Thursday’s campaign round-up

May 8, 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:

* We haven’t heard too much superdelegate news this morning, but late yesterday, Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.) threw his support to Hillary Clinton, citing her success in his home district. (Later, however, Ellsworth’s office hedged a bit, saying he would stick with the winner of his district “unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise.”)

* In other endorsement news, David Bonior, John Edwards’ campaign manager and a former Democratic House leader, announced his support for Barack Obama. In a statement, Bonior said, “Because Barack Obama continues to run a positive campaign that focuses on the issues that matter to ordinary Americans, he has won a commanding lead in this race, and I believe he can and will defeat John McCain in November. Now is the time to unite behind Barack Obama so we can end business-as-usual in Washington and fulfill our moral obligation to America’s hardworking families.”

* Credit where credit is due: this week, Zogby did pretty well in forecasting the results, while SurveyUSA didn’t. For most of the year, the reliability had been reversed.

* Following up on an item from last week, Clinton beat Obama among Catholics in Pennsylvania by a stunning 40 points. The WSJ reported today, “In Indiana, Sen. Obama sliced that deficit in half, earning 41% of the Catholic vote to Sen. Clinton’s 59%. And in North Carolina Sen. Clinton won among Catholics by a scant seven points.”

* Jimmy Carter said yesterday that he believes the DNC should honor the integrity of the agreed upon rules and not count Michigan’s and Florida’s primary results.

* On a related note, work continues on what to do about the contested states: “We may be on the verge of a compromise on the Michigan situation — with the key being that a new solution wouldn’t actually change the overall delegate race. The Michigan state party’s executive committee voted to submit a proposal to the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, to send 69 delegates for Clinton and 59 for Obama. The +10 margin for Hillary would be a significant cut from her +18 over ‘Uncommitted’ in the state’s rogue January primary, would take away any chance of getting at any of the 55 slots for Uncommitted, and would still allow the seating of a full delegation.”

* Clinton’s event in Shepherdstown, W.Va., yesterday was thrown together at the last minute, and as a result, there were a few hitches: “Security was minimal, and problems with the sound system gave the Clinton staff fits; it didn’t help that one of the men working the sound system wore an Obama T-shirt. ‘I’m not turning it inside out,’ he said, when Clinton supporters protested. In the back of the crowd, a camera riser collapsed with a huge crash, sending bodies, coffee and cameras flying. ‘Metaphor?’ a reporter asked as he picked himself off the ground? ‘Metaphor,’ confirmed another.”

* Mike Huckabee said he can relate to Hillary Clinton’s situation. He told ABC News, “In the words of her husband, ‘I feel her pain!'”

* Was there a Limbaugh effect in Indiana on Tuesday? It’s actually hard to say for sure.

* Assuming Obama is the Democratic nominee, he’ll give his acceptance speech at the convention on August 28 — 45 years to the day of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech.

Michigan has absolutely no justification for any kind of compromise. There was no semblance of a contest there since only one person’s name was on the ballot. That’s just irredeemable, especially one that’s resupinate. Seat the delegates but don’t let them vote.

  • * Was there a Limbaugh effect in Indiana on Tuesday? It’s actually hard to say for sure.

    The fact we’re asking that question gives Rush what he wants. He’s the tip of the festering pimple of intolerance.

  • This whole “Operation Chaos” thing is a big reason why I’ve never been a fan of open primaries except for nonpartisan offices where party affiliation isn’t an issue. I hope that states who have them now will consider changing them to closed primaries to prevent this kind of vote tampering in the future.

  • Clearly that Obama t-shirt-wearing man sabotaged the sound system to prevent Senator Clinton from carrying her victorious message to West Virginians. Any guesses as to what his race was? Hint: His face is probably as black as his heart.

  • Dale

    While it doesn’t change your argument, several Democratic contenders didn’t get the paperwork in to remove their names from the Michigan ballot. Barack did, so his name wasn’t on the ballot.

  • Assuming Obama is the Democratic nominee, he’ll give his acceptance speech at the convention on August 28 — 45 years to the day of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech.

    Wow. MLK would be proud!

    Re: #4, that is too sweet:

    The stunning admission [of the affair] comes exactly a week after the Republican politician was busted for drunk driving in Alexandria, Va. presumably on the way to visit his mistress and their young child.

  • In Indiana, 10 percent of Democratic primary voters described themselves as Republicans…and they went for Clinton by eight percentage points – WashPost

    in Indiana, six in 10 Republicans who supported Clinton on Tuesday said they would vote for presumptive GOP nominee John McCain over Clinton in the fall – Wash Post

    OK – 10% x 54% (54-46 would be an 8% diff) x 60% (those who voted for Clinton, but plan to switch to McCain in the GE. Result – 3.24% of all voters. But since Clinton only got 51% of the total vote, this means that 6.5% of her support came from non-supporters. Another exit poll showed even greater influence, though this one restricts the Limbaugh effect to Republicans, and the other included all party affiliations.

  • Assuming Obama is the Democratic nominee, he’ll give his acceptance speech at the convention on August 28 — 45 years to the day of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech.

    Now that would be truly wonderful. As someone old enough to have been politically-aware back then, I have to say I wasn’t sure I’d ever live to see the day I was supporting and voting for a viable African-American candidate for President.

    Perhaps I will live long enough to vote for the first viable female candidate for president, one who proves gender equality has arrived by getting to that position the same way Obama did: on her own merits, rather than by the traditional female path to power – marry a powerful man and stick with him regardless.

  • Seat the delegates but don’t let them vote.

    Huh? What does the term “seat” mean in this context if it doesn’t refer to the ability to vote?

    I think the compromise is okay, however, it doesn’t really provide an incentive for other states to play a similar game in 2012. This is one area where I think the GOP actually had a decent idea: those states get to send their delegates but they only get 50% of their votes. it steals the GOPs thunder in the general election (i.e. they won’t be able to run ad after ad in MI and FL telling them that the Dems don’t want their votes) and it simultaneously gives those states some part in the process but still penalizes them. it also sets a good precedent: break the rules and we will take away 50% of your votes.

  • “The Michigan state party’s executive committee voted to submit a proposal to the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, to send 69 delegates for Clinton and 59 for Obama.”

    If I were on the Rules and Bylaws Committee, I would vote against this proposal.

    If Hillary Clinton gets a single delegate more than Obama out of Michigan, then she would benefit from breaking her signed pledge not to “participate” in the Michigan election (leaving her name on the ballot when she could have removed it is “participating”) and Obama will be punished for honoring this pledge. In addition, Michigan will not have been adequately penalized for moving their primary up before Super Tuesday since the results of this “election” would be reflected somewhat by their proposal.

    50/50 is the only fair way to distribute the Michigan delegates. Hillary doesn’t benefit from cheating, Obama isn’t punished for honesty, and Michigan doesn’t benefit from breaking DNC rules and seeking to dilute the influence of minority voters in Nevada and South Carolina.

  • Jenna,

    …Michigan doesn’t benefit from breaking DNC rules …

    if they get their full delegation/votes then how are they being punished? I.e. what’s to stop other states from doing this in 2012 and beyond?

  • Howard Wolfson on MSNBC: You can’t win if you can’t compete in West Virginia and I don’t understand Senator Obama’s decision to ignore the state.

    So basically, Hillary deserves the nomination because she’s going to win West Virginia easily. Damn, I hate these people for constantly insulting my intelligence. There’s always a new reason why she should win, and it’s always pathetically illogical.

  • “A family source close to Fossella’s wife, Mary Pat, told The Post that the humiliated mother of their three children may soon leave him.

    “She’s not going to be standing by her man,” the source said.”

    From the NYPost story.

    Good for Mary Pat, if it’s true! “Standing by your man” is often very overrated!

  • Edo wrote, “…if [Michigan] get[s] their full delegation/votes then how are they being punished?”

    I’m not sure I understand the question.

    If you’re asking about the scenario where the delegates are divided 50/50 and then seated, they’re being punished because the results fo their primary was meaningless.

    Michigan’s goal for moving up the primary was to have the kind of influence over the final nominee that traditionally goes to Iowa and New Hampshire. (Remember that the purpose of the DNC rules was to allow IA and NH to maintain their traditional roles in the primary process, but to give minorities a larger voice in the final outcome since IA and NH contain mostly white people. So, the DNC allowed only NV, which has a large Hispanic population and SC, which has a large black population, to go before Super Tuesday as well). If the delegates are, in any way, allocated based on the result of that primary, then Michigan is rewarded for breaking the rules and other states might be inspired to do the same.

    On the other hand, if delegates are split 50-50 and then seated, then Michigan would be participating, but would essentially have no influence in the final outcome. That’s the punishment.

    Again, the MI proposal described above would still reward them for their misbehavior. The DNC should not accept this proposal.

  • Jenna said:

    “50/50 is the only fair way to distribute the Michigan delegates. Hillary doesn’t benefit from cheating, Obama isn’t punished for honesty, and Michigan doesn’t benefit from breaking DNC rules and seeking to dilute the influence of minority voters.”

    I agree. Because there are only two candidates, left, each one gets a split of the votes.

    Netiher candidate benefits (as far as I’m concerned, there was no MI primary because they ignored the rules. We can argue over the merits of the rules and the system, but the bottom line is, both candidates agreed to abide by the DNC directives.), but the votes are still counted.

    This way there is no disenfranchised voters in MI at the convention and at the same time, because of the split both candidates are not penalized for following the the DNC rules.

    Any proposal that involves seating and counting delegates towards the nomination based on the events that didn’t involve campaigning on the part of one candidate, or if their name wasn’t even on the ballot, is in effect rewarding that state for its bad behaviour. I’ve yet to see a reasonable and fair argument on why MI should be allowed to flout the DNC rules.

  • I know, why don’t we take away the results of the votes in YOUR state? If that were the rules, wouldn’t that still piss you off, especially if the results would certainly be a game changer?

    The decision to move FL ahead of 2/5/08 was made by a Republican state legislature and Governor. To listen to Obama and his followers, you would think the 1.8 million voters were at fault and should be punished.

    Shame on him, and shame on anybody who thinks DISENFRANCHISEMENT is proper punishment!

    After Gore winning the popular vote in 2000 but losing the GE, democrats should not be willing to award the nomination to somebody with less overall popular support and instead decide based on disproportionately alloted delegates.

    3 scenarios are going to be laid out for super delegates to consider, and if Hillary wins 2 of 3 she should be nominated, period.

    1. popular vote including FL (MI is questionable)
    2. winner-take-all scenario, and/or GE electoral vote tally
    3. total delegates

  • In case you all forgot, the super delegates were created to keep us from suffering another embarrassing defeat ala McGovern, Dukakis, Kerry.

    It is their job to consider things like popular vote and Electoral Maps.

    Super-delegates know who the stronger candidate is, and they want to nominate her without offending people who support Obama.

    I think they will have to consider how much support he has lost among blue collar white folks since Wright, Ayers, Dhorn, Rezko, Bittergate, etc.

    If not, then hello President McCain.

  • Are you implying that Obama supporters sabotaged Clinton’s event? Or are you implying that Clinton’s team should have vetted the vendors supplying services to the event to make sure they weren’t Obama people — and isn’t that something Bush would do? Seems to me Clinton is showing that she isn’t anything like Bush since she can tolerate dissent. Don’t you think it is a bit childish to interpret technical glitches of the sort that happen all the time as some sort of symbolism?

    You know, you guys needle the Clinton supporters and then wonder why she doesn’t quit. Her supporters don’t want her to quit and they keep funding her. In part they do that because they dislike you guys so much and don’t want to join forces with people like you. And Steve, I include you in that pronoun. These pissy little new items are beneath you and irritate the heck out of Clinton’s supporters, who are roughly 50% of voters (more if you look at solely Democrats). I hope your fun is worth it.

  • Here is a scenario you may not have considered, but you’d better believe the superdelegates are thinking about. McCain is taking a hit for his party because no Republican will have much of a chance in this election following on Bush’s heels. More credible candidates stayed away from the Republican primaries in droves because they didn’t want to be tainted by a likely defeat in future presidential elections. If Obama is elected, he may serve a lackluster 4 years during which he has trouble accomplishing any across-the-aisle unity and can get little accomplished. After 4 years, someone like Chuck Hagel beats him and we’re back to another 8 years of Republicans. In contrast, Hillary has demonstrated a greater ability and willingness to work across the aisle, plus she knows how to broker power and will have solid accomplishments. An alternative is that she encounters the same frustrations as Obama in office and doesn’t run for a second term, but a seasoned and more experienced Obama (perhaps after holding a cabinet seat) is ready to run in 4 years against someone like Hagel (without the handicap of his own lack of performance to weigh him down).

  • “The decision to move FL ahead of 2/5/08 was made by a Republican state legislature and Governor.”

    Wrong.

    Every Democratic legislator in Florida voted to move the primary up, and subsequently, the Florida Democratic Party defiantly chose to hold the election before Super Tuesday even though they could have moved the date back. This wasn’t a Republican v. Democratic issue down there. It was a state pride issue. In fact, the Democratic legislative leaders in the Florida House were openly mocking the DNC for their threat to punish Florida if they moved the election up.

    Of course, this has been reported ad nauseum, but that doesn’t stop Hillary and some of her surrogates (I saw Pat Schroeder on TV saying the same thing) from repeating the falsehood that “the Republicans did this to them”. It’s totally false.

    Floridians are right to be angry, but they should direct their anger where it belongs…at their Republican and Democratic state legislators and the Florida Democratic Party.

  • it steals the GOPs thunder in the general election (i.e. they won’t be able to run ad after ad in MI and FL telling them that the Dems don’t want their votes)

    Come ON! This whole MI/FL non-issue (to anyone other than political junkies like us or desperate Clinton supporters) will mean ZILCH however it is resolved.

    Get real. You are saying that a substantial number of voters in these states are going to say the following:

    Republican policies have put my job at risk, my house at risk, maybe even a relative’s life at risk if they are serving in Iraq. I’m scared to death of getting sick, because my insurance company’s policies are so complex even my doctor doesn’t understand them — again because of the Republicans. If I’m gay, an atheist, or a Muslim (and there are a LOT of Muslims in Michigan) Republicans have made it plain that I am a ‘second-class citizen’ (and even if I’m a non-Orthodox Jew or non-evangelical Christian they don’t like me very much). I voted for (in Michigan) a Democratic Governor and two Democratic Senators.

    The Republicans are running a nearly senile panderer who has taken both sides of half the issues that matter to me, and consistently the wrong side on the rest. The Democrats are running the most charismatic candidate since JFK.

    But none of this matters. I’m voting for McCain because a bunch of delegates I don’t know — whose names I wouldn’t recognize if I did know them — weren’t seated at a convention I wasn’t going to turn off a Tigers game to watch.

    Yeah, right!

    I know people sometimes vote for silly reasons — that’s what gave Dubya his two terms. (Barely, always remember that. Despite incumbency, a War that hadn’t gone totally sour, gay bashing and Rovian dirty tricks, Bush beat Kerry by less than 2%, with a lot of ‘help’ from Ken Blackwell.) But if people were as dumb as the above implies, the WBE would have won both NC and Indiana with double-digit margins on the gas tax idiocy alone.

  • “[Hillary’s] supporters…keep funding her.”

    After reading Greg’s post blaming the Republicans in Florida for moving up the primary and some of Mary’s comments like the one above…it’s no wonder some of these people continue to support Hillary. They’re seriously misinformed/uninformed. It’s almost as if they sit around watching Fox News all day.

  • Asking a supporter of another candidate to turn his t-shirt inside out? How very Bush league.

  • Her supporters don’t want her to quit and they keep funding her.

    So well that she’s drowning in debt. Is her never-ending phalanx of supporters as incompetent at completing donations (as opposed to pretending to make them) as she is at running a campaign?

    • Comments are closed.