Daily Kos

Perhaps the best-case scenario for the Convention

Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:24:12 AM PDT

It is now virtually beyond the point where we can hope for a clear and non-controversial nomination for the Democratic candidate for President.  It's almost mathematically impossible for either Obama or Clinton to win enough pledged delegates for a pure majority before Denver, and unless Obama truly wipes the floor with Hillary in Texas, Ohio, and/or Pennsylvania, the delegate counts will remain close, and below the magic number of 2025, all the way to the convention.  We will see more and more stories like today's dust-up over campaigns trying to "steal" each other's delegates, increasingly intense fights over the superdelegates, and a nuclear war over the status of Michigan and Florida.

It's still only February: can you believe that?!  In past campaign years, the primaries were barely getting off the ground in February!  With the scenario in front of us, we are likely to face another 5+ months of increasingly bitter and vicious infighting, while McCain and the Repubs have all that time to kiss and make up, and train their guns on our side, with immense help from the Democratic candidates and their most vocal supporters.

What scenario remains, realistically, to minimize this damage and emerge from the convention with the strongest possible candidate?
(Please turn to Page 2)

Many fervent supporters of either Obama or Clinton probably still cling to the hope that the next few weeks, March 4 in particular, will produce an irreversible tide that will carry their candidate to a clear and indisputable majority of pledged delegates prior to the convention.  If that could occur, it would certainly give us a chance to achieve unity sooner, and to start to work on confronting the Republicans together.  But I honestly don't see that happening any more.  The two sides are too entrenched, the delegate counts are too close, there is too much suspicion and intrigue already.

If, on the other hand, the Convention arrives with one candidate holding only a slim lead in pledged delegates, but perhaps the media calculating a winning majority by counting anticipated superdelegate totals, this will not be a recipe for graceful exit by the other side's campaign.  Not at all, no way, no how.  That will clearly still produce a fight to the wire, and very ugly scenes inside and outside the Convention, to the delight of the Republicans.  Frankly, I think that outcome is now virtually inevitable.

What we may need to consider, therefore, is not how the Party can prevent internecine warfare at the Convention, or even minimize it, but how we can recover from it, once it occurs.  The scenario I've started to imagine is one in which the fight, the showdown actually continues longer.  That is, I'm now thinking that we will ultimately be better off if there is not a first ballot victor for the Democratic nomination.  Nor even a second ballot.  If the vote is absurdly close, then the small number of delegates still technically pledged to John Edwards, combined with some key number of neutral superdelegates, could vote for neither Hillary nor Barack, preserving a stalemate.

Now at this point, one fantasy scenario is that Al Gore steps forward to be anointed by both sides as the compromise candidate, and everybody's happy.  I like that idea in theory, but I think there's slim chance of it ever happening in the real world.  But there is a second scenario.  After a couple of deadlocked ballots and waves of ugly fighting, some blocks of delegates for one or the other candidate might finally start to consider switching sides.  

The dynamics of a crowded political convention, with hundreds of ongoing, behind-the-scenes conversations, rumors, mini-movements, and other developments happening at lightening speed can sometimes produce remarkably sudden shifts in group attitudes.  It has happened in the distant past at party conventions, and in numerous other political and non-political contexts.  It is at least possible that we might see, on a third or fourth or fifth ballot, an unexpected large shift toward one of the candidates, delivering a nomination majority that is far outside of the narrow margins that had emerged from the primaries.  

If this happens, of course the hard-core supporters of the losing candidate will still be pissed (and no, I doubt that the runner-up will accept a VP slot as consolation).  But it will be much more difficult for anyone to claim that the nomination was "stolen" or didn't express the will of the Democratic Party.  Ultimately, one side or the other is going to have to accept defeat in this race.  It will, I think, be more palatable if it occurs after an all-out showdown, all the way to several Convention ballots, followed by this kind of mass movement toward the ultimate victor.

Regardless of the outcome, it's starting to look like the political theater of this season, and this Convention, could surpass anything we've seen in decades.

Tags: 2008 Election, Democratic National Convention (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 17 comments

  •  The Will of the People (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    IndianaDemocrat

    I can't agree with those who claim that the Will of the People can be discerned from a narrow lead in pledged delegates going into the Convention (by the way, I voted for Obama).  Winning a handful more delegates than the other candidate is only indicative of a dead-heat, not something that should somehow automatically result in all superdelegates jumping on that candidate's bandwagon.  If it's a lead of a couple hundred delegates, okay, but not if it's only a dozen or two.

    Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set... -- Gandalf

    by dnta on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:26:02 AM PDT

  •  Very Good!-Most Progress Have Never Been Exposed (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    CKDexterHaven

    ...to what used to be called "Good, Old-Fashioned Politicking", which means smoke-filled back-room strong-arming, and your local state/fed Pol selling thier vote to the highest bidder...

    And all played out live in the living rooms of the average voter...

    We were warned 30 years ago what this system would lead to, now we have a Butcher's Bill to pay for it, I fear...

    •  Sure, but what's the alternative? (0+ / 0-)

      If either Hillary or Barack wins by a handful of votes, you think there won't be blood?  At some point, one group of rabid supporters is going to have to accept defeat.  Period.

      Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set... -- Gandalf

      by dnta on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:34:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Al Gore being selected by the convention (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    stridergambit, IndianaDemocrat

    would be the most undemocratic outcome possible, everyone would resent it and he'd lose in the general. Lots of us wish Al had run but just because that would have been awesome doesn't mean his slection by a bunch of party insiders over the course of a few days would sit well with anyone. You run for the presidency you don't fall ass backwards into it*.

    *Gerald Ford excepted.

    •  That's why I think it won't happen (0+ / 0-)

      But I disagree that it would be quite so controversial.  A large proportion of both Hillary's and Obama's supporters would welcome a Gore alternative, especially if it would end the fighting, as would a large number of relatively neutral Democrats.  The Presidency isn't a prize that's given to the most dedicated campaigner, it's a vital and important office that determines the fate of the world.  If, somehow, we could get the best person, even if that person didn't actively campaign this time around, who the hell cares?  It's not like he's unknown or unseasoned as a campaigner.

      Still, I don't think it will happen, so this is just conjecture.

      Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set... -- Gandalf

      by dnta on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:37:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Multiple ballots? (0+ / 0-)

    How exactly would we have multiple ballots?  There's only two candidates.  One will win a majority on the first ballot.

    •  As I said, (0+ / 0-)

      there are a handful of Edwards delegates, and supers can vote for anyone, including neither Hillary nor Obama.  It has happened many times in the past.

      Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set... -- Gandalf

      by dnta on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:38:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, come on (0+ / 0-)

        This is ridiculously unlikely.  There will be 12 Edwards delegates, and none of them is going to vote for Edwards.  The superdelegates are all going to vote for either Clinton or Obama.

        Multiple ballots happened in the past because the system was completely different - most states didn't hold primaries, and there were always lots of favorite son candidates on first ballots so that a state could strategically throw its weight around by going over to one of the major candidates and giving them a lead.  Also ntoe that, until 1936, the Democratic nomination required a 2/3 supermajority to nominate someone, which is why the Dems were always much more likely to go to multiple ballots than the Republicans.

        The system is completely different now, and there's virtually zero chance of multiple ballots, unless something completely insane happens.

        •  I agree it's unlikely (0+ / 0-)

          but I'd still be willing to wager a few coins that a deadlocked, tight ballot could lead to a significant number of superdelegates deciding to sit out the first ballot, by voting for others, if only to avoid getting caught up in the venom.  In particular, I could see a movement among uncommitted superdelegates to form a block of votes that would withhold endorsement of either candidate, at least until a clear nominee was before them.  This would have the effect of (a) insulating them from being on the "wrong" side of a vote, and (b) giving them a huge amount of power over the outcome.  Unlikely?  Sure, but there's a lot about this year that is unprecedented by any recent standards.

          Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set... -- Gandalf

          by dnta on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:25:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not sure the mechanics of this. (0+ / 0-)

            Does the winner need a majority of ballots cast, or a majority of all ballots?

            Even if the latter, I think this is so unlikely as to be nearly impossible - most likely, we will more or less know how it's going to play out before any votes are cast.  If Obama doesn't close this out, either on March 4 or on April 22, what we're likely to see is something worked out in June.  It is just insanely unlikely we'll see an actual contested convention, not least because everyone knows it would be a total disaster.

  •  An alternative theory (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    dnta

    I'm no pundit, and around here I confess I'm pretty much a lurker who visits 20-30 times a day.

    I tallied my best guesses about primary results and delegate allocation all the way through Puerto Rico. I am a strong supporter of Obama, though I intend to work very hard for our nominee whoever it is, and will concede that my guesses are influenced by my bias.

    My guess is that on June 7, when we've had all of the primaries, Obama will have enough delegates that the superdelegates promised to him will put him over 2025. And that assumes his superdelegate count doesn't change from the current 160-165 estimate (from CBS and CNN). So I don't think FL or MI will be a factor, nor will the amount of superdelegates Clinton has.

    I have 10% confidence in my predictions, but I think I'm probably pretty close in most races. Though who knows what will happen due to momentum.

    •  There's definitely a chance of this happening (0+ / 0-)

      Many Obama supporters seem convinced that this is the scenario that will play out, given recent trends.  Frankly, I hope they're right.  But we've seen so many twists and turns, I've begun to lose hope for such a decisive pre-Convention outcome.  Let's hope I'm wrong on this.

      Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set... -- Gandalf

      by dnta on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:58:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I do not see either reaching the magic number (0+ / 0-)

    the super delegates will decide this. I believe should Edwards endorse Obama and carry a message that it is "time to unite the party" to the remianing states .... he would find a receptive audience and would move supporters form Hillary to Obama. I do not think that regular democrats want this decided by super delegates or that super delegates wan to decide it. Super delegates want to reflect the will of those casting votes in the primaries.

    I do believe that the candidate that has the largest number of delegates and greatest popular vote will be supported by 90% plus of the super delegages. The problems might be that popular vote and delegate count may split .... or that some super delegates may vote based on national results and others follow their state results.

  •  Best-case scenario for the convention? (0+ / 0-)

    Seriously, the best case?

    Best case is that one candidate absolutely cleans up tonight (Obama most likely) and the other candidate calls off his/her campaign and endorses the other.

    If Obama wins huge, given poll momentum in TX/OH there really isn't a firewall left for Clinton.  Her defeat in pledged delegates is inevitable.  Superdelegates are not going to be willing to easily overturn the pledged delegate leader if the lead is 100+ delegates.  So I don't see any way for Clinton to win that would be seen as fair.  Hence, she could concede and get on with things.  

    If Clinton wins huge, it would be a massive upset and would totally turn things around.  It would blunt Obama's momentum and make it extremely likely that HRC wins TX/OH/PA.  If HRC were to sweep those states big, even with the delegate assignment from TX perhaps staying even, I think HRC closes the pledged delegate lead to around 50, and has some legit claims that Idaho should not influence the Democratic candidate more than New Jersey.

    If Clinton is the nominee she would be well served by putting Obama as the VP vs. someone like Bayh, in order to harvest all the positive energy and keep the Obama supporters from defecting.

    If Obama wins big in my "best case scenario," I would hate to see an Obama/Clinton ticket, but Obama will need to offer Clinton something.  My suggestion in a past thread was to offer her to be his first nominee to the Supreme Court.  Her legal background clearly qualifies her for that appointment even if she hasn't been a judge.  The Democrats would control the Senate, I think that the Republicans would not want to invoke the "nucular option" to filibuster her since she would be replacing another liberal, and she gets a lifetime appointment where she can do some good.  Plus this type of thing would not need to be made public so would not be in any way a drag on Obama's candidacy.  Edwards could be attorney general, which would be an excellent spot for him to make a contribution and clean up the post-Gonzalez mess.

    We then go clean everyone's clock in November and gain seats in all branches of government and start undoing the damage Bush has done.

    That's the best case scenario, in my book.

    But it's extremely unlikely to happen.

    -Fred

    Democrats *do* have a plan for Social Security - it's called Social Security. -- Ed Schultz

    by FredFred on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:23:50 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, it's the "extremely unlikely" part (0+ / 0-)

      that I'm concerned about.  My "best case scenario" thinking is directed at the situation that seems increasingly likely to prevail once we get to the end of the primaries.  As I've said above, I would be more than happy if your scenario comes to pass in the short term, but I'm losing hope for that outcome.

      Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set... -- Gandalf

      by dnta on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:09:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I find it healthy that we thrash it out (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    dnta

    however long time it takes to decide our nominee. I really don´t find it a problem. I have found it more problematic that 4 early ates "decided" our nominee.

    Do we need to change the process next time? Yes we do.

Permalink | 17 comments