Republican Bayou/Cauci Saturday election results thread (first results @3pm ET?)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Not at all.  Those are old Democrats who are now basically Republicans.  Without Clinton running against two candidates, LA hasn't been battleground ever really.  I mean it was part of Carter's coalition, but since 1968 has been Republican and even in 1964.

Clinton won 52% in LA in 1996, so certainly nobody spoiled it for Dole, and even Gore was within single-digits here. Try again.

Clinton also won 52% in WV in 1996 and Gore was within single digits, yet no one would claim that state was going to be a battleground. Same holds for Louisiana, just not to the same degree.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Not at all.  Those are old Democrats who are now basically Republicans.  Without Clinton running against two candidates, LA hasn't been battleground ever really.  I mean it was part of Carter's coalition, but since 1968 has been Republican and even in 1964.

Clinton won 52% in LA in 1996, so certainly nobody spoiled it for Dole, and even Gore was within single-digits here. Try again.

Clinton also won 52% in WV in 1996 and Gore was within single digits, yet no one would claim that state was going to be a battleground. Same holds for Louisiana, just not to the same degree.

Carter won Mississippi in 1976. Therefore Democrats should totally target it.

[Landslide Lyndon]

National popular vote so far, across all primaries and caucuses to date:

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/R

Trump 34%
Cruz 29%
Rubio 21%
Kasich 7%
Carson 6%
Bush 2%

Sure is a powerful popular vote mandate for Trump from the Republican electorate, no?

But he will mobilize hordes of blue collar whites that will swamp Hillary in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio.

[jimrtex]

The stats people working behind the scenes on election nights do know what they're doing, and it's validated by the fact that their calls are virtually never wrong, even when people debate on here that this that or the other call may be premature.

If you use a MOE based on a 95% probability, you will be wrong 5% of the time as far as the margin of victory. But they never announce that "We now project that Smith will win by 17.2% plus or minus 3.4%.", so we don't know when the final result ends up 13.5% or 21.0% that they actually made an erroneous projection, other than the winner.

The people who pay the stats people are quite unlikely to demand that they be 99.999% sure. Instead they are going to want an answer sooner than later.

The reason that they seem to be virtually never wrong is that I can call Rhode Island for the Democratic candidate 8 months before the election, with no exit polling, no results, and not even knowing who the candidates will be.

[Ljube]

National popular vote so far, across all primaries and caucuses to date:

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/R

Trump 34%
Cruz 29%
Rubio 21%
Kasich 7%
Carson 6%
Bush 2%

Sure is a powerful popular vote mandate for Trump from the Republican electorate, no?

Does anybody else have a better mandate?

[Tender Branson]

TRUMP collapsed a bit last night.

Will be interesting to see if this continues on Tuesday. MI and MS should be good indicators.

[jimrtex]

The turnout game...

Kansas:

Republicans: 73,116 (65.2%)
Democrats: 39,043 (34.8%)

Louisiana:

Democrats: 311,613 (50.9%)
Republicans: 301,169 (49.1%)

LA = swing state?

Closed primary. Its actually pretty impressive for Republicans considering Democrats have a massive advantage with registration still to this day.

Republican turnout was 36.3%, Democratic turnout was 23.3%.

[/]

National popular vote so far, across all primaries and caucuses to date:

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/R

Trump 34%
Cruz 29%
Rubio 21%
Kasich 7%
Carson 6%
Bush 2%

Sure is a powerful popular vote mandate for Trump from the Republican electorate, no?

not so lavenous any more...

[Mr. Morden]

National popular vote so far, across all primaries and caucuses to date:

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/R

Trump 34%
Cruz 29%
Rubio 21%
Kasich 7%
Carson 6%
Bush 2%

Sure is a powerful popular vote mandate for Trump from the Republican electorate, no?

Does anybody else have a better mandate?

No, none of them do.  This is not an especially popular group of candidates among their own party, by the standards of recent presidential nomination battles:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republican-voters-kind-of-hate-all-their-choices/

But if you listen to the commentary on CNN, you might think that Trump is this overwhelming consensus candidate within the party or something.  "Oh, look.  He's winning all these states!  The voters love him!"

[Ljube]

National popular vote so far, across all primaries and caucuses to date:

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/R

Trump 34%
Cruz 29%
Rubio 21%
Kasich 7%
Carson 6%
Bush 2%

Sure is a powerful popular vote mandate for Trump from the Republican electorate, no?

Does anybody else have a better mandate?

No, none of them do.  This is not an especially popular group of candidates among their own party, by the standards of recent presidential nomination battles:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republican-voters-kind-of-hate-all-their-choices/

But if you listen to the commentary on CNN, you might think that Trump is this overwhelming consensus candidate within the party or something.  "Oh, look.  He's winning all these states!  The voters love him!"

Yeah. Well, you know what. He should be. Otherwise the party is losing for sure. Down ballot races won't be spared.

[Cape Verde]

Not at all.  Those are old Democrats who are now basically Republicans.  Without Clinton running against two candidates, LA hasn't been battleground ever really.  I mean it was part of Carter's coalition, but since 1968 has been Republican and even in 1964.

Clinton won 52% in LA in 1996, so certainly nobody spoiled it for Dole, and even Gore was within single-digits here. Try again.

Clinton also won 52% in WV in 1996 and Gore was within single digits, yet no one would claim that state was going to be a battleground. Same holds for Louisiana, just not to the same degree.

Carter won Mississippi in 1976. Therefore Democrats should totally target it.

The 1996 Louisiana results seem quiet surprising. Louisiana was the only Southern state where Clinton surpassed Carter 76's margins (Florida is an exception because it went through huge demographic shifts). Even in Arkansas, Clinton could not surpass Carter 76's numbers during both of his run for presidency.

[Kalimantan]

TRUMP collapsed a bit last night.

Will be interesting to see if this continues on Tuesday. MI and MS should be good indicators.

Not so sure of that, the poll aggregates for Trump were 41% for LA and 35% for KY, and he basically scored exactly that, so he didn't really collapse. What he didn't  do was pick up any of the undecided vote, and together with lots of Rubio voters switching to Cruz meant his margin was low single digits when the polls had projected large leads. Meanwhile he has no ground game in caucus states. But he's still winning. MI and MS will indeed be interesting

[Vosem]

Not at all.  Those are old Democrats who are now basically Republicans.  Without Clinton running against two candidates, LA hasn't been battleground ever really.  I mean it was part of Carter's coalition, but since 1968 has been Republican and even in 1964.

Clinton won 52% in LA in 1996, so certainly nobody spoiled it for Dole, and even Gore was within single-digits here. Try again.

Clinton also won 52% in WV in 1996 and Gore was within single digits, yet no one would claim that state was going to be a battleground. Same holds for Louisiana, just not to the same degree.

I'm not saying that the state is going to be a battleground, but saying "since 1968 [Louisiana] has been Republican" is pretty ridiculous. Especially since it didn't even vote Republican in 1968.

[Likely Voter]

National popular vote so far, across all primaries and caucuses to date:

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/R

Trump 34%
Cruz 29%
Rubio 21%
Kasich 7%
Carson 6%
Bush 2%

Sure is a powerful popular vote mandate for Trump from the Republican electorate, no?

But Trump got 49% in a CNN poll and obviously polls are more important than votes

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

As I said in IRC, regardless of the outcome, the LA call was way too early.

But how do you conclude that? They call it when they're confident someone will win, not when they're confident it won't tighten significantly. They know what they're doing.

Let's dispel the fiction that the news media know what they're doing. They have no idea what they're doing.

The stats people working behind the scenes on election nights do know what they're doing, and it's validated by the fact that their calls are virtually never wrong, even when people debate on here that this that or the other call may be premature.

Not sure why you're so invested here. But since network calls are usually made on a combination of exit polls and early data, and in this case there were no exit polls and the early vote turned out not to be matched by same-day voting.

Considering they didn't call KY which had a bigger margin in the end, calling LA without waiting to see how the real data was flowing was a mistake, IMO.