Various thoughts on current events with an emphasis on politics, legal issues, books, movies and whatever is on my mind. Emails can be sent to email@example.com; please put "blog comments" in the subject line.
Today's a very important day in the presidential race, basically a second "Super Tuesday." It started well for Trump with a win out in the middle of the Pacific. We will see how things go later -- Kasich looks like he will win Ohio while Trump is doing well elsewhere though an upset some place is possible. A win even merely in Florida is quite important especially since he would likely still get a good many delegates with strong second place finishes. It would make Cruz etc. have something to hand on to if they get the wins with Rubio of course being made out to be still alive if he actually somewhat miraculously wins Florida.
"I have to look at what is practical. I didn't see a path for Kasich, who I like, or for Rubio, who I like. As far as Cruz is concerned, I don't think he's going to be able to draw independents and Democrats unless he has some kind of miraculous change," he continued. "Is there another scenario that I would have preferred? Yes, but that scenario isn't available."
Carson -- realize it's sometimes hard to say this -- has a point here. From the Democratic perspective, Trump would be a better candidate than Cruz, the former putting a scare in some people, especially since there is a fear he would actually pick up some state or states the Democrats must win. Cruz (sorry, Sen. Cruz, former Texan state official) might put himself out as an outsider, but he has less of a case there than Trump. Plus, Cruz is clearly a very conservative sort that on ideology aside, putting aside his personality, will turn off many voters. Carson, noting some personal distaste for Cruz given campaign related activity, might support Cruz more policy-wise. But, if he wants the Republicans to win, yes, Trump very well might be the better choice.
Some Republicans cannot quite stomach this and some already are saying they rather vote for Hillary Clinton. It might not be somewhat they want to say publicly, but many probably can live with her, especially if they retain control of Congress (either way, they will at least control the House though the Senate will be very important as seen now with Scalia's replacement). Opposing a Clinton has done them very well for over twenty years running. Her foreign policy will be more hawkish than many liberals like and she probably will be inclined to in their eyes at least be "reasonable" for various economic and regulatory matters. Trump is a wild card and though Cruz might be ideal, some might be turned off by him while others will fear too much of "a good thing" will hurt them down the road. Many prefer divided government.
I won't take this that far but the case is strong enough that she will probably get some "strange bedfellows" support, especially given her past comments on the "vast right wing conspiracy." It works here to have "good" competition and Trump and in various ways Cruz is just that. Many are somewhat gleeful for Trump being the nominee, and I admit to some of that (also hope it will knock some sense in the party but might not happen especially if they retain the Senate -- he will be just seen as an anomaly with weak opposition aka it's all Jeb!'s fault). Cruz though is probably the best opponent for the Democrats to win the presidency in November. Not sure about the Senate though. See the divided government thing.
Well, we will see how things go tonight. To underline the point, we need to look past the presidency. The Senate is a big deal this election though it has to fall into place particularly well for the Democrats to win. I have seen a few people predicting that would happen, but depressing as it might be, got to not assume that sort of thing. Finally, the big thing remains state races. Since states as a whole will fall the Republicans way given the number of small conservative states in general out there -- also giving them a leg up in Congress -- a simple majority is understandable. But, Democrats by one count I have seen are under twenty states now. That's not good. The thing I'd hang on to there is that it isn't a lost cause. A mere five states would make things look much better -- twenty-three states.
Like all the emphasis on Trump in the news ... and I'm not any better here (never really was that into local politics at all) ... things are skewered. A long term effort to retake some statehouses is essential here. Still, a breakdown of the national Republican Party of the sort that will occur with a Trump nomination cannot hurt, right?