I did not call you any names, as you clearly did at me, I said there was stupidity in the conversation itself. That’s not a personal name call.
You seem to think that data points are static, and you also seem to think they are guaranteed to be major predictors.
There are so many things about this election cycle that have gone against every ounce of “conventional wisdom” that any attempt to argue that conventional wisdom based on this data point proves anything about the outcome is silly on its face.
Conventional Wisdom would have concluded the election was Jeb vs Clinton a year ago... did it happen?
I’ve watched Cruz backers find baseless argument after baseless argument trying to claim conventional wisdom says....
Remember the whole: Trump only wins in open primaries??
Sorry, but until something comes to pass, it is debatable, and its your closed mindedness that has caused you and others that back Cruz to remotely understand what is going on this election cycle and why your candidate continues to get his butt handed to him, again and again.
The reality is the real question that needs to be asked is simply this, which state do you or anyone else expect Trump to lose that are sure things for any republican to win? And when you step back and analyze the situation the reality is, Trump won’t cause any red state to turn blue. The question is who is more competitive in the purple and the blue states.
OH and FL are going red this cycle no matter who the candidate is, that’s a pretty solid prediction... So what is your election going to be? Another Rovesque, attempt to slip a minor win with hopefully a greater GOTV effort in a handful of states and pray that holds for a Cruz or a Kasich, or do you run with someone who has shown repeatedly they enjoy broad support and are expanding the base?
You can keep your belief that life is static, and nothing changes, its worked so well for Cruz and his backers to make these arguments for the last 9 months or so.
“You say that as though Trump would need WI to win.. this is the stupidity of this discussion.”
You didn’t call me stupid?
And, you didn’t lie by misquoting yourself, changing “you” to “it,” to remove me from the subject?
And, you think stupid is NOT what stupid does, so that people who say stupid things are not themselves stupid?
You are wrong about supposing I see the election (primary or general) in static terms. The election has been dynamic and will continue to be, thus far mostly because of the winnowing process.
When he entered the race, Trump staked out a populist position not well established within the Republican Party. This not only challenged traditional lines of demarcation within the RP, it also gave Trump a strong advantage relative to similar candidates (e.g., social conservatives, economic conservatives, and moderates) splitting the vote within their segments of the RP. Plus, Trump has charisma pouring out of the … wherever. He connects with people on an emotional level the way few politicians do.
Having said that, there is no indication that Trump generates new support in the general election, either in terms of favorability or in terms of nationwide match-ups or match-ups in key states. The possibility he offers of increased support from cross-over Democrats, independents and non-voters, has to be weighed against the possibility of losing moderates, social conservatives and libertarian conservatives.
I believe that whoever wins the nomination will have a decent chance of winning the election. Occasionally, we see this in polls. While Cruz outperforms Trump, I think the true potential for the Republican is somewhere between Cruz’ and Kasich’s support, assuming he unites the RP. (Kasich’s numbers are inflated because nobody is attacking him. Just wait until and if he becomes relevant and catches the attacks Cruz and Trump are dealing with.)
Certainly, calling grass-roots conservatives liars and thieves, in addition to calling them stupid, doesn’t bode well for uniting the party. Neither is calling them insiders while bragging about having been on the inside with Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton when he was a Democrat, and being on the inside with Mitch McConnell now that he’s a Republican. But, Trump and his friend who publishes the National Enquirer and his henchman Roger Stone are focused on winning the nomination, and this means smearing whomever is Trump’s closest rival.
This demeanor may change with Trump’s brining Paul Manafort and other insiders on board. People who have worked for McCain, Dole, and both Bushes, and who have been highly-paid D.C. lobbyists. These guys actually know the rules very well, and know that Trump should focus on winning and stop being a cry-baby about which of rules favor the other guy instead of favoring him.