The various delegate counts at sites like Politico don't get updated regularly. However, as of 3/24/16, Politico had delegate totals for the candidates, up through the DC primary.

But those results don't include Wisconsin or Colorado or North Dakota or partial results from Wyoming.

In Wisconsin, Cruz apparently took 36 and Trump got 6 (for winning in two western CDs).

In Colorado, Cruz got 34, Trump and Kasich 0.

In North Dakota (25 delegates, all unbound), Cruz got commitments from 18 and Trump only got one. But all are legally unbound at the convention so you wouldn't include them in official counts of bound delegates.

In Wyoming caucuses, Cruz won 9 delegates. Trump and Rubio got one each. Cruz is on track to win more on 4/16 at the state convention, perhaps close to a clean sweep.

So we can update Politico's numbers like this:

Every state gets at least 3 state GOP party honchos as delegates. As a group, these are unbound but they are considered a bloc of Cruz supporters by default because the party thinks Trump will be a disaster as a nominee. If only two-thirds of the state party honchos are latent Cruz supporters, that means Cruz might actually hold a narrow lead in total delegates.

Just my own counts so feel free to dispute them.

Of course, Trump people will say that's the closest Cruz will ever get to Trump, that Trump will widen his lead in upcoming northeast contests. Which may be true.

Of course, Trump people will say that's the closest Cruz will ever get to Trump, that Trump will widen his lead in upcoming northeast contests. Which may be true.

April 26 there are 173 East Coast delegates in play . Not sure about the other states ;but PA only awards 17 of 71 delegates directly through the primary results.

The rest ?? ....Voters in each of PA's 18 congressional districts will choose 3 uncommitted delegates .Individual delegates run for election with their names on the ballot. Pennsylvania delegates aren’t publicly affiliated with any Presidential campaign. In other words, the delegate’s candidate preference isn’t listed on the ballot.

The top three vote-getters in each Congressional district become delegates to the convention. This gives an enormous advantage to campaigns that have a large and sophisticated ground operation in the state. Each campaign not only has to turn out its supporters in each district, but it has to arm them with the specific delegates they need to vote for in the primary.

Again, the ballot will not detail which campaign a delegate is allied with. The individual voters will have to know in advance which delegates will support their preferred candidate.

This gives an enormous advantage to campaigns that have a large and sophisticated ground operation in the state. Each campaign not only has to turn out its supporters in each district, but it has to arm them with the specific delegates they need to vote for in the primary.

The Pennsylvania Leadership Conference held a straw poll April 2. Cruz won that overwhelmingly 64.83%, Donald Trump 13.65%, and John Kasich 13.38%.

"help is on the way."

I remember that line of bullshit from the GWBush/Dick Cheney campaign slogans thrown around in 2000. My, how times fly, and the same ol' bullshit keeps flowing.

The Pennsylvania Leadership Conference held a straw poll April 2. Cruz won that overwhelmingly 64.83%, Donald Trump 13.65%, and John Kasich 13.38%.

That, I did not know.

Nice review of Pennsylvania's arcane but Totally Insane Delegate Selection process.

I think I pinged you to the thread I posted here at LF, got no replies. Perhaps I do post too many of these boring nuts-n-bolts state party delegate selection threads. All those obscure state party minutiae that vary from state to state is not exactly exciting reading. Like my new thread today on how township caucuses can be dominated by party veterans to pack Cruz supporters into Trump delegate slots for the congressional convention and the state convention. I thought it was useful for people to grasp how district delegates turn into county delegates and state delegates and finally national delegates.

Anyway, this was my PA delegate rules thread.

LF: These Penn. delegates could decide GOP nomination

I remember that line of bullshit from the GWBush/Dick Cheney campaign slogans thrown around in 2000. My, how times fly, and the same ol' bullshit keeps flowing.

Well, Bernie did win WY yesterday so you can be happy. That's 7 wins in a row for the Bern. And some MN superdelegate flipped to Bernie yesterday. If Xlinton's superdelegate dam begins to break, Hitlery could get dumped, just like she did in 2008.

And if Bernie can't dislodge Her Thighness, you still can vote for your dead dog, Scruffy.

I may join you.     : )

"I think on the question of marijuana legalization, we should leave it to the states," Cruz said before addressing the GOP activists at the state convention here."If it were me personally, voting on it in the state of Texas, I would vote against it.

Can you say "pander"? Sure. I knew you could.

"Ted Cruz dominates Colorado GOP convention winning all 34 delegates"

Wow! What a great way for the GOP establishment to retain their hold on the voter. I bet they wish they could do this in every state. Maybe 4 years from now, huh?

Screw the people. Screw the voters. The GOP decides, you scum.

Well, Bernie did win WY yesterday so you can be happy.

and simultaneously lost the delegate count in WY. More arcane process.

Can you say "pander"? Sure. I knew you could.

Can you say "states' rights"? How about "laboratories of democracy"?

But, sure, there was some pandering in there too. LOL

But, as in ND, at least Cruz showed up. Trump & Kasich: nada.

"it is hilarious that Cruz is considered establishment."

I'm not laughing.

Screw the people. Screw the voters. The GOP decides, you scum.

Not at all.

If you want change, get involved in your district/country/state GOP.

Until you do, the party veterans in your state will dominate the process. And pick all the national delegates.

Keep in mind, every single bound delegate to the GOP convention only represents a "voter preference". Some are unbound from the start (e.g. ND, state party honchos), others become unbound after one or more convention ballots.

If you don't like it, get involved in your state's GOP. Otherwise, shaddup.

it is hilarious that Cruz is considered establishment .

It's hilarious that you are so dim witted.

His position on trade is pure establishment sell out FUCK America.

His position that he wants to legalize illegals with a green card is pure establishment.

His belief that you don't have to be a natural born citizen is pure establishment.

He lies and talks out of both sides of his ugly mug. Just like the establishment.

You only vote establishment.

He has been part of the government his hole life.

It is now time for you to get your head out of your asshole.

Here watch Ted when he was saying something else. He is a liar.

Not at all.

Ted Cruz's lying is rubbing off you you munchkins.

Trump has more votes then anyone in the R party in a generation.

"Can you say "states' rights"? How about "laboratories of democracy"?"

I'm all for it. But would that work with recreational drugs? Let's say that resulted in recreational drugs -- all of them, mind you -- legal in half the states and illegal in the other half.

What do you think? Would that work?

Bear in mind that, prior to Prohibition, alcohol was legal in half the states and illegal in the other half. We know that didn't work.

But it would with drugs, huh? How can you be so dumb? I thought you were a smart guy.

April 26 there are 173 East Coast delegates in play . Not sure about the other states ;but PA only awards 17 of 71 delegates directly through the primary results.

The rest ?? ....Voters in each of PA's 18 congressional districts will choose 3 uncommitted delegates .Individual delegates run for election with their names on the ballot. Pennsylvania delegates aren’t publicly affiliated with any Presidential campaign. In other words, the delegate’s candidate preference isn’t listed on the ballot.

Take your undemocratic establishment faux rules and shove them up your ass.

Hillary 2016 is your goal. It is a fact that will happen when you sell outs fuck the American people again.

Can you say "states' rights"? How about "laboratories of democracy"?

You use a lot of Vaseline.

I'm all for it.

Trump has broad support.

The fact that pinguinite and you support the same guy proves it.

Don't mind TC he is on the establishment pay roll. He gets paid to post here.

At least that is what I was told years ago. I didn't believe it then. But when someone ignores all the facts sticks their tiny fingers in their ears and closes their eyes. That kind of makes the point.

He is amusing though. Poor little munchkin.

Trump has more votes then anyone in the R party in a generation.

And also has more votes against him than any GOP nominee in about a century.

For all that Trump riled up and brought out new voters (mostly his TV show fanbois), he's driving a lot of others away from him, and from the party if he is the nominee.

There aren't enough new angry white guys to make up for all the votes Trump drives away. Because America has run out of those kind of angry white guys even if LF hasn't.

It's that simple.

Don't mind TC he is on the establishment pay roll. He gets paid to post here.

I wish.

And also has more votes against him than any GOP nominee in about a century.

Votes for other people aren't votes against him.

I know several people who voted for other people. They ALL will vote for Trump when he gets the nomination. 100 percent. Is that you lying Ted?

he's driving a lot of others away from him

Establishment whores and dupes like you.

Bear in mind that, prior to Prohibition, alcohol was legal in half the states and illegal in the other half. We know that didn't work.

Long term, it'll work out about like the varying ages in different states for buying .32 beer and regular beer and hard liquor and having dry towns and dry counties (which do still exist).

No big deal really.

There aren't enough new angry white guys to make up for all the votes Trump drives away.

How do you know that? Oh polls.

Which you constantly say are unreliable.

Talking out of both sides again or just lying?

"the party veterans in your state will dominate the process."

The party veterans are not the people. They're not the voters. So my statement stands.

But I bet you're loving this. Squirming in your seat with a tingle up your leg. How can the will of the voter be thwarted so the establishment can get their way? You're like Michael Douglas in The War of the Roses -- "I got more square footage".

You're so dumb. You fail to realize that your backroom shenanigans and rule changing will have no effect whatsoever. Oh, it may change the numbers. For sure it will accomplish that.

But if Trump ends up with the lion's share OF DELEGATES SELECTED BY THE VOTERS, all this effort is for naught.

So play your games. And get ready for President Hillary if you "win".

I know several people who voted for other people. They ALL will vote for Trump when he gets the nomination. 100 percent. Is that you lying Ted?

Or maybe you're just so vehement they're humoring you and telling you what you want to hear.

I assume they still have the secret ballot. They can say anything to anyone about their vote but they are still alone in that voting booth, like always.

And if Bernie can't dislodge Her Thighness, you still can vote for your dead dog, Scruffy.

I plan to write-in my vote for the next President of the United States of America: "my dead dawg Scruffy" irespective of all these other charlatans. Scruffy does not lie, steal or cheat. That is a fact.

But if Trump ends up with the lion's share OF DELEGATES SELECTED BY THE VOTERS, all this effort is for naught.

If Trump makes 1237, there will be no way to keep the nomination from him.

I saw Beck on Meet The Depressed a bit ago, saying exactly that. And he is the arch-NeverTrumper.

If Trump can't meet the 1237 delegate requirement, the nomination will go to someone else with Cruz as the most likely (but not certain) choice.

Or maybe you're just so vehement they're humoring you and telling you what you want to hear.

Your family and friends may lie to you. I trust mine.

I saw Beck on Meet The Depressed a bit ago, saying exactly that. And he is the arch-NeverTrumper.

The mornon who is going to hell. This two faced asshole liar?

I plan to write-in my vote for the next President of the United States of America: "my dead dawg Scruffy" irespective of all these other charlatans. Scruffy does not lie, steal or cheat. That is a fact.

Too bad you don't have a pic of Scruffy so we could make some nice campaign banners.

Perhaps you could find and post a link to a picture of a doggie that looks just like Scruffy, maybe a dog that is asleep. I could make a nice boilerplate campaign banner like this one.

"There aren't enough new angry white guys to make up for all the votes Trump drives away."

But there are lots of independents, blue-collar Democrats, Hispanics and Blacks who will take their place.

People who want a real border so they can have a country, people who want jobs, people who want free trade -- but want it to be fair, people who want a strong military so we don't have to use it, people who want an end to political correctness, people who want the federal government out of education, people who want an end to the good-old-boy networks, people who want THEIR voice heard.

That'll make up for those voters YOU SAY Trump will lose.

How do you know that? Oh polls.

You support a candidate who can't talk about any policy he has and never stops blathering about his polls.

Now the polls turn against him and suddenly polls aren't important after all.

If Trump can't meet the 1237 delegate requirement, the nomination will go to someone else with Cruz as the most likely (but not certain) choice.

This is the likely outcome. Has beens: Jeb Bush and John Boehner have already thrown their massive weight behind Paul Ryan. It is amazing what goes on in the smokey back room of the GOP, ain't it?

But there are lots of independents, blue-collar Democrats, Hispanics and Blacks who will take their place.

In Donald's and your fantasy world.

In the real world, not at all.

Donald was the one yammering about all these polls for months on end, boring the crap out of everyone. Now the polls show he's made himself radioactive with a big majority of voters who hate his guts.

So suddenly polls don't matter. The 1237 delegate rule of the GOP doesn't matter. Because Trump has run a lousy campaign and would be a Goldwater/Mondale sized disaster for the entire GOP in the general election.

Now the polls turn against him [Trump] and suddenly polls aren't important after all.

Be careful. Stone doesn't like anyone suggesting the truth that is counter to his own ideas.

Free Fred!

Your family and friends may lie to you. I trust mine.

Sure you do. But you can't prove to me (or yourself) that they aren't just humoring you.

"Psst, don't say that to Uncle AKA, you know how excited he gets..."

"Long term, it'll work out about like the varying ages in different states for buying .32 beer and regular beer and hard liquor and having dry towns and dry counties (which do still exist)."

ONLY if all states legalize recreational drugs as they do with alcohol. Then there might be small differences between states. Even then, we have a National drinking age because the federal government threatened to cut off funds to those states which refused to go along.

Is that what you want? States making the decision but the federal govenment cutting off those states which didn't make the right decision?

But you didn't answer my question. Would "states rights" work with recreational drugs if they were legal in half the states and illegal in the other half? Hint: What's the reaction from the states surrounding Colorado regarding legal marijuana?

Bear in mind that, prior to Prohibition, alcohol was legal in half the states and illegal in the other half. We know that didn't work. --- misterwhite

Bear in mind that, -- Prohibitions NEVER work. --- AND, -- prohibitions are unconstitutional.

But prohibitions work with drugs, huh? How can you be so dumb?

"If Trump makes 1237, there will be no way to keep the nomination from him."

And if Trump makes 1236, do you really think your rule changes will prevent him from being the nominee? What will you do when those 1236 walk out of the convention and go home?

Is that what you want? States making the decision but the federal govenment cutting off those states which didn't make the right decision?

You mistake me for someone who gives two shits about your beloved Drug War. Well, other than recognizing it has been a failure for the last 45 years and has imprisoned a lot of people and ruined their lives for no good reason.

And you're way offtopic.

And if Trump makes 1236, do you really think your rule changes will prevent him from being the nominee?

Yep. And those would be a continuation of the current rules, not new rules.

The basic requirements to get the nomination go back 160 years, to the Whig Party. This is how it has always been since before the GOP existed.

"In Donald's and your fantasy world."

When your "party veterans" allow the people to vote, that's the result. But I forgot -- you don't believe facts. You put your faith in polls.

"And if Trump makes 1236, do you really think your rule changes will prevent him from being the nominee?"
"Yep."

Then you are insane.

You put your faith in polls.

Again, there has been no greater fan of polls than Trump and his fanbois.

Until they suddenly paint a picture of utter disaster for Trump as GOP nominee.

Now those polls are suddenly just Pure Evil.

Live by the polls, die by the polls, bucko.

Bear in mind that...

Please don't. No amount of falsification will ever move him. He's essentially a chatbot on this and other topics. Only useful for getting some keyboard exercise.

"And you're way offtopic."

You wish.

Cruz said the decision on drugs should be left to each state (but not his state). You agreed and cited "states rights' and "laboratories of democracy".

I'll ask you for the third time. Would "states rights" work with recreational drugs if they were legal in half the states and illegal in the other half?

You don't want to answer because the answer is "no". Which is why we have the federal law. IT WOULD NOT WORK at the state level. It didn't work with alcohol and it won't work with recreational drugs.

Cruz said the decision on drugs should be left to each state (but not his state).

He said he would vote against it. Meaning he would submit to the voters' will in his own state. Consistent with his general states' rights position on the issue.

I'll ask you for the third time. Would "states rights" work with recreational drugs if they were legal in half the states and illegal in the other half?

Meh. Don't care.

So you're saying that if we legalized all drugs to all ages there would be no increased usage or no increase in the number of users?

Who believes that ... besides you and numbnuts? Geez Louise. I'm dealing with morons.

So you're saying that if we legalized all drugs to all ages there would be no increased usage or no increase in the number of users?

Unimportant.

If you want to do some antiquated drug rant, go start your own thread instead of hijacking this one.

"He said he would vote against it. Meaning he would submit to the voters' will in that state."

He's a hypocrite. Or a liar.

If Trump said he opposed abortion but would vote pro-choice if that was what the people wanted, you'd go f**king ballistic.

If Trump said he opposed abortion but would vote pro-choice if that was what the people wanted, you'd go f**king ballistic.

Not really since I think nearly everything Trump says is a lie or ignorant utterances that he thinks appeal to the hicks, the rubes and "the evangelicals".

"Unimportant."

Unimportant? It defines whether or not prohibition is "working".

You're making a real habit of avoiding the uncomfortable answers, aren't you?

"Not really"

I don't believe you (or Cruz) for a minute.

"Stop hijacking this thread with your deranged drug rants."

Cruz's support for legal drugs in Colorado (but not Texas) IS IN THE ARTICLE YOU POSTED. And you supported and defended his position. That makes it fair game.

But because you can't defend your position you don't want to talk about it anymore. Fine. Baby. I'll stop beating the crap out of you.

imprisoned a lot of people and ruined their lives for no good reason.

It must be hard to keep up with the other TC's poll-chasing re drugs.

At CPAC last week, Ted Cruz responded to a question about marijuana legalization in Colorado by endorsing a federalist approach: "This is a great embodiment of what Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called 'the laboratories of democracy,'" Cruz said. "If the citizens of Colorado decide they want to go down that road, that's their prerogative. I personally don't agree with it, but that's their right."

Those remarks contradict Cruz's previous position, when he criticized the Obama administration for failing to aggressively enforce the federal ban on marijuana in states that have legalized the drug. In January 2014, he described the Justice Department's prosecutorial restraint, which is designed to respect state policy choices, as an abuse of executive power.

Cruz's support for legal drugs in Colorado (but not Texas) IS IN THE ARTICLE YOU POSTED.

Zing!!!

Only useful for getting some keyboard exercise.

You just turned your Empty Posturing dial up to 11.

I almost feel sorry for him.

The life of a Cruz apologist can't be an easy one.

So play your games. And get ready for President Hillary if you "win".

Here's a news flash for you.

It's gonna be "President Hillary" no matter who the Republican contender turns out to be.

Can you say "pander"? Sure. I knew you could.

Trump says, "In terms of marijuana and legalization, I think that should be a state issue, state-by-state".

Here's a news flash

Wipe yourself

Trump says, "In terms of marijuana and legalization, I think that should be a state issue, state-by-state".

He's just cribbing off his Cruz cheatsheet.     : )

Cruz cheatsheet

The one he gropes his paid mistresses on?

Please don't. (Misterwhites) essentially a chatbot on this and other topics. --- TooConservative

So prohibition "doesn't work"? You agree with (tpaine) on that? ---- So you're saying that if we legalized all drugs to all ages there would be no increased usage or no increase in the number of users?

No, if we reasonably regulated drug use, instead of using unconstitutional prohibitions, (as both Trump and Cruz would agree), --- we could concentrate on some REAL problems.

Prohibitions on drugs, guns, booze, and personal behaviors, - - are counterintuitive to the principles of our Constitution.

I stand by my statement.

You really don't have a clue as to who actually controls the elections, do you?

You are under the delusional belief that your vote really matters.

He's just cribbing off his Cruz cheatsheet. : )

No wonder you like Cruz. You lie a lot. Trump has said that for years.

I disagree with him though.

It's gonna be "President Hillary" no matter who the Republican contender turns out to be.

If it isn't. Will you publicly admit you are an idiot?

It's gonna be "President Hillary" no matter who the Republican contender turns out to be.

The only thing your libtard, drug loving, cop hating Hippie ass would like more is Commie Sanders.

Jane Fonda is a war hating, drug loving, (R) hating... cop hater too. It's no secret what you are here or were at LP. You filthy disgusting libturd.

If it isn't. Will you publicly admit you are an idiot?

If she isn't the next president, I will admit I was wrong.

Look sport, the fix is in.

The sooner you yahoos wake up to that fact, the better off you'll be.

If she isn't the next president, I will admit I was wrong.

I want to add to Deckard's post. I know hillary is already getting the keys to the WhoreHouse.

lol

Look sport, the fix is in.

Why do you Paultards scream CONSPIRACY when you don't get your minority opinion way?

The only thing your libtard, drug loving, cop hating Hippie ass would like more is Commie Sanders.

Huh, what?

You think that because I am predicting that Hillary will be the next POTUS, somehow that makes me a "filthy disgusting libturd."

I am simply stating a fact - I'm not voting for her or Sanders.

You really need to calm down princess.

Oh - and maybe think about using a thesaurus - calling everyone who disagrees with you a "libturd" shows you complete lack of originality.

...post his hippie bullsh t

You are quickly becoming the joke of the forum since your return.

You think that because I am predicting that Hillary will be the next POTUS, somehow that makes me a "filthy disgusting libturd."

You don't predict it... You PREFER it over trump, you F'n filthy pile of libtard sh t.

Why do you Paultards scream CONSPIRACY when you don't get your minority opinion way?

Good grief pig-boy, you really are a clueless simpleton.

You must have a lot of clout with pebbles to make demands like that post. How in the world did you achieve so muuch love and affection?

It was a suggestion, dumb dumb. You know the difference? lol

You don't predict it... You PREFER it over trump, you F'n filthy pile of libtard sh t.

You're clinically insane.

You do realize that, right?

Trump is not gonna win and be your benevolent daddy.

You need to lay off the booze before posting.

Good grief pig-boy, you really are a clueless simpleton.

All name calling, not a shred of argumentative substance. The story of your life.

It's gonna be "President Hillary"

Trump's pals.

All name calling, not a shred of argumentative substance.

Fucking hypocrite - typical cop mentality.

You can dish it out, but you can't take it.

What's the matter princess, did your widdle feelings get hurt?

You made a DEMAND in post #78, not a suggestion. Do you know the difference?

It was a suggestion, tool box.

I don't "demand" Stone do anything. I'm one of the few that actually RESPECT the fact that LF is Stones HOME... we are all just visitors.

Shut your Paultard pleaser.

Trump's pals.

Just so you end up on the end of a stick it's all good.

What's the matter princess, did your widdle feelings get hurt?

You give yourself too much credit, Paultard.

Before you could ever hurt my feelings, I'd have to first have RESPECT you opinions. lol

F' off, tool box.

You made a DEMAND in post #78, not a suggestion. Do you know the difference?

It was a suggestion, tool box.

You can't really expect a bottom-feeding former cop to understand that his post was not a suggestion but a demand.

I guess he's been bullying folks for so long, he can't be anything else.

#78. To: A K A Stone (#74)

Make that filthy libturd state, DAILY, "Stone, I was wrong" at the beginning of EVERY post, after the election I'd KILLary doesn't win... or he can post his hippie bullsh t elsewhere.

You DEMANDED pebbles to conform to your order. Moreover, your publick tone was incredibly demeaning to other posters.

I guess he's been bullying folks for so long, he can't be anything else.

Remember his repeated insistance about "yukon." Not much more to say, is there?

I'm a poster, same as you. I'm just not a drug loving conspiracy thinking Paultard.

I guess the discussion of the CO GOP and its delegates is well in the rear-view mirror.

The delegates have gone to the Canadian/Cuban, Rastafarian Ganja Texan. It's a done deal.

"If it isn't. Will you publicly admit you are an idiot?"

He'd have to stand in line with the MSM (including FOX), everyone at National Review, everyone at the Weekly Standard, etc.

"Trump says, "In terms of marijuana and legalization, I think that should be a state issue, state-by-state"."

My point was that he didn't make an exception for one state.

You have a sense of urgency to make posts. It is proof POSITIVE that you have a problem.

I post with an iPhone.... It's faster than your Commie Sandards loving PC.

My point was that he didn't make an exception for one state.

'"I think on the question of marijuana legalization, we should leave it to the states," Cruz said'.

Which part of "the states" did you not understand?

I stand by my statement.

You stand in your statement.

"Which part of "the states" did you not understand?"

The part where Cruz then added, "If it were me personally, voting on it in the state of Texas, I would vote against it."

Next time, post the whole quote. You're developing a bad habit of quoting out of context. Keep it up and I'll have to ignore you.

"It's gonna be "President Hillary" no matter who the Republican contender turns out to be."

Assuming she's not indicted.

'"I think on the question of marijuana legalization, we should leave it to the states," Cruz said before addressing the GOP activists at the state convention here."If it were me personally, voting on it in the state of Texas, I would vote against it.'

My point was that he [Trump] didn't make an exception for one state.

Neither did Cruz: leaving it to the states as a federal officeholder is completely compatible with voting against it for one's own state as a citizen of that state.

Your attempt to fabricate a contradiction is comically feeble.

"Neither did Cruz: leaving it to the states as a federal officeholder is completely compatible with voting against it for one's own state as a citizen of that state."

Then why did he add that statement? Just say, "Let the states decide" and that's it.

Neither did Cruz: leaving it to the states as a federal officeholder is completely compatible with voting against it for one's own state as a citizen of that state.

Then why did he add that statement?

Perhaps to reassure social conservatives that he wasn't a closet hippie. The point remains that his statement about Texas was no "exception" to his statement about "the states."

"The point remains that his statement about Texas was no "exception" to his statement about "the states."

It was hypocritical. No different than Trump saying that he, personally, is against abortion, but it's OK with him if Congress keeps it legal.

It was hypocritical. No different than Trump saying that he, personally, is against abortion, but it's OK with him if Congress keeps it legal.

Nonsense - by that 'logic' one can support states' rights only for those issues about which one is indifferent.