The Delegate Fight: 2016

[emailking]

Maryland: Trump 29 - Cruz 3 - Kasich 6
Another unclear one, but Trump should benefit from a divided field. Cruz maybe picks up the panhandle CD, while Kasich takes a couple of DC metro CDs.

Chuck Todd's team seemed to think Trump will do badly in MD because of how badly he did in DC. He did win VA though so I'm not sure what to make of it.

Erc I think you're wrong:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If he gets 50%, he wins all the delegates. NY is a winner take most state.

The Green Papers says it's by CD as well as a small slate that's statewide.

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

[Bacon King]

Erc I think you're wrong:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If he gets 50%, he wins all the delegates. NY is a winner take most state.

A lot of NY delegation is awarded by CD

In disagreements between Erc and random non-official websites, I will side with Erc every time

[Erc]

You say that Trump will do well in heavily Dem CD's in CA, but the latest poll, has LA County as Cruz's strongest area by far, with a pretty substantial lead.

Really?  Well, that's a bad sign for Trump.  Hope they are polling actual registered Republicans.

Maryland: Trump 29 - Cruz 3 - Kasich 6
Another unclear one, but Trump should benefit from a divided field. Cruz maybe picks up the panhandle CD, while Kasich takes a couple of DC metro CDs.

Chuck Todd's team seemed to think Trump will do badly in MD because of how badly he did in DC. He did win VA though so I'm not sure what to make of it.

Trump did get destroyed in DC, as well as in Arlington (albeit VA was an open primary, which actually hurt Trump there, in a reversal of the usual pattern) and to a lesser extent Fairfax.  Hard to extrapolate though...good sign for Kasich in Montgomery County, but hard to tell beyond that.

Baltimore and environs seem like they'd be good for Trump, given the BLM activity in the last year.

[Erc]

So, let's talk about California a little bit.

Field Poll subamples suggests Cruz doing well in LA County and the Central Valley, running close in the Bay Area (small subsample), but getting demolished in "Other Southern California."

So, "Other Southern California."  This seems to be San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Kern, San Bernardino, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, and Imperial.

Normally, I'd imagine San Diego and Orange to be prime Cruz country.  Does this mean Trump is demolishing everywhere else, or do I have the wrong read on these counties?

[Torie]

So, let's talk about California a little bit.

Field Poll subamples suggests Cruz doing well in LA County and the Central Valley, running close in the Bay Area (small subsample), but getting demolished in "Other Southern California."

So, "Other Southern California."  This seems to be San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Kern, San Bernardino, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, and Imperial.

Normally, I'd imagine San Diego and Orange to be prime Cruz country.  Does this mean Trump is demolishing everywhere else, or do I have the wrong read on these counties?

You have the counties right (other than maybe Kern and San Luis Obispo). The everywhere else in Socal number for Trump does seem high. Sure he is probably demolishing in Riverside and San Bernadino, and Kern of course if it is within the zone, but San Diego and Orange have more people. I would think Cruz would be particularly strong in Orange. Trump would do well in Ventura, and not well in Santa Barbara, but Ventura again has more people than Santa Barbara.

[Erc]

(No sane person would include Kern in "other Southern California," but it says it's 9 counties, so it has to be.  Kern could easily be either strong Trump or strong Cruz, I'm honestly not sure.  My folks are ancestrally from Tulare County; I'm curious to see how that neck of the woods turns out.)

Bay Area:

CDs 2, 3, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19.

LA County:

CDs 33, 30, 29, 28, 27, 32, 34, 37, 43, 40, 44, 38, 47, 25.

Other Southern California:

24, 23, 8, 26, 31, 35, 39, 41, 42, 45, 46, 48, 49, 36, 50, 51, 52, 53

Central Valley/Sierras:

1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 21, 22

Even if Cruz just wins the 24 CDs in LA and "Central Valley/Sierras", it's probably good enough to deny Trump the nomination.  Obviously, there's going to be regional variation, but that number is a good benchmark.  100-72 is not a big enough win for Trump, though of course he'll try to spin it as such.

And, all in all, this does stress that Kasich shouldn't be making a play here beyond the City of San Francisco itself.

[Erc]

Kasich and Rule 40

It seems abundantly clear that Kasich, barring a complete shakeup of the race and insular shenanigans, isn't going to qualify under Rule 40.

Both the Trump and Cruz campaigns have expressed an unwillingness to change Rule 40, so it seems unlikely that it will.  If this is indeed the case, what happens to Kasich's delegates?

Actually, not much.  The ones that are bound to him are still, for the most part, bound to him even if he isn't placed into nomination.  They will be obliged to vote for him on the first ballot, but the Secretary of the Convention will not tally their votes.  If they try to vote for someone else, that support will also not be recognized by the Secretary of the Convention.

There are a few exceptions to this.

New Hampshire (4 delegates): They are released if he is not a candidate before the convention; that said, Kasich picked these delegates and they may still vote for him anyway.

Vermont (8 delegates): These are released if he doesn't have his name placed into nomination.  These delegates are chosen by the State Convention on May 21, so Kasich doesn't necessarily have their loyalty.

Indiana, Montana, and South Dakota: In the event Kasich wins any delegates in these states (would require winning the state outright in the latter two cases, or any CDs in the former), they will also be released before the first ballot.

[Matty]

ERC, I am running the numbers and I don't see trump getting below 1237 if he gets all 95 NY delegates, which is huge possibility. In fact, he could lose California and MD and still get 1237 if all 95 NY dels go to him.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

ERC, I am running the numbers and I don't see trump getting below 1237 if he gets all 95 NY delegates, which is huge possibility. In fact, he could lose California and MD and still get 1237 if all 95 NY dels go to him.

I don't think he'll quite get all 95, but I would be shocked if he's under 85.  The couple thousand Republican voters in NY-15/NY-13/NY-07/NY-08 are likely to be devoutly religious Hispanic Catholics, black Evangelicals, and Orthodox Jews.  That's an opening for Cruz.

I feel like he will only get 65-75.  He should dominate upstate, but he will struggle in NYC and suburbs, I would think.  It will also be very close whether or not he gets all 14 statewide or just 7.

[Erc]

ERC, I am running the numbers and I don't see trump getting below 1237 if he gets all 95 NY delegates, which is huge possibility. In fact, he could lose California and MD and still get 1237 if all 95 NY dels go to him.

My current projections have him winning both California and MD (though neither in landslide fashion) and 84/95 delegates in New York, and still falling short by over 50 delegates.

Are you giving Trump Indiana or Montana or something?

[Erc]

Reposting this from another thread:

Master thread someone is keeping for the Pennsylvania delegates:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NfzyoWfwqjrYbc5Xqb9lyerxztNxLuZDzwPBarYZJFA/edit#gid=0

[Classic Conservative]

I know in Massachusetts we have Congressional District Caucuses for the Republicans on April 30th for delegates.

[Erc]

The Master PA sheet tells us, for the top 3 delegates on the ballot in each district:

Winner of District: 24
Uncommitted: 10
Cruz: 9
Trump: 5
Unknown: 4
Kasich: 1
Winner of State: 1

Note that the 1 Kasich delegate is uncontested, so Kasich will probably get at least 1 delegate out of Pennsylvania regardless.

[The Other Castro]

I guessed at the 3 delegate winners from each district on that Google Spreadsheet, and got these results for Pennsylvania (I made some assumptions about some delegates as well):

1 - Trump, Uncommitted, District Winner (Trump)
2 - Cruz, Uncommitted, District Winner (Trump)
3 - Trump, Uncommitted, District Winner (Trump)
4 - Cruz, District Winner (Kasich), District Winner (Kasich)
5 - District Winner (Trump), District Winner (Trump), District Winner (Trump)
6 - Cruz, District Winner (Kasich), District Winner (Kasich)
7 - District Winner (Kasich), District Winner (Kasich), Trump
8 - Uncommitted, Uncommitted, District Winner (Kasich)
9 - Cruz, Trump, District Winner (Kasich)
10 - Cruz, Trump, District Winner (Trump)
11 - Cruz, Cruz, Trump
12 - Trump, District Winner (Trump), District Winner (Trump)
13 - District Winner (Kasich), District Winner (Kasich), District Winner (Kasich)
14 - Cruz, Kasich, Cruz
15 - Cruz, Trump, Uncommitted
16 - Trump, District Winner (Kasich), District Winner (Kasich)
17 - Trump, Trump, Uncommitted
18 - District Winner (Trump), District Winner (Trump), Cruz

Trump: 11, Cruz: 11, Kasich: 1, Uncommitted: 7, District Winner: 24
With Predicted District Winners: Trump: 22, Kasich: 14, Cruz: 11, Uncommitted: 7
Total PA delegates: Trump: 39, Kasich: 14, Cruz: 11, Uncommitted: 7

I'm roughly predicting the CDs to break down like this:
Trump CDs: 10, 11, 17, 3, 5, 2, 1, 12, 18, 9
Kasich CDs: 4, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16

[Vosem]

ERC, I am running the numbers and I don't see trump getting below 1237 if he gets all 95 NY delegates, which is huge possibility. In fact, he could lose California and MD and still get 1237 if all 95 NY dels go to him.

If we go by Sabato projections, _trump is failing to hit his post-Ides of March goals even if he wins every delegate from NY. (Assuming 0 from Colorado, he got an extra delegate in ND, 14 extra in NY (his goal there was 81), lost 24 in Wisconsin, and lost 2 from Rubio's action in AK.) He would then be 11 short of his goal...1226 would probably still be a _trump victory, of course, but it would still be "contested", and of course I've said many times that I expect Cruz to win California, and Sabato's projection includes a decisive _trump wins in California and Indiana, though it also assumes no uncommitteds from Pennsylvania go _trump, which is obviously naive but is outweighed by places they seem to've underestimated him.

[Erc]

Master Delegate Spreadsheet

I've started a viewable delegate spreadsheet, which features live updates of:

1) Summary delegate chart on the front page.

2) A list of all 2472 delegates

3) Trump Tetris

4) RNC Delegate Map

It can be found here.  Hope this helps!

[Mr. Morden]

There are a few exceptions to this.

New Hampshire (4 delegates): They are released if he is not a candidate before the convention; that said, Kasich picked these delegates and they may still vote for him anyway.

Vermont (8 delegates): These are released if he doesn't have his name placed into nomination.  These delegates are chosen by the State Convention on May 21, so Kasich doesn't necessarily have their loyalty.

Indiana, Montana, and South Dakota: In the event Kasich wins any delegates in these states (would require winning the state outright in the latter two cases, or any CDs in the former), they will also be released before the first ballot.

Isn’t Rule 40 actually kind of a problem for Cruz then?  Here’s my logic:

I’m assuming that Cruz’s strategy is to win on the second ballot.  Winning on the first ballot seems like it’ll most likely be impossible for him, since there are enough Kasich and Rubio delegates who are pledged to vote for them on the first ballot regardless of whether their names are placed into nomination or not.  As you said, those delegates will vote for Kasich or Rubio, and the Secretary of the Convention just won’t tally their votes.  But that’s OK for Cruz.  His goal on the first ballot is just to make sure that Trump doesn’t get a majority.  A delegate voting for Kasich or Rubio is just as good as one voting for Cruz in terms of denying Trump a majority.

So then, Cruz should be happy to see delegates pledged to Kasich and Rubio on the first ballot.  If any of them become free agents, then some could defect to Trump, and it could be enough to get him to 1237.  Therefore, if Rule 40 means that Kasich delegates in IN or VT (or Rubio delegates in other states) get released and can vote for anyone, then Cruz has some additional delegates who he needs to worry about—who he needs to make sure don’t vote for Trump.

[Erc]

There are a few exceptions to this.

New Hampshire (4 delegates): They are released if he is not a candidate before the convention; that said, Kasich picked these delegates and they may still vote for him anyway.

Vermont (8 delegates): These are released if he doesn't have his name placed into nomination.  These delegates are chosen by the State Convention on May 21, so Kasich doesn't necessarily have their loyalty.

Indiana, Montana, and South Dakota: In the event Kasich wins any delegates in these states (would require winning the state outright in the latter two cases, or any CDs in the former), they will also be released before the first ballot.

Isn’t Rule 40 actually kind of a problem for Cruz then?  Here’s my logic:

I’m assuming that Cruz’s strategy is to win on the second ballot.  Winning on the first ballot seems like it’ll most likely be impossible for him, since there are enough Kasich and Rubio delegates who are pledged to vote for them on the first ballot regardless of whether their names are placed into nomination or not.  As you said, those delegates will vote for Kasich or Rubio, and the Secretary of the Convention just won’t tally their votes.  But that’s OK for Cruz.  His goal on the first ballot is just to make sure that Trump doesn’t get a majority.  A delegate voting for Kasich or Rubio is just as good as one voting for Cruz in terms of denying Trump a majority.

So then, Cruz should be happy to see delegates pledged to Kasich and Rubio on the first ballot.  If any of them become free agents, then some could defect to Trump, and it could be enough to get him to 1237.  Therefore, if Rule 40 means that Kasich delegates in IN or VT (or Rubio delegates in other states) get released and can vote for anyone, then Cruz has some additional delegates who he needs to worry about—who he needs to make sure don’t vote for Trump.

I'd agree with that, personally.  He's got two worries to balance here.

1) Trump winning on the first ballot.  Allowing Rubio and Kasich to be placed on the ballot ties up around 43 delegates (depending on interpretation of certain state rules), that you don't have to worry about defecting to Trump (assuming neither Rubio nor Kasich withdraw or release their delegates).

2) Kasich (or Rubio) winning on some later ballot.  If Kasich doesn't technically appear on the first ballot, his delegates may be demoralized on the first ballot (or, perhaps, confused about the rules) and not vote for him on later ballots, instead defecting to Cruz on later ballots.  If Cruz intends to campaign to change (or more properly, reinterpret) the rules to prohibit further names from being placed in nomination after the first ballot, then this is a larger factor.

Of course, Cruz has a lot of time here to figure out his convention strategy.  If Trump is above 1200, 1) becomes a larger concern.  Otherwise, it's not and he can feel free to shut Kasich out if he likes.

[Erc]

That said, the bulk of the delegates in question (32/43) are from Oklahoma and Minnesota, where he will presumably control the convention process and can handpick delegates.  (Already, he has one of the Rubio delegates from Oklahoma locked down).  Vermont is another question, of course, and if it comes down to those 8 delegates he may want to ensure Kasich is on the first ballot.

[Why]

If the rules of the convention are that only Trump or Cruz could be nominated could the convention become deadlocked with neither Trump or Cruz able to reach 1237?

[Erc]

If the rules of the convention are that only Trump or Cruz could be nominated could the convention become deadlocked with neither Trump or Cruz able to reach 1237?

In principle, sure.  Of course, a majority of the convention could always vote to change the rules if a majority of delegates actually favor a compromise candidate.

Outright Cruz victory on the 2nd or 3rd ballot seems more likely to me, though.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Green Papers still has Nevada 20-15 Hillary. But you still have one more delegate for Bernie somewhere else than them, do you know where?

[Gustaf]

Master Delegate Spreadsheet

I've started a viewable delegate spreadsheet, which features live updates of:

1) Summary delegate chart on the front page.

2) A list of all 2472 delegates

3) Trump Tetris

4) RNC Delegate Map

It can be found here.  Hope this helps!

Excellent! I think that in your summary sheet, cell L60 is wrong. Shouldn't it be the sum from L42 to L57?

[Mr. Morden]

Master Delegate Spreadsheet

I've started a viewable delegate spreadsheet, which features live updates of:

1) Summary delegate chart on the front page.

2) A list of all 2472 delegates

3) Trump Tetris

4) RNC Delegate Map

It can be found here.  Hope this helps!

Very cool Erc.  Just one extra thing that I was thinking of that would be useful: In another post you just made, about how Cruz loyalists controlled the delegate selection in states like MN and OK, that kind of thing would give us a clue as to who some of the "uncommitted" might actually support, right?

That is, as I understand it, you count 155 delegates (so far) not pledged to any candidate, but 33 of them have endorsed one of the candidates, so that leaves 122 for whom we're nominally uncertain about their loyalties.  But can you break down which of them were chosen in states where the delegate selection was controlled by Cruz loyalists (or loyalists of some other candidate)?  Do we have that kind of info, to help us decode the likely loyalty of those 122 delegates?

[Erc]

Excellent! I think that in your summary sheet, cell L60 is wrong. Shouldn't it be the sum from L42 to L57?

Old, duplicate cell; deleted now.  Thanks for the catch!

Very cool Erc.  Just one extra thing that I was thinking of that would be useful: In another post you just made, about how Cruz loyalists controlled the delegate selection in states like MN and OK, that kind of thing would give us a clue as to who some of the "uncommitted" might actually support, right?

That is, as I understand it, you count 155 delegates (so far) not pledged to any candidate, but 33 of them have endorsed one of the candidates, so that leaves 122 for whom we're nominally uncertain about their loyalties.  But can you break down which of them were chosen in states where the delegate selection was controlled by Cruz loyalists (or loyalists of some other candidate)?  Do we have that kind of info, to help us decode the likely loyalty of those 122 delegates?

The hard information I have is buried in the huge list of all the delegates.  Could be useful to break the unpledged delegates out into their own spreadsheet.

My guesses as to how Oklahoma and Minnesota will play out are based on (1) the results so far in OK [which are admittedly limited] and (2) my anecdotal evidence from the conventions I've been to here in MN.  Not all that much to go on, but I'll make a note of it.