After AL and GA, I'm really starting to wonder if the impact of Trump's endorsement on GOP primaries is grossly overrated at this point. I mean, Perdue lost by 50 points and lost every county in the state. And Brooks crashed and burned despite being armed with Trump's endorsement (though in all fairness, that was in part because of Brooks' horribly run campaign).
Seeing how Brooks & Purdue did no campaigning, they were essentially DOA especially Purdue with Kemp being an incumbent. However had Trump not rescinded his endorsement, Brooks probably would've ended up being the nominee, although a runoff would've been the most likely way.
a.) Perdue - All that is true, but despite both those things, a Trump-endorsed candidate still shouldn't be losing the GOP primary by 50 points.
b.) Brooks - I don't want to call you a hack, but this really feels like wishcasting. Trump pulled back his endorsement precisely because of how terribly Brooks was doing and how evident it was that Brooks was crashing and burning. Not the other way around. You're putting the cart before the horse, the effect before the cause. Brooks got the Trump endorsement, was initially doing well, then gradually began to fall till he was far from the front-runner. Trump took back his endorsement because he didn't want to associate with a losing candidate (should've done the same thing with Perdue, Donnie boy!), and Brooks has since cratered even more. Even with Trump's endorsement, Brooks was somehow able to lose front-runner status; Trump taking back his endorsement only further exacerbated that. He was hardly on the way to victory