Yeah, I do.
They’re making excuses.
If they had a better candidate, that candidate would have won regardless.
FWIW
I hold the same position as it applies to the perot candidacy in ‘92 and ‘96.
In both cases the winner was pathetically weak yet stronger than his 2 opponents.
Of course I realize that this is just one way of looking at it. For the exact same reasons, the argument can be made that the presence of a third candidate produced a winner that otherwise would not have been.
If there is any common ground we can occupy, it might be that without regard for who the candidates are, the core loyal partisans represent between 35% and 40% on each side.
The 20% to 30% who do not vote based on party are the deciders.......................