Is there life after February 5?

In the Dec. 17 NY Times [free registration required] Adam Nagourney shares the Shocking revelation that in the presidential nominations contests, Super Duper Tuesday just might Not constitute The End of All Things. [Why yes, I've been rewatching The Trilogy on TV lately; how'dja Guess? :] Emphases Added:

As campaigns try to keep up with this fast-paced, multi-layered campaign, there is growing sense among Republicans that for their contest at least — and perhaps for Democrats — Feb. 5 may not be the end of the line...

...The conventional wisdom is that a candidate must do well enough in the contests that take place in January — starting with Iowa and New Hampshire — to roll into Feb. 5 with enough force to sweep the table. Even if the candidate doesn’t actually accumulate enough delegates to claim the nomination, the pressure from party leaders to coalesce around a nominee, combined with the obstacles facing other candidates who might want to fight on, would carry the day.

Except that it is now entirely possible that no Republican will be moving very quickly going into Feb. 5. In fact, it is entirely plausible that Mike Huckabee of Arkansas will win the caucuses [in Iowa]; that John McCain of Arizona will win New Hampshire; that Mitt Romney of Massachusetts will win Michigan, Fred Thompson of Tennessee will win South Carolina and Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York will win Florida. In those circumstances, with no obvious front-runner, and with many of the candidates having adequate resources and varying bases of support, they could just divide the prize on Feb. 5 and move on to the next primary.

“Which means the race might not be over until the convention,” said Peter Robinson, a fellow with the Hoover Institution and a speechwriter in the Reagan White House. “I know there comes a time every year when journalists say this is going to be decided at the convention. I won’t say it’s probable, but it is possible: This race just won’t close.”

Still, there are considerable obstacles to a protracted nominating battle...

...Which Nagourney goes on to elucidate. Read the whole free-registration-required thing.

(Full Disclosure: my own Impish fantasy is TWO contested Conventions, a Dem 3-way and Repub 4-way, in which the seating of the Penalized Delegations ~ those from the Impermissibly Early primary-&-caucus states, previously presumed to be No Problemo because the respective Nominees Presumptive will grant them Full Dispensations for the sake of Party Harmony ~ become, in the unanticipatedly-consequential Absence of said Nominees Presumptive, the very Condundrum whose solution is Crucial to the the concoction of a Majority for Somebody. / IOW ohhh, wouldn't it be Fierce? :)

Comments

[Derek]

This "analysis" is so bad I don't even know where to begin. Most egregiously, Giuliani and Thompson are polling at fourth place in Florida and South Carolina, respectively. Romney is polling third in Michigan, and likely may appear fourth behind McCain (given that the Democrats don't have a meaningful primary in Michigan). Additionally, the momentum from a win in IA and NH may be enough to alter the race radically within a few short weeks for those later contests.

[Condor]

I can't stop laughing from this article from the one and only Christopher Hitchens, who just weighed in on Mike Huckabee:

"However, what Article VI does not do, and was never intended to do, is deny me the right to say, as loudly as I may choose, that I will on no account vote for a smirking hick like Mike Huckabee, who is an unusually stupid primate but who does not have the elementary intelligence to recognize the fact that this is what he is. My right to say and believe that is already guaranteed to me by the First Amendment. And the right of Huckabee to win the election and fill the White House with morons like himself is unaffected by my expression of an opinion."

It get's better: http://www.slate.com/id/2180159/

[David K.]

Poor poor Hitchens, he is so repressed in his non-belief, i mean gosh look at all the stuff he can't do because he's an atheist! Atheists can't vote...oh wait, yes they can. Atheists can't skip church...oh wait, yes they can. Atheists can't donate to causes they support...oh wait, yes they can. Atheists can't run for office...oh wait, yes they can. Atheists can't have families, get an education, hold a job...OH WAIT, yes they can.

Hitchens would have us all believe that atheists are so repressed by stupid monkey's like Huckabee who happen to believe in something they don't. Poor poor Hitchens, he's no better than the right winger religious groups who preach the exact opposite things he does.

[Condor]

Here's an idea. Read first, comment later.

[Mindsurfer]

Though I frequently do not agree with David,
sometimes, he is so .... right.

[Mindsurfer]

Though I frequently do not agree with David,
sometimes, he is so .... right.

[kg2v]

I work for one of the major networks on the elections - writing the software for the elections desk

Right now, they are really figuring that the real primary coverage will have to go out to about the WA/WI Primaries out on Feb 19th, but we are prepared to go out to the end (which I think is in May)

For personal reasons, I hope it's done Feb 5th, but it'll probably take a bit later (The personal reason is by then, I'll be VERY VERY tired of working 80 hour weeks between rehearsals, transmission tests, and actual elections - heck, we had a simulated Iowa Caucus this weekend, and have 3 transmission tests today)

[Joe Loy]

Derek: yes but the Analysis does not actually Hang upon the the admittedly-improbable Republican scenario cited. All that is required, for Either party, is that the Early-states outcomes be sufficiently Murky to generate (or perhaps we should say, to Adumbrate) a Less-than-super Tuesday which, instead of confirming the gathering Consensus, verifies the Lack of one. In Other words: a Feb. 5 from which there emerge, in either party or both, cumulative Delegate totals showing (a) a Leader who is well short of a Majority of the seats allocated thus far; (b) a close-2nd-place contender who is deemed to be Within Striking Distance; AND (c) a 3rd-place Underdog [woof! :] who remains sufficiently stubborn, motivated, and resourced to Stay the Course.

In Other other words: It's the Delegates, Stupid. (Figure of Speech, Derek, figure of speech. :)

"...the momentum from a win in IA and NH may be enough to alter the race radically within a few short weeks for those later contests."

Precisely so. And ~ even setting aside the Other pre-Feb. 5 states (both the Party-rules-Permitted ones and the delegate-Penalized renegades :) ~ let us consider the following plausible scenario. The media-Spun "wins" in Iowa go to: Edwards, #1, and Obama, close 2nd, projected 1 or 2 delegates less than Smilin' Johnny (= big loser: Herself :); AND Pastor Huck, #1, similarly Pressed by Governor Moroni Mitt, the Comeback Kid at a strong #2. /// New Hampshire (which, remember, is sometimes pleased to Decline the Iowans' advice :) ~ Clinton a solid #1, Obama a respectable #2; Romney #1 by a well-groomed hair, McCain a squeaky-close #2 (the Surge is Working :).

Now, take That into the Super Duper ~ accessorized by a Variety of outcomes from the Other early states, the delegate-Certain and the delegate-Dubious alike. Whaddaya Got? / Beats me but Whatever it is it doesn't seem to Look, Walk, or Quack like a Gathering Consensus ready to Sweep the Boards.

[Joe Loy]

PS: What kg2v Said :).

And thank God (and of course, Pastor Huck :) there are such Smart people at a Major Network, making Straight the Way to the Conventions. Until which, kg2v, the End Days might conceivably have to be deferred ~ i.e. to the Conventions themselves. But presumably you don't have to write Software and Transmission tests for those. / Or, Do you? :> /

Anyway, please take good Care of yourself, kg. Seriously. We can't have you collapsing from exhaustion. / While no Software Wizard (ha! the very idea! :), I was a career state Elections Officer so I have SOME idea what you mean re the Preparatory workload. / Which reminds me: when it gets to actual Primaries, don't fret about the quality of the Incoming raw data from the various new Voting Systems, I can assure you they are No good at all :) Heeheehee NoNoNo :>

[Joe Mama]

While Hitchens' comments drip with an obnoxious prejudice against religion, he is not at all saying that he is "repressed" by religion or there is "stuff he can't do because he's an atheist" (at least not in the column I read). Rather, he is saying that choosing not to vote for someone because of their religion does not violate the religious test clause of Article VI. And he is absolutely right.

[Brian Foster]

Honest question, because I haven't been paying much attention until just recently so I do not know the answer --

Has anyone credible actually made the Article VI argument to which Hitchens is purportedly responding? I have certainly not heard it -- but again, I'm only just starting to really tune in. Still, it seems rather a stretch, even for moronic lower primates.

[Joe Mama]

Brian,

I can't say for certain, but I haven't seen it. I think Hitchens is stealing a base by characterizing someone like Romney or Huckabee as arguing that not voting for them because of their Mormonism, evangelism, etc. is unconstitutional. Romabee probably invoked Article VI in their speechifying for the proposition that their religion shouldn't be a big deal to voters, but that of course is not the same thing as saying that not voting for them because of their religion violates Article VI. So while Hitchens decries a "deliberate misunderstanding of Article VI" on the part of Romabee, methinks he may be engaging in a little deliberate misunderstanding of his own.

But as the great Dennis Miller said, "That's just my opinion. I could be wrong."

[Brian Foster]

Joe M,

Thanks -- that was my suspicion, and until I see, hear, or read otherwise, I'll be content to assume it's true. :)

[Joe Loy]

Oh yeah, right, I forgot to remark upon the fearsome Armageddonic battle between the armies of the Hitch and the Huck ;}.

In sum: What Joe Mama Said. :> With the bloodyobvious additional specification that choosing to vote FOR someone because of their religion is Likewise constitutionally permissible. (btw, point of Personal inquiry, are there any Druids running? Please advise. / Wait! Wait! What if Kucinich dropped out in favor of his Wife? She's GOTTA be druidic, right? Boudicca and Queen Maeb and all that sort of rot, eh wot? Works fer Mee. :)

As for Hitch's roster of Examples of candidates Against whom he would gladly exercise his right to cast an Obnoxiously Prejudiced vote, for My part I shall Dissent in the following instances:

"A candidate who was a supporter or member of Opus Dei or the Phalange Party"

As long as Generalissimo Franco is reported to Remain Dead, I wouldn't Worry about it too much. :)

"A candidate who said that Joseph Smith was a visionary"

But he WAS a Visionary. / Of course so was Timothy Leary but Nevermind about that now. ;]

And finally :) ~

"A candidate who was a supporter or member of the Orange Order or the Ulster Unionist Party"

Oh, now, Hitch. This time you've gone Too far. That's just beyond the Beyonds :). What have you got against a little good-natured Marching and Drumming from time to time? After all, that's Just Cultural :>. // Anyways, ye got the Party wrong, y'idjiit. The UUP are the ModProds. Very Reasonable. Why, they're damn near Secular even ;}. You meant the DUP: Democratic Unionist Party. Sure'n' them's the lads in the Paisley kilts with the "No Pope Here" sashes underneath :). Actually, as a great Kick The Pope man yerself, I'd think you might even consider an Alliance of Convenience ;}. Sláinte & Saoirse, Christopher. (btw, what kind of a name is Christopher for an Atheist? Begob I can see yez at yer Wake: all dressed up and Noplace to Go. :)

[kg2v]

Thanks for the Best wishes Joe.

There is a LOT of "other" things going on in my life at the same time, making me nuts (Like Dad having to go into some form of Sr Residence)

I have a few minutes here while EMR simulates a primary data center failure, and brings up the backup

Anyway - the "Magic Number" is 270 - Delegates that is. A candidate gets 270 delegates - that's it. It goes to the convention decided.

No software for the actual convention for me, but some folks I work with will be setting our computers out at the convention.

From "Over the top" until oh, late August will be my quiet time next year, then it's back to testing until election day, and by early October it's back to 80 hour weeks

All and all, an 'interesting' gig, if not much of a programming challenge. Of course, November 2000, it was a tad TOO interesting. My software worked perfectly, but as they say "Garbage in, garbage out"