heh.

I just had this very conversation with Stoller last week.

Tim

Am I the only one that thinks a brokered convention with all three holding 1/3 of the delegates ends in a Edwards/Obama or Obama/Edwards ticket?

And am I the only one not excited at all by the prospect of Al Gore being involved in this presidential race?

I would LOVE that result, either Gore or Pelosi (since she may be Pres after the impeachment anyway).

I can't get too excited about the front runners. I like Bill Richardson but either Pelosi or Gore would blow him away too.

But my preference is for Gore to declare soon, not wait till he gets grabbed out of 'retirement'. His voice is needed in the debates coming up.

Trippi's comment is interesting because he previously thought that 2008 would unfold just like 2004 - whoever claims the early states would roll on to win the nomination quickly.

I still find this highly unlikely. If we're looking at the same dynamics come Thanksgiving, then it becomes possible, but we've yet to see any of these candidates really do much of anything other than build name ID and bank cash.

The pressure will build, and campaigns will be unable to remain so risk-averse, and that will mean movement. I would also expect external events (on Capitol hill, but possibly also abroad) to affect the race in the next six months.

Even if things are still neck-and-neck going into January, and even if the delegate-share from the first two months worth of primaries is 30/30/40, I strongly doubt that balance will hold through the summer and into the convention.

it seems i have had this conversation like three times in the past month.

I think a brokered convention is not likely at this point.

I don't think Trippi would say that it's likely that we'll have a brokered convention - he's just saying that it's a distinct possibility because so many campaigns can raise enough money to sustain their campaigns past a few early disappointments. And I think that he's right about that.

It is a fascinating idea and a brokered convention isn't so farfetched that it isn't worth discussion.  I think Gore is out, but if the earlier votes break anywhere near an even 3 way split, it just may stay that way through the front-loaded compressed primary season that is shaping up.

Early declaration of VP picks? Cash management issues as the season goes on longer than expected?  Courting of uncommitted delegates?  

Any real political junkie thrives on  this kind of thing.  Are you guys auditioning for CNN punditry? Perhaps Tucker has a bowtie he can loan out?

There is no way that the dem party elite (rich and powerful) would stand for it.  They will want a candidate established by early 2008 to start preparing for November.  People will be forced out if necessary.

The 2008 presidential election is too important to risk blowing it with a brokered convention.

Ok, first things first: there's not going to be a brokered convo. Trippi's making the assumption that somehow all the campaigns are going be all nice and Warren Buffett-like in budgeting and spending their money. No, in fact, most of the campaign leaderships are going to make the calculation that (as Trippi, Cahill, Baldick, and Murphy did in 2004) that even if Iowa/NH don't completely decide the winner, they will have a gigantic impact on who qualifies as a final competitor for the prize. So, especially with every thing being even three-ways, campaigns are going to spend cash like a '99 dotcom to finish top-two in Iowa and NH, and to prepare for 2/5. By the time 2/5 rolls around, most cash will have already been spent, and every single new dollar that comes in will have already been spent. And that's not taking into account the fact that the fundamentals of the primary elections haven't changed: you can't buy enough paid media to counteract the effect of concentrated sustained free media like when happens when you win an early caucus or primary or if you make some godawful gaffe on live tv. The value of the free positive coverage that goes with winning the Iowa caucuses alone is something like $50 million. It's just improbable that someone is going to be able to fight through an early defeat, given this calendar.

However, if somehow a brokered convention happened, why assume that the only choices are HRC, BHO, and JRE? At that point, the knives come out and the different institutional factions of the party take over the process. It'll be Unions versus Centrists versus anti-warriors versus Choice Groups versus Minority Groups versus Westerners, etc. The guy who'll win will be the guy who can unify the party and move the convention hall. JRE is probably a goner in this scenario (unless he's got explicit backing from the Teachers or SEIU). Obama, is fortunate because  he doesn't have any enemies, but doesn't have anyone who owes him anything either, neither does he have a history of loyalty with any key constituency. HRC will have an advantage with superdelegates given that she and bill have a gigantic pile of chits to call in, but she also has enemies.

I'm not kidding about this: Nancy Pelosi could be our nominee if we go to a brokered convention.

Because I'd say the odds are way against a brokered convention, and it makes me wonder why all the talk about it.

If someone thinks there's, say, a 1 in 4 chance of a brokered convention - i.e. 3-to-1 against - let them step forward with some money, because at those odds, I'll put money on the proposition that there will NOT be a brokered Dem convention in 2008.

Ummm... somehow I think Joe Trippi should be the last person to pay attention to primary polls 9 months (or even two weeks) before the primaries begin.  Does he remember 2004?

What's with all the sentence fragments? Very awkward and difficult to read, lowkell.