WWTBAM Bored

As something of a political junkie, I was a little surprised that I didn't hear until yesterday about a feature of Republican rules (Rule 40) that may come into play at the convention. Four years ago, the Republicans adopted a rule to the effect that for a candidate to have his name submitted in nomination at the convention, he must have majority (not plurality) support from at least 8 state delegations. Right now, Trump has cleared that threshold in 6 states, Cruz in 4, and Rubio in 1. What happens if Trump, though short of a majority, is the only candidate to clear that threshold? --Bob

It means stock up on popcorn.

Ted Cruz is operating under the delusion that if he can get Rubio and Kasich out of the race that he can overtake Trump as the only anti-Trump candidate. The only think that's keeping him in the race right now is Rubio and Kasich. Without them, Trump would pretty much sweep every election that Cruz has won outside of his home state. He's got no chance in Ohio and Florida, so his only hope is that Kasich and Rubio help him out. If Trump wins them next week, it's all over but the inevitable gloating from Trumpsters.

And I'm still not sure how the pollsters could have been so wrong in Michigan for the Democrats. Hillary had a double digit lead in every poll, including one that had her up by 30+ points. FiveThirtyEight had the odds on her winning at 99%+, the same as in the southern states that she won by 40-50 points. This is statistically a much bigger upset than when she beat Obama in New Hampshire in 2008, and it took place in a two-person contest, which is supposedly easier to poll accurately than a multi-candidate contest.

One thing that interests me is to what extent there was "spite" crossover voting. Some of Trump's opponents have claimed that people voting for him in open primaries (where as in Georgia, you can vote for either party when you show up) were Democrats hoping for an easier opponent in November. The opposite might also be true if some people are voting for Sanders because they think he'll be easier to beat in November.

silverscreenselect wrote:Ted Cruz is operating under the delusion that if he can get Rubio and Kasich out of the race that he can overtake Trump as the only anti-Trump candidate.

I always find it interesting that politicians like Mr. Trump (but not exclusively him) call for "party unity," but only when they are ahead.

Similarly, I find it interesting that many political challengers like Mr. Cruz (again, not exclusively him) call for all of his fellow challengers to drop off so he'd have a better shot of beating the leading candidate.

It's always "for the party good," not "because it would make my job easier."

All I know is that we're doomed if Zaphod Beeblebrox without the cool is the nominee.

SpacemanSpiff wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:Ted Cruz is operating under the delusion that if he can get Rubio and Kasich out of the race that he can overtake Trump as the only anti-Trump candidate.

I always find it interesting that politicians like Mr. Trump (but not exclusively him) call for "party unity," but only when they are ahead.

Similarly, I find it interesting that many political challengers like Mr. Cruz (again, not exclusively him) call for all of his fellow challengers to drop off so he'd have a better shot of beating the leading candidate.

It's always "for the party good," not "because it would make my job easier."

I find it interesting that someone who would not vote for any of the candidates makes comments as if they have a clue on how those that support one or more of those candidates will vote.

SSS, Ted Cruz will win the Republican nomination. It will be Cruz vs. Clinton in November.

BackInTex wrote: SSS, Ted Cruz will win the Republican nomination. It will be Cruz vs. Clinton in November.

Well, he'd better make his move soon. Trump has about a 100 delegate lead now, and next week there are four big winner-take-all primaries: Florida, Illinois, Ohio, and Missouri. If Trump sweeps those, he adds another 280 or so to his lead. According to 538, Cruz is in third place in Illinois, Ohio, and Florida (there's not much polling in Missouri). He hasn't been able to beat Trump in any primary except Texas and Oklahoma.

His only real hope is if Rubio and Kasich pick up wins next week and hang around until the convention to broker a deal. And I'm not too sure how that would set with Trump supporters, not all of whom are die hard Republicans.

And I'm still not sure how the pollsters could have been so wrong in Michigan for the Democrats. Hillary had a double digit lead in every poll, including one that had her up by 30+ points.

According to 538, Cruz is in third place in Illinois, Ohio, and Florida (there's not much polling in Missouri).

I find it puzzling why so many people put so much stock into polls. There are so many polls that differ by so much, you could pretty much find one that supports your preferences if you look hard enough. It cracks me up when a news reader quotes 2 polls that are diametrically opposed to each other. What the heck does that mean? To me it means that one or both of those polls is as useless as a wet scorecard.

They are supposed to, I suppose, be predictors of what the final result of the election will be, but very few of them ever get it exactly correct. Yet they quote a 'margin of error'. Margin of what error?

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

And I'm still not sure how the pollsters could have been so wrong in Michigan for the Democrats. Hillary had a double digit lead in every poll, including one that had her up by 30+ points.

According to 538, Cruz is in third place in Illinois, Ohio, and Florida (there's not much polling in Missouri).

I find it puzzling why so many people put so much stock into polls. There are so many polls that differ by so much, you could pretty much find one that supports your preferences if you look hard enough. It cracks me up when a news reader quotes 2 polls that are diametrically opposed to each other. What the heck does that mean? To me it means that one or both of those polls is as useless as a wet scorecard.

They are supposed to, I suppose, be predictors of what the final result of the election will be, but very few of them ever get it exactly correct. Yet they quote a 'margin of error'. Margin of what error?

People put stock in polls because there's no other way to gauge support. The methodology that 538 uses is essentially a poll of polls, with the idea that although any one poll might statistically be an outlier, a whole bunch of them aren't likely to be that way and any errors they make will probably balance each other out. The theory in Michigan is that two things happened: a whole lot of people changed their minds after the last polls were taken (possibly due to the Democratic debate) or that polling methods severely underestimated youth turnout and overestimated minority turnout, both to the detriment of Hillary Clinton. The answer is probably a combination of the two.

The question now becomes to what extent those same errors are embedded in the polls in similar states, most notably Ohio and Illinois next week, which have similar demographics to Michigan and both of which show Hillary comfortably ahead. Also, to what extent does the Michigan race affect voter turnout in other states? And does anyone change their minds because of this (I doubt diehard supporters of either candidate will change their minds, but it might influence some undecideds).

Bob78164 wrote:As something of a political junkie, I was a little surprised that I didn't hear until yesterday about a feature of Republican rules (Rule 40) that may come into play at the convention. Four years ago, the Republicans adopted a rule to the effect that for a candidate to have his name submitted in nomination at the convention, he must have majority (not plurality) support from at least 8 state delegations. Right now, Trump has cleared that threshold in 6 states, Cruz in 4, and Rubio in 1. What happens if Trump, though short of a majority, is the only candidate to clear that threshold? --Bob

It won't matter.

The GOP can change those rules whenever they want.

This rule itself was changed in 2012 to prevent a President Romney from receiving a challenge from Ron Paul.

Jeemie wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:As something of a political junkie, I was a little surprised that I didn't hear until yesterday about a feature of Republican rules (Rule 40) that may come into play at the convention. Four years ago, the Republicans adopted a rule to the effect that for a candidate to have his name submitted in nomination at the convention, he must have majority (not plurality) support from at least 8 state delegations. Right now, Trump has cleared that threshold in 6 states, Cruz in 4, and Rubio in 1. What happens if Trump, though short of a majority, is the only candidate to clear that threshold? --Bob

It won't matter.

The GOP can change those rules whenever they want.

This rule itself was changed in 2012 to prevent a President Romney from receiving a challenge from Ron Paul.

Democratic superdelegates can change whom they support whenever they want, but I've seen reporting on the possibility that Secretary Clinton could win the nomination without winning a plurality of pledged delegates, and what effect that might have on the party. --Bob

silverscreenselect wrote:Ted Cruz is operating under the delusion that if he can get Rubio and Kasich out of the race that he can overtake Trump as the only anti-Trump candidate. The only think that's keeping him in the race right now is Rubio and Kasich. Without them, Trump would pretty much sweep every election that Cruz has won outside of his home state.

Cruz leads Trump in head-to-head polls 54-41.

Your opinion is based on nothing more than your own ideas.

If Rubio and Kasich were to drop out now, Cruz might not be able to win Florida or Ohio (because of how late it already is), but he would dominate most of the states to come.

Even if Trump wins both Ohio & Florida, he will only have slightly more than 1/2 the delegates he would need to get the nomination.

SpacemanSpiff wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:Ted Cruz is operating under the delusion that if he can get Rubio and Kasich out of the race that he can overtake Trump as the only anti-Trump candidate.

I always find it interesting that politicians like Mr. Trump (but not exclusively him) call for "party unity," but only when they are ahead.

Similarly, I find it interesting that many political challengers like Mr. Cruz (again, not exclusively him) call for all of his fellow challengers to drop off so he'd have a better shot of beating the leading candidate.

It's always "for the party good," not "because it would make my job easier."

Those two statements are not mutually exclusive.

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:Ted Cruz is operating under the delusion that if he can get Rubio and Kasich out of the race that he can overtake Trump as the only anti-Trump candidate. The only think that's keeping him in the race right now is Rubio and Kasich. Without them, Trump would pretty much sweep every election that Cruz has won outside of his home state.

Cruz leads Trump in head-to-head polls 54-41.

Polls, plural? I've only seen one such poll. --Bob

TheCalvinator24 wrote: Even if Trump wins both Ohio & Florida, he will only have slightly more than 1/2 the delegates he would need to get the nomination.

By the RCP count, Trump leads Cruz right now, 458-359, with 1237 needed to win. Here's whats at stake next Tuesday:

Florida 99 (Winner Take All)
Illinois 69 (Winner Take All)
Missouri 52 (Winner Take All)
N. Carolina 72 (Proportional)
Ohio 66 (Winner Take All)

Also, between now and next Tuesday, DC and several territories vote, with a total of 46 delegates among them.

If Trump wins Ohio, Florida and Illinois and 1/3 of the delegates in North Carolina, DC, and the various territories (a very conservative estimate), that puts him at 732. Even if Cruz wins everything Trump doesn't (a very aggressive estimate), that puts him at 489. And going forward, the big states that remain, except California, are very favorable to Trump, especially with Rubio and Kasich out, like New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

silverscreenselect wrote:Ted Cruz is operating under the delusion that if he can get Rubio and Kasich out of the race that he can overtake Trump as the only anti-Trump candidate.

I agree with this statement.

I find it hard-pressed to think of a Rubio voter who would be attracted to Ted Cruz, especially as Rubio is being spun to be this big sellout to conservative ideals.

I suppose it could happen, but there's no guarantee that Cruz gets enough of the Rbio/Kasich voters to "dominate" Trump going forward.

I think Trump gets a sizable percentage of those votes.

Jeemie wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:Ted Cruz is operating under the delusion that if he can get Rubio and Kasich out of the race that he can overtake Trump as the only anti-Trump candidate.

I agree with this statement.

I find it hard-pressed to think of a Rubio voter who would be attracted to Ted Cruz, especially as Rubio is being spun to be this big sellout to conservative ideals.

I suppose it could happen, but there's no guarantee that Cruz gets enough of the Rbio/Kasich voters to "dominate" Trump going forward.

I think Trump gets a sizable percentage of those votes.

I don't know who your candidate is, but if that candidate does not get the nomination, you'll be voting for Trump?

BackInTex wrote:

Jeemie wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:Ted Cruz is operating under the delusion that if he can get Rubio and Kasich out of the race that he can overtake Trump as the only anti-Trump candidate.

I agree with this statement.

I find it hard-pressed to think of a Rubio voter who would be attracted to Ted Cruz, especially as Rubio is being spun to be this big sellout to conservative ideals.

I suppose it could happen, but there's no guarantee that Cruz gets enough of the Rbio/Kasich voters to "dominate" Trump going forward.

I think Trump gets a sizable percentage of those votes.

I don't know who your candidate is, but if that candidate does not get the nomination, you'll be voting for Trump?

You're assuming all the voters voting for Rubio and Kasich are "not Trump" voters solely.

When there are a lot of possibilities.

Pennsylvania doesn't vote until April 26. I expect Kasich, who of all the candidates is closest to "my guy" as I can come across (except for his neo-conservative foreign policy stances, which really give me pause) to be out.

But I may still vote for him- I suspect many voters may still do that.

I may register as a Democrat and vote for Bernie Sanders (who I think cleans up on any GOP nominee- he has some unique strengths) but then vote Republican for representative and Senator in a strategy of making sure the opposition keeps Congress to rein him in (not that my marginal vote matters all that much, but still..).

My point is- there's lots of things that could happen other than all the Rubio/Kasich votes...or even the vast majority of them...going over to Ted Cruz.

Jeemie wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:Ted Cruz is operating under the delusion that if he can get Rubio and Kasich out of the race that he can overtake Trump as the only anti-Trump candidate.

I agree with this statement.

I find it hard-pressed to think of a Rubio voter who would be attracted to Ted Cruz, especially as Rubio is being spun to be this big sellout to conservative ideals.

I suppose it could happen, but there's no guarantee that Cruz gets enough of the Rbio/Kasich voters to "dominate" Trump going forward.

I think Trump gets a sizable percentage of those votes.

"The exit polls in Michigan and Mississippi asked voters who they’d pick in a two-way race between Trump and Cruz, also giving them the option to say they’d sit out the race. Among Rubio voters, on average between the two states, about 75 percent said they’d still vote in a Trump-Cruz race, and of those, 80 percent would prefer Cruz to Trump. Kasich voters were somewhat more equivocal; 55 percent said they’d still vote, and of those, two-thirds would go to Cruz over Trump. Although this is the first time the exit polls have asked about one-on-one matchups, the results are consistent with national polls showing Trump losing ground as the field winnows, as well as exit polls in previous states showing Trump being unpopular with Republicans who aren’t already supporting him."

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ted ... ald-trump/

Data trumps your feelings.

And your irrational hatred of Cruz.

TheCalvinator24 wrote:
"The exit polls in Michigan and Mississippi asked voters who they’d pick in a two-way race between Trump and Cruz, also giving them the option to say they’d sit out the race. Among Rubio voters, on average between the two states, about 75 percent said they’d still vote in a Trump-Cruz race, and of those, 80 percent would prefer Cruz to Trump. Kasich voters were somewhat more equivocal; 55 percent said they’d still vote, and of those, two-thirds would go to Cruz over Trump.

Here's some numbers rounded off for the two states combined:

Trump 676,000
Cruz 477,000
Kasich 358,000
Rubio 145,000

So, Trump beat Cruz by about 200,000 votes total. Assuming those exit poll numbers are correct, Cruz would gain about 65,000 votes on Trump if Kasich had dropped out (358,000 x .55 x .33) and another 65,000 if Rubio dropped out (145,000 x .75 x .6). Trump still wins by nearly 70,000 votes, a closer win but a win. And Cruz is at the stage now where he doesn't need close losses, he needs wins.