Posted on 04/10/2007 9:42:12 AM PDT by dangus
Senator Obama joked with David Letterman, "I think it is possible that in that kind of situation, we might have to have a brokered convention and, Dave, we might turn to you." It's a stupid joke, but it may reveal that the prospect of a brokered convention is already on candidates' minds. And it already seems likely to some, due to a complete breakdown of the primary system. The Wall Street Journal's Brian Carney says, "The presidential primary system as we have known it for 35 years is dead. History books will record that the era that began with the Democratic National Committee's post-1968 reforms ended Aug. 19, 2006 at the hands of the very same DNC."
Here's why:
Traditionally, after the first few primaries, voters have coalesced behind one or two front-runners, as voters sense who is unlikely to be competitive. Political junkies and trailing candidates may wish voters wouldn't, in the hopes of broadening a political debate, but voters arguably even seem to want to settle a primary early, avoiding a "bruising primary battle."
Given that 15% of popular votes are typically needed to gain any delegates at all, second-tier candidates have frequently quit being much of a factor, at all after just a few states. Sometimes, they will focus their resources on a very limited number of states, in the hopes of pulling even a single delegate.
In 2008, however, early primaries may not have time to winnow out the field. Shortly after New Hampshire's primary, almost three quarters of all delegates may be decided, as a huge portion of all states have moved their primaries to the earliest date that the DNC will permit them to: a huge, early mega-primary that dwarves even the neo-traditional "Super Tuesday."
There's a chance that, for instance, Giuliani may sweep New Hampshire and Iowa, and re-establish his status as "front-runner." But Mitt Romney's got a Michigan family name, a Nevada Republican's religius base, and neighboring state status in New Hampshire. Or McCain could win in Iowa and New Hampshire, where he has strong organization. And Lord only knows what Fred Thompson could do. Of course, the last stop before Mega Tuesday is Florida, where Giuliani should earn a huge portion of total delegates.
Even based on current polling, all four of these candidates could easily top the 15% threshold. And over the next year, as voters get to know them Thompson and Romney, both could pull voters away from Giuliani, who currently leads polls, based largely on his national stature.
The Democratic situation isn't much better. As a viable black candidate, Obama doesn't even need to reach beyond the black base of Deomcrats to get near 30% of the Democratic vote. Yet Clinton and Edwards seem certain to each get far greater than 15%, even if Gore also runs and scores his 15%.
Worse still, a brokered convention could be far more devestating that in the past. With the primaries so early, and the conventions so late, an insufferable eight months of uncertainty would await. The ugliest aspects of political sausage-making would go on, and competing campaigns would bleed cash better spent on the general election. And what types of political promises will be made to the 25% of Democratic delegates who will be undeclared "superdelegates" could blanche anyone's complexion. In contrast, the Republican process, twisted as it will be, may look like the very model of democratic action.
[The Wall Street Journal article referred to is available by subscription only at: http://online.wsj.com/google_login.html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB117366057878933737.html%3Fmod%3Dgooglenews_wsj] Also see: http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/23457.html http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-jeffers_21met.ART.State.Edition1.44541b6.html
Well, a brokered convention did get us Abraham Lincoln.
... and if the super-delegates hadn’t been nixin’ the idea, we may have gotten Reagan four years earlier.
“Brokered convention” - Just imagine the broker’s fees and commissions...
Gee, I don’t know it sounds like fun. Course the convention system was in place for a hundred and fifty years and the nation survived so pardon me if I don’t panic.
And a Civil War for good measure.
Well, prior to the primary system, we didn’t have Campaign Finance Deform, the eight-month-gap, etc.
It would really serve us right. We are spending so much time on 2008 this early that the irony of not knowing who the candidates are until August 2008 would be just perfect.
The Civil War resulted from the actions of the Slavers not the Republican Convention.
Al Gore could make a killing selling “DNC Collapse” off-sets.
OK, I’ll admit it... I’d LOVE to see a Democratic brokered convention. Especially when Obama loses because the racist Dems wouldn’t dare run a black man. Can you picture it if Obama loses after getting a field-leading 35% of the elected delegates?
CFR is the biggest Nothing Burger in the history of Nothing Burgers. It has had NO significant impact on political campaigns being limited to controlling political parties and Sneak Attack groups. Have you even read the law. Only idiots would be constrained by it as 04 and 06 showed.
Our election history is VERY varied in how the process operated and has changed numerous times in the past.
CFR requires massive organization, and splitting of money. So far, it only hurts populism in smaller elections. But it could be deadly in a brokered convention.
If that happened Democrats might find themselves about 10 million votes short.
... But I do agree that, in general, CFR is overstated. It’s the constitutional issues, rather than the political effect, that has everyone in a tizzy: not that the government’s intrusion is so huge, but that it has absolutely no right to intrude. Anyway, as interpreted by Bush, it has had minimal harm... but many fear what another adminsitration’s broader interpretations could mean.
I've never understood why blacks vote Democrat. One of these days, they will tune into the Republican message (tax cuts, education vouchers, etc.) and they will like what they hear.
A split country, hundreds of thousands of Americans killed, a dead president. That really turned out well, didn't it.
And before anyone starts yelling about slavery, how much better off were the Blacks in 1880 as sharecroppers than they were in 1860 as slaves.
I can see why liberal ‘rats are pushing for early primaries... creating a scenario for a more left candidate, or at least a candidate mouthing more leftist claptrap. But, why do the ‘pubs follow suit? Seems to me to counterbalance the ‘rats push for early primaries, pubs should push for late primaries, or at least leave them as they are. Other than primary costs, is there a reason to have ‘Rat and ‘Pub primaries simultaneously? In my mind, having later ‘pub primaries along with early ‘rat primaries would result in a ‘pub advantage in the general election.
Brokered conventions get us better candidates.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.