Okay, I have made the calculus.
If we want based Trump to win the GOP nominations, these will be the scores he will have to do.
Actually, It won't be too difficult for trump to become the nominee, because most of the remaining states are Winner-Take-All states, where he is leading in the polls.
He will have to do the following scores:
Wisconsin: 0/42 - Can lose the state (WTA)
New York: 80/95 - Has to lead up to 20 points/do more than 50%
Connecticut: 28/28 - Has to lead up to 20 points/do more than 50%
Delaware: 16/16 - Has to win
Maryland: 38/38 - Has to win
Pennsylvania: 71/71 - Has to win
Rhode Island: 10/19 - Has to do 50%
Indiana: 57/57 - Has to win
Nebraska: 0/36 - Can lose the state (WTA)
West Virginia: 15/34 - Has to do 40%
Oregon: 6/28 - Has to do 20%
Washington: 9/44 - Has to do 20%
California: 120/172 - Has to win most of the counties
Montana: 0/27 - Can lose the state (WTA)
New Jersey: 51/51 - Has to win the state
New Mexico: 8/24 - Has to do 30%
South Dakota: 29/29 - Has to win
It will give him 538 electors out of 499 needed.
Hes going to win the nomination. theres really nothing to debate here.
>>68548381
Maybe he wont. You can never known, John
>>68548120
Here is the best analysis of what Trump has to win - looks like it lines up with your analysis. I believe it will not be too difficult.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/
>>68549146
They are not taking in consideration that most of the elections will be winner take all/winner take most
>>68549554
Oh yeah, they say Trump needs 18 delegates from Wisonsin but it's winner-take-all for 42 delegates. It's not a good analysis then.
>>68549866
Same goes for cali, and half of the states
Based frog friend, isn't Pennsylvania a little more complicated? I don't think all 71 get awarded to the winner
>>68549139
My name's Rick
>>68550475
I'd say they do. As far as I know, it's a winner-take-all state.
Anyways, trump will manage to have an excellent score in all New-England, so i'm not worried about him taking almost all of the delegates in this state
>>68548120
Switch Wisconsin and South Dakota. Trump has little chance of winning SD, but Wisconsin is possible. It's also possible that Trump wins plenty of districts in Wisconsin, or the state overall, but not both.
>>68549866
Many states have state-at-large delegates and district delegates. The rules for state vs district delegates can be different. It's all very confusing. For more information, check here:
>http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/ccad.phtml
Most of Wisconsin's delegates are assigned by district. If Trump wins the state overall, he'll probably win the districts with a few exceptions. If Trump loses the state, he may still win a few districts.
Similarly, almost all of Calfifornia's delegates are assigned by district. But Trump's lead in California is probably large enough that he'll win almost all the districts.
>>68550896
Most PA delegates are not bound to a candidate. Only 17 of them are bound to the winner of the state.
Indiana is just stupid enough to do it.
Indiana: a great place to be FROM.
>>68551606
What? Is that a specificity of the state?
Do that mean Pennsylvanians will only elect 17 out of the 71 delegates?
>>68552002
Yes.
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/PA-R#0426
The 54 other delegates are elected as well, but they don't have to follow the popular presidential vote.
>>68552002
>>68545401
this post might clear things up
By my estimate, Trump narrowly wins enough delegates. It's extremely tight, and dependent on states like Indiana and Wisconsin.
>>68550593
Hi Rick, I'm Eric
>>68552828
I'm in Indiana. He will definitely win here.
>>68553073
I feel like the culture in Indiana is different than Ohio and the rest of the Rust Belt. I'd say it's more like Kentucky than Ohio or Illinois. Can you verify?
Fortunately, all the remaining contests are primaries instead of caucuses. Caucuses give very bizarre results, never good for Trump (Cruz wins Maine? Rubio wins Minnesota? Cruz blows out Utah?). That means the remaining contests will be more predictable.
What's Kasich up to?
As we all know, the guy is not running a real campaign since it is literally impossible for him to win. He's only in the race to steal votes from Trump. So from that perspective, couldn't he focus on his time/energy/money in a single state in an effort to snatch it away and deny Trump a key victory?
That's what I would do if my job was a dedicated establishment shill whose job is simply to crash the election with no survivors.
>>68548120
Rhode island is a trump state
>>68552828
I'm in colorado. The only threat I've seen to him was Sleepy Carson, and now that he backs Trump, there's no stopping him.
One thing that a lot of people miss in New York is that it's not just about the popular vote of the state. Here's how it works:
>New York has 95 delegates
>14 of those delegates are bound to the statewide results. If a candidate gets more than 50% of the vote (or only one gets more than 20%) the candidate gets all of them.
>If two or more candidates get 20% of the vote, but none get a majority, votes are distributed proportionally.
>81 delegates are pledged based on county elections, three each for the twenty seven candidates.
>It works similarly: If one candidate gets a majority, or only one candidate only gets more than 20%, they get three year.
>If two candidates or more get more than 20% of the vote, the leader gets two and the 2nd place gets 1
>Nobody gets 20%, delegates can nominate whomever they want
Point of the above is, in New York, it's critical to look by county, and not just by the state. Trump not only needs to beat 50% statewide (a real possibility given current polls) but for the best chances of avoiding a brokered convention, Trump needs a majority in all 27 counties in NY.
when did the word "calculus" become a meme?
I hear news cucks say it all the time just meaning something difficult.
but guess what...calculus isn't difficult, so it is just contributing to the dumbing down of the population.
so, don't bother trying to be educated, just trust the elites to figure things out for you stupid peons.
>>68554031
Colorado isn't having a primary. Back in July/August they saw Trump doing well and they decided to cancel their primary and just send their delegates unbound because they know he would've won.
>>68554099
>each of the 27 candidates
Typo on my part. 27 counties of new york state. 27 * 3 = 81 delegates for counties + 14 based on the statewide results = 95.
>>68553909
Kasich may do just that in Indiana.
More likely, he's sitting at home jerking it to cuck porn. He won Ohio. He did his job, unlike Rubio. Now he can't drop out, or his delegates will be free. I think they may go to Trump, but each state's rules about delegate assignment after a candidate drops is different.
>>68552929
>>68550593
Just gonna slide myself in here and say hi, I'm Pat.
>>68553514
Indiana is the South of the North, and we don't like mainstream politics.
>>68548120
Nice calcs bro.
Also why are there so little french faggots in this board? Afraid of being denounced as one of the most cucked countries in Europe?
>>68554262
If he drops out wont he endorse Cruz?
>>68554214
This, colorado is cucked up and so is one or both of the dakotas and wyoming I remember being weird too.
>>68554669
yeah but he can't control his solid amount of delegates. They might go Cruz but because they are from pro-Trump states they might just go to Trump which is risky.
>>68554669
If Kasich dropped out, he'd endorse Cruz. He probably won't endorse Cruz, because he's just cockblocking Trump. Dropping out would free up some of his delegates to vote for Trump.
>>68555179
Oh I see.
I thought delegates had to follow endorsements
>>68555179
Which is why neither will drop out to prevent a 1st ballot win even if trump missed the 1237 mark.
>>68555309
Its still possible for that to happen, I think there is around 200 free floaters right now due to dropped candidates.
>>68555264
Only on the 1st ballot if their guy doesn't suspend their campaign, now some delegates due to state party law may be totally bound to someone, I forget which states are that way but its usually only some of the delegates that are that way.
>>68555438
Right but less so than if Kasich dropped at some point before the convention. Only way I see him dropping is if somehow they think it will pave the way for Cruz to surpass or get close to Trump.
>>68555618
>>68555438
90 of Rubio's delegates are unbound now. We'll see how they actually vote.
That's a known unknown, but we should operate under the assumption that they vote against Trump. Any unbound delegates that end up voting for Trump will be a plus.
My calculation is about the same: Trump should be able to lose 3 WTA states and still win.
If he wins Wisconsin, which is definitely possible, the path will be a lot easier for him.
>>68555904
Rubio's delegates are not unbound, as far as I know.
There's a difference between merely suspending your campaign and actually filling out the paperwork to OFFICIALLY drop out of the race. Candidates generally do not actually drop out; they just suspend. That's also why you see all these literally-who's on the ballots like Carly Fiorina. All they're doing is telling the world that they're giving up, but officially they're still in the race. Rubio is still technically in the race and still has his delegates.
>>68553514
Indiana is basically a Southern state that ended up in the wrong region.
t. Kentucky
Mississippian who moved to Indiana here.
>>68556502
Is right, its kind of scary how similar the two states are, right down to the problem with illegal Mexicans.
Also fuck Michigan.
>>68556406
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432985/marco-rubios-delegates-where-they-go-guide
Breakdown is
>29 are immediately unbound, who knows what the fuck they'll do
>92 of them have to vote for Rubio in round 1, then they can drop out
>9 of them have to vote for rubio twice
>39 of them are bound until Rubio publicly states they aren't. Rubio can hold onto them the entire time, tell them to do what they want, or release them proportionally to remaining candidates.
>5 of them (Alaska) were reallocated proportionally already.
>>68557788
Exactly so its a shit show, goal is to win on ballot 1, just assume these guys dont exist.
>>68555904
>>68556200
Only ones that aren't already for sure for Cruz, that Trump may lose I think, is Maryland and Deleware, but thats me being pessimistic/conservative.
Am a lil concerned we know jack shit about Washington/Oregon and if we get rato'd there
>>68550593
Slick Rick?!
Where's my fucking two dollars?!
>>68558305
Cruz has no chance in Maryland or Delaware. They follow the east coast industrial state pattern, where Trump dominates. The best hope Cruz has is if Trump and Kasich split the moderate east-coast vote.
Washington and Oregon assign delegates proportionally. They won't sway the math too much. If Trump loses Indiana or Wisconsin by one vote, the difference will be much more.
>>68548120
TRUMP HAS 0% CHANCE OF WINNING.
Ask me how I know?
>>68558711
Wrong guy.
I'm Rick the dick
>>68548120
1. why are you assuming a loss in Wisconsin while Trump is leading the polls?
Also Wisconsin is not WTA, it's WTA 12 delegates for the state and WTA districts (like MO and IL).
2. If Casich remains in the race till then 10 in RI is unrealistic and would require 61% of the vote. 8-9 delegates is more realistic and would require far less votes (about 50% for 9 and under for 8).
3. Indiana is 30 delegates WTA and the rest are CD WTA, taking them all is unrealistic.
4. West Virginia is kind of WTA, Trump is very likely going to take all 34 delegates.
5. I find it extremely unlikely that Trump would score as low as 20% in Oregon despite the lack of polls.
30-50% is much more likely, You can go with 35% if you want to realistically low ball it, that's 10 delegates.
6. Same goes for Washington, which is 15-16 delegates.
7. New Mexico, no polls, but it's likely that Trump would carry the state if we're looking at his performance in AZ, furthermore, Kasich is unlikely to make the 15% bar to qualify, so in reality Trump would get about 40% in the worst reasonable case, 12 would be low-balling safe estimate.
>It will give him 538 electors out of 499 needed.
8. Is wrong, Trump needs 462 delegates to win, furthermore, there is no need to overshoot by 39 delegates in your faulty computation and 75 delegates in reality.
Again, your computations overshoots the target by 75 delegates!!!!!
THIS IS EITHER A SHILL OR AN IDIOT.
>>68559523
Unlikely, unless every state does a Soros-run online vote like Utah.
>>68560205
last poll in new mexico was cruz 25 trump 25, that was one month ago.
he will definitely win wisconsin, i live in Appleton but fequently travel around the state, there is alot of support from him up here. I even went to a volunteered on trump's website, they recently had a roll call north of Milwaukee, and there were over 70 people in a rental hall which was really surprising
>>68560979
Emerson just released a poll where Cruz and Trump are neck and neck. It's so new, it's not on the RealClearPolitics polling aggregator yet.
https://twitter.com/EmersonPolling/status/712741984243351552
>>68560889
>last poll in new mexico was Cruz 25 trump 25, that was one m
Thanks, well that's not saying much at this point. If Trump had 25 back then, it's pretty likely that he gets 35-40% at the least while Kasich fails the bar, netting close to half of the delegates.
But who knows, could be as low as 30% and get about a third.
>>68561386
Even with that FiveThirtyEight is somehow still projecting an 82% chance of winning the primary for Cruz - despite the next oldest poll being over a month old and greatly in favor of trump. Seems a bit odd to me.
