Bernie Sanders' path to the White House

(Michael Vadon/Wikimedia)

“If Bernie Sanders wins the White House,” goes a popular meme, “it will be the first time a socialist has been elected president since 2008.” While Barack Obama is not an avowed socialist, the meme underscores the fact that socialistic ideas are not the anathema that they once were. Bernie Sanders could win.

Unlike Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders has been open about being a socialist, even if he doesn’t like the term. He has cited American Socialist Eugene V. Debs as his hero. Until he decided to run for the Democratic nomination last year, he served Vermont in Congress as an independent, not a Democrat.

Bernie’s success has surprised many political observers as well as the Clinton campaign. Over the past few months the Sanders campaign has morphed from a quixotic campaign that seemed to exist only to make a statement to a burgeoning political movement that is increasingly playing to win. Still, in spite of his victories, Sanders trails Clinton in the delegate count, thanks in large part to the Democratic system of unbound superdelegates.

At this point in the primary, it appears unlikely that Sanders can beat Hillary for the nomination in a straight fight. With 1,941 delegates still available, Sanders trails Hillary by 688. The proportional distribution of delegates in Democratic primaries makes it difficult for Sanders to win enough bound delegates to dethrone Hillary.

In addition to a Sanders surge, a Hillary implosion will probably be required for a Sanders win. A major gaffe by Mrs. Clinton or, perhaps more likely, an indictment, might swing enough Clinton backers and superdelegates toward Sanders to allow him to secure the nomination. The situation is somewhat similar to 2008 although Obama had a slight lead in pledged delegates in April of that year. In contrast, Sanders trails in a close race.

Winning the Democratic nomination might actually be the hardest part of Bernie’s path to the White House. While most on the right view the word “socialist” as very negative, polling shows that many young voters are more open to voting for socialists. The term is not the political kiss of death that it would have been 20 years ago.

Second, Bernie is not viewed nearly as negatively as Republican frontrunners Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. Trump has the highest negative rating of any presumed nominee in history. Cruz fares better, but is still less popular than Sanders. Neither Republican is widely viewed as honest or trustworthy. With Cruz and Trump calling each other liars, competing to see who can be more harsh on immigration and even insulting each other’s wives, it is unlikely that either will seem much more likeable before the convention.

Current head-to-head polling shows that Bernie fares better against both Republicans than Mrs. Clinton. The Real Clear Politics average shows that Sanders leads Ted Cruz by 10 points while Clinton only leads the Texas senator by 2.5 points, well within the margin of error of most polls. Hillary leads Donald Trump by more than 10 points, but The Donald trails Bernie by a staggering 16 points. With several months yet to go in the bruising Republican primary, it is likely that the eventual Republican nominee will emerge even more damaged and with higher negatives, making it even harder to turn the national tide.

Sanders, on the other hand, is a likeable candidate. Even though most voters probably disagree with his policy prescriptions, he comes across as more honest and charismatic than either Hillary Clinton or the Republican frontrunners. His campaign has a positive energy that is lacking from the stolid plodding of the Clinton campaign, the televangelist feel of the Cruz campaign or the combativeness and anger of Trump. The Democratic primary has not been as dirty and damaging to its candidates as the Republican primary.

In short, it’s likely that Sanders could beat either Trump or Cruz in a head-to-head race if he can put away Hillary Clinton first. The odds are stacked against the Republican duo by their harsh appeals to the conservative base on immigration. The swing states where the presidential race will be decided are filled with moderates and minority voters who are much less enamored with the idea of deporting illegal aliens than are Republican primary voters.

The final nail in the Republican coffin would be the party division that will result from the convention fight that is almost certain to occur. If Trump goes into the convention with a delegate lead that is short of the required majority and does not emerge as the nominee, a large number of his supporters will desert the GOP and either not vote or vote for an independent Trump or another third party.

On the other hand, a Trump nomination would be equally destructive to the GOP. As many as 30-40 percent of Republican voters could desert the party if Trump is its nominee. Trump opponents are also considering third party options. Regardless of the outcome of the primaries and convention, the Republican Party seems destined for a crackup.

Barring a third party run from the left by someone such as Michael Bloomberg, who says he has changed his mind about mounting an independent campaign, a divided Republican Party would almost assure a Democrat victory, whether the candidate is Sanders or Clinton. The biggest obstacle to the White House for Bernie Sanders is disposing of Hillary Clinton and her superdelegate lead. 

Read it on Conservative Firing Line and Freedom Daily

New poll shows Trump might lose Mississippi to Clinton

(Youtube.com)

Amid questions about Donald Trump’s electability in the general election, a new poll may undermine Trump’s claims that he is the best candidate to defeat Hillary Clinton. At this stage of the campaign, most head-to-head matchups are national polls. Since the actual election hinges on state elections for the Electoral College, national head-to-head polls are of questionable value. One recent poll showed a state matchup between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton that should worry The Donald’s supporters.

Mississippi is a red state that has voted Republican in every election since its electors cast their ballots for Jimmy Carter in 1976. In most recent elections, it hasn’t even been close. For the past four presidential elections, Mississippi went for the Republican candidate by double-digit margins. This has been true even when the national popular vote was close, as it was in 2012.

This week, however, a new poll sent out a shockwave when it showed that Mississippi might be in play in a potential matchup between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. The Mason-Dixon poll of 625 registered voters found that Trump and Clinton were in a statistical tie at 46-43 percent.

The poll showed Clinton with an Obama-like majority of black voters at 93 percent and a convincing lead among women voters at 47-40 percent. Clinton also was favored by 11 percent of Republican voters.

The poll also asked who voters would support if an unnamed third party candidate was in the race. In this scenario, Trump and Hillary tied at 39 percent and the unknown candidate received 13 percent.

Both Ted Cruz and John Kasich performed better against Hillary than Trump did. Cruz beat Clinton by a 51-40 percent margin. Kasich did even better at 52-37 percent.

The problem is not that Trump is unknown. Ninety-nine percent of Mississippi voters are familiar with Trump. His approval rating is a net -11 points with 44 percent disapproving and only 33 percent viewing him favorably. This is still a higher approval rating than Trump has nationally.

Much of Trump’s problem is the scorched earth nature of his primary campaign. CNN exit polls from Wisconsin found that only 62 percent of Republicans would vote for Trump if he is the party’s nominee. Ten percent planned to vote for Clinton while 17 percent would back a third party candidate. Eight percent plan to sit out the election.

The Mississippi poll is the first hard evidence of the electoral disaster that awaits Republicans if they nominate Donald Trump. Electoral math would require Republicans to win at least four key battleground states that were won twice by President Obama. If a Trump candidacy endangers the Republican hold on Mississippi, chances of winning swing states would be nil. So would his chances of winning the White House.

Read it on Conservative Firing Line or Freedom Daily

Trump and Cruz approval hits record low; both may be unelectable

As the two leading contenders for the Republican nomination continue to hammer each other in round after round of primaries, it seems likely that neither will achieve a knockout or win enough delegates to win a decision at the convention. At this point, the main accomplishment of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz seems to have been to bruise and bloody each other enough so that neither is likely to be able to beat the presumed Democrat champion, Hillary Clinton.

A recent Gallup poll comparing approval ratings for the remaining candidates found that the historically poor view of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz held by Americans reached a new low amid their insults and squabbling over everything from wives to who would deport more illegal immigrants. Trump and Cruz approval ratings are the lowest of all remaining candidates.

Donald Trump, the perennially unpopular candidate who has been continually reviled since his campaign’s inception last summer, continues to hold the most negative rating with a net approval rating of -35. For those of you in Rio Lindo, this means that people who disapprove of Trump outnumber those who approve of him by 35 points. According to Washington Post research, Trump has the most negative rating of any serious presidential candidate ever. The only candidate who has ever rated worse than Mr. Trump is David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan leader who ran for the Republican nomination in 1992.

Ted Cruz fares better in Gallup’s findings, but not by much. Cruz, who held a positive approval rating as recently as December has seen his rating plummet to near-Trumpian levels. Cruz’s -16 rating is actually one point higher than Donald Trump’s all-time high. Like Marco Rubio, whose campaign imploded when he adopted Trump’s tactics, Cruz is being tarnished by his tit for tat with The Donald.

Ironically, the third place finisher who is the odds on favorite to become the next president, Hillary Clinton, also has a negative rating. Nevertheless, the only candidate under investigation by the FBI (that we know of) and the only candidate who is likely to be indicted during the campaign, is still more popular than Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. Her -11 rating is not her lowest and actually seems to be an improvement. Hillary’s approval rating has been remarkably consistent, even if slightly underwater, for the entire campaign.

The negative ratings of the two most likely Republican contenders may explain the increase in party identification among Democrats over the past few months. In the latest Gallup poll of party affiliation, Democrats led Republicans by six points. When leaners were taken into account, Democrats held an 8 point advantage. This margin is practically identical to the Democratic lead over Republicans as the 2012 elections approached.

Who fares best in the current public opinion? Ironically, it is John Kasich with a net favorable rating of 19 points who looks best to American voters. In a somewhat close second, Bernie Sanders finishes with a net positive rating of 10 percent.

Why are the also-rans finishing so much better than the frontrunners? In the case of Trump and Cruz, it might be that their attacks on each other have left the public with a sour taste its mouth. The anti-establishment and hardline immigration rhetoric of the pair might also simply not resonate with voters outside the Republican Party’s base.

Bernie Sanders’ popularity may be a rejection of Hillary Clinton among the Democratic Party base. Hillary is not generally well liked or trusted even among Democrats. Her FBI investigation and looming possible indictment have not gone unnoticed. Neither have the fundraising practices of the Clinton Foundation or Clinton connections to Wall Street. Sanders’ combination of democratic socialism and folksy populism is appealing for a party whose base has drifted farther and farther left during the eight years of the Obama Administration.

The widespread dissatisfaction with the leading candidates spells trouble for both parties. Ironically, for all their division Republicans may have an advantage here. If no Republican can win a majority and clinch the nomination, an open convention may present the party with a rare chance for a do-over. Scott Walker, the Republican governor of Wisconsin recently told The Cap Times, “I think if it’s an open convention, it’s very likely it would be someone who’s not currently running. I mean, who knows?”

Due to the nature of the Democratic race, Democrats will have no such opportunity for a split decision. With only two candidates running for the Democratic nomination, there will be only one winner and one loser. For better or for worse, Democrats will be stuck with the choice of their primary voters and superdelegates.

For Republicans who support none of the above remaining candidates, there is hope that the convention delegates will find a better candidate. The job of a political party is to nominate a candidate who can win. That job may well end up in the hands of convention delegates.

Read it on Conservative Firing Line and Freedom Daily

2016 may be the year of the third party

Michael Vadon/Flickr

2016 has already proven to be the year in which the rules of previous election years were discarded. The putative outsider Donald Trump leads the delegate race for the Republican presidential nomination in spite of the fact that he isn’t a conservative, supports unconservative policies such as universal healthcare and breaks all the rules of decorum and civility associated with politics. From the left, Bernie Sanders, an avowed democratic socialist, has challenged the Clinton political machine for the Democratic nomination. From the center left, former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg has hinted at a possible run for president under a third party banner. Mainstream Republicans are calling for a third candidate to oppose Trump if he wins the nomination. In a normal year, a third party would do little more than siphon votes from one of the two major parties, but, in a year when all the rules are being broken, could a third party candidate win?

For now, Bloomberg has backed away from a presidential run, but may change if Hillary Clinton is indicted or loses the nomination to Bernie Sanders. Many Democrats like Sanders, but feel that an out-of-the-closet socialist is not electable. Hillary Clinton, although liked by few and trusted by fewer, is looked upon as the safe bet for Democrats. Nevertheless, if Clinton wins the nomination and is then indicted by the FBI or otherwise implodes, Bloomberg might run to give liberals and moderates a viable option.

There is a different scenario under which a third party candidate could actually become president. This scenario involves Donald Trump winning the Republican nomination. A significant portion of Republicans are rallying around the #NeverTrump Twitter hashtag and pledging to vote for the Democratic nominee or simply stay home if Mr. Trump wins the Republican nomination.

Under the second scenario, a third (or fourth) party conservative candidate would challenge Donald Trump from the right on behalf of aggrieved conservative voters who dislike Mr. Trump’s political positions and personality and who worry that his candidacy would damage the Republican brand for a generation. In February, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) became the first Republican to declare that he could not support Trump and called for a third option if Trump won the nomination. 

Under this scenario, the third party candidate would not have to win the election outright. The strategy would be to deny both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump an Electoral College majority. This could be accomplished by picking off strategic states from both the blue and red columns. For example, a conservative third candidate might win Texas where Ted Cruz bested Trump in the primary. Ohio, where John Kasich beat Trump might also be a possibility. Given the weakness and unpopularity of Hillary Clinton, some blue collar Democrat states might also go third party. Pennsylvania, Iowa, the Rust Belt state of Wisconsin would be possibilities.

Under the Constitution, if no candidate receives a majority in the Electoral College, each state’s delegation to the House of Representatives gets one vote to decide the election. In this situation, the Senate would choose the vice-president from the top two finishers. With Republicans in control of the lame duck Congress, the House would be unlikely to choose Hillary or Donald Trump if another option was available.

To have a prayer of success, a third party conservative would need several attributes. First, with little time between the Republican convention in July and the general election in November, the candidate would have to be well known to the American public at the beginning of the campaign. There would be no time for the “get acquainted” period enjoyed by Ross Perot during his semi-successful third party run in the 90s or the long runup to the nomination that allowed relative unknowns like Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Bernie Sanders to be catapulted to national status. Good and popular conservatives such as Mike Lee (R-Utah) and former Florida congressman Allen West would be probably not work because they are not well known outside the conservative movement.

Second, the candidate would have to have the ability to unite the various anti-Trump factions of the Republican Party under his third party banner. With Trump winning 30-40 percent of the vote in Republican primaries, 60-70 percent of Republicans still oppose him, but they are fragmented into several factions. There is the establishment, the Tea Party, national security conservatives, economic conservatives, libertarians, and evangelicals to name a few. It must also be assumed that a number of anti-Trump Republicans will vote for him anyway simply because of the (R) after his name. Any candidate that represents only one faction, such as Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush, would be unlikely to unite the disparate factions of the GOP.

Many states also have sore loser laws that prevent a candidate from running as an independent after losing a partisan primary. The effectiveness and constitutionality of these laws is questionable, but an opponent could conceivably use them to keep a previous candidate off the ballot in the general election. For this reason, any conservative who was a candidate in the Republican primaries would not be a likely third party challenger. We can say “adios” to Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, John Kasich and Carly Fiorina.

The third party challenger would also need support from within the current Republican Party. Current Republican politicians would need to steer voters away from Donald Trump and toward the third party candidate. While some Republicans have endorsed Mr. Trump already, many Republicans will probably never get on board the Trump train.

Because a candidate launching a campaign just a few months before the election would have little time for fundraising, personal wealth would also be a plus. Like Bloomberg and Trump, who have the wherewithal to spend large sums of their personal fortunes on a presidential campaign, a conservative third candidate would clearly benefit from being rich. If the candidate did not have his own money, he would need quick access to conservative donors such as Sheldon Adelson or the Koch brothers.

There are precious few potential candidates who meet all or even most of these requirements. The most obvious potential candidate is Mitt Romney who came within a whisker of beating Barack Obama in 2012 and who looked even better to American voters in retrospect. In recent weeks, Romney has launched sharp criticism of Donald Trump over his refusal to release his tax returns and the Trump campaign’s connections to racist groups. Romney has also recorded anti-Trump robocalls for Ted Cruz.

It is unclear at this point whether Romney is positioning himself to run as a conservative alternative to The Donald or whether he is just trying blunt Trump’s lead over this year’s candidates. Romney may also be thinking forward to a contested convention. If the three frontrunners emerge from the primary fight without a majority of delegates and too bruised to win the general election, Republican delegates might look to Romney to be the party’s “white knight” as a consensus nominee.

Another interesting possibility is to send in the Marines. Specifically, there has been a recent groundswell of support for a movement to draft retired Marine General James Mattis. In the Daily Beast John Noonan compared Mattis to President Eisenhower and called him the “only hope” to “save us from Trump – and Clinton.” Noonan says that Mattis, a political outsider with a strong foreign policy and national security resume, would satisfy voter desires for “a strong leader, one who is upright, honest, and unstained by political blood sport.” On the downside, Mattis is not a household name.

Last week, Mattis, nicknamed the “Warrior Monk,” was asked about the “draft Mattis” movement. The Daily Caller reported that he answered, “I think it’s merely idle chatter,” an answer that effectively ducked the question.

A third possibility for a third candidate is Gary Johnson of the established perennial spoiler, the Libertarian Party. A recent Monmouth poll found the former Republican governor of New Mexico and 2012 Libertarian presidential candidate at 11 percent. While this is a distant third to Hillary and Trump who polled at 42 and 34 percent respectively, it is an order of magnitude higher than Johnson’s actual performance in 2012 when he won one percent of the vote and no electoral votes. Libertarian candidates are normally statistical blips. This year, the Libertarian Party has the advantage of having a developed network to get on the ballot in all 50 states.

A firm rule of American politics is that third parties never win. Most often, they hurt the party that they are more closely aligned with and throw the election to their ideological opponents. What we have seen so far, however, is that 2016 is a year like no other. This year anything can happen… or so it seems.

Read it on Conservative Firing Line and Freedom Daily

Did Trump really win the Hispanic vote in Webb County, Texas?

(Youtube.com)

A post-Super Tuesday article from the Laredo (Texas) Morning Times is making the rounds on the internet. According to those posting the article, Donald Trump’s primary election victory in Webb County Texas proves that Trump can win Hispanic voters in spite of his immigration policies, which include deportation of all illegal immigrants and a 40-foot tall wall along the Mexican border. Critics have argued that Trump’s proposals, along with rhetoric calling illegal immigrants “criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.” will drive Latino voters to the Democratic Party.

Webb County is a west Texas county that includes the border city of Laredo. The county is 95 percent Latino according to the US Census so when Donald Trump won the Republican primary there on March 1, many took it as a sign that warnings about Trump’s harsh immigration rhetoric were off base.

The headline of the Laredo Morning Times on March 2 asked the question, “How did Trump win Webb County?” The article went on to note that Webb County was one of only six in the State of Texas that were won by Trump. The British newspaper, The Guardian, picked up the story with the headline, “Trump dominates in Texas border town where proposed wall would be built.”

The vote in Webb County was close. According to the Morning Times, “Ted Cruz won 1,155 votes in Webb County and Marco Rubio won 1,163, an eight-vote difference ― a true split.” Trump edged out the two Hispanic senators with 1,427 votes leading Webb County Republican Party Chairman Randy Blair to speculate, “I really think the main reason he won in Webb is because the two [candidates] behind him split the Hispanic vote.”

While this theory may be true, the most important aspect of Trump’s victory in Webb County is missing from both the Morning Times and the Guardian. The obvious questions for inquiring minds are what percentage of Republican voters in Webb County were Hispanic and how did Donald Trump and his immigration proposals stack up against Democrats Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders?

The first question is unanswerable. Exit polls were not taken for Webb County. The closest we can come is to look at statewide exit polls for Texas from the New York Times. These show that, even though Latinos make up 40 percent of the population of Texas according to the Texas Department of State Health Services, only 10 percent of Republican primary voters were Hispanic. In contrast, 28 percent of voters in the Democratic primary were Hispanic.

If this holds true for Webb County, it would mean that Hispanic voters were drastically underrepresented in the county’s vote for Donald Trump. It would also explode the myth that Webb County Hispanics were rallying behind Donald Trump and his wall.

The answer to the second question can help to answer the first. The Morning Times also published full primary election results for both parties. Comparing Democratic and Republican primary results can help determine how excited Webb County Hispanics are about both Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.

The Republican primary results were [results for candidates who have withdrawn are not shown]:

Donald Trump	1,427 votes	34.90 percent
Marco Rubio	1,163 votes	28.44 percent
Ted Cruz	1,155 votes	28.25 percent
John Kasich	61 votes	1.49 percent

Looking to the Democratic primary, the results were:

Hillary Clinton	18,559 votes	71.86 percent
Bernie Sanders	6,177 votes	23.92 percent

When the two primary elections are compared, Trump’s miraculous victory among Hispanics evaporates quickly. There were 4,063 Republican votes compared to 25,826 votes for Democrats. To put that into perspective, the Democratic runner-up received more votes than the top three Republican candidates combined. This is not an encouraging sign for Republicans.

Looking at the numbers a little more deeply, we can see that Trump’s share of the total vote was roughly equivalent to the white share of Webb County’s total population. His Webb County victory required Trump to win few, if any, Hispanic votes.

Where some Trump supporters are lauding the Webb County results, they actually show a major weakness that could prevent both Trump and Cruz from beating Hillary Clinton in November. Previous polling has indicated that most Americans favor a pathway to citizenship and oppose deportation of all illegal immigrants. These numbers are even stronger in the Hispanic community. In many of the must-win swing states, Hispanic voters may be the deciding factor. Based on the results so far, it appears that Hispanic swing voters would break heavily for the Democratic candidate.

The Webb County results should not surprising. The southwest corner of Texas is the most Democratic part of the state. Historic election results from 2008 and 2012 show that Webb County voted for Barack Obama in both elections. In fact, the 13 percent of votes garnered by all Republicans is markedly worse than the 22 percent won by Mitt Romney in 2012.

Exit polls were not conducted in Texas in 2012, but Obama won 71 percent of the Hispanic vote nationally. Republicans must improve on this number if they want to win the White House.

While primary voters are not an accurate representation of the general electorate, these numbers should be alarming to Republicans. Hispanic primary voters in a deeply red state have roundly rejected both Republican frontrunners in favor of Hillary Clinton. This should be a wakeup call to the Trump and Cruz campaigns that they need to tone down their anti-immigrant and anti-Mexico rhetoric.

Interestingly, the presence of Marco Rubio, an immigration reform proponent, also did not bring Hispanic voters over to the GOP. There are several possible reasons for this. First, Texas Hispanics are primarily of Mexican descent, where both Cruz and Rubio are of Cuban descent. The two Hispanic Republicans might fare better in other states where the Hispanic population is more diverse. Second, there is the fact that Hispanic primary voters are skewed more to the Democratic Party and its track record of immigration amnesty. In any case, all three Republican candidates have work to do in reaching out to the Hispanic community.

To win the presidency, the Republican candidate must flip the states of Florida, Iowa, Ohio, and Virginia that were won by Obama twice. Many swing voters in these states are Hispanic or naturalized Americans. The Webb County results show that these voters are unlikely to abandon Hillary Clinton and the Democrats for Donald Trump and his wall.

Read it on Conservative Firing Line and Freedom Daily

Should Marco Rubio drop out?

After his underwhelming showing Super Tuesday, many Republicans are calling on Marco Rubio to drop out of the presidential race in order to unify conservatives behind Ted Cruz. Increasingly, many conservative Republicans see Cruz as the only viable alternative the candidacy of Donald Trump. Cruz himself called on Rubio to drop out just before Rubio won the Minnesota caucuses on Super Tuesday.

The next round of primaries in on March 5-6 with votes in Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine and Puerto Rico. A few days later on March 8, Hawaii, Idaho, Michigan and Mississippi go to the polls. On March 12, the District of Columbia and Guam hold their primaries.

Of all these elections, only Kentucky and Michigan have recent polls according to Real Clear Politics. In a Kentucky poll from before the Houston debate where Rubio unloaded on Donald 

Trump, Rubio trails Trump by 13 points. Cruz is seven points behind Rubio. In Michigan, the most recent polling shows Rubio and Cruz in a dead heat with both of them 15 points behind Donald Trump. Again this poll, was prior to the Houston debate.

One of the overlooked points from the Super Tuesday primaries is that, in spite of winning, Donald Trump underperformed compared to the polling. In Oklahoma, Trump was favored to win by 11 points, but lost to Cruz by six. In Virginia, Trump was up by 13 points, but only beat Rubio three points.

In other states such as Georgia, Tennessee and Texas, Trump also performed worse than expected. In contrast, in Minnesota, the only state that Rubio won outright, he won 13 points over the most recent polling from January.

The election results seem to indicate that Marco Rubio’s strategy of playing Trump’s game of personal attacks and ridicule had an impact. Had Rubio started his attacks a few days or a week earlier, the results might have been dramatically different.

At this point, it looks premature for Rubio to drop out of the race. There is another debate tomorrow where Rubio can continue his sharp attacks on Trump’s credibility and business experience. The revelations about Trump’s involvement with the now defunct Trump University and the ongoing fraud trial involving the school lend credence to Rubio’s charge that Trump is a “con man.” Trump’s refusal to disavow racist endorsements and supporters such as the Ku Klux Klan have come to light in recent days and will likely damage his reputation among many voters as well.

The big prize that looms ahead is the March 15 Super Tuesday. On that day, the primaries of Florida, Illinois, Ohio and the Northern Marianas are winner-take-all. If a candidate earns above 50 percent in Missouri, that primary is winner-take-all as well. North Carolina also has a primary that day where delegates are distributed proportionally. Trump leads in all these states.

In Florida, Trump leads in a pre-debate poll that shows Rubio gaining ground, but still trailing by 16 points. Cruz is a distant third. More pre-debate polling in Illinois shows Rubio trailing Trump by 17 points. Cruz trails Rubio by another five points. In Ohio, Kasich trails Trump by five in his home state. Cruz trails Kasich by five and Rubio is a distant fourth. In North Carolina, a poll showed Cruz trailing Trump by nine and leading Rubio by three in the middle of February.

After the second Super Tuesday, Utah and Arizona are the next states of any size. Current polling shows both of these favoring Marco Rubio. Rubio led outright in Utah in early February. The last Arizona poll from October showed the state going for Carson, who was followed by Trump. Rubio placed third ahead of Jeb Bush and Cruz who were both in single digits.

In short, upcoming states look more favorable to Marco Rubio than to Ted Cruz. March 1 was supposed to be Ted Cruz’s big day. His strongest supporters were supposed to be the evangelicals of the South. Instead, Trump has performed stronger among Christians and swept most of the South except for Cruz’s home state. The only demographic that Cruz has won reliably is “very conservative” voters. Very conservative voters will be in short supply in the upcoming states of Florida, Illinois and Ohio.

If Rubio were to drop out prior to March 15, it is likely that Kasich, not Cruz would be the primary beneficiary of Rubio voters and that Trump would still win.

Finally, winning the nomination is only half the battle. The winner of the Republican nomination will then go forth to battle the presumptive Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton. Rubio is generally viewed as the best choice to defeat Hillary. Trump is viewed as the most likely loser.

Ted Cruz is polling in within the margin of error in national polls against Hillary, but would also likely lose the crucial swing states that will decide the election. Cruz’s hard line on immigration would cost him the votes of Hispanics and other immigrant Americans who will cast the deciding votes in Florida, Ohio and Colorado. If Cruz did defeat Trump, he would probably lose to Hillary.

While it isn’t yet time for Rubio to suspend his campaign, that time may come soon. If Rubio performs poorly in the upcoming small state primaries, that will be a sign that his new strategy isn’t working. There will be more polling from the March 15 states that should show if the Rubio surge is continuing. If Cruz surges based on his Super Tuesday victories while Rubio declines then the Rubio campaign will have a hard choice to make.

If Trump steamrolls the winner-take-all states, it will make him the prohibitive favorite to win the nomination. The only hope for anti-Trump Republicans at that point will be a contested convention. In that case, anything can happen and the possibility that Mr. Trump would emerge from the fracas with the nomination anyway should not be discounted. If the nomination is denied to Mr. Trump at the convention, it would likely leave the party so divided that Hillary would win anyway.

If Marco Rubio’s surge ended on Super Tuesday, his ultimate choice may depend on whether he believes it is more likely that Ted Cruz could best Donald Trump in a head-to-head matchup or whether he believes that a contested convention is the best option to prevent the Republican Party from being coopted by a con man. 

Can Republicans put the brakes on Donald Trump?

youtube.com

Chances to prevent Trump from winning the nomination exist, but are slipping away.

So far insurgent businessman Donald Trump has been running away with the Republican primary elections. The question on the minds of Republicans is whether anyone can prevent him from becoming the Republican nominee for president.  As the nation moves toward Super Duper Tuesday on March 1, there are important differences that may act to narrow the race and put the brakes on Trump.

Game changers

The first game changer is the departure of Jeb Bush. Marco Rubio is expected to be the primary beneficiary of Jeb’s departure since the two were competing for the same pool of Republican voters. If the combined totals of Rubio and Bush from South Carolina were applied to Rubio, he would have been in a near tie with Donald Trump instead of Ted Cruz. This may have resulted in Rubio winning some delegates, which were apportioned by congressional district in South Carolina.

The second game changer is that that the nature of the primaries changes on March 1. Up to this point, second tier candidates could stay in the race and reasonably hope to win delegates because most of the primaries were based on proportional representation. If you won 10 percent of the vote, you won 10 percent of the delegates.

On March 1, that changes. Thirteen states are holding primaries and caucuses on March 1 and 10 of these states have a minimum threshold for a candidate to receive delegates. In most cases, the threshold would mean that John Kasich and Ben Carson would be unlikely to receive any delegates from most states even because they are polling at less than 10 percent. Massachusetts is the only state with a threshold less than 10 percent and Virginia has no threshold. These and the caucus states of North Dakota and Wyoming are the only states where Carson and Kasich have a chance of winning a single delegate. After March 1, they will be hopelessly behind and will probably drop out.

Who benefits from dropouts?

As the field of candidates dwindles, Cruz and Rubio have more to gain than Trump. An NBC News/Survey Monkey poll in early February asked about the second choice of Republican voters. Cruz and Rubio were the top second choices of most Republicans. Specifically, Rubio was the strong second preference of Bush and Kasich voters while Carson voters split between Trump and Cruz with Rubio running a close third. While the poll includes several candidates that have already dropped out and is slightly dated for such a dynamic election cycle, the indication is that Rubio would have the most to gain as more candidates drop out.

Trump’s weakness may be that in most cases he is restricted to about a third of the vote. Roughly two-thirds of Republicans have consistently voted against Trump and Real Clear Politics polling shows that this seems to be holding true in most upcoming primaries. For the first half of March, Cruz, Trump and Rubio could be in something close to a three-way dead heat.

Super Duper and Super Tuesdays

On Super Tuesday, March 15, there is another shift. Many primaries after this point are winner-take-all. The big prizes are Florida, Illinois and Ohio. It is fair to assume at this point that Trump will take these delegates.

In another Super Tuesday primary, Missouri is winner-take-all if a candidate receives more than 50 percent. If not, delegates are awarded by congressional district. This may be similar to Trump’s sweep of South Carolina in which he lost some counties and precincts, but won all congressional districts with less than 50 percent of the vote.

The key for Rubio and Cruz will be to seize the momentum from Donald Trump on March 1 and win large shares of delegates in the Super Duper Tuesday states. If they can make a strong enough showing to take away the sense of inevitability surrounding Trump then they may be able to build enough support to deny Trump victory in the winner-take-all states, including Rubio’s home state of Florida, beginning on March 15.

The delegate fight

The ultimate winner of the Republican nomination must win a majority of the 2,470 convention delegates. The magic number to clinch the nomination is 1,237 delegates. To put that in perspective, Trump currently has only 81 delegates after the Nevada caucuses, six percent of the requirement. Another 565 delegates are at stake on March 1.

Rubio and Cruz appear to be evenly matched with Rubio holding a slight lead in many states. The combined total of Rubio and Cruz votes is greater than Trump’s share, but it is apparent that the two are splitting the conservative, anti-Trump vote. Either would probably beat Trump if the other were to drop out, but with both in the race it is difficult, if not possible, for either to gain the advantage. At this point neither seems likely to drop out.

If neither Cruz nor Rubio is able to win the nomination outright, they may still be able to prevent Donald Trump from winning a majority of the delegates. With more than half of the states distributing delegates proportionally, splitting the delegates between the three frontrunners may mean that Trump doesn’t have the required number of delegates even if he wins most states. For example, Ted Cruz won the Iowa caucuses, but the victory margin was so slim that he only received one more delegate than Trump and Rubio.

Also making things more difficult for Trump is that not all delegates are up for grabs. Most delegates are bound by the results of the state primary, but a small number of delegates are unbound and free to vote for the candidate of their choosing. If the delegate race is close, the unbound delegates might be a deciding factor. The winning campaigns get to choose some delegates, but others, often party officials, automatically have delegate status. These unbound delegates would probably not vote for an insurgent candidate like Trump.

An additional wrinkle in the nominating process is Rule 40. Rule 40 requires that a candidate win at least eight states. At present it appears that this requirement would be more of a limiting factor for Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. This rule was amended by the Romney campaign in 2012 and may be amended again prior to the 2016 convention.

Contesting the convention

If no candidate wins a majority of the delegates, the result would be a contested convention. In a contested convention, no candidate is nominated on the first ballot. Depending on state rules, delegates are then released to vote for any candidate and the cajoling starts. Additional votes are taken until someone is able to claim a majority.

A contested convention would most likely favor Marco Rubio although it wouldn’t have to nominate one of the declared candidates at all. With Rubio’s support from other elected Republicans and Cruz’s antipathy toward other Republicans, Rubio’s campaign would probably fare better in a contest of coalition building.

Whether Republicans can put the brakes on Trump is an open question at this point. The March 1 primaries are unlikely to settle the issue. If Trump wins high percentages of delegates on March 1 and sweeps the winner-take-all states beginning on March 15, it will be very difficult for Republicans to prevent him from winning the nomination.

Read and comment on this article at Conservative Firing Line and Freedom Daily!