Republican Acela Corridor Tuesday results thread (all polls close at 8pm ET)

[Joe Republic]

Even in a victory scenario I don't think Trump carries Florida or Nevada.

Many of my (Nevadan) friends are young Hispanic Republicans who would vote Trump over Hillary.

Interesting; none of my (Nevadan) friends would vote Trump over Hillary.

Does my anecdote trump yours, I wonder?

Trump's even over 50% in the blue blood island towns of RI.  Didn't see that coming.

Has anybody checked in on Winfield?  I hope he's okay...

[Holmes]

Rhode Island:  Trump 64 / Kasich 25 / Cruz 10 - 11 delegates for Trump, 5 for Kasich, 3 for Cruz

The rest were crappy predictions.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He needed to be at 1k after April and the NE.  Getting zero delegates in Colorado and Wyoming and losing Wisconsin bigly hurt him badly for the nomination.

Coming into WI and CO put him right at 1235. Right now I have him at 1185, falling short of the nomination.

I had him winning every delegate tonight and 75 in New York. So my prediction ran about spot on.

[Alcon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He needed to be at 1k after April and the NE.  Getting zero delegates in Colorado and losing Wisconsin bigly hurt him badly for the nomination.

Coming into WI and CO put him right at 1235. Right now I have him at 1185, falling short of the nomination.

I had him winning every delegate tonight and 75 in New York. So my prediction ran about spot on.

You just told me nothing about your methodology and didn't answer the concern I raised

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I ran off the delegate totals and estimated that Trump would be regionally stronger in the NE, with additional Kasich support and Cruz support. You're right, he wasn't expected to do as well in RI, but that was the only path I saw to him getting to 1237.

I was not far off. I had him under in NY and so the numbers come out correct. He still needed to be at 1k to be on course for the nomination.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

538 has him winning Indiana. I do not. I was closer than 538's predictions.

[libertpaulian]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I ran off the delegate totals and estimated that Trump would be regionally stronger in the NE, with additional Kasich support and Cruz support. You're right, he wasn't expected to do as well in RI, but that was the only path I saw to him getting to 1237.

I was not far off. I had him under in NY and so the numbers come out correct. He still needed to be at 1k to be on course for the nomination.

Are you counting PA's unpledged delegates?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Given Trump's inability to retain his own delegates, I can't see him picking up the unpledged PA delegates.

[Holmes]

Well, the PA delegates are chosen. Now. And most (almost all) of their intentions are publicly known. The party can't steal some away for Cruz. They're locked in.

[Alcon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I ran off the delegate totals and estimated that Trump would be regionally stronger in the NE, with additional Kasich support and Cruz support. You're right, he wasn't expected to do as well in RI, but that was the only path I saw to him getting to 1237.

I was not far off. I had him under in NY and so the numbers come out correct. He still needed to be at 1k to be on course for the nomination.

But, again, unless I'm missing something, that makes no sense.  You're saying he fell short of what he "needed," but you had him winning all delegates in Rhode Island.  A world in which Donald Trump wins Rhode Island by enough to win all of its delegates, is a world where Donald Trump obviously wins California and Indiana by enough that it doesn't matter.  You're incorrectly modeling what Trump "needs."

[Mr. Morden]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Given Trump's inability to retain his own delegates, I can't see him picking up the unpledged PA delegates.

So when you say you have him at 1185, you mean 1185 pledged delegates only?  By Erc's #s, there will be ~180 unpledged delegates on the first ballot.  Surely some of them will vote Trump, especially those who've already said they're going to vote for Trump.

I'd agree that there's a good chance that Trump gets less than 1237 pledged delegates, but since he's inevitably going to get the votes of some of those unpledged delegates as well, it's hard to see how he's not currently favored to win on the first ballot.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, no I'm not. Trump needs 1237. To get there, there are several paths, but all of them have him at 1k delegates at this point in the race.

This is why he threw his trumpertantrum over Colorado's delegates. He did the math and realized that even with a sweep tonight - which he was denied, he would fall short.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your two statements contradict each other. If he's under 1237 pledged delegates, he will not be the nominee.

Right now, he's odds on to fall short. He's hardly the 'presumptive nominee', less than 50 percent chance of taking the nomination.

[Mr. Morden]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your two statements contradict each other. If he's under 1237 pledged delegates, he will not be the nominee.

No, that isn't true.  Unpledged delegates also get to vote on the first ballot.  Some of them will vote for Trump.  Maybe not a majority, but some of them.  So he could very well have fewer than 1237 pledged delegates, and still win the nomination on the first ballot if he wins a sufficiently large number of unpledged delegates.

[bigedlb]

There is also a #NeverTrump preferred slate:

https://voices.nevertrump.com/vote-for-these-delegates-in-the-pennsylvania-primary-on-april-26th-d49b83cd970b#.9qfc0ze6u

7 of the people on this list had also previously said they would vote for the district winner according to Nate Cohn, so it looks like we have some liars here.

To be fair, Nancy Schrader (PA-10) has stated she will support the district winner, unless the winner is Trump.

Yet, here are the 6 Lyin' Delegates:

Michelle Harris Kichline (PA-06)
Joan Miller (PA-07)
Michael Puppio (PA-07)
Robert Willert (PA-07)
Shannon Oscar (PA-13)
David Dumeyer (PA-16)

Luckily for Trump, none of these folks are on his published list of delegates.

LOL NANCY NEVERTRUMP finished 5th in district 10, Per Pennsylvania Green Papers

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He needs to get 1237 pledged delegates on the first ballot. If he doesn't get them he will not be the nominee.

That is the problem that Trump has at this point. Enough Republicans will not vote for him and will not support him.

The other problem is that he's irreparably damaged at this point. There has never been a nominee with fewer than 50 percent of the overall republican votes.

McCain got 52 percent. Romney also got 52. Bush Jr got 62. Dole, 58. Bush Sr. 68 percent, Reagan, 60 percent. Ford got 53 percent.

68, 62, 60 were winners. 58, 52, 52, 53 were all losers.

Basically, Trump is looking at a Goldwaterish landslide loss, just looking at the ballot boxes.

[Alcon]

edit based on your last post: dude that is not what "pledged delegates" are.  Delegates do not become "pledged" once they vote.  "Pledged delegates" are delegates who are elected or appointed with the specific directions to support a given candidate at the convention (at least on the first ballot).  Mr. Morden's point is that there are a bunch of unpledged delegates that will be voting on the first ballot, so Trump doesn't need to enter with 1237 pledged delegates to be on-track to win, unless you expect he'll get no votes from unpledged delegates.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, no I'm not. Trump needs 1237. To get there, there are several paths, but all of them have him at 1k delegates at this point in the race.

This is why he threw his trumpertantrum over Colorado's delegates. He did the math and realized that even with a sweep tonight - which he was denied, he would fall short.

You argued that Trump "needed all the delegates tonight" to hit 1237.  You argued this based on your model.  I'm asking why your model assumes Trump's most likely (let alone necessary!) route to 1237 involves a sweep in Rhode Island.  A Trump delegate sweep in Rhode Island would have required an epic overperformance -- obviously a much more unlikely outcome than Trump overperforming enough in other upcoming states enough to hit 1237.  If Trump is keeping Cruz and Kasich below threshold in Rhode Island, he's probably "on track" to win the remaining states by way more than he needs to.  If that's the case, your model doesn't represent what Trump needs to be "on track," which makes it effectively useless except as an obscure hypothetical.

Am I missing something here?  Mr. Morden?  Anyone?

[Mr. Morden]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He needs to get 1237 pledged delegates on the first ballot. If he doesn't get them he will not be the nominee.

I don't understand why you think that.  Again, a candidate needs 1237 total delegates in order to be nominated on the first ballot.  Total delegates, not pledged delegates.  I guess the exact number of unpledged delegates is still undetermined, because of varying rules from state to state about what happens to delegates pledged to candidates who've dropped out, or candidates like Kasich who don't reach the Rule 40b threshold.  But Erc estimated it at ~180 or so.

So when you say that Trump needs 1237 pledged delegates, that means that you're predicting that Trump will get the votes of zero of the ~180 unpledged delegates?  You think all of them, including those who've already endorsed him, will not vote for him?

[dax00]

Am I missing something here?  Mr. Morden?  Anyone?

You are well-informed. His 'model' is wack. I think mine (see signature) is much better.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One, Kasich delegates are not going Trump. Cruz has already secured them. Same with Rubio.

Two, I think that the vast majority of unpledged will go Cruz. Cruz probably already has a plan to win them over. Trump can't keep his own delegates. Why would this change now?

Trump has to win on the first ballot, or he will lose and the Republican party will choose someone else.

Trump has what, 37 percent of Republican voters now? That's why he has to win on the first ballot from pledged delegates. It's also why he's gonna get screwed when delegates are free to vote for whomever they want.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because my model predicts that Trump falls about 50 delegates short of the nomination.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The delegates have to come from somewhere. I didn't feel comfortable predicting a sweep of NY, and I felt more comfortable in predicting a sweep tonight. I come out just about right, and more right than 538.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So far it's called Wyoming (Cruz sweep), Colorado (Cruz sweep), Wisconsin within a point, and got the delegate totals correct for NY and the corridor tonight.

You're right, that perhaps Indiana will be a win for Trump, but I'm predicting a Cruz victory here.

What were your predictions tonight?

[Mr. Morden]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One, Kasich delegates are not going Trump. Cruz has already secured them. Same with Rubio.

Two, I think that the vast majority of unpledged will go Cruz. Cruz probably already has a plan to win them over. Trump can't keep his own delegates. Why would this change now?

The majority of the unpledged can vote for Cruz, while Trump still wins *some* of them.  He already has endorsements from ~30 from Pennsylvania alone.  Why would all of them now decide not to vote for him?

On the first ballot Trump could, for example, get the votes of 1200 pledged delegates and 40 unpledged delegates.  The majority of unpledged delegates go with Cruz, but with 40 going for Trump, Trump still wins the nomination in that scenario.  When you say that Trump needs 1237 pledged delegates alone, you're saying that Trump will win zero unpledged delegates.  Not just that he'll fail to get a majority of them, but that he'll get zero.  That doesn't make sense to me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I agree with that part.  I just think that he can win on the first ballot even if his pledged delegate count is a bit below 1237, because at least *some* of the unpledged delegates will vote for him.

[Alcon]

The delegates have to come from somewhere. I didn't feel comfortable predicting a sweep of NY, and I felt more comfortable in predicting a sweep tonight. I come out just about right, and more right than 538.

I'm just going to keep repeating this until you understand it.  You're claiming that your model indicates what Trump "needs" in each state to be on track to win 1,237 pledged delegates -- or, in fact, to fall 50 short.  You were claiming that Trump "lost ground" tonight on what he needs to lose by 50 pledged delegates, because he failed to stay on-track by not sweeping Rhode Island.

In other words, your model assumed Trump needed to keep Cruz and Kasich under 10% in both Rhode Island congressional seats to stay "on-track."  That would have been a huge overperformance, obviously.  If Trump overperformed in every subsequent state to that extent, he'd easily win more than 1,237 pledged delegates.  In other words, a delegate sweep of Rhode Island isn't "on-track" to win 1,237 pledged delegates (let alone fall 50 short).  It's way overboard.

That's not a model of what Trump "needs."  It's not a model of what keeps him "on-track."  It's a theoretical scenario you've created where Trump falls short of 1,237 pledged delegates while winning a freakish super-victory in Rhode Island for no reason.  That seems pointless to me as a "model."  It's also objectively not a sound rebuttal of the post you originally replied to, which claimed that Trump was on-track.

So far it's called Wyoming (Cruz sweep), Colorado (Cruz sweep), Wisconsin within a point, and got the delegate totals correct for NY and the corridor tonight.

You're right, that perhaps Indiana will be a win for Trump, but I'm predicting a Cruz victory here.

What were your predictions tonight?

Things that have nothing to do with the validity of my logical criticism of your model:

1. Whether you predicted delegates accurately in past races.

2. Whether I predicted delegates accurately in past races.

3. Anything about either me or you.

Things that do have to do with the validity of my logical criticism of your model:

1. The logical validity of my logical criticism of your model.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Would we have predicted after Florida, South Carolina and Super Tuesday that Trump would still be fighting off Cruz?

They are unpledged meaning they don't have to cast their vote until the convention. Lots can change in the meantime.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If it goes to the convention, (and it should), lots can happen. PA vote was today. Convention won't be until August. That's 4, 5 months.

Trump has to win 1237 before the convention in pledged delegates. If it's even *close*, the majority of Republicans who did not vote for Trump will want their say.

They will also be more likely to dump Trump because of his inability to close it out. We shall see.

Indiana will be crucial. If Cruz wins we'll be going to a contested nomination.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sorry, the math was done long before Wisconsin, and before Wyoming and Colorado. Trump has been in trouble for a long time, since he lost Ohio to Kasich. Said it then, say it now.

We are just about done the primary season. Romney had it wrapped up by Wisconsin, and his run was very late. Trump has not managed to do that. By losing in Wisconsin, he assured that he would not mathematically be able to clinch pledged delegates before California. Cruz now has no incentive to drop before California.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're assuming that each state is linked to each other. I am not. I am treating each state as it's own mini-election. Trump's strongest states are in this corridor, ergo I assign delegates to his strong states before assigning them to his weak states.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not nonsense. I'm sorry you can't understand that Trump has been behind since he lost Ohio. Those delegates need to be made up. It's like Alice and Wonderland. He has to run twice as hard to catch up.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That it predicted the delegate counts correctly is a solid indicator that my model is working well.