I do indeed. I guess it depends on what constitutes a 'win' for you. We have been long faced with the situation of accepting the lesser of two evils, and here we are again.
Given that choice, I'd prefer the 'lesser evil' at least have consistently stood for Constitutional principles.
But, if the electorate is back to wanting to choose between dem communist and dem 'lite' again because we can 'win!', then not one damned thing has changed except the condition of the Republic, which has been on a steady decline trend since Reagan.
You don't understand the Contempt I have for the GOpee, the lies, the crap pulled at the State level here. Look up the date of the ND Republican primary this year. Go for it. Tell me how much of a voice I have in all this, and perhaps you will begin to understand that contempt.
If we can't win this with someone who will uphold the Constitution and who will stop the rogue federal agencies largely responsible for this mess, be it military, economic, scientific, or cultural, then we have lost before we have started. Another, yes, ANOTHER crossover candidate who will sell us down the river is just a waste of effort. It isn't a win if we "win" the election and lose the Republic.
While not exactly a perfect (R)eagan versus (D)ummycrat, it is however definitely NOT a GOPe (R)epublicrat versus a (D)ummycrat. This is a bona fide outsider whom they both hate. You insist on lumping him in with Romney or Dole or whoever and that is self-evidently wrong.
I mean the biggest issues are owned by Trump and NOT supported by any uniparty candidate: Amnesty/Illegals/Wall, Military, Vets, Taxes, Trade, Offshoring/Outsourcing. The most important unique thing he brings is pro-American nationalism, especially with regards to trade and negotiation. Listen, I hate to tell you but none of the others including Cruz would be caught dead running the flag up that pole.
It's fine and dandy to dream of a Constitutionalist hitting the White House, but such a quality really only brings bragging rights to him and personal satisfaction to you because the President no longer gets line items to veto. It didn't even help 200 years ago with the three Democratic-Republican Constitutionalists Jefferson/Madison/Monroe were in power. The FedGov monster just waited them out.
What does an alleged Constitutionalist like Cruz ( I will not agree on that description ) bring to the oval office in 2016? Any executive order he reverses can be redone by the next guy. Any cabinet he rejiggers gets re-rejiggered by the next one. He cannot peel away layers of bureaucracy without Congress and I don't know if you heard but they hate Ted. He gets no bills to veto on constitutional principles, rather it is a laundry list to sign or they accuse you of shutting down the government. The only possible reason anyone would demand a Constitutionalist would be so they personally feel better about their President. The office no longer has much to do with the Constitution.
Now for a Supreme Court Justice or House or Senate member it is critical to get Constitutionalists in there, especially if there is a majority of them. Maybe now you see the ludicrousness of taking these alleged Constitutionalists out of the very offices they hold and can make a difference being in! Taking them out of there and trying to shoehorn them into an office that is mostly decorative is almost inexplicable.
If you have a Trump and Cruz in the toolbox, and two jobs available, President and Justice, I think you Cruzers got your wires crossed on how to use the right tool for the job. Especially if you consider the fact that an actual "Constitutionalist" would voluntarily put handcuffs on himself and follow the spirit and letter of the founders and unilaterally disarm himself against the enemy. That office, in 2016, needs an outside-the-box thinker who is a ruthless strategist and willing to do what is in the best interest of the USA and stop the fleecing of America and her taxpayers.
Getting Trump in there is really about putting some more time on the electoral doomsday clock. If he cannot manage to block Amnesty and get the wall and a moratorium on naturalizations, nothing else will matter anyway. All the Constitutional wishlists become moot. It is over after that and there is no way back without bloodshed. The key fact here is that these very issues were never even going to come up until Trump announced.
You never answered the question though. Who should he have donated to, if anyone, to make it palatable? I calculated the relative donation equivalent and it was literally pocket change to me or you. And I really believe that will be a very lucrative investment in neutrality and good will when it comes time to collect votes in the general.