Most lawyers will tell you that if they have one or two good arguments, they don’t throw in all their bad ones, but if they don’t have any good arguments, they’ll make every bad argument they can.
By that standard, the Republicans trying to stop Trump would make pretty terrible lawyers.
They have great attack lines.
But to voters, finding those attack lines is like finding needles in a haystack, because the anti-Trumpers attack EVERYTHING.
They take his obviously hyperbolic statements literally. Newsflash: He doesn’t intend to shoot someone on 5th Avenue, and if you make believe he does, you don’t hurt him. You lose credibility.
This morning, on MSNBC, I saw a classic example of this. Trump claimed that Cruz was behind the widespread distribution of a GQ picture of Melania from years ago. Katie Tur, reporting on the campaign, explained the Republican attack line against Trump for this. The picture had been distributed by the Super PAC supporting Cruz, you see, and, of course, campaign finance rules prohibit coordination by Cruz with this Super PAC.
So, Trump was just making things up.
Who really believes candidates don’t communicate illegally with their Super PACs.
And with respect to those cynical types who find the attack line logic naive at best, how will it impact their reception of the other attack lines? Will it increase their cynicism? Is a school bus yellow?
Why, when it would be so easy to use attack lines where they don’t sound idiotic, is the anti-Trump crowd so bent on using the kitchen sink approach? Every time they’re wrong, every time their logic is specious, they detract from their overall credibility.
This is not rocket science.
Trump is not going down. His opponents just aren’t skilled enough.