Trump got what the polls predicted, about 35%. But Kasich got 6 points less than the predicted 20%. Cruz ended up with 9 points more than what the polls predicted, so it seems as though what Kasich lost, Cruz gained. Cruz picked up even more, presumably the previously undecided.
Posts
70 comments:
Wisconsin voted for Cruz like he's a Messiah!
That's what I thought. If Kasich was out, Ted wins 65-35.
I want to see Trump and Fox spin a 30 point defeat.
If it is Trump v Hillary, Clinton wins 48 states.
The Althouse move - closest to Kasich, but voting for Cruz, to stop The Donald, in hopes of Ryan, so I don't vote Hillary.
That takes a lotta work!
Trump, Trump, Trump.
What about Bernie? Is not his triumphant tour of the hinterlands a show of "Anyone But Hillary!" in flyover country?
Even if Americans don't know what socialism is, they have heard it is bad - really bad for us grown-ups - and it is difficult to believe they are actually voting for socialism and not just against Hillary!.
Looks like you can reward yourself with a satisfying "bwahaha" this morning, professor!
I think the more people see of Kasich, the less they like him.
"What about Bernie? Is not his triumphant tour of the hinterlands a show of "Anyone But Hillary!" in flyover country?
Even if Americans don't know what socialism is, they have heard it is bad - really bad for us grown-ups - and it is difficult to believe they are actually voting for socialism and not just against Hillary!."
I agree with that. Imagine you're a moderate Democrat, and should be Hillary's typical voter, but you find her blatantly dishonest, incompetent and corrupt. But you have only one candidate who could possibly stop her. So, Sanders.
Who does Kasich help more by staying in the race, Trump or Cruz? Both the Trump and Cruz camps have argued that Kasich helps the other side more, which is understandable because it then implies they have the majority, but what are the exit polls showing? If Kasich dropped out, who would benefit more in the remaining primaries? And does that vary by state?
"Who does Kasich help more by staying in the race,"
His donors. Actually, his retirement plan.
The bottom line: the polls were wrong.
More interestingly, how would the remaining 14% have voted if Kasich had dropped out last week? Would they all have gone to Cruz as anti-Trump votes? More likely a significant percentage would have gone to Trump as well, as anti-establishment or even anti-Cruz votes.
So without Kasich, Cruz probably would have topped 50%. But Trump would have seen his vote total go up as well, possibly giving him two more delegates in the 2nd district (where Kasich had 26%). If the goal is to keep Trump from reaching 1237, having Kasich in the race is a good thing. He provides an option for those who are #NeverTrump AND #NeverCruz.
Who does Kasich help more by staying in the race, Trump or Cruz?
He's helping Kasich. He has no path to 1237, but by staying in the race he's helping to keep Trump from reaching the same, which opens the possibility of winning at the convention on a later ballot.
Been a lot of press lately about Cruz' efforts to woo delegates. Kasich's a smart guy as well, he's almost certainly making the same efforts. And he's 100% establishment.
It appears as if Trump's ceiling is 35-40% of GOP primary voters. But in a general election, even Hillary beats him soundly. Someone with such high negatives can't win a general election.
But in a general election, even Hillary beats him soundly. Someone with such high negatives can't win a general election.
Because so many people think highly of Hillary.
I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from what is obviously complete speculation. Polls also show Trump and Cruz split the Kasich votes if Kasich drops out, so it's far from clear that muscling Kasich aside helps Cruz or the Anti-Trumpers.
Another question is how many people switched from Kasich to Sanders because they thought it was more important to try to stop Hillary than to stop Trump. I don't believe the polls that show Hillary beating anyone.
Couldn't it be argued that if you replaced Kasich with say Carson or Rubio, you would get the same effect. As far as that goes how many Sanders voters are just anti Clinton?
Wonder how Cruz' "New York values" insult is going to play out east with GOP voters?
MadisonMan
Voters dislike Hillary and know she is corrupt. But she is a Dem and the historic first woman President with name recognition. That's how she wins.
Watch these idiots coalesce around Cruz, with underhanded plans to stop both Cruz and Trump at the convention.
They're just feeding a different beast. Does anybody think Cruz is going to bend over in July for the RNC?
They are going to have to nominate Trump or Cruz.
If they want a chance at blowing open the convention they need Kasich in the race.
Sorry to say, but in the scheme of things Wisconsin is a nothingburger state. Let's reconvene and compare notes after New York and California.
Wisconsin exit poll results: 1 in 3 GOP voters would abandon party if Cruz or Trump is nominee.
If the convention is contested, then Kasich wins. He's the only one of the three who could get to 270 electoral votes. He can hold all the Romney states and flip Ohio. That puts him at 224 electoral votes. He can flip Florida, which puts him at 253 electoral votes. Then all he needs to do is flip either Pennsylavia or flip Virginia and either New Hampshire or Iowa or Colorado or Nevada.
It seems that Kasich's numbers are almost within the margin of error for the polls, which have been running at a 5%. Looks to me like Cruz picked up undecideds.
For those keeping score, about 2 million people voted in Wisconsin's primaries yesterday. In 2012, about 3 million people in Wisconsin voted in the general election.
Except for the Marquette poll...
If Kasich gets the Republican nomination, it's proof positive we have a Uniparty. I'd vote for Hillary in a heartbeat and cross seeing a woman elected president off my bucket list. Either candidate gets me the status quo in DC so what difference does it make? A Republican put Roberts on the Supreme Court.
If Kasich gets the nomination, it's proof the GOP wants to win the general election.
Weird how much support Kasich is getting. I don't remember anyone mentioning his name until the last few weeks. Now he's the supposed savior? Was there a memo that went out to some group to argue for Kasich?
That would be 30% of Kasich potential support moving over to Cruz since the last polls. I think a similar thing happened in Massachusetts, except that they saw Trump wasn't catchable and so voted for Hillary to stop Bernie.
Trump got what the polls predicted, about 35%. But Kasich got 6 points less than the predicted 20%
That's only last minute or last week switches from Kasich to Cruz.
That was happening long before that last poll - ever since Super Tuesday II, on March 15, three weeks ago. I think strategic voting is the main reason Cruz had his big victory in Utah March 22. It's the reason actually Kasich won Ohio on March 15.
I think actually even more of the decision of anti-Trump others to vote for Kasich might have bene made by the time the last polls weer taken. While people are asked who they will vote for, at least some of them may have actually indicated their true preference in a poll even though they weren't going to vote that way.
I'd say actually about half, or even maybe more than half, of Cruz's votes were not for Cruz at all. Everybody knows this, but Cruz is pretending otherwise. Cruz is simply the anti-Trump.
Trump know this, and Trump's statement says that when it calls Cruz a Trojan horse being used to give the nomination to someone else altogether. (Trump probably believes that some or most of Cruz's real supporters will switch to him if they think Cruz really has no chance.)
Many are stating Trump's ceiling is now clear: 35%. That doesn't seem quite right to me. What we may be witnessing is his ceiling in the Midwest. In the South, West, and Northeast he appears to be in the 40's.
Only in those parallel universes occupied by RINOs and GOP establishment types is the guy who can't get 1% of Republican voters any kind of a threat to win the general.
Kasich has accepted $700,000 from George Soros. What Kasich is doing is making fertile ground for mischief, discord, protests, and potentially riots at the GOP convention, which will also be funded by George Soros.
I wonder where I send my "Thanks for Nothing, Kasich" card?
I think the memo is that Kasich can flip Ohio and none of the other candidates can. He can also flip other states that Cruz and Trump can''t. The RNC knows that primaries don't mean much because they have no predictive power in the general election. The only thing that matters is polls in swing states. How do Kasich and Trump and Cruz match up against Hillary in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Pennsylavia, New Hampshire, Iowa, Colorado, Wisconsin, and Nevada. If Trump gets passed over, there is no argument that the guy who won 8 states should win.
carrie said...4/6/16, 9:09 AM
Another question is how many people switched from Kasich to Sanders because they thought it was more important to try to stop Hillary than to stop Trump.
That's a switch from trying to get a third candidate for the Republican nomination, to trying to stop Hillary in the Democratic nomination. If somone was trying to stop Trump, regardless of who else won, this person would have been for Cruz already.
The polls may not capture any of this too well because they probably ask first in what party's primary the person intended to vote before asking about candidates.
As between voting for Kasich in the hope he gets some delegates and/or to signal an urge for alternative to both Cruz and Trump, and voting for Sanders to stop Hillary, because Sanders is at least not corrupt, what might have mattered is the question of what proposition looked like it might have more success, or what proposition needed votes more.
David Begley said...
It appears as if Trump's ceiling is 35-40% of GOP primary voters. But in a general election, even Hillary beats him soundly. Someone with such high negatives can't win a general election.
That's an assertion without evidence when you consider how inaccurate the polls are this election cycle. Hillary's negatives are pretty high, too, and Trump wouldn't pull any punches pointing out her many skeletons in the closets. The Press is doing everything possible to cover for her but Trump wouldn't. Not that I want him as the nominee, but if he wins the nomination fair and square, I'd vote for him in November.
MathMom said...4/6/16, 10:16 AM
Kasich has accepted $700,000 from George Soros.
Not George Soros. Two people who used to work for George Soros, who may or may not be following a Soros inspired strategy, and it's going to an independent Super-PAC.
If so, the motive might be to help create an open split in the Republican Party.
Even if that's the case, the effect, either of Kasich candidacy, or of a split, might not work out precisely, or as well, as intended. (after all, in 1948, the Democratic Party split 3 ways, and Truman still won.)
I think its probably crucial how the Republican Party splits, and what is the composition, and what are the sizes of the pieces. If it splits justright someone not named Hillary Clinton can still win.
I think actually any and all of this is a Bill Clinton inspired plan, and his goal is to close off the road to the White House to every single person in the United States EXCEPT Hillary Clinton
Soros does or did help Clinton, and before 2008 I think he helped Barack Obama get started. (and that was to help Clinton)
His election to the Senate in 2004 was part of the Clinton plan for 2008.
Barack Obama was supposed to be the Washington Generals, but he won. He was supposed to deny the black vote to any anti-Hillary candidate, but not to be able to get enough votes himself to be a credile challenger.
http://humanevents.com/2010/09/09/the-obamasoros-connection/
The personal relationship between Soros and Obama goes back at least as far as June, 2004, when the billionaire Soros hosted a fundraiser for Obama’s U.S. Senate campaign at his New York home. Soros’ and the Lefts’ “Chosen One,” Obama, was successfully elected to the U.S Senate....In December 2006, as Obama was contemplating a run for the White House, George Soros and Barack Obama met to discuss the young senator’s political ambitions. In a matter of a few weeks, on January 16, 2007, Obama announced he was establishing a presidential exploratory committee although, at that point, he’d logged a total of only 143 days in service as a U.S. senator. “I recognize that there is a certain presumptuousness in this, a certain audacity to this announcement,” Obama would concede.
Literally hours after the announcement, Soros sent Obama the maximum individual contribution allowed by campaign finance law. Later that week, Soros announced that he would be supporting the candidacy of Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton, the candidate he’d previously supported.
This time Bill and Hillary tried to have nobody else seriously running for the Democratic nomination. They talked Biden out of it.
What Kasich is doing is making fertile ground for mischief, discord, protests, and potentially riots at the GOP convention, which will also be funded by George Soros.
If you believe that, you have to believe that Roger Stone, and the detectives mentioned in the #Cruzsexscandal National Enquirer story, were funded by George Soros, and the motive there would be to help Hillary - it would be a directed contribution. But Stone told GQ a campaign, but not Trump's, was funding the detectives. He pointed to Rubio but then also claimed the detectives were working on theiir own and maybe got paid twice.
There is a certain candidate who is believed to have funded detectives in the past to dig up dirt, not necessarily true, about the sex lives of some individuals. So I don't think that was run through Soros.
Larry J said...4/6/16, 10:26 AM
Hillary's negatives are pretty high, too, and Trump wouldn't pull any punches pointing out her many skeletons in the closets.
Hillary's overall unfavorable-opinion-of rating is at approximately 57%, but Trump's is at approximately 67%. Ten points worse. Of course it's different people, with different reasons.
Must be some of the same people.
Shouldn't we wait for the FBI to chime in before declaring Hillary the winner if this Republican or that Republican gets the nomination?
However high Trump's negatives are (or Cruz's) neither will be as high as Hillary's when she is referred for indictment.
Why are there so many GOP delegates from NY and Cali? It's not like the GOP can win those states - or if they do, then they've already won the election - so why give those coastal RINOs so much influence in the party?
If Kasich is the nominee, GOP turnout will be abysmal. He might flip Ohio but he will lose NC and Florida, and so game over.
"Shouldn't we wait for the FBI to chime in before declaring Hillary the winner if this Republican or that Republican gets the nomination?"
The problem is I get the feeling the vast majority of people pulling a lever for Hillary already assume she's guilty and just don't care. They don't like Hillary, they just consider her a safer bet than the alternatives.
If she gets indicted and still beats the GOP, that'll just add insult to injury.
I think trying to decode what a voter was really doing when he/she voted for X --- really expressing a preference for X, merely trying to stop Y, choosing X instead of Z even though Z is preferred but doesn't stand a chance --- is so inherently speculative as to be pointless.
Someone voted for X, X got the vote, and that's that.
Now let's argue about who was the greatest shortstop ever.
"Why are there so many GOP delegates from NY and Cali? It's not like the GOP can win those states - or if they do, then they've already won the election - so why give those coastal RINOs so much influence in the party?"
I think to some degree the delegates are allotted based on state size and general election competitiveness, but I'm sure some consideration also goes into the state's congressional delegations (for example, New York sends more Republicans to Congress than Mississippi) and they carry influence over things like the platform which affect downballot races too. But a lot also might be inertia--New York and California used to be swing states (CA actually a pure red state, from 1952 to 1988 only going Democrat during LBJ's '64 landslide) and so they had more delegates who probably had influence over how future delegates to conventions would be allotted. Changing that is probably a more gradual process.
That's just my guess, though.
LarryJ
Ted and Carly would carve up Hillary in the general. Piece of cake. Way more effective than Trump.
Won't GOP turnout be bad no matter who the nominee is? Cruz is counting on GOP turnout in the general because most GOP primary votes loathe Hillary. But why would most of Trump's core supporters turn out for Cruz? Would Cruz core supporters stay home if Cruz doesn't get the nomination but Kasich does? So then Cruz core supporters aren't any different than Trump's core supporters. Independents outnumber GOP primary voters and Dem primary voters. Are Sanders core supporters more likely to hold their nose and come out and vote against Cruz or Trump or Kasich? Or is Kasich bland enough to them that they believe Kasich is no different than Hillary and they stay home?
Who has the most core supporters: Trump, Cruz, or Sanders?
"Who has the most core supporters: Trump, Cruz, or Sanders?"
Core supporters is only one part of the equation where that core is not an absolute majority. If you have more core supporters but are considered so toxic to the opposing party's electorate, you'll drive up their turnout. Likewise, if you're considered toxic to the non-core middle or "soft" supporters of your party (the soft-core?) and they stay home or vote for the other party's nominee--these can swamp your own core.
Who is more toxic to independents and Dems, Cruz or Kasich?
At the beginning of this primary election cycle, 25% of voters identified as GOP, 29% identified as Dem, 42% as independent and the remaining as other.
In NC I voted for Cruz, although Rubio was my preferred candidate, because I hoped (vainly, as it turned out) that Cruz might beat Trump, and Rubio clearly couldn't. But to vote for Cruz in hopes that a deadlocked convention will turn to Romney or Bush or Ryan is -- I was going to say "delusional", but I'll just say counterintuitive. If Tromp falls short, I could imagine Cruz picking up a majority of delegates by picking a VP who's acceptable to the establishment, such as Romney or Kasich or Ryan or Walker. But Ryan is right that a party's candidate ought to be someone who's actually run for the nomination (an exception would be at the Democrat's convention if Hilary! is indicted, and Biden comes in to save the party).
"Who is more toxic to independents and Dems, Cruz or Kasich?"
Currently Cruz. Though this doesn't mean that Kasich could do better with them after a full campaign.
"At the beginning of this primary election cycle, 25% of voters identified as GOP, 29% identified as Dem, 42% as independent and the remaining as other."
Those numbers just reveal who identifies with the labels--it doesn't really tell us how they'd all vote. A lot of the 44% who don't identify with a party have their leanings but may not like the label of either party. One reason Romney did a lot better among "independents" is that more right-leaners identified themselves as "independents" than left-leaners did--but the left-leaners didn't mind identifying themselves as "Democrats".
CNN put up a graph from exit polls that showed 53% of Republicans in Wisconsin are concerned or scared of a Trump presidency. That alone should give anyone pause in thinking Trump is electable in a general election.
"Someone with such high negatives can't win a general election."
The Cruz supporters have hope that springs eternal. I can't see him winning, especially if there is anything to the stories about infidelity. Bush's last minuet DUI revelation cost us a tie in 2000.
I've pretty much resigned myself to another disaster. I expect riots in Cleveland and a terrorist attack before the election.
We'll be lucky if not a dirty bomb.
The problem with trying to control WMDs through things is that even backward countries can now access technology superior to anything available to the Manhattan Project. Department store items are now viable weapons components and one scenario discussed at the nuclear summit supposed the use of hobby drones to spray radioactive material over Western cities.
A strategy of controlling things is hard is because it is so easily overwhelmed by entropy. As Claude Shannon demonstrated entropy also describes the unpredictability of information content. The greater our ignorance of the WMD threat, the greater the entropy associated with it.
I just hope it is far from me when it goes off. And my kids and grandkids.
"I've pretty much resigned myself to another disaster. I expect riots in Cleveland and a terrorist attack before the election."
I don't know about the terrorist attack, and I figure Cleveland is ready for a swarm of protesters (it'll be chaotic at least) but this year is shaping up to be a disaster for the GOP. The takeaway from the 2012 race was that the GOP needed to expand its appeal, particularly in the purple and blue states if they were going to win presidential elections. Instead this season has been creating a split that may not be repaired in time, and certainly isn't giving anyone much opportunity to expand beyond Romney's numbers.
Hillary's weak and the Dems started this vulnerable. But you can't beat something with nothing, even if that something is weak. We may chalk this one up as another blown chance.
How much better did Romney do with independents, however they lean, than Obama in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Hampshire, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Nevada. Romney beat Obama pretty handily among whites, but what were Romney and Obama's white percentages in these 9 states? Was it less than the 59% nationwide Romney won?
Here are the breakout numbers from the two districts won by Trump:
Wisconsin - Pres Votes by District
April 06, 2016 - 05:15PM ET
CD 3
Trump, Donald GOP 51,676 43%
Cruz, Ted GOP 48,218 40%
Kasich, John GOP 15,742 13%
CD 7
Trump, Donald GOP 68,138 47%
Cruz, Ted GOP 56,572 39%
Kasich, John GOP 15,051 10%
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2016/by_cd/WI_GOP_0405_VD.html?SITE=AP&SECTION=POLITICS
As you can see from this nice map of Wisconsin cd's provided by legalize pot activist Jay Selthofner, they are both in the western part of the state:
http://www.jayselthofner.com/wi-government/congressional-districts/
From the numbers, it seems very clear that Trump gained 3 extra delegates in the 3rd because Kasich split the anti-Trump vote for no reason other than his vanity. Kasich also ran for president in the 2000 election, but then had good sense to pull out early.
The 7th also could have gone to Cruz, but without a high level of probability.
In case Jay Selthofner is reading this blog, I thought I'd thank him by telling him about this new 50-year study, which shows us why smoking pot is so safe and effective:
Marijuana Use Causes 7-Fold Increased Risk of Violent Behavior
http://blog.brainfacts.org/2016/03/marijuana-use-causes-7-fold-increased-risk-of-violent-behavior/#.VwWDNvkrLtR
@Lance said...
Who does Kasich help more by staying in the race, Trump or Cruz?
He's helping Kasich. He has no path to 1237, but by staying in the race he's helping to keep Trump from reaching the same, which opens the possibility of winning at the convention on a later ballot.
Been a lot of press lately about Cruz' efforts to woo delegates. Kasich's a smart guy as well, he's almost certainly making the same efforts. And he's 100% establishment.
Surely, Kay-sick would read Rule 40 which says he has to win 8 state primaries in order to be nominated for any ballot. Trump and Cruz delegates will not approve doing in Rule 40 so the Ohio governor is getting bad advice or more likely isn't very smart as shown by his running off at the mouth and saying nothing.
If Kasich has a motive, it is to sell his delegates for a big job in 2017 - which also may be the reason that Rubio will not endorse Cruz because he doesn't have a job to go to next year either.
"why give those coastal RINOs"
I don't know about New York, but I know that California conservatives are generally not RINOs but are pretty conservative. The problem is that LA and the Bay Area blow out the rest of California in numbers, leading the state to be quite Blue in elections. If the state GOP were more moderate it might not be so permanently a minority party.
Michael K said...I just hope it is far from me when it goes off.
Surviving ain't all it's cracked-up to be...
PaddyO:
Wouldn't work. It makes absolutely no difference how far left a Republican candidate goes, once an election starts, he is dubbed the most extreme candidate ever, and he is Hitler. Every single time. No exceptions. So why bother? May as well keep your principles, I say.
Rule 40b is interesting. It is a convention rule that says a candidate to be considered for the nomination must have won a majority of the delegates in at least 8 states. You need to provide a signed certificate from the delegates you won in each state and if they are more than half the delegates allocated to a state, then you have satisfied the rule/.
Right now Trump is the only won who has won a majority of delegates in at least 8 states. Cruz has won a majority of delegates in 6 states. North Dakota doesn't have bound delegates so they don't count for Cruz (or anyone).
The 112 member Rules Committee of the convention can vote to change the rule. There are 2 committee members from each state, DC, and the 5 US territories. Most of the members are party leaders from each state, including members of the RNC.
"If the state GOP were more moderate it might not be so permanently a minority party."
Why be Republicans, then ? If there was any justice, Tom McClintock would have been governor instead of Arnold. It didn't happen and California is lost.
" Most of the members are party leaders from each state, including members of the RNC."
Of course they are. And they will see that none of these experiments in democracy occur.
It could be expensive, not for the government but for their retirement plans.
CNN video of a portion of Cruz's press conference in the hostile territory of the Bronx after Wisconsin win.
Answers reporter's pointed questions with ease, except (as usual) has a hard time knowing when to shut up. A continuing problem.
Around the 6:10 minute mark says he agrees with Bernie Sanders!... about the rich and powerful corrupting Washington through their lobbyists. But if the [federal] Government is corrupt why would you want to make it even bigger?
http://therightscoop.com/watch-ted-cruz-just-gave-his-first-post-wisconsin-presser-also-responds-to-trumpertantrum/
I'm beginning to think he could win the nomination for reasons other than being the alternative to Trump.
BTW, Amazon has number of Trump scare wigs for sale. One of the better rated ones at a reasonable price (which you can buy though this blog's Amazon portal as thanks for the owner's recent primary vote) is:
http://www.amazon.com/President-Billionaire-Halloween-Costume-Adjustable/dp/B015I452K0?ie=UTF8&keywords=Mr.%20President%20Billionaire%20Halloween%20Costume%20Wig&qid=1460007090&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1
Trump has the opportunity to win the nomination on the first ballot, that ballot being the one cast by primary voters. If he fails, I have no problem with the GOP going with somebody else. Hillary is eminently beatable by any reasonable candidate.
Hillary right now is shitting a brick that it might not be Trump.
All hail Joanne Kloppenberg, the Red Klotz* of Wisconsin Supreme Court nominees. May she always be available to run against any Republican.
(*cultural reference)
Post a Comment