Could the Dems have a contested convention?

takoma
Member Offline
Now that the prospect of a contested GOP convention seems to have disappeared, is there a possibility of a contested Democratic convention? Consider the numbers: Clinton has 1705 committed delegates, and Sanders has 1415. The remaining states have 923. 2383 are needed to win the nomination. So, in order to get the nomination purely with committed delegates, Clinton would need 678 of those 923. Because of the proportional apportionment of delegates, that means she would need about 3/4 of the votes, which is extremely unlikely.

This is not to say that she is not the prohibitive favorite, just that she will need a fair number of the 719 superdelegates to take her over the top. But if there were to be an indictment or some other catastrophe, it is possible for those superdelegates to move away and force a second ballot, in which the committed delegates would then be freed, and move to Biden, Warren, etc.

This is not intended as a prediction, but rather as a question: Is there something in the rules that would make this impossible, or could it actually happen if Hillary's campaign suffers a major blow?
Anonymous
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.
Anonymous
The point of the superdelegates is specifically to give the party some control to overturn the primary voters' selection if they believe that candidate would hurt the party's chances in November. An indictment of Clinton would likely flip the superdelegates against her, but it seems highly, highly unlikely that she will be indicted. Since the superdelegates were introduced, I don't believe there has been a single election where the superdelegates overturned the will of the primary voters.

Sanders seems to be arguing they should do that on the basis of his being more electable than Clinton. I don't think that's a particularly winning argument coming from someone who wasn't even able to win a majority of the primary votes and whose primary voters, based on exit polling, skew more liberal than Clinton's across the board.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-sanders-does-better-with-independents/

People keep using the above to suggest Sanders will win over independents, but if you read the analysis it suggests he does better with people who lean further left (which does not describe the majority of the US whatever people may say).
Anonymous
12:19 is correct that superdelegates have never overturned the pledged delegate and popular vote winner. There is now no possible way for Sanders to win more pledged delegates than Clinton. In fact, Clinton could lose all the remaining primary contests and still lead Sanders.
Anonymous
Obama/Clinton was way closer and no one talked so much about the invalidity of super delegates or the possibility of contested conventions.
Anonymous
Bernie has said publicly there will be a contested convention. He might win more states than Hillary. He will play hard for those super delegates.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Bernie has said publicly there will be a contested convention. He might win more states than Hillary. He will play hard for those super delegates.


Lol, you live in fantasyland.

If Bernie forces a vote, Hillary will win on the first ballot. He has no convincing grounds for winning over superdelegates, given that sh phenomenon has large leads among pledged delegates and popular vote,

A contested conventions is when there is multiple roll calls, not happening this year.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Bernie has said publicly there will be a contested convention. He might win more states than Hillary. He will play hard for those super delegates.


Lol, you live in fantasyland.

If Bernie forces a vote, Hillary will win on the first ballot. He has no convincing grounds for winning over superdelegates, given that sh phenomenon has large leads among pledged delegates and popular vote,

A contested conventions is when there is multiple roll calls, not happening this year.


No idea why autocorrect stuck phenomenon in there,
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Bernie has said publicly there will be a contested convention. He might win more states than Hillary. He will play hard for those super delegates.

Bernie does not really seem to know what a contested convention is.

Bernie cannot win more states: it's mathematically impossible. States don't matter anyway. Only delegates matter.

And Bernie said he is "entitled" to superdelegates in states he wins by large margins, but refused to concede that Clinton would be entitled to superdelegates in states she won by large margins. This is obviously not logical.

As I said above, Clinton could lose all upcoming states and still lead. At this point she is not running hard in upcoming states because she wants to save money for the general election. She will have the necessary delegates early in June.
Anonymous
I would prefer Bernie to win but I'm happy with Clinton. So drama at the convention wouldn't bother me either way.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I would prefer Bernie to win but I'm happy with Clinton. So drama at the convention wouldn't bother me either way.

I don't think there will be much drama. Clinton said very clearly this morning that she would like to see Bernie play a major role in crafting the platform and going forward to build a progressive government. We can and will come together to keep Trump out of the White House, retake the Senate and gain seats in the House.
takoma
Member Offline
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?
Anonymous
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?



If you are waiting for an indictment, no there will not be a contested convention.
Anonymous
There's not going to be an indictment. I'm not sure why you seem to wish for one.
Anonymous
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.
post reply Forum Index » Political Discussion
Message Quick Reply
Go to: