The Case for Kasich as POTUS

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Unless, Trump and Cruz team up on the first or second ballot,

I suspect that this will happen and I don't know why most discussions of how a brokered convention might go aren't considering it.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Secondly, the delegates may not heed their advice!! Why would an evangelical IA Christian conservative delegate, who was supporting Cruz, suddenly switch to a "morally challenged" Trump (whom they fought all along to beat), over Kasich? Why would a MA moderate Trump delegate (who was probably considering Kasich as a second choice) switch to Cruz, whose conservative values may be totally out of sync with his or hers? Kasich is well positioned to pick up the support from both sides!

In most states delegates are actually assigned by the party rather than chosen by the candidates, but I'm honestly not sure whether this fact makes your point better or worse.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It is seriously unnerving reading posts that use that many exclamation marks! Exclamation marks should be used sparingly, to preserve their power to deliver impact! Someone who uses exclams for every sentence comes off as either loud, vapid, or just super-caffeinated! In fact, a good rule of thumb I've heard is that one out of every one hundred sentences deserves an exclam!

In Japanese writing and I think older styles of English writing as well ('older' as in Victorian/Edwardian, not as in Elizabethan/Jacobean/Caroline/Restoration/Georgian) overuse of exclamation marks is considered characteristic of an ultrafeminine style, and for that reason I'm skeptical of using the word 'vapid' to describe it, but other than that I had the same reaction to that post.