2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[JPhillips]

This is a great metaphor on Kasich from GOP operative Mike Murphy:

He’s trying to start an opera club at a tractor pull.

[flere-imsaho]

Thoughts:

There's a big wait between now (March 18th) and the next really big day, which is April 26th. Expect doldrums to sneak in. We may even have to pay attention to other news!

Trump appears to have a big advantage over Cruz in the New England and Mid Atlantic states (though Maine was an exception). This was, however, a place where Rubio expected to do well. Does his support migrate to Kasich and does that have any impact on Trump (it would in the proportional states)?

Let's say Trump takes Arizona (WTA), Wisconsin (WTA), New York (Proportional, but gets all due to huge lead), half of Connecticut (proportional), Maryland (WTA), Pennsylvania (WTA) and half of Rhode Island: that takes him to 1005, or 232 delegates away.

Let's assume he gets New Jersey. That takes him to 181 delegates away. California is 172 and is also WTA. It's tempting to say West Virginia then gives it to him, but it's a direct primary and I have no idea how that's going to work for him.

But, to recap. Trump can win this with his current delegate total + winning the states (or portions of states) where he currently holds an actual polling lead. That leaves him a buffer of:

136: proportional states where he'll likely pick up some delegates: Utah, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico

16: Delaware, which doesn't have polling but I kind of feel will go Trump.

The states we haven't addressed (besides American Samoa) seem to me like they'll go Cruz: North Dakota, Indiana, Nebraska, Montana, South Dakota. All are WTA, so we're at the point that if Trump flips any of them, he makes this almost a certainty (since him flipping one of them indicates he probably isn't backsliding nationally).

[bhlloy]

My unscientific first thought was if he wins California and that dominantly in New York plus maintains somewhere close to his current support elsewhere this thing is over.

[Thomkal]

wow Todd Palin got hurt very badly I guess. Hard to show my usual Sarah Palin hate when something like that happens I guess.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/17/politi...inkId=22401918

[Ben E Lou]

Ho hum. Another day, another act of violence committed by a Trump supporter.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2....alex-satterly

[Thomkal]

I see Scott Baio has endorsed Trump now, can Joanie be far behind?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

I see Scott Baio has endorsed Trump now, can Joanie be far behind?

Doesn't he know that Ahnold hosts Celebrity Apprentice now?

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by cartman

Doesn't he know that Ahnold hosts Celebrity Apprentice now?

LOL

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Ho hum. Another day, another act of violence committed by a Trump supporter.

There's really no amount of violence that I'd consider too much where these "protesters" are concerned. Wastes of f'n oxygen.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

There's really no amount of violence that I'd consider too much where these "protesters" are concerned. Wastes of f'n oxygen.

Their just looking for media coverage....guess they didn't get that memo from their organizers that say that's not a great idea.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Their just looking for media coverage....guess they didn't get that memo from their organizers that say that's not a great idea.

If you know you're going to make the rounds at MSNBC and CNN if you successfully disrupt an event and billionaires will finance your travel and expenses and potential legal issues, how is this not inevitable? It's going to get a lot worse, which is exactly what the media wanted.

[Dutch]

I agree. I wish we were talking about the virtues of big business bs big government and foreign policy (intelligently) and things that the President will be addressing. I still have no friggin clue about any of these cats and we are a year into this circus.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

There's really no amount of violence that I'd consider too much where these "protesters" are concerned.

{Revokes Jon's Southern pass for not giving proper deference to "two wrongs don't make a right."}

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

There's really no amount of violence that I'd consider too much where these "protesters" are concerned. Wastes of f'n oxygen.

THIS is what drumpf brings to the table. This kind of psychotic vitriol.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

THIS is what drumpf brings to the table. This kind of psychotic vitriol.

I'm sure JiMGA was like this before Trump started running for president.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I'm sure JiMGA was like this before Trump started running for president.

The difference is Jon is being honest, he's not trying to get a vote. Trump on the other hand, is more akin to a politician.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I think you just skipped over the 3.5-month circus of the campaign.

Let me flesh out my comment there. Pretty much every...single....Republican who holds national office will be badgered by the press to go on the record as for or against Trump. Some have already gone on the record as being against, and unquestionably a significant number will. And if Trump loses, on the morning of November 9th, the narrative from the Trump supporters will be that the only reason he lost is because for the first time in history, the party sabotaged its own nominee, over the will of the people.

Let's also not forget that Trump isn't just the most popular candidate among Republicans. He's also the most disliked candidate among Republicans. Sure, some percentage of those who dislike him would vote "Anyone But Hillary," but some percentage will not. Yes, Trump supporters are angry, but the anger is also starting to rise in anti-Trump Republicans--a group that also *hates* HRC. If Trump is the nominee and loses to HRC, there's going to be hell to pay for every Republican who said "we need to rally around our nominee." As much as Trump supporters would blame a Trump loss on the establishment not rallying around him, the anti-Trump crowd would blame the Trump supporters and the politicians who did rally around him for not forcing him out of the nomination in the first place.

In either case, we're talking about at minimum a de facto party split, if not an actual one. It seems to me that the perfect storm is brewing here for the party, and the only way to head it off is to go to the convention with someone else having more delegates than Trump.

Originally Posted by QuikSand

This is already aflame here in Maryland. Our current Governor (R) won in a blue state by sticking to a narrow range of issues -- taxes and pro-businesses. He deliberately stayed away from social issues, etc (those are not winners for him here).

It's a big wave right now... Dems pressuring him to take a formal stand on Trump. That's become a stand-alone issue. (Our Gov became very chummy with C Christie during his campaign, and that link has accelerated these flames)

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I honestly hadn't thought of that, Ben & QS. Good points.

As a Democrat, of course, I think that's awesome.

...and here we go.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/20/politi...ors/index.html

[Kodos]

Trump supporter attacks two students.

Police Release Video Of Trump Supporter Attacking Students

Police just released the video of a Donald J. Trump supporter attacking two students of Wichita State University this past weekend. The attack is currently being investigated as a hate crime. http://voc.tv/14JQHoo

Posted by Vocativ on Wednesday, March 16, 2016

[wustin]

Should I go look on Fox News to find something statistically insignificant but used to generalize a population (or at least give the idea) that antagonizes the left? This is like the whole gun control thing all over again.

[King of New York]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Trump supporter attacks two students.

Police Release Video Of Trump Supporter Attacking StudentsPolice just released the video of a Donald J. Trump supporter attacking two students of Wichita State University this past weekend. The attack is currently being investigated as a hate crime. http://voc.tv/14JQHoo
Posted by Vocativ on Wednesday, March 16, 2016

The friend of the guy who was attacked isn't of much use in a fight.

[spleen1015]

Do we know these people are Trump supporters? Could they be folks planted to cause BS to be blamed on Trump?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by wustin

Should I go look on Fox News to find something statistically insignificant but used to generalize a population (or at least give the idea) that antagonizes the left? This is like the whole gun control thing all over again.

Most of us on the left are pretty jaded by now, but you're always welcome to try.

I mean, I hardly get mad at Dutch anymore....

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Ho hum. Another day, another act of violence committed by a Trump supporter.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2....alex-satterly

This one racially motivated too?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Most of us on the left are pretty jaded by now, but you're always welcome to try.

I mean, I hardly get mad at Dutch anymore....

Hey now, I'll cite the Drudge Report too!

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Hey now, I'll cite the Drudge Report too!

Meh. Snore....

On a related note, does this still bug you?

[Kodos]

They needed to pick a better font/color scheme.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

{Revokes Jon's Southern pass for not giving proper deference to "two wrongs don't make a right."}

The wrong here is that it isn't legal to beat idiots down when they bring it on themselves.

But that's why we have jury nullification.

[Solecismic]

Apparently, I wasn't the only one who noticed Trump fared better in open primaries.

Montana GOP officials fight to 'close' primary, in complication for Trump | Fox News

Paraphrasing - the Montana Republican Party is trying to close what's been an open primary for 100 years in an attempt to prevent Trump from winning there. The Supreme Court is involved.

At this point (and here's where I insert the standard disclaimer that I am not voting for Trump), the Republican party seems determined to commit suicide.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

At this point (and here's where I insert the standard disclaimer that I am not voting for Trump), the Republican party seems determined to commit suicide.

It sounds like they're jumping into lava to avoid the firing squad.

[Ben E Lou]

A little earlier in this thread, I opined that they have to get to the convention with someone other than Trump having the delegate lead in order to survive with another nominee. I suppose I should amend that statement to say that they need to get to the convention with someone other than truck having the most delegates, without it appearing that they cheated to get that person the most delegates.

[tarcone]

Man, Im really starting to like Kasich the more I listen to him. As much as I would love to see Cruz win, could he really get anything done? Would many Rs support him?

Such a crazy year.

[Arles]

Half the party wants Trump and 30% want Cruz. I'm not sure what's really left to "save" here.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Man, Im really starting to like Kasich the more I listen to him. As much as I would love to see Cruz win, could he really get anything done? Would many Rs support him?

Such a crazy year.

Kasich would be the prudent choice to win. But, there's too much venom in the party right to get behind someone who isn't either insulting everyone or hasn't had their tea party card punched.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Arles

Half the party wants Trump and 30% want Cruz. I'm not sure what's really left to "save" here.

Eh, I don't think half of "the party" wants Trump. His ceiling in states where the primaries aren't open is, what, like 35%?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Arles

Kasich would be the prudent choice to win. But, there's too much venom in the party right to get behind someone who isn't either insulting everyone or hasn't had their tea party card punched.

Emotions are "trumping" logic, no doubt.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Emotions are "trumping" logic, no doubt.

In a nutshell.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Arles

Kasich would be the prudent choice to win. But, there's too much venom in the party right to get behind someone who isn't either insulting everyone or hasn't had their tea party card punched.

Kasich has held political office since he was 27 years old, except for the time he worked at Lehman Bros. He's probably a good guy but he's not a moderate.

[Ben E Lou]

I suppose that depends on whether you define "moderate" as a relative term. He's unquestionably the most moderate of his party's final 5 candidates.

EDIT: But sure, he's to the right of the last two "moderates" that the party ran.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I suppose that depends on whether you define "moderate" as a relative term. He's unquestionably the most moderate of his party's final 5 candidates.

EDIT: But sure, he's to the right of the last two "moderates" that the party ran.

I guess the math that makes him moderate is that he has a few liberal positions mixed in with some heavily anti-choice right wing positions and that doesn't equal a moderate to me.

[stevew]

dola-

Just saw this

'Moderate' John Kasich Is Actually Terrifying | Rolling Stone

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

EDIT: But sure, he's to the right of the last two "moderates" that the party ran.

Thank you.

[ISiddiqui]

I think everyone knows that Kasich is not a moderate on reproductive rights. But on plenty of other issues he is. His position on reproductive rights does not disqualify him from being considered a moderate, esp with this field.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Eh, I don't think half of "the party" wants Trump. His ceiling in states where the primaries aren't open is, what, like 35%?

Of course the counter to this is that "the party" should be embracing his performance in the open primaries. I realize there's a theory that it is non-party participants trying to influence the vote, but it could also signify that Trump is the only one who can change the map. He can pull from either traditional Democratic voters at lower income levels or non-voters. I think the Democrats are a little myopic to be pulling for him because he'll be an easy general election win. I think Cruz, despite beating HRC in a theoretical race, is the easier win as he brings very little to the table in the purple states, outside of maybe Missouri.

[Solecismic]

Short preview of tomorrow's "Not-so-Super Tuesday" contests:

Arizona, Utah and American Samoa vote tomorrow.

Arizona is a closed primary with 58 delegates. It is a pure winner-takes-all state.

Utah is a caucus with modified eligibility, meaning that only registered Republicans may take part, but registering is less limited (the Democrats in Utah have open participation tomorrow). There are 40 delegates available. If a candidate receives 50% or more of the vote, he receives all 40. Otherwise, delegates are shared among all candidates who earn 15% or more. Both these thresholds may turn out to be important tomorrow.

American Samoa has an open caucus with 9 delegates at stake. However, it is likely that all 9 will remain unpledged after this process. The three party leaders will remain unpledged no matter what.

Arizona...

The RCP average is Trump 38, Cruz 25, Kasich 14. Cruz isn't out of this by any means because it is a closed primary, but Trump has some important endorsements in the state, and so I'd expect this to turn out pretty much as the polling indicates.

Utah...

Polling is more limited, and shows Cruz with a 20-25 point lead. I think he has an excellent chance to reach 50%. Secondly, Utah is the least gambling-friendly state in the country. While Nevada presumably loves the Trump image, Utah does not. And Mitt Romney is still quite popular in Utah. Even if Cruz doesn't reach 50%, Trump will struggle to reach the important 15% mark. I think Cruz will be around 50-55, but if he doesn't make it, my guess is that Trump doesn't get any delegates anyway.

Totals so far...

Hard Total: Trump 696, Cruz 424, Kasich 144, Others/Uncommitted 242.

Percentage of those Decided: Trump 46.2%, Cruz 28.2%, Kasich 11.1%

Percentage Required of those Remaining: Trump 56.0%, Cruz 84.2%, Kasich cannot reach 1,237.

Expected Result Tuesday: Trump 58, Cruz 40, Uncommitted 6 (I already count 3 of American Samoa's 9 as uncommitted).

Percentage Required after Tomorrow: Trump 56.0% (unchanged), Cruz 89.7%.

Percentage Required if Utah goes 49-34-17 (Cruz-Kasich-Trump): Trump 55.3%, Cruz 92.0%.

Percentage Required if Cruz wins Arizona and Utah at >50%: Trump 62.8%, Cruz 82.9%.

After tomorrow there are only two contests in the next five weeks: Wisconsin on April 5 (42) and New York on April 19 (95).

[rowech]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think everyone knows that Kasich is not a moderate on reproductive rights. But on plenty of other issues he is. His position on reproductive rights does not disqualify him from being considered a moderate, esp with this field.

He's been a moderate on Medicaid expansion. Other than that, not sure what you're referencing.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by stevew

dola-

Just saw this

'Moderate' John Kasich Is Actually Terrifying | Rolling Stone

You do realize that Rolling Stone is not moderate right?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

You do realize that Rolling Stone is not moderate right?

Or a respected outlet.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Or a respected outlet.

Having an popup video start immediately with no ability to X out sure as hell causes me to not respect them.

(Thanks, work laptop where I can't install adblocker)

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by rowech

He's been a moderate on Medicaid expansion. Other than that, not sure what you're referencing.

That in itself is huge for a GOP Candidate. In addition, he also affirms that Climate Change is a problem, he raised taxes to close a budget shortfall in Ohio, is for prison reform, called for a path to legal status for illegal immigrants, and while he doesn't agree with the Supreme Court's ruling for gay marriage believes that we should accept what the Court has ruled and move on.

All that in and of itself is very moderate for a Republican Governor these days.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think everyone knows that Kasich is not a moderate on reproductive rights. But on plenty of other issues he is. His position on reproductive rights does not disqualify him from being considered a moderate, esp with this field.

Agreed. Salon, Rolling Stone, 538 and other left-leaning sites have trumpted how "non-moderate" Kasich is by repeating the same tune on abortion. On that one issue, he has been prolife (but still is on record as being OK in instances of rape and incest). But, here are his other stances:

1. he has called Wall Street too greedy and in need of more monitoring (gasp for a republican).
2. Says we need to respect the ruling on gay marriage and it may be time to move on from just a traditional marriage (double gasp).
3. Has come out against racial profiling by police and supported affirmative action.
4. Believes in the issue of climate change.
5. Increased options to child care (including subsidies for lower income).
6. Voted to expand medicaid and to subsidize health care costs in Ohio.
7. Called it a "silly argument" to try and ship current illegals back to Mexico and thinks it is important to keep families together.
8. Cut defense spending numerous times.

But, yeah, Kasich is just like Cruz. I mean, look how many times he voted against partial birth abortions in Ohio!!!!