Posted by Damozel | Howard Dean says they probably will, unless the issue gets resolved by March or April.
As predictions of a convention floor fight from the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continue to mount, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said the party would likely intervene to prevent that scenario.Dean said Democrats would look to “get the candidates together to make some kind of an arrangement” before the party meets in Denver this August to officially select its nominee.... Dean said he thought the Democratic Party would have a nominee by mid-March or April.
"The idea that we can afford to have a big fight at the convention and then win the race in the next eight weeks, I think, is not a good scenario,” he said. (CNN Political Ticker)
That's a bit of a relief, or would be if I could imagine what sort of "deal" either would accept except the other's capitulation. But what do I know?
The Politico lists five reasons why Hillary and her supporters should be worried. These comport with the current conventional wisdom, meaning that it's what the usual pundits and campaign followers are also saying. Most make a certain visceral sense. Here's the nutshell version.
1. She lost the delegate derby. Pure and simple, this is a war to win delegates, one that might not be decided until this summer’s Democratic convention....Clinton may still hold the edge overall, but Obama is closing in rapidly.
2. She essentially tied Obama in the popular vote. Each won just over 7.3 million votes, a level of parity that was unthinkable as recently as a few weeks ago.... [P]olls and primary results reveal that the more voters get to know Obama, the more they seem to like him.This is especially troubling for Clinton since the schedule slows dramatically now and a full month will pass before the next big-state showdown....
3. She lost more states. Obama carried 14 states, six more than Clinton, and showed appeal in every geographical region....
4. She lost the January cash war. Money chases momentum, so Obama crushing’s 2-to-1 fundraising victory last month is revealing. ...
5. The calendar is her enemy. Now that more than half the states have weighed in, there is a fairly predictable formula for determining who is most likely to win the upcoming contests.
In caucus states, Obama’s organizational strength shines: He has won seven of eight. Up next are three more caucus states, Washington, Nebraska and Maine.
Obama also runs tremendously well in states with large African-American populations, another promising sign since next Tuesday’s three primaries are in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia — all of which have significant percentages of black voters.
Then comes another caucus state, Hawaii, where Obama is viewed as a native son....(Read the rest...)
I'm worried, I'm worried---particularly since we're now getting the news that funding for her campaign may be an issue. She's already apparently loaned her campaign $5 million and is (allegedly) considering lending it more. Some of her staff appear to be working without pay.
Meanwhile, Obama looks as if he'll be able to raise $30 million.
Have people lost their minds? Obama may well be the man for the times, but I don't understand how his supporters are so sure of it without more information than most of them seem to have about him. Or rather, I do know how they're so sure: they don't want to know. They have the will to believe in him. They've skipped right over the step where you ask yourself if it's prudent to find out first if you can believe him. I don't know.
Maybe he really is solid gold from the crown of his head to the soles of his feet, but I'd like further evidence that his feet aren't made of clay. I've discussed here some of the questions that they ought to be asking about him and his public statements.
And because they're all still up in the air, I will remain worried about a premature end to the Hillary campaign.
RELATED BN-POLITICS POSTINGS
The pundits I have heard over the last two night have said that the super delegates will broker the convention, giving the nomination to Hillary because the "supers" usually go to the establishment, the machine--in this case, Hillary. Okay, but as the analysts go on to point out, African-Americans will feel rejected and may not turn out in November, whereas Hillary's base would indeed turn out for Obama. Don't know, but it sounds plausible. If a brokered convention results, it's like voter nullification. What of the tens of millions of people who voted in the freezing cold primaries, thinking that they were selecting a nominee?
Posted by: Billy | February 07, 2008 at 10:41 AM
I don't have to be sure that Barack will be a great President to support him enthusiastically. All I need is to know that putting Hillary (and Bill) back in the White House will certainly be a disappointment. Barack might not be a disappointment, so that's a huge difference.
Posted by: David | February 09, 2008 at 11:34 PM
"Dean said he thought the Democratic Party would have a nominee by mid-March or April."
Could someone kindly remind Mr. Dean that there *are* states with *May* primaries? Pretty please?
Yes, we're well aware that we are mathematically irrelevant most years. But that doesn't mean the DNC should take it in hand to disenfranchise us in a year in which our opinions might actually matter?
If he's worried about the effect of waiting until August, they should be having the convention in June or something. The DNC should have the decency to at least *pretend* to care about all of the states' votes. Saying a candidate must be firmly in place by April is flat-out insulting to voters in late primary state.
Posted by: Arkades | February 12, 2008 at 09:13 AM