NEWS FLASH: There is *always* a roll call at the convention.

[QC]

In fact, the roll call is one of the high points of the convention, certainly the most entertaining.

The head of each delegation stands up and announces that ___, which produces more cottage cheese or NFL quarterbacks or lobsters or what have you than any other state in the greatest nation on earth, is proud to award its {insert number} delegates to ___, the next president of the United States!

Then the members of the delegation (many of whom have a few drinks in them) all wave their funny hats and scream (this is called a "demonstration" and generally all the other delegations join in), and then the next delegation steps up and does the same.

Sometimes the delegations swap their order around so that the nominee's home state can be the one to "put him over the top."

It is nothing new or sinister or even, for any reasonably informed person, slightly unusual that Senator Clinton wants a roll call. We always do it.

Those looking for reason to be outraged or fearful need to find something better than this.

[MichiganVote]

1. .....Awwww, you're spoiling all the fun for the distruptors.

[bunnies]

2. And is it standard to retain ones delegates?

:shrug:

[QC]

3. Candidates usually release them right before the convention.

Bill Bradley did that in 2000. Some hang on to their delegates, as Jesse Jackson did.

It's just not a big deal.

[bunnies]

5. Gotcha. Never paid such close attention before.

As you could probably tell. :blush: :hi:

[sandnsea]

15. If she had conceded her delegates

Then there would have been no MI & FL issue. For her to go to the floor pretending she won those is pathetic. She ought to concede them so that MI & FL don't remain a black mark on her legacy.

[ruggerson]

18. She could save your mother from drowning

and you would scream at her that she got your mother all wet.

[hokies4ever]

42. Only because she probably pushed mom in the water in the first place

just for a photo op to claim that she did something good.

[onenote]

4. Yes it is, at least until the eve of the convention.

At least until the very eve of the convention. Bradley released his delegates the day before the 2000 convention. In 1992, around 600 delegates cast votes for Jerry Brown and nearly 300 voted for Paul Tsongas. And in 1988, Jesse Jackson didn't release his delegates and over 1200 - nearly 30 percent -- cast their votes for him.

Question answered.

[melody]

6. Like I said in another thread, there aren't NEARLY enough silly hats now!

"The great Walnetto State, the land of flying pigs and pink elephants, home of the great former Congressman Les Hooty,
the commonwealth of sticksomestateinhere casts all its 3,123 ballots for ... "

They went on for HOURS. Those were the good, ol' days.

[starroute]

13. In the good ol' days, many states had favorite sons

Before primaries/caucuses became universal, states would often cast their votes on the first ballot for their own governor or senator or whatever. It would give that person a little visibility -- my recollection is that there would be a nominating speech for each of them -- and keep the state's delegates free for whatever horsetrading went on after the first ballot.

The world has changed since those days -- if nothing else, the tv networks wouldn't have patience to show it all. And, of course, the nominee now regularly has things locked up well in advance, making the convention more of a coronation than any actual part of the process. Still, the old machinery of nominating speeches and roll call votes is still in place to be used as needed.

[OzarkDem]

7. It wouldn't be a convention without it

and frankly I miss the real ones of the old days. The suspense, the haggling, etc. The staged ones where the candidate has all the delegates beforehand are very boring.

For those who haven't seen a real convention, you should look forward to it.

[QC]

11. Thanks--I was beginning to wonder if I had imagined it all. n/t

[Pathwalker]

8. A kick for history.

A lesson some could use.
:kick:

[Gidney N Cloyd]

9. "Mr. Chairman. The Great State of Kansas, home of Dorothy and Toto ... "

I think that was part of an old Gabe Kaplan routine.

[MonkeyFunk]

10. Yup!

But why let the facts get in the way of yet another entirely invented smear? Stop acting like a Democrat, dammit!

[dorktv]

12. There were four times that it was by acclimation. 2000, 1996, 1964 and 1936

But I may be wrong on LBJ.

[ruggerson]

16. Correct, only incumbents or Veep incumbents get nominated by acclamation

and sometimes (Carter) that doesn't even happen.

[sandnsea]

14. Hillary can concede her delegates so they're ALL for Obama

That's what we usually do, if you want to be historic about it.

[ruggerson]

17. No what we usually do is have a rollcall

and then after the nominee goes over the top, the Chair of the convention moves to make it by acclamation and the place erupts.

[QC]

20. Exactly. It's amazing how many self-styled political junkies have not the slightest idea

what actually happens at a convention.

[sandnsea]

24. Usually the candidate concedes their delegates

That's what usually happens at the convention. I've been watching them since I was in grade school.

[RNdaSilva]

38. Yes,

and the acclamation will occur after Illinois puts Barack Obama over the top.

Alabama will be first on the roll call's agenda. However, it might be apropos for New York to begin the process and Illinois to finalize it. They do yield their positions during the roll call. I was going to fit West Virginia in this process, but... Well, they would be 48th anyway.

[onenote]

22. Apparently you've never actually watched a convention

Usually, if you want to be historic about it, there is a roll call. 1992: six candidates got votes, with Brown picking up nearly 600; 1988: Jesse Jackson picked up nearly 30 percent of the delegates (over 1200 votes); Even in 2004, Kucinich got 40 plus delegates during the roll call. .

[sandnsea]

23. Usually the candidate concedes his delegates

Usually. That's what I said. How is that not true?

[onenote]

27. Jesse Jackson didn't concede his delegates.Neither did Brown and Tsongas

in 1992. And even when they are conceded, its frequently on the eve of the convention -- Bradley in 2000 for example.

[sandnsea]

29. Usually. What is it about that word that you don't understand n/t

[onenote]

34. Usually means more often than not, right?

There have been fourteen nominating conventions since the end of WWII. Only two didn't have roll call votes. Yes, in some instances losing candidates have conceded their delegates either just before the convention or after the first ballot. But more candidates have not done so.

1948: Truman and Russell both received votes
1952: 8 different candidates, 3 ballots
1956: Made unanimous, after first ballot
1960: JFK, LBJ, Symington and Stevenson all received first vote ballots
1964: No roll call
1968: 9 candidates received first ballot votes
1972: 13 candidates received first ballot votes
1976: at least a dozen
1980: at least a dozen
1984: eight candidate (including a large Teddy Kennedy contingent)
1988: Jackson picks up 30 percent (a couple of others also got votes)
1992: half dozen or so, including Brown (nearly 600) and Tsongas (nearly 300)
1996: No roll call
2000: Roll call, but with Bradley's releasing delegates on eve of convention, it was essentially a one-sided vote with only a handful of abstentions to prevent it from being unanimous
2004: again, roll call was held, but with Edwards' delegates on board after their guy got the VP nod, only Kucinich, with around 40 plus votes, kept it from being unanimous.

[sandnsea]

37. 2004, did Dean keep his delegates?

Did Clark? Go back and do it candidate by candidate, then you'll see that the loser usually concedes as soon as it's clear they can't win. Usually.

[onenote]

43. again, in recent years, candidates with only a few delegates may have done so

But historically, it simply is not the case. As many as a dozen candidate received votes in many years. And where the second/third place finishers have several hundred or more delegates, they ususally stay in until after the roll call. Clark only had 60 delegates. Dean, with 167 delegates is more tthe exception, not the rule (and his situation is distinguishable since he was out of the race in February...much diffeent than the situation this year). HRC's situation is much closer to Jackson and Kennedy (and a number of earlier situations) than to the Dean situation.

[mzmolly]

19. And, what an exciting convention

this will be. :)

[ProSense]

21. Yes let's make the Democratic Convention about Hillary

Obama is the nominee.

Like Kerry before him.

Hillary supporters want to extend the drama, at the cost of healing.

[onenote]

25. Did you protest when Jesse Jackson had his name put into nomination

and got 1200 (30 percent) of the delegates? It was a historic moment. There is no reason for there not to be a similarly historic moment at this year's convention.

[ProSense]

26. You mean the year Bush Sr. won? n/t

[onenote]

30. Yes, 1988,.

And please don't even think of suggesting that Jesse's decision to have his name placed into nomination cost Dukakis the election. No one could be that uninformed.

[ProSense]

31. The point is that this isn't 1988,

there is an entirely different dynamic in play here. People seem to want what they want without regard for the implications. Just as Tuesday had its implications, having this hanging out there does too. If people really want to heal the division, and no Hillary's speech alone isn't likely to, then the focus should be on uniting the party.

[onenote]

32. And the best way to unite the party probably is to allow HRC to make history

just as we allowed Jesse Jackson to make history.

[ProSense]

33. Really?

Hillary already made history. Your response sounds just like the other argument: VP slot for unity.

The party needs to unity, not for Hillary's legacy, but to win in November.

[onenote]

35. I don't want her as the VP for many reasons.

I think its a bad match and doesn't fit with Obama's message. But Jesse Jackson had already made history in 1988, but it was important for that history making effort to be given formal ackowledgment by having his name placed in nomination and votes tallied. The same is true for HRC, imo and will go a long way to bringing her supporters (and I'm not one of them, btw) more strongly into the fold.

[ProSense]

36. It's not a good idea

IMO. I think the people who are having a hard time coming to grips with Obama's win, don't need to be given one more thing to hang their hopes on. They'll be even more bitter after the convention, having to live through Hillary's loss again.



Edited typos.

[davidpdx]

40. The truth is that many people who don't support Obama

are hoping something happens to him. It's quite morbid if you ask me.

[RNdaSilva]

41. Agree,

why not allow Hillary to have her name placed in nomination...even one day, one speech, allowed her. But, no Veep. That might have been the topics of Barack and Hillary's "secret" meeting.

[Seabiscuit]

28. I love hearing the roll calls at the convention and you're right I think most

of them seem three sheets to the wind. All in good fun.

[SwampG8r]

39. its true folks

some of the best stuff is when the states do their
"alabama...the heart of dixie....sweet home alabama where the skys are so blue....cast 41 votes for..."
well worth the watching to see which state has the best intro

[RichardRay]

44. There is nothing ominous, morbid nor devisive in having

Senator Clinton's name placed in nomination and going through the roll call. When Senator Obama goes 'over the top' then the chair notes that he has captured the nomination and moves to make it 'by acclamation'. Everybody goes crazy and runs out of the convention hall screaming to nail McCain's hide to the wall.

As of Saturday the nominee selection process was over. There are parts to play out around the decision, but they are ancillary to the new status quo. The party will appropriately honor Senator Clinton's historic run and then gets unanimously behind Senator Obama. All kinds of kabuki theater will get played out in all kinds of arcane ways, but the die is cast.

That's the way it works. If there are die hard Obama supporters who want to make very certain that Senator Clinton's name goes down in infamy (or at least obscurity) then that's no less wacko then die hard Clinton supporters who harbor a secret hope that delegates would abandon their stated preferences and pledged allegiances and sweep her into the nomination.

It's downstream from here.

[Seabiscuit]

45. Madame Chairwoman: The Great State of Alaska, home of the Exxon Valdez oil spill....

....

[kid a]

46. Obama 2008