Modern historical precedent to take campaign to the convention.

[andym]

In 1976 the GOP ran their nominating process more like the Democratic Party does today. There were caucuses and primaries for pledged delegates and there were uncommitted delegates-- superdelegates as they are known to the Democratic Party today. Back then the Democratic Party did not have superdelegates, just as the GOP does not have them today.

1976 GOP Primary ended with Gerald Ford having 1121 pledged delegates (a majority of pledged delegates), and Ronald Reagan having 1078 delegates. It took 1130 delegates to win and Ford was 8 short. So the uncommitted delegates had to decide the winner. Reagan tried hard to convince the uncommitted delegates at the convention and it was very close. Of course, Ford won nomination, but lost the election. Reagan in the next election eventually got a chance to implement his "revolution," from which we are still suffering.

There are close parallels to this nominating process: only two candidates, one of whom is proposing a revolution, and a nominating process where uncommitted delegates are needed to win the nomination.

I think it is very possible that Bernie will consider doing something similar this year. Let's see how it plays out.

[MohRokTah]

1. We ain't the GOP. eom

[morningfog]

3. No, we have the wholly undemocratic super delegates.

15% of the delegates not based one the will of the people.

[andym]

7. Back then the GOP had superdelegates, the Democratic Party didn't

Now the situation has reversed, which is why Bernie may very well fight on to the convention.

[dsc]

9. no back then, as now, PA didn't require its GOP delegates to pledge to support a candidate

that was why Reagan named PA governor Schaffer as his running mate in 76.

[Trust Buster]

2. Ford was a sitting President and head of the Republican Party. Sanders is the losing candidate who

has done nothing but attack the Democratic Party. I wish you good luck in your rather tenuous analogy to previous electoral history.....LOL

[andym]

4. In that election Reagan attacked Ford as being establishment.

How is the analogy tenuous? Ford should have been seen as even more deserving than Clinton (since he was a sitting President), yet the nomination was very very close, and Reagan almost pulled it off.

[Trust Buster]

8. It's tenuous because Ford was the head of the Republican Party and the delegates stayed with

him. Sanders represents the inverse of that.

[andym]

12. The delegates almost didn't stay with Ford

It was close, even though Ford was the leader as you say. Clinton is the establishment candidate. She is close the the current leader, President Obama. It could easily have worked out differently, especially if Reagan didn't want Schweiker as his VP.

[Trust Buster]

13. Hillary leads Sanders by far more delegates. You're hoping against hope.

[beachbum bob]

5. Wrong party...

[andym]

6. The GOP no longer runs their Primaries like that, now the Democratic Party does

so really the situation is very apropos. Back then the Democratic party did not have "superdelegates" but the GOP did.
Now the situation is reversed.

[Skink]

10. A contested primary

[geek tragedy]

11. The correct precedent is Jerry Brown in 1992

Since the convention was contested, neither active candidate gave a prime time address before the vote.

He had to sneak his speech in by placing his own name into nomination.

[brooklynite]

14. Point 1. Ford lost

Point 2. The uncommitted delegates were truly uncommitted. They were not delegates who had announced their support for Reagan and needed to be won back.

Point 3. The negotiations to get those uncommitted delegates were the sort of sleazy politics the Sanders people hate:
http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/whistlestop/2015/05/ford_reagan_and_the_1976_rnc_on_this_week_s_whistlestop_podcast.html