Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-15-2019, 11:24 AM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,872

Will the 2020 Democratic convention be contested?


It seems to me that itís unlikely any of the candidates will have a majority of delegates by the time the primaries are over. None the less, the google search hits on this topic come up with very few results, about half of which seem to be from last year and several others from back in spring and early summer from this year. I also note little discussion about this possibility in the Democratic primary thread. All this makes me think that Iím conjuring up an unlikely possibility that many other serious thinkers are not really considering.

Here are my thoughts on this topic. The primaries are all proportional rather than winner take all. I doubt that Biden, Warren, Sanders, or Buttigieg will drop out before Super Tuesday. At this point my guess is there will probably be something like 7-10 candidates still running going into Super Tuesday. There is likely to be three and four way splits in many of the Super Tuesday states. By 3/17 almost all the large states and over half of the states overall will have voted. Unless it comes down to two candidates before that date, it seems unlikely that the remaining states will have enough delegates to decide the matter. The remaining large states are Georgia on 3/24, New York and Pennsylvania on 4/28, and New Jersey in June. In other words, if the field doesnít shrink down to two or three by Super Tuesday, it seems that no one will likely be able to win a majority. If that happens then we will again be dealing with the dreaded super delegates that Sanders criticized last time. I assume they would break in favor of Biden, but thatís just a guess.

How do you all think such a scenario would play out, and more importantly is this scenario even likely or am I worried about a low probability event?
  #2  
Old 11-15-2019, 03:15 PM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,873
No! This topic gets beaten to death every 4 years by the pundits who have space to fill.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #3  
Old 11-15-2019, 03:32 PM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
No! This topic gets beaten to death every 4 years by the pundits who have space to fill.
Part of my point is that it isn’t being beaten to death this cycle even though it seems more likely to happen this year compared to others. I haven’t seen it discussed in 538 or Politico. A google search returns only a few articles with idle speculation from last year or several moths ago at the most recent.

Last edited by FlikTheBlue; 11-15-2019 at 03:33 PM.
  #4  
Old 11-16-2019, 06:07 AM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
Part of my point is that it isnít being beaten to death this cycle even though it seems more likely to happen this year compared to others. I havenít seen it discussed in 538 or Politico. A google search returns only a few articles with idle speculation from last year or several moths ago at the most recent.
Oh, it will. Just wait for the voting to begin. Right now we are still in the white knight savior phase, which Bloomberg and Patrick actually believed.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #5  
Old 11-16-2019, 06:18 AM
Merneith is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 6,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
It seems to me that itís unlikely any of the candidates will have a majority of delegates by the time the primaries are over.
There's no possible way to know this until the voting starts. But even if it happens, the solution is not to add a bunch more random people half-way through the process.

The actual solution would be for the DNC to drastically raise their debate requirements and cut the candidates down to, say, half a dozen? With a top 3 candidates only for the last pre-voting debate.

Of course, that means Bernie and Warren would be tag-teaming Biden and the DNC is desperate to prevent that. So it's not going to happen. But that's how you'd do it, if you were genuinely worried about diluting the vote.
  #6  
Old 11-16-2019, 07:05 AM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merneith View Post
There's no possible way to know this until the voting starts. But even if it happens, the solution is not to add a bunch more random people half-way through the process.

The actual solution would be for the DNC to drastically raise their debate requirements and cut the candidates down to, say, half a dozen? With a top 3 candidates only for the last pre-voting debate.

Of course, that means Bernie and Warren would be tag-teaming Biden and the DNC is desperate to prevent that. So it's not going to happen. But that's how you'd do it, if you were genuinely worried about diluting the vote.
The stupid DNC conspiracy theories are why the debate field isnít narrowing fast enough. They had to bend over backwards to appease the Bernie Bros who are still crying, ĎRigged!í over 2016.

Thankfully, a lot of these third tier candidates are going to start dropping. Fundraising really clams up from the Thanksgiving to New Years time frame and some of the campaigns are going to wake up like Betoís and realize they donít habe the money to continue even one more day.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #7  
Old 11-16-2019, 07:48 AM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merneith View Post
There's no possible way to know this until the voting starts. But even if it happens, the solution is not to add a bunch more random people half-way through the process.

The actual solution would be for the DNC to drastically raise their debate requirements and cut the candidates down to, say, half a dozen? With a top 3 candidates only for the last pre-voting debate.

Of course, that means Bernie and Warren would be tag-teaming Biden and the DNC is desperate to prevent that. So it's not going to happen. But that's how you'd do it, if you were genuinely worried about diluting the vote.
I think the only solution the DNC could provide is to limit the superdelegates to the 3rd or 4th round of voting. In the case of a deadlock that would allow some horse trading between the candidates before the superdelegates become involved. The best solution would be for the voters to settle on one ďleftist laneĒ candidate and one ďmoderate laneĒ candidate before Super Tuesday.
  #8  
Old 11-16-2019, 08:34 AM
MortSahlFan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: US
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
The stupid DNC conspiracy theories are why the debate field isnít narrowing fast enough. They had to bend over backwards to appease the Bernie Bros who are still crying, ĎRigged!í over 2016.

Thankfully, a lot of these third tier candidates are going to start dropping. Fundraising really clams up from the Thanksgiving to New Years time frame and some of the campaigns are going to wake up like Betoís and realize they donít habe the money to continue even one more day.
It WAS rigged. And why use the term "Bernie Bros'? Because everyone else does?
  #9  
Old 11-16-2019, 09:32 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,764
And I'm still not sure why it's a problem that it was rigged. Of course the DNC should have some say into who their candidate will be. I would have preferred if they had chosen Sanders, but it was their choice to make.

Pretending that a political party should be nonpartisan is absurd.
  #10  
Old 11-16-2019, 11:15 AM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,140
I doubt it will come to that.

Unless Bloomberg's candidacy changes things, there are really only three viable candidates. Biden, Warren and Sanders. All of the candiates have their supporters who will answer polls that indicate their support, but once it comes to casting you single vote, most voters will want to put their vote on someone who actually has a shot at winning, and even getting a single delegate requires getting at least 15% of the vote in a district. So I expect there will be only a handful of delegates outside of these three. At some point in the primary it will become clear that either Sanders or Warren is the preferred candidate of the hard left, at which point the other will see their support dry up. Then it becomes a two person race which one side or the other will win.

In spite of all the conspiracy theories about super-delegates, all of them realize that overturning the will of the primary voters will be mortal blow to the party. So unless the winning candidate is at a Trump level of unacceptability, they will in the end endorse whoever gets the most non-super delegates.
  #11  
Old 11-16-2019, 06:39 PM
RioRico is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 661
Quote:
Originally Posted by MortSahlFan View Post
It WAS rigged.
The Democratic Party holds primaries for Democratic Party members. But Sen. Sanders wasn't a Democrat until a few months ago. In 2016 he was an independent who crashed the (D) primaries - and more registered Democrats voted for Sec. Clinton, who had been (D) for a long, long time.

Compare with Ms Stein of the Green Party. Was she excluded from "rigged" Democratic Party primaries? Was Sanders excluded from (G) primary ballots? Was Tramp, also not (D), excluded from "rigged" (D) primaries? Really? Why should any non-member expect a party to accommodate them?

Enough tangent. Assuming 2020 party conventions aren't cancelled by an intervening emergency or disaster, sure the (D) show could be a fight. We still have no idea who will politically survive that long, nor who could rise from political death. Sen. Clinton floats another run. Would that be tragic?

Last edited by RioRico; 11-16-2019 at 06:40 PM.
  #12  
Old 11-16-2019, 08:46 PM
PhillyGuy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pennsylvania U.S.A.
Posts: 1,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
How do you all think such a scenario would play out . . .
As a Democrat, the one not-completely-horrible factor in this unlikely scenario is that the Democratic convention next year is unusually early (mid-July). So there would be more time than normal for the party to come together after the bitterness of a truly contested convention, and for the nominee to pivot to the center. For this reason, it's not definite that Trump wins in this scenario. Still, continuing the circular firing squad thing into next summer would be favorable for the GOP.

Last edited by PhillyGuy; 11-16-2019 at 08:47 PM.
  #13  
Old 11-16-2019, 09:03 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
And I'm still not sure why it's a problem that it was rigged. Of course the DNC should have some say into who their candidate will be. I would have preferred if they had chosen Sanders, but it was their choice to make.

Pretending that a political party should be nonpartisan is absurd.
'Nonpartisan' is not taking sides in interparty disagreements. I expect the DNC to be partisan; I just wish it would do a better job of it.

But if the DNC overrules its own voters in choosing its nominee, it can't expect a lot of enthusiasm from those voters.

I'm not saying this happened in 2016; in fact, I'm positive that it didn't. But it would be bad for the party if it started doing that. Its blackballing of consultants and so forth who go to work for primary challengers is already a step too far in that direction.
  #14  
Old 11-16-2019, 09:13 PM
PhillyGuy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pennsylvania U.S.A.
Posts: 1,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
We still have no idea who will politically survive that long, nor who could rise from political death. Sen. Clinton floats another run. Would that be tragic?
Not for Trump.

If the Democrats are going to run a former loser, Al Gore would be a better bet. He's even a year younger than Hillary.
  #15  
Old 11-17-2019, 10:29 AM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyGuy View Post
As a Democrat, the one not-completely-horrible factor in this unlikely scenario is that the Democratic convention next year is unusually early (mid-July). So there would be more time than normal for the party to come together after the bitterness of a truly contested convention, and for the nominee to pivot to the center. For this reason, it's not definite that Trump wins in this scenario. Still, continuing the circular firing squad thing into next summer would be favorable for the GOP.
The Summer Olympics start a bit earlier than normal on July 24. The Democrats, as the party out of power, go first so they want to hold their convention before the Olympics.

The Republicans have their convention during peak vacation time in late August after the Olympics are over.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #16  
Old 11-17-2019, 12:19 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,502
the media would love for it to not be settled before the convention for bigger ratings. I think there is a decent chance it could end up that way.
  #17  
Old 11-17-2019, 01:31 PM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
Here are my thoughts on this topic. The primaries are all proportional rather than winner take all. I doubt that Biden, Warren, Sanders, or Buttigieg will drop out before Super Tuesday. At this point my guess is there will probably be something like 7-10 candidates still running going into Super Tuesday. There is likely to be three and four way splits in many of the Super Tuesday states.
Don't forget about the 15% rule. I have a feeling that, if somebody gets something like 20% of the vote in a large state but ends up with 60% of the delegates because of it, we'll be hearing a lot about it.

The surest possible way I know of to get Trump re-elected is to have a progressive with a sizable delegate lead after the first ballot, but have the Superdelegates push a moderate over the top on the second ballot. I think the DNC knows this, and will try to "persuade" the Superdelegates to vote for the first ballot leader. (Quick check of the convention rules: the way I read it, a Superdelegate can vote for anyone (Call for the 2020 Convention, Rule IX.F.3.a: "On all votes, except the first ballot of the presidential roll call as described in Article IX.C.7, automatic delegates retain their ability to vote according to their own preferences.").)
  #18  
Old 11-17-2019, 02:21 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
And I'm still not sure why it's a problem that it was rigged. Of course the DNC should have some say into who their candidate will be. I would have preferred if they had chosen Sanders, but it was their choice to make.

Pretending that a political party should be nonpartisan is absurd.
I'm simply baffled by how many times you've had to be told that the DNCs own rules prohibit favoritism amongst Dem candidates.

Anyway, to the OP, That Don Guy has the big point you are missing. All these people polling at under 10% aren't getting any delegates. The delegates are going to be split amongst the top two or three candidates and a majority can easily start to emerge.
  #19  
Old 11-17-2019, 06:56 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by MortSahlFan View Post
It WAS rigged. And why use the term "Bernie Bros'? Because everyone else does?
I am so sorry the free ride on the Democratic political train didn't work out for Bernie.
  #20  
Old 11-17-2019, 07:08 PM
RioRico is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 661
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I'm simply baffled by how many times you've had to be told that the DNCs own rules prohibit favoritism amongst Dem candidates.
Bernie wasn't a 2016 Dem candidate but an independent hijacking Dem primaries. Or did you have another point?
  #21  
Old 11-17-2019, 08:28 PM
PhillyGuy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pennsylvania U.S.A.
Posts: 1,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I'm simply baffled by how many times you've had to be told that the DNCs own rules prohibit favoritism amongst Dem candidates.
As explained here, that's a terrible rule of the sort which allowed a hostile takeover of the GOP.

You might say this isn't the same because Bernie is much closer to a being a normative Democratic politician than Trump is to being the kind of Republican politician normative before his administration. I'd even say it. (Although I predict Bernie would fade once the Republican he-was-a-Trotskyite-communist ads take hold.)

If a political party's leaders were to allow into power someone who is wildly unqualified -- say, Marianne Williamson -- the fact that they were following bad rules is no excuse IMHO. At a minimum, the party needs to insure that those vying for the highest political office have actual relevant job experience. As for whether they should should block a Sanders -- I think that a borderline case.

Last edited by PhillyGuy; 11-17-2019 at 08:31 PM.
  #22  
Old 11-17-2019, 10:16 PM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,873
The Democrats have a pretty good system with no winner take all or winner take most primaries or caucuses. It just sucks that the DNC is forced to bend over backwards to allow so many undeserving clowns into the debates this far in. There’s still too much toxicity left over from 2016 and even the most minor of candidates can make something go viral. Remember when Tulsi didn’t make the third debate and a tiny faction of burn down the house Dems egged on by Fox News and concern trolls from abroad screamed on social media about DNC conspiracy theories. Wednesday’s debate should be 6 at most and even that’s a stretch as the Harris campaign is hanging on for dear life.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #23  
Old 11-17-2019, 11:13 PM
nightshadea is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: a condo in hell 10th lvl
Posts: 5,900
I think it's going to be Biden with Warren as VP ....
  #24  
Old 11-18-2019, 12:03 AM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
And I'm still not sure why it's a problem that it was rigged. Of course the DNC should have some say into who their candidate will be. I would have preferred if they had chosen Sanders, but it was their choice to make.

Pretending that a political party should be nonpartisan is absurd.
Then why nominate a non-Dem like Sanders?
  #25  
Old 11-18-2019, 06:56 AM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,860
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightshadea View Post
I think it's going to be Biden with Warren as VP ....
Too old*, too white, too Northeastern. Good ideological balance, though, but that’s about it. (And, lots of relevant experience).

But if it polls best vs. Trump in Great Lakes states, go for it. That’s the ONLY thing that matters, this time around. (I don’t know whether to laugh or cry during these Dem debates? “Medicare for some” vs. “public option for dogs” vs. whatever...FORGET IT! The next president will spend the entire 4 years partially repairing the damage Trump has caused, and that’s IT. We’ll be back to the 2016 baseline, from which to move forward, by 2025 IF WE’RE LUCKY).

*i know, Warren is actuarially young, and full of vigah. True.

Last edited by JKellyMap; 11-18-2019 at 07:00 AM.
  #26  
Old 11-18-2019, 09:28 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,156
Most of the posts here seem to assume that a contested convention would be a bad thing. Would it? I don't necessarily trust the semi-mythical cigar-smokers to make a good decision ... but I trust ordinary voters even less.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
... It just sucks that the DNC is forced to bend over backwards to allow so many undeserving clowns into the debates this far in....
Clowns? Inslee, Hickenlooper and perhaps Brown all seemed to me to be viable candidates who might make good Presidents. I have much less confidence in any of the four or five (non-clowns?) the race is reducing to.

I'd like to see a dark-horse emerge and grab the brass ring. Unfortunately Bloomberg ain't him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot
In spite of all the conspiracy theories about super-delegates, all of them realize that overturning the will of the primary voters will be mortal blow to the party. So unless the winning candidate is at a Trump level of unacceptability, they will in the end endorse whoever gets the most non-super delegates.
So if the front-runners split the delegates 35-30-25-10, the one with 35% should almost automatically get the nod?
  #27  
Old 11-18-2019, 10:56 AM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Most of the posts here seem to assume that a contested convention would be a bad thing. Would it? I don't necessarily trust the semi-mythical cigar-smokers to make a good decision ... but I trust ordinary voters even less.



Clowns? Inslee, Hickenlooper and perhaps Brown all seemed to me to be viable candidates who might make good Presidents. I have much less confidence in any of the four or five (non-clowns?) the race is reducing to.

I'd like to see a dark-horse emerge and grab the brass ring. Unfortunately Bloomberg ain't him.



So if the front-runners split the delegates 35-30-25-10, the one with 35% should almost automatically get the nod?
The early debates, fine, let everyone in although I wish it would have been split with a kiddie table debate. But itís late November, itís ridiculous to still have 10 candidates, 5 of them polling poorly after plenty of time to get their message out. Iowa votes in early February.

And it seems every fucking 4 years, thereís always a white knight thatíll jump into the race. Iíve seen this shit since 1992 when everyone thought that Mario Cuomo would parachute in and save the day. 2016 Romney would save the Republicans from Trump and Biden would jump in to settle Bernie vs Hillary
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #28  
Old 11-18-2019, 11:38 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
Bernie wasn't a 2016 Dem candidate but an independent hijacking Dem primaries. Or did you have another point?
Obviously, the point is that isn't true. He was a Dem candidate and if people like you and Chronos don't like, I guess you'll have to bring it up at the next rules convention. Besides, Sanders is more Dem than a few people with an official D after their name.
  #29  
Old 11-18-2019, 01:30 PM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,070

The Moderator Speaks


Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Obviously, the point is that isn't true. He was a Dem candidate and if people like you and Chronos don't like, I guess you'll have to bring it up at the next rules convention. Besides, Sanders is more Dem than a few people with an official D after their name.
I'm going to declare the backward-looking discussion of what was rigged or how Sanders qualified last time to be a derailment. This thread is about looking forward to next summer. Let's keep it that way instead of relitigating the past for the thousandth time.
  #30  
Old 11-18-2019, 06:02 PM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Most of the posts here seem to assume that a contested convention would be a bad thing. Would it? I don't necessarily trust the semi-mythical cigar-smokers to make a good decision ... but I trust ordinary voters even less.



Clowns? Inslee, Hickenlooper and perhaps Brown all seemed to me to be viable candidates who might make good Presidents. I have much less confidence in any of the four or five (non-clowns?) the race is reducing to.

I'd like to see a dark-horse emerge and grab the brass ring. Unfortunately Bloomberg ain't him.

So if the front-runners split the delegates 35-30-25-10, the one with 35% should almost automatically get the nod?
I donít think it would necessarily be a bad thing. It would depend on how the party handles it. Thatís why I think the superdelegates should hold off until a 3rd or later round of voting before weighing in. Either that or agree to split their votes equally between all the candidates over a certain threshold. The 15% number required to win delegates in a primary sounds fair, so if three candidates have over 15% of the delegates then the superdelegates should agree to split into thirds, one group for each of the three, until the candidates can work out a deal between themselves.
  #31  
Old 11-18-2019, 06:13 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
I donít think it would necessarily be a bad thing. It would depend on how the party handles it. Thatís why I think the superdelegates should hold off until a 3rd or later round of voting before weighing in. Either that or agree to split their votes equally between all the candidates over a certain threshold. The 15% number required to win delegates in a primary sounds fair, so if three candidates have over 15% of the delegates then the superdelegates should agree to split into thirds, one group for each of the three, until the candidates can work out a deal between themselves.
Why is a deal worked out by the candidates superior to the superdelegates voting for their preferred candidate?
  #32  
Old 11-18-2019, 06:33 PM
PhillyGuy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pennsylvania U.S.A.
Posts: 1,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Most of the posts here seem to assume that a contested convention would be a bad thing. Would it? I don't necessarily trust the semi-mythical cigar-smokers to make a good decision ... but I trust ordinary voters even less.
I don't assume it would be bad AKA good for our ruling demagogue in chief. I just think it probably would be.

There are different kinds of contested conventions.

One is where you have two candidates, either of which is close to having enough delegates to win on the first ballot. Then the one with a narrow lead wins on the first or, possibly, second ballot (when super-delegates can start voting).

Another is an actual brokered convention where delegates get scared that Trump will win after a long convention. Party leaders then get together and endorse a highly electable fresh face. Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo might be my favorite here, although either Sherrod Brown or Al Gore is more likely.

I don't think that unfair, personally. I would love to vote for Raimondo. But it's gotten to where there would be a perception of unfairness if the primaries were overruled.
  #33  
Old 11-18-2019, 09:23 PM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,873
The last convention when anything was in doubt was the Republicans in 1976 with Ford vs Reagan.

And, yes, I took that college freshman American political history class where we had to research all those smoke filled room conventions when the party would pick a candidate out of nowhere. I think that died with, ‘We want Wilkie!’ I’ll stick with the current primary system.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42

Last edited by dalej42; 11-18-2019 at 09:24 PM.
  #34  
Old 11-18-2019, 09:31 PM
Boycott is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightshadea View Post
I think it's going to be Biden with Warren as VP ....
That would be an awful ticket.

First of all because they are sparring each other. Warren suggesting he should run in the GOP primary, Biden bringing up Warren's actual GOP past.

If Biden's at the top he needs someone youthful, probably a woman, who can mobilise that demographic and minority voters who might not be enthused by another old white man.

If Warren is at the top she also needs someone youthful but who can unite the factions of the electorate by reaching out to the battleground states where she might have a problem. Sherrod Brown would be great. Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar could fit the bill.
  #35  
Old 11-21-2019, 10:08 AM
PoppaSan's Avatar
PoppaSan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West shore Lake Michigan
Posts: 2,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merneith View Post
There's no possible way to know this until the voting starts. But even if it happens, the solution is not to add a bunch more random people half-way through the process.

The actual solution would be for the DNC to drastically raise their debate requirements and cut the candidates down to, say, half a dozen? With a top 3 candidates only for the last pre-voting debate.

Of course, that means Bernie and Warren would be tag-teaming Biden and the DNC is desperate to prevent that. So it's not going to happen. But that's how you'd do it, if you were genuinely worried about diluting the vote.
from https://www.democraticunderground.co...ss=389x1324952
Quote:
As a point of reference, Bill Clinton was in eleventh place among Democratic candidates in a February 1991 poll of Democrats;
and from February 2007 (same cite)
Quote:
At this point in 1975, Carter was polling at 1%; in 1987, Dukakis was polling at 1%; in 1991, Clinton was at 2%.
I'd not be for eliminating candidates based on polls except for the ones at the ballot box.
__________________
This place is beginning to feel like a tin foil hat convention.

Last edited by PoppaSan; 11-21-2019 at 10:09 AM. Reason: added cite
  #36  
Old 11-21-2019, 10:54 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Then why nominate a non-Dem like Sanders?
This cycle?

IF you believe that he represents the desires and views of the most Democrat voters and is best able to best win the general election. I do not, see no evidence of either, but that is the argument to be made.


The 15% rule is in fact a bit more complex than many think it is. 538 had a recent article about it -
Quote:
that qualifying threshold is not applied just once, but three different times. A candidate must meet that threshold at the statewide level twice, once for at-large delegates and once for party leader and elected official (PLEO) delegates. A candidate must also win 15 percent of the vote in a given congressional district (or other subdivision) to lay claim to any district-level delegates. In other words, a candidate who surpasses 15 percent of the statewide vote by running up margins in a few concentrated areas will not earn as many delegates as a candidate who hits the 15 percent statewide threshold by earning at least 15 percent of the vote across districts. A candidate must build a coalition of support more uniformly across a state ó and the country ó in order to win delegates. ...

... itís not likely that more than three candidates surpass the 15 percent threshold statewide in any 2020 primary or caucus: The bar is just too high.

Ultimately, the 15 percent threshold is actually another way in which the primary field is winnowed. Just look back to when the current 15 percent threshold went into effect in 1992. Sure, there were 12 contests in that cycle where three candidates hit more than 15 percent statewide, but no cycle has come even remotely close to topping that since. In fact, since 1992 there hasnít been a single cycle where three or more candidates have hit 15 percent statewide in more than a half-dozen contests. That is at least some evidence that the threshold has worked in winnowing the field, and thereís reason to believe it will work again here in 2020. If previous nomination contests are any guide, candidates drop out when it gets too difficult to accrue more ó or any ó delegates. And voters move on, prioritizing those candidates who can easily clear that threshold.
It is way premature to be making predictions about a contested convention. It is easy to imagine paths that lead to it. Different states may have different sets of three getting state-wide delegates and some who do not get state-wide delegates may still get a meaningful number of district level delegates. Warren and Sanders could end up splitting the more progressive side, maybe 25 to 20%, and Biden could stay at his 30ish with Buttigieg getting 20 and a few delegates here and there at state and more at delegate levels to a few others. No one with a clear majority, the plurality for any individual not being dramatic, and no clear mandate between the more center Left and the harder progressive wings.

Second vote the delegates are all released and the supers can vote.

But yeah, realistically put it in a box until after Super-Tuesday ...
  #37  
Old 11-21-2019, 11:53 AM
Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,982
Right now this is a strangely static race. Everyone keeps waiting for Biden to collapse and yet his support seems highly stable. Bernie had a frikking heart attack without any apparent damage to his campaign. Warren had a good run but her momentum has completely stalled. It's now Pete's turn to climb but even if he wins both Iowa and NH, it's hard to see him becoming the dominant front runner with his levels of Black/Hispanic support; at best he may join the top 4 nationally. No one else looks likely to break into the top tier.

Perhaps things will change when the actual voting starts but right now it's looking quite likely that the top 3-4 candidates will keep chugging along with 15-30% for months in which case a contested convention becomes a serious possibility.
  #38  
Old 11-21-2019, 11:56 AM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,873
Yeah, the most realistic path to a brokered convention would be all 4 top candidates staying strong throughout primary season. I can see Pete winning as a moderate in some states with Biden winning others. Warren winning on the progressive side with Bernie picking up the occasional state. Neither Bernie nor Buttigieg would have to drop out early since they’re both fundraising powerhouses.

Now, I don’t think this will happen. If Biden starts beating Pete regularly, I think Pete will drop out. He’s young and barring scandal has a bright future in the party. That would clear the path for Biden in the moderate lane.

Bernie vs Warren would be a bit different. This is Bernie’s last campaign and he’s shown he’s stubborn and a fundraising machine. It’s also likely the last shot for Warren in 2020. So, they could slug it out until the end even if one of them is clearly amassing more delegates.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #39  
Old 11-21-2019, 11:59 AM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post
Right now this is a strangely static race. Everyone keeps waiting for Biden to collapse and yet his support seems highly stable. Bernie had a frikking heart attack without any apparent damage to his campaign. Warren had a good run but her momentum has completely stalled. It's now Pete's turn to climb but even if he wins both Iowa and NH, it's hard to see him becoming the dominant front runner with his levels of Black/Hispanic support; at best he may join the top 4 nationally. No one else looks likely to break into the top tier.

Perhaps things will change when the actual voting starts but right now it's looking quite likely that the top 3-4 candidates will keep chugging along with 15-30% for months in which case a contested convention becomes a serious possibility.
Itís been a an interesting campaign with Pete and Biden taking the most mudslinging so far while Warren and Bernie are getting the kid glove treatment. Warrenís Medicare change should have been much bigger news, it was crowded out by the Impeachment hearings as well as the DMR poll with Pete surging.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #40  
Old 11-21-2019, 12:20 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post
... It's now Pete's turn to climb but even if he wins both Iowa and NH, it's hard to see him becoming the dominant front runner with his levels of Black/Hispanic support ...
The issue is if his level of Black and Hispanic support would stay as low as it is. Most do not dislike him, they just have no opinion about him yet. IF he won Iowa and New Hampshire then they'd suddenly actually look at him and decide. His winning both (improbable I think), more so if Biden is out of the top three in both, would signify to many that Biden does not have the electability that he is presumed to have after all. That would be when Biden could collapse. Lots of all demographics would look at him as the winner of those first two a lot more deeply and decide if they liked him, or one of the harder line progressives, more. If no other moderate did well, exceeded expectations at least and get press, in the first two, then that would be the choice in many minds. With some staying with Biden too.
  #41  
Old 11-21-2019, 12:34 PM
ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,386
At this point anything is possible. My money is still on Biden winning fairly easily, though. Look at some recent statewide polls:

New York: Biden 24%, Warren 14%, Sanders 13%, Buttigieg 5%

Georgia: Biden 31%, Warren 14%, Sanders 14%, Buttigieg 4%

Texas: Biden 28%, Warren 19%, Sanders 18%, Buttigieg 8%

So Biden has big leads in several big states, and thus the potential to pick up big hauls of delegates. Buttigieg is not competitive in these places. Barring a major shift, he won't get any delegates in most states, which is why I expect he'll drop out after Super Tuesday. I expect the other minor-leaguers will be out by then as well. And while it's hard to predict such things, it seems reasonable that when the Klobuchars and Bookers and Bennets and Steyers finally accept reality and leave the race, most of their supporters will drift to the centrist candidate, which will be Biden.

He has other advantages:
  • High support among old people. Old people are the most likely to vote, least likely to decide they won't bother for some frivolous reason.
  • He has high support among black voters, a group with a tendency to not change their choice en masse at the last minute.
  • And he still has the high name recognition, the endorsements, and the general perception that inertia will carry him through.
  #42  
Old 11-21-2019, 01:16 PM
Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
The issue is if his level of Black and Hispanic support would stay as low as it is. Most do not dislike him, they just have no opinion about him yet. IF he won Iowa and New Hampshire then they'd suddenly actually look at him and decide. His winning both (improbable I think), more so if Biden is out of the top three in both, would signify to many that Biden does not have the electability that he is presumed to have after all. That would be when Biden could collapse. Lots of all demographics would look at him as the winner of those first two a lot more deeply and decide if they liked him, or one of the harder line progressives, more. If no other moderate did well, exceeded expectations at least and get press, in the first two, then that would be the choice in many minds. With some staying with Biden too.
This would be like the 2008 scenario which is of course what Mayor Pete is hoping for. It could happen of course but I suspect there are cultural barriers to Pete attracting a lot of older black voters even if he wins IA/NH. At the end of the day he is obviously not Obama.

Let's not forget that Pete is only at 8 points nationally. He could get a big boost and still not be the clear leader. Conversely Biden could lose 5-10 points and still remain standing. Basically all four would be closely bunched at around 20.

As for Pete winning IA/NH it doesn't seem unlikely at all. He is up by 6 in RCP in IA and within a couple of points of Warren in NH (and up by 10 in the latest poll). He has momentum, money and by all accounts excellent campaigning skills. He is likely to win one IMO and could plausibly win both.
  #43  
Old 11-22-2019, 10:31 PM
PhillyGuy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pennsylvania U.S.A.
Posts: 1,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITR champion View Post
He has high support among black voters, a group with a tendency to not change their choice en masse at the last minute.
All groups of voters, Democrats and Republicans, seem to me to have even less willingness than normal to change their choice.

Trump's approval polling numbers have been very steady compared to past presidents.

Given the weaknesses of all four front-runners, a moderate governor, equivalent to Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton, should be starting to surge in Democratic polls. And none is.

As for the four front-runners, here's why they all are, to me as a Democrat, high-risk:

Biden - The way his son profited, in Ukraine, from his Dad's vice-presidency, is both legal and a legitimate scandal. And the way it is mixed up with impeachment makes it hard to be forgotten.

Warren - There's no way around that the Pocahontas slur will lose millions of votes.

Sanders - At age 39, he was a candidate, for presidential elector, of a Trotskyite Communist party. Not just is too old -- looks too old. And he had a heart attack during the current campaign. Are you kidding?

Buttigieg - Now age 37 and mayor of a town with population 101,000. He would be the least qualified U.S. President ever -- with one admitted exception.

Trump's shtick will be to claim that the Democratic candidate is as abnormal as he is. Nominating a normal boring Democratic governor, like Gina Raimondo, who isn't running, or Steve Bullock, who is, would undercut this. But the crowd now running, and having a realistic chance of nomination, gives Trump what he wants and needs on a platter.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:08 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017