The March 15th Panic Has Begun: A Reply to Tim Alberta

Mr. Tim Alberta, a generally commendable fellow whose columns I typically enjoy, has a piece up at National Review today arguing that, if Donald Trump wins both Ohio and Florida tomorrow, it will be “nearly impossible” for his only viable competitor, Sen. Ted Cruz, to deny Mr. Trump the 1,237 delegates Mr. Trump needs to win the nomination.

This is the same conventional wisdom I have railed against time and time and time again in recent weeks, and, normally, I would let this one pass, but Alberta (unlike most pundits panicking about March 15th), has actually done some delegate math, which he lays out in his article.  This lends his piece the appearance of mathematical rigor.

However, while Mr. Alberta is to be commended for going through the actual delegate math, as so many other pundits have failed to do, his ultimate conclusions are based on grossly inaccurate assumptions about how Sen. Cruz would perform in head-to-head races against Mr. Trump.  These assumptions defy all available polling data, and lead Mr. Alberta to believe that Cruz would lose most contests with Trump in a head-to-head race.  Yes, it is obviously true, as Mr. Alberta contends, that, if a candidate loses most of the head-to-head races, he is not going to win a primary season — nor would he deserve to, since that would prove him to be the less popular candidate. But there is no good reason to be so terribly pessimistic about Cruz’s chances in head-to-head races with Trump.  On the contrary, Cruz is likely to win most races (and most delegates) once his rivals (Sen. Rubio and Sen. Kasich) have been eliminated from the race.

We can see this from the exit polling data in Michigan and Mississippi, in two ways:

(1) The obvious way: in Michigan, a demographically middling blueish-purple state where Trump won by 12 points (36% – 24%), polling shows that Trump would lose to Cruz in a head-to-head contest by 13 points (54% – 41%).  That’s not even close, and shows, in effect, a 25-point swing in Cruz’s favor if Rubio and Kasich drop out of the race. Trump currently leads almost everywhere, but nowhere does he lead by more than 15 points.  It would be a Trump-loving state indeed where Cruz would even be capable of losing with that kind of national lead on Trump.

(2) The precise way: FiveThirtyEight combined exit polls from Michigan and Missouri to determine exactly how Rubio and Kasich’s voters would behave if both dropped out, making the primary a head-to-head between Cruz and Trump.  They determined that 25% of Rubio’s voters would stay home, 60% would vote for Cruz, and 15% for Trump.  45% of Kasich’s voters would stay home, 37% would vote for Cruz, and 18% for Trump.  (You may recognize these numbers from the recent De Civ post, “How Much is Rubio Helping Trump?“.)

We can take these numbers and compute likely results in various states.  For example, FiveThirtyEight’s current weighted polling average in Wisconsin (which Mr. Alberta calls “prime terrain” for Trump) shows Mr. Trump with 30% of the vote, Rubio with 20%, Cruz with 19%, and Kasich with 8%.  (23% are either undecided or support candidates who have now dropped out.)  If Rubio and Kasich then drop out, according to the Michigan exit polls, Trump ends up with 37% of the remaining vote, and Cruz gets 38% — Cruz wins Wisconsin. That’s without counting the undecideds, who typically favor the non-Trump candidate (which is why Trump keeps underperforming his final poll numbers, even in states where he wins).  “Prime terrain” for Trump?  With respect, Mr. Alberta, the data do not support you.

This is broadly supported at the national level, as well, for those who go in for national polls.  The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, which pushed undecideds toward one candidate or another and sampled only likely voters, had Trump at 30%, Cruz at 27%, Rubio at 20%, and Kasich at 22%.  Redistribute those votes as above, and Cruz has a 54% – 46% lead over Mr. Trump.

So let’s dispel once and for all with this myth that Trump is a national leader if Rubio and Kasich drop out.  On the contrary, Rubio and Kasich dropping out makes Cruz the national leader — and is the only plausible path to making anyone but Trump the national leader.  What about Alberta’s claim that the individual states coming up tend to favor Trump?

For the most part, Alberta’s claims here are based simply on wild assumptions.  Trump would be “heavily favored” to win in Arizona because “the Republican base is highly animated by immigration and border security.”  (The state that keeps re-electing pro-amnesty Sen. John McCain?  Seriously?)  This defies Cruz’s regional performance in most Western states so far, and ignores the polling data, which shows a close race once Rubio and Kasich are out (though Cruz’s win would still depend on get-out-the-vote efforts and undecideds in the state’s closed primary).  New York’s closed primary “could actually help Trump,” even though Trump has consistently and dramatically undershot his final poll numbers in closed primaries so far, because “Democrats in his home state won’t be able to show up and vote against him.”  (The white working-class Democrats of upstate New York represent one of Mr. Trump’s strongest potential voter areas, so locking them out could not be better news for Mr. Cruz.)

Nebraska, says Mr. Alberta, “could be a tossup,” for no particular reason, which is pretty shocking given that Cruz has beaten and usually dominated Trump in every nearby state that has voted so far (Minnesota, Iowa, Kansas, Colorado, Texas, Arkansas, Wyoming, and Idaho).  In California, “Trump could could be expected to win more than half, and probably closer to two-thirds” of congressional districts, because… actually, Mr. Alberta doesn’t give a reason.  Again, though, his conclusion stands in stark defiance of the only available polling data, a January 2016 Field Poll which showed Cruz leading Trump even before Cruz’s polling surge and before the field began to consolidate.  The Field Poll is extremely bearish on Trump’s chances in California for a wide variety of reasons, all of them still applicable today.

There are only two areas where I agree with Mr. Alberta’s analysis: Cruz is likely to do relatively poorly in the Northeast, where Trump has done very well so far (which tells you most everything you need to know about why the Republican party in the Northeast has failed), so his projection of “at least 100 delegates” on April 26th seems about right to me.  Also, Cruz may split the vote with Trump in the Pacific Northwest, where there is precious little polling data so far and demographics do not clearly favor either candidate (Cruz’s libertarian streak likely favors him there, while his evangelical streak hurts him.  Trump is likely the opposite.)

Everywhere else, Mr. Alberta does good delegate math, but based on extremely pessimistic assumptions about Cruz’s performance head-to-head with Trump.  This leads him to conclude, in error, that Trump is highly likely to win the race if Trump wins both Ohio and Florida. (Since there is no path plausible to stopping Trump with Kasich and Rubio in the race — at least, none I’m aware of — Mr. Alberta appears to concede the entire nomination to Trump through his aggressive naysaying on Cruz.)  His analysis is inaccurate, and should be disregarded in toto.

In reality, there is a good case to be made that the optimal strategy for stopping Trump involves Trump winning both Ohio and Florida, which would force the field to consolidate around Cruz.  Nate Silver thinks that’s plausibly the best anti-Trump strategy (a “close call”), and I believe it outright. The much bigger risk is posed by the possibility that Rubio and/or Kasich will cling to their doomed candidacies a second past March 16th, which would give Trump every opportunity to sweep across the remaining backloaded winner-take-all and winner-take-most states to win the nomination.  The faster the field consolidates, the clearer the path to stopping Trump.

Posted in Horse Race | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The De Civitate Poor Man’s Stop-Trump Delegate Tracker

Skip To: May 3 | April 26 | April 19April 6March 22 | March 15 | March 12 | March 8 | March 6 | March 1

A few weeks ago, I wrote a fairly popular post, “Trump’s Delegate Lead Is Overstated.” The post is as true now as it was then; political insiders continue to make poor predictions about the race, because they are not willing to learn the intricate delegate rules that govern it. (To be fair, who but a nerd like me would want to figure out, for example, what Illinois’s “loophole” primary is and how it differs from Pennsylvania’s loophole primary?) So people keep saying that Trump is doing much better than he, in fact, is. Trump is doing well and must be considered the frontrunner, but he is by no means the prohibitive leader, and his nomination is only inevitable if the party decides to accept it as inevitable.  (This won’t change until — at the earliest — April 26th, when much of the Northeast votes.)

Based on these poor predictions, pundits and even some Republican political figures are making all sorts of bad strategic decisions. For example, the widespread but false belief that Trump is guaranteed to win the nomination if he wins Florida and/or Ohio has led the Republican establishment to keep Rubio and Kasich in the race in an unlikely effort to deny Trump delegates in both states. (Sean Davis dismantles this strategy in a recent piece at The Federalist.) On the contrary, the optimal strategy for stopping Trump is to rapidly consolidate the field behind a single candidate who can defeat Trump head-to-head. Three weeks ago, I believed that candidate would be Sen. Marco Rubio, a man I greatly admire. However, intervening votes have proved me wrong: mathematically, the only plausible non-Trump competitor is now Sen. Ted Cruz. The longer Rubio and Gov. Kasich stay in the race, the more likely Trump wins the nomination instead.  This is but one example of incorrect party strategy based on unrealistically gloomy assessments of Trump’s current situation.

This post is De Civitate‘s poor-man’s delegate tracker, designed to counter those assessments. It will be updated after each primary election, so bookmark it and stay tuned. This delegate tracker doesn’t have any of Politico‘s fancy-pants graphics or FiveThirtyEight‘s sophisticated demographic projections or The Green Papers’ astonishing depth and update speed. But De Civ will tell you two things nobody else can:

  1. How Trump would be doing in a field that never consolidates behind a single candidate, splitting the vote evenly between Cruz and Rubio, thus allowing Trump to win pluralities in every state. This is the “nightmare scenario” which I walked through with commentary back in my original post. It eventually allows Trump to “clinch” the nomination on the final day of primaries (June 7th).
  2. How the actual results compare to that “nightmare scenario.”

If you are cheering against Trump, you want to see the “Progress to Brokered Convention” stat reach 100%.  Once that happens, the worst that could happen is a brokered convention where Trump is unlikely to win.  (It might still be possible for another candidate to clinch instead, though this becomes more difficult every day.)  On the other hand, if Trump reaches 100% on “Progress to Trump Clinch,” then it’s all over, and Trump wins.

This tracker is not pretty, but, if you ever need reassurance that the mainstream media is overstating Trump’s lead (still), come here for a breath of fresh air and a little sigh of relief. If De Civitate is panicking, then it’s time to panic… and not before. We — unlike, say, Ben Ginsberg* — have done the math.

Continue reading

Posted in Horse Race | Tagged , , , , , , | 4 Comments

How Much Is Rubio Helping Trump? (P.S. You Too, Kasich)

INFOGRAPHIC: THE LARGE RED RECTANGLE REPRESENTS THE 150 DELEGATES AWARDED MARCH 8TH. THE BRIGHT RED SQUARE REPRESENTS THE SINGLE DELEGATE MARCO RUBIO WON OUT OF THAT BATCH. BY CONTRAST, RUBIO’S PRESENCE IN THE RACE DIRECTLY ALLOWED TRUMP TO WIN ANOTHER 13 DELEGATES. CREDIT: MIKE DUPUIS

UPDATE: Infographic now in HD high-definition. Our thanks to the artist, Mike Dupuis, for sending us the high-resolution file.

In my last post, I predicted that Rubio’s continued presence in the race is not worth it, even in the extremely unlikely event that he wins his home state of Florida, because Rubio’s running diverts votes from actually viable candidates… all to Donald Trump’s advantage.

Unfortunately, on Tuesday March 8th, I was proven correct.  Rubio only won a single delegate, but at the same time Rubio gave Donald Trump more than a dozen.  Let’s break it down.  We’ll use the same assumptions as FiveThirtyEight, based on the Tuesday exit polls: if Rubio left the race, 25% of his voters stay home, 20% of the remainder go to Trump, and 80% to Cruz (split with Kasich if Kasich stays in).

We’ll do the same for Kasich, while we’re at it: according to the exit poll, if he left the race, 45% stay home, 66% go to Cruz (split with Rubio if Rubio stays in) and the remaining third go to Trump.

Fortunately, Tuesday’s races were pretty simple, with some nicely uniform vote distributions and few weird Congressional district rules.  The results:

 

MICHIGAN Actual Result w/o Rubio w/o Kasich Cruz Alone
Trump 25 24 34 31
Cruz 17 18 25 28
Kasich 17 17
Rubio 0 0
Trump Margin +8 +6 +9 +3

Continue reading

Posted in Horse Race | Comments Off on How Much Is Rubio Helping Trump? (P.S. You Too, Kasich)

It’s Time for Rubio to Get Out

I love Marco Rubio.  I haven’t talked about him too much here on the blog, because I haven’t had much to say about him that hasn’t been said better by others elsewhere.  But I think he’s a great American, an inspiring leader, and an all-around decent guy. I will always be grateful to him for giving the best debate answer in history — a politically risky defense of human life in the heart of hostile New Hampshire, even as his so-called “Catholic” opponents, Christie and Bush, attacked him for daring to stand up for the most innocent, most defenseless people in our society.  I wrote a stirring pro-Rubio speech for the Minnesota caucuses last week, and was very proud to live in the first (and, so far, only) state to deliver Rubio a victory.*  Somehow, he has been tarred with the brush of “Establishment” over a single mistake he made over an immigration bill several years ago; I know that this is not the case, and that Rubio is one of our finest conservative rebels. (I mean, c’mon, guys, the Conservative Review, no friend of Rubio’s, still admits that he’s the 7th-most-conservative guy in the Senate!)

Continue reading

Posted in Analysis, Horse Race | Comments Off on It’s Time for Rubio to Get Out

Conventional Chaos, Part 1: The View From 10,000 Feet

I have a lot of friends who are asking a lot of questions about brokered conventions these days. In this series, Conventional Chaos, I’ll be explaining how a Republican party convention works… and why 2016’s convention could be very different from the dull pageants we’ve seen since the 1970s. In Part 1, we’ll go over the basics.

The very first Republican National Convention, held in 1856, nominated John C. Frémont for president.
The very first Republican National Convention, held in 1856, nominated John C. Frémont for president.

In this post, we’re going to explain how Republicans pick a president. But first, we need to explain the old process, because the modern process seems completely insane, wasteful, and incomprehensible… until you know where it came from. So, here is how Republican presidential nominees were picked from the party’s founding in 1856 until the liberal-progressive reforms of 1972:

First, you got together with your neighbors of the same political party in a gathering called a “caucus.” At the caucus, you would help elect a few of your wisest, most charismatic, most trustworthy neighbors as state delegates. Those delegates would then be sent to the state convention, where state delegates from all over the state would gather, each representing the Republicans of their own towns and districts.*

Continue reading

Posted in Analysis | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Conventional Chaos, Part 1: The View From 10,000 Feet

“Stop. Trump. Tonight.” A Caucus Speech

1,400 people showed up to our district meeting for Republican precinct caucuses, 5 times the previous record. I think this is actually every single person who has ever voted Republican in our deep-blue district.
1,513 people showed up to our district meeting for Republican precinct caucuses. (That’s five times the previous record, set in 2008.) I think this might be literally every single person who has ever voted Republican in our deep-blue district.

On Super Tuesday (1 March 2016, for those of you reading this on a Multivac archive in the far future), Minnesota went to the caucuses.

For those of you who aren’t from caucus states, let me explain them quickly: caucuses are a wonderful system where all members of the local party come together to discuss the issues of the day, conduct the business of the party, and select our wisest and most enthusiastic members to represent our precincts as officers and delegates for the district party (and, ultimately, the state party and the national party as well). It’s a bit more work than pulling a lever in an anonymous box, and there’s a lot more opportunity for chaos (since they are run by party volunteers, not by the government), but caucuses are an American tradition, dating back to the Jacksonian Era, that ensures the whole party speaks for the People… without handing over the reins to the mob.  (Primaries are prone to errors on both sides of that ellipsis.  And they’re more vulnerable to the influence of big money.  And… well, this isn’t a post about why you should ask your primary state to switch to a caucus.  But that may be a future post!  So look out!)

One point of caucuses that makes them different from primaries is that, in a caucus, you have the chance to debate the candidates with your neighbors before voting on them. This year, I wrote a speech about the grave threat posed by Mr. Donald Trump. I expected to give my speech to the voters in my precinct (about 15 people in a normal presidential year) and that would be that. These are the remarks I prepared.  (This was going to be the whole blog post, but there’s a twist!  So stay tuned after the speech.)

Continue reading

Posted in Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on “Stop. Trump. Tonight.” A Caucus Speech

Trump’s Delegate Lead is Overstated

UPDATE: I have launched a Poor Man’s Stop-Trump Delegate Tracker based on the “Nightmare Scenario” laid out in this post.  The media and narrative-driven, math-challenged insiders have largely set their sights on March 15th as the pivotal day, just as this post predicted.  As I said when I first posted this, don’t listen to ’em!

Somehow, in the last four days, a large portion of the GOP has gone from, “Trump is a joke who cannot possibly win; therefore we don’t need to fight him,” all the way to, “Trump is an inevitability who cannot possibly be fought; therefore we won’t,” with no stopover in the middle.

This is very irritating.  As of today, 118 delegates have been awarded, out of a total of 2,472; we’re only 5% of the way into the voting. Donald Trump needs 1,237 delegates to clinch the nomination. He actually has 81, which means he’s just 7% of the way to the total he needs. Calling this game for Trump would be like calling the NCAA college basketball championship after the first minute and a half of gameplay.

Can we give it some time, people? After all, comebacks have occasionally happened before, in both sports and politics.  I’ve never seen a basketball game where Louisville leaps out to an early lead over Duke  — say, 4 points to 2 points — and Coach Krzyzewski says, “Oh, well, I guess it’s over!” and forfeits!  The color commentary never says, “Louisville now has a commanding lead… TWICE as many points as Duke! Duke can never come back from this!”

Continue reading

Posted in Horse Race | Comments Off on Trump’s Delegate Lead is Overstated

The Longest Confirmation Battle in History

Supreme Court Justice Henry Baldwin is chiefly remembered for the drama he caused by dying.
Supreme Court Justice Henry Baldwin is chiefly remembered for the drama he caused by dying.

President John Tyler had a very bad relationship with Congress.

Tyler had been elected Vice-President in 1840, and, like many Vice-Presidents, was added to the Whig ticket as an afterthought, his purpose to balance out William Henry Harrison and win votes in the South, not to actually govern. After all, in 1839, no U.S. President had ever failed to serve out his full term. Indeed, Tyler was an ex-Democrat, having left the party (and resigned his Senate seat) less than ten years earlier over President Jackson’s expansions of executive power. Though the Whigs were happy to have him, he was not exactly ideologically orthodox — even in a party as ideologically chaotic as the Whigs.

Upon election, Tyler did not even start working in (or near) the White House; he stayed at his home in Virginia and participated in political decisions exactly twice, both times when the President sent him a letter asking his advice on a particular appointment. He spent a grand total of two hours doing his job as Vice-President (“presiding over the Senate”) and was otherwise happy to draw his salary in total obscurity.

Continue reading

Posted in Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Longest Confirmation Battle in History

Chris Christie May No Longer Receive Communion

This morning, Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ), who is running for president, attacked Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who is also running for president, by arguing that Rubio is too pro-life. From the New York Times:

Continue reading

Posted in Faith & Morals, Horse Race, Politics | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Chris Christie May No Longer Receive Communion

Against Trump: A Roundup

I expect to add to this list as the race continues.

First Things: Nikabrik’s Candidate
National Review: Against Trump
National Review: Symposium: Conservatives Against Trump
Ten Pro-Life Women: Dear Iowans
CatholicVote.org: Not. Trump.
Matt Walsh: Dear Christians, If You Vote For A Godless Man, You Are Asking For Tyranny
Weekly Standard: King Trump
Sen. Ben Sasse: Tweets Against Trump
Jay Nordlinger: How Trump and Clinton Supporters are Alike
William Kristol: The Confidence Man
David Harsyani: Donald Trump Is Not The Solution To GOP Incompetence
William F. Buckley: On Trump the Demagogue
Weigel, George, et. al.: An Appeal To Our Fellow Catholics
James J. Heaney (as BCSWowbagger2): Trump’s Wall Won’t Stop Abortion

Robert Oscar Lopez: …on an entirely different note, It’s Too Late To Dump on Trump
GitHub: TrumpScript v1.0

Posted in Mere Opinion | Comments Off on Against Trump: A Roundup