The only way it could happen is with three strong candidates all surviving the first four (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina) by winning one each,  and then splitting February 5 with no one getting a near majority of the votes, of the delegates or of the states in play.

If there are only two strong candidates one will definitely be perceived as the winner by February 5.   I agree it is unlikely because 08 will probably be like every other year in that the winner of Iowa will get enough of a bump to win New Hampshire which will provide enough of a bump then to sweep South Carolina as well.

I agree that a brokered Democratic convention is highly unlikely, in large part because the candidates are close enough on the issues that I think many voters will be comfortable abandoning their candidate for the front-runner after the early states.

But on the GOP side, I think this is a possibility, albeit not an odds-on favorite. I could certainly see a situation in which a conservative like Thompson wins Iowa, Giuliani or McCain wins NH, and on the Feb. 5 big day, the Northeast goes for either Giuliani or Romney, the South (including TX and FL) goes for the conservative front-runner, and CA goes for McCain (or maybe Giuliani). With so many big-delegate states voting early, it's possible that they will go to different candidates and prevent any candidate from gathering 50% of the delegates to the convention.

I think that sort of regionalism is the only way to get a brokered convention, and it might just exist in the GOP, although certainly not in our party.

I agree with you Chris. We have about as much of a chance of there being a brokered convention as we do of having a Santos/McGarry ticket in 2008.

But I'd say that we have the Potential for a longer primary season not in spite of, but because of the fact that the States are all moving up to be part of the National Primary on Feb 5th.

As of now (no telling which other states will move up by then), there are 12 states scheduled for Feb 5th including the three big ones (Texas, New York, California).  On Feb 5th over 1/3 of the pledged delegates will be chosen.

So what happens if Feb 5th is split (as can very likely be the situation if there is no clear leader heading in)?

In years past a close second or third place finish on Super Tuesday would have been more then enough to toss in the towel and call it a day, but I don't think that will be the case this year because of money.

With so many states voting on Feb 5th, it will be interesting to see which candidates gamble it all on that day, or which candidates place some resources in the early second wave states like Virginia, Tennessee and Wisconsin.

So, here is the scenario that I envision could draw out the race....
A close second or third position candidate coming out of Feb 5th that has field ops in 2 out of the three races above and $20 Million still in the bank (see Q1 numbers to see why this is possible).  I see that candidate sticking around for a few more weeks and taking a shot at VA, TN or WI.  What if they win two of those states and catch up with the leader?

So there you have it, a ridiculously long comment with more "if's" then a Presidential Signing Statement, but it could happen, and it would be exciting.

independent delegates a brokered convention could happen.

I think the compressed primary schedule will make for an entirely new dynamic this time.  With so much money being raised so early, none of the top 4 or 5 candidates will drop out until they see what happens on February 5th.  

With so many primary voters having a say in the outcome for the first time in their lives, why will they listen to a few thousand people in Iowa and New Hampshire?  With the schedule so close together, they won't have time to react to the news anyway.

A brokered convention may indeed be unlikely, but I see a very muddled race coming out of February 5th.  The irony will be that the states that didn't join the feeding frenzy up front will be the ones who actually get to decide the race.

Chris, sorry for the OT question, but how is that McCain google-bomb going? Do you think it's worth google-bombing Fred Thompson before he gets in and inspires lots of people to start searching for info on him?

The last time either party had a close, and I mean very close, convention was the Republicans in 1976.  In that case, the establishment candidate managed to barely edge out an ideological candidate with a lot more pizzazz.  If Obama was more rigidly progressive, you might recreate the Ford-Reagan battle.  

The last time a candidate won a nomination without going the primary route was Humphrey in 1968.  All that took was the upset ouster of the incumbent President and the assassination of the leading candidate at the conclusion of the primary season.  Not too likely.

Historically, brokered conventions have needed either a super majority requirement to nominate (two thirds) and/or a series of strong favorite son candidate to soak up delegates from many major states.  This was, after all, before most states had a primary/caucus.  This just isn't likely despite the drama.

Even in the 1960s, favorite sons usually evaporated at convention time and the leader steamrolled to a first ballot win.  The mechanics are not there for a brokered convention.  Not with four or five months for the party's power machine to select their candidate.

If you haven't read Fear and Loathing 1972, you should.  Hunter talks about a lot of the high drama that goes on behind the scenes at the conventions.  Not to mention the battle over the Illinois delegation (Mayor Daley brought a delegation, so did Jesse Jackson - only one got seated).

Geez, are we going to have to go through this brokered convention nonsense every 4 years?

Carpetbagger Report, February 10, 2004:
If this keeps up, a brokered convention seems highly unlikely

Robert Kuttner, January 14, 2004: A Democratic cliffhanger?

And Jerome's positively a "brokered convention" obsessive:

Here's The Possible Future by Jerome Armstrong, Mon Feb 09, 2004:

No one is getting out, Kerry is getting less than 50% of the delegates... even if Kerry continues his plurality wins, if no one gets out (and why should they, given the internet funding) we'll have a brokered convention.  If one of the other candidate starts to catch hold (ala Reagan in 1976), we could have a contested brokered primary.

Give it up, Jerome!

Na Ga Ha-pen!

Chris, can you elaborate on how you know party insiders hate the idea of a brokered convention?

Not doubting you, just curious what the rationale is for this piece of CV that it would "hurt" the party.

Here in Canada, our Liberal party had about the equivalent of that when the voting for the new leader had to go several rounds to get to a majority.

It generated a lot of interest and gave the Libs a substantial boost in the polls after the convention.  They've declined since, but it's clear the excitement of an uncertain outcome was a good thing for the party.

Thank you for writing this, Chris.  I completely agree.  A brokered convention in this day and age is virtually impossible.  To your points I would add the following:

1) Even in 1988, a crazy campaign in which 5 different candidates won major early states, Dukakis eventually pulled away from the pack and won.  And that campaign, as you point out, had every key ingredient for the brokered scenario, none of which are present this year.

2) As you point out, polling from state to state is virtually identical.  Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are all national candidates with no clear regional base of strength. However the polls shift between now and next year, they are likely to shift in unison across all states.  

3) The earlier start of the campaign and the front-loading of the primary schedule serve to magnify the importance of the early contests.  By the time the Iowa caucuses finally rolled around in 2004, the coverage was so intense (and had been going on for so long) that it seemed like the Biggest Thing Ever. As a result, Kerry was able to translate his win there into an electoral landslide.  The same thing will almost surely happen this time around. By the time Iowa actually happens, this contest will have been dominating headlines for over a year. The anticipation will be huge. The winner of the Iowa caucuses will, more likely than not, carry that momentum to victory in the other contests.    

I agree with the thrust of this post, except for the last part of the last line:

"..or even earlier". (meaning pre-Feb 5).

There is no way, and should be no way, that any of the top three, (and there is an argument for evenn the second tier), should drop before National Primary day.  Not until the results from National Primary day come in.

The breakdown of delegates up for grabs on Feb 5, assuming all states considering shifting to that date do so, is really fun to play around with.

There will only be CT's 62 delegates up for grabs in New England.

Combined, New York and New Jersey give 412.  California alone is 440.

There are 263 delegates in the West and SW (including OK, UT, AZ, CO, ID, and NM).

The South has 567 delegates up for grabs (GA, AL, AR, GA, TN, TX and WV).

Pennsylvania and Deleware would provide another 201 Atlantic delegates combined.

There are 274 delegates from the industrial midwest (MO, IL).

Given this breakdown, it looks to me like the only way this is over on Feb 5 is if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, since she's probably got NY, NJ, CT, and CA (for 914 total delegates from just those 4 states).  One of the other candidates would have to damn near sweep the South, West, Southwest, and Midwest states on Feb. 5 to stay apace.

Of course, over 2000 delegates are not going to be decided on Feb 5, so of course there are other possible scenarios that could unfold.  But right now, it looks like someone could win upwards of fifteen of twenty states and still be losing.

As to pre-convention pressure being brought to bear on whichever candidates are behind, there will be two huge questions hanging over that process: which of the two losing candidates gets the #2 spot on the ticket, and couldn't the two losing candidates simply combine delegates to form their own ticket?  I don't disagree that one candidate will probably be ahead of the other two to a measurable degree, but a 3-way fight without a majority in any one camp means that the superdelegates are going to have more options than just backing the leading candidate or anarchy.

A tripolar alignment is unstable in winner-take-all scenario, which is why third parties have problems arising unless it eventually swallows one of the existing parties or one of the established parties implodes.

If you want a brokered convention, you need to maintain this unstable three-way scenario to keep anyone from getting a majority of delegates (or near it).  The possibility of this happening would be enhanced by some nasty campaigning which would make the third person considering staying in out of spite if s/he thinks that doing so could cost the object of enmity the race or is a strong ideologue who has something to prove.  The latter describes none of the front-runners, I believe.  Given the lack of differentiation between the candidates, it might require a lot of 36-34-30 primary wins spread evenly across three candidates.

McGovern set up the rules that Jimmy Carter used in 1976 with long, hard slogging in Iowa and New Hampshire to create momentum toward a national victory. Through 2004, each set of primaries has been substantially a rerun of the same game.

 The front loading of many primaries on Feb 5th looks like a major change in the rules of the game.  Certainly, the game can be argued either way; but your level of confidence sounds greatly overstated.  Can we tell already whether one or another candidate will choose a Rahm type targeted primary strategy, successfully or unsuccessfully, or another choose their own fight in every race strategy, successfully or unsucessfully?

Why should 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th place get out until someone in first place really has the delegates to flat out win?  This is not to say a brokered convention is likely, but I could see lots of outcomes as of Feb 5th which allow the game to continue being played for quite a while after that date.

I agree with the commenter above, that Gore entering that race dramatically increases the likelihood of a brokered convention (in which case it's most likely to me that any brokering involves Gore giving all his delegates to someone else), but even if he doesn't I have another plausible scenario to offer:

I think it's likely that delegate counts will be relatively close, because of the reasons Joe Trippi mentioned. I know that winners take a lot, but I'd have to see some pretty specific numbers on the big-delegate states to think it won't be at least close.

If it is close, It's highly likely to me that both Edwards and Obama will anticipate a lot of super-delegates going for Hillary, and will decide to forge an Edwards-Obama or Obama-Edwards ticket. I'm inclined to say it's more likely to be Obama-Edwards (and, though I'm an Edwards supporter, that's probably a better ticket), but it's also likely that Edwards will get most of the non-Hillary super-delegates, and will be in position to assume the top spot.

Basically Chris, I'm mostly with you, but I do see a possibility of an Edwards and Obama teaming up to beat Hillary.

I get so sick of hearing about liberal porn fantasies about a "brokered convention" like on that West Wing show a while back.

Seriously. Ever since 1972, there have been countless souls spending years developing ways to prevent the debacle of 72 from Ever Happening Again. Talk about this with an old timer and you're likely to give them a stroke. Seriously.

From "super delegates" to the bizarre formulas of caucuses, primaries and the like, the elimination of "favorite son" candidates to control delegates and God Knows What Else, it will never happen again.

Frankly, I don't see why it is states should be paying for or sponsoring partisan primaries in the first place, esp. when the convention is now nothing but a tv show and coronation ceremony. It's a vestige of times past and it's time to up-end it with something more engaging than fundraising and a rushed primary schedule.

I still think an unknown could sweep in & win Iowa sometime with the right campaign but a broakered convention is for the history books.  The only way it could happen is if two candidates were virtually tied.  I'd put the odds on that at about 1%.  Even in the close Mondale-Hart-Jackson race of 1984 Hart came within approx. 100,000 votes of Mondale in the aggregate primary popular vote but Mondale had a commanding delegate majority.

I'm talking about life situations in general, not merely brokered conventions. I saw the previous thread a minute ago and was going to post in it, how long the odds were compared to what Trippi was estimating. But until seeing this thread I had decided to skip it, under the familiar theme of why bother?

Here's what offshore books would love to in a situation like this; put up a one-way prop. In other words, you can bet only on the Yes, that there will be a brokered convention. They'll give you stupid odds like 20/1 and let all the suckers swarm in and think it's a bargain. Meanwhile, they know if they put up a two-way prop they would be buried by wise guys betting on the No, with the odds much, much higher than 20/1.

I used to do that when I worked at the Horseshoe sportsbook, put up odds on one-way propositions and then run into the little office and try to choke the laughter when you got a stream of $10 and $20 bets, people taking 10/1 when it should have been 100/1 or higher.