Could the Dems have a contested convention?

[takoma]

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You may misunderstand the definition of a contested convention, Takoma. Superdelegates make up 15% of the total delegates. Obama was short of the pledged delegate total in 200& -- much shorter than Clinton will be this year -- and superdelegates put him over the top.

At this point Clinton needs fewer than 200 delegates to hit the magic number. She will soon have more than enough delegates to be nominated.

My understanding is that a contested convention is one that is not determined by the first ballot. With the superdelegates already pledged to her, she will certainly have that first ballot vote. However, my question related only to the scenario of an indictment or some other disabling event. As far as I know, the superdelegates, unlike the committed delegates, would be free to rescind their pledges and either go with Bernie or throw it to a second ballot where it could be totally up for grabs.

I know it's unlikely, but if the situation arose, wouldn't it be within the rules for the superdelegates to take my hypothetical action? And, in fact, isn't it their raison d'etre to save the party from nominating a sure loser?

Yes, and yes. But it's very unlikely to happen.

Thanks for confirming the unlikelihood, as well as the other two things. It would be truly shocking for something unlikely to happen in this thoroughly predictable year.

[Anonymous]

I actually think the raison d'etre of the superdelegates is to prevent a contested convention.