brokered Democratic convetion 2008

JoeMulk

Banned
What if Obama and Hillary had gone into the 2008 DNC with about an equal number of delegates and possibly been deadlocked after about ten ballots and a compromise candidate, say Bill Richardson had been nominated to unite the party?
 
No deadlock: the supers would resolve it, or they would all flock to one candidate. Remember that IOTL had they really wanted they could've nominated Hillary, but it would be a self-nuking equivalent to McCain picking Lieberman.
 
Hmmmm...how would Richardson/Obama fare against McCain/Palin? I need to figure out a way to get there. (I have a sort of way involving a greater interest in Latino/Latina issues- and you'd never believe the turning point for this one... I also have plans for a different Republican female to get the VP nod...)
 

JoeMulk

Banned
If it did happen for whatever reason (probably wouldn't due to RB's reasoning) Richardson wouldn't pick Obama as his runingmate he would pick someone less major because Obama would dominate the ticket.
 

Thande

Donor
I don't believe in the modern age a compromise candidate would happen: media saturation makes a big difference and the voters wouldn't accept a new face when they'd been told for so long it'd be one or the other.

Actually in retrospect, given how spineless Obama is at most things, it's hard to believe he rejected Clinton's offer to be her VP candidate. I mean, as Obama said, he was ahead in pledged delegates, but it's not like that kind of thing has stopped him since he got into the Oval Office.
 
He had clinched the nomination, so why would he make her VP? Besides, there would be little point: she would never be fully trusted by Obama in an overtly political role, their staffs were fraught with distrust and loathing, plus the Bill problem. It would be a major demotion from being the Democratic Party's best known senator to a placeholder at funerals and ceremonies, especially without influence or a shot at the succession.
 

JoeMulk

Banned
I don't believe in the modern age a compromise candidate would happen: media saturation makes a big difference and the voters wouldn't accept a new face when they'd been told for so long it'd be one or the other.

Actually in retrospect, given how spineless Obama is at most things, it's hard to believe he rejected Clinton's offer to be her VP candidate. I mean, as Obama said, he was ahead in pledged delegates, but it's not like that kind of thing has stopped him since he got into the Oval Office.

I guess that his spinelessness only started to creep in when he actually took office.
 
Well going to Game Change (which I realize I refer to entirely too often, but it is pretty much a must read regarding anything involving the 2008 election), Hillary's biggest problem from the outset is that she had far less support than expected from the Democrat establishment. People like Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, even Chuck Schumer - her own New York colleague - were meeting with Obama behind her back as early as 2006, seeing him as the likeliest anybody-but-Hillary candidate.

Anybody-but-Hillary was therefore a fairly strong impetus in 2008, convention time saw the establishment support public, the perceived (and actual) betrayal of the Clintons in the open, party bigwigs such as Al Gore speaking in Obama's favor (unless this is the PoD that leads to the brokered convention), and no reason left to be "polite" out of respect to Bill Clinton's elder statesmanship, which was temporarily damaged at this point due to frustrated statements and finger wagging.

This means that you would essentially have four machines working.
1. The establishment in favor of Obama
2. Hillary's with equal popular support but consisting mainly of Clinton cronies among higher-ups
3. The aforementioned anybody-but-Hillary crowd, now in too deep to back away
4. John Edwards who was still thinking he could influence the race to one candidate or another in exchange for a big role.

As for 4, that's pretty much just Edwards delusion, but could play a role depending on the PoD. Maybe Edwards stays around on Super Tuesday and ends up with more than 6 or so delegates. Him getting Vice President in exchange is near-ASB though, and only good if you're looking to start an old-fashioned Republican wank.

This leaves Hillary fighting Obama true believers and anti-Clintonites. Her advantage would be the threat of losing women and blue collar voters. This would bounce against the danger of alienating minorities by giving Obama a raw deal.

Hard to see Hillary pulling through and coming out ahead in this 2 against 1 scenario. Bill Clinton's pull within the party is quite weak at this time, as opinions are particularly polarized. Most likely Obama lands on the ticket with a woman who isn't Hillary, or a blue-collar hero... maybe Joe Biden.

JoeMulk's point of Obama dominating the ticket in the VP slot is a good one, though I could see the ticket turning out that way if the concern among delegates is experience. They could choose to have the best of both worlds, taking the experienced, solid on foreign policy Joe Biden with the superstar Barack Obama as his running mate... they'd see it as turning a brokered convention into a compromise that sets the party up for 12 years.

As for Obama dominating media attention from the bottom of the ticket, well that would only make it level footing with McCain/Palin. Unless McCain seeing the confusion headed into Denver decides to make his choice based on stability, rather than an ID politics Game Changer... and takes Tim Pawlenty as he should have.
 
To be rather blunt about it, minorities are irrelevant in a general election. A Democrat can't win without blue-collars in the Rust Belt, but they can win if minorities have lower turnout in safe states. Hillary has the Hispanic vote locked up, which does matter given the West's purplish tendencies. She also has the blue-collar vote. The threats are empty. What are they going to do? Sit on their hands in the Northeast, which is safely Democratic? Sit on their hands in the South, where border states are in play anyways due to her blue-collar appeal? They have no cards to play. The supers know this, but whether they're ballsy enough to man up is another question.
 

Thande

Donor
To be rather blunt about it, minorities are irrelevant in a general election. A Democrat can't win without blue-collars in the Rust Belt, but they can win if minorities have lower turnout in safe states. Hillary has the Hispanic vote locked up, which does matter given the West's purplish tendencies. She also has the blue-collar vote. The threats are empty. What are they going to do? Sit on their hands in the Northeast, which is safely Democratic? Sit on their hands in the South, where border states are in play anyways due to her blue-collar appeal? They have no cards to play. The supers know this, but whether they're ballsy enough to man up is another question.
Minorities are irrelevant? Then how do you explain Obama winning Virginia and North Carolina? Are you seriously suggesting Clinton would have taken those states?
 
She has the blue-collar appeal in the border states, which Obama does not. The Democrats will still get over 90% of the black vote as they have since 1964, which is not changing. Nor does she need VA or NC to win. It would be 325-213, comfortable but not overwhelming. Plus the Clintons still have a reservoir of goodwill in the black community as we know- since they'd been involved there since Obama was a teenager.
 
RogueBeaver, for much of the black community past service and close ties would mean little compared to Hillary pushing out the first African-American to win the nomination.
 
Hillary still probably would have won in 2008, of course, as it would have been ridiculously hard for any Democrat not to have beaten McCain/Palin in the 2008 climate.

Nevertheless, the problem with throwing aside Obama and offending minorities isn't really about whether the minorities come out. Hillary doesn't need North Carolina. It is about the public image of coming very close to giving a black man a chance to be President, then tossing it aside in favor of, yes a woman, but the most polarizing woman in America as of August, 2008. It would see independents, in the Democrat camp at this time, turned off at the idea that the Clinton machine demolished the underdog through backroom deals.

I say this even assuming that Hillary has more delegates on her side than in OTL, to trigger the brokered convention. Much of Obama's success was due to the fact that he had his loyal following who at the time saw his victory as ushering in a new era. Lot of pissed off personality driven voters if he's ditched at the convention. Imagine the crap Palinistas would give the party if Palin drew or was even narrowly ahead in the primaries, but couldn't clinch... then the party leadership trying to prevent getting slaughtered hand the nomination to the other leading contender, Mitt Romney...

If Hillary and Obama enter into the convention tied, it wouldn't be Hillary that comes out as the Presidential nominee. Obama's loyalists and Clinton baggage would make it a terrible mix.
 

JoeMulk

Banned
She has the blue-collar appeal in the border states, which Obama does not. The Democrats will still get over 90% of the black vote as they have since 1964, which is not changing. Nor does she need VA or NC to win. It would be 325-213, comfortable but not overwhelming. Plus the Clintons still have a reservoir of goodwill in the black community as we know- since they'd been involved there since Obama was a teenager.

Hillary takes WV,MO,AK and loses VA and NC.
 
I seem to recall quite a bit of talk about how Hillary personally and her blue collar supporters were indeed racist for not abandoning all resistance to Obama sooner than they actually did.

Ah, well, Hillary can take comfort in the fact that her book on the 2008 primary will be a best seller.

Not quite sure what comfort the Democratic Party will get...
 
Top