Looks like Rubio was under the 20% mark in Texas.
I have had some trouble finding coherent results for GOP delegate counts. RealClearPolitics has:
Trump - 285
Cruz - 161
Rubio - 87
Kasich - 25
Carson - 8
Does that look about right?
It’s incomplete. You’ll notice it has only placed 77 of Texas’ 155 delegates. Since a lot are awarded district by district it’ll probably be a little longer to get the exact distribution.
So far Trump has defied all expectations - is this luck or is he proving himself smarter than all of us here?
Is he proving himself a better psychologist and marketer than the collected wisdom of the smartest discussion board on the web?
Given what he has already done, what he has already proven he is capable of in building support, is there any reason to believe that he doesn’t have a diabolically clever plan come the general that it going to trample Hillary into the mud (schlonging her in the process if you will).
In short - is he smarter than he’s getting credit for, and more of a threat than I want to believe?
Will he change how and what he does after the primaries are over and become more mass marketable to a broader swathe of the electorate?
And how will the debates between him and Hillary look?
Ah, thanks. I only noticed that after you pointed it out.
I used to wonder about this too. Now, I don’t think there’s enough time for him to pull in women, minorities, independents or pissed of Republicans to his side. His brash, bullying, big-talkin ways appeal to a very specific voter, and I just don’t see him changing; from everything I’ve read, this is who he is.
If he debates Hillary like he’s handled people in previous debates (notably Fiorina and Kelly), Hillary’s victory will be even more massive. It seems Hillary’s popularity goes up when she appears vulnerable and human. I can’t wait until he starts with the personal attacks on Hillary.
I would say that Trump’s success is much more a poor reflection on the electorate than anything super-clever on his part. I don’t see any sort of diabolical genius on his part, and in fact, we’re in such a climate that the more he flubs up and does things that appear less politically savvy work in his favor by establishing anti-establishment/politician cred.
Just for fun, I decided to calculate the over-all averages that everybody got yesterday. And just to be clear, these are percentages.
Name–mean–median
Trump–34.6–33.5
Rubio—23.1–21.2
Cruz----25.4–24.7
Carson–6.5–6.2
Kasich—8.6–5.3
I like the way you think. 
Thanks, that’s very useful and clear.
I notice that there are still 20 unallocated delegates from Texas in their count, but I assume that it’s mostly due to tallies still being totaled in some Congressional districts.
If I’ve counted right, Bloomberg’s totals show 555 delegates (so far) won yesterday by the various candidates. Again, depending on the accuracy of my counting, that’s Trump 234, Cruz 209, Rubio 90, Kasich 19, and Carson 3 (blame Virginia).
Put in percentage terms, Trump won 42.2% of yesterday’s delegates, Cruz 37.7%, Rubio 16.2%, Kasich 3.4%, and Carson 0.5%.
Comparing with Flyer’s means and medians, the delegate allocations inflated Trump’s strength by about 8 percentage points, Cruz’ by a whopping 12-13 points, Rubio was deflated by 5-7 points, Kasich was cut in half, and Carson was all but disappeared.
The problem for Cruz going forward is that he doesn’t have another Texas up his sleeve.
Here’s a scary thought: Doesn’t a candidate need to win at least 8 states to appear on the first ballot? Delegate count aside, we might be looking at a situation where Trump is the only candidate on the first ballot.
No–Rule 40 was implemented to shut out Paul’s delegates and to make Romney appear largely uncontested. It was targeted at Paul specifically because he was the only guy with delegates who wasn’t willing to “play ball” and suspend his campaign (which releases his delegates, who then typically vote for the nominee–this is why most Republican conventions you have the winner getting 95%+ delegates on the first ballot.)
Party insiders have already said there are a few weeks prior to the convention when there are meetings held to discuss rule changes at the upcoming convention, so Rule 40 could be scrapped it it was going to cause a problem like that.
So… if Trump is on track to easily win the first ballot, and the party insiders change the rules to prevent that, you think there’s any chance that won’t lead to blood in the streets?
I smell a lawsuit. 
I think there is no outcome where Trump is not the nominee and doesn’t go ape shit and run as a third party candidate. Maybe if he had lost overwhelmingly in the primaries he’d just be done with it, but that isn’t likely now.
Can they just change the rules to favor a certain candidate in the middle of the race? “Oh hey, we changed the rules so the second place guy gets the nomination. I guess you’re out, Trump”
If people were rational we wouldn’t have the obesity, drug use, terrible financial planning, distracted driving, etc. problems we have. All it takes is recognizing that fact and appealing to emotion to confound those that view the world through a people are rational lens.
They’d probably be sued. And the Republican party would be seriously wounded. It’s better to let the process play out.
Yeah, at this point beating Trump would not be enough, they need those voters back in the fold. Honestly beating Trump and then getting beat by Hillary would be worse than letting Trump get beat by Hillary. If someone else loses he will just be back next election.
Put it this way:
ALL of Trump’s business dealings would need to be placed in Trust for the duration of his presidency and he would be forbidden by law from taking part in running them.
Do you think, for even a fraction of a second that DONALD TRUMP can abide that?