STOP ASCRIBING TRUMP'S POLL SUCCESS TO NAME RECOGNITION

Several of the reasons given by National Journal's Lauren Fox for Donald Trump's surge in the polls make sense: In a crowded field, it doesn't take more than low-double-digit support to get into the top tier (although tell that to Carly Fiorina and George Pataki); also, as pollster Geoff Garin tells Fox, " there is a segment of the Republican electorate that is strongly anti-immigrant and there is an overlapping piece of the Republican electorate that is anti-politician."

But I'm tired of reading this about Trump's good numbers:

Several pollsters consulted for the story say the recent bump may reflect the entrepreneur's high name ID more than it shows genuine voter support.

Excuse me -- did Trump not have high name ID before he announced his candidacy? I'm pretty sure America knew who he was -- he was on television and everything -- and yet, in nine polls released before (or just after) his announcement, his numbers were between 1% and 5%. Since then? 11% and 12%. That's nationwide; results in Iowa are similar. He got an announcement bump, and name recognition has obviously helped him, but it's crazy to pretend that he instantly polled well because people knew his name -- he didn't initially poll well.

It's possible that he polled poorly prior to the announcement because admirers didn't think he'd really run. But I think a portion of the GOP electorate simply loves what he's saying. They always knew who he was.