Republican Super Tuesday results thread (first polls close at 7pm ET)

[cinyc]

I'm wondering if the one Carson leaning house district was an error. Trump isn't among the top 4 candidates there, which seems odd.

It's probably not an error.  The only precinct in that HD was in Bethel, a hub bush town full of Democrats and Alaskan Natives.  There aren't many Republicans there, and there weren't many votes.  I could see a group of religious Eskimos block voting for Ben Carson.

[PaperKooper]

Not sure if anyone's posted the map yet, but:

[CatoMinor]

Are there county results maps for Minnesota and Vermont?

[Classic Conservative]

Are there county results maps for Minnesota and Vermont?

I dont think for Minnesota but for Vermont you can do it town by town and add it up.

[RI]

Politico has county results for Vermont.

[ElectionsGuy]

The South thus far (Arkansas still 98% reporting):

Trump: 2,822,374 (33.3%)
Cruz: 2,555,814 (30.2%)
Rubio: 1,872,156 (22.1%)
Carson: 515,772 (6.1%)
Kasich: 460,111 (5.4%)
Others: 236,805 (2.8%)

Total Votes: 8,463,032

Bellwether: Arkansas

[Gass3268]

The South thus far (Arkansas still 98% reporting):

Trump: 2,822,374 (33.3%)
Cruz: 2,555,814 (30.2%)
Rubio: 1,872,156 (22.1%)
Carson: 515,772 (6.1%)
Kasich: 460,111 (5.4%)
Others: 236,805 (2.8%)

Total Votes: 8,463,032

Bellwether: Arkansas

I can only imagine what this number looks like on the Dem side.

[Mr. Morden]

Are there county results maps for Minnesota and Vermont?

I dont think for Minnesota but for Vermont you can do it town by town and add it up.

There's county data for Minnesota here:

link

so someone could make a map out of it.

[ElectionsGuy]

The turnout game (of states that are completely in on both sides)...

Alabama

Republicans: 856,166 (68.3%)
Democrats: 398,164 (31.7%)

Georgia

Republicans: 1,292,601 (62.9%)
Democrats: 761,218 (37.1%)

Oklahoma

Republicans: 459,542 (57.8%)
Democrats: 335,554 (42.2%)

Seriously WTF? ^^

Tennessee

Republicans: 854,445 (69.7%)
Democrats: 371,082 (30.3%)

Texas

Republicans: 2,832,234 (66.4%)
Democrats: 1,433,908 (33.6%)

Vermont

Democrats: 134,571 (68.8%)
Republicans: 61,013 (31.2%)

Virginia

Republicans: 1,024,913 (56.7%)
Democrats: 782,895 (43.3%)

[ElectionsGuy]

The South thus far (Arkansas still 98% reporting):

Trump: 2,822,374 (33.3%)
Cruz: 2,555,814 (30.2%)
Rubio: 1,872,156 (22.1%)
Carson: 515,772 (6.1%)
Kasich: 460,111 (5.4%)
Others: 236,805 (2.8%)

Total Votes: 8,463,032

Bellwether: Arkansas

I can only imagine what this number looks like on the Dem side.

Clinton: 3,092,110 (66.2%)
Sanders: 1,497,031 (32.1%)
Others: 81,326 (1.7%)

Total Voters: 4,670,467

Bellwether: Tennessee

[Mr. Morden]

Rubio vs. Cruz (via Nate Cohn):

[Antonio the Sixth]

Rubio vs. Cruz (via Nate Cohn):

Real 'Murica loves Cruz!

[Lincoln Republican]

It was nice to see Palin get slapped down by Alaska voters when Cruz won the Alaska caucuses.

[cinyc]

Here's my best estimate of the Alaska results in the state's major areas:

Borough/Region	Cruz	Trump	Rubio	Carson	Kasich
Anchorage	34.7%	31.7%	18.5%	10.0%	5.1%
Fairbanks-North Star	43.3%	29.1%	14.7%	9.3%	3.6%
Mat-Su	38.6%	36.8%	10.5%	11.6%	2.4%
Kenai Peninsula	38.3%	37.0%	10.5%	11.3%	2.9%
Southeast	27.2%	33.3%	21.7%	10.8%	7.1%
Off-Road Bush	29.9%	35.6%	13.3%	16.7%	4.6%

As you can see, Cruz owes his victory to a big 14-point win in Fairbanks-North Star Borough. Anchorage voted more or less in line with the rest of the state, after taking into account a slight bump to Rubio and Kasich there.  The Republican heartland in Kenai Peninsula and Mat-Su Boroughs went very marginally for Cruz, while the more establishment oriented Southeast and Off-Road Bush districts went for Trump.  Southeast, home to the state capital of Juneau, was also Rubio and Kasich's best area.  

The two Juneau HDs likely narrowly went to Cruz, in part due to Rubio and Kasich taking votes from Trump.  I can't give specific a breakdown of the Juneau vote because one Juneau HD includes other areas that had a precinct.

For the purposes of this analysis, I allocated HDs 1-5 and half of HD 6 to Fairbanks-North Star Borough, HDs 7-8, 10-12, half of HD 9 and 55% of HD 12 to Mat-Su, HDs 13-28 and 45% of HD 12 to Anchorage, HDs 29-31 to Kenai, HDs 33-36 to Southeast and HDs 37-40 to the Off-Road Bush.  

I could have allocated the rest of HDs 6 and HD9 to Highway System Towns/Other Bush, but its communities are pretty eclectic, and because many unpopulated areas didn't have precincts, it's not clear that my 50/50 Fairbanks/Mat-Su split is accurate.  If it is, Cruz won the region 39.5%-30.3%-12.2%-16.2%-1.8%.

HD 32 is Kodiak/Cordova.  It went to Trump.  The margin was 26.9%-35.6%-14.3%-18.0%-5.2%.

[/]

Rubio vs. Cruz (via Nate Cohn):

Nate Cohn is a loser, the Rubio-Cruz map that I've been working on will be much better.

[Meclazine for Israel]

The turnout game (of states that are completely in on both sides)...

Alabama

Republicans: 856,166 (68.3%)
Democrats: 398,164 (31.7%)

Georgia

Republicans: 1,292,601 (62.9%)
Democrats: 761,218 (37.1%)

Oklahoma

Republicans: 459,542 (57.8%)
Democrats: 335,554 (42.2%)

Seriously WTF? ^^

Tennessee

Republicans: 854,445 (69.7%)
Democrats: 371,082 (30.3%)

Texas

Republicans: 2,832,234 (66.4%)
Democrats: 1,433,908 (33.6%)

Vermont

Democrats: 134,571 (68.8%)
Republicans: 61,013 (31.2%)

Virginia

Republicans: 1,024,913 (56.7%)
Democrats: 782,895 (43.3%)

Great stats for the Republicans.

Is this data incorporated into predictions for the general election later in the year?

[ag]

The turnout game (of states that are completely in on both sides)...

Alabama

Republicans: 856,166 (68.3%)
Democrats: 398,164 (31.7%)

Georgia

Republicans: 1,292,601 (62.9%)
Democrats: 761,218 (37.1%)

Oklahoma

Republicans: 459,542 (57.8%)
Democrats: 335,554 (42.2%)

Seriously WTF? ^^

Tennessee

Republicans: 854,445 (69.7%)
Democrats: 371,082 (30.3%)

Texas

Republicans: 2,832,234 (66.4%)
Democrats: 1,433,908 (33.6%)

Vermont

Democrats: 134,571 (68.8%)
Republicans: 61,013 (31.2%)

Virginia

Republicans: 1,024,913 (56.7%)
Democrats: 782,895 (43.3%)

Great stats for the Republicans.

Is this data incorporated into predictions for the general election later in the year?

You have a model that would allow one to do that?

[jimrtex]

WTF happened in Colorado ?

It seems the Republicans had a 80.000 caucus turnout, but they released no popular vote numbers ?

There is no popular vote there.  The caucusers pick delegates, but they don't hold a vote for president.

So these delegates are technically uncommitted?

Erc explains the process here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4912583#msg4912583

The March 1 caucus just selects delegates for the next level up (the "County Assemblies and District Conventions").  We won't even know who those people support for another few weeks, at which point they can either select a presidential candidate to pledge to or go unbound.  Then on April 8/9, the delegates to the actual RNC will be selected, so I guess we'll know who got how many delegates at that point.  But even then, some of the delegates may be unbound.

Can the state party stack the deck with anti-TRUMP delegates if they want?
I read somewhere that this process might be an ace up the sleeve for the establishment.

I don't know.  Were there any limitations on who showed up for the initial round of caucuses today?  Or was it open to any registered Republican?  If any registered Republican could show up, then Trump's campaign or any other campaign would of course be free to try to stack the event with their own supporters.  But I'm not sure Trump's campaign is organized enough to be bothering with such things.  Seems like the sort of thing that Cruz would most likely be on top of.

The state bylaws say that a voter must have been registered as a Republican for two months prior to the caucus, with exceptions for newly naturalized citizens, and adults reaching age 18. There is also an exception for voters who must be permitted to participate as per state law. I don't know if this actually covers anyone or not.

In Colorado, the caucuses are part of the nomination process for partisan offices. A potential candidate must achieve a certain percentage of the delegate vote (IIRC, 30%) to appear on the primary ballot. A candidate may also qualify for the primary ballot if they fail to get enough convention support.

The basic concept is that party activists screen the candidates for the primary ballot. An ordinary voter might have little reason to attend a caucus, since they will still be able to vote at the primary.

If there weren't a presidential election, potential candidates for statewide may encourage supporters to get elected to district or county conventions so that they can help them qualify for the primary ballot (or even better block challengers from qualifying). State party rules permit use of preferential polls, but do not permit them to be binding. They also leave it to each caucus whether to consider the results of the poll when electing delegates to the next level. Election of delegates to the county and other conventions is by plurality voting. So a precinct caucus might elect elect supporters of one faction, or might elect well-regarded community or party leaders - this might be possible in a rural area or small town, where people have more community-awareness.

Now add in the presidential election, and the delegates serve also to eventually choose delegates to the national convention. This may cause the presidential election to overwhelm the state elections. The RNC rules also require that any preferential poll taken at a caucus before March 15 be binding on delegates to the national convention. State rules say that a preferential poll can't be binding, and if the RNC requires that it be binding, then there can't be a preferential poll.

The Iowa Republican party considered doing away with the preferential poll, since the RNC would require it to be binding - since it was before March 15. But the RNC reminded that it was voluntary for the RNC to let Iowa go early - so they reconsidered and had their preferential poll.

But the RNC did not have that leverage over the Colorado Republican party.

Candidates who want to be delegates to the national convention must register in advance of the state convention. They may pledge themselves to a particular candidate. The delegates at the state convention may consider that in choose the delegates.

Presumably at the precinct caucuses, those who had been around for a while knew how things worked. Those who just showed up because they heard it was like a primary, would not. If it looked like a majority at the caucus favored Trump, those in the know might suggest a sort of consensus delegation, one who favored Cruz, one who favored Rubio, one who favored Trump, or perhaps some who urged others to not lock themselves in. If they believed they had a majority or even a plurality, they might invite each candidate to tell a little bit about themselves, including which presidential candidate they liked.

In Texas, delegates to the national convention will be chosen by the state convention. While those who are chosen as delegates will be bound on the first ballot based on the primary result - they won't be bound on procedural votes, or platform votes, etc.

[Mr. Morden]

Another Nate Cohn map: Trump support drops when you go west of the Mississippi River:

[Blue3]

That's a caucus/Cruz impact, not necessarily because of Trump, I think.