Martin Hyde: Thank you for the analysis on the future Democratic primaries. I think we’ll have a much better picture come March 2nd than we have today.
As for the Republicans, Super Tuesday is critical because a lot of large and Southern states vote, and that is where the bulk of Republican support comes from. So if you can’t win there…
The nightmare for the Republicans, I imagine, is that Super Tuesday will instead see Trump win some states, Cruz win others, and neither Bush, Kasich, or Rubio manage a ‘knockout’ punch to the others, continuing to give the two interlopers the front stage as the ‘moderates’ divide the vote.
I do agree, the Florida vote should be the decider between Bush and Rubio. All dopers in FLA; prepare for the TV onslaught…
ETA: Martin beat me by 11 minutes and said it better…damn him <grinnning>
Over the last 10 presidential election cycles, 70% of the winners of the Democratic primary in New Hampshire have gone on to become the nominee. Will it be the same in 2016? The exceptions have been: 2008 - H. Clinton; 1992 - Tsongas; and 1984 - Hart.
Will Bernie be a part of the trend or become an exception?
Good question, but this should probably be merged with one of the other NH threads, I think – we’ve already got a bunch.
I still think Clinton has the best likelihood, due to strength in the South and Super Tuesday states. We’ll know a lot more after the next two primaries (NV and SC).
On the Republican side, over the same 10 past election cycles, 80% of the time the Republican primary winner has gone on to win the nomination. The two exceptions are 2000 - McCain and 1996 - Buchanan. Looks like Trump has this trend in his favor as well.
7 out of 10 doesn’t say much. How many mediocre MLB teams have gone 7-3 or better in their first 10 games of the season? Lots!
Also, including incumbents who had minimal or no opposition for renomination rather inflates the success rate. The fact that Reagan in 1984, Bushes in 1992 and 2004, Clinton in 1996, and Obama in 2012 won the NH primary and then went on to win their party’s nomination really doesn’t tell you anything.
That gets you down to 5 out of 8 on the Dem side, and 5 out of 7 on the GOP side.
Also the other way – how many eventual champions won early games? Probably most of them. The folks who end up winning are more than likely to have won early contests as well as late ones.
True. But that just says there’s some signal in the noise. Just looking at team records after 10 games won’t tell you what’s the signal, and what’s the noise. One relies on other info to tell them apart, to the extent that one can.
Thanks. Unfortunately it says “A table listing the 2016 allocation method used by each state is TBD.”, which is pretty key to gaming this out.
I did see a comment in an LA Times story that all GOP primaries March 1-15 (including Super Tuesday) must be proportional. That includes almost half of the delegates. Based on that I don’t see how we have a very clear picture even after Super Tuesday. That includes Texas, which has a 50% winner-take-all threshold that I don’t see anybody meeting.
Then you have California way out in June, for example, which is winner take all (at least according to the LA Times) and has the largest number of GOP delegates (which seems crazy to me, but whatever).
Not to get repetitive with what I said last night–but for the Democrats, Bernie can lose every SEC state and be fine–but he can’t lose them by 20-30%. Because Hillary isn’t going to lose all the other states by that margin, take Minnesota which is very amenable to Bernie, she’s down 9ish percent there. She’ll fare better in other States that she might lose to Bernie in the West. Basically she’d flip-flop Obama, Obama won a lot of smaller caucus states by commanding margins, Hillary won a lot of big states by slim margins. There’s a map floating around out there of the 2008 primary states and a gradient coloring that shows which ones were won by various margins. Hillary had far fewer “huge margin” states than Barack and that’s why she didn’t win.
You sweep 13-15 Southern/Conservative states with 20%+ margins and I don’t think the votes or delegates are there in the rest of the country to make up for that–because I don’t see Hillary losing by that margin throughout the country. In 2008 Hillary wasn’t prepared to work those smaller caucus states where Obama racked up huge margins of victory, but she is this year. I really do believe narrowing Hillary’s margin of victory to something sane, like in the single digits, throughout the South is necessary for Sanders to win. If he cannot do that, I do not think he can win the nomination.
Sorry about that. They’ve been pretty good in the past, but I guess they’ve dropped the ball this time.
Actually, March 15 is the first day that they can have winner-take-all primaries, and there are at least two on that day: Florida and Ohio. Which is why I expect Bush, Rubio, and Kasich to all stay in the race that long: if one of them can win a plurality of the votes in their home states, they get a pretty big delegate haul.
This is the kind of thing that makes my head feel like exploding. Similarly to when I thought maybe Rubio wouldn’t be punished for his debate performance (and funny BTW how he has changed his story on that) or when Republicans blatantly lie and it doesn’t matter to voters. I just hate it when voters disengage from actual facts. But those are Republicans: I expect them to be thickheaded. When all these well off Democrats in New Hampshire think we’ve got some horrible economy, it makes me despair.
So you think they’re deluded? Did Bernie and the liberal media trick them? Or is it possible, hear me out this is a bit out there, that they know the truth of their own lives, their family, and friends, and can compare it to the past? Or they might even take other things than narrow government statistics into account (which your article gave a bunch of qualifiers for, and which doesn’t address the economy of the country)?
If they’re not, they should feel they are doing pretty well, in relative terms. Shankar Vedantam, the social science correspondent on NPR, says:
BTW, after that I heard another report on the NH economy: their poverty rate is barely over half the national average, 8% vs. 14%. So I’m just not seeing a lot for them to complain about.
Speaking of spoiled Granite State voters, I just heard a story on NPR on Trump’s victory. One of his voters was interviewed, and his rationale for supporting Trump was–I shit you not, this is what he told a national radio program–“I go into Panera, and I can’t even order, because all they speak is Spanish”. :smack: (You have to be familiar with Panera to know what a spoiled white person’s problem this is.) Trump is well known for having a downscale white fanbase, but clearly the equivalent in NH doesn’t match what that looks like nationwide.