Joe Scarborough says Rubio needs to drop out of the race

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/03/06/marco-rubio-gets-massacred/

It does seem hopeless for the "savior" of the Republican establishment. Adios Marco.
And don't bother to run for your Senate seat either. I doubt you could win it again.

He might could get reelected to his seat. Is it too late to join into that fray?

If he knows what's good for him, he'll get reelected and milk that cash cow for a long time. Forget POTUS, bubba.

I know many state workers will NEVER vote for him no matter what....

Jake92 wrote:

I know many state workers will NEVER vote for him no matter what....

Guess that establishment 'circling the wagons' around Marco didn't work out so well.....It's amazing that people like Kasich...Rubio....Romney and others only hope is that there's a convention with no candidate receiving enough delegates to secure the nomination.. Cruz doesn't want that because other than Trump he's the most hated by the establishment....Yeah...that's exactly what the fed up voters want a brokered convention with backroom deals and politics as usual to prop up a candidate that will get slaughtered in the general election....Sadly...Ole'Mitt still has thoughts that the republicans will draft him as the 'savior' and he'll ride in on his white horse and save the party----what a fool he is and his recent statements only prove him out to be a truly failed candidate....Further it's amazing that in 2012 when Donald Trump endorsed Romney.....Mitt was on record saying that Trump was a better businessman and would be counted on for his expertise in that field....Politics is really a dirty business.....

I have a feeling that Trump didn't mean it the other night when he pledged to support whoever the Republican nominee is. If they have a brokered convention and nominate someone else, he will say that he had the most votes going in and he is the only real nominee of the party. I can't see the Donald giving in to anyone who gets less votes than him.
And he really should not have to. The conventions should nominate the person with the most votes, no matter who they are.
Superdelegates shouldn't even be a real thing.

Eddard wrote:

I have a feeling that Trump didn't mean it the other night when he pledged to support whoever the Republican nominee is. If they have a brokered convention and nominate someone else, he will say that he had the most votes going in and he is the only real nominee of the party. I can't see the Donald giving in to anyone who gets less votes than him.
And he really should not have to. The conventions should nominate the person with the most votes, no matter who they are.
Superdelegates shouldn't even be a real thing.

Except it's the 'superdelegates' that were committed to pathetic candidate hrc before the first votes had been cast...democrats shouldn't lecture about how screwed up the gop process is when all they need to do is look at their own process....

I don't doubt both parties are screwed up. There should be no superdelegates at all, but if you check it out the Republicans have them too. They just call them another name and they aren't pledged yet. I hope you don't think they'll go to the Trumpster at the convention though. They'll go to whoever the GOP wants to be the nominee.

She's not really a pathetic candidate btw. Even without those delegates she's still in first place for the Democratic nomination. I wouldn't mind being that pathetic myself.

I'm going to correct what I just posted because I was wrong. Yes, there are "superdelegate" types that vote at the Republican convention but there are only 3 from each state and they are bound to vote for whoever their state selected, at least on the first ballot.

So, the Republicans are more fair then the Dems in that.
However, the Dems have no "winner take all" states in their primaries. Each candidate gets a percentage of the state's delegates according to the popular vote.
I think the Dems are more fair when you consider that.

Eddard wrote:

I'm going to correct what I just posted because I was wrong. Yes, there are "superdelegate" types that vote at the Republican convention but there are only 3 from each state and they are bound to vote for whoever their state selected, at least on the first ballot.

So, the Republicans are more fair then the Dems in that.
However, the Dems have no "winner take all" states in their primaries. Each candidate gets a percentage of the state's delegates according to the popular vote.
I think the Dems are more fair when you consider that.

And yet Bernie 'wins' a state and comes out with less delegates than hrc....in the democrat world guess that would be 'fair'...ie....N.H....Michigan....and they are really hiding the Iowa results for some reason--guess they'll wait until it doesn't really matter....Again....this deck has been stacked so much in the favor of hrc and yet she still hasn't closed the deal yet....In Michigan [democrat voters only] 80% voted for Bernie on the trust issue....this was based on exit poll numbers...that's not good for hrc....