If Trump wins Florida and Ohio, he will need 52% of the remaining delegates to make it to 1237, entirely probable in a 1 on 1 with Cruz. If he wins Florida and Kasich wins Ohio, Trump needs 59%, quite a bit more difficult. If Rubio wins Florida (unlikely but possible) and Kasich wins Ohio, Trump needs 69%, virtually impossible. There are many states left, including some of the bigger ones, where a candidate other than Trump or Cruz can win.
The key issue is the demographics of the remaining states, and specifically education levels. In states with a higher % of college educated voters, Trump is polling poorly and Cruz not much better. In these states people are more likely to vote for Rubio and even Kasich (not well known outside the Midwest, but emerging as a sane alternative). California for example with 173 delegates will not elect Trump or Cruz if given an alternative.
While distasteful, a brokered convention is better than the specter of Trump as president. I expect the Repubs to discard the 8 state minimum majority that was brought in in 2012, and launch a compromise candidate in the second round at the convention. I wouldnât rule out Paul Ryan (who Trump has spoken positively about, so has the potential of keeping Trump supporters on board).
Rubio doing well now after a nervous start, strong on the threat of Islamic terrorism and Cuba. Cruz still looking to land one on Trump but still not succeeding. Donald has more âfriendsâ around the world then our beloved Kev and his answer to everything is a stock 'Iâll make a Better deal cos Iâm a businessman not like them butocrats in Washington
California isnât about the entire state though. Each of the 53 congressional districts gets 3 delegates, and the delegates go to the plurality winner of the district. So if the 4 of them were left by then, the gang of 3 could focus on specific districts each to prevent Trump gaining delegates. The rest go on a statewide basis, but thatâs a small amount.
Massachusetts is the state with the highest level of college graduates in the US and Trump got over 49% of the vote there, likewise he cleaned up in New Hampshire and Vermont.
New York and New Jersey will fall easily to him. I would say if anything the demographic of the remaining states favours Trump.
If you want to stop Trump it makes sense to keep Kasich and Rubio in for Ohio and Florida as those are their home states, but not afterwards.
If Kasich and Rubio were to win Ohio and Florida respectively (Rubio wonât win Florida, whatever about Kasich winning Ohio, but Iâll go with it for a hypothetical scenario), it wonât change the race, itâll merely perpetuate the general pattern of voting weâve seen up to now - ie. Trump winning states with around 35-40% of the vote, and itâll keep Kasich and Rubio in the race with no hope of winning themselves, but where they will hold back Cruz, who is the only candidate who can catch Trump. Trump wonât win California in a head to head, for instance, but he might win it in a four-way race.
Even without Florida and Ohio, Trump can still reach 1,237.
If the current voting pattern is perpetuated beyond Tuesday, in a continued four way race with a greater focus on winner take all from now on, 35-40% of the vote would be all Trump needs.
It depends entirely on who comes out to vote. Primaries are deceptive in that a very low percentage of the electorate vote, and very often its fringe voters who are motivated to vote. I agree MA and VT look odd, but you have to remember only about 10% of the those who will vote in November actually bother to vote in primaries. In such a volatile election, you canât extrapolate from one state to the next, you can only estimate who will go to the voting booth in future primaries.
Trumpâs support is from white working class voters, who are the most motivated Republican voters in this campaign so far. In states like those in New England, which are liberal, while they wonât come out and vote for an evangelical like Cruz, there are enough angry white people to give Trump the edge. The question is whether this will hold during the remainder of the cycle. Republican backers are spending huge sums now in an effort to get the moderate vote out, and they are much more likely to vote for Rubio or Kasich than Cruz. In fact if its Trump vs Cruz, they likely wonât bother to vote at all, and most of them would probably prefer Clinton to either.
Personally I think Trump has peaked. As was clear in the CNN debate last night, which was focused on the issues rather than mud slinging, he has no grasp of the issues and no policies. His content free answers were embarrassing. While this doesnât matter to uneducated white voters who just like his tough guy stance, it does mater to moderates. There will be huge pressure to bring out the moderate vote and I think the image of this clown as the party nominee will bring it out.
There was an interesting piece in the Washington Post recently that reviewed some academic analysis of Trumpâs support:
Today political scientist Alan Abramowitz has published some new research that sheds a bit more light on this dynamic. Abramowitz conducted a poll of 1,000 Republican voters nationwide, and found a strong correlation between support for Trump â and support for protecting entitlements, and raising taxes on the rich.
The poll found:
Fully 68% of Republican voters were opposed to cutting spending on Social Security and Medicare to reduce the deficit, 56% favored raising taxes on households with incomes above $250,000, and 39% favored raising the minimum wage.
That would reflect the suggestion that a lot of Trumpâs support is based in white working classes fed up of being betrayed by the career politician types. The poll also found that Trump is hugely popular amongst ânativistâ (i.e. racist) Republicans.
It would seem like Trumpâs supporters are the socially illiberal and economically liberal types. Which is ironic, given that Trump himself is most likely socially liberal by Republican standards (his neutral stance on planned parenthood for example) and economically conservative.
His appeal is that heâs not one of those oily politicians whoâve fucked over the working class time after time. But sadly if they elect theyâre likely to get fucked over again, but in a whole new way this time.
Rubioâs top aide urges Rubio supporters to vote for Kasich in Ohio, and for Kasich and Cruz supporters to reciprocate in Florida. Cruz has dismissed the suggestion, but this could be the pathway for Rubio to win Florida and Kasich Ohio. Itâs all getting very interesting. Trump has also indicated he wonât participate in any potential future debates, unsurprising given his shambolic performance last night.
What are you referring to when you say âeconomically liberal/illiberalâ. Being against free trade would be considered a conservative position, Trump is in alignment with his electorate on that. Trump is against immigration, one reason being that they drive down labour costs. That is an economically conservative position and that is in alignment. Trumpâs supporters donât want their Medicare taken away, Trump wonât. You are flat out wrong here, his message is in total alignment with these people.
Trumpâs supporters are not particularly religous and very few of them describe themselves as such.
The last part of your post is correct but is only one reason why he appeals. His simple economic message resonates.
He is, despite the joke, also a businessman. Trump has admitted that they are all out for themselves.
But his speeches say that he will put a stop to special interests. He identifies the problem and admits that businessmen have taken advantage and use their money to influence politicians. He says he is the only one who can stop it and his wealth/perceived honesty wins him votes.
Trumpâs âpolicyâ platform is in alignment with those voting for him.
On immigration, the easier one, depends what kind of immigration. The problem most conservatives have with immigration has nothing to do with cheap labor costs (they like that), it has to do with immigrants having any economic reliance on the government. In other words they want their cake (immigrants being denied services that citizens have) but also want to eat it (they like cheap labor). I donât think there are many, conservatives or liberals, who would argue that leading scientists / entrepreneurs immigrating to the US is a bad thing, or US companies hiring skilled workers from abroad when there is a skill shortage, or cheap labor where the work simply wonât/canât be done otherwise (try getting an American kid off the coach to work in agriculture). Where the Democrats have the upper hand in the debate is in arguing that if there is a need for cheap labor (and there is, agriculture, gardening, etc.) these people should be provided services like education and healthcare. Republicans say throw them out, but paradoxically are the oneâs by and large who hire them.
Free trade is a difficult one, for both parties. In general, conservatives are for free markets and free trade (economic liberalism), open competition on a level playing field. The problem arises when corporations want to operate on letâs say a less than level playing field, regardless of all the opposing rhetoric from both parties, corporations get what they want (even if it is contrary to free market or free trade principles). Both parties will argue they are for fair trade, but of course at the end of the day they are for whatever their donors want.
I agree with this, Trump (and Sanders) for all his flaws is highlighting the single biggest issue that has the working and middle class so riled up, the influence of special interests which impacts their standard of living. The problem is he has no policies whatsoever to address it, and seems disinterested in developing policies.
It can also be argued that Trump is his own special interest, as in whatâs the difference between a billionaire funding his own campaign, and billionaires funding the campaigns of others.
Chomsky says Trump in the White House would spell big trouble for humanity.
Looming World War
Refugees will be ignored
Continuation of global warming
Fall of race relations
The more I think about it, the more Iâm beginning to realise that Trump is a trojan horse and he is probably Clintonâs best bet to get elected. Scary shit either way.
Christ so called intelligent posters are debating trump here like he has an intricate strategy thats working a charm. He is just there to wreck the election for the GOP and let old friend Hillary waltz in, thatâs all. For example he appeared before the press this week with tables behind him with trump water, trump steaks, trump magazine etc stated these were examples of his success and at least twice dared the press to look them up. Trevor Noah on the daily show did, all were failed or no longer in production except the bottled water and the magazine he held up wasnât even his magazine which is long since out of print. He is actually making a skit of himself now, asking to be found out, he is saying continuously ridiculous things but he has the protest vote sewn up. In fact I think heâd have more of it if sanders wasnt there to hoover the protest vote from left wingers and moderate thinkers. There is no way he would ever contemplate deporting americas low skilled and low paid labour force, it is nonsense as his only religion is business, however good he actually is at it. And getting a foreign country to build a wall! but yet you have people trying to research and set out comparisons between him and hitler, thinking heâs an actual fascist. Heâs not. Cruz on the other hand is a lunatic.