It looks like the Republicans will have a brokered convention.

[Slander and/or Libel]

If Trump comes away with a majority of delegates but is nevertheless denied the nomination, the electorate will not be very forgiving, and the GOP will be toast for the foreseeable future.

If Trump has a majority of delegates he will not be denied the nomination.  This is not what beet is asking about.  He is suggesting that no candidate will have a majority walking into the convention.  That's called an "open" or a "brokered" convention.

I'd love to see one.  We bring it up every four years on this forum but it never happens.  I'd like to see one in both parties.  The Republicans do not have superdelegates, but they do have 437 unpledged delegates, of whom 168 are members of the RNC.  They're probably not very Trump-friendly.  My guess is that they try to draft Fiorina or some well-known, center-right female Republican, especially if Clinton is the DNC nominee.

It's incumbent upon you, in this circumstance, to explain why you believe the RNC would be comfortable entirely flouting the will of all of their primary voters.

If Trump has a plurality, but not majority of delegates and primary voters (say, 900ish delegates and an average primary vote of 36%) the RNC can make the quite reasonable case that a majority of both delegates and Republican voters do not want Trump and come up with a compromise candidate. Possibly with Trump offered the VP spot, not that I think he'd take it.

Let's say Trump has got less than a majority of delegates, and they say, "See? A majority want someone other than Trump!" And then they give it to Rubio, against whom the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT can be made. What then?

Which is why they won't give it to Rubio. (Unless he improves dramatically enough between now and then that they can credibly say, "If it had been Trump v. Rubio the whole time, Rubio clearly would have won".) Far more likely, someone like Romney or Paul Ryan will get the nomination, specifically to avoid the problem you describe.

So they'll give the nomination to someone who didn't even bother running for it, who none of the primary voters cast a ballot for? That seems like pure fantasy. I can understand entertaining the possibility, but acting like it's a foregone conclusion is madness.

[SingingAnalyst]

I think Rubio is the most likely choice in the event of a brokered convention. Perhaps Rubio/Kasich? My question is, if this happens, will Trump run as an Independent, thus handing the election to Clinton?

[standwrand]

A compromise ticket of Marco and Ted could come out of a convention where Cruz would release his delegates to Marco to give him the 1237 needed if Donald can't get the majority.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

 

If Trump comes away with a majority of delegates but is nevertheless denied the nomination, the electorate will not be very forgiving, and the GOP will be toast for the foreseeable future.

If Trump has a majority of delegates he will not be denied the nomination.  This is not what beet is asking about.  He is suggesting that no candidate will have a majority walking into the convention.  That's called an "open" or a "brokered" convention.

I'd love to see one.  We bring it up every four years on this forum but it never happens.  I'd like to see one in both parties.  The Republicans do not have superdelegates, but they do have 437 unpledged delegates, of whom 168 are members of the RNC.  They're probably not very Trump-friendly.  My guess is that they try to draft Fiorina or some well-known, center-right female Republican, especially if Clinton is the DNC nominee.

It's incumbent upon you, in this circumstance, to explain why you believe the RNC would be comfortable entirely flouting the will of all of their primary voters.

If Trump has a plurality, but not majority of delegates and primary voters (say, 900ish delegates and an average primary vote of 36%) the RNC can make the quite reasonable case that a majority of both delegates and Republican voters do not want Trump and come up with a compromise candidate. Possibly with Trump offered the VP spot, not that I think he'd take it.

Let's say Trump has got less than a majority of delegates, and they say, "See? A majority want someone other than Trump!" And then they give it to Rubio, against whom the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT can be made. What then?

Which is why they won't give it to Rubio. (Unless he improves dramatically enough between now and then that they can credibly say, "If it had been Trump v. Rubio the whole time, Rubio clearly would have won".) Far more likely, someone like Romney or Paul Ryan will get the nomination, specifically to avoid the problem you describe.

So they'll give the nomination to someone who didn't even bother running for it, who none of the primary voters cast a ballot for? That seems like pure fantasy. I can understand entertaining the possibility, but acting like it's a foregone conclusion is madness.

I'm not acting like it's "a forgone conclusion". Repeating myself, IF Trump has only a plurality (and not a big one at that), and IF none of his opponents has made a particularly strong showing during the balance of the primary process, then it is FAR MORE LIKELY that the delegates will nominate someone with a clear record of support from across the party, like Romney or Ryan, than any other outcome.

[Slander and/or Libel]

You think it's far more likely that delegates will nominate Romney or Ryan than the person who won more delegates, with more popular support, than any other candidate? Once again, that seems like fantasy to me. That's the kind of thing that would blow up the party, and lead to countless pieces on why the party had just wasted months and months of everyone's time and millions of dollars just to choose the nominee themselves.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

You think it's far more likely that delegates will nominate Romney or Ryan than the person who won more delegates, with more popular support, than any other candidate? Once again, that seems like fantasy to me. That's the kind of thing that would blow up the party, and lead to countless pieces on why the party had just wasted months and months of everyone's time and millions of dollars just to choose the nominee themselves.

How is having a nominee selected by the thousands of delegates who were chosen by the voters over the course of months "a waste"? If Trump can't get a majority of delegates, or even win enough delegates and votes to get more than a bare plurality, how can he claim to have "more popular support"?  If Trump wins the nomination, will you complain that "the party just chose the nominee themselves"? It really seems like you're trying to argue that Trump somehow magically deserves the nomination, just because he's Trump.

The nomination process has clearly articulated and previously established rules. When Trump decided to run for the Republican nomination, instead of running as an independent, he agreed to abide by those rules.  If he loses the nomination because he didn't get enough delegates to support him, either in the first or subsequent rounds, then he lost fair and square.

If that happens, whether he and his supporters act like adult human beings, accept the outcome with good grace and use their influence at the convention to move the party in the direction they want, or whine and throw a temper tantrum because they didn't get exactly what they wanted is entirely up to Trump and his supporters.

[Slander and/or Libel]

No, I'm not saying that I think Trump deserves the nomination. And I understand that the contest has rules. What I'm saying is that those rules are fundamentally pretty opaque to voters, and what they'll see in your scenario is the party throwing out the results of their votes (which, as you note, are technically for delegates, but which they see as a vote for their preferred candidate). I have a very difficult time seeing how the party would come out of that looking good, especially if their best argument is "technically this isn't disallowed!"

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Yes, the voting base that propped up Trump will be severely pissed off, even if (especially if) GOP bigwigs start saying "b- b- b- but it's technically in the rules". Trump would not go away easy - he'd sue, he'd declare war against the party as an institution, he'd encourage his elected supporters (sessions etc.) to defect, he'd crash all GOP events with protests. It would not be pretty, and it would be a disastrous self-inflicted wound (like, there aren't many conceivable ways I could see the GOP losing the House, but the GOP openly colluding to explicitly subvert the will of its voter base, especially if Cruz is the benefactor) is one of them.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I love the people in this thread running around like chickens with their heads cut off desperate to 'prove' that their masturbatory fantasy of an OMGBROKEREDCONVENTION!!!1 nominating [Inks]ing Romney or whoever isn't undemocratic as all hell.

[Phony Moderate]

If TRUMP and Cruz get a majority of delegates between them and the convention ends up choosing a Romney or a Ryan then I'm sure they'd be no backlash whatsoever.

[Slander and/or Libel]

I love the people in this thread running around like chickens with their heads cut off desperate to 'prove' that their masturbatory fantasy of an OMGBROKEREDCONVENTION!!!1 nominating [Inks]ing Romney or whoever isn't undemocratic as all hell.

The case to have voters pick party nominees isn't airtight, particularly when it's voters not formally affiliated with the party or those who joined the party day of.  Shouldn't freedom of association mean each party has full leeway to decide this internally (with obvious exception for race/gender exclusion)?  If they want to flip coins or delegate the choice to a single person years in advance, isn't that their right?  If voters are angry about their choices, they can punish one side or the other in the GE, or organize their own party to nominate someone.

This is one of those things that's technically true, but practically who cares? Yes, in theory, I don't really have a problem with the parties deciding who they have to back rhetorically and financially in a bid for the White House. Practically, there's primaries and people vote and that's the way it works.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I mean technically the Electoral Collage can simply ignore the popular vote and choose anybody they want to be President - it would all be constitutional - but most people would understandably angry if that were to happen. As Republicans would be if the smoke-filled room was bought back because of an unpalatable candidate.

[Slander and/or Libel]

I mean technically the Electoral Collage can simply ignore the popular vote and choose anybody they want to be President - it would all be constitutional - but most people would understandably angry if that were to happen. As Republicans would be if the smoke-filled room was bought back because of an unpalatable candidate.

I don't think that's a fair comparison.  Imagine you're an officer of a private club and one day you have a large group of people with no prior association to the club storm in and vote out all of the existing officers in favor of their people, who do not share the club's original values.  And imagine there's a state law preventing the club from doing anything about it.  I'm all for an affirmative right to vote for president, but an affirmative right to pick the opposition's nominee?   

A claim that the opposition is choosing the Republican Party's nominee requires evidence that is not apparent here.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

I really wouldn't be shocked if somehow, Mitt Romney is elected president.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

No, I'm not saying that I think Trump deserves the nomination. And I understand that the contest has rules. What I'm saying is that those rules are fundamentally pretty opaque to voters, and what they'll see in your scenario is the party throwing out the results of their votes (which, as you note, are technically for delegates, but which they see as a vote for their preferred candidate). I have a very difficult time seeing how the party would come out of that looking good, especially if their best argument is "technically this isn't disallowed!"

The GOP's best argument in such a situation would be, "a majority of Republicans don't want Trump as their candidate".  

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Yes, the voting base that propped up Trump will be severely pissed off, even if (especially if) GOP bigwigs start saying "b- b- b- but it's technically in the rules". Trump would not go away easy - he'd sue, he'd declare war against the party as an institution, he'd encourage his elected supporters (sessions etc.) to defect, he'd crash all GOP events with protests. It would not be pretty, and it would be a disastrous self-inflicted wound (like, there aren't many conceivable ways I could see the GOP losing the House, but the GOP openly colluding to explicitly subvert the will of its voter base, especially if Cruz is the benefactor) is one of them.

I think you're right about how Trump and his supporters would react, but... the fact that there's little doubt that Trump would throw a temper tantrum of epic proportions if he doesn't get the nomination handed to him is a great argument for why it should be denied to him if it possibly can be. Democracy in the United States is explicitly designed to prevent a vocal minority from forcing its views on everyone. That this is exactly what Trump supporters seem to be advocating only reinforces the idea that he's not trying to join or lead the Republican Party, but trying to take it over by a coup de main. Insofar as the GOP is a thing that exists and which its members care about, they should reject Trump, no matter what the cost, or they're losing their party anyway.

[Slander and/or Libel]

No, I'm not saying that I think Trump deserves the nomination. And I understand that the contest has rules. What I'm saying is that those rules are fundamentally pretty opaque to voters, and what they'll see in your scenario is the party throwing out the results of their votes (which, as you note, are technically for delegates, but which they see as a vote for their preferred candidate). I have a very difficult time seeing how the party would come out of that looking good, especially if their best argument is "technically this isn't disallowed!"

The GOP's best argument in such a situation would be, "a majority of Republicans don't want Trump as their candidate".  

Repeat that argument down the line for all of the candidates who got less than Trump. What then?

[Maxwell]

No, I'm not saying that I think Trump deserves the nomination. And I understand that the contest has rules. What I'm saying is that those rules are fundamentally pretty opaque to voters, and what they'll see in your scenario is the party throwing out the results of their votes (which, as you note, are technically for delegates, but which they see as a vote for their preferred candidate). I have a very difficult time seeing how the party would come out of that looking good, especially if their best argument is "technically this isn't disallowed!"

The GOP's best argument in such a situation would be, "a majority of Republicans don't want Trump as their candidate".  

No it's not. We seen how bad it is because Rubio kept arguing it and he kept losing.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

No, I'm not saying that I think Trump deserves the nomination. And I understand that the contest has rules. What I'm saying is that those rules are fundamentally pretty opaque to voters, and what they'll see in your scenario is the party throwing out the results of their votes (which, as you note, are technically for delegates, but which they see as a vote for their preferred candidate). I have a very difficult time seeing how the party would come out of that looking good, especially if their best argument is "technically this isn't disallowed!"

The GOP's best argument in such a situation would be, "a majority of Republicans don't want Trump as their candidate".  

Repeat that argument down the line for all of the candidates who got less than Trump. What then?

/beats head against desk

Then the GOP likely nominates Romney, Ryan or someone similar else who has received the support of the entire party in the recent past.

Why is the idea that the GOP's nominee shouldn't be someone a majority of the party actively dislikes so hard to grasp?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I mean technically the Electoral Collage can simply ignore the popular vote and choose anybody they want to be President - it would all be constitutional - but most people would understandably angry if that were to happen. As Republicans would be if the smoke-filled room was bought back because of an unpalatable candidate.

I don't think that's a fair comparison.  Imagine you're an officer of a private club and one day you have a large group of people with no prior association to the club storm in and vote out all of the existing officers in favor of their people, who do not share the club's original values.  And imagine there's a state law preventing the club from doing anything about it.  I'm all for an affirmative right to vote for president, but an affirmative right to pick the opposition's nominee?   

THis makes sense if political parties in America operated like they do anywhere else in the world, but in the US political parties are not supposed to be private clubs but mass organisations. That's what has kept the two-party system alive, the idea that both party names are merely large vehicles that can be modified and changed to be driven by different nominees.

At the moment there is a disconnect between the two bases of the Republican Party. The activist base, is made up of registered Republicans that vote in primaries and is made up of a mixture of single-issue evangelicals, movement conservatives and self-styled Old School Republicans; and typical primaries have fallen behind this cleavage. But activists are merely the tip of the iceberg of a party's base and this election has upturned the iceberg to reveal the other base: the non-activist election day base that is white, angry and ideologically heterodox.

Trump's candidacy has presented a chance for them to present their grievances, which are not answered by either the GOP elite or the traditional activist insurgents who are obsessed with issues like the EPA and tax cuts. And arguing to this crew (a crew that the GOP of all shades relies on) that the GOP is a "private club" seems like a great way to lose legitimacy as an organisation.

[angus]

I love the people in this thread running around like chickens with their heads cut off desperate to 'prove' that their masturbatory fantasy of an OMGBROKEREDCONVENTION!!!1 nominating [Inks]ing Romney or whoever isn't undemocratic as all hell.

Relax.  Take a deep breath.

1.  Nobody's running around like chickens.

2.  the only people using allcaps are you and the TRUMP supporters

3.  no one is claiming that it isn't undemocratic.  

Simply put, some of us do not agree with the conclusion that the RNC has a moral or legal obligation to placate a minority of voters who decide that they prefer one particular candidate, even if that candidate has a plurality of delegates.

I think the RNC is probably keen on winning the general election, even though that may not be the primary motivator of Republican primary voters.  If they think a Trump presidency is bad for the country, or they think that a Trump candidacy is doomed in the general election, then they will be motivated to nominate someone else.  Of course they risk alienating the voters who voted for Trump in the primaries, but if they really see the disadvantages of a Trump nomination as too great, then they should nominate someone else.  Moreover, they may think that neither Cruz nor Rubio nor Carson as a stronger candidate in a general election than Clinton, and that will inform their decision as well.

Of course, they might be wrong about Trump being a loser.  In fact, he may prove a formidable challenger to Clinton.  He has, after all, be a more formidable challenger in all primary contests than the talking heads predicted six months ago, and their "ceiling" keeps going up as well.  For David Brooks in the early fall of 2015, for example, it was around 25%, and it included only "low-information" voters.  By Christmas it was around 30%.  Now it's around 40%.  It makes me think that this may be an entirely academic discussion.  1237 delegates are needed to nominate and Trump already has 319.  Two upcoming winner-take-all states are Florida and Ohio, which will give him 99 and 66 delegates, respectively, after which time hometown boys Rubio and Kasich will suspend.  It'll just be him and the cruiser after that.  And maybe old Doc Carson, if someone can keep him awake till June.  Trump may have less trouble than we thought collecting another 900 or so delegates.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Yes, the voting base that propped up Trump will be severely pissed off, even if (especially if) GOP bigwigs start saying "b- b- b- but it's technically in the rules". Trump would not go away easy - he'd sue, he'd declare war against the party as an institution, he'd encourage his elected supporters (sessions etc.) to defect, he'd crash all GOP events with protests. It would not be pretty, and it would be a disastrous self-inflicted wound (like, there aren't many conceivable ways I could see the GOP losing the House, but the GOP openly colluding to explicitly subvert the will of its voter base, especially if Cruz is the benefactor) is one of them.

I think you're right about how Trump and his supporters would react, but... the fact that there's little doubt that Trump would throw a temper tantrum of epic proportions if he doesn't get the nomination handed to him is a great argument for why it should be denied to him if it possibly can be. Democracy in the United States is explicitly designed to prevent a vocal minority from forcing its views on everyone. That this is exactly what Trump supporters seem to be advocating only reinforces the idea that he's not trying to join or lead the Republican Party, but trying to take it over by a coup de main. Insofar as the GOP is a thing that exists and which its members care about, they should reject Trump, no matter what the cost, or they're losing their party anyway

What? Isn't this a contradition? You are arguing that the majority of Republican primary voters should be disenfranchised because of a noisy minority though?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

A brokered convention is a recurring wet dream every election season. A dream.

[Slander and/or Libel]

No, I'm not saying that I think Trump deserves the nomination. And I understand that the contest has rules. What I'm saying is that those rules are fundamentally pretty opaque to voters, and what they'll see in your scenario is the party throwing out the results of their votes (which, as you note, are technically for delegates, but which they see as a vote for their preferred candidate). I have a very difficult time seeing how the party would come out of that looking good, especially if their best argument is "technically this isn't disallowed!"

The GOP's best argument in such a situation would be, "a majority of Republicans don't want Trump as their candidate". 

Repeat that argument down the line for all of the candidates who got less than Trump. What then?

/beats head against desk

Then the GOP likely nominates Romney, Ryan or someone similar else who has received the support of the entire party in the recent past.

Why is the idea that the GOP's nominee shouldn't be someone a majority of the party actively dislikes so hard to grasp?

What measure are you using to say he's actively disliked by most of the party that doesn't apply to the other candidates?

And why should Romney's 2012 candidacy entitle him to the nomination now? A lot can (and has!) happened in four years.

I'm not at all arguing that the GOP has a moral or legal obligation to nominate Trump. They can do whatever they want. What I'm arguing is that I find it incredibly unlikely that they would risk the party implosion that would come with denying the nomination to the guy who won the most delegates in favor of the guys who lost last time. I'm not saying what SHOULD happen. I'm saying what I don't think WILL happen.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Yes, the voting base that propped up Trump will be severely pissed off, even if (especially if) GOP bigwigs start saying "b- b- b- but it's technically in the rules". Trump would not go away easy - he'd sue, he'd declare war against the party as an institution, he'd encourage his elected supporters (sessions etc.) to defect, he'd crash all GOP events with protests. It would not be pretty, and it would be a disastrous self-inflicted wound (like, there aren't many conceivable ways I could see the GOP losing the House, but the GOP openly colluding to explicitly subvert the will of its voter base, especially if Cruz is the benefactor) is one of them.

I think you're right about how Trump and his supporters would react, but... the fact that there's little doubt that Trump would throw a temper tantrum of epic proportions if he doesn't get the nomination handed to him is a great argument for why it should be denied to him if it possibly can be. Democracy in the United States is explicitly designed to prevent a vocal minority from forcing its views on everyone. That this is exactly what Trump supporters seem to be advocating only reinforces the idea that he's not trying to join or lead the Republican Party, but trying to take it over by a coup de main. Insofar as the GOP is a thing that exists and which its members care about, they should reject Trump, no matter what the cost, or they're losing their party anyway

What? Isn't this a contradition? You are arguing that the majority of Republican primary voters should be disenfranchised because of a noisy minority though?

I'm starting to think people are trolling here, or otherwise being deliberately obtuse.

No one that I've seen in this thread, including myself, is suggesting that Trump ought to be deprived of a nomination he has outright won with a majority of delegates. Even attempting something like that would do massive damage to the GOP. Even if Trump were to show up at the convention with a slight delegate deficit but a clear majority of support from primary voters, he would likely find the nomination handed to him.

But if Trump goes to Cleveland several hundred delegates short of a majority, and with less than 40% of GOP primary voters having voted for him - i.e. if he has a weak plurality at the convention - and fails to win the nomination on the first ballot, then it is quite possible, and in no way "underhanded" or "anti-democratic" if the majority of the delegates then choose someone who is not Trump to be their nominee. Likely either another candidate who has made a late but strong showing (and probably getting more votes than Trump after the field finally thinned out to two or three candidates) or, if no such candidate exists, a prior nominee like Romney, or someone who was both a prior nominee and has a broad base of support among the party, like Ryan.

Trump is supposed to be a "master deal-maker". If he cannot close a deal with either GOP primary voters, or convention delegates, and decides to respond by having a national tantrum, it will only serve to demonstrate conclusively why he was rejected by GOP voters.