270towin has a list that is updating the Electoral College vote totals.
The Green Papers has a list of the various times that the states are scheduled to vote as well.
As of noon, Trump has 66 votes while Clinton has 27 with no faithless electors as of yet. States voted are Arizona, Illinois, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, South Carolina, Vermont, New Hampshire, Indiana and West Virginia.
Update - 12:30 pm
Delaware (3): Trump 66 - Clinton 30
Kentucky (8): Trump 74 - Clinton 30
Update - 12:45 pm
Connecticut (7): Trump 74 - Clinton 37
Georgia (16): Trump 90 - Clinton 37, faithless elector resigned prior to vote and was replaced
New York (29): Trump 90 - Clinton 66
North Carolina (15): Trump 105 - Clinton 66
Update - 1:00 pm
Rhode Island (4): Trump 105 - Clinton 70
Virginia (13): Trump 105 - Clinton 83
Pennsylvania (20): Trump 125 - Clinton 83
Louisiana (8): Trump 133 - Clinton 83
Update - 1:15 pm
Ohio (18): Trump 151 - Clinton 83
South Dakota (3): Trump 154 - Clinton 83
Kansas (6): Trump 160 - Clinton 83
Update - 1:30 pm
Wisconsin (10): Trump 170 - Clinton 83
Alabama (9): Trump 179 - Clinton 83
Update - 1:45 pm
Maryland (10): Trump 179 - Clinton 93
Update - 2:00 pm
Minnesota (10): Trump 179 - Clinton 103, faithless elector dismissed and replaced after abstention
Update - 2:15 pm
Idaho (4): Trump 183 - Clinton 103
Update - 2:30 pm
Wyoming (3): Trump 186 - Clinton 103
Florida (29): Trump 215 - Clinton 103
Utah (6): Trump 221 - Clinton 103
North Dakota (3): Trump 224 - Clinton 103
Michigan (16): Trump 240 - Clinton 103
New Mexico (5): Trump 240 - Clinton 108
Update - 2:45 pm
Oregon (7): Trump 240 - Clinton 115
Maine (4): Trump 241 - Clinton 118, faithless elector vote for Bernie Sanders invalidated and replaced
Update - 3:00 pm
Colorado (9): Trump 241 - Clinton 127, faithless elector vote invalidated and replaced
Update - 3:15 pm
Missouri (10): Trump 251 - Clinton 127
Update 3:30 pm
Washington (12): Trump 251, Clinton 135, Colin Powell 3, Faith Spotted Eagle 1
Update 3:45 pm
Nebraska (5): Trump 256, Clinton 135, Powell 3, Spotted Eagle 1
Update 4:00 pm
Alaska (3): Trump 259, Clinton 135, Powell 3, Spotted Eagle 1
Texas (38): Trump 295, Clinton 135, Powell 3, Spotted Eagle 1, John Kasich 1, Rand Paul 1; 4 other faithless electors resigned prior to vote and replaced
Update 7:00 am
Texas put Mr. Trump over the top but all the other states are in and there were no surprises save that of Hawaii which added one more faithless elector to the list. So in the end, the final totals are:
Donald Trump - 304
Hillary Clinton - 227
Colin Powell - 3
Faith Spotted Eagle - 1
John Kasich - 1
Rand Paul - 1
Bernie Sanders - 1
So despite much shenanigans, we are essentially in the same spot we were on November 9th. Now we just sit back and wait for January 20th for the proper start to this whole affair.
Monday, December 19, 2016
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
Clue: The Proper Ending
The 1985 movie Clue had a gimmick where three different endings were shot and a different ending was placed on different prints. The idea was to try and get theater goers to see the movie in different theaters to see the different endings. The movie did poorly and was pulled from theaters after a short time. However, not wanting to waste the endings, all three were put on when released on VHS with the ending of Wadsworth being Mr. Boddy being touted as the "real" ending. However, none of the endings actually work as is. In all three endings, there are plot holes or mistakes that just don't work. I'm going to list the three endings, why they don't work as is and then propose an amalgamation that is the best fit ending in my opinion.
Solution A: Yvette/Miss Scarlet
In this ending, the maid, Yvette, kills both Mr. Boddy and the cook under orders from Miss Scarlet. Miss Scarlet steps up and kills the motorist, Yvette, the cop and the singing telegram girl. Her motivation is revealed to be that she is stealing classified information and selling it to foreign powers, essentially taking over Mr. Boddy's blackmail scheme.
This is arguably the best ending as it contains the fewest holes viewing-wise. The principle problems actually come with the first two murders done by Yvette. Wadsworth's explanation is that after Miss Scarlet grabbed the gun, Yvette snuck out of the billiard room, stole the dagger, killed the cook and then ran back to the billiard room and screamed. Except that in the following scene, Yvette repeats parts of their conversation. If she had been running off to kill the cook, she would not have heard that conversation. There was also no way of her knowing that Mrs. Peacock had dropped the dagger right near the door. It would seem an unnecessary risk to try and steal a weapon from the room to kill the cook when she could have just grabbed something from the billiard room or the hall.
Another problem with Yvette being the murderer for the first two is that Yvette would have to have been aware of what Mr. Boddy's plan was to tell Miss Scarlet so that they could have planned what to do. Given that Mr. Boddy was already suspicious of Wadsworth, it is unlikely that he would have disclosed any information of what he was planning to Yvette on risk of Wadsworth becoming aware of it. Miss Scarlet could have done things on the fly, but coordination would have been needed to involve someone else like Yvette and that would have taken time and knowledge of Mr. Boddy's intentions.
Solution B: Mrs. Peacock
This is the least likely scenario and one that would have turned off many viewers I would think. In this scenario, Mrs. Peacock kills all six victims, the latter four solely to cover up the fact that the first two would have pointed clearly to her. Mrs. Peacock committing the first two murders works fine, but the other four make no sense. For comedic effect, the four pairs of partners are shown watching each other very closely during the time that the motorist is killed. Colonel Mustard and Miss Scarlet are the only ones shown to have a clear moment where they are separated, making them the only real possibility. Worse, when the lights go out, almost immediately Mrs. Peacock is shown backing into the furnace. This would mean that after running up the stairs for a second time without Professor Plum noticing to turn off the lights, she then ran back down the stairs to run into the furnace and then back up to commit the three murders. None of these events make any sense.
Solution C: All of them/Wadsworth is Mr. Boddy
This is the "real" solution according to the tape. In it, Professor Plum kills Mr. Boddy, Mrs. Peacock kills the cook, Colonel Mustard kills the motorist, Mrs. White kills Yvette, Miss Scarlet kills the cop and Wadsworth kills the singing telegram girl. When he is revealed to be Mr. Boddy, Mr. Green reveals himself as an FBI plant and kills Wadsworth.
This solution works best for motive and also for how much of the action was staged. Professor Plum and Mrs. Peacock are clearly shown as missing in their respective murder scenes and there is a fairly strong implication of Colonel Mustard in the destruction of the evidence right before the motorist is killed. The problems really rise in the other three murders. Like with Mrs. Peacock, both Mrs. White and Wadsworth are shown in comic scenes upstairs. You can actually hear Mrs. White screaming upstairs while Yvette is walking downstairs to the billiard room. Yet we are supposed to believe that Mrs. White is waiting for her in the billiard room, having been the one to sneak downstairs and turn off the lights. Likewise, Wadsworth would have had to come downstairs to retrieve the gun, kill the singing telegram girl, run back upstairs to get lost and turn the shower on himself, then run back downstairs to turn the lights back on. Possible but not very likely.
There is also the odd factor of why Wadsworth would admit to killing the singing telegram girl if he were Mr. Boddy. He should have been tipped off that the FBI was on to him when J. Edgar Hoover called for Mr. Green. In that scenario, he could have fled after killing the singing telegram girl. Or, should he not wanted to go on the run, he could have hidden the gun so that it wouldn't have been called out to him. Implicating the others in their murders would have kept them in line out of fear of arrest. By process of elimination he should have guessed that Mr. Green was the plant and hidden the gun either on him or in a random location. The other guests were quick to jump on Mr. Green as the one who shot the singing telegram girl and when the gun fails to turn up, he would have been out of metaphorical ammo. Either way, Mr. Green would have been left without any evidence against Mr. Boddy as his network was dead and no evidence of him killing any of them. Wadsworth admitting that he killed the singing telegram girl and exposing himself as Mr. Boddy suggests that he didn't know or suspect that Mr. Green was a plant and could go Bond villain to ensure that the blackmail would continue. That doesn't make much sense either.
The Proposed Solution
Weighing everything out, the best solution is where we take little bits from each scenario based solely off the evidence shown in the movie. Each victim should be taken one at a time.
1. Mr. Boddy - Professor Plum killing him makes the most sense. It is unlikely that anyone with any medical knowledge would mistake someone alive to be dead. He fires the gun but claims that someone grabbed his hand. He also stays behind in the study and when Mr. Boddy jumps up to escape, he cracks him on the head with the candlestick. Professor Plum is noticeably absent from the kitchen and shows up in the doorway at the end of the scene, near Mrs. Peacock.
2. The cook - Given that two of the three scenarios showed Mrs. Peacock killing the cook, that is the obvious solution. She is missing from the billiard room when Yvette screams and her given weapon was the dagger. What's more, not only did she have motivation but as the cook was once her cook, she could have easily learned from her about the secret passage in the kitchen, shoring up that little plot element.
3. The motorist - This is actually the most tricky one. All the major evidence points to Colonel Mustard. He was his driver so there is motive. Colonel Mustard is also in good position to switch the keys in Wadsworth's pocket, being behind Wadsworth when the motorist is at the door and being the one to tap Wadsworth on the shoulder when he locks the motorist in. He also makes the suggestion that they split up, giving a better chance of breaking away to commit the murder. He is shown separating from Miss Scarlet in the ballroom and while he says he is going to search the kitchen, he is shown later being surprised by the location of the ironing board, suggesting he did not go to the kitchen. Unlike all the other murders, the killer of the motorist took time and effort. They destroyed the blackmail evidence (where a picture of the motorist and Colonel Mustard can be seen) including the tape recording. The murderer also goes to the trouble of wearing gloves, something not seen in the other murders.
So why not just say it was Colonel Mustard? Because then you have to answer the question of how he knew about the secret passage in the conservatory. Miss Scarlet would have known about it through Yvette, making her more likely to be able to go through with it. Of course, it is shown earlier that Colonel Mustard was a client of Miss Scarlet's and he was quite familiar with Yvette. It is possible that she mentioned the secret passage in one of their encounters. Although the knowledge logistics might better allow Miss Scarlet to be the murderer here, I think the bulk of the evidence favors Colonel Mustard for the motorist.
4. Yvette - Up until now, the best solutions have all come from Solution C. Here is where we deviate. The logistics of what is shown on screen rule out Mrs. Peacock and seemingly rule out Mrs. White given her limited mobility shown when the lights go out. What's more, the two planned murders on the first floor make sense for Miss Scarlet to do. With Mr. Boddy dead Miss Scarlet is no longer in need of Yvette as a network operative with Mr. Boddy. Yvette was also the source of the information to Miss Scarlet of Mrs. White's husband's work but he was also dead. Yvette was also exposed as working for her so simple relaying of information via prostitution was also dried up. In short, Yvette was no longer useful to Miss Scarlet. Yvette's behavior in slipping into the billiard room when the lights going out suggests a prearranged signal between her and Miss Scarlet. Miss Scarlet then takes advantage of the meeting by eliminating her operative.
5. The cop - Again, two out of the three scenarios had Miss Scarlet killing the cop so her killing him makes the most sense. It is easy to imagine that Miss Scarlet offered the signal to eliminate Yvette and then took advantage of the opportunity to eliminate the other person she paid off but who sold her out to Mr. Boddy.
6. The singing telegram girl - the telegram girl has always been the oddball in the murder mystery. It is Professor Plum who has the motive to actually kill her but he is never offered. Wadsworth killing her makes some sense as she was the last of his agents and he closed the loop. But given the logistics shown, it makes little sense as to how he could have done it and I think the best solution does not have him being Mr. Boddy. Mrs. Peacock is impractical and with Miss Scarlet having killed Yvette and the cop, it makes the most sense that she would kill her too.
I would change the motive a bit though. In Solution A, Miss Scarlet is suggested to have killed the girl because she recognized her from her photograph. However, as Colonel Mustard destroyed the evidence in this scenario, Miss Scarlet would have had little chance to see those pictures. Given that her affair was with Professor Plum, she would likely not have been on the negatives showing Colonel Mustard and Yvette that everyone did see. So I'm inclined to put Miss Scarlet's murder of the girl as a point of random confusion. The two murders on the ground floor would be suggestive of her. Adding a third random person, whom she would not have necessarily known, would have given legs to the idea that there was a murderer hiding in the house and that person killed the other two, killed the girl and then ran out with the gun. So her death becomes an attempt as misdirection on an unknown rather than any part of a clean up effort.
As for the final wrap up, it would have been a blend of Solutions A and C. Wadsworth was in fact an FBI agent, assigned to track the case of Mr. Boddy, who fingers the first three individual murderers. He then fingers Miss Scarlet for the last three and she pulls the gun out on them. While the motive for all the murders would have been revenge or clean up, Miss Scarlet could still have stepped up to take Mr. Boddy's place as the new blackmailer. It would also keep her motivation to pay the blackmail as shown because Mr. Green is correct and that being exposed as a Madame was not a significant point for blackmail as she could have taken down most of Washington with her. But if the cop or Yvette exposed her to Mr. Boddy as a mercenary spy, that was worth paying him off to keep her hidden. She does overlook Mrs. White being able to pay her in government information, given that her husband is dead, but with five deceased husbands, Mrs. White was probably the one guest who still could have paid Miss Scarlet in cash.
Others would probably come up with their own solutions and little changes could be made here and there, but I think given the weight of information shown on screen that the above solution represents the most plausible outcome of events. Motivations change and the final scene would have to have been fixed, but I think it addresses the most grievous plot holes. At the very least, it leaves you in a position where you can paper over the small ones with head cannon.
Solution A: Yvette/Miss Scarlet
In this ending, the maid, Yvette, kills both Mr. Boddy and the cook under orders from Miss Scarlet. Miss Scarlet steps up and kills the motorist, Yvette, the cop and the singing telegram girl. Her motivation is revealed to be that she is stealing classified information and selling it to foreign powers, essentially taking over Mr. Boddy's blackmail scheme.
This is arguably the best ending as it contains the fewest holes viewing-wise. The principle problems actually come with the first two murders done by Yvette. Wadsworth's explanation is that after Miss Scarlet grabbed the gun, Yvette snuck out of the billiard room, stole the dagger, killed the cook and then ran back to the billiard room and screamed. Except that in the following scene, Yvette repeats parts of their conversation. If she had been running off to kill the cook, she would not have heard that conversation. There was also no way of her knowing that Mrs. Peacock had dropped the dagger right near the door. It would seem an unnecessary risk to try and steal a weapon from the room to kill the cook when she could have just grabbed something from the billiard room or the hall.
Another problem with Yvette being the murderer for the first two is that Yvette would have to have been aware of what Mr. Boddy's plan was to tell Miss Scarlet so that they could have planned what to do. Given that Mr. Boddy was already suspicious of Wadsworth, it is unlikely that he would have disclosed any information of what he was planning to Yvette on risk of Wadsworth becoming aware of it. Miss Scarlet could have done things on the fly, but coordination would have been needed to involve someone else like Yvette and that would have taken time and knowledge of Mr. Boddy's intentions.
Solution B: Mrs. Peacock
This is the least likely scenario and one that would have turned off many viewers I would think. In this scenario, Mrs. Peacock kills all six victims, the latter four solely to cover up the fact that the first two would have pointed clearly to her. Mrs. Peacock committing the first two murders works fine, but the other four make no sense. For comedic effect, the four pairs of partners are shown watching each other very closely during the time that the motorist is killed. Colonel Mustard and Miss Scarlet are the only ones shown to have a clear moment where they are separated, making them the only real possibility. Worse, when the lights go out, almost immediately Mrs. Peacock is shown backing into the furnace. This would mean that after running up the stairs for a second time without Professor Plum noticing to turn off the lights, she then ran back down the stairs to run into the furnace and then back up to commit the three murders. None of these events make any sense.
Solution C: All of them/Wadsworth is Mr. Boddy
This is the "real" solution according to the tape. In it, Professor Plum kills Mr. Boddy, Mrs. Peacock kills the cook, Colonel Mustard kills the motorist, Mrs. White kills Yvette, Miss Scarlet kills the cop and Wadsworth kills the singing telegram girl. When he is revealed to be Mr. Boddy, Mr. Green reveals himself as an FBI plant and kills Wadsworth.
This solution works best for motive and also for how much of the action was staged. Professor Plum and Mrs. Peacock are clearly shown as missing in their respective murder scenes and there is a fairly strong implication of Colonel Mustard in the destruction of the evidence right before the motorist is killed. The problems really rise in the other three murders. Like with Mrs. Peacock, both Mrs. White and Wadsworth are shown in comic scenes upstairs. You can actually hear Mrs. White screaming upstairs while Yvette is walking downstairs to the billiard room. Yet we are supposed to believe that Mrs. White is waiting for her in the billiard room, having been the one to sneak downstairs and turn off the lights. Likewise, Wadsworth would have had to come downstairs to retrieve the gun, kill the singing telegram girl, run back upstairs to get lost and turn the shower on himself, then run back downstairs to turn the lights back on. Possible but not very likely.
There is also the odd factor of why Wadsworth would admit to killing the singing telegram girl if he were Mr. Boddy. He should have been tipped off that the FBI was on to him when J. Edgar Hoover called for Mr. Green. In that scenario, he could have fled after killing the singing telegram girl. Or, should he not wanted to go on the run, he could have hidden the gun so that it wouldn't have been called out to him. Implicating the others in their murders would have kept them in line out of fear of arrest. By process of elimination he should have guessed that Mr. Green was the plant and hidden the gun either on him or in a random location. The other guests were quick to jump on Mr. Green as the one who shot the singing telegram girl and when the gun fails to turn up, he would have been out of metaphorical ammo. Either way, Mr. Green would have been left without any evidence against Mr. Boddy as his network was dead and no evidence of him killing any of them. Wadsworth admitting that he killed the singing telegram girl and exposing himself as Mr. Boddy suggests that he didn't know or suspect that Mr. Green was a plant and could go Bond villain to ensure that the blackmail would continue. That doesn't make much sense either.
The Proposed Solution
Weighing everything out, the best solution is where we take little bits from each scenario based solely off the evidence shown in the movie. Each victim should be taken one at a time.
1. Mr. Boddy - Professor Plum killing him makes the most sense. It is unlikely that anyone with any medical knowledge would mistake someone alive to be dead. He fires the gun but claims that someone grabbed his hand. He also stays behind in the study and when Mr. Boddy jumps up to escape, he cracks him on the head with the candlestick. Professor Plum is noticeably absent from the kitchen and shows up in the doorway at the end of the scene, near Mrs. Peacock.
2. The cook - Given that two of the three scenarios showed Mrs. Peacock killing the cook, that is the obvious solution. She is missing from the billiard room when Yvette screams and her given weapon was the dagger. What's more, not only did she have motivation but as the cook was once her cook, she could have easily learned from her about the secret passage in the kitchen, shoring up that little plot element.
3. The motorist - This is actually the most tricky one. All the major evidence points to Colonel Mustard. He was his driver so there is motive. Colonel Mustard is also in good position to switch the keys in Wadsworth's pocket, being behind Wadsworth when the motorist is at the door and being the one to tap Wadsworth on the shoulder when he locks the motorist in. He also makes the suggestion that they split up, giving a better chance of breaking away to commit the murder. He is shown separating from Miss Scarlet in the ballroom and while he says he is going to search the kitchen, he is shown later being surprised by the location of the ironing board, suggesting he did not go to the kitchen. Unlike all the other murders, the killer of the motorist took time and effort. They destroyed the blackmail evidence (where a picture of the motorist and Colonel Mustard can be seen) including the tape recording. The murderer also goes to the trouble of wearing gloves, something not seen in the other murders.
So why not just say it was Colonel Mustard? Because then you have to answer the question of how he knew about the secret passage in the conservatory. Miss Scarlet would have known about it through Yvette, making her more likely to be able to go through with it. Of course, it is shown earlier that Colonel Mustard was a client of Miss Scarlet's and he was quite familiar with Yvette. It is possible that she mentioned the secret passage in one of their encounters. Although the knowledge logistics might better allow Miss Scarlet to be the murderer here, I think the bulk of the evidence favors Colonel Mustard for the motorist.
4. Yvette - Up until now, the best solutions have all come from Solution C. Here is where we deviate. The logistics of what is shown on screen rule out Mrs. Peacock and seemingly rule out Mrs. White given her limited mobility shown when the lights go out. What's more, the two planned murders on the first floor make sense for Miss Scarlet to do. With Mr. Boddy dead Miss Scarlet is no longer in need of Yvette as a network operative with Mr. Boddy. Yvette was also the source of the information to Miss Scarlet of Mrs. White's husband's work but he was also dead. Yvette was also exposed as working for her so simple relaying of information via prostitution was also dried up. In short, Yvette was no longer useful to Miss Scarlet. Yvette's behavior in slipping into the billiard room when the lights going out suggests a prearranged signal between her and Miss Scarlet. Miss Scarlet then takes advantage of the meeting by eliminating her operative.
5. The cop - Again, two out of the three scenarios had Miss Scarlet killing the cop so her killing him makes the most sense. It is easy to imagine that Miss Scarlet offered the signal to eliminate Yvette and then took advantage of the opportunity to eliminate the other person she paid off but who sold her out to Mr. Boddy.
6. The singing telegram girl - the telegram girl has always been the oddball in the murder mystery. It is Professor Plum who has the motive to actually kill her but he is never offered. Wadsworth killing her makes some sense as she was the last of his agents and he closed the loop. But given the logistics shown, it makes little sense as to how he could have done it and I think the best solution does not have him being Mr. Boddy. Mrs. Peacock is impractical and with Miss Scarlet having killed Yvette and the cop, it makes the most sense that she would kill her too.
I would change the motive a bit though. In Solution A, Miss Scarlet is suggested to have killed the girl because she recognized her from her photograph. However, as Colonel Mustard destroyed the evidence in this scenario, Miss Scarlet would have had little chance to see those pictures. Given that her affair was with Professor Plum, she would likely not have been on the negatives showing Colonel Mustard and Yvette that everyone did see. So I'm inclined to put Miss Scarlet's murder of the girl as a point of random confusion. The two murders on the ground floor would be suggestive of her. Adding a third random person, whom she would not have necessarily known, would have given legs to the idea that there was a murderer hiding in the house and that person killed the other two, killed the girl and then ran out with the gun. So her death becomes an attempt as misdirection on an unknown rather than any part of a clean up effort.
As for the final wrap up, it would have been a blend of Solutions A and C. Wadsworth was in fact an FBI agent, assigned to track the case of Mr. Boddy, who fingers the first three individual murderers. He then fingers Miss Scarlet for the last three and she pulls the gun out on them. While the motive for all the murders would have been revenge or clean up, Miss Scarlet could still have stepped up to take Mr. Boddy's place as the new blackmailer. It would also keep her motivation to pay the blackmail as shown because Mr. Green is correct and that being exposed as a Madame was not a significant point for blackmail as she could have taken down most of Washington with her. But if the cop or Yvette exposed her to Mr. Boddy as a mercenary spy, that was worth paying him off to keep her hidden. She does overlook Mrs. White being able to pay her in government information, given that her husband is dead, but with five deceased husbands, Mrs. White was probably the one guest who still could have paid Miss Scarlet in cash.
Others would probably come up with their own solutions and little changes could be made here and there, but I think given the weight of information shown on screen that the above solution represents the most plausible outcome of events. Motivations change and the final scene would have to have been fixed, but I think it addresses the most grievous plot holes. At the very least, it leaves you in a position where you can paper over the small ones with head cannon.
Wednesday, November 09, 2016
Election Post Mortem
In Hebrew, numbers are represented by letters. This has the amusing coincidence of having numbers sometimes form words. The number 45 would be written Mem-Hey (מה). This letter set also spells out the word "What." I can't think of a better descriptor of this election than that.
I had a thought that Mr. Trump would have a chance but I must admit that I was a bit surprised by the overall result. I had a feeling that he would win the trifecta of Ohio, North Carolina and Florida as the raw numbers and empirical evidence did not mesh with the polling data. I was also pretty sure he would take Utah, Iowa and the second district of Maine. This got him to 260 on my map.
My thought was that the mostly likely scenario was that he would manage to snag the combo of Colorado and New Hampshire. Actually, just Colorado would probably have been enough as that would have given him 269 and the House would go along. But Colorado went fairly quickly to Mrs. Clinton and Nevada followed suit, confirming my skepticism there. They are still counting but at the moment, it appears that Mrs. Clinton will win New Hampshire as well, although at a spread of 1,500 votes, there will likely be a recount.
So, for my scenario, Mrs. Clinton had pulled it off and was in route to a narrow victory. I thought there might be an outside chance at Michigan given the way it had been pushed. I also thought Pennsylvania was an outside shot, although I was expecting Philadelphia and Pittsburgh to push it into Mrs. Clinton's column. I did not expect Wisconsin at all. Despite it being very close in both Bush elections, I legitimately thought it would stay Democrat. Instead, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania push Mr. Trump over the top and Michigan is looking like gravy on top, giving Mr. Trump a likely 306-232 victory.
So what is the source of this victory. I think it comes down to two major factors: a large turnout of Republican voters and a depressed turnout among African-American and young voters. We won't know until all the votes are counted but it appears that Mr. Trump is going to finish behind Mr. Obama's vote totals of nearly 66,000,000. He may even finish behind Mr. Romney's totals but again, we need to see what the final tally is. But after four years of growth, a minimal increase in the Republican turnout doesn't say much but an over 5,000,000 vote drop in the Democrat tally does.
Some of this is from young voters who were either not energized by Mrs. Clinton or still seriously angry over not getting Mr. Sanders. But I think it more significant that African-Americans didn't turnout. Mrs. Clinton is likely to lose Michigan because African-Americans in the southern part of the state (especially Detroit) did not turn out. She lost Pennsylvania because voters in the Philly suburbs did not turn out for her. I haven't taken a close look but I assume Wisconsin's fall was due more to the youth vote failure rather than the African-American but I won't hang my hat on that.
I definitely believe that the shortcomings in these two constituencies led to the loss of Florida and North Carolina. Possibly Ohio too although given where the shortfalls were, I'm more inclined to put that on blue collars turning to Mr. Trump than a failure of turnout.
So what comes next? Obviously Mr. Trump will become President next year and will govern for the next four. Given his age, questions abound as to whether he will keep to only one term or if he will seek reelection. But that's a long way off and the Democrats actually have a bigger problem. Who is next in line?
Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders will almost certainly be too old to be considered viable candidates in 2020 and both have the taint of failure now. So far as I know, there are no significant rising stars in either the governorships or the Senate. This was hinted at in the somewhat limited selection for Mrs. Clinton when she decided on her Vice Presidential pick. I would suspect that Mr. Kaine would be considered the frontrunner as of now but I can't imagine a lot of people being super excited about him. I'm sure whispers will begin to swirl around some one, probably out of the south or southwest, but that person is hidden to me for now.
Anyway, elections are over now and we can all concentrate on more important things, like trying to figure any way to avoid a Patriots-Cowboys Super Bowl.
I had a thought that Mr. Trump would have a chance but I must admit that I was a bit surprised by the overall result. I had a feeling that he would win the trifecta of Ohio, North Carolina and Florida as the raw numbers and empirical evidence did not mesh with the polling data. I was also pretty sure he would take Utah, Iowa and the second district of Maine. This got him to 260 on my map.
My thought was that the mostly likely scenario was that he would manage to snag the combo of Colorado and New Hampshire. Actually, just Colorado would probably have been enough as that would have given him 269 and the House would go along. But Colorado went fairly quickly to Mrs. Clinton and Nevada followed suit, confirming my skepticism there. They are still counting but at the moment, it appears that Mrs. Clinton will win New Hampshire as well, although at a spread of 1,500 votes, there will likely be a recount.
So, for my scenario, Mrs. Clinton had pulled it off and was in route to a narrow victory. I thought there might be an outside chance at Michigan given the way it had been pushed. I also thought Pennsylvania was an outside shot, although I was expecting Philadelphia and Pittsburgh to push it into Mrs. Clinton's column. I did not expect Wisconsin at all. Despite it being very close in both Bush elections, I legitimately thought it would stay Democrat. Instead, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania push Mr. Trump over the top and Michigan is looking like gravy on top, giving Mr. Trump a likely 306-232 victory.
So what is the source of this victory. I think it comes down to two major factors: a large turnout of Republican voters and a depressed turnout among African-American and young voters. We won't know until all the votes are counted but it appears that Mr. Trump is going to finish behind Mr. Obama's vote totals of nearly 66,000,000. He may even finish behind Mr. Romney's totals but again, we need to see what the final tally is. But after four years of growth, a minimal increase in the Republican turnout doesn't say much but an over 5,000,000 vote drop in the Democrat tally does.
Some of this is from young voters who were either not energized by Mrs. Clinton or still seriously angry over not getting Mr. Sanders. But I think it more significant that African-Americans didn't turnout. Mrs. Clinton is likely to lose Michigan because African-Americans in the southern part of the state (especially Detroit) did not turn out. She lost Pennsylvania because voters in the Philly suburbs did not turn out for her. I haven't taken a close look but I assume Wisconsin's fall was due more to the youth vote failure rather than the African-American but I won't hang my hat on that.
I definitely believe that the shortcomings in these two constituencies led to the loss of Florida and North Carolina. Possibly Ohio too although given where the shortfalls were, I'm more inclined to put that on blue collars turning to Mr. Trump than a failure of turnout.
So what comes next? Obviously Mr. Trump will become President next year and will govern for the next four. Given his age, questions abound as to whether he will keep to only one term or if he will seek reelection. But that's a long way off and the Democrats actually have a bigger problem. Who is next in line?
Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders will almost certainly be too old to be considered viable candidates in 2020 and both have the taint of failure now. So far as I know, there are no significant rising stars in either the governorships or the Senate. This was hinted at in the somewhat limited selection for Mrs. Clinton when she decided on her Vice Presidential pick. I would suspect that Mr. Kaine would be considered the frontrunner as of now but I can't imagine a lot of people being super excited about him. I'm sure whispers will begin to swirl around some one, probably out of the south or southwest, but that person is hidden to me for now.
Anyway, elections are over now and we can all concentrate on more important things, like trying to figure any way to avoid a Patriots-Cowboys Super Bowl.
Monday, November 07, 2016
Saturday, November 05, 2016
The Red Bull vs. the Chameleon
Our long national nightmare is almost over. Or just getting ready to begin based on your point of view.
Mrs. Clinton, as most Democrats would be, is sitting in the catbird seat. The lock the Democrats have on large states such as California, New York and Illinois and most of New England means that they start the map with nearly 200 Electoral Votes. Should anything in that Democratic firewall break a Republican's way, the contest is automatically over because of what has already broken before. But we shall take a look at how things might play out to give us indicators on who might to win.
Because of the statistical advantage Mrs. Clinton should have, lets focus on what Mr. Trump has to do. His last line of defense is the Romney states minus Utah and North Carolina. I think you can lump Maine's second district in here as well. This starts him out at 186 EVs. Should there be any hint that any of these states (outside of Maine's second district) are trending for Mrs. Clinton, we can all say goodnight at 11 when California is called for Mrs. Clinton and she is declared the winner.
The next line of defense for Mr. Trump is the big trifecta of North Carolina, Florida and Ohio. Put simply, Mr. Trump needs all three of these to win. Yes, it is possible to win other states to make up the difference should he lose one but let's be honest. If a Republican loses Ohio, the demographics don't work that they can make up the difference by winning Pennsylvania because the voters he lost in Ohio are the same ones he would have to convince to vote for him in Pennsylvania.
Fortunately for Mr. Trump, these three states seem to be breaking in his favor. Mr. Obama failed to carry North Carolina a second time even with a D+6 turnout in 2012 and I've yet to see hard evidence that the state has become more liberal after four years. African-American turnout in early voting is down in Florida, furthering my personal belief that Florida will swing back into the red column after relatively narrow Democrat victories in 2008 and 2012.
For reasons that I've yet to figure out, Ohio has continuously stayed in the Trump column in polling, even with favorable Democratic turnout models. I would have expected Ohio to be much more of a battleground given the lackluster support Trump has from the Ohio GOP. Governor Kaisich's win here in the primaries obscures the ability to look at Mr. Trump's potential support among the regular people with turnout, but it does seem that Democrats have more or less abandoned the state to Mr. Trump.
This trio would push Mr. Trump's EV total to 248, 22 short of victory. Again, if Mrs. Clinton manages to snag just one of these states, she will win the Presidency. Florida especially would be a dagger to the heart, but any state loss means that Mr. Trump has failed to garner the support he needs among the demographics that would shift some other blue state into the red column.
Assuming he gets this far, what would Mr. Trump need to get to 270? There are several options, but the easiest path would be a sweep of four small states: New Hampshire, Iowa, Nevada and Utah (bringing him to 270 exactly). Iowa and Utah are relatively easy. Utah is naturally conservative and the presence of Mr. McMullin as a third party candidate is the only reason why this state is not automatically in Mr. Trump's column. Iowa is in more 50-50 territory with conservative farmers, blue collar Democrats in the cities and liberals in the college towns. However, if the youth vote is still butthurt about Mr. Sanders and Mr. Trump is actually making inroads into blue collar regions, Iowa can be taken.
New Hampshire is a little closer to Maine's second district in outlook. It is still the most conservative of the New England states and usually is in some kind of play. Like Iowa, the conservative elements are balanced out by the Boston bedroom communities that have sprung up in the southern portions of the state. New Hampshire has been shown to be close and if the turnout models are down for Democrats, New Hampshire could fall into Mr. Trump's lap.
Nevada is probably the hardest as Mr. Trump hasn't exactly been overly popular with Hispanics, especially in the West. But he is popular with business and that is going to cause a bit of schism in Las Vegas. You don't really have any hard core liberals in Nevada, but you do have a lot of Mormons and they could potentially swing for McMullin as well. Nevada is difficult but not impossible.
Should Mr. Trump fail in one or more of these states, does he have any other outlets? If he only loses one (say Nevada) he has a chance to make it up with Colorado. Colorado has become significantly more liberal with the influx of a number of Californians and the more conservative ranching heritage is dying off. Nevertheless, it is still a close state and a reduced Democratic turnout could pull it back into the red column where Mr. Bush held it in 2000 and 2004. If Mr. Trump fails to gain Nevada and New Hampshire but takes Colorado, he would be at 269, the dreaded tie. But a tie would be acceptable as the Republican controlled House would probably, albeit grudgingly, vote for Mr. Trump over Mrs. Clinton.
There is also the outside possibility of snagging Virginia. Virginia has been turning a more solid blue over the last few years due to the strength of the DC workers residing in Northern Virginia and African-American strength in Richmond and other urban areas along the coast. These counter the conservative rural vote as well as the absentee military vote, which tends to break Republican. Decreased turnout in other areas will almost certainly not affect the DC suburbs so this area will turn out strong for Mrs. Clinton. If there is any other flag in the state, the selection of Mr. Kaine as VP should shore that up. If at any point it looks like Mr. Trump will win Virginia, then the race will be over as that will be as nearly fatal gash to Mrs. Clinton as losing a state like Pennsylvania or Michigan would be.
Of these five practical states, New Hampshire will probably be the first available to call given its Eastern location and that fact that most of the polling locations close at 7pm. The cities permit staying open until 8pm, but you're likely to have a significant volume of the votes counted by then so New Hampshire could be called by 8pm. If Mrs. Clinton is called the winner, then she is holding but if Mr. Trump is declared the winner, it could be the first significant sign of trouble.
8pm will probably be the time that a good bead will be able to be made on the night. Florida will have fully closed. Ohio and North Carolina close at 7:30 so there will be a bit of a swell around those three. But I think the big tell will be when Pennsylvania is called.
Pennsylvania has been touted as a swing state this entire election cycle despite not voting for a Republican since George H. W. Bush in 1988. Liberal Philadelphia and the conservative middle balance each other out, leaving the blue-collar areas of Pittsburgh to be the deciding factor in the state. If it is called immediately for Mrs. Clinton, she is at least in the safe zone and at worst is looking at a Bush-Kerry kind of fight. If it takes a while but she still wins it, it could be a bit of a nail biter out West.
Should she actually lose Pennsylvania, that is a very serious problem. The demographics that would swing Pennsylvania into the Republican column would mean a strong win in Ohio for Mr. Trump and much worse, potentially put Michigan and Wisconsin into play. As we've already seen, Mr. Trump is in a decent position to capture 248 EVs. If he snags Pennsylvania, that shoots him up to 268 and any of the five states mentioned above would put him over the top.
So, my own personal focus on three states at each level of defense. Florida is the first tier with a Clinton win there meaning a Clinton presidency. New Hampshire is next in line with that potentially giving us a fulcrum on how a close race would swing. Finally Pennsylvania if the dam well and truly bursts for Mr. Trump.
Mrs. Clinton, as most Democrats would be, is sitting in the catbird seat. The lock the Democrats have on large states such as California, New York and Illinois and most of New England means that they start the map with nearly 200 Electoral Votes. Should anything in that Democratic firewall break a Republican's way, the contest is automatically over because of what has already broken before. But we shall take a look at how things might play out to give us indicators on who might to win.
Because of the statistical advantage Mrs. Clinton should have, lets focus on what Mr. Trump has to do. His last line of defense is the Romney states minus Utah and North Carolina. I think you can lump Maine's second district in here as well. This starts him out at 186 EVs. Should there be any hint that any of these states (outside of Maine's second district) are trending for Mrs. Clinton, we can all say goodnight at 11 when California is called for Mrs. Clinton and she is declared the winner.
The next line of defense for Mr. Trump is the big trifecta of North Carolina, Florida and Ohio. Put simply, Mr. Trump needs all three of these to win. Yes, it is possible to win other states to make up the difference should he lose one but let's be honest. If a Republican loses Ohio, the demographics don't work that they can make up the difference by winning Pennsylvania because the voters he lost in Ohio are the same ones he would have to convince to vote for him in Pennsylvania.
Fortunately for Mr. Trump, these three states seem to be breaking in his favor. Mr. Obama failed to carry North Carolina a second time even with a D+6 turnout in 2012 and I've yet to see hard evidence that the state has become more liberal after four years. African-American turnout in early voting is down in Florida, furthering my personal belief that Florida will swing back into the red column after relatively narrow Democrat victories in 2008 and 2012.
For reasons that I've yet to figure out, Ohio has continuously stayed in the Trump column in polling, even with favorable Democratic turnout models. I would have expected Ohio to be much more of a battleground given the lackluster support Trump has from the Ohio GOP. Governor Kaisich's win here in the primaries obscures the ability to look at Mr. Trump's potential support among the regular people with turnout, but it does seem that Democrats have more or less abandoned the state to Mr. Trump.
This trio would push Mr. Trump's EV total to 248, 22 short of victory. Again, if Mrs. Clinton manages to snag just one of these states, she will win the Presidency. Florida especially would be a dagger to the heart, but any state loss means that Mr. Trump has failed to garner the support he needs among the demographics that would shift some other blue state into the red column.
Assuming he gets this far, what would Mr. Trump need to get to 270? There are several options, but the easiest path would be a sweep of four small states: New Hampshire, Iowa, Nevada and Utah (bringing him to 270 exactly). Iowa and Utah are relatively easy. Utah is naturally conservative and the presence of Mr. McMullin as a third party candidate is the only reason why this state is not automatically in Mr. Trump's column. Iowa is in more 50-50 territory with conservative farmers, blue collar Democrats in the cities and liberals in the college towns. However, if the youth vote is still butthurt about Mr. Sanders and Mr. Trump is actually making inroads into blue collar regions, Iowa can be taken.
New Hampshire is a little closer to Maine's second district in outlook. It is still the most conservative of the New England states and usually is in some kind of play. Like Iowa, the conservative elements are balanced out by the Boston bedroom communities that have sprung up in the southern portions of the state. New Hampshire has been shown to be close and if the turnout models are down for Democrats, New Hampshire could fall into Mr. Trump's lap.
Nevada is probably the hardest as Mr. Trump hasn't exactly been overly popular with Hispanics, especially in the West. But he is popular with business and that is going to cause a bit of schism in Las Vegas. You don't really have any hard core liberals in Nevada, but you do have a lot of Mormons and they could potentially swing for McMullin as well. Nevada is difficult but not impossible.
Should Mr. Trump fail in one or more of these states, does he have any other outlets? If he only loses one (say Nevada) he has a chance to make it up with Colorado. Colorado has become significantly more liberal with the influx of a number of Californians and the more conservative ranching heritage is dying off. Nevertheless, it is still a close state and a reduced Democratic turnout could pull it back into the red column where Mr. Bush held it in 2000 and 2004. If Mr. Trump fails to gain Nevada and New Hampshire but takes Colorado, he would be at 269, the dreaded tie. But a tie would be acceptable as the Republican controlled House would probably, albeit grudgingly, vote for Mr. Trump over Mrs. Clinton.
There is also the outside possibility of snagging Virginia. Virginia has been turning a more solid blue over the last few years due to the strength of the DC workers residing in Northern Virginia and African-American strength in Richmond and other urban areas along the coast. These counter the conservative rural vote as well as the absentee military vote, which tends to break Republican. Decreased turnout in other areas will almost certainly not affect the DC suburbs so this area will turn out strong for Mrs. Clinton. If there is any other flag in the state, the selection of Mr. Kaine as VP should shore that up. If at any point it looks like Mr. Trump will win Virginia, then the race will be over as that will be as nearly fatal gash to Mrs. Clinton as losing a state like Pennsylvania or Michigan would be.
Of these five practical states, New Hampshire will probably be the first available to call given its Eastern location and that fact that most of the polling locations close at 7pm. The cities permit staying open until 8pm, but you're likely to have a significant volume of the votes counted by then so New Hampshire could be called by 8pm. If Mrs. Clinton is called the winner, then she is holding but if Mr. Trump is declared the winner, it could be the first significant sign of trouble.
8pm will probably be the time that a good bead will be able to be made on the night. Florida will have fully closed. Ohio and North Carolina close at 7:30 so there will be a bit of a swell around those three. But I think the big tell will be when Pennsylvania is called.
Pennsylvania has been touted as a swing state this entire election cycle despite not voting for a Republican since George H. W. Bush in 1988. Liberal Philadelphia and the conservative middle balance each other out, leaving the blue-collar areas of Pittsburgh to be the deciding factor in the state. If it is called immediately for Mrs. Clinton, she is at least in the safe zone and at worst is looking at a Bush-Kerry kind of fight. If it takes a while but she still wins it, it could be a bit of a nail biter out West.
Should she actually lose Pennsylvania, that is a very serious problem. The demographics that would swing Pennsylvania into the Republican column would mean a strong win in Ohio for Mr. Trump and much worse, potentially put Michigan and Wisconsin into play. As we've already seen, Mr. Trump is in a decent position to capture 248 EVs. If he snags Pennsylvania, that shoots him up to 268 and any of the five states mentioned above would put him over the top.
So, my own personal focus on three states at each level of defense. Florida is the first tier with a Clinton win there meaning a Clinton presidency. New Hampshire is next in line with that potentially giving us a fulcrum on how a close race would swing. Finally Pennsylvania if the dam well and truly bursts for Mr. Trump.
Thursday, November 03, 2016
Tuesday, November 01, 2016
Gut Punch a Week Out
We are now one week out before we can finally all go to the polls and vote, thank goodness.
The storyline that we've been hammered with for the last two months is that people see Mr. Trump for the arrogant jackass that he is and that Mrs. Clinton, despite people being less than enthused about her, is going to crush him. I generally do not share that opinion.
I do not care for either candidate as neither has a proper handle on my views and both have personalities that make my stomach turn. Perhaps it is my indifference or perhaps my enjoyment of the political game, no matter how bad the players, but I've tried to take a little time and look at things more as they are rather than the way people want them to be.
First, Mrs. Clinton's lead: I don't believe it. Her lead is based on polling but as has been discussed by myself and many others, polling has it's share of problems and I think those are becoming more acute as more and more people drop landlines. Some companies have been permitted to call cell phones, but by in large, that is not the case so you can rely less and less on the raw data and it becomes more about manipulating the data you have. That manipulation introduces error and error can be very significant, especially if you want a poll to produce a certain set of results.
The easiest error that can crop up is how you predict the sampling. Many of the polls out there seem to be predicting an electorate that could be greater than Mr. Obama's 2008 win. In that election Mr. Obama got a D+7 turnout, getting major pushes from youth and the African-American vote. This fell off a bit in 2012 as Mr. Obama's turnout was reduced to D+6. Polls showing Mrs. Clinton with a big lead, usually have numbers similar to this and sometimes even higher. However, while many people are not thrilled to see Mr. Trump, there is not a lot of evidence that they are as passionate about Mrs. Clinton as they were Mr. Obama. Several more recent polls that show the race tightening reflect a reduced spread for the Democrats.
The reduced spread I think can be tied not only to mainstream Democrats that are less than thrilled about Mrs. Clinton but also reductions in the youth and African-American vote, a major piece of Mr. Obama's puzzle. The youth broke for Mr. Sanders in the primary and many of them are still bitter. Certainly some of the Wikileaks e-mails regarding Democratic attitudes towards Mr. Sanders aren't helping. Youth voters are difficult to get to the polls in regular circumstances and if they are upset in large enough numbers, you could see a number of them either skipping voting or voting third party.
African-American enthusiasm is also down. Mrs. Clinton will still get the large majority of their votes, but decreasing that number either in overall percentage or in distribution would be very bad for her. The last report I saw showed her getting between 80-85% of the vote as opposed to the 90-95% that Mr. Obama got. It might not seem like much, but that would give Florida to Mr. Trump if all else remained the same and you used the 2012 numbers. I think that combined with the decrease or defection of the youth vote would also secure North Carolina in Mr. Trump's column, a state that Mr. Romney managed to pull out of Mr. Obama's hands.
Regarding North Carolina, there is something there that should be noted. North Carolina, like a number of southern states, has a higher registration of Democrats than Republicans. However, although Democrats are very competitive in state races, Republicans tend to win nationally. Like West Virginia, Democrats in these states tend to be more conservative and will buck party identification at the top. That has diminished over time as the expanding region of the "research triangle" has grown in power with a more traditionally liberal ideology. But if the turnout is down there, conservative votes elsewhere will overcome, despite more registered Democrats being out there.
Another thing that would give me pause as a Democrat supporter is the discussion of the race. It is a bit of an adage in politics that whichever candidate has the race revolve around them, they typically win. Even negative coverage is still coverage. This election has revolved heavily around Mr. Trump. Mrs. Clinton, despite being an historic nominee, does not garner the coverage. Indeed, much of her campaign strategy has seemed to be to stay quiet and let Mr. Trump fill the room, hoping he will self-immolate. I would argue that while he has been set on fire on several occasions, he is still viable and he is defining the argument. That is a very dangerous game for Mrs. Clinton and could bit her in the end.
On top of all of this, there has been a steady cascade of negative information for Mrs. Clinton. The Wikileaks continue and although most of the issues are fall too in the weeds for most voters, the steady trickle of negative information and disdainful attitude towards voters is less than helpful. Then there was the resurgence of the e-mail issue.
Mr. Comey, contrary to many political views, is in CYA mode. I doubt he gives a rat's ass about either candidate and their standing but with people under him talking about going public with the knowledge of these new e-mails, Mr. Comey had little choice but to release a statement lest he be crucified and potentially held up on chargers for failing to disclose this to Congress in his initial deposition in July. Much of what is in these e-mails is irrelevant but it brings back the perception that Mrs. Clinton was careless with potentially dangerous material. There is also the remote chance (although we won't see it before the election) that there is some very nasty information in there. People love to generate rumors, many of which have no basis in fact, that there are one or two damning bits of information of either a political or moral nature. If even a whisper of this is true, Mrs. Clinton could be looking at charges. If she were the sitting President, that raises the specter of impeachment and removal, a process people got sick of during her husband's term. Fair or not, this is a fact that will weigh on some people's minds when they go to the polls.
I don't intend to give an official estimate of the final total. I've been too wrong before and the information we have is unreliable in my opinion. However, there is a lot of anecdotal evidence to suggest that things are not as they seem. I will give a quick pass on what we should look for on election night. Depending on how a few early indicators go, we could have an early idea of how this election will turn.
The storyline that we've been hammered with for the last two months is that people see Mr. Trump for the arrogant jackass that he is and that Mrs. Clinton, despite people being less than enthused about her, is going to crush him. I generally do not share that opinion.
I do not care for either candidate as neither has a proper handle on my views and both have personalities that make my stomach turn. Perhaps it is my indifference or perhaps my enjoyment of the political game, no matter how bad the players, but I've tried to take a little time and look at things more as they are rather than the way people want them to be.
First, Mrs. Clinton's lead: I don't believe it. Her lead is based on polling but as has been discussed by myself and many others, polling has it's share of problems and I think those are becoming more acute as more and more people drop landlines. Some companies have been permitted to call cell phones, but by in large, that is not the case so you can rely less and less on the raw data and it becomes more about manipulating the data you have. That manipulation introduces error and error can be very significant, especially if you want a poll to produce a certain set of results.
The easiest error that can crop up is how you predict the sampling. Many of the polls out there seem to be predicting an electorate that could be greater than Mr. Obama's 2008 win. In that election Mr. Obama got a D+7 turnout, getting major pushes from youth and the African-American vote. This fell off a bit in 2012 as Mr. Obama's turnout was reduced to D+6. Polls showing Mrs. Clinton with a big lead, usually have numbers similar to this and sometimes even higher. However, while many people are not thrilled to see Mr. Trump, there is not a lot of evidence that they are as passionate about Mrs. Clinton as they were Mr. Obama. Several more recent polls that show the race tightening reflect a reduced spread for the Democrats.
The reduced spread I think can be tied not only to mainstream Democrats that are less than thrilled about Mrs. Clinton but also reductions in the youth and African-American vote, a major piece of Mr. Obama's puzzle. The youth broke for Mr. Sanders in the primary and many of them are still bitter. Certainly some of the Wikileaks e-mails regarding Democratic attitudes towards Mr. Sanders aren't helping. Youth voters are difficult to get to the polls in regular circumstances and if they are upset in large enough numbers, you could see a number of them either skipping voting or voting third party.
African-American enthusiasm is also down. Mrs. Clinton will still get the large majority of their votes, but decreasing that number either in overall percentage or in distribution would be very bad for her. The last report I saw showed her getting between 80-85% of the vote as opposed to the 90-95% that Mr. Obama got. It might not seem like much, but that would give Florida to Mr. Trump if all else remained the same and you used the 2012 numbers. I think that combined with the decrease or defection of the youth vote would also secure North Carolina in Mr. Trump's column, a state that Mr. Romney managed to pull out of Mr. Obama's hands.
Regarding North Carolina, there is something there that should be noted. North Carolina, like a number of southern states, has a higher registration of Democrats than Republicans. However, although Democrats are very competitive in state races, Republicans tend to win nationally. Like West Virginia, Democrats in these states tend to be more conservative and will buck party identification at the top. That has diminished over time as the expanding region of the "research triangle" has grown in power with a more traditionally liberal ideology. But if the turnout is down there, conservative votes elsewhere will overcome, despite more registered Democrats being out there.
Another thing that would give me pause as a Democrat supporter is the discussion of the race. It is a bit of an adage in politics that whichever candidate has the race revolve around them, they typically win. Even negative coverage is still coverage. This election has revolved heavily around Mr. Trump. Mrs. Clinton, despite being an historic nominee, does not garner the coverage. Indeed, much of her campaign strategy has seemed to be to stay quiet and let Mr. Trump fill the room, hoping he will self-immolate. I would argue that while he has been set on fire on several occasions, he is still viable and he is defining the argument. That is a very dangerous game for Mrs. Clinton and could bit her in the end.
On top of all of this, there has been a steady cascade of negative information for Mrs. Clinton. The Wikileaks continue and although most of the issues are fall too in the weeds for most voters, the steady trickle of negative information and disdainful attitude towards voters is less than helpful. Then there was the resurgence of the e-mail issue.
Mr. Comey, contrary to many political views, is in CYA mode. I doubt he gives a rat's ass about either candidate and their standing but with people under him talking about going public with the knowledge of these new e-mails, Mr. Comey had little choice but to release a statement lest he be crucified and potentially held up on chargers for failing to disclose this to Congress in his initial deposition in July. Much of what is in these e-mails is irrelevant but it brings back the perception that Mrs. Clinton was careless with potentially dangerous material. There is also the remote chance (although we won't see it before the election) that there is some very nasty information in there. People love to generate rumors, many of which have no basis in fact, that there are one or two damning bits of information of either a political or moral nature. If even a whisper of this is true, Mrs. Clinton could be looking at charges. If she were the sitting President, that raises the specter of impeachment and removal, a process people got sick of during her husband's term. Fair or not, this is a fact that will weigh on some people's minds when they go to the polls.
I don't intend to give an official estimate of the final total. I've been too wrong before and the information we have is unreliable in my opinion. However, there is a lot of anecdotal evidence to suggest that things are not as they seem. I will give a quick pass on what we should look for on election night. Depending on how a few early indicators go, we could have an early idea of how this election will turn.
Friday, October 14, 2016
Three and a Half Weeks to Go
We've gotten through three debates so far with one more to go next Wednesday. We've had Mrs. Clinton collapse in public and women come forward to say that Mr. Trump groped or ogled them inappropriately. So where are we right now?
If you go scouring of the major polls, it would seem that the race is more or less over and that Mrs. Clinton is going to win with Electoral College numbers that might rival Mr. Obama's. However, there are a few caveats to that. I'm not saying that Mrs. Clinton isn't going to win, she very well might and might with dramatic effect. But just taking a closer look than a cursory glance and some cracks start to appear.
First, there are the polls themselves. Polls are getting more and more difficult to rely on because the changing nature of technology. Many people, like myself, no longer have land lines and there is a law that prevents polling companies from calling cell phones. As such, many polls, especially the quick turnaround ones, don't get as reliable a cross-section of the populace that they once did. Of course, it is also the job of the polling company to correct for this in their mathematical modeling so this is a potential error that can be corrected with effort.
There is one other thing about polls that give me a bit of pause. If you dive into these polls, you can find the sample breakdowns and there are a number (not all) of them that seem a little heavily weighted to one side. Sample weighing in some of these polls is projecting a Democratic turnout greater that Mr. Obama got in 2008 and while a number of people are very turned off by Mr. Trump, I'm not seeing that they are overwhelmingly jazzed about Mrs. Clinton either. A 2012 weighing would probably be a bit more accurate but even then, I'm not sure Mrs. Clinton is going to get the African-American turnout that Mr. Obama did. Maybe she will and I'm wrong, but there is something in some of these polls that smells a little off.
Next we move to the scandals with women and Mr. Trump. I'm not the type of person to immediately dismiss the claims of women who say they have been victimized, but there is a big caveat here. I am sure that Mr. Trump has been lewd with women. He's been lewd and crass through this who election cycle and long before that so the idea that he has done these type of things is entirely believable. But the timing of all of this is suspect. In 2012, Herman Cain had accusations of demeaning behavior with women several months before the Iowa caucus. Likewise, other powerful men have had accusations leveled at them early and often. Mr. Clinton dodged accusations of rape and other sexual offenses throughout his election and even into his presidency. The point is that Mr. Trump has been running for president for nearly a year and a half, including nearly six months where he had sewn up the Republican nomination and we are only just now getting accusations of groping and sexual assault? It just seems a bit fishy regarding timing. At the very least, I suspect that I'm not the only one who questions it and if the majority of the public thinks there is something suspicious, they will let this roll of their backs and look at other issues when going into the voting booth.
I raise the scandal issue because this and other actions taken by the Democratic party and those sympathetic to them don't suggest confidence. If you go back to both 2008 and 2012, Mr. Obama and his allies never seemed overly perturbed in their campaigns. They worked hard and seemed to run very standard campaigns. Mrs. Clinton's campaign and her allies seem worried and are pulling a "throw everything against the wall" approach. Granted, some of that may be tied to this slow but steady release of documents and missing e-mails that Wikileaks has somehow obtained. One would expect that would worry anyone.
Another data point that suggests that this race is closer than we might suspect is the location of where various rallies have been taking place. Mr. Trump has been hitting all the various swing states as you might expect, including a few stops in Pennsylvania, which I have trouble thinking of as a swing state. However, looking at Mrs. Clinton and her allies locations suggests a little trouble. Mr. Obama has given speeches in Virginia and Pennsylvania. Mrs. Obama was dispatched to New Hampshire. Mr. Clinton and their Chelsea have been in Ohio and Michigan. Swing states are understandable and Mr. Obama is understandably going to keep somewhat close to DC, but just about any Democratic rallies in Pennsylvania and Michigan seem out of place to me. Even an appearance in New Hampshire feels wrong. I know New Hampshire is a lesser swing state but at only four electoral votes and surrounded by the rest of liberal New England, it just seems odd to send the First Lady there when you could send her to Florida or North Carolina. Again, these don't seem like the actions of confident people.
One last data point and it's just an anecdotal as the rest: attendance at the rallies. When Mr. Obama went to rallies and campaign stops, he would draw large crowds with lots of enthusiastic people. He still gets these when he has gone out to campaign for Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Clinton also draws fairly reasonable crowds when he headlines events. Mrs. Clinton's crowds on the other hand seem paltry by comparison. Close up shots disguise this but when pull out shots are shown, her venues don't seem very full and other sections are walled and blanketed off to hide the empty seats.
I am not seeing this same effect with Mr. Trump's rallies. Wide shots are done there and the venues seem fairly well attended and I see very little evidence of anything being walled or curtained off. Occasionally there is also a shot of some overflow area and even those seem well attended. Mr. Trump is drawing crowds. Of course, drawing crowds and getting those crowds to vote for you are two totally different things. There is also the contrast of drawing die-hards to see you in person and convincing people on the fence to go vote for you. So I'd consider this one of the weaker data points, even if it is the most visually impressive.
So where does this leave us? Mrs. Clinton may go ahead and win this thing in a walk. But I'm not convinced of that yet. I think Mrs. Clinton and her team thinks this is going to be close and that is what the anecdotal evidence would seem to suggest. Perhaps some new thing will come out and finally finish off Mr. Trump, but if it hasn't happened yet I fail to see what could now, outside of someone outright killing Mr. Trump. Expect a tight race or at least expectations of a tight race for the next three weeks and a nasty flourish at the finish.
If you go scouring of the major polls, it would seem that the race is more or less over and that Mrs. Clinton is going to win with Electoral College numbers that might rival Mr. Obama's. However, there are a few caveats to that. I'm not saying that Mrs. Clinton isn't going to win, she very well might and might with dramatic effect. But just taking a closer look than a cursory glance and some cracks start to appear.
First, there are the polls themselves. Polls are getting more and more difficult to rely on because the changing nature of technology. Many people, like myself, no longer have land lines and there is a law that prevents polling companies from calling cell phones. As such, many polls, especially the quick turnaround ones, don't get as reliable a cross-section of the populace that they once did. Of course, it is also the job of the polling company to correct for this in their mathematical modeling so this is a potential error that can be corrected with effort.
There is one other thing about polls that give me a bit of pause. If you dive into these polls, you can find the sample breakdowns and there are a number (not all) of them that seem a little heavily weighted to one side. Sample weighing in some of these polls is projecting a Democratic turnout greater that Mr. Obama got in 2008 and while a number of people are very turned off by Mr. Trump, I'm not seeing that they are overwhelmingly jazzed about Mrs. Clinton either. A 2012 weighing would probably be a bit more accurate but even then, I'm not sure Mrs. Clinton is going to get the African-American turnout that Mr. Obama did. Maybe she will and I'm wrong, but there is something in some of these polls that smells a little off.
Next we move to the scandals with women and Mr. Trump. I'm not the type of person to immediately dismiss the claims of women who say they have been victimized, but there is a big caveat here. I am sure that Mr. Trump has been lewd with women. He's been lewd and crass through this who election cycle and long before that so the idea that he has done these type of things is entirely believable. But the timing of all of this is suspect. In 2012, Herman Cain had accusations of demeaning behavior with women several months before the Iowa caucus. Likewise, other powerful men have had accusations leveled at them early and often. Mr. Clinton dodged accusations of rape and other sexual offenses throughout his election and even into his presidency. The point is that Mr. Trump has been running for president for nearly a year and a half, including nearly six months where he had sewn up the Republican nomination and we are only just now getting accusations of groping and sexual assault? It just seems a bit fishy regarding timing. At the very least, I suspect that I'm not the only one who questions it and if the majority of the public thinks there is something suspicious, they will let this roll of their backs and look at other issues when going into the voting booth.
I raise the scandal issue because this and other actions taken by the Democratic party and those sympathetic to them don't suggest confidence. If you go back to both 2008 and 2012, Mr. Obama and his allies never seemed overly perturbed in their campaigns. They worked hard and seemed to run very standard campaigns. Mrs. Clinton's campaign and her allies seem worried and are pulling a "throw everything against the wall" approach. Granted, some of that may be tied to this slow but steady release of documents and missing e-mails that Wikileaks has somehow obtained. One would expect that would worry anyone.
Another data point that suggests that this race is closer than we might suspect is the location of where various rallies have been taking place. Mr. Trump has been hitting all the various swing states as you might expect, including a few stops in Pennsylvania, which I have trouble thinking of as a swing state. However, looking at Mrs. Clinton and her allies locations suggests a little trouble. Mr. Obama has given speeches in Virginia and Pennsylvania. Mrs. Obama was dispatched to New Hampshire. Mr. Clinton and their Chelsea have been in Ohio and Michigan. Swing states are understandable and Mr. Obama is understandably going to keep somewhat close to DC, but just about any Democratic rallies in Pennsylvania and Michigan seem out of place to me. Even an appearance in New Hampshire feels wrong. I know New Hampshire is a lesser swing state but at only four electoral votes and surrounded by the rest of liberal New England, it just seems odd to send the First Lady there when you could send her to Florida or North Carolina. Again, these don't seem like the actions of confident people.
One last data point and it's just an anecdotal as the rest: attendance at the rallies. When Mr. Obama went to rallies and campaign stops, he would draw large crowds with lots of enthusiastic people. He still gets these when he has gone out to campaign for Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Clinton also draws fairly reasonable crowds when he headlines events. Mrs. Clinton's crowds on the other hand seem paltry by comparison. Close up shots disguise this but when pull out shots are shown, her venues don't seem very full and other sections are walled and blanketed off to hide the empty seats.
I am not seeing this same effect with Mr. Trump's rallies. Wide shots are done there and the venues seem fairly well attended and I see very little evidence of anything being walled or curtained off. Occasionally there is also a shot of some overflow area and even those seem well attended. Mr. Trump is drawing crowds. Of course, drawing crowds and getting those crowds to vote for you are two totally different things. There is also the contrast of drawing die-hards to see you in person and convincing people on the fence to go vote for you. So I'd consider this one of the weaker data points, even if it is the most visually impressive.
So where does this leave us? Mrs. Clinton may go ahead and win this thing in a walk. But I'm not convinced of that yet. I think Mrs. Clinton and her team thinks this is going to be close and that is what the anecdotal evidence would seem to suggest. Perhaps some new thing will come out and finally finish off Mr. Trump, but if it hasn't happened yet I fail to see what could now, outside of someone outright killing Mr. Trump. Expect a tight race or at least expectations of a tight race for the next three weeks and a nasty flourish at the finish.
Wednesday, October 12, 2016
Getting a VP to be President
In all practical reality, either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Trump are going to be elected President on November 8. However, there are a couple of scenarios that could lead to something different happening. It is possible in a semi-realistic way to produce a 269-269 tie in the Electoral college based on current trends. If Mrs. Clinton retains the traditional blue states of the Atlantic (including New Hampshire), retains Virginia, keeps the upper mid-west minus Ohio, holds the West coast, including Nevada and New Mexico, this will give her 270 exactly. However, Maine allows the splitting of it's Electoral College votes and Mr. Trump is running well ahead in Maine's second district. Removing this from her total will produce a 269-269 split, tossing the election to the House.
Things get even more interesting when you look at the third-party candidates. Neither Mr. Johnson nor Ms. Stein have any chance at winning the election but in the normally solidly Republican state of Utah, there is an interesting brew going on. In addition to the top four candidates, there is the independent bid of Mr. Evan McMullin. He is a Mormon, from Utah and currently running third in the vote for that state, with the last poll showing him only four points behind Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump. It is possible that if the people of Utah are soured enough on the regular candidates, Mr. McCullin could actually manage to take Utah's six electoral votes. This is important because if neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Trump manage to get to 270 electoral votes, the House of Representatives is required to vote for a winner from the top three Electoral College vote getters; meaning that Mr. McMullin could get thrown in to the mix for consideration in what would normally be a straight affair between Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton.
According to the provisions laid out in the Constitution, the top three EC vote getters are voted on by the House with each state delegation getting one vote. Meanwhile the Senate votes on the VP in a straight up or down vote from the top two vote getters (Mr. Pence and Mr. Kaine). This vote is taken by the newly elected Congress and current polling favors the Republicans to keep control of both houses of Congress, although the Democrats have a shot at taking the Senate. If they fail to do so, Mr. Pence would likely be elected to the VP slot in short order.
In the current House, the Republicans control the delegations of 32 states while the Democrats control 16. With 26 votes to win, this scenario would seem to favor Mr. Trump. However, Mr. Trump has not exactly enamored himself with the Republican party lately and it is not hard to imagine some members of the Republican House being less than thrilled with the prospect of voting for him. In a two-way race, Mr. Trump is still likely to win just because there won't be much in the way of alternative. Abstention is not practical for more than a vote or two, especially in the light of potential anger by the voters to just get the thing over with.
However, imagine that Mr. McMullin is in the mix. A number of Republican delegations could opt to cast their votes for him. It is unlikely that he would garner enough states to win outright, but he could deny Mr. Trump the 26 votes he would need. What's more, this could provide the Republicans (and some Democrats) the fig leaf needed to dump both candidates. If the election remains undecided by the time of the Inauguration, the Constitution dictates that the Vice President shall step in and take over. This effectively means that the country would end up with President Pence or President Kaine (although the odds favor the former).
This is an extreme case scenario but one that is not out of the realm of possibility. Given the way this race has ebbed and flowed, this may not be an implausible as it sounds. At the very least, it is fun to speculate on.
Things get even more interesting when you look at the third-party candidates. Neither Mr. Johnson nor Ms. Stein have any chance at winning the election but in the normally solidly Republican state of Utah, there is an interesting brew going on. In addition to the top four candidates, there is the independent bid of Mr. Evan McMullin. He is a Mormon, from Utah and currently running third in the vote for that state, with the last poll showing him only four points behind Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump. It is possible that if the people of Utah are soured enough on the regular candidates, Mr. McCullin could actually manage to take Utah's six electoral votes. This is important because if neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Trump manage to get to 270 electoral votes, the House of Representatives is required to vote for a winner from the top three Electoral College vote getters; meaning that Mr. McMullin could get thrown in to the mix for consideration in what would normally be a straight affair between Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton.
According to the provisions laid out in the Constitution, the top three EC vote getters are voted on by the House with each state delegation getting one vote. Meanwhile the Senate votes on the VP in a straight up or down vote from the top two vote getters (Mr. Pence and Mr. Kaine). This vote is taken by the newly elected Congress and current polling favors the Republicans to keep control of both houses of Congress, although the Democrats have a shot at taking the Senate. If they fail to do so, Mr. Pence would likely be elected to the VP slot in short order.
In the current House, the Republicans control the delegations of 32 states while the Democrats control 16. With 26 votes to win, this scenario would seem to favor Mr. Trump. However, Mr. Trump has not exactly enamored himself with the Republican party lately and it is not hard to imagine some members of the Republican House being less than thrilled with the prospect of voting for him. In a two-way race, Mr. Trump is still likely to win just because there won't be much in the way of alternative. Abstention is not practical for more than a vote or two, especially in the light of potential anger by the voters to just get the thing over with.
However, imagine that Mr. McMullin is in the mix. A number of Republican delegations could opt to cast their votes for him. It is unlikely that he would garner enough states to win outright, but he could deny Mr. Trump the 26 votes he would need. What's more, this could provide the Republicans (and some Democrats) the fig leaf needed to dump both candidates. If the election remains undecided by the time of the Inauguration, the Constitution dictates that the Vice President shall step in and take over. This effectively means that the country would end up with President Pence or President Kaine (although the odds favor the former).
This is an extreme case scenario but one that is not out of the realm of possibility. Given the way this race has ebbed and flowed, this may not be an implausible as it sounds. At the very least, it is fun to speculate on.
Thursday, September 08, 2016
60 Day Assessment
With the conclusion of Labor Day and last night's Commander-in-Chief discussion, we are officially in the stretch of the political season where the common man is going to start paying attention. So what are we to start looking for?
Mrs. Clinton obviously starts off with a significant advantage in that she can lose a number of states that Mr. Obama won and still win the Presidency. What's more, she gets major leg ups from having several large electoral vote states securely in her back pocket (California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts). But that doesn't mean that it is impossible for Mr. Trump to win. He just has to win back purple states. Making inroads into lighter blue states wouldn't hurt either.
Let's establish a baseline. In the 2012 contest, Mr. Romney won 206 Electoral Votes. Of the states won by Mr. Romney, only North Carolina is probably at any real risk. Yes, there has been talk about Georgia and Texas coming in to play but I think we are several years away before that becoming a reality. I also believe that the combination of softer support for Mrs. Clinton among African-Americans and Mr. Sanders die-hards (prominent among the young and intellectual elite) will put North Carolina firmly out of her reach. So I think that 206 EVs is a pretty good floor for Mr. Trump.
Now, we have three options for this contest: Clinton landslide, Trump landslide and close race. A Clinton landslide is pretty basic. If things turn out much as they did for Mr. Obama in the polling and reporting of returns on election night, game's over and we have the first female President. But that's no fun to write about so let's play with the other two.
For a close race to happen, there needs to be two additional factors at play: a reduction of the strength of the Obama coalition that elected him and higher turnout from conservatives. It is difficult to say if the second element will happen. Mr. Trump is not a conservative in just about any sense. He is a populist who does not have a problem wielding the power of government to achieve America-centric aims. But in the wake of eight years of Mr. Obama, conservatives might turn out if only because Mr. Trump is using fighting rhetoric. So let's say they do turn out a bit better than in 2012.
There is evidence that the first factor is already happening. As noted above, Mrs. Clinton does not seem to be galvanizing the African-American vote the way Mr. Obama did. A number of them might stay home or vote for someone else (perhaps Trump or third party). There are also the Sanders supporters who refuse to get over it. Again, there may be a depressed turnout in the youth vote or a higher percentage for Ms. Stein of the Green Party or even Mr. Johnson of the Libertarians. I doubt it will be of a critical scale, but it might be enough to make things interesting.
First to go is Florida. This was a close state for Mr. Obama and in my previous post I noted that a depressed turnout among African-Americans will kick this over to Mr. Trump. I also have a feeling that a small state is in play, perhaps Iowa or New Hampshire. Mr. Obama won both of these states 52-46 but I think at least one of them is going to sway away from that. That gets Mr. Trump up to between 239 and 241 EVs depending on which state turns.
That then would put the contest entirely on the results of Ohio and Virginia. I should point out that if Mr. Trump fails to carry one of those two little states (Iowa or New Hampshire), this part is moot as Mrs. Clinton will have 272 EVs and the contest is over. But now everything hinges on these two states. If Mrs. Clinton were to carry either, she wins. If Mr. Trump carries both, he wins.
That would seem to make things a done deal given that her running mate is a Senator from Virginia. True but again, with a depressed African-American turnout, Virginia gets thrown back into the mix. Mr. Trump is also currently shown to have a high level of support from the military and Virginia has a strong military presence. So this state could be more in play that originally thought. It will essentially come down to the military/rest of the state vs. NoVA and Richmond. Mrs. Clinton will likely crush Mr. Trump in NoVA but if the numbers in Richmond aren't high enough, Mr. Trump could overtake her. This will be the watchword for Virginia come election night.
As for Ohio, Democrats win when they run it up in the three main cities, tack on a little extra in the working class areas of Toledo and Youngstown and then pull in a majority in Appalachia. This is another state where depressed turnout from African-Americans in Cleveland and Cincinnati combined with intellectual third-party voting in Columbus could throw things to Mr. Trump. I think the tell for Ohio will be the eastern edges. If these come in red, Mr. Trump has a chance. If they come in blue, Mrs. Clinton will win.
So that is option two. What would it take for a Trump landslide? Basically, there would need to have the depressed Democrat turnout and elevated conservative turnout as noted above. There would also need to be a significant defection in the blue-collar, union Democratic vote. If this were to happen, Mr. Trump could stand to take states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Even if he doesn't actually take them, If there is any significant hesitation in calling these three states for Mrs. Clinton, it will mean that Mr. Trump will have made in-roads and that it will be a close election.
Should he actually win one of them, the contest is over. If Michigan or Pennsylvania goes to Mr. Trump, he will almost certainly win Ohio and then Virginia won't matter, though he might win there too with those kind of numbers. I think that would take a significant effort and a very angry or depressed electorate, but it is possible.
From my perspective, a minimal Trump win is going to be the Romney states plus Florida, Ohio, Virginia and New Hampshire. Iowa or Nevada could be in play as well but that gets him to the 270 needed. Virginia will probably be the most closely watched state, although Ohio is likely not far behind. The real kicker will be if any of the upper mid-West waivers in their blueness. If they are solid, I'd go with Mrs. Clinton to win. If they waiver, Mr. Trump is viable. If any fall, Mr. Trump wins.
Time will tell how close things will actually get.
Mrs. Clinton obviously starts off with a significant advantage in that she can lose a number of states that Mr. Obama won and still win the Presidency. What's more, she gets major leg ups from having several large electoral vote states securely in her back pocket (California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts). But that doesn't mean that it is impossible for Mr. Trump to win. He just has to win back purple states. Making inroads into lighter blue states wouldn't hurt either.
Let's establish a baseline. In the 2012 contest, Mr. Romney won 206 Electoral Votes. Of the states won by Mr. Romney, only North Carolina is probably at any real risk. Yes, there has been talk about Georgia and Texas coming in to play but I think we are several years away before that becoming a reality. I also believe that the combination of softer support for Mrs. Clinton among African-Americans and Mr. Sanders die-hards (prominent among the young and intellectual elite) will put North Carolina firmly out of her reach. So I think that 206 EVs is a pretty good floor for Mr. Trump.
Now, we have three options for this contest: Clinton landslide, Trump landslide and close race. A Clinton landslide is pretty basic. If things turn out much as they did for Mr. Obama in the polling and reporting of returns on election night, game's over and we have the first female President. But that's no fun to write about so let's play with the other two.
For a close race to happen, there needs to be two additional factors at play: a reduction of the strength of the Obama coalition that elected him and higher turnout from conservatives. It is difficult to say if the second element will happen. Mr. Trump is not a conservative in just about any sense. He is a populist who does not have a problem wielding the power of government to achieve America-centric aims. But in the wake of eight years of Mr. Obama, conservatives might turn out if only because Mr. Trump is using fighting rhetoric. So let's say they do turn out a bit better than in 2012.
There is evidence that the first factor is already happening. As noted above, Mrs. Clinton does not seem to be galvanizing the African-American vote the way Mr. Obama did. A number of them might stay home or vote for someone else (perhaps Trump or third party). There are also the Sanders supporters who refuse to get over it. Again, there may be a depressed turnout in the youth vote or a higher percentage for Ms. Stein of the Green Party or even Mr. Johnson of the Libertarians. I doubt it will be of a critical scale, but it might be enough to make things interesting.
First to go is Florida. This was a close state for Mr. Obama and in my previous post I noted that a depressed turnout among African-Americans will kick this over to Mr. Trump. I also have a feeling that a small state is in play, perhaps Iowa or New Hampshire. Mr. Obama won both of these states 52-46 but I think at least one of them is going to sway away from that. That gets Mr. Trump up to between 239 and 241 EVs depending on which state turns.
That then would put the contest entirely on the results of Ohio and Virginia. I should point out that if Mr. Trump fails to carry one of those two little states (Iowa or New Hampshire), this part is moot as Mrs. Clinton will have 272 EVs and the contest is over. But now everything hinges on these two states. If Mrs. Clinton were to carry either, she wins. If Mr. Trump carries both, he wins.
That would seem to make things a done deal given that her running mate is a Senator from Virginia. True but again, with a depressed African-American turnout, Virginia gets thrown back into the mix. Mr. Trump is also currently shown to have a high level of support from the military and Virginia has a strong military presence. So this state could be more in play that originally thought. It will essentially come down to the military/rest of the state vs. NoVA and Richmond. Mrs. Clinton will likely crush Mr. Trump in NoVA but if the numbers in Richmond aren't high enough, Mr. Trump could overtake her. This will be the watchword for Virginia come election night.
As for Ohio, Democrats win when they run it up in the three main cities, tack on a little extra in the working class areas of Toledo and Youngstown and then pull in a majority in Appalachia. This is another state where depressed turnout from African-Americans in Cleveland and Cincinnati combined with intellectual third-party voting in Columbus could throw things to Mr. Trump. I think the tell for Ohio will be the eastern edges. If these come in red, Mr. Trump has a chance. If they come in blue, Mrs. Clinton will win.
So that is option two. What would it take for a Trump landslide? Basically, there would need to have the depressed Democrat turnout and elevated conservative turnout as noted above. There would also need to be a significant defection in the blue-collar, union Democratic vote. If this were to happen, Mr. Trump could stand to take states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Even if he doesn't actually take them, If there is any significant hesitation in calling these three states for Mrs. Clinton, it will mean that Mr. Trump will have made in-roads and that it will be a close election.
Should he actually win one of them, the contest is over. If Michigan or Pennsylvania goes to Mr. Trump, he will almost certainly win Ohio and then Virginia won't matter, though he might win there too with those kind of numbers. I think that would take a significant effort and a very angry or depressed electorate, but it is possible.
From my perspective, a minimal Trump win is going to be the Romney states plus Florida, Ohio, Virginia and New Hampshire. Iowa or Nevada could be in play as well but that gets him to the 270 needed. Virginia will probably be the most closely watched state, although Ohio is likely not far behind. The real kicker will be if any of the upper mid-West waivers in their blueness. If they are solid, I'd go with Mrs. Clinton to win. If they waiver, Mr. Trump is viable. If any fall, Mr. Trump wins.
Time will tell how close things will actually get.
Wednesday, August 31, 2016
Courting African Americans
In all the stories that have filtered down in the Presidential race this year, one that has not garnered a ton of attention is Mr. Trump's attempts to court the African-American vote. African-Americans have routinely voted for the Democratic ticket for the last sixty years (Mr. Obama won 93% of the AA vote) so this voting block has largely been written off by previous Republican candidates. Indeed, I would still expect Mrs. Clinton to win the vast majority of these votes. However, I thought it might be an interesting though exercise to see what the results might be if Mr. Trump managed to peel off a small chunk of these voters.
For this thought exercise, I'm focusing on three states with sizable AA populations and are considered to be in play in this election: Florida, Ohio and Virginia. I'm going to be using the 2012 election numbers as my baseline. Yes, I know that things are very wonky this year and that neither Mr. Trump nor Mrs. Clinton can expect the turnout levels to be comparable with Republican ambivalence and Bernie Democrat irritation, but the percentages are at least ballpark enough to work with. Let us see the results if Mr. Trump manages to reduce Mrs. Clinton's take of the African-American vote from 93% to 80% across the board.
Florida
Mr. Obama won Florida 50.01-49.13 with 8.47 million votes cast. The African-American population of Florida is about 17% but for math simplicity, lets say they represented 15% of the voting electorate or approximately 1,270,000 votes. This would mean that out of the 4,236,000 votes Mr. Obama won, 1,182,000 were African American votes. Reducing the percentage from 93 to 80% costs the Democrat approximately 166,000 votes. Applying that to the overall totals, the Democrat now has 4,070,000 votes to 4,161,000 votes for the Republican and that is if that lost 166,000 only stays home. If they turn out and vote for the Republican, the vote total jumps to 4,327,000 which would be a 51.08-48.05 Republican victory.
Ohio
Mr. Obama won Ohio 50.67-47.69 with 5.58 million votes cast. The African-American population of Ohio is about 12% so that gives them a voting total of around 669,000 votes. Mr. Obama's take of the AA vote would have been about 622,000 and reducing it to 80% drops it down to 535,000. This would reduce the Democratic vote total from 2,827,000 to 2,740,000 while increasing the Republican vote total from 2,661,000 to 2,748,000. In this case the Republican would need an actual flip of those African-American votes rather than a stay home or third party vote; but if that did happen, the Republican would win Ohio 49.25-49.10.
Virginia
Mr. Obama won Virginia 51.16-47.28 with 3.85 million votes cast. The African-American population of Virginia is nearly 20%, which would have given them 770,000 votes in the last election. Cutting the percentages would reduce the Democratic take of this block from 716,000 to 616,000 votes. That drops the overall Democratic vote by 100,000 from 1,970,000 to 1,870,000. The Republican take of the vote was 1,820,000 so again, the Republican can not simply have all these votes stay home or vote third party. But taking just over half of these 100,000 votes would result in a Republican victory. Taking all of them would give the Republican a 49.87-48.57 victory
If you start Mr. Trump with the same states that Mr. Romney won in 2012, he has 206 electoral votes. Ohio is the longest shot in the above scenario but if successful, Mr. Trump would gain 60 electoral votes, putting him at 266. This would still give Mrs. Clinton the victory unless he is able to peel off one additional state. Colorado or Iowa would be the most likely candidates but the African-American demographics of these states are only 4% and 3% respectively so this would require an additional appeal outside of African-Americans to flip these.
Still, one cannot understate the importance of the African-American voting block to the Democratic Party and any successful appeal to even a small part of the block could have significant results in the upcoming election. Whether Mr. Trump's strategy will be successful is another question.
For this thought exercise, I'm focusing on three states with sizable AA populations and are considered to be in play in this election: Florida, Ohio and Virginia. I'm going to be using the 2012 election numbers as my baseline. Yes, I know that things are very wonky this year and that neither Mr. Trump nor Mrs. Clinton can expect the turnout levels to be comparable with Republican ambivalence and Bernie Democrat irritation, but the percentages are at least ballpark enough to work with. Let us see the results if Mr. Trump manages to reduce Mrs. Clinton's take of the African-American vote from 93% to 80% across the board.
Florida
Mr. Obama won Florida 50.01-49.13 with 8.47 million votes cast. The African-American population of Florida is about 17% but for math simplicity, lets say they represented 15% of the voting electorate or approximately 1,270,000 votes. This would mean that out of the 4,236,000 votes Mr. Obama won, 1,182,000 were African American votes. Reducing the percentage from 93 to 80% costs the Democrat approximately 166,000 votes. Applying that to the overall totals, the Democrat now has 4,070,000 votes to 4,161,000 votes for the Republican and that is if that lost 166,000 only stays home. If they turn out and vote for the Republican, the vote total jumps to 4,327,000 which would be a 51.08-48.05 Republican victory.
Ohio
Mr. Obama won Ohio 50.67-47.69 with 5.58 million votes cast. The African-American population of Ohio is about 12% so that gives them a voting total of around 669,000 votes. Mr. Obama's take of the AA vote would have been about 622,000 and reducing it to 80% drops it down to 535,000. This would reduce the Democratic vote total from 2,827,000 to 2,740,000 while increasing the Republican vote total from 2,661,000 to 2,748,000. In this case the Republican would need an actual flip of those African-American votes rather than a stay home or third party vote; but if that did happen, the Republican would win Ohio 49.25-49.10.
Virginia
Mr. Obama won Virginia 51.16-47.28 with 3.85 million votes cast. The African-American population of Virginia is nearly 20%, which would have given them 770,000 votes in the last election. Cutting the percentages would reduce the Democratic take of this block from 716,000 to 616,000 votes. That drops the overall Democratic vote by 100,000 from 1,970,000 to 1,870,000. The Republican take of the vote was 1,820,000 so again, the Republican can not simply have all these votes stay home or vote third party. But taking just over half of these 100,000 votes would result in a Republican victory. Taking all of them would give the Republican a 49.87-48.57 victory
If you start Mr. Trump with the same states that Mr. Romney won in 2012, he has 206 electoral votes. Ohio is the longest shot in the above scenario but if successful, Mr. Trump would gain 60 electoral votes, putting him at 266. This would still give Mrs. Clinton the victory unless he is able to peel off one additional state. Colorado or Iowa would be the most likely candidates but the African-American demographics of these states are only 4% and 3% respectively so this would require an additional appeal outside of African-Americans to flip these.
Still, one cannot understate the importance of the African-American voting block to the Democratic Party and any successful appeal to even a small part of the block could have significant results in the upcoming election. Whether Mr. Trump's strategy will be successful is another question.
Tuesday, June 07, 2016
Bern It Down
With wins in the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico over the weekend, the AP has declared that Mrs. Clinton has secured the Democratic nomination. This seems slightly premature to me. Although she will be the nominee barring some major catastrophe, it would have seemed slightly more prudent to wait and declare her the nominee tonight rather than the day before six states go to the polls. It smacks a bit of attempting to defuse a potential win by Mr. Sanders in California of it's power.
Mrs. Clinton currently has 1811 pledged delegates while Mr. Sanders has 1526. It is mathematically impossible for Mr. Sanders to get to the needed 2383 even if he won all 714 remaining pledged delegates. Likewise, Mrs. Clinton would have to win 80% of the remaining pledged delegates to clinch outright, something that is nearly impossible in the proportional allotment of the Democratic Primary process. So we must move on to the Superdelegates.
The AP is currently reporting that Mrs. Clinton has the support of as many as 571 Superdelegates. There is also a dispute regarding one of the pledged delegates from the Virgin Islands. If you give her this delegate and all 571, she hits 2383 exactly. The two problems of course are that there is a dispute regarding this one delegate and that she needs the firm support of all 571 Superdelegates who have talked about her. Given that Mrs. Clinton is likely to take between 300 and 400 pledged delegates tonight, why the sudden rush to declare her the nominee?
My suspicion is that there are elements within the Democratic Party that are generally worried that Mrs. Clinton will have a poor optical showing tonight. It is possible that of the six contests tonight, she may only win New Jersey. No one will really care who wins the Dakotas, Montana and New Mexico, but if Mr. Sanders takes them and wins California, it will make Mrs. Clinton look weak as she should be in the process of finishing off Mr. Sanders much as Mr. Trump was doing to Mr. Cruz.
This is still mostly optics though. Mrs. Clinton will be coming in to the convention with over 2100 pledged delegates and a likely 300+ delegate lead over Mr. Sanders. She will also have won at least 30 of the 58 contests giving her the majority of wins there. Although she will likely only need less than 300 Superdelegates to put her over the top, she will have probably better than 600. So there is no question that she has more support among the Democratic Party and is deserving of the nomination this time around.
Still, Mr. Sanders' supporters are not exactly known for rationality. A win in the Democratic stronghold of California coupled with wins in smaller states will give them the feeling that the momentum of the people is on their side and that, as it will take Superdelegates to finish the thing off, they should have as much right to make their claim heard.
Things might have been handled a bit better if all the Superdelegates simply kept their mouths shut about who they planned to support until the primaries were over, but I imagine that even then Mr. Sanders supporters would have taken the line that the party apparatchiks were stepping in to push Mrs. Clinton over the top, despite the fact that that's exactly what they would be doing if they flipped and gave Mr. Sanders the nomination.
I still think there was a misstep yesterday in declaring Mrs. Clinton the nominee. Even if the optics are less than ideal, it would have seemed less dodgy to have Mrs. Clinton officially proclaimed as the presumptive nominee following her win in New Jersey, giving her a three contest win streak and then writing off any losses as irrelevant, but with people having cast votes. Declaring votes irrelevant prior to being cast will play into the fever dream of Mr. Sanders' supporters that the party is burying their candidate despite the "will of the people"; contrary to reality though.
Either way, expect some nastiness in Philadelphia. I doubt it will be 1968 levels, but I also don't expect Mr. Sanders or his supports to concede gracefully as Mrs. Clinton did when bested by Mr. Obama in 2008. Maybe cooler heads will prevail by the time the convention rolls around at the end of July, but I'm skeptical at the moment.
Mrs. Clinton currently has 1811 pledged delegates while Mr. Sanders has 1526. It is mathematically impossible for Mr. Sanders to get to the needed 2383 even if he won all 714 remaining pledged delegates. Likewise, Mrs. Clinton would have to win 80% of the remaining pledged delegates to clinch outright, something that is nearly impossible in the proportional allotment of the Democratic Primary process. So we must move on to the Superdelegates.
The AP is currently reporting that Mrs. Clinton has the support of as many as 571 Superdelegates. There is also a dispute regarding one of the pledged delegates from the Virgin Islands. If you give her this delegate and all 571, she hits 2383 exactly. The two problems of course are that there is a dispute regarding this one delegate and that she needs the firm support of all 571 Superdelegates who have talked about her. Given that Mrs. Clinton is likely to take between 300 and 400 pledged delegates tonight, why the sudden rush to declare her the nominee?
My suspicion is that there are elements within the Democratic Party that are generally worried that Mrs. Clinton will have a poor optical showing tonight. It is possible that of the six contests tonight, she may only win New Jersey. No one will really care who wins the Dakotas, Montana and New Mexico, but if Mr. Sanders takes them and wins California, it will make Mrs. Clinton look weak as she should be in the process of finishing off Mr. Sanders much as Mr. Trump was doing to Mr. Cruz.
This is still mostly optics though. Mrs. Clinton will be coming in to the convention with over 2100 pledged delegates and a likely 300+ delegate lead over Mr. Sanders. She will also have won at least 30 of the 58 contests giving her the majority of wins there. Although she will likely only need less than 300 Superdelegates to put her over the top, she will have probably better than 600. So there is no question that she has more support among the Democratic Party and is deserving of the nomination this time around.
Still, Mr. Sanders' supporters are not exactly known for rationality. A win in the Democratic stronghold of California coupled with wins in smaller states will give them the feeling that the momentum of the people is on their side and that, as it will take Superdelegates to finish the thing off, they should have as much right to make their claim heard.
Things might have been handled a bit better if all the Superdelegates simply kept their mouths shut about who they planned to support until the primaries were over, but I imagine that even then Mr. Sanders supporters would have taken the line that the party apparatchiks were stepping in to push Mrs. Clinton over the top, despite the fact that that's exactly what they would be doing if they flipped and gave Mr. Sanders the nomination.
I still think there was a misstep yesterday in declaring Mrs. Clinton the nominee. Even if the optics are less than ideal, it would have seemed less dodgy to have Mrs. Clinton officially proclaimed as the presumptive nominee following her win in New Jersey, giving her a three contest win streak and then writing off any losses as irrelevant, but with people having cast votes. Declaring votes irrelevant prior to being cast will play into the fever dream of Mr. Sanders' supporters that the party is burying their candidate despite the "will of the people"; contrary to reality though.
Either way, expect some nastiness in Philadelphia. I doubt it will be 1968 levels, but I also don't expect Mr. Sanders or his supports to concede gracefully as Mrs. Clinton did when bested by Mr. Obama in 2008. Maybe cooler heads will prevail by the time the convention rolls around at the end of July, but I'm skeptical at the moment.
Wednesday, May 04, 2016
Awaiting Mrs. Clinton
With Mr. Cruz's withdrawal from the Republican race, Mr. Trump has all but sealed the nomination. He'll officially get the number of delegates needed on June 7, but the lack of any opposition means that Mr. Trump can now focus exclusively on the Democratic nominee.
That will be Mrs. Clinton, but Mr. Sanders is not going away quietly. He won the Indiana primary last night, although Mrs. Clinton still leads him in pledged delegates by nearly 300 (1704-1414). Even further against him is that of the 714 unpledged delegates, almost 500 have stated that they will be voting for Mrs. Clinton at the convention, although they are free to change their minds.
It is this use of the superdelegates that gives Mr. Sanders the grist to keep going and why pulling over his supporters will take a little more effort than just getting the nomination. It takes 2383 delegates to win the Democratic nomination. Mrs. Clinton currently has 1704 pledged delegates, meaning that she would need to win 679 of the remaining 933 pledged delegates available know for an absolute certainty that she had the nomination. Given that the Democratic primaries are divided proportionally, this is effectively impossible unless Mr. Sanders more or less drops dead.
But, when you throw in that Mrs. Clinton has received verbal pledges from nearly 500 superdelegates, her winning requirement drops to only about 180 delegates. This means that she will declare effective victory on June 7, regardless of whether she wins any states that night or earlier. Of course, she will win some of the states (New Jersey for example), but it is not out of the realm of possibility that Mrs. Clinton may not win another contest until June 7. The contests in between then and now are Guam (May 7), West Virginia (May 10), Kentucky and Oregon (May 17), the Virgin Islands (June 4) and Puerto Rico (June 5). None of these states/territories are in Mrs. Clinton's wheelhouse save perhaps Kentucky and Puerto Rico, but expect Mr. Sanders to be competitive in all of them.
So you have the possibility of Mr. Sanders winning a number of contests leading up to the big day of June 7 and then she will declare victory before all the votes are even fully counted there. I personally would expect Mrs. Clinton to win both New Jersey and California so she will probably wait until the California polls have closed at least if not until California is declared for her, depending on how long that will take. If this does happen, Mr. Sanders' followers might be a bit put out. Mrs. Clinton did not win outright in their mind (in contrast to Mr. Trump, who did despite all the talk of a brokered convention) and was instead anointed by the party insiders. Granted, she will have more pledged delegates that Mr. Sanders, but the absence of outright victory is likely going to stick in the craw of these supporters.
This is where it will be dangerous for Mrs. Clinton. Knowing that she has these 500 superdelegates means that she knows that she is going to be the nominee and with the Republican contest now over, will be expected to pivot to focus her fire on Mr. Trump. However, with Mr. Sanders refusing to go away, and especially if he continues to win states prior to Mrs. Clinton securing her victory, his supporters are likely going to get even angrier at the establishment. I seriously doubt that a significant amount will cross over to vote for Mr. Trump, but given the youth contingent that makes up Mr. Sanders' followers, a number of them might stay home and turning out the youth and minority vote was a major factor in Mr. Obama's two victories.
So we shall see how it goes. Mr. Trump is going to square off against Mrs. Clinton and we'll be playing the Veep-stakes game now, but as much work as Mr. Trump has in front of him to mend fences, Mrs. Clinton likely has just as big of a job and she still has someone breaking boards in her backyard.
That will be Mrs. Clinton, but Mr. Sanders is not going away quietly. He won the Indiana primary last night, although Mrs. Clinton still leads him in pledged delegates by nearly 300 (1704-1414). Even further against him is that of the 714 unpledged delegates, almost 500 have stated that they will be voting for Mrs. Clinton at the convention, although they are free to change their minds.
It is this use of the superdelegates that gives Mr. Sanders the grist to keep going and why pulling over his supporters will take a little more effort than just getting the nomination. It takes 2383 delegates to win the Democratic nomination. Mrs. Clinton currently has 1704 pledged delegates, meaning that she would need to win 679 of the remaining 933 pledged delegates available know for an absolute certainty that she had the nomination. Given that the Democratic primaries are divided proportionally, this is effectively impossible unless Mr. Sanders more or less drops dead.
But, when you throw in that Mrs. Clinton has received verbal pledges from nearly 500 superdelegates, her winning requirement drops to only about 180 delegates. This means that she will declare effective victory on June 7, regardless of whether she wins any states that night or earlier. Of course, she will win some of the states (New Jersey for example), but it is not out of the realm of possibility that Mrs. Clinton may not win another contest until June 7. The contests in between then and now are Guam (May 7), West Virginia (May 10), Kentucky and Oregon (May 17), the Virgin Islands (June 4) and Puerto Rico (June 5). None of these states/territories are in Mrs. Clinton's wheelhouse save perhaps Kentucky and Puerto Rico, but expect Mr. Sanders to be competitive in all of them.
So you have the possibility of Mr. Sanders winning a number of contests leading up to the big day of June 7 and then she will declare victory before all the votes are even fully counted there. I personally would expect Mrs. Clinton to win both New Jersey and California so she will probably wait until the California polls have closed at least if not until California is declared for her, depending on how long that will take. If this does happen, Mr. Sanders' followers might be a bit put out. Mrs. Clinton did not win outright in their mind (in contrast to Mr. Trump, who did despite all the talk of a brokered convention) and was instead anointed by the party insiders. Granted, she will have more pledged delegates that Mr. Sanders, but the absence of outright victory is likely going to stick in the craw of these supporters.
This is where it will be dangerous for Mrs. Clinton. Knowing that she has these 500 superdelegates means that she knows that she is going to be the nominee and with the Republican contest now over, will be expected to pivot to focus her fire on Mr. Trump. However, with Mr. Sanders refusing to go away, and especially if he continues to win states prior to Mrs. Clinton securing her victory, his supporters are likely going to get even angrier at the establishment. I seriously doubt that a significant amount will cross over to vote for Mr. Trump, but given the youth contingent that makes up Mr. Sanders' followers, a number of them might stay home and turning out the youth and minority vote was a major factor in Mr. Obama's two victories.
So we shall see how it goes. Mr. Trump is going to square off against Mrs. Clinton and we'll be playing the Veep-stakes game now, but as much work as Mr. Trump has in front of him to mend fences, Mrs. Clinton likely has just as big of a job and she still has someone breaking boards in her backyard.
Thursday, April 28, 2016
The Red Bull Marches Forth
With the sweep of the primaries on Tuesday, Mr. Trump has mathematically eliminated Mr. Cruz from winning in the first round of balloting at the Republican National Convention and poised himself even closer to winning the nomination outright, contrary to opinions regarding this ability only weeks ago.
Mr. Trump currently sits with 956 pledged delegates. He also has the support of about 40 unpledged delegates, most from their direct election in Pennsylvania on Tuesday. While these are not obligated to vote for him in the first round, they have stated their intention to do so. This leaves Mr. Trump just shy of 1,000 delegates and just under 250 short of what he would need to win the nomination outright. In the remaining ten state contests, there are 502 delegates available, meaning that Mr. Trump only has to secure about half of those to win the nomination.
It is mathematically impossible for Mr. Trump to secure the nomination before June 7 as the five contests scheduled before this date only amount to 199 delegates and two of those contests (Oregon and Washington) are proportional allocation, similar to Democratic primaries, so that further decreases the amount of delegates that Mr. Trump would win there. But in these five contests, it is not unreasonable to suggest that Mr. Trump could walk away with between 100 and 150 delegates. If he does so, he would only need between 100 and 150 delegates of the 303 delegates available (172 from California alone where Mr. Trump has been polling well) to win.
So lets break down the various states and see how this might play out:
Indiana - May 3 - 57 delegates: 30 delegates are given to the statewide winner and 27 delegates are given to the winners of each congressional district (3 per district). Mr. Trump is currently polling ahead of Mr. Cruz by about 6 points. If that holds, Mr. Trump would get the 30 state delegates and probably around half of the district delegates, unless the voting is balanced throughout the state, which would give him even more. Either way, a Trump win would probably net around 45 delegates.
Nebraska - May 10 - 36 delegates: 27 delegates are available to the overall winner while 9 more are available through the districts. However, the district allocation is based on the statewide vote, not the individual district, although each district will select the delegates at individual district conventions. Not much polling exists for Nebraska but Mr. Cruz has done well in the plain states so the pick up for Mr. Trump is likely to be minimal here.
West Virginia - May 10 - 34 delegates: West Virginia does a direct election of delegates but those delegates state their preferences, including being unbound, so it will work more or less like a direct election (assuming the delegate keeps to their pledge of supporting said candidate in the first round). 25 delegates are elected statewide while 9 are via districts. Like Nebraska, pollsters are not paying much attention to West Virginia but in the Virginia primary, Mr. Trump did well in the Appalachian areas that border West Virginia. Likewise, he defeated Mr. Kasich in the border regions of Ohio. I would expect Mr. Trump to do very well here, perhaps even well enough to pocket all 34 delegates.
Oregon - May 17 - 28 delegates: Oregon has proportional allocation. 13 delegates to be split via the statewide results. 15 more to be split likely 2-1 in each district. All polling has pretty much been reserved for California so there are no hard numbers, but if Mr. Trump's polling in California reflects similar attitudes up north, he could be looking at between 15 and 17 delegates from the contest.
Washington - May 24 - 44 delegates: Like Oregon, Washington proportionally allocates its 14 statewide delegates. Unlike Oregon, there is a winner-take-most allocation in the 10 congressional districts. I'm going to assume that means that the winner will be the beneficiary of any close allocation and that there may also be a threshold (like 50%) where the winner would then get all delegates. Mr. Trump would likely take most of the delegates on the West side of the Cascades while Mr. Cruz would likely be the winner on the Eastern side. I still think that would get Mr. Trump the majority of the delegates so 25-30 delegates would not be an unreasonable assumption.
California - June 7 - 172 delegates: This is the big one. California gives 13 delegates to the overall winner and unless the polling changes, that will be Mr. Trump. But you have 53 congressional districts, all winner-take-all at 3 delegates a pop. Obviously Mr. Cruz and perhaps even Mr. Kasich will secure a win in several districts. But if Mr. Trump holds his upper 40's percentage, he is likely to win nearly half of the congressional district allocation, perhaps more depending on how the vote spread is. Barring a major change of fortune, I don't see how Mr. Trump walks away from California with less than 90 delegates and over 100 is not unreasonable. Taking the lower sums from above, that would give Mr. Trump around 200 delegates and he would need only about 40 or 50 more from the remaining contests.
Montana - June 7 - 27 delegates: Montana is winner-take-all. Given his performance in the plains, I would expect Mr. Cruz to take all 27 of these delegates.
New Jersey - June 7 - 51 delegates: Like Montana, New Jersey is winner-take-all. This is where I think the math breaks for Mr. Trump. With the endorsement of Governor Christie and his own New York roots, Mr. Trump should take these 51 delegates going away. If the minimal math holds and Mr. Trump walks into June 7 needing only between 100 and 150 delegates, it is likely that California and New Jersey will be what delivers victory to him.
New Mexico - June 7 - 24 delegates: New Mexico is proportional with 15 statewide and 9 CD delegates. If Arizona, Nevada, and California are any guide, Mr. Trump will win the state but Mr. Cruz will likely be near his heels giving this a closer to 50-50 split on delegates.
South Dakota - June 7 - 29 delegates: South Dakota is winner-take-all like Montana and I think likely to give it's votes to Mr. Cruz unless there is a swing of inevitability for Mr. Trump.
Polling could change at any time but I'm starting to think that even if Mr. Trump uses a flamethrower on a basket of live puppies, he will still not lose much support in the remaining contests. Even if they don't necessarily like him, many Republicans seem to be desperate to avoid a brokered convention and are giving in to the inevitability of Mr. Trump being the nominee. It doesn't hurt that this does serve as a middle finger to the party leadership so even if they don't necessarily like him, they like the message it sends.
Like much of the media, I think the Indiana race is going to be an interesting to watch. Mr. Cruz has planted a flag there and I think this may be the hill he dies on, although he won't admit to being dead until Mr. Trump notches the full 1,237 in bound delegates no less. But if Mr. Trump walks away with the state win and better than the 45 delegates I'm guestimating him at, it could break the last remaining sense of resistance and even the plain states could start to break for Mr. Trump in a bid for party cohesion.
Of course, predicting how Mr. Trump will do against Ms. Clinton in November will be an even more drawn out tale.
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
Friday, January 15, 2016
Divisional Round Guesses (2016 Edition)
I so wanted to get the Pittsburgh/Cincinnati game wrong and I almost did. But I can't control it if a team decides to implode. Likewise with Minnesota. How do you shank a 27-yard kick? But that makes me 4 for 4 so far in picks.
Anyway, here's the slate for this weekend:
Game 1: #5 Kansas City Chiefs at #2 New England Patriots
It's almost unfortunate that the NFL is putting what will probably be the best game on first. Every logical mind says that you just don't bet against the Patriots in New England, no matter how hot the other team is. But, there is a chance. Tom Brady is about the only healthy person on that team and it shows in that the Patriots have lost four of their last six games. Some of the key players will be coming back from their injuries for this game and certainly the bye week helped with that. But Kansas City is on a roll and New England does not have that good of a defense. If Brady can get his players going, they can win a shootout game. Likewise, if Jeremy Maclin re-injures himself in any way, Kansas City will lose a lot in the passing game and could become one dimensional. But with the deck stacked as it is, I'm inclined to think that the Chiefs will maintain their momentum, albeit in a close game.
Pick: Kansas City Chiefs
Game 2: #5 Green Bay Packers at #2 Arizona Cardinals
Washington failed to do what must happen to beat Green Bay: get after Aaron Rogers. I don't see Arizona having that problem. Arizona was laughably bad in their final game against Seattle, but there may have been players pulled in that game. Or the players realized that it didn't matter since Carolina was winning their game. I don't expect Arizona to be distracted in this game. Green Bay is a walking wounded team and they are going to be missing even more players when they square off Saturday night. There is always a chance that the Green Bay offensive line manages to get Rogers some protection, but I doubt it. I think a high sack count and a lopsided night for Arizona is in the offering.
Pick: Arizona Cardinals
Game 3: #6 Seattle Seahawks at #1 Carolina Panthers
I think if this were any other team than Seattle, Carolina could be caught napping, looking ahead to the NFC Championship. But Carolina hates Seattle. They were furious at being knocked out of the playoffs by the Seahawks last year and their intensity when they played Seattle earlier this season showed. The Seahawks looked a bit more human and should have lost to Minnesota. But they'll be playing in warmer weather and with another playoff victory under their belt. Still, Carolina was able to beat Seattle in Seattle. Now Carolina will be on their own turf and well rested. Seattle may hang in for a bit, but I expect Carolina will bring down the hammer as the game progresses.
Pick: Carolina Panthers
Game 4: #6 Pittsburgh Steelers at #1 Denver Broncos
This should be the most lopsided game of all. Ben Roethlesburger is injured and if he plays, may not be able to throw the ball further than ten yards. DeAngelo Williams is still listed as day-to-day and may not be available. Antonio Brown has been officially ruled out for the game. So you have a potential of a back up QB, a back up RB, and no #1 WR going up against the #1 defense in the NFL. The only way Pittsburgh stays in this game is if Peyton Manning throws multiple interceptions that are returned for TDs and I doubt the coaching staff is going to let him. Denver will focus on the run and Manning will be kept to short passes, with an occasional deep ball to keep the Pittsburgh defense from cheating up too far. If he throws a pick on a deep route, it'll function more like a punt with less potential of being run back. I also expect Manning to be on a short leash with Oswiller being ready to go if Manning starts throwing picks. Again, like the Cincinnati game, I can't see Pittsburgh winning without Denver actively working to lose the game.
Pick: Denver Broncos
Anyway, here's the slate for this weekend:
Game 1: #5 Kansas City Chiefs at #2 New England Patriots
It's almost unfortunate that the NFL is putting what will probably be the best game on first. Every logical mind says that you just don't bet against the Patriots in New England, no matter how hot the other team is. But, there is a chance. Tom Brady is about the only healthy person on that team and it shows in that the Patriots have lost four of their last six games. Some of the key players will be coming back from their injuries for this game and certainly the bye week helped with that. But Kansas City is on a roll and New England does not have that good of a defense. If Brady can get his players going, they can win a shootout game. Likewise, if Jeremy Maclin re-injures himself in any way, Kansas City will lose a lot in the passing game and could become one dimensional. But with the deck stacked as it is, I'm inclined to think that the Chiefs will maintain their momentum, albeit in a close game.
Pick: Kansas City Chiefs
Game 2: #5 Green Bay Packers at #2 Arizona Cardinals
Washington failed to do what must happen to beat Green Bay: get after Aaron Rogers. I don't see Arizona having that problem. Arizona was laughably bad in their final game against Seattle, but there may have been players pulled in that game. Or the players realized that it didn't matter since Carolina was winning their game. I don't expect Arizona to be distracted in this game. Green Bay is a walking wounded team and they are going to be missing even more players when they square off Saturday night. There is always a chance that the Green Bay offensive line manages to get Rogers some protection, but I doubt it. I think a high sack count and a lopsided night for Arizona is in the offering.
Pick: Arizona Cardinals
Game 3: #6 Seattle Seahawks at #1 Carolina Panthers
I think if this were any other team than Seattle, Carolina could be caught napping, looking ahead to the NFC Championship. But Carolina hates Seattle. They were furious at being knocked out of the playoffs by the Seahawks last year and their intensity when they played Seattle earlier this season showed. The Seahawks looked a bit more human and should have lost to Minnesota. But they'll be playing in warmer weather and with another playoff victory under their belt. Still, Carolina was able to beat Seattle in Seattle. Now Carolina will be on their own turf and well rested. Seattle may hang in for a bit, but I expect Carolina will bring down the hammer as the game progresses.
Pick: Carolina Panthers
Game 4: #6 Pittsburgh Steelers at #1 Denver Broncos
This should be the most lopsided game of all. Ben Roethlesburger is injured and if he plays, may not be able to throw the ball further than ten yards. DeAngelo Williams is still listed as day-to-day and may not be available. Antonio Brown has been officially ruled out for the game. So you have a potential of a back up QB, a back up RB, and no #1 WR going up against the #1 defense in the NFL. The only way Pittsburgh stays in this game is if Peyton Manning throws multiple interceptions that are returned for TDs and I doubt the coaching staff is going to let him. Denver will focus on the run and Manning will be kept to short passes, with an occasional deep ball to keep the Pittsburgh defense from cheating up too far. If he throws a pick on a deep route, it'll function more like a punt with less potential of being run back. I also expect Manning to be on a short leash with Oswiller being ready to go if Manning starts throwing picks. Again, like the Cincinnati game, I can't see Pittsburgh winning without Denver actively working to lose the game.
Pick: Denver Broncos
Tuesday, January 05, 2016
Wild Card Round Guesses (2016 Edition)
There were a couple of close calls and a few odd turnouts but the field is set for the playoffs so it's time for me to make all my very wrong guesses.
Byes:
AFC: #1 Denver Broncos, #2 New England Patriots
NFC: #1 Carolina Panthers, #2 Arizona Cardinals
Game 1: #5 Kansas City Chiefs at #4 Houston Texans
The Chiefs have to be annoyed right now. Both the Bengals and the Chargers came rather close to knocking off the Broncos in the last two weeks of the regular season, which would have given the Chiefs the division title and a home game. A bye was out of reach, but it would have been nice to play at Arrowhead. Nevertheless, they are riding a hot streak right now. Houston hit their apex right after the bye when they beat the Bengals on Monday night and then went on a bit of a hot streak. Still, they are not the pushover team many expected the AFC South champion to be. But it would be foolish to go against the Chiefs right now. This is also the Chiefs' first opportunity to finally get rid of the bad taste of the loss to Indianapolis in the first round of the playoffs two years ago, when they allowed Indy to come back from a 28-point deficit.
Pick: Kansas City Chiefs
Game 2: #6 Pittsburgh Steelers at #3 Cincinnati Bengals
The Steelers did what they had to do in beating Cleveland and the NY Jets obliged by laying down against Buffalo. The Bengals meanwhile looked okay in beating the Ravens but still needed Denver to go down. Andy Dalton got his cast off this week but no announcement has been made about whether he will be available to play. Likewise, Steelers RB DeAngelo Williams is listed as day to day. Neither team is likely to be playing at full strength and given both coach's tendency to make odd calls in the situation, this game will likely come down to who makes the least number of mistakes. In this case, since it is likely that McCarron will be starting, I'm inclined to give the veteran Ben Rothlesburger the edge. Yes, he makes poor decisions and is also banged up, but the Steelers have proven themselves in pressure situations in the recent past with a lineup similar to this one. The Bengals have the weight of four previous one and dones on them and I will only believe it when I see it.
Pick: Pittsburgh Steelers
Game #3: #6 Seattle Seahawks at #3 Minnesota Vikings
There are two questions in this game: Will Adrian Peterson be able to run on Seattle and will the Minnesota defense be able to contain the Seattle offense? When they last met, Seattle blew the doors off Minnesota in Minnesota and the answer to both questions was no. If Seattle can repeat that strategy, they should win easily. Minnesota will adjust but if AP in contained, I don't see Teddy Bridgewater as being good enough to keep the offense on the field and prevent the defense from getting worn out. I think this game will be closer, but Seattle has been on a hot streak aside from the speed bump against the Rams. I won't pick against them just yet.
Pick: Seattle Seahawks
Game #4: #5 Green Bay Packers at #4 Washington Redskins
Like the AFC South, Washington has emerged as a bit better than the pushover we expected the NFC East winner to be. Likewise, Green Bay can't seem to get their act together for any stretch of games. They can beat bad teams, but they haven't had a good win since they beat the Vikings in Minnesota before Thanksgiving. However, Washington kept pulling out squeekers against sub-500 teams. They won by ten against the Bills but otherwise haven't faced a good team since they got destroyed by Carolina also right before Thanksgiving. The home field will help but the bright lights are going to expose nerves. Rodgers and company has been in this situation before and that might be enough to overcome the deficiencies that have come up with all the injuries. Washington can win this game and many people will probably pick them to do so, but like with Pittsburgh, I'm going with experience in the first round.
Pick: Green Bay Packers
Byes:
AFC: #1 Denver Broncos, #2 New England Patriots
NFC: #1 Carolina Panthers, #2 Arizona Cardinals
Game 1: #5 Kansas City Chiefs at #4 Houston Texans
The Chiefs have to be annoyed right now. Both the Bengals and the Chargers came rather close to knocking off the Broncos in the last two weeks of the regular season, which would have given the Chiefs the division title and a home game. A bye was out of reach, but it would have been nice to play at Arrowhead. Nevertheless, they are riding a hot streak right now. Houston hit their apex right after the bye when they beat the Bengals on Monday night and then went on a bit of a hot streak. Still, they are not the pushover team many expected the AFC South champion to be. But it would be foolish to go against the Chiefs right now. This is also the Chiefs' first opportunity to finally get rid of the bad taste of the loss to Indianapolis in the first round of the playoffs two years ago, when they allowed Indy to come back from a 28-point deficit.
Pick: Kansas City Chiefs
Game 2: #6 Pittsburgh Steelers at #3 Cincinnati Bengals
The Steelers did what they had to do in beating Cleveland and the NY Jets obliged by laying down against Buffalo. The Bengals meanwhile looked okay in beating the Ravens but still needed Denver to go down. Andy Dalton got his cast off this week but no announcement has been made about whether he will be available to play. Likewise, Steelers RB DeAngelo Williams is listed as day to day. Neither team is likely to be playing at full strength and given both coach's tendency to make odd calls in the situation, this game will likely come down to who makes the least number of mistakes. In this case, since it is likely that McCarron will be starting, I'm inclined to give the veteran Ben Rothlesburger the edge. Yes, he makes poor decisions and is also banged up, but the Steelers have proven themselves in pressure situations in the recent past with a lineup similar to this one. The Bengals have the weight of four previous one and dones on them and I will only believe it when I see it.
Pick: Pittsburgh Steelers
Game #3: #6 Seattle Seahawks at #3 Minnesota Vikings
There are two questions in this game: Will Adrian Peterson be able to run on Seattle and will the Minnesota defense be able to contain the Seattle offense? When they last met, Seattle blew the doors off Minnesota in Minnesota and the answer to both questions was no. If Seattle can repeat that strategy, they should win easily. Minnesota will adjust but if AP in contained, I don't see Teddy Bridgewater as being good enough to keep the offense on the field and prevent the defense from getting worn out. I think this game will be closer, but Seattle has been on a hot streak aside from the speed bump against the Rams. I won't pick against them just yet.
Pick: Seattle Seahawks
Game #4: #5 Green Bay Packers at #4 Washington Redskins
Like the AFC South, Washington has emerged as a bit better than the pushover we expected the NFC East winner to be. Likewise, Green Bay can't seem to get their act together for any stretch of games. They can beat bad teams, but they haven't had a good win since they beat the Vikings in Minnesota before Thanksgiving. However, Washington kept pulling out squeekers against sub-500 teams. They won by ten against the Bills but otherwise haven't faced a good team since they got destroyed by Carolina also right before Thanksgiving. The home field will help but the bright lights are going to expose nerves. Rodgers and company has been in this situation before and that might be enough to overcome the deficiencies that have come up with all the injuries. Washington can win this game and many people will probably pick them to do so, but like with Pittsburgh, I'm going with experience in the first round.
Pick: Green Bay Packers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
