will the Republicans find a new Garfield, or a new Davis?
The “52 Year Rule” for the Republican Party — things go haywire every 52 years — 1912, 1964, and now 2016…
And what to expect in a contested convention, which was par for the course not too long ago in our history. (Of course, it produced presidents such as … James Garfield… men who had not much interest in being president. Maybe we can end up with something like that this time around?)
More likely, because “contested convention” is now synonymous with “party chaos”, and how can you trust a party in power after all the chaos — watch for the November Thumping from Hillary Clinton. [Somehow Trump has to win with no woman voting for him, and no Latino voting for him. Basically.]
Just a few weeks ago Priebus said the odds that there would not be a brokered convention were “85, 90 percent.” However, the launch of the website suggests the RNC is beginning to prepare for the reality that there could be one.
In a sense, this is good. If Politics are to be an appendage of the Entertainment Industry — what, with a Reality TV Star the front-runner of a political party — might as well make what had become a boring block of dreck “entertaining”. (Of course, it’ll be glossed over in parliamentary procedures designed for the purpose of tediousness. Watch to see recalibrations of “Stop Ron Paul” for “Stop Donald Trump“.)
As for the “52” designation — it’s possible this a pattern search — sure, a mid-point between 1912 and the Taft — Roosevelt split (two political insiders, worth pointing out) and the Trump ascension in the Republican Party happens to be a historical fight / conservative ascendancy. But was 1952 and Eisenhower — Taft any less eventful or dramatic?
With the Democrats — the years that hang over everything as chaotic and divisive markers are 1860, 1896, 1924 and 1968. Splinters come about in 1948, which reverberate from 1860, but that one produced a winning candidate, so it falls apart in the same way 1952 does.