Convention Brokering

Mike Tomasky looks at the numbers and sees the possibility of a brokered convention. As a corollary to my view that it's never a good time for a third-party presidential candidacy, I've decided that it's also never a good time to predict a brokered convention. I completely agree with Tomasky's logic, but similar logic applied in 2004, to some extent in 1992, to a large extent in 1988, etc., etc., etc. The rules of delegate-allocation strongly suggest that multicandidate races should end without anyone securing a majority. In practice, that's not how it works. People are muscled out of the race and nothing get brokered.

So, on the one hand, I think Tomasky's right. On the other hand, I'm pretty certain he's wrong. In the event of brokering, the easy case is that Edwards has more delegates than Obama, Edwards + Obama equals a majority, and so we get an Edwards-Obama ticket. I feel like it would be weird for Edwards to run for Vice President a second time if the delegate counts are flipped, but that could happen, too. If there's serious deadlockage, though, then Al Gore, older, wiser, and heavier, becomes president. Indeed, I'm eagerly awaiting paranoid conspiracy theories about Gore's efforts to manipulate the primary in order to cause a deadlock.

4/19/07 3:47PM del.icio.us this incoming links

Comments

re: Glen Greenwald's 5 step smear-a-Democrat process - a 6th step should be added:

6) Cite a poll "showing" that people agree with you. (Feedback reinforcement)

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013738.php

Posted by: sherifffruitfly on April 19, 2007 04:13 PM

I think the basic reasaon for "Hey, we could have a brokered convention!" talk is that journalists would really really love to have a brokered convention.

On the other hand, Tomasky is fairly convincing. Anyway, I'd love to have a brokered convention. It'd be awesome.

Posted by: John on April 19, 2007 04:23 PM

Parties also want to have the spectre of a brokered convention so they can get more coverage.

Posted by: Rob on April 19, 2007 04:25 PM

I feel like it would be weird for Edwards to run for Vice President a second time if [Obama had more delegates], but that could happen, too.

It would be weird and it could indeed happen. I don't know how Edwards and Obama are going to be able to attack each other politically to any depth. They don't disagree about much, if anything, and it's not really in either of their interests to tear the other guy down too much; I also don't think it's either of their styles. Edwards can say that Obama isn't 'tested', and...what can Obama say? That Edwards voted for the war? I guess he could, but ..that's all that I can think of. And, though this may sound naive to some of you terribly hard nosed poli sci people, but I also think they both know how important this election is for the actual country, and will put that consideration before ego to some extent. Quaint, I know, but I don't think it's a stretch to ascribe that kind of character to either of them. It's a big part of their appeal, in fact.

Posted by: jonnybutter on April 19, 2007 04:27 PM

Question - what do all of the following have in common: a brokered convention, UFOs, the Abominable Snowman, unicorns, and the Lost City of Atlantis?

Posted by: Al on April 19, 2007 04:38 PM

If Bush says these exist, Al will come on and say that they exist, always have existed and only irrational Bush hatred keeps you from seeing them.

Posted by: Rob on April 19, 2007 04:48 PM

Each of those words or phrases features the letter 0?
They've never been in my kitchen?

Posted by: washerdreyer on April 19, 2007 04:48 PM

They've never been in my kitchen?

Well played!

Posted by: Chilly on April 19, 2007 04:53 PM

"People are muscled out of the race and nothing get brokered." Yes, but. The mechanism by which people get muscled out of the race is they run out of money and can't find donors willing to give large sums to such an obvious loser. There's an argument that the Democrats, this year, are raising sufficient money that this mechanism won't operate. By the Iowa caucuses, the big three will have each raised enough that they'll each have enough to carry them to the Convention. Clinton has $36M in the bank right now. There have been years that would have been enough for an entire primary campaign. And we have to assume she's not going to stop raising money between now and New Hampshire.

Posted by: jim on April 19, 2007 04:56 PM

Even with the lax standards of this comment section, I feel compelled to apologize for describing zero as a letter.

Posted by: washerdreyer on April 19, 2007 04:58 PM

Talk of a brokered convention is silly. It will never happen. That's just not how elections work, particularly these days when all the candidates are national candidates with no clear regional base of support. The polls may fluctuate wildly between now and the first primaries, but the fluctuations will be nearly identical from state to state. Whoever is ahead once the contests start happening will coast to victory.

In order for a brokered convention to occur, at least three candidates have to win significant numbers of states. That just won't happen.

Posted by: Anonymous Liberal on April 19, 2007 05:48 PM

Actually, with the Mega-Super-Tuesday bit, it's much easier to see it happening. Hillary wins NY & NJ, Obama wins CA, Edwards wins FL and some other states. (Or whatever, that's just one example.) Now, can all three of them stay viable that long? Possibly, especially if Hillary's the one who starts off slow (having the homecourt advantage & a lot of commitments in hand, I really can't see her dropping out before then).

Posted by: Devin McCullen on April 19, 2007 06:07 PM

Is there any particular reason, though, to see Obama as more likely to win California than to win New York? Hillary's "home state" notwithstanding, I'm not sure I s ee it. Anonymous Liberal's take seems likely to be right.

Posted by: John on April 19, 2007 06:10 PM

"Indeed, I'm eagerly awaiting paranoid conspiracy theories about Gore's efforts to manipulate the primary in order to cause a deadlock."

Yup. As long as Gore remains un-Shermanesque, and as long as the current primary lay of the land remains in place, such a storyline is utterly inevitable.

Posted by: Petey on April 19, 2007 06:12 PM

The problem with anonymous liberal's analysis is that it assumes fluctuations from state to state will be identical. Why? I would hardly be surprised on super Tuesday to see substantial state to state variations among competitive candidates.

Posted by: mpowell on April 19, 2007 06:32 PM

Brokered convention? Mr. Yglesias' favorite columnist David Broder always used to talk about a brokered convention. Ain't happened since the GOP convention of 1952.

Posted by: SLC on April 19, 2007 06:43 PM

Why wouldn't these fluctuations be nearly identical? Is there any reason to believe people in various regions feel vastly different about Clinton, Obama, and Edwards? I certainly haven't seen any polling data to back that up. Moreover, the super Tuesday primaries will occur AFTER the hugely anticipated and widely discussed results of Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire. However those contests shake out, there's every reason to believe that the intense national publicity will affect Democrat voters similarly in all the Super Tuesday states. Whoever is boosted by those contests will be boosted all over the place.

Posted by: Anonymous Liberal on April 19, 2007 06:53 PM

Everyone who wants to predict a brokered convention should have this tattooed on their hand, crib notes-style:

In practice, that's not how it works.

Posted by: Aaron S. Veenstra on April 19, 2007 08:15 PM

Um, is there any reason to believe people in various regions feel the same? If not let's just have one state vote. Why bother with all these other regions?

A brokered Dem convention would be terrible for the GOP. Not having a specific whipping boy would make negative ads tough. A brokered GOP convention would make Dems tie everything to Bush and Iraq, which would be harder for any GOP candidate to get out from under.

Posted by: crack on April 19, 2007 09:25 PM

I think that primaries now have too much legitimacy for the convention to resolve a deadlock by drafting someone who didn't run. I would predict that if there is a brokered convention, the candidate with the most delegates wins.

Posted by: Kenneth Almquist on April 19, 2007 10:44 PM

A state David forgot was Illinois. Obama's state. and believe me, there is no love for Hillary here. We are a solid Obama state.
but, I really doubt it will become a brokered one. Just as I doubt Gore will run.
If you say, well, he hasn't closed the door. well, duh. He gets to play revenge on Hillary for fun. don't close the door all the way and make her sweat.

Posted by: vwcat on April 19, 2007 10:50 PM

Brokered Convention? No. Brokered Nomination. Yes.

We'll know well before the convention if anyone has a shot at a clear majority -- and The Deal will be brokered before convention time if there isn't.

Posted by: paul_lukasiak on April 19, 2007 11:01 PM

Brokered convention? Mr. Yglesias' favorite columnist David Broder always used to talk about a brokered convention. Ain't happened since the GOP convention of 1952.

The last time we didn't know who the nominee was going to be going into the convention was t he Democrats in 72. It was really between 68 and 72 that we moved from a system where the convention chose the nominee to one where the primaries did.

Posted by: John on April 20, 2007 01:16 AM

what can Obama say? That Edwards voted for the war? I guess he could, but ..that's all that I can think of.

That seems sufficiently damning to me.

What I don't know is what Edwards could possibly say against Obama, except that he wasted his law degree on community organizing rather than suing people.

Posted by: right on April 20, 2007 02:27 AM

Edwards should say
"I'm proud to be a partisan Democrat...(unlike others)"

Posted by: David on April 20, 2007 05:36 AM

Edwards should say
"I'm proud to be a partisan Democrat...(unlike others)"

Posted by: David on April 20, 2007 06:13 AM

I am, I blush to confess, old enough to remember election cycles dating back to Kennedy vs. Nixon.

In every single one of those election cycles, pundits at some point were predicting a brokered convention.

Hasn't happened yet . . .

Posted by: rea on April 20, 2007 08:00 AM

www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması

Posted by: Sohbet on September 22, 2007 05:37 AM

Sohbet, Chat