mrsuper.org

Myth #2 (cont.) - Republicans Do Have Supers

Josh Marshall wrote in his May 4th article that Republicans don't have Superdelegates.  This is something that people overlook quite a bit, as even the Republicans try to hide the fact that they have Superdelegates.

I noted this in Myth #2 back in March, and shortly after that posting Abbi Tatton at CNN also gave a report about Republicans having a similar system.

The "unpledged RNC members" as noted in this running delegate tally at CNN, are Superdelegates.  They go by a different name, but they still have the right to pledge their vote however they please which demonstrates that, yes, Republicans do in fact have Superdelegates!

On a related note: I'll give Marshall credit for introducing me to French Market Coffee, which he blogged about shortly after Hurricane Katrina posed a threat to the available supply.

Further proving it's "Operation Crackpot"

Revisiting Myth #7...exit polls show that must Republicans voting for Democrats in the Indiana primaries are quite genuine with their votes.  Today's Washington Post looks into the crosstabs and supports this notion.  The sky is not falling, the end is not near and Rush Limbaugh is not influencing Democratic primary outcomes.

Numbers don't lie, folks:

More "Sincere" Crossover

Here's more data for the raging debate over GOP mischief in last night's Democratic primary in Indiana: On balance, network exit polls show Republican crossover voters expressing little other than a sincere preference for Clinton over Obama.

First, Clinton edged Obama in Indiana's open primary among self-identified Democrats, 52 to 48 percent. And removing all GOP-identifiers from the voter pool does not budge the overall result. Perhaps the focus on non-Democrats is misplaced.

But the topline numbers are so intriguing.

Republicans made up 10 percent of all Democratic voters in Indiana last night, their highest share of the electorate in any Democratic primary this year other than Mississippi. Not only did Clinton win Republicans in Indiana by eight percentage points, but about six in 10 of those who supported her in the primary said they would vote for McCain over Clinton in a hypothetical general election match-up. (Most Republicans voting for Obama said they would stick with him in the fall.)

A closer look, however, reveals that most Republicans for Clinton appear to genuinely prefer Clinton to Obama, which was the choice at hand. They opted to vote in one of the hottest elections in years, perhaps with an eye to giving themselves more appealing options in the fall.

About nine in 10 GOP Clinton voters said she would make a better commander in chief, and more than six in 10 said she would have a better shot at beating McCain. They were also more than twice as likely as other voters to prioritize an experienced candidate. And three-quarters of these voters said they would be satisfied with Clinton atop the Dem ticket, just 15 percent said so about Obama.

A narrow majority of Clinton Republicans did say that Clinton does not share their values, but more said so of Obama. All politics is comparative.

And looking at the Indiana exit poll numbers by race also seems to dampen any "Limbaugh effect." Overall, Clinton won the state's white voters by 20 percentage points. Republicans, 95 percent of those who voted Democratic yesterday were white, broke for her by eight points, but that was much narrower than her win among white Democrats: she outpaced Obama by nearly 2-1 among those voters.

Myth #8: Supers Stashed Away

Was in a primary state again last weekend, and again heard musings that the national campaigns each have a cadre of Superdelegates stashed away and are timing the release of the announcements. 

It is a myth that the campaigns have a list of Superdelegate endorsements stashed for a rainy day.

The candidates want this race resolved as quickly as possible.  If they had that many Supers on their side, they would release them all now to establish additional momentum or to end the race.  Otherwise, why blow all of this money on the primaries?  It doesn't make sense.

Adding to that, I know of no Superdelegates who have made arrangements with campaigns to endorse at a later date (there may be a few, but by and large not many).  And given that Supers are not obliged to be as tight-lipped as campaign staff on such matters, it would be nearly impossible to keep such endorsements secret.

One Super who declared last week, that endorsement had been in the works for 4 months.  The campaigns only found out about the decision the night before the announcement was officially made.

It should be expected that a trickle of endorsements will continue over the next few weeks.  The major role the campaigns play is in the pacing and promotion of the announcements.

 

Operation Crackpot: Part II

Myth #7 (continued).  While the Democratic Party has been attracting new registrants around the country at a record pace, some say the new registrants are just Republicans looking to thwart the Democratic nomination.

This week TPM published a piece by Jim Sleeper which states that, in a Pittsburgh Post-Tribune editorial, right wing noisemaker Richard Mellon-Scaife's endorsement of Senator Clinton was the beacon that summoned Republicans to re-register and vote for her in the Democratic Primary.

There's just one problem with this theory.  Mellon-Scaife's editorial ran on March 30th.  The voter registration deadline for the Pennsylvania primary was March 24th.

Limbaugh: Operation Choas or Crackpot?

Senator Clinton will win in Pennsylvania tonight.  And Rush Limbaugh will attempt to convince America that his "Operation Chaos" is the reason for it.  He is delusional.

I am filing this under the "Myths" category, thus officially giving us #7 on the year.

One could argue that if Mr. Microphone himself still had sway of any kind, that he might have been able to help Republicans hold on to Congress in 2006, or that the Republican he beat up the most during the GOP primaries - John McCain - would not be the presumptive nominee in 2008.

Here is what is really happening - Democrats are registering voters in record numbers and the Party is growing at probably its fastest pace in history.

If Republicans were to massively switch registration to vote in a Democratic primary, it would be nearly impossible, a true nightmare, for the GOP to identify base supporters in the fall.  This is not a winning strategy for Republicans, but it suits Democrats just fine.

The Right Wing Noise Machine counters that the only reason Democrats are experiencing this growth is because they are switching registration to thwart our nomination process.  Does a cash-strapped Republican Party really want to spend time and money trying to re-register every voter that registered as a Democrat between January and April?  I have quite a bit of experience with polling, campaigns, elections and mass communications.  And let me tell you that such a task is expensive and time consuming and it really damages the GOP voter file.  And that's fine by us Democrats!

Because if this massive Republican re-registration is in fact taking place, it helps Democrats more than it hurts.  It gives the Democratic Party an opportunity to communicate directly with these voters on an issue-by-issue basis.  It allows the Party to filter through the noise of negative campaigning and send the type of issue-based mail it would normally send to its own members.  Issues such as education, the environment and the economy.

"Elected Superdelegates"

This reminds me of Myth #1, and how Chris Matthews was the tipping point in my decision to start this blog: nearly all Superdelegates are elected.

A passage in the LA Times political blog refers to "elected Superdelegates," meaning members of Congress and Governors.  That's not nearly as egregious as Chris Matthews making blanket statements about "these unelected Superdelegates," but it's still not entirely accurate.

Because DNC members are also elected - by state Parties.  Though that's not the same as a public election, it's still the same manner in which pledged delegates are elected to the national convention.  Nearly all Superdelegates, an overwhelming majority (around 90%), are elected.  All have constituencies to answer to.  The only conceivable exception being the At-Large delegates, and those are very few overall in number.

For more information on this topic, refer to the "myths" heading in the category cloud on the right column of this page.

Myth #6: Supers Follow the Money

Two months ago, the Center for Responsive Politics issued this report attempting to demonstrate a "cash-for-votes" trend between presidential candidates and Super Delegates.

This report is misguided, and fails to acknowledge a number of important elements that should have been factored in the findings.

One fact is true: Senators Clinton and Obama gave money to candidates in 2006 to support re-election efforts.  Most members of Congress did.  Democrats raised and spent money on behalf of others in 2006, it was part of our strategy to win back Congress.  Republicans did it, too.  In fact, John McCain's PAC doled out money almost entirely to federal candidates.

(And a pet peeve: the report states that Republicans do not have Super Delegates.  Let me again reference you all to Myth #2 which states the Republicans DO in fact have Super Delegates.)

One component was left out: Senator Clinton was putting funds towards a re-elect in 2006 while also building a presidential campaign organization for 2008.  Senator Obama was not up for re-election, and though some had flirted with the notion of an Obama run for President, he had not begun building an organization - thus he could donate funds more liberally.  This fact significantly skews the distribution of money.

Another component was left out: further undermining the case is that it is unlikely that either Clinton or Obama were operating under the impression that Supers would play such a large role in the 2008 nomination.  Apart from that obvious notion, there is also the fact that Obama was not completely sold on the idea of running until the after Fall 2006 elections, and the fact that Clinton's strategy to the nomination rested on her sweeping in an overwhelming majority of wins on Super Tuesday.

Finally a little bit of return on investment: this is another item to take into consideration.  Looking at the Super Delegate endorsements at the time that this study was released (since no doubt the arguments were based on the state of the race at that time), less than half of the money Clinton and Obama gave translated to an endorsement.  For Clinton, I'm told that her supports equals 46.3% of her donations, whereas for Obama it hovers around 1/3 of his contributions.  These appear to be underwhelming figures when attempting to make a cash-for-votes argument.

Myth #5: The DNC is Disenfranchising FL & MI

Debunking myth #5: That the DNC is disenfranchising Florida and Michigan voters.  For the record, disenfranchisement means "to deprive the right to vote."  the DNC is not depriving anyone's vote.  What is at stake is seating of delegates.  And in this case, both states knew the rules and consequences, and moved forward anyway.

It is disingenuous to claim voter disenfranchisement when both states knew the consequences before taking action.

(As an aside: a federal court has ruled that the Michigan primary was unconstitutional because of the way it was conducted - Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic has posted a pdf of the ruling.)

Myth: DNC punished Florida and Michigan after the fact.
Fact: Both states knew the rules (they voted for them), and broke 'em anyway.

Myth: Michigan's move was done to keep New Hampshire accountable, because "they cheated, too."
Fact: New Hampshire moved it's date after and in reaction to Michigan's move-up in the calendar.

Myth: Florida's rule was changed by Republicans.
Fact: Nearly every Democrat in the Florida legislature voted for the change.

Karen Thurman, Florida Democratic Party Chair, said in a statement supportive of the move last September “Florida Democrats absolutely must vote on Jan. 29.  We make this election matter. Not the D.N.C., not the delegates, not the candidates, but Florida Democrats like you and me voting together."

So much for blaming the Republicans.

There are now several negotiations on the table:  The first is to accept the elections as they stand and grant the non-Clinton delegates to Obama.  The second is to accept the elections as they stand, give each delegate a 1/2 vote, and grant the non-Clinton delegates to Obama.

The third and fourth are the "Solomon solution," which is to split the delegates down the middle and allocate them evenly to each candidate, and the "wait-and-see" approach, which assumes that there will be a presumptive nominee without factoring in these two states and that the delegations will be seated in full and wholly be composed of supporters for said presumptive nominee.  One could say we are enabling the fourth option right now, but who knows how long that will last.

But let's get this out there: the states will (eventually) be seated.  The question is how?

Myth #4: Of Horse Trades and Secret Handshakes

Debunking myth #4: That Supers trade votes in secret deals.  As a general rule, such favors are not being granted.  I can speak to this because - well, because I tried to do it!  Though, I don't think my request was one that would be considered too egregious.

As it turns out, the individuals offering the trade were not appropriately representing the campaign in question.  It wasn't a favor for me, it was an ask to help out some young people who are just getting their start in politics.  I told the candidates that if they wanted my support, they could talk to these young people and get them involved in the campaigns.

The line went dead for three weeks.

But it seems that even the appearance of granting a favor for a vote is something that both camps are trying to avoid.  And considering that both camps have been actively courting young people, I think it's safe to say that they weren't opposed to the idea of talking to young people - just opposed to the notion of granting a favor for a vote.  Fair enough.  Maybe I should've asked for an ambassadorship to a small island nation just for kicks.

Myth #3: Supers Support One Candidate

De-bunking myth #3: the idea that Superdelegates overwhelmingly support one candidate.  Taking a look at three news sources in today's papers, the most recent surveys show a break down as follows: Clinton 221 Obama 201.5 (NY Times), Clinton 237 Obama 207 (CNN), and Clinton 249 Obama 213 (Wash Post).

When you look at the average spread in each survey, the difference is only 33 Superdelegates.  Of the roughly 796 Supers available, that means that Supers prefer one candidate over another by 4%.  More significantly, if I'm doing my math right, the numbers show that 45% of the Supers are choosing to remain undeclared - which would compose the largest preference group of all.