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.
Hillary definitely wins a brokered convention. Just imagine the combination of threats and bribes she and her people will use to get delegate votes. The only way Obama is nominated is if he wins via primaries.
Free men, no matter how poor, are always better off than slaves.
So, you’re saying that Abraham Lincoln wasn’t precisely the man for the job in 1860? Who could have done a better job than Lincoln?
It's never too early to panic.
I remember it that way too.
Bell.
"the Union as it is, and the Constitution as it is
Keep in mind that in the GOP primaries the winner gets all the delegates, whereas with the Dems delegate allocation is proportional in each state.
But no more Clinton presidencies.
The Republicans were bound to win either in 1860 or soon, and the Deep South states were determined to secede rather than accept a “Black Republican” President. The question is whether a different Republican President (say Seward) would have taken steps that resulted in actual fighting, or would have allowed the Deep South to stay out of the US...or if the war had broken out, whether a different US President would have successfully won the war.
The old system had plenty of flaws, but the way that things are likely to unfold in 2008 will probably be worse.
By the time of the first primaries, I expect the Clinton machine to have convinced black Democrats that Obama is a lineal descendant of Uncle Tom and of Simon Legree. (Obama is descended from American slaveholders on his mother's side.)
>> 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. <<
...because of the hateful, corrupt and illegal actions of Southerners again brutally, savagely, indecently and dishonorably victimized blacks again.
This desire to villify the North in the Civil War is historically silly and the politically devestating to the rest of conservatives.
What, the North was supposed to allow rebels to destroy Ft. Sumter and kill our nation’s soldiers? When the South attacked Ft. Sumter any claims to legitimacy, states’ rights, etc. went screaming out the window. In an instant, the South’s cause was reduced to mere insurrection. Arguments to justify that act of terrorism are presumption, plainly refuted by any facts.
Robert E Lee was, in ways, a national hero for his lawful and orderly surrender. But his grandness, combined with Lincoln’s retrospection, has imbued history with a dullard’s appreciation for the Confederacy which is no way earned.
You’re kidding. Bell? No way.
Post #17 should excellently suffice as explanation for why Blacks mistrust conservativism. He’s still trying to justify the confederate insurrection.
How would you feel if the Red Chinese maintained a military base on Ellis Island?
Or, since I can't tell what brand of yankee you are because you aren't flying a flag; how about Alcatraz island, or Bainbridge Island.
So which of his plank are you opposed to? Keeping the country together, or upholding the constitution?
The Pres should be elected by the Senate and the Senate appointed by each State as was originally intended before we got the present girly system.
I prefer a national primary. why should the vast majority of party voters be excluded, and have tiny minorities in small states decide who the “front runner” is, based on “victories” in small states?
Making Bill Clinton Secretary of State really isn’t such a bad idea, provided he can be kept on a short leash policy-wise. Foreigners seem to like him, and being a slick conniver is an advantage in the diplomacy game.
“I’ve never understood why blacks vote Democrat”
see post 17 for part of your answer.
no way.
Its either Hillary/Richardson or Edwards/Richardson
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson’s visit to North Korea appears to be yielding unexpected fruit.
Richardson, part of a bipartisan delegation dispatched to North Korea to return remains of U.S. MIAs, appears to have secured a concession from the communist state on its developing nuclear weapons program.
Monday, a North Korean nuclear arms negotiator relayed to Richardson that the country would be willing to allow international U.N. arms inspectors into the country if some $25 million in North Korean money that has been frozen is released.
“What was positive coming out of Pyongyang (the North Korean capitol) yesterday is the report that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is prepared to take these actions to get the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) in there, and take these first steps,” said Hill.
The North Koreans also told Richardson that it will be difficult to stop production at the country’s main nuclear reactor by Saturday, a pre-negotiated deadline. A State Department spokesman responded that the U.S. “might not object” to extending the deadline.
http://www.kobtv.com/index.cfmviewer=storyviewer&id=31553&cat=NMTOPSTORIES
Sorry, oceanview, we're going to have to live with Richardson. Wish it weren't so, too.
They had their chance to get behind a great candidate in Herman Cain. They didn't do so, and I can't see them doing so anytime soon.
They'll vote for the party of the Ku Klux Klan and a party that props up an organization built on the original idea of exterminating Blacks (Planned Parenthood).
He doesn’t have the cash or the stature to win the primaries. How many Democrats know anything about or care anything about North Korea? very few.
He’s the perfect VP however.
He(Bell) didn’t have a chance and war was inevitable. Lincoln saved the nation, saved the Union, and abolished slavery.
That’s a pretty good resume.
The primary calendar, following New Hampshire, is divided into two-week periods. "Periodic delegates" refers to the number of delegates selected by all states within a given two-week period. "Periodic maximum" refers to the greatest possible number of periodic delegates that would not create penalties for overloading the calendar; I suggest that the periodic maximum be set to the number of maximum delegates of California.
If the number of maximum delegates of all states which select their delegates in a given period exceeds the periodic maximum, states shall be penalized by being apportioned fewer actual delegates than their maximum delegates, so that the number of actual delegates apportioned is no greater than the periodic maximum.
To prevent such penalties, a state's party may apply to the national party to receive a certified apportionment, on the basis that further changes to the state's primary dates are no longer possible under that state's legislative calendar.
When states are penalized for exceeding the periodic maximum, states with certified apportionment shall not be penalized. All other states will have their apportionment reduced proportionally.
(If a state party is unsatisfied with its states' failure to prevent reduced apportionment, the state party is free to conduct a caucus, unless applicable state laws force binding primaries to be held.)
Any state which moves its primary back to a period which, at that time, would allow that state its maximum delegates, automatically gets its certified apportionment of delegates. Here's how it would work: Suppose Pennsylvania gets 1000 delegates, S Carolina gets 300, Michigan gets 900, Ohio gets 900, and New York gets 1700. California gets 3500.
The periodic maximum is 3500.
New York sets its primaries to May 5th, which is in Period 4 (Say, May 1- May 14). It gets its apportionment certified. Pennsylvania already had moved its primary date from Period 2 (April 3 - April 17) to May 10th, in Period 4. South Carolina moves its primary dates up from June 5th to May 10th.
Under thus system, New York and Pennsylvania would get 1000 and 1700 certified delegates. That's already 2700 certified delegates. Michigan moves its primaries to May 10th. Under this system, that's 3900 delegates, 400 more than the periodic maximum. So, South Carolina is apportioned only 200 actual delegates and Michigan only 600 actual delegates.
If South Carolina moves its primaries back to June, it will automatically get the full number of delegates. BUt so will Michigan. So why should South Carolina move? Because if it moves, its delegates are guaranteed. Michigan could lose even more delegates if another state moved to Period 4.
WHY IS THIS BETTER THAN OTHER NATIONALIZED PRIMARY SYSTEMS?
It has an objective system, based on game theory, to motivate states to be responsible in setting their primary dates. Everyone can keep their primaries on Feb 5th, if they want, they'll just get fewer delegates. THe first to move are guaranteed maximum apportionment. Later movers may have to settle for disadvantageous times. Many may decide that staying early is worth it, but they do so knowing the possible costs. The system doesn't require the actions of legislatures to enact, but motivates the legislatures to implement it in a manner which suits their states' interests.
The President was never elected by the Senate. I can’t fathom where you got that idea from. The closest we ever had to a legislative appointment of Presidents are these two factors:
1. Several states used to select their electors by that own states’ legislatures.
2. Because this system frequently failed to create majorities, in several instances, the election was booted to the House of Representatives.
>> How would you feel if the Red Chinese maintained a military base on Ellis Island? <<
That’s just plain stupid, because the Red Chinese aren’t part of the union.
Seems like the system has allowed the big states to get a good look at the candidates in the early small state primaries, thereby giving the small states something more of a say. I wouldn’t chalk it all up to people jumping on the front runner bandwagon.
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.