Trump v Hillary

[qazplm]

Barring some Republican Party shenanigans at a brokered convention, it's looking like this is the matchup.

I thought the republicans weren't this crazy, that they wouldn't allow this to happen, but admittedly, I was wrong. It looks an awful lot like this is going to happen. Trump will likely win Florida, and Ohio and that knocks out Rubio and Kasich...that leaves him and Cruz, but at that point, he will have such a large lead that I don't see how Cruz catches him and I imagine Rubio isn't likely to leave anyways, he's out of a job next year so what does he have to lose?

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Not so sure he will win Florida nor Ohio. His polling leads are smaller than he had going into Virginia (19) and he won by 4 there. I think he's more likely to win Florida than Ohio, but it wouldn't shock me if either Kasich or Rubio dropped, in which case the other wins both states, IMO. May not make much difference in the long run. We'll see. Both are winner take all, so it would be smart for the establishment to consolidate behind one guy. They probably won't because both foolishly think they're the One.

 

[lbodel]

Not so sure he will win Florida nor Ohio. His polling leads are smaller than he had going into Virginia (19) and he won by 4 there. I think he's more likely to win Florida than Ohio, but it wouldn't shock me if either Kasich or Rubio dropped, in which case the other wins both states, IMO. May not make much difference in the long run. We'll see. Both are winner take all, so it would be smart for the establishment to consolidate behind one guy. They probably won't because both foolishly think they're the One.

I don't think it's "likely" Trump wins either of those either.

However, the takeaway from the primaries yesterday - is that Rubio bombed. Granted, they were 4 random states, two caucuses, etc. - but his performance was worse than what he's been doing (and let's be honest, that's not good).

Cruz did better than expected somewhat and on paper as of today, looks like the guy who can be the alternative.

However, it's back to the math. Cruz is pretty much done with his "friendly states" - and big prize (Iowa, Texas, etc.). That doesn't mean there aren't states he can win, but his strength voting block is fairly done with primaries.

So then you have Rubio, who's in the worst position of the somewhat viable candidates (don't really consider Kasich as such at this point). His "friendly states" are remaining - more moderate, populous states. However, he's also doing poorly right now, so that could lead to Trump sneaking away with some.

The problem with Cruz is obviously the Republican insiders just do not like him. I think they stupidly put their weight behind Rubio and that's only allowed Trump to continue doing well. And Cruz has struggled to dominate with evangelicals - something that might be the most surprising of Trump's strengths.

Quite frankly, Cruz is probably the best option for the Republicans - but they are biting their tongues before supporting them cause they do not want to. However, I think a campaign against Trump for the Democrats could actually be more challenging than with Cruz. People want a President who will work together to get stuff done - Cruz has shown no willingness to do that. I think that could really be a branding that could be easy and effective.

 

[qazplm]

I don't think it's "likely" Trump wins either of those either.

However, the takeaway from the primaries yesterday - is that Rubio bombed. Granted, they were 4 random states, two caucuses, etc. - but his performance was worse than what he's been doing (and let's be honest, that's not good).

Cruz did better than expected somewhat and on paper as of today, looks like the guy who can be the alternative.

However, it's back to the math. Cruz is pretty much done with his "friendly states" - and big prize (Iowa, Texas, etc.). That doesn't mean there aren't states he can win, but his strength voting block is fairly done with primaries.

So then you have Rubio, who's in the worst position of the somewhat viable candidates (don't really consider Kasich as such at this point). His "friendly states" are remaining - more moderate, populous states. However, he's also doing poorly right now, so that could lead to Trump sneaking away with some.

The problem with Cruz is obviously the Republican insiders just do not like him. I think they stupidly put their weight behind Rubio and that's only allowed Trump to continue doing well. And Cruz has struggled to dominate with evangelicals - something that might be the most surprising of Trump's strengths.

Quite frankly, Cruz is probably the best option for the Republicans - but they are biting their tongues before supporting them cause they do not want to. However, I think a campaign against Trump for the Democrats could actually be more challenging than with Cruz. People want a President who will work together to get stuff done - Cruz has shown no willingness to do that. I think that could really be a branding that could be easy and effective.

Well I don't think Trump has shown anymore than Cruz in that regard.

I think Trump wins FL at a minimum for the very reasons you lay out..Rubio is floundering and the state is not favorable to Cruz. OH we will see. I don't know the debate schedule between now and then, but if there isn't one or only one, that might actually help Trump.

 

[lbodel]

Well I don't think Trump has shown anymore than Cruz in that regard.

I think Trump wins FL at a minimum for the very reasons you lay out..Rubio is floundering and the state is not favorable to Cruz. OH we will see. I don't know the debate schedule between now and then, but if there isn't one or only one, that might actually help Trump.

I think Florida depends on what Trump does more than anything. He hasn't been helping himself out lately with the torture reversal, etc. - he's starting to become really inconsistent (not that he hasn't been over the years, but now it's starting to be within short time periods). If he stays on message and keeps things simple, he has a good shot.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I think Florida depends on what Trump does more than anything. He hasn't been helping himself out lately with the torture reversal, etc. - he's starting to become really inconsistent (not that he hasn't been over the years, but now it's starting to be within short time periods). If he stays on message and keeps things simple, he has a good shot.

Fortunately, the media isn't letting him run around saying "Make America Great Again" and leaving it at that anymore. People have started asking the "How?" question and he's floundering. That said, he's going to stick with 35% of the base pretty much no matter what, because they're idiots (there, I said it) who are just fed up with everything and want to watch DC burn. I think Rubio and Kasich are both hanging out hoping that Trump won't get to 1237 and then they'll have a chance at a brokered convention... which would be a sh&% show but entertaining! I'd expect one or the other, but not both, to drop out after the March 15th primaries, and depending on how those go in FL and OH.

Rubio was left for dead after New Hampshire, too. I think he's flagging a little bit, and I'm not as staunchly behind him as I was before the Trump attacks started. He's got all his eggs in the Florida basket. It's a bold strategy, Cotton. We'll see how it works out for him.

 

[qazplm]

Fortunately, the media isn't letting him run around saying "Make America Great Again" and leaving it at that anymore. People have started asking the "How?" question and he's floundering. That said, he's going to stick with 35% of the base pretty much no matter what, because they're idiots (there, I said it) who are just fed up with everything and want to watch DC burn. I think Rubio and Kasich are both hanging out hoping that Trump won't get to 1237 and then they'll have a chance at a brokered convention... which would be a sh&% show but entertaining! I'd expect one or the other, but not both, to drop out after the March 15th primaries, and depending on how those go in FL and OH.

Rubio was left for dead after New Hampshire, too. I think he's flagging a little bit, and I'm not as staunchly behind him as I was before the Trump attacks started. He's got all his eggs in the Florida basket. It's a bold strategy, Cotton. We'll see how it works out for him.

Why would either drop out though? Why would Kasich if he wins Ohio? Even it's down to one on one, Trump has too big of a lead to have anyone but him reach the required number of delegates, thus it's a brokered convention and ANYTHING can happen there. It's the only logical goal left for Rubio and Kasich. Cruz has a tiny sliver of a chance in a one on one, but a brokered convention is still by far the most likeliest result.

 

[lbodel]

Why would either drop out though? Why would Kasich if he wins Ohio? Even it's down to one on one, Trump has too big of a lead to have anyone but him reach the required number of delegates, thus it's a brokered convention and ANYTHING can happen there. It's the only logical goal left for Rubio and Kasich. Cruz has a tiny sliver of a chance in a one on one, but a brokered convention is still by far the most likeliest result.

If Rubio continues to do poorly (his results, although a relatively small sample size, from the weekend were embarrassing), I could see his pride get in the way. He's young and getting crushed state after state will not help him in the future (not to sound like Trump - but who wants their party's future to be a loser?). And if he loses Florida, there's just zero chance of him winning at that point.

While a brokered convention is an option, I don't think it's exactly what the GOP wants to be doing that late in the game. Keep in mind, most conventions are a pep rally for their candidate and party. A brokered convention would be anything but that - and not focused on spotlighting the differences between parties.

The problem right now (and for the past few weeks) is that they finally went to take on Trump, but they didn't pick someone for that. Having 3 guys go against 1 guy isn't helping because the vote is getting fractured. Even Mitt Romney was doing that the other day - after his speech, he said he was fine with all 3. Well that's great, but it's not going to do anything if your #1 priority was taking Trump down (which it sure seemed to be).

The GOP should get behind Cruz pretty much at this point. The problem is they have 2 candidates they don't like, one that's just not great and then another that can't get any traction because he won't veer far to the right.

 

[qazplm]

If Rubio continues to do poorly (his results, although a relatively small sample size, from the weekend were embarrassing), I could see his pride get in the way. He's young and getting crushed state after state will not help him in the future (not to sound like Trump - but who wants their party's future to be a loser?). And if he loses Florida, there's just zero chance of him winning at that point.

While a brokered convention is an option, I don't think it's exactly what the GOP wants to be doing that late in the game. Keep in mind, most conventions are a pep rally for their candidate and party. A brokered convention would be anything but that - and not focused on spotlighting the differences between parties.

The problem right now (and for the past few weeks) is that they finally went to take on Trump, but they didn't pick someone for that. Having 3 guys go against 1 guy isn't helping because the vote is getting fractured. Even Mitt Romney was doing that the other day - after his speech, he said he was fine with all 3. Well that's great, but it's not going to do anything if your #1 priority was taking Trump down (which it sure seemed to be).

The GOP should get behind Cruz pretty much at this point. The problem is they have 2 candidates they don't like, one that's just not great and then another that can't get any traction because he won't veer far to the right.

I'm sure it's not what they want to be doing...but not sure they have a choice unless Trump absolutely craters. Assuming that does not happen, why not keep all your options viable? In fact, some folks are saying the best way to assure he doesn't get the required number of delegates is to keep everyone in to suck away delegates. Because if say Rubio and Kasich get out not 100 percent of those votes are going to go to Cruz. If just say 30% go to Trump, he still probably at worst ensures no one gets a majority.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I think the most likely scenario is Rubio loses Florida and exits after that. If he wins Florida, no, he won't get out. Why would he? If Kasich loses Ohio, I think he would get out as well. But one or the other is likely to stick around all the way through for the convention. My guess would be Kasich if both lose both states.

 

[qazplm]

I think the most likely scenario is Rubio loses Florida and exits after that. If he wins Florida, no, he won't get out. Why would he? If Kasich loses Ohio, I think he would get out as well. But one or the other is likely to stick around all the way through for the convention. My guess would be Kasich if both lose both states.

Kasich has already said he's in it to the finish because he thinks there is going to be a brokered convention. Rubio hasn't said that, but it wouldn't surprise me if he did. I don't know what they will do, but I simply think the only path either have is a brokered convention, and given how unliked Cruz is, if I were Rubio or Kasich, I'd have little to lose from sticking around. Particularly Rubio who is out of a job come next winter anyways.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I think if Rubio wants to make another run in the future, he is better served by getting out before he totally trashes his image.

 

[lbodel]

I think if Rubio wants to make another run in the future, he is better served by getting out before he totally trashes his image.

Bingo. Let's be real - these guys are mostly in it for themselves, not for the good of their party.

There's an article out today about how some of Rubio's advisors are urging him to drop out before Florida even occurs. He'd likely eye running for governor in the state in the future or other political office. Like I said, last thing you want to be viewed as is a big fat loser.

 

[threeeputtt]

Why would Kasich, Rubio or Sanders for that matter W/D if they have a campaign surplus? Doesn't unused funds go into their back pockets.

 

[MJ-79Boiler]

My prediction : Trump will have the most delegates going into the convention, but not enough to win it . At that point, it's clear that the party elite are willing to commit suicide at that point and give the nomination to someone else. The outcome ? Trump runs as an independent !

Yes, . . he said he would support the Republican candidate, but the Republican committee also said they would welcome him as well. Once they break their promise, the other will follow.

As for the Dems., . . I think it is still too close to call. The media and Hillary are trying to SELL it, by highlighting the 500+ super delegates pledging to Hillary at this point, but . . . a few points:

1.) I seem to remember the same thing the last time she ran , . . and in the end when Obama got more delegates from the states, the super delegates changed their mind. &
2.) Take away the super delegates for the moment, and the numbers could easily go either way right now. (like 450-400 before today I think)

In summary, the average American is PO-ed with Washington and neither party's traditional candidates are anything to get excited about. They therefore want a revolution and I can't blame them. (Right there with them)

A guy told me this morning he wasn't sure which way he was going yet, but knew one thing - If Trump gets elected the fur will fly all around the world

While this is a crazy one to predict, I personally believe people are mad enough that it will be Trump or Bernie in the end. Both parties will alienate a big part of their base and those alienated will focus on these two candidates. If Bernie gets beat by Hillary, I look for his followers to move to Trump.

 

[qazplm]

My prediction : Trump will have the most delegates going into the convention, but not enough to win it . At that point, it's clear that the party elite are willing to commit suicide at that point and give the nomination to someone else. The outcome ? Trump runs as an independent !

Yes, . . he said he would support the Republican candidate, but the Republican committee also said they would welcome him as well. Once they break their promise, the other will follow.

As for the Dems., . . I think it is still too close to call. The media and Hillary are trying to SELL it, by highlighting the 500+ super delegates pledging to Hillary at this point, but . . . a few points:

1.) I seem to remember the same thing the last time she ran , . . and in the end when Obama got more delegates from the states, the super delegates changed their mind. &
2.) Take away the super delegates for the moment, and the numbers could easily go either way right now. (like 450-400 before today I think)

In summary, the average American is PO-ed with Washington and neither party's traditional candidates are anything to get excited about. They therefore want a revolution and I can't blame them. (Right there with them)

A guy told me this morning he wasn't sure which way he was going yet, but knew one thing - If Trump gets elected the fur will fly all around the world

While this is a crazy one to predict, I personally believe people are mad enough that it will be Trump or Bernie in the end. Both parties will alienate a big part of their base and those alienated will focus on these two candidates. If Bernie gets beat by Hillary, I look for his followers to move to Trump.

You remember wrong, Obama was ahead pretty much from the start and the whole way and by the way Hillary is ahead by a lot more than Obama's largest lead.

 

[MJ-79Boiler]

You remember wrong, Obama was ahead pretty much from the start and the whole way and by the way Hillary is ahead by a lot more than Obama's largest lead.

Ok, I concede that I incorrectly remembered 2008. Thank you for correcting the record, but my comments stay the same. Hillary's lead is primarily due to super delegates - (over 500+ delegates which do NOT come from the states - some of which are lobbyists, etc..) Take those away and you have a close race.

If Bernie wins the delegates coming out of the states, the DEMS will have a MAJOR problem on their hands and the super delegates may change their mind ! !

Given that she just LOST Michigan underscores my comment - Reagan Democrats may shift to Trump if their choice is Hillary.

 

[qazplm]

Ok, I concede that I incorrectly remembered 2008. Thank you for correcting the record, but my comments stay the same. Hillary's lead is primarily due to super delegates - (over 500+ delegates which do NOT come from the states - some of which are lobbyists, etc..) Take those away and you have a close race.

If Bernie wins the delegates coming out of the states, the DEMS will have a MAJOR problem on their hands and the super delegates may change their mind ! !

Given that she just LOST Michigan underscores my comment - Reagan Democrats may shift to Trump if their choice is Hillary.

She lost Michigan in large part because rich whites and AAs voted in higher percentages for Sanders than in other places thus far.

Sanders gained less than 10 delegates there while Clinton I'm guessing gained even more from Miss...so Clinton ended the night further ahead in delegates than she started. And on review that is correct, she is now 205 (edit 219 now) ahead where she was under 200 before the night started. So even on Bernie's big upset day, he lost ground.

So on to the 15th. Florida is a closed primary so no independents helping Bernie and with a large minority population that should be a clear Hillary win. NC another southern state with a large AA population, another Hillary win. Even if Bernie wins Ohio like Michigan, and let's say he wins Missouri too..and let's say he even wins Illinois. At best, Bernie comes out even in delegates with Hillary, thus again not cutting into her lead in pledged delegates which again is larger than ANY lead Obama had over her in 2008. And that's a best case scenario. If she wins Illinois let's say or really any one of the three, now she's gaining again.

Every single Dem state is proportional...a 200+ pledged delegate lead at this point might as well be 1000. This was the exact same analysis back in 2008 for Obama, only he led by about half as much most of the way through.

Also, how many Reagan democrats do you think are left that haven't already gone republican??

 

[lbodel]

Ok, I concede that I incorrectly remembered 2008. Thank you for correcting the record, but my comments stay the same. Hillary's lead is primarily due to super delegates - (over 500+ delegates which do NOT come from the states - some of which are lobbyists, etc..) Take those away and you have a close race.

If Bernie wins the delegates coming out of the states, the DEMS will have a MAJOR problem on their hands and the super delegates may change their mind ! !

Given that she just LOST Michigan underscores my comment - Reagan Democrats may shift to Trump if their choice is Hillary.

CNN reported prior to last night that he'd need to win every remaining contest by 10% or more to catch her in delegates.

It's fun for the media to hype up Sanders' win, but in all reality - they split the delegates for that state. And there was almost no talk of the other primary, which Clinton won with 80%+ of the vote.

Obviously even knowing the math, she doesn't want to start losing every state by a couple percentage points. And she has some challenges ahead with Ohio, for example. But quite frankly, at this point, having a contested primary is not a bad thing as long as it doesn't turn into what you see with the GOP. And kudos to Sanders for keeping it that way - they don't have a major fracture in the party.

 

[qazplm]

CNN reported prior to last night that he'd need to win every remaining contest by 10% or more to catch her in delegates.

It's fun for the media to hype up Sanders' win, but in all reality - they split the delegates for that state. And there was almost no talk of the other primary, which Clinton won with 80%+ of the vote.

Obviously even knowing the math, she doesn't want to start losing every state by a couple percentage points. And she has some challenges ahead with Ohio, for example. But quite frankly, at this point, having a contested primary is not a bad thing as long as it doesn't turn into what you see with the GOP. And kudos to Sanders for keeping it that way - they don't have a major fracture in the party.

There's a fracture, but I think you are right it isn't major. I think Sanders has turned more negative lately which I don't like, but I fully expect at the end of the day that he will wholeheartedly support her nomination and campaign with her...and that most (but certainly not all) of his supporters will begrudgingly support and vote for her at the end of the day.

I also agree with you that having Sanders push her and keep her on her toes and responding to a version of a populist message helps her in the long run.

 

[lbodel]

There's a fracture, but I think you are right it isn't major. I think Sanders has turned more negative lately which I don't like, but I fully expect at the end of the day that he will wholeheartedly support her nomination and campaign with her...and that most (but certainly not all) of his supporters will begrudgingly support and vote for her at the end of the day.

I also agree with you that having Sanders push her and keep her on her toes and responding to a version of a populist message helps her in the long run.

In a recent poll, 74% of Democrats said they'd be happy with Hillary as the candidate, 72% with Bernie.

On the Republican side, the highest candidate received 65%, with 2 under 60%.

 

[qazplm]

In a recent poll, 74% of Democrats said they'd be happy with Hillary as the candidate, 72% with Bernie.

On the Republican side, the highest candidate received 65%, with 2 under 60%.

Did one of them rhyme with Drumpf?

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Why would Kasich, Rubio or Sanders for that matter W/D if they have a campaign surplus? Doesn't unused funds go into their back pockets.

No. Most certainly not. That would be called "fraud."

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Did one of them rhyme with Drumpf?

I'd be surprised if Drumpf was over 50%.

 

[MJ-79Boiler]

She lost Michigan in large part because rich whites and AAs voted in higher percentages for Sanders than in other places thus far.

Sanders gained less than 10 delegates there while Clinton I'm guessing gained even more from Miss...so Clinton ended the night further ahead in delegates than she started. And on review that is correct, she is now 205 (edit 219 now) ahead where she was under 200 before the night started. So even on Bernie's big upset day, he lost ground.

So on to the 15th. Florida is a closed primary so no independents helping Bernie and with a large minority population that should be a clear Hillary win. NC another southern state with a large AA population, another Hillary win. Even if Bernie wins Ohio like Michigan, and let's say he wins Missouri too..and let's say he even wins Illinois. At best, Bernie comes out even in delegates with Hillary, thus again not cutting into her lead in pledged delegates which again is larger than ANY lead Obama had over her in 2008. And that's a best case scenario. If she wins Illinois let's say or really any one of the three, now she's gaining again.

Every single Dem state is proportional...a 200+ pledged delegate lead at this point might as well be 1000. This was the exact same analysis back in 2008 for Obama, only he led by about half as much most of the way through.

Also, how many Reagan democrats do you think are left that haven't already gone republican??

Reagan democrats ? plenty Repub. party has changed it's strips in recent years. As for Hillary,she has to be worried after seeing a 10-15 pt lead go up in smoke in Michigan in a few days. Another REAL issue is that Hillary is winning southern states which she will be unable to win in a general election (ie Repub states) & I am sure that is not lost on the super delegates.

 

[qazplm]

Reagan democrats ? plenty Repub. party has changed it's strips in recent years. As for Hillary,she has to be worried after seeing a 10-15 pt lead go up in smoke in Michigan in a few days. Another REAL issue is that Hillary is winning southern states which she will be unable to win in a general election (ie Repub states) & I am sure that is not lost on the super delegates.

You are assuming she had such a lead and it wasn't simply poor polling.

MA, IA, NV...none of those are unwinnable Southern states...neither is Virginia anymore. When she wins FL and NC those are states Dems have won recently. Odds are she wins Illinois. She could lose OH and PA (then again she could win either or both). Then there's NY.

And no, there aren't a whole lot of Reagan Dems out there. Conservative Dems and liberal Republicans are mythological creatures these days.

 

[MJ-79Boiler]

You are assuming she had such a lead and it wasn't simply poor polling.

MA, IA, NV...none of those are unwinnable Southern states...neither is Virginia anymore. When she wins FL and NC those are states Dems have won recently. Odds are she wins Illinois. She could lose OH and PA (then again she could win either or both). Then there's NY.

And no, there aren't a whole lot of Reagan Dems out there. Conservative Dems and liberal Republicans are mythological creatures these days.

Time will tell Qazplm - definitely entertaining this year

 

[Summy1]

Do you think the GOP is hoping that Trump doesn't win outright and they can appoint Rubio the nominee at the convention?

 

[threeeputtt]

No. Most certainly not. That would be called "fraud."

Then where do unused funds go?

 

[MJ-79Boiler]

Do you think the GOP is hoping that Trump doesn't win outright and they can appoint Rubio the nominee at the convention?

The short answer is . . . yes !

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Then where do unused funds go?

Feel free to use this neat new invention called "Google". The FEC has laws specifying what can and can't be done with leftover campaign money when candidates suspend. Pocketing it isn't in the "can" column. Common sense should've led you to that conclusion...

 

[lbodel]

The short answer is . . . yes !

The trend Rubio is on right now - I am not sure if he'd be their pick or he'll even be in at that time. Obviously things can change (Florida), but he's trending down of late.

 

[lbodel]

Reagan democrats ? plenty Repub. party has changed it's strips in recent years. As for Hillary,she has to be worried after seeing a 10-15 pt lead go up in smoke in Michigan in a few days. Another REAL issue is that Hillary is winning southern states which she will be unable to win in a general election (ie Repub states) & I am sure that is not lost on the super delegates.

I mean, the whole "state by state" thing in primaries only matters so much. There are "blue" states that Republicans spend time campaigning in/focusing on too and are big prizes for delegates. If you want primaries to reflect the specific party's chances in a general election, then the entire primary system should be re-done on both sides.

Not to mention the whole primary vs. caucus thing. These are incredibly different ways of measuring support.

On the Democratic side, the two takeaways have been age and minority. Bernie has done very well with the young people, whereas Hillary has done very solidly with older voters. With minorities, Hillary has done very well with them. Primaries help you figure out your strengths and weaknesses and you have to work to overcome them. Both candidates have really struggled to put a dent in their weaknesses - but I think most people would take being "weak" with young voters as their weakness over weak on minorities and older voters.

 

[qazplm]

I mean, the whole "state by state" thing in primaries only matters so much. There are "blue" states that Republicans spend time campaigning in/focusing on too and are big prizes for delegates. If you want primaries to reflect the specific party's chances in a general election, then the entire primary system should be re-done on both sides.

Not to mention the whole primary vs. caucus thing. These are incredibly different ways of measuring support.

On the Democratic side, the two takeaways have been age and minority. Bernie has done very well with the young people, whereas Hillary has done very solidly with older voters. With minorities, Hillary has done very well with them. Primaries help you figure out your strengths and weaknesses and you have to work to overcome them. Both candidates have really struggled to put a dent in their weaknesses - but I think most people would take being "weak" with young voters as their weakness over weak on minorities and older voters.

True...the old show up. AA's show up, particularly black women (no cohort in America votes more consistently). The young sporadically show up. Latinos haven't been showing up but I think Trump being nominated would change that.

Sanders dependency on the youth vote can result in upsets when they show up, like in Michigan where they were over 20%. They can also result in losses in other places where they don't show up.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I'm going to guess that if HRC is the nomination, the young D's will show up at a far lower rate than they will if Sanders wins, so I agree that banking on that as your weakness is probably survivable.

 

[threeeputtt]

Feel free to use this neat new invention called "Google". The FEC has laws specifying what can and can't be done with leftover campaign money when candidates suspend. Pocketing it isn't in the "can" column. Common sense should've led you to that conclusion...

LOL. I guess you are simply smarter than me. I searched for several minutes on that "Google" thing and didn't find what happens to unused funds per FEC. So they just sit? LMAO

 

[threeeputtt]

LOL. I guess you are simply smarter than me. I searched for several minutes on that "Google" thing and didn't find what happens to unused funds per FEC. So they just sit? LMAO

OK, I finally searched the right question as FEC rules changed in 1989 (I am mentally challenged ya know). No more pocketing-kinda thought that but, it was allowed 25 years ago.

 

[Summy1]

The trend Rubio is on right now - I am not sure if he'd be their pick or he'll even be in at that time. Obviously things can change (Florida), but he's trending down of late.

From what I read, the GOP isn't real crazy about Trump or Cruz. This leads me to believe that they are hoping that Rubio is still around come convention time so they can nominate him.

 

[lbodel]

From what I read, the GOP isn't real crazy about Trump or Cruz. This leads me to believe that they are hoping that Rubio is still around come convention time so they can nominate him.

They aren't - but when it comes to the convention, that's a long ways from now. Obviously many things can change, but if Rubio doesn't win Florida - good chance he won't be in the race anymore by the time the convention rolls around. And if he does stay in, it wouldn't be crazy to see him finish fourth (and likely at best third). At that point, if he's not attractive to people across the nation, why would they want him to be their nominee?

 

[MJ-79Boiler]

The trend Rubio is on right now - I am not sure if he'd be their pick or he'll even be in at that time. Obviously things can change (Florida), but he's trending down of late.

Oh, I agree. Should have stated my yes only referenced the intent to draft someone else once the convention starts - whether it's Romney, Cruz, or someone else. I personally DOUBT it would be Rubio