Friday’s campaign round-up

February 15, 2008

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn’t generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* This is a pretty huge pickup for Obama: “CNN has learned the 1.9 million-member Service Employees International Union is poised to endorse Sen. Barack Obama for President. Three sources familiar with the deliberations said union leaders met via conference call Thursday to deliberate on the endorsement issue. These sources, speaking to CNN on condition of anonymity, said Obama was the overwhelming choice of the union’s state and national leadership.”

* On a related note, the United Food and Commercial Workers also threw its support to Obama.

* Mike Huckabee, oddly enough, not only won’t go away quietly, but is now talking about a brokered GOP convention: “It may be all bluster to motivate donors and raise coin — like most fundraising pitches — but in an email solicitation tonight Huck is now openly pushing the notion of taking his race to the convention.”

* It took quite a bit longer than anyone could have expected, but Hillary Clinton was finally declared the winner of the New Mexico caucuses — which were held 10 days ago. She beat Obama by 1,709 votes, and will get 14 of New Mexico’s 26 delegates.

* There haven’t been too many polls in Texas, but one released this morning shows Clinton with an eight-point lead, 49% to 41%.

* CNN: “CNN has learned that John McCain will travel to Texas, most likely next week, to accept the endorsement of former President George H. W. Bush. The campaign is working on the scheduling with the former president’s office but the goal is for an event in Texas next week, according to two Republican sources familiar with the discussions.”

* In response to a Clinton ad in Wisconsin this week accusing Obama of ducking a debate, the Obama campaign has responded with a new ad of its own, emphasizing how many times Obama and Clinton have already debated, noting that there are two more to go, and calling her ad the “same old politics of phony charges and false attacks.” (The always-brilliant Lee Stranahan created his own video response to the Clinton ad, which is slightly harder hitting than Obama’s.)

* MoveOn.org is concerned about the idea of superdelegates deciding the Democratic nomination: “The group launches a petition drive to keep superdelegates on the sidelines, calling on them ‘to let the voters decide between Clinton and Obama — and then to support the will of the people.’ … Ilyse Hogue, MoveOn’s communications director, says via another spokesman that MoveOn’s position is Obama’s: The superdelegates should follow the pledged delegates.”

* The Democratic National Committee is a little busy right now, but many DNC members “already are talking about a review of the party’s nominating process once the elections are over in November.” I think that would be a very good idea.

* And I guess Rush Limbaugh isn’t going to come around on John McCain anytime soon: “Asked what Mr. McCain might do to change his mind, Mr. Limbaugh said: ‘I don’t think there’s anything he could do. If he did do it, he would be accused of selling out.’ Then, in a familiar baritone as resonant as it is on the air, he added, ‘If I were to endorse McCain based on the current circumstances, I’d be looked at as a party hack.'” Heaven forbid.

I have a feeling endorsements are having less and less effect on public opinion, but the SEIU has a very powerful get-out-the-vote engine that they’re now going to employ for Obama in Ohio/Texas. This is crucial.

  • The Texas poll isn’t good news for Hils (assuming it is even close to accurate.)

    She needs blowout wins, not just 50+1

  • Oh come on Rushie-poo. I bet McCainiac could hook you up with the latest and greatest from the Big Pharm.

  • “Mike Huckabee, oddly enough, not only won’t go away quietly.”

    It’s not a great sign for McCain that he is still in close races with a man who is going to the Cayman Islands to speak to “business men” during the middle of a campaign – especially when speculation suggests that the only reason he is staying in the race is to raise more money. I hope someone gets a picture of Huck going into a bank.

  • I don’t know if the DNC is looking for recommendations on revising the nominating process, but here would be mine:
    –All states would be required to hold primaries (not caucuses) on the second Saturday in August. Delegates would be assigned by proportional representation. (Iowa (twice) and New Hampshire can go take a flying leap for all I care.)
    –The delegates would be obligated to vote according to the primary results.
    –The Democratic convention would be held on Labor Day.
    (Needless to say, I think the Rs should do the same thing.)

  • I’d like to see them award half the delegate proportionally and the other half to the winner of the state

  • Then, in a familiar baritone as resonant as it is on the air, he added, ‘If I were to endorse McCain based on the current circumstances, I’d be looked at as a party hack.’”

    Uuummmmm…. a little late for that…. Don’t you think.

  • Am I alone in my support for Caucuses? Having done both, most recently a caucus, I must say that I much more enjoyed the caucus process. I got to meet my neighbors, I got to network with fellow Democrats, I got to become more involved with my party, I got more excited for the election, and I got to do more then check a box or touch a screen. I got to share my opinion and listen to others. Sure it took more time, sure it left out people unable to spend two hours to help elect the next president, but I don’t see the issue of gaging the enthusiastic support of the party faithful. What am I not getting?

  • I love how Limbaugh wanted to “insert himself” and is now realizing how he’s going to be blamed for a McCain loss if it occurs. His audience is going to be split, and he will suffer.

    [Limbaugh’s] contract, believed to be valued at nearly $300 million, is due to expire in May 2009…

    …purely as a broadcaster, [Limbaugh] said, it will not make much difference whether Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton wins.

    If you say so, Rush. Something tells me that if/when McCain loses, his next contract might not be worth $300 million. Hope you didn’t blow all your money on drugs, Rush!

  • I’d like to see them award half the delegate proportionally and the other half to the winner of the state

    Just make it up as you go along, eh Jim?

    So long as you think it will benefit Hillary, amirite?

  • How many Texans have remained undecided, waiting to see who George H. W. Bush would endorse for president? Is it just my left-leaning bad attitude, or is this endorsement likely to be the opposite of helpful for McCain?

    The poll numbers from Texas are interesting, but does anyone know if someone has been tracking the movement in the various polls? Is Hillary’s lead holding steady, or is Obama gaining on her?

    ArkyTex commented on another post here today, and provided this link to a story titled “Clinton may win Texas and lose it.” It’s interesting reading about how the Texas delegate allocation scheme heavily favors Obama.

    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/casey/5543965.html

  • Am I alone in my support for Caucuses? -Ryan

    I think there are a lot of benefits to them, many of which you mention. However, I think those benefits break down when the caucus itself becomes too large, so they are a victim of their own success.

    I also tend to frown on any process which excludes so many people, and since a lot of people don’t have the time to devote to a caucus, like people who have to work or care for an infant, etc. And there is a greater potential to influence people by leveraging relationships, husband and wife, employee and boss, union member and leader.

    It is one thing to convince someone you are right; another to convince them there will be repercussions for not thinking you are right.

  • kishin–IMO a national primary is a terrible idea. How would anyone like Bill Richardson or a John Edwards ever have a chance against someone with the name-ID of Hillary Clinton?

    Hell, for that matter, how would Barack Obama even have a chance? He needed a month of free press and frantic campaigning in 22 states and enormous, record-breaking war chest just to neutralize Hillary’s name-ID and institutional establishment advantages enough to duel her to a draw.

    Imagine we had a national primary…that simply wouldn’t have been possible. We would have a Rudy/Clinton battle for Presidency right now. Yuck.

    Okie: the Clinton camp can’t be excited by the shape of the polling trends. Her line + Obama’s line=oblong rhombus. Heh. here

  • Thanks, Michael. There is only one reaction to that graph if you are in the Clinton camp:

    Oh, shit!

    By the way, I agree that the national primary is a terrible idea. There is a lot of merit to letting all the candidates, known and unknown, be sorted out by the good people in Iowa and New Hampshire. But I would like to see the process occur later in the year. Perhaps we could have Iowa and New Hampshire in, say, April?

  • What about this idea for a future primaries?

    Divide the states into five roughly equal groups (by total deligate counts for each group). Make sure each group is a nice mix of small, medium and large states. Then each block of states holds its primaries or caucuses one month apart.

    In addition, ALL deligates are allotted proportionally, based on district results.

    Finally, to make things even more fair, the order of the 5 primaries rotates each presidential election, so that whichever group goes first this time will go second next time and third the time after that, etc. The group that goes last this time rotates to the front next time.

  • I think the states should be divided by region (NE, S, MidWest, plains, SW, NW and Mountains – or something along those lines) and we should have two primary days per region -one early and one late … making two big loops around the country and having each primary in each region represented by big and small sates. That way each region has a say early and another one later. It gives the candidates motivation for looking at the unique needs of each region and could allow them to focus on those needs. We could use a lottery to see which region goes in which order.

    Both TX polls show HRC with big leads:

    http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/15/9509/88017

    This story gave me some things to think about. I’ve wanted a comparison of McCain, Obama and Hillary by subgroup.

    http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/11/164937/456

  • ‘to let the voters decide between Clinton and Obama — and then to support the will of the people.’ … Ilyse Hogue, MoveOn’s communications director, says via another spokesman that MoveOn’s position is Obama’s: The superdelegates should follow the pledged delegates.”

    So which is it? The delegates, or the actual votes? MoveOn should make up their minds.

  • I predicted the Limbaugh thing already. McCain needs Limbaugh more than Limbaugh needs McCain. I’m even wondering if there’s some personal element to this, like McCain dissed him. And now that I’ve realized that the Republicans know they’re going to lose it, Rush doesn’t want to fight for the losing team. He’ll set himself up to be in a position to attack “Barack the Magic Negro” for the next four years, but he won’t fight for McCain.

  • I like the idea of regional, as it reduces travel times for the candidates and allows them to use advertisements spread not across voting and non-voting areas. Rotating dates to break up which states are first is a good idea as well.

    Still, something needs to be done. I am glad the election took so long this year – and it’s not over yet, and I hope it stays alive to the end.

  • New ARG Poll has Obama up by 6 in Texas.

    http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/02/15/arg_poll_obama_leads_in_texas.html

    A new American Research Group poll in Texas finds Sen. Barack Obama ahead of Sen. Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential race, 48% to 42%.

    Key findings: “Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama among self-described Democrats 47% to 42%. Obama leads Clinton among self-described independents and Republicans 24% to 71%. Obama leads among men 55% to 29% (47% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads among women 54% to 42%. Clinton leads Obama among white voters 51% to 40% (53% of likely Democratic primary voters), Obama leads Clinton among African American voters 76% to 17% (22% of likely Democratic primary voters), and Clinton leads Obama among Latino voters 44% to 42%.”

  • Wow – 49-41 for Hils? She can’t even get 50% of Texas Democrats to support her?

    This means that 10% are undecided. 41 + 10 = 51. Plus probably 2-3% that get peeled off as the Hillarydolts make more mistakes in the nesxt two weeks.

    Sound of the SS Huillary: BLAM! Glub glug glub glug….

  • How about some variation on the variable regions themes mentioned above, but set them up so that the early round is in the states with lower population? That way candidates would be focusing their attention on places where people could actually talk to them. Big states favor the candidate with tons of money more than that system would. Though until we get only public financing through actual draconian (and I mean that in a nice way 😉 campaign finance reform, money will ultimately always talk more no matter which way you set it up. And name recognition is huge, not a lot you can do about that.

    • Comments are closed.