2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Damnit, how do I get in on this?

Just know the right people

Seriously though, how is this really different from most businesses? Do we not virtually all prefer to work with people that we know & trust when the opportunity arises? I've got a go-to set of preferred options for everything from voiceover work to photography to video production to editing, if we can make the math work for everyone then those people work on my projects time & again. Over enough time, some of them become friends in addition to suppliers of services.

By the same token, I've gotten advertising work where I was selected to do X because the person making the choice knew me in some non-advertising context.

Now, if you hired me to paint your house despite a high bid & no experience then, yeah, that'd look pretty weird. (a scenario similar to what comes up with political stuff occasionally). You shouldn't be surprised if your house looks pretty poorly painted when I'm finished either.

But within someone's skill set why is there some sort of (apparent) brouhaha over people picking someone they know over rank strangers?

[JPhillips]

But if I was the client and the only results I saw were the increased bank accounts of your cronies I'd be damned pissed.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Damnit, how do I get in on this?

That depends, how good are you at adding exclamation points to the end of words?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Seriously though, how is this really different from most businesses?

The better (maybe best) run businesses for which I've worked tended to have a good procurement & contracting process that ensured you got the best work at the best price with a minimum of favoritism. An outside firm who had performed good work before got a boost on the scoring, but that was above-board.

However, and to your point, this is very much the exception, not the rule.

I'm not sure it's all bad. As you point out, if people consistently do good work for you, you keep hiring them. I'm sure that's how most of us do it in our personal lives.


But campaign consulting? It's the last, biggest racket there is.

[stevew]

What happens if the president elect dies in the period between when the electoral college votes and he or she takes office? Or between the election and the electoral college vote? I know there's a fair amount of EC voters that can go rogue, and these are primarily in R States.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by stevew

What happens if the president elect dies in the period between when the electoral college votes and he or she takes office? Or between the election and the electoral college vote? I know there's a fair amount of EC voters that can go rogue, and these are primarily in R States.

Stevew is now on a list.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

Stevew is now on a list.

That was actually my first thought as well.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by stevew

What happens if the president elect dies in the period between when the electoral college votes and he or she takes office? Or between the election and the electoral college vote? I know there's a fair amount of EC voters that can go rogue, and these are primarily in R States.

According to the 20th amendment, if the president-elect dies before inauguration, then the vice president-elect becomes the president-elect. If the winning candidate dies before the electoral college vote, there is no set precedent. According to federal law, the electors would be free to vote for the candidate of their choice. But there might be conflicting state laws that bind the voter to a particular candidate.

edit: a candidate passing away before the electoral college vote has only happened once, in 1872, but the candidate would not have won the electoral vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...election,_1872

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The better (maybe best) run businesses for which I've worked tended to have a good procurement & contracting process that ensured you got the best work at the best price with a minimum of favoritism. An outside firm who had performed good work before got a boost on the scoring, but that was above-board.

However, and to your point, this is very much the exception, not the rule.

I'm not sure it's all bad. As you point out, if people consistently do good work for you, you keep hiring them. I'm sure that's how most of us do it in our personal lives.


But campaign consulting? It's the last, biggest racket there is.

I don't disagree with you about it being a bit of a racket. Political consulting is, IMO, similar to my own line of work: part art, part science. Where it seems to differ is in the degree of volatility. You can duplicate every effort, hit every metric, essentially do everything "right" and still end up with vastly different results. The "universe" you're targeting with the message(s) can shift so much from one election cycle to the next these days that it's a perpetually moving target, a much higher rate of change than standard advertising faces.

edit to add: I hit return too quickly. The quality aspect is critical to making "playing favorites" a good idea. I've got people that I personally like that I wouldn't let near a project of mine for one reason or another. I've got people I can barely stand personally that I'll still hire. But in cases where you both know/trust the work AND you like them, well for a private entity that just seems like the easiest call ever.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

Stevew is now on a list.

Eh, I'd say a P-elect Trump or Sanders has enough chance to be assassinated before taking office that it'd probably end up getting odds akin to a Super Bowl prop bet.

I omit Clinton from that for a simple reason: if nobody has taken a shot at her by now then it seems unlikely anyone is going to (beyond the random one-off stuff that all public figures faces)

[stevew]

All of the candidates are so old, that's why I was asking. Trump will be 70 by November. Hillary will be 69. Sanders is already way too old. Old people can just suddenly die. The R challenger for the Senate in the 2012 election from Pennsylvania died in December and he was about 67. I know these guys probably have more health screenings than most but old people are old.

[JPhillips]

Nevada predictions

Trump 35
Rubio 28
Cruz 22
Kasich 10
Carson 5

[JPhillips]

A bunch of polls came out yesterday and today and Rubio only leads in Utah. How long can he go without a win?

[vex]

Trump 38
Rubio 28
Cruz 22
Kasich 8
Carson 4

[albionmoonlight]

Nevada Predictions:

Trump 30
Cruz 28
Rubio 26
Kasich 14
Carson 2

[larrymcg421]

Cruz is only priced at 25 cents to finish 2nd in Nevada. I was thinking of getting in on that, but worried that the Bush voters will go to Rubio and there hasn't been much polling lately. I'm assuming that's why it's priced as such.

[cartman]

I think any predictions are going to be a crapshoot. Evidently the Nevada GOP has done a horrendous job that last couple of elections running the caucus. One example: there was no verifiable list of caucus-goers from 2012 for the current campaigns to use.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

A bunch of polls came out yesterday and today and Rubio only leads in Utah. How long can he go without a win?

March 15 is the key. Has to win Florida. Has to hope Kasich drops out and strongly endorses him so that he can maybe win ohio. Otherwise this thing is totally over.

this is from today in Ohio- Trump 31, Kasich 26, Cruz 21, Rubio 13, Carson 5

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by stevew

March 15 is the key. Has to win Florida. Has to hope Kasich drops out and strongly endorses him so that he can maybe win ohio. Otherwise this thing is totally over.

this is from today in Ohio- Trump 31, Kasich 26, Cruz 21, Rubio 13, Carson 5

re: Ohio .. or not

Trump now leads Kasich even in Ohio.31-26, with Cruz 21 and Rubio 13.
Even if a Kasich endorsement brought 50% of his supporters with it, Trump would still lead Rubio.

Poll: Trump leads Kasich in Ohio | TheHill

edit to add: And by "win" in Florida, do you mean finish second?
Last round of Florida polling (mid January) had Trump around 40%, Cruz 19%, Rubio 13.7%
If the support of every single candidate that was still in the field at the time went to Rubio he would STILL be trailing Trump there.

For him to actually win in FL he would have to keep all of his support, add every single other candidate's support (aside from the two leaders) AND have one or both leaders lose voters to him. Is that realistic?

[Solecismic]

We're getting into the period when inevitability starts to sink in with those who aren't inclined to follow this for a long time. It's hard to motivate people to come out for a primary. And Nevada is a closed caucus which required party registration a month ago.

Caucuses after Iowa typically have ridiculously low turnout.

So, what we don't know is if Trump had a good ground game in Nevada. Both Cruz and Rubio have legitimate claims to this being a strong state for them (Rubio actually having lived there). But Trump's casino connection is not a negative in Nevada.

My guess is Trump 43, Rubio 25, Cruz 16, Kasich 8, Carson 7.

[stevew]

Ohio and Florida are winner take all states. 2 Trump wins and this thing is over

[flere-imsaho]

So, I went here and played around: RealClearPolitics - RCP Republican Delegate Calculator

1. Entered vote totals based on either a) latest aggregate for state if there were a steady stream of recent polls, b) latest poll if there was only one for February or c) defaulted to current national average.

2. Simulated Carson & Kasich dropping out after Super Tuesday

Very, very rough, of course, but after March 15th (i.e. after Florida & Ohio vote, not to mention Super Tuesday) the results are roughly:

Trump: 829 delegates, 30 states
Cruz: 364 delegates, 3 states (TX, AR, IA)
Rubio: 215 delegates, 0 states (yes, not even Florida)

At that point there would be 992 delegates remaining, and 50% is roughly 1200. The delegates pledged to candidates who are not the above are negligible.

So Trump would need only roughly 400 more delegates, but Cruz would need all of them and Rubio probably couldn't win.

Obviously very rough. I encourage others with better state knowledge to play with the tool.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Only if we lack courage.

I do agree at this point that, it's more likely that we see "something" tangible happen with illegal border crossings with Trump than with Rubio. For this to work, we need to repair the floodgates. Then, we can make choices on how to deal with the illegal population. I favor amnesty because it's not their fault we made it so damned easy for them to get here.

Rubio is probably not salty enough yet to get things done. Maybe this loss will toughen him up a bit.

[QuikSand]

I'll take a swing at an eye popping outcome:

Trump 41
Rubio 26
Cruz 20
Kasich 8
Carson 4

[stevew]

Trump 37
Cruz 29
Rubio 23
Kasich 7
Carson 4

[Scarecrow]

Trump - 40
Rubio - 30
Cruz - 15
Kasich - 10
Carson - 5

[NobodyHere]

Trump - 37
Cruz - 25
Rubio - 21
Kasich - 12
Carson - 5

[bronconick]

Trump 40
Cruz 29
Rubio 19
Kasich 9
Carson 3

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

We're getting into the period when inevitability starts to sink in with those who aren't inclined to follow this for a long time. It's hard to motivate people to come out for a primary. And Nevada is a closed caucus which required party registration a month ago.

The Nevada Republican caucus has a history of throwing the polls out the window. 2012 was more accurate, but that was mostly because I think the pollsters knew Romney would win big and cooked the polls to get their. There is almost no result tonight (or tomorrow, or next week, depending on how long it takes to count) that would stun me other than a Carson landslide.

Pulling out my dart board, here's my WAG:
Trump 33
Rubio 26
Cruz 20
Kasich 9
Carson 7
Others 5

Whatever happens, there will be interesting takeaways from this one. Kasich not being able to capture any post-NH magic is spelling his doom soon, especially if he can't remain viable until Ohio. The recent trend is Rubio rising and Cruz falling back, so I'm watching to see if that continues or it flips again. Trump is also starting to show some warts, under performing versus his poll numbers. But anything for Trump at 40% or above and his coronation is beginning. Cruz and his Super PAC have poured a lot of late last-minute resources into Nevada with robocalls, knocking on doors and GOTV efforts. If he doesn't break 20, he's in deep trouble.

[Ben E Lou]

Trump 41
Rubio 24
Cruz 20
Kasich 10
Carson 5

[AENeuman]

Think there is any chance Cruz runs as a third party? Given his alienation from Washington republicans it would seem no love loss.

[tarcone]

Trump 38
Cruz 30
Rubio 26
Kasich 4
Carson 2

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Think there is any chance Cruz runs as a third party? Given his alienation from Washington republicans it would seem no love loss.

I don't really see it, just from the standpoint of who would be dumb enough to fund it?

To this point he's basically gotten, what, 10-15 percent support of the country tops? (figuring half his number in the primary). What math sees him suddenly beating Trump in a 3-way if he can't beat him in a 2-way? Now if there's time for a sudden 3rd party bid after Trump nomination but a Trump meltdown before November then maybe (is there even time to get on ballots in that case though?)

[QuikSand]

A Ted Cruz write-in campaign might get Tom Cruise some votes. I note how much the scariness spectrum has shifted that I am basically unfazed by that, politically.

[stevew]

Sounds like Nevada has no clue what they are doing in regards to running a caucus

[stevew]

Also why is it called a caucus when it's run like a primary basically?

[NobodyHere]

I guess because voting doesn't run all day and you have to sit through speeches by the candidate's representatives.

That's my guess anyways.

[stevew]

There were no speeches. It was supposedly chaos and might take awhile to count. Plus you can vote twice.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by stevew

There were no speeches. It was supposedly chaos and might take awhile to count. Plus you can vote twice.

No wonder Republicans keep on calling for more stringent voter ID laws. You just can't trust Republicans!!

[Solecismic]

Some of my better predictions from early August:

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Momentum is a funny animal. It seems far too early to predict anything. But I'll go ahead and predict that Trump is gone by the end of the evening in Manchester, New Hampshire, after scoring in single digits.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Trump may be tapping into hope and change. I don't see it, but it's not a safe move in the slightest. I still think he has a low ceiling, doesn't have the organization necessary to win the early contests, and would lose the general in a landslide.

More likely, Trump is an over-reaction to the "Obama Unplugged" president he became after his second inauguration. Things will settle down when it's finally time to make decisions. Of course, that probably means Scott Walker or YAB (yet another Bush).

It's certainly not over yet, but it seems very likely Trump will have a yuuge lead at the end of next week, and the chances of a brokered convention where the others team up to stop him are getting lower.

What kind of candidate will he be with that big lead? He's both insulated against most mistakes and prone to making big mistakes (like skipping the FOX News debate). Will he make a mistake too yuuge even for his supporters?

[vex]

Trump "I love the poorly educated."


Would be a terrible, terrible statement for anyone else.

[molson]

Another Trump shellacking.

It's fascinating to look back at the early days of this thread. Revrew was a believer in his chances, but nobody else. I thought it was a novelty act that would have had legs maybe 10 years ago when he was at his celebrity peak, but not now.

It's not over yet, but I'm kind of fascinated what direction he goes in for a running mate. Does it have to be an outsider/non-politician? Will he want to go yuuge, or will he just want someone who won't overshadow him (if that's even possible to overshadow the Donald at this point)?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Will he make a mistake too yuuge even for his supporters?

No. I slipped up and waded into the morass that is people arguing about politics on Facebook etc, and people are tired of being condescended to, whether it's by "politicians" or "the media" or "liberals (academics)". It's classic internet arguments where the other side is so over the top in their attack that it only hardens the support. For the vast majority of people - the ones who will actually decide this election - it's not about the positions at all. People picked a "team", and the more people tell them they're dumb for supporting Trump the more support he'll get, and that's only going to amplify tenfold once he wins the nomination. And as someone who really dislikes Trump, but hates almost all the other candidates too, I can't blame them at all, because every candidate IS flawed, and (almost) all of the people arguing in favor of somebody else is uninformed as well. I actually think he's the most likely winner in November at this point, and even a month ago I never thought I could say that.

[Solecismic]

In case you're following Nevada overnight, it probably jumps more in each update than any state in the country. Clark County (Las Vegas) has more than 2/3 of the state's population, and some of these precincts are just a block or two in size, widely variant in results, and are among the largest and latest to report.

Someone out there could probably make some sense out of what's reporting, but not with what we have available easily online. Obviously, Trump won by a large margin, but second place is hard to read.

My preliminary thoughts are another big day for Trump (captain obvious here). Even bigger if Rubio finishes third. I don't see the urgency for candidates whose supporters don't hate each other to drop out. And Cruz is more positioned as a kingmaker than a king. I'd say Rubio/Kasich have about three weeks left to win a single state, then work out some sort of agreement - very likely in Rubio's favor.

[Solecismic]

Not trying to minimize what Trump has done or how many delegates he will accumulate over the next couple of weeks, but we've only had about 1.3 million people vote so far. Nevada is a great state for him, and I've heard a lot tonight that he had a solid organization in place.

Projecting the remaining 6% of Nevada votes as consistent with the first 94% (no guarantee, but that 94% of precincts has produced only 72,000 votes, so the overall numbers won't change much).

This is for all four contests - caucuses and primaries, which are very different.

Trump 32.8%, Cruz 20.7%, Rubio 20.1%, Kasich 8.4%, Bush 7.4%, Carson 6.3%, Christie 1.9%, Fiorina 1.2%, Paul 0.8%.

So, is Rubio the anti-Trump? Are we making too much of someone who has finished 3-5-2-2? The map favored Cruz early, and he didn't put Rubio away. At some point, this race has to be a two-man race, and while it won't be easy to overcome Trump's lead, the argument that he isn't second on many people's lists still resonates.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

At some point, this race has to be a two-man race, and while it won't be easy to overcome Trump's lead, the argument that he isn't second on many people's lists still resonates.

That argument still appears to be true, but I'm not convinced that it even matters mathematically. RNC rules say that all contests prior to 3/15 must be "proportional," but I don't think that word means what people think it means--at least not in this case. (See: 32.5% of the votes in SC = 100% of the delegates.) I'm not sure that if both Carson and Kasich dropped out today and endorsed Rubio* that it would make enough difference. Giving Texas to Cruz--and even that doesn't appear to be a lock--we're talking about a candidate who looks poised to win 9-12 out of 13 states on Super Tuesday. We're talking about a candidate who has led the polls from wire to wire. We're talking about a candidate who has finished 2nd/1st/1st/1st in the four contests to date, and whose momentum is increasing. We're talking about a candidate who said that Mexico sends criminals over here and who won the Hispanic vote 44-29-18 over dudes named Rubio and Cruz last night.

We're talking about the presumptive nominee. I don't see how we can say anything else at this point.

*-- Kasich's swipes at Rubio yesterday certainly don't indicate a candidate who is about to strike a deal with him, and of course neither Kasich nor Carson is going to endorse Cruz as long as Rubio is still in the race.

[stevew]

Kasich finished 5th in Nevada. He almost has to drop out at this point, right?

[Solecismic]

The question is whether candidates can stop Trump from locking down 50% of the delegates. Right now, that deal doesn't have to be made.

If you're Rubio, Cruz or Kasich, though, you really should see this differently. I realize all three feel very strongly that they are the one who should go head-to-head against Trump. But they seem perfectly happy to lose sight of the big picture and go hard against each other. It turns the debates into reality television rather than free commercial time for the party.

The result? Well, Cruz is now seen as a nastier campaigner than Trump himself. And Bush was kinda like the Yankees the last few years - spending more than anyone just to finish out of the playoffs more often than not.

If they are unwilling to stop cannibalizing each other, yes, Trump will eventually get those delegates. And maybe the hatred will get so strong that deals are impossible down the road. It does look like Bush will endorse Rubio, so that's a start. Kasich looked like someone who wanted out yesterday. He'll stay in because he thinks he can win Michigan, but I think he'll endorse if he doesn't - probably Rubio as well. Cruz, I'm not sure about. He didn't get his reputation undeserved. But his campaign is weakening. Finishing third in a western state with a good percentage of evangelicals was a body blow. And Carson is playing the same role many have in the past, but he will struggle to get more than a handful of delegates.

Last night probably moves Trump from 40-50% to 60%. I'm not saying it's going to happen, but if Rubio gains momentum, it could happen quickly.

South Carolina is the only WTA before March 15 (it isn't truly WTA, but Trump won every district, so it worked out that way). Everything else is much more proportional. Because of that, the non-Trump movement has 19 days to sort itself out.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

who won the Hispanic vote 44-29-18 over dudes named Rubio and Cruz last night.

By the way, I'm assuming that the "Chris Rock Effect" would explain this for a fairly significant number of Republican Hispanic voters. ("...a black woman with two kids at home bustin' her ass going to work every day HATES a bitch on welfare with nine kids...")

[Solecismic]

BTW, totaling up the guesses, congrats to Ben again, Quik a close second, me third, just ahead of the consensus.