“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.
No, I did not call you stupid. I said “this is the stupidity of this discussion”
“Stupidity of this discussion” is a clause, where the adjective “stupidity” is applied to the noun “this discussion”.
I never called you stupid, though if you fail to comprehend the breakdown of a simple sentence I may become inclined to change that. The entire discussion of what states Cruz could win beyond Romney is a pointless and stupid discussion because it focuses on fundamentally the wrong things at its very core.
The GOP is dying as a national party, it’s dying because it cannot come to the functional realization that it hasn’t won the popular vote for the Presidency, with the sole exception of a sitting wartime president in 28 years and even then it couldn’t even win by 2.5% of the vote.
If the fundamental question that is being asked is what states will this guy get beyond the last guy, you have lost before you have even begun because you are focusing on small ball and hoping you can eek a win out on the big stage playing small ball, that’s a losers position out of the gate.
The question that should be asked is who is going to grow the base and create appeal for the party... That’s how you win, by playing large ball not small ball.