Freddy Gray Freddy Gray

Why the smart money is still betting against Donald Trump

Would you bet against Donald Trump becoming president? Lots of us have. British gamblers have reportedly put more than £1 million on Trump not reaching the White House. Put this down to the general loathing of ‘the Donald’, plus a common sense instinct that, while Americans may be mad and/or stupid, they can’t be that mad and/or stupid. Most bookmakers have Trump at 4-1 to become president. At those odds, most pundits on either side of the pond would advise betting against.

A more difficult question now is whether Trump can win the Republican nomination. Most UK bookmakers now price him at 6/4 or 15/8 for that market. The bookies have had to shorten the odds because the polls consistently show Trump miles ahead — despite (or probably because of) the media hostility towards him.

For months, political experts have been saying that Trump is about to fade, and he keeps proving them wrong. Every time his popularity dips, it soon recovers. A shocking poll released yesterday suggested that, even in a three-horse race against Rubio and Cruz, Trump would triumph — which undermines the widely held view that Trump is sure to fall back after weaker Republican candidates drop out so that voters can consolidate behind one or two of his rivals.

Trump’s opponents are not helping themselves, either. They have taken to squabbling among themselves. Jeb Bush — or at least his hugely well-funded political action committee — is spending millions slagging off Marco Rubio as ‘just another Washington politician.’ This would appear to do nothing but help Trump, given that Bush’s campaign is going nowhere.

Trump’s campaign could still hit the buffers, of course. It remains true that, as Nate Silver pointed out in November, primary voters make up their minds late. We are now just 18 days away from the Iowa caucuses, the first real test of his appeal, and Trump has never been the frontrunner there. He is now a close second because Cruz’s lead has slipped in recent days. But if he doesn’t win in Iowa, Trumpmania could vanish.

As Andrew Prokpop pointed out on Vox, the best historical comparison for Trump’s candidacy might be Howard Dean in the Democratic race in 2004. Dean was a populist and a demagogue, who drew huge crowds, stormed the polls, freaked out the elite — and then just lost. He lost in Iowa, then in New Hampshire, then melted away. He failed because, as his campaign manager Joe Trippi put it, ‘People get more pragmatic the closer they get to an actual vote.’

The Trump phenomenon is altogether weirder than the Democratic populism of the 2000s. It is arguably more potent, too, because the Republican party is now at war with itself. White working class Republican voters, long taken for granted by the elite, are revolting against the party hierarchy in a way we have not seen before in American politics. Anybody who doesn’t appreciate the profound nature of what is happening should read and re-read David Frum’s remarkable essay in the Atlantic on ‘The Great Republican Revolt’. (Frum has a great notebook in this week’s Speccie, too.)

On balance, however, the smart bet is probably still against a Trump nomination. Even if Trump’s ratings do not collapse, he can fall short. To lose, he just needs to fail to expand his support, as Ross Douthat wrote earlier this month. A single poll is not sufficient evidence to discredit the theory that, as the field narrows, voters will consolidate behind another candidate. The primary election cycle is a long slog: by the time we reach 1 March, or Super Tuesday, when Republicans in 12 states cast their ballots, the whole complexion of the race will look different. It could be a nerve-wracking few weeks, though, and a testing time for America’s sanity.

Comments