If Kasich out-primaries Trump...

[uti2]

The results of the elections contradict this.

Your own numbers are off, Trump won 40% in Detroit.

Trump won 41% in Wayne County. Trump won 34% in the City of Detroit. If you go to US Election Atlas's map of Michigan's 2016 Republican primary, and click on any county, you will be able to see the municipal results, free of charge.

Look at you making excuses for LV, when there is no evidence that LV was unique, and no political analysis has been developed to suggest that it was.

Trump is a bigger employer in LV than in any other major metropolitan area in the United States. If you don't think this made a difference, you're being ridiculous.

Trump did in line with LV as he did normally in Boston and Detroit, all in the 40s range.

Nope. Trump did better in LV than in Boston, where he did better than Detroit. His typical performance, incidentally, was between Detroit and Boston. Only LV is "in the 40s range" (49 in Cook County); Trump was at 41 in Boston and at 34 in Detroit. All three are totally different.

He got killed in WoW and NoVA due to the unique political circumstances there.

WoW was a typical suburban area for Trump; my own hometown of Columbus voted very similarly. NoVa was somewhat worse for him than a typical suburb because of crossover Democratic votes which weren't anticipated in polling; otherwise, it would've looked similar to WoW and Columbus.

So, your assigning LV due to Trump's employment as evidence of the region being biased for Trump? NoVA being DC-establishment central and WoW being a region that enthusiastically singularly opposed Trump in the primary from day 1 to the extent that local Wisconsin media constantly wrote about it, has meanwhile, nothing to do with peculiar regional bias against Trump?

No, I don't think so. Milwaukee had about the same result as Columbus. Wisconsin as a whole had literally the same Trump percentage as Michigan and Ohio.

Detroit alone had a population of 4,800 voters, wow, what a sample size.

You brought up the City of Detroit. The metropolitan area as a whole had Trump roughly in the high 30s (maybe slightly better than his national average, but basically typical for a Midwestern metro), though it depends on how you define it. If you exclude Washtenaw and include St. Clair, Trump obviously does better.

Now here you go again changing the argument from specific regions to entire states.

The other states were giving momentum to Trump, which is exactly why IL and MO where Trump got 39/40% were in line with NC where Trump also got 40%. They were not anti or pro-Trump, they were neutral. WI, where Trump got capped was due to regional opposition to Trump there.

Trump winning self-identified moderates is a common theme in poll and exit poll one after another during the republican primary.

[uti2]

Trump getting 24% in the Milwaukee metro was not typical, do you at least admit that?

[Vosem]

Trump getting 24% in the Milwaukee metro was not typical, do you at least admit that?

I admit that this was worse than the typical Midwestern metro area for Trump. I don't admit that it was unique, since where I live (Columbus), the result was the same. However, Wisconsin is more rural (and rural areas were frequently somewhat more pro-Trump, particularly in the north) than its neighbors, so on the whole Wisconsin's statewide result was basically typical for a Midwestern state. That is the key data point: 36%. Trump's result in Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

I look at the demographic similarities between the Kasich coalition in Ohio and the Cruz coalition in Wisconsin, and the demographic similarities of Trump coalitions across the Midwest, excluding Indiana (in WI/IL/MI/OH), and I come to the conclusion that had there been a single unified Trump-opposition candidate (which I speculated Rubio was on track to becoming before Christie defeated him in a NH debate, and would've become had he avoided his defeat in that debate, or had CNN not made the decision to invite Christie even though he didn't qualify), that person would've swept the Midwest, and then probably the nomination.

[uti2]

Trump getting 24% in the Milwaukee metro was not typical, do you at least admit that?

I admit that this was worse than the typical Midwestern metro area for Trump. I don't admit that it was unique, since where I live (Columbus), the result was the same. However, Wisconsin is more rural (and rural areas were frequently somewhat more pro-Trump, particularly in the north) than its neighbors, so on the whole Wisconsin's statewide result was basically typical for a Midwestern state. That is the key data point: 36%. Trump's result in Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

I look at the demographic similarities between the Kasich coalition in Ohio and the Cruz coalition in Wisconsin, and the demographic similarities of Trump coalitions across the Midwest, excluding Indiana (in WI/IL/MI/OH), and I come to the conclusion that had there been a single unified Trump-opposition candidate (which I speculated Rubio was on track to becoming before Christie defeated him in a NH debate, and would've become had he avoided his defeat in that debate, or had CNN not made the decision to invite Christie even though he didn't qualify), that person would've swept the Midwest, and then probably the nomination.

That's because OH was a home state of Kasich, and WoW had a unique dynamic as NoVA. If Trump had performed as well in the Milwuakee metro as he did in other states, the race would've looked dramatically different. It would've been an ultra-tight race between Trump and Cruz.

Again, as I showed you, Trump did as well in IL/MO (you constantly leave out MO for some reason) as he did in NC, it was in line with Trump's overall performance. Christie did qualify for the debate just fine.

It is a fallacy, because as I've showed you in the preference surveys, some Kasich voters would've gone to Trump, and Rubio -> Cruz actually had higher second choice polling, than the reverse, where proportionally a higher percentage of Cruz voters had Trump as a second choice.

[Vosem]

Trump getting 24% in the Milwaukee metro was not typical, do you at least admit that?

I admit that this was worse than the typical Midwestern metro area for Trump. I don't admit that it was unique, since where I live (Columbus), the result was the same. However, Wisconsin is more rural (and rural areas were frequently somewhat more pro-Trump, particularly in the north) than its neighbors, so on the whole Wisconsin's statewide result was basically typical for a Midwestern state. That is the key data point: 36%. Trump's result in Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

I look at the demographic similarities between the Kasich coalition in Ohio and the Cruz coalition in Wisconsin, and the demographic similarities of Trump coalitions across the Midwest, excluding Indiana (in WI/IL/MI/OH), and I come to the conclusion that had there been a single unified Trump-opposition candidate (which I speculated Rubio was on track to becoming before Christie defeated him in a NH debate, and would've become had he avoided his defeat in that debate, or had CNN not made the decision to invite Christie even though he didn't qualify), that person would've swept the Midwest, and then probably the nomination.

That's because OH was a home state of Kasich, and WoW had a unique dynamic as NoVA.

It's not. Polling in OH in early March had Trump leading in the mid-30s, Kasich just below him, and Cruz in the 20s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Republican_primary,_2016

Kasich was able to consolidate all of the anti-Trump vote except the hardcore Cruz base. Columbus, which like Milwaukee has a large section of the population in fairly well-off and overwhelmingly white suburbs, would've voted similarly to Milwaukee regardless of whether Kasich had ran or not.

If Trump had performed as well in the Milwuakee metro as he did in other states, the race would've looked dramatically different. It would've been an ultra-tight race between Trump and Cruz.

It would've been a high single-digit victory for Cruz, rather than the double-digit landslide he actually won by. Because of Wisconsin's delegate allocation by congressional district, it wouldn't have actually changed a thing. No congressional districts by Milwaukee were remotely close enough to be flipped.

Again, as I showed you, Trump did as well in IL/MO (you constantly leave out MO for some reason) as he did in NC, it was in line with Trump's overall performance.

I leave out NC because it is Southern, and Trump was stronger in Southern rural areas than (most) Midwestern ones; southeastern MO is also broadly Southern. While a unified anti-Trump figure could indeed have won both states, they aren't part of my Midwest analysis. Due to some unique aspects of MO, incidentally, I suspect it was only really winnable for Cruz, and a different anti-Trump candidate, like Rubio, would've actually lost the state. But that goes into another thing entirely.

Christie did qualify for the debate just fine.

The organizers of the debate changed the rules at the last second to include Christie, because he was polling well in New Hampshire: they made it either top six in NH or top six nationally. It had previously been top six nationally; this would've invited Bush, Carson, Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, and Trump. They couldn't have known what a fateful decision that was -- it ended up giving the Trump the nomination (and then the presidency).

It is a fallacy, because as I've showed you in the preference surveys, some Kasich voters would've gone to Trump,

Polling and election results showed that the number of Kasich voters who would've gone to Trump was very negligible. Most who supported Kasich after the Ides of March had no second preference, and wouldn't've voted if Kasich wasn't a candidate.

and Rubio -> Cruz actually had higher second choice polling, than the reverse, where proportionally a higher percentage of Cruz voters had Trump as a second choice.

It's true enough that there were lots of voters whose preferences went 1) Cruz, 2) Trump, 3) Rubio -- by no means would Rubio have gotten all of Cruz's supporters had Cruz been pushed out -- but evidence from states where the race was mostly Trump against Rubio, or mostly Trump against Kasich (who had positions mostly similar to Rubio's, and in many of the early states was mostly fighting Rubio for supporters), suggests more of Cruz's voters were 1) Cruz, 2) Rubio, 3) Trump. This rarely came into play, since Cruz established himself ahead of Rubio fairly early.

[uti2]

. This rarely came into play, since Cruz established himself ahead of Rubio fairly early.

So MO has southern influences, yet you're not going to admit that OH and MI are not Northeastern influenced? This is part of your fallacious line of reasoning. Part of OH is located in Appalachia, which was Trump's strongest region. Detroit is culturally closer to Philadelphia than it is to Milwaukee.

Yeah, again Kasich winning his home state. Trump was leading Cruz in TX until late Jan too. What happened in WI and NoVA was a set of events that wasn't replicated anywhere else, other than Utah.

Again, I showed you the data before with the preferences

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/who-gains-the-most-when-the-gop-field-shrinks

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/the-ceiling-buster/470919/

If you want to make this all about debates, if Trump had attended the IA debate, and had won IA, where would rubio have been in that scenario? All I see is you making emotionally tinged posts about the 'orange man', if the actual preference data demonstrated what you've suggested, then there wouldn't be any issues here, but the fact is that the data doesn't. And the same data also shows Trump constantly winning self-identified moderates. Rubio/Cruz mainly split the conservative vote, with rubio getting somewhat conservative (reform conservatives), and Cruz getting the religious conservative vote. The liberal/moderate vote went to Trump and Kasich.

Speculating about Christie is like speculating about Dean and Gephardt, fact is that Christie always did make the cut. ABC defined the criteria on Jan 27 for who would be allowed in the NH debate (Christie always qualified under that criteria), the Fox debate was on Jan 28. Going by your logic, let's say Christie would be excluded from the NH debate, and he knew he would be excluded in advance if he knew the criteria was going to be more restrictive, and he had made the same attack in NH he did, one debate earlier in IA, where would rubio have been in that scenario? Maybe Cruz gets 35% in IA that scenario, gets anointed as the nevertrump candidate, takes 18% in NH, and beats Trump in a one-on-one after that, etc.

There are tons of 'what-if' arguments to be made. Cruz actually did poll best early on as a one on one candidate vs. Trump, for what it's worth.

[Vosem]

Uti2, we've been rehashing the same argument over and over again since before the general election. Can we agree to a truce, not responding to each other's posts? I don't think either of us is going to convince the other soon. We can look back after the next competitive Republican primary; there's a good chance that it'll shed some light on which of us was right.

[uti2]

Uti2, we've been rehashing the same argument over and over again since before the general election. Can we agree to a truce, not responding to each other's posts? I don't think either of us is going to convince the other soon. We can look back after the next competitive Republican primary; there's a good chance that it'll shed some light on which of us was right.

Just answer my point on Christie, I gave you a new argument to consider regarding Iowa.

[Rjjr77]

If Ohio was one of the first states, or if Kasich is still legitimately seen as a contender by the time Ohio comes around, he'll win here by double-digits, maybe 65-35 or 60-40. He's still very popular among the state's Republicans, and independents in Ohio are used to voting in Republican primaries and supporting Republican politicians; he's even more popular with them.

Anyway, I can imagine Republican politicians underestimating the depth of antipathy to Trump in 2019-2020, thinking the popularity he has now is still around then if it isn't, and allowing Kasich to become the anti-Trump figure. And I can imagine Kasich winning some New England states where the primary voters are more moderate, and cauci where only the most motivated voters show up. (This is especially the case if there is a "more Trumpy" candidate running against Trump, which I think is very possible, if not outright likely). But in this scenario, like Ted Kennedy in 1980, he still ultimately falls short. It would take a truly exceptional figure, who is simultaneously a national hero and a master politician, to defeat an incumbent President in a primary, and John Kasich just isn't it. And I don't really think anyone in today's America is.

Wait till you see some polls for Ohio before you predict John Kasich running against Donald Trump. Republican incumbents are going to have tough times  in 2018 in swing states.

Kasich is term-limited, and wouldn't run again even if he weren't. Kasich (and, incidentally, also Justin Amash, which seems to get forgotten) is devoting his energy to a 2020 primary attempt.

I can't disagree more with Kasich's popularity. Based on that statement I guarantee you live in Columbus.

Kasich is poison to a lot of republicans in Ohio, his shenanigans at the RNC and McCain vote angered the base. Look at the ORP leadership race, half the GOP county chairs specifically went against Kasich. Look at the fighting in the legislature over Kasich's plans. He couldn't win a GOP primary head to head against trump (or I'd be mandel)

[uti2]

Uti2, we've been rehashing the same argument over and over again since before the general election. Can we agree to a truce, not responding to each other's posts? I don't think either of us is going to convince the other soon. We can look back after the next competitive Republican primary; there's a good chance that it'll shed some light on which of us was right.

By the way, I don't think there will be another election like this. This was an election similar to Goldwater's nomination in 1964. In 1964 you had a goldwater's movement which was more or less a marginal force until Ford lost the general election in 1976. The idea was that goldwater's wing was unelectable, once they realize it was electable, opposition to it dissipated, and successors to reagan/goldwater in general were deemed as less polarizing from then on. Any potential successors to Trump will also be toned down.

Of course, none of this changes the actual data showing Trump winning self-identified moderates poll and exit poll after another (along with socially liberal republicans), the second choice preference data regarding Kasich, and Trump's underwater favorability uniquely in WI and of course NoVA v. the national GOP primary (something that was constantly pointed out in local WI media from day 1).

You're trying to retrofit the idea that all the numbers were stuck in a single range, while ignoring what the underlying trends demonstrated and leaving out MO (due to southern influences), but ignoring the Northeastern and Appalachian influences in MI and OH. Trump's numbers in the midwest overall did move with momentum that's why he received 39/40% in IL/MO, in line with 40% in NC.

Even 538 conducted another study on this subject which confirms what I'm saying, Trump won socially liberal republicans:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-trump-supporters-were-doing-before-trump/

*By the way, Carson was polling 2% within the margin of error of 0 in NH, that's why he was a non-entity there v. Christie, who was genuinely in 6th.

[Vosem]

Uti2, we've been rehashing the same argument over and over again since before the general election. Can we agree to a truce, not responding to each other's posts? I don't think either of us is going to convince the other soon. We can look back after the next competitive Republican primary; there's a good chance that it'll shed some light on which of us was right.

Just answer my point on Christie, I gave you a new argument to consider regarding Iowa.

Ugh, fine.

. This rarely came into play, since Cruz established himself ahead of Rubio fairly early.

So MO has southern influences, yet you're not going to admit that OH and MI are not Northeastern influenced? This is part of your fallacious line of reasoning. Part of OH is located in Appalachia, which was Trump's strongest region.

Sure, but southeastern Missouri is about 1/8 of the state while the Appalachian bit of Ohio is 1/16. The rest of Ohio is too populous for the Appalachian bit to make a difference in any but the closest of elections.

Detroit is culturally closer to Philadelphia than it is to Milwaukee.

I disagree, but this is a qualitative thing in any case.

Yeah, again Kasich winning his home state. Trump was leading Cruz in TX until late Jan too. What happened in WI and NoVA was a set of events that wasn't replicated anywhere else, other than Utah.

Sure, but my point is that in a smaller field it was possible to replicate. Cruz surged in WI not because of any inherent differences in that state, but simply because the field was finally down to 3 candidates. It was down to 3 in OH, too, where Rubio effectively dropped out. Where it was 4, like in IL and MI (and, yes, MO & NC, though Trump had greater support there generally), Trump was capable of pulling out victories.

Again, I showed you the data before with the preferences

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/who-gains-the-most-when-the-gop-field-shrinks

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/the-ceiling-buster/470919/

If you want to make this all about debates, if Trump had attended the IA debate, and had won IA, where would rubio have been in that scenario?

I don't think Trump or Cruz winning Iowa made a very big difference; Iowa was a proportional state where even Huckabee won a delegate. You are probably correct, on the other hand, that Trump would've won Iowa had he attended the pre-Iowa debate; I don't see it making a big difference on the race, though. Trump ends up 1-2 delegates stronger.

All I see is you making emotionally tinged posts about the 'orange man',

Where have I used that phrase once?

if the actual preference data demonstrated what you've suggested, then there wouldn't be any issues here, but the fact is that the data doesn't.

I'm pointing to the results of the elections and parallels between states. You're pointing to surveys which frequently didn't even ask the horse-race question. There's a difference.

And the same data also shows Trump constantly winning self-identified moderates. Rubio/Cruz mainly split the conservative vote, with rubio getting somewhat conservative (reform conservatives), and Cruz getting the religious conservative vote. The liberal/moderate vote went to Trump and Kasich.

Here we go again...

Speculating about Christie is like speculating about Dean and Gephardt, fact is that Christie always did make the cut. ABC defined the criteria on Jan 27 for who would be allowed in the NH debate (Christie always qualified under that criteria), the Fox debate was on Jan 28. Going by your logic, let's say Christie would be excluded from the NH debate, and he knew he would be excluded in advance if he knew the criteria was going to be more restrictive, and he had made the same attack in NH he did, one debate earlier in IA, where would rubio have been in that scenario?

Christie knew at that debate that he was unlikely to make the next one. He tried to attack Rubio, if you rewatch the debate, and fell flat on his face. What happened in the NH debate was a confluence of factors that have never been replicated at any other debate either Rubio or Christie participated in. That doesn't excuse Rubio's horrible performance, but it gives it some context.

Maybe Cruz gets 35% in IA that scenario, gets anointed as the nevertrump candidate, takes 18% in NH, and beats Trump in a one-on-one after that, etc.

If Cruz was actually capable of doing well in New Hampshire, pushing candidates out, then yes, he could've won. As such, Cruz would've needed a different schedule or a different lineup of candidates to win outright, though I maintain that had he made better decisions, especially at the end of April, it was still possible for Cruz to send the race to the convention.

There are tons of 'what-if' arguments to be made. Cruz actually did poll best early on as a one on one candidate vs. Trump, for what it's worth.

True, but Cruz's position in the party would've (did! Kasich stayed in until May) made it difficult for him to clear the field.

[Vosem]

If Ohio was one of the first states, or if Kasich is still legitimately seen as a contender by the time Ohio comes around, he'll win here by double-digits, maybe 65-35 or 60-40. He's still very popular among the state's Republicans, and independents in Ohio are used to voting in Republican primaries and supporting Republican politicians; he's even more popular with them.

Anyway, I can imagine Republican politicians underestimating the depth of antipathy to Trump in 2019-2020, thinking the popularity he has now is still around then if it isn't, and allowing Kasich to become the anti-Trump figure. And I can imagine Kasich winning some New England states where the primary voters are more moderate, and cauci where only the most motivated voters show up. (This is especially the case if there is a "more Trumpy" candidate running against Trump, which I think is very possible, if not outright likely). But in this scenario, like Ted Kennedy in 1980, he still ultimately falls short. It would take a truly exceptional figure, who is simultaneously a national hero and a master politician, to defeat an incumbent President in a primary, and John Kasich just isn't it. And I don't really think anyone in today's America is.

Wait till you see some polls for Ohio before you predict John Kasich running against Donald Trump. Republican incumbents are going to have tough times  in 2018 in swing states.

Kasich is term-limited, and wouldn't run again even if he weren't. Kasich (and, incidentally, also Justin Amash, which seems to get forgotten) is devoting his energy to a 2020 primary attempt.

I can't disagree more with Kasich's popularity. Based on that statement I guarantee you live in Columbus.

Well, I do

Kasich is poison to a lot of republicans in Ohio, his shenanigans at the RNC and McCain vote angered the base. Look at the ORP leadership race, half the GOP county chairs specifically went against Kasich. Look at the fighting in the legislature over Kasich's plans. He couldn't win a GOP primary head to head against trump (or I'd be mandel)

Recent polls in Ohio generally show Kasich with positive net approval among Republicans and very positive net approval among independents, and you and I both know that a very large number of independents vote in Republican primaries in Ohio.

We also know that Borges horribly mismanaged the Ohio GOP's finances, and just for that would've been defeated overwhelmingly in any other state; Timken's associations with Trumpism were the only reason it was even particularly close.

Uti2, we've been rehashing the same argument over and over again since before the general election. Can we agree to a truce, not responding to each other's posts? I don't think either of us is going to convince the other soon. We can look back after the next competitive Republican primary; there's a good chance that it'll shed some light on which of us was right.

By the way, I don't think there will be another election like this. This was an election similar to Goldwater's nomination in 1964. In 1964 you had a goldwater's movement which was more or less a marginal force until Ford lost the general election in 1976. The idea was that goldwater's wing was unelectable, once they realize it was electable, opposition to it dissipated, and successors to reagan/goldwater in general were deemed as less polarizing from then on. Any potential successors to Trump will also be toned down.

This is a difficult thing to say, since while the net swing in the general election from 2012 was not large, the swing among different groups was; perhaps 1/6 (this is a vague, gut-feeling estimate; you can quibble up or down) of both parties were exchanged. So it's difficult to say what the primary electorates will look like at the next open election. But it should be noted that voters under-45 were staunchly opposed to the two most recent Republican nominees (Romney and Trump), so I don't think either of those models is going to have a lot of strength moving forward.

It should also be kept in mind that, regardless of their ideological orientations, there will be occasional "celebrity candidates" able to appeal far beyond their natural base using their celebrity. Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose political views are almost diametrically opposite Trump's, had a similar vastly inflated support. And I think, as we move forward into the Internet age, such celebrity candidates will become much more, not less, common. Mark Cuban running for the 2020 Democratic nomination would be an even greater break from history than Donald Trump running for the 2016 Republicans'.

Of course, none of this changes the actual data showing Trump winning self-identified moderates poll and exit poll after another (along with socially liberal republicans), the second choice preference data regarding Kasich, and Trump's underwater favorability uniquely in WI and of course NoVA v. the national GOP primary (something that was constantly pointed out in local WI media from day 1).

You're trying to retrofit the idea that all the numbers were stuck in a single range, while ignoring what the underlying trends demonstrated and leaving out MO (due to southern influences), but ignoring the Northeastern and Appalachian influences in MI and OH. Trump's numbers in the midwest overall did move with momentum that's why he received 39/40% in IL/MO, in line with 40% in NC.

Even 538 conducted another study on this subject which confirms what I'm saying, Trump won socially liberal republicans:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-trump-supporters-were-doing-before-trump/

Once again, I'm pointing at the results, and you're pointing at studies with high margins of error and selectively choosing what exit polls to look at. But, again, this is a debate that is going nowhere. We can't re-hold the 2016 primaries under different circumstances to test our theories.

*By the way, Carson was polling 2% within the margin of error of 0 in NH, that's why he was a non-entity there v. Christie, who was genuinely in 6th.

Right, but they originally planned to invite the top six national candidates, before changing the rules to allow in Christie.

[uti2]

This is a difficult thing to say, since while the net swing in the general election from 2012 was not large, the swing among different groups was; perhaps 1/6 (this is a vague, gut-feeling estimate; you can quibble up or down) of both parties were exchanged. So it's difficult to say what the primary electorates will look like at the next open election. But it should be noted that voters under-45 were staunchly opposed to the two most recent Republican nominees (Romney and Trump), so I don't think either of those models is going to have a lot of strength moving forward.

It should also be kept in mind that, regardless of their ideological orientations, there will be occasional "celebrity candidates" able to appeal far beyond their natural base using their celebrity. Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose political views are almost diametrically opposite Trump's, had a similar vastly inflated support. And I think, as we move forward into the Internet age, such celebrity candidates will become much more, not less, common. Mark Cuban running for the 2020 Democratic nomination would be an even greater break from history than Donald Trump running for the 2016 Republicans'.


Once again, I'm pointing at the results, and you're pointing at studies with high margins of error and selectively choosing what exit polls to look at. But, again, this is a debate that is going nowhere. We can't re-hold the 2016 primaries under different circumstances to test our theories.



Right, but they originally planned to invite the top six national candidates, before changing the rules to allow in Christie.

Goldwater was strongly opposed in the 64' primary and only was able to avoid the contested contention due to news of Rockefeller's divorce coming out at a bad time for him, which allowed him to barely win California and avoid a brokered convention. Goldwater was supported by the youth, you're suggesting? Obviously he wasn't.

When exit polls and primary polling data from pretty much every state shows Trump winning moderates it's the actual data. What you're trying to do is cherrypick outlier states like WI, where Trump never did as poorly in comparative Boston, Las Vegas, Chicago or Detroit. Meanwhile you ignore the Northeastern + Appalachian influences in MI and OH and write MO off as southern influenced, that's the definition of cherrypicking.

Except the first time the NH debate criteria was announced for the abc debate was on Jan 27, and abc already had it at top 6 in NH, it was always top 6 in NH, not top 6 nationally, even the Fox debate on Jan 28 had it at top 6 in NH + top 6 in IA. By the way, you didn't address my point, in the hypothetical universe, where the debate criteria was different and it was only top 5, so then Christie delivers his attack in IA instead. You change many different variables, you could get Cruz winning at 35% in IA, then 18% as the 'nevertrump' candidate in NH, and then the following being a one-on-one in Trump v. Cruz, etc. There are many ways you can play that game.

[Vosem]

This is a difficult thing to say, since while the net swing in the general election from 2012 was not large, the swing among different groups was; perhaps 1/6 (this is a vague, gut-feeling estimate; you can quibble up or down) of both parties were exchanged. So it's difficult to say what the primary electorates will look like at the next open election. But it should be noted that voters under-45 were staunchly opposed to the two most recent Republican nominees (Romney and Trump), so I don't think either of those models is going to have a lot of strength moving forward.

It should also be kept in mind that, regardless of their ideological orientations, there will be occasional "celebrity candidates" able to appeal far beyond their natural base using their celebrity. Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose political views are almost diametrically opposite Trump's, had a similar vastly inflated support. And I think, as we move forward into the Internet age, such celebrity candidates will become much more, not less, common. Mark Cuban running for the 2020 Democratic nomination would be an even greater break from history than Donald Trump running for the 2016 Republicans'.


Once again, I'm pointing at the results, and you're pointing at studies with high margins of error and selectively choosing what exit polls to look at. But, again, this is a debate that is going nowhere. We can't re-hold the 2016 primaries under different circumstances to test our theories.



Right, but they originally planned to invite the top six national candidates, before changing the rules to allow in Christie.

Goldwater was strongly opposed in the 64' primary and only was able to avoid the contested contention due to news of Rockefeller's divorce coming out at a bad time for him, which allowed him to barely win California and avoid a brokered convention. Goldwater was supported by the youth, you're suggesting? Obviously he wasn't.

Why wouldn't he have been? Young Americans voted pretty Republican in general elections in the 1980s. I've only really looked at exit polls from primaries in 2008/2012/2016. It's clear in 2012 that the largest faction among voters under 45 was Paulist libertarianism, followed by socially conservative "Tea Party"-ism (people who switched seamlessly from Gingrich to Santorum), followed by the older establishmentarian Republicanism (Romney supporters). This pattern was more or less the same in every state, and tended to vary based on how strong individual states were for those three worldviews.

2016 was less stagnant; younger voters swung wildly from one anti-Trump candidate to another, breaking massively for Rubio in Virginia, Kasich in Ohio, and Cruz in Texas. This occurred without regard for ideology. In many states without a clear anti-Trump, they were divided. Regionalism played a big aspect; in the Mountain West states, the generational gap was highest (in Nevada, Trump won the caucus by 22 even as Rubio won voters under 35 by 6 points), while it wasn't as severe in the South and most of the Midwest, barely existed at all in Upper Midwest states (especially WI saw younger voters basically reflect the overall result), and was reversed in a few New England states (most notably, New Hampshire saw the greatest Trump overperformance among young voters; the only other states where he was actually stronger were VT and RI).

General election young voters obviously were quite left-wing -- and this has major repercussions for the Republican Party not far down the road -- but young voters who voted in the Republican primary clearly weren't. The question is whether these people, with their obvious distaste for Trumpism, will continue voting in Republican primaries at all, or whether they might be tempered, or even replaced, by a more Trumpy influx.

When exit polls and primary polling data from pretty much every state shows Trump winning moderates it's the actual data. What you're trying to do is cherrypick outlier states like WI,

WI wasn't an outlier state.

where Trump never did as poorly in comparative Boston, Las Vegas, Chicago or Detroit.

Those aren't all the same. Las Vegas > Boston > Chicago > Detroit. Those didn't all magically have the same result.

Meanwhile you ignore the Northeastern + Appalachian influences in MI and OH and write MO off as southern influenced, that's the definition of cherrypicking.

I'm not writing MO off (indeed, it can fit pretty well into my paradigm), simply saying that it's logical for Trump to have done slightly better in MO than in the rest of the Midwest. Appalachian influence in OH is negligible; it's 1/16 of the state that turns out at a lesser rate than other parts. Saying OH or MI have "Northeastern influence" might have been true in the 19th century, but it isn't today.

Except the first time the NH debate criteria was announced for the abc debate was on Jan 27, and abc already had it at top 6 in NH, it was always top 6 in NH, not top 6 nationally, even the Fox debate on Jan 28 had it at top 6 in NH + top 6 in IA.

On a day when I'm free, I'll go back and find the relevant thread.

By the way, you didn't address my point, in the hypothetical universe, where the debate criteria was different and it was only top 5, so then Christie delivers his attack in IA instead.

Well, two things could've happened. Either the attack would've been successful and things progress much as they did in real life, or the attack could've been unsuccessful and then Rubio would probably have knocked Kasich/Bush out in NH and then proceeded to consolidate the anti-Trump vote behind a single candidate. This would not have guaranteed him the nomination, but it would've made him the favorite, and would've allowed him to comfortably win most of the Midwest by double digits. As you pointed out elsewhere, Rubio might still have lost his home state, which was one of the most natural states for Trump in the country.

You change many different variables, you could get Cruz winning at 35% in IA, then 18% as the 'nevertrump' candidate in NH, and then the following being a one-on-one in Trump v. Cruz, etc. There are many ways you can play that game.

This is true.

[uti2]

WI wasn't an outlier state.

where Trump never did as poorly in comparative Boston, Las Vegas, Chicago or Detroit.

Those aren't all the same. Las Vegas > Boston > Chicago > Detroit. Those didn't all magically have the same result.

Meanwhile you ignore the Northeastern + Appalachian influences in MI and OH and write MO off as southern influenced, that's the definition of cherrypicking.

I'm not writing MO off (indeed, it can fit pretty well into my paradigm), simply saying that it's logical for Trump to have done slightly better in MO than in the rest of the Midwest. Appalachian influence in OH is negligible; it's 1/16 of the state that turns out at a lesser rate than other parts. Saying OH or MI have "Northeastern influence" might have been true in the 19th century, but it isn't today.

Except the first time the NH debate criteria was announced for the abc debate was on Jan 27, and abc already had it at top 6 in NH, it was always top 6 in NH, not top 6 nationally, even the Fox debate on Jan 28 had it at top 6 in NH + top 6 in IA.

On a day when I'm free, I'll go back and find the relevant thread.

By the way, you didn't address my point, in the hypothetical universe, where the debate criteria was different and it was only top 5, so then Christie delivers his attack in IA instead.

Well, two things could've happened. Either the attack would've been successful and things progress much as they did in real life, or the attack could've been unsuccessful and then Rubio would probably have knocked Kasich/Bush out in NH and then proceeded to consolidate the anti-Trump vote behind a single candidate. This would not have guaranteed him the nomination, but it would've made him the favorite, and would've allowed him to comfortably win most of the Midwest by double digits. As you pointed out elsewhere, Rubio might still have lost his home state, which was one of the most natural states for Trump in the country.

You change many different variables, you could get Cruz winning at 35% in IA, then 18% as the 'nevertrump' candidate in NH, and then the following being a one-on-one in Trump v. Cruz, etc. There are many ways you can play that game.

This is true.

Goldwater lost massively in the general election to LBJ, it's clear that the youth didn't vote for him.

If it wasn't an outlier why did the WI media constantly call it an outlier from day 1? They noticed a trend of peculiar anti-Trump sentiment and reported on it extensively, even comparing to the rest of the midwest, this was back in 2015.

Same way WI and the other midwestern states aren't all the same going by that logic.

If OH and MI have negligible Northeastern influence, then so does MO with regards to southern influence, and Trump did in line performance there with regards to NC and IL on the national level.

The debate criteria was first announced on Jan 27, it was always top six in NH, never changed.
The whole reason Trump underperformed in IA was due to him not attending the debate, had he attended, and had he won? That again is another scenario, so that caucus performance was purely with regards to the debate, if rubio had bombed that debate, those late deciders would've gone to Cruz if they were looking for the anti-trump candidate. And if course of rubio had bombed the IA debate, while Trump attended, that also would've set off a different scenario.

 Again, that's all pure speculation, if you look at the actual second choice preference data, it doesn't suggest what you're saying, the only thing you constantly go back to is WI, but WI was always an inherently anti-Trump state which the WI media constantly referenced like no other state media has ever done.

[uti2]

And as I mentioned, the previous Fox debate on Jan 28, also had it for top 6 in NH and top 6 in IA.

And the debate criteria for NH was first announced on Jan 27, it was always top 6 in NH, never changed.

The reason why it was top 6 in NH was actually for a very practical reason, Carson was in the top 6 nationally, but was basically polling within the margin of error of 0 (around 2%) in NH, so it would be bizarre to include him in the NH debate, but not someone with an easily higher standing in NH who was polling top 6 in NH.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

South, esp the outer south, would probably leave donald before New England. donald's best primary states were in the northeast. The republicans that vote in the primary there are more into trump. Though I get the feeling that the south in general (esp the outer south) wouldn't be as solid as it seems if donald screws up as bad as he might.

[Vosem]

WI wasn't an outlier state.

where Trump never did as poorly in comparative Boston, Las Vegas, Chicago or Detroit.

Those aren't all the same. Las Vegas > Boston > Chicago > Detroit. Those didn't all magically have the same result.

Meanwhile you ignore the Northeastern + Appalachian influences in MI and OH and write MO off as southern influenced, that's the definition of cherrypicking.

I'm not writing MO off (indeed, it can fit pretty well into my paradigm), simply saying that it's logical for Trump to have done slightly better in MO than in the rest of the Midwest. Appalachian influence in OH is negligible; it's 1/16 of the state that turns out at a lesser rate than other parts. Saying OH or MI have "Northeastern influence" might have been true in the 19th century, but it isn't today.

Except the first time the NH debate criteria was announced for the abc debate was on Jan 27, and abc already had it at top 6 in NH, it was always top 6 in NH, not top 6 nationally, even the Fox debate on Jan 28 had it at top 6 in NH + top 6 in IA.

On a day when I'm free, I'll go back and find the relevant thread.

By the way, you didn't address my point, in the hypothetical universe, where the debate criteria was different and it was only top 5, so then Christie delivers his attack in IA instead.

Well, two things could've happened. Either the attack would've been successful and things progress much as they did in real life, or the attack could've been unsuccessful and then Rubio would probably have knocked Kasich/Bush out in NH and then proceeded to consolidate the anti-Trump vote behind a single candidate. This would not have guaranteed him the nomination, but it would've made him the favorite, and would've allowed him to comfortably win most of the Midwest by double digits. As you pointed out elsewhere, Rubio might still have lost his home state, which was one of the most natural states for Trump in the country.

You change many different variables, you could get Cruz winning at 35% in IA, then 18% as the 'nevertrump' candidate in NH, and then the following being a one-on-one in Trump v. Cruz, etc. There are many ways you can play that game.

This is true.

Goldwater lost massively in the general election to LBJ, it's clear that the youth didn't vote for him.

This isn't necessarily clear in the primaries, which Goldwater won. It's not like the youth vote in the primaries necessarily reflects the general election (this logic suggests neither Trump nor Clinton could win, since the youth in both parties were so against them).

If it wasn't an outlier why did the WI media constantly call it an outlier from day 1? They noticed a trend of peculiar anti-Trump sentiment and reported on it extensively,

They didn't, because this never happened, because Wisconsin was a totally typical primary. Polls in March, when Kasich, Rubio, and Cruz were all still running, had Trump winning Wisconsin, just like Michigan. Once the race narrowed to a three-man race, Trump lost. Flip Wisconsin and Michigan's spots on the calendar, and you can flip the results in both states.

even comparing to the rest of the midwest, this was back in 2015.

Same way WI and the other midwestern states aren't all the same going by that logic.

If OH and MI have negligible Northeastern influence, then so does MO with regards to southern influence,

Uh, no. MO-8, the southeastern fourth of the state (which is only about 1/8 of the population) is completely culturally Southern. Whereas even western Pennsylvania, and western New York, are much more Appalachian than they are Northeastern. Pittsburgh, Erie, and Buffalo are not Northeastern cities, never even mind Cleveland or Detroit.

and Trump did in line performance there with regards to NC and IL on the national level.

IL was a little better than typical for a Midwestern state for him; you can ascribe this to southern influence in the state or to a slight depression in turnout among anti-Trump voters, since it was clear Trump wouldn't be defeated in the state; neither is a strong enough explanation on their own, but put together the Illinois result makes sense.

NC followed the same patterns seen in VA, SC, and GA, with most Southern urban areas (excluding downmarket coastal resorts or military bases, like Myrtle Beach and Norfolk, which were very strongly pro-Trump) being very strongly anti-Trump while rural areas were pretty strongly for him, excluding some especially socially conservative areas (like Upstate South Carolina) where Cruz was strong. Trump could've defeated a unified anti-Trump candidate in most of the interior South states (MS, AL, TN; these states have lots of voters who would've flipped Cruz-->Trump-->Rubio/Kasich), along with FL due to the unique demographics of South Florida (though FL would've been close), but would've lost VA/NC/SC/GA without much issue. Indeed, NC and GA had a result that was virtually the same. Trump was weaker in SC than he should've been, still Bush was still in the race (and, indeed, many voters did switch Bush-->Trump), but a four-man Rubio/Trump/Cruz/Carson race in SC would've still ended in a single-digit Rubio victory.

The debate criteria was first announced on Jan 27, it was always top six in NH, never changed.
The whole reason Trump underperformed in IA was due to him not attending the debate, had he attended, and had he won? That again is another scenario, so that caucus performance was purely with regards to the debate, if rubio had bombed that debate, those late deciders would've gone to Cruz if they were looking for the anti-trump candidate. And if course of rubio had bombed the IA debate, while Trump attended, that also would've set off a different scenario.

 Again, that's all pure speculation, if you look at the actual second choice preference data, it doesn't suggest what you're saying, the only thing you constantly go back to is WI, but WI was always an inherently anti-Trump state which the WI media constantly referenced like no other state media has ever done.

I go back to WI and OH. These are our examples of Trump against a unified anti-Trump candidate in the Midwest. I note that the two candidates in question were very different but their patterns of support were very similar. I note further that Trump's support had basically the same demographics in all Midwestern primaries held prior to the late April surge, with his opponents' fragmented, and I conclude that a single opponent could've built the same coalitions that existed in WI and OH in any other Midwestern state. I then suggest the person with the most logical path to becoming a sole anti-Trump, in late January, was Rubio. Your only reaction to this seems to be insisting that WI and OH just both happen to be identical special outliers for no particular reason.

[uti2]

WI wasn't an outlier state.

where Trump never did as poorly in comparative Boston, Las Vegas, Chicago or Detroit.

Those aren't all the same. Las Vegas > Boston > Chicago > Detroit. Those didn't all magically have the same result.

Meanwhile you ignore the Northeastern + Appalachian influences in MI and OH and write MO off as southern influenced, that's the definition of cherrypicking.

I'm not writing MO off (indeed, it can fit pretty well into my paradigm), simply saying that it's logical for Trump to have done slightly better in MO than in the rest of the Midwest. Appalachian influence in OH is negligible; it's 1/16 of the state that turns out at a lesser rate than other parts. Saying OH or MI have "Northeastern influence" might have been true in the 19th century, but it isn't today.

Except the first time the NH debate criteria was announced for the abc debate was on Jan 27, and abc already had it at top 6 in NH, it was always top 6 in NH, not top 6 nationally, even the Fox debate on Jan 28 had it at top 6 in NH + top 6 in IA.

On a day when I'm free, I'll go back and find the relevant thread.

By the way, you didn't address my point, in the hypothetical universe, where the debate criteria was different and it was only top 5, so then Christie delivers his attack in IA instead.

Well, two things could've happened. Either the attack would've been successful and things progress much as they did in real life, or the attack could've been unsuccessful and then Rubio would probably have knocked Kasich/Bush out in NH and then proceeded to consolidate the anti-Trump vote behind a single candidate. This would not have guaranteed him the nomination, but it would've made him the favorite, and would've allowed him to comfortably win most of the Midwest by double digits. As you pointed out elsewhere, Rubio might still have lost his home state, which was one of the most natural states for Trump in the country.

You change many different variables, you could get Cruz winning at 35% in IA, then 18% as the 'nevertrump' candidate in NH, and then the following being a one-on-one in Trump v. Cruz, etc. There are many ways you can play that game.

This is true.

Goldwater lost massively in the general election to LBJ, it's clear that the youth didn't vote for him.

This isn't necessarily clear in the primaries, which Goldwater won. It's not like the youth vote in the primaries necessarily reflects the general election (this logic suggests neither Trump nor Clinton could win, since the youth in both parties were so against them).

If it wasn't an outlier why did the WI media constantly call it an outlier from day 1? They noticed a trend of peculiar anti-Trump sentiment and reported on it extensively,

They didn't, because this never happened, because Wisconsin was a totally typical primary. Polls in March, when Kasich, Rubio, and Cruz were all still running, had Trump winning Wisconsin, just like Michigan. Once the race narrowed to a three-man race, Trump lost. Flip Wisconsin and Michigan's spots on the calendar, and you can flip the results in both states.

even comparing to the rest of the midwest, this was back in 2015.

Same way WI and the other midwestern states aren't all the same going by that logic.

If OH and MI have negligible Northeastern influence, then so does MO with regards to southern influence,

Uh, no. MO-8, the southeastern fourth of the state (which is only about 1/8 of the population) is completely culturally Southern. Whereas even western Pennsylvania, and western New York, are much more Appalachian than they are Northeastern. Pittsburgh, Erie, and Buffalo are not Northeastern cities, never even mind Cleveland or Detroit.

and Trump did in line performance there with regards to NC and IL on the national level.

IL was a little better than typical for a Midwestern state for him; you can ascribe this to southern influence in the state or to a slight depression in turnout among anti-Trump voters, since it was clear Trump wouldn't be defeated in the state; neither is a strong enough explanation on their own, but put together the Illinois result makes sense.

NC followed the same patterns seen in VA, SC, and GA, with most Southern urban areas (excluding downmarket coastal resorts or military bases, like Myrtle Beach and Norfolk, which were very strongly pro-Trump) being very strongly anti-Trump while rural areas were pretty strongly for him, excluding some especially socially conservative areas (like Upstate South Carolina) where Cruz was strong. Trump could've defeated a unified anti-Trump candidate in most of the interior South states (MS, AL, TN; these states have lots of voters who would've flipped Cruz-->Trump-->Rubio/Kasich), along with FL due to the unique demographics of South Florida (though FL would've been close), but would've lost VA/NC/SC/GA without much issue. Indeed, NC and GA had a result that was virtually the same. Trump was weaker in SC than he should've been, still Bush was still in the race (and, indeed, many voters did switch Bush-->Trump), but a four-man Rubio/Trump/Cruz/Carson race in SC would've still ended in a single-digit Rubio victory.

The debate criteria was first announced on Jan 27, it was always top six in NH, never changed.
The whole reason Trump underperformed in IA was due to him not attending the debate, had he attended, and had he won? That again is another scenario, so that caucus performance was purely with regards to the debate, if rubio had bombed that debate, those late deciders would've gone to Cruz if they were looking for the anti-trump candidate. And if course of rubio had bombed the IA debate, while Trump attended, that also would've set off a different scenario.

 Again, that's all pure speculation, if you look at the actual second choice preference data, it doesn't suggest what you're saying, the only thing you constantly go back to is WI, but WI was always an inherently anti-Trump state which the WI media constantly referenced like no other state media has ever done.

I go back to WI and OH. These are our examples of Trump against a unified anti-Trump candidate in the Midwest. I note that the two candidates in question were very different but their patterns of support were very similar. I note further that Trump's support had basically the same demographics in all Midwestern primaries held prior to the late April surge, with his opponents' fragmented, and I conclude that a single opponent could've built the same coalitions that existed in WI and OH in any other Midwestern state. I then suggest the person with the most logical path to becoming a sole anti-Trump, in late January, was Rubio. Your only reaction to this seems to be insisting that WI and OH just both happen to be identical special outliers for no particular reason.

If the youth is more liberal as you suggest, then Nelson Rockefeller would've won it.

And Appalachia was also a stronghold for Trump anyway in addition to the NE. Culture-wise Detroit is closer to Pittsburgh and Philadelphia of course, than it is to Milwaukee.

Except exit poll data constantly showed Trump winning moderates, which is what he did, the only other candidate of moderates was Kasich, which is why the preference polls showing many of those voters going to Trump. Even if you combined the actual results of Rubio + Kasich in SC, according to your theory Trump still wins the primary, as you say, Jeb voters that were left simply didn't like Rubio.

OH which is a home state example, again, why would those other states have mounted a unified anti-trump candidate? On what basis? What infrastructure could possibly cause that? WI, had the local media, and OH had Kasich.

No, OH was Kasich's home state advantage, and I already put that comparison with TX and Cruz.

WI was definitely a unique state, the fact that Trump won 39% in IL, 40% in NC and MO, shows that Trump basically did the same, the midwest went with Trump momentum.

By the way, you hypocritically label Las Vegas and NV as unique.


Do you now accept that the NH debate criteria was always for top 6 in NH, and that it was only introduced on Jan 27? Because that's actually what happened, it was never changed. Carson was basically polling within the margin of error of 0, which is why it would be ridiculous to include him in the NH debate but not someone higher polling in NH.

[uti2]

By the way, to give you an example of what they youth vote might've been like, you had the College Republicans in WI giving the nomination to Scranton at a Mock Convention:

http://uwmadarchives.tumblr.com/post/30113209165/campus-during-an-election-year-1964

Scranton and George Romney were floated as convention picks for those in the anti-goldwater camp, and rockefeller was just a placeholder for anti-goldwater voters.

[uti2]

I'll also note that people like you were constantly harping on if only Jeb dropped out it would help, but it didn't, the only time that idea was dumped when after Jeb dropped out and it was empirically proven false in line with the preference data, so Jeb voters actually went exactly in the direction that the preference data showed, that's testimony to the preference data's veracity and conforms with all the exit polls and primary polls constantly showing Trump winning moderates from state to state.

You see, that's the difference between looking at the actual data, instead of obsessing over one state, WI, which was an anti-Trump state, according to data from the beginning, it showed WI to be anti-Trump and for him to have lower than average favorability there (even relative to other midwestern states). If the Utah caucus had been on May 3 instead of Indiana, you think Trump would've won it, for instance? No chance, because it was an extremely anti-Trump state, and Trump's weakness in the state was constantly propagated in the media, just like Trump's weakness in WI.

[Vosem]

If the youth is more liberal as you suggest, then Nelson Rockefeller would've won it.

The youth is not consistently more liberal. It happens to be more liberal right now; in the 1980s young people voted consistently Republican.

What is particularly interesting right now is that young people, both liberal and conservative, are very alienated from both modern liberalism and modern conservatism. This is something both parties are going to have to come to terms with very soon.

And Appalachia was also a stronghold for Trump anyway in addition to the NE.

This is true.

Culture-wise Detroit is closer to Pittsburgh and Philadelphia of course, than it is to Milwaukee.

This is not. Great Lakes cities have similar accents, economies, histories, and so forth. Detroit is much more similar to Milwaukee than it is to Pittsburgh (which is Appalachian) or Philadelphia (which is Northeastern).

Except exit poll data constantly showed Trump winning moderates, which is what he did, the only other candidate of moderates was Kasich, which is why the preference polls showing many of those voters going to Trump. Even if you combined the actual results of Rubio + Kasich in SC, according to your theory Trump still wins the primary, as you say, Jeb voters that were left simply didn't like Rubio.

Not the case. Virtually all of Kasich's voters were shown in multiple polls and in many states to have Rubio as their second choice. This was the case for many of Bush's voters as well, even though some indeed preferred Trump. With the only candidates being Rubio, Trump, Cruz, and Carson, Rubio would've scored in the low 40s, Trump in the high 30s, Cruz in the high teens (losing a few points of NeverTrumpers who voted for Cruz out of the belief that he was a more viable opponent than Rubio; my only acquaintance in SC voted for Cruz out of this logic, for instance), and Carson exactly where he was. Georgia and North Carolina would've seen similar results (Georgia would've been closer).

OH which is a home state example, again, why would those other states have mounted a unified anti-trump candidate? On what basis? What infrastructure could possibly cause that? WI, had the local media, and OH had Kasich.

Kasich became the unified candidate in OH because of his home-state advantage, but as we've seen in other states (like FL), home-state advantage is not always enough. If there was a unified national anti-Trump candidate -- and when Wisconsin voted Cruz could be said to fill that role -- that person could've won OH/WI-esque victories in every Midwestern state. If the local media in Wisconsin was so anti-Trump, why was his result there the same as in every other Midwestern state? Surely he should've been weakened by it.

No, OH was Kasich's home state advantage, and I already put that comparison with TX and Cruz.

Kasich becoming the unified opposition candidate in OH was due to home-state advantage. Same with TX and Cruz (though, as OK/AR shows, Cruz was also just a good fit for the region's preferences generally). But the ability of the unified opposition candidate to win states like OH had nothing to do with Kasich.

WI was definitely a unique state, the fact that Trump won 39% in IL, 40% in NC and MO, shows that Trump basically did the same, the midwest went with Trump momentum.

WI wasn't unique because the result there was the same as everywhere else in the Midwest!

By the way, you hypocritically label Las Vegas and NV as unique.

Las Vegas had a result that was vastly different from the rest of the Southwest and West generally. It actually is unique, and stands out on a map. There's no hypocrisy -- some areas really are unique. Others aren't. The disagreement is on which areas were unusual, not whether unusual areas exist.

[uti2]

If the youth is more liberal as you suggest, then Nelson Rockefeller would've won it.

The youth is not consistently more liberal. It happens to be more liberal right now; in the 1980s young people voted consistently Republican.

What is particularly interesting right now is that young people, both liberal and conservative, are very alienated from both modern liberalism and modern conservatism. This is something both parties are going to have to come to terms with very soon.

And Appalachia was also a stronghold for Trump anyway in addition to the NE.

This is true.

Culture-wise Detroit is closer to Pittsburgh and Philadelphia of course, than it is to Milwaukee.

This is not. Great Lakes cities have similar accents, economies, histories, and so forth. Detroit is much more similar to Milwaukee than it is to Pittsburgh (which is Appalachian) or Philadelphia (which is Northeastern).

Except exit poll data constantly showed Trump winning moderates, which is what he did, the only other candidate of moderates was Kasich, which is why the preference polls showing many of those voters going to Trump. Even if you combined the actual results of Rubio + Kasich in SC, according to your theory Trump still wins the primary, as you say, Jeb voters that were left simply didn't like Rubio.

Not the case. Virtually all of Kasich's voters were shown in multiple polls and in many states to have Rubio as their second choice. This was the case for many of Bush's voters as well, even though some indeed preferred Trump. With the only candidates being Rubio, Trump, Cruz, and Carson, Rubio would've scored in the low 40s, Trump in the high 30s, Cruz in the high teens (losing a few points of NeverTrumpers who voted for Cruz out of the belief that he was a more viable opponent than Rubio; my only acquaintance in SC voted for Cruz out of this logic, for instance), and Carson exactly where he was. Georgia and North Carolina would've seen similar results (Georgia would've been closer).

OH which is a home state example, again, why would those other states have mounted a unified anti-trump candidate? On what basis? What infrastructure could possibly cause that? WI, had the local media, and OH had Kasich.

Kasich became the unified candidate in OH because of his home-state advantage, but as we've seen in other states (like FL), home-state advantage is not always enough. If there was a unified national anti-Trump candidate -- and when Wisconsin voted Cruz could be said to fill that role -- that person could've won OH/WI-esque victories in every Midwestern state. If the local media in Wisconsin was so anti-Trump, why was his result there the same as in every other Midwestern state? Surely he should've been weakened by it.

No, OH was Kasich's home state advantage, and I already put that comparison with TX and Cruz.

Kasich becoming the unified opposition candidate in OH was due to home-state advantage. Same with TX and Cruz (though, as OK/AR shows, Cruz was also just a good fit for the region's preferences generally). But the ability of the unified opposition candidate to win states like OH had nothing to do with Kasich.

WI was definitely a unique state, the fact that Trump won 39% in IL, 40% in NC and MO, shows that Trump basically did the same, the midwest went with Trump momentum.

WI wasn't unique because the result there was the same as everywhere else in the Midwest!

By the way, you hypocritically label Las Vegas and NV as unique.

Las Vegas had a result that was vastly different from the rest of the Southwest and West generally. It actually is unique, and stands out on a map. There's no hypocrisy -- some areas really are unique. Others aren't. The disagreement is on which areas were unusual, not whether unusual areas exist.

See my link from College Republicans voting for Scranton in WI.

You think Milwuakee ever had anything like this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_Detroit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_Philadelphia

Culture wise, Detroit is closer to Philadelphia.

Except that's where your wrong, Kasich voters were shown to have rubio as the primary secondary choice, but not the only secondary choice, many of those voters would also go to Trump. Show me links where 100% of them would go to rubio? None of the data suggests that.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/the-ceiling-buster/470919/

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/who-gains-the-most-when-the-gop-field-shrinks

Again, that's pure speculation, if Cruz voters were going to vote for the nevertrump candidate, why didn't they vote for rubio in FL? In actuality, Cruz potentially pulled more from Rubio, than vice versa.

This is from NC for instance:

http://elon.edu/images/e-web/elonpoll/022216_ElonPoll_ExecSummary.pdf

If what you were saying was true, rubio would be polling 65-35 v. Trump in one-on-one polls, instead he was polling similar to cruz, except slightly weaker than cruz in a one-on-one at that.

Yeah, home state advantage where a candidate is popular there works. No other state you're talking about here besides had a biased media market like WI, which was more in line with UT.

Except it wasn't, Trump got 39% in IL, and 40% in MO and NC, in-line with national numbers, WI went against Trump's national numbers.

So again, you call Las Vegas unique, hypocritically.

By the way, you did not answer my debate question, it was always top 6 in NH, and it was announced on Jan 27, it was never changed., do you deny that? It was done for a practical reason, carson was polling within the margin of error of 0 in NH.

[uti2]

Here's a dialect map, there's a noticeable difference between MI and WI:



As you can see, there is no homogeneous midwest, if you want to say that southern illinois has southern influences, well, so does Indiana, and Ohio, of course, has Appalachian influences too.

[Rjjr77]

If Ohio was one of the first states, or if Kasich is still legitimately seen as a contender by the time Ohio comes around, he'll win here by double-digits, maybe 65-35 or 60-40. He's still very popular among the state's Republicans, and independents in Ohio are used to voting in Republican primaries and supporting Republican politicians; he's even more popular with them.

Anyway, I can imagine Republican politicians underestimating the depth of antipathy to Trump in 2019-2020, thinking the popularity he has now is still around then if it isn't, and allowing Kasich to become the anti-Trump figure. And I can imagine Kasich winning some New England states where the primary voters are more moderate, and cauci where only the most motivated voters show up. (This is especially the case if there is a "more Trumpy" candidate running against Trump, which I think is very possible, if not outright likely). But in this scenario, like Ted Kennedy in 1980, he still ultimately falls short. It would take a truly exceptional figure, who is simultaneously a national hero and a master politician, to defeat an incumbent President in a primary, and John Kasich just isn't it. And I don't really think anyone in today's America is.

Wait till you see some polls for Ohio before you predict John Kasich running against Donald Trump. Republican incumbents are going to have tough times  in 2018 in swing states.

Kasich is term-limited, and wouldn't run again even if he weren't. Kasich (and, incidentally, also Justin Amash, which seems to get forgotten) is devoting his energy to a 2020 primary attempt.

I can't disagree more with Kasich's popularity. Based on that statement I guarantee you live in Columbus.

Well, I do

Kasich is poison to a lot of republicans in Ohio, his shenanigans at the RNC and McCain vote angered the base. Look at the ORP leadership race, half the GOP county chairs specifically went against Kasich. Look at the fighting in the legislature over Kasich's plans. He couldn't win a GOP primary head to head against trump (or I'd be mandel)

Recent polls in Ohio generally show Kasich with positive net approval among Republicans and very positive net approval among independents, and you and I both know that a very large number of independents vote in Republican primaries in Ohio.

We also know that Borges horribly mismanaged the Ohio GOP's finances, and just for that would've been defeated overwhelmingly in any other state; Timken's associations with Trumpism were the only reason it was even particularly close.

Uti2, we've been rehashing the same argument over and over again since before the general election. Can we agree to a truce, not responding to each other's posts? I don't think either of us is going to convince the other soon. We can look back after the next competitive Republican primary; there's a good chance that it'll shed some light on which of us was right.

By the way, I don't think there will be another election like this. This was an election similar to Goldwater's nomination in 1964. In 1964 you had a goldwater's movement which was more or less a marginal force until Ford lost the general election in 1976. The idea was that goldwater's wing was unelectable, once they realize it was electable, opposition to it dissipated, and successors to reagan/goldwater in general were deemed as less polarizing from then on. Any potential successors to Trump will also be toned down.

This is a difficult thing to say, since while the net swing in the general election from 2012 was not large, the swing among different groups was; perhaps 1/6 (this is a vague, gut-feeling estimate; you can quibble up or down) of both parties were exchanged. So it's difficult to say what the primary electorates will look like at the next open election. But it should be noted that voters under-45 were staunchly opposed to the two most recent Republican nominees (Romney and Trump), so I don't think either of those models is going to have a lot of strength moving forward.

It should also be kept in mind that, regardless of their ideological orientations, there will be occasional "celebrity candidates" able to appeal far beyond their natural base using their celebrity. Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose political views are almost diametrically opposite Trump's, had a similar vastly inflated support. And I think, as we move forward into the Internet age, such celebrity candidates will become much more, not less, common. Mark Cuban running for the 2020 Democratic nomination would be an even greater break from history than Donald Trump running for the 2016 Republicans'.

Of course, none of this changes the actual data showing Trump winning self-identified moderates poll and exit poll after another (along with socially liberal republicans), the second choice preference data regarding Kasich, and Trump's underwater favorability uniquely in WI and of course NoVA v. the national GOP primary (something that was constantly pointed out in local WI media from day 1).

You're trying to retrofit the idea that all the numbers were stuck in a single range, while ignoring what the underlying trends demonstrated and leaving out MO (due to southern influences), but ignoring the Northeastern and Appalachian influences in MI and OH. Trump's numbers in the midwest overall did move with momentum that's why he received 39/40% in IL/MO, in line with 40% in NC.

Even 538 conducted another study on this subject which confirms what I'm saying, Trump won socially liberal republicans:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-trump-supporters-were-doing-before-trump/

Once again, I'm pointing at the results, and you're pointing at studies with high margins of error and selectively choosing what exit polls to look at. But, again, this is a debate that is going nowhere. We can't re-hold the 2016 primaries under different circumstances to test our theories.

*By the way, Carson was polling 2% within the margin of error of 0 in NH, that's why he was a non-entity there v. Christie, who was genuinely in 6th.

Right, but they originally planned to invite the top six national candidates, before changing the rules to allow in Christie.

Most recent poll I've seen concerning favorability, had Kasich under 50%  favorability with Trump voters. For an incumbent republican that is ridiculously, basically unheard of low. His approval only stayed over 50% due to a large approval from Hillary voters. I'm interested to see the morning call breakdown when it comes out, but Kasich at this point isn't popular enough with his own party to win