The GOP will likely nominate a candidate with little to no major public office experience

1) Anti-establishment voter sentiments"Right now the Republican voters are not against experienced candidates"Literally all evidence suggests otherwise. The 4 Candidates with 0-2 years of experience hold 58.6% of the entire vote, as explained in round 1. .. . The 11 other candidates with 4 or more years of experience hold just 33.1% of the vote, with the other 9.3% of voters being undecided. There one point was over three times as many experienced candidates as non-experienced candidates, yet non-experienced candidates hold almost twice as much of the vote as experienced candidates do, indicating that Republican voters in this election are very much against experienced candidates. "People have 16 candidates to look at, as the field shrinks, people will get to know the rest as well as they know who Trump is, and they'll vote for the people they agree with. "And if you take a look at who is most likely to drop out and shrink the field, its the candidates who have lots of experience in public office that are most likely to drop out. 9 out of 10 GOP candidates who are polling the lowest are candidates who have lots of experience, whereas 4 out of the TOP 6 candidates in the polls right now are those who have little to no experience. As the field shrinks, it will be experienced candidates who drop out, increasing the odds of non-experienced candidates winning that much more.2) The 'party Elite'"The writers of the book are Marty Cohen, David Karol, Hans Noel, and John Zaller, the top political scientists of our time and was written in 2008"The book was written 2 elections ago, before SuperPacs and sweeping changes to campaign finance reforms greatly changed how candidates can fund their campaigns, and before anti-establishment sentiment swept through the field of GOP voters. The book you have cited from is therefore outdated and no longer relevant since the game has changed. Candidates can now fund their campaigns without having to kiss up to the 'Party Elite', and GOP voters themselves are more inclined to support non-establishment candidates than establishment ones. "They're already beginning to put roadblocks up, like not allowing any Republican on the ballot in certain states unless they promise they won't run as an independent"A condition that can easily be broken by having a candidate say 'Too bad' right before they break the promise and run as an independent, if they choose to do so. .. .. "Fox News can start to deny coverage to people or inundate them with negative coverage"Fox News isnt the only source of news in the world though con. .. There are dozens of other channels and mediums people can get news of candidates from. "Trump probably only has a few million in liquid assets"1) Speculation, 2) Its not that hard for a billionaire to get his money con. .. . Trump could easily make maybe three phone calls and have how ever much money he thinks he needs to be wired into an account. .. . "When Obama and Mitt Romney went to battle they used close to a billion dollars between the two. "Yes but 1) That was a PRESIDENTIAL election, where naturally more money comes into play. a PRIMARY election on the other hand can be won with substantially less money. And 2) A great deal of money still comes from contributions from actual voters, not just from the pockets of elite millionaires and billionaires. "Contributions matter, even when it's a billionaire running for office. "And SuperPacs allow candidates to raise funding far better than candidates in past elections were able to, meaning that the 'Party Elite' do not have as much control over who gets elected as you would like to believe they do.3) Conclusion"I don't feel like this debate is going to take too much effort to win anyway"You have been making it very easy for me and I thank you for thatDropped arguments:- Con drops the point made in round 2 that early polls are somewhat reliable in showing who will last the longest and who will drop out first- Con drops the point that the candidates who are the most likely to drop out next are candidates with decent to lengthy experience in a major public office- Con drops the point that non-experienced candidates have a massive lead in votes over experienced candidates 58.6% to 33.1%- Con drops the point that independents like Ross Perot can finance their own campaigns without even being a part of a party and still get up to 20% of the popular vote in a presidential electionAnd most importantly:- Con fails to dispute that debates have proven themselves to be kingmakers far more than the 'Party Elite', as evidenced by how the Koch brothers backed Scott Walker dropped out of the race entirely after just two bad debate performances. .. If the party elite really decided who gets nominated, then Scott Walker, backed by the Koch brothers, the literal poster-children of people who try to buy elections, would not have dropped out of the race after polling at ZERO PERCENT following two bad debate performances.