Why Trump Will Beat Hillary & Cruz No Longer Can [Arthur March vanity]

Arthur Wildfire! March

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Time and again Ted Cruz slammed the door in his own face. Donald Trump, on the other hand, has the Midas Touch of politics.

One recent national poll showed Trump at 53% support by republicans. Whether true or not, trending will continue to look better for Trump if nothing serious changes -- from both parties and independents.

Eight points.

The first point is a little 'numbers crunching'. The rest point out choices Trump and Cruz made during the primary.

Point 1: Ohio.

True, Trump only came in second. But he he took on a wildly popular governor in his own state.

Trump got 700,000 votes.

Hillary won with 666,000 votes.

To defeat Trump in Ohio, Hillary needs to steal hundreds of thousands of Kasich supporters. Is that even possible? In most states she will have an even tougher challenge.

Point 2: Trump is the ONLY Republican who ever turned the tables on the 'war on women'. [Cruz said that kind of thing is off the table.]

Point 3: Trump's trade policy will be wildly popular. [Cruz opposes.]

Point 4: Trump's muslim ban is a strong net gain of support. He's been poaching democrats ever since. [Cruz opposes.]

Point 5: No republican has been more effective than Trump when it comes to exposing rent-a-mob thuggery. In Illinois that gave him strong support as well as his surprising support in Missouri. Even if a recount hands Missouri to Cruz, he was supposed to be the clear winner there. [By blaming Trump, this was the worst political error Cruz ever inflicted on himself.]

Point 6: On immigration, Trump is arguably as strong as Cruz. That was supposed to be the key to Cruz winning this primary. Trump managed to steal it from him, and he will own that issue in the general election.

Point 7: In a poll last year, Jack Baur was America's favorite choice to be President. So who is closest to Jack Baur? The one who promises to waterboard? Or the one who refuses to discuss it? Trump approves of waterboarding, and Cruz ducks that particular issue.

~~~

Now for the point that 'Trumps' Cruz completely ...

~~~

Point 8: A path to the Convention is nothing without a path to Party Unity.

*

I repeat: A path to the Convention is nothing without a path to Party Unity.

*

There's no path to party unity if Cruz somehow 'out-conventions' Trump.

I heard Jamie Dupree [daily Hannity guest] talk about how delegates are selected. Positively byzantine.

Does anyone expect Trump supporters to understand if the front runner is taken out via a convention struggle?

Farewell to Party Unity.

Fortunately for the party, Cruz himself hallowed out his support and softened resistance against Trump via points two through eight. If Cruz remains serious about damaging Trump, by the time of the convention the only 'excitement' for Cruz will be Grahamnesty astro-turf and a handful of jeddi knights.

Only one clear path to party unity -- we must back the front-runner.

~~~

Counter Point

Only one counter-point -- polling. Hillary is 'projected' to defeat Trump. His current negatives are high.

All of that early polling mean next to nothing. November is a long way off, and the dynamics of points two-through-eight are what matters.

~~~

One Last Point

Perhaps most important of all -- Trump self-funds. The 757 that jets him around is HIS jet while the donor class feels his engines' blowback.

I agree with Pat Buchanan.

A real drum-beating is about to commence. Trump is going to not only defeat Hillary but slice open the DNC and rip out its entrails.

Cruz can either be a part of it, or he can find new ways to injure his own face with a door.

[Liz]

Maybe a stupid publisher will give him a $10 advance for that scintillating title?

[Beautiful_Gracious_Skies]

You make a lot of great points and raise all the right issues.

Point (1): Trump did well in Ohio, and he may have actually done much better than we will ever really know.

Some highly creative cheaters operate in Ohio.
I recall thousands of imaginary voters registering election day with the same park bench address. Appeals to Ohio Supreme Court or SOS fail.
Mr. Curtis’s testimony, a software programmer testifying in Ohio in 2006 regarding the rigged vote machine setup 51/49. This one involves the former FL Speaker of the House and Yang Corp. His testimony is on YouTube.

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

[Beautiful_Gracious_Skies]

Exactly, to defeat the UNiparty. Ted must drop out or be defeated in the next 40 days.

[Liz]

WRT trade policy, you ain/t seen nuttin' yet.

breitbart.com---Kasich came out in support of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement during the fourth GOP primary debate hosted by Fox Business; Kasich said the deal is “critical.”

“The trade agreement – the TPP – it’s critical to us not only for economic reasons and for jobs because there’s so many people who are connected to getting jobs because of trade, but it allows us to create not only economic alliances, but also potentially strateigic alliances against the Chinese,” Kasich argued in support of the nearly 6,000 page agreement – longer than Obamacare and the failed Gang of Eight immigration bill combined.

“They’re not our enemy, but they’re certainly not our friend,” Kasich said about China.Kasich was questioned about cyber attacks and Chinese investments into the U.S. “China doesn’t own the South China Sea and I give the President some credit for being able to move a naval force in there to let the Chinese know we aren’t going to put up with them anymore,” Kasich charged.

===========================================

NOTE WELL---Obama considers TPP central to his presidential legacy and to his foreign policy and economic legacies.

No 'conservative' in their right mind would ever vote for TPP----which has horrendous consequences for American workers.

=================================================

TPP is best understood against the backdrop
of Obama's post-presidential get-rich-quick foundation plans.

NOW ISN'T THIS INTERESTING? few, if any, of the RCEP and
TPP countries contributed to the buck-raking Clinton Foundation.

Looks like the Clintons and Obama divvied up the globe so that each have their own countries in order to collect big buck get-rich-quick foundation donations, honorarium, cosultancies, and int'l insider business deals.

======================================

THE FACTS ARE THESE Obama's trade deal giveaway is a huge scam...best examined against the backdrop of Obama's two tax-exempt foundations (two-that we know of). Obama's priming the pump for donations to his two Foundations.

All of Obama's thinly-veiled actions....

(1) promoting TPA and TPP,

(2) his immigration suck-ups

(3) his non-action WRT ISIS, IRAN....

.....are best understood against the backdrop of Obama's future get-rich-quick plans as an ex-president----more specifically, his two get-rich-quick Foundations (two foundations that we know of).

All these entities control billions of dollars---and Obama is lying-in-wait for his share: foreign donations, lucrative insider trade deals from untapped resources, energy deals, telecom deals, arms sales, consultancies, million dollar honorarium...and so on and so forth.

===================================================

WIKI REFERENCE: Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) is a proposed free trade agreement (FTA) between the ten member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (Brunei, Burma (Myanmar), Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam) and the six states with which ASEAN has existing FTAs (Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand). RCEP negotiations were formally launched in November 2012.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Useful input for this thread. Thank you.

And then there’s Florida. And then there’s the evangelical vote which Liz remarked on.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Trade deals always led to closed factories. Everyone smells a rat.

And thank you for your research. FRegards !

[MarvinStinson]

bmp

[MarvinStinson]

Trump is the ONLY Republican who ever turned the tables on the ‘war on women’.

[MarvinStinson]

Blaming Trump for blacklivesmatter thuggery

was the worst political error Cruz ever inflicted on himself.

[B Knotts]

The poll data states otherwise. It could be wrong, but it could be right.

[Mollypitcher1]

I don’t think so. Cruz is too much of an ivory tower elitest.
IMO Carson will be a strong supporter of Trump nationwide. Much better than Cruz who played along with Trump because it was “only part of his game plan.” He turned against Trump and it hasn’t and won’t work. He’ll be reduced to picking up scraps fallen from the table.

[Mollypitcher1]

I agree. We saw it in the Florida primary.

[Rusty0604]

Having crazy Glenn Beck campaign with him didn’t help his cause either. Did Cruz ever say anything about Beck threatening to stab people?

[apocalypto]

I have not heard him say a word about him. But his whining about the KKK, a non-issue, lost him points. Having a pal like Beck and Graham raising money for him sure will not help him. But even bigger was his comment about the Chicago disrupters. That crossed the line with many and was noticeable similar to Robot Rubio and Kasich’s. One cannot blame those who now view Cruz as part of the establishment.

[John W]

Who turned against who first?

[House Atreides]

“...For example, if Trump were to run or back an independent, but the party faithful stick with nominee Cruz, then I’d back Cruz.

But if the party faithful abandon Cruz? I would too.

Our top goal must be unity of the base.”
****************************************************************************************
QUESTION: How do we/you recognize the “party faithful” and how do we/you know whether they are sticking with or abandoning Cruz? I ask because of all the “malleability” I’ve been seeing lately.

[Pox]

You can't see how absurd your “argument” is.

Let's talk a bit about your “points”.

Cruz has a cult of personality. It is an exceptionally small cult that has absolutely no chance of winning a national election. Cruz has never been a leader, has he? Mr. Trump has stated that PP does good things (never spoke of volume of those “good” things) aside from abortions. Let's get the context proper, shall we? Since it's still doing abortions, he will stop funding it, ie “negotiate” it away. Sounds a lot better than anything that has been done over the last 40+ years, if he can get what he claims accomplished.

Yes, Cruz has conservative credentials. Unfortunately, it's not nearly enough to seal the deal with the country as a whole. Mr. Trump, on the other hand, has a better than average chance of actually getting some conservative goals accomplished as he actually has a very good chance at winning the general election.

You may not want to admit it, but the reality is there for all to see.

[Mollypitcher1]

Cruz turned against Trump first. Trump slapped hum back.

[House Atreides]

Do you have an answer to my question in post #116 above? Or do you have no answer? I’m looking for some clarity in your “thinking”.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

The term ‘party faithful’ is now obsolete. I used the confusing term on purpose.

If the Establishment games it so that someone with 22% approval is nominated over a front runner with 53% approval, I would not entirely trust the polls, but I would look for other signs that the polls are accurate. Such as currently ...

[53%] Trump breaks 50% in national support for the first time [Cruz 22, Kasich 11, Rubio 10]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3409079/posts

But that will shift. If Cruz manages to rally 43% of republicans behind him, and he contests the convention, we would have a horrible split. And it would be a tough call because perhaps 12% of republicans remain ‘party faithful’. So that would be a 12% bump if Cruz wins a floor fight. But that’s all speculative.

I would advise everyone to not lock in their support with anyone in that instance. Just tentative support [or what I call ‘skittish support’], to see who ends up the strongest.

Also the ‘Sore Loser’ Laws would block Trump from the ballot in their states.

An absolute nightmare for party unity.