Depending on how you calculate the time difference, we’re now just a day out from “Super Tuesday”, in which American voters across 14 states will more than likely settle the question of who will contest the presidential election in November. Following on from the early rounds in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, Super Tuesday will see both parties conduct their primaries and caucuses in Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, with the Republicans adding Alaska, North Dakota and Wyoming to the list. As a Washington Post explainer puts it, this entails “a combination of a dozen races with a dozen set of rules with another dozen set of exceptions”.
Pundits now seem of one mind that this process will set the seal on a presdiential election contest in November between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Trump’s indestructibility might encourage skepticism about what pundits say, but the trends on both sides have been clear enough from the early primaries. The Republicans’ Iowa caucuses produced a close contest between the three front-runners, Trump, Ted Cruz and Mario Rubio, in which Cruz emerged narrowly ahead, but Trump has since won clear victories in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.
Polls indicate Ted Cruz will carry his own state of Texas tomorrow, and apparently also that Cruz should win Arkansas and Ben Carson should win Colorado, but the rest looks like a cakewalk for Trump. Hillary Clinton’s road has been bumpier than anticipated, but her loss to Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire is now balanced by victories and Iowa, Nevada and a particularly emphatic win in South Carolina yesterday. Reflecting the strength in New England that was demonstrated by his win in New Hampshire, Sanders looks set to carry Massachusetts and his home state of Vermont, but barely looks competitive anywhere else.
Repugs not exactly embracing Trump with open arms. So many have said so much about him it will hard for them to perform an about face.
[But the most savage criticism came from Romney’s former chief strategist, Stuart Stevens.
“This is more than utterly disgusting. It really makes it impossible to pretend that Trump is not only an idiot but also a racist idiot,”]
For example, Rubio can hardly spruik for Trump after saying this
[“We have a con artist as the frontrunner in the Republican Party. A guy who has made a career out of telling people lies so they’ll come in and buy his product,” Rubio told a rally of loyal supporters recently.]
Pascoe on woe is us should Trump be with us.
That would be All the Way With Donald Drumpf.
Could some kind soul tell me when the first numbers become available and where I might access them?
https://twitter.com/RealDonalDrumpf
Boerwar@54
It’s only about 5.40am in Vermont now, among the first few states to begin voting. The last will be in American Samoa, which barely cracked the day at 12:40am now.
Polls close at 7pm their time by the looks of it. So some 14 hours roughly.
First results tomorrow late afternoon AEDST, I’m guessing.
[Hillary is not a good candidate: uncharismatic, uninspiring ]
And yet, as Nate Silver points out, Trump is even more disliked, and has been so for almost as long.
Independent voters will not see a candidate they like. But they will see one candidate who looks lije she can do the job.
I’m shattered by the lack of analysis on Democrats Abroad who I’m going to tip for the Bern.
Nate Silver has a very good state by state guide here, with polls and predicted delegate counts bludgertrack style. There is a similar one for the republicans.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/super-tuesday-preview-democratic-presidential-election-2016/
Clinton and Trump are both well ahead (Clinton way ahead) in the states that count in terms of large delegate numbers. They should have unassailable leads after today.
I can only agree with others on Trump. Its like making Wilson Tuckey party leader. Bizarre.
I find the views on Clinton a bit harsh. She is not as charasmatic as Obama or Bill, but neither are most pollies, US or Australian. She is still smart and effective, and will beat Trump easily. I still hope Sanders influence will push her to adopt more liberal taxation policies.
Martin B@57. Yes, Trump is a very unappealing candidate for many voters, although he clearly has more fans on the Republican side than anyone expected.
But the low voter turnouts in the US will always make it difficult for the “lesser of two evils” candidate to win. A fresh, younger Dem candidate (a la Bill Clinton in 1992 or Obama in 2008) would romp home against Trump. But I predict Hillary will struggle.
She’ll trounce Sanders today in a whole bunch of states that the Dems aren’t going to win in November and lose to him in a couple of others and, while we’ll then be pretty sure she’ll get the nomination, we still won’t really know how she’ll go ageist Trump.
The national polls are hard to credit. They are showing Trump behind Hillary but Rubionalmost beating her. Rubio is an insincere twerp who couldn’t be expected to come close in a Presidential race.
Right now, a majority of voters are telling pollsters that they really dislike Trump and don’t want him as Republican nominee. And rightly so: he’s a clown. But November is a long way away. Things can change. And Hillary has virtually no appeal beyond the rusted on base. And I can’t see that changing much. But Trump might garner more support, including from people who don’t normally bother to vote.
For those who don’t get what I’m talking about, I suggest you might read this article.
http://static.currentaffairs.org/2016/02/unless-the-democrats-nominate-sanders-a-trump-nomination-means-a-trump-presidency
It’s a good summation of Hillary’s vulnerability as a candidate and how Trump might go after her.
Of course, as is only to be expected from a PhD candidate in Social Policy at Harvard, it goes way over the top in terms of Sanders, who I don’t reckon would stand a snowball’s chance in hell against Trump. Although Hillary is a very poor candidate, I think she’s all the Dems have got now. They just should never have put themselves in this position IMO.
A nostalgic sense that it would only be fair for an arguably unlucky candidate to be given another go is not a good enough reason for choosing someone to run in a political race . It was a disaster when Labor did it with Whitlam in 1977. By 1983 they had learned their lesson and dispatched Hayden for Hawke without much of a qualm. Likewise Beazley for Rudd in 2006.
Unlike the party faithful, uncommitted voters have little sentiment towards individual politicians, particularly those whom they see as having overstayed their welcome.
mb
[Obama got a big vote in the mid-west because: a) he is a mid-westerner, b) he mobilised the African-American vote in those areas and c) he is a very appealing candidate to the young and got big turnouts from first time voters.]
12 states make up the Midwest. Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin are reliably Democratic (especially Illinois – irrespective of Obama being the candidate). Iowa and Ohio are swing states (though Iowa is trending Dem, and Ohio is trending GOP). The rest are fairly safe GOP (though Obama surprisingly won Indiana in 2008).
None of this will change if Hillary is the Dem candidate.
mb
[Hillary doesn’t have these three qualities and, on my estimate, is starting on the back foot in the mid-West and possibly even in parts of the old north like NH and perhaps even NY. ]
NY is as safe as houses for the Dems. Also, don’t forget that Hillary represented NY as a Senator. She was very popular in NY then, I can’t see why anything would have changed.
“Ben Carson should win Colorado”
Carson won’t win Colorado; our only polling is from when Carson’s polling was much higher a few months ago. Drumpf is the most likely for Colorado. We won’t know, though, until the Republican convention, as Colorado has a closed caucus system – what a piecemeal crazy ‘system’ of ‘democratic’ voting the US primaries(caucuses) has.
The Dems best bet for the future is the General Election in 2020. If they can get their voters out in big numbers they will be able to use any Repub states they capture in this year 2016 and maybe win a number of others, still Republican, states; after which they will be in control of the redistricting process. They would only have to make the redistricting fair (i.e. no gerrymander) to get a lock on the future Congressional voting for decades to come.
The only problem seems to be Democrats don’t always come out to vote with such intensity as the Republicans. I have no idea why this is so, as it is their future and that of their kids at stake.
MB
I think that is an incredibly pessimistic and unrealistic assessment of Clinton v Trump. Right now open warfare between rival GOP forces seems a more likely outcome of Trump as GOP nominee.
How can Trump win the presidency when he has alienated the entire Latino and Black votes, and his own policies are likely to mobilise those demographics to turn out to vote?
Socrates@66: I understand what you and others are saying, but a lot of the commentary we get on US politics is coming from the old north and I’m not convinced that they are grasping the whole picture. Nor are Australian commentators, including those on PB, who – living in a system of compulsory voting – are always at risk of assuming a higher turnout than might eventuate in a contest as unappealing as Trump vs Clinton.
In 2008, the Obama bandwagon prompted the highest voter turnout in 40 years. The 2012 turnout was also high: just a bit below Bush vs Kerry in 2004 and Clinton vs old George Bush in 1992: both elections where the public believed a lot was at stake.
Elections where the public weren’t very enthused – eg the tarnished Clinton vs Dole in 1996 and Gore vs George W in 2000 – the turnout was around 50%.
I’d be expecting Trump vs Clinton to produce a similar low turnout. And there’s also the risk of a third candidate running who, if it’s a Bloomberg or the like, might siphon votes away from Hillary.
There might be a lot of people in the US who can’t stand Trump but, in a low turnout election with a third candidate running, he might need to get significantly fewer than 1 in 4 to vote for him in order to win. And Hillary might struggle to get close to 1 in 4: remember, her husband – who most would agree was and is far more popular than her – won in 1992 with the votes of 23.65% of all voters and in 1996 with 24.1% (both times thanks to Ross Perot dividing the right wing vote).
I think people are vastly overestimating how hard it would be for Trump to win. Also, he might well take a few states in the north and mid-west that the Dems have mostly won in recent elections: I’m thinking New York, New Hampshire, Iowa and possibly others. This will make Hillary’s task even harder.
[(both times thanks to Ross Perot dividing the right wing vote).]
People say this a lot, but Perot drew votes more or less equally from Bush and Clinton. Perot’s best state in 92 was Maine, which is a blue state.
[Update : Clinton wins Virginia, Sanders wins Vermont (obvioulsy), and Trump wins Georgia.
Meanwhile, a new CNN/ORC poll suggests that both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders would beat Trump handily in the national election. “In the scenario that appears most likely to emerge from the primary contests, Clinton tops Trump 52% to 44% among registered voters,” CNN says. “That result has tilted in Clinton’s favor since the last CNN/ORC Poll on the match-up in January.” ]
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-01/super-tuesday-preview-trump-clinton-collision-course
lwp
[People say this a lot, but Perot drew votes more or less equally from Bush and Clinton. Perot’s best state in 92 was Maine, which is a blue state.]
Back then (1992) Maine was a swing state. Before that it was Republican-leaning (back when the GOP was a lot less RW).
It’s only fairly recently that Maine has shifted to the blue column.
Bill Clinton won Maine in 1992, but Perot beat out Bush for 2nd.
socrates
[How can Trump win the presidency when he has alienated the entire Latino and Black votes, and his own policies are likely to mobilise those demographics to turn out to vote?]
Good question. The GOP establishment is asking the same question.
It’s an article of faith that the GOP must increase its Latino vote upon 2012 in order to win this year. Otherwise states like New Mexico and Nevada are beyond their grasp, and even Florida may be difficult.
Unless Trump makes up the difference by mobilising more white voters (compared to Romney and McCain), which seems very challenging.
[Back then (1992) Maine was a swing state. Before that it was Republican-leaning (back when the GOP was a lot less RW).
It’s only fairly recently that Maine has shifted to the blue column.
Bill Clinton won Maine in 1992, but Perot beat out Bush for 2nd.]
None of this refutes the point that Perot pulled a substantial number of democratic voters or that Clinton would have beaten Bush without Perot.
voxdotcom: Sanders in VT: “By the end of tonight, we are going to win many hundreds of delegates”
Vox’s 2016 delegate tracker: https://t.co/Mrl6OFToT9
On his podcast Nate Silver keeps saying that Trump is unpopular nationally as distinct from Primary voting in GOP as a reminder.
lwp
[None of this refutes the point that Perot pulled a substantial number of democratic voters or that Clinton would have beaten Bush without Perot.]
Certainly – I didn’t mean to give the impression I was contradicting you.
Only that 24 years ago Maine and the GOP were quite different to the way they are today.
BlackWomen4Bern: Bernie looking good in Massachusetts…beating HRC so far https://t.co/Yu0aKlp2KT
NewsHour: .@BernieSanders wins Vermont primary. #SuperTuesday https://t.co/AUOxrDBu7G
FPatnode: #BernieSanders has a huge lead in Oklahoma (57%) and Massachusetts (67%) #FeelTheBern #SuperTuesday
Hmmm.
Everyone else has HRC up in both Mass and Oklahoma. Though count is still very early.
Based on current numbers, Clinton will win Super Tuesday easily. FeelTheBern is not so hot.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/2016-election-results/super-tuesday/ is the most useful summary site I’ve found this far.
guytaur’s numbers seem way out of date. Massachusetts is 50/50 and the lead has been switching depending on who reports in…
Apart form Sanders home state of Vermont and close votes in Mass and Oklahoma, it’s a massacre for Hillary.
GG@80: “it’s a massacre for Hillary”
in a bunch of states which – with the possible exception of Virginia – are not going to go her way in November.
mb
By the same logic Trump will not win in November. The much larger states of Florida and California are both going to be hard/impossible for Trump to win thanks to his immigration views and the Hispanic communities in them. When was the last time anyone became POTUS and lost both of those states??
Besides, Trump is so divisive that some religious red states might not vote for him. Clinton and Sanders have both been careful to be respectful of each other and whichever wins you would still expect the blue states will vote for them.
mb
[in a bunch of states which – with the possible exception of Virginia – are not going to go her way in November.]
True. But also totally irrelevant. A candidate’s performance in the primaries has no bearing on his or her performance in a general election.
HRC will win big in Vermont and Mass in the general election.
[When was the last time anyone became POTUS and lost both of those states??]
W in 2000? 😉
mb,
Given this is a Democratic Nomination election then it’s hard to see your point.
The Federal election looks like being fought on non traditional grounds You have Hillary the well connected woman versus Trump the populist.
I would not be taking too much notice of “last time” polls to predict the outcome atm.
mimhoff
Well if we distinguish between popular votes and delegate votes 🙂
I should have said, when was the last time a democratically elected POTUS lost both those States? 🙂
Nowadays California is almost impossible for a GOP candidate to win.
Florida is a swing state, with a large Cuban American population that traditionally leans to the GOP (atypical for Hispanic/Latino Americans). But there is enough voters of Mexican, Haitian etc origin to make Trump a very dicey candidate.
But yes, the Republicans do have to win multiple big states like those to win. It’s not impossible, but taking 2012 as the baseline, they need 64 more electoral college votes.
Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Pennsylvania are the ones they always talk about… are there others Clinton puts at risk?
GG
[I would not be taking too much notice of “last time” polls to predict the outcome atm.]
This isn’t a contradiction, but these days most states are pretty reliable as “blue” or “red” states. Elections are decided by the swing states in between (and many of those are trending one way or another). We can call most states now, long before the first ballots are cast.
Clinton has won Texas according to exit polls. Sanders is done.
Surely the reality is that after the primaries are over, Clinton and Sanders will negotiate a truce, and find a way to incorporate some of Sanders’ candidate campaign effort into the POTUS one. Clinton and Sanders have been so careful to be nice to each other through debates that its hard to imagine why they would not consider a role for each other in their governments if they won.
Sanders is also struggling to win Massachusetts, which is the sort of State he had to win to have any chance. I like Bernie and prefer many of his ideas to Clinton’s, but he is not going to be the candidate.
Like Shorten and Albanese, the solution now for the democrats is to form a united front after the primary result is clear. Compared to the ugly divisions in the republican ranks, that in itself should win a few more votes.
[Surely the reality is that after the primaries are over, Clinton and Sanders will negotiate a truce, and find a way to incorporate some of Sanders’ candidate campaign effort into the POTUS one. Clinton and Sanders have been so careful to be nice to each other through debates that its hard to imagine why they would not consider a role for each other in their governments if they won.]
And Bill, and Obama… there will be plenty to campaign on once the nomination is decided.
kakuru,
I’m seeing exit polls where up to 50% of Republicans are saying they won’t be voting for Trump and/or might even vote for Hillary.
I accept it’s a long way to go and people are notorious for finding ways to change their minds. However, your assumptions about outcomes may not be reliable. (It was only a few weeks ago that Turnbull lead 56/44 and was the most popular thing since the bottling of beer).
I reckon Johnson won just aboout everywhere in 1964 and Reagan did very well in 1988.Let’s see how the campaign unfolds before you lock in your opinion.
Jeebus, both Clinton and Trump look like they’ve slaughtered the competition today, the Republican winner-take-all contests giving Trump an especially commanding delegate lead.
I don’t think Sanders, Cruz or Rubio have a chance after this, not without the mother of all screw-ups on the part of either Clinton or Trump. And while Trump is unpredictable and impulsive enough to make that a possibility, I can’t see it happening with Clinton – as we’ve seen with Shorten here in Aus, one advantage to being the boring, “safe” candidate is that there’s rather less in the of bizarre gaffes and brainfarts to worry about.
GG
[I reckon Johnson won just aboout everywhere in 1964 and Reagan did very well in 1988.Let’s see how the campaign unfolds before you lock in your opinion.]
It isn’t my opinion that’s locked in; it’s the sentiment of US voters.
The US electorate is a lot more polarised than it used to be. In most states one party has such a huge majority of ‘rusted-on’ voters that it is almost impossible for the other side to win. I can guarantee that Clinton will win Vermont or California as much as I can guarantee Trump will win Texas or Wyoming.
But the fact that certain states are super-safe “red” or “blue” doesn’t change the fact that there’s enough swing states in play to make any election a real contest.
So how’s Rubio’s “don’t win any states” plan doing?
kakuru,
One thing you learn by watching polls over time is that all the opinionating and mathematical projections of outcomes is based on previous information.
Identifying when polls change direction and for what reasons usuually flommoxes the pollsters.
There is much speculation that there is a voting re-alignment going on in the US atm which is based on dissatifaction with the current political masters and economic stagnation.
You have to remember that the Republicans are the Party of Lincoln. Yet, today, the black vote is overwhelmingly parked with the Democrats.
I am not saying there is a change occurring. However, a candidate like Trump is certainly a change from the usual candidate from central casting. Whether he scares or enthrals in the main campaign will decide the outcome. Consequently, I am not preparedd to simply rely on mathematical modelling of likely outcomes at this time.
Asha,
That seems to be the case.
The only strategy for the Republicans is to unite behind one alternative candidate. Rubio and Cruz seem to be the likely candidates. Whether there is time for another candidate to emerge like Romney or Bloomberg might be praying on a few Republican minds.
GG
[You have to remember that the Republicans are the Party of Lincoln. Yet, today, the black vote is overwhelmingly parked with the Democrats.]
The Civil Rights movement and the GOP’s Southern Strategy flipped the South en bloc from Dem to GOP. It was an electoral masterstroke.
I’m not writing off Trump at all. He could win in November (*shudder*). But it’s a brave call indeed to say that he could pull off a Reagan-style landslide. I doubt Trump could win a single solid blue state. To do so requires a seismic shift in previous voting patterns. There is no sign of that.
But Trump doesn’t need to win any blue states. He needs just enough swing states to get a majority in the electoral college.