The feedback loop is simple, and you actually highlighted it in your post (the part about the Democrat being shocked that Niton won yet she didn't know anyone who voted for him). Any group of like minded individuals will always have a feedback loop, where it basically loops and concentrates largely homogenous lines of thought. We saw this on FR when Obama was running for president (particularly in 2008) when many swore they knew no one who would vote for him, and lo behold he was being sworn in months after. In DU, the whole site is primarily pro Sanders , and they genuinely believe he will win. What is so insidious about the feedback loop is that when one is in it one can never see anything BUT it. Nigh impossible. After all, 'all their friends, their neighbors, their workmates, the people they go to church with, the people they go bowling with ....all of them will not vote for Obama.' That is 'real proof,' right? Unfortunately it is not, because chances are your friends, your church mates, your bowling and golfing buddies, even the people at work you hang around the water cooler with ...all of them think the same way that you do! That's why it is so insidious.
Now, for you - it is almost impossible to convince someone in a feedback loop that they are wrong, which is why I said this is the first thing working against you. I am not saying Trump is bad ...I actually like the guy (I prefer Cruz, but then again as I cannot vote it wouldn't matter even if I preferred the tooth fairy). My point is not to be pro Trump or anti Trump, just to say that your post is a waste of time and the first reason is there's a feedback loop at play. Now, by the way feedback loops don't need to be bad ...there are many things that are part of that that are accurate and good. My point was simply that it is next to impossible to convince one otherwise. It's like going to a Spirit filled Baptist Church and trying to tell the congregation they should convert to Hinduism.
The second issue playing against your post is environmental shock response. Think of this one thus way ...imagine a pond that has a certain number of tadpoles/frogs and a certain number of fish feeding on tadpoles/frogs. What happens if you have too many fish? They will eat too many frogs/tadpoles, and eventually there will not be enough food left and thus the fish will starve ...bringing things into equilibrium. What does that have to do with politics? Simple ...if you have election cycle after election cycle with WEAK candidates eventually the system will respond with a candidate who is the exact opposite. For Russia, it was the rise of Putin following years of humiliation by Yelstin. For the GOP it is the rise of Trump, a real man who speaks his mind, after years of vacillating candidates like McCain and Romney. People like Lindsey Graham literally gave birth to people like Trump. You have enough weakness in the system for long enough, and eventually the system will give birth to a strong person.
Guaranteed.
Thus, unless Trump implodes (which he has not) he will be the nominee. The GOP may try a gambit and have people drop their candidacy in the hope that the GOP votes will coalesce around someone like Rubio. That is possible the GOP Elites best hope, as their other options of waiting for Trump to implode hasn't worked, and pulling a stunt and 'apponting' Jeb in some twisted caucus play would be suicidal. Thus, unless Trump implodes or the GOP pooling resources around a Rubio works, Trump has this. I doubt the GOP elite would pool around Cruz, as to them he is just as 'bad' as Trump.
As for Trump winning the General? Well, of the GOP candidates, he has the best chance. Because he is highly unorthodox and what normally works against others just doesn't seem to stick to him. I personally think he would have a better chance against Hillary than Ted Cruz would, and I know that sounds like anathema but I truly believe so. Some people here think Hillary is weak, or that she'll be arrested (she'll not), yet she is the most formidable candidate to come against the GOP since JFK! She is more formidable than Obama ever was (another person that the FR feedback loop proclaimed to be an 'empty suit' when he was a honed Chicago thug who rose from nowhere ...in my job in PE I met a person who was fundraising for some investments that had helped Obama early in his career, and he said Obama is one of the most ruthless people he's ever met. In any case, that 'empty suit' became the most powerful man in the world for 8 years, and he rose from nothing. That's a monster there folk ...a monster, not an empty suit). Hillary is a bigger monster, and she learned her lesson of underestimating people (which is how she lost to Obama). She'll not be making that mistake again, and I am always amazed when people make it seem like it will be easy defeating Hillary.
Anyways, those are my thoughts. Errors led to Obama, a fellow Kenyan like myself, getting the American presidency. I just hope similar errors don't lead to a bigger monster taking herself (and her hubby Bill) to the White House as well.
I agree with what you write about feedback loops.
Well thought out.