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

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Fascinating conversation:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republican-brokered-convention-donald-trump/

Granted, December 10 is now ancient history, but if anything I'd say the closer we get to NH with Trump dominating the polls, the more likely a brokered convention becomes.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Not gonna happen.

If Trump starts racking up delegates but fails to capture a commanding majority (which looks likely at this point), and no other candidate can overtake him (unlikely, but the GOP is pretty incompetent right now), I expect a brokered convention.

The way I see this playing out:
1. Trump wins NH and SC, Cruz wins IA
2. After SEC Tuesday, Trump has a plurality, with Cruz and someone else splitting the anti-Trump vote
3. Whoever that third candidate is (Rubio?), they refuse to bow to Cruz, and this continues to the convention.

The convention would be a real mess, unless the non-Cruz, non-Trump delegates agree to get behind Cruz.  If these delegates consolidate behind someone like Rubio and dig their heels in, it could get extremely ugly.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

The thing that keeps brokered conventions from happening is that usually the race comes down to two candidates winning delegates following Super Tuesday, with one of them eventually winning a majority. This year there is a reasonable chance that there will be 3: Trump, Cruz and [Insert Mainstream consolidator]. Even if one of the three is dominant, the other two can still get a combined 51% (after factoring in unpledged).

I would say the chances are ~25%.

I think it comes down to
A. Will Trump keep going strong?
B. Will Cruz be the main Trump challenger?
C. Will the GOP establishment refuse to get behind Cruz?

Even if all that happens, the "establishment" candidate might still suspend and endorse Cruz as an alternative to Trump.

What I think will REALLY happen:
A. Trump will fade after the early primaries
B. March will see a close race between Cruz and the establishment
C. The establishment will have the nomination wrapped up sometime in May and Cruz will suspend/drop out

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

It won't happen exact as a remote chance, because a deal will most probably be cut before the convention if nobody has a majority. Granted it might take two ballots to implement the deal, since delegates might be legally committed to vote a certain way on the first ballot.

Will the establishment swallow their pride and cut a deal to make Cruz the nominee, if that's the only way to defeat Trump?

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

It won't happen exact as a remote chance, because a deal will most probably be cut before the convention if nobody has a majority. Granted it might take two ballots to implement the deal, since delegates might be legally committed to vote a certain way on the first ballot.

Will the establishment swallow their pride and cut a deal to make Cruz the nominee, if that's the only way to defeat Trump?

Assuming they don't think waiting until the convention, and a lot of ballots, will have some chance of ending up with one of the "acceptable" candidates, yes, absolutely.

I think if this happens, it probably happens in March or April, with the establishment candidates suspending and putting their support behind Cruz.  If the GOP sees no other way to defeat Trump, i.e. the math just doesn't work out, and Cruz is, well, cruising, the establishment candidates may be asked to fall on their swords.

The fact that the current #1 polling candidate is utterly unacceptable, and the #2 candidate is an outsider, makes 2016 a unique set of circumstances.

I still think Rubio or Other will see a March surge, Trump will fall away, and Cruz will be out by May.  Alternatively, I can see Trump falling away, Cruz gaining the Trump vote, and him being unstoppable and wrapping up the nomination, also by May.  The question is, how incompetent is the GOP establishment?

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

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.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

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.

State polls have consistently placed Trump in the lead.  A huge lead.  For months.  There is no quantitative analysis that justifies not taking Trump seriously.  There is plenty of political analysis that does.  By ignoring a mountain of data, and using only the data that fits his gut feelings, or whatever, he's really engaging in political analysis, which is not his forte.

I happen to agree with him, but only coincidentally.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

If the Pub establishment after NH, does not force a culling of the list of acceptable candidates down to one, or at least a splitting up of the real estate, as I posited with Christie and Rubio, or some protocol that does not entail a delegate drain to Trump/Cruz that would otherwise could be avoided, then it is indeed incompetent. It must be done. If it is not done, then they need to be punished with some down ballot damage come November. And maybe get some law to punish them where it hurts, like forcing banks to get out of any business that is risky, by forcing their business that relies on deposit insurance, to really not take much risk. The rest can be spun off to non deposit insured merchant banks. Then we don't have to worry so much about too big to fail. And maybe raise the estate tax some as an extra kick in the nuts.

If Cruz gets the nomination, the collective ego boost to the TP delegation in Congress will be so gigantic that this could never, ever happen.  The TEA Party extremists (and Cruz) don't believe in bailouts, true, but they would rather let the banks fail than give regulators any more power.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Now wait a minute. Cruz gets the nomination. Hillary is elected POTUS. The Pubs lose the Senate, and lose 20 seats in the House, so their margin is down to 10 congresspersons to pick off. The filibuster is nixed. So now we are down to 10, and the job gets done! Or wait a minute. Many Dems have been bought off by the banks - including Hillary. I guess the Pub establishment is un-punishable then. Well we still have the estate tax. It goes up to 50% if the banks are reined in. If not, it goes up to 70%. Maybe that little compromise will appeal to them. What do you think?

If Hilary Clinton is president in 2018, there's no way the Democrats take over either chamber.  The GOP knows this.  And if the GOP participates in sweeping regulations AND a tax increase, every single representative responsible will be primaried to hell and gone.  The GOP knows this.

The TP wing won't care if Cruz loses in the general.  They'll just double down.  "Cruz wasn't conservative enough to excite the vast, silent majority of right-thinking Americans" will be the narrative.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Ah, I was thinking about 2016 myself. And the House will not flip. Thus my comment about a 20 seat loss. That is possible - maybe.

The Senate won't flip in 2016 either, unless something really drastic changes.  If Feingold, Duckworth, and Sestak/McGinty all win, that gets them to 49.  They still need to pick up another seat (from where?) and hope that Michael Bennet and Patti Murray can hold on.