The Minority Report. Why Clinton or Sanders are viable even with 25% of the delegates

[rpannier]

First, Democratic primaries and caucuses are not winner-take-all affairs.
According to Politico, "candidates get extra delegates for winning statewide, most delegates are distributed by candidate performance within congressional districts. Most districts offer four to six delegates. In most cases, those congressional district delegates will be divided evenly or, in districts with five delegates, in a 3-2 split. To win bigger delegate spreads, candidates have to score supermajorities of at least 63 percent within a congressional district."
So, if either candidates supporters refuse to go gentile into that good night, then either candidate could get 30-35% of the total count even if they lose the total delegates.

Why is this important?
At 25% or more candidates can make demands. In 1988, Jesse Jackson 1,075 delegates while Dukakis had 1,790, a plurality, but not a majority. Jackson began to make demands, like decrease military spending, be considered for a veep slot, super delegates allocated based on vote, etc.
Jackson had 26% of the delegates, so he had the same number of representatives on the platform committee

Now, demands are fine and everything and in 88 Dukakis didn't have a majority, he had a plurality. What if Clinton or Sanders gets say 33% of the delegates. The other would have a majority, so why should they care?

It's a thing called the 'Minority Report'
A 'Minority Report' is a public dissent from the official program. Using a Minority Report forces a vote on the convention floor to try and get positions favorable to the candidate in the platform. The most famous Minority Report was probably Hubert Humphrey in 1948 when he got civil rights for blacks into the party platform. Jesse Jackson was able to get the backing for a Palestinian state in 1988.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94011842

If either candidate hit 35% of the delegates they'd be well positioned to force the nominee to choose a canddate they approved to be Vice President.

If Clinton or Sanders wins the nomination, but the other has a sizable number of delegates (25-40%) they will need to get their house in order with the other campaign quickly in order to prevent the summer leading to the convention being tied up with the dissent.

When Clinton lost to Obama with the large percentage of delegates she had, there was no rancorous summer to distract.
For those who are trying to decide who the eventual vice-presidential nominee will be... maybe waiting to see who gets what in the percentage of delegates would be prudent.
It's probably a forgone conclusion that neither candidate will agree to be Vice-President for the other. Neither are young people, being the Vice-President will gain them nothing; I'd argue Sanders would lose out on a lot since he'd forfeit his Senate seat.

IMO, the nominee would be wise to choose someone in their mid-to-late 40's or early 50's, to begin to provide a bench for running after they hang it up.
I found the Minority Report to be interesting

[Lucinda]

1. It is very interesting! Thanks for the link.

I'll re-read it again in the morning when I'm more coherent!
In the meantime I can kick and rec.

[bravenak]

2. I do not see it this way.

We only have two candidates this time. The one who hits the magic number first. Wins. If you look at the delegate totals between Obama vs Dukakis, you see that Dukakis had far fewer delegates than Obama and could be forced to listen to Jackson, if either Bernie or Hillary hit the nunber (2382) of the 4763, they are the nominee regardless.

In the 1988 race, there were many candidates, some of whom eventually removed themselves from the race and gave over their delegates (asked them to move to Dukakis).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_1988

The fact that Jackson felt he should be considered had no bearing on the actuality. He was not chosen.
So, in esscence, people were able to pressure Dukakis, because the race was flooded with candidates who took delegates that he needed for a clear majority.

[rpannier]

3. Disagree

A candidate who scores 35% or more of the delegates, especially one with committed supporters is a force
Remember, they are entitled to public dissent to the platform and can force debate and vote on anything they want they choose to dissent on
Truman opposed making civil rights part of the party platform because he found it divisive and he lost the floor vote
If the supporters of either candidate decide for debate on an issue they want ijnserted or deleted from the platform they have that right.

As I pointed out in my OP, Obama had the majority of delegates and Clinton's people chose not to challenge the platform. If Sanders' or the representatives on the platform committee chose to challenge anything in the platform it is their right to do so.

I also did note that Dukakis had a plurality, not a majority and also did note that it made 88 a little different on that. But, it didn't change Jackson having 25%+ of the vote and using the Minority Vote to try and influence the platform

If Clinton had chosen to insert things in the platform in '08 that she wanted and Obama did not, they would have gone to the floor for debate no matter what Obama decided. Which would have meant his people would have spent the summer trying to negotiate with the Clinton people to avoid a floor fight on issues they disagreed with.

[bravenak]

4. Okay. You have convinced me.

[rpannier]

5. Hope I did

Was not trying to be disagreeable or anything like that
From recollection, you and I have never had any bad issues in the past and I'm hoping to keep it that way

Hope everything is well with you.
I haven't seen you on much (maybe we miss each other)

I like reading your stuff, even over at the HRC website which I used to peruse periodically (lost the address and for some reason I can't find it in my browser history - )

Take care

[bravenak]

6. You did.

I remember people saying hillary was going to cause a rukus at the convention, and I tuned in watching to see, waiting for the bad to happen, but she was gracious. That was nice.

The address is hillaryclintonsupporters.com
http://hillaryclintonsupporters.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=32

You don't see me because I'm always in trouble now. DU jail!
This was nice. Make sure to come to the other place too.

[Peace Patriot]

7. That's a pretty funny re-write of the line of the Dylan Thomas poem...

Dylan Thomas:
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
------------------------------------------------

rpannier:
"So, if either candidates supporters refuse to go gentile into that good night..."

Great typo!


I think the voters are not going to go 'gentile' this year. As Bill Mayer said, in his Valentine Day show:

Roses are red
Violets are blue
It's time to elect
A socialist Jew.