Quote:
Originally Posted by DVaut1
What if we instead viewed it strategically as an increasingly zero sum game between him and Cruz?
If you do, can't we sort of recognize all of the points above, namely that:
1. Palin is a snowbilly grifter
2. Palin probably won't move the needle much
3. Palin is casually offensive to many
4. Palin's endorsement is effectively doubling down on Trump's existing base but doesn't expand it
BUT
5. in a world where your main is competition is Ted Cruz, and Sarah Palin will eventually endorse someone -- isn't having her endorsement better than Ted Cruz having it?
Maybe in a perfect world where you're Trump, you might not seek or want her endorsement. But isn't getting it better than Cruz getting it?
Or assume information is imperfect and you're not sure how much effect it would have. The safer bet would probably to get it, rather than your principle rival. IMO.
So I guess what I would say is that I can reconcile all of your collective points as valid and Trump might too, but you would still want her endorsement if you saw the race as between you and Ted Cruz for the hearts and minds of the 2016 GOP primary voters, not you and the Platonic ideal of a well functioning contest for the leader of a respectable political body.
So it's basically your classic Godzilla vs. Mecha-Godzilla situation. In a rational world, all the kaiju would band together and destroy humanity, but due to lack of coordination, you end up with lots of entertaining, only mildly destructive monster on monster violence. Makes sense to me!