The Republicans will no doubt run someone who can't win, like they did in 2012, because, well, because...
Here, let me borrow the voice of Matt Stoller for a bit.
The Fake Election: 10 Arguments The Republicans Aren’t Making
Matt Stoller is a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. You can follow him at https://twitter.com/matthewstoller and he can be reached at stoller at gmail.com.
Even authoritarian systems require legitimacy to retain the support of the governed, and the new authoritarian America is no exception.
In short, the 2012 election was a sham, a game to keep the authoritarians in power. The Republicans voted to keep the Democrats out of office, the Democrats voted to keep the Republicans out of office, and only the elites got what they wanted. Here's the meat of Stoller's piece:
The Republicans don’t want to discuss tax cheating, offshoring, corruption, inequality, dissent, the rule of law, endless war, or Wall Street criminality. They’d rather lose. It’s not that they want to lose in 2012, it’s just that they aren’t going to go after every vote. It’s the same reason no one talks about how Romney is a flip-flopper anymore, or points out that Romney is the architect of Obamacare, or was a moderate Republican governor in Massachusetts. Those arguments are worse for the political class, and better for the public. And that is how elections operate in authoritarian America. The secondary goal is to win the election, the primary goal is to keep the public out of the deal-making.
I think it's fair to assert, at this point, that the Democrats and the Republicans are going to try to pull off the same sham election, again, in 2016. It seems fair to say at this point that 2012 will be the new normal for at least the next twelve years. Why mess with success? The Democrats will nominate Hillary Clinton, and the Republicans will find someone who will lose gracefully while keeping their political figures in the career game. After all, the point of Presidential elections is not to win the Presidency, but to continue to "keep the public out of the deal-making." And for the next eight years thereafter, everyone will be quiet about how Hillary Clinton did nothing to improve the employment-population ratio or to mitigate global warming or to deal with the out-of-control military-industrial-academic-surveillance complex, just like they're not doing anything about these things now and so few people complain. And we will all suffer silently, especially the historically oppressed among us, because omigod the first woman President, just like we suffer silently today because omigod the first Black President.
So here's my question. Is VOTS going to endorse a third-party candidate for President if Hillary should win the nomination in 2016? Maybe VOTS could start looking for that candidate now?