Quote Robert Gentel:
The notion that she can just "not try as hard" to influence the polls is risible.
Why? It's a three week period prior to the conventions, which are being held a month earlier than normal. Holding up on her attacks on Trump slightly, introducing no new lines of attack, (though so many are available), and allowing Trump to creep back up in the race served her purpose. Why not
do it, if it makes it less likely the GOP will dump a supremely flawed candidate?
And the entire premise that she did do do that Trump would not be replaced as the nominee ignores that as much as the Republicans want to they have their hands tied. They don't want to split their base even more than they don't want to lose.
So you are saying that there would be just as small a chance that Trump would be dumped at the convention with him down by 15 points at convention time as there would be with him down by only 3 points? That conventioneers will be no more tempted to get the rules committee to change the rules so that primary votes are suddenly cut to less than 50% of vote total and the votes of party leaders elevated to more than 50% if they knew for sure at the time that they were sending their party right into a bloodbath on Election Day? You are naive.
This theory is simply nonsensical on multiple fronts and lacks fundamental understanding of the political events that have taken place.
You must understand, there are normal electoral losses that the losing party shakes off the pain, gets rid of the leaders who led them to defeat, and rebuilds for the next election cycle. And there are losses so great that the existence of the party is threatened. If Trump were down by 15 points at convention time, the Republican Party would realize that Trump must not be allowed to get the nomination, period.