and their strength in a prospective head to head matchup vs. Trump?

Polls? Grassroots support? Campaign infrastructure? Ability to build a coalition? Resources on hand? None of the above?

How do you assess who is the strongest candidate vs. Trump - and who do you surmise has the best chance against him in a general election?

Pointing out that polls are wrong is definitely fair. They certainly can be wrong - but now we're compiling up actual data points (from voter trends in the primary). Should we ignore that too?

>Other thing is, a plurality of delegates isn't a majority,
>right? So, tbf, a nominating the candidate with only a
>plurality of delegates on first ballot would actually be going
>against the *majority* of voters. It shouldn't really be
>viewed as "denying" the plurality holder anything. Viewing a
>plurality as an "advantage" in further deliberations seems
>fair tho. Just no guarantee *shrug*

Think about what you're suggesting here - and whether this would be a productive process.

There is historical precedent for such a scenario in modern political history: the infamous 1968 Chicago Democratic National Convention, where Hubert Humphrey was awarded the nomination despite not competing in any primary elections.

The fiasco resulted in bloodshed, as angry, predominately young protesters were attacked by Chicago police officers. Humphrey went on to be defeated handily by Richard Nixon.

A repeat of that is going to unify the party and defeat Trump?



-->