Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He has been mathematically eliminated. Why is Kasich allowed to continue when he needs to get more than 100% to win?

Trump, Cruz, and Kasich are done. Paul Ryan will be the next president.

hahahahahahahahaha

wait, what? Eddie Munster? No thanks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He has been mathematically eliminated. Why is Kasich allowed to continue when he needs to get more than 100% to win?

Trump, Cruz, and Kasich are done. Paul Ryan will be the next president.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So...OP you basically want Kasich out because it gives Trump a better chance on the first ballot.

If I am the RNC (i.e. establishment GOP) and I hate Trump, why would I ever tell Kasich to get out? That would be cutting off my own foot.

Plus, the only rail to derail Trump is an open convention. It would not surprise me one bit if the RNC is encouraging Kasich to stay in the race just for that reason.

It's not about giving Trump an edge but about a fair election process. Both Cruz and Trump want him out. He can still hold on to his delegates just like Rubio did and hope for a brokered convention.

I have seen the "unfair" word used more than once and I do not see how it applies. You are saying it is unfair for him to stay in the race although he cannot "win" the nomination that way. How is it unfair and to whom? Electoral politics are not inherently "fair."

Of course Cruz and Trump want him out. They realize he could steal some states and delegates. If I am him, I stay in the race and try to rack up as many additional delegates as I can. Then at least I would be going into the convention with some leverage and some influence on the nomination.

It's unfair to the voters who wait in line for hours and stay in the caucuses for hours and think their votes will determine the nominee. It's unfair to the candidates who still have mathematical chance to clinch the nomination. Kasich needs 120% of the remaining votes. His only hope is a brokered convention where delegates picked by the voters become unbound. Basically he is staying in a voting process to try to invalidate that exact election.

I'm sure that you consider the electoral college an abomination that needs to be abolished, right? Because the will of the majority of the voters is what matters. And I bet you were out in the street protesting against Bush v. Gore, right? Because a lot more people voted for Gore than Bush.

You are not making any sense. If electoral college system were used in the Republican primaries, Donald Trump's lead would have been much bigger. He has won the vast majority of the states so far. Kasich would have been eliminated mathematically much earlier.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So...OP you basically want Kasich out because it gives Trump a better chance on the first ballot.

If I am the RNC (i.e. establishment GOP) and I hate Trump, why would I ever tell Kasich to get out? That would be cutting off my own foot.

Plus, the only rail to derail Trump is an open convention. It would not surprise me one bit if the RNC is encouraging Kasich to stay in the race just for that reason.

It's not about giving Trump an edge but about a fair election process. Both Cruz and Trump want him out. He can still hold on to his delegates just like Rubio did and hope for a brokered convention.

I have seen the "unfair" word used more than once and I do not see how it applies. You are saying it is unfair for him to stay in the race although he cannot "win" the nomination that way. How is it unfair and to whom? Electoral politics are not inherently "fair."

Of course Cruz and Trump want him out. They realize he could steal some states and delegates. If I am him, I stay in the race and try to rack up as many additional delegates as I can. Then at least I would be going into the convention with some leverage and some influence on the nomination.

It's unfair to the voters who wait in line for hours and stay in the caucuses for hours and think their votes will determine the nominee. It's unfair to the candidates who still have mathematical chance to clinch the nomination. Kasich needs 120% of the remaining votes. His only hope is a brokered convention where delegates picked by the voters become unbound. Basically he is staying in a voting process to try to invalidate that exact election.

Why is playing by the rules unfair?

Marco still has more delegates today than Kasich, even he dropped out weeks ago. Everyone that doesn't have a chance has already dropped out. Most of the people have the decency to quit after the voters have spoken loud and clear. There should be a rule created to stop sore losers like Kasich.

I'm sure the republicans will institute all sorts of rule changes -- for 2020. For this election cycle the rules are the rules.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He has been mathematically eliminated. Why is Kasich allowed to continue when he needs to get more than 100% to win?

Trump, Cruz, and Kasich are done. Paul Ryan will be the next president.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So...OP you basically want Kasich out because it gives Trump a better chance on the first ballot.

If I am the RNC (i.e. establishment GOP) and I hate Trump, why would I ever tell Kasich to get out? That would be cutting off my own foot.

Plus, the only rail to derail Trump is an open convention. It would not surprise me one bit if the RNC is encouraging Kasich to stay in the race just for that reason.

It's not about giving Trump an edge but about a fair election process. Both Cruz and Trump want him out. He can still hold on to his delegates just like Rubio did and hope for a brokered convention.

I have seen the "unfair" word used more than once and I do not see how it applies. You are saying it is unfair for him to stay in the race although he cannot "win" the nomination that way. How is it unfair and to whom? Electoral politics are not inherently "fair."

Of course Cruz and Trump want him out. They realize he could steal some states and delegates. If I am him, I stay in the race and try to rack up as many additional delegates as I can. Then at least I would be going into the convention with some leverage and some influence on the nomination.

It's unfair to the voters who wait in line for hours and stay in the caucuses for hours and think their votes will determine the nominee. It's unfair to the candidates who still have mathematical chance to clinch the nomination. Kasich needs 120% of the remaining votes. His only hope is a brokered convention where delegates picked by the voters become unbound. Basically he is staying in a voting process to try to invalidate that exact election.

I'm sure that you consider the electoral college an abomination that needs to be abolished, right? Because the will of the majority of the voters is what matters. And I bet you were out in the street protesting against Bush v. Gore, right? Because a lot more people voted for Gore than Bush.

Anonymous wrote:He has been mathematically eliminated. Why is Kasich allowed to continue when he needs to get more than 100% to win?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So...OP you basically want Kasich out because it gives Trump a better chance on the first ballot.

If I am the RNC (i.e. establishment GOP) and I hate Trump, why would I ever tell Kasich to get out? That would be cutting off my own foot.

Plus, the only rail to derail Trump is an open convention. It would not surprise me one bit if the RNC is encouraging Kasich to stay in the race just for that reason.

It's not about giving Trump an edge but about a fair election process. Both Cruz and Trump want him out. He can still hold on to his delegates just like Rubio did and hope for a brokered convention.

I have seen the "unfair" word used more than once and I do not see how it applies. You are saying it is unfair for him to stay in the race although he cannot "win" the nomination that way. How is it unfair and to whom? Electoral politics are not inherently "fair."

Of course Cruz and Trump want him out. They realize he could steal some states and delegates. If I am him, I stay in the race and try to rack up as many additional delegates as I can. Then at least I would be going into the convention with some leverage and some influence on the nomination.

It's unfair to the voters who wait in line for hours and stay in the caucuses for hours and think their votes will determine the nominee. It's unfair to the candidates who still have mathematical chance to clinch the nomination. Kasich needs 120% of the remaining votes. His only hope is a brokered convention where delegates picked by the voters become unbound. Basically he is staying in a voting process to try to invalidate that exact election.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So...OP you basically want Kasich out because it gives Trump a better chance on the first ballot.

If I am the RNC (i.e. establishment GOP) and I hate Trump, why would I ever tell Kasich to get out? That would be cutting off my own foot.

Plus, the only rail to derail Trump is an open convention. It would not surprise me one bit if the RNC is encouraging Kasich to stay in the race just for that reason.

It's not about giving Trump an edge but about a fair election process. Both Cruz and Trump want him out. He can still hold on to his delegates just like Rubio did and hope for a brokered convention.

I have seen the "unfair" word used more than once and I do not see how it applies. You are saying it is unfair for him to stay in the race although he cannot "win" the nomination that way. How is it unfair and to whom? Electoral politics are not inherently "fair."

Of course Cruz and Trump want him out. They realize he could steal some states and delegates. If I am him, I stay in the race and try to rack up as many additional delegates as I can. Then at least I would be going into the convention with some leverage and some influence on the nomination.

It's unfair to the voters who wait in line for hours and stay in the caucuses for hours and think their votes will determine the nominee. It's unfair to the candidates who still have mathematical chance to clinch the nomination. Kasich needs 120% of the remaining votes. His only hope is a brokered convention where delegates picked by the voters become unbound. Basically he is staying in a voting process to try to invalidate that exact election.

Why is playing by the rules unfair?

Marco still has more delegates today than Kasich, even he dropped out weeks ago. Everyone that doesn't have a chance has already dropped out. Most of the people have the decency to quit after the voters have spoken loud and clear. There should be a rule created to stop sore losers like Kasich.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So...OP you basically want Kasich out because it gives Trump a better chance on the first ballot.

If I am the RNC (i.e. establishment GOP) and I hate Trump, why would I ever tell Kasich to get out? That would be cutting off my own foot.

Plus, the only rail to derail Trump is an open convention. It would not surprise me one bit if the RNC is encouraging Kasich to stay in the race just for that reason.

It's not about giving Trump an edge but about a fair election process. Both Cruz and Trump want him out. He can still hold on to his delegates just like Rubio did and hope for a brokered convention.

I have seen the "unfair" word used more than once and I do not see how it applies. You are saying it is unfair for him to stay in the race although he cannot "win" the nomination that way. How is it unfair and to whom? Electoral politics are not inherently "fair."

Of course Cruz and Trump want him out. They realize he could steal some states and delegates. If I am him, I stay in the race and try to rack up as many additional delegates as I can. Then at least I would be going into the convention with some leverage and some influence on the nomination.

It's unfair to the voters who wait in line for hours and stay in the caucuses for hours and think their votes will determine the nominee. It's unfair to the candidates who still have mathematical chance to clinch the nomination. Kasich needs 120% of the remaining votes. His only hope is a brokered convention where delegates picked by the voters become unbound. Basically he is staying in a voting process to try to invalidate that exact election.

Why is playing by the rules unfair?

Marco still has more delegates today than Kasich, even he dropped out weeks ago. Everyone that doesn't have a chance has already dropped out. Most of the people have the decency to quit after the voters have spoken loud and clear. There should be a rule created to stop sore losers like Kasich.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So...OP you basically want Kasich out because it gives Trump a better chance on the first ballot.

If I am the RNC (i.e. establishment GOP) and I hate Trump, why would I ever tell Kasich to get out? That would be cutting off my own foot.

Plus, the only rail to derail Trump is an open convention. It would not surprise me one bit if the RNC is encouraging Kasich to stay in the race just for that reason.

It's not about giving Trump an edge but about a fair election process. Both Cruz and Trump want him out. He can still hold on to his delegates just like Rubio did and hope for a brokered convention.

I have seen the "unfair" word used more than once and I do not see how it applies. You are saying it is unfair for him to stay in the race although he cannot "win" the nomination that way. How is it unfair and to whom? Electoral politics are not inherently "fair."

Of course Cruz and Trump want him out. They realize he could steal some states and delegates. If I am him, I stay in the race and try to rack up as many additional delegates as I can. Then at least I would be going into the convention with some leverage and some influence on the nomination.

It's unfair to the voters who wait in line for hours and stay in the caucuses for hours and think their votes will determine the nominee. It's unfair to the candidates who still have mathematical chance to clinch the nomination. Kasich needs 120% of the remaining votes. His only hope is a brokered convention where delegates picked by the voters become unbound. Basically he is staying in a voting process to try to invalidate that exact election.

Why is playing by the rules unfair?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So...OP you basically want Kasich out because it gives Trump a better chance on the first ballot.

If I am the RNC (i.e. establishment GOP) and I hate Trump, why would I ever tell Kasich to get out? That would be cutting off my own foot.

Plus, the only rail to derail Trump is an open convention. It would not surprise me one bit if the RNC is encouraging Kasich to stay in the race just for that reason.

It's not about giving Trump an edge but about a fair election process. Both Cruz and Trump want him out. He can still hold on to his delegates just like Rubio did and hope for a brokered convention.

I have seen the "unfair" word used more than once and I do not see how it applies. You are saying it is unfair for him to stay in the race although he cannot "win" the nomination that way. How is it unfair and to whom? Electoral politics are not inherently "fair."

Of course Cruz and Trump want him out. They realize he could steal some states and delegates. If I am him, I stay in the race and try to rack up as many additional delegates as I can. Then at least I would be going into the convention with some leverage and some influence on the nomination.

It's unfair to the voters who wait in line for hours and stay in the caucuses for hours and think their votes will determine the nominee. It's unfair to the candidates who still have mathematical chance to clinch the nomination. Kasich needs 120% of the remaining votes. His only hope is a brokered convention where delegates picked by the voters become unbound. Basically he is staying in a voting process to try to invalidate that exact election.

Why is playing by the rules unfair?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So...OP you basically want Kasich out because it gives Trump a better chance on the first ballot.

If I am the RNC (i.e. establishment GOP) and I hate Trump, why would I ever tell Kasich to get out? That would be cutting off my own foot.

Plus, the only rail to derail Trump is an open convention. It would not surprise me one bit if the RNC is encouraging Kasich to stay in the race just for that reason.

It's not about giving Trump an edge but about a fair election process. Both Cruz and Trump want him out. He can still hold on to his delegates just like Rubio did and hope for a brokered convention.

I have seen the "unfair" word used more than once and I do not see how it applies. You are saying it is unfair for him to stay in the race although he cannot "win" the nomination that way. How is it unfair and to whom? Electoral politics are not inherently "fair."

Of course Cruz and Trump want him out. They realize he could steal some states and delegates. If I am him, I stay in the race and try to rack up as many additional delegates as I can. Then at least I would be going into the convention with some leverage and some influence on the nomination.

It's unfair to the voters who wait in line for hours and stay in the caucuses for hours and think their votes will determine the nominee. It's unfair to the candidates who still have mathematical chance to clinch the nomination. Kasich needs 120% of the remaining votes. His only hope is a brokered convention where delegates picked by the voters become unbound. Basically he is staying in a voting process to try to invalidate that exact election.