Posted on 04/06/2016 2:44:44 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
In July of this year approximately 50,000 people will attend the Republican National Convention at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, Ohio.
Current Republican frontrunner Donald Trump is presently leading his opponents in the race to get enough delegates to secure the party nomination.
However, many have expressed concern over the controversial Trump becoming the nominee and have looked for an anti-Trump to get the nomination in spite of lacking a larger share of votes and delegates.
As a result, there is a chance that this year's GOP Convention will resemble the party's 1880 convention, which had a brokered result.
In the race for the White House, the Republican Party found itself divided from within between two factions, the Stalwarts and the Half-Breeds.
Stalwarts were the "crony capitalist" or "machine politics" wing of the party and were led by New York Senator Roscoe Conkling.
Half-Breeds wanted to reform the "spoils system" that kept the Stalwarts in power. They were led by Maine Senator James E. Blaine.
While the Stalwarts put forth former president and general Ulysses S. Grant as their candidate, the Half-Breeds chose Blaine.
Because of the divide, neither candidate entered the 1880 convention with a clear majority of delegates to secure the nomination. The contested convention became a brokered one as several ballots were cast without a clear victor.
"Although nearly two-thirds of the delegates had been pledged to either Grant or his Half-Breed opponent Blaine when the Republican National Convention convened, securing a majority of 370 proved impossible for either candidate," noted Ashley Portero of Demand Media.
The voting continued for three days with the delegates eventually backing someone who wasn't even a candidate.
"After more than 30 ballots resulted in a stalemate, James Garfield emerged as a compromise candidate. At the 36th ballot, when Grant still had the support [of] 309 delegates, the party's moderate and liberal factions joined forces behind Garfield, sweeping him to victory with the support of 399 delegates," Portero noted.
Garfield went on to win the presidential election in November, only to be assassinated the following year.
2016
Despite the controversial nature of his rhetoric and background, Trump has successfully led a crowded Republican field in the number of primaries won and delegates accrued.
Nevertheless, Republican opponents U.S. Senator Ted Cruz and Ohio Governor John Kasich continue to put up a sincere enough struggle that some believe Trump may fail to get the majority of delegates necessary to win on the first ballot (1,237).
Some have spoken openly of a "contested convention" in which a compromise figure may become the nominee.
In a brokered convention, the nominee selected to represent the party in the national election does not have to have been a candidate during the primary season.
Hence, former House Speaker John Boehner and the Koch brothers have suggested current House Speaker Paul Ryan become the nominee.
"Charles Koch is confident House Speaker Paul Ryan could emerge from the Republican National Convention as the party's nominee if Donald Trump comes up at least 100 delegates shy, he has told friends privately," reported The Huffington Post.
"People close to Ryan continue to insist publicly that he has no interest in the nomination. And one associate of the speaker said he "guarantees" there has been no conversation with Charles Koch about the possibility …."
In this respect, Ryan is similar to Garfield, who insisted he was not a candidate until the moment he became the nominee.
Skepticism
At the start of April, Trump holds a strong lead in the GOP primary season, having gotten 737 of the necessary 1237 delegates to secure the nomination; his nearest opponent, Sen. Cruz, has 470.
While many have talked or advocated for a brokered convention come July, others, including Daniel Klinghard of Fortune, have stated that no such scenario will play out.
In a column published last month, Klinghard noted that a brokered Republican convention has not occurred since 1920, when Warren G. Harding got the nomination.
"The convention turned to Garfield because two major blocks were deadlocked, unable to beat one another and unwilling to compromise. It turned to Harding because there were no standout candidates who came to the convention with a clear following," wrote Klinghard.
"Rejecting a popular candidate today — particularly one who has as enthusiastic a following as Trump — means rejecting that candidate's supporters, who expect that the convention will represent their will."
No arguing with that.
Jeff Sessions? Respected and always referred to by both Trump and Cruz. And hes still younger than Bernie Sanders.
No. Cruz and Trump wouldn't want to see their old friend and ally beat them out.
That can be even more painful than losing to somebody they don't know.
And if there's any establishment left, they probably wouldn't cotton to Sessions: too Southern.
im gonna give you a pass....on that dig ....
Dixie loves the Donald
We know authenticity when we see it
So does Jeff Sessions
Reality though all fun aside
Sessions is too smart for that trick plus he’s too deliberative
This is the year of shouting and slickness
He’s pretty steady though....maybe better than DeMint was looking back
The battle between GOP factions didn’t end in 1880.
In 1884, a number of mostly wealthy northeastern liberal Republicans (known as ‘Mugwumps’) abandoned the GOP for the Democrats. Progressive Teddy Roosevelt did not join them as might have been expected, and later emerged as the Republican leader.
“I have a hunch that Trump supporters wont compromise with the compromise candidate. Trump supporters want the establishment GOP out of power,”
I think many supporters of Trump know things are not going well in the country the press/Dims have successfully beaten down the GOP brand in their minds. So they a for Trump due to his celebrity. They probably can not be reached by by any other GOP candidate.
Others of his supporters are just isolationists. They are turned off with both parties, so they too will not go for another candidate of either party.
The bottom line is that worries about the GOPe are more likely here than in the mind of the typical Trump supporter.
I probably would’ve supported Grant over those damn civil service reformers. Certainly over that crank Horace Greeley who died anyway. Wouldn’t it be grand if a GOP President could sack all those union dem leeches in government jobs and give them to decent Americans?
I was recently looking at the 19th Century convos, trying to figure out who I would have supported. There were no primaires so you can’t compare then to now, no voter will was expressed for the delegates to “thwart”, not even any polling. After it was clear neither Grant or Blaine could get a majority in 1880 the convention turning to someone else was entirely appropriate.
http://elections.harpweek.com/
That’s a very interesting link if you’ve never seen it.
I have a mixed opinion of Blaine from what I’ve read of him. Kinda feel bad for the poor bastard, he really wanted that office.
DeMint’s playing footsie with Willard always alarmed me. He thought he might get Willard to pick him for VP (especially in 2008) and that he might “mold” Willard into something more Conservative. That was blind stupidity. Willard had no use for either Conservatives, Conservatism, or the GOP (except to manipulate them into voting for him), and would’ve jettisoned it all had that phony reached the White House. DeMint is still tainted by his associations with him.
Given how I feel about the party with its corruption, there’s no way I’d have supported either Grant (after 8 years of misrule and rank incompetence) or Blaine. If you’ll recall, the Democrats gained the House during Grant’s 6th year and Blaine’s Speakership (sound familiar ?) in 1874. Epic fiasco. I would not have rewarded either.
Trump has had everything thrown at him by everyone...he's still standing tall.
If I'm not allowed to vote for Trump for president, no telling what I may do.
Jeff Sessions is my guy too....too Southern?
Sessions would be wonderful on the Supreme Court...even more so than VP.
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.