If we were looking for an explanation or a rationale, it might be that one might make different endorsements based on whether a president would have a majority in Congress or not.
Sometimes, a candidate who'd be a disaster with a majority in Congress behind him, can function adequately as a caretaker president with a Congress to oppose him.
One problem with that is that we can't accurately predict whether a president will have a majority in Congress, and it's not something one would want to take chances with.
The other problem is that everything now is done through executive orders and Congress is becoming irrelevant.
Beck is reverting to his true calling, a drunken rodeo clown.
Cruz was foolish to get hooked up with him.
“One problem with that is that we can’t accurately predict whether a president will have a majority in Congress, and it’s not something one would want to take chances with.”
Excellent point and worth repeating. Others may draw different conclusions from that point, but in my opinion, it bolsters the case for Trump. I’ve always felt that, just in general, Trump would be much more effective at pushing his agenda through than a President Cruz. If you consider the possible scenario of a non-GOP controlled Congress, the case for Trump over Cruz seems even stronger.
Looking at it objectively, I don’t see how anyone could argue that Cruz would be effective in dealing with such a scenario. Trump on the other hand would very likely find ways to still push much of his agenda through. He understands what motivates politicians from both sides and how to handle them.