What If No One Wins the GOP Presidential Nomination?

[General Zod]

Wasn't that basically Romney? Everyone's second or third choice?

More or less, but the process of the Republicans going "sigh, okay, it's going to be Romney," was resolved prior to the convention.

Was there any reason aside from money that everyone "agreed" on Romney? The 08/12 primaries basically seemed to be last wallet standing, and R-Money had lots of donors who saw him as the safe and electable option, and could stay in the race the longest.

He was arguably the most sane of the rest of the candidates they had in the running.

[Gandalf]

Huntsman seemed saner, and less of a gilded age robber baron.

[Irbis]

The whole point of the primary system in the US is that party bosses can't arbitrarily pick a candidate without having to listen to the party membership.

Call me cynical but to me last time bosses of US parties cared what the little people said and were able to be openly defeated by public opinion was somewhere in the 70s. Maybe Obama budged the trend a bit, but even then only for his first campaign and he was a sellable candidate the bosses were not visibly against.

The bigger thing stopping it from happening, frankly, is the donors and the backers of 'independent' PACs. But even there, we have an issue in that there is more than one major source of potential funds for Republican hopefuls in the primaries. Just because, say, the Koch brothers decide to back Scott Walker doesn't mean Scott Walker is the only person with a chance to win.

Ok. But is really one billionaire or PAC capable of funding even primary campaign without spending themselves into oblivion? Would such billionaire upon seeing his candidate doesn't plainly win resist the party asking him to close the money tap in return for some concessions?

Would we even know if candidate or his backers dropped out due to admitting defeat or being bribed? Seeing such deal would have both sides very interested in keeping it secret, it would be really hard to find out. I do suspect party bosses have a lot more say than public circus with primaries shows, unless they really are that incompetent, from my experiences with similar demographics.

[TimothyC]

Call me cynical but to me last time bosses of US parties cared what the little people said and were able to be openly defeated by public opinion was somewhere in the 70s. Maybe Obama budged the trend a bit, but even then only for his first campaign and he was a sellable candidate the bosses were not visibly against.

I think you fail to understand the divisions in the GOP. It might be more helpful for you to think of the GOP as a coalition of many smaller parties that all join together for elections. There is a possibility that the leadership cadres of the various factions won't have a single candidate in mind by the convention (they certainly don't know - even Bush Mk 3 has some serious opposition inside the party*). There are some even calling for a hard primary cycle to help get whomever is best (most of the individuals calling for such are supporters of one of the many current governors that are likely in the race - not the senators or former governors).

*Mostly from those who think he's been out of office for too long. We've got nearly a half a dozen purple state governors who can run with just as strong a record as Jeb, and none of the name dragging them down.

Ok. But is really one billionaire or PAC capable of funding even primary campaign without spending themselves into oblivion? Would such billionaire upon seeing his candidate doesn't plainly win resist the party asking him to close the money tap in return for some concessions?

Yes, one billionaire can do that if the Candidate is still winning votes (As the article notes, witness how long Newt hung on in the last election). If there is no winner, that could go all the way to the convention. Also, keep in mind that the convention is a month earlier this year than it has been in years past. A more compressed schedule makes it easier for someone to stick around.

Would we even know if candidate or his backers dropped out due to admitting defeat or being bribed? Seeing such deal would have both sides very interested in keeping it secret, it would be really hard to find out. I do suspect party bosses have a lot more say than public circus with primaries shows, unless they really are that incompetent, from my experiences with similar demographics.

If there is a brokered convention (one where prior to the convention there is no outright winner), horsetrading will happen, and everyone will know it. Why do you think both sides will keep it secret? If candidate A decides to drop out and support candidate C over B, often it comes out why - if only to convince A's supporters.

[bilateralrope]

There are some even calling for a hard primary cycle to help get whomever is best

What do you mean by a 'hard primary cycle' ?

[TimothyC]

There are some even calling for a hard primary cycle to help get whomever is best

What do you mean by a 'hard primary cycle' ?

A slugfest that results in all (or most) of the dirty laundry out in the air prior to the general.

[bilateralrope]

There are some even calling for a hard primary cycle to help get whomever is best

What do you mean by a 'hard primary cycle' ?

A slugfest that results in all (or most) of the dirty laundry out in the air prior to the general.

I can see a lot of Democrats hoping that the Republicans run a hard primary cycle.

[Gandalf]

I'm certainly hoping for one. The GOP pool spending its time, money and credibility trying to beat each other makes for some amazing comedy.

[TimothyC]

I'm certainly hoping for one.

The GOP candidate is likely to come out a lot stronger than whomever the Democrats field, if only because the GOP has a lot more current governors who have expressed interest.

The Democrats are already starting from a weaker position than they were in in 2008 and 2012. It is rare for a party to maintain a three election run - as this has only happened three times in the last 100 years (Hoover in 1928, FDR in 1940, and Bush in 1988), while not getting re-elected is also rare (Taft*, Hoover again, Ford, Carter, & Bush Mk 1 again).

*Certainly with extenuating circumstances.

As for the actual democratic politicians, you've got Biden running more or less explicitly as Obama-III, Warren & Sanders running to the Left, Webb probably running to the right of Obama. Hillary only has the lead until she makes a decision, and if she's in and looses she's done. I'm not sure she's ready for that.

[Terralthra]

If Hillary Clinton doesn't run in 2016, I don't think she ever will. She'd be pushing 70 on the campaign trail. By the time she'd be inaugurated, if she won, she'd be nearly the oldest President ever elected (for a first term), exceeded only by Reagan, and then not by much.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm certainly hoping for one.

The GOP candidate is likely to come out a lot stronger than whomever the Democrats field, if only because the GOP has a lot more current governors who have expressed interest.

The challenge faced by said current governors is how to secure early wins against the flakier-than-thou crowd, without saying or doing anything* that endangers them in the general election by making it trivially easy to just quote them and say "See? My opponent is a low-down snake who'll sell America out to the suits in a heartbeat!"

There really is, I think, considerable potential for the Wall Street/Main Street divide to pop up again. There are large sectors of the electorate it won't work on, sure, but many of those sectors were already going to vote one way or the other anyway.

*Or, in a case like Scott Walker, already having done such things...

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

If Hillary Clinton doesn't run in 2016, I don't think she ever will. She'd be pushing 70 on the campaign trail. By the time she'd be inaugurated, if she won, she'd be nearly the oldest President ever elected (for a first term), exceeded only by Reagan, and then not by much.

She's being remarkably coy for a presumptive presidential candidate. Either she's that out-of-touch and assuming that her position is unassailable (and it might be. A, say, Elizabeth Warren candidacy would make the big-money party bosses on the Democratic side uncomfortable; unlike Hillary, who tracks a bit to the right of Obama,) or she's just stirring the pot to improve her book sales and/or the price she commands at speaking engagements, and doesn't really intend to run.

[Simon_Jester]

Given Clinton's age, I wouldn't be at all surprised if she decides not to run. She's had a reasonably successful career in politics, and retirement has to look inviting when you're seventy.

Was there any reason aside from money that everyone "agreed" on Romney? The 08/12 primaries basically seemed to be last wallet standing, and R-Money had lots of donors who saw him as the safe and electable option, and could stay in the race the longest.

As noted, he secured all that money in large part because he was both fundamentally sane and "people like us" in the eyes of the corporate executives who have the deepest, most reliable wallets in the Republican Party. The two are related.

This year we have several candidates who appear to be sane, safe investments in the eyes of big corporate. Since The Suits aren't actually a hive mind this may result in none of the candidates being able to build up a big enough war chest to just outlast the opposition.

Huntsman seemed saner, and less of a gilded age robber baron.

I agree with you- but then I'm not in a position to write million-dollar checks to Republican PACs.

You can think of Romney's strategy being to maximize the sum of "sanity points" and "suit points." He had LOTS of suit points and a large number of sanity points, while most of his opponents had less of both, or a lot less of one or the other.

The whole point of the primary system in the US is that party bosses can't arbitrarily pick a candidate without having to listen to the party membership.

Call me cynical but to me last time bosses of US parties cared what the little people said and were able to be openly defeated by public opinion was somewhere in the 70s. Maybe Obama budged the trend a bit, but even then only for his first campaign and he was a sellable candidate the bosses were not visibly against.

Well, that depends on whether you've redefined "the bosses" to mean "the donors," which was not so much the case back in the 1970s.

The key point here is that "the bosses" of the Republican Party are not a hive mind and may well disagree on which of several candidates is the best. Granted that several of these candidates are similar (there are few people who would back, say, Chris Christie who would not also be willing to back, say, Scott Walker).

But basically, the pieces are in place for the Republicans to have a multisided fight over the nomination among both the candidates and the donors, in which case "no clear winner" is a realistic outcome.

The bigger thing stopping it from happening, frankly, is the donors and the backers of 'independent' PACs. But even there, we have an issue in that there is more than one major source of potential funds for Republican hopefuls in the primaries. Just because, say, the Koch brothers decide to back Scott Walker doesn't mean Scott Walker is the only person with a chance to win.

Ok. But is really one billionaire or PAC capable of funding even primary campaign without spending themselves into oblivion? Would such billionaire upon seeing his candidate doesn't plainly win resist the party asking him to close the money tap in return for some concessions?

The point here is that if there are four comparable candidates each taking roughly 25% of the donor base, there will be no clear winner. It's not about one major donor bucking the trend, it's about the possibility that there will be no trend.

Again, the Republican donor base is not a hive mind. There is no evidence that they agree in advance on who to back.

[Zaune]

That's the question I'm pushing here. What happens if the Republican Party's various power blocs and support bases cannot agree on a single candidate?

Well, one thing's for sure. If that comes to pass, Radio 4 will get plenty more opportunities to make Brits of my generation and older snigger whenever they refer to "dissident Republicans".
Spoiler

"Dissident republicans", with a small 'r', was what the BBC used to call the Real IRA, Continuity IRA and other miscellaneous bitter-enders who refused to settle for half a loaf. They then subsequently used the exact same phrase, presumably with an uppercase 'R' this time, on Radio 4 after Congress started squabbling over Dubya's plans for an economic stimulus package that didn't really get anywhere before the Obama administration took over. I refuse to believe this was a coincidence.

[Irbis]

I think you fail to understand the divisions in the GOP. It might be more helpful for you to think of the GOP as a coalition of many smaller parties that all join together for elections. There is a possibility that the leadership cadres of the various factions won't have a single candidate in mind by the convention (they certainly don't know - even Bush Mk 3 has some serious opposition inside the party*). There are some even calling for a hard primary cycle to help get whomever is best (most of the individuals calling for such are supporters of one of the many current governors that are likely in the race - not the senators or former governors).

This might be a coalition, but most of the members are dragged along only because they supply cannon fodder votes. Finances to my best knowledge are supplied and steered by relatively small, homogenised group. I seem to recall terror of party leadership when it (for a moment) looked like Tea Party will rock the boat too much during default fiasco, but it was quickly brought under control.

If these coalition 'members' failed to push issue that was very important for them and achievable by simple inaction I don't really see them achieving anything which requires real effort that the party command doesn't like.

Hard primary cycle only serves to gut everyone before they even meet real enemy. Behold, Republican candidates already started pandering to anti-vaxxer imbecile crowd, even the one who is supposedly a doctor and is pro-vaccines *sigh*

If there is no winner, that could go all the way to the convention. Also, keep in mind that the convention is a month earlier this year than it has been in years past. A more compressed schedule makes it easier for someone to stick around.

If so, that is only yet another factor that once seemed like a good idea, but in the end only twists the election into choice-less warped spectacle, something plaguing US political scene, IMHO. Weak candidate in minority political segment still managing to cling to the end somehow doesn't give more choice, he just makes main candidate move to the right or even more radical candidate than otherwise would be picked to win as they have to fight for his voters somehow.

In a sense, you also have primaries in EU countries - by having two rounds of presidential elections, with two most popular candidates from first facing off in second one (unless someone won overwhelmingly). Usually from left and right, like in USA - the difference being in the fact the candidate has to fight for all votes, not just ones of active primary attendees, and he can't move too far into the fringe if he/she wants to win.

Then there is the fact winner can genuinely say 'I had most support' not 'I had less votes than enemy but thanks to 500 votes in state X more I got more electors, muahahaha!' giving him stronger mandate.

If there is a brokered convention (one where prior to the convention there is no outright winner), horsetrading will happen, and everyone will know it. Why do you think both sides will keep it secret? If candidate A decides to drop out and support candidate C over B, often it comes out why - if only to convince A's supporters.

But would that be real reason, or just the most convincing one? I watched politics being made on small scale, and if that pettiness and bitterness is anything to go by, such a candidate often just chooses to save face and pretend nothing out of ordinary happened, especially if they want to run a second time.

The key point here is that "the bosses" of the Republican Party are not a hive mind and may well disagree on which of several candidates is the best. Granted that several of these candidates are similar (there are few people who would back, say, Chris Christie who would not also be willing to back, say, Scott Walker).

But basically, the pieces are in place for the Republicans to have a multisided fight over the nomination among both the candidates and the donors, in which case "no clear winner" is a realistic outcome.

So what? They might disagree if they want Romney/Bush/McCain type, but frankly, that doesn't matter one bit. What matters is the bullion/libertarian/tea party crowd will sooner see pigs fly than their candidate making any headway without making huge concession to party bosses. Exact model of drone endorsed for top seat ultimately is as important as colour of carpets in his/her office.

The point here is that if there are four comparable candidates each taking roughly 25% of the donor base, there will be no clear winner. It's not about one major donor bucking the trend, it's about the possibility that there will be no trend.

Again, the Republican donor base is not a hive mind. There is no evidence that they agree in advance on who to back.

Do you really believe libertarians or tea partier crowd can muster nearly as much money as no regulations corporate barons? Several times in last 15 years talking heads made a prophecy this time surely someone will somehow cut big money out of equation, and so far, only Obama managed to do it any meaningful way and that in first run only. Second was big money back on spotlight.

Sure, maybe pigs actually do fly this time and the donors will be split, but seeing you don't exactly become good leader or rich entrepreneur with fringe right views except for some outliers I think we can safely dismiss that claim.

This one picture says best how cold, hard reality looked for others, even despite fanatic supporters:

[xerex]

The article misses the factors of momentum and media time. No matter how many candidates there are there can be only one winner in a state. By the time we leave South Carolina, the GOP primary will be down to at most 4 serious candidates ---the guys who actually won states. These 4 will continue to fight it out but it is extremely unlikely that they will win states and delegates equally. The media will keep a delegate count and eventually will only cover the top two candidates. Eventually one guy will have the party coalesce around him.

[xerex]

as a further point , if any candidate takes both Texas and Florida on Super Tuesday, then the race will effectively be over.