• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

How Al Gore Will Get the Democratic Nomination

BPSCG

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Mar 27, 2002
Messages
17,539
Okay, this isn't really my idea. National Review's John Derbyshire laid out the scenario, but last night's results suddenly make it look quite plausible.

The Dems are really hating the math right now. With no winner-takes-all primaries, it is now realistically impossible for either Clinton or Obama to win enough delegates in the primaries to get nominated. Chances are, both candidates will go to the convention with about the same number of pledged delegates. Neither one will be remotely close to having 50% + 1.

So we get into the superdelegates. You can be sure both candidates' people are working furiously to get those superdelegates in line, making promises of cabinet jobs and cushy ambassadorships - Paris, London, Rome - and maybe even swearing they'll compromise a principle or two. The superdelegates break more or less 50-50 for Clinton and Obama. Okay, that gives Obama the nomination, because he'll have 50% + 1 of the delegates, right?

Not so fast. You forget - Florida and Michigan haven't voted. They had their primaries, but they held them too early, and their votes aren't getting counted. Hillary won both those primaries. If their votes are counted, she wins the nomination. If they aren't counted, nobody wins, because nobody has 50% + 1. But either way, there's an ugly fight.
[derail]
I'm sure this is just what the powers that be in the Democratic party had in mind when they decided proportional primaries was the way to go - have the candidate ultimately picked in a back-room deal by party bosses based on who prostituted him/herself best. Meanwhile, prime time TV broadcasts a grotesque parody of the 2000 election Florida recount, with hundreds of Hillary's Michigan and Florida people chanting, "Count every vote!"
[/derail]
Maybe the Supreme Court will get to decide who the Democratic nominee should be. Imagine Antonin Scalia voting on that; they'd vote 5-4 to make Dennis Kucinich the nominee. So you can be sure the Dems will settle it in-house, even if it turns ugly.

And an ugly brawl it will be. Neither candidate can win, but neither will withdraw. Desperate to break out of this deathly embrace, the party turns to someone with gravitas, a Nobel Prize winning, Academy Award winning statesman.

He's tanned, he's rested, he's ready.
 
Last edited:
Okay, this isn't really my idea. National Review's John Derbyshire laid out the scenario, but last night's results suddenly make it look quite plausible.

The Dems are really hating the math right now. With no winner-takes-all primaries, it is now realistically impossible for either Clinton or Obama to win enough delegates in the primaries to get nominated. Chances are, both candidates will go to the convention with about the same number of pledged delegates. Neither one will be remotely close to having 50% + 1.

So we get into the superdelegates. You can be sure both candidates' people are working furiously to get those superdelegates in line, making promises of cabinet jobs and cushy ambassadorships - Paris, London, Rome - and maybe even swearing they'll compromise a principle or two.
[derail]
I'm sure this is just what the powers that be in the Democratic party had in mind when they decided proportional primaries was the way to go - have the candidate ultimately picked in a back-room deal by party bosses based on who prostituted him/herself best. Meanwhile, prime time TV broadcasts a grotesque parody of the 2000 election Florida recount, with hundreds of Hillary's Michigan and Florida people chanting, "Count every vote!"
[/derail]
The superdelegates break more or less 50-50 for Clinton and Obama. Okay, that gives Obama the nomination, because he'll have 50% + 1 of the delegates, right?

Not so fast. You forget - Florida and Michigan haven't voted. They had their primaries, but they held them too early, and their votes aren't getting counted. Hillary won both those primaries. If their votes are counted, she wins the nomination. If they aren't counted, nobody wins, because nobody has 50% + 1. But either way, there's an ugly fight. Maybe the Supreme Court will get to decide who the Democratic nominee should be. Imagine Antonin Scalia voting on that; they'd vote 5-4 to make Dennis Kucinich the nominee. So you can be sure the Dems will settle it in-house, even if it turns ugly.

And an ugly brawl it will be. Neither candidate can win, but neither will withdraw. Desperate to break out of this deathly embrace, the party turns to someone with gravitas, a Nobel Prize winning, Academy Award winning statesman.

He's tanned, he's rested, he's ready.
Another scenario in which Al Gore becomes the nominee.

In April, a sniper takes out one of the current front runners, and in June, the other falls. (Remember, RFK was on a roll when he was shot and killed.)

Al Gore becomes the White Knight, and leads the Dems against the GOP windmill.

Sure, it reads like a movie script, or a bad mini-series plot line, but it's not out of the realm of probability.

Not hoping this happens, but not fool enough to think "it can't happen."

DR
 
Dunno about the Gore thing, but I think you (and Derbyshire) are right on. This is going to be a bloody mess all the way to the national convention. McCain pretty much has a free ride until then.
 
Dunno about the Gore thing, but I think you (and Derbyshire) are right on. This is going to be a bloody mess all the way to the national convention. McCain pretty much has a free ride until then.
McCain also has ample opportunities to stick his sneakers into his soup strainer, for no better reason than he often forgets Rule Number One: never overlook an opportunity to keep your mouth shut.

While the Dems fight it out, the temptation to shoot himself in the foot may be too much for him.

We shall see.

DR
 
Chances are, both candidates will go to the convention with about the same number of pledged delegates. Neither one will be remotely close to having 50% + 1.

Not mentioning your conspiracy theory like "smoky back rooms" and cushy job prospects... could you please explain the math you used to think that they will have "about the same number of pledged delegates"? How big is "about"? Like a hundred?

I agree the Dems are in a messy situation because of last night but your ideas seem to come from some sort of deep rooted paranoia about the Democratic party rather than logic. Last night did little to change the pledged delegate gap.

Before: (Source: Slate.com)
1192 Obama
1036 Clinton

Difference: 156

Estimates for last night show it did little to change that:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/5/3265/76888/604/469268

She can win by getting superdelegates sure, but I don't think she has much chance of catching up in pledged.
 
Not mentioning your conspiracy theory like "smoky back rooms" and cushy job prospects
What's conspiratorial about that? That's the way it was done for many years. Look at the 1924 Democratic convention. Over 100 ballots before the deal was done in the back room.

... could you please explain the math you used to think that they will have "about the same number of pledged delegates"? How big is "about"? Like a hundred?
Watching the news this am, I heard the difference is about 90 right now.

I agree the Dems are in a messy situation because of last night but your ideas seem to come from some sort of deep rooted paranoia about the Democratic party rather than logic. Last night did little to change the pledged delegate gap.

Before: (Source: Slate.com)
1192 Obama
1036 Clinton

Difference: 156

Estimates for last night show it did little to change that:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/5/3265/76888/604/469268

She can win by getting superdelegates sure, but I don't think she has much chance of catching up in pledged.
I think she has no chance of catching up in pledged, but Obama won't have enough pledged to win, either. A difference of less than a hundred pledged delegates
out of 4000+ total delegates, is a rather small one. Michigan and Florida would total over 300 delegates. You think if it's close, Clinton won't fight to get them counted?
 
Last edited:
Oo, oo, I wanna play "How can Gore become the nominee"

Let's see, how bout when the nominee is finally decided, Clinton and Obama have a handshake and when they do they become merged and somehow form in to a single being named...GORE!
Then when they finish going on a murderous rampage of the countryside they can accept the nomination.
 
Watching the news this am, I heard the difference is about 90 right now.

I think she has no chance of catching up in pledged, but Obama won't have enough pledged to win, either. A difference of less than a hundred pledged delegates
out of 4000+ total delegates, is a rather small one. Michigan and Florida would total over 300 delegates. You think if it's close, Clinton won't fight to get them counted?


I think your figure of 90 is total including supers who have indicated a preference. Pledged is c40 higher than that.

This thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108037

discusses an article showing that even if she wins everything well from now to the convention, she is about 60 pledged delegates behind. Whether that is small enough, we may have to wait to find out.
 
Watching the news this am, I heard the difference is about 90 right now.
I think your figure of 90 is total including supers who have indicated a preference. Pledged is c40 higher than that.

This thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108037

discusses an article showing that even if she wins everything well from now to the convention, she is about 60 pledged delegates behind. Whether that is small enough, we may have to wait to find out.

As Jaggy has pointed out, you are mistaken and have to include super delegates to get a number that low.

Current Obama vs. Clinton Pledged Delegates:

MSNBC:
1307 vs 1175 = 132

CNN:
1257 vs 1127 = 130

As for Michigan and Florida... It's gonna need a Clinton sized legal battle to get those in the count. Unfortunately that is exactly who would be backing it, so who knows. But being generous with 300 delegates up for grabs and we give Clinton 60% in both states it doesn't count for as much as you're imagining.

60% win gets Clinton 180
40% win gets Obama 120

A difference of 60 delegates, smaller even than the 90 you misheard this morning.

"A difference of less than a hundred pledged delegates out of 4000+ total delegates, is a rather small one."

I wouldn't call numbers equal to3 or 4 states insignificant.
 
BTW, does anyone happen to know:

Is there anyone (organization/website/person) keeping a record of the total number of votes received by each of the two? (I mean the US-wide total). Or at least a page with the numbers for each state, I'd be willing to add them up myself :)

I'm aware that winning/losing the popular vote shouldn't probably matter as far as the primary rules are concerned - but, considering the mess this primary seems about to become, I think it could eventually gain some moral significance, at least as one of several (remotely significant) aspects.
(I guess the fact that there are primaries and caucuses complicates a possible answer even more).
 
BTW, does anyone happen to know:

Is there anyone (organization/website/person) keeping a record of the total number of votes received by each of the two? (I mean the US-wide total). Or at least a page with the numbers for each state, I'd be willing to add them up myself :)

I'm aware that winning/losing the popular vote shouldn't probably matter as far as the primary rules are concerned - but, considering the mess this primary seems about to become, I think it could eventually gain some moral significance, at least as one of several (remotely significant) aspects.
(I guess the fact that there are primaries and caucuses complicates a possible answer even more).

Top, Right Side under "REAL CLEAR POLITICS ELECTION 2008"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

Obama......./.Clinton......
12,946,615 / 12,363,897 --- Popular Vote
13,522,829 / 13,234,883 --- Popular Vote (w/FL)
 
Last edited:
While the Dems fight it out, the temptation to shoot himself in the foot may be too much for him.

And you think with things going the way they're going for the Dems that neither Clinton nor Obama can fire shots at their own feet?

Ha Ha ... we shall see indeed.
 
I don't think it's an advantage for McCain to not be in a nomination race, and therefore out of the news. How well did that "out of the news" strategy work for Rudy?

On the other hand, I can see Hillary really starting to slice into Obama and tear him down. His blunders have been ignored, such as not knowing Al-Qaeda is in Iraq and his poor judgment with Rezko, and Hillary just needs to call him on this and show him to be just another politician, and a poor one at that, not a rockstar and savior.

The issue for the democrats is how to resolve this deadlock without beating each other up. The media attention is a huge positive if they play it right. But I think Hillary will go negative in a big way and provide us with lots of entertainment.
 
Actually, what will happen at the Democratic convention is the clouds will part, the sky will open, the celestial choirs will begin singing, and down will come Al Gore riding on a beam of light, saying, "I am the one we've been waiting for. I am the chosen one." :jaw-dropp
 
This fight seems to be evoking an old Hillary Trope, with a twist. From the KeyTv web site.
Kamyl Bazbaz, a Clinton supporter says, "We've been hearing folks were shut out of the caucuses by people in the Obama campaign and that they were circulating sign-in sheets before the legal time and these are issues that Texans deserve to know about and we want to get to the bottom of it."
Argument by innuendo. How far is this veiled language from Hillary asserting "a vast Left Wing conspiracy" in the caucus?
Obama's campaign lawyer Bob Bauer phoned into a news conference to complain about the Clinton campaign's persistent criticism of caucuses.
Great. Two lawyers turned politician start a lawyeresque squabble over a process that has rules already codified.

Maybe Shakespeare was right about lawyers. :p (Yes, I know its an out of context bit . . . )

DR
 
Last edited:
This just in, from the Austin American Statesman:

Those late figures show Obama has about 55 percent of the delegates to 45 percent for Hillary Clinton. With partial results in from the state’s 31 Senate districts, Obama leads Clinton in 20 — some by wide margins.
Austin: Obama, with twice Clinton’s count. Areas west of Austin: Obama. Areas south of Austin to San Antonio: Obama. Bryan-College station: Obama by a wide margin.
Plano area: Obama by a wide margin. Fort Worth: Obama by a wide margin. North Dallas suburban areas: Obama. Houston: Obama by a wide margin. Dallas: Obama. South Dallas: Obama, by a wide margin.
==
South San Antonio and parts of West Texas: Clinton by a wide margin. McAllen: Clinton by a wide margin. Laredo: Clinton by a wide margin. Waco: Clinton, narrowly. San Antonio: Clinton. El Paso: Clinton, by a wide margin. Wichita Falls: Clinton.
For those of you not familiar with Texas politics, this is Hillary pandering to the Hispanic Democratic voter demographic, and succeeding with flying colors. As to Wichita Falls, I am as puzzled as the next guy.

Look at the blue districts on the old 2000 and 2004 red/blue maps, in Texas, and you can better see where Hillary focused her assets in Texas.

DR
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom