Wake up, Cruz and Kasich-the GOP convention will never nominate you

[Jazzhead]

That is quite possible, if Kasich voters flocked to Cruze, but I'm not confident that they would. The logic backing him staying in is, it's very likely that Kasich could take away some NE states, and maybe even California from Trump.

That's the problem - Cruz is polarizing in his own right.   Kasich remaining in the race will hopefully allow him to garner delegates from bluer states where the electorate has little interest in an uncompromising ideologue who's been quite frank in saying he has little intention to moderate his views to appeal to the center-right.   

As a Kasich supporter myself,  I find kinship with Cruz on most issues, but not all.   I strongly oppose his stances on immigration and how best to fight the war on terror.  On the other hand, I'm intrigued by his tax plan and think he's well suited to encourage economic growth.  But on the broader question of whether he can be a good leader,  his inability to build bridges and forge consensus do not bode well, IMO. 

As I've said, I'll support him if he's the nominee, even as I'm sober enough to realize he'll likely lose just as Trump most certainly will.   I think I'm starting to reach a place of acceptance about this campaign, which is why I'm posting less these days.    My optimism of ten months ago is gone.   The world has passed old Reaganites like me by.  My last stand will be doing all I can to defeat Trump and his race-baiting fascism - even if I ultimately have to support Clinton to do so.  No, I won't spit the bit, no matter how bitter the taste.  And then I'll be done - a future with Clinton as President is just too bleak to contemplate.         

[Fishrrman]

Free Vulcan:
"And how many does Trump need to get the nomination?
And how many are left to get?
And what percentage does that entail?"

You ask many questions.

Perhaps some insights can be found here:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/

Looks like Mr. Trump has a far better chance of hittin' the target than does Mr. Cruz or Mr. Kasich...

[alicewonders]

 

As I've said, I'll support him if he's the nominee, even as I'm sober enough to realize he'll likely lose just as Trump most certainly will.   I think I'm starting to reach a place of acceptance about this campaign, which is why I'm posting less these days.    My optimism of ten months ago is gone.   The world has passed old Reaganites like me by.  My last stand will be doing all I can to defeat Trump and his race-baiting fascism - even if I ultimately have to support Clinton to do so.  No, I won't spit the bit, no matter how bitter the taste.  And then I'll be done - a future with Clinton as President is just too bleak to contemplate.         

The world has passed old Reaganites like me by.  My last stand will be doing all I can to defeat Trump and his race-baiting fascism - even if I ultimately have to support Clinton to do so.

Reagan would not have supported Clinton.  What part of Hillary Clinton would appeal to an "old Reaganite"? 

I'm an old Reaganite and I would not support Hillary Clinton under any circumstance. 

[Bill Cipher]

That's the problem - Cruz is polarizing in his own right.   Kasich remaining in the race will hopefully allow him to garner delegates from bluer states where the electorate has little interest in an uncompromising ideologue who's been quite frank in saying he has little intention to moderate his views to appeal to the center-right.   

As a Kasich supporter myself,  I find kinship with Cruz on most issues, but not all.   I strongly oppose his stances on immigration and how best to fight the war on terror.  On the other hand, I'm intrigued by his tax plan and think he's well suited to encourage economic growth.  But on the broader question of whether he can be a good leader,  his inability to build bridges and forge consensus do not bode well, IMO. 

As I've said, I'll support him if he's the nominee, even as I'm sober enough to realize he'll likely lose just as Trump most certainly will.   I think I'm starting to reach a place of acceptance about this campaign, which is why I'm posting less these days.    My optimism of ten months ago is gone.   The world has passed old Reaganites like me by.  My last stand will be doing all I can to defeat Trump and his race-baiting fascism - even if I ultimately have to support Clinton to do so.  No, I won't spit the bit, no matter how bitter the taste.  And then I'll be done - a future with Clinton as President is just too bleak to contemplate.         

I'm sorry, but I can't quite fathom why you would ever support Clinton.  Trump is just an orange baboon.  Clinton is the real deal:  a crypto-fascist (as are all socialists, ultimately).  I, too, detest Trump and will do what I can to oppose him.  If, however, he gets the nomination, then I will stand silent and will vote for him.  Yeah, I'm a political whore that way.  I will vote for him because I know that the risks of him screwing the Supreme Court, while nontrivial, are still significantly less than the risks of Clinton screwing up the Supreme Court, which risk is 100%.

I think we can survive another four years of third-rate crony capitalism/socialism; I do not think we can survive 20 to 30 years of a hard-left Supreme Court.

[Bill Cipher]

Reagan would not have supported Clinton.  What part of Hillary Clinton would appeal to an "old Reaganite"? 

I'm an old Reaganite and I would not support Hillary Clinton under any circumstance. 

Agreed.  Clinton plays the politics of envy and spite, things that were utterly alien to Reagan.

[musiclady]

There were, I believe 10 Presidents who didn't have the most delegates going into their Conventions...

Those included Rutherford B. Hayes (4th or 5th) and Abraham Lincoln (3rd?).

The idea that nominating a Presidential candidate at the Convention is unprecedented and somehow would be "disenfranchising" any voters is ludicrous, and completely ignoring history.

I'm looking forward to Cleveland.  I like that it's not a 'done deal' going in to the Convention.

This is real American politics.

[musiclady]

I'm sorry, but I can't quite fathom why you would ever support Clinton.  Trump is just an orange baboon.  Clinton is the real deal:  a crypto-fascist (as are all socialists, ultimately).  I, too, detest Trump and will do what I can to oppose him.  If, however, he gets the nomination, then I will stand silent and will vote for him.  Yeah, I'm a political whore that way.  I will vote for him because I know that the risks of him screwing the Supreme Court, while nontrivial, are still significantly less than the risks of Clinton screwing up the Supreme Court, which risk is 100%.

I think we can survive another four years of third-rate crony capitalism/socialism; I do not think we can survive 20 to 30 years of a hard-left Supreme Court.

I'm going to repeat a question I asked you earlier....

What gives you ANY assurance that Donald Trump, Progressive, will nominate anyone but a Progressive to the SC?

Your confidence in him is far greater than mine.  He has to be stopped, or we will be forced to choose between two completely unacceptable candidates.

[Bill Cipher]

I'm going to repeat a question I asked you earlier....

What gives you ANY assurance that Donald Trump, Progressive, will nominate anyone but a Progressive to the SC?

Your confidence in him is far greater than mine.  He has to be stopped, or we will be forced to choose between two completely unacceptable candidates.

Because he isn't ideologically committed the way Clinton is (and forget about Sanders), he will want to get things done - the Trumpettes are not completely wrong about his drive or energy - and to do that he will have to make common cause with the republicans in the Senate (God willing we still control the Senate).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there isn't any risk - if there weren't any risk I'd be more inclined to support Trump - all I'm saying is that whatever the risk is with Trump, it's less than the risk with Clinton because Clinton's nominees will be hard-left, like Kagan or Ginsberg, and because the republicans in the Senate will be more likely to give in to her because they will be hit with relentless pressure from Clinton, from the democrats in the Senate, and from the MSM.  Even if the risk that Trump will turn the Court leftward is 80%, that's still a lot less than 100%, and I'll take those odds if they're the only game in town.  Like I said before, I'm a political whore.

[truth_seeker]

- even if I ultimately have to support Clinton to do so. 

And yet another statement of plans to vote for Clinton.

[A-Lert]

And yet another statement of plans to vote for Clinton.

Clinton, the sexual predator enabler, who attempted to destroy her husbands victims. Absolutely disgusting excuse for a human being.

[Jazzhead]

And yet another statement of plans to vote for Clinton.

No, it's another statement of my disgust for Donald Trump.   

I don't want Hillary Clinton in the White House.  The guy I want - Kasich - is more likely to keep Clinton out of the White House than the guy you want.  Heck, the guy you want is practically guaranteed to give Clinton a wet kiss as she prepares to take the oath of office next January.   I've got poll after poll after poll that says my guy can defeat Clinton.  And you?   

[Jazzhead]

Reagan would not have supported Clinton.  What part of Hillary Clinton would appeal to an "old Reaganite"? 

I'm an old Reaganite and I would not support Hillary Clinton under any circumstance.

For me,  Trump is "any circumstance".   Just too dangerous.  Do I sound like I'm pining to vote for Hillary Clinton?   I want Trump denied the GOP nomination so I can shudder at the thought that things ever got so bad I'd considered voting for Clinton just to prevent a greater evil.   

 

[R4 TrumPence]

One more time, if Cruz doesn't have the delegates going into convention  he won't be getting the nomination. And neither will Trump.

The establishment told us and some didn't listen. Once we get rid of Trump, Cruz will be easy.

While their plan has taken a little longer to work, it is working.
They are making it where Trump and Cruz despise each other and their supporters have all lost their minds!

Everyone should start thinking about the fact that it will take Cruz and Trump hanging on to their delegates together, to stop the GOPe.

Kasich is only there to keep Trump from winning, and there by no one getting the 1237.

The GOPe has promised Kasich something. It could be our nominee.
If he stays in and gets more delegates, it won't look as bad, when they choose him!
Cruz and Trump are not part of the plan. The GOPe hate them!

Even if Trump gets to 1237, they will still try to take it away, but it will be harder.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

[massadvj]

If Trump underperforms in the remaining primaries, and Cruz or Kasich outperform, and there is no clear majority in terms of delegates, then I can easily see how Cruz or Kasich could end up with the nomination.  Momentum going into the convention could matter more than actual performance in the primaries.

If Trump is such a great closer, then let's see him close this out and get his 1237. 

[Jazzhead]

One more time, if Cruz doesn't have the delegates going into convention  he won't be getting the nomination. And neither will Trump.

The establishment told us and some didn't listen. Once we get rid of Trump, Cruz will be easy.

While their plan has taken a little longer to work, it is working.
They are making it where Trump and Cruz despise each other and their supporters have all lost their minds!

Everyone should start thinking about the fact that it will take Cruz and Trump hanging on to their delegates together, to stop the GOPe.

Kasich is only there to keep Trump from winning, and there by no one getting the 1237.

The GOPe has promised Kasich something. It could be our nominee.
If he stays in and gets more delegates, it won't look as bad, when they choose him!
Cruz and Trump are not part of the plan. The GOPe hate them!

Even if Trump gets to 1237, they will still try to take it away, but it will be harder.

I think much of this is too cynical.   The GOP "establishment" is clearly backing Cruz at this point (and not, unfortunately from my perspective, Kasich).    Cruz has recently received endorsements or support from a host of "establishment" figures, including National Review, Romney,  Bush, Graham, and, it appears, even Rubio.   Cruz supporters should feel energized that,  if Trump can be kept from 1237,  Cruz is clearly the most likely nominee.   There's no guarantee, and the facts on the ground can change swiftly,  but Cruz is in a strong position and I just don't buy this conspiracy-stuff that "Cruz is not part of the plan".   There's no question in my mind that Cruz can be the nominee if the process goes beyond the first ballot.  But he has to earn it, by earning the respect and confidence of a majority of delegates.  That's as it should be.   

My hope for Kasich is that his electability will ultimately carry the day - not that he will somehow become the sudden recipient of "establishment" support.  You don't have to be a member of any "establishment" to want to win in November.   At some point as delegates continue to ballot for the nominee,  there's a natural willingness to compromise,  and it's far easier to compromise over electability than ideology.    We can all agree we want to win, can't we?     

[libertybele]

Reagan would not have supported Clinton.  What part of Hillary Clinton would appeal to an "old Reaganite"? 

I'm an old Reaganite and I would not support Hillary Clinton under any circumstance.

 

[Jazzhead]

I would never "support" Clinton, either.  What I'm really trying to do is point out, in the starkest terms I can think of, how dangerous and unstable I consider Trump to be.   That, if it came down to it, and I hope it never does,  that I would have to vote for Clinton in order to deny Trump the nuclear codes. 

[alicewonders]

I would never "support" Clinton, either.  What I'm really trying to do is point out, in the starkest terms I can think of, how dangerous and unstable I consider Trump to be.   That, if it came down to it, and I hope it never does,  that I would have to vote for Clinton in order to deny Trump the nuclear codes.

You keep digging a deeper hole.
 

[Jazzhead]

You keep digging a deeper hole.

How so?   You'll note that my beef with Trump isn't about policy.  I disagree with Cruz on immigration, too - as much as I do Trump - but I'll support Cruz as the nominee.   We're both old Reaganites, so let's be straight with each other.   We're not just electing a conservative or sending a well-deserved message,  we're electing a human being to be our President,  with an ego and a temperament.   One who may adhere to principle or be expedient.  One who may react to criticism with grace, or with bullying.  One who may react to crisis with temper or with impulsiveness. 

   Reagan's vast array of good qualities stands in stark contrast to Trump's megalomania and Caesar-ism.   We old Reaganites were there at the revolution.  But we we also voting for, and supporting, a man.   

[alicewonders]

How so?   You'll note that my beef with Trump isn't about policy.  I disagree with Cruz on immigration, too - as much as I do Trump - but I'll support Cruz as the nominee.   We're both old Reaganites, so let's be straight with each other.   We're not just electing a conservative or sending a well-deserved message,  we're electing a human being to be our President,  with an ego and a temperament.   One who may adhere to principle or be expedient.  One who may react to criticism with grace, or with bullying.  One who may react to crisis with temper or with impulsiveness. 

   Reagan's vast array of good qualities stands in stark contrast to Trump's megalomania and Caesar-ism.   We old Reaganites were there at the revolution.  But we we also voting for, and supporting, a man.

Why don't you tell us Hillary's good points?

[Jazzhead]

Why don't you tell us Hillary's good points?

I am not Hillary's advocate.   A choice between Trump and Clinton is existentially bad.   I do not want that choice.