“which is that trump consistently loses over half the electorate.”
And you know his how, exactly?
You mean the votes that Cruz and Kasich and Rubio are getting aren’t votes FOR them, but rather they are all anti-Trump votes?
Interesting Magic 8 Ball you’ve got working there.
“...And you know his how, exactly?...”
The primary results from each state. Go look. Don’t take *my* word for it.
“...You mean the votes that Cruz and Kasich and Rubio are getting aren’t votes FOR them, but rather they are all anti-Trump votes?...”
We can safely presume the vast majority are likely *for* them, but we can also safely presume *some* of the votes are against trump ( the same as *some* votes, no matter how few, given to trump are against Cruz, kasich, whatever). Heck, recent news had some folks, still undecided, who are agonizing over whether to vote for Sanders or Trump! Politics makes strange bedfellows...
Regardless, MY POINT, which you all keep conveniently avoiding — likely because you have no valid response to it, is that Cruz and Kasich are *not* going to get 1237 delegates, but they stand more than a fair chance of preventing trump from getting 1237 and forcing a contested or (worse) brokered convention. And if trump can’t sway over half the voters, then delegate counts *before* the convention no longer apply *after* a contested/brokered convention starts. The bastards in the GOPe will make sure the right delegate palms get greased with promises (and I wouldn’t be surprised if cold, hard cash was exchanged on the sly too) to give the election to anyone but trump. And they probabaly prefer Kasich.
Bottom line, if trump arrives at the convention with less than half the electorate, he has no mandate or claim to the nomination because you can also argue that more than half the electorate wanted someone else. Period. That is (and has been) my entire point. Try to rationalize it away at your peril. OR, you can get smart and start trying to *earn* well over half the delegates instead of alienating over half the electorate.