When the last active Republican opponent to Donald Trump "suspended" his campaign, why did the remaining contests begin skewing heavily in favor of Trump? One could ask why voters who oppose Trump would bother to vote when the outcome is known, but one could equally ask why voters who support Trump when the outcome is known. Cruz (and quite a few other Republicans) are still on the ballot and, if people voted for Cruz, he would still win just the same as if he hadn't suspended his campaign. This happens every 4 years when a candidate in the party becomes the presumed nominee. Even though in theory other candidates could still win, the other candidates supporters stop voting for their guy and the presumed nominee starts getting nearly all the votes. This makes the remaining contests meaningless. Why does it happen?

  • its the defect of voting-system and media support it. – user 1 May 26 '16 at 6:24
  • people realized that you cannot possibly stump the trump. – hownowbrowncow May 26 '16 at 21:45
  • In gaming we sometimes call people with such behaviour "winning team joiners". Success does make attractive. – user1129682 May 27 '16 at 7:22

When the last active Republican opponent to Donald Trump "suspended" his campaign, why did the remaining contests begin skewing heavily in favor of Trump?

The contests started skewing towards Trump (New York through Indiana) and then Ted Cruz and John Kasich suspended their campaigns. They may be skewing more heavily towards Trump since the suspensions, but the skew began first.

Prior to New York, Trump hadn't won a majority of the vote in any state (he did win a majority of one of the territories). Starting with New York, he has won almost all the delegates in each state. Mathematically it might be possible for Trump to fall short of 1237 delegates (one more than half of 2472--the total number of delegates). Realistically though, he would have to lose some of the states that he is expected to win. And he would have to do exceptionally badly with unbound delegates.

Note that Trump had 1014 delegates when the other two dropped out. But this undercounted his real strength. For example, in Pennsylvania, 54 of the 71 delegates are unbound. They could vote for anyone at the convention. But most of them have promised to vote for the winner of their congressional district. So Trump can expect to get at least 40 more. He is also expected to win New Jersey, which is winner-take-all (51). That's 1105 delegates. Plus there are 394 delegates to be awarded in other elections. Trump barely needed to win a third (132) of those to make it to 1237. And there's another fifty or so unbound delegates who could be wooed if he fell just a little short.

Since Indiana, there has been little to no hope that Trump would fall short of a majority of the delegates.

Without the candidates in the race, there is little incentive for their voters to go to the polls. The candidates have essentially told them not to bother. And they are no longer pushing supporters to the polls with direct mail, phone calls, etc. The end of the campaigns means that there is no more money for this.

Finally, there are some people who just like supporting the winner. The contest is effectively over, so just go ahead and make it actually over.

  • Trump won Indiana with 53% of the vote. Prior to that he occassionally got 60% but most of the time his vote totals were well under 60% and even under 50%. The four states after Indiana have given him 61%, 77%, 67%, and 76%. That looks to me like a pretty significant increase and not simply the result of earlier trends. "Without the candidates in the race, there is little incentive for their voters to go to the polls. The candidates have essentially told them not to bother." But the winning candidates supporters don't have a reason to go either. – Readin May 28 '16 at 3:21
  • "Finally, there are some people who just like supporting the winner. The contest is effectively over, so just go ahead and make it actually over." That seems plausible (though irrational); do you know of any sources or data to support that theory? – Readin May 28 '16 at 3:22
  • @Readin - I don't know about where you live but we voted for quite a bit more than just the party presidential nominee. So there is a reason to vote . – Dunk May 31 '16 at 20:26
  • @Dunk "we voted for quite a bit more than just the party presidential nominee" Again, that applies to supporters and opponents of the presumptive nominee. It doesn't explain why people are voting more for the presumptive nominee than they are for the candidate they would have voted for had the news media not announced that he was the "presumptive nominee" – Readin Jun 1 '16 at 5:44
  • @Readin - Sorry, I should have quoted it but I was referring specifically to "But the winning candidates supporters don't have a reason to go either". As for "It doesn't explain...." I think it is pretty obvious why the "presumptive nominee" is getting more votes. The other people dropped out of the race! Most people aren't exactly enamored with any of the available choices so switching from supporting one candidate to supporting one that is actually still in the race isn't exactly a difficult decision and is what most people would likely do. – Dunk Jun 1 '16 at 22:07

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.