Originally Posted By Dabob2 <If Cruz dropped out wouldn't that shoot Trump easily past 1237 himself though? I mean, at the moment it looks tight, but I can't imagine he wouldn't get SOME of the Cruz supporters to prop up his already considerable lead. Someone please explain it? Math makes my head hurt lol.> Kasich's only real window would be if Cruz dropped out between the end of the primaries and the convention. I should have made that clearer. You're quite right that if Cruz dropped out now, Trump would probably sail to 1,237. It's about 50/50 he'll get there anyway, even with Cruz in the race. Without him, he'd certainly pick up enough Cruz supporters who think Kasich is "not conservative enough" to get enough delegates by Cleveland. Kasich's only hope is that Cruz stays in through June and that between them, they deny Trump the 1,237 he needs. THEN it turns out that the Cruz story is true. No way the convention could choose Cruz as its alternative at that point. But the "neverTrump" people might still be strong enough, and the stench of sleaze disturbing enough between Trump and Cruz (because does anyone think their dung wrestling is done no matter what transpires with this particular story?) that they might choose Kasich as the least tainted, most adult, and most likely candidate to beat Clinton. That's a small window, though. If Cruz weathers this and has considerably more delegates than Kasich, it's hard to see the convention choosing Kasich. I still have a hard time believing Cruz somehow juggled 5 mistresses in the midst of a presidential campaign. But could SOME of it be true? I didn't know this yesterday, but the hacktivist group Anonymous, BEFORE the Enquirer story broke, said they had sex stuff on Cruz. (You can watch their video here.) Much may depend on how you feel about Anonymous. <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/03/breaking-anonymous-claims-proof-cruz-affairs-rumors-not-start-donald-trump/">http://www.thegatewaypundit.co...d-trump/</a> Plus, Breitbart and others have said that the Rubio campaign was pushing this story long ago. So is there a "there" there? Without independent, solid corroboration, this story may not have legs. Yet it kinda puts the sleaze patina on both Cruz and Trump.
Originally Posted By Mr X Ah, right. I think that's what the guy has been vying for (or something like it). But in that hypothetical "Cruz Downfall" scenario, would Kasich have any more of a chance than someone like Romney or Ryan or heck even Rubio or Bush? Seems to me if the sky falls like that, all bets are off. Why would Kasich assume he'd move to the front of the pack, just because he's running?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 He wouldn't move there, necessarily. He's pushing the narrative that the convention should choose someone who actually ran, because that obviously serves him. That doesn't mean that's how it would go down.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Oh, here's another possible stumbling block for Kasich that I should have mentioned. Possible, but a stumbling block that could also be rescinded... which is its own can of worms. In 2012, Romney had the nomination sewed up long before the convention. But some die-hard Ron Paul supporters had been quietly working behind the scenes for months, especially in caucus states. Every state makes its own rules for how delegates are chosen. And if you get enough county apparatuses, say, on your side, you can get people loyal to you sent to the convention. You can look up how this process works (and there's a chance we could see this ON STEROIDS this year!), but the upshot was that Ron Paul ended up sending more delegates from Iowa to vote for him at the 2012 convention than either Romney or Santorum, who had won the most support at the Iowa caucuses themselves. The Paul people did this in quite a few states, actually. And the die-hard Paul heads wanted to make a point that they had done so, and say that they had actually "won" x-number of states, and that Romney had won fewer. Even though this was pretty esoteric in 2012 and would have made no difference to the ultimate outcome (but, again, this might not be the case this year!), Romney still considered it embarrassing, and he had the rules committee, which meets at the beginning of the convention, institute (among others), Rule 40. Rule 40 states that a candidate had to win the vote in 8 states outright, or his name could not even be placed in nomination. This left out Ron Paul. Officially, Rule 40 remains on the books. Right now, Kasich has won exactly one state (his own). It is highly unlikely he will win 7 more. Which would leave him ineligible to even have his name placed in nomination. Unless...wait for it...THEY CHANGE THE RULES. This is possible. The Rules Committee can do away with Rule 40 at the beginning of the Cleveland convention if it wants to. This is why all the campaigns are furiously starting to fight behind the scenes not only to get friendly people named as delegates from the various states, but to put their people on the Rules Committee. Kasich, obviously, would like Rule 40 dropped; Trump and Cruz would like it retained. If it is retained they’ll be the only two people who could have their names entered into nomination. The GOP Establishment?? We'll see. If they drop Rule 40 - even though it's only been in place since 2012 - a lot of Cruz and (especially) Trump supporters will take it to mean that "the fix is in," and the establishment is going to choose the nominee over the voters' wishes anyway. They would HAVE to drop Rule 40 if they wanted to nominate not just Kasich, but anyone other than Trump or Cruz. And they have to decide this (and all official rules) at the beginning of the convention. If Trump supporters decide that the fix is in, they probably wouldn't be real happy about that. You can find footage of Paul heads protesting this then-new rule vociferously at the 2012 convention itself, even though they knew there was no chance they could win the nomination. Now imagine Trump supporters (and look at his rallies for evidence of how passionate or crazy - take your pick - they can be) faced with the prospect that their guy, who will have the most votes, and who they consider the rightful nominee, has it taken away. Yes, yes, yes, the rules may make that quite legal. But they are unlikely to see it this way. This is what Trump was talking about when he talked about riots happening if he didn't get the nomination. Not that he'd want anything like that. This might be ugly, but perversely fascinating for a Democrat like me. Except that there’s another wrinkle. There's a big push from the NRA-friendly faction of the GOP to have open carry in place in Cleveland. In other words, to allow people to pack guns on the convention floor. What could go wrong? Ohio is an open carry state, but the arena where it will be held has a policy that disallows guns. One hopes the adults in the GOP will simply say "Hey, we're guests of this privately owned arena, and we will abide by their wishes," thus hopefully not ticking off the gun nuts and possibly heading off a catastrophe. I've said before that I go back and forth between wanting to see a contested convention, and not. Now I'm leaning towards not. Because a). I do think Clinton would beat Trump pretty handily, absent external events we can't predict (and they could absolutely happen, but absent that, the polling is showing Trump just TOO underwater with too many voting groups), and b). I don't want chaos in Cleveland. Even without guns it could be really, really ugly. And might not even be confined to Cleveland. Some of the Trump nuts are really, well, nuts.
Originally Posted By fkurucz So Trump really is the best that the GOP can come up with. And even scarier, he just might win.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Trump "goes there." AGAIN: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-lewandowski-they-re-destroying-very-good-person-n548036">http://www.nbcnews.com/politic...-n548036</a> So abortion should be illegal. And women who get abortions should face "some form of punishment." But not the men. They couldn't help themselves. Doesn't take rocket science to figure out which group this d-bag is pandering to.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Trump has something like 70% disapproval with women. This won't help. Hard to see how he wins with 70% disapproval of the largest voting bloc. He'd have to have over 70% approval of men, and a). that's never happened; b). it ain't gonna happen this year. His unfavorables with men, though not as high, also top 50%, maybe 60 by now. I'm sure he made these comments because the WI GOP electorate tends to be very anti-abortion. And the man thinks short term. Cruz just passed him in the polls in WI, and he wants to win there badly, especially as it's the only contest in an otherwise dead stretch. Long term he keeps digging himself into huge holes with women, with Hispanics, with Muslims, with "the blacks," and with the Reality-Based Community. He obviously thinks he can "pivot" once he gets the nomination (if indeed he does), and look for lazy media types to praise him for his "change of tone" and "looking presidential" if he tones it down even the smallest bit. But we (and the Dem. nominee) needs to remind people again and again and again what an incredible idiot/boor/sexist/d-bag/unqualified narcissist this man is.
