convention | MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

A brokered convention? Let’s hope not.

God, I hope not. In the Washington Post’s The Trail blog, the possibility is considered.

Yes, yes, we know. Every four years, the political class, including wise-acre journalists, gets all caught up in breathless speculation about the prospect of a brokered convention. After all, no presidential nomination has required more than a single ballot since 1952 and the prospect of actual drama seems like such a refreshing thought at conventions that in recent times have been sucked dry of any suspense whatsoever. And then every four years, the notion evaporates as modern political reality takes hold again.
…
The talk has only escalated as Iowa and New Hampshire voters weighed in. “None of our candidates seem to be able to break through,” former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum said on Fox News last week as voting began in the Granite State. “And if you look at the candidates, all have serious problems. I think, it’s my prediction, I think we’re headed for a brokered convention. I don’t think we’re going to get a nominee.” Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) even postulated that a contested convention could be a useful thing for a Republican Party trying to find its way after President Bush. “I just think there’s nothing unhealthy about the Republican Party having a serious discussion,” he said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” “We are at the end of the George W. Bush era. We are at the end of the Reagan era. We’re at a point in time where we’re about to start redefining … the nature of the Republican Party in response to what the country needs.”

The conventional wisdom, of course, is that a brokered convention is good news for political journalists and junkies but bad news for a party. While the opposition rallies around a single leader in the spring, your party is divided and wasting resources with internal fighting all the way until the end of summer.

Well, why the hell do you think Kos wanted Romney to win Michigan? (For the record, I doubt they had much effect on the outcome–I think Romney would have won without the idiotarian help.)

But the point is correct: the longer this drags out, the faster the candidates’ campaign war chests drain. Well, except Romney’s, of course, but I’m not yet confident that he can win in November anyway. And let’s face it–Hillary and Obama have massive war chests. Our guys? We’ve got a lot of catching up to do, and we won’t catch up until we have a nominee, if we do at all. Remember, Bush had a huge pile of money going in to the primaries in 2000. This time around, we’re scraping around to get money for ad buys in each state because the big donors are waiting for a sure thing. I mean, if you’re looking to wisely invest big bucks, which one do you bet on? Thompson, who hasn’t even come close to a primary win (yet)? McCain, who has only won New Hampshire and has issues with many conservatives, but as of now is the only candidate who polls a win against the Democrats? Huckabee, who’s only won Iowa but has a dedicated base? Romney, with his “two golds and two silvers” but whose support looks soft? Or Giuliani, whose campaign looks dead but promises to come to life in Florida? A year ago, I figured Giuliani would be the nominee. Hell, two years ago, I figured George Allen would be the nominee. Who knows? Michigan didn’t decide anything, and apparently, neither will South Carolina.

I don’t want a brokered convention–at all. Nor do I think there will actually be one. Sure, it’d be fun to watch, but I want to WIN. Badly. I just wonder if other Republicans want to win as badly as I do–or more to the point, as badly as the Democrats do.

What this year’s primary season is showing, though, is the huge diversity of views in this country; the issues important to Michigan voters, for example, are not the issues important to Iowa or New Hampshire voters. And as we’ll see in South Carolina, Florida, and on “Super Tuesday,” those states’ issues will be different as well. Whichever candidate can best represent the issues of all regions should rightfully be the nominee. This is why I think Fred Thompson made a mistake getting in to the process late–he didn’t have the early months for his views–approved of by most conservatives–to become well-known. This is also why I have doubts about John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and especially Mike Huckabee: they all have things that are objectionable to most Republican voters to varying degrees. But so does Mitt Romney, and I have doubts about Romney’s electability in November. I personally can live with the disagreements I have with each of them, some more than others, but can and will other Republican voters?

How badly DO Republicans want to win? And are those like me the only ones who think a Democratic presidency in 2008 would be a disaster, not “good for the GOP” as some conservatives say (wrongly, IMHO)? Why are we demanding perfect candidates now when we never did before? I say that it’s because we’re more informed about the candidates’ voting records and things they’ve said, thanks to the 24-hour news cycle and the internet (especially with blogs and YouTube). No longer are we stuck with the spin machines and sound bites; we can do our own research and either confirm our biases or find things that are “unacceptable. I’d say that even if Ronald Reagan were running in 2008, there would be people who would find things “unacceptable” as well. Remember, Reagan was once a Democrat, and a union president (the SAG) at that! (Oh noes, a flip-flop!)

Again, I don’t think we’ll have a brokered convention, but if voters insist on perfection and we end up with no candidate having enough delegates, it could happen–and this won’t be a brokered convention like those that existed decades ago, not with 24-hour news and the internet. We also won’t end up with a “perfect candidate,” either. If it happens, I assure you, we will not win in November.

(Note: I left out L. Ron Paul Hubbard and sadly, Duncan Hunter, because they’re irrelevant to the discussion, obviously.)