There seems to be some confusion about the term "brokered convention"

[featherman]

There is no realistic chance that this year's Democratic Convention will be "brokered" in the political definition of that phrase. For the simple reason that there are only two candidates.

Brokered conventions can only occur when there are three or more viable candidates picking up substantial numbers of votes on the first ballot. Candidate X gets 45%, candidate Y gets 35% and candidate Z gets 20% for example. No candidate has a majority of delegate votes so another ballot is held. And another and so on until one candidate gets 50% +l of the delegate votes. Between these votes "brokering" occurs.

In 2008 if both remaining candidates carry this all the way to the Convention, one or the other will win the nomination on the first ballot with a minimum of 50% +1 of the delegates votes. Barring major melt down as yet unseen, this will be Barack Obama a likely first ballot winner with a 200+ vote majority over Senator Clinton. My guess is that the SD's will vote their state, region, political friendships,individual preferences in about a 55-45% split for Obama in the end.

It's really a lot like 1960 in that regard with two powerhouse candidates in Kennedy and Johnson and a dramatic floor vote. The Wyoming delegation put Kennedy over the top.

Here's some interesting history about that 1960 convention:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,869574-5,00.html

[zonmoy]

1. brokered in this case undoubtedly means fixed.

[frogcycle]

2. actually, as long as a few of edwards stick by him

there is the slim chance neither of the top two would have enough

and there is always the chance some SD's vote "present" to throw it open. Then on successive rounds more names could be in the ring.

Liklihood is low, but it technically can happen.

[crispini]

3. Yep. If neither one makes it to the magic number of delegates

and it fails on the first ballot... phoosh....

I don't think the establishment will let that happen though.

[frogcycle]

4. if these two continue thier antics

that might be what the "establishment" wants

that is, after all, the real purpose of the SDs - a safety valve if the primaries produce a fatally flawed or damaged candidate

[LWolf]

10. I consider

both of the current two to be fatally flawed. I hope it happens that way.

A slim, fragile hope, to be sure, but it's better than none.

[Bill McBlueState]

5. that's something I've been wondering

Are Edwards' pledged delegates still expected to vote for him on the first ballot? Has there been any discussion as to which way they'll lean if not required to vote for him?

[featherman]

7. They can vote for him only if his name is put in nomination and seconded

There are procedural rules (volumes of them!). This is not a free-for all.

[Bill McBlueState]

9. that's helpful to know

It's been interesting all along to discover all these rules that nobody pays attention to until it's a close race.

[featherman]

6. No realistic chance, as I said, although those scenarios are possible

as is a 2024-2024 tie in some circumstances. But none of that is LIKELY happening IMO and it won't be close enough for Edwards 36 delegates who are currently uncommitted and will go one way or the other.

In the end this will be a pretty straight forward first ballot nomination. The Party is not interested in committing suicide

[TheDoorbellRang]

8. I think Edwards only has 18 pledged delegates left

He just lost eight in Iowa at their county convention, so only six left there. (And that might become even less at their state convention). Not sure about procedure in NH or SC, but he's got four and eight respectively from those two states. And that's it for Edwards' PD's.

[LWolf]

11. If the party is not interested in committing suicide,

then the party is more likely to consider a 3rd option, since a nomination of either of the two "on the table" is suicide in November.