That "contested convention" thing? Rubbish.

[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.

[KPN]

1. You are right ...

Bernie!!!

[morningfog]

2. Not quite right. I'm 2008 Hillary conceded.

Obama secured first round vote since Hillary had conceded. A chunk of supers moved to Obama for that vote, but a sizable chunk stayed with Hillary.

It was not contested because she did not contest it.

If Bernie takes it to the convention, regardless of the pledged delegate winner, the supers will push one of them over the top, but it will not happen until the convention. It would still likely end on the round, but would be contested.

[MineralMan]

3. Yes. It's only proper for the candidate with less than a

majority of pledged delegates to concede. I'm sure that either candidate will do that if in that position.

Hillary has already done that once. I'm sure Bernie will do it, too, if he doesn't have the majority of pledged delegates. He's a fair, honest guy.

Do you think that either candidate would try to force a contested convention? Really?

[morningfog]

6. Yes. I don't see what Bernie has to lose.

Let him run the process out. One of the great things about his run is exposing some of the issues with out nomination process. The supers are part of that. Let's have it on full display.

Plus, a lot can happen between the last primary on June 14 and the Convention on July 25.

[geek tragedy]

11. Here's what Bernie would lose:

1) his speaking slot at the convention;
2) input into party platform;
3) input into reforming party election rules
4) his reputation (he'd be Glenn Close from Fatal Attraction "I'm not going to be ignored" combined Lloyd from Dumb and Dumber "so you're telling me there's a chance."

People would start questioning his mental state if he lost the election and pretended otherwise, with people pointedly questioning why the first woman to win a major party's presidential nomination would also be the first one to face a challenge despite having such an overwhelming victory in the voting.

It would make Sanders look like a narcissistic vanity candidate and toxic third party saboteur, and that's exactly how he would be treated.

[morningfog]

20. They'll deny him a speaking slot and input on the platform if he doesn't concede before the first

vote? Yeah right.

[geek tragedy]

22. yes, absolutely.

good behavior gets rewarded, bad behavior gets punished.

If you lose the voting, you admit you lost and accept the results.

That's how democracy works.

If he wants to act like a Democrat, he'll get treated like one.

If he wants to act like a narcissistic third-party saboteur, then he'll get treated like one.

Trying to steal an election ala Bush 2000 from the candidate backed by African-Americans and actual Democrats would be a hideously dumb thing to do.

No, he won't do that, because when he loses the voting, he'll admit he lost the voting. Because he's not crazy.

[morningfog]

23. The voting will not be lost until the super important super delegates vote. Everyone must have their

voices and votes heard, including (maybe especially) them. They are so vaunted and important.

This is the process the party has set up.

They will not deny him a slot or a say for following the rules. They would be fools to do so.

[geek tragedy]

24. Maybe he could re-enact the Brooks Brothers riot for old times sake?

Once the people have voted, that's it.

Sanders would be trying to disenfranchise millions of people, including black voters.

he's not going to do that.

If he does, he's going to get drummed out of public life.

[morningfog]

25. WHy are you so dismissive of the ever-important super delegates. They know better,

let them vote.

[geek tragedy]

29. I'm not Tad Devine, he's the guy who thinks they and

not the voters should pick the nominee.

The winner is the person who wins the voting of the people. Period.

And, given that by early June there'll be around 600/700 superdelegates saying they're voting for Clinton, I certainly won't dismiss their stated intent.

[morningfog]

32. The supers aren't bound to the people's vote. If so, there would be no need for them.

If the winner is the person who wins the voting of the people. "Period." then the supers are irrelevant and should be discontinued as soon as possible.

[geek tragedy]

34. if this talk from Sanders is just performance art

to prompt the party into paring back or getting rid of superdelegates, fine by me.

Hopefully Weaver hasn't convinced him that trying to Bush v Gore the primary nomination would be a good idea.

Especially since Katherine Harris, Scalia and Rehnquist won't be there to back him up.

[morningfog]

36. I do NOT see what BUsh v Gore has to do with it.

Last edited Wed Apr 13, 2016, 01:48 PM - Edit history (1)

And have no idea what Weaver's plan is really.

I only am looking for the value in running the process out and exposing the absurdity of the supers is one.

ETA critical omission/typo in heading "NOT"

[geek tragedy]

38. a minor victory compared to the cost, that would be. nt

[frylock]

51. Tad Devine

Everyone finish your drink.

[stopbush]

13. At some point, Sanders needs to stop worrying about what he personally has to lose

and start working for the good of the Party that gave him the opportunity to make a credible run for the presidency and their nominee, who will be Hillary Clinton.

A lot can happen, but what is not going to happen is Sanders securing more pledged and/or super delegates than Hillary.

The Rs will be in total disarray at their convention. The Ds have the opportunity of presenting the stark contrast of a unified, adult Party that is ready to take this country forward. Or, we can engage in a meaningless political food fight that will gain us nothing and will give the MSM all they need to run their false equivalency stories, equating the Ds "convention chaos!!" with the clown car on the right.

What needs to be "on full display" is not a hopeless case of grand standing by a lost cause, but a coming together of all of the great ideas that the Ds have put forward in this campaign, presenting a unified platform to the country that will win not only the presidency, but win back the Senate and maybe even the House.

[revbones]

28. Unfortunately "good of the Party" is not always good for the people.

And allowing the party process to play out is not bad for the party.

[apcalc]

35. Agree with stopbush

[WhiteTara]

10. As long as Bernie's ego doesn't get involved

he will concede; but he might contest. I hope he won't.

[Jitter65]

27. I think you are mis-judging Bernie. nt

[MineralMan]

30. In what way? Bernie is a career politician

and an honorable one. He will do the right thing, I'm certain. He has even said so, in declaring that he'll support Hillary if she is the nominee. He's said that more than once, and recently, too.

I'm not misjudging him at all. I have great respect for him and know he will do what is best for the country.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, though. If so, please tell me how.

[upaloopa]

12. It will not be contested and you can take that to the bank

Hillary will be up by over 300 Delegates before the convention.

Bernie will not have a path to the nomination.

Hillary will be nominated on the first round. There will be no more rounds.

[morningfog]

19. I don't think it will be contested in that there will be more than one round vote.

But, it may be contested in that neither candidate concedes before the convention and neither will have secured 2,383 through pledged delegates alone.

[NurseJackie]

4. Of course it is! They're just trying to stir some shit. But ...

... I'm still at a loss to figure out how they think that such things will actually benefit their candidate.

[MineralMan]

9. Well, I guess it's an enthusiasm thing. There are still

upcoming primaries, so optimism is a better choice than pessimism if your favored candidate is behind.

Still, anyone who thinks the Democratic Convention will be a contested convention is not really thinking straight or doesn't really understand how this stuff works.

In the case of H. A. Goodman, one of the blog pundits I had in mind, I suspect the latter, really. He's been wrong so many times that its a wonder anyone bothers to read him any more.

Not everything that appears on the Internet is accurate or even sensible. That's what I've found, anyhow.

[Avalux]

5. Wishful thinking at best. This is not 2008.

Last edited Wed Apr 13, 2016, 02:04 PM - Edit history (1)

You'd think that with all the surprises thus far, people would stop trying to make steadfast predictions. We simply don't know what's going to happen between now and then. And, if you think everyone else who calls himself or herself a Democrat who is not currently supporting Hillary would do so in the GE, you're making a foolish assumption.

The times and circumstances will not allow us to ignore what we know, fall in line and vote for the corporate candidate.

[Merryland]

7. exactly. it's about so much more than politics at this point.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

8. When I think of the hard work and dedication folks like you have shown over the years

working to make better the lives of average people, and then to watch you attacked and demonized for continuing to support the party, it angers me.

I dont care about the parties, but I care about the people, the rank and file people like yourself and while I am sure you would rather Wall Street not have the influence it has on your party, you still support it because at the moment that is all there is standing between you/us and certain total annihilation by the morons on the other side.

I appreciate you and your work and I will not spit on your efforts by whining that I wont support Hillary if Bernie loses.

That is a promise.

[MineralMan]

26. Thanks. I'm a Democrat, because we do better with Democrats

Last edited Wed Apr 13, 2016, 01:18 PM - Edit history (1)

in office. That's it. We have two parties in this country when it comes to presidential elections. I choose the party that does a better job if elected. If we had some other system, I'd decide what to do in that system, but we don't.

So, I work to get Democrats elected. It's an outcome thing, really.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

39. Translation: To pretend that ignoring the process will somehow result in

a positive outcome, is dumb.

[workinclasszero]

14. Its total BS, agreed

And its being floated by people that want to help Trump get elected IMO.

[MineralMan]

15. Well, I disagree with the Trump thing.

I think it's more fans of Bernie being fans of Bernie. I like him too. I just think Hillary will do better in the GE, and will be the nominee. If not, I'll vote for Bernie in November.

But, there's not going to be a contested convention. Of that I'm certain.

[workinclasszero]

16. Well we will see what happens right here on DU

when Hillary locks up the nomination, won't we?

I find it very hard to believe that people that have been using right wing republican lies and sources for month after month after month will suddenly forget all of that and support Hillary for President.

After all, Trump and the republicans will be selling the same exact swill in the GE and these people want to believe it.

But hey, I hope I'm wrong. I just can't believe that will happen though.

[MineralMan]

17. DU really doesn't matter in the general election.

There simply aren't enough DUers to make a difference. The election will be won in individual precincts across the country. Every one of those precincts has more registered voters in it than all the active participants on DU. In Minnesota, alone, there are over 4000 precincts.

DU is a great place to discuss politics, but has virtually no influence on any election.

[workinclasszero]

18. Well that's a good point MM

Thank God, Sarandon style Nader supporters aren't your average democratic voter!

[morningfog]

21. HIllary will not lock it up until the convention.

She will not have the committed of enough supers and pledged delegates until June 7 at the earliest.

[MineralMan]

31. Perhaps. But, we will know the outcome for certain

after the June 7 primaries. At that point, there will be no doubt as to who will be the nominee.

That's long before the convention. By convention time, the outcome will be clearly understood by everyone. Whether some will accept it or not is another matter, but the decision will be clear.

There's no last-minute thing that is at all likely that would change that. You might wish there would be, but there won't.

[morningfog]

33. But we won't know for "certain."

We will know all but for certain. But the campaign could theoretically continue from June 7 through July 25. Scandals, gaffes, national and world events could change the state of the race.

We've decided that supers should have this power, it may be that Bernie forces them to exert it as something more than a pro forma exercise.

[Nye Bevan]

37. Doesn't O'Malley still have delegates?

If so, is there just the remotest possibility that neither candidate gets to 50%?

[MineralMan]

41. No. He has zero pledged delegates.

At the greenpapers site, O'Malley appears to have one superdelegate listed. But he has no pledged delegates. That's because of the 15% cutoff for pledged delegate allocation in all 50 states. He's come nowhere near that percentage of caucus or primary votes in any state so far.

He won't in any of the upcoming ones, either, even if his name is on the ballot. 15%. That's the minimum for being awarded a pledged delegate.

So, no, it is impossible at this point that a candidate will not have a majority of pledged delegates by convention time. Even if a delegate cannot attend the national convention, there are alternate delegates from each state who can step in and who will be held to the same pledged support as the absent delegate.

It's all very orderly and certain, really.

The final allocations of pledged delegates are not yet known, but will reflect the votes of the people, according to the rules in each state. Rounding can cause some inexact allocations, of course, but we'll know the totals before the convention. All of the state conventions will have been held well in advance of the convention date.

[Stuckinthebush]

40. Oh, it's complete crap

There will be no contested Democratic convention.

Hoping for one is pure lunacy.

I, too, will vote for the Dem in November. Anything else is ridiculous for a Democrat/Liberal/progressive/socialist/Green/moderate.

[Gothmog]

42. There is zero chance of a contested convention

The threads predicting an open Democratic national convention are silly and amuse me

[MineralMan]

43. I'm not amused by them, really.

They're a waste of everyone's time, those threads are. What's remarkable to me is how many such original articles there are and how many times they get posted here.

Yes, they're by the H. A. Goodmans of the blogosphere and similar blatherers, but why they get reposted on DU and recced is beyond me.

[geek tragedy]

44. I guess they figure HA Goodman and Seth Abramson will lead a leftwing

Brooks Brothers riot at the DNC to install Bernie.

it's weird

[Gothmog]

50. The level of denial and magical thinking required to make such claims amuses me

The concept that anyone is silly enough to make the claim that there is an open convention for the Democrats requires a great deal of denial and magical thinking.

[NurseJackie]

45. Kick & Recommend. nt

[brooklynite]

46. Allow me to translate...

...the Sanders people accept that Bernie won't 'win" the nomination outright, and won't even end up with more delegates than Clinton. However, they also assume that Clinton won't end up with enough PLEDGED delegates to win the nomination outright. So their notion of a contested convention is that, between the last State Primary and the convention date, they and Clinton will fight over the loyalty of the Superdelegates which they believe don't REALLY want to vote for Clinton but are "scared" or "unaware of his electability".

[Hiraeth]

47. minor blog pundits

and what exactly are you?

[MineralMan]

48. Me? I'm a DUer. Same as you.

I don't post political blogs, except for my little satire blog, and that very infrequently. DU is not a blog. It is a discussion forum.

I'm not a pundit, either. I sometimes try to explain things and how they function, but I'm not really stumping for any candidate. If you read my posts, you'll see that. I tend more to lead people to resources where they can learn more about our political system and how it works. I'm more about process than politics, really, at least online. In my meatspace life, I'm pretty politically active, though, but more in the party organization and GOTV sense than in promoting particular candidates.

Once the convention is over, I'll be out canvassing and doing GOTV efforts for the Democratic candidates on the November ballot.

That's pretty much exactly what I am. I'm an active DUer.

[Hiraeth]

49. so then, MORE or LESS same thing

as a minor blog pundit.

got it.

[rock]

52. That's about as straight forward

as a political process gets.