Delegate Math and the GOP

[Chisoxfn]

Before the convention even? Wow, that's an interesting move. I assume that comes with an endorsement then, because that is the value Cruz gets from having them now instead of at (or right before) convention.

 

Where did you see that?

Read it on one of the news alerts that came across. Nothing official but evidently the two had met and talked pretty extensively about it. Nothing done yet and it would mean a formal endoresement from Cruz. I'm presuming Rubio is still thinking about it / delaying to let things play out, but it could mean Cruz has a better chance at winning outright prior to the election. I don't know how many of Rubio's delegates could actually switch vote on the first try at a convention (50% / 10% / 90%)?

[StrangeSox]

Pretty amazing that Trump has managed to get the GOP to back Ted Cruz.

[BigHurt3515]

How can giving delegates to another candidate when dropping out even allowed? That is like deciding for the people who they would have voted for if it was Trump and Cruz. Doesn't seem right

[NorthSideSox72]

How can giving delegates to another candidate when dropping out even allowed? That is like deciding for the people who they would have voted for if it was Trump and Cruz. Doesn't seem right

Well, after the first vote at the convention, that's exactly how it works. The question is, can it happen before even going to convention? And before the 1st vote? Some delegates are unbound, but Rubio can't really control those anyway - they can go to whomever they'd like. Rubio can only encourage them.

 

Also worth noting, some rules are considered untouchable, but many others are essentially set at the time of the convention. That is part of what makes this so potentially messy.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

AZ and UT are done, American Samoa is essentially done (most of its delegates are unbound). Things that have changed are in bold face.

 

BASELINES

Total GOP delegates: 2,472

Party-level delegates - unbound: 168

So, voting-linked delegates: 2,304

50.00001% of 2,304 is rounded to 1,153

Total ending delegates to clinch: 1,237

Delegates to clinch a convention-proof nomination: 1,321

 

CURRENT STANDINGS - total so far: 1,534 awarded (66.6% of voting-linked total) (leaving off the uncommitted/supers for now)

Trump: 739

Cruz: 467

Kasich: 144

---out...

Rubio: 169

Carson: 8

Bush: 4

Fiorina: 1

Huckabee: 1

Paul: 1

 

PERCENT OF REMAINING DELEGATES NEEDED FOR CONV-PROOF MAJORITY (770 voting-linked delegates remaining)

Trump: 582 delegates (75.6% of total)

Others: mathematically impossible

 

482 of the remaining 770 voting-linked delegates are WTA, so 288 proportional delegates of some form (though 120 of those are Winner Take Most, which is a hybrid of sorts). Now, using recent national polls from March among the remaining candidates among LV (and I spread the few % points of undecideds proportionally), you get these likely proportional outcomes...

 

DELEGATE COUNTS PLUS REMAINING PROPORTIONAL USING % ABOVE...

Trump (applying 46.5% to remaining prop and totalling): 739 + 134 = 873

Cruz (31.5%): 467 + 91 = 558

Kasich (22%): 144 + 63 = 207

 

NEED TO WIN IN WTA STATES TO CLINCH PRIOR TO NOMINATION

Trump: Must win 448 of 482

Everyone else: Mathematically impossible if proportional trends continue

 

So now, Trump is the only one left who can clinch a bullet-proof number prior to convention, and in order for him to do that, if his proportional rate stays about what his overall rate has been and national polling says, he would have to win nearly all the remaining WTA delegates to do it. If he loses any one of WI, NY, MD, IN, CA or NJ, he'd fall short (barring a big increase in his proportional levels). Same true if he loses basically ANY two WTA states.

 

WILDCARDS

--Most of the remaining contests are in one of these regions: west coast (which probably best aligns with a moderate like Kasich), northern plains (probably Cruzville), and portions of the northeast (Trump mostly, but PA could like Kasich). Regionality is key now. The south is basically done except WV, and there are a couple midwestern states, and a couple in the mountain west.

 

UP NEXT

Hitting a bit of a slow spot now, but here are the next few contests:

 

APRIL 1st to 3rd: North Dakota (28, all UNbound, ONLINE STRAW POLL)

This one is bizarre. No current polls either. Apparently they had some sort of conflict with the national party, and now they are running an online straw poll (seriously), the results of which will be taken into the state convention on April 1-3. It's not clear if they will take that result as-is, or override it.

 

APRIL 5th: Wisconsin (42, all bound, WTA)

*No polls since late Feb, which had: Trump 30%, Rubio 20%, Cruz 19%, Kasich 8%, Carson 8%

 

Then in late April things really pick up again.

[jasonxctf]

Here's your Wisconsin poll update

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...imary-3763.html

[cabiness42]

Here's your Wisconsin poll update

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...imary-3763.html

 

That's a pretty bad abuse of statistics there. They are averaging two polls, one of which is from 2/18-21. The 3/20-22 poll should be weighted more, possibly up near 100%.

[cabiness42]

Well, after the first vote at the convention, that's exactly how it works. The question is, can it happen before even going to convention? And before the 1st vote? Some delegates are unbound, but Rubio can't really control those anyway - they can go to whomever they'd like. Rubio can only encourage them.

 

Also worth noting, some rules are considered untouchable, but many others are essentially set at the time of the convention. That is part of what makes this so potentially messy.

 

Everybody should watch the last two episodes of Season 6 of The West Wing. I know it's fiction, but it's not too far off from the kind of stuff that might actually happen (sans the sitting President getting involved).

[NorthSideSox72]

Here's your Wisconsin poll update

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...imary-3763.html

Obviously the Feb poll is meaningless as there were three more candidates and it's been over a month. But the new poll is interesting, thanks for posting.

 

Cruz with a lead, though it's miniscule and within the MOE. If Cruz takes WI, that all but guarantees no one will have a majority going to convention.

 

[jasonxctf]

That's a pretty bad abuse of statistics there. They are averaging two polls, one of which is from 2/18-21. The 3/20-22 poll should be weighted more, possibly up near 100%.

 

you're 100% right, but thats not what rcp is doing. they just post all of the polls and because wisconsin had such little polling, they equally weight. they definitely arent trying to predict.

 

a poll like this, is probably more accurate due to the immense amount of polling.

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ot...roval-1044.html

[cabiness42]

you're 100% right, but thats not what rcp is doing. they just post all of the polls and because wisconsin had such little polling, they equally weight. they definitely arent trying to predict.

 

a poll like this, is probably more accurate due to the immense amount of polling.

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ot...roval-1044.html

 

But there's no value at all in publishing a non-weighted average of those two polls. It's just printing meaningless numbers for the sake of printing them.

[StrangeSox]

That's a pretty bad abuse of statistics there. They are averaging two polls, one of which is from 2/18-21. The 3/20-22 poll should be weighted more, possibly up near 100%.

Rcp just does simple aggregation of the latest polls , no weighting etc.

[cabiness42]

Rcp just does simple aggregation of the latest polls , no weighting etc.

 

Then don't bother aggregating if you have to include stuff that old.

[NorthSideSox72]

Wisconsin is done, plus those extra Louisiana delegates Cruz grabbed somehow. Things that have changed are in bold face.

 

BASELINES

Total GOP delegates: 2,472

Party-level delegates - unbound: 168

So, voting-linked delegates: 2,304

50.00001% of 2,304 is rounded to 1,153

Total ending delegates to clinch: 1,237

Delegates to clinch a convention-proof nomination: 1,321

 

CURRENT STANDINGS - total so far: 1,591 awarded (69.1% of voting-linked total) (leaving off the uncommitted/supers for now) (WI, projected last 6 as 3:3)

Trump: 744

Cruz: 517 (includes 6 in CO which is partially complete)

Kasich: 144

---out...

Rubio: 171

Carson: 8

Bush: 4

Fiorina: 1

Huckabee: 1

Paul: 1

 

PERCENT OF REMAINING DELEGATES NEEDED FOR CONV-PROOF MAJORITY (715 voting-linked delegates remaining)

Trump: 577 delegates (80.7% of total)

Others: mathematically impossible

 

PERCENT OF REMAINING DELEGATES NEEDED FOR REGULAR MAJORITY (715 voting-linked delegates remaining)

Trump: 493 delegates (68.9% of total)

Others: mathematically impossible

 

566 of the remaining 715 voting-linked delegates are WTA, so 149 proportional delegates of some form (though some of those are Winner Take Most, which is a hybrid of sorts). Now, using recent national polls from March among the remaining candidates among LV (and I spread the few % points of undecideds proportionally), you get these likely proportional outcomes...

 

DELEGATE COUNTS PLUS REMAINING PROPORTIONAL USING % ABOVE...

Trump (applying 47% to remaining prop and totalling): 744 + 70 = 814

Cruz (39%): 517 + 58 = 575

Kasich (24%): 144 + 36 = 180

 

NEED TO WIN IN WTA STATES TO CLINCH PRIOR TO NOMINATION

Trump: Must win 507 of 566 delegates for convention-proof, Must win 423 of 566 for regular majority number from voting-linked delegates

Everyone else: Mathematically impossible if proportional trends continue

 

Basically, if Cruz and/or Kasich win any one 1 of CA, NY or IN... or any 2 of CA, NY, IN, CT, NJ, MD, NE, WA... or any 3 of the 17 states remaining... it's a contested convention.

 

Note that Colorado and North Dakota are among the non-linked and still underway.

 

WILDCARDS

--Most of the remaining contests are in one of these regions: west coast (which probably best aligns with a moderate like Kasich), northern plains (probably Cruzville), and portions of the northeast (Trump mostly, but PA could like Kasich). Regionality is key now. The south is basically done except WV, and there are a few left in the mountain west.

 

UP NEXT

Hitting another 2-week slot spot, then we get some key ones, many of which are Trump wheelhouses...

 

APRIL 19:

New York (95)... Last poll: Trump 52%, Cruz 21%, Kasich 20%

 

APRIL 26:

Pennsylvania (71, but 54 unbound)... Last poll: Trump 39%, Cruz 30%, Kasich 24%

Maryland (38)... No polls in the last month

Connecticut (28)... No polls this YEAR

RI (19)... No polls in last month

Delaware (16)... No polls at all

 

[StrangeSox]

Something to keep in mind regarding delegate counting, you've actually gotta be organized and get loyal delegates on the ballots and to the convention. Trump's campaign seems to be struggling in some areas:

 

Trump’s getting trounced in Indiana

 

John, the 7th District chairman, said pro-Trump forces attempted to mobilize grass-roots delegate candidates with an email blast encouraging supporters to run. Though he said it resulted in a “handful of people who were sort of unknown to the local party” filing papers, John said none were added to the party’s slate. Instead, the local party recommended district Vice Chair Jennifer Ping, Indianapolis businessman and state Senate candidate Jefferson Shreve, and 34-year state Sen. Pat Miller.

 

Contacted by POLITICO, a terse Miller agreed that she was not in the Trump camp and had an abrupt response when asked who she’d back instead.

 

“I’m supporting Tom Selleck,” she said and quickly hung up.

 

Jennifer Jacobs ✔ ‎@JenniferJJacobs

I'm told no Trump delegate eligible to be a nat'l delegate from Colorado's 6th CD. Didn't understand process, hadn't run from their precinct

 

[bmags]

Tom Selleck? That was the top of mind joke?

[StrangeSox]

Tom Selleck? That was the top of mind joke?

I'm not sure, maybe she was aware of the recent history pollsters have been reporting. When they call and start their survey, a decent amount of Trump supports will just say "TRUMP!" and hang up immediately. Maybe playing off of that?

 

Either way, Trump's lack of a well-organized national campaign means that while he may be winning a lot of the primaries and caucuses, he's not following all the way through. Since we're potentially looking at razor-thin margins going into the convention, this could come back to haunt him.

[bmags]

Glad it finally caught up to him. Amazing how far he's gone on media coverage and razor thin spending.

[StrangeSox]

Time has some more details on Trump's delegate troubles

 

http://time.com/4287932/donald-trump-ted-cruz-delegates/

 

Donald Trump’s effort to reset his campaign following defeat in Wisconsin showed no signs of paying off this weekend, as a series of technical failures by his campaign set his hopes back even further.

 

[...]

 

In Indiana, which holds its primary next month, Trump suffered setbacks even before the first vote was cast. Party leaders met across the state on Saturday to select three delegates from each of the state’s nine congressional districts. Nearly all of those selected are expected to be solidly anti-Trump. While Trump’s campaign encouraged supporters to apply to become delegates, the process is run by the GOP establishment, which has not warmed to the front-runner.

 

“The way the system works is, there are people who are involved, people who are known quantities, and that makes them more likely candidates to get these appointments,” said Thomas John, the GOP chair for the state’s 7th congressional district. State GOP leaders will select the statewide delegates at a meeting Tuesday, which is likely to have the same result.

 

In Iowa, where Cruz won the caucuses, he was able to pad his victory in the state’s district conventions by installing loyalists in all but one of the delegate slots up for grabs. Should the convention reach a second ballot, several delegates pledged to Trump would flip to Cruz.

 

And in South Carolina, where Trump swept the state’s 50 delegates, he lost five of six delegate slots in two congressional district conventions, eating further into his potential second-ballot support.

 

In Michigan, where the state held its GOP convention in Lansing, Cruz’s campaign believes they have installed loyalists in about five delegate slots among the 25 delegates pledged to Trump.

[Buehrle>Wood]

The Colorado thing is a huge story that no one seems to be talking about. Colorado more or less didn't have a primary then decided Cruz can be their winner and gave him all the delegates without their citizens having a real say. Indiana and whatever is just failing to play the game properly. I think that game is so stupid to begin with, but Colorado took it to a whole new level of corrupt. People should be pissed with the Republican party for spitting in the face of voters.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

The Colorado thing is a huge story that no one seems to be talking about. Colorado more or less didn't have a primary then decided Cruz can be their winner and gave him all the delegates without their citizens having a real say. Indiana and whatever is just failing to play the game properly. I think that game is so stupid to begin with, but Colorado took it to a whole new level of corrupt. People should be pissed with the Republican party for spitting in the face of voters.

It's not corrupt - the selection of a candidate is a party process, not an election.

 

That said, I agree with you that the ideal model is for all party races to be voted, via primaries, in every state, without any Supers or Nationals or any of the other garbage. I'd certainly prefer that.

 

[bmags]

If that process is undemocratic so is our electoral college.

[cabiness42]

It's not corrupt - the selection of a candidate is a party process, not an election.

 

This. Part of being qualified to lead your party as the party's nominee for President is being able to navigate the process. Now, I'm all for the process being a bit more standardized, but I'm not sure I want to see it become a strictly popular vote. I think there is a place for Superdelegates (though not 15% or whatever insane number the Democrats have), and I think there is a place for being able to identify delegates in each state and knowing how to secure their loyalty. What Colorado has done is a bit extreme though. I'd love to see some sort of breakdown like this for each state:

 

5% of delegates are superdelegates who are not bound at all

15% of delegates go to statewide popular vote winner and are bound through the first three ballots at the convention

80% of delegates distributed proportionally by popular vote to candidates who finish in the top three and/or win at least 10% of the vote, and are bound through the first ballot the convention.

 

I also think that each state's share of delegates should be proportional to the number of people who voted in the state's primary 4 years ago, with a 20% bonus to each state that had <5% margin of victory in the previous general election.

[Buehrle>Wood]

There was no public vote in Colorado. That was cancelled once Trump became a viable and probable candidate for Colorado. To be a delegate there, you had to be approved by a GOP selection committee which was taking off Trump supporters off their list. There was no process for which Trump could navigate. It was corrupt, as Colorado made the rules as they went along, particularly with the declaration process, in order to have their guy win.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Buehrle>Wood

[cabiness42]

There was no public vote in Colorado. That was cancelled once Trump became a viable and probable candidate for Colorado. To be a delegate there, you had to be approved by a GOP selection committee which was taking off Trump supporters off their list. There was no process for which Trump could navigate. It was corrupt, as Colorado made the rules as they went along, particularly with the declaration process, in order to have their guy win.

 

Well, he could have earned the support of the GOP selection committee, but I agree that what Colorado did was out of bounds.