Winnowing in 2016

Interesting point by Bernstein:

The first test for the announced candidates has arrived. Perry’s campaign, we learned Monday night, is broke and has stopped paying staffers. As of now, however, the team is pledging to carry on, in part because Perry’s super-PAC still has plenty of money. Politico also suggests that Rand Paul and Rick Santorum are hanging on partly because of super-PACs.

If the normal winnowing doesn’t happen in this cycle, that’s a big deal. It could undercut the party’s influence over who gets the nomination. Typically, only candidates with significant support and little strong opposition among party actors have a realistic chance of winning. Party influence depends on stable, predictable rules and practices, and if this has changed — if, for example, most of the 17 Republican candidates remain in the race well into the caucuses and primaries — then almost anything could happen.

I also agree that we should be careful before assuming that super-PACS will substantially alter the winnowing process in primaries. (In Perry’s case specifically, I’d be very surprised if he was still around for Iowa.) But at a minimum, the larger amounts of money sloshing around have to effect how the invisible primary plays out.

And, of course, Trump — independently financed, and with no real roots within the Republican Party — is sui generis. He can stay in and probably attract at least some support for as long as he wants. I still don’t think there’s any chance he can win the nomination, but his presence will still affect the process.