Lets Model Out Trump in 3 Way Race (there is a faint chance he'd win) and in 2 Way as GOP Nominee

Ok now several national polls have come out today following last Thursday's first Republican nomination TV debate(s) on Fox and Trump did not fall. He still holds a massive lead over his rivals but his climb seems to have stalled on several of the polls into roughly that 24% range. Rubio and Fiorina are up, that was also what I expected, but Ben Carson up? Whats with that? And Ted Cruz is up? Did they watch the same debate or what is going on?

Ok. I did once again think that the Megyn Kelly comments were going too far and Trump may see a big fall, he didn't, but its early going for that, some of the polling was done before the big flap was fully on TV over the weekend news coverage. Nonetheless, Trump is still on top. And now we do have to take it seriously, and consider the math. What if...

What if Trump is the nominee for Republicans? What if Trump runs as an Independent. Can he win?

If Trump becomes the Republican nominee, he can't win the national vote. His support is a protest vote on the side where some with strong political views feel that the government has failed their wishes. These are Tea Party type beliefs and they want Hispanics deported, a huge wall, repealing of Obamacare, limits to the Supreme Court, abortion made illegal etc etc etc. Those positions do have a lot of support in the Tea Party edge of US politics, but now look at the Democratic side, the liberal side of the aisle. They are NOT angry at Washington or Obama or the Democrats or Hillary Clinton. They want MORE of what Obama has tried, they see the Republicans as obstructionists and they'd want essentially all that Hillary has to offer in the next term. So the protest part is mostly only among conservatives, not among liberals. If liberals or progressives are disappointed, they only are so in the way that not more has been done, and they see that Hillary is even a better solution to those issues than Obama had been who so often took centrist/moderate views.

With this, yes, Trump could win the nomination. He now stands at 24% nationally and Jeb Bush and Scott Walker are at half that. Trump actually polled better than Jeb (or Marco Rubio) in Florida, which would be catastrophic for Jeb's campaign if he can't win his home state. In the latest polls from the first two states, Iowa and New Hampshire, Trump is also well ahead. Walker (and Huckabee) desperately need to win Iowa, meanwhile Jeb Bush (and Chris Christie) need to desperately win New Hampshire. If polls stay as they are now, Trump will come out of the first two contests having won both. And in the past no candidate who won both of the first two states, has lost the nomination fight.

Note that the more candidates stay in the race, and the more there are moderates to prevent one from gaining a lead (ie Bush, Rubio, Kasich, Christie etc all eating from each other's support) the stronger is Trump's opportunity. He has a low ceiling even as that is gradually rising. He can't get into a two-way fight against a Bush or Walker or Rubio etc. But if there are 9 or 10 running by Iowa and New Hampshire, then 24% can rather easily win it, and the longer those rival stay in the race, the better for Trump's chances inside the party. Citizens United means that money is no longer the reason to drop out either, as long a you can find a Billionaire to prop up your brand of Republican.. And obviously Trump would self-finance so he doesn't even count. The fastest way for Trump to be eliminated is if the party falls in love with one candidate and that one picks up the majority of the support by say South Carolina. The worst for the party and best for Trump is if the party continues with ten or so viable candidates where no others can break 15% or 20%. Then Trump can continue to win with his low ceiling.

So its now quite conceivable that Trump could win the Republican nomination. I don't say its most likely, but he could. And then lets consider the match-up. Obviously there is already polling where Hillary beats Trump massively, more so than any other Republican rival. But I want to do a bit of analysis of why. Both Hillary and Trump have big negatives. But Hillary's negatives are miniscule within the Democratic party support. Trump's negatives are huge inside Republicans (half say they can't vote for him). So as there are more Democrat voters than Republican; and there will be a female surge because Hillary is first woman candidate and Trump has heavily alienated female voters (the Republican base support is already more male than female) and Trump scores 85% negatives among Hispanics after the Mexicans are Rapists nonsense, and those Hispanics already trend strongly Democratic, a head-to-head is a landslide for Hillary and the Democrats take both the Senate and the House.

But lets consider a 3-way race. What if Trump breaks away from the party and runs as an independent. If he ran towards the 'center' where the conventional wisdom says the winning margins are in elections, the most 'centrist' candidate who can win over most of the 'independent voters' tends to win - the Trump runs into all those hassles of the voters he's pissed off. He can't win there. But what of the Right Wing extreme? Break away WITH the Tea Party?

This gets interesting. So lets take Pew's latest study of US political affiliation. When the undecideds are allocated evenly, then it becomes 24% Republican, 42% Independent and 34% Democrat. Note that in terms of actual voting behavior the nation is verly close to evenly split, the liberal side slightly ahead, so if we allocate the independents to match approximately the last election, to get 48% Republicans and 52% Democrats (and this would now be very close to how Hillary polls against Bush, Walker, Rubio etc when she tends to have about a 5 point lead), it means about 24 of the 42 percent of the Independents lean Republican and obviously 18 lean Democratic (makes sense, the Republican party is more hated, so more conservatives would select 'independent' as their affiliation but still vote conservative).

So lets use this model:

24% are Republicans including Tea Party
24% are Independents who lean Republican
18% are Independents who lean Democratic
34% are Democrats

Now if the Republican nominee is a true conservative like Scott Walker then Trump doesn't have much room to take more than the Tea Party and he'd be crushed in third place maybe getting 20% of the national vote, Walker would finish second at about 28% and Hillary wins at about 52% of the vote. Remember, 18% of the Independents lean Democratic and a firebrand right-wing abortion ending union busting minorities hating Scott Walker or similar candidate would never appeal to these. So Scott Walker or similar Huckabee or whoever would then split whatever is left of 48% conservative where some women would bleed to Hillary's crushing election victory.

BUT, consider the opposite. What if the GOP race becomes somewhat polarized, Trump vs a moderate like Jeb Bush. Now it gets interesting. A moderate could find appeal in the middle and would not appeal to the extreme right wing. So now lets throw in some wicked curve-balls. First, lets assume Trump gets another conservative popular candidate to join him. Looking at the bizarre bounce that Dr Ben Carson got from the debate (I cannot fathom why he was seen to have been one of the winners) or take Huckabee or Cruz or Fiorina, take someone who is also a conservative but not traditional mid-ground 'very electable' candidate that appeals to the moderates of the Republicans so not Rubio or Walker or Kasich or Christie. Make the Trump ticket now 'double down' on the extreme conservative (Huckabee) or the wacky (Carson) or the business competence (Fiorina) or Tea Party (Cruz). But lets take the 'most beneficial' of those, lets say its the strong third-place finisher who appealed to 15% of the Republican voters.

Lets say its Carson for the sake of argument, the cooky outsider ticket. Trump-Carson. There is no room for Bush to try to flank these on the 'right wing' and they see much of that vote is now 'lost'. Bush would have to try really hard to get the centrist vote, moderates, so lets say Bush picks Kasich as his VP. Now we have a Bush-Kasich 'moderate' ticket that is appealing to gays, to Hispanics, doesn't deny global warming etc. A rather clean break from the Tea Party.

That is still not enough, but now, Hillary? She is currently pushing to near-Socialist VERY 'progressive' liberal positions on anything from taxes to gun control all sorts of 'freebies' like paid maternity leave, free college, etc. Now... a liberal Democrat will love all that but those Independents who only 'lean Democratic' would become alarmed that what if Hillary will wreck the economy and be like Jimmy Carter. With now TWO conservative tickets - of incredibly high funding - attacking her - Trump because he is now the 'conservative' and Bush because he can't steal from Trump, he has to steal from Hillary.

Now we get an interesting dynamic. Hillary will see erosion in her support mainly from the Independents who lean Democratic. With the 'other' extreme conservative to 'balance' the wackiness and arrogance of Trump, the Trump-Carson ticket becomes far more acceptable for conservatives who wouldn't vote for Trump alone. And Bush-Kasich clearly are Republicans In Name Only, pandering to the middle and abandoning most 'important' conservative positions from expelling all illegals to outlawing abortion to ending gays in the military to ending Common Core in education.

So now Hillary loses most of the left-leaning Independents. Most of the conservative-leaning Independents will go to Bush-Kasich but Trump-Carson pick up a significant minority of those. And Trump cleans up most of the Republicans.

We could have a situation where Hillary only holds her 34% of true Democrats. Bush-Kasich in the middle take 30% of the Independents and Trump takes most of the Republicans and enough of the right-leaning Independents to get 36% of the vote!

So mathematically it is plausible but not very likely. Note a few things to further squirrel this situation. First, if Bernie Sanders runs a long and energetic campaign with enthusiastic support as he has now started, once he is out, its possible many Sanders supporters will be demotivated to bother to vote at all. While Hillary should see a big surge her being the first woman on the top of the ticket, its still possible that overall, the Democratic enthusiasm is down a lot, partly as Hillary is so wooden (and old), partly as the Sanders campaign could create that disappointment where many left-wing loyalists really preferred Sanders. Remember, Democratic voters are far more fickle and their support is more volatile. Republican voters are more loyal and reliable.

Then take the same with Bush. He doesn't inspire anyone or anything (and Kasich is another boring technocrat). The mainstream Republican moderate vote could be suppressed from the levels it was with say Romney last time.

But the most loyal, most activist, most fervent voters are the conservative Tea Party wing, and now, for the first time they would have 'their' candidate. Its very possible that Tea Party turnout is exceptionally high. That scenario could bring the numbers to something like 32 Hillary, 28% Bush and 40% Trump. Note, as Trump has nationally something about 60% poisonous image, this is just about the ceiling of how far he can go. But that gives now a considerable margin already between Trump and the 2 rivals.

If Trump runs as an independent, he could win. I am sure he's done this math and sees the rough outline of how it could go. It would be absolutely essential for Bush or another moderate (Christie, Kasich, Pataki) to run as the main Republican nominee so that Trump can collect most of the conservative vote. Then it would be a question of how much could Hillary bleed to Bush. Its extremely likely that even in a 3 way race Hillary gets to 45% or more, and then there is no way for Trump to win. He would need Hillary to be off and for Bush to do a heroic, but just not good enough job of stealing enough, but not too much, of Hillary's vote, so that Trump finishes with more votes....

This analysis was done just on the overall 'national' math, not in any way attempting to consider Trump running as 3rd party in any individual state. In this scenario, a Bush-Kasich ticket would almost certainly win Florida and Ohio, for example, and so forth. Its not one election counting all the votes, its 51 separate elections (50 states and the District of Columbia). And that would be yet another complication.

But I wanted to post this out there, as I tend to look at things from a 'statistical' angle and yes, there is math that says if its a 3-way race, Trump could win it. That only works if there is a moderate Republican and he/she steals votes enough to push Hillary below 40% But in that scenario, Trump could be the next President. And looking at the wild and wacky of this year so far, we cannot rule that out, even as it is highly unlikely.

A far more likely scenario is that whoever the Republicans nominate, Hillary wins by double-digits and takes back the Senate, regardless of whether Trump is in it or not. The main question is, can Hillary's coat-tails also bring to the Democrats the House. The way these 17 Repblican candidates now pander to the nutty edge of the party and commit to lunatic positions, only strengthens Hillary's position. Not to mention the TV ads that will run where Marco Rubio proclaims that Hillary is the most experienced candidate of either party... 

Ok those are my thoughts today, still bewildered in the polling results coming in after the first debate(s). Carson up? Who woulda thunk it.

Comments

[Scott Lelievre]

Not sure I agree with your views Tomi because you seem to be a guy that thinks that many conservative positions are ludicrous. That may be so in liberal Finland but not in the USA.
I think Hillary is actually a terrible candidate, she is wooden, her ethics are very questionable, she has no record of real achievement and appears to be the presumptive nominee because she is a Clinton and she is a woman. But the enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders who is drawing crowds of 20,000 plus shows that liberals are not as entranced by Hillary as some might think.
So Hillary is very vulnerable to an articulate republican and even to a Democrat challenger, Joe Biden anyone?

I would be surprised if Hillary becomes president as the United States is a more conservative nation than you give credit for.

[Winter]

@Scott
"I would be surprised if Hillary becomes president as the United States is a more conservative nation than you give credit for. "

On the other hand, the US voted in a black president. I think I can say that not many people had expected that.

If I think there is one weak point in Tomi's analysis it is his feeling that many left-wing Democrats would stay home being disillusioned about Hillary. That was the feeling when Bush 2 was campaigning. GW showed that there is a very definite answer to the question "Why bother voting?".

So, if there was even a hint of a chance for a Tea Party candidate to win the elections, I expect every left wing Democrat will think thrice before staying home. You must hate Hillary very, very much before you would prefer a Trump Tea Party ticket.

[Winter]

The Onion has some advice for the Republican party:

How The GOP Can Appeal To Women
http://www.theonion.com/graphic/how-gop-can-appeal-women-51055

The disconcerting fact is that reality is even worse than the jokes of the Onion. Trumpzilla's remarks about Megan's period are compliments compared to what some candidates in the last election' said about rape. And even a cursory glance over Scott Walker's track record against women's issues gives anyone the creeps.

[Paul]

Actually, all Trump has to do to win the GOP nominee is to suggest to his "friends" to give big donations to all the other candidates in order to keep as many of them in the race as long as possible. Pretty neat if you ask me!

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi Scott, Winter and Paul

Scott - I appreciate the doubts and yes I am a Finn and I live in Hong Kong so what can I know haha. I did live 12 years in the USA (1983-1995 ie Reagan to Bush 1 to Clinton) and I completed a minor degree in Political Science out of simply a deep passion in politics knowing I would never go into politics nor have any work in or near it - I did this while completing a business degree in Marketing with honors and another minor in computer science while also winning debate tournaments for my university, so it wasn't like I had tons of time to kill either haha. So compared to haha 'most Finns' I probably do have a stronger understanding of the US Presidential politics than most.

But lets then go to my past. This blog has existed for a bit over 10 years so I've been able to cover two US Presidential election cycles (2008, 2012) and while this blog is about tech and mobile, I did do that via some occasional blogs - including predicting the election outcomes. 2008 predicting for Obama was no miracle haha, that anyone could see, but 2012 as the polls tightened and some said Romney would squeak it, I predicted correctly 49 states of 50 plus of course DC. Very few pundits got 49 of 50 states. Obviously I correctly predicted Obama's victory. After that amazing record, I then messed it up totally in the 2014 midterms when I thought there was a technical systematic advantage for the DEMs and that because of this, the polls would be wrong - and blogged that belief here, only to find obviously that the GOP crushed the DEMs in the midterms and took over the Senate. I am most definitely not infallible but my insights arguably are 'better' at the Presidential level than the Congressional level.

And then one more item. I wrote a deep, thorough, item-by-item analysis of Hillary's chances in 2016 - and wrote this last October! Long long before we saw who of the Republican field would run, and what rivals would come up from her own party. I explained why Hillary will win in 2016 and not by a narrow normal Presidential margin, she will hae a blow-out and win by double digits. Now Scott, I sense from your comment that you are probably a Republican or conservative or lean that way. So if you do read my Hillary will win in 2016 blog written last year, it will probably be very painful. But so far - EVERYTHING that I wrote then, has been coming true. Several of the issues I wrote about in October 2014 nobody else was yet discussing about this election cycle. So if you want that level of pain, here is the link

http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2014/10/hows-this-for-early-prediction-hillary-wins-in-2016-thats-not-bold-but-get-this-by-more-than-12-poin.html

But before reading that, as you seem to be a conservative, why not read how I predicted the GOP nomination fight would go. I wrote this in February of 2015, long before we saw what the field will look like. And EVERYTHING in that blog has come true, but you will not find ANYONE else who wrote all those things in February. People such as Carl Rove have come up with similar analysis weeks after my blog (and I am CERTAIN he isn't reading this mostly mobile-tech blog, so am not claiming I influenced his thinking, but rather, that I have been able to foresee views to the Republican nomination fight that other major conservative experts and pundits have LATER written about and come to similar conclusions). So this is probably what you should read first, and if you find it valuable, insightful and truly ground-breaking when written six months ago, if you notice nobody else was writing those things then, perhaps you can accept my insights as 'potentially useful' haha. And no, I am not always right, so with that, here is that link

http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2015/02/2016-republican-primary-season-will-collide-with-reality-of-math-primary-season-will-be-unprecedente.html

But thanks for writing. I love discussion and debate and it is more interesting when people do not agree with everything I say haha, I greatly appreciate your comments. Lets get to the specifics. You first argue that I don't understand the US when I say that "many conservative positions are ludicrous". Well, I do go with math instinctively. So for example the immigration question. Polling very consistently finds that two thirds of Americans want the illegals already in the USA to be given some path to legal status, ranging from full amnesty to something less than that. But several of the GOP field argue for total deportation of 11 million illegals. I recognize that the fear of foreigners and hatered of illegals is a strong emotion and millions of conservative and Tea Party voters feel that way - but the MAJORITY of the US population does NOT think that way. One of the findings by the Republican Party's own 'autopsy' about the 2012 election was that the party has to deal with immgiration and get the Hispanics to not hate them as much. But now these positions are - in that light - ludicrous. The current crop is picking positions which are deliberately against any chances of winning in the general election.

An aberration? The majority of US population believe that a woman should have the right to choose if she wants to have an abortion at least in the case of rape, incest or if the woman's own life is in danger. We have now, for the first time, several leading GOP candidates saying they don't want abortion rights for women even in the case of rape. Not even if they are victims of incest. And not even - this ironically from the party that claims to defend life - if the woman's own life is at stake. This is a ludricrous position pandering to a small religious fringe that goes against the vast majority of US voters.

What about minimum wage? Yes its a populist argument and I studied business and economics (later added a Finance MBA to my degrees) so yes, I know fully well a minimum wage is no panacea, it has its problems. But the national minimum wage has not been raised to keep up with inflation. The support for minimum wage increase to at least the '10-10' ie $10.10 per hour is a huge majority over 3 in 4 Americans. But this field of Republicans is against it.

Do we want to go on, the Republican position on gun control is against 90% of Americans, 75% of Republicans and 60% of NRA members !!! But no, the Republicans don't want to touch gun control. Healtcare? Obamacare that didn't bring about death panels, didn't put the health industry into banckruptcy, didn't cause massive unemployment but is bringing health benefits to millions. And yet the Republicans push that silly position they want to repeal it - or replace it with something so vague none explain what they'd do. This, while Obamacare is Romneycare, a CONSERVATIVE approach to national healthcare. Hillary's 'Hillarycare' ie the single-payer system what for example Trump has advocated before that the USA should have - would be far more 'socialist' than Obamacare ie Romneycare. I could go on and on and on. This year's Republican field is taking ludicrous positions - and the reason they are pushed to it so fast and so far, is that Trump is hogging all the media attention, so the other 16 have to adopt outrageous positions just to get any attention.

Scott, we may disagree if these are good for the USA or not. But these positions I mentioned are all populist positions where the majority of US current electorate is on the side that the GOP is opposing. Is that smart politics or is that taking a ludicrous stand. One or two positions of principle I can understand. Not when they do it across almost everything imaginable.

(hold on, let me post this, will continue with more)

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Scott - so yeah, then you have doubts about Hillary's chances. Thats fair and perhaps partisan but lets take them one by one. You say she's a terrible candidate as she's wooden. Fair, especially if you compare her to Obama the best public speaker the USA has seen in at least our lifetimes. But compared to Scott Walker or John Kasich or Jeb Bush? These are MORE wooden candidates than Hillary is. Trump, Rubio, Christie, yes there are also quite animated and expressive speakers among Republicans but most of the field is wooden and gosh more wooden than Hillary.

Ethics questionable - fine, I'll grant you that. Its definitely one of her biggest weaknesses and she seems to play to type such as how she's been handling the email fuss. However much of the email story is fabricated and kept alive by relentless badgering by the GOP and conservatives and Fox etc (including that latest ludicrous NY Times story that they had to correct twice).

Now achievement. Again fair argument, but as Senator obviously its a collaborative effort and her achievements are far more than say Marco Rubio's. And as Secretary of State, yes its Obama's foreign policy that she had to implement but 'achievement' you gotta be kidding. Ending one of the USA's two longest wars is a HUGE achievement for any Secy of State. The re-setting of the poisonous Bush-Cheney foreign policy that had all of USA's allies running away, and today the USA is regarded internationally in higher standing than in over fourty year according to fresh polling just out by Pew last week. A huge part of the turnaround in the US image abroad was Hillary's 'frequent flier miles' job visiting personally tons of countries. But no, being a Senator or a Cabinet Member is not 'achieving' in the same way as being a Governor, which I do think is the best possible experience (in a large state) for prepping for the job of US President. But just being Governor doesn't mean you did a good job at it. NJ Governor Chris Christie had tons of achiements and so toxic, he is the second most hated sitting Governor who cannot even win his home state. The only Governor achieving even more destruction to his state and his reputation is another of the GOP field, Louisiana's Bobby Jindal literally most hated sitting Governor in office today.

When Hillary was Secy of State, she was the most admired woman in the world and had huge approval ratings in the USA and many conservatives - haha including Donald Trump - said she was doing a great job. As Marco Rubio said, if experience is the test, Hillary has more of it than any of the 17 current Republican candidates (and poor Marco, that clip will run in an endless loop from September to voting day in November by pro-Hillary superPACs).

As to Bernie's support. That Trump is able to draw huge crowds does not mean that Scott Walker's supporters are not dedicated... You see my argument. It is not mutually exclusive that Bernie draws big crowds and that therefore it would mean Hillary is toast. She hasn't even started properly campaigning simply because she wants to maintain this illusion that there is a fight in her party, because voters don't like a coronation. It is a coronation. The four dwarfs going after her have no chance. Its likely Hillary wins every state but if Bernie breaks through, Hillary's overwhelming cash and party support will crush him utterly by Super Tuesday. Hillary is maintaining a convenient image that there is a battle. There is none. She has locked the Democratic nomination. No nominee (who was not a sitting President or VP) from EITHER party has ever had this strong a lead at this point in time. Hillary is steamrolling to her nomination. If you Scott think there is a chance for Bernie or Biden, you are deluding yourself. Whether she wins in 2016 is a point that can be argued. Most pundits on both sides concede, there is no chance for the midgets to win anything against Hillary in the DEM nomination.

Which means, she escapes that journey essentially unscathed. While the GOP field is in a circular firing squad all attacking each other in ever more vicious ways. There has NEVER been this much vitriol by either party, this far out before the first contest, where they bitch and moan about each other, as the GOP now is doing.

Now, you say you'd be surprised if Hillary wins. I take it you know, that nearly all of the head-to-head polling puts Hillary in a comfortable lead against all rivals. The Real Clear Politics average of most recent polls says she is ahead by 4.2% against Jeb Bush, 6.6% against Scott Walker, 5.5% against Rand Paul, 6.6% against Marco Rubio, 7.6% against Ted Cruz, and on and on ever more worse odds up to 14.8% Hillary's advantage against Trump. I suggest Scott, please for your own comfort and sanity, accept that the facts are, that Hillary is SOLIDLY ahead at this point in time. That may not hold (it has held very steadily for the past 12 months on RCP averages) but at least now, please prepare for the LIKELIHOOD that Hillary will be the winner. ANY of the Republican field are underdogs. ALL of them including your Rubio. Big underdogs. and CONSISTENTLY underdogs.

Now only five quick comments to consider. First, economy. When the economy is bad, the USA replaces the party in charge. The US economy is growing, unemployment is at 5.5% and the general mood about the economy is improving accordingly (the US population 'feel good' factor lags the actual economy by 6 months). If the US economy craters before November 2016, then yes big threat to Hillary. If the economy continues even at this 'anemic' (haha) rate - the longest continuous period of growth and job growth in US HISTORY - then the voters will not want to kick out the Democrats from the White House.

Second, US Presidential approval. Obama today at 45% approval is FAR ahead of Bush 2 at this point in his second term - and about on par with Reagan and Clinton at this point in their terms. This is the level where the US electorate is happy to continue with the President's party as Bush 1 was able to do after Reagan, and Al Gore did get the majority of the votes while losing the Electoral College (after the Supreme Court and Florida recount) to Bush 2.

Third, female vote. There was an unprecedented surge of black voters who came in to vote for Obama. Blacks are only one in seven US voters. Women are 54% of the voters. There will be a surge of women voters and unless Carly Fiorina is the top of the ticket against her, Hillary will take a massive advantage out of women who normally would not bother to vote. Many moderate conservatives will vote for Hillary because she is a woman - similar to how many moderate conservative blacks voted for Obama like Colin Powell. This is only made FAR WORSE by the war on women that the Republicans now continue such as wanting to outlaw abortion even if it means killing the mother.

Fourth, the Hispanic vote. The conservative autopsy of the 2012 Romney loss calculated that the GOP needs at least 40% of the Hispanic vote to be able to win the White House. Romney got 27%, McCain got 31% in 2008. The trend is the wrong direction - BEFORE the 'deport them all' rhetoric and 'all Mexicans are rapists'. Meanwhile you know who is the most popular white politician among Hispanics? Bill Clinton. Number 2? Hillary Clinton. They have worked tirelessly to help Hispanics way back from Bill's days as Governor to today. Hillary will almost certainly pick Julian Castro as her VP and the surge in Hispanic vote - for the DEMs - alone will be an unsurmountable lead.

And lastly electoral college math. The current Presidential election math gives a near lock to the DEMs in Presidential election years. The GOP needs to nearly run the table to be competitive. So Virginia, Ohio, Nevada, Florida, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Colorado - go see how Hillary is doing in those states against her GOP rivals, she is CRUSHING them. This all means, the CLEAR front-runner is Hillary at this point in time.

But there is no sure thing in politics, and she is one heart-attack from being the underdog in the race. Now, with all that, please consider again what I wrote about these GOP candidates in this blog today (and read that one I wrote about the GOP nomination fight in February). Lets park the Hillary question until we see the party conventions and the real contest starts in the summer of 2016. Lets now talk about the nomination fight. You said you didn't trust my thinking, but what POINTS that I made about the possibility mathematically that Trump might win or be the spoiler, do those make sense to you or would you like to argue or offer other views?

Thanks!

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Winter & Paul

Winter - haha yes. That is the FAR more likely scenario. This Trump dream cannot succeed unless Hillary bleeds support to a moderate Republican in the middle - AND that her support is not particularly large. But all signs suggest that there will be a big female wave and likely also a Hispanic wave, which means that she can bleed some support and still take home more than 40% ie the 3-way polling suggest she wins it easily taking 45% against Bush and Trump.

Paul - haha good scenario and yeah but those Billionaires do tend to feel very possessive of their money for some reason and might not want to throw good money into a bad campaign...

Pls keep the discussion going, this is far more fun than the boring Q2 smartphone 'wars'

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Per "wertigon" Ekström]

Another argument against abortion:

So, you say you are for life? Imagine a young teenager, 14 years old, living in an orphanage. Not saying she's smart or doing the right choices, but she ends up getting pregnant. Ok, let's ponder this situation.

In this situation there are two choices. Abortion, or birth.If you are so pro-life as you claim,

If this girl would choose to give birth, rather than abortion, she would bring a child to the world with no means to support that child. That child will end up rejected and miserable, possibly even growing up on the street - if it even survives.

These are the children your politics would give birth to. Especially if you at the same time oppose all forms of birth control. Personally, I do not think this is a reasonable stance. Others may disagree.

[Paul]

@Tommi

> Paul - haha good scenario and yeah but those Billionaires do tend to feel very possessive of their
> money for some reason and might not want to throw good money into a bad campaign...

Divide et impera! All politicians worth their weights in salt know this! This is somehow a surprise for the public only.

If those Billionaires want to support another Billionaire like them (that is Trump here) then the best way to support is to spread their donations to several campaigns of the rest of candidates just to give them false hopes (this will prevent the coagulation of a Trump competitor)! Actually if all the billionaires would stop supporting right now all the other candidates, then that would do a big disservice done to Trump as you highlighted. I am sure that that those Billionaires figure this out by now!

The only questions is: are are there enough Billionaires willing to support Trump (by doing this)? Until now it looks like this is the case. Are the Republicans able to dry out all the resources of all Trump's opponents except one they would choose to beat Trump later?

[Mike]

Tomi - absolutely love this blog. Stumbled on this and being a Nokia fanboy wanted to know WHY it was acting the way it was... and i stayed for your articles. You make Math and Statistics interesting! I wish i had you as my stats teacher. Your views on Mobile future (not handsets) are enagaging and even your article on Aircraft carriers (Yeah!) was an eye opener.
This recent (for me) plunge into the world of politics is interesting once again - the maths and stats very persuasive (Note: Maths and stats and not your personal political views). Even your estimation of the speakers at the faux debate was really interesting. As a novice speaker (just joined Toastmasters a public speaking group - No debating club exists where i live) even more lessons for me to take and ponder.
Just wanted to say Great blog (but spell check!)

[Wayne Borean]

Tomi,

Interesting article from the National Post, my favorite newspaper.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/donald-trump-the-loose-cannon-u-s-republicans-all-but-powerless-to-stop-billionaires-candidacy

[Per "wertigon" Ekström]

Lawrence Lessig says he'll try to run as democrat president to "fix the broken system", probably no success to win but interesting, nonetheless...

http://www.lessig.org/2015/08/why-i-want-to-run/

[Winter]

@Per
"These are the children your politics would give birth to. Especially if you at the same time oppose all forms of birth control. Personally, I do not think this is a reasonable stance. Others may disagree."

I think there is a big disconnect. Religion is about the soul. It is ONLY about the soul.

Non-religious types have changed to a moral system that is about making this a better world to live in.

For a really orthodox religious person, that is utter non-sense. The quality of life of the people, and their life-span, in this world has no importance at all. People could all die a painful and miserable death after they are baptized. As long as there are enough people left to baptize the rest, that is OK.

The only, and I really mean THE ONLY thing that counts is whether the soul is pure and has a chance to go to heaven (God decides, you know).

And if we go to the really deep orthodox, they only care about their own soul. They are selfish to a pathological level. A really ultra-orthodox believer would let all of the world die a horrible death and have them go to hell if it would save his own soul.

So, your dilemma is not a dilemma at all. For an anti-abortionist, both mother and child can die of hunger and exposure. The really faithful simply do not care about the well being of mother and child. If the pro-lifer is charitable, they might care for the soul of the mother. But that is it.

[Per "wertigon" Ekström]

@Winter:

So, all that matters is sending all people to heaven?

Then you should be pro-abortion, because what soul is more pure than the one never born? :)

[Winter]

@Per
"Then you should be pro-abortion, because what soul is more pure than the one never born? :)"

Only after baptism. Un-baptized children go to hell.

But what is more important, by abortion you soil your own soul. That always takes precedent.

Remember, you are not on this world to help others, but to get to heaven yourself. There are prescriptions that you need to help others in certain situations to get in heaven yourself. Say, converting people to the true faith should be done because it helps your own soul going to heaven.

Note that I am talking here about the extreme orthodox faithful. That is, the holier than thou crowd.

[Catriona]

There is no way Trump wins a 3-way race. He is garnering roughly 20-30% of the protest vote within the GOP. That's at best 8-12% of the total vote, and even if you add in independents that's not enough to take a single state. The last third party candidates to win states were the Dixiecrats (which was really a much larger percentage of the Democratic party splintering). Since then, no one, not even Ross Perot, came close to winning a state as a third party or independent candidate. Trump isn't going to get the "conservative" vote if Bush or Rubio is nominated. Is his support of a single-payer health care system "conservative"? What about his abuse of eminent domain laws? And all his donations to the Clintons over the years? Is that "conservative"?

Anyway, with all your infatuation with Trump (who is likely a Clinton plant), you seem to have missed some important news. Bernie Sanders is now polling ahead of Clinton in New Hampshire! NH is known for deliberately voting for contrarian candidates (Pat Buchanan in 1992, Eugene McCarthy in 1964, even to some extent Hillary Clinton in 2008) to "send a message." New Hampshire voters aren't socialist (unlike their neighbors in Vermont). They don't agree with Sanders on the issues. However, it seems that they are sending Hillary a message.

Also quite tellingly, Hillary also did an about face and released her e-mail server to the FBI. You know quite well she had no intention of doing so. Obviously she hopes that this will stem her recent fall in the polls. Her biggest risk is a self-implosion, and that's an increasing possibility, particularly if she's forced to actually campaign in the Democratic primary. Will Biden see this as a way in?

[Catriona]

Hillary is the "most experienced" candidate of either party because she married the right guy and stuck by him just like Tammy Wynette even though he walked all over her. She is either dumb as a box of rocks, has no sense of self-worth, or is just power-crazy and delusional and actually thinks she could have accomplished anything important politically without Bill.

[Winter]

@Catriona
Your comments make me suspect you are grasping at straws.

I think only those who limit their news sources to Fox News will believe what you write. And those that cannot cope with hard reality.

But I suspect these groups largely overlap.

[Catriona]

@Winter, I don't really watch much Fox News. I think that Tomi and most of the tech community is living in fairy tale land in being cheerleaders for Hillary Clinton. She isn't her husband. We don't need 8 more years of Obama. If anemic growth is the new normal, we won't be able to afford her massive expansion of the welfare state (which Bill Clinton did much to rein under control during his popular 2 terms in office). We've thrown hundreds of billions of dollars at universities since the 1960s. Throwing another $350 billion isn't going to make it any more affordable.

You need to be clueless to think that Hillary is inevitable. She's polling behind several of the mainstream GOP candidates in Iowa now (according to the Democratic-leaning and fairly accurate Public Policy Polling group). As recently as July she said she would fight to keep the e-mail server private, and just yesterday she did an about face. There are rumblings that Biden should join the race "just in case" Hillary implodes. These are not the signs of a strong campaign.

[Per "wertigon" Ekström]

@Winter:

Ah yes. There's always a way to explain it off. Personally I find that way of thinking abhorrent - one shouldn't do "good" things because somehow that will get you into heaven one day. One should do good things because in the end, doing good things help yourself, too. Incidentally, yes I do believe in Karma. Help people in need and people will help you once you are in need of help, is my philosophy - and it's often true, though there are exceptions, too. But I digress.

@Catriona:

Sadly, US universities (and education at large) are starting to become a joke, it's a really sad state of affairs. When high schoolers cannot give answers to even basic math such as the product of 8*6 without looking it up, you know your people are in big trouble - especially since most blue-collar jobs are disappearing because of machines.

Education is the only way to make a country richer in the long run. That's why an investment in universities is spot on. One will have a really hard time to succeed without education, either gained formally (get a degree) or informally (see famous college dropouts[1]), and if the pool of educated people becomes smaller, then the brilliant minds inventing the next Apple will be smaller too. :)

[1] http://www.buzzfeed.com/ashleyperez/23-famous-dropouts-who-turned-out-just-fine