Ok. Considering the morning's events, could you all help me with some wild speculation here?

[lildreamer316]

1) Is there more , or less chance for a brokered convention if Edwards is not there to spread the delegates? Will some of the delegates from Super Tuesday(since he will still be on the ballot & could potentially still get a decent percentage of votes) still have to be given to him at the convention, for him to 'send' to another candidate?

2)Don't you find it a slightly funny coincidence that 'brokered convention' is mentioned and suddenly, Edwards drops out? (I'm not saying that's the reason he dropped out, just that it kinda goes along with it)

2)Don't you find it also a slightly funny coincidence that Edwards immediately has stated (or his camp has) that he is very unlikely to endorse ANYONE at this time? JUST like Mr. Gore??

The parallels are just...a bit strange.

I warned you this was WILD speculation/questioning. I've just got no where else to say it.

ATM, I am very, very disappointed, and am going to have to sit with myself awhile before I can get to a place where I will vote for one of the remainders.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

1. I am wondering all this myself....

Could it be Gore/Edwards ....

talk about wild speculation!!

[Vadem]

14. The very thing I have been praying for: Gore/Edwards! ... n/t

[mak3cats]

2. I'll believe anything at this point...

...I'm so afraid that neither Obama nor Hillary can beat McCain, and this country will slip even further toward fascism. I'm glad I live near the Canadian border.

[Andrea]

16. You and me both

I've been looking into emigrating to Canada. If you are thinking about that, check my thread in the Canada forum for some great info. Some Canadians have been giving me info and links that are invaluable.

[lildreamer316]

3. To add a tidbit:

He said 'suspend' his campaign. I know that this seems to mean that he suspends it so as to be able to pay staffers, but I don't recall other candidates using such a word in their respective exit speeches. One would think that this would be a given or an under-the-table assumption.

We will see.

[rosesaylavee]

4. Happy to wildly speculate with you.

Nothing else to do really. I don't know the answers and I bet no one else does either. I still plan to throw my vote at Edwards next Tuesday as I do hope for that brokered convention. Interesting timing... I agree. He mentions brokered convention after weeks of assuring his peeps he will stay until the convention and then whammy, a good bye see ya later speech today. Could he be holding out for VP? Will his supporters vote for him anyway or are 4 out of 10 really going to switch to Hillary? Read that last in GDP - can't believe that large a number would consider her from his camp, but apparently I know nothing about politics. Keep backing people who back off from the race. This makes my fourth candidate.

Sheesh.

[rodbailey]

5. Not that I have any special wisdom either,

but listening to Ed Shultz this afternoon, and he had several folks (both political and news types) discussing the Edwards thing, the consensus was that if/when he endorses, it will be Obama, not Hillary. Speculation on the part of folks saying that, I realize, but I think he has more in common with Barack than Hillary, especially on the need for real change issue. One caller briefly said when all was said and done, maybe the contest in November would be between Gore and Gingrich - how's that for a reach. But, you know the conservatives hate McCain (I must admit, I've started listening to bits of Rush Limbaugh again just to hear him go apoplectic about McCain) so they might start looking for someone else to get in. And, if Barack and Hillary continue to bloody each other, the party may (stress MAY) feel they have to turn to someone who could unite most of the party (not that Gore would unite with the Clintons in any scenario I can imagine).

As far as what happens to Edwards delegates and whether he has stopped his campaign or simply suspended it - I'm no expert on election law, but I assume once he pulls back like this, his federal funding simply goes away; and, he didn't have that much money without that as I understand it. And, I suspect his delegates will be free to do anything they want at the convention, since his name will not be entered into nomination. In fact Ed Shultz talking with someone assumed Bill Clinton was probably on the phone this afternoon to all those delegates inviting them into the Clinton camp (or else!!!). With only the 2 of them in the race now, unfortunately I don't see that much of a possibility for a brokered convention since I suspect one of them will go in with the total needed to get the nomination on the first ballot. Can't do all that math right now, but with only 2 choices, seems like one of them has to get past the magic number and the other one falls below the magic number. There are super delegates who can remain uncommitted until the convention and that could throw a wild card into the whole thing. And, there may be a few who still want to withhold support from Barack or Hillary (Edwards folks) and simply not vote on the first ballot (if that's even a possibility) hoping to see what might happen if both of the candidates ended up without the magic number. Just think how long we still have to spin out these kinds of scenarios.

[rosesaylavee]

6. What if people still vote for Edward?

Will he get those delegates?

[rodbailey]

7. Not sure I've got a real answer

for that, but my guess is that those delegates would be free to go wherever they wanted on the first ballot. Whether they could still cast their ballots for Edwards doesn't seem likely, since he would not be nominated at the convention. Here's another question that I don't have a real answer for either: would the nominee need the 2,000+ votes that people keep mentioning even if the Florida and Michigan delegates weren't allowed to vote? That would mean the vote to get the nomination might be even harder to win. Or, is it that to win the nominee only needs 50% + 1 of the delegates allowed to vote?

Don't we have an election expert hanging around on the Gore thread?

[AZ Criminal JD]

9. The nominee only needs 50% plus one of the delegates that the

Credential's committee has seated before the nomination begins. So the Michigan and Florida mess will get settled one way or the other an then the nominee needs a majority of those seated.

[rosesaylavee]

8. Did you all see this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4317938

So I guess delegates will still be relegated to Edwards if he gets 15% of any states votes. Brokered convention is NOT out of bounds yet.

[rodbailey]

10. How come

the Edwards' string has 150 responses on one issue and we have trouble getting 10 responses on some of the exciting stuff we talk about here?

[Pastiche423]

11. Because those that responded in that thread

1) Believed johnnyboy's bullshit rhetoric

and

2) They do not believe Al Gore is in the horse race, nor that he could win in a brokered convention.

It is called campaign fever.

[Andrea]

12. I'll try this again

I had responded to this post a few days ago, and as soon as I finished writing, my browser crashed. Yikes! So annoying. If it happens again, I guess it means I'm not meant to respond.

1) I think it means less chance of a brokered convention, since splitting the delegates two ways instead of three makes it more possible for one to get over 50%. The good news is that he keeps his delegates and may get more because he is still on the ballot in most states and an enormous number of Edwards supporters are going to vote for him regardless. They are doing this for various reasons, but some of the most popular are: a) to have a voice in the writing of the platform, b) to send a message, and c) to force a brokered convention. Many, many of the Edwards supporters that I have seen talking about a brokered convention are hoping that it will lead to a Gore-Edwards ticket. So how cool is that?

2) Yeah. Not a coincidence at all. Everything I have been able to find on the topic points to him being driven out, either by the DLC crowd with hopes of helping Hillary, or the Kennedy crowd with hopes of helping Obama, or by various nefarious people in hopes of helping the Republicans (since he was the most electable of the three in head to heads against all Rep possibilities).

3) I don't think he will endorse anyone because the other two aren't deserving of it. If he does, it will probably be part of a deal to get certain things in the platform.

Here's something else I wanted to run by you all:

Remember back in December there was that bipartisan conference in Texas? There were some big names going: Chuck Hagel, Sam Nunn, Christy Todd Whitman and others. The officially given reason for the conference was to work toward civility in DC, but most everyone in the media (and me and I'm sure some of you) thought that the real reason was to choose a third party candidate. Around that time I read somewhere that Bloomberg was thinking about coming in as a third party candidate, but was much more likely to do it if Al Gore gave him his blessing. I also read that someone close to Gore said that Gore would do that if and only if Edwards was not the Dem candidate. And we have all heard speculation about a Gore-Bloomberg ticket. Could it be that with Edwards pushed out, there will either be a Gore-Bloomberg ticket with Edwards somewhere in the cabinet, or a Bloomberg-Edwards ticket with Gore's blessing?

What do you folks think about that?

[rosesaylavee]

13. I've heard of the Bloomberg thing before

but had also heard that Gore had said no. No links but just my memory of the rumors at the time. Somehow I don't see Gore doing a third party ticket. Not with his staunch background as a Democrat, not with his dad and mom as staunch democrats. It would take an extraordinary change in him for that to happen. Not saying it couldn't happen... I just don't know what that change would be for him.

I had been hoping for a three-way brokered convention and had been planning on throwing my vote to Edwards in the hopes of getting one. There are now, today so many threads on DU where Edwards supporters are saying that they will now vote for Hillary, that I can't in good conscious vote that way on Tuesday. I would hate myself come August if the Edwards delegates swung toward Hillary. Not terribly excited about voting for Obama but I think I can trust him more than Hillary. He's not DLC and I do think he has the ability to galvanize the country toward making the changes needed to save the planet and the constitution better than she will be able.

God help us, we needed Mr. Gore. Wish to hell I knew why he didn't run.

[Andrea]

15. I sure wish I knew that, too

There are Edwards voters saying they will vote for Hillary and some saying they will vote for Barack, but the hard-core Edwards supporters will not vote foe either of them. I think it's logical to assume that the delegates are hard-core Edwards supporters, so they will still vote Edwards and if the time comes to throw their vote elsewhere, I think they would follow his direction. That's my take on it.

I agree that Gore was raised in the Democratic party and is a staunch Democrat. I don't know what might change that for him, but if I was him I think seeing the party acting so contrary to the real Democratic values I was raised with might be exactly what would do it. We can hope anyway.

This whole is very interesting. I just wish it weren't also so very frightening.