There would seem to be three possible outcomes for the Republican nominating process. Each has (more or less) a historical precedent.
1. 1912. Trump wins the nomination.
As in the 1912 GOP contest, the frontrunner wins on the first ballot (cf. William Howard Taft). But dissatisfaction with the nominee sparks an independent Republican candidate (cf. Teddy Roosevelt). In 2016, as in 1912, the independent candidate would have a good chance of getting more votes in the general election than the official GOP nominee. But the odds are that this results, as in 1912, in a Democratic presidential victory in the fall.
2. 1952. Cruz wins the nomination.
As in the Democratic convention of 1952, the populist frontrunner, Donald Trump (cf. Estes Kefauver) enters as the frontrunner. But he falls short on the first ballot, and delegates then come together to nominate Ted Cruz (cf. Adlai Stevenson) on the third ballot. It’s true that Stevenson lost—but Hillary Clinton is no Dwight D. Eisenhower. Cruz would have a decent chance to win the general.
3. 1880. A dark horse wins the nomination.
As in 1880, the GOP convention fails to nominate either of the frontrunners, Ulysses S. Grant or James G. Blaine (cf. Trump and Cruz), and deadlocks. On the 36th ballot, the delegates turn to a dark horse, Rep. James Garfield, who has not been a candidate for the presidency. But who is 2016’s Garfield?
Which path—1912, 1952, or 1880—will the GOP follow in 2016?
