Will the Republican Nomination Battle Go to the Conventions

[H. Ross Peron]

As the title says, will the fragmented nature of the Republican candidate field result in no candidate having a majority of delegates at the conclusion of the primaries, forcing an unprecedented battle at the convention itself?

[bobloblaw]

Liberals and the media float this every four years.

[pbrower2a]

Far too early to tell. Someone could yet consolidate support as the only candidate with a chance to defeat Hillary Clinton.

[JonathanSwift]

I doubt it.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

No, everyone said this in 2012 and 2008, half of the candidates will drop out after poor showings in Iowa, than half of those remaining will drop out after New Hampshire and South Carolina, leading for probably 5 most likely 4 or less remaining in the race post-South Carolina, I think we will know who the nominee is going to be by the time Super Tuesday comes around.

[Mr. Morden]

Hey guys, in the latest CNN/Time poll, taken May 21-22, 2003, the results are:

Kerry 14%
Gephardt 13%
Lieberman 13%
Sharpton 8%
Edwards 7%
Graham 5%
Dean 4%
Moseley Braun 3%
Kucinich 2%

No one even breaks 15%!  I guess the fragmented nature of the Democratic primary field means that no one can possibly get a majority of delegates, especially since the DNC mandates proportional representation in all states.

How are any of Kerry, Gephardt, or Lieberman going to break out of the pack, especially with Sharpton getting around 10% support because of the reliability of the black vote?  I don't see a way for any candidate to emerge with more than ~40% of the delegates, at best.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Obviously it won't.

[Landslide Lyndon]

FWIW here is an article arguing that it could. I don't necessarily agree with it but it makes some valid points.

http://theweek.com/articles/555251/gops-worst-nightmare-pundits-dream-brokered-convention-2016

1. Look at the early polls. No Republican candidate can break even 20 percent support on a consistent basis in national surveys. In fact, the latest Real Clear Politics average finds just three possible candidates who register more than 10 percent. There's really no frontrunner at all.

2. A winning coalition isn't easy to put together. There are already several candidates who appeal mainly to evangelical Christians, a bunch who are attractive to national security hawks, and a handful who attract the Wall Street establishment crowd. There's even a libertarian or two in the mix. With so many candidates on the menu, primary voters won't necessarily have to pick the lesser of the evils. They'll find a candidate who speaks to the issues they most care about.

3. Follow the money. Super PACs, which have become a pre-requisite for running for president this year, can raise unlimited sums from large donors. While they cannot legally coordinate their actions with the official campaigns, their war chests can ensure a candidate can stay in the race much longer than ever before. There's little need to drop out if you have a billionaire or two committed to influencing the race with your candidacy.

 

[Blair]

Liberals and the media float this every four years.

No, everyone floats this idea

[Zioneer]

If it didn't go to a convention in 2012, it's not going to convention in 2016.

[King]

The Republican system is more set up to snowball toward one candidate.

[Lief 🗽]

Yeah, winner take all makes it difficult for it to go to a brokered convention.

[bedstuy]

It's almost impossible because many of the primaries have winner-take-all rules.

[publicunofficial]

Half of the field is dropping out immediately after Iowa.

[Ebsy]

I think it is a very good possibility, depending on how the first 4 states go.

[King]

The only way it could happen is if a candidate that the money doesn't like keeps winning and the establishment tries desperately to prop up the opponent.

If Santorum had kept winning in 2012, for example, Romney would still be churning along to the end even if he was behind in delegates.

[Bacon King]

The Republican system is more set up to snowball toward one candidate.

Yes this ^^^^

There's always talk of the Republican primary battle going to the convention because their field is always fractured and divided among several strong/popular candidates, but it never even becomes close to happening. Winner-take-all fights narrow the race down quickly, the media is quick to write off candidates after losing primaries, and the big donors cut off their funds as soon as they think they're not supporting the eventual winner. Talk radio does a great job of unifying the base by going very negative against Democrats as soon as the GOP nomination starts wrapping up, in order to keep sore losers unified for the big fight.

Basically all the big right-wing actors in the USA believe "a Republican I don't like is still better than every Democrat" and no matter who they support they will all readily compromise on who wins the GOP nomination as soon as they think that a failure to do so would help Democratic chances in November.

[WVdemocrat]

Liberals and the media float this every four years.

In this case, I actually agree with bobloblaw.

[dmmidmi]

Hey guys, in the latest CNN/Time poll, taken May 21-22, 2003, the results are:

Kerry 14%
Gephardt 13%
Lieberman 13%
Sharpton 8%
Edwards 7%
Graham 5%
Dean 4%
Moseley Braun 3%
Kucinich 2%

No one even breaks 15%!  I guess the fragmented nature of the Democratic primary field means that no one can possibly get a majority of delegates, especially since the DNC mandates proportional representation in all states.

How are any of Kerry, Gephardt, or Lieberman going to break out of the pack, especially with Sharpton getting around 10% support because of the reliability of the black vote?  I don't see a way for any candidate to emerge with more than ~40% of the delegates, at best.

I love to laugh at the "quality" of the 2012 GOP field, but my f***k was the 2004 Democratic field awful.

[IceSpear]

No

[Torie]

Probably no, but it could if Rand Paul gets enough votes. His supporters, particularly if he is close, won't care about what others think it will do to the party, and for that matter, given his unique niche, a brawl might make him more electable in the General.

[Mr. Morden]

To correct one thing stated by some of you in this thread though, only about 6 or 7 states use true statewide "winner take all" delegate allocation.  Far more of them use "winner take most": which is winner take all by congressional district for most of the delegates, with the remaining delegates based on the statewide total.  Thus, if the vote in a state is really close between two candidates, it's possible for the delegates to be split nearly evenly between them.  But if one candidate is winning by like 10%, he can dominate in the delegate count.

Look at the California GOP primary, for example.  McCain beat Romney 42% to 35%, and won 158 delegates to Romney's 12, because McCain won nearly every congressional district.

In any case, Jonathan Bernstein on why a brokered convention won't happen:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-01-23/brokered-convention-s-not-going-to-happen

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Likely Voter]

while i agree it is unlikely, this election has the elements of a perfect storm that could make it happen:
- record amount of money spent, especially with unlimited superpacs
- largest array of candidates
- no single frontrunner

All it will take is 3-4 viable and well-financed candidates surviving Super-Tuesday, especially if one of them has particular regional appeal like Huckabee could in the South.

But I still only give it a <10% chance

[Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez]

There are too few truly uncommitted delegates to either party's convention for this to happen.  If it looked like this MIGHT happen, any number of pols along the way would switch to the person whose path looked the brightest in order to play kingmaker. 

No political party wants their dirty linen aired in their national conventions.  This was disastrous in 1968 and 1972 for the Democrats, and in 1976 for the GOP.  To a lesser degree, the 1992 convention was a disaster for the GOP because Pat Buchanan's speech raised cultural issues that the GOP was on the wrong side of in a number of Northern states they had been carrying since 1968.  This scenario won't happen because it is in the interest of all the players in the GOP for it NOT to happen.