I commend the OP on his detailed analysis, and I do think we’re stuck with either Cruz or Trump at this point. But Trump has broken so many rules and dodged so many bullets, that I would hesitate at this point to make a prediction where he loses. Unless… he really does not want to win and decides to self-destruct.
Agree.
I was taking it off of Real Clear Politics. Thanks for the clarification. I don’t think it will make a difference in Ohio, where Kasich is in play, but it might well be the difference in giving Missouri to Trump over Cruz.
Don’t see the point of your quote: nobody’s saying that Trump is going to turn Massachusetts to the Pubs. But 20,000 people switching parties in a race where 600,000 people voted is pretty significant. In Virginia, fully 6% of the people voting in the GOP primary were Democrats; Trump won by 3%.
Your theory is unlikely, IMO, given that the race on the Democratic side is at least somewhat competitive. But irrelevant even if true; the point about most states from here on out being closed still holds.
Nitpick: I’m not saying he is collapsing, I’m saying he’s going to collapse after March 15. Even more properly, I’m saying that the structural limitations of his campaign and appeal will begin to show after that.
And as** Leaper** says, you can’t ignore his incendiary words. They’re the root of his appeal to angry and excluded blue-collars, his whole ethos as a politician. But they’re also toxic to everyone else.
Trump’s four biggest margins of victory have been in Massachusetts, Nevada, Alabama and New Hampshire. He’s won 3 of 4 in New England. Your theory is at odds with reality.
Indeed, this is another media cliche/blind spot: the tendency to think of north/south as the only important regional division in American politics. East/West matters, too, and will be the difference for Cruz in both the primary and the general. A huge part of Cruz’s political brand is strict adherence to the Constitution, and that’s very appealing in rural/agrarian western states that are wary of Washington. He will win the nomination despite only carrying two or three states east of the Mississippi in the primary, and do well in swing states like Colorado, Iowa, and New Mexico in the general.
No, Cruz is not very likable. But many general election voters have never seen or heard of him before, whereas they have disliked Hillary for 25 years. Cruz is at least a new, fresh person to dislike.
Reliant, no. But they have been a source of support. I checked on Virginia, and when I do the algebra to find out the missing data in CNN’s exit poll, I found that 61,496 Democrats crossed the line, and 38% of them voted for Trump. That’s not a decisive number, and TBH it’s lower than I expected, but it is slightly higher than his number of Pubs and Independants. (Given the record turnout, it also suggests that there’s"anti-Trump" voters crossing).
Arkansas and Vermont are two more states where the number of Democrats crossing over to vote in the GOP primary was well over Trump’s margin of victory, but that’s too much math for me to do.
In any event, while I may have overestimated the number of actual registered Democrats going for him, I think the pattern still holds: the states with lots of blue-collar whites, a historically Democratic group that is Trump’s base of support, will have less and less influence on the actual delegate count as time goes on. e.g. Trump will win 3 of 4 states this Tuesday, including Michigan, but his gain in the delegate count will be minimal.
Cruz won’t be sinking. He won’t have the 1,237 needed for the nomination, but he will have over 900 and all the momentum. Given that Trump will also have something like 800-1000, that means Rubio/Kasich will only have in the neighborhood of 500. The leadership can try to sell Rubio or whomever all they want, but those delegates are human beings with their own ideas, and many of them hate the “establishment.” Unless Priebus and McConnell are going around with a really, really big wad of cash and/or a shotgun, you won’t get 800 of them to switch over to Rubio, and it’s pretty hard to think of any outsider who would be more appealing as unity candidate. Between Trump and Rubio, Cruz IS the compromise. In the end, the establishment’s best bet to keep control of the party is to nominate Cruz and hope he loses.
Obviously, there’s always the random occurrence (Cruz caught in bed with a duck, Trump saving a family from a burning house).
Barring that, two main ways: One is what I outlined in scenario #3 – Rubio wins Florida and doesn’t drop out (or for that matter, loses, but stays in and somehow stays relevant),Trump continues to win states with a 45/35/20 type split. If that holds through all the way to the end, he could get to 1237. Certainly if he takes California or Pennsylvania that way, he would. Odds on that are <5%, IMO. I can’t see a motivation for Rubio doing that.
The other is that I’m simply wrong in some of my predictions: there isn’t recent polling for Arizona or Indiana, and in other important states the whole analysis is very much dependent on my reading of what will happen in a two-man-race that doesn’t yet exist. e.g. in critical Pennsylvania, the most recent poll is Trump 21%, Cruz 16%, Rubio/Kasich/Carson/undecided 63. Especially given that thus far Trump has done very poorly with late deciders, in a two-man race I like Cruz’ chances of getting to 51% better than Trump’s. Chance that I’m wrong on enough of these calls that Trump gets to 1237, even if Rubio does drop out? 20%.
Kasich is in the same position as Rubio. Unless he does something VERY dramatic by March 15th, like say win Ohio, Michigan AND Illinois, it’s going to be painfully obvious that he has no possible path to victory (if it’s not already; I suspect he already knows he’s only a spoiler). He’s at 10% or less in all the post 3/15 states, and he sure isn’t going to grow that as some kind of protest candidate. And given that 15 of 21 contests after 3/15 are winner-take-all, the number of delegates he’d be getting would indeed be very small. I hope he has more self-respect than to hang on for a month trying to snag a single delegate from Oregon.
This is a textbook example of the left-right axis myth referred to in the OP. Trump is the guy calling for a 40 foot wall, a ban on Muslims, and ordering US troops to commit war crimes, to say nothing of mocking the handicapped, using profanity, etc. This is your idea of a “moderate?” The only way you get there assuming that political preferences can be plotted in a strict linear way: support Planned Parenthood, three steps left; insulting Obama, one step right; etc.
Trump is an extreme conservative on immigration, the candidate most willing to ignore sensitivities in talking about race/religion/gender, as well as the one with the most assertive and bellicose international stance. He’s also an outright liberal on most social issues, doesn’t sound like he’s any kind of a budget or deficit hawk, and takes pride in an exceptionally abrasive and crude personal style. Which parts of that mix sound like Kasich to you?
Some of his supporters will go Trump, some will go Hillary, some will stay home, and some will go Cruz. In this race there aren’t that many of them outside of Ohio, so it won’t matter much anyway.
Having looked at the results from last night, I am more confident in the predictions. Cruz easily won the actual delegate count 69-53. Louisiana and especially Kentucky should be prime territory for Trump, and he barely won them. The numbers still say that it will be hard for Cruz to get to the 1237 needed to win the nomination outright, but it’s pretty easy to create an optimistic-but-not crazy scenario where Cruz goes to the convention with well over 1000 delegates.
Indeed, in the OP I’d failed to consider scenario #4: Cruz wins the New York state primary on 4/19. I don’t think he will, but I wouldn’t be shocked. And if it does, pretty obviously the race is over.
Yeah, maybe he’ll say something ridiculous that will turn off his fan base. I can’t imagine what such a comment could even possibly be! He would basically have to say something reasonable.
The idea that lower turnout in the Democratic and higher in the Republican primaries means that people are crossing over is not well proven. It’s just as likely that you have higher turnout because the Republican race is more contentious while the Democratic race isn’t. If Clinton is going to win your state easily, you just don’t ahve any reason to vote.
The problem with Democrats voting Trump is that Democrats generally do not buy into what Trump is selling. While the Democratic Party isn’t completely liberal, they do tend to like Obamacare and are pro-amnesty. While there is an extreme left wing that hates Islam, they don’t support anything else Trump is selling. Democrats are also usually pro-choice.
So it would have to be a SlackerInc-style vote: picking him because they think either Democrat will wipe the floor with him. This seems unlikely to be a large part of his support, given the lack people saying they did this. And, I would expect this number to be getting lower the more people see Trump defying expectations, yet we don’t see a significant downward trend in his votes.
Naw, Trump is bringing in a lot of disaffected people. People who wouldn’t normally vote in the primary. His media antics brought in a lot more coverage of the primaries, and he brought in a bunch of very angry people by being an asshole to the right people and getting away with it. He used his skills as a showman to pull on exactly those dark impulses in all of us.
Before, the people voting in the primaries were mostly establishment supporters. Only the die-hard Republicans voted in primaries. But not this year. Not when you can pull in die-hard authoritarians.
Of course, because it does not fit into your narrative.
And in 2008 on several states the Republicans voted more than the Democrats in the primaries, The Republican still lost in those states in the General election and the election too.
But you started claiming that a major reason for Trump’s success is “because he is attracting Democrats to the GOP primaries.” Not much of that then when reading in full the article that you cited.
Trump having fifty more than Cruz, or fifty less, would make all the difference. This isn’t like in the old days, when most states sent uncommitted delegates. Now people expect the results of the primaries to be fully respected, meaning that the candidate with the most elected delegates gets the nomination. Anything else would be seen by primary voters for the screwed-over candidate as disrespect of their vote, and thus a reason to desert the GOP for good.
By contrast, the only damage, to the party, of a weak candidate, is the loss of one election, as in 1964 and 1972. In both cases, the party with the weak nominee bounced right back.
I agree that Cruz did well yesterday. But the results tonight were 23 delegates to Rubio, zero to the others. There are three more months to go in this mess. It’s quite possible, even likely, that momentum will shift between candidates several times. The situation is just too complex for confident predictions.
Hope not, just because, once again, my Pennsylvania (4/26) primary becomes meaningless :eek:
No, because it’s irrelevant to my narrative. I suggested that part of Trump’s success in the GOP primary could be due to blue-collar Democrats crossing over for him, and have provided cites that lend support for that.
You provided a quote that said that that any such switch would not make Massachusetts go for the Republicans in the general. That has no connection to the OP, which argues that while Trump may be attracting such support now, he will not be the nominee. Your response challenged a claim that was not made.
I have provided cites that in several states, 6% of the people voting in the GOP primary were Democrats. That seems like an awfully high number to me, but if I am wrong, I will consider my ignorance fought.
Uh. that came from your cite and what it told us was that:
I think you are just following the numbers of all the people voting in the primary, and falling for a similar talking point that had Trump winning the Hispanic vote in Nevada. Problem was that as a journal from Nevada explained the 45% vote of Hispanics represented actually less than 3000 Hispanics voting for Trump.
You can see then that if a total of 4 Hispanics had voted for Trump an only 10 had done so the headline would be that Trump won 40% of those voters.
This. The idea of a true “brokered” convention is inconceivable to the rank and file electorate of the United States. The person who won the primaries IS the nominee. The People have spoken. Anything else is anathema.
The only debate is who won the primaries. There’s room for three methods of keeping score: total delegates per each states’ rules, total popular votes, and total states won. Obviously only the former is the official scorecard but if that shows the “wrong” result and the others show a righter result there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth before the official method is grudgingly accepted.
Like it or not, 60 years of primary-based nominee selection has reduced to role of the convention to the coronation that IIRC **Exapno Mapcase **called it a few threads ago.
The smart thing for the R leadership to do is crown whoever has the most delegates and promise to themselves to be a lot smarter 4 years from now. And for the party to then concentrate on getting the biggest possible R majority in Congress & leave whichever of Trump / Cruz it is to get elected on the backs of their PACs.
A decision to get cute with procedural gamesmanship at the convention could easily result in a replay of the 1968 Chicago D convention. Which will do a lot of long-term harm to the R brand. The vid of a mixed-race police force busting heads of an all-white all-working class mob will be electrifying.
The Onion predicted Trump right after the 2012 election.
Speaking seriously, George Lakoff on the Trump phenomenon.
Essentially, Trump voters are authoritarian in outlook.
Cruz doesn’t quite match-up to those voters the way Trump does.
Cruz is the USA’s version of an Iranian Shiite Imam living by his own version of Sharia Law. He’s an absolutist. Unwilling to compromise. Historically, at least, American voters have instinctually shied away from such guys.
Some sort of coalition might be able to block Trump before the convention, but the nominee won’t be Cruz. His support will wane to near nothing after a vote or two in Cleveland. Paul Ryan, Kasich, even Rubio might get it at a brokered convention, but not Cruz.
Ran out of edit time I meant to say on the last paragraph that:
You can see then that if a total of 4 Hispanics had voted for Trump and only 10 had done so for all Republicans that the headline would be very similar, that Trump won 40% of those voters.
The Republican Establishment has no idea of what a Trump platform would look like, except that it would be something the Republican senatorial candidates are not going to like. Plus, the candidate has a big say in the party machinery for the next four years - the RNC execs can expect to hear “You’re Fired!” especially with their current anti-Trump moves.
If they succeed in a brokered convention and denying Trump the nomination, I hope they don’t expect Trump to roll over and play Christie. It is not clear that he could start a third party campaign that late, but he sure would have the ear of the media to take shots at Cruz.
Only Cruz getting a majority of delegates might shut Trump up - and that ain’t going to happen.
The size of the Democratic party in Massachusetts is not relevant to the GOP primary there. If .01% of the population of China were to suddenly relocate, China would not be much impacted. But if they moved to Alaska, Alaska would be.
I’m only saying that over the point I was making, but it is clear that you have to distract from the fact that your cite does not say 6% as you claimed.
Eh, we’ll have to agree to disagree (and maybe we’ll get to find out). I think in general you’re right, and if it was, say Jeb Bush 975 and John Kasich 925 (or vice versa), that would be a different kettle of fish. But I think the nature of Trump makes a difference; he is seen as utterly toxic in the general, and there is a widespread perception that he’s not a “real” Republican and/or conservative. The people who went for Rubio or Kasich before it became a two-man race may feel like they should get a second chance. We have no idea how people now will feel about such a circumstance because it hasn’t happened in so long.
And from the standpoint of the GOP establishment, the Trump people storming out in anger could well be a good thing in the long run. If Trump is going to run third party, all the more reason to let Cruz get the nomination (and lose in the general). Rubio is young and could come back in 2020 against Hillary.
Ah, then there’s the disconnect. I wasn’t referring to that article, I referring to this poll from Virginia linked in post #22.
I was wrong in saying that I had cited multiple states, however; let me fix that.
Massachusetts 5%
Arkansas 5%
Georgia 5%
Vermont 6%
On the other hand,
So maybe it’s nothing. As I said, I don’t know what normal is.
While the party affiliation does show that 5% democrat number on the table for the Republicans, the issue here is that all the values under that entry are of the n/a variety, as in: not any or not available for Trump or all other Republican candidates. Not sure how we can use that regarding the OP subject.
This was already discussed upthread.
If you are referring to the “fully 6% of the people voting in the GOP primary were Democrats; Trump won by 3%.” The point here was that you can not do that, because one could also say that the Democrats also voted for Cruz or Rubio too and then in the end more Republicans did vote for Trump. IIUC the tables from CNN do point to some Democrats voting for Republicans but the N/A points to the breakdown of the Democrats votes to the Republicans as not being counted, and I have to say that is odd.
Again, until we find how many democrats actually voted for Trump what you are saying here is mostly a guess.
I just unfortunately saw the viral video where Cruz ate a booger off his lip during the republican debate, I think its over for him.