Senator Elizabeth Warren needs to learn what consent means.
‘No’ means NO, Elizabeth Warren. Not ‘keep trying.’Read More »
I know – a brokered convention has historically not ended well. But I am starting to wonder if it would not increase our chances in 2012. Here’s what I’m looking at:
1. We have a field that nobody is rallying around. The Dem division between Clinton and Obama in 2008 was really all about excitement. Our division now is not going to have the same galvanizing, increased voter registration, all one happy family in the end type effect. There are major problems with all 7 candidates we have left in the field. So, its not just that we have a field nobody is rallying around. Its looking like we have a field from whom there is nobody the GOP can rally around.
2. A candidate who cannot unite the factions of the base equals 4 more years of Obama. Our party has such leaders, but not in the current crop of 7 candidates.
3. A more rapid organization around a convention candidate is possible now than in the technological stone age era of brokered conventions past.
4. The Obama super funded reelection albatross will go extraordinarily negative on all these guys, and particularly on leaders for 6 months, but coming out with a “clean” candidate closer to the election could prevent all that damage whereby Obama moves up by tearing the other guy down. Sure, he could still do it closer to the election, but the right candidate’s teflon and armor might not be pierced by then because they might not be able to pin the right narrative on them with such a short time.
5. Ron Paul – he cannot win – he will not endorse the other 6. And, like it or not, his supporters need to be part of our coalition to win too. There are probably some guys out there his folks could get on board with.
I’ve had it with each candidate, given them a second look, and had it with them again. I’ll still vote for whomever is our nominee against Obama, but I’d sure like to be able to do it with a little bit of hope.