A brokered convention also makes it harder for the GOP to attack an uncertain target beyond generalities meant to harm the Democratic rather than specific candidate brand.

I'm so delighted. Call me a troll if you wish. I'm not, but I'm delighted to be commenting here without reading a single line of the preceding article about a brokered convention. Why not?

I'm not voting any more. Neither am I reading a single word about presidential politics -- unless Al Gore gets in the race -- because No. 2006 proved that voting doesn't matter. We have a Democratic majority in the Congress now that's done zip to stop the immoral slaughter in the Middle East, and now THEY OWN THE WAR. So why raise even a single drop of sweat to elect or worry about Democrats getting elected to anything?

i'm perfectly serious. 61 years old and have always voted. Not any more, except for relevant local issues. I've been fooled for the very last time.

Mark your calendar.  On February 6 you will wake up and either know the two nominees (the most likely result) or know that in at least one party no candidate has an easy road to a majority of delegates before the convention because the delgate count is a mess and almost all the big states (CA, FL, NY, NJ, MI, maybe TX) are already done.  Either way, we'll be charting new territory--without meaningful primary or caucus contests every week or two to focus the campaigns, how will the campaigns fill the time between February 6 and the August conventions?  Where will the candidates go?  What will they say?  It is a recipe for mischief or an opportunity for something really new and creative.

This is the only path to Gore.

Really... Hillary has 40% of the delegates, Obama/Edwards/other have the rest.

Let's say Hillary has 40, Obama has 30 and Edwards has 20.

Theoretically Obama and Edwards could come together as some sort of ticket.  Given their similar credentials that would be unlikely and perhaps unwise.

Its impossible for Hillary to run with Obama, and similarly unlikely Edwards would be Hillary's choice, given her need for more experience on the ticket.

In other words- the big three are all mutually incompatible on a ticket (unlike, say, Reagan/Bush, where Bush added some foreign policy gravitas and moderate credentials for Reagan, or Kennedy/Johnson, obviously!)  

The power player here is whoever is in 2nd.  If its Obama or Edwards, either one could call Al Gore and say "I'm in for Veep if you open yourself for a draft" knowing a third of everyone else's support could easily be harnessed for Gore.  What's more-- the two tickets--

Gore/Obama or Gore/Edwards make a ton of sense strategically.

Gore/Obama-- African American turnout would be almost as high as if Obama were at the top of this ticket.

Gore/Edwards-- bonus for the dems- no swiftboating this time around- both are well-known quantities and there is really nothing left to say about either from a scandal/ethical standpoint that people don't already know or haven't heard - unlike, say, Guiliani.

A brokered convention is the road for Gore.
And he knows this.

Al Gore could conceivably emerge as a unity candidate if we end up with a brokered convention.

It would be a unique turn of events--instead of a dark horse compromise, which brokered conventions have produced in the past when deadlocked, we would end up with the one candidate whom millions of Democrats wish had been the candidate all along, and the one with the greatest claim on the office.  (He did win it in 2000, after all.)

Plus, of course, it would mean that Gore would escape a year-plus of baseless smears from the media, allowing him to enter the race relatively unscathed.

"It could happen!" -- Judy Tenuta.

That truncated primary season just keeps getting better and better. this is beginning to get disgusting.

If we really get serious about taking our party back, grassroots activists could swing this thing if we can dominate the delegate selection process.  

Consequently if people knew that candidates or even state party chairs did not have old-style control of their delegates, then deal-making could be nearly impossible.

North Carolina will not vote on February 5!  There has been a bill in the legislature but it hasn't nor will it go anywhere.

People don't seem to want to listen.

A brokered convention seems extremely un-democratic to me.  I know some people are excited, either because it would be good political theater or because it's the best scenario for achieving the result they want, but I just can't get excited about it.  It's a way of moving the presidential election process even further away from the people.

I barely survived the 2004 Convention...what am I going to do if there's actual WORK to be done at this thing?!

The reason I don't think it'll happen is the media's obsession with crowning a "winner" of every phase. No matter what happens, pundits feel the need to say, with certainty, who "won" a primary or series of primaries. They'll choose a winner of the first round, shower them with attention, and that person will grab the bulk of the delegates on February 5th.

If there really is no way to call a winner, they'll declare how "muddled" the situation is, no one will get a bounce, and national name ID and money will determine the results on February 5th. In which case it'll be Clinton or Obama, whoever was ahead going into the primaries. So, either way, you'll have a winner by February 6th. The days of regional strength based on political networks are mostly over in the primary process, imo.

I despise this primary calendar, mostly because I think it'll clearly mark a winner extremely early. The only possible way it won't, imo, is if someone like Richardson does well in the first four, but not conclusively so. That way he gets enough of a boost to take a good chunk of delegates, but not enough to sweep the field, while Hillary and Obama split the remainder. Then you might have a situation ... a plausible scenario, but sort of threading the needle ... if either Hillary or Obama win NH, it's all over.

I barely survived the 2004 Convention...what am I going to do if there's actual WORK to be done at this thing?!

I would imagine that, if a brokered solution were necessary, it would be brokered well in advance of the convention. I can't imagine that either party would want to go the six months from February to August with that kind of uncertainty.

Jerome, the reason we almost never have brokered conventions is because the primaries are winner take all. Candidates need to do more than just pull in a significant percentage of votes, they need to actually win states.  

Hillary is perceived to be a commanding front-runner at this point.  If either Obama or Edwards manages to defeat her in Iowa, the story will be about how the Mighty have fallen. Like Dean, she will not be able to recover from that. If she loses Iowa, I don't see her winning states after that. And you need at least three candidates actually winning states in order to create a brokered convention scenario.  If Hillary isn't winning states, than either Obama or Edwards will wrap up the nomination in short order.  

Moreover, as general matter, a scenario in which three or more candidates are actually winning states is incredibily unlikely. It takes a field of candidates who draw their support from different regions (thereby allowing each of them to win states that the others cannot). Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are all trans-regional candidates.  Their popularity isn't likely to vary wildly by state or region. So it's likely that results in later states will track the results in early states, particularly when you add in the momementum factor from the early victories.  

Moreover, we've actually had situations in the past where several regional candidates managed to win states and drag the process out.  That's what happened in 1988 when Jesse Jackson won 10 states, Al Gore won 7, Gephart won 3, and Paul Simon won Illinois.  Even then, though, Michael Dukakis eventually gained some momentum and secured the nomination without a brokered convention.

Could there be a brokered convention this time around?  Sure.  Is it likely? I don't think so.

The media will focus on the top three or four finishing candidates, based upon polling in the next three elections.

They will do everything in their power to narrow the race down to a horse race by the end of New Hampshire.

The media will inform the vast number of Democrats still to vote in that Super Super Tuesday block...

Look at what happened to Kerry's polling numbers after he won Iowa. He wasn't polling high at all and then over night he jumped to high 40s to even 60% in some states.

There won't be a brokered convention.

I think the front loading makes a brokered convention less likely. At this point I think Clinton and Obama will be the last two with enough delegates to be the nominee with Edwards still in the race (but can no longer possibly get enough delegates).  When Obama sees he cannot win the nomination he will throw his support to Clinton.

The only other scenario I see would be if Obama's campaign collapses early on then Edwards or Richardson could get close enough to challenge Clinton and might have a shot.

I believe the Washington State Democrats will have their caucuses on Feb. 2nd next year.  

That might be an interesting addition to this calendar.  

Democrat Helen Giddings is filling a bill to move Texas primary to the 5th of February (for both parties, for all offices not just presidential). It will get a committee hearing because she's part of the Republican Speaker Craddick's leadership team and neither party seems opposed (rather, both seem in favor of it, the Dems officially).

Statesman link

I just don't see the media allowing a brokered convention.  They must have a "winner" by April at the latest so that they can build and enforce their narrative.

sPh

Front loading is getting ridiculous, it seems like everything will be all wrapped up or completely, and possibly unalterably muddled by Feb 5.

That said, we can't forget about the "super delegates," who get their seats regardless of the primary outcomes and are mostly Dem office holders. IIRC they're about 15% of the total and they can switch their votes at any time or any reason, which could end up sordid.

I disagree.  This is sort of like the 'can a senator become president?' argument. Of course its possible, but it ain't gonna happen.

If Geffen is right that the dem nominee is probably going to be president then the party has too much riding on a establishing a winner long before the summer convention.  They will support the media inclination to name a winner.  In fact, imho it wouldn't suprise me if we have a pretty good idea of who the winner will be even in advance of Iowa.

There is no advantage to the dem party in 2008 of a brokered convention--none whatsoever.

A brokered convention is a likely result of the mega-Tuesday schedule.  

I think people are overstating the importance of the first four contests.  The top contenders will have raised 30 to 100 million dollars by January, and they're not going to give up because a few hundred caucus goers in Iowa or Nevada don't like them.  Anyone who doesn't do well in the first four will be spinning like crazy, saying "let's wait for February 5th before crowning a winner."

Unless someone runs the table, the voters aren't going to be cowed by the media as usually happens.  People in California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, Texas, etc. have been waiting all their lives to have a say in who the nominee is -- they're not going to let New Hampshire make the decision for them this time.  Plus, their top choices will not have dropped out by the time they vote, so they will have less reason to jump to another candidate.

The person who takes the most states, most delegates and greatest % of the vote on Feb 5 will be declared the winner of the Feb 5 primary by the media.  That candidate will then sweep through the rest of the primary season.  I doubt there will be a brokered convention.

From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07058/765 218-85.stm

HARRISBURG -- A state senator plans to convene a joint hearing in three weeks on the idea of moving up Pennsylvania's 2008 presidential primary election to early February to have more impact on the national contest.

"I'm open to hearing more about it," Sen. Jake Corman said last week. "I think there's some logistical problems, but it would be good for our economy to have that campaign in Pennsylvania. If it can be done, we should try it."

Mr. Corman, policy chairman of the Senate Republicans, asked his Democratic Party counterpart, state Sen. Richard A. Kasunic, to make it a joint hearing. Kasunic aide Will Dando said that Mr. Kasunic agreed, and the hearing is slated for March 13.

If the primary is moved up from the present April 22 date, the most likely date would be Feb. 5, when other large states -- California, Michigan, Illinois and Florida -- are considering holding their 2008 primaries.

We are still over 300 days from the first caucus. The odds that the top candidates will be able to get along enough to be on the others ticket is remote. Richardson is probably the only one I see that could fit into any ticket as the VP.

There were 4,322 delegates in 04. Of those, 802 were superdelegates. Based on these numbers, 2308 total delegates - 385 superdelegates - will be up for grabs between Jan 14 - Feb 5.

Look for candidates to cherry pick the Feb 5 states based on polling numbers.

If it is still close after 2/5, it may all come down to the primaries in these 3 states....Ohio 159, Pennsylvania 178 and New York 284.

Obama/Warner 08

Check out my prediction here:

http://www.unodemocrats.com/blog/2007/02 /13/how-nebraska-will-tip-the-%e2%80%990 8-primary-like-a-world-series-exhibition -match

I basically argue that Super Tuesday will lead to only two major candidates with viability; which will  then lead to a long, but fun, actual period of going from tuesday to tuesday with the balance eventually tipping one way or the other.

Actually, I can easily see one candidate (i.e., Hillary) being the clear frontrunner after Mega Tuesday.  Here's the complicated series of events that would have to take place between now and then:

First, she'd have to remain the most popular candidate. Then, she'd have to get more votes than the other candidates.

That's it. Despite all the changes, this will still likely lead to her as the clear frontrunner because of the way that delegates get decided. The winner gets disproportionately more votes than the runners-up.

It won't be a delegate wipeout as it normally is but she doesn't need a wipeout to be the clear frontrunner.

Of course, a brokered convention would still be possible but my thinking is that there are brokered conventions and then there are "brokered conventions."

I don't believe this is inevitable; rather, just one very plausible possibility. I'd much rather Gore or Obama get the nomination so I'm certainly not rooting for a Hillary nomination.

So, 2004 primary election of record:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_ Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_p rimaries%2C_2004

As you can see from the results (mid-bottom), Kerry runs wild on "mini tuesday".

Now, make that MEGA tuesday, and guess what will happen:  The national leader will win most/all of the states.

Until we see polls from individual states (aside from the early four), I think the most likely scenario is whoever does well in the first four will take most/all of super tuesday.

The reason is that the modern day media is far more interested in national broadcasting/programming than the media from the 20th century.  With the exception of a candidate's homestate, the name recognition of a candidate in any given state is going to mirror national name recognition/approval.  Also, take the netroots for example.  Whether you are from Maine or Michigan or California or Georgia, you can read the same websites and see the same podcasts.  There isn't nearly as much regional variance as there once was.

If John Edwards (my candidate) can win three of the first four, that might be enough to take out Hillary/Obama.  Otherwise, Hillary and her money+name will sweep the field (except for the south).

-Zen Blade

Just thought I'd post this link to those who don't know it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_pol ling_for_the_Democratic_Party_%28United_ States%29_presidential_primaries%2C_2008

This is a great collection of state by state polls.  

Using her first appearance as a candidate to present her domestic side (rather than the tougher side she has displayed as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and on her recent trip to war zones in Afghanistan and Iraq)suggested that, at least initially, Clinton would like to strengthen her appeal to women, who make up a large part of both the electorate and the Democratic Party.

____________
tickets