Princeton Election Consortium

A first draft of electoral history. Since 2004

Meta-Margins for control: House D+1.0% Senate R+4.2% Find key elections near you!

Super Tuesday thread #3 – will the Mule strike?

March 1st, 2016, 9:00pm by Sam Wang

(See open thread #1 – I am traveling. These are prewritten posts. Follow returns atHuffPollster.)

Above is the delegate estimate from my simulations of GOP rules. Barring a surprise attack by The Mule, it shouldn’t be that far off. Let me know in comments!

Tags: 2016 Election · President

41 Comments so far ↓

  • Froggy

    Upshot has forecasts of the final outcomes from the partial results:

    For the races not yet called, they have Clinton winning MA and Sanders winning OK, with Trump winning VT and AR, and Cruz winning OK.

  • Olav Grinde

    Froggy, thanks for the American Samoa result!

    By the way, I am having trouble posting here. All my new posts are marked “Your comment is awaiting moderation”. (Probably including this one, posted at 9:23 pm) What’s up with that?

  • bks

    Right now Cruz is at 19.8% in Alabama which has a 20% cutoff for getting delegates. Is 19.8 rounded to 20?

  • Froggy

    Not really a good night for Rubio. A 3-2-but-never-a-1 strategy won’t cut it, and currently he is falling short of the 20% threshold in several states.

  • Andrew EC

    I don’t see how this night can be spun as anything but a disaster for Rubio.

    • bks

      Right. In the morning only Cruz can say, without blushing, that he’s the Trump alternative. But the GOP ueberhonchos hate Cruz more than Trump!

    • DaveM

      Yeah, much of the punditry in the last couple days or so has speculated about Cruz’s likely refusal to bow out after tonight, thereby continuing to get in Rubio’s way. Yet as of 11 pm or so EST, Cruz was actually around 300,000 votes ahead of Rubio on the night! Regardless of delegate count, Rubio’s status as THE Trump alternative is pretty much laid waste to…

  • Sean Patrick Santos

    Having fun watching betting markets react to Colorado results. Most people apparently know less about the state, and there hasn’t been a lot of polling, so there are wild swings every time a miniscule number of new results come in for Colorado.

  • Froggy

    So how do we feel about how Sanders did tonight? Losing Massachusetts, even narrowly, is bad news, but winning four states is something that can be spun as a good thing I suppose. He didn’t do as badly as he might of, but I don’t see anything tonight that changes the direction of this race.

    • Josh

      Not counting VT, Sanders won/is winning three states by an average of 13%. Hillary won/is winning her eight states by an average of close to 30%.

      There’s no way to spin this for Sanders, really; mathematically, his campaign is probably over after tonight, though I’d expect him to hang around at least for the next few weeks.

    • Violet

      I was wondering whether he can spin convincing wins in Minnesota, Oklahoma and Colorado into making it seem like it’s not too much of a disaster. State by State, maybe Bernie didn’t do too badly, but, where Clinton won, she won by a lot, where, other than Vermont, Sanders’ states don’t look like a rout.

    • Cary

      If all states were equally weighted it wouldn’t be too bad of a result. Unfortunately for Bernie is wins were relegated to the small delegate states like Vermont and Oklahoma, and his losses were devestatingly huge margin losses in high delegate states like Texas, Georgia and Virginia.

      And looking at the astonishing black voting splits for Clinton tonight, the week is not getting any better this week with Louisianna, Mississippi and Michigan coming up in the next 7 days.

    • Sean Patrick Santos

      He’s doing better than I expected, but not nearly good enough to be as competitive as he seemed coming out of NH.

      Vermont was a given, and from my experience in Colorado politics, that was a given as well. (The polls were not very illuminating, but given the types of people who attend the caucuses, Bernie was almost the perfect candidate to capture Coloradan suburbia, including most of the Denver-area population.) Oklahoma was good for him. Minnesota is looking surprisingly good. But he needed Massachusetts badly enough that losing that might cancel it out. If he won 5 states to Hillary’s 6, then the media could spin it as neck-and-neck, but that’s less likely to happen now, which will hurt his ability to inspire turnout in the future…

      In terms of delegates won, Bernie was always going to lose today, but he did so badly in the South that it may be unrecoverable. He didn’t even seem to be trying in the past couple of weeks, and he’s losing by way more in those states than he won in any state except Vermont.

      So really, from the “Who won what?” media spin perspective, Bernie only did moderately better than expected, while losing the South pretty badly for actual delegates. Which is self-perpetuating, because if Hillary is considered to be the candidate favored by moderates, conservative Democrats, and black people, that’s likely to influence moderates, conservative Democrats, and black people to be more inclined to vote for her.

  • Fritz

    He would have to latch on to another party that’s already on the ballot of 50 states. Which party that might be, I have no idea.

  • 538 Refugee

    Evidently Graham has chosen to be shot and said the party must consolidate behind Cruz because he is a clear second.

    “Sen. Lindsey Graham did not mince words Thursday about choosing between Donald Trump or Sen. Ted Cruz, comparing it to a choice between poisoning or being shot.”

  • Mark F.

    He could run as an independent candidate. However, some states have filing deadlines before the GOP convention.

  • Andy

    Full disclosure: Bernie fan. I know the delegate math doesn’t favor him at all, but how good is it for Clinton to rack up huge wins in the one part of the country that will be solidly Republican in November? Wait and see what the voting looks like in the swing states.

    • Andrew EC

      1) Your reasoning is selective; Bernie fans are going to be touting his win in Oklahoma, and that state is R+30.

      2) More importantly, winning primaries in red states can tell you something about the kinds of voters a candidate attracts. Hillary’s big wins in southern states shows her ability to win big among minorities, which *is* important in most of the purple general election states.

    • Andy

      Not selective, no. I am thinking about swing states like Colorado, and upcoming primaries in Ohio and Michigan (HRC should win the fogey vote in Fla.).

      NYT has changed its headline to “Wins for Sanders in Liberal Strongholds”…such as…Oklahoma and Colorado. And HRC is once again credited with the Mass. win.

    • Sean Patrick Santos

      To be honest, I have not seen any compelling evidence that it matters. As Andrew notes, Hillary’s wins suggest that she would be better at inspiring black turnout, and winning in the South may mean that she both has broader appeal, and is less likely to inspire Republican turnout. You do have to consider that Bernie’s socialism may cause more conservatives to turn out specifically in order to vote against him.

      (On a side note, I really hate the constant confusion of African Americans with “minorities” in general. There is compelling evidence to suggest that Bernie does poorly among black voters, especially in the East and South where populations of black voters are highest. But I don’t know of any compelling evidence that Bernie does badly among Asian Americans and Latinos. In fact, it is difficult to believe that he could be doing so well among young voters and in the West without significant support from those two populations. But there is a conceit in American politics, especially east of the Mississippi, where black voters are used as surrogates for all racial/ethnic minorities.)

    • Josh

      1. Hillary has won states like Iowa, Georgia, Massachusetts and Nevada. She’s not exactly constrained by geography.

      2. It doesn’t matter at all that these states are heavily R in a general election. OK will be won by whoever the GOP candidate is by a landslide.

      3. Minority voters clearly vastly prefer Clinton to Sanders, and minority voters are a huge chunk of the Democratic party. That, plus Hillary’s pull with other important constituencies (unions, non-liberal Dems) are why she’s going to win the nomination. You can’t dominate only the under-25 and very liberal demographics and expect to get it done.

    • Froggy

      Sean, in the exit poll in Texas yesterday Clinton beat Sanders 67-33 among Latinos,

      Someone (at 538, I think) cited a county in South Texas that is 91% Latino, that Clinton won by a similar margin, providing evidence that the exit poll was accurate on this point.

  • Andy

    Massachusetts has just gone from an HRC win to a toss-up to a Sanders win, even though he’s still trailing in the numbers. Odd. And I’m still waiting for the NYT to update its “Sanders Wins 2 States” headline.

    • Sean Patrick Santos

      The NYT thing that called it for Bernie was due to an AP reporting error, which they’ve retracted now. Bernie is still projected to lose, but it’s now within 1%, with 5% not yet reported by NYT numbers, which probably has someone biting their fingernails over whether they called the state too early.

      There’s definitely at least one NYT author with something against Bernie, though. I remember that for South Carolina there was a headline that said something like “Many care about electability”, which sounds good for Hillary, who does better among Democrats who rate that as the most important attribute in a candidate. But if you clicked through, the article mentioned after a few paragraphs that electability was actually less highly ranked than three other attributes, meaning that the implication was completely wrong…

  • Brian

    He could always run as a write-in in the states where he can’t get on the ballot.

  • mbmxyz

    In MA, Clinton wins Boston (getting 71,000 votes), Cambridge (15,500), Newton (14,500), Worcester (12,000), Springfield (11,500) and Brookline (8500), sweeping the largest cities in the state and the centers of liberal politics. The largest towns Bernie carries are Somerville (12,000) and Quincy (8000).Meanwhile, out west of the Connecticut River, Bernie takes Amherst, home of the Amherst College Lord Jeffs, while Clinton carries Williamstown, where reside the Jeff’s big rival, the Williams College Ephs. I would expect similar voting results from the two towns, but no. Leaving my polling place in the People’s Republic (of Cambridge) I recall saying to my girlfriend that Sanders needed to poll a large margin here to win. I thought he would do that. Instead, he lost Cambridge by 2000 votes. Clinton’s margin in the six towns mentioned above is 40,000 votes. Bernie lost all of the other large-ish cities in MA as well and most of the metro-west suburbs. How he is running within 20,000 votes of Hilary is, … well, not readily explained.

    • Scott

      I think this shows a bit of misunderstanding of Massachusetts. Hilary did very well in the state’s wealthy communities, such as the western suburbs (Newton, Wellesly and Brookline) and Boston, and in the poor, minority-dominated old cities (Springfield, Lowell, Lynn). The small towns in Western Massachusetts voted big for Sanders. Middle class suburbs looked like the swing areas, and it looks like they favored Sanders. Cambridge is it’s own odd little place, yes it is very liberal, which favors Sanders, but it is also wealthy, favoring Clinton. I think it’s telling that according to exit polls, Bernie Sanders won Moderate/Conservatives (30% of the electorate) 55-44, but lost among liberals (70%) 47-52.

    • Todd S. Horowitz

      Somerville is pretty liberal too, but somewhat less wealthy than Cambridge; it’s what Cambridge was like 25 years ago.

  • DaveM

    NY Times delegate projection as of 6:45 AM EST:

    Trump 285
    Cruz 161
    Rubio 87

    I gather that some are still in doubt due to threshold considerations in states with returns still out, but Sam Seldon looks pretty good here!

    • Ian

      Actually it looks like Sam was off by a fairly large amount. NYT has Trump at 237, Cruz at 209 and rubio at 94. So Trump got almost 50 less than Sam predicted, while Cruz got almost 50 more…..

    • 538 Refugee

      At this point I see 33 yet to be awarded. Cruz and Rubio both up about 10 from the prediction. Remember, there was some concerted effort in the anti-Trump movement after the last debate so there wasn’t really enough time for the polls to reflect the full impact of that effort. Everyone but Trump (and Carson) sees there end game as having improved but he had some buffer.

    • DaveM

      NY Times delegate count as of 7:30 PM EST:

      Trump 319
      Cruz 226
      Rubio 110

      So everyone’s up relative to Sam’s numbers (Kasich too), but in a roughly proportionate way. Seems like 80 to 90 more delegates are spoken for than the model accounted for…

    • 538 Refugee

      I think the model was Super Tuesday delegates only and didn’t include those awarded prior.

    • DaveM

      @ 538 Refugee: Ah. Of course! Thanks for pointing that out.

  • Matt McIrvin

    Looks like Trump somewhat underperformed this model, and Cruz and Rubio both overperformed. Not enough to change things substantially, but maybe enough to keep a glimmer of hope alive for Republicans trying to somehow stop Trump.

Leave a Comment