.

[Bull Moose Base]

.

[pbrower2a]

Let's say that like 2008, Iowa went to a darkhorse- for example, neighbor Tim Pawlenty.  Say Romney were to win New Hampshire and Palin South Carolina.  If Palin dominated in the deep South, Appalachia and Bible country like Kansas, Oklahoma, etc. and Romney and T Paw each won delegate rich states in the West and East coasts, could we see no candidate with a majority of delegates?  I think it's way more possible than people are considering.

It has generally been convenient for both Parties that the official nomination be a foregone conclusion going into the convention. The Convention becomes more predictable, with everyone singing the same tune (the other Party's nominee will bring another Great Depression, war and defeat, debasement of morality, and an epidemic of terminal psoriasis) instead of jockeying for position to win a nomination during the convention, and that the Party holding the Convention has an event that is pleasing to the Base, that a coherent message  and consistent symbols are presented, and in which the prominent figures of the Party can exhort members of the other Party to do the reasonable thing and vote for their candidate. Such occurred in both the Democratic and Republican conventions of 2008.

The nominations ideally go through the formality of a vote with leaders of statewide delegations say things like "Illinois, the Land of Lincoln, rejects the dangerous demagoguery of the misguided Democrat candidate for President, casts its XXX votes for the NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, A TRULY GREAT AMERICAN, SENATOR JOHN McCAIN" at the Republican Convention and "Texas, home of the worst President since Hoover casts its votes for THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ... at the  Democratic Convention, and homilies that begin "Idaho, home of the world's greatest potatoes"  or the like.   The nominee gets to make his acceptance speech in prime time (if there is still a contest, then the speech is made after most people are in bed, at least east of the Mississippi River) that few people hear.   

The Democrats will not have a knock-down, drag-out contest between President Obama and some challenger in 2012. The Republicans? There could still be huge rifts, and independent voters might see those rifts.

The acceptance speech is important to the audience; it is the first definition of what the nominee stands for. Without familiarity with it people wonder what they are getting. Doubt  and confusion  are  huge detriments to any Presidential nominee.         

[Mr. Morden]

Let's say that like 2008, Iowa went to a darkhorse- for example, neighbor Tim Pawlenty.  Say Romney were to win New Hampshire and Palin South Carolina.  If Palin dominated in the deep South, Appalachia and Bible country like Kansas, Oklahoma, etc. and Romney and T Paw each won delegate rich states in the West and East coasts, could we see no candidate with a majority of delegates?  I think it's way more possible than people are considering.

That's what people say every four years (for whichever party is having a contested nomination fight that time).  Yet it never happens.

EDIT: Oh, and people always say this: "The first three primaries will all be won by different candidates!  None of them will have any momentum going forward, and they'll all split the remaining primaries and no one will get a majority.

Well, guess what?  Three different candidates won the first three Democratic primaries in 1992.  Three different candidates won the first three Republican primaries in 1996.  Three different candidates won the first three Republican primaries in 2008.  In each case, the eventual nominee still managed to all but clinch the nomination on Super Tuesday, if not before.

[useful idiot]

Let's say that like 2008, Iowa went to a darkhorse- for example, neighbor Tim Pawlenty.  Say Romney were to win New Hampshire and Palin South Carolina.  If Palin dominated in the deep South, Appalachia and Bible country like Kansas, Oklahoma, etc. and Romney and T Paw each won delegate rich states in the West and East coasts, could we see no candidate with a majority of delegates?  I think it's way more possible than people are considering.

That's what people say every four years (for whichever party is having a contested nomination fight that time).  Yet it never happens.

EDIT: Oh, and people always say this: "The first three primaries will all be won by different candidates!  None of them will have any momentum going forward, and they'll all split the remaining primaries and no one will get a majority.

Well, guess what?  Three different candidates won the first three Democratic primaries in 1992.  Three different candidates won the first three Republican primaries in 1996.  Three different candidates won the first three Republican primaries in 2008. In each case, the eventual nominee still managed to all but clinch the nomination on Super Tuesday, if not before.

McCain won New Hampshire and South Carolina

[Mr. Morden]

Let's say that like 2008, Iowa went to a darkhorse- for example, neighbor Tim Pawlenty.  Say Romney were to win New Hampshire and Palin South Carolina.  If Palin dominated in the deep South, Appalachia and Bible country like Kansas, Oklahoma, etc. and Romney and T Paw each won delegate rich states in the West and East coasts, could we see no candidate with a majority of delegates?  I think it's way more possible than people are considering.

That's what people say every four years (for whichever party is having a contested nomination fight that time).  Yet it never happens.

EDIT: Oh, and people always say this: "The first three primaries will all be won by different candidates!  None of them will have any momentum going forward, and they'll all split the remaining primaries and no one will get a majority.

Well, guess what?  Three different candidates won the first three Democratic primaries in 1992.  Three different candidates won the first three Republican primaries in 1996.  Three different candidates won the first three Republican primaries in 2008. In each case, the eventual nominee still managed to all but clinch the nomination on Super Tuesday, if not before.

McCain won New Hampshire and South Carolina

Michigan went before South Carolina:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18130927

[useful idiot]

Let's say that like 2008, Iowa went to a darkhorse- for example, neighbor Tim Pawlenty.  Say Romney were to win New Hampshire and Palin South Carolina.  If Palin dominated in the deep South, Appalachia and Bible country like Kansas, Oklahoma, etc. and Romney and T Paw each won delegate rich states in the West and East coasts, could we see no candidate with a majority of delegates?  I think it's way more possible than people are considering.

That's what people say every four years (for whichever party is having a contested nomination fight that time).  Yet it never happens.

EDIT: Oh, and people always say this: "The first three primaries will all be won by different candidates!  None of them will have any momentum going forward, and they'll all split the remaining primaries and no one will get a majority.

Well, guess what?  Three different candidates won the first three Democratic primaries in 1992.  Three different candidates won the first three Republican primaries in 1996.  Three different candidates won the first three Republican primaries in 2008. In each case, the eventual nominee still managed to all but clinch the nomination on Super Tuesday, if not before.

McCain won New Hampshire and South Carolina

Michigan went before South Carolina:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18130927

Ah, thanks for the correction....seems like it was ages ago...

[Mr. Morden]

Well, nothing's impossible.  Sure, the chance is nonzero.  However, I'd caution that, as late as November 2007, it sure did seem like John McCain's vulnerabilities in the GOP primaries were enormous.  Lots of people were saying that the party had moved too far to the right to nominate someone who had spent so much of his career pushing issues on which he disagreed with the GOP base.  Then, suddenly, he started surging in the polls, and his vulnerabilities didn't seem so significant anymore.  Same could easily happen with Romney or Pawlenty or Thune or whoever, no matter how unimpressive that group might seem today.

[RI]

1992 is especially interesting because the first four contests were won by four different candidates, none of whom were the nominee. Even after the first twelve contests, Clinton only had one victory (and only three wins, of which only one was outside the south, after sixteen contests), yet he still rolled to the nomination uncontested.

[OhioDem]

Multiple ballots was possible when people didn't have the tie-breaking and momentum-building primaries-which by the way also drained a candidates coffers as well, so the candidate who couldn't win enough primaries or raise enough money would drop out of the running. Nowadays it's nearly impossible to keep someone who has won enough primaries from winning outright on the first ballot. Nobody wants to split the party wide open by nominating someone else except as some honorary gesture.

Given the party rules in both parties these days, you would have to have equally funded candidates none of whom are receptive to any deal, and who aren't vulnerable to something that makes them drop out. What are the odds that's going to happen?  If it was ever going to happen, 2008 would have been the year when there was no incumbent VP or P to unite against or unite behind. In 2012, Obama is the nominee for the Democrats, the necessity of unity against Obama for the Republicans will force unity lest the party goes down to defeat. So there would be pressure on the weaker candidates to drop out and unite behind the front-runner for the good of the party.

[© tweed]

Let's say that like 2008, Iowa went to a darkhorse- for example, neighbor Tim Pawlenty.  Say Romney were to win New Hampshire and Palin South Carolina.  If Palin dominated in the deep South, Appalachia and Bible country like Kansas, Oklahoma, etc. and Romney and T Paw each won delegate rich states in the West and East coasts, could we see no candidate with a majority of delegates?  I think it's way more possible than people are considering.

That's what people say every four years (for whichever party is having a contested nomination fight that time).  Yet it never happens.

EDIT: Oh, and people always say this: "The first three primaries will all be won by different candidates!  None of them will have any momentum going forward, and they'll all split the remaining primaries and no one will get a majority.

Well, guess what?  Three different candidates won the first three Democratic primaries in 1992.  Three different candidates won the first three Republican primaries in 1996.  Three different candidates won the first three Republican primaries in 2008.  In each case, the eventual nominee still managed to all but clinch the nomination on Super Tuesday, if not before.

just because it didn't happen doesn't mean it won't - it won't happen until it does.  we were a Huck in SC or Romney in FL away from it getting really really interesting in 2008.

[Mr. Morden]

Oh, of course it's *possible*.  All I'm saying is that this is something that people predict every four years.  Every four years, you hear people make this same prediction, talking about how this time is different.  This time, there really is a good chance of a brokered convention.  But then, it doesn't materialize.  It usually doesn't come anywhere close to materializing.  So I think the odds are pretty slim.

Also, even if no one gets a majority of delegates in the primaries, I think it's likely that any horsetrading would take place before the convention itself, in which case things would still be resolved on the first ballot.  The GOP will have a strong incentive not to let the nomination fight drag on until August.