Pointing out that Cruzers SCREAM THEIR ARGUMENTS IN CAPITAL LETTERS is not actually an ad hominem attack because it is not an attack against the person, but rather an attack on the mode of argument. Pointing out that screaming loudly is an empty rhetorical device is not an empty rhetorical device, it is an argument.
Now, if you want to make a real argument, go ahead and make one, in minuscules please, so we can read it and understand your argument, rather than the fact that YOU ARE SCREAMING AT US IN A RAISED VOICE SO WE CANNOT HEAR WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.
The Trump camp continuously argues that the Trump candidacy is especially robust and viable and constantly cite the polls as evidence.
But when we look at the tabs of those exact same polls for the general election we do not see impressive numbers for Trump. There are 3 candidates showing victory margins greater than the margin of error: Cruz, Rubio, and Carson, but not Trump. In some cases, 7, 8 or 9% for the Cruz/Rubio/Carson trio. But nowhere do we see Trump winning by more than 3% and usually it's less, if winning at all.
So, my so far unanswered question is, "How is this especially or particularly 'robust?'"
Can anyone answer the question?
Thank you.