Replies

But the fact remains that outside of Trump's home region, the northeast, 50+ % are inclined NOT to vote for him.

You lose the argument with that statement, since it applies to EVERY wannabe candidate -- all 17 or so -- who ran in the Republican primaries this year.

That is the problem with trying to use 'negatives' as the basis for argument. The same can be said for the 'likeability' polls that have Trump at 69% negative. Clinton is at 64%.

Voters will be faced with 2 major contenders in November. Even then, it will be the candidate who wins in enough states to garner 270 Electoral votes. Candidates can win Electoral votes based on pluralities, not majorities.

You lose the argument with that statement, since it applies to EVERY wannabe candidate -- all 17 or so -- who ran in the Republican primaries this year.

Normally, as candidates drop out, the front runner picks up a sizable chunk of support, and with momentum,pulls in well over 50%. Cruz was in single digits in October, and picked up in the mid-40s in Wisconsin in the last primary before NY. Trump moved up some, mid-twenties in Iowa, mid-thirties in New Hampshire, mid-30s to low-40s in the southeast, upper '40s in New England, but still mired in 20s and 30s in the mountain states and much of the great plains. In all these regions, his numbers have only inched up since those other candidates dropped out (alker saw this when he droped out and urged others to follow his lead). Trump has his very committed support, but is upside is quite limited. Cruz is also limited in the northeast, as Kasich at this point for most is a protest vote, or a vote for a mere counter to Trump at the convention, and still pulls in the mid-20s.

If Trump weren't the very last choice of a sizable number (which I am not part of, he is my second choice at this point, including against ANYone introduced at the convention) he'd be over 50% by now. Since NO candidate has a majority of support, then it gets worked out at the convention.