ChrisWeigant.com

Predicting Tuesday's Primaries

[ Posted Monday, March 14th, 2016 – 16:18 UTC ]

It's time to play "guess the primary results" once again, boys and girls! Before we get to confidently (or not-so-confidently, in some cases) predicting tomorrow night's results, I have to first update my record from the last time around.

Before I even get to that, however, a mea culpa is necessary for D.C. Republicans, Northern Mariana Islands Democrats, and a few other races that slipped my attention last week. Since I didn't make any predictions for any of these minor contests, I can't add any of them to my totals. The D.C. Republican primary was amusing, partly because there are so few GOP voters in the District. And they're not in tune with GOP voters elsewhere, it seems. It was a close race for first place between (are you sitting down?) John Kasich and Marco Rubio. In the end, Rubio edged Kasich out by 50 votes, out of over 2,000 cast. The establishment strikes back! Or something....

In any case, getting back to the races I did remember to call, I didn't have all that great a night. I missed Bernie's win in Michigan, but in my defense so did everybody else. This continues a slump of me underestimating Bernie Sanders, which I will try to counterbalance in today's picks. Overall, I was only 1-for-2 for the night on the Democratic side (I did call Mississippi's big win for Hillary correctly). I should also mention that I did call the Democrats Abroad race for Sanders, but the results won't be in until next week, so it won't be counted until then.

On the Republican side, I did a bit better. I predicted a complete sweep of Hawai'i, Idaho, Michigan, and Mississippi for Donald Trump, and therefore got three out of four right. Again, in my own defense, I did write about the Idaho race: "I feel the least confident of any of today's predictions here, but I'm going to go with the polling and say Trump edges Cruz out. I wouldn't be surprised to be wrong, though." I was indeed wrong, and I wasn't that surprised. So that brings my overall record up to:

Total correct 2016 Democratic picks: 17 for 22 -- 77%
Total correct 2016 Republican picks: 23 for 32 -- 72%
Total overall correct picks: 40 for 54 -- 74%.

OK, with that up to date, let's take a crack at predicting what is going to happen tomorrow night. These races will all be closely watched on both sides, to state the patently obvious. Here are tomorrow night's contests, in alphabetic order.

 

Florida

Calling Florida is pretty easy, on both sides of the aisle. Hillary Clinton will dominate, continuing her sweep of the South. The big news here, however, is going to be Donald Trump beating Marco Rubio in his home state, and taking all 99 of the Florida delegates as a result (Florida is a "winner-takes-all" state). This defeat will utterly crush Rubio's presidential dream, and he will likely withdraw from the race either Tuesday night or very early Wednesday morning. Ah, what might have been, Little Marco....

 

Illinois

Illinois is going to be a very interesting race to watch, although most of the media hasn't quite picked up on it yet. On the Republican side, there has been a late movement towards Ted Cruz, but he's still trailing Trump in the polls. Geographically, both Trump and Cruz have a shot at both Illinois and Missouri, since the states border regions they've already won. But I'm betting that Trump's Chicago rally no-show will actually seal the deal for him, since it was local news in the state. Trump edges Cruz out to claim Illinois.

On the Democratic side, the race has very dark undercurrents indeed. Illinois is one of three states Hillary Clinton can claim as "home states" (Arkansas and New York being the other two). But here in Illinois, tying herself tightly to the Obama administration isn't going to be as magical for Hillary as it was in the South. Rahm Emanuel was Obama's White House Chief of Staff, before he left to become Chicago's mayor. His time in office has been contentious, though, as he's earned the wrath of the teachers' unions and African-Americans (for delaying the release of the cop shooting video until after his re-election). Those are two big constituencies to lose, and when Hillary Clinton loudly supported Rahm a few months ago, people in Chicago noticed.

There has been a very late-breaking surge for Sanders in Illinois. Last week a poll showed Clinton with a whopping lead of 42 points. Now, the polls are virtually tied and Sanders even led one of them (48 percent to Clinton's 46 percent). A good rule of thumb is that when the voters break late, the candidate they break toward is usually the winner. I'm going to go with that rule and say Bernie edges Clinton out in one of her home states.

 

Missouri

Missouri is one of those states allergic to polling, for some inexplicable reason. Strange, seeing as how they're supposed to be the "Show Me" state. Show me the numbers, Missouri!

On the Republican side, there is only one poll I could find. It showed Trump up by seven points over Cruz, with Rubio and Kasich in single digits. However, there was a large percentage undecided. I'm going to make a complete gut call on this and say that the polling is wrong and that Cruz wins the state. Geographically, Missouri touches three states Cruz has already won (Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa). So it would seem to be friendly territory for him. Combined with the dearth of polling, I can see Cruz picking up most of the counties in the state and edging Trump out.

The polling isn't much better on the Democratic side. There is a grand total of two polls for Democrats. One shows Sanders at 47 to Clinton's 46, and one says Clinton has a seven-point lead (47-40). So it's anybody's guess what will happen, really. Although Missouri's next door to Illinois, Rahm won't be a factor for them, which may change the dynamics. Missouri also touches Arkansas, another home state for Clinton. But I'm going to say Bernie pulls an upset here and edges Clinton out. Missouri has an open primary (meaning non-Democrats can vote in the Democratic primary), and Bernie usually does a pretty good job of winning independents. This race may be a close one, however, closer even than Ohio.

 

North Carolina

North Carolina seems like an easy call on both sides. Trump is up in the polling by double-digits, and Clinton's up by even more. So I predict an early win for both Trump and Clinton. My guess is neither race will even be close.

 

Ohio

Finally, there is Ohio. This state has been billed as the most interesting of the night on both sides. Florida will be big on the Republican side (because Trump's win will force Rubio out of the race), and if Bernie manages to win either Illinois or Missouri (or both) it'll be big news too. But Ohio is going to be the most heavily covered tomorrow night, that's my guess.

John Kasich has already done something phenomenal in his home state -- he's edged out Trump in the polls. In the past few days of polling, Kasich is either tied with The Donald or up by five or six points. Maybe Rubio telling his supporters to vote for Kasich here had a positive effect? For whatever reason, Kasich is surging. Late surges are usually predictive, so I'm going to go ahead and call Ohio for its governor. This will be a blow to Trump, since winning all of Ohio's delegates would have made him almost untouchable for the nomination, but even having said that, Kasich is downright delusional in his belief that he can translate a home-state win into national momentum. Winning Ohio means Kasich will live on to fight another day (unlike Rubio), but that's about it, really.

On the Democratic side, the polling indicates Hillary Clinton will win. She's ahead by five points or more in all the recent polls. However, I'm going to go fully optimistic for Bernie and predict he'll manage an upset here, too. Ohio voters care deeply about the auto industry, and Hillary's misguided attack at Bernie on not supporting the auto bailout will resonate in Ohio just as it did in Michigan. It may be a very close margin, but I think Bernie can recreate his Michigan miracle here tomorrow night.

 

Overall, this gives Donald Trump only three victories out of five (Florida, Illinois, and North Carolina). Ohio goes for favorite-son John Kasich, and Missouri goes to Ted Cruz. For Democrats, Bernie Sanders has the best night of his campaign and wins Illinois, Missouri, and Ohio. Hillary Clinton picks up Florida and North Carolina, and may actually collect more delegates than Bernie.

But I'll go one step further -- if my predictions do turn out to be correct for Democrats, here's my prediction for the storyline the media is going to start running with, starting Wednesday morning. If Sanders does pick up two or even three states, the narrative is going to quickly shift to: "Clinton having problems winning states outside the South," or, to put it slightly differently: "Clinton winning red states, Sanders winning blue states." When you look at the map of how each state is likely to vote in November -- and, again, if I'm right about even two out of the three states I've called for Bernie -- then it's going to be noticeable which states the two candidates are respectively winning. That's my guess, anyway. As always, if you think I'm wildly off my nut about any of these predictions, feel free to make your own in the comments.

 

[Previous states' picks:]

[AK (R)] [AL] [AR] [CO (D)] [GA] [HI (R)] [IA] [ID (R)] [KS] [KY (R)] [LA] [MA] [ME] [MI] [MN] [MS] [NE (D)] [NH] [NV (D)] [NV (R)] [OK] [SC (D)] [SC (R)] [TN] [TX] [VA] [VT] [American Samoa (D)] [Puerto Rico (R)] [Democrats Abroad (D)]

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

38 Comments on “Predicting Tuesday's Primaries”

  1. [1] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Ohio allows a voter to cast a ballot in either the Republican or Democratic primary (but not both) without any preregistration.

    I suspect a lot of Democrats will choose to vote tactically and cast their ballot for Kasich, in hopes of denying Ohio's all or nothing delegates to Trump. Trump has a lot of supporters in Ohio, but there are also a lot of voters who want to keep Mooso-leany as far away from the Oval Office (or a balcony) as possible. This could be a tough tactical decision for both Bernicrats and Hillarycrats.

  2. [2] 
    dsws wrote:

    This defeat will utterly crush Rubio's presidential dream, and he will likely withdraw from the race either Tuesday night or very early Wednesday morning.

    Doesn't that depend on the convention rules, assuming Cruz and Kasich do well enough to look as though they have a shot at denying Trump a majority of delegates?

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think Kasich's adopting the Hillary Clinton stance on illegal immigrants will lose Ohio for him..

    Kasich has become more Democrat than Democrats on the issue of illegal immigrant criminals.. (I know, I know.. That's redundant...)

    Trump will take Ohio from Kasich and will take Florida from Rubio..

    That will be all she wrote.. The fat lady will have sung...

    Michale

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is Ohio an Open Primary state??

    That surely would explain Kasich adopting the Democrat stance on illegal immigrants and global warming...

    Michale

  5. [5] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    It would not surprise me if Rubio remained in the race after losing Florida. Not sure about Kasich though... maybe he'll drop out when he loses Ohio... or was he the one who said he was staying in for the duration?

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mopshell,

    ... maybe he'll drop out when he loses Ohio...

    When? Not, if?

    What makes you so sure that Kasich is going to lose Ohio?

    Some polling has been very bad and all the polls during this election cycle are less than reliable. Which means we can be sure of very little.

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Something has been stuck in my craw about Hillary's attack on Sanders for not voting for the "auto bailout" ...

    As I understand it, the attack is very misleading since he voted for the stand-alone auto bailout legislation but not for bill that included money for auto bailout because it was part of the "Wall Street bailout" package and Bernie couldn't vote for a bill with THAT in it!

    Hillary should have left the auto bailout alone and taken the courageous and correct route by going after Bernie for not supporting the Wall Street bailout, in my not so humble opinion. That attack could have been far more deleterious to Sanders's campaign IF she handled it adeptly. Granted, that is a very big 'if'.

    She could start by asking voters one simple question ... what would have happened to Main Street without the Wall Street bailout?

    Actually, I wish someone would ask Senator Sanders that question! Now, that would start a very, very interesting discussion and the voters, I suspect, would learn a great deal about the two Democratic presidential contenders ...

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Actually, Senator Sanders's stance on both the auto bailout AND the wall street bailout leave much to be desired ... for anyone who understands how the 2008 financial crisis would have impacted Main Street and average Americans everywhere if either of the bailouts failed to materialize.

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I understand why Secretary Clinton may choose not to go down that route but, if handled right and communicated well, I think she could blow Sanders out of the water with it, so to speak ...

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-03-15/soros-alarmed-by-trump-pours-money-into-2016-race

    Hillary Clinton... Bought and paid for by big money interests..

    Donald Trump.... Bought and paid for by the voters of America...

    I know who I am voting for...

    Michale

    (crossposted to HuffPoo)

  11. [11] 
    neilm wrote:

    Trump has pissed off all the money men. This should work out well for him.

    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/12/wall-streets-wise-men-and-women-rap-trump.html

    They even prefer Bernie - are you parsing this folks, Bernie!, Mr. Anti-Wall-Street - to Trump.

    Trump better have more liquid wealth than everybody thinks he has. Wall Street are going to make him pay top dollar to borrow against his assets.

    Hilarious.

  12. [12] 
    neilm wrote:

    Republican-on-Republican Violence (not the Trump physical type, the political type):

    Latest National Review on Trump Supporters:

    "They are losers, druggies, layabouts, and so on. The solution [...] is to move out of their pathetic dying towns. (“The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets.” Etc.)"

    The Father-Führer (March 28, 2016 issue) by Kevin Williamson

    Read more at: https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/432569/father-f-hrer
    https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/432569/father-f-hrer

    Williamson equates Trump supports to 'losers' and their communities 'deserve to die'.

    This is the most interesting election ever!

  13. [13] 
    neilm wrote:

    Comment trapped in nanny net. See this link:

    https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/432569/father-f-hrer

    Williamson calls Trump supports 'losers' and calls for the death of their communities in the National Review.

    Wowsa!

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    (crossposted to HuffPoo)

    Be sure to invite all who civilly and coherently disagree with you to CW.com to continue the discussion!

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have.. :D I even told a few who think Hillary is home free as far as the FBI goes to come over and participate in our bet. :D

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump has pissed off all the money men. This should work out well for him.

    That will make even MORE Democrats want vote for Trump!! :D

    If Wall Street is against Trump then Democrats are FOR Trump!! :D

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    neilm wrote:

    For all the old Brits out there (with link to original for the confused or the nostalgic)

    DONALD TRUMPTON (by Brian Bilston)

    Skew,
    Spew,
    Barmy Hairdo,
    Cut-throat,
    Bigot,
    and Smug.

    https://youtu.be/s6YE4PCRNwc

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I have.. :D I even told a few who think Hillary is home free as far as the FBI goes to come over and participate in our bet. :D

    Excellent! Chris is going to be very busy ...

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Excellent! Chris is going to be very busy ...

    I hope so.... I would hate to think that me sticking my head in the mouth of the jackal was for naught... :D

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale:

    You missed the bit about Citizens United where the money is anonymous.

    The irony is delicious. The Republicans thought Citizens United was going to help their candidate.

    Trump will get no money from Wall Street, but a bunch of evidence that he is an insider, and at the same time Hillary will get to trash Wall St with a nod and a wink, take the money, and nobody is going to be any the wiser.

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump will get no money from Wall Street,

    Trump doesn't NEED any money from Wall Street..

    That's the beauty of the Trump phenomenon..

    I have heard a rumor that, once Trump sews up the GOP nomination, he will do fundraisers and allow the GOP Establishment to give him money...

    But it will be on Trump's terms...

    The guy's a genius!!!! :D

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    and at the same time Hillary will get to trash Wall St with a nod and a wink, take the money, and nobody is going to be any the wiser.

    So what you are saying is you are perfectly OK with such a two-faced lying candidate for POTUS??

    :D

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    neilm wrote:

    So what you are saying is you are perfectly OK with such a two-faced lying candidate for POTUS??

    "PolitiFact has been documenting Trump’s statements on our Truth-O-Meter, where we’ve rated 76 percent of them Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire, out of 77 statements checked. No other politician has as many statements rated so far down on the dial."

    You do know what politicians are, right. You want a naive clown who doesn't know what he is doing and is also a worse pathological liar than the rest of them ... oops, I guess you do ;)

  24. [24] 
    neilm wrote:

    I have heard a rumor that, once Trump sews up the GOP nomination, he will do fundraisers and allow the GOP Establishment to give him money...

    But it will be on Trump's terms...

    I don't buy the "Mexicans will pay for the wall" ,"Tariffs of 45% on the Chinese", or "I'll take their money but on my terms" nonsense, and neither does Trump himself (it is a negotiation stance, he claims).

    Where is the money going to come from:

    a/ Wall St - no, they hate him

    b/ Koch Bros - no, they hate him

    c/ Sheldon Adelson - probably, but AIPAC is having a fit over Trump, and Sheldon only put in $93M in 2012, including funding a lot of down ticket races and other issue PACs

    d/ The others - maybe 50%-60% of the other regulars will stump up for anybody-but-Hillary

    Donald is going to have to spend $0.8B to 1.2B of his own money to be a nationwide contender - that's quite a lot for a >50% chance the money is going down the drain anyway. (His real net worth is about $4B, and most of that is illiquid.)

    The money boys are not stupid, they know they will get a better ROI from a reliably venal Congress than from an unstable self-centered populist who is likely to create pandemonium in international currency markets and the World's bourses.

    One last thought. Say The Donald does put in $1B of his own money. He is a pathological liar, and revels in being greedy and looking out for himself (ask a lot of his business partners who he screwed over using the bankruptcy laws). You think he is going to care about the little guy? Is anybody that naive? He will want his money back with a big profit - it's all about the deal with Donald.

  25. [25] 
    neilm wrote:

    Looks like Trump is cleaning up in Florida! 46%!

    California has at last shaken off its mantle as the crazy state. Carl Hiaasen was putting a good spin on, it seems.

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    "PolitiFact has been documenting Trump’s statements on our Truth-O-Meter, where we’ve rated 76 percent of them Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire, out of 77 statements checked. No other politician has as many statements rated so far down on the dial."

    yea..

    And Politifact rates Hillary as 72% true...

    Politifact is a Left Wingery "fact" checker...

    California has at last shaken off its mantle as the crazy state.

    Dining on sour grapes again?? :D

    Get used to saying PRESIDENT TRUMP...

    Trump is going to take Ohio too.... :D

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Hey, there's a new article up. Let's do the live thread for tonight's results over there...

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/03/15/a-wonky-diversion/

    I'll answer the comments above in a bit, I promise...

    -CW

  28. [28] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Politifact is a Left Wingery "fact" checker...

    Really? then why does it also rate Jeb Bush 70% true? How left-wingery is he? Facts aren't lefty or righty, they're just facts, and there's no evidence whatsoever for politifact being anything other than what they claim to be.

    JL

  29. [29] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    btw, i've updated my politifact spreadsheet to reflect more recent statements:

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_vcPB-Y1L7zAaueI84ypoKL7nygAeO4po9y13d1aEWE/edit#gid=0

    the super tuesday candidates rank-ordered by percent of statements half-true or better:

    Clinton: 72%
    Bush: 70%
    Sanders: 69%
    Kasich: 68%
    Rubio: 58%
    Cruz: 36%
    Trump: 23%
    Carson: 15%

    JL

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump is going to take Ohio too.... :D

    But then again.. I could be wrong about that.. :D

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Really? then why does it also rate Jeb Bush 70% true? How left-wingery is he?

    Apparently, pretty much.. :D

    Facts aren't lefty or righty, they're just facts, and there's no evidence whatsoever for politifact being anything other than what they claim to be.

    But rating a person's facts is Righty and Lefty...

    How else do you explain Hillary having a 72% TRUE rating thru the site, yet over 70% of Americans use the word LIAR to describe Hillary??

    Either the site is wrong or over 70% of Americans are...

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    neilm wrote:

    How else do you explain Hillary having a 72% TRUE rating thru the site, yet over 70% of Americans use the word LIAR to describe Hillary??

    30+ years of Republican mud slinging.

    Can you imagine Trump's reputation if he was a full on target for 30+ years of targeted negative media?

    Look at the negative reputation Trump has achieved in 9 months and he's been given a pass by opponents who cherished his voters.

    This is going to be the most negative election ever, and Trump is going to get spanked when the kid gloves come off.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    30+ years of Republican mud slinging.

    There is another possibility...

    That Hillary is a congenital liar..

    "We can't discount the possibility just because we don't happen to like it.."
    -Martin Sheen, THE FINAL COUNTDOWN

    :D

    This is going to be the most negative election ever, and Trump is going to get spanked when the kid gloves come off.

    "You keep thinking that."
    -Will Wheaton, BIG BANG THEORY

    :D

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    You have to ask yourself one question, Neil...

    Why would there be so much negative media attention from the tried and true LEFT WING media??

    Maybe, JUST maybe, it's because what's being reported is factually accurate...

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    Regardless of whether it's all because of the "vast right wing conspiracy" (Obama's FBI???) or whether Hillary actually IS a congenital liar..

    The fact is, over 70% of Americans SAY she is a congenital liar...

    The WHY is irrelevant..

    This is going to be the most negative election ever, and Trump is going to get spanked when the kid gloves come off.

    The last time Hillary went negative on Trump, she AND Bill had their asses handed to them all chewed and bloodied...

    In a race to the bottom, who do you think is going to win?? Trump has nothing to lose and everything to gain..

    "Never underestimate a man who has nothing to lose"
    -IceT, SURVIVING THE GAME

    Michale

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    The last time Hillary went negative on Trump, she AND Bill had their asses handed to them all chewed and bloodied...

    And, since then, there has been NOTHING about "sexist Trump" coming out of the Hillary Clinton camp...

    Trump knows how to handle a bully...

    Slap them down good and hard and they run away like the cowards they are...

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    But rating a person's facts is Righty and Lefty...

    not if they're rated objectively, which based on the overall distribution of candidates and their ratings, appears to be the case.

    as to why many people (self included, sad to say) thought hillary is dishonest when the facts say otherwise? the ad populum argument you're making is a logical fallacy, and in this case the majority appear to be wrong. I'm sure lefties would say the same if they heard that jeb bush was rated at 70%, a half-point higher than bernie sanders.

    or, here's an alternate hypothesis: one doesn't have to lie to be dishonest, if one chooses to share certain truths while neglecting to discuss others. either way, based on some fairly extensive reading, politifact seems to be on-target with their ratings.

    JL

    http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    not if they're rated objectively, which based on the overall distribution of candidates and their ratings, appears to be the case.

    We'll just have to agree to disagree...

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.