"Hillary Clinton will deliver a prime-time speech next Wednesday for the Democratic National Convention..."

"Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts will join Mrs. Clinton, the 2016 nominee, on the Wednesday night program if she is not selected as Mr. Biden’s running mate, according to the officials. Former President Bill Clinton will speak as well, one of the officials said. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and former Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, a Republican who is a harsh critic of President Trump, will deliver addresses Monday night, the officials said. Former President Barack Obama’s time slot has not been announced (or leaked), but he could be included on a crammed Wednesday night program, or possibly introduce Mr. Biden on Thursday — to deliver a nationally televised rendition of the-Joe-I-know speech he has been giving during online Biden fund-raisers and round tables. It is not clear when Michelle Obama, who delivered what was widely regarded as the best speech at the 2012 convention in Charlotte, N.C., will speak. But planners have privately said they believe her address could attract the widest viewership outside of Mr. Biden’s."

From "2020 Election Live Updates: Democratic Convention to Feature Obamas and Clintons" (NYT).

Other than the Obamas, this sounds awful. I can't believe we're going to be stuck watching both of the Clintons. It's all so terribly old. Who wants to hear from Kasich?! And Warren and Sanders are the opposite of Biden. They're the candidates who got elbowed out by the party that didn't want them. But I guess they'll be good and play their part and concentrate on how it's all about getting rid of Trump.

The Washington Post publishes an op-ed coauthored by Hillary Clinton and John Kasich, so it's sure to change the subject...

... from late-term (post-birth?!!!) abortions and Democratic governors in blackface (or a Klansman outfit) to... wait for it... what do you think?... what subject is waiting, just waiting to grab us?... what could unite these giants of the 2 parties... what is it?...

WaPo's Jennifer Rubin pushes for a primary challenge to Trump... with the end of getting — who else? — John Kasich elected.

In "Here’s what a primary challenge to Trump would accomplish," she writes:

While there might be downside to the person challenging Trump, a primary opponent isn’t likely to take Trump on if he’s concerned about playing it safe and husbanding his or her popularity. The primary challenger, if you will, acts like the horse who jumps out to the lead, wears down the favorite and allows his stablemate to come from behind for the victory. And sometimes, the lead horse might actually win. Who’d do this? Maybe someone who already has a job (e.g., Mitt Romney, the Utah senator-elect), or doesn’t need one (e.g., a retired government official), or just thinks it’s the right thing to do (outgoing Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake?). ...

[A] primary run doesn’t preclude a third-party run by a different candidate, most likely a moderate candidate in the event Trump wins the GOP nomination. Ohio Gov. John Kasich, visiting in New Hampshire, explained the ideal circumstances for such a run. My colleague David Weigel writes, “Kasich was speculating on what it would take to break the two-party system wide open. He imagined a 2020 matchup between Trump and a left-wing Democrat that would create ‘a vast ocean between the parties.’ ” The decision to mount a third-party run could wait until after both parties pick their nominee; but if Trump falters in the primary, nothing would stop Kasich (or anyone else) from entering the race. (For now, Kasich occupies an enviable position. A non-candidate with high name ID can continue to criticize Trump and urge his fellow Republicans to hold Trump accountable for his rhetoric and actions.)

I just love the phrase "husbanding his or her popularity."

Anyway... someone other than Kasich is supposed to go in there and wear himself out weakening Trump, and Kasich has identified himself as the one to come in after someone else does the groundwork. Kasich is the moderate in waiting — quite openly and with strong support from The Washington Post.

"I Ran Digital For A 2016 Presidential Campaign. Here's What Russia Might Have Got For $100,000."

"Even the pros struggle to know how far messages travel when Facebook is paid to promote them — but Russia's $100,000 could have reached millions."

That's by Kevin Bingle at Buzzfeed. He's "an Ohio-based, Republican political digital consultant who managed digital operations for Gov. John Kasich’s presidential campaign."

1. Kasich lost, and a Kasich supporter might be quite hostile to Trump.

2. The idea is that $100,000 spent on Facebook can be effective, but it depends on whether the dynamics of virality kick in.

3. How worried should we be about the power of ideas to take on life and command attention? Why not feel great about the way all ideas can now compete in the marketplace of ideas? The main answer seems to be that bad ideas, exaggerations, and outright lies can be viral.

One post I saw on Facebook, months after Gov. Kasich had left the race, declared that “John Kasich Left the GOP!” It had nearly 40,000 shares. Aside from the fact that this is an absurd claim, the reach of that one post sent shivers down my spine. That was the day I realized how widespread this had become.

4. But isn't this the story of humanity: The rise and fall of bad and good ideas, including the idea that the spread of ideas is frightening and destructive and the idea that people can be trusted to sort out good and bad ideas for themselves?

My crazy political fantasy: What if the 2016 election were Kasich vs. O'Malley?

No pleasure and no pain. No thrills. No anxieties. Just blandness against blandness. Wouldn't it be wonderful?

How do you feel about the fantasy alternative 2016 election, Kasich vs. O'Malley?

Bad! I want at least the hope of getting something I love -- Trump!

Bad! I want at least the hope of getting something I love -- Hillary!

Blah... absurd... but I do like it better than either option we've got now.

Good! I love the insurance that nothing awful happens.

Wonderful! Let me choose between 2 normal guys who were governors.

 

pollcode.com free polls

"The @washingtonpost report on potential VP candidates is wrong. Marco Rubio and most others mentioned are NOT under consideration."

Tweeted Trump.

Here's the WaPo article, mentioning Ben Carson, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin and Chris Christie.

Since Trump said "most" of the others, in addition to Rubio, were not under consideration, we may infer that at least one is. I presume if it's one, it's Kasich.

"Happy Cinco de Mayo! The best taco bowls are made in Trump Tower Grill. I love Hispanics!"

An actual Donald Trump Facebook post, complete with photo of him eating with a taco bowl.



As I was just saying a few days ago (a propos of the mockery of John Kasich for getting photographed eating various foods):

Food-eating used to be a cliché campaign photo-op. Bob Dylan sang about it in 1963:

Now, the man on the stand he wants my vote
He’s a-runnin’ for office on the ballot note
He’s out there preachin’ in front of the steeple
Tellin’ me he loves all kinds-a people
(He’s eatin’ bagels
He’s eatin’ pizza
He’s eatin’ chitlins
He’s eatin’ bullshit!)

But, note, Donald Trump isn't eating in that photograph. He's posing with food. And Donald Trump was one of the main people who mocked Kasich for eating: "He has a news conference all the time when he's eating. I have never seen a human being eat in such a disgusting fashion. This guy takes a pancake and he's shoving it in his mouth. It’s disgusting."

Now, back to today's quote: "Happy Cinco de Mayo! The best taco bowls are made in Trump Tower Grill. I love Hispanics!" That's got to be so wrong on so many levels. Or is it a trap?

And now we can stop asking why he's still in.

Kasich is out.

"Donald Trump is bristling at efforts to implement a more conventional presidential campaign strategy..."

"... and has expressed misgivings about the political guru behind them, Paul Manafort, for overstepping his bounds, multiple sources close to the campaign tell POLITICO."

Trump became upset late last week when he learned from media reports that Manafort privately told Republican leaders that the billionaire reality TV star was “projecting an image” for voters and would begin toning down his rhetoric, according to the sources....

“I think it pisses him off that [Manafort] was getting free television by going on the shows and now Paul Manafort is out there resurrecting his career,” said one campaign operative. Citing Manafort’s advocacy within the campaign for an expensive advertising push in upcoming states, the operative said Trump is “saying I can get on every show I want for free and you're telling me not to do that and that I should pay for my advertising? That doesn't pass the smell test to me.”...

On Monday, as [Trump] again mocked the idea of behaving in a more “presidential” manner at two rallies in Pennsylvania, Trump called John Kasich a “slob” after calling attention to his penchant for eating too much on the campaign trail and blasted him and Cruz, whom he called “an ass,” for “colluding” to stop him — every broadside delivered in his trademark vernacular and an implicit rebuke to those handlers looking to rein him in.

Elsewhere in Politico: "9 photos of John Kasich eating on the campaign trail."

“He has a news conference all the time when he's eating. I have never seen a human being eat in such a disgusting fashion,” Trump said, imitating the noshing. “This guy takes a pancake and he's shoving it in his mouth. It’s disgusting.” While Trump has managed to avoid the cameras during mealtime, Kasich has broken bread with them, as readers can see from these flavorful shots from the campaign trail.

Isn't Kasich trying to make up for that one time he got caught on camera eating pizza with a fork? He's trying to look "disgusting" — i.e., like a man of the people, chomping hard into hand-held stuff — isn't he?

Food-eating used to be a cliché campaign photo-op. Bob Dylan sang about it in 1963:

Now, the man on the stand he wants my vote
He’s a-runnin’ for office on the ballot note
He’s out there preachin’ in front of the steeple
Tellin’ me he loves all kinds-a people
(He’s eatin’ bagels
He’s eatin’ pizza
He’s eatin’ chitlins
He’s eatin’ bullshit!)

The Kasich-Cruz deal: "Mr. Kasich won’t compete in Indiana; Mr. Cruz won’t compete in New Mexico and Oregon."

"When you consider the delegate rules of these states, it’s an arrangement that could give the non-Trump candidates a much better chance of denying Mr. Trump the nomination," muses Nate Cohn at the NYT.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

I agree. It reinforces Trump's narrative.

"Crazy" the way we've forgotten Ross Perot.

Here's Nick Corasaniti, writing in the NYT "Ad of the Week" column:

The ad is titled “Crazy.” It opens with a picture of Senator Ted Cruz looking mischievous and Mr. Trump with mouth agape, seemingly mid-rant. But leveling the actual “crazy” accusation is not the role of the narrator in this ad from New Day for America, the “super PAC” supporting Gov. John Kasich of Ohio. That falls to Patsy Cline, whose 1961 recording of Willy Nelson’s “Crazy” provides the ad’s soundtrack. The rest of the lyric: “I’m crazy for trying, and crazy for crying. And I’m crazy for loving you,” is barely audible under the narrator’s voice.

How can a prominent analyzer of political promotions write about the use of the song "Crazy" in a political ad and not mention that — back in 1992 — the song was the theme song of the Ross Perot campaign?

Ross Perot promised an unconventional campaign. He certainly delivered. In an oddly listless final day of campaigning, Perot addressed a disappointingly small rally in his hometown of Dallas, bought two final hours of prime-time television exposure, then retreated to the comfortable seclusion of his high-rise offices.

While his Democratic and Republican rivals were exhausting themselves in a frenzy of last-minute politicking, Perot seemed serene as he appeared before perhaps 3,500 followers in the 17,000-seat Reunion Arena in downtown Dallas. He thanked his supporters and summarized his roller-coaster candidacy this way: "What we've been through hasn't been pretty, but by golly you're taking your country back."

While again predicting victory in all 50 states in today's balloting, Perot also announced that he had adopted the Patsy Cline classic "Crazy" as the official theme song of his quixotic candidacy. President Bush last week said that Perot's allegations that Republican dirty tricksters had plotted to smear his daughter and disrupt her wedding were "crazy."

"There are millions of crazy people in this country," Perot told the crowd as he urged them to round up all their crazy friends and get them to vote. "And I'll say tomorrow I bet it'll be a crazy day at the polls."...

As he had at the weekend rallies, Perot characterized both President Bush and Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton as unfit to lead the country out of its economic morass. He said that of the three candidates, only he is qualified to address fundamental economic problems because of his business acumen.

Ah! The resonance!

I wish I could embed this: Ross Perot telling his supporters the buses are ready to take them back to the asylum but first: his theme song. "Crazy" begins playing and he dances happily, in turn, with his 4 daughters and his wife.

"I say to you that this path to darkness is the antithesis of all that America has meant for 240 years."

John Kasich gets ironically, brimstonily preachy about Trump and Cruz and their "political strategy based on exploiting Americans instead of lifting them up inevitably leads to divisions, paranoia, isolation and promises that can never, ever be fulfilled."

How many would-be Kasich voters in Wisconsin switched to Cruz for strategic, anti-Trump reasons?

The Real Clear Politics poll average might support the inference that 6 percentage points of Cruz's final number were people who would have gone for Kasich if they had not been motivated by the desire to stop Trump. Click to enlarge:



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.

How do you vote for Cruz as a way to stop Trump without adding to the appearance of support for Cruz?

Let's say you're trying to figure out how to vote in the Wisconsin primary tomorrow, and either you don't have the option of voting for someone you actually support (because you support no one) or you want to use your vote strategically in the way that you believe is most effective.

It's an open primary, so you can vote for any of the 5 remaining candidates. You could simply pick the least objectionable person in the 5, perhaps John Kasich. But you've seen the analysis that says to vote for Kasich is to help Trump, because — based on polling — only Cruz has a realistic shot at beating Trump in Wisconsin. By helping Cruz get Wisconsin delegates, you advance the cause of keeping Trump from closing in on the 1237 delegates that will get him the nomination on the first ballot at the convention.

And you don't want Trump to get the nomination. You'd like to see the convention get to the second ballot, with the delegates released to begin voting for other candidates. But you're picturing Cruz at that point arguing strenuously that he's the one with the second most votes nationwide, so he's the obvious choice as the alternative to Trump. He'll point at all those votes he got, and all the votes for him will look the same — the people who love him and want him to be President and the people who voted for him only to stop Trump and never liked Cruz at all.

You can't mark your vote to register in a particular way. You can't make it say: Cruz, but only as a device to stop Trump; don't take this to mean I support Cruz. And what if you could? What if Cruz were asked to fight on, undercutting Trump, because he's the only tool available for the job, but he needed to understand that he will not get the nomination. He's not wanted. He's really fighting for someone else — Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney or (I've even heard it said) Scott Walker. If Cruz knew that's what he's really doing, could he accomplish the designated task and take down Trump? Shhh. Don't tell him. He's just our tool.

But many of us voters would like to be able to mark our ballot: Cruz, but only as a means to the end of defeating Trump. Don't take this as any kind of an indication of support for Cruz.

And I realize that this is an iteration of what is always true: The vote is inarticulate. You're only able to vote for someone, not qualify it in any special way. You can't make it say: I don't like half the things you're proposing, but you seem like an honest man. Or: I don't believe a thing you've been saying, but I think you'll be a savvy pragmatist once you're in office doing the job. Or: These candidates are all disgusting, but you're the least disgusting.

Vanity Fair says it would be "crazy" and "career suicide" for Paul Ryan to "to try to steal the Republican nomination."

So it's a great idea then?

No way Vanity Fair would be warning the GOP off a bad idea is there?

Thanks!

If Trump can't lock it down with a majority of delegates, and most Republicans are not just opposed to him, but appalled at the idea of a Trump nomination and see him as wrecking their party, why would they give him the nomination out of fear that the people — who don't in the majority support Trump — somehow treasure the principle that the man with the most delegates gets the nomination? And if they're looking beyond Trump, why would they feel compelled to hand it to Cruz or Kasich? Because they entered the competition and stayed in? But they lost. The nomination isn't a participation trophy. If there's an open convention and they're looking past those who ran the race, the most obvious choice is Paul Ryan — attractive, vigorous, honest, vetted. Pick the best — the best candidate and the best potential President. Sure, some Trump/Cruz/Kasich voters may feel that's not fair, but there are plenty of us who're not stuck on any of those three, including many people who will have voted for one of them.

Cruz says "It’s against the rules for Kasich to be on the ballot" at a contested GOP convention.

There's a rule that was adopted at the 2012 GOP convention:

The rule, drafted and imposed by forces loyal to Mitt Romney, requires that any candidate eligible for the nomination win a majority of delegates from at least eight states or U.S. territories. Kasich is unlikely to approach that threshold ahead of the convention.

If forces loyal to Romney could adopt a rule that serves their interests in 2012, why can't a new rule be made in 2016? Doesn't it simply depend on who has the votes to make the rules? I can see why Cruz wants to set himself up as the only alternative to Trump if Trump can't get a majority of delegates, but why should the convention be left with only Cruz as the fall back? And won't Cruz change his argument if it turns out that he can't get a majority in 8 states? So far, he only has 5.

I think Cruz is making the argument about the 2012 rule to focus all the stop-Trump energy on himself right now: Don't waste your primary vote on Kasich.

By the way, the latest Wisconsin poll shows Cruz in third place: Trump 31%, Kasich 29%, Cruz 27%. But that was taken before Scott Walker endorsed Cruz. Some people here in Wisconsin are seeing the primary as a kind of "referendum on Scott Walker," especially since Donald Trump is openly attacking Walker:

Donald Trump arrived in Wisconsin Tuesday and made it abundantly clear that he’s running against Scott Walker in this state’s looming presidential primary, saying Wisconsin “is doing very poorly,” is “losing jobs all over the place” and is mired in “vitriol” over the governor.

Is Cruz putting effort into defending what Walker has done? And is Walker really a big Cruz supporter?

In a recent interview, Walker said he knew both Cruz and Ohio Governor John Kasich well, and said both are “perfectly fine.” But he indicated that the delegate math simply doesn’t work out for Kasich: “If you’re just looking at the numbers objectively,” Walker said last week, “Senator Cruz is the only one who’s got a chance, other than Donald Trump, to win the nomination. My friend Governor Kasich cannot.” Walker indicated in the WTMJ interview that Cruz could handily take on Hillary Clinton in the general election as well.

Kasich has the distinction of representing neither the pro- or the anti-Walker side. And he's the last moderate standing on the GOP side.

AND: Can the last-moderate-standing position work? Maybe not. Maybe America just wants some big disruption this year and can't be talked down. People got high on Trump and Sanders, perhaps because of a horror of having Hillary stuffed down our throats, and we just don't know how to come back to normal. Cruz isn't normal. He's disruptive too. Try this disruptive but not as disruptive character. That's the pitch for those of us who don't like too much wild-eyed drama in our politics?

The new Emerson poll has Trump way up in New York, at 69%, with Cruz at 25%, and Kasich at a ridiculous 1%.

What was the point of winning Ohio if not to show that he could do well in places like New York? 1%!

But Trump has a long way to go if he's to beat Hillary in New York, which he's bragged he can do. The poll has Clinton up 55% to 36%. (She beats Cruz 61% to 30%.)

Trump chooses not to present himself for pummeling at the next debate.

And Fox promptly cancels the debate.

Why did Fox cancel?

As Trump said, we've had enough debates.

It's no fun without Trump to kick around.

They could still kick Trump around. This is about ratings. People won't watch without Trump.

It would just be Cruz and Kasich. That would be boring.

With only Kasich with him on stage, Cruz might destroy Kasich, which the establishment doesn't want.

 

pollcode.com free polls

ADDED: The poll is defective because after Trump got out, Kasich got out, and then Fox canceled. The article kind of buried that key fact, and I didn't dig it out. Sorry. But I want to say that Kasich's withdrawal shows the significance of the 5th option on the poll, which is that being alone on stage with Cruz was dangerous to Kasich. As soon as the big target Trump was out, Kasich declined the opportunity. He was fine with passively looking norma while Cruz attacked Trump, but he did not want the opportunity to go one-on-one with Ted.

Meanwhile, his staying in the race stops Ted from having the advantage of going one-on-one with Trump. There's something very annoying about the Kasich candidacy. He has some big problems that are not getting much attention, and he's hanging back waiting for a process to play out that will leave him standing there looking like the rightful owner of the nomination. But he has not fought for it and there's no reason to think he'd be a strong opponent for Hillary.

"John Kasich is saying he might go to the Republican convention with more delegates than anyone else."

"And now, I'm afraid all the remaining Republican candidates might be mentally ill."

And: "When the left stops Trump from speaking, Trump wins. He gets to tell his people that the forces of far-left activism and political correctness are trying to silence him."

"Mega Tuesday: Possibly The Most Consequential Day Of Voting Yet."

An anxious headline... at NPR where I see Trump has already won the Northern Mariana Islands:

Trump began the big day of voting with a win in the U.S. commonwealth's GOP caucuses. He took 73 percent of the vote (343 votes out of just 471 cast), which will give Trump all nine available delegates. Cruz was second with 113 votes, while Kasich got 10 votes and Rubio took just 5.

What's up in the Northern Mariana Islands? Why are they for Trump? I don't know but the polls in Ohio (and North Carolina) close in less than 15 minutes.

UPDATE 1: Trump and Hillary win Florida — CNN has called it.

UPDATE 2: Poor Rubio! He loses no time coming out, and dropping out. His speech is awful, pretending that he chose the high road, and there was an easier way that would have worked. Not believable.

UPDATE 3: Looks like Clinton will win all 5. Trump will win 4 of 5. Kasich gets his state.

UPDATE 4: From Rush Limbaugh's show today:

So this probably suffices as an opinion or thought shared by many in the establishment, and that is, "Whatever we do, we cannot allow Trump, and we've gotta use everything at our disposal.  Hell, it's our party!  We run the party....."...  So that's why all of these people are focusing on Ohio today and John Kasich. John Kasich winning Ohio, they all believe, gives them the power/the right/the necessary energy and indication of support that they can go in and take control of this entire nominating process and do whatever they have to do to deny it to Trump.  So that's why they're all claiming the future of the GOP today hangs on Ohio and what Kasich represents for them....

And they got it. So we will see what they can do with that foothold. Deny Trump the nomination?

UPDATE 5: Then there's the theory that losing Ohio benefits Trump...