Kasich Out

[Veritas]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...37c520-1163-11e6-93ae-50921721165d_story.html

 

[Veritas]

Kasich had one goal: get Cruz out. Had he left the race earlier, it's remotely possible that some of his votes could have gone Cruz's way. Never Trump Cruzers should be angry with Kasich.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Kasich had one goal: get Cruz out. Had he left the race earlier, it's remotely possible that some of his votes could have gone Cruz's way. Never Trump Cruzers should be angry with Kasich.

or people could vote third party. If enough people vote third party ( particularly the Liberartains the largest third party they may be able to at least force neither major party enough votes.

 

[Albion]

I see it a bit differently, Veritas. To me, Kasich's hope was to have Cruz get enough delegates to send the convention to a second ballot when, presumably, some of Trump's support would drift away and give an opening to Kasich. Cruz leaving the race, therefore, doomed the hopes of that happening, so Kasich had no prospect of keeping Trump from the 1237 he needs, not even through some Rules Committee hijinks.

Now the party can only unite behind the front runner, even if some #NeverTrump types continue to sulk. I also think Kasich may retain an interest in the VP nomination, despite what he says about that. Staying in for no particular purpose would also eliminate that possibility by making him appear to be doing it only to spite Trump.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I see it a bit differently, Veritas. To me, Kasich's hope was to have Cruz get enough delegates to send the convention to a second ballot when, presumably, some of Trump's support would drift away and give an opening to Kasich. Cruz leaving the race, therefore, doomed the hopes of that happening, so Kasich had no prospect of keeping Trump from the 1237 he needs, not even through some Rules Committee hijinks.

Now the party can only unite behind the front runner, even if some #NeverTrump types continue to sulk. I also think Kasich may retain an interest in the VP nomination, despite what he says about that. Staying in for no particular purpose would also eliminate that possibility by making him appear to be doing it only to spite Trump.

or people could try to force it to where there is no single person who gets the majority of the votes or at the very least maybe have a couple of states go third party. What this would do is maybe set up to where people realize that the two party system is not effective.

 

[Veritas]

I see it a bit differently, Veritas. To me, Kasich's hope was to have Cruz get enough delegates to send the convention to a second ballot when, presumably, some of Trump's support would drift away and give an opening to Kasich. Cruz leaving the race, therefore, doomed the hopes of that happening, so Kasich had no prospect of keeping Trump from the 1237 he needs, not even through some Rules Committee hijinks.

Now the party can only unite behind the front runner, even if some #NeverTrump types continue to sulk. I also think Kasich may retain an interest in the VP nomination, despite what he says about that. Staying in for no particular purpose would also eliminate that possibility by making him appear to be doing it only to spite Trump.

You could be right. I'm going by Twitter chatter. In any event, I think as we progress through the campaign season the NeverTrumpers will slowly come around. Surely they can't be so hateful of Trump to realize that not voting (or Heaven forbid, voting FOR Hillary) will lead to disaster. I think Trump will run the country better than he ran his campaign. I think he's a fighter but once he's won, will soften up and get to the work of fixing the mess we're in. IMO.

 

[Albion]

or people could try to force it to where there is no single person who gets the majority of the votes or at the very least maybe have a couple of states go third party. .

But it is virtually impossible after Indiana for Trump NOT to get the majority of the votes. That realization is what made the decision for both Cruz and Kasich.

 

[dogs4thewin]

You could be right. I'm going by Twitter chatter. In any event, I think as we progress through the campaign season the NeverTrumpers will slowly come around. Surely they can't be so hateful of Trump to realize that not voting (or Heaven forbid, voting FOR Hillary) will lead to disaster. I think Trump will run the country better than he ran his campaign. I think he's a fighter but once he's won, will soften up and get to the work of fixing the mess we're in. IMO.

I guess it depends on why they hate Trump.

 

[dogs4thewin]

But it is virtually impossible after Indiana for Trump NOT to get the majority of the votes. That realization is what made the decision for both Cruz and Kasich.

no no I meant in the general election past the prarlies.

 

[mark46]

or people could try to force it to where there is no single person who gets the majority of the votes or at the very least maybe have a couple of states go third party. What this would do is maybe set up to where people realize that the two party system is not effective.

We have had many presidents who didn't get a majority of the popular vote. Sometimes, the president doesn't even get more popular votes that his opponent. Gore got more votes than George Bush.

What matter is electoral votes.

And yes, 3rd parties have won states. I believe the last time was Wallace in 1968.

I think that the likelihood of a 3rd party winning a state this year is exactly zero. Also, if a significant number of voters moved from Republican to Libertarian, Clinton would win in a landslide.

 

[dogs4thewin]

We have had many presidents who didn't get a majority of the popular vote. Sometimes, the president doesn't even get more popular votes that his opponent. Gore got more votes than George Bush.

What matter is electoral votes.

And yes, 3rd parties have won states. I believe the last time was Wallace in 1968.

I think that the likelihood of a 3rd party winning a state this year is exactly zero. Also, if a significant number of voters moved from Republican to Libertarian, Clinton would win in a landslide.

Why? would Clinton win just because people were voting for what happens to be largest third party.

 

[Albion]

You could be right. I'm going by Twitter chatter. In any event, I think as we progress through the campaign season the NeverTrumpers will slowly come around. Surely they can't be so hateful of Trump to realize that not voting (or Heaven forbid, voting FOR Hillary) will lead to disaster. I think Trump will run the country better than he ran his campaign. I think he's a fighter but once he's won, will soften up and get to the work of fixing the mess we're in. IMO.

Can't disagree with that. There are already some prominent NeverTrumpers who have changed their tune. More are certain to follow. Being the more established pols in the Republican Party, they have to know that to do otherwise is not going to serve them well down the road.

I have a suspicion that, already, the Conservative media and publications that thought they'd destroy Trump in the womb will pay a terrific price now. That's because many Trump supporters ARE Conservatives and will not ever again feel a connection to the silk-stocking, establishment types who run the National Review, for instance, or are editorialists, etc. for the cable networks and newspaper syndicates.

To me, they stood for something that once was important, but have not seen that as things change in the world, true Conservatism does not take its stand on old textbook theories while Rome burns. That's Reactionary politics, not Conservatism.

 

[Albion]

Why? would Clinton win just because people were voting for what happens to be largest third party.

Well, this won't happen. The Libertarian Party does not draw overwhelming from disaffected Republicans, although that's what Democrats love to think. Any surge in Libertarian votes this year will come, more or less equally, from both parties and that will make the switch be of nearly no consequence...except for the Libertarians. In addition, many Sanders voters are already talking of going to Jill Stein of the Green Party--which is the party most aligned with Sanders' ideas. That's something not to be overlooked, particularly when the idea of anti-Trump Republicans switching is compared with it. That would be purely a protest vote, since these people are not really in step with Libertarianism.

 

[mark46]

Can't disagree with that. There are already some prominent NeverTrumpers who have changed their tune. More are certain to follow. Being the more established pols in the Republican Party, they have to know that to do otherwise is not going to serve them well down the road.

I have a suspicion that, already, the Conservative media and publications that thought they'd destroy Trump in the womb will pay a terrific price now. That's because many Trump supporters ARE Conservatives and will not ever again feel a connection to the silk-stocking, establishment types who run the National Review, for instance, or are editorialists, etc. for the cable networks and newspaper syndicates.

To me, they stood for something that once was important, but have not seen that as things change in the world, true Conservatism does not take its stand on old textbook theories while Rome burns. That's Reactionary politics, not Conservatism.

If Wall Street Republicans become Democrats in the next few years, then the Democratic Party will be the majority for decades to come.

This would complete the movements since 1965, when the Southern states rights folks moved to the Republican Party, and the liberals and moderates began to be kicked out.

Before this year, the Republican Party was the party of free trade, with people like Clinton and Obama reluctantly supporting free trade agreements. If the Republicans give this up, they will pick up some Sanders folk, and the re-allignement will be complete.

 

[mark46]

Well, this won't happen. The Libertarian Party does not draw overwhelming from disaffected Republicans, although that's what Democrats love to think. Any surge in Libertarian votes this year will come, more or less equally, from both parties and that will make the switch be of nearly no consequence...except for the Libertarians. In addition, many Sanders voters are already talking of going to Jill Stein of the Green Party--which is the party most aligned with Sanders' ideas. That's something not to be overlooked, particularly when the idea of anti-Trump Republicans switching is compared with it. That would be purely a protest vote, since these people are not really in step with Libertarianism.

I agree that the Green Party could make the difference in a close election. After all, the green Party helped elect George Bush, making the difference in Florida, NH and Wisconsin. I believe that any one of these moving would have made the difference.

BTW, the Green Party could choose only to run in clearly liberal states. Then the protest vote would be much, much higher, since they would not be trying to elect the Republican.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Well, this won't happen. The Libertarian Party does not draw overwhelming from disaffected Republicans, although that's what Democrats love to think. Any surge in Libertarian votes this year will come, more or less equally, from both parties and that will make the switch be of nearly no consequence...except for the Libertarians. In addition, many Sanders voters are already talking of going to Jill Stein of the Green Party--which is the party most aligned with Sanders' ideas. That's something not to be overlooked, particularly when the idea of anti-Trump Republicans switching is compared with it. That would be purely a protest vote, since these people are not really in step with Libertarianism.

but that would be one way to well protest. A way to tell the leaders that look we are not happy with EITHER major party because all not voting does is not allow one's voice to be heard and it also makes it hard for the parties to know because there are plenty of reasons (none good) but plenty of reasons that people may choose not to vote, but by voting for a third party it lets the leaders know we are not happy with EITHER of you.

 

[Albion]

no no I meant in the general election past the prarlies.

Ah hah. Yes, I thought that might be the case.

The problem there is that it's so difficult to get a third party up and running at this stage of the game that it's almost certain not to succeed. And those third parties that have had some success in the past were driven by some potent idea that the two major parties weren't addressing. In this instance, however, the only purpose for that third party would be the temporary issue of "We don't like Trump." The average voter--as opposed to the Republican big wigs behind the idea--aren't going to be inspired by that.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Ah hah. Yes, I thought that might be the case.

The problem there is that it's so difficult to get a third party up and running at this stage of the game that it's almost certain not to succeed. And those third parties that have had some success in the past were driven by some potent idea that the two major parties weren't addressing. In this instance, however, the only purpose for that third party would be the temporary issue of "We don't like Trump." The average voter--as opposed to the Republican big wigs behind the idea--aren't going to be inspired by that.

I guess I will be a right-winger then.

 

[Albion]

I agree that the Green Party could make the difference in a close election. After all, the green Party helped elect George Bush, making the difference in Florida, NH and Wisconsin. I believe that any one of these moving would have made the difference.

BTW, the Green Party could choose only to run in clearly liberal states. Then the protest vote would be much, much higher, since they would not be trying to elect the Republican.

I can't imagine the Green Party or any of the third parties that have had some success in getting on the ballots of most states (at great cost and effort) voluntarily choosing not to let all of them to place on their state ballots the party's candidate for the top of the ticket.

 

[Albion]

but that would be one way to well protest. A way to tell the leaders that look we are not happy with EITHER major party because all not voting does is not allow one's voice to be heard and it also makes it hard for the parties to know because there are plenty of reasons (none good) but plenty of reasons that people may choose not to vote, but by voting for a third party it lets the leaders know we are not happy with EITHER of you.

It's much too complicated, costly, and controversial. Much more likely would be for these people to sit on their hands during the campaign or put all their effort into the Congressional races.