Could Ride Momentum to the Republican Nomination

If he wins Iowa, then an establishment candidate will face an uphill struggle to stop him.

How do you stop a boulder once it’s rolling down­hill?

For a Re­pub­lic­an es­tab­lish­ment ter­ri­fied of the dam­age that a Don­ald Trump nom­in­a­tion could wreak, that’s the phys­ics prob­lem it could face if the celebrity busi­ness­man wins both Iowa and New Hamp­shire in the first nine days of Feb­ru­ary.

Those states ac­count for only 53 del­eg­ates of the 2,472 total in play, but a Trump vic­tory in both could make wins more likely in South Car­o­lina and Nevada later that month, which, un­der the laws of pres­id­en­tial-primary “mo­mentum,” could make his nom­in­a­tion all but in­ev­it­able.

“The party can’t do any­thing,” said Ari Fleis­cher, a seni­or aide to former pres­id­ent George W. Bush. “He could be the nom­in­ee.”

In past pres­id­en­tial elec­tion cycles, front-run­ner mo­mentum was usu­ally seen as a good thing by Re­pub­lic­ans Party lead­ers, al­low­ing can­did­ates such as Bob Dole in 1996 or Bush in 2000 to wrap up nom­in­a­tions re­l­at­ively quickly des­pite early scares and start fo­cus­ing on the Novem­ber gen­er­al elec­tion.

But nev­er be­fore has a GOP race been upen­ded by an en­ter­tain­er with near-uni­ver­sal name re­cog­ni­tion and a pen­chant for con­tro­versy who, while wildly pop­u­lar among a seg­ment of the party’s base, could spell dis­aster in the Novem­ber gen­er­al elec­tion—and bey­ond.

“If Mr. Trump heads the Re­pub­lic­an Party, it will no longer be a con­ser­vat­ive party; it will be an angry, big­oted, pop­u­list one,” wrote Peter Wehner, an of­fi­cial in the past three Re­pub­lic­an ad­min­is­tra­tions, in a re­cent New York Times op-ed.

Fleis­cher agreed that a Trump nom­in­a­tion would res­ult in both short- and long-term dam­age to the GOP’s stand­ing as a na­tion­al party. He ad­ded that stop­ping that from hap­pen­ing, should Trump win the first two con­tests, would re­quire self­less­ness from all but one of the es­tab­lish­ment can­did­ates—former Flor­ida Gov. Jeb Bush, New Jer­sey Gov. Chris Christie, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, and Sen. Marco Ru­bio. (Sen. Ted Cruz, who is also run­ning as an “out­sider” and sim­il­arly scares the es­tab­lish­ment wing of the party, is seen as hav­ing little chance if he loses Iowa.)

“Un­less all but one of the main­stream can­did­ates drop out, there’s no stop­ping Trump,” he said. “And it has to hap­pen soon­er rather than later.”

Wheth­er it’s the de­sire to get be­hind the win­ner, the fear of “wast­ing” one’s vote on a loser, or merely con­form­ing to the group, the “mo­mentum” phe­nomen­on is real—meas­ur­ably so.

Stan­ford Busi­ness School pro­fess­or Jonath­an Bendor de­scribed the “mo­mentum” phe­nomen­on in a 2011 book he coau­thored, A Be­ha­vi­or­al The­ory of Elec­tions. Bendor said what primary voters do ac­tu­ally makes sense, from the point of view of those who want to make a sound choice but haven’t spent much time study­ing their op­tions. 

He com­pared it to a diner un­fa­mil­i­ar with Mo­roc­can cuisine go­ing to a Mo­roc­can res­taur­ant for the first time. Look­ing for nat­ive Mo­roc­cans at oth­er tables and or­der­ing what they’re or­der­ing is a sound strategy. Just so, voters in Geor­gia or Vir­gin­ia or Flor­ida look to see what voters did earli­er in Iowa and New Hamp­shire and South Car­o­lina, Bendor said.

“People take cues from oth­er people,” Bendor said. “You shouldn’t think of this as simple-minded con­form­ity. … Vot­ing is an epis­od­ic activ­ity at which most of us are am­a­teurs.”

Ex­amples abound in re­cent pres­id­en­tial elec­tions.

In Decem­ber 2003, Sen. John Kerry stood at 2.7 per­cent in a Geor­gia primary poll, be­hind five oth­er can­did­ates. Three months later, after hav­ing won Iowa, New Hamp­shire, and Nevada, Kerry won the Geor­gia primary with 47 per­cent of the vote on his way to the Demo­crat­ic nom­in­a­tion.

“Let’s say Cruz wins Iowa, and he wins by a sub­stan­tial mar­gin. Then people think, ‘Oh well, Iow­ans thought about this, and they think Cruz is elect­able.’ If Ru­bio comes in third, then you get people think­ing, ‘Oh, Ru­bio can’t win.’ This is, in ef­fect, mo­mentum. This is per­fectly sens­ible be­ha­vi­or,” Bendor said, but ac­know­ledged that it leaves something to be de­sired, from a civics stand­point. “No­tice how I didn’t say it’s op­tim­al.”

The po­ten­tial good news for Re­pub­lic­ans is that un­like the boulder rolling down­hill, some­times polit­ic­al mo­mentum can be stopped just as eas­ily as it starts—as then-Sen. Barack Obama learned in 2008. After a big come-from-be­hind win in Iowa thanks to an enorm­ous voter-turnout ef­fort, Obama lost New Hamp­shire to Hil­lary Clin­ton, set­ting off a months-long, del­eg­ate-by-del­eg­ate slog that las­ted all spring.

That, in fact, is what party “es­tab­lish­ment” can­did­ates have been count­ing on, should Trump in­deed win the earli­est con­tests.

Sally Brad­shaw, a top ad­visor to Jeb Bush, said his cam­paign has been plan­ning for this for months. “Our strategy to grind it out is just that. We’ve pre­pared for a long cam­paign, build­ing sup­port­ers in crit­ic­al March states. We have ag­gress­ively ap­proached bal­lot ac­cess to en­sure we are get­ting on the bal­lot in every state,” she said. “It’s our be­lief that or­gan­iz­a­tion and ground game may be the only form of voter con­tact hav­ing sig­ni­fic­ant im­pact this cycle—but no one will know with cer­tainty un­til the votes are ac­tu­ally cast.”

Such a scen­ario could leave Trump, Cruz, and then one or two es­tab­lish­ment can­did­ates still in the race head­ing in­to the dozen con­tests on March 1, de­pend­ing on how many run out of cam­paign money in Feb­ru­ary. But even two es­tab­lish­ment can­did­ates might be too many to pre­vent Trump from win­ning large enough plur­al­it­ies to win more and more states, Fleis­cher wor­ries.

As for a strategy that re­lies on a con­gres­sion­al-dis­trict-by-con­gres­sion­al-dis­trict, state-by-state battle for del­eg­ates sim­il­ar to Obama-Clin­ton in 2008, Fleis­cher said he re­mains skep­tic­al.

“It’s nev­er worked be­fore. It’s hard to see it work­ing now,” he said.

(Image via Joseph Sohm / Shutterstock.com )