The biggest GOP losers: Where will their future support go?

[SwimExpert]

Jeb Bush: 3 Delegates
Carly Fiorina: 1 Delegate
Rand Paul: 1 Delegate

We're only 4% of the way through, but these three are at the bottom of the delegate count, at least among candidates that have at least some delegates. Considering that these individuals were never actually viable in the first place, I think it's fair to start wondering when they'll drop out, and to whom their would-be supporters will migrate.

With such an overcrowded field migratory support has the potential to have a huge impact on the rest of the primary race. It leaves us to consider 1) Will lower end candidates linger vainly or will they strategically withdraw? and 2) Where will their supporters turn?

 

[dannyboys]

Jeb Bush: 3 Delegates
Carly Fiorina: 1 Delegate
Rand Paul: 1 Delegate

We're only 4% of the way through, but these three are at the bottom of the delegate count, at least among candidates that have at least some delegates. Considering that these individuals were never actually viable in the first place, I think it's fair to start wondering when they'll drop out, and to whom their would-be supporters will migrate.

With such an overcrowded field migratory support has the potential to have a huge impact on the rest of the primary race. It leaves us to consider 1) Will lower end candidates linger vainly or will they strategically withdraw? and 2) Where will their supporters turn?

Let's think this through.
It's called a 'race' right?
Only one person wins 'the race'. That person is referred to as the "winner". The others who competed but lost are called? The losers.
Everyone with me so far?
I'm in the 'race' and I have lots of people who I have convinced that I will be the 'winner'. But I turned out to be a loser (in this particular race). All my supporters also lost. They put their money on horse that lost. This means they are also 'losers'.
Now I tell the supporters who are also losers to support someone (me) who is by definition a loser) to go give their support to another loser.
So my supporters run to the next loser and lose again?
THINK!
If I had put my money on a losing candidate the LAST thing I'd do is listen to him tell me who I should support next.
Winners have supporters who want to win!
That's why every candidate who intends on sticking around in politics is telling their supporters to go with the winner.
In this case that would be Trump.

 

[Arianrhod]

Jeb Bush: 3 Delegates
Carly Fiorina: 1 Delegate
Rand Paul: 1 Delegate

We're only 4% of the way through, but these three are at the bottom of the delegate count, at least among candidates that have at least some delegates. Considering that these individuals were never actually viable in the first place, I think it's fair to start wondering when they'll drop out, and to whom their would-be supporters will migrate.

With such an overcrowded field migratory support has the potential to have a huge impact on the rest of the primary race. It leaves us to consider 1) Will lower end candidates linger vainly or will they strategically withdraw? and 2) Where will their supporters turn?

Let's think this through.
It's called a 'race' right?
Only one person wins 'the race'. That person is referred to as the "winner". The others who competed but lost are called? The losers.
Everyone with me so far?
I'm in the 'race' and I have lots of people who I have convinced that I will be the 'winner'. But I turned out to be a loser (in this particular race). All my supporters also lost. They put their money on horse that lost. This means they are also 'losers'.
Now I tell the supporters who are also losers to support someone (me) who is by definition a loser) to go give their support to another loser.
So my supporters run to the next loser and lose again?
THINK!
If I had put my money on a losing candidate the LAST thing I'd do is listen to him tell me who I should support next.
Winners have supporters who want to win!
That's why every candidate who intends on sticking around in politics is telling their supporters to go with the winner.
In this case that would be Trump.

Actually, there's this little thing called the GOP National Convention: Republican National Convention | Cleveland RNC 2016

 

[SwimExpert]

Jeb Bush: 3 Delegates
Carly Fiorina: 1 Delegate
Rand Paul: 1 Delegate

We're only 4% of the way through, but these three are at the bottom of the delegate count, at least among candidates that have at least some delegates. Considering that these individuals were never actually viable in the first place, I think it's fair to start wondering when they'll drop out, and to whom their would-be supporters will migrate.

With such an overcrowded field migratory support has the potential to have a huge impact on the rest of the primary race. It leaves us to consider 1) Will lower end candidates linger vainly or will they strategically withdraw? and 2) Where will their supporters turn?

Let's think this through.
It's called a 'race' right?
Only one person wins 'the race'. That person is referred to as the "winner". The others who competed but lost are called? The losers.
Everyone with me so far?
I'm in the 'race' and I have lots of people who I have convinced that I will be the 'winner'. But I turned out to be a loser (in this particular race). All my supporters also lost. They put their money on horse that lost. This means they are also 'losers'.
Now I tell the supporters who are also losers to support someone (me) who is by definition a loser) to go give their support to another loser.
So my supporters run to the next loser and lose again?
THINK!
If I had put my money on a losing candidate the LAST thing I'd do is listen to him tell me who I should support next.
Winners have supporters who want to win!
That's why every candidate who intends on sticking around in politics is telling their supporters to go with the winner.
In this case that would be Trump.

 

[dannyboys]

Jeb Bush: 3 Delegates
Carly Fiorina: 1 Delegate
Rand Paul: 1 Delegate

We're only 4% of the way through, but these three are at the bottom of the delegate count, at least among candidates that have at least some delegates. Considering that these individuals were never actually viable in the first place, I think it's fair to start wondering when they'll drop out, and to whom their would-be supporters will migrate.

With such an overcrowded field migratory support has the potential to have a huge impact on the rest of the primary race. It leaves us to consider 1) Will lower end candidates linger vainly or will they strategically withdraw? and 2) Where will their supporters turn?

Let's think this through.
It's called a 'race' right?
Only one person wins 'the race'. That person is referred to as the "winner". The others who competed but lost are called? The losers.
Everyone with me so far?
I'm in the 'race' and I have lots of people who I have convinced that I will be the 'winner'. But I turned out to be a loser (in this particular race). All my supporters also lost. They put their money on horse that lost. This means they are also 'losers'.
Now I tell the supporters who are also losers to support someone (me) who is by definition a loser) to go give their support to another loser.
So my supporters run to the next loser and lose again?
THINK!
If I had put my money on a losing candidate the LAST thing I'd do is listen to him tell me who I should support next.
Winners have supporters who want to win!
That's why every candidate who intends on sticking around in politics is telling their supporters to go with the winner.
In this case that would be Trump.

Actually, there's this little thing called the GOP National Convention: Republican National Convention | Cleveland RNC 2016

That's right asshole.
Name me the REP candidate who will get the nomination besides Trump?
RP is on the phone a dozen times a day with Trump.
The REP backroom boys have made their choice. His name is Trump.
Above all else the only reason these backroom boys/girls exist is to ensure the fucking Clintons never get back into the White house. It's not because they are fucking common thieves who stole silver sets and furniture. It's not that Bill will ever again predate on powerless females.
It comes down to the fact that the Clintons are fucking White AK trash former cocaine smugglers and very likely complicate in a number of murders.

 

[dannyboys]

Jeb Bush: 3 Delegates
Carly Fiorina: 1 Delegate
Rand Paul: 1 Delegate

We're only 4% of the way through, but these three are at the bottom of the delegate count, at least among candidates that have at least some delegates. Considering that these individuals were never actually viable in the first place, I think it's fair to start wondering when they'll drop out, and to whom their would-be supporters will migrate.

With such an overcrowded field migratory support has the potential to have a huge impact on the rest of the primary race. It leaves us to consider 1) Will lower end candidates linger vainly or will they strategically withdraw? and 2) Where will their supporters turn?

Let's think this through.
It's called a 'race' right?
Only one person wins 'the race'. That person is referred to as the "winner". The others who competed but lost are called? The losers.
Everyone with me so far?
I'm in the 'race' and I have lots of people who I have convinced that I will be the 'winner'. But I turned out to be a loser (in this particular race). All my supporters also lost. They put their money on horse that lost. This means they are also 'losers'.
Now I tell the supporters who are also losers to support someone (me) who is by definition a loser) to go give their support to another loser.
So my supporters run to the next loser and lose again?
THINK!
If I had put my money on a losing candidate the LAST thing I'd do is listen to him tell me who I should support next.
Winners have supporters who want to win!
That's why every candidate who intends on sticking around in politics is telling their supporters to go with the winner.
In this case that would be Trump.

That's it? That all you have?
I don't waste my time with morons like you.
Permanent Ignore.

 

[the_human_being]

Actually, Rand Paul has already dropped out. He dropped out right after Iowa.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Jeb Bush: 3 Delegates
Carly Fiorina: 1 Delegate
Rand Paul: 1 Delegate

We're only 4% of the way through, but these three are at the bottom of the delegate count, at least among candidates that have at least some delegates. Considering that these individuals were never actually viable in the first place, I think it's fair to start wondering when they'll drop out, and to whom their would-be supporters will migrate.

With such an overcrowded field migratory support has the potential to have a huge impact on the rest of the primary race. It leaves us to consider 1) Will lower end candidates linger vainly or will they strategically withdraw? and 2) Where will their supporters turn?

Let's think this through.
It's called a 'race' right?
Only one person wins 'the race'. That person is referred to as the "winner". The others who competed but lost are called? The losers.
Everyone with me so far?
I'm in the 'race' and I have lots of people who I have convinced that I will be the 'winner'. But I turned out to be a loser (in this particular race). All my supporters also lost. They put their money on horse that lost. This means they are also 'losers'.
Now I tell the supporters who are also losers to support someone (me) who is by definition a loser) to go give their support to another loser.
So my supporters run to the next loser and lose again?
THINK!
If I had put my money on a losing candidate the LAST thing I'd do is listen to him tell me who I should support next.
Winners have supporters who want to win!
That's why every candidate who intends on sticking around in politics is telling their supporters to go with the winner.
In this case that would be Trump.

That's it? That all you have?
I don't waste my time with morons like you.
Permanent Ignore.

Congrats SwimExpert

 

[SwimExpert]

Jeb Bush: 3 Delegates
Carly Fiorina: 1 Delegate
Rand Paul: 1 Delegate

We're only 4% of the way through, but these three are at the bottom of the delegate count, at least among candidates that have at least some delegates. Considering that these individuals were never actually viable in the first place, I think it's fair to start wondering when they'll drop out, and to whom their would-be supporters will migrate.

With such an overcrowded field migratory support has the potential to have a huge impact on the rest of the primary race. It leaves us to consider 1) Will lower end candidates linger vainly or will they strategically withdraw? and 2) Where will their supporters turn?

Let's think this through.
It's called a 'race' right?
Only one person wins 'the race'. That person is referred to as the "winner". The others who competed but lost are called? The losers.
Everyone with me so far?
I'm in the 'race' and I have lots of people who I have convinced that I will be the 'winner'. But I turned out to be a loser (in this particular race). All my supporters also lost. They put their money on horse that lost. This means they are also 'losers'.
Now I tell the supporters who are also losers to support someone (me) who is by definition a loser) to go give their support to another loser.
So my supporters run to the next loser and lose again?
THINK!
If I had put my money on a losing candidate the LAST thing I'd do is listen to him tell me who I should support next.
Winners have supporters who want to win!
That's why every candidate who intends on sticking around in politics is telling their supporters to go with the winner.
In this case that would be Trump.

That's it? That all you have?
I don't waste my time with morons like you.
Permanent Ignore.

Congrats SwimExpert

Thank goodness he'll never pollute another one of my threads again.

 

[bendog]

Jeb Bush: 3 Delegates
Carly Fiorina: 1 Delegate
Rand Paul: 1 Delegate

We're only 4% of the way through, but these three are at the bottom of the delegate count, at least among candidates that have at least some delegates. Considering that these individuals were never actually viable in the first place, I think it's fair to start wondering when they'll drop out, and to whom their would-be supporters will migrate.

With such an overcrowded field migratory support has the potential to have a huge impact on the rest of the primary race. It leaves us to consider 1) Will lower end candidates linger vainly or will they strategically withdraw? and 2) Where will their supporters turn?

The polling shows Trump has negatives approaching 50% in the gop, and he is the least likely to have delegates switch to him. Christie is dropping out now. Paul's done and Carly will be soon too, if not already, and Rainman as well. But there are few delegates with those that it doesn't matter. Kasich probably has no money to continue after Sup Tuesday, but after last night maybe he finds a sugar daddy.

Jeb, Rubio and Cruz have the money and ground games to go to the convention. I think Rubio would be ok with the vp slot, but would Rubio's sugar daddy be ok if he urged his delegates to switch to Cruz?

 

[SwimExpert]

Actually, Rand Paul has already dropped out. He dropped out right after Iowa.

Yes, but the wasn't particularly relevant to the question I was trying to ask. The aggregate support of low ranking candidates has the potential to have a strong effect on the rest of the primary. Instead of voting for Paul, his supporters elsewhere are probably going to migrate elsewhere. Who do you think would be a second choice for a Paul supporter?

 

[dblack]

Actually, Rand Paul has already dropped out. He dropped out right after Iowa.

Yes, but the wasn't particularly relevant to the question I was trying to ask. The aggregate support of low ranking candidates has the potential to have a strong effect on the rest of the primary. Instead of voting for Paul, his supporters elsewhere are probably going to migrate elsewhere. Who do you think would be a second choice for a Paul supporter?

The Libertarian candidate.

 

[the_human_being]

Actually, Rand Paul has already dropped out. He dropped out right after Iowa.

Yes, but the wasn't particularly relevant to the question I was trying to ask. The aggregate support of low ranking candidates has the potential to have a strong effect on the rest of the primary. Instead of voting for Paul, his supporters elsewhere are probably going to migrate elsewhere. Who do you think would be a second choice for a Paul supporter?

I'd say Kasich is more aligned with Rand Paul than any of the others.

 

[SwimExpert]

Kasich probably has no money to continue after Sup Tuesday, but after last night maybe he finds a sugar daddy.

You know, you're not the first I've heard say something along these lines, but where is it coming from? I don't believe that Kasich is spending a whole lot of money. Bush's campaign is burning cash like his big brother invading the Mid East. Cruz and Rubio are doing plenty of spending just to catch enough attention to for people to know their names. Unless I'm mistaken, Kasich hasn't spent very much and has still maintained a degree of relevance so far. I think he's saving his money for where he gets the most bang for his buck.

 

[SwimExpert]

Actually, Rand Paul has already dropped out. He dropped out right after Iowa.

Yes, but the wasn't particularly relevant to the question I was trying to ask. The aggregate support of low ranking candidates has the potential to have a strong effect on the rest of the primary. Instead of voting for Paul, his supporters elsewhere are probably going to migrate elsewhere. Who do you think would be a second choice for a Paul supporter?

The Libertarian candidate.

Yeah, because Gary Johnson is an option in the GOP primary.

 

[the_human_being]

Kasich probably has no money to continue after Sup Tuesday, but after last night maybe he finds a sugar daddy.

You know, you're not the first I've heard say something along these lines, but where is it coming from? I don't believe that Kasich is spending a whole lot of money. Bush's campaign is burning cash like his big brother invading the Mid East. Cruz and Rubio are doing plenty of spending just to catch enough attention to for people to know their names. Unless I'm mistaken, Kasich hasn't spent very much and has still maintained a degree of relevance so far. I think he's saving his money for where he gets the most bang for his buck.

Actually, I saw something on that just this morning. It appears that this election cycle, those who spend the least dollar amount for votes are winning. Hillary and Bush have spent the most. Trump has hardly spent any. Kasich hasn't spent much, Rubio and Cruz have spent a lot and Sanders has raised all his from small donors. The piece I saw even said that this should be a real lesson to all the Super Pacs and big donors.

 

[dblack]

Actually, Rand Paul has already dropped out. He dropped out right after Iowa.

Yes, but the wasn't particularly relevant to the question I was trying to ask. The aggregate support of low ranking candidates has the potential to have a strong effect on the rest of the primary. Instead of voting for Paul, his supporters elsewhere are probably going to migrate elsewhere. Who do you think would be a second choice for a Paul supporter?

The Libertarian candidate.

Yeah, because Gary Johnson is an option in the GOP primary.

No, because there are no reasonable choices for Paul supporters in the GOP primary. Most of his supporters will vote outside the party in the general.

 

[SwimExpert]

Actually, Rand Paul has already dropped out. He dropped out right after Iowa.

Yes, but the wasn't particularly relevant to the question I was trying to ask. The aggregate support of low ranking candidates has the potential to have a strong effect on the rest of the primary. Instead of voting for Paul, his supporters elsewhere are probably going to migrate elsewhere. Who do you think would be a second choice for a Paul supporter?

The Libertarian candidate.

Yeah, because Gary Johnson is an option in the GOP primary.

No, because there are no reasonable choices for Paul supporters in the GOP primary. Most of his supporters will vote outside the party in the general.

Cool story, bro.

This thread isn't about the general election.

 

[bendog]

Kasich probably has no money to continue after Sup Tuesday, but after last night maybe he finds a sugar daddy.

You know, you're not the first I've heard say something along these lines, but where is it coming from? I don't believe that Kasich is spending a whole lot of money. Bush's campaign is burning cash like his big brother invading the Mid East. Cruz and Rubio are doing plenty of spending just to catch enough attention to for people to know their names. Unless I'm mistaken, Kasich hasn't spent very much and has still maintained a degree of relevance so far. I think he's saving his money for where he gets the most bang for his buck.

Rubio and more so Cruz have money in the bank and national ground game. Jeb's blown through most of his, but still has the organization ... and I'm guessing a Bush can always find more money. Kasich really has nothing, unfortunately.
But not all the Sugar Daddies have weighed in.

Rubio has most cash among rivals to GOP leaders Trump, Cruz

But the point is that I think you're basically correct. Trump's hitting the ceiling around 35%. His insults to others are not resonating with all. Mostly the gop primaries are NOT winner take all, at least not till the very end.

Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Imo it's better than even money that Trump will not go to the convention with enough delegates to be the nominee ... unless someone switches.

 

[dblack]

Actually, Rand Paul has already dropped out. He dropped out right after Iowa.

Yes, but the wasn't particularly relevant to the question I was trying to ask. The aggregate support of low ranking candidates has the potential to have a strong effect on the rest of the primary. Instead of voting for Paul, his supporters elsewhere are probably going to migrate elsewhere. Who do you think would be a second choice for a Paul supporter?

The Libertarian candidate.

Yeah, because Gary Johnson is an option in the GOP primary.

No, because there are no reasonable choices for Paul supporters in the GOP primary. Most of his supporters will vote outside the party in the general.

Cool story, bro.

This thread isn't about the general election.

This thread asked where would their supporters would go, "bro". Pull your head out.