That tells me not that they won’t run him but that they will run him because winning is not the plan
Maybe it is we who need to get a clue
The 2012 Republican National Convention demonstrated to the GOP's conservative base that he clearly had no use for them. The program didn't feature a single prominent spokesman from the Tea Party wing, not even Sarah Palin. One night there was to be an appearance by a "mystery guest" whom we hoped would be Sarah Palin, but it tuned out to be some old has-been movie actor. And Newt Gingrich was apparently not allowed to give one of his trade-mark barnburner speeches but instead made a plodding, platitude-laden joint address with his wife, which seemed clearly out of character.
Instead of firing us up, that convention left us less than enthused.
With respect, any candidate who relies on being elected via people voting "against" the other guy, is a very bad choice. Voting "against" is purely an emotional summation of intent; mathematically speaking, a vote is only ever FOR something/someone, or FOR something/someone else. Even when you vote "against" a ballot proposition in intent, mathematically what you are doing is voting FOR nixing that idea. With individual candidates, however, there is NEVER an option of voting for nixing them; there is ONLY the option of voting for someone else. I repeat: voting "against" is 100 percent pretend, a fiction of the mind.
I take responsibility for what I voted FOR, which is why I refused to vote for Romney in 2012 and will refuse again in 2016. People who take responsibility for what they voted "against" are taking responsibility for an entirely imaginary action.