WI - Marquette University: Sanders up 4, Cruz up 10

[Seriously?]

Yes. I would rather lose. The party has lost its soul. And if it basically steals the nomination away from a conservative, I am not willing to hold my nose and vote for more of the same GOP-e Democrat-lite uni-party nonsense.

So Trump is a conservative and Kasich isn't? Why? Is it because Trump wants to give 'em browns hell?

Browns? If you mean enforce EXISITING immigration laws and build the fence that has been legislated, but not appropriated for? Yes.  Amongst other things.

Plus, as far as I am concerned, the biggest differentiator between Trump and the rest of the field is he actually has gotten tangible things done. The rest of these clowns would rather debate ad nauseum to keep the status quo for the donor class.

[ElectionsGuy]

Why are Republicans so happy? Shouldn't they be hoping Kasich wins here and not Cruz? Cruz is hardly more electable than Trump. On the Democratic side, I'll be surprised if Sanders does any worse than this, and he'll probably do better.

Why would I want what is basically a Democrat as the nominee of my party? I don't care who Kasich could beat. He might as well be Hillary Clinton on too many issues. Plus, you and I have the same chance of that bum getting the nomination on the first ballot.

LOL WUT. So you'd rather lose than win with an electable candidate? This is why the GOP base is batsh*t insane these days.

The reason they're so 'batsh**t insane' is because they keep losing with the 'electable' candidates. You know, McCain, Romney, Dole...

You think they had a better shot with Huckabee, Perry, Forbes, or Buchanan?

Not to mention Santorum, Gingrich, Bachmann, Cain, or Paul?

Absolutely not. But nuance is not something the Republican base cares about. They lost twice in a row with McCain and Romney, so they want to try something different, whether its worse or better electorally.

[Oak Hills]

Why are Republicans so happy? Shouldn't they be hoping Kasich wins here and not Cruz? Cruz is hardly more electable than Trump. On the Democratic side, I'll be surprised if Sanders does any worse than this, and he'll probably do better.

Why would I want what is basically a Democrat as the nominee of my party? I don't care who Kasich could beat. He might as well be Hillary Clinton on too many issues. Plus, you and I have the same chance of that bum getting the nomination on the first ballot.

LOL WUT. So you'd rather lose than win with an electable candidate? This is why the GOP base is batsh*t insane these days.

Yes. I would rather lose. The party has lost its soul. And if it basically steals the nomination away from a conservative, I am not willing to hold my nose and vote for more of the same GOP-e Democrat-lite uni-party nonsense.

If you think Kasich is "Democrat-lite" you know nothing about him.

Plus, as far as I am concerned, the biggest differentiator between Trump and the rest of the field is he actually has gotten tangible things done. The rest of these clowns would rather debate ad nauseum to keep the status quo for the donor class.

Trump hasn't accomplished anything other than becoming notorious by engaging in outrageous and despicable behavior and manipulating the media, and convincing banks to loan him money he couldn't pay back. Again, if you don't realize that Kasich has accomplished more than Cruz and Trump combined, then you are an ignoramus. It's as simple as that.

[Seriously?]

If you think Kasich is "Democrat-lite" you know nothing about him.

Trust me, I know plenty about him. He balanced the budget. That's his claim to fame. And his dad was a mailman.

He also is a corporate crony who was a partner at Lehman Brothers when the banks were bailed out (and Lehman's carcass was picked clean) in 2008 and would not enforce existing immigration laws. That's a no-starter for me and the 60-80% of voters that seek to oust the GOP Establishment thus cycle.

And, again, both you and I have the same chance of winning the Republican nomination on the first ballot as Kasich.

Trump hasn't accomplished anything other than becoming notorious by engaging in outrageous and despicable behavior and manipulating the media, and convincing banks to loan him money he couldn't pay back. Again, if you don't realize that Kasich has accomplished more than Cruz and Trump combined, then you are an ignoramus. It's as simple as that.

Just Trump Tower, Trump Hotel International, the Miss Universe pagent, Wolhman Rink in NYC (after the government couldn't do things right the first time), Trump Plaza, dozens of championship golf courses, a top-rated TV show, the tallest residential building in NYC across from the UN, dozens of elite four-star hotels, properties all over the world. A net worth in the billions, the list goes on and on and on, but yeah. He's accomplished nothing. Right.. He has no clue how to cut through red tape and get things done.

[Oak Hills]

If you think Kasich is "Democrat-lite" you know nothing about him.

Trust me, I know plenty about him. He balanced the budget. That's his claim to fame. And his dad was a mailman.

He also is a corporate crony who was a partner at Lehman Brothers when the banks were bailed out (and Lehman's carcass was picked clean) in 2008 and would not enforce existing immigration laws. That's a no-starter for me and the 60-80% of voters that seek to oust the GOP Establishment thus cycle.

And, again, both you and I have the same chance of winning the Republican nomination on the first ballot as Kasich.

Fair enough on all of that, but it is utterly delusional to call him anything other than a solid conservative, if an establishment, business-oriented one (which I would agree with).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just Trump Tower, Trump Hotel International, the Miss Universe pagent, Wolhman Rink in NYC (after the government couldn't do things right the first time), Trump Plaza, dozens of championship golf courses, a top-rated TV show, the tallest residential building in NYC across from the UN, dozens of elite four-star hotels, properties all over the world. A net worth in the billions, the list goes on and on and on, but yeah. He's accomplished nothing. Right.. He has no clue how to cut through red tape and get things done.
[/quote]

Okay, so he's built some buildings. First of all, how does that remotely qualify him for the presidency? Second of all, are you really delusional enough to believe that he would've have even come close to doing any of that that if he hadn't inherited his daddy's money? He is nothing more than a trust-fund brat with incredible skill at media manipulation who is mediocre at nearly everything else. I am 100% confident he would be totally incompetent as president, and would be the worst president since James Buchanan, and quite possibly ever.

Not to mention that "getting things done" is a very bad thing if the things to be done are not good. I, for one, would gladly take the status quo over any of Trump's toxic policies, and that is why I will do everything in my power to prevent his election this November. But I suppose that's just an area of political disagreement between Trump-supporters and me, so fair enough (though I can't even imagine how anyone could be anything other than terrified at the few policies Trump has outlined).

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Yes. I would rather lose. The party has lost its soul. And if it basically steals the nomination away from a conservative, I am not willing to hold my nose and vote for more of the same GOP-e Democrat-lite uni-party nonsense.

Kasich is not electable. He's unknown. Huge difference at this stage in the game. The MSM will go put their pom-poms on for Hillary! in the general election and destroy him. Just like they did with Dole, McCain, Romney, etc., etc., etc.

How will you react if Trump or Cruz loses in a landslide? Will you guys nominate a Michelle Bachmann/Herman Cain ticket in 2020?

How would you feel if you were a Democrat and neither Hillary! nor Bernie were given the nomination in the convention? Instead, they gave it to someone else. I think you'd be pissed as well. The Sanders folks are going ballistic over alleged voter irregularities in states where he loses by 20 points.

So ecstatic that I'd join the Party of Joe

[Seriously?]

Okay, so he's built some buildings. First of all, how does that remotely qualify him for the presidency? Second of all, are you really delusional enough to believe that he would've have even come close to doing any of that that if he hadn't inherited his daddy's money? He is nothing more than a trust-fund brat with incredible skill at media manipulation who is mediocre at nearly everything else. I am 100% confident he would be totally incompetent as president, and would be the worst president since James Buchanan, and quite possibly ever.

Not to mention that "getting things done" is a very bad thing if the things to be done are not good. I, for one, would gladly take the status quo over any of Trump's toxic policies, and that is why I will do everything in my power to prevent his election this November. But I suppose that's just an area of political disagreement between Trump-supporters and me, so fair enough (though I can't even imagine how anyone could be anything other than terrified at the few policies Trump has outlined).

Trump didn't "inherit" money to build his business. His dad did not pass away until well after he had established himself in the Manhattan real estate market. He was given a $1 million loan from his father to get thing started. He managed to spin that into an empire on his own. By the time his father passed away and his "inheritance" was split five ways, the amount of money that Trump was given was basically pennies to the entirety of his fortune.

You don't get things accomplished on the scale that Trump has unless you know how to adeptly sidestep political hurdles and negotiate with your local/state/federal and even foreign governments to get your projects off of the drawing board.

If you don't understand how difficult that is, I suggest you read the "Art of the Deal," specifically the chapter about rebuilding Wolhman Rink in Central Park, New York City. There's a reason that book is basic fare in all business schools. It outlines how Trump accomplishes things the bureaucracy languishes over.

[Kingpoleon]

Why are Republicans so happy? Shouldn't they be hoping Kasich wins here and not Cruz? Cruz is hardly more electable than Trump. On the Democratic side, I'll be surprised if Sanders does any worse than this, and he'll probably do better.

Why would I want what is basically a Democrat as the nominee of my party? I don't care who Kasich could beat. He might as well be Hillary Clinton on too many issues. Plus, you and I have the same chance of that bum getting the nomination on the first ballot.

LOL WUT. So you'd rather lose than win with an electable candidate? This is why the GOP base is batsh*t insane these days.

The reason they're so 'batsh**t insane' is because they keep losing with the 'electable' candidates. You know, McCain, Romney, Dole...

You think they had a better shot with Huckabee, Perry, Forbes, or Buchanan?

Not to mention Santorum, Gingrich, Bachmann, Cain, or Paul?

To be fair, Gingrich could have actually attacked Obama without Romney's.... Northern vibe.

[Maxwell]

Why are Republicans so happy? Shouldn't they be hoping Kasich wins here and not Cruz? Cruz is hardly more electable than Trump. On the Democratic side, I'll be surprised if Sanders does any worse than this, and he'll probably do better.

Why would I want what is basically a Democrat as the nominee of my party? I don't care who Kasich could beat. He might as well be Hillary Clinton on too many issues. Plus, you and I have the same chance of that bum getting the nomination on the first ballot.

LOL WUT. So you'd rather lose than win with an electable candidate? This is why the GOP base is batsh*t insane these days.

The reason they're so 'batsh**t insane' is because they keep losing with the 'electable' candidates. You know, McCain, Romney, Dole...

You think they had a better shot with Huckabee, Perry, Forbes, or Buchanan?

Not to mention Santorum, Gingrich, Bachmann, Cain, or Paul?

To be fair, Gingrich could have actually attacked Obama without Romney's.... Northern vibe.

Well sure - but Gingrich's problem is that he is, well, Gingrich. Mountains of enemies and scandals.

[Matty]

if trump ends up winning this WI race, would it be the biggest miss in MU's history of polling?

[Wisconsin+17]

Maxwell, who was the last republican that won an election?

[Eraserhead]

This just proves once again how trashy Emerson is (at the least when it comes to the Democratic race).

Hopefully Sanders can win by a bigger margin than this though. We still have a week to go.

[Maxwell]

Maxwell, who was the last republican that won an election?

George W. Bush, the establishments choice, who ran as a certifiable Rockefeller Republican, according to Limbaugh, for as long as he could in the 2000 Presidential Election until it was realized his main opponent for the nomination was John McCain. His general election campaign was fairly moderate by modern Republican standards as well. In 2004 he shifted right but even then he had massive leverage and he obviously wasn't any of the names I mentioned.

Plus, don't you conservatives recoil at his memory at this point?

[Mr. Morden]

Maxwell, who was the last republican that won an election?

George W. Bush, the establishments choice, who ran as a certifiable Rockefeller Republican, according to Limbaugh, for as long as he could in the 2000 Presidential Election until it was realized his main opponent for the nomination was John McCain. His general election campaign was fairly moderate by modern Republican standards as well. In 2004 he shifted right but even then he had massive leverage and he obviously wasn't any of the names I mentioned.

Plus, don't you conservatives recoil at his memory at this point?

Yes, Bush was a "conservative who ran as a moderate".  That is, the Republican base believed that he was one of them (in part because of the primary campaign against McCain, but also for reasons of cultural identification).  And so, since he had the base in his pocket, Bush was free to spend the general election campaign talking about things like education, a Medicare prescription drug benefit, etc.  It was a campaign that allowed him to reach out to the center.  Contrast that with McCain and Romney, who in subsequent contests had the image of a "moderate", and so had to be "moderates who ran as conservatives".  That is, they had to spend way too much time sucking up to the conservative base, because the conservative base didn't believe they were really conservative.

A "conservative who runs as a moderate" seems like the smarter way to go, assuming you can find someone who can pull it off.

[Maxwell]

Maxwell, who was the last republican that won an election?

George W. Bush, the establishments choice, who ran as a certifiable Rockefeller Republican, according to Limbaugh, for as long as he could in the 2000 Presidential Election until it was realized his main opponent for the nomination was John McCain. His general election campaign was fairly moderate by modern Republican standards as well. In 2004 he shifted right but even then he had massive leverage and he obviously wasn't any of the names I mentioned.

Plus, don't you conservatives recoil at his memory at this point?

Yes, Bush was a "conservative who ran as a moderate".  That is, the Republican base believed that he was one of them (in part because of the primary campaign against McCain, but also for reasons of cultural identification).  And so, since he had the base in his pocket, Bush was free to spend the general election campaign talking about things like education, a Medicare prescription drug benefit, etc.  It was a campaign that allowed him to reach out to the center.  Contrast that with McCain and Romney, who in subsequent contests had the image of a "moderate", and so had to be "moderates who ran as conservatives".  That is, they had to spend way too much time sucking up to the conservative base, because the conservative base didn't believe they were really conservative.

A "conservative who runs as a moderate" seems like the smarter way to go, assuming you can find someone who can pull it off.

I think that's what Kasich tried to do this year, but he already lost conservatives with his whole Medicaid expansion thing.

[Badger]

If Trump isn't able to get a majority of delegates, he has to deal with the consequences. The party can't afford to nominate a Dixiecrat-style bigot.

Ummm...so we go for Ted Cruz instead?

[Timothy87]

Why are Republicans so happy? Shouldn't they be hoping Kasich wins here and not Cruz? Cruz is hardly more electable than Trump. On the Democratic side, I'll be surprised if Sanders does any worse than this, and he'll probably do better.

Why would I want what is basically a Democrat as the nominee of my party? I don't care who Kasich could beat. He might as well be Hillary Clinton on too many issues. Plus, you and I have the same chance of that bum getting the nomination on the first ballot.

LOL WUT. So you'd rather lose than win with an electable candidate? This is why the GOP base is batsh*t insane these days.

Yes. I would rather lose. The party has lost its soul. And if it basically steals the nomination away from a conservative, I am not willing to hold my nose and vote for more of the same GOP-e Democrat-lite uni-party nonsense.

Kasich is not electable. He's unknown. Huge difference at this stage in the game. The MSM will go put their pom-poms on for Hillary! in the general election and destroy him. Just like they did with Dole, McCain, Romney, etc., etc., etc.

Plus, as I have stated earlier. Any poster on AF has just as good of a mathematical chance to win the Republican nomination on the first ballot as Kasich does. He should have done the right thing and dropped out a long time ago.

My God you're dumb. Idiots like you are why Republicans are in the mess we are in

[Seriously?]

Why are Republicans so happy? Shouldn't they be hoping Kasich wins here and not Cruz? Cruz is hardly more electable than Trump. On the Democratic side, I'll be surprised if Sanders does any worse than this, and he'll probably do better.

Why would I want what is basically a Democrat as the nominee of my party? I don't care who Kasich could beat. He might as well be Hillary Clinton on too many issues. Plus, you and I have the same chance of that bum getting the nomination on the first ballot.

LOL WUT. So you'd rather lose than win with an electable candidate? This is why the GOP base is batsh*t insane these days.

Yes. I would rather lose. The party has lost its soul. And if it basically steals the nomination away from a conservative, I am not willing to hold my nose and vote for more of the same GOP-e Democrat-lite uni-party nonsense.

Kasich is not electable. He's unknown. Huge difference at this stage in the game. The MSM will go put their pom-poms on for Hillary! in the general election and destroy him. Just like they did with Dole, McCain, Romney, etc., etc., etc.

Plus, as I have stated earlier. Any poster on AF has just as good of a mathematical chance to win the Republican nomination on the first ballot as Kasich does. He should have done the right thing and dropped out a long time ago.

My God you're dumb. Idiots like you are why Republicans are in the mess we are in

Thanks for the ad hominem attack.

The reason Republicans are "in the mess they are in" is because of the do-nothing GOP establishment uniparty wing of the party. They put up loser after loser and act like a bunch of sore losers when they don't have their milquetoast RINO candidate of choice as nominee.

The Reagan/conservative wing of the party has more votes in this election than your Bush/establishment/GOP-e country club wing.

Anti-establishment candidates have garnered 60-80% of the votes in this election.

The Bush wing lost. They have no right to shove another establishment loser down our throat this cycle. They should simply quit their whining and rally behind the nominee, just like the Reagan wing of the party has had to in every cycle since 1996 (really 1988, if you include HW Bush).

The Bush wing won the popular vote just once in five election cycles and elected exactly one President out of four candidates (Dole, W, McCain, Romney). It's time the conservative wing of the party gets a nominee for a change. You've had your chances and blew them.

[Vosem]

Seriously?, you seem pretty young, but you do understand that Dole and McCain were both very prominent opponents of the "Bush wing" of the party, right? The TP/establishment divide is a product of the Obama era that was not visible prior to ~2009, and _trumpist personal movement dates all the way back to 2015.

[Seriously?]

Seriously?, you seem pretty young, but you do understand that Dole and McCain were both very prominent opponents of the "Bush wing" of the party, right? The TP/establishment divide is a product of the Obama era that was not visible prior to ~2009, and _trumpist personal movement dates all the way back to 2015.

McCain ran against Bush, however, he was never a true credentialed conservative. So if you want to claim he was an opponent of the Bush wing, I'll accept your premise only to that narrow point in 2000. By the time he ran in 2008, McCain was NOT a conservative by any means. In fact, Palin was put on the ticket to balance out his "maverick" record a/k/a liberalism.

As far as Dole goes. He's also not a conservative in the mold of Reagan. He was Ford's running mate in 1976 (anti-Reagan) and at the time of his run against Clinton in 1996 was as establishment as you can get as the Senate Majority Leader. While he may have been good at building consensus between the conservative and moderate wings of the party, Dole never had a conservative voting record.

The fact of the matter remains that in this cycle, the establishment/Bush wing of the party has been rejected by the voters. If a contested convention happens and someone from the establishment wing like Paul Ryan -- or even worse -- Mitt Romney ends up being the nominee, the party will be destroyed from within.

[Badger]

Seriously?, you seem pretty young, but you do understand that Dole and McCain were both very prominent opponents of the "Bush wing" of the party, right? The TP/establishment divide is a product of the Obama era that was not visible prior to ~2009, and _trumpist personal movement dates all the way back to 2015.

McCain ran against Bush, however, he was never a true credentialed conservative. So if you want to claim he was an opponent of the Bush wing, I'll accept your premise only to that narrow point in 2000. By the time he ran in 2008, McCain was NOT a conservative by any means. In fact, Palin was put on the ticket to balance out his "maverick" record a/k/a liberalism.

As far as Dole goes. He's also not a conservative in the mold of Reagan. He was Ford's running mate in 1976 (anti-Reagan) and at the time of his run against Clinton in 1996 was as establishment as you can get as the Senate Majority Leader. While he may have been good at building consensus between the conservative and moderate wings of the party, Dole never had a conservative voting record.

The fact of the matter remains that in this cycle, the establishment/Bush wing of the party has been rejected by the voters. If a contested convention happens and someone from the establishment wing like Paul Ryan -- or even worse -- Mitt Romney ends up being the nominee, the party will be destroyed from within.

All i can say is your screen name is aptly chosen......

[Maxwell]

Was "Seriously?" actually implying McCain was less conservative in 2008 than he was in 2000?

[Vosem]

Seriously?, you seem pretty young, but you do understand that Dole and McCain were both very prominent opponents of the "Bush wing" of the party, right? The TP/establishment divide is a product of the Obama era that was not visible prior to ~2009, and _trumpist personal movement dates all the way back to 2015.

McCain ran against Bush, however, he was never a true credentialed conservative. So if you want to claim he was an opponent of the Bush wing, I'll accept your premise only to that narrow point in 2000. By the time he ran in 2008, McCain was NOT a conservative by any means. In fact, Palin was put on the ticket to balance out his "maverick" record a/k/a liberalism.

Seriously?, the key divide in 2000 was that Bush was seen as a conservative, whereas McCain explicitly ran as a moderate. McCain ran as a moderate a second time in 2008, when the vote to his right was divided by Huckabee and Romney until it was far too late to stop McCain. It should be noted, however, that the conservative/moderate divide that existed prior to the TP/establishment divide was much less fractious than the current divide that exists -- nominees generally didn't have significant issues getting the other side to back them.

As far as Dole goes. He's also not a conservative in the mold of Reagan. He was Ford's running mate in 1976 (anti-Reagan) and at the time of his run against Clinton in 1996 was as establishment as you can get as the Senate Majority Leader. While he may have been good at building consensus between the conservative and moderate wings of the party, Dole never had a conservative voting record.

As far as Dole goes, he was chosen as VP nominee by Ford in order to placate the conservative wing, much as Palin was chosen in 2008 (although he ended up having more lasting power than Palin). Dole also ran against Bush in 1988 from the right. It's important to keep in mind when you talk about the Bush wing that the older Bush was generally associated with the moderate wing of the Republican Party, whereas the younger Bush was usually associated with the conservative wing.

"Establishment" in 1996 was not the same thing as "establishment" in 2016. The key divide in 1996 was within the establishment (moderate vs. conservative, and while anti-establishment candidates were already running (as early as 1988, with Pat Robertson; in 1996, you had Pat Buchanan and Steve Forbes), they generally didn't get anywhere because anti-establishment sentiment was not widespread in the party at that time, and it didn't become widespread until after Obama's election in 2008.

The fact of the matter remains that in this cycle, the establishment/Bush wing of the party has been rejected by the voters. If a contested convention happens and someone from the establishment wing like Paul Ryan -- or even worse -- Mitt Romney ends up being the nominee, the party will be destroyed from within.

I think it's very clear that a contested convention is going to nominate Ted Cruz and that very likely no one will get drafted. Even if someone does get drafted (if Kasich is kept off the Ballot through use of Rule Forty, his adherents abstain en masse, and there aren't enough defectors from _trump to give Cruz the nomination, we'd see attempts at drafting someone), that person will only approach the nomination if they manage to get Cruz's support or _trump's, for the simple reason that Cruz loyalist delegates + _trump loyalist delegates are going to be an overwhelming majority of the convention.

[Wisconsin+17]

I don't see how Kasich gets on with just Ohio. There have been plenty of Favored sons in the past and Kasich is no different.

If there's a Trump collapse in the NE - but I just don't see a path where he stays on the ballot if it goes past a first ballot.

2008 was very strange, with Huckabee getting 8 states, Romney 11. Only time in history the nominee had two candidates with that many states, and the only time the eventual winner got fewer than 50 percent of the primary votes.

There are 19 states left, Trump only has 37 percent of the vote. There's still another 7.6 million votes out there, and Trump has to get 4.2 million of those voters in order to get to 50 percent plus one.

That's 55 percent of the remaining vote.

[KingSweden]

This poll seems perfectly reasonable and fits my suspicion that Sanders wins narrowly to the tune of maybe 51-49 or 52-48