Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders said "I could care less" this week. STOP THE MADNESS. G+
"If you are a Republican voter who refuses to accept that Hillary is more appalling choice than Trump, then you have made a choice that a Hillary presidency is not something you're willing to do everything you can to prevent. And you have to own that choice." -- Herman Cain

I do own that choice.  I think Hillary Clinton would be a terrible President, but I can't see how she -- from my very conservative perspective -- is objectively worse than Donald Trump.  I am not willing to do everything to prevent a Hillary presidency, when the alternative is -- at best -- no better.

It's not my job to rationalize the choice of Donald Trump; it's his job to convince me that he would be a good President.  Heck, he only has to convince me that he wouldn't be a terrible President.  And so far, he's done nothing but the opposite. G+
Long story short: Trump's bigger numbers do not come from convincing more people to vote for him, but from convincing people that he is the inevitable nominee, so if they don't support him, they stay home.

It's odd that they would believe his lie that he is the inevitable nominee, since presumably most of the reason they dislike him is because he is a huge liar.  But there you have it. G+
I finally finished the 5-pound Hershey's chocolate bar I got for Christmas. G+
This page is a good reference for the likelihood of Trump getting a majority of the delegates.  Basically, 538 has targets they think the candidate needs to hit in order to get a majority of the delegates, and Trump's been slightly behind those targets for most of the race, and has been falling behind more with almost every race.  Obviously he got closer to his target with NY's primary, but he's still well behind.

The biggest day left, other than the final day on June 7, is this Tuesday.  Trump has a high chance of getting the most votes in the contests, but he has to win 56% of the delegates to hit his 538 "target" for the day ... and needs 83% (143 of 172) to get back on track to a majority overall.

There's almost no chance he can get the nomination with committed delegates.  He needs the unbound delegates, probably at least 1/3 of them.  And the unbound delegates are usually people who work in the party, who tend to hate Trump.  Since Trump has been getting only about 1/3 of the popular vote, and the popular vote tends to support him more than the "insiders" do, it seems unlikely he'll get that much of the unbound delegates. G+
This scene isn't the most disturbing part of the film; that would be the fact that The Joker, the one doing the torturing of Robin, is Mark Hamill, aka Luke Skywalker.  He's as bad as Anakin. G+
Something I wrote last August: "Bernie Sanders has literally no chance of being elected President.  It isn't possible.  He is just way too far left.  He is like Trump or Cruz ... he speaks to a lot of feelings and concerns of a lot of people, but at the end of the day, there's no chance anything close to a majority of people will vote for him." G+
I made up a club to help further my views.  My club is open to anyone, and the only rules are that majority rules.  My club does stuff, like endorse policies and candidates for office.

So there's 80 of us, and 20 of them are unhappy with the policies and candidates we endorse, so they get 20 of their friends to join our club and push for a change in direction.  The other 60 of us, well, we are split between a couple of different directions (35 one way, 25 another) ... but we all agree we don't want the change that these 40 other people want.

They are telling us that because they have 40 people -- more than the other two groups, at 35 and 25 -- they should get to tell the rest of us what to do.  We are perfectly willing to let them have their way, if they get a majority.  But they don't.

They tell us the process is "rigged" just because they can't have their way, even if they don't have a majority.

We think they are being dishonest and stupid. G+

The Prince of China died today.

| | Comments (0)
The Prince of China died today. G+
Nothing will change, in terms of who is deported, as a result of the Supreme Court's decision on the President's immigration executive order.  Everyone in that courtroom -- all eight justices, and all the attorneys -- agrees that the President has full authority to decide to not deport someone, individually or as a group.  I've been saying that from the beginning of this controversy, and the Texas Solicitor General conceded it in court:

"[C]an the government say to all of these people, and say it all at once, not one by one, yes, ….all of you are low priority. We will not be coming after you, and we will not deport you unless we change our minds?"  "Justice Kagan, they can do that."

So all of the protestors saying "don't break up families!" on one side, and "deport the illegals!" on the other, are simply arguing the wrong case, because it's got nothing to do with this one.

This case is only about one thing: whether those people covered under the executive order can get certain benefits, in particular, whether they can start accruing time for Social Security and Medicare benefits.

And remember, an "executive action" is not a real thing in the law.  It's just the President telling the people who work for him what to do, and this action to give these benefits is lawful (or not) regardless of whether he tells those people what to do verbally, through a written executive order, or sent using Morse code generated by dribbling a basketball.  All that matters is whether the order he gives, however transmitted or recorded, is lawful. G+

This is bad.  Really bad.

| | Comments (0)
Donald Trump has "Lyin' Ted" and "Crooked Hillary." How about "Stupid Donald"? G+
Kasich gives the best answer possible, and gets grief for it.  The people who are criticizing him care more about grandstanding for political points than actually preventing sexual assault.  No, he is not blaming the victim; but potential victims can take steps to make becoming a victim less likely.  And this is the biggest thing they can do to that end. G+
Corey Lewandowski did not avoid being charged because he didn't do it.  He did it.  The videos prove it.  The prosecutors even said he did what Fields said, in that he grabbed her and violently pulled her back, and that this meets the threshold of simple assault, and he was properly charged by the police for that crime.

However, they also said that Lewandowski would have a credible defense in court: that he was defending Trump from Fields, because Fields touched Trump.  The prosecutors do not accept that argument, of course: they even said Trump's security didn't think that Fields was a threat.  But the question of whether Lewandowski thought he did is enough, probably, to provide reasonable doubt.

So, yeah.  Lewandowski violently grabbed Fields, and then lied about it, and so did Trump. G+
I say "good boy" to my dog to confuse her. G+

Trump vs. Reality.

| | Comments (0)
Dear America,

Stop saying that the primary process has anything to do with whether we are a democracy, or a republic.  Stop saying (as a Trump guy did on TV) that in Colorado, people in the armed services were denied the right to vote for President.

Stop thinking that we are electing a President.  We are not.  We are selecting delegates who will go to the convention of a private organization and pick the person who will represent that private organization in the presidential election.  This private organization can make up any rules it wants to.  It can pick its nominee based on a game of Star Trek Pinball if it wants to (which I'd be in favor of).

If you don't like it, then participate in the party to change it, or don't vote for their candidate ... or just be quiet.  But don't think you can say that the party is corrupt and rigged against you, and think that you can convince the people in the party to support you.

Along those lines, please stop saying that Cruz won in Colorado primarily because he organized better.  The truth is that he didn't really organize in Colorado at all.  The reason he won is not because his campaign did a better job, but because the people who are already involved with the party, who know the rules, who have been at this a long time ... they hate Trump, and prefer Cruz.

That's the bottom line here.  Republicans who understand politics better, and participate more, favor Cruz over Trump, by a huge margin.  That is why he won in Colorado.  There's no secret sauce, there's no rigging, there's no corruption ... there's just a popularity contest inside this private organization that Trump is trying to win the approval of, and Cruz won it. G+
My favorite part of Trump's whining about an "unfair" process is that he is arguing against himself, constantly.  In Louisiana, he got a few more votes than Cruz, but ended up with the same number of bound delegates.  "Unfair!," cries Trump.  After all, he got more votes, so he should get more delegates.

The problem is that Trump has about 35 percent of the votes, but about 45 percent of the delegates.  If it were a fair system and he got the proportional number of delegates to votes, he'd have far fewer delegates. G+
I see a commercial for "Peloton."  And they say you can "ride live with some of the best studio cycling instructors in the country."

What am I missing, that I don't understand the value of a "cycling instructor"?  I don't think I need someone to instruct me how to push bicycle pedals.  I've never understood this.  Someone help me! G+
Does anyone think that if the tables were turned and Trump won the Colorado delegates, he would be saying it was "unfair"?  Did Trump say it was "unfair" when he won the Nevada or Hawaii or Kentucky caucus? G+
The idea that this was an intentional way to hurt Trump and help Cruz is bizarre.  The number on the ballot isn't what matters: it's the placement on the ballot.  So if you pick the second "378," that will count for the Trump delegate "379," even though it says "378."  So someone who wants to vote for "378" might end up voting for "379" by mistake, just as easily as the other way around.

Further, this is so obvious and easy to capture with a picture, that there's no actual reason to do this intentionally.

So, no, this was not a "dirty trick," unless the trick was to make Trump folks lose their heads. G+
"Making America Great Again" -- Washington State Republican Party Convention, Tacoma 2012 G+
If there is a revolution over the idea that you need a majority to be the nominee, then it is the stupidest revolution ever. G+
Dear America,

Can someone tell me what's wrong with saying that people do not have to participate in wedding ceremonies they disagree with?

I read this article on CNN and I still don't get it.  A therapist asks, "What if ... she decided as a lesbian therapist that she would stop treating heterosexuals? Or that she wouldn't help a couple who had had an affair?"

Then they could go elsewhere.  If doing that violates your sincerely held beliefs, then who is anyone to demand that you violate them, or that you don't go into private practice just because you hold those beliefs?

I am not asking you to explain to me how it might hurt someone's feelings, or that a Christian should love everyone.  I personally would not engage in most forms of discrimination.  But it seems worse to me to tell someone they cannot discriminate, which violates fundamental liberty the government exists for the purpose of defending, than the discrimination itself.

Plus, it's legal in every state of the union to discriminate against people for all sorts of reasons.  I can refuse service to short, ugly, or stupid people ... or tall, beautiful, and brilliant people.  So why should this one category of things -- sexual orientation/identity/etc. -- get special protection from discrimination, along with race, religion, and sex?

I just don't see the problem here that people are protesting against.  They clearly are not protesting against "discrimination," they are saying this specific form of discrimination is particularly wrong and should get special legal protection, and I don't understand it.  Someone help me see it.  Thanks! G+
People act like the idea of someone other than Cruz or Trump winning the GOP nomination would be a great offense because the party would be "parachuting" someone in to be the nominee against the will of the people.

But that isn't what would happen.  What would happen is that a majority of the delegates could not agree on Trump or Cruz, and the delegates would therefore have no choice but to look elsewhere.  This is all in the hands of the delegates.  If a majority of them can pick Trump or Cruz, it will be Trump or Cruz.  If they cannot, then it won't. G+
Sitcom idea: Cruz wins general election with Trump as his running mate. Trump plots how to get rid of Cruz in each episode. G+
Here's what people don't get about Kasich's chances to be the nominee.

Going in to the convention, most delegates are required by rule to vote for a certain candidate.  After that (either on the second, or third, etc., depending on the state), the delegates vote for whoever they want to.  And that very well could be completely different from who they were required to vote for.  It's up to them: the party in each state (though caucuses and conventions) elected those delegates, and if you don't like how they vote, then you should have participated in the caucuses and conventions.

So no candidate wins without a majority of the delegates voting for them.  Trump is unlikely to get that on the first ballot, and he is even less likely to get it on a subsequent ballot, because it is far more likely that an anti-Trump delegate is allocated to vote for Trump, than it is for a pro-Trump delegate to be allocated to vote for someone else, because anti-Trump forces are more active within the party's cacuses and conventions.  Trump will lose votes on subsequent ballots.

For a normal second-place candidate, that would be the end of it: they would be the nominee.  But Cruz is not a normal second-place candidate.  He is broadly disliked both inside, and outside, the party.  He is almost a certain loss in the general election, according to all data we've got (although an indictment against Clinton, or a third-party candidate on the left, could change matters).

Many pundits are just assuming that the delegates will coalesce around Cruz.  I admit that this is the most likely possibility.  But there's a nontrivial chance that Trump will maintain 30-40% of the delegates, and that up to 25% of the remaining delegates refuse to support either Cruz or Trump, because Cruz can't win and Trump is terrible for the country if he does win.

If that happens, then you can have a situation where it doesn't matter how many votes you have: neither Cruz nor Trump wins.  Then the Cruz and other non-Trump delegates need to come together and find someone they can agree on, and maybe that's Kasich.

Yes, it's a long shot.  But this is how conventions work.  You get leverage, you use it, and you work to forge consensus until you get someone that a majority can support.  That won't be Trump; it might be Cruz.  But it might not be Cruz.

The idea that this would in some way violate any principles of democracy or fairness is nonsense.  It's people picking other people to represent them at the party convention, and those people choosing the nominee.

I suggest if you still think this is unfair, then you explain what you think would be more fair. G+
This is super painful, Fox News. G+
Modest proposal for Trump, to solve global warming, terrorism, and immigration at the same time.

Freeze all the terrorists in carbonite harvested from the atmosphere and use their bodies as bricks to build the wall on our southern border.  And make Mexico pay for it. G+
Chuck Todd, leading Reince Priebus: "Who does choose the nominee here?  Is it Republican primary voters, or is it the delegates?"

The delegates.  Period.

The caucus and primary systems choose who the delegates are, and decide who those delegates have to vote for on the first ballot.  But on the second ballot -- if no one gets a majority on the first -- it is all in the hands of the delegates.

And remember, the whole point of the nominee of the party is that it is the party -- which is a private organization -- deciding which candidate to put its endorsement on.  The party gets to decide who that will be, and how that person is selected.  If you don't like it, join the party and fix it from the inside, or join another party, or start your own party, or support a candidate who is not endorsed by any party.

Our whole system is based on freedom and choices and individual rights.  Any group can endorse any candidates.  It just so happens that we have two groups who are the most popular, and most voters -- by their own choice -- vote for the candidates those two groups endorse. G+
I won't ever do business with Ally Bank, because their commercials are a lie (a lot like Liberty Mutual).  Their whole ad strategy is based on the idea that it is a "fact" that "no branches equals great rates."  No, in fact, it doesn't.  That isn't remotely a "fact."  The two things are mostly unrelated.  You can have the best rates with branches, and the worst rates without them.

It's like saying that having a quarterback from Pittsburgh equals winning Super Bowls.

Worse, their commercials are just as inane as their slogan, because they try to say other things that are also true ... none of which are actually true.  Like "Grandkids = Free Tech Support" and "Working From Home = Not Working" and other stupid claims.

So ... I will never do business with Ally Bank.  They don't want customers who think. G+
I've said from the beginning that Trump won't win, because he wouldn't win a majority of the delegates before convention, and if he didn't do that, he wouldn't be able to win it at convention either.

(Actually, I said Trump "can't" win, but since that's a position that's causes unnecessarily silly arguments, I've usually framed it as "won't" win.)

I wasn't right about everything.  Early on I said he would probably have a ceiling of about 30%, and it went up to 40% in some states, and occasionally over 50%.  But my basic analysis has held: he would not get reasonably close to a majority of the votes in the proportional states, so he'd need almost all of the winner-take-all states.  And I said he wouldn't do that, so therefore, he wouldn't win the nomination, because if it went to convention, the delegates would flee on the second ballot.

Not too many people have agreed with me.  Indeed, for most of February and March, people have said I'm crazy for saying Trump won't just win the nomination outright, and crazier still for saying that Trump wouldn't just be given the nomination if he got close.

But the tide of opinion is starting to turn back to where I've been since last fall.  This is a good piece by Nate Silver that gets into more of the details of how Trump won't win at convention. G+
Dear Internet,

Stop saying Trump beat Cruz in Louisiana.  It never happened.  They both won Louisiana, tying for first place, with 18 delegates each.

This Politico article is an example of what is so completely ignorant about much of the media coverage of the GOP nomination fight.  It never mentions the fact that the only thing that matters is how many delegates you win, and that Trump and Cruz tied in delegates based on the close result.  Therefore, they both won.  It could not matter less  -- except in the perception of people who do not understand the system -- who ended up with more votes, because it was a tie.

And the reason this matters is because now people are arguing that because Trump "won" Louisiana, therefore he should get more delegates.

The system is complicated, but at root, it is very simple.  Follow along at home:

* The presidential nominee for the party must get a majority of delegates at the national convention to vote for him to be the nominee
* Each state sends a certain number of delegates to the national convention, and chooses how those delegates are chosen based on established rules

That's it.  It's not about votes, it's about delegates.  The difference in votes between Cruz and Trump in Louisiana only matter to the extent the rules in Louisiana's GOP says it matters.  And in this case, the difference is such that the rules say the difference does not matter.  Therefore, Trump did not beat Cruz.

And the rules in Louisiana say some other things, that delegates bound to a candidate (in this case, Rubio) who has dropped out of the race are free to vote for whomever they wish ... and that means they will probably all vote for Cruz, because they are mostly conservative Republicans, and Trump isn't and Cruz is.  Further, there's five additional unbound delegates in Louisiana, and they too will likely vote for Cruz, for similar reasons.

Trump can scream about how it's not fair, but he's lying.  It is entirely fair, because it's the rules of the game, rules he knew and agreed to.  And they aren't even complicated rules.

This is just another example of how Trump is completely unprincipled.  He doesn't want a fair fight: he wants to win even if it means doing it unfairly.  Even if a majority of the party opposes him -- and so far, from the beginning, that has appeared to be the case -- he still thinks they should just support him because there's more people supporting him than any other one candidate.  That's stupid, but that's what he says. G+
It had been a long time since I'd eaten Corn Nuts.

Now I remember why. G+
Idea for enterprising college student: find some way -- Twitter, Facebook, whatever -- to collect from people things they think should never be said on a college campus.

Then once a week hang out in the middle of your college quad/cafeteria/whatever holding up a sign with one of the things that should never be said.

That's what I'd do if I were in college. G+
Recently there was a terror attack in Lahore, Pakistan. I mentioned the city in my second song about Osama Bin Laden -- "Porn King of Abbottabad" -- about OBL funding terrorism by selling porn, and trading porn in exchange for suicide bombings.

Because that's what holy people do.
G+
This is proof that Donald Trump's man committed the crime of "simple battery" against Michelle Fields.  You can argue all you like that Corey Lewandowski didn't mean anything by it, that it wasn't as serious as Fields made it sound, and so on.

But none of that matters: he grabbed Fields and pulled her back, which is illegal, unless directly justified by the circumstances (for example, if she was illegally threatening someone, and he was stopping her).

Whether he should be charged, whether she should press charges, whether this should be a crime at all ... these are all subordinate questions.  He committed the crime.  And Trump is -- as usual -- lying when he says Lewandowski is innocent.  It is now a matter of fact that Lewandowski is guilty of the crime of simple battery.  He just hasn't been convicted yet. G+
Many will say that this is why the GOP will not appoint an Obama nominee to the Supreme Court.

This decision is clearly incorrect.  While a private business should be allowed to hire only people who are willing to join a union (or pay it a fee), the government cannot be allowed to so discriminate (and that's all this is: ideological discrimination unrelated to the performance of the duties in question).

Further, it is also clear that collective bargaining itself, in the public sector, is an inherently corrupt and anti-democratic institution that should itself be illegal.  You are taking away the power of the people and their representatives to decide on contract terms, putting the executive in control of those decisions ... who ends up being the beneficiary of donations from the union.

The left thought it was more important to uphold previous bad precedent which violates individual rights in order to give a sense of stability than to do the right thing as required by the Constitution.

The next time you think the GOP should just accept Obama's nominee ... please understand, there's no way it's going to happen, and this is why. G+
ThinkGeek just sent me an email with subject: "Son of Crypton versus Bat of Gotham! Whose side are you on?"

That's embarrassing. G+
Can someone explain to me a specific way in which this bill is bad? Simply saying "it allows discrimination by religious groups" isn't an argument against it, nor is saying "we believe inclusiveness is good."
G+
I've said it before, but many people still don't get it, so I will say it again: being in the United States illegally is not a crime. It never has been a crime.

You cannot be convicted in a court of law for being in this country illegally, because there is no such crime.

There is not even any punishment in the law for being here illegally. You can be deported, but in the eyes of the law that isn't a crime, since it is just sending you to where you legally belong.
G+
the most important news of the week was probably the Hulk Hogan story. That will have much more important and lasting impact than Merrick Garland's nomination.
G+
There's just one thing I want to know: what's so bad 'bout havin' a contested convention? My latest video ponders the question, so you don't have to. G+
If Trump is treated fairly, that means he cannot be the nominee without a majority of delegates. G+
Dear America,

Yes, the parties pick their nominees, not the general public. It has not only always been this way, but it must be this way.

For a presidential candidate to get on the general election ballot, they usually have to pay enough money and provide enough signatures to do so. Anyone can do that, and that's why you often see lots of candidates for President on the ballot. In each case, private people have -- either individually or as a group -- used their resources to get that person on the ballot.

For a major political party nominee, the parties -- which are private organizations -- use their own private resources to put together the fees and signatures required to get the party's nominee on the ballot.

So the question is: who should decide which candidate gets on the ballot with the party's private resources?

Obviously, the party should decide that; the Supreme Court has been very clear on the matter (see California Democratic Party vs. Jones). And the way it's decided is that each state gets a certain number of delegates to the national convention, and the party decides how those delegates are allocated.

The state parties could randomly allocate the delegates, or it could allocate the delegates by simply having the state chairperson handpick them. But they don't: because the parties want public participation, they have public primaries or caucuses where virtually anyone who wants to can have their say (even in a "closed" process, anyone can affiliate with the party if they choose to).

So you do have a voice if you want one, at the state level, but only because the parties let you have one, and because you choose to exercise it.

If you don't like it, well, start your own political party. But unless we have the government deciding who our candidates should be, rather than private citizens working together to decide who they want to support, then this is the only way it can work.

G+
"Trump is a weak man's idea of a strong man." -- Charles Cook G+
I have not seen polling data in WA, but I suspect Trump might win a plurality in the presidential preference primary here in WA, and therefore most of the delegates, because the delegates are allocated entirely by the primary.

However, those delegates are elected before the primary.

The Washington State GOP convention is May 19-21.  The delegates will be elected there.  Then, on May 24, the primary is held.  The elected delegates will each be bound to vote for a certain candidate based on the results of the primary.

However, if the convention is contested, the delegates will be free to vote for a different candidate on subsequent ballots.  While in most states there is a close relationship between who a candidate is pledged to and how they are selected.  For example, in Ohio, there is a slate of delegates approved of by the winning candidate's campaign, and those delegates are likely to vote for the same person on the second ballot as on the first.

But this is not the case in Washington, since there is virtually no relationship between delegate election and allocation.  A Cruz supporter could be elected as a national delegate, but then be bound to vote for Trump on the first ballot.  And it's highly likely this will happen, because of the fact that different people are electing delegates (people who choose to participate in GOP caucuses) and voting in the primary, and Trump support is far weaker in the GOP grassroots than in public votes. G+
Dear college students who want free the government to give you free tuition: even if it happens, it won't be retroactive. You won't get it.  You'll still pay.

Cheers! G+
Some folks are talking about the RNC rules, and saying to have your name entered into nomination for the GOP nomination, you need to win eight states.

That isn't true.  The rules actually state: "Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of eight (8) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination." (emphasis added)

Out of the 19 states that have delegate results so far, in only seven has a candidate gotten a majority of the delegates.  Before tonight, Cruz had a majority only in Texas, but he picked up two more tonight.

So Trump has four states, Cruz three, and Kasich and Rubio -- despite having the most delegates in one state each -- have not won a majority of delegates in any states.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/prod-static-ngop-pbl/docs/Rules_of_the_Republican+Party_FINAL_S14090314.pdf

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/republican_delegate_count.html G+
I am still hearing that if Trump doesn't win the nomination, this somehow defies the will of the GOP voters, or is anti-democracy.  Like most Trump arguments, the exact opposite is true: if Trump doesn't win the nomination, it is only because a majority of GOP voters opposed him: he doesn't win a majority of delegates, and someone else does.

This is what democracy looks like, folks. G+
"If I say do it, they're gonna do it.  That's what leadership is all about." -- Donald Trump

To me, being a good leader is primarily about being a servant to people, not about simply telling them what to do.  If you spend more time giving orders than empowering the people under you to make their own decisions, you're probably an extremely poor leader. G+
Governor Jan Brewer, who is endorsing Donald Trump, is complaining about Mitt Romney criticizing Trump, because, "whatever happened to the 11th commandment?"

Do I even need to point out that Trump attacks his "fellow Republicans" more than any other major Republican presidential candidate ever?

It's really amazing to me how almost every attack the Trumpeviks (including Trump himself) make against Trump opponents is for something that Trump is even more guilty of.

"Anger" is only a part of this year's election story.  The untold part of this story is the implicit -- and often explicit -- abandon of reason.  It's not that it is unreasonable to support Trump per se, it's that many (if not most) people who support him don't care about the reasons why Trump is a bad candidate.  They reject even the consideration of reason and logic.  There's no arguments or evidence you can provide that they care about, and they don't want to hear it.

It's not quite like Idiocracy, where people are just too stupid to make good choices.  It's that they are so fed up with the system, and Trump is the only candidate who is willing to tear it all down, that nothing else matters, even a high risk of catastrophic failure, because in their minds, we already have a catastrophic failure.

To put it another way, they feel desperate, and while there is risk with Trump, the chance of reward with any other candidates is virtually zero, so there's nothing to lose by going with Trump. G+
Dear America,

Don't believe the nonsense that somehow it would be in any way bad or unreasonable or unfair if Donald Trump won more delegates than anyone else, but didn't get the nomination.  The rules have always been that you need to get a majority of delegates, and if he does not, and the delegates narrow it down at the convention and pick someone else ... that is how the system is designed to work, and there's nothing remotely unfair or unreasonable about it.

If you don't like it, then get your candidate a majority of delegates going into the convention. G+
Dear America,

The "winner" of a primary or caucus is not determined by who gets the highest percentage of the vote.  What matters is delegate count.  In some states you can get the greatest percentage, but not get the most delegates.  For example, in a state where delegates are allocated winner-take-all by congressional district, one candidate could get the most overall votes, but another candidate could win a majority of the congressional districts.

Whoever gets the most delegates is the winner of the state.

John Kasich had a couple percentage points fewer than Donald Trump in Vermont last night, but wound up with exactly the same number of delegates: they both took half of the delegates.  So Kasich did not come in second; he tied for first.

The news reports you see that three different Republican candidates won states on Super Tuesday are incorrect.  There were four.

Also, Carson came in dead last in every state yesterday, winning delegates only in Virginia, with no signs of coming in greater than last place in any future state. G+
<pudge/*> (pronounced "PudgeGlob") is thousands of posts over many years by Pudge.

"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."

Archives