Final Iowa preview.

Republicans

Odds Cruz 52% Trump 48%

Percentages:  Cruz 29% Trump 28% Rubio 19% Carson 7 % Paul 6% Bush 3% Christie 3% Huckabee 2% Fiorina 1% Kasich 1% Santorum 1%

Rationale. 

                This is an incredibly close call, which really comes down to a coin flip. The public polling shows Donald Trump winning and expanding the electorate, and that is impressive.  He is also doing well enough with the traditional electorate that he could win even without a flood of newcomers. However in the end a combination of three factors hold promise to do him in. 1. His overall favorables amongst Iowa Republicans weigh in at the meager plus 3 (49 approve/46 disapprove).  2. It is now clear to all in Iowa that only a vote for Cruz offers a chance at stopping Trump, so those who view Trump unfavorably may allow Cruz to gain. 3. It will be harder for Trump to get out his supporters than it will be for Cruz, whose supporters were all likely at Church this morning.  The history of Christian candidates beating the polls, which was highlighted in a recent post, still matters and the slight collapse of other candidates suggest Cruz’s rise will be just enough. It should be remarkably close, and Trump has better odds to achieve a win with a meaningful margin, but Cruz is still the slightest of favorites to win by a nose.

Democrats

Odds Clinton 70% Sanders 30%

Percentages Clinton 53% to Sanders 47%

                The Sanders campaign has had an impressive ride and run a remarkable race.  It is entirely possible that geographic distribution of voters will lead to a splitting of the National Convention delegates.  Yet overall this very much remains Clinton’s race to lose at the state level delegate race. Clinton has regained the polling momentum.  Hers is a small but durable lead. Clinton is taking older voters and Sanders is taking younger voters.  That is good for Clinton on two key fronts.  Older voters are more spread out throughout the state, which, because of how delegates are awarded, provides a Clinton advantage.  Older voters more reliably turn out than younger voters. These demographics, the  overall polling lead, and Clinton’s lead with Democrats as opposed to independents gives Clinton a clear edge. 

Read More

The Establishment wants what it wants.

So tomorrow we will have our final Iowa prediction. Yet while we waited for the most recent Des Moines Register Poll, the major news item of the day was the alleged surge of Senator Marco Rubio.

The most recent poll, however, shows that in fact Marco Rubio has no momentum. In fact the poll shows him slightly losing a bit of ground. The Rubio surge is not in fact a story about what is actually happening in Iowa. It is instead a story about what happens when journalists begin to start wanting a new story or a result. Here is a prime example of this kind of story, or this.

The “believing is seeing” phenomenon is something to be on alert for when the Media is covering rightwing challengers. In 2010 U.S. House member Michael Castle was trailing in the polls in the race for U.S. Senate in Delaware and was ultimately defeated by rightwinger Christine O’Donnell by six points. If you don’t feel like reading the story the point is, reporters spoke to Castle supporters who thought he was going to win. Then they predicted he was going to win even though that was completely wrong. They led with this story on primary day. It’s crucial to stay vigilant watching for such puffery because so much of the national press does not want to believe in the success of the right. They will deny its existence and write stories to back that up. So be careful out there.

Read More

The debate, the expectations game and three days till voting.

Donald Trump is doing everything he possibly can to reshape the nature of American politics. The decision to skip the Jan. 28 debate was a big gamble. Without any data yet, it is impossible to say whether it was a good idea. Still, there was an outpouring of pundit nonsense as many people were willing to take strong and firm positions in the absence of information.

Quite a many prognosticated that this stunt was a foolish decision that will hurt his campaign. Just as many--perhaps because they felt burned for discounting Trump previously--now seem to insist he had become unstoppable. The correct answer, and the one posited by Trump himself, was that we simply have to wait this out. We will see some polls soon, particularly the final Des Moines Register poll which comes out tomorrow.

In the meantime, yesterday was a clinic in multi-candidate field dynamics. The seven candidates on the Main Stage are all trailing Donald Trump. Yet, despite a few initial jabs at Trump, they forgot Trump existed for the most part and focused on tearing down their on-stage rivals. This of course favors Trump. So does the fact that his closest rival, Ted Cruz, didn’t have one of his better debates, and that much of last night’s discussion focused on immigration, Trump’s best issue. Some talk suggested it was Marco Rubio’s night but that seems a touch premature. Overall, it was a pedestrian debate.

Moving onto the expectation game. There seems to a great deal of agreement on what will happen in Iowa: Cruz in first, Trump in second and Rubio in third. There has been some buzz that Rubio will come in a surprising second. The Rubio camp instantly downplayed that possibility. Cruz, however, seems to be taking the opposite tack, boldly predicting victory. Cruz's expressed confidence flies in the face of conventional wisdom, which is to dampen expectations. It maybe that both the Rubio and Cruz camps simply have the correct understanding of the race dynamics. If the conventional wisdom does shake out, Cruz, Trump, Rubio, in that order, it will be interesting to see how Trump handles what without public polling would seem like good news. But public polling has shown Trump with a slight edge in Iowa so a loss there could be seen as a setback. His numbers in other states are strong enough he should be able to ride out an Iowa loss. Given what could be considered an erratic decision not to debate, Trump’s speech on Monday night is critical. If Trump handles defeat well, like Clinton did in Iowa in 2008 and Obama did in New Hampshire in 2008, his campaign should suffer no permanent damage. A bad speech could be the equivalent of the Dean Scream. It wouldn't be the loss that did him in but the scream after it, or in Trump's case, the speech.

Meanwhile, while all the attention has been focused on Iowa, the ad wars in New Hampshire show just how much multi-candidate field dynamics matter. National right-wing PACS are focusing their fire not on Trump, the clear front-runner, but on John Kasich, who at the moment seems to have the momentum in New Hampshire. A strong Kasich performance there, as I explained yesterday, is a disaster for those who want to stop Trump. Kasich will only complicate the process, which after New Hampshire will only have 21 days to sort itself out before a huge voting day.

With three days before voting begins, the dynamics we are have been seeing remain exactly the same and we just have to wait and see.

Three Days to Iowa.

Read More

Nate Silver is wrong about Donald Trump - Part 2: How Donald Trump is overcoming “The Stages of Doom.”

Back in August, Nate Silver gave Donald Trump a 2% chance of winning the Republican nomination. This was based on a series of assumptions. His tune has changed slightly of late. But it is important to go back and review Silver’s identified stages of doom. Not only because a review shows the downside of being so certain about such uncertain phenomena but also because we can learn how Donald Trump is able to overcome them.

It is important to remember how Mr. Silver made much of all of the potential problems for Donald Trump but ignored the dynamics that help him. There are quite a few, and a lot of them complement each other nicely. It is important to note that stages of Doom 1 and 2, which Mr. Silver gave Mr. Trump only a 25% chance of surviving, have already been hurdled. Trump’s six strengths will make it much easier for him to survive each stage, and some stages may never come into effect.

Decision will come swiftly

As everyone knows, the voting begins in Iowa on February 1^st. We’ll turn to the stage of doom Silver identifies as Iowa/New Hampshire in a bit. But what people focus on less is that by March 15^th, 31 states will have voted. This six-week window of voting will go by in a flash with very little time for buyer’s remorse. Silver’s last two stages of Doom, delegate accumulation and a pre-convention end game, simply may not happen as a clear win is possible before then. These stages won’t materialize if a candidate were to win say 25 of the 31 states. Speed can kill.

The Democratic process in 2008 was over with just such speed. While the process had the appearance of dragging on, the math of the Democratic primaries resolved the contest on Feb 19^th if not the 12^th. From that point on, no realistic set of electoral outcomes existed for the Clinton campaign that could save her from mathematical extinction. [The Democratic super delegate drama provided some false hope but would have been very hard for Hillary. Trump’s rivals have no such luxury.]

The rapid fire of states also makes Silver’s vaunted “winnowing” a much greater challenge than is generally understood. The polling now says winnowing to only one rival is needed to beat Trump. But even if we grant that a field reduction to only two Trump challengers might be enough to defeat him, and we grant that this takes place relatively quickly, the most likely prompt winnowing to Trump, Cruz and Rubio might be less effective in stopping Trump than perceived. An amazing perspective on this can again be pulled from 2008. John Edwards dropped out of the race after getting 14% of the vote in Florida, but the number 14% is incredibly important because it is 1% less than the viability threshold required to receive delegates. This convinced John Edwards to quit as his votes would be wasted later on. His departure was a week before Super Tuesday. Both California and Connecticut voted that day. In California Edwards received 4% of the vote; in Connecticut it was only 1%. These were two relatively divided states and ones in which there are no real pockets of Democrats who are no longer behavioral Democrats [Like Kentucky or Oklahoma]. The reason Edwards did so much better in California than in Connecticut was primarily driven by absentee ballots. Connecticut has few; whereas California has many. Early voting could very much be a problem for the winnowing of candidate. A week or more of lag time is required for full winnowing, and in places such as Florida, with early vote, it might even be more.

The fact is March 1^st is a huge day in the process, and it follows South Carolina by only 10 days. Thus candidates who fight on to South Carolina even if they winnow afterwards will not fall completely to zero. There is little time for reflection. Candidates who have not broken through by March 15^th will have an almost impossible time. Indeed, it will be difficult if the breakthroughs don’t come on March 1. Thus speed may eliminate two stages of doom and hinder the ability of a third to take down Trump. Of course the stage at Iowa and New Hampshire remains, but there too things seem to be going swimmingly for Mr. Trump.

Multi-Candidate field dynamics:

This is where things get really crazy. Because of the establishment thinking, including that of Nate Silver, there is a firm belief embedded deeply in the heart of almost every single campaign on the Republican side. Let’s call it the reverse bear trick.

You know the story: Imagine two people being chased by a bear. One person knows that safety resides not necessarily in outrunning the bear but more in outrunning the other person. In this case, every campaign seems to be of the opinion that if they can get their guy (or gal in the case of Ms. Fiorina) to be the last person standing against Donald Trump, the path to victory will be nearly certain. As a result of this belief no one quite yet is focusing his fire on Donald Trump. Instead, they are mostly attacking each other. When you look at this strategy from each candidate’s point of view, it makes sense from the singular vantage point of increasing an individual’s chance of winning. But such thinking also dramatically increases the odds of victory for Donald Trump.

Ted Cruz:

Senator Cruz seems to be in the absolutely best position of anyone not named Donald Trump. It remains a tossup in Iowa, and if Ted Cruz wins there he becomes an instant contender. South Carolina and the states on March 1^st line up well for him as second act. However there is a hidden danger for Cruz. Doing too well against Donald Trump too early can give the Republican establishment time to rally around a champion, and, as will be later explained, delegate selection rules provide additional reasons for Cruz to want Trump doing well early in the race. The assumption made in the Cruz camp is that the threat of Trump will potentially force, a Republican Establishment, which despises Cruz, into acceptance of him. Cruz needs to be beat Trump, yes, but he also needs the looming threat of Trump starting with Michigan on March 8^th all the way through California on June 3^rd or the Establishment wing will fight back.

Marco Rubio:

Rubio’s third place in the national polling provides him with the exact mirror concerns to those of Cruz. He has nowhere near the equivalent safety net, yet his party line is slightly more convincing. Rubio’s team observes that the Republican Establishment has in the end always gotten the nominee it wanted or was at least comfortable with. Why should this time be different? Rubio plans to use Iowa and New Hampshire to clear the field of everyone but him, Cruz and Trump. This is where Trump becomes useful to Rubio. Given the March 1^st calendar there is a significant danger for Rubio that if Trump were too badly weakened early, then Cruz would be well positioned to win nearly everywhere. Rubio hopes for his moment when Cruz fails to beat Trump. Rubio’s approach might also be a subtle acknowledgment that the party has swung dramatically to the right and thus there is a need for a divided right in order for a more moderate candidate to win.

The New Hampshire Strategy Governors:

Bush, Christie, and Kasich all have a strategy somewhat similar to Rubio’s, except weaker because they have no easy way to get rid of Rubio. Each of them believes that a second place finish behind Donald Trump in New Hampshire is completely in reach. Each of them believes that just by finishing ahead of the other two, the winner would go a long way to becoming the only deeply experienced candidate left in the field, and thus the one true grown-up who will win in the end. Trump is incredibly helpful to them as well because his presence might put a fear of him deep into the heart of Republicans who will look for someone tough to beat him. They can even dream that Trump and not Cruz will Iowa and thus weaken all other opposition to Trump besides the last standing Governor. If Trump was not around there would be genuine risk that Cruz could cruise. Thus the governors too everyone but Trump as their key problem.

How it plays out:

Because of these dynamics there is basically no interest on the part of any of these other campaigns in seriously messing with Trump in the first two states. Some of the campaigns’ calculations will be explained in greater detail in the math section. But as we have observed, with occasional brief exception, no one other than Rand Paul has shows a serious desire to mess with Trump. If no one is prepared to take on Trump in Iowa or New Hampshire because it is not in their interest then this stage, which Silver has identified, goes from a key challenge to a cakewalk.

This early period has thus also played into Trump’s hands because the opportunities for the candidates to winnow the field have produced damage to all and not much of a boost for any. For while the candidates have had good reason not to go after Trump, they have every single reason in the world to go after each other. This is particularly true for everyone in the Establishment lane (i.e. not as much for Cruz). Perhaps they will sort it all out by New Hampshire, but a current read on the polls says that will be very hard to do. In fact rather than settling anything New Hampshire could resolve nothing, leaving all six candidates still fighting. It is hard to imagine the highest voting Governor not going on to at least South Carolina. The better the highest Governor does, the more likely he is to continue to South Carolina. And the closeness in the results further enhances the risk of two or more establishment candidates soldiering on to March 1^st. Such a result, which appears to be a fatal path for all the Establishment candidates may also be unavoidable for the Establishment. The depth of this problem comes into even greater focus when looking at delegate math.

It’s all about delegates

For simplicity’s sake, let’s consider only the State of Texas, remembering that there are similar rules in a number of states. Texas is the second largest delegate prize awarding 152 delegates. There are two categories of delegates, 44 delegates who are based upon the statewide primary vote, and the remainder chosen in 36 individual districts. Those decided at the statewide level can be divided three ways. If a candidate receives 50%, he or she wins and captures this entire bloc of delegates. Of course Ted Cruz would love to do this, but given the nature of the field this seems very unlikely. If no one receives 50%, these 44 delegates will be divided amongst those who reach 20% of all ballots cast. [A third remote scenario is than no one receives 20%, in which case a proportional split would take place. This seems extremely unlikely. The 20% rule means that at most four candidates can earn Texas at large delegates (excluding here the unicorn outcome of a 5 ways split at 20% each). The 20% threshold is a potential disaster for the Establishment Republicans because if more than one of them makes it to Texas, then both might be looking at a goose egg. Remember that even candidates already out of the race (aforementioned Zombie candidates) are likely to draw votes as we saw when zombie candidates received nearly 20% in the 2012 Republican race and even 2% in the 2008 Democratic primary, despite the then fierce struggle between Obama and Clinton.

Even in the best case for Rubio he is looking at 12 of the 44 at large delegates. If Bush follows him to Texas, then 0 could be far more likely. The district level delegates,which make up 71% of all delegates, present even more wild scenarios. If someone gets 50% in a district, he or she gets all three delegate. If no one does, the winner gets 2 and the loser gets 1. Given the dynamics of the race, Ted Cruz absolutely wants Donald Trump to follow Cruz and come in second in every district in Texas. Cruz would like to reach 50 in some districts and grab all the delegates. But there is another consideration for an overall nomination strategy that remembers the reverse bear theory. If Cruz get 50% and takes all the delegates in half the districts, but the Establishment takes second place in the other half then the Establishment gets 36 delegates. Alternatively, if Cruz never gets to 50% but wins all the districts and Trump comes in second everywhere, then yes Cruz gets fewer delegates but the Establishment candidates get none. Given that Cruz has every hope of denying the Establishment a viable alternative so as to force his selection over Trump’s he would prefer the Cruz/Trump result in every district. We can’t say now how the Texas Trump delegates would break down if their favorite candidate were vanquished. But what the polling and the impact of multiple candidate field dynamics show is that a Texas delegation devoid of anything but a Cruz or Trump delegate is a distinct possibility.

The other properly coined SEC states on Super Tuesday have similar rules, and thus doom for the Establishment may begin to set in then. Moreover, after two wins in a row (NV is a wild card which might boost others but may also just fall flat as some states vote so close to it) Trump could sweep the states on March 1^st, with the possible exception of Texas. Indeed, right now he is predictably favored in every non-Texas SEC state after potential New Hampshire and South Carolina wins (See below for further explanation of how these dynamics have worked in the past).

Much Better Organizational skills than we thought.

To some degree we have been underestimating Trump’s logistical skills. Silver’s Stage 5 of Doom highlighted potential ballot failures and disorganization in accumulation of delegates. Yet the most recent Iowa polls are instructive. Trump is battling mightily in a state where organization is key. He might not win, but his organization seems to be performing well enough. In 2012 we saw lots of ballot access problems for candidates, including in Virginia, where all but two campaigns missed the ballot and some candidates had other issues. Trump has had no problems on this front. In fact he was first to file for the WV ballot, which is a May 10^th state.

Even Trump’s campaign schedule, which might seem odd to some, reveals a clear understanding of the calendar, that may be more sophisticated than that of any other candidate. Pundits speculated on why is Trump campaigned in Vermont. The answer is simple. Vermont is a March 1^st state. Trump is gaining a leap on people in the other states with the free media that his big rallies bring. The market is already saturated in Iowa and New Hampshire. Other candidates can’t get much coverage beyond the first few states, but Trump can. He always targets the right regions of every state to visit, hitting second tier markets where lots of Republicans are but are often ignored. Examples include Lowell and Worcester, Massachusetts, and Grand Rapids Michigan (a March 8^th state but one which could break the back of the Republican Establishment before their dream of Ohio/Illinois/Florida day one week later). If you read his press releases he is also rolling out hires and teams in all of these states, and contrary to the myth that he does not have access to Data, he does. There are no doubt better political teams. But the organizational hurdles that Silver thought might take Trump down after March 15^th might not prove fatal for two reasons. 1) political gravity might not let things go much past March 15 ^th; and 2) Trump’s organization is simply not that weak.

The media “love” of him.

The truth of this one is particularly harsh. Lots of people find politics boring and Trump fun. Even people who would never dream of voting for him often enjoy his antics. The maelstrom of coverage creates its own intoxicating vortex that is just drawing people in (note that this piece is not about Martin O’Malley). Trump has ridden a wave of unceasing media attention, but there was always sort of a caveat. Many journalists just assumed Trump had to end. Yet maybe has the influence of journalists on Trump’s long run prospects backwards. A Trump win in New Hampshire could take the Trump coverage to the absolute stratosphere as it becomes “ real.” The gap from New Hampshire to South Carolina is 11 days; and the March 1 Super Tuesday is only 10 days after than. Yes there is Nevada, but the Silver State might not truly change the trajectory coming only three days after South Carolina. We have no idea how massive the media machine could be. Silver cited it as possible source of explosion; yet it seems like it could be a hydrogen bomb after New Hampshire.

No Donors:

President Obama’s biggest gaffe in 2008 was made when trying to explain to rich people why ordinary earners voted Republican. It was at a fundraiser that the audience heard about bitter people clinging to guns and religion. Mitt Romney’s most egregious misstep in 2012 was made when trying to explain to rich people why the less well off voted Democratic. This also took place at a fundraiser. The list goes on and on. Courting money causes political mistakes amidst a desire for more money. It is also a mental stressor and time consuming: Donor happiness, Donor Relations, Donor Maintenance. It can slowly begin to change how you think and act. Donald Trump’s freedom from fundraising places him in an incredibly advantageous position. While to some degree self-financing has a lousy track record, that comes in large part because of the problems inherent in explaining where the money came from. In Trump’s case everyone has a rough idea how he got so rich. Rather than try and be humble he luxuriates in his wealth. Thus attacking him on it with Mitt Romney Bain Style ads seems doomed to fail. Trump’s lack of need for donors gives him the freedom to say what he likes and also extra time not available on other candidates’ schedules.

Conclusion:

The many hidden Trump advantages are not only powerful in isolation; they feed off each other. The compression of the schedule and the hidden factor of candidates receiving votes even after they are gone (“zombies”) raises the bar on an Establishment candidate winnowing out the others and rising to tackle Trump and Cruz. The short window until the next contest also exaggerates the tendency of candidates to hold on, hoping that to get through just one more state before breaking out to crush Trump. Jeb, for instance, wants to make it to Florida, but if he presses on even a little he could create an SEC bloodbath for all but Trump, which only heightens the problem. Trump’s people and organization are not so weak that he will falter by losing delegates from ballot access or similar mistakes. The media will not stop covering him so long as the ratings come, and it doesn’t take much to beat regular political coverage. While others will need to spend some time reloading with money Trump will be free of an entire part of the job. This is not to say Trump is certain to win the nomination, or even that you would take him against the field. But the idea that Trump has less than a 20% of getting it is missing out on what is going on in this race and does not take advantage of the data available. It may ultimately prove correct speculation. It isn’t data journalism.

Read More

Sanders downplays chance to win the nomination.

With five days to go until Iowa, it’s not unusual for candidates to play the expectations game.  So maybe that’s what Sen. Sanders is doing. More likely, however, this article shows Sanders may not understand the challenge he faces in winning the Democratic nomination. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sanders-its-a-mythology-that-i-need-to-win-iowa_us_56a7e4a2e4b04936c0e89143 

There’s almost no way for Sanders to construct a nomination victory that doesn’t begin with an Iowa victory. Although we faulted the Cook Political Report’s benchmarks for being too positive toward Establishments Republican candidates, the report is spot-on  in showing the incredibly difficult path for Sanders.  http://cookpolitical.com/story/9179. 

Iowa is the perfect state to demonstrate his problems. According to Cook’s math, Sanders would need to win 31 of 44 delegates up for grabs during the Feb 1^st caucus, just to get to a tie with Clinton. 

If the Sanders campaign is admitting that it might not even win in Iowa, it owes it to supporters to give some sense of when and where the campaign can get back on pace. This becomes all the more dangerous for the Sanders campaign because of the heavily minority particularly African American territory, he heads into on March 1^st.  Because of proportionality, once a deficit is built, even a small one, it is very difficult to overcome.  

The problem is compounded by the fact that in the history of Democratic nomination contests, except when an African American was running, African American voters have always rallied to the candidate of the Democratic establishment. This is true even in non-presidential races.  

The trick for Sanders is to win so that he seems like the establishment candidate,  even if he’s not – given all Clinton’s endorsements among other reasons. A loss in Iowa would foreclose the possibility of Sanders gaining support by looking like a winner. Thus no matter what happens in New Hampshire, without an Iowa victory, Sanders would not be able to dislodge Clinton’s 67-28% lead among non-white voters in the most recent ABC/Washington Post poll. 

Iowa is simply too White to lose for Sanders. Thus his downplaying of a loss there indicates an unsustainable strategy for victory. Not only is it too white, but caucuses are entirely an indication of passion, which was why Obama wrung up huge margins in caucuses states in 2008. To lose the first one is a terrible sign for what Sanders needs to win by in Colorado and Minnesota on March 1st. Sanders has to win Iowa. 

Read More

New Hampshire preview

A New Hampshire preview that is written before Iowa is often a risky endeavor as the late moving currents of Iowa can sweep such predictions away quickly. There will therefore clearly be an update after Iowa. Still I think the contours of the race are such that we have a pretty good idea what is going to happen.

Republicans:

Odds: Donald Trump 90%, field 10%
Percentages: Donald Trump 30% Cruz 15% Rubio 13% Kasich 12% Bush 10% Christie 7% Paul 5% Carson 5% Carly 3%

Rationale:
Donald Trump is simply too far ahead for anyone to catch, and the establishment lane, which seems to be garnering roughly 42%, is no closer to deciding on one candidate here than we observed a few months ago. This divide has left Trump on track to win by almost 2-1 over his nearest competitor.  With this set of polling it is entirely possible Trump could lose a third of his support and still win.  As for the others, Senator Cruz is holding down the Christian Right solidly. It is a small lane in New Hampshire but it is bigger than having to split the establishment lane four ways. Senator Rubio should gain from his third in Iowa and in national polling to hold third here. Governor Kasich has been running the most disciplined campaign, working very hard in the Jon Huntsman lane. Given  newspaper endorsements, he seems best positioned of the Governors. Jeb Bush has positioned himself as Trump’s biggest enemy which is useful to him. Christie has no message for the field and falls back; everyone else trails badly.

Democrats:

Odds: Bernie Sanders 80% Hillary Clinton 20%
Percentages: Bernie Sanders 54% Hillary Clinton 44% Field 2%

Rationale:
The New Hampshire electorate is just tailor made for Bernie Sanders, who is also from a neighboring state. There is simply no reason to disbelieve the public polling. What people tend to forget is that while Hillary won here in 2008, she did so with only 39% of the vote. She will exceed that this year, but Sanders will still win because New Hampshire Democrats lean left and are anti-establishment. This will not matter that much as we get to later contests, but it will give the Sanders movement something to crow about. The caveat is that an Iowa win for Hillary might create a sense of momentum which may discourage Bernie supporters, particularly independents who now will vote on the R side where it might do more good from their perspective. Still it’s a steep Hill.

Read More

Iowa Preview

Iowa predictions will be updated before the caucus because changes might be warranted following the last round of polls and the last round of coverage. Yet it seems safe to assume that the overall parameters are already in place.

Republicans

Ted Cruz has a 55% to win the Iowa Caucus. Donald Trump has a 40% chance to win the Iowa Caucus. The rest of the field has a 5% chance, and that might even be a touch too high.
Predicted percentage for each candidate: Cruz 32% Trump 28% Rubio 13% Carson 9% Bush 4% Paul 4% Huckabee 3% Kasich 2% Christie 2% Fiorina 2% Santorum 1%

The basic rationale:
This may be the year that polling based models just completely collapse because we are frankly seeing results that are all over the map. If there is one thing to remember about Iowa Republican caucuses, it is that the chosen candidate of the Christian Right should not be overly trifled with. In 2008 Mike Huckabee won the Iowa Caucus, and on caucus night performed nearly 5 points over his polling average. In 2012, Rick Santorum beat his polling average by 8.3%.  In the 2010 gubernatorial primary Iowa’s premiere poll from Ann Selzer missed the closeness of the race between Christian Conservative Bob Vander Plaats and establishment favorite, former and now again Governor Terry Branstad. Selzer predicted a 28 percentage point Branstad lead, but he won by a little less than 10%. Predicting the Christian Right candidate will beat the spread is always a good bet.  Cruz also for the first time has united the powerhouses Steve King and Bob Vander Plaats. Losing for the two of them would be completely unacceptable.  While Trump’s strategy of bringing in new caucus goers will make things close, in the end it just seems that victory would be possible for Trump f we had a primary but a caucus requires a level of organization that will just be a bit much for his team.  For the rest of the prediction -- the Establishment candidates are combining for just above 20% , which is mostly in line with what Romney got in 2008 and 2012. Huckabee gets about the same as Bachmann from 2012. Paul holds about 25% of his father’s supporters [his fall has been amazing] Carly gets a few votes for being a woman, and Santorum has to rue the fact he won here a year ago and saw it stolen by Karl Rove. Ted Cruz by a nose.

Democrats

Odds on winner: Hillary Clinton 60% Bernie Sanders 40%
Vote Percentages: 54% Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders 46%

Basic Rationale:
Everyone seems to be incredibly hyped over one CNN Poll that showed a Sanders lead. However the polling average still shows Hillary Clinton up by 6.4%. What is more, the CNN Poll showed Hillary Clinton with an 18 point win with previous caucus goers, who constitute the most likely caucus goers this year. Another confusing thing about the process is geographic distribution. Unlike in 2008 when Senator Obama had large parts of the Democratic regulars, Hillary Clinton has an almost monopoly with Democratic regulars. While that does not in and of itself guarantee much, it definitely helps with geographic distribution. Since all delegates are elected based on precinct level data, there would seem to be some precincts in which Sanders simply has more people than he needs and in some precincts where he may not be able to keep pace with Clinton. There is a three-part caveat. The Sanders campaign leads the energy sweepstakes. Iowa caucus goers do lean to the left. And no one knows what O’Malley supporters and O’Malley himself will do, Polling suggests O’Malley is unlikely to get to threshold [15%] almost anywhere. So his caucus goers who are left with making a second choice or going home could prove to be decisive. Such people are often influenced by what their organization says. Senator Sanders is therefore alive in Iowa but has a harder climb than is generally realized.

Read More

Trump has a great hand, He just might be slightly misplaying it.

With only nine days before Iowa votes, we are hitting the home stretch here. Our Iowa preview is coming tomorrow and our New Hampshire preview the day after that.

Yesterday, we discussed how everything seems to be going Trump’s way. That remains true. His quick-win strategy to take both Iowa and New Hampshire could prove correct and put Trump on a path to a remarkable and easy victory over a field of also-rans. But Trump’s new ad against Ted Cruz and his apparent all-in on Iowa strategy appears to be something of a miscalculation. 

What has gotten Donald Trump so fast so far, however, is his domination of the media attention combined with a split field. Being able to command 35% of the vote at this moment makes Trump look and feel dominate. But 35% is still a ways from the 50% plus 1 you need to be certain of victory. The split field has been incredibly important to him, nowhere more so than in the early states. 

It seems unlikely that Trump could win either Iowa or New Hampshire in a one-on-one contest against the number two contender. At the moment, that is unlikely to matter as lots of candidates are continuing to duke it out hard in both states. The percentage that Trump currently holds, or even two thirds of that, will put him in the top two in New Hampshire and Iowa, and will almost certainly win him New Hampshire.

  

So far the opposition to Trump continues to be scattered, fragmented and weak. The Trump campaign should be focusing on the ways to keep the opposition in such a state. So far Ted Cruz’s strong position has been a key way to accomplish that. Cruz has created a huge split within the Republican party. It is important to remember that white evangelicals Christians accounted for more than 40% of Mitt Romney’s vote total. They usually make up at least 50% of the Republican primary electorate. Most of their most prominent leaders have endorsed Cruz. Although Trump is currently leading with this voting block, there is a real risk that they will eventually listen to their leaders.

  

The key danger for Trump at the moment is not defeat by Cruz; it is that a candidate can successfully unite both the “Christian” part of the party and the more Establishment part of the party against him. Ted Cruz is woefully unprepared to do that because he is hated by the Establishment. So for Trump’s purposes, Cruz is a perfect parking place for the Christian leadership. It makes it much less likely that a unified candidate will appear.

Although it may seem counterintuitive, a strongish Cruz helps Trump. A Cruz win in Iowa makes him a contender and could crowd out everyone else. If Cruz is beaten too early, it could boost another candidate, which is a greater danger.  

There are also considerations of delegate math. If Cruz gets to 20% across the South, he’ll earn some delegates, some of which would otherwise go to Trump, but some of which will come from the Establishment candidates. If the race comes down to the convention, Trump would rather have Cruz delegates in the hall than, say, Rubio ones. Trump would have a better chance of picking off Cruz delegates than more establishment ones.

The initial whacking of Cruz therefore is good for Trump (you don’t want him too strong) but the negative ad probably goes too far. So is splitting the Robertson family of Duck Dynasty fame. The father endorsed Cruz and then Trump responded with an endorsement from the son, thereby embarrassing Cruz and the father.

The narrative emerging from the new polls also present a possible danger for Trump. There is no shame in losing to Cruz in Iowa; a top two finish in a caucus is remarkable for someone so new to the party. But the expectation of victory could in theory knock The Donald off his game if he comes in second. A second-place finish probably would not be enough to lead Trump to lose in New Hampshire, but might be enough to let doubt seep in.

It is often easier to see the game as one that can be won and won early, but that is a classic multi-candidate field dynamic mistake. Trump has a great hand that may be so strong he can’t lose. But in the last 24 hours, he seems to be misplaying it.

Read More

All Hail the Conquering Trump

I will preview the first two contests (Iowa, New Hampshire) this coming weekend. There is still enough time left for this race to take a different turn. But the news today, with just 10 days from the Iowa Caucus, seems to show a Donald Trump assent that, while it could still be derailed, seems to be gaining strength. An eye on multi candidate field dynamics also shows that not only is Trump picking up steam but, as importantly, the only other two candidates cracking double digits in national polling seem to be losing it. This is as all candidates not named Trump continue to snipe at each other.  

First, in national polling, Trump is doing remarkably in a 12-person race with an RCP average of 34.5%. The range of his support varies between 36% and 33%, thus revealing no outlier or dissenting polls. His two main challengers, Senators Cruz and Rubio, sit at 18.8% and 11.6% with no appreciable progress for either. State polls all show the same pattern: Trump has large leads in all the states with Cruz always in second and Rubio almost always in third. 

Thanks to Public Policy Polling in North Carolina, we have some sense of how both a two-way and a three-way race involving these three candidates would go with. Trump dominates in the three-way race and wins one-on- one matches by up to 8 points over Cruz and 15 points over Rubio. Trump also had huge leads posted Florida, Georgia, and Arizona.  

In the two early states, Trump is getting almost exactly what he wants as well. With 10 days to go, he is battling for first with Senator Cruz, but no candidate is even in competition to pass Trump for second. Thus, Trump seems to be assured a top two finish in Iowa. In New Hampshire, Trump leads over the entire field by as much as 20%, with the closet challenger behind by 7%. The average deficit is around 17%. The attacks all the other candidates are making against one another are taking an incredible toll. 

Meanwhile, Trump has also been gaining endorsements, and not just the obviously high profile Sarah Palin. The elected treasurer of the State of Arizona endorsed Trump. Even Nate Silver who has been the leader in the anti-Trump team of pundits, is coming around. 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/one-big-reason-to-be-less-skeptical-of-trump/

Again, there still may be time to turn this all around. But for the moment and with very few moments left: All hail the conquering Trump. 

Read More

Fivethirtyeight is right. Delegate math is everything. But that does not mean what Fivethirtyeight thinks it means.

Seeing a Cook Political Report/Fivethirtyeight alliance is any political nerd’s dream come true.

It is, however, sad to see the dream team defending the Republican establishment’s chances in the presidential nomination fight when the polling is so much against it and the delegate math is just as likely to deliver an early KO as a multi-round fight. Cook/Fivethirtyeight produced an excellent piece on how each of the Republican candidates could win the nomination but the conclusion it reaches that Florida and Ohio are as important as Iowa and New Hampshire is based on assumption that is hard to defend. The idea is that an establishment candidate can emerge from New Hampshire strong enough to make the March 1 primarily Southern primaries anything but a blowout for the upstart candidates.

That seems unlikely. Rightwing insurgents (Trump, Cruz, Carson) are combining for 62.8% of Republican primary votes nationally, while the establishment candidates (Rubio, Bush, Kasich, Christie) are combining for 22.4%. Of course, things can still change. The key point is that if they don’t, March 1, the day of 13 states has the potential to be completely fatal for everyone not named Cruz or Trump. The Cook/Fivethirtyeight article fails to acknowledge that possibility. Instead, it makes all of the assumptions that favor the establishment and leans into them.

Let’s look at those assumptions.

First, Rubio can clear the field of everyone but Cruz and Trump by March 1st. It is possible, sure, but what are the odds? Kasich is rising in New Hampshire, Jeb has money, Christie has ego, if any of them beat Rubio in New Hampshire they fight on. If Rubio doesn’t clear the field, he is in incredible danger of missing viability thresholds in some of the March 1 primaries. Remember, based on the national polls the entire Republican establishment combined may be polling under the viability threshold in some states. The biggest risk for them on this score is in Texas where Rubio needs 41 delegates, according to The Cook/Fivethirtyeight model. If Cruz has even the slightest home field advantage with otherwise moderate voters than Rubio having to split what is left of moderates might keep him from threshold. The fact is if there’s more than one moderate in the Texas primary, along with a viable Trump and Cruz, that basically means no delegates for the moderates in all of Texas. [Possible second place finishes in a few districts since second is worth 1 delegate in each district but still really hard to see.] This means Rubio wouldn’t just be better off if he cleared the field by March 1, he pretty much has to clear the field by that date.

Second, even if Rubio can clear the field by March 1, he hasn’t avoided trouble altogether. The Cook/Fivethirtyeight nomination math for Rubio assumes he will be receiving 24 delegates in Georgia. The most recent Georgia poll has Trump and Cruz in first and second position, with Rubio lagging behind with just 8% support. Even assuming Rubio can get to 20%, that’s not enough for him to win anywhere near the 24 delegates this model says he needs to do to that he would have to do better than Romney in 2012 in Georgia who took 28% and also took advantage of a Santorum failure to get to threshold by less than .5.

The same situation presents itself in all of the Southern primaries on March 1st. The Cook/Fivethirtyeight model says Rubio needs 128 Southern delegates on that date, but he would be lucky to get half that.

Third, this model seems to believe Rubio is the strongest candidate in the Virginia, Massachusetts and Vermont primaries on March 1. The assumption that Rubio is stronger in New England than Trump is based more on intuition than anything else. The model also posits Virginia as some sort of establishment bastion, but former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor got badly beaten in a Republican primary there. Rubio is more likely not to have a single win on March 1 than to hit the Cook/Fivethirtyeight benchmarks.

In conclusion, right now the establishment looks more like it’s going to get blown out on March 1 than carve out the delegate needed for a sustainable path to the nomination. Yet, Cook/Fivethirtyeight doesn’t seem to see that almost pretending like the math means that the Rubio or the Establishment have a much easier time to delegates on March 1^st than they do.

Read More

Nate Silver is just wrong about Donald Trump: Part 1.

Nate Silver is one of the best things ever to happen to political journalism in America. He pushed journalists to rely on more than just vague hunches, to take poll results and other data seriously, and in the process raised the level of the profession immensely. My disagreement with his current analysis is not meant to take away from that contribution.

Yet in analyzing the chances for Donald Trump’s nomination, Silver has left the world of numbers behind and is instead focusing on emotion and on what parties normally do in similar situations. Sadly, as he became the establishment, going from writing his own blog to working for Disney, he began to think like them. This has led him to ignore what is right in front of him about Trump and to not acknowledge fully mistakes he has already made with respect to Trump. In August, Silver gave Trump a 2 percent chance of winning the Republican nomination. He has now upped the odds to 14 percent, but Silver’s expressed skepticism remains as strong as if this change was never made. It appears that being so wrong in August about Trump, Silver can’t quite bring himself to accept Trump’s strengths.

This article will refute many of the points made in Silver’s two leading Trump posts, "Donald Trump's Six Stages Of Doom" and "Three Theories Of Donald Trump's Rise."

Here’s a key point: A candidate who wins New Hampshire always has a real shot at the nomination. In the modern era, only three Republican candidates have won the New Hampshire primary and gone on to lose the nomination: John McCain in 2000, Pat Buchanan 1996, and Henry Cabot Lodge in 1964.

With New Hampshire less than three weeks away, Donald Trump seems to be in a fantastic position to win the New Hampshire primary. The RCP average has Donald Trump leading by an average of 17.7 points. If Trump lost half of his support in New Hampshire when the votes are actually counted, his level of support would still exceed that of any other candidate. In other words, he would still win.

And how likely is it that Trump will lose half his current level of support in the next two and half weeks? According to Public Policy Polling, Trump has the most heavily committed supporters of any of the candidates; 68 percent of those supporting Trump are considered firm in their support.

Trump is the clear favorite in New Hampshire, and a New Hampshire win gives him a strong shot at the nomination — at least historically.

So if Trump is doing so well in New Hampshire, how is it possible that Silver gives him only a 14 percent shot at the nomination? The answer is that Silver has to downgrade Trump’s chances in New Hampshire, which is what he does. Silver considers Trump “potentially vulnerable” in New Hampshire: “Trump could lose New Hampshire either to a surging Cruz or if one of the several establishment candidates — Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, John Kasich — can consolidate the support of more moderate/establishment Republican voters.”

Silver quantified his prediction using two models, one of which relies on polls and endorsements, and the other that only uses polls. (For those of you who want to dig into how Silver created his models, here it is.) When Silver relies only on polls, he gives Trump a 57 percent chance of winning New Hampshire. (Because Silver doesn’t explain exactly what goes into this model, it’s hard to evaluate it, though my sense is that Trump’s chances are still too low.) Adding in endorsements from major elected officeholders of which Trump has secured none, reduces Trump’s odds to 40 percent. Leaving aside the problems with the endorsement-plus model, which punishes Trump for not being popular with governors and Congress people (I’ve discussed this before on this blog), Silver still needs to explain how a 40 percent chance of winning in New Hampshire translates into a 14 percent chance of winning the nomination, given New Hampshire’s track record in picking the ultimate nominee. Well, it doesn’t if you look at the numbers.

Here’s an alternative theory of how the race is likely to shake out. Let’s assume that the standings in Iowa hold and Cruz wins while Trump comes in second (though the current polls give Trump a decent shot at winning there.) Trump wins New Hampshire fairly easily. This brings the battle between the two winners to South Carolina where the contest will likely be fierce. So far, however, Trump has a strong lead in that state, 14 percent in the most recent poll. Only one candidate has ever won South Carolina on the Republican side and gone on to lose. (Newt Gingrich in 2012.) No Republican candidate has ever won both South Carolina and New Hampshire and lost. The odds of Trump winning both states at this point seem to be around 50 percent.

Even if you accept Silver’s own models, and factor in a win’s effect on the coming contest (as Silver’s does), Trump should have about a 30 percent chance to win both New Hampshire and South Carolina based on the poll-plus model and an at least 40 percent chance on the polls-only model.

Even using his own polls-plus model, Silver would come up with a number much closer to Trump having a 25 percent chance of winning the nomination than his current 14 percent. Given that he started at 2 percent, it seems that Silver is refusing to let the numbers move his logic.

Part Two will explain how Trump can conquer all the stages of Doom.

Read More

Why Hillary Clinton does not have to worry just yet.

In the run up to tonight’s debate and amidst the general sense of a tightening race, it is important to drill down to what is really happening and what would be required for the nomination to actually flip hands.

The rise of Bernie Sanders is as interesting a story in many ways as is that of Donald Trump, and for Progressives far more hopeful.

However those who believe that history is about to repeat itself are missing two key factors from 2008. 1. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama basically tied and 2. Barack Obama, while doing well across the board, relied heavily on overwhelming support from African Americans to win.

What this means is that for Bernie Sanders to win he almost has to persuade voters who chose Clinton last time to choose him in 2016. There is almost no math that exists that allows for Sanders to win without taking a sizable junk of Clinton’s 2008 supporters. While there is perhaps some evidence of such conversions with an individual or two, as a general matter we are not yet seeing many core defections. Defections are the key thing to watch for.

Yet this saving grace for the Clinton campaign in the overall race is not a saving grace in the early states. In Iowa in 2008, Hillary Clinton only received 30% of the Iowa Caucus vote. While New Hampshire is touted as a strong-hold for Hillary based on 2008, that is not so much the case. Hillary won the Granite state receiving 39% to Obama’s 36.4%. But the large part of the balance went to Senator Edwards, who ran on similar if less aggressive messaging as what we now see from Senator Sanders. Thus to some degree the first two contests are two of the worst states on the calendar for Hillary. So Sanders can very easily get some early momentum by earning votes from non-Hillary people. But without Hillary people from 2008 he can’t win. And that’s even before you build in the structural super delegate problem, which provides Hillary yet another important cushion.

Read More

The party decided not to decide: why 538’s Poll plus is nonsense.

538 believes that officeholder endorsements provide The Establishment candidates an extra 14% likelihood of winning the New Hampshire primary. Similarly, this model downgrades Trump’s chances from 57% to 39%.

538 bases this conclusion on the theory that in the nomination process, it is the party and party endorsers who decide. This theory grows out of research about contests from the 1980 through 2004 campaigns.

However what this factor may be missing, and why we firmly believe we can out predict the 538 model, is that choosing not to decide is in and of itself a choice. This year’s party is effectively undecided and that throws cold water on the 538 model.


There are currently 331 Republican Governors, Senators and House Members. Including those supporting themselves (Five of the candidates are current Governors and Senators.) only 118 have endorsed. This means that 64% of all office holders have not endorsed and may not endorse until the voting begins. Of those who did endorse 40 were endorsing their home state candidate [or themselves], an endorsement sure but one which would be more noticeable by its absence than its presence.

When home state endorsements are discounted, the percentage not endorsing rises to 73%. Focusing solely on Governors and Senators, the numbers are even bleaker. Of Senators, only 16 of 54 have made a choice including themselves. This leaves 70% of the Senate without an endorsement. It rises to almost 80% when endorsing yourself or someone from your home state is removed. With Governors it is 80% with no choice including home state and self. When those are removed only 3 of 28 Governors have made a non-home state choice, leaving almost 90% on the sidelines.


Nor are the party endorsements even close to unified. Governor Bush, who still leads the pack, has the most total endorsements with 31 out of the 331 available, a number less than 10%. Excluding his home state nods, he is taking less than 7% of those available. Rubio does a little better on the non-home state score, but even he is rocking only 9%, which is the absolute high. It’s hard to see much traction from such minimal passion.


The trends in endorsement politics have also changed a decent degree since 2004. There are three things to consider. First, we see a striking increase in the value of endorsements outside the traditional officeholders. Some such party heavyweights are supporting Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. For example, Dr. James Dobson, a Cruz supporter and leader of the Christian Right, went toe to toe with President Bush in 2004 at the absolute height of Bush’s power. Dobson endorsed now Senator Pat Toomey against then Senator Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania. Bush narrowly won the day by a margin of 51-49, but Dobson won the war. Specter ultimately had to become a Democrat, and Toomey won the Seat in 2010.

Similarly, talk Radio hosts such as Laura Ingraham and Michelle Malkin galvanized voters against Rep. Eric Cantor, taking down a majority leader in a primary by a sizable margin. Ann Coulter’s support of Donald Trump falls into a similar category.


Second, the old calculation pushing people to endorse with hope of payback when their chosen candidate prevails took a beating after the Obama-Clinton primaries. Even though Obama was successful, in later primaries Bill Clinton’s involvement often helped the Clinton backers to prevail over Obama-backers. So current office holders might think even more than twice before going out on a limb, thinking it’s safest just to stay silent.


Third, recent cycles have seen many Republican primaries in which outsider candidates have either beaten or damaged establishment or incumbent Republicans. So those same Republicans are understandably less likely to endorse because why risk the anger from the grassroots on behalf of someone else. These three factors have led to a party that has simply not decided. That non-decision is a decision and that silence rather than simply counting endorsements should be factored into any prediction model. We can beat 538 with multi-candidate field dynamics, but when you have a choice between 538’s poll only and their Poll-plus nonsense, go with poll only every time.

Read More

How Multi-Candidate field dynamics helps you grade a debate

It is easy to get caught up in the debate moments to think of the debate itself as an event with winners and losers. This is not really the case. The point of these political debates is for each candidate to advance his standing with respect to the upcoming contests and with respect to each candidate’s opponents. Sometimes you can “lose” the debate but get information out in it that can damage an opponent, and thus your “loss” does more to help you with respect to winning than a “win” ever could. It is with that in mind that we present the key takeaways from the debate for each candidate in order of their national polling performance.

Donald Trump.

This was his best debate so far. He was crisp and clear and the incoming fire he took was basically non-existent and that is amazing for a front-running candidate. He also benefited greatly from the Multi-candidate field dynamics aspect of the debate. The reason is simple. No other candidate really hurt themselves in a serious way [except Ben Carson], but also no candidate really helped themselves too much either. The longer it takes for the field to condense, the harder it will be for Trump to lose. His agreement with Governor Haley, that he was angry and he meant to be angry, was, given the mood of Republican primary voters, spot on. Some see the exchange with Cruz about Cruz’s eligibility as a weak spot, but the fact is that raising doubt on this score can be advantageous, even if it is only with a small number of voters. Those could be the voters who make the difference, and if you have to look a little bad to get it out there so be it.

The New York values exchange was his best moment and a huge win for Trump, particularly if the race actually makes it all the way to New York. Cruz might have gift wrapped the state to Trump which has the 4^th most delegates of any State. (This gives you a sense of how New York might be taking it.) While the consensus was that this ended peace between Trump and Cruz, that remains to be seen. Cruz could have hit Trump directly rather than by implication, which means he still sees value in the alliance. Trump engaged on eligibility but otherwise did not overly attack Cruz. The alliance may be damaged, but it still exists. Trump had a good night both for himself and because his rivals are all standing but none are shining.

Ted Cruz.

Ted Cruz is a great debater. This cannot be denied. He did very well on the first question and from there he was off and running. He is clearly being seen as the one standing Trump alternative, but his New York line was a disaster when it was first said. Repeating it as a way of attacking Trump without really attacking him fell flat. He did better on the Canada question, but the problem is that as much as he dealt with it effectively, he could not erase all doubt. To some degree, doubt here is simply not his friend. If he was leading then he might still be leading, but since he is not time is running out.

Marco Rubio.

The problem with Marco Rubio in this debate is that he was in such a rush to emphasize his utter disdain for President Obama, get to the right and launch attacks on opponents that he forgot to make the case for himself. He is almost trying to be certain to come across more like Trump, stressing how his conservative bona fides rival those of all others. But he just cannot come across that way compared to Cruz or Trump. He still seems like the most viable alternative on paper, but it seems more and more like paper. The one saving grace for him is that because of multi-candidate field dynamics his third place finish in Iowa looks a bit more secure tonight because of the next candidate.

Ben Carson.

The first time Dr. Carson got asked a question he started with “I finally got a question,” and he did not get any better from there. He has never been good at these debates, and he is not getting better. If anything he was worse. He needed to be a presence as the incoming attack on Ted Cruz gave him the slightest of openings. But he did nothing.

Jeb Bush.

He did decently. He was the most aggressive in going after Trump, but he was not aggressive enough. He kept his support, but time is growing short. While he is 5^th in national polls, his New Hampshire strategy does not seem to be going well. Still his strategy of being not Trump overall might be the right one in New Hampshire.

Chris Christie.

He did ok, but part of his problem is that he does have a previous period of time in New Jersey in which he was more moderate. He is running from it now and handled the Marco Rubio attacks quite well. In particular, the way he attacked Marco with Marco’s own words about Jeb was ideal. But otherwise he did not do anything to stand out and the clock is running out. He seems to not have a strategy besides just being Chris Christie.

John Kasich.

This was also his best debate. He seems to be settling in. Saying exactly what he wants to say in the way he wants to say it. He was the only candidate to entirely stay out of the fray [except for Ben Carson but that was because Carson said nothing.] The best thing for him is the flack that Rubio and Christie seem to be taking from others and from each other. Rubio does not seem to think Kasich is a threat or if he does, does not know what line of attack to take. The polling in New Hampshire now has him in third and the Rubio/Christie fight has opened the door for him to a degree.

Conclusion:

Everything was mostly to form. We got small amounts of clarity leaving things mostly where they were. Donald Trump still leads. 17 days to Iowa.

Read More

Polls show Republican Establishment candidates trailing Romney’s 2012 totals, yet evidence suggests they must outperform him to win.

         Throughout Washington and the political chattering classes many if not most observers still believe the Republican Establishment will rise again.  That core belief is built heavily into the 538 poll plus model that credits members of that Establishment with the power to boost (via endorsement points) the odds of candidates in the club.

 However when one digs into the math one begins to see just how hard it will be for the Establishment to get the delegates necessary to pick a nominee of its choosing. [For our purposes the Establishment is the Governors plus Rubio on the main stage tonight]  

              Those seeking to do your own math should review The Cook Political Report, an absolutely fantastic resource for setting benchmarks from which you can draw conclusions. 

http://cookpolitical.com/story/9154

But for those lacking time here are the two main data points standing in the Establishment’s way.

1.       Mitt Romney, last cycle’s only Republican Establishment candidate, struggled in some of the very places early state contests are being held this year.

2.       The current establishment candidates are not even running as strongly as Mitt Romney. 

Here are the comparable poll numbers.

          In Iowa in 2012 Mitt received basically 25% of all votes.  In the current RCP average for Iowa, Republican Establishment candidates are polling at 23.5%.  Not a large deficit, but not a good sign for the Establishment.

            In New Hampshire the presence of Jon Huntsman, who ended up being a one state Republican establishment candidate, clouds things a bit, but the message is the same.  In 2012, Romney and Huntsman combined for 56% of the Republican primary vote. Today’s  Establishment candidates are only pulling in only 43% combined. 

                 At this point (three weeks pre-Iowa caucus) in the National polling Mitt Romney was at about 25% or so.  The Republican Establishment is currently polling at 21.  These numbers are not far behind, but behind is a problem.  

Getting to the Romney level or even slightly exceeding it is clearly an attainable goal. The challenge is that a great deal of improvement is required.   Going through every state would be very time consuming. One state serves as a perfect illustration.  On March 1^st Georgia goes to the polls. It exemplifies the problem the Republican Establishment faces. In 2012 Mitt Romney received only 28% of the Georgia vote. That is a decent benchmark for the Establishment.  [Yes Georgia was Gingrich’s home state, but Romney’s numbers in Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Tennessee were comparable.]   A huge problem for the Establishment relates to Multi-Candidate field dynamics.  The establishment might simply not have successfully winnowed their candidates down in time for Georgia. [Absentee voting has already started]. This is where the rules become quite harsh. Georgia delegates are awarded based on the voting on two bases. The statewide vote decides the at large delegates, and the congressional districts select congressional district delegates. The at large is proportional with two exceptions. A candidate needs to reach 20% of the vote, which means at most four candidates can win at large delegates and three is more likely. There is also a 50% winner take all provision, but that is unlikely to come into effect.  

The district level is even more brutal. Each district gets three delegates. The winner in each district receives two delegates and the runner up gets 1. Everyone else is out of luck [unless someone get 50% in which case they get all three].  What this system meant for Mitt Romney was that he was able to win 21 delegates in Georgia, whereas the Cook projected need for the Establishment in Georgia is 34.

What makes matters worse for the Establishment is that Romney got about as lucky a spilt in Georgia as possible.  Remember that 20% rule. Santorum was under it by less than .5 at 19.55%, but he was thus completely shut out of at large delegates giving Romney an at large windfall.  Gingrich was also very close to 50% in which case he would have gotten all the delegates as well.  Without Santorum, it is likely Gingrich would have taken nearly all the delegates. If instead there was a slightly stronger Santorum, Romney would have lost a few more second place district delegates and would not have gotten a bump from the at large.  Given the Cruz-Trump battle at the moment, a Georgia that shuts the Establishment out entirely looks more likely than a Georgia in which the Establishment finds its way to the 34 delegates that Cook says it needs.  There are similar effects across the country in lots of states, and the benchmarks are impossible to reach in quite a few places with few chances for corresponding gains.  The establishment may yet rise, but the benchmarks needed are much harder to reach than is generally realized. 

Read More

Welcome to Multi-Candidate Field Dynamics 2016

The 2016 campaign has been as much about the interplay among candidates as it has been about anything else. Let’s call this interplay “multi-candidate field dynamics.” Here are the basics.

Consider an audience of prospective beverage consumers choosing between Coke and Lemonade. If 60% of people choose Coke and 40% choose Lemonade, Coke wins. Now let’s add a third entrant: Pepsi.  Lemonade drinkers are mostly un-moved, although there may be a small fraction who switch to Pepsi just because they hate Coke.  Lemonade’s share might drop to 37%.  In contrast as many as 1/3 of those who chose Coke could easily be converted to the Pepsi column.  So in a hypothetical matchup we might get Coke 40%; Lemonade 37% and Pepsi 23%. And were this really a public contest, we could expect secondary effects.  Lemonade fans might for the first time see a chance to prevail and make a point of heading to the supermarket to vote.  Cola devotees might stick with Coke as the leader, but they might also feel pressure to move over to Pepsi as the up and comer in contrast to Coke, the sinking frontrunner.  Those running the campaign for Lemonade might choose to spend resources getting Coke drinkers to switch to Pepsi rather than the harder challenge of persuading someone to break the Cola habit.

The effects of additional entries from which to choose are plain to see. Yet they become much more complicated as you add variables, such as when you go from three sodas to the seven somewhat viable candidates who will be on the main stage on Thursday night. It gets worse when also considering what the other four people who are not viable can do simply by getting some votes or saying something that might hurt one of the main stage participants. As an example, both Rand Paul and Carly Fiornia are now flogging the Cruz from Canada story. It started with a loud mouth comment from Trump; it now includes a Washington Post Op-Ed from a law professor who says he can't be President. And it has mushroomed to the point where 1/4 of Cruz's Iowa supporters now believe someone not born in the U.S. should not be President. You now have to wonder where some of those voters might land.

Look how important it is to play out the effect one candidate’s actions have on others. Cruz’s struggles might on first blush seem to be good news for Marco Rubio, now in third place nationally and in Iowa. But it might not be. There is still some risk that Rubio could lose to Carson and drop to fourth place in Iowa. This mean Cruz's slide is not certainly to Rubio's benefit if his voters move over to Carson.

Another piece of breaking news is double-edged. The decline of Ted Cruz again seems like upside to Rubio. Trump’s rise to a tie with Cruz seems good for Rubio. But to some degree a very close race between Trump and Cruz also threatens Marco Rubio. His plan to come in third in Iowa is worth more if third matters. Instead, if a close race between Cruz and Trump dominates the caucus coverage and is the better story, then third becomes worth less. That matters as you fight off three Governors in New Hampshire.

The moving parts are without a doubt incredibly difficult to track. They are in fact so difficult to track that the Gang at FiveThiryEight said yesterday that their model does not even try. "There’s also an awful lot our models don’t consider. For instance, they don’t do much to consider the interrelationships in the vote between different types of candidates. For example, if John Kasich gains a vote in New Hampshire, it’s probably more likely to come from a similar candidate like Bush than a dissimilar candidate like Ben Carson. Still, we hope they can form a reasonable benchmark for following the upcoming primaries, even if they’re almost certain to get a few races wrong."

It may be almost impossible to mathematically track such variables. However just because such dynamics can not be easily tracked mathematically does not mean they cannot be tracked. The math can help sometimes, but some times it is just instinct rather than pure math that allows you to figure things out. We here at Multi-Candidate Field Dynamics are unwilling to give up on what is the most crucial factor in the 2016 GOP primary. We will be producing models that show how such dynamics work and which candidates they are currently benefiting. With that knowledge we will be better positioned to tell you who will win and why in Iowa, New Hampshire and beyond.

Read More