Republican Super Tuesday Prediction by Delegate

State Wins

Trump: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia, Vermont, Wyoming
Cruz: Texas
Rubio: 0
Kasich: 0
Carson: 0

Delegate Total

Trump: 272
Cruz: 200
Rubio: 124
Kasich: 16
Carson: 6

Explanation

These numbers, unlike those on the Democratic side, can shift a lot. The result to watch is the thresholds. Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee and Texas all have statewide threshold of 20%. Cruz and Rubio are flirting with missing cutoffs in a few places. At the moment, it looks like Rubio will fall below threshold in Texas. It is incredibly close. He is at 17.6% in the polling average and he seems to have a down arrow in the state. Cruz is at risk in Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee but we think he gets there. If anyone misses threshold in any state, it gives more delegates to other two who reached threshold.

Rubio beats Cruz for delegates outside of Texas, but Texas is a huge haul for Cruz. There are also going to be a lot of close races for second place and delegates in a number of districts.[Thresholds can be missed here too, in which cases delegates go to Trump. These numbers can swing a bit back and forth.  But overall it’s looking like a good night for Trump.

Full Delegate Allocation, State by State

ALABAMA
Total: Trump 27, Rubio 12, Cruz 11
At Large: Trump, 13 Rubio 8, Cruz 8
CD 1: Trump 2, Rubio 1
CD 2: Trump 2, Rubio 1
CD 3: Trump 2, Cruz 1
CD 4: Trump 2, Cruz 1
CD 5: Trump 2, Cruz 1
CD 6: Trump 2, Rubio 1
CD 7: Trump 2, Rubio 1

ALASKA
All At Large: Trump 11, Cruz 8, Rubio 7

ARKANSAS
Total: Trump 20, Cruz 10, Rubio 10
At Large: Trump 12, Cruz 8, Rubio 8
CD 1: Trump 2, Rubio 1
CD 2: Trump 2, Rubio 1
CD 3: Trump 2, Cruz 1
CD 4: Trump 2, Cruz 1

COLORADO

Total: 37 delegates (delegates are selected who are pledged to candidates and who will go forward to other conventions but the voting results are not disclosed)

GEORGIA
Total: Trump 41, Rubio 19, Cruz 16
At Large: Trump 13, Rubio 11, Cruz 10
CD 1: Trump 2, Rubio 1
CD 2: Trump 2, Cruz 1
CD 3: Trump 2, Cruz 1
CD 4: Trump 2, Cruz 1
CD 5: Trump 2, Rubio 1
CD 6: Trump 2, Rubio 1
CD 7: Trump 2, Rubio 1
CD 8: Trump 2, Cruz 1
CD 9: Trump 2, Cruz 1
CD 10: Trump 2, Rubio 1
CD 11: Trump 2, Rubio 1
CD 12: Trump 2, Rubio 1
CD 13: Trump 2, Rubio 1
CD 14: Trump 2, Cruz 1

MASSACHUSETTS
Total (All at large): Trump 19 Rubio 9 Kasich 6 Cruz 5 Carson 2

MINNESOTA
Total: Trump 14, Cruz 12, Rubio 12
At large: Trump 6, Rubio 4, Cruz 4
8 Districts: All split 3 ways for 8 delegates apiece

OKLAHOMA
Total: Trump 17, Rubio 13, Cruz 13
At Large: Trump 12, Rubio 8, Cruz 8
CD 1: Trump 1, Rubio 1, Cruz 1
CD 2: Trump 1, Rubio 1, Cruz 1
CD 3: Trump 1, Rubio 1, Cruz 1
CD 4: Trump 1, Rubio 1, Cruz 1
CD 5: Trump 1, Rubio 1, Cruz 1

TENNESSEE
Total: Trump 32, Cruz 14, Rubio 12
At Large: Trump 14, Cruz 9 Rubio 8
CD 1: Trump 2, Cruz 1
CD 2: Trump 2, Cruz 1
CD 3: Trump 2, Rubio 1
CD 4: Trump 2, Rubio 1
CD 5: Trump 2, Rubio 1
CD 6: Trump 2, Cruz 1
CD 7: Trump 2, Cruz 1
CD 8: Trump 2, Cruz 1
CD 9: Trump 2, Rubio 1

TEXAS
Total: Cruz 93, Trump 52, Rubio 10
At Large: Cruz 21, Trump 16, Rubio 10
Texas Districts: Cruz first in all 36 districts for 72 delegates, Trump second for 36 delegates

VIRGINIA
Total (all at large): Trump 18, Rubio 14, Cruz 10, Kasich 5, Carson 2

VERMONT
Total (All at large): Trump 8, Rubio 5, Kasich 3

WYOMING
Total (All at large): Trump 8, Rubio 7, Cruz 7, Kasich 2, Carson 2

Read More

Democratic Super Tuesday Prediction by Delegate

States

Clinton: Alabama, American Samoa, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia
Sanders: Colorado, Minnesota, Vermont

Delegate Total

Clinton: 517
Sander: 349

Explanation

The dam broke on the Sanders Campaign in South Carolina. Although polling is a touch scant, there is little reason to believe the flood won’t continue to wash away the Sanders campaign throughout the South. Up north, Clinton has retaken the lead in Massachusetts. There are probably 20 delegates that will be decided by a handful of votes throughout the country, but an overall huge win for Hillary Clinton is coming, aided by her stellar performance with African Americans.

Full Delegate Allocation, State by State

ALABAMA
Total: 39-14 Clinton
At Large: 9-2 Clinton
PLEO: 5-2
CD 1: 4-1 Clinton
CD 2: 4-1 Clinton
CD 3: 4-1 Clinton
CD 4: 2-2 tie
CD 5: 2-2 tie
CD 6: 2-1 Clinton
CD 7: 7-2 Clinton

AMERICAN SAMOA
At Large: 4-2 Clinton

ARKANSAS
Total: 22-10 Clinton
At Large: 5-2 Clinton
PLEO: 3-1 Clinton
CD 1: 3-2 Clinton
CD 2: 4-2 Clinton
CD 3: 3-1 Clinton
CD 4: 4-2 Clinton

COLORADO
Total: 37-29 Sanders
At Large: 8-6 Sanders
PLEO: 5-4 Sanders
CD 1: 5-3 Sanders
CD 2: 4-3 Sanders
CD 3: 3-3 Tie
CD 4: 3-2 Sanders
CD 5: 3-2 Sanders
CD 6: 3-3 Tie
CD 7: 3-3 Tie

GEORGIA
Total: 70-32 Clinton
At Large: 16-6 Clinton
PLEO: 9-4 Clinton
CD 1: 4-1 Clinton
CD 2: 4-1 Clinton
CD 3: 3-1 Clinton
CD 4: 4-2 Clinton
CD 5: 5-2 Clinton
CD 6: 3-2 Clinton
CD 7: 3-1 Clinton
CD 8: 3-1 Clinton
CD 9: 2-2 Tie
CD 10: 3-1 Clinton
CD 11: 2-2 Tie
CD 12: 3-2 Clinton
CD 13: 4-2 Clinton
CD 14: 2-2 Tie

MASSACHUSETTS
Total: 50-41 Clinton
At Large: 11-9 Clinton
PLEO: 7-5 Clinton
CD 1: 3-3 tie
CD 2: 3-3 tie
CD 3: 3-3 tie
CD 4: 3-3 tie
CD 5: 4-3 Clinton
CD 6: 4-3 Clinton
CD 7: 4-3 Clinton
CD 8: 4-3 Clinton
CD 9: 4-3 Clinton

MINNESOTA
Total: 44-33 Sanders
AT Large: 10-7 Sanders
PLEO: 6-4 Sanders
CD 1: 3-2 Sanders
CD 2: 3-3 Tie
CD 3: 4-3 Sanders
CD 4: 4-3 Sanders
CD 5: 5-4 Sanders
CD 6: 3-2 Sanders
CD 7: 3-2 Sanders
CD 8: 3-3 Tie

OKLAHOMA
Total: 22-17 Clinton
At Large: 4-4 Tie
PLEO: 3-2 Clinton
CD 1: 3-2 Clinton
CD 2: 3-2 Clinton
CD 3: 2-2 Tie
CD 4: 3-2 Clinton
CD 5: 3-3 Tie

TENNESSEE
Total: 41-26 Clinton
At Large: 9-5 Clinton
PLEO: 6-3 Clinton
CD 1: 2-2 tie
CD 2: 2-2 tie
CD 3: 3-2 Clinton
CD 4: 2-2 tie
CD 5: 4-2 Clinton
CD 6: 2-2 tie
CD 7: 3-2 Clinton
CD 8: 3-2 Clinton
CD 9: 5-2 Clinton

TEXAS
Total: 140-82
At Large: 31-17 Clinton
PLEO: 16-8 Clinton
SD 1: 2-1 Clinton
SD 2: 3-1 Clinton
SD 3: 2-1 Clinton
SD 4: 3-1 Clinton
SD 5: 3-2 Clinton
SD 6: 3-1 Clinton
SD 7: 3-1 Clinton
SD 8: 3-2 Clinton
SD 9: 3-1 Clinton
SD 10: 4-2 Clinton
SD 11: 3-1 Clinton
SD 12: 2-2 Tie
SD 13: 6-2 Clinton
SD 14: 5-5 Tie
SD 15: 4-2 Clinton
SD 16: 3-2 Clinton
SD 17: 3-2 Clinton
SD 18: 3-1 Clinton
SD 19: 3-2 Clinton
SD 20: 3-2 Clinton
SD 21: 3-2 Clinton
SD 22: 2-2 Tie
SD 23: 6-2 Clinton
SD 24: 4-2 Clinton
SD 25: 4-2 Clinton
SD 26: 4-2 Clinton
SD 27: 3-1 Clinton
SD 28: 1-1 Tie
SD 29: 3-1 Clinton
SD 30: 2-1 Clinton
SD 31: 1-1 Tie

VIRGINIA
Total: 65-30 Clinton
At Large: 14-7 Clinton
PLEO: 8-4 Clinton
CD 1: 3-2 Clinton
CD 2: 3-2 Clinton
CD 3: 6-2 Clinton
CD 4: 4-2 Clinton
CD 5: 3-2 Clinton
CD 6: 2-2 Tie
CD 7: 3-2 Clinton
CD 8: 5-3 Clinton
CD 9: 2-1 Clinton
CD 10: 3-3 Tie
CD 11: 4-3 Clinton

VERMONT
Total: 14-2 Sanders
At Large: 3-0 Sanders
PLE0: 2-0
CD: 9-2 Sanders

Read More

“Little Marco, Lying Ted and the Con Man”

This has been a week to remember in the Republican race. The charges and counter charges, The name-calling and the accusations have reached a fever pitch. And yet the multi-candidate field dynamics that have benefited Trump so greatly continue almost unabated. Trump’s lead has for the most part led the other candidates this week to stop sniping against each other, which has helped the cause somewhat. But the reality is that rather than having a stop-Trump strategy, every campaign continues to have a how-I- win strategy. As will be better explained in our final Republican preview tomorrow, the Republican rules are such that doing too well against a potential foe can have the effect of giving support to Trump as well as to that candidate. In most cases, the way the math works is that unless a candidate can get past Trump substantially, extra votes don’t gain the candidate much. But if a rival misses one of the percentage thresholds for delegates, his percentage of the vote will be split proportionally among the remaining candidates. Other candidates will benefit from the fallout but so does Trump.

                 Another interesting dynamic this week has been the effect Marco Rubio’s attack on Trump will have on his standing. The media is pushing the idea that this is all upside for Rubio as he is now the center of attention. That might be right. Another school of thought, however, is that Rubio has lowered himself to Trump’s level. Thus, it is possible that even as Rubio takes from Trump he sends them to Cruz, He also runs the risk of pushing undecided voters from himself to Cruz. He also could lose some votes to John Kasich, who is pretty much alone in the civility lane. Without any real polling in the wake of the dustups, we are left mostly flying blind.

A final note: much has been made of the large number of endorsements that Rubio has been getting. It is worth pointing out just how disdained some of the endorsers are. Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee endorsed Rubio today. In 2014, Alexander, as a sitting senator, had two primary challengers, who held him to under 50% of the Republican primary vote. Although the media tends to focus on tea-party challengers only when they win, it should be remembered that even when they don’t win their voters still exist in the Republican primary electorate going forward. Primary voters who opposed Alexander in 2014 are unlikely to be impressed by his endorsement two years later. The dynamic of a more right leaning GOP primary electorate has been missed even as it continues to define this race. 

Coming tomorrow: Democratic and Republican previews tomorrow down to the delegate and every allocation. 

Read More

If Donald Trump is a Con Man then His Rivals Were in on the Con

Two things defined yesterday’s events. One was Chris Christie’s endorsement of Trump which was a statement in itself that Trump might in fact be the inevitable Republican nominee. The other was the new line of attack by Marco Rubio, and to a lesser extent Ted Cruz, that Donald Trump is a con man.

Trump may well be a con man but we aren’t going to deal with that here. Instead, we will look at the candidate dynamics behind such complaints.

Donald Trump was on the stage for nine Republican debates and in the first seven neither Marco Rubio nor Ted Cruz got close to any of these issues. In the eighth debate, they made a slight attempt and then, finally, in the ninth debate Trump is a con man.

One of the most important aspects of multi-candidate field dynamics is that how you treat your opponents over the course of a campaign matters. Dramatic swings in a candidate’s approach hurt credibility.

In debate after debate, Trump was allowed to build a rapport with the Republican base. Cruz welcomed his energy into the conservative movement and did not suggest any problems. Rubio helpfully said next to nothing about Trump.

If a con man lays out the terms of his deal in front of two rivals and one says the man is terrific and the other person says nothing, you are likely to sign on if you like the terms of the deal. Now let’s say, at the eleventh hour before the deal is to go into effect, those rivals come back and say never mind what we’ve said for eight months this man is a con-artist. Well if the rivals are still going after the same deal, they are likely to be utterly unpersuasive. And if a third person who had been a rival for the deal shows up (Chris Christie of course) and vouches for the “con man,” that’s the end of the argument.

There is almost no chance that these arguments will work. A reasonable person will ask: Why didn’t you inform people earlier? People who seemed to be in on the con have little credibility in denouncing it. Thus, this argument, that might have been effective at one time, now looks like the complaint of sore losers.

More on the Republican dynamics tomorrow.

Read More

South Carolina Democratic Preview/Prediction.

Odds: Clinton 100% Sanders Zero

Margin: Clinton 65% Sanders 35%

Delegates:
Total: Clinton 34 Sanders 19

Allocations:
1.  Party Leader Elected Officials 5-2 Clinton
2.  At Large 7-4 Clinton
3.  1^st district 3-2 Clinton
4.  2^nd 3-2 Clinton
5.  3^rd 2-1 Clinton
6.  4^th 3-1 Clinton
7.  5^th 3-2 Clinton
8.  6^th 5-3 Clinton
9.  7^th 3-2 Clinton

While the winner and the basic tenor of the margin don’t present a particularly difficult call (and have been to some degree telegraphed), just how large the victory will be remains somewhat of a mystery.

There has been strikingly little polling conducted in South Carolina on the Democratic side since Nevada, but leads in other places have tended to be getting larger. Secretary Clinton is on track to win every district and win five splits by sufficient margin to achieve better than just the one delegate you get for a win in an odd delegate bucket.

Clinton’s best chance to exceed even these predictions would be in the 6^th district, where she would require 68.75% of the vote. Her next opportunities would be to garner 68.1% statewide and then 70 plus % in the 1^st, 2^nd, 5^th or 7^th districts. These possibilities constitute the extent of suspense. [Claw backs are possible in not cracking achieving a 3-1 split in the 4th, or getting a 5-2 split as opposed to 4-3 in the PLEO bucket.] Our call: Clinton by 15 delegates; perhaps a 20% chance she earns more than that and 15% for one or both claw backs.

Super Tuesday looms, and the chasm between the candidates has not closed.

Read More

Chris Christie wants to be President.

                While everyone has lots of different takes on this new announcement. Our take is simple. Chris Christie wants to be  President of United States. He still wants to be President.  He knows Donald Trump will have an incredibly hard time beating Hillary Clinton.  He also know how difficult it will be for any of the other Republican candidates to get the nomination.  Besides bridgegate, Chris Christie’s biggest problem was that he was too close to President Obama. That is now gone.   He has made an army of new friends on the far right of the Republican Party. The race for 2020 is on, and Chris Christie has positioned himself well.  To establishment donors who may be furious, Christie can argue successfully that it was over before his endorsement and that none of the other candidates had a chance against HRC either.   Regardless he has put himself on the correct emotional tenor of this party.  Wanting to be president is like Gollum and the Ring.  Chris Christie wants it.  

Read More

A First Take on the Republican Delegate Math for March 1st

                Here’s a quick take on the Republican delegate math as we approach Super Tuesday. This is a rough estimate that will be adjusted as more polls come in.

                Because Republican rules rely so much on thresholds, which requires getting between 15% or 20% in a particular state to receive any delegates, the results can change a lot depending on whether candidates reach that level. We mostly think that Trump, Cruz and Rubio are all likely to get to those thresholds in all the March 1^st states. But in a number of states it is very close and missing a threshold can cost someone up to 10 delegates. Missing a bunch of them can be fatal. Rubio is at risk of missing in Texas. Cruz is at risk in Alabama, Tennessee and Georgia.

As it stands now Trump would win 273 Delegates, Cruz would win 185 (nearly half in Texas), Rubio would win 135, Kasich would grab 16 and Carson would take 5.  We haven’t included Colorado’s 37 delegates. The state’s process is something of a black box because its caucus will elect delegates who will elect delegates, who will elect the national convention delegates. The first stage of delegates will decide the delegates to the national convention but without it being revealed who the delegates are for. That leaves those 37 delegates a wild card. Still, this gives a rough idea of what we are looking at.

Monday night we will have final, final numbers. 

Read More

Trump’s World

Last night’s victory for Donald Trump was remarkable in its size and scope. He is looking remarkably strong. This also puts somewhat to rest the idea that he has a “ceiling” of 30% and certainly casts doubt on the assumption that a single opponent would certainly defeat Trump if the field were winnowed to only one Trump challenger. The Trump can’t win a two way showdown is one of the last myths propping up anti-Trump forces. Through three contests, what we are really looking at is a Republican Party split into 3 pieces. Donald Trump appears to have firmly captured about 1/3 of Republican primary voters. This is what he getting in national polls. There is also something like 1/3 of Republican primary voters who profoundly do not like Trump. They matter, and a lot of them are lining up behind Senator Rubio [with a side dish for Kasich]. But there is another 1/3 mostly supporting Cruz and Carson who are up for grabs. They like Trump and would be relatively comfortable with his nomination, but they are not there yet.

We see this three way split in the New Hampshire and South Carolina exit polls if we look closely. In those states 65% and 72% of the primary electorate, respectively, supported the temporary ban on Muslims entering the U.S. It’s hard to see that those who find themselves in this right wing bloc would truly be uncomfortable with Mr. Trump. This means the fallacy of consolidation is a myth. Instead, for Donald Trump to be stopped it will require a coordinated effort by all three remaining candidates [leaving aside sideshow Ben Carson]. Here are things that are incredibly likely.

Donald Trump will get the most votes of any Republican presidential candidate. Donald Trump is extremely likely to get the most delegates. One question is whether Trump can get to 50% of all delegates and another is what happens if he doesn’t. The way the delegate math works all three Republicans challenging Trump are both essential to stopping him from getting to 50% but also incredibly dangerous to each other in upcoming Winner take all States. We will be getting into the weeds on the math this weekend but for now there’s much room to enjoy life in Donald Trump’s world.

Read More

The All Important Republican Texas primary

There are 13 Republican contests a week from today but none looms larger than Texas. Texas has 155 delegates, or 6 percent of the total number of delegates. Even if Ted Cruz won’t, we have no problem saying it--he has to win here. Although he might hope that a getting a decent share of delegates can keep him alive, the perception that he couldn’t win his home state would doom his candidacy.

The Cruz campaign’s hedging might be based on what “winning Texas” means: Is a win getting more votes or taking home more delegates?

Let’s review the rules. Texas will award 47 at large delegates proportionally to everyone who receives 20% of the vote, unless someone gets 50% of the vote. Given a four-candidate field, someone getting half of all votes seems exceptionally unlikely. The most interesting question here is whether Marco Rubio people will be able to get to 20%. If not, he will be completely shut out of this group of 47 delegates. (Just to show Texas’ importance, if the Texas at large delegates were a Super Tuesday state themselves they would be the sixth largest state for delegate totals.)

At first blush, this an easy call and Rubio should make it. Rubio got 23% in Iowa and 22% in South Carolina. Bush no longer torments him. The first poll we have seen post South Carolina has him at 23% and finishing second in Georgia, just eight points back of Trump.

What this misses in Texas is the traditional home state effect that candidates get. All one needs to do is go back and look at past primaries--Gingrich in Georgia in 2012, Obama in Illinois in 2008, and Hillary Clinton in Arkansas in 2008--to see that they all outperformed what otherwise would have been expected of them. Georgia was gave about 20% more to Gingrich than similar states. Or consider Clinton’s 2008 performance in New York, where she overall performed solidly though not spectacularly. New York African Americans voted for Obama 61-38, while New Jersey African Americans voted for Obama 82-14. Being from New York meant something.

Rubio seems to acknowledge the danger he faces in Texas and has both a Wednesday and Friday event scheduled there in addition to Thursday’s debate. Getting to threshold will probably happen for him but it will not be easy.

The remaining 108 Texas delegates things are even tougher.

Each of Texas’s 36 Congressional districts get three delegates. Anyone who gets 50% of the vote in a district would win all three; otherwise the winner gets two and the runner up gets one. This is where Cruz and Trump are really slugging it out. Winning more districts is much more important delegate-wise than getting the most votes. Each 2.1% of statewide vote is worth approximately one delegate.(A caveat: non-viable candidate’s votes are re-allocated so i might be a bit more depending on how many candidates don’t get to threshold.) This compares to every win in a district, which is worth two delegates. Because winning districts and getting more votes are related, there will not be a large gap between districts won and state vote share. Still, it is possible to to win delegate race and lose the popular vote.

Rubio is likely to find it to be struggle to get second place district finishes when up against the two titans of Cruz and Trump. Breaking through for second anywhere is going to be a challenge. A place to look for Rubio seconds is the districts where comparative establishment candidates did well in 2010, 2012 and 2014. Texas has seen it fair share of Establishment versus Right-Wing Battles. A look at the map shows no real keys to where second place finishes might come for Rubio.

For Cruz the goal is simple: first place in every district. For Trump a win or two in some districts, combined with solid seconds most everywhere else, will gain his campaign a respectable number of delegates. For Rubio it is all about reaching the Threshold and adding a few second place finishes. It is hard to get people to focus on anything but obvious wins and losses. But the question of whether Rubio gets to 20% in Texas could easily be far more important than who wins in Virginia.

Read More

Republican Caucus Nevada Preview.

Republican Caucus Nevada Preview

Odds: Trump 50% Cruz 25% Rubio 25%

Margin

Trump 40%

Rubio 25%

Cruz 23%

Kasich 7%

Carson 5%

Delegates

Trump 12

Rubio 8

Cruz 7 

Kasich 2

Carson 1

Let us be candid. We have no idea what will happen in Nevada.

First thing to remember: it is a caucus. Caucus turnout plummets, particularly after Iowa. The normal rules do not apply. Therefore any constellation of events is possible for the three viable campaigns competing there.

Some polling informs our predictions, but the Nevada polling on the Republican side was widely off in 2008. The other reason we think what we think is because it’s what Jon Ralston thinks, at least in terms of Trump winning. Jon Ralston, who is based out of Nevada, is one of the top ten political reporters in the country based out He knows his state. We also think Rubio is getting hot at the right time. The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints (Mormons), which were crucial for Romney in 2008 and 2012, will help him beat the otherwise passionate Cruz people.

This is utterly a hunch. When the contest is a primary and we like the polling and it’s recent (there has been nothing post-South Carolina) then we feel confident. Without that, we can’t be.

Should be exciting. 

Read More

Sanders has only 6 days left to close the chasm in South Carolina; 9 days to close the chasm nationally.

                As the results from Nevada came in on the Democratic side, something became exceptionally clear. Saturday was not just a very good day for Hillary Clinton, it provided a piece of information that while not unexpected does put a pretty fine point on the challenge for Sanders.

 African-American voters, according to the entrance poll, voted for Hillary Clinton 76% to 22%.   Entrance polling should be taken with a grain of salt, as the controversy over the entrance poll with respect to Hispanics reveals [this blog thinks Team Clinton won Nevada Hispanics by the way}. Nonetheless, Clinton’s success with African-Americans was big enough, and a big enough surprise, to enable Senator Clinton to win the Nevada 4^th, a six delegate district, by a large enough margin to gain better than an even split of the delegates.  Her 4-2 margin helped her win the overall delegate count by 20-15.  

The Nevada 4th was 13.6% African American, and the caucus goers were estimated at 20% African-American with perhaps 25% as the possible upper limit.

Even if Sanders actually outperformed the entrance poll and lost African-Americans only 70% to 30%, this is still an absolute disaster for his campaign.  In South Carolina such a margin would likely net Hillary Clinton at least 11 delegates with outer limit possibilities far higher.  According to the Bernie Barrier chart,  http://cookpolitical.com/story/9179 Sanders is now 15 delegates off the pace needed to earn him a tie amongst pledged delegates.  A loss in South Carolina of only 11 delegates would put Sanders another 6 delegates off pace.   And a loss by 11 delegates would be likely, even if Sanders cuts the deficit from 70 % to 30% to 65% to 35%.   We can defer discussion of the significance of the African-American vote across all the primaries since the South Carolina story already makes clear just how decisive this vote will be.      

Sanders has only 9 days to close this gap across the March 1 states, and in some ways less time because early voting has commenced in Georgia, Tennessee and Texas.  African-Americans are more likely than others to take advantage of early voting.  This bottom line is that Sanders’ troubles with African-American alones, if not solved and solved quickly, can single handedly end any chance the Sanders campaign has to win the pledged delegates.  9 days is certainly a lot of time in politics, but this has been a red flag waving for months.  Sanders’ win in New Hampshire did not fix it, and it is hard to imagine what will.   We will keep making predictions on the D.C. side throughout the campaign,  just don’t expect the commentary to be as voluminous.

Nevada Republican Caucus preview coming soon. 

Read More

The Republican Nightmare Continues

So last night’s big news was of course the persistence of Donald Trump and the end of Jeb Bush. Although the battle for Bush’s supporters and particularly his money will be fierce, it is important to note that his $116,000,000 in Super Pac money amounted to basically nothing. It is also important to mention that his willingness to stay in the race longer than he should have is a dynamic that will continue to play out in the campaign – though not involving anyone named Bush.

  Donald Trump is resilient and clever. To defeat him may require getting this down to a two- person race – and fast. While ignoring the Ben Carson comedy hour, there are four viable Republican candidates left.

Jeb Bush received some fool’s gold In New Hampshire by edging Marco Rubio by slightly less than 1300 votes. That was enough for him to press on to South Carolina. He could spin a tale that allowed him to march on. The fact that he made that decision helped Trump by having Rubio’s second place position in South Carolina look like a weak tie rather what could have been a solid finish had Bush’s support migrated to Rubio. 

Jeb wanted to believe for an extra 10 days and thus here we sit. All remaining non-Trump candidates have a plausible story to tell themselves about how they can win and each tale is in fact plausible.  

Let’s start with a story that isn’t plausible and this cannot be stressed enough. There is talk that it will be a challenge for any one candidate to win a majority of the delegates, period, and if that happens Trump will not be the nominee. But let’s be real. If Donald Trump wins the most votes and the most delegates and is not nominated due to some Republican establishment plot, Trump will make certain that “victory” will taste as bitter as defeat. What is clear based on the results so far is that absolutely no Republican for any office anywhere can win without a strong showing among the Trump voters. Thus attempts to deny him the nomination if he doesn’t get a majority of delegates should not considered a serious strategy.    

With that out of the way, we can look at the next set of contests and the dilemmas they pose.

   Nevada is Tuesday. It is a proportional caucus so unlikely to produce a big delegate lead for anyone. But the battle for second place in Nevada might matter just a tiny bit because anything might help going into the “SEC primary.“

On March 1^st seven Southern states vote: Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma, Texas, Tennessee and Virginia. There are also four caucus states (Alaska, Colorado, Minnesota and Wyoming), and two Northern states (Massachusetts and Vermont.) Leaving aside the caucuses, which are much more complicated, the battle in the South is between Cruz and Rubio for second place finishes in certain Congressional districts outside of Texas, and whether Rubio can reach second in any Texas district or get to the 20% threshold there. Trump will win all these states, except Texas, where Cruz is likely to win.

Virginia is straight proportional and Oklahoma will split the district delegates evenly and its at large delegates proportionally. The Southern patchwork quilt of contests gives Cruz a huge advantage because of his obvious strength in Texas. A strong showing in his delegate-rich home state could keep him ahead of Rubio after Super Tuesday.   

The battle for seconds is not glamorous and perhaps someone will find the formula to take down Trump. There are only nine days left to do that, however.

This is why Kasich’s plan is so sneaky and brilliant. He will focus on Massachusetts and Vermont and, to a lesser extent, Virginia because it is proportional, and sit back and watch as Cruz and Rubio struggle against Trump. Neither one may beat Trump anywhere and thus by the time the Michigan primary arrives on March 8^th, a consensus could have emerged that only Kasich is alive against Trump.  

March 15^th looms large, as Rubio and Kasich face do-or-die tests. Losses for either one in their respective home states of Ohio or Florida could leave Cruz as the last man standing. For Kasich, a win in Ohio and a loss for Rubio in Florida sets him up as the last man standing, particularly if Cruz had already been damaged. Likewise for Rubio, if he were to win Florida while Kasich lost Ohio that would be fantastic for him. This dynamic has potentially lethal consequences, however, if all three campaigns work to undermine each other in their respective home states, thus aiding Trump. 

 The problem for all of these candidates is that if every one of them does manage to win their home states, than all four will march on. This drops Trump’s win number across the board. Even all four competing through March 15^th presents problems as a four-way race in Illinois is just what the doctor ordered for Trump. 

We already saw a taste of this In South Carolina. Trump’s win might have been inevitable, but his sweeping every one of the state’s 50 delegates was not. Trump won the 1^st Congressional district and its delegates by only 3000 votes over Rubio. Kasich and Bush combined for slightly over 26,000 in that district. Bush pulling out sooner might have been enough to win the district for Rubio. Kasich’s continued presence and his 13% of the vote there was a problem too. It can continue like this for a long time. A few misplaced votes go to one candidate and then another, and no establishment figure gets the delegate needed to beat Trump. 

 Therefore, a decision to fight even an extra week more can have unintended consequences.  Yet, the psychology of the race does not allow for anyone quitting before absolute necessity kicks in. 

  So long as all of these candidates believe they can win, and to some degree they can, than the process needed to block Trump is stalled and Trump marches on. In 22 days, 31 states will have voted. 

Coming tomorrow: the Democratic race so far and a Nevada Republican caucus preview.  

Read More

It Sucks but You have to Do the Math.

Yesterday, we discussed The New York Times’ difficulties in dealing with delegate math.

538’s sins are more serious. In plotting out both Democratic candidates’ paths to the nomination, 538 relies on the short cut described as the following “based on recent polling demographics, fundraising and Facebook data” rather than digging into the differences among states, territories, districts and even areas within districts.

In doing so, it breaks four important rules.

Rule number one on the Democratic side has to be--and this needs to repeated over and over again--caucuses are not primaries and primaries are not caucuses. The New Hampshire primary had three times the participation of the Iowa caucus, and the Iowa caucus, because of first-in-the-nation status and tradition, has a higher participation rate than any other caucus state. Thus, it doesn’t make sense to use national polling to make any assumptions about caucus states with low participation.

This is particularly true for today’s Nevada caucus. Yes, Nevada is important. The demographics should be good enough for Clinton to overcome the ways in which caucuses disadvantage her and advantage activist candidates. But if they are not, it speaks more to the caucus process than to the overall contest.

Rule number two is that territories count. 538 makes the horrendous decision to simply not mention the territories, such as Guam, probably because they are difficult to poll and project. This is unacceptable. The territories have 99 delegates combined, including Democrats aboard. They can matter. Puerto Rico, for example, has 60 delegates.

An example from a territory also illustrates how important it is to understand individual contests. The Virgin Islands has seven delegates: St. Thomas with four delegates and St. Croix with three. Because St. Thomas has four delegates, a candidate needs to receive 62.5% +1 of the vote to earn an extra delegate there. Because St. Croix has three delegates, the winner of the St. Croix caucus automatically gets an extra delegate. Given how few people participate in the St. Croix caucus (746 in 2008), an individual voter on St. Croix might have more influence than any other voter in the country.

Ignoring territories is a mistake that particularly disadvantages Clinton who is likely to do very well in Puerto Rico (Clinton won 68 to 31 in the vote, 38 to 17 in delegates, even though the race was effectively over at that point in 2008).

The third rule is that the Democratic contest is not really contests in a state or a territory as much as it is individual contests within those states and territories. On the Democratic side, there are more than 500 individual contests and each of those contests can produce a different number of delegates. The only way to meaningfully predict the outcome in a state is to understand each of these contests.

Wednesday, we did the math for Nevada and South Carolina. The net reward for winning Nevada at the statewide level is two delegates. The net reward for getting 56.25% in South Carolina’s 6th district[Where Secretary Clinton just picked up the Congressman], which has eight delegates, is also two delegates. Getting this deep into the weeds might not be fun but it is also the only way to truly get this race.

Here is how the delegate math works in a bigger state to give a sense of how complicated this can be and why winning a state does not mean winning its delegates.

The 538 Chart says Sanders can lose Ohio by 2% to have an even shot at the nomination. Here’s the problem with that. Ohio’s districts are overwhelming even numbered; out of 16 districts,15 award an even number of districts. That means, Sanders and Clinton start off very likely to split the delegates evenly, regardless of outcome. The statewide buckets are odd so a win statewide is worth at least two delegates. However, the one odd-numbered district, the 11^th district, has 17 delegates. So winning 55.8% of the vote there is worth three delegates, creating a 10-7 split compared to just two delegates for a statewide win.

So Clinton winning by even 2% seems to be worth at least three delegates and possibly five delegates. Clinton could win statewide and lose the 11th in theory, but that seems highly unlikely given that it has a large African American population and current polling showing Clinton’s strength among that group. Since no other districts have an odd number of delegates and because only three other districts have more than four delegates, the odds of a split beyond that, particularly those that benefit Sanders, are small. The Cook Political Report’s Democratic Delegate chart, which 538 endorsed, says Sanders needs to lose Ohio by a single delegate. Sure, the difference between a one-delegate win and a five-delegate win may not seem all that large but these differences, added up over time, make things difficult for Sanders.

The fourth and final rule is the value of the African American vote in the Democratic race. 538 minimizes that by making the assumption that winning a state is the same as winning the delegates in that state, thus overlooking the power of particular districts with strong African American majorities. Ohio and its 11^th Congressional district again provide a good example. Gerrymandering and Democratic rules have increased the value of the African American vote. The 11th Congressional district is 54% African American and its primary electorate is probably closer to 60%. A candidate receiving 61.7% of the vote in this 17-delegate district would be entitled to an 11-6 split. A candidate cracking the 11th at this rate could lose the statewide vote and still win the delegate count in Ohio so long as they took 43.75% in each district and got greater than 45% statewide.

2008 is a good guide. Clinton won by 9 points statewide, which netted just five at-large delegates (today it would be worth four delegates because of a change in the number of delegates). Clinton won 13 of 18 Congressional districts yet netted just two delegates at the district level. One of the primary reasons is that cracking in four-delegate districts is hard. Clinton didn’t crack in any of the seven such districts in 2008, Obama cracked in one. This year, 12 of Ohio’s 16 districts have four delegates. To give you an idea of the scale required, Sanders’ margin of victory in New Hampshire is not large enough to crack a four-delegate district. In addition, the five-delegate districts received the extra delegate as a reward for strong Democratic turnout.

This is the kind of analysis that is required for every single state and district. And we will provide a best guess to every single delegate so long as the race is contested.

538 cobbled together a heuristic model based on national polling and other data. It simply is not good enough to provide an accurate representation of where the race is. It sucks that you have to do the math, but you have to do the math.

Read More

South Carolina Republican Primary and Nevada Democratic Caucus Predictions

Nevada Democratic Caucus

Odds Clinton 55% Sanders 45% 

Margin Clinton 52% Sanders 48%

Delegates 19-16 Clinton 

This is an exceptionally difficult call. Were this the Nevada primary, Clinton would be about a 10-point favorite based on what we are seeing nationally. Because caucuses have such lower turnouts and because lower turnout tends to benefit those with energy and passion it’s much harder to predict.

In 2008, this led to a technical Clinton victory at the state level but an Obama victory at the delegate level. The 2^nd district had been split into three parts, two of which had an odd number of delegates. Everything else broke evenly. So Obama won district level delegates by two, lost the statewide delegates by one and thus won by a single delegate.

The addition of a fourth Congressional district in Nevada ended the 2^nd district split. There are now four districts. As our delegate math showed, in such a close race each candidate can be very confident of receiving 16 delegates. The battle is over the last three delegates. Polling such as there is gives Clinton an average lead of 3.5%. However that is basically just the Gravis poll, which gives her a six-point lead. It should be taken with a grain of salt because that polling firm found Clinton was 11 points ahead in the run-up to Iowa.

The fact Clinton has been on the ground longer leads us to believe she will gut it out. Even if she loses statewide, she would seem to be more likely to win the 1^st congressional district with one delegate. That would potentially mitigate a statewide loss to just one delegate. So I’m going to say Clinton will win close but so close a flip would be not out of the question.

South Carolina Republican Primary

Odds Trump 80% Cruz 9% Rubio 11%

Margin: Trump 31% Cruz 23% Rubio 22% Bush 10% Kasich 8 % Carson 6%

Delegates Trump 50 

Donald Trump appears to be leading here and the polling average is still right in line with New Hampshire results. A small number of late breaking trends, however, suggest this may be closer than it might otherwise seem. Trump leads but a surprise upset is more possible than it looked even seven or eight hours ago.

The battle for second place here is fierce between Cruz and Rubio. Both have a good story for why he might come in second or even win. Cruz is stronger with evangelical Christians who outperformed in Iowa, giving him a win. During the campaign so far, his ability to target the right voters with the right message has been completely on point. Cruz is second in the average, though only by less than a point.

Rubio, on the other hand, has a gust of wind that seems stronger than Cruz’s. He has recently been endorsed by the Governor of the State, As important, the Rubio campaign could be a more natural home for supporters of either Governor Bush or Governor Kasich who see the writing on the wall.

In the end in Iowa, Bush, Kasich and Christie all considerably underperformed their already poor polling results. The caveat is that those campaigns in Iowa seemed moribund, whereas Kasich, after his New Hampshire finish, and Bush, with his brother showing up, have more signs of life in South Carolina. Kasich and Bush need to combine for around 20% of the vote (we have it at 18%] to keep Rubio in third.  Lower than that and Rubio may be poised to make up the ground for second.

Even though we think he’ll come in third, Rubio is more likely than Cruz to catch Trump for a surprise win. Cruz has his challenges with Carson continuing to poll at 7% (6% predicted here). The earlier assumption was that Cruz and Carson share a similar base so if Carson dropped out, his voters would migrate to Cruz. The Iowa feud over Cruz supporters claiming Carson had left the race put an end to that alignment and is a big problem for Cruz going forward.

Rubio also has a slight advantage in terms of polling momentum. He appears to be gaining in polls from yesterday and today although they are quite spotty.  This race comes down to whether you believe slightly more recent polling, or polling by better companies. We have chosen the better companies, particularly because we like the Cruz organization. But boy is it close.  

Earlier in the week a Bush third in South Carolina seemed possible but newer polling has shut the door on that. Fourth seems more likely and possibly be enough to end his campaign.

For Kasich, edging out Bush would be a shot in the arm. He’s mostly hoping for chaos for everyone not named Trump. Kasich probably won’t get past Bush but doing quasi-respectably and the end of Bush is the story for him.

Carson’s likely sixth place finish would end a sane campaign but his profit-driven racket shows no signs of ending The campaign raised $54 million through December, which has been spent primarily on raising money.  

This is where we are with fewer than 24 hours until polls close. The battle for second is fierce. Trump should win but it is closer than we thought even one day ago. 

Read More

How the Press is Getting Things Wrong

What is the best way to get attention for one poll in the midst of this busy political season when several polls are released a day? The answer seems to be having results that are starkly different than the prevailing polling average or consensus.

During Wednesday night’s Republican Town Hall on CNN, Anderson Cooper congratulated Ted Cruz on his lead in the most recent Wall Street Journal/NBC Poll without an acknowledgment that two other polls in the field at roughly the same time found Trump with the same lead he’s had for months. Another poll this morning confirmed the findings of a big Trump lead.  On the Democratic side, the Rachel Maddow Show trumpeted the Quinnipiac poll that showed Clinton’s lead had shrunk to two points nationally even though other polls showed Clinton maintaining about an 8-point lead.

The press has a clear and consistent pattern of focusing on the outlier poll. Now as it happens outliers can sometimes be right. In New Hampshire, the WMUR Poll was the outlier on the Democratic side and it turned out to be closest to correct. But more often outliers are wrong for the simple reason that if everyone is trying their best to accomplish an identical tasking using similar methods they will get similar results. If you sent four people on a treasure hunt and three people returned and said one thing and one person said another and you had no particular reason to believe the one person, you would not treat his or her news as the only news.

Mistakes are not confined to the TV journalists whose primary objective is to put on a good show. They also plague the two most respected sources of political data journalism, The New York Times and fivethirtyeight.com

Let’s start with The Times today and move onto 538 tomorrow.

We were thrilled The New York Times caught up to our thinking on Republican delegate math, but it is clear The Times is not quite there in terms of its analysis. Here is the article.

It flags the 20% threshold that is required to get any delegates in the Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee and Texas primaries, which is incredibly important. The article suggests that Marco Rubio could get as many as 70 delegates in those states. Yet, the article neglects just how many of the delegates are awarded at the district level.

In Texas, two-thirds of the 155 delegates are awarded at the district level and only the top two finishers in each district are awarded delegates. Thus, even if Rubio charges into Texas and claims a healthy 25% of the statewide vote, which would be worth 12 at-large delegates, he’d still need second place finishes in some Congressional districts to avoid a poor showing.

In all seven threshold states, a candidate that gets 25% but never comes in second at the district level will get only 54 at-large delegates. Oklahoma gives one delegate to each of the top three finishers, thus making it somewhat less interesting. In Oklahoma’s five districts, as long as Trump, Cruz and Rubio each get at least 15%, which seems less likely, they’ll each come away with one delegate. Adding in Oklahoma that means Rubio is more likely to get 59 delegates, not the 70 the Times suggested.

At 20% (not 25%), the number of delegates drops to 48, including Texas, and 39 without. With favorite son Cruz leading and Trump coming on strong in the Lone Star state, Rubio is challenged to get the one-fifth he needs.

Still, the Times could maintain that 59 is not that far away from the 70 it predicted and that Rubio getting 25% in some of these states could lead to second place district finishes. If he came in second in 11 districts across five states (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Texas and Tennessee) earning a delegate per district, he could end up with 70 delegates.

It’s hard to imagine Rubio, however, will get to second in any districts in Texas. It’s even harder to imagine given the current polling that he would actually win a district anywhere. It’s not impossible but it is a serious challenge with Kasich still biting at his tail and Bush still possibly hanging around.

The point here is that the Times implies that 20% is worth 70 delegates for Rubio, but it is much more likely that he needs at least 25% as well as reaching the threshold in Texas. Trump and Cruz taking every single delegate in Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee and Texas is as likely an outcome as Rubio getting the 70 this article implies he can get. (Reaching the 15% threshold in Arkansas looks likely for Rubio so he should be getting some at-large delegates there.)

Another problem with this article is that it refers to Colorado and Minnesota as moderate states. This might be the case if they were holding primaries, but they’re not. Both states are holding caucuses that are often not representative of the state’s leanings. While the Colorado caucus was close between the moderate Romney and conservative Santorum in 2012, the Minnesota caucus was an absolute nightmare for Romney.

The Times also hinted that with late states could make up for problems on March 1^st and that Rubio could take the delegate-rich, winner-take-all Ohio. But it doesn’t consider whether Rubio can win Ohio with John Kasich still in the race. Since Kasich is already gathering absentee ballots in Ohio, he may not even have to be in the race to keep Rubio from winning. He could have already banked as much as 10 percent of the vote in Ohio. (Old nugget: Joe Lieberman, who had quit the president’s race almost a month before, still received 5% of the vote in Connecticut with no real effort.) The conundrum posed by all of these moving pieces will be interesting to unspool after South Carolina.

For now, it is enough to note that as hard as the Times made it seem for Rubio to win, it is actually harder. Later today previews for South Carolina Republican and Nevada Democrat contest tomorrow.

Read More

Democratic Delegate Math for Nevada and South Carolina

So by now you likely know the drill. Democrats decide each contest proportionally with a 15% viability threshold, which is not likely to matter anymore since there are only two candidates. Combined Nevada and South Carolina hold 13 separate contests with 15 separate delegate buckets. There will be 11 district contests and each statewide result will produce two buckets of delegates based on statewide contests.

Nevada has 35 pledged delegates divided as follows: three six-delegate districts and one five-delegate district and statewide delegates divided into a group of five and a group of seven. What that means is that, barring a truly shocking outcome, each side is a lock for 13 delegates a piece. It would require 64% or greater statewide, or 68% or 70% in some districts to prevent that split. That simply will not happen. Therefore only nine of the 35 delegates are really up for grabs. Even that number might be a stretch. In the six-delegate districts, a candidate would need 58% plus and that looks increasingly unlikely. So the Nevada battle is over three delegates. The winner of the 1st district, which has five delegates, will receive an extra delegate and the winner statewide will receive two. The statewide winner gets a delegate from each of the odd-number buckets statewide.

Returning to the Cook Political Report on what Sanders needs to win, it looks like to be on pace to get enough delegates out of Nevada he’ll need to crack a six-delegate district, or get 58.33% of the vote. Because Sanders is already10 delegates behind the pace Cook says he needs, falling farther behind, even in victory, can be dangerous. The most likely outcome is that the candidates will split the delegates either 19-16 or 18-17, with either Sanders or Clinton coming out on top.

Moving to South Carolina, we can make the same judgments about the most obvious splits. South Carolina has 53 pledged delegates. South Carolina has seven districts: four five-delegate districts, one three-delegate district, one four-delegate district and one eight-delegate district. The at-large numbers are 7 and 11. Barring huge margins (larger than anything seen in public polling), each side looks locked into getting 20 delegates. This leaves 13 delegates in play: two to the statewide winner; another five, one a piece to the winner in all of the odd districts; and three cracking opportunities based off of current polling.

Without cracking anywhere, Clinton would get a 30-23 split as she seems likely to sweep the districts. The cracking opportunities are as follows. In the eight-delegate district, which also has the heaviest concentration of African Americans, the cracking number of 56.25% seems quite likely for Clinton, giving her a 5-3 delegate split. For the 11-delegate statewide group, the cracking number of 59% seems within range but not a sure thing for the Clinton campaign. The four-delegate district, which would require a cracking number of 62.5%, seems less likely for Clinton but should not be ruled out completely.

Even if the split were to stay at 30-23, which based on current polling would be a bit of an upset for Sanders, he would still fall another two delegates behind pace. Thus the most likely outcome of the next two states, even in Sanders’ best case scenario, is that he will fall another four delegates behind pace.

Read More

Two weeks till the real test.

On March 1, there will be 12 Democratic contests and 13 Republican contests. That is just two weeks away. It is easier to focus on the two closer contests (Nevada and South Carolina) than it is to focus on so many contests in so many places. Reporters, operatives and regular voters tend to do that for cognitive reasons. They also justify this focus based on the idea that events, momentum and trajectory matter and reshape subsequent races.

Despite the belief that events trigger later election outcomes, in fact coalitions are likely to have already been built and that means events do not register quite as much as expected. Just this year, for example, the results in Iowa seem to have had little impact on the results in New Hampshire, and that was true on both sides of the aisle. Likewise, in 2008 the results from the first four contests would have been good enough to predict the outcome of the Democratic race in all 50 states. Who was strong in what coalitions, how important caucuses were going to be for Obama, all of that was in place early on.

This is why South Carolina and Nevada may seem important but the new National NBC Survey Monkey poll could be more revealing.

On the Democratic side what is clear is that while Sanders now leads with white voters 47-44, Sanders’ effort with non-white voters is going exceptionally slowly. This is a problem because he only has two weeks to close a big gap. Although Sanders has closed a bit nationally overall in this poll, his New Hampshire win did not even come close to ending the wide split.

The more voluminous polling is South Carolina is more instructive because serious efforts are being made to close the gap among African American voters there. Sanders seem to have made some gains but nowhere near at the pace needed to fix the problem by March 1st. The pattern of whites supporting the non-establishment candidates and minorities not has appeared in many Democratic primaries in the past, particularly in Andrew Cuomo’s 2014 primary challenge. The insurgent closed hard with whites but never got close with non-whites. Sanders in short has two weeks to solve this very large problem across the eight non-caucus, non-Vermont states: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. Two weeks is not a lot of time and the door is closing.

There is much more flux on the Republican side because five candidates are still somewhat viable. But if Trump’s lead holds up in South Carolina, his national lead means the other scramblers will have only 10 days to change everything. Since the Republican rules allow for winner- take-all contests, things can change quickly. However, it should be disconcerting for those watching on the Republican side to see Trump very close to 40% nationally with 13 states coming in two weeks.

While the caucus states are a wild card, the rest of the states look like tough nuts for any one else to crack, with the exception of Ted Cruz’s home state of Texas. Trump seems likely to win at least eight primaries, with Cruz and Rubio having a decent shot at two or three states. (What winning means in Colorado is difficult to define because the state will not report results but will send delegates based on who won the delegates.) It is hard to believe that Trump can win 10 or 11 out of 17 contests and will then see a reversal four days later when four other states vote, or seven days after that when another four states vote. Maybe the Trump train can be derailed on March 15th when the big winner-take-all states of Ohio and Florida vote, along with Missouri, Illinois and North Carolina. Maybe, but it is certainly not a sure thing.

We will key in on the next two states soon but the decisive races may be two weeks ago.

Read More

Trump. V. Bush and the Battle for Oxygen

So it is has finally come to this. After Saturday’s debate, Trump’s press conference and George W.’s campaigning, we are in a full-on slugfest between Donald Trump and Jeb Bush.

Traditionally, in multi-candidate field dynamics when two candidates are whacking away at each other it benefits the other candidates. However, it is possible that in this race there will be a different effect.

In its up and downs, and in its entire being, this campaign has been about Donald Trump. What Jeb Bush is attempting to do is make this race a referendum on Donald Trump. By bringing in George W. Bush and making it so personal, Jeb Bush is saying that those who wish to oppose Donald Trump should vote for him. He is even messaging against Rubio and Cruz, implying that their refusal to go after Trump means they are not worthy adversaries.

This strategy poses particular challenges for Marco Rubio who lacks a clear plan. Cruz has mined a lane of Christian conservatives relentlessly. Even Kasich, who is counting on doing better in other states, still has a South Carolina strategy. He’s chasing Northern transplants and those who want to rise above the muck. But Rubio lacks a clearly defined group of supporters or argument. He thus is hoping to patch together a wide swath of supporters. This is a hard strategy if the press is focused on the battle elsewhere. 

Bush and Trump clawing at each other may not help the other candidates. As things heat up, voters may be inclined to want to weigh in on the referendum question of Bush or Trump. That helps Bush, even as it also helps Trump.  

While we wait on more polling from South Carolina, these are the dynamics to consider. 

Read More

The Republicans wish they had the Democratic Party’s nominating rules.

We have heard much lately about the alleged lack of democracy in the Democratic Party presidential selection rules, particularly about the role of super delegates. There are legitimate grounds for complaint. However peering over the fence at the Republican side of the wall gives us an idea of just how lucky Democrats are to have the rules they do. The Democrats have a strictly proportional system, allocating delegates in every contest with a 15% threshold. 15% of all delegates are also unpledged (so-called super delegates) people whose loyalty is to the party as an institution rather than to a particular candidate (although they can endorse). These super delegates get their standing outside of direction from any primary or caucus voting process. Clearly super delegates have an incentive to support the voters’ choice because a party that lacks democratic legitimacy would face difficult challenges in winning elections. And parties want nothing more than to win elections. Yet the super delegate process also can prove salutary in the event one candidate may exploit some of the weakness of the selection system. Delegates awarded in caucuses, for example, lack a certain democratic legitimacy because participation is so much lower than in primaries. Super delegates provide a possibility for correction. Proportionality also enhances the value of individual votes since it prevents unfair outcomes in which winning by a single vote in a state can get you all the delegates. Thus the Democratic system is a relatively fair approximation of both what the voters want and what the party wants.

However, as we head toward South Carolina on the Republican side, things look much different. Donald Trump, who in last night’s debate broke in a profound way with Republican orthodoxy on Iraq, looks poised to win in South Carolina. Even If we surmise that Trump’s performance hurt him and that he will drop down to 30% of the vote, the rules in South Carolina could mean that he will still win all of the South Carolina delegates. There are many states in the Republican process that either entirely reward winning or reward winning to a degree far greater than mere proportionality. Thus candidate Trump, who averages between 30% and 40% of the votes in a number of states, could get a far higher percentage in delegates. On the Democratic side a candidate would need 58% of pledged delegates to win without gaining support of any super delegates, thus negating the possibility of a candidate like Trump sweeping through. No such safeguard exists on the Republican side. Trump, with 35% nationally would wind up with roughly 30% of delegates under the Democratic rules. Trump, with 35% on the Republican side, could end up over 50%. While Republican leaders may soon try and push candidates out of the race, until and unless the field narrows dramatically, those hanging around permit Trump to accumulate large numbers of delegates with smaller fractions of the vote Moreover, Trump has virtually no endorsements from the type of people who are super delegates on the Democratic side (officeholders and party officials). Because they don’t get a vote on the Republican side, Trump is in a far better position than most observers realize. Although the roller coaster may not follow the path he meant, John Kasich may have been right when he urged Republicans to buckle their seat belts.

Read More

Republicans let the snow get awfully high before they tried to melt it or move it.

The most recent South Carolina poll has Donald Trump with a commanding 36.3% of the vote as opposed to 19.6% for Ted Cruz, 14.6% for Marco Rubio, 10.9% for Jeb Bush, and 8.7% for John Kasich. As we were writing, we saw another poll that basically confirmed this assessment. Bush and Rubio flipped places but the margin between them shrank to almost nothing.

By any definition, Trump has another huge lead. With South Carolina being winner take all at both the statewide and district level, this gives Trump a chance for a huge delegate win. With a week to go, Donald Trump looks dominate. Yesterday, we outlined the reasons why. Today we’ll jump back into our friend, multi-candidate field dynamics in a more complicated way.

For many Republicans at the beginning of this race, Donald Trump seemed like a useful foil. So Ted Cruz hugged him and didn’t care that much if right-wingers bonded with him. In the end, Cruz figured, they would leave Trump for him and, if anything, Trump’s candidacy would make Cruz seems like less of a threat to others.

For the more establishment wing, Trump’s collapse was inevitable so he was not to be worried about. Establishment Republicans ignored him and hoped. In the meantime, Trump climbed and climbed. He became a blizzard, blanketing much of the country. Establishment Republicans continued to ignore him and hope, assuming that all snow melts. And, of course, all snow does melt but it takes time and heat. The more of it there is, the longer it takes. We are now seeing efforts to apply heat to Trump. Bush’s Superpac Right to Rise even used a similar metaphor in its attack: Trump as a melting ice sculpture.

The problem for non-Trump Republicans is that opinion has a tendency to harden. People who like Trump and bought in are much less likely to change their minds now when presented with negative information. They’ve formed a positive opinion.

Iowa is a perfect example. Yes, Trump was beaten, but in a caucus state with relatively low turnout. Most important, Trump did not melt completely under the heat of similar attacks, holding on to 85% of his polled supporters in Iowa. More and nastier attacks might be planned for South Carolina, but if Trump holds even 80% of his polled supporters, that would still give him 29% in a five-way race, which seems like a near certain win. (It is technically a six-way race technically, though Carson doesn’t stand a chance and therefore a vote for Carson is a vote for Trump.) The amount of heat needed, combined with the time left to melt all the snow, means the Establishment Republicans are not likely to have a thaw that will allow them to recover. After what’s likely to be another avalanche in South Carolina in seven days, they’ll have fewer than four weeks to fight back in winner-take-all Ohio and Florida. They let the Trump pile on before they tried to do anything.

Read More

“God” v. “Country” v. “Country” in South Carolina

With only eight days until South Carolina votes, that primary looms exceptionally large. On the Republican side, we see it as a battle between three major ideas each of which represents a core ideology of South Carolina voters. They are: “God,” “Country” and “Country.” Let us explain.

The “God” idea is represented by rightwing evangelicals who support Ted Cruz. They were the key to his success in Iowa and his third place showing in New Hampshire. The kingdom of God, represented by James Dobson et al., has Ted Cruz’s back, and it is a powerful force. 

“Country” is American patriotism as expressed by those who tend to support Jeb Bush. They favor a steady hand who will keep us safe through a strong military. That view of “Country” is the focus of the George W. Bush ad for his brother. It will clearly be W’s theme when he campaigns for Jeb in South Carolina on Monday. 

But South Carolina also has another idea of “Country,” that of the lost cause and racial supremacy. Donald Trump is the champion of this “Country.” Trump is of course not going around waving the Confederate battle flag. He doesn’t have to.  His language about Muslims, Hispanics and support for police makes this message abundantly clear. His previous foray into Birtherism also gives him all the racist credibility that he needs. His assault on “political correctness” has the same effect. Here’s another, subtler example. In his riff on the evils of trade,  Germany never kills us on trade, England never kills us on trade. Only non-white countries, such as Mexico and China do, even though our trade deficit with Germany is bigger than our trade deficit with Mexico.

For a great many South Carolinians all three ideas hold incredible sway. In 2012, about two-thirds of South Carolina Republican primary voters were white evangelicals Christians. South Carolina also has a large number of veterans. And, seventy percent of South Carolina Republicans think the Confederate flag is a source of pride. After the Charleston shooting, only 50% of Republicans wanted the flag removed from statehouse grounds.

http://www.heraldonline.com/news/state/south-carolina/article37020057.html

Clearly there is lots of overlap among those voting for God, Country and Country. The question in South Carolina is which idea at the moment is the most powerful.  

Oddly, we might be able to look to Marco Rubio for the answer. His robot moment was to repeat over and over again that he understands President Obama’s plot to destroy America. He knows Obama is not inept, he’s evil. He insisted on stressing — to the point of foolishness — that he gets Republicans’ hatred of the President.

The focus-grouped candidate’s programming points to why Trump might have the better of the emotional pull at the moment. Do Republicans hate Obama because he is insufficiently Christian? Yes, but is he any less Christian than Bill Clinton?  Do they hate him because he weakened the military? Sure, but he hasn’t really, and in fact his performance as commander and chief is hard to fault, with all that killing of Osama and launching of drones. Or do they hate him because he represents a bold threat to white supremacy in America that cannot be denied?

Interestingly, George W. Bush’s presidency also points to the ascendency of the Lost Cause Country. His military misadventure in Iraq damaged the pure patriotism brand. And Bush only slowed, but could not stop, the losses in the culture war, as evidenced by the nationwide acceptance of gay marriage. 

Only the promise of an America made great again by deporting aliens and banning Muslims seems likely to work because it has not failed. As we saw, theses ideas were popular with New Hampshire voters: 41% favor deportations and 65% back the temporary Muslim ban. 

Trump also can co-opt relatively easily messages on patriotism (`look how much money I raised for the vets’) and on Christianity, though less so (although Jerry Falwell Jr.’s endorsement helps and he did win the evangelical vote in New Hampshire by a bit). 

For reasons of temperament and believability and, in some cases, ethnicity no other Republican candidate can compete with Trump in `Lost Cause’ territory.

Eight days is a life time and things can change rapidly. But that ideological core is what gives Donald Trump such strength in such a crowded field. 

Read More

Massachusetts as a window into the Democratic primary process.

           Tuesday’s results in New Hampshire showed that this race might be more interesting than was initially anticipated. Hillary Clinton was only 1% off her winning vote percentage in 2008. Still losing is obviously worse than holding, and 2008 was a three-way as opposed to two-way race. She should have picked up more than she did.  No doubt about it, it was a bad result for the Clinton campaign.

We are through two states. Although Clinton is struggling, things have to get worse for her for Sanders to win.  What is important to recognize is how fast things will move and how little time the Sanders campaign has before the door, that now seems wide open, can slam shut.

From a traditional press perspective, the race now moves to Nevada and South Carolina, which are obviously important states. Momentum can matter. Yet, what may be the even more important deadline is also rapidly approaching. In just 18 days, we get the first real delegate bonanza: 11 states and one territory vote on March 1^st with 865 delegates. To judge this race, it is important to digest this chart. http://cookpolitical.com/story/9179   This shows what Sanders needs to win state-by-state. Despite what seems like a painful result in the first two states, Clinton is in fact already running 10 delegates ahead of where she need to be. Significantly, this chart does not take into account super delegates, which is a discussion for another time, and ignores what would seem to be her strengths in territories, particularly the Island of Puerto Rico. Rather than go through all 12 contests, let’s take a close look at just one, Massachusetts. Cook says Sanders need to win 53 of the 91 delegates at stake in the Commonwealth.

 Massachusetts was one of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 surprise best states. Despite the fact both Senators and the Governor endorsed Obama, Clinton won, delivering a sweeping 15% margin. For Sanders to keep to this chart’s pace for delegate accumulation, it seems likely he would need to win Massachusetts this time by the same margin. To get the net 15 delegates Cook says he needs, Sanders in fact might need to do a bit better. Massachusetts has five seven-delegate districts and four six-delegate districts. To avoid a tie in terms of delegates in the seven-delegate districts, Sanders would need 64% of the vote. That’s his cracking number, as it’s called, and it’s incredibly hard to achieve.

Thus, even if he wins all five districts by huge, but not huge enough margins, he will net only five delegates. There are two different types of statewide delegates: Party Leader/Elected Officials have 12, and regular at large have 20. In the 12 bucket, a 7-5 split is possible. Getting above that requires 62.5% of the vote statewide, which seems almost impossible. Sanders did not reach that in New Hampshire. There are 20 regular statewide at-large delegates, which could be divided 12 to 8, though that would require a difficult but reachable 57.5% of the vote.  Still, even with 57.5% of the statewide vote and a victory in all five odd numbered Congressional districts, that still nets only 11 (5 + 2 + 4) of the 15 delegates he seemingly needs. Sanders also needs to crack two of the four six-delegate Congressional districts to get to his 15 Delegates. (58.33% is needed to crack a six-delegate district.) There is an outside chance to get 64% in one of the seven-delegate districts but clearly only one district has such potential. 

This seems like an exceptionally difficult challenge, made all the more so by some of the warning signs in the New Hampshire exit poll data. Sanders’ margin in New Hampshire was driven by a fantastic number with under 30s, who made up 19% of the vote. This high percentage of young people was aided by same day voter registration, which Massachusetts does not have. In fact, the voter registration deadline for Massachusetts was yesterday. In New Hampshire on Tuesday, under 30s outvoted over-65s.  But in Massachusetts in 2008, over 60 was 30% of the vote versus only 14% for under 30. Another big difference between voting in the two states is over party affiliation. Among self-identified Democrats, Sanders was only able to win by a narrow four points in New Hampshire. Democrats were only 58% of the vote, while Independents made up 40% of Democratic primary votes. In Massachusetts in 2008, the Democratic number was 65% versus 33% for Independents. The non-white percentage of the electorate also doubles in Massachusetts. These differences alone likely shrink the margin for Sanders number below what is needed to hit the Cook number.  

I’ll present an actual preview for Super Tuesday with predictions at a later date. This is a good place to start when thinking about this race. Clinton needs to bleed even more than she did in Iowa and New Hampshire for Sanders to win. 

Read More

Why last night is so bad for the Republican Establishment and so good for Trump/Cruz.

The clear winner of yesterday is Donald Trump who looks on track to take a little more than a  third of the vote. John Kasich took second with tiny margins separating Cruz, Bush and Rubio. This would seem like good news for John Kasich and also for Jeb Bush. That, however, would be a fundamental misreading.

The reality is that the Republican “establishment lane” cannot sustain two candidates, let alone more than that. The assumption that the Establishment Republicans can rally to win the nomination late is based on a faulty understanding of the Republican math.

 We head next to South Carolina on February 20^th, which, even though it is not well known, is winner take all. The winner in each of seven districts gets all three delegates at stake in the district, and the winner statewide gets 26 delegates while no one else gets any. This is a big number.

South Carolina is not a hospitable environment for the moderate/establishment wing of the Republican Party. It is important to remember that Mitt Romney received only 28% of the vote in 2012. One establishment candidate in a three-way race with Trump and Cruz could possibly win with 35% of the vote. With more than one, and now likely three establishment candidates, it becomes almost impossible for one of them to win. While 40% of the Republican electorate there could vote for an establishment candidate, splitting that vote even a little seems to pave the way for a Cruz or Trump victory. 

Nevada comes next and provides the Establishment with a decent chance at success. But Nevada is also a straight proportional state. Thus, even a single moderate candidate who won 50% of the vote would only get 50% of the delegates. By contrast, a moderate in South Carolina could easily be blanked.

  What makes matters so much worse for the Republican Establishment is that early voting has already begun in the March 1^st state of Georgia. Texas, another March 1^st state, also will begin voting before South Carolina votes. Because those votes can’t be uncounted, early voting makes it harder to winnow the candidates to just one or even two establishment candidates.

 March 1^st has the potential to be an absolute bloodbath for the Republican establishment.   March 1^st sees Republican contests in 12 states. The rules are tailor made for the right. Three of the top four delegate states on March 1^st  (Texas, Georgia, Alabama) have the following rules:  In each district a candidate who receives 50%, wins all three delegates, and 50% statewide wins all the at-large delegates. If no candidate receives 50%, the highest vote getter takes two delegates and the second place finisher gets one. For the delegates determined statewide, a 20% threshold is required.

 While one establishment candidate could possibly, though not easily, reach the 20% threshold. In the districts, an establishment candidate might get some second places and maybe even a first in some of the richer or super Democratic districts in these states. But with more than one candidate, even these limited goals become difficult, if not impossible for the Establishment. 

These three states combine for 278 delegates, compared to the March 15^th establishment dream of winner-take-all Ohio and Florida that only yields 165 delegates.  

  The top two rule is also in place for two other March 1 contests, Tennessee and Arkansas, although the 15% statewide threshold in both states makes it more conceivable that four candidates could reach that for the at large delegates. What is even worse for the Establishment is that their three best March 1 states, Massachusetts, Virginia and Vermont, are all straight proportional. Thus even 40 percent to 30 percent wins could only net about four delegates each in Massachusetts (which has 39 delegates at stake) and Virginia (with 46 delegates). Vermont’s 16 delegates are not that consequential when divided proportionally. Thus getting blanked in two deep South Congressional districts hurts as much as losing by 10 points in Massachusetts.

Oklahoma, the last of the March 1 states, is proportional at large, and top three at the district level, assuming that each candidate reaches 15% in each district. The caucuses are a crapshoot. The bottom line is that without sufficient winnowing the right block could grab a huge delegate lead through March 1^st. 

If March 1^st goes as badly for the Establishment as it could with more than one candidate running, then the race will not be decided until June 7^th. What is more, for the race to go that long, an establishment candidate has to win the winner-take-all states of Ohio and Florida on March 15^th. But that is not a foregone conclusion. Lest we forget, Santorum, with 37.08% of the vote, came within a point of beating Romney in Ohio in 2012, with Gingrich taking 14.59%.

The Trump/Cruz split does leave open the specter of a brokered convention, but a strong right block makes it harder for an establishment candidate to win there too. Under the Democratic rules, a multi-candidate field as we are seeing now would almost certainly be headed to a brokered convention. But the Republican rules are frontloaded to get a fast winner, which ironically might help the type of candidate, Trump, the rules were designed to eliminate quickly.

 This does not even reckon with the hell storm Trump might unleash if he wins the most votes and is not the nominee.  This a very fraught situation for the Republican Establishment indeed. 

Read More

New Hampshire Preview.

New Hampshire Preview.

Democrats

Odds Sanders 99% Clinton 1%

Margin 56% Sanders 44% Clinton

Delegates: Sanders 14 Clinton 10

Explanation:

                There has been much talk about how Vermont is the neighboring state to New Hampshire. While this certainly didn’t hurt Sanders, the key point to understanding this race is that when you go back to the 2008 primary Clinton only got 39% of the vote in New Hampshire. The reason she won is because John Edwards, also running on economic populism, took votes away from Obama. We know this because in later states those voters migrated to Obama.  We might think of the 2016 race as traveling somewhat the same path as the Obama and Clinton race in 2008 with Clinton running much better this time amongst African Americans. We are still looking to seeing if this trend is going to break at some point. It did not really in Iowa. [Sanders does much better with young voters added since 2008, but they will likely not be enough to make up the gap among repeat voters.]  With this understanding, Sanders looks on track to win by 12%. As we discussed in an earlier post, New Hampshire has two districts, and Sanders would need to hit 56.25% across both districts to gain a 15-9 delegate advantage. We think he will be successful in hitting 56.25% in the 2^nd, winning that 8 delegate district 5-3, but unsuccessful in the 1^st where Hilary Clinton’s entire 2008 margin was built.   So we predict a split of 1^st district delegates 4-4. The key place to watch would be the City of Manchester.  If Hillary can win there she will earn an even delegate split in the 1^st.

Republicans

Odds Trump 90% others 10%

Margin Trump 30% Kasich 16% Cruz 15% Bush 13% Rubio 12% Christie 7% Fiorina 4% Carson 2%

Explanation:

                Donald Trump looks exceptionally likely to win. Beyond that 2^nd through 5^th are incredibly jumbled with any outcome appearing possible. Polls are all over the place, and none of our favorite pollsters have weighed in during recent days.  Because the polling is conflicted we are going with bases and trends.  Kasich from the Huntsman base will grab second.  Cruz with the smaller, but existing Christian base will take third. The ballot for 4^th will be incredibly close, but Jeb Bush has an up arrow and Rubio seems to have a down arrow and that can make all the difference. As you can see the margins are very close.  Christie is looking like 6^th, but even he has signs of life. This is a hard call, but this is where we think things will land.

Read More

Last minute check in with Multi-Candidate field dynamics before final preview.

We are waiting for the absolute last bit of data before making a call about New Hampshire. The more you know, the better your call. With that being said, watching the multi-candidate field dynamics as we come right up to the end is too juicy not to provoke comment. Let’s start with Jeb Bush, who began his day attacking Donald Trump. At first glance, this might seem odd because these two candidates are not really competing for the same voters. But Bush’s strategy begins to make sense when you realize that at least 1 in 3 New Hampshire Republicans probably despise Donald Trump. If these voters want to send a message against Donald Trump, the feud Bush is fueling, complete with tweets back and forth and interview comments, has the effect of making himself a magnet for anti-Trump feeling. So having them both in the news actually helps both campaigns.

Chris Christie keeps driving the message of Rubio’s weakness. This is to keep himself prominent in the coverage, as he remains at the heart of the post-debate narrative, but also because a weak showing by Marco Rubio is important to all of the Governors. A strong showing by Rubio threatened to eliminate all three Governors. With a weaker showing from Rubio the race can continue because the search for the savior from Cruz and Trump goes on. Meanwhile, Rubio is a bit too damaged to go on the attack, and Cruz and Kasich are each playing in a very specific lane, attempting to compete for a narrow slice of voters. Cruz is targeting Santorum and Gingrich voters from 2012, with perhaps a sprinkling of long time Ron Paul supporters. Kasich is aiming at the 2012 Huntsman voters, plus a small slice of the New Hampshire Republican establishment. Trump has a lane all his own. So the three candidates without a lane found themselves resorting to strong approaches to building last minute brands. Rubio is doubling down on his being right in his attacks on Obama. Bush is focused on his attacks on Trump, and Christie piling on against Marco Rubio. These dynamics have been fascinating and will make calling the race exceptionally difficult.

Read More

How we think about the Republican side of the New Hampshire Primary.

The lead story in politics on the R side is clearly Marco Rubio’s struggles in last night’s Republican debate. We have been watching the polls incredibly closely. Even before the debate, we were already starting to see some signs of the fading of Marcomentum. We can’t be sure that trend will continue. During primaries, polls have to be watched particularly closely. Things move so quickly that the day the poll was taken can be important. Because of this, getting more and more recent polling can help. So we will hold off making a prediction until some time tomorrow.

One way we predict election results is to ground our thinking in past elections result and returns, and use them as the basis for everything we think.  Yes, things change so it would be incorrect to just assume that what happened in the past will happen in the future. However, it is better to start with the past and build on it rather than ignore the past altogether.

So looking at the 2012 Republican primary can be instructive. In 2012, the Republican establishment candidates took 56% of the vote with Romney getting 39% and Hunstman getting 17%. The two right-wing Christians got 18% with 9% each for Gingrich and Santorum. The stick -them-in-your-eye anti-establishment vote went to Paul at 23%. This accounts for about 98% of the vote with others taking 2%.

But the establishment vote in 2012 was likely inflated. Romney was a very strong establishment candidate against whom very little money was spent. In addition, the lack of a Democratic primary meant that unaffiliateds likely voted in the Republican primary and went for the more establishment candidates. Neither of those factors is in play this year.

As a result we predict that 50% of the vote will go to the non-establishment trio of Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Ted Cruz, while the other 50% will go to the other five candidates, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and Carly Fiorina. Carving up the pie in these ways makes it easier to make specific predictions, which will come tomorrow. 

Read More

Democratic Primary Delegate Math: A Tutorial

We are down to two candidates on the Democratic side. If you think that means there will be a relatively short race, you would be wrong. The winner will not have the majority of delegates pledged to her or him until June 3^rd, at the earliest. That will be true even if the race is not close. The only way to avoid the long slog is if one of the candidates sees the writing on the wall and quits. For this to occur it does not even require a close race because 17% of delegates are selected on June 3^rd or later. Thus to win 50% of the delegate total, without this 17%, requires winning 61% of the first 83% of the vote. The number to reach 50% is actually even higher because Iowa is already basically a tie, meaning even more is needed of what is left.

Because of the principle of proportionality that will be very hard to achieve by June 3. As we saw in Iowa on Monday, because each precinct caucus gets a select number of delegates, and a delegate cannot be split in half, there can be strange results. If a precinct has an odd number of delegates, then winning by one vote means you win the extra delegate. But if the precinct has an even number, then the candidate has to win by much more to avoid a tie. A tie in delegates is therefore much more likely, even if one person is ahead substantially in votes.

These same rules apply for national convention delegates and this is where the math becomes so important. New Hampshire will be electing 24 Democratic delegates on Tuesday based on the results: eight a piece in each of New Hampshire’s two congressional districts and, as in the case in every state, two kinds of statewide delegates based on the statewide totals. In New Hampshire, that means three of one kind of statewide delegates and five of the other for a total of an additional eight delegates.

Because of proportionality, winning is not enough to win more delegates. What is most important is winning by large margins. In New Hampshire, if Hillary Clinton wins at least 31.25 of the vote in each Congressional district (which seems very likely), she will end up walking out of New Hampshire with at least 9 of the 24 delegates up for grabs, or 40%. (This is only among viable candidates; votes for non-viable candidates who remain on the ballot are not used in the calculation.) That translates to three delegates in each of the two Congressional districts, one of the three and two of the five statewide delegates. This may not seem fair but the truth is there is no way to elect delegates without rounding and any other system of rounding would be even less fair.

By the same token, if Sanders wins (which also seems very likely), he is guaranteed at least 13 delegates: four in each Congressional district, and two of three and three of five statewide. That means the real battle is for the last two delegates, one in each of the Congressional districts. For Sanders to “crack” Clinton, a term of art meaning being awarded more delegates and avoiding a tie, Sanders needs at least 56.25% of the vote in a district. If he doesn’t, even if he gets as much as 56% of the vote, he and Clinton will split those delegates four/four. So Sanders, who is very likely to win, will get more delegates than Clinton but it could be just by a count of 15 to 9 at the most, and might be 14 to 10, or even 13 to 11, if she’s able to avoid being cracked in both districts.

This math is crucial because a very large percentage of delegates are decided at the district level. New Hampshire is just an example. This is the case throughout the country, which is why it will take so long to get to get a majority of pledged delegates. Even if a candidate is winning, if he or she is not able to get the margins to crack in a particular district, a delegate tie will be the outcome. For every delegate number there is a different percentage of the vote required to crack or in some cases double crack.

Here is how each delegate district shakes out:
For a 3-delegate district, to get all 3 you need 83.5%
For a 4-delegate district, to split 3-1 you need 62.5%
For a 5-delegate district, to split 4-1 you need 70%
For a 6-delegate district, to split 4-2 you need 58.333%
For a 7-delegate district, to split 5-2 you need 64%
For an 8-delegate district, to split 5-3 you need 56.25%
For a 9-delegate district, to split 6-3 you need 61.1%
For a 10-delegate district, to split 6-4 you need 55% (to double crack, you need 65%)

This may all seem esoteric but the Obama campaign’s understanding of these rules, more than any other factor, led to his victory.

In our New Hampshire preview, we will give a delegate prediction as well. The first real big delegate prize is coming March 1^st. One of the key things about a proportional contest is that it is very difficult to overcome a deficit because of the ever-escalating vote totals you need. If one candidate is cracked often, but the other has difficulty cracking, winning soon becomes not enough for the person being cracked. This chart shows what each candidate needs for a tie.

We will be stuck doing a lot of delegate math throughout the rest of the primary seasons and this should help.

Read More