McAuliffe Adopts June 15th as Deadline for Superdelegate Endorsements?
by DHinMI
Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:40:07 PM PDT
Howard Dean says it again:
"We want the voters to have their say. That's over on June 3," Dean said on ABC News' Good Morning America. Although party rules enable the superdelegates to wait until the presidential nominating convention on Aug. 25 to make a choice, Dean says the party cannot wait that long if it hopes to beat Republican John McCain in November.
"We really can't have a divided convention. If we do it's going to be very hard to heal the party afterwards," Dean said today. "So we'll know who the nominee is, and that'll give us an extra 2 1/2 months to get our party together, heal the wounds of having a very closely divided race and take on Sen. McCain."
Dean isn't saying which of the two Democrats will have to step aside in June. "Either of these candidates, if it's time for them to go, they'll know it and they will go,. They don't need any pushing from me. You know when to get in and you know when to get out. That's just part of the deal."
Dean reiterated this prediction on NBC News' Today : "Five hundred of the 800 unpledged delegates have already said who they are for. The remaining 300 will do that by the end of June and we'll know who our nominee is and that's what we need to do.''
Interestingly, Terry McAuliffe said something similar to David Corn:
So, [Corn asked McAuliffe], when does this end?
"June 15," he said without a nanosecond of hesitation.
Why then? I asked. The primaries finish on June 3, he noted, and after that there will be pressure on the uncommitted superdelegates (who now number about 300) to commit to one candidate or another. It should not take too long for these undecided insiders to make up their minds and declare their intentions--even if there are some who would rather not choose between the two.
So all done by June 15? You won't contend the nomination contest beyond then? I asked.
"Oh, I'm confident we'll be the nominee," he said, smiling.
But, I added, on the night of the Pennsylvania election, you said, "We're going all the way to Denver." That suggested, I noted, that Clinton would not yield any time before then...
"What do you expect me to say?" McAuliffe retorted. "I'm chairman of the campaign." Well, I suggested, you could have said, "We're going on to the next primaries and we're going to keep on winning." He didn't have to use the D-word. He shrugged.
So, I asked, I have a promise? June 15? "June 15," he said. You keep it alive beyond that, I noted, and it could be a nuclear war within the party. (In fact, even if McAuliffe and Clinton succeed by winning enough superdelegates in the 12 days after the primaries to trump Barack Obama's lead in pledged delegates, there still could be an intra-party apocalypse.) He didn't take the bait. "June 15," he repeated.
Clinton must win almost 70% of the remaining pledged delegates to overcome Obama's lead among pledged delegates. That's not likely. Over the weekend, she picked up fewer add-on delegates than expected. As the pool of superdelegates gets smaller, it's harder for Obama to overcome her superdelegate lead (although his odds of doing so are decent), but it's also harder for Clinton to overcome Obama's overall delegate lead by growing her lead among superdelegates.
Today's superdelegate news was split. Despite Clinton's win in New Mexico, Senator Jeff Bingaman will endorse Obama. But Clinton appears ready to pick up a somewhat more valuable endorsement, from North Carolina governor Mike Easely.
Typically an endorsement from a governor is especially valuable because governors have patronage networks; they can put workers on the street to round up votes. But this will not be like Ohio with Ted Strikland or Ed Rendell in Pennsylvania, because Easley is in his last months as governor due to term limits. There aren't that many people who need to curry favor with him, because his term is almost done. Furthermore, there are contested Democratic primaries for both governor and Senate, so many of the Dem operatives and power brokers will be pulled in numerous directions, unlike in PA or OH, where down-ballot races weren't big attractions. Nevertheless, Easley is well-liked, so it's a good pick-up for Clinton.
But Clinton needs a lot more than a scattered "good pick-up" here and there. What might McAuliffe be thinking? After all the talk of going to Denver, is the Clinton campaign changing its talking points?
- ::