Communities Dominate Brands

Lenovo Q4 Smartphones and also that disasterous Microsoft Lumia Windows Phone quarter

So onto smartphone wars. Lenovo final number is now out. They sold 20.2 million smartphones including their Motorola unit, which is up 7% from Q3 and gives them a market share of 5.0% market share for Q4. The full year Lenovo shipment number ends at 73.9 million which is up 21% from 2014 and gives Lenovo annual market share of 5.1%.

We also have both IDC and Strategy Analytics with their final Q4 and full year smartphone market counts. So we get our 2015 full year number (as average of their counts) as 1.44B. That is a bit lower than I expected (1.55B) which is mostly due to the Chinese market slowing in the second half as the Chinese economy slowed. In other markets like India the growth is still phenomnal (India this year for the first time becoming a larger smartphone market than the USA and second largest in the world). The lower total annual market size means that my early preliminary market share count was slightly too low, and of course I will do the final 'official' numbers when all the data has come in. But we already now know something...

Now we have the Top 5 settled. Samsung won of course with 322 million and 22% market share. Apple came in second again with 231 million and 16% market share. Huawei was again third, with 108 million and 8%. Lenovo ends in fourth ranking shipping 74 million smartphones for 5% and Xiaomi comes in again fifth with 71 million and 5%. I am still awaiting the details for the last brands so we can do the full Top 10.

Now about the biggest loser, that is of course Microsoft Windows Phone Lumia the ex-Nokia business (now with more Windows ! powered by amazing Windows 10 which is exactly as disasterous as all previous updates to this dead product line). Microsoft managed to dupe another 4.5 million unsuspecting victims, sorry, customers, to buy Lumias. Thats down 22% in JUST ONE QUARTER. Lumia sales are literally down to half of what they were when the Microsoft sale was announced back in the 'good old days' of Nokia - and the market has grown 58% in the same period of time. So what is the market share you might ask? 1.1% is the current share (this with the amazing new Windows 10 Mobile, the amazing super OS update that solves all of Windows past problems!). For the full year Lumia sold 27.3 million units which gives Microsoft's ex-Nokia unit a market share of ... 1.9%. Who told you that the market share would be 2% this year? I think I might actually have used the words 'under 2%' haha... So yeah. 2016 projection - obviously under 1%. I said I expect Microsoft to shutter the Lumia smartphone unit and end the mobile side of the Windows OS by the end of this year or latest end of next year. I'm pretty well on track with that forecast haha..

Ok more numbers as they come in.

The Gambler, Glass Jaw, and the Prisoner’s Dilemma - Trump loses badly on his Debate boycott gambit - Iowa results (Updated)

Donald Trump exposed a major defect today. He illustrated the behavior last week but that it was a defect did not become obvious until today. He showed dangerous, indeed a fatal character flaw that should disqualify him for President: he’s a reckless gambler. As a candidate beyond his gambling addiction, Trump is so flawed for the general election to be considered like a boxer who has a glass jaw. One hit can take him down. Any sane rival now in the Republican race would expose and exploit that weakness but the field of rivals to Trump in the nomination race has a fatal flaw within itself: they are now governed by the Prisoner’s Dilemma. That in turn creates an illusion for Trump that he is invincible. This loss in Iowa today helps shatter that myth. Can the field he now faces end Trump’s run, or will he prevail in the summer only to bring a catastrophic historic devastating loss to the Republican party in November with a loss of epic, historic, truly gargantuan proportions in the scale of Walter Mondale and Barry Goldwater? Except Mondale and Goldwater faced incumbent Presidents. And their rivals were highly popular, not more unfavorable than favorable in what Hillary Clinton is now. (note this blog article has 2 updates, clearly marked below)

THE GAMBLER

Trump has run a clever campaign. He has been innovative and disruptive. Trump has broken taboos - successfully. He has tapped into an anger among base Republican voters that others did not. Trump has risen rapidly to the top of the polling last summer and held the national polling lead for more than five months with the briefest interruption by Dr Ben Carson for one week in November. Trump’s lead in national polls whether measured by length, consistency of that lead or spread to his nearest rival, is unprecedented in the modern era of Republican primary elections (for candidates who were not the incumbent sitting President or VP). Even more astoundly, Trump has led in in-state polls for many months now, in almost every state, totally unprecedented in this stage of the race if there was no incumbent running. Trump even leads the polling in Florida where two local politicians are also running (former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and current Florida Senator Marco Rubio). Its fair to say, in this cycle, Trump has run a campaign that has set records for how much he has dominated the field and crushed his rivals. 

In his run, Trump has taken risks and gained notoriety by publicity stunts that have kept him in the national media spotlight and highlighted his rise. Most political experts, analysts and pundits felt that attacking Mexicans was a mistake, that attacking John McCain’s hero status was a mistake, attacking Megyn Kelly (the first time) after the first Fox debate was a mistake, attacking the Hispanic journalist was a mistake, attacking the disabled journalist was a mistake, attacking all Muslims was a mistake, etc. Clearly Trump has risen in the polls or maintained his polling lead after each of those incidents. So we cannot say categorically that it was a mistake, although some of those incidents do correspond with some temporary dips in Trump’s rise. They were all gambles, where Trump gambled that the vile things he said would help him more than hurt him. And in the big picture, it does seem like he had been successful and those were ‘smart’ campaign moves, however unconventional and ‘hateful’ they might have (also) been. Certainly Trump has earned accolades among all white supremacist and Nazi groups cheering their new champion.

Its possible some (perhaps all) of those gambles were failures but that their impact was hidden inside a greater upswing engulfing the Trump candidacy. Certainly the backlash related to the John McCain incident that prompted Trump to rapidly set up his notorious ‘veterans event’ atop the battleship, which turned out to be a hoax by a supposed veterans group which consisted of one charlatan veteran exploiting veterans and who had lost his organization’s tax-free status. But that is neither here nor there. Trump had been able to climb to 35% in the national polling and held his lead there on a very consistent basis for the past six weeks or so. So while we note its possible Trump’s gambles have stumbled in the past, we now have clear evidence he stumbled today in Iowa.

Trump had contested for the Iowa polling lead from the start of the race, first fighting Scott Walker, then Dr Ben Carson. Trump took the Iowa polling lead but wasn’t able to hold it. Ted Cruz’s campaign worked meticulously the state and when Dr Ben Carson’s ‘pyramids are grain storage’ and ‘I was a violent youth’ nonsense surfaced, Cruz picked up a lot of Carson’s disgruntled supporters and surged to the top of the Iowa polling. Cruz had been on the top of Iowa for about a month when Trump launched his birtherism attacks on Cruz and that damaged Cruz so much, he lost his lead and Trump was back on top of the polls in Iowa by mid-January and for seven straight polls Trump held a consistent lead always polling above 30%. The last time Ted Cruz scored above 30% was January 21 (even then he trailed Trump by 5 points). So every one of the last 7 polls up to the last debate had Trump in a safe unassailable lead, averaging 33% in Iowa, compared to Ted Cruz in second place averaging 26%. Trump’s lead was consistent, always above 30% and after January 21, Cruz had not broken through the 30% level again. By the time of the debate, four days out before the election, the Real Clear Polling average had Trump at 32.9% and Ted Cruz at 26.1%. Trump was up 6.8% ie almost 7%.

In the 2008 cycle and the 2012 cycle, the last four days saw the polling leader see a change in his polling of 4%, once it was up, once it was down. Both times it was Mitt Romney who led the Iowa polls four days before voting. If Trump had played a normal political ‘end game’, gone to the debate, run a normal campaign to through the last four days, he would have certainly won Iowa. He might have lost a few points but his nearest rival, Ted Cruz was in decline (due to the Canadian birth issue) and Marco Rubio was far too low in the polls to realistically catch Trump. The sensible ‘adult’ and mature move would be to bank this vote and play sensible politics. If Trump intended to use the war veteran event as a political gimmick, he could easily have scheduled it one day after or before the debate, and have invited his rivals to that event (like Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum did, possibly more could have joined if it weren’t scheduled specifically at the time when others were in the debate).

Instead Trump feuded for weeks with Fox News leading up to the debate and tried to get Megyn Kelly removed from moderating the debate. As this spat turned ever more silly, like Trump taking to Twitter asking his followers should he boycott the debate, and Fox answering in kind, saying in the future Putin and the Ayatollah will also be nasty to Trump, suddenly Trump’s ego got in the way. He declared that he will not debate.

The superficial calculus is that Trump was afraid of Megyn Kelly and of Fox News (the most conservative-leaning of TV networks who should be expected to be least hostile to Republican candidates, compared to other neutral and liberal-leaning networks). The more insightful analysis is of course that Trump was afraid of all the attacks coming from his rivals, in this, the last debate before voting was to start. The obvious effect was that Trump was mocking Iowa voters, denying them the chance to see the front-runner of the race, standing on a stage defending his positions given in the most hostile negative campaign in US Presidential history (at least of the modern televised era). Trump was being the Coward-In-Chief. A cynical political calculus suggests Trump had more to lose by a possibly weak debate performance, than to gain by facing the rivals and the moderators on national TV. Instead, Trump hastily arranged his second veterans event. Like real veterans groups proclaimed, they didn’t want the money from such a political stunt, and Trump should not hide behind veterans if he was afraid of Megyn Kelly.

Whether you admire or deplore this tactic, understand this is a gamble. Trump gambled that breaking with tradition, by skipping the last debate, will not hurt him and he can win Iowa by not bothering to debate, simply by virtue of his strong lead in the polls. Note that this had nothing to do with the so-called ‘wise guy’ statement from Fox News. This whole incident was totally of Trump’s making. Trump had not gotten over the original fight with Megyn Kelly. He had lobbied for weeks to get Kelly removed and repeatedly called for it. But before the CNBC and CNN debates, Trump had threatened to boycott the networks and tried to extort them for a donation - to veterans (that is how much Trump feels damaged by his disparaging statements about McCain). Both CNBC and CNN said no of course. Fox News has revealed that Trump was willing to come and do the Fox debate after this ‘wise guy’ letter and hostile Megyn Kelly - if Fox paid 5 million to veterans. Trump wanted to show the world how he can negotiate by being a bully and according to his book, the Art of the Deal, to be willing to walk away. So after two threats before, he now walked away on Fox.

That may work in some negotiations, it is ‘hardball’ negotiation tactics that do not always work. It can backfire if the other side is also willing to walk away. If the result is a lost deal, so what. Some business deal went bust. Trump can always bankrup that company if he doesn’t like how its going, like he has done four times before. But as US President, you cannot take this approach and what? Launch a war next? Thats the Bush-Cheney approach to wanton war-making. Only in a world of Vladimir Putin annexing Crimea, a trigger-happy Trump could lead the world to its first nuclear war with literally millions dead in a single day, even if its is only a ‘limited exchange’ before Trump the President is impeached and a military coup topples the war-hungry dictator Trump and urgently negotiates a new peace with Russia.

This debate gambit is a clear lesson out of The Art of the Deal. It had nothing to do with any ‘slight’ coming from Fox News and Roger Ailes. It was Trump’s intention to extort 5 million dollars as a contribution to veterans from a TV network - to prove to his voters that this is how he will have Mexico pay for his wall - and Trump’s backup plan all along was to run a rival TV show and generate 5 million dollars himself, by his rich friends and if needed, Trump himself would toss in a million or two, to get his 5 million. Trump thought this is a clever gambit and a ‘negotiation’ that he cannot lose. He even bragged that he will have bigger ratings than Fox News (imagining in his delusions that rival networks would bid for his political stunt theater).

The immediate aftermath of Trump’s gamble is plainly evident. The five-day rolling average of national polling by Reuters, reveals that polls on the day after Trump cancelled on the Fox debate, collapsed from 41% to 34% - a 7 point drop in just one day. But that is a drop in the AVERAGE over 5 days. To calculate out what the damage was, Trump’s one-day drop was to SIX PERCENT. Yes, nationally, Reuters tracking poll had seen Trump’s support at 41% on the days up to the debate but the day after he announced he is not debating, Trump’s support collapsed to 6%. It then recovered in the following days but the damage was done. Trump’s support only recovered among Republicans, his support among Republican-leaning Independents did not return. Very conservative Republicans ended up liking this gambit, especially when tied with the veterans event. Independents who lean Republican hated the cowardly act of hiding from the debate just before the election.

So we can see the polling out of Iowa. Four polls came out in Iowa after the debate. Two of those polls had interviews both before and after the debate (Des Moines Register and Quinnipiac) yet both of those saw Trump’s steady 33% support suddenly fall to 31% (Quinnipiac) and 28% (DMR). So both signalled a possible start to a downward spiral. So Trump’s support fell in Iowa after the debate. How much did it fall? Two further polls came out after the debate, that had all interviews conducted only in the days after the debate. They are the Emerson poll and the Opinion Savvy poll. Emerson saw Trump support fall down to 27%. Opinion Savvy had Trump down to 20%. Averaging these two polls says Trump support had fallen to 23.5% in Iowa. Nearly a ten point fall. That is literally a collapse. Trump lost almost one third of his support in literally one day. These are not people who hate veterans. They are honest Iowa voters who take their responsibility seriously in vetting all US Presidential candidates first, to decide who are not worthy of continuing ‘with a ticket out of Iowa’. They had fallen in love with Trump, now Trump spat in their faces. He lost one third of his support in one day. Cruz, who had been behind by 7 points with falling poll numbers - who also took heat in the debate and saw further erosion in his support - now on both of these polls was only 1 point behind Trump.

UPDATE 1 OF 2 - a few hours after I posted this blog, CNN gave the Entrance Polling data which establishes now for a clear fact that Trump's support collapsed. His support was 30% up to the debate, and then fell by more than half to 14% in the last days up to the election. Nobody else had such massive volatility but Trump's 'voter giveaway' went broadly to almost all candidates. Cruz was on a downward trajectory and Rubio on an upward one. Trump's voters went definitely to Rubio probably also to Cruz (ie his decline would have been bigger if Trump had not seen his collapse), but there were a point or two that went to almost everybody Jeb, Carson, Christie, Fiorina, Huckabee, Kasich and Paul; except not Santorum. This issue is now luckily tested. Trump had 30% support before the debate boycott and 14% after it. Idiot move.

Some of Trump’s final loss in Iowa and Cruz’s victory are due to the Ted Cruz campaign being better organized, having a good Big Data operation, having spent so much time visiting the state and talking to the voters. That reflects the last day, Monday. These two polls however, they reflect the situation by the end of Sunday. The days immediately after the debate (only). That is where Trump lost it. The solid, steady and committed support for Trump suddenly cracked. It did not die on Monday, two separate polls clearly measured that collapse as of Sunday. What Cruz was able to do on Monday only capitalized on Trump’s sudden implosion.

REAGAN TRIED THIS

Do campaigns make mistakes? Yes. All campaigns make mistakes. Some mistakes are accidents, not intentional. This was a calculated callous move by a campaign that had a strong lead. And it was a tactic signalled for months (previous threats to CNN & CNBC) and signalled in this state, Iowa (with Fox). This has been tried before, by another Republican, for a debate boycott, by a highly popular front-runner and before Iowa voted. Ronald Reagan tried this gambit in 1980, he was well ahead in the polls heading into Iowa and decided he did not want to debate his challenger George HW (daddy) Bush. When Iowa votes were counted, Reagan lost narrowly that state. So Trump should have known but countless Republican and conservative friends, advisors and commentators have reminded Trump and his team of how stupid this gambit is. Even ‘The Great Communicator’ Reagan could not win in this outrageous abuse of the trust of Iowa voters. Yet Trump did it anyway.

To gamble if you have a lot to gain, and little to lose, is perhaps wise. To gamble when you have literally nothing to gain but everything to lose, that is simply dumb. Its more than dumb, it is moronic, it is self-destructive, it is childish and it illustrates an addiction to gambling. Trump could not possibly ‘win’ in this case. He was ahead by 7 points in Iowa. If Trump won in Iowa, his nearest rival Cruz was already behind in all polls in the next three states, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. But Trump had been up and down, sometimes ahead but often behind in Iowa. Cruz needed Iowa to be seen as a real contender and if religiously conservative Cruz could not win in Iowa, one of the most religiously conservative states, and the candidate utterly not religiously conservative, a candidate of three marriages, of marital infidelity, of eating the cookies at communioin, of ‘Two Corinthians’ and who cannot think of any case of begging for forgiveness - if this candidate beats Cruz in Iowa, then Cruz, Trump’s strongest rival could be fatally damaged.

Meanwhile Trump, who was already ahead in all polls for NH, SC and Nevada, but who had been behind in many polls recently in Iowa, if Trump ‘stole’ Iowa also to launch his campaign, Trump could achieve what no (non-incumbent) candidate had ever done in Republican races in the modern era - win all three of the first states, and be seen as truly invincible and inevitable by mid February. Trump had everything everything in his hand, just waiting for him. Trump had everything to lose, and truly nothing to gain - he was already ahead on all those polls. So this stunt could not give Trump ‘more than winning’ in Iowa (nor NH nor SC nor Nevada). Trump was gambling when he literally could not win, but he only could lose. That is a sign of exceptional stupidity and incredibly bad judgement. And nobody can say this was not forseeable. Reagan himself had tried this idea once. And Reagan got bloodied so badly, no politician has since tried this on either side of the aisle, when leading in the polls. It was a boneheaded move. And today we can see the result.

GLASS JAW

Trump would make a horrible gambling-addicted megalomaniacical authoritarian Fascist President of incredibly bad judgement. Some who have watched his campaign have known this and an increasing chorus of Republicans and conservatives have come to that conclusion. I am not writing anything new with that. This debate boycott gambit only underlines how dangerous President Trump would be - to Americans and the USA. Some extreme factions of the political spectrum may think that this type of bullying behavior ‘works’ (it quite literally did not, CNBC, CNN and Fox did not cave to Trump’s threats). Trump cannot just threaten the world and expect Mexico will pay for his wall, like Trump might threaten a local New York constructor or journalist with lawsuits etc.

In the future, political analysts will wonder about this election cycle, how is it possible for a candidate as flawed as Trump, to have been so enduring and get so far in the race. Lets ignore if Trump is a ‘real conservative’ (obviously he is not, he is a moderate Republican at best, a right-leaning Democrat at worst). He has alienated almost every voter group that the Republican party decided after Mitt Romney’s loss in 2012, that the party has to appeal to. Trump has the worst gender gap of any Republican candidate. He is the most hated Republican among Hispanics and among Blacks. He does not appeal to the youth, there is nothing where Trump helps heal the rifts that the Republican party has caused to prevent general election victories. All that is true, but it ignores the biggest fault in Trump for taking the Republican nomination. Trump’s value is honesty, that he tells it like it is. Trump has captured this image by his nasty rhetoric about Mexicans, women, John McCain’s hero status, the disabled, immigrants, refugees, the Muslims etc. However, Trump is nothing like honest. He is the most deceptive deceitful candidate in US political history. Politifact has measured Dick Cheney as lying 59% of the time. Trump lies 76% of the time !!

The Republican voters feel they have been duped, lied to and deceived in the past election cycles. They feel betrayed by their Presidential candidates like McCain and Romney. They feel betrayed by their Congressional leaders from departed John Boehner to Mitch McConnell. Now they want someone to tell the truth. And Trump sounds like he is telling the truth. But he is the master con-man. The best or worst kind of used-car-salesman. The pathological liar. The most deceitful politician ever measured in US politics ! He makes Richard Nixon seem like the Pope. Trump flipflops on positions so much he makes Mitt Romney seem like a block of granite. For Republican voters to now go for Trump is like a severely sick person going to a doctor, to discover that person is actually a torturer, who will not just prevent the person from being cured, but rather prolong the illness and cause pain in the duration !!! Trump sings a siren’s song, he is the worst painful poison the Republican voters could ever consider taking. And so far, they have been drinking the Trump ‘truth serum’ with reckelss abandon.

One can argue that Trump has a ‘glass jaw’ in the general election, where many of Trump’s positions that appeal to the Tea Party and racist wing of Republicans would repell support of Independent voters. Trump also has considerable vulnerabilities in his background that would typically work more in the general election (like his four corporate bankruptcies). But for a candidate to run on being honest and telling the truth, and then be the most untruthful candidate ever measured, that means Trump is incredibly vulnerable already now, in the nomination fight. A prototype of how Trump could be torn down ‘easily’ is seen in the comedy ‘debate’ that Stephen Colbert did on The Late Show when he ran videotape of Trump saying literally opposite things on the same topics. Those of us who follow the race, are dumbfounded that Trump has not been ‘called’ on the systematic pathological lying. It is obvious to anyone with half a brain, that Hillary Clinton (or Bernie Sanders) would pummel Trump relentlessly on this in the Autumn, with one ad after the next just ridiculing Trump for being such an obvious con-man. On just about any issue, Trump is now on videotape taking both sides of the issue (usually with fellow Republicans condemning him on at least one, if not both of those positions).

As Trump cannot claim political competence, has no foreign policy or military competence (he even didn’t know what the US nuclear weapons arsenal or its strategy consists of) and has no ‘likability’ in the style of Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, and his business background is questionable at best (starting with the four bankruptcies) if Trump loses his ‘brand’ of honesty and truth, there is nothing left. He collapses. Trump is what follows after a comprehensively incompetent candidate, Sarah Palin is offered as (Vice) Presidential candidate. The vulnerability of base Republican voters to a blatant 76% of the time lying snake-oil salesman like Trump, is after Fox News has brainwashed them about issues that are clearly untrue (Obamacare has not cost jobs the USA has had the longest continued span of job-creation in its economic history, Obama has not cut the US military that was the Republican Congress and the the sequester, Obama is not a Muslim or born in Kenya, etc etc etc). Fox is the least accurate TV network in the USA. Republican voters are less educated than Democrats on average. Trump appeals to the least educated section of Republican voters, and after the Sarah Palin fear of press interviews, the narrative has hardened that any serious question by media is ‘gotcha’ questions by a ‘Republican-hating’ press corps of the ‘mainstream media’ where now paradoxically even Fox News is counted as the enemy.

So a ‘sane’ person or analyst looks at the Trump campaign, has been truly bewildered, how can he still lead in all the polls (up to now, the Iowa loss), with such obvious ‘glass jaw’ faults. How is this possible.

PRISONER’S DILEMMA

So WHY was Trump still standing (and likely will continue to lead most polls and likely win in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada going forward)? Early on, Trump took hits at the front-runners, that is normal in any race. But Trump’s attacks were far more vicious than most expected, and with Trump’s big media visibility, those attacks also ‘stuck’ far more than usually someone with a slight share of the voter preference. Trump took down Jeb Bush from a national polling lead, and destroyed number 2, Scott Walker. Then Trump beat Rick Perry and took credit also for Bobby Jindal’s fall. Trump proclaimed loudly that anyone attacking him will be destroyed. The early narrative supported this perception and soon the pattern emerged that only ‘backmarker’ candidates like Rand Paul or Lindsay Graham or Rick Santorum would bother to attack Trump. The front-runners decided not to. Specifically the new number two, Dr Ben Carson, was projecting his image of not picking fights. When Carly Fiorina rose briefly to second position, Trump attacked her very hard and (probably much more due to her idiotic claims of seeing brain harvesting than Trump’s attacks) Fiorina fell back into near obscurity never to rise again.

Trump was left alone. Carson didn’t attack him. But when Carson did briefly climb to the top of the polling in November, for one week, Trump did attack Carson. Carson then fell, again not because of Trump’s attacks, but because the truth came out about Carson’s alternate reality of pyramids as grain storage and an imagined youth of being a violent gangster rather than the nerdy science student that everybody remembers from his past. Another candidate claiming to be honest turned out to be a fraud and collapsed. But the point is, Carson didn’t try to attack Trump. Neither did Ted Cruz who became the new number two and in a few polls nationally, and in several polls in Iowa, took the lead from Trump. Cruz wanted to obey Reagan’s 11th Commandment, to not say anything bad about any fellow Republicans. Like Cruz said in one debate, he doesn’t want to get into a cage match with Trump, for the delight of debate moderators. And again, the ‘strongest’ rival to Trump refused to attack him, until Trump suddenly ambushed Cruz and turned on his attacks (born in Canada etc).

So now in the early stages of the race, those who were near Trump (or briefly ahead of him) in polling, who would have had a genuine ‘platform’ - ended up not attacking Trump. Those who did, were almost always backmarkers like Jeb Bush or Lindsay Graham. And the pattern emerged that attacking Trump resulted in overwhelming response utterly crushing that rival, like Carly Fiorina saw, and to a lesser extent rivals like Mike Huckabee, Chris Christie and Rick Santorum. They learned quickly to avoid challenging Trump - and to attack OTHER rivals instead. Trump was ‘too strong’. Ironically, they avoided attacking the candidate who had the most support to ‘steal’ and the candidate who genuinely was most vulnerable for his political positions and support.

So how does this play forward? We are witnessing a case of the gaming theory of “Prisoner’s Dilemma”. If all Republican rivals join together and attack Trump, he folds, and his 35% is divided essentially ‘proportionately’ to all remaining rivals. Trump would be out fast if this happened. But Prisoner’s Dilemma is the dilemma precisely because of the self-interest placed in conflict with the common interest. Any individual candidate knows, if they attack Trump, he will attack them and possibly crush them. So the individual is tempted to not join in such attacks, in case it fails. And in the case it succeeds, it means that individual who did not attack Trump, still gains from the voters who switch to new loyalties. In fact, this is a variation of the ‘suicide pact’ that for example the TV show Veep where the staff were afraid one would be fired, and they decide to band together, that if one is fired, all will resign, thus protecting each from being fired. And then they immediately fold, when one says he won’t actually resign.

So its possible for Trump to play this bullying game theoretically all the way up to the last votes of the nomination season, and as long as not everybody gangs up against Trump, he can take the one or two rivals and easily crush those. Its a classic case of ‘divide and conquer’. Now, can this survive into the general election? No. Thats when it is just Trump against his one Democratic rival (Hillary or Bernie). Then there is no prisoner’s dilemma, and either of those rivals will hit Trump on every one of his vulnerabilities and Trump goes down with the glass jaw that he has.

The question for Republican voters now, going forward, is whether they want to nominate a serial liar destined to lose the general election. The question for Trump’s remaining rivals (Huckabee has already quit today) is, can they unite against him now, when many delegates can be had, or shall they let him run as the bully and keep collecting delegates and messing up the race. And theoretically for a supposedly great communicator (I am looking at you, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz) this is now the chance to become the ‘dragon slayer’ to expose the charlatan in Trump and remove that cancer from this contest.

The one good thing from a point of considering future elections, is that Trump has proven once again that skipping a debate is a boneheaded suicidal move.

UPDATE 2 OF 2 - The Reuters Daily poll has an interctive tool which lets you measure each day's result by 5 day polling average. I've discussed before that this daily tracker showed the immediate drop on 27 January after the Trump gamble with the debate. This is not an in-state Iowa poll. Its the Reuters national poll of the race, each day updated for the latest 5 days. The last 5 days before Trump did this stunt, the Reuters poll (using 'Likely Voters' for the Republican Nomination, as the filter) was steady at 41%. Exactly 41% for two days actually. Then in the two polls out completely after 27 January, the result is also steady, at 31% and 30%. So not looking just at Iowa, the before-and-after effect of this gamble cost Trump one quarter of his support, down from 41% to 30.5%. 

This is my read of Reuter's daily poll. It is a national poll, and it shows Trump lost one in four supporters. I expect all national polls now out within the next week or so, to show this same effect. There should be approximately one quarter fall in Trump's support compared to the previous poll by THAT SAME polling organization, but less of a drop, the further back the previous poll was. Could be as little as losing one in 8 supporters if its 2 months back. Then expect SOME drop in state-wide polling but again, only if that pollster has done a previous poll in that state within the last two months. This effect is INDEPENDENT of the loss impact coming out of Iowa and the boosts to both Cruz and Rubio, out of their win and surprisingly strong finish in Iowa. Trump is now working hard to try to spin the story that he 'outperformed' when he in fact threw a victory away. But the effect of the relative lesser performance by Trump in polling after Iowa, should now show two bad trends for Trump, the lingering lost support out of the debate boycott gambit - combined with the bad press about not winning Iowa. That combines with a surge in Cruz & Rubio support out of their strong showings in Iowa. The race should be tightening BUT also remember, Trump was so far ahead, he will likely remain to be ahead in national polls even after these setbacks. And PPP has already been on Twitter saying they see a clear impact to Trump support out of their current poll being interviewed in the field, that Trump support is down. We have to see how PPP poll counts it when that is released.

Presidential Race Candidate Form Book: Edition 2: On eve of primary voting - All candidates rated (again)

Now we have all the data we wanted. The fund-raising totals have been updated for Q4 and we have the other data we wanted like debating skills and polling support. So lets do a total update to the Form Book on the Presidential Candidates (both parties) rated. I did the 2016 Presidential Election Primary Candidate Form Book for the first time in October of 2015 to collect all the data to one place, including polling support, fund-raising support, the path to the nomination, the debating performance, Billionaire sugar-daddy support, when is that candidate's home-field advantage, etc .The format is the same of course but this is the time to do the revised Form Book to see how the race is now, just before the voting starts. And we can now see some 'trends' comparing the scores from 3 months ago, to see how the candidates have evolved. Some have gotten better on some scores, others have gotten worse... 

For the debating skills, I have used my individual scoring I've done after each debate of each candidate, and then averaged the scores over the last 5 debates (only counting those where a candidate participated in the main debate). Like I do with the smartphone wars (I usually write about tech and mobile), I will cover each candidate in order starting from strongest to weakest. I used the US school grading system where A is Excellent B is good C is fair, D is passing and F is failing (there is no E grade). When calculating the average score, A is worth 4 points, B 3 points, C 2 points, D 1 point and F 0 points. Note I have included the scores from October so we can compare how the given candidate is evolving (improving or getting worse) over time

REPUBLICAN FIELD

Lets do the Republican field first, thats where a bigger race is on.

1ST - MARCO RUBIO - B+ (3.4 average)
(was 1st, had A- score 3.6 average)
Polling . . . . . . . . . . . B (B)
Fund-raising . . . . . . .A (B)
Debating . . . . . . . . . .B (A)
Path to nomination . . B (A)
Electability . . . . . . . . A (A)
Home Field Advantage: 99 delegates winner-take-all in Round 9 (15 March) (note is elimination round vs Jeb Bush)
Billionaires who gave more than $1M: 3: Norman Braman (Cars), Larry Ellison (IT), Isaac Perlmutter (entertainment)

Marco Rubio is still the strongest of the Republican field but he saw some erosion in his total score. His fund-raising has improved but his debating skill advantae is eroded and his path to the nomination has become less viable in the past three months. Its as close to perfection as we have on the Republican side, all his scores are either good or great. Rubio megadonors include three Billionaires of very varied industries - a car dealer, an IT guy (Larry Ellison of Oracle) and the founder of Marvel comics. So his 'support' base is not particularly 'polluted' in industries, nor is his support base narrow in focus. The billionaire money goes mostly to the SuperPAC of course, so in the direct fund-raising to his campaign Rubio suffers somewhat.

Marco doesn't have the easiest path to victory (that is now clearly with Donald Trump, and Cruz also has an easier path) but in the general, Marco on the ticket would almost guarantee the general election vote of Florida to the Republican side, whether he is on the top, or if he's the Vice President. He has weaknesses mostly due to youth, a first-term Senator, this is more a burden on the Republican side than it would be on the Democrat side, Republicans like Governors more than Senators, and they want a candidate who is experienced. Its the Democrats who ever so often nominate unknown outsiders (like Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton or Barack Obama). Rubio suffers even more by his looks. He was blessed with a baby face, he looks far younger than he is. Maybe he should add some color of grey in to his hair haha. The worst baggage is that he seems like Obama did in 2008, young, inspirational, great speaker, but inexperienced. And reminding Republicans of seeming like Obama is a very undesirable thing in the nomination fight. So Rubio has all this to overcome.

Then there is Florida. In the nomination fight he - and Jeb Bush - have their face-off in their home state of Florida. Florida delegates are awarded on a 'winner-takes-all' basis, so its almost sure that one of the two will not continue in the race on March 16, the day after Florida has voted. While Marco is currently somewhat ahead of Jeb in Florida (but Trump utterly crushes them both in current polling and even Cruz is ahead of both) the actual voting in that very large and expensive state will be influenced very dramatically by TV advertising, as we saw by MItt Romney in 2012. On many positions, Rubio is very extreme. He did have a position on a comprehensive immigration reform, it could have played very well with Hispanics (Rubio himself is a Hispanic, parents from Cuba) but he's abandoned those which lessens his appeal with that demographic. Rubio may win the nomination, and if he's on the top of the ticket, Rubio could win Florida for the Republican ticket, which is the largest 'swing state' and would be a huge prize. Rubio polls well against Hillary and could present a strong contrast starting with age.

2ND - DONALD TRUMP - B (3.0 average)
(was 3rd, B- grade, 2.8 average)
Polling . . . . . . . . . . . A (A)
Fund-raising . . . . . . . B (B*)
Debating . . . . . . . . . . B (C)
Path to nomination . . A (A)
Electability . . . . . . . . D (D)
Home Field Advantage: 95 Delegates winner-take-all in Round 12 (19 April)
Billionaires who gave more than $1M: none (but in reality he has two if he needed it, himself and Carl Icahn has launched a 150 million dollar SuperPAC not to help Trump but aligned with Trump mission, so it will likely work in Trump's favor at least worth some millions):
* - I gave Trump a higher grade, he 'earned' a C because this is without any begging for funds. No fund-raising mailers, or websites begging for money, he collected 4 million dollars while saying he wants nothing, essentially selling his hats. So if he asked for money it would be at least a B (could be A) 

Many thought Donald Trump would never run (including me) and many thought his early strange campaign moves were fatal flaws (including me) and then many thought he'd quit before Iowa (including me) and he didn't. Now the voting starts today in Iowa and Trump is on the ticket and still camped in Iowa doing last-minute campaigning. Who knew? But since he joined the race Trump has dominated the national polling. Dr Ben Carson was briefly able to replace Trump on top for one week in November, other than that, only Ted Cruz came close and Trump is still now far ahead on national polling. In state-wide polls its not quite total domination but almost. One of his weakest state has been Iowa where the last polls now before the election had Trump returning to a slim lead ahead of Cruz. So yesterday I made my full-season forecast, where I predicted Trump will win 35 states and regions, and take the nomination with 53% of the total delegates awarded, and clinch the nomination on the last day of voting, June 7. Trump has now clearly the easiest path to the nomination (which was with Cruz the last time we did the Form Book).

The general election with Trump as the nominee would be a total massive national catastrophe for the Republicans. Now the Republican party is waking up to the horror, that if Trump wins the nomination, in the subsequent general election they'll lose not only the race to the White House but they'll lose their control of the Senate and also the House which was supposed to be unassailable. The attacks on Trump are growing, yet he seems immune to their effects. His national polling has remained incredibly stable, for more than six weeks now Trump has stayed tightly within a few points of 35% according to RCP polling average. Trump just pulled his 'stunt' of boycotting the last debate before Iowa, it remains to be seen if the voters of Iowa end up punishing Trump for that, or rewarding him with the win in Iowa. If this 'dirty trick' is endorsed, Trump will no doubt use it again in this season and all future political candidates will have a precedent to try it again.

On our scorecard, Trump has improved on his debating skills, now rated B. On fund-raising he picks up several million dollars from donors without even asking (although there is a donor button on his website). He loaned his campaign 10 million dollars in Q4 and is likely to pay more of the campaign going into the Spring, as Trump has promised, he intends to self-finance the race. He has by far the easiest path to winning the Republican nomination now, as he is heavily favored in all polls for February states and can count on added enthusiasm after he starts the actual winning, with the bandwagon effect that follows candidates who won the last election. In the general election Trump has no chance against Hillary at all, all metrics and polls are catastrophic for him. A relevant case study can be seen in how Stephen Colbert of The Late Show did its parody of the latest debate, having videotape of Trump 'debating' another videotape of Trump saying the the exact opposite things. This is likely to be one of the standard forms of attack ads that Hillary will be running in the Autumn, which will also be rare, in that the ads are likely to be popular (being funny too).

Its possible the party collects some kind of coalition to defeat Trump, but that is now a dilemma as the alternative to Trump is Cruz, who is equally poisonous in the general election. So some party elders think they should attack Trump, while others think that Cruz is actually the worse option of the two for the Republican party because Trump can be kicked out if he fails after this year, ie the party is only 'rented' to the pyromaniac trying to burn it down, but Cruz would 'own' the party after the epic election loss of 2016. As Lindsay Graham said, picking between Trump and Cruz is like deciding which way to die, by gunshot or by poison: both are gonna kill ya. Which then raises of course the spectre of Trump running as an Independent. Trump as an independent would not win either but would take most of his votes from the Republicans, not the Democrats. But wait, there is yet another option. Remember, Trump has a thin skin and is incredibly vengeful; and he doesn't keep his word. So if he feels the Republicans are ganging up on him, what he could do, while keeping to 'his word' of not running against the Republican nominee as an Independent - would be to ENDORSE HILLARY. Can you imagine the next 4 months of Trump on TV every day and in continuous loop specifically on Fox as a nominally Republican candidate, on legitimate campaign issues; and then he suddenly cries 'foul' about the 'evil corrupt' party playing unfair. And then Trump drops out ...and tells all his supporters to vote for Hillary. We already know he admires and likes the Clintons and has donated to them in the past. Trump will always latch out and take revenge. And seeing how childish he is about any 'slight' against him like the four-month grudge he held against Megyn Kelly (for her using HIS WORDS against Trump), he could well do this. For the Repoblican party, Trump is a hand grenade with the pin removed, rolling inside their car, underneath the seat, while the car is stuck in rush-hour inside a long tunnel. When will it explode? With Trump the Republican party truly is doomed whether Trump wins the nomination of not.

3RD - TED CRUZ - B- (2.8 average)
(was 4th, score B-, 2.6 average)
Polling . . . . . . . . . . . . B (B)
Fund-raising . . . . . . . A (A)
Debating . . . . . . . . . . B (D)
Path to nomination . . B (A)
Electability . . . . . . . . . D (D)
Home Field Advantage: 155 Delegates but Proportional in Round 5 (1 March)
Billionaires who gave more than $1M: 2 - Toby Neugebauer (oil), Wilks brothers (Dan & Farris) (oil fracking). 

Next Ted Cruz. I called him the luckiest politician in this election cycle. He saw three of the conservative rivals, Scott Walker, Rick Perry and Bobby Jindal quit while almost all moderates continue in the race draining support from Rubio. And then by not attacking Trump, Cruz was delighted to see how hard Trump was striking Cruz's main remaining opposition, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Carly Fiorina. And Dr Ben Carson decided to go off the reservation with stories of grain storage pyramids and weird fantasies of his supposedly violent youth, where Cruz inherited many of Carson's supporters. Cruz was cruising for an easy Iowa victory until Trump noticed that, and decided to drop the birther-bomb on him about his Canadian birth. Cruz fell victim to trusting Trump's word. Still, going forward, Cruz has the second easiest path to the nomination. If anything were to derail the Trump machine - most likely Trump gambling on something outrageous and doing one silly political move too far - the benefits could fall to Cruz.

In the past three months Cruz showed his real skills at debating (which I was wondering about in the first Form book) and he went up two grades in that score, from a D to a B. But at the same time, Cruz's easy path to the nomination weakened and that grade fell from an A to a B. Even so, Cruz climbed from fourth ranked candidate to third. His only achilles's heel is the same as with Trump, Cruz is utterly unelectable in the general election. 

Ted is a Texas guy so his big supporters tend to be oil men. The two billionaires that are his sugar-daddies, have ponied up the most money to any SuperPAC, the two guys alone have supported Ted's campaign by a whopping 24 million dollars so far. Why? Oil and fracking. Ted is already in the Senate where he can filibuster any laws against the oilmen, and as President, he'd likely be in their pocket. But this kind of funding does give Ted a kind of safety to say and do just about anything. He knows what these two want, and they can do the math just like I can. These two Texas oil tycoons may have bought themselves a genuine Texas-born President. Cruz in the general election is a toxic candidate because of his constant feuding with all of his Senate colleagues and most mainstream Republicans at all levels. He is a Tea Party rebel, so if he was on the top of the ticket, some Republicans would openly refuse to support him - and actually endorse Hillary. Others would passively avoid supporting Ted's cause. He can't win the general election in 2016 but if he's on the top of the ticket, he'd cause a rout in the support of Republicans and push a huge wave to Democrats, and both the Senate and the House would flip. The traditional Republicans also know this, that Ted Cruz is no better than Trump, for down-ticket Republican chances in 2016, and are trying to organize against him. The Tea Party tends to love Cruz but they are a minority of Republicans and merely a fringe in the general election. Ted Cruz as the nominee would make 2016 seem like the Republican version of Walter Mondale's disastrous run against Reagan in 1984. Mondale only won his home state, lost 49 states.

4TH - CHRIS CHRISTIE - B- (2.6 average)
(was 6th, C+ grade, 2.2 average)
Polling . . . . . . . . . . . . C (D)
Fund-raising . . . . . . . C (C)
Debating . . . . . . . . . . A (A)
Path to nomination . . C (D)
Electability . . . . . . . . B (B)
Home Field Advantage: 51 Delegates winner-take-all Round 17 (7 June)
Billionaires who gave more than $1M:(none)

As I wrote last time, Chris Christie is a one-trick pony. He is really good at the debates (and yes in some public speaking settings). Hsi polling has improved but its still only fair, as is his fund-raising. His path to the nomination depends on a near-miracle out of New Hampshire and for most of his moderate rivals to quit. Were he to win the nomination, Christie's second best asset is his chance at winning the general election where he earns a B grade. The one thing about this dark horse is, differing from say John Kasich or Rand Paul, is that Christie is that superstar on TV, who can knock it out of the park. At any one debate, he could have that winning moment that everybody talks about, like how Newt Gingrich has his boost for the South Carolina primary based on his debate exchange with CNN's Anderson Cooper.

We've seen hints of that so far, where Christie takes a swing and nearly connected on a home run. I expect a break-out performance to happen soon, that should propel him higher in the polls and improve his fund-raising. Christie needs the TV exposure as much as Trump does, and ironically Trump's bombastic campaigning style has made Christie seem less rude by contrast. But like Trump, Christie is also the natural bully who tells nice old ladies on a town-hall meeting to 'shut up ad sit down'. He can thus implode just as much as he can have a good moment. Christie needs the debates. He is happy his side has 11 debates. So he is that wild card that can be all the talk the next day. And Christie has not been afraid to attack Trump and has done it pretty well so far. He could emerge as the 'dragon slayer'.

Even a successful debate-propelled rise would likely be mercurial. Christie is still a bully. His approval at home in New Jersey is abysmal and should Christie catch fire, Trump would likely hit him with essentially the same book he used against Walker, and thus Christie is quite vulnerable. Especially to Trump. If he were to pull some Jedi move and get the nomination, Christie would fare far better in the general election as one of the more electable, more moderate of the Republicans. My gut says that if Christie did become the front-runner, he could not hold his tongue and temper in check, and he'd say something revolting that would then end his run. Christie doesn't have the teflon-coating that Trump has, who can say outrageous political-career-ending things and still survive.


5TH - JEB BUSH - C+ (2.4 average)
(was 2nd, B grade, 3.0 average)
Polling . . . . . . . . . . . .C (B)
Fund-raising . . . . . . . B (A)
Debating . . . . . . . . . . C (C)
Path to nomination . . C (B)
Electability . . . . . . . . .B (B)
Home Field Advantage: 99 delegates Winner-take-all in Round 9 (15 March) (note is elimination round vs Marco Rubio)
Billionaires who gave more than $1M: 5: Miguel Fernandez (healthcare), William Obendorf (education), Charles Schwab (investing), Julian Robertson (hedge fund), Rich Kinder (oil pipelines)

In the first Form Book in October, Jeb Bush was still 'on paper' the second strongest candidate in particular due to his strong fund-raising (arguably more due to his parents and family-name than Jeb's own abilities). Now we've seen the hapless campaign struggle from one blunder to the next and and three of his ratings have fallen. Jeb's polling is down, his fund-raising is down and his path to nomination is now quite unlikely, depending on others to stumble for him to have any chance. This is the dead man walking campaign, for which all now are just counting to see when his money runs out and Jeb pulls the plug. There is so much of it that Jeb is likely to last through well into March before quitting (only damaging his fellow moderate Republican rival chances).

That all being said, the role of money is enormous and this year's campaign will cost one Billion dollars to go all the way to win the Presidency. The Bush machine is the best at fund-raising on the Republican side. Some of that support is, yes, oil money like Rich Kinder in the pipelines business, but Jeb's reach is widest and he has yes, five personal Billionaires that have tossed a million dollars into his war chest already. In the last cycle, there were only 7 Billionaires in total that took the big bets in the nomination fight in what was the opera of MItt Romney and the Midgets. The first four states in 2016 will not depend on money. But March 1, the SEC Primary day, that is when money will utterly rule, and Jeb has his chance to win something, even as he is lagging in the national polls. It does require smart politics and management, luckily for Jeb, it won't depend on sounding smart on TV. So he could still pull it off, especially if he picks a few optimal states that others might not be prioritizing. One or two states won on March 1 could re-ignite Jeb's campaign but this is a very long of long shots, very dark of dark horses. But on his debating, yes, Trump is right, Jeb needs to be a bit more high energy. Also note in the debate which Trump boycotted, suddenly Jeb sounded like a normal person and had his best debate. Trump has totally messed up poor Jeb and his run.

Incidentally Jeb is the unluckiest politician this cycle. He wanted to block moderates, by having a 'shock and awe' fund-raising quarter, when he raised $100 million. It was meant to keep Chris Christie and John Kasich out of the race. They came in. His 'protege' Marco Rubio rushed early into this race, and by US election rules, the same State cannot nominate both the President and VP (or can, but they lose half the votes, so nobody would ever do this). Then worst, in came Donald Trump, who made Jeb his personal target at every possible moment, just massacring Jeb's polling support. All pundits said Trump was a summer fling that only lasts a month, five months later, he's still attacking Jeb and reminiding of 'low energy' at every time Trump mentions Jeb's name. The first three Republican Governors who quit, were not moderates, all were conservatives (Rick Perry, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal) while both 'strong' moderate Republican Governors (Kasich, Christie) continue in the race denying a 'space' for Jeb. Unluckiest man in this cycle (compare to Cruz above)

6TH - JOHN KASICH - C+ (2.2 average)
(was 7th, C grade, 2.0 average)
Polling . . . . . . . . . . . D (D)
Fund-raising . . . . . . . C (C)
Debating . . . . . . . . . . C (C)
Path to nomination . . C (D)
Electability . . . . . . . . A (A)
Home Field Advantage 66 Delegates winner-take-all in Round 9 (15 March)
Billionaires who gave more than $1M:(none)

The third in this mid-field collision of moderate Republican governors is John Kasich the boring technocrat who is the most electable of the Republican field and just was endorsed by the New York Times. Thats as close to a kiss-of-death for those Republicans who participate at primary voting, as is possible by 'mainstream media'. But yes, Kasich would be greatly electable as he is the rare moderate. He has a hard time getting noticed, far less getting to the nomination. His polling is weak, his fund-raising only fair, his debating is also only fair and his path to the nomination is not in his hands. Like Christie and Jeb, Kasich is in that same train-crash where each of then needs the other two to drop out, and even then they would end up crushed by Rubio. Kasich had not attracted any billionaires by the first Form Book. I will dig to see if he has some now and will update this edition if I find any. 

As i wrote last time, the ultimate ticket for the Republicans to nominate a winning team against Hillary would be Rubio and Kasich. Then they'd win both Florida and Ohio, and now two of the biggest 'must win' swing states would go red. This ticket is now nearly impossble as its highly unlikely Rubio could win enough delegates to get a majority and Kasich is also unlikely to even last to the end of the race. Yet consider the exact opposite. If Trump doesn't win the delegate majority and needs to make a partnership, the worst pairing for the general election would be Trump and Cruz which would be like taking a cyanide pill and then shooting yourself in the head (not unlike how Hitler killed himself). .

 

7TH - RAND PAUL - C- (1.8 average)
(was 8th, grade C-, 1.8 average)
Polling . . . . . . . . . . . .D (C)
Fund-raising . . . . . . . C (D)
Debating . . . . . . . . . . C (D)
Path to nomination . . D (C)
Electability . . . . . . . . .B (B)
Home Field Advantage: 45 Delegates but Proportional in Round 6 (5 March)
Billionaires who gave more than $1M: 1 - Jeffrey Yass (options trader)

Rand Paul had the most volatility of his grading, four of his grades changed, yet his average score remained the same, a C-minus. His polling and path to nomination were downgrade but his fund-raising and debating improved. He is still a midfielder who doesn't have a chance to win. He is campaigning for a future run or for a VP slot (which is highly unlikely). Many are urging Rand to quit to concentrate on securing the re-election to his Senate seat. Rand doesn't really have any strong up-side. He seems to have raised to his level of incompetence and can't get beyond it. What seems to be underneath, is a smart guy, who also clearly knows the ropes, his dad Ron Paul was a Congressman from Texas whose life mission was to run in every Presidential election. Now Rand Paul has taken over the family tradition. But Rand seems undisciplined and unfocused. Its as if he got it all too easy so he doesn't bother to prepare, doesn't bother to make a solid effort and doesn't bother to take it too seriously. Oh, and Rand totally can't pull off the appearance of being Presidential, starting with that hairdo which always seems like he is coming from an all-night rave party. Appearances do matter and he loses also on this count. I think Rand could maybe evolve into a serious and strong candidate, but he needs many years to get there, this candidate seems like a college kid who stayed up too late and didn't bother to do his homework, and is now winging it, to very poor results.

8TH - CARLY FIORINA - C- (1.6 average)
(was 5th, C+ grade, 2.4 average)
Polling . . . . . . . . . . . D (C)
Fund-raising . . . . . . . C (B)
Debating . . . . . . . . . . B (A)
Path to nomination . . F (C)
Electability . . . . . . . . C (D)
Home Field Advantage: 172 Delegates winner-take-all Round 17 (7 June)
Billionaires who gave more than $1M:(none)

On her way down and out of the race, Carly Fiorina scores are showing the trend. Her polling declined, her fundraising declined, her debating declined and her path to the nomination vanished. She has lost her place on the main stage of the debates and is tinkering on ending her run. She may quit after New Hampshire this week. She was once a strong candidate for VP slot but that is also long-gone. 

As I wrote last time, Carly's undoing were her delusion about Planned Parenthood. Now various inquiries and even a criminal indictment have cleard Planned Parenthood from the faked video nonsense of 'keeping the fetus alive for harvesting their brains'. The creators of the video instead are now being indicted for various crimes. So Fiorina's brain-harvesting was batshit-crazy stunt at the level of Michelle Bachmann 'I know women whose kids have autism because of vaccinations' and Christine O'Donnell 'I am not a witch' and Sarah Palin 'I read all the newspapers'. This is a shame, for Republicans, because Carly - if we ignore brain-harvesting - would be a very powerful attack dog against Hillary. And as a woman on the ticket, help neutralize Hillary's advantage as a woman. So imagine say Fiorina and Rubio as the ticket. A Woman and a Hispanic, plus winning Florida... but she is nearly unelectable now. And with Bachmann, Palin and O'Donnell, now Fiorina is creating a dangerous image for the modern Republican party that it is the party of rich white old men - and crazy women. I am not a witch.

9TH - BEN CARSON - D+ (1.4 average)
(was Tied for 9th, C- grade, 1.6 average)
Polling . . . . . . . . . . . . C (A)
Fund-raising . . . . . . . A** (A)
Debating . . . . . . . . . . D (F)
Path to nomination . . F (F)
Electability . . . . . . . . .F (F)
(has no home field advantage)
Billionaires who gave more than $1M: (none)
** Note the fund-raising collapsed in mid November when Carson was exposed as serial liar about his past, so this is mostly money raised before mid November

Dr Ben Carson was the mirage candidate. The wheels came off months ago, but this season, there is no real reason to drop out. Carson soon will, nevertheless, as he can truly go nowhere and keeps being ever more an embarrassment to the race. His polling has sunk, hs debating is atrocious and he has no path to the nomination nor any chance in the general election. But Carson has duped enough naive and vulnerable religious voters to support him because he is such a 'good man' (thanks to the bullshit stories about his 'conversion' from a violent youth to milld-mannered doctor). Carson is using the 2016 cycle to raise his profile, sell books and raise his speaking fee levels. He is not even taking the race seriously. He suspended his campaign so he can go on a book tour. He knows he isn't going to win anything, but the Republican nomination does offer kooky author-speakers a platform to advertise themselves, so that is what he's doing. And as he's gotten hundreds of thousands of supporters duped, he is raking in the millions and living large spending the campaign donations on a lavish lifestyle, as long as this lasts. Good for him. But lets not confuse his run as a candidate for President. I expect Carson to drop out towards the end of February.

10TH - MIKE HUCKABEE - D- (0.8 average)
(was tied for 9th, grade C-, 1.6 average)
Polling . . . . . . . . . . . . D (D)
Fund-raising . . . . . . . D (D)
Debating . . . . . . . . . . D (B)
Path to nomination . . F (C)
Electability . . . . . . . . D (D)
Home Field Advantage 40 Delegates but Proportional in Round 5 (1 March)
Billionaires who gave more than $1M: 1 - Ronald Cameron (poultry)

Mike Huckabee was the runner-up to John McCain finishing second in the 2008 Republican run. He is a mere shadow of that man now. His polling is weak, his fundraising is weak, his debating is weak, his path to nomination is nonexistent and were he to be in the general election, those chances would be weak. Huckabee is expected to drop out immediately after the Iowa results are announced and Huckabee is expected to endorse Trump almost immediately thereafter.

11TH - RICK SANTORUM- F (0.2 average)
(was 12th, D- grade, 0.8 average)
Polling . . . . . . . . . . . . F (D)
Fund-raising . . . . . . . F (F)
Debating . . . . . . . . . . D (C)
Path to nomination . . F (D)
Electability . . . . . . . . .F (F)
(has no home field advantage)
Billionaires who gave more than $1M: (None)

So then we have the former Senator, Rick Santorum, who finished second in 2012 in the weak field against Mitt Romney. He has never managed more than one or two points in the polls, has only participated in the kids table debates, where he hasn't shined. His polling is failing, his fund-raising is failling, his path to nomination does not exist and he could not win the election even if he faced an opponent who died in that race. His sad campaign is about to end, now immediately after Iowa, but Rick might not endorse Trump. He might endorse Cruz or play coy for a while, trying to get some press. Still, that Santorum was so desperate to be willing to go do the Trump event that was scheduled opposite the Fox debate that Trump was boycotting, suggests Santorum may well come to endorse Trump soon as well. 

Now, on the three candidates who had quit since the last Form Book, just to give us context, here they are:


12TH - LINDSAY GRAHAM - F (0.4 average) (quit the race)
(was 11th, D+ grade, 1.2 average)
Polling . . . . . . . . . . . F (F)
Fund-raising . . . . . . . F (D)
Debating . . . . . . . . . . D (C)
Path to nomination . . F (D)
Electability . . . . . . . . D (C)
(Has no home field advantage)
Billionaires who gave more than $1M: (None)

Lindsay was a fun candidate in that he knew how to do a stump speech or throw in some jokes when he did press interviews or debated. But his campaign was doomed almost from the start.

13TH - BOBBY JINDAL - F (0.2 average) (quit the race)
(was tied for 13th, F grade, 0.4 average)
Polling . . . . . . . . . . . . F (F)
Fund-raising . . . . . . . F (D)
Debating . . . . . . . . . . F (F)
Path to nomination . . F (F)
Electability . . . . . . . .  D (D)
(has no home field advantage)
Billionaires who gave more than $1M: (None)

Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana was once thought of a future star of the Republican party. He is not that now. 

14TH - GEORGE PATAKI - F (0.0 average) (quit the race)
(was tied for 13th, F grade, 0.4 average)
Polling . . . . . . . . . . . . F (F)
Fund-raising . . . . . . . F (F)
Debating . . . . . . . . . . F (F)
Path to nomination . . F (F)
Electability . . . . . . . . F (C)
(has no home field advantage)
Billionaires who gave more than $1M: (None)

New York's past Governor George Pataki failed out of the race on every single score I can list. 


On the megadonors, I only included Billionaires who paid more one million dollars or more for some candidate. We can see that four Billionaires from Walker and Perry are available or were, and no doubt will soon, if have not already, pick their next favorite with Candidate Cash, in this Billionaire Bingo of Presidential Poker. Some famous Republican-supporting Billionaires have not yet picked their choice, like the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson and Foster Friess. And on the Koch brothers. Early this year they shocked the political world when they promised that their funding network would generate donations of nearly a Billion dollars - they pledged a massive 900 million dollars where most would come from their network not from the two brothers themselves. But now they have downgraded that to 250 million which is spread beyond the Presidential election.

On the delegate hunt, the Republicans have 2,470 total delegates so to clinch the nomination would take 1,236 delegates. That is the magic number. Because the field is so broad and so many have good funding, and no clear front-runner is emerging, this race is likely to go all the way to the last vote, and its still possibile that the delegate hunt winner is likely to fall short of the 1,236 number in the end, which would result in what is known as a 'deadlocked convention' situation. That is however, highly unlikely to go to the convention floor as a battle of delegates and floor votes; its far more likely that some compromise or alliance will be formed among those candidates with the most Delegates, such as dividing who will stand for President and who will be the Vice President nominee (or even Secretary of State).

So on the real race. When I was preparing the first edition of the Form Book, I said the race was between Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush. I was among the early ones to note that Trump was real and actually one of the front-runners. Today Jeb is out of that contest, its a three-way race, with Trump lead so strong its his race to lose. Cruz is second strongest and Rubio the only viable third candidate who can win the nomination. For the others hanging on, they would need front-runners to quit on something like a lurid sex scandal (ideally with several, underage, Christian, handicapped, boys, in bondage) - to really kick a candidate out of this race that already features a front-runner who has been married three times and been unfaitful to one of his wives.. So thats the real race, the rest is noise. I'd give it say a 98% probability that the Republican nominee is one of those three. and 75% chance that Trump is the nominee. 

DEMOCRATIC SIDE

So lets go to the Democratic side. Same grading scale but note that I grade the two groups within their groups. The Democrats have less nominees, so the top polling scores far higher. Same with fund-raising, the Republicans have to split fund-raising between 10 candidates while the Democrats had 3. So we can't directly compare Republican scores to Democratic scores, but within either group, we can compare rivals. When we get to the general election and see the full tickets on both sides, I will of course do a deeper Form Book on the four finalists on the two tickets (or perhaps six, if Trump or perhaps Michael Bloomberg runs as an independent and/or of the Tea Party splits and nominates for example Ted Cruz)

1ST - HILLARY CLINTON - A (4.0 average)
(was 1st, A score, 4.0 average)
Polling . . . . . . . . . . . . A (A)
Fund-raising . . . . . . . .A (A)
Debating . . . . . . . . . . A (A)
Path to nomination . . A (A)
Electability . . . . . . . . . A (A)
Billionaires who gave more than $1M: 4 - Haim Saban (Univision), George Soros (hedge fund manager), Jeffrey Katzenberg (hollywood), Steven Spielberg (hollywood)

So the only perfect score from either party is Hillary Clinton. She is excellent in polling, excellent in fund-raising, excellent in debating, has an easy path to her nomination and has excellent electablility. I have made the point before, that if US politics was scored like some professional sports, like tennis or boxing or golf, then Hillary would be a 'ranked' player, and her world ranking currently would be number 2 (where Obama is number 1, and the Republican field all would be beneath these two). Why is that. Understand the sports metaphor. It is Hillary who gave the current champion the toughest race. She is most definitely a better candidate than John McCain or Mitt Romney, both who lost decisively to Barack Obama. He beat McCain by 7 points in the 2008 general election and beat Romney by 5 points in 2012. But Hillary's loss to Obama was only one percentage of the votes in the 2008 Democratic nomination, and she was still in the race to the last day of voting. If we agree that Barack Obama among current politicians, is the best at campaigning (lets ignore arguments now about whether he is a good President) then arguably, Hillary is ranked number 2. Certainly Hillary seems to be better than Romney or McCain. And Romney beat Rick Santorum and Rick Perry of this current field. And John McCain beat Mike Huckabee of this field (as well as beating Mitt Romney).

Hillary's fund-raising was strong already in 2008, using the Clinton machine. Now combined with the Obama machine, Hillary's fund-raising is a juggernaut, totally dwarfing all other rivals on either side. If you're not yet crying then remember, Hillary did this, while Joe Biden was keeping his dream alive, and many party supporters were waiting to hear his decision. There will still be yet another surge now in her fund-raising.

What should cause intense worry on the Republican side is her feverish spending. What is that money going into. When I looked into the campaign funding wars last time, we saw that Hillary had spent 44 million dollars already in the first months of the race (before the Q4 report was filed). Spent! This is not the superPAC, this is Hillarys own campaign. Hillary's campaign SPENT as much as Cruz, Bush, Rubio, Fiorina, Paul, Kasich and Huckabee COLLECTED, COMBINED. She spent that amount? What is she using it on, is she using a space shuttle as her campaign plane? No. Hillary is running a tight spend-thrift campaign such as using bus transportation where possible and drinking from disposable plastic cups. Its not a lavish lifestyle. Hillary Clinton's campaign biggest expenditure is ... a DATA MINING operation. Did anyone say Obama 2012? Narwhal? The most expensive, most powerful data mining system ever built for a political campaign, and the sixth largest data processing system on the planet. Obama 2012 campaign's biggest expenditure was its data mining operation. The data guru for Hillary's campaign is Teddy Goff. Where did we hear that name before? Yeah. Was Obama's digital boss. If you remember the 2012 election aftermath, the one group that Obama went to thank personally, who delivered his win, was the digital data-mining team that powered his ground game and polling. Obama's Narwhal was state-of-the-art and cost 100 million dollars in 2008. Of that 44 million, Hillary has spent at least 35 million already in Narwhal 2.0. Jeb Bush is also buildilng a data mining operation but Jeb Bush's total expenditure so far - the richest of hte Republican campaigns - his total expendture was 14 million. His normal campaign costs like salaries and travel will be at least half that, so he can have spent, at best, 7 million on the rival system. This looks eerily similar to the Narwhal Orca massacre of competing data systems. Again, with Democrats with a massive advantage. An advantage which last time delivered 4 points of the 5 point victory for Obama. That is why the only team he came to thank in public, immediately after the victory was his data mining geeks. Now Hillary is on pace to spend about twice what Obama did... I would not sleep well if I was a Repubican strategist watching this, and then seeing how Trump is causing the Republican field to waste their funds on deliberate fratricide.

But Hillary. Her fund raising is enormous. She has four billionaries who already ponied up a million dollars or more, three from media and one from Wall Street. She also has a vast donor pool of small donations. Not as vast as Obama had or Bernie now has, but still, a formidable one. Her polling up to this Form Book was based on polling results that included Joe Biden, who just announced he is not running. When Joe Biden is removed, Hillary's lead to Bernie leaps to 25 points or more. It is a rout. Her debating skills are far above her Democratic rivals (including those of Joe Biden) and her path to nomination is certain, unless she has a health episode like a heart attack. And her electability is excellent. Whats not to like. She wins the Democratic nomination without breaking a sweat. We can end the Democratic Form Book right now. But I wouldn't do that to you, my readers. So lets do the three remaining dwarfs.

2ND - BERNIE SANDERS - B- (2.8 average)
(was 2nd, B- grade, 2.6 average)
Polling . . . . . . . . . . . . B (B)
Fund-raising . . . . . . . A (A)
Debating . . . . . . . . . . C (C)
Path to nomination . . C (C)
Electability . . . . . . . . . B (C)
Billionaires who gave more than $1M: (none)

Bernie Sanders was a forgettable nobody from a tiny state, until his late blooming to cult hero status now. The self-declared socialist and lifelong Independent decided to run against Hillary knowing he can't win but wanted to raise issues for the party to consider. He has put up a respectable campaign. His polling is good, his fundraising is excellent, but his debating is only fair, and his path to the nomination is technically fair but would only be valid if Hillary stumbles ie has a health episode. Bernie's electability is good. He is proudly rejecting megadonors. An old school politician. Bernie will collect a handful of states that he will win, such as New Hampshire this week. He is also running quite well in Iowa. But this is a protest campaign, not a real Presidential candidate. He is old school when politics was polite and about the issues and fought 'fairly'. We will miss his kind.

3RD - MARTIN O'MALLEY - C (2.0 average)
(was 3rd, graded C-, 1.8 average)
Polling . . . . . . . . . . . .D (D)
Fund-raising . . . . . . . C (D)
Debating . . . . . . . . . . B (B)
Path to nomination . . D (D)
Electability . . . . . . . . . B (B)
Billionaires who gave more than $1M: (none)

Do we need to? Really? Martin O'Malley could have had a chance in a normal year, but not the year of Hillary's belated coronation. He now polls weakly, his fundraising is medicre behind two towering juggernauts. His debating is actually good, but his path to the nomination is weak and if he ever made it to the race, his electability would be better than Bernie's. Not this year Martin. And as Hillary will pick Julian Castro as her VP, your run won't even get you a VP slot. Best to hope for some modest Cabinet position.


Thats the Democratic field. It is now Hillary, there is no more suspense. Bernie will make a brave run of it, and will energize many youth voters but his run is ultimately futile. Hillary will coast to victory and will be well rested as the Republicans tear each other apart in the bloodiest battle as far as one can remember. Thats my Form Book first edition. I will come back to this a bit before the first voting starts when we have seen more of the field and probably the field is also culled somewhat.

MY CRYSTAL BALL

The Republican field has so many permutations that its really fuzzy to see any clarity about that ticket at this point. We know for sure only two things: Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio cannot be on the same ticket, and that Trump will never agree to be the VP choice on anyone's ticket. So I just made my full-primary-season forecast yesterday, predicting Trump will take the nomination and barely clinch the race n the last day of voting, June 7, ending with 53% of the delegates. If this happens, Trump will not have to pick a VP from his rivals, and from what we see of his unconventional campaign, he will pick his VP from truly out of the blue, likely totally outside of politics. Could be a general, an astronaut, a TV news anchor (there is gossip about 'Morning Joe' Scarborough), late night comic (imagine someone like former Daily Show host Jon Stewart, that would utterly scramble all expectations of who votes for whom and will there be a youth vote for Republicans), or athlete or talk show host (he has several times mentioned Oprah), or perhaps another successful business person (imagine someone in the style of Mark Zuckerberg). Or it could be an actor (remember a younger Clint Eastwood, before Empty Chair Monologues, that kind of actor) or TV celebrity etc. Expect it to be someone not very 'right wing' but one that would appeal to moderates (Oprah). Or a woman, someone from a minority, but undeniably successful and competent running some big empire (Oprah!). If Trump fails to get the majority of delegates, he'll pick Marco Rubio ahead of Ted Cruz, as he can calculate as well as anyone, about how toxic Cruz would be on his ticket. In any case

On the Democratic side there is utterly no confusion at all. Hillary Clinton will be the nominee for President (likelihood: 98%). She will have no meaningful challenge from her side, thus she can ignore her 'rivals' in selecting her VP. She will go for her best gains in the general election so the Vice Presidential nominee will be Julian Castro of Texas, former Mayor of San Antonio and currently Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the Obama administration (BTW who has a twin brother Joaquin who is a Democrat Congressman from Texas). (Likelihood its Castro? 80%). Clinton-Castro will win by landslide drawing both a historic female voter surge (and massive gender gap) and also the biggest Hispanic voter surge (likelihood of Hillary winning general election: 98%). Hillary clinches her nomination on the first date that is mathematically plausible, eliminating Bernie's brave but futile last hurrah campaign (likelihood clinches on first date possible, 80%).

READING THE TEA LEAVES

So then the coffee-drinker's reading of the tea-leaves. Into the far future. As I now see Trump on the ticket (and Cruz not on it), the Republicans are destined for two painful drubbings in a row. Cruz and the Tea Party wing will argue in 2020, successfully, that the reason they lost 2008 (McCain), 2012 (Romney) and 2016 (Trump) was that the party had started to nominate moderates. Cruz and the Tea Party will lead a rebellion demanding a 'true conservative' to be the nominee and win that race. Cruz will then go down in flames, to a record-setting general election failure against populist and popular Hillary Clinton who easily secures her re-election in an even bigger landslide than against Trump. That releases Marco Rubio to run - now 8 years more experienced - in 2024 when for the first time two Hispanic men will face off against each other - Marco Rubio vs sitting VP, Julian Castro.  Note that Rubio could well pick a woman as VP, possibly Condi Rice. And its possible Michelle Obama runs for Senator of Illinois or some other state, and by 2024 will be available to be on the VP ticket with Casto and we could see a truly historic pairing - on both sides Hispanic men for President and on both sides black women for VP.. 

STARGAZING INTO NEXT GALAXY

So in a galaxy far, far away into the future? Then after Hillary Clinton, the third Clinton to run for President will be Chelsea.. but give her about two decades to get to that level in her political ambitions. The first daughter of a President, to be elected President?

Thats it. I usually write about mobile, tech & digital media related topics, but the US elections are a hobby for me (I am a Finn, living in Hong Kong, so I have no dog in this fight, I am utterly neutral, I can't even vote for either side). If you enjoyed my analysis here, and would like some more, then a few articles related to the 2016 election worth noting are:

If you want to see the previous edition of this Form Book from October 2015, it is here. To see my thinking on how this primary season plays out, including for the first time a full delegate count and all states won by each of the 4 rivals, my primary forecast is here.

And if you want my 2016 previews, the general election preview is here (very long, detailed, full of numbers and stats) and the preview of the nomination battle 2016 is here.

In a related area, as this blog is a tech/mobile/new media blog, the last time I discussed the use of tech in politics to win using modern digital media (2012 election) the deepest analysis of tech use in an election, with tons and tons of cases and stats, is here. This analysis has been referenced to in several published books on US politics already, its the deepest analysis of its kind in the world, that is in the public domain. I have heard from several inside sources who have confirmed that my methodology and findings are sound.