Geoffrey Britain Says:
May 4th, 2016 at 5:17 pm

Only Kasich knows the why of it. But annoying people don’t need a reason to be annoying, it is after all, what they do… almost as if its their reason for existing. Perhaps its a low grade version of sociopathy. As one gets the distinct impression that some people enjoy annoying other people.

You get a gold star for that one. Some people do. They not only enjoy it, but imagine it as some kind of right. It establishes their relevance in “the community” and therefore whatever existential importance they imagine they might have. That is why for the type, like liberals, it is always inclusion this or inclusion that. It is how they know they exist.

Regardless of Kasich’s motivations, the effect has been that his continued candidacy held open a “choice” (or wishful thinking) far longer than it should have. Non-Trump voters and funders failed to make a clear decision between the two, then viable, choices.

It left open the ability of conservative “leaders” to continue to give half hearted support to Cruz.

This was critical when Trump was still winning by <35% pluralities, and still seen by many as a sure "loser" for the general election (the flipside to the momentum from folks who want to pick the "winner" we witnessed in IN).

The dynamics would have been very different, if Kasich quit shortly after winning Ohio when it was very clear he had no path.

I'd like to think that Cruz could have staved off the slide that Trump's NY win precipitated, as he would have more states and delegates in his column.

But, that would be assuming that people wouldn't succumb to wanting to be on the "winning" side, and forego what they claim is important to them.

Maybe we'd have seen the same slide in an earlier state, if people were forced to make an earlier decision… Cruz or Trump.

As I’ve said before, we aren’t mind-readers and will never know Kasich’s reasons. It doesn’t matter.
What matters is that it had the same EFFECT as if he did it intentionally.

Personally, I don’t think you get to that level of politics without being aware of the angles.

Wrong analogy. Think speed-skating. In those multi-competitor events, the pack in the front can wipe each other out and the last-place guy can win. In a two-man race it’s almost impossible.

Like I said, I’m not thinking that way, but I bet that Kasich was.

“What are my chances?”
“Not good.”
“You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?”
“I’d say more like one out of a million.”
“So you’re telling me there’s a chance. YEAH!”

It doesn’t play any other way.”

Naw, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.