In regards to the 1940s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s and 10s, political conventions on the one had, and the Article V Convention on the other, is apples and oranges. A political party convention operates on different socio-political and legal dynamics. A non-binding proposing convention is different from one meant to make a final nomination before adjourning. A proposing convention just makes suggestions and goes home.
Plus, take a look at the calendar. The Article V Convention held today would be en entirely different affair than any Repu/Dem charade of past decades. Yes, we know all state and federal government has metastasized into a single organism of institutional corruption. And Yes, it is intuitive to conclude a federal convention of the states would A) ever be allowed by the establishment to begin with, and B) not be corrupted if it ever did take place.
A) In 2010, during the 110th Congress, the Tea Party Congress read the Constitution first day from the floor of the House. Before reading, sponsor Goodlatte from Virginia noted that because the Constitution had been amended, members would be reading what the Congressional Research Service deemed valid. They skipped over the convention clause of Article V, did not read it. Then in 2012 the CRS issued a two-part white paper all about the Article V Convention. So how is it that the CRS is at once telling members of Congress not to read the convention clause, and two years later writing a paper all about it? That paper has been updated multiple times, most recently 2017:
http://www.foavc.org/reference/R44435_20171115.pdf
That paper spawned a rule which has the House now officially counting state applications and posting them as PDFs on the website of the Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives. And over the past five years there have been multiple mainstream articles from WJS, NYT, Forbes and others.
In addition to that, over the past ten years, in the comment section to blogs and op-eds focused on the Article V Convention, it's gone from roughly 75% against a convention, to today where it's roughly 75% for a convention.
In other words, if get a tipping-point of Americans to become cognizant that a) a non-binding deliberative assembly exists at all and b) that it's not dangerous, we'll have one. The principle of a tipping-point means it's a mechanistic/materialistic inevitability once enough humans know.
B) As mentioned above, political nominating conventions are not amendment proposing conventions. The legal requirement of 75%+ approval before any changes are made is a political principle which mathematically precludes partisan/wedge issue nonsense from ever becoming high law. Conservative or Liberal a proposal must get all one side of the political spectrum signed on, plus at least half the other, or it goes where 10,000+ other proposed amendments have gone--the dustbin of history. In other words, there is noting to fear and everything to gain for the people, and nothing to gain and everything to lose for corporate interests.
You say you're 72, I'm 55, and so I know how energy reserves begin to deplete. Congratulations for carrying on this long. The good news is, if you think all the Americans alive today deserve to formally discuss their collective situation, all you have to do is educate yourself about a few things you're probably unaware of and/or don't have the proper rebuttals for, and simply start sharing the idea with other adults. "Hey, you hate Trump? Well, he's only in office because of a corrupted symptom. Some people who are saying it's time for a federal convention.... etc., etc., etc."
How many people could you tip off to the Article V Convention this year? Is there anything you're unclear about?
