Strange that Virginia is already called for Harris

 

Special Report with VP Harris

VP Kamala Harris was interviewed by Brett Bair this week.  It proved to be a contentious interview as Brett asked some pointed, hard-hitting questions.  He hammered away at the immigration issue, first asking the VP how many illegal immigrants the administration had released into the country.  When she did not offer a number, he posited 6 million.  VP Harris replied by accusing Donald Trump of torpedoing a border bill; Trump wants the border issue alive for the election and thus used his pull to sink efforts to fix it.  This is so, but much of the damage from immigration took place before that, notably a trio of young women slain by immigrants released into the country.  Hard hitting indeed.  When Harris sought to place blame on Trump, Bair repeatedly observed that she had been in office for the past 3 and a half years.

Overall, this was clearly a tough interview for Harris.  Brett was polite but did not let Harris filibuster.  It was funny when he apologized for talking over her but then pressed on with his question.  She rarely had good responses and more often sought to dodge the questions and shift to blaming Trump.  This 20-minute exchange demonstrated that most media only ask softball questions.  Between this and the recent 60 Minutes interview, Harris has had a tough time.

This is more likely to hurt Harris than help her.

Joe's Endorsement?

When I first saw this picture, I thought it was a phony.  Someone used photoshop to put a Trump hat on President Biden.  No, it turned out it was real.  So, then I thought he was so confused and out of it that he unwittingly wore the hat.  Wrong again.  Biden requested the hat from the man who was wearing it, placed it on top of the baseball cap he was wearing, smiled to the camera, then returned the Trump hat to the original wearer.  Wow, is someone maybe a bit miffed by how his party has treated him?  Coming after Trump stated in the debate that Biden hated Harris, the timing could hardly be worse.  Luckily, this incident won't get much play.  If it does, it will just be Joe Biden joking around.

Topsy Turvy

The current election is seeing a realignment of the parties.  We have Republicans for Democrats and Democrats for Republicans, unions for Republicans and rich industrialists for Democrats.  It's going topsy turvy.  Here are a few highlights:

1. Former Republican Vice President Dick Cheney has endorsed Kamala Harris for president.  He is following his daughter, Liz Cheney (R), in this.  She was one of 2 Republicans on the J6 Select Committee that put all the blame on Trump, ignoring that he had offered to call up the National Guard beforehand.

2. Congressman Robert F Kennedy Jr. (D) suspended his independent run for the presidency and has endorsed Donald Trump.  The Kennedys are Democratic Party royalty, so this is more significant than the Cheneys going to Harris.

3. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D), who ran for president in 2020, has endorsed Donald Trump.

4. Elon Musk voted for Biden in 2020, but is now endorsing Donald Trump.

5. Alan Dershowitz has declared "I am no longer a Democrat."  That doesn't mean he is voting for Trump, but he probably isn't voting for Kamala either.

When I was a youth, the Democrats were the party of free speech and the Republicans were the ones who wanted to put warnings on music lyrics, video games, and so forth.  Now, the Democrats are the party of censorship and the Republicans are the party of free speech.  How did that happen?  In the 1990s, the Democrats wanted to stem the tide of illegal immigration to protect American workers from low wage competition.  Today, the Democrats have opened the floodgates, and the country is awash in illegal immigrants.  What happened there?  I remember when the Democrats were the anti-war party, but now Trump is the anti-war candidate.  What explains that shift?

A realignment is underway in the United States and around the world.  The world order that was created in the wake of World War II is undergoing dramatic changes, breaking old party alliances and creating new ones.  That some prominent Republicans have thrown their support to Harris and Democrats have backed Trump just shows how upside down the world is at the moment.

Super Tuesday Fallout

Donald Trump and Joe Biden have each trounced the competition on Super Tuesday.  Trump won every contest except Vermont, while Biden won all but American Somoa.  With Vermont, Nikki Haley was bolstered by Democrats who voted in the open primary.  Jason Palmer defeated Biden in American Somoa by a vote of 51 to 40.  Yeah, not a big turnout and basically meaningless except as a funny footnote.

As of today, Nikki has suspended her campaign and Trump is effectively the nominee.  Both Trump and Biden should have their nominations officially sewn up by the end of the month.  The rematch is coming but now both candidates have presidential records to compare.  With illegal immigration as an issue, Trump wins that topic by a wide margin.  The economy is trickier since there are positives and negatives to examine from each of their presidencies.  With Trump as the nominee, Biden's age becomes less of an issue, though his mental health stays on the table.

Will 2024 be a repeat of Grover Cleveland or William McKinley.  Grover Cleveland ran twice against Benjamin Harrison, losing the first time but winning in the rematch.  William McKinley defeated William Jennings Bryan in 1896 and beat him again in the 1900 rematch.

Election Participation

How does the turnout vary among the states?  In an earlier blog, I noted that Florida cast more votes than California, a state that is nearly twice its size.  One can easily argue that Californians deserve less say - proportionally - if they don't bother to vote.  The electoral college helps to mitigate the turnout problem.  But what is that turnout?  I crunched some numbers.

I broke the states into 6 groups, half representing Trump and half Hillary.  From here, I categorized them as either strong, majority, or marginal.  A strong state saw the candidate receive 60% or more of the vote, a majority saw the candidate get more than 50%, and marginal are those states won by a plurality of votes.  To determine participation, I divided the number of votes cast by the population of the state.  That is going to under report the participation rate since it includes people not eligible to vote but gives a ballpark figure to use.  I will list them by lowest participation rate to highest.

 

38.9% Strong Hillary consists of 4 states and DC.  California, at 36.2% is a big drag here.

 

40.2% Majority Trump consists of 14 states.  Texas had a paltry 32.7% turnout, worse than CA!

 

40.3% Strong Trump consists of 9 states.

 

42.2% Majority Hillary consists of 9 states.

 

46.3% Marginal Trump covers 7 states.  Wisconsin had 51.6% turnout.

 

48.7% Marginal Hillary covers 7 states.  Maine saw a 56.2% turnout.

 

The states that were won by pluralities are also the states where the candidates spent most of their time.  Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.  Clearly, the more competitive the state is, the bigger the voter turnout.  You want more people to vote?  Be a competitive state.  If one candidate has no hope, the voters for the other candidate won't turn out either.  Republicans are wasting their time in New York or California while Democrats need not apply in Oklahoma or Utah (yes, though on the marginal win list, that is on account of a strong third party showing; Hillary didn't break 30%).

 

So how do we make states more competitive?  That's a question for another blog.

Presidential Election is Like the World Series

Let us suppose the Central City Pioneers face the Metropolis Pilgrims in the World Series.  It is an exciting series that runs for all 7 games before the winner is determined.

 

In game 1, the Pioneers crush the Pilgrims, 7 to 1.

In game 2, the Pioneers again top the Pilgrims, 6 to 2.

In game 3, the Pilgrims take a game, 3 to 2.

In game 4, the Pilgrims win again, 6 to 5.

In game 5, the Pioneers trounce the Pilgrims, 8 to 0.  It is very embarrassing.

In game 6, the Pilgrims narrowly win in a 5 to 4 game, forcing a game 7.

In game 7, the Pilgrims win, 5 to 3.

 

The Pilgrims won 4 games of the 7 game series and take the Commissioner's Trophy.  The Pioneers are peeved and point out that they scored 35 runs to the Pilgrims' 22 runs.  Obviously, they should be named the champions.  Really?

 

Let's expand that to 51 games.  Team Clinton won 21 games in which she scored 11,217,438 more votes than Trump.  Some of the victories were hugely lopsided.  In fact, the 4 most lopsided games (California, New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts) were all in Team Clinton's favor.  Team Trump won 30 games in which he outscored Clinton by 8,387,978 votes.  So, though Team Clinton scored 2,829,460 more votes, Team Trump won more contests.

 

Under a most points scored system, the Pilgrims would have entered game 7 with a 13 point deficit.  Winning 12 to 0 would still have resulted in the Pioneers winning.  What is the point of having multiple games in such a system?  Why would a candidate spend time in a place with only a million voters rather than spending all his time in a state with 10 million or more?  Under a popular vote system, Trump would have made a lot of trips to California and New York to bump up his total.  Hillary would have spent more time in Texas.  The strategy would have been different for both camps.

 

That Team Hillary or the Pioneers would have won under a different set of rules is irrelevant.

Hopeless Petition

There is currently a petition making the rounds asking that electors choose Hillary rather than Trump when they convene.  So far, there is somewhere north of 3 million signatures on the petition.  Of course, that is well shy of the more than 120 million people who chose either Hillary or Trump in the election;  3 million are requesting that the voice of 60 million be overturned?  I don't think so.

Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump ran campaigns with a strategy of collecting 270 electoral votes.  If the idea had been to get more popular votes, the campaigns would have been run differently.  The requirements of victory cannot be changed after the race has already been run.  Though there have been 6 faithless electors in the last 50 years, no election since 1912 has had more than 1.  Even in 1912, there were only 8 faithless electors.  For Hillary to win via the Electoral College, she would need 38 electors to switch their votes.

 

This is the second time in recent history that the winner garnered fewer popular votes.  It is not surprising that the urban party has an easier time getting voters to the polls than does the rural party.  Also, how many illegal immigrants took President Obama's advice to go vote?

 

In 2008, Barack Obama received 69.5 million votes.  In 2012, he dropped to 65.9 million, making him the first president since FDR in 1944 to garner fewer votes for re-election than for election.  Hillary has 60.8 million.  Democrats have been bleeding votes through Obama's tenure but have not done any course correction to address that.  By contrast, McCain received 59.9 million votes, Romney had 60.9 million, and Trump has 60.3 million.  Republican vote totals are flat.  Hillary lost this campaign more than Trump won it.

 

If signing the petition helps dull the pain of loss, it can be considered therapeutic.  If the signers expect to change the results of the election, they have only set themselves for another disappointment.

Hillary in Trouble

Since Trump locked up the nomination, he has been pretty quiet.  He has been spending no money on ads and not having the daily rallies that were a staple of his primary campaign.  By contrast, Hillary has been spending money in swing states to paint a picture of Trump in much the way that Obama painted a picture of Romney prior to the convention.  With one party on the attack and the other relatively silent, one expects the attacking candidate to gain as the attacked is 'exposed' as unfit or whatever the ads say.  That's what happened to Romney.  It isn't going that way this time.  Hillary is taking a beating just from the news of the day.  Being 'cleared' by the FBI and her case being closed by the AG Lynch have tarnished, rather than burnished, her image.  She has been sinking in the polls while Trump has risen.  Rasmussen shows Trump taking the lead!  Imagine how it will look when he starts fighting back.

The super delegates may want to reconsider when the Democratic Convention starts.  Though he has endorsed Hillary (who has been well-paid by Wall Street), Bernie would surely be happy to step up if the need arose.  Hillary has no accomplishments to tout and must therefore tear Trump down.  It is going to be an ugly election.  Trump's chances look better all the time.

End of the Line

According to RealClearPolitics, Hillary is only 27 delegates away from clinching the nomination.  754 delegates are up for grabs on Tuesday.  If Hillary can get 3.6% of those delegates, she will be the nominee.  Obviously that is going to happen.  This day was coming and Bernie knew it.  And yet he persists.  He claims he will go to the convention.  To what end?  Yes, there is still the possibility that Hillary will be indicted though that is extremely unlikely.  Obama does not what his Justice Department to indict his Secretary of State for actions she took during his administration.  Really, that just doesn't look good.  Then again, if she looks like a crippled candidate, he could dispatch her in favor of someone who can continue his policies.  That person isn't Bernie.  A switch in candidates at this late date will doom whomever that candidate is to defeat in November.  The Bernie voters won't follow if the party overlooks their guy.  So we are back to Hillary and no indictment.

 

As mentioned in a previous post, the gap between Bernie and Hillary is entirely within the margin of super delegates.  The voters have not shown a decisive enough selection to eliminate the possibility that the supers select the candidate.  Bernie has all the momentum.  If that is still the case on Tuesday, especially if he wins California, his presence at the convention will loom very large.  Could he be assuaged with the VP nomination?  A cabinet office?  Or will he torpedo the party that he has repeatedly identified as corrupt by becoming the Green Party nominee?  Democratic bigwigs are pondering these very questions and trying to find a solution that will hold the presidency for their party.  They did not expect the primary campaign to be this exciting or last this long.

 

What is funny is that the super delegate system is what has doomed the Democrats to a troubled convention.  If those delegates had just gone with their states, Hillary would have an unassailable lead and there would be no possibility of shifting loyalties at the convention.  I suspect the super delegate system will see some changes before the 2020 primaries.

An Unexpected Turn of Events

For months, there has been speculation that the Republicans would have a contested convention in which Donald Trump would duke it out with Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and the Republican establishment.  It was going to be exciting and probably destroy the Republican Party for a generation, if not longer, regardless of the outcome.  But Ted Cruz lost in Indiana and dropped out leaving the field clear for Trump to get the 1237 delegates he needed.  Exciting convention averted.

Also for months, it has been said that Hillary will easily win the nomination.  In fact, she should get the necessary delegates in the next batch of primaries.  However, there is a problem.  Thanks to the super delegate system, Bernie will be well within the margin for a switch by these party leaders to make him the nominee.  Even though Hillary will have secured in excess of the 2382 she needs before the convention, there is yet wiggle room.  Super delegates aren't locked to the candidate like those earned in the primaries and caucuses.  Thus, if Hillary was suddenly indicted by DOJ, the super delegates could abandon her en masse and Bernie would get the nomination.

Ever since the 2000 election disaster, Democrats have been big fans of popular vote rather than delegates.  In that regard, Hillary has crushed Bernie.  She has received 12,989,134 votes to Sanders 9,957,889, a gap of more than 3 million.  She has garnered 56% of the popular vote to Bernie's 43%.  Clearly, she should be the nominee.  However, her trend is not good.  Her portion of the popular vote is shrinking.  In February, she won 59.7% of the votes.  In March, she dropped to 58.2%.  April was 55.4%.  In May, she has fallen to 46.3%.  It is too late for Bernie to overtake Hillary in the primaries but you can be assured that party bosses are aware of this trend too.  Will super delegates reconsider?

 

We were promised a contested convention, it was just assumed that it would be the Republicans who would be having it.  Apparently not.

Super Delegates

Bernie Sanders has won yet another primary, further chipping away at the inevitability of Hillary.  Even so, Hillary still dominates the delegate count.  She has 2,240 to Bernie's 1,473.  She just needs 142 more delegates to clinch the nomination.  That is just 14% of the remaining delegates.  By contrast, Bernie needs 909, or 87% of the remainder.  Bernie may be on an upswing but that is not going to happen.  That looks pretty hopeless.

Let's look at it a little differently.  What if the super delegates switched?  If Bernie had 524 super delegates and Hillary had only 40.  Suddenly, Bernie would be 200 delegates in the lead with 1957 to Hillary's 1756.  He would only need 40% of the remaining delegates while Hillary would need 60%.  Isn't that interesting?

 

Hillary has the support of 524 super delegates while Bernie has only 40.  These delegates are not allocated based on how their state voted.  Looking at the delegate count without super delegates, Hillary has won 54% vs. Bernie's 46%.  But Hillary has the support of 93% of the super delegates.  That hardly sounds democratic.  If the super delegates were dumped into the pool, Hillary would still have the majority of them and be the likely nominee.  As it is, the gap between Hilary and Bernie is close enough that a switch of the super delegates could change the nominee.  Because that is the case, Bernie has an excellent argument for a contested convention.

Trump is the Nominee

With Ted Cruz suspending his campaign after his loss in Indiana, Trump is the presumptive nominee.  Indiana was a last chance for Cruz to prevent Trump from getting the 1237 that would preclude a floor fight at the convention.  No floor fight, no chance for Cruz.  As for Kasich, he is in Neverland and doesn't want to grow up.  He wins the state where he is the sitting governor and thinks that makes him a competitor.  I wonder how long before he suspends his campaign.  He may not.  He can't catch up to Cruz in delegates, so what is he thinking?  It will be fun while it lasts.

 

The Republican Party has no one but itself to blame for having Trump as the nominee.  After years of betraying their voters, the voters decided to pick an extreme outsider.  George Will thinks it is the duty of every Republican to vote for Hillary to prevent a Trump presidency.  The establishment will have its choice, the voters be damned.  If only we had this sort of fire from the establishment through the last 7 years, maybe the Republican base wouldn't have voted for Trump.  Ah, the schadenfreude!  Really, a desire to inflict pain on the establishment may explain the current situation.

 

Interestingly, there is now a poll that shows Trump beating Hillary.  Can he pick up enough independents and disaffected Democrats to make up for the conservatives and establishment Republicans that he will lose?

 

Trump is a mixed bag.  If he follows through with his plans on immigration, he may delay a descent into madness that is currently falling upon Europe.  As for other policies, I am doubtful.  He has admitted being a crony capitalist, is comfortable with a big and intrusive government, and spouts a foreign policy that Ron Paul could love (except for that bombing ISIS bit).  His Supreme Court picks are likely to be in the mushy middle, a serious problem with the power the court has accumulated.  His habit of attacking opponents on a personal level is troubling but it wouldn't be much different from the current president.

The Enthusiasm Deficit

This story shows that Hillary has won fewer votes in this cycle as the leading candidate than she won last cycle as the trailing candidate.  It does demonstrate the lack of energy in the Democratic campaign.  Obama is far more charismatic than Bernie and Hillary combined.  His life story was far more compelling than Hillary's.  Also, the Democrats have had the presidency for two terms and are clearly disappointed; Bernie is trashing the status quo and getting substantial support from the rank and file Democrat voter.  As a matter of fact, part of the reason Bernie is ignored by the media is because he is not painting a flattering picture of Obama's economy.  Back in 2008, the Democrats had been out of power for 2 terms and there was natural excitement; look at the Republican primary campaign this time around.

 

Even so, it is a problem.  It shows that there is considerably less excitement on the Democratic side and less excitement for Hillary herself.  In the infamous 'who do you want to have a beer with' poll, Trump is going to win that by a large margin vs. Hillary.  I'm no Trump fan and don't drink beer but I would certainly choose him.  The two-terms for one party then switch pattern exists for a reason and the Republicans ought to win this time.  This story just gives another indication why that is probable.  Yeah, get ready for President Trump.  Sigh.

Unexpected Danger

Here is something to ponder though it is amazingly unlikely.  What if no one reached 270 electoral votes (or a majority of the popular vote) and the election was therefore thrown to the House of Representatives?  After the inconclusive election, there is no mechanism for replacing a candidate who dies.  If one of those candidates were to die (heart attack, assassination, etc.), the House would not be allowed to choose the VP nominee instead.  Thus, assassination in the wake of an inconclusive election could be extremely effective in picking the president.

 

This problem becomes ever more likely as there is the move toward proportional electoral votes.  In the winner-take-all system that has existed, a third party candidate rarely gets any electoral votes.  Ross Perot got nearly 20% of the popular vote in 1992 but earned 0 electoral votes.  Under a proportional system, Clinton's electoral landslide (370 to 168) would have instead been decided in the House of Representatives.  Also under such a system, Dole would have won in 1996.  That is a discussion for a different post.

 

It is extremely unlikely that a candidate will die in the narrow space between the election (early November) and the convening of the new Congress (early January).  Nonetheless, with the two lead candidates nearly 70 years old, it would not be a bad idea to be prepared.  Both parties could get on board prior to the danger but if one or the other happened to die in December, the other party might block any efforts to assure their candidate wins in January.

 

 

Democrat Delegate Mathematics

You just have to love the Democrat primary process.  Bernie had a surprise upset win in Michigan but somehow won fewer delegates than Hillary!  Oh, those super delegates.  This is the sort of event that will cause Bernie voters to not vote for Hillary in November.  Worse, this is an unforced error.  Hillary is crushing Bernie and could afford to let him have more delegates.  In a winner-take-all system (dumping super delegates into the pool with the rest), Hillary would have 1,023 to Bernie's 516.  Hillary has won 12 states and Bernie has won 9.  Hillary won 4 of the 5 states with over 100 delegates.  Bernie won 5 of the 6 states with fewer than 40 delegates.  There would be no hard feelings under a system that rewarded these facts.  The super delegates - most of which pledged support before the base had a chance to vote - can only infuriate the Bernie voters.

 

Using the abstruse current rules, Hillary has 1223 delegates to Bernie's 574.  Hillary only needs to win 39% of the remaining delegates to secure the nomination while Bernie would need 61%.  As it stands, Bernie has won 40% of the popular vote to Hillary's 60%.  I don't see that flipping.  As I have noted before, unless she is indicted or her persistent cough is shown to be a serious medical issue, she is going to win the nomination.  She should disavow her super delegates - whether that is possible or not - and ask them to allocate themselves based on who wins the states they represent.  This would go a long way to mollifying Bernie voters and she will get the nomination anyway.

Republican Delegate Mathematics

Why are Rubio and Kasich still in the race?  Is there a possibility that either can win?  Let's look at the numbers:

32 States and Territories have not yet voted in the Republican Primary:



• 17 States and Territories are winner-take-all for a total of 901 delegates.
• 9 contests are proportional with 325 delegates.
• 6 are oddballs with actual delegates elected based on how they say they will vote but not necessarily bound by that.  This pool has 167 delegates which might be considered analogous to Democrat super delegates.

Rubio has 151 delegates, 1,086 shy of what he needs to win the nomination.  If he swept the winner-take-all states, he would still be 185 short.  He would need to secure 38% of the proportional and oddball delegates to win the nomination.  Thus far, he has only secured 15% of such delegates.  There is no chance that he can win the nomination by winning delegates, he will not be selected the nominee in a brokered convention, and he will cripple future prospects if he loses Florida next week.  There is no upside.  The only reason to stay is to force that brokered convention in which case he is announcing his status as a pawn to the establishment in an anti-establishment year.  A pawn to the establishment that he ran against to secure his seat in the Senate.

 

Kasich is event further back than Rubio but at least he got some delegates on Tuesday with a good showing in Michigan.  Still, with only 54 delegates, he needs 1,183 more to secure the nomination.  If he wins all the winner-take-all states, he will be 282 short.  That would require 57% of all the proportional and oddball delegates.  So far, he has only captured 5% of the delegates.  There is talk that he is hoping to secure the Vice Presidency.  If he wins in Ohio - a very valuable state in the general election - he will have a stronger hand.  If he loses, he's out.

 

Cruz has 359 delegates, 878 short of the magic 1237.  He needs to get 61% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination.  Not possible as long as the Rubio and Kasich are in the mix.  It will become nigh impossible depending on the results of next week.  His best hope is that Rubio and Kasich suspend their campaigns and the anti-Trump vote goes to him.  If Trump really does have a ceiling of support in the high 30s to low 40s, the math could turn around very quickly.

 

Trump has 458 delegates, 779 away from the nomination.  He needs 54% of the remaining delegates.  If the field remains as crowded as it is, he should win pluralities in a lot of the winner-take-all states.  Had the races to date been winner-take-all, Trump would have almost 200 additional delegates.  By far, he has the best odds of securing the nomination and avoiding a brokered convention.

 

Kasich has no elective future after his current stint as governor and thus has no reason to leave the campaign.  Rubio can only damage future prospects for elective office by remaining and would be wise to bow out and throw his support to whichever of the frontrunners he prefers.  Cruz will be mathematically eliminated before Trump.  Will he bow out at that point or also push for a brokered convention?  I'll blog on that if it comes to pass.

Primary Thoughts

Why are there open primaries?  Why would any party allow non-members to select their nominee?  When I was in high school, I had a poly sci teacher who would change his party affiliation in order to vote in a primary if he thought it would better benefit his view by throwing a wrench in the other party.  That was his prerogative.  At least he made the effort of joining the party (even if insincerely) to vote.  Most people won't go to that effort which means such cross-party sabotage is limited in closed primaries.  The situation can be particularly dire if one party picks a nominee before the other.  If party A has chosen Andrew Anderson only 3 primaries into the season, then party A voters in the rest of the states have a lot of incentive to cross-parties and pick the weakest candidate of Party B.  Even if that doesn't come to pass, an extended primary fight in party B is likely to benefit Andrew Anderson in the general election.  Again, this isn't likely to be a problem in closed primaries but will definitely be so in open primaries.

There is the flipside.  Perhaps there is benefit in an open primary in that it allows for testing the waters of the general electorate.  Candidates who do well among the party faithful might prove incapable of getting votes outside that group, a certain path to defeat.  Open primaries can sink a candidate who can't get broad support.

Then we have the order.  Why do Iowa and New Hampshire get first crack every 4 years?  Ethanol has survived as long as it has only because candidates from each party promise to protect it in order to show well in the first caucus.  Why not rotate among the states?  Granted, the primaries and caucuses should continue to sample each region before jumping into big events like Super Tuesday.  The current pattern is to start in the Midwest, go to New England, the South, and then the West.  Any rotation strategy should keep that in mind.  However, some states are too expensive to be first.  Try running a shoestring campaign in New York, California, or Texas.  Many candidates would be eliminated for having insufficient money.  Sticking with relatively small states is probably best though some rotation should occur.  That lack of rotation is why everything is so compressed today.  Too many states were tired of finding the race was over before they had a vote.

I have written on this before in previous primary seasons.  I suspect I will do so again 4 years hence.  It may never change.

Super Tuesday and Super Saturday

Two big election days have come in the last week and have mostly improved the standings of Trump and Hillary.

On the Republican side of things, Trump has now won a dozen states and has 382 delegates, 31% of the total needed for the nomination.  However, 35% of the delegates have been allocated.  Trump is behind where he needs to be to win the nomination outright.  He will need to win 53% of the remaining delegates to avoid a convention fight.  Cruz has won 6 states and 300 delegates, 24% of the delegates for the nomination.  He will need 58% of the remaining delegate.  Rubio only has 128 delegates and will need to run the table, winning 68% of the remaining delegates.  Kasich has won no states and has 35 delegates.  His presence can only make a convention fight more likely.  This may sound dire but part of the issue is that so many of these early states have offered proportional delegates (South Carolina being the only exception so far).  18 of the remaining states - constituting 901 delegates - are winner take all.  If the states to this point had been winner take all, Trump would have 526 delegates, Cruz 319, Rubio 38, and everyone else 0.  With that in mind, if Trump continues to win states by at his current rate, he will be the undisputed nominee.  There is a codicil: Cruz performs better in closed - Republican voters only - contests.  When Independents and Democrats don't vote, Cruz has won 5 of 8 contests.  Like the proportional contests, open contests are mostly front-loaded.  If he continues to win 63% of closed contests, he would get 640 additonal delegates.  That would still leave him 300 delegates short so he would need to perform quite well with the remaining contests that have 570 delegates.  As for Rubio, his only hope is to be chosen on a second ballot at a contested convention.  He can no longer accumulate enough delegates.  In short, Trump or Cruz are the likely nominee, Trump being more likely.

 

On the Democrat side, Hillary is leading.  She has won 11 states and 1121 delegates, giving her 47% of the delegates needed to win the nomination.  Bernie has won 8 states and 478 delegates, 20% of what he needs.  Unless he starts winning more often and by larger margins (or Hillary is indicted), he isn't going to win.  Much of the cause for Hillary's tremendous lead despite a relatively equal number of states won is super delegates.  Hillary has 458 to Bernie's 22, a huge margin.  However, even if the super delegates are factored out, she still leads in the delegate chase by 651 to 456.  If that pattern holds, Hillary will be the nominee.

 

The most likely result is still a Trump-Clinton contest in November though it is marginally possible that Cruz overcomes Trump's lead to become the nominee.

Inevitable?

Trump (45.9%) crushed Rubio (23.9%) and Cruz (21.4%) in Nevada, giving him three consecutive victories.  He won in New England, he won in the South, and now he has won in the West.  His only loss was a second place finish in the Midwest.  Amazingly, he won Hispanics!  How does the man who is best known for wanting to deport illegal aliens (which is strangely synonymous with Hispanic) win the Hispanic vote?  Plus, the turnout was record setting.  Trump had more votes in 2016 (34,531) than were cast for all Republican candidates in 2012 (33,000).  The voter engagement has dramatically increased from 2012.

 

State	2012	2016	% Up
Iowa	121,000	180,000	49%
New Hampshire	248,900	284,000	14%
South Carolina	603,000	730,000	21%
Nevada	33,000	75,000	127%

 

Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders' socialist rebellion among the Democrats, which would appear to be hugely popular just based on what I see on Facebook, is proving to provide far less energy than the last contested nomination in 2008.

 

State	2008	2016	% Down
Iowa	239,972	171,109	-29%
New Hampshire	288,672	250,983	-13%
Nevada	120,000	80,000	-33%

 

All the enthusiasm and energy is currently with the Republicans.  Will that hold through November?  It looks very like a Trump vs. Hillary election.  Neither Hillary nor Bernie can fire up the base like Barack Obama did in 2008.  Unless she is indicted, Hillary is going to be the nominee.  She lacks her husband's political gifts and charisma, which means the turn out so far probably reflects the turn out in November.  By contrast, Trump can do no wrong in the eyes of his supporters.  Unless something changes soon, it looks like President Trump might be inevitable.