This is how Team Five Thirty Eight earns their paychecks and reputation - a very cool attempt to project primary results and delegate counts to see how Cruz, Trump or Rubio might creep to the nomination:
The GOP’s primary calendar is surprisingly front-loaded with states friendly to insurgents like Trump and Cruz. But because of Republican National Committee rules, all but one of these states will award their delegates on a proportional basis, intentionally making it difficult for any one candidate to build a durable or commanding lead.
Instead, Florida and Ohio, which tend to support more conventional Republicans, are likelier to shape the race’s destiny than Iowa or South Carolina. That’s because they will award a whopping 99 and 72 delegates, respectively, in huge winner-take-all primaries on March 15.
These are the findings of a new joint FiveThirtyEight and Cook Political Report project to map out each top GOP contender’s unique route to amassing the 1,237 delegates required to clinch the nomination at the national convention in Cleveland. Although there is still plenty of time for Trump or Cruz to falter or for another candidate to rival Rubio for the mantle of “establishment” front-runner, for now, this is functionally a three-man race.
I presume they will be updating this as results come in and polls change. Their gist - Rubio will look like Rocky Balboa in the early rounds, but eventually will start landing punches.
Now that's fascinating!
Posted by: Jane | January 19, 2016 at 08:00 PM
I see DiCaprio is in Davos ripping Big Oil. I wonder whether he, or any of those applauding him, arrived *other* than by private jet?
Posted by: PD | January 19, 2016 at 08:04 PM
"Paths To Victory", is this the Brady Thread?
Today's the 14th anniversary of the "Snow Bowl" game, known to the rest of the league as the "Tuck Rule" game.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | January 19, 2016 at 08:06 PM
The 538 analysis makes Trump successfully courting Palin look like a good move. The 538 critters point to Trump's best chance to be assembling a coalition in different parts of the country. The Palin endorsement helps with that.
Because Ohio is a winner take all state, a Kasich victory in NH would make him a real threat to Rubio as the non-Trump/non-Cruz option.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | January 19, 2016 at 08:13 PM
Once upon a time, rick Snyder was considered a viable candidate, that time has passed.
Posted by: buccaneer morgan | January 19, 2016 at 08:28 PM
A Kasich victory in Ohio is not going to happen, unless he hacked the voting booths.
Where is Captain when I need him?
Posted by: Ann | January 19, 2016 at 08:33 PM
narc, thanks for the VN resources link, excellent!
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/fac/Thomas.Pilsch/Vietnam.html
BZ.
Posted by: Sandy Daze | January 19, 2016 at 08:48 PM
Oopla, sorry CWCD, if was pagar with this link :
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/fac/Thomas.Pilsch/Vietnam.html
BZ, pagar, and thank you.
Posted by: Sandy Daze | January 19, 2016 at 08:54 PM
--I see DiCaprio is in Davos ripping Big Oil.--
I stand with the bear.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | January 19, 2016 at 08:55 PM
I don't look forward to the wailing and gnashing of teeth if the HGH Kid defeats the Sith Lord and his Tuggee acolytes.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | January 19, 2016 at 09:02 PM
Yes, where is Captain?
Hi Ann!
I know I have been derelict in my JOM duties, but I've missed all of you. FB is easier to navigate in the time I have to spend online, but it is no substitute.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 19, 2016 at 09:07 PM
I propose Leonardo get air-dropped into Yellowstone back country for realz all by his lonesome. With no icky gunz, either. Jackass.
Posted by: lyle | January 19, 2016 at 09:09 PM
LOL, Ignatz!
We all stand with the bear!!
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 19, 2016 at 09:15 PM
CH is vacationing, Porch.
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 19, 2016 at 09:15 PM
That would be LeoTARDo.
Posted by: GUS | January 19, 2016 at 09:17 PM
Oh, thank you, TK. That's good to hear.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 19, 2016 at 09:19 PM
My mistake, Gus.
Posted by: lyle | January 19, 2016 at 09:19 PM
BTW, it is nice seeing you here, porch.
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 19, 2016 at 09:21 PM
Hi Porch!
I stand with the bear and the grizzly mama. :)
Posted by: Ann | January 19, 2016 at 09:26 PM
I stand with the bear, but am holding a loaded weapon because I don't trust bears.
Posted by: henry | January 19, 2016 at 09:40 PM
Thank you, TK. Likewise. Been gone too long.
xoxo, Ann. We are all on quite the rollercoaster!
Posted by: Porchlight | January 19, 2016 at 09:41 PM
DiCaprio is so gross. I can't recall a single film of his that I've enjoyed.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 19, 2016 at 09:42 PM
Agree that it's nice to see you, Porch.
Posted by: lyle | January 19, 2016 at 09:44 PM
I thought he was excellent in The Aviator.
Posted by: Beasts of England | January 19, 2016 at 09:47 PM
--DiCaprio is so gross.--
Is he suppose to be like handsome or something? I remember seeing him on that sitcom he was on when he was a teen and thinking "what a funny looking geek."
--I can't recall a single film of his that I've enjoyed.--.
Me neither but I did see about 45 seconds of Blood Diamond wherein he did seem to sport an impressively adept Afrikaner accent.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | January 19, 2016 at 09:51 PM
Was he acting in Gilbert Grape?
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 19, 2016 at 09:53 PM
Hey Porch!!
Posted by: Beasts of England | January 19, 2016 at 09:53 PM
Hello Ann!!
The movie about the counterfeiting was enjoyable.
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 19, 2016 at 09:54 PM
Hey, lyle and Beasts!
Actually, I thought he did act well in The Aviator. I just didn't enjoy watching it. Because he's gross. ;)
Posted by: Porchlight | January 19, 2016 at 09:58 PM
Which movie was that, TK?
Posted by: Porchlight | January 19, 2016 at 09:59 PM
I've read a few of the reports on the latest Clinton email problems and, if true, it's very bad. One issue that makes this release different from the earlier releases is that her team previously floated the 'retroactively classified' narrative, but that can't apply to SAP data. It's truly born at that classification, and when you're read-in to the program, you know that for a fact. Stay tuned.
Posted by: Beasts of England | January 19, 2016 at 10:01 PM
The Memorandum sidebar indicates Ta-Numbnuts Coates is dissapurnted that Big House Bernie hasn't been shamed into supporting reparations...yet.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | January 19, 2016 at 10:02 PM
Now You See Me, Porch.
Tom Hanks as well.
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 19, 2016 at 10:04 PM
Beasts I do not know if Hillary-Apollyon will be indicted but take it from me she will never be president. Pass it on.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | January 19, 2016 at 10:05 PM
Oops.
Catch Me If You Can.
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 19, 2016 at 10:06 PM
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/01/19/_30_rock_2011_plot_involved_canadian_presidential_eligibility.html
Silly.
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 19, 2016 at 10:07 PM
Beasts, the one thing we can thank Obama for is slowly killing off the Clinton's. It's been a fun day,
Posted by: Ann on iPad | January 19, 2016 at 10:09 PM
Seems this will be a test of the oft-quoted hypothesis that Hillary could murder a homeless person on live television and still be cheered on by the media.
Posted by: jimmyk | January 19, 2016 at 10:09 PM
Porchlight - It's great to see you back here!
I was thinking of you, and hoping that you weren't being constrained in posting by the leftist swells in the stacks where you work.
Posted by: Michael (fpa Patriot4Freedom) | January 19, 2016 at 10:11 PM
And yes, nice to see you Porch. How are you and Iowahawk hitting it off? Seems from his tweets that he managed to move to the only place in Texas as liberal as Chicago.
Posted by: jimmyk | January 19, 2016 at 10:12 PM
LeoTardo's South African accent in Blood Diamond was pretty impressive. I got to hang around several S. Africans in Australia many years ago. The Aussies struggled with the accent, which I found fascinating.
Posted by: lyle | January 19, 2016 at 10:12 PM
Yes both of those films, I thought blood diamonds substandard.
Posted by: buccaneer morgan | January 19, 2016 at 10:23 PM
My two cents . . .
I have *always* thought Sarah Palin was a fairly solid conservative, and was treated badly by both the MFM and the GOPe.
But I wonder how the Tea Party members and the evangelical right who support her will react to her support for the Trumpster. I don't think they support the Trumpster by and large, and I think this will probably end up hurting Sarah's image/reputation in the long run.
I know that I won't hold her in the same esteem I once did.
Posted by: Michael (fpa Patriot4Freedom) | January 19, 2016 at 10:27 PM
Hi, Porch!
JiB, sometimes going down steps backwards is easier. Hope your knee is better today.
Posted by: caro | January 19, 2016 at 10:29 PM
Dang it, Typepad ate my post. That's what I get for staying away...
Posted by: Porchlight | January 19, 2016 at 10:29 PM
Apparently, Cruz ticked her off.
Posted by: Clarice | January 19, 2016 at 10:31 PM
Catch Me If You Can was another great movie and he was impressive in it, as well.
Posted by: Beasts of England | January 19, 2016 at 10:35 PM
I was a yuge SP fan circa 2008 and I harbor a deep revulsion and anger over how she was allowed to be eviscerated by the Uniparty™. I think less of her now in the sense I think less of her--period--image-wise or frequently.
Posted by: lyle | January 19, 2016 at 10:35 PM
Anyway, retracing - hi Michael, jimmyk, and caro! No problems at work, but there is a long election ahead. ;)
Haven't seen Iowahawk since late September, but he seems to be enjoying himself. Today I was noticing that he is insufficiently admiring of Fleetwood Mac and yacht rock, as expressed on Twitter. Even I had an epiphany late in life as regards the Eagles.
TK, I've heard great things about Catch Me If You Can.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 19, 2016 at 10:36 PM
Gird up your loins in preparation for shockdom; David Brooks has the vapors over Trump and Cruz. Thinks they'll wreck the Republican Party. Thinks the GOPe needs to mobilize to save a party friendly to Quislings like him.
He provokes me to look upon his wretched carcass as the Jews did upon the loathsome Amorites.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | January 19, 2016 at 10:38 PM
" her--period--image "
Does it look like her whatever?
Posted by: DJT | January 19, 2016 at 10:38 PM
Cruz is cozying up to Beck who has gone out of his way to disparage Palin. Politics ain't beanbag.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 19, 2016 at 10:38 PM
Reparations? Yeah, that'll pull the dems across the finish line. Can you imagine what would happen if Bernie endorsed the idea and forced Cankles to do the same? Was it Fort Marcy Park?
Posted by: Beasts of England | January 19, 2016 at 10:38 PM
Gee, Michael Gerson thinks the same thing.
We've almost enough ingredients gathered to make a large bowl of grey, disgusting, porridgy mush.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | January 19, 2016 at 10:42 PM
Apparently, Cruz ticked her off.
Cruz's endorser did...
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/14/exclusive-the-real-reason-for-sarah-palins-falling-out-with-glenn-beck/
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 19, 2016 at 10:44 PM
What porch said.
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 19, 2016 at 10:44 PM
Why the heck is Cruz cozying up to Beck?
For the vital Mormon vote in Nevada?
He's not doing himself any favors with Evangelicals by doing so.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | January 19, 2016 at 10:48 PM
I don't get it either, Iggy.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 19, 2016 at 10:50 PM
Maybe Ted can convert him.
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 19, 2016 at 10:51 PM
Beck does not seem very stable.
And I consider that a polite understatement.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | January 19, 2016 at 10:51 PM
It is a polite understatement--he's mad as a hatter.
Posted by: Clarice | January 19, 2016 at 10:56 PM
"Blood coming out of her eyes or wherever..."
Posted by: lyle | January 19, 2016 at 11:01 PM
Gerson and Brooks couldn't be more clueless. The ideas and proposed remedies in their articles are precisely the reason that Trump is ascendant.
Posted by: Beasts of England | January 19, 2016 at 11:33 PM
Beasts - Missed your anniversary last week, but wanted to say "Congrats" nonetheless. Now *that* is some truly good news.
Posted by: Michael (fpa Patriot4Freedom) | January 19, 2016 at 11:53 PM
Bearing in mind I'm the guy who said voting based on who we think can win is not too great a criterion, how does Trump overcome being dead last with Independents at -27%?
It's not like anyone doesn't know who he is so they'll suddenly change their minds.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | January 20, 2016 at 12:04 AM
how does Trump overcome being dead last with Independents
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/19/herman-cain-donald-trump-winning-over-black-women/
Let the independents run to Kasich.
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 20, 2016 at 12:17 AM
Where is Captain when I need him?
I am tanned, rested and ready to kick some RINO mailman son's doofus ass. I'm flying back to the frozen tundra of Ahia tomorrow.
Posted by: Captain Hate on the iPad | January 20, 2016 at 12:22 AM
local news followed the SP Trump endorsement with the Track (sp) arrest
Posted by: Strawman Cometh | January 20, 2016 at 12:32 AM
This ahia strategy, sounds a little like Giuliani's last stand, as for florida, well that's a whole other kettle of fish.
Posted by: buccaneer morgan | January 20, 2016 at 12:55 AM
At duplicate bridge today I was reminded by a long time gambler of a bet we'd made a couple of months ago for one hundred dollars. He's conservative and can't stand Hillary but thinks she's going to win. I took the other side. But I did ask him if Hill's indicted and isn't the candidate what would that do to the bet.. He told me I'd still win..with a long face :-)
Posted by: glasater | January 20, 2016 at 02:47 AM
Rubio gave an outstanding answer to a "non-thesist" who asked
why he ran an ad solely about faith:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/430036/marco-rubio-responds-atheist-civility-and-truth
Posted by: anonamom | January 20, 2016 at 05:21 AM
A non-hostile atheist worries about Rubio becoming the "preacher in chief" and remains perfectly silent as Rubio gives a sermon instead of an answer?
Why do all of Rubio's perfect answers seem prepared for the off chance he is asked the perfect question?
I am the tin-foil-hat guy, anonamom. I can't help but notice these things. It started when Megyn Kelly was rushed by "some woman" who reminded her to ask Rubio the only question about veterans at the 1st Fox debate.
The couple of atheists I know would have been like dogs on a hambone if they were called upon in a setting like that. They would be even more rabid if they were filming it.
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 20, 2016 at 05:56 AM
The guy asking the question, according to the Des Moines Register is "activist atheist" Justin Scott:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2016/01/19/marco-rubio-responds-atheist-appeals-christians/78982110/
Here he is on Jan 10th explaining how he is going to every candidate asking essentially the same question:
http://mnatheists.org/news-and-media/podcast/1094-secularism-and-the-iowa-caucuses-justin-scott-on-atheists-talk-343-january-10-2016
Scott and Cruz:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/01/09/sen-ted-cruz-responds-to-the-question-why-should-atheists-vote-for-you/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
Rubio knew the question was coming. I'm not saying it wasn't a good sounding answer. I am saying it was a rehearsed sounding answer.
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 20, 2016 at 06:30 AM
Scott and Santorum:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/11/20/how-rick-santorum-would-reach-out-to-conservative-atheists/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 20, 2016 at 06:34 AM
I guess I am short of the tinfoil hat, though I am getting there on other topics TK--I did note the questioner was incredibly polite (as you say--for an atheist ;-) ) as he listened to the lengthy response. Can I get a few points for that??
It does play like a longer commercial. But I've not been to any of these meet and greets since going to one of Mo Udall's in Ann Arbor, back when dinosaurs walked the planet. I guess that would have been for the '76 election.
Posted by: anonamom | January 20, 2016 at 06:36 AM
And to me, every single thing out of Rubio's mouth that I have heard in the past six months sounds rehearsed.
IVR (I'll Vote Republican, per jmh's lexicon)
Posted by: anonamom | January 20, 2016 at 06:39 AM
You get many points for that, and other things, anonamom! ;-)
His questioning and listening is part of his style:
He doesn't seem to like Trump:
https://m.facebook.com/friendlyatheist/posts/10156277698095080
I thought Trump would be the liberal non-evangelical's wet dream?
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 20, 2016 at 06:46 AM
...are part...
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 20, 2016 at 06:47 AM
Scott and Huckabee:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/01/09/mike-huckabee-answers-atheists-questions-at-iowa-rally/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 20, 2016 at 06:49 AM
Scott and Christie:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/12/31/chris-christie-i-just-dont-see-how-republicans-are-trying-to-erode-churchstate-separation/
I'll quit filling the thread with similar links now.
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 20, 2016 at 06:53 AM
Waterloo? I wonder if they will run into Justin Scott?
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 20, 2016 at 07:07 AM
Trump Is Right About Cruz's Presidential Eligibility
http://reason.com/archives/2016/01/20/trump-is-right-about-cruzs-presidential
Back to bed for me.
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 20, 2016 at 07:12 AM
I am surprised that anyone who visits a political junkie blog everyday would be shocked or puzzled that politicians plant questions, rehearse answers, scripts meetings and disscusions. If you want them outside their comfort zone, you need unscripted one-on-ones or editorial board meetings. Even, the debates are over ripe for "candidate control" due to the length of response and the general rule that if your name comes up you can respond.
If the question was planted and the answer rehearsed, so what. He got his message out and editorialized in a major conservative news site prior to the primary in a state known for going "evangelical". Smart move in my opinion.
Posted by: Jack is Back (but On Alert with his Percocet and Prune Juice ) | January 20, 2016 at 07:13 AM
Not saying it was a dumb move, or that I am shocked by it.
I'm saying that Rubio is an obvious phony that a major conservative news site has in their preferred stack.
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 20, 2016 at 07:24 AM
I agree with anonamom that Rubio always sounds scripted. Not the worst thing in the world if he's saying the right things, as it partly means he's very prepared, in the sense of having studied hard. The problem is that like an actor reading lines, it often doesn't come off as 100% sincere or from the heart.
Of course he wouldn't be the first politician to sound that way, and it doesn't mean he isn't sincere. It's just a style flaw, at last I hope.
Posted by: jimmyk | January 20, 2016 at 07:27 AM
I just think he's too green. Cruz is the same age but seems older.
Cap'm, I feel sorry for the mailman's son!
Posted by: Porchlight | January 20, 2016 at 07:35 AM
This is amusing, isn't? I say Rubio sounds rehearsed, while holding Jeb in low regard for not being able to answer questions I think he should have anticipated (brother, Iraq).
There's no pleasing momma...
Hey porch! Missed you.
Posted by: anonamom | January 20, 2016 at 07:40 AM
Hey anonamom! Thanks.
I think he sounds rehearsed, too. I saw him speak on foreign policy a year or so ago. No notes, which was good, but still a bit wooden. But those are style issues as jimmyk noted. My larger concern is toughness. He would get totally rolled in DC, I think.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 20, 2016 at 07:46 AM
About Sarah Palin - I don't know what I think anymore. I have always been a big fan of her. FNC ran lengthy video excerpts of her endorsement remarks with Trump at her side. I found her shrill and unwatchable. I was tired from work, so maybe that affected my perception.
Posted by: Centralcal on iPad | January 20, 2016 at 08:09 AM
I don't think this is a good year to be the sort of pundit who opines on who is electable.
Posted by: Clarice | January 20, 2016 at 08:14 AM
One year from today is Inauguration Day! It is going to be a wild ride.
Ccal,I agree about Palin. I always liked her. Last night she seemed angry,of course,she has her reasons. I always complain about Hillary's mean teacher voice and Sarah was almost as bad.
Posted by: Marlene | January 20, 2016 at 08:14 AM
What a GOPe "spinning head" looks like before it explodes: Donald Trump is The Price We Pay For Sarah Palin.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/01/20/donald-trump-is-the-price-we-pay-for-sarah-palin/
via Rick Wilson, natch!
The more they keep pumping that dog, the more I gravitate toward Trump.
Posted by: Jack is Back (but On Alert with his Percocet and Prune Juice ) | January 20, 2016 at 08:19 AM
Same for me, Centralcal.
Posted by: Janet | January 20, 2016 at 08:19 AM
Good to see you Porch! I also agree about Rubio.
Re: the mailman's son,he has been running non-stop ads in NH for months. I looked at a list of campaign events in the Manchester paper and he has the most events scheduled of any candidate leading to the primary.
Posted by: Marlene | January 20, 2016 at 08:20 AM
Yes Wilson of the Giuliani campaign, which in retrospect, we could have done worse and did. Still trying to get that parrot to boom.
Our country was founded on faith, to believe in nothing is foolhardy
Posted by: buccaneer morgan | January 20, 2016 at 08:33 AM
Seriously who cares about his pet peeve, when there are bigger issues.
Posted by: buccaneer morgan | January 20, 2016 at 08:42 AM
Palin has always sounded that way.
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 20, 2016 at 08:42 AM
Unlike a lot of you here, I have never been a big fan of Palin. (My husband likes her very much, though.) Last night I found her shrill and angry and also seemed like an opportunist ie supporting Trump and maybe getting some kind of position in his administration. A shame. As for Glen Beck, he is crazy and FNC was so smart to get rid of him when they did. Why is Ted Cruz aligning with him? Who knows?
Posted by: new lurker | January 20, 2016 at 08:45 AM
Well beck did show some wisdom initially subsequently he has shown himself to be high strung,how is this not a Howard beale moment?
Posted by: buccaneer morgan | January 20, 2016 at 08:52 AM
Howard Beale in what way, buc?
Posted by: new lurker | January 20, 2016 at 08:57 AM