Nate Silver on 12/10: 20% chance of a brokered convention

[Torie]

Sure if one candidate gets a clear majority of votes and delegates from the primaries, then the nomination isn't going to be stolen from them.  But I'm talking about more ambiguous cases.  Say Trump has won a 45% plurality of all votes in the primaries, but whether he has a majority of delegates is a matter of dispute, because of the fuzzy math I talked about in terms of unbound vs. unpledged etc. that seems to create all these disagreements in the tracking of the delegate count every four years.  There'll then be various attempts to create mischief with the convention in a way that there wouldn't have been if all of the candidates were broadly acceptable to the party leadership.

That's what I mean about having to pay attention to how the delegates are actually chosen.  In a true contested convention scenario, the delegates are free agents.  They're not necessarily going to do the bidding of the candidate who they're "supposed" to back.

Well, to make it really simple, if Trump had 45% of the delegates (I don't think the popular vote totals matter much), and the establishment candidates had 42%, Cruz had 7%, and the balance were uncommitted, I don't see a problem with denying the nomination to Trump. That is how the game is played. It is the Quisling thing that gets to be a problem, where on a second ballot, or even first ballot, delegates that should be his, don't vote for him, and even though on say the second ballot, Trump gets more delegates to vote for him, say from Cruz people, that would have put him over the top, if he still loses because he has Quislings who abandon him, then we have a problem. That is how I see it anyway. Sure Trump will whimper in all events. It is more of matter as to how much his whimperings have bite.

[SteveRogers]

Can someone explain how proponents of the "party decides" theory think that there will not be a revolt by GOP voters if the party nominates someone who came in third or fourth place in the delegate count by virtue of votes cast in primaries?

Easy: It's a two party system and no matter how mad they get they aren't going to vote Democrat. By the time of the convention, there will be no outlet for said "revolt."

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Can someone explain how proponents of the "party decides" theory think that there will not be a revolt by GOP voters if the party nominates someone who came in third or fourth place in the delegate count by virtue of votes cast in primaries?

Easy: It's a two party system and no matter how mad they get they aren't going to vote Democrat.

You're forgetting the obvious alternative - not voting at all.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Can someone explain how proponents of the "party decides" theory think that there will not be a revolt by GOP voters if the party nominates someone who came in third or fourth place in the delegate count by virtue of votes cast in primaries?

Easy: It's a two party system and no matter how mad they get they aren't going to vote Democrat.

You're forgetting the obvious alternative - not voting at all.

Yeah, it's not often that it happens, but I agree with Wulfric here. Revolt doesn't have to manifest as crossing party lines or anything.

[Badger]

Again Silver is using data, he believes in the 'party decides' theory that the best early indicators are endorsements (from currently elected politicians) and Trump has zero. This cycle will test the 'party decides' theory. Silver is also right that early polling, especially early national polling has not been a good indicator. However we are now transitioning into the time when it isn't early polling and Trump still has a lead in NH and is in second in IA, so history is slowly but surely moving in Trump's direction to at least be a serious contender.

Considering Bush heavily leads among party insiders from his initial "heir apparant
 status, and his nearest competitor in that regard is Rubio, i think that theory is already quite debunked even if Trump loses.

[SillyAmerican]

You're forgetting the obvious alternative - not voting at all.

Or voting for the proverbial "other". I voted for Governor Gary Johnson as my 2012 "other"; if more folks voted "other", maybe we'd see an improvement within mainstream candidates. (And I believe that the popularity of the "outsiders" this time around is a reflection of the fact that much of the electorate is sick and tired of "business as usual" politics...).

[Ljube]

You're forgetting the obvious alternative - not voting at all.

Or voting for the proverbial "other". I voted for Governor Gary Johnson as my 2012 "other"; if more folks voted "other", maybe we'd see an improvement within mainstream candidates. (And I believe that the popularity of the "outsiders" this time around is a reflection of the fact that much of the electorate is sick and tired of "business as usual" politics...).

Well, now you can vote Trump, instead of "other".

[Mister Mets]

Can someone explain how proponents of the "party decides" theory think that there will not be a revolt by GOP voters if the party nominates someone who came in third or fourth place in the delegate count by virtue of votes cast in primaries?

There would be the hope that the GOP voters will back the party's nominee.

The third or fourth place winner may also be a preferable second choice to voters on the top of the ballot.

If Trump and Cruz have spent half an year ripping into one another, their backers might have an easier time going with someone who has been relatively quiet.

[Mister Mets]

Technically, the establishment survivor doesn't need to get many delegates in May/June - all that needs to happen is Trump and Cruz split them fairly evenly. The establishment survivor simply needs to stay in the race. What the establishment would be aiming for is something like this on the first convention ballot:

Trump 1,050
Cruz 960
Establishment Survivor 430
Abstain/Scattering 26

The number needed to be nominated this year, per the green papers, is 1,233. No one is there, so no one can be nominated via the first ballot. Under party rules, delegates are freed from pledges to support a candidate and re-vote on the nomination. The hope would be that a sizable number of Cruz/Trump delegates don't actually support them and only voted that way on the first ballot because they had to under party rules, and would therefore gravitate to Rubio (etc.) and get him nominated. Of course, Trump would be furious and blame the party for not giving him reliable delegates, but he would have no legal recourse under the party rules and it would be too late to mount a meaningful independent run.

Even assuming that the Cruz and Trump delegations have a lot of Quislings in their ranks, if it appeared that the Pub establishment was going to poach the Quislings, and successfully give the nomination to the Establishment choice, one would think that Cruz and Trump would cut a deal, and one of the two would release his delegates before the first ballot, giving the nomination to the other. And then presumably the other would get the VP slot. Morden etc. is right that in your scenario, if the Establishment did what it did, the nomination would probably become worthless. It would look like the will of the people had been ignored. It won't be happening. Alternatively, the establishment might pick Cruz.

Is there any indication Cruz would prefer Trump to Rubio or that Trump would prefer Cruz to Rubio?

[°Leprechaun]

I think that it is closer to 10% than 20% so I voted <= 10%.
If it is between Trump, Cruz and Rubio by California, it might happen, but there would have to be something close to a three way tie. For example, Trump could get 38% of the delegates, Rubio 38% and Cruz 19% with all others getting 5%. I don't know if such a scenario is likely. If it turns out to be a two person race, after March, I think it would be easy for one of the two to reach 50%.
This would be slightly more likely that a three person race. With so much uncertainty it's hard to predict.

[pbrower2a]

Silver now realizes that if Trump is the nominee, his career as a a political prognosticator is over. He's bet the farm on this. I feel sorry for the man.

He's been very un-Silver this cycle.  Usually his predictions are based on hard data, but he seems to have suddenly developed delusions of being a political analyst, rather than a statistician.

Fortunately he's had the good sense to expand his enterprise into sports and other areas.

He started analyzing baseball (the Baseball Prospectus) and then went to analyze politics. Just to set the record straight on him.