Could Sherrod Brown or another non-primary candidate become the nominee in a brokered convention?

[AdamGG]

Nate Silver is currently ranking "no winner" as the most likely outcome of the primaries. If this happens, do you think it's possible that the convention delegates could select someone who didn't run in the primaries?

I think the last time this happened was in 1968, when Bobby Kennedy was shot and the convention settled on Hubert Humphrey. Do you think something like this is a possibility in 2020? Would it necessarily be a bad thing?

[snowybirdie]

2. Now that would

certainly piss off a majority of Democrats! We've worked hard and sweat long for the candidates that have been trying so hard.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

3. We shouldn't be talking about this right now IMHO

Nobody even knows it should be happening and it's just going to get people all worked up unnecessarily

[AdamGG]

9. I'd like to think we can discuss a wide variety of things

Historically (1968 and before) this kind of thing happened a lot. With superdelegates/caucus voting the primaries aren't perfectly democratic (small d) now. Hillary got more votes in 2008 than Obama did.

[mahina]

4. He already said he didn't want to run.

That was a long time ago though. Maybe it looks even more enticing now?

[Celerity]

5. we would shit away a Senate seat if Brown was VP and we win nt

[DrToast]

6. Not likely, but also that forecast hasn't been updated since yesterday

[blogslut]

7. wrong forum

[Hortensis]

8. Interesting. Maybe we'd find out who Russia's second choice was.

I doubt it's Gabbard. She's spread Kremlin lines (verbatim sometimes) and performed modestly for them, but does she have the stuff to destroy the Democratic Party's chances of taking power? I really don't think so!

So who would that be?

Sen. Brown would of course refuse to be used as a Russian asset.

[AdamGG]

11. Why would DEMOCRATIC PARTY convention delegates choose a Russian asset?

Doesn't Biden have most of the superdelegates now? Is that because they're pro Putin?

[Hortensis]

12. You tell us, AdamGG. These are very dangerous times, when

people of evil intent learned very quickly how to turn the new internet into a modern version of storming the city walls and raping and destroying. Guess we should at least give points for skipping the raping part, right? Or for leaving that others in destroyed nations fallen to the chaos they created?

[TheFarseer]

16. What in the heck are you talking about?

Surely Biden will get at least a plurality in which case he will be the slam dunk choice. I’d be shocked if he didn’t get a majority.

[Hortensis]

18. I'm responding to the OP. Not entirely facetiously. EVERY

candidate should be examined with an eye to the Republicans and Russians who seek to either weaponize or destroy them, depending on how useful or dangerous they are to their plans.

Biden of course is dangerous to them. Although pundits have to keep coming up with something to talk about, much of this new speculation about an outsider come to rescue them, peculiarly right on top of great victories on Super Tuesday that haven't even finished being counted, is unquestionably not unrelated to the Republicans', and Russia's (and China's and Iran's (etc) ), need for someone to use to take our most dangerous candidate out.

The only good part is that it suggests confidence of some in Sanders' usefulness has weakened. They SO deserve their anxiety, and I'm enjoying it. But I think he's obviously still a very valuable asset even if they do also ultimately try to promote someone else.

Try, try again. Because the battle for power is enormous and they have no intention of losing.

[Frances]

10. No

[matt819]

13. The statisticians and pundits should STFU (nt)

[pat_k]

14. I wish Sherrod had run!

I don't see that happening unless both Biden and Sanders were to have some sort of health crisis.

I really, really, really, wish Sherrod had run. Unfortunately he did not, and things have played out the way they've played out.

Biden is looking more and more inevitable.

If Sanders were to win a plurality on the first vote, Biden still wins with superdelegates on the second vote. This outcome would be horrible for the party -- utterly undemocratic -- but I think it's the way it would go. Superdelegates are generally quintessential "establishment" dems.

If Sanders wins Michigan and Missouri next week, perhaps chances of winning a majority on the first vote (the only way I see him becoming the nominee) go up. However, fivethirtyeight currenly gives that outcome only a 1 in 10 (compared to 3 in 12 for Biden).

Also remember, delegates pledged to candidates who have suspended their campaigns can vote however they want on the first vote (at least that's my understanding), so even if Sanders were to go in with a plurality of pledged delegates, he would not necessarily win a plurality on the first vote.

Sherrod might not be a bad pick for VP, but practicality of losing Senate seat precludes it. I think, whoever the nominee is, they would be better off with a woman of color like Stacey Abrams... or maybe even Kamala Harris (perhaps the fact neither is gung ho on Medicare for All would rule them out for Sanders, but I could still see it bolstering the ticket)

[madinmaryland]

15. No. He would not allow Ohio's governor to flip his seat

And keep turtleman as the majority leader of the senate.

[gratuitous]

17. Totally could happen!

Also, monkeys might fly out of my butt, so I'm going to stand up about now just to give them unfettered egress. The sun might rise in the West tomorrow, so make plans for that. Water will lose the quality of wetness, what's your contingency plan for that? Better have one!

Or, maybe there won't be a brokered convention. I'll bet a $10 donation to DU on it.

[customerserviceguy]

19. Humphrey

had the largest number of delegates at the time of Kennedy's death, with 561 to RFK's 393 and Eugene McCarthy's 258. Only fourteen states held primaries in that year, the rest of the delegates were chosen at caucuses controlled by state party bosses.

We just don't have that kind of "smoke-filled rooms" politics anymore. For a non-primary tested candidate to be nominated, we would have to see many dozens of ballots with no clear winner. At that point, it would be an act of desperation.

[AdamGG]

21. Don't believe Humphrey had many delegates from the primaries

For what it's worth, McCarthy was leading from the 14 states that held actual primaries, though I agree that the system has changed for the better since then.

Eugene Mccarthy - 6 states won, 38.7% of bote
RFK - 6 states won, 30.6% of vote
LBJ - 1 state won, 5.1% of vote
Hubert Humphrey - 0 states won, 2.2% of vote

In the event that no one has a majority or very strong plurality this year, Sherrod Brown seemed like someone that possibly all sides could accept as a solution. But, I agree that it is very unlikely that they would go with someone who wasn't a primary candidate. Pre 1968, there were a number of nominees and Presidents who were selected after multiple ballots at conventions who hadn't really been candidates going into the convention.

[stillcool]

20. Anything could happen..

is that what you're hoping for?

[Blue_Tires]

22. It's possible in theory

just like flapping my arms and flying to the moon is possible in theory...