Brokered convention anyone?

[LawDem]

It hasn't happened since -- well -- since a time when most people who remember it are already dead. Could it happen this year? Could we actually end up having the nomination settled at the convention itself?

First the provisos: Everything in today's politics works against this possibility. It's extremely unlikely to happen -- I'd say 500-to-1 against, but --

It's beginning to look like very few of the candidates will be eliminated early. Dean's losing ground, but no way is the bottom falling out. Clark, Edwards and Kerry are all making moves in either Iowa or New Hampshire. Is it possible the primaries may slide by, one after another, with the wins and the delegates being divided among these four candidates, such that we could end up without a clear winner at convention time? (Not likely, but how likely was it that a no name from Vermont would become the front runner?) And if so, what then? Could Gore come back into the picture as the compromise candidate? How about a certain junior senator from New York? (Though that would be a mistake in my mind -- too early for her to run.)

And if, against all odds, we ended up with a brokered convention would that be all bad? Personally, I don't think so. That might be just the sort of excitement to send our candidate off in style, helping to offset Bush's money advantage.

What do you think?

[goodhue]

1. I would not be surprised.

And it would not be bad IMHO.

[mzmolly]

2. explain what that is?

Im not too familiar.

[LawDem]

5. My definition

Nomination settled at convention, generally through some sort of compromise, as opposed to the front runner coming in with the votes already in his pocket.

[sangha]

What a "brokered convention" is

The way a candidate gets the nomination is by winning the votes of a majority of delegates at the Democratic convention. On the first vote, (most of) the delegates are committed to vote for the Dem they represented in the primary. However, it's possible that none of the candidates will receive a majority of the votes. At that point, the delegates are released from their obligation to vote for a particular candidate, and that's when the wheeling and dealing starts. Generally speaking, this horse trading works to the benefit of those candidates with deep political connections.

[LawDem]

10. Good description

Okay, so your definition is better than mine.

[sangha]

3. At this point, I'd say it's more likely than not

We have at least four strong and viable candidates. Each of them is capable of acquiring significant support, preventing any from getting a majority of delegates. And after the first vote, it's open season.

[andym]

4. I've thought this was a reasonable possibility for quite some time

I've thought this was a reasonable possibility for quite some time.
3 or 4 viable candidates may prevent a winner from emerging.

It could be good, in that it encourages the candidates to work out
a mutually acceptable deal.

It could also promote more attention to the whole process leading up to the convention.

On the negative side is that acrimony may increase.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

6. Just think of the ratings a brokered convention could generate

compared to the boring conventions we've gotten used to -- high drama and a cliffhanger in Boston? Bitter rivalries and divisions ending on a note of unity, coming together in the end around one leader? Aaron Sorkin couldn't script it better for us.

[necso]

7. I don't see it.

It would be just one more thing that the pugs would use against us ("dirty deals made in smoke filled rooms").

We aren't going to get any better candidates than what we have now and I expect that once the ball gets rolling, things will line up for a two man race (exactly which two I don't know) with Edwards hanging on in VP hopes, along with some minor candidates (no insult intended --- they are all giants to me).

[mikehiggins]

8. I don't think any of the candidates will take it on the first ballot

The front-loading and the large field and the demise of "winner-take-all" primaries actually does suggest a good chance at a brokered convention.

In that case, Clark will end up with the nomination and Edwards will be offered the VP spot.

Neither Gore nor Hillary will run. Gore will toy with it but will opt out of contention and Hillary will never even consider it.

Clark will propose a "shadow cabinet", using the other candidates to attack specific weaknesses of the Bush administration. Most will agree to take part.

The newly revitalised Democratic Party (thank you, Howard Dean!) will crush Bush in November.

Clark and Dean will kiss at the inaugeration like Madonna and Brittany.

Oh. Wait. Forget that last one. That'll be in the expanded DVD, not the original one.

Seriously, all this conjecture is interesting, but in the long run, no matter what happens, the main objective of everyone involved has to be ABB.

And that's the fact, Jack!

[OhioStateProgressive]

13. i think you are correct, except for this

Dennis Kucinich will be the VP nomination, because the apprehension about the General and his republican past (i don't believe Clark is a Republican). Dennis will be on the ticket to keep the progressives voting for Clark

[Toucano]

14. Clark/Dean...Madonna/Brittany

That's funny stuff!

Edwards is a good VP choice, IMO. But I also think Kucinich and Gephardt might bring more voters from the mid-west.

[AntiCoup2K4]

9. If it does, we're all fucked, for 2 reasons...

1) The DLC would obviously pick the candidate

2) Three months is not enough time to destroy Bush (even with a candidate who WOULD)

This needs to be the Nominee vs Junior by the end of April at the latest.

[mot78]

11. Unlikely, but we could have a brokered late primary season

It's possible the DNC could start to analyze the five candidates, and determine the winner based on solely pragmatic terms, and this could favor Clark or Edwards over Dean, Kerry, or Gephardt.
They could then muscle out the others based on some decision Terry would make around mid April.

[mlawson]

12. No. The party machine will never let it go that far.

That is, the DNC/DLC. They would pick, finance and install someone way before then. What worries me is that they will do this, anyway.

[SheilaT]

15. How could anyone possibly

think that a brokered convention would be a good thing? The next six months to be spent with two, three, four, maybe even five candidates still slugging it out, attacking each other, while the Republicans quietly consolidate their hold on everything. And then, finally, after the Fourth of July to have a candidate emerge, weary, battle-scarred, fund raising ability crippled by all the fighting.

What in the world are you smoking that you could think this would be good? It's bad enough this far out from the general election that the candidates are spending more time and energy smearing each other or answering smears rather than focusing completely and totally on defeating George W Bush.

It's sheer lunacy to think a brokered convention, NO MATTER WHO WOULD EMERGE to be a good thing.

[ringmastery]

16. Hillary

All 5 candidates would be too battered and bruised to take Bush if the convention was brokered.

They would go to an outsider, a fresh face, someone with star power.

Hillary.

NY voters would understand why she broke her promise.

The party would be in a bloody crisis.

[SheilaT]

17. Hillary is far too divisive

to be a sensible choice. She would NOT be a fresh face. She's been around for over ten years.

Actually, I don't think there's a serious chance of a brokered convention. Ever since I started paying attention to such things, which was the election of 1968, there have been predictions of a brokered convention every year for one party of the other. Not going to happen. We will probably know by some time in March who the nominee will be.