The brokered convention fantasy

[comradebillyboy]

I keep seeing threads where many DUers think if neither Clinton, nor Obama, nor Edwards have a majority of delegates at the convention, the nomination ought to be awarded to Al Gore, a non candidate. Do you people seriously think the candidates who have worked their asses off will graciously bow down at the great man's feet and award him the nomination and their enthusiastic support without a fight? Shouldn't the nomination go to someone who has worked for it and earned it? Besides Gore has no financial backing, no organization, no nothing but only the path to a new Republican presidency.

[davidwparker]

1. I'm hoping for a brokered convention and I do not want it to be given to

Gore. He should have run. One *rumor* was that he didn't enter because he felt Hillary had the money and the nomination locked up.

Well, it appears the first term, *junior* senator is challenging that.

So, if that was Gore's reason for staying out, he should have stayed out because that was poor decision. Gore had it locked up if he entered.

[slick8790]

2. What i've always thought is possible would be

if neither Obama nor Clinton has enough delegates to win, and edwards basically can choose who to give his delegates to. In my fantasy, he makes a deal with Obama that unless Obama gives edwards his delegates, edwards will give his to clinton. in return for giving edwards his delegates, obama gets a vp slot on the edwards ticket and the chance to run on an unbeatable ticket, and become pres in 2016. but these are just slightly delusional fantasies of a discouraged edwards supporter

[Tennessee Gal]

3. I like that plan!

[comradebillyboy]

4. a reasonable scenario

involving real candidates.

[Benhurst]

5. If no candidate has enough delegates to win on the first ballot, we

should have a brokered convention and choose a unity candidate behind whom the party can unite.

If DU reflects the mood of the party at all, it is very divided at this time. I would rather have a compromise candidate than see the party divided going into a crucial presidential election.

The country is more important the egos of our individual candidates and their followers.

Who could that be? I don't know; but if things continue as they have been, we'd better give it some thought. Obama and Clinton would each go into the general election with rather major handicaps, and Edwards so far does not seem to be catching on, no matter what the reason. If no one emerges as the clear choice of the party, we'd better look elsewhere. And the upcoming election is far too important to be given to someone just because he or she has "worked so hard." If that were the correct way to award the presidency, Gus Hall should have been given the job.

[slick8790]

6. I don't know. I think more people would be upset if essentially NONE of the primaries mattered

and we picked a totally new candidate. It'd be 1968 all over again.

[Benhurst]

9. So far, some sixty percent of those attending the caucuses and

primaries have voted against the so-called "winner." It may change at some point, but so far a clear-cut winner has not emerged. A nominee chosen by less than fifty percent of the party would probably be in worse shape than a unity candidate chosen by the convention.

[slick8790]

12. But by that logic, 60 or more percent have "voted against" every candidate.

Those 60% are not necessarily votes against. They are most likely just votes for someone whom the voter/cacuser likes better.

[Benhurst]

14. But they sure haven't coalesced around anyone either. The longer

no clear-cut winner fails to emerge, the harder it will be for one of the under-fifty-per-centers to unite the party.

[comradebillyboy]

15. do you expect those people who worked hard for candidate they

believed in to rush to support a nominee who ran in no primaries and earned no delegates? Do you expect Obama or Clinton or Edwards to go out and campaign for that person? Do you expect a campaign organization to magically appear in 50 states to work for that person? Will Obama or Clinton or Edwards financial backers come through for such a person? A recipe for disaster.

[Benhurst]

19. If they are good Democrats, they will. If they aren't, they have no

business representing the party in a general election in any event.

The nomination is not awarded to the best of three (four, five, what have you) but to the person who manages to get a majority of the votes at the convention.

Maybe the rules are wrong, but those are the rules we have. I would imagine our candidates are aware of them.

"Also ran" (and that's what all our declared candidates are so far) does not win the prize, only that person who gets a majority of votes at the convention, whether he or she "worked hard" for it or not.

[frogcycle]

8. he can't "give his" delegates to ANYBODY

yes he can suggest/recommend, but at the end of the day, if they decide to go to, say, Michael Moore, they can.

[slick8790]

11. Of course.

But I think the majority would stay faithful to his wishes, if they are really dedicated supporters.

[balantz]

16. DAMN! I like that idea!

And it isn't just fantasy, is it? That is an interesting scenario.

[frogcycle]

7. you don't understand

they would not have a say in the matter

after a couple of rounds of voting, if there is not a winner, the convention is "open"

the candidates who worked their butts off at that point are nobodies

I'm not saying that is good or bad; it's just the way it is.

[NoPasaran]

10. I just wish that the "brokered convention" fans understand that the term comes from "Power Brokers"

I just wish that the "brokered convention" fans understand that the term comes from "Power Brokers", who will be doing the actual wheeling and dealing to produce the nominee. The chances that the progressive grassroots will be happy about the process and its results are slim indeed.

[ozone_man]

13. As long as it isn't Hillary, how disappointed could we be?

:)

[Benhurst]

17. You may be jesting now, but the longer the primaries continue without a

winner, the more "as long as it isn't (x marks the spot)" people there will be. Despite some bring-us-together bullshit out there, there isn't much of it going on so far. On the contrary, hostilities between the various camps are on the rise. The situation may change and a clear-cut winner may emerge. But if not, a brokered convention is a brokered convention is a brokered convention. At that point, having worked hard won't be, and shouldn't be, a factor in trying to find a unity candidate.

[ozone_man]

18. Starting to sound like Al Gore.

The unity candidate!