I am more or less resigned to supporting Cruz. I think Rubio did very well last night and wish he would win the nomination, since he polls well against Clinton, at least, whereas Cruz might have a bit more difficulty in the general.

But it looks like Rubio is basically done. He probably won't win Florida, and his trying to do so (even if he succeeds) could potentially do more harm than good.

Yes, I agree, Cruz's condemnation will be used by the Democrats against him at some point. He is right to say that Trump-style leadership is an irresponsible kind of it; however, he needs to be more careful. It is effectively grounds for an argument that liberty needs to be heavily policed because people can't be trusted with power or independence, which undoes Cruz's whole political philosophy. The Left always does a good job sanctioning and legalizing their own forms of criminality and depravity. I mean in plain: blaming a pseudo-Republican for the actions of people who acted because of their left-wing indoctrination is wrong. He should have used it as grounds to attack the Democrats.

@ Greg,

Exactly, and the media and Democratic spins and lies that Trump has some sort of majority only makes it all the more sickening. What is the majority - overwhelmingly - is the anti-establishment vote in the Republican party (Trump + Cruz). That's true enough. There's also a strong isolationist or at least anti-intervention tone that further unites Trump and Cruz voters. There's also a strong economic change and reform undertone. But there's no doubt they are also united by anti-establishment sentiment; a change to the status quo and a refresh in GOP leadership. That's actually a good deal of unity in Republican voters, which is why, I think, so many establishment Republicans are so alarmed. Cruz's and Trump's delegates could easily become wildcards.

That being said, at the same time, not only the majority of votes but also of delegates are firmly in the anti-Trump camp, notwithstanding the fact Trump has lured in lots of independents, new voters and possibly otherwise more left-wing voters. The anti-trump camp still has more delegates than Trump.

Trump said the Republican party needs to unite behind him. That's true because he didn't win as big as he needed to especially moving forward. He needs 50%+. He came close to that in Fla. (46%) but nowhere near close enough anywhere else (less than or around 40%). All the other votes were effectively anti-Trump. Still, I think New York and Cali might well go strongly Trump but I have a feeling nowhere else will.

At this rate and especially with Rubio out and with Kasich there to pick up and rally more moderate voters, I believe you're going to see Trump halted below the 40% popular vote count and at best evenly split for remaining delegates. This might in turn lead into a huge free agent delegate convention - which really would be a radically anti-establishment and democratic action, something the candidates and the establishment would be terrified of. But it just might produce a surprise candidate who can really unite the right, especially because at the convention beating Hillary and the fear of a Hillary victory will be so apparent. Perhaps even that ideal candidate I described above.

That's might hope at least. I am hoping that the Convention goes free agent, as it were and the delegates find a true candidate who can unify the right, inspire Americans and trump Clinton. A wildcard convention, I think, would actually be extremely good for both American democracy generally but also the Republican party's reputation as such. It would not appear so brokered, bargained and controlled. It would show that American votes translate into and mean something, even dramatic change.

Last edited by Timocrates (3/16/2016 4:50 pm)

What pains me is that Clinton is so beatable, and we are poised to nominate the one candidate who would have so much difficulty beating her, who would have to explain to a debate audience why he donated to her and praised her as the best Secretary of State ever.

Then there are his other faults. But the futility of it is there.

iwpoe wrote:

Who was going to be your candidate against her?

Literally anyone else. Each of Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich does well against Hillary in most run-offs and does not have nearly as dismal favorability among general electorate. Trump gets destroyed in the runoffs by substantial (and growing) margins and is viewed with unprecedented negativity by the general electorate. Runoffs are of limited accuracy at this stage, of course, but they aren't useless, and they consistently show Trump losing against Hillary, hard.

Hillary is a very unpopular candidate among the general electorate, as well as among some Democrats. That is why I say she's "so beatable." But Trump manages to be a worse general election candidate.

Sanders will lose the nomination because he can't get votes from minorities against Clinton. But he fares much better against all of the Republicans because he is not as unacceptable to a general election.

Cruz is an unpopular candidate too, and his numbers look more like Clinton's, which means they're better than Trump. Rubio was certainly a better general election candidate than Cruz, but Cruz looks considerably better than Trump.

One could argue that more people will turnout for Trump. That may be true, but it would take a lot to counteract those terrible numbers. But there are other factors: sure, Hillary doesn't excite Democrats, but not-Trump would excite them, so he is likely to turn out Democrats against him.

Also he risks splitting the party and destroying conservatives down-ballot. I suspect a lot of conservatives will not turn out for Trump. I would vote for a third party in Trump vs. Hillary. Others would stay home, hurting conservatives down-ballot.

I think Trump loses general election unless Hillary gets indicted or there is a terrorist attack the day before the polls open.

iwpoe wrote:

Also, you're thinking too much like a Republican. She's in the same boat he's in: Why have you been friends with him? Why did he fund you? That's not a one-way issue.

I don't think this is as much of an issue for her. Her views change with the Democrats'. His views have mostly turned 180 degrees. It's easy for her: Trump has at various times been pro-choice, soft on immigration, pro-national healthcare, etc.

The one issue that could be a little difficult for her is cronyism. People don't like corporations financing politicians. At some of the debates, Trump has been charged for trying to get political favors. (It's actually a funny exchange. Cruz postures that he is generously allowing that Trump isn't aiming at political favors, so Trump must have been in ideological sympathy with all of the liberals he has supported. But Trump says, No, no, it was for political favors.) For some reason his supporters like that he is not bought and paid for even though he buys and pays for.

But I really doubt that will hurt Clinton. She has gotten out of taking much flak for her Goldman Sachs speeches, and this is much smaller in magnitude.