If it's Tuesday, it must be Election Day

At first glance, it might seem a coincidence that two states deeply steeped in basketball tradition are holding primaries on the same day today.  But then again it's probably not an accident that both opted to schedule elections after the conclusion of basketball season in March.

Looking at today's balloting, Supers again will be looking at win/loss margins and which candidate can generate momentum from these elections.

Curious to see if Senator Obama can keep a comfortable margin in North Carolina, and if Senator Clinton squeaks or cruises by with a win in Indiana.  In this Super's opinion, because of the polling disadvantage Senator Obama had heading into the Indiana primary two weeks ago, a loss in that state will probably not affect him as much as it might affect Senator Clinton.

Live blogging from the Tar Heel state today.  Stay tuned.

Comments

[Jennifer]

I am no political know-it-all, I can only speak as a once disillusioned Gen-Xer who's only known Bush and Clinton my whole voting life.

I am tired of Mrs. Clinton's say-anything-to-get-elected tactics. Our country is in bad shape and the fact that she seems bent on destroying her fellow candidate, and her own party, speaks volumes on what type of president she would be. "Obliterate" Iran? Is this the language that will help move America back into a place on honor among the international community??

The only people who can help get our country out of this rut is the voters. Use your god-given minds, if you can, and think of our children and the legacy we leave them. Then come back and tell me if you want change-with-the-wind Annie Oakley politics or a president willing and able to run the White House with true diplomacy, tact and restraint, while facing major challenges with clear thinking.

North Carolina, Indiana and eventually Superdelegates. The choice is yours.

[rich]

Mr Super, I know you have been skeptical of operation chaos but how can you not think in Indiana that its not going to have a big effect do to the ease in crossing over and the lack of any big name GOP contest? In addition the right to life people are doing robo-calls which are obviosly intended to help Hillary. The Republicans are doing every thing possable to help Her so that the Democratic party destroys itself.

[Mr Super]

Right. For more info on Operation Chaos, please refer to "Myths" in the category cloud on the right hand side of this page. Even in a cross-over state, I don't see it taking place.

Right-to-Life groups would never mobilize for a Pro-Choice candidate, no matter how strategic it may seem. It goes against their entire mission. I'm sure there are robo calls going on in Indiana, they are not coming from any Pro-Lifers for Clinton.

[J S]

The point is that's it's *not coming from "Pro-Lifers for Clinton" (she's not Pro-Life, of course), it's coming from Pro-Lifers for McCain that appear to believe that the longer (and closer) they can make the Democratic Nomination contest, the better for the candidate they *really* want to win in the fall.

I don't believe Republican efforts are enough to dramatically swing Democratic primaries - but they can certainly affect the margins by 2 or 3%, which unquestionably changes the media narrative. (i.e. - Penn. for Sen. Clinton by 7% would have been spun differently than Penn. by 10%(sic)) Bear in mind that Indiana has been a fairly "Red" state, so the impact on the primary today could be even greater, given the lack of a competitive Republican race.

I understand that you may want to ignore the possibility, that it could be seen as something of a 'black eye' to admit that the Republicans can in any way influence your party's process. But then again you might at least want to acknowledge the growing public perception that there is a Republican-sympathetic effort to alter the back stretch of the Democratic primaries.

One example:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/17/many_voting_for_clinton_to_boost_gop/

Add to that Sen. Clinton and her surrogates embracing FOX News, her sitting down with Richard Mellon Scaife, Bill Clinton appearing on The Rush Limbaugh Show...

You can certainly argue the degree of the impact, but I don't feel you can entirely dismiss the existence of the effort (and I mean more than just Rush's "Operation Chaos"), or the growing perception that the process is being skewed.

[Mr Super]

I understand what you're saying, but with specific regard to Pro-Lifers, it doesn't matter who they are affiliated with - they will never mobilize for a Pro-Choice candidate.

I don't dismiss cross-over hijinks completely...I only dismiss them on a near complete basis. it's not a matter of ignoring the possibility, it's simply based on my own experience having been through dozens of elections and knowing a thing or two about voting patterns.

Until there's any data supporting the claims, it's difficult to take these claims at face value. I could be wrong. Past elections say I'm probably not. But in all fairness, this is not an ordinary election - so we'll see.

Anytime you have a competitive primary on one side, it's normal to see people cross-over voters participate in another primary when they can simply because they want to have a say. Some people say that the marker noting that 26% of Clinton's voters weren't sure they would support her in the general was significant. Well, the flip-side to that is that John McCain had 27% of Republicans vote against him after he already clinched the nomination. Seems to be a parallel that is hard to overlook.

Republicans want the public to think that the only way Democrats can experience this overwhelming turnout is if the GOP had a hand in it. They are playing defense.

As far as Clinton embracing conservatives, it's not just some "chaos theory," it's people trolling for votes wherever they can get them. She clearly needs the help right now.

I've addressed the Richard Mellon Scaife issue in the past. Pennsylvania was a closed primary, Republicans had to re-register in order to participate in the Democratic primary. Mellon-Scaife's endorsement came well after the voter registration deadline. Hard to brand that as a cross-over call to arms when it was impossible for voters to cross-over.

Anyway, those are just my thoughts based on experience. I could be right, I could be wrong.

But like I said, the narrative out there isn't providing any data to back-up the claims. So until then, I have trouble buying into the RNC talking points on the matter.

[Dan]

Here's some data (perhaps):

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080506/NEWS0502/805060396

[Bilbo]

"Supers again will be looking at win/loss margins and which candidate can generate momentum from these elections."

Please, please, please stop talking about momentum like it's an accurate indicator of anything in this race.

[Mr Super]

But among Supers, it is.

[Bilbo]

Mr Super, can you define what result in these two primaries would signal enough momentum for them to either change their endorsement or to make a decision if they are still undecided? Or, is it less about who and more about when?

[J S]

Mr. Super - "I understand what you're saying, but with specific regard to Pro-Lifers, it doesn't matter who they are affiliated with - they will never mobilize for a Pro-Choice candidate."

My point entirely. They are encouraging votes for Sen. Clinton that will never be there in the G.E.

Mr. Super - "Until there's any data supporting the claims, it's difficult to take these claims at face value. I could be wrong. Past elections say I'm probably not. But in all fairness, this is not an ordinary election - so we'll see."

I don't have a link handy, but my recollection is that approx. 25% of Sen. Clinton's MS vote said they would be voting for McSame in the G.E. This did not stop Sen. Obama from winning the primary, but you can make a good case that there was a swing of 10 pledged delegates to Clinton due to these voters.

Mr. Super - "I've addressed the Richard Mellon Scaife issue in the past. Pennsylvania was a closed primary, Republicans had to re-register in order to participate in the Democratic primary. Mellon-Scaife's endorsement came well after the voter registration deadline. Hard to brand that as a cross-over call to arms when it was impossible for voters to cross-over."

Agreed that Scaife did not much impact the PA primary (still possible he swung a few conservative Pensyltucky Dems), but my point is that the candidate has been openly "trolling" (nice choice of word ;) for disingenuous Republican votes that will get her through the primary.

Again, I appreciate the dialogue - and I ultimately trust that the Supers are taking this into account. If the media would give us some less-hysterical analysis, maybe I'd worry a little less that they may whip public opinion into a frenzy over positions that are not necessarily in the best interests of the Democratic Party. Thanks again.

[Mr Super]

JS - refer to my post on the "Bolt Theory" which refers to the 26% figure you mention about Clinton. Turns out that McCain had 27% of the Republican primary electorate turn against him in Pennsylvania even after he had clinched the nomination weeks before. Seems to be a consistent number of voters holding their noses on both sides.

Good conversation. Busy day here - pardon me in advance if I don't have time to interact in the comments section later today...

[J S]

No worries if you can't always respond, I just appreciate an intellectually honest exchange - rare in the blogosphere ;)

One rebuttal I would make to your last point is that the Republicans voting for Ron Paul or Huckabee these days know there is zero chance of altering the Republican nomination, but they are likely just upset over not having "a true conservative choice". A personally-satisfying, yet ultimately empty protest vote. (Much like me voting for John Anderson in '80, but I digress..)

Most of those conservatives will reluctantly hold their nose, and vote for McSame in the fall. Some may indeed sit home. But I would ask you to contrast that with many of the Republicans now voting for Sen. Clinton - they are doing so with malice aforethought, and will very definitely be voting for McSame in the fall, no matter who our nominee turns out to be.

You may have noticed something I missed, but I haven't seen Sen. Clinton making a bonafide effort to court Republican swing voters, just desperate pandering, and a reliance on a temporary "my enemy is your enemy, so you must be my friend" mentality.

Cheers.

[Joe]

I don't know about phone banks. You're probably right about them, but from what little perspective I can give as a pro-lifer, I'll give it.

At least some of us have come to the conclusion that overturning the law via the courts is not the best way to deal with this. The more ideal case would be to convince people as to why it's wrong. Harder, but better. Lest someone bring up the handful of idiots who bombed clinics, let me say straight out that they are traitors to the cause in no uncertain terms.

So that's why I can vote for Obama, even if I disagree with his stance, and why I'm not voting for McCain, even if he promises to try and stack the Supreme Court enough to manage a flip.

Make what you will of that.