anyone up for the idea of axing the convention?

[freepcrusher]

I have never been a big fan of conventions (Republican National Convention or Democrat National Convention.) I find the entire thing to be a week long circle jerk. Anyone here agree with me?

[Torie]

No, but then I remember when conventions meant something (the McGovern convention in 1972 was especially good, running way off schedule, lots of floor fights, with gay rights hitting the agenda finally at 3 am, because it could not be avoided, and thus the time slot, not to mention the Dem convention in 1968, with rioting street people outside, and Mayor Daley goons inside, and folks throwing personal insults at each other). And the Pub convention in 1968 had some suspense, until Mr. Reed delivered the Mississippi delegates to Nixon. Now they indeed are one long campaign commercial. But the stage is still grand, and you get to savor all the political personalities at once, spinning like hell. It's better than watching a football game anyway.

[Yelnoc]

No, but then I remember when conventions meant something (the McGovern convention in 1972 was especially good, running way off schedule, lots of floor fights, with gay rights hitting the agenda finally at 3 am, because it could not be avoided, and thus the time slot, not to mention the Dem convention in 1968, with rioting street people outside, and Mayor Daley goons inside, and folks throwing personal insults at each other). And the Pub convention in 1968 had some suspense, until Mr. Reed delivered the Mississippi delegates to Nixon. Now they indeed are one long campaign commercial. But the stage is still grand, and you get to savor all the political personalities at once, spinning like hell. It's better than watching a football game anyway.

How is digesting political spin better then watching football?  Hell, I would rather watch an entire tennis match then the average political convention.  Unless of course it's a brokered one.

[LINCOLN REPUBLICAN]

Yes, in favor of the smoke filled room. 

[angus]

a week long circle jerk

provocative imagery.  Alas, I'm afraid that the RNC shouldn't be quite as liberating (or as fun) as that.  

A uniquely American tradition, these conventions are.  Bully!  I'm not a fan of political parties to begin with, as I have stated here often.  Indeed, the founding fathers of American government viewed political parties with distrust or outright hostility.  But I think that as long as we're going to have political parties, then they should be allowed their conventions.  Originally, the main purpose of conventions was to nominate the party's candidate for president, but that's soooo 1848.  Nowadays, much of it is about identifying potential future donors, and that's probably its most important function.  It also serves the function of being a prime-time televised infomercial.  They're pep rallies, in that sense, and they're carefully choreographed.  The party bosses work to eliminate any evidence of debate or disunity within the party, and that is thought to be important in swinging over the swing voters.  They also bring in lots of dollars to the host cities.  For those who attend, they're probably a good time.  Anyway, they don't bother me.  Political parties do, and I wish that there were some way to destroy them, but the actual conventions never bothered me.  One thing I'd like to see, at least once, is a brokered convention.  I think we may have a good shot at seeing one this year, don't you think?

[Jacobtm]

Getting rid of the convention would be a great step away from political pageantry, which is why it won't happen.