Thanks for the compliment of my intelligence....I never presumed as much.
But IMHO, it shows a "lack" of intelligence to suggest that Cruz's winning, Texas (by a large majority over Trump AND Rubio) and his wins in Iowa, Oklahoma and Alaska.... "means nothing".
That's why I found it so interesting to listen to Trump supporters and the media, last night, "proclaiming" that Trump will be the primary winner when there are still around 1,000 delegates that haven't been assigned by Republican voters. The Rubio and Cruz "wins" prove there IS opposition to Trump, which makes a "slam dunk" win for him more "wishful thinking" than "proven fact" at this point.
It also doesn't take a "genius" to recognize that winning a primary doesn't "guarantee" a key to the White House for Trump. The Republican electorate's "aversion" to pulling the lever for McCain or Romney in the past.....even while knowing it would give Obama the Presidency....gives testimony to that fact.
“It also doesn’t take a “genius” to recognize that winning a primary doesn’t “guarantee” a key to the White House “
Of course, but you’re just changing the subject. You said-
“..but I’d like to see Trump win the White House WITHOUT Texas, Iowa and Oklahoma voters. LOL “
Absurd statement as I pointed out. Iowa has gone GOP one time (for W) since 1988 and TX and OK will go with whoever the nominee is. And it won’t be Cruz. Every “path” for Cruz is prefaced by a generous application of “Ifs”. Even IF Cruz picks a couple more his position changes not one bit. Trump can lose FL to Rubio and still win.