more on why the Dem. nomination race is unlikely to go unresolved until August

[Mr. Morden]

Here's a good synopsis of why a convention in which we don't already know who the nominee is beforehand would be a big mess:

http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2008/02/convention_chaos_theory.php

In short, in the last few decades, the convention has basically been run by the campaign of the presumptive nominee.  They make all the important decisions...deciding who gets to speak, vetting everyone's speeches, etc.  Without a presumptive nominee going into the convention, how will that stuff get decided?  The DNC itself would have to run things, but that could be a huge mess, because many in the DNC are going to be Clinton or Obama partisans:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is why I just can't see things staying unresolved until the convention.  It would just be too messy.  At worst, if we go through all the primaries and it's still a tie, Dean and the DNC will have to hold a "pre-convention convention".  Bring all the superdelegates together (without TV cameras present), and have them choose sides.  Have them to commit to Clinton or Obama.  They're going to have them do that eventually in August, so why not get it over with months in advance?  Once you know how all the delegates are going to vote, the nomination is pre-ordained, and you can have a normal (by modern standards) convention, and give the nominee at least a few months to start running a GE campaign.

[TomC]

In short, in the last few decades, the convention has basically been run by the campaign of the presumptive nominee.  They make all the important decisions...deciding who gets to speak, vetting everyone's speeches, etc.  Without a presumptive nominee going into the convention, how will that stuff get decided? 

Sounds like someone's going to need some money before the FEC funds are distributed after the convention.

[Boris]

Once the primaries have concluded, wouldn't the superdelegates be more or less forced to support whichever candidate that won the most pledged delegates/the popular vote during the primaries? To go against those numbers would amount to political suicide for the Democratic Party. The Superdelegates aren't that stupid, or at least I hope.

[MODU]

And here we were all thinking that the GOP race was going to a brokered convention, not the Dems.

[Trilobyte]

I think the bigger problem for them right now is what to do about Michigan and Florida. The superdelegates will all just switch to the leading candidate after the last primary is done.

[Mr. Morden]

Once the primaries have concluded, wouldn't the superdelegates be more or less forced to support whichever candidate that won the most pledged delegates/the popular vote during the primaries? To go against those numbers would amount to political suicide for the Democratic Party. The Superdelegates aren't that stupid, or at least I hope.

Yes, I agree.  That is by far the most likely scenario IMHO.  The only complication would be if the pledged delegate race is so incredibly close that there's a dispute over who actually won it.  Or if there's a difference between who won the most pledged delegates and who got the most "popular votes" or what have you.  The "popular vote" winner would try to claim that he or she was the "real winner of the primaries".

[NHPolitico]

Bring all the superdelegates together (without TV cameras present), and have them choose sides.  Have them to commit to Clinton or Obama.  They're going to have them do that eventually in August, so why not get it over with months in advance? 

Howard Dean would be advised to stay away from making this decision behind closed doors. He has to think of a better idea.

[Mr. Morden]

Bring all the superdelegates together (without TV cameras present), and have them choose sides.  Have them to commit to Clinton or Obama.  They're going to have them do that eventually in August, so why not get it over with months in advance? 

Howard Dean would be advised to stay away from making this decision behind closed doors. He has to think of a better idea.

Well either way, he would pressure all the superdelegates to pick sides before the convention.  They could do it all out in the open, but I would imagine that regardless, if the superdelegates really do swing things one way or the other, most of the real arm-twisting and dealmaking would take place in secret, no matter what Dean or anyone else tried to do.

[Sam Spade]

The danger scenario is if Obama wins more delegates than Hillary, unless you count Florida and/or Michigan.  That could get really nasty.

In fact, there are other ways it could get really nasty, but that's the one that pops up into my head immediately.

[Lief 🗽]

I suspect that Dean will force the super-delegates to all move to either the winner of the March 4th primaries or Pennsylvania and end it there.

[J. J.]

A memo was leaked from the Obama Campaign stating that the nomination would go to the convention.

[Sam Spade]

I suspect that Dean will force the super-delegates to all move to either the winner of the March 4th primaries or Pennsylvania and end it there.

Dean probably couldn't force his secretary to bring him coffee without bribing her first.  I don't get this.

[Flying Dog]

I suspect that Dean will force the super-delegates to all move to either the winner of the March 4th primaries or Pennsylvania and end it there.

Dean probably couldn't force his secretary to bring him coffee without bribing her first.  I don't get this.

What makes you a expert on Dean more than anyone else.

[agcatter]

I have a question.  Why does everyone assume Howard Dean has so much power?   Chairman of the DNC isn't exactly a power position.  I think some are assigning Dean a lot more influence than he actually has.

[Mr. Morden]

I don't think he has any real power.  When I say "Dean and the DNC will do such and such", what I really mean is that he and others in the DNC will provide some kind of forum for the party leaders to hash out what they're going to do well before the convention, which is what they probably want to do anyway.  The DNC leaders will just argue that the superdelegates should declare their allegiance well in advance of the convention, because waiting until the convention would be incredibly self-destructive.

I just presume the vast majority of the superdelegates will go along with this, because the argument is so obviously correct.  Waiting all the way until the convention to crown a winner *would* in fact be pretty self-destructive on the party's part.  Obviously, if the superdelegates refuse to go along, there's nothing Dean or the DNC can do about it, but why *wouldn't* they go along with it?  Why wait until the convention?

[MarkWarner08]

A memo was leaked from the Obama Campaign stating that the nomination would go to the convention.

That memo also posits that Obama will lose TX and OH. If that happens, he should drop out.

[Angel of Death]

You got to hand it to Democrats. They do always find new, ingenious ways to lose elections, even if unconsciously.

[Eraserhead]

A memo was leaked from the Obama Campaign stating that the nomination would go to the convention.

That memo also posits that Obama will lose TX and OH. If that happens, he should drop out.

Not if the delegate count is still close.

[Lief 🗽]

A memo was leaked from the Obama Campaign stating that the nomination would go to the convention.

That memo also posits that Obama will lose TX and OH. If that happens, he should drop out.

If he loses Texas and Ohio and he's still leading in the delegate count, then it's Clinton that needs to drop out.

[exopolitician]

A memo was leaked from the Obama Campaign stating that the nomination would go to the convention.

That memo also posits that Obama will lose TX and OH. If that happens, he should drop out.

If he loses Texas and Ohio and he's still leading in the delegate count, then it's Clinton that needs to drop out.

Im so ready for all this to be over with....-_-