Andrew Switcheroo

Joe Andrew, who formerly served as DNC Chairman (and Indiana Democratic Party Chairman before that) has switched his endorsement from Senator Clinton to Senator Obama.

The recent Indiana endorsements might not be enough deliver a win, but they are important in a larger sense.  Because due to proportional delegate allocation, winning isn't as important as closing gaps. 

More importantly, this signals momentum nationwide.  It's clear that there is a domino effect, in that endorsements from Supers are encouraging other Supers to come out and declare.

It is likely that this trickle of endorsements will continue and that this will end by Memorial Day.

 

Comments

[Elizabeth]

Is Memorial Day when you will make your preference known, Mr. Super? Sounds like a great plan to me.

Mr. Andrew's letter to other superdelegates is a great read (this is from Politico).

Joe Andrews Letter to SuperDelegates:
"My endorsement of Senator Obama will not be welcome news to my friends and family at the Clinton campaign. If the campaign's surrogates called Governor Bill Richardson, a respected former member of President Clinton's cabinet, a "Judas" for endorsing Senator Obama, we can all imagine how they will treat somebody like me. They are the best practitioners of the old politics, so they will no doubt call me a traitor, an opportunist and a hypocrite. I will be branded as disloyal, power-hungry, but most importantly, they will use the exact words that Republicans used to attack me when I was defending President Clinton.

When they use the same attacks made on me when I was defending them, they prove the callow hypocrisy of the old politics first perfected by Republicans. I am an expert on this because these were the exact tools that I mastered as a campaign volunteer, a campaign manager, a State Party Chair and the National Chair of our Party. I learned the lessons of the tough, right-wing Republicans all too well. I can speak with authority on how to spar with everyone from Lee Atwater to Karl Rove. I understand that, while wrong and pernicious, shallow victory can be achieved through division by semantics and obfuscation. Like many, I succumbed to the addiction of old politics because they are so easy."

[Kasturba]

Andrew letter (see link) is pretty impressive.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/A_preemptive_strike_from_Andrew.html

[Dave]

There does seem to be a change in momentum given the rate of endorsements we've seen in the last week or 2. Forgive me if you've already addressed this, but I'd be curious about your personal thoughts on when to declare, mrsuper. Obviously, it might change, but I think the thought process from a personal perspective would be interesting.

[heather]

Thank you for this blog. Its nice to be able to read about politics from a relatively neutral source. This is great thing. Maybe you can recreate it as MR DNC or something going forward....whatever you call it, keep blogging on dem politics please.

[The Grand Panjandrum]

By my count (using numbers from Real Clear Politics) Obama should have more than 1627 pledged delegates racked up after the May 20 primaries. That would be, at a minimum, be 50%+1 pledged delegates, thus clearing the way for SD's to make a move. It probably portends an Obama nomination, but by no means guarantees it. In other words since one candidate would have more the half of the pledged delegates, the remaining contests would only tell us how close that count will be.

So, yes, sometime shortly after the May 20 primaries any remaining undeclared SD's would most likely move to finish the process and allow the presumptive nominee get on with the GE.

[badger]

I think that Obama's recent pickups have been from interesting backgrounds. It's almost as if they're calculated to give no excuses to fence-sitters.

-So, you're a Freshman Dem or someone seeking higher office expecting a tough race in a purple district where you can't afford to alienate any portion of your base? Tell that to Baron Hill.

-So you're a tenacious advocate for women's rights in America and can't bear to shut down Hillary Clinton? Tell that to Rep. Capps.

-So, you're from a blood red district chock full of white voters with, shall we say, dated views on race in America? Tell that to Rep. Chandler.

-So, you already told Hillary you were on her side? In public? You'll be hearing from Mr. Andrew soon.

I'd add something for Braley and that farmer guy from IA, but you get the idea. All he needs now is to bag an AFL-CIO honcho.

[Elizabeth]

Your bias for Obama is obvious. It seems that for most of the superdelegates the race is really about OBAMA and not winning the WHITEHOUSE.

Interesting that you have not posted my earlier post. That's ok: "Judgment Day" is coming! And your judgment will prove flawed --just like the candidate you are not very cleverly stumping for.

Try and enjoy the next six months --because when McCain is elected --you will fade into frustrated and shamed obscurity!

This will be my last post --whether you choose to put it up or not.

[Mr Super]

Elizabeth - I removed your previous posts not due to your opinion, but due to the rancor and tone of the text.

[dimx]

Badger,

The Obama campaign is reading your comments- they just bagged an AFL-CIO honcho from Texas.

[Elizabeth W.]

I just want to clarify that I am the Elizabeth who supports Obama (I wrote the very first comment in this topic), not the Elizabeth who just wrote the nasty comment (comment #7). Just to keep there from being any confusion, I am going to change my name to Elizabeth W. (I considered "Mr. Elizabeth" in honor of Mr. Super, but that might have been too much!)

[Angry Vet]

Alot of heat out there from supporters of both sides. I hope we can all calm down enough in the long run to defeat the real enemies out there: Republicans.

Looking forward to the MS Special Election. Maybe we can steal a house race in the Deep South.

Overall, I think whoever our nominee is will blast the hell out of McCain. We have been executing a beautiful circular firing squad the last two months, and, at worst, McCain is merely tied with both Obama and Clinton nationally.

Just imagine how strong we'll be when everyone unites again?

[MrvnMouse]

Badger:

Wow, you totally just called it: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/A_Texas_super_for_Obama.html

AFL-CIO official, John Patrick, just called for Obama.

[TheSteve]

Heh, looks like this answers my post in the previous forum, Mr. Super. Thanks.

[John]

Interesting turn of events today. Momentum on superdelegates is favoring Obama slightly (5-4 net Obama gain according to The Page). Meanwhile, momentum in public opinion is moving toward Clinton (see today's Gallup tracking in the Dem. race and in the McCain matchups, and polling out of IN and NC). If the public opinion momentum against Obama keeps up, might some supers switch from O to C? Or are the announced supers sticking it out no matter what. Mr. Super, how many announced delegates are 'weak' supporters if the public polling moves strongly (in either direction)?

[Joe]

We still haven't seen any O->C supers that I can recall. Whatever story is going through the press (and it's definitely a hard one for Obama), it feels more like the supers want to end this fast.

In other words, bad news seems ironically good for Obama. Though I could be wrong and both camps may well have been saving 'undeclared' superdelegates to announce in order to defend them from bad news, etc.

Mr. Super, under what circumstances do you see yourself declaring? Have you privately contacted either camp? Or do you have to stay true neutral for political reasons?

[Nate]

Mr. Super has made me super happy today. Now I can focus on my schoolwork.

[Tony]

Mr. Super,

I know you've answered this before, in varying degrees. But to what extent will the electability argument be a factor? Simply put, how big a map can we make?

I think there are some fairly unrealistic expectations by Democrats on "turning" states. Certainly, a couple more states will be put in play.

That said, the goal for any Democrat shouldn't be who, it should be simply getting a Democrat in the White House. HRC has given us an opportunity to put the blue collar workers back in play. When was the last time the Democratic Party could actually say that? When was the last time we mobilized the labor vote as a voting bloc? This is a historic opportunity, to rewrite history over the past 3 decades. I find it hard to believe that Obama will put that populaiton in play, and the polling does seem to indicate that.

Obama supporters will argue that they can win without Ohio and Florida. They will argue that no Democrat has won the blue collar vote in recent history. Of course, to the latter, one would argue that we haven't had many Democrats in the WH. To the former, I would say we make our jobs that much more difficult.

This is about the future of the nation. Moreover, this is about the future of liberalism in America. Post-partisanship is a nice thing to say. It's nice rhetoric. But boy, this is a time in American history where we can, finally, push liberalism to the left. HRC offers that aggressive leader, and yet, her track record shows that she can also get the job done, reaching across the aisle, reaching out to constituent bases that often don't vote Democrat, and maintaining them. If SD's are as meticulous in their process as has been suggested, then one can see that independent support has been shifting towards HRC, while she has also maintained "core" voters. That's a winning combination.

Maybe Obama supporters are right. Maybe he is the Democratic George Bush (that is, an individual that argues post-partisanship and shifts once he gets in). I'm wary of taking that risk, although as noted, I'll vote for the Democrat. Yes, I do believe Obama will be the nominee, but I would hope the SD's make a more thought out decision than what appears to be a shirking of the responsibilities given to them, a responsibility to provide the party with the nominee best suited to winning the White House. Certainly, SD's must be aware of the fact that the McCain campaign, while wishing for the battle to continue, has strongly indicated they fear facing HRC (Dana Bash had comments on this, amongst others) in a GE and would prefer to face Obama.

[Tony]

A separate thought, Mr Super. Do you think any change would happen if HRC pulls off the double, and wins NC and Indiana? I'm not necessarily speaking relative to your views, but rather to the at large SD population. Certainly, the double is still very unlikely, but I am curious on your thoughts on that.

[Truth]

The calls for ending this primary soon because it is damaging the Democrats chance in the General is nothing short of a lie. It is just damaging Obama. All polls show Hillary beating McCain in the Electoral College General Election race and the trends show she has solidified her lead over McCain this past month. Obama's trend is that he was losing, started to make a comeback, but then reversed back to a losing streak.

Apr. 01 Electoral Votes: Clinton 203 McCain 304 Ties 31
Apr. 20 Electoral Votes: Clinton 289 McCain 239 Ties 10
May 01 Electoral Votes: Clinton 291 McCain 247

Apr. 01 Electoral Votes: Obama 205 McCain 324 Ties 9
Apr. 20 Electoral Votes: Obama 269 McCain 254 Ties 15
May 01 Electoral Votes: Obama 243 McCain 269 Ties 26

What the elected superdelegates are doing is far from the will of the people and it will show during their re-elections.

[suekzoo]

Truth,

What is the vote other than the will of the people?

[Truth]

Mr. Super. It is clear you will vote for Obama, so I think if you truly are interested in uniting the party you should list some key reasons how you came to that conclusion based on issues and actions. I constantly hear "hope", "change", "uniter", but not only are those not issues, they aren't even held up to be true under the magnifying glass.

To show you why I will not vote for a candidate based off these 3 slogans I present this:

"I also want to go to Washington to get some positive things done. It is going to require a new spirit. A spirit of cooperation."

"There's been too much finger pointing and too much name calling in Washington, D.C. I would like to unite this country to get an agenda done that will speak to the hopes and aspirations of the future."

"There is a difference between big federal government and somebody who is coming from outside of Washington"

Bush 2000. Let's not repeat history. There is always a change candidate.

[Nate]

The polls don't "all" show this. And the party doesn't decide it's nominee based on poll's 5 months away from the general before the nominee has begun campaigning against the Republicans. This is just inane, and Joe Andrew is right--this needs to stop.

Furthermore, I wonder where HRC would fall in those polls if she wrestled the nomination from the winner through a super-delegate coup?

[Nate]

Truth,

Your blatant disregard for Senator Obama's platform (which includes a laundry list of issues) is disingenuous. Go to www.barackobama.com and read the rather detailed and lengthy policy proposals and then come back here and make an educated argument against them.

Hope and Change is message framing--it is not his policy platform.

[laurie]

Hey Mr. Super,
I have been wondering if supers consider the depth of support for each candidate in their decision. I believe Obama now has nearly 1.5 million people donating to his campaign. It appears to me he has a much higher level of support from volunteers making phonecalls and canvassing as well.
A few weeks ago an email went out in the twincities about an organizing meeting for the next stage of the campaign and several hundred people showed up. I'm looking forward to registering new voters this summer and fall in hopes of turning MN solid blue. I just don't see a similar level of active support for Hillary. I'm curious about how volunteer numbers/hours compare if you have any data to pass along.

[Andrew H.]

Truth,

Your source does NOT reflect today's polling for Pennsylvania. Factor that in and it reads:

Obama 264, McCain 248, Ties 26.

By the way, Hillary could win FL, OH, and PA and STILL lose the general election. She has been behind recently in MI, WI, IA, CO, OR, and NH. If she loses those states then she can easily lose to McCain.

You could easily argue that in a way she would have a lot more ground "to defend" against McCain - compared to Obama.

It's easy for BOTH camps to cherry pick the data and the polls to their liking.

[MM]

If you still want comprehensive mathematical analysis on electability, I suggest you head over to http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

Basically, Clinton fares a little better than Obama in the battleground states of OH/PA/FL, but Obama does better overall because he keeps all the Kerry states AND flips a bunch of red states out West. All the polling and analysis is done now in the middle of a Party split, so both candidates would win in November when the party is united. Using "electability" as an argument for either candidate is disingenuous because we are so far away from November and polls taken now are simply not accurate.

This is all going to be over either May 21st (day after Oregon primary) or June 4th (day after SD/MT primary). Only two questions remain: 1) How will Hillary concede?; 2) Will enough supers come out for Obama to make a MI/FL seating meaningless?

[Sandra]

I do not think that Clinton can win Florida. This state has been trending towards the "red" column for quite some time, and it's only getting worse.

[Truth]

Not only have I read Barack's blueprint for change, but both his books. You truly don't understand that I was leaning towards Obama until I decided to research the candidates.

We can go over issues if you like, but I was looking Mr. Super's reason for his Obama vote considering how important his vote is.

But I will give an example of what I feel is many differences:

U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal by 2025. - Obama

- ... making permanent the 1.9 cent per kilowatt-hour tax credit for producing electricity from renewable sources;
-Provide tax incentives for families and businesses to install small-scale renewable energy such as rooftop solar panels; and
-Establish national "net metering" standards to ensure that families and businesses who install solar panels or other renewable energy resources can sell power back to the grid on fair terms

The difference in real detail on something like wind/solar is worlds apart. And don't get me started on the million solar roof and Clinton Global Initiative that shows where real solutions like solar panels got their boost.

So your calling me disingenuous is presumptive.

[Truth]

"By the way, Hillary could win FL, OH, and PA and STILL lose the general election. She has been behind recently in MI, WI, IA, CO, OR, and NH. "

I'm not cherry picking anything. The webisite I use takes polls and weighs purely mathematically, not by opinion. It shows her losing MI, WI, CO, OR & NH. The only difference is she is winning IA with it trending for her, not against. I have yet to find another website that has so much auto-daily info with a drill down view.

Earlier today I found the NC & IN trending toward Hillary by clicking on an Obama supoorter link right here.

Obama supporters might be the only people that see polls trending for Obama right now. Please be objective.

[Nate]

Truth,

Now you are just lying. You said, "I was looking [at] Mr. Super's reason for his Obama vote considering how important his vote is."

Mr. Super has not given a reason for voting for Obama, nor has he stated he will vote for Obama.

If you are referring to Mr. Andrew, then you are being disingenuous as well, because this one of many reasons he chose Barack Obama. The letter was very long and included many more arguments.

I'm not going to get into a flame war over this, but "hope" and "change" are great campaign frames for someone running against the Clintons, but to reduce his entire plan down to these is disingenuous and immature.

[Joe]

> We can go over issues if you like, but I was looking Mr. Super's reason for his Obama vote considering how important his vote is.

Sorry, but considering that Mr. Super is undeclared, I have to question your research ability a little here. He's said things that go both ways, and I suspect he's close to both camps.

But there's no getting past the fact that one needs delegates to win the nomination, and Obama has more of those. Sure, if supers defected en masse, it could change things, but I'm not seeing that.

As for polls, someone else posted this just above:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

I believe it shows Obama on the rise (and Clinton, as well) if you're asking how anyone could believe that. You may have read everything, but I'm not seeing how you take the facts you dislike into account even via token acknowledgment.

But what do I know? I'm only a member of one of the key swing demographics...

[Truth]

"Now you are just lying. You said, "I was looking [at] Mr. Super's reason for his Obama vote considering how important his vote is."

Because I run two businesses, I frequently get interrupted so I apologize for leaving out [for], not [at]. That was your perception. I could call you a liar for not seeing the original post.

“Mr. Super. It is clear you will vote for Obama, so I think if you truly are interested in uniting the party you should list some key reasons how you came to that conclusion based on issues and actions.”

Although there is a chance he may vote Clinton, I picture a snowball. Let’s not play naïve. Obama doesn’t need a greater number of pledges, he needs to cross a line which neither will without supers. I’d be willing to put money on the candidate that wins the popular vote. You didn’t want to get in a flame war, but you basically did by totally misrepresenting my view on mrsuper/issues … so moving on.

Show me where I dismissed http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ I did not see an Electoral College day by day link and found it more important to respond as quickly as I did using [one of many] examples as to why I prefer Clinton on issues. Because instead of offering a detailed (for a blog) example on what may help me honestly vote for Obama come November, it was assumed I never gave him a chance (a common Obama supporter tactic). I did refer to how I came up with the NC, IN poll via an Obama supporter link.

Andrew did not give an issue as to why he switched votes. He gave the unity and gas tax talk. As far as the gas tax thing goes, I do not know why Obama would talk about “a guy” that can’t get to a job interview because he can’t pay for the gas, but then not offer a short term solution. People can’t wait until 2025 to get a job. Obama just complained, which is one of the reasons I do not like him. Hillary never claimed the tax issue was a long term solution. I have a hybrid and ride a bike for most trips within a couple of miles. I did not decide to drive twice as many miles because the hybrid made gas twice as cheap.

"We gotta go after the oil companies and look at price gouging"
Obama 5/2008 Truth ad

"politicians go through the standard responses: ... investigating price-gauging "
Obama 5/11/2006

So he is now pandering as well. Now on long, term energy solutions, Clinton destroys Obama in words and action.

You can’t claim the gas tax as an issue if Obama has never had a counter issue on the subject.

[Nate]

I can't believe you are harping on the gas tax, perhaps the most blatant pandering of this entire campaign. Economists and environmentalists have all agreed Clinton's proposal is bad policy, will do little to lower the price of gas (if anything at all), and will have no likelihood of passing since Nancy Pelosi has come out against it.

That this is the issue you cite seriously undermines your argument.

[Joe]

I'm not sure if you responded to me in there, but it has a nice poll on the right hand side, a little ways down that shows electoral vote projections. I think it shows that Obama has long been stronger, that the scandals really have hurt him, but that he's still stronger overall.

> I do not know why Obama would talk about “a guy” that can’t get to a job interview because he can’t pay for the gas, but then not offer a short term solution.

Well, that's the problem. A gas tax is counter-productive. It won't actually help consumers so much as oil companies which have a flat supply and would get rising demand. In non-economic terms, that means they raise the price. Yes, Clinton wanted to tax them to make up the shortfall. But where do you think their money comes from? It comes from their customers and they will take it from their customers. The demand is inflexible. You can't just say "I won't fill up my tank ever again" because you still have to drive places.

In short, I'm saying that it's a typical election year soundbyte program: it sounds good, but every single economist who has reviewed it (and who isn't connected to a campaign) says it's rubbish. Even as a short-term solution. Yes, Obama voted for one. But that's how he knows it doesn't work. It's failed before. I don't think this is a good time to try it again.

And even if they did, it won't pass in time. So I'm all for coming up with fixes. I just expect them to work. It really hit home with me that he's the ONLY candidate willing to say that's a bad idea when it objectively is one.

With the economy as a major issue, this isn't the sort of issue the party can ignore. He can't counter with "flip-flopping", or you can point to him voting for the Iraq war as a flop. He can't say it's bi-partisan because Clinton supports it, because connecting himself to her doesn't help him any and can undermine his already shaky conservative credentials with the remaining loyal members. The Republican party is split right now between the more independent minded folks and those who remain loyal. Divide those two camps against each other the way Clinton & Obama are and any Democrat could win this election.

[Lynne B]

I won't argue the electability of one of these candidates over another, people do that all day on huffpo, but I think people need to adjust to the reality of Obama being the nominee. Look at how many supers are DNC members; what is the likelihood they would ignore the rules they created? It just makes no sense... Also, can the dems afford alienating how many million AA voters? and young voters? I don't see it happening. The MSM spins this constantly, regularly creating some new obscure scenario by which Hillary could secure the nomination, but they know this is over, they just have to fill air time with 'make believe stories'. Hillary would do well to let this one go, my guess is she would be the next Supreme Court Justice appointed and to me that is just about as important as being POTUS

[Truth]

Nate, this will be my last response to you.

“If you are referring to Mr. Andrew, then you are being disingenuous as well,”
Nate

“Andrew did not give an issue as to why he switched votes. He gave the unity and gas tax talk.”
“You can’t claim the gas tax as an issue if Obama has never had a counter issue on the subject.”
Me

“That this is the issue you cite seriously undermines your argument.”
Nate

This is at least the second time you have totally represented my remarks. You say you don’t want to “flame” (you must be familiar with being called that), but you are doing classic flame tactics. I asked why Obama brought up the cost of driving to work (not a luxury) without offering anything more than a complaint. This is not telling it like it is. It is just complaining. The issue *I* talked about (not Andrew) was solar/wind and I did so in detail (for a blog). If you want to know how mandatory health care systems fare, watch the PBS special “Sick Around the World” as a quick 1 hour commentary on why Obama’s plan is the wrong one. Hillary’s Senate record shows Health Care is her theme. Government oversight is Obama’s. Both are great, but Health Care is a solution while oversight is a means to a solution. I have yet to hear you explain an actual issue in which Obama fares better.

Because Obama supporters have such an incredibly hard time coming up with real issues, I will tell you something I could have liked about Obama
“Obama will turn the page on the Bush-Cheney diplomacy of not talking to countries that we don’t like. “
Even though he might have been a little green on the subject, he had the right idea. But when it came time for him to stand up for his principles (Carter), he failed. Good words, bad action. I hold people like Carter and Sadat on a pedestal when it comes to brave diplomacy.

Phil Singer, a Clinton spokesman, said, "Hillary respects former president Carter but disagrees with his decision," adding: "She would not meet with Hamas without coordinating with Israel."

Spokesman Tommy Vietor said Obama "does not agree with President Carter's decision to go forward with this meeting because he does not support negotiations with Hamas until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements."

Hillary's response was actually better.

[Truth]

Joe, 538.com has been added to my bookmarks. However, if I had to choose between electoral-vote.com and 538.com, electoral-vote.com has proven results considering it started with the 2004 election with 3 algorithms to do some testing. One proved accurate and was used in 2006 to predict all the senate races. While 538.com looks comprehensive, it has yet to prove itself. I also asked for day by day electoral counts to spot the trend, like electoral-vote.com. Where do I check the 538.com electoral April 1 results? Electoral-vote.com is also organized better in terms of drill down as I have already stated. Both sites cite the decline in Obama’s share of the vote.

“With the economy as a major issue, this isn't the sort of issue the party can ignore.”

The problem is Obama is doing just that. Places like China will not get the relief, which is where the real consumption increase is generated. As I said before, it is flawed to think cheaper gas would make the average driver put more miles on their car. When I bought my hybrid, I did not drive more despite it being the equivalent of a $2/gal savings. In fact, I drove less (started biking again to cross town trips). If it increases sales due to fuel surcharges on products going down (either on the goods themselves or through company profit used for investment), then it will have created jobs or bare minimum, saved jobs.

[Kasturba]

Truth,

We can respectfully disagree with each other.

I agree that Clinton shold get a credit for the good aspects of her policies. Obama's policies are good too. Maybe some issues are more important to you than others. It comes down to different voters weigh what they care about differently. Also, I am not a single issue voter, so I look at the package deal.

Obama's take on transparency and ethics are much stronger. These are important to me. Hillary cares about health care. Also important to me, but her record in the 90s was not good. Her campaign management style, and history of health care policy, suggest to me that she is likely to be an ineffective President, even if she has reasonable policy.

Her recent statements both about the gas tax and Iran are about political expediency. The Iran statement is particularly shocking and very irresponsible for somebody who aspires to be President. It does not matter if you agree or not on the issue of Iran, a Presidential aspirant does not speak that way. We already have one buckaroo President. Do we need another? If the Republicans said what she said about Iran the press would tear them down.

Of the 3 campaigns still in discussion, 2 of them have imploded (McCain's last summer, Hillary's earlier this year). The Obama campaign has not, and I would argue has been run very effectively. The inexperience argument wears thin with this evidence.

The main argument that Clinton supporters make against Obama: he can't win in Nov. This seems to be more of a belief and not based on any reality to back it.

We have to see how it plays out for the simple reason that Presidential campaigns notoriously change in the last 6 months. Ask Bill Clinton, Bush, Kerry, and even Hillary Clinton and McCain. McCain is surprised he is the nominee, HRC is surprised she is not.

Again we can respectfully disagree. Lot of things can go right/wrong between now and Nov. We have to see how it plays out.

I respect people who vote for Clinton because they like her policy. But they do not accept that people can vote for Obama for similar reasons (for his positions on various issues like transparency, environment, international diplomacy). Unfortunately people cast Obama supporters as a follower of the personality. There is some of that, but Clinton's support among women relies heavily on that too, so it seems like a double standard.

Each of us gets to vote. We use it. Overthrowing the vote based on spurious arguments of electability of how things might play out in Nov is not going to go down well with thinking individuals who believe in the principles of democracy. Hopefully the Democrats can resolve this in a fair manner that does not run counter to basic principles of democracy and fairness.

Since this isn't quite the right forum for us to talk about these issues (I think Mr. Super wanted the site to be a place where he communicates with us about superdelegate issues) I am going to sign off. Best of luck with your decision.

[Judy]

Just wondering do the superdelegates read the national polls?

Gallup - 5/2/08 - National
Clinton 49% Obama 45%

McCain 47% Obama 42%

McCain 45% Clinton 45%

Rasmussen Poll - National - 5/2/08
Clinton 46% Obama 44%

Mccain 48% Obama 42%

McCain 45% Clinton 44%

Again, do the supers read polls?

[Joe]

> As I said before, it is flawed to think cheaper gas would make the average driver put more miles on their car.

What happens when you have a sale? You run out and fill up, right? Something like that happened in Phoenix a while back. I don't recall if it was a year ago or more than that, but one summer, there was a panic due to a refinery issue, everyone stocked up and we suddenly had gas lines.

There was no supply issue. I repeat, there was no supply issue. All that happened was unexpected demand due to people stocking up. Gas was available down in Casa Grande, which is just south of Phoenix. It was available everywhere else. But not Phoenix. We panicked and we drained the supply by all running out to fill up.

That's why I think that issue is so potent. I am tempted to write a letter to the editor raising that point, because I don't think there's anyone down here who doesn't remember that vividly. And I don't think there's anyone here who wants to repeat it.

I guess that AZ isn't a state the DNC wants to spend money on, but you might get some free press for an attack aimed right at him like that. Because I know it evokes a rather potent memory for me.

[Tony in MI]

Judy asks "Just wondering do the superdelegates read the national polls?"

I bet they do. Lots of them. Perhaps even

CNN April 28-30
Obama 46%
Clinton 45%

CBS/New York Times
April 25-29
Obama 46%
Clinton 38%

Everyone knows these numbers will change. Look at McCain vs Clinton:
http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Pres-GE-MvC.php

For most of the year, she trailed.

Look at McCain vs Obama:
http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Pres-GE-MvO.php

For almost a year, McCain trailed. And now, Obama has regained the lead by a slim 0.1% margin.

One more note about the polls. The two I mention above are based on 400+ voters. Another "poll" that the superdelegates will consider is the popular vote:

Obama: 14,448,640
Clinton: 13,935,278

This one has a larger sample size.

[Judy]

Tony,

I realize the CNN and New York Times are more accurate than Gallup and Rasmussen.

I should have known better.

[Tony in MI]

Judy writes "I realize the CNN and New York Times are more accurate than Gallup and Rasmussen."

I notice you didn't comment on the election results with more than 28,000,000 votes.

If you want to concentrate on Gallup, I believe you made an error. The 49-45 edge you cite was for the May 1 Gallup daily poll. The May 2 is 48-46.

If you look at the dailies for Gallup on http://www.gallup.com/poll/106966/Gallup-Daily-McCain-Moves-Point-Lead-Over-Obama.aspx you'll see that Obama has led Clinton most of the time since April 11, while Clinton has had a lead only for the past 4 days.

[Judy]

Again, I should have known better, Tony

We must not dare give out any information showing Hillary Clinton in the lead, or we will be attacked.

The popular vote issue was not commented on, because it is in debate right now with 2 states being denied their right to vote - against their Constitution rights.

[Kasturba]

Dear Judy,

Feel free to post polls that HRC leads in. I am sure the supers are monitoring the polls.

However, they can't come out for her now (when she is a couple points ahead), for the same reason that they did not come out against her when she was 10 points down for most of last month. They have to wait till there is a much more concrete reason than polls (which fluctuate a lot). It seems that they will have to let it run to the end and then see who has what in terms of votes/delegates/ etc. I think they have resigned themselves to June 3rd. I had first thought that NC/Ind might resolve things. I am not sure it will.

Maybe I am wrong about this, and mr super can comment.

[Judy]

Kasturba - thank you!

[Truth]

Joe, I don’t even like talking about the gas tax point because that is not the reason I am voting for HRC. It was brought up to counter the claim that Joe Andrew had “real issues” on which he based his decision.

However, applying the “What happens when you have a sale? You run out and fill up. is flawed and short sighted (like your candidate). First, you cited speculation, not price that caused your AZ dilemma. AZ: the same state that besides the no-brainer Clinton re-election vote, hasn’t voted DEM since 1948. For perspective, since Israel was re-created. 2008 being the best reason to be red.

1. Most Americans are on a fixed income. Monthly income April 2007 even though $/gal > $/gal. Gas has become a need more than want, so lower prices will not increase the need. People haven’t been able to buy gas for “pool parties” since the glorious Clinton Years.
2. $30 savings is incredibly disingenuous. My business pays for 1%+ fuel surcharges on most products purchased. My business pays about 7% fuel surcharges to ship out (both ends). Go to UPS.com and look up fuel surcharges. My business would save over $0.50 (just for ground shipping) per package shipped. We ship about 200 per day: 200x $0.50 = $100 per day. $100x6=$600/week. 13 weeks x $600 = $7,800. That means reinvestment in: savings, AP, payroll, etc. Economic expansion.
3. Real pandering is Obama making his “universal” health care plan semi-mandatory.

[Truth]

Kasturba,

I don’t believe government oversight (bureaucracy) is even on the radar of most top issue polls. HRC’s 90 fight for health care showed she was ahead of the curve and although she didn’t get her full plan passed (while not president) she has been slowly getting there piece by piece meanwhile. Reminds me of another leader on a different top issue, Al Gore. Obama is just pandering with his semi-mandatory plan.

If campaign style had anything to do with actual governance, W would now be the greatest president ever.

HRC is ineffective?
HC - Number of bills sponsored or co-sponsored that became law: 54
BO - Number of bills sponsored or co-sponsored that became law: 16 (one being the sale of nuclear fuel to India)

Diplomacy. The middle east has threatened to “push Israel into the sea” before it was even officially a state. Iran has continued that rhetoric. The 100% effective policy of Nuclear Deterrence (as long as you don’t use yours, we won’t use ours) is not irresponsible. I would call threatening to move without coordination of an actual nuclear state irresponsible. Everybody knows we tread lightly in Pakistan because it is a nuclear power. I’ve already pointed out that Clinton bested Obama with the recent Carter trip. Obama couldn’t even use words let alone action to back up his “talk to enemies” issue.

"for his positions on various issues like transparency, environment, international diplomacy"

I like Obama on government oversight (as long as it is not concerning himself I guess). I’m betting he will be better at this in the Senate than the Executive Branch.
.
I've already demonstrated her extreme superiority on the environment with actual issues and actions. Look at Hillary’s past actions on DARPA to stress non-military spending. Her reluctance on ethanol, which by the way is killing the Gulf Ocean life via increased fertilizer runoff via the Mississippi River. As an economic boon for the noble farmer it is great, except it might be creating the next bubble.

"but Clinton's support among women relies heavily on that too, so it seems like a double standard"

More like a 4.5:1 standard (race:gender).

"thinking individuals who believe in the principles of democracy"

I like how you used thinking. Democracy is popular vote. Republic is more like the primaries. I am extremely positive HRC will win the popular vote, just like Al Gore. Florida's votes were certified. Michigan - ask Gray Davis (CA) how hard it is to run against none of the above.

I agree the conversation is off topic, especially since my original comments were actually directed at Mr. Super. However, I would think a discussion of issues would be a refresshing change to most talk.

[Will]

I have a "radical" proposal for the gas-tax issue.

I agree with HRC to get more money out of these oil companies, but don't use it to lower the gas price, it's just creating more demand, and from basic economy, when supply stays constant and demand goes up, price goes up as well.

Instead, we should be looking at reducing demand.

So, here is what the government can do, short-term.
1. Make all public transportation free. Trains, subways, buses, etc. Taxis are not included.
2. Hey, you can go as far as making those Amtrak and Greyhound free as well.
3. Going further, the government can subsidize all bike rental shops as well. This probably will help America's obesity problems.
4. Going even further, how about encouraging people to do everything online? This is crazy though, since it creates an unfair advantage.
5. So where is the money coming from? Well, get it from what HRC is going to get from the oil company.

Ok, these doesn't help everyone. What about those truck drivers, farmers etc. They have no short-term alternatives, they are part of American industries and they are struggling. Well, the best thing is to give them is tax breaks. Tax laws are complicated though, since you need to get as detailed as possible, make sure there is no loop hole, etc.

Actually, getting more money from the oil company takes time as well.

The gas tax holiday is bad, because it's a "band-aid", it's creating more demand, it's not going to reduce prices on other consumer products. Why? Because the gas-tax holiday is relatively short for the whole manufacturing processes to complete. It takes time for the market to adjust their prices. And trust me, on the last day of the gas-tax holiday, all the gas stations will be packed with people stocking up creating a HUGE demand fluctuation, just like how USPS prepares for anticipated demands of "forever stamps", before the 1-cent price hike. Do you guys want to see what Costco and Sams' Club have been doing for RICE purchases?

Instead of creating all these unnecessary confusions and "distractions", just focus on reducing short-term demands, as much as possible.

Obama is right not to support the gas-tax holiday. He just needs to come up with his short-term solutions. Everyone's long-term solutions are more or less the same.

[Joe]

> However, applying the “What happens when you have a sale? You run out and fill up. is flawed and short sighted (like your candidate). First, you cited speculation, not price that caused your AZ dilemma. AZ: the same state that besides the no-brainer Clinton re-election vote, hasn’t voted DEM since 1948. For perspective, since Israel was re-created. 2008 being the best reason to be red.

Wait... you're saying the gas tax isn't an issue because AZ won't vote Democratic??? Last I checked, this was a nation-wide tax cut. That would create a nation-wide problem.

I don't need to debate you on economics. You tell me to look at all the recent polls (which show that Clinton only gains at Obama's loss), but won't look to all the people--on all sides of the field--that say the gas tax cut is bogus. 100% bogus. Cite me one economist, who has previously declared support for someone other than Clinton or McCain (Edwards is fine, but unknowns are not) and I'll take a look at their arguments.

And you say that like people won't fill up once a sale hits (or even more likely, once the sale is about to _END_), but that runs counter to everything I've seen.

But wait! You point out that we'll save more than $30 because of all the business use! So keep your story straight! Will people, or won't people have incentive to stock up on gas?

So you retort that Obama is... short sighted? I'm sorry, but you're looking at politics here, not issues. I care about issues. Yes, when politics makes itself an unavoidable issue (as with health care), you have no choice but to take it into account. I don't see that dire need here, except to defend a candidate's reputation, seemingly banking on the hope that uneducated whites don't understand economics. And it's true, they don't. I'm just one of the educated ones. I had to write a program to reduce fractions like 4/8 to 1/2 for my less-educated coworkers once. But that doesn't mean I'll support pandering, only that I know it works, and I get really, really pissed off trying to offset that, in the hope that it won't work any more once enough people make enough noise.

Thus, you must change the subject in your argument. After all, the gas tax _is_ a losing battle. So what about health care? Yes, Obama's plan is troubled. There are plenty of issues with making it opt-in. But what happened last time we tried it Hillary's way? I seem to remember a huge failure.

Aha! You might point out that Obama gave a gas tax holiday once! Right, but it failed. I would _LIKE_ a politician who learns from their mistakes, rather than trotting out the same, failed idea all over again.

Can we afford another health care failure? Honestly, can we? What's different this time that will make it easier to pass? You think the conservatives will NOT be up in arms when you have force them to pay for it, just because she's President Hillary instead of First Lady Hillary? I don't.

I'll take an unknown proposal over a known failure any day.