Trump, Clinton win Georgia: what does it mean?
From the AJC:
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton scored complete victories in Georgia in Tuesday’s primary, trouncing their opponents as they edged closer to their parties’ nominations.
Huh?
Clinton surely trounced Sanders last night. She took 71 percent of the statewide vote and, according to the exit polls, had resounding margins among white women, black women, and black men. It looks like Sanders won one county in Georgia. The Democratic primary in Echols County brought 68 voters to the polls; 36 of them voted for Sanders.
Since the Democrats are assigning delegates proportionally based on the popular vote, Clinton probably has an insurmountable delegate lead in the race for the nomination after similarly large wins in other states yesterday.
But did Trump “trounce” the competition in Georgia and in other states? You’ll find such hyperbolic statements in many media outlets this morning, but it’s worth looking more closely at the numbers.
Trump took 39 percent of the vote in Georgia yesterday, easily outdistancing Rubio (25 percent), Cruz (24 percent), and Carson and Kasich (each with about 6 percent). It looks like Trump won every county but Cobb, Fulton, DeKalb, and Clarke. That’s a convincing win in a five candidate race, but Trump still didn’t reach 40 percent.
In fact, according to FiveThirtyEight, Trump has only about 34 percent of the cumulative popular vote from the states that have voted so far. As I noted in a post last week, if the Republicans had a truly proportional system of delegate allocation, Trump would have little to no chance of having a majority of delegates before the convention in Cleveland.
But because the delegate allocation rules favor the frontrunner, Trump is still in a decent position to get to the halfway mark even if he continues to get less than 40 percent of the popular vote. (By the way, the only states on Super Tuesday where Trump broke the 40 percent mark were Massachusetts and Alabama, neither of which will be pivotal in the general election.)
So what does this mean for the allocation of Georgia’s 76 Republican delegates? I’m still hunting for final numbers and estimates of district delegates, but the AP currently has Trump with 40 delegates, Cruz with 18, Rubio with 14, and 4 not assigned yet. In other words, Trump got well under half the statewide vote, but he’s going to win well over half the delegates.
But Trump didn’t sweep the map yesterday as some of us expected (or feared). The Upshot at the NYT is currently predicting that the 595 Republican delegates on Super Tuesday will fall something like 240 for Trump, 220 for Cruz, 110 for Rubio, 20 for Kasich, and 3 for Carson.
In other words, Trump took about 40 percent of the delegates available in those 11 states. He could conceivably still end up with a majority of the delegates going into Cleveland, but that prospect looks a lot more difficult today than it did 24 hours ago. Conservative columnist Ross Douthat this morning says “the Super Tuesday results did nothing, nothing, to clarify who exactly might win.”
If Trump manages to win Ohio and Florida in two weeks — both are winner-take-all states — he might once again emerge as the inevitable nominee. But if he loses either or both of those, the odds of a brokered convention increase dramatically.
About Author
billdawers
I've been a freelance columnist for the Savannah Morning News since 2000. In 2011, I launched Savannah Unplugged as a place for news, analysis, and photos that weren't good fits for my newspaper columns. In fall 2013, I launched the music blog hissing lawns to fill a need for more music coverage in the Savannah area. I also teach English and journalism course at Armstrong State University, an under-appreciated gem here in Savannah.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I bet there are a lot of folks waking up this morning saying “Oh yea I was suppose to vote for the bern dude yesterday”
My view of the all the candidates left after super Tuesday:
Dem Side:
Hillary, should be sacred via the very low turn out, not doing well with Reagan Dems and young people. The overplaying the women card is backfiring.
Sanders, cannot win via the Dem establishment having way more power than the GOP establishment. Makes no logical sense he is not doing better than Hillary with the black vote. One has to question black leadership backing Hillary over Sanders via policies?
GOP Side:
Trump will put the rust belt in play with support of Reagan Dems and economy issues. Trump puts the rust belt in play and NY, a must for a GOP win. Weakness his tone of the campaign for a general, he may chill out and it is about the pocket book. His turnout ability could widen the tent for the GOP. Question is will he maintain enough in the GOP to grow the party.
Cruz, tone death for a general election, can not win in Nov. The spewing about PP will hurt with women in a general. His wall street ties kills the best argument against Hillary, especially Cruz putting an underwriting clause in a bill, shifting massive lending liabilities to the tax payers. Tax policy of ending payroll taxes and using NST or VAT needs a look. But at the end most would not want him as a neighbor, not very likable. The harsh healthcare views will kill him in a general as well.
Rubio has great potential, but comes across not ready for prime-time. His best support come form rich and highly educated GOP not good formula for winning in Nov. The GOP needs rust belt will not sell in Ohio, Mich…..He does not expand the party. But Rubio passes the likable test.
Kasich the best candidate if the GOP wants to win. In a general comes across trust worthy, rational, very likable and has a real track record. Not the right message inside the GOP primary, way to many voters addicted to read meat spewing over real policy. Also Kasich puts the must needed rust belt in play, why he is in play for VP. Would be a great contrast with Trump…..
Carson, very likable, same as Kasich, both have the charm of a good neighbor. Just does not across quick on his feet during debates. Not real sure at times what he really thinks about issues. But he has future if he works on his ability to present ideas. Might be a good VP candidate for Trump, or put him in charge of health and human services.
BTW the order I put them in was strictly based on how they did on Tuesday night.
Hillary,
Is not doing well with blue collar white voters and young people. And she does need blue collar voters in place like Ohio, Mich….to win. Even Maureen Dowd from the liberal NYT pointed out her over play of the women card, has not help her with male Dems, and young people. And turnout is in the toilet, how can you say Trump will drive up Dem turnout for her, when Trump is getting an estimated 20% of his votes from working class Dems?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/opinion/sunday/when-hillary-clinton-killed-feminism.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fmaureen-dowd&action=click&contentCollection=opinion®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection
Bernie, As you know the Clinton policy killed the black community from three strikes and you are out ie War on Drugs on steroids, trading away jobs for a 150 million in speaking fees and campaign donations, private prison donations, policemen of the world foreign policy….How did the Clinton family help the black community? Please help me understand how any black leader could endorse Hillary over Bernie? He does better than Hillary in a general so it can not be about elect-ability?
Trump, numbers do not lie turn out is up over 100%, mainly driven by independents, first time voters and Reagan Dems….
Rubio and Hillary agree more than disagree on foreign policy…..Same talking points we need to get us more involved more in places like the Middle East with no real rational plan. Trump/ Rand Paul are right when they said we have no idea who we are arming in the conflicts in the Middle East. Issis gets their arms from Saudi Arabia who we arm????Story after story like that since endless war in the Middle East….
Carson may be weak public speaker, but he obviously smart guy.
Yes, it would indeed be a stretch to say New York is in play this November after Romney lost it by nearly 2 million votes last time. Was Dick Morris (“Romney is going to win at least 325 electoral votes”) the ultimate source for that? The state hasn’t voted Republican for president since the 1984 Reagan landslide. Even Dukakis won it in 1988 (the only major state he won that year).
It would be nice if Bernie’s message was limited, as in limited constitutional government, not more “free” programs as we drown in trillions of dollars in debt. But obviously the idea of limited and finite congressional powers is an alien concept to him.
Looks like Rubio basically repeated the Romney showing here four years ago—win the most moderate districts (CD 5 and 6) and lose the other 12 districts.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/02/developing-polling-data-shows-trump-beating-hillary-in-new-york-state/
Most polls show them very close, NY is in play as well as the rust belt…..
………It would be nice if Bernie’s message was limited, as in limited constitutional government, not more “free” programs………..
Agree!
Bill, I think you’re too quick to dismiss Trump’s showing. 39 percent in a 5-way race is strong, very strong. For example, ABT favorite Rubio would have had to pick up more than 80 percent of Cruz’ votes just to tie Trump.
The party decided how to assign delegates, and it seems a little late, not to mention unseemly, to complain about it now. Even so, if you apportion delegates based on percentage won by the top 3, it would break out Trump 34, Rubio and Cruz 21, which isn’t far off your numbers.
I agree if Trump were to lose Florida and Ohio, it would be a big blow to his chances to lock up the nomination. But he’s well ahead in every poll in both states and his opponents will not only have to find votes, they’ll have to figure a way to peel off a big chunk from Trump. Schoolyard jokes and endorsements won’t do the trick. Trumpism has passed from a campaign to a movement.
Trump’s lead is 5 points and 2 points in the most recent Ohio polling: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/ohio-republican/ FWIW, FiveThirtyEight sees that race as a tossup between Kasich and Trump at the moment.
Btw, I’m not complaining about the Republican delegate allocation system — I’m really just pointing out that it’s intentionally geared to favor the frontrunner more than ever.
Yes, a proportional allocation among the top 3 would give Trump something like 34 delegates, but why make it proportional only for the top 3? If you have thresholds and eliminate candidates who combined for 20 percent from the allocation, then the method really isn’t very proportional. Also, Trump won’t get 34 delegates but over 40. On the one hand, I agree that those numbers aren’t “far off” from each other, but on the other hand, when you start looking at similar allocation methods favoring the frontrunners in other states, the delegate math is less and less reflective of the popular vote.
I can see why it makes sense for a candidate who gets, say, 55 percent of the popular vote to get a much higher percentage of the convention delegates (rah rah, and all that). But if a candidate gets only 35 percent of the popular vote and winds up with 50+ percent of the delegates, that’s a grim convention, in my opinion.
I hadn’t seen that 538 Ohio forecast. The most recent polls there are 10 days old and I’m sure there will be news ones out soon that can give a clearer picture of how the vote will break.
As I said, the allocation rules are the party’s rules. Even if you don’t like a 20 percent threshold, don’t you have to draw a line somewhere? Along those lines, with machine voting, why are candidates who are no longer running still on the ballot at all?
Rubio and Cruz should be very happy that they won what they did given their results. Rubio got 30 percent of his state-wide total in the 4 counties he won. Cruz didn’t win a single county, didn’t really come close. You get below the gnat line and Trump beat their combined total in many places. From that perspective 32 delegates looks like a gift.
Charlie’s caller today, Phil, on WGST summed up what I mentioned last week and expect to happen. Phil said he was a Cruz supporter. When asked who he would vote for if it was Trump vs Rubio, he pretty said Trump. Cruz supporters will leap to Trump before Rubio. Cruz’s whole schtick is that he is the “outsider.” If his voters are looking for an outsider, its not going to be Rubio. I expect the opposite to be the case for Rubio supporters. If Rubio stepped aside, his votes would flock to Cruz.
That being said, I can’t forsee any of the three stepping aside any time soon.
The media has largely been cowed into a self-censored “Both Sides Are Valid—You decide” approach by conservatives for so long that the media doesn’t really know how to handle someone that lies as baldly and as often as Trump. Couple that with 20 years of conservatives deriding the media as liberal, and there are many conservatives that don’t believe the media even when it does call out Trump.
Trump did what good businessman do. He recognized he take control and wring out a lot more value from a conservative establishment’s asset, ignorance, for his own benefit. Trump is aided by doing so when many have decided the establishment can’t be trusted either. Trump’s followers aren’t going to believe media or anyone else telling them different.
Remember when Trump tweeted blacks killed 81% of white homicide victims, and whites killed 16% of white homicide victims?
Trump’s figures are reversed—blacks killed 15% of white homicide victims and whites killed 82% of white homicide victims. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/23/donald-trump/trump-tweet-blacks-white-homicide-victims/
Trump was hardly called out on it, and when he was, he didn’t even have to BS that the numbers were interchanged by mistake. Rock on Donald.