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.
"Hillary Clinton's campaign biggest expenditure is ... a DATA MINING operation. Did anyone say Obama 2012? Narwhal?"
[HUMOR]
Hillary does not have to do much data mining this early in the campaign. She will win from Bernie in her sleep. So why is she burning so many computer hours even before the primaries.
I know what Hillary is spending her computer cycles on! She is running the data mining operation for Donald Trump.
Yes! It is Hillary's campaign that help Trumpzilla to target his campaign with excruciating precision against the Republicans to capture the nomination in the most damaging way.
Trumpzilla is nothing but a Clinton fueled conspiracy to destroy the real conservatives and the GOP.
[/HUMOR]
Posted by: Winter | February 01, 2016 at 01:07 PM
Hi Winter
Fabulous !!! Yeah that conspiracy theory is still viable, that there is a Trump-Clinton conspiracy to kill off all viable Republican candidates. If you consider that as the goal - and now apply it also to 'Canadian Cruz' - it still holds water haha.. and yeah, Trump's campaign finances certainly had no giant data-mining operation in it (but he did spend a lot on hats)
Tomi Ahonen :-)
Posted by: Tomi T Ahonen | February 01, 2016 at 01:47 PM
Tomi,
What about Jim Gilmore? Lurking in the shadows. Just waiting for the others to ex/implode.
,dave
Posted by: Dave Barnes | February 01, 2016 at 07:19 PM
LOL. Good one Winter!
As to Tomi's article, well, I disagree on some points.
Hillary Clinton - I don't think she is as strong as your evaluation says. Oh, compared to Cruz or Trump she's a great candidate in any normal year, but this year doesn't seem to be normal. Also Sanders is far stronger than he appeared to be when he announced. Personally I still think she will win, but I expect Sanders to be in the fight a lot longer.
Donald Trump - I think that everyone is still underestimating Trump. He may be an utter bastard, but the man is smart. He wouldn't be in this if he didn't think he had a decent chance of pulling off the biggest deal in his life. That we have no idea how he could do this doesn't matter, what matters is he has his path planned out. Don't underestimate Trump, if he has the situation properly worked out he could beat Hillary. I have no idea how he would do this, I just know that planning of that sort is necessary to pull off big deals.
Ted Cruz - I'd love to see Ted Cruz as the Republican candidate. Toxic Teddy would destroy the Tea Party, and probably destroy the Religious Right both at the same time. I know people involved in both. Nice people, but both types tend to suffer from congenitive dissonance, and misunderstand how their attitudes play out in society now. But this time round Toxic Teddy has no chance.
The others - No chance. But as long as the money lasts, why not stay in? For the younger candidates it's a great chance to pick up some experience in applying for one of the most exclusive jobs on the planet (Pope is one of the few which is more exclusive.)
This is going to be a great year for popcorn sales!
Posted by: Wayne Borean | February 01, 2016 at 07:22 PM
Hi Dave & Wayne
Dave - LOL yeah, well, he is so invisible most polls don't bother to include his name. So he's such a dark horse that if he was under glare of the brightest of Trump Tower spotlights, they would not see him..
Wayne - thanks. Now on Hillary ratings, do you score Bernie AHEAD of Hillary on any of those points? So if not, then isn't her "all A's" grading fair? Remember we are grading two separate classes, one Republican class and one Democratic class, not across.
On Trump yeah, I think your comments have contributed to my mind being corrupted about him haha... Utter bastard yes but smart yes and has a plan? most definitely yes. Is it still a secret, gosh yes. Is it conceivable he has a plan that can also defeat Hillaryin the general? He must believe so, else he would not be throwing $10M of his own money already per quarter now into his race and increasing that spending rapidly into the race as it goes on. What can it possibly be? I can't imagine. Can it really erase all the damage he has done to his chances in the general election, gosh, he HAS to believe that is the case, but I cannot imagine it to be so. Look how many generations the blacks have held a grude against the Republicans. He can't just say in September that he didn't mean it about the Hispanics or women or Muslims etc.. But the cool thing is, that we are very likely going to find out, as you know, I am now predicting that Cruz no longer has the easiest path to the nomination, and it is Trump who takes the nomination. Like you said, bring the popcorn!
Now on Trump's infallibility (I wonder if that is spelled correctly). This debate gambit is the clearest evidence we have of bad judgement and damage. Trump was leading Iowa by all recent Iowa polls by about 7 points before he pulled out of the debate and Trump was at 33%. There are now two polls out that had their interviews done only after the debate. And his polling is at 23% and both polls have his lead down to 1%.
Whether Trump wins or loses, we know here, that the fact is, that his smooth-sailing, easy-peasy dominating victory in Iowa, was put in jeopardy by a silly gamble, driven not by any sensible calculation, but by his ego. If Trump pulls a win out of Iowa, then the magnitude of his risk and near-loss will not be noticed by most - but we know here. We saw it. We calculated it. Now if Trump loses in Iowa (by one of those two polls, Rubio is only one point behind Trump so with the slightest misfortune, Trump could end THIRD in Iowa) then many will point to the sudden collapse timed with his debate boycott.
Two important observations. A smart political advisor (aka Campaign Manager) would never have allowed the candidate to do this. To risk losing a clear win - especially the first win of the season. Trump is in charge, not listening to his advisors (or they are yes-men who won't challenge him). So Trump thinks he is smarter than everybody else. Thats where truly colossal blunders are made (haha, Nokia Lumia & Windows Phone). But secondly, it tells us he is prone to take RIDICULOUS gambles and that in turn, in a long campaign, is certain to damage him many times, when those gambles don't turn out roses.
Its possible Trump has figured out the way to defeat Hillary in the general election. Its also possible, his plan is as dumb as boycotting a debate.
On Cruz's chances. He needs an Iowa upset now. If Cruz cannot win Iowa, then he really has no chance of trying what Huckabee & Santorum tried before, with a far better start winning Iowa, but a far less-funded campaign than what Cruz has so far put into play. If Cruz does win Iowa, then he is the strongest rival to take Trump on. And then any one political surprise can tumble the race - like we remember with Newt Gingrich suddenly having a debate moment that gave him the win in South Carolina. I agree, I think Trump will win it, but his strongest rival and the only other candidate with a realistic chance of getting the nomination is Ted. (Toxic Teddy - LOL)
Tomi Ahonen :-)
Posted by: Tomi T Ahonen | February 01, 2016 at 07:54 PM
Well, yes.
1ST - HILLARY CLINTON - A (4.0 average)
(was 1st, A score, 4.0 average)
Polling . . . . . . . . . . . . A (A) --- B
Fund-raising . . . . . . . .A (A) --- B
Debating . . . . . . . . . . A (A) --- B
Path to nomination . . A (A) --- A
Electability . . . . . . . . . A (A) --- B
Billionaires who gave more than $1M: 4 - Haim Saban (Univision), George Soros (hedge fund manager), Jeffrey Katzenberg (hollywood), Steven Spielberg (hollywood)
2ND - BERNIE SANDERS - B- (2.8 average)
(was 2nd, B- grade, 2.6 average)
Polling . . . . . . . . . . . . B (B) --- B
Fund-raising . . . . . . . A (A) --- A
Debating . . . . . . . . . . C (C) --- B
Path to nomination . . C (C) --- B
Electability . . . . . . . . . B (C) --- B
Billionaires who gave more than $1M: (none)
That's my ratings of Hillary and Bernie. You'll notice that I left Bernie with an A on fundraising, but lowered Hillary to a B. That's because Bernie has been working on small donors, and he gets to trumpet the level of his support. Since a lot of Americans are less than impressed with the amount of corporate/rich money in politics, his principled stand should resonate with both Democratic and Republican voters.
Beyond that, I don't see that anyone deserves an A so far. Both Hillary and Bernie are running good campaigns, not great campaigns. The same is true of the Republicans except for possibly Trump. If he wins Iowa and New Hampshire as an outside, he'll have run a great campaign.
Posted by: Wayne Borean | February 01, 2016 at 08:53 PM
These guys have 100% track record since '75.
http://wiumpe.com/
They don't dismiss Bernie Sanders as easily as you.
Posted by: deadonthefloor | February 01, 2016 at 10:05 PM
Short night. Hillary's running away with it and will probably end the night 7-10 points ahead of Sanders (as I predicted yesterday). It's a tighter race on the GOP side, which is taking longer to come in. So the coronation process is officially over for 2016. Hillary's the nominee. As far as Tomi's concerned, we can just cancel the election to save George Soros and a few of his billionaire friends some money, preferably so they can donate it to the Clinton Foundation instead.
Don't you just love how the Democrats are the party of the little guys, and aren't afraid to take on the billionaires like George Soros (convicted felon and currency manipulator).
Posted by: Catriona | February 02, 2016 at 01:55 AM
With 6.8% in, Cruz is leading 30-28 over Trump. Not sure where that vote is coming in, but Rubio's at nearly 18%. Tomi will credit the debate no-show, although the snowstorm might be the bigger reason.
Posted by: Catriona | February 02, 2016 at 01:57 AM
@Tomi, you are lying when you say you are neutral. You are a complete fan of the Clintons. You admire them, and nothing they say or do can convince you otherwise. You appear to want a Clinton dynasty. As far as I'm concerned, we'd be better off without the Clintons and their 1%er friends, including Chelsea's convicted felon father-in-law. You hate Trump, but Hillary is even more despicable. Hillary would be nothing if not for Bill, and her having amassed a major data mining operation should be scary.
Of course, you believe her when she says she knows nothing about tech, and laugh off her use of a private e-mail server containing classified information. It's all just a game, I guess. The system is rigged, and it's better to be one of the riggers (i.e. the Clintons) than the rigged.
What I don't get is why Democrats actually seem to like Hillary Clinton. There's nothing likable about her whatsoever. She's condescending, arrogant, treats her staff like garbage (e.g. drinking out of plastic cups while she lavishes billions onto her Silicon Valley and Wall Street friends), and has zero accomplishments as a Senator and Secretary of State. She co-sponsored NO major pieces of legislation, and spent 4 years as SOS mostly flying around promoting her future campaign.
Posted by: Catriona | February 02, 2016 at 02:10 AM
Hillary still clinging to a small lead with 65% in, but with the goofy way the Democrats report results it's difficult to tell the actual vote totals. Anyway, Cruz has a 4% lead on Trump with about half in, but the bigger story seems to be Rubio who has over 20%. If he can hold at that level (anything high teens or above would be considered overperforming), the GOP race could take on a new dynamic. Let's see if Rubio gets some momentum in fundraising and results in New Hampshire.
Posted by: Catriona | February 02, 2016 at 02:46 AM
What's odd is that turnout is looking to set a new record in Iowa on the GOP side. It was supposed to benefit Trump, but may be benefiting Rubio. In a vacuum, I'm not surprised Cruz is ahead. Iowa GOP caucus voters tend to be VERY evangelical. Pat Robertson came in 2nd in 1988, ahead of George H. W. Bush (who was eventually elected in a landslide).
Posted by: Catriona | February 02, 2016 at 02:53 AM
Also, I know Tomi will claim to be right (that Trump underperformed), but he gave himself two opportunities to be "right," which also means that he's wrong that Trump is going to run the table. Cruz won where he needed to (the most evangelical electorate in the primaries), and Rubio is doing MUCH better than expected, or that even he predicted.
On to New Hampshire. It looks like we officially have a race.
Posted by: Catriona | February 02, 2016 at 02:59 AM
Wow! I'd have never have guessed that the GOP race would be called first. Cruz it is. Rubio is less than 1.5% behind Trump! Turnout was massive on the GOP side, easily smashing the record from 2012. This is a "YUGE" result for Rubio.
Clinton's still up by 0.9% with 84% in. The bulk of the vote outstanding is from Polk (where Des Moines is), which should mean she wins by 1-2%. O'Malley is dropping out.
Posted by: Catriona | February 02, 2016 at 03:29 AM
So I got my wish.
One of the big storylines coming out of Iowa will be that Trump threw it away. That the gambit of skipping a debate was a massive blunder. So CNN has called the election for Cruz and the race is still between Rubio and Trump..
Tomi Ahonen :-)
Posted by: Tomi T Ahonen | February 02, 2016 at 03:50 AM
@Tomi, that's not the narrative at all. The debate isn't what cost Trump Iowa, though it may have helped Rubio a lot. The narrative is that Cruz's traditional caucus campaign carried the day where Cruz needed it most. Evangelicals came out to caucus, as usual. But it appears that late-deciders went to Rubio, who was expected to get around 15-17% of the vote.
Also, as I pointed out, that makes your more recent prediction (that Trump would win Iowa and roll the table) incorrect. New Hampshire is up next. Polls there are notoriously unreliable, though increasingly they are unreliable everywhere. Clinton is clinging to a <1% lead and is actually losing in elected delegates (so much for her vaunted data analytics on how to prop up O'Malley delegations to maximize her delegate counts - O'Malley had no delegations to prop up).
Anyway, yes, I'm feeling a bit more confident in my Rubio prediction.
Posted by: Catriona | February 02, 2016 at 03:55 AM
Here's the best source for caucus results.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/pages/interactives/elections-results-primaries-2016/%23/#d
Since the Democrats report county delegates won vs. votes, it's harder to tell the actual vote count. But interestingly, out of 44 delegates up for grabs, Bernie is leading 21-19 as I post this.
Posted by: Catriona | February 02, 2016 at 04:02 AM
Hi Catriona
Cruz was at 26% on the RCP average just before the polls. Cruz took 28% in Iowa. THAT is what evangelical vote turnout can do for a religious candidate. Trump however, was at 33% on the day before the debate boycott. He finished with 24%. He LOST NINE points in four days !!! This even though the turnout was UP !!! And Cruz only took 2 of those 9 points. Trump THREW AWAY the Iowa win. And yes, this is becoming the narrative. Nate Silver says so, Laura Ingraham talking about it on Fox, Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, and some woman just on CNN with Wolf Blitzer I didn't catch her name. No, Catriona, they will be looking for 'why' and this is a COLLAPSE and the pattern is VERY CLEAR. Trump led all polls up to the debate, he now lost by 9 points and CRUZ DID NOT GAIN significantly against those poll standings.
You should know me by now, I go by the numbers always wherever they take me...
PS my prediction is solid. Trump is down 3 delegates !! My prediction was not of what states Trump wins, you know perfectly well the ONLY contest in the nomination is for the DELEGATES and I made it perfectly clear, that my prediction was of the NOMINATION RACE nd whether Trump can win it by clinching a majority. I predicted 1,320 delegates and this start has me on track by only losing 3 delegates for Trump. If my forecast loses a further 3 delegates EVERY DAY they vote, of the next 19 more days of voting, my forecast STILL COMES TRUE and Trump clinches on June 7. So the prediction is still perfect. So feel happy to gloat haha, I am totally on track. I can afford to lose 3 delegates EVERY day of Republican voting and still have a margin of 24 delegates left over... Trump is by far favored to win the nomination and almost impossible for him to win before June 7.
Tomi Ahonen :-)
Posted by: Tomi T Ahonen | February 02, 2016 at 05:05 AM
@Tomo, what part of "Polls aren't reliable" don't you understand? The biggest question was whether Trump's supporters would come out and caucus. It turns out they did not. And it's completely disingenuous for you to talk about delegates. Iowa and New Hampshire are meaningless as far as delegates are concerned. They are about momentum. All of a sudden those New Hampshire polls appear less credible, and if Trump underperorms again he won't get all that free media and with it his supporters and his national poll levels. Stop acting like Donald Trump. You were wrong and your own post from yesterday admits it. Trump will not run the table, and suddenly he no longer looks inevitable. If all that mattered were 3 delegates you wouldn't have posted about Trump's debate boycott or have mentioned his drop from some obvious outlier polls that you took as gospel.
Cruz didn't gain. But Rubio did. So perhaps Trump not debating benefited Rubio over Cruz. I said that myself. Unlike you I don't value the opinions of partisan hacks like Laura Ingraham or Rachel Maddow.
Trump did not "throw away" the win any more than Clinton "threw away" a 4 point lead she had in the RCP average today. Those polls were obviously wrong, as polls often are today. No amount of data analytics can make up for having bad data. You of all people should know this.
Posted by: Catriona | February 02, 2016 at 06:28 AM
Hi Catriona
I do not understand why you are obsessed with denying reality. But now the matter IS decided. CNN just showed the exit polls for Iowa about what happened to Trump's support after the debate. His support COLLAPSED to 14%. The facts are there, plain and clear. Before his debate boycott stunt, Trump was getting 33% support in Iowa. After that day, his support collapsed to 14% - he lost MORE THAN HALF. This is TOTALLY IN LINE with the EXACT SAME PHENOMENON with Reagan. EXACTLY the same at almost identical rate.
And there was yes, one OTHER thing that happened to Trump on that day. It was his little political theater for wounded war veterans. Its possible that when Trump collects 6 million dollars to war vets, maybe THAT was the reason suddenly Iowans stopped liking Trump and didn't vote against him. That is of course possible but a supremely silly alternative theory. Nothing else HAPPENED to the Trump campaign in the last 4 days. Nothing else newsworthy out of Iowa. Why are you denying reality?
Anyway, the matter is now closed, as CNN just gave us that number. Trump actual Iowa Republican voter preference collapsed on that day, and of all those caucus goers who decided after the day of the debate, Trump got 14%. His boycott caused his support to collapse. The facts are there.
Oh, and in the immediate two hours after the result, Fox says so, CNN says so, MSNBC says so, BBC says so, Politico says so, 538 Blog with Nate Silver says so, NY Times says so, Slate says so, Huffpo says so, Washington Post says so, Boston Herald says so, Bloomberg says so. But Catriona knows better with no evidence suggests the opposite.
No, Catriona, I warned this was a mistake. I was correct, it was a mistake. Exactly like say Elop at Nokia with Windows Phone or how Blackberry launched its tablet, etc. Its what I do on this blog. I look for signals and I report it when I see it. For this, there is historical precedent of it. So now, we have it measured. Exit polls, very clear. Case closed. I was once again accurate in my initial gut reaction and thus, for our readers, this blog wins. We provided valuable insight into strategic thinking (and strategic blunders)
Why don't you go sleep on it, and lets return to this later. But this matter is now closed, the numbers came out. 14%. That is a COLLAPSE from 33%. COLLAPSE.
Tomi Ahonen :-)
Posted by: Tomi T Ahonen | February 02, 2016 at 07:28 AM