Will the Cruzich Collusion help or hurt Trump?

[Lyin' Steve]

It might hurt him, obviously, because it increases the chance that he'll lose Indiana.
However, it could also potentially increase his vote total in Oregon and New Mexico, because if Cruz actually stays true to his word and tells his voters to go to Kasich, some of them will go to Trump instead, which helps him in a proportional primary.
More importantly though, it plays right into his hands with his "system is rigged" argument.  I think a lot of people will look at the collusion and say, that's not fair.

[pbrower2a]

Third alternative -- too little, too late.

[dax00]

Third alternative -- too little, too late.

This is still far from over. People make things out to be a lot more inevitable than they actually are.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Is strategic voting really a thing?  Let's say I'm a moderate Indiana Republican who wants to see Kasich nominated.  Do I strategically vote Cruz?  Because if I'm a Kasich supporter I probably see Cruz as a lunatic.

More than likely I stay home, or I switch parties and vote Hillary so there's someone who can defeat Trump in the general.

[Torie]

Hurt. One would think it would harvest delegates for Cruz in Indiana, taken from Trump. That is all that matters for the moment. One step at a time.

[Mr. Morden]

Is strategic voting really a thing?  Let's say I'm a moderate Indiana Republican who wants to see Kasich nominated.  Do I strategically vote Cruz?  Because if I'm a Kasich supporter I probably see Cruz as a lunatic.

More than likely I stay home, or I switch parties and vote Hillary so there's someone who can defeat Trump in the general.

But what if you're not so much pro- either Cruz or Kasich as you are anti-Trump?  Maybe you prefer Kasich over Cruz, but your main thing is that you don't like Trump.  You might then tactically vote for Cruz, if you think that's the only way to stop Trump.  That's what some people think happened in WI, when Kasich ended up doing poorly on election day compared to how he'd been polling.  The thinking is that there were at least some voters who preferred Kasich, and had him as their first choice, telling pollsters that they supported him, but tactically voted for Cruz.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Is strategic voting really a thing?  Let's say I'm a moderate Indiana Republican who wants to see Kasich nominated.  Do I strategically vote Cruz?  Because if I'm a Kasich supporter I probably see Cruz as a lunatic.

More than likely I stay home, or I switch parties and vote Hillary so there's someone who can defeat Trump in the general.

But what if you're not so much pro- either Cruz or Kasich as you are anti-Trump?  Maybe you prefer Kasich over Cruz, but your main thing is that you don't like Trump.  You might then tactically vote for Cruz, if you think that's the only way to stop Trump.  That's what some people think happened in WI, when Kasich ended up doing poorly on election day compared to how he'd been polling.  The thinking is that there were at least some voters who preferred Kasich, and had him as their first choice, telling pollsters that they supported him, but tactically voted for Cruz.

How many voters are there that fit that description, is the question? I haven't really seen any numbers that put some facts to how many voters vote in line with campaign strategies.

[beaver2.0]

Help in the long-term, but maybe Hurt in the states where it is happening.

[NHI]

Is strategic voting really a thing?  Let's say I'm a moderate Indiana Republican who wants to see Kasich nominated.  Do I strategically vote Cruz?  Because if I'm a Kasich supporter I probably see Cruz as a lunatic.

More than likely I stay home, or I switch parties and vote Hillary so there's someone who can defeat Trump in the general.

Another attempt to try and derail Trump, cannot see this succeeding.

[PeteB]

It will help.  Yes, it will p.ss off many Trump supporters but they would have come out and voted for Trump anyway.  The bigger question is whether the ABT voters in these three states will follow up and vote as per the "terms of the agreement".  I am not entirely sure about that.

A good indicator will be if the Cruz vote shifts to Kasich in CT, RI and MD tomorrow.  While those states were not part of the deal, anti-Trump votes should go to the stronger candidate, now that they know the two of them have a pact.

[Edu]

https://twitter.com/mmurraypolitics/status/724608201551912960

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LMAO

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

It's already helping. March seemed like a bad month for Trump but Cruz is showing us what a campaign meltdown really looks like.  

https://twitter.com/mmurraypolitics/status/724608201551912960

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LMAO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKdcjJoXeEY

[pbrower2a]

Is strategic voting really a thing?  Let's say I'm a moderate Indiana Republican who wants to see Kasich nominated.  Do I strategically vote Cruz?  Because if I'm a Kasich supporter I probably see Cruz as a lunatic.

More than likely I stay home, or I switch parties and vote Hillary so there's someone who can defeat Trump in the general.

The ultimate strategic voting is as such: if your Party's nominee should prove a disastrous choice, someone who would bring about a depression or a military/diplomatic debacle or offend most of your sensibilities, then vote for the candidate of the other party. Three things can go right:

1. You may have elected a President who solves some problems.

OK, without Watergate and the other dirty-tricks stuff, Nixon was an adequate President. I doubt that a majority of Democrats who voted for Nixon over McGovern long had regrets about voting for Nixon.

Many liberals may despise Ronald Reagan, but for all his offenses to liberal sensibilities, he at least presided over the end of the disconcerting inflation of the 1970s. America started to get some respect in the world that it had lost in recent years. He did right about Grenada... and he did right with Mikhail Gorbachev.

Now let's get to Barack Obama. After the abject failure that we had as President before him, 'more of the same' or even 'much of the same' would have been bad for us. He took foreign policy back to the Bush foreign policy -- that of the elder Bush, whose foreign policy has been adequate enough for imitation by Bill Clinton. I didn't expect him to work so well with the military and with intelligence agencies as he did, but Osama bin Laden didn't expect that either.  Putting an end to the most dangerous meltdown of the American economy since that of 1929-1932 may not fully be his doing, but he certainly didn't get in the way of anything necessary to stop the collapse.

All the stuff about him not loving America? He knows its faults. He worked with those faults. Dislike his culture? Does that matter?

I see Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan having much the same skill sets; the difference is that about 5% of the American people will not vote for a black man unless he is a stooge for right-wing interests. A white male doing what Barack Obama did as President would have likely won something like a 45-state landslide re-election.

2. We get a mediocre, one-term President, and we get a better choice from your Party the next time.

The election of Jimmy Carter over Gerald Ford in 1976 may have been a blessing in disguise for Republicans. I can imagine Ronald Reagan losing to Ted Kennedy in 1980 due to partisan fatigue over the Ford Administration.  Dukakis losing to the elder Bush in 1988? Maybe Clinton was better than Dukakis ever would have been.  I have never heard anyone criticize the elder Bush for a mistaken approach to the collapse of Communism or to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Panama? Become ferociously anti-American and get involved in the trafficking of drugs as a military strongman, and you might reasonably expect to be overthrown and sent to a federal prison. Those were the three most critical tests of the  Presidency of the elder Bush, and he did them so well that all but one subsequent President has followed the playbook. The one who didn't follow that playbook (paradoxically his son) got America into a disaster. 

3. The President elected at the time gets enmeshed in a disaster of war, foreign policy, or the overall economy that, even if not his fault, was inevitable anyway.

Maybe your Party would be better off if the calamity happens on the watch of the President in the other Party. Think of the 1929 Stock Market Crash and ensuing events.  We will never know. Few Americans realized in the early 1960s that the Communist insurgency was certain to win because the government of South Vietnam offended a large part of the populace for reasons other than economics.   Nobody had a clue that one of America's biggest allies going into the late 1970s (Iran) would become a political tinderbox. 

Would Al Smith been more effective than Herbert Hoover in dealing with the economic meltdown? Maybe not. Would Barry Goldwater have handled the Vietnam buildup any differently? Probably with even more vigor, betting heavier in a bad 'game'. Would you as a partisan Republican prefer that Jimmy Carter got caught in stagflation and the consequences of the collapse of the Pahlavi Dynasty in Iran?

Having the better President now is the best for all of us. Getting a better President four years later might be better than wasting time with one that you think OK this time but that 55% of voters reject the next time. 

Kasich 2020 might be possible if Hillary Clinton wins and proves mediocre or simply unlucky. Kasich 2020 will be impossible if President Trump or President Cruz proves a disaster.     

[Fuzzy Bear]

This helps Trump, IMO, because this "pact" looks so cheesy, sleazy, and undemocratic.  It's like a team that throws a game after it makes the playoffs so that the last seeded playoff team can be a weaker franchise.  It also makes Trump look more like a "winner", a "frontrunner", and "inevitable". 

Cruz needed to bring Kasich on as his VP at all costs a month ago.  That didn't happen.  Failing that, Kasich should have gone out and named a VP pick that may have helped him garner new support and take the media attention away from Trump.  He didn't do that.  Cruz, instead, has lost the air of competence he once had.  He's flailing now, and if it goes to a contested convention, the GOP Establishment, if it doesn't decide to cave and go along with Trump, may just go for broke and try to nominate their own candidate.

[Blue3]

Cruzich Collusion sounds so much like a supervillain group.

[TomC]

So here's the thing I haven't heard about:

Cruz has been saying quite recently it'll either be him or Trump. Do I assume Cruz has no intention of telling his delegates to void rule 40, right? Surely between Trump and Cruz, they can sway delegates to keep it, preventing any surprise dark horse. So Cruz is in line to make sure either he or Trump can only be nominated, yet Kasich gets a deal to what? Lose Indiana even bigger? Without some deal to get past rule 40, I don't see how this helps Kasich at all.

[wolfsblood07]

I say help Trump.  This looks weak, desperate and pathetic.  It plays right into Trump's strengths.
Trump will win on the first ballot, unless the GOP has decided to go to the nuclear option.  They can change the rules, or navigate the rules, or whatever you want to call it.  For all we know they already have a ticket in waiting.  But, going that route might be a bigger disaster if it causes riots and mayhem.  My hunch is they let this play out, and nominate Trump.

[Young Conservative]

Help image, but realistically hurt his delegate count and end his momentum