What Went Down In The Indiana Primary

Now that we can call Trump the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, I suppose, Democrats seem to be bouncing back and forth between glee and panic. Which is the more evidence-based emotion? Back when we thought political science mattered, there were two pretty consistent schools of thought that suggested candidates and campaigns were less important than news reports often suppose. Election forecasts based on what political scientists like to call the “fundamentals” — the state of the economy, how long the incumbent party has been in office, and how popular the incumbent is — are usually pretty accurate. Second, polarization has emerged as a powerful force in American politics. With an electorate that’s pretty set in its party preferences, it’s not too hard to figure out what the vote might look like. All of this suggests that the GOP nominating a wild card like Trump doesn’t matter that much. But candidates do sometimes underperform based on what the “fundamentals” suggest, and campaigns may well play a role in helping voters figure out the cues from the political environment. In particular, voter mobilization seems to have been a big part of the story for Obama’s last two campaigns. Mobilization is perhaps the biggest question mark for a Trump general-election candidacy. He’s made some friends within the elite party tent, but not that many. Will the party coalesce around him and mobilize on his behalf? Or does the candidate really matter when it comes to inspiring these efforts?

The exit polls on the Democratic side look familiar: Sanders dominated among young and independent voters, Clinton among old voters and black voters. Consistent with Sanders’s gains as votes were counted, he also won among late deciders, getting 55 percent of the vote from people who decided in the last few days. That could mean his campaign’s claim that voters in upcoming primaries will turn toward him as they get to know him more has some merit. It could also reflect the decision by the Clinton campaign to spend virtually nothing on advertising in Indiana, since it has such a formidable lead among delegates.

Now that common sense, conventional wisdom and the betting markets have converged on the near-certainty of a Clinton vs. Trump general-election matchup, what can polls tell us at this point about who would win? It’s far too soon to believe exactly what the polls say at this stage — only after the conventions do they get really predictive. Still, if you’re wondering, lots of pollsters have been asking voters this question for a while, and Clinton consistently wins in the hypothetical matchup. HuffPost Pollster has Clinton beating Trump by about 7 percentage points on average. And her lead has been remarkably steady: She has led in all but two of the last 58 polls the site has compiled. In the two exceptions, Trump is level with Clinton in one, and ahead by 2 points in another. Perhaps because the two are such longstanding national figures with major name recognition, an average of just 10 percent of respondents have said they are undecided. Again: Take these polls with a generous pinch of salt.