Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Math is still math and the numbers don't point to a Trump victory.
For the past many months I keep hearing stuff like what you said ... the pundits pessing on The Donald about how he wasn't a 'real candidate' and yadda yadda. Everyone thought after the first R debate that Baier and Kelly had sealed his doom (Mathews was also there but wasn't a 'star' that evening) ... and surprise, surprise (in Gomer's voice) The Donald (who was an also ran at the time) blasted ahead of Jeb (who, by the way, dropped out tonight) who was the heir apparent for the R nomination.
I will not argue with you about the numbers and what they are supposed to tell us ... I'm just saying that the numbers have NEVER added up in this current election cycle.
I've said before that Iowa would be the only state that Cruz would win, and so far that has held true. And unlike Santorum and Huckabee, Santorum does not have a lock on the Evangelical vote. SC has proven this to be true.
I think Cruz will stay in it until Super Tuesday, then he will be out of it after that.
Total South Carolina Delegates 50. So far Trump has 44 of those 50 available Delegates. Meaning that there are only 6 Delegates left.
Even if Rubio and maybe Cruz get Delegates they are at a significant loss.
The race is far from over and both Cruz and Rubio are strong candidates but so far Trump leads when it comes to Delegates. You win primary with delegates.
Cruz ran a very ugly and nasty campaign but I guess people saw through to him.
What is very ugly and nasty about his campaign?? I am sincerely asking. I guess the Republicans aren't very interested in us Florida voters at this juncture, so I don't see his campaign commercials, so I am wondering if you saw something I didn't...of course there is the Ben Carson thing, and as much as I love Cruz & he is my guy, I thought that was very shady. So CNN (Communist News Network) reports Carson is suspending his campaign & you don't fact-check; you just have your volunteers call up Iowa voters and tell them not to waste a vote on Carson because he's suspending his campaign?!? And THEN to add insult to injury, Cruz defends his campaign's position by saying that Carson did suspend his campaign because after Iowa, Carson went to Florida for a fresh pair of jeans, and not straight to New Hampshire?!? That's not suspension of a campaign, that's a very odd laundry schedule, and it's at best petty for the Cruz camp to make Ben Carson's personal schedule their business; Carson made himself look weird all on his own when he detoured to Florida...aaaaand that's probably about the first and last negative thing I will ever say about Ted Cruz, but I still think this incident merely puts the Cruz campaign in the 'shady' category & not "very ugly and nasty." If Carson can accept his apology, who are we not to?
Also, I'm not really sure I get why negative campaigning is a bad thing. If your adversary did or said something negative and you are running against him for public office, wouldn't you be remiss not to point this out? And why not make it hyperbolic and entertaining while you're at it? This is America, home of the 15-second attention span. If we really want to see very ugly and nasty presidential campaigns, we need to go back to the 1800s, when they really got down and dirty...
I was the OP, so I thank everyone who is weighing in, but I have to say I'm most persuaded by the USSC argument as why not to say to hell with all of them, and vote Libertarian in the event of Cruz's absence. In order to avoid a third consecutive term of tyranny, I'd probably fall on my sword and support whomever Cruz endorsed and/or whomever became the Republican nominee. I guess I could even cast a vote for that establishment RINO, wants-to-raise-the-minimum-wage Kasich. I've cast votes for McCain and Romney in the past, so I know my gag reflex can handle it...
Trump underperformed in SC. That leaves the contest still a contest. But honestly, Rubio is now the most likely candidate to win. Trump needs Cruz to keep splitting the vote. Without Cruz, Rubio will trounce him.
Why? Trump is the 2nd choice of most Cruz voters. If he dropped out, they'd go to him. If anyone is needed to split votes, it's Kasich (from Rubio) and Carson (from Cruz).
Math is still math and the numbers don't point to a Trump victory.
Actually they do, as Trump has won 2 primary contests, came in second (only due to Cruz playing dirty) and has the most delegates. Rubio has won none of them and has far less; he did score endorsements, but that's all. He now must worry about Cruz and Kasich before he can ever hope to take on The Donald.
^^ He beat Cruz by .2% but you are right the media will play it like a tremendous victory until the Nevada primary is held 3 days from now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
