Trump is an evil piece of sh#t.

I think JohnE is right ^^^

in addition, if anyone but Trump is the ultimate nominee look for Donald to break his
pledge and run as a third party, using the excuse of the RNC was mean to me

by doing so he splits the Republican vote and increases Hillary's already huge win

Donald has the ego and narcism of Ross Perot in spades to do it

In a fascinating analysis at the conservative magazine National Review, Lawrence Brinton, a pseudonym for a political operative who has supposedly "informally advised several 2016 campaigns," lays out a compelling case that establishment favorite Jeb Bush has "almost no chance" of winning the 2016 Republican nomination. Brinton bases his analysis on Bush's third-quarter fundraising numbers, which show that the cash for his campaign comes overwhelmingly from major donors — indicating a lack of support from grassroots voters who are not only necessary to build enthusiasm for a campaign, but who also in recent election cycles have become a financial force in their own right.

Brinton's analysis is damning. The ratio of Bush's big-donor and small-donor amounts is a wildly unbalanced 15:1, comparing unfavorably to Hillary Clinton (3:1), Marco Rubio (1.7:1), Ted Cruz (1:1.6), and Republican frontrunner Donald Trump (1:6.5). (As Brinton notes, Trump has not even been an active fund-raiser, and would likely be an attractive candidate to both major donors and small donors.) Bush even trails Mitt Romney at this stage of the 2008 election cycle, with the former private equity titan boasting a healthier 7:1 ratio. George W. Bush had a 12:1 ratio at this stage of the 2000 race, but Brinton argues that he was competitive in the small donor range and dominant in the middle donor range, whereas Jeb is very weak in both areas.

Based on historical patterns, Brinton concludes that "Jeb Bush cannot win." He adds, "No candidate has ever won the nomination with such a heavy reliance on big donors, even at a time when big-donor money made up a much larger percentage of total fundraising." Brinton says that the candidate in the best position to win is Cruz, and that Rubio, Carly Fiorina, and Trump are also in the mix.

I doubt things will change much between now and January 1. Americans tune out politics in favor of holidays. That will leave one month for the race's dynamics to change.

The more I hear Trump speak, the more his appeal starts to resemble that of a populist dictator. His policy is "Put me in charge and I will lead you to the promised land." He doesn't really say how, and shows little regard for limited representative government.

It is up to the voters to vet and make wise choices.

Nov 25, 2015 - 07:39pm PT
Lorenzo,

"Democracy fatal flaw: The vote of a fool has as much weight as the vote of the wise."

Moose

The problem is who defines the "wise" vs the "fool." Recall we had that system once in this country wherein only land owners or only literate (who must also be white males) or only whatever persons could vote. Surly we don't want to go back there. Now, however, we have gone so far in the other extreme that we don't even want to require ID to vote. Now long dead people can vote (repeatedly,no less), illegals can vote - heck I think my dog can vote. You may well need to show ID to rent a movie but no so to vote. That's a no no. The joke around my house is the dog is going to vote and then for whichever candidate promises her the most free kitty food

Oh, OK, it protects the voter from having his ID challenged so that he can refute the challenge in a timely manner. Most states I have lived in issue picture IDs which look just like driver's licenses only they say that the document is not valid for driving. So if the voter presents this state issued ID with picture on it (and STILL is challenged), is there not some mechanism in place to hold the person frivolously challenging it accountable. Could not there be stiff penalties in place for anyone pulling that sh#t.