Talking Polling: Update #2. Where are the Polls?

We have a short post this week because the RCP average has only one new national poll since our last post. We are still trying to get a fix on what the Internet polling means, so for now we are sticking with RCP. One poll in a week is not much to work with. It is possible there is simply a lull for Memorial Day or that polling companies are reluctant to be overly involved when the primary is still technically happening. But still all we have is a new Rasmussen poll, which flipped from Trump plus 5 to Clinton plus 1. We have a smattering of state polls, and we will begin the digging into them a bit more once nominees are chose. For now the real news is not the polls but the lack of polls. Hopefully next week will be better or this segment may be on the chopping block.

Read More

The Trump Who Cries Wolf, and the Press that Always Comes

There are lots of explanations for how Trump was able to get so far, including the dark impulses of the Republican base. But Trump’s ability to turn the press into his tool is the one that really stands out. The last 48 hours has brought that into strong relief through the coverage of the prospects for a Trump-Sanders debate.  

The press adores norm violations. Nothing makes for better news than norms being violated.  Trump knows this, which is why he floated a Trump-Sanders debate on Wednesday and Thursday. A debate between one party’s presumptive nominee and a challenger in another party would have been a supreme violation of political norms. Trump also knew, as he always does, that the press wouldn’t function as a referee. In fact, even as we were writing Trump put out this statement.  https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-debating-bernie-sanders  Everything that he says in this statement is a lie. The networks weren’t going to make “a killing” with a Trump-Sanders debate because a tech company had offered to put up the money to sponsor it. If it was appropriate to debate “the second place finisher” on Wednesday night, why did it become inappropriate on Friday? Trump stokes anger that Clinton’s win is tainted, just as he does whenever he does not like the outcome.  He claims he wants to do something, debate Sanders, that he has the power to do. All of his conditions were met, and yet he refuses to and he will walk away unscathed. Sanders will be the one who looks foolish because, in the press-portrayal, what could you have possibly have expected when dealing with Donald Trump.

But the point is the press should be scathing. Donald Trump agreed to a debate and then weaseled out of it. That is what happened. There is no other interpretation. But that will not be the way it’s presented.  Instead, the coverage will be that the debate fell through. That’s what was expected all along because the debate itself was a violation of the norms.

This was news for two days. Will they or won’t they debate is a much better topic than almost any other for Trump and he got two days out of it.  This is like the story of the boy who cried wolf, except in this version no matter how many times the boy cries wolf and no how matter incredulous the people hearing the story are about the wolf, they always come running. It doesn’t matter how ridiculous the story or how little the boy is believed, the people respond. The system requires that they investigate whether there is a wolf. The absence of a wolf this time (or every other time for that matter) does not free them of the responsibility of investigating whether there is a wolf the next time.  

Trump knows what the rules are and he mercilessly exploits them. The press does not call him the boy who cried wolf or put each new lie in the context of the boy’s credibility. Thus each wolf hunt gets its own investigation. Trump has been doing this throughout the process and he will continue to until the press finally stops running. 

Read More

Trump Fights to Create Multi-Candidate Field Dynamics in the Absence of an Actual Field.

Donald Trump has benefited tremendously from having lots of targets while his opponents had to worry not just about him but about how they stacked up against all the other candidates. Trump won’t be able to keep that dynamic going; the race will of course ultimately narrow to only two candidates. (We will discuss the potential role of third party candidates latter, but it can be safely assumed they will not be serious competitors.)

But for now Trump has the advantage of a split opposition. This is where Trump is peak Trump. John McCain had a similar situation in 2008 and he said pretty much nothing about the continuing fight between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. By contrast, Trump can not shut up about Bernie Sanders and Clinton. He is trying to make sure the Democratic process is as bitter and nasty as possible.

Trump did this most successfully in the last 24 hours when he seemingly challenged Bernie Sanders to a debate. This elevated Sanders, drew attention to Trump, and led the Democrats to fight over whether it was even appropriate for Sanders to consent to such a debate.

Less than two weeks are likely left in the Democratic primary process, though it might stretch to a little more than three weeks. Before the voting stops June 14th, Trump hopes to inflict as much damage as as possible, making it harder for the Sanders people to come around to Clinton as their nominee. Trump is playing upon Sanders’ desire for continued attention.

The idea of a Sanders-Trump debate is very exciting to Sanders people. They are certain Sanders can use the debate to show up Trump. But Trump did not actually agree to a debate, he floated a notion. The notion hangs in the air and hangs in the air. Because the Sanders people believe this debate would be helpful, they would be inclined to hold back on Trump attacks they would otherwise make to up their chances of getting the debate. The Sanders campaign is just another mouse for Trump to toy with.

There will likely be no debate. The Sanders campaign will get nowhere when it complains to the press that Trump broke his word because breaking his word is just what Trump does. Even if there is a debate, as much as Sanders might try to make it about Trump, Trump will make it about Hillary. And even if Sanders crushes Trump, all that might do is make people long for Sanders and not hurt Trump an iota.

This is how Trump has done so well, playing every angle and letting rumors and notions replace substance. If Trump is losing, he changes the subject instantly. He will do or say something that we all think is dumb because it takes attention away from a bigger problem.

Sanders is now stuck in that web. With only ten days or so left in the Democratic process, Trump is milking the last gasp of multi-candidate field dynamics for all it’s worth. There are about five months until the general election. Every day Trump can kill is his friend. This is Trump at his best.

Read More

What targeted polls and subsamples tell us about the Latino and Asian votes

As will be repeated here at least once a week, if not more, demographics will be destiny in the presidential race. Donald Trump either gets to Reagan’s 1984 number among whites, he improves on Romney’s performance with minorities, the electorate (shockingly) becomes more white, or he loses. No matter what the polling says it will take seismic shifts in previous electoral patterns for Trump to win.

Today we are looking at polling conducted within specific minority sub-groups and interesting patterns that emerge. Three such polls have come out since Trump’s nomination was assured, one among Asians Americans http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-asian-american-223502 and two among Latinos  http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2016/05/20/latinos-favor-clinton-over-trump-by-3-point-margin-fox-news-latino-poll-finds/  and http://latinousa.org/2016/05/19/latest-fiu-online-national-poll/

These polls paint a picture of both groups still widely disdaining Trump. Trump is less well liked and on pace to do worse than Romney. Engagement by both groups does not seem to be down which pours a little cold water on the whiter overall electorate theory. These specific polls also show Trump doing worse with these groups that indicated in national polls that include subsamples of these groups. Trump gets near the Romney number with Hispanics in subsamples, but he does consistently worse in the two polls of Hispanics. This is important because inaccurate polling of Hispanics has been one of the prime reasons for general election polling failures. Polls had Harry Reid losing his Nevada Senate seat in 2010, for example, but he ended up winning fairly easily due almost entirely to the Hispanic vote. Polls had Colorado looking much closer in the 2012 presidential race than it turned out to be, again because of the Hispanic vote.  

This trend is not automatic. It would be unwise to assume that Trump will undoubtedly struggle to attract these voters but it is also important to remember how steep the hill is for him. 

Read More

Democracy Matters

One of the more interesting things to watch during this election cycle is the way in which the democratic nature of the process has been called into question. There have challenges to the very legitimacy of the process.

Donald Trump began casting these doubts in Iowa when he questioned the legitimacy of the result after the Cruz campaign supposedly circulated the rumor that Ben Carson might have quit the race in the hopes of flipping his votes to Cruz. Cruz finished first. Carson finished fourth. Trump, who finished second, complained the loudest.

We have had debates about super delegates, caucuses, and delegates chosen without regard to the winner of the primary. There have been questions about whether a candidate who received a plurality of votes (Trump until New York) should be treated like the winner without receiving a majority. (Trump mooted the issue after his home state win started a string of majority victories).

Through it all, an incredibly important issue has begun to surface. We have seen poll after poll show that partisanship colors the perception that people have of everyday facts. A related concern had emerged that such partisanship (even intra-party primary partisanship) can become so strong that the desire to see your side be victorious overcomes your desire to see the person who has the most votes win. This belief can be so strong that some supporters back fill in a story whereby had the rules of the voting been different (read fair in this view) then their candidate would have won and therefore it doesn’t matter that he didn’t. Of course Sanders supporters are the chief propagators of this view, with claims that all would have been different had the New York primary been open to all, or had the media not counted super delegates in each candidate’s delegate counts.

We don’t quite know how widespread such beliefs are but it is fairly widespread and that is troubling. If you don’t believe the person with the most votes should win, you don’t really believe in democracy. For democracy to collapse doesn’t require a majority of citizens to abandon it. All it takes is a substantial minority. The tantrums thrown so far don’t yet rise to that level but we all should be vigilant so it doesn’t get there.

Read More

Talking Polls: The First of Weekly Discussions

There can be no doubt that presidential race looks much closer than it did just three weeks ago.  In fact, the latest RCP average has Donald Trump leading by .2.

This is a particularly difficult time for the Clinton campaign as it continues to battle on two fronts. Trump meanwhile is pretty much doing nothing but coasting and evidently keeping much of the schedule he built when he thought the primaries would be contested.

We won’t really know what the general election match up will look like until it has begun though we are starting to see the basic contours of the race. The most interesting thing so far about the general election polling is the number of undecided voters. The RCP average has the two leading candidates combined for just 86.6 of the vote. In the 2012 contest between Obama and Romney closer to 93 percent favored one candidate or the other. This adds greater uncertainty.  Although it is likely that the undecideds will return to their basic party identification, we can’t say for certain until that happens.

The other key thing to watch is the generational gap. Trump has built a small lead with seniors (those over 65) that is considerably smaller than Romney’s 12-point victory in this category. With a current average lead of only 4.25, Trump will need to do better with seniors. All the polls give Clinton a lead with those under 30, but the margins are thinner that those of the previous Democratic nominee. Obama won this group in 2012 by 23 points. Clinton only leads by a little under 13 points. This is an absolutely critical number for Clinton to improve. 

In scouting the national polls, our initial instinct is to prefer the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll because its margins look much closer to 2012. It has seniors at the Romney level for Trump and younger people at the Obama level for Clinton. Obviously, cross-tabs in a poll are not to be trusted. The Fox poll, for example, had seniors as a plus +5 Clinton group and still had her losing.  And there is danger in digging too deeply into the cross-tabs because they can be used to make just about any candidate seem as if they are winning. Still this generational divide is key. If Clinton can win under 30s by 20 and lose over 65s by under 10 then she will win. If either margin contracts or expands, Trump has a real shot. It’s very hard to change the overall percentage of the electorate that these groups make up, so the margins are the critical factor.

 From now on, we will keep our eyes focused on the polls through a weekly roundup. 

Read More

Playing along with the Sanders’ super delegate argument

Let’s start with something we’ve been saying for awhile. It is our firm belief that Secretary Clinton has locked up the Democratic nomination. As of today, she would need only 108 of the remaining 169 super delegates to win the nomination with no new pledged delegates. Because she currently holds 90% of super delegates and would only need 64% of those outstanding, she has clinched.

 Just for argument’s sake, however, we are going to tease out Sanders’ claim that he can win with super delegates. As it stands now, Clinton leads by 272 pledged delegates. Let’s assume Sanders runs as well as can be expected through the remaining states and nets 22 delegates. (We think he is more likely to lose another 50 or 60 delegates, perhaps even a bit more, but that is not the point now.) He would still end down 250 pledged delegates. Because there are only 714 total super delegates, Sanders would need 482, or 67.5% of them, to overcome Clinton’s pledged delegate margin.

How likely is Sanders to get those super delegates? If Clinton only took super delegates from districts or states she won by over 15% that still would give her enough super delegates to claim the nomination. Therefore Sanders in essence is asking super delegates to go against the pledged delegate winner, against a fair approximation of the overall popular vote, against what the super delegates want to do and against what the large majority of the delegates’ own voters wanted. Convincing the super delegates to overturn the will of the voters is going to be very hard. 

The Clinton campaign could have made a similar play for super delegates in 2008, with an even better case. Obama won the pledged delegates by about 100 or so (less than Clinton’s current lead) and much of the Obama margin came from victories in caucuses. In addition, Clinton in 2008 may have gotten more votes than Obama (a precise accounting is hard to do) and she had slightly better poll numbers. Clinton also had more friends in the Democratic party structure (still does) than Sanders. But her major supporters in New York would have no part of a convention fight and she was out two days after the voting ended. If Clinton couldn’t do it then why should we assume Sanders can do it now? We don’t understand the difference and would love to hear from others what we’re missing.

The question also becomes whether the Sanders campaign can keep pressuring the same group for the six weeks after voting stops. That seems excessive. There’s also a big problem with Sanders’ best argument for why super delegates should switch. Sanders seems to be polling better against Donald Trump than Clinton but that may be because Sanders supporters are refusing to say they support Clinton but Clinton supporters are saying they will support Sanders. That may not last. If Sanders spends six weeks trying to flip super delegates and spouting conspiracy theories, Clinton supporters probably will start telling pollsters they wouldn’t support him either.

It is really hard to see how Sanders can make a good case to super delegates to back him. 

Read More

Understanding the Democratic nomination process is key to understanding why the Nevada freak out was so uncalled for.

It sometimes feels as if we live in a fact-free political world, one that thrives on emotion and controversy, rather than reasoned, evidence-based argument. We therefore want to remind people of the facts of the Democratic nomination process to help diffuse the emotion around Nevada’s convention this weekend. 

Democrats award delegates proportionally based on the results of roughly 500 distinct contests. Those 500 contests take place within 57 larger contests in the 50 states, plus D.C. Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the North Marianas and Democrats Aboard. Each of these contests is then divided into sub-groups, always by geographic region, usually by Congressional district but sometimes by another area.

So last night in Kentucky, there were seven different contests and eight different allocations of those contests. Because an even number of delegate were to be allocated based on the statewide total to get anything other than an even split would have required an eight-point victory. Thus the other six contests decided who “won” from a delegate perspective, the actual scoreboard metric. Clinton and Sanders split the delegates evenly in all the districts with an even number of delegates, Clinton won two districts with an odd number of delegates, while Sanders won one odd district, for an overall split of 28-27.

How many delegates each state and each district are given is based on a formula that rewards Democratic performance. Voting for Democrats is how a district or a state gets more delegates. This formula also has the effect of packing lots of delegates into a few districts because the Republican gerrymanders have created very Democratic districts. Kentucky’s 3^rd congressional district got more than twice the delegates of Kentucky’s 5^th, for example, because the 3^rd voted for President Obama twice, while the 5^th was one of his worst districts. When one adds up all the results from all these different sub-contests held across all the states, Hillary Clinton leads by 272 delegates for a simple reason: She got more votes in more places.

This is an important fact and essential to keep in mind when thinking about the controversy over Saturday’s Nevada convention. Let’s start at the beginning with the precinct caucuses on Feb. 20. Clinton won at the statewide level and therefore took more of both statewide buckets, each with an odd number of delegates, getting 3-2 and 4-3 splits. At the Congressional District level, she won the 1^st, an odd delegate district, and did well enough in the 4^th , a  six-delegate district, to be awarded a 4-2 split. This was good enough for a statewide delegate margin of 20-15. 

One of the odd things about caucuses is that they don’t actually award delegates. Instead, they award delegates to county conventions who then vote for delegates to the state convention, who then elect delegates to the national convention. Some confusion occurred over the second step in the process, Nevada’s county conventions, and Sanders managed to get more delegates at the largest and most important county convention in Clark County, than he had at the caucus levels. Per Nevada rules, the district level delegates are locked in, and thus this switch only affected the statewide delegate allocation. By voting for Sanders at the state convention, these delegates were supposed to give him a win. But at Saturday’s state convention, Clinton flipped a few delegates back, giving her an 18-17 lead, though it should be noted, not the 20-15 split she got at the precinct caucuses.

There’s no mystery about what happened at the state convention this weekend. Clinton’s state delegates did a great job of showing up and Sanders state level delegates did not. This is not shocking. One of the problems with bringing lots of new people into the process, as the Sanders campaign has done, is that some of them turn out to be flakey. In addition, new people, who are now spending hours upon hours on politics when they hadn’t before, are likely to be overly enthusiastic and have high expectations.

Having said that, it should be acknowledged that the process could have been handled better.  The rules that excluded more Sanders delegates than Clinton delegates, such as only registered Democrats could participate, were well spelled out. Still, maybe some rules should have been bent for comity’s sake.

There are two stubborn facts, however. The first is that the state reversal merely reinstated the precinct caucus result that reflected the will of the 80,000-plus Democrats who bothered to show up in February. (It probably should be the rule regardless that the caucus-goers’ preferences count, rather than whatever happens at the next steps.) The second fact is that at the most there’s a difference of two delegates – that’s right, all the fuss is about two delegates -- when Clinton has a lead of 272.  

Democracy has an unfortunate side effect of looking and feeling messy sometimes. Voter problems in Arizona, and to a lesser degree in New York, were outrageous, but overall the process has been transparent and fair. It is also important to remember that Democratic proportionality rules allow everyone to have their say and be heard, unlike the Republican rules that allow for a number of winner-take-all contests. Everyone on all sides just needs to be a bit more grown up about the process and realize that it comes to end. 

Given the internet, it is possible that nomination fights under these rules will often go the distance. Running out of money is less likely to be a problem now that a large number of small donors continue to give even as victory slips away. That means contests will be over long before they are “over.” This simply requires maturity and understanding.

It is also extremely important, and seemingly lost on many people, that you shouldn’t hound and attack super delegates unless and until they seem likely to overturn the will of the voters. It’s one thing to challenge the idea of super delegates; it’s totally another to make the lives of a state party chair or those in similar positions unbearable. They are often just volunteers, and so far they’ve done nothing to countervail the majority of voters.

We hope this clarifies the process of how a nominee gets picked. If there are questions about the rules, we are happy to answer them. 

Read More

Kentucky/Oregon Democratic Primary Preview

Tuesday is definitely looking like the day Hillary Clinton clinches the nomination. At this moment, Clinton needs 161 delegates to have the number she needs for a majority (2383). There remain 167 unpledged super delegates. Given the current lead of more than 4-1 for Clinton in super delegates and given current reporting on who will go where, there is no doubt Clinton actually has many more than are publicly committed to her. We see Clinton gaining 54 delegates Tuesday. Combined with her support from the remaining super delegates, she will likely clinch. We will make predictions for the last 11 contests, and tomorrow actually has two very interesting ones, but realize that after tomorrow we are fairly certain Clinton has the number of delegates she needs for the nomination.

Kentucky

     The demographics in this state are all over the map, which makes for a very close race. What is interesting here is that of the eight delegate bundles in the state, including two statewide allocations and six congressional districts, only three have an-odd number of delegates. That means even a remotely close race will lead to an almost even allocation of the delegates. Because both statewide allocations are even, a possibility exists that the statewide winner may not get the most delegates. Someone needs to win by eight points statewide to avoid an even split in the delegates allocated on a statewide basis. The KY 3^rd, which encompasses Louisville, could determine the statewide winner because it has far and away the most Democratic voters. But the closest race is likely to be in the KY 1^st, which would mean this district in the western part of the state would decide the delegate winner. We think Clinton wins both statewide and in delegates but it could go either way in both. Regardless, it’s unlikely anyone is going to net more than three delegates in the state.

Total: Clinton 28 Sanders 27

Delegate Allocation	Clinton	Sanders
KY AL	6	6
KY PLEO	3	3
KY 1	3	2
KY 2	3	3
KY 3	5	4
KY 4	3	3
KY 5	2	2
KY 6	3	4

Oregon

Everything about this state’s demographics (relatively small proportion of minorities, relatively large proportion of young people and progressives) and what has happened with these groups so far suggest that Sanders should win and fairly comfortably. But we are somewhat shooting in the dark here as we have only one public poll and it has Clinton by a 15-point margin. Combined with this being a closed primary only available to Democrats and reports of seniors far out pacing younger people in ballot returns, there is some grounds for hesitation. The Sanders campaign’s energy may simply be sapped. That could allow Clinton to eek out a win here. It is doubtful but the data is a mess. We still think Sanders wins here.

Total: Sanders 35 Clinton 26

Delegate Allocation	Sanders	Clinton
OR AL	7	6
OR  PLEO	4	3
OR 1	5	4
OR 2a	2	1
OR 2b	2	1
OR 3	7	4
OR 4	4	4
OR 5	4	3

Read More

Why The “But I poll better” defense is pretty much nonsense.

     On both the Republican and Democratic side, the candidate who received the most votes during the primary season is almost certainly going to be the party’s nominee. Both these candidates also have quite high unfavorable ratings (though Trump’s are clearly worse). This led John Kasich to run around the country citing poll numbers that showed him besting Democrats in head-to-head comparisons and arguing “the party will ultimately chose me” even though voters hadn’t. Bernie Sanders is now making a somewhat similar claim in the hopes of getting Super Delegates to flip.  

    Neither argument went, or is going, particularly well. There is a good reason for this. Both Kasich and, to a slightly less degree, Sanders are comparative unknowns. Thus both candidates’ polling reflects a preference for someone other than their opponent, rather than a strong commitment to them. This kind of soft support is not to be trusted. 

      In addition, arguments based on general election polling create a perverse incentive. If polling better were a good enough reason to overturn the voters then campaigns would have every reason to try to destroy their opponents.  The Trump and Clinton camps would be forced to launch horrible negative attacks to try to fix this problem. That would turn a process that often makes all the candidates unpopular into one that guarantees that result. 

     It could be argued that anyone who cared about winning as a party and not just as an individual would not go so negative even if it meant losing. But we’ve already demonstrated here just how far candidates’ selfishness goes in wanting to win for themselves.  Leaving that aside, candidates can always rationalize these attacks, insisting they are needed because the other party will certainly make them in the general election. The candidate assumes he or she has a duty to the party to show the downsides of a primary challenger rather than allow the opponent to be nominated based on the upsides.

    

    On the Democratic side, Super Delegates represent 15% of all delegates. Thus for a candidate to win without them he or she would need 59% of pledged delegates, which doesn’t happen when a race is remotely close. That means Super Delegates are often the deciders. Do we really want Super Delegates to play the “let’s see what the polling says” game? If we do, then we have to be comfortable with 714 people overriding the votes of up to 30 million people. And if we do, we might as well let these 714 people make the decision without conducting primaries at all. 

           Letting 30 million voters pick a nominee seems a much better idea than letting polling data, which can change on a dime with new information, be the arbiter. Polling better is a fine argument to make to the voters but if the voters don’t care (and they certainly didn’t for Kasich) then general election polling is not a leg to stand on, and it certainly should not be a hill to die on. 

Read More

No Place to Hide: The Republican Trump Dilemma

The challenge Donald Trump poses to the Republican Party is enormous, and the last day of competitive races proved it. Trump won a crucial victory in Indiana, but he also faced a furious Ted Cruz swinging for his head in a spectacular manner that is difficult to walk back. The fight alone presents problems for Republicans because elections in America have become team sports.  People choose a side and stick with it. Yes, there are some crossover voters who back a Democrat for President and Republican for Congress but in the 2012 election there were only 26 ticket splitting district, about 6% of the overall total. The end of ticket splitting combined with the splitting of the Republican Party is a risky business for all Republicans on the 2016 ballot.

The Republican Party can be divided into five relatively equal pieces in terms of their attitude toward the presumptive nominee.

Twenty percent of the Republican electorate is hardcore, super excited, go Trump people. They go to rallies, they make noise, they love Trump and, if crossed, they will create a problem.

Another 20% are simply Trump voters. They like him, they decided he was the best choice but they can blend back into being ordinary Republicans relatively quickly.

Another 20% didn’t vote for Trump or did so but only late in the process and somewhat reluctantly. They are inclined to vote for him in the general election but can be susceptible to new, negative information.

Another 20% opposed Trump, some proudly, but they are Republicans and so in the end they will likely come around.

Another 20% seem implacably opposed to Trump. The list of those who announced they won’t vote for Trump is long and may get longer, including the most recent Republican nominee, Mitt Romney. 

The problem for Team Red is that it needs 90% of all Republicans, whatever Trump group they fall in, to vote for its down ballot candidates. Otherwise Republican incumbents in a remotely marginal seat with an even half way decent challenger will lose.

This is where the risk comes. Even if the entire 60% in the middle will vote for Republican candidates no matter what, the 20% of voters on either extreme are a risk for defection regardless of what a candidate chooses to do. Hardcore Trump people may not want to vote for any mainstream Republican for fear that person is plotting against Trump. ` Never Trump’ may want to punish any Republican who stands by the Donald as means of discouraging Republicans from doing so. No matter what candidates choose to do they risk alienating 20% of their base. But if they try and hide, they risk alienating 40% of their base as both Trump lovers and haters don’t know where they stand. 

In addition, the ranks of the Trump lovers and haters could expand should things get even more acrimonious. Earlier today Paul Ryan met with Trump without anything being resolved, after Ryan suggested he wasn’t quite ready to be on board with Trump. That was enough to prompt Sean Hannity to say he wants a new Speaker.

Dissension and division spill out everywhere and no one knows whom to trust or what policy agenda will be set. Does voting for a House Republican mean building a wall and a crackdown on trade, or comprehensive immigration reform and free trade?

If this squabbling leads the average Republican candidate to get just 80% of the traditional Republican vote then the party could end up in huge trouble. It’s hard to know how to solve this problem, which doesn’t get much easier even if Trump’s performance improves to 47% of the electorate.  

This might be why Republicans are meeting and trying and hoping to get on the same page, but it still could all be for naught. 

Read More

How Multi-Candidate Field Dynamics Handed Trump the Nomination

From the inception of this blog, we have warned that Donald Trump could be the Republican nominee. Although there are many explanations and culprits, the reality is plain: In a 17-candidate field Trump had the star power to grab about 25% to 30% of the electorate and hold onto it. He won by leading wire to wire. The crowded nature of the field made this all so easy. Here’s how.

1. He led in almost every poll, over the entire time period.

This was massively consequential. The person in first has a huge advantage over others because people simply like the winner. All the other candidates also believed that Trump would eventually self-destruct and thus the important challenge was not to beat Donald Trump but to edge out other people. His lead grew, his threat was ignored and then it was too late.

2. Trump got second place in Iowa by dint of multi-candidate field dynamics.

The Feb. 1 Iowa caucus was bad for Trump. Polling showed him leading but in the end he didn’t win. Ted Cruz and the Iowa evangelicals were simply too strong to be beaten. Still Trump was able to snag second and avoid the embarrassment of a third place finish. Why? Because there were too many candidates. Trump beat Marco Rubio by 2,262 votes. Jeb Bush, John Kasich and Chris Christie combined for 11,996 votes. In their absence, Trump would have been knocked into an ignominious third-place finish.

3. New Hampshire became a battle for second place so all the candidates hit each other.

Trump’s lead in the polls for New Hampshire’s Feb. 9 primary was so large that the Republicans there believed he was a lock and moved on to who could grab second place. The consequences were brutal. Marco Rubio, Bush, Kasich, Christie and Cruz turned the guns on each other. New Hampshire became the site of the most fearsome and complicated multi-candidate field dynamics. For a moment, Christie, bolstered by the New Hampshire Union Leader’s endorsement, appeared to be the one who could seize second and the momentum. To maintain his shot at second, Rubio therefore hit Christie very hard over his ethics and the bridge scandal. That destroyed Christie. Christie wanted revenge and got it in the debate against Rubio; Christie claimed Rubio was all talking points and Rubio proved in by repeating the same lines over and over again. Kasich, who believed a second place finish was essential, moved a bit to the left hoping to get it. Kaisch chased a certain kind of unaffiliated voter -- a type of voter who basically doesn’t exist anywhere else in the Republican primary process--and got them. But in the process he was tagged as the moderate. His record was nowhere near as moderate as was portrayed but he never shook the label and damaged himself in future states. New Hampshire also let fourth-place finisher Bush live another week, causing problems in South Carolina. This blood bath could not possibly have worked out better for Trump and it set the tone for the rest of the race.

4. South Carolina still included too many candidates, including the almost dead Bush.

In retrospect, South Carolina on Feb. 20 was one of Trump’s worst performances He received only 32.5% of the vote there. Given its delegate rules, however Trump swept all the delegates. The Establishment block of candidates (Rubio, Bush, Kasich) beat Trump by 40,495 votes. The Christian block of Cruz and Carson came exceptionally close as well. Bush, staying in the race for an extra week, probably did not allow Trump to win. But Bush’s presence likely kept Rubio from a clean second place, as opposed to the basically a tie he had with Cruz, thus weakening his position going forward and likely costing him at least three delegates.

5. March 1st proved beyond a doubt the problem with a divided field.

Trump did not actually have that great a Super Tuesday. He lost in Oklahoma, and barely held on in Arkansas, Vermont and Virginia. He did have big wins in Alabama, Georgia, Massachusetts, and Tennessee. It’s worth noting however, that except for in Alabama and Massachusetts, the second and third placed finishers easily combined for wins in the other five states. The problem for `Not Trump’ was that March 1 included a large number of victories for the Donald and kept the opposition divided. After Trump won three out of the first four primary days (Nevada was a Trump sweep with no MCFD points to make), Rubio decided that attacking Donald Trump was his play. But in so doing he slipped slightly behind Cruz while no one was looking. Cruz, not Rubio, had the second place day, aided by Kasich’s continued existence which took crucial points away from Rubio. This was when the Rubio campaign died but we didn’t quite know it yet. Republican rules also aided Trump tremendously. In Texas, a 50% winner-take-all threshold could have allowed Cruz to sweep all the delegates. Indeed, Trump had a miserable result in Texas, getting only 27% of the vote. But Rubio’s 18%, though not enough to qualify him for statewide delegates, was enough to keep Cruz under 50% and allowed Trump to claim 48 delegates in Texas. Under South Carolina rules, Trump would have been entitled to zero. In dying, Rubio handed Trump a huge numbers of delegates.

6. Trump salvaged Saturday, March 5th.

This could easily have been Trump’s undoing. He was beaten badly in Kansas and Maine and just barely edged out Cruz in Kentucky and Louisiana, no small thanks to the ghost of Marco Rubio. In Kentucky, Cruz lost by four points and Rubio took 16%. In Louisiana, Cruz lost by three points and Rubio took 11%. Now some of Rubio’s take may have been the result of early voting so nothing much could have been done. Yet, what we saw clearly was that Rubio voters went to Cruz. This could have been a 4-0 Cruz day instead of a 2-2 split.

7. Michigan was a missed opportunity for `Not Trump.’

If Trump had actually lost all four contests on the previous Saturday, he might have been damaged going into Michigan on March 8. Instead, he took near perfect advantage of the split between Kasich and Cruz, the two remaining serious contenders. Trump got 37% to 25% for Cruz and 24% for Kasich and 9% for ghost Rubio. Kasich got no momentum, but Cruz had nothing great to brag about either. Trump won three out of four for the day (Mississippi and Hawaii along with Michigan, with Cruz taking Idaho). Trump was back on track.

8. Rubio went one week too long.

Because so much of the D.C. establishment wanted to believe in Rubio, it gave him an extra week to try and pull off Florida on March 15. That was a terrible idea. Although Trump had to work a bit in Florida, the state was already his. Trump lost Ohio to Kasich but he was able to sweep the other four states. Missouri went to Trump over Cruz by less than a point, with Rubio taking 6%. North Carolina went to Trump by four with Rubio taking 8%. Kasich also grabbed 10% in Missouri and 12% in North Carolina, probably taking a bit more from Cruz than from Trump. Over the two-week period separating March 1st and March 15th, Trump won at least two states (Kentucky and Missouri) and as many as five (the first two, plus Michigan, Louisiana and North Carolina) because of the continued presence of Rubio and Kasich in the race. Ohio was fool’s gold for the Republican establishment. Yes, it denied Trump the victory, but Kasich’s win meant he was going to hang around.

9. Even Trump’s end game resulted from multi-candidate field dynamics.

Trump had not yet gotten 50% of the vote anywhere and wouldn’t until his home state of New York on April 19. The continued existence of Kasich allowed people to believe that someone other than Cruz, who is not well liked outside of his base, could beat Trump. That proved hugely problematic. In Wisconsin, Cruz was able to win regardless, but Trump snagged six delegates. Once the Northeast rolled around on April 19/26, Kasich beat Cruz for second in five out of six states, making Cruz look weak heading into Indiana. Cruz’s need to cut a “deal” with Kasich, who refused to actually explain or seemingly honor the deal, which made Cruz look even worse. Such strategic voting deals were always necessary to stop Trump, but they were never clearly struck and the voters never understood them. If Kasich had dropped out after Wisconsin, it is not clear that Cruz could have stormed back and won Indiana. But had Trump won less after Rubio’s death, the map might have looked much different.

Conclusion

Lots of things explain how Donald Trump won but the degree to which multi-candidate field dynamics delivered the decisive blow is underappreciated. The continued selfishness of almost every one of the Republican candidates allowed Trump to be victorious. The desire to be the nominee was almost always greater than the desire to stop Trump. Trump took advantage beautifully but the other candidates kept the door open the entire time.

Read More

West Virginia Preview

We can begin with basics. Trump is the nominee. He will win West Virginia tomorrow. He also should win Nebraska, though there is the slightest of doubt there. Early voting in the state means some votes were cast before Trump became the de facto nominee.

We won’t make any more R predictions. Trump should win all of the remaining states. Margins will be a little interesting in gauging how much resistance remains, particularly in the states that hold regular as well as Presidential preference primaries at the same time. In strictly Presidential preference votes those who oppose Trump most likely won’t vote, but in states with other things on the ballot it might indicate the degree to which Republicans have reconciled themselves to the nominee.

As for the Democrats, clinching day rapidly approaches. Until now, we have focused on pledged delegates alone and rightly so; the winner of the pledged delegates was always likely to be the nominee. Because that person can no longer be in doubt (If you want to try to do the Sanders math to a majority be our guest), it makes sense to begin to factor in the super delegates. Given her support with super delegates, Hillary Clinton should receive an overall majority quite soon. 

A majority of delegates on the Democratic side is 2,383. Clinton currently has 2,209, according to The Green Papers.com (a site the big boys, 538, New York Times, use too). That means she only needs 174 more delegates with 169 super delegates still in play.  West Virginia has 29 at stake. We think Sanders is going to win and the split will be 16-13 in his favor. However, such a split will still give Clinton 13 delegates and mean that she might be able to capture a majority with not a single new pledged delegate (even though she will pick up a 100 more). The only way for her to clinch tomorrow would be for nearly all the uncommitted super delegates to commit to her tomorrow, which is unlikely. She could clinch the following week, however, when 116 delegates are at stake in Kentucky and Oregon. Even if she loses both states, Clinton should win enough delegates that it’s reasonable to assume the remaining supers will be enough in her favor to clinch. She should clinch on May 17^th.  No one will say it. The Clinton campaign will hide it because it doesn’t want to make it seem as if the super delegates put her over the top. But it will be the case.

West Virginia allocation follows.

Total: Sanders 16 Clinton 13

Delegate Allocation	Sanders	Clinton
WV AL	3	3
WV PLEO	2	1
WV 1	4	3
WV 2	4	3
WV 3	3	3

Read More

Can Donald Trump raise the money he needs for the general election?

While spending little, Donald Trump was able to use multi-candidate field dynamics, a pliable press and a well-targeted message to a certain kind of Republican to be successful. But the challenge in the general election is more difficult and will require more resources. In 2012, both sides spent about $1 billion. The race was close and Democrats probably did a better job of maximizing the efficiency of their dollars. But it was quite clear that a difference in money was not the deciding factor in the race.

The Clinton campaign and a supportive Democratic party should be able to replicate the effort in 2016. That Hillary Clinton is slightly more pro-corporate doesn’t hurt. The Clintons’ relationships with the donor class certainly go back further. Trump is probably more terrifying to certain people and that also will help. Clinton may do slightly less well with small donors, but there are other vehicles for money to flow into. Democratic fundraising should be watched but is not likely to fall short of goals.  

The question is how Trump will raise a comparable sum of money. First, let’s start with the fact that “I am really rich, I am funding my own campaign” Donald Trump so far has run an incredibly cheap race. He spent about $50 million and probably even less because some of that went to purchase merchandise that was then resold. So the net amount benefitted the campaign but it wasn’t all pure spending. And he doesn’t seem likely to spend more personal funds in the general election. Even if we take Trump at his word on how much he is worth, his own estimate of his cash on hand is $382 million -- a lot of money but only a third of what he needs and candidates rarely spend every dime they have. Trump could try and sell or mortgage an asset but that presents its own set of problems. The person buying the asset or loaning him the money might be seen as helping Trump. Some people won’t want the attention and some people who wouldn’t care might be the type of people Trump wouldn’t want to be associated with. So this avenue for obtaining the funds will not be easy.

Trump has had two opportunities during the campaign to demonstrate his wealth. In both cases, what he showed was underwhelming. Trump donated $1 million to the veteran fundraiser he put on in lieu of going to the final debate in Iowa. That may seem like a lot until you realize he claims to be worth $10 billion, meaning he gave one one-hundredth of one percent of his claimed wealth When he visited the New York 9/11 memorial museum he gave a relatively puny $100,000.  We therefore doubt Trump’s own wealth is enough to support a general election campaign.

If the Donald can’t come up with the money for his campaign, perhaps he’ll just rely on rich developer friends to finance his campaign via a Super Pac. There are grounds for skepticism here too. Let’s return to Trump’s pre-Iowa effort to raise money for the veterans. The effort took in $6 million. That may seem like a lot, until one realizes that this was the absolute easiest way for his friends to help Trump through a tax deductible donation to veterans. If you were ever inclined to help Trump even a little bit, why not take advantage of this opportunity? But so few did. Trump, it seems, has more business partners than actual friends, and they’re not likely to step up and fund his campaign.

      This leaves traditional Republican donors and small donors. For traditional Republican donors, giving is very much a transactional and relationship building exercise. Most of those donors were with someone else and already feel burned. More important, for every industry except extraction (fossil fuels, logging and the like), it is not even clear Trump would be better than Clinton. He wanders from issue to issue erratically; it is hard even to know where Trump will be tomorrow. So who would believe his presidency will help them enough to invest in him? Even for pure ideologues who are interested in advancing conservatism and not personal interests, how certain can they be that Trump will further their agenda? Trump’s suggestion just this week that he would renegotiate our debt posed a real risk to the pocketbooks of all these people. They may not like what they will get with Clinton, but they also lived through a Clinton and things did not work out terribly for them.  Trump also trails in the polls, which means that even if he persuaded big donors he was better for them, it would be hard for him to persuade them that he can win and thus be a good investment. 

       The smaller donor path seems more promising, but even here there’s a hitch. He has spent the better part of 11 months telling potential small donors over and over again that he does not need their money. To pivot now to say that he does, and desperately so, might turn them off. For every dollar he raises, he runs the risk of undermining his earlier message that he can’t be bought. Every time Trump asks small donors to help, he undermines his message even more. Plus, he’s going to have to ask a lot and it still likely won’t be enough. He could easily still be looking at a 2-1 or greater disparity between his campaign and that of Clinton.

     So what? It could be argued that Trump has done more with less than almost anyone could have imagined. That is certainly true but the challenge only gets steeper for him. Demographic changes are profoundly changing the electorate. In 2012 Barack Obama beat Mitt Romney by about 5 million votes. Among those voters still alive (Romney voters were older) Obama would have won by about 6 million. Trump does not have a new demographic trick or policy answer that will move people to his side. Sure he can hope for a drop off in voting in Democratic leaning groups, yet younger people entering the electorate who do not like Trump may offset that decline. It is hard to imagine Trump can win with the same voters from 2012. He needs to expand the electorate. Getting new voters to join the electorate is among the most expensive, intensive and difficult work imaginable. We have not yet seen voter registration spikes nearly large enough to give Trump a chance. Time is of the essence. It all costs money and we aren’t sure how Trump gets it.

Read More

Our First Look at the Senate

        This is our first foray down the ballot.  As with all things, it helps to remember history. To start, having the top of the ticket win in a state is extremely valuable in winning that state’s Senate race and that becomes truer with each election cycle. In 2012, only six of 33 races had a Senate race that went the opposite way of the top of ticket and there were unique stories behind each of them. A winning party at the top of the ticket provides the same advantage as a home field in sports. 

Another piece of history to remember is that the Senate class of 2010 rode a Republican wave to pick up Democratic seats in places such as Illinois, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. This year provides the Democrats with their first shot at this class. The landslide was large enough that no Red State Democrats are left. Democrats will only really be defending two seats as the rest are in Democratic strongholds. Democrats can put a possible 12 Republican seats into a competitive position, although the last four are something of a stretch. 

All of this seems to be good news for the Democrats’ chances of taking back the Senate. Let’s take a look at the 14 races we think will be competitive and an early prediction for each. 

Democratic Held Seats 

Likely Democratic 

Colorado: Democrat Michael Bennet v. TBD 

Sen. Michael Bennet survived the 2010 wave year. Colorado is trending demographically in the Democrats’ favor. Donald Trump is a terrible top of the ticket candidate for the state and the Republicans have as many as four candidates vying for the nomination, none of whom seem particularly intimidating. Still, Colorado tends to be a swing state and an incumbent Democratic senator lost in 2014 so a Republican victory can’t be ruled out. 

Lean Democratic 

Nevada: Democrat Catherine Cortez- Masto v. Republican Joe Heck 

Harry Reid handpicked a very qualified candidate in Catherine Cortez-Masto who was the state’s Attorney General. That, plus Trump at the top of the ticket, should make this a slam- dunk for the Democrats. But Republican Congressman Joe Heck has strong political skills and Nevada was the only state in 2012 where a Republican won the Senate seat while Obama took the state. 

Republican Held Seats 

Lean Democratic 

Illinois: Democrat Tammy Duckworth v. Republican Mark Kirk. 

Everyone may like Mark Kirk, but it isn’t going to matter. Illinois in a presidential year is an exceptionally Blue place. Kirk would be required to play error-free ball to even have a chance and it is not that hard to find an error or two. Tammy Duckworth is a good candidate with a compelling story. It is a tough, tough state for Rs regardless. 

Wisconsin: Democrat Russell Feingold v. Republican Ron Johnson 

This is as good an example of buyers’ remorse as one could hope to find. Ron Johnson was the Business Guy who rode Tea Party anger to victory over then-Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold in one of the bleakest races of 2010. In Johnson’s six years in the Senate, however, he has done nothing to stand out, and acted no differently than if he was a Republican in a safe state. The polling has shown Feingold consistently ahead, not to mention Wisconsin was Trump’s weakest spot during the primaries. Incumbents in swing states don’t fall easily but Johnson seems far and away the most likely to tumble. 

Tossup 

New Hampshire: Democratic Maggie Hassan v. Republican Kelly Ayotte. 

This is a race between two relatively popular politicians who are about to become much less so as $20 million in ads overwhelm the tiny state. This race was always going to be incredibly close and it is still likely to be, but Kelly Ayotte has wandered into two big problems: Donald Trump and her Supreme Court obstructionism. Both stands make her seem partisan and the partisanship is swinging the other way in New Hampshire, particularly in the wake of Trump. It is a tossup with a slight lean to the quite popular Gov. Hassan. 

Pennsylvania: Democrat Katie McGinty v. Republican Pat Toomey 

Pat Toomey is a right-winger who has done a very good job of building a more moderate profile to become relatively popular in his state. In more normal years, he would be a very tough out, but in this year, his luck may have run out. D.C. Democrats got whom they wanted in the Democratic nominee, Katie McGinty who is the sitting Democratic governor’s former chief of staff.  Although she may not be the most natural politician, she has solid experience and is backed by an ascendant Democratic party in Pennsylvania. Toomey might not be able to do as well in the Philly suburbs as he did in a much more Republican year in 2010. 

Florida: Primary v. Primary 

Both sides are awaiting the outcome of primaries to decide their candidates. If the Democrats get their man in Congressman Patrick Murphy, their chances of winning will be excellent, especially with Trump’s Miami-Dade problem affecting the entire ticket. Congressman Alan Grayson’s big money and big mouth pose a credible threat to Murphy’s chances. Most of the Republican opponents could be fairly easy pickings, but the toughest challenger, Congressman David Jolly, may make it through the primary. Races in Florida are incredibly close, yet they can tip quite quickly. Murphy could move the race to Lean D. We will revisit after the primary. 

Ohio: Democrat Ted Strickland v. Republican Rob Portman 

This race will be decided within two points. In 2010, Ted Strickland lost his job as governor by about two points. Rob Portman is probably the most popular of the Republicans running for re-election. It is going to be a barnburner. Portman, who supported gay marriage after his son came out, has problems with his right flank. Trump also presents a problem for him. Ted Strickland is 72-years old, which is on the gray side to start a senate career. It will be close all the way, particularly because the state is a must-have for Trump in general. 

Lean Republican 

North Carolina: Democrat Deborah Ross v. Republican Richard Burr 

This race is entirely about the national dynamics. For a two-term senator, Richard Burr is little known. Deborah Ross, a former member of the state house, isn’t very well known either. If the Democrats win at the top of the ticket, and the governor is taken down by the problems related to HB2, then this one just might tip over too.  

Arizona: Democrat Ann Kirkpatrick v. Republican John McCain  

This is the really interesting one. To some extent, John McCain is a spent force in American politics, yet his long-time record still makes him formidable. Donald Trump is a very dangerous force for him because Hispanic voters, who makeup a larger percentage of the state’s electorate, might be inclined to punish all Republicans. Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick is a solid candidate who has survived Republican wave years. It is tough to take down legends but this is the kind of year that does it. 

Likely Republican 

Indiana: Democratic Baron Hill v. Republican Todd Young  

 Republicans dodged the right-wing bullet by nominating Congressman Todd Young.  Former Congressman Baron Hill is the Democrat. Under normal circumstances, this would be a very hard road for Democrats, but this year, who knows? Hill is a good candidate. 

Missouri: Democrat Jason Kander v. Republican Roy Blunt 

We have always believed Roy Blunt to be an unpleasant fellow and current Secretary of State Jason Kander is a quality candidate. Missouri is moving away from Democrats, though they did retain the Senate race in 2012. Clinton can win here and there is nothing special about Blunt to save him. 

Iowa: Democrat TBD v. Republican Chuck Grassley 

Chuck Grassley is a living legend. Before this cycle, he was thought to be utterly untouchable.  But two things changed: Trump and the Supreme Court blockade. Grassley is the leading person stopping a vote on the high court nominee and his numbers are dropping as a result. Republicans’ core Christian base here rejected Trump in the caucus and that could be a big problem. The Democrats have to work through their primary with the outcome affecting the November race. Still, this is the hardest reach. 

On the Radar 

Georgia: Democrat Jim Barksdale v. Republican Johnny Isakson 

Isakson’s probably safe, particularly because the winner needs 50% to avoid a runoff. But Georgia now could be in play at the presidential level with Clinton possibly wining. (The latest poll shows the Trump-Clinton matchup basically a tie.) A Clinton win could push Barksdale, an investment manager, across the line. It is a very hard seat but it is possible. 

Read More

Guam Democratic Preview

Just book keeping. We think Clinton wins.

Delegate Allocation

Clinton 4 Sanders 3 

Read More

Can Trump keep winning without primaries to win?

       Once the primaries began, Donald Trump had a huge advantage. On every primary night, except for two of consequence (Iowa and Wisconsin), Trump won at least something. Before this race was called yesterday, Trump had won 27 states out of the 41 states that had voted. That meant Trump got to boast regularly about all his winning.

His polls results worked the same way. Whenever his controversial early statements threatened to engulf his campaign, he could pull out a new poll that had him ahead. No one cared about what Trump said as long as he was still winning. Winning beget winning. This feedback loop helped him tremendously in the primaries. 

But now Trump faces a deficit in the polls and he has no possibility of a real win until the actual election. Sure there is one outlier poll that shows him ahead and there might be one or two more to come. And sure Trump is the master of generating attention. But how is he going to be winning and, more importantly, seen as winning? Without being able to fall back on big wins and big poll leads, what is his strategy? This will be an interesting to watch as we move forward.

Tomorrow we will take our first look at the Senate. 

Read More

And so it begins. Clinton versus Trump. An initial lesson.

We now need to pivot away from just primary predictions. The general election has begun. We can’t possible get into everything right now but we will begin with a simple point. Donald Trump basically led in the polls nationally and in the relevant states from the beginning of the race to its end. There were questions about what would happen when the field condensed. There were questions about how long the lead would last etc.  What did not happen was Trump’s actual performance deviating from the polls’ predictions. Of late, he has done somewhat better than the polls, but not by much. The pundits made a big mistake in discounting his lead early on. We shouldn’t, however, overcompensate for those early mistakes by believing now that Trump will do better than the polls that show him trailing Hillary Clinton. Ignoring the polls that showed Trump ahead was wrong; that is not a good reason to ignore ones showing him behind. A point to bear in mind: Clinton leads in the polls by considerably more the Obama did at this point in either 2008 or 2012. 

Read More

Indiana Preview

There was supposed to be suspense on the Republican side. It sometimes feels that at the last minute the Republicans will pull themselves back from the brink of a Trump nomination but there is not much in the way of evidence to support that. The two most recent polls in Indiana show double-digit Trump leads. There was one outlier poll for Cruz but the period over which it was conducted was way too long. Plus, it does not take enough account of what happened in New York and the Acela primaries of the Eastern seaboard states. Trump is on track for all 57 delegates and a smooth path to the nomination. Republicans seem to have realized their choice was Trump or chaos and chose Trump.

Total Trump 57 Cruz 0 Kasich 0

Delegate Allocation	Trump	Cruz	Kasich
IN AL	30	0	0
IN 1	3	0	0
IN 2	3	0	0
IN 3	3	0	0
IN 4	3	0	0
IN 5	3	0	0
IN 6	3	0	0
IN 7	3	0	0
IN 8	3	0	0
IN 9	3	0	0

On the Democratic side, this primary has the demographic makings of a photo finish. We think it could either be like Michigan, which Sanders just won, or like Missouri, which Clinton just won. We think Clinton will pull it out by the absolute smallest of margins and net only one delegate.  But if it tips the other way it would not be a surprise. Another non-surprise would be a Clinton statewide win and a Sanders delegate win; what are likely to be Clinton districts have an even number of delegates and what are likely to be Sanders districts have an odd number.

Total: Clinton 42 Sanders 41

Delegate Allocation	Clinton	Sanders
IN AL	9	9
IN PLEO	5	4
IN 1	5	3
IN 2	3	3
IN 3	2	3
IN 4	2	3
IN 5	3	4
IN 6	2	3
IN 7	5	3
IN 8	3	3
IN 9	3	3

Read More