Someone must have backed him. He won that primary handily and almost every other one, as well. I don't think his support came from the party establishment.
"Winning" a primary with 32% against a large field, when the issue in the race was already pro-Trump versus anti-Trump, is no great feat. He did not win handily as his opponents divided the vote. Neither did he do well in New Hampshire, where he got 35% of the vote. The idea that he won by large margins comes from comparing the margin between the first and second place finishers, which tells us nothing about public opinion when the other candidates divide the vote, and has no impact on winning the nomination unless states adopt absurd winner-take-all rules, as SC did by district.
Trump won handily (or comfortably, if you prefer) when the field was large. He won handily when the field was small. He almost never lost. He steamrolled the field.
Trump wasn't nominated due to luck or quirky rules. He was nominated because he was significantly more popular with Republican voters than any of his rivals. Unfortunately, that might still be the case.
And even though I dislike the guy, I'll add that Trump's rise to the presidency was a great feat (or a historic one., if you prefer). In my lifetime, no one has ever won the presidency when (1) he had no prior experience in political office and (2) was strongly opposed by his party's establishment. (Eisenhower meets the first criterion, but not the second; Obama arguably meets the second, but not the first.)
Trump's success is all the more historic because, unlike other successful insurgent nominees (e.g. Goldwater,), Trump was not a leader of a political movement that already existed when he entered the race. He created his own movement on the fly.
That's my view of what happened in 2016. Thanks for sharing yours.
Maybe I let myself get distracted by the word "handily." Your original wording was "Trump gained the GOP nomination in 2016 not because state party bigwigs backed him, but because the rank-and-file did." I don't think 32% or 35% counts as the voters "backing" him, regardless of how far ahead he was of second place. Trump's total percentage in contested primaries was 42%.
One could make similar observations about other primaries, such as the 1992 Democratic nomination, but in no other cases were the voters who did not back the first-place finisher so strongly opposed to him. This was borne out in opinion polls in 2016. As Clinton neared the nomination in 1992, I do not recall any polls which showed that a majority of Democrats did not want him as their nominee.
Prior to Rubio dropping out, I assumed that Trump would lose in any 1:1 contest. As it turned out, the two candidates left, Cruz and Kasich, were the two with the highest negatives apart from Trump, which allowed Trump to win majorities in every state after Wisconsin. However, I still believe that Trump would have lost a 1:1 contest with any other candidate. An internet search does not turn up any records of head-to-head polling against any other candidates, except for one poll on Trump v. Rubio, which Rubio won. Perhaps there were other polls I missed.
On another, but relevant point, I dispute that Trump was "strongly opposed by his party's establishment." Actually I think the establishment anointed Trump; it depends on what you regard as the establishment. Out of 17 candidates, Trump got 60% of the media coverage. Fox News, The New York Post, and Rudy Giuliani had far more influence among voters than the RNC or other politicians; the Post and Giuliani endorsed Trump, which surely mattered in NY, and Fox News gave him far more coverage than any other candidate. Jeneane Pirro once said during the primaries that all Republicans should "get in line" behind Trump. Jeff Sessions's endorsement gave Trump Alabama, and much of the rest of the southeast. After Indiana, the RNC used every trick in the book to stop opponents of Trump at the convention. Read Sean Spicer's book: He brags of his deals at the convention to get Trump the nomination.
Everyone waits for DeSantis - even the Democrats, I suspect. Given that it is in his interest to be coy, how long can DeSantis hold off announcing one way or the other?
The rank and file didn't back Trump in 2016. He got 32% of the vote in South Carolina while getting 100% of the delegates.
Someone must have backed him. He won that primary handily and almost every other one, as well. I don't think his support came from the party establishment.
"Winning" a primary with 32% against a large field, when the issue in the race was already pro-Trump versus anti-Trump, is no great feat. He did not win handily as his opponents divided the vote. Neither did he do well in New Hampshire, where he got 35% of the vote. The idea that he won by large margins comes from comparing the margin between the first and second place finishers, which tells us nothing about public opinion when the other candidates divide the vote, and has no impact on winning the nomination unless states adopt absurd winner-take-all rules, as SC did by district.
Trump won handily (or comfortably, if you prefer) when the field was large. He won handily when the field was small. He almost never lost. He steamrolled the field.
Trump wasn't nominated due to luck or quirky rules. He was nominated because he was significantly more popular with Republican voters than any of his rivals. Unfortunately, that might still be the case.
And even though I dislike the guy, I'll add that Trump's rise to the presidency was a great feat (or a historic one., if you prefer). In my lifetime, no one has ever won the presidency when (1) he had no prior experience in political office and (2) was strongly opposed by his party's establishment. (Eisenhower meets the first criterion, but not the second; Obama arguably meets the second, but not the first.)
Trump's success is all the more historic because, unlike other successful insurgent nominees (e.g. Goldwater,), Trump was not a leader of a political movement that already existed when he entered the race. He created his own movement on the fly.
That's my view of what happened in 2016. Thanks for sharing yours.
Maybe I let myself get distracted by the word "handily." Your original wording was "Trump gained the GOP nomination in 2016 not because state party bigwigs backed him, but because the rank-and-file did." I don't think 32% or 35% counts as the voters "backing" him, regardless of how far ahead he was of second place. Trump's total percentage in contested primaries was 42%.
One could make similar observations about other primaries, such as the 1992 Democratic nomination, but in no other cases were the voters who did not back the first-place finisher so strongly opposed to him. This was borne out in opinion polls in 2016. As Clinton neared the nomination in 1992, I do not recall any polls which showed that a majority of Democrats did not want him as their nominee.
Prior to Rubio dropping out, I assumed that Trump would lose in any 1:1 contest. As it turned out, the two candidates left, Cruz and Kasich, were the two with the highest negatives apart from Trump, which allowed Trump to win majorities in every state after Wisconsin. However, I still believe that Trump would have lost a 1:1 contest with any other candidate. An internet search does not turn up any records of head-to-head polling against any other candidates, except for one poll on Trump v. Rubio, which Rubio won. Perhaps there were other polls I missed.
On another, but relevant point, I dispute that Trump was "strongly opposed by his party's establishment." Actually I think the establishment anointed Trump; it depends on what you regard as the establishment. Out of 17 candidates, Trump got 60% of the media coverage. Fox News, The New York Post, and Rudy Giuliani had far more influence among voters than the RNC or other politicians; the Post and Giuliani endorsed Trump, which surely mattered in NY, and Fox News gave him far more coverage than any other candidate. Jeneane Pirro once said during the primaries that all Republicans should "get in line" behind Trump. Jeff Sessions's endorsement gave Trump Alabama, and much of the rest of the southeast. After Indiana, the RNC used every trick in the book to stop opponents of Trump at the convention. Read Sean Spicer's book: He brags of his deals at the convention to get Trump the nomination.
Everyone waits for DeSantis - even the Democrats, I suspect. Given that it is in his interest to be coy, how long can DeSantis hold off announcing one way or the other?