Why Should ‘Never Trump’ Mean Ted Cruz?–Maybe Kasich

April 2, 2016

The Opinion Pages | New York Times Editorial

Why Should ‘Never Trump’ Mean Ted Cruz?–Maybe Kasich

America’s Choice–Who will be President?

With more than half of the 2016 presidential primary races in the history books, Republicans desperate to deny Donald Trump their party’s nomination now say Wisconsin, where Ted Cruz is leading, will show that their effort has turned the tide. They shouldn’t start bragging yet.

At a televised Republican town hall on Tuesday, it was painful to watch farmers, students and a man whose son died of a drug overdose pose earnest questions to Mr. Trump and Mr. Cruz, who were more interested in attacking each other. Only John Kasich connected with these voters.

Despite its noble aim and big budget, “Never Trump” has become a panicky reaction in search of a strategy. In Wisconsin, “Never Trump” means “How About Cruz?” as self-interested leaders like Governor Scott Walker try to sell Republicans on a dangerously reactionary senator as an improvement over a dangerously ignorant businessman. But for the state’s — and the nation’s — moderate conservatives, “Never Trump” should more logically mean “Maybe Kasich.”

The framework that Mitt Romney sketched for a “Never Trump” movement on March 3 rested on an analysis of delegate allocation rules in the remaining primary states. If Mr. Trump continued to win pluralities in winner-take-all states, he could easily nab the nomination. But through careful engineering and the targeted use of resources, those states could be won by the other candidates, throwing the nomination to the convention.

Maybe Kasich needs to win big to stand a chance

“We can nominate a person who can win the general election and who will represent the values and policies of conservatism,” Mr. Romney said, adding that he would back whoever had the best chance of beating Mr. Trump in a given state.

Marco Rubio’s loss in Florida was a big setback, leaving only two challengers to Mr. Trump. But in Utah, Mr. Romney’s strategy worked. Mormons offended by Mr. Trump’s comments about Muslims delivered a hefty winner-take-all state to Mr. Cruz.

In some coming states and districts, voter data indicates that Mr. Kasich, not the ultraconservative, evangelical Mr. Cruz, could be more competitive. Yet there’s been no real effort by “Never Trump” leaders on Mr. Kasich’s behalf. Indeed, some Republicans are pressuring the Ohio governor to quit and coalescing around Mr. Cruz, a candidate who was once almost as unthinkable to them as Mr. Trump and should still be.

This is happening even though the numbers are there to deprive Mr. Trump of the nomination without delivering it to Mr. Cruz on a platter, says Henry Olsen, of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative think tank in Washington. “If your goal is ‘Never Trump,’ you should put your bets on the best candidate depending on the delegate allocation rules and the demographics of the state,” he says.

This means “Never Trump” backers would help Mr. Cruz in California’s Los Angeles media market and Central Valley, and in New Mexico, South Dakota, Indiana and Montana, which favor him. And they would work to deliver Delaware, the San Francisco Bay area, the Philadelphia suburbs, and urban areas in New York State to Mr. Kasich.

Mr. Olsen calls this a “cartel approach.” However, he says, the Republican leaders he has talked to have trouble accepting this idea. The problem is basically self-interest. Some conservative leaders see Mr. Cruz as their best chance for maintaining their influence and are thus reluctant to work for Mr. Kasich. Others who backed Jeb Bush or Mr. Rubio resent Mr. Kasich for not yielding to their candidate. Others worry that Mr. Kasich’s views on the poor, Muslims and immigrants place him too far from the right to win in a brokered convention.

But in a year when cruelty and exclusion stand as hallmarks of conservatism, “It would be courageous to stand up and say that Kasich is a different kind of conservative,” who doesn’t see government, or foreigners, as enemies, Mr. Olsen says. “These voters exist, and there’s a lot of them.” He adds that Mr. Kasich should be doing better at wooing them.

Mr. Cruz has been trying to bully Mr. Kasich from the race by billing himself as the only viable alternative to Mr. Trump. It would be ironic if Mr. Cruz became the candidate of a party whose leaders hate him. But if those leaders can’t find it in themselves to take a more courageous path, they deserve whatever they get.

3 thoughts on “Why Should ‘Never Trump’ Mean Ted Cruz?–Maybe Kasich

  1. Strap in, turbulence ahead…..

    The Republican Party on Thursday is unveiling a website to educate the media and the public on the rules of contested presidential nominating convention.

    The move is the latest concession by GOP officials that the party is close to holding its first contested convention since 1976, when Ronald Reagan challenged President Gerald Ford. Since then, the quadrennial convention has functioned as a made-for-television pep rally to promote the presumptive Republican nominee.

  2. This is power play by the interest groups. At stake is the 3 Trillion dollars pumped into Wall Street to get out of the 2008 Financial Crisis. Trump is the target because he does not want to get into their pockets. Once he does that it will be all settled.

  3. If you don’t want to protect the 2nd Amendment then Kasich is your guy.
    He stated publicly that his choices for the SCOUS might jeopardise the 2nd.
    If we don’t protect the 2nd, the rest will all eventually fall as well.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s