And the same is likely to be true of this past week. I was just making a relative comparison, the week after Wisconsin, Trump was taking a real beating, not one over manufactured crises.
-- Ted could have come out and said "I agree with Donald that the outcome in Colorado was not optimal, and I have faith that a real election process would produce the same result. So, along with Donald, I call on the Colorado GOP to provide some means of allowing Coloradans to vote prior to the convention and the will of the voters be done." --
Or, better all around I think, if the zealots in Colorado had let the process run "fairly," the delegate allocation would have not caused a ruckus in the first place. I am not a big fan of popular vote. Maybe it works okay in one election or another, but on the whole, universal suffrage and popular vote are poison.
That said, if one accepts the premise that popular voting is good, then yeah, Cruz could have done as you suggest. If, on the other hand, one allows state parties to have a range of means of delegate selection, Cruz could have at least acknowledged that there are serious allegations of impropriety and unfairness, and those allegations will be worked out as objections are filed and dealt with. In other words, don't claim the result is certainly valid, instead acknowledge and admit that maybe some hanky panky was going on.
-- But nooooo. St. Ted had to greedily cling to his meaningless delegates and lose the issue. --
He does the same thing when he characterizes his opponents' positions. Misleading characterizations, and he never backs down. I think he's loopy.
My only point is not the actual delegate selection, but PR positioning. Ted could have thrown this all back on the CO GOP and come out smelling like a rose . . . with the delegates too.