What are the odds of the GOP primary going to the convention?

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

I believe it's highly unlikely but with Trump possibly getting a large chunk of delegates and his ego, I could see him staying all the way until the convention and preventing someone from outright getting the nod.

[ShadowRocket]

I think less than 10%. Once voting actually starts, I think Trump goes nowhere and the field is quacking winnowed down to at most four candidates, but probably more likely two or three.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

I think less than 10%. Once voting actually starts, I think Trump goes nowhere and the field is quickly winnowed down to at most four candidates, but probably more likely two or three.

FTFY

[Kingpoleon]

I meant 10-15%, but I voted <10% because I don't think it's even remotely over 20%.

[muon2]

I think less than 10%. Once voting actually starts, I think Trump goes nowhere and the field is quacking winnowed down to at most four candidates, but probably more likely two or three.

I think less than 10%. Once voting actually starts, I think Trump goes nowhere and the field is quickly winnowed down to at most four candidates, but probably more likely two or three.

FTFY

I thought he might have been suggesting that the GOP would get its ducks in a row.

[Mehmentum]

For what its worth, Nate Silver pegs it at 10%.

[eric82oslo]

For what its worth, Nate Silver pegs it at 10%.

I normally agree with Nate, yet I think this is an overestimation. I think it's less than 2% actually. (Even if it's higher this year than normally.)

[NHI]

10-20%

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

For what its worth, Nate Silver pegs it at 10%.

I normally agree with Nate, yet I think this is an overestimation. I think it's less than 2% actually. (Even if it's higher this year than normally.)

I used to think this, but now I think it's between 10%-25%.  

The reason for my change is due to (A) Trump's staying power and (B) the reaction of those candidates who are pushed aside in the event that "the GOP Establishment" picks two (2) lucky folks for the ticket and demands all the rest of the candidates to unite behind the ticket, regardless of the effect this would have on their own careers and lives.  There are going to be a whole lot of candidates who will be angered if they are in a situation where they have a shot at being on the ticket through a brokered convention, but are preempted because of the demands of the GOP Establishment.  

Let's say that no candidate has a clear majority, and Donald Trump has the most delegates, but he can't get to 50%.  Let's say that the GOP Establishment somehow anoints Jeb Bush and John Kasich or Marco Rubio and Scott Walker as their "national ticket".  What's going to happen for the folks who might well be pushed aside for other candidates if they're not really all that out of it, and they have the capability to wreck havoc?  It's not likely to happen.  But Trump is still unacceptable to the GOP Establishment and a LOT of candidates may well decide that they're not going to be meek team players, because there's no reward for it.

[Angel of Death]

The elephant in the room here is that most states don't actually allocate their Republican delegates in an unconditional winner-take-all manner (many are WTA only under the condition of one candidate getting an absolute majority of the votes). Given a multitude of candidates (each that can be propped up indefinitely by now almost completely unconstrained super PACs), I don't see how the chances of a brokered convention can't be considered significant.

[Mehmentum]

The most likely way to get to brokered convention is for there to be 3 or more candidates in the race, with no one person getting a majority of the delegates.

Scenario 1: Trump + 2 Establishment candidates

Obviously, party leaders would try to pressure one of the two candidates to drop out.  However, what happens if neither candidate has a clear advantage?  In this case, there might not be a unified response.  If the two establishment backed candidates are getting over 50% combined, some might not see that much of a problem with it.

Trump won't get the nomination, but it would be very interesting to see what happens between the other 2 candidates.

Scenario 2: Trump + another insurgent candidate + a weak establishment candidate

A PPP poll of North Carolina actually had Trump leading Jeb! in a head to head race (50-42).  Even more interesting is that the result for an open field are very close to the RCP national average, so this may actually be representative of the country as a whole.  

In other words, its possible that in a race against Trump and another insurgent candidate, Bush could get less than 50%.  This is even more plausible if the other insurgent can cut into some of the anybody but Trump vote.

If you asked me a year ago who the other candidate would be, I would have said Paul.  Since his campaign is on a lifeline, this seems unlikely.  Carson and Cruz seem to be the main possibilities at this point.

Regardless, if at the end of the primary season its looking like Trump: 30%, Cruz/Carson: 25%, and Bush: 45%... well we'll certainly be in for a treat.  Whoever's in the middle there certainly has a lot to gain.

[Mr. Morden]

The elephant in the room here is that most states don't actually allocate their Republican delegates in an unconditional winner-take-all manner (many are WTA only under the condition of one candidate getting an absolute majority of the votes). Given a multitude of candidates (each that can be propped up indefinitely by now almost completely unconstrained super PACs), I don't see how the chances of a brokered convention can't be considered significant.

There are only something like 6 or 7 states that are statewide WTA.  But many/most of the others are WTA by congressional district.  Which means that if you win the state by a decent margin, even if it's well short of 50%, you get nearly all the delegates.

E.g., California is WTA by congressional district.  In 2008, it was:

McCain 42%
Romney 35%
Huckabee 12%
Giuliani 4%
Paul 4%
Thompson 2%

But McCain won over 90% of the delegates, because he won almost every congressional district.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

As Trump has proved his extraordinary ability to not give a crap about what Reince Preibus or the GOP Establishment think or want, if it kept him in the game, he'll launch credentials challenges to delegates, question the rules by which delegates were apportioned, etc.  It'll be the hottest thing since the 1972 Democrats.  And the aisles will be filled with Trump's minions, many of whom have never been involved in politics at this level prior to this.  It will be the biggest dollop of Awesome Sauce since the Chat Room was invented.

[Maxwell]

I'll say its a 25% chance.

[Mister Mets]

I'd go with a bit under 25 percent.

It's a crowded field, so there are plenty of circumstances under which a top contender would be prevented from getting 50 percent.

But the party tends to coalesce around a frontrunner once states start voting.

[eric82oslo]

I'd go with a bit under 25 percent.

It's a crowded field, so there are plenty of circumstances under which a top contender would be prevented from getting 50 percent.

But the party tends to coalesce around a frontrunner once states start voting.

Obama only got 47% though (and I guess he only had a few thousand more votes than Hillary as she also got 47%).

[Angel of Death]

The elephant in the room here is that most states don't actually allocate their Republican delegates in an unconditional winner-take-all manner (many are WTA only under the condition of one candidate getting an absolute majority of the votes). Given a multitude of candidates (each that can be propped up indefinitely by now almost completely unconstrained super PACs), I don't see how the chances of a brokered convention can't be considered significant.

There are only something like 6 or 7 states that are statewide WTA.  But many/most of the others are WTA by congressional district.  Which means that if you win the state by a decent margin, even if it's well short of 50%, you get nearly all the delegates.

E.g., California is WTA by congressional district.  In 2008, it was:

McCain 42%
Romney 35%
Huckabee 12%
Giuliani 4%
Paul 4%
Thompson 2%

But McCain won over 90% of the delegates, because he won almost every congressional district.

What I'm taking away from skimming through the FrontloadingHQ blog, is that (as a result of new RNC rules) the states have become more proportional this cycle, including at the district level.

[Mr. Morden]

The elephant in the room here is that most states don't actually allocate their Republican delegates in an unconditional winner-take-all manner (many are WTA only under the condition of one candidate getting an absolute majority of the votes). Given a multitude of candidates (each that can be propped up indefinitely by now almost completely unconstrained super PACs), I don't see how the chances of a brokered convention can't be considered significant.

There are only something like 6 or 7 states that are statewide WTA.  But many/most of the others are WTA by congressional district.  Which means that if you win the state by a decent margin, even if it's well short of 50%, you get nearly all the delegates.

E.g., California is WTA by congressional district.  In 2008, it was:

McCain 42%
Romney 35%
Huckabee 12%
Giuliani 4%
Paul 4%
Thompson 2%

But McCain won over 90% of the delegates, because he won almost every congressional district.

What I'm taking away from skimming through the FrontloadingHQ blog, is that (as a result of new RNC rules) the states have become more proportional this cycle, including at the district level.

Where does FHQ say that?  A few states have tinkered with their delegate allocation rules, but they're mostly the same as 2008 and 2012.  In fact, the RNC has moved the "WTA" window earlier this year, so that states can get away with statewide WTA as early as March 15th.  But even for the pre-March 15th states, they're free to allocate the bulk of their delegates WTA by congressional district if they want to, so long as there's also a portion that are allocated proportionally by the statewide vote.

[Mr. Morden]

I believe two of the biggest states, Texas and New York, did move to something more proportional in 2012 compared to 2008.  In both states, I think the current rule is that the majority of delegates are assigned by CD, 3 delegates for every CD, with 2 going to the winner of the district and 1 going to second place in the case that no one breaks 50%.  But if someone does get more than 50% in that district, they get all 3 delegates.

This kind of arrangement is referred to as "winner take most".  It's not really proportional, nor is it winner take all.

So yes, CA, TX, and NY (as well as many other states) allocate the same number of delegates to every district, regardless of whether that district has 300,000 Republican voters or 300 Republican voters.  This creates a notable bias towards candidates who can appeal to the few Republican voters in big cities.  Whoever can win over the Republicans in NYC and Los Angeles will over perform their popular vote totals in terms of delegates won.

[Horsemask]

I voted <10%. I don't think I'll ever see a scenario where the nomination isn't decided going into the convention.

[Suburbia]

10%-25%. If there is a brokered convention, Romney, Ryan, Kasich, or even Cruz will be the consensus candidate and the GOP would have to catch up quickly.

[Adam Griffin]

If Trump remains in and viable, it's virtually guaranteed.

[Mr. Morden]

If Trump remains in and viable, it's virtually guaranteed.

Well yes, if someone who is not the eventual nominee remains "viable" by the time of the convention, then by definition the race will still be unsettled up until the convention.