A Brokered Democratic Convention?
January 20th, 2008 at 06:26pm Mark Noonan
Politico points out something:
In order to secure a nominating majority prior to the Democratic convention, a Democrat would have to win about 62% of the delegates apportioned by the primary/caucus system. Right now, Hillary has 210 delegates, Obama 123 and Edwards 52, Kucinich 1. Hillary has about 54% of the delegates so far awarded.
Now, Politico looks at this and figures that with Obama and Hillary running neck and neck, there is a chance that neither of them will secure the 2,025 delegates needed to secure the nomination prior to the convention - and thus Edwards, who consistently comes in third, might be the kingmaker, perhaps holding 300 or so of the delegates needed to put either Hillary or Edwards over the top. This, of course, presumes that delegates will remain rigidly loyal to the person they came to the convention for - which may or may not be the case.
My view: When Edwards said he was in it to the convention, I think he meant what he said. Why quit? I’m sure he’s paid for some primo pollsters who were telling him the relative strength of Hillary and Obama and whether or not either of them could land a knockout blow. Could be that Edwards doesn’t see himself as a kingmaker, but as the compromise candidate between the Hillary and Obama delegates. For the longest time I have been thinking that the GOP convention would be brokered with a slight chance the Democrats would be as well - now I’m beginning to shift and think that it might be the other way around.
Time will tell - but a fun political year for us junkies, at least…
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats
11 Comments
1. Casper | January 20th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Mark,
You are the second blogger that I’ve run across in the last two days who came to this conclusion (the other was on Daily Kos). I think you are right though, It could make for a couple of very interesting conventions.
2. Casper | January 20th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
BTW, do you still think Thompson has a chance? IMO if he doesn’t do well in South Carolina he’s toast.
3. Casper | January 20th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Sorry, Florida, not South Carolina.
4. Mark Noonan | January 20th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Casper,
In my view, if Thompson doesn’t come out and win Florida outright, he’s probably finished…and he hasn’t much chance of that. He’s the best, I think - but he hasn’t been able to get it together, campaign-wise. So, my second choice looms - Romney (and no shame in that, GW was my third choice in 2000…).
And it could, indeed, be very interesting - all I can say for certain is that if I were Edwards, I wouldn’t quit unless I was completely crushed in most of the Super Tuesday contests (and “completely crushed” means coming in with less than 15% of the vote in a majority of the contests - 15% is, I believe the threshold in the Democratic party for being awarded delegates).
One other thing I know for certain - if I were Obama, I’d carry this fight all the way to the bitter end, refuse the VP slot, loyally campaign for Hillary and then set my sights on 2012 or (if Hillary does pull of the miracle win in 2008) 2016.
5. Casper | January 20th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Mark,
I could live with Romney, although, if the economy tanks, I don’t any Republican has a chance at the White House.
I would be surprised if Obama doesn’t carry this all the way to the end. Since the Democratic convention is in Denver this year, I might have to make a visit to my sister. I’m sure this is as close I will every be to either parties convention in my lifetime.
6. John Edwards » Blog&hellip | January 20th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
[...] Captain’s Quarters wrote an interesting post today on A Brokered Democratic Convention?Here’s a quick excerptRight now, Hillary has 210 delegates, Obama 123 and Edwards 52, Kucinich 1. Hillary has about 54% of the delegates so far awarded. [...]
7. tom | January 21st, 2008 at 2:15 am
Who really wants another Clinton administration and why? They do not move the country forward, they move themselves.
They posture themselves as saviors but who are they really saving except the old minded democratic party. How long do we need to live in the 60’s and be reminded of the corrupt Kennedy’s or Jimmy Carter’s Malaise?
Every time you hear about them behind the scenes we see the same old personelle. The 90’s were a false sense of hope and security.
8. Marty13 | January 21st, 2008 at 5:26 am
“Who really wants another Clinton administration and why? They do not move the country forward, they move themselves.”
So in the past 7 years you are aware of something (anything) that’s been “moved forward?” Damn, just typing this is depressing.
9. Sunny | January 21st, 2008 at 11:58 am
So in the past 7 years you are aware of something (anything) that’s been “moved forward?” Marty13 |
How about our national debt? How about the amount of money we have borrowed from foreign countries? How about the number of American citizens without health insurance? How about the demise of the reputation of the US across the world? How about the increase of the number of illegal immigrants in our country? How about the number of jobs that moved to third world countries? How about the price of oil/gas? How about the loss in wages for the average middle class American? How about the amount of Chinese goods coming into the US - much of which is tainted and harmful? These are just a few things that moved forward for the past 7 years. I know there are many more examples.
10. Kahn | January 21st, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Marty13 THREE sworn enemies of our have abandoned nuclear weapons programs. North Korea, Libya, and Iran.
Name ANY country to that before under any administration.
Used to be, back when Reagan wanted to stare down the Soviets that liberals cared about nukes. Not any more I guess.
11. NY_conservative_an endaged species | January 22nd, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Sunny, some answers to your questions.
How about our national debt? How about the amount of money we have borrowed from foreign countries?
Really the same issue and proves to those of us who thought Bush was not a fiscal conservative in 2000 right. He is a RINO when it comes to finances
How about the number of American citizens without health insurance?
Not a government problem, only government solution for this is to reduce regulations on business to keep jobs in america, it is the government regulations and some little known parts of the 92 tax increase which started the business drive to jobs overseas which started in the mid 90s and continues today.
How about the demise of the reputation of the US across the world?
Pro-America governments elected in Germany & France which replaced Anti-America goverments. Yup, America is hated, HAHA.
How about the increase of the number of illegal immigrants in our country?
More proof that Bush is a RINO.
How about the number of jobs that moved to third world countries?
See Above, majority is result of 1990s policies. Business takes 5 to 7 years for the magnitude of change which has been undertaken. Proves business taxes were not cut enough, major reason for moves are tax advantages and lower labor costs. If only one existed some of the jobs would not move. US government can only control one of those two levers.
How about the price of oil/gas?
Free markets, Sorry, there are not price controls. Maybe if Clinton would have started drilling in ANWAR in 1990s, the oil that would take 10 years to get to the market would be flowing now and prices would be falling. Oh wait, is there a cause/effect/time delay there.
How about the loss in wages for the average middle class American?
See Above on lost jobs, same reasons. Also is it really lower wages or is the expectation of what is required to live different. 25 years ago were families spending $300 or more a month on cell phones, cable or satellite tv, internet access, 3 cars, 5 TVs, etc… If families had that $300 to $400 a month would there really be a loss of wages???? The expected US standard of living has increased so much over the last 25 years that what was a luxury is now an expectation.
How about the amount of Chinese goods coming into the US - much of which is tainted and harmful?
If taxes and regulations were lower factories would not have moved. de-regulate = more jobs.