Would Obama have coattails? Do superdelegates care?

March 13, 2008

Bobby Bright, the three-term mayor of Montgomery, Alabama, didn’t have a party affiliation, and when Rep. Terry Everett (R) announced his plans to retire, both parties pursued Bright to run for the seat. Bright chose to run as a Democrat — despite the fact that Alabama’s 2nd district is pretty solidly Republican — in part because he thought Barack Obama would boost African-American turnout, and he wants to ride the coattails.

It’s obviously not just Bright. The subject is apparently a hot topic of conversation in Democratic campaign circles.

Democratic lawmakers are becoming persuaded that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) would have a more positive impact on other Democrats on the November ballot than Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

Obama’s advantage over Clinton would be most pronounced in the Southern and Western states President Bush carried in 2000 and 2004, say lawmakers interviewed by The Hill. In total, 32 members of Congress from these “red states” have endorsed Obama. Twenty-two lawmakers from those states have backed Clinton.

Obama will “bring new people into the process in Southern states, there’s no question about it,” said Rep. James Clyburn, the House Democratic whip from South Carolina. “In these Southern states he’s bringing out more people, young people, African-Americans. They’re being energized by him.”

Clyburn, who has stayed neutral in the primary, said Obama at the top of the ticket would “certainly” do more to help other Democratic candidates, citing South Carolina and Mississippi specifically…. A Southern House Democrat who faces a difficult reelection this year said Obama “has the potential to bring more folks to the polls and swell the ranks of Democrats.”

This is a relatively common sentiment, and has been mentioned by candidates in “red” states on more than a few occasions. (The Hill noted, “Obama has picked up congressional endorsements from Georgia, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, North and South Dakota, Mississippi, Kentucky, and West Virginia. Clinton has not collected congressional endorsements from any of these states.”)

There is, however, a catch.

The Dallas Morning News did an interesting analysis of the Democratic primary in Texas last week.

More than 80 percent of Democratic voters in the Texas counties where Mrs. Clinton had her largest victory margins went on to vote in the U.S. Senate race, the leading statewide contest on the ballot after the presidential race. By contrast, only 71 percent of voters in Mr. Obama’s strongest counties did.

In Dallas County, where Mr. Obama got nearly two-thirds of the vote, the falloff was nearly 30 percent. […]

The numbers suggest that many Obama voters were drawn singularly to him and might not return in the fall if he’s not the nominee — blunting the flood of new voters who Democrats hope will help revive the party in Texas and sweep it into the White House. […]

“To get these people to return to the polls in November, the odds are much better if Barack Obama is the nominee,” [Obama volunteer Glenn Smith] said.

Maybe, but if Obama’s fans are just showing up for Obama, and aren’t necessarily going to back down-ballot Democrats in large numbers, then the coattail effect will be of little value.

The key, then, if Obama is the nominee, is for him to make down-ballot victories a high priority over the course of the year. As Kevin Drum noted the other day:

[M]y first guess is that Obama isn’t doing a hard sell on the Democratic Party right now because he doesn’t have to. He’s running in a Democratic primary, after all. However, that will all change when the convention is over, and I imagine that after Labor Day he’ll be pretty effective at convincing his fans to vote for downticket Democrats.

That’s my hunch, too. If superdelegates take this into consideration, it’s another factor that might affect the nomination fight.

I think the SUSA 50-state said it all. That map, outside the South, was much lighter shades of pink and darker shades of blue with Obama at the top. If you figure that he keeps the margins tighter in states that he loses and wins bigger in the states he wins, the effect will be rather great down ballot. If we could get an extra Senate seat a 5-7 more in the House with him at the top over Clinton, this seems like a rather easy sell.

Oh, and I don’t like the Clinton-Shrum-Penn 17-state strategy. We need to expand the map. Living in Florida, I’m not sure I can handle all the friggin’ swing-state talk again.

  • So he’s running as a non-partisan in a partisan primary, but will turn into a full-throated partisan in the general election? I have a bit of trouble seeing how that makes sense.

  • I’d say that Obama’s emphasis on “we” and not “me” over the course of the campaign makes it really obvious that he will put emphasis on voting down-ballot. I’m a little disappointed in people who come out only to vote for presidential candidates – maybe they didn’t know enough about who was running for Senate to trust their own choice – but if “we” are going to change the way things work in Washington, it won’t happen if we don’t educate ourselves about the rest of the ticket. We can’t pull the lever for Obama and then think that we’ve taken care of our responsibility.

  • in part because he thought Barack Obama would boost African-American turnout, and he wants to ride the coattails.

    I thought we decided yesterday that this kind of thinking was racist.

  • Aaron–he doesn’t have to become a full-throated partisan to simply bring the Dem in question with him to one of his rallies, have the guy introduce Obama, have Obama praise this guy, endorse him, cut him an ad (like w/ Foster), have his volunteers pass at the polls pass out Obama stuff but also mention this other guy’s name, etc etc.

  • I thought we decided yesterday that this kind of thinking was racist.

    No, Just Me, we decided (I believe) that suggesting Obama wouldn’t be where he is now if it wasn’t for some special treatment he got as a black man is racist.

  • Look at the recent IL-14 special election in the house, Denny Hastert’s old seat, to see how effective Obama’s coattails are. He campaigned for, even did a commercial for, Bill Foster who won handily in a VERY red district.

  • Maybe, but if Obama’s fans are just showing up for Obama, and aren’t necessarily going to back down-ballot Democrats in large numbers, then the coattail effect will be of little value.

    True, but if they aren’t at the polls at all, then it’s a fact there will be no down ballot boost.

    I would’ve scoffed at this a while back. I was opposed to a Hillary candidacy because of her vote to send us to Iraq, but I listened to the now extinct level-headed Hillary backers who used to comment here and agreed to hold my nose and vote for her, should she secure the nomination.

    It was only recently that I decided to not do so, and it was because of Hillary’s mischaracterization of Obama as and ’empty suit’ and her praise of McCain’s ‘lifetime of experience’ that led me to do so. If she denigrates Democrats baselessly and praises an undeserving Republican, than she does not belong to the same Party I do.

    I would still vote for Democrats down ballot, but there must certainly be less engaged voters who feel the same way I do about Clinton who won’t bother showing up at all.

  • Just Me:

    A commenter at Ezra’s place says more eloquently what I was trying to say

    “As for the substance of Ms. Ferraro’s comments, I am still amazed at the outrage coming from the idiots who support Obama. I would hope that America is excitied and energized by the prospect of a historic first in the Presidency.”

    I am surprised at people who don’t get this. No one is complaining that Ferraro pointed out that Obama has benefited from being a historic first, or even her point that people unfairly promote an African-American historic first over a female historic first. The issue is her framing “Obama wouldn’t be here if he was white”. What could possibly be the meaning of that bizarre counterfactual other than to demean Obama and imply that he is nothing special, just a black novelty act. And it was no slip of the tongue, as she has said it at least twice that we know of, and said a similar thing about Jesse Jackson.

    Her comparison to herself as being chosen for being a woman is also extermely offensive. As she readily admits, she was picked because Mondale wanted to make history by picking a woman. The implication is that the millions of people who voted and caucused and donated to Obama voters are only interested in his being black. You can believe that many people feel good about being part of helping a historic first without diminishing his candidacy by reducing it to his race. The guy drew 15000 people to a Democratic primary rally in Idaho! And she thinks that’s the same thing as Mondale picking her because she was a woman.

    link

  • In Minnesota, I think having Obama at the top of the ticket benefits Al Franken in his U.S. Senate race against the GOP incumbent, Norm Coleman, in part because Obama is a much easier sell to those voters who voted for Jesse Ventura’s Independent bid for Governor against Coleman back in 1998. They won’t turn out for Clinton, and frankly the Democrats sure could use a pick up against Coleman, who is running for his first re-election. Typically if you win that, you’re in for life and it sure would be nice to flip it to the Democrats.

  • Michael,

    When Andrew Sullivan wrote gushingly over how Obama was the face of hope and change and talking about his blackness in a positive light–was that also racist?

    I have to admit I’m very confused about this topic. I don’t think he’d represent what he represents if he were white. The ability to vote for a black man as president is hugely exciting to Democrats. And of course it isn’t ONLY because he’s black, Ferraro didn’t say that.

    But we stray from the topic.

  • When Andrew Sullivan wrote gushingly over how Obama was the face of hope and change and talking about his blackness in a positive light–was that also racist?

    I’m not totally familiar with the Andrew Sullivan piece you’re describing, but by your description, no, but it could’ve been. I don’t think anyone serious would call you racist for noting, say, that Obama boosts black turn-out. It’s when someone diminishes Obama or his campaign by reducing him and it to being just about his race that we get a little incensed. If Sullivan’s piece didn’t look past his race towards his rhetoric, his record, his positions, etc, then it probably could’ve been basically racial, though I don’t know if racist is still the right word there (carries connotations of being prejudiced against the race in question, whereas we’re talking about a positive racial-bias here, in theory)

    And of course it isn’t ONLY because he’s black, Ferraro didn’t say that.

    She came pretty damn close

    If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.

    Like I said, what’s offensive and plainly race-baiting is taking the entirety of Obama’s campaign and support and reducing it to being about race. That’s what Ferraro did and then refused to back-track on. Saying “well, he does boost black turn-out” is not the same as saying, “he’d be a nobody if he weren’t black; he’s so lucky to have dark skin, and his millions of voters are just caught up in it”

    Ferraro wasn’t very far off from the snide remarks from an anonymous Clinton staffer saying her supporters were worried about work, his just wanted a hip black friend. That’s a little different from what’s being discussed in the article and, to be frank, it’s not a tough distinction to make.

  • Kevin’s right about what Obama is doing now, and you are right, Steve, that come this fall Obama will be campaigning for down-ballot Democrats.

    Of course Hillary doesn’t bring anything to the table. Democrats in red states know she won’t win there no matter what they do, which depresses enthusiasm and leads to voters who don’t show up – and we all know if you don’t show up you can’t vote for anybody. Obama’s campaign has in it the hope of victory even in red states, which heightens enthusiasm and gives people a reason to come out and vote, and in November that will translate to votes for all Democrats.

  • I think there is one more aspect to the dynamic that complicates life for superdelegates. They are where they are because they are expressly partisan – party elected and appointed officials, to be exact. Their “constituency” are partisan Democrats.

    So far, looking purely at primary voters who are registered Democrats, Clinton (today) leads, last I knew fairly safely.

    In the short term — the 2008 Presidential election — this is not only irrelevant, the fact that Obama is still ahead in total due to pulling I’s and R’s is a decent argument that he is the stronger general election candidate.

    In the very long term, if Obama can actually permanently convert those folks into active, committed Dems, then backing him is good for Superdelegates, too.

    But in between lies a problem. I’ve seen plenty of Obama supporters here and elsewhere online who vehemently argue that they are not and never will be about party. It is hard to doubt that there is a certain percentage of Obama support that is about him, individually (and in theory others like him were they ever to be discovered). If you are a Superdelegate, your own core constituency — Democrats — prefers Clinton. If you vote against them and Obama’s supporters don’t become “regular” Democrats to replace any D’s who are upset at your choice, you may have put yourself in electoral danger — a person without a base, if you will.

    This would be a lot easier for everyone if Obama were consistently winning among Democrats as he runs for the Democratic nomination. That remains one of the few decent arguments the Clinton supporters have with the Supers.

  • My understanding is that Obama has better coattails for Senate candidates and Clinton has better coattails for House candidates. In particular, Obama has outperformed Clinton in most of the states where there are opportunities for Dem Senate pickups, but Clinton has outperformed Obama in states where most of the opportunities for Dem House pickups are (particularly Ohio).

  • The Democrats needs Senate pickups more than House pickups. Hitting 60 (D)’s in the Senate really, really, really would be important and would impact health care reform prospects.

  • Just Me

    It goes something like this if an Obama supporter says something about AA turning out its politics but if a Clinton supporter points out that the race would be over by now if Barack was white then its racist.

  • Michael,

    When you describe it that way, I can how it is construed as racist. I’m not sure that is what she meant though. If he were a white man he wouldn’t offer the chance for Democrats to strike a blow against racial inequality. And that is a concept one can happily be caught up in. Hillary also benefits from being a woman in the same way. Striking a blow against gender inequality is also a Democratic ideal. Ferraro’s comments seem to me to be the comments of a sore loser, not a racist.

  • Tom Schaller touched on something related to this:

    In the past 18 months since my book was published, I feel like I have had to repeat nearly a thousand times that the “problem” of blacks not turning out to vote in the South–a “fact” that an Obama candidacy (at the top or the bottom of the ticket) would purportedly remedy–is not a fact at all, but rather a complete fiction that people do not take so much as five seconds to confirm before spouting off about as some sort of partisan problem for Democrats.

    Let’s be clear: According to Census Bureau estimates, in 2004 African Americans were 17.9 percent of age-eligible southerners (in the 11 former Confederate states) and they were–buckle-up here–17.9 percent of actual voters in 2004. That is proportionate, for starters. But when you consider that blacks are, on average, poorer and/or from a lower socioeconomic station than southern whites, it means that, controlling for status, blacks actually turn out at higher rates than comparable whites. Put another way, a middle class 40-year-old black plumber and husband and father of two is more likely to vote in the South than a comparable white plumber.

    And yet, we have to suffer careless assertions like this one from a Mississippi Sstate Rep. Earle S. Banks, who recently suggested to the L.A. Times that “the Illinois senator’s presence on the ticket could spur dramatic increases in black turnout. And that, he said, potentially could put Mississippi in the Democratic column for the first time since 1976, when it went to Jimmy Carter.”

    Oh, please. Which brings me to my second myth-busting point, which I wrote about here at the Prospect long ago: The blacker the state, the wider George W. Bush’s victory margins were in the southern states in 2004. Again, this is not because blacks fail to turn out (they do) or fail to vote Democratic (they do), but because the blacker the state the more Republican the white voters vote.

    Look: Obama may be able to push up black turnout a bit in the South, but it’s already pretty high and the Democratic share is already nearly maximized. The electoral black vote ceiling has not been reached yet, but Democratic presidential candidates are nearly bumping their heads against it already, Obama or no Obama.

    Link

  • The “catch” rests on one data point, Texas, and doesn’t account for the fact that the Senate primary was just plain boring.

  • I am one of those Texas voters who did not vote for any candidates besides Obama, and Noriega for Senate (to unseat Cornyn hopefully), but when I vote for President in November, I will be voting for the whole Democratic ticket. I imagine many others would do the same, so if Obama got voters to the polls in greater numbers than Clinton (who would probably send more Republicans to the polls), his coat tails would necessarily be longer.

  • citx, you voted for both the Presidential and Senate campaigns, so you are not one of the Obama supporters that the article is talking about. The article was talking about the gap between Clinton and Obama supporters who voted for a Presidential candidate and didn’t vote for a Senate candidate.

  • In fifteen minutes I’m going to the announcement of Cheryl Sabel who will run against Bright in the AL 2nd District Democratic primary. Sabel is running as the Democrat Democrats can vote for.

  • If we can manage to step back from the assumption that Obama will bring an increase in the AA vote come November, then it becomes obvious—painfully so to the Hillistines—that Obama could offer a set of coattails that reaches not only a greater Democratic venue, but a greater American venue.

    We must remember—and not lose sight of—the political fact that a sizable percentage of the republican rank-and-file have been effectively disenfranchised by their own party; by their current administration; by the “heir apparent.” No Independent—and no Republican, for that matter—will be required to “swear allegiance” to the Democratic Party when they step into that voting booth in November. They will, however, have the opportunity to not only support an Obama presidency, but the down-ticket candidates most likely to implement that presidency’s agenda.

    The perceived ideological view of an Obama presidency might even establish a new precedent for national politics. Current “common-sense” thinking would denote that the best thing for America is to put more Dems in Congress—but Obama’s coattails would offer a more out-of-the-box strategy; establishing the potential to replace GOP-enabling Blue Dog Dems with moderate Republicans who would be more likely to support the massive reforms and investigatory activities needed to not only repair the vast damages caused by the Bush years—but to hunt down, prosecute, and inflict final renderings of justice upon those individuals and entities guilty of inflicting—and profiting from—that damage. I, for one, would rather have a GOPer sitting in Congress who would fight for the progressive programs that the country truly needs, rather than a “poser” Dem* who embraces Bushylvanian thinking.

    *And YES, you Blue-Dog, Bush-enabling, DINO bastage, Limbaugh bootlickers—I’m talking specifically about you….

  • Supernondelegate, I have a hard time believing that the self-identified Democrats who bothered to show up and vote for Hillary won’t continue to identify as Democrats and show up to vote for Barack. Those voters are Democrats, they’re going to show up and vote for the Democrat. So I don’t think the Supers really are at risk of losing their support. But the non-political/independent Obama supporter is much less likely to show up if he’s not around. And it’s not out of any sort of “my candidate didn’t win, so I’m staying home” as much as it’s a feeling that Hillary represents the status-quo, politics as usual, everything that has kept them from bothering to show up in the past. Especially if she’s seen as doing something shady in order to secure the nomination, even if it’s legal and part of the system, I don’t see them showing up to vote.

    I haven’t voted in 12 years, and when last I was registered I was a libertarian. But I’ve recently registered (“decline to state”), and if Barack is on the ballot in November, even though I strongly believe that one vote doesn’t matter, I’ll go and vote for him, because fuck it, maybe he can change something. And judging by turnout, I don’t think I’m alone.

  • Thats right. I love Obama. Why is that? Because the man can’t lose. He is a Politically Correct dream. He can call any white who doesn’t vote for him a racist. Forget about the black vote 92% advantage, they can’t be racist. Anyone who mentions Obama’s race or color is a racist. As an Obama supporter I am the most self righteous person who ever lived. Doesn’t matter if I ever laughed at a joke about a minority or ever made a comment about them. I vote for Obama, I am on the high road while you racist, stupid, ignorant bastards who vote for a white boy or girl. Doesn’t matter that his policies are a carbon copy. Doesn’t matter if his speeches are copied word for word. Hell doesn’t matter if Obama actually becomes president, because if he loses, because America is not ready for a black president. Obama has it made, I got it made because I am better than everyone else.

    Now just got to pick a running mate that will share my vision of change and inspired the voters like I have. Gee, wonder if George Lopez is available?

  • Just Me:

    That’s fair. I haven’t seen that interpretation, and I guess viewed in that way, reasonable people can disagree on it. Her doubling-down on the statement, though, and her history of similar statements (re: Jesse Jackson) make me dubious. However, I wouldn’t begrudge you for holding your ground; just ask that you’d agree, then, why these statements would be dissimilar in kind to the ones above, about black turn-out.

  • Steve @ 24

    I, for one, would rather have a GOPer sitting in Congress who would fight for the progressive programs that the country truly needs, rather than a “poser” Dem* who embraces Bushylvanian thinking.

    Then you, for one, are naive.

    Even the most moderate R’s still case an R vote on the very first vote of the session: the vote to organize the chamber.

    At the end of the day, that is the only vote that counts.

    Lose that vote, and we lose all of the committees, all of the subpoenas, the ability to control debate, the much larger bully pulpit, etc. Give that vote to the other side and they can do all of the evil things the Republican Congress did to Clinton, or give steroids to all of the evil things they manage to do in the majority even today.

    Independents don’t get how the system works, or they foolishly think they have it in them to change the system.

    Party Matters.
    Vote Democratic. And only Democratic.

    The worst Blue-Dog or even Bush-Dog is better than the best Republican. If the “moderate” Republican wants to show they are not a freaky nutjob, let em change parties and caucus on the side of the angels. But until they do, vote em out.

  • I think my discussion with “Just Me” is proof positive that Obama supporters can have good faith discussions with Hillary supporters and reach affable conclusions, with no hard feelings.

    I think “obama supporters” post is proof positive that such options are not always offered to actual obama supporters on this blog, or elsewhere.

    That’s not to say that we on the obama side don’t have our demagogues in our midst. But as Just Me demonstrated, if you want to have a good faith discussion, the first step is actually arguing in good faith, and then actually approaching your conversation partner with a legit open-mind.

    Comeback Bill and Greg would be well-served to follow that example.

  • @28

    While you’re right on substance, your tone is only likely to cause Steve and others to dig their heels in and ignore you.

    Which also matters.

  • I am in Lynn Woolsey’s district, and Lynn, unlike Hillary Clinton, knew from the start that invading Iraq was wrong. She was quite vocal in her opposition to Mr. Bush’s adventure. Ms. Woolsey’s position on the War is quite similar to Obama’s, and she has enjoyed some measure of national recognition because of her unwavering opposition. Yet in December Ms. Woolsey endorsed Clinton and Ms. Woolsey is a super-delegate. In February Ms. Woolsey’s district voted two to one in favor of Obama, yet she continues to endorse Clinton.

    Since the North San Francisco Bay Area is a rather prosperous and well educated district, I wonder why she believes she has more judgement than her constituents. If because of her support, and the support of others like her, Clinton is able to steal the nomination from Obama, it will be a tragedy for America from which we may not recover.

  • Well, if the organization vote is as all important as you say it is (and I agree it is), I would think you would want as many people on board with a straight party ticket as possible. And that would mean, you know, convincing people who disagree, not insulting or vilifying them. Maybe I’m crazy though.

  • I would think that those running down ticket in the 44 or so states the Clinton campaign has denounced as unimportant, both currently elected unpledged delegates and those running anew, have certainly noticed that Clinton has written their states off.

    It seems a very strange strategy to alienate the supers in so many states; but, hey, Mark Penn is a genius.

  • 26. On March 13th, 2008 at 12:32 pm, obama supporter said:
    Thats right. I love Obama. – – – – – – – – – – – – I got it made because I am better than everyone else.

    Superb! It’s a pleasure to read such a diatribe, ( an ironical or satirical criticism, Webster’s 9th Collegiate Dictionary), Bravo! To think that many critics have said that in America, the art of satire
    is dead! Please copy and paste the above essay many more times! Always a welcome relief!
    DC

  • ItOV—consider my heels “dug in.” Far too much of what has gone wrong with this country has occurred under the loving caresses of “Party over Country.” Newt Gingrich was able to raise up the “Contract with America” because Dems spent years—and years—and even more years putting “Party over Country.” America has suffered over 7 years of heinous damage at the hands of the Bushylvanians who, in line with your mantra, put “Party over Country.” War profiteers like Halliburton exist because of “Party over Country.” Skim artists continue to rake in heinously obscene profits from Katrina, because of “Party over Country.”

    To even suggest that “the Party” is more important than the country is not only incredibly inane, it is a politically defeatist philosophy of suicidal proportions. It is the “closed-tent” policy of the Clinton campaign effort—and that policy is part-and-parcel with the fact that Obama not only leads the race to the nomination, but will also win the nomination.

    Likewise, the rejection of that “closed-tent’ mindset is a political strategy that Karl Rove himself—not even a thousand Karl Roves—could ever hope to defeat. You cannot define a thing until you establish what the parameters of that thing is—and an open tent—a tent with no walls—is a tent without parameters.

  • What’s remarkable about Obama’s campaign is that he has obviously mastered the art of bottom-up community organization and scaled it on a national level. He has a million contributors.

    This bodes well for the national election. I predict substantial coattails.

    Also, I hope this same organizational energy can bring about healthcare reform.

  • Hey, Dennis_D, I thought that coat tails could extended a bit beyond the Senate, and I am not sure about your primaries, but in in mine there were probably 15 or so other races that I did not vote in. The point is, come November, I, like probably quite a few other Dems in this red county, will be voting the whole, straight democratic ticket, trying to get dems elected nationally, statewide, and locally. Now, them’s some coat tails.

    • Comments are closed.