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.
Tuesday, November 01, 2016
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
Tuesday, December 29, 2015
Post Season Almost Set
AFC
1. New England Patriots - The Pats have a first round bye, but will need to win against Miami to secure the #1 seed. After the embarrassing loss to the Jets, that is a fairly safe bet.
2. Denver Broncos - With the win against the Bengals, the Broncos have secured a playoff spot. They are in control of their own destiny as well. If they win against San Diego, they win the West and lock the #2 seed. If the Pats somehow lose to Miami, Denver will take the #1 seed with a win. But, if the Broncos lose to San Diego, they could fall as far as the #5 seed if both the Bengals and Chiefs win their respective games.
3. Cincinnati Bengals - Conservative play calling in the face of a rookie starter doomed the Bengals against Denver. The Bengals can still get the #2 seed but only if Denver loses. If the Bengals somehow lose to the Ravens, they could still get the #2 seed but that would require Kansas City to win against Oakland in addition to Denver winning. Given that a Denver loss to San Diego is unlikely, the #3 seed seems like a safe bet.
4. Houston Texans - If the Bengals had won against Denver, it would have secured Houston the South. But if they win against Jacksonville or Indianapolis loses to Tennessee, they will take the title and the #4 seed. Indy could take it but given they will probably starting their third-string QB, that is unlikely.
5. Kansas City Chiefs - Again, had the Bengals beaten Denver, the Chiefs would have moved into the lead in the West. Now, they must hope that Denver loses against San Diego for them to have a chance. If that were to happen, the Chiefs must beat Oakland to take the title and the #3 seed. If the Chiefs lose to Oakland, they will stay the #5 seed as I believe they have the tie-breaker against the Jets.
6. NY Jets - With the Steelers loss to the Ravens and the Jets win over the Patriots, the Jets have moved into the driver's seat for the last wild card spot. If the Jets win against Buffalo, they are in. Likewise, if the Steelers lose to Cleveland, they are in. If the Jets lose and the Steelers win, Pittsburgh jumps back up and takes the #6 spot.
NFC
1. Carolina Panthers - With the first loss to the Falcons, the Panthers failed to clinch home-field. Now they will have to win against Tampa Bay to secure home field. If they somehow lose, they could lose the #1 seed to Arizona if they win.
2. Arizona Cardinals - Arizona has the #2 seed but can only move to the #1 if the Panthers lose. Both teams have secured a first-round bye, it's just a question of who gets what rank.
3. Green Bay Packers - Green Bay currently has the division lead but they are tied with Minnesota and the two teams play for the whole shooting match Sunday night. The winner gets the crown and the #3 seed. The loser will be a wild card, probably the #5.
4. Washington Redskins - The Redskins have won the East and are locked into the #4 seed. Nothing will change that so expect to see the B-team take the field against Dallas.
5. Minnesota Vikings - See #3
6. Seattle Seahawks - Seattle has secured a playoff spot, but their loss to the Rams knocked them down a peg. Their seeding is going to depend on how their game against Arizona shakes out and the Green Bay-Minnesota game. If Seattle loses to Arizona, they will be the #6 seed and fly off the face the North Champion. If they win and Green Bay wins, Seattle will vault ahead of Minnesota due to their win against them and take the #5 seed. If Minnesota wins the North, Seattle will stay the #6 seed due to their loss to Green Bay early in the season.
1. New England Patriots - The Pats have a first round bye, but will need to win against Miami to secure the #1 seed. After the embarrassing loss to the Jets, that is a fairly safe bet.
2. Denver Broncos - With the win against the Bengals, the Broncos have secured a playoff spot. They are in control of their own destiny as well. If they win against San Diego, they win the West and lock the #2 seed. If the Pats somehow lose to Miami, Denver will take the #1 seed with a win. But, if the Broncos lose to San Diego, they could fall as far as the #5 seed if both the Bengals and Chiefs win their respective games.
3. Cincinnati Bengals - Conservative play calling in the face of a rookie starter doomed the Bengals against Denver. The Bengals can still get the #2 seed but only if Denver loses. If the Bengals somehow lose to the Ravens, they could still get the #2 seed but that would require Kansas City to win against Oakland in addition to Denver winning. Given that a Denver loss to San Diego is unlikely, the #3 seed seems like a safe bet.
4. Houston Texans - If the Bengals had won against Denver, it would have secured Houston the South. But if they win against Jacksonville or Indianapolis loses to Tennessee, they will take the title and the #4 seed. Indy could take it but given they will probably starting their third-string QB, that is unlikely.
5. Kansas City Chiefs - Again, had the Bengals beaten Denver, the Chiefs would have moved into the lead in the West. Now, they must hope that Denver loses against San Diego for them to have a chance. If that were to happen, the Chiefs must beat Oakland to take the title and the #3 seed. If the Chiefs lose to Oakland, they will stay the #5 seed as I believe they have the tie-breaker against the Jets.
6. NY Jets - With the Steelers loss to the Ravens and the Jets win over the Patriots, the Jets have moved into the driver's seat for the last wild card spot. If the Jets win against Buffalo, they are in. Likewise, if the Steelers lose to Cleveland, they are in. If the Jets lose and the Steelers win, Pittsburgh jumps back up and takes the #6 spot.
NFC
1. Carolina Panthers - With the first loss to the Falcons, the Panthers failed to clinch home-field. Now they will have to win against Tampa Bay to secure home field. If they somehow lose, they could lose the #1 seed to Arizona if they win.
2. Arizona Cardinals - Arizona has the #2 seed but can only move to the #1 if the Panthers lose. Both teams have secured a first-round bye, it's just a question of who gets what rank.
3. Green Bay Packers - Green Bay currently has the division lead but they are tied with Minnesota and the two teams play for the whole shooting match Sunday night. The winner gets the crown and the #3 seed. The loser will be a wild card, probably the #5.
4. Washington Redskins - The Redskins have won the East and are locked into the #4 seed. Nothing will change that so expect to see the B-team take the field against Dallas.
5. Minnesota Vikings - See #3
6. Seattle Seahawks - Seattle has secured a playoff spot, but their loss to the Rams knocked them down a peg. Their seeding is going to depend on how their game against Arizona shakes out and the Green Bay-Minnesota game. If Seattle loses to Arizona, they will be the #6 seed and fly off the face the North Champion. If they win and Green Bay wins, Seattle will vault ahead of Minnesota due to their win against them and take the #5 seed. If Minnesota wins the North, Seattle will stay the #6 seed due to their loss to Green Bay early in the season.
Thursday, December 17, 2015
Return to Football
I sort of took 2015 off from blogging and I can't imagine that I'll continue doing it on anything resembling a regular basis. But I always enjoyed tracking the football playoffs and I thought this year I would continue that.
AFC
1. New England Patriots - No one in the AFC is completely healthy and no one is dominant right now. That being said, New England still has the best record by one game and they are starting to get weapons back from the injury list. They also have officially won the East, the first AFC team to win it's division. Their defense is still not good though. They will probably hold the #1 seed unless fall to the Jets in Week 16 but even then the odds still are favorable that they will keep home field.
2. Cincinnati Bengals - Conference record is the tie-breaker for now against Denver but they two teams will decide things head-to-head in Week 16. The big question is when is Andy Dalton coming back? The Bengals should be good enough to secure the division with a win against San Francisco this week, especially if AJ McCarron doesn't throw a bunch of picks. But a loss to Denver would probably relegate the Bengals to the #3 seed. But I think the Bengals would be fine with the #3 seed if it meant that Dalton was 100% in time for the playoffs. Much will depend on what happens this weekend.
3. Denver Broncos If Denver wins against Cincinnati and the Patriots lose to the NY Jets, Denver could find itself at the #1 seed as they would have tie-breakers against both teams. But if they lose to Cincinnati, #3 is pretty much guaranteed no matter what New England does. I don't know what Manning's status is for the playoffs but it will be interesting to see how Brock Osweiler does against Pittsburgh. If he plays well and Denver wins, he may stay in against Cincinnati. But if Denver goes down for a second week in a row, Manning could be back in for the Monday nighter.
4. Indianapolis Colts - The Colts are tied with Houston right now, but Indy currently has the tiebreaker. Honestly both teams are reeling badly. Indy will be on their #3 QB while Houston will be playing it's back-up. At this point, it is not unreasonable to suggest that Jacksonville could rise up and win this division in the last week. Whoever wins the head-to-head match-up this week has the inside track but this divisional crown will come down to the wire among three less than good teams.
5. Kansas City Chiefs - See below.
6. NY Jets - The Chiefs, Jets, and Pittsburgh Steelers are all tied at 8-5 but the Chiefs and Jets have the tie-breakers that push them ahead of the Steelers. Of all of them, Kansas City has the easiest schedule and will probably keep the #5 spot. It's not impossible for them to win the West still, although they would need Denver to seriously tank. The #6 spot on the other hand is up for grabs. Pittsburgh closes the season against Baltimore and Cleveland, both games they should easily win. So that leaves the game against Denver as the only one they won't be favored in. The Jets have Dallas, New England, and Buffalo to close their season. This is tougher road to hoe. If Pittsburgh loses to Denver, the Jets will have a little breathing room and a loss to New England won't be quite so dire. But this spot will also probably come down to the Week 17 match-ups.
NFC
1. Carolina Panthers - Unless there is major injury that happens, we could save ourselves some trouble and just put Carolina in the Super Bowl now. They will be hosting the NFC playoffs at the very least.
2. Arizona Cardinals - Hot teams can come and spoil the parties, but I think that given the way the NFC has been this year, I'll be a bit disappointed if the NFC Championship game is not Arizona vs. Carolina. Arizona hasn't clinched the division yet, but should do so this weekend.
3. Green Bay Packers - Minnesota has fallen flat over the last couple of weeks and that has allowed Green Bay to retake the division lead. I think Minnesota has a slightly easier schedule though, so the Week 17 match-up between these two teams could decide the division title and the #3 seed.
4. Washington Redskins - Like the AFC South, someone has to win the NFC East and take the #4 seed. Washington has the inside track at the moment despite their being a three-way tie between them, Philadelphia and the NY Giants. I think Washington's schedule also gives them the best opportunity to take the division, but I think the winner is going to be 8-8 at best when Week 17 is done.
5. Seattle Seahawks - See below.
6. Minnesota Vikings - Seattle and Minnesota are pretty much set as rounding out the playoffs. They have a two game lead on everyone else and it's just a matter of how the seeding shakes out. Seattle is hot right now but they are probably too far behind Arizona to catch them for the division so the #5 seed and a trip east is probably in store for them. Minnesota is less hot but still good enough that they should both hold on to the #6 spot and may even challenge Green Bay for the division. Whether they take the division or not, it is somewhat likely that the Week 17 match-up between these two will be replayed the following week in the Wild Card round of the playoffs.
AFC
1. New England Patriots - No one in the AFC is completely healthy and no one is dominant right now. That being said, New England still has the best record by one game and they are starting to get weapons back from the injury list. They also have officially won the East, the first AFC team to win it's division. Their defense is still not good though. They will probably hold the #1 seed unless fall to the Jets in Week 16 but even then the odds still are favorable that they will keep home field.
2. Cincinnati Bengals - Conference record is the tie-breaker for now against Denver but they two teams will decide things head-to-head in Week 16. The big question is when is Andy Dalton coming back? The Bengals should be good enough to secure the division with a win against San Francisco this week, especially if AJ McCarron doesn't throw a bunch of picks. But a loss to Denver would probably relegate the Bengals to the #3 seed. But I think the Bengals would be fine with the #3 seed if it meant that Dalton was 100% in time for the playoffs. Much will depend on what happens this weekend.
3. Denver Broncos If Denver wins against Cincinnati and the Patriots lose to the NY Jets, Denver could find itself at the #1 seed as they would have tie-breakers against both teams. But if they lose to Cincinnati, #3 is pretty much guaranteed no matter what New England does. I don't know what Manning's status is for the playoffs but it will be interesting to see how Brock Osweiler does against Pittsburgh. If he plays well and Denver wins, he may stay in against Cincinnati. But if Denver goes down for a second week in a row, Manning could be back in for the Monday nighter.
4. Indianapolis Colts - The Colts are tied with Houston right now, but Indy currently has the tiebreaker. Honestly both teams are reeling badly. Indy will be on their #3 QB while Houston will be playing it's back-up. At this point, it is not unreasonable to suggest that Jacksonville could rise up and win this division in the last week. Whoever wins the head-to-head match-up this week has the inside track but this divisional crown will come down to the wire among three less than good teams.
5. Kansas City Chiefs - See below.
6. NY Jets - The Chiefs, Jets, and Pittsburgh Steelers are all tied at 8-5 but the Chiefs and Jets have the tie-breakers that push them ahead of the Steelers. Of all of them, Kansas City has the easiest schedule and will probably keep the #5 spot. It's not impossible for them to win the West still, although they would need Denver to seriously tank. The #6 spot on the other hand is up for grabs. Pittsburgh closes the season against Baltimore and Cleveland, both games they should easily win. So that leaves the game against Denver as the only one they won't be favored in. The Jets have Dallas, New England, and Buffalo to close their season. This is tougher road to hoe. If Pittsburgh loses to Denver, the Jets will have a little breathing room and a loss to New England won't be quite so dire. But this spot will also probably come down to the Week 17 match-ups.
NFC
1. Carolina Panthers - Unless there is major injury that happens, we could save ourselves some trouble and just put Carolina in the Super Bowl now. They will be hosting the NFC playoffs at the very least.
2. Arizona Cardinals - Hot teams can come and spoil the parties, but I think that given the way the NFC has been this year, I'll be a bit disappointed if the NFC Championship game is not Arizona vs. Carolina. Arizona hasn't clinched the division yet, but should do so this weekend.
3. Green Bay Packers - Minnesota has fallen flat over the last couple of weeks and that has allowed Green Bay to retake the division lead. I think Minnesota has a slightly easier schedule though, so the Week 17 match-up between these two teams could decide the division title and the #3 seed.
4. Washington Redskins - Like the AFC South, someone has to win the NFC East and take the #4 seed. Washington has the inside track at the moment despite their being a three-way tie between them, Philadelphia and the NY Giants. I think Washington's schedule also gives them the best opportunity to take the division, but I think the winner is going to be 8-8 at best when Week 17 is done.
5. Seattle Seahawks - See below.
6. Minnesota Vikings - Seattle and Minnesota are pretty much set as rounding out the playoffs. They have a two game lead on everyone else and it's just a matter of how the seeding shakes out. Seattle is hot right now but they are probably too far behind Arizona to catch them for the division so the #5 seed and a trip east is probably in store for them. Minnesota is less hot but still good enough that they should both hold on to the #6 spot and may even challenge Green Bay for the division. Whether they take the division or not, it is somewhat likely that the Week 17 match-up between these two will be replayed the following week in the Wild Card round of the playoffs.
Wednesday, December 16, 2015
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
Manning Face Sad
Apparently the Bengals got a little tired of even their own fans saying that they were going to lose last night. They tried in the third quarter, but a strong effort by the defense and a lack of ineptitude on the offense allowed the Bengals to rally to a 37-28 victory.
This does not change the standings in the AFC playoff race that I posted yesterday, but it does have some ripples in terms of overall effect.
First, Cincinnati has now secured a playoff spot. The division crown will be settled in the head to head match-up with Pittsburgh next Sunday night, but both teams are now assured a playoff spot. In fact, the loser of the game will be assured the #5 seed in the playoffs as they will have either a better overall record or a better conference record than whichever team secures the #6 seed.
Second, the Bengals and Steelers will not play each other in the first round of the playoffs. If the Bengals win and Denver wins, the Bengals will get the #3 seed, regardless of what the Colts do. Should the Bengals win and the Broncos lose to Oakland, the Bengals will actually vault over Denver for the #2 seed as they would be a half-game ahead of the Broncos. If Pittsburgh wins, they will get the #3 seed as Denver has the tie-breaker of better division record and the Steelers have the tie-breaker over Indianapolis.
Third, Indianapolis is assured the #4 seed. The Colts lost to Pittsburgh and Denver during the regular season so a tie in the standings goes against them and the Bengals would be a half-game ahead of them in the standings if they win. There is nothing the Colts can do to move up. So expect them to rest just about everybody in the closing match against the Titans.
Fourth, New England has locked home-field advantage. New England has the tie-breaker against Denver so they have secured the #1 seed regardless of how the game against Buffalo goes.
Fifth, the #6 seed comes down to San Diego, Baltimore, Houston, or Kansas City. San Diego plays KC in the final game while Baltimore plays Cleveland, and Houston plays Jacksonville. The equation is pretty simple. If San Diego wins, they get the spot. If Kansas City wins and Baltimore wins, Baltimore gets the spot. If Kansas City wins, Baltimore loses, and Houston wins, Houston gets the spot. If Kansas City wins and Baltimore and Houston lose, Kansas City gets the spot. I personally don't think that Baltimore will lose to Cleveland so I'd say KC and Houston have no real shot, but I also thought it would be simple last year and that didn't work out that way. All three games are at 1 pm so there will be some game time scoreboard watching I would imagine.
On the scheduling note, the four deciding games in the NFC and the Oakland-Dever game have all been moved to 4:30 so the early talk will only be about the AFC #6 seed and then there will be a ton of game updates going on in the late afternoon.
This does not change the standings in the AFC playoff race that I posted yesterday, but it does have some ripples in terms of overall effect.
First, Cincinnati has now secured a playoff spot. The division crown will be settled in the head to head match-up with Pittsburgh next Sunday night, but both teams are now assured a playoff spot. In fact, the loser of the game will be assured the #5 seed in the playoffs as they will have either a better overall record or a better conference record than whichever team secures the #6 seed.
Second, the Bengals and Steelers will not play each other in the first round of the playoffs. If the Bengals win and Denver wins, the Bengals will get the #3 seed, regardless of what the Colts do. Should the Bengals win and the Broncos lose to Oakland, the Bengals will actually vault over Denver for the #2 seed as they would be a half-game ahead of the Broncos. If Pittsburgh wins, they will get the #3 seed as Denver has the tie-breaker of better division record and the Steelers have the tie-breaker over Indianapolis.
Third, Indianapolis is assured the #4 seed. The Colts lost to Pittsburgh and Denver during the regular season so a tie in the standings goes against them and the Bengals would be a half-game ahead of them in the standings if they win. There is nothing the Colts can do to move up. So expect them to rest just about everybody in the closing match against the Titans.
Fourth, New England has locked home-field advantage. New England has the tie-breaker against Denver so they have secured the #1 seed regardless of how the game against Buffalo goes.
Fifth, the #6 seed comes down to San Diego, Baltimore, Houston, or Kansas City. San Diego plays KC in the final game while Baltimore plays Cleveland, and Houston plays Jacksonville. The equation is pretty simple. If San Diego wins, they get the spot. If Kansas City wins and Baltimore wins, Baltimore gets the spot. If Kansas City wins, Baltimore loses, and Houston wins, Houston gets the spot. If Kansas City wins and Baltimore and Houston lose, Kansas City gets the spot. I personally don't think that Baltimore will lose to Cleveland so I'd say KC and Houston have no real shot, but I also thought it would be simple last year and that didn't work out that way. All three games are at 1 pm so there will be some game time scoreboard watching I would imagine.
On the scheduling note, the four deciding games in the NFC and the Oakland-Dever game have all been moved to 4:30 so the early talk will only be about the AFC #6 seed and then there will be a ton of game updates going on in the late afternoon.
Monday, December 22, 2014
2014 Playoffs
I haven't posted much about this football season, mostly because it has been so up and down and no team has seemed like that dominant force who everyone expects to win the Super Bowl. But with one week left, let's take a look at things.
AFC
1. New England Patriots - The Pats have secured a first round bye and in the (unlikely) event that Denver loses tonight, they will secure home field advantage.
2. Denver Broncos - The Broncos have won the West and if they win tonight against the Bengals, they will lock in a first round bye. Because New England won the head-to-head, Denver would need the Pats to lose against Buffalo next week to have a chance at the top spot.
3. Cincinnati Bengals - The only division not set is the North. If the Bengals win against Denver tonight, they'll secure a playoff spot, but I'm skeptical of the Bengals chances. If they lose tonight, Pittsburgh will move into this spot and the Bengals will fall to the #5 spot. It is also possible that if they lose to Denver and lose to Pittsburgh next week, that they miss the playoffs entirely. The game against Pittsburgh will the final game of the season as it has been moved to the Sunday Night game.
4. Indianpolis Colts - The Colts could climb back up to the #3 seed, but since they have secured the division and have essentially no shot at a bye week, they'll probably rest folks next week, which is likely to keep them in the #4 spot.
5. Pittsburgh Steelers - The Steelers have secured a playoff spot and if the Bengals lose tonight, they'll take over the division lead and the #3 spot.
6. San Diego Chargers - Right now the final spot belongs to the Chargers, but they have Baltimore breathing down their necks. As Baltimore is likely to defeat a reeling Cleveland Browns team next week, the Chargers will be facing a must win against the Kansas City Chiefs. The Chiefs are technically not eliminated yet, but they would to beat the Chargers and have the Browns beat Baltimore. Possible but not overly likely.
NFC
1. Seattle Seahawks - There is a five-way tie for best record in the NFC so it falls to various tie-breakers to see who has divisional leads and best seeding. Seattle is currently in the driver's seat with the #1 spot. The have a home game against the Rams to close things out and that should be enough to keep them in this spot.
2. Detroit Lions - The Leos square off against Green Bay next week (in Green Bay) to secure the division and the likely #2 seed. Both teams have a better conference record than Dallas so (assuming Seattle wins) the winner will retain the #2 seed while the loser will likely get the #5 seed.
3. Dallas Cowboys - Dallas is actually the only team in the NFC to have won their division, but because of the similar records and various tie-breakers, the only way Dallas can move up to the #2 seed is if both Seattle and Arizona lose (an unlikely scenario). So I would expect Dallas to rest folks next week and be content with the #3 spot.
4. Carolina Panthers - The dregs of the NFC is also the only unsecured spot. Carolina and Atlanta go head-to-head next week to see which losing team gets the #4 spot and a likely date with the North runner-up. Carolina is playing like they did at the beginning of the season, but Atlanta is 5-0 in the division and is unlikely to go away quietly. Still, I wouldn't favor either team in the first round playoff game.
5. Green Bay Packers - As noted earlier, the Packers could end up winning the division. In fact, if they win and Seattle loses, Green Bay could end up with the #1 seed. Or they could lose and fall behind Arizona for the #6 seed. But they are in the playoffs and that's all the really matters.
6. Arizona Cardinals - Arizona got thumped hard last night. At one point they were the best team in the NFC, but they are such a walking wounded team that I'm not holding my breath that they'll field anyone of importance next week against San Francisco. If that happens, the Niners may actually be able to get to .500 and Arizona will stay secure in the #6 spot. Of course it is possible that they could win and that through a unique set of circumstances, end up with the #2 spot. But I would imagine that the Cardinals coaches are already drawing up plans for Dallas.
As for my own predictions, I think things will stay much as they are with only a few changes. In the AFC, I don't have much faith in the Bengals and am expeting Pittsburgh to win the division. In fact, I'm desperately hoping for the Chiefs to win so that the Bengals will even make the playoffs as I do expect the Ravens to beat the Browns.
In the NFC, I expect Green Bay to end up with the #2 spot, which will send Detroit down for a date with Carolina (whom I also expect to win). Everything else will likely stay the same.
AFC
1. New England Patriots - The Pats have secured a first round bye and in the (unlikely) event that Denver loses tonight, they will secure home field advantage.
2. Denver Broncos - The Broncos have won the West and if they win tonight against the Bengals, they will lock in a first round bye. Because New England won the head-to-head, Denver would need the Pats to lose against Buffalo next week to have a chance at the top spot.
3. Cincinnati Bengals - The only division not set is the North. If the Bengals win against Denver tonight, they'll secure a playoff spot, but I'm skeptical of the Bengals chances. If they lose tonight, Pittsburgh will move into this spot and the Bengals will fall to the #5 spot. It is also possible that if they lose to Denver and lose to Pittsburgh next week, that they miss the playoffs entirely. The game against Pittsburgh will the final game of the season as it has been moved to the Sunday Night game.
4. Indianpolis Colts - The Colts could climb back up to the #3 seed, but since they have secured the division and have essentially no shot at a bye week, they'll probably rest folks next week, which is likely to keep them in the #4 spot.
5. Pittsburgh Steelers - The Steelers have secured a playoff spot and if the Bengals lose tonight, they'll take over the division lead and the #3 spot.
6. San Diego Chargers - Right now the final spot belongs to the Chargers, but they have Baltimore breathing down their necks. As Baltimore is likely to defeat a reeling Cleveland Browns team next week, the Chargers will be facing a must win against the Kansas City Chiefs. The Chiefs are technically not eliminated yet, but they would to beat the Chargers and have the Browns beat Baltimore. Possible but not overly likely.
NFC
1. Seattle Seahawks - There is a five-way tie for best record in the NFC so it falls to various tie-breakers to see who has divisional leads and best seeding. Seattle is currently in the driver's seat with the #1 spot. The have a home game against the Rams to close things out and that should be enough to keep them in this spot.
2. Detroit Lions - The Leos square off against Green Bay next week (in Green Bay) to secure the division and the likely #2 seed. Both teams have a better conference record than Dallas so (assuming Seattle wins) the winner will retain the #2 seed while the loser will likely get the #5 seed.
3. Dallas Cowboys - Dallas is actually the only team in the NFC to have won their division, but because of the similar records and various tie-breakers, the only way Dallas can move up to the #2 seed is if both Seattle and Arizona lose (an unlikely scenario). So I would expect Dallas to rest folks next week and be content with the #3 spot.
4. Carolina Panthers - The dregs of the NFC is also the only unsecured spot. Carolina and Atlanta go head-to-head next week to see which losing team gets the #4 spot and a likely date with the North runner-up. Carolina is playing like they did at the beginning of the season, but Atlanta is 5-0 in the division and is unlikely to go away quietly. Still, I wouldn't favor either team in the first round playoff game.
5. Green Bay Packers - As noted earlier, the Packers could end up winning the division. In fact, if they win and Seattle loses, Green Bay could end up with the #1 seed. Or they could lose and fall behind Arizona for the #6 seed. But they are in the playoffs and that's all the really matters.
6. Arizona Cardinals - Arizona got thumped hard last night. At one point they were the best team in the NFC, but they are such a walking wounded team that I'm not holding my breath that they'll field anyone of importance next week against San Francisco. If that happens, the Niners may actually be able to get to .500 and Arizona will stay secure in the #6 spot. Of course it is possible that they could win and that through a unique set of circumstances, end up with the #2 spot. But I would imagine that the Cardinals coaches are already drawing up plans for Dallas.
As for my own predictions, I think things will stay much as they are with only a few changes. In the AFC, I don't have much faith in the Bengals and am expeting Pittsburgh to win the division. In fact, I'm desperately hoping for the Chiefs to win so that the Bengals will even make the playoffs as I do expect the Ravens to beat the Browns.
In the NFC, I expect Green Bay to end up with the #2 spot, which will send Detroit down for a date with Carolina (whom I also expect to win). Everything else will likely stay the same.
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Proposed OH redistricting
Mrs. X read an article a few days ago talking about how gerrymandering is driving a push to political extremes rather than fostering debate and agreement. There is a group petitioning to redraw the Ohio congressional districts when it comes around again in 2021 with an emphasis on geography and population balance. One things mentioned was to try and base the districts on the various counties and not create arbitrary lines running in every direction.
Naturally, I was intrigued by this idea and decided to see if I could create a congressional map based on existing counties with a minimum of division. Ohio has a current population of a little more than 11.5 million and we are allotted 16 congressional districts. If you were to balance this out, each congressional district would have about 725,000 people.
Now, this rule cannot be held precisely. Franklin and Cuyahoga counties are each over a million people (1.16 and 1.28 million respectively). If you cut the counties in two and give each half one congressional district, you fall somewhat short of the 725,000 per district. This also has a cascade effect of pushing up the population requirements in other districts. Still, it's not unreasonable. Franklin county gets the lowest population density with 582,000 people in each district. On the other end, Hamilton county has the highest population density. It takes the whole district and ends up with 802,000 people in it.
But on the whole it comes out to a reasonable balance:
District 2 - 778,000
District 3 - 739,000
District 4 - 731,000
Districts 5 & 6 - 582,000
District 7 - 742,000
District 8 - 750,000District 9 - 728,000
District 10 - 747,000
District 11 - 766,00
Districts 12 & 13 - 640,000District 14 - 797,000
District 15 - 781,000
District 16 - 733,000
At the very least, it would give some level of competetiveness and cohesiveness. It might actually also introduce leaders willing to look for solutions with each other rather than those who run further to the Right or Left since the primary is the only battle of ideas. It also looks a lot better than this:
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Thursday, July 10, 2014
Monday, July 07, 2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
