#120 is in my view a pretty accurate summary of what is in process.
One point is that this is a reason why you want to keep both Trump and Cruz in the race. The establishment is reluctant to kick either one out alone because it will fix the votes of the eliminated candidate on the other.
You would like to hope that they quit attacking each other and avoid prejudicing the option that they make a deal at the end of the game.
For us, the differences are obvious and simple--nothing is gained on either side by continuing to attack each other over the common bank of votes.
Cruz has a more consistent record of conservative positions; vulnerability on his establishment professional history and that of his wife--anybody who has been at the top of the current financial and professional activity would also as does Trump; Cruz has a history of a more consistent Christian commitment. And Cruz is significantly exposed to an establishment attack on the basis of his Constitutional eligibility--if he got elected, the objection would disappear--the Court would refuse to hear the case on the grounds that it presents a political question and is not justiciable. Further, it was bad judgment to let the issue get out of control in the campaign when he could have resolved it before it became a problem.
Trump's initial position on the borders and immigration and citizenship was hard core--better than anyone else. He is waffling a little and needs to stop. And that is one of the important issues. And Trump is also preferable on the proposition that he is result oriented; recognizes clearly that the Country is on the ropes and that radical change is required--and that's why he is here. I don't fault his loose social history on religious grounds--God didn't make me the judge.
His commitment to the Christian community is certain a lot better than Barry's--we may live in a secular legal society however if we get Constitutional Legal Officers, our rights are pretty clear.
But at this point Trump is losing ground because he is whining and wanting to talk about issues that are no longer relevant (performance in Iowa); he needs to get back on message really fast and stay there--if he doesn't, he is out quicker than anyone expects. What happened in Iowa is history--irrelevant; an argument over two or three delegates.
If you could get both of them on one ticket, you could probably believe you had 12 to 16 years of control in which you could get the country back.
PING