2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[molson]

Anecdotally, a lot of Sanders supporters say they're going to vote for Trump. Hillary is HATED by the most vocal segment of Sanders supporters, and they claim they're voting Trump, I guess for spite. (And maybe because Trump is arguably further left than Clinton on some issues, like healthcare.) Of course, Sanders supporters didn't get out to the polls very effectively to support their own guy, I don't know how many will go out in November without his involvement.

I think it's really impossible to accurately predict November at this point. There's a very strong anti-Trump and anti-Clinton sentiment, within both parties. I have no idea if those people are going to vote for whoever they think the lesser evil of those two is, whether they'll stay home, whether they'd vote for a fringe third party, or whether they'd vote for a prominent independent candidate.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

Anecdotally, a lot of Sanders supporters say they're going to vote for Trump. Hillary is HATED by the most vocal segment of Sanders supporters, and they claim they're voting Trump, I guess for spite. (And maybe because Trump is arguably further left than Clinton on some issues, like healthcare.) Of course, Sanders supporters didn't get out to the polls very effectively to support their own guy, I don't know how many will go out in November without his involvement.

A February 18th poll by CBS News asked the question (of Democratic Primary Voters) whether they'd support each candidate in the general. The results were:

Would Support Clinton:
Enthusiastically: 48
With Reservations: 25
Only because Nominee: 14
No: 10
Don't know: 3

Would Support Sanders:
Enthusiastically: 44
With Reservations: 26
Only because Nominee: 17
No: 10
Don't know: 3

[Kodos]

Yeah, I don't know any Sanders supporters who would go over to Trump. But then my sample is small.

[Ben E Lou]

Interesting (at least to me) to note: In all of Georgia and South Carolina, only 6 counties did not go to Trump. The counties containing Columbia, Athens, and Charleston, along with three Atlanta counties (Cobb/DeKalb/Fulton) all went to Rubio.

Three of those counties represent everywhere I've lived in my entire adult life other than the last year and a half, and it's a fairly safe bet that my current county will be lower-than-average for Trump. It probably feeds into at least three things that I've noticed in this campaign and this thread...

1. Being a black dude who lives in the South and is married to a white woman, I've always operated under the assumption that the smart move is to live in the more educated areas. I guess if the narrative is generally correct about less-educated whites being more likely to vote for Trump, I chose my living locations wisely.

2. Then there's the comment I made earlier about Carson supporters not going to Trump. As I indicated then, every Carson supporter that I know is an idealistic, Country-Club Member, very-Biblically-conservative Christian who is aghast not so much at Trump's outsider status and positions, but at his demeanor. My social media feed has a disproportionate number of vocal Carson supporters, and every one of them has been very vocally anti-Trump in the last couple of weeks in particular. Because much of my social media feed is from the self-selected groups from the places I've lived, I guess I'm more likely to think that Carson supporters would skew in that direction

3. I suppose that I'm not as fearful of Southern white conservative Christian types as most black people because I've lived among the members of that tribe most likely to be non-racist for the entirely of my adult life.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by molson

Anecdotally, a lot of Sanders supporters say they're going to vote for Trump. Hillary is HATED by the most vocal segment of Sanders supporters, and they claim they're voting Trump, I guess for spite. (And maybe because Trump is arguably further left than Clinton on some issues, like healthcare.) Of course, Sanders supporters didn't get out to the polls very effectively to support their own guy, I don't know how many will go out in November without his involvement.

I think it's really impossible to accurately predict November at this point. There's a very strong anti-Trump and anti-Clinton sentiment, within both parties. I have no idea if those people are going to vote for whoever they think the lesser evil of those two is, whether they'll stay home, whether they'd vote for a fringe third party, or whether they'd vote for a prominent independent candidate.

Anecdotally speaking, it mostly seems to be the vocal, reddit type of Sanders supporters that refuse to vote for Hillary and it mostly seems to come from the fact that Sanders is losing to her and she's playing the political game while Sanders is trying to run an honest campaign. If Sanders was losing to Trump I'd be willing to bet those some people would refuse to vote for him too.

I will say, I agree with Sanders on a lot of ideas and policy, but he has the most obnoxious backers in either race. I do believe that many of those vocal types just want Sanders to win and aren't going to turn up in the general election if he's not on the ballot.

[molson]

Ya, I realize my facebook wall and /r/politics are probably the left-most 1% of voters. (In the former instance, I'm not sure what life decisions I made to be surrounded by rabid Sanders supporters at all times.) But a lot of them are either extraordinarily disillusioned by Super Tuesday's results, or still believe 100% that Sanders is going to win. I guess there's not enough of these people to impact the November voting though.

[stevew]

I'd think a 3rd party "GOP" run would just focus on States where a Democrat is unlikely to win a 3 way race and to sit out some of the more competitive States. You only need to keep Hilary and Drumpf from getting 270

[Logan]

This will be my last unsolicited mention of Christie since he's out but today was an interesting day with him.

Gov. Chris Christie is lying again, this time about the Star-Ledger, in response to our call for him to resign from office. Why are we not surprised?

The governor claimed at a rare press conference that the Star-Ledger has "never supported me, my policies, or my existence" so he was not surprised by our call for him to resign. We are blind fanatics, you see.

Let's look at the facts, none of which is in dispute.

We endorsed him for re-election in 2013. Before that, we supported his landmark pension and health reform in 2011, and we are on his side opposing the Constitutional amendment on pensions this year. We supported the cap on property taxes. We supported his reform of the rules governing union negotiations.

We supported tenure reform. We supported his expansion of charter schools. We supported the reorganization of higher education, and the bump of Rutgers University into the Big Ten. We supported the bond act to help finance higher education construction projects. We supported his Constitutional amendment on bail reform.

We even support him on some of his efforts that have failed. We backed his plan to offer vouchers for private school tuition in failing districts. We support his efforts to limit payments for unused sick time

This list goes on. And what it proves is that we have no problem supporting the governor. It's not personal.

You know this because I wrote many of these editorials, and we spoke personally about most of this.

So, please, governor. Stop telling self-serving lies. That's a habit of yours. And it's one reason no one trust you anymore.

And yes, like everyone in New Jersey, we disagree with you a lot as well. It's case by case.

We don't support your cancellation of a new Hudson River tunnel, or your neglect of our decaying transportation infrastructure, even now. We don't support your abandonment of affordable housing efforts, your opposition to gay marriage, your veto of a modest hike in the minimum wage, your big tax breaks for businesses in a time of fiscal crisis. We don't support your demonization of public workers as greedy when they claim promised benefits.

We don't support your broken promise that demolished your pension reform. We don't support shutting down Planned Parenthood clinics. We don't support your call for big tax cuts for the wealthiest families in the state. We don't support your horrid record on the environment, top to bottom.

We were appalled by your administration's behavior during the Bridgegate scandal, and remain infuriated that you spent $10 million in taxpayer funds for a cover up done by your political allies and personal friends. We don't support your routine refusal to reveal public records.

We based on call for your resignation on two things: One, you have disengaged in your second term. Business and political leaders constantly complain to us that they can't get through to you or your deputies. You were gone 72 percent of the days, all or in part, during 2015. The state is in crisis, and you'v been AWOL.

And two, you've lost all credibility. Your constant flip flops, the effort to pose as a Tea Party conservative, was appalling and your endorsement of Donald Trump was worse. It's phony and self-serving. And it diminishes your clout.

So, fine, governor. You can disagree with us on any of this. But when you say we never support you, that is plainly untrue, and you know it. We are not surprised by that. You've made lying a habit.

If you want to rebuild your reputation in New Jersey, where your popularity has collapsed, you might start by breaking that habit.

Chris Christie is lying again, this time about Star-Ledger | Moran | NJ.com

[stevew]

Plus can you imagine the October Surprises that are out there for Drumpf? If you figure that he has a ton of NDA settlements with people, the buyouts on these are probably small to multibillionaires like the Koch's. I can't wait to hear about how many downlow abortions The Donald has paid for(for example)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Interesting (at least to me) to note: In all of Georgia and South Carolina, only 6 counties did not go to Trump. The counties containing Columbia, Athens, and Charleston, along with three Atlanta counties (Cobb/DeKalb/Fulton) all went to Rubio.

... I guess if the narrative is generally correct about less-educated whites being more likely to vote for Trump, I chose my living locations wisely.

Except ...

In order here are the "most educated" GA counties (% Bachelors or higher) in GA, 2009-2013 (all range 39.5% - 48.2%)

Fulton - Rubio 41-26
Forsyth - Trump 37-28
Cobb - Rubio 34-31
Oconee - Trump 31-28
Fayette - Trump 32-29
DeKalb - Rubio 41-25
Clarke - Rubio 35-26

Relatively similar educational attainment, split results.

Knowing the state as you do, you're going to spot the difference in the counties right off the bat I'd imagine, but I'll spell it out for those who aren't familiar with them:

Where Rubio won are all at least 25% black population.
Where Trump won, 2/3 are 5% black or less (Fayette being 21%)


That's the obvious difference for those who know the state but there's at least one other major difference in the Rubio vs Trump counties too:
The three where Trump won rank 1,2, and 3 in the for state for median household income

[Arles]

I tend to agree with the earlier sentiment that a big turnout for the GOP is coming no matter what. You will have the Trump believers, as well as the Hillary haters. Finally, you will have some who aren't in either group (like myself) voting for Hillary but voting more republican on local races. The last thing we want is for Trump to win.

I don't really see the "Trump fear" being enough for a big democratic turnout - esp for the Sanders crew. Most (including the media) will explain how Trump can't win and the non-Hillary supporters in the democratic party may just stay home (esp if there aren't any super important ballot/local races). Obama was great at getting the democratic turnout - I can't see Hillary getting that level of support on election day. He's just a more inspirational guy while Hillary reminds me of the McCain/Romney/Kerry/Gore type candidate who you vote for on party lines - but aren't super jazzed about it.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by stevew

I'd think a 3rd party "GOP" run would just focus on States where a Democrat is unlikely to win a 3 way race and to sit out some of the more competitive States. You only need to keep Hilary and Drumpf from getting 270

Even seems like a very tough proposition, if not an impossible one. Let's look at Texas and Georgia--the two states in 2012 that gave the most electoral votes to Romney.

TX: 57-41 Romney

TX went 26.7% Trump. Let's say for this hypothetical that somehow a third party candidate manages to take 80% of the non-Trump votes. So then it's

Clinton: 41
Third Party: 34
Trump: 23

Third party guy can't even win Texas, and even worse for that sort of effort, Texas doesn't go to Trump; it goes to Clinton. The only other reasonable outcome is that it goes to Trump, not the third party.

Moving on to...

GA: 53-45 Romney

Trump got 38.8% in GA, so chalk him up for at least 20.5% if he gets NONE of the other R votes, and we can stop that one right there.

Clinton: 45
Third Party: 34.5
Trump: 20.5

And again, that's assuming that the third party takes ALL of the non-Trump votes.

So basically, in the two biggest red-state prizes, it's just not reasonable to think that a third party can win over both Trump and Clinton.

Yes, I am aware that Clinton's numbers could drop from Obama's 2012 ones, but they're not going to drop THAT much. And keep in mind that in the numbers above I've been overly generous to the mythical third party Republican and overly pessimistic for Trump. Overall, though, it should be fairly clear that the net result of a strong third party "real Republican alternative to Trump" candidacy is that...

1. HRC wins the blue states even more easily than normal.
2. Some red states turn blue because of split red votes.

I'm not going to go state-by-state, but I'd think that HRC gets 440+ in that scenario.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Arles

One of the healthiest things for the Republican part would be for Trump to run and get destroyed. It would pretty much put to bed this fad and let the party regroup for 2020. If they slide in Cruz or Mitt through the side door, then all the Trumpites will cry foul (esp if they lose). Better to let him have his shot and put it to bed after he loses than to steal the chance from him and have four years of Trump anger to deal with.

I'm a northeast liberal, and it won't happen anyway, but I'd argue that it'd be Cruz running & getting destroyed. 70% of people 35 or younger support same-sex marriage, while abortion is not as drastic <35y/o's are also clearly pro-choice, marijuana I don't even need to dig up polls, and even on immigration we're significantly less anti-anything than older voters. It's not just a hardening by age, as the gun rights numbers show, with millennials actually inching up and supporting them more than the previous generation. The reactionaries of the world can keep tilting at windmills, but those fights (at least the first two) are over, and using those as your litmus tests and party tentpoles ensures the slow demise of the Republican Party. The religious right wing of the party has taken on outsized importance and it's led to a point where the Republicans are actually more intrusive than Democrats, and if it's Trump who tilts the balance back towards economically conservative, strong military, socially libertarian I'll love it. There are Republicans who run, and consistently win, in Massachusetts...

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Sure. It could happen. But it is not likely.

No one getting to 270 is great for establishment GOP. That part seems clear.

But I am not sure how a right wing third party helps that. It seems like instead of having states go 52-48 Hillary over Trump or 52-48 Trump over Hillary, you would have a lot of states go 52-28-20 Hillary or 48-30-22 Hillary.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Nope.

With two GOP parties (effectively), what happens on a state-by-state basis is something like:

Clinton: 45%
Trump: 30%
Mitt: 20%

And then Clinton wins in a landslide.

The thing your IM misses is that aside from two states (Nebraska & Maine), states award their electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis.

Exactly. If Trump was a heavy favorite maybe you could try to run one, steal Utah/Wyoming/Idaho/Oklahoma, but even in Texas and most of the South Obama got around 40-41% in 2012 and it's hard to see any establishment 3rd-party candidate coming anywhere close to that number. If Trump is polling poorly, just run away from him and threaten voters that Hillary's agenda will be passed if there isn't a Republican majority in the Senate/House. If he's polling well (and I think he will), just shut up and realize the wave of new voters he's pulling in will likely bring you more R votes than people abstaining from voting as a whole due to dislike of the top of the ticket.

[NobodyHere]

I can't wait for the debate tonight. It should be an absolute slugfest.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Relatively similar educational attainment, split results.

Well, yes and no. Sure, the results were split, but in every case other than Forsyth (and, well, you know...it's Forsyth, ) Trump didn't come close to his overall 39% in the state.

I wonder what percentage of the black voters in those three counties voted Republican, though. Just a hunch here, but I'm guessing it's higher than the national average, but still very low. However, Trump undeniably has a higher concentration of racist/white supremacist types in his corner than do other campaigns, so it would also follow that the white Republicans who choose to live in closer proximity to more black people would be less likely to fit into that mold. (Must....resist.....another.....Forsyth.....County.....crack)

[Solecismic]

Assuming Trump goes into the convention with a plurality or a majority, I don't see any path where a Republican "third-party" candidate wins.

The third party run won't be on the ballot in many states. Where it is, I don't see how it wouldn't make even some reliably red states purple. It would only serve as a spoiler.

I don't think it would work, but let's say it did prevent anyone from reaching 270. Then, somehow, Congress puts the third-place winner in the White House. What kind of mandate would a President with 20% of the vote have? If the House started voting like that President had a mandate, what would happen in 2018?

I don't underestimate the natural tendency of any establishment from committing ritual seppuku over the sense of losing control, so maybe Republicans will follow this path. But the result is a splintered party.

And stupidly so. Trump is a thin-skinned fighter - a rarity in this field in that this type usually flames out long before a presidential run is possible. He is desperate for approval. If the establishment had looked to work with him to calm the rhetoric and focus his vague policy, it could have ridden along and had considerable influence.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

and if it's Trump who tilts the balance back towards economically conservative, strong military, socially libertarian I'll love it.

And while this is one of the bigger risks of Trump turning into an abject failure, I'm actually banking on his relative neutrality on social issues being an indication that he will give Congress the leeway to pass what they will in those areas.

And a Trump victory makes the existing too-weak-to-get-anything-done establishment less likely to steer things in Congress.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Must....resist.....another.....Forsyth.....County.....crack)

Well, in part because you know the image of Forsyth & the reality of Forsyth are two different things. We can both name 5-10 counties off the top of our head that fit the image better than it does, and not by a little bit either.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Well, in part because you know the image of Forsyth & the reality of Forsyth are two different things. We can both name 5-10 counties off the top of our head that fit the image better than it does, and not by a little bit either.

Oh, I agree with that. At the same time, the image being what it is, it still a place where if you DO want to live in a place with fewer black people, it's a solid choice. (But yes, there are most definitely "better" choices in Georgia than Forsyth than that...)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Oh, I agree with that. At the same time, the image being what it is, it still a place where if you DO want to live in a place with fewer black people, it's a solid choice. (But yes, there are most definitely "better" choices in Georgia than Forsyth than that...)

I dunno, I mean, I'm not sure how much of that particular image Forsyth even has (at least among whites) at this point. Maybe in a narrow age range there's still some of that perception but aside from old-timers like me & you, I rarely hear it mentioned anymore. It's actually 15% minority pop now, nearly 10% being Hispanic. It's only 33rd in "white population" now.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Hmm ... I haven't actually seen this particular stat referenced anywhere thus far so I'm wondering if anyone else has.

I'd be curious to know what percentage of Trump supporters voted for Romney in 2012 vs sitting the race out. Granted, I strongly suspect the answer would be skewed low by inaccurate replies (not everyone is as comfortable owning that scenario as I am) but it'd still be an interesting number to see.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Nope.

With two GOP parties (effectively), what happens on a state-by-state basis is something like:

Clinton: 45%
Trump: 30%
Mitt: 20%

And then Clinton wins in a landslide.

The thing your IM misses is that aside from two states (Nebraska & Maine), states award their electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis.

I've seen this movie!

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by molson

Ya, I realize my facebook wall and /r/politics are probably the left-most 1% of voters. But a lot of them are either extraordinarily disillusioned by Super Tuesday's results, or still believe 100% that Sanders is going to win. I guess there's not enough of these people to impact the November voting though.

I'm pretty sure that my social media feed is more R than D, but even in that space, I'd agree with the comment about the Sanders supporters being the most obnoxious of the bunch. In the last couple of days in particular, when any Sanders supporter has dared to claim that the D race is over and that they need to get behind HRC, they have been attacked by multiple other Sanders supporters with "YOU ARE JUST LISTENING TO THE MEDIA NARRATIVE AND THEY HATE BERNIE!!!!1"

[flere-imsaho]

OK, because I'm insane, I did some numbers.

Right now delegate counts (per RCP) are:

Trump: 319
Cruz: 226
Rubio: 110
Kasich: 25

There are 17 "states" between now and March 15th (inclusive): Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Idaho, Michigan, Mississippi, Guam, DC, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina, Marianas, Ohio.

For the states that award their delegates proportionally and for which there is recent polling (KS, KY, LA, MI, MS & NC), if I go with current state polls, the totals go to (approximately):

Trump: 423
Cruz: 280
Rubio: 162
Kasich: 46

There are 3 states which award their delegates as winner-take-all and have recent polling (FL, IL & OH). If I award their delegates based on current state polling, the totals go to:

Trump: 657
Cruz: 280
Rubio: 162
Kasich: 46

(because Trump wins all three)

At this point there are 10 states unaccounted for, representing 252 delegates where either a) there's no recent polling (ME, PR, HI, ID, GU, DC, MO, MP) or they had their caucuses but won't release the results until later (CO, WY).

Since of those only Missouri & Marianas are winner-take-all, if we just divide up the 252 between the top 3 candidates, we get:

Trump: 741
Cruz: 364
Rubio: 288

OK. Note that this doesn't make any guess as to where Carson's % goes in the states where we have polling.

Now, let's say I do all the above, but give Carson's %s (in the states with polling data) to Cruz:

Trump: 741 (note: no WTA state switches)
Cruz: 386
Rubio: 288

Or, let's do the same, but for Rubio:

Trump: 741 (note: still no WTA state switches)
Cruz: 364
Rubio: 309

Let's say I do that and take 5% from Trump (in each state with polling) and give it to Rubio:

Trump: 726 (tied in KS, loses KY, loses MI, loses NC, but still wins all WTA states including FL, IL & OH)
Cruz: 364
Rubio: 324

Let's take that 5% from Trump and give it to Cruz instead, on top of Carson's %:

Trump: 722 (loses KS, LA, MI, NC & OH)
Cruz: 401
Rubio: 288

I have no idea what this all means and have to log off.

[Solecismic]

Super Tuesday Delegate Estimates:

Trump 256, Cruz 219, Rubio 96, Kasich 21, Carson 3.

Estimated Totals:

Trump 338, Cruz 236, Rubio 112, Kasich 27, Carson 8, Others 7

Total Allocated: 728 of 2472 (1237 needed to win)

Why are the Republicans doubling down on the attack Trump platform? Because I think it worked among the base.

So far, most contests have been open to all voters. But that becomes less the norm as the vote continues.

On Super Tuesday, Trump won 7 of the 8 open contests, losing only in Cruz's home state of Texas. He won none of three closed contests.

There are nine more contests in the next five days, with 328 delegates. Only two of them (Mississippi and Puerto Rico) are open.

This is a tiny five-day window to change the math before the WTAs on March 15, which could put Trump on track to reach 1,237.

If Trump does well in these next nine contests - winning five or more, let's say - I think the rhetoric slows down considerably. Rubio then banks everything on Florida (Florida is a closed primary) and Kasich banks everything on Ohio (Ohio is an open primary). Things calm down.

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Super Tuesday Delegate Estimates:

Trump 256, Cruz 219, Rubio 96, Kasich 21, Carson 3.

Estimated Totals:

Trump 338, Cruz 236, Rubio 112, Kasich 27, Carson 8, Others 7

Total Allocated: 728 of 2472 (1237 needed to win)

Why are the Republicans doubling down on the attack Trump platform? Because I think it worked among the base.

So far, most contests have been open to all voters. But that becomes less the norm as the vote continues.

On Super Tuesday, Trump won 7 of the 8 open contests, losing only in Cruz's home state of Texas. He won none of three closed contests.

There are nine more contests in the next five days, with 328 delegates. Only two of them (Mississippi and Puerto Rico) are open.

This is a tiny five-day window to change the math before the WTAs on March 15, which could put Trump on track to reach 1,237.

If Trump does well in these next nine contests - winning five or more, let's say - I think the rhetoric slows down considerably. Rubio then banks everything on Florida (Florida is a closed primary) and Kasich banks everything on Ohio (Ohio is an open primary). Things calm down.

Minnesota is an open contest as well if you mean no party registration.

[tarcone]

I dont want to sit through a bunch of guys fighting on stage. That does not interest me in the least.

I want to hear what these guys are going to do if elected. Some ideas. Something more then Trump is a phony, Rubio is a puppet, and Cruz doesnt have a clue.

I want some substance. I know Im asking a lot. And I know I am living in a fantasy world. But a man can dream.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I dont want to sit through a bunch of guys fighting on stage. That does not interest me in the least.

I want to hear what these guys are going to do if elected. Some ideas. Something more then Trump is a phony, Rubio is a puppet, and Cruz doesnt have a clue.

I want some substance. I know Im asking a lot. And I know I am living in a fantasy world. But a man can dream.

You could always watch the Democratic debates.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Ryche

Minnesota is an open contest as well if you mean no party registration.

Right. It and the Virgin Islands are the only open caucuses, but is that a barrier as well? The Republicans make caucuses a lot easier than the Democrats in that you don't have to play musical chairs or hang around forever. So it belongs in its own category.

However, open primary - Trump 9-for-10. Closed or caucus - Trump 1-for-5.

It explains why the push is right now.

I dont want to sit through a bunch of guys fighting on stage. That does not interest me in the least.

I want to hear what these guys are going to do if elected. Some ideas. Something more then Trump is a phony, Rubio is a puppet, and Cruz doesnt have a clue.

Rumor has it that Bruce Buffer and Herb Dean have been spotted in downtown Detroit.

Yeah, I agree. But both sides have always featured a parade of candidates who make tons of promises on which they can't possibly hope to deliver.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I want to hear what these guys are going to do if elected.

Whatever Congress sends them by & large, with some measure of executive orders thrown in.

The Presidency is as much, and probably more at this point, about tone & direction as specifics.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

OK, because I'm insane, I did some numbers.

So..............

With the caveats that a) there were a bunch of assumptions built into my model that could change and b) I've been known to make horrible math mistakes, we nevertheless have these scenarios for the race after March 15th (i.e. after FL & OH):

"Best Case" for Cruz has him with 401 delegates. With roughly 1000 delegates left at that point, he would need to acquire roughly 800 (80%) to get a majority, or 300 (30%) to simply overhaul Trump's count at that point (and probably a lot more to stay in front of Trump to the convention.

"Best Case for Rubio has him with 324 delegates. Again with roughly 1000 delegates left at that point, he would need to acquire roughly 875 (87%) to get a majority, or 375 (37%) to simply overhaul Trump's count at that point (and probably a lot more to stay in front of Trump to the convention.


What does this mean? I think it means Mr. Contested Convention is still the front-runner. But as a secondary conclusion, I think it means that if Trump's opponents are going to make a meaningful difference, it needs to be in the races between Saturday (March 5th) and March 15th (inclusive).

And they have to dent his momentum. He can afford, at this point, a slip in the polls, to an extent. As the 538 analysis points out, he's running ahead of his delegate target so far, and Rubio & Cruz are running behind.

[dave731]

I have to believe that if Clinton and Trump are the nominees, somebody runs on a 3rd party that would be a better president than either of them and Americans wake up and snap out of this election season. The need for being able to pass a competency test in order to be eligible to cast a vote has never been more evident than this year.

[NobodyHere]

Just when you thought the bar couldn't get any lower for a Republican debate.

[NobodyHere]

Wow, the moderators are challenging the candidates with actual numbers!

[tarcone]

Trump is looking bad

[tarcone]

Its too bad that Cruz wont win. Id like to see if he could do what he says he wants to do.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Its too bad that Cruz wont win. Id like to see if he could do what he says he wants to do.

I would very much not.

[Edward64]

Pretty good debate so far, not like the previous circus.

[Easy Mac]

What is Rubio's website?

[Edward64]

Uh oh. Trump University is going to derail this debate.

[Easy Mac]

Rubio sounds and looks sick. I think that's really going to hurt him.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

I would very much not.

+1

[Edward64]

Great line by Ted ... "learn to not interrupt Donald" ... "count to 10".

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Rubio sounds and looks sick. I think that's really going to hurt him.

Rubio just doesn't have the "gravitas"

[tarcone]

Kasich and Cruz are, at least, grounded and sounding presidential.

Tired of Trump and Rubio.

[EagleFan]

This may be the first time that I haven't wanted to punch Cruz every time he spoke.

[EagleFan]

Kasich is where the vote needs to go for anyone wanting to keep Hillary out of office. Pretty simple, but still too difficult for those in the trump cult to understand.

[EagleFan]

I like how Kasich seems to have planned to not mention any of the other candidates if there is any chance to avoid it. He says his peace and it is on to the next question, not the back and forth that Rubio and Trump have done. If Rubio and Cruz would basically ignore Trump I think his support will start to dwindle. Ignore the troll and he will wither and die.

[bronconick]

This isn't a debate, it's a kneecapping. If this was anyone other than Trump, there'd be an outcry tomorrow morning.

[Edward64]

Trump does not do well when he says he changed his mind (on at least 2 issues so far).

"Trouble telling the truth" ... "breath, breath". Ted's got some great lines.