February 20, 2016

Trump wins.

But what I've got my eye on is Rubio's potential to come in second.

Bush, Kasich, and Carson should see the light and endorse Rubio. It's already too late, but come on! It's the only decent hope of stopping Trump.

UPDATE: Bush, appropriately, drops out.

UPDATE 2: He doesn't sound like he means what he's reading. When he says he's suspending his campaign there's a bit of a no from the crowd, but it's... I've got to say... Low energy.

UPDATE 3: "It's tough, it's nasty, it's mean, it's beautiful" -- running for President, according to Trump.

UPDATE4: Rubio says it's now, practically speaking, a 3-man race, and it's his campaign that has the best hope of bringing people together.

160 comments:

robinintn said...

An establishment push for the inept, pro open borders, pandering Rubio will push me to Trump.

Daniel Richwine said...

They should endorse Trump and hope for a good spot in his administration as soon as possible.

Jim Sweeney said...

Without comment on the other issues, Rubio is anathema to because of immigration which is, to me, as abortion is to many women.

LYNNDH said...

Why not endorse Cruz?? But then you are in the tank for Hillary!

Paul said...

I'm seeing just 7.5% reporting. Am I missing something?

Ctmom4 said...

Someone, or someones, need to get out. Jeb, John and Ben need to go home.

Michael K said...

"An establishment push for the inept, pro open borders, pandering Rubio will push me to Trump."

The time is coming and very fast when they are going to have to think about how to get along with Trump.

Of course, getting along with Hillary will not be a problem.

Balfegor said...

Bush, Kasich, and Carson should see the light and endorse Rubio.

Would have been an easier sell if he hadn't come in fifth place behind the people who are being asked to kindly step aside and just let him win one please guys? Help us drag him over the finish line.

AReasonableMan said...

Althouse said ...
It's the only decent hope of stopping Trump.


Decent is not the word I would use there.

Beaumont said...

Obviously anything can happen, but it looks like Trump is very likely the new face of the Republican Party!

AReasonableMan said...

Over at RedState they have become almost completely unhinged by Trump. At Breitbart. on the other hand, they have a post-primary glow.

Amanda said...

It's truly awe inspiring to see evangelicals coming out for Trump.

traditionalguy said...

Canada Cruz wanted to snow the Evangelicals like he did to the Evangelica Iowa farmers, but he ran head on into Upcountry South Carolina that is Scots Irish territory. The Evangelicals there want a strong military leader that they can trust enough to fight for him and not be betrayed by the leader either during or after the Battle. These are Andrew Jackson's homies who showed what they do best at Kings Mountain battle in upcountry South Carolina, that was the turning point of the Revolutionary War.

Rubio has a flare for story telling. But the way he treated his constituent Disney employees in Florida selling them out for 3 million from Disney to approve foreign serfs to take their jobs will kill him.

mccullough said...

Kasich, not Rubio, is the better bet against Trump and Cruz. Rubio had the support of the GOP establishment in SC and still didn't win. People are not buying him

Balfegor said...

Kasich would be a credible president, moreso than Trump (too erratic) and much more so than Cruz or Rubio (insufficient experience).

Left Bank of the Charles said...

They can't drop out because that would remove the only remaining illusion that Trump will not be the nominee.

traditionalguy said...

People are not buying Rubio because he has already been bought and paid for ten times over by Donor Money. Why do you think the GOP establishment Totally Loves him for his being alive.

Steven Davis said...

Like it or not, Trump has enough support to either win as an R or completely wreck it for them as an I.

Trump has me cringing every time he talks and debates, but I understand his appeal. Dennis Michael Lynch explains why Trump may well be the best option, I can't say that I disagree, if not mostly because of how bad every single other option seems to be.

dwick said...

Yep... older $100K+ income white women with post-graduate degrees prefer Rubio over Cruz.

http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/SC/Rep

D.E. Cloutier said...

South Carolina Republican Party: "Since 1980, just one candidate has won the Republican nomination for United States President without first winning South Carolina’s Republican Primary."

Link: https://www.scgop.com/about/first-in-the-south/

Spiros Pappas said...

According to the National Enquirer, Marco Rubio is a homosexual. The presentation in this week's issue is pretty damning. Of course, it's not terribly surprising since Marco is a bit of a diva who gives off "gay panic" vibes. So I guess you all are stuck with Trump.

bbkingfish said...

I think Kasich stays in through Ohio, a winner-take-all gig that always was supposed to be his lift-off. Kasich never has been particularly responsive to the GOP political elite.

Bush, I think, is in through Florida. His family IS the GOP political elite, plus, they hate Rubio's guts and owe him exactly nothing. At this point, they'd love to help Trump bury Rubio in FL.

Carson may drop out, but he might well endorse Trump. After he drops out, it will be a long time 'til see him in the same room with Cruz or Rubio, I'd bet.

Other than that, I think you have it right on the nose, Professor.

Mark said...

Trump has me cringing every time he talks and debates, but I understand his appeal.

He's Morton Downey, Jr., who was wildly popular for about a year and then dropped like a rock in the ocean.

Once again, because of this messed up system where nominees are close to chosen six months before the convention, it is highly possible that come convention time, everyone in the hall and across the country - even his own by-then former supporters - will have a sick feeling knowing they are nominating the wrong person.

Brando said...

No point--in this, the year of the Primal Scream, Republicans have decided it's better to go down in a blaze of anger than to actually stop the Dems from going further than ever before.

We're in deep, people! This is the catharsis the Right needs. Maybe in Hillarys term they'll fingpd themselves.

AReasonableMan said...

If current trends persist it would be difficult for this to have been a better night for Trump, he beats Cruz for the evangelical vote and Cruz and Rubio are locked in a death match. I anticipate that informed commentators will soon be asking for Rubio to drop out, to let the healing begin.

Amanda said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
buwaya puti said...

Primal scream - I suppose so. It is the only thing left to do, because the crisis is coming. The screamers are the realists.

Amanda said...

Poor Jeb, he sure seemed like one of the few genuinely decent guys on the Republican ticket.

Birkel said...

Voting for Rubio is not an option.

Michael K said...

Trump has me cringing every time he talks and debates, but I understand his appeal.

Me too. The GOP brought this on no matter what Chuck thinks.

I have no idea what he will do as president but I think it is time to start to figure out how to get along with him.

I saw something last week about "gay" rumors about Rubio and it seemed pretty weak. It might even help him with the Democrats.

MathMom said...

Jeb has suspended his campaign, in a very gracious speech.

I don't understand why the guy who finished behind Cruz in two primaries is the one who should receive endorsements. Dude sold out immediately on immigration, and can't be trusted.

If Robert Reich is to be believed, Cruz will be worse for the country than Trump! So, I'm going with Cruz, based on Reich's recommendation, here.

Levi Starks said...

That's real funny Althouse....
What you've got your eye on is a Repulican you can pretend you might vote for.
Until you come to your senses and vote to elect the first woman president .

mccullough said...

Cruz and Rubio are senators, like Obama and McCain. Neither is going to be the nominee. Rubio should be a lobbyist and Cruz should be a real estate agent.

bbkingfish said...

Looks like Bush isn't giving up after all.

He is suspending his campaign and going subterranean, hoping to win at the convention if Trump can't break the threshold.

It's the smart move. The Bushes always were the smartest GOPers.

Birkel said...

Hey mccullough,

How about Cruz should be one of the most effective Supreme Court litigators in history?

Real estate agent is a bull shit answer.

MathMom said...

I agree with Birkel. WTF with the real estate and Cruz? If he doesn't get the big chair, he should be the next nom for the Supreme Court. Cruz will be a perfect replacement for Scalia.

Birkel said...

when the economy tanks, businesses are nationalized, more people foresters their US citizenship, the dollar is no longer the international currency of choice...

My I told you so will be hearty and unhelpful. But I will issue them in great numbers.

Birkel said...

foreswear

traditionalguy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AReasonableMan said...

The R establishment has a death wish if they throw this race for Rubio or, at this point, even support Rubio. There is no possibility that a large fraction of their base will vote for a hispanic guy who wants (wanted) open borders. They should take their licks and accept that they can't win elections only by promoting culture wars or even actual wars if they don't also represent the economic interests of their constituents. Trump has revealed the man behind the curtain.

traditionalguy said...

"It's tough, it's nasty, it's mean, it's beautiful" is basic Scots Irish emotion that says we always will fight for our country that we are proud of and we actually enjoy doing it.

Trump is sensitive enough to people that he reads friends and foe alike. Now let's make a deal.

buwaya puti said...

I wonder if you lot are looking at Trumps speech, his grammar, his style, like my late father in law, the master machinist at Cummins, would have looked at a Soviet diesel tank engine. The workmanship is questionable, the finish is unprofessional, it doesn't run quite as well as it should, and it grates on the professionals aesthetic. Still, it works well enough for its purposes and is cheap enough to produce in decisive numbers.
Trump is wielding a T34 tank army of rhetoric, and the grammarian Ms Grundy's Tiger tanks, machined with care by expert craftsmen, are getting swamped.

mccullough said...

Jeb! Is the latest example that, as a practical matter, the majority in Citizens United was right. The voters have completely rejected him and his family. No Little Brother Presidency. Hopefully the Dems say no Eva Peron presidency

Amanda said...

Well, in order to have a Justice Cruz, you'll have to get your guy into the White House, no? That's not looking so likely. The majority of American voters will not vote for Trump. The majority of right wing voters will not let go of their obsession with Trump. Rubio is not going to be forgiven for his stance of immigration, sad but true...for rational conservatives anyway.

chickelit said...

Michael K wrote: I have no idea what he will do as president but I think it is time to start to figure out how to get along with him.

How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Donald

chickelit said...

robinintn said...An establishment push for the inept, pro open borders, pandering Rubio will push me to Trump.

This election really is a referendum on open borders. At times I get the impression that some here don't even know why that's an issue.

buwaya puti said...

There is no doubt that Trump enjoys the fight.
I don't think he's Scots Irish, IIRC he's German.
This may be a New Yorkism.

Oso Negro said...

Amanda, you can scarcely be considered an authority on right wing voters and your arithmetic is poor. Donald Trump is pulling 33% of the vote, which is 18% percent short of being a majority.

Oso Negro said...

And Althouse can barely acknowledge Cruz.

traditionalguy said...

Are we back to CruzBots declaring Trump to be a progressive liberal from New Sodom and Gemorrah York again? God just let PastorCruz down big time. I would take that as a sign.

Beaumont said...

Look at how Fox News is dealing with the Trump victory in SC;

They write: "Trump's victory is not by the big double-digit margin that pre-election polls had suggested. Still, this makes back-to-back victories for Trump, who more than doubled the vote of his closest competitor in New Hampshire last week."

buwaya puti said...

Rationalism is overrated. Rationalism leads to delusion, because it requires premises that are always doubtful, yet must be produced in order to have something to reason about. "It ought to work" is a lousy way to justify public policy.
Empiricism is the way. That is the way of the engineer, the builder, and Edmund Burke.

Amanda said...

In the General election, Oso Negro, Trump will not get a majority of those Americans coming out to vote. To think he will is ludicrous. He will not have the Black vote. He will not have the Latino vote ( hmmm I wonder why). He will not get a majority of the female vote. He will not get the youth vote. Now you do the math.

Oso Negro said...

traditionalguy - Have you watched Donald Trump in the debates? Does he appeal to you? Will you feel safe if that man can nuke people?

Terry said...

Rubio or Cruz could steal Trump's voters by simply pledging to make enforcement of current immigration law a high priority, if elected.
Neither Rubio nor Cruz is willing to say that.
The immigration system is broken because the federal government refuses to enforce the laws passed by the people's congress.

Oso Negro said...

Amanda - In the post above, you said "The majority of right wing voters will not let go of their obsession with Trump." My point is that he is NOT pulling a majority. That is the electoral math so far.

rcocean said...

You'll notice the Rubio supporters just attack Trump. They don't push Rubio, because he can't be pushed.

He's a Gang-of-eight Establishment hack. He looks like Ricky Ricardo but he votes like Mitch McConnell.

Michael K said...

" Now you do the math."

Amanda, thanks for some light relief. You stay with the liar and provider of national secrets to the Russians and Chinese. We will try to struggle along with a very impressive panel of candidates. Trump may not be everyone's cup of tea but he does tell things that are of concern to the voters.

chickelit said...

I expect the Republican bickering to continue right into the convention. Things have been worse: In 1952, Taft and Eisenhower went to the Chicago convention with essentially equal numbers of delegates. But take note: "Mr Republican" lost that year because people liked Ike better.

The anti-Trumpers must unite.

AReasonableMan said...

Amanda said...
In the General election, Oso Negro, Trump will not get a majority of those Americans coming out to vote. To think he will is ludicrous. He will not have the Black vote. He will not have the Latino vote ( hmmm I wonder why). He will not get a majority of the female vote. He will not get the youth vote. Now you do the math.


No R is getting a big slice of the black vote in the near future. Hispanics are a much less monolithic voting bloc. I doubt Trump does worse than Romney. Trump will do better with women than you think and the youth vote doesn't turn out for anyone except Obama, and certainly not for Hillary.

Amanda said...

Michael K,
I'm a Sanders supporter. Trump is a megalomaniac who plays on irrational fears of right wingers. Hitler built the Autoban...

Chuck said...

rcocean; are you fucking kidding me? A Trump supporter, complaining about negative comments? Your boy is nothing but negativity, and he is headed toward the biggest negativity shitstorm in American history. Mainstream (and Main Street) Republicans hate him. Democrats hate him and laugh at him. All that Trump has is 28% of angry white wage and occasional voters, and that percentage will never get any bigger. Meanwhile, there's another 72% of Republican voters, and a large number of Americans who do not trust Hillary Clinton. This is a winnable race, but for Trump's screwing it up.

chickelit said...

Terry said...Rubio or Cruz could steal Trump's voters by simply pledging to make enforcement of current immigration law a high priority, if elected.
Neither Rubio nor Cruz is willing to say that.


True. And I find that profoundly disturbing because both Cruz and Rubio are lawyers* and both are running to be responsible for implementing and enforcing our laws. It's shameful, really.
______________
*Perhaps that's the problem, right there.

Birkel said...

AReasonableMan,
On this you are actually reasonable.

Amanda said...

ARM,
I think you are mistaken about the youth vote. If Clinton gets the nomination and Trump is the the Republican nominee, they WILL turn out, oh ye of little faith. Trump is a misogynist, women generally despise him. He won't nearly get as many female votes as Romney did. I can just see the political ads now, telling the story about when an opposing female attorney needed to take a break to pump breast milk during a court proceeding and how he had a fit and called her "disgusting".

gadfly said...

Ann should have noticed that Rubio goes into his repeating mode from his campaign points whenever he is attacked and he gets this "slapped-in-the-face-with-glazed-over-eyes" look. And you know when he lies because he never denies, he attacks, such as by telling Cruz, of all people, that he couldn't speak Spanish. His agenda is exposed by the Univison speech in Spanish that contradicted his English story to Americans and he wanted to send illegals to college for free in Florida. He is a pure politician who changes with the polls. Of course I could never forgive the Gang of Eight inovlvement. But he is the pretty boy in the bunch and he will bend for the RNC in return for support.

But nobody is going to beat Trump with a third of the vote when Cruz and Rubio are splitting 40%. I think Carson and Kasich are angling to be Trumps VP and John Ellis Bush finally woke up or his brother kicked him in the ass and told him to get out.

chickelit said...

@Chuck: I'm so sorry that your man Bush quit tonight. Now you can file him away in your mind with Sarah Palin.

Amanda said...

Chuck seems to understand Democrats and liberals, that is refreshing.

Terry said...

"Trump is a megalomaniac who plays on irrational fears of right wingers."
Bernie said that global warming will make the planet uninhabitable in the time of our children or grandchildren.
This is crazy talk. No scientists are saying that.
But go ahead and lie to yourself about 'irrational fears of right wingers.' You need to lie to yourself to view socialism as anything but a stearoid enhanced murder machine.

traditionalguy said...

Calm down Oso ...You seem to think Trump is Reagan redux. But if you have been listening Trump, is the only one who does not want to fight Russia like Reagan did. He will solve problems by leading from the front using our strength. That causes peace. Weakness and abandoning our friends causes war to test us.

The war now is between Western Civilization and Mohammedan Warriors. Once Christianity recaptures the White House, we will have a chance to win again... a great again chance.

And Trump is also a religious man, much like General George Patton was, who when asked replied that he read his Bible every Goddamned day.



buwaya puti said...

Cruz had a reputation for indifferent Spanish, so I can see why Rubio tested it. Cruz hasn't done much if anything in the Spanish language media, which was and is a bit odd, unlike Bush and Rubio. Rubio misjudged the situation.
I give Cruz great credit, I couldn't have instantly switched languages like that with such a well turned sentence. He certainly is a very intelligent fellow.

AReasonableMan said...

Amanda said...
I can just see the political ads now, telling the story about when an opposing female attorney needed to take a break to pump breast milk during a court proceeding and how he had a fit and called her "disgusting".


Just as I think the R's culture war BS has largely played out in terms of its electoral potency so it is for the D's. Currently Clinton is barely winning in an electorate dominated by women voters. If the D's were serious about winning this election, which they clearly aren't, they would have run Gillibrand or Warren against Clinton. At the moment a fucking derelict old socialist from Vermont is giving her more than she can handle.

Chuck said...

chickelit: My "man" is anybody but Trump. Which is to say, I am a Republican.

Amanda said...

Well ARM, then feel free to vote for Ttump. As for me and millions of other women, Blacks, Latinos and yes young people we will vote for whomever wins the Democratic nomination, it won't be hard to do considering the alternative.

Amanda said...

My dear Ms.M, Trump has no potential, at least not for the good. Wake up from your dream.

AReasonableMan said...

Amanda said...
we will vote for whomever wins the Democratic nomination


Party loyalty is a wonderful thing but the loyalists don't decide elections. Imagine if Gillibrand was in the race against Bernie, then the vibe would be completely different, something like Obama's first election, it would be historic and young people really would turn out to vote, to break a barrier, to be part of history. But for Clinton, meh. It is a completely wasted opportunity on the part of the D's.

Bobby said...

traditionalguy,

Sorry, but Trump is no Patton. Maybe Trump is bold and courageous in leading his businesses, where the risks are great and failure can amount to losing your wealth, and that's fine. But let's not pretend that's the same kind of leadership experienced by one who led troops in combat, where the risk of failure is death to you and everyone you work with. Any veteran will tell you those are enormously different experiences.

When you call Trump a warrior, you mean he's a civilian-warrior. Not a real warrior like Patton.

Amanda said...

Arm, yes indeed I would've preferred Gilbrand instead of Clinton, but we don't always get what we want. My bottom line is that I will vote for the Democratic nominee not because of Party loyalty, but because the Republican's platform is one in which I am diametrically opposed to and in the case of T Rump, who knows what that man really stands for? He's not truly a conservative, he's not a liberal, he's a megalomaniac who feels that only HE can run the country. He is scary dangerous.

Terry said...

If Sanders dropped his imaginary 'democratic socialist' tag and simply called himself a communist along the lines of Stalin, Lenin, and Trotsky, he wouldn't lose any supporters.
If he announced that as his first act as president, he would setup a network of labor camps for 'the 1% and people like them' he wouldn't lose any of his supporters.

khesanh0802 said...

Amanda - a slightly more coherent Garage.

rcocean said...

If you want Amnesty and the Status Quo vote for Rubio
If you want Change and a CHANCE to make America great again vote Trump

Its that simple.

buwaya puti said...

The last real warrior in this race was Jim Webb and he got nowhere. Possibly because he was in the wrong party, or maybe he didn't want it enough.

David Begley said...

Watching Sean Hannity right now and I've come to the realization I hate Hannity and his mindless shilling for Trump. Fox is going to give us Trump as the nominee and Hillary as POTUS.

rcocean said...

Hillary's big victory: Just barely beating an old socialist who never had a steady paycheck till after 40 & advocated underage sex for girls

rcocean said...

"Fox is going to give us Trump as the nominee and Hillary as POTUS."

Oh really. Trump is not a conservative, he's a moderate. He's more popular with Blacks then Rubio. He's more popular with Democrats and Independents than Rubio or Cruz.

The GOPe never changes the record. Always, its only their candidate (Ford, McCain, Dole, Romney) that's electable. We'll lose if we nominate anyone else (even Reagan).

Sorry, no sale.

buwaya puti said...

I thought Fox hated Trump?
I can't keep things straight anymore.
Maybe it makes more sense in Spanish.

Birkel said...

Cruz is hated by the powerful.
One notes how carefully you lot fall in line.

mikeyes said...

It looks like Mr. Trump got 47/50 delegates with three undecided/soft due to the weird allocation algorithm used in South Carolina. In other words a landslide for Trump.

mccullough said...

Unfortunately for Dems, working class whites disproportionately serve as police officers in cities and in US combat positions. Homicide rates are way up in large urban cities as the police decide to let blacks kill each other. No combat soldier is going to listen to Hillary. They hate her.

It will be fun to watch the progressives have to fill the roles of urban cops and combat soldiers. They aren't up to it because it is dangerous work and they are cowards.

Browndog said...

No, you don't have to deal with Trump.

Dismiss him. Easy peasy.

However, at some point, you'll have to deal with his voters.

Kinda like at some point America has to deal with Bernie Voters.

Tom said...

If our top 3 choices in the GOP are Trump, Rubio, and Cruz, I'm done. My vote is going to Gary Johnson.

Rhythm and Balls said...

You can always count on Terry to bring the Romanov/Bourbon perspective to the 21st century American election. A sorely missed and greatly needed viewpoint.

mccullough said...

Unfortunately for Dems, working class whites disproportionately serve as police officers in cities and in US combat positions. Homicide rates are way up in large urban cities as the police decide to let blacks kill each other. No combat soldier is going to listen to Hillary. They hate her.

It will be fun to watch the progressives have to fill the roles of urban cops and combat soldiers. They aren't up to it because it is dangerous work and they are cowards.

Joe said...

Trump has me cringing every time he talks and debates, but I understand his appeal.

Every candidate this year makes me cringe, but at least Trump doesn't come across as atrociously creepy demagogic asshole like all the rest (he's just plain nuts, but in a rather transparent way.)

Rockeye said...

@McCullough Not exactly true. While military folks of all sort won't likely care much for Hillary (or Sanders) they will follow their orders regardless of who is giving them as long as they aren't obviously illegal (i.e. murder all babies with red hair). I hated many people whose orders I followed in letter and spirit and so would they. This is what makes the military different than, say, the IRS or OMB. This is also why the military is the most trusted institution in the nation these days. They can be trusted. Not such a good thing for democracy, history tells me.

buwaya puti said...

Excuse me, I am the only genuine Bourbon loyalist here, being a subject of HRH Felipe VI.
And a much more old fashioned conservative, you pack of radicals.

Steven said...

Ann, there's no need for anyone to do a panicked "stop Trump" drop-and-endorse. Yeah, South Carolina did well for Trump, because of the winner-take-all delegate allocation. But until March 15, all the delegates are proportional. Trump can have as many 35% "victories" as he likes through then, and he's still getting nothing except a good seat at the convention out of it.

John said...

11:18 eastern and the WaPo has Cruz 0.2 points behind Rubio. About 1144 votes.

I think it will be a couple days before we know who came second in SC.

I am hoping Cruz. I really think that he is the best candidate for all the reasons that Robert Reich enumerated in his endorsement of Cruz. I just wish I could feel confident that he meets the citizenship requirement. If I could, I'd max out $ for both my wife and myself.

John Henry

dreams said...

Rubio is a lightweight in addition to his problem with immigration.

mccullough said...

Rockeye,

People will not join or re-up. People will not joIn the CIA clandestine service. Hillary is reckless and corrupt. Someone would be insane to serve the country with her as president. The cops in Chicago hate Rahm and the crime rate is going up and far fewer people are filling out applications to join, which is true in a lot of big cities. Progressive nonsense is coming home to roost. No self respecting person would serve under Hillary or most of the big city politicians.

buwaya puti said...

Correction, as per my sister, employee of the Spanish government and thus a servant of the crown, the proper form is "Su Majestad", or SM el Rey Don Felipe VI, or just SM el Rey Felipe VI. I've been in the US too long.
BTW, if you want to know what Bourbons do, he's on Facebook.

Bobby said...

mccullough,

Oh, bull. We've served the nation faithfully through two terms of Obama and two terms of Bill Clinton, we'll continue to serve faithfully, regardless of who wins this next election. The hardest time we've had with recruiting during the last twenty years was during the Bush Administration, and that was because we were engaged in a couple of shooting wars and- remarkably- even most of the people who say the War on Terror is the greatest threat to American civilization aren't themselves willing to do anything for the cause.

Michael K said...

"I'm a Sanders supporter."

I knew I could detect that mindless utopia.

Good luck with the money tree.

M Jordan said...

The field has winnowed more than it appears. Bush is gone, yes, but less obviously Carson is for all intents and purposes gone. His support will dwindle to 2 or 3 percent, effectively a wash. Kasich still has the power to keep Trump from having to face his ceiling, but that too will come in due time. Kasich is obviously intent on showing the world how much Ohio loves him. But there's a good chance he would lose to Trump there. When he wakes up to this possibility I think he'll wisely decide to exit ... like in a week or so.

So it's down to three. Cruz has a more rigid ceiling than Trump just because outside of his base, no one likes him. It's just a fact. Meanwhile, Rubio will pick up the lion's share of the Bush/Carson/Kasich votes. I'm guessing he'll get 10% of that 20-something, Trump 5%, and Cruz 5 at best.

So that leaves us with Trump 37, Rubio 32, and Cruz 27. Once Cruz finally sees the light, it's Trump/Rubio. Rubio will get about 15 or 16 of Cruz's numbers. That makes it Trump 48, Rubio 48.

The last primaries will be a fight for 3 points.

That's when it will start to get interesting.

rcommal said...

Years ago, in another election cycle, I did link this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xny7G9YrrBU

Sayno2neocons said...

Rubio..? So Ann, you could get behind open borders, corrupt, tax and spend slime ball Rubio? I would never vote for him, the slimey Jeb who groomed him, or the open borders tax and spender Kasich, or Cruz, who is the Hispanic Obama. And just as much a servant of the CFR and Goldman Sachs. I meant it last time round when I would never again hold my nose and vote for a RINO. Any of the RINOs I mentioned are the same as a democrat, a vote for the. Is the same outcome. My ancestors didnt fight for this country to have a clutch of whiners sell it out to the fascists who want our borders erased and our water, oil, natural gas, minerals, et al to be ripe for the picking. It's Trump or nothing for me, if you don't like it, lump it.

rcommal said...

Now, as then, it's posted as commentary, and also as a record of notation.

BDNYC said...

When did Republicans stop wanting to win presidential elections? Obviously Rubio is the only one left who can defeat Hillary. He's not my favored candidate but he's the most conservative candidate who can actually win. The Trump/Cruz fever needs to break.

Bay Area Guy said...

I'm thankful for Jeb for calling it in. The splintering of the GOP vote has greatly benefitted Trump.

There is only one question to ask: Who among Trump, Rubio or Cruz is in the best position to beat Hillary in General?

Not voting is not an option.

I think Rubio has the best shot in the General. But even if he doesn't get the nomination, I'll gladly support Trump or Cruz.

Sayno2neocons said...

To Amanda, I'm a woman and a Trump supporter, and I know lots of women who support him. As to Sanders, I lived in Burlington when he was mayor and he was lousy. To this day, Sanders only achieves one thing, abuse of power. He used it in Burlington to profit himself and cronies. his wife used his power to help commit loan fraud, she not only cheated VT taxpayers, she cheated the university who employed her, the diocese of VT, a land trust, but the US taxpayers, who Bernie ripped off so his crony Eric Ferrell, can get awah witb all of us paying for the condos he is building on Lake Champlain. He has no plan to do any of the things he claims he wants to, and ideological fools like you don't even care enough about the issues to demand answers from him. You're about as bright as the brain trust who lifted Hitler to power, and they were students, academics, actors, writers, unions, environmentalists and gays as well.

Unknown said...

I really do not want to support Cruz, but if wins it fairly so be it. He, Clinton or sanders will destroy the nation with unlimited immigration. But I'll support the republican over a democrat forever, there is at least a chance with a republican. I am still hoping for trump and voted for him yesterday. Trump/Walker really does it for me.

By the way, I guess it is Amanda who keeps talking about trump supporters being right wingers. She is just flat out wrong.

chickelit said...

@rcommal: I knew you liked musicals, but I actually associate someone else (amongst vintage Althousians) with "South Pacific."

Beldar said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
chickelit said...

BDNYC said...When did Republicans stop wanting to win presidential elections? Obviously Rubio is the only one left who can defeat Hillary.

Were it so obvious, you'd not have to explain it.

Beldar said...

Prof. Althouse: Endorsements from Jeb Bush, John Kasich, and Ben Carson -- even simultaneously in a joint press conference -- wouldn't change anything. I assure you that practically no one in Oklahoma or Arkansas or Alabama cares who they endorse. And certainly no one in Texas (except Jeb's immediate family) cares who he endorses.

Now if Jess Sessions in Alabama endorses someone, that could matter there, and that might indeed end up mattering nationally. Ditto, perhaps, Tom Cotton in Arkansas.

But I'm not even sure that a Jeb Bush endorsement of Rubio would even matter much in Florida (March 15th primary).

Mind you, I'm not pooh-poohing Rubio's prospects. They're real, but I think he actually has the hardest road to the nomination of the top three, by a wide margin. Count the number of winner-take-all (or nearly that) delegates being awarded on March 1, and see how many of those come from Texas. Ted Cruz is much better known than he was when he crushed David Dewhurst in the GOP runoff in 2012, and Texans will again turn out for him in record numbers precisely because their votes are guaranteed to be so consequential.

Rubio has to not only beat Cruz everywhere else but Texas (where he has no chance at all) to continue to claim to be "the alternative" to Trump, he's also have to beat Trump in at least a couple of others on March 1. Which state is that going to be? Maybe Massachusetts, I guess. But I don't see it.

I think Texas may have to save the nation. I'm fine with that.

Beldar said...

I'll bet, Prof. Althouse, that at this same point in the 1980 election cycle, you thought George H.W. Bush was the Republicans' only chance to beat Jimmy Carter, didn't you?

I'll freely confess that I did, which is why I campaigned for Bush instead of Reagan, who I thought was too extreme, too scary. I was really, really wrong.

gadfly said...

@traditionalguy said...
Canada Cruz wanted to snow the Evangelicals like he did to the Evangelica Iowa farmers, but he ran head on into Upcountry South Carolina that is Scots Irish territory. The Evangelicals there want a strong military leader that they can trust enough to fight for him and not be betrayed by the leader either during or after the Battle. These are Andrew Jackson's homies who showed what they do best at Kings Mountain battle in upcountry South Carolina, that was the turning point of the Revolutionary War.


Upcountry South Carolina is made up of 10 counties snuggled into the NW corner of the state against that other Carolina near Charlotte. The vote numbers coming out there show Trump with 33%, Cruz with 26% and Rubio with 24%. Looks like Cruz is just as close there as he is in the rest of the state. So no BS about Scots Irish please and as for the Battle of Kings Mountain - the population center there abouts has always been Kings Mountain, NC just 10 miles north of the national park. And Andrew Jackson was born in Waxhaw, NC, 30 miles south of Charlotte and 50 miles east of Kings Mountain.

Terry said...

Blogger buwaya puti said...
Excuse me, I am the only genuine Bourbon loyalist here, being a subject of HRH Felipe VI.
And a much more old fashioned conservative, you pack of radicals.

There are, I suppose, good aristos and bad aristos.
No one would ever put the Bourbons on the list of good aristos.
Rule by the Bourbons was, perhaps, a slight improvement over the prospect of of rule by cannibal, child-raping Celts or murdering, child-raping Muslims.
Also, they have ridiculous monkey-noses.

chickelit said...

Beldar hopes: I think Texas may have to save the nation. I'm fine with that.

I think that Jeb and the Texas Jeb-folk will endorse Rubio, complicating your scenario.

BDNYC said...

@ chickelit

It's obvious to anyone who isn't completely delusional. Alas, some people need to have it explained to them.

Beldar said...

@ chickelit: Bwaaaaah-hah-hah. Well, yeah, Jeb Bush might endorse Rubio.

That won't change any votes in Texas outside of the immediate Bush family, though. Seriously, you have no CLUE how popular Ted Cruz is in Texas among committed GOP voters who actually turn out to vote. He's at least as popular as Dubya was in 1998 when he won reelection to the governorship.

Read up on the come-from-nowhere Cruz second place finish in a nine-candidate field in the May 29, 2012, Texas GOP primary race for retiring U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison's seat; then read about the even more amazing victory Ted Cruz won over David Dewhurst in the primary runoff. You can find the raw data here, but basically in the primary, Dewhurst and Cruz split between them approximately 1.1M of the 1.6M votes cast, with Dewhurst pulling in 44.6% to Cruz' 34%. Dewhurst had tons more money and universal name recognition; as the multi-term sitting lieutenant governor with spectacular power to control the Texas State Senate, he was predicted to roll on to victory with comparable margins in a lower-turnout runoff.

Instead what happened was that between May 29 and the runoff on July 31, many tens of thousands of Texans began taking their first looks at Ted Cruz. There was a record turnout for this kind of runoff election, and amazingly, between them, Cruz and Dewhurst again split about 1.1M votes. It's just that this time, Cruz had a whopping 56.8% of them, compared to Dewhurst's 43.2%.

This was roughly as improbable, and perhaps ultimately as significant, a victory as the Battle of San Jacinto in 1836, which was fought not five miles from where I'm sitting as I type this.

But now? Ted Cruz campaigned in 2012 on a platform of shaking up the system and driving the moneylenders from the temple. He's done that. He may be unpopular in Washington, but he's spectacularly popular among Texas Republicans right now.

Hyphenated American said...

Trump is a leftie, he won't stop illegal immigration, he won't drop Obamacare, won't propose a good judge to the Supreme Court and he won't fix the economy.
If Trump is elected, he will completely destroy the Republican party and what's worse, he will finish off this beautiful country.

I want Cruz as president, Rubio pro-illegal stance is a non-starter. But if I have to choose between Rubio and Trump - I will go Rubio.

Beldar said...

I am genuinely curious to see whether either Tom Cotton in Arkansas or Jeff Sessions in Alabama might endorse someone. That might be significant in either of those two states, of comparable significance to Nikki Hailey's endorsement of Rubio (which is pretty much the reason he tied for second tonight rather than finishing third).

Don't feel bad, though, chickelit or anyone else who's wondering about Cruz' prospects in his home state. I heard David Gergen embarrass himself on CNN tonight by saying, "I was just in Houston, and I was amazed that things seem pretty tight." He must have been pretty tight. The only question in Texas on March 1 will be by how large a margin Cruz wins, not whether.

Beldar said...

Oh -- and the reason Hillary is in Houston tonight is to troll for big checks from her trial lawyer bundlers, who will be much reassured after the Nevada result that the fix is still in, so she'll fly away with several million more dollars in her warchest.

Hillary will be the Dem nominee under every scenario but the one in which she's indicted and Biden parachutes in to save the day (which I now think a less than 1% chance). But in Texas, she'll run less well in 2016 than Wendy Davis did against Gov. Greg Abbott in 2014 -- and Wendy couldn't even crack 40%.

Dude1394 said...

Beldar....Cruz may be popular, I voted for him. But if he doesn't get 50% it is moot. And I cannot see him getting 50%. Currently RCP has him up +6.7. That will not get it done.

So if he doesn't win texas by ?? does he drop out? I think not because of all the candidates Cruz is the most true believer of the three.

aritai said...

Who has VP Gore's list that came out of Mr C's : "National Partnership for Reinventing Government?"

If I recall correctly Mr. Clinton’s program didn't require abrogating any union contracts, just the New Zealand focus on measuring what money was spent for what results and reallocating the money and people to parts of programs that worked. Nobody died or starved, life got a lot better for even the oppressed, lawyers found more productive work, and they had a roaring twenties period when the government trough was half its size. A good thing too, since they were broke and they had no China to lend them money. What's not to like? Right, the half the number of all parts of the tax apparatus, as well as lawyers in return for doubling the number of doctors. Oh my. For more about the New Zealand Miracle and a road map that works read this: http www.waynedaniel.net/images/Document1.pdf . Our pTp should post this on a website and take public input on how to improve it. Including nominations for bureaucracies and agencies that need to be recycled into programs that work. I nominate your BIA. I've never run into an agency that behaves worse than your worst charities. where all the budget evaporate and almost none Is spentyour poor and needy. I made the mistake of a donation and asking where it went just to compare it to our own Regulatory Raj. Strange that you could make us look good.

coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Beldar said...

@ Dude1394: I'm not sure what you mean when you say "if he doesn't get 50% it is moot." I assume you're talking delegate count at the convention? Whatever, I agree that Trump has to be beaten again -- repeatedly -- as Ted Cruz did in Iowa. If he's not, Trump will win. But I think Cruz will beat him again -- repeatedly -- as he did in Iowa, and not just in Texas.

Look, someone has to get to 1237 delegates to win the GOP nomination. As of today, Trump has 61, counting the 44 he won tonight. Four SC delegates are still undecided, but they'll go to either Cruz or Rubio (I'm not sure of SC's split rules, but Rubio seems to be holding his tiny lead over Cruz with only part of one county yet to report).

So yes, having won two out of three states, Trump's ahead! Definitely! "Let's close this thing out," he shouted to his supporters tonight.

But he's actually only 61/1237ths of the way to the nomination. Still so impressed by his lead?

Now consider that Texas alone awards 155 delegates on March 1. That same day, Alabama kicks in another 50, Virginia adds another 49, and Alaska's caucus selects 28. Arkansas has 40 delegates, Oklahoma 43.

All on that one day.

The CNN people were running numbers tonight, presuming that Trump will win all those states by the same margin he won tonight in SC. Then the admitted that was kind of silly, and backed out numbers from Texas, which they awarded to Cruz. Well, just that one switch turns it back from a run-away into a competitive race. But I think Cruz is going to be competitive in all of those states, and if he picks up Texas and a couple more, the race might be a delegate tie between him and Trump.

And then there's a ton more states voting two weeks later.

Only people who can't count delegates and read the calendar can believe Trump has this wrapped up.

Beldar said...

It's Rubio, actually, who has to pray that he wins enough states on March 1 -- wins them outright -- to justify staying in the race to March 15, where Florida's primary is held. But ... eh ... I'm not nearly so sure Rubio can win Florida as I am that Cruz will win Texas. I think he probably will, just looking to his win over Charlie Crist to get his current Senate seat. But to claim to be ahead of Cruz as the "Trump alternative" after March 1, Rubio is going to have to pull together delegates exceeding those which Cruz is virtually sure to win.

Cruz' campaign strategy has been built around the SEC primaries since the fall of last year; his investments, his ground game efforts, all calibrated accordingly. Doing very well on that day has always been the key to Cruz' path to the nomination.

Steven said...

Beldar --

The number of winner-take-all delegates on March 1 is, to a first approximation zero. All the March 1st primaries are proportional.

Now, the reason that's only a first approximation is that several of the states have a 50% rule; any candidate who gets over 50% of the vote gets 100% of the delegates. In almost all of the states that doesn't matter, but it might, just might, in Texas. If Cruz can get more than 50.00% in Texas (the last two polls, in January, have him at 45% and 30%, which means we don't know where he currently is at all), then he grabs all the Texas delegates.

The other variable is, does Bush's support go Rubio, or split with Kasich?

That gives us four scenarios on March 2nd:

Cruz >50% Texas; Kasich >20% nationwide: Cruz is in first, Trump second, Rubio third. Rubio seen as weak, Kasich still in race. Cruz gains momentum as frontrunner, Rubio loses some of the aura of being the Stop Trump candidate. Possible nominees are Cruz and Rubio.

Cruz >50% Texas; Kasich <20% nationwide: Cruz is in first, Trump and Rubio in dead heat, Kasich drops out. Cruz gains some momentum as frontrunner, but Rubio's looking ahead to the March 15 winner-take-all in Florida with anticipation. Possible nominees are Cruz and Rubio.

Cruz <50% Texas; Kasich >20% nationwide: Trump is in first, Rubio second, Cruz third, Kasich fourth. Kasich looks forward to winner-take-all in Ohio on March 15, stays in race. "Stop Trump" panic deepens as people look at his chance of winning Missouri, Illinois. Possible nominees are Trump and Rubio.

Cruz <50% Texas; Kasich <20% nationwide: Rubio and Trump in dead heat, Cruz third, Kasich drops out. Rubio is the nominee.

Beldar said...

Ask yourself why he can't break one-third, Ms. Glynn, even in a smaller field. Ask yourself why Cruz and Rubio split almost all of the late deciders. Trump had a higher vote percentage in NH than SC; his margin is shrinking even though the field contracted. Cruz outperformed his RCP average, by contrast. And there is no reason to think, as Trump claimed in his victory speech, that anyone who's a Jeb Bush fan is possibly going to vote for Donald Trump.

And I can count how many delegates each state has, and I can read a calendar. Anyone who can do that knows how puny Trump's current lead is.

As for the people, I do care about them, at least the ones who don't deserve to be suckered by Donald Trump. I hope those people will wise up. They're exactly like all the small businessmen and individuals who trusted the Trump Brand when they extended credit to his businesses, then found themselves with less than a penny on the dollar in each of his four waves of corporate bankruptcies. And I feel very great sympathy for those people.

Ann Althouse said...

Beldar, I'm leaving your comment up, but you committed the deletable offense of responding to Mary. Everyone needs to know that this commenter knows I always delete her and she is choosing to harass me and has been doing so for many years.

tim in vermont said...

I will vote for Rubio in Florida. If it is Trump in the general, I will vote for him, but I think he will lose to Hillary. If it comes down to Cruz Trump, I will check out. I will vote, I always do, but I will check out of politics.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

Rubio says it's now, practically speaking, a 3-man race, and it's his campaign that has the best hope of bringing people together.

"Bringing people together," like "compromise," has a very different meanings.

Not much different from "Home and Change." Just political bullshit.

Bush, Kaisich, and Carson, AND Rubio should unite behind Cruz. He is the only one with stated and demonstrated principles, who clearly differentiates himself from the arrogant lawlessness that is Hillary and the idiocy that is Sanders.

holdfast said...

Boy, Ann really hates Cruz. Won't even say his name. I guess that's his punishment for bein a class traitor to the Ivy League.

If Cruz drops out at least half his supporters go straight to Trump - they know better but won't back a simpering simpleton like Rubio.

traditionalguy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
traditionalguy said...

Gadfly @ 12:21 pulled a Beldar. He seriously says I was wrong for pointing out Trump won the Evangelical Cruz Cult stronghold Upcountry counties that Cruz was supposedly a lock to win For God, and not only that, those counties are located a whole 10 miles or so From King's Mountain and Old Hickory's birthplace. Talk about spin.

iowan2 said...

I like Rubio fine, He has more experience than Obama, but almost everyone does. The people have spoken, and we are down to Rubio and Cruz. Cruz is by far the most experienced. Cruz/Rubio tkt, and in 8 years, If Rubio shows his chops at this level, he will have his 8 years in office. Lets face it. Rubio has stumbled a lot in the campaign, and running for President is not near as difficult as being President. We do need an adult. Obama has run the country like a couple of college guy pontificating about the ills of the world and solving them, fueled by pot, beer, and doritos. Running the country is not a video game. So you need real life experience, not a theory. Like 'smart diplomacy'. Campaign slogans are fine, but eventualy, you need life experience (failures, that teach) to move forward.

Beaumont said...

Belder wrote about Cruz in response to a previous Althouse Post "You can't succeed so conspicuously at that level, friends and neighbors, unless you have a solid reputation for absolute honesty -- meaning both intellectual honesty and personal honesty. .. Speaking as a board-certified civil trial specialist with 36 years of practice experience in Cruz' home state,

Absolute honesty? You cannot equate the sorts of professional attainments you outline with character or moral and ethical behavior in other areas of one's life, this correlation is far from perfect. From my vantage point, to make the sorts of claims you are making, you have to observe a person up close over an extended period of time.

Ann Althouse said...

"Boy, Ann really hates Cruz. Won't even say his name. I guess that's his punishment for bein a class traitor to the Ivy League."

You're overreading the absence of speech.

I didn't do an update on Cruz's speech because it was late and I wasn't near my computer.

I didn't say he needs to drop out and endorse Rubio because I don't think he does. I think he's running in a different lane. He's the staunch conservative. The moderates need to coalesce around Rubio. It should be a 3-man race, with Trump, Cruz, and Rubio. That gives the moderate an even shot at running in the too-crowded lane. Trump and Cruz are running in their own lane (except Carson might be in Cruz's lane... but Carson doesn't seem to like Cruz, so he won't endorse him).

Bob Ellison said...

Kasich!

He'd be a good VP and a good partner for an in/under-experienced President.

Might not be the best running mate-- too nice-- but he could help carry Ohio.

DanTheMan said...

The Dems have two candidates: Hillary, and Not Hillary. After March 1st, the R's
will have Trump, and Not Trump.

The Dem game is fixed, so it's HRH HRC on their side. I'm a Not Trump voter in the primary, and a Not Hillary voter in the general.

Phil 3:14 said...

" I think he's running in a different lane. "

When did the "lane" meme start? I don't recall that phrase '12 or '08

Mark Caplan said...

I thought all along Ann Althouse backed the moderate in the GOP race, Donald J. Trump. I'm not joking. Am I alone in having that impression? Or was the current post ironic?

Rubio wants to kick off a military showdown with Russia, embroil the U.S. even deeper in the Middle East quagmire, continue the Obama open-borders policy while backing amnesty for illegals, grant in-state college tuition to illegals but not to out-of-state Americans.

He was unable to comprehend the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, thinking the court granted the federal government the power to "regulate marriage." He is an anti-abortion extremist, even in cases of rape, incest, and it would appear the life of the mother.

Rubio: "Our goal is eternity. The purpose of our life is to cooperate with God’s plan. [...] I try to allow that to influence me in everything that I do." The ravings of a numskull.

Michael K said...

"which is why I campaigned for Bush instead of Reagan, who I thought was too extreme, too scary. I was really, really wrong."

Yes, Reagan was the Trump-like guy in 1980.

Not the bluster and bad manners but this is post Obama when nastiness is the default theme of politics.

I have no idea if Beldar's scenario holds but it sounds reasonable to me.

I think turnout is what will defeat Hillary this year.

jr565 said...

And here is Trump saying the problem with Republicans is they don't support universal health care.
So, the front runner wants to get rid of Obamacare and replace it with universal healthcare. Do the conservatives or republicans who previously supported conservatives and think they are traitors for not fighting against Obama actually want universal health care?


"We’re not going to let people die in squalor because we are Republicans, okay?” “That’s part of the problem with the Republicans, somehow they got fed into this horrible position,” Trump said. “We’re going to take care of people.”

That is a democratic far left talking point .That the only choice is universal health care or letting people die in squalor.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/431674/trump-part-problem-republicans-opposition-national-health-care


I don't want to hear how he is giving an f you to the establishment.Why is that an issue if he then delivers universal health care? That would be an even bigger f you to everyone that Obamacare ever would.

Do Trumpbots who are conserative/republican actually want universal health care? or do they want the same republicans they are saying need to be told what's what to fight against their own front runner on health care? And would they then be traitors if they didn't adopt universal health care? or would they be traitors if they didn't attack their own president and stand against his call to push for universal health care? Because Bernie Sanders liberals and other liberals in general would LOVE to support universal health care. If trump were president, and pushed universal health care he will get a lot of democratic support for it.
Repubs then would be oppositional to their own president.
What do Trumpbots who didn't support Obamacare care think about his calls for universal health care?

Beaumont said...

Do Trumpbots who are conserative/republican actually want universal health care?

Trump keeps saying that we cannot let people die in the street that we have to have a mechanism to provide emergency care to people who have no money or insurance.

I find it hard to believe that Trump or his people are unaware that there are regs already in the books that basically says that any hospital that treats Medicare or Medicaid patients must provide emergency care to the indigent and uninsuranced (although some hospitals attempt to avoid this). Of course, these hospitals pass these costs on to the public.

The republicans have a hell of a time generating models of healthcare reimbursement and delivery that actually work to hold down costs and improve quality. Apparently, Ted Cruz claimed that his family had no insurance because of Obamacare and had to have his Campaign staff correct this misrepresentation. If Cruz does not give a shit about his own family having health insurance what makes you think that he would give a damn about anyone else having reasonable access to healthcare. Or, more likely, Cruz will make damn sure his family has insurance (though will lie about it) but likely dosen't give a shit one way or another that other people may not.

C R Krieger said...

Will Mr Trump ever get out of the 30s and move into the 50s?  If not, he can be stymied at the Convention.  Then it is the "Dark Horse".  Things are different today, but my hero of the day in 1968, HHH, won the nomination without running in a single Primary. It isn't so much who is voting for Mr Trump as who is voting against him.

Regards  —  Cliff

jr565 said...

""It's tough, it's nasty, it's mean, it's beautiful" And most of that nastiness is coming from him.

jr565 said...

Beaumont wrote:
I find it hard to believe that Trump or his people are unaware that there are regs already in the books that basically says that any hospital that treats Medicare or Medicaid patients must provide emergency care to the indigent and uninsuranced (although some hospitals attempt to avoid this). Of course, these hospitals pass these costs on to the public.

they also pass the costs onto the public through the universal programs we already have. Medicaire doesn't pay doctors enough for service. Which is why many doctors don't in fact take medicaire anymore. And that cost then goes on to the consumer. You think a universal model woudn't do the same thing?

jr565 said...

Beaumont, universal health care is basically like Medicaire but for everyone. The same issue with costs are going to occur, but on a massive scale. Having access to health insurance doesn't suddenly make the cost of care go away. Universal health care would simply mean even people not on medicaire or medicaid would go to a hospital, not be able to pay the bill, and get service. Thus driving up the costs. There will also be extended wait times.

jr565 said...

Beaumont wrote:
The republicans have a hell of a time generating models of healthcare reimbursement and delivery that actually work to hold down costs and improve quality.
well those alternate plans are not actually in play, because we instead have Obamacare, so we can't know that those WOULDN"T drive down costs. We know that Obamacare certainly isnt.

jr565 said...

In fairness to Trump, he doesn't state outright "i'm for universal health care" He says "whatever you want to call it is fine. But we wont let people die in squalor on the streets". Chuck Todd then asks him the required follow up "Would you therefore make it a mandate?" And Trump waffles and says "it's up to them if they want insurance" (paraphrasing). So in other words it wouldn't be a mandate.
Chuck Todd didn't follow up addressing the fundamenal illogic of the point. Namely, if its not a mandate, and you decide not to buy insurance (because its not a mandate) and go to a hospital, woudl the govt let you die in squalor? So then it really would be a mandate. If you didn't have to buy insurance, but then got it when you went to a hospital, why buy insurance before you actaully use it? and why pretend like its not universal?

Drago said...

bbkingfish: "Looks like Bush isn't giving up after all."

LOL

Like the Black Knight in "The Holy Grail", Bush should simply declare a draw. With much the same result.

Drago said...

Bob Ellison: "Kasich! He'd be a good VP and a good partner for an in/under-experienced President.
Might not be the best running mate-- too nice-- but he could help carry Ohio."

No, he wouldn't.

Beaumont said...

JR565 Wrote: they also pass the costs onto the public through the universal programs we already have. Medicaire doesn't pay doctors enough for service. Which is why many doctors don't in fact take medicaire anymore. And that cost then goes on to the consumer. You think a universal model woudn't do the same thing?

Trump was not talking about physicans, he was talking about emergency care in hospitals. You are right, Many doctors do not take Medicare (though I suspect that it is the complexity of the product as much as the rate of reimbursement that may be related to doctors leaving medicare), many doctors also do not take United Healthcare, Humana, Aetna, depending on the nature of the contract. My point was that Trump was promoting as a new idea, something that is already in force, i.e. that any hosptial that takes Medicare, Medicaid, or Champus/Tricare patients (I know of no hospital that does not in this country) must provide emergency care to patients who don't have insurance or are destitute. It has led to many folks using the ER to obtain non-emergency care. As for what effect a universal model might have on access to providers, I suspect that it could have a profound effect on access, particularly if there is pent up demand. As for rates of reimbursement, who knows, I can tell you that there are medicaid and medicare reimbursement rates that pay more than commercial insurance.

Beldar said...

Prof. Althouse, re Mary Glenn: That's fine, and you're entitled to delete or block anyone you choose from your blog and its comments. I didn't know of your history with her, and perhaps in the past there have been other things she posted which so violated your standards (which are yours to set) that you concluded you'll also delete comments from others who are arguing against her.

But if you want all commenters to know of their peril if they respond to her comments, put it in your sidebar, perhaps.

Beldar said...

@ Steven (2/21/16, 2:59 AM): I'm sorry I missed your comment last night, and I commend you for its clarity.

I believe Cruz will exceed 50% in Texas on March 1. If they re-ran the 2012 runoff election between him and David Dewhurst today, Cruz would get 85% instead of 56%. He's that much more popular now. The very things that make someone like Prof. Althouse squirm -- his bomb-throwing in the Senate, his uncompromising adherence to core principles even in the face of ridicule -- were what Texans sent Cruz to Washington for.

That's not to say that Texans are all bomb-throwers. We've also sent back, even more recently, John Cornyn to the Senate -- and he's the very model of propriety and collegiality, the proverbial workhorse to Cruz' showhorse.

But Texans want some bombs to be thrown, and Cruz has kept his word that he'd be the right man for that job.

Michael K said...

"The republicans have a hell of a time generating models of healthcare reimbursement and delivery that actually work to hold down costs and improve quality."

There are pretty good systems that do accomplish that purpose but they require the use of market mechanisms which are anathema to Democrats. The French system is excellent and is the highest rated in Europe.

The original model that used real insurance for insurable events and expected people to pay cash from routine care would work and it has been neglected for 60 years. The mess that Obamacare made might get people interested again. Many doctors are dropping all insurance and practicing for cash. Patients are figuring out that model might be preferable.

A hybrid model that combined a market system plus a system for the poor might be workable but the culture of welfare would have to change. As the money runs out, it will change.

rcommal said...

WTF? Outrageous^

Michael K:

Where were you awhile ago? Well, you were more busy establishing your "true 'conservative' cred [what, a hobby?]" as opposed to doing the very thing that you could have chosen to do, but didn't choose to do: provide information and insight that's useful in an of itself.

---


Too late, you. Too late.