Republican
Despite what the media might say, Ted Cruz did better than you think. Check out the provisional delegate count (click on it to embiggen):
That’s Trump 253, Cruz 215, Rubio 100, Kasich 21, Carson 3, Unknown 3.
The reason why Cruz is so high is that Texas delivered.
The media seems focused on state wins, as if this was the general election.or as if the states were winner-take-all. They are not. In a primary that could end up being contested at the convention, the “state count” means nothing, and the delegate count means everything. If Trump does not reach 50% of the delegates, it becomes an open convention.
So now the grand tally from Iowa thru Super Tuesday (some of these are provisional):
Trump 335
Cruz 232
Rubio 116
Kasich 27
Carson 8
So, 15 states are done and the question becomes “What share of all *remaining* delegates does each need to reach 1237”?
The answer is:
Trump: 52%
Cruz: 58%
Rubio: 64%
Kasich: 69%
With most of the remaining states being “winner take all”, and given Trump’s wide appeal geographically, it seems that his path is the easiest. But let’s not forget Florida and Ohio — two very big states — which one would suspect to go to Rubio and Kasich.
Clearly, in order to defeat Trump, his opponents must consolidate around a single candidate. Cruz clearly has the strongest argument to be that candidate — he has won more states and delegates. The problem that Cruz has — and he doesn’t seem to realize this — is that his appeal is demographically thin. Evangelicals like him (although some have drifted to Trump) and his policies are too conservative to win a mainstream election.
Which means Rubio is the guy. Except the problem with Rubio is that — well, but for his reed-thin win in Minnesota last night, he’s just not appealing to voters, even if he IS more likely to defeat Clinton in the general election. Rubio’s argument gets better when/if he wins Florida, but *I* believe he not only has to win it, but win it by a good margin to show that he remains viable.
Rubio can also make the point that his attacks on Trump have helped. For people who chose their candidate in the last few days, Rubio did the best:
Rubio 29%
Cruz 27%
Trump 20%
Kasich 12%
And Trumps wins yesterday were not huge trouncings like they were in South Carolina and New Hampshire. Credit that to Rubio.
Kasich doesn’t have an argument yet. He came in second behind Trump in Vermont by a narrow margin, but that’s Vermont. Even the Republicans in Vernmont are left-leaning, and that’s Kasich territory (it’s not actually, if you look at his past, but that is how he has positioned himself for this election). Once he wins Ohio, and I think he will, he may have a better argument.
The problem for the GOP is that while they flounder to come up with the #NoTrump candidate, Trump racks up win after win. Before the month is out, it will be too late. In fact, it just might be too late already.
And maybe they shouldn’t do that after all. If the GOP establishment attacks Trump, they end up with a weakened and unpopular candidate (maybe it is Trump, maybe not).
There are so many angles to what his happening to the GOP, like “Is this the new GOP?”, “What the hell is Christie doing?”, “What about downballot Republicans (does Trump have coattails?” and so on. I mean, Trump threatened Paul Ryan last night, the top Republican in the House. Nothing gets done in this country without the House (including walls). Does Trump want to do that? The editorials today are amazing.
Democrats
Bernie took Vermont, Oklahoma, Colorado, and Minnesota. And almost took Massachusetts.
Geographically, that is a nice win for Mr. Sanders. I don’t think it gets him anywhere near a victory, but it allows him to stay in. Being a two-person race, this is much easier to map out and it goes something like this: Hillary wins, barring any huge blunder or unforeseen act of God.
Bernie is not reaching minorities very well. He has a grip on an enthusiastic young demographic, but that is it. And he doesn’t seem to be doing well at pivoting his message.
The more interesting question for Democrats is actually… what about the Republicans? In many upcoming states, anybody can vote in either the Democratic or Republican primary. Many Democrats believe Hillary will be the winner, so they will use their vote *strategically* in the Republican primary.
But what is the strategy? Do you stop Trump because he’s dangerous and messed up? Or do you encourage Trump because he’s dangerous and messed up, thus making him easy to defeat in the general?
You stop him, says Ezra Klein. It’s like playing Russian roulette. He’s too unpredictable.
This is not 11-dimensional chess. All those arguments we’ve been making against him are absolutely correct. We need to be against Trump—not ironically and not with our fingers crossed, but in reality. The conservative establishment hates him because he’d be bad for conservatism. We ought to hate him because he’d be bad for the country and bad for liberalism.
And maybe that’s right. On the other hand, polls show that Trump is very beatable, compared to, say, Rubio.
And then you get advice like this:
Here’s my take on ratfucking, if you’re so inclined. If you are in a state with open primaries, vote for Cruz, not Trump. If Cruz wins (unlikely), he will be a worse general election candidate. If Cruz denies Trump a majority of delegates, Trump will have to cut an ugly deal to get some other low-energy loser’s delegates, or the GOP powers-that-be will engage in an ugly floor fight. If Trump is denied the nomination because of a floor fight, he’ll run an independent campaign. Any of those outcomes are good for Democrats.
In the end, I don’t think it will make a difference because those who *do* choose to “ratfuck” will be inconsistent. It’ll be a wash.
I think we just need to assume a Trump candidacy. Or a convention fight followed by a weakened GOP candidate.