The FiveThirtyEight deep-dive into the delegate math of the Republican nomination is useful but also just bizarre.
The first thing they do is assume that Rubio will emerge as the savior the Establishment rallies around to stop Cruz and Trump. That’s a contentious assumption, as both Christie and Kasich are showing enough strength in New Hampshire to make a claim for this prize.
Then they decide that Trump will do best in the stupidest states (measured by educational attainment), while Cruz will dominate with evangelicals and throughout the South, and Rubio will do best wherever Mitt Romney did best, which is in rich, mainly coastal states and areas of the Midwest.
Finally, they give us a thought experiment that shows how all three candidates could attain the 1,237 delegates they would need to secure the nomination.
In their scenario, Trump could reach the threshold without winning too many contests. Here are the states where they show Trump (winning by) getting the most delegates: Iowa, Nevada, Alaska, Minnesota, Louisiana, Idaho, Florida, Ohio, Arizona, Nebraska, West Virginia, and South Dakota.
That’s 12 states out of 50 and don’t forget that there are also contests in Puerto Rico, D.C., Guam, the Virgin Islands, the Mariana Islands, and American Samoa.
So, Trump can win the nomination by winning 12 out of 56 contests, and he can do this by getting all the delegates from winner-take-all Ohio, Florida, and Arizona.
Well, he could do this in theory, except try to imagine a scenario like the (best case for The Donald) one presented where Trump wins Iowa, comes in second in New Hampshire and South Carolina, wins Nevada, and then this happens on Super Tuesday:
Ted Cruz wins: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and Wyoming
Marco Rubio wins: Massachusetts, Vermont, and Virginia
Donald Trump wins: Alaska and Minnesota
From a delegate point of view, these results would be acceptable to all three candidates. But I think that would be a long night for Trump, don’t you?
Would he be able to maintain that he’s still winning like Charlie Sheen?
What’s useful in this piece is the information on the nuts and bolts of how delegates are awarded. But it’s not helpful for predicting where or why each candidate is likely to do well.
Where on earth do you get the idea that Rubio could take Massachusetts? The TeaHadists up here absolutely despise anything with an Hispanic name.
The only polls I could find were from Nov 2015 and all showed Trump in a commanding lead, with Rubio and Cruz vying losing big time in 2nd place.
I guess that could have changed, but I haven’t seen it. Trumps courting of the Evangelicals will have absolutely zero effect (for or against) up here … there just aren’t that many of them.
Trump should start referring to Ted by his given name, Rafael. Properly mispronounced so that all the good white folks hear it.
It’s not my idea. It’s 538’s idea.
Spotted so far on the North Shore of Massachusetts: some scattered Trump lawn signs and bumper stickers, a couple of forlorn Carson bumper stickers (might be two sightings of the same car), nobody else.
Well, he could do this in theory, except try to imagine a scenario like the (best case for The Donald) one presented where Trump wins Iowa, comes in second in New Hampshire and South Carolina, wins Nevada, and then this happens on Super Tuesday:
Ted Cruz wins: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and Wyoming
Marco Rubio wins: Massachusetts, Vermont, and Virginia
Donald Trump wins: Alaska and Minnesota
Why is 538 still pushing Rubio when his poll numbers are in the toilet? Rubio isn’t winning squat if he can’t even put up a 2nd place in any of the 4 races before Super Tuesday. If Trump has 2 wins and 2 2nd’s before Super Tuesday, he’ll be sitting pretty. And the race will evolve into a Trump and not-Trump option. 538 is still pushing Rubio because they are doubling down and not admitting that they could have big egg on their face if Crux or Trump wins the nomination.
Every once in a while, Nate screws up pretty badly. I remember him predicting that the ACA had almost no chance of passing. Two weeks later it had. He seems almost a little uninterested in politics at this point.
But isn’t that apples and oranges? I mean, I thought the whole point of Nate Silver was that he stripped away all the opinions and presuppositions and just examined the numbers — and, in so doing, got the correct answer that nobody else saw. (Kind of like the best scientists are the ones who discard everyone else’s presuppositions, as, say, Copernicus did.)
Which, I’m not sure you can do that when it’s legislation (which is a complex machine involving lots of quid-pro-quo and hidden equations) rather than just assessing numerical data.
(I don’t actually have any mastery of this; I’m just ruminating.) (Which means I’m an example of my own point, I guess.)
“stripped away all the opinions and presuppositions and just examined the numbers”
It’s impossible to propose an unbiased hypothesis. And let’s be clear — the work that Silver (and Sam Wang, Drew Linzer, etc.) do is grounded in hypothesis testing. There is no mathematical law on predicting elections, and there never will be.
So you’re going to have your biases and the best you can hope for is that they don’t matter. But Silver seems to be getting away from the approach that worked so well for him in 2008 and 2012 (straight polling average with a little special sauce mixed in) and adding extra special sauce. Put another way, he’s putting his thumb on the scale.
Now why would he do this? My guess is the incentives are pretty clear — he needs to keep his readers. Silver’s readers probably veer technocrat/centrist and there are a lot of R-leaners that swear by 538 (especially since he’s not an obvious partisan like Wang). Those people want to read things that confirm their hopes. And right now, their biggest hope is that Trump crashes and burns, but I don’t any good evidence that this will happen. At least until the primaries begin.
Nate’s only special skill is statistical analysis. No statistics, no skill, hence blowing it on the ACA. In the past, he’s been less biased that most political analysts and that’s been a boost for him as well but in this election he seems to be getting enamored of his own offbeat theories and that’s looking to be as much of a handicap as partisan bias.
That said, Nate’s a bit short on the self-skepticism with his big push on Rubio. It would be more accurate to say if Rubio has to win Massachusetts to be in contention, he’s in trouble.
For the record I think he is right. Rubio is the logical nominee – but who knows if Rubio is a good enough politician to pull it off. If he won’t it will be Christie or Rubio.
Someone has to finish third in NH.
Off topic, but not that off-topic:
Sanders 60%, Clinton 33%, O’Malley 2%. Tonight’s numbers out of New Hampshire.
Brutal! Team Clinton might want to reconsider sending Chelsea and Bill out on the campaign trail.
Too soon for the numbers from Iowa since Bill hit the stump there. (Democrats have never believed what Gore said about 2000. So, we shall see if there’s any confirmation of that this time around.)
UNH is nearly as bad as ARG. I have little doubt the number is an outlier,but it is an indication of how much trouble Clinton is in.
The Clinton people struggled with the idea in ’08 that Iowa was so important. They ultimately concluded they had no choice – unlike the GOP Iowa Primary the Democratic IA Caucus is not as skewed.
For the GOP, an Iowa loss is easily survived. A NH loss is another matter. For the Dems and Iowa loss is a near death experience – only 1 since 1976 has one without it.
It’s CNN/WMUR. Is that the same as UNH?
Latest DM Regiser has Clinton at 42 and Sanders at 40.
NH — Jan. Fox: Sanders 50, HRC 37. Monmath: Sander 53, HRC 39. ARG Sanders 49, HRC 43.
That 60 to 33 may be an outlier, but the gap between the two is getting larger.
Yes – that is UNH.
no, no! please proceed! and more talk about Bill advising her at the kitchen table. and Chelsea making up lies to attack Sanders! but Bill advising her reminds me of an aspect of the email server thing – how about Bill’s access to her account via a home server vs. office?
Well we do know that whole run away from Obama 2014 GE strategy for DEM candidates was endorsed by Bill. I’ve always been of the opinion that Bill wasn’t some genius political strategist and campaigner but more in the right place at the right time.
Bill’s like Sinatra — when he opens his mouth at the microphone in front of the crowd and does his thing, it’s magic, but he doesn’t really need to put much effort or thought into the whole political process beyond that, and he never did.
That “magic” is in the eyes and ears of the audience. Why anyone swoons over the guy is a mystery to me.
Like Sinatra, Bill sounds good. I even feel that way when I listen to him, and I never liked the guy. I held my nose and voted for him the first time, but not the second time.
But I do believe that Bill’s got a “way with words.” However, once you get beyond that, there’s nothing there of any value for the average voter. Bills ‘n Hillz are all-in for the uber-rich and have made sure that they’ve been handsomely rewarded for doing the dirty work to ensure that the Kochs live the life they want to live.
As a political strategist, I have to agree that Bill doesn’t seem all that great. He’s certainly not doing his wife much good at this point.
The Sinatra-Clinton comparison doesn’t compute for me. Then again have to acknowledge that I bypassed the hormonal tween/teen screaming/crying/mooning over singers/musicians/celebrities stage of development. Mindless idolatry is foreign to me. Guess I’ve always been a non-conformist regardless of whatever social milieu of been provisionally attached to.
That’s true of most politicians.
Kind of interesting: Bernie has run much tougher races that the Clintons ever have.
very interesting. he said in the beginning he’d only get in the race if he thought he could win, not just to prove a point or pull Clinton to the left
Sanders isn’t naive enough to think he could ever authentically pull Hillary to the left or that if rhetorically she shifted to the left during the primary, she flip flop for the general election. Odd that she and Bill have avoided being called flip-floppers.
ummmm…when?
When did Sanders run “tougher” contests than Bill? I’m not saying its not possible, but Bill LOST the congressional race in 1974 by 3%. He won the 1980 governors race by 3%. I’ll grant you that many of the governor’s races were walk aways, but its not like the TeaParty hacks who think their politicians because they run in states redder than Mao.
Arkansas politics is seriously WEIRD. I used to see the commercials when I was a kid in southern MO.
OT:
There was one guy, Justice Jim Johnson who swore he’d run for state wide office until a Johnson won. The next year his wife, Ginny, ran for state auditor. Her entire campaign was “Lets retire Justice Jim Johnson”. She won.
This is the point in the primary season when the political junkies dreams of hung conventions revealing into something resembling the book “Convention” or “The Best Man” take flight.
Math, divorced from the momentum winning inevitably imparts, sets the heart aflutter. If Rubio and Trump and Cruz split 3 ways, no one will win.
Alas, the calendar destroys such dreams. 247 delegates, winner take all, over 10% of all delegates, or 20% of what is needed to be nominated, await on June 7th in California, Montana and New Jersey. Before them another 200 spread between Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware and Indiana, all winner take all, await.
It would take an amazing and unlikely split for these states to be split. Most likely they nearly 450 delegates will go in one direction, and they represent over 1/3 of the total needed.
The calendar gives time for the establishment to find their candidate, and make sure that candidate has enough to win. The danger is if Trump or Cruz sweep the 4 winner take all states on March 16 (FL, Ill, MO and Ohio) the movement to stop them will be obvious. But there are more than enough delegates to stop either.
It is why I think the winner of the establishment lane ultimately wins the nomination. But for that to happen someone has to win one of the first four primaries.
The establishment’s best bet is for Trump to beat Cruz in Iowa, and for there to be a one on one race with Trump on the 16th.
Am I SURE that is going to happen.
Of course not – confident primary predictions are the work of fools.
I think it’s quite possible late winner-take-all states will get split. It’s routine in primary campaigns for different states to have very different outcomes. Compare Iowa and NH for the Republicans – Trump may be on top in both but after that it’s completely different.
Here’s one time I hope Boo is wrong. Kasich is the guy who scares me most because he’s the only one of those fools who’s actually electable. Rubio cannot stand up to the inevitable scrutiny of his closets. Christy is putrid lard on burned toast. Bush is buttered baloney on Wonder Bread. It’s Kasich or the GOP establishment is fucked.
Silver does some decent work, but like with his baseball stuff, he tends to put his thumb on the scale. He’s out of his element in the primary — the data just sucks — and he’s under pressure to generate copy that people will read. But the fact is, polling aggregation is pretty simple (and accurate) science, and plenty of people are doing a good job at it.
Silver, like a lot of Beltway pundits, have been predicting Trump’s doom since he first shot to the top of the polls. If Trump wins, or even wins a number of states, a lot of people are going to have to wipe a lot of egg off their face.
That will be the least of anyone’s problems.