I'm not sure that one can draw that inference. For example, it would be hard to believe that Dr. Oz lost because he was Trump's pick. The idea that Fetterman prevailed in the wake of his embarrassing and pathetic debate performance leads one to wonder if any Republican could have prevailed in Pennsylvania. The result of the election is so contrary to reasonable expectations, as was the election in Arizona, the election in the Senate over all, and the extent of the Republican victory in the house, that one is forced to consider whether a whole new analysis is required.
The point I've been making in my replies is that something has changed that has profoundly changed the way elections are decided. That is a combination of mail-in balloting, cheating, ballot harvesting, data mining, Democrat numerical advantage among voters, Democrat numerical advantage among nongovernmental organizations, Democrat advantage among foot soldiers in those organizations such as, for example, teachers unions, the impact of social media and its censorship, and the impact of legacy media, require a new paradigm.
From the welter of these factors to extract data from these off year-elections in battleground states that can confidently be applied to the next presidential election is to isolate one variable and ignore the rest.
Further, one can say that there is a world of difference between election over Trump's endorsements and and election when Trump himself is the candidate (both positive and negative for Trump).
Again I say as I did in the previous reply, this is not to extend an endorsement to either DeSantis or in this case to Trump. It is to say that the choice of candidate is becoming less and less important as the entire landscape of elections is being so altered as to be the deciding reality. If the Republicans do not master this new world of elections they will continue to lose and lose
