Princeton University: Trump has a 94% probability of getting to 1237 delegates

In today’s PEC update, Trump’s median projected delegate count is 1308 (interquartile range 1281-1330), with a 94% probability of getting to 1237.

...

The pre-East Coast primary delegate estimate was 1303 (IQR 1271-1326, probability 90%). The main effect of yesterday’s voting was to reduce uncertainty.

I think it is reasonable to say that yesterday’s voting ended any realistic doubts about Trump being the eventual nominee. That is on a par with previous Republican nomination races: Romney and McCain also became the presumptive nominee in late April.
Princeton Election Consortium

Apparently, the only issue left is whether or not the Republican party will change their rules at the convention to make the above meaningless. According to my research, delegates are theoretically unbound:

Federal Law Proves All Delegates Are UNBOUND! All Delegates Must See This!

The conclusion from the original post in that thread:

What does this all mean?

Based on federal law (check the Cornell link for the full article) Since the RNC is nominating a candidate to a federal position... federal law presides over the GOP rules/laws therefore nullifying the rule that delegates are bound to the winner of the primary states.

In other words DELEGATES who are seated in Tampa can vote for whoever they want on the first round. They cannot be forced or coerced in any-way-shape or form.

Republican National Committee member on nomination process: “This is the greatest hoax ever.”

RNC Rules Comm. Member: Every Delegate At GOP Convention Not Bound On First Ballot

Let's look at the issue according to state laws:

Binding delegates: In most states, party rules or election laws require delegates to be “bound” to support the candidate to whom they were allocated at the national convention. Some delegates, such as those from Massachusetts and Virginia, are only bound to support their candidate through the first round of voting. Delegates from other states are bound to support their candidate through the second and third rounds of voting. A few states, such as New Mexico and Mississippi, have party rules or state laws governing what happens when a delegate votes for a candidate other than the one to whom they are bound.
Republican delegate rules by state, 2016

My conclusion is that even if it's possible for a party to declare at a convention that delegates don't have to follow the laws of their respective states, I believe that many delegates could never actually do that. Consider who delegates are, they are often lawmakers and other top political leaders. Does anyone really believe that they would become outlaws (according to the laws of their state) just because their party told them they could? I don't think that could actually happen.

a reply to: Profusion

Oh he's definitely gonna get the delegates and I'm sure the RNC will changes the rules to block him. They did it to Ron Paul last cycle and they'll do it again this cycle.

a reply to: Profusion

I think Trump holds a silent majority in the country that will only become more apparent as we move closer to November. People are going to vote how they really feel in the anonymity of the polling booth and I think there are going to be a lot of surprised Establishment a-holes who will need therapy.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: Profusion

Oh he's definitely gonna get the delegates and I'm sure the RNC will changes the rules to block him. They did it to Ron Paul last cycle and they'll do it again this cycle.

I agree they probably will change the rules. They (mainstream parties) have lost their stranglehold and they will do anything...even cheat to make sure 'We the People' are disenfranchised come November.

a reply to: Metallicus

Why not let him run so he lose to Clinton, then they say something like "see the stablishment is the only thing that works"

It does not seems the republicans really care about winning, it's more about surviving now

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: Profusion

Oh he's definitely gonna get the delegates and I'm sure the RNC will changes the rules to block him. They did it to Ron Paul last cycle and they'll do it again this cycle.

Theoretically that could happen. IMHO, the GOP has promised everyone that it will not happen on their official website:

A candidate must win the votes of a majority of delegates to secure the nomination. In 2016, the magic number is 1,237 (50% + 1 of the 2,472 Convention delegates). Most delegates will go to Convention “bound” to vote for a particular candidate, based on how their state or territory voted.
gop.com...

I just found the following concerning what happened to Ron Paul in 2012:

The RNC rules committee last week adopted a rule under which states would be required to allocate delegates according to the statewide vote -- a move that was pretty clearly aimed at avoiding situation like this year, when Ron Paul supporters effectively took over the delegate-nominating process in a few states that he didn't win. Some states, like Maine, currently do not allocate delegates based on the statewide vote, but rather through a lengthy and complicated process that follows.
Ron Paul supporters come up short in rules fight

Although that rule change hurt Paul, it would actually help Trump.

An Obscure GOP Rule Aimed at Stopping Insurgents Is Helping Donald Trump

I see no evidence that there is a move towards allowing delegates to be unbound.

Republican Party leaders turned aside an effort Thursday to change the rules at their national convention to make it harder for the GOP to choose a fresh presidential candidate, a prelude to what may be sharper battles ahead.
RNC rejects rule change making it harder to nominate compromise candidate

The only way that your assertion above is correct is if delegates who are bound by state laws are somehow unbound at the convention. As I wrote in the original post, I don't see how that could happen.

So lets say he gets the delegates, and the party screws him out of the ticket.

How will they handle it if all his voters write him in on election day. What will they do then?

Will a black curtain part, and a nameless man emerge and silently point to hillary as she is whisked away to the steps of the white house to give her speech?

Just how blatant do "they" think they can be.

I mean, I know how all this works, but the vast majority of the populace has a pretty optimistic outlook on the world and the people that run it. Do they realize that even if, after facing every challenge and being WRITTEN in by a vast majority(imagine 70%), the president will be whomever "they" want.

I have to imagine it's going to be pretty silly looking when trump gets a 70% write in public vote and the electoral collage has a landslide victory for hillary.

Going to be a lot of realities shattered at the same time.

Either way, the rest of us are in for a hell of a show.

94%? I would say it's closer to 100%. If Trump takes Indiana he effectively wins as he would only need 34% of the vote in the remaining states. If Trump gets to 1237 I don't think they'll deny him the nomination. Doing so ensures whoever takes it loses the momentum of the campaign. On the other hand, endorsing Trump at that time gives him a boost and makes for a really compelling success story.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Profusion

I think Trump holds a silent majority in the country that will only become more apparent as we move closer to November. People are going to vote how they really feel in the anonymity of the polling booth and I think there are going to be a lot of surprised Establishment a-holes who will need therapy.

Problem is, the silent majority you're referring to doesn't even agree with Trumps historical policies. Trump is more liberal than Hillary Clinton. Rhetoric aside, the numbers of his plans have resulted in a campaign of huge spending initiatives, a shifting of taxes from businesses to income, and an increase in the tax rate with his brackets (the average effective rate in the US right now is about 14%).

a reply to: Profusion

But if you watch CNN, they make it sound like he's losing.

All of these rules the Republicans pull out of their butts are nothing but fail safes to eliminate a non-establishment candidate if he were to get close to the nomination. We are seeing it in action as we speak.

originally posted by: MisterSpock

How will they handle it if all his voters write him in on election day.

That's why it doesn't really matter who ends up on the general election ballot. It's looking like Bernie's name will not be listed on the ballot in the presidential general election, so I will be writing in his name.

Write-in victories are not uncommon. Herbert Hoover, FDR, Dwight Eisenhower, and JFK are just some of the presidents that got elected through write-in votes.

This can't be right. No way.

The MSM has told me otherwise for months. Even Ted Cruz says Trump has no chance.

originally posted by: MysticPearl
This can't be right. No way.

The MSM has told me otherwise for months. Even Ted Cruz says Trump has no chance.

It can't be, Princeton is paid off by Trump.

I believe Trump will get the delegates needed and I also believe the GOP already decided to not change the convention rules.

So it's safe to say Trump will most likely be the nominee. But then he has to face Hillary in a race where his popularity is in decline and he barely got 50% support from his own party.

I'd say Trump has a tough battle ahead and it doesn't look good for him.

originally posted by: Shadoefax
That's why it doesn't really matter who ends up on the general election ballot. It's looking like Bernie's name will not be listed on the ballot in the presidential general election, so I will be writing in his name.

Write-in victories are not uncommon. Herbert Hoover, FDR, Dwight Eisenhower, and JFK are just some of the presidents that got elected through write-in votes.

Every single example in your link was a primary which typically involve a small number of highly entrenched voters, the types of people who pay enough attention to actually know of write in campaigns, know the candidates names, and want to support them over someone with a higher chance of success. General elections are a very different demographic, winning a write in campaign with under 300,000 voters is MUCH different from winning one with 150 million voters.

originally posted by: introvert
I believe Trump will get the delegates needed and I also believe the GOP already decided to not change the convention rules.

So it's safe to say Trump will most likely be the nominee. But then he has to face Hillary in a race where his popularity is in decline and he barely got 50% support from his own party.

I'd say Trump has a tough battle ahead and it doesn't look good for him.

His popularity is not in decline at all. He's about to break voting records. He already has more than 10 million votes and already ahead of Romney's entire primary season. Also will beat Bush who has the all time voting record. He cause a voting participation surge for the party while democrats are having a decrease in turnout.

Barely 50% ? He just swept 5 states at over 60% and same for in NY.

Another point, about this whole Conservative pigeonhole that people like to put him in, is that it's a part of his appeal. He gains votes that cross party lines.

Of course the MSM narrative is that he's unpopular and no one likes him, he has no chance of winning, but the facts state the contrary.

When I see a "Prediction".. either from an ESPN talking head, or from a University, I want to know their track record. Without it, their predictions mean nada nothing.

Does Princeton have a history of predicting outcomes in Presidential politics that the public can examine? In this case, I'm hoping that their track record is good.

originally posted by: carewemust
When I see a "Prediction".. either from an ESPN talking head, or from a University, I want to know their track record. Without it, their predictions mean nada nothing.

Does Princeton have a history of predicting outcomes in Presidential politics that the public can examine? In this case, I'm hoping that their track record is good.

Where's that octopus that picks the superbowl winners?

What's he say?

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: carewemust
When I see a "Prediction".. either from an ESPN talking head, or from a University, I want to know their track record. Without it, their predictions mean nada nothing.

Does Princeton have a history of predicting outcomes in Presidential politics that the public can examine? In this case, I'm hoping that their track record is good.

Where's that octopus that picks the superbowl winners?

What's he say?

You mean the 8-armed all mighty Oracle? She can't see specifics, but says that one candidate will be indicted before the election. I have no clue who that might be, however. ;-)

The continual denial of some people is becoming comical.

First they thought it was a joke that Trump announced his candidacy. Then they said he’ll never get more than 5%. Then they watched him steadily rise to 40% and higher. Then they started talking about a brokered convention. And now that he has a 94% chance of getting to 1237 delegates, they are saying that the RNC will change the rules to block him.

We’ve all heard the following: “The definition of insanity is repeating the same behaviour over and over and expecting different results.”

So, as I read in another post: A lot of these people are gonna need therapy when Trump becomes president.

Then, after he has been president for a while, they will come to realise that he is a Godsend and that they were so utterly mistaken about him that they need therapy all over again to try and regain their self-esteem.

Trump will be president.

soulwaxer

a reply to: soulwaxer

Similar to some people denying Hillary has always been on top of trump in the polls



www.realclearpolitics.com...

Everyone sees what they want to see