Republican Bayou/Cauci Saturday election results thread (first results @3pm ET?)

[Vosem]

How in the Hell has Cruz surged so drastically? He's further to the right than Trump is.

All of these candidates are further to the right than _trump -- and that's why we support them!

[Vosem]

Fayette County came in just as Jake Tapper was complaining that it wasn't coming in...



It's also the only county so far in the >20% range (for Cruz).

Still has him ahead of _trump, which is what matters. A 600-vote margin, too; negates several of those _trump-voting counties in the east.

[Vosem]

Orleans Parish has so little counted that Rubio is still in second place there based on early votes. The Election Day votes will clearly be more favorable for Cruz. St. Bernard and Jefferson are good for _trump but they're also mostly in.

What's relevant is that _trump's statewide lead is narrow and he will be far from 50% in all congressional districts except maybe the 1st. _trump has failed to get a majority of delegates from LA, which he needs to do if he wants nomination. The poor man must be sweating buckets after his defeat tonight -- and we know his body is fragile and can only take so much stress.

[Vosem]

Did Rubio even win a county/parish today?

Almost certainly not, but considering the extremely low numbers of votes cast in some western Kansas counties, a small chance exists. Romney lost the state to Santorum 51-21, and the west part by even more, but he won a county, Gingrich came within a few votes of winning another, and Santorum eclipsed 70% in a different one. Remember, Carson won an Alaska borough.

[Vosem]

It's obvious that Cruz exceeded expectations. I wonder where that gets us.

The only real surprise was his win in Maine.  At most this just damages Rubio.  The math shows that TRUMP is still safe.

270+119+30>354. _trump is losing the primaries.
36+6+3>18. _trump is losing tonight.

Cruz looks like he'll come out with more delegates today

This is close to certain, unless _trump can stop the bleeding in LA. Unfortunately, his body is far too decrepit to stop bleeding.

[Vosem]

Eh, they've just called first-place for _trump. As is well-known, this is a pyrrhic victory, since he's getting a minority of delegates in every state and putting more stress on his aged body.

[Vosem]

_trump falls below 50% in Jefferson Parish -- looks like what's out in the so-called "_trump-favorable" areas is either much less _trump-favorable or outright Cruz-leaning. Lots out in Caddo, Bossier, East Baton Rouge, Orleans -- all areas where Cruz is either winning already or gaining rapidly. Whether he wins the state is unclear, but the anti-_trumps will reap the delegates tonight.

[Vosem]

The party is going to lose even worse WITH Trump as the nominee...apparently you haven't been following the polls

You're better than this, dude.

You're laughing now, wait 8 months and then publicly acknowledge I was right.

Right about what?  TRUMP losing?  Yeah, there's a decent chance he's going to lose to Clinton.

Citing general election polls in March is stupid, though, and you know it.

I highly doubt that _trump will ever get the chance to be schlonged by Clinton. Tonight has put him further away from the goal of being dominated.

[Vosem]

I think an under-reported story is Trump significantly underperforming the polls in nearly every state so far.

_trump just can't perform, in any context at all. Sad.

Yeah, it's clear Drumpf has won LA and KY.

Still, he underperformed and if he stays at this level he won't get to a majority of delegates.

But if Trump underperformed, how can Cruz not winning Kentucky or Lousiana be considered anything other than under-performing. These should be his strong states. If he can't win there how is he going to get the delegates he needs from Ohio or Michigan or New York or Pennsylvania?

Uh? KY and LA were always considered to be Drumpf territory. Pretty sure he was expected to beat Cruz by 10+ in each.

Well if Cruz can't win in southern states, whats he doing in the race? and as it now looks like a two-horse contest, how can these results indicate anything other than a Drumpf win overall?

Because _trump loses if he fails to get 50%, which is possible even if (hypothetically; this won't take place) he wins 40+ states if he gets sufficiently low vote percentages and doesn't win a few key winner-take-alls. Cruz is the likeliest nominee in the event of a contested convention. Simple as that.

[Vosem]

Uh? KY and LA were always considered to be Drumpf territory. Pretty sure he was expected to beat Cruz by 10+ in each.

True, but only since he did so well on Super Tuesday. LA was going to be part of Cruz's base like AL and GA.

I think AL and GA have been considered strong _trump states since the pattern of his support became apparent. (Not the case for LA, but then it looks like the victory there will be very small; 4% margin at the very most).

why is Trump talking about polls when actual votes are coming in? Tonight it looks like he will get around 33% of the vote

Because _trump loses when people vote! So why would he talk about that?

[Vosem]

Still plenty of votes in Caddo and East Baton Rouge for Cruz to make this a nail-biter in Louisiana.

MSNBC said that the Caddo vote is still the early vote, which I imagine will be better for Trump.

Hasn't the early vote been taken into account basically everywhere? Would be very strange if this was true. (Also, early vote isn't part of any precinct -- that's why we started with "initial results" in most counties -- and 48% of actual physical precincts are still out). So this is very likely to be bullsh**t.

Nah. The establishment would knee cap Cruz in a brokered convention if they had the chance.

Yes, with ease. Who would be the nominee then?

Cruz+_trump loyalists would almost certainly be a majority, so the votes would not be there for an establishment nominee. Cruz could deliberately engineer a slow leak from establishment and _trump to him, point to that as momentum, and then manufacture actual momentum. _trump's delegates will be leaving him because it's clear a large number of them will be hacks who were simply forced into supporting him, whereas Rubio/Kasich will be losing delegates to new entrants. The new entrants can be attacked by the line "why didn't you run in the primaries", so they'll have a cap which is under 50%. Only Cruz will be able to win. Boom.

[Vosem]

91% in. All of Orleans suburbs in except St. Tammany, which is 87% in. 52% counted in Caddo, 52% in Ouachita, 57% in East Baton Rouge, 9% in Orleans is counted; the rest is out. Looks strong for Cruz, though whether it's enough to actually swing the outcome looks doubtful. _trump winning statewide delegates just 15-13; he needs to lose a little more than a point in the margin for it to be tied 14-14 (and the CD delegates are structured so that it's very difficult for anyone except a landslide winner to get a majority of them). It is clear that _trump has failed to claim a majority of delegates from any state (and depending on how CD results look in Louisiana, there's an outside chance Cruz actually takes more delegates than _trump does).

I think an under-reported story is Trump significantly underperforming the polls in nearly every state so far.

_trump just can't perform, in any context at all. Sad.

Yeah, it's clear Drumpf has won LA and KY.

Still, he underperformed and if he stays at this level he won't get to a majority of delegates.

But if Trump underperformed, how can Cruz not winning Kentucky or Lousiana be considered anything other than under-performing. These should be his strong states. If he can't win there how is he going to get the delegates he needs from Ohio or Michigan or New York or Pennsylvania?

Uh? KY and LA were always considered to be Drumpf territory. Pretty sure he was expected to beat Cruz by 10+ in each.

Well if Cruz can't win in southern states, whats he doing in the race? and as it now looks like a two-horse contest, how can these results indicate anything other than a Drumpf win overall?

Because _trump loses if he fails to get 50%, which is possible even if (hypothetically; this won't take place) he wins 40+ states if he gets sufficiently low vote percentages and doesn't win a few key winner-take-alls. Cruz is the likeliest nominee in the event of a contested convention. Simple as that.

seems like wishful thinking. Rubio will - has to- drop out very soon, perhaps before Florida. When it  becomes a Cruz v _trump race Drumpf will start his pivot to the middle and clean-up in the northern states. What does Cruz have left to win? Arizona? Nebraska? The only way that this becomes brokered is a Kasich surge that wins OH, MI, PA, IL and other big states

Rubio dropping out is a fantasy, except in the event that he loses FL overwhelmingly while Kasich wins OH, in which case his remaining votes transfer to Kasich en masse. Rubio dropping out before FL is a complete fantasy, the establishment have staked the task of stopping _trump on him. What Cruz has left to win is most of the west, including California where polling has shown him up. The number of WTA states is not large (a majority of WTA delegates are allocated on 3/15).

Regardless, again, the focus on first-place is blinding you to reality. If Cruz+Rubio+Kasich have more delegates than _trump in a state, _trump has lost. That's every state tonight.

Question - Could Rubio pull the chute before Florida to save his career?

No. Next question.

Question - Could Rubio pull the chute before Florida to save his career?

That would be the rational thing for him to do at this point.

It would not be the rational thing for his presidential campaign or his career. There is an argument that endorsing Cruz would be the rational thing from a pure #Never_trump point of view, but Rubio is still looking forward to a contested convention (which looks difficult for him, but I digress).

[Vosem]

As I said in IRC, regardless of the outcome, the LA call was way too early.

But how do you conclude that? They call it when they're confident someone will win, not when they're confident it won't tighten significantly. They know what they're doing.

Let's dispel the fiction that the news media know what they're doing. They have no idea what they're doing.

It's sad to see the GOP implode over itself like this. The party should have noticed the warning signs

What warning signs? You and the other TRUMP haters are causing the implosion.

How are we causing the problem? Trump is doing that himself.

You are uniting against TRUMP instead of coalescing around him. You are causing the implosion.

It’s not a normal treatment of the frontrunner and it’s one indicative of having the desire to stop him and not thinking about the consequences in the general.

Voting for _trump is not thinking about the consequences in the general. Thankfully, the party is refusing to do that en masse.

[Vosem]

Regardless, again, the focus on first-place is blinding you to reality. If Cruz+Rubio+Kasich have more delegates than _trump in a state, _trump has lost. That's every state tonight.

Apparently you're a troll, But anyway, at the same point in the 2012 primary, Gingrich+Paul+Santorum had more delegates than Romney, but Romney didn't lose

This is because wins for Romney created momentum for him; he was capable of appealing to the supporters of his opponents. _trump is incapable of doing so. He was at roughly 35% when the primaries began, in IA. He is still at roughly 35% -- if anything, he's declined slightly over the past week. It is not the same sort of frontrunner-ship, and the failure to understand that has tainted many people's views on this primary cycle. A win for _trump is not like a win for any other frontrunner would be. It generates no momentum, and the only thing to measure it against is whether he gets more or less than 50%. It's why the winner-take-all states are receiving so much more attention this time; it is the only way that he can win, and so we are moving to stop him.

Another understated effect of this cycle: over the next four years, there's going to be a panic move away from WTA in establishment circles everywhere, and one contested convention will normalize the event. They're going to become more likely in the future (probably even if _trump does come back, win, and prevent the contested convention in 2016, I think).

[Vosem]

Voting for _trump is not thinking about the consequences in the general. Thankfully, the party is refusing to do that en masse.

Show me how any Establishment hack wins in the general.
TRUMP is the only one who brings a lot of crossover Democratic votes.

Like this, although subtract some piece of the Southwest, maybe add a piece in the Midwest (though it's unnecessary). We won 2010 and 2014 without Democrats, and they don't have Obama this time. We just need to avoid nominating _trump, to stop the leaks.

[Vosem]

It's sad to see the GOP implode over itself like this. The party should have noticed the warning signs

What warning signs? You and the other TRUMP haters are causing the implosion.

How are we causing the problem? Trump is doing that himself.

You are uniting against TRUMP instead of coalescing around him. You are causing the implosion.

It’s not a normal treatment of the frontrunner and it’s one indicative of having the desire to stop him and not thinking about the consequences in the general.

For the good of the party THAT IS WHY we're against him, me and so many others will never vote for him because he can't come up with decent policy positions, his campaign has brought out the worst in people with passionate xenophobia, racism, etc., and we're fighting to prevent that.

By nominating Ted Cruz?!?!?

By nominating not _trump. And if that means Cruz, so be it. Cruz does not set the party back any further with minorities than it is at the moment; _trump destroys it.

Anyways, I'm going to be out for a few minutes. Hopefully _trump won't lose any more delegates while I'm gone; there's no more voting so there's no way for that to be done, but I wouldn't put it past him. He is a remarkable man.

[Vosem]

It's sad to see the GOP implode over itself like this. The party should have noticed the warning signs

What warning signs? You and the other TRUMP haters are causing the implosion.

How are we causing the problem? Trump is doing that himself.

You are uniting against TRUMP instead of coalescing around him. You are causing the implosion.

It’s not a normal treatment of the frontrunner and it’s one indicative of having the desire to stop him and not thinking about the consequences in the general.

For the good of the party THAT IS WHY we're against him, me and so many others will never vote for him because he can't come up with decent policy positions, his campaign has brought out the worst in people with passionate xenophobia, racism, etc., and we're fighting to prevent that.

By nominating Ted Cruz?!?!?

By nominating not _trump. And if that means Cruz, so be it. Cruz does not set the party back any further with minorities than it is at the moment; _trump destroys it.

Anyways, I'm going to be out for a few minutes. Hopefully _trump won't lose any more delegates while I'm gone; there's no more voting so there's no way for that to be done, but I wouldn't put it past him. He is a remarkable man.

HOW?!? Vosem, I like you and we share the disgust for Trump, but you happen to be the post that broke my camel's back. Can we all PLEASE stop saying Ted Freakin' Cruz is anything close to rational/mainstream/the savior of the GOP because he is at least an iota more polished than Trump??

Rallying around Cruz to stop Trump is akin to countering swallowed poison by shooting oneself in the throat.

Cruz is better than _trump because defeating _trump will show that childishness and basing your campaign entirely around wanting more aggressive immigration policy will result in an unsuccessful campaign. At this point, we're trying to make sure the smallest amount of damage possible is inflicted on the party. If the most we can reduce it by is one iota, well, at least that iota won't be around to hurt us.

[Vosem]

It's sad to see the GOP implode over itself like this. The party should have noticed the warning signs

What warning signs? You and the other TRUMP haters are causing the implosion.

How are we causing the problem? Trump is doing that himself.

You are uniting against TRUMP instead of coalescing around him. You are causing the implosion.

It’s not a normal treatment of the frontrunner and it’s one indicative of having the desire to stop him and not thinking about the consequences in the general.

For the good of the party THAT IS WHY we're against him, me and so many others will never vote for him because he can't come up with decent policy positions, his campaign has brought out the worst in people with passionate xenophobia, racism, etc., and we're fighting to prevent that.

By nominating Ted Cruz?!?!?

By nominating not _trump. And if that means Cruz, so be it. Cruz does not set the party back any further with minorities than it is at the moment; _trump destroys it.

Anyways, I'm going to be out for a few minutes. Hopefully _trump won't lose any more delegates while I'm gone; there's no more voting so there's no way for that to be done, but I wouldn't put it past him. He is a remarkable man.

HOW?!? Vosem, I like you and we share the disgust for Trump, but you happen to be the post that broke my camel's back. Can we all PLEASE stop saying Ted Freakin' Cruz is anything close to rational/mainstream/the savior of the GOP because he is at least an iota more polished than Trump??

Rallying around Cruz to stop Trump is akin to countering swallowed poison by shooting oneself in the throat.

Cruz is better than _trump because defeating _trump will show that childishness and basing your campaign entirely around wanting more aggressive immigration policy will result in an unsuccessful campaign. At this point, we're trying to make sure the smallest amount of damage possible is inflicted on the party. If the most we can reduce it by is one iota, well, at least that iota won't be around to hurt us.

But there ARE other viable options (well, option) available. Cruz is just as awfully electorally and politically. Adopting HIM as the vehicle to Stop Trump is ludicrous.

Cruz has successfully positioned himself as the only candidate who can stop _trump in many states. It's not perfect but it's politics. I live in OH (as you do, right?) and I've cast my vote for Kasich, but if I lived in LA I would certainly have voted for Cruz. Only in proportional states would I support my actual candidate (Rubio), along with states where it seems he has the best shot of stopping _trump.

[Vosem]

Not at all.  Those are old Democrats who are now basically Republicans.  Without Clinton running against two candidates, LA hasn't been battleground ever really.  I mean it was part of Carter's coalition, but since 1968 has been Republican and even in 1964.

Clinton won 52% in LA in 1996, so certainly nobody spoiled it for Dole, and even Gore was within single-digits here. Try again.

[Vosem]

Not at all.  Those are old Democrats who are now basically Republicans.  Without Clinton running against two candidates, LA hasn't been battleground ever really.  I mean it was part of Carter's coalition, but since 1968 has been Republican and even in 1964.

Clinton won 52% in LA in 1996, so certainly nobody spoiled it for Dole, and even Gore was within single-digits here. Try again.

Clinton also won 52% in WV in 1996 and Gore was within single digits, yet no one would claim that state was going to be a battleground. Same holds for Louisiana, just not to the same degree.

I'm not saying that the state is going to be a battleground, but saying "since 1968 [Louisiana] has been Republican" is pretty ridiculous. Especially since it didn't even vote Republican in 1968.