So Who's Going To Broker Our Brokered Convention?
Today is Super Tuesday, I'm sure you know this by now, and the political world is in hyper-overdrive creating newer and bigger words to describe today.
There's only one problem. Well, actually, quite a few problems.
Tomorrow morning, barring an unforeseen but slightly possible Obama landslide, our top two candidates will, more than likely, wake up essentially tied. As I was working on this, my friend Chris Bowers wrote this -- it is a long copy block to borrow, but it was my point too and Chris wrote it first:
From this point, quick math shows that after Super Tuesday, only 1,428 pledged delegates will still be available. Now, here is where the problem shows up. According to current polling averages, the largest possible victory for either candidate on Super Tuesday will be Clinton 889 pledged delegates, to 799 pledged delegates for Obama. (In all likelihood, the winning margin will be lower than this, but using these numbers helps emphasize the seriousness of the situation.)
As such, the largest possible pledged delegate margin Clinton can have after Super Tuesday is 937 to 862. (While it is possible Obama will lead in pledged delegates after Super Tuesday, it does not currently seem possible for Obama to have a larger lead than 75). That leaves Clinton 1,088 pledged delegates from clinching the nomination, with only 1,428 pledged delegates remaining.Thus, in order to win the nomination without the aid of super delegates, in her best-case scenario after Super Tuesday, Clinton would need to win 76.2% of all remaining pledged delegates. Given our proportional delegate system, there is simply no way that is going to happen unless Obama drops out.
Let's start with that last line -- "unless Obama drops out." Well, he just raised $32+million in January for goodness sakes, he has tens of millions out there to raise, he has Oprah as his wingwoman, he's not dropping out of anything.
Hillary raised considerably less, but what are the chances of her walking away if there still is the slightest chance? Zero. Less than zero. Hell would have to freeze over. Twice.
Does anyone see a case where either drops out if they still have a chance?
No.
No, we can't.
So this leaves us in a curious state pending today's outcome. I think, to be honest, it will come as a bit of shock to some Obama supporters to wake up tomorrow morning and discover that a) the race must go on and potentially b) that Hillary still has the delegate lead.
As I write this on Monday night, I am struck that today, as far as I could see, like the Monday before New Hampshire that the Obama campaign did not play the expectations game today, they remain the underdog, with great momentum yes, but shouldn't they have tapped down the expectations game a bit?
I think so.
Here's what Matt Stoller wrote about what the Clinton Campaign was doing yesterday:
I'm on a conference call with Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson of the Clinton campaign, and they are emphasizing how this contest is going to go beyond Tuesday, and may go until the convention. Wolfson is discussing party rules and proportional representation, and says that these rules have trumped the intended front-loading of the primaries to pick a nominee early on.
They are preparing the media and their side for a long protracted fight at the same time the Obama Campaign is blissfully allowing the media to carry forth the 'Obamamania' narrative; it may feel good and look good but if we wake up tomorrow tied, the Clinton Campaign, again, will have smothered the Obama Campaign in the 'expectations' game.
Mercifully, unlike New Hampshire when Obama insiders were dismayed as the campaign pulled staff on Monday before the Tuesday primary, this time, there's no place to pull staffers to -- so that mistake can't be repeated.
As Chris pointed out above, it seems virtually impossible that the campaign will end until the last superdelegate is counted. And they're not counted until the convention, but before we go there, consider the other possible problems looming.
In Nevada, and other states I presume, the state convention can impact and alter the final delegates to the National Convention.
We still have the Michigan and Florida problem (Note to Obama supporters, you better have enough delegates to win with those counting for Hillary, trust me on this. In fact, lawyer up now.)
Some superdelegates seem to think they should vote as their state voted, others could care less. A few superdelegates could be replaced at state conventions that happen between now and the convention.
Speaking of which.
Here's where I will flashback to 2004 when the convention in Boston, like 2000 and 1996 and 1992, was essentially run by John Kerry. In fact, in early March 2004, I had the opportunity to sit in with Cam Kerry (John's brother) when he met with Terry McAuliffe at the DNC (Rodney Margol and Peter Maroney were there as well.) From that moment forward, the DNC was to a great extent an extension of the campaign.
The convention was not really the DNC's convention, it was the nominee's convention to a great extent, run by a Kerry guy, populated by Kerry people, we had the seats, the sky boxes, and we picked the speakers. Barack Obama's great speech? It happened because of John Kerry.
So who runs Denver if a nominee is not decided? The DNC? Howard Dean? Who picks the speakers? Who gets the seats? And plans the program? Who? I have no idea.
A few more convention problems.
The convention is at the end of August.
The healing and getting behind the candidate process started in March in 2004. And it took a while, especially those Deaniacs, bless them all, they had their Howard Dean signs up for months -- some may still have a couple of them hiding in the closest.
But eventually, the Kerry Campaign benefited greatly from bringing the best of the best from the other campaigns in; Miles Lackey from the Edwards Campaign, Karen Hicks from the Dean Campaign (on staff at the DNC I might add) Steve Elmendorf from the Gephardt Campaign and on and on and on. It is a necessary process in order to staff up and ramp up to a national level.
Ramping up, like the healing process, doesn't happen overnight. It takes months, too.
So if on September 1, we just have a nominee, and no vice president selected, it will be 90 days of hell and the losing campaign will have to be shutting down in September as the race heats up -- heck, it will be less than three weeks to the first General Election debate.
So what happens?
One candidate must get closer faster and the candidate with the lesser chance at the convention must be willing to accept the VP role. Honestly, it's as simple as that.
Will that happen? I have no idea, but then again, I had no idea the South Dakota primary in June was going to count either.
P.S. - If there ever was an primary where every vote counted, it's this one - please remember to vote today.
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I am fighting the urge to be one of those irrational Hillary haters, but it's a losing battle. I certainly understand them now. I even find myself hating the beloved Bill Clinton. How come I didn't notice his big fat head when I was voting for him. There I go again, being irrational. Can't help it. Does anyone know of a way to move the Clintons into that space in my brain where I just don't care about them either way? We need one of those services they had on Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (great movie). I want them erased!!
First of all,thank you to Boyce for explaining the reality of how we got here and where we are going and the kinds of choices we will have to make as a party. This entire election is about empowerment, not just the young people, but women, and minorities and old baby boomers. Politics is also about compromise, so if Clinton and Obama camps can't find a way to bring their forces together, which they must, the delegates could decide on their second ballots to vote for a unifying candidate : i.e. Al Gore, or John Edwards. And the DNC will run this convention as honest brokers.
Gore.
Albert Gore.
Cogito, erGO GORE.
Another issue as to 'superdelagates' is that Sens. Clinton and Obama each could make deals with state leaders such as making sure they get monies from the Feds in various programs specific to their states in appropriation bills or supporting a given state's congress or senate member in appropiations to given states or cities. In effect they can use money due to their efforts to 'buy' superdelegates.
Perk Up, Dear....th
Can you imagine the energy and the spectacle
when everyone travels to Denver, knowing that
the decision will be made....(g
now)......
CONVENTION!!!!
Wow - who would have thunk, in this age of
'dynasty is my-nasty' of BushClinto
goes the way of Napoleon to Alba.
I call it exciting!
I call it revealing (uh oh, those 'super-duper' delegates are going to have to lay in the bed they made....).
I call it Democracy in action.
Welcome to the world we all want for our children's future.
NO MORE DLC 'BUSINESS AS USUAL'.
Since Hillary is the only candidate with a real plan for universal health care I can't but hope and pray she wins, in spite of all of you who would throw away or best chance ever to get control of health care.
I do not think any of this bodes well for the general election. I do not think that either Obama or Clinton will get the other's voters as there will be too much division if this kind of campaigning continues.
The problem they both face is that they desperately want to be president and a second place finish is beyond either's comprehension. Further, its becoming clearer (the recent lovefest notwithstanding) that BOTH subscribe to the view that the ends justify the means in terms of campaign practices and slamming the other (remember, it's just sleazy politics when the other one does it!). Just another normal day on the American political scene -- but don't fool yourself, by the time of the convention the acrimony between the two camps will be insurmountable. And the sad thing is, neither is a bad candidate and either would be a substantial improvement over the status quo. But maybe the best answer at the Convention is none of the above, if the party is going to come together to defeat the Republicans in the fall. And while he was the most recent to fall, the only true candidate who can unite the party, get elected and lead this country back to the great potential and world leadership that it has offered in the past and can offer again continues to be John Edwards. Just a thought to keep in mind come August.
Yes, Obama and Clinton vote alike in the Senate 95% of the time and spent all Thursday night saying how much they agree with each other. Yes, Ted Kennedy and Obama himself says he is a uniter not a divider. But offered the VP-ship? He would tell Bilary to go to you know where. Now that would all seem a bit cynical and egotistical and not all about the politics of change, wouldn't it?
Can you imagine if Hillary managed to pull this off? Talk about letting the air out of the balloon. What a disapointment that would be. Obama supporters are dramatically more passionate about their candidate. I don't think Hillary could win them over in a short amount of time.
The Institute for Supply Management resport on the service sector of the economy was announced this morning, and the number was so low that it fell right through the toilet, all the down to the sewer. Given this, all of these sorts of discussions are, in a way, academic. People are going to vote this year in an effort to try to ease the economic pain, and the only place they will be looking for solutions now is the Democratic Party.
The Republican Party rode their horse right to the end of the trail and failed to notice that the end would be at the bottom of a cliff. This is one that there is no rescue from. There is only a crash landing and a very long term and critical need to try to pick up the pieces. Here's hoping that they fail as miserably even at that as there is every indication will be the case.
I think that if it goes to a brokered convention and Obama loses "healing" will be the least of the worries. I think the majority of the young, the liberals, and the independents that support him will just walk away. I think you'll see a united but much smaller party hoping for a 92 repeat where a clinton got elected with only 43% or 44% of the vote. Good luck with that.
"eventually the Kerry campaign benefited greatly ..."
Not all that greatly, apparently.
Even if Obama loses he should walk away from any attempt to make him VP. That position, particularly in a Billary adminsistration, would kill any future prospects of Obama becoming POTUS. Clinton/Obama, Hell to the Naugh.
OBAMA 08
If Democrats want to get back the WH, better not force-feed us the Clintons. We have had enough of them. If HRC was the establishment candidate, a shoe-in with 100% name recognition anmd is now struggling to hung on to the lead, it is time for her to read the writing on the wall. Obama has brought forth an entire movement of new voters who will not volunteer or vote for her. She is a polarizer and the Clintons are old news. It time for new beginnings. You guys better figure this one out early before you blow it...It is Obama all the way.
Loading comments…
Posted February 5, 2008 | 08:39 AM (EST)