Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Politics

John Kasich To Drop Out, Leaving Trump as GOP Nominee (vox.com) 605

Multiple outlets are reporting that Ohio Gov. John Kasich plans to suspend his run to be the GOP presidential nominee. The move, if happens, would make Donald Trump the presumptive nominee for the GOP. The report comes hours after Kasich abruptly cancelled a planned press conference (could be paywalled; alternate source) in Virginia on Wednesday morning. LA Times reports: Kasich, the Ohio governor, had pledged to continue campaigning as a Trump alternative who could deny the billionaire needed delegates. But on Wednesday, he canceled a news conference in Washington and planned an announcement for later in the day in Columbus, Ohio, to drop out. Vox has more details.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

John Kasich To Drop Out, Leaving Trump as GOP Nominee

Comments Filter:
  • by cant_get_a_good_nick ( 172131 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2016 @12:49PM (#52045657)

    Cruz dropping out handed the race over.

    Kasich could have won every delegate from Tuesday night to convention time and still would not have caught Trump. How he could have gotten any at all much less all of them, when he has no cash and won only his home state is a great question. Other than symbolically not causing a ruckus up to the convention, it means nothing to the race.

    • by NotInHere ( 3654617 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2016 @12:53PM (#52045689)

      Kasich could have won every delegate from Tuesday night to convention time and still would not have caught Trump.

      If that unlikely event happened, then there would have been a contested convention. So there would have been a chance of Trump not becoming nominee. Now, with all candidates gone, only Trump remains to get the remaining delegates.

      • Right, but didn't Cruz "suspend" his campaign and not just outright quit? So technically he's out with one foot still in the race; specifically to keep Kasich in check as I understand it.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04, 2016 @01:29PM (#52046081)

          "Suspending" the campaign is the normal way people drop out.

          As I understand it, it has to do with election finance laws. The money people donated wasn't given to you personally, it was given to your campaign. So if you quit the campaign completely, you lose access to the remaining donated funds. If you "suspend" your campaign, though, you still have access to any remaining funds. While technically the donated money must be spent on campaign-related causes, in practice there's a lot of discretion people have in spending the money. For example, you can "campaign" by spending money for party ads during the general election. Or use it for your Senate reelection campaign two years from now. (The interests of "Cruz for President" [in 2020] are served by the success of "Cruz for Senate", after all.)

        • by slew ( 2918 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2016 @02:01PM (#52046525)

          Right, but didn't Cruz "suspend" his campaign and not just outright quit? So technically he's out with one foot still in the race; specifically to keep Kasich in check as I understand it.

          Candidates generally always "suspend" their campaign to legally keep the ability to raise money and receive any federal matching funds. If they officially dropped out, they would not be able to raise money for the office, nor receive any federal matching campaign funds. These funds can be used to pay any campaign debts, retain/pay staff (e.g., future cronies), and can be carried over for future campaigns.

          As a bonus, the parties allow you to keep you delegates if a candidate doesn't officially drop out, so they get more influence on the party planks.

      • I know what you mean, and you're technically right, but the only way we get a contested convention at that point is that all the delegates for people who dropped out still try to deny the race to someone who has 8 times the number of delegates that the next closest candidate has, and is pushed off by someone who, at this point, has fewer delegates than Rubio who dropped out 2 months ago.

        Once Cruz dropped out the die was cast. There's no way that Kasich could soldier on and claim any kind of legitimacy. At

    • by Ogive17 ( 691899 )
      If Kasich had dropped out earlier, maybe Cruz could have won more delegates.

      It's good that Kasich stopped Cruz, the far more dangerous candidate.
      • I doubt there is a whole lot of crossover between the semi-moderate Kasich (accepted Obamacare-funded expansion to Medicaid, told the more conservative state assembly in Ohio to stuff it on their "reforms" to education, tried to raise fees and taxes on oil and gas extraction in order to pay for essential services) and the ultra-conservative Cruz. Just about the only two things they are in lock-step on is abortion / defunding Planned Parenthood, and not being Trump.

        • by Ogive17 ( 691899 )
          "not being Trump"

          I do not disagree with you. Being a resident of Ohio, most people here do not understand the danger of Cruz. Many people I've spoken with who vote only Republican cannot stand Trump.. He's been vilified by everyone (rightly so) but Cruz has largely been ignored. I believe most Ohio voters for Kasich would have gone to Cruz. Winning Ohio delegates could have changed the momentum.

          All speculation, of course. Personally, my top 3 would have been Kasich, Bush, Trump.. sadly.
    • by kqs ( 1038910 )

      Cruz dropping out handed the race over.

      Cruz dropped out because anyone with math skills knew that the race was already over; Trump will have more than half the pledged delegates no matter what Cruz and Kasich do.

  • by NotInHere ( 3654617 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2016 @12:49PM (#52045667)

    And to linking to an alternate source. Kudos to the editors.

  • by ErichTheRed ( 39327 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2016 @12:53PM (#52045691)

    I guess the question now is whether Trump will be willing to tone down the rhetoric, make some comprehensive, real-world arguments on important stuff like foreign policy, and basically be more presidential. Also, he'll have to pick an amazing VP candidate and show himself as open to selecting people who can fill in the experience gaps he has.

    Like her or hate her, Clinton was the Secretary of State. Anyone actually watching the political side of this (debates, etc.) and not voting based on stump speeches and commercials can see there's an experience gap, and I think that'll be clear in a general election debate unless Trump does some serious studying between now and then.

    All in all, a fun political season is coming. You've got the establishment that wants things as-is, angry workers who have no jobs because they've been offshored, outsourced or automated, angry conservatives who want smaller government, and angry liberals from the Sanders camp who want more. Personally, I'd be amazed if Trump could pull off a trade war with the rest of the world. Coming from the Rust Belt, it would be great to see factories running 3 shifts of thousands of workers again, but I doubt that can be pulled off.

    • Trump's problems are obvious at this point. If he tones down the rhetoric, starts talking like someone seriously interested in the White House, he risks undermining what has been his core constituencies to this point. It's a catch-22, because if he can't convince enough people he was just foolin' around a little bit, and isn't as absurd as he played up at being, and yet still starts to lose support in his base, then his chances of winning go from rather low to all but impossible.

      • by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) * on Wednesday May 04, 2016 @02:13PM (#52046683)

        Nah, Trump will pivot towards the center so fast his hair will leave an afterimage, like the Picard Maneuver. Not only will nobody care (because the cult of personality has taken over at this point), even if they did care, what are they gonna do -- vote for Hillary instead?!

        • even if they did care, what are they gonna do -- vote for Hillary instead?!

          Exactly this! Trump knows now he can just middle finger all the folks that bought the outlandish act. He's now the GOP guy and there's nothing that can be done about it. The guy is so all over the place I wouldn't put it past him to just start saying crap like, "Oh, wal!l? Nah, that's just a good idea but we're not really going to do that." In this guy's mind all those promises made are gone since that phase of the election is over, then only thing he needs to do is promise his way to a Clinton defeat,

    • by cant_get_a_good_nick ( 172131 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2016 @01:10PM (#52045861)

      Trump has never served in the armed forces or in any sort of elected capacity. He seems to think government consists of two people at a table dealmaking all day. He'll be very surprised how the world works if elected (that last part made me shudder)

      Hillary was also a Senator. She was not just appointed, but ran an election and ran an office.

      Coming from the Rust Belt, it would be great to see factories running 3 shifts of thousands of workers again, but I doubt that can be pulled off.

      Even China is shrinking their manufacturing worker rolls. Anyone that wants to use manufacturing jobs as a step to a great economy is delusional at this point. The jobs were great, and it's a great idea, if the world would just comply and shift back to the 1970s. You're seeking a rise to greatness for buggy whips and horse collar manufacturers.

    • by khasim ( 1285 )

      I guess the question now is whether Trump will be willing to tone down the rhetoric, make some comprehensive, real-world arguments on important stuff like foreign policy, and basically be more presidential.

      Or go the opposite route.

      Imagine their first debate. Clinton makes a statement. Trump's rebuttal is that he pulls some pages out of his pocket and starts reading, what he claims, is one of her speeches to Wall Street.

      It wouldn't even matter if it was real or something his people found on the Internet. Alt

    • Like her or hate her, Clinton was the Secretary of State.

      So? If her tenure there is characterized by a string of terrible mis-steps, embarrassments and deaths, and her demonstrably lying about them even as she also deletes half of her official records while illegally running all her official correspondence through a home computer and turning none of it over to State's archivists as she left office, as required ... is her tenure in that office supposed to be an example of "experience" that makes her a better candidate for an even more sensitive job?

  • We are now one step closer to the future prophesied by Judge in the Book of Idiocracy. Exciting times.
  • by NotDrWho ( 3543773 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2016 @12:53PM (#52045703)

    He and Bernie Sanders are the only ones even CLAIMING they'll take on H1-B's, outsourcing, and big business. Is it likely that Trump will actually follow through with this? Nope. Is it likely that he's going to represent the same interests of his rich business friends just like ever other politician? Yep.

    But is there any other choice that's even POSSIBLY going to stand up for the little guy? Not on the Republican side.

    • "He and Bernie Sanders are the only ones even CLAIMING they'll take on H1-B's, outsourcing, and big business. Is it likely that Trump will actually follow through with this? Nope. Is it likely that he's going to represent the same interests of his rich business friends just like ever other politician? Yep."

      H-1B is one of those things policy makers can't seem to wrap their heads around. Businesses are funneling tons of lobbying resources basically begging Congress to let them import as many workers as they w

    • I'ts not H1B, its not outsourcing, it's not even globalization. It's capitalism

      The secret about capitalism that people don't think about - it REQUIRES growth. As people/companies engage in "creative destruction" something must be built to compensate. But what if the economy isn't growing? what if it's just satiated? You still have the destruction, and you still have the cost-cutting. Do you want to have your cost cutting as H1Bs? Or as prison labor? or as call centers in India? it's all just symptoms

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by khallow ( 566160 )

        I'ts not H1B, its not outsourcing, it's not even globalization. It's capitalism

        No. It's a failed response to globalization. We'll see this in your next paragraph.

        The secret about capitalism that people don't think about - it REQUIRES growth. As people/companies engage in "creative destruction" something must be built to compensate. But what if the economy isn't growing? what if it's just satiated? You still have the destruction, and you still have the cost-cutting. Do you want to have your cost cutting as H1Bs? Or as prison labor? or as call centers in India? it's all just symptoms of the same root need.

        While it isn't true that capitalism requires growth, let's consider the problem at face value. You imply that there isn't growth and hence, capitalism is the problem. But why isn't there growth? "it's just satiated".

        But do we have satiation? Is every need of humanity being met? Are we living as long and as healthy as we want to? Do we have all the stuff we want? Do we have the opportunities or the society we want? No, we d

  • by TheMadTopher ( 1020341 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2016 @12:54PM (#52045719)
    You're our only hope.

    Too bad his chances at this point aren't much bigger than a womp rat.
  • Scary shit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Martin S. ( 98249 ) <Martin.Spamer@ g m a i l.com> on Wednesday May 04, 2016 @12:58PM (#52045771) Homepage Journal

    ANATOMY OF FASCISM - Robert Paxton

    "Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."

    The Five Stages of Fascism
    1) Intellectual exploration, where disillusionment with popular democracy manifests itself in discussions of lost national vigor
    2) Rooting, where a fascist movement, aided by political deadlock and polarization, becomes a player on the national stage
    3) Arrival to power, where conservatives seeking to control rising leftist opposition invite the movement to share power
    4) Exercise of power, where the movement and its charismatic leader control the state in balance with state institutions such as the police and traditional elites such as the clergy and business magnates.
    5) Radicalization or entropy, where the state either becomes increasingly radical, as did Nazi Germany, or slips into traditional authoritarian rule, as did Fascist Italy.

    You can read the full thing here

    https://libcom.org/files/Rober... [libcom.org]

  • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2016 @01:00PM (#52045787)
    It's rather ironic that I am currently reading Turtledove's Southern Victory series and I am currently on the book Blood and Iron that deals in part on the rise of the Freedom Party in the South. I feel almost like I am watching a true life version of the Freedom Party rise to power with Trump. A populist candidate spewing hatred in order to rile up an angry, frustrated, and poorly educated support base tends to not end very well.
  • This just supports the theory Kasich was in it only to suck off some points from the other candidates like Cruz, in exchange for a vp position from Trump. All the Rubio-Kasich deal was BS all along.

  • by JustNiz ( 692889 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2016 @01:16PM (#52045955)

    I just hope Trump doesn't now announce Cruz or Fiorina as his running mate.

  • Please be courteous and turn the lights out.
  • Trump/Sanders 2016? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DarthVain ( 724186 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2016 @01:36PM (#52046183)

    It is crazy I know, but would you put it past Trump?

  • what's worse (Score:4, Insightful)

    by steak ( 145650 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2016 @02:00PM (#52046505) Homepage Journal

    not voting for trump and getting hillary, or voting for trump and getting trump?

  • by jensend ( 71114 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2016 @03:14PM (#52047477)

    We've known since at least the 1700s that first-past-the-post plurality voting is a totally broken system. It's irresponsible to conduct any election with more than two alternatives in this fashion.

    In many places, especially early in the election cycle, Trump would have lost any single head-to-head matchup. But his opponents were always split, and plurality voting is tremendously vulnerable to this kind of problem.

    Process matters. If our elections were conducted using a Condorcet method [wikipedia.org] like Ranked Pairs, Maximum Majority, or Schulze, we would have had less irrationality and extremism from both parties throughout the years, and the existing parties would not have become so entrenched.

    Here's a popular-audience explanation by a couple of Nobel winners [nyti.ms].

  • by Daetrin ( 576516 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2016 @04:31PM (#52048307)
    Cruz and Kasich (and the others while they were still in) were playing iterative rounds of something resembling the Prisoner's Dilemma. Choosing to stay in the race increased their odds of being the nominee by a large factor _if_ there was a contested convention. However staying in the race, and thus dividing the non-Trump votes, also increased the odds that Trump would win outright and there _wouldn't_ be a contested convention.

    If one of them had decided to drop out much earlier the other one might have been able to stop Trump from getting enough votes to lock in the nomination and steal it away from him at the convention. (This makes it slightly different from regular Prisoner's Dilemma in that cooperating involves the two players choosing different actions.) Given that going by the number of delegates the one who probably should have dropped out early was Kasich, it's kind of pathetic that he drug his heels long enough to quit _right_ after Cruz. Good job you two! Your arrogant electoral mutual suicide pact has all but guaranteed a Trump nomination!

    (I wonder if there were any backroom negotiations going on to try and convince Kasich to drop out in exchange for a vice presidential slot? That's not something that's usually done but this was a pretty unusual case.)
  • by JustAnotherOldGuy ( 4145623 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2016 @04:35PM (#52048343)

    The Beginning Of The End.

    I'm going to make a comment and my comment will be so great, unlike those other comments which are awful. When you see my comment you'll know how great it is, it'll be so great that you'll actually get tired of how great it is. And my comment will win. It'll win and win and win. It'll win so much you'll get tired of it winning, that's how much it'll win and how great it will be. And no one else will have comments as great as my, I guarantee it, there is no problem with my comments, everyone knows that and they agree that my comments are great. I'll build a wall around my comments and I'll make Slashdot pay for it, you'll see. And it'll be a great comment, a beautiful comment, a comment like no other comment before it. And there will be a Reply button in my comment, a big, beautiful Reply button. And those who want to reply can do so after they've been vetted. Nobody builds Reply buttons like me. Trust me, my comment will be great and it will win.

  • by irrational_design ( 1895848 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2016 @07:04PM (#52049425)

    My only question is, should I write in "Bernard Sanders" or "Bernie Sanders" on my ballot?

Lend money to a bad debtor and he will hate you.

Working...