Edwards picks up MORE DELEGATES. Brokered convention here we come!

[FlyingSquirrel]

SC Delegates: Obama 25, Clinton 12, Edwards 8

Total Pledged Delegates: Obama 63, Clinton 48, Edwards 26

Percentage of Pledged Delegates: Obama 46%, Clinton 35%, Edwards 19%

Total Unpledged "Superdelegates": Clinton 182, Obama 86, Edwards 28

Percentage of Overall Delegates Gained: Clinton 5.7%, Obama 3.7%, Edwards 1.3%

Edwards will not give up or quit till the Democratic Convention. Bank on it. Why would he, when his wife Elizabeth is dying of cancer and wants to live long enough to see him as President? Not to mention that he has the right vision for this country and he knows it.

Sorry, but the way things are going there is NO WAY either Obama or Clinton will get 50% of the delegates. By the way, note that Superdelegates are UNPLEDGED and may change their minds.

On to Super Tuesday!

[Bluebear]

1. Here, here!

:toast:

[More Than A Feeling]

2. I'll drink to that!

:toast:

[melody]

3. Very cogent points, one reservation

Elizabeth isn't dying of cancer, she's living with cancer. Even at stage 4, with the treatment modalities that exist, life can be extended for many years.

[FlyingSquirrel]

5. Sorry, bad phrasing. Thanks for correction n/t

[Ken Burch]

4. This sets up one really ugly potential scenario:

The superdelegates FORCING HRC on the party in Denver even if she's been defeated in the elected delegate count by Obama and Edwards.
That's gonna make getting party unity a bitch.

[joshcryer]

6. Not only that, MI and FL might come into play. OMG, I want a clear winner.

Please.please.please.please.please.

PLEASE.

[thoughtcrime1984]

9. You are not voting in Florida, but want your state in play

And know that Hillary won the sham of an election in Michigan, and that she is likely to win the sham of an election in Florida. Hillary has got to be your girl! Just vote for her and bask in the victory!

[joshcryer]

15. I'm in CO and not voting in the primaries.

Please don't accuse me of BS.

[thoughtcrime1984]

23. Thought you had said you were in Fla in earlier post

Why are you not voting? Why the obsession with the delgates that aren't being seated?

[joshcryer]

26. I've never voted in the primaries and I'm not a registered voter yet.

But the registered voter thing doesn't matter. I just don't vote in primaries. That means that I am "committed" to a candidate, and I'm sorry, I don't have the heart for that.

[Yukari Yakumo]

47. Colorado doesn't have a primary. It's a caucus. {nt}

uguu

[FlyingSquirrel]

10. But see, that's the thing. She may not even get enough for that.

Let's see what the picture is.

There are 3,253 Pledged Delegates up for grabs. Obama's gained 46% of delegates to Clinton's 35% to Edwards' 19%. Let's say SC was a fluke and Obama will only gain 41%, Clinton 39%, and Edwards gets 20%. (I'm hoping for better of course for him.)

Obama gets 1334 Pledged Delegates.
Clinton gets 1269 Pledged Delegates.
Edwards gets 650 Pledged Delegates.

Somebody needs 2,025 Delegates to win. That means Clinton needs 756 Superdelegates. Out of 796!

Ok, let's do a rosier scenario for her. She gets 45%, Obama gets 38%, Edwards gets 17%.

Clinton gets 1464 Pledged Delegates.
Obama gets 1236 Pledged Delegates.
Edwards gets 553 Pledged Delegates.

Now Clinton needs 561 Superdelegates. She has 182 right now. That means she needs to take 379 more - but there are only 424 remaining uncommitted Superdelegates! She'll need to take 89% of the rest, when so far she's only taken 61.5% of them (among the top 3 candidates).

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/

No wonder she's trying to get Michigan's delegates added to her total.

Edit: Oh, and just by the way, what happens if Edwards throws his pledged delegates and superdelegates Obama's way in that last scenario? Then it's over for her.

[joshcryer]

20. Edwards wouldn't give his delegates to the one with the lower number of delegates.

It'd be political suicide.

[FlyingSquirrel]

25. Not even if he were promised the VP spot?

[joshcryer]

27. Both would make that promise.

Giving to the 2nd place candidate would be chaos.

[FlyingSquirrel]

29. Chaos here we come! ;-)

I don't really care at this point who he would give them to although I'm very angry at HRC right now for the fact that she is attempting to get delegates from Michigan. Besides, I still think he has a chance of being the nominee on his own. Super Tuesday will help clarify his chances. In reality this thread's not about whether HRC will be the nominee or not. I'm just saying that the likelihood of either HRC or BHO getting 2,025 delegates on their own and not having to make any concessions to JE in order to do so are pretty low.

[zalinda]

34. He's already said he won't take VP

Neither Obama or Clinton are any where near Edwards when it comes to the poor and disadvantaged. We don't exist to them, never have, never will.

zalinda

[jackson_dem]

38. Everyone says they don't want it when running for the top spot

[zalinda]

44. Sorry, but I think he learned his lesson with Kerry

Edwards is for making the country better for those at the bottom. Obama and Clinton could care less about those type of people. And, besides neither of them would ever take the chance of offering him the job. He has his own agenda, and he's pretty stubborn about it. They like people who have no back bone.

zalinda

[jackson_dem]

45. The best way to do that is to become president in 2016

Unless he gets on the ticket he is done as a major political force in the country. Even if he gets appointed AG that will give him limited influence and only for a couple of years. Then he would be out to pasture. All this is not to say he can't do for poverty and the issue of working folks what Gore did for the environment but that is outside of politics. The best way for him to achieve his goals is in the Oval Office.

[zalinda]

48. You don't understand him do you?

He is not about politics. This is not a step up for him, like it is with the other two. He is doing this because he believes that the poor have gotten a rotten deal. If he doesn't get the nomination, I would expect that he would probably join Bono to try to save the world. After all, the US will be down the toilet with these other two. Can't beat a dead horse. And, I'll stop giving a shit about politics. It's much easier to be among those who don't vote, then among people who vote for more of the same, but a different party. :woohoo:

I used to be one of those who stood up for Pelosi and Reid, but no more. My party has left me, so why bother. Nothing will change, the dems will still not have a back bone. Edwards is my only hope. He's the only one that I think could ever get the dems to have a back bone again. The other two, just want to get along and work within the system, the broken system.

No, if Edwards isn't elected, we get what we deserve. Well, no, but the poor will take it on their backs again, just like we have done in every election since Carter. It's we who will suffer, it's we who will face Katrina's every day of our lives. And those who voted for against Edwards, tough, I will have no sympathy for them at all, because they are messing with my very existence.

zalinda

[jackson_dem]

49. I know. I think the best way for him to help the poor is in the Oval Office

[Leopolds Ghost]

51. Kerry cared a lot more about the poor and disadvantaged than Obama or Clinton do. People forget that

Sorry, but Obama's experience as a nonprofit lawyer helping CDC's build "affordable housing" in cozy arrangements with for-profit developers while the city is tearing down all of its public housing under a plan created by the Clintons strikes me as all too familiar in the mainstream Dem attitude towards the poor. They are a "special interest" to be "comforted" while the middle class display inherent moral worth thru their "dream" lifestyle.

[Clark2008]

53. He is?

Honestly, what is he doing to make life better for us at the bottom? He's not an elected official, so he's not proposing legislation (and didn't when he WAS an elected official). His sham of a Poverty Center has paid him more than I can see it's done for any poor folk (with the small exception of a couple of people in North Carolina... maybe).

What is he doing? Talking about it? Big effin' deal. Everyone talks about it, but nothing gets done.

[jackson_dem]

37. VP. Edwards in 2016? He will be prez someday!

[jackson_dem]

36. FlyingSquirrel

:yourock:

[FlyingSquirrel]

42. Thanks JD. I just noticed something funny...

In my second scenario, Obama and Edwards' Pledged Delegates added up to 1789... The year the Constitution was ratified.

Coincidence?

;)

[Mr_King]

7. Well...

let's hope so.

[Radical Activist]

8. A brockered convention would be a disaster for the party.

The more time we spend fighting each other means less time for the nominee to raise money and define himself for the general election. It would be amazingly selfish and destructive if there's more than one candidate in March.

[FlyingSquirrel]

11. Then Clinton or Obama better drop out! ;-)

[Radical Activist]

17. If it turns out that way.

I will call any candidate who is clearly losing that doesn't drop out in march a selfish a-hole who is hurting the party. Whether its Obama, Hillary or Edwards. This needs to be over in March at the latest, if not on Feb 6.

Do you really think Democrats can win if we have several more months of infighting? If the nominee has to spend money for primary fights instead of raising money for the general election? It would be irresponsible, selfish and very, very harmful to ALL Democrats.

[Ken Burch]

24. We could still win with a truly contested nominating process

So long as

1)The candidates made it a high-minded battle over issues, and avoided any more personal doo-doo;

2)The platform was decided at the convention by a free vote, so that it was a case of the candidate accepting the party's principles, not the candidate imposing his or her own handpicked pile of mush on the party as if he or she was above it;

3)The convention were to be a place of genuine, open, honorable debate, with each side pledged to fight fair and to treat the other factions with respect.

And it would be good if, were we once again to be in a situation where our frontrunner was too politically damaged to be elected(as was the case with Humphrey in '68, Carter in '80, and Mondale in '84, to say the least)our party had the chance to save itself from going down in flames with a sure loser and could put in a stronger candidate in his or her place. For example, if we'd dumped Mondale in '84 and drafted Mario Cuomo instead, we'd have done much better in that race and most likely would've won.

[Kucinich4America]

12. Just the opposite is true.

A full primary season means that everybody will have a vote in their primaries, and if it comes to a brokered convention, so be it.

No nominee before Labor Day leaves the Repukes only two months for mudslinging. And it will leave our nominee looking like he earned the nomination, not bought it. Or had the media decide it.

[FlyingSquirrel]

14. Excellent points. And by the way the Repugs could end up with

a brokered convention themselves.

[Hippo_Tron]

31. Not looking like it, McCain seems to be the chosen one

[Radical Activist]

18. So people feeling like they get a chance to vote in the primary

is more important than winning in November?
I want to win this year. That means the nominee needs to raise money to fight the Republican instead of wasting money fighting other Democrats. Do you really think any nominee could win against a Republican after taking several more months of attacks from other Democrats?

[FlyingSquirrel]

22. The attacks from Dems are WEAK compared to what the Repugs

will throw at them. While there still is not a nominee, the Repugs have to sit on the sidelines and take a few pot shots at them all. Once there's a nominee, the Repugs will kick the slime machine into high gear. What's gonna make the nominee weaker - a few extra months of weak fellow Dem attacks or a few extra months of Repug slime?

[Leopolds Ghost]

52. So you pooh pooh people "feeling like they get a chance to vote" - a chance you feel they don't need

An artificially constrained (by you) choice is no choice at all.

Hmph. Some "radical activist." This is why I support consensus
based organizing and proportional voting.

[MonkeyFunk]

13. and the idea

of a brokered convention giving us an outsider is suicidal. First, I'd hate to nominate someone nobody voted for. Second, why nominate somebody with no money and no campaign organization? It's a guaranteed loser.

[joshcryer]

16. A brokered convention is a guaranteed loss come Nov.

[FlyingSquirrel]

Who said anything about Edwards being the nominee?

Anything could happen. As someone mentioned before, even Al Gore could be the nominee. (Highly unlikely) But at least in a brokered convention, Edwards has the power to make a difference in the platform that's adopted. I just want Edwards there with the ability to have some significant sway in what's going on. I don't want to see the Hillary Club or the Obama Club or the Hillary and Obama Club. I want him there and active and involved, and influencing events.

[joshcryer]

21. I would love for Al Gore to happen, but neither Obama or Clinton will cede.

It'll be very nasty if we don't have a clear winner, imho.

[Ken Burch]

19. It would be nice if you could timetravel back to '68 and tell that to LBJ and Daley

Not nominating Humphrey and not pushing a "keep the war going forever" plank through against the party's will would have spared us the whole freakin' Second Republican Ascendancy.

[Radical Activist]

28. Good point about organization.

Its hard enough putting together a national organization when you're building on an existing primary campaign team. Starting from scratch would be an organizational disaster.

[FlyingSquirrel]

30. Starting from scratch? Are you talking about JE or Gore?

'cause obviously JE wouldn't be starting from scratch.

[Radical Activist]

32. Gore.

But in all likelihood, Edwards would have to fire most of his staff for lack of funding if he does stay in until the convention, so he would be in almost as bad a situation.

[jackson_dem]

40. It is a myth that Edwards is low on cash

In fact fundraising has picked up for him lately. He is doing as well now as he was in the second quarter of 2007 in fundraising and thanks to matching funds that will almost double. This means his campaign's cash inflow is as great, if not better, than it was at its peak in the first quarter of 2007 when he raised a solid $14 million.

[Radical Activist]

41. put down the talking points

This discussion is about what situation he would be in several months from now when the convention happens. However much money he has now isn't going to last that long.

[jackson_dem]

43. Do you know his burn rate? Is he burning cash at the same rate Obama, your guy, is?

[jackson_dem]

39. This is the Democratic Party, not the unDemocratic Party

[liberalla]

33. Elizabeth is LIVING with cancer.

:hi: I like your post and agree with most of it except...

Elizabeth is living with cancer. She is battling cancer. Let's not say she is "dying of cancer".
(if, for no other reason than to sound positive and be optimistic)
Now, Onward and Upward!

[FlyingSquirrel]

35. Ya I got corrected earlier on that but thanks again. n/t

[liberalla]

50. Sorry! I didn't see that earlier post.

Onward & Upward!
:kick:

[cali]

46. Edwards in not a viable candidate.

He certainly has the right to stay in and his supporters have the right to cheer him on until the convention, but he's becoming increasingly irrelevant.