The Republican Primary Race Is Filling Up

[jamil]

No, it's not. Mathematical elimination only applies to the first ballot.

WTF? I'm just trying to make sense of what you're saying.

I took this:

No. He might not be able to get 1237 on the first ballot (which I believe he's more or less acknowledged for a while now) but that does not mean he's been mathematically eliminated...yet.

...to mean that Cruz could be mathematically eliminated from the first ballot because there wouldn't be enough delegates left for him to get to 1237 on the first vote, but he is not yet mathematically eliminated from wining the nomination because he could, theoretically, win it on the second vote. Phat chance of that, but theoretically.

Now if you meant something more than that, it would have been helpful to say more of what you found inaccurate about what Cruz's team said.

It's not clear from this:

I heard this from some Cruz spokesperson Tuesday night, and it is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard.

The first ballot, and the first ballot only, is what "mathematically eliminated" applies to. It does not apply to any other ballot, because no candidate is "mathematically eliminated" from balloting rounds in which delegates are unbound (which happens, with increasing numbers of delegates, in the second round of balloting).

By this Cruz line of thinking, NO candidate is "mathematically eliminated".

exactly what about Cruz's line of thinking you found so absurd. I thought you were disagreeing that mathematical elimination only applies to the 1st vote.

 

[chipbennett]

I thought you were disagreeing that mathematical elimination only applies to the 1st vote.

No, just the opposite, really.

The Cruz people were saying that Cruz wasn't "mathematically eliminated", because he could still win the nomination on subsequent ballots. But, a) that's not what "mathematically eliminated" means, and b) by that line of reasoning, no one can ever be "mathematically eliminated":

...Cruz could be mathematically eliminated from the first ballot because there wouldn't be enough delegates left for him to get to 1237 on the first vote, but he is not yet mathematically eliminated from wining the nomination because he could, theoretically, win it on the second vote

Being "mathematically eliminated from winning the nomination" is an almost meaningless term. (Of course, when/if one candidate gets an outright majority of delegates, all other candidates are technically "mathematically eliminated from winning the nomination". But that is not the intent of anyone using the term "mathematically eliminated". The more apropos phrasing in that situation is that a candidate has "won the nomination", by winning a majority of delegates.)

In fact, no one can be "mathematically eliminated" from the nomination in a contested convention (that state in which no candidate has an outright majority of delegates); a candidate can only be "mathematically eliminated" from the first ballot. (Subsequent ballots as well, given the the varying state rules regarding when bound delegates become unbound. But the point is that, at some point, delegates are unbound and can vote for anyone - at which time, no one is "mathematically eliminated" from those later ballots.)

So, the point is that, when people say that someone is "mathematically eliminated", they are ONLY talking about the first ballot, and about that candidate's ability to obtain a majority of votes, sufficient to win the nomination outright on the first ballot.

Saying that Cruz is not "mathematically eliminated" because he can win on later ballots is nothing more than spin. (And the Cruz people know that it is nothing but spin, or else Cruz wouldn't have called for Kasich to drop out, on the basis that Kasich was "mathematically eliminated". In a contested convention, Kasich has just as much a chance of winning the nomination as Cruz does.)

 

[jamil]

Saying that Cruz is not "mathematically eliminated" because he can win on later ballots is nothing more than spin. (And the Cruz people know that it is nothing but spin, or else Cruz wouldn't have called for Kasich to drop out, on the basis that Kasich was "mathematically eliminated". In a contested convention, Kasich has just as much a chance of winning the nomination as Cruz does.)

Oh. So that's what you got so upset about it? He spoke the obvious? Now that we've cleared that up, yes, that's spin. Subtle, but spin. That's what politicians do. They spin stuff to try to make stuff look more favorable than it is. Some is more absurd than others, and that is certainly not any more absurd than Trump's. Anyone actually buy Trump's ridiculous abortion walk-back?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I find much truth here.

How and Why the Conservative Media Sold Its Soul To Facilitate Trump?s Nomination | Mediaite

 

[BugI02]

Of course he's priming the Trumpers. But what that would really mean is that he wants a rule change not to requre a majority of delegates. That's not what will happen. And that's not what should happen. I have little doubt that Trump will win on the second vote anyway. But the rules should not strengthen the party's ability to nominate the least liked candidate. A truly representative voting system would not end with the two least liked candidates.

But if you awarded delegates proportionally by percentage of total popular vote Trump would still be way ahead. Same if you awarded the nomination directly to the top popular vote getter, Trump would be your nominee. Maybe you should try getting a candidate that people are fiercely loyal to instead of some creepy, ambitious outsider play-actor. Because unshakeable support of 1/3 of the electorate seems to be beating out Cruzangulation

 

[BugI02]

https://s3.amazonaws.com/prod-static-ngop-pbl/docs/Rules_of_the_Republican+Party_FINAL_S14090314.pdf

Rule #40.
(a) [paraphrasing] Each state can nominate someone for POTUS, unless only one person meets the criteria of (b).



So, prior to even being nominated by a state, a potential nominee must present evidence of support from 8 states to "put his hat in the ring."

Now, it does look like some additional wiggle room in (a). It doesn't explicitly say that if there are 2 candidates with at least 8 states, what options any given state has.

T. Lex I'm having a bit of trouble keeping the clocking of events in (b) straight. Could a new candidate's name be put forth after the first round when candidates become unbound. If the delegations of eight or more states came together to propose say, Ryan; and a majority of those states delegates supported that tack and so certified such in writing could they then submit Ryan's name for consideration one hour later? It seems to just say support of the majority of delegates from eight states, not that you had to win that support via primary. And it doesn't say all potential candidates names must be submitted prior to the first round, just one hour prior to their name being proposed as the nominee

 

[T.Lex]

T. Lex I'm having a bit of trouble keeping the clocking of events in (b) straight. Could a new candidate's name be put forth after the first round when candidates become unbound. If the delegations of eight or more states came together to propose say, Ryan; and a majority of those states delegates supported that tack and so certified such in writing could they then submit Ryan's name for consideration one hour later? It seems to just say support of the majority of delegates from eight states, not that you had to win that support via primary. And it doesn't say all potential candidates names must be submitted prior to the first round, just one hour prior to their name being proposed as the nominee

So... first... my basic answer is, "I don't know." Never been to a national convention, although I know a half dozen or so people who have (and will). I'm just reading the rules, with some expertise on how rules fit together.

Second, though, (b) starts out "Each candidate for nomination..." To me, that means "each and every." Doesn't matter first ballot or 19th. EACH candidate for nomination for POTUS has to individually meet that rule. Romney, Ryan, McCain, Kasich... none of them can meet the requirement as written. (I think.)

It does not matter whether in a primary or not, all that matters is a majority of the delegates available from the state. Which, thanks to the many candidates early, and Kasich staying in late, several states did not have anyone get a majority of delegates available from the state. Learn to love the word "plurality."

Now, after the first ballot, the Florida delegation (or any other state) can move to suspend the rule and allow anyone's name to be entered. If 7 other states support it, then that rule is suspended and anyone's name can be entered.

Also, as noted above, this assumes that this rule will remain intact. I'd say there's a 50/50 chance it'll get changed. No prediction on what it will turn into. Except a catastrophe.

 

[jamil]

But if you awarded delegates proportionally by percentage of total popular vote Trump would still be way ahead. Same if you awarded the nomination directly to the top popular vote getter, Trump would be your nominee. Maybe you should try getting a candidate that people are fiercely loyal to instead of some creepy, ambitious outsider play-actor. Because unshakeable support of 1/3 of the electorate seems to be beating out Cruzangulation

Where to start? First, I think I'll start with "fierce loyalty". I hope you don't think that I care if you call Cruz names as much as you care when I call Trump names. I don't care. I've probably called Cruz worse at one time or other. Though I do think slightly better of Cruz than Trump, it's not much better. I don't like either of them. Given the choice, I'd prefer Cruz, but I'd vote for Trump against the Democrat. I feel no need to defend Cruz on his faults. In fact, for the indefensible things done by the candidates I actually liked, Rand Paul for example, I won't defend them. I won't make excuses. I'm not invested in any of them, nor should I be.

We should feel no personal bias at all towards the candidates we support. We should objectively support candidates to the extent that they say and do things we believe are "right", and we should objectively condemn them to the extent they say and do things that are "wrong". So, "fierce loyalty" is not a thing of value to a free society. It is only a thing of value for politicians because fierce loyalty gives them a base of unquestioned power. We should view all politicians with healthy skepticism, always. They are human and fallible and untrustworthy. They are self interested. They will lie to you, and have lied to you, even your beloved god/king, Trump.

A fiercely loyal electorate is an easily subjugated electorate. When you are fiercely loyal to your candidate you will not notice the red flags. You'll justify, rationalize, make excuses, defend, and even deny the faults obvious to everyone else but you. Thinking that the problem with candidates who aren't Trump is that 1/3 of the electorate aren't fiercely loyal to them completely misses the real problem. The real problem with both Cruz and Trump is that they both represent a choice that a majority of Republican voters dread making.

Next, let's address "truly representative voting". It seems obvious we don't have the same thoughts about what is a truly representative voting system and what is not. Voting for delegates to vote for the person that we think will vote for the candidate we want them to vote for isn't very representative. When you have a field of 17 candidates, a staggered primary/caucus system where some states are winner take all, some are proportional and some are some hybrid of the two, is not very representative. Even having a proportional vote where all states vote in the same election, but you can only vote for one person, is not very representative. A truly representative voting system would not result in having the most unfavorable candidate on top, and the second most unfavorable candidate second, where the winner between those two losers has to face the third most unfavorable candidate. Think of it. The three most likely candidates to win the Presidency have the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd most unfavorable ratings since they've kept track. The candidates that *should* win elections, if we had truly representative voting, would be the candidates that at least a a majority of the people want.

So let's define "want". We all have an idea of our favorite candidate. But if that candidate doesn't win, we have a next. And a next. And maybe a next, before we get to the candidates that we don't really "want", but we'd vote for them because the ones left are even worse. Trump and Cruz are the only candidates left who have a legitimate shot at winning the Republican nomination. But neither one of them is very many people's next, or next, or even next. The majority of Republicans don't *want* either them. The majority of Republicans feel like we're stuck with them because that's what the process yielded. It has yielded a Hobson's choice for most voters. That's what I mean by not truly representative.

 

[Alpo]

FLASHER REPORTED IN CAPITOL. SEN CRUZ ON SITE TO HELP POLICE!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Private polls reveal a Trump-Cruz Indiana dogfight - POLITICO

 

[chipbennett]

Private polls reveal a Trump-Cruz Indiana dogfight - POLITICO

FTA:

One survey, completed on April 12, had Ted Cruz and Donald Trump in a statistical tie: 32 percent to 32 percent, with John Kasich, governor of neighboring Ohio, a distant third, with 14 percent.


A second survey also had Trump and Cruz tied, but that was a change from three weeks earlier, when Cruz had led outside the margin of error.


A third survey, from last week, had Trump ahead of Cruz, outside the margin of error.

It is hard to know for sure, since the article only reveals top line numbers for one of the three surveys, but it seems like there *might* be a trend. Putting them in order:

Poll B (3 weeks earlier): Cruz lead, outside MOE
Poll B (recent): Cruz Trump tied
Poll A (1 week ago): Cruz Trump tied
Poll C (last week): Trump lead, outside MOE

Three different surveys, three (presumably) different methodologies, no numbers for 3 of the four referenced results. So, really: it's still anybody's guess.

I'm just happy to see Indiana actually getting to play a role in the primary, for once.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I'm just happy to see Indiana actually getting to play a role in the primary, for once.

I agree. Not only does having the primary settled before being able to pull the lever get tiresome, being treated as if we are irrelevant gets even more tiresome.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I agree. Not only does having the primary settled before being able to pull the lever get tiresome, being treated as if we are irrelevant gets even more tiresome.

I agree.

 

[Hohn]

Noisy data, for sure, but anecdotally it does seem like Trump is gaining in Indiana. Not that it's relevant, since Cruz only has the spoiler's chance now anyway.

I detest the idea that Trump is the face of my party, but I've decided that I can accept him as a means to an end.


I keep coming back to frustration with the process. It is absurd that the most well-spoken candidate (Fiorina) and the one with the best governing record (Walker) got nowhere. Any system that leaves you with Cruz and Trump and Kasich as the last three is SERIOUSLY SCREWED UP.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Any system that leaves you with Cruz and Trump and Kasich as the last three is SERIOUSLY SCREWED UP.

I would say that any system that in the absence of Trump's entry would have left us with Jeb, Jeb, or Jeb is also seriously screwed up.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

EXCLUSIVE WTHR/HPI Poll: Trump, Clinton ahead in Indiana - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

 

[T.Lex]

EXCLUSIVE WTHR/HPI Poll: Trump, Clinton ahead in Indiana - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

WTHR commissioned the poll with Howie Politics Indiana. The poll surveyed 500 lively voters in the state from April 18-21.

*snicker*

ETA:
Should probably screenshot it before they fix it.

ETA2:
At 500 "lively" voters, the MOE is probably around 5, which means a VERY narrow lead for Trump. He usually doesn't meet his poll numbers in battleground states. Howey is usually pretty solid, though, IMHO, so the methodology should be good.

ETA3:

And it only took about 10 minutes to fix.

WTHR commissioned the poll with Howey Politics Indiana. The poll surveyed 500 likely voters in the state from April 18-21. It has a four-point margin of error.

 

[chipbennett]

At 500 "lively" voters, the MOE is probably around 5, which means a VERY narrow lead for Trump. He usually doesn't meet his poll numbers in battleground states. Howey is usually pretty solid, though, IMHO, so the methodology should be good.

Is it really accurate to lump Indiana with other "battleground" states? And how does one define "battleground" states? Cruz and Rubio have so far taken the upper midwest, which do not resemble Indiana demographically. Cruz has mostly swept the plains states, which also do not resemble Indiana demographically. Trump swept everything south, southeast, and east/northeast of Indiana.

So, with Indiana truly being the "crossroads of America", which region will Indiana follow? Trump has so far all but swept the midwest, with Michigan, Kentucky, and Illinois (only losing Ohio since it was another candidate's home state).

 

[T.Lex]

Is it really accurate to lump Indiana with other "battleground" states? And how does one define "battleground" states? Cruz and Rubio have so far taken the upper midwest, which do not resemble Indiana demographically. Cruz has mostly swept the plains states, which also do not resemble Indiana demographically. Trump swept everything south, southeast, and east/northeast of Indiana.

So, with Indiana truly being the "crossroads of America", which region will Indiana follow? Trump has so far all but swept the midwest, with Michigan, Kentucky, and Illinois (only losing Ohio since it was another candidate's home state).

Fair question. For me, it is more a matter of the polling. Where polling showed Trump is less than 2x the MOE, he has either not done that well, or flat out lost.

An example is Oklahoma. RCP avg polling had Trump +11, which was between 2x and 3x of the polls (which look like they also used "likely voter" counts).
RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - Oklahoma Republican Presidential Primary

Cruz ended up a 6 point winner.

Kansas, RCP showed polling with Trump up at least 6, Cruz wins plus 25.
RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - Kansas Republican Presidential Caucus

By way of counter-example, Arizona RCP avg had Trump +13, with the poll MOEs being usually > 3x the MOE.
RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - Arizona Republican Presidential Primary

Trump won by 22.

So, my own break point is about 2x the MOE for the poll. If Trump is ahead by more than that, he'll probably win. If less, it'll be a race and perhaps an upset.

It is also reflective, again this is my opinion, of the angst associated with his support. I do think people are mad, and when asked, they'd love to see Trump deliver a great big middle finger to the GOPe backside. (Oops... that might be NSFW imagery.) But, in the actual polling booth, they have a harder time with the decision.

 

[BugI02]

I must confess that if Indiana's results make Trump unstoppable the schadenfreude would be delicious indeed


Some wanted Indiana's primary to matter. Be careful what you wish for