2008 Chris Dodd Sweeps Montlake Caucuses!
posted by on January 3 at 11:38 AM
OK, not really, but he did TIE (that’s right, TIE) with Edwards and Obama at the Drinking Liberally beer caucus at the Montlake Ale House last night, after sneaky Dodd and Obama supporters bribed and cajoled four members of Team Edwards away from our table. That meant that Edwards, who formerly had three “delegates,” lost one, tying with Obama and Dodd for two delegates each. (Clinton got one.) Obviously, I blame the demon liquor for the shakeup. For a detailed breakdown of the two caucus votes, check out David Goldstein’s blog.
Leading the charge for Sen. Dodd was DailyKos contributing editor Joan McCarter (AKA McJoan), who argued that a symbolic vote from the Drinking Liberally crowd would “send a message” of support to Dodd, even if he can’t win nationally. On Daily Kos, McCarter has praised Dodd for staunchly opposing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which would have given retroactive immunity to phone companies that illegally handed over customer information to the Bush Administration. Dodd’s filibuster threat effectively killed the legislation last year. “Of all the senators running for president, Dodd’s the one who’s shown real leadership” on issues like FISA, the Military Commissions Act [which stripped detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere of due process and other rights] and habeas corpus,” McCarter says. “He’s kept netroots issues on the front burner.”
“Dodd is a favorite of the netroots because he’s the only one who’s been out there standing up for our issues,” adds Goldstein, who likes Dodd but supported Edwards at last night’s caucus. “There’s been a tacit understanding that if you look at a combination of where [Democratic candidates] stand on the issues and their experience, Dodd might be the best potential president out there.”
While Goldstein blames “personality issues” for Dodd’s “incredibly poor” showing in the national polls, McCarter thinks the real culprit may be a “media narrative” that called for a “historic race … with the first viable woman and the first viable African-American” in the lead. Dodd, in contrast, is “just another white-haired senator from the Northeast.”
Interestingly, under Iowa rules (which, unlike Washington’s wonked-out system, have a 15 percent threshold for inclusion), the final tally would have been Obama, 3; Edwards, 2; Dodd, 2; and Clinton, 0. Real Iowa caucuses commence tonight.
Correction, Erica ... Dodd 2, not Biden. The Senator from MBNA didn't draw a single vote.
There's no telling how it would have turned out under Iowa rules, since we didn't proceed with Iowa bargaining.
Additional post hoc analysis here:
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/1/2/231613/1449/167#c167
1: Thanks, fixed it.
2: That's true, but that was the Iowa number announced at the end of the night, different bargaining rules notwithstanding.
Anybody have any good tips on where to watch the Iowa action unfold tonight?
--While Goldstein blames “personality issues” for Dodd’s “incredibly poor” showing in the national polls...
Translation: Aside from having zero charisma or supporters, Dodd is the ideal candidate!
Travis, the Edwards camp is watching at Spitfire in Belltown. Your chance to hobnob with Jeff Smith and Paul Berendt.
The spot for Obama fans was also mentioned last night at Montlake, but I don't recall the place (it's somewhere downtown).
As for me, I'll be watching in an undisclosed location.
Could someone please explain to me the point of a caucus without a 15% threshold? If I'm a Biden/Dodd/whomever supporter, what's my incentive to bail on my guy and throw my support behind someone else?
Sigh. At least Dodd won something.
Doug, your candidate still might not get enough votes to earn a delegate. That's what happened to the backers of Richardson, Kucinich, and Gravel last night. So we swept them all into the Dodd tsunami.
That said, I found the 0% threshold rather disconcerting. But take heart ... the 15% threshold will be back in operation at the county, LD, and CD caucuses.
@9: Okay, so there is a threshold. And if you have 7 delegates it's 14.3% per delegate, right? How is this much different than the 15% threshold?
The Real John Edwards
http://blogs.thestate.com/bradwarthensblog/2007/08/why-i-see-john-.html
No, that's not right at all. Clinton picked up a delegate with 9.8% of the vote (5 votes out of 51 caucusers). The way the calculations are done in Washington is that each candidate's percentage of the total is multiplied by the number of available delegates (in our case, we chose beforehand to give our "precinct" 7 delegates). Each candidate then gets delegates based on the integer portion of the resulting value. After that, additional delegates are doled out in descending order of the decimal portions.
Last night, the final vote counts and raw delegate counts were Obama 17 / 2.333, Edwards 16 / 2.196, Dodd 13 / 1.784, Clinton 5 / 0.686. Based on integers, that's 2-2-1 for O-E-D. There are two more delegates to be assigned. With the largest decimal portion (.784), Dodd gets one, followed by Clinton with the second largest (.686). At that point, we're out of available delegates, so the final distribution is 2-2-2-1, O-E-D-C.
Interesting. So if Obama had gotten 22 votes, he'd have 3 delegates (22 / 51 x 7 = 3.02) but if he only gets 21 votes, he'd get just 2 delegates (21 / 51 x 7 = 2.88), right?
So that's the point where you want to convince at least one Kucinich/Biden/whomever to come over to Obama, right?
I guess I'll bring a calculator to my precinct caucus!
Dodd started with 6 votes (1 delegate), but picked up Kucinich votes (2), Gravel (2), and Richardson (1).
Almost got it, Doug. If there were still delegates available after the integer allocation, Obama's .882 decimal portion might be at or near the top of those allocations.
I guess I didn't make it clear that Dodd and Clinton got the "decimal delegates" only because their decimal portions were higher than Edwards's and Obama's. All candidates are rank-ordered for eligibility in the secondary allocation.
Yeah, a calculator will definitely come in handy. I plan to bring my laptop with a spreadsheet all set up to do the calculations.
Got it. But (in this scenario) if Obama wanted to be GUARANTEED the additional delegate, he'd need the 22nd vote.
...or, I suppose, kill two Biden voters, since 21 / 49 x 7 = 3.
Yes, integers guarantee delegates.
Killing voters wouldn't do it. The total is still 51, based on the initial sign-in. But you deserve credit for thinking outside the (pine) box. :-)
ECB @ 3 -- Thanks for coming out!
When I announced the Iowa-equivalent results, it was with the announced proviso (which I believe Goldy repeated) that the corresponding Iowa-equivalent bargaining had not occurred.
What anybody heard over the drunken din in the den is another matter.
An Iowa first tally would have yielded 4 delegates for Edwards, 3 for Obama, with (as I also announced) over 30% of attendees left in nonviable factions ... enough to form two entire viable factions, or to thoroughly fuck up the first tally results in a number of other creative and interesting ways.
N @ 18 -- Not exactly. In Iowa, the allocation denomimator is based on the original sign-in count.
In Washington, all caucus fatalities, escapees, and surviving members of nonviable factions are removed from the denominator before allocating delegates. The total count of all viable factions is used as teh allocation denominator.
[Note: W do not endorse anyone killing any caucus participants -- even Biden supporters.]
If our virtual precinct had used a 15% threshold under Washington rules (as applies at later-stage caucus proceedings), the result would have been Dodd 2, Edwards 2, Obama 3.
So does this make Chris Dodd President of Montlake?
I think Dodd will make a great VP.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).