Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Cruz Cedes OR, NM Primaries to Kasich; Focuses on Indiana (UPDATE: Trump Responds)
Jeff Roe, Cruz for President’s campaign manager released the following statement late Sunday:
Having Donald Trump at the top of the ticket in November would be a sure disaster for Republicans. Not only would Trump get blown out by Clinton or Sanders, but having him as our nominee would set the party back a generation. To ensure that we nominate a Republican who can unify the Republican Party and win in November, our campaign will focus its time and resources in Indiana and in turn clear the path for Gov. Kasich to compete in Oregon and New Mexico, and we would hope that the allies of both campaigns would follow our lead. In other states holding their elections for the remainder of the primary season, our campaign will continue to compete vigorously to win.
Soon after Cruz made his announcement, Kasich for President Campaign Manager John Weaver released this statement:
Donald Trump doesn’t have the support of a majority of Republicans – not even close, but he currently does have almost half the delegates because he’s benefited from the existing primary system. Our goal is to have an open convention in Cleveland, where we are confident a candidate capable of uniting the Party and winning in November will emerge as the nominee. We believe that will be John Kasich, who is the only candidate who can defeat Secretary Clinton and preserve our GOP majority in the Congress.
Due to the fact that the Indiana primary is winner-take-all statewide and by congressional district, keeping Trump from winning a plurality in Indiana is critical to keeping him under 1237 bound delegates before Cleveland. We are very comfortable with our delegate position in Indiana already, and given the current dynamics of the primary there, we will shift our campaign’s resources West and give the Cruz campaign a clear path in Indiana.
In turn, we will focus our time and resources in New Mexico and Oregon, both areas that are structurally similar to the Northeast politically, where Gov. Kasich is performing well. We would expect independent third-party groups to do the same and honor the commitments made by the Cruz and Kasich campaigns.
We expect to compete with both the Trump and Cruz campaigns in the remaining primary states.
Update: Donald Trump has issued a response.
Published in GeneralIt is sad that two grown politicians have to collude against one person who has only been a politician for ten months in order to try and stop that person from getting the Republican nomination.
Senator Cruz has done very poorly and after his New York performance, which was a total disaster, he is in free fall and as everyone has seen, he does not react well under pressure. Also, approximately 80% of the Republican Party is against him. Governor Kasich, who has only won 1 state out of 41, in other words, he is 1 for 41 and he is not even doing as well as other candidates who could have stubbornly stayed in the race like him but chose not to do so. Marco Rubio, as an example, has more delegates than Kasich and yet suspended his campaign one month ago. Others, likewise, have done much better than Kasich, who would get slaughtered by Hillary Clinton once the negative ads against him begin. 85% of Republican voters are against Kasich.
Collusion is often illegal in many other industries and yet these two Washington insiders have had to revert to collusion in order to stay alive. They are mathematically dead and this act only shows, as puppets of donors and special interests, how truly weak they and their campaigns are. I have brought millions of voters into the Republican primary system and have received many millions of votes more than Cruz or Kasich. Additionally, I am far ahead of both candidates with delegates and would be receiving in excess of 60% of the vote except for the fact that there were so many candidates running against me.
Because of me, everyone now sees that the Republican primary system is totally rigged. When two candidates who have no path to victory get together to stop a candidate who is expanding the party by millions of voters, (all of whom will drop out if I am not in the race) it is yet another example of everything that is wrong in Washington and our political system. This horrible act of desperation, from two campaigns who have totally failed, makes me even more determined, for the good of the Republican Party and our country, to prevail!
For once I agree with Trump, this is pathetic and signals desperation. But Kasich trusting Cruz’s word says volumes about both men. Cruz’s word is ephemeral. Kasich is naive. Perhaps Kasich can negotiate with Putin?
Kasich is now in play and can negotiate something big. K + C ≠ CN, but T + C = TN, where CN is Cruz nomination and TN is Trump nomination.
Can you imagine a Cruz/Kasich ticket? First talk about Cruz going establishment. And all that one-true conservative stuff is smoke. Oh, and there is that word again, compromise. Plus, the ticket would be perfect – two men anointed by God (OK, maybe St. Peter in the case of Kasich). Cruz pandering to the establishment over the past few weeks has been humorous enough, now he builds an alliance with the man some of Cruz’s supporters demonized for his positions and staying in the race. They have even compared Kasich to Hillary. Hee, haw.
Not sure whether anyone read the WSJ interview with Ted Cruz this weekend. The author really tried to be pro-Cruz, but the sticky issues kept drawing the author (Joseph Rago – and by the way the WSJ is now pro-Cruz) back to reality:
1. You can’t broaden your voter base by narrowing your message (Duh?).
2. Cruz’s tax plan is really a VAT which can be exploited by Dems. A flat tax is easily changed to a graduated tax – and with so many Americans frustrated they want progressive taxation, not flat taxes.
3. You can’t distinguish yourself by insulting the people you now want to support you and expect them to be enthusiastic.
4. A contested convention victory will be cast as making Ted “appear” manipulative fitting the “narrative” on his short past.
5. There is that history: frequently shifting positions in a clever and perhaps devious way. And,
6. Inexperience – that desert glowing remark being a fine example.
Maybe this “too-little-too-late” deal by Cruz and Kasich will lead to a dream ticket? As mentioned, Cruz anointed by God and Kasich by St. Peter. Though Cruz has recently denied he will be our pastor-in-chief. Which I believe, like I believe all his statements. Cruz can be the next Rubio!
So we have unpopularity ratings: Trump mid-60’s. Cruz and Hillary in the 50’s. Anyone got a clothes pin?
Barring Hillary losing the FBI primary, it’s on to 2020.
Amazing what blinding bias unfounded in reality does to our reading comprehension.
#neverdemocracy.
The average voter hates Trump but feels like they are powerless to stop the media collusion and money behind him. This whole process has been disgraceful from the start. This at least gives hope that people are capable of working together to get something done. There isn’t a person on this planet who isn’t currently in the bag for Trump who would be swayed to him by something like this.
Why doesn’t Kasich do better in his own neck of the woods? I thought his strength was he’d challenge in the midwest.
I think the strategy for Cruz is Indiana and California. He must see some concerning numbers in Indiana to makes this “deal” public.
This seems willfully blind. Trump has received 37.91% of all votes cast in the Republican primaries. The average voter does not hate him. Statistically, the best you can say is that the average voter has not voted for him. More probably, aggregating the 37.91% who have voted for him and the portion of the 62.09% who didn’t vote for him but who are nonetheless receptive, and its much more likely that the average voter actually likes him.
It has not been disgraceful by any measure. Disliking the people’s choice does not make it disgraceful. It may make it disagreeable to you, but nothing about having an election and letting the voters choose is disgraceful.
Disgraceful would be, say, running in an election, coming in second, and then using the rules at a convention to vault yourself to first, ahead of the person you lost to. That would be disgraceful.
It’s not really a signal. It’s explicitly mentioned in the press release: “we would expect independent third party groups to…”
Isn’t coordination with super-PAC’s illegal?
Here is what I have heard, several times over, on one or another radio program over the last few weeks:
Sorry, all the candidates have to work within the rules framework, and the scenario you envision is just part of the process. Those who don’t like the process should to work to change it.
And Trump needs to put his negotiating skills to good use. This outcome should be tailor-made for him, rather than, say, Lyin’ Ted who doesn’t get along with anyone and who can’t get anything done, or that Over-The-Hill Establishment fellow who’s worn out his welcome, John Whatshisname.
Frankly, I’m not sure what this latest move means or what it portends. But it’s a shift, which makes it interesting.
The numbers in Indiana are all unreliable, as Fred pointed out in today’s Daily Shot. The robocalling laws mean that no one is gathering internal data, as far as I know.
My feeling is that more than anything this move is simply a signal of unity.
It is not “just part of the process”. It is part of the process, but that is not all it is. Putting candidates to a state-by-state vote, and then going to a convention and nominating the candidate who lost that vote based on underhanded delegate stacking is wrong. Rules or no rules.
Placing delegates for one candidate who are pre-determined to switch to the losing candidate on the second vote is wrong. Rules or no rules.
Now, if the candidates want to horse-trade at the convention to get a majority with their delegates, okay. That is the candidate, who has the support of the voters, making a choice to use the support granted by his voters. Cruz offering a VP to Kasich and then Kasich asking his delegates to back the unified ticket is understandable. But going behind the back of a candidate to stack his delegation with your secret delegates is wrong because it explicitly overturns the will of the people.
It used to be that conservatives understood right from wrong. Now we just cite rules to get what we want? Come on.
Respecting a democratic choice does not mean over-ruling that choice based on a plea for rules. That is especially true when the candidate using that tool actually loses in the primary vote, and only obtains the nomination through delegate stacking that contravenes the will of the Republican electorate.
It’s not “just” part of the process. It’s part of the process used in a manner that undermines the will of the electorate.
This isn’t a game. This is a nomination process made up of numerous elections, caucuses, and methods of selecting delegates. Kasich won’t leave the race, and is siphoning off votes from Cruz and enabling Trump to win with a plurality. I think Trump supporters like good deals only when Trump is a participant to the deal. Otherwise, it’s not fair, or a rigged game, or disenfranchisement. Trump sounds more and more like a Democrat every day. I advise his acolytes and sympathizers to get used to that sound.
Why is delegate stacking “underhanded?” It was incumbent on all the candidates to obtain a majority of pledge delegates heading into the convention to obtain the nomination on the first ballot. If they do not, then the candidates have failed to achieve their objective and they leave the nomination in the hands of the delegates. This is a known fact. Donald Trump is unhappy with it, but he is lying when he says it is “rigged” or “stealing” or when he uses similar language. That is reality. Anger at the process is based on misperceptions of the process, not the actual reality of the process.
When I attended Boy Scout camp decades ago there was a ‘sink the canoe’ competition in which members of one troop would attempt to swamp the canoe belonging to another. There were about a dozen troops taking part, including a troop from a nearby school. Just before the fun started the scoutmaster from our ‘sister’ troop came up to us and quietly advised us to place our canoe beside theirs and agree that once the fun started we would leave each other alone thus increasing the chances at least one of us would win. Sure enough, we were the last two canoes afloat. I didn’t see anything wrong with the tactic at the time and I still don’t.
If Kasich left the race, Trump would have an outright majority.
In fact, if Kasich had left before Ohio, Trump would likely already be close on the delegate count.
This idea that Kasich if funneling votes from Cruz is just wrong. The primary votes have simply not shown that to be the case, and yet it continues as an assumption of the Cruz supporters somehow.
It’s as wrong as Cruz’s original thought about the missing voters having been conservatives.
For the same reason that it is wrong when the Obama administration implements liberal policies through fiat that Congress refuses to pass. For the same reason that passing Obamacare through a rules trick was wrong. Respecting the democratic choices of an electorate means more than just following rules. It means making an honest attempt to forgo choices that may be in your interest but are clearly not the choice of the people.
Trump is exactly right when he calls it rigged and stealing. From the perspective of the electorate who rejected Cruz, that’s exactly what it is. Of course, I suspect all of those EPA administrators can give you a seminar on why they can do what they are doing by “following the rules”.
The electorate has not accepted or rejected anyone. That is the whole point of requiring a majority of pledged delegates to receive the nomination on the first ballot.
That’s gonna be a fun argument to make to the mob of angry Trump supporters right before they torch the Quicken Loans Arena. One question: if I vote for Cruz here in Indiana, does that inoculate me from the guilt of being highly entertained by the circus of death that will be the Republican Convention? I will have done the “right” thing, but that “right” thing will have made the circus of death more likely. Oh, the moral quandary. Get your popcorn box.
This of course depends on the timing of Kasich’s departure. If Kasich had been a man of integrity, like Bush, and actually wanted to see a conservative at the top of the ticket, like Bush, then he would have left after South Carolina, like Bush. The quicker the GOP race became a two-horse race with the two candidates repeatedly winning either pluralities or majorities remaining in the race, the more clear choice voters would have had. As a result, the delegate outcome would more easily align with the choices voters made. Instead, Kasich remained in the race to muddy the waters because he won Ohio.
Imagine, for a second, if Jeb and Kasich and all had dropped out, endorsed Cruz, and went on a Walker-style endorsement tour of Cruz in their home states. Do you think Trump would have won Ohio? No way. Do you think Trump would have won Florida if Rubio and Bush stumped for Cruz. No chance.
The failure of actual conservatives to coalesce and defeat the Trump menace has been what has chiefly enabled Trump. Trump is winning pluralities, and one majority, because “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” Conservatives divided themselves among a plethora of credible candidates. Only one candidate among those, Ted Cruz, showed any propensity to actually win pluralities in contests with multiple candidates. Instead of all dropping out and backing Ted to ensure conservatives kept the top of the Republican ticket, folks like Kasich assumed that Ted cannot win-giving up without a fight-and started playing up their name identification for a 2020 race against Hillary.
If a delegates from a state who were pledged to Trump switch to Cruz on the second ballot as a result of Cruz stacking the delegate group with his supporters, of course that is underhanded.
The voters voted and in a choice between Trump, Cruz and whoever else, they affirmatively chose Trump over Cruz. So yes, that state accepted Trump over Cruz. And yes, that state rejected Cruz vis-a-vis Trump. To then turn around and flip that is wrong. Plain and simple, wrong, the kind of wrong that violates the life lessons mom taught you. Not Rule XYZ of a political party. The morality that actually matters.
The electorate of a state actually votes. It should be respected. At a minimum, it should not be disregarded. And that is exactly what happens when delegates switch to nominate the loser in their state. They are overturning the will of their electorate. Rules or no rules, that is what they are doing.
If the voters of Ohio were given a choice between Trump and Cruz even after the events you outline, Trump would have blown him away.
Same for Florida.
Cruz supporters underestimate how disliked he is. At the same time, they overestimate the amount of support Cruz would get from Kasich/Rubio/Bush voters. He isn’t a very good candidate.
The ability of the delegate to change their vote exists only because the candidate they are pledged to on the first ballot fails to obtain a majority of the delegates.
On what do you base this assertion?
Leading elected officials, popular in their own states, would change the likability factor if they cared about our country and conservatism. Many of them, like Kasich, have cared more about themselves and their own political future more than the issues we stand for.
I’m not sure how “locked in” these delegates are, when they are selected via what you call ‘underhanded delegate stacking.’ I guess we’ll see at the convention. I suspect horse-trading will be the order of the day, no matter what anyone says beforehand.
I’m not suggesting the existing system is perfect. But it is what it is.
And I’m not sure what you mean by ‘secret’ delegates. It seems clear that Cruz’s actions are quite open. That’s what all the fuss is about.
Also, ‘will of the electorate’ is a tricky phrase in this context, given that no candidate’s delegate totals actually reflect their percentage of the popular vote at this point. Again, I’m not saying that’s a praiseworthy (or not) thing. Just that it is.
I’ll be very interested to see how this plays out, and what, if any, significant changes are made at the state and national GOP levels for the next time.
And the solution to that is to allow the candidate who stood in front of the electorate and garnered votes to work out a deal with the other candidates who stood in front of the electorate and garnered votes, and come to a solution as to how to get to a majority. That is called democratic legitimacy.
To believe that its okay to stack someone else’s delegate slate with secret Cruz supporters in order to fix the result is contrary to the will of the electorate and wrong.
Justify it all you want. It’s wrong.
The fact that Trump’s share of the electorate has expanded as candidates dropped out.
On what would you base the opposite conclusion?
Only my conclusion is the one consistent with the actual results.
The bottom line is, I think Cruz could be a great president, Kasich would be an okay president, and Trump would be a very bad president. I can imagine scenarios where Trump beats Hillary in the general election. I can’t imagine any scenarios where Trump would actually be a good president. Whatever they can do to stop Trump is a good thing.
Just look at Ohio.
Kasich: 956,762 (46.8%)
Trump: 727,585 (35.6%)
Cruz: 267,592 (13.1%)
Rubio: 59,418 (2.9)%
Assuming the same voters and assuming Kasich and Rubio dropped out early enough and supported Cruz, Trump would only have needed to get 27% of the Kasich/Rubio voters to have an outright majority. That’s a very, very likely outcome in a two person race.
Cruz would have lost earlier and we would not be talking contested convention at all.
Florida is even worse.
Trump: 1,077,221 (45.7%)
Rubio: 636,653 (27.0%)
Cruz: 403,640 (17.1%)
Kasich: 159,412 (6.8%)
Trump only needed 7.7% of the Rubio/Kasich voters to get a majority. Of course he would have been able to achieve that.
Then apply all of that momentum of obtaining majorities in Florida and Ohio to all of the subsequent races. In an early two way race, Trump would have had this wrapped up already.