2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[Solecismic]

If things hold the way they are (no guarantee)...

Estimates from March 15: Trump 232, Kasich 83, Cruz 46, Rubio 16.

Estimated Total: Trump 696, Cruz 418, Rubio 172, Kasich 146, Unbound 59, Others 15.

Remaining Delegates: 966.

Percentage of Delegates Allocated so Far: Trump 46, Cruz 28, Rubio 11, Kasich 10.

Percentage of Remaining Delegates Required to Reach 1,237: Trump 56, Cruz 85, Kasich cannot reach 1,237.

Next Week: Arizona (58), Utah (40). Arizona is a closed WTA Primary and Utah is a modified closed (no party-switching, must register for your party early) caucus with a 50% WTA threshold. I don't think it's much of a stretch to say Cruz has an excellent chance of getting all 40 in Utah. Arizona might be a dogfight. My sympathies to everyone who has to watch Phoenix-area television this week.

While the geography now favors Trump, most primaries down the stretch are closed, which favors Cruz.

Trump surprised me in Illinois. His organization was apparently solid, as they picked up many more of those loophole delegates than I thought possible. Plus he had a solid margin.

It was a big night for him. And a pretty bad night for Cruz - much worse than he seems to want to admit.

I still think a contested convention is somewhat likely, though not as likely I thought yesterday. If Kasich hadn't won Ohio, then Trump probably would be the presumptive nominee. Instead, Arizona has become very important. Trump needs it to get back on pace. Utah is the last real caucus (North Dakota's is for show only).

Kasich needs to parlay Ohio into momentum in the northeast so Trump doesn't accumulate enormous numbers in New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Maryland next month. Will Rubio be able to withdraw his challenge of Kasich's signatures in Pennsylvania?

[Thomkal]

well if the Pope couldn't stop him, perhaps Anonymous can?

Hacker group Anonymous declares 'total war' on Donald Trump | Fox News

[Dutch]

No surprise there.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If Trump gets nominated, what happens to all the Koch money? I can't imagine they drop 750 mil on Donald. Do they repurpose it towards Senate and Governor races?

I have to admit, I am seriously confused by this whole "Koch brothers" thing. Dems keep trotting that out over and over, and I don't get it. Maybe I'm missing something.

A list of the top political donors shows the first of the Koch brothers at #10, with the top 2 donors alone, both Dem backers, giving 15 times to Dem candidates what the Koch brothers give to Republicans: Blue billionaires on top - POLITICO

Even if you count their corporate giving, Koch Industries comes in only #49 on the list, not even 1/10th of what the top two organizations give to Dems: Top Organization Contributors | OpenSecrets

The stats show big money, uberwealthy donors overwhelmingly support Democrats over Republicans. How can Harry Reid, et al., keep trotting out this "Koch brothers" mythos? Is it just "repeat a lie often enough and people believe it," or is there some behind-the-scenes stat I'm unaware of?

[cartman]

Kochs Plan to spend $900 million

The political network overseen by the conservative billionaires Charles G. and David H. Koch plans to spend close to $900 million on the 2016 campaign, an unparalleled effort by coordinated outside groups to shape a presidential election that is already on track to be the most expensive in history.

The spending goal, revealed Monday at the Kochs’ annual winter donor retreat near Palm Springs, Calif., would allow their political organization to operate at the same financial scale as the Democratic and Republican Parties. It would require a significant financial commitment from the Kochs and roughly 300 other donors they have recruited over the years, and covers both the presidential and congressional races. In the last presidential election, the Republican National Committee and the party’s two congressional campaign committees spent a total of $657 million.

SuperPACs

[Butter]

Originally Posted by revrew

I have to admit, I am seriously confused by this whole "Koch brothers" thing. Dems keep trotting that out over and over, and I don't get it. Maybe I'm missing something.

A list of the top political donors shows the first of the Koch brothers at #10, with the top 2 donors alone, both Dem backers, giving 15 times to Dem candidates what the Koch brothers give to Republicans: Blue billionaires on top - POLITICO

Even if you count their corporate giving, Koch Industries comes in only #49 on the list, not even 1/10th of what the top two organizations give to Dems: Top Organization Contributors | OpenSecrets

The stats show big money, uberwealthy donors overwhelmingly support Democrats over Republicans. How can Harry Reid, et al., keep trotting out this "Koch brothers" mythos? Is it just "repeat a lie often enough and people believe it," or is there some behind-the-scenes stat I'm unaware of?

Jesus man, this same article you post says that it only covers DISCLOSED money and that the Koch brothers largely do their giving to "secret money non-profits" as the article states.

Like read more than a paragraph maybe.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by cartman

Kochs Plan to spend $900 million

Thank you, cartman, for the respectful reply and quick answer to my honest question.

And Butter69 ... insert your favorite profanity here.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Jesus man, this same article you post says that it only covers DISCLOSED money and that the Koch brothers largely do their giving to "secret money non-profits" as the article states.

Like read more than a paragraph maybe.

Heh.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by revrew

Thank you, cartman, for the respectful reply and quick answer to my honest question.

And Butter69 ... insert your favorite profanity here.

Originally Posted by Subby

Heh.

I think by "heh," Subby meant "fuck, yeah!"

[JPhillips]

I've read more recent articles saying the number is down to 750 mil, but the basic idea was for them to spend a shit ton on the presidential election.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Jesus man, this same article you post says that it only covers DISCLOSED money and that the Koch brothers largely do their giving to "secret money non-profits" as the article states.

Like read more than a paragraph maybe.

It's actually the first paragraph:

Democrats spent much of the 2014 campaign castigating Republican big money, but, it turns out, their side actually finished ahead among the biggest donors of 2014 – at least among those whose contributions were disclosed.

Here's the 4th and 5th paragraphs:

Of course, that edge doesn’t take into account contributions to deep-pocketed non-profit groups that don’t disclose their donors. They heavily favored Republicans, with reports showing conservative secret money non-profits outspending liberal ones $127 million to $33 million. While that’s just a fraction of the overall undisclosed money spent in 2014, it’s indicative of a dramatic imbalance in a type of big money spending that likely would close the gap between Democratic and Republican top donors, if not put Republicans ahead.

For instance, the network of mostly secret-money non-profit groups helmed by the billionaire industrialist Koch brothers was on pace to spend $290 million in 2014. Yet David and Charles Koch, who Democrats worked to vilify as the very personifications of the corrupting effect of big money in politics, ranked as only the 10th and 29th biggest givers of disclosed cash in POLITICO’s analysis.

It's a 21-paragraph article. Even if you read only the first quarter, you have the answer to the question originally posed.

Since revrew has a track record for intelligence, I'm going reverse-Hanlon's razor here.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by revrew

Thank you, cartman, for the respectful reply and quick answer to my honest question.

And Butter69 ... insert your favorite profanity here.

Whatever, guy. If you're going to post supposed "gotcha" proof then maybe fuckin' read it first, that's all.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dutch

No surprise there.

Agreed.

[Ben E Lou]

Fox News cancels GOP debate after Donald Trump pulls out - Mar. 16, 2016

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Fox News cancels GOP debate after Donald Trump pulls out - Mar. 16, 2016

And from the article, Kasich pulled out of it as well, unless Trump changes his mind and decides to attend.

[vex]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And from the article, Kasich pulled out of it as well, unless Trump changes his mind and decides to attend.

Cruz would have had no problem talking for 3 hours non-stop, that we know.

[ISiddiqui]

"I'm filibustering Trump's nomination!!"

[JonInMiddleGA]

Maybe this is the opportunity some of JV debate lineup has been waiting for. It's like the replacement NFL.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Fox News cancels GOP debate after Donald Trump pulls out - Mar. 16, 2016

"I think we've had enough debates," Trump said. "How many times can you answer the same question?"

Trump finally says something I agree with.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'd actually agree with Trump on the number of debates. Not sure how it compares to previous years, but it seems like there's been a ton of debates.

Unrelated, but I saw Rush's take on the overall situation earlier and thought it was pretty accurate.

The K Street lobbyists, the Republican consultants, I still don't think people have a grasp on what actually has happened here. A political neophyte with no staff, no professionals, has run rings around career professionals in a business that is exclusionary. They don't let outsiders in. They don't want outsiders in. They don't want any part of Trump winning this thing. They don't want any part of Ted Cruz winning this thing. If either Cruz or Trump ends up being the nominee or if there's some kind of an alliance between the two at some point, they're facing the prospect of losing it all, their reputations, their influence. It's dire as far as they're concerned.

Also, this is very interesting. Soros trying to back someone that he believes Hillary could beat????

Soros Associate Gives $200,000 To Pro-Kasich Super PAC | The Daily Caller

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

"I'm filibustering Trump's nomination!!"

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Also, this is very interesting. Soros trying to back someone that he believes Hillary could beat????

1. You're quoting the Daily Caller. Come on, man.

2. From the article:

“Scott Bessent is a longtime Republican donor and absolutely none of our donations have come from George Soros or his company. In addition to supporting our efforts, Mr. Bessent has contributed to numerous other Republicans in the past, including Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina and Marco Rubio,” said New Day for America in a statement provided to The Daily Caller.

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Whatever, guy. If you're going to post supposed "gotcha" proof then maybe fuckin' read it first, that's all.

Indeed.

[Ben E Lou]

Trump starting to pivot to the general?

https://www.instagram.com/p/BDBS8bYGhWr/

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Trump starting to pivot to the general?

https://www.instagram.com/p/BDBS8bYGhWr/

So perfectly 2016. If you can't at least chuckle at that, I don't think we can be friends!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Trump starting to pivot to the general?

https://www.instagram.com/p/BDBS8bYGhWr/

It's another great example of how he's almost creating a new set of rules. There's standard warfare rules at some level when it comes to political campaigns by the establishment on both sides. Trump takes those rules, dumps them in the trash, and fires whatever random weapon is nearby.

[Subby]

Courting white supremacists has been done before, so I'm not sure these are "new".

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Trump takes those rules, dumps them in the trash, and fires whatever random weapon is nearby.

Sounds like a good plan for a president.

[mckerney]

So since endorsing Trump Ben Carson has said Trump doesn't believe the things that he says, assured people that even if he's terrible it will only be four years, and now:

Video: Ben Carson is Fine With Trump Calling Him a Child Molester: "You Have to Admit, It Did Work" https://t.co/pIlZmvaYw4

— Charles Johnson (@Green_Footballs) March 16, 2016

[Ben E Lou]

Lindsey Graham is giving Cruz the kind of endorsement that mckerney posted about above for Carson/Trump. "While Senator Cruz isn't my first choice, he's better than Donald Trump."

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

well if the Pope couldn't stop him, perhaps Anonymous can?

Hacker group Anonymous declares 'total war' on Donald Trump | Fox News

They "released" Trump's SSN and social today. I put that in quotes because, curious how widely disseminated the information had gotten since the "release," I did a search on the SSN. Turns out that same purported SSN has been on the internet--along with the cell phone number--for at least 6 months. (The first search result was to a post dated 11/24/2015, and the second turned up a post with the excat same info dated 9/5/2015.)

GREAT SLEUTHING, GUYS!!!

[cartman]

But Anonymous is going to do hacking. Great hacking. The best hacking. Hacking the likes of which you've never seen before. Yuuge amounts of the most luxurious Trump data that exists. Believe me, Anonymous is going to do hacking.

[Kodos]

And they'll make Trump pay for it.

[cartman]

[molson]

So what's the significance of this hack, can we all get mortgages in Donald Trump's name now?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

So what's the significance of this hack, can we all get mortgages in Donald Trump's name now?

I'd settle for Donald Trump paying off my student loan.

[cuervo72]

Cruz trying to siphon off some of Trump's supporters?

Ted Cruz's newest adviser: anti-Islam conspiracy theorist Frank Gaffney - Vox

[bhlloy]

With any other candidate you'd think they would be worried about something damaging leaking but this is Trump.

Unless there's a video from last June of him laughing with Bill and Hillary, talking about his plan to dupe all those dumb hicks while taking a piss on Reagan's grave somewhere on his laptop, I don't think there's a damn thing anonymous can do. And even then I reckon it would be 50/50 at best whether that dented his support.

[larrymcg421]

We need to get the Four Horsemen to take down Trump like they did to Arthur Tressler.

[Solecismic]

No, but we can become Nigerian princes and win the lottery.

I'm getting quite tired of the media on this relentless "coverage," for lack of a better word. I don't particularly like Trump and I won't vote for him, but I watched the interview where he talked about what would happen if there was a brokered deal in the event he was just short of 1,237.

His answer is exactly why in this day of unpleasantness politicians should never speculate. He's trying to sell his brand, not threaten anything. Yet the top story on every media outlet is how he's promising riots if he doesn't win.

It also shouldn't go unnoticed that the media is constantly harping on every effort to either keep Trump from 1,237 or start a third party. Funny how the Republican "pledges" only applied to Trump.

Don't think for a second that the 20-25% of Americans who would prefer Trump don't notice all of this. They're not all stupid, drunk, white-supremacist hillbillies. Any more than Democrats are stupid, drugged, white-hating communists.

Republicans should consider this... Hillary will likely be the next president. Do they want her to have to move back to the center in order to win? Because right now, she could win with the positions she has taken to hold off Sanders.

As for me, I've long wanted someone to infiltrate one of the major parties as a "centrist" who won't play by either party's rules. I got what I wanted. And you know what they say about getting what you want; it might be a whole lot worse than what you had.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

As for me, I've long wanted someone to infiltrate one of the major parties as a "centrist" who won't play by either party's rules. I got what I wanted. And you know what they say about getting what you want; it might be a whole lot worse than what you had.

This may be the election that causes people to look back and go "You know, the establishment isn't all that bad".

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Hey! Ted just sent me an e-mail!!!!

Friend,

This election is in your hands...

It's in your power to help me unite the Republican party, beat Donald Trump for the nomination, and defeat Hillary Clinton in November.

A group of very generous new supporters who are determined to unite the party have agreed to match every online donation made to my campaign made through the links below -- dollar for dollar...

But there's a catch.

I must prove that you and I can unite the party by securing at least 10,000 donations, or the offer is off the table.

Unite the party matching donation >>

So, if you don't contribute -- they won't match.

Because you have been one of my most loyal supporters -- I'm reaching out to you first.

This could be a huge boost for my campaign -- even the difference between winning and losing.

Will you help?

Unite the party matching donation >>

Here's how it works: your contribution of $25 will be matched to become $50, $50 will be worth $100, and $500 will become $1,000 -- your immediate donation will be worth double the original amount.

Below are special links for you to use and have your donation doubled. Please help me reach 10,000 donations to secure the match -- time is critical!

Donate $10, see it matched to become $20 >>

Donate $25, have it matched to become $50 >>

Donate $50, see it matched to become $100 >>

Donate $100, it will be matched to become $200 >>

Donate $500, it will double to become $1000 >>

I can't win these primaries without your support.

Our victories from Maine to Alaska will be wasted if we can't capitalize on our momentum as we compete one-on-one with Donald Trump for the heart of the conservative movement.

Friend, with your support, we can win this.

For liberty,

Ted Cruz

[digamma]

For liberty!

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Hey! Ted just sent me an e-mail!!!!

Speaking of a Nigerian Prince...

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Cruz trying to siphon off some of Trump's supporters?

Ted Cruz's newest adviser: anti-Islam conspiracy theorist Frank Gaffney - Vox

I love that he's a birther, because the whole birther movement is based on an idea that would disqualify Cruz from being President.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

They're not all stupid, drunk, white-supremacist hillbillies. Any more than Democrats are stupid, drugged, white-hating communists.

For completeness, could you tell us what Republicans who are not supporting Trump are? Because in your rush to equivalence, you seem to have forgotten the group with the most vitriol for him.

And also, I'll have you know it's "over-educated commie potheads", thank you very much.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by digamma

For liberty!

But not justice for all!

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Republicans should consider this... Hillary will likely be the next president. Do they want her to have to move back to the center in order to win? Because right now, she could win with the positions she has taken to hold off Sanders.

Honest question: does it really matter? If it's accepted that she can generally move her positions left and then right during the 1 year span of getting elected, what would it really matter which side she landed on at the end of the road? At this point do we really believe that any politician will actually govern any differently simply based on what they may or may not have felt they needed to say on the road to assuming power?

If she gets to the White House Hillary gon' be Hillary regardless of whatever challenge the Republicans present on the path there. And the same would be true of any other candidate.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'd settle for Donald Trump paying off my student loan.

Small loan of 1 million dollars would be helpful to me right about now.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

Honest question: does it really matter?

I think what Jim's suggesting is that if Clinton has to tack right to win the general, she does so at the risk of losing energized (young) leftish supporters (on top of the supposed "challenge" she has in keeping Sanders' supporters).

So far, so typical - this is how presidential primaries & generals have gone in the U.S. for I don't really know how long. Tack left/right (Democrat/Republican respectively) in the primary, come back close enough to center to win the general while not losing your base support.

But there are now, more than ever, two powerful counterarguments:

1. If the opponent is sufficiently polarizing (as Trump or Cruz are likely to be), your base will likely get energized anyway. And national campaigns (President / Senate / House) are getting better at turning otherwise milquetoast candidates into polarizing candidates. Look at the knives coming out for Kasich, for instance (though, to be fair, they only have to highlight his very right-wing policy agenda).

2. If anyone thinks common wisdom is going to apply to this General Election after this primary season (on both sides) I, uh, don't know what to say?

[larrymcg421]

538 analyzes how primary turnout correlates to general election chances:

Primary Turnout Means Nothing For The General Election | FiveThirtyEight

[flere-imsaho]

Some data I put together (sorry my table formatting is bad):

State	Date	Delegates	Type	Current Poll Aggregate
American Samoa	22 Mar	9	Convention - Unbound - Open	No polling
Arizona	22 Mar	58	Primary - WTA - Closed	Trump +13 (aggregate)
Utah	22 Mar	40	Caucus - Proportional - Closed	early Feb poll showed Rubio, Cruz & Trump within 6 points of each other
North Dakota	1 Apr	28	Caucus - Unbound - Closed	No polling
Wisconsin	5 Apr	42	Primary - WTA - Open	mid Feb poll showed Trump +10 over Rubio & Cruz
New York	19 Apr	95	Primary - Proportional - Closed	Trump +43 (aggregate)
Connecticut	26 Apr	28	Primary - Proportional - Closed	November poll showed Trump +11 over Rubio, +21 over Cruz
Delaware	26 Apr	16	Primary - WTA - Closed	No polling
Maryland	26 Apr	38	Primary - WTA - Closed	early Mar poll shows Trump +9 over Cruz
Pennsylvania	26 Apr	71	Primary - WTA - Closed	early Mar poll shows Trump +18 over Rubio & Cruz
Rhode Island	26 Apr	19	Primary - Proportional - Open	mid Feb poll showed Trump +18 over Rubio, +33 over Cruz
Indiana	3 May	57	Primary - WTA - Closed	No polling
Nebraska	10 May	36	Primary - WTA - Closed	No polling
West Virginia	10 May	34	Primary - Direct - Open	early Feb poll showed Trump +20 over Cruz, +25 over Rubio
Oregon	17 May	28	Primary - Proportional - Closed	No polling
Washington	24 May	44	Primary - Proportional - Closed	No polling
California	7 Jun	172	Primary - WTA - Closed	Trump +10 (aggregate)
Montana	7 Jun	27	Primary - WTA - Open	November poll showed Cruz +6 over Paul/Christie
New Jersey	7 Jun	51	Primary - WTA - Open	mid Feb poll showed Trump +27 over Rubio & Cruz
New Mexico	7 Jun	24	Primary - Proportional - Closed	midFeb poll showed Cruz +1 over Trump
South Dakota	7 Jun	29	Primary - WTA - Closed	No polling