You’re not getting the gist of my point - There is no way to know who would have gotten votes from whom - for ANY of the concerned parties! That is why I will not argue the issue about whether the scheme benefited Carson or any other candidate.
The only issue that matters is that Cruz’ team took a CNN story and expanded upon it to create a false narrative that they knew was not true. However, and as I stated in the last sentence of my post to you, even under these circumstances, I seriously doubt their will be a law suit, etc. To pursue such will be to no one’s be4nefit but the GOPe and the Democrats.
That was among the points I was working at establishing in my comment made to others which you butted yourself into.
So who is it that's not getting it? Not me. I had "it" before you ever said a word about -- to me.
Yourself and others have been trying to hammer that. What do you think? I'm like a noOb or something? I see what's going on, and what had been going on leading up to the Iowa caucus, and the various assorted meltdowns since. I've read through dozens of threads (if not multiple dozens of threads) and thousands of comments made here on this forum. I know the score.
What is italicized, above, may be the only issue that matters to YOU, but the way you just stated it, and have been talking about it for the last few days or so itself has false narrative "expansion" to it ---that is not true--- regardless if you recognize that, or not.
What I don't get is how you could have so entirely ignored the feedback and response you most likely have been getting...
It also seems to me that you can scarcely hear yourself talk. If there is no real way to establish who "got" votes from who (provided there was much in the way of last minute shuffling ~not~ coming about through what is otherwise normal & general Iowa caucus practice & procedure, but due instead to some last minute tweeting and emails) then why all the hyperventilating? Who is it all for? Trump?
Carson did say he was not going to himself, personally campaign in New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Right about the time the voting was taking place in the Iowa caucuses, Carson left early (to avoid a storm, it was said) to "change into fresh clothes", so Carson himself said.
Did you listen to that interview? It was weak, man, WEAK. He sounded like a little girl.
Just a little while ago I listened to two recordings at 'conservative treehouse' that did NOT hold the information that the guy who calls himself 'sundance' claimed in headline of the article.
Unless it was said in the second, highly garbled recording of the two, the Cruz campaign did NOT in those recordings say that Carson was quote-unquote "dropping out", albeit if it was said in the second one, I couldn't tell enough of what was said to hear if there was any limiting qualification included ---the truth of the matter being that Carson was personally "dropping out" temporarily, as far as his own appearances at soon up-coming caucus States was concerned.
In the first one, it said by a women from the Cruz campaign that Carson was "taking a leave of absence" -- which he technically was. There was no exaggeration in that message.
You still have a problem with this though, I can see.
What you can't seem to see is that yourself and others have been hyperventilating, and making this be some fault or impurity on the part of even the man Cruz, himself, far beyond what small measure of unfavorable-to-Carson the manner of Cruz's campaign attempting to capitalize on the info more truly was.
I've been reading the threads for the past days, following links, etc.
The overall cumulative effect doubtfully made much difference at all in Carson's final polling results.
I've come across four individuals here on FR that were present at Iowas precincts during the caucusing.
Each one of those persons said that they did not get wind of this aspect of things until after the voting, or even the next day after. They all uniformly have testified that no one they spoke with mentioned the attempted message from the Cruz campaign. That tells me that it failed to widely circulate.
One of those persons was addressed in the comment I made which you initially replied to me, on this thread.
So just wow, bud. You try to tell me I don't understand -- even the point I was making when you first interrupted? And I'm supposed to follow your lead, now?
It's not going to happen. You are entirely unconvincing. There has been plenty of commentary providing greater illumination to the issue.
Like I couldn't figure that out on my own?
But speaking of which -- just who was it that began screeching "lawsuit"?
Don't look now, but if you are a die-hard Trump supporter you may want to go fetch a fresh change of shoes, being as you just blasted the tops off the one's you are presently wearing.