In today's NYT, Adam Nagourney asks, "What if Iowa Settles Nothing for the Democrats?" Given the close and variant polls--the last Des Moines Register survey has Obama over Clinton by 7 points, but differs sharply from other recent polls and may have been thrown off by the long holiday weekend--there is a real possibility that the three front-runners will be grouped so closely that no one can be proclaimed the winner and, by the same token, that none of them will be much weakened, either.
This leads me to wonder about a longer-range possibility: that no candidate will come out of the primaries with a clear majority of delegates. For a long time, I thought that that could not happen; that, in fact, the candidates of both major parties would be picked effectively by February 6th, when the results of "Super Duper Tuesday" are known. That could still be the case; indeed, it is likely. Still....
Suppose that Edwards, who has less money and less national organization than Obama or Clinton, comes out a couple of percentage points ahead of either of them in Iowa, and that the other two are essentially tied. Then, suppose--and I do not think this is far-fetched--that the "Iowa bounce" propels Edwards from third place in most recent New Hampshire polls into a virtual tie in that state next week, or even a victory. Edwards has been running a rather weak third in South Carolina, but he was born in the state and now lives next door; he might make a late surge.
By then, we'll be only a week from February 5th, with primaries across the nation. While Clinton and Obama will have the most to spend on what by then will be a media-driven campaign, if the press is playing up Edwards as the underdog charging from behind and the representative of the little guy, he could do very well. Remember that we no longer have winner-take-all primaries, so while Clinton is almost certain to win in New York and Obama in Illinois, neither will take all of their home states' delegates. And who is to say what will happen in the rest of the gaggle of February 5th primaries? At the end of Super Duper Tuesday, we could see a picture in which each of the three top-tier candidates has enough delegates to deny either of the others a majority.
The second-tier candidates could further complicate matters. Right now, Bill Richardson is generally taken to be in fourth place and too far back to make an impact, but if he, Biden and Dodd stay in, they could pick up small packets of delegates.
Complicating matters are the "super delegates," Democratic office-holders and officials who are given delegate status ex officio. There are about 800 of them. Initially, they broke heavily for Clinton, so that if she is wounded but not mortally so in the primaries, they could be a powerful counterweight should Edwards or Obama come out ahead, but not without enough votes to assure a first-ballot victory. Whether the super-delegates would continue to back Clinton if she were running third among elected delegates is an open question--they are not committed legally to do so--but we might assume that even many politicians are people of their word.
So, it is possible--again, not likely, but surely possible--that Democrats could go into next summer's convention in Denver without a clear nominee. Indeed, a brokered convention, something we have not seen in almost a century, is not beyond imagining.
And just to spin it out further, suppose that the Republicans do pick a candidate in the primaries (although who that might be I cannot fathom), and go into their convention united. What would that turn of events do to the 2008 election?
This leads me to wonder about a longer-range possibility: that no candidate will come out of the primaries with a clear majority of delegates. For a long time, I thought that that could not happen; that, in fact, the candidates of both major parties would be picked effectively by February 6th, when the results of "Super Duper Tuesday" are known. That could still be the case; indeed, it is likely. Still....
Suppose that Edwards, who has less money and less national organization than Obama or Clinton, comes out a couple of percentage points ahead of either of them in Iowa, and that the other two are essentially tied. Then, suppose--and I do not think this is far-fetched--that the "Iowa bounce" propels Edwards from third place in most recent New Hampshire polls into a virtual tie in that state next week, or even a victory. Edwards has been running a rather weak third in South Carolina, but he was born in the state and now lives next door; he might make a late surge.
By then, we'll be only a week from February 5th, with primaries across the nation. While Clinton and Obama will have the most to spend on what by then will be a media-driven campaign, if the press is playing up Edwards as the underdog charging from behind and the representative of the little guy, he could do very well. Remember that we no longer have winner-take-all primaries, so while Clinton is almost certain to win in New York and Obama in Illinois, neither will take all of their home states' delegates. And who is to say what will happen in the rest of the gaggle of February 5th primaries? At the end of Super Duper Tuesday, we could see a picture in which each of the three top-tier candidates has enough delegates to deny either of the others a majority.
The second-tier candidates could further complicate matters. Right now, Bill Richardson is generally taken to be in fourth place and too far back to make an impact, but if he, Biden and Dodd stay in, they could pick up small packets of delegates.
Complicating matters are the "super delegates," Democratic office-holders and officials who are given delegate status ex officio. There are about 800 of them. Initially, they broke heavily for Clinton, so that if she is wounded but not mortally so in the primaries, they could be a powerful counterweight should Edwards or Obama come out ahead, but not without enough votes to assure a first-ballot victory. Whether the super-delegates would continue to back Clinton if she were running third among elected delegates is an open question--they are not committed legally to do so--but we might assume that even many politicians are people of their word.
So, it is possible--again, not likely, but surely possible--that Democrats could go into next summer's convention in Denver without a clear nominee. Indeed, a brokered convention, something we have not seen in almost a century, is not beyond imagining.
And just to spin it out further, suppose that the Republicans do pick a candidate in the primaries (although who that might be I cannot fathom), and go into their convention united. What would that turn of events do to the 2008 election?
No comments:
Post a Comment