Brokered Convention

A few months ago, Kevin Drum linked to this great Gene Lyons column about the senate primaries that’s been on my mind a lot today :

Of course the race isn’t being held nationally, or even state by state in the ordinary sense. What hasn’t yet sunk in among journalists covering the race is the likely impact of the amazingly complicated rule changes the party has imposed on itself for 2004 in the interest of “fairness.” Massive confusion appears likelier. There are no winner-take-all primaries. Instead, delegates will be awarded proportionally to all candidates receiving more than 15 percent of the vote in each congressional district, from sea to shining sea.

To be nominated, a candidate must win a majority (2160) of delegates to the June convention. Given that there are 796 party-appointed “superdelegates,” to lock up the nomination before the Boston convention, somebody has to win 61 percent of the elected delegates in a nine candidate field over two short months between February and early April 2004. Given strong regional differences and favorite son candidates, the odds of a deadlocked and/or brokered convention appear extremely high.

Would that make for good TV? Maybe. Or it could degenerate into farce, perpetuating the notion that Democrats are too ineffectual to govern.

I haven’t seen much written about this scenario, but what I’ve read has been negative. While I don’t think this would be best for the party, I could see some good coming out of it as well. While I think a brokered convention is a longshot, anything could happen. Here’s what I see as the Pros and Cons :

Pros :

  • The Democrats get months of extra free publicity as they continue to campaign against each other. Throughout this time, while highlighting their differences, the one thing they can all agree on is how awful Bush is.
  • The field is crowded enough that Bush can’t attack any of the Democrats directly without inadvertently propping up one of his rivals.

    Cons :

  • The possibility that the losing candidates let their egos get the best of them and refuse to concede to and/or support the eventual nominee.
  • The months between the primaries and the convention make the candidates loose steam and serve to highlight the unsenate nature of the whole “superdelegate” system.
  • The nominee doesn’t have enough time between the convention and the election to raise the necessary money and organize a campaign effective enough to beat Bush.

    What do you guys think? Am I being too optimistic here? Do you think this is likely to happen at all?


    • posted by greg on January 31, 2004 @ 4:21 pm

    one comment so far

    1. Couple of things:

      One, unless I’m remembering this completely wrong, the presidential campaigns are paid through the parties between the convention and the election. So all the candidates have to spend their money between now and their conventions, and that includes Bush. Given that he’s gone through $33 million of his cash already, his poll ratings are still sagging, and January’s strategy seemed to be to throw shit at the wall and see what sticks (Mission to Mars? Nawww, let’s scratch that out of the SOTU and bash athletes on steroids intead!), the real overrated story of this election might not turn out to be Dean, but Bush himself.

      Two, let’s look at the math. There are four serious candidates left (Dennis and Al, exit stage left; Joe, exit stage right). Now, you could assume that after Montana and New Jersey have their primaries on June 8, all four candidates would have 25 percent each of the delegates. But that would be silly.

      Let’s assume that all four keep scrapping and clawing and fighting through the last of the primaries, but no one has a majority of delegates, even throwing in superdelegate support. Here’s what most likely would happen in that scenario: There will be one guy, A, with around 40 percent, another guy, B, with close to 30 percent, and C and D will bring up the rear with support in the 10s.

      In that case, all the brokering that pretty much needs to be done is for A to promise B the VP slot in exchange for his delegates. Even with the superdelegates, this should wrap up matters fairly quickly. C and D could be also be brought on board, no matter who they are, through Cabinet-level appointments.

      I was a fan of wrapping things up early, but I’m now in favor of all four merrily banging away on each other for as long as possible. It’ll keep Karl Rove confused as to where to aim his fire and keep Democratic criticism of Bush front and center in the public eye.

      Comment by Pizza Driver — February 1, 2004 @ 2:35 am

    Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.