Trump is likely some sort of sleeper agent for the Democrats. He runs his big fat mouth constantly, so he's all over the media. He's blocking out all of the other candidates by constantly being a massive edgelord. My preferred candidate, Ron Paul, had the best policies and track record of any candidate, but he had to drop out because the media stopped running stories about him so they could focus on trump. If he does get the nomination, (which might not happen if the actual platform committee finally drops him from consideration like they want to) he would suddenly turn his campaign into a total trainwreck, causing Bernie Sanders to win the election. When that happens, lots of facets of the economic and health care systems will be heavily socialized. With how extreme he is, he might even manage to ammend the Constitution, so the changes too our system would be very difficult to change.
Keep in mind, Trump built himself as a liberal until around 2003. His loyalty to the Republican party and conservative values are more than questionable.
Just a message from your friendly neighborhood Kittenpuncher.
haha okay I've been avoiding posting about the US election because US electoral politics are painfully myopic in scope but this one is beautiful. establishment democrat candidate hillary clinton is titrating her (already rather conservative and very reaction-based) campaign to match trump's aggressively right one, and pretty much bragging about her human rights violations now to try to match up. I think it's far likelier trump is actually just the rich racist fascist he doesn't hide being, but with the incoherent politics you would expect* (who on earth agrees with all of the values of a single US party platform anyway), and blocking out all other candidates through money, media influence, and because the republicans trotted out a bunch of unusually, even for them, uncharismatic and unimpressive candidates that are pretty much just props for trump's spectacle. also remember that trump is willing to run as an independent; he's no loyal republican, but they're a better platform brand-wise for him to run from than the democrats by far precisely because of his beliefs and policies. just bc trump running as an independent would win the election for (probably clinton) doesn't mean he's doing it to help the democrats, it's basically a threat on his part to the anti-trump republicans because it would help the dems (also claiming he would run as an independent is a very effective stunt). so no he's not a good republican, but he's not a democrat either. his non-loyalist behaviour is entirely for his own interests and is part of the appeal to the disenchanted racists who feel their shit isn't appropriately represnted in US parliament or by the GOP.
you're also assuming sanders gets the nomination, which is extremely up in the air. sanders's (relatively extreme for the US, conservative for any socdem party) platform would be blocked for any extremity, it's not like his sheer force of radicalism gives him the power to spontaneously force enough states to ratify constitutional amendments (let alone ignore parliamentary procedure to push through shit, given the balance of power in congress is likely to remain 'balanced' and thus an impediment). if anything, a spontaneous show of radicalism would prompt resistance, because you realise sanders is at heart a guy who thinks significant change can be accomplished incrementally through the parliament and not going to install a dictatorship. massive regime changes need to be aided by the force of some powerful group (just ask the US military, they're very good at doing it to other countries to protect western interests) and the US parliament is designed to be sluggish and protect the status quo while there is not remotely enough support of the people probably to even get the guy elected.
you might as well say clinton is a sleeper republican designed to destroy sanders honestly, her values align just as well when they're staying still, but she's obviously not.
* deceptively incoherent populism is a huge part of fascism anyway
also yes trump is drawing an unusual proportion of media attention, but ron paul is the epitome of 'been there, done that', i'm sorry. i doubt the media would find him interesting as a mainstream candidate anyway even if he weren't a retired has-been. a lot of US electoral politics is pure spectacle and a serially failed candidate is not worth intense focus. he also times his moves terribly to get attention and retired from the republican party in 2015, a terrible move for anyone seeking the republican nomination (or mainstream attention in a 2 party system) after repeatedly not securing it.
if you meant rand, the dude actually running in 2016, he quit after iowa, where ted cruz won anyway, which makes it moot really. rand wants his senate spot back and can't run for both very easily, even with a special rule change just for him
lazy edit: i'm plenty familiar with both pauls, but i'm not sure what it has to do with the easily verifiable fact that ron paul wasn't running in 2016 and expressed his intentions not to in 2015. if you mean rand paul then he was simultaneously running for reelection in the senate and the presidental nomination, and the senate race was a more reliable thing that was being detracted from by his presidential campaign (which was doing worse than cruz/rubio/kasich/possibly even carson, so he can't blame trump). also ron paul is a member of the libertarian party again as of 2015 lol he was not running for the repub nom or even for the lib party.