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