Trump dominates GOP field heading into 2016


Washington (CNN)Donald Trump seems set to end 2015 as the dominant force in the race for next year’s Republican nomination for president, with Texas Sen. Ted Cruz now a clear – yet distant – second after a strong debate performance, a new CNN/ORC poll released on Wednesday has found.

Trump tops the field with 39%, according to the poll of Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters. That’s more than double the share backing Cruz, who, at 18%, has inched up 2 points since the last CNN/ORC poll, which was taken in late November.

Trump has been a constant atop the polls since his ascent to the lead in July, and this new poll marks the first time Cruz stands significantly apart from the other candidates vying for the nomination. Behind those two, Ben Carson and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio have each slipped a few points and now stand tied at 10%.

Will Trump be the GOP presidential candidate?


CNN poll finds 45% of white evangelical Republicans favor Trump.


As Presidential candidate yes; but more likely as a third candidate. I doubt the Republican establishment’s representatives would formally nomination him at the convention. However if things continue as is, it could be the first time in a long time either convention isn’t a scripted victory party.

Much can change in a year though. 8 years ago Hillary was the Queen waiting for her coronation as the Democratic nominee until Obama showed up in 2007.


If Trump is the most popular candidate and the GOP doesn’t endorse him, then they deserve Hillary Clinton.


We will **actually **get the incompetence that people (depending on your view of the world) have accused Bush or Obama of.


I don’t believe that Trump will win the nomination. The GOP will not simply hand the Presidency to Clinton.


I doubt he’ll get it, based on what we know right now. But he wouldn’t have to shift his strategy by very much to win the primary and the general election both.

I doubt he will make the shift he needs to make, but stranger things have happened.

The necessary “shift” would not be some change in the Repub party. It would be a public perception that he really could improve the economy and jobs while protecting the country.


As someone who would support any of the 3 Democrats in the race over any of the 13 or however remaining Republicans there are, I sure hope Trump continues to dominate. Half of the American people would be embarrassed to have him in the Oval Office. While only 35% would be embarrassed to have Hillary. And 62% with college degrees would be embarrassed to have a President Trump. None of which bodes well for the Donald in a general election.


It’s following the same pattern as 2012 where Gov. Romney was consistently in front, with alternatives rising up and falling off. So far, Mr. Trump has survived upswings in Carly Fiorina and Dr. Carson. Now it seems like it might be Senator Cruz’s turn, but he isn’t eligible to be president, so what chance does he have for the Republican nomination?

And Trump just has more charisma and appeal than Romney ever had. He is much more likely to weather the storms.


The irony is that the US economy isn’t doing all that bad at the moment. Growth is 2% and unemployment is 5%, but that isn’t distributed very evenly. Without any real backing from research, my guess is many Trump supporters are those for whom the economy is not working. It’s interesting that a multi-billionaire realestate speculator is the one seen to be the messiah to deliver decent jobs for those with roughly a High School diploma (or less).

I’m not sure it’s going to be that easy for him to make any meaningful shift to gain enough votes in the actual election election based on the baggage of the statements he has already made, He is probably the candidate people have the strongest opinion one way or the other about at the moment.


The Quinnipiac poll shows 69% of Republicans believe Donald Trump cares about their needs and problems. But only 38% of all people believe that. And 59% of women would be embarrassed to have him as our President.


Everybody who has a job and isn’t self-employed knows he or she is working for some very wealthy person who had a good idea or a strong talent or both. And whether he resents their differences in salaries (and most do somewhat) he knows perfectly well who produced his or her job.

So here’s Trump who really has produced jobs, many of them probably good jobs, and Hillary Clinton who has become a multimillionaire too, but by selling influence to the likes of Saudi Arabia and Russia.

So, as between those two fabulously wealthy people, who is the average worker going to think knows more about producing jobs if the comparison is put plainly before him?

As we all know, the “unemployment” number doesn’t reflect real unemployment and certainly not underemployment. And Fed subsidized stock markets don’t have any meaning to average people, and certainly no benefit. Janet Yellen will do her best to keep the stock market from taking a serious hit during 2016, and maybe she’ll succeed. But maybe she won’t.


I work for a huge Public company that is a household name and has been around in some form or another for over a century. There are certainly some smaller companies out there for which I agree that is true, but it’s also a nice bed time story for others.

In the case of my company, the strong talent is the on go dedication and hours put in by its current employees. A good part of the ownership is people like me who have money in a 401K or IRA. Others are some pretty rich investors, for which I don’t see much need to discuss how the system is designed to work for them, other than a very telling statistic that approximately the 400 richest people control the same wealth as the bottom 50% in this country.

Nothing personal here, that’s why we get to vote. :slight_smile:


Michael Medved was going on yesterday saying that back when our country was born, perhaps only property owners could vote; I don’t know the history. I know some people feel this way or they want only those who pay taxes to vote.


It is indeed a historical fact; shockingly, the land owners were found not to have the best interests of the country at heart. Thus, numerous amendments enlarging the right to vote.


You said the bottom line.


If the 400 richest people really do own more than the bottom 50%, it has probably always been true since a very significant part of the populace has little or no net worth, never did and never will. Death, however, comes to all.

The people who actually run your company, or at least get to say how it’s run are those rich investors and whoever manages your 401K. Probably most of them are pretty smart or they wouldn’t be running investment management companies or be rich investors themselves.

Class resentments have always existed and always will. And like every foot soldier who thinks he would be a better general than his general, those who don’t know how to create or operate a business will always think they would be better than those who do.

But as between a man who has actually put people on payrolls and built things people actually wanted in the course of building his wealth and a woman who has gotten hugely wealthy by selling her country’s interests to foreigners, I would vote for the former every time.


Who way too often get ridiculous parting gifts when they fail miserably. Please do not brush this off as class resentment. I do not think for one moment that I can do or want to do such a job. It’s disconnection compensation at the upper executive levels vs of poor performance that is my issue.


Pretty hard to know sometimes. Was Carly Fiorina a bad manager or a good one? You hear it both ways from people who ought to know. Some say she ruined Hewlett-Packard. Equally knowledgeable people say she saved it from what would have otherwise been destruction. She was, of course, well compensated.

Getting back to my point, though, people complain about those who get rich, but mostly and sometimes grudgingly, they believe such people got there because of talent and effort notwithstanding their own “GI generalship”.

I have no idea how the campaigns are going to go. What I was trying to say is that if Trump plays his cards right, he’ll morph his campaign into one in which people believe he really can encourage/save jobs. Maybe he’ll do it, and maybe he wont. If he does, nobody is going to care much about his political incorrectness.

And they won’t care about his wealth. After all, he actually does employ people and produce things people want. On the other hand, Hillary got rich selling influence, never met a payroll except with other peoples’ money, and never built or manufactured a single thing.

He’s not my primary favorite, but I don’t think people should count him out just because he tromps straight ahead through the minefield of political correct speech while others are mincing their zigzag course through it, hoping not to blow off a foot.


I voted no because I do not think the GOP will be stupid enough to let Trump remain one of their candidates due to his racist and discriminatory views. They know that if their main candidate is a racist and someone who is very discriminatory that this is not going to go over well with a great number of their constituents.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit