You make some good points, but I must point out - Trump will get around 11 million votes in the primary...and a candidate in the general election will need around 55-60 million votes. This makes the notion of a ‘popular mandate’ unrealistic. Rather, the primaries include the most dedicated voters, most likely the most ideological voters. Its usually not the place to ferret out the most populist candidate (this is an odd year).
And I stand by my statement - many people seem completely thrown off kilter by the delegate system, and in their minds they believed the primary system to be similar to a slow motion version of the electoral college. And it isn’t. They’re angry because they are surprised by the system...but its a little late to change it now, 2016 or not.
I do agree that Trump will win on first ballot. Between Indiana and California, I think he’s about there.
And, I agree that if he came close, within 50-100 delegates, the voters would revolt and stay home if somebody else ended up with the nomination.
You’re right that Trump’s record primary votes don’t constitute anything close to mandate in a bipartisan general election sense.
I was just saying that there is no way a brokered convention is going to produce an alternative nominee with MORE of a mandate than Trump’s.
Any other possible nominee will either have lost to Trump by big margins, or will not even have participated in the primary contests. Either way, totally lacking in voter mandate.