This is a very strange argument that's emerged since his poor showing in SC. Yes, he did poorly again in Nevada last night.
But what makes folks think that the guy who singlehandedly shutdown the government in 2013 and hurt his party is now going to be this team player who gets out so the Establishment can get Marco Rubio in a one on one battle?
I had to get that off my chest as I saw a comment at Nate Silver declaring Cruz should get out. Yes, it might help the Establishment but when has Cruz shown an interest in helping the Establishment?
Again, remember what he did to it in 2013.
Meanwhile Nate Silver and Harry Enten continue to put stock in the winnowing theory of the race. That if only you can get other candidates out-the only real candidate left are Cruz and Kasich-then Rubio will beat Trump in a one on one.
"How about Rubio? Well, he just got blown out by Trump in a state thatwas once thought to be the most favorable for him of the first four contests. He’ll also have to suffer through a few news cycles of mockery over his second place “victories.” The good news for Rubio: He beat Cruz for the second state in a row. No, second place is not winning, but Rubio would have improved chances against Trump in a smaller field, and the fastest way to shrink the field is to beat Cruz. Rubio did beat his polling average for the third time in four states, although there were no Nevada polls conducted after South Carolina."
"But it's far from clear that Trump has a hard ceiling. Some Republican operatives who have no love for Trump, such as Ruffini and Stuart Stevens, a strategist for Mitt Romney's 2012 campaign, have cast doubt on the "ceiling" theory."
"I don't get logic Trump has ceiling. Candidate definition isn't static. Winning/losing alters voter perceptions.https://twitter.com/numbersmuncher/status/699734818049941505 …"
But what makes folks think that the guy who singlehandedly shutdown the government in 2013 and hurt his party is now going to be this team player who gets out so the Establishment can get Marco Rubio in a one on one battle?
I had to get that off my chest as I saw a comment at Nate Silver declaring Cruz should get out. Yes, it might help the Establishment but when has Cruz shown an interest in helping the Establishment?
Again, remember what he did to it in 2013.
Meanwhile Nate Silver and Harry Enten continue to put stock in the winnowing theory of the race. That if only you can get other candidates out-the only real candidate left are Cruz and Kasich-then Rubio will beat Trump in a one on one.
"How about Rubio? Well, he just got blown out by Trump in a state thatwas once thought to be the most favorable for him of the first four contests. He’ll also have to suffer through a few news cycles of mockery over his second place “victories.” The good news for Rubio: He beat Cruz for the second state in a row. No, second place is not winning, but Rubio would have improved chances against Trump in a smaller field, and the fastest way to shrink the field is to beat Cruz. Rubio did beat his polling average for the third time in four states, although there were no Nevada polls conducted after South Carolina."
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/nevada-caucus-results-donald-trump-2016-republican-primary/
See I don't get how they can declare it a fact that Rubio will have a better chance in a smaller field. At most you can say is Rubio might do better in a smaller field. There are actually polls that suggest he won't do that great.
There is a very questionable theory that most of Cruz's support goes to Rubio. How do you know that? If anything as Cruz and Trump are the outsiders, the Cruz supporters might be expected to go to Trump.
The winnowing theory that Nate Silver and Friends so confidently expouses has some real question marks.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-02-23/four-problems-with-the-winnowing-theory-of-trump-s-downfall
One major problem is this assumption that Rubio benefits from a smaller field. Also the 'low ceiling' theory is also dubious:
"But it's far from clear that Trump has a hard ceiling. Some Republican operatives who have no love for Trump, such as Ruffini and Stuart Stevens, a strategist for Mitt Romney's 2012 campaign, have cast doubt on the "ceiling" theory."
"I don't get logic Trump has ceiling. Candidate definition isn't static. Winning/losing alters voter perceptions.https://twitter.com/numbersmuncher/status/699734818049941505 …"
True. Nate and friends make it sound like a Trump ceiling is written into the structure of the universe and is wholly static. However, we live in a dynamic universe.
Whatever theory you want, if Trump blows through Super Tuesday as current polls seem to indicate, it will be time for a new theory of why Marco Rubio despite winning nothing is somehow inevitable.
No comments:
Post a Comment