To start the math, we note that the first Primary of 2016 for the Republicans will yield 23 delegates out of 2,380 or 0.97% (about 1%). The Democrats will yield 32 out of 4,047 delegates, or 0.79% (about 8/10 of 1%). Both races were won by good margins.
Donald Trump won with over a third of the Republican voters at 35%. To keep the audience interested, the news is focusing on who came in second among Republicans, which is Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, with 16%. Next is Cruz, Bush, and Rubio, with 11.7%, 11.0%, and 10.5%, and Christie with 7.4%. It seems the order of Cruz, Bush, and Rubio is not that significant, but the fact that they were passed by Kasich is. Again, two thirds of Republican primary voters did not find the leader Trump to be their preferred candidate. The three governors, who may be thought of as the “establishment” candidates, total 34%. This may be an equally significant sector if they eventually coalesce into one candidate.
Bernie Sanders at 60% to Clinton’s 38% was foreseen, since he is from the neighboring and similar state, Vermont. This is a very significant margin, of more than three to two. In the polling about factions and factors that may have influenced voters, it was not stated whether all other effects had been eliminated in concentrating on that one faction or factor. Lets say that knowing Sanders from the closely neighboring and parallel state was the main factor. Then every segment or factor polled would have an average 60% favorability, from the overall result. Only those segments or factors significantly above or below this would be evidence for a preference based on another issue or voter segment. Such differences did show up with age, since that variable did segment the population. The younger set of voters favored Sanders. Education again segmented voters. Gun ownership segmented voters, coming out with about 63% favoring Sanders, but maybe not significant enough to claim a bias over the hypothesis of the neighboring state favorite son.
About 40% of voters in both primaries were independents.
One place Physics enters is in the noise of the negative campaigns. It is cited that the candidates spent over $30 million on negative advertising. For a pre estimate of 550,000 voters, the candidates and PACs spent over $55 for each voter, generating a result that was close to early polls and may have accomplished nothing other than annoying voters.
The hopeful outlook is that the results of the Citizens United case of allowing corporations and PACs unlimited contributions does not actually work in a case of campaign overkill. The further evidence of this is that PACS backing Jeb Bush are said to have spent $36 million in New Hampshire, and Jeb received about 30,000 votes, at a “cost” of $1200 a vote. According to opensecrets.org, PACS backing Bush have the record in spending $69 million in the campaign so far. Next are Chris Christie at $23 million, and Marco Rubio at $22 million. Donald Trump PACS have spend only $5.8 million, exceeded by Ted Cruz and John Kasich at $13 million. Democrat PAC expenses for Hillary Clinton are $5.4 million (mostly negative ads), for Bernie Sanders are $2.0 million.
Here’s and idea. Just treat each voting family to a fancy dinner and a movie instead. For one thing, that keeps the campaign money in the state of the campaigns. Is it buying votes? Hey, these are just primaries, where the political parties don’t have to obey the rules of the US election.
The other place Physics enters is that the news said that Sanders now had momentum. But momentum is a product of mass times velocity. Sanders got velocity in the victory, but in a state with only 8/10 of one percent of the delegates, he didn’t really have a lot of momentum from it.
