As it is becoming increasingly clear that everybody hates Romney--especially the GOP base--and there is little chance that women will allow the election of Santorum--much less the practicing polygamist Gingrich--talk of a brokered convention has begun to bubble up from the disgruntled masses to the bored press core. Sarah Palin, 2008's exciting late entry femme fatale, has openly contemplated it. Stating that if a brokered convention comes about then "all bets are off." If, as seems very possible, Romney loses Michigan--the state of his birth and where his father was a popular governor--expect this to become a new media meme. Frankly, given Romney's unfavorables I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that a brokered convention is the only chance the GOP has.  

In our modern era the conventional wisdom seems to have taken hold that brokered conventions are some fusty relic of the past when cigar chomping party bosses of the gilded age brokered the fate of the nation. Today that seems to be done in back doors at Koch meetings, predetermined well before the actual voting occurs. However it must be noted that it was also conventional wisdom that claimed a black man--particularly one whose name rhymed with Osama--could never become a president, or that a half term female governor from Alaska with zero accomplishments would ever become a legitimate VP candidate, or for that matter that the Supreme Court would blatantly dismiss the results of a popular election (last seen in Rutherford vs. Hayes). I believe you see the new modern trend...  Democratic elections have always been a bit of a carnival, best with charismatic narratives and dramatic plot twists.  Overturning the CW is par for the course. 

Many pundits point to the 2008 Obama/Hillary horse race--when the so-called super-delegates meekly endorsed the narrow delegate leader rather then upset passionate Obama voters--as evidence that a brokered convention is bad politics.  But for that analogy to be valid you need excited voters preferably a solidly reliable block like the African Americans who are committed to their candidate.  Are the Mormons really going to sit out the election if Romney loses this? Will this put Utah or Idaho at risk in the general election?  Yeah, right. Tell me another. 

The other common argument that belittles a brokered convention is that the national candidate requires the primaries to build a national campaign who can turn out the vote.  However an economic downturn and international uncertainty coupled with vast superpak spending could more then make up this difference.  I am not as sanguine as many around here seem to be that superpacs will not have an effect on the election.  Frankly I am also scared to death about the global economy.  Greece, Iran--Israel, Syria, overheating China, Oil, Spain, Egypt, Italy, etc. the list is damn long, any one of which could send us into a global meltdown. (Did anyone mention that the largest economic driver of our economy, the housing market, is still in the doldrums. Or that record amounts of commercial real estate loans--which are predominately ARMs of some sort (a dirty little secret the media kindly ignores in favor of blaming those trashy residential speculators)--were inked in 2007 and are now rapidly coming due for renegotiation).  Amidst such an uncertain backdrop why not drop a moderate GOP Saviour...it seems a damn great strategy to me.  Much better then a super rich duchebag going against a black guy who represents the 99%.

I'll admit that I have a bit of a paranoid mentality when it comes to the GOP. I do not trust them, they have shown that they will use ever tool they have, from disenfranchising voters to destroying activist groups that dare to register voters, to gambling away the US's credit rating.  So why not do a bait and switch and rope-a-dope Obama. The drama would create great excitement and is sure to rile up the GOP base.  And our abominable media would soak it up in spades.  

Or maybe the GOP just doesn't want it. Maybe they are content to stonewall for another four years in preparation for a massive push in 2016, with Rubio or some other charismatic pol fissuring the Democrats and capitalizing on the final hurrah of the baby boomers.  I don't know, seems possible, and like I said, I don't trust em.  But for the sake of this discussion lets assume they will still make a go at it.  So who do they have waiting in the wings?  Daniels? Thune? That lying twerp from Wisconsin? 

As a friend once wrote America has jumped the shark and all bets are off.  So who's in?