The fight for second-choicers

January 3, 2008

As most political observers probably know by now, when Democrats caucus tonight in Iowa, voters who back candidates who do not draw 15% support in a given precinct then shift to their second-choice. Given that second-tier Dems combine to create quite a lot of Iowans, there’s enormous interest in who Dodd, Biden, Richardson, and Kucinich voters might end up backing.

In Kucinich’s case, the Ohio congressman urged backers to support Obama. In Dodd’s case, the Connecticut senator said that rival campaigns have been seeking a second-choice endorsement, but he’s not going to give one to anybody.

At the Huffington Post, Beverly Davis reports that Biden and Richardson are reportedly eyeing Obama.

Barack Obama has already begun shoring up support among the lower-tier candidates who lack the money or poll numbers to be serious contenders in the early primary states, such as Iowa, and Offthebus hears that “agreements” with these candidates may be announced soon. […]

For days, the rumors have been flying between the campaigns about which of the top three candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination will benefit from the second tier non-viable candidates – Joe Biden and Bill Richardson – to be specific.

Davis chatted with one of Biden’s national consultants, asking if the Delaware senator is angling for a Secretary of State position in an Obama Administration. The Biden consultant said, “Well, Joe would make a great Secretary of State, wouldn’t he?”

Reporting from Iowa, Tom Schaller also noted that the “late whispers” are that Obama may benefit from either “an announced or unspoken nod from the Joe Biden and/or Bill Richardson campaigns.”

Of course, this may be meaningless scuttlebutt — or it could dramatically change the outcome of the race.

For what it’s worth, the Iowa Independent has a report, which has not been confirmed elsewhere, that the Richardson campaign “is expected to direct their supporters to caucus for Sen. Barack Obama in the second round of voting at Thursday’s caucuses in precincts where he is not viable. Two sources familiar with the plan told Iowa Independent that the New Mexico Governor’s organizers have been instructed to direct supporters to Obama in the places where they fail to reach the 15% threshold for viability.”

With all of this in mind, I have a few questions:

* Unless there’s some kind of official announcement from the campaign — a la Kucinich — are “unspoken” nods in one candidate’s direction likely to actually move caucus goers?

* Do caucus goers actually care about directions from the campaigns? (In other words, will a Biden backer say, “I wasn’t going to make Obama my second choice, but if that’s what the campaign wants, that’s what I’ll do”?)

* Given that Obama has a very different policy background from Biden, Dodd, and Richardson (all of whom have decades of experience in Washington), isn’t Obama the unexpected choice for these campaigns? (Or is it part of some more Machiavellian strategy, whereby Obama weakens Hillary and knocks Edwards out, therefore opening up the race up for the second-tier?)

* If Obama does pick up support from Biden, Richardson, and Kucinich, doesn’t that make a caucus victory far more likely? And won’t he owe these guys in a big way?

Stay tuned.

Update: Biden’s campaign is officially denying the reports, insisting unequivocally that there are no discussions of any kind taking place.

January 3, 2008 at 9:18 am

* Unless there’s some kind of official announcement from the campaign — a la Kucinich — are “unspoken” nods in one candidate’s direction likely to actually move caucus goers?

No.

The only time it matters or moves anyone is when it is pre-announced and the supporters can see a strategy that clearly benefits their first choice (i.e. “we’ll get one Obama delegate in each precinct that will be drawn from the former Biden supporters”) Even then, obviously, not everyone will follow the dictates from the top.

As “silly” as the Iowa caucus process is, it does illustrate how preferential voting might shake up our system by giving some influence to the more colorful candidates.

But that information can be relayed on the ground. Bill Richardson–still scheduled to be in the ABC New Hampshire debate–has good reason not to openly and vocally endorse Obama.

His campaign can, however, have their precinct captains coordinate it this way. So yes, if there was some kind of “bargain,” it can still move caucus goers. Obviously, not everyone will follow, but keep one thing in mind–these small %’s of Richardson, Dodd and Biden supporters are the real deal. These are people who clearly went against the grain to stick by their guy, and the word from “their guy” holds merit.

Why is the threshold only 15%? Why not keep redistributing the weakest remaining candidate’s supporters until only two candidates are left standing?

It makes no sense that my vote counts if I vote for the front runner, the second runner, or anyone under 15%, but otherwise my vote is wasted (I’m thinking particularly of Edwards, assuming he comes 3rd)

Looks like Richardson’s going to ask his supporters to make Obama their second choice:

Richardson Set to Send Obama Second-Choice Support

Gov. Bill Richardson’s campaign is expected to direct their supporters to caucus for Sen. Barack Obama in the second round of voting at Thursday’s caucuses in precincts where he is not viable. Two sources familiar with the plan told Iowa Independent that the New Mexico Governor’s organizers have been instructed to direct supporters to Obama in the places where they fail to reach the 15% threshold for viability.

Richardson, whose poll numbers in Iowa have hovered near 10% since June, may need a solid fourth-place finish in the caucuses to continue his campaign. And he is best served by directing support away from former Sen. John Edwards, who consistently polls between him and the two national front-runners, Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton, in national and early state polls.

But Richardson’s modest gains from diverting second-choice support away from Edwards may be eclipsed by Obama’s potential success on caucus night, should everything go as planned. If Richardson’s field organization manages to direct a significant number of supporters to Obama, it could be enough to win him the Iowa Caucuses.

And if Edwards loses a large block of second-round voters, a group he seems to be relying on to break in his direction, it could irreparably damage his campaign. …

Now I’m wondering ‘why Obama’.

Are Biden and Richardson just trying to see that Hilary doesn’t get a coronation by winning Iowa and New Hampshire strongly right out?

Are all the other Candidates secretly just Anti-Hillary (Anti-Bill?) ?

Is this a sort of attempt to make the party look good to African Americans by running up Obama’s numbers in whitebread middle America?

….

Reading what I wrote here, I’ve got to go with the first. Biden and Richardson (and Dodd) all realize their only hope is a drawn out primary season where Hillary doesn’t run away with the prize early. So they are backing Obama.

Great options Lance. It couldn’t POSSIBLY be because they think Obama would make a better president. Not even worth listing.

How’s this – Biden & Richardson were pretty much guaranteed Sec State & probably veep spots if Hillary were the nominee. But if Obama is the nominee, he’s more likely to hire his policy advisers like Ivo Daalder, Larry Korb etc, and things don’t look good for the old political guard – hence the pandering…

Lance, those are all possible reasons for the Why of it for Biden & Richardson.

But I want to know: Why did Kucinich announce for Obama? It has to be more than the stated “Obama is for change” reason, because Edwards is offering more change than Obama. I conclude it is either:

personal
or
he knows something we don’t know

Any ideas?

Pingback: PoliGazette » Richardon To Send Voters Obama’s Way?

With Edwards everyones second choice, he can take this tonight. He has the best numbers to win everything, against any Republican, and with a mandate to change whats wrong with America.

I think it is because of a combination of two reasons one that these guys now think Obama will be elected president so they want to be in his good graces – and two even if hillary wins they figure all the plumb jobs in her administration are already accounted for because she has been in DC so long

Regardless of what Richardson’s campaign does I would expect the bulk of his supporters to support Obama over Clinton or Edwards. Both receive support among independent-minded voters and moderates for similar reasons. Some Richardson supporters might go to Clinton based on the previous connections between Richardson and the Clintons but if they liked Hillary they would have been more likely to have gone with her from the start.

I certainly would not expect many Richardson supporters to support Edwards as his populist polices are about as far from Richardson’s economic views as you can get in the Democratic Party. I’ve seen some speculation that Edwards might get support from Richardson supporters because of his recent call to get troops out of Iraq quickly. However I don’t think that Richardson ever received much of his support based upon being an opponent of the war, and those who are voting based upon opposition to the war would also consider Obama in light of his initial opposition to the war.

I’d caution all obsessive news & blog readers to check the time of different reports. Thus, the report in Comment #5 is not really any newer than the main post. I’m not refuting or challenging any of the specifics. It’s just too easy to create an air of multiple sources and confirmation when none exists.

To Steve’s question about “unspoken nods.” What he means, to be more precise, are “unpublicized instructions.” And, while perhaps less impressive and less effective than an open announcement, in the small & closed operation of a caucus, a candidate could send word through his organization to favor a second candidate if he was not viable.

I’m not claiming to validate or confirm the reports of Richardson doing so, but if you read it, it’s all about positioning & expectations. The supposed idea is that a bigger Obama win would be tactically the best outcome for Richardson.

If you think about it, all the second-tier candidates would be likely to take a tactical view of the possible outcomes and instruct their people to go that way.

Tamalak said: “Great options Lance. It couldn’t POSSIBLY be because they think Obama would make a better president. Not even worth listing.”

Well, you brought it up, so there it is.

Really, these guys are all such egotists that any suggestion they think anyone ELSE is worthy to be President is not a sound basis for analysis.

And frankly, nothing about Obama makes me think he’d be a better President than Clinton, so I just dismiss the notion at the start.

I’m inclined to believe the Machiavellian interpretation here: a big Obama win in Iowa probably knocks out Edwards and seriously wounds Clinton. If Obama takes Iowa, he probably wins NH and SC, and then it’s hard to see how Clinton comes back… but that doesn’t end the race, necessarily. If Obama flubs something in a debate or does anything else to give voters pause about his inexperience or judgment, someone like Biden or Richardson suddenly might seem viable.

That said, it’s also very easy to imagine how either guy could wind up in an Obama administration or even on the ticket; Biden might make a great VP pick both as an attack dog for the campaign and as the “elder statesman” who could take on a major foreign policy role–think Cheney, but without the evil–once in office.

It’s more of a “vice president strategy” I’d say — if they can’t get the presidential nomination, they can at least get something. Yeah, that’s the Machiavellian angle; realistically, none of these candidates will win the democratic nomination, so they at least can have some sort of effect here.

Ive read there was a bid debate over whether Holbrooke or Biden would get to be Kerry’s Sec of State, and with Clinton so close to Holbrooke, maybe Biden and Richardson see Obama as the candidate with the “open slots” in his Admin. Clinton already has the people she trusts, after all…they’re her top advisers.

Or, the person who fueled the Biden speculation, a national co-chair of his, said, “we like his foreign policy, we like him, and we like the way he’s run his campaign…” (that’s a paraphrase, but pretty close to the original quote). So that’s possible too. Or some mix there.

It’s more of a “vice president strategy” I’d say… -Nautilator

Bingo. They probably think Clark has the Clinton VP nod all locked up, so their looking for a horse they can ride in on.

I don’t think that Edwards will pick up any of the 2nd choice votes. He reminds to many Iowa voters (especially those along the Mississippi R.) of the Democratic Governor in Illinois – Rod Blogojevich — and that’s not good.

They probably think Clark has the Clinton VP nod all locked up, so their looking for a horse they can ride in on.

Spot on. I’ve been saying this since before this whole thing started. Clark is really tight with Bill & Hillary. Why didn’t he show any interest in running for prez this time around? He would obviously have been a viable candidate, and had been keeping in the public eye ever since the last election. If Hillary gets the nomination, mark my words, Clark will be VP. If she’s close but not there yet, look to her to announce him as her VP before the convention.

Comments are closed.