Residue Reasoning

Donald Trump is a professional salesman, and he is actively doing his absolute best to sell to the American public that he is the undisputed front-runner, the party favorite, the populist leader of the Republican party, and therefore deserves its uncontested support.  When headlines appear that show that Trump wins X Primary with X% votes, for example, it's easy to feel the tug of his compelling sales pitch.  So how much of the population is truly supporting Donald Trump through the nomination process?  I thought we should boil the numbers down to evaluate:

In any given contest, there is a percentage of voters which cast their vote for Trump.  The vote percentage shown (e.g. 45.9% in Nevada Caucus) is the percentage of votes for Trump out of the total votes cast during the Republican Primary or Caucus.  But, it is critical to keep in mind that the voters participating in each Primary or Caucus contest are only a subset of registered Republicans for that particular state*; and registered Republicans are only a subset of all of the Voting-Eligible Population within a given state; and Voting-Eligible Population is only a subset of the Voting Age Population of a given state.  Let's take for example Nevada-- a state that Trump won early on by a surprisingly large margin.  Below is a nested circle diagram which illustrates the point-- the area of each circle represents the subsets of population described above.  Trump's 45.9% victory, when viewed in terms of the total Voting Age Population of Nevada, takes on an entirely new, diminutive context:


Here is a link to a spreadsheet of data and calculations from all of the states which have already held their primary or caucus contests in 2016 (as of 3/28), along with the appropriate statistics of current state population, registered Republican voters, Voting-Eligible Population estimates and Voting-Age Population estimates, and finally the number of Primary/Caucus votes cast in favor of Donald Trump.  From this data we can contrast the difference between A) the % of votes in favor of Trump within the Republican contest, and B) the % of Voting-Eligible Population (from all parties) voting for Trump.

State	% Trump Votes Among Rep. Voters	% of VEP for Trump
Iowa	24.3%	2.0%
New Hampshire	34.9%	9.7%
South Carolina	32.2%	6.5%
Nevada	45.9%	1.8%
Alabama	43.4%	10.3%
Alaska	33.5%	1.4%
Arkansas	32.4%	6.2%
Georgia	38.7%	7.3%
Massachusetts	48.8%	6.3%
Minnesota	36.5%	1.0%
Oklahoma	28.3%	4.7%
Tennessee	38.9%	6.8%
Texas	27.7%	4.4%
Vermont	32.3%	4.0%
Virginia	34.7%	5.9%
Kansas	23.3%	0.8%
Kentucky	35.9%	2.5%
Louisiana	41.4%	3.7%
Maine	32.5%	0.6%
Hawaii	42.4%	0.6%
Idaho	28.1%	5.4%
Michigan	36.6%	6.5%
Mississippi	47.5%	8.8%
District of Columbia	13.8%	0.1%
Florida	45.8%	7.5%
Illinois	41.1%	6.3%
Missouri	40.9%	8.5%
North Carolina	40.2%	6.3%
Ohio	37.4%	8.3%
Arizona	47.1%	5.4%
Utah	14.0%	1.3%
AVERAGE	35.5%	4.9%

What can we take away from the data shown above and from the source data in the spreadsheet?  For one thing, Primary voter turnout rates are still embarrassingly low at appx. 20% of all those who are eligible to vote.  The result of this is that in several states where Trump produced a surprisingly strong win (e.g. Nevada, Hawaii, etc.), this is simply because of abysmally low Republican voter turnout.  Yes, Trump won Hawaii with 42.4% of votes, but among a state with a population over 1 million, Trump only mustered a little over 5,600 votes-- but that was enough to clinch an additional 11 delegates.  Across all 32 contests so far, Trump is garnering less than 5% of votes from all those who would be eligible to vote.  Let me put that another way:  The percentage of voters choosing Trump for President is currently less than the percentage of convicted felons in America.  Is that the least bit distressing for you?  For someone with support from such a small fraction of the population to be on the cusp of being officially nominated for election as President of the United States?

So yes, Donald Trump is currently doing better than other candidates-- but doing better than others doesn't mean you're doing well.  This is one reason why, despite his protestations, a contested Convention may not only be fair but highly appropriate.  Why is Republican voter turnout so low?  What could we do as a Nation to fix this voting system?  Topics for future posts, I confess.  Just keep in mind, the next time you hear vote percentages for a Primary win, that in reality there's much more (or, much less) than meets the eyes behind those numbers.

*Several states do not allow for declaring political party affiliation when registering to vote.

In case you've had your head in the sand for the past several months, it's Primary Election season for the upcoming Presidential Election.  To describe it in game-like terms, states each take a turn having their residents vote for a candidate (Iowa goes first), and based on the voting the state allocates delegates (i.e. "points").  For Republican candidates, the first one to 1237 points wins.  For Democrats, the magic number is 2383.  Each state subscribes to one of two ways of deciding how to allocate delegates to a particular candidate: either by caucus or by primary election.

Now, here's where things get a bit more complicated.  Both Caucuses and Primaries are split into several types: either "Open," "Closed," or some hybrid form of both "Open" and "Closed".  So what's the difference between an Open and a Closed Primary/Caucus?  In an Open Primary or Caucus, any voter (Republican, Democrat, or otherwise) is able and allowed to submit a ballot for any candidate in any party.  Conversely, in a Closed Primary or Caucus, a voter can only cast a ballot for the political party with which he/she is registered.  According to standard Game Theory ideology, each voter would vote for their preferred candidate, and the candidate(s) with the most votes would procure the most delegates, thus reflecting the plurality, if not the majority of the will of the people.  The argument in favor of an Open contest is that Independents, swing-voters, etc. can select whichever candidate among any party whom they prefer.

In a normal election cycle, the difference between Open and Closed systems may be trivial-- but the 2016 election cycle is far from normal.  The Republican Party produced several viable Presidential candidates with a wide range of credentials, backgrounds, and policy positions which may appeal to prospective voters--and then it also produced Donald Trump.  Let's face it: most of the country, Democrats and Republicans alike, acknowledge and understand that Donald Trump is not a viable candidate for the Presidency.  One need look no further than his approval ratings (which are already in the toilet), or worse, how he is getting trounced in national polls against a candidate with a similar approval rating and similarly against a self-declared Socialist-- not to mention these other reasons.  Yet Trump continues to regularly win these contests in both "red" and "blue" states.

What does this have to do with Open Primaries or Caucuses?  Democratic voters participating in these events can choose to follow the standard Game Theory and select the candidate they feel best represents their interests.  Or, they can pick up a Republican ballot instead and do their best to sabotage the Republican nomination process so that the opposing party produces the weakest candidate possible, thereby ensuring that a Democrat ends up in the Oval Office in November.  This would be a compelling strategy under one of two conditions: EITHER the voter has no strong preference between the Democratic candidates and is only focused on a Democratic win in November, OR they live in a state which leans heavily in favor of one Democratic candidate over the other(s), thus effectively invalidating their vote for their own party.

For those who may be thinking, "This never happens"-- it does.  One possible recent example of this is the 2008 Presidential race.  According to exit polls in the New Hampshire Republican primary, candidate Mitt Romney won among registered Republicans, yet John McCain ended up winning the state overall.  According to the same exit poll, John McCain won by a landslide among voters who identified as Liberal.

Could this phenomenon be partly to blame for Donald Trump's supposed "overwhelming" support in the Primary and Caucus contests?  Let's look at the numbers.  The list below are the states which hold an Open or Semi-Open Primary or Caucus, the declared Republican winner, and the winning percentage of votes (as of March 24th):

Alabama	Trump	43.4%
Arkansas	Trump	32.8%
Georgia	Trump	38.8%
Illinois	Trump	38.8%
Michigan	Trump	36.5%
Minnesota	Rubio	36.5%
Mississippi	Trump	47.3%
Missouri	Trump	40.9%
North Carolina	Trump	40.2%
Ohio	Kasich	46.8%
Tennessee	Trump	38.9%
Texas	Cruz	43.8%
Vermont	Trump	32.7%
Virginia	Trump	34.7%

And here's the results of the states which hold Closed contests:

One of the prevailing "healthy eating" trends today is the shift away from processed foods toward foods that are more "organic", more "natural"--in a word: RAW.  One needs look no further than the popular Paleo diet, which purports that the ideal diet for humans is that which cavemen would have been able to eat thousands of years ago.  Part of this food fanaticism movement has included backlash on state municipalities for laws which currently limit or outlaw the sale or distribution of raw milk.  So, let this be a Public Service Announcement: raw milk is dangerous.

Let's be clear: raw milk is milk which has not undergone pasteurization-- the process which is specifically intended to eliminate pathogenic microbes in the milk.  Those pathogens include bacteria such as E. coli, Salmonella, and Listeria, as well as parasites and viruses.  Here is a recent news article detailing a deadly listeria outbreak linked to raw milk.  You may remember Listeria from other news stories in the past (here and here).  The effects of exposure to these pathogens is not always as simple as 'stomach bug' type illness.  The pathogens that pasteurization eliminates are those which can cause Typhoid Fever, Tuberculosis, and Norovirus.  Here are the facts:

Listeria alone: 1600 illnesses, 260 deaths every year

Illnesses specifically tied to raw milk: Between 1998 and 2011, 2,384 illnesses, 284 hospitalizations, and 2 deaths

How risky is raw milk, really?  Here is a fantastic research paper on the topic-- rather than summarizing, I will simply quote a portion of the paper:



Raw dairy consumption is 150 times more likely to make you sick than pasteurized dairy products.  Let's put that in perspective: if drinking raw milk made you 150 times more likely to get in a car accident, you'd get in a car accident once every month on average, and would most likely die in one within 15 years. 150 times greater is the difference between running a marathon and running from LA to New York, and then back to Denver. 

So why would anyone consume food which is clearly related to an elevated risk of illness and death?  For the purported health benefits, of course!  The only trouble is that those health benefits-- 

• higher nutritional value
• lower rate of food allergies
• reduced lactose intolerance
• preservation of probiotics

have largely been scientifically debunked.  Another reason may simply be the misunderstanding of what pasteurization is.  With a scary word like that, it must involve antibiotics, hormones, or some other non-natural chemical treatment (hint: it doesn't).  

If you're a fan of tragic irony and anecdotal evidence, here's an article about lawmakers falling ill by consuming raw milk after celebrating the legalization of raw milk.

So, I leave it to the informed consumer to decide how the risk-benefit scales are tipped: a heightened risk of illness, hospitalization, and death for anecdotal and scientifically unproven health benefits.  It's not uncommon for some among our species to choose a much more dangerous way of living without any tangible benefit.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder
DSM-IV Diagnostic Criteria (this is literally the textbook definition)

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements). 
2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love. 
3. Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions). 
4. Requires excessive admiration. 
5. Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations. 
6. Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends. 
7. Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others.

The following is a list of actual quotes from Mr. Donald J. Trump:

On jobs:
"I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created."

On his personality:
"People say, 'Mr. Trump, you’re not a nice person.' But actually I am."

On ego:
"Show me someone without an ego, and I'll show you a loser -- having a healthy ego, or high opinion of yourself, is a real positive in life!"

On his intellect:
"I promise you that I'm much smarter than Jonathan Leibowitz -- I mean Jon Stewart @TheDailyShow. Who, by the way, is totally overrated."

"Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest — and you all know it! Please don't feel so stupid or insecure, it's not your fault."

On racism:
"I don't have a racist bone in my body."
"I've always had a great relationship with the blacks."

The last thing he apologized for:
"It was too many years ago to remember. I have one of the great memories of all time, but it was too long ago."

On how women perceive him (Trump speaking of himself in 3rd person):
"Women find his power almost as much of a turn-on as his money."

Regarding The Iranian Nuclear Deal:
"I have studied this issue in great detail, greater by far than anyone else."

On his apartment:
"There may be no other apartment in the world like it."
"I show [my] apartment to very few people. Presidents. Kings."

On his books:
"Don't let the brevity of these passages prevent you from savoring the profundity of the advice you are about to receive."

Even Trump's Physician report:
"(Trump) will be healthiest individual ever elected"
(note: we speculate it was written by Trump and simply signed/approved by his doctor)

Got another favorite Trump = Textbook Narcissism quote?  Feel free to add in the comments below!