The Washington Post is reporting that Kucinich and Edwards have struck a last-minute, backroom deal:
Kucinich has asked his supporters to swing their support to Edwards in precincts where he doesn't receive the 15 percent minimum support needed to continue. Edwards has instructed his people to do the same for Kucinich. Both campaigns confirmed this deal with reporters this afternoon.
Due to the Byzantine structure of the Iowa caucuses, this has the potential to be big. Iowa-wide, Kucinich is polling at about two percent. In certain liberal caucuses, however, he's doing much better -- though likely not as well as Edwards.
In such caucuses, if Edwards beats Kucinich but both fail to reach 15%, the little extra support provided by Kucinich defectors may be just enough to put Edwards over the line. (This is a deal that inures almost entirely to Edward.)
The resulting ripple effect has the potential to be almost exactly like that of a butterfly flapping its wings in Japan and causing a rain in Ontario. (I.e., impossibly unlikely, but fun to contemplate.) Anyway, since Edwards is one of the Democrats whom I don't detest, I'm rooting for the Kucinich-defectee ripple to sweep Edwards to victory. Godspeed Kucinich people . . . . Godspeed.
Anyone knowledgeable about Edwards' and Kucinich's platforms:
Aside from the "fighting for the little guy" mantra, is there a lot in common between the two platforms, or is this more a "strange bedfellows" type of deal?
Posted by: MattK/D1 | January 19, 2004 at 05:34 PM
I understand from the article that Kucinich just likes Edwards on a personal level. There's not much overlap between the platforms (Edwards is pure middle-of-the-road DLC; Kucinich is, well, Kucinich).
Posted by: von | January 19, 2004 at 05:38 PM
I've noticed that Edwards is the second choice of most Democrats I know (including me). He's also sometimes the first, occasionally the third, and just about never lower than third....hmmm.
Posted by: Katherine | January 19, 2004 at 05:50 PM
Katherine -- what's your take on Edwards vs. Clark?
Posted by: Mark | January 19, 2004 at 07:14 PM
My preference was Clark until recently. Now I lean slightly towards Edwards. I think Clark would be a wonderful Secretary of State or Defense, and a good President, but I prefer some political track record, for three reasons:
1. Better idea of what they'd actually do in office and what their priorities are.
2. I worry a lot about how Clark would deal with a Congress led by Tom DeLay and pals.
3. I think lack of political experience is a problem on the campaign trail.
So Clark's a solid third for me.
Posted by: Katherine | January 19, 2004 at 08:35 PM
I lived in Iowa City during the 2000 caucuses, and this sort of thing happened with the minor candidates. We had an unusually high representation of the "Natural Law" Party candidates, becuase we weren't too far from Fairfield, IA, home of Maharishi University, but they still didn't make the "viable" cut, so they all had their "second choice" established going in.
It really only makes a difference in the very small precincts. Our precinct in Iowa City had its caucus in an elementary school gym, with maybe 250 people. Since it was essentially a two-horse show (Bradley vs. Gore), it was pretty simple.
It was impressive to see the crowd dissipate once the allocation of delegates for President were set, too. We stuck around for a while, just to see how it actually worked, and basically, if you wanted to be one of the delegates to the next level of caucuses, you just volunteered on the spot.
Posted by: Michael N. | January 19, 2004 at 08:41 PM
Go Edwards. That way I'll only be very sad, as opposed wanting to both cry and throw up if Kerry wins.
I first called John Kerry to volunteer for his campaign in November of 2002. This was after being shocked and disappointed by his Iraq vote. I've never had my respect for a politician fall so far in such a short time. (It started out pretty high.)
When I started volunteering for the Dean campaign, I got less angry with the Democratic party and more hopeful than I had been in years. I promised myself I would donate as much money and time as I could afford to whoever won the primary, even if it was Lieberman.
Not today. I would quite happily work for and donate to Edwards or Clark. But as of today, if Lieberman or Kerry are nominated, they will get my vote, but not a cent of my money or a minute of my time. Actions have consequences, and there are other, more useful, more rewarding, and more fun things I could be doing.
I suppose if Kerry could fall this far in my estimation in 14 months he could rise reasonably far in half that time. But I doubt it.
God, I wish I could spend all week in New Hamsphire working for Dean.
Posted by: Katherine | January 19, 2004 at 09:20 PM
Kerry and Lieberman are still better than Bush...
Posted by: Mark | January 20, 2004 at 05:02 AM
Of course they're better; that's why they get the vote. But working on a campaign is a lot of scut work, and I'm a poor student with a lot of loans. "Better than Bush" is insufficient motivation.
Posted by: Katherine | January 20, 2004 at 08:54 AM
Yes, both are decidedly anti-NAFTA with Kuchinich saying that his first action would be to repeal it and Edwards saying he campaigned against it even though he was not a member of Congress in 1993 when it was passed.
Or maybe Edwards just offered to get Kuchinich a date.
Posted by: Thorley Winston | January 20, 2004 at 10:12 AM