If you are an Edwards supporter you might like Mike Lux’s observation:
Edwards could become the kingmaker. Edwards is dead as a Presidential prospect for 2008, but if this becomes a long, drawn out, fairly evenly-divided fight, and Edwards stays in and keeps drawing around 20% everywhere he goes, he could be the guy who decides the nominee. I could easily see this playing out where Obama wins a bunch of states and Clinton wins a bunch, and they both end up with about 40% of the delegates, and Edwards keeps playing to the end of the primary process and then delivers his 20% to one of them. Could make things interesting right up to convention day.
I’ve said all along that Edwards’ only chance (if he lost Iowa and, most likely, even if he didn’t) is to win at a brokered convention. I’m not an expert on how that would work, but in Lux’s scenario, it could wind up with Edwards actually winning. Perhaps this is why Edwards has promised to soldier on all the way to the convention.
If no one has a majority of the delegates then they’ll have to go to a second ballot, where everyone’s delegates are no longer bound to any particular candidate. In Lux’s scenario, Obama and Clinton would be competing to get enough Edwards (and Richardson) delegates to put them over the top. They might be forced to offer him the vice-presidency, or whatever he wants. But it can work the other way. If he can convince Obama that he is willing to throw his delegates to Clinton, but will accept Obama for the vice-presidency, then Obama might take what he can get. It would be all about gamesmanship.
Of course, to really predict this kind of scenario, I’d need to know exactly how it would go down according to the rules. We haven’t seen a brokered convention since 1968, and the rules have changed since then.
My gut tells me that 20% would not be enough for Edwards to prevail. But 30% could be sufficient if he is smart enough.
Of course, in that scenario Obama could also decide that he would rather play second fiddle to Hillary than to Edwards, and throw his support behind her in return for the VP slot.
I should add I don’t see that happening…It would kill the whole ‘change’ message that he’s been running with, but it would also grant him the ‘benefit’ of having 4 or 8 years of tutelage under someone who understands how the levers of power work.
… and part on how the campaign plays out.
The calculation is how likely an Edwards or a Clinton nomination is to both get in and then finish in a position where the incumbent Vice President has the inside track to the Presidency.
The state of play involves how nasty each campaign gets to the other … odds are that if both the Obama and Clinton campaigns see Edwards as no serious risk of gaining the nomination, they’ll tend to be nice to him to avoid alienating his 20% base of support.
Meanwhile, if its a long primary race, then they’ll end up getting quite heated with each other at various times, and there will be grudges.
Hint: watch The Best Man (1964), screenplay (and the script for the Broadway play on which it was based) by Gore Vidal. I’ll not spoil the plot.
“Obama could also decide that he would rather play second fiddle to Hillary than to Edwards, and throw his support behind her in return for the VP slot.”
I think not. After the Clinton MLK Jr; Mandela; and the JFK assassination linkages; notwithstanding the apologies. These two loathe each other. On the Clinton side hinting, Obama should wait his turn. Very coded.
Hillary admits the tear up was helpful.
That snippet confirms what Terry McAuliffe told the BBC World Service Update; ” the debate showed her experience and the tearful moment”
Those who would like to be rid of Bush should examine Fox News NH Democratic exit poll findings:
Eh. These are career politicians. I doubt that they actually loathe each other in the first place. It’s more likely a media construct that both currently find beneficial.
Even if they did, I certainly wouldn’t discount them throwing that out the window in the interest of their own political gain.
we’ll see…they are human and do hold grudges. Ask Bill or Terry. It’s now a 2-way race: Obama and Clinton.
Edwards did not help when on Wednesday he called Hillary a cry baby. He has been campaigning since 2004. A poor showing in SC and he’s toast. At 17% in NH. both Clinton and Obama’s numbers doubled his. I can’t see the king maker role..and he’s low on funds.
Clinton is the Dems’ Bush and if she has to destroy the party so she can be the nominee she’ll do so. GOP supporters would love her as the nominee, she’s their uniter.
I hope she gets the nomination and she will. I support Obama but I don’t wish on him the debacle ahead in 2009 – financial and geopolitical.
In the months ahead, as the financial crisis unfolds, there’ll be nostaligia for the Clinton years so this will help Clinton and Bill, her running mate,
OTH, a match up with McCain or Bloomberg and all bets are off.
Oh, where to begin.
First, go with your gut. It’s not going to happen. Not the 30% much less the whole scenario.
Next, what a disaster it would be if it did happen. The Democrats go into a convention in the modern era of primary elections and committed delegates and emerge after a bruising fight with a candidate who garnered about 20% during the primary process. You’d better hope the Republicans have a worse convention and decisionmaking process that pisses off every segment of their party to counteract that. If in this scenario McCain manages to win on the first ballot – I fear for the country.
I love Edwards. He’s not going to be the candidate. He could influence the convention – it’s unlikely but possible. As Lux says (and that was an excellent piece he wrote), he could be the kingmaker. But he isn’t going to be king.
What I see as unlikely is that all three of them stay in the race to the convention. But if it gets there undecided and Edwards wants to be a hard-ass, anything can happen. But, I said, he’d need a third of the delegates to have the legitimacy he’d need to win the negotiations. Yet, if he’s willing to make Obama choose between the vice-presidency and nothing, he could become president.
What I find unlikely is that it will get to the convention in the first place.
He’ll likely throw his support before the convention.
No, he could become the nominee. A damaged nominee who could lose.
true, but he can’t very well become the president unless he first is the nominee.
Nitpicker.
… than 50%. And SC … but less than 50%. And Senator Clinton wins more than 50% in New York, Obama wins less than 50% in California, and Edwards carries some states in flyover country on Feb. 5.
Ever since the party went away from winner take all delegations, with 15% thresholds, a three way race with no clear outcome has been a live possibility. The fundamental check against it occurring has been the disinclination of mass media to cover the race as a three way race.
On the other hand, we have just seen a primary quite possibly swung by a revolt of the primary electorate against having the result dictated to them by the herd mentality of The Village.
Whether new media have achieved a critical mass where that long standing check against a race continuing as a three way race all the way to the last primary … well, we are in a crucial experiment. We can’t know that unless some third place campaign refuses to be relegated to the sidelines, and then in fact makes that refusal stick.
The conventional wisdom is that it can’t be done, but then the conventional wisdom was that after a media pile-on like on Monday would automatically cause a short term dip in support, and that didn’t play out according to script.
Edwards represents a major Democratic constituency. That constituency deserves a voice, and his carrying the campaign to the end would give it. The reason Senator Clinton had such an early overwhelming lead was her hubby and the money that comes from their working the donation crowd for the past 16 years. This has nothing to do with her qualities. They are many, but there are many in the Democratic party just as qualified as she is — e.g. Chris Dodd. The point is that both she and in lesser measure Obama are products of how we have selected nominees since 1972, in which sometimes an outsider comes in and wins the early primaries, garnering enough attention and cash to go on to the later ones. It’s snowball politics, and privileges advertising, mostly negative.
A brokered convention would be the very best thing for the Democrats. First, it forces the different wings of the party to negotiate with each other directly rather than indirectly through paid political announcements. It helps kill the ‘winner take all’ mentality that has crucified our political class. It empowers activists who represent the most informed element of the electorate. It helps kill Walt Disney politics.
I see no down side to this, whoever wins. I think that whoever comes out of a brokered convention will be a stronger candidate for it.
In the meantime, though — Edwards is doing a great deal to focus and shape the debate and the issues. And this is a very good thing for us. (Kucinich has been helping on this too, but Edwards is getting more traction.)
We’ll see how it goes… I really like Edwards, but my state doesn’t vote until February 12th — no telling what it’s going to look like by then.
It’s hard to envision things playing out with Edwards on top, but getting the VP slot seems entirely possible. Clinton/Edwards? An Obama/Edwards ticket seems more likely.
Stay in it, John!
Maybe I’m totally blinded by wishful thinking, but I don’t think an Edwards win is quite as impossible as you think. As yesterday proved, the electorate is volatile. It’s only a matter of weeks since McCain was toast, Obama was hopeless, Clinton was inevitable, Giuliani had it wrapped up. And then Obama was inevitable and Clinton might as well pack it in. And so on. All just pundit and pollster bullshit, based on nothing.
As long as neither Obama nor Clinton take a commanding lead with primary victories solidly over 50 percent, voters could very well swing away from both of them as the negatives pile up. There will be no one to swing to except Edwards. Yesterday we saw a major deviation from the polls for no discernable reason. By the same process, early primaries will not necessarily determine how later ones go.
If, as I devoutly hope, yesterday’s surprise permanently trashes the credibility of the pollsters and media windbags, Edwards will be the main beneficiary. Edwards is still the dark horse, but is by no means out of the race.
I forgot to say I don’t buy the idea that a brokered or evenly divided convention would play for the Reps. So the Dems couldn’t agree on which of their great candidates should get the final nod. They suffered from an embarrassment of riches. Not really that hard to play, and it won’t change the nationwide swing toward the Dem Party. It could even be a plus, contrasting the difficulty of choosing the best of the best, as compared to the Reps having to settle for the least nuts or inept of a bad lot.
The doom and gloom may prove to be prescient, but at this point it’s way premature.
we didn’t see a deviation in Edwards’ poll numbers. He did about what was expected, which was under 20%. (In fact everyone but Hillary did about what was expected – no one expected such a large part of undecideds to swing to her.)
I love Edwards, I wish he had done better. I was pulling for him to come in over 20% yesterday. But he didn’t. And we’ve been in the (relatively) cheap portion of the campaign where a candidate only has to invest heavily in one state at a time. Now we’re moving into the more expensive portion that relies less on ground game than on money for TV ads. Realistically I don’t see him able to compete going forward and get more than 20% of the aggregate vote much less end up with close to 30%.
I think all three should stay in until the end. Even if they have no money at some point, they are already on all of the ballots and they should stick it out. Just because there might not be a chance of winning the nomination is no reason not to platy the game. Stick it out. Make every state believe they have a chance to turn things around. Turnout will be huge. And the media will look like fools for always trying to predict everything and failing.
The political-sports-fan in me could be very entertained.
McCain proved yesterday that money does not determine outcomes, and so did Romney, contrary to yet another article of fervent faith promulgated by the Media Moron Class. There will be more narrative about Edwards being doomed by the money drying up. Which will be as trustworthy and predictive as the rest of the Conventional Wankdom.
Both McCain and Huckabee have proved this. You know, over the LOOONG process that was Iowa, Huckabee only spent about $200K. Romney spent like $20 Millon. Huckabee won. Imagine that.
This time around, I think people might even favor whoever is perceived to be the underdog (by media standards.)
There is no way that Edwards is going to win and I’m an Edwards supporter (okay, only because Kucinich will never sniff the podium at the Dem Convention). If Edwards wasn’t in New Hampshire it would have been an Obama blowout.
I am becoming more and more convinced that Clinton’s win was the result of Diebold, looking at the figures coming out this morning. Nevertheless, if it came down to Obama versus Clinton that the Permanent Government could live with the results. If Edwards is Obama’s veep then we don’t have to worry about Barack being assassinated.
Under the principle that phlegm tastes better than d*gsh*t I predict John McCain will be the Republican nominee.
The exit polls line up. And both CNN and Fox News exit polls agree with each other.
As coffee sprays out of my nose… That’s a great, and true, statement.
Have we forgotten to factor in the superdelegates? Their presence simply means that a quarter of the delegates may not be up for bartering, and it is those delegates who could make the difference. From data put up by Oui a few days ago, two thirds of them are supporting Hillary.
Furthermore, I’m reading stuff on the net about Bill bringing together some big supporters to fund an antiObama drive, that could become a Democratic version of the nasty Swiftboaters of 2004. I guess Rove was a nonpartisan teacher afterall. In a last gasp NH preelection spiel, Bill lied about Obama’s record on Iraq, and I don’t think he is not up to dirty tricks himself.
This campaign has come down to stopping Hillary, nothing else.
The longer this goes on, the clearer it will become that Obama and Edwards both do better against any Republican candidate than Senator Clinton. This is the key to Edward’s long game. The bonzes will come over when they see how the choice of a nominee affects their local bottom line. This is politics as it should be.
Buddhist monks??
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bonzes
I saw in the Fox News exit poll that the Democratic primary voters who support Bush went overwhelmingly for Hillary. Granted, it was this way because New Hampshire allows “independents” to vote in the Democratic primaries. Look for Hillary to go after these independent and right-leaning voters in states where it is helpful. Look out for Rove style tactics–swiftboating and all.
How can you call yourself the populist candidate and win the nomination thru a brokered convention against a black and a women. Think about it.
I support Edwards, but he has to find a way to win. Just because no one on the blogs can come up with such a scenario doesn’t mean there isnt’ one. Let’s see what happens in Nevada. Maybe their caucus will get some respect.
I am in Nevada and I will most likely caucus for Edwards just to satisfy my conscience. But I don’t think he will win here. Obama now has the support of the Culinary, Hotel and Service employees unions. In a state dominated by these trades, it’s hard to compete with that.
Does the support of those unions really translate into getting a higher proportion of votes? I’m just curious as to how much effort the unions put into getting their members to vote for the endorsed candidate, and how effective they are.
I realize that a huge proportion of voters in Nevada are members of those unions, but here in PA, I don’t think union endorsements mean much. What has your experience been?
I don’t really have much experience in this area but note that these are caucuses and not primaries. In a caucus, everything you do is noted by your peers and peer-pressure is heavy. Union leaders arrange for transport and union members show up together, etc. They know that their numbers make a difference when they coerce their members and pool their votes.
Of course there would be no penalty with the union for voting your conscience, but it’s always nice to fit in and wear the matching T-shirts and go out for beer and pizza with your union buddies, right?
Another thing to add… The Democrats in Nevada allow you to register at the caucus and participate. They even allow you to switch parties at the caucus and participate. The Republicans require you to be registered in their party a month in advance to participate in their caucuses.
This allows unions to bring even their Republican members along, give them the free T-shirt and take them to the after-party, gaining a vote in the Democratic caucus for their candidate.
These are good, organized unions. Even the lowest paid members get great health care and a free meal for every shift they work at the casinos/hotels. It’s actually a pretty good career move working at these places because of the unions. These HIGH-profit businesses could never afford a work stoppage so the unions do well. So why wouldn’t you support what your union tells you is best for you?
Alice, I think many more Democrats would support Edwards if they sensed that he was electable. For that matter, my first choice was Kusinich, simply because he is the only Democrat backing traditional Democratic liberal-socialism, like “not for profit universal health care.” Kusinich is a wasted vote.
Democratic liberal-socialism is no longer in vogue, unless you try to take away liberal-socialist programs that benefit most of us, like social security, as opposed to those programs that benefit the needy or disabled. When the latter are involved, we seem capable of producing off-shots like Dixicrats or Reagan Democrats or DINOs.
Edwards is next best but many also believe it would be a wasted vote. After him, Obama, who may be electable. Your thinking becomes like this is you are part of the half-a-loaf-is-better-than-one crowd.
The scenario for an Edwards nomination would be something like this:
Basically, the delegates at a deadlocked convention are going to be pragmatic and do what is most likely to give the party a victory in November. They may also be motivated by hard feelings if the primary campaigns turn nasty. Both these factors could favor Edwards, even without resorting to gamesmanship among the three candidates.
I think it very unlikely that it will play out this way, but that’s how one would get from here to an Edwards nomination.
I see a real opportunity for progressives to throw their weight around. I hope to see the progressive candidates, especially Kucinich and Dodd, really push Edwards. Edwards should also make a visible move to the left. For instance, he could make a big deal about supporting Dodd in his filibuster. Force Hillary and Obama to reveal their lack of support and drive a wedge on a huge issue for progressives–our civil liberties.
Then progressives should go after the Jeralyn Merritt type voter. Those who are far to the left of the candidate they have decided to support–in her case Hillary or in other cases Obama. A good number of progressives support Hillary on practical grounds (she’s more electable and her centrist incremental approach is more effective). These people can be convinced that there is a practical reason to support Edwards in the primary. The pitch to them goes like this: Most likely a centrist is going to win, i.e. Hillary or Obama, but let’s try to move them a little to the left. Vote Edwards. He will test the candidates and a little competition for the liberal vote is good for the party. That’s fine if you think the party should pick an establishment centrist. That’s going to happen. Now is your only opportunity to vote your progressive ideals.
Wasn’t there recent news about the FEC that could have negative impact on Edwards’ funding prospects?