Election 2016 Primary forecasts Delegates National polls Endorsements Facebook map

Who’s On Track For The Nomination?

Tracking a candidate’s progress requires more than straight delegate counts. We’ve estimated how many delegates each candidate would need in each primary contest to win the nomination. See who’s on track and who’s falling behind.


UPDATED 4:29 PM EDT | May 18, 2016

Donald Trump

We think Trump will fare best in states and congressional districts with small shares of college graduates. His ideal path would depend on a broad coalition of Southern, Midwestern and industrial Northeastern states. Can You Get Trump To 1,237? »

States are sized according to number of delegates available

Marco RubioDropped out

Rubio’s ideal path would rely on highly educated parts of the Mid-Atlantic, West Coast and Great Lakes regions. His path is heavily reliant on winner-take-all states later in the primary calendar.

States are sized according to number of delegates available

Ted CruzDropped out

Cruz’s ideal path would rely heavily on evangelical voters in the Deep South, conservative sections of the Midwest, and Texas. Many of these areas vote earlier in the calendar.

States are sized according to number of delegates available

John KasichDropped out

Kasich’s ideal path would rely on more liberal and highly educated swaths of New England, the Midwest and the West Coast. His path depends less on heavily evangelical and Southern states, most of which vote earlier in the calendar.

States are sized according to number of delegates available
trumprubiocruzkasich
DateState Or TerritoryTotal delegatesWon/TargetWon/TargetWon/TargetWon/Target
Feb. 1Iowa30
7/10
7/12
8/13
1/11
Feb. 9New Hampshire23
11/8
2/10
3/8
4/11
Feb. 20South Carolina50
50/41
0/6
0/50
0/6
Feb. 23Nevada30
14/13
7/11
6/11
1/10
March 1Alabama50
36/19
1/13
13/26
0/7
Alaska28
11/9
5/12
12/12
0/9
Arkansas40
16/14
9/12
15/21
0/6
Georgia76
42/25
16/26
18/41
0/18
Massachusetts42
22/20
8/16
4/12
8/21
Minnesota38
8/12
17/14
13/13
0/14
Oklahoma43
13/15
12/14
15/19
0/8
Tennessee58
33/20
9/14
16/31
0/9
Texas155
48/67
3/53
104/104
0/31
Vermont16
8/7
0/7
0/5
8/8
Virginia49
17/17
16/22
8/18
5/19
March 5Kansas40
9/16
6/13
24/20
1/10
Kentucky46
17/21
7/17
15/20
7/10
Louisiana46
18/23
5/14
18/22
0/8
Maine23
9/9
0/10
12/9
2/11
March 6Puerto Rico23
0/8
23/15
0/8
0/15
March 8Hawaii19
11/7
1/10
7/9
0/10
Idaho32
12/10
0/15
20/13
0/9
Michigan59
25/25
0/23
17/22
17/22
Mississippi40
25/17
0/13
15/19
0/7
March 10Virgin Islands9
1/0
2/9
1/0
0/9
March 12District of Columbia19
0/7
10/8
0/7
9/10
Guam9
0/3
0/6
0/3
0/6
March 15Florida99
99/99
0/99
0/99
0/99
Illinois69
54/39
0/63
9/18
6/60
Missouri52
37/42
0/10
15/52
0/5
North Carolina72
29/26
6/30
27/29
9/25
Northern Marianas9
9/0
0/9
0/0
0/9
Ohio66
0/66
0/0
0/66
66/66
March 22American Samoa9
0/3
—/6
0/3
0/6
Arizona58
58/58
—/58
0/58
0/58
Utah40
0/9
—/20
40/17
0/11
April 1North Dakota28
0/10
—/12
0/10
0/9
April 5Wisconsin42
6/18
—/42
36/33
0/39
April 9Colorado37
0/11
—/16
30/17
0/15
April 16Wyoming29
1/10
—/13
23/11
0/7
April 19New York95
90/58
—/55
0/6
5/45
April 26Connecticut28
28/15
—/11
0/4
0/21
Delaware16
16/16
—/16
0/0
0/16
Maryland38
38/17
—/35
0/3
0/32
Pennsylvania71
17/40
—/45
0/19
0/48
Rhode Island19
12/9
—/7
2/4
5/10
May 3Indiana57
57/51
—/6
0/57
0/9
May 10Nebraska36
36/0
—/36
—/36
—/36
West Virginia34
34/34
—/0
—/34
—/0
May 17Oregon28
19/9
—/13
—/11
—/13
May 24Washington44
/15
—/16
—/16
—/16
June 7California172
/81
—/157
—/30
—/151
Montana27
/0
—/27
—/27
—/27
New Jersey51
/51
—/0
—/0
—/51
New Mexico24
/7
—/11
—/12
—/9
South Dakota29
/0
—/29
—/29
—/29
TOTAL2,472
1,103/1,083
173/997
551/1,123
158/954
trumprubiocruzkasich
DateState/ TerritoryTotal delegates TotalWon/TargetWon/TargetWon/TargetWon/Target
2/1Iowa30
7/10
7/12
8/13
1/11
2/9N.H.23
11/8
2/10
3/8
4/11
2/20S.C.50
50/41
0/6
0/50
0/6
2/23Nev.30
14/13
7/11
6/11
1/10
3/1Ala.50
36/19
1/13
13/26
0/7
Alaska28
11/9
5/12
12/12
0/9
Ark.40
16/14
9/12
15/21
0/6
Ga.76
42/25
16/26
18/41
0/18
Mass.42
22/20
8/16
4/12
8/21
Minn.38
8/12
17/14
13/13
0/14
Okla.43
13/15
12/14
15/19
0/8
Tenn.58
33/20
9/14
16/31
0/9
Texas155
48/67
3/53
104/104
0/31
Vt.16
8/7
0/7
0/5
8/8
Va.49
17/17
16/22
8/18
5/19
3/5Kan.40
9/16
6/13
24/20
1/10
Ky.46
17/21
7/17
15/20
7/10
La.46
18/23
5/14
18/22
0/8
Maine23
9/9
0/10
12/9
2/11
3/6P.R.23
0/8
23/15
0/8
0/15
3/8Hawaii19
11/7
1/10
7/9
0/10
Idaho32
12/10
0/15
20/13
0/9
Mich.59
25/25
0/23
17/22
17/22
Miss.40
25/17
0/13
15/19
0/7
3/10V.I.9
1/0
2/9
1/0
0/9
3/12D.C.19
0/7
10/8
0/7
9/10
Guam9
0/3
0/6
0/3
0/6
3/15Fla.99
99/99
0/99
0/99
0/99
Ill.69
54/39
0/63
9/18
6/60
Mo.52
37/42
0/10
15/52
0/5
N.C.72
29/26
6/30
27/29
9/25
C.N.M.I.9
9/0
0/9
0/0
0/9
Ohio66
0/66
0/0
0/66
66/66
3/22A.S.9
0/3
0/6
0/3
0/6
Ariz.58
58/58
0/58
0/58
0/58
Utah40
0/9
0/20
40/17
0/11
4/1N.D.28
0/10
0/12
0/10
0/9
4/5Wis.42
6/18
0/42
36/33
0/39
4/9Colo.37
0/11
0/16
30/17
0/15
4/16Wyo.29
1/10
1/13
23/11
0/7
4/19N.Y.95
90/58
0/55
0/6
5/45
4/26Conn.28
28/15
0/11
0/4
0/21
Del.16
16/16
0/16
0/0
0/16
Md.38
38/17
0/35
0/3
0/32
Pa.71
17/40
0/45
0/19
0/48
R.I.19
12/9
0/7
2/4
5/10
5/3Ind.57
57/51
0/6
0/57
0/9
5/10Neb.36
36/0
0/36
0/36
0/36
W.Va.34
34/34
0/0
0/34
0/0
5/17Ore.28
19/9
0/13
5/11
4/13
5/24Wash.44
/15
—/16
—/16
—/16
6/7Calif.172
/81
—/157
—/30
—/151
Mont.27
/0
—/27
—/27
—/27
N.J.51
/51
—/0
—/0
—/51
N.M.24
/7
—/11
—/12
—/9
S.D.29
/0
—/29
—/29
—/29
TOTAL2,472
1,103/1,083
173/997
551/1,123
158/954
Methodology

These interactive charts show which candidate is on target to win the Republican nomination and which ones are falling behind. They are based on our estimate of how many delegates Donald Trump, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz would need in each primary and caucus to win a simple majority of the 2,472 convention delegates at the Republican National Convention.

We reached these estimates by developing benchmarks for each state in the form of a baseline estimate of the candidates’ support. These are based on an examination of polling data, including state-by-state polling from Morning Consult, a nonpartisan polling and media firm that has surveyed more than 7,000 Republicans online since Jan. 1, along with other surveys from Jan. 1 through Feb. 25 from the FiveThirtyEight polling database.

These estimates are also informed by states’ demographic data and social media data. In contrast to our Democratic estimates, which are determined strictly by a formula, there is some degree of subjectivity in this process; we looked at a number of factors with the goal of finding consensus in the data. In particular, we used the Census Bureau’s 2014 American Community Survey to model geographic support for Trump and Rubio based on proportions of residents with at least a college degree in each state (the lower the better for Trump, the higher the better for Rubio — an observation bolstered by exit polls and real votes thus far). We also referenced the Pew Research Center’s Religious Landscape Study to model Cruz’s geographic support based on shares of evangelical Protestants in each state (the higher the better for Cruz). We examined the number of Facebook “likes” for each candidate in each state, as well as patterns in Google searches: Trump performs better in states where Google searches indicate a high degree of racial animus.

Next, we plugged each candidate’s baseline level of support into each state’s delegate allocation rules (for example, proportional vs. winner-take-all) to evaluate how votes would translate into delegates. Then, we gradually and proportionally adjusted each candidate’s level of support until the candidate reached 1,237 delegates nationally. Note that because there are three top GOP contenders each vying for a majority, the sum of the candidate targets in each state often exceeds the total number of delegates available in that state.

Little data exists to model candidate support in American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. However, in 2008 and 2012, these territories gave almost all their support to the “establishment” candidate, so we assumed each territory would give two-thirds of its support to Rubio. Furthermore, note that all of North Dakota’s delegates and most of Pennsylvania’s delegates will be unbound to a single Republican candidate. (Some delegates from other states and territories will be unbound as well.) We assumed these delegates would vote in proportion to candidates’ estimated support shares in their states.

CORRECTION (March 16, 1 p.m.): A previous version of this article mischaracterized the delegate rules for Colorado and Wyoming. Delegates from those states may choose, before being elected, to be bound to a candidate or to be unbound; the two states will not necessarily send most or all of their delegates to the convention unbound.

CommentsAdd Comment