Thursday, October 24, 2019

Could the Democratic Convention Nominate Someone Who Didn't Run In the Primary?

>

Richard J. Daley, legendary boss of the Democratic Party machine in Chicago (source: Chicago Sun Times)

by Thomas Neuburger

We're still more than half a year from the 2020 Democratic National Convention with the entire voting part of the primary race ahead of us, yet fears of a dramatic, brokered and broken nomination process are already entering the conversation. "It’s hard to ignore the potential for a first-round deadlock at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) convention next July," writes CNN, and they are not alone.

Those fears are likely to be confirmed; it's improbably in the extreme that one candidate will enter the convention with a majority of pledged delegates, which means that some later round of voting, which will add in the superdelegates and a lot of horse-trading, will pick the nominee. What happens then, and how the outcome is viewed by voters, may well determine which party occupies the White House in 20201.

Most game-theory analyses see these as the branches to consider, assuming no majority winner in round one:
  1. What happens if Biden is the round one plurality winner?
  2. What happens if Warren is the round one plurality winner?
  3. What happens if Sanders is the round one plurality winner?
Given that Party leaders would much prefer Biden to Warren, appear to find Warren acceptable (but we may find out otherwise), and will never allow Sanders to hold Party power if they can possibly avoid it, the alternatives seem clear.

If Biden wins round one with a plurality, the superdelegates, who will vote in every round afterward, will support him. Biden will then be the nominee.

If Warren wins the first round with a plurality, will the superdelegates and Party movers and shakers put their money where their mouths have been and support her in round two? The jury's out on that. Warren may be the nominee, or Party leaders may balk and look elsewhere.

And if Sanders is the round one plurality winner, will superdelegates and Party leaders dare nominate someone else instead, a "unity candidate" (who could do anything but unify Sanders supporters with the Party base)?

They might, but I doubt it. The Party hates Sanders and will tank him at the convention if they can, just as they and their media ecosystem have done throughout the whole of the rest of process. On the media's contribution to the "stop Sanders" effort, see Ryan Grim's comment at 2:29 in the embedded clip on what he calls the widespread Sanders "media blackout" and I call its conspiracy of silence.

But that route is risky, both in fact and perception. If Sanders enters round two with the most pledged delegates, would they dare support someone else?

The Smell of Outright Theft

All of the analyses so far suggest that if Sanders leads in round one but doesn't win the nomination, Democratic Party leaders are faced with just two choices — confirm the will of the people and nominate Sanders anyway, or reach down into the candidate pool to nominate someone who received fewer votes.

They can do this, of course, and perhaps even try to sell it. Let's say that Biden, Buttigieg and Harris together have a delegate count that's greater than Sanders' total, with Biden in the lead. Party leaders could then "convince" enough Biden, Buttigieg and Harris delegates to support Biden in round two and declare him the "unity candidate." This allows superdelegates enough logical cover to give Biden the nomination with their added votes.

"Convince" in this case is a euphemism for a deal no one who wants a future in the non-Sanders Party can refuse, as Ryan Grim explains below:


But the stink of corruption, the smell of outright theft, would be all over that deal, since Biden (or whoever) would not alone have had a delegate total greater than Sanders' total, and that person would immediately lose the claim of legitimacy in the eyes of most Sanders supporters, regardless of Party leaders logic.

A Biden or Buttigieg nomination, even if majority-supported, already has the look of general election failure painted on it. The same nomination, if stolen from Sanders by Party leaders, would sink like a twenty-pound stone, weighed down by the anger of millions of potential, now lost, Sanders supporters.

What's an entrenched political elite to do? There seems no easy answer.

The Party's Knight on a White Neoliberal Horse

This leads us to an unexplored possibility — that Party leaders might coalesce around, and nominate, someone who didn't run in the primary. The list of these people is great; there are far more people in fact who didn't run in the primary than did, unlikely as that may have seemed while watching the debates.

I've seen every name from Michael Bloomberg to John Kerry to Oprah Winfrey to Hillary Clinton (also here) and more suggested as the Party's Knight on a Great White Horse. Of course, the person they choose would have to be both credible as a potential president and garner enough enthusiastic support — genuine support, not purchased or threatened — to actually look like the "unity candidate" she or he would be claimed to be.

The obvious choice, of course, is Barack Obama. The neoliberal majority of the Democratic Party — and even many who call themselves progressives — would support him in a instant if they could.

Unfortunately, they can't; he's constitutionally ineligible, so I'll leave it to others to populate the list of alternatives.

My own candidate for the next obvious choice is his wife, Michelle. (For more, see here: "Poll: Michelle Obama Would Be Frontrunner in 2020 If She Ran.") Reporting has said for years that she doesn't want to run, which is likely why she's never included in these lists. But if the Party were desperate enough, would they sell her hard on the idea? And if they do, would she accede for the "good of the nation"? We'll have to see.

In any case, it's not beyond Sanders' reach to place first the first round of voting and put Party leaders in a deep existential bind. And it's not beyond thinking that Michelle Obama might actually win in against Trump.

Is It Legal For the Party to Nominate Someone Who Didn't Run In the Primary?

Yet even if the Party wanted to nominate an outside-the-primary candidate, could they do it? The DNC rules are ambiguous on that. Of course, we already know what the DNC thinks of their rules, but this may be a special case given how public the choice will necessarily be.

Thanks to a friend who did this research, these are the applicable paragraphs from the DNC rulebook (pdf):
Eligible delegates may vote for the candidate of their choice whether or not the name of such candidate was placed in nomination. Any vote cast other than a vote for a presidential candidate meeting the requirements of Article VI of this Call and Rule 13.K. of the 2020 Delegate Selection Rules shall be considered a vote for “Present.” [Page 16]
This appears to say that delegates may vote for anyone, even if the name has not been placed in nomination, so long as the candidate meets the "requirements of Article VI of this Call and Rule 13.K."

Here is Article VI (emphasis and square brackets mine):
VI. Presidential Candidates

The term “presidential candidate” herein shall mean any person [1] who, as determined by the National Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee, has accrued delegates in the nominating process and plans to seek the nomination, [2] has established substantial support for their nomination as the Democratic candidate for the Office of the President of the United States, [3] is a bona fide Democrat whose record of public service, accomplishment, public writings and/or public statements affirmatively demonstrates that the candidate is faithful to the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party of the United States, and [4] will participate in the Convention in good faith. [...]
The key words here are "and" and "delegates". If my reading is correct, the first sentences lists four "and" conditions, all of which must be met. That's a fair reading of this complex sentence, though I have seen it disputed. Does the "and" highlighted above join only conditions [3] and [4], with the [1] and [2] stating OR-conditions instead? It would be really picky (and violently ungrammatical) if Party leaders were to argue this way, but I've seen worse done.

The other key word, though, offers more hope for Party neoliberals. Does "any person who as accrued delegates in the nominating process" include only those who have accrued pledged delegates — or does "accruing" superdelegates count as well?

If the latter, accruing superdelegates, is all it takes to make a person eligible for nomination, all bets are off and the list of potential "unity" (i.e., non-Sanders) candidates widens far beyond the primary field.

The Station This Train Is Headed For

This is speculation, of course, but we're headed straight toward that station, straight to the moment when supersdelegates have to decide whom to back and how to sell their decision. Do they send Sanders to defeat even if he has a first-round plurality? Do they really like Elizabeth Warren enough to nominate her if she has a first-round plurality, or will they look elsewhere after all? Do they really trust Biden or Buttigieg with their electoral hopes against a vigorous and vicious Trumpian campaign?

Is Hillary Clinton (she's obviously eager to run) worth a second go?

And more critically for the Party and the nation: If the chips don't fall their way, what matters most to them? Could it possibly be true that their number one goal is simply that Sanders not win, and the rest will be left to chance, the gods, and their next best efforts after that?

It's a reasonable question. After all, given the construction of our rural-favoring electoral process, a party that doesn't have a plan to save left-behind America — and doesn't nominate a candidate with appeal beyond the bicoastal professional class — may not be playing its strongest cards for a reason.
 

Labels: , , , , , , ,

10 Comments:

At 9:22 AM, Blogger StoicJim said...

I think it's possible either Sanders or Warren will go into the convention in the lead but without either having a majority to take the nomination outright with Biden pulling in enough votes to make it to the floor. But I have no doubt that if it came down to Sanders or Warren knocking either out to bring about an Establishment alternate, the two would sit down and work out a deal between themselves to keep that from happening. In other words, Sanders and Warren would have enough votes between them to work out a deal to see either a Sanders/Warren or a Warren/Sanders ticket and there's not much the Establishment Dems could do about it. It may be a "brokered" convention but the power players will be Sanders and Warren and not Pelosi and Schumer.

 
At 10:50 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Democratic Establishment could not care less whether there's "enthusiasm" for a shitty neo-liberal candidate like Biden (or Clinton, or Kerry, or whoever). As I pointed out to my frequent nemesis here recently, no matter how small a number of people turn out to vote, the Dems only need a majority of those who do vote (in a specific set of states) to win. Ideally (for them at least), they'll find someone like Obama - an empty vessel people can get excited about thanks to the "historic" nature of his/her candidacy. Buttigieg could fill that slot nicely this time. I thought it would be Kamala Harris, but she faded pretty quickly.

I remain hopeful that somehow I can figure out a way to hibernate until January 2021.

 
At 12:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Sanders wins an outright majority, it will be because he turns out a lot of independents, first-time, and irregular voters, and wins Iowa. If he wins Iowa than I think it gets easier for him, because he already has built in advantages in New Hampshire, Nevada, as well as Super Tuesday states, and he'll have a cash and volunteer advantage.

If he wins a plurality of delegates, I assume he might still have a chance at the nomination provided Warren has enough delegates to secure a majority, and provided a critical mass of those delegates follow her lead. In both cases, I think it's likely that Sanders would ask Warren to be his VP. Neither of these scenarios may be likely, but it's impossible to say without seeing how votes actually shake out in Iowa.

If Sanders has a plurality, but is unable to obtain a majority of pledge delegates, I think he's going to cut a deal with the party: 1. Because he wants to beat Trump, 2. Because the party has leverage in connection with his Senate committee assignments. It's a repeat of 2016, unfortunately, but maybe this time the party nominee will have more success against the GOP nominee.

If Warren has a plurality, I assume Sanders and his team would strongly encourage his supporters to help put her over the top if they were in a position to do so, even without him on the ticket (e.g. it looks like the Warren team was auditioning Castro for the role at one-time, I'm sure other potential VP's are in the mix). The consolation being that Sanders may have a strong ally in the White House (if Warren wins), and would still have the potential of advancing part of his agenda in the Senate -- especially if he has a major committee assignment. This may not be the ideal, but it's the one scenario that I would still see as a potential positive step forward.

For everyone, I think Iowa is going to be critical -- except for Buttigieg. If Buttigieg finishes 4th in Iowa, the media and party establishment are going to declare it a victory and try to boost him as long as possible.

With respect to the party pulling some nominee out of the hat at the convention, I'm sure this is under consideration (Stacey Abrams?). In 2016, it was rumored that the "Plan B" was Biden.

 
At 12:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Only a corporatist can be the nominee of the Democratic Party as long as Big Money controls things.

Hillary is making a move, but as a previous loser, and still having high disapproval numbers, the only likely option would be to team her with Elite Pete. I don't see Hillary accepting a female for VP, and just about all of the other candidates aren't going to be seen in a favorable light.

BUT, . . .

Can Hillary attract the black vote? Black Milwaukee voters stayed home rather than vote for a candidate who would forget them after taking office. There is no sign that has changed. Add in Elite Pete's race issues in South Bend, and a big bloc of Democratic voters stays home again.

Women didn't like Hillary in 2016, and there is no reason to believe THAT has changed either. They may not vote for Trump, but they aren't necessarily going to vote for Hillary either.

If there remained any sensible leaders in the Democratic Party, they would see the evidence that change is necessary and vital. But the Party has only venial leaders who only see where the dollars come from. If they try to push a corporatist as the Party nominee, they will lose to Trump.

 
At 1:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A nice distillation. However, the absolute truth is only a question asked herein.

"what matters most to them? Could it possibly be true that their number one goal is simply that Sanders not win?"

The rules in '16 were absolutely clear -- to prevent Bernie from getting the nom. And, in fact, since they wanted a first ballot nom for $hillbillary, they rigged about 6 state primaries and caucuses so that Bernie would "lose".

To the one above who speculates about independents turning out for Bernie, in the vast majority of states, they cannot. The democrap primary is closed to all but registered fascists... er, I mean democraps. If all states held open primaries (no caucuses, which are fairly easy to rig), Bernie would have shown up at the '16 convention with about 55% of the pledged delegates and would have made the democraps prove their corruption by having all those paid whore ('super') delegates go against the will of the people.

The convention rules this time are a bit more problematic, so the primaries are being run, with the help of the media, to ensure that nobody gets 51% for the first ballot. Their goal is to make sure that Bernie + Elizabeth don't get to 51% also, but Elizabeth is making those bedroom noises that the money loves to hear... so maybe this is another insurance policy that the money bought. That's a wild card. If they add up to a majority, one would have to step aside and endorse the other. I'm not sure I see either one of them swallowing their considerable ambition and doing that.

Thomas goes to lengths to quote party/DNC rules to discern whether they WILL ratfuck their voters. This is pointless. The DNC *SHALL* ratfuck the will of the voters unless that is biden or another acceptable fascist. Their rules *SHALL* be violated if that's what it takes.

And Thomas failed to mention historical perspective on this. That was HINTED at with the pic of Daley, but not fleshed out. The democraps did this sort of thing in '68 to avoid nominating a more popular anti-viet-nam-war candidate so they could run the Kerry-esque (better/smarter war monger) team of HHH/Muskie. The student protests catalyzed Daly into ordering his police start a riot in order to discredit the protesters. Yes, the police started the riot. Chicago democrap politics has always been a steaming pile of horse shit... and yet Chicagoans insist on electing them.

Finally, this snip I found to be so circumspect as to be sheepdoggish:
"a party that doesn't have a plan to save left-behind America — and doesn't nominate a candidate with appeal beyond the bicoastal professional class — may not be playing its strongest cards for a reason."

the democraps have no plan or even desire to save any part of America except those who lay the really big money on them. He calls it "bicoastal professional class", which is a stinky way of saying wall street and silicon valley. They also listen to war street, health insurance, phrma and a couple other vast swaths rep'd on K-street. They always smile and accept labor's money, though they haven't done anything for labor for over 40 years.

The conclusion is truthful, though not clearly stated. Here it is in plain English:

the democrap PARTY would much rather lose to trump than allow Bernie to win the nomination. They would lie, cheat and steal to leave Bernie behind. They won't hesitate to commit election fraud in the primaries, commit fraud in their convention and totally lay down in the general, just as long as Bernie is not a candidate.

If only Bernie understood this... it's no different than in '16 when he turtled and betrayed everyone who supported him.

 
At 1:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Typical 1:13! "...it's no different than in '16 when he turtled and betrayed everyone who supported him."

Let's take a quick reality-based look, shall we?
1.Bernie did not run as a third-party candidate, which would have assured a Trump victory.

2. Bernie did not endorse a third-party candidate, which would have assured a Trump victory.

3. Bernie did not whine and pout and urge his supporters to stay home on election day, which would have assured a Trump victory.

4. No, Mr. "democraps / nazis," Bernie saw his duty to the country and did the only thing he could have done to prevent a Trump victory. And don't even begin to try that with (loathsome) Hillary in the White House everything would be just as bad. Or do I need to itemize a few things that would not be this bad? Things like:
1. No absurd and destructive tax cut.

2. As poor as Obamacare is, it would be subject to marginal efforts at improvement instead of constant attack.

3. There would be no US embassy in Jerusalem.

4. The hate speech and racial/religious violence would be nowhere near current levels.

5. Dare we examine attacks on science (not only climate science), public education, workers' rights, immigrants' rights, reproductive rights, ...?

Paradise on earth? Hardly. As horrid as we have now? Not even close.

I'm sure you'll have a snappy reply that fails to address anything concrete.

 
At 1:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

you seem to live in the dream world where $hillbillary won and trump lost.

your points about Bernie doing the right thing so that trump would not win ring awfully hollow, wouldn't you say? Of course you would not.

where did paradise on earth come from? All I ever said for a Bernie victory is that we'd be worse off than in 2015 because of Pelosi and scummer and the party and the money and the shit-for-brains voters.

And trump/Nazis have made many things worse. But so could the democraps... maybe different facets of life in this shithole than the Nazis, but still worse.

obamneycare was declared unconstitutional by the courts, which likely would have found that no matter who was in the white house. the Nazis love it. the democraps have DONE nothing about it... as per their usual. The point you should have made is that MFA will never be passed by either party. The Nazis want poor people to die and the democraps want their insurance/phrma paymasters to keep paying them.

the tax cut would have been passed by the democraps this past spring, because of the signs of a coming recession that would have been there in any case.

attacks on science have been ongoing since 1968. hasn't mattered who was in the white house. won't matter who is in it in 2020. americans are dumber than shit.

 
At 5:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, 1:56, the dreamworld is yours.

Obamacare was found to be OK by the Supremes, and a Democratic president - even one as odious as Clinton - would not have the full weight of the oxymoronic Justice Department weighing in to reverse.

The war on science has been going on since the 1940s and a hell of a long time before that. Under how many presidents of either party (except nitwit Reagan) has it been official dogma?

And don't be coy. I know perfectly well who won. Had Bernie defected, the shitheel in chief would have won the popular vote as well and probably added Republicans to the House, which apparently means nothing to you and your blind hatred of Pelosi.

I'm glad, however, you appear to be such an excellent mind reader. Now tell us about your motivation to disparage the lesser evil which only EVER serves the purposes of the greater evil.

 
At 1:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

we agree. the lesser evil ALWAYS facilitates the greater evil... by not being better but only differently evil.

Like how FDR would have been a one-termer if he had acted as obamanation did.

What diff if der fuhrer had won the popular too? he got sworn in anyway.

anti-science became dogma under all parties and presidents when it was hinting that fossil fuels were creating a second venus on earth. It was bad enough with tobacco. but millions of people dropping dead of smoking was too much to overcome... after 40 years of overcoming it. climate change will be the same. when the temp hits 150 F somewhere and the first cat 6 hurricane polishes the ground where a city used to be ... a few morons might blink themselves awake. maybe not. religion and stuff.

You haven't been keeping up. Roberts upheld a piece of obamneycare. But in trump's first year, a federal district court, in a suit brought by Tx or some other southern shithole state (not the DOJ), found that because of the selective mandate, it isn't a tax, per se. Therefore the house had no authority to write the bill, ergo the whole thing is unconstitutional.

you're hoping the supremes reverse that? LSD much?

 
At 3:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The only way I could see the Supremecist Court upholding obamanation care would be if the insurance companies were to find that so many people would drop all medical care they can't pay for that their profits would dry up.

I'm already close to that condition myself.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home