South Carolina 2016 Caucuses/Primaries

[Big Guy]

Latest polls show Trump and Cruz tied for second and the Pope in the lead.

[Big Guy]

Also looks like Bush is out and gone.

[kimmy]

Trump comes away with a 'uuuuuge 11-point win, while Rubio and Cruz virtually are tied at about 22% as I type.

The delegate counter says Trump gets 38 delegates and everybody else gets zero. Is that true? Is SC a winner-take-all state?

Kasich and Bush are tied for 4th at 8% each and Carson is 6th with 7%.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

Jeb Bush is already out...was never really in it.

[Derek 2.0]

The delegate counter says Trump gets 38 delegates and everybody else gets zero. Is that true? Is SC a winner-take-all state?

Yup........and on Super Tuesday, its a mixed bag with the States, some are winner takes all, some are proportional, and some States, like Texas have a 20% threshold in support and then they are proportional......i.e if South Carolina's results were to hold true in Texas, they would be divided between Trump, Cruz and Rubio.......

[Derek 2.0]

Jeb Bush is already out...was never really in it.

I agree, on paper he is the most qualified, but comes across as an accountant.........if Bush's support had of been placed in Rubio's column in South Carolina, he would be within a couple of points of Trump.......Nevada should be interesting now.

[Derek 2.0]

Yup........and on Super Tuesday, its a mixed bag with the States, some are winner takes all, some are proportional, and some States, like Texas have a 20% threshold in support and then they are proportional......i.e if South Carolina's results were to hold true in Texas, they would be divided between Trump, Cruz and Rubio.......

Just to add, by winner take all in South Carolina and several of the Super Tuesday States, its winner take all by Congressional District.......in other words, for South Carolina for example, Trump has won the majority of the districts in SC, as such, he'll win 40+ of 50 delegates, with the remainder going to Rubio

[kimmy]

Just to add, by winner take all in South Carolina and several of the Super Tuesday States, its winner take all by Congressional District.......in other words, for South Carolina for example, Trump has won the majority of the districts in SC, as such, he'll win 40+ of 50 delegates, with the remainder going to Rubio

So hypothetically if Dr Carson was wildly popular in one Congressional District he could still get a delegate for winning there, even though he finishes dead last in overall votes in the state?

-k

[Derek 2.0]

So hypothetically if Dr Carson was wildly popular in one Congressional District he could still get a delegate for winning there, even though he finishes dead last in overall votes in the state?

-k

Yes, in a winner take all Congressional District State. Starting with Florida, March 15th, the winner take all State wide rules start to enter the race......to put these first three races in context, a third place finish with ~25% in Texas could result in ~50 delegates.........

------------

In my view, with Bush gone, its a three person race, with Kasich acting as an anchor to Rubio, and Carson to Cruz, in the race to beat Trump.

[Rue]

Bush is out and it was clear from day one he was never in. This is just not someone with the personality needed for American politics. He was overwhelmed and probably by his own decency and set of proper manners. He actually was a well spoken man no one listened to. Kind of like a Joe Clark. You go against a bully like Trump you have to fight back-he never did It was sad watching him studder becayse in today's politics that won't get you past a primary but it does get you elected Canadian PM uh uh uh.

Unfortunately it also looks like the mainstream Republicans did not want another Bush. So the question is, is there an anyone but Trump candidate? Certainly won't be Cruz. Is it Rubio? He's painfully inexperienced and soft but its all they have left now against Trump.

A Trump v. Clinto election will get Clinton elected as the better of two evils and at this point either Trump or Clinton is not what the US and its people need not that I mean to be presumptious but neither seems to capture what the US vision should be. Trump is quick to state what it should hate and reject but can't state what it should be. Clinton? She's spent. She's a spent recycle of everything corupt and wrong about Clinton and Obama.

I just can't see her making a difference and restoring the US reputation in the world-just more of Obama apologies and impotence on world stage-certainly not a match for Putin. Thatcher she is not and her Grave's disease is nothing to sneer at-its sapping her of her energy not exactly what you need when you take over the most demanding job in the world.

Just does not look good Would Bloomberg enter the race, I don't think so. Despite his ego he is not thta much different than Clinton.

I believe the Republicans have shot themselves in the foot and handed the white house over to Clinton on this one.

Edited February 21, 2016 by Rue

[Wilber]

The GOP nomination seems to rest on who can best sell fear. Fear of Muslims, Mexicans, Russians, Chinese, their own government, Supreme Court and the need for everyone to be armed to the teeth due to fear of each other. The most powerful country in the world being sold on being the most afraid. It's really quite extraordinary and will be interesting to see if it works.

[kimmy]

Bush is out and it was clear from day one he was never in. This is just not someone with the personality needed for American politics. He was overwhelmed and probably by his own decency and set of proper manners. He actually was a well spoken man no one listened to. Kind of like a Joe Clark.

I think that's a pretty good comparison. Jeb and Joe, whatever their merits, somehow convey a doofus image that's difficult to overcome. Harper wasn't charismatic either, but he didn't have the same doofus quality.

I think that George H.W. and his sons are basically decent people... I think if you look at W's participation in humanitarian causes in Africa since leaving office, you can find that there's a good heart inside him, even if you disagree with every single policy he supported while President. I think that Jeb probably had high hopes of conducting a dignified campaign and acting with class and decorum. But clearly voters in both parties are tired of the status-quo and the only thing more status-quo than a 2nd Clinton presidency would be a 3rd Bush presidency.

Maybe at some point we'll look back at this moment and think "you know, change isn't always good and the status-quo isn't always bad. We'd be a lot better off if the voters had picked the status-quo."

Unfortunately it also looks like the mainstream Republicans did not want another Bush. So the question is, is there an anyone but Trump candidate? Certainly won't be Cruz. Is it Rubio? He's painfully inexperienced and soft but its all they have left now against Trump.

I am not sure what to think. Cruz and Trump both seem too "out-there" to win a general election, but Rubio seems too "lightweight" to beat Cruz in the primaries. If it comes down to Trump, Cruz, and Rubio, I think Cruz will tear Rubio apart and unify the anybody-but-Trump votes behind Cruz. Maybe I'm underestimating Rubio's ability, or overestimating Cruz's ability... but one guy was a champion Ivy-league debater, and the other guy got completely clowned by Chris Christie on national TV. I don't think it'll go well for Rubio if it's just the three of them on stage together.

A Trump v. Clinto election will get Clinton elected as the better of two evils and at this point either Trump or Clinton is not what the US and its people need not that I mean to be presumptious but neither seems to capture what the US vision should be. Trump is quick to state what it should hate and reject but can't state what it should be. Clinton? She's spent. She's a spent recycle of everything corupt and wrong about Clinton and Obama.

I just can't see her making a difference and restoring the US reputation in the world-just more of Obama apologies and impotence on world stage-certainly not a match for Putin. Thatcher she is not and her Grave's disease is nothing to sneer at-its sapping her of her energy not exactly what you need when you take over the most demanding job in the world.

I'm not convinced that Clinton would be a lock to beat any of the Republican front-runners. She's got the same major liability as Jeb-- people are sick of the status-quo, and post-Jeb she's the most status-quo thing in this race.

Just does not look good Would Bloomberg enter the race, I don't think so. Despite his ego he is not thta much different than Clinton.

I believe the Republicans have shot themselves in the foot and handed the white house over to Clinton on this one.

Isn't there a cut-off date for candidates to enter? Doesn't the amount of delegates already awarded, and about to be awarded in the next couple of weeks, make it pointless for anybody new to enter the race at this point anyway?

-k

[Shady]

Yes, in a winner take all Congressional District State. Starting with Florida, March 15th, the winner take all State wide rules start to enter the race......to put these first three races in context, a third place finish with ~25% in Texas could result in ~50 delegates.........

------------

In my view, with Bush gone, its a three person race, with Kasich acting as an anchor to Rubio, and Carson to Cruz, in the race to beat Trump.

Yep, unless Kasich gets out soon, he's holding 7 - 10% that would mostly go to Rubio.

[kimmy]

Mitt Romney is allegedly now about to endorse Marco Rubio. Romney has been holding back from doing this sooner due to his respect for Jeb Bush, but with Bush now leaving the race, Romney is going to endorse Rubio.

Does a Romney endorsement matter at this point? It seems to me that Trump's support comes from people who are completely fed up with the party establishment, which includes Romney. And Cruz's support comes from the right wing of the party that hated the idea of Romney being the nominee in 2012.

I guess this would help usher the Jeb supporters over to the Rubio camp, but they were probably headed there anyway.

-k

[TimG]

I had originally thought that Trump could not win if his support was stuck at 30% but with these winner take all states Trump could end up with a majority of delegates even if he only has 30% if the vote. Is there a precedent for this? It seems absurd that it could happen.

[Derek 2.0]

Bush is out and it was clear from day one he was never in. This is just not someone with the personality needed for American politics. He was overwhelmed and probably by his own decency and set of proper manners. He actually was a well spoken man no one listened to. Kind of like a Joe Clark.

I never thought of that, that is a good comparison.

[Derek 2.0]

I think that's a pretty good comparison. Jeb and Joe, whatever their merits, somehow convey a doofus image that's difficult to overcome. Harper wasn't charismatic either, but he didn't have the same doofus quality.

I think that George H.W. and his sons are basically decent people... I think if you look at W's participation in humanitarian causes in Africa since leaving office, you can find that there's a good heart inside him, even if you disagree with every single policy he supported while President. I think that Jeb probably had high hopes of conducting a dignified campaign and acting with class and decorum. But clearly voters in both parties are tired of the status-quo and the only thing more status-quo than a 2nd Clinton presidency would be a 3rd Bush presidency.

Maybe at some point we'll look back at this moment and think "you know, change isn't always good and the status-quo isn't always bad. We'd be a lot better off if the voters had picked the status-quo."

I largely agree, I think outside of a cabinet position, this generation of the Bush family is finished.......but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see George P Bush pick-up the torch after the next 4-5 election cycles have passed.

I am not sure what to think. Cruz and Trump both seem too "out-there" to win a general election, but Rubio seems too "lightweight" to beat Cruz in the primaries. If it comes down to Trump, Cruz, and Rubio, I think Cruz will tear Rubio apart and unify the anybody-but-Trump votes behind Cruz. Maybe I'm underestimating Rubio's ability, or overestimating Cruz's ability... but one guy was a champion Ivy-league debater, and the other guy got completely clowned by Chris Christie on national TV. I don't think it'll go well for Rubio if it's just the three of them on stage together.

Well Rubio did beat Cruz last night, in a contest with both Bush and Kasich in his lane..........Southern Bible belt States are suppose to be Cruz's turf.........Funny enough, from the polls I've seen (granted some are weeks old), Rubio leads the field in several Super Tuesday States, Virginia/Georgia/Alabama, slightly ahead of Trump (and these are polls with Bush still in the field)........The only States where I've seen Cruz leading is Texas (in polls with Bush still in the race) with Trump and Rubio on his tail......one would assume the Bush machine in the State will get behind Rubio now.....

Another thing to consider, with Texas being an open primary State (Democrats and Independents can vote) is that it historically (for the last 50+ years) both sides will vote in the others primaries to keep out the extreme loons...

[bush_cheney2004]

The GOP nomination seems to rest on who can best sell fear. Fear of Muslims, Mexicans, Russians, Chinese, their own government, Supreme Court and the need for everyone to be armed to the teeth due to fear of each other. The most powerful country in the world being sold on being the most afraid. It's really quite extraordinary and will be interesting to see if it works.

Don't leave out fear of Canadians....Democrat politicians have been doing that too. No Keystone XL, no funding for Detroit bridge/plaza, "Buy American" policies, suspension of general aviation overflight rights, increased northern border security, deportations of Canadian overstays, etc.

It appears to be working.

Edited February 21, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

There's still plenty of primary season to go and it is too soon to project any winner, but it is very easy to project the losers. Unlike Canada's amazing and historically "grueling" 100+ day election season, the Americans routinely go at it for much longer.

[On Guard for Thee]

There's still plenty of primary season to go and it is too soon to project any winner, but it is very easy to project the losers. Unlike Canada's amazing and historically "grueling" 100+ day election season, the Americans routinely go at it for much longer.

Much longer? hell they never stop. It's either POTUS or midterms. Must get awfully redundant as well as boring, not to mention expensive.

[sharkman]

The GOP nomination seems to rest on who can best sell fear. Fear of Muslims, Mexicans, Russians, Chinese, their own government, Supreme Court and the need for everyone to be armed to the teeth due to fear of each other. The most powerful country in the world being sold on being the most afraid. It's really quite extraordinary and will be interesting to see if it works.

I think you're misreading the emotion. It's not fear, it's anger at what a mess Obama has left. This anger is there already, it doesn't have to be coaxed out.

[Derek 2.0]

There's still plenty of primary season to go and it is too soon to project any winner, but it is very easy to project the losers. Unlike Canada's amazing and historically "grueling" 100+ day election season, the Americans routinely go at it for much longer.

Exactly, 3 down and 47+ more to go.........as said prior, Texas alone has more delegates then Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada combined.

[Derek 2.0]

I had originally thought that Trump could not win if his support was stuck at 30% but with these winner take all states Trump could end up with a majority of delegates even if he only has 30% if the vote. Is there a precedent for this? It seems absurd that it could happen.

The last heavily contested Republican race would have been Ford vs Reagan in '76........like then, now the later delegate rich States (New York and California) will likely play an important role........and as said before, this could come down to a brokered convention, where (if they're still in it) a Kasich or Carson could play kingmaker.

[sharkman]

...

A Trump v. Clinto election will get Clinton elected as the better of two evils and at this point either Trump or Clinton is not what the US and its people need not that I mean to be presumptious but neither seems to capture what the US vision should be. Trump is quick to state what it should hate and reject but can't state what it should be. Clinton? She's spent. She's a spent recycle of everything corupt and wrong about Clinton and Obama.

I just can't see her making a difference and restoring the US reputation in the world-just more of Obama apologies and impotence on world stage-certainly not a match for Putin. Thatcher she is not and her Grave's disease is nothing to sneer at-its sapping her of her energy not exactly what you need when you take over the most demanding job in the world.

Just does not look good Would Bloomberg enter the race, I don't think so. Despite his ego he is not thta much different than Clinton.

I believe the Republicans have shot themselves in the foot and handed the white house over to Clinton on this one.

I wonder, though, about the disaffected young vote if their hero Sanders is out. They will not be energized as they are now, and won't be voting for Hilary in the same numbers as they would have for a Sanders for president election. That will be more than enough to give the nod to the Rep side, unless something drastic were to happen.

And I believe right now, hundreds of dem activists are scouring the net and elsewhere, looking for the magic bullet to take out Trump, Rubio, and Cruz, just as rep. activists are doing the same for Hilary and Sanders. It's kind of sad that the election of the most powerful nation in the world can be altered by nerds in their mother's basements, but there you are.

But Trump seems to have teflon for this election year, nothing sticks to him thus far. Hilary, on the other hand, has the FBI doing a serious investigation of her handling of secret level information, and she has numerous transgressions that seem to be actionable. My theory is that the FBI does not want to be seen as meddling in an election outcome, even though she should be prosecuted for what they've found already. It's a strange situation.

[Derek 2.0]

I think you're misreading the emotion. It's not fear, it's anger at what a mess Obama has left. This anger is there already, it doesn't have to be coaxed out.

What could be very telling, confirming your point, to date, the three Republican primaries have all set historic voter turnouts in each State.......The Democrats are below levels that elected Obama and Clinton.....