Brokerage

Yesterday, Atrios wrote:

Yes all political junkies dream of the brokered convention. It would be exciting!! But I started to think about how the news media would deal with such a thing if it were necessary. The primaries are early. The convention is in August. Between the primaries and the convention the bobblehead discussion would be unbearable. I don't know how the campaigns themselves would deal with it. They couldn't go dark, but they couldn't campaign as the presumptive nominee either. There'd be calls and pressures from various quarters for one of the candidates to "do the honorable thing" and bow out for the sake of the party, or Tim Russert's Nantucket vacation, or whatever.

I kind of assume, in part for this reason, that even if the primaries don't result in anyone securing a majority of the delegates that the fight wouldn't actually go all the way to the convention. The answer to the question of what the campaigns do between the primaries and the convention is that they'd be brokering with all their might and most likely something would emerge. After all, what does anyone else have to do?

Comments

I kind of assume, in part for this reason, that even if the primaries don't result in anyone securing a majority of the delegates that the fight wouldn't actually go all the way to the convention.

That would be a shame. Because any brokering conducted largely through the media and without the presence of a large group of party activists is likely to be less satisfactory than the outcome you'd get from a convention. Maybe in this brokered contingency, the parties should make plans for an emergency "real" convention a week or two after the primaries end . . . they could still have the big media convention in August in necessary.

Posted by southpaw | January 28, 2008 11:38 AM

I think these calls will occur for the Democrats, as the Democrats are always supposed to, according to the "liberal" media, do the "honorable" thing, etc.

But amongst the Republicans, there are many actually hoping for a brokered convention -- they don't like the crop of candidates for the nomination and are hoping the party big wigs will tap some miraculous leader who is currently unknown to everyone.

Actually, there is a whiff of authoritarianism in the idea of the brokered convention, so of course, authoritarians like the Bush fellating media-types do indeed want one.

But if the Dems. have a brokered convention, those same media types will go on and on about how the Dems. aren't being very democratic. Which double standard is fair enough: the GOoPers want a brokered convention in a way we moonbats tend to not want ...

Posted by DAS | January 28, 2008 11:38 AM

The answer to the question of what the campaigns do between the primaries and the convention is that they'd be brokering with all their might and most likely something would emerge.

But this begs the question: why does Matthew think that "most likely something would emerge"?

As far as I can tell, there is no reason for something to "emerge" until the convention. What does anyone gain by making a deal early - why not wait until the convention actually happens?

As I look at it, the convention is like the NBA trade deadline. You often have GMs holding out for more until then deadline actually approaches. Same with a brokered convention, no?

(Not that I actually think there will be a brokered convention on either side. But anyway...)

Posted by Al | January 28, 2008 11:47 AM

On the Democratic side, I'm sure the super delegates will push one candidate over the top before the convention. There will be a lot of back room negotiations, but it will get done long before the convention. The Republicans don't have this option, so they have to convince regular delegates to switch votes after the first ballot. It's hard to see how they can do this before the convention. Only a candidate conceding would accomplish that goal, and it would be in the interest of each candidate to control their delegates as long as possible. So I doubt either McCain or Romney would do it.

Posted by fostert | January 28, 2008 11:54 AM

Why IS the convention so far after the primaries?

Posted by MNPundit | January 28, 2008 11:56 AM

What fostert said. The Democratic superdelegates (man, I hope we get rid of those before next time) make a brokered convention really unlikely on that side. The only way I see it happening for the Dems is if Obama wins big in the remaining primaries and caucuses, but doesn't get an outright majority of delegates and Hillary is close to him with earned and superdelegates. My guess is Edwards would swing his delegates to one of them (probably Obama) in exchange for a VP or AG post way before the convention. Of course this scenario also presupposed that Edwards' vote share goes up, which is also unlikely.

A brokered convention is unlikely on the GOP side too, as it's effectively a two man race now, with Huck probably winding up with maybe 15-25% of the delegates. As above, I'd imagine that if Romney and McCain wind up neck and neck (which might happened if McCain doesn't start breaking 40% and Romney keeps vacuuming up silver medal delegates) Huck would through his people to one or the other (probably McCain) well before the convention.

Posted by Justin K. | January 28, 2008 12:02 PM

The Democratic Party will be under enormous pressure to give the nomination to whoever came out of the process with the most elected delegates.

Imagine this scenario:

1. Barack Obama comes out of the primaries with more dedicated delegates than Clinton, but not a majority.

2. Party insiders (aka "super delegates") possibly with the help of John Edwards help Clinton leap frog Obama.

Clinton will probably win the nomination either way, but if she does so after Obama gets more votes from regular voters it would be an epic disaster for the Party. Can you imagine a black candidate getting more votes only to have is nomination derailed by backdoor politicking among old-guard party insiders?

Posted by matthewcc | January 28, 2008 12:04 PM

I'm with fostert, the super delegates will tip the balance, but, that negotiating will happen during and after the Feb. 5th primaries as that's the big momentum day. It also seems to me the Clintons, liked or disliked, have a huge edge in negotiating super delegates to their side because of their approval and connections within in the party.

Posted by Fred F. | January 28, 2008 12:10 PM

I think it'd be much more interesting if the presumptive nominee lost support after the primaries. There are so many months between the primaries and the convention that something could come up: a sex or money (or both) scandal, a heart attack, a crisis that the presumptive nominee is especially ill-trusted to handle. I've seen it happen in state politics (Grunseth in Minnesota in 1990), and there's no reason it couldn't happen nationally.

That'd be a fun convention to watch.

Posted by dbomp | January 28, 2008 12:42 PM

Re "After all, what does anyone else have to do?"
-----------
Er.. I'm sure Wild Bill has a few ideas. Drink Scotch and get blind-eyed pissed, shag the 20 year old female campaign workers,etc

Posted by Don Williams | January 28, 2008 1:01 PM

The trial balloon is now being floated for an Obama-Clinton ticket as a way of "healing the wounds" after a gruelling primary fight.

It's not clear from this who is presumed to be the Presidential candidate and who the VP. But, regardless, if Obama were to accept that compromise, he would forever lose his edge and glow as the "change" candidate by succumbing to the insider politics of the party hierarchy. I, for one, would lose all confidence in his ability to stand for principle.

Anyway, it's best to hope that the realization by both Clinton and Obama that such a combination of these two highly charged personalities would prove to be highly dysfunctional would make them resist the temptation to accept it.

Posted by Justin X | January 28, 2008 2:37 PM

An Obama/Hillary ticket (in either order) would still be a change ticket and they could still promote it as such, after all, regardless of who wins the GOP nod, look what they'll be running against, an old war mongering white guy.

If Obama loses the nomination, the change theme is a moot point anyhow. It will be impossible for him to carry that mantle as a senator for 8 years only then to have to pick it up again hoping to be a VP choice for whomever Hillary picked as her VP. The change candidacy is NOW, after this election he'll be the EXPERIENCE candidate regardless of what happens.

Posted by Fred F. | January 28, 2008 4:28 PM

Something might emerge, but nothing will be completely settled until the convention. Superdelegates can be persuaded to change their minds. Edwards' delegates can be persuaded to go against Edwards' wishes.

Imagine that Obama gets the biggest plurality of pledged delegates, and has enough superdelegates (and perhaps Edwards' delegates) to make up a majority. Can you see Hillary packing her bags and going home? Or is she more likely to use the months from March to August to lobby the superdelegates hard, trying to persuade enough to tip the election?

A lot can happen between now and August. Sex scandal. Terrorist attack. Cancer diagnosis. Why would any candidate -- even Edwards -- officially drop out before the fat lady sings at the convention?

Posted by CN | January 28, 2008 4:30 PM

It may seem "undemocratic" to have superdelegates... but to be a superdelegate you have to have been elected to something... and you also have to be an official who would probably have been coming to the convention anyway even you didn't actually have a vote or a credential with the word "DELEGATE" on it.

I am not so sure that the superdelegates are all that eager to get Hillary nominated. The 1990s were not great years for the party, even if Hillary served two terms as First Lady. Even though Hillary is respected and feared, I think there is a sense that the party needs to go in a new direction in the 2010s.

Posted by Timothy Horrigan | January 29, 2008 11:33 AM