“nice strawman.”
I don’t think you know what that term means. STRAWMAN doesn’t mean: an analytical hypothesis based on fact, direct observation and personal experience. You may believe my analysis is incorrect, but labeling it a ‘strawman’ argument- nope.
There are 2 republican candidates who currently have 100+ million to spend: Jeb and Trump- FACT.
Cruz has raised some money, (before Trump announced,) I wonder how much he will continue to raise if his poll numbers continue falling?
You can see Cruz going into Arizona, (his first month,) drawing a crowd of 10,000 people, and attacking John Mccain? I can’t.
In fact HE DIDN’T! (So I guess your argument falls apart on face value.)
What Trump did takes brass balls, AND unlimited self-financing. Mccain has powerful friends who write checks, Cruz can’t afford to piss them off.
Is that opinion a strawman too?
Does strawman mean an analysis different from yours?
Before you go off on your “all knowing analysis” that money is the only winner, maybe the name and campaign of David Brat against the sitting Republican Majority Leader Eric Canton just might blow a hole the size of the Gulf of Mexico into your hypothesis. His was the shot across the bow of the establishment that message and conviction to it is the winner. Wise men did not discount this and will be the eventual winners, not the bloated, big money establishment pukes.
False choice = STRAWMAN
Agree?
You can see Cruz going into Arizona, (his first month,) drawing a crowd of 10,000 people, and attacking John Mccain? I can’t.
In fact HE DIDN’T! (So I guess your argument falls apart on face value.)
I can see it, Argument did not fall apart. (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina more important) FACT
Cruz has raised some money, (before Trump announced,) I wonder how much he will continue to raise if his poll numbers continue falling?
We will see. Won’t we.
‘