# Road to GOP Brokered Convention 2016 **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [March 6, 2016, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-to-gop-brokered-convention-2016/748153 "2016-03-06T21:15:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2016, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-to-gop-brokered-convention-2016/748153/181 "2016-04-07T19:38:11Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **Derleth** : > > Nobody dares say “White Lives Matter”. Not in those exact words, maybe. But it’s a message we’re bombarded with daily. Whenever there’s some threat to white lives, the media, and hence the nation, gets up in arms. But we hear far less about comparable or worse threats to blacks in America. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2016, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-to-gop-brokered-convention-2016/748153/182 "2016-04-07T19:39:26Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > The only possible solution is to somehow convince all of the groups that it isn’t a competition, that policies are going to benefit everyone, and then make good on it. Give the majority something to point to as a solid improvement over what they had, and let the radicals on both sides marginalize themselves by screaming how terrible it all is they didn’t get everything they demanded in the first hundred minutes. Actually, I’ve got an idea there: a Dem Presidential candidate should pledge to put people on the Fed who will pursue full employment and wage gains for the bulk of the population, and not worry about inflation until it’s actually getting to be a problem. It would require the Dem candidate to repeatedly take a few minutes to explain that the Fed is the outfit that really decides when the economy’s going to heat up or slow down, until it sinks in with the voters - and what the President does is gets to pick who’s running the Fed. Why it would work in practice is that we’re in a very different economy than we were in the 1970s. The wages of American workers, in this global age, are a much smaller fraction of the price of anything you buy, so if wages go up 25% across the board, prices go up maybe 5%, and if wages go up another 5% to compensate (not that they would, in a non-union era), then prices go up another 1%, and the ‘wage-price spiral’ converges to zero pretty quickly, with the workers coming out way ahead. And while it’s true that persons on fixed incomes would lose a little ground, there’d be a lot more people who would gain a _lot_ of ground. Politically, that would be a big win for the Dems. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2016, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-to-gop-brokered-convention-2016/748153/183 "2016-04-07T19:43:22Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Not in those exact words, maybe. But it’s a message we’re bombarded with daily. Whenever there’s some threat to white lives, the media, and hence the nation, gets up in arms. But we hear far less about comparable or worse threats to blacks in America. [hijack]All the opposition to BLM would vaporize instantly, if they had just incorporated one word, making explicit what was implicit (but some people are too obtuse to see): Black Lives Matter, Too. [/hijack] ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2016, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-to-gop-brokered-convention-2016/748153/184 "2016-04-07T20:43:33Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Not in those exact words, maybe. But it’s a message we’re bombarded with daily. Whenever there’s some threat to white lives, the media, and hence the nation, gets up in arms. But we hear far less about comparable or worse threats to blacks in America. We also hear much less about threats to poor whites, such as prescription drug abuse and suicide, compared to the massive media attention police shootings get. I understand this from a sheer news-reporting perspective: A shooting is an event. It’s recent. There are actors on both sides, all of whom are willing to give statements now and testify on camera now, and soon there will be a big, noisy demonstration. Great television. Drug abuse and suicide are simmering problems. People dodging a camera make bad television, and trying to get interviews with grieving widows and so on can be seen as bad taste. It’s too Springer for CNN, especially since they’re poor. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > Actually, I’ve got an idea there: a Dem Presidential candidate should pledge to put people on the Fed who will pursue full employment and wage gains for the bulk of the population, and not worry about inflation until it’s actually getting to be a problem. > > It would require the Dem candidate to repeatedly take a few minutes to explain that the Fed is the outfit that really decides when the economy’s going to heat up or slow down, until it sinks in with the voters - and what the President does is gets to pick who’s running the Fed. > > Why it would work in practice is that we’re in a very different economy than we were in the 1970s. The wages of American workers, in this global age, are a much smaller fraction of the price of anything you buy, so if wages go up 25% across the board, prices go up maybe 5%, and if wages go up another 5% to compensate (not that they would, in a non-union era), then prices go up another 1%, and the ‘wage-price spiral’ converges to zero pretty quickly, with the workers coming out way ahead. > > And while it’s true that persons on fixed incomes would lose a little ground, there’d be a lot more people who would gain a _lot_ of ground. Politically, that would be a big win for the Dems. This would work well if you managed to elect someone who was amazing on camera and then got a lot of other media behind that basic message. The problem is that too many people still think inflation is not only wrong, it’s a moral failing, and that any inflation is a sign of a sick economy. This ties into the idiotic notion that sovereign debt works like household debt. Add in a little of the “End The Fed” idiocy and it’s an uphill battle. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2016, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-to-gop-brokered-convention-2016/748153/185 "2016-04-07T20:49:47Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > We also hear much less about threats to poor whites, such as prescription drug abuse and suicide, compared to the massive media attention police shootings get. I understand this from a sheer news-reporting perspective: A shooting is an event. It’s recent. There are actors on both sides, all of whom are willing to give statements now and testify on camera now, and soon there will be a big, noisy demonstration. Great television. > > Drug abuse and suicide are simmering problems. People dodging a camera make bad television, and trying to get interviews with grieving widows and so on can be seen as bad taste. It’s too Springer for CNN, especially since they’re poor. That’s the province of the investigative news shows, because their success is generally a bit less tied to ratings. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2016, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-to-gop-brokered-convention-2016/748153/186 "2016-04-07T21:07:14Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > [hijack]All the opposition to BLM would vaporize instantly, if they had just incorporated one word, making explicit what was implicit (but some people are too obtuse to see): > > Black Lives Matter, Too. > > [/hijack] The “too” is obviously implicit. It’s right there, in blinking neon letters to everybody who can think. The slogan says, loudly, to stop acting as if \*\*only \*\*white lives matter. That’s the lesson the white lives matter bigots and chuckleheads need to learn. This isn’t about them. They got theirs. Yes, we’re all equal. But that’s not the way the world operates. Non-whites have to yell just to be thought of as part of that equality. That’s what Black Lives Matter protestors are yelling and why they’re doing it in this particular way. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2016, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-to-gop-brokered-convention-2016/748153/187 "2016-04-07T23:05:09Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > It is now true when it’s the working class regardless of race. But, in America there **is** no “working class regardless of race” and there never has been. Among other things Marx got wrong, a social class is not merely a set of people of the same economic status or economic function. It is also a sociological entity. People of the same class do not just work at the same kinds of jobs or earn the same level of income, they live in the same kinds of neighborhoods, go to the same schools, socialize with each other, marry each other, and absorb a similar outlook growing up. Race might be only a social construct, but as a social construct it is a very real thing that has real effects on social behavior: The white and black working classes are really two different social classes, and will remain so until socialization and neighborhood and intermarriage between them is a great deal more common than it is now. It’s not that either is above the other; they’re like two halves of the same layer of the cake. Or thirds, or whatever, because the Latino working class is separate from both, etc. Now, that does not make it impossible for American workers of all races to join together in one panracial political movement; but it does make it much, much more difficult. Too many of the American white working class see blacks and Latinos, even more than the 1%, as the Other. And I’m sure many working blacks see whites of all classes the same way. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2016, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-to-gop-brokered-convention-2016/748153/188 "2016-04-08T00:42:36Z")
Agreed. And in earlier posts I alluded to I have made the point that 2 (or 3 as you say) working class groups will never be powerful as long as propagandists and separated living arrangements can readily put them at each other’s throats. IF (huge if) they (or their grandkids) can grow past their mutual race-first/class-second worldview they’ll make political \*and \*economic progress. If not, not. The problem for the non-working classes is that even if they can’t unite, they can be similarly disaffected, though each in their own particular way with their own particularized grievances. And a society with a huge fraction of the populace nursing their simmering disaffection and anger is not stable or happy for anyone. We, all of us, are more diminished and more endangered the longer we let the haters hate and the hatemongers monger and the ill-educated wallow in their ignorance. Work to spread enlightenment or expect to be overrun by a mob. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2016, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-to-gop-brokered-convention-2016/748153/189 "2016-04-08T01:54:22Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > Yeah. I made my comparison to Weimar because that’s more well-know to most folks here. And the specific campaign goon Stone was mostly threatening street violence reminiscent of Rohm’s best tactics. And of course the left won’t do anything about it except complain from the safety of the Internet screen excepting a few edgy teenagers who want to publically martyr themselves. Instead of just complaining about “right-wing militias”, why not take advantage of the Second Amendment and _organize_? I wish Bernie was flanked by his own version of the social democratic [Reichsbanner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsbanner_Schwarz-Rot-Gold) militia. Something like the Grand Army of the Republic, with connotations of civic republicanism and a progressive force that helped destroy the conspiracy of reactionary slavers, would have a nice ring to it in that regard. > [@](#): > > A better comparison is probably Syriza in current and immediately past Greece. The angry populists successfully threw the ruling clientelist class out of (most of) national politics. And were promptly rewarded with a depression and massive unemployment. To be sure they were already going that way, but bringing in Syriza put the whole crash into overdrive. > > Since then things have begun to return slightly towards normal both politically and economically. The problem with Syriza is that it caved instead of doing the genuinely bold thing and dropping the Euro and the entire toxic European Union, run as it is by unfeeling Brussels technocrats. [Health statistics from Greece](http://www.ekathimerini.com/158022/article/ekathimerini/news/greek-financial-crisis-tied-to-worsening-health) indicate the brutal programme of austerity forced upon by Brussels has caused a miniature version of the post-Soviet sociodemographic crisis in Eastern Europe. Also, how the Hell can you blame _Syriza_ for mass unemployment-that began years before with the previous government’s implementation of austerity. Do you genuinely expect the Greek people to simply take every public service in their country being gutted even as it led to mass unemployment, rise in crime, worsening of disease, and so forth and just submissively accept it? > [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Everybody has those. That’s life. > > Compare them to those at the same relative economic level in, say, Bangladesh. And you call yourself a Democrat? The only polite answer to this is _Out, out, out_! Of course, characteristically, you don’t say the same thing about women politicians even though by this reasoning you could say women shouldn’t complain about conditions here since they have it much better then in Saudi Arabia. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2016, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-to-gop-brokered-convention-2016/748153/190 "2016-04-08T02:02:42Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > And you call yourself a Democrat? The only polite answer to this is _Out, out, out_! Of course, characteristically, you don’t say the same thing about women politicians even though by this reasoning you could say women shouldn’t complain about conditions here since they have it much better then in Saudi Arabia. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: No, actually, I’m not a Democrat. I have been very clear that I am an independent. I decide on individual issues regardless of any party platform. _You_ drew the inference that they shouldn’t complain. I merely stated the irony involved. One has not the slightest thing to do with the other. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2016, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-to-gop-brokered-convention-2016/748153/191 "2016-04-08T08:38:08Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > This would work well if you managed to elect someone who was amazing on camera and then got a lot of other media behind that basic message. The problem is that too many people still think inflation is not only wrong, it’s a moral failing, and that any inflation is a sign of a sick economy. This ties into the idiotic notion that sovereign debt works like household debt. Add in a little of the “End The Fed” idiocy and it’s an uphill battle. I doubt it. First of all, I should have made clear that the numbers I gave were hypothetical, just to show how much you could do for wages with how little inflation. It’s not like wages are going to go up 25% in a year, except in a few very in-demand sectors of the economy. Second, the wage increases are going to come first before inflation becomes an issue, which is going to give you one hell of a constituency for what you’re doing. Third, it won’t be that much added inflation at any one time. Say wages increased by the equivalent of 10% across the board in a single year, which would be fucking phenomenal, and certainly beyond my wildest hopes. You’d have a LOT of happy people. And you’d add maybe 2 percentage points to the inflation rate. Social Security, which factors in inflation, would adjust to compensate, so people living off Social Security wouldn’t be hurting. Meanwhile, the economy would be booming because most people had a lot more money to spend. The President wouldn’t have to do much more than dismiss the anti-inflation types as the sort of people who always find something wrong with any party. And it would work because for most Americans, it would be one hell of a good party. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2016, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-to-gop-brokered-convention-2016/748153/192 "2016-04-10T20:58:37Z")
The Economist made an observation in passing that I had missed. Arguably, only Trump and Cruz have national campaigns set up. The Republican Party may very well lack the ability to start up something like that from scratch. Kasich isn’t up and running. Paul Ryan really isn’t up and running. Most people who knows Cruz hate him. But the nation’s delegates have never worked with the guy. So he seems favored. Here are the main scenarios: 1. Trump runs and loses. 2. Cruz runs and loses. 3. Trump runs and wins. 4. Crux runs and wins. 5. Somebody else runs and loses. I’m ruling out a victory by someone else for the purposes of this post. It’s possible that Romney’s old staff could assemble an organization on the fly. Anyway, #5 might be preferable to 3 and 4. A failed Trump presidency could be worse for the GOP than Carter was for the Democrats. Ditto for Cruz. But Cruz is a highly cynical politician. He should be able to extend whatever assurances he needs to people who don’t know him. So he’s looking pretty good right now. And **furt** deserves a medallion for arguing for [Cruz’s inevitability](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=786153) in his thread. His sobriety was particularly appreciated - those with defensible but less than ironclad ideas sometimes leave the rails. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2016, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-to-gop-brokered-convention-2016/748153/193 "2016-04-10T21:03:11Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > … It’s possible that Romney’s old staff could assemble an organization on the fly… And the Mormon Momentum builds! You heard it here first! OK, not first, but you heard it here _again_! ---
**Author:** ![erysichthon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d07c76/32.png) [@erysichthon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erysichthon)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2016, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-to-gop-brokered-convention-2016/748153/194 "2016-04-10T22:59:08Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > The Economist made an observation in passing that I had missed. Arguably, only Trump and Cruz have national campaigns set up. The Republican Party may very well lack the ability to start up something like that from scratch. Kasich isn’t up and running. Paul Ryan really isn’t up and running. There’s been a lot of buzz in the last couple of days about [this Paul Ryan video](https://youtu.be/ECxH4uIswiA), which looks suspiciously like a Presidential campaign ad. Of course he claims he’s not running for POTUS, but he also played a similar game of hard-to-get for the Speaker job. Personally, I think the idea of the GOP nominating someone who didn’t participate in the primaries or caucuses is loopy; it sounds like wishful thinking from party establishment types who fantasize about that nice young clean-cut fellow from Wisconsin magically making peace at the convention. They probably think Cruz and Trump will happily join Ryan on stage for a group hug. But, to get back to your point, Ryan has no campaign infrastructure in place, and there’s only about three and a half months between the convention and the election. The logistical hurdles would be huge. Ryan would also have to devote enormous energy to winning back disgruntled Trump and Cruz supporters. I just don’t see it happening. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2016, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-to-gop-brokered-convention-2016/748153/195 "2016-04-11T00:16:35Z")
Nominating Ryan would be political suicide for the GOP, and they know it. They have at absolute best three options for the nomination, but most likely only two. And if Trump pulls off 1,237, one. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2016, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-to-gop-brokered-convention-2016/748153/196 "2016-04-11T03:50:12Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > The Economist made an observation in passing that I had missed. Arguably, only Trump and Cruz have national campaigns set up. The Republican Party may very well lack the ability to start up something like that from scratch. Kasich isn’t up and running. Paul Ryan really isn’t up and running. > > . Actually, only Cruz has a national campaign set up. Trump has been running a very nontraditional campaign that’s primarily relied on free media. I wouldn’t worry about it too much though. Whoever the nominee is will get the best Republican pros, since there’s no competition for their services. The main issue will be chemistry, how well are all these people going to get along. During a long primary campaign, people tend to drop off the campaign or get fired. A Republican campaign will have to get its shit together really quick. Given the skill of the Cruz campaign, I’d expect that any GOP winner would simply try to inherit Cruz’s campaign structure. For all of Cruz’s extremeness, he’s got pretty standard GOP operatives running his campaign. ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2016, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-to-gop-brokered-convention-2016/748153/197 "2016-04-11T06:09:31Z")
I too am skeptical about a non Trump/Cruz scenario but let me sketch out a possibility. Trump doesn’t get to 1237 and after the first ballot faces the prospect of losing to Cruz. If he can’t win, he decides the second-best option is to become a king-maker and cut a deal with the establishment to nominate a third candidate. Psychologically this seems quite plausible to me. Trump is obsessed about winning and losing. Emerging as a loser in the biggest contest of his life especially after coming so close to winning will be painful and he will do almost anything to save face. Becoming the king-maker will allow him to boast about his legendary deal-making skills. The issue is who the third candidate would be. It would have to be someone Trump likes and is also acceptable to the establishment. Definitely not Romney and probably not Ryan. Perhaps someone who has endorsed Trump? Christie? Again I think this is a long shot and probably it will be Cruz or Trump but I imagine there will be some plotting behind the scenes to see if some deal between Trump and the establishment is possible. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2016, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-to-gop-brokered-convention-2016/748153/198 "2016-04-11T06:28:07Z")
> [@Lantern](#): > > I too am skeptical about a non Trump/Cruz scenario but let me sketch out a possibility. > > Trump doesn’t get to 1237 and after the first ballot faces the prospect of losing to Cruz. If he can’t win, he decides the second-best option is to become a king-maker and cut a deal with the establishment to nominate a third candidate. > > Psychologically this seems quite plausible to me. Trump is obsessed about winning and losing. Emerging as a loser in the biggest contest of his life especially after coming so close to winning will be painful and he will do almost anything to save face. Becoming the king-maker will allow him to boast about his legendary deal-making skills. > > The issue is who the third candidate would be. It would have to be someone Trump likes and is also acceptable to the establishment. Definitely not Romney and probably not Ryan. Perhaps someone who has endorsed Trump? Christie? > > Again I think this is a long shot and probably it will be Cruz or Trump but I imagine there will be some plotting behind the scenes to see if some deal between Trump and the establishment is possible. Let’s not forget the practical side to that: do you think Cruz is dumb enough or ambitious enough to want his name attached to a failed campaign just for a very unlikely shot at VP? Not to mention that I doubt either likes the other in the slightest. Nor would Cruz want to work under Trump. I know, politics makes strange bedfellows and all, but I think it’s much more likely that Cruz either gets away with the nomination himself or bides his time until 2020, perhaps after he’s had some time to fix a few Congressional fences. ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2016, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-to-gop-brokered-convention-2016/748153/199 "2016-04-11T06:55:24Z")
Just to avoid confusion, by “Trump/Cruz scenario” I meant one where either Trump or Cruz is the nominee, not where Cruz is the VP. I agree the latter is highly unlikely. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2016, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-to-gop-brokered-convention-2016/748153/200 "2016-04-11T07:08:41Z")
> [@Lantern](#): > > I too am skeptical about a non Trump/Cruz scenario but let me sketch out a possibility. > > Trump doesn’t get to 1237 and after the first ballot faces the prospect of losing to Cruz. If he can’t win, he decides the second-best option is to become a king-maker and cut a deal with the establishment to nominate a third candidate. > > Psychologically this seems quite plausible to me. Trump is obsessed about winning and losing. Emerging as a loser in the biggest contest of his life especially after coming so close to winning will be painful and he will do almost anything to save face. Becoming the king-maker will allow him to boast about his legendary deal-making skills. > > The issue is who the third candidate would be. It would have to be someone Trump likes and is also acceptable to the establishment. Definitely not Romney and probably not Ryan. Perhaps someone who has endorsed Trump? Christie? > > Again I think this is a long shot and probably it will be Cruz or Trump but I imagine there will be some plotting behind the scenes to see if some deal between Trump and the establishment is possible. If you’re talking deal making - wouldn’t the most likely scenario be Trump / Kasich? With Kasich’s delegates, Trump is pretty much guaranteed the nomination - And alone, Kasich isn’t going to come close… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-to-gop-brokered-convention-2016/748153.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-to-gop-brokered-convention-2016/748153.md?page=11)