A “brokered convention” in the Tea party era which is all about participation in politics and an outcry against elites?Hewitt blames the latest brokered-convention buzz on "the Manhattan-Beltway media culture’s obsession with being relevant to a process to which most of them are at best remotely connected." He is right -- partly. The notion has been given legs among Republicans by right-wing media elites, including some writers at the National Review, HotAir and elsewhere. These are many of the same folks who supposedly want a true-blue conservative as their standard bearer but keep latching onto people who really aren't all that conservative (but have big mouths). But I digress.
A new candidate able to raise a third of a billion dollars much less three times that much that is really necessary to beating the president in the fall? Donors would flee such chaos, and rightly so.
The nominee will be one of the three who has won a primary or a caucus to date, and it is overwhelmingly likely to be Romney.
Of people on the right who keep floating the idea of a brokered convention, Tina Korbe at HotAir (another adult in the room) asks:
Do these dissatisfied Republicans want Obama to win? A late entrant would be sure to lose, as all his past missteps would be illuminated at just the right time to benefit Obama. If that is what these discontent GOPers desire, there’s an easier way. They can stay home in November, let Obama win and come back in four years to nominate a hero then. The rest of us will recognize that the GOP frontrunners are solid alternatives to Obama, vote enthusiastically for whoever secures the nomination and support him and the hopefully Republican Congress as they tackle the real work of taming the debt and rebooting the economy.