First the big news – Ted Cruz has suspended his campaign tonight after placing a distant second. Trump victory called at poll close. Kasich down around 10%, but he pulled out on agreement with Cruz. He plans to continue, however.
The Dem race not yet called, but Sanders is leading. Clinton was leading by as much as double digits early on. If it stays Sanders Nate Silver will once again have to explain why his crystal ball was a little foggy. Clinton again did not campaign much in the state, which bugs me. The delegate split is likely to be a wash. Sanders has every right to stay in the race, but I’m not looking forward to more insufferable pronouncements from Sanders surrogates fantasizing about a realistic path to the nomination.
jconway says
President Ted Cruz. Followed soon by Senator Ted Cruz. This guys done.
Trickle up says
Seems to me he is positioned as the I-Told-You-So True Conservative for 2020.
Christopher says
He made several references to Ronald Reagan taking the fight to convention in 1976, going as far as tapping a running mate like Cruz did. The implied reminder was that after 1976 came 1980 and guess who got the nomination and elected that year.
HR's Kevin says
is that people liked Ronald Reagan. Not many people actually like Ted Cruz.
Trickle up says
just that he’d be back.
HR's Kevin says
I was criticizing his lame attempt to compare himself to Reagan, not your comment. I am sure he will be back again unless his wife talks him out of it or his donors shut him down.
jconway says
I think Trump winning the nomination isn’t a fluke of history and isn’t because the GOP establishment was divided between too many candidates. Their base wants someone who will fight for Social Security instead of privatizing it, fight for better government run health care instead of free markets, fight for fair trade instead of free trade and hold very outdated views on immigration, gender, and race. It’s a bizarre formulae, but an apparently successful one. It’ll be interesting to see how the GOP adapts after a Trump loss in November, it’s certainly been frightening to see how it has already adapted to a Trump primary victory.
SomervilleTom says
The battle between the “old school” GOP and Tea Party has been raging for years. The GOP spent decades pandering to racism, bigotry, and prejudice — the Tea Party is the fruit of that effort.
The old-school GOP spent the eight years of the Obama administration doing EVERYTHING in their power to personally destroy Mr. Obama, in what can only be described as a racist response to his election. They spent eight years throwing America and America’s best interests under the bus at EVERY excuse — and it STILL wasn’t good enough to satisfy the mob that they created.
The views on immigration, gender, and race that this mob wants to see enacted are to lock up or deport immigrants, enslave or impregnate women, and incarcerate or kill as many blacks as possible. The Tea Party values towards these things are on display at each of their events.
If it is “outdated” to insist that immigration policy be rational, that gender be irrelevant, and that racism be excised from our culture, then call me outdated.
The pandering of the GOP towards this ilk has been creating a cancer since we Democrats ejected our segregationists in 1968. They accelerated the growth of that cancer with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. The cancer became palpable with the emergence of the Tea Party.
It has now metastasized.
merrimackguy says
This just another bizarre rant.
Obama has deported a huge amount of immigrants.
Democrat administrations in America’s cities are shooting blacks at an unprecedented rate.
How does that jibe with your views?
FYI A Republican Congress has stymied the President because they could. I don’t think it’s personal (well, some is, but not because of his color). Democrats would do the same were the positions reversed.
SomervilleTom says
Democrats did not do the same during the administration of George W. Bush. America would be better today if we had, but we did not.
HR's Kevin says
but he will have to change his name to “Reek” 😉
sabutai says
These days I read a lot more complaints about the outrageous statements of a given candidate’s supporters then actual outrageous statements.
Christopher says
n/t
jconway says
Seeing a social democrat carry his native Hoosier State. Sanders can be proud of this victory when he goes back to the Senate having won his hero’s home state.
centralmassdad says
me how much Democrats love the quantitative analysis until the results show things they don’t like, then they have to throw the baby out with the bath water. Like a year ago, they wrote on 538 that primary polling is very poor, especially in states that aren’t usually Big Important Primaries like NH or Super Tueday States, and also that any model that tries to set probabilities is bound to have large error margins.
Then, repeating the disclaimer about the poor quality of primary polling, they set probabilities. Then you guys treat the probability like a prophesy and go all Karl Rove explaining why using data is silly because of gut feelings.
Christopher says
I am genuinely surprised when he gets it wrong.
sabutai says
Nate’s forecasts are basically based on quantified gut reactions to polls.
However, there is a state law banning robocalls, which really makes polling a prohibitive exercise in the Hoosier State. So polling was thin on the ground, leaving Silver challenged to make his forecast.
Peter Porcupine says
Can we do it here?????
stomv says
There are loads of polling places that use humans to give/receive the poll. You’re talking about automated dialing being illegal? Something else?
Christopher says
…where an electronic voice says:
“If you plan to vote for Donald Trump, press 1.”
“If you plan to vote for Ted Cruz, press 2.”
“If you plan to vote for John Kasich, press 3.”
jconway says
He’s been wrong all cycle.
Christopher says
…at least on the Dem side.
Christopher says
I thought he would at least wait until the states Cruz ceded to him. Plus I really wanted one person for GOP voters to choose other than Trump.