Napolitano’s a Democrat. I don’t expect that her endorsement of a Dem for President would bother McCain much.
You are correct. Hard to keep the alphabet soup from being mixed up in my mind. Thank you for the correction.
Here’s an interesting tidbit: Black Georgia voters joining rolls at three times the pace of white voters.
Make of that what you will.
Okay, let’s just handicap the next several rounds leading up to Tsunami Tuesday.
Obama is narrowly leading in Nevada but who cares? The issue there is which organization will get people to the caucauses: HRCs well organized machine, or the Union which has endorsed Obama. I’m going to give the nod to Clinton in a close one.
Next S Carolina. Obama in a walk.
Florida? Stripped of delegates but the popular vote will count to perception nevertheless. A toss-up but I think that S Carolina’s big win for Obama will pull Florida along. Setting him up for the perception of momentum again.
And then that Tuesday … HRC has the national lead and the machine to bring them out. Yet I think it will end up still a toss-up at the end of the day.
How do those super delegates work? What happens to delegates pledged to Edwards if he stays in but can’t win? Could we go into a convention still not knowing who the nominee will be?
Okay, trying to research this … 4049 total delegates. 313 of those are stripped out (MI and FLA) so we have 3736 left. You need 2025 to win. Edwards will have some if he stays in through 2/5. 314 are unpledged superdelegates. Each state can give some to each.
No, I don’t think we’ll have a brokered convention but it is not an outrageous possibility.
If they don’t seat any FL/MI delegates, I doubt they’d require 2025 out of 3736 to win - not that I’m expecting that to make a difference.
The superdelegates are Congresscritters and the like; they’ve got a vested interest in keeping bad shit from happening to the party. They’ll vote in a way that minimizes the possibility of a deadlock.
If there’s a clear winner by the end of the primaries, Edwards will release his delegates to the winner, in a show of party unity. If there isn’t, then Edwards will be a popular guy with Hillary and Obama, and he would in all likelihood be able to require some specific policy concessions in return for his delegates.
But the thing is, unless neither candidate gains much of an edge on Super Tuesday, both candidates will have spent almost all their funds in the run-up to that day. And only the winner will have funds flowing back in to keep his/her campaign going.
Other than the VP slot, what promises could they make to him that would be binding and enforceable after the election?
Don’t you mean ‘lead up to his appointment to the Supreme Court’?
I think if you offered Edwards a choice between a SCOTUS seat, and bringing the lawless bastards of the current administration and the 109th Congress to justice as AG, he’d jump at the latter. Which, in the long run, would make him a more credible pick and easier sell for the former.
If it’s binding and enforceable, it’s not a promise - it’s a contract.
Exactly. HRC can promise Edwards, as she can promise the voters, to do X, Y and Z after she is elected – but if she fails to accomplish those goals, or doesn’t even try, nothing but the next election can hold her to account. I don’t think there’s any meaningful way one candidate can wring “concessions” from another that will still matter after the election.
Why can’t a President contract that she will submit certain legislation, or contract to make certain discretionary changes in policy?
I mean, I suppose the damages would be tricky, but aside from that?
You mistake me: he’d get both. There’s unlikely to be a SCOTUS place available soon, but Edwards could start as AG and then - assuming he doesn’t blot his copybook - slip into a SCOTUS seat as soon as one becomes available.
Just thinking about the contract question a bit, I see two possible reasons why such a contract wouldn’t work. First, it could be contrary to public policy. This doesn’t strike me as totally clear-cut. None of the contemplated actions are illegal or even particularly undesirable–politicians routinely make these kinds of deals (I’ll introduce bill X if you vote against bill Y). This seems different in degree rather than in kind.
The second reason is that the issue could just be non-justiciable because it isn’t the role of the court to get involved in this kind of thing. I could see that. Obviously the court wouldn’t/couldn’t order performance. But what if the damages were liquidated? Would a court enforce that?
Am I missing some more obvious reason this couldn’t happen?
John Paul Stevens will be 88 when the next president is sworn in. His resignation is to be expected. I’m sure he is trying to wait out the current administration.
There’s the problem that if one politician makes promises to another politician and then breaks them, willy-nilly, that pol will have trouble making deals with other pols once word gets out.
The effect of his decision on the race will be so immeasurable that nobody will bother to measure it.
My WAG is that he withdrew from the race because he wasn’t getting free TV exposure anymore via the debates. Too bad, so sad.
ETA: Apparently Mike Gravel is still technically in the race. If a tree falls in the forest…
Hm. He says he won’t endorse anyone else. I figured he’d back Obama – he urged his supporters to vote for Obama in the second-round balloting in Iowa.
So now it’s down to Clinton and Obama. I’m gonna go out on a limb and say Obama. Gut feeling, no stats or cites.
If they’re still running close after Texas, it’s entirely possible that the nom race could come down to late caucuses in Michigan and Florida. That would be interesting!
Pray for his health! Atheists too! Pray!