Delegate Math and the GOP

[NorthSideSox72]

This will be more like a blog post. I wanted to look at what the numbers say, and how the establishment will fall in for the GOP nomination.

 

First, if any candidate wins enough voting-pledged delegates to get a majority PLUS enough to override the 3 party delegates per state, then they win regardless of anything else. So first that math:

 

Total GOP delegates: 2,472 plus 18 for DC + Non-specific overseas is 2,500

Party-level delegates - unbound: 150

So, voting-linked delegates: 2,350

50.00001% of 2,350 is rounded to 1,176

 

Add 150 to that, and the "magic" number is 1,326 to "clinch" a nomination prior to the convention.

 

So, let's now look at where the delegates stand post-Super Tuesday, as far as I can tell (this is from digging out results for some incomplete states and trying to allocate the last stragglers evenly based on % - so it could vary a few delegates in the end but not much):

 

Trump: 328

Cruz: 239

Rubio: 119

Kasich: 28

Carson: 8

---

Bush: 4

Fiorina: 1

Huckabee: 1

Paul: 1

 

TOTAL SO FAR: 728 awarded (30.9% of voting-linked total)

 

After the above, the total remaining number of voting-linked delegates in future states and territories is 1,622. So for each candidate to reach the magic number individually, they would have to do the following in the remaining states in terms of delegates and percentage of delegates won:

 

Trump: 998 delegates (61.5% of total)

Cruz: 1,087 delegates (67.0% of total)

Rubio: 1,207 delegates (74.4% of total)

Others: lol

 

If the states were all proportionally allocated, even if Kasich and Carson dropped out, the chances of any of them getting that majority by the convention would be extremely slim. I mean, as well as Trump is doing, even with the help of a big winner-take-all SC he only has gotten 45% so far. So the idea of any of the three managing 60%+ is far-fetched. And even though Cruz and Rubio (more Rubio) probably don't have to get that extra 2 or 3% (because some of the party delegates may actually support them), it's still just too big a stretch for them to reasonably expect.

 

I'm going to assume for the rest of this exercise that none of the big three drop out prior to convention, so they will keep going after delegates. Clearly if one of Cruz or Rubio drops out, the math changes.

 

The wildcard in all this the list of winner-take-all states: FL (99), MO (52), Marianas (6), Ohio (66), V.I. (9), AZ (58), WI (42), DE (16), MD (118), IN (57), CA (172), MT (27), NJ (51), SD (29). Those combine to make up 802 of the remaining 1,864 delegates.

 

Let's assume that each candidate wins the remaining proportional delegates (1,062) at more or less the level they have so far on completed proportional states (all but SC - so 678 total), including Kasich and Carson (because who knows how long they stay, they are pulling smallish numbers anyway). That would put the counts, leaving the Winner Take All states out:

 

Trump (applying 41.0% to remaining prop): 763

Cruz (35.2%): 611

Rubio (17.6%): 305

Kasich (4.1%): 72

Carson (1.2%): 21

 

Now, this is similar to a general election electoral college game. For each candidate, which of the WTA states do they need in order to win outright? Here are what delegate counts they need in the WTA states to do that:

 

Trump: Must win 563 of 802

Cruz: Must win 715 of 802

Everyone else: Mathematically impossible

 

In other words, for anyone other than Trump and Cruz, the only way they can win the nomination outright is to substantially increase their proportional position going forward. But look also at how difficult that path is for Trump, and even more so Cruz. Cruz would have to win nearly all the WTA states. Even Trump needs to win the large majority of them. More so than he's done so far.

 

Put this all together, and it comes down to this:

 

--The only candidate with a realistic shot at going into convention with a bullet-proof majority is Trump

--Even Trump's path, unless he picks up more proportional values, is a very tough road to get that majority, if trends continue

--The party votes won't go to Trump if it's a convention situation, nor would Rubio's delegates or probably most of the stragglers with tiny amounts of delegates in carry

--The path above doesn't change much unless either one of the three big candidates drops out, OR one of them make very big moves in their Win%

 

What does all that mean? Here's the scary thing - the nomination likely rests in the hands of... Ted Cruz. Partly in an ability to win some of the WTA states. But also if he's willing to back Trump at convention, Trump clearly wins. If he isn't willing to do so, unless Trump absolutely romps the rest of the way, then probably neither of them can win. It's probably Rubio in that case, with party backing. So in the end, Ted Cruz probably dictates this election, but also has almost no chance of winning himself.

 

Fascinating.

[Buehrle>Wood]

Just a couple brief corrections and I'll add my two cents in a bit. The total amount of delegates possible is 2472. I think you made a typo there. The 3 per state is already included in that. It's different than democrat system. Also you forgot to include DC and the territories get these delegates as well, so it's 168n not 150. But that number is already included in the 2472. Also, remember, unlike the Democrat side where super delegates exist and can vote how they please, these 3 extra delegates are bound to a candidate. How they are bound depends on the state.

[NorthSideSox72]

Just a couple brief corrections and I'll add my two cents in a bit. The total amount of delegates possible is 2472. I think you made a typo there. The 3 per state is already included in that. It's different than democrat system. Also you forgot to include DC and the territories get these delegates as well, so it's 168n not 150. But that number is already included in the 2472. Also, remember, unlike the Democrat side where super delegates exist and can vote how they please, these 3 extra delegates are bound to a candidate. How they are bound depends on the state.

Thanks, I'll correct for the 2472. Good catch, same on the territories. Give me a few minutes to rebuild.

 

But I believe you are incorrect on the 3 per state. Those are party delegates and are specifically unbound.

 

[bmags]

The GOP is unlikely going to deal with a brokered convention. Think about how long elections are now, they aren't going to want to only introduce their candidate 3 months before election before focusing their message.

 

Trump and Cruz have already shown ability to play nice. Eventually the GOP will fall in line. Rubio will drop out after FLA.

[Buehrle>Wood]

Thanks, I'll correct for the 2472. Good catch, same on the territories. Give me a few minutes to rebuild.

 

But I believe you are incorrect on the 3 per state. Those are party delegates and are specifically unbound.

The old system was that states would decide whether they were bound or not bound. Different states chose the different option. This year however the RNC said the delegates will be bound in some manner.

 

This is from the GOP website for new rules this year:

 

"The unbound RNC members will be bound in the same manner as the state’s at-large delegates, unless the state elects their delegates on the primary ballot, then all three RNC members will be allocated to the statewide winner."

 

The Bustle with a clearer explantion:

 

"The Republican Party’s unbound delegates are the 168 members of the Republican National Committee — but in 2016, they won’t be allowed to vote for whomever they want at the national convention. They normally would be given this luxury, but the RNC ruled this year that these “unbound” delegates wouldn’t, in fact, be unbound at all. They’ll have to support whomever their state supports, just like regular ol’ delegates."

 

Of course if the GOP wanted too I'm sure they could change the rules.

[NorthSideSox72]

The old system was that states would decide whether they were bound or not bound. Different states chose the different option. This year however the RNC said the delegates will be bound in some manner.

 

This is from the GOP website for new rules this year:

 

"The unbound RNC members will be bound in the same manner as the state’s at-large delegates, unless the state elects their delegates on the primary ballot, then all three RNC members will be allocated to the statewide winner."

 

The Bustle with a clearer explantion:

 

"The Republican Party’s unbound delegates are the 168 members of the Republican National Committee — but in 2016, they won’t be allowed to vote for whomever they want at the national convention. They normally would be given this luxury, but the RNC ruled this year that these “unbound” delegates wouldn’t, in fact, be unbound at all. They’ll have to support whomever their state supports, just like regular ol’ delegates."

 

Of course if the GOP wanted too I'm sure they could change the rules.

It's a party rule, they can do whatever they want, and I think we all know what they think of Trump.

 

I updated the OP, though I put the DC and territories into the voteable category. In reality they aren't, but if I put them in party-dictated, it actually only furthers my main points - Trump is the only real possibility to win without a convention fight, and Cruz' fortunes and decisions likely dictate the final outcome more so than anything else.

 

[cabiness42]

I keep hearing all the talking heads say the only chance to beat Trump is to have others drop out, but really it looks like exactly the opposite. Cruz and Rubio, and probably even Kasich need to stay in because you have to assume that if any of them drop out, at least some of the people who would have voted for them would switch to Trump.

[bmags]

Another part of this is inevitability. People tend to want to vote for the winner. I'm going to guess Trump's polls will get stronger as people will want to begin to feel invested in their campaign.

[Chisoxfn]

I keep hearing all the talking heads say the only chance to beat Trump is to have others drop out, but really it looks like exactly the opposite. Cruz and Rubio, and probably even Kasich need to stay in because you have to assume that if any of them drop out, at least some of the people who would have voted for them would switch to Trump.

The winner take all states mean if the other three split their votes amongst each other, Trump, even in the high 30's or low 40's will do fantastic and just roll up the delegates. Unless these other candidates strategically target certain states to run up their numbers in specific states and let the races be "smaller" in other states. Not even sure how that is possible. Say kasich picks 4 states and Rubio picks 4 and cruz picks 10, but in no world is that going to work. Basically a collected effort to say lets get this to go to the convention and than at that point, Kasich / Rubio / Cruz stop working for each other and see who can be the nominee through the brokered convention?

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I keep hearing all the talking heads say the only chance to beat Trump is to have others drop out, but really it looks like exactly the opposite. Cruz and Rubio, and probably even Kasich need to stay in because you have to assume that if any of them drop out, at least some of the people who would have voted for them would switch to Trump.

 

 

Another part of this is inevitability. People tend to want to vote for the winner. I'm going to guess Trump's polls will get stronger as people will want to begin to feel invested in their campaign.

 

Both good points. I tend to think Hickory's point is stronger, because fundamentally, Trump needs to do quite a bit better than he already is to make it work. But bmags' factor is true too.

 

I'm sort of puzzled why most (but not all) the media I am seeing is making it seem so inevitable. It really isn't.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

The winner take all states mean if the other three split their votes amongst each other, Trump, even in the high 30's or low 40's will do fantastic and just roll up the delegates. Unless these other candidates strategically target certain states to run up their numbers in specific states and let the races be "smaller" in other states. Not even sure how that is possible. Say kasich picks 4 states and Rubio picks 4 and cruz picks 10, but in no world is that going to work. Basically a collected effort to say lets get this to go to the convention and than at that point, Kasich / Rubio / Cruz stop working for each other and see who can be the nominee through the brokered convention?

If Trump takes all the big WTA states, he is in. But I am not at all sure that happens. It's sort of fascinating in fact, that Ohio and FL are two of the biggest ones and home to two other candidates. And they haven't really begun campaigning in them yet, to speak of.

 

[Chisoxfn]

If Trump takes all the big WTA states, he is in. But I am not at all sure that happens. It's sort of fascinating in fact, that Ohio and FL are two of the biggest ones and home to two other candidates. And they haven't really begun campaigning in them yet, to speak of.

Kasich is within a few % points but Rubio is like 20 points off in his own state. How the hell is that even possible?

[NorthSideSox72]

Kasich is within a few % points but Rubio is like 20 points off in his own state. How the hell is that even possible?

Any polls for states that haven't seen much campaign traffic yet should be taken with enormous amounts of salt. I'd wait a bit.

 

[bmags]

Both good points. I tend to think Hickory's point is stronger, because fundamentally, Trump needs to do quite a bit better than he already is to make it work. But bmags' factor is true too.

 

I'm sort of puzzled why most (but not all) the media I am seeing is making it seem so inevitable. It really isn't.

 

Because while Trump has a difficult road to 51%, the others have a pretty much impossible road considering none of them have, say, the poll numbers hillary had on super tuesday, where after South Carolina you knew she'd have an easier road. None of them have a group of states they are ahead in aside from Trump.

[NorthSideSox72]

Because while Trump has a difficult road to 51%, the others have a pretty much impossible road considering none of them have, say, the poll numbers hillary had on super tuesday, where after South Carolina you knew she'd have an easier road. None of them have a group of states they are ahead in aside from Trump.

Oh yeah, none of the other guys have any reasonable chance to win outright before convention. That much is quite clear.

 

[Chisoxfn]

Any polls for states that haven't seen much campaign traffic yet should be taken with enormous amounts of salt. I'd wait a bit.

Could be true, but Trump has a lot of roots in Florida. I think you continue to undersell Trump because you have a huge bias against him. Not blaming you for it, but like I said, I'm at the point that for the 2nd time in the last 3 election cycles odds are high that I'll have to write-in my vote for president (I didn't vote for McCain, instead wrote in Romney). I always thought Mccain was a joke as a presidential candidate (VP, sure, but Pres...no way).

[NorthSideSox72]

Could be true, but Trump has a lot of roots in Florida. I think you continue to undersell Trump because you have a huge bias against him. Not blaming you for it, but like I said, I'm at the point that for the 2nd time in the last 3 election cycles odds are high that I'll have to write-in my vote for president (I didn't vote for McCain, instead wrote in Romney). I always thought Mccain was a joke as a presidential candidate (VP, sure, but Pres...no way).

There's a difference between underselling Trump and overselling others. No other candidate has any shot to win cleanly. The numbers are the numbers. Trump has to do better than he's been doing so far, in order to win. That's just what it is, and that is hard to accomplish. Not impossible of course.

 

Besides, if it was really a bias thing based on party, I'd want Trump to win the nomination. He's going to get trounced in the general. What I actually want is for the GOP to nominate a candidate fit for the job.

 

[Y2HH]

There's a difference between underselling Trump and overselling others. No other candidate has any shot to win cleanly. The numbers are the numbers. Trump has to do better than he's been doing so far, in order to win. That's just what it is, and that is hard to accomplish. Not impossible of course.

 

Besides, if it was really a bias thing based on party, I'd want Trump to win the nomination. He's going to get trounced in the general. What I actually want is for the GOP to nominate a candidate fit for the job.

 

I wouldn't be sure about that.

 

I think Trump is going to do way better than people think in the general, because he's getting a LOT of support from people claiming to NOT support him. And that will continue.

 

I think people that believe Trump is going to get trounced in the general are in denial of how popular he actually is.

Edited March 2, 2016 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

Weren't you also telling people here how they were fools for taking Trump seriously a couple of months back?

[Y2HH]

Weren't you also telling people here how they were fools for taking Trump seriously a couple of months back?

 

I still believe that.

 

But there are a LOT of fools out there.

[StrangeSox]

Trump is almost definitely going to win the nomination and you think he'll do pretty well in the general election, but others are fools for discussing him as a serious candidate. OK.

[Y2HH]

Trump is almost definitely going to win the nomination and you think he'll do pretty well in the general election, but others are fools for discussing him as a serious candidate. OK.

 

I think Trump is riding a wave of anti establishment.

 

I think Trump says foolish things.

 

I STILL can't take Trump seriously.

 

I STILL think the people that would vote for him are fools.

 

...and I ALSO think there are a LOT of fools in our general population.

 

----

 

I'm not sure if you're being stupid on purpose or what.

 

I think a person can think that he's a fool AND that people are fools for taking him seriously, AND ALSO believe he's going to do well BECAUSE of those fools. If this still isn't clear to you, the above line applies.

Edited March 2, 2016 by Y2HH

[Buehrle>Wood]

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/electi...legate-targets/

 

 

538 has him 112% on track to win the nomination. Refresh if it gives you the Feb 29th version. It should be from this AM.

[StrangeSox]

I think Trump is riding a wave of anti establishment.

 

I think Trump says foolish things.

 

I STILL can't take Trump seriously as a possibility of becoming the President of the United States.

 

I think people that would vote for him are fools.

 

...and I think there are a LOT of fools in our general population.

 

----

 

I'm not sure if you're being stupid on purpose or what.

 

I think you can think he's a fool, people are fools for taking him seriously, AND ALSO believe he's going to do well BECAUSE of those fools. If this still isn't clear to you, the above line applies.

 

Maybe that's where the difference is here and we're talking past each other. "Taking him seriously" to me means "thinking he is not a joke candidate and actually has a shot at winning the nomination," not thinking his ideas and demagoguery have any serious merit.

[Y2HH]

Maybe that's where the difference is here and we're talking past each other. "Taking him seriously" to me means "thinking he is not a joke candidate and actually has a shot at winning the nomination," not thinking his ideas and demagoguery have any serious merit.

 

Kind of sounds like were just crossing signals here.

 

Fools take a lot of things seriously that shouldn't be taken seriously is what I mean. There are massive amounts of people that believe in things like not vaccinating their kids, homophobia, racism, etc...they're free to believe in those things, even if they're wrong and/or stupid for doing so.

 

And I may be totally wrong about everything in regard to Trump...it's just my opinion. It's not like my opinion of Trump is a fact.

 

And for full disclaimer, I think people are fools that take Clinton seriously...I don't like Clinton OR Trump.

Edited March 2, 2016 by Y2HH