Can we all agree the convention won't be brokered? What does a contested convention accomplish?

[Garrett78]

Apparently, the convention would meet the definition of "contested" if Sanders does not concede prior to the roll call vote and Clinton hasn't reached 2383 via pledged delegates alone.

But Clinton will undoubtedly top 2383 with that first vote, meaning the convention won't meet the definition of "brokered."

Personally, I think Sanders will concede before the vote and we'll avoid a "contested" convention.

If, however, Sanders doesn't concede, what would that accomplish? Would that result in negative press for Clinton and Democrats as a whole? Would it somehow give a boost to Sanders and his version of economic populism?

It won't be brokered. Clinton will be the nominee. What's the point of 'contesting' the convention? What goals are made easier to reach as a result? Is it not far better to concede, have a say in the platform and then return to the Senate with greater influence?

[joshcryer]

1. I think he'll concede June 10th.

[grasswire]

3. D.C. doesn't vote until June 14.

He will not concede prior to the convention.

[auntpurl]

50. DC is going to be an absolute shellacking.

If I were in his position I definitely wouldn't wait until DC. He's going to get creamed there.

[Gomez163]

76. I would agree because he is a bitter, bitter man.

And a sore loser.

[Garrett78]

80. And what will contesting the convention accomplish?

Who would it benefit and how?

[fun n serious]

2. It's Bernie who wants a massive fight not his followers. nt

[grasswire]

4. LOL

You don't get out much, do you?

[fun n serious]

14. The Candidate sets the tone.

[fun n serious]

15. Notice how we are Hillary supporters but we seem quiet like her?

But we creep up on you cuz we love to vote.

[tonyt53]

51. We are the group that will actually show up to vote in November.

[merrily]

29. LOL! You know this how?

[Samantha]

5. It will be a brokered convention with both Sanders and Clinton arriving without hitting the magic

number. Sanders will not drop out before the convention.

Sam

[Garrett78]

6. It won't be brokered. For one thing, that would require there being more than 2 candidates.

As far as I know, O'Malley won't be getting any delegates. Nor will anyone else who already dropped out. One of the candidates (Clinton) will top 2383 via the first vote. That's a guarantee. So, it won't be brokered.

Contested? Perhaps. Again, though, what would that accomplish? Why would that be to the benefit of Sanders or his mission?

[Samantha]

8. I think there only has to be two and she will not walk in the door with 2383 (eom)

I don't think it will be contested - just automatically brokered.

Sam

[Garrett78]

10. You have it backward.

It's contested if Clinton doesn't reach 2383 prior to the convention and Sanders hasn't conceded.

It would be brokered if neither reached 2383 following the first vote at the convention, and that's obviously not going to happen.

[Samantha]

19. Well, read this quote and tell me these terms are not "mushy"

In the United States' politics, a brokered convention, closely related to but not quite the same as a contested convention, either of which is sometimes referred to as an open convention, is a situation in which no single candidate has secured a majority of overall delegates (whether those selected by primary elections and caucuses, state conventions, or superdelegates), after the first vote for a political party's presidential candidate at its national nominating convention.

Once the first ballot, or vote, has occurred, and no candidate has a majority of the delegates' votes, the convention is then considered brokered; thereafter, the nomination is decided through a process of alternating political horse trading—(super) delegate vote trading—and additional re-votes.[1][2][3][4] In this circumstance, all regular delegates (who may have been pledged to a particular candidate according to rules which vary from state to state) are "released" and are able to switch their allegiance to a different candidate before the next round of balloting. It is hoped that this extra privilege extended to the delegates will result in a re-vote yielding a clear majority of delegates for one candidate. The term "brokered" implies a strong role for political bosses, more common in the past and associated with deals made in proverbial "smoke-filled rooms", while the term "contested" is a more modern term for a convention where no candidate holds a majority but the role of party leaders is weaker in determining the eventual outcome.[5]

For the Democratic Party, unpledged delegate votes, also called "Superdelegate votes" are counted on the first ballot. Although some use the term "brokered convention" to refer to a convention where the outcome is decided by Superdelegate votes rather than pledged delegates alone, this is not the original sense of the term, nor has it been a commonly used definition of a "contested convention."[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brokered_convention

In any event, the point I was trying to make was that when Hillary and Bernie arrive at the convention, neither will have the required number of pledged delegates won at primaries and caucuses to be the presumed nominee. When the first vote is held, the superdelegates jump in, and it appears in this case they will determine the winner.

And yes, I was using it in the context of the bolded language, but that does not seem to have been the original definition of the word.

Sam

[Garrett78]

21. That confirms what I wrote in my OP.

It's contested if Sanders doesn't concede and Clinton hasn't reached 2383 via pledged delegates alone.

It's brokered if neither candidate reaches 2383 via the first vote at the convention.

The former could happen, but the latter won't. So, back to the point of my thread, what would contesting the convention accomplish?

[Samantha]

82. Finality

Everyone has an opinion as to what will happen. We do not have long to wait before we see. If I were Bernie Sanders, I would do exactly what he is doing. It is his right, and he feels a responsibility to his voters to give it all he has got.

Sam

[Garrett78]

84. I'm not suggesting that Sanders drop out before the primaries conclude.

I fully expect him to stay in the race through June 14th. But there's time between then and the convention roll call vote. I'm asking what people think Sanders contesting the convention will accomplish, who it will benefit and how. It speaks volumes that nobody seems willing to answer that question. I suspect that's because those advocating for a contested convention haven't actually thought critically about what that would accomplish.

[Samantha]

87. Where is the harm in letting it unfold naturally? Why should he drop out?

(I hope you are not going to respond he is hurting her chances in the GE. If so, let me state my response in advance! No one, absolutely no one, has hurt Hillary more than Hillary herself.)

I cannot specifically answer your question because I can see more than one scenario that is possible. I do not have a crystal ball, so my position is wait and see. Things certainly have a way of changing unexpectedly in this contest, and overall, anything can happen in politics at any time.

I hope we are done with this subject. There is more interesting stuff coming in right now.

Sam

[Garrett78]

88. Are you reading what I'm writing?

Do you understand that I'm not suggesting he drop out before the primaries conclude?

I'm not even necessarily suggesting that he concede before the convention vote. I'm asking what would be accomplished by him not doing so. Clearly, you're not alone in not being able to answer that straightforward question.

[Samantha]

89. I am exhausted and not being evasive -- I misunderstood you were not recommending him dropping out

I do believe I answered your questions however when I said I could picture more than one scenario and since I don't have a crystal ball, I will not predict what is going to happen. I believe the truth of the matter is it is unpredictable since there are so many variables up in the air moving very quickly. That is the best answer I can give, and at least give me credit for trying to take a shot. Going for a nap now.

Sam

[Demsrule86]

28. Clinton will have the majority on the first vote

It won't matter if Bernie Sander puts his name in our not. He just looks like a sore loser...a contested convention is not a brokered convention. One ballot ...and Bernie goes away. Thank God.

[Samantha]

83. Assuming she continues to have all the superdelegates Bill Clinton lined up for her before the

primary stated. But between now and then, with her sinking polling numbers against Trump, and with the outcome of those remains states who have not voted still up in the air, the reasonable thing to do is to let the process unfold as circumstances dictate in the moment.

Sam

PS Sanders is not going anywhere.

[Demsrule86]

31. She has way more delegates and votes

The convention will not be brokered. She goes in on first ballot...I expect him to concede anyway...why else do you suppose they gave him say over the platform? A deal was made.

[Samantha]

85. She has 271 more pledged delegates than he

Twice during this campaign, she has been over 300, and he whittled her margin down to under 300. The first time after he had a series of wins, she was down to 197. She made up that loss, but over time has dropped again to under 271. The final popular vote will not be known until all states have voted. But there does not appear to be an agreement over the number Hillary constantly quotes of having 3,000 more votes (or 3,500) since all of the states did not record the number of people voting in caucuses. (I am not going to argue over this issue because I didn't follow that end that closely, so I will just stick will we will see what the popular vote margin is recorded as at the end of the trail).

With the overall support both of these candidates gained during this contest, both would have influenced the platform. Nothing happens down the road if someone departs from it (historically) so why not let both contribute. Good for the optics, they think.

Sam

[Garrett78]

86. She has maintained a lead greater than Obama ever had in 2008.

But this thread isn't about Sanders dropping out before the primaries have concluded. It's about what would be accomplished by him not conceding sometime between the conclusion of the primaries and the convention vote.

[merrily]

32. Well, you have the answer to your OP question, anyway. So, there's that.

[Garrett78]

40. No, I don't.

I have a couple people posting in this thread who are confused about the difference between contested and brokered. But I don't yet have anyone answering the big question. What is the benefit of contesting the convention? Who does it benefit and how?

People seem to have this idea that a contested convention is beneficial and meaningful, but have they actually thought critically about why?

[merrily]

58. The question was if we can all agree. Apparently we can't

[Garrett78]

61. Only when people are confused about the difference between brokered and contested.

The poster then posted definitions from Wikipedia that confirmed what I wrote in my OP and confirmed what I said about the poster having the terms backward.

Regardless, what does contesting the convention accomplish? Who does it benefit and how?

[Recursion]

7. At least for the past half century or so "brokered" has meant "no nominee on the first ballot"

That can't really happen with two candidates, unless the supers all abstain.

[Garrett78]

9. Agreed. I would hope we can all agree on that point. But...

...what would a contested convention accomplish? How would it help or hurt Sanders? How would it help or hurt Clinton or Democrats as a whole?

[still_one]

11. It would accomplish nothing, and I believe it would hurt Sanders since I believe the majority of the

super delegates will support the candidate who has won the most pledged delegates

[Garrett78]

12. I'm torn between "nothing" and "it would be harmful."

It could potentially harm Sanders and Clinton and Democrats as a whole. I don't see how it can possibly benefit anyone other than the media (which loves conflict) and Republicans.

But I asked the question, because maybe someone else sees how contesting the convention would help Sanders and make his goals more attainable. There seem to be a lot of folks on DU who advocate for a contested convention, but I wonder why. What benefit do they foresee?

[Contrary1]

13. What's with all the "Can we all agree..." posts?

Not gonna happen ever; on most any subject, political or otherwise, either here at DU, or in the real world.

We are individuals, who believe in different things, have different opinions, want different outcomes...
because we are different.

And there's nothing wrong with that.

[fun n serious]

16. We have goals that require us to come togther and be strong.

We team together and compete for our similarities.

[Garrett78]

17. Some things are ripe for a consensus.

There are only 2 candidates, one of whom will likely end up with approximately 2200 pledged delegates (needing fewer than 200 of the 700+ superdelegates to reach the magic number). Is there anyone at DU who thinks neither Clinton nor Sanders will reach 2383 via the first vote? It's really no different than thinking neither candidate will reach 2026 pledged delegates--obviously 1 of them will.

My point in mentioning "brokered" is to draw a distinction between that and "contested," and to hopefully get folks thinking about what a contested convention (with there being no chance of it leading to a brokered convention) would accomplish.

A brokered convention would be tense, dramatic, rare and quite significant. A contested convention not so much.

[Contrary1]

18. I don't think that the convention will be brokered or even contested...

but asking everyone to agree about anything here is a bit futile, in my opinion.

For the record, I don't think it matters much who the Democratic nominee is. One may fare a bit better than the other, but in the end, I think Trump will take it.

And, I say this with a lot of fear and sadness.

[Garrett78]

20. I was essentially asking for everyone to agree that there are only 2 candidates. Or that 2+2=4.

The first question in my OP is really just a set-up for the more important question, as I explained in my last post.

For what it's worth, I think it's far more likely that Clinton will become POTUS. Trump will have a difficult time getting to 270 electoral college votes.

[Demsrule86]

27. A wish is not an infomred opinion

No matter how angry I was my candidate did not win...I would never hope for the Dem to lose...you do understand if that happened ...kiss the progressive movement goodbye...the GOP gets the court...everything goes south including but not limited to health care, medicare, Medicaid, social security, voting right, abortion rights , women's rights, LGBT (probably see the re-criminalization of being gay), more war, possible nuclear bomb use (Trump has said he would),food stamps (starving babies is their favorite activity) and on and on. So maybe Bernie is not worth it...or let me just say categorically Bernie Sanders is not worth electing Trump or any Republican. Every bit of progressive policy gone and for what?

[merrily]

33. Thank you.

[Garrett78]

41. But there are things we can all (for the most part) agree on.

There are only 2 candidates. One of them will get a majority of the delegates on the first vote.

I only mentioned the distinction between brokered and contested in hopes that people would explain why they feel contesting the convention would be meaningful and beneficial? Nobody has answered that question yet.

[merrily]

54. I don't have a crystal ball. I have no clue what might happen between now and July.

Neither do you.

[Garrett78]

55. So, with only 2 candidates, you're not sure if 1 of them will get a majority?

[merrily]

56. I don't even know if there will be two candidates by July.

[Garrett78]

60. Well, there will either be 2 or 1.

In either case, someone will be nominated without the need for brokering.

So, the real question is what does contesting the convention accomplish? Who does it benefit and how?

[merrily]

62. Who is contesting the convention? Sorry, I don't have much of an interest in

endless discussion of hypotheticals. Seems totally pointless, too.

[Garrett78]

64. Well, if Sanders doesn't concede, he would - by definition - be contesting the convention.

And quite a few on DU seem to be advocating for a contested convention. But I wonder if any of them have actually thought critically about what that would accomplish, who it would benefit and how.

[MH1]

43. Perhaps we can agree on 2 + 2 = 4

(assuming standard arithmetic, not vector addition )

[Garrett78]

45. Which is really no different than agreeing that the convention won't be brokered.

Since there are only 2 candidates and 1 of them will get a majority of the delegates on the first vote.

The real point of my thread is to get at what contesting the convention would accomplish. Why do people think contesting would be meaningful and beneficial? Who would it benefit and how?

[aidbo]

77. 2 + 2 = 10 in base 4 arithmetic. ;-)

[MH1]

78. Yes but that is still 4 if you convert it back to base 10. :)

[Lizzie Poppet]

47. More "subtle" (lol) pressure to unify behind Princess Weathervane.

Fuck that...obviously.

[Garrett78]

57. No, I'm asking what contesting the convention would accomplish?

Who would it benefit and how?

Obviously it won't be brokered, but it could be contested. What, though, would that accomplish? Nobody seems willing to answer that question.

[PATRICK]

22. I expect some fast

action after the last primary and a long night of voting at the Convention if some magical negotiations don't settle everything that looks intractable at least because of the growing strength of Sanders' showing. In words and supposed policy there is a lot more unity than one would expect after all the heat. A lot more. In practice the division is likely a lot worse so the performance in words and conciliation had better be top notch. After all our intrepid GOP MSM will be reading into everything divisive or anti-Clinton rather than discuss any of the issues corporations find unpalatable or scary.

On the personal level a few sacrificial lambs or plumb positions. The Veep choice that all can cheer maybe. The keynote speaker for the future vision of the party might help. Some surprise real promise in the acceptance. No, trashing Trump will not be enough, and scarily probably won't work. Another thing to start thinking of.

Or we can speed things up at the Convention with a voice vote!

[Demsrule86]

26. It won't happen that way

And Bernie won't be or choose the Veep...as for your opinions...I feel Clinton has bent over backwards and Bernie should not push his luck. There will not be a night of voting...one vote. I suppose his radical picks for his platform BS will make noise and act well how they usually do at least for West on Fox. Zogby will not get anything about Palestinians in the platform. It would be political suicide.

[PATRICK]

30. Chill

It is about reconciling not double daring and pushing. This seems to be happening, enthusiasts for blood and marching under the yoke notwithstanding. And there are a lot of non viable Veep token fantasies. Sanders no, Warren(two women?) no for many many reasons including non important ones. Ditching DWS or some awe inspiring Veep is just window dressing. This is about healing the soul of the party unless one wants to rejoice darkly in not having one.

Sanders campaign is bigger than his candidacy. That is the awkward reality that matches the awkward alliance that the rest of the leadership has over over committed to major donors. Even that may be stepped around successfully. If Hillary is so good at bending over backwards this should not be impossible, because this is leaning forward to November for a change.

Splitting the party in any way is all about electing Trump rather than representing the party's ideals. The contradictions and the differences must be faced. I presume we are collectively not as stupid as the GOP? At least not as.

Also I don't think brokered is understood very well. It all seems well sown up except for achieving unity. Nor do many superdelegates have to deliver their preference. Brokered will happen only if Hillary is dramatically removed by circumstances and then the push will favor a person who never ran in the primaries rather than Sanders-- if one wants to get angry over unforeseen hypotheticals--It would still be more productive sticking to present realities for now.

[Demsrule86]

35. First ballot

It is done.

[cali]

23. It should not be brokered. Bernie should drop out after California and before D.C.

[highprincipleswork]

24. Why are you folks so desperate for this to go your own way? If Hillary is such a strong candidate,

with a strong message, and the clear winner, why doesn't she just start doing her thing and get swept up in it?

I would like to see her do her thing with the Progressives onboard, but that is entirely up to her.

I think Bernie has already adequately made the point that the Progressive point of view has a lot of adherents, to the point where she would be wise to try to include them in her plans. But i don't count on it. I have seen this rightward side of the Party do plenty of ridiculous things already, and I don't necessarily expect them to stop now.

But one thing is for sure. She doesn't have to stop just because of Bernie, and she really isn't anyway.

Frankly, I think it's just the damn nervousness of you guys in action. Good luck with nervousness containment, because I don't think we're going to stop anytime soon.

[Garrett78]

37. I'm not desperate for anything, nor am I a Clinton fan. You didn't actually address my questions.

Again, what does contesting the convention accomplish?

[highprincipleswork]

52. You know, you're right. Got carried away. Must be posting too late. But

with that said, I'm in favor of Bernie carrying on for as long as he can. I don't believe the FBI investigation is just nothing, and I believe the Democratic Party needs to recognize the energy of the people that Bernie has appealed to.

When they have done enough to include the Bernie supporters, their first most important work is done.

Contested convention, brokered convention, all the internal politics that are yet to be played out - I am in favor of the Democratic Party running Progressive candidates this year. Running establishment, tied to Wall Street, tied to wars and stale 90's ideas candidates is just the kiss of death. I can just imagine what Trump will do with that. The "Socialist" label has proven not to be that big a stumbling block. People are open to Socialist ideas, when they are properly explained. What they aren't open to are Corporadem ideas. How will down ticket Dems even run any ads that get out from under this stigma without at the same time hurting any non-Progressive candidate in the general?

Not sure how they get this message, but like Bernie staying in there and his people backing him up just to make sure the message is delivered.

[MH1]

44. Bush was a horrible candidate

yet somehow he got close enough to steal it in both 2000 and 2004. You can say that Gore and Kerry both made mistakes, but if you said Kerry wasn't a "strong candidate" you'd be wrong. Gore had some issues but is and was a way better human being and far better for the country than Bush.

We underestimate Trump and the GOP machine at our peril. Clinton should have this thing easily, but every bit we can pad the score is all to the better. Why take chances?

[highprincipleswork]

53. I don't underestimate Trump. I just know that a corporate, establishment candidate is the worst

person in the world you can run against him.

[Demsrule86]

25. WE have no control over what certain sore losers might do

However whether he puts his name in or not for nomination. She goes in on first ballot...he gets escorted to the parking lot by security ...if he does this...and he is finished. I expect he will concede after California if he is smart certainly after DC.

[Garrett78]

63. What would it accomplish?

I'm not asking if people think he will or won't contest the convention. I'm asking what contesting the convention would accomplish? Who would it benefit and how?

The fact that nobody advocating for a contested convention seems willing to answer that question speaks volumes.

[bvf]

34. Dunno. Can we all agree that there will be

a few thousand more American caskets arriving from some place in the Middle East starting in 2017?

[LWolf]

36. No. Sorry, we can't "all agree."

That contestation is the last voice many of us will have; we'll take it.

[Garrett78]

38. So, you think the convention will be brokered?

I'm not suggesting that we all agree it won't be contested. I'm suggesting we should all be able to agree that it won't be brokered.

What is the benefit of contesting the convention? How does that further Bernie's mission?

[LWolf]

90. I expect that it will be contested.

I hope it will be brokered.

In my view, the longer we have Sanders and his issues front and center, the better. I think that when (and if) Clinton secures the nomination, the issues are dropped into a black hole like the proverbial hot potato, and the fight for those issues gets a hell of a lot harder.

[Garrett78]

91. I wouldn't bet against a contested convention.

With only 2 candidates, though, someone will reach 2383 on the first vote, so it won't be brokered. Especially since Clinton will be somewhere around 2200 with pledged delegates alone.

Contesting doesn't really amount to anything. If a candidate concedes right before the vote or doesn't concede and waits for the vote to go the way everyone knows it will go, I don't see what's been accomplished. The platform committee has already been determined.

[brooklynite]

65. So, what you care about is symbolism?

If Bernie stops the roll call to nominate Clinton by acclamation, will he be thrown under the bus too?

[Garrett78]

69. LWolf didn't actually address my questions, so I'm not sure what he/she cares about.

LWolf said we can't all agree and then made a vague remark about contesting being a good thing. It's not clear that LWolf actually disagrees that the convention will be brokered. It's also not even remotely clear what LWolf thinks would be accomplished by Sanders contesting the convention?

So many advocate for Sanders to contest the convention, yet I can't get anyone to explain who they think that would benefit and how.

[lagomorph777]

39. Possibly nominating an electable nominee? Preventing a Trump presidency?

Other than that, perhaps at least projecting the illusion (in the platform) that the Party has some concern for ordinary people.

[Garrett78]

42. I don't wish to argue electability, but how does contesting the convention accomplish those things?

Contesting simply means Sanders hasn't conceded prior to the roll call vote that will inevitably put Clinton over 2383. Who does that benefit and how?

[lagomorph777]

71. It benefits us if there is one last chance to go with an electable nominee.

Is that complicated? Shall I do some Bernie math to show you that <2383 is not going to cut it?

[Garrett78]

72. Sanders not conceding has no bearing on the vote.

Outside of DU, there's a pretty broad consensus that Clinton will win in an electoral college landslide in November. That aside, contesting the convention (which simply means Clinton isn't at 2383 via pledged delegates alone and that Sanders hasn't conceded when the vote takes place) doesn't have any bearing on the vote. Clinton will likely be somewhere around 2200 and the vote will put her well over 2383, whether Sanders has conceded or not. So, what does him contesting the convention accomplish? Who does it benefit and how?

[lagomorph777]

73. OK, so for those who don't have a TeeVee, here's the deal:

For months now, Bernie has had a 15-point advantage over Hillary, in one-on-one matchups against Trump.

Given the current blast of bad news for HRC, she has become "evitable" in the primaries (oh, and the primary season has not ended, FYI).

[Garrett78]

74. You're not addressing my question.

Not to mention that hypothetical general election match-up polling during a primary is historically worthless.

[lagomorph777]

75. Alrighty then; I see you are genuinely suffering with anxiety about the contested convention

so I will explain it to you.

If neither candidate goes in with a majority of PDs, nor a majority of PDs+SDs, then the convention is not a coronation. Your candidate (despite what your fevered dreams may tell you) is NOT the nominee. The convention will decide the nominee, and given the obvious need to defeat Trump, the convention may very well bow to practical considerations and select the more electable candidate.

I expect at that point, your opinion of the process will rapidly begin to resemble the opinion I currently hold.

[Garrett78]

79. No anxiety. And Clinton's not my candidate.

I'm well aware of what constitutes a "contested" convention, as I made clear in the OP and throughout this thread. I'm well aware of the fact that it will - by definition - be contested if Sanders doesn't concede prior to the vote.

But that isn't the issue at hand.

I don't agree with your assumption that Sanders is more electable, and hypothetical general election match-up polling is historically worthless. Carter did not beat Reagan. Dukakis did not beat Bush. Bush did not beat Clinton. Dole did not beat Clinton. McCain did not beat Obama. And so on.

But that also is not the issue at hand.

If you think Sanders not conceding somehow makes it more likely that 550-600 (of ~700) superdelegates will throw their support behind Sanders and make him the nominee, then so be it.

[lagomorph777]

81. If he concedes, the probability of SDs flipping goes to zero.

So obviously I disagree with your summary.

And if Sanders is your candidate, why are you trying to get him to quit?

[firebrand80]

46. There's nothing to "broker" or "contest" nt

[Garrett78]

48. It's certainly possible that it will meet the definition of contested.

All Sanders has to do is not concede prior to the vote. But what does that accomplish? Who does it benefit and how? Has anyone advocating for a contested convention actually thought critically about that?

[firebrand80]

49. It benefits the GOP, obviously

I'm not certain whether Sanders or his supporters care

[Garrett78]

66. As I wrote above, I'm torn between "it would accomplish nothing" and "it would help the GOP."

But I'm curious what those advocating for a contested convention think it would accomplish. Who do they think it would benefit and how? My hunch, which is growing stronger and stronger, is that those folks haven't actually thought critically about the matter. They just like the idea of contesting the convention and think it somehow furthers Sanders's message, but why?

[firebrand80]

68. I've heard two different things

1. The SDs might flip to Bernie.

2. Vague pronouncements about bringing new people "into" the party. Other than helping write the platform, which as already been agreed upon, I don't have a clue what this means.

[Garrett78]

70. How does contesting accomplish either?

I'm not sure everyone actually grasps the fact that contesting simply means Sanders doesn't concede prior to the vote. That has no bearing on who superdelegates support, nor does it have any bearing on the makeup of the platform committee (as you point out).

So, I'm still left wondering what advocates of a contested convention think that would accomplish. Who would it benefit and how? I appreciate your reply. Perhaps someone will eventually answer my question, but I won't hold my breath.

[Peacetrain]

59. I think it will be fine in the end..

[Garrett78]

67. What will be fine?

Simple question for those advocating for Sanders to contest the convention: Who would that benefit and how?