A brokered convention? Dare to dream!
Posted on November 13th, 2007 at 12:24 pm by David Kaiser, EditorThis election cycle has the makings of a dream scenario for political junkies (like many of the inhabitants of this website). The possibility remains a long shot, especially for the Democrats, who have a strong front-runner in the form of Hillary Clinton (her recent problems aside), but does seem possible that it could occur on the GOP side.
There is some chatter in the blogging world that the outside chance of a brokered convention may exist, while most dismiss the odds as long at best.
I am one that salivates over a potential brokered convention and the political intrigue that accompanies it. The last time we saw anything remotely like this was in the race for the 1976 Republican nomination.
The race was unresolved entering the Republican National Convention, with Ford in the lead, but short of the required number of delegates. Reagan, in an attempt to woo moderates to his strong conservative base, indicated he would choose liberal Senator Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania as his running mate if nominated. The move backfired, as moderates did not move to Reagan and enough conservatives were upset with Reagan to give Ford the nomination.
How can it happen in 2008?
Mitt Romney fails to romp through the early states and each of the top candidates takes one of the first three or four contests would lead up to a Tsunami Tuesday that not only has no clear cut favorite, but also could have just about all of the top tier candidates still in the race.
On Tsunami Tuesday, Fred Thompson takes Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee and Colorado. Romney takes Utah and shows up strong in New York and California. Giuliani takes California, New York and Illinois. Huckabee wins his native Arkansas and shows strength in the South. McCain wins Arizona and picks up a surprise win in a place like Minnesota.
No one has momentum and few are looking to drop out. Hello brokered convention.
Sure, it’s extremely unlikely… but it would sure make for some fun TV.
26 Comments
Leave a comment
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
A brokered convention would be very bad for the GOP. While the political junkies may like it, if we don’t have a nominee by early March, there will not be enough time to raise the money and organize volunteers to defeat Hillary.
A brokered convention would guarantee a Hillary landslide.
Agreed, it would likely be bad for the GOP.
That said, any press is good press, and the GOP would certainly get a ton of press out of such an event.
I disagree, the party will be raising money to beat Hillary the day she sews up the nomination. And who really thinks a brokered convention assures a Hillary landslide? That’s crazy. What states would Hillary win that Kerry lost in 04?
Yup, just like the Dem 1968 convention. It certainly would not be good press.
I’m not sure I completely understand it, but you’re right; it does sound very exciting. What happens to a candidate’s delegates if he pulls out and endorses another candidate? Do they go to whoever finished 2nd in that state? Do they go to whoever he endorses? Are they just not counted?
AndDru1,
Most of the primaries are binding, so delegates cannot be transferred from one candidate to another.
That said, I think we will have a very good idea who is going to be the nominee on February 6th.
TL - I’m not sure we’d have the protests and violence that they had in Chicago in 1968, the climate is not quite the same now as it was then. As far as bound delegates, I believe a candidate can release delegates if they withdraw.
AndDru1 - If a candidate releases their delegates, my understanding is they can vote for whom they please. Usually a candidate won’t release them without some kind of endorsement of another candidate and most of their delegates will go to the person they endorsed, creating a nominee.
As far as good or bad, it can be debated. Here is an interesting argument for it:
http://commenterry.blogs.com/political_commenterry/2007/11/why-a-brokered-.html
David,
Every state is different on how they assign the delegates, but most of the primaries are binding and the delegates cannot be transferred.
This is why I think it is unlikely that we will have a brokered convention.
We should have a very good idea on February 6th. If not, it will not matter anyway, because Hillary will win in a landslide.
ANOTHER wild card! This year, Massachusetts - which is considering moving its primary up to Feb. 5 from its usual date in March - had its Republicans eliminate the winner-take-all primary in favor of an apportioned one! S0, any candidate getting more than 15% of the popular GOP vote will be pledged delegates. And gee whiz, we’re RIGHT next to New Hampshire for easy campigning, candidates…..
TL, I’m pretty sure that is not accurate, how else would John Edwards not have received any delegate votes at the 2004 Democratic Convention? The answer is, he released his delegates and joined the ticket as Kerry’s VP.
David,
It depends on the state and Party rules. Every state is different on how they assign delegates. Most primaries are binding.
My point is that, I think we will have a very good idea on February 6th who the nominee will be. If not, it will not matter anyway, because Hillary will win in a landslide.
Let’s hope that the GOP can get its act together and avoid a brokered convention. I really don’t want to have to live with 4 years of Hillary.
I think we need to take our time and pick the best possible leader we can. If we just try to pick someone in some vain attempt to pick ‘em as fast as the Democrats, then we’re already in a losing battle. If we’re going to win this election we have to expand our base, defense isn’t a very good option.
Oh, it will be BROKER alright;
Devoid of strength, courage, ideals…
Broker means having almost nothing
Which describes this Republican field.
As our horses get closer,
They look even lamer - a pox on ‘em all!
PC and pompous, groomed and empty of heart;
All an insult to Conservatives all.
Now the RTL weighs in; Ho-Hum. Big Deal.
Nothing they’ve ever done has ever ended
The abortions they abhore. Nothing ever will. Their self-importance must be suspended.
It looks like Snow White vs. several dwarfs
With Sleepy, Dopey, and Romney leading…
Against she who is strong, funded and hard -
With hords and millions at her pleading.
Whodat say no Thanksgiving for all these turkeys
Whodat in Texas,
A GOP brokered convention is exactly what the Dems are hoping for.
Yup, Hillary will be laughing all the way to the Whitehouse if the GOP has a brokered convention.
12 years of Bush’s in the Whitehouse (arguably) hasn’t worked out too well for the country. I can’t imagine 12 or 16 years of Clinton’s being any better. I hope, for the sake of the country, that if Hillary gets the democratic nomination, she will get rejected at the polls and someone who is not more of the same will get elected. I agree that a brokered GOP convention is not in the best interest of the GOP or America at large. We need to get back on the right track, not just onto a different one!
No way that guarantees a Hillary victory. In what dreamworld do you people see her winning in a landslide? IF she wins, and that’s a big IF, it’s going to be 2000 all over again. A squeaker.
I would like someone to help me understand how anyone but Romney wins the nomination. The only person who has a chance other than Mitt is Rudy. He has a large lead in the national polls and if everyone in the nation voted at the same time he would win in a landslide. But they don’t.
So let’s break it down. Mitt has a double-digit lead in IA and NH. He is from MI and his dad was gov, so he wins there. Then NV and SC vote the same day. The last poll I saw (which was a week or so ago) he had a very small lead in SC, so he could lose there, but he probably won’t because of the first 3 wins. Even if he loses he will be a very close second to Thompson. And he wins NV because of the Mormons. Next is FL, which is huge and would catch Rudy half-way up to Mitt if he wins, but now he is trying to argue that he is the front-runner having lost the first FIVE primaries. At that point, Jeb Bush, who is adored by FL Republicans, will come out and endorse Mitt. He has already sent his former chief of staff, his former finance director, and his former Lt. Gov. to work for him. After Mitt wins the first 5 primaries, Jeb will endorse him publicly. Then FL goes to Mitt and that’s the ball game.
Let me be clear: I am not voting for Romney. I think he is a typical politician who says whatever it takes to get elected to whatever he is running for at the moment. I like McCain. I donated money to his campaign and I wish he would win. But he won’t.
What I would like is for someone to convince me that I am wrong. I am a math geek, so this can most easily be accomplished with numbers. I’m sure that there are half a dozen polls out since the last one I looked at. Logically debating the opinions in my statements (there are several, especially the Jeb part) also works. What I would specifically like to avoid (although I’m not sure it’s possible in this forum) is an emotional flame about how Ron Paul has millions of supporters that the pollsters conspiratorially ignore. Internet polls DO NOT COUNT!
Thanks in advance for responses.
Russ,
I would say there are several reasons why someone other than Romney could win the nomination. But the most obvious one is the fact that no votes have been cast yet. Sure, Mitt has some really nice leads in Iowa and New Hampshire in the polls, but the contests are not decided by the polls.
To absolutely say that Romney will win Iowa and New Hampshire right now is complete folly. And if he does lose one of those first two prizes, his entire strategy is out the window.
Romney is running a very traditional strategy of win early, gain the “big mo” and sweep to the nomination. It is a tried and true method to the nomination. Not since 1972 has a candidate won in Iowa and New Hampshire and lost the nomination. It is a *great* plan. When it works.
Romney is up in the polls and is well placed to make a very serious run at the nomination. But Iowa and New Hampshire are very tricky places. Surprises, such as John Kerry’s victory over Dean in 2004, Bob Dole’s victory over Bush ‘41 in 1988 and Bush ‘41 over Ronald Reagan in 1980, have precedence.
New Hampshire, with it’s independent voters able to vote in either party’s primary, also has a history of shockers, the most recent being John McCain over Dubbya in 2000.
If Mitt does not win both of these early races, there is a good chance he does not gain the momentum he needs to overtake Thompson in the South and Giuliani with the moderates. This would open the race up. Remember, for all his strength in the early races, Romney falters at the national level, as well as many of the delegate-rich states of Tsunami Tuesday.
That is how Mitt could lose.
Russ,
While I applaud your thoroughness in trying to comprehend the situation, I think you’re dramatically over-estimating Romney. A situation is emerging where he may narrowly win or lose to Mike Huckabee in Iowa, making Huckabee the story. While Huckabee is not likely to push dramatically higher in New Hampshire, that would put him in a very possible 3rd place finish in NH, making a SC win very possible, with Romney bagging MI. This will put Fred T out of the race entirely and allow Huckabee to close the gap by being THE Southerner in the race.
I think Feb. 5 will get carved up between Huckabee, Giuliani, & Romney, making for a long nomination battle all the way to the convention…
Russ. Russ Russ. Such a fuss, fuss, fuss…
Romeny is a cultist (Mormon): They’re too weird!
And, Romney is a liberal, Mass Gov proves it so
And, he looks so fake with his pretty-boy, Phoney Baloney smile, He is truly a no-go.
Whodat say the truth is short, simple, & hurts.
Whodat,
Stow your religious bigotry elsewhere.
Romney is now within 4 points of Rudy in one national poll.
He’s been pegged as the most conservative in the race on the GOP side.
Just look at his record of accomplishment in every major endeavor he has pursued, and then tell me with a straight face that he is anything but the real deal.
IMHO, all your other “reasons” for trashing Romney are just covers for your first, and real reason–religious bigotry. Just admit it.
Whodat,
I’ve appreciated your posts in the past, but as Jason has asked in a previous thread, could we keep the religious statements to a minimum? I’m not Mormon, but I’m pretty sure I’d be offended if someone called my religion a “cult”.
Thanks.
Thanks so much to David Kaiser and MountainThinker for your well-reasoned, left-brained responses. You both make perfect sense to me.
Russ.
My apology. You are correct and my use of “weird” was inappropriate. I have no bigotry on religeons and have certainly had Morman friends over the years. Did not mean to be insensitive, at all.
I will stand by the fact that many people do consider the church a cult. If you google or search “Is the Morman Church a cult?” you will receive a plethora of articles, some saying yes and some saying no. What the actual fact is will be lost on voters who hold the PERCEPTION that it is, whether it is or not. PERCEPTIONS drive votes, not facts.
I do not support Romney for several reasons:
He is a Massachusetts liberal or he could never have been elected there, he seems phoney to me and some of his claims are not true as I see them. If he were a Baptist, I’d dunk him…
Whodat