The data-based and hence attention-worthy FiveThirtyEight posts charts on what it calls the “Endorsement Primary,” tallies of endorsements of the Presidential candidates by governors and members of Congress. Under the FiveThirtyEight scoring system, gubernatorial endorsements are worth ten points, Senatorial endorsements five, and House-atorial one.
On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton is creaming Bernie Sanders, 455 to 2. Clinton has done a good job of getting the party to fall in line. She’s not about to allow a repeat of 2008, when she went into the Iowa primary with more than twice as many “endorsement points” as Barack Obama, then plateaued [four vowels!] while Obama climbed.
On the Republican side, Jeb Bush leads with 46 endorsement points, followed by Marco Rubio at 36 (one of those points if from Rep. Kristi Noem), Chris Christie at 26, and Mike Huckabee at 25 (five of those points come from Senator Mike Rounds).
This chart may explain the campaign chaos we see on the GOP side. With Bush, Rubio, et al. each scoring less than half of the endorsement points of any GOP eventual nominee since Ronald Reagan, primary and caucus voters haven’t gotten the clear signal from their party leaders as to which real candidate is acceptable. Undecideds and troublemakers thus have more freedom to toy with the absurd notion of President Trump, who has zero endorsements from governors or members of Congress but has gotten good words from Vladimir Putin and Gary Busey.
The race for endorsements in this “invisible primaries” matters… or at least it has in the recent past:
In the book “The Party Decides” (2008), the most comprehensive study of the invisible primary, the political scientists Marty Cohen, David Karol, Hans Noel and John Zaller evaluated data on endorsements made in presidential nomination contests between 1980 and 2004 and found that “early endorsements in the invisible primary are the most important cause of candidate success in the state primaries and caucuses.”
These endorsements can serve several purposes. In some cases, they directly influence voters who trust the judgment of governors and members of Congress from their party. In other cases, endorsements serve as a signal to other party elites. “It tells others who is acceptable and who is unacceptable,” Cohen, an associate professor of political science at James Madison University, said in an e-mail to FiveThirtyEight. “This is the coordination process that we believe goes on during the invisible primary and by way of public endorsements that was formerly and more formally undertaken at the convention” [Aaron Bycoffe, “The Endorsement Primary,” FiveThirtyEight, updated 2015.12.22].
But what if traditional parties, like traditional churches, really are weakening? What if the rejection of the authority of party leaders is real this year? What if voters are serious about seeking outsiders? We can debate the extent to which a billionaire who supports eminent domain for private development counts as an outsider, but if the outsider impulse acts amidst fragmentation of endorsements, the long foretold Trump implosion may not come neatly with the first round of caucuses and primaries.
Mike Rounds early endorsement of Mike Huckabee is both telling and humorous. Is Rounds maybe expecting a cabinet post?
The real news should be Clinton is creaming Trump. After all, isn’t this what the Clintons are known for.
DT is bought and paid for. http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=hilary+and+trump+friends&view=detailv2&qpvt=hilary+and+trump+friends&id=05CC13A32F8477AF0A60825D066951B740D93352&selectedIndex=5&ccid=qfgDDovW&simid=607989373621634939&thid=OIP.Ma9f8030e8bd609c0d2ab928580bc86b5o0&ajaxhist=0
Les,
During one of the early Republican debates Fiorina asked Donald Trump about Bill Clinton’s phone call to encourage him to run against Hillary, Trump ignored the question
To my knowledge no one has come forward with evidence of any phone call.
Endorsements are important, Sanders creaming Clinton https://theintercept.com/2015/12/26/sanders-would-dominate-money-race-with-small-donor-matching-funds/
Yeah, the big news here could be how under reported Bernie’s grassroots suport really is. It’s significant, isn’t it, to note that Sanders is consistantly polling at higher numbers than Trump even in the Dem primary (given that there are more registered Ds than Rs, so 35% of the Ds represents more potential voters than 35% of the Rs) not to mention that whenever pollsters decide to include him, Sanders always beats Trump by a far greater margin than Hillary does. All that said, as always with the Clintons, its hard to shine brightly when you’re standing next to the sun.
The Sanders and most of the Republican presidential candidate have been complaining bitterly about the coverage cable news programs have been giving Trump. Trump gets more air time than Hillary and Republicans don’t come to close to what Trump gets.
It is a legitimate complaint and I hope someone will come forward and demand that the FCC intervene.
Trump’s numbers have plateaued at around 25 – 30%. That is where he started when he announced and he has remained there.
I suppose the real question is when republicans are forced out of the campaign after Iowa and New Hampshire, who will get their votes.
I think Trump is “play”ing because he is “bigger than life.” Norman Lear once said that “All in the Family” was a successful sitcom because there is a little Archie Bunker in us all, and Trump as a salesman has figured out how to tap into that dark side of many of the Republican voters.
Trump’s Achilles heel will be whether his general popularity among Iowa voters can transcend any historic need to be organized at the caucus level to win the Iowa caucuses. If Trump can run a strong second or obviously take first then he will continue on, but if the mechanics of a caucus state become too much for his campaign of all talk and no organization, then his own ego could become the true catalyst of his pending achilles heel.
As far as endorsements go, the day Elizabeth Warren endorses a presidential candidate is the day an endorsement within the Democratic party begins to matter in my opinion.
Poll check: the current RCP head-to-head polling averages show Clinton with a 6.1-point lead over Trump and Sanders with a 2.0-point lead over Trump.
I’d say when Sanders announces a Warren for his VP, that will be the endorsement for both party voters, Winston.
I’m not sure the pubs could run JC and win right now so it is a race against Clinton no matter which party.
les , u cite a photograph of two slimeballs glomming onto the clintons. is that all yah got? u insinuate the clintons have purchased trump so they can win in 2016? despite monica’s dress, clintons have more ethics and ability than trump and the entire gop.
hillary or bernie would be good for the nation/world
Yes two slime balls at Trumps wedding, leslie.
Entire, GOP.?
Sorry about the insinuation. The GOP put Trump up to this. All better now leslie?
One of the sticking points about HIllary’s coronation is that she is such a bad candidate with so much baggage that a candidate like Trump could win against her. Yes, solace your fears that Hillary has a 6.1% lead and that it really is not the 2 or 3% dead heat factored into that average. I hope for your delusion’s sake that Trump wins Iowa and steams on to the nomination and yields a highly fractured GOP. He is HIllary’s best hope for winning the general, perhaps her only hope, and it would not be in a landslide. Considering the DNC’s poorly veiled attempt to shut out Bernie from the nomination, it is amazing that Bernie has so many donors especially in light of the DNC’s attempt to shut his campaign out of donor and volunteer contacts and debates. Many in the GOP establishment cringe at the idea of a Trump nomination; yet, they have not stooped to these tactics to rig a primary. This is HIllary playing nice when she knows that she is cruising to the nomination; meanwhile, the GOP still have to contend with a real primary.
lol.
Les,
Traditionally, Sanders wouldn’t choose a running mate until just before the convention and only if he had secured the nomination.
I love Bernie’s policy positions, but are they realistically possible? Don’t the Republicans have a lock on the House, which will kill any progressive legislation that Bernie proposes, even if Democrats get the Senate back?
I recognize that many Democrats dislike what they perceive as Hillary’s hawkish and economic baggage, but wouldn’t her connections with Wall Street interests, coupled with her history of supporting and advocating many progressive policy ideas, give everyone a much better chance of actually seeing some Republican support (holding their noses of course) for positive change in policies that actually benefit the demographic (low income and middle class) that most Democrats care about?
From what I’m seeing from Nate Silver’s analysis and the professional analysis coming from CNN it appears Clintion would be beat Trump rather easily.
This campaign is shaping up to mirror the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections with the same red state – blue state going to their respective candidates.
And for those that think Hillary has too much baggage, Trump has more and most it that he has created this past year on the campaign trail.
The most Trump can count on from Latino’s, Blacks, and other minorities is about 6% of the vote, he won’t rise above that. And women, will women do what they didn’t do for Hillary in 2008 and come out in support her over a prejudiced Trump? Her number of independent women voters are expected to climb significantly.
I don’t know who if anybody talked Trump into running, but from I see from the GOP stalwarts like George Will, Trump has done serious damage to their brand.
Hell, even I have to admit how stunned I am by Trump’s success to this point, I thought he’d be laughed out of the campaign by now, I bet there are a lot of Republicans that would like to laugh at Trump but are too sick to their stomachs to do so.
Exactly Roger! Nice post.
Bearcreekbat, is any policy proposal from a Democratic President realistically possible with this Republican House?
Permit me some mad optimism: elect Bernie Sanders, and we can convince the Republican House that the Sanders plan is fiscally conservative: Robert Reich says Medicare E(veryone!) produces cost savings that pay for everything else Sanders wants to do and leaves $2 trillion more for deficit reduction over ten years!
Remind me, which party’s President last ran a surplus?
Spencer, do you really care about how the DNC treats Bernie Sanders? Do you really want him to have a better shot at becoming President? Or are you just trying to make yourself feel better and goad Democrats into self-destructive discontent (which is what’s creating the chaos in the GOP right now as Trump drinks all the heir apparents’ milkshakes)?
Cory, those are excellent points. If true then it would not seem to matter whether Bernie or Hillary wins.
On the other hand, look how Republicans were willing to plug noses, piss off the extreme right, and actually vote for a funding bill because Democrats compromised by giving Republican’s rich pals some lucrative provisions. Do you think Bernie would have gone along with such concessions? Hillary is a realist negotiator, while Bernie’s image seems to be focused on purity for policy positions. That is what concerns me.
I agree with virtually all of Bernie’s policy positions because they make the most sense for helping America get back to a balanced and growing society. But could he really get the right wing to agree to support any of his positions without making some nasty concessions to the right? I suspect he would follow in the shoes of Obama, a man with terrific policy ideas, but would be left to rely upon executive orders to implement most of those ideas. Hillary, on the other hand, seems a bit more realistic in what she might be able to get the Republicans to agree with.
spencer: exaggeration = credibility?
1. coronation
2. such a bad candidate
3. so much baggage
4. your delusion’s sake
5. GOP establishment has not stooped to such tactics
6. rigging a primary
7. “real primary”
Trump is Hillary’s “great white hope”. what a thought. Hillary’s breadth of experience is extremely substantial. so is Bernie’s. Who have you got?
Cory,
Spencer is just doing what the tea party followers are supposed to do, that is follow a mindless play book. And you’re right, Spencer doesn’t give a tinker’s damn about Bernie.
As to your comments about Bernie should he become president with congress remaining republican and the Senate in the hands of Democrats, the republicans would do the same thing to Bernie that they did not Barack.
Bernie might even have a more difficult time working with congress with the democrat/socialist tag hanging on him.
Roseanne Barr once said, I’m paraphrasing here, “there’s nothing more dangerous than white trash with money””. I could swear she must have been talking about Donald Trump.
well les, mercer covered McConnell and Paul Ryan pretty well in today’s article, I think. McCarthy and Gowdey are pretty well slimed and neither were at trump’s wedding, that I know of. so do you have a GOP member in mind that could qualify as a presidential candidate with more ability and ethics? Kasich is the only one I can think of, perhaps rising to the clintons’ caliber. And Sen. Susan Collins, (R. Maine).
so yeah, “entire” seems accurate. Tell me your sterling individuals I’m forgetting. I don’t pay that much attention to your party members. I would like to know. I don’t need to be “all better now”. I’m O.K. most of the time, tg. my personal guess is that trump is just building his brand and has nothing else to do between reality tv shows, so he’s playing with his own ego. his minions are certainly assuaging his id and ego.
The way to move things through congress would be on the down ticket. Voter enthusiasm for Bernie could and would make it interesting in those districts and states where there will be a danger for republicans up for re-election . Even in gerrymandered districts, this could pose a serious threat to those incumbents. I like Bernie and think that he brings more of a feeling of getting things accomplished than Hillary could bring. Look at the crowds of people that come to his meetings and listen to the man when he speaks. Then go to a Hillary rally and see what is missing. Bernie brings out the best and with that, hope that the country can change from the plutocracy we have been living in for the last several years.
Who is more likely to vote in the General: the silent majority or a bunch of pothead kids too lazy to get a job.
The same kid that told the pollster he was likely to vote told Dad he was getting a job, for sure.
Trump would hardly be my first choice but he can certainly beat Clinton. You don’t want to hear this but Trump is clearly a strategic genius. No joke. You should be asking yourself why you’re not smart enough to see it not congratulating yourselves on how much smarter you are than Trump. Hillary walked right into his schlong trap. I think its funny.
CH,
I think the people who did the study may be discounting correlation with causation. I don’t know if I know anyone who voted because of an endorsement except to the degree if confirmed their own opinions.
That said, we might have a good test case this year with Gowdy’s endorsement of Rubio as Gowdy was the conservative choice to oppose Ryan for Speaker.
Side note: Trends might be relevant more than actual endorsements. In 2008, after NH, a number of Members endorsed Obama, many of which switched from Clinton. But then again, those endorsements could have been correlation to what was happening in the streets.
Troy gives readers more reasons for South Dakota Democrats to register in his earth hater party and vote for Trump in the primary.
Larry, your insistence on attacking Troy every time he comments, without any real analysis of what he’s actually saying, erodes the quality of the conversation.
Just affirming his thesis, Cory.
Troy, I’ll agree that I don’t usually hear folks tallying up endorsements or saying things like, “I was going to vote for Donald Trump, but Mike Rounds endorsed Mike Huckabee, so I changed my mind.”
Causation could lie beneath those numbers: people might want to portray themselves as individualists, thinking for themselves, and simply not acknowledge or even recognize the influence of party leaders on their choices.
But even if the endorsement primary numbers are just correlation, they are instructive, especially in this primary. The lack of focus in the endorsements leave the door open for a man with no endorsement points to lead the race. We’ll see if Trump now breaks the correlation completely by hanging onto those endorsement ignorers… or if we have to expand the endorsement primary predictive model by including wild-eyed celebrities in the calculations.
Bree is correct in that the same school of thought that believed that Trump could not possibly win the GOP nomination is closely tied to the idea that Trump could not possibly win a general election. The fact that he has survived this long undermines both beliefs. If Trump can win a heavily contested GOP primary without establishment help, he certainly can win against Hillary. A Hillary presidency leans heavily on scenarios of GOP chaos.
liz warren has her own battle with republicans’ mutated obstructionism as newt the megaphone critiques her consumer watchdog eliminating 1
$16 bill in hidden cc charges. banks love hidden charges.
not bad though, starbux sold $25 bill in gift cards for the season. wow. that’s some cash flow joop and sveen! I understand your hidden charges ect ranged $600,000,000. how long can you hide your stolen records?
[CAH: here’s another comment where Lynn tries to misrepresent me and this blog with her own imaginings.]
Cory, I’d agree with Troy on this but are you sure about holding back your sidekick’s attacks? You two are like a tag team.
[CAH: see what I mean? I can stand here and tell Lynn the truth all day—Larry’s not my sidekick, my blog is my own, etc., etc., but she’ll keep repeating the same old lies, just like Donald Trump, not caring about truth, just hoping that enough people hear her fables and don’t bother to read further. What a royal pain in the neck.]
Troy and Cory a tag team? Say it ain’t so, CAH.
jeb, survivor watcher as he must be, lables trunp chaos, after”chaos kass”. trump is so smart, he thinks bankruptcy is a good thing and assuring a dem win in 2016 is brilliant. his obsession with being nice while insulting everyone but putin is chaos like bizarre objects hurtling within Katrina. however there is no subterfuge the gop is incapable of.
CH: “But even if the endorsement primary numbers are just correlation, they are instructive, especially in this primary.” I agree totally with this statement. In my mind, endorsements and the online wagers are great predictors of what is going to occur at the polls because both the politicos who do the endorsing and the betters have ears to the ground.
CH: “The lack of focus in the endorsements leave the door open for a man with no endorsement points to lead the race.” I think the lack of endorsements is the politicos have little confidence in what the outcome will be.
Trump is a strategic genius? BreeS-are you auditioning for Comedy Central? Might I suggest you apologize to Trump because he will demand one post haste.
CH:
FYI, oddsmakers give Bernie a 4% of becoming President and Hillary 56%. Don’t know if that makes you feel good or not but I’m not liking the 60-40 odds.
Governor and congressional endorsements do matter on several levels.
Both governor and congress members are usually delegates to the party convention and maybe key players of influence over delegates.
The congress and senate come into play where it really does matter, ultimately they will cast a vote in the electoral college for president.
If you recall the 2008 Democratic primary, Hillary conceded to Barack after doing her arithmetic, she determined that she could not possibly get the party nomination or the electoral votes needed for the presidency.
Trump should be concerned about endorsements, if governors and congress aren’t endorsing him, it signals that their loyalty may lie elsewhere. Could Trump get the nomination without endorsements? Yes he could, but it is not likely.
Rev. Franklin Graham recently left the GOP and Lindsey Graham dropped out of the presidential race, neither one would support Trump in any manner.
Political endorsements really do not matter much these days and haven’t for some time. The support of the people is what counts. We are seeing that it really does not matter how much moolah you throw at the wall in this race, nothing sticks as it is the Donald that has the voice. On the Democratic side, Bernie has the voice and the frustration of the people who are tired of getting screwed. Independents are certainly paying attention to what he says and I think he has managed to make centrist republicans hear him as well. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/political-endorsements-dont-mean-a-lot–unless-youre-donald-trump/2011/12/22/gIQAAxNQLP_story.html
Roger, I read in Wapo that Graham quit the party because Congress didn’t defund Planned Parenthood. One commentator pointed out that Graham likely quit because he believed the lies being told by Republicans about selling baby parts.
Roger,
Conceptually, you are correct but I don’t think in a modern election super delegates (incidentally dems have a larger percentage of super delegates) a nomination could have been switched if all the delegates went opposite of the plurality voter selected. But I don’t know for sure.
Thus, I’m with Jerry. Nominations will be decided by the primary voters.
Trump followers seem to think that he is brilliant and he is that when speaking to his base. They soak it up because they, well because they are not so sharp. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Graham had to know congress can’t do diddly as long as there are right-thinking politicians along with an upstanding Potus to thwart their theology movement.
Bear,
When Franklin Graham was interviewed on FOX “News” he said he was leaving the party primarily over the budget recently passed and the Planned Parenthood provisions, but also because he had lost faith in the leadership of both political parties.
Generally when a republican is disappointed in their party’s leadership they will also blame the Democrats for failed leadership. That is somehow an attempt to soften the blow to party faithful.
Mike from Iowa: Trump will have a strict honor code. He won’t share the rules with his enemy but will amuse himself by deciding how much rope to give, and when he strikes his hands will be clean.
DT is doing to politics what he did for business, buy using other peoples money. When it goes wrong he will lay the blame on someone else. I can guarantee that the dirt hasnt even begun to fly.
Do any of you remember the investigating team that said they had proof of the presidents birth being wrong? That will be his playbook.
The Blindman
Good luck with that,Bree. Dream on. Trump has proven he won’t share anything with anyone. He is an attention hog me firster.
Curious: do endorsements matter more on one side than the other?
Troy, I’d respond like Han Solo and say, “Never tell me the odds!”, but that would be disingenuous. I like knowing the odds so I can enjoy trying to beat them all the more.
Jerry, if endorsements don’t matter—if primary voters are not influenced by what their elected officials are saying—then I would expect to see less respect for those elected officials at the polls. In other words, I would expect to see some rate of rejection of incumbent members of Congress and legislators proportionate to the primary electorate’s rate of rejection of endorsements.
And if either Graham is leaving any party strictly over a disagreement over abortion, then he isn’t thinking deeply enough about the real problems facing this country.