Sean Trende speculates on the likelihood of a brokered Republican convention in 2016, i.e. a convention in which the candidate is selected after the first balloting:
Let’s look at Jonathan Bernstein’s list of potential candidates here, and assume the following candidates get in: Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, Chris Christie, Rick Perry, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, John Bolton and Peter King. Some on that list won’t run, but some others probably will (Mike Pence or Rick Snyder being the most obvious contenders).
Let’s rate this field using a points system as follows: 5 points for a sitting veep, 4 for a sitting senator or governor, 3 for a representative, 2 for Cabinet officials, and 1 for “other.†We’ll (somewhat arbitrarily) add a point for “star power,†and deduct one for candidates who haven’t won a race in the past six years. We’ll do this for all the initial fields going back to 1980 (minor note: Harold Stassen receives a 1 even though he was a former governor. An election in 1938 doesn’t have much bearing in 1988).
The total for the prospective 2016 field is 56 points, by far the highest of any field. The next-closest field, from 2008, totals just 39 points. Moreover, the average candidate quality in 2016 is the highest of the bunch: 3.5 points, compared with 3.1 points for 2012 or 3.3 for 2008. Even this doesn’t tell the whole story though, as the 2008 slate is filled with candidates who were much weaker than their ratings suggested (Jim Gilmore, Sam Brownback, Tommy Thompson). Almost all of the candidates on the 2016 list would have been top-flight contenders against the 2012 field, yet many of them will struggle to finish in the top five in a single primary or caucus.
Iowa is a caucus state and, as Sean point out, caucus states tend to be good for candidates with devoted followings. That’s why religious conservatives and Tea Party candidates do well in Iowa.
I would think that the factors that would lead to a brokered convention would mostly be the total number of candidates who manage to run even marginally viable campaigns and the number of states that pile in to the early primaries and caucuses. If, as seems possible, none of those candidates manages to eke out an outright majority from their primary and/or caucus victories, you’ve got a brokered convention. Then just about anything could happen.
Update
There’s more reaction to Sean Trende’s post at memeorandum.
I’ll believe a brokered convention is possible when one happens. The current system is very much geared to eliminating candidates as quickly as possible. Money is necessary to keep going to the convention, and who is going to contribute to keep a candidate going who hasn’t had success early? By this time next year the Republicans will have a maximum of four viable candidates, and most likely will have only two or three. It’ll likely be down to one by April of 2016.
Hillary & Obama slugging it out into summer was a rarity for our times, and even that wouldn’t have happened if the Clintons had been even somewhat competent in caucus states.
The Republicans best bet would be to get a vigorous candidate in his early to mid fifties. That will contrast greatly with the likely Dem candidate – Hillary.
Much to my shock, it’s starting to look like the Dems will nominate their oldest first term candidate ever, and only the second one over age sixty since before 1876. (Kerry was the other, at age 61. Those boomers just won’t let go. Political party like it’s 1968!)
Anyhow, in an open election I think the Reps just might have a chance if they have a young , enthusiastic candidate running against an old, tired candidate practically from another era. (Hillary is just a few months younger than Reagan was in his 1980 run, and she seems much less vigorous.)
By contrast, Republicans have often nominated people in their sixties to run for a first term as President. Here’s a case of popular perception (Reps are old, Dems are young) is largely correct, though the Boomers look like they’re going to turn this on its head this year.
It used to be that there was a simple model for predicting Republican presidential candidates: they select whoever was next in line. It explains every nominee since Nixon.
While it might be the case that the Republicans have become the Democrats while the Democrats have become the Republicans, I still think the Democrats have the ability to surprise us. I don’t think that Sec. Clinton is a done deal quite yet.
I’m not sure Reagan was simply next in line. Seems to me he fought for it for awhile, until circumstances fit. But I was just a teenager then.
Hillary Clinton reminds me of Janet Yellen, tired and establishment, reasonably smart, but with no hope of accomplishing the task at hand.
Oh, with apologies to Ms Yellen, she’s different in that she’s not a bald faced, lying crook. Just sayin.
Re Hillary: It’s getting late in the cycle (disgusting as that thought is) for anyone to jump in now unless they’ve already developed a bunch of contacts and can build an infrastructure quickly. But twelve years of waiting for Hillary & Obama’s Presidency seem to have kept anyone else from doing the necessary work.
I’m surprised to say this, but it looks like Hillary by default at this point, unless she decides not to run.
I do think there’s still time left to run against Hillary, but the window is closing rapidly.