2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

On other hand, how do you decide which states "don't matter". In my lifetime, a Republican HAS won California and a Democrat HAS won North Carolina. States evolve and change as to their political demographics.

In this hypothetical world where this would happen, the parties are truly private entities. And in that case, they do their due diligence and decide every four years where they need to concentrate their nominating efforts. It's not like it'd be extra work, really. They already do it to decide where they'll concentrate their advertising efforts. People on here have commented numerous times along the lines of "I moved from state X to Ohio/Florida/etc. and WOW I CAN'T BELIEVE HOW MANY ADS FOR PRESIDENT I HEAR AND SEE NOW!!!!11"

[ISiddiqui]

If they are truly private entities, why have state primaries at all? Be like European parties and just have party wide nominating elections for dues paying party members.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Abandoning the electoral college would simply further devalue votes that already seem to have little meaning.

Ok. So I'll concede that mathematically, you may be right. But from a perception standpoint, right now if candidate R holds a 50.5-49.5 lead over candidate D nationally, that's *still* not meaningful anywhere but in a handful of states. Your post mentioned 16 states, even in a hypothetical "very close" election, only 2 of the states you mentioned are even in play at all. So, ok, fine. In that scenario, Joe Wyoming and Jane Vermont's votes are mathematically worth less than half of what they use to be worth, but practically, it's easy to envision a scenario where people in far more states than the system we have now can at least feel like their one vote might actually matter.

Again, I go back to 2008, where overall, Bush won 50.7% and Kerry 48.3%. In a year where 2.4 points separated the top two overall, only five states (Ohio, Iowa, New Mexico, Wisconsin, New Hampshire,) were that close. Only 11 were less than 5 points. Anyone in the 40 other voting entities in that election was just going through the motions.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

If they are truly private entities, why have state primaries at all? Be like European parties and just have party wide nominating elections for dues paying party members.

If you're looking to win in our current system, though, you need more data than merely the poll numbers can provide. If you're trying to nominate the person with the best chance of winning, you'd want to know for whom the swing-state *voters* of your party are willing to go out and cast their ballots.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

On other hand, how do you decide which states "don't matter". In my lifetime, a Republican HAS won California and a Democrat HAS won North Carolina. States evolve and change as to their political demographics.

Yeah, the other problem is that is a one election strategy. Would Obama have won North Carolina, Virginia, or Indiana if the party had told Democrats in those states to fuck off for the past couple decades?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

If you're looking to win in our current system, though, you need more data than merely the poll numbers can provide. If you're trying to nominate the person with the best chance of winning, you'd want to know for whom the swing-state *voters* of your party are willing to go out and cast their ballots.

It seems to me that poll numbers have been consistently pretty good (with the exception of Michigan on the Democratic side). I mean they nailed New York.

The main issue with polling is if there aren't enough polls done in a state. So you blanket "swing states" with numerous polling outfits and supply the information to the party members.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

On other hand, how do you decide which states "don't matter". In my lifetime, a Republican HAS won California and a Democrat HAS won North Carolina. States evolve and change as to their political demographics.

I typed up a reply to this, glitched when trying to post.

In your two examples, neither flip was consequential as they happened during landslides. Add Arkansas to that list too ... but the 2/9 possibles occurred for a native son.

There's really a pretty small number of swing states in play, probably not that hard to predict them in advance.

Previous swings in your lifetime seem to be demographically permanent OR are one-offs based on charismatic candidates (Reagan, Clinton, Obama).

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Yeah, the other problem is that is a one election strategy. Would Obama have won North Carolina, Virginia, or Indiana if the party had told Democrats in those states to fuck off for the past couple decades?

Indeed.

That's the second shoe... by only focusing on 'swing states', you basically concede that other states won't be 'swing' anytime soon. North Carolina BECAME a swing state in 2008 due to Obama's efforts. No nominating committee would have predicted it to flip.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

If you're looking to win in our current system, though, you need more data than merely the poll numbers can provide. If you're trying to nominate the person with the best chance of winning, you'd want to know for whom the swing-state *voters* of your party are willing to go out and cast their ballots.

But simply "best chance of winning" is the ultimate end goal, then why do the Rs not just pick a (D) to run under their banner? Or the Ds pick an (R) to run during the Reagan/Bush era?

At some point, the phrase "you gotta stand for something or you'll fall for anything" has to come to mind IMO.

[larrymcg421]

In a pure popular vote system, the candidates who will be very successful are the ones who maximize their vote in every area. This idea that candidates will stay in the biggest cities the whole election is one of the dumbest campaign strategies I've ever heard of. Candidates don't even currently do that at the state level (Obama went other places than Cleveland and Cincy, or Miami, Tampa, and Jacksonville.)

While it's true that Democrats would focus on big cities because that makes up a huge portion of their base, they would still need to make sure they don't get destroyed outside the cities. As a GA Democrat, I know all too well how losing by too much in rural areas can erase any gains from the big city. And Republicans couldn't stick to just rural voters. They'd have to make an effort to get those millions of GOPers in NY, IL, and CA out to vote.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Indeed.

That's the second shoe... by only focusing on 'swing states', you basically concede that other states won't be 'swing' anytime soon. North Carolina BECAME a swing state in 2008 due to Obama's efforts. No nominating committee would have predicted it to flip.

And the flip side of that is you can't count on your current safe states to always be there. Clinton won West Virginia by 15 points in 1996. Even Dukakis 88 and Carter 80 won it! And who knows when a Democrat will win it again. The math keeps getting reworked, so you have to set yourself up for future success in other states.

[ISiddiqui]

The other thing is 'selecting' purple states is a great way to piss off party people in the ones that fail to make the cut. Say, NC gets cut this year by the Democrats - that'll only serve to piss off the NC Dems and may have bad effects in statewide races.

[Solecismic]

Each area is made up of different types of people. People aren't just Democrats or Republicans, but given the perceived party positions on issues, people will identify with a party. You'll find self-identified Republicans in the west are very different from Republicans in the southeast or the midwest or the northeast.

A candidacy depends on energizing people who perceive they might be part of your party.

Over time states shift, but they shift because of perceived changes in issues. West Virginia is a good example. The perception that Democrats are unfriendly to the coal industry probably played a major role in flipping the state red. That doesn't mean it will never return. Vermont was once the most reliably red state in the country.

Each individual candidate has to focus on motivating voters. I'm not sure the issues themselves matter anymore. Most people have the attention span of.... hey, what's that shiny thing?

If Trump wins the nomination, it will be interesting to see how he motivates voters. Does he put Utah and some conservative states into play because they will perceive that the Republican party no longer cares about certain values? Does he motivate new voters with his anti-establishment ranting? Right now, the conventional wisdom is that he would lose in a landslide we haven't seen since the Reagan days. That seems to be a reasonable prediction right now.

[ISiddiqui]

Utah is an interesting example. NO ONE would have considered it a toss up state in 2015, but it seems that if the nominee is Trump that it may just be. And that was shown by the primary in that state (and polling that shows Utahians simply just don't like Trump's morals).

[larrymcg421]

Yep the last poll I saw had Clinton slightly ahead of Trump in Utah, but losing by 30 pts to Cruz. That really speaks to the differences between the people supporting them.

[ISiddiqui]

So this was highly interesting. Trump was interviewed on "Today" and some of his answers were slightly surprising:

Donald Trump joins TODAY Show for live town hall, answers voters' questions - TODAY.com

Q: Tell us your views of LGBT and how you plan to be inclusive. Please speak about the North Carolina bathroom law.

A: "North Carolina did something that was very strong and they're paying a big price and there's a lot of problems," said Trump, who would have left things as they were. "There have been very few complaints the way it is. People go, they use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate, there has been so little trouble."

He was also asked if Caitlyn Jenner came to Trump Towers, if he'd be ok with her picking whatever bathroom she thought appropriate, and he said yes.

Q: Do you believe in raising taxes on the wealthy?

A: "I do, I do, including myself. I do."

Grover Norquist is having a heart attack somewhere right now.

[JPhillips]

And yet his tax plan dramatically cuts taxes on the wealthy.

edit: From the Tax Policy Center,

The bottom 80 percent of taxpayers would see their average federal income tax rates drop by between 0.9 percent and 4.8 percent. For the top 20 percent, the rate would fall 7.2 percent , while the top 1 percent would get a 12.5 percent cut.

[ISiddiqui]

You think he's actually read his tax plan?

[JPhillips]

I see Kasich is beginning to vet potential VP candidates.

LOL.

[Solecismic]

Why not? The odds are still good (I hadn't realized just how strange the loophole situation is in Pennsylvania) that it's a contested convention, and the polls are clear that Cruz isn't much of an improvement over Trump when it comes to going up against Hillary.

VP vetting is important. Just ask John McCain.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I see Kasich is beginning to vet potential VP candidates.

LOL.

I actually believe more and more that he will be the nominee. He's not staying in unless he has a lot of delegate second ballot support lined up.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

So this was highly interesting. Trump was interviewed on "Today" and some of his answers were slightly surprising:

Yeah, surprising to say the least.

Thanks (sincerely, legit) for the link, 'cause I hadn't seen this amidst having a more work/real-life oriented day.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Yeah, surprising to say the least.

Thanks (sincerely, legit) for the link, 'cause I hadn't seen this amidst having a more work/real-life oriented day.

If by "surprising" you mean "to someone who hasn't paid attention to who Donald Trump has been for the last 30 years and thinks he's a super dedicated true believer to conservative orthodoxy," then sure.

I've been saying for months that if this is who Donald Trump is, and he's not just running a con, then either he's had the mother of all late-in-life political shifts (which don't happen all that often), or he's gone senile.

[JPhillips]

I think it's far more likely that an outsider gets the nomination before Kasich. A lot of anti-Trump folks blame Kasich for allowing Trump to rack up so many delegates. I can't see any scenario where he wins the nomination.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

If by "surprising" you mean "to someone who hasn't paid attention to who Donald Trump has been for the last 30 years and thinks he's a super dedicated true believer to conservative orthodoxy," then sure.

I've been saying for months that if this is who Donald Trump is, and he's not just running a con, then either he's had the mother of all late-in-life political shifts (which don't happen all that often), or he's gone senile.

But your last paragraph is exactly why I used the word surprising. This is way out of synch with anything we've seen during the campaign.

This is beyond the range of the type of positional gaffes he's made to date. Whether it gets any play is a different matter entirely however.

I would virtually guarantee that the two snippets cited here would have filled my social media if they'd been spoken by Cruz.

Instead? This FOFC thread is the only mention of it I've seen all day.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But your last paragraph is exactly why I used the word surprising. This is way out of synch with anything we've seen during the campaign.

This is beyond the range of the type of positional gaffes he's made to date. Whether it gets any play is a different matter entirely however.

I would virtually guarantee that the two snippets cited here would have filled my social media if they'd been spoken by Cruz.

Instead? This FOFC thread is the only mention of it I've seen all day.

See, the problem is, some of these things he's saying aren't all that out of character if you take his political history into account. He may have largely avoided those things in the campaign to date, but Trump isn't a guy who's been a Reagan acolyte for 30 years and is only just now running for President. He has a history of saying similar things, even before he had political ambitions.

If anything, who he's been in the campaign to-date is different from who he's been for the majority of my lifetime, rather than what he's saying this week representing any kind of change.

So, I mean, three options: he's running a long con on the GOP base; he had a sea change in political ideology after 2008 when the whole birther-in-chief business began; or he's going senile.

(My grandmother, who agrees with much of what he's had to say, thinks that last one is a distinct possibility, by the way. Heh.)

[ISiddiqui]

Well I think the real answer is that Trump really isn't all that conservative in this race. He's a right-wing populist. He's mostly concerned with immigration and trade. Social issues really don't matter to him, nor to the people he's attracting. I wouldn't be surprised if he was for a higher minimum wage.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think it's far more likely that an outsider gets the nomination before Kasich. A lot of anti-Trump folks blame Kasich for allowing Trump to rack up so many delegates. I can't see any scenario where he wins the nomination.

Some of that comes from the right wing, but I think the cooler heads on the right understand that anyone-but-Cruz probably beats anyone-but-Trump if it came to an imaginary head-to-head vote. Cruz only received 14% of the Republicans' comparatively weak haul in New York on Tuesday. That's not a national candidate at this stage of the game.

There are still a lot of people who don't identify with a party. It's becoming a plurality. Those people aren't getting indignant about Kasich because Cruz isn't going to come across as a particularly ideal candidate. I know I'm hardly an average voter. I always vote in the general and I usually vote write-in for president. If not, Libertarian with reservations. Just in the vain hope that it becomes a regular party and can participate in the national debate. So with Hillary moving so far to the left and the ugly rhetoric that spews out of Sanders (as opposed to the ugly rhetoric that spews out of Trump - all populists need to invent monsters hiding underneath our beds), I'm more inclined than before to vote Republican.

But Cruz or Trump? No. Both parties have nominating processes that take the vote away from the people if they feel it's necessary. They did it for Obama in 2008, and people accepted it because Obama had the momentum and Clinton was willing to trade into the Secretary of State's office. If you dare express that narrative today, woe is you, but the actual numbers are easy to find and Obama's lead was smaller than the number of superdelegates (Hillary's lead among superdelegates in February - which was nothing like her lead in February of this year - would have been more than enough to swing it in the end). And the Republicans may feel they have to do it for somebody today because Cruz and Trump would lose badly and possibly take the House and the Senate with them.

If the Republicans do go to a pitching change, then who will the people accept? Obviously, Kasich is hardly beloved. He has ZERO wins outside of his home state. He still trails someone who dropped out a long time ago because, essentially, he accused Trump of having a small penis, then suddenly realized that wouldn't resonate with the voters. But who else? Do you have this 12-month process, one that received a record amount of attention - only to say, "sorry, you're all fired?" It still sounds like doomsville for the Republicans, but the 2016 election may be more about what we don't want than what we want.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well I think the real answer is that Trump really isn't all that conservative in this race. He's a right-wing populist. He's mostly concerned with immigration and trade. Social issues really don't matter to him, nor to the people he's attracting. I wouldn't be surprised if he was for a higher minimum wage.

I'll disagree with you on the bolded part. If that NC bathroom law thing gets some play/traction, he'll lose a lot of votes.

I'd be shocked to find anything other than a ton amount of overlap if you Venn diagrammed those who feel "if all else has failed then build a damned big wall" and "it's utterly ridiculous that we need a law to keep men out of women's restrooms in the first place".

edit to add: Just realized that I probably should have said that I expect the overlap of those two circles to be ... yuge.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I usually vote write-in for president.

Since that process varies a lot from state to state, I'll ask: does your state even count that write-in?

For those that aren't familiar with why I'd ask, the process in Georgia is pretty specific. Only votes for certified (I believe that's the correct word) write-in candidates are counted, a process that entails a number of procedural hoops.

If you write in any other alternative (which may not even be possible now electronically, I've never looked it up), be it Mickey Mouse or Bill Clinton, the vote simply doesn't exist. For that race it's treated as a spoiled ballot, doesn't even effect the percentage of votes the other candidates get by being a part of the total. It literally doesn't exist as votes go.

And that's why I ask whether the vote is even counted at all (some states DO count them, either individually or for impact on the total)

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Some of that comes from the right wing, but I think the cooler heads on the right understand that anyone-but-Cruz probably beats anyone-but-Trump if it came to an imaginary head-to-head vote. Cruz only received 14% of the Republicans' comparatively weak haul in New York on Tuesday. That's not a national candidate at this stage of the game.

There are still a lot of people who don't identify with a party. It's becoming a plurality. Those people aren't getting indignant about Kasich because Cruz isn't going to come across as a particularly ideal candidate. I know I'm hardly an average voter. I always vote in the general and I usually vote write-in for president. If not, Libertarian with reservations. Just in the vain hope that it becomes a regular party and can participate in the national debate. So with Hillary moving so far to the left and the ugly rhetoric that spews out of Sanders (as opposed to the ugly rhetoric that spews out of Trump - all populists need to invent monsters hiding underneath our beds), I'm more inclined than before to vote Republican.

But Cruz or Trump? No. Both parties have nominating processes that take the vote away from the people if they feel it's necessary. They did it for Obama in 2008, and people accepted it because Obama had the momentum and Clinton was willing to trade into the Secretary of State's office. If you dare express that narrative today, woe is you, but the actual numbers are easy to find and Obama's lead was smaller than the number of superdelegates (Hillary's lead among superdelegates in February - which was nothing like her lead in February of this year - would have been more than enough to swing it in the end). And the Republicans may feel they have to do it for somebody today because Cruz and Trump would lose badly and possibly take the House and the Senate with them.

If the Republicans do go to a pitching change, then who will the people accept? Obviously, Kasich is hardly beloved. He has ZERO wins outside of his home state. He still trails someone who dropped out a long time ago because, essentially, he accused Trump of having a small penis, then suddenly realized that wouldn't resonate with the voters. But who else? Do you have this 12-month process, one that received a record amount of attention - only to say, "sorry, you're all fired?" It still sounds like doomsville for the Republicans, but the 2016 election may be more about what we don't want than what we want.

Uh, Obama won more pledged delegates than Clinton and the superdelegates largely went with the winner of the most pledged delegates. How did that take the vote away from the people?

[larrymcg421]

Not only did Obama have more pledged delegates, but he had more than 50% of the pledged delegates. So without the superdelegates, he still would've clinched the nomination. The fact that the superdelegates could've ignored the will of the voters and picked Clinton but decided not to do that actually proves the exact opposite point Jim is making.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Not only did Obama have more pledged delegates, but he had more than 50% of the pledged delegates. So without the superdelegates, he still would've clinched the nomination. The fact that the superdelegates could've ignored the will of the voters and picked Clinton but decided not to do that actually proves the exact opposite point Jim is making.

The point I'm making is that if the superdelegates had remained in Hillary's corner, as they were early in the contest, she would have won. If only the superdelegates who pledged early on counted, Hillary would have won. Superdelegates are always available to change the results of a close race.

Now if you took Hillary's current superdelegate advantage, and ran the Clinton/Obama 2008 set of primaries and caucuses, giving Sanders all the Obama delegates, she would win rather easily.

It's a system, on both sides, designed to give each party the opportunity to take away the peoples' vote should it go in a direction the party doesn't want. And we may see that happen with the Republicans.

[Ben E Lou]

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'll disagree with you on the bolded part. If that NC bathroom law thing gets some play/traction, he'll lose a lot of votes.

I'd be shocked to find anything other than a ton amount of overlap if you Venn diagrammed those who feel "if all else has failed then build a damned big wall" and "it's utterly ridiculous that we need a law to keep men out of women's restrooms in the first place".

edit to add: Just realized that I probably should have said that I expect the overlap of those two circles to be ... yuge.

Perhaps you are right, but the question also has to include how important are these factors to you. The folks that feel that building a wall are really important may not particularly care terribly much about transgenders in bathrooms... you know, are far more interested in jobs for working class people than wading too deep into social issues.

But maybe not. I find Trump supporters are people that you may not suspect at first glance - and there are quite a few who seemingly don't care about social issues (though to be fair, they end up in articles which are like "you won't believe which people support Trump").

[miked]

Maybe they are smart enough to realize that predators can already walk in to these unguarded bathrooms if they want. I mean, we are always told for gun control that the bad guys don't care about the laws.

[SirFozzie]

So, Cruz and Kasich have announced they'll be working together to shut Trump out of upcoming states. I don't see how this will end well for the GOP. Either they get Trump (which burns them down in the general, most likely).. or they don't get Trump, and Trump's supporters burn down the GOP (maybe figuratively, maybe literally). Either way, it's a giant dumpster fire.

[bhlloy]

That seems really counterproductive and plays right into Trump's hands that the establishment is screwing him, which probably hardens his support, no?

I mean you can tacitly do that behind the scenes without coming out and saying it? Wouldn't that be a lot better?

[nol]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

That seems really counterproductive and plays right into Trump's hands that the establishment is screwing him, which probably hardens his support, no?

I mean you can tacitly do that behind the scenes without coming out and saying it? Wouldn't that be a lot better?

Without saying it outright, who would their supporters know who to vote for? If Kasich had simply dropped out, one could imagine a Kasich supporter seeing that the leading Republican candidates were extreme right-wingers and either choosing to abstain or determining that Clinton was closer ideologically than the alternatives. If neither dropped out, the two would just split votes and give Trump an easier path to the nomination. They are obviously banking on the fact that Trump's support is a plurality rather than a majority of Republican voters.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

That seems really counterproductive and plays right into Trump's hands that the establishment is screwing him, which probably hardens his support, no?

I mean you can tacitly do that behind the scenes without coming out and saying it? Wouldn't that be a lot better?

Cruz needs Kasich's voters in Indiana, so there has to be some sort of move by Kasich. The rest of the deal is pointless and may even help Trump, as Cruz is deferring in states that allocate proportionally. I wasn't certain Kasich would even visit New Mexico - this will puzzle the voters there.

The math is still very close for Trump. It's likely he will at least have a chance on the first ballot, because more than 100 delegates will be unpledged at that point, and who knows what will be in the 57 loopholers from Pennsylvania. After the first ballot, anything can happen.

Indiana is critical. Even if this move only nets Cruz 3 or 6 delegates (Indiana is district WTA), it's important. If it gets him the 30 at-large delegates, that changes the game a little. Indiana is one of two open primaries remaining.

[NobodyHere]

I thought Trump was the one who was suppose to be making deals.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by nol

Without saying it outright, who would their supporters know who to vote for? If Kasich had simply dropped out, one could imagine a Kasich supporter seeing that the leading Republican candidates were extreme right-wingers and either choosing to abstain or determining that Clinton was closer ideologically than the alternatives. If neither dropped out, the two would just split votes and give Trump an easier path to the nomination. They are obviously banking on the fact that Trump's support is a plurality rather than a majority of Republican voters.

Of course all of this presumes that anyone pays attention to endorsements leading to votes being passed from one candidate to another.

Not at all sure that's actually the case.

What an utterly charming field the GOP managed to assemble, they've done a great job of racing each other to the bottom.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I thought Trump was the one who was suppose to be making deals.

Nicely played, sir.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

I don't see how this will end well for the GOP.

We've been past that possibility for at least a couple of months now. At this point it's more of a question of will it be "utter destruction" or merely "really bad" for the GOP.

[vex]

Seemed like as good of a place as any to post this:

Trump, Hitler among nominations to rename Robert E. Lee Elementary | KXAN.com

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

We've been past that possibility for at least a couple of months now. At this point it's more of a question of will it be "utter destruction" or merely "really bad" for the GOP.

We might get to the point soon where electing a GOP President will be about as possible as Detroit electing a GOP mayor...we sure do know how to circle our wagons around a diminishing base though!

[nol]

Originally Posted by vex

Seemed like as good of a place as any to post this:

Trump, Hitler among nominations to rename Robert E. Lee Elementary | KXAN.com

Some real deep cuts for the other nominations as well. Who is the 'youngest' person whose name can be attached to something like an elementary school without much of a fuss? Neil Armstrong? It's kind of like how everyone running for president starting in about 15-20 years will have some kind of Internet/social media-related scandal from the past to account for (which is probably in some part why just about everyone running in 2016 is 70 years old).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

We've been past that possibility for at least a couple of months now. At this point it's more of a question of will it be "utter destruction" or merely "really bad" for the GOP.

Maybe we were past that possibility even longer, it just took the current scenario to reveal it? It's been an increasingly uneasy alliance for quite a while now.

I would say that the only thing that might have saved it for another cycle was something as beyond the pale as Sanders being the opposition but even earlier today I've seen someone proclaiming their choice as being between Trump & Sanders so maybe not even that would have saved it.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

So, Cruz and Kasich have announced they'll be working together to shut Trump out of upcoming states. I don't see how this will end well for the GOP. Either they get Trump (which burns them down in the general, most likely).. or they don't get Trump, and Trump's supporters burn down the GOP (maybe figuratively, maybe literally). Either way, it's a giant dumpster fire.

Welp.

"I've never told them not to vote for me; they should vote for me," Kasich said about Indiana during a prickly exchange with reporters at a Philadelphia diner.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Welp.

Didn't this go pretty much the exact same way the last time some "news" about a pact/working agreement/whatever was brought up?

Where Kasich spokesman basically said we can win (whatever state it was) without Cruz, same as he can lose (whatever state it was) without us.

edit: Yep, found it. Except at that time it was Rubio, not Cruz.
http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...postcount=3951