It’s in almost everyone’s interest to maintain this myth. The likes of Sheldon Adelson want to believe it not only because it justifies their involvement, but also because it’s in their nature. They’ve mastered the business world and rule over legions of underlings who will do whatever they say. They issue commands and see them carried out. When they get involved in politics, candidates come before them in supplication.

And since those candidates want the donors’ money so desperately, it’s in their interests to feed the donors’ belief that they can determine who wins and who loses. Raising the tens of millions required to win the nomination does indeed require the help of a lot of ultra-wealthy donors, but that help is necessary but not sufficient to secure victory.

AD

AD

No one’s going to tell the donors that, though, because everyone wants their money to keep flowing. The candidates want it, the consultants want it, and even the media feed the idea, by reporting on their role in the process, which no doubt serves to convince the donors that they really are the vital ingredient of candidate success.

In private, though, anyone who has worked in politics will tell you that the fact that somebody made a ton of money building casinos doesn’t make him or her a political genius. Adelson spent between $100 million and $150 million on the 2012 campaign, first on Newt Gingrich and then on Mitt Romney, to no avail. When he gives his sage strategic advice to the next candidate who makes the pilgrimage to Las Vegas to seek his favor, that candidate will nod and say: “You are absolutely right, Sheldon. That’s brilliant.”

Adelson and the other big (and semi-big) donors will pour millions into the primaries, but even if they did decide to unite behind one candidate, it would guarantee nothing. The 2016 race will be as chaotic and complex as any we’ve seen in recent history, and the central conflict, as it has been within the GOP for the past six years, will be between the establishment and the more conservative base.

AD

AD

The candidate who wins will be the one who can satisfy both of those groups. Romney managed it in 2012 through relentless pandering to the right, to the point at which the base grudgingly accepted him. There will be some candidates in this race who won’t manage to build a bridge between the two — for instance, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is never going to convince the establishment that his nomination wouldn’t be a disaster. Other candidates have a chance to build that bridge — Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R) is one who already has enthusiastic fans in both groups.

The Republican donors are right about one thing, though. All else being equal, a more moderate candidate of the kind most of them favor would have a much better shot at winning the general election than one who feeds the desires of the tea party base. But that highlights the bargain the GOP donor class has had to make. To get the low taxes and light regulation that it is after, it has to bring a boatload of crazy along for the ride, crazy that is often inimical to its business interests. The GOP donor class looks on government shutdowns and threatened debt-ceiling defaults with dismay, hopes that the kamikazes in the party can be restrained and tries to forget that President Obama’s tenure has been spectacular for the nation’s plutocrats by any measure you can devise.