We’re already seeing people try to report on what a contested convention in Cleveland would look like. It’s a tricky task. Getting it close to right involves understanding several different pieces.
Greg Sargent is dealing with two of them. First, there’s an effort to figure out the advance game. What’s the most effective way to keep Donald Trump from winning an outright majority of the delegates. Without this, there will be no contested convention to talk about. Is it better to stop Trump by having three opponents splitting delegates, or two, or maybe a head-to-head matchup would work best?
The second piece is to look at how different delegate splits would play or look at the convention. Obviously, it would be less painful and divisive to deny Trump the nomination if he isn’t even close to having a majority, or if the second place finisher is only a couple of dozen delegates behind him. If he’s got a large plurality lead, Trump and his supporters will have a strong moral argument, supposedly, that he’s the only fair choice of the electorate. But the three-way split strategy to stop Trump will make it more likely that Trump has a significant lead over all of his opponents.
This is useful stuff to think about, but there’s a lot more to consider.
The most important thing to understand is how the mechanics of the convention would work. Which candidates will be eligible for consideration, and when in the process will they become eligible? Which individuals, groups, committees, will have the power to interpret or change the rules? Which rules may need to be interpreted or changed in which scenarios? Who is positioned already to control this process and what candidate do they support, if any? Which candidate will do the best job prior to the convention of influencing who the delegates will actually be so that they can bank their support on a second ballot? How will the anti-Trump candidates coordinate, assuming they can act collectively at all?
For anyone seeking to educate the public about what to expect, that’s a daunting amount of information to wrestle with before you can offer a really informed opinion.
And there’s another problem.
We haven’t seen a truly contested election in a long time. There have been test votes to change the rules, but those have failed. No one can remember a situation where actual multiple-ballot wheeling and dealing took place. And, back when those kinds of deals actually occurred, the candidates were more clearly representative of factions than they are today.
It’s true that Cruz is a Southerner, but so is Rubio, and neither of them really represent a regional faction because there are no regional issues like Jim Crow or slavery at stake. None of the candidates clearly represents the Eastern financial establishment. Trump comes closest by biography, but he also has the most dedicated opposition from that quarter. Cruz is loathed by the Washington Establishment, but he’s the candidate with a spouse who works for Goldman Sachs. Rubio has been the golden boy of the financial elites since Bush and Christie and Walker dropped out, but not for any clear reason beyond his reasonableness on immigration. And Kasich probably comes closest to a Rockefeller or Eisenhower Republican. He did, after all, work for Lehman Brothers.
This is a lot different from a having one candidate from the labor faction, and another from the farmer faction, and another that’s anti-lynching, and another that’s for “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!” We can’t look at any urban political boss or Daley machine. There’s no George Meany champion. There’s not even an obvious conservative/moderate split, at least not in any straightforward way. It’s actually Trump who has the closest thing to an army of dedicated soldiers, but they’re united around something nebulous and visceral rather than any kind of issue that can be horse-traded away.
A short way of putting this is that the delegates won’t form blocks of voters with distinct interests. You can’t tell the teachers that you’ll give them some legislation if they abandon Trump. There will be no rump of delegates who can be bought off by making their guy the head of the EPA or the Energy Department. Can you imagine Donald Trump as a cabinet official or vice-presidential candidate anyway?
What I think this all means is that perceived electability will be the biggest consideration. That’s what John Kasich is banking on, and he’d probably have the poll numbers to back up his case for himself.
But Kasich would have to jump through more hoops than just having the best argument that he can win the general election. He’ll almost definitely need to have Rule 40(b) changed so that he can stand for the nomination despite not having won the majority of the delegates in eight states. And he’ll have to get Cruz and Rubio to back him, which will require that he agree, most likely, to put one of them on the ticket and the other in a position of considerable power.
An outsider like Mitt Romney would face the same challenges and would probably have to wait for multiple ballots to demonstrate that none of the top four can form a majority.
Trump, on the other hand, would have a comparatively easy task. He might be controversial and seemingly unelectable, but nominating him would honor the choice of a plurality of the Republican electorate and short circuit a circus at the convention. It would require no heavy-handed rules changes or the forming of unlikely coalitions. And, perhaps most importantly, it wouldn’t create a situation where Trump might cry foul, walk away from the nominee, and do his best to assure the election of Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.
For these reasons, I see a successful challenge to Trump as unlikely to succeed at the convention, assuming he enters with the most delegates. But it would, at least, put a lot of Republicans on the record that they weren’t willing to swallow his racism and xenophobia and misogyny and boorishness.
That might be the best anyone can hope for.
Probably, the only thing that can stop Trump is Trump. If he makes himself toxic enough, the delegates in Cleveland will find a way to send him packing. What they won’t be able to do is send him packing and keep him on the team.
If Trump and Cruz together have a majority of the delegates, then they constitute a blocking coalition for any proposed rule changes. If they are also the only candidates who meet the eight-state threshold, then they should be able to force the Convention to choose between them.
LOL This must be catnip to you guys.
An internet fav among a subset of political junkies. As big a waste of time IMO as “let’s game out Bobby Jindal’s path to the WH.” Difficult to accept that national conventions are completely scripted pseudo events and have been for some time which is why they’re boring and essentially a vestige of a time gone by. (A time that wasn’t as great as these daydreamers think it was and less democratic than the nominal one we now operate with.)
they’ve been scripted generally because there is a winner before the convention even starts, we’ll know after next Tuesday if that not happening is even a possibility
Yes, they most certainly have been ‘scripted.” By whom? By the media scriptwriters, of course.
Only…that has decidedly failed in the case of Trump. They have tried every script in the book, pretty near, all to no avail. I say “pretty near” because I sense rumblings regarding a hold-back script. The “Trump is way crooked and we can prove it!!!” script. A last ditch effort. With all the rest of the current machinations it could be the straw that breaks the Trumpster’s back.
We shall see.
If he won enough primary votes to go first ballot at the convention and suddenly videos of him doing lines of cocaine with the other Teflon Don (John Gotti) or something equally sensationalistic showed up…what then?
Strings remain to be pulled.
Bet on it.
AG
“They” huh, interesting
I miss your meaning. Explain, please.
AG
I honestly cannot see the Republicans being stupid enough to tear the nomination away from their frontrunner. I suppose they could do that to try and save their congressional skins, but that would cause long term damage to their party.
And nominating Trump won’t be stupid and tear apart their party?
This isn’t a situation with a win.
Trump is a symptom, there can be more similar candidacies in the future. The various aspects of epistemological closure (lying, grifting, BS like supply side economics, tax cuts for the rich, etc.) will continue.
So they are tanked for the Presidency. (Demographic trends to make it worse, too.)
I expect for most, the top priority is their own personal career.
Possibilities are:
A) Something unusual happens by March 16 (e.g., Kasich catches fire and wins Ohio.)
B) Nothing so unusual as Trump failing to take Ohio and Florida.
Assuming B (probable), it is then down to a two man race, Trump v. Cruz. I think it is better for the careers of most to prefer Cruz to Trump – if (big if) Trump can’t get to 1237 before the Convention.
The biggest failure of analysis I’ve ever made was caused by my (then) erroneous belief that Republican lawmakers have a normal sense of career self-preservation. They don’t.
They are not normal in this sense.
They will go down with the ship when everyone else could see the iceberg in plain view a hundred miles out.
I can not see this working out well:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/mcconnell-on-trump-well-drop-him-like-a-hot-rock/article/2584417
My gut is telling me that all this roiling that is going on in GOP circles is nothing more than plaintive hand-wringing on the part of those who simply never envisioned that there would be a day of reckoning for the utterly craven way in which they and their Party have conducted themselves over the last 20 years, or so. They have been like addicts who simply became accustomed to routinely injecting poison into their system, and every time it didn’t kill them it simply raised their confidence that they could continue to do it, sometimes in ever-increasing doses. They became convinced of their own virtue, righteousness and invincibility. Their hubris simply became so monstrously overgrown that eventually they became totally detached from reality and ended up believing their own bullshit as if it were gospel.
And it is highly likely that they are now beyond the fail-safe point for their Party. They are going to have to simply wait and see what the inevitable level of destruction is, and go forward from there. These crazy scenarios they are bandying about are akin to trying to find a way to shoot down or recall a thousand missiles which have already left their silos. It’s just not going to happen. It would be wiser for them to start figuring out whether or not there is a future for their Party after the waste has been laid to their political landscape. The missiles are away. They should have had the foresight and common sense to quit dangling the keys and the launch codes in front of the faces of their lunatic fringe. As the old saying goes, hindsight is always 20-20.
Presenting Sarah Palin as a viable VP candidate would be their crossing the Rubicon event. t-Rump is based on openly saying what the base wants to hear, which her shtick was the opening act to.
“neither of them really represent a regional faction because there are no regional issues like Jim Crow or slavery at stake.” Don’t agree, the top 3 definitely benefit from the southern racist vote. The problem is that they all do to some extent.
The scenario that is developing now is why I thought Bush should have stayed in the race. This was the scenario where he had a shot.
Of course that fact that he bailed when he did is further evidence that he just is not presidential material.
They have a simple, but painful, choice. Do they push for party unity one more time, knowing that they can probably talk Trump into protecting the rich, but that the splintering will only continue? Or do they decide it’s time to cut their losses, admit that they’ve lost a huge segment of their constituency, but rebuild with the “sane” ones who are left? Either way, the damage is done.
Put another way,the differences are over tactics and personality and not ideology.
“Some 70 percent of Americans are still Christians, and one in four US citizens, or about 80 million, are Evangelical Christians. However, only 27 million Evangelicals voted in the last presidential election, while the rest stayed home.” http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/trump-candidacy-has-republicans-looking-for-an-alternative
-a-1081222.html
Are these Trump’s newbies?
No.
He has a lock on knuckleheads.
And there are just an endless supply of knuckleheads in this country.
Typically, they don’t vote. But if voting is a good joke, it’s worth saying you’ll do it, even if you won’t.
Trump wins Michigan (by 12% at current counts).
“Game over man.”
I prefer this Bill Paxton quote, though.