The entire goal is to prevent Trump from getting a majority of first-ballot delegates. It’s unlikely that Cruz will be able to. Once that happens, the party functionaries who were chosen as delegates can choose anyone. So it’s not about helping Cruz at all, only in name.
If you feel that those things are on par with “evangelical guy” and “strict constitutionalist” guy. You making that case?
Of which Cruz’s father is certainly one and of which Cruz himself most likely is one.
No, it’s more like you have millions of Muslims who don’t care about Sharia Law and a few who do. Cruz is in the category of those who do.
Here’s his dad spouting dominionist views from the pulpit.
Aside from that he has intentionally appeared at rallies with the Kill The Gays preacher and as the article I already linked to shows, he features extremists in his campaign.
He said he was a Christian first and an American second.
If you don’t think that a guy who was raised by a dominionist, who was told he was “anointed by God” by that dominionist, who surrounds himself with the likes of David Barton, Larry Huch and who seeks the endorsements of Mike Bickle (who feels that Hitler was sent by God to kill the Jews) and Bob Vander Plaats (who praised Russian President Vladimir Putin for his anti-gay policies), is a dominionist himself then you are naive.
I find it amusing the OP thinks TRUMP will lose Arizona (the most anti-immigrant state in the Union) and California (considering the Golden State elected a proto-Donald a decade ago and I’m pretty sure would rather elect a billionaire nativist over the reactionary Canadian).
Indeed, this is the land of Joe Arapio after all.
However, looking forward one should not forget that Bill Clinton did win Arizona in the general election, so while it will be hard to flip the state to blue it is not completely out of the possible to see most of the women, minorities, moderate republicans and independents making it so in the general election for Hillary.
This thread is about the Republican primaries not looking forward to the general election. That’s what the OP an Qin’s response are about, not whether Trump will take it against Hilary.
That is why I said “looking forward” I was replying to the comment of “most anti-immigrant state in the union”, there are some changes going on that point to changes coming about, anti-imigrants are not the only people living here, but that is not the only reason why people here will vote.
http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2015/05/08/3656918/arizona-dreamer-in-state-tuition/
And indeed, the comment I made was also acknowledging that Trump is the most likely one to win Arizona in the Republican primary.
As of now, Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com - who has a pretty good track record of these things even regarding primaries and caucuses that are notoriously hard to poll (Michigne Democratic Primary notwithstanding) - says that Donalt has an 84% chance of winning the Arizona Primary (the last two polls there, both from this month, show him up by 14 and 12 points) and they’re not making a prediction for California yet because there isn’t enough recent polling however the most recent poll they consider was done March 9-10 and is says
[QUOTE=California Political Review]
When matched with his three other contenders: Ted Cruz, John Kasich, and Marco Rubio, Donald wins the “closed” California Republican primary with 38.3% of the GOP vote, compared to 22.4% for Cruz, 19.7% for Kasich, and 10.1% for Rubio. Voters registering an “undecided” opinion were 9.6%. Donald’s almost 16% advantage over Cruz is statistically significant and well above the margin of error of the poll, which is 4.8%. The poll results demonstrate that Donald’s standing among Republicans in the Golden State has grown significantly in the last two months.
[/QUOTE]
I think Cruz and Trump will tie each other and there will be a brokered convention where the GOP will nominate whoever they want Kasich, Trump, Mitch. If I’m wrong and Trump wins nomination he loses by 80% to Hillary because he has insulted more than half the population, the Hispanics, Latinos, the Pope and Catholics, Feminists, plus the diehard Dems will not jump party for him, this only leaves the angry whites and assorted crazy minorities to vote for him and that’s only 20% of the population that would vote for him. If Kasich or Cruz wins GOP will have lost the angry white republicans that where going to vote for Trump, so they will lose too. Its a lose, lose situation for republicans.
Figure another 10-15% who are R’s that will hold their noses and vote for him anyway, to try to save the party (and because they’d shoot themselves in the head before they voted for a Dem), and another 5% crazies and statistical error. I’m guessing around a 60-40 landslide in a Clinton-Trump general election. Electoral votes will probably be a slightly different story, but he still won’t get near what he needs to win.
You are right. Arizona may not be the most “anti-immigrant” state in the sense of the percentage of population holding nativist views but it certainly is the state where immigration related issues and consquently nativist politics are most prominent and strongest.
It’s not difficult to predict California’s outcome by its demographic composition and nature. TRUMP has been racking up great margins in large blue states and this will be doubly true in California where the forces of the Christian Right are rather weak but at the same time California white Republicans are often strongly illegal immigration (see Prop 187)
You underestimate the proportion of the white underclass as percentage of the population, including its female portion which is almost as pro-TRUMP as their male cohorts. Not to mention that most Catholics could care less about the Pope in terms of secular politics-the “ship already sailed” so to speak when the overwhelmingly Catholic population of Italy hailed the unification of their country with the invasion of the Papal States in 1870. TRUMP easily has a floor of at least 46-47% of the popular vote if not higher.
The question is not how many there are but whether or not come election day they will indeed suddenly turnout in numbers they never had before and overwhelmingly to Trump vs how much counter impact there is in higher educated White voters and to some lesser degree Hispanic and even Asian voters. Remember Mitt got near 47% and that was an election that many thought would be close.
A floor of 44 maybe. Unfortunately the ceiling may be 50.5 … enough to win.
The theory I have that there are higher numbers of minority voters and not enough white voters was partially inspired by the professional gambling odds, that supposedly been more accurate accurate than the polls at predicting elections. Those odds are 20% Trump and 70% Hillary to win. I have been trying was trying to substantiate the numbers by race, ethnicity, demographics etc… I’ve also read other theories that might explain why professional gambling odds are so high for Hillary to win… There are rumors that if Trump wins the republicans may throw the election by running a third party against republican against Trump, this would split the vote to cause Hillary to win.
(I think I’m going to post this as a question, I wonder what the chances are…?)
Hope you didn’t bet on it. He is going to lose by 25 points or so.
Trump got destroyed in Utah. Cruz beat him 69% to 14.4%. Even Kasich beat Trump.
Maybe the Mittster still has some Mormon mojo after all.
It was also completely expected.
Yeah, and, looking at that, it seems that both Cruz and Trump outperformed their projections and Kasich severely underperformed. (For those who don’t feel like clicking, fivethirtyeight’s average projection was Cruz 59.9%, Kasich 30.3%, Trump 9.9%).
And the all important momentum factor builds for the Draft Romney! movement…
Yeah, not likely. But he’d be miles better than any of these candidates.
Is it safe to say that the OP is wrong?
This came up in, I think, the Trump Pit Thread – Mormon missionaries have more success evangelizing abroad than in the U.S., and especially in Latin America, so they don’t like Trump’s hardline anti-immigrant stance.