Post-debate Nomination Probabilities 1/15

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Just a couple weeks and change from Iowa:

Trump 70%
Cruz  15%
Rubio 10%
Christie 5%

Clinton 88% (assuming what Holmes posted yesterday about Iowa is true, I see it as very difficult to overcome, especially with the likely Souper Tusdey fierwall)
Sanders 11%
Field 1%

[Mehmentum]

Trump: 45%
Cruz: 30%
Rubio: 15%
Christie: 5%
All others: 5%

Clinton: 80%
Sanders: 20%

[Torie]

Please leave a comment on my blog who is your winner and loser of the debates last night!!!

https://strehlspresidentialelection2016.wordpress.com/2016/01/15/who-won-the-debates/

Please stop hawking your blog immediately. I saw that you did it once, and let it go, but now it has been 4 times in quick succession. That is against our rules, and it is one of those rules, like socking, that rather promptly leads to a ban. Perhaps you were unaware of this rule, but now you know. Thanks.

[Del Tachi]

Trump - 42%
Rubio - 30%
Cruz - 25%
Field - 3%

[Crumpets]

Trump: 40
Cruz: 30
Rubio: 25
All others: 5

[mencken]

Just pulling some assumptions out of my rear end:

• Any candidate that wins both Iowa and New Hampshire has a ~90% chance of being the nominee.
• The establishment may eventually gets its act together and rally around its most viable candidate.
  
  • in the event of a Cruz/Trump early state split, odds would be roughly a four-way split between Trump, Cruz, establishment candidate, and some pre-convention deal.
  • In the event of a establishment/Cruz or Trump early state split, odds would be roughly 60-30-10 between Trump or Cruz, establishment candidate, and some pre-convention deal.

That leaves us with roughly:
Trump ~45%
Cruz ~25%
Rubio ~10%
Christie ~10%
Smoke-Filled Room ~5%
Bush ~2%
Kasich ~2%


For the Democrats, I would not be as generous to Bernie should he win both early states; let's say that such an event makes the nomination a 50-40-10 affair between Clinton, Bernie, and a pre-convention deal; splitting the early states gives Clinton a 90% chance, and sweeping the early states gives her a lock. That reduces to:

Clinton ~75%
Sanders ~20%
Smoke-filled Room ~5%

[Bull Moose Base]

Delusional to think Christie has a 10 or even 5% chance of being the nominee.

[mencken]

Delusional to think Christie has a 10 or even 5% chance of being the nominee.

While Rubio has more establishment support at present, Christie negates that advantage by not being a metrosexual, and thus having a least a semi-plausible chance of winning over some of Trump's base.

[Broken System]

Trump 40%
Cruz 25%
Rubio 20%
Christie 5%
Kasich 4%
Bush 2%
Carson 2%
Romney (convention) 1%
Santorum 0.4%
Huckabee 0.4%
Paul 0.1%
Fiorina 0.09%
Gilmore 0.01%

[Maxwell]

45% TRUMP
30% Cruz
15% Rubio
5% Christie
5% Field
0% Bush
0% Kasich

[The Other Castro]

Cruz 39%
Trump 30%
Rubio 24%
Christie 5%
Romney 1%
Other 1%

[mencken]

They won't do a smoke-filled room to torpedo Trump/Cruz.  That would be the kiss of death in November.  After last night:

Trump 50%
Cruz    25%
Rubio  20%
Someone Else 5%

Nominating someone other than those 3 would require a huge scandal, or a SCOTUS ruling that presumptive nominee Cruz isn't natural born.  If Trump takes IA and NH, it's probably over.  Cruz is significantly hurt by lacking a path to victory in NH with Rubio/Christie still in the race.  Rubio is hurt by the Western and heavily Hispanic states being so late.  NV is probably do or die for Rubio, IA is do or die for Cruz, NH is do or die for Trump

"Smoke-filled room" is not inconsistent with nominating one of the candidates running (quite the contrary). It really depends on the order of the candidates to determine whether that implies the establishment being a kingmaker in a Trump-Cruz battle, a Trump/Cruz ticket to fend off establishment meddling, some sort of deal with one of them to get their preferred candidate past the finish line, or outright theft of delegates. In any event, a Clinton presidency may be preferable to a Trump or Cruz presidency as far as the Republican establishment is concerned, as they may be less than inclined to look toward Bush-era retreads for staffing the bureaucracy.