A Superdelegate Mini-Convention ?

[Tender Branson]

Democrats, looking for a way out, are pondering a new idea: an unprecedented “mini-convention” to bring their punishing presidential season to an early close.

The proposal surfaced during another week of pushing and shoving between the Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton campaigns, and a growing concern that the party may be hurting itself beyond repair.

The mini-convention would bring together nearly 800 superdelegates after the last primaries are held on June 3 in South Dakota and Montana.

Given the current math, superdelegates — party officials and elected leaders — will decide the nomination, one way or another.

“There would be a final opportunity for the candidates to make their arguments to these delegates, and then one transparent vote,” Tennessee Gov. Philip Bredesen suggested in The New York Times.

Superdelegates, both pledged and unpledged, reacted cautiously to the idea. But they all agreed that something needed to be done to bridge the growing gap between Clinton and Obama supporters.

Some Democrats said the party should take a look at the idea.

Obama called it “interesting.” Sens. Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Charles Schumer of New York said the idea might have merit. Clinton, Bredesen said, did not reject the idea.

http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/542737.html

[exopolitician]

Clinton did not reject the idea....buttt...?

anyways, I think its a good idea actually.

[Tender Branson]

Clinton did not reject the idea....buttt...?

anyways, I think its a good idea actually.

Such a mini-convention would probably end polarized, which is a bad thing for Hillary Clinton. At best, Clinton would get 55% of the delegates (440-360). The 80 net delegates she'd win won´t be enough to offset the 160 delegate deficit she currently has. Even if she wins PA, KY, WV and PR, she would most likely add a net 50 delegates ... Obama would still win by 30 delegates.

[Mr. Morden]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=72907.0

[defe07]

I think the Democrats should consider having FL and MI re-vote but with one condition: 50% of the delegates are allocated to the primary results in January while the other 50% would be allocated in the re-vote primaries.

[Mr. Morden]

Incidentally, according to some reporting by The New Republic, virtually every Democratic bigwig expects some kind of resolution in early June, when the superdelegates move en masse to endorse one of the two candidates, at which point the nomination will be a fait accompli:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=44aed783-8357-4491-8589-ee15290e6e96

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Politico]

What if they do this and neither one receives a majority of the delegates? Let's not forget that Edwards still has, what, 18 pledged delegates? So perhaps those 18 pledged delegates, along with maybe a renegade band of half a dozen super delegates who throw their support to Al Gore or whoever, end up adding to the stalemate by denying either candidate from receiving a majority of the delegates.

What then? There's really nothing they could do but wait until the first ballot at the convention with an anticipated second ballot on the horizon...perhaps multiple ballots to come. The anticipation for a second ballot would possibly, if not probably, create a shadow candidacy, likely for Al Gore, hard at work from June through August as a precautionary measure in case something happens to one of the two primary candidates, or in case they bloody each other up so badly throughout the summer that neither one has any chance of uniting the party, let alone the country.

I hate to say it, but the Democratic Party is a complete and utter mess. It's almost as if they feel obligated to create circular firing squads during presidential elections, even in a sure-fire Democratic year like 2008. Perhaps the Democrats truly need the political bosses to choose their nominee for them once again.

The Democrats' best chance is for Hillary to step down and endorse Obama immediately. Short of that, if she forces this thing and picks up traction with super delegates and continues to make it sound like she would prefer a McCain Administration to an Obama Administration, obviously the party will have two very damaged candidates throughout the summer. If that happens, the best bet would undoubtedly be to move away from Hillary and Obama and towards Gore. Only Gore can tab Obama as his running mate and still reconcile with the Clintonistas. Only Gore could emerge out of a divided convention with the party intact and ready to rumble with the Republicans in the fall.

[Tender Branson]

What if they do this and neither one receives a majority of the delegates? Let's not forget that Edwards still has, what, 18 pledged delegates? So perhaps those 18 pledged delegates, along with maybe a renegade band of half a dozen super delegates who throw their support to Al Gore or whoever, end up adding to the stalemate by denying either candidate from receiving a majority of the delegates.

What then? There's really nothing they could do but wait until the first ballot at the convention with an anticipated second ballot on the horizon...perhaps multiple ballots to come. The anticipation for a second ballot would possibly, if not probably, create a shadow candidacy, likely for Al Gore, hard at work from June through August as a precautionary measure in case something happens to one of the two nominees, or in case they bloody each other up so badly throughout the summer that neither one has any chance of uniting the party, let alone the country.

I hate to say it, but the Democratic Party is a complete and utter mess. It's almost as if they feel obligated to create circular firing squads during presidential elections, even in a sure-fire Democratic year like 2008. Perhaps the Democrats truly need the political bosses to choose their nominee for them once again.

Nearly impossible. Obama will have 1.700 pledged delegates by June and he "just" needs an additional 350 superdelegates to win the nomination. Achievable.

[Mr. Morden]

Harry Reid: "Things are being done"

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/harry_reid_things_are_being_do.php

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The only thing they can do to resolve it before the convention is to pressure the superdelegates to all commit before the convention.  So I'm presuming that that's what Reid's talking about.  That the party leaders will pressure the supers to resolve things before the convention.

[The Hack Hater]

I'm unsure if this would actually make things better. It seems to me that if the wrong candidates came out on top after both of their cases were made, then people would still end up feeling bitter. This would especially be the case if either of them refused to endorse the other.