Would a Democratic Brokered Convention be a good thing or a bad thing for Dems

[The Mikado]

THIS IS NOT A THREAD ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU THINK A BROKERED CONVENTION IN 2020 IS LIKELY

I think people massively overestimate the negatives of a brokered convention. A contested primary focuses attention on your party's issues and the minutia in policy difference and rhetoric between two candidates on the same side. A convention that was brokered would mean FOUR DAYS of "All Democrats, all the time." We might even get a debate on the Convention floor. Excitement, constant interviews with swing delegates, and real energy. The country would be fixated on it.

Don't fear the brokered convention with the result in doubt.

[Beet]

It depends on what the brokered convention is brokered about. If you have two identical candidates whose only difference is race and gender, and there are accusations of racism and sexism flying, it's going to destroy the party. If it's actually about ideas and differences on where you want the country to go, then you're right it might not be so bad.

But it's not going to happen. There will be enormous pressure on also-rans to drop out before the convention. They will be called spoilers and so on for not rallying around.

[CookieDamage]

It would be negative and create optics that the Dems are inherently and tragically divided. One portion of the party would end up feeling screwed over no matter what.

[McGarnagle]

Mostly negative

Doesn't make it impossible for the Democratic candidate to win, but makes another PV win EC loss scenario more likely. If it's brokered there may be substantial portions of the party that won't end up liking the nominee and it could result in another term for Trump (or Pence). Not something I want to imagine, but a possibility.

[NewYorkExpress]

It depends on who the two Democrats are, I suppose.

If they're say, Warren and Sanders, I can see a brokered convention being a non-issue...but for two lesser-known candidates like say, Garcetti and Buttgeig it would be a disaster.

[Cassandra]

Terrible for the Democratic party; it would only ever be spun as the "Corrupt DNC picking winners and losers." Great for entertainment though.

R u trolling us, Mikado?

[Skill and Chance]

In theory it could only be a negative, but the most likely answer is no impact at all.  As we saw in 2016, primary/convention drama is way overrated as a determinant of election outcomes.  People who follow conventions/presidential primaries closely enough to understand what is going on are usually committed partisans who already know who they are voting for.  I don't think independents or swing voters particularly care.  Even 1968 was basically a tie after everything that went down at the DNC. 

[Inmate Trump]

It wouldn't be good.  We have to be unified no matter what in 2020.  If Bernie runs and loses again, his voters better still come home or they'll be responsible (again) for Trump winning.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I don't see the Dems having a 2016 nominating process, the Dems are not going to attach one another, they will disagree with one another. And Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren aren't gonna come close to second in 2020. 

[tosk]

it would be SUPER interesting to watch, but I don't see any positive spin of it. It would paint some divisions in the party in media and would almost definitely result in real tangible ones between voter factions. Basically, no bueno. Except for the GOP. Not for the country though, I'd imagine it would just heighten polarization.

[Progressive Pessimist]

We had a primary that was only slightly competitive in 2016 and that led to major negatives for Clinton. A brokered convention would spell almost certain doom for the Democratic candidate that gets nominated out of the convention.

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

I agree with Mikado. In the 2010s, all press is good press, and a brokered convention would result in Dems getting wall-to-wall coverage for a whole week. The DNC is scheduled after the RNC, so I think it would be neutral at worst.

[Mr. Morden]

The DNC is scheduled after the RNC

No, the incumbent party traditionally goes second.  And since the Dems have already claimed July 13-16, which is kind of early, I'd say it's almost certain that that tradition will continue this time.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bernie is obviously getting screwed again.

[twenty42]

I doubt it would make much of a difference, honestly. Events of July will probably be long forgotten by the time November rolls around. The Dems had the most contentious primary of the last 50 years in 2008, and Obama still ended up winning the general by seven points.

[Joe Biden 2024]

Depends on who's left by the convention and who ends up being the nominee.

[IceSpear]

Option 3. It would be negative at the time, but nobody would remember/care 2-3 months later.

[Orser67]

It would be negative and create optics that the Dems are inherently and tragically divided.

It would also feed the narrative that the party is run by a shadowy elite that hates liberals/moderates/whoever

[Pandaguineapig]

It would depend on who comes out of it; if a compromise candidate who is accepted by all wings of the party wins, then it would be good for the party, but if the party machinery installs Cuomo or Clinton or the far left takes over the convention and nominates Waters, Ellison, or the porn lawyer then it would be a disaster for the party