2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[albionmoonlight]

Those prices all seem pretty fair. If I were to take a flyer on one of them, I would take Romney at 5c. Ryan still has a long political career ahead of him, and I could see him deciding that entering the convention mare's nest will be bad for his long-term prospects.

Mitt, however, does not really have anything to lose. And he clearly wants the job. I'd think that he's more fairly valued at 10c or so.

Using that list of names, what value would you put on Field/Other? If it does go the contested route, I could see the actual candidate being someone that no one has been discussing.

[QuikSand]

Maybe 5¢ on the field?

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Maybe 5¢ on the field?

That feels right.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Maybe 5¢ on the field?

I would like this play.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Mitt, however, does not really have anything to lose. And he clearly wants the job. I'd think that he's more fairly valued at 10c or so.

The more I've thought about it, the more I think that at this point it makes all the sense in the world from the perspective of the party leadership to just cut your losses and nominate a moderate. Trump for sure, and very likely Cruz, would bring so many "must-keep-that-guy-out" types to the polls in November who would just hit the "all Democrat" button that you lost not only the White House, but more down-ballot races than you have to. Put a boring moderate in the place of either, and you have a decent shot at it becoming such a "Meh...Moderate Republican vs. HRC" election for many people that turnout is lowered significantly and there's a much better chance to maintain the status quo.

And yeah, because he already has nothing to lose, Mitt seems like the perfect sacrificial lamb there.

[JPhillips]

I don't see how the party survives short term if they bypass both Trump and Cruz.

[QuikSand]

I'd agree that Romney makes sense, but there's a lot of gears-turning-smell coming from the Ryan camp in the last two weeks or so. It's so much easier to work something like this from the deep inside. I don't rule anything out, but I think the 17:5 ratio above is roughly right.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't see how the party survives short term if they bypass both Trump and Cruz.

They can't win either way. I think the both lose so what's more damaging? Run Trump and lose or run Cruz and lose? I would think running Cruz and losing would be worse because you put out the most conservative person you've put up in many cycles and still lost. Trump runs and loses, you can recover over the next four and just say we have to take back the party, etc.

I just don't see either one of them winning. The only way they win is to go with somebody else who didn't run and then you probably lose anyway when Trump runs third party.

It might just be the Kobayshi Maru.

[JPhillips]

I don't think either Trump or Cruz will win, but bypassing them both will lead o a certain revolt. They have passionate supporters while a Romney or Ryan doesn't. I think the damage to the party is worse if the most passionate supporters feel the election was stolen.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I'd agree that Romney makes sense, but there's a lot of gears-turning-smell coming from the Ryan camp in the last two weeks or so. It's so much easier to work something like this from the deep inside. I don't rule anything out, but I think the 17:5 ratio above is roughly right.

I suppose I'm not considering the "ego factor" here that Ryan might think he can actually win.

[larrymcg421]

I think Romney would lead to a conservative/tea party revolt in November. If they're going to take the nomination from Trump/Cruz, then I think Ryan is one of the few choices who could satisfy both the establishment and at least some of the right wing base.

[albionmoonlight]

I think if I am a GOP establishment insider, I let Trump/Cruz fight for the nomination. I don't really care who gets it. And I say and do all the right things to make it look like I am supporting them in the general. And I do support them.

But I focus all of my real time and attention (and the time and attention of the Super PACs) on Congress and the state races.

And I let it be known to people running for Congress and the state races that they can do what they want. There will be no future party discipline or backlash for "not supporting the nominee."

And then I create a nomination system that allows the establishment to control who gets nominated going forward.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by rowech

It might just be the Kobayshi Maru.

Here's a candidate.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I think if I am a GOP establishment insider, I let Trump/Cruz fight for the nomination. I don't really care who gets it. And I say and do all the right things to make it look like I am supporting them in the general. And I do support them.

But I focus all of my real time and attention (and the time and attention of the Super PACs) on Congress and the state races.

I think the problem is that those insiders have started to run the numbers and seen how much a Trump or Cruz affects (negatively) the downticket.

Letting Clinton take the White House is one thing. Letting Clinton take the White House and giving her a majority in the Senate and a much closer House is something else entirely.

[bhlloy]

The really incredible thing is how fast Trump has made Cruz go from the most unpopular man in the GOP to the most popular. I think they pretty much have to sit back and let the two of them fight it out at this point - doing anything else is the end of the party and they aren't relevant if they split down the middle

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I think the problem is that those insiders have started to run the numbers and seen how much a Trump or Cruz affects (negatively) the downticket.

Emphasized. That's really the key. If Cruz is as bad for the downticket as I think he'd be, then the "screw it, let's just keep the Senate" option comes into play. If not and you feel confident that he'll lose, then give it to Cruz and get rid of him pretty much for good.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

then I think Ryan is one of the few choices who could satisfy both the establishment and at least some of the right wing base.

I'd say you severely underestimate how reviled Ryan is among the right wing base at this point. Old boss, same as the new boss.

Believe what you want but I think it's fair to say that, between us, I might be a little more attuned to that segment of the voters.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

just hit the "all Democrat" button

This made me wonder, so I looked it up.

Only nine states still have the old "straight party" lever/button/whatever.

Your concept can remain intact, I just thought it was an interesting bit of trivia to know how many places still had it. (I remember it in Georgia growing up, think it was still around for my first election or two or three)

http://www.ncsl.org/research/electio...et-voting.aspx

[cuervo72]

My polling station has electronic touchscreens which take the issues/races one at a time -- so make selection, press arrow to continue (or arrow to go back). I don't think there is a way of making a one-button straight party choice. (And for things like school board, there aren't even any parties listed.)

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

This made me wonder, so I looked it up.

Only nine states still have the old "straight party" lever/button/whatever.

Your concept can remain intact, I just thought it was an interesting bit of trivia to know how many places still had it. (I remember it in Georgia growing up, think it was still around for my first election or two or three)

http://www.ncsl.org/research/electio...et-voting.aspx

Heh. Interesting. I had no idea, I suppose because I've yet to vote in a November election in NC, and SC had it.

Would it remain intact, though? I'm picturing the 20-year-old disaffected Berniebro who just shows up to vote against Trump or Cruz. Does that dude even bother to vote in the other elections if there's not an easy way to do it?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

This made me wonder, so I looked it up.

Only nine states still have the old "straight party" lever/button/whatever.

Your concept can remain intact, I just thought it was an interesting bit of trivia to know how many places still had it. (I remember it in Georgia growing up, think it was still around for my first election or two or three)

http://www.ncsl.org/research/electio...et-voting.aspx

Heh. Interesting. I had no idea, I suppose because I've yet to vote in a November election in NC, and SC had it.

Would it remain intact, though? I'm picturing the 20-year-old disaffected Berniebro who just shows up to vote against Trump or Cruz. Does that dude even bother to vote in the other elections if there's not an easy way to do it?

EDIT: I can say definitively that it was still around in 1992 in Georgia.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

My polling station has electronic touchscreens which take the issues/races one at a time -- so make selection, press arrow to continue (or arrow to go back). I don't think there is a way of making a one-button straight party choice. (And for things like school board, there aren't even any parties listed.)

re: non-partisan impact

Read an interesting study (Univ. of Pittsburgh, 2014) of the impact of straight-ticket options on those down ballot & non partisan races.

What it found, basically, was predictably that the "roll-off" (reduction in votes down ballot) was higher (by 11 percent) with STVO (straight ticket voting option) in non-partisan than partisan races.

But there's a trade off there, when you remove it the roll-off is much higher on all down ballot partisan races. The argument was that you get greater participation with the option than without it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

EDIT: I can say definitively that it was still around in 1992 in Georgia.

Found the date ... eliminated in 1994, at the urging of the Dems.

Within a decade the same Dems were trying to bring it back.

[RainMaker]

Kind of a neat tool to see Trump's path to 1,237. Looks like the experts think he'll be just short but there are 125 uncommitted left that if he just got a small amount of would put him over the top.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...trump-to-1237/

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Found the date ... eliminated in 1994, at the urging of the Dems.

Within a decade the same Dems were trying to bring it back.

Wait, what???? It seems obvious that in Georgia, having that option would be better for the Democrats. Why'd they urge it to be eliminated? Was this just a big gaffe on their part, or am I missing something?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Wait, what???? It seems obvious that in Georgia, having that option would be better for the Democrats. Why'd they urge it to be eliminated? Was this just a big gaffe on their part, or am I missing something?

Best I can tell, it was an attempt to prevent future occurrences in the northern part of the state. Clinton won the state but Bush carried both the north & southeastern part of the state. Coverdell unseated Fowler and went +3 on House seats.

I gather that was attributed to straight ticket voting for Bush, so they wanted it gone.

Oops.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

My polling station has electronic touchscreens

Not for long, baby, we're back to the paper age now. Tossed the $100 million in on-screen systems in the Bay and we're heading back to where we were 15 years ago.

[cuervo72]

Oh, fantastic. So my wife's dream of internet voting will be even farther away, then?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Oh, fantastic. So my wife's dream of internet voting will be even farther away, then?

How much do you trust an internet based system?

[Solecismic]

Raw exit polling data indicates Trump received 34% of the vote in Wisconsin, which means Cruz won fairly comfortably.

Of course, this is a raw total from people selected at random who voted in the morning. Generally, exit poll data is massaged based on many factors.

(I got this from the "teased" information that 83% of Trump supporters and 42% of non-Trump supporters feel that the party nominee should be the person who earns the most delegates, regardless of whether they reach 1,237. The teaser also says 56% of all voters feel that way, so it's a simple mathematical exercise to get 34% for Trump).

If this is the case, Trump's road to 1,237 just got much tougher.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

How much do you trust an internet based system?

Yeah, it's more about convenience. We realize with hacking threats it's not very realistic.

(But seriously, going back to paper? Ugh.)

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

(But seriously, going back to paper? Ugh.)

That's how I feel after experiencing the bidet.

[Ben E Lou]

Only one state, but it's the first time I've seen any polls on this, so it's probably worth noting for that reason alone. Nearly 40% of R voters in Wisconsin primary say they will not vote for Trump. Roughly 10% vote HRC, and Cruz's numbers aren't much better.

Wisconsin Exit Poll Results: One in Three GOP Voters Would Abandon Party if Cruz or Trump is Nominee - NBC News

[RainMaker]

I'd be curious to see what the numbers were during the Obama/Clinton race. I remember hearing a lot about how Clinton supporters wouldn't support Obama because of the bad blood. In the end they did.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Kodos

That's how I feel after experiencing the bidet.

I've never used one, but do wish they were a thing here.

[Kodos]

I've never actually used one. Just saw a chance for a joke.

[cuervo72]

And it was a good one!

But seriously, I do wish they were a thing.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Only one state, but it's the first time I've seen any polls on this, so it's probably worth noting for that reason alone. Nearly 40% of R voters in Wisconsin primary say they will not vote for Trump. Roughly 10% vote HRC, and Cruz's numbers aren't much better.

Wisconsin Exit Poll Results: One in Three GOP Voters Would Abandon Party if Cruz or Trump is Nominee - NBC News

and yet as of current returns, 83% of ballots cast in the Republican primary went for one of those two, so...

[sovereignstar v2]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

And it was a good one!

But seriously, I do wish they were a thing.

I know a big bidet supporter and his name rhymes with Bluicane.

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

and yet as of current returns, 83% of ballots cast in the Republican primary went for one of those two, so...

Well, reading the article, 1/3 of voters would not vote for Trump while 1/3 said they would not vote for Cruz. It wasn't that 1/3 of voters would not for either of them, it's two separate camps.

[Solecismic]

The margin of victory indicates that there has likely been a very real change in Trump's support over the last two weeks. Finally, the ceiling theory is working.

Surprise Trump visit at Wis. polling station may violate law | Fox News

It seems Trump probably did follow the law here, but I thought it was funny in that my wife's mother votes at that station. I'll have to ask if she did vote - and whether she met the man of orange himself.

[Solecismic]

Wisconsin results: Cruz 48%, Trump 35%, Kasich 14%. Cruz 36 delegates, Trump 6.

Delegate Totals: Trump 759 (44.9%), Cruz 514 (30.4%), Kasich 144 (8.5%), Others 188, Unpledged 84.

Remaining to be Allocated: 783.

Needed to reach 1,237: Trump 61.0%, Cruz 92.3%, Kasich cannot reach 1,237.

Analysis: Polling showed Cruz +6 going in, he won by 13. Wisconsin was an open primary. This is very different from anything we've seen before in this race. From here on, we have to assume Trump's negatives are playing a bigger role. Exit polls showed women are abandoning his campaign, and for that support to go mainly to Cruz, who isn't that strong with women himself... we have a new ballgame.

There are now only 15 primaries remaining (plus Montana, a closed caucus). Only Indiana is an open primary and three of the others are somewhat open. While the geography strongly favors Trump, especially with Kasich dropping again, it will be very difficult for him to reach 1,237.

Spring break ends with New York on April 19. It has 95 delegates, with a WTA ceiling of 50%. Trump has been polling above 50%. He will need those 95 to get back on track.

If he doesn't reach 1,237, most states release delegates from their pledges after the first ballot. Cruz has put together a strong ground game at state conventions, and many delegates pledged to Trump are actually Cruz supporters. It seems likely Cruz can win a contested convention, especially if he makes some sort of deal with Rubio.

Why would the Republicans do this? They don't particularly like Cruz, but they figure he'll lose the general, but stands a better chance of helping them hold on to the Senate and House. I don't know how that logic works exactly, but it seems to be what they're going with. More likely, they figure they can't control anything Trump says or does and just want him out.

[Ben E Lou]

Trump's campaign issues an official statement with all the class you'd expect it to contain. Among other things, it accuses Cruz of a federal crime.

[Ben E Lou]

Dola:

As appalled as I am that Presidential politics has descended to this level, the 13-year-old boy in me is in awe that in an official "concession" statement, the campaign called him "Lyin' Ted."

[stevew]

If only Trump wasn't a blowhard d-bag, I could at least enjoy his smak talk.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'd be curious to see what the numbers were during the Obama/Clinton race. I remember hearing a lot about how Clinton supporters wouldn't support Obama because of the bad blood. In the end they did.

People often point to data like this from 2008:

According to the Post-ABC poll, 62 percent of women who backed Clinton say they will support Obama, compared with 25 percent who say they will support McCain. The poll, however, did show a residue of bad feelings from the primary battle (40 percent of Clinton supporters described themselves as dissatisfied with the outcome, and 7 percent described themselves as angry).

But in the end McCain took only 10% of Democrats (and Obama 9% of Republicans), a figure which was unchanged from 2004.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Dola:

As appalled as I am that Presidential politics has descended to this level, the 13-year-old boy in me is in awe that in an official "concession" statement, the campaign called him "Lyin' Ted."

I'm fairly certain either of us had more class at 13 than Trump or Cruz.

[Solecismic]

The latest set of Quinnipiac polls, this time from Pennsylvania, a fairly blue state:

Trump 39, Cruz 30, Kasich 24, 578 LV Republicans. Pennsylvania is a closed "loophole" primary.

However, 1,737 LV overall. A plurality of independents here.

Trump: versus Clinton -3, versus Sanders -8.
Cruz: versus Clinton 0, versus Sanders -8.
Kasich: versus Clinton +16, versus Sanders +6.

Again, this is a fairly blue state. Economic problems in the rust belt mean that the Republicans should consider Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan opportunities. But Trump is starting to sound more like a crazy person, so his ceiling is getting lower.

This campaign features some of the most disliked politicians (insiders and outsiders) in history. I wonder how many of those 1,737 thought, "well, at least I can think of Kasich winning without wanting to move to Canada like I would with the other four. But who is this Kasich person again?" Of course, if Kasich had a chance, the media would turn on him in a second.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Economic problems in the rust belt mean that the Republicans should consider Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan opportunities.

I don't disagree. I just continue to fail to see how blue collar workers who have lost their jobs and can't find new ones are going to be helped by the GOP legislative agenda that stresses cutting taxes and social services at all costs. Basically it all rests on blue collar jobs magically appearing again because of tax cuts and corporate welfare, as I understand it.

[JPhillips]

Every four years there's excitement that this time PA will be a close GOP win, but every time it isn't. I don't think this election will be any different.