A Contested Convention
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (52) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Consider David Freddoso your must read of the day.
It is becoming a real probability that we will have a contested convention unless McCain and Thompson choose amongst themselves and consolidate behind one or the other.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | VoteVets.org former Board Member Unites with Vets for Freedom Executive Director — Comments (4) »
A Contested Convention 52 Comments (0 topical, 52 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Could this be a way to get a candidate that keeps everyone - well, every part of our coalition - happy, say maybe, Tom Coburn?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
As it is, you could see some of Rudy's people walk out of Huckabee's the nominee, most of Huckabee's and perhaps some of Thompson's and Romney's people walk out if Rudy's the nominee, and some of Thompson's and Huckabee's people walk out of Romney's the nominee. Tom Coburn would keep all of those groups happy.
Are you talking about supporting Coburn, or Huckabee? With Huckabee, I can understand that. If Rudy supporters are backing him on terrorism and/or fiscal responsibility, exactly what problem would they have with Coburn?
probably support him.
However, the GOP needs a brokered convention like it needs a hole in the head. One of the big 5 has to close the deal with the primary voters, and I will support that choice. It would be helpful if a couple drop out to get the number of choices down to a more manageable figure, but I don't expect that to happen.
It seems clear to me that nobody drops out before then, and if the delegates are dispersed enough on that day, we may be virtually foreclosed from a candidate getting a delegate majority.
You should know about Tom Coburn. He's arguably the most responsible member of the Senate. He has illustrated the lack of clear set spending priorities and, as a freshman, has taken on the old bulls of the Senate to start setting things straight. Just last week, he sent a "Dear Colleague" letter to every Senator saying that he wouldn't agree to unanimous consent requests that pump pork into bills at the last minute. He's conservative across the board and never ducks a fight.
You can learn more at coburn.senate.gov.
that never entered my mind, no clear winner at the convention. It does say one thing positive, each candidate has very strong support and a good group working the base.
The HinzSight Report
Managing Editor
I should have said that I haven't thought about it at all, I have seen your posts, just never gave it any productive thought, my bad of course.
The HinzSight Report
Managing Editor
The GOP would likely know that there is not going to be a majority be February, or April-May at the absolute latest. Given that it would probably not be in the GOP's best interest to see our candidates still bickering while Hillary or Obama goes across the country without direct opposition, I the nominee would be chosen long before September.
How it would be chosen? This I have no idea.
Conventions mattered when technology made it impossible to get the party together without meeting in person. Particularly given the fissures opened in this primary season, we need some time to heal wounds before November; September is way too late. I expect some alternative resolution once the primary voting wraps up.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
So, a possible unintended consequence of all these states pushing their primaries up in the calendar is that the few remaining late states may actually get to have a meaningful primary for once.
I'm in one of the last primary states, so I'm hoping that my vote will still matter!
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
but that also depends on what you mean by "meaningful primary." I would consider a meaningful primary to be one in which I managed to contribute to the decision. If Super-duper Tuesday goes the right (wrong?) way, there won't be a decision until the convention. I don't think they'll be able to get together beforehand and cut a deal either. Too many people associate that sort of thing with "the bad old days of smoke filled rooms." I'm not one of them, but it is an incentive to have the floor fight at the convention.
I don't think it will be the "smoke-filled room" sort of deal, but there will probably be pressure placed on at least a couple of them, the ones with the fewest delegates, to release their delegates over to someone. The "deal" may be an attempt to see the 4th and 5th place guys on one of the top 3. Is it really a "backroom deal" if Thopmson and McCain decide to "team up" - with one of them dropping out and endorsing the other? It's the kind of stuff that happens every cycle - the only difference this time would be that it is done at a time when it would appear that nobody will get a majority.
And as we continue to contemplate this issue - how big does the issue of sanctions become? The fact that some of these early states will be losing large chunks of delegates could become significant (MI, FL, SC, NH, WY) - the effect of reinstating them on the delegate math will certainly be factored in before anybody bucks the RNC on the issue.
A brokered convention? Every pundit's dream, but I don't think so. Huckabee has to win Iowa, or he is done and so is McCain and Thompson. McCain has to win New Hampshire, or he is done. Romney probably has to win Iowa to remain competitive in New Hampshire, and will need to win New Hampshire and maybe Michigan to have any shot. Fred has to win South Carolina (if he can survive that long) or he is done. Rudy has to win Florida or he is done. I think we are going to know the Republican nominee by evening of February 5. If not, and it does go to the convention, I still like McCain's chances.
MOlsen6
Proud supporter of McCain '00 and McCain '08
Money is the issue. If people don't think you are going to win, most people won't give (OK, Ron Paul is the exception that proves the rule). Huckabee, McCain, and Thompson are all likely to be out of cash or close by January 20. Unless they win and get an infusion of bucks, they can't pay for the TV adds to make an impact on Super Tuesday. Those states are not about campaigning at diners and people's houses like Iowa and New Hampshire. Romney can always just write himself a check, and Rudy will be OK at least until the end of January. But if he doesn't demonstrate viability by then, he will run out of cash too.
MOlsen6
Proud supporter of McCain '00 and McCain '08
You think any of these candidates can run a national television ad campaign for a day that includes states like California?
I don't.
I don't think we are communicating effectively here. No, I don't think they can pay for that kind of advertising, because they are likely to be short on cash unless they win. The only exception is Romney, who could, because he can just write himself a check. If for example Huckabee wins Iowa, and follows up with a win in South Carolina, he will rake in $10-15 million. Not sufficient, but enough to get started with. Same thing with McCain and New Hampshire and South Carlolina or Michigan. Same thing with Fred in 3rd in Iowa, and winning South Carolina. That has to be worth $5-$8 million. For any of these guys, if they win a couple of states February 5, then their long term prospects improve significantly.
MOlsen6
Proud supporter of McCain '00 and McCain '08
That'd be interesting to see.
I guess the 'neat' thing about this year is that it's unlike any other. We'll see!
It really assumes that a five way fight stays pretty equilibrated for weeks and weeks. That's hard to see, given the momentum that tends to develop (with the occasional exceptions-GOP 76 and Dem 84- Big MO is 14 for 16 since 76). The odds are huge that some folks will be forced to drop out.
Take Thompson. What happens if he runs a distant third in Iowa. He'll run fifth in New Hampshire and he's gone. He'll have no chance at that stage of winning South Carolina and he'll get out.
Or McCain. If he doesn't win in New Hampshire, he's out. And then he needs to win again, in South Carolina. If not, he's out at that point.
There are crash and burn scenarios for every other candidate, and one or more of them will happen.
And what do you think McCain or Thompson are going to do if they drop out? The only way they'll support Romney is if it's a 2 way race with Huckabee. They might sit on the sidelines or endorse Rudy or each other (they both would make good Veep choices), but's it's a small piece of the puzzle.
By Florida, there will be at most three serious candidates in the race. And after Florida, it's hard to see there being more than 2.
The brokered convention scenario is an inside flush and therefore unlikely.
I see four candidates - Romney, Rudy, Huckabee, and Paul - staying in after Florida.
Huckabee has the least money of those four, but will probably have finished 1,3,2,1 in the prior four primaries, there's no way he'll get out before Super Tuesday even if the bottom drops out in Florida. Paul's got the money to stay in this thing as long as he wants. Romney has invested too much in this not to make it that far. And Rudy will have the leads in all the big states even if somehow he doesn't hold Florida.
Thompson will be out by the time South Carolina is done, and McCain will likely be out as well barring a huge comeback. If McCain wins NH, however, he'll probably stay in past Florida just to get the votes of a few states.
So the question becomes: do Thompson's voters go to McCain or Huckabee? They were clearly dissatisfied with Romney and Rudy.
about what is going on with the Thompson campaign!
Most likely scenario: Fred finishes 2nd or 3rd (barely) in Iowa, skips NH, and wins South Carolina. McCain drops out, and endorses Fred. Momentum builds, and the MSM (which really hates and wants to get rid of Fred) will be forced to start printing what he says. That is all it will take.
Dems meet for their convention the last week in August and choose Hillary as the dem nominee. The GOP meets the very next week, and no one candidate has enough votes to win the nomination. After the fourth ballot it becomes clear that Rudy cannot win, that the anti-Rudy folks will not rally around McCain, and that the Thompson, Romney, and Huckabee folks cannot agree on one of the three. Then, the call is made to Gov. Jeb Bush. Will you lead a fractured party against the she-Devil? He agrees, and the party is unites behind the best of the Bushes. :)
--------------------------------------------------------
"I die the King's good servant, and God's first." Saint Thomas More.
.....but I don't think anyone named "Bush" will be elected in 2008.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
--------------------------------------------------------
"I die the King's good servant, and God's first." Saint Thomas More.
I referenced the Green Papers a while back as a good source for this sort of thing, but never had the time to do the work that Freddoso did.
I think the article shows why very few IF ANY of these big five candidates will quit unless it becomes clear that Huck or Rudy has a majority of delegates.
As for a new "non-candidate" getting the call, I would think that it won't be Jeb (despite him being perfect -- the name is his only problem).
I could see it being someone "fresh" like Sanford or Barbour.
Recall Newt said that if the Republican field were fractured in the fall, he would consider getting in. In the fall he took the lay of the land and apparently decided it was not fractured enough and said he would not run. Articles like this show Newt to be (dare we say?) wrong. There was an article in the Washington Times the other day that talked about Newt giving speeches in Iowa. He was quoted as saying he would accept a vice-presidential spot on the ticket. He apparently has previously indicated he would accept a Draft-Newt bid if there were genuine support. The fractured field and brokered convention talk makes the Draft-Newt option not so far-fetched. More here:
Quin Hillyer. (I wish I could find the link to Quin's post from several months back, but his thesis was that a white knight could emerge. His "for instance" was Jeb Bush.)
I've found the Hillyer post: HERE.)
but I don't see it as a winning strategy.
I don't even think Jeb Bush could pull this off. The whole idea of another Bush when atleast 60% of voters would like to punish the current one, is asking for defeat. Jeb's time will come but I think it will be 2012.
But as viceprez with McCain, now there's an idea America could go for. And it would help "youthen" the ticket.
McCain has EXPERIENCE which may prove to be the most important decider for an electorate with lots of doubts about the future.
I still think it is possible for the Dems to have a contested convention as well.
It's a lot easier for one candidate to run away with it in a three candidate race than a five candidate race. Add in the fact that Democratic delegate rules make it easier for the party establishment to nudge things toward one candidate, and I'd put the chances of the Democrats not having a first ballot majority at about no more than 1 in 100, and probably lower.
My point is I see Obama or Edwards winning in Iowa, and Hillary in NH, but possibly Edwards doing well in the south simply because he is from there and strong showing in Iowa would help him in the south. The way I see it is Edwards does well in the south (FL could go either between him or Hill) Hillary doing well in the northeast and Obama doing well in the midwest, and the west and southwest wide open.
Remember that the South just doesn't matter as much in the Democratic convention as it does in the Republican, because all those states don't get doubled delegates, while California, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and states like that all end up mattering more.
So if Clinton is doing great there, then she's doing great period.
Who wants it anyway? States that go for us *should* have more say I think. And well, even the party men agree, so all the states that went for Bush in 2004 get twice as many delegates as they otherwise would.
I don't know if the Democrats do the same.
and the author threw out the wild speculation that such a brokered convention could possibly lead to Algore as the nominee...
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
The brokered convention story is an old one, and it's always fun to speculate. But the party has real reasons (good and otherwise) to unite once a front-runner emerges. Contributors will jump on the bandwagon of someone who looks like a winner and they'll stay away from someone who can't win. Candidates who withdraw see their delegates allocated to the survivors. The whole structure is built to produce a winner, and the historical record bears this out.
A Huck/Rudy civil war would be amazing to watch. But I just don't see it happening. Huckabee doesn't have the money to mount much of a campaign and would require victories where he has no money or organization. At this point his biggest impact is in killing Romney and Thompson early and fizzling out paving the way for Rudy.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
I see a chance of this happening with all the front-loading of primaries this time. I don't necessarily see a brokered convention meaning that the party won't be able to unite behind the eventual nominee especially since in that scenario the ticket would most likely include two of the current candidates. If one of the candidates accepts the VP slot in return for throwing his delegates behind the top vote-getter a ticket could emerge pretty quickly (if the delegates fall in line with their candidate's wishes). I think Thompson or Huckabee would except a VP spot however I don't know if Giuliani or McCain's egos could take being in the number two spot. Romney would be very smart to take a VP slot if offered as 4-8 years serving as VP would make the religion factor no longer seem like any big deal as voters would have a long time to get used to the idea of a Morman president. Also some of his more recent conversions to conservative positions would no longer seem such a big deal if he has 4-8 years of staying consistent on them. Remember GHW Bush switched to a pro-life position upon being picked by Reagan, 8 years later it was not considered any big deal.
I've been asking around for a couple of months if anyone had the specific math that showed winner take all states giving Giuliani a way to win with only 25% support nationally.
Thank you David Freddoso for doing that hard work seeing if it could be done!