Thanks for compiling this, very good job. Keep up the good work.
I’ve been beating that drum on Twitter related to Texas. 44% in home state is historically bad. Bush took 88% in Texas in 2000.
Cruz is finished, just like the incredible shrinking Marco.
I believe that Cruz feels that when dealing with constituencies, not candidates, for the most Part the constituencies supporting Trump’s opponents have a greater affinity for each other than they do with Trump’s constituency.
I felt the same way until Carson endorsed Trump. Your analysis is valid when analyzing candidates, but may not be so for constituencies.
Can any candidate at this point count on another candidates voters if the other candidate drops out of the race? That may have been true 2 months ago, but now things are really muddled.
Percentages in (24) states that didn’t want Cruz
Average per state...
71.8 didn’t want Cruz...
Cruz’s margin of victory in TX was the smallest margin of victory of any TX Republican presidential primary winner in history.
He simply points out, correctly, that the majority of voters did not pick Trump.
Of course that applies to each candidate, which Cruz never denied.
So, these numbers seem to represent time spent doodling with numbers.
That assertion always makes me laugh. He says that most people didn’t vote for Trump. If Trump beat him, that means even more people didn’t vote for him.
I know politicians aren’t good at math, but geeezzzz.
The other explanation is that he is so arrogant he automatically assumes that every vote not for Trump would automatically come to him. Its just idiotic.
Good job! Facts are stubborn things.