Barone's buzzkill: Forget about a brokered convention … ever

Hot Air.com ^ | December 16, 2015 | ED MORRISEY

[Kaslin]

Come on, man. It’s the holidays before the primaries. Aren’t we supposed to play out the worst possible scenarios as if they have any significant chance of coming to fruition? The estimable and seasoned analyst Michael Barone instead drops lumps of coal in bloggers’ stockings with just nine days to go before Christmas to tell us that Santa Brokered-Convention is just a myth that your grandparents told you to make you behave, or something:

I have bad news for those looking forward to a deadlocked convention. It. Isn’t. Going. To. Happen.

That’s because it’s impossible for party national conventions to serve the same function they did for more than a century after the first Democratic National Convention assembled in Baltimore in May 1832.

The reason why the chances of another brokered convention have become increasingly remote, Barone argues, is because travel and communications have become a much lower barrier to organization. The last truly brokered convention that produced a winning general-election candidate took place in 1932, when Franklin Roosevelt won the nomination and the first of four presidential elections. The most recent brokered convention came twenty years later, when Adlai Stevenson won the first of two losing Democratic nominations.

The closest either party has come since was 32 years ago, when Walter Mondale narrowly missed a majority of delegates before the convention, but how he resolved the issue reflects those technological and cultural changes:

Back then, the national convention was a unique communications medium, the only place where politicians from across the nation could meet face-to-face, conduct confidential negotiations and reach agreement. …

In 1984, Walter Mondale, just short of a majority after the last primary, relayed the names and phone numbers of additional committed delegates to Associated Press delegate counter David Lawsky, so he could claim the nomination at a mid-day press conference the next day.

Now it’s even easier. The leading candidate can rally uncommitteds through e-mail, teleconferencing, or quick trips to key locations. That’s equally true if two candidates come up within striking distance, although it might be trickier to resolve ahead of the convention. Where Barone’s reasoning might come up short is if we end up with a three- or four-person race all the way down to June, where the practical aspects of dealmaking might make it necessary to have everyone in one place at one time … which is what the convention allows. But we’re not going to have three or four viable candidates for that long in the race, are we? Are we?

Short of that, Barone notes that brokerists do have one path to the political equivalent of the Red Ryder BB Gun:

The answer is yes if you do a few other things first. Like ban long-distance phone calls, jet travel, and media delegate counts and of course shut down the Internet. Then the national convention can function again as national conventions did up through the 1950s.

Suddenly, a second look at Trump’s suggestion to shut down “certain parts of the Internet”* sounds pretty good, right?

* No, that’s not what Trump meant…

[Shadow44]

Finally, some sanity on the topic. All the speculation is nothing more than feverish dreaming on account of the elites.

[Oberon]

I think we’re all assuming, however, that the candidate with the most votes will win. The party has yet to decide what they’ll do if it’s Trump... and I am concerned about what I think they might do in that case.

[entropy12]

I have to believe lot will depend on margin of victory.

[Oberon]

I'm pretty sure that the establishment GOP would prefer ANY Washington insider... even if it's a Democrat, and even if it's Hillary... to someone who backs themselves and isn't bought into the status quo, i.e. Trump.

We'll see.

[entropy12]

That is correct. Because the rich donors of both parties control the game. Republicans or democrats...they are all there to satisfy their rich donor’s needs.

[BillyBoy]

>> Finally, some sanity on the topic. All the speculation is nothing more than feverish dreaming <<

The "brokered convention" fantasy was even worse in 2012.

Many Newt fanboys kept insisting that him staying in the race when he only won 2 states (one of which was his home state) and kept coming in a distant 4th place and winning zero delegates in primary after primary...

...would somehow magically result in a deadlocked "brokered convention" where everyone would fall in line to support Newt as the "consensus" choice. Then he'd become "President of our beloved Republic" and have Herman Cain as "Vice President".

Now that's some weird delusional stuff. And I thought MY math skills were bad.

[LS]

No, there will be handwringing, but no one in the GOP would risk millions of voters in rebellion if they screwed with free and open elections. Regardless of how they feel about Trump, thousands of House, Senate, governor, statehouse, and local candidates would be destroyed by such a move. They won’t tolerate that.

[Impy]

I think the odds are overwhelming that we will be 100% certain of who the nominee is before the convo.

An aside, I was just looking over the Wikipedia entries for GOP Convos, from 1952

"Eisenhower was so unfamiliar with politics that even after his nomination he believed that the delegates would choose the vice-presidential nominee, surprising his advisors Lucius D. Clay and Herbert Brownell. When they explained that the delegates would support whoever he chose, Eisenhower suggested businessmen he knew such as Charles E. Wilson and C. R. Smith. Clay and Brownell explained that a running mate should be a politician who balanced the ticket in geography, age, and other areas, and suggested Richard Nixon, who had helped Eisenhower win California's delegates. Eisenhower had met Nixon, and accepted the suggestion. Nixon was nominated unanimously.[2]"

Never heard that before. The source given is a book called "Eisenhower in War and Peace" by Jean Edward Smith, published in 2012. It is accurate? Wilson would go on to be Ike's Defense Secretary. Smith was a DEM who was briefly Commerce Secretary under JOHNSON.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Possibly. The more we discuss Ike, the more I wish Taft-MacArthur had demolished him in the primary. Ike should’ve spent the last 16 years of his life talking at Rotary Club luncheons and out on the links.

[EternalVigilance]

These events bear more resemblance to a meeting of the Supreme Soviet than they do to historic American political conventions.

It’s no longer anything but a big contrived media show, with the taxpayers buying the booze.

[fieldmarshaldj]

BTW, completely off-topic, but is that Jordan Peele in that new Star Wars movie ? I just saw a commercial, and the Black hero in it looks just like him.

[bert]

Money was not mentioned. Given a sticking point or presence of friction, campaigns with money can grease the skids

[Impy]

The fellows’ name is John Boyega, he’s British and 13 years younger than Peele. I don’t find them to have a particularly striking resemblance. I don’t know Boyega from Adam, the chick either, this was intentional I believe. The character is called “Finn”. A stupid name, especially for a Black guy. Better than “N-word Jim”, I guess.

The chick looks like she’s doing a Jen Lawrence Hunger Games impression, her character is called “Rey”. A totally f-ed up name for a girl if it’s pronounced like I think it is. If 20 years from now there are a bunch of chicks named “Rey” I’m gonna track down JJ Abrams and cut out his bastard’s heart.

Don’t look at the Wikipedia article for the movie if you want to avoid spoilers, it spoils something with the mere act of naming a character, it’s entirely predictable though, presaged by something that happened in the continuity of the post ROJ novels (which they are ignoring).

[fieldmarshaldj]

I swore it was Jordan Peele in the ad swinging some lightsabre. BTW, did you see his fiancée ? Peele looks hotter dressed in drag as Meegan. :-P

I’ve yet to see any of the Hunger Games movies. I’ve sorta grown tired of these ridiculous teenybopper girl saves the world/universe stories. In reality, they’d buy the farm about as graphically and as quickly as Ellen Page did in “Super” (which, btw, was one of the most graphic and shocking murders I’ve ever seen on film, and left you horrified).

As for Abrams, I’m shocked he wouldn’t follow canon (even if in the books). :-|

[Impy]

Let’s see, Chelsea Peretti, she’s on that show “Brooklyn 9-9” I’ve seen it maybe 3 or 4 times. She kinda looks like Lady Gaga, but less attractive.

I haven’t seen the Hunger Games either, I read a little of the first book, then I misplaced it.

Were you sent the link to ROOSH discussion of Star Wars? Apparently it’s very heavy on turning “Rey” into Supergirl. From the trailers she seems bitchy.

BTW, have you seen “Supergirl”? I watched the pilot, it seemed like garbage to me.

[Impy]

Ike was pretty breathtakingly ignorant if that’s true, making his nomination a sad indictment of the party. Might have been better if he had decided to be a rat, although he was a better POTUS than all of his successors, save Reagan.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Yeah, I read the Roosh discussion. I told GOPSter I’d likely forget about it by the time I saw it on cable, anyhow (the spoilers). I believe I’ve only watched the prequels once. I did actually see the last one (in 2005) in the theater, 22 and 25 years after I saw the 2nd and 3rd films, but the audio level was so loud, I had to cover my ears for the entire film. I probably should’ve walked out and demanded a refund. That’s the reason why I wouldn’t go to another movie unless you have a say on sound.

Nope, haven’t seen Supergirl. Again, the teenybopper stuff. I have no use for bitchy girls. I have enough experience with living with that and being related to it to last a lifetime.

[fieldmarshaldj]

It was one of those “desperate to nominate a winner” after not having won a race in 24 years. Funny thing is, with Truman fatigue having settled in, Taft would’ve won against the snobbish intellectual leftist Stevenson.

Ike’s presiding over the 1958 election disaster (which remains, from before or since, the single worst loss of seats from one party in the U.S. Senate) was as bad as Watergate, and made the GOP virtually the permanent minority party. Had Ike been a Democrat, 1958 would’ve made the GOP the permanent majority party. I don’t think a President MacArthur would’ve allowed that to happen.

Of course, it’s too bad had he not been murdered, Gen. Patton would’ve had the 1948 GOP Presidential nomination for the asking (although you might’ve had whining from the RINO peanut gallery demanding Dewey be allowed to run again as he did and that George was “too tough”). Patton would’ve obliterated the Communist threat, not only in DC, but in China (which would’ve stopped the Communist adventures in S.E. Asia) and facing off hard against the Soviets. It would’ve been magnificent.

[Impy]

Patton’s death was a murder?