What will the Repubes do if they literally can't find a viable candidate??

[cbdo2007]

Looks like it will be Romney who gets the nomination, yet with his finances I only give him about a 30% chance of making it to the election. (Guessing the October surprise this year is gonna be a duzy)

So what will happen if the Repubes completely implode and can't run any even remotely competent candidate in November? These idiots and all their baggage are making McCain look like Lincoln and even he got trounced.

[unblock]

1. sometimes you lose. sometimes you even know you're going to lose.

hey, happened to us in 1984. i mean, i liked mondale quite a bit; certainly would have made a better president than reagan! but i sure knew he wasn't going to win.

[cbdo2007]

10. I know they aren't running their best candidate this year.....

that woudl be foolish as President Obama would probably win regardless, but we might not even actually be a serious contest when we get to November. Like, it their candidate may be literally unvotable for 75% of the country.

[unblock]

11. the "hold you nose and vote" philosophy runs strong, particularly in the republican party.

they always manage to find a rationale.

they'll just say, i'm not voting for the massachusetts mormon, i'm voting against the kenyan socialist muslim, or something like that....

[leveymg]

2. Jeb Bush

The unknown known candidate.

[unblock]

12. i thought he was the known unknown candidate.

[yellowcanine]

13. I don't think so. VP maybe to try to snag Florida for Mitt and give Jeb a leg up on 2016.

Mitt will have enough money to get through the general election. He just will have to pick and choose where he uses a lot of media, that's all.

[Taverner]

3. They will lose. But their 2016 candidate will most likely be identified at the convention

Just as Reagan was in 76, Obama in 06....etc...

[leveymg]

5. Doesn't that keynote speaker becomes the next candidate roll-out thing tell us it's all pre-ordained

The delegates and electorate are window-dressing. Pretty much, anyway. Add Bill Clinton, Pam Harriman's new golden boy, speaking (well) at the '88 DNC.

[Proud Public Servant]

6. Not to nitpick, but

"speaking (well)"? Clinton's '88 speech was notorious for how awful (and abusurdly long) it was. Remember, that was the speech where the phrase "In conclusion" was met with wild applause by the audience.

[leveymg]

9. I liked him, immediately. So did my wife. That's all that matters with these things.

Ok. Maybe I wasn't jammed into an overheated arena with a bunch of unhappy Party delegates. It was '88, of course they were unhappy and impatient.

[Taverner]

7. Not necesarrily. Think of the conventions as auditions for the part.

Hillary was pre-ordained, but at the 2006 convention Obama did such an amazing job that it put Hillary's candidacy into question.

In 1976 Bob Dole was pre-ordained, but Reagan's speech convinced so many to go with him.

[blm]

4. One of GOP's economic gurus said they don't really WANT to be in office next 4 yrs

because they expect the economy to take much longer to recover, and then they'll run for 2016 and hang it all on Dems. Pretty much a repeat of their 2010 strategy. It was an offtherecord comment that was passed on via some newspaper acquaintances in NC.

[Taverner]

8. Although this could just be "Fox and the Grapes" syndrome...