Surprised not to see much discussion of this five days out from Iowa. For anyone fortunate enough not to see the perversion of democracy that is Iowa, there is a significant rule that bears mentioning. And it means the forgotten Democratic candidate might be making some huge headlines the next day…
After everyone has publicly declared their initial support for a choice (which may include “uncommitted”) at the prescribed time and place, “viability” rears its head. Any candidate whose supporters do not cross a certain threshold, typically 15% of the attendees, is declared “unviable” and their supporters either move to another candidate, or are not counted.
While this makes for complex dynamics in a six-person race I don’t feel like considering, I will ask: what does this mean for the Democrats in Iowa? Check out the polling averages:
Sanders: 46.0%
Clinton: 45.8
Undecided: 4.6
O’Malley: 4.3
So, on Monday night, we can expect the undecideds to end up somewhere. And we can expect O’Malley to be unviable. What then? In some past Iowa caucuses campaigns instruct/suggest through precinct captains that their followers go en masse to a certain candidate. Supporters usually go along with that. If O’Malley’s campaign does this, that could conceivably tilt the caucus results. You can do the math – O’Malley can get either side to a majority.
If I were O’Malley and I wanted to a have a big impact on the race, bigger than a mere endorsement some Thursday before a primary, this is how I would do it. It’s crossing a Rubicon, but a Cabinet seat could await at the end of the road…
Having worked a cuacus, I’ve made note of this extensively when looking at the GOP side but was unaware O’Malley was doing well enough to be in this position. I won’t dispute your numbers, but I believe it’s far more valuable to Clinton than Sanders and he will probably tilt her way in exchange for a prize he wants.
I also think this is his Rubio could do well in Iowa if Cruz or Trumps organizational prowess is overrated or if they savage each other a la Dean and Gephardt. That result came out of nowhere, and I was shocked based on my own canvassing in an Obama stronghold where Clinton was running a strong 2nd to see her get 3rd in 2008. A lot harder to predict than NH.
If O’Malley is making a strategic decision for his own future, he’s got to back HRC. Why? Because it is the establishment that rewards making moves that reinforce the establishment, and HRC is the establishment candidate.
Put another way, if O’Malley backs Sanders and HRC wins, O’Malley is SOL. If O’Malley backs Sanders and Sanders wins, and reinvents the DNC in some way to match his outsider status, then O’Malley is SOL because outsiders don’t reward insider moves like establishment folks do.
But, keep in mind that both HRC and Sanders are quite close to 50% in this poll, meaning it’s entirely plausible that either of them really have 48 instead of 46, and that the 48 + 2.1 undecideds get to 50.1 without O’Malley.
I don’t want to agree, but I kind of do. I suspect that O’Malley sees himself as another John Edwards, and that as long as he stays visible, he has a real shot in an open race four years from now. Which means that he’s smarter to stay on the fence.
and I think Clinton or Sanders offering anything to O’Malley, much less a Cabinet position, in exchange for about 4% of the voters in one state worth a tiny fraction of the total number of delegates for the nomination is highly unlikely.
Clinton’s camp likely realizes O’Malley is playing for the long game, as stomv noted above, and will assume that a healthy chunk of his voters will go her way anyway. If the campaigns’ internal polling numbers are a bit stronger for Clinton than the public polling, which seems to be the case for both campaigns, then just winning that healthy chunk of 4% will be plenty to still pull out the win.
Another question is: if/when O’Malley receives less than 5% support in Iowa, does he drop out immediately afterwards, or does he continue to New Hampshire? (Not that it will likely matter a whole lot given that he isn’t polling well there either and Sanders looks to have built a solid lead at this point). I have a difficult time seeing how he can still claim he has a rationale for running after Iowa.
O’Malley is an urban guy with progressive issues. You think he should feel compelled to drop out because mid-American farmers don’t vote for him?
It’s not that I think his campaign is going to catch fire. I just don’t think candidates (or the rest of us) should hang our hats on the decision making of Iowans and New Hampshirites and even South Carolineans and Nevadans.
It keeps candidates viable for a few more states. I wish there were some way to seal the results of each primary/caucus and not announce totals until convention so later states aren’t influenced by either the bandwagon effect or having fewer choices.
Characterizing Iowa’s caucuses as “mid-American farmers” obscures the fact that these early nomination contests (and really all of them throughout the cycle) are almost completely nationalized in the modern era. It’s not like the candidates are talking about one set of issues in Iowa, another in New Hampshire, and still another in South Carolina. All politics is certainly no longer local.
The point being that O’Malley’s message is not resonating anywhere. If for some reason O’Malley was getting a tiny percentage in Iowa but doing OK in several other states and nationally, that would be one thing. But he’s barely registering anywhere, even in his own state!
I started out quite liking O’Malley, but in my opinion he’s worn out his welcome and contributed virtually nothing to the Democratic contest. About the only thing he’s accomplished is to lower his potential VP stock instead of raising it (the latter of which was probably his goal). So if the votes coming in next week match his polling numbers, I see no continuing rationale for his campaign.