New York Preview

            The end game of the primary process has begun as only seven weeks of voting remain on the Republican side and eight on the Democratic side. New York is in many ways the last chance for a surprise that could throw off how we think about the race. Our current thinking is not to expect one.

Donald Trump looks nearly certain to win and very likely to break 50%. Whether he has a good or great night will depend on how many of New York Congressional districts he takes with over half the votes. Overall he seems like a lock for at least a good night.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton also looks primed for a good day; a 10-plus point win seems very likely. Such a win would cement her lead in pledged delegates. 

As always, full delegate allocations follow.

New York Democrats 

Total: Clinton 142 Sanders 105

	Clinton	Sanders
NY AL	31	23
NYPLEO	17	13
NY 1	3	3
NY 2	4	2
NY 3	4	3
NY 4	4	2
NY 5	4	2
NY 6	4	2
NY 7	4	3
NY 8	4	2
NY 9	4	2
NY 10	3	3
NY 11	3	2
NY 12	4	2
NY 13	4	2
NY 14	4	3
NY 15	4	2
NY 16	4	2
NY 17	4	2
NY 18	3	3
NY 19	2	3
NY 20	4	3
NY 21	3	3
NY 22	2	3
NY 23	2	3
NY 24	3	3
NY 25	3	3
NY 26	4	3
NY 27	3	3

New York Republicans

Total: Trump 84 Kasich 10 Cruz 1

	Trump	Kasich	Cruz
NY AL	14	0	0
NY 1	3	0	0
NY 2	3	0	0
NY 3	3	0	0
NY 4	3	0	0
NY 5	3	0	0
NY 6	3	0	0
NY 7	2	1	0
NY 8	3	0	0
NY 9	3	0	0
NY 10	2	1	0
NY 11	3	0	0
NY 12	2	1	0
NY 13	2	1	0
NY 14	3	0	0
NY 15	2	1	0
NY 16	3	0	0
NY 17	3	0	0
NY 18	2	1	0
NY 19	2	1	0
NY 20	2	1	0
NY 21	2	1	0
NY 22	2	0	1
NY 23	3	0	0
NY 24	2	1	0
NY 25	3	0	0
NY 26	3	0	0
NY 27	3	0	0

Read More

Our Track Record

As the primaries enter the home stretch, we thought now was as good a time as any to update our readers on the success of our predictions. On the Democratic side, there have been 37 contests to date. Multi-Candidate field dynamics has correctly predicted 34 of them. We missed two (Oklahoma, Michigan), and forgot to call one in the North Mariana Islands. So we’ve had 34 out of 36 correct. In terms of Democratic delegates, out of the 2404 that have been awarded, we predicted Secretary Clinton to be getting only 28 more than she currently is receiving. We have basically 90% of delegates in the correct place. In primaries, which have awarded 1862 delegates, we have Secretary Clinton running only six total delegates ahead of her actual pace. So our prediction rates run well into the 90% range.

On the Republican side we have correctly called 28 of the 33 contests (missing in Minnesota, Alaska, Oklahoma, Hawaii and Maine, only one of which, Oklahoma, was a primary), and we have been out front on all the big trends. We had Cruz against the polls in Iowa. We had the correct finish order in New Hampshire. We saw the importance of delegate thresholds with respect to Rubio in Texas. We saw the effect of Zombie campaigns and the damage each candidate pressing on for another week would cause everyone but Trump as votes cast for Rubio in Missouri and North Carolina likely cost Ted Cruz both of those states. On the verge of the Iowa Caucus, we understood how multi-candidate field dynamics would play out over the course of this campaign. On the R side we have a lower percentage of things correct, but given the degree of difficulty we did even better there.

Conclusion:
We intend to provide on point coverage as the race continues, but we thought it worthwhile to highlight what we have done so far.

Read More

Republicans Can’t Avoid the Question of Who Should Be President

We have tried our best to keep our coverage focused on this fascinating primary process. But with six days until the next primary in New York and with the parameters of the final primaries relatively well set, now is a good a time for a slight pivot toward the general election. Today, we will not look at possible general election matchups but instead look at those who are running from the reality of the general election.

The following CNN report http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/12/politics/republican-convention-2016/index.html suggests that several high-profile Republicans, including Jeb Bush and Senators Kelly Ayotte and Richard Burr, don’t plan to attend the Republican convention in Cleveland. This might make a certain amount of political sense, particularly for candidates in potentially close races. At the same time for a politician to avoid the question of who should be the President is a little like the early 1960s duck-and-cover method for avoiding a nuclear explosion -- just because you hide under your desk doesn’t mean you won’t get blown away in the inevitable blast.

In race after race, the advice for how to survive in hyper-partisan times is to focus on local issues and avoid the national skid. When everyone is talking about A and you insist on talking about C or D, however, it is not likely to work. Every Republican running for office, whether they attend the Cleveland convention or not, needs a good answer on whom they think should be President. It is not certain that any answer will work but even harmful clarity is better than the pathetic confusion that some people are thinking of going with.

Although you might try and avoid being at the center of a bad story, the storm will come to you regardless of what else you try to do.  This is a question that must be answered.

Read More

When will Hillary Clinton clinch?

We called this race a little over a month ago, and despite Sanders’ recent good run, the math has not changed anywhere near enough to justify a re-examination of the nomination fight. It’s true that Sanders hot streak, while expected, has been slightly better than we anticipated. However we are now close enough to the goal line to examine the question of when Hillary Clinton will clinch the majority of delegates needed to win and whether she can do that before all voting ends.

Currently Hillary Clinton is roughly 600 delegates away from clinching the majority she needs for the nomination. We have done a rough estimate for the states and territories that vote before June 7^th, and we see the Clinton campaign picking up roughly 500 delegates from these contests putting her about a 100 shy as of June 5^th. There are still 198 undecided unpledged delegates, and thus if the Clinton campaign can either pick up or announce about half of them she could in theory clinch a majority of delegates before California. This will be close. It is entirely possible that the Clinton campaign will have this in hand but not announce so as not to insult voters in the last seven contests. But June 5 is our best guess as to when Clinton will have a majority of delegates in hand. We also note the absurdity of shifting the standard from winning a majority of the pledged delegates to winning a majority of the convention only with pledged delegates. 15% of the all delegates are unpledged super delegates. So it is just ridiculous to move the goal posts to require nearly 59% of pledged delegate as the only way for convention to not be “open” or “contested.” Democratic proportionality rules mean that a 10 to 15% race can go the distance, but that does not mean the result is something that is genuinely contestable. We clearly have enough data from that states that have voted to know the end of this story. Clinton will likely win by about 300 pledged delegates with the better guess at more rather than less. When all the voting stops on June 14^th the nominee will be overwhelmingly clear. It is possible that unpledged delegates will put her over the top, a week before that. We will be tracking the number of delegates Clinton needs to Clinch as a category in each post from now on. New York in 10 days.

Read More

Multi-Candidate Field Dynamics Return with a Vengeance

Just when things seem to be going off the rails for Donald Trump with reports of unfriendly delegates elected all across the country, his old friend, multi-candidate field dynamics, emerges to come to his aid.

  Trump has proven exceptionally difficult to beat in any field where there is more than one main competitor. Even in contests such as Wisconsin and Ohio in which there were technically more than one competitor to Trump, voters have been remarkably savvy at figuring out who is viable and who is not.  (Cruz was the real contender in Wisconsin, Kasich was in Ohio.) Trump has benefited from incomplete winnowing of his opponents. Marco Rubio’s not-quite-dead-yet campaign almost certainly won North Carolina and Missouri for the Donald. The very large field has helped Trump every step of the way. 

As we turn our attention to the Northeast, this dynamic is still playing out to Trump’s advantage. For the forces trying to stop Trump in New York, the strategy should be simple -- keep Trump under 50% both statewide and in every congressional district deny delegates, possibly turning a 95-delegate day for Trump into a 65-delegate day and a huge problem for him. This should be a concerted team effort by all the non-Trump forces. With Trump currently polling at 53.5%, it would not take too much to knock him under 50%, at least in some congressional districts.

 But if you are John Kasich, while denying Trump delegates and winning a few for yourself would be nice, you have a bigger, immediate problem. Your campaign has been mired in third for far too long. To remain viable, you need to beat Cruz in New York more than you need any other outcome. At the moment, Kasich’s effort to top Cruz is working. He is polling a little better than two points ahead of Cruz. That’s why Kasich is attacking Cruz in ads. Even if those ads end up sending a vote Trump’s way, it is essential for Kasich.

If Kasich is successful in this strategy, not just in New York on April 19 but across the Northeast on April 26^th, the Republican contest may once again appear to be a three-person race. This makes Indiana on May 3^rd, a crucial state for Cruz, more challenging. Kasich is not competitive in Indiana but, coming off a strong Northeast finish, he may be competitive enough to deliver Indiana to Trump. If Kasich remains even somewhat viable by the time California rolls around in June, he could drop Trump’s win number from the mid 40s, which has been hard for him to hit, to the high 30s which he has hit repeatedly.  

Multi-candidate field dynamics may once again have opened a door for Trump that his recent struggles should have shut. 

Read More

Wyoming Democratic Preview

                This is the last stateside caucus until June 7^th and the second to last caucus altogether. By now, you all know the drill. Bernie Sanders will win the caucus tomorrow in Wyoming barring something unforeseen. We will offer the slightest of caveats, not in terms of the winner but in terms of the margin of victory. Wyoming was one of Clinton’s best caucuses in 2008. Despite Sanders’ impressive results, he has outperformed Obama in only eight states (New Hampshire, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine, Alaska and Washington). We are certain Wyoming will be the ninth.

But with so few delegates at stake (14), the margin of victory swings the delegate take quite a bit. We’re predicting Sanders will get 10 delegates to Clinton’s four. To go from winning 9-5 to 10-4 requires Sanders getting 68.75; 11-3 requires 75.1%; 12-2 requires 81.25%. 85% would net all 14 delegates. Because Clinton got 38% in 2008, even her dropping to our prediction of 25.9% would be far and away her biggest drop from 2008 to date (with the exception of Vermont). Sanders could get above the 10-4. We think not, but we have been burned by caucuses before.

Delegate Total:         Sanders 10 Clinton 4

Delegate Allocation:	Sanders	Clinton
WY AL	3	1
WY PLEO	1	1
WY 1	6	2

Read More

A Detailed Look at Republican Math

Let’s start with biggest conclusion of all. The odds of any Republican candidate getting a majority of 1237 delegates are remote. It is not impossible but it is daunting. Here is what it would take for each campaign. 

 Donald Trump needs to win every delegate in New York, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia and New Jersey, and a reasonable slice of the remaining proportional states of Rhode Island, Oregon, Washington,New Mexico. Even if Trump manages such domination, he’ll still need to win 13 districts in California.  He also faces an additional problem in Pennsylvania. The state’s entire complement of district-level delegates are technically unpledged, which means they don’t have to follow the election results, and they may not if Trump is the district winner. 

 Ted Cruz needs to win a very large share in the remaining proportional states. He could get every delegate from every non-proportional state besides New York and still need about 30 delegates in New York. In short, mathematical elimination looms for him in New York. 

John Kasich needs to win over 100% of the remaining delegates, which he obviously can’t. He already has been mathematically eliminated from getting to 1237. In all honesty, we no longer understand the strategy of the Kasich campaign. The Northeastern states that vote next are decent territory for him but no polling has him legitimately in shouting distance of Trump in any state. He sneaks into second place in some places. That voters are not voting for him seriously damages his convention argument that he would be the best vote getter. It makes more sense for the convention to pick someone who the voters have not rejected rather than someone they so clearly have. We don’t get it anymore. 

This brings us back to our old friend multi-candidate field dynamics. Trump is now pretty consistently getting 40% of the vote.  He has received 37% of the vote so far, including in states where the field was much larger.  His national RCP polling average is 40.3%. Two recent polls in California averaged him at 39.5%. He was at 39% in a Pennsylvania poll and 41% in a Maryland poll.  40% is not good enough to win a two-person race. 

But the problem for `not Trump’ remains the same as it has been. Consolidating the non-Trump vote behind a single candidate is required to beat him but the voters in the various states may not comply. They might refuse to vote for the only remaining alternative. The continued division might be enough to win Trump the next six states and those wins may be enough to overcome Trump’s math challenges

Plus, both Cruz and Kasich continue to pursue their own interests. For Kasich, the possibility of a string of second places finishes across the Northeast might be enough for him to try and prove in California that he is the better challenger to Trump. Cruz believes that merely keeping Trump under 1237 will be enough for him to win and he might well be right. A two-person race in California at the moment seems to strongly favor Cruz. Trump is at 40% in California and experiences shows that Trump’s results rarely beat his polls. That would give Cruz a good shot with Kasich weakens. Kasich is now taking about 20% in California and undecided is at about 10%. A whole month earlier on May 3^rd, Indiana, which hasn’t been polled, also might present an opportunity for Cruz. 

The race will continue to be wild. But the dynamics that have benefited Trump continue to do so. This puts his rivals in a no man’s land as they might have a way to take the nomination away from him, but the party might not have the will. 

  What follows is a prediction for the remaining states with each state’s total delegate number, and the form of the contest: winner take all (WTA;) winner take all by state and congressional district [WTASC); near winner take all with triggers (NWTAT); proportional (P); or mixed system (Mixed).

Donald Trump: 758 delegates

Ted Cruz: 499 delegates

John Kasich: 144 delegates

Trump States 

New York: 95 delegates (NWTAT) 

West Virginia: 34 delegates (WTA) 

New Jersey: 51 delegates (WTA)

Lean Trump States  (the three-way dynamic makes this lean stronger)

Connecticut: 28 delegates (NWTAT)

Delaware: 16 delegates (WTA)

Maryland: 38 delegates (WTAC)

Pennsylvania: 71 delegates (M) 

Rhode Island: 19 delegates (P) 

Toss Up States 

Indiana: 57 delegates (WTASC) 

California: 172 delegates (WTASC) 

New Mexico: 24 delegates (P)

Lean Cruz States  

Oregon: 28 delegates (P)

Washington: 44 delegates (NWTAT)

Likely Cruz States 

Nebraska: 36 delegates (WTA)

Montana: 27 delegates (WTA) 

South Dakota: 29 delegates (WTA)

Read More

What Wisconsin Means on the Republican Side

Last night was certainly exciting and we learned a lot about the race going forward. The first thing we learned is that Donald Trump is not invincible. This was clearly his worst loss of the election cycle. He had greater losses in individual states but those came on the same day as victories in other states. With the exception of Iowa, yesterday marked Trump’s first real stand alone defeat. (That happened in District of Columbia and Puerto Rico too but those contests were largely overlooked.) 

We also are seeing that when the field shrinks Trump is vulnerable. With that said, yesterday also showed that Trump is not finished. He got 35% of the vote. He won two congressional districts and thus six delegates. Other states on the calendar, particularly New York, look very good for him. So his ability to have the most delegates and the most votes at the convention seems safe even after last night, but his path to 1237 looks rockier than ever. New York on April 19 and five states on April 26^th states will tell us a lot.

Last night also saw the continued shrinking of John Kasich; he took only 14% of the total vote. It is a very difficult challenge to be the third guy in a three-man race, which Kasich has been, running third or worse in almost every contest. This is particularly true when the candidate has one win in 35 contests. Kasich could in theory pose a stronger challenge to Trump than Cruz in the next two set of contests, New York in two weeks and Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island a week after that. A poll or two is showing that but those appeared before Wisconsin. By refusing to leave the race, Kasich may end up helping Trump to win those states where Trump should be stronger than he was in Wisconsin.

For Ted Cruz the question is how do you weather a bad string of states in the Northeast that all vote this month or, can you in fact pull off some stunners in these seemingly inhospitable places. In Wisconsin, Cruz could face Kasich’s 14% and still win easily. But that Kasich number could cause far greater problems in a Connecticut or Pennsylvania primary, particularly if it creeps higher. Indiana on May 3^rd presents an opportunity for Cruz, but coming in with a losing streak might make things harder.

          A cloud hangs over this whole process -- Republican donors and office holders generally would prefer for neither Trump nor Cruz to get the nomination. Thus it’s possible that if Cruz does better and Trump does worse, there might be a slight move toward helping Trump to make the process appear even more chaotic.

We will go state-by-state and delegate-by-delegate within a day or two. The road ahead will be long and likely bloody. 

Read More

Wisconsin D and R Preview

Democrats:

Odds Sanders 95% Clinton 5%

Margin: Sanders 54% Clinton 46%

Explanation: This is a state that is demographically similar to Michigan except that the voters are roughly half as African American. The polling mostly gives Sanders a very slight lead, but when you are this deep into a process and have polls that disagree with demographics go with the demographics.

Delegate total: Sanders 46 Clinton 40 

Delegates	Sanders	Clinton
WI AL	11	8
WI PLEO	5	5
WI 1	3	3
WI 2	7	4
WI 3	4	3
WI 4	4	6
WI 5	3	2
WI 6	3	3
WI 7	3	3
WI 8	3	3

Republicans:

Odds Cruz 97% Trump 3%

Margin: Cruz 44% Trump 37%  Kasich 19%

Explanation: Cruz has been gaining here, and this was never a state in which Donald Trump was particularly strong.  Cruz has also lined up the Wisconsin Talk Show hosts and Governor Scott Walker. What also seems clear is that Trump has not entirely collapsed and will get a lot of votes. We have him also winning two districts and could even see him being competitive in another three.  This could be closer than some believe, but in the end it’s hard to see Cruz losing.

Delegate Total: Cruz 36 Trump 6

Delegates	Cruz	Trump
Statewide	18	0
CD 1	3	0
CD 2	3	0
CD 3	0	3
CD 4	3	0
CD 5	3	0
CD 6	3	0
CD 7	0	3
CD 8	3	0

Read More

If you want to understand the dynamics of a contested Republican Convention try thinking about the four days in Cleveland without being distracted by the names.

It is very easy to get caught up in the personality battles and to think that because Republican elites don’t like certain candidates they can stop them. This is not likely.  

The way to see this is to look at what might transpire without paying attention to the names. There are 2472 delegates.  One candidate is likely to walk in with between 40% and 50% of those delegates. Another candidate is likely to walk in with between 30% and 40% of the delegates. The remaining 20% or so of all delegates are awarded to other candidates or uncommitted. 

 In such a circumstance it is exceptionally difficult for a candidate who is not one of the first two candidates to win. Even assuming someone can instantly rally all of the delegates not pledged to one of the other two candidates, the rally leader is still significantly behind. The trailing third party would need defections from more than 50% from one or the other leading camp, or would need some combination of defections from both camps without a critical mass of defections going in the other direction. Candidate 1 who is between 40% and 50% can win by getting only a third of the votes from candidate 2.  Candidate 2 can win mostly from the uncommitted pile.   So could candidate 1.   Tremendous disloyalty from delegates elected for both Candidate 1 and Candidate 2 would be needed to elect someone other than candidate 1 or candidate 2.  Candidates 1 and 2 also likely control a majority on bodies related to rules, and perhaps can shape things so that only the two leaders may be nominated.   This is why, although fantasies about neither Trump nor Cruz might be fun, it is exceptionally difficult to actually get there. 

Read More

Who Supports Sanders, Who Supports Clinton?

Although there is still a decent amount of runway left in the Democratic nomination race, the shape of each candidate’s primary coalitions do seem to be relatively set. These coalitions explain a great deal about the race, who is winning and why.

First, an important caveat. In identifying a voting bloc that supports one candidate or another, it is crucial to remember there were always be individuals within that bloc who will support the other person. Too often in trying to get the categories right, the media forget this basic reality, which upsets a lot of people and justifiably so. Still voter categories are incredibly important for predicting elections. Often times demographic head counts will give a better sense of how an election will go than the available polling. If a poll does a poor job of reflecting the demographic head count than it is a bad poll. This is one reason the polls predicting a substantial Clinton victory in Michigan were so wrong--they contained poor assumptions about the makeup of the electorate. Pollsters assumed it would be older than it turned out to be; when it wasn’t, everything flipped.

The biggest gap in who votes for Sanders and who votes for Clinton is generational. No matter what other demographic one belongs to the older you are the more likely you are to support Clinton, the younger you are the more likely you are to support Sanders. Sanders young supporters have influenced greatly the narrative of the contest. It is not surprising that young voters receive more attention. They are more interesting. They make for bigger crowds and better visuals. They also help power an online giving campaign because they live online. But they also remain a smaller portion of electorate. Under 30s were outvoted by over 65s in nearly every state.

The second biggest gap is a gender gap among almost every demographic and in every state (a few exit polls produced different results but they don’t seem reliable). Male voters vote more for Sanders than for Clinton. This was the case in 2008 as well; men also were better for Obama. Something other than sexism may be at work, or it may just be sexism. In addition, some women may be voting out of gender solidarity. (We have a way to decipher whether the attitude is sexist or not--the person’s willingness to criticize President Obama for the same behavior as he or she is criticizing Clinton. If the person criticizing Hillary for taking large campaign contributions, for example, didn’t criticize Obama for the same practice, they are more likely sexist than a thoughtful critic.) Whatever may be behind it, women’s support has clearly benefited Clinton. Women are a much greater portion of the Democratic primary electorate. To be fair, the younger the voter, the smaller the gender gap. Among voters under 30 the gap mostly disappears.

The third biggest gap is with respect to party self-identification. In almost every state, self-identified Democrats have voted for Clinton. Sanders has done better, and almost always won, self-identified independents. Some of that is attributable to the age gap because young people are far less likely to identify with a party, but that does not seem likely to be all of it. Clearly many independents like Sanders’ message of being outside the establishment. But independents make up a smaller part or primary voters.

The next gap is with respect to class. There are lots of interesting things to note here. In particular, it is interesting that Sanders does in fact do better down the income scale. Again, this is somewhat attributable to age. Educational attainment and income, the two categories we looked at as proxies for class, go up with age. Still, the data seems to suggest that, even controlling for age, either attaining a post-graduate degree or earning over 100k a year makes you more likely to support Clinton. Exit polls in a few states suggested that Clinton might have done better with lower income voters, but those polls didn’t take into account income and race. Generally, having only a high school degree makes you more likely to support Sanders in places with a white population, but less likely in less white places. Again leaving age aside, Sanders’ message is resonating with whites further down the income scale. There’s another crucial point, however. Voters as a group are much better educated and richer. This fact has allowed Clinton to win states, such as Massachusetts, that she likely would not have won had the electorate looked more like the state as a whole.

The final gap is race and it is the one we have covered the most here. African Americans are voting at about a three-to-one or slightly better clip for Clinton. They powered her to very close wins in Missouri and Illinois (despite Missouri being Sanders’ best state with African Americans, losing only two-to-one). They kept things very close in Michigan and mitigated the delegate loss. The evidence is more mixed with other non-whites. Clinton won Hispanics big in Texas and Florida, but Sanders won them fairly comfortably in Illinois. In Michigan, Muslims and Arab Americans went to Sanders. For Asian American/Pacific Islanders, the evidence is so far inclusive. What happens with non-whites other than African Americans will likely determine the margins in coming states.

Conclusion: From these gaps, it should be clear why Clinton is winning: almost every group she claims, older people, women, self-identified Democrats, the better educated, minorities, are a larger part of the primary electorate (less well-off people are the exception).

Her supporters also provide an interesting explanation for what has often been referred to as an enthusiasm gap between her and Sanders. It may be that Sanders supporters are considered more enthusiastic not because they are but because they culturally seem so. It is also not surprising that a candidate whose supporters are whiter, younger, more male, and less typical voters would be described as having the more enthusiastic base, while the candidate favored by older, female, less white and more typical voters would be seen as drawing less enthusiastic support. What is also true is that Sanders supporters in all demographic groups tend to be louder and tend to give more money. This also creates the perception of enthusiasm. Clinton’s base groups are taken for granted partly because they are more reliable.

The odds are excellent that Clinton will win a majority of the pledged delegates but if, on some fluke, she does not and delegates need to decide to whom to thrown their support, they should not be distracted by Sanders’ “enthusiasm.” New does not necessarily mean better and dissing your core base for the new people, especially if the core outvoted the new by over a million or so votes, would be a mistake. Clinton supporters are too easily marginalized but there also are a lot more of them.

Read More