He has managed to keep trucking along, and fortitude counts (believe me!) but he has not been able to draw in and publicly humiliate his detractors, they always seem a step or two ahead.
That would require the media to grow up, and that ain't happening. But he has humiliated his detractors to those paying attention. He was widely ridiculed for his filibuster, with the Wall Street Journal and Faux News and many estab Senators insisting he was costing them the 2014 mid terms. The WSJ even called him "the minority maker" at the time.
So, how did that strategy work out again? That was brilliant strategy - plant a flag, take a stand, don't worry about the first few weeks....just win in the long run.
That nasty sniping is what we are going to see from his sorry detractors who have nothing. It’s recognizable as an off the wall nasty comment tgat is unprovable. Defended by ‘oh it’s not I, it’s all those I hear from’ or ‘ it’s not a bad thing he might improve’
The purpose is to keep doubt in the mind of the audience
I think it’s best to not engage
First place, black address wil not be able to state briefly what the heck she’s blathering about
Then there that little annoyance they’ll have about Cruz’s success history, in this case, that he was prince tons champion debater ( perhaps they even gave it begrudgingly due to his views but had to for his standing way out among the others)
Black address will not be able to convince in one sentence how a champion debater, whose skills have proved, can possibly lack strategic sense or undervalue it’s importance
Engaging in a talk about who is a better strategist is fruitless Tgere is no one better. Bush walker Paul Christie. Any one of them is a better strategist? In what realm? Rubio? Right
But the question that first comes to mind when reading these ugly little remarks is the main question here, what does THAT matter?
Or, simply, wha?
When that happens, I disengage
,