Baron Hill

Indiana Congressman Baron Hill's endorsement of Barack Obama is surprising, not because of who the Congressman backed, but in that he backed anyone at all.  As a Freshman member of the House, he seems to have more to lose than gain by picking a side.  In doing so, one might think that he risks alienating half of a political base that he will need in order to overcome strong Republican opposition in the fall.

In the political world, Indiana's southern most congressional district is known as "The Bloody 9th" because it is a swing seat that boots incumbents about as often as it elects them.  Baron Hill was first elected in 1998, lost in 2004, and was elected again in 2006 - with 50% of the vote.

This is larger than an endorsement - it's an important signal that even Supers who might otherwise see political risk are starting to find comfort in picking sides.  And if Wednesday's list of new endorsements is setting a pace, than we could be looking at this process ending sooner rather than later.

Comments

[Dave]

I would sure like to see more debate on the issues between the two. This so far has seemed like a beauty contest for the last couple weeks. I did finally fell a bit more interested when they gave the pros and cons about the Holiday Gas Tax. I do feel this would put a lot of workers in the unemployment line if passed. I tend to think this is being just a bit of pandering.
Although I am stating to see the light at the end of the tunnel. Just four and a half more weeks.

[Jim]

Good for him?

Is this an indication of your support, Mr. Super? hehe...

No matter who you support, I will say that while I hope you guys get on with the picking of the nominee, this blog has been excellent. Keep up the good work.

[TheSteve]

There definitely seems to be a domino effect in Super announcements this week, albeit a small one. Today will bring the added endorsement of Joe Andrew from Indiana, who's switching sides from Clinton to Obama. His message seems to be slightly less nuanced on the topic, however: "a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to continue this process, and a vote to continue this process is a vote that assists (Republican) John McCain."

What are things like from your perspective, Mr. Super? Are the undeclareds getting restless?

[Mr Super]

My remarks are not in regards to who he endorsed, but rather that he endorsed at all.

[Alicia]

http://thepage.time.com/2008/05/01/former-democratic-leader-switches-to-obama/

Joe Andrew, former DNC leader, announced that he was switching his support from Clinton to Obama and encouraged others to do the same to "heal the rift in our party." This also seems to be big news, correct?

[toni]

I hope more Supers come out sooner than later. Seriously, I can't believe some of the things people are saying and posting. It sounds like we have 3 separate parties. The conviction of support for each candidate is strong for a lot of people. This has been an emotional race no doubt.

[Dan_in_upstate_NY]

The Baron Hill endorsement is HUGE. His district will almost certainly go overwhelmingly for Clinton. (The bloody 9th, as Mr Super points out, is a real purple district--closely matched between D's and R's. However, with the exception of Bloomington, the district's D's are quite conservative.) So it is a big risk--both for who he picked, and for when he picked.

It's also a big deal because Hill got major personal support from Bill Clinton in his previous election attempts (fundraising, in-person appearances at rallies, etc).

The Joe Andrew endorsement & letter are also big news. (For those who haven't seen it, read here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080501/ap_on_el_pr/superdelegates)

[John]

Superdelegates have been announcing for Clinton recently. Two AFL-CIO guys, Ike Skelton, and others.

Baron Hill had better be careful given his district. What was he thinking to endorse at all?

[Truth]

Well, the Democrats have found a way to lose yet another election. Judging by Clark Kent, the supers are ready to end this race for Obama despite every single recent poll showing Hillary Clinton as the strongest candidate.

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/
IN Poll: Clinton +5
NC Poll: Clinton Takes Lead
Yes, that is North Carolina. The state she absolutely could not win, she will win. (keep in mind she has outperformed almost every pre-vote poll)

http://www.electoral-vote.com/
Obama 243 McCain 269 Ties 26
Clinton 291 McCain 247

I will be checking out third party candidates because I honestly do not think Obama will even make it to the General Election before it becomes painfully obvious he will not win. When that becomes the case, I will not want to waste my vote on him. I’m already feeling as horrible as I did in November 2000 & 2004. Complain all you want, but let’s meet November 2008 and see if you still think I am wrong.

This is the election that will split the party for good.

[AHC]

John, you honestly think that a character as polarizing as Hilary has a better chance than Obama?? You've picked the polls that make your case, as there have been many that put Obama more likely to win. Sounds to me like you just have a first choice and it's sour grapes.

[Walker]

@truth:
It will only 'split the party for good' if you say it will. The tectonic shift that is going on underneath this election is the shift of the democratic party being the party of the unions and manufacturing middle class to the party of ethnic minorities, educated middle class, and urban populations. Given that the US economy is only about 15% manufacturing at this point and is in steady decline (this recession will only delay this delinc slightly), this is a necessary battle that, while bloody, is bound to happen. Obama may lose the 'reagan democrats', but really, why were they democrats in the first place? Anyone sensible enough to see the disaster that the last 8 years were will vote for the democrat, no matter who he/she is.

In a word: Hilary Clinton is the wrong choice because she represents a return to the 'glory days' of 1996 when the blue-collar middle classes still enjoyed some measure of political and economic clout; this is no longer true and any posturing by people like you about Obama being the "wrong candidate" is simply a symptom of your myopic nostalgia.

[suekzoo]

Truth,

Since you are so fond of polls and what they indicate, please check out this article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24390690/

It will show you that in polling, George Bush is the bigger negative than Rev. Wright. This is terrific for Democrats because Bush is going to remain in the public eye right through November.

It will also show you that the "bitter" comments are a stronger negative than the Reverand as well. I think Obama will be able to overcome his aloof image once he is the nominee.

[suekzoo]

The wacky minister score just got evened up, in spades.

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/5/1/11248/20491

[Joe]

> I will be checking out third party candidates because I honestly do not think Obama will even make it to the General Election before it becomes painfully obvious he will not win. When that becomes the case, I will not want to waste my vote on him.

I can understand you feeling that way, but what 3rd party candidate do you think would stand a better chance than the Democratic nominee?

As an ex-Republican personally, I hope you realize all the reasons we CAN'T allow a Republican to take office next term. The way things are going, I feel little doubt that they will find some excuse to go to war in Iran. They're already rattling their sabers. I no longer think the Republicans know any sort of restraint. I can't name anything they haven't been willing to violate, from the 4th amendment and Geneva conventions to the 2nd amendment...

The people voting for them would have to be those watching ABC and Fox, or not watching the news at all. I know that being aware of what they're doing is what made me so disgusted with them that I can't trust McCain. Even if he's a decent person, it's clear that he can't hold the party back even for a lousy ad, so how can I permit him to come to power? When will it end?

[Bilbo]

Mr Super, If you get a chance you might like to read the below analysis.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/red-state-superdelegate-math.php

[Truth]

Did you actually read the article? Here are some choice quotes:

"This poll,” Newhouse said, “continues to show a very difficult road for Republicans in the fall — with the exception of John McCain, who is running toe to toe with the Democrats.”

“What is driving [McCain’s] image … is values,” says Hart, the Democratic pollster. “It is faith, honor, country, patriotism.”

Sound very 2000 & 2004 to you?

"This decline seems to suggest that the controversies over his former pastor and his “bitter” remark have taken a toll on the Illinois senator. "

But my polls were quite simply votes by state; that is how the Electoral College and most primaries work afterall. The only reason Obama has a lead is because he really wasn't vetted until recently. If these stories broke in December, it would be Clinton v. Edwards right now.

Obama is getting weaker week by week. That is the trend and it cannot be denied. I could give you a detailed issue by issue explanation on how I came to support Hillary, but I doubt Mr. Super Duper wants that to fill up his blog, so I've stuck to the obvious fact that Hillary is the stronger candidate based on state by state votes.

For the other poster, do you really think America can do without blue collar workers? The reason Bush has destroyed the economy is because he destroyed its foundation. Sales will eventually dry up if the purchasers fade away. As an owner of two businesses, I understand this all too clearly.

[John]

In response to Walker: As a lifelong Democrat, I read your post with despair. The Democratic coalition must include working-class voters outside of urban areas in addition to those groups you discuss above. Our party cannot relegate what you claim is only 15% of the public now (though larger in critical swing states) on ECONOMIC grounds, which is part of your argument. The Democrats will win by joining lower income voters of all races, ethnic and racial minorities of all incomes, and urban voters. Throwing lower-income voters under the bus is an appaling thing for a Democrat to say.

[suekzoo]

Truth,

The Democrats have not been running hard against McCain, and so I don't see how the polls can reflect anything close to reality about November. I believe either of our candidates would beat him once they are the nominee. Stop the pessimism. We have 6 months to go before the general election. Obama has been distracted. THAT is what the polls are reflecting.

[Truth]

suekzoo

So your logic is that it would be more effective to start the general election with the candidate that needs to make up more ground against McCain. The candidate that is on the decline.

Please explain that strategy because it defies all logic.

[Joe]

The logic, Truth, is that only one candidate can get the delegates soon enough to end this.

It's math, pure and simple. Even if you want to add FL or MI, my understanding is that that would have to happen at the convention, months from now.

[walker]

@John:
I'm not arguing about what democrats _should_ do here. Please, spare me the histrionics. You know just as well as I do that the manufacturing economy is in decline. American Unions have never held that much political sway (as compared to the unions in Europe, say), but now more than ever the democratic party needs to start paying attention to the wider cross-section of society that it can appeal to. People are tired of this war, and people are tired of an economy that stifles creativity while at the same time shipping jobs abroad. The US has a wonderful opportunity with silicon valley to turn itself into an information technology powerhouse. What we need is a democratic nominee who does not simply pander to the protectionist moanings of the dying unions. I am not saying that they should be "thrown under the bus", but the reason that Kerry lost the election in my mind was that he courted these 'bedrock' demographics such as unions instead of assuming an IDEOLOGICAL posture to fight Bush.

That was the crux of the election, wasn't it? Kerry refused to denounce his vote for the Iraq war, and even said that he would have voted for it again if he were given the chance. What did Kerry have to offer that Bush did not? Their differences in ideas and philosophy were almost imperceptible. The only real difference between Bush and Kerry was their base: Kerry chose the unions, and Bush chose the religious fundamentalists. We cannot make that same mistake again.