US Presidential Contenders

[Unorthodox]

Frankly, I think Kasich made a huge tactical error. According to Kasich, he doesn't think debates are a good way to chooses a candidate, he thinks everybody should be present, and he doesn't really like them. Well, my guess is that he doesn't really like asking for money, but he still does it.

The Boss and I had the same thought.  How do you NOT take that opportunity to show up with a grand "I'm HERE, where is HE?" type appearance? 

So the lot of them come to Utah, very heavily anti [Sleezebag] here.  Yet, he managed to dominate the news cycle specifically by playing INTO that hatred.  Well played. 

[Rusty Edge]

[Sleezebag] won Arizona, still under 50%

Utah = Cruz ( Romney endorsed ) 70+ % , Kasich 15.7%,  and [Sleezebag] 13.8%.

[Buster's Uncle]

Obama says Cubans can learn from U.S. election campaign
Yahoo News
Olivier Knox  Chief Washington Correspondent  March 22, 2016



HAVANA — In the keynote speech of his historic visit to Cuba, President Obama on Tuesday pointed to the messy 2016 U.S. election campaign as a sign of American progress over the past 50 years.

“It isn’t always pretty, the process of democracy; it’s often frustrating — you can see that in the election going on back home,” Obama told an audience that included Cuban President Raúl Castro.

“But just stop and consider this fact about the American campaign that’s taking place right now: You had two Cuban-Americans in the Republican Party running against the legacy of a black man who was president, while arguing that they’re the best person to beat the Democratic nominee, who will either be a woman or a democratic socialist,” Obama told the full house at the ornate Gran Teatro, drawing laughter. “Who would have believed that back in 1959? That’s a measure of our progress as a democracy.” He was referring to Republican Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, himself, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders. Obama’s description of the contest omitted GOP frontrunner Donald T rump, whom Obama has sharply criticized.

Obama’s unprecedented speech reached beyond the audience listening to him in the theater to Cubans watching an American president speak directly to them for the first time via state-run television, which broadcast the address.

“I have come here to bury the last remnant of the Cold War in the Americas,” Obama said. “In many ways, the United States and Cuba are like two brothers that have been estranged for many years, even as we share the same blood.”



Obama waves to the crowd before he delivers his speech. (Photo: Desmond Boylan/AP)


The president used the address to defend his economic and diplomatic opening to Cuba. Castro has largely resisted Washington’s pressure to couple market-style reforms with an easing of restrictions on political activity. Republicans have accused Obama of taking steps that legitimize the Castro regime’s stranglehold on power. White House aides counter that the five-decade-old embargo only served to give Cuba’s government an excuse for economic hardships and did nothing to foster democratic reforms.

“Many suggested that I come here and ask the people of Cuba to tear something down,” Obama said, in a nod to Ronald Reagan’s “Tear down this wall” message to Moscow in Berlin in 1987. “But I’m appealing to the young people of Cuba who will lift something up, build something new.”

Still, he cautioned Cubans against “the blind optimism that says all your problems can go away tomorrow.”

The speech in some ways resembled the U.S. president’s annual State of the Union speech. Cubans in the room stood, clapped and cheered when he called for an end to the embargo the United States imposed in the years after the 1959 Cuban revolution that swept Fidel Castro to power. A delegation of American lawmakers applauded when Obama declared, “I believe voters should be able to choose their governments in free and democratic elections.”

Raúl Castro sat in the front row of the lowest balcony, surrounded by stone-faced officials. He made no outward show of emotion. At the end of the speech — which Obama closed with “sí se puede,” Spanish for “Yes, we can,” which was his election slogan— Castro rose quickly and waved as the crowd cheered him. He did not stay long.

Obama later met with some of the Castro regime’s most stalwart opponents — dissidents and civil society leaders. The group included longtime human rights champion Elizardo Sánchez, as well as Ladies in White leader Berta Soler and LGBT activist Juana Mora Cedeño.



Cuban President Raúl Castro gestures to the audience as he takes his seat before Obama’s speech. (Photo: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)


“We cannot and should not ignore the very real differences that we have about how we organize our governments, our economies and our societies,” Obama said in his speech.

Still, he said, “I believe my visit here demonstrates that you do not need to fear a threat from the United States.”

At the same time, Obama said, “you need not fear the different voices of the Cuban people and their capacity to speak and assemble and vote for their leaders.”

“I am hopeful for the future, because I trust that the Cuban people will make the right decisions,” Obama declared. “I’m also confident that Cuba can continue to play an important role in the hemisphere and around the globe. And my hope is that you can do so as a partner with the United States.”

From the meeting with dissidents, Obama headed to the Estadio Latinoamericano to watch an exhibition baseball game pitting the Tampa Bay Rays against Cuba’s national team.

The matchup began with a moment of silence for the victims of the bombings in Brussels earlier in the day. Obama and Raúl Castro stood somberly side by side.

A white-robed choir sang both national anthems — with Cuba’s first — and the rowdy crowd erupted in cheers at the end of the “Star-Spangled Banner.” It was unclear whether this was a show of friendship or reflected their obvious eagerness for the game to start.



President Obama, first lady Michelle Obama and their daughters, Malia and Sasha, accompanied by Cuban President Raúl Castro, right, observe a moment of silence for victims of terrorist attacks in Brussels prior to a baseball match in Havana.  (Photo: Alejandro Ernesto/EPA)

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/obama-tells-cubans-to-learn-from-the-2016-race-201427307.html


I saw Mrs. Obama on TV wearing a dress with long sleeves yesterday...

[Buster's Uncle]

Clinton edges closer to nomination with Arizona win
Yahoo News
Hunter Walker  National Correspondent  March 22, 2016



Hillary Clinton continued her march toward the Democratic presidential nomination with a win over Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., in the coveted Arizona primary on Tuesday evening.

Sanders was projected to win the Utah and Idaho caucuses.

Clinton came into Tuesday ahead of Sanders by more than 300 delegates, after winning all five states that voted on March 15. Her existing delegate lead is so big, he would have to win all remaining contests with at least 60 percent of the vote to overtake her. Any loss, or victory with a smaller margin, puts Sanders farther behind.

Speaking to her supporters in Seattle, Clinton declared she was “very proud to have won Arizona tonight.” Calling attention to the bombings that rocked Belgium on Tuesday morning, the former secretary of state pivoted to the general election and attacked the top Republican candidates for their responses.



Hillary Clinton at Chief Leschi School in Puyallup, Wash., on Tuesday. (Photo: Carolyn Kaster/AP)


“The last thing we need, my friends, are leaders who incite more fear. In the face of terror, America doesn’t panic. We don’t build walls or turn our backs on our allies,” Clinton said. “We can’t throw out everything we know about what works and what doesn’t and start torturing people. What Donald T rump, Ted Cruz and others are suggesting is not only wrong, it’s dangerous.”

At an event in San Diego, shortly after Clinton’s win in Arizona was announced, Sanders made a speech emphasizing that he began the primaries as an underdog.

“When we began this campaign about 10 months ago, we were 3 percent in the polls, about 70 points behind Secretary Clinton. As of today, last poll that I saw, we are 5 points behind, and we’re gaining,” Sanders said, before adding, “We have now won 10 primaries and caucuses and, unless I’m very mistaken, we’re going to win a couple more tonight.”

Massive turnout in Arizona led to long lines at the polls, and there were still people waiting to vote after news organizations projected the results. On Twitter, the Sanders campaign posted a message urging Arizonans to “stay in line.”

“Every vote counts,” the tweet said.

Though the delegate math appears daunting for Sanders, he has indicated that he is in the race for the long haul. Sanders and his campaign believe some of the upcoming states on the primary calendar, particularly in the Pacific Northwest, are more favorable to him. In an email to supporters on Tuesday, Sanders’ campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, said they “said all along that March 15 would be the high-water mark for Hillary Clinton’s campaign.”

“Now the map shifts in our favor, and we’re going to begin clawing back delegates in state after state until we capture the lead on June 7,” Weaver wrote.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/clinton-edges-closer-to-nomination-with-arizona-033001123.html


Note the (rather scary) picture of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders not shown at all.  Typical.

[Unorthodox]

There was a picture circulated with Mr Sanders winning Utah news that I didn't even recognize the guy. 

I'll see if I can dig it up. 


Mrs Clinton seems to get a lot of rather scary pics lately. 

[Rusty Edge]

1)It was sad but predictable that most of the candidates had to use yesterday's tragedy as a political football.

2) I gotta agree with Obama above. When you put it that way, our democracy really has come a long way, considering that when the Constitution was drafted and adopted, blacks were property, and women weren't even supposed to own property, unless they were widows. Neither could even vote.

3) Crap. My winner take all primary is coming up, and unless Gov. Walker endorses Kasich, it looks like my only choice will be to hold my nose and vote for Cruz.

4) I was watching the primary election coverage on CNN last night, and Rachel Madow was lamenting the loss of candidates like Governors Walker and Perry. The guest said it was because [Sleezebag] got all of the news coverage. She said he got all of that  coverage because he was newsworthy. I had to laugh
 aloud. I think she doesn't know the difference between "news" and "ratings."

[Buster's Uncle]

Dr. Madow is worth listening to, but she's over in her own corner of reality like a lot of people...

[Rusty Edge]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/23/fox-news-poll-cruz-kasich-ahead-clinton-in-2016-hypothetical-matchups.html

This was recent, and they asked a lot of hypothetical questions.

Highlights ( margin of error 3%)-
GOP vs. Clinton
Kasich +11
Cruz +3
The Leader -11

GOP vs. Bernie
Kasich +1
Cruz -4
The Leader -14

"Almost half of all voters would feel “scared” if [Sleezebag] (49 percent) were to win the White House, while 33 percent say the same about Clinton.  [Sleezebag] has the largest number of Republicans saying they would feel scared if he wins (25 percent), while Kasich has the smallest (7 percent)."

I'm having horrific cut and paste lag on the Fox website. Put it this way- 64 and 65 percent of the general electorate feel that Clinton and [Sleezebag], respectively, are NOT honest and trustworthy.

The most honest and trustworthy? Bernie edges out Kasich.

Also, only 11% feel confident about the state of American politics, compared to 30% who feel that way about the economy.

Lots of information here. Even though polls don't make me right, they do make me feel validated.

[Buster's Uncle]

I wouldn't trust that source if they claimed the sun just set in the west - and I saw it do that just now...

[Rusty Edge]

I wouldn't trust that source if they claimed the sun just set in the west - and I saw it do that just now...

That is as may be.

Kasich +11 vs. Hillary is consistent with previous polls on the subject.

[Buster's Uncle]

Yah; I just had to take the shot at Fox, a propaganda channel that frequently spreads lies...

[Buster's Uncle]

[Rusty Edge]

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/145309   Here's one from 2012 on the subject of open political conventions.

3-26-12 The Myth of "Brokered" Conventions
by Leo P. Ribuffo, who teaches history at George Washington University and is writing a history of the Carter presidency. - See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/145309#sthash.SCHWNyDo.dpuf

A quick quiz.

Question 1: Who were the last two presidential nominees lacking a majority at the end of the first roll call at their party conventions?

Correct answer: Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower and Democrat Adlai Stevenson in 1952. Eisenhower's nomination followed immediately when Minnesota, pledged to its former governor Harold Stassen (at that point still a serious political figure), switched its votes. Stevenson, who had declared his candidacy only a few days earlier, did not win until the third ballot.

Question 2: Who was the last candidate to carry his fight to the convention and come within 117 votes of defeating an incumbent president?

Answer: Ronald Reagan in 1976.

The 1950s and 1970s probably do not seem so long ago to most adults.  Even those born later usually remember conversations with their parents and grandparents. The main exception to this practice seems to be our reigning political pundits, for whom only events since 1980 at the latest count as recent and relevant. This short-term perspective badly distorts our understanding of so-called brokered conventions.

Although the term's origins remain obscure the disreputable connotations are apparent. The Republican convention of 1920 is often cited to underscore the sordid. In February of that year, Senator Warren Harding's campaign manager, Harry Daugherty, predicted that after the convention deadlocked worried party leaders meeting in a "smoke filled room" would choose Harding as a compromise. In June no candidate received a majority on the first four ballots, party leaders did confer into the wee hours, and Harding won both the nomination and the election. A corrupt administration followed. Unfortunately for the legend, several other compromise candidates were also put forward in many smoke filled rooms that night, Harding was not nominated until the tenth ballot, and the instant legend was quickly disputed by skeptical journalists and several of the alleged power brokers. Historians have debunked the "smoked filled room" myth for a half century.

Legends aside, five points should be remembered about contested conventions. First, as my proposed neutral alternate adjective suggests, nomination by way of a contested convention was a respectable strategy from the 1830s, when conventions became the standard way of nominating candidates, until at least the 1960s. Democratic front runners Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932 and John Kennedy in 1960 knew that their support might dissipate unless they won quickly. Their chief rivals, Al Smith and Lyndon Johnson respectively, hoped that it would. In both cases effective floor managers kept wavering delegates in line. Kennedy won on the first ballot but not until the alphabetical roll call reached Wyoming; Roosevelt won on the fourth when the Democrats still required a two-thirds majority.

The most important beneficiaries of a contested convention strategy were Abraham Lincoln in 1860 and Woodrow Wilson in 1912. Wilson professed to believe that any candidate who reached a majority should be nominated even if he fell short of the two thirds required by his party. Wilson changed his mind when the front runner, House Speaker Champ Clark, reached a majority. He held out and won on the forty-sixth ballot. Second, though deals were ubiquitous, often about jobs up to the level of the vice presidency -- Lincoln and Wilson's managers were especially skillful in this respect -- personal friendship and ideological affinity also affected shifts. Stevenson won after the withdrawal of his fellow urbane internationalist New Dealer, Averell Harriman, whom he was more or less supporting a week earlier.

Third, conventions were, are, and probably should be about more than nominations. Senator Richard Russell, the genteel face of racial segregation, accumulated large numbers of delegates at the 1948 and 1952 Democratic conventions in order to demonstrate the power of the white South. Jesse Jackson used the same tactic on behalf of racial equality and a "rainbow coalition" in 1984 and 1988. Whether or not Senator Edward Kennedy actually thought he could shake loose Jimmy Carter's delegates at an "open convention" in 1980, he wanted to make a vivid case for liberalism.

Fourth, even leaving aside Lincoln and Wilson, compromise candidates were never as obscure as the mythology suggests. The first "dark horse" nominee, Democrat James K. Polk in 1844, was Andrew Jackson's protégé and had served as speaker of the House and governor of Tennessee. John W. Davis, chosen by the Democrats  on the one hundred and third ballot in 1924, had been ambassador to Great Britain and ranked as the foremost Supreme Court litigator of the twentieth century. Warren Harding had keynoted a previous Republican convention. Indeed, Harding in retrospect looks like a blessing compared to General Leonard Wood, the front runner he defeated in 1920. As commander of American troops fighting to control the Philippines earlier in the century, Wood had suggested the annihilation of all Filipino Muslims, a group particularly strong in its resistance, and troops under his command massacred unarmed Muslims in 1906. The Harding scandals look benign in comparison.

No one can predict whether or not the Republicans will have a contested convention this year, either because Mitt Romney's more conservative rivals might have a chance in combination to deny him the nomination or because they want to make a vivid ideological statement. But, fifth, we should be wary of commentators who say that such an event will not occur. The same sort of commentators -- indeed, in some cases the same reigning pundits -- doubted in 2000 that a presidential nominee could lose the popular vote but still win the White House.

After all, when had that happened before?

Correct answer: John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson in 1824, Rutherford B. Hayes over Samuel J. Tilden in 1876, and Benjamin Harrison over Grover Cleveland in 1888 -- not to mention the close calls in 1880, 1884, 1916, 1948, 1960, and 1976. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This historical context sets up my next article-

[Rusty Edge]

http://injo.com/2016/03/567478-4-reasons-nevertrump-stop-telling-john-kasich-drop-out/

"4 Reasons #NeverTrump Conservatives Should Stop Telling John Kasich to Drop Out of the 2016 Race
 By Justin Green

There’s a new theory going around that John Kasich should drop out of the race to help Ted Cruz beat Donald [Sleezebag].

While it sounds nice for the #NeverTrump crowd, it’s wrong for four reasons.

1) No One Can “Beat” [Sleezebag]

To win the Republican nomination outright requires a majority of delegates to the national convention, making the magic number 1,237.

After Tuesday’s primaries in Utah and Arizona, the math is formidably in [Sleezebag]’s favor.

Kasich’s ability to win the nomination outright has been mathematically eliminated, with Cruz teetering on the same result.

The Texas Republican needs more than 80% of the remaining delegates to lock up the nomination. As Kasich adviser John Weaver told Independent Journal Review, Cruz wouldn’t be able to capture all of those delegates:


“even if Donald [Sleezebag] was put in an insane asylum”

The mission is for Cruz and Kasich to deny [Sleezebag] a majority of delegates, forcing an open convention in July. To stop that, [Sleezebag] needs to unify more of the party around his campaign.

But if Cruz or Kasich pick up steam, [Sleezebag] will end up just shy of a majority of delegates by convention time, according to FiveThirtyEight.

2) [Sleezebag] Benefits Most if Anyone Else Drops Out

There’s a idea running through conservative politics that one candidate will be able to consolidate the anti-[Sleezebag] votes and defeat The Donald.

In reality, the math does not support that premise. A poll released Wednesday showed that [Sleezebag] would gain support if either Cruz or Kasich dropped out.

Rather than building the anti-[Sleezebag] coalition, a two-man race would put [Sleezebag] closer to the 50% mark that would effectively end the race.

Additionally, in the week after Marco Rubio left the GOP race, [Sleezebag]’s numbers went up more than any other candidate. The Real Clear Politics average of polls shows this.

Former Mitt Romney adviser Stuart Stevens told Independent Journal Review earlier this month:


“Giving voters more choices makes it easier. If Kasich was out of the race, would [Sleezebag] be doing better? Yes”

Stevens, who was speaking before Rubio exited the race on March 15th, added:


“A hypothetical world in which Cruz wins 55% and [Sleezebag] gets 45% … is more favorable for [Sleezebag] than a world in which [Sleezebag] gets 40 delegates and Cruz gets 35 and Rubio gets 20.”

3) Kasich is Far More Competitive Than Cruz in Many Remaining States

Ted Cruz was a clear second to Donald [Sleezebag] for the first half of the race, securing more than three times as many delegates as Kasich.

Cruz’s chances, as Weaver told Independent Journal Review, aren’t as rosy on the West Coast and in New England:


“Are you gonna tell me that Ted Cruz is going to do well in Rhode Island, or Delaware, or Manhattan, or Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon and Washington?”

Cruz trails [Sleezebag] badly in polls conducted in New York and New Jersey, and can be expected to struggle in Rhode Island and Connecticut. Kasich is far more competitive with [Sleezebag] in Pennsylvania, according to the latest poll from the Keystone State.

Those five states account for 264 delegates, and a Cruz-v-[Sleezebag] race would likely sacrifice the lion’s share of those delegates to The Donald.

While there is a chance that Kasich remaining in the race would make Cruz wins more difficult in states like Montana, Nebraska and New Mexico, the delegate math suggests it’s worth the risk. Kasich’s victories would reduce the margin of [Sleezebag] wins in the Northeast.

4) It’s Got to Be a Team Effort


What probably best described the current state of the race was his “running out of gas” analogy:


“It’s like they’re in a car and they’re trying to drive 100 miles and they’ve got 20 miles left of gas and they’re debating whether or not they should stop for gas.”

Republicans spent last summer denying [Sleezebag]’s potential. Then last fall, they scrambled to push each other out to be [Sleezebag]’s sole competitor. Finally, the first part of 2016 left the GOP reeling, as [Sleezebag] racked up win after win.

Now that [Sleezebag] is within sight of the nomination, Cruz and Kasich face a choice. They can keep going after each other, as they did before the March 15th primaries, or they can train all their firepower on turning out voters.

Stevens, who is not affiliated with a campaign this cycle, promotes the latter approach, particularly when it comes to states like California.

To stop [Sleezebag] from running away with a clean nomination, the best option is for Cruz and Kasich to stay in the race all the way through July.

[Unorthodox]

So here, how is Kasich staying in going to help keep T rump from the nomination from a delegate standpoint? 

This question is coming from a guy in a state Kasich SHOULD have won, but the local republican leadership all universally come out and said a vote for Kasich is a vote for T rump, you need to rally behind Cruz and hope Kasich comes out of the convention at the end. 

Kasich and Cruz split more votes than Kasich and T rump?


Maybe the worry was with Utah's oddball laws that someone had to win by more than 50% to make sure [Sleezebag] got nothing here.  I don't know.