Skip to main content

What are Cruz, Kasich, and the rest of the GOP thinking?

The GOP's gotten themselves in quite the pickle, haven't they? They started the primary season featuring 17 candidates, and even though "outsiders" like Donald Trump and Ben Carson polled well early, party leaders figured an "establishment" Republican would win out in the end. As time progressed, however, it became increasingly apparent that wasn't likely, and before they knew it, the GOP looked at their options and saw only Ted Cruz and Donald Trump left. Cruz and Trump are liked by the GOP establishment about as much as potholes are liked by smart cars. Many in the GOP have now been forced to go with, as they see it, the better of two evils, and have begrudgingly endorsed Cruz over Trump. In knowing it'll be extremely difficult for either to defeat likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in the November election, however, multiple GOP leaders have discussed ways to overlook the primaries and nominate someone else at the convention this summer. It's reached the point where it appears the party's main goal is to deny Trump the 1,237 delegates needed for the nomination. He's currently just shy of 1,000 and is almost guaranteed to win New Jersey (51 delegates), West Virginia (34 delegates), and California (172 delegates). Even if Trump only wins 50% of the delegates in the latter two states, since New Jersey is winner-take-all, that would give him 1,148 delegates, just 89 short of clinching the nomination. If The Donald gets shut out in Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska, which is quite possible, that would leave him with: Indiana, Oregon, Washington, and New Mexico. With Indiana as a winner-take-all state, if we assume Trump loses the Hoosier state and only wins 25% of the delegates in the other three states, which is quite the underestimation, that would give him a total of 1,172 delegates, just 65 short of what's needed to clinch the party's nomination. Yes, that's a lot of ifs. So, at worst, Trump will be just 65 delegates short of 1,237 when heading to the July convention, far more than either Ted Cruz or John Kasich. That fact hasn't stopped Cruz or Kasich of trying to prevent Trump from clinching the nomination, though. The two candidates recently announced they've decided to partially team up in order to more effectively spread their resources and better prevent Trump from reaching 1,237 delegates. While this alteration in narrative is still in its very early stages, it's gotten off to quite the rocky start, and looks to be on the verge of an epic fail.

I don't care what Cruz and Kasich want to call this "alliance;" seriously, what were they thinking? On the surface, it's not a bad idea. If Kasich leaves the Indiana campaigning to Cruz and Cruz leaves the Oregon and New Mexico campaigning to Kasich, odds would suggest this makes it mathematically more likely Cruz will defeat Trump in Indiana, and likewise, that Kasich will defeat Trump in Oregon and New Mexico. However, to make it public like they did just lends credence to Trump's ongoing claim that the system is rigged. Not only that, but the Cruz and Kasich campaigns have been on anything but the same page since the announcement, which has left many voters bewildered. When Kasich was asked what his voters should do for the Indiana primary, he basically said, "Whatever they want to do," as opposed to, "Well, we're trying to prevent Donald Trump from becoming the nominee, so it's best to vote for Cruz in Indiana and me in Oregon and New Mexico." According to some reports, 22% of Kasich supporters listed Trump as their second option. So, when taking that into consideration, polls currently have Trump winning the Hoosier state by a very slim margin over Cruz. If Trump wins Indiana, he's all but guaranteed the party's nomination. Even if Trump is denied the magical 1,237 mark, however, what does Cruz, Kasich, and the rest of the party expect is going to happen? Donald Trump will have won at least 29 states heading into the convention, received at least 2 million more votes than the second place candidate, and hundreds more delegates. At worst, he'll be 65 delegates short of 1,237. Yes, if he winds up being the party's nominee, it's highly unlikely he'll win the November election. In saying that, though, if the GOP hands the nomination to someone else, many of Trump's supporters will stay home during the election, also making it incredibly difficult for the party's nominee to defeat Clinton. This isn't even taking into account the possibility Trump would run as a 3rd-party candidate to get back at the RNC/GOP establishment. Sure, he may have promised not to do so, but that was before he went into the convention with the most votes, delegates, and states won, only to see someone else get rewarded the nomination. If he ran as a 3rd-party candidate, the GOP nominee would have less chance of winning than I do of winning the lottery without purchasing a ticket. Yeah, like I said at the outset, the GOP has gotten themselves in quite the pickle, haven't they?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"