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

[Alcon]

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.

None of that has anything to do with how little sense it made to model a sweep in Rhode Island.

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.

Even if Rhode Island is one of Trump's best states, that doesn't mean it's easier for him to sweep the Rhode Island delegates than pick up the equivalent number of delegates in, say, Indiana or California.

Here's an extreme version of that illogic.  If you assume that every delegate is easier to obtain in strong Trump states than in weaker Trump states, Trump will never be "on-track" if he's losing any delegates in any of his strongest states.  That's obviously not the case.

If your model doesn't mean to establish whether Trump is "on-track," and is simply a hypothetical scenario involving a ridiculously bad prediction of Rhode Island, OK, fine.  But if that's the case, it makes no sense as a rebuttal to the claim that a contested convention just became less likely tonight.

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.

My argument is that you are using the wrong way of establishing Trump's "baseline" of need.  It says absolutely nothing about whether I think Trump is above or below his baseline.

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

I'm not sure you have a "model" so much as a set of predictions, but in any case...

It's quite possible that the rest of your "model" is logical.  Even if it's not logical (or a model at all), it's quite possible that the rest of your "model" involves reasonable predictions.  But your use of your model as a baseline for what's "on-track" was not logical, and your model's prediction for Trump's baseline in Rhode Island was not reasonable.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Estimating above and below is a good way to erase bias. Small errors consistently on one side of the line will inflate totals. I agree that it was unlikely he would sweep Delaware, but in the end, my model predicted he'd be about 50 short.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have him at 162 in CA right now, but I don't have him winning Indiana. Indiana is closer to Wisconsin than it is to New York, and Trump has not done well in this area.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's silly logic. If Trump were already ahead, he would continue to be ahead. The reason the sweep doesn't mean that Trump is ahead is because he was behind.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, it does because he lost delegates that a sweep would have gotten him. Every delegate counts. I said the same after New York and folks laughed at me then.

1 delegate in Delaware is no more nor less valuable than any delegate anywhere else. This is why CO and WY and WI cost Trump so much.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If I don't assign delegates to Delaware than he's even further behind. The baseline is 1237.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm saying he's about 50 behind. The reason I say that is because I had him at 1k to be 'on track' for the nomination, and it's also why I said that Ohio was crucial.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In the end what matters is the delegate total, which was spot on. I was low in New York and high in Delaware and the two counterbalance each other.

[dax00]

My model is obviously superior. Models here are only useful for analysing the over/under on what Trump needs, not what we think he'd get. My model has Trump getting less than what I think he'd get (in all states) and is overall extremely reasonable (unlike Kenobi's).

Also, I understand naught of his spiel about Delaware, for it was winner-take-all and thus simple to predict/model. I'd like to add that one cannot be 'behind' in this type of model, for necessities change with unpredicted outcomes. With new results, one must adjust his model. Kenobi apparently was not adjusting his and so it made no sense considering the 'model's' assumption of Trump being behind. Delegates are only more costly if you are expected to earn them (and don't) in a particular state.

[Alcon]

Yes, it does because he lost delegates that a sweep would have gotten him. Every delegate counts. I said the same after New York and folks laughed at me then.

...Do you really not understand how this totally fails to address my criticism?  I'm happy to explain it in great, excruciating detail, but seriously dude, can you re-read my post and think it over for a few minutes first?  (My entire point is about prioritizing which delegates Trump "needs" to be "on-track" and which he doesn't.)

Also, as the gentleman above notes, Delaware is winner-take-all.  I assume you maybe meant Rhode Island, in which case "but in the end, my model predicted [Trump] would be 50 short" is a total non-sequitur.  I feel like you're talking more than you're thinking here.

[Badger]

Ben, are you seriously postulating that Trump gets little to none of the "unpledged" PA delegates, even among those who've publicly endorsed Trump or at least to support their district's winner? if so, Alcon's rght that your model is whack.

[IceAgeComing]

the idea that trump underperformed in Rhode Island because he didn't get the 67% he needed in both districts to get a sweep is silly; especially since making a landslide prediction like that based on absolutely no evidence for it (no polls had him that high, he were in the high 50s sure but he'd have needed literally every undecided voter to get to the 2/3rds mark and that almost happened, surprisingly).  Its almost as if you didn't actually look to see what the delegate rules where in every state before you began randomly giving numbers to people...

[Kalimantan]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Estimating above and below is a good way to erase bias. Small errors consistently on one side of the line will inflate totals. I agree that it was unlikely he would sweep Delaware, but in the end, my model predicted he'd be about 50 short.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have him at 162 in CA right now, but I don't have him winning Indiana. Indiana is closer to Wisconsin than it is to New York, and Trump has not done well in this area.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's silly logic. If Trump were already ahead, he would continue to be ahead. The reason the sweep doesn't mean that Trump is ahead is because he was behind.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, it does because he lost delegates that a sweep would have gotten him. Every delegate counts. I said the same after New York and folks laughed at me then.

1 delegate in Delaware is no more nor less valuable than any delegate anywhere else. This is why CO and WY and WI cost Trump so much.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If I don't assign delegates to Delaware than he's even further behind. The baseline is 1237.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm saying he's about 50 behind. The reason I say that is because I had him at 1k to be 'on track' for the nomination, and it's also why I said that Ohio was crucial.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In the end what matters is the delegate total, which was spot on. I was low in New York and high in Delaware and the two counterbalance each other.

What do you project for California? However I may apportion delegates in all the other states, I come to the same conclusion - if Trump does well in CA, he wins 1237+

[Alcon]

the idea that trump underperformed in Rhode Island because he didn't get the 67% he needed in both districts to get a sweep is silly; especially since making a landslide prediction like that based on absolutely no evidence for it (no polls had him that high, he were in the high 50s sure but he'd have needed literally every undecided voter to get to the 2/3rds mark and that almost happened, surprisingly).  Its almost as if you didn't actually look to see what the delegate rules where in every state before you began randomly giving numbers to people...

It's actually even sillier.  In RI you get delegates for hitting 10% both statewide and congressionally.  Cruz is currently winning 3 delegates because he didn't fall under 10% in RI-1 or statewide.  Ben's Rhode Island baseline (Trump's "on-track" number there) would have required Trump to keep both Cruz and Kasich under 10% statewide and in both congressional districts.  Obviously, a world where Trump manages that is very likely a world where he's on-track to win 1,237 pledged delegates in a walk.  Think of it this way: Trump would have had to take almost two-thirds of Kasich's Rhode Island vote share.  It's ridiculous that Ben would require that for Trump to be "on-track."

Ben, are you seriously postulating that Trump gets little to none of the "unpledged" PA delegates, even among those who've publicly endorsed Trump or at least to support their district's winner? if so, Alcon's rght that your model is whack.

To be totally clear, I do think that assumption is wrong, but I also have other problems with the model.  Basically, that he's determining what delegates Trump needs to be "on-track" to clinch based on something besides a probabilistic evaluation of the 1,237 easiest pledged delegates for Trump to get (or 1,237 minus 50 or whatever).  That means his "model" doesn't indicate whether Trump is "on-track" at all...I'm not sure what he thinks it does, honestly.

[IceAgeComing]

It's actually even sillier.  In RI you get delegates for hitting 10% both statewide and congressionally.  Cruz is currently winning 3 delegates because he didn't fall under 10% in RI-1 or statewide.  Ben's Rhode Island baseline (Trump's "on-track" number there) would have required Trump to keep both Cruz and Kasich under 10% statewide and in both congressional districts.  Obviously, a world where Trump manages that is very likely a world where he's on-track to win 1,237 pledged delegates.

When I was watching MSNBC last night they mentioned something about getting all the delegates automatically if you got over two-thirds of the votes; perhaps they got that wrong, I dunno.  Either way its ridiculous, the "Trump has to limit the other candidates below 10% of the vote everywhere!!" thing is just more so.

[Alcon]

It's actually even sillier.  In RI you get delegates for hitting 10% both statewide and congressionally.  Cruz is currently winning 3 delegates because he didn't fall under 10% in RI-1 or statewide.  Ben's Rhode Island baseline (Trump's "on-track" number there) would have required Trump to keep both Cruz and Kasich under 10% statewide and in both congressional districts.  Obviously, a world where Trump manages that is very likely a world where he's on-track to win 1,237 pledged delegates.

When I was watching MSNBC last night they mentioned something about getting all the delegates automatically if you got over two-thirds of the votes; perhaps they got that wrong, I dunno.  Either way its ridiculous, the "Trump has to limit the other candidates below 10% of the vote everywhere!!" thing is just more so.

It's confusing, but I think the deal is that if all three candidates broke 10% in a congressional district, all three of them get delegates.  However, if one candidate breaks 67%, they're guaranteed two of the three delegates -- but they only get all of them if no other candidate breaks 10%.

For instance, RI-1 looks like it was about 61% Trump, 26% Kasich, 11% Cruz.  That means all three candidates get one delegate, since all three broke 10% and no candidate hit 67%.

RI-2 looks like it was about 66% Trump, 23% Kasich, 9.8% Cruz.  Since Cruz is probably under 10%, he doesn't get any delegates.  That means Trump is likely to get 2 delegates and Kasich 1 (proportional).  If Cruz goes over 10%, the split there will be 1-1-1.  However, if Cruz goes over 10% but Trump also goes over 67%, Cruz does not receive a delegate, because hitting 67% guarantees Trump 2 of the 3 delegates.  If that happens, the delegate split will remain Trump 2, Kasich 1 (since Kasich beats out Cruz for the third delegate).

This all means that Trump would have had to keep Cruz and Kasich under 10% of the vote (statewide and in each CD) to be "on-track" in Ben's math.  That would require Trump to have won (statewide and in each C) with an absolute minimum of just over 80%.*  After all, keeping Cruz and Kasich under 10% requires Trump to be that high.  

Even if Rhode Island gave a delegate sweep at 67%, Ben's "on-track" number would be too high there, but since it doesn't, his number is completely ridiculous.

(this all assumes I'm not messing some detail up -- this is complex stuff)

_{* - I'm not sure whether this math includes the other ballot options -- Uncommitted, Marco Rubio, and Write-in -- but it doesn't matter much.  That just knocks Trump's minimum down to like 78%.}

[dax00]

It's confusing, but I think the deal is that if all three candidates broke 10% in a congressional district, all three of them get delegates.  However, if one candidate breaks 67%, they're guaranteed two of the three delegates -- but they only get all of them if no other candidate breaks 10%.

The way I understood it, You could still win all 3 delegates if the vote were split 84-13-3 or something, due to proportionality.

[Mr. Morden]

Updated national popular vote (Kasich finally catches up to Rubio):

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

Trump 40%
Cruz 27%
Kasich 14%
Rubio 14%
Carson 3%
Bush 1%

[Craziaskowboi]

Trump is probably going to win every county in all 5 states tonight.

I don't think even the most bullish of Trump optimists expected that.  I'm absolutely stupefied he might even win the DC suburbs.

Apparently everybody who benefits from the status quo in DC lives in the Virginia suburbs instead of the Maryland suburbs.

[Seriously?]

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."

Trump needed 90% of the vote to get all the delegates in RI under their formula. That's hard to get even in a dictatorship for crying out loud. There's a definite math fail here.

[Seriously?]

the idea that trump underperformed in Rhode Island because he didn't get the 67% he needed in both districts to get a sweep is silly; especially since making a landslide prediction like that based on absolutely no evidence for it (no polls had him that high, he were in the high 50s sure but he'd have needed literally every undecided voter to get to the 2/3rds mark and that almost happened, surprisingly).  Its almost as if you didn't actually look to see what the delegate rules where in every state before you began randomly giving numbers to people...

He needed 90% in both CDs and statewide to sweep or he needed Cruz AND Kasich under 10%. That wasn't happening. Ever.

He overperformed by getting 11 delegates instead of 10 in my opinion doing the math, which seems to be a fail here.

[Seriously?]

It's confusing, but I think the deal is that if all three candidates broke 10% in a congressional district, all three of them get delegates.  However, if one candidate breaks 67%, they're guaranteed two of the three delegates -- but they only get all of them if no other candidate breaks 10%.

The way I understood it, You could still win all 3 delegates if the vote were split 84-13-3 or something, due to proportionality.

Even then, statewide, it would have been split 9 Trump, 1 Kasich for the state delegation. Only way Trump clean sweeps is if both Cruz and Kasich were held under 10% or Trump got over 90% of the vote in BOTH CDs and statewide, which essentially would have done the same thing.

It is utter Fantasyland to think that that was possible in a contested primary.

[Badger]

Updated national popular vote (Kasich finally catches up to Carson):

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

Trump 40%
Cruz 27%
Kasich 14%
Rubio 14%
Carson 3%
Bush 1%

though sadly, he's still in 4th behind Rubio for number of delegates. he'll probably eventually surpass Rubio there if he stays in through CA though.