DVD Talk
How will the Democratic Convention work? [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum

PDA

View Full Version : How will the Democratic Convention work?


Th0r S1mpson
03-23-08, 06:30 PM
Hopefully this is removed enough to belong outside of the election thread. I'm curious how this process works, as the prospect is being talked about a lot.

Let's say neither Hillary or Obama seals the deal before the convention (quite likely). We can say for the time being that Obama's lead remains as-is entering the convention, and superdelegates enter the room as presently expected. How exactly does one candidate emerge victorious? What's the process look like?

Assume that Florida and Michigan are either not seated, or speculate that they are seated in a manner that does not arrive at a victor by default.

If neither Hillary or Obama has enough delegates to clinch, what happens to secure the nomination? Do Superdelegates alone have the freedom to change their vote?

What's it take to win?

JasonF
03-23-08, 06:41 PM
There's a day or two of wrangling over the rules -- the chief issue, fo course, will be "do Michigan and Florida get seated." Then there's a vote. This happens at every convention, but usually everyone just votes for the nominee. Thsi time, the vote actually matters. They'll go state by state -- "The great state of Windbagia casts 43 of its votes for Senator Gravel and 57 of its votes for Representative Kucinich!" I imagine its up to each state to determine whether they want to add the usual "the next President of the United States" before the candidates' names.

It's not clear to me how the superdelegates vote. My guess is they caucus with their state delegations ahead of time, so that the delegation of each state presents its totals as a whole.

Superdelegates are free to change their mind at any time, so Bill Clinton could wake up on the day of the convention and decide to switch to the Obama camp. In theory.

Pledged delegates are bound to vote their candidate on the first ballot only -- that is, if Pennsylvania winds up going to Senator Clinton 120 to 90, then on the first ballot, Pennsylvania must give 120 of its pledged delegates to Senator Clinton and 90 to Senator Obama. After that, all bets are off (though the delegates sent to Denver will be people loyal to their respective candidates). But at that point, there could be wheeling and dealing -- promises of cabinet posts or other perks in exchange for some or all of a delegation's vote ("Ohio, if you can get me another 25 delegates, I will make sure that Governor Strickland gets nominated to be Secretary of NAFTA Bashing in my cabinet.")

classicman2
03-23-08, 07:26 PM
Pledged delegates are not bound by law or convention rules to vote for their candidate even on the first ballot. www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8583html

One thing that probably will occur - there will be more television coverage of this convention than there has been in the recent past.

X
03-23-08, 07:28 PM
"Work" is the trick part of the question, isn't it? I'd say "happen" might be a better word to use.

JasonF
03-23-08, 08:21 PM
Pledged delegates are not bound by law or convention rules to vote for their candidate even on the first ballot. www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8583.html

Mostly true. The convention rules provide as follows:

All delegates to the National Convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.

Which suggests that the pledged delegates should vote for their identified candidate, but is vague enough that there's wiggle room.

It's probably moot anyway. If you're an Obama Pledged Delegate, you were selected because you strongly prefer Obama to Clinton (and vice versa). You're not going to switch arbitrarily, and certainly not on the first ballot.

wendersfan
03-24-08, 05:56 AM
Superdelegates are free to change their mind at any time, so Bill Clinton could wake up on the day of the convention and decide to switch to the Obama camp. In theory.Isn't that largely dependent on whether or not he slept on the sofa the night before? ;)

classicman2
03-24-08, 08:08 AM
Mostly true. The convention rules provide as follows:



Which suggests that the pledged delegates should vote for their identified candidate, but is vague enough that there's wiggle room.

It's probably moot anyway. If you're an Obama Pledged Delegate, you were selected because you strongly prefer Obama to Clinton (and vice versa). You're not going to switch arbitrarily, and certainly not on the first ballot.

Let's not crawfish.

Pledged delegates are bound to vote their candidate on the first ballot only --that is, if Pennsylvania winds up going to Senator Clinton 120 to 90, then on the first ballot, Pennsylvania must give 120 of its pledged delegates to Senator Clinton and 90 to Senator Obama.

bound was the word you used.

They are not bound - either legally or by convention rules.

Just retract your statement, and the forum will forgive you. :)

JasonF
03-24-08, 08:14 AM
Let's not crawfish.



bound was the word you used.

They are not bound - either legally or by convention rules.

Just retract your statement, and the forum will forgive you. :)

I reject and denounce my use of the word "bound."

classicman2
03-24-08, 08:18 AM
Thank you! :)

Sen. Bayh: Superdelegates Should Choose Based on Electoral Math

I agree if the Democrats want to win in November.

Th0r S1mpson
03-24-08, 08:19 AM
Thanks for the info so far. Now for the question... what's it take to lock it up? Clearly a simple majority won't do?

wendersfan
03-24-08, 08:19 AM
Thank you! :)

Sen. Bayh: Superdelegates Should Choose Based on Electoral Math

I agree if the Democrats want to win in November.Link, please?

(Or at least an explanation of what "electoral math" means to the good Senator.)

classicman2
03-24-08, 08:26 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/us/politics/24campaign.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Th0r S1mpson
03-24-08, 08:26 AM
I did a little snooping. Apparently a simple majority is all that's required, and given the very small number of delegates given to any 3rd party (Edwards), it would have to be a virtual tie for Hillary to take it to a second round of voting?

Tracer Bullet
03-24-08, 08:28 AM
Link, please?

(Or at least an explanation of what "electoral math" means to the good Senator.)

Apparently it means electoral votes. Which is a nonsensical way to decide a primary.

wendersfan
03-24-08, 08:39 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/us/politics/24campaign.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
In other words, let me figure out who I want to win, and then engineer a supposedly fair system that will guarantee the result I want.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2212/2358085208_04e6287c86.jpg

:rolleyes:

DVD Josh
03-24-08, 08:43 AM
What kills me are all the Obama cronies saying that "Hillary can't win". Well the truth it Mr. Obama that you are likely not to "win" either. Neither of them will go to the convention with a "winning" number of delegates.

But don't let that little piece of truth interrupt the landslide of hope coming down the mountain.

Th0r S1mpson
03-24-08, 08:45 AM
It sould seem that looking at the entire electoral college is as stupid as looking at the popular vote. But if you only look at the states that are up for grabs... Then it makes sense.

Where does that stand now?

classicman2
03-24-08, 08:46 AM
Electoral votes decide the election - not number of states or popular votes.

Perhaps Bayh wants a winner.

wendersfan
03-24-08, 08:50 AM
Perhaps Bayh wants a winner.
Perhaps the time-honored tradition of "one man, one vote" is meaningless to him.

classicman2
03-24-08, 08:56 AM
Perhaps the time-honored tradition of "one man, one vote" is meaningless to him.

What about primaries in which a candidate could win more votes and receive fewer delegates. Do you consider that to be honoring the 'one man, one vote' idea?

Don't overlook the fact that he's talking about the Super Delegates.

Pharoh
03-24-08, 09:15 AM
From the Times:


One of Senator Clinton’s top supporters in Indiana, Senator Evan Bayh, is touting a new reason for superdelegates to vote for her: Mrs. Clinton wins the states with the most Electoral College votes. Katharine Q. Seelye of The New York Times writes:
So far, Mrs. Clinton has won states with a total of 219 Electoral College votes, not counting Florida and Michigan, while Mr. Obama has won states with a total of 202 electoral votes.
Mr. Obama, of Illinois, is ahead of Mrs. Clinton, of New York, in most other leading indicators: popular vote (by 700,000 votes out of 26 million cast, excluding caucuses and the disputed Florida and Michigan results, a difference of about 3 percent); delegates (1,622.5 compared with 1,472.5 for her, according to The New York Times’s count); and number of states (27 compared with 14 for her, excluding Florida and Michigan). The opinion polls are mixed but give Mr. Obama a slight edge.
Asked how she could win the nomination, Mr. Bayh said: “Well, I do think the popular vote is important. But that’s a circular argument. It brings us back to Florida and Michigan.”

Pharoh
03-24-08, 09:17 AM
What about primaries in which a candidate could win more votes and receive fewer delegates. Do you consider that to be honoring the 'one man, one vote' idea?

Don't overlook the fact that he's talking about the Super Delegates.



Or what about the fact that the candidate leading among Democrat voters is not leading in the Democrat primary? Should that have any bearing?







*Based upon the last info I saw.

wishbone
03-24-08, 09:21 AM
http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/6434/09252007mx0.jpg

Th0r S1mpson
03-24-08, 10:05 AM
So is that correct? Simple majority takes it?

That would make a brokered convention extremely unlikely in this case. (18 pledged delegates for Edwards, according to CNN)

DVD Josh
03-24-08, 10:23 AM
Bayh is right. What the dems seem to be missing is that they need a candidate who can BEAT McCain, not beat the other dem. They should put the candidate who can deliver NY, CA, FL, MI, PA, OH and other large states in November. Most of the states that Obama won would NEVER go dem in November.

wendersfan
03-24-08, 10:29 AM
Bayh is right. What the dems seem to be missing is that they need a candidate who can BEAT McCain, not beat the other dem. They should put the candidate who can deliver NY, CA, FL, MI, PA, OH and other large states in November. Most of the states that Obama won would NEVER go dem in November.The only flaw in this argument is that states like New York and California will go Democratic regardless of who the Democrats nominate. Just because Clinton won the primaries there doesn't mean the voters don't like Obama.

Oh, and a couple of more flaws in your reasoning:

1. Clinton won Texas. Are you suggesting that the Democrats have a shot there if she's the nominee? :lol:

2. We haven't had the Pennsylvania primary yet.

And another one:

What of the argument that Clinton doesn't have what it takes to win "up for grabs" states out West that Clinton can't win?

Red Dog
03-24-08, 11:04 AM
I'm surprised Bayh didn't say - if you want to win, pick me as your running mate, even though I probably can't deliver my home state. ;)

JasonF
03-24-08, 11:27 AM
Bayh is right. What the dems seem to be missing is that they need a candidate who can BEAT McCain, not beat the other dem. They should put the candidate who can deliver NY, CA, FL, MI, PA, OH and other large states in November. Most of the states that Obama won would NEVER go dem in November.

I've got news for you -- it doesn't matter who they nominate. That person is going to deliver New York and California in November, regardless of who won them on Super Tuesday. If there's a horrific disaster at the convetion and we're left with no choice but to run Mike Gravel, he will deliver New York and California.

The only state-by-state polling I've seen showed both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama winning enough electoral votes to defeat Senator McCain. They do it with some different states, but either one wins.

Once that threshold -- can this candidate defeat Senator McCain in the general election -- is crossed, I think the superdelegates would be wise to look to down-ticket races. It would be great if our new Democratic President can bring a few state houses over to the Democratic column, and build himself a strongly Democratic Congress (dare we dream of a fillibuster-proof majority? It's not going to happen in 2008, but we can always dream of 2010 and beyond).

classicman2
03-24-08, 11:32 AM
http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/6434/09252007mx0.jpg

Have you got an image that shows Bill Richardson? ;)

Red Dog
03-24-08, 11:34 AM
I've got news for you -- it doesn't matter who they nominate. That person is going to deliver New York and California in November, regardless of who won them on Super Tuesday. If there's a horrific disaster at the convetion and we're left with no choice but to run Mike Gravel, he will deliver New York and California.

The only state-by-state polling I've seen showed both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama winning enough electoral votes to defeat Senator McCain. They do it with some different states, but either one wins.

Once that threshold -- can this candidate defeat Senator McCain in the general election -- is crossed, I think the superdelegates would be wise to look to down-ticket races. It would be great if our new Democratic President can bring a few state houses over to the Democratic column, and build himself a strongly Democratic Congress (dare we dream of a fillibuster-proof majority? It's not going to happen in 2008, but we can always dream of 2010 and beyond).


It's still March. And you should be very concerned with Obama's ability to hold PA blue. If he were to lose PA, then he has to find 39 EVs. If he can't take FL or OH, that means he has to virtually sweep all the smaller tossups.

JasonF
03-24-08, 11:38 AM
It's still March. And you should be very concerned with Obama's ability to hold PA blue. If he were to lose PA, then he has to find 39 EVs. If he can't take FL or OH, that means he has to virtually sweep all the smaller tossups.

Survey USA had him winning without Pennsylvania (or Florida, for that matter).

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v337/JFliegel/mccain-obama-final.jpg

Here's the Clinton/McCain matchup:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v337/JFliegel/mccain-clinton-final.jpg

JasonF
03-24-08, 11:41 AM
Notwithstanding the foregoing, I would love to see a map favoring Senator Obama the same way the 1984 map favored President Reagan or the 1972 map favored President Nixon. ;)

Red Dog
03-24-08, 11:45 AM
And again, despite the brilliance that is SurveyUSA :lol:, it's still March. The point is that w/o PA, it forces a) a virtual sweep of the small toss-ups, or b) one of OH or FL plus 3-4 smaller tossups. It's no easy task. Winning Ohio damn sure won't be easy for him.

And I still question any map that has Obama winning VA, despite the shift in demographics this decade.

classicman2
03-24-08, 11:49 AM
Democrats lose OH, PA, & FL - welcome President John McCain.

wendersfan
03-24-08, 11:53 AM
Democrats lose OH, PA, & FL - welcome President John McCain.The state of the economy has a lot more to do with who wins PA and OH than who the Democratic nominee is.

The Bus
03-24-08, 12:01 PM
If there's a horrific disaster at the convetion and we're left with no choice but to run Mike Gravel, he will deliver New York and California.

:lol:

Pharoh
03-24-08, 12:04 PM
The state of the economy has a lot more to do with who wins PA and OH than who the Democratic nominee is.



Since we are looking at current polls, who currently of the three is viewed as the strongest on the economy? Or are they still all tied?


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0