Iowa Independent: Richardson Set to Send Obama Second-Choice Support (Update 2)

Richardson Set to Send Obama Second-Choice Support
by: Chase Martyn
Wednesday (01/02) at 23:30 PM

(Exclusive) 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.

Richardson would prefer an Obama victory over Clinton because a Clinton victory could end the campaign before New Hampshire voters even head to the polls. And if Edwards's numbers look weak, Richardson could head to New Hampshire as the best alternative to the top two contenders for the Democratic nomination.

Still, sources caution that plans can always change, and once the doors lock Thursday evening, anything can happen. Whether the Richardson campaign's strategy is implemented on the ground remains an open question, and, because this directive is not expected to be confirmed publicly,

http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1782

edit to add:

Update:
"(Ed. note: For about ten minutes when this story was first published, it asserted that there was a mutual agreement between the Richardson and Obama campaigns to swap supporters in precincts where one was not viable. This, it turns out, resulted from a misunderstanding that has since been cleared up. There is no deal between the two campaigns; there is only a strategic decision -- one which makes complete sense -- on the part of the Richardson campaign about where to direct its supporters if their group is not viable in certain precincts.) "

Second Update:

Richardson Campaign Response (4.00 / 2)
Hi this is Joaquin with the Richardson Campaign and the rumor is false- there are no deals. These are typical last minute election shenanigans.

http://www.openleft.com/showComment.do;jsessionid=3E74316838F261993E775C25CED0CEAE?commentId=24139 <---This seems to be a bad link.


Hmmm - try this link - it is down in the comments section - the link above should go straight to the comment but it isn't working:

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3032

because he thinks Obama is the best thing for the country, and not so that it would position himself better. that would be awful. Unless i'm reading that incorrectly and that's not what it is saying.

I hate it when the DC Dems gang up to knock somebody out because they're afraid of the message.

he issued a correction

that's what the update says. No deal with Obama. Just the Richardson camp strategically directing supporters in the precincts where he's not viable. To Obama.

I mean really, people can just choose to make shit up.

Cuz hes also directing his support to Obama. So whats the difference?

I think DK is just being pissy. Remember that Edwards crack?

It explains Richardson's reasoning pretty well. It has nothing to do with knocking out Edwards because they're afraid of his message.
It's about Richardson's own self-interest. Helping Obama will keep the race alive longer and give him a better chance.

Because Richardson is just going to rocket to the top with Edwards out of the picture.

:rofl:

The only chance he has of winning is prolonging the race and hoping he can gain traction somewhere, possibly Nevada. If Hillary wins, the race is pretty much over.

He is polling at 4/5 with usually at least 5 percent. So that kind of support can help.

But that is what Richardson is there for!

first off I like Edwards...for a long time I was stuck between him and Obama... but Hillary wants Edwards to do well in Iowa...It splits the Anti-Hillary vote(people like me) between Edwards and Obama(They are drawing from the same crowd, whether Edwards supporters like it or not). If Edwards drops off(sadly) Obama gets a big boost for the future primaries. (I personaly plan to vote for Obama...but {sadly} will drop him if it looks like Edwards is the one to beat Hillary by the time Georgia votes)

there will be "extra" supporters and many horse trading. For example, if Hillary has 30 supporters in a caucus site but only needs 25 to get her delegates and has 5 extra, she will probably direct them to Edwards to help him rather than waste them if she feels it would be beneficial towards her. For example, if her turnout was low and she knew she wasn't going to win but could be in a position to give Edwards the victory rather than Obama.

It's complicated but all the campaigns will be doing things of this nature. It's the strategery of the caucus.

Ed. note: For about ten minutes when this story was first published, it asserted that there was a mutual agreement between the Richardson and Obama campaigns to swap supporters in precincts where one was not viable. This, it turns out, resulted from a misunderstanding that has since been cleared up. There is no deal between the two campaigns; there is only a strategic decision -- one which makes complete sense -- on the part of the Richardson campaign about where to direct its supporters if their group is not viable in certain precincts.]

sorry, misread it.

the whole story is basically bullshit. THey issued a retraction. There is no deal of any kind.

This is just Richardson's decision to send supporters to Obama, if it's true.

didn't in the version I posted here.

supposed to know?

And that's not terribly complimentary to Obama--this piece is essentially saying he's the weaker of the two, and easier to bump off.

to keep the campaign going full steam ahead but if Edwards is the winner, they think Clinton runs away with it. They don't think Edwards is a real threat.

Just my opinion on what I think their reasoning is for doing it this way.

he figures he stands a chance of beating Obama later, but if Clinton takes off in Iowa, that's all she wrote....

"They" say that, anyway. Who the hell knows, really?

It makes sense. No one knows what might happen at the top of the ticket in these early days.

took him seriously at the outset. And going back in time, we can't forget "Gary Hart, the Next President of the United States!"

To say nothing of "Bill Clinton? Who the hell is Bill Clinton? That fat cracker doesn't have a PRAYER!!!"

There's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip!

That's how they usually do it.

And I think everyone knows Obama would be easier to bump off than Clinton already, so this doesn't change anything.

So are they lying or technically telling the truth by saying there are no deals?

I'm going to bed so I wont be adding any more updates to the OP.

and Biden as well. Essentially, if Biden, Richardson, and Kucinich all get their people to move to Obama's side...that spells a victory pretty much. That's over half of the 2nd tier candidates. The word on Biden is still out though.

How does this make you feel?

If Biden came out with a statement like this - before the caucuses, I think I would be devastated.
I would take it as a concession. Do you?

Thankfully Biden has come out and said "No Deals". That gives me hope that they really believe.

This, of course is just my opinion.

I wonder what you guys are thinking.

Anyway - best of luck!!!

I may support Richardson but that does not translate to casting a strategic vote for another candidate. On the other hand, if Obama was already my second choice, I would probably go ahead and vote for the guy.

The pukes can never get close!

non-viables to his camp. And both Biden and Richardson have issued denials. Wonder which camps are telling the truth and which camp is NOT.

If you say it enough times I guess it will come true? Tacky.

Some general rules would have this make sense if it is true. If Clinton wins, this is over, so don't direct your followers there. If Obama is the front runner, there is the VP to consider, so you want to play nice (I doubt this, as he cannot bet on Hillary dropping at this point, NH decides). The other thing to remember is that when you are 2nd tier, the key is to stay in the hunt. This gives you publicity, VP consideration, and if scandal were ever to rock the top of the ticket (hey, it happens) you want to be one of the people still standing.

This isn't about the second tier trying to reach the top. It's about one of the first tier not being honest. Lying isn't a campaign strategy.

the Biden campaign has not made a deal with Obama. The Richardson campaign staff has said that they are telling their precinct captains not to make the deal. Why would the campaigns be instructing their precinct captains - the folks that direct where caucusgoers go if their candidate isn't viable - to hold strong and stay with their candidate IF they had made a deal to go with Obama? (Kucinich made it public so it got out to all the supporters - are you implying that the Biden and Richardson camps are keeping the 'deal' secret from their supporters? From their caucus attendees?)

Two against one, Richardson and Biden say they didn't cut a deal - and they have clarified that to their precinct captains - Obama campaign said a deal has been cut and 'leaked' it to the press.

Who to believe?

I'm seriously having trouble finding it.

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/biden_spokesman_there_are_no_discussions_of_any_deal_with_obama_camp.php

(36 hours after the rumor was started....so now the rumor is the story and the denial is buried...)

Pretty scummy tactic by Obama.

Only if the electorate are lemmings.

Oh, wait . . .

Huh, imagine that.

:puke: on Little Barack Nixon

Richardson has to finish 4th to get into the NH Debate, so he has to make sure that Biden doesn't get any of his supporters. Looking past Iowa, Richardson wants some candidates to begin dropping out. If Biden finishs 5th, that could be fatal to Biden. If Edwards finishs 3rd, or 2nd to Obama finishing first, that could be fatal to Edwards. If Clinton finishs first, that could be fatal to the rest of the field.

Iowa has an interesting system but it can be very misleading if one is interested in knowing who actually has real support. Tactical supporters and sincere supporters all get thrown together. No candidate has a vested interest in Clinton winning Iowa so the "second choice" game in a sense is rigged against her. A loyal Richardson supporter could prefer Clinton to Obama but causus with Obama anyway to keep hope alive for Richardson.

:rofl:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3936001&mesg_id=3936001