Brokered Democratic Convention?

Hercules56

Penultimate Amazing
Hercules56
Joined
Aug 4, 2013
Messages
17,147
Nobody may win an outright majority of Pledged Delegates, and that means that according to the rules, in round 2 all the delegates become unpledged and can vote for whomever they like, plus all the superdelegates come in.

However I believe that if Bernie (or Biden) wins say 45% of delegates and the rest win like 25% each, then the guy/gal with 45% should get the nomination.

But if its really an even split, like Bernie 36%, Biden 33% and Warren 31%, then they must negotiate.

DNC should come up with some plurality wins rule.
 
https://ballotpedia.org/Democratic_delegate_rules,_2020

TL;DR: A lot of different scenarios could happen.

First, there's some rules.

"No delegate at any level of the delegate selection process shall be mandated by law or Party rule to vote contrary to that person’s presidential choice as expressed at the time the delegate is elected." -Rule 13.I

“Delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them." -Rule 13.J

Then there's statutes in various states compelling or absolving delegates from voting certain ways in certain circumstances or until a certain round of voting occurs.

First off I notice some states repudiate their delegates being compelled into any agreements (such as the DNC rules) while the DNC rules repudiate any law influencing how a delegate votes. So that's fertile ground for suits challenging some delegates regardless of which way they vote. This might be a convenient side benefit of the optics-friendly gesture of halting the vote to "declare by unanimous acclamation" they've gone with the last few times.

Just stock up on popcorn and several kinds of anxiety-reducing drugs.
 
Last edited:
I guess that I am getting old.

I have heard threats of various 'brokered conventions' for every presidential election since 1980, and yet not a one has ever actually occurred.
 
I mean if Bush and Reagan get reach an accord, anybody can. Hell, McCain made peace with Bush II's campaign. After those attacks in South Carolina.
 
With Mayor Pete and Amy Klobuchar pulling out, and both endorsing Biden, it may never come to this. I don't believe Bernie is electable because he is too progressive, and therefore, less likely to drag those "Obama voters who voted for Trump because they didn't like Hilary", back to the Dem side. (Yes, I'm aware that many of those were Bernie fans who were pissed that Hilary got the nomination, but I still don't believe it would be enough to make then come back).

I have no doubt that Bloomberg will stay in the race at least to near the end, and even if he pulls the plug, his money will stay in because he hates Trump/Giuliani and everything they stand for.

I am seeing a distinct possibility of a Biden/Warren or a Biden/Klobuchar ticket, partially backed with Bloomberg money.

(Did I read somewhere that Steyer pulled the plug too?)
ETA: He did.

ETA2: I haven't seen TRMS yet, but I imagine Rachel would have had the "poof wall" in full action tonight.
 
Last edited:
I think Biden's got every superdelegate in the party locked up. So if it comes to a second ballot, he'll take it in a walk.
 
I find it inaccurate (disingenuous, to put it less politely) to claim that the decision who to support rests on their political platform: even between Biden and Sanders there isn't much difference in their program once you've accounted for the standard Sausage Making that is Congress.
People make a gut decision who they like, and confabulate a reason later.
 
smartcooky said:
With Mayor Pete and Amy Klobuchar pulling out, and both endorsing Biden, it may never come to this. I don't believe Bernie is electable because he is too progressive, and therefore, less likely to drag those "Obama voters who voted for Trump because they didn't like Hilary", back to the Dem side. (Yes, I'm aware that many of those were Bernie fans who were pissed that Hilary got the nomination, but I still don't believe it would be enough to make then come back).

I have no doubt that Bloomberg will stay in the race at least to near the end, and even if he pulls the plug, his money will stay in because he hates Trump/Giuliani and everything they stand for.

I am seeing a distinct possibility of a Biden/Warren or a Biden/Klobuchar ticket, partially backed with Bloomberg money.

(Did I read somewhere that Steyer pulled the plug too?)
ETA: He did.

ETA2: I haven't seen TRMS yet, but I imagine Rachel would have had the "poof wall" in full action tonight.
Click to expand...

Not so much his policies but his style. He seems tone deaf when it comes to appealing to anybody except his progressive base. Warren is pretty much in the same place as Sanders in policies but comes off as much more moderate.
 
dudalb said:
Not so much his policies but his style. He seems tone deaf when it comes to appealing to anybody except his progressive base. Warren is pretty much in the same place as Sanders in policies but comes off as much more moderate.
Click to expand...
I agree. She is pretty far left, yet seems like she would be much better at working with ideologues on the other side to achieve compromise, and progress.
 
Belz... said:
She's too young to be chosen anyway.
Click to expand...

Which is... weird if you think about it. If we (hypothetically) elect a 34 year old I think it's proof we're okay with it.

But having rules on elected positions of this nature is weird to me for just that reason.

If we have a minimum age we should have a maximum age though.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Which is... weird if you think about it. If we (hypothetically) elect a 34 year old I think it's proof we're okay with it.

But having rules on elected positions of this nature is weird to me for just that reason.

If we have a minimum age we should have a maximum age though.
Click to expand...

Any reasonable maximum age would exclude almost everyone currently running, including Trump.
 
CORed said:
Any reasonable maximum age would exclude almost everyone currently running, including Trump.
Click to expand...

*Deadpan* Oh no anything but that.

Like I said before we should not be electing people who's age range varies from "Will statistically die before the end of a second term based on pure demographics" and "Have already died based on pure demographics."
 
Biden is crushing it in the southern bits of the original colonies tonight.

Prediction: 538's model is going to see a major drop in the odds that "No one" wins a majority of delegates when they reboot it tomorrow.
 
d4m10n said:
Biden is crushing it in the southern bits of the original colonies tonight.

Prediction: 538's model is going to see a major drop in the odds that "No one" wins a majority of delegates when they reboot it tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Sanders is (probably) going to win Texas and California which will put his numbers right back up.

Now Texas and California are absolutely meaningless in a primary since we already know where Texas and California's Electoral Votes are going in 2020 so frankly they should barely matter, but the system is what it is.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Sanders is (probably) going to win Texas and California which will put his numbers right back up.

Now Texas and California are absolutely meaningless in a primary since we already know where Texas and California's Electoral Votes are going in 2020 so frankly they should barely matter, but the system is what it is.
Click to expand...

That makes no freaking sense.
Primary elections and Elecotiral votes have no connenction whatsoever.
 
dudalb said:
That makes no freaking sense.
Primary elections and Elecotiral votes have no connenction whatsoever.
Click to expand...
You don't see it?
What difference does it make who the Dems in Texas prefer for their candidate- Texas will gor red regardless. Similarly California is blue, what difference if it is Bernie blue, Biden blue, Bloomberg blue or Elizablue.

There are only about five States who's voters' opinions mean a damn thing- and the primary will be "all but decided" by the time their preferences are considered.
 
Distracted1 said:
You don't see it?
What difference does it make who the Dems in Texas prefer for their candidate- Texas will gor red regardless. Similarly California is blue, what difference if it is Bernie blue, Biden blue, Bloomberg blue or Elizablue.

There are only about five States who's voters' opinions mean a damn thing- and the primary will be "all but decided" by the time their preferences are considered.
Click to expand...

I was actually just thinking about that. Why the hell should states that went solidly for Trump in '16 get the same delegates as those that were solidly Clinton? Or vice versa, for the R's?

For the Dems: Solid blue states get the normal delegation. Solid red states get half. But here's the kicker: The true swing states get double.
 
dudalb said:
And she is not even a US Citizen.
Click to expand...

Wait! What?

Ok, this has to be a poe, right?

AOC was born in in the Bronx, to parents who were both US Citizens

14A: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Wait! What?

Ok, this has to be a poe, right?

AOC was born in in the Bronx, to parents who were both US Citizens

14A: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Click to expand...

Trump did say she should go back to the ******** country she came from.
 
smartcooky said:
Wait! What?

Ok, this has to be a poe, right?

AOC was born in in the Bronx, to parents who were both US Citizens

14A: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Click to expand...

i was talking about Greta.....
 
Hercules56 said:
Nobody may win an outright majority of Pledged Delegates, and that means that according to the rules, in round 2 all the delegates become unpledged and can vote for whomever they like, plus all the superdelegates come in.

However I believe that if Bernie (or Biden) wins say 45% of delegates and the rest win like 25% each, then the guy/gal with 45% should get the nomination.

But if its really an even split, like Bernie 36%, Biden 33% and Warren 31%, then they must negotiate.

DNC should come up with some plurality wins rule.
Click to expand...


Well, thank christ for that.

The massed ranks of the very rich and mega-corporations were in danger of losing their utter control of the USA to a man who believes the US should be governed for the benefit of all of it's people.

Dodged a bullet there, I feel.


(We're back to Bill Hicks. "Hang on, there's one guy holding up both puppets")
 
dudalb said:
And she is not even a US Citizen.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to decide if you were making a joke about AOC having to go back to her country, or if you thought I was talking about Ms. Thunberg.

ETA: And now I have my answer. Damn. I thought it was a clever joke. :\
 
Last edited:
What do you all feel are likely outcomes of the most likely brokered convention scenarios?

Obviously, a candidate coming in with a majority is the preferred scenario, but let us set that aside for now.

If Biden comes in with a plurality, seems likely that the party will say that they should respect the will of the voters and the super-delegates will push him over the top. Even if you have Warren running a spoiler campaign, which complicates things, this is probably what will happen IMO. This seems appropriate, as much as I would dislike the outcome.

If Bernie comes in with a plurality, I very much doubt the same reasoning will apply. Perhaps that's cynicism, but I could easily see some heavily twisted logic being applied to not name him the nominee. The closer the delegates counts are, the more likely I could see a backroom deal getting worked out to deny Bernie the nomination.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
What do you all feel are likely outcomes of the most likely brokered convention scenarios?

Obviously, a candidate coming in with a majority is the preferred scenario, but let us set that aside for now.

If Biden comes in with a plurality, seems likely that the party will say that they should respect the will of the voters and the super-delegates will push him over the top. Even if you have Warren running a spoiler campaign, which complicates things, this is probably what will happen IMO. This seems appropriate, as much as I would dislike the outcome.

If Bernie comes in with a plurality, I very much doubt the same reasoning will apply. Perhaps that's cynicism, but I could easily see some heavily twisted logic being applied to not name him the nominee. The closer the delegates counts are, the more likely I could see a backroom deal getting worked out to deny Bernie the nomination.
Click to expand...
With the spotlight fully shining on Biden and Sanders now, and with a little time still left to try to "turn the ship", I think we might see a Warren surge. Turning her from "spoiler" to someone with a legitimate claim to the nomination.

Sanders weakness as a candidate already has the attention of the electorate, now some of them might begin to wake up to Bidens' encroaching decrepitude.

At least, my wishful thinking has me seeing this as a possibility.
 
Distracted1 said:
With the spotlight fully shining on Biden and Sanders now, and with a little time still left to try to "turn the ship", I think we might see a Warren surge. Turning her from "spoiler" to someone with a legitimate claim to the nomination.

Sanders weakness as a candidate already has the attention of the electorate, now some of them might begin to wake up to Bidens' encroaching decrepitude.

At least, my wishful thinking has me seeing this as a possibility.
Click to expand...
I feel you. Unfortunately 538 gives Warren less than 1% chance.

Add: not quite right. That's the odds of her winning enough delegates to win the nomination.
 
Last edited:
Distracted1 said:
With the spotlight fully shining on Biden and Sanders now, and with a little time still left to try to "turn the ship", I think we might see a Warren surge. Turning her from "spoiler" to someone with a legitimate claim to the nomination.

Sanders weakness as a candidate already has the attention of the electorate, now some of them might begin to wake up to Bidens' encroaching decrepitude.

At least, my wishful thinking has me seeing this as a possibility.
Click to expand...



The left side of corporate owned DC was never going to let someone like Sanders be in the frame.

Imagine how popular he'd be with a fair press.
 
varwoche said:
I feel you. Unfortunately 538 gives Warren less than 1% chance.

Add: not quite right. That's the odds of her winning enough delegates to win the nomination.
Click to expand...
A bit could depend on how many early votes are already turned in in upcoming primaries.
look at Colorado last night, the results atypical of the rest of the outcomes because so many votes had been cast before even SC had been decided.

The majority of delegates are yet to be decided, and there are still more than eight weeks left in the primary season. Declaring anyone dead at this point seems particularly stupid to me.
As the voters in the upcoming States get a look at the disaster that Sanders or Biden could become for us, they may be smart enough to throw support behind Warren- assuming they didn't already cast an early vote.
 
I've been giving it some thought.

If the goal is for the convention to at least approximate the will of the people, then there is a good chance that a candidate with a plurality (but not a majority) should NOT be the nominee.

Let's say, (removing names) that it breaks down like this:

Candidate A: 41% of delegates
Candidate B: 35% of delegates
Candidate C: 9% of delegates

Candidates who have dropped out: Remaining 15% of delegates

Even though candidate A has a clear plurality, the people who voted for candidate C and the dropped candidates likely break with a clear preference between A and B.

If the large majority who voted for C and dropped candidates favored Candidate B, then it WOULD be very much the will of the electorate that B becomes the nominee.

Something like ranked choice voting would make this much more clear (and eliminate some of the strategic voting that has marred this election). But the convention is the highly imperfect system we have to manage exactly this sort of preference issue.

I do fear that if Bernie is candidate A in this scenario and the DNC gives the nom to Biden, even if it is the will of the people, Bernie supporters will take their ball and go home.
 
Cavemonster said:
I've been giving it some thought.

If the goal is for the convention to at least approximate the will of the people, then there is a good chance that a candidate with a plurality (but not a majority) should NOT be the nominee.

Let's say, (removing names) that it breaks down like this:

Candidate A: 41% of delegates
Candidate B: 35% of delegates
Candidate C: 9% of delegates

Candidates who have dropped out: Remaining 15% of delegates

Even though candidate A has a clear plurality, the people who voted for candidate C and the dropped candidates likely break with a clear preference between A and B.

If the large majority who voted for C and dropped candidates favored Candidate B, then it WOULD be very much the will of the electorate that B becomes the nominee.

Something like ranked choice voting would make this much more clear (and eliminate some of the strategic voting that has marred this election). But the convention is the highly imperfect system we have to manage exactly this sort of preference issue.

I do fear that if Bernie is candidate A in this scenario and the DNC gives the nom to Biden, even if it is the will of the people, Bernie supporters will take their ball and go home.
Click to expand...
Would it?

What if Candidate "C" was the preferred second choice of %90 of Candidate "A"s' supporters, and %75 of candidate "B"'s ?

Couldn't a very strong case be made that she that Candidate "C" is the one with the mandate?
 
I wonder if ranked choice voting would make things too clear. It seems like it's obvious solution, so the fact that it hasn't been implemented suggests to me that maybe I'm looking at the wrong problem. Maybe the party sees some benefit in abstracting the plain will of the party membership via brokering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom