Cruz & Kasich team up because...?

So Ted Cruz and John Kasich have agreed to co-ordinate efforts to deny Trump the delegates for the Republican nomination for president.  The question is why.  Actually, the real question is "Why make that public?"

What's the gain in letting everyone, including Team Trump know that?  Is it to inform voters how they'd like them to vote?  Is it to scare Trump into panicking and making a campaign mistake?  Is it to tacitly inform Super-PACs how to spend their money more effectively to counter Trump's momentum post New York?  As Trump suggests, is it desperation?  Is it to avoid the appearance impropriety because they've already been doing just that?

I don't see any real upside to it.

Hear me out on this conspiracy theory

File this one under paranoid conspiracy theories if you must.  BUT...

John Kasich is staying in the race for the Republican nomination for president despite the fact that he he needs to win more than 100% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination. Why stay in the race?  The nominal explanation is that he's there to deny Trump the nomination.  I am starting to believe*  it is for an entirely different reason.

Hear me out.

1.  The GOP establishment dislike Ted Cruz more than they do Donald Trump
2.  Kasich is an establishment darling (more so now that Rubio is out)
3.  Trump is a dealmaker.  

Election poker hands

It's interesting to see how various parties are playing their hands this primary season. It's as if this were a long poker game.

Hillary Clinton is trying to bluff her way through emailgate even as another technician has pleaded the 5th amendment right to not self incriminate in her server scandal. With one already given immunity and another seemingly on the same course, it's starting to look like it's not Hillary's word against a single technician with a grudge, but rather at a minimum, two voices and some potential eventual email evidence. Should she bluff her way through the primaries, then get indicted, does she have to fold her hand?  On the other hand if the FBI cannot compile enough evidence, she can fall back to her stale argument of a "vast right wing conspiracy" to indict her and her bluff might actually succeed.

John Kasich's attempt to self-disqualify

John Kasich it seems, does not want to win the Republican nomination.  I'm sure he's gone a long way to win the establishment vote, with his recent comments on immigration but that's not gonna help him win anything. Self-disqualify though?  Ya.

Via Breitbat:

On the GOP debate stage in February, Kasich told millions of American voters that enforcing the nation’s immigration laws is not “the kind of values that we believe in.”

“I couldn’t even imagine how we would even begin to think about taking a mom or a dad out of a house when they have not committed a crime since they’ve been here, leaving their children in the house,” Kasich said. “That is not, in my opinion, the kind of values that we believe in.”

So let's just skip over that oath of office where you swear to protect and defend the Constitution, John.  Let's just be selective about which laws we choose to enforce.  Does that approach sound familiar to conservatives? Ya. And we don't like it.

Way to hand an Ohio surge to Trump.  But he's not done, as the article points out.

“A lot of these people who are here are some of the hardest-working, God-fearing, family-oriented people you can ever meet,” Kasich said referring to illegal immigrants. “These are people who are contributing significantly.”

Kasich made no mention of the fact that 87 percent of illegal immigrant households with children in 2012 were on welfare, according to a 2015 report based on Census Bureau data.

And what about the hard working families who were here already? What about the families that struggled and waited to come to America legally? Do they just count for squat? Do their job prospects not matter? Apparently.

Florida Republican debate observations

Marco Rubio had the best performance at the debate last night, not because the hometown crowd applause for many of his points, but rather because he made some truly substantive points and sounded more presidential than Ted Cruz (my personal preference).

John Kasich in focus groups appeared to do well but I didn't see it.  He seemed very centrist which I found unappealing but the real problem for him as a candidate was his demeanor.  He seemed tired.  It reminded me of the George W. Bush debate where he was leaning on the podium and looked like he wanted to be somewhere else.  Kasich didn't display it to the same level, it was more subtle.  But it seemed to me that he was just waiting for Ohio be over so he can drop out.  Maybe I'm wrong but that was the impression I got.

Ted Cruz did well but in order for him to move the dial on future results he's got to expand his message to a broader audience.  There's only one way to do that.  Ted - we know you'd govern as a Constitutional conservative, move past it.  The single issue that would move the dial for Cruz would be for him to focus on the economy and jobs and job security.  He's hit on it a few times but he needs to do it more.

Donald Trump looked more presidential (and as I write, his press conference with Ben Carson's endorsement he's seeming it even more).  What I found fascinating was his closing argument about Supreme Court justice appointments over the next four years. v If he meant what he said, that's a powerful argument for those doubting his conservative credentials.  Let's see if he hits on that more going forward.

Overall, I don't think the debate will change any expected results in the next few states.  It may add a few points for Trump and for Rubio, but there is not going to be a paradigm shift out of it.

Trump Day

Donald Trump has won Michigan and Mississippi this evening. Hillary Clinton has so far apparently earned a split of those two states with Sanders.

Kasich and Rubio combined in Mississippi garnered less than 15% of the vote, less than 36%.  They need to get out of the race.  The only purpose they can serve now is to win their own states and forestall Trump and possibly force a brokered convention.  If they can actually win their home states.  It's becoming highly questionable that they can.  And if they are successful, they might actually bring down the Republican party with a brokered convention.  Ted Cruz, despite having a bad day, is the only real other alternative at this point.

Hillary Clinton meanwhile is struggling with Bernie Sanders. She's appearing more and more to be a weak candidate for the general election, just like Trump.

This is bizarro world.

GOP Debate winners and losers

This debate was an easy one on which to provide post-analysis. Kasich, Bush and Christie did indeed go after Rubio even though they had claimed there was no agreement to do so.  Trump played it safe, protecting his lead.  Rubio did an okay job defending himself against Chris Christie, but not as well as he should have done.  Jeb Bush was not as effective at the Rubio attack as Christie, or the I can govern message as well as either Christie or Kasich.

Ben Carson had some good lines and some humorous answers.  He did not stand out enough though.  

Ted Cruz held his ground, though right now, CNN is claiming he's evil because he's misrepresenting what CNN reported about Ben Carson leaving the race/not leaving the race.

3 hours and that's about the most notable stuff.  The only other point I'd note was that it seemed like there were a lot of Bush supporters in the crowd.

Winners:

Donald Trump - he was smart to play it safe and stay above the fray because the attacks were all focused elsewhere.  He's protecting his lead and did nothing to hurt it. He did nothing outstanding, but he did what he had to do.

Chris Christie - Most effective attacks on Rubio came from Christie.  He'll be more memorable than Bush or Kasich.

Losers:

Marco Rubio - He like Trump, needed to protect his position.  He didn't respond well and came across as needing more time to refine his resume and his skills.  He didn't come off badly, but he needed to better than he did.

Jeb Bush, and Ben Carson - Wallflowers with no memorable moments.

Carly Fiorina - MIA. Not her fault but she didn't make it to the stage.

Meh:

John Kasich and Ted Cruz - For very different reasons. Kasich did better than the losers.  Cruz on the other hand was stilted.  He had some very good moments and some flat ones as well.  He did himself no harm, and New Hampshire is not going to be his state.

CNN's GOP Debate Post Analysis

I meant to comment on the GOP debate yesterday, but I did not have the time to do so.  So here are my thoughts today, well after everyone else has weighed in on it.  Unlike the GOP under card debate, the participants in the main debate were not yawners.  The debate itself did not possess any wow factors, but there were definitely some things worth noting.

Firstly, credit where it's due,Wolf Blitzer was not bad.  He was fair, and stood out of the way as much as he could.  Dana Bash was predictably liberal but nothing over the top, and also deserves some credit for keeping her liberal partisanship reasonably in check. And of course while Hugh Hewitt may have had a horse in the race, being a conservative he did not ask dumb, irrelevant questions, like climate change or living wage issues during a foreign policy debate.

As for the participants, here's some top line thoughts.

Ted Cruz - his content was good, but he did not come across as likable every time he went long and flouted the debate rules.  Once or twice is fine in order to make a point but he left the impression that he just didn't care about the rules and had a sense of self-importance.  If that's the image that sticks, it's not good for him.  That would be a shame because his content was good.

Marco Rubio - he came across as solid and knowledgeable. He did nit dazzle, but he left the impression that he would be a solid president if he were the nominee.  Despite his back story however, he did not come across as someone who can easily connect.  Maybe it's just me.  Despite his weakness on immigration he's solid on a lot of issues.  I want to like him, and I'm sure he'd be a decent president.  But all I can muster so far is 'Meh'.

Donald Trump - what Trump has going for him is remarkably, his bellicosity, tempered with well-timed compliments. What he delivers is populism in the form of knowing that things are messed up.  That's something missing not only in Democrat circles but also in large swaths of the GOP.  What he lacks, in spades, is specificity.  He says he's going to hire the best people.  I believe he would. But the problem is, unless he is secretly studying with  debate gurus and will unload unexpectedly during debates with Hillary Clinton, she is going to argue circles around him.  That's a recipe for general election failure.  The debate last night did nothing to change any of Trump's positives or negatives.

Chris Christie - I'm not a Christie guy but I think he won the debate.  He was tough. He was solid, he was forceful but he also connected.  

Jeb Bush - In la la land CNN thinks this guy is the winner.  Yes, he went after Trump, and he needed to do so.  But every single time he came across as bitter, petty, and not nice.  It was clear his debate was about him and Trump and not about details on what he wants for America.  He was trying to score political points and it's exactly why he will not win the nomination.

Ben Carson - He's smart but he's just too laid back.  It's like every answer he's reading you a bedtime story.  That's just not inspiring and it's not a winning formula.  He also has not faced a truly hostile opponent or panel of questioners yet.  I think his moment may have already passed, and it was even before this past debate.  He needed a lightning bolt, he delivered a cloud.

Carly Fiorina - Smart, mature, informed and a smooth debater.  She unfortunately delivered a debate that seemed a little canned and pat.  But that was forgivable.  What may have done her in during this debate is dhe did not manage to stand out.  In a field this big, you cannot afford to not stand out.  She needs traction and she needs it quickly, even more so after not getting it at the debate.

John Kasich - go home. While he was better than his previous debates as far as pettiness goes (where he was clearly a champion of sniping other candidates unnecessarily and spitefully), he just struck me as being overly eager: "look at me", "Ohio is great now", "look at me".  He traded in pettiness for petulance. Go home.

Rand Paul - He was testy. I don't think he was effective in being able to expand his numbers.  I think he was spoiling for a fight and he didn't get one.

Overall, I think because he did no harm, you can say Trump won.  But I expect to see bumps in support for any combination of Cruz, Rubio and Christie.  If either of the other two surge enough, it might be the end of Bush.  We can only hope.

Debate's Biggest Loser: Kasich

I liked John Kasich in the past. He's done a lot of good things. And I understand he needed to make some waves by going after the front runners.  But geez if he didn't take the moderator's bait, and this doesn't become the attack ad campaign for Democrats if Trump or Carson become the nominee.  For that, he loses all credibility with me.

You want evidence that liberals are salivating at this clip?  I found this video on a liberal Youtube channel.

The CNN Republican Debate

A lot has already been said and analyzed concerning last nights Republican candidates' debate on CNN.  All I can add is my impression of who did well and who didn't.

I think pretty much everyone did a good job of representing themselves - even CNN did a good job, probably because it was Jake Tapper running things. 

I was most impressed with Fiorina, Carson, Rubio and Kasich (at least his list of accomplishments impressed), but others all represented themselves fairly well.  Trump did better than I expected, as did Bush.  Rand Paul defined his positions well and he will certainly appeal to a segment of Republican voters. He was of course well spoken and reasoned, but I find myself less inclined to consider supporting him than before.  Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee both did well but while the former came across as almost too polished, Huckabee, who would not be in my top 5 choices, came across in a connected, approachable way.

This is still early on, and things will change, but it will be interesting to see how this changes the polling.