Could Obama and Edwards Team Up in the Caucuses?

Obviously Barack Obama and John Edwards are competing with each other, but the caucuses in Iowa, Nevada, and Washington State give the two campaigns a chance to also coordinate to maximize the delegates they gain. Edwards and Dennis Kucinich actually did this in 2004 in Iowa and it played a real role in Edwards's Iowa unexpected Iowa success. At this point he and Obama are competing with and even sniping at each other, but if they don't stop Hillary Clinton, she still has the inside track to the nomination. And for all that Obama and Edwards have differences, I think they're closer politically (and more progressive) than either are to Clinton, who voted for the Iraq War, supported the Kyl-Lieberman Iran vote that Jim Webb called "Dick Cheney's fondest pipe dream," and feel no shame in raising as much money as she can from Washington lobbyists. (Plus the regressive Democratic Leadership Council still features Hillary as part of their core circle). Both Obama and Edwards would gain by doing this, and the 2004 precedent suggests it's perfectly legal.

How would it work? The same way it did in 2004. At least in Iowa it takes a 15% threshold in any given precinct to gain a delegate. So both candidates will inevitably have people left over in most precincts who don't quite get them to that threshold. But what if both publicly pledged (and sent out instructions) that wherever that situation occurred, they'd try to combine so whichever of the two had more unrepresented attendees after all the efforts to convince stray delegates would get the additional delegate. If they had equal numbers left unrepresented, they could combine and flip a coin. It may sound like it would have a minimal impact, but multiplied by precinct after precinct it could matter.

Some of this will happen anyway, but it's be a lot more likely if Obama and Edwards openly embrace it, saying explicitly that they're doing this because although each thinks they'd be the best nominee, they also think that the other represents change more than does Hillary Clinton, which is true. If they teamed up explicitly, it would probably gain some headlines, and done right (maybe with a joint press statement or even a joint press conference) would seem less like their piling on a front-runner than drawing a necessary political line. I think it could only help.

It is a calculated risk for both in helping one of their likely opponents, but the first priority seems still stopping Clinton's momentum. And this also sets the stage for Obama and Edwards and their supporters to keep on working together in other ways, like on the convention platform. Then they can go back to laying out their areas of disagreement.

Ideally, again, they'd do this at a national level, but even if they don't, those of us participating in the caucuses can do what we can to forward this approach. My personal sentiments? Whatever the outcome, I'd be delighted if one of the headlines read "Hillary Clinton finishes third."




Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, named the #3 political book of 2004 by the History Channel and the American Book Association. His previous books include Soul of a Citizen: Living With Conviction in a Cynical Time. See www.paulloeb.org To receive his articles directly email sympa@lists.onenw.org with the subject line: subscribe paulloeb-articles

Whether it's soon enough remains to be seen, but the votes are there to effect a very different outcome than "inevitability."

"I'm in it to win"

When in US history has a campaign been so based on personal political gain?

...I can't think of a good reason not to be very attracted to such a coalition.

The particulars haven't been laid out yet. Those are finalized later in the week.

Rest assured, this tactic will be happening.

If you look at the second choice polls Obama and Edwards are both the second choice of each other's supporters...If they did what you suggest one is sure to come in third and a third place finish would definitely finish Edwards and a third place finish would cripple if not finish Obama too...

HRC would be wounded by a third place loss in IA but not finished...However, under the scenario you suggest it's almost mathematically impossible for her to finish third...

The way the the Kucinich/Edwards agreement was in 2004 was that supporters would switch to the other when their first choice wasn't viable in a precinct. So kucinich supporters would only go to edwards if kucinich wasn't viable at that precinct anyway, and vice versa. There are almost 2000 precincts in Iowa, and obama and edwards are sure to not be viable in at least a few. An agreement like this would only really hurt Clinton, or perhaps some of the second tier candidates. It's entirely mathematically possible for her to be third under this scenario.

with Obama or Edwards to "stop" Hillary. Today it is a request for Obama and Edwards to hook up to "stop" Hillary. It won't be long before there will be a request for Gravel and Thompson voters to hook up to "stop Hillary." Something tells me that you will be rather disappointed at what the headlines will say before this is all over.

Creepy stuff.

Mathematically that's the only conclusion you can draw...

He's mostly interested in "stopping" Hillary from a first place finish. I'm surprised that those supporting the candidates he's trying to "hook up" have not reached that conclusion yet...:hi:

That doesn't make sense... And it would have to be Obama who promises to self destruct because Edwards would look like a joke if he ran as VP again...

Here's yesterday's in case you missed it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3904602

I could sooner see Edwards and Clinton team up.

for either Obama or Edwards should they go along with such a ridiculous stunt. Third place finish.

Edit: DSB's post is above now LOL...

Neither are my candidate, but the best possible outcome in Iowa, or anywhere else, would be for HRC and Obama to come in 7th and 8th.

From my perspective, of course.

Edwards and Obama each go for all they can, but then team up to split any fractional delegates that don't make the cut--like if one has four people and the other three people in a given precinct and it takes seven for a delegate. It increases the likelihood that they finish first and second, and Clinton finishes third.

And yes, I have been posting repeatedly on this, because I think there's a major political gap between Clinton and the rest of the Democratic candidates, and that her regresive stands past and present make her distinctly less preferable. So I admit to spending a bunch of energy (and what money I can) in trying to nominate an alternative

the 2nd tier candidates, myself. I hope the 2nd tier people work with each other to make sure that one or two will be "viable."

cause too much friction?

I think I understood exactly what you were trying to say -- pooling resources that would otherwise be completely wasted makes sense. It's only a few percentage points, but it could help both of them.

You're not making a plea for either candidate's delegates to fall on their swords, or douse themselves with gasoline, but some of the replies earlier in this thread assume the presumption that there's some sort of mathematical certainty, that such a tactic would do just that?
Would you call that deliberate disinformation, or would one of the earlier posters care to explain how a cooperative strategy --- adding up otherwise wasted fractions, to make something out of nothing -- can "torpedo" either of the cooperating candidates?

It really makes sense to me -- I'm still undecided between Edwards and Obama, anyway, with a fair amount of interest in what Kucinich and Richardson have to say, but our state's primary is still weeks away.

it could also be done for each of them to tell their supporters to caucus for anyone except hillary in case they are not viable. That would be enough to make the impact.

I can see why obama caucusers would not want to caucus for edwards and vice versa....but if you make the one rule, don't vote for hillary...then the direction is clear. Maybe they could find enough to caucus for biden or richardson, which would be preferable to either edwards or obama supporters,

Between DU and Huff...:shrug: