Does the fact that John Kasich won Ohio mean anything?
So you probably know by now that John Kasich won Ohio. He thinks this is a big deal. Here’s an excerpt of his victory speech. The full speech in all its glory is at the bottom of the post.
According to USA Today,
Donald Trump easily won Florida on Tuesday but lost Ohio to John Kasich, setting up the prospect of a four-month, drawn-out, delegate-by-delegate struggle for the Republican presidential nomination.
Really? That statement makes it seem like there will be a struggle for all the candidates to win. Look at the chart on Real Clear Politics and you’ll see that Trump has over half the delegates he needs to win. (For the record, I voted against Trump in my state’s primary but facts are facts.) Ted Cruz is over 200 delegates behind Trump.
Kasich, on the other hand, has fewer delegates than Marco Rubio, and Rubio admitted defeat and dropped out of the race. Yet Kasich somehow acts like winning his home state automatically proves he will be a nominee. Losing Ohio would have forced Kasich to admit he couldn’t win, but winning didn’t prove that he could win. Even if he gets all Rubio’s delegates, he would barely have enough to outnumber Cruz’s delegates.
How does a man who has never won any victories outside his own state think that he is suddenly going to surpass Cruz and Trump?
Does anyone think Kasich is any less egomaniacal than any other candidate—including Donald Trump!?
Notice that in this interview most of his interactions were kept off camera.
Given the way Kasich treated another reporter as insane for suggesting that it would be difficult for him to win the White House, I suspect that the full footage would again show Kasich in full delusional mode.
Frankly, I will be surprised if Kasich wins another state. But if I am wrong and he has another victory or two, then maybe he can ensure that we have a brokered convention. And I suspect he has been promised the nomination by the Republican establishment if that happens.