Super Tuesday 3 certainly lived up to its new
nickname. Both parties waged primaries in
five big states, and the headline is that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton,
with triumphant nights, continued to barrel down the road to their nominations.
THE GOP
I can’t quite figure this out. Do you really think the big news last night was
that John Kasich won in Ohio? I don’t think so. Kasich camped out in Ohio for the last month,
ceding the entire South to Donald Trump, and managed a very modest win over
Trump in his home state. And this qualifies as an exciting, game-changing
outcome? I guess it is when you compare
it to Trump’s 19-point shellacking of Marco Rubio in his home state of Florida.
I think people are missing something. And that is, that Donald Trump won in
Florida, in Illinois, in North Carolina, even in the Northern Marianas Islands,
for goodness sake, is winning in Missouri (which is still too close to call)
and lost only in Ohio (to Kasich). He
picked up 178 delegates, widened his lead to 235 over Cruz, knocked Rubio right
out of the race, and continues to look formidable.
Sure, there is a chance that Cruz and Kasich can deny Trump
the 1,237 delegates he needs to secure the nomination within the nominating
process. But that implies that, quite
suddenly, Cruz and Kasich can suddenly start winning large states – in
primaries, not caucuses -- that are neither their own state nor a neighbor, and
that simply has not happened yet. I
can’t see either of them beating Trump in New York or California, or Wisconsin
or New Jersey, or Indiana or Maryland, and the math depends on wins. They can’t do it by picking off a minority of
the delegates in the nine contests remaining that are not winner-take-all. They also have to win some big states among
the 11 “winner-take-alls” that are left.
Trump has won 18 states, Cruz seven (all except home state
Texas being tiny states, and most were in caucuses, not primaries) and Kasich
one. There has been no blunting of
Trump’s momentum. He is stronger than
ever. Why will he suddenly begin to lose
primaries in substantial states where his opponents have no regional advantage? The polling thus far, light as it is, tends
to show Trump ahead almost everywhere. Let’s
be generous and give Cruz the following wins:
Nebraska, Utah, Montana, South Dakota, Oregon, Washington and New Mexico
– none are a given, but he did win Idaho so perhaps he has some chance in the
West.. And let’s let Kasich have a piece
of New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Wisconsin (though I cannot see him
winning any of those). Trump will clear
the hurdle if that’s all they can get.
It really comes down to California, if Cruz can pick up an outright win
there, then Trump’s delegate count will fall short.
A good test will be Arizona next week, which is a regular
old Tuesday, not a “Super” one by any means.
There have not been any polls here since October but Trump led in the
ones back then. If Cruz is going to
sweep the West, Arizona would be a good place to start.
And, just to speculate, let’s say that Cruz and Kasich “succeed,”
and Trump ends up with only, say, 1,100+ delegates, short by 100 and change. Is the GOP really going to try to deny the
nomination to a guy who won 25-30 states under their own carefully constructed
rules? That convention would look like
Chicago in 1968.
Marco Rubio began this race a year ago trying to straddle
the fence between Tea Party and Establishment.
He was “everybody’s second choice,” it seemed, not as threatening or
extreme as Ted Cruz, not as moderate as Jeb Bush, and he had an ample supply of
youth, charisma, political skill and endorsements. But while he outlasted 13 other candidates to
reach the “Final Four,” Rubio ended up belonging to no one. He was roasted from the right for his role in
attempting to forward progressive immigration reform, saw his youth and
charisma exposed by Chris Christie in one brutal debate in New Hampshire, and
finally did not come near carrying his home state. He dropped out of the race last night, (which
many are calling “Goodbye Rubio Tuesday,” and I wish I had thought of that
first) and, since he had to give up his ability to defend his Senate seat when
he ran for President, he will walk out the Senate door come January, 2017. Want to make a bet he hops on the first plane
to Iowa? And thus begins 2020…
Oh, and tell me why did Ted Cruz give a victory speech?
THE DEMOCRATS
Hillary Clinton did what she had to do. Bernie Sanders pulled off a moral victory in
Michigan last week that made the pollsters (and me) look silly, so naturally
his camp hoped that he could ride that to new heights in similar Midwestern
states. Not happening. Hillary Clinton did what she had to do, not
only crushing it in Florida, North Carolina as expected, but also winning Ohio
rather easily, eking out a win in Illinois, and is ahead by 0.2 points in
Missouri as I write this. In other
words, there is a real chance that she swept all five states.
What more does she need to do? At this juncture, Bernie Sanders should drop
out, endorse Clinton and seek to unify the party. He would need to win 62% of the remaining
delegates to beat her, that is, by a margin that exceeded that of his New
Hampshire win. That is obviously
impossible.
I find it unlikely that Bernie will do that, but he
should. He and his passionate admirers
are dreaming the impossible dream now. But
it is truly over.
BTRTN
Here are the results of the contests and how they compare
with our predictions. It was a good
night for BTRTN. Of the nine decided
races, we called eight correctly, missing only Illinois, where we had Sanders
winning by two points when it was Clinton who won the squeaker by that
margin. Of the two outstanding races, both
in Missouri, we had Cruz and Clinton each winning by two points; as of now Clinton
is indeed ahead (by 0.2 pts) while Cruz trails Trump, also by 0.2 points. We also did quite well on the actual
percentages everywhere (except the Northern Marianas), with 24 out of the 34
predictions within three points, and 17 within two points.
State
|
Party
|
Candidate
|
Predict.
|
Actual
|
Abs. Diff
|
Pred. Rank
|
Act. Rank
|
Abs Rk Diff
|
15-Mar
|
GOP
|
4.5
|
0.2
|
|||||
Florida
|
GOP
|
Trump
|
46
|
45.7
|
0.3
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
Florida
|
GOP
|
Rubio
|
25
|
27.0
|
2.0
|
2
|
2
|
0
|
Florida
|
GOP
|
Cruz
|
20
|
17.1
|
2.9
|
3
|
3
|
0
|
Florida
|
GOP
|
Kasich
|
9
|
6.8
|
2.2
|
4
|
4
|
0
|
Ohio
|
GOP
|
Kasich
|
42
|
43.8
|
1.8
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
Ohio
|
GOP
|
Trump
|
39
|
37.2
|
1.8
|
2
|
2
|
0
|
Ohio
|
GOP
|
Cruz
|
15
|
14.2
|
0.8
|
3
|
3
|
0
|
Ohio
|
GOP
|
Rubio
|
4
|
2.7
|
1.3
|
4
|
4
|
0
|
Illinois
|
GOP
|
Trump
|
40
|
39.4
|
0.6
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
Illinois
|
GOP
|
Cruz
|
29
|
30.0
|
1.0
|
2
|
2
|
0
|
Illinois
|
GOP
|
Kasich
|
18
|
19.5
|
1.5
|
3
|
3
|
0
|
Illinois
|
GOP
|
Rubio
|
13
|
8.6
|
4.4
|
4
|
4
|
0
|
N. Carolina
|
GOP
|
Trump
|
47
|
40.4
|
6.6
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
N. Carolina
|
GOP
|
Cruz
|
32
|
36.5
|
4.5
|
2
|
2
|
0
|
N. Carolina
|
GOP
|
Kasich
|
14
|
12.5
|
1.5
|
3
|
3
|
0
|
N. Carolina
|
GOP
|
Rubio
|
7
|
8.0
|
1.0
|
4
|
4
|
0
|
Missouri
|
GOP
|
Cruz
|
41
|
40.6
|
0.4
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
Missouri
|
GOP
|
Trump
|
39
|
40.8
|
1.8
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
Missouri
|
GOP
|
Kasich
|
12
|
9.2
|
2.8
|
3
|
3
|
0
|
Missouri
|
GOP
|
Rubio
|
8
|
5.8
|
2.2
|
4
|
4
|
0
|
N. Marianas
|
GOP
|
Trump
|
40
|
72.8
|
32.8
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
N. Marianas
|
GOP
|
Cruz
|
35
|
24.0
|
11.0
|
2
|
2
|
0
|
N. Marianas
|
GOP
|
Rubio
|
15
|
1.1
|
13.9
|
3
|
4
|
1
|
N. Marianas
|
GOP
|
Kasich
|
10
|
2.1
|
7.9
|
4
|
3
|
1
|
State
|
Party
|
Candidate
|
Predict.
|
Actual
|
Abs. Diff
|
Pred. Rank
|
Act. Rank
|
Abs Rk Diff
|
15-Mar
|
DEM
|
2.8
|
0.0
|
|||||
Florida
|
DEM
|
Clinton
|
66
|
64.5
|
1.5
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
Florida
|
DEM
|
Sanders
|
34
|
33.2
|
0.8
|
2
|
2
|
0
|
Ohio
|
DEM
|
Clinton
|
53
|
57.0
|
4.0
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
Ohio
|
DEM
|
Sanders
|
47
|
42.0
|
5.0
|
2
|
2
|
0
|
Illinois
|
DEM
|
Clinton
|
49
|
50.5
|
1.5
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
Illinois
|
DEM
|
Sanders
|
51
|
48.7
|
2.3
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
N. Carolina
|
DEM
|
Clinton
|
59
|
55.3
|
3.7
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
N. Carolina
|
DEM
|
Sanders
|
41
|
40.2
|
0.8
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
Missouri
|
DEM
|
Clinton
|
51
|
49.6
|
1.4
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
Missouri
|
DEM
|
Sanders
|
49
|
49.4
|
0.4
|
2
|
2
|
0
|
Well, I think this is the logic behind Ohio: The Kasich win is significant in that every establishment dollar and every establishment endorsement finally has a clear home.The timing of the Garland nomination reminds everyone on the Republican side that to lose this election is to lose two decades of SC decisions on everything from abortion rights to healthcare to guns to citizens united. The only Republican issue now is electability, and -- YES!-- the establishment (and the Kochs, for that matter) would not think twice about a Chicago-1968-redux if it meant getting rid of a candidacy they believe will be DOA in November (let alone a presidency that would be even more of a long-term nightmare for the Repubs if Trump were to actually win). Ohio and Kasich gave them permission to believe that is still possible; if he had lost and had to drop out, all would have been lost.
ReplyDeleteThe only reason your Illinois prediction was wrong is because you panicked all the Hillary supporters into showing up and voting!
ReplyDeleteI will feel the Bern like millions of others...until the Convention!
ReplyDelete