[T]he whole Republican contest could come down to Indiana. The state has 57 pledged delegates, and it awards those delegates on a winner-take-all basis statewide and by congressional district. As a result, the difference between a narrow win and a loss is huge for Mr. Trump. If he wins statewide — even by a point — it will be fairly easy for him to reach 1,237 delegates with a victory in California, which on paper is probably an easier state for him than Indiana.So... Kasich is stepping aside, but that doesn't prevent Hoosiers from voting for him, if he's their style. Meanwhile, is Cruz boosted by this deal? It seems to me that it makes him look like a deal maker, which changes his brand. His brand is principle and ideology. Not only is deal-maker not Cruz's brand, it's Trump's brand.
The most recent polls show Mr. Trump leading in Indiana with around 40 percent of the vote. That’s a number low enough for him to be vulnerable, but Mr. Kasich has been at 19 percent in an average of the same surveys — giving Mr. Cruz a very narrow path to victory.
AND: "Ted Cruz-John Kasich Alliance Against Donald Trump Quickly Weakens":
Mr. Cruz trumpeted what he called the “big news” in Indiana, a state that appears pivotal to stopping Mr. Trump from winning a majority of delegates. “John Kasich has decided to pull out of Indiana to give us a head-to-head contest with Donald Trump,” the Texas senator said.So he's not good at deals. Don't tout the deal before it's locked down. Cruz seems to have offended Kasich somehow. Deal-maker is not his forte.
But at his own campaign stop in Philadelphia on Monday, Mr. Kasich tamped down Mr. Cruz’s triumphalism. Voters in Indiana, Mr. Kasich said, “ought to vote for me,” even if he would not be campaigning publicly there. He added, “I don’t see this as any big deal.”
ALSO: A dialogue at FiveThirtyEight, "Will The Kasich-Cruz Alliance Work?" Excerpt:
natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): My question is whether you guys are looking at this too much in a vacuum. Yes, if you combined Cruz’s and Kasich’s support, Trump would probably lose Indiana. But as I wrote this weekend, the most important development of the past couple of weeks might be that Trump is successfully persuading Republicans that “the system is rigged,” or at least that he’s clearly going to win the plurality so they might as well get this over with.I agree. It reinforces Trump's narrative.
clare.malone: Are you wondering if the sheeple are going to follow this directive, Nate?
natesilver: I think some of Kasich’s voters will follow it, yes. But I also think it could give Trump a good talking point and persuade some undecided Republicans to go with Trump.
Posts
91 comments:
Some allegedly conservative pundits are applauding this treachery to deny the primary VOTERS of their choice whether it be Trump, Fiorina or Bush. Cruz and Kasich have lost my vote for certain as they don't care about the people's vote, just their own ascendencey to power.
Trump is right to complain of this conspiracy as it is another manifestation of the establishments willingness to override the voter and impose their own preferences.
Two knucklehead politicians.. We want them in the general? No!
It's hilarious! Trump is right: It shows them as weak and desperate.
I think Trump should simply offer Lil' Marco VP and be done with it. It will give a face save for the establishment to support him that he derided all along and Lil' Marco is thirsty enough that he will accept it.
Neither man trusts the other enough to go first. Ideology contests always have an excuse to lie to win.
And old Kasich understands by now that Ted Cruz takes a great pride in dupping others and that he will surely screw Kasich as sure as Dr. Strangeloves's arm will salute Mein Fuhrer.
I don't buy this "narrative" crap. Deny Trump his 1237 delegates, and that's it. End of story. There won't be any more stories, or "narratives." The Convention will then choose not-Trump.
I suspect something else, too; that this business of Trump needing only to get close is wishful thinking by the Trumpkins. I believe that the closer Trump gets, the more intense will be the pressure on the fact that he does not have a majority. I don't rule out the possibility that Trump could win something on the order of 1217 votes in the primary process, and then be able to convince 20 unbound delegates or some such thing. To say "never" on that possibility would be foolish. But my best guess is that Trump won't get that close, and that the resistance to Trump among all unbound delegates will stiffen.
We are awfully late in the game and still virtually no one of any real consequence in the Party is supporting Trump. Jeff Sessions is what forces the "virtually" in the preceding sentence. Chris Christie doesn't count. Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham don't count, even as much as I like them both. 2 or 3 backbench Congressmen don't matter. It goes without saying that Gary Busey, Kirstie Alley, Dennis Rodman, Willie Robertson, Sarah Palin, Joe Arpaio and Jan Brewer don't count.
Kris Kobach counts; he is the proverbial exception that proves the rule.
It looks like desperation has set into the Cruz campaign. It's a clever strategy, the kind a smart lawyer would devise, but it isn't a winning strategy because it's "tricky". Most people don't like "tricky".
The people are going to get a 55-gallon drum of "tricky" from Trump when the Trump University Fraud trial opens.
This confirms the thing I already think is true!
Reince Preibus should exile both of these characters from speaking in Cleveland for conduct unbecoming an honorable man. Then Cruz will only have his five extra DC power women to attest for him as a hot powerful man that leads dupes.
And Kasich will have to stick with being Governor of Ohio where he will earn his $200,000 bribe from Soros given to facilitate riots at the Convention by Soros' paid army of radicals.
Kasich is always eating on the trail and like there is no tomorrow and Trump just threw a killshot at Kasich using just that.. Free food, oh my! Let my stuff my face with it. Disgusting.
I think Trump should simply offer Lil' Marco VP and be done with it. It will give a face save for the establishment to support him that he derided all along and Lil' Marco is thirsty enough that he will accept it.
'Big Don & Little Marco'! A great act to take on the road!
I'm in favor of candidates being allowed to coordinate in this manner, but I wonder if it is kosher with the Byzantine campaign finance laws that we have.
Will Republican voters really vote this strategically? A Kasich voter in Indiana is going to vote for Cruz, not because he wants Cruz to be the nominee, but just to allow a bunch of delegates and kingmakers to name some unknown person to be the nominee?
Its like asking voters to think like a baseball manager: "I'll trade Kasich for Cruz and a player to be named later."
Basically (kind of like a baseball trade) it taints both Kasich and Cruz as losers whose only remaining value is trade bait.
The people are going to get a 55-gallon drum of "tricky" from Trump when the Trump University Fraud trial opens.
But the only people who care about that are the people already frothing at the mouth with Trump hatred. Not a credible source.
Cruz should start campaigning by saying "Vote for me if you want Paul Ryan" Bribe them and he does not have to keep his word, because he is Lyin' Ted.
Multiple, independent sources. The narrative is probably true.
Ann, I'm puzzled that you would greet this with anything but a ringing endorsement given you played into the same principle just weeks ago. The #nevertrump establishment have been advocating these shennanigans for sberal states. What is the surprising development? That Kasich and Cruz are finally explicitly acknowledgin the arrangement? They're only doing so becausee the wink-wink-nudge-nudge version of this hasn't been effective enough. But it won't make a difference. Only the dimmest of voters needed to be hit over the head like this, and they were never Trump voters anyway.
Imagine that, like me, you think Trump is a likely disaster as the nominee or the President, and therefore, you do not want him to get to 1237 no matter what. There are enough similar populist mistakes in history that in hindsight you could only hope someone would have found a way to "steal" that opportunity away and have prevented those mistakes. Whether or not you find this strategy objectionable really depends on who you think Trump is. That is where the real split is in America (Who Trump really is). It even seems to be a split within his campaign and himself for that matter. His campaign claims we haven't yet met this 70 year old American celebrity with a long documented history.
If Kasich or Cruz knew how to wheel & deal do you think they'd be where they are now, with Trump in the lead?
That horse hasn't just left the barn, he's also comfortably grazing somewhere over the state line!
How did our betters get this incredibly stupid? How?
I am baffled. Cruz is working the system strategically and that makes him...a bad guy? Trump working the system us just a smart guy?
The horse-race aspects of this are getting tedious. I'm of the mind-set to abolish the primaries and just pick the candidate at the convention (like the good 'ole days).
Cruz should have started a rumor in Indiana that Kasich had dropped out and Kasich should have started a rumor that Cruz had dropped out in NM at the nick of time. Knuckleheads! Too bad they can't do that now.
Nebraska will be the key!
Neither Trump nor Cruz has a majority of support, but either could still win the nomination thanks to the system which makes sense exactly in cases just like this. Consequently, they are both playing the system in different ways to get it without a majority, using what advantages they have at this point. Trump has more support, and Cruz is a better strategist and mind. May the best man win.
If you think Trump University was a huge scam, imagine how many more victims there would be if he had the power of a Cruz-like mind running the scheme.
I'm not sure what's scarier: a dumb Trump or a smart one. If Trump had been born with Cruz's very gooder brain, he'd be the wealthiest man in the world today instead of just a mediocre business man who had a huge head start.
In every contest, there will be a second guy if he stays longer, he will play the spoiler to the guy who is leading. Decent candidates make way for the leading candidate. But of course, Kasich has proved he is not one of those guys and Cruz is not either. And, if you look at Cruz's wins, it is even more shady and should never have come this far.
I don't know what we will get with Trump, but at least it won't be these other guys.
"Ann, I'm puzzled that you would greet this with anything but a ringing endorsement given you played into the same principle just weeks ago. The #nevertrump establishment have been advocating these shennanigans for sberal states. What is the surprising development? That Kasich and Cruz are finally explicitly acknowledgin the arrangement? They're only doing so becausee the wink-wink-nudge-nudge version of this hasn't been effective enough. But it won't make a difference. Only the dimmest of voters needed to be hit over the head like this, and they were never Trump voters anyway."
Yeah, it's weird. When I need to vote, I vote, but other than that, I think about how other people feel. And I don't like any of the candidates, so I react to whatever is going on.
"The Republican establishment is slowly catching on that the people will not be denied their number one choice"
Which apparently is Hillary Clinton. God bless the people's infallibility!
" thinking they were going to get something for very little... (a "quickie" degree promising them what? easy millions?"
Now where did they get an idea like that? Who told them that crazy shit? Why did they buy it? Whoever sold them that line of crap should never be trusted again. We'll get to the bottom of it.
When did "triumphalism" become a word?
Awful.
Kasich voters have to be the biggest dumb asses in the world. If you don't like Trump - vote Cruz. If you can't vote Cruz, stay home.
"Trump voters don't buy into that victim mindset..."
It seems to me that's the main mindset being played by Trump. Victims of immigration, the establishment, free trade, political correctness, competition, the Chinese, the Mexicans, the Muslims, the RNC, the elites, Cruz, the rules, the system etc, etc. I haven't seen so much whining since the Occupy poopfest.
The deal looks weak. If it works for Cruz maybe it will be forgotten, but Kasich -- who has been mathematically eliminated since Mardi Gras -- looks like an even bigger douchebag.
Kasich is a fool. That sly snake Cruz played him. So Cruz gets to play in Indiana against Trump without the interference of Kasich. But when Cruz says Kasich can play in NM, he will play but (like Brit Hume said on O'Reilly) he won't get the votes that would go for Cruz.
Trump now demands that Cruz and Kasich collude on simultaneously dropping out so the Republican Party can unify behind President Trump. And no one has any idea how to stop him.
So that is what they will do, unless they are paid off by the Dems to stay in.
Where are all the Cruzettes?
Well, Ms. C. hasn't published the transcripts or videos of her talks on wall street, we all are looking forward to Mr. C and K doing the same as they offered political favors and related to win over delegates, or there was no reason for even meeting with them. A shame they have to lower themselves to do this, since they were unable to win support the honest way, but that's the rigged system you built. Nice to see that your pTb has largely avoided this type of corruption. No way anyone but him can execute on cutting the burden of government in half. Mr. K and C can't take that risk since they've been bought by political promises and the establishment, and likely the donor class acting thru them. Publish or shut up because you just draw attention to your shame. A pity it takes a weathly person to be able to stand apart from this kind of corruption to have the freedom to make real changes. There's a New Zealand Miracle, is in your future, I expect. It might just be enough to save you. It's certainly your last chance.
"Ann, I'm puzzled that you would greet this with anything but a ringing endorsement given you played into the same principle just weeks ago." Indeed - what is your problem with this? This is exactly the kind of vote I want to cast: anyone but Trump.
Too bad about that Trump fella. He draws the biggest crowds, gets most of the votes from those that take the time to vote, but people somehow think that it would be a good idea to deny him the nomination. Go ahead, deny Trump the nomination, and see how many people show up at the voting booth this November to cast a vote for his replacement. You won't get any cross over voters that usually vote Democrat, that's for sure.
I am sort of tuned out right now, and from outside the fight, it looks like Trump is winning. This gives the appearance of anointing Trump.
Barry Dauphin said...
I'm in favor of candidates being allowed to coordinate in this manner, but I wonder if it is kosher with the Byzantine campaign finance laws that we have.
Great question! And it was addressed by James Taranto (himself a frequent Althouse reader) today in his WSJ OpinionJournal column, "The Best of the Web":
The Cruz-Kasich alliance does, however, raise an interesting legal question. While campaign law has nothing to say about “collusion,” it does regulate “coordination”—a term both Politico and the New York Times, the latter in a headline, use to describe what Cruz and Kasich are doing.
There’s no rule that campaigns can’t coordinate with each other, a circumstance so unusual it’s unlikely anybody anticipated it. But the law does prohibit coordination between campaigns and independent groups, including political action committees. Both campaigns’ statements include exhortations to such groups. Cruz: “We would hope that allies of both campaigns would follow our lead.” Kasich: “We would expect independent third-party groups to do the same and honor the commitments made by the Cruz and Kasich campaigns.”
Is that coordination? As the Federal Election Commission explains in a brochure on the subject, the answer would be yes if an electioneering “communication” satisfies the following test:
"If the communication is created, produced or distributed at the request or suggestion of the candidate, candidate’s committee, a party committee or agents of the above; or the communication is created, produced or distributed at the suggestion of the person paying for the communication and the candidate, authorized committee, political party committee or agent of any of the foregoing assents to the suggestion." 11 CFR 109.21(d)(1).
So the answer is: Who knows? Do the campaigns’ statements about what they “hope” and “expect” constitute a “request or suggestion”? We’re inclined to say yes, but could argue it either way.
And if third-party groups do “follow” the “lead” of the campaigns, as the Cruz campaign “would hope” they do, is the connection between the exhortation and the “communication” direct enough to trigger the regulation? The answer is probably no, unless regulators decide to pursue the matter zealously—in which case, this would make for an interesting First Amendment case.
When you put aside all the legal technicalities, it seems preposterous to think the government can punish a politician simply for saying publicly that he hopes (or expects) his allies to follow his campaign strategy. Then again, the Obama administration once argued that campaign-finance law could be used to ban books.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/lets-make-a-deal-1461605868
I am tired of this myth that "Trump has gotten most of the votes."
It is untrue.
It's been repeated, but not often enough: So far, Trump has gotten about 45% of the delegate commitments on about 37% of the vote.
It is more than anybody else, so far. But it is not "most of the votes." Yay, math.
In just about any similar scenario, including most primary elections for local offices in the U.S., candidates in a primary election who fail to achieve a majority of votes cast face a runoff election. Think of the Republican National Convention as Trump's inevitable runoff election when he fails to get to a majority before the first ballot.
Trump has gotten 43.4% of the vote
Cruz has gotten 21.2% of the vote
Kasich has gotten 4.4% of the vote
Trump has gotten most of the votes. That's it. There is just the three of them still running. It's not that hard to figure out, Chuck, you just don't to acknowledge the results. Go ahead, give the nomination to Kasich and see how well he does in the general election. Or Cruz for that matter.
clare.malone: Are you wondering if the sheeple are going to follow this directive, Nate?
I hate the term "sheeple". It's just so condescending sounding.
Last tally I saw showed: T 38%, C 28%, and K 13%.
No, Allen. I'll slow this down for you, in short sentences with words of few syllables.
Trump has gotten more votes than the others. He has not gotten "most of the votes." No one has gotten "most of the votes."
If we still had fourteen candidates, and Trump had the most votes with 9%, or 12% or 21% of the total, no one would say that Trump had gotten "most of the votes." Someone like you might want to press their verbal luck and claim that Trump has "the most votes." Okay. That's a different thing. A banal, obvious, unimportant thing. Because the guy in a crowded field who has 21%, which is the highest percentage of the large group, may also be said to have "the most votes." No matter what, one or more people always have "the most votes." So; big deal.
Nor would anyone say that Trump had gotten any "majority" of the votes. One might contend that, "Hey, majority rules!" And to that I say, "That's right! A MAJORITY does rule!" Donald Trump's bizarre personal notion was the 1237 delegate-count was "some arbitrary number." It is arbitrary, as in "Precisely 50%, plus one." A, uh, majority. Which Donald Trump does not have. Barring a change in the trajectory (sorry, I slipped and used a 4-syllable word) Donald Trump is NOT tracking to a majority. NOT "MOST OF THE DELEGATES."
Any questions at this point, AllenS? Please feel free to ask now; you need to understand this concept before we can go on to any more advanced concepts.
Fox News contributor Bernard Goldberg, on where things stand right now:
Woops; forgot the BernardGoldberg.com link:
http://bernardgoldberg.com/theyd-rather-lose-with-trump-than-win-with-somebody-else/
You're welcome.
Interesting piece by Breitbart on the absolute number of votes for Trump vs. Romney. Here.
Getting more votes than your opponents doesn't necessarily mean you got 'most of the votes', as has been shown. But Lyin' Ted figures he can con Kasich out of his delegates [or potential delegates] and stop Trump from getting the required 1237. I think he figures wrong.
"So he's not good at deals. Don't tout the deal before it's locked down. Cruz seems to have offended Kasich somehow. Deal-maker is not his forte."
In a nutshell. And it's not just because he's an asshole the his colleagues dislike. He has bad judgment about deal making.
"Don't tout a deal before it's locked down" is deal making 101, unless you have tactical reason tourist the tout and a cratering deal. If Cruz had such a reason, it's very obscure.
Chuck said...
No, Allen. I'll slow this down for you, in short sentences with words of few syllables.
Chuck, being condescending is usually not the best way to lead off an argument. I never did read your second sentence.
About that "Primary votes for Trump versus Romney" thing...
It is always a good day when Corey Lewandowski speaks to the press, because the douchebag potential is so high. This was no exception:
“If Ted Cruz were to be nominated, there is no state that Mitt Romney lost last cycle that Ted Cruz can win. That’s not the case with Donald Trump,” Lewandowski said. He argued Trump could potentially win Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, Virginia, New York, California, and Massachusetts in the general election, when Romney couldn’t in 2012. “We have the ability to expand the map,” Lewandowski said.
Raw primary vote totals:
New York, 2016: Clinton-1,054.083; Sanders-763,469; Trump-524,932
Michigan, 2016: Sanders-595,222; Clinton-576,795; Trump-483,751
Florida, 2016: Clinton-1,097,400; Trump-1,077,221
Virginia, 2016: Clinton-503,358; Trump-355,960
Ohio, 2016: Kasich-976,762; Clinton-679,266
If there is a map that Trump might "expand," it would be map of the states marked in blue.
They are doing what trump has commanded them to do. Kasich has dropped out in Indiana. Cruz has dropped out in Oregon and New Mexico.
Keep it up boys. There are so few left to drop out of because you are losing anyway.
"you need to understand this concept before we can go on to any more advanced concepts."
I love the tone of the GOPe sheep.
"I think that dog and the man are working together ! Stop with your conspiracy theories, Rodney !"
Kasich is pulling a Carson. Turning into a cartoon character. Why would anyone give him $ at this point?
Tradguy- where'd you steal the cute baby?
The baby is a near perfect young lady now who calls me Grandpa Jim. I give my son and daughter-in-law all the credit for her and her sister and her brother. But I get credit for my son.
We watched American Sniper on cable last night, and it reminded me that my son is the exact replica of the persona and personalty of Chris Kyle in that movie. But he is a Trial Lawyer.
Kasich is looking like a guy who runs a marathon and comes in three hours after the winners, but runs because of some personal goal. But what is Kasich's goal? Is this something on his bucket list, is he getting a payoff, does he want to be VP? Or is he just sick in the head? He has a right to run, but shouldn't he be back in Ohio doing his job?
"shouldn't he be back in Ohio doing his job?"
It does seem to run pretty well without him for a year, doesn't it?
Like Trump says, if our politicians went to the beach we'd all be better off.
Responding to the post (I haven't read the comments yet):
#1 Neither have succeeded in the relevant competition.
#2 Both have lost in the way that most counts in this political cycle (another way of putting #1, TBC).
#3 The announced, intended, obstructionist strategy serves pretty much only to emphasize #1 and #2.
That's my take, FWIW.
This will look much different after Trump sweeps all five east coast states tomorrow night. His vote, delegate, and State win totals will widen further.
The just announced 5/17 interview with Megyn Kelly is well timed. Fox will air on network prime time, and Cruz and Kasich will seem irrelevant by then. Maybe Kasich will be on the VP list, but Cruz will be cooked whether or not he wins Indiana on 5/3.
Don't care for Trump, but small chance he could pull off "crooked Hillary" win. "Bernie says corrupt. I say crooked." Any politician who has made herself fabulously rich is crooked. It is simple, conveys a truth and seizes upon her very unattractive selfishness. It is impossible for Clinton to adequately explain why she should be so rich.
I think Kasich and Cruz should go further. They should announce there are a ticket, with the delegates to determine which is the president and which is VP. It would add some life to their effort. My guess is that they are both too self absorbed and unwilling to sacrifice to agree to do it.
It's questionable how many of Kasich voters would vote for Cruz. I think many would abstain and a few would vote for Trump. Anyway, encouraging their own voters to strategically switch is not part of the deal. It's more a matter of agreeing not to campaign and use resources in selected states. It would have been wiser to just do this and not make an announcement. Announcing the deal highlighted their weakness and gave Trump something to crow about.
Cruz and Kasich also should relentlessly label Trump the 37% candidate.
Meanwhile, is Cruz boosted by this deal? It seems to me that it makes him look like a deal maker, which changes his brand.
You're missing the point, I think. Making a deal with Kasich was Trump's only path to an early ballot nomination short of winning outright. Kasich and Rubio are the only candidates with enough delegates to make a difference, and Rubio has already ruled out a Trump deal.
Getting Kasich to sign up for an anti-Trump alliance takes Trump's best deal off the table, which is well worth it.
Trump making a deal with Kasich wasn't going to happen given the chasm in their stance on important issues like immigration and refugees. Kasich would need to get a brain & heart transplant to agree to Trump's platform. So it is Zach who's missing the point.
"Some allegedly conservative pundits are applauding this treachery to deny the primary VOTERS of their choice whether it be Trump, Fiorina or Bush. Cruz and Kasich have lost my vote for certain as they don't care about the people's vote, just their own ascendencey to power."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
pish tush.
Go get yerself a big box of Depends: yer gonna need it.
The "voters" are entirely dependent on what the PRIVATE entity called "the Republican Party" decides, with its plenary power, regarding how they want to conduct a primary.
This ain't no democracy. It ain't no republic. And it ain't no Constitutional thing either.
This is brass-knuckle politics.
As Harry Truman once said, "if you can't stand the heat., gettouta the kitchen."
I don't fault the Mr. Potato Head/Count Chocula pact. They had to do something. It just won't work. Right now Trump is at the beginning of a huge wave developing. His crowds are getting bigger and bigger and more and more excited. This wave has only just begun to show itself. If I were Mr. Potato Head I'd get out after Indiana. Same for the Count. They both, but specially Count Chocula, can walk away from this having gained respect in some senses. But if they linger till Cleveland, they're going to deluged by a watery wave, something neither potatoes nor cereal do well in.
jelink -- I believe that most of us understand the nature of the party and the process, and that it is a private organization with its own rules. That organization ultimately depends on "voters" for self-preservation, or it becomes a country club without power or even a golf course, i.e., meaningless. I'd say that it's the party that needs some moisture-absorbing underwear at the moment.
Yes, it reinforces Trump's narrative.
But anyone who's a big enough chump to buy into that con has already bought very deeply into that con.
This is about moving other votes into one column instead of two. It will neither peel off any Trumpkins, nor make any new Trumpkin converts.
No one is undecided about Trump.
BELDAR:
I think you are wrong in saying this: No one is undecided about Trump.
Here's why:
General-election season is coming, at which point it's as likely as not that the clock'll start over, among a number of other things that'll start over.
(1) "You play the game to win!" (Famous Herm Edwards quote...but Herm had a losing 54-74 record as a NFL head coach.)
(2) For members of the Rational Party, the first part of winning means Trump doesn't get 1237 delegates. Lots of candidates were called to be the Republican Party's nominee, but few were chosen by the voters to have a plausible shot at it. As of now, if Trump doesn't get to 1237 on the first ballot, the tea leaves read that he won't be the nominee.
(3) General Cruz made the strategic decision to stay out of New Mexico and Oregon if 2nd Lieutenant Kasich got his ass out of Indiana. Obviously, it helps BOTH OF THEM if the anti-Trump vote isn't split between them. Lt. Kasich still has the delusional convection that a divided convention would turn to him instead of a candidate with real chops, like Mitt.
(4) Of course, Kasich who (like Trump) tends to run at the mouth in a stream of consciousness than said he hoped that voters in Indiana would still vote for him. Lt. Kasich still has problems with elementary math.
(5) Trump has less than 40% of the Republican Party primary vote so far, meaning 60% of the voters wanted somebody else. Trump seems to get his biggest vote margins in states that don't vote for Republican presidential candidates. As polls continue to show, he would be a huuge loser in the General Election.
(6) That is why General Cruz should be applauded for his efforts. He may not be the nominee, but without his hard work we would instead be horrified to know that FrankenTrump was the sure bet to be the nominee.
I'm still inclined to stand by my bet [off-line] of quite a while ago that it's gonna be Donald Trump versus Hillary Clinton. Inclined, still, and also in acceptance of that most likely outcome.
---
That said: Later today I will be going to the polls in my current insignificant state to do an insignificant tick-off of a vote in an insignificant primary/delegate election thingie-thing.
Why am I even bothering to do that, given my obvious, um, issues with the point of it?
Here's why:
I'm following through on an effort that had to be made in order to be able to vote in today's primary. I made that effort quite a while ago, which I do not begrudge because:
*I DO NOT support last-minute voter registration.
*I DO NOT support last-minute party registration (even though I did live in a state that allowed that and took advantage of that).
*I DO NOT support open primaries, as defined currently.
I DO NOT support early voting, as currently defined in too many states, most particularly because it's too loosy-goosey of a process in too many places, and above all because that sort of thing diminishes the value of election days, and, therefore, the very notion of **votes**.
So not sorry if that's too traditional for any of you.
---
For another year, time, whatever (surely not now and most likely not for at least a decade or so, give or take:
I'm in the process of strongly considering not just supporting but also advocating a whole different mechanism for pre-general election processes.
I'd be stupid not to so consider such a notion.
Whatever else I might be be, what I am is not stupid.
; )
80% of Republican voters don't want Cruz.
That must hurt.
Cruz is not even eligible "law prof" (a misnomer I'm sure)
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners". Minor v. Happersett 88 US 162, 167 (1875)
The "COMMON LAW" is law of nations. The parents would not matter in British Common Law, only place of birth. Law of nations explicitly defines natural born Citizen the same as Minor.
Then this passage is cited 23 years later in Wong Kim Ark, which also cites "the Common Law" (law of nations), although Gray tries to make you believe he is talking about British Common Law.
"In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision". 21 Wall. 167., Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 656 (1898)
And then on page 680 Justice Gray cites Minor again--- citing the "Common Law", which has to be law of nations, because otherwise the parents would not matter.
" At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 680 (1898)
There it is right in front of your face. If our citizenship was based on British Common Law then Gray could have cut 3/4 of his rambling mess of a decision. Our citizenship law is based on law of nations, which is why Gray needs to refer to the parents. Gray lies and insinuates that Minor construed the 14th Amendment, when in fact it construed A2S1C5, and very pointedly said that Minor did not need the 14th Amendment to determine her citizenship.
Neal Katyal's Harvard Law Review article fails to even point out the 2 times that WKA cited Minor v. Happersett. It is a stain upon Harvard, and it is a stain upon the entire legal profession.
I don't see this plan working, as voters don't normally study the polls enough to figure out if their vote for Cruz or Kasich is better for stopping Trump in their congressional district vs. the statewide race, and on top of that ignore their own preferences. The whole thing requires a lot more thought than Republican voters have shown this year anyway, which is why they are right now choosing between two candidates who could actually lose to Hillary this fall--and if either actually won, would have such a poisoned relationship with their own party in Congress that they wouldn't accomplish anything as president. But, let the people decide and bear their consequences.
Trump is still the likely nominee if only because there's no natural alternative to him (though Cruz could make a strong case, he'd still have the fact that Trump won more votes and delegates in the primaries and would have to persuade a lot of delegates to ignore that). For the party's sake, I would prefer they pick Cruz but think the odds are against it.
Mary Beth said...
clare.malone: Are you wondering if the sheeple are going to follow this directive, Nate?
I hate the term "sheeple". It's just so condescending sounding.
Me too. "Hey, look! You take sheep + people and put them together to get 'sheeple'! It sounds cool so it must be true!"
Not only do I despise the term, I despise people who use it. Clare Malone reveals herself to be a nasty intellectual lightweight.
After the next round of primaries, I'm predicting that Trump will still have most of the votes.
AllenS:
Congrats, on singling yourself out as a uniquely ignorant member of that vast ocean of stupidity known as the 37% Trump electorate.
"The most votes" is not the same thing as "most of the votes." No more than saying that 37% is the same thing as 55%.
Troll me if you wish; you just look stupid in the process.
I really do have the best interests of the Republican Party in mind at this time. That is unlike Trump and his supporters. But the style and tone of Trump for weeks and months have added an element to the story. There is a real, lasting personal animus that Trump has initiated. (I don't think that Trump expects his insults to last any longer than they serve his own immediate interests. But the recipients of his attacks won't think that way. They will always remember.)
"I think Trump should simply offer Lil' Marco VP and be done with it. It will give a face save for the establishment to support him that he derided all along and Lil' Marco is thirsty enough that he will accept it."
Susana Martinez. Governor of New Mexico. A woman to blunt the anti-women Trump narrative and a wedge against the immigration/Hispanic issues.
Also, from a "blue" state.
"It does seem to run pretty well without him for a year, doesn't it?"
This is true. Government is a self-perpetuating disease that requires little attention from it's "leader(s)."
most 1. in the greatest number, amount, or degree
Trump has gotten more votes than the others. He has not gotten "most of the votes." No one has gotten "most of the votes."
Ha ha ha ! I love it! It makes me happier than a Sanders supporter majoring in Minority Studies at the University of Vermont.
In the meantime early voting is setting records in Indiana and the Indiana officials expect a record turnout on May 3. Trump is reeling them in.
http://tinyurl.com/hydj3tb
Your Republican candidates, Chuck, ain't cuttin' it.
Now, I don't need you to school me about "ain't" and "cuttin'".
Those might be the first posts with the word sheeple in them I read to the end. Congresscritters is another automatic "skip to next post" signal.
Loved The Onion's take on this topic today.
jelink said...
"This ain't no democracy. It ain't no republic. And it ain't no Constitutional thing either.
This is brass-knuckle politics.
As Harry Truman once said, "if you can't stand the heat., gettouta the kitchen."
The tree of liberty is getting thirsty.
Chuck said...
"I really do have the best interests of the Republican Party in mind at this time."
Trump is polling over 50% nationally. Over 70% of Republicans think the person with the most delegates and votes should be the nominee. Most people voting in the Republican primary obviously have interests that diverge from the party apparatus.
We know you are an oligarch tool. You are literally a paid shill. Republican voters are rejecting you.
In the end trump and Cruz supporters will unite or we will lose. We need both groups to win. We don't need the parasites though. There aren't that many of you and you will feed better off a hillary presidency. We know where allegiances lie and the dumb idiots out here in the sticks are tired of the sellouts and betrayals by the parasites.
Post a Comment