The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJohn Derbyshire Archive
Demography Is Electoral Destiny—Will Midwest Niceness be A Problem for Trump?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

What accounts for Trump’s relatively poor showing in Wisconsin? There were of course plenty of explanations on offer.

Lion of the Blogosphere gave us the most succinct one: There just aren’t enough blacks in Wisconsin, he said. The theory is, where you have a lot of blacks, whites go tribal. Here I get to quote one of my favorite statistics from the 2012 general: Whites in Mississippi went 89 percent for Romney, while the figure for whites in Vermont was 33 percent.

It’s a neat theory, and those Mississippi-Vermont numbers suggest it’s not an empty one. It’s hard to make it work for last week’s Wisconsin vote, though. If you look at the county-by-county voting map, the bigger urban areas, where most of the blacks are — the Mississippis, as it were — all went for Cruz. The more rustic areas with few blacks — the Vermonts — went for Trump.

Milwaukee County is 27 percent black a gainst a state average of six percent: Ted Cruz took it, 54 percent to Trump’s 26. Contrariwise, Douglas County is 93 percent white, one percent black — practically a little Vermont. Trump took thatcounty by 55 percent to Cruz’s 31.

If it’s not simply a race thing, though, what is it? Trump’s looking strong to win New York April 19th; why couldn’t he win Wisconsin? New York Republicans are more Trumpish than Wisconsin Republicans? What’s up with that?

I more and more think that Midwestern niceness is a serious national problem. You Midwesterners are so damn nice. I go out there to Iowa, Nebraska, the Dakotas, Wisconsin, the niceness is overwhelming. Seldom is heard a discouraging word.

My poster boy here: Charles (The Bell Curve) Murray, who comes from the very middle of Iowa, which is in the very middle of the Midwest. Charles is the nicest man I know: kind, generous, hospitable, exquisitely well-mannered.

When I hear Lefty imbeciles like that Virginia Tech President the other week sputtering about how Charles wants to round up blacks, put ’em in cattle wagons, and ship them off to slave labor camps, I just fall around laughing. I don’t know any person in the world less likely to contemplate any such thing than Charles Murray–certainly nobody on the Left, which pretty much invented cattle wagons for that purpose. Lenin had the wagons rolling to the slave labor camps years before Hitler showed up.

Donald Trump, in his public persona, comes across as not nice. He’s loud, he’s flamboyant, he’s rude, sometimes coarse. He couldn’t be less Midwestern. I’m surprised he got as many votes as he did in Wisconsin.

There is actually a paradox there. People around New York who have dealt with Trump, some of them known to me personally, are unanimous that he is in fact a perfect gent. I don’t have such good second-hand data on Cruz; but the rumors wafting over from Washington, D.C. all say that Cruz is universally detested. I suppose that might be spin from political enemies, but it’s not a usual thing to hear in a Presidential campaign, even a rancorous one like this. These are the mysteries and paradoxes of politics.

And while niceness is what you want at the level of personal transactions, I’m not sure I want too much of it in my politics. I nurse a private suspicion, in fact, that Midwestern niceness is America’s Achilles heel, and will bring down our civilization one day.

But this is the point where my Radio Derb audience gets restless. I can hear them muttering out there: Come on, Derb, enough of this speculative arm-waving and impressionistic stereotyping. You boast you’re a stone-cold empiricist. Give us some data; give us some science.

All right! I got data! I got science!

The best aggregator of news from the quantitative human sciences is the Unz Review blogger who writes under the name JayMan , and who describes himself as “a second generation Jamaican-American of Black, White (English), and Chinese descent.”

JayMan is a real Drudge Report of the harder human sciences. He puts a lot of work into his posts, fills them with maps, tables, and links to scholarly-quality research, all cemented together with thoughtful commentary and speculation. He mixes it up with critics in his comment threads, too, always in a good-natured way. You might almost think he comes from the Midwest, though in fact he’s a New Yorker.

Well, JayMan’s been blogging on this year’s election. If you only have time for one of his posts, read the one titled The Donald Trump Phenomenon: Part 1: The American Nations.

Sources of migration from the British Isle to AmericaWhat does JayMan tell us about Wisconsin? Well, a key idea here is what he calls the American nations. This picks up where David Hackett Fischer’ s discussion in Albion’s Seed of “regional cultures,” the result of waves of immigration from different parts of the British Isles (and cited by VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow in his Alien Nation as evidence of immigration’s lasting effects) left off.

Quote from JayMan:

The United States … is divided into several broad ethnocultural regions — nations if you will.

JayMan names these nations: Greater Appalachia, Deep South, Far West, Left Coast, Yankeedom, The Midlands, New France (Maine and Louisiana), New Netherlands (where we got the Roosevelts), Tidewater and the Midlands.

north-american-nations-4-3

These broad cultural differences are of course the stuff of common conversation, and always have been. We all know that, average-average, New Hampshire Yankees are liable to be more like this while Tidewater Virginians trend more like that, and so on.

What’s the origin of these differences? Further quote from JayMan:

These regions exists thanks to the continuing legacy of the founding populations and the various assortative migrations (founder effects and boiling off) that have happened over the history of the country.

There are some terms of art there I’ll pause to explain.

  • First, “Founder Effect.”
ORDER IT NOW

If a group of humans — or any other species — settles in some region and goes on living there mostly undisturbed for many generations, the “menu” of genetic variation the original founding group brought with them will shape future generations. If the founders had a high proportion of red-heads, there’ll be lots of red-heads in future generations. The same if there’s a high proportion of neurotics: neuroticism, like most personality features, is heritable.

We know this from sibling and adoption studies. Anything you can measure about human personality is heritable to some degree.

  • Second, “Boiling Off.”

Here we are back with Tom Wolfe and those Midwestern squares who founded Silicon Valley and put men on the Moon. If some region or group has a distinctive culture, some outliers will find that culture doesn’t suit them, so they will leave. You see this with, for example, the Amish. The more individualistic, nonconformist members of the community put down their spokeshaves, shave off their beards, and head for the big city. But the result is that the community they left now has a higher concentration of Amishness.

It’s like if you boil off some water from a salt solution. The s o lution that’s left is saltier.

OK, here comes the science. JayMan links to a lengthy paper co-authored by several scholars dividing the U.S.A. into three big zones by a cluster of psychological traits, which they have painstakingly measured. [Divided We Stand: Three Psychological Regions of the United States and Their Political, Economic, Social, and Health Correlates, Rentfrow et al, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, December 2013.]

The three zones are:

  1. The Friendly and Conventional zone;
  2. The Relaxed and Creative zone;
  3. The Temperamental and Uninhibited zone.

friendlyanduninhibited

Here in Long Island, I am apparently in the Temperamental and Uninhibited zone. Wow.

California, on the other hand, is Relaxed and Creative. Wisconsin? Friendly and Conventional.

This is Midwestern niceness carefully studied and quantified.

JayMan’s money quote:

All American regional political differences represent group-level genetic differences.

In a big country like the U.S., different founding groups make for different regional profiles on politics — and on everything else connected with human thinking and behavior.

One paradoxical consequence of this, which JayMan mentions in passing: German-Americans, a key founder population in the Midwest, don’t much like Trump, his own German ancestry notwithstanding.

The aggressive, brash, colorful Trump is one of those outliers who get “boiled off” to become real estate billionaires in big cities, while the more typical friendly-and-conventional Germans stay back there on the prairie.

Contrast that with Trump’s appeal in New York and Massachusetts, especially among Italian- and Irish-American groups. On that three-part schema mentioned above, these are in the “temperamental and uninhibited zone.

Here’s JayMan’s map of Trump support nationwide:

mapoftrumpsupport

Note the his conspicuous weakness in the “Friendly and Conventional” core of the country.

“Demography is destiny” we like to say out here in the patriotic immigration reform movement. Yes, it is.

If you want to know the electoral destiny of Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders, take time out to scrutinize the demographics of this current Presidential campaign.

It suggests to me that Trump will easily win New York State. Pennsylvania (New York with Quakers) is in the balance. I’m not clear how the West Coast plays out.

Kids

And the general? That depends if there are too many nice Mid Westerners.

JayMan and his wife, by the way, welcomed a new addition to their family on February 22nd. (Pictured right, with big brother JayMan Jr. ) Congratulations there, and may the little one grow up to be as smart and useful as her Dad and Mom.

John Derbyshire [email him] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. ) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books. He’s had two books published by VDARE.com: FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT (also available in Kindle) and From the Dissident Right II: Essays 2013. His writings are archived at JohnDerbyshire.com.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2016 Election, Donald Trump 
Hide 125 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Jefferson says:

    There just aren’t enough blacks in Wisconsin, he said. The theory is, where you have a lot of blacks, whites go tribal. Here I get to quote one of my favorite statistics from the 2012 general: Whites in Mississippi went 89 percent for Romney, while the figure for whites in Vermont was 33 percent.”

    Donald Trump lost Texas which has a large Black population and won New Hampshire which has very few Blacks.

    Donald Trump lost Ohio which has a large Black population and won Arizona which has a smaller Black population.

    “Contrast that with Trump’s appeal in New York and Massachusetts, especially among Italian- and Irish-American groups.”

    Donald Trump is like Joe Pesci’s character in “My Cousin Vinny”.

    • Replies: @JayMan
  2. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I will not rest until this entire nation is temperamental and uninhibited. It is clearly the best way to live. Let the roundups begin

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  3. Why put this ”photos” again******

    ”hbd” is so NASTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    What seems ”pride” hide a HUGE insecurity!!!

    you guys never deceive me and will never deceive me!!!

    heard good *

  4. JayMan says: • Website
    @Jefferson

    There just aren’t enough blacks in Wisconsin, he said. The theory is, where you have a lot of blacks, whites go tribal.

    There aren’t many Blacks in Kentucky, West Virginia, or New Hampshire, either, and they are strong for Trump. Greater Appalachian counties that are lily White are some of Trump’s best strongholds.

    The ethnicity of the White is the best fit. As HBD Chick would say, there’s White, and then there’s White.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  5. tbraton says:

    I would point out, fwiw, that Wisconsin has voted Democratic in every Presidential election from 1988 through 2012, often by large margins with the exception of 2000 and 2004 which were very close. http://www.270towin.com/states/Wisconsin (That included 2012, when “favorite son” Rep. Paul Ryan was Romney’s running mate.) It is not as if Wisconsin represents a key voting state for Republicans in the Presidential election, like Ohio (which no Republican President has ever lost or, to put it another way, which no Republican has ever lost in November and won the Presidency). So, even though Cruz won Wisconsin handily, there is little likelihood that he will carry Wisconsin should he be the Republican nominee.

  6. @Anonymous

    Is “uninhibited” synonymous with “insufficiently brow-beaten?”

    Two Minutes Hate events are now nearly continuous, a means to ferret out insufficient zealotry for the current Cult dogma. Heaven help the man who fails to rend his clothes and shower spittle on the next row when it is time to denounce racism, sexism and sex-deviant-phobia.

  7. @JayMan

    White tolerance for the burdens of anti-racism, anti-sexism and such could be directly related to the perception of resource availability, as well as direct experience with intolerable subcultures.

    The whites living in all-white Trump strongholds may just be those who were closer to the tipping point of tolerance for being pushed down by whatever forces do the pushing. Even people not subject to job loss due to race-based preferences, or high net taxes to fund the welfare state may displace their anger onto such visible insults.

    You surely know that people often focus on issues of less actual relevance in their lives, simply because of the visibility so associated. Why else would whites care at all about inner-city shooting galleries, given that overall violent crime is still down markedly from 20 years ago?

    Another theory might be that whites of modest IQ pay more attention to their common sense on average (common sense being separate from g) because they’re less likely to rationalize hivemind stupidity like transgender enabling policies. This may make them early adopters in noticing the Emperor’s New Clothes, no matter how large and enthusiastic are the crowds admiring his fashion empire.

    Intolerance will get rocket-motor assist once this 50 year foray into monetary insanity ends.

    • Replies: @JayMan
  8. Ed says:

    Because the Wisconsin primary came by itself, not blocked in with a bunch of other state primaries, people are reading too much into it.

    The overall point is correct that the upper Midwest has a sort of anti-neurotic culture that couldn’t be less receptive to Trump’s personality or message. I’m surprised he got as many votes as he did. It means that if the general election turns out to be close, Trump will find that he has no chance to win a bunch of states that a Republican candidate would normally have a good chance to win (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa), but the damage here could be made up in terms of electoral votes by just carrying Pennsylvania alone.

    To contract TBratton, above, his own data shows that in Presidential elections Wisconsin has consistently been 2 to 3 percent less Republican than the national average, which means that a Republican presidential candidate who is competitive nationwide would have a very good chance of carrying it. Like most states, its normally carried by the nationwide popular vote winner. The most recent exceptions have been 2004 (Kerry), 1988 (Dukakis), and 1960 (Nixon), or 1944 (Dewey) if you think Nixon won the nationwide popular vote in 1960. This indicates a swing state with a slight blue lean.

    Incidentally, the driftless region in southeastern Wisconsin looks and feels a lot like Vermont. Of course Trump won Vermont itself (though he vote percentage was higher in southeastern Wisconsin). The suburbs of Milwaukee have a reputation for being unusually hard core Republican, politically they are more like the suburbs of a city in Texas than a northern city. It shouldn’t have been a surprise that someone like Cruz polled well there.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  9. JayMan says: • Website
    @dc.sunsets

    Another theory might be that whites of modest IQ pay more attention to their common sense on average (common sense being separate from g) because they’re less likely to rationalize hivemind stupidity like transgender enabling policies. This may make them early adopters in noticing the Emperor’s New Clothes, no matter how large and enthusiastic are the crowds admiring his fashion empire.

    There’s more to HBD than just IQ.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  10. Marcus says:

    Midwest= bland, earnest (to the point of gullibility)
    West= strongly individualistic and ambitious
    Neither would seem to be fertile ground for a brash populist like Trump.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    , @5371
  11. tbraton says:
    @Ed

    “Trump will find that he has no chance to win a bunch of states that a Republican candidate would normally have a good chance to win (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa),”

    With an attitude like yours, I think you would make a good employee at one of the Disney theme parks. I addressed Wisconsin in message #5 above, so I will merely note that Wisconsin hasn’t voted Republican since the 1984 Presidential election (the Reagan reelection landslide) and the Democrat usually has won by a large margin. The same can be said about Iowa, with the exception that GWB eked out a narrow victory in 2004. http://www.270towin.com/states/Iowa I would look up Minnesota, but I seem to recall that in Reagan’s grand electoral triumph in 1984, the Democrat Mondale managed to carry only D.C. (surprise, surprise) and Minnesota. It turns out that the Democratic winning streak in Minnesota actually started in 1976. http://www.270towin.com/states/Minnesota So your claim that “a Republican candidate would normally have a good chance to win in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa has absolutely no basis in fact. It’s the stuff that dreams are made of, as Sam Spade would put it.

    • Replies: @Minnesota Mary
  12. Jefferson says:
    @Marcus

    “Midwest= bland, earnest (to the point of gullibility)
    West= strongly individualistic and ambitious
    Neither would seem to be fertile ground for a brash populist like Trump.”

    Bernie Sanders is a populist and he easily won Wisconsin. Wisconsin Whites love populism, as long as it is Left Wing populism. Right Wing populism reminds Wisconsin Whites too much of White nationalism.

    • Replies: @Marcus
  13. MEH 0910 says:

    I don’t have such good second-hand data on Cruz; but the rumors wafting over from Washington, D.C. all say that Cruz is universally detested. I suppose that might be spin from political enemies, but it’s not a usual thing to hear in a Presidential campaign, even a rancorous one like this.

    When George Bush was running against John McCain in the Republican primary, it was whispered that McCain had a bad temper. That turned out to be true.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  14. 5371 says:
    @Marcus

    Midwesterners are certainly not gullible in money matters.

  15. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website

    White people need to think more like Jews.

    If power is all about demography, how come Jews have so much power? They are only 2% of the population.

    The fact that only 2% can have such power goes to show that a people don’t need to be in the majority to wield power.

    Same goes for Latin America. Whites make up the minority in most Latin American nations but they control most of everything, most of what counts.

    Why? Cuz relative to mestizos and indigenes, white Latin elites in South America are more active about power in economics, culture, and politics. Even small number of actives will gain power over large number of passives.

    Same with Jews in the US. Jews are so restless, tireless, and active. They don’t wait for elections. Sure, they support their favored candidates, but the thing is Jews have been gaining power even when their guys were out of electoral office.

    Most Jews have been Democrats. From 1968 to 1992, the GOP won all the elections except the one in 1976 with Carter. But all during that time, Jews were gaining in power and influence while the many groups that supported the GOP were losing in power and influence.

    So, instead of investing so much in elections and politics, white folks need to think like Jews — as they are headed for minority status in the future — and think of gaining power in different ways.

    So, what is the Jewish way?

    Active and energetic than passive and lackadaisical, like so many Nashville hillbilly types or Western cowboy types.

    Jews think urban, even when they are in small towns. Even small town Jews thought big, which is why so many prominent Jews come from small towns than just big cities. Think of Bob Dylan.

    Pro-intellectual culture. Get kids interested in books and ideas from young age.

    Creative culture. Raise kids to appreciate arts and culture, thus planting the seeds for future participation in the culture war.

    Love of history. The default of humanity is amnesia. Most people are naturally neither liberal nor conservative. They just care about the here-and-now conventionality and immediate pleasure. Jews have a combination of conservatism and liberalism. They conserve, remember, and cherish their past, heritage, and culture. But they also look for new ideas and possibilities. So, while most people are in amnesiac mode, Jews draw their power from conservatism(power of memory and preservation) and liberalism(power of adventure and discovery). Indeed, their deep sense of history informs their far vision of the future.

    Morally righteous. Jews feel righteous due to history and spirituality. Whites need to favor narratives that make whites feel morally righteous, indeed morally superior to non-whites. No more ‘white guilt’.

    Social networking and tribal identity. Jews have it. Jews talk about Jewish community, Israel, Zionism, and Holocaust. Jews feel tribalism as victims and victors.

    Ceaseless, ruthless, and relentless attack on the enemy. Jews are always in Purge Mode. Jews love to purge, purge, and purge their enemies.

    We must also be in purge mode. Fight fire with fire.

    Art of deception. Saul Alinsky and the rest. Long March through the institutions. Trust among ourselves but deception for the enemy. Never ever be honest or honorable with the enemy. Use whatever means necessary. Even lie and cheat. They don’t deserve truth and integrity that should be reserved only for ourselves.

    Always favor our interests over those of outsiders. If we do favors for others, let the favors come with strings attached. Never do favors without condition or return favors.

    White folks have been giving Jews so much without getting anything in return. The only white gentiles who got something were cucks at Conservatism Inc., the collaborators.

    So, all this stuff about “The GOP will never win again, and then white folks are finished” is just pathetic talk. If Jews who are 2% can have so much power despite all the electoral defeats of Jewish-heavy Democratic Party, then white gentiles can have power too without winning election. There are just a few power centers in society. Few institution and industries have so much power. Hollywood controls so much of culture. If white gentile rightists cannot take over such institutions, they need to develop counter-institutions and think-tanks.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    , @Stonehands
  16. jeppo says:

    The “founder effect” is much overrated in this case, not to say completely useless. Though the region labelled ‘Yankeedom’ may have been settled by Puritan types from the East of England and their descendants, the Northeast and Upper Midwest represent the alpha and omega of Trump’s support.

    Why? Because both regions were demographically swamped by later European immigrants: Irish, Italians, French, Portuguese and Polish in the Northeast; and Germans, Scandinavians and Dutch in the Upper Midwest. The former group were almost entirely Catholic, while the latter were largely Lutheran.

    According to this chart…

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/wisconsin-postmortem/#comment-1380038

    …the 7 most pro-Trump states are in the Northeast, while the 6 most anti-Trump states are in the Upper Midwest.

    The pro-Trump states are all in an 8 state ethno-region I would call White Catholic America (New England, New York and New Jersey), because it has the country’s highest percentage of Catholics among the white population. These states rank #1 through #7 and #15 (Maine) in pro-Trump sympathy.

    The 6 most anti-Trump states (Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Nebraska) also form a coherent ethno-region that I would call German Lutheran America, because they are the 6 states that have both the highest percentage of people with German ancestry, and also the highest percentage of Lutherans. North Dakota, the most German and Lutheran state of all, is also the most anti-Trump.

    Though these two ethno-regions don’t line up exactly with the borders of ‘Yankeedom’, they’re close enough to conclude that ‘Yankeedom’ doesn’t exist in any political sense, at least not in these Republican primaries.

    So instead of a united ‘Yankeedom’ based on dubious “founder effects,” there are in fact two very different ethno-regions based on 19th and 20th century mass European immigration: a fanatically pro-Trump White Catholic America in the Northeast, and an equally fanatic anti-Trump German Lutheran America in the Upper Midwest.

    • Replies: @JayMan
    , @ChrisD
  17. Currahee says:

    It is a question of manners. As a native of central W., I can tell you that T’s cocky alpha braggadocio is considered bad form by the Quiet Man Badgers.

    When I moved to CA, I was surprised to observe how popular Cassius Clay/M.A. was to the Californians. In W. he was considered a crude braggart; no well behaved Wisconsinite would behave like him regardless of their accomplishments.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  18. tbraton says:
    @Currahee

    Yes, Wisconsin is used to more quiet types, like former Sen. Joe McCarthy.

  19. tbraton says:
    @MEH 0910

    “When George Bush was running against John McCain in the Republican primary, it was whispered that McCain had a bad temper. That turned out to be true.”

    Apparently, that whispered charge not only turned out to be true but to be a gross understatement.

  20. Jefferson says:
    @Priss Factor

    “Same goes for Latin America. Whites make up the minority in most Latin American nations but they control most of everything, most of what counts.

    Why? Cuz relative to mestizos and indigenes, white Latin elites in South America are more active about power in economics, culture, and politics. Even small number of actives will gain power over large number of passives.”

    Even in Latin America, Jews are disproportionately overrepresented among the White elite.

    The wealthiest billionaire family in Brazil are the Jewish Safra family. They are like the Waltons and Koch brothers of Brazil.

    Matzo ball soup is present even at the top of the food chain in Latin America.

  21. Jefferson says:
    @tbraton

    “Yes, Wisconsin is used to more quiet types, like former Sen. Joe McCarthy.”

    Wisconsin Whites want a single payer healthcare system like Canada, hence why Wisconsin Whites are feeling The Bern.

  22. tbraton says:

    BTW here is a table of the remaining Republican primaries I copied from RCP, showing (in reverse order) the date of the primary, the number of delegates at stake, the nature of the vote (proportional, straight winner-take-all, w-t-a with modifications), and whether the primary is open or closed. Below the table, I have broken down the primaries where Trump looks to do well, and I have concluded that he is in a good position to secure the 1237 delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot, with some room to spare.

    State Date ▾ Delegates Trump Cruz Rubio Kasich Primary/
    Caucus Delegate
    Allocation Open/
    Closed
    (1,237 Needed to Win)2,472 755 545 171 143 – – –

    California June 7 172 Primary Winner Take All∇ Closed
    Montana June 7 27 Primary Winner Take All Open
    New Jersey June 7 51 Primary Winner Take All Open**
    New Mexico June 7 24 Primary Proportional* Closed
    S. Dakota June 7 29 Primary Winner Take All Closed
    Washington May 24 44 Primary Proportional*∇ Closed
    Oregon May 17 28 Primary Proportional Closed
    W. Virginia May 10 34 Primary Direct Election Open**
    Nebraska May 10 36 Primary Winner Take All Closed
    Indiana May 3 57 Primary Winner Take All∇ Open
    R. Island April 26 19 Primary Proportional*∇ Open**
    Penn. April 26 71 Primary Winner Take All∇ Closed
    Maryland April 26 38 Primary Winner Take All∇ Closed
    Delaware April 26 16 Primary Winner Take All Closed
    Connecticut April 26 28 Primary Proportional*#∇ Closed
    New York April 19 95 Primary Proportional*#∇ Closed

    RCP shows Trump now has 755 delegates, based on the fact that Missouri today awarded Trump the 12 statewide delegates he won in the primary a month ago. (Today was the expiration of the time for Cruz to challenge the vote, which he obviously failed to do.) I have broken down the upcoming primaries into six categories based on the date of the primaries, starting with the New York primary next Tuesday, April 19. Based on the polls showing Trump far ahead of Cruz and Kasich, I have concluded that Trump will pick up 90 of the 95 delegates, taking his total to 845 delegates. It should be noted that, while NY is a “proportional” state, the candidate who wins a majority of the vote in each district or, if only one candidate gets more than 20% of the vote in that district, that candidate gets all three delegates in that district. There are 27 districts in NY. Whoever gets the most votes statewide gets the 14 at large delegates. I figure Trump will fail to get the 50% in only a handful of the districts and wind up with at least 90 of the 95 delegates.

    The second category consists of five states holding primaries on April 26, a week after the NY primary: Conn., Delaware, MD, PA, and Rhode Island. Conn. with 28 delegates and RI with 19 delegates are proportional, so I have given Trump 14 in Conn. and 10 in RI. The other three are w-t-a with modifications. So I have assumed that Trump will take all 16 in DEL, 38 in MD, and 71 in PA. That will bring his total to 994 delegates.

    The third category consists of Indiana holding the primary on May 3, another w-t-a with modifications. I believe Trump will win the open primary and take all 57 delegates. That will take his total to 1051 delegates.

    The fourth category is West Virginia on May 10. It is an open primary, and the delegates from each district go to whoever gets the most votes in the district, while the statewide delegates go to whoever gets the most votes in the state. I figure Trump will get all 34 delegates, taking his total to 1051.

    The fifth category consists of two states, Oregon and Washington, which award delegates proportionately. I have awarded Trump half of the 28 delegates in Oregon, which holds its primary on May 17, and half of the 44 delegates in Washington, which holds its primary on May 24. That should take Trump to 1181 delegates.

    The final category consists of four states which hold their primaries on June 7: NJ, New Mexico, Montana and California. Trump is a cinch to win all 51 delegates in w-t-a NJ. That would take his total to 1172 delegates. NM has 24 delegates at stake and a proportional allocation. I assume Trump will win half or 12 delegates, which would take his total to 1184. Montana is both an open primary and a w-t-a for its 27 delegates. I think Trump will win and get all 27, taking his total to 1211, only 26 short of the magic 1237 majority. That leaves California with its 172 delegates at stake. CAL is a modified w-t-a state, meaning whoever gets the majority of the votes in each of the 53 districts gets all three delegates for that district while the remaining 13 statewide delegates go to whoever wins the most votes statewide. If my calculations are correct up to this point, Trump only has to get half of the 172 CAL delegates to push his total to 1297 delegates, far above the 1237 necessary to win the nomination.

  23. tbraton says:
    @tbraton

    Two corrections to the prior message where I said:

    “The fourth category is West Virginia on May 10. It is an open primary, and the delegates from each district go to whoever gets the most votes in the district, while the statewide delegates go to whoever gets the most votes in the state. I figure Trump will get all 34 delegates, taking his total to 1051.”

    That 1051 should be 1085. I forgot to add the 34 W. Va. delegates to the prior 1051 arrived at after the third category of states.

    Plus I stated further:

    “The fifth category consists of two states, Oregon and Washington, which award delegates proportionately. I have awarded Trump half of the 28 delegates in Oregon, which holds its primary on May 17, and half of the 44 delegates in Washington, which holds its primary on May 24. That should take Trump to 1181 delegates.”

    That 1181 should be 1121. The totals arrived at in the sixth category are correct: NJ’s 51 should take the total to 1172, NM’s 12 should take the total to 1184, and Montana’s 27 should take the total to 1211. CAL’s 86 (half the 172) should take the grand total to 1297, 60 more than needed for the nomination.

    If it pans out as I have outlined, that means Trump will not be forced to cut any deals with Kasich, Cruz or Rubio and will be free to select a running mate of his own choosing. If there is a shortfall along the way, there are still available delegates resulting from the dropping out of other candidates, such as Carson and Rubio. Apparently some states say that delegates are freed up whenever a candidate drops out or “suspends” his campaign (as Rubio did, apparently thinking he thus retained all his delegates). I’m sure that someone as practiced in the “art of the deal” as Trump will be able to find a way to secure those loose delegates in such states as Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, etc. As I indicated long ago, I think Cruz as VP would be a disaster and probably sink the ticket. I’m not sure that Kasich can really help Trump in Ohio where Kasich as sitting governor beat out Trump by only 11 points, 47 to 36. Without Kasich in the race, Trump would have won Ohio. Other than Ohio, I’m not sure what other states Kasich helps Trump in. The less said about Marco Rubio the better.

  24. tbraton says:
    @tbraton

    In case anybody had any doubt at this point, we have another clear example that the “leading newspaper” in America, the storied NY Times, engages in journalistic malpractice. They can’t even get simple stories straight. I reported in my message yesterday that: “RCP shows Trump now has 755 delegates, based on the fact that Missouri today awarded Trump the 12 statewide delegates he won in the primary a month ago. (Today was the expiration of the time for Cruz to challenge the vote, which he obviously failed to do.) ”

    Here’s how the NY Times reported the story: “Hillary Clinton pulled out a tight victory over Senator Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary in Missouri, officially sweeping the states that held primary contests on March 15, while Donald J. Trump was declared the winner in a close race with Senator Ted Cruz on the Republican side. Both candidates appeared to score narrow victories in Missouri, but under the state’s elections laws, the vote totals were not official until now. . .Mr. Trump is expected to receive 25 delegates from Missouri, while Mr. Cruz gets 15.” http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/12/hillary-clinton-and-donald-trump-win-in-missouri-officially/ RCP had been showing Trump with 25 delegates in Missouri to Cruz’s 15 since the day of the primary on March 15. The 25 Trump delegates awarded by district were not in dispute. But Missouri has a total of 52 delegates, including 12 statewide awarded to the winner of the statewide vote, which was apparently Trump. Missing from RCP’s count until yesterday were the 12 statewide delegates, which didn’t become official until yesterday when the deadline for challenging the primary vote expired. The Times failed to make any mention of the significant additional 12 delegates, giving him 37 delegates from Missouri, taking Trump’s overall total to 755.

    The Hill newspaper got the story right: “Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump added 12 delegates from Missouri on Tuesday, nearly a month after his narrow victory in the state’s primary. Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander — a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate — certified the March 15 primary results, giving Trump the additional delegates. The race had been too close to call, but according to the final tally, Trump won with 383,631 votes. Ted Cruz had 381,666 votes. The statewide winner automatically picks up 12 delegates, bringing Trump’s total from Missouri to 37 delegates, compared to Cruz’s 15. That pushes Trump’s total to 755 delegates overall, versus 545 for Cruz.” http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/275973-trump-picks-up-12-delegates-as-missouri-certifies-results The Hill put the most important piece of information, the additional 12 delegates, first in its story, the way journalists learned the trade 50 years ago when I was in high school and editor-in-chief of my monthly high school newspaper. One small quibble about The Hill piece. While accurately reporting that Missouri’s SOS certified the results yesterday, The Hill failed to note that what was holding up the certification was the month allowed for the loser (Cruz in this case) to file a challenge to the vote count, which Cruz obviously decided not to make. The race was not “too close to call”; in fact, Trump’s narrow victory was called on March 15. It just didn’t become official until yesterday.

  25. njguy73 says:

    What’s the matter with Kansas?

    Apparently, it’s that there isn’t any.

  26. @JayMan

    There’s more to HBD than just IQ.

    Obviously.

    The “friendly and conventional” part of the country (which is where I live) is currently a lot like Europe’s top-line open-borders people (which squares with HBD given the predominant ancestry of the region.)

    I guess the future of Europe and of the USA are intertwined in this regard. If European countries consent to utter replacement by foreign invaders, the Midwest of the USA will maintain consent long enough to see a larger share of the North American landmass eventually ceded to La Raza. Or it may just raise the body count.

    When personality and politics are interchangeable, Trump’s persona may not work for Friendly and Conventional, but it is my opinion that F&C are unhappy with the Dem/Rep duopoly and their unhappiness will skyrocket when the Long Boom reaches denouement.

    I wonder what happens when, in a place where debt-fueled illusions of wealth led to historic complacency, people behave like a deck of cards where Hearts, Diamonds, Clubs and Spades suddenly find it intolerable to be shuffled into close proximity? Maybe the various nations of the USA will wish to be a whole lot more homogeneous.

    A guy like Trump is this popular while stocks, bonds and real estate bump along a high ceiling. Imagine who will be popular when this cycle is finally past apogee.

  27. Marcus says:
    @Jefferson

    Yeah, he’s a bland traditional socialist populist of the kind that were common in the Midwest, completely different from brash, nationalist-tinged Trump.

  28. anowow says:

    The map and the details about Wisconsin are very interesting. Trump, it appears, is getting many of the actual and spiritual descendants of the old Midwestern Farmer populists.

    Cruz is winning the same sort of people he got in other states and splitting the residual Rubio voters with Kasich, i.e. Upper Middle Class suburbanites and hardcore religious voters like LDS or Dutch Calvinists.

    In some ways this problematizes the notion that Trump isn’t doing so hot in the Upper Midwest.
    He is doing fine in the RURAL Upper Midwest. He is doing badly, as he does lackluster everywhere, with the GOP core of suburban professionals. That said, he might do worse with Germano-Scandinavian Midwestern suburbanites than with their counterparts elsewhere and this might have a cultural explanation.

    Concerning the theory that German= Cruz voter, I’m curious to see how the PA Dutch and their more mainstream Protestant co-ethnics in PA vote. Let’s not forget that a good many Trump voters in “Appalachia” and the southern Midwest have a substantial colonial German element in their ancestry. This might be proving what has been observed, namely that 18th-century German immigrants from the Palatine had a very different political culture than the later arrivals. The Palatines, in particular, were very committed to a Jeffersonian notion of negative liberty. This is also why a good many Copperheads during the Civil War came from old, colonial German stock. They weren’t so into crusading.

    But, maybe that old Dutch particularist, localist, genuinely traditional conservative mindset has been destroyed. Dr. Gottfried’s comments about his interactions with Anabaptist SJWs is depressing, to say the least.

  29. njguy73 says:
    @tbraton

    Holy Small Sample Size, Batman!

    • Replies: @tbraton
  30. tbraton says:
    @tbraton

    In my original post, I followed the lead of RCP, which lists Connecticut as a “proportional” (with an asterisk, to be fair) state in terms of allocating delegates, and awarded Trump only 14 of the 28 delegates up for grabs, but I have since discovered that Connecticut is more like a winner-take-all with modifications. Therefore, Trump should get all 28 delegates, rather than the 14 I projected. The problem is that each state has different rules for allocating delegates. It was only upon checking Connecticut’s rules that I discovered how misleading RCP’s characterization is.

    Here is what the rules in Connecticut provide:

    “15 district delegates are to be allocated to presidential contenders based on the primary results in each of the 5 congressional districts: each congressional district is assigned 3 National Convention delegates and the presidential contender receiving the greatest number of votes in that district will receive all 3 of that district’s National Convention delegates. [Article I, Section 17. (b)]
    13 at-large delegates (10 base at-large delegates plus 0 bonus delegates plus 3 RNC delegates) are to be allocated to presidential contenders based on the statewide primary vote. [Article I, Section 17.(a)]
    If one candidate receives a majority of the statewide vote (more than 50%), that candidate is allocated all 13 of the at-large delegates.
    If no candidate receives a majority of the statewide vote, each presidential candidate receiving 20% or more of the statewide vote shall be allocated delegates accordingly based on their percentage of the vote total of those candidates who met the 20% threshold. Round fractional proportions of a delegate to the nearest whole number. If rounding results in too few delegates being allocated, the candidate receiving the most votes receives an additional delegate. [Article I, Section 17.(g)]” http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/CT-R

    Thus, each of the five districts awards its three delegates to the candidate who gets the most votes in that district. The 13 statewide delegates are awarded based on the statewide vote. If Trump were to get more than 50% of the statewide vote, he would get all 13 statewide delegates, in addition to the 15 he is likely to get from the 5 districts. If he gets less than 50% statewide, then he has to divide the 13 statewide delegates proportionately with the candidates who get more than 20% of the statewide vote. The latest Connecticut poll shows Trump at 50, Kasich at 26 and Cruz at 17. If that were to hold (and Trump didn’t get 50% + 1 vote), then the allocation would be 9 statewide delegates to Trump and 4 to Kasich, giving Trump 24 delegates from Connecticut. That’s still 10 more than the 14 I originally projected for Trump in Connecticut. So there is more leeway for Trump getting the nomination on the first round of voting at the convention.

  31. tbraton says:
    @njguy73

    Yeah, I admit he was just one Senator, but not every Senator has an era named after him and plays such an important role in American history. Here’s a quick question for you: who was Senator Lester C. Hunt?

  32. njguy73 says:

    Two minutes ago, I had no idea.

    One click on Wikipedia later and I learned that McCarthy was even worse than I thought, and that’s saying something.

    This is why I post here.

  33. “If you look at the county-by-county voting map, the bigger urban areas, where most of the blacks are — the Mississippis, as it were — all went for Cruz. The more rustic areas with few blacks — the Vermonts — went for Trump.”
    ——————

    This confuses me, big time. It has been my belief (through minor anecdotal evidence, to be sure) that people who live in lily white communities (like mine) tend to live in a rarified, fantasy world where all we need to do to fix race relations, poverty, etc., is sit around and sing Kumbaya — and give the government lots of money to spread the love, while, in contrast, those who live in areas where they are able to observe first-hand the types of cultural illness that leads to racial discord and poverty have a more real understanding of the issues, and tend to become “hardened.” Given this, I would expect those in the “Vermonts” of the country to lean towards the somewhat more conciliatory Cruz, and those in the “Missisippis” to lean towards the more bellicose Trump.

    Actual data, on the other hand, show I am quite mistaken. How am I backwards in this belief?

    • Replies: @Jefferson
  34. Jefferson says:
    @Dr. Warner

    “This confuses me, big time. It has been my belief (through minor anecdotal evidence, to be sure) that people who live in lily white communities (like mine) tend to live in a rarified, fantasy world where all we need to do to fix race relations, poverty, etc., is sit around and sing Kumbaya — and give the government lots of money to spread the love, while, in contrast, those who live in areas where they are able to observe first-hand the types of cultural illness that leads to racial discord and poverty have a more real understanding of the issues, and tend to become “hardened.” Given this, I would expect those in the “Vermonts” of the country to lean towards the somewhat more conciliatory Cruz, and those in the “Missisippis” to lean towards the more bellicose Trump.

    Actual data, on the other hand, show I am quite mistaken. How am I backwards in this belief?”

    Chicago Whites for example are not blessed with living in a Whitopia city and yet you still rarely find Conservatives among Chicago Whites, even though they share a city that produces some of the most violent Blacks in the country.

  35. @tbraton

    I have also done these exact calculations, and also concluded that Trump was going to get past the magic number. However, I have since reversed myself.

    As we saw in Colorado, and in the anti-Paul rules 4 years ago, the nomination process is NOT a democratic process, but rather a process where “the party” does what it likes. The rules for the convention will not be written until… THE CONVENTION. The votes that have been cast put pressure on the party, but do not control the party. If the party is dead set on excluding Trump, Trump will be excluded. It is as simple as that.

    Trump has not done a good job of taking over the party, but rather seems to have naively trusted some sort of fictitious democractic process to take him to the nomination.

    The question now is whether or not the hidden power structure in the party makes the very risky move of refusing the nomination to the popular favorite — telling the party rank-and-file that their input doesn’t matter (risking alienating the base, and exploding the party). On the other hand, if Trump, who is clearly anti-party (or at least, clearly hated by the party elite), wins, the power structure of the party is toast anyway. Given this, I anticipate that — regardless of how many delegates Trump “wins” — the nomination will go elsewhere. The party will attempt damage control through 1) doing everything it can to keep Trump from hitting the magic number, and 2) finding other ways to “justify” not accepting Trump, and then hoping to restore party power by winning the presidency. The party elite will be emboldened by the fact that the Democrats are in similar disarray, and will no doubt try to use this as a distraction/justification.

    It all makes me sad…

    • Replies: @tbraton
  36. res says:
    @tbraton

    PA is bizarre. 54 of the 71 delegates are unbound. I’m not really sure how they are chosen, but based on other states I’m guessing Trump gets shafted on those regardless of his primary performance. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Primary_schedule

    • Replies: @tbraton
  37. tbraton says:
    @res

    You’re right. PA had me scratching my head. If the polls are correct and Trump wins by a large margin over Kasich and Cruz, I can’t see the delegates going for Cruz or Kasich and disregarding the primary results. But I have to concede that PA does represent a puzzle.

  38. tbraton says:
    @Dr. Warner

    “The question now is whether or not the hidden power structure in the party makes the very risky move of refusing the nomination to the popular favorite — telling the party rank-and-file that their input doesn’t matter (risking alienating the base, and exploding the party). ”

    I would be less than honest not to concede you have grounds to be skeptical. But it seems to me that, if the Party attempts to do what you are suggesting, it would amount to a collective decision to commit mass suicide. I think that would be the effective end of the Republican Party. I personally, who have voted for every Republican candidate for President since 1980 (with the exceptions of 2004 and 2008), would not vote this fall, even if it meant Hillary wins the Presidency, and furthermore would never ever again vote for any Republican at any level. And that was after I went to the trouble of changing my registration from Independent to Republican in order to vote in the closed Republican primary last month. I don’t think I would be alone. I would hope there are enough sane people in control of the Republican Party to realize what a disastrous decision it would be to deprive Trump of the nomination in an underhanded manner. To paraphrase some Republicans, if the Republican Party can’t handle Trump, why should we have any confidence that the Republican Party can handle ISIS or any of the major decisions facing the country? Incidentally, I interpret Paul Ryan’s decision the other day to rule out any nomination for him as an acknowledgment that at least one person of power in D.C. recognizes what a worthless prize it would be. I’m counting on there being a lot more people like Paul Ryan who will ultimately decide that fiddling with the rules to deny Trump is not an especially good idea.

    BTW, before I sat down last night to make a relatively precise accounting of future Republican primaries, I did a seat of my pants calculation that arrived at the same conclusion about a month ago. I just got tired of all the Cruz bragging and reading all the negative stories bemoaning the sorry state of the Trump campaign and decided to do an actual calculation, if just for my own peace of mind. I was somewhat surprised at how good the rest of the campaign looks for Trump.

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
  39. JayMan says: • Website
    @jeppo

    So instead of a united ‘Yankeedom’ based on dubious “founder effects,” there are in fact two very different ethno-regions based on 19th and 20th century mass European immigration

    You don’t understand what founder effects are if you’re going to say something like that.

    Criticism from those who don’t understand the argument to begin with is often fascinating.

    • Replies: @jeppo
  40. Jay Fink says:

    I remember picking up my Uncle from Wisconsin at the airport. I had Michael Savage on the car radio. My Uncle had a very negative reaction to him. It had nothing to do with politics or content. He was put off by (absolutely hated) his NY accent and loud demeanor. Upper Midwesterner’s haves very negative reaction to that NY attitude.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
  41. Jefferson says:
    @Jay Fink

    “I remember picking up my Uncle from Wisconsin at the airport. I had Michael Savage on the car radio. My Uncle had a very negative reaction to him. It had nothing to do with politics or content. He was put off by (absolutely hated) his NY accent and loud demeanor. Upper Midwesterner’s haves very negative reaction to that NY attitude.”

    The New York accent must be like nails on a chalkboard to your Wisconsin uncle.

  42. My poster boy here: Charles (The Bell Curve) Murray, who comes from the very middle of Iowa, which is in the very middle of the Midwest. Charles is the nicest man I know: kind, generous, hospitable, exquisitely well-mannered.

    Um, hello, how you read the anti-Trump (Twitter, elsewhere) vitriol coming from Irving Kristol’s shabbos butt goy?? Please, don’t mistake beta-male wimpyness for nice.

  43. While I agree with much of this analysis, I find it sad that Americans do so much of their voting based on how they feel about a candidate, his personality and delivery.

    Why do I say this? Because there are some of us who choose Trump because he is the only candidate who has been consistently correct about the things that are destroying our nation. Case in point: he has been against bad trade deals since NAFTA.

    I guess my comment is just the sort of thing a “temperamental and uninhibited” person would say. (So has anyone wondered if we Northeasterners might just be cognizant of what’s important?)

    I say this as one who “boiled off” years ago from the friendly, conventional part of the country.

  44. Clyde says:
    @tbraton

    California June 7 /Montana June 7 / New Jersey June 7/ New Mexico June 7
    Are the final primaries

    July 18–21, 2016
    is the Republican convention in Cleveland. This gives Trump and others 5-6 weeks of wheeling and dealing for unbound delegates. So if on June 8th Trump is 100 short of the magical 1237 delegates he might be able to cajole enough to come over to his side to get beyond the 1237. He could dangle many enticements such as free family vacations at his various resorts and jobs in an upcoming administration. I understand jobs cannot be offered directly. Instead the delegate is asked what branch of the Federal Gov’t interests him.

    Trumps numbers against Hillary looked very good in an NBC poll the other day. If he can keep getting good numbers, his chances increase of not getting screwed out of the nomination by Cruz/GOPe.

  45. guest says:

    I live in Minnesota, which went for Rubio of all people, though not in a primary. We have blacks; I know because I see them on the evening news. We even have Black Lives Matters, which tried to shut down the big mall and the airport. Mostly they stick to neighborhoods that might as well be on the dark side of the moon.

  46. ChrisD says:
    @jeppo

    You’re forgetting most of the Deep South: Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi etc. These are powerful Trump states which will unflinchingly follow him through a General election. They are also generally mainline Protestant states.

    I agree that White Catholic states prefer Trump to Northern/Midwestern Protestant ones, but it’s not simply that binary, you need to look deeper. I think it’s more about economics and cultural disillusionment. People who live in Utah or Iowa are generally oblivious to the economic and cultural suicide of the White race, whereas blue collar families in New York, Massachusetts, Alabama, New Hampshire, Mississippi, Michigan etc are deeply aware of their vulnerabilities.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    , @Jefferson
  47. Jefferson says:
    @ChrisD

    “People who live in Utah or Iowa are generally oblivious to the economic and cultural suicide of the White race,”

    Utah has a sizable Latino and Pacific Islander population. But they must not behave as badly as African Americans, hence why not many Utah Whites think America needs someome as politically incorrect as Donald Trump in the oval office. They are like our Nonwhites here in Utah are not so bad, we don’t need to make America great again because America is pretty great right now, why rock the boat?

  48. jeppo says:
    @JayMan

    Criticism from those who don’t understand the argument to begin with is often fascinating.

    What’s “fascinating” is watching narrow-minded ideologues try to fit square pegs like Germanic Lutherans and ethnic Catholics into the round hole of Yankeedom.

    • Replies: @JayMan
  49. Sean says:

    My poster boy here: Charles (The Bell Curve) Murray, who comes from the very middle of Iowa, which is in the very middle of the Midwest. Charles is the nicest man I know: kind, generous, hospitable, exquisitely well-mannered.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy#United_States

    The United States currently pays around $20 billion per year to farmers in direct subsidies as “farm income stabilization”[12][13][14] via U.S. farm bills. […]
    Top states for direct payments were Iowa ($501 million), …

    It occurs to me that many of these nice-Midwest farmer folk are full of the milk of human kindness from a lifetime of sucking on the government teat.

    • Agree: dc.sunsets
    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  50. @tbraton

    Whatchoo got against McCarthy? Discarding the old Red propaganda is many decades overdue. McCarthy was not as far off the mark as the Willi Munzenbergs would have us believe.

  51. utu says:

    “All American regional political differences represent group-level genetic differences.” – Only a mongrel like JayMan could came up with something like that.

    • Replies: @5371
  52. http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/phone/news/view.jsp?req_newsidx=200722

    “I really don’t give s**t about him. I’m not voting for him,” said a voter with ethnic roots in Korea in an email interview with The Korea Times. Living in Los Angeles, she wanted to remain anonymous. “I still can’t believe that there are so many ignorant U.S. citizens out here who support him … It makes me sad.”

    Another Korean-American living in San Francisco echoed her view.

    “I think any reasonable person with an ability to sustain basic life functions would be against Trump,” he said. “He is a bold, smart man, exploiting the secret, unspoken, politically incorrect views that Caucasians must harbor against minorities. Otherwise, Trump would not have come this far.”

    He said Trump had “verbalized what most white Americans may feel but cannot and will not say in front of their minority friends and neighbors.” He said that if Trump was elected, it would be an embarrassment to the U.S. as well as the world.

    Asian Americans, at least the more epicanthic ones, also are turned off by Trump. One of the 6 former Apprentice participants who came out against Trump, James Sun, is Korean-American. This seemingly genetically-based aversion to Trump could explain Twinkie’s bizarre opposition to alpha-male Trump. You’d think at least the Koreans would worship Trump, given that they are all about appearances and accomplishment. Wharton grad who built and $10-billion empire. Seems like you could do a lot more bragging to the Parks and Ohs about a son like that than your Cornell-grad SV Google engineer drone son living in shithole San Fran.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
  53. Many Wisconsin people are not nice at all. They are greedy, left-wing thugs, like those who tried to launch a coup against Scott Walker (who does seem to be a typical nice Mid-West kind of guy). These “nice” Wisconsin people are just half-wit fools and they may well help take the country down with them. I say ship every Somali in the country to Wisconsin and see how long they stay “nice”. I am sick of ignorant, “nice” middle Americans who don´t understand that they are dancing on the edge of an abyss. Put down your TV controls and wake up!

  54. Sean says:

    Des Moines, Iowa, is–at least by one measure–the richest metropolitan area in America. According to a U.S. News analysis of data for large U.S. metropolitan areas (pop. 500,000 or larger), the Hawkeye State capital has the highest median income in the nation relative to the cost of living.

  55. Agent76 says:

    Who’s Afraid of an Open Debate? The Truth About the Commission on Presidential Debates

    The Commission on Presidential Debates is a private corporation headed by the former chairmen of the Republican and Democratic parties. The CPD is a duopoly which allows the major party candidates to draft secret agreements about debate arrangements including moderators, debate format and even participants. The result is a travesty riddled with sterile, non-contentious arguments which consistently exclude alternative voices that Americans want to hear.

    The 2012 Debates – Memorandum of Understanding Between the Obama and Romney Campaigns

    https://publicintelligence.net/obama-romney-debate-mou/

  56. 5371 says:
    @utu

    Yes, it’s rubbish. All northern Europeans are remarkably close together genetically.

    • Replies: @JayMan
  57. @Sean

    Paraphrasing from a news report a few years ago:

    “Farmers in Minnesota couldn’t be successful if it weren’t for the average $50,000 annual government subsidy each received.”

    Lots of farmers primarily farm taxpayers for dollars. It’s the ultimate cash crop.

  58. Jefferson says:
    @Pat Gilligan

    “Asian Americans, at least the more epicanthic ones, also are turned off by Trump.”

    The Asians with the bigger more Western shaped eyes like the Indians are loving Donald Trump? He is not faring any better with them either.

    • Replies: @rod1963
  59. @tbraton

    tbraton,

    As a former Minnesotan, who was actively involved in Reagan’s Minnesota campaigns, I can tell you that Reagan really did win Minnesota in 1984. There was massive cheating, and Reagan had a good case for challenging the vote, but being the gentleman that he was, Reagan did not want to rub Walter Mondale’s nose in his humiliating defeat and chose to let Mondale have his home state.

    I heard Bob Beckel, Mondale’s campaign manager, admit on FOX that the Democrats stole Minnesota in 1984.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  60. Jefferson says:
    @ChrisD

    “You’re forgetting most of the Deep South: Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi etc. These are powerful Trump states which will unflinchingly follow him through a General election. They are also generally mainline Protestant states.”

    Louisiana has a large Non Hispanic White Catholic population, coming from the Cajuns. Ali Landry for example is a White Cajun Catholic actress from Louisiana.

  61. JayMan says: • Website
    @jeppo

    What’s “fascinating” is watching narrow-minded ideologues try to fit square pegs like Germanic Lutherans and ethnic Catholics into the round hole of Yankeedom.

    Try reading anything I’ve written about the American nations some time.

    The area “Yankeedom” does have a higher concentration of Yankee-descended people than the rest of the country, even if they are not the majority there.

    The same is true for the other nations.

  62. JayMan says: • Website
    @5371

    All northern Europeans are remarkably close together genetically.

    All British people are even closer together genetically, yet New England is not and never was the Deep South, and the Civil War did happen. So what’s your point?

    • Replies: @5371
  63. tbraton says:
    @tbraton

    Nate Silver’s “538” has an interesting, detailed analysis of the remaining state primaries at http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-state-by-state-roadmap-for-the-rest-of-the-republican-primary/ It shows Trump falling short of the requite 1237 delegate total. Major differences between his analysis and mine involve the following states:

    West Virginia—-Silver projects 26 to 29 while I give Trump all 34.

    Indiana—Silver projects 9 to 22 while I give Trump all 57. (Silver draws an analogy between Indiana and Wisconsin, even though Indiana has voted Republican in every election since 1940 but for 1964 (LBJ v. Goldwater) and 2008 (Obama v, McCain) while Wisconsin has voted Democratic in every election since 1988.)

    New York—Silver projects 83 to 85 while I give Trump 90.

    Connecticut—Silver projects 23 to 24 (up from the original 19) while I give Trump all 28.

    With re to PA, Silver allocates 17 while I have allocated all 71 to Trump (while recognizing that is not possible under PA’s rather unusual rules.) Overall, Silver estimates that Trump will wind up with 1155 to 1159 delegates after all the primaries are finished. I would note that Silver clearly has a bias against Trump, but his very detailed and sophisticated analysis is certainly worth reading.

    • Replies: @5371
    , @tbraton
    , @tbraton
  64. Jefferson says:

    The type of populist who would be unstoppable in a general election would be someone who is Right Wing on immigration, the border and guns, but Left Wing on a single payer healthcare system and raising the minimum wage.

    Such a candidate would draw voters from both the Far Right, Far Left, and Moderate Centrists. Such a candidate would easily win over 50 percent of the popular vote in a general election.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @Frankie P
  65. tbraton says:
    @Minnesota Mary

    Very interesting. But I had to go with the “official” account of who won Minnesota. Just as I have to accept the “official” account that George W. Bush won Florida in 2000. (BTW I voted for GWB in 2000 and thought Al Gore’s challenge of the result was irresponsible, rooted for GWB all the way, and thought the U.S. Supreme Court was correct in its ruling. But, strictly between you and me, I would have to concede that GWB actually lost in Florida, if the race had been conducted properly. P.S.–I still have a copy of the sample “butterfly ballot” that was mailed out to all Palm Beach County residents before the 2000 election.)

  66. rod1963 says:
    @Jefferson

    These folks are tribalists just like any other ethnic group(except whites) and rightly see Trump as a impediment to their colonization of the U.S. with his emphasis on border security and immigration enforcement.

    You can imagine how well Trump goes over with all the H1-B Hindu imports and their families – like a pit viper. And I think the feeling applies to Asians across the board.

  67. @tbraton

    I’m a Montanan, and suspect that Trump may have trouble here. Trump brags too much. On the other hand, Cruz has a weak countenance and disingenuous – oleaginous – manner. Could go either way.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @tbraton
    , @tbraton
  68. rod1963 says:

    And while niceness is what you want at the level of personal transactions, I’m not sure I want too much of it in my politics. I nurse a private suspicion, in fact, that Midwestern niceness is America’s Achilles heel, and will bring down our civilization one day.

    Niceness is a good trait as long as it’s applied within the particular group it arose in. It is not however a beneficial trait when dealing with peoples who come from low trust, predatory cultures. They see niceness as weakness and it causes havoc as demonstrated in Sweden, Germany and parts of the U.S. that has imported Somalis and other Muslim groups. The only reason it’s not as bad as Sweden is that our law enforcement is allowed to do it’s job to some degree unlike the EU in general.

    Niceness has no real place in national level politics, you want competence and integrity. When you select for niceness you get Carter or a Bush. Both were abject disasters. Yeah I know lots of people chose their candidate by “how nice” they are or if “they can have a beer with the guy”. But that is a infantile way of choosing a representative that should have died out when the person graduated high school.

    Perhaps it’s a reflection of the increasing superficial nature Americans and it’s need to be constantly entertained and validated by shows aimed at people with child like mentalities.

    As for the nice Midwesterners, maybe it’s time they grow the hell up and stop judging people on superficial traits that make them easy marks for con-artists and crooked pols of all types. It’s childish. They better understand that their way of life has a expiration date and if they don’t wake up soon, they’ll end living in a 3rd world cess pit like parts of Southern California where I live.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  69. 5371 says:
    @JayMan

    That neither the civil war in America, nor that in England, happened because of genetic differences between the sides.

    • Replies: @JayMan
    , @iffen
  70. 5371 says:
    @tbraton

    Yes, the “Indiana=Wisconsin” thing is a real head-scratcher.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  71. Frankie P says:
    @Jefferson

    Resurrect Huey Long. He would take in the financial and corporate control of the government as well. Key skill necessary: oration.

  72. @Priss Factor

    In addition to inculcating intellectualism, book loving, and ideas- Jews don’t go in much for “ball games” and hanging out in saloons. Nor the idiocy of “body art”. But what chance do whites have? They have perverted Christ’s message of saving Grace, by subscribing to the blasphemies of the roman catholic mafia [ and its harlot daughters, the protestant churches]- and find themselves disinherited, wallowing in the mire, defiling themselves.Defilement and purity make no claims on the emancipated torchbearers of modernity.

  73. tbraton says:
    @tbraton

    With respect to Nate Silver’s analysis of the remaining Republican primaries, I have to note one very strange quirk, as a warning that everyone should question what is said or written regardless of the person’s reputation. (I should note for the record that I respect Nate Silver and welcome his return to hard analysis of actual mechanics of voting, after his detour into the generalities of political pontification.) Silver estimates that Trump will get either 48 or 51 delegates from New Jersey. What I find odd is his use of the 48 number since New Jersey has a total of 51 delegates at stake and it is a WINNER TAKE ALL state. So, if Trump wins NJ, as polls show he is highly likely to do, he will get all 51 delegates. The way the law is written in NJ, it is not possible to get any less than 51 delegates. Trump either gets 51 delegates from NJ or he gets none. There is no way he winds up with 48. That is impossible.

    BTW here are the legal requirements applicable to NJ’s Republican primary:

    “Tuesday 7 June 2016: All of New Jersey’s 51 delegates to the Republican National Convention are bound to a presidential contender in today’s New Jersey Presidential Primary.

    51 delegates are bound to the presidential contender receiving the greatest number of votes in the primary statewide. [Rules Governing the selection and allocation of delegates to the Republican National Convention. Rule 5(B)(3)]
    The delegate candidates appear on the ballot as a slate on the same ballot line, column or row as that of their respective presidential candidate.
    The 3 party leaders, the National Committeeman, the National Committeewoman, and the chairman of the New Jersey’s Republican Party, will by virtue of their position, attend the convention pledged to the winner of the primary. [Rule 5(B)(3)]”Tuesday 7 June 2016: All of New Jersey’s 51 delegates to the Republican National Convention are bound to a presidential contender in today’s New Jersey Presidential Primary.

    51 delegates are bound to the presidential contender receiving the greatest number of votes in the primary statewide. [Rules Governing the selection and allocation of delegates to the Republican National Convention. Rule 5(B)(3)]
    The delegate candidates appear on the ballot as a slate on the same ballot line, column or row as that of their respective presidential candidate.
    The 3 party leaders, the National Committeeman, the National Committeewoman, and the chairman of the New Jersey’s Republican Party, will by virtue of their position, attend the convention pledged to the winner of the primary. [Rule 5(B)(3)]” http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/NJ-R

  74. JayMan says: • Website
    @5371

    That neither the civil war in America, nor that in England, happened because of genetic differences between the sides.

    And on that point you’d be wrong:

    Genes, Climate, and Even More Maps of the American Nations – The Unz Review

    • Replies: @5371
  75. iffen says:
    @Neil Templeton

    oleaginous

    Yes! That’s the word I was searching for to describe him.

    • Agree: tbraton
  76. iffen says:
    @5371

    That neither the civil war in America, nor that in England, happened because of genetic differences between the sides.

    If there were no genetic differences between American whites and American blacks there would not have been an American Civil War.

  77. tbraton says:
    @Neil Templeton

    Thanks for the comment. I forgot to note that, while I gave all the w-t-a 27 delegates from Montana to Trump (a pure guess on my part), Silver gives them to Cruz (except he makes the same error I noted in connection with NJ in another post by giving Trump 3 delegates as one of his possibilities, which is impossible in w-t-a Montana). I was relying on the fact that Montana is an “open” primary according to RCP and thought that might work in Trump’s favor. But your message is encouraging in that you think Trump might have a chance in light of Cruz’s offputting manner. At least I can identify with Montanans in that regard. I differ with respect to Trump, but I can understand it, since early last year I felt the same way. I changed my mind after hearing him take various controversial positions, which generally accord with my way of thinking. (If you are on the fence yourself, you should read Trump’s “Art of the Deal,” which I finally got around to reading a few weeks ago. It’s a marvelous read and gives a much better sense of the man.)

    BTW I figured out the source of Silver’s error. He gives two estimates, which he labels “Deterministic” and “Probalistic.” What he means by the latter is that he adjusts his prediction to account for the chances that the polls might be off. Based on that chance, he assumes that Trump winds up with 3 delegates in NJ (by losing) and 3 in Montana (by winning), which is impossible in a w-t-a state. You either get all or none in a w-t-a state.

    • Replies: @res
  78. tbraton says:
    @5371

    “Yes, the “Indiana=Wisconsin” thing is a real head-scratcher.”

    I’m glad to see someone else agrees. As far as I am concerned, that is the strangest observation in Silver’s extensive analysis. In my simplicity, I figure that Indiana is more similar to neighboring Ohio (where Trump did well, finishing second to the sitting governor), Illinois (which Trump won) and Michigan (which Trump also won). Wisconsin? Not so much. I chalk it up to Silver’s intense dislike of and bias against Trump.

    • Replies: @David Allan coe
  79. @tbraton

    I agree, Trump should do better than Silver’s prediction in Indiana. Trump won neighboring states Illinois, Michigan, and Kentucky. He should get over 30 delegates in Indiana as Silver initially predicted Trump would get 37.

    After Trump wins NY, CT, PA, Delaware, and Maryland his momentum will help him win Indiana.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  80. 5371 says:
    @JayMan

    You seem to have strange ideas about causation, and about how one argues for it.

  81. tbraton says:
    @rod1963

    That’s what puzzled me about Dr. Ben Carson’s blip in the polls last fall, which had him leading Trump and all the other candidates for a while. While I am ready to concede that Dr. Carson is an intelligent and articulate man and a gentleman, he was so lacking in the qualities and experience needed for the highest executive office in the land that I was mystified by his standing in the polls. It turned out that the evangelicals in Iowa and elsewhere were responsible, for they seem to prize “niceness” above all. I guess it’s more compatible with Christianity as they practice it. I’m more like Homer Simpson myself. Homer is the one, who, upon being asked to define his religion of Christianity, said it was the religion with all the rules that don’t apply to real life.

    • Replies: @rod1963
  82. tbraton says:
    @Neil Templeton

    BTW, I don’t know if you caught the three speeches delivered to New Yorkers last night by Trump, Kasich and Cruz. They were carried live by Fox News (and probably others, as well). I would be interested in hearing your reaction as a Montanan to Trump’s speech, if you happened to catch it. It was different from the usual Trump fare, and, since the occasion was held in the Grand Hyatt hotel in NYC (Trump’s first successful foray into Manhattan real estate, which he owned until recently), his speech sounded like excerpts from the “Art of the Deal,” which, as I noted earlier, I finally got around to reading this past month and highly recommend if you haven’t read it already. Trump’s speech was the “kinder, gentler” Trump, and I am curious how it played out in Montana.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    , @Neil Templeton
  83. res says:
    @tbraton

    From Nate Silver’s article:

    Second, a probabilistic projection, which hedges its bets. In the aforementioned example, Trump would have a 60 percent chance of winning 50 delegates and a 40 percent chance of winning no delegates, which works out to an expectation of 30 delegates.

    So I interpret his 3 delegates for Montana estimate to mean a 1/9 chance of winning Montana’s 27 delegates.

    I agree with your assessment of: “I chalk it up to Silver’s intense dislike of and bias against Trump” in comment 80. I’m just happy he’s doing real analysis again which limits his ability to apply anti-Trump spin (and allows people like you to find the questionable bits like Indiana). Some of his earlier Trump commentary was pathetic. I think he finally figured out he was damaging his reputation by being SO wrong.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  84. tbraton says:
    @David Allan coe

    “I agree, Trump should do better than Silver’s prediction in Indiana. Trump won neighboring states Illinois, Michigan, and Kentucky. He should get over 30 delegates in Indiana as Silver initially predicted Trump would get 37. ”

    I would point out that Indiana has a total of 57 delegates at stake, with 30 statewide awarded to the winner of the statewide vote and 27 awarded to the nine districts (3 each) in Indiana based on the highest vote in that district. If Trump were to win the statewide vote, that would guarantee him a minimum of 30 delegates plus the likelihood that he would carry at least some of the nine districts. That’s why I gave him all 57 delegates in Indiana compared to the 9 to 22 Silver estimates Trump will get. (How do you get 22 delegates in Indiana? That’s impossible since it is winner-take-all in each district, which means that the number has to be some multiple of 3, which 22 clearly is not. Plus, Silver’s number of 22 assumes that Trump will carry at least 7 of the 9 districts, which indicates, to me, that he likely to carry the entire state.)

    I think a couple of other points should be made about Indiana, which Silver concedes “After California, in fact, Indiana is probably the most important state remaining.” I agree with Silver on that point. Further, I broke down the remaining primaries into six categories on the basis of date of primary. Indiana is unique in that, like NY, it solely occupies its own category (the third according to my breakdown) since it is the only state holding a primary on May 3. That follows NYS alone in the first category of April 19 and the five states in the second category holding primaries a week later on April 26 and a week before Indiana on May 3. If all goes according to my outline and Trump scores smashing victories in all the primaries before Indiana and amasses most of the delegates, that brings into play what you mention in your reply, momentum: “After Trump wins NY, CT, PA, Delaware, and Maryland his momentum will help him win Indiana.” (You failed to mention RI, which even Silver admits Trump is highly likely to carry, although RI awards delegates proportionally, which means Trump is likely to win about half of the 19 delegates.) I am a believer in momentum, and I agree with you that the momentum that Trump builds up in the next two weeks will affect the voting in Indiana. A lot of people want to identify with a perceived winner. It gives them more confidence to cast a vote for who is perceived to be a winner.

    That brings me to a final point about Nate Silver’s analysis. Leaving aside my nitpicking criticisms about impossible delegate allocations, I think his analysis of Indiana gives away the ball game. As I have made clear from the beginning of this thread, Silver has made no secret of his disdain for and dislike of Trump, largely for political reasons. I think it is true of any article that it is designed for two purposes: to convey information and to influence opinion. I don’t think it should surprise anybody that Silver’s exercise concludes that Trump will fall short of the magic 1237 necessary to secure the nomination (Silver estimates either 1155 or 1159). Silver acknowledges that Indiana plays a key role in Trump’s effort to secure the nomination, but he goes on to make a number of bizarre assumptions re Indiana. The most blatant is the comparison of Indiana to Wisconsin. Why Wisconsin you should ask, rather than next door neighbors Illinois, Ohio, Kentucky and Michigan, where Trump either won or did surprisingly well against a popular incumbent governor? Perhaps it’s because Wisconsin was where Cruz won his “surprising” victory over Trump a few weeks ago and allowed Cruz to loudly trumpet his own “momentum,” completely disregarding the fact that Wisconsin has voted Democratic by generally wide margins in every election since 1988 while Indiana has generally voted Republican by generally wide margins since 1940 with the two exceptions of 1964 and 2008. While I welcome Silver’s analysis of the remaining primaries (I’m not aware of anyone else in the MSM performing the same detailed analysis state by state), I believe that no one should lose sight of the fact that he is trying to influence people into thinking that Trump will fall short by nearly 80 delegates after all the primaries have concluded. Perhaps he is trying to influence how people vote in the upcoming primaries. Count me cynical, but time will tell who is right.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    , @tbraton
  85. rod1963 says:
    @tbraton

    And those Carson voters went to Cruz when Carson dropped out. It’s also why Cruz has done quite well in the mid-West IMO.

    Kasich’s draw is a complete mystery to me. The man is a bumbling globalist who wants to invite the world to live here and send our jobs overseas, yet he draws almost 20% of the GOP voter base wherever he goes.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  86. tbraton says:
    @tbraton

    Here’s a link to Trump’s speech last night in NYC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnyWksOaJBk (Trump’s speech starts at roughly the 1:49 mark.) I would be very interested in hearing your reaction.

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
  87. tbraton says:
    @res

    “I’m just happy he’s doing real analysis again which limits his ability to apply anti-Trump spin (and allows people like you to find the questionable bits like Indiana). Some of his earlier Trump commentary was pathetic. I think he finally figured out he was damaging his reputation by being SO wrong.”

    I am in total agreement. In fact, I made essentially the same point in message #86, which I posted before your post appeared. Otherwise, I would have acknowledged your point earlier. We are apparently in total agreement re Silver. He was rapidly becoming an embarrassment with his bad analysis. Even here, I think he is wrong, but at least I respect the detailed analysis even when I don’t totally agree with it. I am a little surprised that no one else in the MSM (at least as far as I am aware) did not attempt to do what Silver did. After all, there are only 16 primaries left on the schedule.

  88. tbraton says:
    @rod1963

    I missed that on the Carson delegates. I totally agree on Kasich.

  89. I have been very surprised by the “pugnaciousness” of New York – by now they really should have fallen prey to all the propaganda on Trump. but they didn’t. They are defiant. New Yorkers don’t buckle easily to PC bullying and Trump is NY through and through. They will NOT let him down. It is amazing. It is almost something tribal is being demonstrated here – the New Yorkers identified with Trump the day Ted Cruz picked on their “New York Values.” Cruz will be decimated in New York and the North East. It doesn’t like religious Texans.

    • Agree: tbraton
  90. tbraton says:

    I was listening to the news this evening, and I heard Cruz raz Trump and brag about how he (Cruz) had won the last 11 Republican contests. I thought that sounded odd, so I decided to check the record. Here is what RCP has to say about the last 11 Republican contests:

    Wisconsin April 5 42 6 36 0 0 Primary Winner Take All∇ Open
    North Dakota April 1 28 0 10 0 0 Caucus Unbound Closed
    Utah March 22 40 0 40 0 0 Caucus Proportional*# Closed
    Arizona March 22 58 58 0 0 0 Primary Winner Take All Closed
    American Samoa March 22 9 1 1 0 0 Convention Unbound Open
    Ohio March 15 66 0 0 0 66 Primary Winner Take All Open**
    Northern Marianas March 15 9 9 0 0 0 Caucus Winner Take All Closed
    North Carolina March 15 72 29 27 6 9 Primary Proportional Open**
    Missouri March 15 52 37 15 0 0 Primary Winner Take All∇ Open
    Illinois March 15 69 54 9 0 6 Primary Winner Take All∇ Open
    Florida March 15 99 99 0 0 0 Primary Winner Take All Closed

    Trump’s overwhelming victory and shutout of Cruz at w-t-a Arizona was just four contests ago. And the list of the last 11 contests show Trump’s victories in Florida (w-t-a for all 99 delegates), Illinois (54 delegates to Cruz’s 9), Missouri, North Carolina, Northern Marianas and America Samoa. That means Trump beat Cruz decisively in 7 out of the last 11 contests. So, it looks “Lyin Ted” must think he is Bernie Sanders running against Hillary Clinton. In other words, delusional.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  91. @tbraton

    I didn’t see any of the speeches. Regarding a “kinder, gentler” Trump, I admit that I don’t think that is so much the hurdle in Montana as it may have been in Wisconsin. It is that Trump’s incessant bragging, whining, and twittering are seen as weak, not strong. I say that as a Trump supporter.

  92. pyrrhus says:

    Actually, Trump’s success or lack thereof by State is quite easily explained by the national makeup of the European population in the State, as modified by direct conflicts with the joys of Diversity.
    Scandinavians, Germans, Dutch, and English—the same peoples who in Europe are giving their countries away to violent 3d worlders out of excessive altruism–tend to have the same views in the US, and vote against Trump. Other Europeans are the opposite. In much of the East Coast and South, the anti-diversity nations predominate, so Trump wins handily. In the upper midwest, including MN, WI, ND and OH, the “nice” crowd predominates. In places like IL, AZ,OK and MO, it is roughly equal. Trump wins those places (and won AZ and IL big), when there has been sufficient experience with the downsides of diversity. He loses them when there hasn’t been such experience….

  93. Indiana has the highest percentage of ethnic southern whites of any state that borders on the Great Lakes. I don’t know how it got that way. The ethnic sociology of Indiana is different from Wisconsin or Illinois or Pennsylvania.

    The Ku Klux Klan was big in Indiana during the early 20th century revival of the KKK. The second Klan, as historians call it, was also hot stuff in Los Angeles — D. W. Griffith’s Los Angeles, one might say.

    As for Greater Appalachia compared to the Deep South, the most notable difference is the higher percentage of Africkan Americans in the so-called Deep South. Otherwise, there is not much distinction between the two notional regions.

    As recently as the 1970’s, there wasn’t all that much Spanish in the Florida peninsula.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    , @JayMan
  94. tbraton says:
    @tbraton

    Cruz has the entire hour on Hannity tonight, and I just heard him repeat several times the BS about winning the last 11 elections. Trump is right about “Lyin Ted.” BTW Trump’s overwhelming victory in Arizona (46% to Cruz’s 27% and all the 58 delegates) was just a little more than 3 weeks ago on March 22. There certainly haven’t been 10 contests since then. “Lyin Ted” indeed. I guess lying is considered OK by evangelical Christians.

  95. Regarding Cheesehead Wisconsin’s alleged Germanic Lutheran virtues: isn’t the dairy industry up there now dependent on minimum wage Mexicans to do the cow-milking Lutherans and Europee-un Catholics just won’t do any more?

    As for western and Rocky Mountain states, some towns in those regions are dominated by Latter Day Saints, many of whose ancestors were New England Congregationalists. The LDS*, like other denominations, has empty pews to fill**, so they’re recruiting Mexicans. I bet that a lot of Colorado Repub. Party activists wear blessed garments.

    *LDS — not the same as LSD.

    **Somebody will remind me that LDS families still have more children than some other American denominations and also that the LDS has had some success recruiting former white Baptists to Mormonism. Still, the LDS wants Mexicans … maybe for the same business reasons nice nice WI mega-farmers do.

  96. @tbraton

    I watched it. He’s good, but talks about himself too much. Would be interesting to see him turn his personal tales into lessons on salient issues. With information to show that he is familiar with the salient issues. Locally tuned to prospective supporters, even if they know or care nothing of New York.

  97. tbraton says:
    @David Davenport

    Good observations. They seem to support my position re Indiana (a Trump victory) rather than Silver’s (a Cruz victory).

  98. tbraton says:
    @tbraton

    Yikes. I had stated in my original message dealing with the remaining primaries: “The fourth category is West Virginia on May 10. It is an open primary, and the delegates from each district go to whoever gets the most votes in the district, while the statewide delegates go to whoever gets the most votes in the state. I figure Trump will get all 34 delegates, taking his total to [1085].”

    There is an article in Politico today which indicates that, while Trump may score an overwhelming victory in WVA, the ballot and the rules surrounding the election of delegates are so convoluted that Trump may wind up with a lot fewer delegates than his popular vote would indicate. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/trump-likely-to-win-west-virginia-but-lose-delegates-222036

    It appears that the person who designed the original Rubik’s Cube was hired to design the WVA Republican primary ballot. A sample of what is in store can be gotten from the following excerpts:

    “It’s a quirk of West Virginia’s mind-bogglingly complex delegate election process that has the Trump campaign on red alert and seems likely to leave the mogul with weaker support at the national convention than he’s expected to earn in the state’s primary. It’s yet another convoluted primary system likely to add fuel to Trump’s complaints that the rules of the Republican nomination process are rigged.

    “Not even Einstein could easily understand the selection process today,” said Mike Stuart, a former West Virginia Republican Party head and chairman of Trump’s campaign in the state.
    “The delegate selection system is intentionally complicated, making it extremely hard for voters to control the commitment of delegates to any particular candidate,” Stuart said. “I think the selection process for delegates in West Virginia not only is bad. It may be the worst in the country.”

    It’s also bad for Trump because even if he wins the popular vote in a landslide, how that support translates into delegates depends on his supporters’ ability to navigate a complicated, arcane and confusing voting system — the results of which are an open question.

    West Virginia’s Republican ballot is a six-page form that places the delegate elections behind dozens of state legislative and county races. Some voters, West Virginia GOP insiders said, stop voting before they make it to the delegates. But getting there is the easy part.

    More than 220 people are running for 22 statewide slots as convention delegates. On the ballot, they’re divided based on the candidates they support and then listed alphabetically. There are 31 for Trump, 36 for Cruz and 10 for John Kasich, who failed to file a full slate of delegates. A fourth list includes 27 “uncommitted” candidates, and there are also lists of would-be delegates for candidates who have already dropped out.

    Voters wishing to select a full slate of Trump delegates can choose up to 22 of them — though if they inadvertently select 23 or more, all of their choices are thrown out. They must also be aware of a new rule to prohibit more than two delegates from residing in a single county — and seven from a single Congressional district — a stipulation that isn’t mentioned on the ballot.
    Yet nine of the first 22 names on Trump’s list are from populous Kanawha County, where Charleston, the state capital, is located. And if Trump voters pick them all, seven would be automatically disqualified and replaced by delegates who fit the criteria.

    “Unfortunately, this will be a very random process with so many candidates for so few spots,” said Bob Miller, Jr., an uncommitted contender.”
    Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/trump-likely-to-win-west-virginia-but-lose-delegates-222036#ixzz460iwaGtg

    There are some Trump people in WVA who are relatively optimistic about the final outcome:
    “Interviews and emails with more than 40 delegate candidates and West Virginia Republican leaders reveal a widespread belief that Trump is poised for a big win in the state, which supported Mitt Romney in the 2012 GOP primary and Mike Huckabee in 2008.
    “The landscape in West Virginia is pretty heavily Trump,” said Ron Walters, a Trump backer who’s running to become a delegate from the state’s 2nd Congressional District. “My best guess tells me somewhere around 28 of the 34 will be Trump delegates.” It should be pointed out that WVA is a week after Indiana and, if Trump walks away with 28 delegates (6 less than the full 34 I predicted), then the damage to Trump’s ultimate success would be relatively minor.

    Finally, the article substantiates something I said previously about Nate Silver’s article analyzing the remaining primaries, i.e., that it was designed to influence one’s thinking by predicting that Trump will fall short of the magic 1237 by the end of primary season. This comment in the Politico article caught my eye: “Indeed, West Virginia is shaping up to be Trump’s strongest state in a potentially bleak May, when Midwestern states like Indiana and Nebraska threaten to deliver a truckload of delegates to Cruz, his top rival for the GOP nomination.” So, Silver has “convinced” Politico that Indiana is probably safely in Cruz’s pocket, whereas I believe I have made the strong case that Indiana is Trump territory. (BTW I agree that Nebraska is virtually a lock for Cruz, which is why I didn’t mention it in my original message, which focused on states where Trump was likely to do well. To equate Indiana with Nebraska is worse than equating Indiana with Wisconsin imo.)

    P.S.—If there is any doubt about which way Politico leans in the matter of Trump, check out the hit piece delivered by a former losing contestant on “The Apprentice” in the same issue. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/apprentice-contestant-donald-trump-2016-playboy-mansion-213815 A sample:

    ” After a while, living in Trumpland yielded exactly the result that the show’s producers wanted: a low-stakes Stockholm syndrome. I actually did want to win as the show went on. I became the person I had been trained to be, and took the entire absurd “job interview” process seriously. When I was fired, I felt disappointed and empty. I had dedicated every waking minute to competing for Trump’s approval, and had just been given the exact opposite.
    Today, when I watch the rallies and the friendly TV appearances, I get the distinct sense that the line between Trumpland and actual reality is blurring. Donald Trump has turned the campaign into a reality show, and we can’t seem to stop watching. Having lived in the former, I can attest that’s not a good thing.”

  99. JayMan says: • Website
    @David Davenport

    As for Greater Appalachia compared to the Deep South, the most notable difference is the higher percentage of Africkan Americans in the so-called Deep South. Otherwise, there is not much distinction between the two notional regions.

    There are many differences between Greater Appalachia and the Deep South. You have to look harder.

  100. Jayman,

    Please explain the differences to me here in Nashville.

    • Replies: @JayMan
  101. JayMan says: • Website
    @David Davenport

    Read through the posts in my series. Note the various cultural indicators that differ between the two regions.

  102. tbraton says:
    @tbraton

    As we await the results of today’s NY Republican primary, which Trump is expected to win, the only question being how many of the 95 delegates he wins, I thought I would draw attention to the Republican primary in Indiana two weeks from today (May 3). As I said a few days ago: “I think a couple of other points should be made about Indiana, which Silver concedes “After California, in fact, Indiana is probably the most important state remaining.” I agree with Silver on that point. Further, I broke down the remaining primaries into six categories on the basis of date of primary. Indiana is unique in that, like NY, it solely occupies its own category (the third according to my breakdown) since it is the only state holding a primary on May 3.”

    Well, today, the NY Times carried the following Upshot column which pointed to Indiana as the most important primary ahead after NY and before California. The Upshot predicts that, if Trump does not win IND he will not secure the 1237 delegates before the convention. BTW the Upshot column is the Times’ replacement of Nate Silver’s 538 column after he left to set up his own shop. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/20/upshot/the-most-important-primary-is-wait-indiana.html
    It’s a bit wishy-washy in that it does not clearly pick a winner. In contrast, I have predicted that Trump will win and take the overwhelming number of the 57 delegates at stake, while Nate Silver predicts that Cruz will win while Trump takes from 9 to 22 delegates.

  103. tbraton says:
    @tbraton

    As we await the results of today’s NY Republican primary, which Trump is expected to win, the only question being how many of the 95 delegates he wins, I thought I would draw attention to the Republican primary in Indiana two weeks from today (May 3). As I said a few days ago: “I think a couple of other points should be made about Indiana, which Silver concedes “After California, in fact, Indiana is probably the most important state remaining.” I agree with Silver on that point. Further, I broke down the remaining primaries into six categories on the basis of date of primary. Indiana is unique in that, like NY, it solely occupies its own category (the third according to my breakdown) since it is the only state holding a primary on May 3.”

    Well, today, the NY Times carried the following Upshot column which pointed to Indiana as the most important primary ahead after NY and before California. The Upshot predicts that, if Trump does not win IND he will not secure the 1237 delegates before the convention. BTW the Upshot column is the Times’ replacement of Nate Silver’s 538 column after he left to set up his own shop. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/20/upshot/the-most-important-primary-is-wait-indiana.html
    It’s a bit wishy-washy in that it does not clearly pick a winner. In contrast, I have predicted that Trump will win and take the overwhelming number of the 57 delegates at stake, while Nate Silver predicts that Cruz will win while Trump takes from 9 to 22 delegates.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  104. tbraton says:
    @tbraton

    I was watching Special Report with Bret Baier on Fox News last night, and he gave predictions for the remaining 15 Republican primaries. Interestingly enough, he projected that Trump will win “only” 24 delegates from Indiana on May 3. That means that Trump will not win statewide, since Indiana allocates the 30 statewide delegates to the overall winner of the statewide vote, but he will win 8 of the 9 districts since Indiana awards 3 delegates to the winner of each district. That means Fox is counting on Cruz winning big enough in one district (presumably around Indianapolis) to outnumber Trump’s winning margins in the remaining 8 districts. Count me skeptical on that point. I will stick by my prediction that Trump wins anywhere from 51 (7 districts) to 57 delegates (all 9 districts).

    BTW here is what I said in message #86 above with respect to Nate Silver’s earlier prediction:

    “I would point out that Indiana has a total of 57 delegates at stake, with 30 statewide awarded to the winner of the statewide vote and 27 awarded to the nine districts (3 each) in Indiana based on the highest vote in that district. If Trump were to win the statewide vote, that would guarantee him a minimum of 30 delegates plus the likelihood that he would carry at least some of the nine districts. That’s why I gave him all 57 delegates in Indiana compared to the 9 to 22 Silver estimates Trump will get. (How do you get 22 delegates in Indiana? That’s impossible since it is winner-take-all in each district, which means that the number has to be some multiple of 3, which 22 clearly is not. Plus, Silver’s number of 22 assumes that Trump will carry at least 7 of the 9 districts, which indicates, to me, that he likely to carry the entire state.)”

    What Silver and Fox have in common is that they share an antipathy to Trump and their predictions tend to minimize Trump’s victory margin in order to keep alive the hope that Trump will fall short of the 1237 needed to secure the nomination. (They both predict Trump will fall short.) Incidentally, Fox predicts only 24 out of 34 delegates in W.VA., which is the week after Indiana. I have posted previously on the complexity of the arrangements in W.VA. which may tend to prevent Trump from winning all 34 delegates despite winning the popular vote by an overwhelming margin. Fox also gives Montana (a w-t-a state) and its 27 delegates to Cruz, but, if Trump does as well as I project in Indiana and W.VA. that shouldn’t matter.

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
  105. tbraton says:

    RCP had a piece yesterday by Sean Trende, who is the “senior political analyst for Real Clear Politics” and a pretty good (and fair) analyst imho, offering his take on where the Republican race goes from here. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/04/21/how_the_republican_race_plays_out_from_here_130351.html
    He is skeptical that Trump will reach the 1237 mark before the Republican convention. He is worth reading because he (despite his great knowledge) illustrates how much guesswork goes into any such analysis. For example, he cites Washington and Oregon (both proportional states), and he guesses that Trump will win anywhere from a low of 35% to a high of 50%, whereas I simply guessed that Trump would get 50% of each. Either way, there is not much of a difference (roughly 7 in the case of Washington and 4 in the case of Oregon between his high estimate and low estimate). His last two paragraphs sum up his piece and perfectly capture the surreal nature of this Republican contest:

    “In other words, we really don’t know how this plays out. Trump’s worst-case scenario probably leaves him with around 1,158 pledged delegates (assuming Kasich stays in), while his best-case scenario probably leaves him with 1,283. We also don’t know what the 130 or so unbound delegates will do; at least some of them would vote for Trump on the first ballot.
    Regardless, this race seems destined to be decided by Republicans who vote in a closed GOP primary in places like Berkeley, Compton, and Watts, Calif. Which is a fitting end for what can only be described as a screwball process.”

    I would go Mr. Trende one better and cite the fact that the Republican Party permits territories to send delegates to the Convention despite the fact the citizens of these territories cannot vote in the U.S. presidential election in November. By my count, that is a total of 59 delegates, which, if eliminated completely, would reduce Trump’s magic number to 1207. Since Trump carried only one of these territories (Northern Marianas) and picked up one delegate from American Samoa, I am sure Trump would gladly surrender those 10 delegates in exchange for lowering his magic target by 30.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  106. Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Condolences John Derbyshire, on the passing of your good brother. Blessings to you and your family!

    Cute Love Quotes

    • Agree: tbraton
  107. tbraton says:
    @tbraton

    There’s another analysis of the remaining Republican primaries by Steve Kornacki at MSNBC. which arrives at roughly the same conclusions as I did in my original at message #22 above (as modified by subsequent follow-up posts). http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/donald-trumps-path-1237-delegates He believes Trump will reach the magic mark of 1237, as do I. Worth reading. Here is what he says about difficult to predict Pennsylvania, which articulates something I only suggested as a possibility:

    “Pennsylvania (17 pledged delegates, 54 unbound): Trump leads in every poll and is on pace to win the 17 pledged delegates that will go to the statewide winner. The 54 unbound delegates will be selected in the primary and will be free to vote for whomever they want at the national convention. Even if they declare a candidate preference before the convention, they will not be formally bound to it in any way. That said, a large number of them are already committing publicly to supporting whichever candidate wins their congressional district – or at least to weighing the district result heavily in their decision. Trump may have trouble in a few districts around Philadelphia, but his wide poll lead suggests he’s on course to run up wide margins across most of the state. Practically speaking, it may be very hard for an unbound delegate who wins his or her slot by vowing to honor the results in his or her district to wiggle out of that commitment in the face of a Trump landslide. Target: 17 pledged delegates plus 36 unbound”

    The other interesting I observe is that I and Nat Silver were the only ones who did this analysis prior to the New York primary. BTW I nailed NY with my prediction of 90 delegates for Trump, which is exactly what he got, whereas Silver was predicting 83 to 85 of the 95 available. I hope I am as lucky with the rest of my calls.

  108. Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website

    I was watching Special Report with Bret Baier on Fox News last night, and he gave predictions for the remaining 15 Republican primaries. Interestingly enough, he projected that Trump will win “only” 24 delegates from Indiana on May 3. That means that Trump will not win statewide, since Indiana allocates the 30 statewide delegates to the overall winner of the statewide vote, http://quotespicture.org/crazy-romantic-love-pictures-quotes-and-sayings-for-him/ but he will win 8 of the 9 districts since Indiana awards 3 delegates to the winner of each district. That means Fox is counting on Cruz winning big enough in one district (presumably around Indianapolis) to outnumber Trump’s winning margins in the remaining 8 districts. Count me skeptical on that point. I will stick by my prediction that Trump wins anywhere from 51 (7 districts) to 57 delegates (all 9 districts).

    BTW here is what I said in message #86 above with respect to Nate Silver’s earlier prediction:

    “I would point out that Indiana has a total of 57 delegates at stake, with 30 statewide awarded to the winner of the statewide vote and 27 awarded to the nine districts (3 each) in Indiana based on the highest vote in that district. If Trump were to win the statewide vote, http://www.timelifequotes.com/cute-romantic-love-quotes-for-him-and-her/ that would guarantee him a minimum of 30 delegates plus the likelihood that he would carry at least some of the nine districts. That’s why I gave him all 57 delegates in Indiana compared to the 9 to 22 Silver estimates Trump will get. (How do you get 22 delegates in Indiana? That’s impossible since it is winner-take-all in each district, which means that the number has to be some multiple of 3, which 22 clearly is not. Plus, Silver’s number of 22 assumes that Trump will carry at least 7 of the 9 districts, which indicates, to me, that he likely to carry the entire state.)”

    What Silver and Fox have in common is that they share an antipathy to Trump and their predictions tend to minimize Trump’s victory margin in order to keep alive the hope that Trump will fall short of the 1237 needed to secure the nomination. (They both predict Trump will fall short.) Incidentally, Fox predicts only 24 out of 34 delegates in W.VA., which is the week after Indiana. I have posted previously on the complexity of the arrangements in W.VA. which may tend to prevent Trump from winning all 34 delegates despite winning the popular vote by an overwhelming margin. Fox also gives Montana (a w-t-a state) and its 27 delegates to Cruz, but, if Trump does as well as I project in Indiana and W.VA. that shouldn’t matter.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  109. tbraton says:
    @Anonymous

    I would point out that your message is a word-for-word copy of my message #106 above, with no indication at all that I was the author of the post. Since it is your first message on unz.com (and probably your last), I could write off your misappropriation of my work and your passing it off as your own and attribute it all to ignorance. But it does not speak well of the website you are trying to push with this underhanded action. In any event, I would certainly not encourage anybody to check out your website, which seems like an insignificant little enterprise.

  110. @tbraton

    It appears that the pundits are conceding Montana to Cruz on the logic that Montana voters will follow Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, and the Midwest. I don’t agree with this logic. Montana has an open primary. Almost certainly, registered republicans will go for Cruz, or Kasich if he plays a role, but Montana has a fair number of unregistered voters who may tend toward Trump.

    Montana also does not have the same settlement patterns as its surrounding states. Fewer Mormons than Idaho and Utah. Fewer (though still plenty) Germans and Scandinavians on average than North Dakota. Lots of independent thinkers. I think Trump has a good shot at Montana’s 27 delegates, especially if he pays a visit to the state and talks about the damage that carbon regulation is likely to cause.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  111. tbraton says:
    @tbraton

    Back on April 13, I posted message #22 above which broke down the remaining Republican primaries, according to the date of the primaries, starting with New York on April 19 and set forth my predictions about those states where Trump looked to have a good chance to win delegates. The next day I posted Nate Silver’s analysis which I came across on RCP and offered my own critical analysis of his predictions. Well, today is the second of the six stages according to my breakdown, and I thought I would offer an updated prediction about each of today’s five primaries. I would note that my prediction of 90 delegates for Trump in NY was right on the money, while Silver’s prediction of 83 was off by 7 (Silver offered up two predictions, one labeled “deterministic” and the other “probalistic,” thus giving himself two bites at the apple, apparently as part of a CYA operation since he had been so wrong for so long about the 2016 race, Trump especially.).

    My predictions are as follows: CONN–Trump picks up all 28 delegates in the modified w-t-a primary; Delaware–Trump wins all 16 delegates in a straight w-t-a primary; Maryland–Trump picks up 32 of the 38 delegates in the modified w-t-a primary; PA–Trump picks up all 17 statewide delegates and 34 of the 54 unbound delegates in a goofily constructed, modified w-t-a state; Rhode Island—Trump picks up 11 of the 19 delegates in the one proportional primary today. That would give Trump a total of 138 delegates today in all five states, according to my predictions.

    Silver, on the other hand, predicted 24 for CONN; 13 (an impossibility in a w-t-a state with 16 delegates) for DEL; 27 for MD; 15 (an impossibility since the statewide winner gets all 17 statewide delegates) for PA; and 9 for RI. The total Silver arrives at for the 5 states today is 88 delegates for Trump. That is 50 less than the total I am predicting.

    Note: With regards to PA, I am influenced by Steve Kornacki of MSNBC, whose predictions I posted about last week. PA has a goofy modified w-t-a primary in which the 17 statewide delegates go the top vote getter statewide but the remaining 54 delegates are unbound and are elected by district. He reported that many of the delegates running in PA have pledged that they will be bound by the top vote getter in the district in which they are running. Polls have consistently shown Trump leading in PA by a large margin, so it looks like he will win statewide and win in quite a few districts. So I have projected Trump getting all 17 statewide delegates and 34 of 54 unbound delegates, for a total of 51 delegates. The reason I mention this is so that, if my prediction for PA pans out, I want all the credit, but, if my prediction is off, blame Kornacki. BTW last night on Fox, I happened to catch a very engaging Rick Santorum (who was never a favorite of mine, I would note, but, if he had appeared in 2012 the way he looked last night, I’m sure he would have gotten the nomination instead of Romney), and, while he agreed the current system for awarding delegates was a mess, it was even worse in 2012 in his opinion.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    , @tbraton
  112. tbraton says:
    @Neil Templeton

    ” I think Trump has a good shot at Montana’s 27 delegates, especially if he pays a visit to the state and talks about the damage that carbon regulation is likely to cause.”

    I hope you are right, but so many pundits put Montana in the Cruz column that I am no longer counting on a Trump victory there. If it happens, that would be icing on the cake, but the Montana primary is on the last day, June 7, along with California, NJ, and New Mexico. I think the race will be decided by the time we get to the last day, especially with the polls showing Trump with a large lead in California, assuring him of a substantial haul of delegates there. I assume that, if Trump gets the nomination, Montana will not have any problem choosing him over Hillary in November.

    BTW one interesting observation involves Nebraska. After Cruz’s blow-out victory in neighboring Kansas (where Trump had Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach endorse him), I figured Nebraska would in no way go to Trump. But I was surprised to read a column by John Podhoretz in the NY Post about a week ago that indicated Nebraska was looking “iffy” for Cruz. That took me aback since Podhoretz is definitely in the anti-Trump camp and Nebraska’s Senator Ben Sasse has been openly opposed to Trump. In light of that, I still count Nebraska in Cruz’s corner. But what fascinates me is the contrast between Ben Sasse in Nebraska and Kris Kobach in Kansas and the fact that they are on opposite sides of the immigration debate. Sasse attended Harvard and graduated cum laude, which indicates he has something on the ball. But Kobach attended Harvard and graduated summa cum laude and attended Yale Law where he was editor-in-chief of the Law Review, which means he is extremely bright. They both appear to be very bright and very popular in their respective states, so I am somewhat puzzled why two adjoining states that are largely agriculture oriented should produce different views on the immigration dispute.

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
  113. @tbraton

    Looking at photos and descriptions of Sasse and Kobach on Wiki, I would suggest that these individuals would have different positions on pivotal issues no matter where they sought election, and that agriculture is not an important factor.

  114. tbraton says:
    @tbraton

    “Rhode Island—Trump picks up 11 of the 19 delegates in the one proportional primary today.”

    Correction to my earlier post today. I misread the Connecticut rules, so it looks like Trump will be getting 10 delegates instead of 11, despite winning more than 64% of the vote. Six of the 19 delegates are awarded to the two districts (3 each), with each candidate receiving more than 10% of the vote getting one of the three delegates. Thus, even though Trump is getting roughly 64%+ of the vote in each district and Cruz barely getting 10%+, they each get one delegate and Kasich gets the third. The other 13 delegates are “statewide,” and they are awarded proportionately. Based on his roughly 64%+, Trump will get 8 of the 13. Adding the other two gives him 10.

  115. tbraton says:
    @tbraton

    I just heard Karl Rove say on Fox News that Trump is carrying every county in PA. With a little more than a third of the vote counted, Trump is getting around 58% of the vote. Rove also said more than 50 of the delegates in PA had indicated they would support the winner of their district. So it looks like my earlier estimate of 51 (17 statewide plus 34 of the uncommitted delegates) out of PA’s 71 delegates may be too low.

  116. tbraton says:

    This is curious. RCP shows Trump only getting 9 delegates in RI, but the official site shows Trump getting 11, which was my original prediction. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/RI-R Apparently, Cruz got less than 10% in one of the districts, so Trump was awarded 2 in that district.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  117. tbraton says:
    @tbraton

    The guy on Fox was just reviewing the five states at play today, and he made the astounding assertion that Trump carried every county in all five states. That’s a blowout, folks.

  118. tbraton says:
    @tbraton

    Back on April 14, I posted a message describing Nate Silver’s “538” predictions re the remaining 16 Republican primaries. (See the message to which this message is a response.) Silver made two separate predictions, one which he labeled “deterministic” and the other which he labeled “probalistic.” The totals were relatively close, 1155 delegates for Trump after the last primaries on June 7 under “deterministic” and 1159 delegates under “probalistic.” Since we have now passed two of the six stages I set out, I thought it would be interesting to compare Silver’s predictions with the actual results.

    This is what I found comparing the slightly higher total arrived at by Silver under the probalistic method:

    New York—Silver predicted 83 delegates; Trump received 90; shortfall of 7;
    CONN–Silver predicted 24 delegates; Trump received 28; shortfall of 4;
    DEL–Silver predicted 13 delegates; Trump received 16; shortfall of 3;
    MD–Silver predicted 27; Trump received 38; shortfall of 11;
    PA–Silver predicted 15 bound delegates; Trump received 17 bound delegates; shortfall of 2;
    RI–Silver predicted 9 delegates; Trump received 11; shortfall of 2.

    That adds up to a total shortfall in Silver’s predictions thus far, after the first two weeks of the last primaries, to 29. That means his original prediction of 1159 should be raised to 1188 based on primaries that have already occurred. In addition, I would note that Silver predicts 48 delegates for NJ, whose primary doesn’t occur until June 7. As I noted before, NJ is a winner-take-all state, and it has 51 delegates at stake. There is no possible way Trump can wind up with 48 delegates in w-t-a NJ with 51 delegates at stake, so I have added the shortfall of 3 delegates to the upgraded total making it 1191, which would leave Trump short of the magic 1237 by a mere 48. And that does not take into account any of the 54 unbound delegates in PA, which Trump won overwhelmingly. I have posted previously that a substantial number on the unbound PA delegates committed themselves prior to the primary to voting for the candidate who won their district. It should be noted that Trump carried every county in PA, which means that he carried every district. So there should be a further allowance of 30 to 40 of the unbound PA delegates who have committed to voting for Trump on at least the first ballot. If 40, that would reduce the shortfall to 8, by my calculations. If Trump can’t induce 8 delegates to switch to him with all he has to offer, then he doesn’t deserve to be President.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  119. tbraton says:
    @tbraton

    “And that does not take into account any of the 54 unbound delegates in PA, which Trump won overwhelmingly. I have posted previously that a substantial number on the unbound PA delegates committed themselves prior to the primary to voting for the candidate who won their district. It should be noted that Trump carried every county in PA, which means that he carried every district. So there should be a further allowance of 30 to 40 of the unbound PA delegates who have committed to voting for Trump on at least the first ballot. If 40, that would reduce the shortfall to 8, by my calculations. If Trump can’t induce 8 delegates to switch to him with all he has to offer, then he doesn’t deserve to be President.”

    The MSM don’t want to let you know, but the race is over. From ABC News re the unbound PA delegates:

    “Donald Trump has won a vast majority of the unbound delegate count in the state of Pennsylvania, according to an ABC News analysis. Of the 54 available free-agent delegates in the state, 39 of them told ABC News they will support Trump on the first ballot of the Republican convention.

    Twenty-three said they will support the Republican front-runner, while 16 additional delegates — who said they would vote for the winner of their congressional district on the first ballot — will also back Trump.

    Only two delegates said they plan to vote for Cruz on the first ballot. Seven others ran as uncommitted.” http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-secures-commanding-lead-unbound-delegates-pennsylvania/story?id=38695683

  120. tbraton says:
    @tbraton

    In my original analysis of the 16 remaining Republican primaries posted on April 13 (message #22), I predicted a total number of Trump delegates after the second stage (the five eastern primaries just swept by Trump this week) as follows: ” That will bring his total to 994 delegates.”

    A glance at RCP’s running total for Trump now shows him exactly at 994! But I would point out that RCP for some strange reason has Trump’s total in NY at 89, rather than the 90 he won (RCP also shortchanges Kasich one delegate) and Trumps’s total in RI at 10, rather than the 11 he won (RCP shows only 18 of the 19 delegates won by the three candidates). That means Trump’s actual total is at 996 heading into Indiana, where I originally predicted Trump would win all 57 delegates. I still think Trump will win, but I think his likely delegate haul will be 51, as he loses 2 of the 9 districts.

    This is how the next four “stages” will play out according to my prediction, which shows what a virtual lock on the nomination Trump has:

    Current total of delegates = 996
    Indiana = +57
    New total after stage 3 = 1053
    West Virginia = +34
    New total after stage 4 = 1087
    Wash. and Ore. = +38
    New total after stage 5 = 1125

    That would leave Trump short of 1237 necessary for nomination by 112 delegates entering the final week when there are 4 primaries scheduled. Since w=t=a NJ is a virtual lock with its 51 delegates, Trump would only need 61 delegates out of California’s 172 delegates to meet the magic number, even if he loses w-t-a Montana and gets no delegates from proportional New Mexico. Since the polls show him with a substantial lead in CAL, Trumps appears likely to win many more than 61 delegates there, which will give him a substantial cushion. Even Nate Silver gives Trump 9 of New Mexico’s 24 delegates awarded proportionally among candidates exceeding the 15% threshold. With another 40+ delegates from CAL and 9 from NM, Trump would have a likely cushion to make up for any shortfall in IND and WVA, and that’s assuming he doesn’t win any other states. And it totally disregards any unbound delegates Trump will probably entice to support him on the first ballot (it should be noted that RCP’s total above (994) and mine as well (996) includes 40 of the 54 unbound delegates from PA). I would note that Trump’s team has already secured some of Alaska caucus delegates that Marco Rubio won in Alaska before “suspending” his campaign after his drubbing in Florida.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  121. tbraton says:

    I see where RCP has now upped Trump’s delegate total to 996, even though it still has Trump at 89 rather than the correct 90 in NY and still has Trump at 10 rather than the correct 11 in RI. So the 2 delegate difference I talked about in the prior message still continues going forward to Indiana next Tuesday. It just means that Trump is slightly closer to the magic 1237.

  122. tbraton says:
    @tbraton

    The word the other day from Nate Cohn of “The Upshot” in the NY Times (the replacement for Nate Silver’s “538,” which flew the coop) is that Trump no longer needs Indiana to secure the nomination. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/29/upshot/donald-trump-doesnt-need-indiana-anymore.html?ribbon-ad-idx=3&rref=upshot&module=Ribbon&version=context&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=The%20Upshot&pgtype=article: “Trump Doesn’t Need Indiana Any More.”

    The piece goes on to say:

    “For the last month or so, Donald Trump’s path to 1,237 delegates has been clear: Win Indiana and California.

    But after his strong showings in the Northeast, Indiana no longer seems to be a must-win state to capture the Republican nomination.

    Sure, winning the state would be very helpful toward gaining a majority of delegates. Without Indiana, he would struggle to get the 1,237 bound delegates needed to wrap up the nomination heading into the convention. But there’s now a credible path to winning on the first ballot without it.

    The main reason is Mr. Trump’s success on Tuesday among Pennsylvania’s 54 unpledged delegates. Even though none of them are officially bound to a candidate, 31 of the 54 spots went to delegates preferred by Mr. Trump. And before the election, others had said they would vote for the winner of their district (Mr. Trump won all of the state’s districts). My colleague Jeremy W. Peters reported that Mr. Trump “appeared to have won about 40 of Pennsylvania’s 54 unbound delegates.” ”

    There. You’ve now read it in the NY Times, so it must be true. This, of course, is the same newspaper where the youngish “conservative” columnist Ross Douthat said in his January column that “Donald Trump isn’t going to be the Republican nominee,” and recited all reasons why he was right. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/opinion/campaign-stops/how-donald-trump-loses.html (It’s worth going back and reading Douthat’s column in which this astute political analyst got virtually everything wrong about the unfolding campaign. Unbelievable.) Of course, if I were a nasty person, I could point out that Douthat, when he was even younger, fully supported the Iraq War and attacked anyone who strongly opposed that war, as I did for more than a year before it actually started on March 20, 2003. That, btw, was before the Times named Douthat the youngest columnist in its history.

  123. tbraton says:

    I have observed at various times that the mistake Nate Silver made this election cycle with respect to Donald Trump was that he abandoned the poll-driven analysis by which he acquired his reputation as an electoral genius and tried to convert himself into a super pundit who made grand pronouncements re the political race and allowed his personal preferences to affect his political analysis. Now we have Silver’s own admission that this was the case. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump/?ex_cid=538twitter, “How I Acted Like a Pundit and Screwed Up on Donald Trump”:

    “The big mistake is a curious one for a website that focuses on statistics. Unlike virtually every other forecast we publish at FiveThirtyEight — including the primary and caucus projections I just mentioned — our early estimates of Trump’s chances weren’t based on a statistical model. Instead, they were what we sometimes called ”subjective odds” — which is to say, educated guesses. In other words, we were basically acting like pundits, but attaching numbers to our estimates.3 And we succumbed to some of the same biases that pundits often suffer, such as not changing our minds quickly enough in the face of new evidence. Without a model as a fortification, we found ourselves rambling around the countryside like all the other pundit-barbarians, randomly setting fire to things.”

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All John Derbyshire Comments via RSS