Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who, in either party, would be the brokers?
All the conventions up to 1972 were brokered. Both parties had their own powerful precinct and party committeemen who could steer their voters to whoever they selected as the nominee and did. Their voters turned out because their leadership made sure they turned out.
But ever since the state primaries became the end-run around the party brokers, the conventions became steadily less able to be brokered. Ever since the 1980 election, the conventions have become more symbolic than powerful. The convention meets, rubber-stamps the results of the primaries, and they all go home in a week or less.
In the past, a convention often lasted a month when it became deadlocked. The delegates would vote as many as 30 times a day, day after day, until the nominee was settled.
The brokers ran those conventions, but they no longer exist. While many of them accrued wealth from their positions, most accrued influence, which was even better. Now, there is little of either to be had for doing what amounts to a tough partisan job that goes on daily with very little actual reward.
It will be interesting to see what a new version of a brokered convention will be, if one happens. The thing is entirely new now to both party leaders and the delegates.
And 2016 seems to be a year of possibility of brokered conventions for both parties.
It's shorthand for the process that would ensue if there was not a clear winner on the 1st ballot. The "brokers" would be all the candidates and delegates trying to persuade someone to change their vote.
Quote:
Once the first ballot, or vote, has occurred, and no candidate has a majority of the delegates' votes, the convention is then considered brokered; thereafter, the nomination is decided through a process of alternating political horse-trading and additional re-votes. In this circumstance, all regular delegates (who, previously, may have been pledged to a particular candidate are "released," and are able to switch their allegiance to a different candidate before the next round of balloting. It is hoped that this 'freedom' will result in a re-vote resulting in a clear majority of delegates for one candidate.
There would literally be riots in the streets if the superdelegates decide the election for the loser of the votes. Wasserman Schulz has done some really nasty things to keep the DNC anti-democratic in this campaign but the superdelegates wouldnt dare to do something like that. It could probably destroy the whole party.
There would literally be riots in the streets if the superdelegates decide the election for the loser of the votes. Wasserman Schulz has done some really nasty things to keep the DNC anti-democratic in this campaign but the superdelegates wouldnt dare to do something like that. It could probably destroy the whole party.
Superdelegate votes have determined previous candidates (Mondale comes to mind) and there was no childish rioting.
The people who do the work - the pledged delegates and the superdelegates - together make and vote on the rules. If someone doesn't like them they can become a workerbee and work their way up to become a delegate and vote to change the rules, instead of threatening to riot. A better way to protest them would be to vote in the general election against any candidate chosen by them, right?
And Wasserman Schulz had nothing to do with their implementation, she was in grade school when the current system came about.
I stand corrected, (amounts are slightly different depending on the source), with that being said Obama still received more Delegates than Clinton based off the votes tied to the Primary and Caucus. The Superdelegates did not override the vote.
Neither candidate had required number of delegates to win nomination. This even with John Edwards pledging his delegates to Obama. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.
The convention should have been brokered but it wasn't. The Super Delegates picked the winner. They went with Obama even though Hillary won the vote. Remember, Hillary didn't immediately concede the race either.
This is why it won't be a brokered convention this time either. Bernie can beat Hillary in the popular vote but the Super Delegates, who are almost all "New Democrats" will insure she will be nominated.
Neither candidate had required number of delegates to win nomination. This even with John Edwards pledging his delegates to Obama. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.
The convention should have been brokered but it wasn't. The Super Delegates picked the winner. They went with Obama even though Hillary won the vote. Remember, Hillary didn't immediately concede the race either.
This is why it won't be a brokered convention this time either. Bernie can beat Hillary in the popular vote but the Super Delegates, who are almost all "New Democrats" will insure she will be nominated.
Not exactly true. Saying Clinton won the popular vote really only tells part of the story because of the difference in how votes are attributed in Primary and Caucus states. The popular vote isn't calculated the same way in a Caucus state as it is in a Primary state. Clinton did win most of the votes in the Primary states, Obama won most of the Caucus states. Without counting the Superdelegates or Edward's delegates, Obama had more delegates than Clinton as a direct result of delegates attributed to the Primary and Caucus results. He didn't have a majority, but had a Plurality. Of the delegates tied directly to the Primary and Caucus vote, Obama had more than Clinton.
I live in the South, on an island of blue in a Sea of red. Bernie is the buzz, in this highly progressive socialist city.(they call it SF on the 3rd Coast)
It is really bad, when progressive socialist, think Hillary is a fraud.
I would be fine with a joint ticket of the two, I like them both. Hillary can be tough, Bernie can be true blue. I honestly would have expected O'Malley to do better than he has, good looking guy, good at retail politics, tall (doesn't need high heel boots like Rubio), I'm kind of surprised there.
Nope. Clinton won the popular vote. She didn't win the nomination.
The rest is simply DNC excuses as to why the popular vote doesn't matter. Popular vote is simple. Their rules to the contrary aren't.
This is why the convention won't be brokered.
The caucus vote is counted differently than the Primary vote, so the talk off the popular vote when it comes to Primaries is really a misnomer.
Fact of the matter is, when you look at the delegates assigned directly due to the vote for the Primary and Caucus results, Obama received more delegates than Clinton did.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
