We’d like to poll our readers again on the issue of presidential endorsements. This site has mercifully avoided this cycle’s primary wars. But the math has been clear for some time to rational observers: Barack Obama will hold the lead in elected delegates after the last primary is conducted, and the only way Hillary Clinton can secure the nomination is if unpledged superdelegates choose to subvert the will of the pledged delegates. Given that Clinton’s rolled up very few superdelegate endorsements since Super Tuesday, and the discord a superdelegate-based victory might foment within the party, this is an extremely unlikely development.
So our question to you is, should Blue Majority endorse Obama now? I will admit I’m not some perfectly un-biased neutral observer – I voted for Obama, I’d like to see him be the nominee, and I no longer see a reason to hold off. But we’d like to see how our readership feels, too.
I also want to address one question which came up previously, which is, won’t adding our presidential candidate “take away” from donations to the downballot races that make up the rest of Blue Majority? The answer (perhaps surprisingly) is no. Having observed our list closely for several years, there is a definite “spillover” effect from the more prominent races. Last cycle, the Lamont, Tester & Webb races provided that “top-of-the-ticket” spark – this time, Obama can.
What happens is that, quite frequently, people come to the Blue Majority page with the intention of giving only to a better-known candidate on the list (eg, Tester). But, once there, they wind up giving to other candidates as well. And this isn’t speculation. I ran the numbers last year. As the number of races on our page grew, average donations per candidate dropped slightly, but total donations per donor went up. In other words, the more candidates on the page, the more people gave overall. Obviously, there’s a point of diminishing returns, but we haven’t reached it yet. And I’m pretty confident that Obama could provide an even greater “spark” than any of our senate races did last cycle.
So let us know what you think in the poll. Thanks!
Loading ...
Why? Because Obama needs 31 delegates (est.) to have obtained a majority of pledged delegates. He could lose 70-30 in Pennsylvania and he’d still get enough pledged delegates. I doubt anyone here is advocating for superdelegates to override the will of the people.
I could see the logic in not endorsing before Texas and Ohio, however, now that it is almost a guarantee that Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee, I can’t see any reason to not give an endorsement now.
There is no such thing as “the will of the pledged delegates” or various other confabulations advanced to serve one’s favored candidate and gloss over defects in the argument for him/her. The Party ? The People, either…as anyone who’s watched the caucuses happen should know.
All this prolonged primary is now doing is decreasing both Mrs. Clinton’s and Mr. Obama’s favorable ratings and poll numbers against John McCain. The longer this goes, the better the chances of Bush’s 3rd term. It needs to end sooner, rather than later to reunite the party behind one person. Obama has more pledged delegates, won more states, and has won the popular vote, if Senator Clinton becomes the nominee, it will obviously be over the will of the people that vote in the democratic party.
The “will of the people” is not being subverted. Neither is the “will of the delegates” or some such nonsense.
But trying to end the primary season before Pennsylvania, Indiana, Oregon and other states have voted would be subverting the “will of the people”.
Trying to force a candidate out that has received millions of votes from Democrats is also subverting the “will of the people”.
Take a step back. Relax. It will be all right.
The truth is is that neither Clinton nor Obama can win without superdelegate support. Also, Clinton may take the lead in the popular vote tally and decrease his lead amongst delegates. If she does that then she does have a legitimate claim to the nomination. He only has like a 2-3% lead in delegates and the popular vote. The race is tight; so let it play out.
Plus, neither Obama nor Clinton need Blue Majority’s money. They are doing just fine fundraising on their own, thank you very much.
You should not get involved. You should let the primaries play out.
I know people are stressed. But it will be alright. For all the media BS about how the Democrats are divided, it is the Republicans who are much more so. And this primary campaign has not been nearly as devisive as it could have been. Plus McCain is having trouble raising money and excitement. Either Obama or Clinton can beat McCain.
Oh and this is good for Obama who does not have much experience running competitive races (he won the Illinois Senate seat by beating ALan Keyes). And it allows his baggage to come out now before the fall. And it allows both campaigns to set up organization in important states — like Oregon and Pennsylvania and North Carolina.
Let’s stay focused on House and Senate races.
Oh, one more thing:
I’ll tell you truthfully. I am a Clinton delegate here in Washington (originally for Richardson). I am upset that the Obama folks are trying to force her out. I am really upset that he was against a revote in Florida and Michigan. Why not have a legitimate vote in every single state and let the voters decide? If Obama wins legitimately then I will campaign for him in the fall. If it’s through disenfranchising several important states then I will just stick to campaigning for Governor Gregoire and Darcy Burner for Congress (WA-08).
DavidNYC asked a question.
I answered it. You don’t like my answer.
Get over it.
i just want to know if there’s a sanity minimum for being here, becuase i might not qualify 😉
Endorse Gore. Otherwise No.
Rather more seriously, there’s no point in this site joining the parade. With the objective cast of this website it’s better to stay out of the partisan game overwhelming every other site. I realize that Blue Majority is a funding source for several sites, –and the focus is better left on the many important so-called “down ticket” races that aren’t down ticket at all, but rather vital. Senate and Congressional races and State races are receiving short shrift right now.
“I don’t care,” but I don’t think it matters much. Most people, even those who are sort of peripherally involved in the blogosphere, if they want to give money to Obama, are going to go directly to Obama’s site. His site is ‘top of mind’ for left-leaning political giving right now. If anything, he should be hosting some Blue Majority candidates on his page below his own name, because of the millions of eyeballs on that page.
Anyway, I still voted ‘yes.’ There’s obviously no downside to doing so; small-donor giving isn’t a zero-sum game and it isn’t going to suck money away from either Obama or our downticket candidates. And there might be a reverse-coattail thing where high-information participants going to Blue Majority to give to downticket races might feel like throwing an extra $10 or $20 at Obama as something of an afterthought.
Swing State Project is an oasis away from the presidential race. A site that both Obama and Hillary supporters can go to and agree. Leave it as the great site it is, one that is up to date on the doings of other races. There are soooo many blogs that mostly favor whether they technically endorsed him or not. There is no need for another one. If he wins the nomination fine but leave this special one that focuses on other political races.
I was on the other end last month – but given what I see as a complete lack of focus on the down-ballot fundraising right now, this has got to help.
(Now, can we make Scott Kleeb a Blue Majority candidate before the primary on May 13? :p).
Time to tell the Clintons that their campaign is over, that they have lost, and that they should support the nominee who has more of the popular vote (including Florida), more of the delegates, and most of the states (30 contests to 14).
See: http://origin.barackobama.com/…
Let every state vote. Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, Kentucky, and the rest – everyone deserves a chance to weigh in with their vote.
I am a Edwards Democrat, and I have not decided who my second choice will be. Neither campaign has been helping their case lately. I certainly don’t want anyone making that decision for me before my state gets to vote.
I think the site should focus on House and Senate races, and in being such, I think that while a presidential endorsement would be nice, we should at least wait until the entire presidential primary/caucus/convention process is over. We should be in no hurry to endorse a presidential candidate.
Granted, I’m also personally undecided, but I do really want the site to focus on downballot races, unless it’s really necessary.
Where is the endorsement on this site? (I cannot find it.)
Thx.
I know far less than most anyone else does about the underpinnings of this contest. They are both well qualified and both would do a good job I think. But there’s a scenerio that could come up that might be quite suitable upon reflection.
If Hillary waited 8 or 12 more years to try it again, she’d
be in the same boat Senator McCain is in now as far as age.
On the oher hand, If she became our Party’s nominee and Barrack were to be willing in the cause of unification to become the Vice-Presidential running mate, Not only would the ticket be formidable and out right scary to the Republicans, it could realistically offer the best hope Democrats have had in a while to shape the way things will go over a 16 year period. Barrack’s stock is destined to continue to rise and he will only gain strength in the Vice Presidency. For me and my daughter-in-law who will vote for the first time when I take her, it’s HILLARY—-OBAMA—2008