Brokered Convention?
The Republican nominating process is getting more and more interesting as it’s getting more and more splintered. The early caucus/primaries (when the country is not yet fully focused) and the compressed primary season, lead to the real possibility of the first genuinely brokered Republican convention in my lifetime.
Brokered conventions used to be the norm, back when state party leaders would actually get together and decide the nominees. Classic examples from both parties are found in David Pietrusza’s excellent 1920: The Year of the Six Presidents.
Back in the olden days, there were only a handful of primaries, which provided some interest and momentum, but rarely decided the final outcome. There were close conventions in 1952 and 1976, and Nixon’s 1968 nomination wasn’t entirely in the bag until convention time, but those were at most two or possibly three-men races at the end. Today we have so many cross-currents pushing and shoving their way through the Republican coalition that anything can happen.
The sudden surge for Huckabee seems to be fueled mostly by Baptists and Evangelicals flocking to one of their own, much as they ran to Jimmy Carter in 1976, ignoring some of his less than conservative positions. Romney’s strong in a lot of places, and should get a fair lift from New Hampshire, but maybe he just ends up as a regional candidate. Rudy leads the field in the polls nationally, and will doubtless carry quite a few delegates from the northeast and Florida and some other places. McCain has enough strength to carry a few states. Fred Thompson should catch on here and there.
You want a pro-life candidate, you skip Giuliani, unless you want strict-constructionist judges, in which case you will actually support Rudy if you trust Ted Olson’s opinion, and I generally do, except that Robert Bork says Romney’s the guy, but you may be worried about his flip-flopping and besides Thompson has the Right to Life endorsement and McCain’s record is quite acceptable in that area, but he formed the gang of 14 which may have messed up getting some better judges and some of the professional evangelicals don’t like him because, well, he doesn’t particularly like them, and then there’s all those other guys.
If defense is your big issue you might go with Rudy because of his leadership and proven skills and pretty clear-headed foreign policy, or McCain because of his experience or Romney because he’s got executive ability, or Thompson because he’s articulate and knows his way around a submarine. You’d probably avoid Huckabee unless you’re an evangelical and Ron Paul’s not on your radar.
Like supply side economics? You’ve got Rudy, except he’s from New York, McCain, except he voted against the tax cuts though he opposes repealing them, but wants to rein in spending, which is ok, and Thompson. Romney’s record is hard to figure, since he governed Massachusetts with a democratic legislature. Not saying he wouldn’t be good, just no way to demonstrate it.
Hate McCain-Feingold enough to decide your vote? Well, McCain’s not for you and Thompson voted for it.
Immigration your issue? Take your pick. lots of nuances, not a whole lot of demonstrated conviction.
I just don’t see the scenario where one of these guys suddenly pulls way ahead of the pack. And if no one pulls ahead, everyone stays in, one way or another.
And why not? If the convention goes multiple ballots, all bets are off and the real give and take begins.
So now maybe it comes down to who impresses the heck out of the delegates at convention time. Who is their second choice if their first choice falters? How many of the delegates are driven by ideology and how many are party “professionals”? How high do the negatives get?
The latter is a real concern, because the rough and tumble of this election is already taking its toll, and things are being said about each other that will not be forgotten next summer, even if necessity makes strange bedfellows.
And maybe it will just come down to the state of the world at the time of the convention.
It’s early, but my guess at this point is that a brokered convention favors Fred Thompson. He’s likable, strong, in tune with the major branches of the coalition, and not making too many enemies.
If Mr. Pietrusza can take a few minutes away from his upcoming book on the 1960 election, I’d be interested in whether he sees a comparison to the 1920 Harding strategy. And I’d like to hear from the rest of you, too.
