If this DOES filter out to the media, it might not even matter what richardson wants to do. Some of Richardson's supporters (or precinct captains) might hear it and take it as a cue.

Richardson support seems natural for Hillary for many superficial reasons (hillary's """"""experience""""""") being the obvious one, but Richardson's campaign staff are close to Obama's campaign staff (on a personal level). It's also worth noting that Richardson's support IS NOT experience based as much is it is anti-war support (the immediate withdraw thing caught on - you can sometimes see banners at campaign events that say "2013???" - these are in reference to Richardson's one year withdrawal plan).

At any rate, rabid anti-war folks would obviously tilt towards Obama (against it) and maybe a bit towards Edwards (simply because of his rhetorical style). See Kuccinich's support of Obama.

Of course, Hillary only voted for the war to ensure peace in our time (somebody told me that...was it Taylor Marsh?, so maybe they'll go to her.

Biden may do likewise.  Kucinich, Biden Richardson would be quite a grab for Obama.  Dodd not instructing.

Joaquin has posting privilges here. In every thread this has come up, it has been stated that Joaquin, who WORKS FOR Ricahrdson denied it. Of course it maybe true who knows? But a CAMPAIGN STAFFER for Richardson denied it! WTF Jonathan? Is the denial not worthy of blogging? This is irresponsible of you.

"Hi this is Joaquin with the Richardson Campaign and the rumor is false- there are no deals.  These are typical last minute election shenanigans.
Joaquin H. Guerra
Richardson for President
jguerra-at-richardsonforpresidnet.com"

Can't be any more clear than that.

Something must give.

Awesome! Things seem to be falling into place but we'll have to see how it goes tonight...

Dennis I understand.  He is running to promote Dennis, his message, whatever.  He is running to win.

Richardson has said he is running to win.  But this doesn't make that appear to be so.  All the talk of a surprising strong place 4th, winning out west, all that goes out the window.  This is essentially forfeiting before you step on the field.  

Might an announcement like this, BEFORE the caucuses start make some of his supporters jump ship today, and actually line up with someone else in the first round?   Anti-war Richardson folks may say screw it, if Bill is throwing in the towel then I'll move to Edwards (as a for instance).

I really don't get it.

Now lets see what Biden does.  

I wish it were true, but it's not.

This is more BS put out by the Clinton camp to (1) Spin a loss to Obama and (2) Sow dissenion b/w the Obama and Richardson camps.

Maybe:

http://www.openleft.com/showComment.do;j sessionid=3E74316838F261993E775C25CED0CE AE?commentId=24139

We'll see.

Looks like Obama dirty tricks to me. I'm more interested to see how the dynamics of a bunch of Republicans and independents showing up in a Democratic caucus plays out. I can't imagine them persuading Democrats to jump to Obama as a second choice.

it's a fascinating suggestion, and the underlying strategic logic seems fairly sound, in that, if richardson wants to stay in this thing, a obama win in iowa is the best way.  a clinton win ends it and an edwards win wipes out the third tier.

but it seems like a really big risk, given richardson's obvious vp aspirations and his long history as a clintonite.  there's almost no way obama's going to take another brown person, and he's stated adamantly that he wouldn't take another cabinet position.

something about this seems wrong.  that said, stranger things have happened, and i don't buy for even a second that because some "staffer" comes on the blogs to deny it, it's not true.

Honestly, does it matter all that much who Richardson, Biden or Kucinich ask their supporters to back on the second round? Iowa voters aren't religious cultists; they'll decide themselves.

This is a dishonest post. The story has been debunked by a Richardson staffer no less. If Singer has done enough independent research to be unable to confirm its veracity as he says he has, he should have surely come across the denial from Richardson's campaign too. Looks like an instance of deliberately spreading a falsehood just because you are hoping its true.

As reported on 'First Read':

"There's an old expression attributed to Mark Twain," Biden said per the Des Moines Register. "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated." "In a speech full of analogies, Biden called those in attendance the final jury for his closing argument, adding that the race remains "wide open," regardless of the three front-runners, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards."

That doesn't sound like a guy who would surrender and basically bow out by endorsing ahead of the actual casting of votes.

I find it odd that no one talks about this in discussing the redirection of sub-15% caucusers. What is the history of a candidate who so instructs getting compliance? Or more to the point, what % actually do switch to the selected second choice candidate, whether or not they do it from free will or at the direction of the losing candidate?

There's no truth to this. It's simply an attempt by Obama supporters to make people think Richardson wants his supporters to go to Obama. The Richardson camp has denied it, so it is very unfair to spread this rumor.

My my, some folks here are awfully touchy - blowing up at Jonathan, floating conspiracy theories of all sorts, attacking fellow Dems... maybe everyone's just on edge because things are so damn tight... I somehow doubt that screeching at each other actually is going to persuade anyone to support your candidate (let's face it, the undecided numbers on blogs like this are miniscule)... so take a valium and wait for the results instead.

As someone who has worked in various caucus campaigns, I have to take both the initial report and the Guerra denial with a grain of salt. Rarely does a candidate or campaign formally communicate a second choice strategy  (Kucinich being an exception) -- if it were happening they wouldn't put it in writing, and would likely deny it (to avoid any perception that their candidate is expecting to loose or is cutting a deal).

But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen -- if it does take place, the communication is usually much less formal -- a casual conversation between field staff and precinct leaders about what the best option would be for the candidate if they didn't make threshold, bonds between friendly campaign staff/leaders from rival campaigns, and long standing ties between local political leaders all would be used to communicate such options. In the end, the voters are sheep and not everyone would follow the campaign leadership on second choice voting, but a nod and a wink from the campaign could influence enough voters to make a difference. Often the movement feels more like some group consensus, some invisible hand, and less like instructions from above.

Obviously the Richardson and Biden folks will be critical in precincts where they don't make the 15% threshold (and Kucinich and Dodd to a lesser extent, although they will make threshold in very very few places). My suspicion is that all of the 3 front runners will pick up some support. but that Obama and Edwards on balance will manage to corral more of those voters than Clinton -- which could well turn a close caucus turnout into a more definitive result.

to vote?  He basically lauds his followers for having the intelligence to vote for him but are too damn dumb to make an alternate choice.  What this proves to me is that Richardson and Kucinich are not grassroots candidates but DLC toadies.

all go for Obama.  Because once Hillary wins Iowa, the media and everyone else will declare the race over.  The 2nd tier's only chance is to have an Obama victory in Iowa, and then have the race shook up down the road.

When Hillary wins tonight, they have no more chance.

Just one more reason why we must move to a National Primary Day where people actually vote.

Martyn clarifies that there is no deal but rather an internal strategic decision by the Richardson campaign to swing support to Obama, a decision not meant to be made public. Chalk this up as one to continue to watch..

This only means one thing to me, and its not to shore up Richardson. So it's a support for HRC to stop Edwards who is the real challenge to the Clinton Machine. If Obama wins Edwards is hurt and Clinton fights Obama across the country, If Edwards wins it's his to take all the way. Clinton loses bad and Edwards has a debate with Obama on real change for America. Keep the Primary season open - vote Edwards.

This may not be true, but it does make sense in a strategic way for Biden and Richardson. Clinton is to these two what Edwards is to Obama - if the other drops out, it suddenly becomes much easier for them.

If Clinton sweeps Iowa, Obama and Edwards are diminished to varying degrees depending on the numbers and the second tiers may as well hang up their hats and go home.

If Obama wins Iowa and perhaps sweeps NH and SC, you can easily see the press writing Clinton off. However, in the course of the nomination, buyers remorse could easily set in about Obama, and then Biden and Richardson could get a second look at the experienced "safe" candidates, much as John McCain is getting a second look on the Republican side following the implosion of the various frontrunners.