Rasmussen: 57% of Republicans think Trump will be the nominee

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

If Trump is nominated, it would show that both parties have moved so far to the left. Trump is to the left of Hillary Clinton on health care, trade, taxes, property rights, corporate welfare and as liberal as Clinton on guns, abortion, and economic stimulus. Mr. Trump's supporters are so stupid they think they are in the GOP, they are a bunch of liberals except they hate immigrants.

I will leave the GOP if Trump is nominated and vote for the libertarians because at least I could vote for folks who believe in freedom. All of the other GOP candidates, even George Pataki, are different from the Democrats, but not Mr. Trump and on some things, he's worse.

I may just vote Democratic if Trump is the nominee..either that or look at who the third parties nominate. I will not support someone with no political experience for the presidency (meaning I won't support Carson or Fiorina either)...I will consider someone with no political experience for lower offices only.

I've (we've) already discussed this in other threads...I/we consider general (especially if said general won a war vital to the nation's survival) to be a political office.

I mean are people seriously comparing Trump and Carson's accomplishments to those of Washington, Grant, and Eisenhower? Really?

[ViaActiva]

I think it's time to stop ignoring Trump: this is a real phenomenon, he isn't going away. I would not be surprised at all if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire. After that, there's a good chance that the GOP establishment will rally behind a stop-Trump candidate (Bush, Rubio, Fiorina) and deny him the nomination, but he's definitely a serious contender for the nomination.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Washington had no political experience, Eisenhower had no political experience. What's to say Trump can't do it?

[Simfan34]

Washington had no political experience, Eisenhower had no political experience. What's to say Trump can't do it?

What a ridiculous comparison.

What do you call being president of the Constitutional Convention, anyway?

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

I'd say it's really unlikely that he gets the nomination.

But then again, Trump has defied every political prediction until now, and has survived events which would had usually undermined other candidacies in the blink of an eye. For now, I'd just be cautious.

It's unlikely that Trump will get the nomination not because he wouldn't become the first choice of a majority of GOP rank and file voters, but because the party establishment have many ways by which they can work to screw Trump in the delegate count.  The parties have avoided real conventions since 1976, but this may well change.  It may well be that Trump will have won the bulk of the primaries at convention time, but is short in delegates, and would need non-elected delegates to put him over the top, and the question would be whether or not the GOP Establishment would close ranks against him, or come to some sort of accommodation with him.

It would be interesting to think about what would happen then.  Would the GOP Establishment be forced to make an accommodation with Ted Cruz, putting him on the ticket as VP, to stop Trump, if Cruz is left standing at the end holding a bloc of delegates?  Or would the GOP Establishment note the popularity of Trump and how that popularity would have (if this scenario plays out) just blown through their Establishment plans of how things would go, and try to co-opt him as much as he would be co-opted?  Or would Trump extract a surrender from the Establishment under HIS terms?  (Trump probably has more dirt on key members of the GOP establishment, even if that "dirt" is nothing more than folks coming to him wanting money for this and that, and needing HIM to get it.)  It's not clear, but I now believe that Trump can end the primary season having won the most votes in the primaries.

[eric82oslo]

So. That's Trump's favourite word. He uses it even more than "I" (and "me"). So.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Washington had no political experience, Eisenhower had no political experience. What's to say Trump can't do it?

What a ridiculous comparison.

What do you call being president of the Constitutional Convention, anyway?

And I just had gotten done saying I consider general to be a political office.

Also, Washington was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses.

If Trump is nominated, it would show that both parties have moved so far to the left. Trump is to the left of Hillary Clinton on health care, trade, taxes, property rights, corporate welfare and as liberal as Clinton on guns, abortion, and economic stimulus. Mr. Trump's supporters are so stupid they think they are in the GOP, they are a bunch of liberals except they hate immigrants.

I will leave the GOP if Trump is nominated and vote for the libertarians because at least I could vote for folks who believe in freedom. All of the other GOP candidates, even George Pataki, are different from the Democrats, but not Mr. Trump and on some things, he's worse.

I may just vote Democratic if Trump is the nominee..either that or look at who the third parties nominate. I will not support someone with no political experience for the presidency (meaning I won't support Carson or Fiorina either)...I will consider someone with no political experience for lower offices only.

I've (we've) already discussed this in other threads...I/we consider general (especially if said general won a war vital to the nation's survival) to be a political office.

I mean are people seriously comparing Trump and Carson's accomplishments to those of Washington, Grant, and Eisenhower? Really?

Why not? Are you somehow suggesting their accomplishments are not comparable?

Hardly anyone's accomplishments are comparable to those of Washington, Grant, and Eisenhower.