Dilemma of the Republican Establishment

Many Republicans have refused, or at least publicly hesitated, to fall in line behind the presumptive Presidential nominee Donald Trump.   For Republicans especially, this is highly unusual behavior. Republicans know that failure to fall in line behind a nominee only presents a division which would likely hand the White House to the Democrats.

Sure, there remains the concern the Trump is a wild card.  He might end up supporting some liberal positions like raising the minimum wage or raising taxes on the rich.   It is hard to say on any given day what position he might take.  But from a Republican point of view, even that is better than someone who will be consistently liberal.

Republicans have two real concerns about Trump.  One is that he may destroy the Republican brand. Republicans have spent decades establishing that the party stands for certain things such as lower taxes and free trade.  A Trump administration that goes the other direction will make voters question whether the party really still supports such positions.  Trump could contribute negatively to the Republican brand in a second way. Presidents George Bush and his son George W. Bush both had economic recessions under their administrations which were then cleaned up by subsequent Democratic Presidents.  If a third Republican bungles the economy, that will really become a trend in the minds of many voters.  It will reflect negatively on the party going forward.

Second, and more important, is that the Republican leadership still fears that Trump will implode. His predilection for taking outrageous positions or inflaming controversy may turn off voters in the general election.  Republicans further down on the ballot, running for Senate, House, and State offices will be put in an awkward position.  If they have announced support for Trump, they may also suffer at the polls.  They may have to spend too much time explaining why they oppose specific positions or comments from the presidential candidate while still supporting him.

Six years ago, the Republicans in the Senate had a banner year opposing Obama.  As a result, 24 of the 34 Senate seats this year have Republican incumbents, many in swing states that could easily go Democrat.  A massive Trump implosion at the polls could possibly undo all the work Republicans have done establishing a majority in the House and Senate over the last 20 years.

Many think it would be better to reject Trump, separate from him, and try again in four years.  The problem with that, of course, is that Trump represents a large proportion of the Republicans voters, not to mention a great many independents.  Refusal to support Trump could cause those voters not to vote for the Republican candidates further down the ballot.  This poses the same danger to Republican majorities in Congress.

Elected leaders who are also responsible for electing more Republicans to Congress, like Paul Ryan, still have not figured out a good answer to this problem.  Do they back Trump and be prepared to explain where they differ on issues or specific comments? or do they separate themselves from Trump from the very beginning and simply take the position that they do not like either major party candidate?

Retired leaders like the Bushes seem to be taking the latter approach.  But active leaders like Ryan will probably end up in the former camp.  In the end, Republicans must support their nominee or look incredibly weak and divided, and also alienating a large portion of Republican voters.  It remains a difficult year.  Most just want to get through it and look forward to future contests.

March 22 - Arizona and Utah (and Idaho and American Samoa)

This week, there are two contests for both parties: the Utah Caucus and the Arizona Primary.  Both are fairly conservative solidly Republican states.  Idaho is also holding its Democratic Caucus, the Republican contest being several weeks ago.  American Samoa is holding its Republican Convention.

Republicans:

Utah is looking good for Ted Cruz.  He has performed particularly well in closed caucuses in very conservative states.  On top of that, Mitt Romney, the most famous Mormon politician in the country, has announced he will be voting for Cruz.  This may be the first time Cruz wins an outright majority, over 50% of the State.  Even more surprising, Kasich is running a solid second in the polls after taking on most of Rubio's supporters, with Trump's numbers crashing in recent weeks. Winning 50% is important since under State rules, it will give all 40 delegates to Cruz.  Otherwise, delegates are distributed proportionally to any candidate getting over 15%.

This raises an interested challenge for Kasich and Trump.  They will try to keep Cruz below 50%. Trump is also struggling to meet the 15% threshold.  Kasich's best case is keeping Cruz below 50% and Trump below 15%.  It would allow Kasich to collect a respectable number of delegates and freeze out front runner Trump entirely.  Cruz, of course is pushing for a 50% win.  He would probably also like to see Trump do better than Kasich since he is trying to ignore Kasich and make this a two person race.

For his part, Trump has been focusing on the Arizona Primary.  He has held a few rallies in Utah, presumably trying to stay above the 15% threshold and keep Cruz from reaching 50%.  But beyond that, he is looking at Arizona.  He leads Cruz by a good 10 points or more in most polls and Kasich trails badly.  Arizona is a winner take all State with 58 delegates.  Even it Trump gets zero delegates in Utah, if he wins Arizona,  he collects the most delegates for the day.  A few delegates are awarded based on winning a congressional district, so a handful could possibly go to another candidate.   Both Cruz, and Kasich, however, seem to have conceded Arizona to Trump and are focused more on Utah.

American Samoa also holds its Convention on Tuesday, selecting nine delegates for the Republican convention.  These delegates are not bound, so no results to report.  But keep in mind these various unbound delegates make it harder for Trump to reach the magical 50% of bound delegates at the convention.  On the other hand, these are wild card delegates who could support Trump on the first ballot and put him over the 50% mark even without enough bound delegates.

Democrats:

Hillary Clinton has been a good 25-30 points above Bernie Sanders in Arizona.  Clinton has played well with retirees, and Arizona is full of them.  She expects an easy win there.

The Utah Caucus is more up in the air.  It is likely to be close, with polls differing on who will win. Sanders could pull a win here as he tends to do better in closed caucuses.  Even though Utah is a conservative State, its registered Democrats tend to be middle class and white, groups that have tended to favor Sanders.  Since delegates are awarded proportionally, it does not matter much who wins, as it will only affect a couple of delegates.  But if Sanders pulls off a win, it gives him bragging rights for future contests.

Idaho Democrats also hold their closed caucus on Tuesday.  Again, this is a close one. Again, Sanders tends to do better in closed caucuses, especially in States without significant numbers of minorities. This could be a Sanders win as well.

Even though Clinton will win the most delegates for the day, if Sanders can win two of the three contests, it will help to continue his justification for continuing his campaign.

Analysis:

None of these contests will be particularly decisive and probably will not result in any more drop outs.  They are the last Republican contests for two weeks, so candidate would love to two weeks of coverage of wins for their campaigns.  Since the results will be mixed, we should not see any real theme coming from these contests.  Candidate will continue to slog it out and move on the the remaining States.

Strategies for a Three Way

With three candidates left in the race, Trump still has an clear path to victory.  Cruz and Kasich will continue to divide the anti-Trump vote, allowing Trump to win States even without an outright majority.  Both Cruz and Kasich hope to drain off enough delegates to prevent Trump from winning an outright majority of delegates at the convention.

I  will say at the outset, that I think these strategies remain real long shots.  I fully expect Trump to collect enough delegates to have a majority at the convention. Still, the strategy to stop him from obtaining a majority at the convention is possible and realistic, even if difficult.

Cruz will continue to make this a two person race between himself and Trump.  Cruz will ignore or belittle Kasich in most places.  The line will be that Kasich won his home state and nothing else.  If he cannot win any other State, he is not a serious contender, even if he picks up a few second or third place delegate here or there.  The next two primaries, next Tue. March 22 are closed primaries in very conservative States: Arizona and Utah.  These should be places where Cruz should have a shot at challenging Trump, although Trump is probably favored to win both.  Arizona is winner take all, while Utah is proportional.  Watch to see if Cruz presses hard in Arizona.  If he does, that tells us his internal polling shows he has a chance at a win there.  Otherwise, he will focus more on Utah to squeeze as many delegates as possible.

Kasich wants to collect all the folks who dislike Trump and Cruz.  There are lots of them, but the next two contests will probably not have much for him.  Kasich may try to pick up some delegates in Utah, but will likely look past these States.

After Arizona and Utah, the map turns more in Kasich's favor.  Wisconsin has an open primary on April 5 which is winner take all.  This will be a test of whether Kasich can win anything outside of Ohio.  It is a midwest state which should be open to his message.  If Trump defeats Kasich in Wisconsin like he did in Michigan, then Kasich again has to consider whether going home is the best thing he can do.

After Wisconsin, Kasich can look forward to a number of other moderate states: New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island.  These are not strong states for Cruz.  Kasich needs to be able to pull a few of them away from Trump in order to prevent an end to the primary fight.  If Trump can do well in these States, as polls show, he will get a majority.  The later States in May and June become irrelevant.  If Kasich can start taking even  a few states, the fight goes on.

At present, Trump has 673 delegates, with 1237 needed, 564 more.  Here are the remaining Republican primaries:

• Tue, Mar 22 Arizona 58 (WTA) Closed
• Tue, Mar 22 Utah 40 (P) Closed
• Tue, Apr 5 Wisconsin 42 (WTA) Open
• Tue, Apr 19 New York 95 (P) Closed
• Tue, Apr 26 Connecticut 28 (P) Closed
• Tue, Apr 26 Delaware 16 (WTA) Closed
• Tue, Apr 26 Maryland 38 (WTA) Closed
• Tue, Apr 26 Pennsylvania 71 (P, WTA) Closed
• Tue, Apr 26 Rhode Island 19 (P) Mixed
• Tue, May 3 Indiana 57 (WTA) Open
• Tue, May 10 Nebraska  36 Closed
• Tue, May 10 West Virginia 37 Mixed
• Tue, May 17 Oregon 28 (P) Closed
• Tue, May 24 Washington (R) 44 (P) Closed
• Tue, Jun 7 California 172 (P) Mixed
• Tue, Jun 7 Montana 27 (WTA) Open
• Tue, Jun 7 New Jersey 51 (WTA) Closed
• Tue, Jun 7 New Mexico 24 (P) Closed
• Tue, Jun 7 South Dakota 29 (WTA)

Let's say Trump wins all the winner take all, and takes about half of the proportional.  That would give him just about enough to win an outright majority of delegates, with maybe 50 or so to spare..  If Cruz or Rubio can win two or three of the winner take all states, and keep Trump's average at or below 50% of delegates in the proportional, there could possibly be a divided convention.

That is not an impossible scenario.  Trump has only broken 50% once, and that was in the tiny Northern Mariana Islands caucus.  If Trump has a hard ceiling of 45% and cannot win all the winner take all states, he has a serious problem getting 50% of the delegates.  Some of the states still keep a few delegates uncommitted or award some based on Congressional district wins, meaning Trump may not win "all" in a winner take all state.  Even with all of his big wins so far, Trump has only collected just under 48% of the delegates awarded.  Impressive in a race with lots of candidates, but not enough to get that outright majority.

It will be interesting to see how the voter dynamic changes with Rubio out of the race.  Kasich will now get a much closer look by the electorate and also come under closer scrutiny and criticism.  He could step up and gain momentum, or he could whither under the spotlight as so many have done before.

Nevada Caucus

Around the same time as the South Carolina Primary, the Nevada Caucus gives candidates a final testing ground before Super Tuesday.  The Democratic Caucus is Feb. 20, followed by the Republican Caucus of Feb. 23.

Nevada's main significance in the election process is it is one of a few early States.  It moved to the front relatively recently primarily thanks the work of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.  Over the years, it has moved back and forth between primaries and caucuses.  2016 will be its third caucus in a row.

A caucus differs from a primary in that people have to spend hours in a room to determine the delegates rather than simply cast a vote and leave.  Unlike the Iowa Caucus, the Nevada Caucus takes place during the day rather than in the evening.  It also lasts many more hours.  As a result, you have to be pretty dedicated to participate in such a long event, especially if it is a work day for you.  Consequently, results are usually the result of very low numbers of people.  Typically, a Caucus has about 50,000-60,000 participants total, and most of those on the Republican side.  In 2008, during the highly competitive Obama Clinton fight, Democrats combined turned out just over 10,000 participants.  Compare this to over 1 million who vote in the general election.

Many voters need to get time off from work to participate, so participation depends on whether your employer favors such participation.  Workers in Las Vegas are permitted to caucus at work rather then in their home districts.  Also, there is no private ballots, so you may be voting with your coworkers, your Union representative, and your boss present - all of them seeing who you support. As a result, voters may be pressured to vote differently than they might in a private ballot.

All of this means that Nevada is not really a good sampling of a candidate's popularity.  It is a test of a campaign's organizational skills and ability to get out the vote.  Larger establishment campaigns with high levels of funding and organization tend to thrive in this environment.

The state is the first with a significant Hispanic population, but since the caucus is not really a good measure of voter sentiment, I'm not sure how predictive any result really is for the Hispanic vote nationally.

I could only find results for the last two elections:

Republicans

• 2012 – Mitt Romney (50.02%), Newt Gingrich (21.10%), Ron Paul (18.73%), Rick Santorum (9.94%)
• 2008 – Mitt Romney (51.1%), Ron Paul (13.73%), John McCain (12.75%), Mike Huckabee (8.16%), Fred Thompson (7.94%), Rudy Giuliani (4.31%), Duncan Hunter (2.01%)

Democrats

• 2012 – Barack Obama, (98.3%), Uncommitted (0.7%)
• 2008 – Hillary Clinton (50.8%), Barack Obama (45.1%)

Polling

Right now polling shows Trump with about 1/3 of the vote, Cruz with around 20% and the others back between 10-15%.  That said, there have been far fewer polls in the State and most are now quite dated.  So polling results are of limited use.  Further this Caucus favors well funded organization. Cruz was able to out organize everyone else to win the Iowa Caucus.  Trump, however, will not likely be out maneuvered again.  As a Las Vegas Casino owner, he will likely be able to organize and turn out larger numbers.  Expect Trump and Cruz both to do better than the polling suggests.  Bush's money might help him here in the race for third place.  But expect everyone else in the pack to lag behind.

Among the Democrats, Clinton and Sanders are polling at about dead even, with both close to 50%. Sanders tends to have the edge in dedicated volunteers, but I really think Clinton's organization and money will carry the day.  Union support tends to help here among Democrats which should also benefit Clinton.  I predict a fairly comfortable Clinton victory, though closer than in South Carolina.

Conclusion

Look for Clinton and Trump to win in Nevada, though it will mean relatively little going into Super Tuesday

The Battle to Topple Trump

The Republican party primaries differ from that of the Democrats.  As I discussed in my last posting, Democrats tend to have one establishment candidate and one serious insurgent who gets beyond Iowa and New Hampshire to mount a challenge that usually fails.

The Republicans also tend to have an early establishment candidate.  Unlike the Democrats, this establishment candidate is usually someone who ran as a challenger campaign in the previous election.  The establishment candidate tends to have multiple challengers from various constituencies within the Party.  

The Republican Party can be broken down into a variety of interest groups that often have conflicting goals. First is the pro-big business Wall Street group that protects large corporate interests.  Second is the Religious Right, that is focused on having a candidate who supports certain religious goals and focuses on issues of public morality.  Third is the Libertarian wing, which supports smaller government and less regulation.  Fourth is the neo-con / militarist wing.  This groups supports an aggressive foreign policy and ever higher military expenditures.  A fifth and less prominent group is the white working class, so called "Reagan Democrats" who are the least faithful to the party but necessary to any Republican victory.  These folks tend to be pro-gun ownership, fervent supporters of police and law and order, possibly somewhat racist (although they often won't admit to it) and anti-immigrant.

Typically the establishment candidate tends to be the choice of big business.  Challenger candidates tend to come from one of the other groups, although any successful candidate must have some level of support from all five groups.

Let's take a quick look at the history.  In 1980, Ronald Reagan was the establishment candidate, having been the primary challenger to President Ford four years earlier.  His main opponent that year was George Bush (Sr.) who question the economics of cutting taxes, increasing spending, while reducing the deficit.  Bush won Iowa and finished a strong second in New Hampshire, but then faded quickly.  

In 1988, Bush was the establishment favorite, having finished eight years as Reagan's loyal VP.  Bush received a challenge from Sen. Bob Dole, who painted Bush as not being conservative enough to cut taxes further.  He also faced a challenge from Pat Robertson, who represented the religious right. After taking third place in Iowa, Bush quickly bounced back in New Hampshire and voters quickly hopped on the Bush bandwagon.  Oddly, Bush faced a challenge as a sitting President in 1992.  This was highly unusual, especially in light of his recent victory in the Gulf War.  But Bush's broken promise about raising taxes, inflamed many.  He faced a challenge from Pat Buchanan  who represented the Republican's white working class voters who seemed primarily concerned about minority and immigrant benefits during a period of economic downturn.  Bush defeated the challenge but went into the election with a divided party, resulting in many Republican voters staying home.

In 1996, Bob Dole's second place finish eight years earlier earned him the establishment support (protest candidate  Buchanan from 1992 never had establishment support as he was never an elected official and could not garner much support outside the white working class Republicans.  Buchanan was Dole's closest challenger, but never did much after a narrow win in New Hampshire. Determined to defeat incumbent Bill Clinton, ranks closed quickly around front runner Dole, not that it did much good in the general election.

In 2000 the establishment went looking to State Governors with less Washington history.  They quickly rallied around Texas Governor George W. Bush.  Bush had strong credentials with the Religious Right.  But his promises to have a more modest foreign policy brought on a challenge by the militarists via John McCain who won New Hampshire.  Bush, however, quickly regained control of the electorate and swept to an easy victory.  His selection of Dick Chaney as VP satisfied the militarists.

McCain quickly became the establishment candidate in 2008.  This was an odd choice given that he was not a favorite of  big business.  He was a favorite of the militarists and had been the most powerful challenger eight years earlier. Without anyone in the Administration seeking to run, he became the default choice rather quickly.  He was, however, hotly challenged early on, finishing fourth in Iowa after the Religious Right favorite Mike Huckabee, the Wall Street favorite Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson, who mostly won the small government voters, along with Libertarian Ron Paul.  McCain, however, bounced back to win New Hampshire and quickly became the dominant candidate with little opposition.

In 2012, big business once again selected the establishment candidate in Mitt Romney.  Romney's Mormon background did not sit well with the Religious Right, however, resulting in a virtual tie in Iowa between Romney and Rick Santorum, who tended to get support among religious as well as white working class voters.  Both finished just ahead of libertarian Ron Paul.  Romney again bounced back to win New Hampshire and had no serious opposition by Super Tuesday.  Still Romney's religion and his support for a State version of Obamacare in Massachusetts, failed to rally the religious or libertarians to his side.  His campaign also turned off most white working class voters, despite their opposition to President Obama.

This brings us to the current 2016 battle.  This has been a difficult year in determining an establishment candidate.  Santorum was the closest early challenger four years earlier, but his weak performance after Iowa and the fact that he has not held office for some time, made people look elsewhere very early in the process.  

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush looked like the obvious establishment candidate.  He was a successful Governor from a swing State and had the Bush name.  That said, the Bush association has been a negative for many after the taint of a failed war and a recession under the last Bush presidency. Further, Jeb Bush has not really appealed to any constituency outside of the big business folks.  Even there is support seems tepid at best.

Ted Cruz has been a favorite among evangelicals and some libertarians, but is powerfully opposed by the Washington establishment.  Big business views him warily because of his refusal to play nicely with others as a Senator.  He is seen as too much of a boat rocker.

Sen. Marco Rubio and Gov. John Kasich are still hanging in as possible long shot compromise choices for establishment support.  But neither has really been able to articulate why the establishment should rally only to him.  As a result, establishment votes have remained unusually divided following Iowa and New Hampshire.

The big X-factor this year has been Donald Trump, who has dominated the polls and finished at or near the top in both Iowa and New Hampshire.  Trump has a clear appeal to white working class voters, who seem to be coming out in unusually large numbers for him.  While he is a business leader, big business does not seem to trust him to protect their interests and have not rallied for him. He has very little appeal with the religious right.   Libertarians and militarists are not sure what to make of him either.  With big business unwilling to tolerate a Trump presidency even in light of early victories, it seems he may never get the establishment support he needs to win the nomination.  At the same time, he seems able to take at least one third of the Republican votes.  Without the Party able to coalesce around a Trump alternative, he may win a plurality of the votes, leading to an open convention with no clear nominee.  But despite their natural instinct to rally around an early leader, I don't think Trump will ever gain the favor of a majority of Republicans.

If Jeb Bush had done even a little better in Iowa and New Hampshire, with perhaps a third or fourth place showing in both States, he might have become the establishment favorite to Trump and Cruz. But a fourth place in New Hampshire and barely showing up as an "also ran" in Iowa has made him look weak and possibly unelectable.  As a result, Kasich and Rubio will continue to challenge him for the establishment position. Together, those three will continue to divide votes.

Of the three establishment wanabees, Bush has the most money and organization in place for Super Tuesday and beyond.  He may perhaps still become the establishment choice.  But he has had trouble fund raising based on his poor early finishes.  He remains a long shot.

The notion of an open convention is something neither party has faced for several decades.  It seems almost unthinkable today not to have a candidate chosen well before July, only about 3.5 months before election day.  An open convention would also create hard feelings among supporters of the losing candidates and lead to a weak and fractured party nominee.  No one wants to see that happen. Still, we don't really see any of the remaining five serious candidates making any moves to leave the race and clear the field for one of the others. 

I could easily see a race where Trump enters the convention with 35-40% of the delegates, Cruz with another 15-20% and Bush, Rubio, and Kasich each with 10-15%.  This would be a nightmare scenario for the Republicans.  It is possible we will see a clearer front runner after Super Tuesday, but so far I don't see one. Given Republican Primary rules which tend to give lots of bonus delegates to the winning candidate, it may be the Donald Trump even increases his lead at this time.

Perhaps the South Carolina primary and Nevada Caucuses before Super Tuesday may reshape voter evaluations of the candidates, but as things look now, it looks like Trump remains the man to beat and that a majority of Republicans still really want to see him beaten.