Red Mosquito

turned2black wrote:It'll be interesting to see where the GOP goes from here. Normally, I'd say Rubio is gonna start to roll and we are clearly headed for a Trump V. Rubio throwdown, but there are a lot of states coming up with a ton of evangelical voters and Cruz should do well there. I wonder if Trump will get some "wins" in those states because Cruz and Rubio split the evangelical and establishment votes or if Rubio gets enough of a post-Bush bump that sends him to those wins.

I think it's becoming clear that Trump has 30-35% of the vote in most states regardless of who or how many people are left in the field, so again...broken record time...the longer the field stays crowded he continues to be the main beneficiary. I've read a lot about Cruz preparing for Super Tuesday/the SEC primary and how he should do well because of evangelicals, but it didn't appear to do much for him in South Carolina, so I don't know how much we can read into that perceived advantage.

"The Party Decides" seems to finally be happening in favor of Rubio, but is it already too late? A lot of primaries become winner take all starting March 15 and if all 3 are still in the race (and it's hard to picture Rubio or Cruz dropping by then) Trump could very quickly run away with this thing.

I'm still officially of the belief that he won't win the nomination, but it's becoming tougher to see this getting down to a two man race when it's still competitive. I think the fact that these early primaries aren't close to being as truly "proportional" as they are for the Democrats is something I didn't anticipate. I figured Trump would be winning just a couple more delegates than Rubio in the first few states and his lead wouldn't be meaningful by the time it shifts to winner-take-all, but that's not how it's turning out.

turned2black wrote:No. Even though Cruz isn't popular with the "establishment", Rubio would still get the vast majority of those votes.

i was looking for info on this but arent the demographics of cruz's supporters a bit closer to to trump than rubio?

turned2black wrote:No. Even though Cruz isn't popular with the "establishment", Rubio would still get the vast majority of those votes.

why?

BurtReynolds wrote:If Cruz drops, Trump is guaranteed to win, right?

Rubio is the real obstacle, not Cruz.

Evangelicals don't like Trump.

he's been pulling in decent numbers with that group, though

stip wrote:

turned2black wrote:No. Even though Cruz isn't popular with the "establishment", Rubio would still get the vast majority of those votes.

i was looking for info on this but arent the demographics of cruz's supporters a bit closer to to trump than rubio?

I don't think this is as relevant as how the candidates do when you combine their 1st and 2nd choice numbers, and this is where Rubio does better than Trump.

From Public Policy Polling

Rubio's the most viable challenger to Trump because he's the most popular of the three serious candidates. His 58/26 favorability is far better than Cruz's 47/36 or Trump's 46/43, and that makes it easier for him to absorb other candidates' supporters.

In a three candidate field Trump holds on to a double digit advantage as well, getting 37% to 26% each for Rubio and Cruz. In a one on one with either Cruz or Rubio things get a lot tougher for Trump though. He leads Cruz only 43/42, and trails Rubio 49/43 one on one. Rubio wins over supporters of Cruz (73/25), Kasich (64/17), Bush (61/24), and Carson (48/38) overwhelmingly if the field gets down to the two of them. A one on one race may be the only thing that can actually stop Trump.

interesting. rubio's strategy has largely been to stay below the radar and let the more bellicose candidates duke it out. this gets harder as the field gets smaller. i bet those numbers shrink.

since i cant figure out why cruz drops i still put trump winning at 70%

From MSNBC...these numbers aren't as dramatic as ones I've seen previously but this is all I could find.

When we ask registered Republican and Republican-leaning voters about their second choices, the results show that Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are in the best position to gain supporters if and when voters decide to make a switch. Cruz is the second choice of 18 percent of registered Republicans, while Rubio is the second choice of 17 percent.

Trump, despite leading the latest national NBC News|SurveyMonkey poll with 38 percent of the vote, only receives 12 percent of second-choice votes. These numbers suggest that as more candidates drop out of the race, Cruz and Rubio will make relative gains on Trump.

Jeb Bush supporters, who currently make up around 4 percent of registered Republicans nationally, would disproportionately move into the Rubio camp, with 19% selecting the Florida senator as their second choice. John Kasich is the next most popular, with 16% of Bush supporters selecting him.

Kasich’s supporters – who currently make up 7 percent of registered Republicans – follow a similar pattern. Rubio again would benefit the most if Kasich were to drop out. Our poll shows that 24 percent of Kasich supporters would currently back Rubio if they could not vote for the Ohio governor, while 21 percent would back Bush.

Ben Carson’s supporters do not seem to follow the same pattern. Cruz is the second choice of the plurality of Carson supporters (24 percent), with Trump a close second at 22 percent.

stip wrote:he's been pulling in decent numbers with that group, though

It's all relative. He's been pulling decent numbers everywhere, but clearly evangelicals aren't his strongsuit. He lost by double digits in Iowa and only won them by 5 or 6 percentage points in S.C. So at the very least, he "underperforming" in that demo. Combine that with his huge "dislike" numbers and I think it makes sense that Rubio would benefit more from Cruz dropping. There's also some history of GOP voters going "establishment" when their candidate drops.

Hey everybody. Keep posting here and dedicating your time/energy to the election. Your vote outside of Ohio or Florida totally matters.

I could be wrong, but I feel like the more aggressive the party (establishment) pushes for Rubio, the more the base itself will not. There was clearly a desire for a non-establishment type in 2012, but ultimately they went with the safe choice who had a better shot at what was considered (to them) to be a relatively weak incumbent. This seems to be the same setup today with Rubio, but I think people are underestimating just how upset the GOP base is with that 2012 election. You see this clearly with the outright rejection of the governors. Rubio's been the guy playing both sides, but once he's the official party guy, who knows. The odd thing is that Rubio on paper is way closer to Cruz than he was Bush or Kasich.

I don't think anyone can really count on who gets Carson's votes (are those real people?), but I suspect they're mostly going to Cruz, since he's the one strong on the constitution and faith. And I do believe Trump and Cruz have the best chance of inheriting each other's voters. Obviously no Trump voter cares much about issues - they want a strong outsider. Only Cruz (somewhat) fits that bill. And while Cruz voters do care about issues, again, these people don't want to compromise. Rubio has everything they're looking for on paper, but the fact that he's still in the low 20s long after the governors were deemed non-viable has to be troubling. He didn't beat Bush, Trump did. He didn't beat Christie, the other two governors did. He isn't forcing anyone out. If the voters of all these other people are automatic for Rubio, I just don't understand why there hasn't already been a clear bump.

And in the context of running against Hillary - she is struggling with young people and independents. Cruz seems to be doing best with young people on the GOP side, and Trump with independents. You'd think the best general election candidate would be doing well there.

Edit - maybe "independents" isn't the right term for people supporting Trump. What I really mean is new voters who don't have a strong leaning.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop- ... ter-219597

Rubio super PAC compares him to Harry Potter
By ANNA PALMER 02/21/16 07:28 PM EST
Leaders of a pro-Rubio super PAC sent a fundraising memo Sunday evening likening Marco Rubio to the youthful boy wizard Harry Potter and Donald Trump to the evil wizard Voldemort from the Harry Potter book series.

"The results in South Carolina were tremendously good for Marco Rubio," Warren Tompkins and Jon Lerner wrote. "This morning, the media speculation that Donald Trump is unstoppable, is flatly wrong. It misses a central element of this year's Republican nominating contest."

Despite Trump's strong first-place finish in South Carolina, Rubio's super PAC advisers claimed that the contest actually made him "weaker." Rubio finished second with Ted Cruz just behind him in third place.
Tompkins and Lerner then spent the bulk of the message to donors building out the analogy of Rubio as Potter and Trump as Voldemort.

"In Harry Potter lore, Voldemort, the Dark Lord, had a secret to his strength. His secret was his horcruxes," they wrote. "As each horcrux was destroyed, Voldemort became increasingly vulnerable, not increasingly strong. When all of the horcruxes were gone, Voldemort lost his one-on-one battle with Harry Potter."

While the super PAC was trying to show that in a one-on-one contest with Trump, Rubio would prevail, the Florida Republican might not appreciate being compared to the boy wizard. Rubio's youth has been negatively remarked upon by older voters.

The super PAC said it plans to continue be active in nearly every state that votes in March and asked donors to continue giving to their cause.

The key to their argument to donors is Trump's ceiling for attracting more voters.

"The data consistently and overwhelmingly shows Trump with the highest unfavorables among the remaining candidates, and that he is the last choice of more voters than any other Republican by far," they write. "Like Voldemort's horcruxes, the large candidate field shields Trump from harm. At each step of the primary process, Trump is losing his shields, and that is making him more vulnerable."

Rob wrote: And in the context of running against Hillary - she is struggling with young people and independents. Cruz seems to be doing best with young people on the GOP side, and Trump with independents. You'd think the best general election candidate would be doing well there.

Hillary struggles with the youth vote compared to a very liberal candidate that is promising free college and a political revolution. She would have the youth vote against any GOP candidate. Her problem in the GE won't be losing the youth vote to Republicans, it will be that she doesn't excite young people enough to make them turnout in droves. Those who do vote, though, will overwhelmingly vote Democrat as usual, so I don't think that would be a real focal point of the GOP even if the goal were specifically to choose the most electable GE candidate.

4/5 wrote:

Rob wrote: And in the context of running against Hillary - she is struggling with young people and independents. Cruz seems to be doing best with young people on the GOP side, and Trump with independents. You'd think the best general election candidate would be doing well there.

Hillary struggles with the youth vote compared to a very liberal candidate that is promising free college and a political revolution. She would have the youth vote against any GOP candidate. Her problem in the GE won't be losing the youth vote to Republicans, it will be that she doesn't excite young people enough to make them turnout in droves. Those who do vote, though, will overwhelmingly vote Democrat as usual, so I don't think that would be a real focal point of the GOP even if the goal were specifically to choose the most electable GE candidate.

She doesn't excite anyone. She is going to win this nomination on the backs of people (african americans) who will not matter in the general election. I know the GOP won't win the youth vote, and I understand a challenge from the left is different than a challenge from the right. But this is two primaries in a row where she's being crushed among the youth - and Bernie's margins seem quite a bit larger than Obama's. That doesn't necessarily translate to GOP votes, but turnout on their side is low, while turnout on the right is breaking records. And I do not believe that we can assume Bernie supporters turn out for her. Some will, sure, but this is a weird primary in the sense that the frontrunner is seen by a large part of the (younger) base as being a real part of the problem. I see a lot of apathy and a lot of anger. (And how about that Latino firewall? Certainly failed its first test)

I just feel that for the second time now, it's becoming clear that Hillary is not really that strong a candidate, and therefore the right sees her as weak. Electability doesn't seem to be polling very high on the right.

My only real point is that I think this narrative that Rubio is the best candidate for the general election against Hillary is shared by a lot of people outside the base, but not within it. And it's the base that votes. They don't fear her. Personally I think if Hillary is now again the presumptive winner, it helps Trump. He's taken on real power and won.

I don't really disagree with much that you said except that barring a major October Surprise I don't think Trump can beat her. His negatives are so high within his own party let alone the rest of the country that I don't think he'd stand a chance. But I didn't think he'd get this far, so who knows. I just can't envision him turning his 35% of Republicans into a winning GE electoral coalition, regardless of how uninspiring people find Hillary.

She is going to win this nomination on the backs of people (african americans) who will not matter in the general election.

This, though, just isn't true. Black voters really couldn't be much more important than they are. It is basically as simple as: If black voters turnout at the same rate as 2012 Democrats win comfortably. If they turnout a little less, Democrats win a tight race. If their turnout returns to 2004 type levels Democrats lose. If you meant that blacks aren't in play for the GOP then I agree with that, but this election will largely hinge upon whether Hillary can get them to come to the polls in Obama-like numbers. (But if she's against Trump black turnout probably matters less because I'd expect a strong majority of independents to vote Democratic.)

538 has a pretty cool interactive tool where you can play around with the demographic groups and change their turnout and/or change how much they support a party and watch what it does to the outcome and it indicates that small changes in black turnout have a profound effect on the results.

Team 4/5

She will win or lose the general election largely based on black voter turnout.

turned2black wrote:There's also some history of GOP voters going "establishment" when their candidate drops.

I can't find any real numbers to back this up, but isn't this the case?

Or did I just totally pull it out of my ass?

4/5 wrote: This, though, just isn't true. Black voters really couldn't be much more important than they are. It is basically as simple as: If black voters turnout at the same rate as 2012 Democrats win comfortably. If they turnout a little less, Democrats win a tight race. If their turnout returns to 2004 type levels Democrats lose. If you meant that blacks aren't in play for the GOP then I agree with that, but this election will largely hinge upon whether Hillary can get them to come to the polls in Obama-like numbers. (But if she's against Trump black turnout probably matters less because I'd expect a strong majority of independents to vote Democratic.)

Maybe it's a little harsh to say the black vote doesn't matter (I could have worded that better), but as cynical as this may seem, I just can't imagine turnout among black people being near what it was with a black man running. I know that's not a popular thing to say, but the 90s are way behind us and younger minorities aren't so tied to the Clintons (I am a 37 year old Latino liberal, for what it's worth). Turnout is already a good bit down from 2008, and way up on the other side. And the highest concentration of black people are in states the GOP will win anyway. She needs a strong showing among blacks (and Latinos) in places like Ohio, PA, MI, NC and Virginia. Obama won these states (tho lost NC the second time) because of high turnout. What we are seeing right now is that the passion required to bring new and/or somewhat disengaged people out is not with her. It wasn't there in 2008, and not today. Maybe that will change. She is clearly, on paper, the best candidate all around. It's just that no one seems to like her. That's a ridiculous reason to vote for/against, but people need to feel good about the person they're voting for.

And just one other thing. She struggled with Bernie more than she should have, despite the fact that his views were not mainstream, and maybe more importantly he chose to be somewhat nice and not directly go after her and her weaknesses. The GOP won't be so nice. If Trump is her challenger, we will find out just how much people care about her ties to Wall Street and special interests, because you already know those attacks are coming in hard.