Saturday Q&A
I skipped last weekend so I'm reaching back to cover two weeks of questions this weekend. As always, the best way to submit a question and actually have it seen is via e-mail.
Lots of questions to catch-up on, so here goes:
Q: What are the most important considerations for a super delegate for deciding WHEN to declare?
A: For
most, it's a matter of politics. In my particular case, I was working
for a candidate who was up for election in North Carolina on May 6th.
Once that was over, I declared on May 9th. I spoke to one Super who
works for an organization that is political but was going through a
management change, and she didn't want to declare until that issue was
resolved. As you can see, the reasons are as unique as the
individuals, so it's hard to say exactly why or when some of us Supers
declare.
Though I do suspect that the majority of those who are
still uncommitted are ones who will vote against the way their state or
district voted and are waiting for the primaries to be over before they
declare.
Q: Have there been any online voter registration drives?
A: Nearly every state has some form of online voter registration now. Whether the elections in your state are administered by the Secretary of State or by the State Board of Elections, you should be able to find information there which encourages voters to register online. A few years ago, I helped my Dad register online in California after he became a citizen. Even non-partisan organizations such as Rock the Vote and the League of Women Voters have tools for people to register online. It seems to be quite common nowadays.
Q: How much use will negative campaigning be this time? Rather less than expected.
A: Unfortunately, this is probably not the case. It is true that negative ads can backfire - especially ones which have racial overtones. However, attack ads or "comparative ads" as we like to call them, still have an affect on voters. Every poll says that voters are sick of negative ads, but in most elections voters still respond to the messaging in those ads. I was recently involved with a race in North Carolina that "went positive" and the strategy actually worked. But that is the exception, not the rule.
Q: Why are primaries more expensive (than caucuses)? Every time I've gone, it is a line with about 3-4 poll workers and 6-10 machines. Sounds like funds mismanagement to me.
A: Primaries are exponentially more expensive than caucuses. In order to fully comprehend how much a primary election costs, we first need to identify the mere differences in the logistics of a primary versus a caucus. Primary elections must stage polling places in every precinct, all must have ballots, voting machines (and back-up voting machines) and staff on hand to administer the process and trouble-shoot, the transportation of the ballots and the machines to and from the Board of Elections offices, and other details that aren't easily apparent.
In addition, a precinct should be equipped to handle all of the eligible voters in a precinct, even if only 15% of the voters there typically participate - which is why you sometimes may see more machines than voters (this could also depend on the time of day you vote - there are usually lines at night). There is also prep required in mailing sample ballots to voters in advance, as well as an absentee voting program, and a whole host of other issues.
A caucus is not required to have a location in every precinct (in fact, New Mexico had fewer than 200 in the primary). Voting machines, and in many cases ballots, are not needed. There is no pre-ballot that is printed and mailed to voters. On a statewide level, where a state the size of Iowa or Nevada has just under 2,000 caucuses, the difference in cost between a caucus and a primary is significant - easily in the range of millions of dollars. Multiply that on a state that is larger scale and you see the inherent cost barrier.
Remember: state parties are in the business of running campaigns, and not the business of running elections.
Q: How many of those folks (who have sent letters to Superdelegates) do you suppose were independent voters and how many do you suppose were influenced to write by the campaign?
A: Some seem to be from voters who are truly interested in making an impact on the process, but there is clearly a coordinated effort taking place at some level as the messaging and the verbiage in the notes is almost identical. Still, if someone cares enough to take the time to write a letter, then they clearly care about the issue and we weigh that accordingly.
Many of the notes I receive come from a site called lobbydelegates.com. I'm not sure where the others get their lists from, which is a bit disconcerting as most of them have my home addresses. Hmm...
Q: I read a story citing the "Cardoza 40" which states that California Congressman Dennis Cardoza states there are 40 Superdelegates which will move over to Obama at one time.
A: Myth #10. Supers do not have a pack mentality, as you've all seen by now - we don't move in herds. And with media contacting us on a regular basis, it is difficult for 40 Supers to keep something like that quiet. This is an idea that Rep. Cardoza has put up and is something that media have misinterpreted. Otherwise, why did he endorse on Friday and not bring the other 40 with him?
Q: What is the gender breakdown of staff on the presidential campaigns?
A: Huffington Post published a report on this in October of 2007 - but in this election cycle that is ancient data by now. But if you're interested, you can find a report summary here, and the methodology is listed here. Remember: this is OLD data and it should only be considered academic as the campaigns have changed immensely after going through 48 states worth of primaries.
Q: if the superdelegates can switch at any time before the convention, then how can we say the race is over? The superdelegates main flaw is many have to eventually get re-elected and will need help with their campaign funds or a particular voting bloc that is strong in their district.
A: Unless something cataclysmic happens to the Obama campaign in the next two weeks, most Supers are not going to move away from him. With regards to the notion that Supers need help in fundraising, please refer to Myth #6 in which I debunk the notion that "Supers follow the money."
On Florida and Michigan:
Q: Would it be a possibility for the Rules Committee to just allow for the FL and MI delegations to be sat wholly uncommitted at the convention, and just allow them to vote freely (in essence, they be allowed to act as quasi-superdelegates). I'm not advocating a full seating, possibly a reduction in number by half, along with your suggestion of removing the voting rights of supers who contributed to the moving of each state's primary.
A: In addition to the quarreling we are doing over how the delegates are allocated from each state, there is still the lingering question as to how to instill any disciplinary action on the two states for breaking Party rules - and seating them as undeclared Supers would be a big reward. If there is no consequence for these states busting Party rules and switching dates, there is little incentive for other states to abide by the rules in the future. We could be looking at a national primary which doesn't do anyone any good.
Seating the delegates as undeclared isn't really viable, either, because everyone has a bias. Remember Mr. Super's first rule: there are no undecided delegates: only undeclared ones. So even if you designate someone as undeclared or uncommitted they still have a preference. I think it's best we all act like adults and get those leanings out in the open. For the record: the DNC didn't create this mess - Florida and Michigan did. But the DNC is tasked with cleaning it up.
Q: I wonder why the DNC opted for taking away 100% of the delegates rather than 50% which I understand is what the rules call for?
A: I'm not on the Rules and Bylaws Committee, but my understanding is that there is a 50% rule, but it is not the maximum penalty allowed. The reason the RBC gave these states the Death Penalty was to send a message. And that message is, if you're going to willingly break the rules, you are going to lose your delegates. Florida and Michigan made a strong statement in moving their primary dates up, and the RBC made an equally strong response.
Q: It seems any decision by the RBC will set a precedent for future primaries. For example, in 2012, suppose there again were "penalties" for states holding their primaries "too early". Well, if the RBC does not enforce the FL and MI penalities this year, why should any state in 2012 believe the RBC would actually enforce these penalities? Without credible penalties, what would stop states from going "early"? Do you think the RBC is considering how such a precedent may impact the credibility of penalities in 2012?
A: Absolutely they are thinking of this. That's exactly why the RBC has imposed such a stiff penalty on the states in the first place, in order to dissuade any from bolting from the rules in the future. The RBC is fully aware that there are 48 other states watching this process.
It's already started: in 2007, New Hampshire waited until November to schedule it's January 8th primary because it was waiting to see what Michigan would do. New Hampshire has a silly law stating that is must be the first presidential primary, but it's a non-binding law - there is no penalty for missing it.