For Edwards, a Role as Possible Kingmaker

[question everything]

The Wall Street Journal

For Edwards, a Role as Possible Kingmaker
Democrat May Grab Enough Delegates To Sway Convention
By CHRISTOPHER COOPER
January 25, 2008; Page A4

(snip)

With South Carolina's Democratic primary set for Saturday, consider the numbers so far: Mr. Edwards sits far behind in the delegate count, with 18, compared with 38 for Mr. Obama and 36 for Mrs. Clinton. A poll in South Carolina shows him drawing within striking distance of Mrs. Clinton for second place in that state's primary. Still, the former North Carolina senator would seem to have to make up tremendous ground to stay competitive for the nomination. But Edwards's campaign operatives say the math could still break their way. If Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton continue running close and neither succeeds in capturing at least 50%, or 2,025, of the delegates, Mr. Edwards has a chance to play kingmaker at this summer's Democratic convention in Denver. To be sure, a brokered convention almost never happens. But 2008 is turning out to be an unusual political year and few prognosticators are rejecting the idea out of hand.

It is the sort of math that Joe Trippi, senior adviser to Mr. Edwards, said the campaign is banking on. "I think 200 delegates on Feb. 6 is our over-under," Mr. Trippi said. Although he continues to insist that Mr. Edwards has a chance at securing the nomination, Mr. Trippi concedes it is a long shot. More probable: arriving at the convention with enough delegates to tip the scales in favor of either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama. "Edwards is the primary force keeping Clinton under 50%," Mr. Trippi said. "Worst case? We go to the convention as the peacemaker, kingmaker, whatever you want to call it." As Mr. Trippi figures it, if Mr. Edwards gets more than 200 delegates through the Feb. 5 contests -- just more than 10% of the total 1,700 delegates at stake that day -- he has a long-shot chance of playing kingmaker. If he gets 350, Mr. Trippi said Mr. Edwards is almost assured of playing that role.

(snip)

What Mr. Edwards would want in exchange for convention support remains conjecture. Conventional wisdom holds that he would refuse a vice presidential spot after serving in that role in John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign, although Mr. Edwards himself hasn't addressed the question. He continues to insist publicly that his only goal is the nomination -- not a surprise, considering that saying otherwise could hurt his fund raising. The only clue he has offered is indirect: The populist who announced his campaign in New Orleans has said that poverty issues remain his "life's work." It is conceivable Mr. Edwards could demand the insertion of one or several antipoverty planks in the party's platform.

If Mr. Edwards were running as a Republican, he likely wouldn't be able to play a spoiler role. That nominating contest includes several states where the first-place finisher captures all of the delegates, no matter how close the race is. But Democrats award delegates proportionally, generally by congressional district, meaning that Mr. Edwards could get a delegate simply by taking California's Fresno area, for example. One unknown: Of the 4,049 delegates who will take part in the Democratic nominating convention, about 800 of them are "super delegates," mostly elected officials and party bosses, who aren't required to pledge themselves to a particular candidate. Although most of these super delegates are undecided, if history is a guide, many will flock to any candidate who stages a late surge.

(snip)

As the candidates gird for Feb. 5, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are expected to focus on large states such as California (370 delegates), New York (232 delegates) and Illinois (153 delegates). Look for Mr. Edwards to take the contrarian route: Mr. Trippi said the campaign has strong support in smaller states such as Oklahoma, Kansas, Idaho, Missouri and Alaska. The Feb. 5 campaign won't include television-ad buys, Mr. Trippi said.

(snip)

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120122491195115541.html (subscription)

[question everything]

1. self kick (nt)

[Lucinda]

2. I've been saying he was in the catbird seat for a while now. People keep

arguing with me about it. :D
If he doesn't rally enough to get the nom, he's still got a LOT of marbles to play with.

[avaistheone1]

3. I just want Edwards crowned president.

[2rth2pwr]

4. Why does this idea keep showing up?

Edwards can win the delegates, but he doesn't own them. They are free to pledge to whomever they feel like.

At the convention his delegates will go wherever they want, Edwards can try to command them but they have absolutely zero obligation to listen to him.

[question everything]

5. Is this true for all the states?

I thought that some are bound and some are not. Are they?

[2rth2pwr]

6. Here is more info

Convention delegates not bound to candidates
http://mydd.com/story/2008/1/20/14034/7446

by msn1, Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 02:00:34 PM EST

Matt here from 2008 Democratic Convention Watch. As Oreo said, thanks to Jerome for letting us spread our delegate and Democratic Convention obsession to a wider audience.

For those of us who have been around a while, the last time a Democratic Convention had even a little suspense was 1980, in Madison Square Garden, New York. Ted Kennedy was making a last attempt to try and get the nomination from President Carter. The problem: Rule F(3)(c), which officially bound delegates to the candidate they had been elected for on the first ballot. But with a weak Carter campaign on the horizon, Kennedy thought that if the delegates were released from their pledges, he could get enough votes to get the nomination. The problem was, Carter still had a majority of the delegates, and they voted not to overturn the rule, and Kennedy's campaign was over.

But subsequently, the rules were changed, and now convention delegates are free to vote for whomever they want to. The Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention states:

VIII C(7)(c) Delegates may vote for the candidate of their choice whether or not the name of such candidate was placed in nomination.

The Delegate Selection Rules state:

12 I: No delegate at any level of the delegate selection process shall be mandated by law or Party rule to vote contrary to that person's presidential choice as expressed at the time the delegate is elected.

12 J. Delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.

But nowhere does it state that delegates are bound, either legally, or by rule, to vote for the candidate they were elected for, whether on the first ballot, or any subsequent ballot.

Now lets be realistic. The campaigns who put the delegate slates together are not going to put anybody but the most committed loyalists on the ballot. But once those delegates get to the convention they are free to vote for whomever they want. In reality the only way for a candidate to lose those delegates would be for some major political damage to happen to a candidate between the time he or she secures a majority of votes and the convention, and for the candidate to refuse to withdraw. In that scenario, you could see delegates being pressured to change their vote, and they would be able to under the rules. The 796 superdelegates would also be under the same pressure to revoke any endorsements they had made. It's an unlikely scenario, but, the point is, it is possible. Delegates are not bound to the candidates.

[question everything]

7. Thank you. This makes it that much more interesting (nt)

[lisainmilo]

8. I didn't realize all of this....thanks for posting it! n/t