Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Democratic Donor Contacts Biden Allies About Possible Run [View all]Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)...when I was young, I'm beginning to think it could happen in this case. A deadlocked convention could well mean a "brokered convention." Nobody wants to see the Democratic Party torn apart, as in 1968 (over the Vietnam War, in that case; would be more about the economy, in this case, maybe combined with Iraq War/Militarism issues). But if Sanders does really well--can't overcome all the "stacking" that's been done against the grass roots with "super-delegates" and so on--but reaches the convention with substantial primary wins, young people in particular and maybe some stormin' grandparents in wheelchairs (!!!) as well--COULD split the party with our unhappiness with Clinton.
Enter the "brokers" who may try to find a compromise candidate. This could be a person who has NOT run in the primaries, but whom both sides could agree on. Most delegates are pledged to the candidate who won their primary only on the first round of voting. If neither Sanders nor Clinton gets enough convention votes to win the nomination, it's open wide. ANYBODY could be nominated instead of Sanders or Clinton. Could be Joe Biden. Could be Elizabeth Warren (whom I think would be a brilliant compromise candidate). Could be Martin O'Malley. Or literally anybody else, including relative unknowns. The compromise could also be a Sanders-Clinton or Clinton-Sanders team. The latter is not very likely, but that IS what more or less happened in 1960--two radically different people, JFK and LBJ, welded together as a compromise ticket. (There have been many uncomfortable tickets, but that one was pretty extreme.) Neither Clinton nor Sanders has yet inflicted sufficient public insult on the other to bar the way to a joint ticket, it appears to me. It is (at this point) a possibility. But I think a THIRD candidate (plus VP) might become the best way out, in this scenario--that is, if Sanders' delegates are sufficient in number to block Clinton and/or are sufficiently raucous in a smaller but still significant number to create a badly splintered party.
A "brokered convention" is not necessarily a bad thing. If the choice is Warren, it would certainly satisfy me on most of the issues, and would also satisfy those voting for the first woman president. THAT, I think, would prevent a splintered party.