This would be political suicide from The Republican Party. Is it reported anywhere than anyone thinks this is a good idea? Ignoring voters like this would cause rioting i n the streets.
A third party run has been under consideration for some time, with Mitch McConnell being to the fore of those briefing it, along with a bevvy of shadowy donors
McConnell is the ultimate political aparatchik, and naturally is worried about the damage that Trump does down the ticket in other races. His definition of political suicide is allowing Trump to become the Presidential candidate which would lead to the loss of the senate and the house. He can cope with a Democrat in the white house, so long as he's controlling the lower chambers
So far as I can gather, it's under consideration, and the grandees of the GOP are aware of its potential, but whether its just posturing or whether its serious, is anyone's guess. It is without precedent though. Running a rebel candidate against your own nomination!
The GOP have invested a lot of time in trying to cultivate a new powerbase only to see Trump destroy it. Critically, Trump isn't beholden to their donors, and can't be relied on to do what they instruct him to. Again, political suicide through their prism is their own loss of influence over a maverick candidate and the party that will no longer bend in the direction they want it to. They simply won't be able to direct policy like they've been used to. They're also extremely worried about the long term damage that Trump representing their brand is going to do. So far as they're concerned, its their party, not the Trump party
Another way a third party run might occur of course is if Trump is denied at the convention and decides to launch something himself. The likelihood there is that he'll confine hismelf to the swing states however with the view to putting the Democrats in. I doubt he has the time or the money (liquid) to get himself on the state ballots unless he's able to hijack something like the Libertarian party! He hasn't got the organisational base to start with. My own guess is that he's much more likely to sit in television studios being paid to bad mouth the GOP candidate rather than waste his money running a Bull Moose campaign
After having asked a few questions of folks however, the plot thickens - get a load of this
Lets assume that we have a result of Clinton 269, Trump 263, and Romney 6
In the event of a deadlock (failure to break 270) the house is offered the top 3 candidates to choose from.
At the same time the Senate (Republican majority) votes on the two respective VP's. The winner of this vote becomes interim President until such time as the house can resolve their vote. The likelihood therefore is that the next President (even if only a temporary one) will be the Republican vice presdiential nominee in the event of a deadlocked result
Now back to the house.
There is no way that any Democrat house member can accept Donald Trump. Any Democrat who broke ranks would get slaughtered at the next election and be out of work. In any event, Trump is a complete affront to them. They'll all vote Hillary. But that won't be enough
House Republicans could in theory drive through Trump using their majority, but its' likely that there will be enough dissent amongst them to ensure that some refuse to support and transfer instead to Romney.
The whole thing deadlocks
My own guess now is that some Republicans will eventually splinter off and agree to support Hillary, but Romney will be under consideration as a candidate of national unity. I suspect he'll be rejected because he lacks mandate, but he did carry 47% of the country at the last election. A figure incidentally that isn't going to be too far removed from what Trump polls all things being equal. Romney's probably unique in being the only single state candidate who could even plead a case.
His other avenue of course is through a contested convention (see notes earlier about how depressed delegates deciding on which way to lose might be energised if Romney becomes available in Cleveland). Our first clue of something seriously untoward going on here is if they change rule 40(b) which they can do on a nod the night before. The general feeling is that they will (its a bit like paying a supplementary entry fee in a horse race). If you decide to do it, its a relative formality
Now anyone who has kept up with this will realise that under my hypothetical scenario, John Kasich is Trump's VP nominee having gone rogue after he got knived in the April primaries and joined the Donald. It might also be at this point of course that with Kasich acting President the hosue Republicans simply hold their ground and don't budge, making it impossible for Clinton to be sworn in until such time as the hosue changes political control?
I suspect that should such a turn of events transpire, John Kasich would beat say Julian Castro (for sake of a name) in the VP senate vote and become temporary President. Would the bookies pay out on this? I don't know?
It all hangs on there being a third party run. If one emerges to run against Trump, then consider Trump's VP as a crafty bet, or if the candidate is credible, you might try backing them to see if they win a negotiated compromise in the house. At the very least, you'll get a lucrative arb
If you want my honest opinion, I doubt that Romney has the bottle to do it, but if he believes that Trump is really the existential threat to the United States that he says he is though ..... ? Well the stakes are incredibly high. There is an avenue open to him that although you'd describe as "unlikely" is neither impossible either
I should say there is a 'chatham house rules' meeting going on right now between Donald Trump and senior Republican figures. No one knows what this is about, but as you might imagine there are 1001 different suggestions
