I well remember watching political conventions that were more than pep rallies. Even as a kid, I found them fascinating.
Glad I’m not the only one who remembers this bit of history!
shrug I’m one of them. You should probably say, instead, “if Obama does, a smaller chance.” 
The fact is that the Dems will come out of the convention united. Hil and Barak have not gotten so bad with the other that either one of them will not fully support the other.
I agree. If Obama or Clinton still think they have a good shot at the nomination, why on earth would they bow out? The stakes are way too high. If either pulls out, it will be because he or she thinks it’s over-- not because of any pressure form Dean.
Right - also, what have they got to lose anyway at that point? It’d piss people off, but neither one would have to run a re-election campaign for a couple of years and both are popular in their home states. Maybe they’d get a bit of a freeze-out in the Senate or certain donors, but that doesn’t look like the highest price in the world.
Right. At that point you bail from the primaries because the penalties are too harsh.
That forces something to happen - either the DNC realizes the penalty was too strict and loosens or eliminates it, the state shifts the day back to one that won’t strip delegates, or you bail entirely and have a caucus later. But to have played along (and let’s face it, Democrats in the state wanted an earlier primary as well) and then complain when you get beaned doesn’t seem very sporting to me.
I do have sympathy for voters in this situation, and I think they’re right to feel pissed. I also think they wouldn’t feel so pissed if Democrats had just stripped a few delegates instead of the whole pack - they still would have had an earlier say, which might make it worth it.
Both are too popular with their own constituencies to get frozen out, I think. And they both are now very powerful people even if they don’t win.
I think any maneuver to sway the superdelegates prior to the convention, like spoke’s suggestion in post 7, will backfire badly on Hillary. It will be seen as a craven power move, an attempt to game the system regardless of the popular vote. It will confirm everyone’s worst suspicions about HRC–that she seeks power above all else.
I think the answer to the OP’s question might be: March 5. That’s the day after the Ohio and Texas primaries. HRC is thought to be the favorite in both of those, but she isn’t supposed to win in any of the states between now and then.
If Barack Obama can win either of those states . . . game over. The momentum will have permanently shifted to Obama’s side.
On a related note, I’m surprised to see Obama winning in Maine yesterday. It is a caucus state, which plays to his strengths, but it’s also in the northeast, which is HRC’s base. This does not augur well for the former first lady.
One compromise might be to replace Michigan’s 55 ‘uncommitted’ delegates with 55 explicitly pro-Obama delegates. Then Obama would only be -18 on Michigan (where Clinton got 73 delegates), and -50 on MI and FL combined, relative to Clinton, with the possibility of closing that to -23 if Edwards instructs his FL delegates to support Obama at the convention. (FL went C 95, O 63, E 27.)
Right now, it looks as it would be worth a 23-delegate hit to Obama to get this resolved and behind him. And Edwards may well make an endorsement later this week.
But that’s just it. The idea would be to game things – by counting the Florida and Michigan votes – to make it appear as though Hillary had won the popular vote and the elected delegate count. You and I would see that for what it is, but she might slip it past the average voter.
The maneuvering with superdelegates would be done quietly, behind closed doors-- out of sight of the average voter.
What Obama must do to counter this scenario:
1. Work to win enough delegates so that even if Michigan and Florida delegations are seated he will still have a majority of elected delegates. Tall order. (Not even sure if it’s feasible. I haven’t done the math.)
2. Promote the idea of a Florida and Michigan make-up caucus. Do this vocally and visibly in the context of wanting to give those states a voice in the convention. Force Hillary to oppose the idea vocally and visibly, so that her angle will be apparent to the media and the public.
3. Work to get the support of Edwards. Work to get the support of his delegates (since they are not strictly bound to do what Edwards tells them). Give Edwards what he wants, within reason. His delegates may turn the tide in close procedural votes.
4. Work to get public commitments from superdelegates before the convention, including a commitment not to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations if there are no make-up caucuses.
5. If no make-up caucuses occur, make it clear to non-committed superdelegates that a vote to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations will be seen as a vote in support of Hillary. Make it clear that they will never see a political benefit from this vote because if those delegations are seated, Obama will decline to endorse Hillary in the fall (and his supporters will likely stay home). If Hillary loses, these superdelegates will get no patronage from having supported her, because there will be no patronage to be had. That’s political hardball, but it’s also a last resort.
It’s also treason to the party. If HRC gets the nom, I expect Obama to campaign for her! I’ll be very disappointed in him if he doesn’t.
This is Obama’s game plan if you ask me. Plain and simple, he wants to win it fair and square and I believe someone in another thread did the math, he actually can pull this off. Especially if he keeps kicking Clinton’s butt by large margins.
It’s not “treason” to refuse to support a candidate who rigs the process. If she wins fair and square, either with make-up caucuses, or without seating the Michigan and Florida delegations as they are, then he should give her his full support.
I doubt he’d *campaign * for her, support her sure, but not campaign. Would you expect Hillary to campaign for Obama should he get the nod? Literally, *campaign * for him? Go out and say he’s the best person for the job etc…etc…after having just spent millions on a failed campaign against him?
Supporting one another after the candidate is nominated is different than full on campaigning for the other.
I also like RTFirefly’s idea, but I doubt Hillary would go for it.
Absolutely. Automatically.
Are you talking about full-on campaigning or simply voicing her support?
I would expect either to campaign for the other if the win was fair and square and represented the will of a majority of the party. Things get a lot more complicated, though, if party machinery is manipulated to subvert the spirit of the democratic (small d) process within the party.
In other words, if they screw with the rules to seat MI and FL for Hillary or if the supers give the spot to Hillary even after Obama has won the popular party vote, then the “treason” will already have been committed and the party will fracture irreparably. I think the Clintons have got to know that.
If she, as a Dem senator, wants to work with a Dem WH in the next four years, she’d better do everything in her power to make it happen!
You might like the prospects for just such a happening that are laid out in this New York Times article.
From his keyboard to Og’s ears. 