Contested GOP Convention is near-certain now. Who wins?

[Јas]

What a difference a day makes...

[OSR stands with Israel]

Depends on how many ballots it takes

1st ballot- Trump
2nd ballot- Cruz
3rd-4th ballot- Kasich
5th ballot on - A Compromise Candidate who hasnt run

[Mr. Morden]

What a difference a day makes...

As in my earlier post in this thread, how are we defining a contested convention?  People seem to be defining it in different ways.  And so, when you ask a question like "Who would win in a contested convention?", people are interpreting it differently.  And it's interpreted differently from "Who is most likely to be the nominee?", because there's disagreement on how likely a contested convention is, depending on the definition of contested convention.

[Hammy]

What a difference a day makes...

As in my earlier post in this thread, how are we defining a contested convention? 

I personally define it as a brokered convention, in that nobody reaches the 50% delegate mark, and takes more than one ballot to decide a winner.

[Mr. Morden]

What a difference a day makes...

As in my earlier post in this thread, how are we defining a contested convention? 

I personally define it as a brokered convention, in that nobody reaches the 50% delegate mark, and takes more than one ballot to decide a winner.

OK, so Trump fails to get 1237 pledged delegates, maybe 30 or 40 delegates short of that mark, for example.  He and Cruz and Kasich are furiously trying to lobby the unpledged delegates to vote their way, and we go into the convention not knowing if Trump will manage to get a majority on the first ballot or not.  But at the convention, after a couple of days of uncertainty and messy rules fights and the like, we go to the first ballot for president, and Trump has won enough of the unpledged delegates that he gets at least 1237 and wins the nomination on the first ballot.

By your definition, that isn't a contested convention, because it was decided on the first ballot.  But many other people would call it a contested convention, because there was still uncertainty going into the convention as to who would be the nominee.

[Sir Mohamed]

Ryan or Cruz.

[PeteB]

What a difference a day makes...

As in my earlier post in this thread, how are we defining a contested convention? 

I personally define it as a brokered convention, in that nobody reaches the 50% delegate mark, and takes more than one ballot to decide a winner.

OK, so Trump fails to get 1237 pledged delegates, maybe 30 or 40 delegates short of that mark, for example.  He and Cruz and Kasich are furiously trying to lobby the unpledged delegates to vote their way, and we go into the convention not knowing if Trump will manage to get a majority on the first ballot or not.  But at the convention, after a couple of days of uncertainty and messy rules fights and the like, we go to the first ballot for president, and Trump has won enough of the unpledged delegates that he gets at least 1237 and wins the nomination on the first ballot.

By your definition, that isn't a contested convention, because it was decided on the first ballot.  But many other people would call it a contested convention, because there was still uncertainty going into the convention as to who would be the nominee.

This scenario looks logical, until you realize we are talking about Trump.  Here are a few questions to  poke some holes in that theory:

1. Will Trump have the loyalty of all his delegates?
2. Will he be just a few delegates short or will he lack 150-200 delegates going into the convention?
3. Will his head to head polls against Hillary improve sufficiently to attract the delegates?
4. Will he create another scandal and how will that affect the convention?
5. Does he even have knowledgable and sufficient staff to control and shepherd his delegates?

[egalitt]

It is in no way "near certain now". It would be near certain by the end  of April. Currently the discussion is pointless. 

[Mr. Morden]

What a difference a day makes...

As in my earlier post in this thread, how are we defining a contested convention? 

I personally define it as a brokered convention, in that nobody reaches the 50% delegate mark, and takes more than one ballot to decide a winner.

OK, so Trump fails to get 1237 pledged delegates, maybe 30 or 40 delegates short of that mark, for example.  He and Cruz and Kasich are furiously trying to lobby the unpledged delegates to vote their way, and we go into the convention not knowing if Trump will manage to get a majority on the first ballot or not.  But at the convention, after a couple of days of uncertainty and messy rules fights and the like, we go to the first ballot for president, and Trump has won enough of the unpledged delegates that he gets at least 1237 and wins the nomination on the first ballot.

By your definition, that isn't a contested convention, because it was decided on the first ballot.  But many other people would call it a contested convention, because there was still uncertainty going into the convention as to who would be the nominee.

This scenario looks logical, until you realize we are talking about Trump.  Here are a few questions to  poke some holes in that theory:

1. Will Trump have the loyalty of all his delegates?
2. Will he be just a few delegates short or will he lack 150-200 delegates going into the convention?
3. Will his head to head polls against Hillary improve sufficiently to attract the delegates?
4. Will he create another scandal and how will that affect the convention?
5. Does he even have knowledgable and sufficient staff to control and shepherd his delegates?

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here about "poke holes in that theory".  I wasn't making a prediction.  I was just suggesting a hypothetical, and asking if that should count as a "contested convention".  The scenario being, Trump is short of 1237 in terms of pledged delegates, but not by a lot, and can get to 1237 by picking up enough unpledged delegates.  And he does get enough of them to win on the first ballot, even though there's still uncertainty going into the convention.  I don't think that's the most likely scenario, but a plausible option?  Sure.

Not sure what you mean by your questions.  E.g., "Will he be just a few delegates short or will he lack 150-200 delegates going into the convention?"  Well, I'm talking about a hypothetical in which he's short of 1237 in pledged delegates, but not by that much.  So no, in this hypothetical, he wouldn't be short by as much as 150-200 delegates.  In other hypotheticals, he would be.

You also ask "Will Trump have the loyalty of all his delegates?"  Well, unless there's some kind of sneaky rule change, the loyalty of his pledged delegates doesn't matter for the first ballot.  Again, I was talking about a hypothetical in which he's close enough to 1237 that he can get there on the first ballot with a sufficient number of unpledged delegates.  His pledged delegates have to vote for him on the first ballot.

[PeteB]

What a difference a day makes...

As in my earlier post in this thread, how are we defining a contested convention? 

I personally define it as a brokered convention, in that nobody reaches the 50% delegate mark, and takes more than one ballot to decide a winner.

OK, so Trump fails to get 1237 pledged delegates, maybe 30 or 40 delegates short of that mark, for example.  He and Cruz and Kasich are furiously trying to lobby the unpledged delegates to vote their way, and we go into the convention not knowing if Trump will manage to get a majority on the first ballot or not.  But at the convention, after a couple of days of uncertainty and messy rules fights and the like, we go to the first ballot for president, and Trump has won enough of the unpledged delegates that he gets at least 1237 and wins the nomination on the first ballot.

By your definition, that isn't a contested convention, because it was decided on the first ballot.  But many other people would call it a contested convention, because there was still uncertainty going into the convention as to who would be the nominee.

This scenario looks logical, until you realize we are talking about Trump.  Here are a few questions to  poke some holes in that theory:

1. Will Trump have the loyalty of all his delegates?
2. Will he be just a few delegates short or will he lack 150-200 delegates going into the convention?
3. Will his head to head polls against Hillary improve sufficiently to attract the delegates?
4. Will he create another scandal and how will that affect the convention?
5. Does he even have knowledgable and sufficient staff to control and shepherd his delegates?

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here about "poke holes in that theory".  I wasn't making a prediction.  I was just suggesting a hypothetical, and asking if that should count as a "contested convention".  The scenario being, Trump is short of 1237 in terms of pledged delegates, but not by a lot, and can get to 1237 by picking up enough unpledged delegates.  And he does get enough of them to win on the first ballot, even though there's still uncertainty going into the convention.  I don't think that's the most likely scenario, but a plausible option?  Sure.

Not sure what you mean by your questions.  E.g., "Will he be just a few delegates short or will he lack 150-200 delegates going into the convention?"  Well, I'm talking about a hypothetical in which he's short of 1237 in pledged delegates, but not by that much.  So no, in this hypothetical, he wouldn't be short by as much as 150-200 delegates.  In other hypotheticals, he would be.

You also ask "Will Trump have the loyalty of all his delegates?"  Well, unless there's some kind of sneaky rule change, the loyalty of his pledged delegates doesn't matter for the first ballot.  Again, I was talking about a hypothetical in which he's close enough to 1237 that he can get there on the first ballot with a sufficient number of unpledged delegates.  His pledged delegates have to vote for him on the first ballot.

Fair enough - I probably shouldn't have quoted you there. I guess I channelled my inner Trump and just used a part of your post to develop a discussion .

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

It's not "near certain." It's like 50-50. Trump has to win Indiana, sweep the northeast, and win 2/3 at least of California's delegates. It's really not hard to see that happening.

Trump isn't winning Indiana.