Posted on 07/22/2015 2:25:26 AM PDT by GoneSalt
For sure DT believes that he will win, but in effect he is strengthening the position of HC
>> The one adversely affected seems to be Cruz <<
Certainly. And if Trump keeps draining supporters from Cruz, the GOP’s final selection may boil down to a choice among Bush, Walker, Rubio and Cruz.
Trump may be a lot of things — good and bad — but calling him a “baffoon” shows clearly you seriously underestimate the man. Never a good thing to do, even if you despise the person.
It’s mestastasizing.
Ridiculous article.
No, he's not. He's cleaning out the GOPe.
Criticizing Trump is not metastasis.
Being a jerk about it, now THAT is metastasis.
Hawthorn didn’t do that.
How do you figure that? If he caused Cruz to lose support, wouldn’t Trump be in that final group?
But this one takes the cake.
John Gibson has no credibility. He is spewing nonsense.
Listening to talk radio this morning, they were saying Christie was the man to beat Trump...LOL.
>> If he caused Cruz to lose support, wouldn’t Trump be in that final group? <<
Sure. But if the primary “marathon” eventually boils down to Trump versus Bush, Trump versus Rubio, or Trump versus Walker, then the non-Trump is sure to win.
Cruz would almost surely beat Trump in a one-on-one contest, but as the polls look now, I think it’s a real stretch to imagine that Cruz could rise to be among the top three.
Yup, he's the man to beat Trump . . . to a Dunkin Donuts grand opening.
Would “Vulgarian” be more to your liking?
Not really — he’s not vulgar (although the bullies attacking are). How ‘bout “provacateur” — it accurately describes his tactics — and clearly his intent — and it provides those intimidated by his “non-professional politician” demeanor with a needed negative connotation. Fair enough, good sir?
We are a year out as people remind us.
Why do you think Trump would lose in one of those contests? I can see him losing to walker...but Bush?
I will have to stick with "vulgarian." This definition, from dictionary.reference.com, seems to fit very well: "noun. a vulgar person, especially one whose vulgarity is the more conspicuous because of wealth, prominence, or pretensions to good breeding."
While I think we can respectfully disagree, I will never vote for Trump. If it's Trump versus Hillary, I will vote third party.
>> Why do you think Trump would lose in one of those contests? I can see him losing to walker...but Bush? <<
In the first place, I doubt Trump has the “staying power” that’s necessary for remaining competitive over the next 12 months. Even if he doesn’t himself get bored with the primary process after he has had his current moments of glory, I’ll bet that a lot of his potential supporters will eventually get awfully bored with his boorish behavior.
In the second place, the poll data I’ve seen show that even though Trump now leads the GOP field, his disapproval percentages among the GOP electorate are higher than his approval percentages. That’s not exactly a winning formula for a two-man race.
In the third place, even though the expressions of anti-Bush sentiment on FR are extremely powerful and widespread, I don’t think FR is representative of the GOP electorate as a whole. If matters ever came down to Bush vs. Trump, I think the electorate-cum-primary process that selected McCain and Romney would eventually go for Bush.
(But put me down as a strong Walker fan!)
>> If it’s Trump versus Hillary, I will vote third party <<
I’d wager that the only way it could be Trump vs. Hillary would be if Trump is a third-party standard bearer.
What about a vulgarian provacateur?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.