You can keep track of the delegate counts here. Keep in mind that the superdelegates on the Democratic side are not pledged to any particular candidate and are, in effect, free agents that can change their mind at any time. One thing you’ll notice is that despite all the hoopla over Obama’s win in Iowa and Clinton’s win in New Hampshire, the contests didn’t mean anything in the delegate count. In Iowa the delegates were allocated: Obama (16), Clinton (15), and Edwards (14), even though Edwards technically came in second place. And in New Hampshire, the split was: Clinton (9), Obama (9), and Edwards (4), even though Clinton technically won the state.
Here are the keys things to look for as we look ahead. The nomination can only be secured by winning a majority (not a plurality) of the delegates. It’s not even enough to have a 2-1 advantage over your nearest competitor if you don’t also have an absolute majority (this could become important on the Republican side). Ruth Marcus makes some important observations:
In addition, the biggest factor pointing to an extended, delegate-by-delegate slog is one that didn’t exist in 1984: the relentless arithmetic of the [Democratic] party’s proportional representation rules, in which candidates receive delegates according to their share of the vote in each congressional district and, for a smaller number, statewide. Although that provision was adopted in 1988, it has never become relevant, because a clear front-runner has emerged in every contest since.
However, in a close race, the rules make it difficult for a single candidate to pile up a big enough margin to amass the necessary number of delegates. Given the contours of this contest, that may well not happen in the supposed tsunami of voting on Feb. 5, at which point Democrats will have picked 1,818 delegates, 45 percent of the total.
As you can see from the delegate apportionment from Iowa and New Hampshire, a close three-way race will not supply a majority to any particular candidate. And here is the real meat of the matter:
Then there are the graduate seminar-level questions that could arise if the contest becomes really close or even heads into the convention unsettled. One is the Edwards Factor. Former North Carolina senator John Edwards’s path to the nomination seems blocked, but that does not necessarily render him irrelevant. Edwards can keep collecting delegates so long as he receives 15 percent of the vote in a congressional district or statewide.
If so, he could have sway over a potentially decisive share of delegates whom he could urge to back a particular candidate, and his inclination in Obama’s direction seems clear. Edwards’s delegates would not be obligated to follow his direction, but his view would be influential.
That 15% mark is very important. If Edwards cannot sustain that level of support, then one of the other two candidates will likely begin to accumulate a clear majority of the delegates. And there is reason for concern if you are an Edwards supporter, or if you are an Obama supporter that hopes to win a brokered convention with the support of Edwards’ delegates. The most alarming indicator is an erosion of Edwards’ national poll level. He’s now polling around 12%, which simply won’t get it done on Tsunami Tuesday.
Edwards really needs a first or second place finish in Nevada to bolster his national poll levels and help him win delegates on February 5th. If Edwards wins delegates consistently in most of the Feb. 5th states, no one will get a majority of the delegates and the race will march on.
Clinton is unlikely, in my opinion, to prevail in a brokered convention. If Edwards wants the vice-presidency and to stop Clinton, all he needs to do is stay in the race and keep getting 15% in the primaries and caucuses.
On the Republican side, they still have some winner-take-all primaries (although I haven’t seen a state-by-state list), so even a crowded field might get resolved before their convention. But the GOP’s problem is that they have no front-runner at all. And, aside for Romney, they have little money to continue the campaign. If McCain doesn’t win South Carolina, there’s no telling when the thing might get settled.
It’s not out of the question that we might see two brokered conventions. One thing I’ll say…in such a case the Democratic convention would be much less contentious. Most likely, Obama would win, Edwards would take the veepee slot, and people would try to heal the wounds. On the Republican side, there would be deep ideological differences at play and it could begin to resemble the 1968 Democratic convention (without the outside rioting and police brutality).
Also available in orange.
I have been saying for some time now that we cannot count on this being over on February 5th. It is difficult to imagine that in either of the parties the candidates will get enough votes on Feb. 5 to knock everyone else out of the running.
That is why I have been working so hard here in Pennsylvania. We come after the rush and could have an important final comment to make on the race. We have petitions to gather (you wanna help?), but I have one eye on April 22nd at all times.
Thank heavens, finally a diary by you that I don’t have to argue with, lol.
I have thought from the very beginning there would be brokered convention on both sides,and I think that’s a good thing in some ways.
Still think it will be Clinton/Obama.
I think this is a very likely scenario. Given the nature of the primary season thus far, I think this is exactly what shall happen.
And it would be an awesome event for me to get a chance to cast a meaningful vote in a primary for the first time in 36 years. I’ve lived in several states and the race was always decided by the time my state voted.
I take back my prediction that Clinton would be out after Super Tuesday. For precisely the reasons you give – if the elections continue to be so close the apportionment of the delegates doesn’t give anyone a clear win on committed delegates. If Obama had won NH – the momentum would have been different.
I still think it will be decided in the primaries though and I don’t think there will be a brokered convention. But what do I, or any of us, really know?
I don’t think I agree with you that Obama is a clear winner in a brokered convention. He could win. But conventions are made up of party hacks. It could be Hillary.
The Republicans. Don’t get my hopes up. It is my dream to see a messy brokered Republican convention.
I just hope to God that neither Clinton or Obama get the nomination. The GOP will be happy running against either one of them, and they shall annihilate the opposition with gusto. Now Edwards, he won’t be so easy to take on. Which is why the media is now doing to him what it has been doing to Dennis Kucinich.
“On the Republican side, there would be deep ideological differences at play and it could begin to resemble the 1968 Democratic convention (without the outside rioting and police brutality).”
Oh no, I want there to be rioting and police brutality at a GOP convention, it would be a refreshing change of pace.
OK, not really, but you get the point. I want the medi to throw the words “schism” and “irreconcilable differences” around.
No police brutality? Man, I was SO looking forward to seeing cops beat the shit out of Republican protesters.
I hadn’t realized, somehow, that the Dems rejected the Winner Take All procedure. Good on them: one small step toward fixing our atrocious electoral system.
Given this system, the media’s obsessive horserace narrative becomes even more bogus than we thought. No one has ever been close to “unstoppable”, but that lie apparently better serves the windbag agenda, so that’s what we hear.
Any thoughts on how this kind of race affects the money flow? The pundit (including blogs) scenario has been that the first couple primaries will send cash to the new frontrunner and basically shut out the rest of the candidates. That seems unlikely now, which should further encourage a very long primary season.
Also, it could be argued that those undecided between Obama and Edwards, and those just opposed to Hillary, would be better off voting for Edwards to keep a two-person race from developing, which would tend to favor Hillary.
Finally, it seems doubtful to me that Edwards would be hot to run for VP again. Been there done that. So if there is to be horsetrading, it would have to be based on other incentives, no?
I agree with you about Edwards, I don’t think he would want to do the VP again…no for Hillary too so that only leaves Obama for VP in my opinion.
But doesn’t the nominee have the right to choose the VP and it doesn’t have to be one of the contenders.
But, in this hypothetical scenario, there is no nominee, so the office of the vice-president becomes the biggest bargaining chip.
What else would Edwards want? Maybe Attorney General? But he can be fired from that position. No. He would want the Veep slot.
As for Clinton, she too would probably settle for the slot, as it would still be groundbreaking and still keep her hopes alive for taking the Oval Office back for the family.
Edwards: Supreme Court? ‘Course he could have a long wait, but not THAT long.
what would he tell his supporters? they could never announce such a deal.
I dunno, man. I don’t see Hillary being second(submissive) to any man at all . .
it doesn’t seem to be a part of her constitution.
You’re kiddin’ me, right?
is your anti-Clinton bias so deep that it makes you blind, deef and dumb?
Please.
The fix is in. For Hillary. It’ been wobbled some by Obama’s sheer baraka, but it is still in place.
bet on it.
Did you see the cover of Newsweak recently?
“I found my own voice” INDEED!!!
I am sure that if I could stomach looking in depth at the NY Times and the Washingtoon Postmortem, I would see the same shit. (I only saw the Newsweak thing because the cover was staring out at me yesterday from every newsstand in NYC.)
If there is no decisive winner by the evening of Super Tuesday, the convention WILL be brokered.
And who controls THAT group of organization men and women?
Please.
President-In-Waiting Hillary Clinton.
Not all fixes have totally disastrous consequences, y’know. The fix was in for FDR, too. By interests of the day that were equivalent to the business interests who want Hillary now. As a “fixed” FIXER.
A fixer of blown plans.
A fixer of a blown government.
Watch.
Betcha.
AG
shows your ignorance. For you to be correct, Hillary would have to control Edwards’ delegates. Which she doesn’t, and won’t.
My ignorance?
Or is it your naiveté?
Watch.
Deals will be made.
Threats will be offered, and gifts as well.
There will be a physical “protest pen” outside of the brokered convention, and there will be a political one INSIDE that convention as well.
Watch.
They offed Dean in ’04, and unless Obama’s baraka somehow provides him enough immunity to the hustles of the mainstream media that he actually wins outright in the primaries…Or he actually convinces the PermaGov that he is as trustworthy as is Ms. Clinton, which would be a sales job verging on the miraculous…they will off him in the convention.
We are talking TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS here.
Yer dreamin’, Boo.
Yer dreamin’.
AG
P.S. And further….if Obama DOES manage to get the nomination and win the election, he had better walk a very narrow line, because he is as mortal as were JFK, RFK and MLK Jr.
Like I said…there are trillions upon trillions of dollars at stake here, and if the blood of literally millions means next to nothing to the people who truly control that money and power, why would the blood of one man be allowed to stand in their way?
Watch.
“Democracy?”
I guess it all depends on what you mean by that word.
On the evidence?
On the evidence of the last 50 years or so?
It means the control of the masses by the financial elite, using tools that make the masses think that it is THEY who are control.
Watch.
Money talks? Nobody walks?
Yeah, but…
Money stallks as well.
And then…it’s the talkers that walk.
One way or another.
Watch.
whatever. That’s not how delegates work.
Astounding.
AG
Even in 1972, it didn’t work that way.
Dean was bumped out and designated loser was put in place so that Hillary couild wait out Butch’s “Wartime Pres” 2nd term.
You think not?
Like I said…astounding naiveté.
Only Obama can throw a monkeywrench into this set of gears now, and y’know what? On the evidence of both his nicey-nice act with Hillary in Las Vegas AND his history of going along to get along…I do not believe that he is the wrench-throwing type.
Watch.
Hillary/Obama in ’08. (If they both feel that such an alliance is in their own best interests and in the interests of the country. Which I truly believe are two sets of interests that they both believe to be identical.
Watch.
Hillary for SURE.
Obama…8 to 5 that he’s the VP nominee.
Watch.
AG
what’s your argument?
That Hillary will win? Or that Hillary would win a brokered convention? Two different arguments and I can’t respond to both at the same time.
1-The fix is in.
2-It HAS been in to some appreciable degree since it became clear that the Bush regime was totally incompetent…somewhere around Katrina, I think.
For Hillary Clinton. On Bill’s track record of not rocking boats, and on her own as well. She was his political brain and she has proven her own ability to win elections in Blue State/Red State NY. Blue in the NYC area, red EVERYWHERE else. She pulled red votes at a good clip during her first Senatorial campaign and at an even better rate during her second.
3-It is in even deeper after New Hampshire. She weathered Obama’s first real charge, making it even harder for him to upset the favorite.
4-If she does NOT win during the primaries…and voters are certainly anything but predictable when confronted with a romantic, charismatic figure like Obama…and neither does Obama (A very unlikely event in my estimation, given the strength of the Clinton media support AND her professional campaign staff.), then it goes to the convention.
And the convention will be controlled by the mainstream, entrenched Dem organization.
Mostly white, mostly middle class and middle-aged, mostly fairly conservative, and probably as much or more female than male.
YOU know…Hillary people.
Advantage…BIG advantage…Hillary.
Plus her experience advantage.
Plus her advantage in the media. Whatever media is not overtly or covertly working for the Republicans.
BIG, big advantage.
Set, game and match…Hillary Clinton.
Does she need Obama to ensure a win in the election?
Will she ask him?
Will he accept?
Stay tuned.
End of story.
Stay tuned.
AG
you haven’t explained why a single Edwards delegate would defy the wishes of Edwards and vote for Hillary, let alone how the vast majority of them would. You are making no sense at all.
Obama candidates go to Clinton?
Edwards candidates go to Clinton?
Favors are traded?
Somebody gets Secretary of State?
Secretary of the Interior? (Newly expanded in powers to include all’a them poor folks.)
VP? (Newly expanded in powers to include etc.)
Promises are given.
And a deadlock is broken.
What’re you? Kiddin’ me or what?
Use your imagination.
Horse trading is as old as politics.
Give me a BREAK!!!
AG
The idea that Edwards is likely to support Obama in a brokered scenario means that close primaries where Edwards exceeds 15%, like New Hampshire, are effectively wins for Obama. In other words, Obama wins ties as long as Edwards is around. Thinking about it that way, Obama’s chances seem a lot better.
I very much hope that this goes to a brokered convention on both sides. On the republic side it would almost certainly generate a better candidate than the sorry group of losers presently competing for the chance to lose big in November. On the Democratic side, it gives real voice to the Progressive minority.
As to the more general significance, it would go a long way to reducing the plebiscitary element in our electoral process, which gives undue influence to self- and corporate appointed pundits, who see themselves as gatekeepers to the White House. We saw how this worked on Dean last time out, and Gore the time before. It also reduces somewhat the role of paid advertising and the Madison Avenue aspect of the electoral process, which costs so much money, lines so many pockets, and degrades discourse.
Without being a pollyana, I think on the whole it would be better for the nomination to be ultimately decided by persons who are deeply involved in politics and not just spectators, the way the MSM wants us to be.
why is the assumption being made the Edwards would be a VP choice for Obama. .? Is there any indication that Obama would choose him?
What am I missing?
never mind. . .just read through the comments. the fix is in. unfortunately I have no reason to believe everything is what it seems. however, i won’t believe a dem will take the WH unless Guliani is completely out of the picture, otherwise all bets are off. If Rudy is the even close to the nomination, he will be the next POTUS.
That’s the game as I see it. Bush/Cheney aint gonna let no one but their own succeed them.
But I’ll hope for another outcome all the same.