Here’s why Indiana matters

As described in an earlier post, Trump’s wins in the Northeast were already priced-in. No one who has been paying attention is surprised or impressed. This all comes down to two contests, neither of which are very favorable to Trump.

Trump has to score enormous wins in both California and Indiana in order to reach 1237 bound delegates prior to the convention. Take a look at this map projected generated on the website 270towin:


Winning in Indiana is not impossible for Trump, but that’s much tougher ground than Pennsylvania or Connecticut. Indiana is closer to Wisconsin or the midwestern states in its political character. Failing to win there sends him into a tougher series of contests without a knock-out punch. California’s size and diversity make it nearly impossible for anyone to sweep all of the state’s Congressional Districts. It still looks like tough sledding for The Donald.

Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.

Posted in Uncategorized
105 comments on “Here’s why Indiana matters
  1. 1mime says:

    I had to go all the way back to IN to stay on topic, but here goes! Regarding the campaign genie who is NOT going back into the bottle, imagine that:

    “reform is more likely to come not from within, but from without. If Trump loses the Republican nomination despite piling up a plurality of votes (or even if he wins only to find that the party establishment undercuts his campaign at every turn), the next generation of Trumps — and they’re coming, believe me — will be tempted to bypass the nominating process altogether…..

    Most of these outsider candidates will be populist reflections of their moment, channelers and manipulators of emotion, exploiters of a vacuum in the market. They will deploy in passion and fury what they could never have amassed in organizational muscle.

    Will our politics get more democratic after 2016? Yes. Nobody said it would get better.”

    • If all the Republicans who are against any cuts to social security and medicare to pay for big tax cuts for billionaires vote against the Republican “elite”, the Republican party as we know it today will disappear. The billionaires will stop supporting Republicans.

      Why the democrats do not phrase the situation as tax cuts for the wealthy combined with cuts to social security, i do not know!

      • 1mime says:

        The Democratic Party’s messaging “sucks”. They are their own worst enemy. This relationship between cuts to the safety net in order to create sufficient revenue to justify cuts for the wealthy is simply not hard to grasp. But, you have to explain it to ordinary people who are not as interested or involved in the political process as all of us who participate on Lifer’s blog. They should offer it up Bernie-style: repetitive, simple, direct, no-nonsense. I do not know ONE Republican senior who advocates cuts to SS or Medicare. NOT ONE – and, I live in TX in a very WASP area.

        KISS! Repeat after me: cuts to SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc etc are being done to offset cuts to taxes for the wealthy. IOW, balancing the budget on the backs of the average and poor American. This is why there is no trust in either the process or the people in control of it. People are starting to “get” what is going on.

        The real question is: will they vote accordingly? That’s what it all boils down to.

    • 1mime says:

      And one more before I hit the sack. This one’s for grins….girly grins…heck, anyone’s grins.

    • Just read part of the article. Obama says he didn’t have to time explain to the public why he was doing what he was doing. Well, i would respectfully disagree. He allowed the Republicans to frame the debate around his birth, being a socialist, etc. He never fought back. Bill Clinton would have eviscerated the Republicans with one liners having people laughing in the isles. Obama talked as if he were teaching a post graduate course. Not saying he talked down to people, just didn’t fight back!
      He allowed Fox News to define him. I am not saying he should have been in a daily debate about the issues. But when a congressman called him a liar during a speech to the congress, there was no blow back. Can you imagine what LBJ would have done?
      Obama gave in to the Republicans on so much, including making tax cuts for the wealthy permanent, and he got virtually nothing for it.
      And, he almost never had republicans to the White House for dinners etc. It is not easy to eat with the president after calling him a socialist and being born in Kenya. But Obama remained aloof!
      i voted for Obama twice but Oy Vey! He is way to passive to be President! Brilliant! But passive!

      • 1mime says:

        Exactly “how” would you have stood up to the Republicans? We can agree that a more skilled, hardened politician such as LBJ would have knee-capped the SOBs, but, remember how O came in – a devastating, dangerous financial situation that consumed the bulk of his first year in office. Then, true to his campaign pledge, he “tried” to work with Republicans. This was a clear mistake as history has proven. Plus, we all know bullies have no respect for you if you let them win. O is very intelligent, and a very good man. What he lacked was a core of meanness and the political agility/experience to know how to deal with these people. Combine these qualities with the total obstruction once Dems lost control of the Senate and House, and Obama has had a very difficult tenure.

        Lifer said it best: Obama has learned how to govern in his last two years of office. He is learning how to play “hard ball” and use the power of POTUS. He kept his finger off the speed dial of the red phone and brought troops home. He advocated diplomacy first – THAT was new. He steadily persisted in his efforts to broaden equality, using E.O. power as he could to achieve greater rights in many fronts.

        His economic legacy will not compete with an FDR, but just captaining the ship through the 2008 great recession should earn him a chapter in the big book of presidents who helped keep America’s economy from crashing.

  2. 1mime says:

    This Pew Survey is interesting from the standpoint that as we increase educational access (fingers crossed and hoping), better educated people are more liberal. Certainly this is borne out by our millennial population.

  3. texan5142 says:

    Did anyone else hear the crazy woman sing after she was anointed the VP spot by Cruz… sounds like she is just about ready to kill the puppies and make her coat.

  4. Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

    Trump speech writer audition #3:


    Ladies and Gentlemen…we had a great night last night. It was big, and now Lyin’ Ted is at it again. They are trying everything they can possibly think of to steal this election from you.

    Ted Cruz was stomped in New York. Ted Cruz was stomped last night. Ted Cruz is mathematically eliminated from winning enough delegates to get the nomination.

    So, what does Lyin’ Ted do? He says “screw you” to all the people voting, and pretends to select a vice president.

    An actual Canadian mountie has as much a chance of getting enough votes to win the nomination as does Ted Cruz.

    He has been mathematically eliminated, and the man is out picking china patterns for the dishes in the White House. Now, some would say that means he is delusional, but Lyin’ Ted has a better ring to it than Delusional Ted.

    It doesn’t mean that he’s delusional. It means that he is trying to steal the election from all the people who are voting. Millions more people have voted for me. I have crushed Lyin’ Ted in primaries all across the country.

    So, Ted and his Washington insider buddies are trying to steal the election from you. They are afraid of you because they know I’m going to change things, and we are not going to continue losing like we have been losing. These losers think that when they can’t win, they can cheat and steal. We aren’t going to let them do that.

    This is going to be huge. You are great. I am great. We are going to make America great again.

    • objv says:

      Homer, congratulations. You got the job.

    • johngalt says:

      I think you nailed it Homer, other than the few inevitable snide comments about Fiorina that he would have certainly included. And, honestly, were he to give this speech, he’d have a point.

    • MassDem says:

      Nice job, but it uses vocabulary beyond that of a third grader, so not authentic. Delusional Ted=Crazy Ted (with appropriate hand gesture), mathematically eliminated =he has no hope of winning, and so on. Last lines are spot on though.

      But the larger question is, what are you doing? You have already made one rash promise, and are now stuck voting for the man. Do you really want to audition to be on his campaign staff, and get elbowed or pepper-sprayed at one of his rallies? Think about it.

  5. Griffin says:

    So what is the most likely scenario that can happen at this point where the party DOESN’T split into two or more pieces?

  6. johngalt says:

    I have a hard time reading the Fiorina pick as anything other than a desperate attempt at a PR bump in the week before a win-or-go-home primary. Fiorina brings nothing to the ticket – yes, she is a smart woman who had a few good moments in debates – but she is from a state Cruz cannot win in the general, whose two previous campaigns were both expensive defeats, brings no foreign policy experience, and whose main qualification was as CEO of a major company where her tenure has been euphemistically (by the 538 crew today) as “mixed”, which is to say, “not good.” She has no ties to Indiana and the entire spectacle seems like it might be just as likely to cry out “desperate” as it does “confident” to the electorate. I’m sure The Donald will help define that.

    Further, Cruz’s only path to the nomination is a contested convention and he may find that he has just given away a serious card in that horse trading. It really seems that he might be gambling away the future for a quick headline.

    • goplifer says:

      Reminds of the heartbreaking moment in Sept ’08 when I knew it was over – McCain said he was going to suspend campaigning and asked to postpone the debate b/c of the financial crisis. Bizarre. Theatrical. Pointless.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        I think it is to steal media attention before Indiana and have Fiorina rip into Trump non-stop in hopes that Trump can’t stop himself from lashing out.

      • 1mime says:

        That’s very perceptive, Homer! I had focused purely on delegate gain in CA….having a Trump attack dogess in addition to turning attention from trump’s NE win is probably spot on.

        You’ll have to try your hand at a Fiorina speech…..(gotta be fair….)

      • MassDem says:

        Ha ha, I remember that about McCain. He lost his remaining shred of dignity and credibility at that time.

        Politicians are often their own worst enemies. I predict major gaffage in the race for the general election this year. I like Clinton, and think she’ll be good, but she has a tendency to be a bit tone-deaf (a common Dem affliction), and to parse her words too carefully. As for Trump, we all know what he is capable of.

        Who do you think Trump will pick as a running mate? Someone who is popular enough to bring him some votes and gravitas, but who won’t be sacrificing their own political future. Christie might be auditioning for that role, but my MIL says he looks like a pile of dirty laundry standing back there, so I don’t know. I think Nikki Haley would be a good choice, but then I think she has larger plans for herself, so probably not. He’s already antagonized most of his former opponents. Do you think Kasich is desperate enough to do it?

    • Crogged says:

      Of course it is ‘desperate’ but a step he has to take. Sometimes I think the strange and sometimes odious political principles of Mr. Cruz hide the fact he’s a smart politician. His Senate win in Texas was unexpected from the start. If you are as close as Mr. Cruz is to the prize, pull out all the stops each and every day. What does he have to lose?

    • 1mime says:

      Here’s Larry Sabato’s (U of VA Center for Politics) analysis of where the Trump/Cruz race is. The “Hoosier” state is a real nexus of this campaign- for both men, but absolutely critical for Trump. It won’t doom Trump’s 1237 delegate chance, but it could make it much harder for him to get there. And, Trump’s chances of avoiding a contested nomination depend upon just two states: IN and CA. IN is YUUUGE…a winner take all state, Trump has to do well here. Will he?

  7. tuttabellamia says:

    Ted Cruz just picked Carly Fiorina as his running mate.

    • texan5142 says:

      A decision like that is prof positive that that reptilian thing called Cruz is in no way qualified to be elected to any future office of any kind. What in the hell is he thinking.

      • texan5142 says:

        Lying Ted picks lying Fiorina…match made in purgatory.

      • Just imagine who his Supreme court picks would be!!

      • 1mime says:

        The “anointed one” would raise Scalia from the departed…..

      • 1mime says:

        Can you imagine Cruz’ other “picks”?

      • objv says:

        Good choice on the part of Cruz. Carly is much smarter than “Crooked Hillary” and a better speaker, too.

        I believe y’all are just jealous. If Democrats had a woman and a Hispanic on the same ticket, they would be practically swooning and getting goosebumps and tingles up their legs because the election would be “historic.”

        Too bad the Republicans beat you to it. Well, I’m off to do a little shopping. Remember that being sore losers doesn’t suit you. 🙂

      • vikinghou says:

        Crooked Carly’s the one whose incendiary language and continued promotion of the long-since discredited ‘baby body parts’ video incited the misogynist nitwit Richard Dear to assassinate people at the Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs.

      • flypusher says:

        “I believe y’all are just jealous. If Democrats had a woman and a Hispanic on the same ticket, they would be practically swooning and getting goosebumps and tingles up their legs because the election would be “historic.” ”

        I can’t decide whether that is more pathetic as a serious statement or as a troll.

      • texan5142 says:

        How does a man born in Canada reach the status of Hispanic?

      • 1mime says:

        “Immaculate conception” if you believe papa…….

      • objv says:

        Seriously, Texan? Cruz’ father is Cuban. He is as Hispanic as Obama is black.

      • objv says:

        fly, I’m not trolling. I’m surprised by the vitriol expressed by those on the left who treat conservative minorities and women more harshly than their white conservative counterparts. Ben Carson is another example.

        You can’t deny that if Hillary picks a Hispanic running mate, all of you will be ecstatic.

      • objv says:

        Richard Dear, according to an ex-wife, was deranged and obsessed with abortion decades before Carly said anything. He had targeted Planned Parenthood before. Wiki it.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Obj…I’m pretty sure that if Hillary picked Ted Cruz as a running mate, we would be far from ecstatic.

        You somehow think people were meaner to Ben Carson than to Cruz or Trump? Fiorina gets more vitriol than Cruz or Trump? Please.

        I will give the GOP credit, they do tend to have a bit more racial diversity in their set of candidates than do the Democrats. Of course, that means of the six Hispanic and four Black people in the country who admit to being a Republican, at least a couple of them are going to be forced to run for office.

        Seriously, you all have a couple prominent Hispanic candidates, a non-prominent woman, and a non-prominent Black person, yet you somehow manage to repel minorities and women to an astounding degree.

        At some point, someone might utilize a bit of introspection and try to figure out why these groups tend not to like you. Sooner or later, it is going to occur to the GOP that maybe, just maybe, it isn’t that minorities and women “just don’t understand our message” and that maybe they actually do understand it and don’t like it.

      • texan5142 says:

        How does a Cuban born in Canada become Hispanic?

      • flypusher says:

        “fly, I’m not trolling. I’m surprised by the vitriol expressed by those on the left who treat conservative minorities and women more harshly than their white conservative counterparts. Ben Carson is another example.”

        Actually I think I’m pretty fair in my treatment of RWNJs. I oppose them all equally regardless of gender, race, religion, etc.

        “You can’t deny that if Hillary picks a Hispanic running mate, all of you will be ecstatic.”

        Now Warren, that pick would make me estatic. I’ll admit Castro could work, too.

      • objv says:


        “Hispanic America or Spanish America (Spanish: Hispanoamérica, América española or América hispana) is the region comprising the Spanish-speaking nations in the Americas.[1][2]

        These countries have significant commonalities with each other and with Spain, its former European metropolis. In all of these countries, Spanish is the main language, sometimes sharing official status with one or more indigenous languages”

        Cuba was colonized by Spain and the people there speak Spanish. It does not matter that Cruz’ father and Cruz spent time in Canada. The most important qualification is his father’s country of origin. If Cruz self-identifies as Hispanic, he would be legitimately considered Hispanic.

      • 1mime says:

        Really? So, Cruz’ mother is chopped liver? I would say that without Cruz’ American born mom, he couldn’t even be in this race…..although legal scholars have different opinions on his eligibility. In fact, many conservatives hope that Cruz’ father will remain as far away from the front of the crowd as possible. Two views for consideration.

      • objv says:

        No disrespect to Cruz’ mom here. Cruz does get his US citizenship through her.

        However, she does not make him Hispanic anymore than Obama’s mother contributed to Obama being black.

      • 1mime says:

        Oh, I don’t know, Ob, I’d say both “mothers” had a little bit to do with their offspring…..

    • Rob Ambrose says:

      Lol. Its a sign of how totally lost Cruz is that he’s made the calculation that picking a woman will help him in the REPUBLICAN race.

    • flypusher says:

      I’ll give Fiorina credit for one thing, she handed Trump’s ass to him in one of those debates.

    • vikinghou says:

      Cruz might as well have named his Cabinet too!

      • 1mime says:

        Honey, that dude has already picked out the sheets for the WH master suite! Guess he’ll keep O’s basketball ring, uh,’ scuse me, “hoop” if IN comes through for him.

        OMG, Republicans are getting played like fiddles! What a crock!

    • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

      This changes everything!

      If you add all of Fiorina’s supporters to the Cruz bandwagon…well, they’ll have to make room for three more people.

  8. 1mime says:

    “Justice” has been “rendered” For former GOP Speaker Hastert: 15 months in jail plus a $250K fine and 2 years supervised probation. From what I read, he will not be charged for his sexual crimes (which Hastert calls “mistreating” some boys) because the statute of limitations has run out. I am not an attorney, but how does the statute of limitations run out for him and not for the Catholic priests who have been being identified and charged?

    • flypusher says:

      Just off the top of my head, I’m guessing it’s more the coverup than the crime in the case of the priests.

      • 1mime says:

        No, they both “covered up”….One of our legal eagles here will chime hopefully. I wonder where Hastert will be imprisoned?

    • Rob Ambrose says:

      Great news Mime. Ive got a gut feeling the sentence reflects the sexual assault that isn’t the ACTUAL charge. Kinda like OJ Simpson sentence reflected more then the actual crime of armed robbery.

      Something tells me if the hush money was meant to buy off, say, a former mistress he wouldn’t have gotten any jail time

      • 1mime says:

        And, you would be correct, Rob. The charge dealt with two principle issues: lying to the FBI – bad….and hush money to pay off teen he molested. Seems he shifted it around in various accounts and violated some banking laws in the process.

        That still doesn’t answer the main question I have: why did the sexual molestation prescribe and those of the Catholic priests did not?

        The fact that his life is ruined is small solace to the fact that he ruined so many young lives of innocents. What price is high enough to levy on someone who would do something like this? Try to imagine how you would feel if your brother, sister, friend was one of his victims? This scars people for life, and the perpetrators should pay a bigger price than 15 months and $250K. Sorry. Guess I’m not the forgiving type for crimes like this.

      • Tom says:

        1mime, if I remember correctly, the Catholic priests thing could get charged under conspiracy statutes, which extended the statute of limitations because the conspiracy was “ongoing” so long as the Church was moving the priests from parish to parish.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Mime, maybe it has something to do with the laws in the states in which the abuse occurred. Perhaps different states have different statutes of limitations. Hastert’s state is Illinois. We’d have to find cases of abuse by Catholic priests in Illinois to compare.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Tom, we’re talking about 2 different guilty parties here — the priests, who committed the abuse, and the Church, who committed the crime of covering up. Would the statute of limitations apply to both crimes?

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Mime and Tom, in the case of the priests, the Church’s concealment resulted in the victims not having the necessary information to be able to file charges against the priests in a timely manner, so they were given more time to do so.

        In the case of Hastert, maybe it could be said that there was no powerful institution which concealed him or withheld evidence, so theoretically, his victims could have spoken up sooner.

        That’s how I understand it.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        The link I posted refers to abuse by priests in Illinois, which is also Hastert’s state.

      • Tom says:

        tuttabellamia — both the priests and the Church were conspirators in that instance. So the law applied to both parties.

    • Rob Ambrose says:

      Hasterts words should have been read at his sentencing:

      Also, my jaw dropped when I read that Hastert asked David Cross (his former political protégé) for a character reference…. Despite Cross’s brother being one of Hasterts victims.

      Can you imagine the hubris that took? Not to mention it shows he clearly still doesn’t understand the severity of his crime.

  9. flypusher says:

    So what will Cruz’s big announcement be? His running-mate perhaps? Has anyone ever done that before securing the nom? I can’t recall anything like that.

  10. johngalt says:

    Your assignment of delegates in Indiana seems a bit peculiar (9 to Trump, 48 to Cruz) given that Trump leads in the most recent polls. If one assumes that all of Kasich’s voters switch to Cruz, thanks that the bargain from hell, then you might be right, but I doubt that’s going to happen. Trump might even pick up a few disgruntled people that (a) sufficiently dislike Cruz, of which there are a lot, (b) are impressed by Trump’s big day yesterday, or (c) are persuaded by Trump’s grumbling about the process being rigged against him. If you adjust those numbers to 50-50, then he’s over the top.

    • Tom says:

      Yeah, I’m skeptical that many Kasich supporters will be switching to Cruz. It defies logic that there are Kasich supporters who think Ted Cruz is in any way someone they could support for the nomination.

    • goplifer says:

      It is optimistic, but not unrealistic. Trump is polling below 40% in Indiana and declining. The Republican electorate has been pretty consistently contrarian. I have a feeling that as one candidate picks up momentum there will be some erosion of his support elsewhere. Cruz is very popular in Indiana (lots and lots of super religious political lunatics). And consistent Republican voters in Indiana hate Trump. The party there has been openly hostile.

      Totals for Washington and Oregon above are skewed toward the pessimistic side. Washington is a closed primary. A large percentage of the remaining shrinking pool of Republican voters there are super-religious and heavily Mormon. Same profile in Oregon, though that primary is proportional.

      Oregon is fully proportional, but Washington is by-CD with a 50% cutoff. Trump could lose big there.

      If Trump doesn’t have 1237 committed delegates then you can expect trouble. He has almost 0 support among serious Republicans. There is absolutely nothing for anyone to gain by making him the nominee, other than whatever he gives delegates to buy their votes (which is entirely legal). No one has an incentive to let this go down quietly.

  11. Off topic but I rarely see a good article on this subject. Usually the tail is wagging the dog. This dirty hippie has got things in perspective. I apologize in advance, Chris, I know this isn’t exactly your world view.

    Love this part…
    “Neoliberalism’s triumph also reflects the failure of the left. When laissez-faire economics led to catastrophe in 1929, Keynes devised a comprehensive economic theory to replace it. When Keynesian demand management hit the buffers in the 1970s, there was “an alternative ready there to be picked up.” But when neoliberalism fell apart in 2008 there was … nothing. This is why the zombie walks. The left and centre have produced no new general framework of economic thought for 80 years.”

  12. If you add 30 of the PA UA delegates to Trump’s projection, he goes from 1218 to 1248.

    I think he will fall short of 1237 committed, but have 1237 in the first ballot.

    I think he will then be subject to an encore of his own statements about Latinos, women, and Muslims for four brutal months. Then, I hope, he will lose.

    • Rob Ambrose says:

      I think the majority of PA delegates said they would vote for the state winner, even though not obligated, in a sort of nod to democracy I guess.

  13. Martin says:

    It all reads like wishful thinking. What I am unclear about is what we are really wishing for. No matter what Trump will have won the popular vote, will have won the most states, and will have the most delegates. Sure, if the alternative was a real candidate I would understand the anxiety, but Cruz is an even bigger idiot; a mean guy somewhere between an Ayatollah and a fundamentalist dictator. It’s good that I don’t have to go to this convention. I’ll enjoy it on TV.

  14. Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

    While getting to 1237 may be tough sledding for Trump, there are 17 other candidates or past candidates who would trade positions with him in a heartbeat.

    The GOP race has defied all prediction and momentum, but while Trump’s wins last night were not surprising, the ease, size, and totality of the wins were better than expected.

    Certainly, a setback in Indiana somewhat negates what happened last night, and Cruz should win Indiana, but I’m coming around to the resignation that I’m going to have to vote for Trump come November.

    I made a promise to my sister and brother-in-law several months ago that if Trump were the nominee, I would happily vote for him in November. I live in Texas, so my presidential vote won’t matter, but I’m likely going to need to take anti-nausea medication before going in.

    Aside from all that, at this point, Trump deserves the nomination. Fighting a big GOP-induced headwind, he has won the most votes, the most delegates, and the most primaries. To take it away from him at the convention would be patently unfair.

    Plus, it is not like the anti-Trump folks have a savior waiting in the wings. No matter how much you don’t like Trump, it is not as though Cruz or Kasich generate a lot of favorable feelings. In a normal election, Cruz would be a fringe candidate, and Kasich only seems moderate until you realize he’s as arch-conservative as Cruz.

    • Just my opinion, but I do not think Trump wants to be President. I do not know the man but i read he is not all that interested in detail, not a deep thinker at all. He is not stupid, not at all. Surely he is aware that mistakes on the presidential level can be catastrophic.

      Obviously i could be wrong but i just have a feeling he got into this and is having the time of his life! But actually being president? I don’t think he wants that. Probably he would love to say he got the nomination, he can go around and talk all he wants, stir things up, be the center of the universe, and then, after he looses, be on TV constantly and keep saying he would have done better!

      People look at loosing the election as a disaster! And to normal people, people who actually wanted to win, it can be. But if you are a Trump, well, loosing is just another deal. He will spin it, come up with all sorts of reasons why Hillary won, blame everyone else and have millions of adoring fans and NO responsibility!

      What a life:-))!

      Just a thought!

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        I get the impression that it’s all about winning for him. Actually BEING president? Not so much.

        He’ll prob surround himself with Neocons and let them do all the work. Why not? Worked so well for GWB.

      • Tom says:

        No, Trump wants to be President.

        Actually doing the work involved in the Presidency? No, I don’t think Trump wants to do that.

      • 1mime says:

        Trump wants to be “king”. He will leave the work to his minions.

      • 1mime says:

        I have to admit – Trump would be “downsizing” his living quarters, wouldn’t like all the SS detail hanging around, and lord knows the WH chef will have to be Cordon Bleu with a Phd. What he will “love” is being the center of attention….would probably leave a lot of the day to day to his appointees (not bad if they are qualified), and the military…..

  15. gpsimms says:

    It seems like some of the uncommitted PA delegates have said they’ll vote for Trump. 1237 is likely above Trump’s ‘magic number.’ Also, while the delegate numbers were not entirely surprising last night, he certainly out performed the expectations/polls, which may indicate a shift in attitude from the voters on Trump. Polls show a majority of GOPers believe that the candidate with a plurality of votes should get the nomination.

    I personally subscribe to the 538 theory that his message that the primary is rigged is being heard, and the Cruz-Kasich ‘alliance’ only supports that narrative and overall hurts the #nevertrump movement.

    • gpsimms says:

      but, like you said, we’ll see after Indiana. Nate Silver also constantly reminds us not to perceive a particular evening’s primary results as ‘momentum.’

    • Rob Ambrose says:

      I think he’ll get the 1237. In any case, if he doesn’t win, hes so far ahead there will be massive amounts of no shows in the general.

      Its Trump or bust for the GOP at this point. The NeverTrunpkins needed there to be close 2nd place guy to hold any credibility. They won’t have that

      • Tom says:

        The big issue for #NeverTrump is that the two non-Trump candidates still in the race are honestly polar opposites. There’s very little overlap between Cruz and Kasich supporters; in fact, arguably Cruz’s supporters would probably rather have Trump as the nominee than Kasich, and Kasich supporters view Cruz about the same as they do Trump.

        And I don’t think the GOP wants to deal with the potential land mine of denying Trump the nomination at a contested convention; Trump would likely launch a third-party run at that point.

  16. Crogged says:

    Mr. Trump has won the most votes, the most states and the most delegates. This magic number is irrelevant, particularly if he wins California.

  17. antimule says:

    Yeah, but even if he wins 1200 or so he can still get more at a convention…. right?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 455 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: