mrsuper.org

Polls, polls, polls

There is so much talk about polls, yet they are not the end-all be-all of the election cycle.  Especially when taken six months out from the general election.  Case in point: Democrats were not polling that well in the Spring of 2006, and then our Party picked-up 40 seats in November when the tide had changed.

Michael Dukakis had a 17-point lead over George Bush Sr. in the summer of 1988, and Bill Clinton was running THIRD to George Bush and Ross Perot in June of 1992.  Add to that, national polls mean nothing.

Only state polls are true indicators of the direction the election is headed in.  This is a harder concept for media to deliver than the flat "these are the national polls today" scenario.  And, if we were to elect presidential candidates with a national popular vote, then national polls might be a bit more valid.  But we don't.  So it makes sense since that we elect presidents on a basis of state-by-state electoral votes, and not on a straight popular vote.

Electoral-Vote.com is a good start to see how the race is shaping up in each state.  But remember - it's only May.  A lot can and will change.  General election advertising has yet to hit the airwaves.  The selection of a runningmate has not publicly begun, and the national conventions have yet to take place.  I also like the polling indexes at Real Clear Politics and Presidential Polls 2008, all of which offer state-by-state breakdowns.

Harold & Kumar go to bat for Obama

During my undeclared stance, I got a fair share of celebrity calls to sway my vote one way or another (though they were political celebrities, not the Hollywood set).  Had a good conversation with President Clinton earlier this year as well as other well-known political figures.  But around February I told both campaigns that they needn't have any "names" call, figured I could have more candid conversations with staff and other people who I got to know from both campaigns.

But, that isn't to say that there are some interesting calls being made.  Today the New York Times writes about the two representatives from the College Democrats of America (a group in which I got my start in during the 90's) receiving calls from "Kumar" of "Harold & Kumar" fame recently.  Which makes me think that maybe I should have held out a little longer, because would have accepted a phone call from Natalie Portman.

Can Actor Sway College Superdelegates?

After inching past Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the official tally of superdelegates last week, Senator Barack Obama is looking to extend his lead, and his campaign is hoping a little star power might do the trick.

Actor Kal Penn, who currently stars in the movie, “Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay,” fired off a letter today to the two remaining uncommitted college superdelegates, urging them to get in Mr. Obama’s corner.

Mass Hysteria!

"Human sacrafice, dogs and cats living together...mass hyesteria!"

- Dr. Peter Venkman, Ghostbuster.

No need to stock up on duct tape and plastic, it's not the end of the world.  Yet today there is a Democratic "doomsday" opinion by David Broder in the Washington Post, and an editorial analyzing the state of the Democratic nomination race in the LA Times.

Broder writes about a protracted battle being a "nightmare" of "seriously flawed contenders," causing an impediment to the Party in the fall.  Then goes on to acknowledge the record voter turnout in every state.  Does Broder think that voters have low standards are does he just not see the contradiction in his statement?

Sometimes impatience draws our best and brightest to jump to conclusions.    Someone send a script of Xanax to the Post, stat!

The Times analysis is a bit more down to earth, emphasizing the benefits of Democratic unity and ends the piece with a level-headed recommendation: "...learn the value of patience."

It's true that we live in soundbyte, microwave society - where information travels fast and gratification is instant. (I placed a phone call last week and got a busy signal.  What's a busy signal?!)  But by no stretch of the imagination does an additional six weeks of primaries compromise the ensuing six months of campaigning to be done.  After all, Senator McCain was bankrupt six months ago, now he's the presumptive nominee.  But that was so long ago - which is exactly my point. 

...

On a related note, there are also stories about voters threatening to bolt away from Democrats if their candidate of choice is not nominated.  In almost every election I've been associated with, people who are emotionally invested in their candidate - and there are a lot of emotions in this race - make the same statement. 

It is understandable that it's hard to imagine having to vote for someone other than your first choice for President.  But as a Superdelegate I can say that my first candidate choice isn't going to be President, either - but I've dealt with it. 

Democrats will do what it takes to bring these voters home in the fall - no matter who our nominee may be.  Because when it comes to issues, positions and candidates - Democrats are better for America. 

This isn't just about candidates, this is about ideas and principles.  And there are only minor differences between Senators Clinton and Obama, while both are miles apart from Senator McCain.

Dean's Deadlines

A rare Sunday post before we get into the week ahead: the big news last week was that Dean stated "I need them (Superdelegates) to say who they are for, starting now."  This is consistent with his previous statement of setting a deadline by July 1.  It's kind of like paying your taxes - just because the deadline is April 15th, there's nothing stopping us from taking care of business prior to the deadline.

Either way, the objective of all of this is the same: we cannot take this fight to the convention.

Win Supers by Dividing Party?

Douglas Schoen writes an Op-Ed in today's Washington Post advising Senator Clinton to continue to "hammer away at Obama" with negative attacks, especially in light of the "bitter" commenters, in order to win the support of Super Delegates.  Making the case that Senator Clinton "will almost certainly lose the pledged delegate count and the popular vote," she thus needs to convince Supers that she is a stronger candidate against McCain.

Schoen's opinion piece comes on the same day that an LA Times article sites a poll with Obama closing in on Senator Clinton in Pennsylvania.  The poll was taken from Thursday to Sunday, right when the "bitter" comments were made public.  The hits on Obama seem to have had no affect in slowing him down.

Nice work - a poll released on the same day just proved that pollster Douglas Schoen is dead wrong.

This is a running issue that irritates me: Washington pundits who rarely leave the beltway, yet pontificate on public opinion and the outcome of elections simply by looking at balance sheets and data. That's not enough.  That's lazy.  True, money and polls are important indicators, but they are not the only ones.  There is no substitute for knowing your audience, and in this case, Schoen clearly does not know Supers because he advocates for intra-party division as a means to win the support of Party insiders.

I hope no one paid him for this advice.

A better approach in convincing Supers is to run a general election campaign against McCain now, attacking him over his mortgage plan, his gas tax plan and his prospective appointment of judges.  If you think a candidate has what it takes to beat McCain, then prove it the voters by taking it to McCain.

For reasons that the average reader may not know, the numbers in LA Times article may actually demonstrate Clinton's good judgment on a recent issue.

Because what is not noted in the attribution line at the end of the article is that Douglas Schoen is a founding partner of Penn & Schoen, the polling firm headed up by recently ousted Clinton advisor, Mark Penn.  Though Schoen is no longer with the firm that still bears his name, it appears that Clinton is better served without either of the founding partners.

The Other Former President Weighs-In

President Carter, himself a Super Delegate, opined on Sunday that "it would be a very serious mistake" and "difficult to explain" if the superdelegates were to vote against the candidate with the most popular votes, the most delegates and the most states won."

I agree.  And as I've stated before, we cannot truly know the standings of all of these categories until all (or nearly all) of the states have had an opportunity to vote.

Super Thoughts

Over the past year, we have seen more than 20 presidential debates on the Democratic side.  I would love to see one final debate focusing on the issue of housing and mortgages. This should be one of the most, if not the most, topical issue in the 2008 election.

Let's say we don't get a dream ticket.  If the candidates really want to demonstrate how they can surround themselves with good people - mabye drop us some VP hints now?

The candidates are suggesting that Bush boycott the Olympics opening ceremonies.  Can we please leave politicians out of sports?  On a similar note, San Francisco organizers of the Olympic torch run changed the route to avoid protesters.  That's propaganda.  That's what China does.

Dean on Florida, Michigan and the Candidates

A blog entry in today's LA Times prints a conversation with Gov. Howard Dean on the state of the primary contest, the importance of sticking to Party rules during a national election, and the idea of a unified ticket.  Aside from one cheap shot by writer Andrew Malcolm, it's a fairly decent entry on the current state of the nomination.

Another entry on the Times blog talks about the state of the race down south - way south.

Not that they can vote, but a poll among people in Mexico shows the race even between Clinton and Obama.  Curious if a current poll among Mexican-Americans would show similar standings.

Our LATimes.com colleagues over at the La Plaza Latin America blog have an interesting item on a newspaper poll down south that shows Mexicans are also about evenly split between Senora Hillary Clinton and Senor Barack Obama.

About 31% favor each of them. Senor Juan McCain does not get many votes, only 7%, despite his politically costly support for immigration reform last spring.

More likely, given McCain's showings, this could be a reflection on the positions of the political parties than it is of the candidates and their individual positions.

More on Surrogates

High profile surrogates are often called upon to try and sway Super Delegates one way or another.  I receive calls from them regularly, and to be honest I don't think these calls make much of a difference.

So when James Carville makes a negative remark about Bill Richardson endorsing Senator Obama, I take it with a grain of salt.  Just as when Samantha Power made a disparaging remark about Senator Clinton, I didn't pay that much attention either.  In all fairness, the candidate's cannot be expected to control every person out there who supports them.  Emotions are running high these days and everyone is looking for a piece of the action.

The Sky is Not Falling

An article in Sunday's Washington Post, which states that Senator Clinton says she will stay in the race until Denver, has some people up in arms, others down right hysterical.

Even those who are new to politics have probably figured out by now that ALL candidates say they are staying in the race until the very end.  It is good for their fundraising, and it is good for their supporters.  They rarely, if ever, actually stay in until the end.  It's kind of like those images of lawyers slamming their fists down and saying they will take their case all the way to the Supreme Court even over a silly personal injury suit (FYI they never do).

"I'm in this race until the end" has probably been uttered by every candidate to run for President this year.

I'm not saying that Senator Clinton should or should not stay in the race until the end, or that she does or does not have a shot at winning the nomination.  What I am saying is that just as athletes "guarantee victory," so do candidates promise to stay in until the end.