Yes I know Esquire's resident scrofulous buffoon Charles P. Pierce is not to be taken seriously but, and it's beyond the "even a broken clock" situation" the nut is so large that it has found the blind squirrel so to speak.
Here is Pierce ranting (edited for salience if that word can be used for Pierce's ravings) in a slightly mellower Palin Derangement Syndrome comment (he must be back on his med's)
Emphasis mine;
"Upon waking up this morning, I was struck by a thought. I have noticed recently that Princess Dumbass of the Northwoods has taken to giving interviews in which she sounds surprisingly lucid. S (Yes, I appreciate the irony.) But it was this answer that gave me pause. She was asked about her now-legendary interview with Katie Couric of CBS. This is what she said.
"I had a crappy answer. But it was a fair question…"I didn't like, though, the way that, forever then in these seven years, that interview has kind of been stamped on my forehead as, 'she's an idiot.' I just think, in the context of the whole ball of wax that day—or two days—of an interview and editing, it wasn't real fun."
Wait. Whoa. Nothing about "the lamestream media"? A frank and honest admission that she bungled the answer in an epic way? Is it possible—not likely, but merely possible—that someone she trusts has whispered into her shell-pink ear the magic phrase, "brokered convention"?"
Sarah Palin; 2016's GOP Nominee At A Deadlocked Convention; The 2016 GOP Convention's John W.Davis?
Sarah Palin The 2016 GOP Convention's John W.Davis?
One thing is certain about the 2016 presidential election-at this point nobody knows anything with certainty. Of course the pundits have been nearly universally wrong with their initial laughing at Donald Trump which is slowly turning to acceptance of the legitimacy of his candidacy and, for some, that he could be the nominee.
But, who knows. Even the seemingly certain pick for the Dem's, Hillary Clinton, could be upended by some unforeseen event. All we can say is that, too date, the campaign has been unusual with the ascendancy of Trump and Sanders and the, for now at least, descent of the previously thought shoo-in Jeb Bush.
With that in mind it is fair to consider that for the first time since since 1948 the Republican convention may go to a number of ballots. If even a number of the current 16 Republican candidates stay in the race into the the actual state primary balloting it may well be the case that none of the contenders have enough votes to be nominated on the first, or any number of subsequent ballots.
It is of course fruitless to conjecture at this point who the candidates might be who have sufficient delegates to cause a deadlock. Obviously, and again at this point, Donald Trump would appear to have delegates as might Dr.Carson and perhaps Senator Rubio or Governor Kasich-but,who knows? What can be conjectured is that there appears a possibility, perhaps a very strong possibility that there may be multiple ballots.
Given that scenario then it follows that the convention might not only go into a number of ballots and indeed a multiplicity of balloting into a deadlock situation. History shows us that this is not only not beyond the bounds of possibility but that under certain circumstances it can be highly probable and can lead to an unexpected conclusion.
In 1924 the Democratic Party convention in New York City was so deadlocked between two candidates of utterly opposing views that it took the exhausted delegates (June 24th to July 9th) 103 ballots before Congressman John W. Davis was elected as the nominee. Davis had just 31 votes (2.8%) on the first ballot compared to then first place Underwood's 431 votes
Even after 87 ballots Davis still had only 66 votes.
Since the two leaders proved incapable of any compromise their supporters (who were running out of hotel money) stampeded to Davis and he became the nominee. The entire history of the convention is at Wikipedia in great detail.
What might cause similar intransigence at the 2016 Cleveland convention? There are no issues that so divide the current GOP candidates on the level of prohibition and recognition the KKK that so exercised the Democrats in 1924. There are differences certainly but nothing at such a strong policy and regional level. On the other hand as in 1924 there are very strong personalities amongst the potential leaders and it might very well be that a Trump for example might hold on across numerous balloting rather than see Jeb Bush get the nomination.
If such a scenario arose then, absolutely, a person who had not participated in the campaign and held no delegates could have their name placed in nomination. The GOP's new rules provide that;
"For a candidate to have his name put up for nomination, he or she must control the majority of delegates in eight states."
That this could apply to eight states, caucusing after multiple balloting, and agreeing under direction of the person to whom they are pledged, nominating someone who did not run appears clear. Further the GOP has left room open for the convention rules to be amended at any time and such an outlined situation could be confirmed especially in a deadlocked situation for the good of the party.
At such a juncture-enter Governor Palin?
Palin has been the friend to everyone.She has had good and kind and supportive words for numerous of the candidates, both on her Facebook page and Tweets and during her OAN interviewing stint (she had Cruz/Bush/Trump in separate interviews) and when interviewed by the various media.
She has a huge well of support owed her for the large number of campaigns where her endorsement has been acknowledged as being crucial (Cruz/Haley/Fischer et al) and it would be a perfect time for them to be called in.
Palin, unlike Davis is no "dark horse" being a former governor and vice-presidential candidate and is seasoned in the media, is vetted more than anyone on earth, and would be campaign ready from day one. Palin could unite all factions of the GOP, be accepted by the base with enthusiasm and call on a legion of supporters who are battle hardened and have basic state structures in place. She could raise multi-millions from her loyal supporters as did Obama in 2008.
Palin has repeatedly said she is ready and willing to serve "on the national level if a door opens."
In this, so far, exceptional GOP primary season, who knows if such a door may swing open in Cleveland? Who would have predicted Trump and Carson being so far in front and Jeb almost gone along with Walker and Perry? 1924 proved that anything can happen and no door is closed until it is bolted shut-add in the often mysterious "Palin factor" and, as I said who knows?
Reference 1 (With kind and appreciated permission and invaluable dialogue from Mr. Berg-Anderson.)
As in many things, there is the THEORY and then there is the PRACTICE.
The THEORY is, of course, based on the reality that no one is officially nominated for President (or, for that matter, Vice-President) of the United States by a Major Party (as well as at least no little number of so-called 'Third Parties') unless and until that person is so nominated by a Convention.
Thus, if only in theory, a majority of all the delegates to said Convention can nominate whomever they might wish and, were that the case in practice on the Republican side (Democrats, on the other hand, guide the pledging of delegates to presidential contenders directly via national rules), then candidates who did not participate in the Presidential Primaries or Caucuses could, conceivably (where not even comparatively easily), gain the support of a majority of the delegates of at least eight States at a National Convention (also, please keep in mind that "States" include delegations from the six Territories: there are, therefore, a total of 56 delegations to the GOP Convention and, in fact, 8 seems to have been chosen because 8 is 56/7 [such a rule, it seems. serves to keep the number of candidates formally nominated for President before the Convention to no more than 7 and, as a practical matter, even fewer than that (since it is likely more than 8 States will support a given candidate)]).
However, in PRACTICE, each State Republican Party comes up with its own system of applying the results of a Presidential Primary or Caucus/Convention process in that State to how the delegates to which that State are entitled are to be pledged/bound to presidential contenders and therefore, as a practical matter, this seems to suggest that any candidate who might gain the support of at least 8 delegations to the GOP Convention would much more likely be among those already in the field of presidential contenders contesting said Presidential Primaries and Caucuses.
Nonetheless, your own hypothetical scenario remains always possible (however improbable): for a presidential contender could release all delegates which have already been pledged/bound to him via earlier Primaries (as well as during the process in any Caucus/Convention States in which higher-tier conventions have already pledged/bound at least some delegates by that point in time) and suggest these delegates support someone said withdrawing contender would like to see nominated who is not among those already in the field of presidential contenders contesting Primaries and Caucuses week after week. One has to, however, also keep in mind that just because a withdrawing contender says something along the lines of "I am strongly urging those delegates who are being released today to vote for [candidate X] on the Convention's first ballot", this does not mean said delegates will then necessarily vote for X (for, having been so released, they are now free to vote for whomever they might want) which, in turn, actually makes the scenario you present even more improbable than it otherwise might be (though, again, not impossible!).
There is, however, another hypothesis out there- albeit something of an 'outlier'- that might yet come into play (although, to be frank, I think it has the chances of the proverbial "ice cube in Hell" re: actually becoming a factor at the 2016 GOP Convention-- yet it cannot be ruled out):
a member of the Republican National Committee named Curly Haugland (from North Dakota) has been circulating documents since this past Summer, documents which argue that rules of the Republican Party- some going as far back as their adoption at the 1964 Republican National Convention in San Francisco which nominated Barry Goldwater- have never been repealed or altered since, rules which state flatly that Republican National Convention delegates cannot be at all pledged or bound to presidential contenders in any event (there is, at best, a contradiction between those rules Haugland cites and those more recently adopted by the Republican Party re: State Parties drawing up their own Delegate Selection Plans). There is little question that Haugland's position on this is a minority position within the upper echelons of the Republican Party as a national political institution.
The main point I want to make here re: Haugland's thesis that GOP Convention delegates cannot even be pledged/bound to presidential contenders (again, via earlier GOP rules that should- in Haugland's opinion- supersede the more recent rules re: pledging/binding delegates to Republican presidential contenders) is that, were Haugland's thesis to actually prevail in the 2016 Republican National Convention (Parliamentary Procedure 101: a body ever retains the power to alter its own rules), it would- quite obviously- make the scenario you are presenting that much more likely. My answer to you would be incomplete without my having pointed this out.
The THEORY is, of course, based on the reality that no one is officially nominated for President (or, for that matter, Vice-President) of the United States by a Major Party (as well as at least no little number of so-called 'Third Parties') unless and until that person is so nominated by a Convention.
Thus, if only in theory, a majority of all the delegates to said Convention can nominate whomever they might wish and, were that the case in practice on the Republican side (Democrats, on the other hand, guide the pledging of delegates to presidential contenders directly via national rules), then candidates who did not participate in the Presidential Primaries or Caucuses could, conceivably (where not even comparatively easily), gain the support of a majority of the delegates of at least eight States at a National Convention (also, please keep in mind that "States" include delegations from the six Territories: there are, therefore, a total of 56 delegations to the GOP Convention and, in fact, 8 seems to have been chosen because 8 is 56/7 [such a rule, it seems. serves to keep the number of candidates formally nominated for President before the Convention to no more than 7 and, as a practical matter, even fewer than that (since it is likely more than 8 States will support a given candidate)]).
However, in PRACTICE, each State Republican Party comes up with its own system of applying the results of a Presidential Primary or Caucus/Convention process in that State to how the delegates to which that State are entitled are to be pledged/bound to presidential contenders and therefore, as a practical matter, this seems to suggest that any candidate who might gain the support of at least 8 delegations to the GOP Convention would much more likely be among those already in the field of presidential contenders contesting said Presidential Primaries and Caucuses.
Nonetheless, your own hypothetical scenario remains always possible (however improbable): for a presidential contender could release all delegates which have already been pledged/bound to him via earlier Primaries (as well as during the process in any Caucus/Convention States in which higher-tier conventions have already pledged/bound at least some delegates by that point in time) and suggest these delegates support someone said withdrawing contender would like to see nominated who is not among those already in the field of presidential contenders contesting Primaries and Caucuses week after week. One has to, however, also keep in mind that just because a withdrawing contender says something along the lines of "I am strongly urging those delegates who are being released today to vote for [candidate X] on the Convention's first ballot", this does not mean said delegates will then necessarily vote for X (for, having been so released, they are now free to vote for whomever they might want) which, in turn, actually makes the scenario you present even more improbable than it otherwise might be (though, again, not impossible!).
There is, however, another hypothesis out there- albeit something of an 'outlier'- that might yet come into play (although, to be frank, I think it has the chances of the proverbial "ice cube in Hell" re: actually becoming a factor at the 2016 GOP Convention-- yet it cannot be ruled out):
a member of the Republican National Committee named Curly Haugland (from North Dakota) has been circulating documents since this past Summer, documents which argue that rules of the Republican Party- some going as far back as their adoption at the 1964 Republican National Convention in San Francisco which nominated Barry Goldwater- have never been repealed or altered since, rules which state flatly that Republican National Convention delegates cannot be at all pledged or bound to presidential contenders in any event (there is, at best, a contradiction between those rules Haugland cites and those more recently adopted by the Republican Party re: State Parties drawing up their own Delegate Selection Plans). There is little question that Haugland's position on this is a minority position within the upper echelons of the Republican Party as a national political institution.
The main point I want to make here re: Haugland's thesis that GOP Convention delegates cannot even be pledged/bound to presidential contenders (again, via earlier GOP rules that should- in Haugland's opinion- supersede the more recent rules re: pledging/binding delegates to Republican presidential contenders) is that, were Haugland's thesis to actually prevail in the 2016 Republican National Convention (Parliamentary Procedure 101: a body ever retains the power to alter its own rules), it would- quite obviously- make the scenario you are presenting that much more likely. My answer to you would be incomplete without my having pointed this out.
SEE ALSO; LINK where Mr. Berg-Anderson considers the 1920 Republican convention as possibly a more appropriate indicator as to my scenario for 2016.
IF IT AIN'T 'BROKERED', AT
LEAST YOU CAN STILL 'FIX' IT
Could Mitt Romney be kept from the presidential
nomination at the Republican Convention itself?
Friday, March 30, 2012
Could Mitt Romney be kept from the presidential
nomination at the Republican Convention itself?
Friday, March 30, 2012
by Richard E. Berg-Andersson
TheGreenPapers.com Staff |
Reference 2.
From "Daily Kos"
"A brokered GOP convention 2016"
"Fears about what a Trump candidacy may mean for GOP's electoral prospects and the GOP brand have fueled more back room discussions about what to do and more hand-wringing.
But there is a precedent. I am midway through Mark Halperin and John Heilemann's brilliant account of the 2012 election, Double Down: Game Change 2012. And here, surprisingly, is what we find.
Haley Barbour picked up the phone and called Scott Reed to bewail the state of the race. That Romney was proving an inept candidate -- incapable of connecting with voters, inspiring conservatives, or restraining himself from planting his penny loafers in his piehole -- was no surprise. What troubled them more was that Mitt was winning only by burying his rivals in an avalanche of money and manure. On his present course, Romney seemed destined to implode or emerge from the nomination fight so grievously injured that he would be easy pickings for Obama. (p. 275)And so Barbour and Reed cooked up a "white knight" scenario which amounted to inducing either Chris Christie or Mitch Daniels to enter the race late ... even though they could only compete in a handful of states whose filing deadlines allowed for late entry. According to the plan,
... if a white knight ran the table, he could collect about five hundred delegates -- far short of 1,144, but enough to deny that number to Romney or Santorum and then take the fight to Tampa. (p. 276)I think that with the prospect of a Trump candidacy, the GOP establishment is even now cooking up a 2016 "white knight" scenario. I think they will probably wait till the South Carolina primary on February 20, 2016 to gauge how Trump is doing. But after that, there will be an effort to draft a GOP elder, like (gasp!) John McCain, or (double gasp!) Romney himself, to stop Trump. That draftee does not have to win it all -- just deny Trump an outright majority at the GOP Cleveland Convention in July. And then, it will be a big fight and a brokered convention. Possibly (with McCain's age) if McCain is induced to run, he may have to pledge to only run for one term. But these are details."
Reference 3.
"A Brokered GOP Convention 2016
David Catanese 'U.S. News And World Report'
Extract;
"As the dust settled from the fiery rules meeting at the 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa, the leading storyline that emerged was that establishment forces had once again quashed insurgent outsiders by instituting two critical changes to the way the GOP nominates its presidential candidate.
One new rule cracks down on delegates who are inclined to peel away from the electoral outcome in their state, a direct response to the rabble-rousing supporters of former Rep. Ron Paul. The other rule allows the Republican National Committee to change a certain set of rules between conventions with a three-fourths vote of membership, disseminating power from the rules committee which previously held sole jurisdiction.
But there was a third overlooked change that could potentially have the biggest, most dramatic effect on the 2016 primary fight and some RNC members believe it could render irrelevant the concerted, well-laid efforts to shorten the nomination contest.
Officially, it’s Rule 40 in the RNC handbook and it states that any candidate for president “shall demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of eight (8) or more states” before their name is presented for nomination at the national convention.....
If the RNC sees Rule 40 as enough of a hornet’s nest, they could vote to change it again – but in another esoteric provision, they won’t be able to do so until on the eve of the next convention, slated for midsummer 2016. A change that late in the game could set off another firestorm within the party with candidates enlisting delegates to defend their interests.
In a scenario with a commanding front-runner, this doesn’t seem like a high threshold to cross. But with the absence of an heir apparent standard-bearer and the most wide open nomination battle in decades looming, some RNC members think Rule 40 could crack open the door to the possibility of a convention floor fight. The theory: If no one candidate has secured eight states, it invites a free-for-all without a reason to get out. Conversely, if multiple candidates garner eight victories and accrue hundreds of delegates, each could claim a right to soldier on. For instance, it isn't inconceivable to think that Gov. Chris Christie, R-N.J., could dominate the Northeast, with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. performing well in the South and Gov. Scott Walker, R-Wisc,, racking up victories in the Midwest" Read the entire article at LINK
Update;Karl Roves article:
Confirms the premise of a deadlocked convention
"The Path to a Wild GOP Convention
Primary rules open the possibility that no candidate will win a majority of delegates." LINK
Fair use notice: This website contains copyrighted material, the use of which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Excerpts of such material is made available for educational purposes, and as such this constitutes ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Act. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this website is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Original material published on this website may be excerpted and the excerpt reproduced for the purpose of critical reviews. However, such original material may not be reproduced in full on another website or in any manner without prior approval from this website’s owner. In all cases when material from this website is reproduced in full or in part, the author and website must be credited by name and a hyperlink provided to this website
