2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[stevew]

Dola-

Isn't the deal to be made before the electoral college votes? I know some states are bound to where electors may not go faithless, but if Trump is your R nominee the party may choose to switch some electoral votes to a different person so that a clear approved candidate can get at least 3rd and then win the up down vote in the house.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Given a choice between Trump, Sanders & Bloomberg I think the House probably makes Paul Ryan President.

They'd need a Constitutional amendment to do that. President ain't like Speaker of the House.

[stevew]

No Legal Requirement
Electors in these States are not bound by State Law to cast their vote for a specific candidate:


ARIZONA - 10 Electoral Votes
ARKANSAS - 6 Electoral Votes
DELAWARE - 3 Electoral Votes
GEORGIA - 15 Electoral Votes
IDAHO - 4 Electoral Votes
ILLINOIS - 21 Electoral Votes
INDIANA - 11 Electoral Votes
IOWA - 7 Electoral Votes
KANSAS - 6 Electoral Votes
KENTUCKY - 8 Electoral Votes
LOUISIANA - 9 Electoral Votes
MINNESOTA - 10 Electoral Votes

MISSOURI - 11 Electoral Votes
NEW HAMPSHIRE - 4 Electoral Votes
NEW JERSEY - 15 Electoral Votes
NEW YORK - 31 Electoral Votes
NORTH DAKOTA - 3 Electoral Votes
PENNSYLVANIA - 21 Electoral Votes
RHODE ISLAND - 4 Electoral Votes
SOUTH DAKOTA - 3 Electoral Votes
TENNESSEE - 11 Electoral Votes
TEXAS - 34 Electoral Votes
UTAH - 5 Electoral Votes
WEST VIRGINIA - 5 Electoral Votes

[kcchief19]

As purely a political observer, I'm absolutely rooting for a Bloomberg bid. It has the potential to create a chaotic mess, and I think Bloomberg is about the only potential independent candidate anywhere on the horizon that could mount a serious bid. He has the money and political savvy.

But can he pull it off? It's hard to create an electoral map that looks different for him than a Democrat. With Bloomberg's policy positions, I think you can cross off the entire south (except Florida) and the west (except Colorado and Nevada). He would have to carve out an electoral map that pretty much relegates the Democratic candidate to third place.

The 1992 election is a poor barometer, mostly because of the makeup of the tickets. Clinton won four Southern states, but that didn't have much to with Perot. Two southerners on the ticket tilted the election anyway, and I think Clinton wins at least 2 or 3 of those states without Perot on the ballot. Bloomberg won't play in the South as well as Perot did, but Bloomberg will play better elsewhere.

With a Bloomberg bid, I think his running mate would be the most crucial decision he makes. Putting a Republican at No. 2 on the ticket would help him reach more GOP moderates.

It could also be a massive bluff. If he comes out March 1 and says he's running, does that force Democrats to coalesce around Clinton and the GOP to drift away from Cruz and Trump for fear they can't beat Bloomberg? His goal seems to be to keep Cruz and Trump out of the White House, so as long as they don't win the nomination, he can drop out.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by stevew

Dola-

Isn't the deal to be made before the electoral college votes? I know some states are bound to where electors may not go faithless, but if Trump is your R nominee the party may choose to switch some electoral votes to a different person so that a clear approved candidate can get at least 3rd and then win the up down vote in the house.

The problem is, if Bloomberg or another 3rd party gets enough electoral votes to deny somebody 270, they've likely earned enough electoral votes that not only are you looking for enough EVs for a "clear approved candidate" to make the ballot for the House vote, but there's the question of how many EVs the "actual" third placed candidate has - because that's the bar you have to clear. If it's 269 - 169 - 100, then you'd need at least 101 defections to get the "clear approved" Republican replacement. He'd have to lose anywhere from 50% to 66%ish of his electors. I don't know if defection on that scale is likely.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I thought I read somewhere that he was/is only planning to run if it looks like a Trump vs. Sanders from the big two parties.

I've read that it's both Trump and Cruz that are both on his radar. He also apparently has a concern that Clinton may just be too tarred and feathered to win too. The reports I've read said he's polling four different races: Trump/Clinton, Trump/Sanders, Cruz/Clinton and Cruz/Sanders.

[stevew]

eh, if you look a few posts above they could easily get to some sort of R establishment guy with 106 defections if an agreement could be made.


edit-probably 124.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

If he comes out March 1 and says he's running, does that force Democrats to coalesce around Clinton and the GOP to drift away from Cruz and Trump for fear they can't beat Bloomberg?

Possibly, and absolutely not, respectively.

It's not about beating Bloomberg, it's about winning a race with the relatively minor interference that he would create.

In the Democratic party, there actually is a "they" and even the possibility of Bloomberg one day polling at 10% would horrify them. So, that's viable.

In the Republican party, not only is there no central apparatus or leadership that would have the power to turn the tides, but "they" would be delighted to hear of a Bloomberg run as a great angle to help them, regardless of who the nominee is.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

They'd need a Constitutional amendment to do that. President ain't like Speaker of the House.

My bad. I thought it was more open than that.

If it's Trump vs. Bloomberg vs. Sanders the House elects Trump. Simple. Neither Bloomberg nor Sanders are close to the House GOP on the issues.

[mckerney]

Since the voting report cards didn't sink him Cruz seems to have doubled down on mailing out stupid things, now sending out envelopes that say "Check Enclosed" on them with a check made out to Ted Cruz inside.

[albionmoonlight]

Jim Contest Entry:

Trump 30%
Kasich 20%
Christie:15%
Bush 12%
Cruz 9%
Rubio 9%
Carson 3%
Fiorina 1%
Gilmore/Random New Hampshire Dudes running on a lark 1%

[Ben E Lou]

Trump 35
Christie 16
Rubio 14
Kasich 11
Bush 10
Jeb! 8
Carson 5
Fioina 1


EDIT: Where I had "Bush", I meant "Cruz." *shurg*

[NobodyHere]

If it's not to late to enter

Trump 30
Kasich 20
Rubio 12
Cruz 12
Christie 11
Jeb 10
Fiorina 3
Carson 2

[kcchief19]

Trump 23
Kasich 18
Bush 14
Rubio 14
Cruz 10
Christie 10
Carson 4
Fiorina 5
Others 2

[Ryche]

Trump 30
Kasich 18
Cruz 15
Rubio 14
Christie 12
Bush 5
Carson 4
Fiorina 1
Others 1

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Hmm, well if it comes down to Bloomberg, Sanders, or Trump in the House... there is a chance that Bloomberg could take it... its likely his best chance, to be honest.

Nope, because as digamma pointed out, it's each state delegation with one vote. There's no way Bloomberg can carry 26 state delegations. And any Republican congressman who didn't vote Trump in that scenario would no longer be a Republican congressman after the next election.

[corbes]

Trump	27
Christie	15
Kasich	13
Rubio	12
Bush	10
Cruz	10
Other	7
Carson	4
Fiorina	2

[Scarecrow]

Donald Trump — 25%
Marco Rubio — 20%
John Kasich — 17%
Jeb Bush — 15%
Ted Cruz — 14%
Chris Christie — 5%
Ben Carson — 3%
Carly Fiorina — 1%

[QuikSand]

http://www.openprocessing.org/sketch...50&border=true

Fun toy for about 5 runs...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

any Republican congressman who didn't vote Trump in that scenario would no longer be a Republican congressman after the next election.

Some of them would be advised to avoid ever returning home if they wanted to be breathing by the next election.

[QuikSand]

No idea about the source, but this is the first set of numbers I have seen:

America Elect ‏@americaelect 25m25 minutes ago
New Hampshire exit poll (via DDHQ):
Trump: 35.84%
Cruz: 15.12%
Kasich: 14.94%
Rubio: 10.72%
Bush: 9.62%

[larrymcg421]

Yikes. If that's the result tonight, I can only imagine the establishment panic that will ensue.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Yikes. If that's the result tonight, I can only imagine the establishment panic that will ensue.

"But we still have nearly half the party behind us"

[QuikSand]

2% reporting Vote %
Trump
34.5%
Kasich
14.2%
Bush
11.2%
Cruz
10.0%
Rubio
9.9%
Christie
9.5%

[QuikSand]

Obviously too soon to say, but Trump wins big, and then a blur looks like it's very possible. If Kasich "wins" the rest but only with 14-15% over everyone else's 10-13%... does he really get any distance or momentum out of that? #HuntsmanRedux

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Trump 35
Christie 16
Rubio 14
Kasich 11
Bush 10
Jeb! 8
Carson 5
Fioina 1

Oops....That "Bush" was meant to be "Cruz".

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

2% reporting Vote %
Trump
34.5%
Kasich
14.2%
Bush
11.2%
Cruz
10.0%
Rubio
9.9%
Christie
9.5%

3%...

Status: votingest. % in: 3%

candidatevotes%

delegates

trump2,50034%

0

kasich1,07915%

0

bush85312%

0

cruz75310%

0

rubio74610%

0

christie6679%

0

fiorina3335%

0

carson1532%

0

[FONT='Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]



[/font]
[FONT='Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]

[/font]

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Obviously too soon to say, but Trump wins big, and then a blur looks like it's very possible. If Kasich "wins" the rest but only with 14-15% over everyone else's 10-13%... does he really get any distance or momentum out of that? #HuntsmanRedux

It's money, and how much a candidate had committed to New Hampshire.

In Huntsman's case, he placed a distant third, was at a point where he would have had to spend family money, and New Hampshire was his best shot because of the voting rules.

Kasich is closest to that scenario because he hasn't campaigned anywhere else. So I think he needs to be in the top three and over 10-12%. But realistically, his campaign needed a win tonight or at least close to 30%.

[tarcone]

Trump and Sanders just declared winners

[Solecismic]

I would caution reading much into the very early results. Not to question whether Trump and Sanders will win, but about 99% of the early returns are from very heavily Democratic areas.

[Ben E Lou]

Looks like CNN has their exit poll results up now....

Trump--32
Kasich--16
Cruz--13
Rubio--12
Bush--11
Christie--7
fiorina--5
Carson--3

[Solecismic]

With so few cities in, I'm still not getting much of a picture. Most of the signatures of the places where voting is in are anti-establishment in that Romney did poorly. In some, Huntsman did well (like Concord). In others, Santorum and Gingrich were stronger.

My sense is that if I had to redo my entry, I'd bump Kasich and Trump up a few points, and Bush and Rubio down (I was higher on Bush's chances for second place than most).

[Solecismic]

In the case of Kasich, I think he will finish around 18-19%, which really is a heck of an achievement under the circumstances, even if it isn't enough to get his campaign going elsewhere. Manchester is the bulk of early returns, with 10 of 12 precincts already in. This is New Hampshire's biggest city, and where Huntsman fared particularly poorly.

[Solecismic]

A word on Bedford, which is right where I used to live (in the next town over, Amherst - they are very similar). Trump 28, Kasich 16, Christie 15, Rubio 13, Bush 13, Cruz 9.

This was an area that really helped Romney four years ago, and was a very poor area for Paul. So, while it's tempting to connect candidates to positions four years ago, it doesn't quite work. I did get the sense Trump would be a little down in this area, but I expected more of the remainder to head toward Bush, Rubio and Kasich than to Christie.

Either way, the 13% in Bedford for Rubio is a huge disappointment. I bet he would have been in the mid-20s there before the debate.

[bhlloy]

I guess the most interesting thing now is what's the lowest that Rubio can finish and still be the establishment player with the most momentum? Is 12% and 4th a disaster for him and what if he goes even lower than that?

Kasich might be a heck of an achievement but it's completely irrelevant to the race. He could probably win and still be in single figures in every single upcoming state. 538 had 20% as the minimum he needs to get any momentum and seriously consider staying in the race, so he's close in your predictions, but I still don't see an end game.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Heard an great slip of the tongue on election coverage while I was out a few minutes ago

"Coming up later tonight we'll have the concession speech lies ... err. LIVE"

I LOL'ed

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Yeah, I have been saying to my pol friends that they don't realize that we are making history - that this is the best and most intriguing Pres primary race we are ever going to see.

+1

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

I guess the most interesting thing now is what's the lowest that Rubio can finish and still be the establishment player with the most momentum? Is 12% and 4th a disaster for him and what if he goes even lower than that?

Kasich might be a heck of an achievement but it's completely irrelevant to the race. He could probably win and still be in single figures in every single upcoming state. 538 had 20% as the minimum he needs to get any momentum and seriously consider staying in the race, so he's close in your predictions, but I still don't see an end game.

This kind of echoes the Jamie Dupree & Co. commentary on WSB radio tonight.
"Finishing 2nd is nice for Kasich ... but he has nowhere to go after this. And apparently, after tonight, neither does Rubio."

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

This kind of echoes the Jamie Dupree & Co. commentary on WSB radio tonight.
"Finishing 2nd is nice for Kasich ... but he has nowhere to go after this. And apparently, after tonight, neither does Rubio."

Nor Chrisite.

And Republican voters seem to really dislike Jeb. So are we really down to Trump v Cruz?

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Nor Chrisite.

And Republican voters seem to really dislike Jeb. So are we really down to Trump v Cruz?

The talking heads speculation was that Christie might not even make it to the SEC primaries.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Nor Chrisite.

And Republican voters seem to really dislike Jeb. So are we really down to Trump v Cruz?

They are the two anti-establishment candidates, and they've sucked up the air that Fiorina and Carson could breathe. Cruz had already relegated Santorum and Huckabee to the sidelines.

For the others, it's all about money now.

The other four constitute the "establishment," and there are a ton of donors waiting for one to support. The early money had gone to Bush, but he didn't make good use of it.

All four are flawed. Christie is the least "likable" of the four, but he performs well at debates. It does seem that he is on the thinnest ice.

Rubio is starting to feel like John Edwards. But I think he has some time to right the ship.

Bush may get another chance - he's the most palatable to the people with the checkbooks. Still, what may well be fourth place in New Hampshire isn't going to inspire them.

Do they turn to Kasich? He's newer to the race than most. He has no staff. Presumably, he could make more use of the money than the others. But will his message appeal where voters have already tuned him out?

At this point, and I'll reflect more on this later, this was a huuuyge day for Trump. But I think Rubio is still the most likely candidate to challenge him.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Either I need a new TV or Trump needs a new makeup artist STAT.

[cuervo72]

Saw this headline on FB: "Family Feud: Video Circulates of Contestant Repeating Incorrect Answers on Game Show." My immediate thought was, "Marco?"

[digamma]

Did Rubio just plagiarize Tebow?

[JPhillips]

This really couldn't have gone any better for Trump.

A big win.

Rubio flattened.

The establishment candidates all bunched together with no reason to drop out.

The longer there's more than three candidates, the better chance for Trump.

[PilotMan]

I'd say that with none of the establishment candidates breaking out that none of them are going to be willing to throw in the towel just yet. If I'm looking at it from their perspective they have spent a lot of time and energy getting this far and they each have just enough to keep going a little longer. Once one of them breaks out it's going to get interesting. Maybe there will be a rush of back door dealings to consolidate some kind of candidate, like a VP trade for endorsement, if say Trump or Cruz start to break out ahead too far or the math suddenly doesn't favor any of them. I think they are at least smart enough to see how the numbers are going to play out in the end and already know the last possible point that the field has to be shrunk by to keep Trump and Cruz from running away.

[Solecismic]

Based on body language and speech content, I'd say Christie is out. I think they're down to five, and Kasich has limited time to prove he can compete outside of New Hampshire. He won't play well in South Carolina (for some reason, politics is a blood sport there more than anywhere else), so he's very much a long shot.

This might be a good thing for Rubio. He has been humbled. He finally admitted he blew the debate. This is an opportunity to create a narrative - a lesson learned in New Hampshire, which can now go back to not mattering for a couple of years.

The bottom line is that people really want an alternative to Trump and Cruz, and they haven't yet coalesced around anyone. Bush should have been that guy - set up with the money and doing well in debates lately. His name precedes him.

Rubio has to up his game, but I still consider him the overall favorite in this race.

[Dutch]

I'm actually surprised that there is anyone in New Hampshire that would vote for Trump or Cruz, so my guess is that Trump is going to be the nominee at this point. On the democrat side, I'm not surprised that they would vote for Sanders...even though it's Hillary's (adopted) back yard.

[Dutch]

This is what my news feed just sent me...

A Racist, Sexist Demagogue Just Won The New Hampshire Primary

Is it becoming politically correct/acceptable to be labelled a "racist"? Maybe I've had it all wrong. I thought being "racist" meant...well, you know...being "racist". But now I think it's becoming a word used to label political opponents of the Democrats. If that's the case, I can live with it.