Skip to comments.What Chance Do We Have for a Brokered Convention? (Another Sound-Off Thread)
Posted on 12/03/2011 8:39:04 AM PST by TheRobb7
In the spirit of my last posting "Now That We've Crucified Every Candidate.... (Here's Your Chance FReeper Nation)" and due to the great discussion and fostering of ideas put forth by FReeperNation, here's some other ideas to bandy about as we close in on the Hawkeye Caucai (Rush's label):
1) What do you think are the chances of NONE of the candidates getting the magic number of delegates heading in to the convention in Tampa?
2) If that indeed happens, is it a good thing? Why or why not?
3) Finally, if it DOES happen, what ticket do you think will emerge from Tampa?
I put this to you, The Best Debate Society on Planet Earth.
the ronpaul delegates are the only stubborn factor that could prevent a majority. because of viability rules and winner take all states, doubt he has more than 5% of delegates. So brokered ... if the leading delegate guy stumbles at the finish and lose the last 5 primaries ... something along these lines could happen.
I am feeling increasingly estranged from FR. It’s too bad, because this is the first ‘home’ I ever had on the Internet, starting ten years ago. (I changed screen names slightly because my other one was getting too many unwanted pings that didn’t respond when I asked to be removed.)
I couldn’t stand the cult of personality around Obama because of the irrational focus on personal presentation in front of cameras. Intelligence, background, experience—these were what made people like RWR our heroes. This cycle I’m seeing I was wrong—many people weren’t really against the worship, they were just against the focus of that worship. They champion people who simply aren’t up to snuff because they “like” these people they’ve never met, as if they were supporting the person they want to be their friend.
I hated the Global Warming-style fake-religion of the left, the fixation on things like ‘first black president’ or ‘first woman nominee’ or whatever, and the blistering, personal rhetoric. We were the mature ones who didn’t want earmarks just for us, we wanted them cut across the board. We so wanted government programs reduced that we were willing to give up what we put into them (which, of course, is the only way out of these economic suicide pacts they tricked us into).
But we have Republican, and even conservative, versions of all of this garbage.
Now we come to the magical thinking of the democrats, who tried to change the rules of the 2000 election on election day and immediately after. We don’t like the candidates, so some are getting all psyched about this TV-style phony drama of a brokered convention! Wheeeee! How exciting!
As someone already asked, do the people cheering for this even know what a brokered convention MEANS?
We are so fixed on this idea that if we don’t get a candidate we can like or love, we are going to sit out the election and let Obama win. I think part of this is due to the mistaken idea of what the political landscape in this country truly is. As I’ve said before, remove Reagan from the picture and you will have a much clearer view of the landscape we ACTUALLY have had over the past half-century.
Wishin’ and hopin’ for some dramatic crowd-goosing moment when a savior arrives is Democrat Chris Matthews ‘insider’ crap, childish pageantry having NOTHING to do with the unromantic WORK of being president.
We have a process. These are the people with the guts to go through that process, which is why I find the bile aimed at Romney (and I’m not a supporter) so nauseating. I’m certainly far from perfect and occasionally lob bad one-liners about some folks, but overall I respect them all for TRYING, while some of us bask in the fantasy of those who’ve sat on the sidelines being PERFECT because they haven’t gotten themselves dirty.
These are our choices. None are perfect. All are better than Obama. Pick one, and support him/her. Then in the final election, support our nominee, or stand by and let one Obama vote go unanswered.
But enough with the silly Paul Wellstone memorial-style political drama.
In the spirit of my last posting "Now That We've Crucified Every Candidate...
Every convention is brokered. And the power brokers picked Romney 4 years ago. Any evidence to the contrary is pure illusion.
That is not to say that the power brokers can’t change their mind.
A brokered convention may be the only shot we have at nominating a conservative.
It would be fun, exciting, interesting, and unpredictable.
Therefore it will never happen.
Please take your blue pills and go back to sleep.
I aslo think that a lot of attempting to blame the “GOP Establishment” for the failure of their candidate is getting pretty old too.
Bachmann could have used her intelligence not unlike the way Newt is using his. But instead of making a libertarian argument, she pretty much decided to end her campaign in an usupportable rant bordering on slander.
People are looking for an alternative to Mitt Romney, but Newt is the only one that seems to have any lasting for now.
If you were to believe they “establishment” theory how could any one explain how Romney has been generally a second placer for so long?
We shouldn’t even be talking about this. In 2008, we told if we were to adopt the Obi-Wan Kenobi strategy, a Reaganesque republican would be elected in 2012. So much for theories.
Sadly, the cult of personality thing effects many people of all political ideologies. One would hope that conservatives are too smart for it, but alas they are not. Human nature is what it is, and it's never going to change.
Yup. For some, if their candidate doesn't win or otherwise washes out due to their own mistakes or incompetence, well then, it MUST be the establishments fault.
Here is some news, the Republican establishment isn't all that powerful. If a good, solid, charismatic candidate without glaring problems or gaping policy ignorance rises up and is supported by a majority of Republicans, there is absolutely nothing the "establishment" could do to stop that person. The problem is, some people think their own flawed candidate is that person. Usually, he or she just isn't particularly good and will fail to make the cut. When no one new can make it through the process, the most seasoned, skilled politician around with name recognition will usually win.
Not me. If I believed they were TRYING to get elected to an office for the purpose of helping their Country, I might agree with you. However, I believe they are mostly narcissists who are running for their own self aggrandizement. I believe most are corrupt and my personal freedom is one of the farthest things from their minds.
It is a game of money and power and those with little of either are unimportant.
There are millions of easier ways to get money and power.
Running for president of course involves ego—big deal. Every great achievement does.
The Republicans running want to help shape the country, not just bitch about it.
There is no other way to become the most powerful person in the world.
If I had the rosy view of reality you do, I would probably be a Democrat.
Paul Ryan. Yet another legislator.
I continue to be astonished that so many people throw common sense and established practices out the window when it comes to nominating someone for the most powerful chief executive position on the planet.
In the real world, one becomes CEO by demonstrating competence in management over many, many years. Just having the the right mindset, toeing the company line, and being a well-liked board member doesn't qualify. You have to have shown that you have the capability to actually run the organization.
Thank you, and everyone else, for your well-reasoned responses.
The one thing that would possibly even the playing field a bit would be to have a National Primary Day, with no cross-over voting allowed.
That would perhaps be a better solution to all the front-loading.
Thanls for contributing to the discussion.
I’ve followed your postings through the years and have appreciated your common-sense answers.
The tone has definitely changed here at FR, as I fear that subversive DU’ers have lied-in-wait for times such as this.
I hope that we can agree to debate without dividing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.