Election 2016 Republican Presidential Primary Predictions

Note: The Google advertisement links below may advocate political positions that this site does not endorse.

Date of Prediction: 2016-01-15 Version:6

Prediction Map

Confidence Map

Prediction States Won

		26 \|	52 \|
Kasich	0
Bush	0
Rubio	0
Cruz	1
Trump	3
Carson	0
Other	48

Confidence States Won

		26 \|	52 \|
Kasich	0
Bush	0
Rubio	0
Cruz	0
Trump	1
Carson	0
Other	0
Tossup	51

Analysis

Analysis for this prediction can be found in the comments below due to the lack of support for multiple paragraphs: I may have gone a bit overboard on this one.

Prediction History
Prediction Graph

Comments History - show

Version History

Member Comments

By: darthpi (D-PA) 2016-01-15 @ 17:30:20
This map marks the beginning of a roughly two-month stretch of frequent updates; you can expect a new map from me every few days from now until after the March 15 primaries, when things will finally slow down a bit. Waves of states will be added in periodic major updates during this process: predictions for the Super Tuesday (March 1) states will go up after South Carolina votes (more on this below), the other early March states after Super Tuesday, and the March 15 states after Michigan votes on March 8. The other updates will be of a smaller scale, reflecting changes in conditions in individual states, along with occasional commentary on developments in the race at-large. Given that we are little more than two weeks out from the first votes being cast in Iowa, I have decided to use this prediction to provide a detailed, comprehensive assessment of the Republican primary race as I see it thus far, and various possible ways it could play out once voting gets underway.

By: darthpi (D-PA) 2016-01-15 @ 17:30:35
In the early states projected here, Donald Trump continues to be positioned very well. In Iowa, the evidence suggests that the gap between Trump and Ted Cruz has narrowed. I am not yet prepared to change my Cruz lead there, because I still suspect that his turnout operation will be better than Trump's, but it is possible that this could change if future polls indicate that this is the beginning of a more substantial decline for Cruz, rather than a small or temporary dip. Additionally, I do not see any candidates other than those two as likely to be viable in Iowa; Marco Rubio is polling well enough that in theory he has a chance of taking an upset victory, but it appears that his campaign's focus is on other states instead. New Hampshire, meanwhile, becomes the first lean state of the cycle, as Trump's lead has if anything expanded slightly, and as there is still no indication, even at this late stage, of a coalescing of support behind any of the establishment-backed candidates there. Time still remains for this to change, but at this point I would be surprised to see a candidate rally enough support to actually surpass Trump; a strong second-place showing seems more realistic. The situation in South Carolina looks roughly the same as it did in the last map, with Trump and Cruz still positioned well above the rest of the field, but the (arguably slight) possibility remains for now that an establishment name could rally after a strong showing in New Hampshire. Whether Trump or Cruz or someone else wins here is still highly volatile depending on the specifics of the results in Iowa and New Hampshire. Nevada, meanwhile, remains difficult to predict due to the fact that it is a rarely-polled state unlikely to receive nearly as much candidate or media attention as the other early states. I have it listed as a Trump win here, but that shouldn't be seen as much more than a gut feeling.

By: darthpi (D-PA) 2016-01-15 @ 17:30:51
At this point, I would be lying if I said I did not consider Donald Trump to the be candidate most likely to win the Republican nomination. His position in the early states is strong, he clearly seems to be the candidate resonating best with the mood of the Republican base, and he is likely to win big on Super Tuesday if he can capitalize on his potential in those early states. Trump's path to the nomination would likely include victories in the vast majority of Southern states, paired with wins in many of the larger states of the Northeast and Midwest (Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, etc). He seems less likely to rely on the smaller (often caucus) states of the rural Midwest and West than previous anti-establishment candidates like Rick Santorum have, though he may pick up a number of these anyway.

By: darthpi (D-PA) 2016-01-15 @ 17:31:08
Ted Cruz, the candidate I argued in my first few predictions would be the most likely nominee, seems to be the second most likely option at this point; whether or not his standing is deteriorating due to the ongoing controversy regarding his qualification as a natural-born citizen is hard to say right now (for the record, I think he does qualify). Much of what I said of Cruz in my initial predictions remains true: his campaign is still well-funded, he is the candidate closest to Trump on the issues (particularly immigration) that the Republican base seems to care about most this year, and he appears to be running a well-organized effort. However, he has not yet passed Trump in any early state except Iowa, and even there his lead is narrow. For now, he remains in a strong enough position in the early states that a win in Iowa should be sufficient to keep him competitive in other early states like South Carolina and Nevada. His path to the nomination would probably be more like the path Santorum tried in 2012, combining wins in the South with wins in rural Midwest and Western states like Kansas and Colorado, as well as at least a few wins in larger Midwest states like Ohio where Santorum fell slightly short. I don't believe that Cruz is likely to compete in the Northeast as well as Trump potentially could.

By: darthpi (D-PA) 2016-01-15 @ 17:31:21
Among the establishment-backed candidates, Marco Rubio remains the most likely to find a path to the nomination. He has higher favorability numbers and is better positioned ideologically than any of the others in the establishment lane, in addition to polling slightly better than the rest of those candidates in most of the early states. His path to the nomination would likely involve a decent second-place finish in New Hampshire, a respectable showing (a win remains possible though unlikely) in South Carolina, and then a come-from-behind victory in Nevada, leading to at least a few wins on Super Tuesday (Vermont, Massachusetts, Colorado, and Minnesota would seem to be potential targets). He would then probably have to endure a long grind, picking up occasional wins in states like Florida and Illinois, and maybe a few Western states like Utah, until the more establishment-friendly states like Maryland, New York, Connecticut, and California vote later in the cycle.

By: darthpi (D-PA) 2016-01-15 @ 17:31:33
The other establishment-backed candidates (Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, and John Kasich) seem to have much more difficult paths to the nomination, due to various disagreements on issues important to their party's base combined with favorability numbers generally worse than Rubio's. All three probably remain competitive for second place in New Hampshire, though how they would fare in the rest of the early states or in later contests is suspect. I would consider Christie to be the most likely of those three to somehow find a way to pull off an upset nomination, as his personality is a better match than the others' for what seems to be the prevailing angry mood in the Republican base right now, and as his favorability has at least been moving in a positive direction. All three of those candidates would rely on a fairly similar path to Rubio if they were to pull off an upset, though - as I think they would all likely struggle more in Western states like Colorado and Oregon - they would probably be even more dependent on performing well in the large states of the Midwest.

By: darthpi (D-PA) 2016-01-15 @ 17:31:48
As for the other candidates? I don't see any of them as having a realistic chance at the nomination. Ben Carson is well past his peak and his campaign now seems to be falling apart by the day. Carly Fiorina showed flashes of potential in the first few debates, but she has proven unable to capitalize on that potential since then and seems to have no path to anything even close to a decent showing in the early states; her return to the kids table in the last debate is an indicator of just how dire her situation is. Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee are past-their-prime has-beens of previous campaigns and are being treated by the voters as such. Even if one of them could somehow pull off a staggering late surge in Iowa the way Santorum did in the 2012 cycle (if, for example, Ted Cruz were to completely collapse to 0% there as this natural-born-citizen controversy plays out, and one of them were to benefit from such a collapse rather than Trump), I don't see either of them having enough of a campaign organization to win anything more than a small handful of states. Jim Gilmore isn't even on the ballot in most places and his campaign is so nonexistent that you would be forgiven for thinking he wasn't actually a candidate for president at all. And Rand Paul? He hasn't shown that he can even rally the die-hard core of supporters his father had, let alone any coalition that would be large enough for him to win the nomination. His decision to boycott the kids table debate was a desperate gambit for attention indicative of a flailing and failing candidacy. I would be surprised to see any of these candidates stay in the race later than New Hampshire or maybe South Carolina.

By: darthpi (D-PA) 2016-01-15 @ 17:32:07
Looking at how previous campaigns have unfolded, I feel it isn't yet an appropriate time to start making specific predictions of any individual states beyond the early ones; the rough outlines of how different scenarios might unfold that I have provided above are the best I can do for now. The national polls don't appear to mean all that much on their own at this point, though one can probably at least make reasonable assumptions of how those polls could change as some candidates rack up victories and gain momentum while other candidates drop out. In prior years, the national polls have tended to be volatile during this period as support shifts due to the bandwagon effect, settling in only after the final competitive early states have voted. For example, Mitt Romney only re-took a polling lead in the 2012 Republican primaries after he won the primaries in Michigan and Arizona a week before Super Tuesday. In the 2008 Republican primaries, John McCain went from a narrow national lead following his victories in New Hampshire and South Carolina to a vast national lead following his victory in Florida and Rudy Giuliani's subsequent exit from the race. On the Democratic side that year, Barack Obama only began to tie Hillary Clinton in the national polling after his victory in South Carolina. The Florida result on the Democratic side appears not to have mattered that year because Florida was expected to be stripped of delegates due to its decision to move its primary up; Barack Obama did not campaign there and thus Hillary Clinton's victory was viewed as essentially meaningless. Finally, in the 2004 Democratic race, though the polling seems to have been less frequent and is a bit harder to find, it appears that John Kerry went from a small national lead that he gained after winning Iowa to a large national lead following his victory in New Hampshire. In every one of these cases, candidates who were polling well nationally after the early states finished voting did better on Super Tuesday than candidates who were polling poorly nationally; I do not believe that this pattern will deviate this year.

By: darthpi (D-PA) 2016-01-15 @ 17:32:24
I would be remiss to not spend at least some time remarking on the continuing durability of Donald Trump, both in the national polls and in the early states. I am stunned by how the other major campaigns have been reluctant to challenge Trump more aggressively on policy; particularly by exposing the fact that in many areas he simply seems to have no idea what he is even talking about. The only candidates who have shown any real willingness to take him on consistently have been bottom-tier also-rans, like Rick Perry and Lindsey Graham, who never had any real chance to have their messages resonate. When they predictably failed to show any movement in the polls (predictable because they were viewed as attacking Trump in a desperate bid for attention), everyone just decided that going after Trump was a hopeless effort.

By: darthpi (D-PA) 2016-01-15 @ 17:32:39
For all I know, maybe that assessment is right, maybe it really is hopeless. Maybe the Republican base is so completely enraged right now by what they consider to be years of being ignored, mistreated, and betrayed by party leaders in Washington (particularly with respect to Trump's signature issue of immigration) that there genuinely is no hope that Trump - a candidate they see as best understanding that anger and who wears the criticism that he is angry as a badge of honor - can be taken down in this primary by normal, policy-focused arguments. Or maybe instead it is too late, and attacks that could have worked back in August or September - had they been made by candidates who were viewed as competitive rather than desperate and had they been reinforced by a well-funded advertising blitz - have now become futile as Trump has remained atop the field so long and as he has been able to define himself to the voters, rather than being defined by his opponents. Nonetheless, I feel it is political malpractice for the establishment campaigns to not make a more forceful effort on this front; if I were the head of Jeb Bush's SuperPAC I would spend every last dollar in that group's account drenching the airwaves in anti-Trump advertising. It may not be able to swing votes to Bush or any other candidate, but it could at least discourage Trump supporters from voting at all.

By: darthpi (D-PA) 2016-01-15 @ 17:32:58
All of the establishment-backed campaigns are seemingly relying on the notion that Trump's support will just collapse on its own, clinging to that belief in spite of the fact that none of the plethora of inflammatory, offensive, or just downright incompetent things that he has said over the last six-and-a-half months has caused any such deterioration (and quite frankly seems to have helped him in a fair number of cases). Indeed, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and John Kasich are all now engaged in a circular firing squad attacking each other in advertisements in the early states, which is only serving to further erode their collective chances, and which lets Trump stay undamaged above the fray. If this situation continues, then Ted Cruz will be the only candidate other than Trump who is still competitive for the nomination. Cruz's position in roughly the same tier of support as Trump in most of the early states means that he is the only other candidate who could do well in those states in a scenario where Trump's numbers do not substantially decline; this should ensure he remains a plausible contender in the later contests. Multiple bronze-medal finishes for Marco Rubio with 20% of the vote or less in this kind of scenario are not going to be sufficient to keep his candidacy afloat beyond Super Tuesday; he needs to show viability in the early states, or else he will become an afterthought like Rudy Giuliani in 2008, no matter what his campaign asserts to the contrary.

By: darthpi (D-PA) 2016-01-15 @ 17:33:12
Going forward, I'll be watching to see if there are any signs of a coalescing of support behind one of the establishment-backed candidates, particularly in New Hampshire, as well as any sign that such a candidate is prepared to take on Trump in the ways I have described. If there is, that candidate should have a chance (though not a guarantee) at winning or at least achieving a decent second-place showing in some of the early states, then turning that into some victories on Super Tuesday and making a credible run for the nomination. Otherwise, it is likely that the Republican nominee will be either Trump or Cruz.

By: darthpi (D-PA) 2016-01-15 @ 17:33:26
Also, just a final reminder: As in the previous few maps, I am using Mike Huckabee as a placeholder candidate in states where I am not yet willing to make a prediction.

User's Predictions

Prediction Score	States	Percent	Total	Accuracy	Ver	#D	Rank		#Pred
2024 President	/56	/56	/112	%					246
2022 Senate	32/35	25/35	57/70	81.4%	6	1	124	T	305
2022 Governor	34/36	29/36	63/72	87.5%	6	1	11	T	272
2020 President	52/56	39/56	91/112	81.3%	18	6	359	T	684
2018 Senate	32/35	23/35	55/70	78.6%	26	1	67	T	483
2018 Governor	32/36	23/36	55/72	76.4%	26	3	122	T	372
2016 President	51/56	33/56	84/112	75.0%	37	1	87	T	678
2014 Senate	34/36	26/36	60/72	83.3%	11	4	21	T	382
2014 Governor	31/36	17/36	48/72	66.7%	6	3	73	T	300
2012 President	56/56	45/56	101/112	90.2%	30	1	77	T	760
2012 Senate	32/33	22/33	54/66	81.8%	7	1	40	T	343
2012 Rep Primary	45/52	19/52	64/104	61.5%	42	-	25	T	231
2010 Senate	35/37	30/37	65/74	87.8%	26	1	5		456
2010 Governor	34/37	27/37	61/74	82.4%	6	1	29	T	312
2008 President	52/56	44/56	96/112	85.7%	19	1	74	T	1,505
2008 Dem Primary	37/52	19/52	56/104	53.8%	15	-	58	T	271
Aggregate Predictions	589/649	421/649	1010/1298	77.8%

User Info

darthpi Forum Profile

Links

	Republican Presidential Primary Predictions - Most Recent
	Republican Presidential Primary Predictions - Most Recent Comments
	Republican Presidential Primary Predictions Home

Back to 2016 Republican Presidential Primary Prediction Home - Predictions Home