I agree, and have since I realized he had and will continue to have a low favorability rating. But I'm not sure he won't be able somehow to hornswoggle his way in.
Far be it for me to try to argue against your devout Trumpism, but the very point of the article is that until March 15 every contest is proportional. Trump could win 45% in every contest until Florida (he won’t, by the way.) and still not have enough delegates to sew up the nomination.
The trouble for Trump is that the field is so crowded early that proportional allocation works against him. (The same fact works against ALL candidates, by the way.) When the 2%’ers start dropping out, all of the “anybody but Trump” vote has a clearer choice and all of a sudden Trump’s 60% unfavorable ratings come home to roost. Because if he can’t win 51% of the vote in the later voting states, he can’t win.
History is on Trump’s side.
Historically, whoever led the field in December went on to win the nomination.
What is impressive in the past year, is the remarkable stability of the race.
Unlike in 2008 and 2012, where the lead changed hands several times, Trump has been dominant since he entered the race in the summer.
If it was Jeb, every one would be writing its all over but with Trump they still hope somehow he will implode.
That won’t happen and facts are stubborn things.
How’s that internship at National Review working out?
The article was interesting and again shows that this race can ebb and tide regardless of the current projections....and or the popularity of those in the lead.
Bingo, with the earlies being proportional and the later primaries winner-take-all, it will be a late-decided contest, which was the idea when they made this re-do of the system 2 years ago. Too many "late states" had no say, and it just didn't seem fair. With the crowded field, those early "proportional states" have even less significance. Trumpers , even if they win, are going to get mighty impatient watching their delegate numbers go up so slowly.