A contested Democratic convention, in which no candidate goes into the event with a majority of delegates, is more likely in 2020 than it has been at any time in decades. And several recent developments in the race have made the prospect even more likely.
Though the possibility of a contested convention is always a dream of political journalists and somehow never comes into fruition, there are two unique factors in this election cycle. One is the historic size of the Democratic field (creating more openings for more candidates to divvy up the delegates) and the other is the fact that the primaries and caucuses divide up their delegates on a proportional basis (unlike the crowded 2016 primary, in which Republican rules allowed Donald Trump to rapidly build up his delegate lead with victories in winner-take-all states).
To be clear, I’m not necessarily predicting a contested convention based on the developments I mention below. All of them can change between now and when the first voting starts next February, and one candidate could always catch fire and run away with the nomination as has happened in the past. My only point is to argue that if these trends spill into the new year, it increases the odds that Democrats will head to Milwaukee next July with no clear winner.
The race got more competitive. After Joe Biden announced his candidacy, the potential for a contested convention initially receded. At one point, he was polling at over 40% in the RealClearPolitics average, which was 25 points ahead of his next closest competitor, Sen. Bernie Sanders. No other candidate made it out of the single digits. Since that time, a lot has changed. Sen. Elizabeth Warren made steady gains in the weeks leading up to the Democratic debates. Then, Sen. Kamala Harris mauled Biden in the debate. Though the effects of the debates are still working their way into the polling average, what the post-debate polls have generally shown is a huge surge for Harris and dwindling support for Biden. Harris was even statistically tied with Biden in the Quinnipiac poll. There’s now more of a jumble, with Harris, Sanders, and Warren usually somewhere in the teens and Biden falling into the low 20s in several surveys. The more candidates there are who can pull relatively equal levels of support, the more difficult it is for one candidate to gain a majority of delegates in a proportional system.
Pete Buttigieg had a massive fundraising haul. Though the South Bend mayor seems to have lost some steam in recent polling, he managed to raise nearly $25 million in the second quarter. Now, it’s true that money isn’t everything, and plenty of well-funded candidates have fizzled when it comes time to vote. But having that much money also means that he’ll be able to afford to remain in the race for a long time, waiting for a breakout moment. That’s potential money and support he’ll be taking away from other candidates.
Bernie Sanders said, “We’re going to play it out.” Sanders may be the most important wild card in the contested convention scenario. Even if he has more competition on the Left this year and has a narrowing path to the nomination, he still has a legion of followers that, most importantly, are very ideological and uncompromising. That is, many of them care about supporting him and advancing his ideas more than they do about the Democratic Party per se. If he hangs on until the convention and refuses to concede, as he did in 2016 even when Hillary Clinton had secured a majority, he’ll continue to grab delegates and deprive other candidates of many potential liberal voters. Last week, Sanders refused to commit to conceding before the convention and declared, “We’re going to play it out.” And this week, he reported raising $18 million, which — though flat relative to the first quarter — is still more than enough money to keep his revolution going. As long as he’s competitive and has enough money, there’s no reason to expect he’ll make an early exit.
Black voters are divided. Black voters are an often decisive voting bloc in Democratic nomination battles. Most recently, Clinton’s victory over Sanders was secured by a more than 50-point advantage among black voters. In 2008, it was Clinton who got crushed by Barack Obama among black voters, a major factor in her loss. In the latest Quinnipiac poll, things were close, with Biden at 31% and Harris at 27%. Sanders, for his part, was at 16%. Another layer of this is that for Warren and Buttigieg, the poll showed a significant gap between their support among black voters and whites. Warren is actually at 20% among whites and just 4% among black voters; Buttigieg is at 6% among whites and actually at zero among black voters. If that holds up, it could be that Warren and Buttigieg rack up delegates in states and congressional districts with a large percentage of white voters, even if their inability to win over black voters prevents them from gaining a majority themselves. It should be stipulated that the vote is very fluid. In 2008, many black voters were initially reluctant to support Obama, because they assumed racism would prevent him from having a chance at getting elected. But that changed overnight once he won Iowa.
Julian Castro gains among Hispanics. This flew under the radar in the face of the Harris-Biden faceoff, but the former secretary of Housing and Urban Development’s debate performance drew notice within the Hispanic community. A Univision poll of Hispanic voters found Castro doubling his support, with 18% — just below Harris, who surged to the top with 22% of the vote. Still, if Castro can build off of this, he will have opportunities to soak up delegates in areas with a large concentration of Hispanic voters who will be influential in choosing the nominee. Nevada is the most obvious early state example. If he does well there, he could carry that into Super Tuesday, when his home state of Texas votes, and also California, a state that allocates a majority of its delegates at the congressional district level, and which has many districts with a high concentration of Hispanic voters.
