Originally Posted by Chas'88

And let us all collectively recall that in Back to the Future 2, the "nightmare world" aka the "Potterville" of that film, aka the alternate 1985 of "Biff's World" was in fact BASED on Donald Trump (taken to an extreme).

Little did we know that we'd live to see Donald himself take that extreme leap himself--perhaps we should have known he would all along.

Wow! Back to the Future is now an old movie, but it still holds up very well. I doubt that many people saw Biff Tannen as the Donald Trump of the time... but inheriting big money is about the luckiest thing one could do. Did we really know "the Donald" thirty years ago?

The Right now has its Frankenstein monster, possibly the biggest egoist and egotist ever, someone incapable of seeing how loathed he can be while he sees himself as the greatest personality that ever existed. For all the narcissism there is no real greatness. Most successful businessmen eschew the limelight except as self-parody. There is no Great Soul (the meaning of the Mahatma title of Mohandas Gandhi). Donald Trump is so petty that you can probably find some homeless ex-con with more substance than he.

The biggest legacy of Donald Trump will be his ludicrous run for President of the United States. Sure, there was a "Trump University", but nobody is going to compare that to Carnegie-Mellon University or Vanderbilt University, let alone Stanford University. Should there be a well-endowed university named after Bill Gates, Warren Buffett or T. Boone Pickens... it could be some place worthy of going if one has SAT scores above 700.
Howard Hughes has a great medical research facility endowed by him. Rockefeller and Ford have big foundations.

The only plutocrats whose non-business activities are truly destructive are the Koch brothers -- and then only in politics, to wit their attempted hostile takeover of the American political system. Trump is too much of a piker for that. But he has a more gaudy personality.

I have read a book on the legitimate high achievers in many activities (Outliers, by Malcolm Gladwell). Gladwell recognizes that the high achievers in a non-trivial activity as a rule start with high aptitude and find ways to parlay that aptitude into high achievement through great early effort. It takes roughly 10,000 hours of dedicated effort to become a concert violinist or a major-league hockey player. That is the effort needed to achieve in such professions as law and medicine or in academia of any kind.

With a concert violinist, the ones who become the highly-renowned soloists or the violins of renowned orchestras the 10,000 hours of preparation end in the Conservatory. One can be good enough to teach the German equivalent of K-12 education as a school orchestra teacher after about 2000 hours of preparation. 8000? You might be a violinist in a pit orchestra in a musical theater. But think of what 10,000 hours of practice and contests means. The violinists who got to that level were playing a violin in practice for about 30 hours a week while in their mid-teens. Figure that that along with about 30 hours a week in non-musical schooling lives little time for participation in sports, tooling around in cars, watching movies or TV, or dating.

There are no 'naturals' at anything non-trivial. To be sure, employers at a certain level can train someone to handle cash, wait tables, or work at an machine-paced assembly line after that person has never done anything remarkable. You know that person: the one in your high-school yearbook who has no activities after his or her name, or maybe something that takes little effort. That is the waitress at a chain diner, the cashier-checker at a box store, or the teller at a bank can learn the theatrical smile that conceals the misery of economic hardships, bad dates, and suspect relationships at home. That is the fellow who resembles the Tramp character from Modern Times whose job is to tighten the same screw on the same assembly for eight hours a day plus overtime if needed, the highlights of whose life are all banalities, and whose 'song of life' is something like "Sixteen Tons" or "Take This Job and Shove It". (Sorry -- I don't know the female expression of alienation in the workplace). It's not the Waldstein Sonata, the Goldberg Variations, or a full opera, all of which take time to fully appreciate.

Anyone can be a dilettante. Nobody is very good at it. After one becomes a master of an art, a sport, or a profession one might become so proficient at what one does that it is easy to perform at a consistently-high level. But it takes dedication and sacrifice to get to that level.

Donald Trump has started many ventures, few of which have turned out spectacularly well. He is not Bill Gates, Roy Kroc, John D. Rockefeller, or T. Boone Pickens at anything. He has put too much emphasis on himself and his ego to achieve anything beyond superficiality. For most of his adult life he has been a joke to the literati.

Becoming a leader with roughly the same power as Imperator Romanus or Deutscher Kaiser is no joke. Unlike his failed enterprises in business (I have never had Trump Vodka or a Trump Steak) the consequences for failure as President of the United States are catastrophic. Indeed this is a 4T, the time when national catastrophe is but one moral failing, military blunder, or perverse decision away. The typical President of the United States has been a trained lawyer or at the least (Harry Truman or LBJ) a career politician who excelled at every level. Eisenhower at the least had much political activity lobbying Congress for appropriations when (in the 1930s) everything but military preparedness seemed more important, and became a de facto diplomat between the British and American armed forces.

We have seen people with none of the usual preparation for high political office seek the Presidency -- Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, Jesse Jackson, and Ross Perot -- seek the Presidency. Perot was the most convincing of the lot. This year we had much attention given to Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson, people who had no more experience in high office than Socks.

I wish that I could say that Donald Trump's quest for the Presidency would quickly show to him what Michael Jordan's effort to play major-league baseball was: a failure. But failing to make the major leagues in a sport after succeeding elsewhere is simply a demonstration of the incompatibility between baseball and basketball. I wish that he had tried something with slighter consequences for failure. Who knows? He might have had one hit with a simple tune and lyrics.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Heck, on paper I'm GOP (at least that's my most recent registration) and even I will likely vote for the Dem this November. It would take a miracle for that not to happen (and I'm not merely referring to anyone besides Trump from the GOP side).

I've voted for a "Yankee Republican" or two in my lifetime. However, I think they were all taken out in the woods and shot in the head by their Party some time ago.

Here is someone who gets it -

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/04/i-vot...ommentary.html

I voted for Trump to destroy the GOP
Why the GOP must die

We have a very serious political problem in this country. Our system of government works best when it is balanced between roughly equal political parties, one on the center-right and the other on the center-left.

Unfortunately, what we have is a centrist Democratic Party and a far-right Republican Party. Therefore, the system is out of balance, creating gridlock even as the public cries out for action on serious problems such as our deteriorating public infrastructure, epitomized by that in Flint, Michigan.

I believe that Republicans made a deal with the devil in 2009 when they embraced the Tea Party, a populist group who were just mad as hell and weren't going to take it anymore. In Congress, the Tea Party has been aggressive in destroying all the norms that made it work for more than 200 years.

The government was shut down, increases in the debt limit are constantly at risk, nominations to even the most minor administration positions are blocked and, now, the president has been denied the opportunity, which is his right under the Constitution, to name a new justice to the Supreme Court.

Flush with such "victories," extremists of all shapes and sizes were attracted to the Tea Party ranks—Christian religious fanatics, gun nuts, anti-gay bigots, nativists opposed to all nonwhite immigrants, secessionists, conspiracy theorists and, of course, racists.

What binds them together is hatred. Hatred of government, yes, but also hatred of liberals, minorities, homosexuals, non-fundamentalist Christians, environmentalists, feminists, and many other groups.

Donald Trump, to his credit, figured this out instinctively and pandered to it brilliantly. He channeled the anger and hatred of many whites on the fringes of the economy and society who blame "others" for stagnant wages and other real problems that Republican gridlock in Washington has prevented legislative action on.

Trump understood that these people didn't so much want solutions to these problems as someone in power to acknowledge their existence and give voice to their frustrations.

Nature abhors a vacuum and also abhors gridlock. Gridlock, in turns, creates fertile soil for fascism—the simplistic desire to get stuff done, much of which does need to get done—regardless of the political cost.

Trump taps into this desire very, very well with his long and carefully developed persona as a brilliant businessman who gets things done. He was perfectly positioned to capitalize on the true populist nature of the Tea Party, which cannot be easily characterized as either right or left in terms of policy.

Trump offers them a mishmash of left and right policies—attacks on the war in Iraq and promises of new public infrastructure for the left along with right-wing favorites such as big tax cuts and a wall across the Mexican border.

Trump's opponents never figured him out and now it is too late as he is poised to win the Republican nomination. Many in the Republican establishment are horrified, fearing that he will lead the party to a historic defeat in November. I agree with their fears and that is why I voted for Trump in my state's primary on Super Tuesday.

I believe that only when the GOP suffers a massive defeat will it purge itself of the crazies and forces of intolerance that have taken control of it. Then, and only then, can the GOP become a center-right governing party that deserves to occupy the White House.

The death of today's Republican Party is, therefore, necessary to its survival, in my opinion. And Donald Trump can make it happen, which is why I voted for him.

Clinton? Sanders? - a sideshow.

The only thing relevant to Clinton v. Sanders is electability in the general. That is the only thing worthy of argument; the rest is just bullshXt naval gazing.

If you live in a state where you can crossover in the primary, you're vote for Trump will likely do more for what you want than your vote for either Bernie or Hillary. And yea, I know its a YUGE risk of actually winding up with the narcissist in the WH. Your call.

Originally Posted by playwrite

... Democracy = you get exactly what you deserve.

This is a message lost on the majority in this age of the gladiator. They don't care about the aftermath; only the victory. Given a choice between losing today and dying next week, many will chose option 2 assuming that next week will never arrive.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I believe my efforts are notable and you should stop manipulating me by inserting your views and stop approaching me as if I am not a well established US taxpayer. I understand that you spent the bulk of your time here representing the views of young left-wing voters and challenging the views of immature taxpayers during the Bush years. I don't represent either one of them. The police called me. The police have the names and numbers of local business property owners in their system. The police can't break into a privately owned building without a warrant unless there is an obvious sign of criminal activity taking place or a sign of criminal activity having taken place within the property. BTW, I don't live in Minneapolis. I have no business property in Minneapolis. Minneapolis has a government with elected people in place to address the issue you brought up with me about the use of its police force to respond to private security systems and private alarms.

You're working overtime to misunderstand. The mechanics of the process are not important, and that includes your specific locality. What does matter is the line between the served and those serving ... or at least paying others to serve. Minnesota is less pro-business than Virginia, but there is still a bias to assist business and hand the bill to the worker bees. The same happens at the Federal level with preference for unearned income over earned income. After all, the rules are made by the capitalists.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Here is someone who gets it -

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/04/i-vot...ommentary.html



Clinton? Sanders? - a sideshow.

The only thing relevant to Clinton v. Sanders is electability in the general. That is the only thing worthy of argument; the rest is just bullshXt naval gazing.

If you live in a state where you can crossover in the primary, you're vote for Trump will likely do more for what you want than your vote for either Bernie or Hillary. And yea, I know its a YUGE risk of actually winding up with the narcissist in the WH. Your call.

No, I am not willing to take a YUGE risk. I will vote #NeverTrump in the primary. As for the general you already know my thoughts.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Hillary, as you see in her speech I posted. Very clear and coherent...

Both Clintons have an uncanny ability to say just the right thing, whether they actually mean it or not. I have to see actions not words, and Hillary hasn't impressed me at that level so far.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

This is a message lost on the majority in this age of the gladiator. They don't care about the aftermath; only the victory. Given a choice between losing today and dying next week, many will chose option 2 assuming that next week will never arrive.

Yea, but this is the burning question in this election today!

Did Ted Cruz eat a booger on live TV last night???

Warning! This is not for the faint of heart!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuHtL4RDqv4

Originally Posted by playwrite

Yea, but this is the burning question in this election today!

Did Ted Cruz eat a booger on live TV last night???

I saw that reading "Winners and Losers" of last night's debate.... They suggested some other non-bodily things. What choice did he have? I'm not sure if they have tissue up at the podium? How does it look to the audience if he takes his shoulder/arm/wrist to wipe whatever it is away?

Originally Posted by playwrite

I've voted for a "Yankee Republican" or two in my lifetime. However, I think they were all taken out in the woods and shot in the head by their Party some time ago.

Nah, they are all "third way" conserva-Dems, now, like the ones you suck up to.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

They don't care about the aftermath; only the victory.

Sounds like the Clinton supporters. They don't care that she is a corporate tool they just want "their side" to win because it is "her turn".

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

You're working overtime to misunderstand. The mechanics of the process are not important, and that includes your specific locality. What does matter is the line between the served and those serving ... or at least paying others to serve. Minnesota is less pro-business than Virginia, but there is still a bias to assist business and hand the bill to the worker bees. The same happens at the Federal level with preference for unearned income over earned income. After all, the rules are made by the capitalists.

The rules aren't being made by capitalists. The rules are being made by elected officials at the government level. Minnesota is pro business as it relates to keeping the business that it currently has in place and keeping its tax dollars flowing to the government of the State of Minnesota. That's what less pro business states like Minnesota have to do to stay in business and keep state dollars flowing, so to speak. The state and local government spent 400-500 million to keep the Vikings located in Minneapolis. The owner is a New York billionaire who was going to build one himself in a northern suburb until the government rejected his plan for the new stadium.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The rules aren't being made by capitalists. The rules are being made by elected officials at the government level. Minnesota is pro business as it relates to keeping the business that it currently has in place and keeping its tax dollars flowing to the government of the State of Minnesota. That's what less pro business states like Minnesota have to do to stay in business and keep state dollars flowing, so to speak. The state and local government spent 400-500 million to keep the Vikings located in Minneapolis. The owner is a New York billionaire who was going to build one himself in a northern suburb until the government rejected his plan for the new stadium.

So you agree then. The politicians are sock puppets, doing what all good sock puppets do. They play the tunes and sing the songs they're assigned.

Originally Posted by Odin

Sounds like the Clinton supporters. They don't care that she is a corporate tool they just want "their side" to win because it is "her turn".

No, they just don't want a person in the White House who wants to cut taxes further for the rich and cut programs for the working class and poor, denies global warming, tries to repeal ACA and Roe versus Wade, and everything else that is in the current GOP toolbox that progressives hate.

Yes, as a woman, I get a kick out of the possibility of finally seeing a woman in the White House. As a Jew, I feel the same way about a prospect of a "member of my Tribe" in the White House. However, I believe that a generic white Protestant male who had the same policies as either Clinton or Sanders would be a huge improvement over a Republican.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Both Clintons have an uncanny ability to say just the right thing, whether they actually mean it or not. I have to see actions not words, and Hillary hasn't impressed me at that level so far.

Yes, I understand, but your statement was:

Hillary is playing the politics of the past, Trump is trying to be the Fascist future, and poor Bernie is trying to be the decent future. Hillary is playing to the women and minorities that may get her elected, but also drive voters to Trump by the droves. Bernie has a message similar to Trump, but one with compassion and focus on getting more for the not-1%. I don't see anyone trying both at once and actually getting a coherent message out there.

Your statement was not about Hillary's actions, but about what she's "playing" and "playing to" and about "getting a coherent message out there." Hillary is "trying both at once," meaning "focus on getting more for the not-1%" and "playing to the women and minorities" by "actually getting a coherent message out there," as demonstrated in her speech.

She has a voting record, a record of accomplishments as First Lady and Secretary of State. It's pretty good regarding these objectives of "focus on getting more for the not-1%" and helping "the women and minorities"

The death of Scalia changes everything. We can't afford the luxury of a perfect Democratic nominee anymore. We need to vote strategically. We need to bear in mind who Americans are (hint: they voted for Bush in 2004).

Clinton vs. Trump/Bush/generic




273-259

LATEST GENERAL ELECTION STATE POLLS according to wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statew...election,_2016
PLUS SMALL SAFE STATES NOT POLLED YET

state,party leading,electoral votes, percentage Dem/Rep
AL REP 9
AK REP 3 44 49
AZ REP 11 42 44
AR REP 6 38 47
CA DEM 55 53 35
CO REP 9 37 48
CT DEM 7 47 40
DE DEM 3
DC DEM 3
FL REP 29 44 46
GA REP 16 41 50
HI DEM 4
ID REP 4 33 50
IL DEM 20 51 33
IN REP 11
IA TIE 6 42 42
KS REP 6 36 46
KY DEM 8 45 42
LA REP 5 39 47
ME DEM 4 55 32
MD DEM 10 52 35
MA DEM 11 64 27
MI DEM 16 44 39
MN DEM 10 43 38
MS REP 6 42 47
MO REP 10 39 48
MT REP 3 30 51
NB REP 5
NV DEM 6 48 42
NH DEM 4 45 40
NJ DEM 14 53 33
NM DEM 5 50 36
NY DEM 29 57 32
NC DEM 15 47 41
ND REP 3
OH REP 18 42 44
OK REP 7 33 67
OR DEM 7 51 36
PA REP 20 43 45
RI DEM 4
SC REP 9 42 47
SD REP 3
TN REP 11
TX REP 38 42 50
UT REP 6 28 33
VA DEM 13 52 35
WA DEM 12 45 37
WV REP 5 30 53
WI DEM 10 47 38
WY REP 3 31 58

Well, Webb won't be voting for Hillary:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...clinton-220255

I heard the Republican Party might split because of Donald Trump. Do you think that's gonna happen, and who would take which side?

These are the latest polls involving Donald Trump. I do not do weighted averages at this point because polls can show sudden changes in the basic reality. Considering the erratic behavior of Donald Trump, such is apt. (Revision: this post is edited to show a poll by Marist showing both Clinton and Sanders winning by huge margins in Michigan. I was thinking of replacing the post... but I understand that one pollster has been polling Ohio and another is polling Pennsylvania this weekend, so I will not show a new set of polls until then). Someone commented on this poll, so it would be awkward to move the post).

Here are the latest polls. I do not average unless I have two credible polls within two weeks. A poll in Colorado put Hillary Clinton ahead 49-39 in Colorado. No Democrat is going to win Colorado by 10% unless the Republican nominee is as much a disaster as Barry Goldwater.

The polls for which I have doubts are those that show Hillary Clinton when she was about to get grilled for Benghazi and the private server, the state most notable for such being Pennsylvania. I also see no reasonable chance for Hillary Clinton being tied with Donald Trump in Kentucky, in view of a poll that shows her being crushed in West Virginia.


Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump



Bernie Sanders vs. Donald Trump



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or someone leading with less than 40%

I'm still amazed that you can do all those colors in those maps. I can't find any way to make those from the election atlas site.

I don't know where you polls come from either. But I am sure Nevada is not going to go for Trump.

That great expression of American journalism at its sleaziest, the National Enquirer practically endorses Donald Trump. Yes, you know that rag -- a favorite paper for adults proud of their ability to read but who have no clue that the ability to read is nothing special.

I'm guessing that readers of that questionable piece of journalistic schlock fit the pattern of Trump voters: people devoid of the knack for reading between the lines of what they read, people who can think at the level of bumper-sticker slogans.

As I see it, the barely-literate are the people most likely to fall for totalitarian causes -- Bolshevism in Russia, Ku Kluxism in America, Nazism in Germany, and Ba'athism in the Middle East.

Clinton vs Cruz
289-228
(latest polls posted to wikipedia)
(for some states not polled recently, a generic Republican (Bush) was used, or 2012 results were used)

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Wow! Back to the Future is now an old movie, but it still holds up very well. I doubt that many people saw Biff Tannen as the Donald Trump of the time... but inheriting big money is about the luckiest thing one could do. Did we really know "the Donald" thirty years ago?

The Right now has its Frankenstein monster, possibly the biggest egoist and egotist ever, someone incapable of seeing how loathed he can be while he sees himself as the greatest personality that ever existed. For all the narcissism there is no real greatness. Most successful businessmen eschew the limelight except as self-parody. There is no Great Soul (the meaning of the Mahatma title of Mohandas Gandhi). Donald Trump is so petty that you can probably find some homeless ex-con with more substance than he.

The biggest legacy of Donald Trump will be his ludicrous run for President of the United States. Sure, there was a "Trump University", but nobody is going to compare that to Carnegie-Mellon University or Vanderbilt University, let alone Stanford University. Should there be a well-endowed university named after Bill Gates, Warren Buffett or T. Boone Pickens... it could be some place worthy of going if one has SAT scores above 700.
Howard Hughes has a great medical research facility endowed by him. Rockefeller and Ford have big foundations.

The only plutocrats whose non-business activities are truly destructive are the Koch brothers -- and then only in politics, to wit their attempted hostile takeover of the American political system. Trump is too much of a piker for that. But he has a more gaudy personality.

I have read a book on the legitimate high achievers in many activities (Outliers, by Malcolm Gladwell). Gladwell recognizes that the high achievers in a non-trivial activity as a rule start with high aptitude and find ways to parlay that aptitude into high achievement through great early effort. It takes roughly 10,000 hours of dedicated effort to become a concert violinist or a major-league hockey player. That is the effort needed to achieve in such professions as law and medicine or in academia of any kind.

With a concert violinist, the ones who become the highly-renowned soloists or the violins of renowned orchestras the 10,000 hours of preparation end in the Conservatory. One can be good enough to teach the German equivalent of K-12 education as a school orchestra teacher after about 2000 hours of preparation. 8000? You might be a violinist in a pit orchestra in a musical theater. But think of what 10,000 hours of practice and contests means. The violinists who got to that level were playing a violin in practice for about 30 hours a week while in their mid-teens. Figure that that along with about 30 hours a week in non-musical schooling lives little time for participation in sports, tooling around in cars, watching movies or TV, or dating.

There are no 'naturals' at anything non-trivial. To be sure, employers at a certain level can train someone to handle cash, wait tables, or work at an machine-paced assembly line after that person has never done anything remarkable. You know that person: the one in your high-school yearbook who has no activities after his or her name, or maybe something that takes little effort. That is the waitress at a chain diner, the cashier-checker at a box store, or the teller at a bank can learn the theatrical smile that conceals the misery of economic hardships, bad dates, and suspect relationships at home. That is the fellow who resembles the Tramp character from Modern Times whose job is to tighten the same screw on the same assembly for eight hours a day plus overtime if needed, the highlights of whose life are all banalities, and whose 'song of life' is something like "Sixteen Tons" or "Take This Job and Shove It". (Sorry -- I don't know the female expression of alienation in the workplace). It's not the Waldstein Sonata, the Goldberg Variations, or a full opera, all of which take time to fully appreciate.

Anyone can be a dilettante. Nobody is very good at it. After one becomes a master of an art, a sport, or a profession one might become so proficient at what one does that it is easy to perform at a consistently-high level. But it takes dedication and sacrifice to get to that level.

Donald Trump has started many ventures, few of which have turned out spectacularly well. He is not Bill Gates, Roy Kroc, John D. Rockefeller, or T. Boone Pickens at anything. He has put too much emphasis on himself and his ego to achieve anything beyond superficiality. For most of his adult life he has been a joke to the literati.

Becoming a leader with roughly the same power as Imperator Romanus or Deutscher Kaiser is no joke. Unlike his failed enterprises in business (I have never had Trump Vodka or a Trump Steak) the consequences for failure as President of the United States are catastrophic. Indeed this is a 4T, the time when national catastrophe is but one moral failing, military blunder, or perverse decision away. The typical President of the United States has been a trained lawyer or at the least (Harry Truman or LBJ) a career politician who excelled at every level. Eisenhower at the least had much political activity lobbying Congress for appropriations when (in the 1930s) everything but military preparedness seemed more important, and became a de facto diplomat between the British and American armed forces.

We have seen people with none of the usual preparation for high political office seek the Presidency -- Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, Jesse Jackson, and Ross Perot -- seek the Presidency. Perot was the most convincing of the lot. This year we had much attention given to Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson, people who had no more experience in high office than Socks.

I wish that I could say that Donald Trump's quest for the Presidency would quickly show to him what Michael Jordan's effort to play major-league baseball was: a failure. But failing to make the major leagues in a sport after succeeding elsewhere is simply a demonstration of the incompatibility between baseball and basketball. I wish that he had tried something with slighter consequences for failure. Who knows? He might have had one hit with a simple tune and lyrics.

It is a symptom of the poverty of this country's imagination and the imperviousness of our political system that the only two serious candidates who can crack the System are a moderately successful self-promoting businessman and an independent Senator who no one has taken seriously until his run for the White House. And the surviving Republican candidates? The top two are freshman Senators with the one "normal" governor way behind in the polls. And on the Democratic side, a former First Lady, a one term Senator and four year Secretary of State who is under criminal investigation over using an insecure private email server for State Department business.
Trump and Sanders are, unfortunately the only two candidates that seem capable of seriously questioning the underpinnings of a defence and foreign policy that events are showing that they have passed their use-by date. So when I see Trump, I see a man who at least won't try to steer the car of state with the steering lock on in whatever direction it is pointed with only the brake and gas pedal for control.

Utah is seemingly out of character when Donald Trump is the prospective nominee. He does have a lead over Hillary Clinton, but it is something like 37-35... which is practically useless.

If you saw Mitt Romney skewer Donald Trump (which follows the poll in question), you can see some of the problems. Bad business practices? Those offend every religious tradition that has some judgment of business ethics. Business failure? Truman failed as a haberdasher and sold out too quickly from an investment in oil exploration, and he turned into a fine President. But at the least Truman failed on his own with no help from government.

Multiple divorces? Involvement in gambling casinos which devout Mormons hold in slightly higher esteem than whorehouses for the smoking and drinking as well as the gambling?

Romney gives no break to Hillary Clinton, whom he also associates with crony capitalism along with her husband.

Is it possible to be on the Right and offend Mormons? Yes. All other Republicans do well in Utah except in Salt Lake City, a comparatively liberal bastion in Utah. I can imagine Senator Mike Lee (a piece of work by my standards) winning Utah 70-30 while Trump loses to the Democratic nominee.

Tonight Trump won in Louisiana and Kentucky for 50 delegates, Cruz in Kansas and Maine for a total of 51 delegates. It's not good news for the Establishment at all when the only candidate that comes even close to nipping at Trump's heels is Cruz. Frankly, for all that they savage each other, I can still see a Trump-Cruz ticket. Cruz might agree a) just to spite the Republican Establishment and create the possibility of running for President in 8 years from the position of VP and inheriting Trump's movement if such a thing is possible, and b) because Cruz is not all that relevant in the US Senate and c) because such a ticket would be the way to avoid a brokered convention with Rubio or even Romney as a compromise choice. Reagan and Bush Sr. savaged each other in 1980 but that didn't stop Bush from becoming Reagan's VP.