That "contested convention" thing? Rubbish. [View all]

[MineralMan]

A couple of minor blog pundits are spouting the idea that the Democratic Convention is likely to become a "contested" convention. Why anyone would write that or fall for that idea is beyond my comprehension. Here are the facts:

1. The Democratic Party has just two candidates in the primaries.
2. There is an odd number of pledged delegates available.
3. One of the two will have the majority of pledged delegates at the convention.
4. As happened in 2008, the superdelegates will vote to nominate the candidate with that majority on the first ballot.
5. We will have a nominee after the first ballot at the convention.

There will be no contested Democratic Party convention.

If the supporters of the candidate with 200+ fewer pledged delegates at this time want their candidate to win, they need to help that candidate win primaries to erase that lead and gain the majority of pledged delegates. That is the only way that candidate can become the nominee.

It's simple. We're not like the Republican Party. We only have two candidates in contention in 2016. No contested primary will occur. Anyone who claims it might is trying to blow smoke up someone's leg.

I'll be voting in November for the Democratic nominee. I assume everyone else who calls him or herself a Democrat will do the same. We will win in November, since the Republicans will have a clown as a nominee.