My Delegate Count Projection for Republican Race Through First 4 States in February: Trump 35%, Cruz 25%, Rubio 15%, Christie 5%

Its now a quiet time in US politics (and still nothing happening in mobile/digital of note, we will get into the quarterly results for Oct-Dec Quarter in January). We've now seen the campaigns in action for several months after my first 'Form Book' and can evaluate their effectiveness and likely chances into the first states that vote. Some truly startling numbers have come out about TV ad spending and travel days logged etc, plus we've had five TV debates in total on the Republican side, and reasonably consistent national polling and rather clear in-state polling for the first three states (Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Nevada is the fourth state to vote in February). I think a reasonably clear picture now emerges for the start of the race for 2016, on the Republican side. I can project that very roughly speaking, Donald Trump will have about 35% of the delegates (actually 36%), roughly 25% will be with Ted Cruz, roughly 15% with Marco Rubio and about 5% with Chris Christie (actually 6%). So as a rule of thumb, consider 35, 25, 15 and 5 (with last 20% distributed in tiny portions among the seven others). I expect most of the field to drop out by then and the race to feature these four candidates going into March, with probably also Carly Fiorina and Rand Paul hanging in the race. A long shot chance is that Jeb Bush or even Dr Ben Carson might be technically running but would be by then on life-support and nobody taking those two seriously. The exact projection of delegates through the first four states to vote, after February, is as follows:

Trump 47 delegates 36%
Cruz 34 delegates 25%
Rubio 20 delegates 15%
Christie 8 delegates 6%
Fiorina 6 delegates 5%
Paul 4 delegates 3%
Rest 15 delegates split among 5 candidates who will have quit by end of February
Total 133 delegates awarded so far during February

So the race to me will be between four realistic candidates, Trump, Cruz and Rubio with Christie the long-shot dark horse. Fiorina and Rand Paul might hang on in the race to pick up a few delegaetes every now and then, to hope for some power-broker decision-maker status, if the primary season ends up in a deadlocked convention scenario and their modest delegate count(s) might be the deciding factor for one side or the other. I will explain in this blog how I get to those numbers and what kind of interesting data has come in, plus some of my assumptions that went into the specific state delegate counts that I am now projecting. Lets start with some new and fascinating raw data.

TV AD SPEND MOSTLY A LOST CAUSE

As Trump has effectively ruled the TV news coverage, the effect of TV advertising has been almost negligable. Not quite, but almost. We have the TV spending by all campaigns calculated and reported by NBC/SMG and its fascinating. Of all 16 candidates that were alive through this period (including Lindsay Graham who just dropped out), six candidates have accounted for 93% of the ads. That includes the Democrats. Of Republican ads, four candidates accounted for 91% fo their ads (Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, John Kasich and Chris Christie). Jeb Bush accounted for almost half (48%) of all ads run by the dozen Republicans in the race. I will list the TV ad spending and correlate it with the Real Clear Politics national polling average from two months ago (end of October) and then look at the latest four polls averaged, that came out after the last CNN debate. Thus we can see how the TV ad spending has (maybe) helped a candidate or not. 

CANDIDATE . . . . TV AD SPEND . . RCP AVERAGE OCT 25 . . . AVE LAST FOUR POLLS NOW DEC 25
Jeb Bush . . . . . . . $38.1 M . . . . . . . . . . 8.0% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4.3%
Marco Rubio . . .. . $17.8 M . . . . . . . . . . 9.0% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.5%
John Kasich . . . . . $  9.1 M . . . . . . . . . . 3.0% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8%
Chris Christie . . . . $  8.1 M . . . . . . . . . . 2.0% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8%
Ben Carson . . . . . $  3.2 M . . . . . . . . .  22.0% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.8%
Ted Cruz . . . . . . . $  1.3 M . . . . . . . . . . 10.0% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.5%
Carly Fiorina . . . . $  1.0 M . . . . . . . . . . . 6.0% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5%
Rand Paul . . . . . . $  1.0 M . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8%
Donald Trump . . . $  0.2 M . . . . . . . . . . 25.0% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.0%
Mike Huckabee . . $  0.2 M . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0%
Sources: NBC/SMG and Real Clear Politics polling summaries
Analysis by TomiAhonen Consulting, Dec 25, 2015
This table may be freely shared

So Jeb Bush has failed catastrphically with his carpet-bombing TV ad strategy. Half of Republican ads shown on TV have been for Jeb Bush's campaign and he has fallen from 8% to 4% in the time. Every 10.2 million dollars he threw at the futile campaign lost him another point in the polls (note, his current standing would be EVEN WORSE if that massive ad spend would not have been done, if for nothing else, the other more acceptable candidates would have had their ads seen proportionately more, thus boosting them, at further damage to Jeb's appalling numbers.)

John Kasich is the other campaign who is clearly dead in the water. He was the third biggest spender and saw his polling support fall by a third. But ad spending can help. For Marco Rubio his second-biggest TV ad spending budget on the Republican side has coincided with a modest gain in polling support from 9% to 11.5%. The one candidate who has gained the most (but note, this is only statistical correlation, not causation, one could argue his gains were out of strong debate performances, and only supported by TV ad spending) and thats Chris Christie. For his 8 million dollar TV ad budget, he has seen his support in national polling more than double from the brink of missing the adult table debates at the time, 2% level to the 4.8% level where he is now (and again, on the debate criteria raised levels, he is again on that brink).

The rest of the campaigns have not done enough TV ads to really matter. Their few rare ads have been mere noise in the avalanche of Jeb Bush ads and can safely be ignored, for having any impact to the early states. PS for those wishing the Democratic numbers, Hillary Clinton's TV ad budget has been $12.2 miliion dollars and Bernie Sanders's has been $7.6 million. Oh, and Martin O'Malley's was $200,000 dollars. 

If we consider what lessons we learn and what reasonable assumptions we can make about the early state voting in February, then first off, Jeb Bush is totally dead. John Kasich's campaign is nearly lifeless too. And most of the others don't have the funds to advertise in the scale to be heard or seen, or (Trump, Cruz) don't need to advertise. If we think about the early states, we can assume that Chris Christie and Marco Rubio can hope for some more gains out of their big ad spending, the others have no chance in this area. Lets move to travel.

TRAVEL DAYS SPENT

National Journal has collected the data on all candidate travel and indicated how many of their total days was in Iowa or New Hampshire. This to me, is the best public data indicator, of what a given campaign is prioritizing and which states they are investing in. The only resource that a campaign cannot manufacture more of, is the Candidate's time. So how much of that is spent in any one state, tells us most accurately, where that given campaign is investing in, either believing that is a state it can win in, or else in desperation, a state it has to try to win. And it gets very interesting when we compare side-by-side the time spent in the state, and the latest RCP polling average of how well that state supports the candidate:

IOWA:
CANDIDATE . . . . DAYS SPENT . . . RCP POLLING AVERAGE FOR STATE
Rick Santorum . . . 64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%
Carly Fiorina. . . . . 49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
Mike Huckabee . . 47 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
Rand Paul . . . . . . 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
Ted Cruz . . . . . . . 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . 30% 
Ben Carson . . . . . 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . 10%
Marco Rubio . . . . 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . .12%
Donald Trump . . . 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . .26%
Chris Christie . . . 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
Jeb Bush . . . . . . 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
John Kasich . . . . 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
Sources: National Journal and Real Clear Politics
Analysis by TomiAhonen Consulting, Dec 25, 2015
This table may be freely shared

So in Iowa, its clear Jeb Bush and John Kasich are not even trying. And their support is obviously low. But the shocking numbers are for the three candidates who have essentially camped out in Iowa hoping to convince the state to vote for them: Santorum, Fiorina and Huckabee. Santorum has spent more than two months talking to Iowa voters, who only four years ago gave him the Iowa caucus victory. Now only 1% of Republicans want to give him a second chance. Mike Huckabee was the darling of Iowa eight years ago (and sat out 2012) so the state also knows Huckabee. He has spent more than a month and a half cris-crossing the rural state and to what effect? He sits stubbornly at 2%. Obviously its Ted Cruz who took their support. Huckabee has already said that if he doesn't finish in the top 3 out of Iowa, he will quit. He is clearly destined to do just that. And third hopeless cause in the state is Fiorina, 49 days and 2% support. She is not connecting. Lets do New Hampshire also:

NEW HAMPSHIRE:
CANDIDATE . . . . DAYS SPENT . . . RCP POLLING AVERAGE FOR STATE
Chris Christie . . . . 57 . . . . . . . . . . . . 11%
Carly Fiorina. . . . . 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
John Kasich . . . . . 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%
Jeb Bush . . . . . . . 36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%
Rand Paul . . . . . . 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
Marco Rubio . . . . 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . .12%
Donald Trump . . . 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . .28%
Ted Cruz . . . . . . . 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . 12% 
Ben Carson . . . . . 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
Rick Santorum. . . . 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
Mike Huckabee . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
Sources: National Journal and Real Clear Politics
Analysis by TomiAhonen Consulting, Dec 25, 2015
This table may be freely shared

Now we see somewhat a mirror to Iowa clearly Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum don't think they have any prayer in this state and spend almost no time there and have no support. But look at the top, Chris Christie has spent nearly two months in NH and he is in fourth place and two points out of second place (and rising). John Kasich and Jeb Bush are making their last stands in NH, and while both spent plenty of time there, they are not breaking into double digits (Christie is stealing their thunder). Fiorina's campaign is nearly as doomed in this state as in Iowa for about as massive effort.

I should add a note of caution about both of these two states. They pride themselves with the 'retail politics' aspect of their votes. The candidates are expected to come and shake hands and meet up in various local restaurants and events. I think the candidates who have strong polling support BUT have not spent plenty of time in the state (less than average of the field) - those candidates might end up with less actual votes than polling suggests. This is even more true of Iowa which is a caucus state, where the local voter has to go sit in a meeting and speak about his candidate choice, not just go and vote and be done with it. So there is some caution in Iowa with current measured level of support of Carson, Rubio and Trump - each of them has been to the state well below even the average for candidates (compared to Ted Cruz who has been there at the average level). In New Hampshire of the front-runners Rubio and Trump have this problem, they haven't actually spent that much time in the state, that the polling support might not translate to quite that many votes.

MY PROJECTION FOR FEBRUARY DELEGATES

Please note that this is first of all, a forecast from very far in the murky distance. A week is a long time in politics. We have TV debating that can alter the race and any candidate might have some surprise, positive or negative. And the world might bring in a surprise similar to Paris and San Bernardino terrorist attacks. But a lot of the election 'factors' are now pretty well known and the above numbers, polling nationally and within the early states, and the visits to the states, and the TV ad spending, are pretty well now known. Also the debate performance has been seen five times. So a model can be made. Note, this is not a model for the individual state results, while obviously I have them and will share them. This is a predictive model for the MONTH of FEBRUARY in total. I expect individual states can fluctuate considerably from my model, but am reasonably confident that those fluctuations will cancel each other out reasonably well, so that by the end of four states of voting, end of February, we will have roughly the split in the number of delegates I am now foreseeing.

IOWA DELEGATE PROJECTION

The current RCP polling has Iowa with Cruz at 30%, Trump 27%, Rubio 11% and Carson at 10%. I took all the 11 nominally alive candidates and then applied a series of assumptions. First off, of course, the undecided voters were allocated (proportionally, so Cruz would take three times as many undecided voters as Carson, for example). I observed Cruz's upward momentum and gave him a modest gain out of that. I noticed the modest gains Rubio has for his ad spend (Christie polls so weakly in Iowa, it won't matter to him there). I added the state visits gain also modestly to Cruz. Then I took away some support for the lack of visits in the state and the matter of Iowa being a caucus state. And I project the final delegates to be as thus:

IOWA PROJECTION
Cruz 11 delegates
Trump 7 delegates
Rubio 4 delegates
Carson 3 delegates
Bush 2 delegates
Huckabee 1 delegate
Paul 1 delegate
Santorum 1 delegate
TOTAL 30 delegates
Preliminary projection by TomiAhonen Consulting, Dec 25, 2015
This table may be freely shared

So Cruz would be declared the winner and he would receive a winner's bump in support heading into New Hampshire. Trump would be in second place. Huckabee and Santorum would quit after this decision.

NEW HAMPSHIRE PROJECTION

For New Hampshire the current RCP polling lead is Trump at 27% with a tight race for second, with Rubio at 13%, Christie and Cruz at 12% with Kasich at 9% and Jeb Bush at 8%. Now as Huckabee and Santorum have dropped out, I am allocating from this state on, their votes based on the polling reported by University of Massachussetts/YouGov which asked each voter also who they would pick if their own candidate had quit the race. That data is from November but as far as I know, its the latest and most thorugh such 'second choice' polling. I again allocated the undecided voters. I added a bump for Cruz for winning in Iowa, then added the local visits boosts for Christie, Kasich and Jeb. Then I added Christie and Rubio TV ad benefits. I then adjusted downward the effects of not visiting the state much for Trump and Cruz. After all that, I get the delegate count for NH as follows:

NEW HAMPSHIRE PROJECTION
Trump 6 delegates
Cruz 5 delegates
Rubio 3 delegates
Christie 3 delegates
Kasich 2 delegates
Jeb 2 delegates
Fiorina 1 delegate
Paul 1 delegate
TOTAL 23 Delegates
Preliminary projection by TomiAhonen Consulting, Dec 25, 2015
This table may be freely shared

Trump would win the New Hampshire primary and take the winner's bounce to the next state, South Carolina. Cruz would have a strong second place showing with Rubio and Christie tied for third. Kasich's poor showing has him dropping out of the race and I also have Ben Carson quitting by now. In subsequent polling I'll reallocate their support based on the same UMass/YouGov survey as above. Christie, Kasich and Fiorina win their first delegates. Note that in the aggregate delegate hunt, Cruz would be ahead of Trump after these two first states with Rubio in third place. Now lets move to South Carolina

SOUTH CAROLINA DELEGATE PROJECTION

For South Carolina the current RCP polling average at Christmas 2015 says Trump is ahead with 34%. Cruz is second with 19%, Rubio third with 13%, Carson fourth with 11% and Jeb fifth with 7%. I give Trump his winner's bump from NH, then make the other adjustments by TV ad spend and visits (I am now using the national average of the rest of the visits when Iowa and NH are removed). And my model awards the following delegates from SC:

SOUTH CAROLINA PROJECTION
Trump 22 delegates
Cruz 10 delegates
Rubio 8 delegates
Jeb 3 delegates
Fiorina 3 delegates
Christie 2 delegates
Paul 2 delegates
Preliminary projection by TomiAhonen Consulting, Dec 25, 2015
This table may be freely shared

So Trump wins SC and carries his victory boost to Nevada. Jeb has finished out of the front in every race and his campaign finally collapses and I allocate his polling support again by the UMass/YouGov survey proportions to the remaining candidates. In the national delegate hunt, Trump passes Cruz for the largest cumulative haul. Enough of the race has now happened that the national picture 'forms' to that 35-25-15-5 race that I have in the topic of this blog. Trump has a lead, but he can't really pull away. And we go then to the last state to vote in February, the caucuses of Nevada:

NEVADA DELEGATE PROJECTION

For Nevada we don't have current/recent polling (thats weird) so I used the national polling average of the last 4 surveys as reported at RCP. The race has now narrowed to six candidates and all other polled support is of course re-allocated to these six. I then used the tighter caucus support assumptions like in Iowa, not the primaries of NH and SC. And allocated TV ad power and travel time effects. I get Nevada projection as follows:

NEVADA DELEGATE PROJECTION
Trump 13 delegates
Cruz 7 delegates
Rubio 5 delegates
Christie 2 deleates
Fiorina 2 delegates
Paul 1 delegate
Preliminary projection by TomiAhonen Consulting, Dec 25, 2015
This table may be freely shared

So again Trump wins, Cruz comes again second and Rubio third. The Rand Paul and Carly Fiorina campaigns will now seem totally hopeless and as Chris Christie is slightly ahead of them, he hopes they will quit, so he could inherit the lion's share of the moderate votes that are now split between the three. If the two were to drop out, Christie could be picking up propoprtional delegates at near Rubio's 15% level. Rubio and his supporters meanwhile feel that Christie is also a spoiler and should drop out, if the race was only a three-way race, Rubio might get ahead of Cruz to around 30% and challenge Trump. But by this pattern and the above assumptions, we'd get to this standing of the race, at the end of February, heading to the big delegate haul that comes on the 'SEC Primary' or Southern Primary day of March 1, that might shake up the race considerably (and at least superficially favors Ted Cruz). So just before March 1, after the first four states have voted, I project this delegate count:

DELEGATE COUNT PROJECTION AFTER FEBRUARY AND FIRST FOUR STATES
Trump 47 delegates (36%)
Cruz 34 delegates (25%)
Rubio 20 delegates (15%)
Christie 8 delegates (6%)
Fiorina 6 delegates (5%)
Paul 4 delegates (3%)
Others who have quit 15 delegates (11%)
TOTAL 133 delegates won cumulatively so far
Preliminary projection by TomiAhonen Consulting, Dec 25, 2015
This table may be freely shared

So in very rough terms, the early race would suggest the delegate race ends up divided roughly on a 35-25-15-5 split, Trump-Cruz-Rubio-Christie. Paul and Fiorina may still continue a while, Paul as he should play better in Southern states and in caucus states. Fiorina should get the message by now that she is going nowhere. Christie's very dark horse long-shot campaign will have technically gained some ground after New Hampshire and I foresee him continuing and hoping the moderate voters come to him and should Trump suddenly quit, Christie's style would in some ways perhaps appeal to those. The real race is clearly going to be between Trump, Cruz and Rubio. But the first four states do not give it to Trump as a gift. Note that the RCP average today has Trump at 35%. I project the first 4 states give him 'only' that, even as he wins three of them. But Cruz is currently polling at 18% but I project Cruz picking up 25% of the delegates. And Rubio currently polls at 11.5% but I have him also doing far better, picking up 15% of the delegates.

Note, that as the field narrows, then the remaining candidates get more time in the debates, on TV interviews etc. If Trump really has a 'ceiling' then the remaining candidates could thrive (somewhat). But as long as the field is as fractured as its now, with 11 candidates still alive and running, Trump has a commanding lead (Why only 11? I am ignoring George Pataki who didn't even register in several of the early states and who scores polling at 0%). If this is roughly how the early states go, then we have to see how the race adjusts during February to these realities, and then start to look at the polls that come out for the Southern states voting on March 1 in the SEC primary. But as of now, I do think Trump will be in the lead after February and the first four states have voted, and in rough terms Trump's lead is intriguingly just big enough, that the two behind him cannot join to have enough delegates to deny him the candidacy. And Trump could theoretically negotiate a deal with either Cruz or Rubio as VP, to get to an uncontested nomination. So in rough terms, think 35-25-15-5 (plus 20) and for the confidence levels, say about plus/minus 5 points. So nobody is really close enough to the next to leafprog anyone for the rankings. Trump will be in first place, Cruz in second and Rubio third. Christie's fourth place is less certain, he could be behind Fiorina or even Paul (or in an alternate universe, Jeb Bush).

A very VERY fuzzy look into the final four-way race after February would seem approximately to look like 40-30-20-10 for Trump-Cruz-Rubio-Christie, in very very rough terms. But if you are hoping for a deadlocked convention.. that is most definitely plausible while not yet enough is know to say whether its likely or not.

As Trump's polling lead has held for six months and is replicated in almost all in-state polls as well (including Cruz's home state of Texas and Rubio's home state of Florida - and Christie isn't even favored to win his home state of New Jersey) its looking increasingly likely that Trump also ends with the most delegates out of the Republican nomination race and could become the Presidential nominee of the party. Too early to tell, but he is clearly the front-runner in national polling and he seems to be poised to pick up the most delegates out of the early four races. Its going to be interesting...

Thats how I see it here from the CDB blog. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all of our readers

Comments

[Wayne Borean]

Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah, Happy Kwanza to all!

Now, as to the article,

Tomi,

Your numbers look plausible. Very plausible. My comments are:

1) Rand Paul as a Moderate? Shocking. But true compared to most of the field.
2) Fiorina has been toast since she announced, even if she did poll well enough to get to the adult table.
3) I am surprised that Huckabee didn't do better. Very surprised.
4) Pataki has been toast since he announced. Makes you wonder why he even bothered.
5) I don't think Jeb will drop out. My guess is that he'll be pushed by people inside the party to hang on, as the 'Establishment' candidate. But that is just a guess. I can't see the 'Estbalishment' wanting to back Rubio, Fiorina, or Paul. Christie? If they have no choice, he's about as Establishment as Senator Leia Organa...
6) Cruz has issues. He won't play well I'm delegate heavy states like California (though I know a lot of Texans who think he is the real deal). But that comes later in the season.
7) I don't think that Ben Carson will drop out that quickly. No evidence, just a tremor in the Force.

I'm still thinking this over. I'll be back later. I want to let my supper settle, and I'm going to dose up on some heavy painkillers. My leg hurts so damned bad right now, I'm seriously considering borrowing the neighbor's chainsaw to do an emergency amputation.

[Wayne Borean]

Doonsebury on Trump

http://doonesbury.washingtonpost.com/strip/archive/2015/12/27

[Hubert Lamontagne]

Trump has only passed 2 of Nate Silver's "Donald Trump's Six Stages Of Doom"

Stage 1 : Free for all (passed)
Stage 2 : Heightened scrutiny (passed)
Stage 3 : Iowa and New Hampshire (Trump could underperform; NH is very liberal)
Stage 4 : Winnowing (some moderates drop out, remaining ones can outperform Trump)
Stage 5 : Delegate accumulation (no superdelegates; other candidates better organized)
Stage 6 : Endgame (party does everything it can to stop Trump)

[Wayne Borean]

Hubert,

Stages 3 and 4 will be interesting. Underestimating Trump is what got the GOP in this situation, and I see no proof that they've stopped. If he passes 3 and 4, I see rampant panic setting in.

My personal feeling is that he will pass 3 and 4. Not without a few scars, and not without new Trumpisms, but he will pass.

Then the fun begins. We could see attempts to resurrect Mit Romney. Or maybe even Dick Cheney. Who knows.

Investing in popcorn futures is recommended.

[Wayne Borean]

Democratic candidates say nice things about George W. Bush. Republican candidates are silent.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/barack-obama-george-w-bush_567daab1e4b06fa6888029ac

[Winter]

@Wayne Borean
The Tea Party is tribalist. Trump panders to tribalism.

Want to know what tribalism does with christians? Look at the break up of Yogoslavia. That is, christian tribalism is indistinguishable from Islamic or any other tribalism.

[Winter]

Cont....
GW Bush was a Moron, but not a tribalist.

By ising GW's words against the GOP candidates, the Democrats are using classical Divide and Conquer tactics against the GOP candidates. Setting Hillary up as a better for the unity of the USA than Trump or Cruz.

[Wayne Borean]

Winter,

The Tea Party isn't Tribalist, it is Nativist, and they aren't even Natives.

Tomi,

Another link - mentions the Cruz data operation, unfortunately no details.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/cruz-evangelicals-tea-partiers-fundraising

[Winter]

@Wayne Borean
But how do you become a member of a Tribe? You are borne into a tribe. And what is the difference with "nativist"?

For the rest if it walks like a duck.... I do not see any real difference between nativists and tribalists.

[Winter]

@Wayne
I refreshed my memmory about nativism and found this pearl from Australia
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-26/bradley-understanding-'nativism'-will-help-us-conquer-it/6974758

Behind the horrible link below is a very clear essay on the historical roots of US nativism. Most of the time, Jews and Catholics played the role Muslims and Hispanics have now.

http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/uhic/ReferenceDetailsPage/DocumentToolsPortletWindow?displayGroupName=Reference&u=alli1510&u=alli1510&jsid=69645438a94c217e456f0a3ab00b552d&p=UHIC&action=2&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CCX2831200283&zid=512cf2fbd395283bf0973c89fbfa3eba

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi Wayne, Hubert and Winter

Sorry was very busy relating to getting the Almanac 2015 edition out while we still had days left in the year haha, I don't want to become like Microsoft when the annual edition shifts after the year has ended :-)

So yeah, for those interested in mobile numbers, this will be the stats week. But thanks for comments here, I will also discuss US politics with you guys of course.

Wayne - Rand Paul 'moderate' haha agree, but in this field and by some of his views (also vs a Tea Party crazed party overall) its true-ish.. Fiorina I agree lost her chance but she has nothing else she could be doing - nobody is gonna give her another CEO job, so she might as well continue. Being the only woman gets her a voice and as long as some debate opportunity continues (kids table) then she can always have her 'moment'. What would help her however is a thinning of the field. After New Hampshire several moderates will drop out and those who remain, would pick up some support, which could get her to around 5% or so, to race chasing Christie and ahead of Jeb. But as a politician she's a one-trick pony, only good on TV debates (with her own invented facts too).

On Huckabee I feel the same way. I thought he would be strong for Iowa and the Religious South. Ben Carson initially stole his voters and then they fell in love with Ted Cruz. Weird how Huckabee wasn't able to win them over. Santorum I think was always gonna lose to Huckabee, so he was no real challenge. On Jeb... he has the money to keep going, but I get the feeling he's doing it out of 'obligation' as a kind of promise to his mom and dad, because THEY wanted two Presidents as sons. He - Jeb - isn't at all cut out to run and isn't doing it well and doesn't display any passion for wanting it (for himself). Even W Bush seemed wanted it. Listen to Jeb, at times he speaks of a kind of 'our' mission as does also creepily, W Bush now. As if its their family mission. So if Jeb doesn't really want it, he's never gonna succceed. And the big donors have to see this and see its a hopeless cause, so why throw good money after bad. They will ask him to quit and to funnel the SuperPAC money to good Republican (and moderate) causes instead and/or attack ads against Ted/Trump.

I also agree that Cruz has issues and I think he won't play well at all in any moderate or blue states. He can only do well in very red states. Haha on Carson staying in.. lets see if the Force is strong in you :-). Doonesbury was brilliant.

Hubert - thanks for good analysis via Nate Silver. I think that heightened scrutiny side is still going on, so many thought he's a clown candidate they didn't bother to take him seriously. Early Trump supporters are so mad they won't care about any reality but those who joined that bandwagon later, I think they'll be more vulnerable to truths about Trump. And he's an incredibly flawed candidate in so many ways. But I do agree with Nate's analysis and the next actual voting stage will be the next test. I do think some of Trump's support is either soft or by very unreliable voters, so when the actual election happens, he will not do as well as recent polls suggested. That being said, he is polling so far above all others in most states except Iowa - that Trump can AFFORD to lose 5 or 10 points and still easily win haha..

Wayne - on rampant panic. If Trump does win NH, gosh yes, rampant panic will be the standard establishment response including all moderate sitting Congressmen and all those sitting GOP Senators who have a re-election coming in 2016. And resurrect Romney or Dick Cheney, yeah, and Paul Ryan will also be begged to 'save the party' and do this sacrifice..

Ok more replies coming, do keep the discussion going

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Steve]

Scott Adams has some interesting obsevations on Trump analysing him as a skilled master persuader:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/135843315021/the-master-persuader-filter-and-trumps-schlong
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-genius

[Tomi T Ahonen]

To all in the thread

So yeah.. Pataki officially out. Now its down to 12 remaining GOP rivals. Oh, and O'Malley had an event where only 1 audience member showed up, and after that event, that one Democratic voter is still 'undecided' ... talk about a campaign not having the luck.

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Winter]

Here is another analysis supporting Tomi's analysis and explaining the unsurmountable problems facing a Republican candidate:

Republicans come up short in search for diverse voters in 2016 election
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N14I15320151230

The percentage of Republicans among those likely to vote in the Nov. 8, 2016, election lags Democrats by 9 percentage points, compared with a 6-point deficit in the year leading up to Obama's 2012 victory, according to an analysis of Reuters/Ipsos polling data from 2012 and 2015.

While the American electorate has become more diverse the last three years, the party's support among Hispanic likely voters and younger likely voters has shrunk significantly.

- Among whites under 40, the shift is even more dramatic. In 2012, they were more likely to identify with the Republican Party by about 5 percentage points. In 2015, the advantage flipped: Young whites are now more likely to identify with the Democratic Party by about 8 percentage points.

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi everybody

(Thanks Winter, I was going to mention that item of the shifts among various demographics which is a gain of 3 points to Democrats vs 2012)

There is very interesting table at 538 blog showing the Iowa ground game in very sharp detail. Each candidate not just travel days, but number of events, the number of field offices, and the number of paid staff.

So in days spent and events held in Iowa, on GOP side its what we knew, Santorum and Huckabee have camped there and toured the state (to nearly zero gain in Iowa polling). On the Democratic side its been O'Malley. Bernie & Hillary both have spent a good amount of time in Iowa, Bernie more, but on the Republican side, Trump has had very little time and events.

But how about the paid staffing. That gets interesting (and I didn't have that data when I wrote my analysis here, earlier). GOP most paid staff in Iowa.. is Trump (??? !!! possible upset in the making?) Trump has 16 paid staffers. Huckabee second with 13 and Bush third with 10. Rand Paul has 9, Ted Cruz has 8. So Trump's staffing advantage is huge and the two three nearest to him are not going to do well in Iowa anyway. So compared to Cruz, Trump has 2 to 1 advantage in staff. Could be perhaps an upset in the making. And/or Trump might surge still in Iowa as he now promises to also turn on his TV ad budget. But paid staff... this much more than any campaigns who clearly are investing in Iowa? Yes, Trump seems very serious in the run, doesn't he?

PS on the Democratic side O'Malley has 40 staff (really? Yes really. 40 !! for someone who polls nationally at 3%) And Bernie has 49. So if we ignore O'Malley just because this makes the math more fun, but take Bernie and ALL REPUBLICANS combined, all of them, their paid staff is 129. Hillary? Has 114 paid staff in Iowa. You think she's serious about winning and also already working this staff to ensure she has the 'Narwhal 2.0' Big Data operation built for the general election? Haha.. 114 paid staff? I'd say its pretty safe to say Hillary isn't losing Iowa this time..

Then in the failing campaigns news - Ben Carson seeing staff quit ahead of his restructuring/savings coming. And Jeb Bush is again resetting his campaign now going from TV ads to ground game. Jeb is so dead.

Happy New Year to all and this will be.. for us political junkies.. a Presidential Election year... the best kind of year for us who can't get enough of the intrigue :-)

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Sorry I forgot..

Nevada has its first poll since October, by Gravis. Trump 33%, Cruz 20%, Rubio 11%, Carson 6%, Christie 5%, Fiorina 5%, Jeb 5%, others !% or below. (13% undecided). So its actually quite close to what I used in the model.

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Wayne Borean]

Trump is doing an incredible job, without huge expenses so far. If he starts spending money, Cruz could be in deep trouble.

A Happy New Year to all, will look forward to discussing politics with you next year!

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi Wayne

Oh no, not next year. I hope to discuss politics THIS year (we are already in 2016, here in Asia, haha..)

just kidding, happy New Year to you too!

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Winter]

@Tomi
This year AND next year ;-)

Happy New Year to all.

[Stephen Reed]

Another great blog post! I especially liked your model and your objective treatment of Trump.

Mr. Trump has apparently figured out that if he wins Iowa, he will win all the remaining states - which explains his investment in paid staff there. He says that he is making a $2 million per week advertising buy starting this month in the early voting states "to not take any chances" even as his current frugal strategy is evidently working.

As a Trump partisan, I hope Ben Carson reverses his precipitous decline in Iowa enough to give Trump a clear victory.

Regarding Texas, I have only been contacted a single time in early December by the Trump campaign to qualify my volunteer capabilities - data entry. My monthly donations have been rewarded by a nice email newsletter from the campaign.

In USA social media, there is only a single media blog which is all-in for Trump - http://theconservativetreehouse.com. In stark contrast, the large number of conservative political media blog sites favor Cruz or anyone but Trump because Trump has certain non-conservative positions such as continuing universal healthcare, protectionist trade policies, and preserving old age benefits.

Since my last comment posted here, Mr. Trump has raised the issue of former president Bill Clinton's abusive behavior towards women as a means of negating his usefulness as a campaign surrogate for Hillary Clinton.

Like others here, I eagerly await polls in Iowa to see how voting preferences firm up.