The Republican Primary Race Is Filling Up

[jamil]

The libertarians are progressive as well. Not my cup of tea though, according to that on-line test, I agree with them 89-94% of the time. I'm not voting for a pro-abortion, pro-illegal immigration, silence on religious liberty party.

Well, technically, the "progressive" libertarians, you know, like a certain INGO member. THOSE are the only progressive ones.

 

[jamil]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to GPIA7R again."

Still. How much rep do I have to spread? Really. How much?

 

[Thor]

I can remember Trump as far back as the early eighties, and as far as I can tell his persona is exactly the same.

Cruz on the other hand changed from fiery constitutionalists, to soft spoken evangelical preacher overnight. It turned me off like a switch; before the race started, it was between Cruz and Paul, but after the politically motivated transformation Cruz was out for me.

As opposed to Trumps what minute of the day is it and which way is the popularity wind blowing changing of his mind/attitudes/whatever sells at the moment? yeah, his persona is still the same and it smells of self aggrandizement.

I still see the fiery constitutionalist in Cruz, the press on the other hand only wants to show the moments of religion because they think it will hurt him. Either way, he has not changed. I'll take the 5 for Freedom as opposed to I wonder what the D is going to do today.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Well, technically, the "progressive" libertarians, you know, like a certain INGO member. THOSE are the only progressive ones.

It's in the party's platform...at least the first two. The last one is based on my observations in the apparent lack of comment by those that cheered at the SCOTUS inventing a Constitutional right out of thin air with Oberfell last year (?) and now that people are being forced to act in contrary to their deeply held beliefs...crickets.

Nope. Not the party for me.

 

[INPatriot]

In my opinion, conservative candidates have always done best and will continue to do best when they stop labeling their platform as conservative and simply articulate the principles of their platform. David Brat, the man that beat Eric Cantor in the 7th VA primary in 2014 ran on six principles:

1. The free enterprise system is the most productive supplier of human needs and economic justice.
2. All individuals are entitled to equal rights, justice and opportunities and should assume their responsibilities as citizens in a free society.
3. Fiscal responsibility and budgetary restraints must be exercised at all levels of government.
4. The Federal Government must preserve individual liberty by observing Constitutional limitations.
5. Peace is best preserved through a strong national defense.
6. Faith in God, as recognized by our Founding Fathers is essential to the moral fibers of the nation.

None of those points can be argued.

The definition of conservatism is not changing. However, Pat Buchanan pointed out, Trump is the vehicle for nationalist populism. As evidenced by party bosses and big government GOP/RNC ignorance, this completely caught the neoconservatives off guard. They still thought the base of the party wanted to tow the line. Any savvy paleoconservative saw this coming. The parties of Big Government and Big Government Lite have created a politically elite class that has led to the popularity of Trump.

 

[nate77]

However, I do think Cruz would likely nominate a more Scalia-like SCOTUS justice than Trump. I mean, Trump did say he would nominate his liberal sister.

I agree to a point, but my faith in the Supreme Court, even supposed conservative justices, was rocked after the Obamacare decision.

Hey maybe when Trump gets in, we can have an apprentice style show to select the next justice, the masses would love that, they might even pay attention to the highest court in the land.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to GPIA7R again."

Still. How much rep do I have to spread? Really. How much?

I'm beyond caring about the outcome of this election, or probably the next couple. I'm just going to take a "come and get them" stance, and try to enjoy life. Play some games.

But all I want out of this... the only thing I want... is for Trump supporters to acknowledge they're being conned. To admit that they see and understand it, and they're OK with it.

Because they are being conned. And because Trump is playing them. Those things we know. I'm endlessly frustrated that they're pretending not to be, or trying to justify it.

I want to see: "Yes, I know we were conned. I know we were played by him. But I still will vote for him over Hillary." I'd be satisfied with that.

 

[chipbennett]

I can respect that. And we can agree to disagree on how effective is your strategy. Seems we've been down this road before though. I just hope you're not "fiercely loyal" as you seem sometimes.

I'm certainly not "fiercely loyal" to Trump; I am mostly reactionary against the rhetoric and vitriol levied toward Trump and his supporters. I can see how those might get conflated/confused, though.

As a man that values pointing out fallacies, you have to know this is one.

I will certainly amend my comments if so. How is it a fallacy?

 

[T.Lex]

I'm using the delegate tool (huhn huhn "tool") here:
RealClearPolitics - RCP Republican Delegate Calculator

Why? From my understanding he just needs to do better, whether that's 1% or 30%, in Indiana to collect a majority of the delegates. Sure he may loose a few congressional districts, but he would still get a vast majority.

He can get a majority with a single vote more. But, the margin of victory is as important as the fact of it. Trump winning 50-20 over Cruz gives him +12. Going to 40-30 is only +6. That may not seem like much, but maintaining that +20 in the proportional states is what Trump will need to win.

Utter and complete nonsensical spin. (I suppose we're safe from the apocalypse for at least another day. )

Whew!

Trump gained over 600K votes, 100-150 delegates, and won five states by 55-65%, exceeding the polling.

On his home turf. Places truly reflective of his East Coast Values. Cruz won TX by nearly 20, and KS by 25. I didn't exactly give him a medal for those wins, either.

Kasich gained under 250K votes, and 10 delegates.

Like I said, he's really the big winner, in the sense of exceeding all expectations.

Indiana is no longer a "must-win" for Trump. NJ, CA, and WV should be more than enough to push him over 1237. Indiana will just be icing on the cake.

It depends on the margins. If he goes +20 over Cruz in the remaining east coast states, and wins Indiana +10, it will come down to CA. A +10 win for Trump there puts him just over the 1237. If it is a +10 margin, I don't think the math gets him there.

Trump may well end up in the 1300-1400 delegate range.

Maybe 1300, but I think 1400 is very generous.

 

[chipbennett]

I want to see: "Yes, I know we were conned. I know we were played by him. But I still will vote for him over Hillary." I'd be satisfied with that.

To be conned, one would have to believe that Trump is something other than what he actually is. I accept Trump for who he is. I still prefer him to Cruz or Kasich. And I will vote for whomever is the "R" candidate in the general election, because Hilary Clinton would be the worst, and most dangerous, president in the history of our country.

 

[Jludo]

The libertarians are progressive as well. Not my cup of tea though, according to that on-line test, I agree with them 89-94% of the time. I'm not voting for a pro-abortion, pro-illegal immigration, silence on religious liberty party.

If abortion and illegal immigration are by far your biggest voting issues then there's the 10 percent you disagree with libertarians and good luck finding a party you fall better in line with.

Silence on religious liberty or not pro christian? Ted Cruz claims to be a 'religious liberties' crusader yet those liberties only seem to apply to the poor persecuted christian majority in this country.

 

[T.Lex]

Here's an interesting graphic from thegatewaypundit charting where Trump may end up:

I think they are attributing a more generous win percentage than prudent, and it still is under 1300.

ETA:
The order of the June 7 primaries is incorrect, too. California will be the last to report, I suspect. So, it could come down to the wire.

 

[chipbennett]

I'm using the delegate tool (huhn huhn "tool") here:
RealClearPolitics - RCP Republican Delegate Calculator


It depends on the margins. If he goes +20 over Cruz in the remaining east coast states, and wins Indiana +10, it will come down to CA. A +10 win for Trump there puts him just over the 1237. If it is a +10 margin, I don't think the math gets him there.



Maybe 1300, but I think 1400 is very generous.

The RCP tool is under-counting Trump delegates, because it appears to be distributing delegates purely proportionally, even where states are winner-take-all, winner-take-most, or WTA+CD WTA. (I only spent a minute or so with it, so maybe that's configurable? I didn't find it.)

Even so, just running all remaining states using the current national polling average puts Trump at just shy of 1400.

 

[T.Lex]

The RCP tool is under-counting Trump delegates, because it appears to be distributing delegates purely proportionally, even where states are winner-take-all, winner-take-most, or WTA+CD WTA. (I only spent a minute or so with it, so maybe that's configurable? I didn't find it.)

Even so, just running all remaining states using the current national polling average puts Trump at just shy of 1400.

Truly, it is one of the least intuitive online tools I've ever seen. I've also seen other issues with it, too, but it is the best (basically only) tool that I've been able to find.

If you're using the national polling for the delegate count, I don't think that is appropriate. What RCP uses to fill in that field doesn't look like what is even reported on their own site. Their own rolling avg has Trump ~40, Cruz ~30, yet in that map, they have Trump ~23, Cruz ~6. Doesn't make any sense.

I use my own SWAG for the percentages, and it is closer.

 

[chipbennett]

Here's an interesting graphic from thegatewaypundit charting where Trump may end up:

I think they are attributing a more generous win percentage than prudent, and it still is under 1300.

ETA:
The order of the June 7 primaries is incorrect, too. California will be the last to report, I suspect. So, it could come down to the wire.

Trump has about 40 of the "unbound" PA delegates, as well (either outright Trump delegates, or pledged to vote for whomever their CD voted for, and Trump swept the PA CDs).

This chart is more of a low-end projection for Trump, I think. Trump is leading in the polls in WTA Montana, and I'm not sure Cruz will take 52 delegates in CA.

(And note that it projects Cruz getting all 36 delegates from Nebraska, who will be chosen at their party's state convention, following a non-binding primary, in which Trump is leading the polls. I'm sure that's accurate, and fully supported by Cruz supporters, because rules.)

Note: I don't know how scientifically sound iSideWith polls are. But I can't find much else for MT and NE. I notice that the numbers appear to be similar/same for MT, NE, and NM. So, maybe they're not accurate.

 

[Landon]

Here's an interesting graphic from thegatewaypundit charting where Trump may end up:

I think they are attributing a more generous win percentage than prudent, and it still is under 1300.

ETA:
The order of the June 7 primaries is incorrect, too. California will be the last to report, I suspect. So, it could come down to the wire.

That chart also does not take into account the 54 unbound delegates from Pennsylvania, Trump is likely to at least pick up a handful of those delegates.

 

[chipbennett]

Project 538 delegate target analysis is pretty useful, too:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/republicans/

They currently have Trump at 97% of his delegate target (956 delegates, target 989), but they are only showing him with 17 out of 40 targeted in PA. Include the Trump "unbound" delegates (~40), and Trump is actually above his delegate target. (And I'm not sure why they wouldn't count such delegates in PA, if they assigned Trump a target of 40 delegates. The only way to get more than 17 in PA is to include unbound. So, I think it is legitimate to count the known unbound delegates who are (unofficially) pledged to Trump.)

 

[T.Lex]

Trump is leading in the polls in WTA Montana, and I'm not sure Cruz will take 52 delegates in CA.

(And note that it projects Cruz getting all 36 delegates from Nebraska, who will be chosen at their party's state convention, following a non-binding primary, in which Trump is leading the polls. I'm sure that's accurate, and fully supported by Cruz supporters, because rules.)

Note: I don't know how scientifically sound iSideWith polls are. But I can't find much else for MT and NE. I notice that the numbers appear to be similar/same for MT, NE, and NM. So, maybe they're not accurate.

Yeah, those online polls are interesting, but kinda like People magazine, not particularly insightful, IMHO. Just looking at the map, I don't see Trump winning those middle states. I could totally be wrong. And, if he does, then yeah - he'll win outright.

It's nice that Indiana is relevant, but, I think it'll really come down to California. As the general so often does.

 

[chipbennett]

That chart also does not take into account the 54 unbound delegates from Pennsylvania, Trump is likely to at least pick up a handful of those delegates.

Actually, Trump will have about 40 of them, between the outright Trump delegates, and those who pledged to support whomever their congressional district voted for. (Trump swept every county and every congressional district of every state last night.)

 

[MisterChester]

If abortion and illegal immigration are by far your biggest voting issues then there's the 10 percent you disagree with libertarians and good luck finding a party you fall better in line with.

Silence on religious liberty or not pro christian? Ted Cruz claims to be a 'religious liberties' crusader yet those liberties only seem to apply to the poor persecuted christian majority in this country.

I cannot buy the argument that Christians are being persecuted in this country. Maybe by bloggers but certainly in no meaningful way. It seems to me that a lot of them think the 1st amendment extends beyond what it really protects. And the supposed small government conservatives need big government to push their morality agenda, go figure.