Houston Chronicle - Neither Clinton nor Obama can win enough delegates before the convention

[Catherine Vincent]

March 5, 2008, 11:36PM
Bottom line: It'll take the convention to determine Democratic nominee
Neither Clinton nor Obama can win enough delegates before the convention


By RICHARD S. DUNHAM
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle

Resting up after a bruising primary battle, Hillary Rodham Clinton
and Barack Obama left Texas in their rearview mirrors Wednesday and
headed home to plan for three more months of political combat.

But even as the candidates tried to decipher the daunting math required
to lock up the closest Democratic presidential race in a half-century,
their surrogates squabbled over which candidate actually won the most
delegates in Texas.

The Lone Star State's complicated delegate-selection methods gave both
campaigns a plausible reason to claim victory. In final, unofficial
results, Clinton won the popular vote, 51 percent to 48 percent. But
Obama backers boasted that the Illinois senator had won a majority of
the state's pledged delegates — a result of his ability to mobilize
supporters in the evening caucuses, which account for about one-third
of the delegates selected Tuesday.

"It could be our Texas version of 'Dewey Defeats Truman,' " said
Waco Rep. Chet Edwards, an Obama supporter, referring to the infamous
Chicago Tribune headline that misstated the 1948 election results.
"After all the confetti and uncorked champagne bottles, it could turn
out that Obama won Texas."

Projections released Wednesday afternoon by the Texas Democratic Party
based on still-incomplete caucus returns indicated that Obama would
receive 98 delegates elected Tuesday to Clinton's 95.

...more
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5596700.html

[truebrit71]

1. Well duh....

Hello Captain Obvious...

[blogslut]

2. What do we do?

?

[Catherine Vincent]

3. In the meantime, continue bickering. :)

And it looks like the Obama/Clinton supporters elsewhere are at war besides DU. Check out what this Obama supporter said in the comment section of the article:

"It was outrageous. While the Obama folks were
polite, quiet, and cooperative, the Hillary folks
were angry, abusive, and questioned everything the
caucus chair was doing. Pretty childish."

Obama folks polite, quiet and cooperative? Yeah right! :eyes: :)

[Colobo]

4. An Obama/Clinton, in that order, is the only solution.

[blogslut]

5. Know what?

Everyone was perfectly lovely at my caucus. We were all practically giddy.

The best part? We had to wait for an hour to caucus because there were that many voters that had to finish. While we were waiting, a man from the Republican Convention kept coming over and meekly asking if there were any Republicans that maybe got lost by mistake.

I'm still smiling two days later. :)

[Catherine Vincent]

7. That's funny about the republican man.

The long line I was standing in to caucus was orderly. Once they got inside, I don't know because we left before that happened.

The percentage of people getting out to vote was very inspiring. I can't wait until November. Republicans should be very afraid.

[blogslut]

8. We have to keep the Democratic voter enthusiasm going

I hope we don't forget that in all this madness.

[HooptieWagon]

6. Well, obviously not with pledged delegates alone.

It is possible for Obama to get enough committments from superdelegates that added to his pledged delegates gets him to 2024 before Denver. But let's say he doesn't make it, too many superdelegates remain uncommitted. Most likely one candidate should have a lead in pledged delegates, the superdelegates should eventually rally around that candidate (after typical posturing, etc). To not do so will fracture the party. This even applies if Clinton has the lead going in to the convention, although she is so far behind it's unlikely she can make up the deficit in pledged delegates.

[ooga booga]

9. This is tricky, but we need to calm down and see what's at stake.

Remembering 2000 when Al Gore won the popular vote. The Electoral College couldn't decide it, because Florida was jacked up. So, the Supreme Court steps in and awards the presidency to George W. Bush.

Now, in 2008, 2 strong Democratic candidates struggle to a stalemate in the delegate count and the super delegates seem poised to appoint a nominee. The loser and his/her supporters could well wonder how all of the work in the primaries comes to nought leaving the party with a nasty split.

Uniting both candidates on the ticket seems a logical option, but who gets the top slot? The way in which Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama handle this will be absolutely critical. Neither of them worked as hard as they have to end as the VP on the ticket, but only one of them can end up in the top of the ticket.

Intra-party politics is the trickiest politics. To all of you who feel that you'd vote for John McCain or just skip voting in November if your preferred candidate doesn't get the presidential nomination, I submit to you that you cannot be all that serious about changing the direction of the country as you would have us believe. John McCain is a good man in many, many ways, but he will continue the war in Iraq as Bush would have done, he will make the tax cuts for the rich permanent as Bush would have done, and he will not move forward on healthcare. Is that what you want?

Personally, I prefer Barak Obama, but I'll take Hillary Clinton all day long over John McCain. The person is one thing. The major change of direction is far more important to me.

[leveymg]

12. They'd have to work out a power sharing agreement, a Co-Presidency, to make this work

As I suggested yesterday: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4909811&mesg_id=4909811

What is a Co-Presidency?

A co-presidency agreement is a legal contract signed by both candidates that lays out the terms of the relationship, assuming a Democrat wins the election, between the President and Vice President. Without changing existing constitutional arrangements, they could agree to give the Vice President effective veto power over virtually all key Executive Department decisions:

• joint-selection of Cabinet officers, Ambassadors, Supreme Court nominees, and other appointments;

• mutual agreement on the language of Bills submitted or signed by the President;

• and inclusion of the Vice President on the National Security Council and any other significant national security or domestic policy bodies

[ooga booga]

14. Co-Presidency would have to exist as President/VP

From a constitutional standpoint, there'd still have to be a president and vice president. But, as Dick Cheney has shown, being the vice president may not be a setback.

Bush-Cheney has been a co-presidency -- with Bush as the junior partner. Co-Presidency might work, but it'll be hard to sell it to the electorate -- and I think it'd have exist with the president and vice president slots like a more open, honest and functional version of Bush-Cheney.

[leveymg]

15. Exactly. A more benign version of an already existing institution

Just as we're going to have to live with the legacy of the GWOT, and try to make that work within a constitutional order.

It dates back further, to Reagan-Bush, when the VP ran his own shop. I would expect the whole thing would work better as a partnership of two competent, knowledgable people.

[Marie26]

10. They've got to seat MI & Fl delegates.

That's the only way out of the mess. Who cares if it costs money? The states messed up, they should foot the bill & have another primary so that their state's voters aren't disenfranchised.

[truebrit71]

11. No they don't. Not until they hold proper primaries they don't.

Trust me, the Obama campaign will file suit against the DNC before the words die in the air if they are permitted to be seated...

Everyone knew the rules going in...they haven't changed, so they have to live with the consequences...

[Marie26]

13. Did you read my post?

"The states messed up, they should foot the bill & have another primary."

[Horse with no Name]

16. K&R