Free Republic

"and will have a fractured base from a contested convention."

Let me also add, that a fractured base from a contested convention is easier to repair than a fractured base from hateful rhetoric heaped onto supporters of one candidate by supporters of another candidate. Both Cruz and Trump supporters are extremely guilty of this, but Trump is the CANDIDATE who bears the blame by setting the example and legitimizing it.

Trump used "The other guy started it" as a way to justify his own bad behavior. That wasn't always a true statement, but even if it was, Trump admits he hits back harder. And what Trump does is often completely out of proportion to what was done to him. It's comparable to using a nuclear attack in response to a poke in the side.

I don't agree with a lot of Trump's "policies", but even if I agreed with him 100% I could never support a person like him, and would only ever vote for him if I was in a situation where my vote for him could help prevent an equally despicable person with even worse policies from winning.

Since I live in California, I can take pleasure in voting against Trump in the primary where my vote could actually matter for the first time in my lifetime, and I can take pleasure in not voting for Trump in the General, where my vote doesn't matter because the Democratic nominee will win the state by millions of votes.

Ironically, going into the campaign, I was a Trump fan and he was my first choice. It was observing his poor behavior and hearing his poor answers to substantive questions that has made me firmly opposed to him.

"One need only look at who is running, funding and helping Cruz now, Its the Who’s who of the GOP Establishment."

That doesn't make Cruz one of them. He should refuse their help? Trump wouldn't. In fact, Trump just hired a GOP Establishment guy to help him in the delegate fight, and is hiring more establishment types daily, by the sound of it.

"And anybody who does not support Trump fall into at least 4 groups it seems."

Wow. That's a really offensive opinion. And I know lots of people who don't support Trump and don't fall into those 4 groups.

Here's a few groups that some of them fit into:

5. People who think that an immature jerk who reflexively tries to destroy the reputation and career of even people who mostly agree with him, should never be given power.

6. People who think that a man whose political positions were starkly different until recently can't be trusted.

7. People who think that a man who has shown incredible naivete about world affairs ("Bush lied", we should deal with the Palestinians, etc.) should not be Commander in Chief.

8. People who think a man who achieved real estate success in large part by currying favor and by intimidation and corrupt dealing would ADD to the problem in Washington, not subtract from it.

"Not a one of the Cruz supporters can tells us how Cruz can win the General"

This particular Cruz supporter believes Trump has already destroyed Cruz's chance of winning the General. That "Lyin' Cruz" lie was very effective. But I believe Trump's repulsive invective has also guaranteed that HE cannot win the General. Trump has already guaranteed a Republican loss in November by dividing the party with hateful rhetoric.

"When you have much smarter and better conservatives than you supporting Trump over Cruz, such as Jeff Sessions, Palin, Sheriff Joe, This sites Owner"

I've never seen any evidence that any of the people you mention are smarter than me. And of course, you define smarter and better conservatives as those who support Trump.

I could easily post a list of people whom I could claim are smarter and better conservatives than you, but here's another difference between me and most Trump supporters on this site: I don't follow the Trump doctrine of escalating personal attacks.

"No other candidate has campaigned past their expiration date in modern GOP history before this year."

a) Not true. Both Ford and Reagan failed to reach the required number of bound delegates before the convention in 1976 and neither stopped campaigning.

b) In the many cases where that was true, that's because no front runner had only 38% of the total vote before this year. Candidates dropped out because they were out of money or knew there would be no 2nd ballot.

"The fifth columnists of the GOP are the reason we are divided to begin with."

Baloney. Trump's immature behavior and despicable tactics of personal destruction are the primary dividers. To a much lesser degree, we are divided on priorities and policy issues.

By that, I mean, Trump and Cruz voters have different priorities as to what they value most in a candidate. And that Trump and Cruz have some small, but significant to many, policy differences.

Now in the past, Republicans have, for the most part, come together to rally around the nominee even when it wasn't an individual voters first choice. This time it won't happen, because when Trump was doling out his vicious insults, supporters of the insulted candidates took it personally. Others may not take it personally, but simply refuse to vote for a person with that glaring a character flaw.

It's like on the TV show Survivor... there you have to eliminate your opponents in such a way that you can still get their vote when they are on the jury. Here the only difference is that you have to get their supporters votes, which may be even harder. Trump has failed miserably in that department.

It MIGHT have had a small amount of legitimacy if used only as described. But then Trumpers began applying it to Cruz, and by extension his supporters, to mean "anyone who doesn't support Trump".

The proof that this was an illegitimate usage is that for the first half of the campaign, Donald's talking point against Cruz was that the whole GOP hated him and he couldn't get along. Now we're supposed to believe that Cruz is part of the establishment, even though the establishment hates him?

I know it's asking a lot of Trump supporters to use their brains, but think on this: every time a Cruz supporter, like me, sees a sophomoric (the "Pee" sound at the end is not unintentional) made-up term used by Trump supporters to insult Cruz and his supporters, that makes us feel anger towards you and Trump, and creates disunity, not the unity Jim Robinson claimed to be asking for.

I've modeled the remaining states based on polls when available and previous similar states when polls aren't available. Right now, my model predicts Trump will come up a mere 5 delegates short in bound delegates. Since Trump will almost certainly own the allegiance of a couple dozen Pennsylvania unbound delegates, that would be enough for him to win.

There are really only 3 states left that matter much...

Pennsylvania, where the strange delegate selection makes it too unpredictable to model.

Indiana, where there is no polling, but most models I'm aware of give it heavily to Cruz, based on previous votes of similar states. I suspect that the situation has changed enough that comparisons no longer apply. Even a close win by Cruz over Trump in Indiana, as opposed to a decisive win, increases Trump's chances of reaching 1237 before Cleveland.

California, where most polls and models see a heavy Trump victory, but Cruz could potentially prevent Trump from a first-ballot win by picking off just enough congressional districts.

All the other states remaining to vote have fairly predictable outcomes that are only likely to vary by a small number of delegates either way.

All that said, in my opinion, and I hope I'm wrong, so this is not an opinion formed from personal candidate preference, Trump right now has only about a 45% chance of reaching 1237 bound delegates before the convention, but has a 95% chance of being close enough to 1237, that he still gets a first ballot win.

"The problem is that Trump supporters keep transferring Trump’s own weaknesses onto Cruz....Just like Trump does. Though I don’t expect them to see this but it’s quite clear and easily seen."

Of course, the difference between Trump and his supporters is that when he does it, it's a savvy, albeit immoral, tactic. When his supporters do it, it's ignorant acceptance of everything lyin' Donald says.

Trump's supporters choose to really believe him. So it's intelligent dishonesty by Trump and ignorant honesty from his supporters. And by such means have so many disreputable men come to power.

Anytime I see someone use the divisive term “GOPe”, I really lose a lot of respect for them. Say “Republican establishment” if that’s what you mean, instead of making up an insulting term. Ironically, you call for unity while using a divisive term. That sounds more like a gloating call for surrender than a true call to unity.

I'm sad that you led me to that post, because anytime I see someone use the divisive term "GOPe", I really lose a lot of respect for them. Say "Republican establishment" if that's what you mean, instead of making up an insulting term. Ironically, he calls for unity while using a divisive term. That sounds more like a gloating call for surrender than a true call to unity.

Until now I had no reason to disrespect Jim Robinson, though I knew little about him other than he founded/created this website.

And it wasn’t a hint. He flat out claimed it was a lie. Then lied and denied it a day or two later on O’Reilly.

Correction, too ignorant.

Funny, that was the moment I decided Trump was too stupid to ever vote for.

"I guess the big question is whetrher we believe Donald Trump will actually follow through and implement them.

If he has the right people around him, helping him, showing him how...I believe he will.

I personally believe that if it is a Trump v Hillary race, Trump will begin parroting Bernie Sanders' positions in order to cut into Democratic support... that's really his only Hail Mary chance to win, considering how many conservatives and Republicans will refuse to support him.

But getting Sanders voters out for Trump means Republicans lose the Senate and possibly the House too. And Trump is still highly likely to lose too, giving the Dems everything.

In addition, if the Dems ever see a poll with Trump actually beating Hillary, all they have to do is OK the FBI indictment and replace Hillary with someone less hated like Elizabeth Warren.

Trump has ALREADY mostly destroyed the chances of a Republican win in November. Both he and Cruz have too high negatives to win....all thanks to Trump. It's too late for a Cruz concession to repair that. At this point, even though I was a Cruz supporter, I think the only prayer for Republicans is to nominate Rubio on a late ballot. Neither Trump supporters nor Cruz supporters completely hate the guy, and he's less establishment/moderate than Kasich. And even then winning the presidency would still be a longshot. But at least the downticket wouldn't suffer as much as with Trump.

But my delegate model currently shows Trump entering the convention with 1232 delegates, just 5 short. And with over 100 unbound delegates, it's a lock that he would then win on the first ballot. This could change, but it isn't likely, especially with Cruz supports like yourself, if not Cruz, throwing in the towel already.

"why are they afraid to let the people make their choice?"

"Certainly they have plenty of money from pot sales to afford an election."

Not making a judgment here, just a guess, but maybe Colorado Republicans don't trust voters who legalized pot? It certainly isn't the rocket scientist vote. :-)

Whatever the reason, based on what I've seen this year, the grassroots Republicans who attend state conventions are certainly making more intelligent decisions for the party and the country than the at-large primaries, many of which allow Dems and independents (with no allegiance to the party at all) to vote.

I’m WAY more bothered by the lack of polling in some states that haven’t voted yet. I try to model what might happen in the delegate count, but several states with primaries upcoming have either no polling data at all, or else very outdated data, in some cases several months old.

OK, sure, it's slightly interesting. But it has no important meaning, would just be a trivial footnote. Polling is expensive, so apparently no polling institutions thought this trivia was worth their time.

Instead, we found out that the 65,000 or thereabouts caucus goers supported Cruz. That had impact on the delegate count. The opinion of Coloradans who decided not to caucus doesn't matter. It would be like polling the people in 2012 who stayed home and didn't vote for Romney or Obama. Mildly interesting, but 100% unimportant.

"I was trying to find some polling numbers from Colorado but none to be found. Odd."

Not odd at all. Everyone (except apparently the Trump campaign) knew there was no public vote, so what would be the point of trying to find out what the public opinion was?

"He won closed primaries in Florida, Nevada and Arizona by almost 2-1 margins.

And by the way, while it is technically true that in one of the three states you mentioned, Trump had double the votes of the nearest challenger, and if stretched could be described as 2-1 in the other two, it's very disingenuous, bordering on blatant spin to describe three contests where 54% of the votes were not for Trump as winning by 2-1 margins, implying dramatic landslides, despite Trump only getting 46% of the vote in each state.

Yes, in a two-man race, a 2-1 of 66% to 33% is a landslide. 2-1 in the races you referenced simply illustrate the split among notTrump voters. In February, Trump had a 30-19 lead over Cruz in Wisconsin polls. By your standards, that was "almost 2-1". Then when it was a 2-man race and all was said and done, Cruz added 29 points and finished at 48%, while Trump added 5 points and finished at 35. In other words, Cruz added votes from candidates who dropped out at almost 6-1 over Trump.

"He won closed primaries in Florida, Nevada and Arizona by almost 2-1 margins."

Nevada was a caucus, not a primary.

But yes, those were among the 7 out of 17 closed contests Trump won. Of course, Rubio was still on the ballot in Florida and Cruz's voters mostly moved to him, because polling showed that was the best way to vote against Trump. Rubio took votes from Cruz in Arizona. And a dozen people split the anti-Trump vote in Nevada.

"Ted does poorly in any race where voters can cast a simple vote and don't have go through the hassle of voting in caucus."

Trump has done better in primaries than Cruz, that's true. It's nice for him when he doesn't need an intelligent organization to run a ground game, and when his voters don't face any intellectual challenge. Of course, Trump is now zero for one in primaries that took place when only two guys were left to split the anti-Trump vote.

Trump is fortunate in the order of state voting, because there are a lot of eastern states where he is strong left, and can win even with only 2 others on the ballot. In many states that already voted where Trump won, he would now lose if they voted again.

Completely apart from this election, in my opinion, Steve’s response which includes completely unearned courtesy, clear reasoning and remarkable restraint shows him to be a better man than you.