News from the Votemaster

Hillary Clinton Leads in Three of the MiniTuesday States

New Marist polls conducted for NBC/WSJ shows Hillary Clinton leading Sen. Bernie Sanders in Ohio, Florida, and Illinois. Her biggest lead, 27 points, is in Florida and her smallest lead, only 6 points, is in Illinois. Here are the numbers.

Ohio Rank Candidate Pct. 1 Hillary Clinton 58% 2 Bernie Sanders 38%

Florida Rank Candidate Pct. 1 Hillary Clinton 61% 2 Bernie Sanders 34%

Illinois Rank Candidate Pct. 1 Hillary Clinton 51% 2 Bernie Sanders 45%

All the Democratic primaries tomorrow (and for the rest of the season) are proportional. This means—despite what the media will tell you—a Clinton "win" or a Sanders "win" of 6 points in Illinois doesn't matter much. The number of delegates at stake will be split roughly evenly, no matter who "wins." What does matter, though, is that Sanders is way behind Clinton, so if Clinton loses all the rest of the states until June by small margins, she will still be the nominee. Sanders needs to play catch up, and small wins (or small losses) won't do the job. He needs to start winning big states like the five up tomorrow by a wide margin. (V)

New Polls Show Kasich and Trump Leading

New Marist polls of Ohio, Florida, and Illinois done for NBC/WSJ show Gov. John Kasich (R-OH) leading in his home state but Donald Trump leading in the other two. In particular, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is being crushed in his home state. It Rubio loses Florida by 20 points, there is no way he can continue. Here are the results.

Ohio Rank Candidate Pct. 1 John Kasich 39% 2 Donald Trump 33% 3 Ted Cruz 19% 4 Marco Rubio 6%

Florida Rank Candidate Pct. 1 Donald Trump 43% 2 Marco Rubio 22% 3 Ted Cruz 21% 4 John Kasich 9%

Illinois Rank Candidate Pct. 1 Donald Trump 34% 2 Ted Cruz 25% 3 John Kasich 21% 4 Marco Rubio 16%

Previous polls have shown Trump with big leads in North Carolina and Missouri, with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) second in both of them. (V)

What Happens Next for the Republicans?

Tomorrow is a big day, with five large states (Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio) voting. If Donald Trump wins them all, he will be very hard to stop. However, if Gov. John Kasich (R-OH) wins his home state of Ohio and Sen. Ted. Cruz wins lots of delegates in Illinois, Missouri, and North Carolina, then we are in for a long slog. If Marco Rubio loses his home state, he will probably drop out, potentially endorsing one of the others in return for the Veep slot.

In a three-way race with Trump, Cruz, and Kasich as the survivors, the entire Republican establishment will instantly jump on Kasich's bandwagon and shower money on him like there is no tomorrow (which there might not be). His problem will not be money, but delegates. Even if he wins Ohio's 66 delegates, he will be far behind Trump and Cruz. However, if Rubio endorses him and releases his delegates, that could help. Note, however, that Rubio can't force his delegates to support anyone. Technically, they will all be free agents if released.

In any event, if Kasich wins Ohio and Rubio loses Florida and drops out, the mechanics of all the subsequent contests suddenly become very important. After Tuesday, only Arizona, Montana, New Jersey, and South Dakota are truly WTA (Winner Take All) based on the statewide vote. All the others have some form of proportional allocation of the delegates, in some cases with a threshold. Here is the full list of upcoming events.

Date	State	At large	Alloc.	Thresh.	By CD	Alloc.	Thresh.	RNC	Type	Notes
3/15	Florida	99	WTA			0		3	Closed primary
3/15	Illinois	12	WTA		54	WTA by CD		3	Open primary
3/15	Missouri	9	WTA		40	WTA by CD		3	Open primary	Backdoor WTA at 50% statewide
3/15	North Carolina	40	Propor.		39	Propor.		3	Semi-open primary
3/15	Ohio	63	WTA		0			3	Semi-open primary
3/22	Am Samoa	6						3	Caucus	Delegates are not bound
3/22	Arizona	55	WTA		0			3	Closed primary
3/22	Utah	25	Propor.	15%	12	Propor.	15%	3	Closed caucus	Backdoor WTA at 50% statewide
4/1	North Dakota	22			3			3	Closed caucus	Delegates are not bound
4/5	Wisconsin	15	WTA		24	WTA by CD		3	Open primary
4/19	New York	11	Propor.	20%	81	Propor.	20%	3	Closed primary	Backdoor WTA for AL and CD at 50%
4/26	Connecticut	10	Propor.	20%	15	WTA		3	Closed primary	Backdoor WTA for AL at 50% statewide
4/26	Delaware	13	WTA					3	Closed primary
4/26	Maryland	11	WTA		24	WTA by CD		3	Closed primary
4/26	Pennsylvania	14	WTA		54	Not bound		3	Closed primary	CD delegates are not bound
4/26	Rhode Island	10	Propor.	10%	6	Propor.	10%	3	Semi-open primary	At 67% in a CD, at least 2 delegates
5/3	Indiana	27	WTA		27	WTA by CD		3	Open primary
5/10	Nebraska	33	Propor.		0			3	Closed primary
5/10	West Virginia	22	Not bound		9	Not bound		3	Semi-open	Direct election of unbound delegates
5/17	Oregon	25	Propor.		0			3	Closed primary	One delegate for each 4% of state vote
5/24	Washington	11	Propor.	20%	30	Propor.	20%	3	Closed primary	CD allocation is sort of proportional
6/7	California	10	WTA		159	WTA by CD		3	Closed primary
6/7	Montana	24	WTA		0			3	Open primary
6/7	New Jersey	48	WTA		0			3	Semi-open primary
6/7	New Mexico	21	Propor.	15%	0			3	Closed primary
6/7	South Dakota	26	WTA		0			3	Closed primary

The rules are very complex and the table above is only an approximation. Nevertheless, many states, including Illinois, Missouri, Wisconsin, Maryland, Indiana, and California have a system in which the at-large delegates are allocated entirely to the candidate with the most votes statewide. In addition, in each congressional district separately, the winner of the district gets all the district's delegates, usually 3-5 per CD. Other states have the at-large delegates and CD delegates allocated separately and proportionally. In some of these cases, only those candidates passing a certain threshold get delegates and those under the threshold are treated as having gotten 0 votes before the proportionality rules are applied. In some states, if a candidate gets 50% of the statewide vote, he gets all the delegates. This is sometimes called a backdoor WTA. Finally, in some states, some of the delegates are unbound and in most states the RNC members are unbound, like the Democrats' superdelegates.

Another factor to consider is who can vote. In a closed primary, only registered Republicans can vote. In a semi-open one, Republicans and independents can vote. In an open one, anyone can vote in the Republican primary, even Democrats. This is important because Kasich (and to a lesser extent, Trump) have some crossover appeal to Democrats. Cruz has none and will do best in closed primaries.

So if Kasich wins Ohio tomorrow and Rubio loses Florida and drops out, the race moves to a phase where half the country is up for grabs, one congressional district at a time. Noteworthy is that the battles move to the north now, which favor Kasich over Cruz as Trump's main challenger. If Kasich becomes the lone establishment candidate left, he will have buckets of money, so Trump and Cruz will have to match it. So far, Trump has been trying to win on the cheap, but with tens, maybe hundreds, of millions of dollars pouring into ads hitting him from every direction, Trump may have to spend some real money to keep even. Again, if Kasich wins Ohio and Cruz gets a lot of delegates in Illinois, North Carolina, and Missouri, there is a real possibility of spotting the great white whale of politics, the contested convention, off on the far horizon.

How that would play out is completely unknown. If Trump comes into the convention with 1100-1200 delegates, by the third ballot most of the delegates would be free agents. Who could they unite around? Two-time loser Mitt Romney would be unacceptable to both Trump and Cruz. Convention chairman and Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) might be the only possibility, but Trump might be mad as hell and stoke the anger of his delegates. He is good at anger. It is somehow hard to see him going gentle into that good night if he came into the convention with 1100-1200 delegates and the prize was suddenly snatched by the establishment he so hates. On June 7, the last states vote, so Trump should know where he stands then. That would be too late to get on the ballot in all states for an independent run, but he might be able to make 47 or 48 if he put a lot of money into collecting signatures. It certainly wouldn't be pretty. (V)

Can the Fire Trump Lit Be Contained?

Win or lose, Donald Trump has lit a fire that is now is expanding rapidly. All of his rallies attract protesters who are beaten by supporters. Arrests at rallies are now standard operating procedure. Stuart Stevens, Mitt Romney's top strategist in 2012, said that Trump's rhetoric is almost verbatim what segregationist George Wallace was saying in 1968. All the violence is the logical culmination of Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy, which was to use dog whistles about racism to appeal to blue-collar workers in the South. Only now it has spread far beyond the South and the dog whistles have become bullhorns. Trump is openly promoting racism, sexism, and more as a key feature of his campaign. It is hard to see how the fire can be contained now, especially if the establishment makes an all-out effort to defeat Trump in the months ahead. (V)

Trump May Pay Attacker's Legal Fees

By now, even those who are paying casual attention to the presidential race are aware of the sucker punch that 78-year-old white Trump supporter John McGraw threw at 26-year-old black protester Rakeem Jones during a Trump rally. And McGraw was not just acting in the heat of the moment. In interviews after the incident, he said that he enjoyed "knocking the hell out of that big mouth," that Jones "deserved it" for not acting like an American, and that "the next time we see him, we might have to kill him." So, how does Trump feel about supporters who would presume to murder those with whom they do not agree? Well, he answered that question on Sunday, telling reporters that he had instructed his staffers to look into paying McGraw's legal fees.

At this point, we know that Trump—far from being the buffoon he was presumed to be six months ago—is a shrewd political operator. He did the math, and decided that he would benefit more from supporting McGraw than from condemning him. And this is probably true in primary season. But what is Trump's thinking vis-a-vis the general? Beyond the large number of Democrats and independents who cannot stomach what Trump has to say, there is a meaningful segment of the American populace that just wants to avoid rocking the boat. These individuals, who are some of the last true swing voters in American politics, care less about party than they do about smooth sailing for the ship of state. Trump is losing these people, no doubt about it. Maybe he's unaware of this (probably not). Or maybe he thinks he can pivot away from endorsing violence, etc. once he has the nomination. If so, he's wrong. Or maybe his game all along has been to win the nomination (hence: publicity and notoriety), but to lose the election (thus avoiding a difficult, low-paying job while also helping out his friend Hillary). Certainly, the latter case is the best match for how he's currently playing his hand. (Z)

Clinton Blunders on Reagan and AIDS

Hillary Clinton was in attendance at Nancy Reagan's funeral on Friday, and while there, gave an interview to MSNBC. Naturally, under the circumstances, Clinton was full of praise for the former first lady. However, she got a bit too effusive, and so really stepped in it when talking about the 1980s AIDS crisis: "It may be hard for your viewers to remember how difficult it was for people to talk about H.I.V./AIDS back in the 1980s," Clinton said. "And because of both President and Mrs. Reagan—in particular, Mrs. Reagan—we started a national conversation, when before nobody would talk about it. Nobody wanted anything to do with it."

The problem, of course, is that this statement is not remotely correct. The Reagans, in fact, buried their heads in the sand on AIDS, and Nancy even persuaded her husband to limit the amount of money sent to Africa to confront the budding crisis. One does not even have to be all that old—anyone who is 40 might have memory of that era—to recall that the national conversation on AIDS did not start with politicians, but instead with celebrities who contracted the disease (Rock Hudson, Freddie Mercury, Magic Johnson, Liberace), television coverage (including many sitcoms that did "very special" episodes), and high-profile victims (Ryan White, Kimberly Bergalis). Clinton was quickly condemned by members of the gay community; Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) also weighed in, too, wondering "where Secretary Clinton got her information." Within two hours of the statement becoming public, Clinton apologized.

So, what happened here? Undoubtedly, with her flattering words, Clinton was trying to curry favor with the conservative-leaning "Reagan Democrats" that her husband attracted so effectively. And Reagan moved leftward on several health-related issues (Alzheimer's and stem cell research, most obviously) in her later years, so presumably the Secretary got her wires crossed a bit. Still, it was a huge error. Despite this, there has been relatively limited coverage of the issue. Yes, each of the major news outlets had a piece about it, but then they moved on. And from this, there may be two takeaways. First, although it goes against the instincts of most (all?) politicians, it is often wise to pull a JFK—own the mistake, and apologize. Then, there's nowhere for the story to go. If the choice is to deny, obfuscate, and shift blame, by contrast, then even a minor error can become a huge story (think, for example, of the Dick Cheney hunting incident.) The second takeaway is that, in a campaign featuring Donald Trump and all of his bluster, garden-variety errors and misstatements may not move the needle much any more. (Z)

Trump-branded Products Made Abroad While He Decries the Practice

Donald Trump's campaign is largely aimed at working-class whites who are afraid their jobs may be shipped overseas. So it may be a bit odd that their savior, Donald Trump, has multiple products, including a line of men's clothing, cuff links, and eyeglasses, manufactured in Bangladesh, China, and Honduras. His daughter Ivanka, a frequent campaign surrogate, markets hundreds of additional products made in China.

If Trump makes it to the general election, his hypocrisy could be a real weakness. His Democratic opponent is surely going to hit him as part of the problem, not part of the solution. The question is going to come up of why didn't he make all his products in the USA? The real answer, of course, is that making them in low-wage countries is more profitable and he is more interested in profits than jobs, just like all the companies he attacks for doing the same thing. "Trump as job destroyer" could be a potent line in the general election. (V)

Who Does Wall Street Want in the White House?

MSBNC interviewed a number of Wall Street types to get their take on the election. Their preferences for the presidency were all over the board—Kasich, Clinton, even Bernie Sanders. The one area of agreement: No Donald Trump. Some of the interviewees were concerned about the boat-rocking that would result from Trump's foreign policy declarations. "Donald Trump is attacking Mexico, he's attacking pretty much all of Europe, he's attacking the Muslim religion and he's not denounced the Ku Klux Klan," said influential investor Byron Wien. Others felt that his trade policies could spark a global recession, predicting that the S&P could drop 20% just in response to his election.

Central to Trump's case for the White House is that, as a businessman, he would be the ideal person to manage the U.S. economy. If the tycoons of industry are saying that The Donald would be bad for business—possibly wrecking the stock market overnight—then it's another potent weapon for the Democrats to use against the billionaire. (Z)

Cruz's Campaign is Entirely Driven by Big Data

The technique of using data to drive the campaign that was perfected by Barack Obama in 2008 has taken over the Cruz campaign. With three of the states that vote tomorrow and most of the other states later on allocating delegates by congressional district, decisions of where to campaign and where to put resources are made daily or even hourly based on data the campaign has about voters and continuous polling. Cruz never announces where he is going to be even 24 hours in advance, which makes it hard to get the word out, resulting in small crowds. But if the polling in some congressional district says he can win three delegates there, he'll change his plans and give a speech there. (V)

How Not to Stop a Frontrunner

Consider this quote from Politico:

Detractors point to his lack of political experience, his poor grasp of policy, his alleged autocratic leanings and his shady past. They believe this man without much of a political platform (but with interesting hair) has neither the qualifications nor the temperament to be president. Yet in defiance of conventional wisdom, he is leading his three main rivals in the race for the White House, and party bigwigs are at a loss how to respond. No, it's not Donald Trump. His name is Andrew Jackson, and the year is 1824.

The 1824 general election is the predecessor of today's Republican primary. Andrew Jackson was a brawling hick from the backwoods of the South, but despite his relative lack of political experience and his limited number of policy positions, he drew immense crowds. The establishment couldn't stand him. His opponents were Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, Secretary of the Treasury William Crawford, and Speaker Henry Clay, all distinguished gentlemen with long track records.

To everyone's surprise, when the electoral votes were counted, Jackson led with 99, Adams had 84, Crawford had 41, and Clay had 41. Since no one had the 131 required to win, the House voted and chose Adams, who immediately named Speaker Clay his secretary of state. Jackson called this the "Corrupt bargain." Not only did Jackson not slink off, he continued to denounce Adams and built a movement of disaffected citizens that became the modern Democratic Party. In 1828, Jackson ran against Adams and crushed him. The moral of this story is that when a demagogue is leading a movement of angry people and the establishment manages to use the rules to bypass him even if he is leading in votes, the consequences can be severe and unforeseen. (V)

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster