Trump acts like baby (again) after losing big in Wisconsin. “The Donald” is an awfully poor loser… which is strange, you’d think he’d be used to it by now. Especially funny is watching an establishment crony capitalist who’s spent his whole life schmoozing with and supporting establishment politicians call Ted Cruz a puppet for the establishment.
View Comments (50)
There is no way Cruz can get the nomination. There is no way Trump loses the nomination.
Cruz will be eliminated after New York then Trump starts saying “It’s me or Romney” Good luck GOPe
The worst 10 days of Donald Trump’s campaign got him whooped by Ted Cruz in Wisconsin. Nevertheless, Trump’s chances of winning the Republican nomination on the first ballot are good.
Trump continues to lead Cruz in states/territories won and has a 226 delegate lead. The math is forbidding for Cruz. He has 517 delegates. There are just 769 delegates to be awarded.
This means Cruz must win 720 of these 769 remaining delegates to reach the required 1237 and win a first round nomination. Trump has won 743 delegates so he must win 494 of the remaining 769.
This gives Cruz a “tragic number” of 49 meaning the next time 49 delegates are awarded to anyone but Cruz, he is mathematically eliminated from reaching 1237.
The battle now goes to New York worth 95 delegates. Trump is way ahead and will knock Cruz out on April 19th. Even the most wishful thinkers have Cruz giving up 60 delegates and seeing his mathematical chances end. Trump will eliminate Cruz by getting about 80 delegates.
Next up is the Northeastern Super Tuesday April 26th when Pennsylvania 71, Delaware 16 Connecticut 28 Rhode Island 19 and Maryland 38 will be voting.
Trump will frame the races as a contest between him and Mitt Romney the presumed savior of the Republican Party its leader are waiting to anoint. Painting Romney as a landslide loser won’t be very hard. In fact anyone Trump portrays as the “heir apparent loser” they want to force down our throats will have a tough time refuting him. Who will even have the guts to admit the plot and say, “Yes I’m Mitt Romney and I’m asking you to vote for Ted Cruz knowing that a vote for Cruz is a vote to help me steal the nomination.” Good luck with that campaign theme.
After April 26th Trump should have about 923 delegates with 502 still left and 314 to go to get to 1237.
That’s 62% to the finish line. Running against Mitt Romney he should be able to get there. The numbers say it is very doable.
He also has a very firm grip on his approximately 35% of the vote. Trump and Cruz are now moving into the Northeast where the appeal of Ted Cruz and the reach of the RNC are nowhere near what they have been so far.
There is virtually no Republican Party structure in New York State. The Republicans in the Empire State are probably less popular among the rank and file than Washington Republicans. Republicans have not held a state-wide elective office in a dog’s age. The gang of crooks on State Street in Albany couldn’t help either Trump or Cruz if they wanted to. That leaves the state wide open and Trump’s for the taking.
In Pennsylvania where 71 delegates will be up for grabs, Trump will be strong as well.
Your arithmetic is questionable. As in wrong. "Elimination" means Trump has 1,237, not Cruz does not have 1,237. Since New York cannot possibly get Trump to 1,237, why in the world would you post a Tolstoy-length comment saying that New York will mathematically eliminate Cruz?
Here's something you might not have noticed: since Rubio dropped out, Trump isn't winning anymore. It's like I've been saying all along, Trump's negatives are so huge he can only win when the field is divided. He'll get New York I'm sure, since it's his home state, but other than that?
He's specifically talking about a situation assuming there's no contested convention. It's the same thing for Kasich. He's mathematically eliminated from the race. He's hoping for a contested convention to secure the nomination.
No, he isn't assuming a non contested convention since he is talking about Romney coming in. That can only happen if 1) it goes to a contested convention and 2) Romney actually gets on the ballot would require rule change at that contested convention. Which will not happen since it is the delegates themselves who write the rules of the convention prior to any voting. And in nearly every state, Cruz' ground game is kicking Trump's tail to get his loyalists elected or appointed (depending on each state's rules) as delegates. So unless Trump wins it outright on the first vote (which he likely will not) then Cruz will get it on the second or maybe third vote.
Oh God, I hope you're right!
I am.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeNPWSa6-gA
OK, I was watching O'Reilly tonight. He came up with a plausible scenario for the election. He said he expects Cruz to offer Kasich the VP slot BEFORE the convention.
While the idea makes me ill, I would hate to see Kasich rewarded for being a petulant asshole, it does bring up what I think will work.
1. Trump may try to beat Cruz to the punch, but Kasich is there to prevent Trump from getting the nomination, so he would decline.
2. If he does this soon, Cruz would pick up all of the Kasich support in the remaining primaries, and that just might be enough to sink Trump, and get Cruz to the magic number.
3. Even if Cruz doesn't hit the magic number, Kasich saying yes to Cruz would throw enough support behind Cruz, that the delegates would have a tough time not going over to him on the 2nd or 3rd ballot.
4. Drafting Kasich would guarantee Ohio goes GOP in the General, and kill Hitlery's chances.
It makes sense, even though I would hate having to listen to Kasich for the next 4-8 years, and see him run again after it's all over.
Kasich would be worse than Biden as VP.
Of course he would. Biden has been good enough to keep his mouth shut for most of Barky's term. Kasich would need to be shot to keep him quiet.
Cruz will not offer Katich the VP slot, I will tell you that right now.
The only reason people make that suggestion is because they think Kasich can deliver Ohio. I don't think Kasich's help in Ohio is worth the drag on the ticket he would be in every other state. Same thing with Rubio. Number one, I'm not sure he can deliver Florida, and number two, I think he'd be negative in too many other places. Plus, two Cubans? Seems weird. That would be like Bernie picking a running mate who's an old white communist from Vermont.
The idea makes me shudder, but what do you think of Cruz picking Rand Paul? That might be enough to round up the Libertarian voters.
The goal is usually to pick a running mate from a big state that's in play, someone you think will put you over the top in that state. Don't ask me to explain Sarah Palin--pretty stupid since Alaska has very few electoral votes. McCain and Romney both ran stupid campaigns. Anyway, Paul is like Palin, resident of a state with not very many electoral votes. Plus the Republican is probably going to win Kentucky anyway.
I'd like to see him pick Scott Walker or Fiorina. Another thing you like in a VP is someone who's a bit of a pit bull, to say the things you as president can't say. Carly would be awesome at that, and if she can put California in play, it would drive the Democrats crazy.
Sarah was about votes from female type persons.
I'm not sure Carly could put Kali in play, she barely made a ripple when she ran for office there. Picking a VP this time is going to be difficult, since I don't see Kasich actually swaying much because I suspect that with it being a semi-open primary, there were Dems playing games, and Kasich wouldn't have won otherwise.
Carly would again be about votes from female type persons
I would prefer Mike Lee as VP but I have a feeling Cruz would rather have Lee take Scalia's place on the SCOTUS. Not really feeling it for either Walker or Florida as VP.
How about Rick Santorum? Pennsylvania is a big state, opposite side of the country from Texas, he's a proven conservative...
nah, I think I would prefer someone like Dave Brat or Gary Palmer...I would say Ben Sasse but he has been disappointing me lately.
Who the hell are those guys? We already have a brat running--his name is Donald Trump.
Perhaps, it's time for you to do a little more research then, JP. ;)
They are constitutional conservatives with a 100% Liberty score like Mike Lee.
I didn't really want to reply but I wanted to see how skinny the replies will get...
LOL, I think we hit the wall on that one.
I wonder what happens if you use a word that's too long like "marsupial."
or worse, words like establishmentarianism
Things are getting pretty thin around here!
Now, that said. on the Kelly File, Roger Stone, a Trump operative, has made threats to publish the names of the hotels and room numbers of any delegates that try to give the nomination to anyone but Trump. It's a slimy, lowlife move, but it might scare enough delegates to sway the vote.
don't know but I am pretty sure that is illegal. Probably an empty threat just like all the threats to sue
"call Ted Cruz a puppet for the establishment."
So remind us again why the Cuban Comet blazing through the heavens as the great outsider, despised by the loathsome Insiders, the One who will restore Christian values to government, has now been endorsed by Captain Establishment himself, Senator Lindsay "Village People" Graham?
http://davidfeldmanshow.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Gay-GOP-Hypocrites-768x311.jpg
So now in addition to being responsible for whatever any and every obscure PAC says or does anywhere in the universe, Cruz is supposed to be answerable for whatever Lindsey Graham says?
I'm guessing you didn't actually listen to what Lindsey said in his so-called "endorsement." He said Kasich was the best man for the job, that's what he said, but he was doing a fundraiser for Cruz because he has a better chance of winning than Kasich. That is what they call damning with faint praise. Cruz was probably thinking, "With friends like this, who needs enemies?"
Graham is just trying to hitch his wagon to what he believes to be the winning option, so he can get a favor later. Too bad he won't get any such favors.
Pride... fall... just saying...
.
Trump would be all over that comment, comparing you to Megyn Kelly.
Well said. You are now tied for first in the all-time 'Most Concise Comment' category.
How is he acting like a baby? Making a statement such as Cruz is a puppet isn't all that far-fetched, especially when you consider some key facts:
1. Potential voter fraud in Iowa and lying about Ben Carson dropping out of the race at the time. (https://www.intellihub.com/sen-ted-cruz-accused-of-committing-voter-fraud-at-iowa-caucus/)
2. A pro-Cruz super PAC releasing an ad defaming Melania Trump right before the Utah caucus. (http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2016/03/22/group-launches-new-attack-on-trump-by-shaming-his-wife/)
3. A pro-Cruz super PAC receiving money from a pro-McConnell super PAC. Kinda hard to be anti-establishment when you have multiple super PACs in your favor. (http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/04/04/mitch-mcconnells-attorney-pac-stand-for-truth-sending-money-to-ted-cruz-pac-keep-the-promise-iii/)
Another question to ask yourself: with everything that goes on in DC, as far as corruption goes, do you REALLY think Cruz is immune to all of it, or that he really, truly doesn't have a say in any of his multiple super PACs? Everyone knows what the rules are, but since when do DC politicians follow rules?
NOT a pro-Cruz superpac, buddy. Just an Anti-trump one. They've gone after Cruz, too.
Funny people calling out Cruz for being a puppet only to ridicule him for not being able to get along with anyone. How can he be both?
Also, Cruz keeps getting hammered for whatever "role" he had in the gov't shut down. So, your remarks kind of make no logical sense.
It is a pro-Cruz super PAC, this website lists proof. Either that or it's a BIG coincidence ( I doubt it) http://dcwhispers.com/busted-ted-cruz-super-pac-address-fiorina-campaign/
Also, could you list some articles where they have gone after Cruz? Did a google search and found none.
Fact check:
My advice: stop listening to Trump, his misdirections, and his excuses. He's just like Obama--when he opens his mouth, lies come out.
I know about their "about us" section. I'm simply saying I don't believe it. Just as you don't believe anything Trump says, I don't believe candidates follow the "candidates don't have any affiliation with super PACs" rule. The public can never really truly know what goes on behind the scenes.
Here's what we know, not what we guess: Trump called it a Cruz Super PAC and it's not; then Trump said Cruz bought the rights to the photo and gave it to the Super PAC, but the photographer said NOBODY bought the rights to the photo, so again not true. Two for two, Trump making shit up and lying through his teeth, as usual, to justify his classless tweet about Mrs. Cruz. I mean, why would you even say that without talking to the photographer? That's the sign of a pathological liar.
Furthermore, this "Super" PAC has raised and spent a grand total of $19,000 over six states in four months... not exactly a big time operation. In fact, so small an operation, I very much doubt Ted Cruz ever heard of them before this situation.
Of course you don't believe it, if you did, Trump wouldn't look so good.
Your numbers one and two are factually wrong, and your number three is a big so what. Cruz never lied about Carson dropping out, but Trump did lie about Cruz leaving Nevada, didn't he? By the way, Trump himself has admitted his attack on Cruz's wife was a mistake, so you're fighting a battle he himself has abandoned.
Funny how blind to facts Trump supporters are. Actually, not funny. Kinda scary.
When you accuse the other side of cheating every time you lose, you're a baby, plain and simple.
How are numbers one and two factually wrong? Maybe Cruz himself never said Carson was dropping out, but someone in his campaign sent out the tweet stating he his. Doesn't Cruz owe some sort of responsibility to that? I mean he apologized to Carson afterwards. And a super PAC attacking one candidate while saying to vote for another is pro-the other candidate, plain and simple.
Why is three a so what? You say Trump spent his life schmoozing with establishment politicians. Isn't that what number three is describing, Cruz schmoozing with an establishment politician through super PACs?
Also, I never knew Trump claimed all the candidates left Nevada. Mistake on his part, maybe he wanted to get Cruz back for Iowa, I don't know, but thanks for the heads up on that. But you never answered my question at the end: do you really think Cruz is immune to all the corruption in DC, and do you really think he has absolutely no say in any of the pro-Cruz super PACs?
The Cruz campaign RETWEETED the information CNN PUT OUT!
Please try to keep up.
His campaign altered the information CNN put out. CNN never said Carson was dropping out, only that he would be taking a break at his home in Florida before going back out on the campaign trail!
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/06/politics/ted-cruz-cnn-republican-debate/
SERIOUSLY??
You are going to use CNN's website to justify your argument? They are going to cover their own asses and try to blame everyone else!
Normally you'd be right but in this case there's video evidence. Look at the video. Moody's tweets in no way say Carson is dropping out.
"Also, I never knew Trump claimed all the candidates left Nevada. Mistake on his part..."
It may have been a mistake the first time, but after he was informed that he was wrong about Cruz having left the state, Trump went ahead and repeated the claim a couple hours later in a campaign speech. Either he's so stupid he can't remember something he was told two hours ago (a distinct possibility with Trump), or he was flat-out lying the second time.