Kucinich and Obama Secure Second-Choice Agreement
| Tue Jan. 1, 2008 4:10 PM PST
In 2004, Dennis Kucinich told his supporters to caucus for John Edwards if Kucinich was not viable in their precincts. (Here's an explanation of viability and the caucus system.) That recommendation helped propel Edwards to a second place finish in Iowa.
This year, Edwards won't receive the same boost. Barack Obama has secured Kucinich's second-place recommendation. Not every second- and third-tier candidate will identify a leading candidate for their supporters to caucus for should he or she fail to meet the 15 percent threshold for viability. But for some, it's not hard to see where there supporters will go.
According to Pollster.com, Obama, Edwards, and Clinton are the only candidates polling over 15 percent. Here are the numbers:
Clinton — 29.4 percent
Obama — 27.0 percent
Edwards — 25.1 percent
Richardson has 5.5 percent; he has not indicated who he wants his supporters to caucus for should he be unviable, which makes sense because Richardson has the strongest chance of being viable of the second-tier candidates. If a Richardson supporter were trying to make up his or her own mind, he or she might see Richardson's strong anti-war stance and look to Edwards or Obama. But he or she might look at Richardson's lengthy resume and decide to support Clinton. We'll call that a wash.
Biden is at 4.4 percent. His supporters like his experience and foreign policy credentials. If forced to choose one of the top three to support, they will likely support Clinton. (Though perhaps Edwards.)
Dodd and Kucinich poll at 2 percent or below in most polls. Gravel polls at zero. Their supporters will likely be spread across the top three, with a heavier proportion going to Obama and Edwards. The Kucinich-Obama agreement is obviously in play there.
There are a couple other factors to keep in mind. Edwards has been in Iowa forever, and he did well there in 2004. Iowans seem very comfortable with him. From some second-place polling I've seen online, he will likely benefit the most from second-choicers. Many voters are ABCs, anybody-but-Clintons. It is widely assumed Clinton will gain the least from second-choicers.
What does this mean? Clinton, Edwards, and Obama may all get just about 30 percent. Don't trust anyone who tells you they know who's going to win this thing.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
Submitted by capt (not verified) on Wed Jan. 2, 2008 5:24 AM PST.
"But for some, it's not hard to see where there supporters will go."
I think their v. there?
If you expect all posters to have an excellent command of the language, you're dreaming. I am glad to find some who can get their ideas across sufficiently clearly, whether or not they get exactly the right homonym, as opposed to some of the posts seen here which are just rants, slurs, mudslings, or seemingly psychotic ramblings. I can live with grammatical errors and lousy punctuation and spelling (annoying as they are) as long as what the speaker has to say is worth hearing.
Submitted by Misanthropic Scott (not verified) on Wed Jan. 2, 2008 7:13 AM PST.
Too bad we don't get to vote in tiers. I'd like to be able to say first choice, second choice, and third choice.
That way, when my first choice candidate does not make it, my vote would switch to my second choice, then to my third.
This would have prevented the Nader fiasco. People would have been able to vote first choice Nader second choice Gore. When Nader was ruled out, their votes would have counted toward Gore.
I believe this type of vote could be highly beneficial to second tier candidates and still provide us with the ability to more properly elect our candidates.
Of course, we need paper trail voting for this to matter.
