View Full Version : Does A Brokered Convention Actually Help Democrats???

01-22-2008, 07:11 AM
The convention is in September isn't it? Does this mean that whoever the republican candidate is only has 1 month to campaign as the republican candidate and 2 months to participate in one-on-one debates with the democratic candidate?

Doesn't this help the democratic candidate if that candidate is decided on Super Tuesday, for example?

This means that up until September, people will still have many republicans to think about but only one democrat.

Edit (Fixed): It is 2 months instead of one, which isn't as bad. But still, the republican, up until September, will still be battling the other republicans while Hillary will be bashing the republicans for months.

01-22-2008, 07:21 AM
Good point !:eek:

01-22-2008, 07:24 AM
anon delivers a good point. ;) It would be 2 months though, the convention is at the beginning of september.

01-22-2008, 07:36 AM
people don't start paying attention to elections until like 30 days prior. unless you're one of us.

01-22-2008, 08:22 AM
A brokered convention shows weakness in the party.

It also will, if it happens, show you just how slimy politicians can be. The whole process is likely to turn a lot of Republican moderates into Democratic moderates.

01-22-2008, 10:57 AM
Then again, the first brokered convention in modern history would mean a lot of interest, a lot of publicity and a lot of people wondering what the issues are--enough, in fact, that they'll notice if the MSM tries to sugar-coat it or satisfy their hunger with misinformation.

In the end, giving in to the panderers will show the public that the G.O.P. no longer represents the people and giving it to Dr. Paul would be a nearly guaranteed win--for Dr. Paul, the party and the nation.

What we need to do is make sure that Dr. Paul goes in to the convention with as many delegates as possible!

01-22-2008, 11:17 AM
The brokered convention might not be a display of weakness, but a better indicator of what exactly is occuring within the party - who its base is and how they differ, the width of the party's breadth on the political spectrum...

It could be a strategic strength, if the party candidates and senior leaders met and formulated an entire Republican cabinet ticket to run on. The thing about this, is every candidate does have an advantage in some area, they all have something about them that plays well, and carefully arrranging the entire executive cabinet with all candidates would be very wise, provided that most could get over the ego-blow that they personally wouldn't be President.

We really begin to despise the other campaigns, the nature of beeing driven by our own candidate, especially considering how ours is the best one and the best suited to actually be president, but they would all offer good advantages in different Cabinet positions.

I always wondered if Ron Paul was really campaigning for vice president, so he could be the most prominent man in Congress. Ron Paul would be much more capable of taking on federal spending as Vice President than President. I think he would take the concessions that, for economic reasons, we pulled back from overseas, in order to be Vice President and fight federal spending and utilize the Consitution as Vice President to restrain the federal government. He would have the ability to work closer with executive offices like Justice Department to stop federal intervention in state affairs, like busting medicinal marijuana patients in California.

Imagine it: Ron Paul playing the same influential role as Dick Cheney has, but in an honest, Constitutional way. I don't know exactly which stooge we would sitting in Bush's place, Romney might be a good one because he might be more swayed to our side because he is a businessmen who is traditionally more liberal on matter, and he has executive branch experience that Ron Paul clearly lacks (but think of all of his Congressional experience - perfectly suited for being a Vice President :D). Basically, he's more swayed by the power of the corporation than the power of the force of government, more akin to how Giuliani would be. Corporations benefit more from the free market than government regulation.

Huckabee will probably slide back in the race, but I really hope he starts taking down McCain, because I'd much rather have Huckabee than McCain. McCain would make a good Secretary of Defense, and would enjoy the boost of power he would receive from having all of our troops within our border (he could begin coordinating our national security efforts by placing bases here again, monitoring the border, etc.). I don't know if Giuliani could be trusted with any of this, perhaps he could be appointed as an intern.

01-22-2008, 11:20 AM
Fascinating prospect, cabinet officers who aren't just shills to the president.

01-22-2008, 11:26 AM
The OP makes a good point, but I'm not sure if it matters. In my view, the only Republican candidate with an actual shot of winning the general election is Ron Paul. I just can't see America voting for anyone else in the party because it will be spun as "more of the same" by the Democrats.

01-22-2008, 11:26 AM
A brokered convention would mean certain defeat in November. The average Joe will say "How good can this candidate be when he couldn't even get a majority of support within his own party?"

01-22-2008, 11:33 AM
In this case, a brokered convention that produces Dr. Ron Paul as the nominee demonstrates a break with the Bush baggage, baggage which will surely be hung around the neck of any other possible Republican nominee. What the other candidates haven't yet figured out is that a repudiation of Bush's Presidency is the ONLY act that will make any of them viable general election contenders. So, far from being a detriment to the eventual Republican nominee, a brokered convention, instead of a coronation of a Bush successor, is the only thing that will save the GOP, especially if the nominee is someone other than Ron Paul.

01-22-2008, 11:37 AM
I think there is a better chance for the Democrats to have a brokered convention with two strong candidates and a wild card staying in the race. The Republicans have no strong candidate which I think means that most will gone and one person will end up winning enough delegates because he is the only person left standing.

01-22-2008, 11:44 AM
A brokered convention would mean certain defeat in November. The average Joe will say "How good can this candidate be when he couldn't even get a majority of support within his own party?"

Not so. The one thing that even the Republicans have figured out is that America wants "change." The change America wants, however, is as far away from GWB as possible.

I can promise you this: the candidate who will win the general election in November is the one who succeeds in marketing himself as the least like Bush. There is only one candidate from either major party who can do that successfully.

Ironically, any of the likely Democrat nominees with be running to perpetuate the same interventionism, weak borders, and subservience to international organizations that has characterized the current administration, and crippled the USA. Any other Republican nominee will just be viewed as Bush's 3rd term, and will lose the general election.

Ron Paul is the ONLY general election hope that the GOP has.

01-22-2008, 11:55 AM
Abe Lincoln won after a brokered convention, so I would disagree

01-22-2008, 02:03 PM
A brokered convention will get republicans involved in the process. It will cause them to think about the issues. A fight will energize all the republicans and get them off their lazy behinds.

If the Dems elect Hillary, she will unify the Republican base. Already, former high level Clinton Presidential appointees are going to the media to try and defeat her.