Letters to the Editor
-
@timbuktom
I think a brokered convention is bad under the current circumstances, and this current period is instructive why. We're still 4 weeks from the next primary, and look at all that has "happened" since the last one. Ferraro, Wright, Bosnia, "monster," "Judas," etc. Meanwhile, McCain is able to raise money (which Democrats have to raise for two candidates, not one), give substantive policy speeches (not that his policies are all that substantive) and "look presidential" while the Democrats finish beating each other to death with teaspoons.
Brokered conventions were fine when the system was set up for one. But with the front-loading and leapfrogging of primaries, combined with the brinksmanship on setting convention dates (my take is that the parties set their conventions so late so as to a) have the maximum viewership, after summer vacations are mostly over and b) make sure theirs is second, so that their candidate gets the last word in. There may also be campaign finance restrictions pertaining to the $2300 dollar "primary" and "general election" limits, but I'm not sure about that), there's now a 12 week gap. I'm sure that's longer than it would have been in the past.
So no, a brokered convention would do no good. I'm a little disappointed that Gov. Dean has set the bar at July 1st and not, say, June 4th.