Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Pure Fantasy: A Brokered Convention.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 04:39 AM
Original message
Pure Fantasy: A Brokered Convention.
There's not going to be a brokered convention. At the end of the primary/caucus process, we will have a nominee. The last thing that the party insiders want is for this thing to go to the convention, and the party insiders are the SDs.

No floor fights, no rounds of voting, no knights on white horses named Gore or Edwards. Sorry drama lovers, it's not going to happen.

Obama or Hillary will be the nominee and we'll know who, no later than mid-June. The SDs will put one or the other over the top, and the loser will drop out and back the winner. You simply can't go forward once the other person has the requisite number of delegates.

One way or the other, this thing is almost over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Skidmore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 04:46 AM
Response to Original message
1. I agree.
A brokered convention is the media fantasy scenario--lots of drama and fighting and, who knows, maybe even fist fights in the aisles or on the streets. They would really like a convention that could be played out like one of their reality shows.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 04:52 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. It certainly is the media wet dream. It's also the fantasy
of Gore and Edwards supporters, who somehow can't see how disasterous it would be for dem chances in November, and for some Clinton backers who hope against all odds that she can wrest it away from Obama even if he has enough SDs to put him over the top.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zabet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 04:53 AM
Response to Original message
3. Pure hypocrisy from Dean.
When Dean wants to have the primaries over just because he does not want to have to make a decision concerning MI and FL....he wants to go by the rules he made...that repukes used against him and moved the primary anyway...Cannot believe Dean didn't see that coming or, maybe his ego is too big to admit he bent over and got played on that move. Now after, rules! follow the rules! Dean does not want to let the rules apply now, interesting isn't it. There is no rule that says the duper-delegates have to decide before the convention. Obama having a bad week and Dean stomping his feet is not going to change the rules. Dean seems to be very biased with his constant calls for the primaries to be over, you would think in his position he would be a little more careful than that. From Donna Brazile's text messages to Dean, Pelosi and Reid trying to end the primaries early, doesn't that in essence go against the democratic process when party elders try to sway or force early decisions. The Democratic Party and Dean's 50 state (48 state) goals are to bring people into the process, well stopping the primary, in turn making the remaining states not count, making these remaining voters feel like they had no choice in our nominee....that ain't keepin'em in the fold.
Facts are...neither will make the magic number...unless one drops out
I prefer to see it go to the convention myself, a little shaking of the party tree so to speak, is not necessarily a bad thing. It is a matter of perception.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 05:04 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. First of all, Terry McCauliff is the one who instituted the punative
measures for states that refused to abide by party rules. Secondly, you're projecting. There's no way that you know what Dean is thinking. Dean isn't advocating breaking any rule by encouraging the remaining uncommitted SDs to endorse. He's not calling for them to endorse Obama, despite the pathetic paranoia of desperate hillary supporters.

Fact is that the SDs want a candidate. There's abundant evidence for that, including the fact that the majority of SDs have endorsed. Tough shit for those ignorant souls who want it to go to the convention. And history teaches us that it is a bad thing if it goes to the convention. The last nominee who won who emerged from a brokered convention, was FDR over 75 years ago. And that was in a completely different political era.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zabet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 05:43 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. ...
"Fact is that the SDs want a candidate. " Then why haven't all those uncommitted ones decided? There is no way you can know what the superdelegates are thinking. You are projecting.
And I hate to think that politics from 75 years ago are the same as today, a brokered convention could turn out to be not near as bad as the alarmists say. The issues are different, out politics are more than ever global, nothing is close enough to compare it to 75 years ago. Weak and old argument. Success does not come to quitters, those that keep trying again and eventually succeed, well the concept of a brokered convention is a good thing, it is the whining and the crying and the pissing and moaning about it that makes it seem like such a bad thing. When did the Democratic Party become the party of whiners and criers and backpeddlers? That is all I see lately from our party leaders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 05:48 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. one more time: the majority of SDs have committed.
And we know what party leaders, including SDs like Frank who supports Hillary have said. That's not projection, it's fact. Furthermore, candidates in the more modern era, who were chosen at the convention, lost. Once, choosing the candidate at the convention was how it was done. those days are long gone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 06:05 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Many of those
who have decided are being quiet about that. They know that others who came out for Obama have been subjected to the phone calls saying "You are OFF the list!," as if the last-place candidate is going to be making the all-important lists. They see what has happened with Governor Richardson.

Behind the scenes, the party leaders are aware that the constest is almost over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 06:09 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. I think a fair number are waiting to see what happens in PA
But in any case, Dean isn't advocating that SDs endorse a particular candidate, simply that they endorse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 06:36 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. Right.
There are certainly a fair number who are not decided yet, and who may wait longer than PA (unless Obama wins there, which is unlikely) before making up their minds.

As you know as well as anyone on DU, there is a heck of a lot going on behind the scenes, that the general public is unaware of. One thing that people will find out later is how some of the "party elders" have been preparing to take steps to keep this from reaching the point that you correctly point out won't happen. The leader of this effort is Al Gore, and others include two people who had been in the primary contest. They are in contact with, among others, representatives from both the Clinton and Obama campaigns, to try to keep the lines of communication open. For many of us, when Hillary Clinton took the cheap shot at Gore recently, it appeared to show that she is aware of which way the wind is blowing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SparkyMac Donating Member (288 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 06:13 AM
Response to Original message
9. A brokered convention would be like house cleaning

We would have a new candidate to unite behind and the GOP would be left without anybody to throw rocks at.

That would be like starting all over with a clean slate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 06:18 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. no.
first of all that's a fatuous comparison. What does it even mean? Zip. Secondly, while we bloodlet, the repukes gain strength. Thirdly, it's beyond naive to believe that the repukes wouldn't throw rocks at someone emerging from a brokered campaign. Add to that, that throwing out millions of votes would alienate a large chunk of the dem electorate. And what about organization? A new candidate/nominee simply wouldn't have one, and that's a very big deal.

There is no such thing as starting out with a clean slate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zalinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 07:27 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Millions of voters got alienated right after Iowa
For the majority of the primary there has been only 2 choices, neither very good. So you go to a primary or caucus and have to vote for the lesser of 2 evils, and that doesn't alienate?

Fine, have it your way. Obama will be trounced by McCain, and you will be left scratching your head wondering how people can be so stupid. A very tiny section of America voted for Obama, he hasn't won over the rest of the country. He hasn't EVER been up against the repub machine, and the stuttering machine will not come off well.

zalinda
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. let me guess, a bitter edwards supporter.....
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zalinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Let's see how smug you'll be in November. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ORDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
14. I disagree. It will be over by mid-May! By that point Obama will have
the majority of pledged delegates (conservatively projecting) and at that point the SDs will swarm to him.

:dem:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC