Chaos at the Convention

[jducoeur]

It occurs to me that the Democratic Convention this year is likely to feature fireworks -- and not good ones at that.

The numbers at the moment are interesting. If you look at the CNN Delegate Scorecard, as of right now Obama holds a slender lead in terms of the "pledged" delegates -- the ones who were chosen due to the primary process. But Clinton leads overall, because she has promises from more of the "superdelegates" -- the party honchos who get a vote because of their position in the party.

So let's look at a moderately likely scenario. The convention rolls around, and the race is still too close to call. Obama still holds a lead in the pledged delegates, Clinton in the superdelegates. Things begin to solidify towards Clinton *because* of the superdelegates. What happens?

Hard to say -- not riots, because people generally need better reasons to riot nowadays, but massive and vocal unhappiness among the party. The convention itself turns into a huge scandal, as the pundits talk up the anti-democratic nature of the superdelegates. The superdelegates come under *enormous* pressure to swing their votes to match the popular vote, and people start talking loudly about eliminating the superdelegates entirely. And the whole thing does a fair amount of damage to the Democrats, who look chaotic next to the coronation of McCain (with the hardcore conservatives quietly holding their noses) happening over at the Republican convention.

I do hope the party leadership is ready for this, and thinking about how to react, because it looks to me like it has a fair chance of playing out just this way. They will undoubtedly make lots of noise about how the system is so much better than back in the days of backroom deals, but I don't think that the modern electorate is going to have much sympathy for that. The superdelegate system has continued for many years precisely because it hasn't mattered much. If it *does* start to matter, I think it's going to turn into quite the national stink...

Comments

[rufinia.livejournal.com]

CNN still hasn't awarded the California delgates to Clinton yet, which will change the picture of the scorecard.

And I can't find anything that tells me if CA is a winner take all state, or if their delgates will be divied up.

[cvirtue.livejournal.com]

Fascinating, thank you.

I always have assumed (based on nothing but cynicism, mind) that "back room deals" were still going on, but they're hidden better than they used to be.

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

I've worried about this scenario for quite awhile now. And I imagine party leaders have as well.

The delegate balance may see-saw some with CA. But I think it unlikely that Clinton will pull so far ahead. I also expect Obama to do well here in the "Chesapeake Primary" next week, although not decisively.

TX and Ohio may end up deciding the thing before the convention.

Finally, to add to the nightmare, there is the Florida and Michigan delegate mess. Clinton has vowed to try to get them seated. Of course, the rank opportunism of trying to get them seated _after_ she won is not lost on the Obama camp. Obama has proposed a "make up" primary in which the state parties could run the primaries again with both candidates campaigning this time. That solution, however, would require state legislatures to act.

If Clinton wins by getting FL and MI delegates seated, there will be a _lot_ of bitterness by Obama supporters and in the African American community, which will once again feel that Whitey moved the goal post as soon as a black man got too close. OTOH, refusal to seat FL and MI delegates will anger Dems in those states, which will certainly be major battle grounds against McCain.

[driftingfocus.livejournal.com]

*Very* interesting theory!

[hungrytiger]

FYI, one of the CNN analysts I was watching was talking about the same superdelagate issue and he said that many of the superdelategs he had spoken with said that they would be very uncomfortable going against the popular vote, even if they had already pledged to the other candidate; possibly uncomfortable enough to switch over. I think most of the party remembers the 2000 Florida mess well enough to not want to be responsible for slecting a candidate through methods that the public would find distasteful.

Which really has me wondering about Hillary's statements about possibly getting the courts involved in reinstating the FL and MI delagates. There's nothing that would turn me off faster than a national candidate trying to litigate their way to the Presidency.

[serakit.livejournal.com]

How does the convention work, then? What does being bound in the first vote mean, and what do you mean when you speak of going more than one round? Don't they just go, vote, and whoever has more delegates has the nomination?

[jrising.livejournal.com]

There's an added twist, depending on how close Obama and Clinton end up. Edwards still has his delegates, and he gets to decide who they vote for (I believe). Which potential puts him in a position of being an even more powerful king-maker.

I'll be very surprised if this gets out of hand. Right now, it's all great shtik: everyone is waiting the their seats' edges over the Democratic primaries. By the time the convention rolls around, I'm sure Dean and the DNC will have made sure the candidates and delegates all know where they stand, and the loser will throw all his/her support to the victor with a smile (and I think both Obama and Clinton are good enough players that they will do that).