So, it looks like Indiana will potentially play a significant role in the GOP primary. Indiana has a winner-take-all system for awarding delegates, both by Congressional District and at-large. It awards 30 delegates to the winner of the state-wide vote and 27 delegates spread among Indiana’s nine Congressional districts (three per district). The winner of a given district gets those three delegates. Nate Silver, the fivethirtyeight pollster and analyst, says that if Trump wins Indiana, he’ll head into that territory where it will take something momentous to stop him from getting a first ballot win at the Republican convention. If he loses Indiana, the analysis becomes much different:
If Trump loses Indiana, however, that will suggest the race is still fairly volatile week-to-week, that he’s very likely to lose states such as Nebraska that vote later in May, and that the geographic and demographic divergences in the GOP haven’t reversed themselves so much as they’ve become more exaggerated. It will improve the morale of anti-Trump voters and change the tone of press coverage. And mathematically, it will make it hard (although not quite impossible) for Trump to win 1,237 delegates outright; he’d be back to fighting tooth-and-nail for every uncommitted delegate.
Silver thinks this is probably a “must-win” for Trump’s opponents (so, realistically, Cruz — because of Indiana’s winner-take-all status and Kasich having pulled out.)
Former local reporters, Eric Bradner and Tom LoBianco, who have moved on to gigs with CNN, have an excellent piece introducing the nation to Republican politics in Indiana. Among other things, they describe the dissatisfaction of what they call the “Daniels Republicans” with the available choices. These are the suburban moderates living in the Marion County doughnut counties (Boone, Hancock, Hendricks, and Johnson Counties).
Just like the national party, Indiana’s Republicans have been at a crossroads for more than four years, with members struggling to decide whether this is the party of former Gov. Mitch Daniels and former Sen. Dick Lugar or the party of Gov. Mike Pence and impassioned same-sex marriage battles.
. . .
But with Kasich pulling out of Indiana, these “Daniels Republicans” — staunch on fiscal issues and lukewarm on social hot-buttons — appear to be left without a home heading into Tuesday.
Such Republicans will mostly want someone to stop Trump but don’t have much in common with Cruz.
Cruz has not helped himself at all with his basketball gaffe. It’s trivial and shouldn’t be the basis of votes, but when you’re so obviously pandering to Hoosiers with basketball stuff, you can’t get it this wrong — when part of the knock on you as a candidate is that you’re a stiff who can’t relate to regular people. Cruz was in a Knightstown gym where part of the movie “Hoosiers” was shot, having someone measure the rim as a callback to the scene where Coach Dale settles his players before the big game by demonstrating that the dimensions of the court for the state finals at Butler Fieldhouse (now Hinkle) were the same as back in Hickory. But, Cruz flubbed his line:
“You know, the amazing thing is that basketball ring here in Indiana, it’s the same height as it is in New York City and every other place in the country,” Cruz said.
There’s just so much that’s mockable about that moment. The shameless pandering. The gratuitous knock on New York City. And the awkward Cruz revealing himself as a stranger in a strange land. My favorite was the tweet someone forwarded to me, “Cruz: ‘Boys, we’re going to win this election by running the ol’ chain-link fence play.'”
Another example of evil triumphing when good men do nothing. The Indiana Republicans probably could have nipped the reactionary politics in the bud, but they let it play out and we now have wing nuts in the Repblican choice list. The “choice” between Stutzman and Young stands out, but then, on Facebook, I see Young criticized for not being “conservative” enough and Pence leading the pack. Just where are the droves of level headed Republicans who are supposed to be appalled by all of this? This bunch, if they become the national majority, could destroy the republic. The early British critics appear to have been correct in their assessment of the “new experiment”. British government is looking better every day.
“Just where are the droves of level headed Republicans who are supposed to be appalled by all of this?”
They don’t exist.
And this didn’t happen overnight. Republicans have been selling racism, hate and bigotry since Reagan. And it actually worked out pretty well for them for the most part……
Until about 2006.
I think most of them have been radicalized. Or, they’ve disengaged and/or changed parties.
I don’t grok the people who detest their choices on the Republican side, yet still don’t want to vote Democrat. If you don’t like where the party is headed, stop enabling it by voting for the candidates.
Do I really want to vote for Hillary Clinton? No. But when the other options are Ted Cruz or Donald Trump… you really think the right way to “turn around America” is give one of them control of the executive branch (and nuclear weapons!) while the current loons in charge of Congress control the legislative branch?
I recall the last time Republicans asked us to trust a candidate light on experience because they’d hire experienced people to help him. I don’t think igniting the current wave of Islamic extremism was what they had in mind…
To be honest I don’t even know what Republicans are running on. They have become absurd.
And their behaviour towards our President is utterly disgraceful.
And I really don’t get the anti Democrat sentiments of middle class Americans. Hillary will make a terrific President.
You know Pence is bad when people think that the scandal-a-minute, extremist hot head Mitch Daniels was a great governor. I’m not sure that I’d portray Daniels’ supporters as moderate. Blind to or ignorant of his faults, perhaps. Forgetful, perhaps. But not moderate.
I don’t think there is anything particularly nuanced about Republican politics in Indiana. Most people I know will vote for anyone who has an R after his or her name. When it comes right down to it, most of the so-called Republican moderates who claim not to care about social issues will probably vote for Cruz or Trump, whichever ends up being the Republican presidential nominee. Some may stay home. Some may vote for Hillary Clinton. Most will vote R. They’ll probably vote for Pence, too.
You are right Pila. At the end of the day, there are very few moderate Republicans left.
Was Mitch perfect? Oh heck no.
Did he recognize the long play that Republicans had better not focus on social issues because, demographically, the war is over? I think so.
Was he willing to try something, anything different than what Indiana had tried the last decade? Yes. I think that won him over with swing voters compared to an opposition party (Democrats) devoid of vision or alternatives. (They have them, but they do an awful job of explaining and selling people on them.)
Would I take Mitch over any of the current candidates for Governor? Yes in a heartbeat. It sure beats the current Governor implementing his version of sharia law.
Mike Pence won the 2012 election with 9% less support than Mitch Daniels had in 2008. Most of that support went to John Gregg. There are swing voters. What is John Gregg doing to win those people over in 2016?
Indiana Democrats can win elections in this state against the current idiots calling themselves Republicans. Joe Donnelly was even with Richard Mourdock before Mourdock imploded. What is John Gregg doing to win those people over in 2016?
I’m one of those “so-called Republican moderates” who probably should and will vote for Gregg in 2016. I voted for Rupert in 2012 because it was apparent Gregg had run such an awful campaign that Pence would win. Here in 2016, I feel like I’m wasting my vote even more than I did in 2012 and I’m debating voting Libertarian again. Why? I don’t see how on earth John Gregg is going to win the election, and he’s got four years of Pence mistakes to use as fodder!
Best I can tell so far, John Gregg should legally change his name to “Not Mike Pence”. He’d have a better chance of actually being elected doing that compared to, well, whatever it is that he and the Indiana Democratic Party are doing now. Best I can tell, they’re not trying to win, they’re hoping the other guy loses. And I don’t think that’s going to work.
John Gregg only lost by 81,000 of 2.5 million votes cast or about 3.2%. Rupert’s votes exceeded that margin of victory. Not saying that all of Rupert’s voters are anything like a natural fit for Gregg, but it was a very close race.
Rupert had 102,000 votes, a gain of roughly 40,000 since the previous election for the Libertarians.
Agreed that it was very close in 2012 and it should be very close this year.
Joe, if you vote Libertarian in November, be ready for a second term of Mike Pence.
I plan on voting for John Gregg despite the totally inadequate campaign he has run so far. My frustrations are pointed towards his campaign, if you could call it that.
There has been no real need for Gregg to campaign very visibly yet. I think he’ll do fine; but peaking in May with no primary challenger doesn’t do him much good.
Of course within a day of the above Gregg released his first campaign commercial.
My feeling is that Gregg needs to get out and define what he is, rather than let his opponent do that. I expect this to be a pretty ugly campaign. And I expect to see the first “Gregg = Obama” ad before the 4th of July.
But I was heartened to see that 17% of Republican primary voters joined me in neglected to select Pence while still voting for either Todd Young or Marlin Stutzman. Somehow, 30,000 more people voted for Gregg than Baron Hill.
The liberal blogger Digby posted this on her web site yesterday, These are the treacly comments made by Erik Erickson about his manboy Pence. A shot of pepto bismol might be advisable.
I have to feel a little bit sorry for the conservative movement stalwarts faced with the prospect of Trump blowing up their party. It can’t be easy. But they sound silly when they say stuff like this:
In Congress, Mike Pence was the standard bearer for conservatism. It was his cause. He was the elected Buckley. And I am now so thoroughly disappointed in him.
The 2016 Republican Presidential primary is a choice between a conservative and a shallow demagogue. The race now hinges on Indiana. Either Cruz will win and we can continue the fight to stop Trump or Cruz will lose and more likely than not guarantee a Trump nomination. A Trump nomination would destroy all that Mike Pence so tirelessly for so many years worked to achieve.
But Pence, in the face of this, remains on the sidelines. He has not yet wielded his influence in Indiana, the state he governs. Every day he sits on the sidelines is another day in which he could have made a difference. He has not used his influence in the conservative movement to rally against Trump.
In 2020, conservatives will need to remember who stood up against Trump and who sat silently by. We will need to remember those who collaborated with Trump and those who turned a blind eye to Trump. We will have to remember that the man who kept the fires of constitutional liberty lit for so long stayed so quiet.
That’s Erik Erickson. The conservative movement is going to be faced with many problems after this election. Mike Pence’s reluctance to get in the middle of this shit-show is going to be the least of it.
It will be very interesting to see if Erickson goes over to the Trump team. I’d say it’s 50-50.
I watched the Big Bang Theory this morning, which I taped from Thursday. I saw something that I have not seen in years. Political ads for an Indiana Primary.
I’ll bet that spoiled the show. Was it “save the babies” from Cruz, Cruz telling us how Trump is like Hillary or Trump telling us that Cruz lies? As far as I’m concerned, it’s a choice between a narcissistic bully or a lizard in a suit, all brought to you by angry people who do stupid things when they are angry and don’t appreciate their responsibility when it comes to voting.
Stuart, this was the Donald hired illegals. I guess even a wall won’t be enough. Lizard in a suit is a good description of Cruz. When even your brother rats despise you, you are a special kind of despicable
Stuart, I believe that Trump would pose immediate problems for America if elected. His intentional ignorance and unbounded arrogance would lock up congress in a week. His incompetence would show quickly. (Hopefully there would be no major international crises) I suspect that the first mid-term election would see a Democratic sweep and/or a Republican retrechment. Impeachment might follow. Or equally likely, Trump will quickly lose interest i governing as did my old celebrity governor from Minnesota, Jesse Ventura.
Cruz, on the other hand, is a special kind of sociopath. He makes Richard Nixon look like Sheriff Andy Griffith. His Supreme Court nominees could change the face of the nation for a generation. He has schemed to rule this country from the day he chipped his way out of his reptilian egg with that one sharp tooth.
This attention on Indiana is interesting to some, very distasteful to me. I watch only a few cable networks and listen to NPR. I intentionally avoid local news. But since Indiana is in play, the local NPR station is fixated on Indiana. Even the sanest hour of the day, the BBC World Hour, spent ten minutes interviewing Terre Haute voters.
Each guy carried his own different danger. Cruz is more insidious and systematic, and that is evil. Trump is a wild card and loose cannon but seems predictable in some other ways.
Here is the best critique of Trump’s foreign policy speech last week…
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/01/jeanine_pirro_what_is_wrong_with_putting_america_first_dont_these_people_live_here.html
The Republican Munsters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3_5rvTKewU
Many of your may have seen this, but it might be fun for today. Cruz’ uncanny resemblence to Grandpa Munster is a little scary. And Carly Fiorina is no Marilyn. Actually, I think Paul Ryan makes a better Eddie Munster because of his widows peak.
In the interest of full disclosure, I held my nose and gag reflex and voted for Ted Cruz.
I’ll be interested to see how many people don’t vote for Mike Pence. Not that it matters, of course, but I have to figure it would be a sign of how many people will also not vote for him in November…
Something is really wrong when you have to choose between bad and just as bad. And this is in the primary, which started with a baker’s dozen of people. Don’t you think people would have had the sense to find the most qualified. So much for the idea “the voice of the people is the voice of God”. It’s no wonder that we have an electoral college and that the parties insist on the idea that the “primaries” are just preference polls. But the voters don’t seem to understand that and feel entitled to Cruz or Trump. Give me a break.
I really got a good chuckle when Paul Ryan said “no Republican should ever think about supporting Hillary Clinton. Let me make that clear”.
Look, who is your loyalty to – the Republican Party or the United States of America? You can dislike Hillary all day, but you honestly think you’re better off giving control of the American nuclear arsenal to Trump?
Joe, these are “interesting” times. Ryan is performing in Clinton triangulation mode. Not (yet) supporting Trump, but not suggesting HRC support. He will wait until he gets a read from the electorate and pivot to Trump if the party eventually falls in line behind Trump.
Let’s see how long they can stop breathing before they give up, hold their noses and support Trump. Joe’s remark about choosing between the Republican Party or the USA is apt.
Stuart, your point is well taken. In the end, the dedicated republicans will fall in line behind Trump. But many unmotivated republican voters will not vote. As cliche as the old axiom sounds, Republicans fall in line behind their candidates while Democrats want to fall in love with theirs.
It was reported that John McCain began to cave this weekend. Trump is threatening to remove Ryan as the Chair of the convention (coronation). If Ryan has any sense at all, he will withhold support of Trump and emerge credible for 2010. But that phrase “any sense” is the sine qua non.
Ryan might want to look at these numbers before selling his soul to Trump.
A Washington Post Poll reprinted on the Liberal Blog Digby from last month gave Trump a 67% unfavorability rating among Likely Voters. Among blacks, Hispanics and women they are higher than that.
Hilary’s unfavorables are running in the mid-50s. These numbers are aggregated among registered voters, all citizens, and likely voters.
And it was a real treat for world financial markets when this “don of the deal” stated he would overborrow on the national debt and then discount repayment of treasuries. Normally, this statement would roil financial markets. But many market participants know that Trump is an unhinged buffoon and cannot be serious. Or that he does not really understand the nature and status of US treasuries. This is possible, but less likely.
But as one person said in the comment section in the Economist:
“The typical voter could not understand a single paragraph in this article [about Trump defaulting] and knows nothing about bond yields or how the financial system works in general. They just love his “tough negotiator” spiel, so he will keep saying this nonsense.”
Whether Ryan caves and vows to support Trump will not affect Trump’s chances. But it will likely affect his own woody he has for the presidency.
Dog, you called it. Indiana played a key role in the primary process this year. Not sure what to make of it, but my great grandchildren are likely to see the next one.
I hope someone is keeping a close record of all this and will write a book entitled, “The Long Slow Death of the Republican Party”. Like most deaths, it started a long time ago, deteriorating in slow and subtle ways. I suspect it started when Lyndon Johnson signed the 1964 Voting Act and the dixiecrats–“religious” but racist–who were welcomed by the Republican party, establishing a precedent where they advocate extreme notions and cover them over with quasi religious claptrap and ideology.