I profoundly disagree with your conclusions but I evidently have no right to say so under the rules of conduct laid down on this forum. Consider that in order to defend Ted Cruz, as opposed to attacking Donald Trump, one must explore whether Cruz played the race card and if there was warrant for what he said about Trump's remarks in the wake of the David Duke kerfuffle. The last time I was drawn into that kind of the discussion I was zotted for a week. So we now have a situation on this forum in which gratuitous slaps can be made at Ted Cruz, who might actually come to save the country in four or eight years, but he may not be defended if the defense necessarily requires a comparison with Trump.
Accordingly, I choose not to get drawn into that conversation. I believe the forum is the weaker for it. So long as we proceed down the path in which only one point of view is heard, we are likely to get blindsided.
For the record, I never implied in any way that Donald Trump was guilty of racism. That is quite independent however from the propriety of Ted Cruz' remarks.
I do not share your optimism concerning the black and Hispanic vote. The Democrats have a way of bringing that to the ballot box and they need put the effort in only in a few battleground states. The polls right now might be reflecting the fact that Obama is not in the race and therefore the reflexive support of the average American "community" might be weaker than when Obama is in the race but the Democrats will probably compensate on election day, probably with the help of data mining.
I think a review of my about page will confirm that for more than a decade I have agreed with your position about the poisonous playing of the race card.
In my initial post in this thread I undertook to identify some weaknesses in Trump's campaign (as to be distinguished from Trump himself-so that that is clear) for which I have been attacked. My view is that we should analyze the problems and seek to solve them. I do not hold that the better part of campaign methodology is to campaign with one's head in the sand. That is how you get blindsided.
The factors which I have recounted such as lack of money, especially lack of organization, composition of the media, and the need for Trump to compensate for those deficiencies with his unique personality and charisma, leads me to suggest that the opposition to Newt Gingrich which we read in another thread analyzing possible vice presidential picks, is misplaced. Newt can parallel Trump in the use of free media and he can help shape an affirmative expression for the nation which, while incorporating Trump's vision, will be given a fresh cast. I believe Newt is the best hope for victory among the vice presidential picks who have been touted.
Gingrich's age is relevant not because he will be seen as an old white male turning off younger voters, that is nonsense, but because he will not qualify in eight years to run for president by virtue of his age.
I intend to support Trump as I said. My idea of support however is not mindless cheerleading, I am approaching this election exactly as I approached the previous elections both for president and by-elections and I have never believed that the polls which show us behind should be discounted. That is the stupidest way I can imagine to lose an election, it's begging to be blindsided. It Happened to Romney in spades and not in small part because he knew nothing about data mining, a condition which unfortunately exists in the Trump camp today. That must be compensated for, hence my support of Newt who has the charisma to win it through the media with Trump.
