President Trump’s Historic Primary

President Trump was already off to a historic start in the race by setting Republican primary voting records in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Michigan before yesterday’s results. But his near-perfect Super Tuesday performance elevated his historic primary to an even more legendary status, as those four states were joined by Alabama, Arkansas, Alaska, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia in setting Republican primary vote records.

Of course, this primary has been expounded on by figureheads with clear political biases on network television, making it difficult to truly understand what the results mean in terms of candidate strength. But the following chart, whose figures were retrieved from uselectionatlas.org, shows states where Trump has set new primary vote records, illustrating a truly historic performance for Trump as a non-incumbent candidate.

The chart does not mention the 98 percent of overall counties Trump has won, which demonstrates far-reaching support beyond just densely populated areas. However, because it is Trump choreographing this historic run, it continues to be misconstrued by mainstream media and bitter primary opponents.

For example, no candidate in the history of the Iowa Caucuses ever won by greater than a 12 percent margin, or even came close to securing greater than 50 percent of the vote, a majority. But this year, in addition to winning all but one county (which he only lost by one single vote), Trump finished with 51 percent of the vote and won by a nearly 30 percent margin.

Yet despite this historic performance, Ron DeSantis – who visited all of Iowa’s 99 counties alongside Governor Kim Reynolds only to finish in a very distant second – claimed if Ronald Reagan were running for a third time, he would have received 85-90 percent of the Iowa vote in an attempt to downplay Trump’s popularity. Beyond ignoring the above figures proving Trump’s dominance, the only somewhat available metric to test DeSantis’ claims would be the 1988 Republican primary, where Reagan’s Vice President, George H.W. Bush came in FOURTH place in Iowa, weakening his hypothetical theory.

Nikki Haley has been even more extreme in misconstruing data. Following each loss, Haley makes the claim that almost half (subtly conceding a minority) of REPUBLICANS prefer someone other than Trump. Yet she fails to ever mention that her already low numbers are boosted by Democrat voters voting for her.

For example, following her blowout loss in New Hampshire, it was revealed that an estimated 70 percent of her votes came from non-Republicans. Likewise, in her home state of South Carolina, where theoretically she should be at her most popular, it is estimated that 19 percent of her voters identified as Democrats.

When removing non-Republican voters from the tally in these states, Trump’s victory in New Hampshire shifts from 54%-43%, an 11 percent margin of victory, to a whopping 79%-19%, which is a 50 percent margin of victory. In South Carolina, the margin shifts from 60%-40%, 20 percent in favor of Trump, to 65%-35%, or 30 percent in his favor. Both adjusted figures much more accurately represent voter sentiment amongst actual Republican voters in these states and debunk Haley’s claims about a divided party.

Less surprising has been mainstream media attempts to diminish Trump’s increasing popularity. MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell claimed South Carolina’s results were “disastrous for Donald Trump.” This is outright laughable considering he secured almost 150 THOUSAND more votes than the previous record in the state while running against someone who previously served as its governor.

Across the political aisle, on networks like Fox News that are (allegedly) right-wing, mainstays such as Karl Rove suggest that results in certain states signal a divided Republican Party. Rove also warns that Trump may struggle to win over voters, while also aligning himself with Haley by not mentioning the influx of Democratic voters or Trump’s historic polling inroads with minority communities.

If one is not convinced by the above figures, there is another reference point in history to consider where a former president sought a non-consecutive term: President Grover Cleveland in 1892. Like Cleveland, Trump was previously president but is not currently an incumbent. This makes for a contested primary where, due to the numerous candidates running, no single candidate will be able to secure the close to 100 percent vote total that sitting, unchallenged incumbents receive during a reelection primary while in office. While all aspects of life have changed since this last occurred roughly 130 years ago, it is worth noting that Cleveland received just two-thirds of his party’s delegates at the Democratic convention and still went on to win the presidency. In contrast, as it stands today, Trump has secured 91 percent of the delegates, a figure that is expected to increase.

Having different political opinions or candidate preferences is perfectly acceptable. However, comparing apples to oranges, as well as omitting or cherry-picking data from all directions, creates the perception of coordinated bitterness rather than objective analysis.

In conclusion, the numbers, projections, and even a little bit of history all point to this being a historic display of dominance for President Trump. It is expected that by the latest March 19th, he will have surpassed the necessary 1,215 delegates to secure his third Republican nomination. While we will never know whether DeSantis was correct about a potential ‘Reagan 88’ performance, if his 85-90 percent baseline popularity figure is accurate, in terms of counties (98%), states (96%), and the all-important delegate count (91%), it appears that Trump is well on his way to achieving that.

Matt Kane earned a bachelor’s degree in political science from Stony Brook University. His work has been posted by President Trump, RealClearPolitics, and American Thinker. X/Twitter: @MattKaneUSA Truth Social @MattKane

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of AMAC or AMAC Action.