Over at Plum Line today, I'm looking around at what conservatives are saying about last night's debate and making (again) the point that their reactions are part of the party deciding.
At PostPartisan, I found an great example during the debate last night of how partisanship works.
And I was on the radio today, on "Here & Now" out of WBUR, Boston's NPR station, talking deadlocked (or brokered, or whatever) conventions. They pushed me a bit for definitions, and I wound up saying (although I haven't listened, so I'm not sure whether it wound up getting included or not) that a contested convention is one in which the winner is unknown but there are enough uncommitted or unbound delegates for at least the leader to win the nomination by adding some of them, while a true deadlocked convention would be one where the the distribution of committed/bound delegates make it impossible for any candidate to win on the first ballot, at least if everyone stays put where they are. So if 2001 delegates are needed to win and the distribution is 1700 Cooper, 1000 Molitor, 400 Yount, 100 Gantner, and 800 undecided, then we have a contested convention; if it's 1400 for Brett, 1200 for Patek, 800 for Balboni, 400 for White, and 200 undecided, then it's deadlocked, because the most anyone could get is 1600.
I don't know; I'm not sure there's any utility in trying to figure out different names for different types of something that's very unlikely to ever happen. But the categories make some sense to me. As long as no one is calling them brokered, since the thing that we're not going to have is certainly not brokered, whatever else it would be if we had it, which we won't.