Posted on 02/23/2016 7:40:24 AM PST by kevcol
the delegate math is close to conclusive: Donald Trump will be extremely close to the 1,237 delegates he needs to formally claim the party's nomination by the end of the primary process.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
If my math is correct, it will closer to 1,300.
Unless Cruz and Rubio win at least 2 or 3 states each on Super Tuesday, their campaigns will be in real trouble. Who is going to keep contributing to and voting for the guys who are always fighting for 2nd and 3rd place?
The polls (almost all of them from before NH) show Trump leading in about 12 of the 14 states. If Trump wins 12 out of the 14, the others may as well call it a day, and go home.
Well, show us the numbers and variable factors and we will check your work for accuracy
can’t hurt. You might be on to something really important
I hope so, because walking into the convention with > 1237 delegates is probably the only insurance he has agasinst dirty tricks and shenanigans from the RNC that will make what Cruz did look like kindergarten play.
Nice graphics....thanks.
I agree. And obviously as things move more toward Trump, there is the bandwagon effect where some-—certainly not all-—of losing candidates’ voters jump to the winner.
By the time they get to Maryland our vote doesn’t count. :-(
The methodology I used was based on the following assumptions:
RealClearPolitics polling data
First analysis was conducted ~1 month prior to Iowa but it has not changed much since then.
Each state was crudely modeled according to the following:
- winner take all states full delegate count goes to the candidate with the highest polling number.
- proportional states split the delegate count by poll percentages
- States with a minimum percentage to be awarded delegates were first done proportionally and then the numbers that fell below the minimum were then “given” to the poll leader
Did that lead to differences from the actual results by state? Yes, for example I did not have Cruz wining Iowa. But I did have it as a split. I did have Trump winning NH and SC.
I consider this only a rough estimate and not good enough to predict state contests but within a small error of margin for the national level.
” there is the bandwagon effect where some-—certainly not all-—of losing candidates’ voters jump to the winner.”
Yes.
Wrap it up, I'll take it.
Sounds good to me
Pretty much the same thing for Indiana.
Right now, Trump is leading in FL and OH. If he wins there, he not only wins ALL of those delegates, but he completely tanks the campaigns of Rubio and Kasich. He’s also leading in TX...which isn’t winner-take-all, but it is a MUST for Cruz to win, and win by a substantial margin. If it is even a close Cruz win, he might as well pack it up.
The also-rans took too long to focus on Trump (they STILL aren’t doing so), trying instead to take the mantle of “I’M the establishment-backed candidate!”), and the mathematics are such that Trump almost MUST win at this point. Almost - there are still a few variables, but each week that goes by makes Trump more and more inevitable.
Which leads to the inevitable question: How are all of these guys going to walk back their incendiary rhetoric regarding Trump, and somehow support him for the good of the Party and the country (not to mention the Veep slot or a cabinet position)?
It depends on whether Super Tuesday changes momentum.
Right now, that looks unlikely. But still possible.
We’ll see.
What is really ironic is that this calendar and the rules were set up to nominate Yeb!
They didn’t count on Trump.
Trump is probably not wrong, but the polls are very suspect.
I don’t want him to pick any of the also-rans as VP.
Yep, us, too. New Jersey is dead last. It should all be decided by then (June 7th).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.