How could they?

A few weeks ago, Thomas Edsall had a column that began "Donald Trump’s 2016 election victory continues to confound election experts. How could American voters put such a fractious figure into the White House?"  Although most of the discussion in the column was about the general election, I don't think that his victory in November was particularly puzzling (admittedly, I don't claim to be an "election expert").  Trump got 45.9% of the vote, which is a pretty weak performance given the strength of partisanship today (only a little better than the 45.6 Michael Dukakis managed in 1988).  But Hillary Clinton only got 48% (partly because of the strength of partisanship and partly because of her own problems as a candidate), and the Electoral College did the rest.  

The more difficult question is why Trump won the Republican nomination.  One idea that has become popular is that he benefitted from the large number of candidates.  The reasoning is that they split the mainstream vote, so Trump won the early primaries without getting majorities and developed enough momentum that he couldn't be stopped.  This analysis is based on the assumption that there was a basic division between Trump and non-Trump voters, so that if a non-Trump candidate dropped out, his votes would go to other non-Trump candidates.  A CBS News/NY Times survey from December 15 asked people who said they were likely to vote in a Republican primary about their first and second choices, and also about which candidate "you would be most dissatisfied with as the Republican nominee."  A summary of the results for the top candidates:

                      First      Second     Dissatisfied
Trump             35%       12%          23%
Cruz                16%       19%            4%
Carson            13%        13%            4%
Rubio              10%        13%           4%
Bush                  3%        10%         18%

The race was closer if you look at combined first and second place votes, but Trump still had a solid lead (47%-35%).  And while Trump "led" in the dissatisfied choices, he only got 23%--apart from Trump and Bush, they were spread widely.  So there at this point, there wasn't a strong division into Trump and anti-Trump voters.  

The survey also asked potential Republican voters to rate Trump, Cruz, Carson, Rubio, and Bush in several areas:  "ability to make the right decisions about the economy," "ability to handle the threat of terrorism," whether "he says what he believes," and "whether he has presented specific ideas about how he would accomplish his goals if he were elected president."  The percent giving favorable ratings:

                            Trump   Cruz   Carson   Rubio   Bush

Economy              82%    70%       65%    60%      52%
Terrorism              71%    72%       59%    59%     53%
Believes                76%    60%       72%    51%     41%
Specifics               59%    58%       47%    49%     42%

Trump was first on three of those, and a close second on the fourth.  Comparing him to his closest competitor (Ted Cruz), they were pretty much tied on terrorism and presenting specific ideas, and Trump had substantial leads on the economy and saying what he believes.  

So overall, I don't see support that for the idea that Trump benefitted from a splintered opposition--the main reason that he won was that Republican voters liked him (although Republican elites were less enthusiastic).  Carson's strong showing is also noteworthy--people seem to have forgotten about it, but he did well in the polls even though he didn't put much effort into campaigning.  His lack of effort and organization hurt him once the primaries started, but he clearly had an appeal to Republicans.  So that makes the contest for the nomination even more confounding:  two candidates who seemed weak on paper did well against what was supposed to be an unusually strong field.

A lot has changed since 2016, and there now seems to be a real division between Trump and non-Trump support.  But the 2016 campaign may still have lessons for today (hint:  I think DeSantis if overrated; my money is on Tim Scott).  

[Data from the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research]