If it's really true, as many people are saying, that Barack Obama has a "bank" of 2-3 dozen superdelegates prepared to endorse him then wouldn't this weekend be a good time to start making withdrawals? The literal impact of him getting a bunch of superdelegate endorsements today and tomorrow in order to ensure that the primaries on Tuesday and Wednesday put him over the finish line, and him getting a bunch of superdelegate endorsements that put him over the line on Thursday and Friday is identical, but on a symbolic plane it seems to me that you want to clinch things with an election result rather than an endorsement announcement.
« Tomayto, Tomahto | Main | A Surge of Robots »
To The Bank
01 Jun 2008 10:11 am
Comments (33)
There is no bank, there never has been a bank. The claim keeps cropping up, but has never panned out. I don't know where it comes from.
It may well be that the Obama campaign will make one more appeal to superdelegates this weekend, but any endorsements will be the fruit of that appeal and not because there is any superdelegate "bank."
I think that Chris C's comment is probably closest to home. I'm sure that many superdelegates want to wait until the results of the last primaries are known, thus "letting the people speak", before they endorse. But I have little doubt that we would see a superdelegate rush after June 3, especially if Hillary Clinton says that she's going to the convention.
Superdelegates will have "literal impact" if dropped from an airplane, especially if their chutes don't open. Otherwise their impact is figurative.
Leonard, I love your clarification of language.
I am wondering the same thing -- after yesterday, why WOULDN'T superdelegates flock to Obama en masse before tuesday?
Leonard, I love your clarification of language.
I am wondering the same thing -- after yesterday, why WOULDN'T superdelegates flock to Obama en masse before tuesday?
I suspect each of the remaining superdelegates wants to be the last one to endorse the winner, especially if things get tight at the convention. Those last few will be able to command the highest price for their vote, supply and demand and all that.
I think I agree with you. BUT if I were advising Obama and taking the opposite position, I would say that the problem with announcing now is that if it created some sort of backlash resulting in a disappointing performance at the polls, then the endorsements would look silly (and the metaphorical bank account would be empty).
Like I said, I think your position is stronger, but that's the case to be made for waiting. The endorsements themselves look strongest right after a strong showing at the polls, and weakest right before a weak showing at the polls.
Or, to rank the possible results in terms of desirability (ignoring the probabilty of each result, which is uncertain)
1. Endorsements, then a strong win at the polls, equals clear victory and good appearance of momentum going into the general.
2. Strong win at the polls, then endorsements, equals clear victory and slightly worse appearance of momentum going into the general.
3. Weak showing at the polls, then endorsements, equals somewhat muddy victory with some positive momentum.
4. Endorsements, then weak showing at the polls, equals somewhat muddy victory and no positive momentum.
If you pursue the strategy of releasing endorsements now, you're gunning for the dream scenario of option 1. but also opening yourself to option 4.
So from here there are two main strategic factors influencing your choice of strategy - what's the difference in desirability between outcomes 1 and 2, and what's the difference between 3 and 4.
If 1 and 2 are similarly desirable, and there is a big gap between 3 and 4, the gamble is pretty risky. If the reverse, then the gamble is fairly safe.
If that calculation is a wash, you fall back on your opinions about the actual probability of a weak showing at the polls - if you think that's unlikely, you go with Strategy A (releasing now.)
In my view, Option 1 is likely enough and desirable enough that Strategy B looks too timid. But an especially risk-averse advisor might disagree.
APS
You kids have grown up with ATMs* and don't understand the phrase "bankers hours." Bankers do things when they want, not when you want them too (a superdelegate endorsement is like taking a thousand out of a bank and you can't just got to the ATM).
For the superdelegates in question, it is better that they make the difference and they are in charge of their votes.
* actually I too am so young that I have never had a bank account without an ATM card.
I suspect each of the remaining superdelegates wants to be the last one to endorse the winner, especially if things get tight at the convention. Those last few will be able to command the highest price for their vote, supply and demand and all that.
Obama now owns the party. The Reign of the Clintons is over. Those who do not show their deference and loyalty to Obama starting now will have their heads shopped off, put on piks and paraded around the Convention. “Half a vote” will take on a new literal meaning.
It's time for all uncommitted SDs to endorse Obama ASAP.
It's equally important for Queen Hillary to pull her head out of her rear-end and endorse Obama after the votes take place in South Dakota and Montana. Nothing is more nauseating than hearing Hillary squeal like a stuck pig about how unfairly she was treated. Hillary was hoisted by her own petard because she was stupid enough to believe all the moronic pundits who boasted about her inevitability. Nothing is so sweet as Hillary's upcoming defeat.
Those last few will be able to command the highest price for their vote, supply and demand and all that.
That would be true if the delegate count was very close and outcome unknown. In the present circumstances, it's precisely the opposite. One gets very little credit for jumping on the bandwagon the moment before or after it crosses the finish line.
It seems to me that many of the undeclared supers are much less interested in the chits they can get out of the campaigns and more concerned about needlessly alienating the roughly half of their constituents who support Candidate B should they come out and endorse A before it is well and truly a moot point and everyone stops paying attention. This will be either when one candidate locks up the now firmly established number needed or when HRC suspends her campaign, or both.
The nomination outcome was perfectly forseeable back in February, but "clinching" it has always been far off, as long as Hillary was unwilling to simply concede and withdraw from active campaigning. (Hillary's stubbornness may have save Obama from the deep embarrassment of losing Kentucky and West Virginia against no opposition, so don't be too mad at Hillary.)
I think the "bank" idea may have originated in the Obama campaign's efforts to explain that Obama would gain quite a few delegates "automatically" during the process: many of the add-on delegates selected post-primary would be his. A number of Pelosi Club super-delegates promised to support the winner of the most primary delegates; others said they would echo the results in their State or CD. Quite a few cagey super-delegates supported a candidate without officially committing.
As far as I can tell, given the probable outcome in P.R., South Dakota and Montana, Obama already has enough delegates to secure the nomination. But, that reality will not be fully manifest for a while. In the meantime, the bandwagon effect will secure him more than he needs, and manifest sooner. But, the exact timing is not something he has much control over, though I imagine the campaign will do their best to persuade some Super-delegates to help him make Montana a final triumph.
If it's really true, as many people are saying, that Barack Obama has a "bank" of 2-3 dozen superdelegates prepared to endorse him then wouldn't this weekend be a good time to start making withdrawals?
Good question. I guess the answer is probably that there is no bank, just like there was no bank the other several times it was posited.
The "many people" that seem to say this bank of superD's exists is Howard Wolfson and media talking heads. I've never, ever, heard anyone remotely related to the Obama campaign even suggest such a group of superD's exists, to the contrary, I've only heard them deny it. This is just spin from the Clinton campaign and the media has taken it up as a standard talking point.
Obama has had it clinched for quite some time.
If it's really true, as many people are saying, that Barack Obama has a "bank" of 2-3 dozen superdelegates prepared to endorse him then wouldn't this weekend be a good time to start making withdrawals?
As Aaron said, it almost surely ain't true. There's a huge incentive to rush any superdelegate endorsements you get out the door. If you hold them in secret, you run the risk of losing them in a negative news cycle.
Matt,
Not sure I agree with your analysis. As Hillary has basically adopted the strategy of "the superdelegates will break the tie," Barack will finally beat her on the battlefield of her choice when the superdelegates hand him the nomination in five days. What does she do then? There are no more battles left to fight--even giving MI and FL full votes won't change it at that point. This will look decisive, and completely undermine Clinton's narrative of how she's going to win the nomination.
Matt's logic is good. If you have delegates 'banked' now is the time to make a withdrawal so a primary result pushes BHO over the top.
Therefore no withdrawal means no bank.
Superdelegates don't care about the optics. They care about blame. Given the recent HRC line of attack they want to 'follow the will of the people'. After the last primary is the natural time to announce.
HRC will be a dog in the manger. She is likely to suspend her campaign (saves money, delays becoming a laughingstock). She will lay in wait until the convention in hopes that BHO spectacularly implodes. Witness the "We reserve the right to challenge this decision before the Credentials Committee" announcement. She will try to persuade supers to hold back until the convention. After Thursday BHO's threshold to a delegate majority is so small that supers will push him over the line. He will then announce victory and become the presumptive candidate. If HRC is smart but selfish she will quietly lie in wait, neither attacking BHO nor conceding, hoping for lightning to strike. If she is a loyal Democrat after all she will concede. If she is insane she will hang on loudly until people start laughing at the spactacle, and the Party will be badly damaged.
I suspect she is smart and selfish.
I agree with those who think there's no bank. It would be kinda neat if it were possible, but for the reasons given, I doubt it is. But in effect, Obama has the party leaders in the tank for him at this point because of their oft-expressed desire for party unity and a quick resolution. It's pretty obvious by now that what Dean, Reid, and Pelosi mean by that is that after the 3rd they'll start leaning on Clinton very hard to suspend/concede, and if she doesn't take the hint the three of them will endorse, which will probably bring a flood of uncommitteds for Obama in short order.
Should Obama make withdrawals before or after the tape is released?
Senator Osama throws his church under the bus. A day late and a buck short. Senator Osama is this years version of George McGovern.
"Obama Throws Church under Campaign Bus, blames Media
By Israel Insider staff June 1, 2008
Bookmark to del.icio.usDigg!Digg This Story
Taking advantage of a weekend media dead-zone, Sen. Barack Obama said Saturday that "with some sadness" he has quit the Trinity Church where he belonged some twenty years, where controversial sermons by his former pastor and now other ministers has proved politically embarrassing for his campaign.
"We don't want to have to answer for everything that's stated in the church," the Democratic front-runner said. "We also don't want the church subjected to the scrutiny that a presidential campaign legitimately undergoes, adding that "This is not a decision I come to lightly." The resignation comes days after the Rev. Michael Pfleger, a visiting Catholic priest, mocked Obama's Democratic rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, during a sermon at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Illinois.
Obama said the Pfleger controversy made it clear that, as long as he remained a member of the Trinity congregation, remarks from the pulpit would be "imputed" to him, even if they conflicted with his personal views.
Obama said he and his wife, Michelle, began discussing a departure from the church after Wright spoke at the National Press Club on April 28.
During the appearance, Wright said that Obama had "distanced" himself the fiery pastor for political reasons. Now, it appears, Obama has distanced himself from the Church where he and his family sat for some twenty years. Obama has said he was not present for the controversial sermons by Wright or Pfleger.
Obama's campaign condemned Pfleger's comments. "That is why I am deeply disappointed in Father Pfleger's divisive, backward-looking rhetoric, which doesn't reflect the country I see or the desire of people across America to come together in common cause," he said in a statement Thursday.
Obama said he and his wife had discussed and prayed on the issue with Trinity's senior pastor, the Rev. Otis Moss, and hoped that the decision would withdraw Trinity from the spotlight. "Though we are saddened by the news, we understand that it is a personal decision," Moss said in a statement Saturday. "We will continue to lift them in prayer and wish them the best as former members of our Trinity community.""
Radiantstream
lindaR - U.S.A
06/01/2008 16:43 IT
Not only shows weakness, but ambition. He will do anything to be President. You have to ask why. He would tell you that is how much he wants to help. Logic tells you he wants power. He would say so he can bring change, (and insinuate only he can do things that on one else will or can do). What you see is a man wants to help no one but himself and the only change he can bring that no one has ever brought to the whitehouse, is such a lack of character and such a lack of wisdom and such a lack of knowledge and such a lack of experience that if he is President his lacks will CHANGE American forever and that is what no one before him will have ever done. Evem the worst of them knew American History and how many states were in the union.
"Should Obama make withdrawals before or after the tape is released?"
Nice dig.
Matt's entirely correct.
It simply looks better if the networks are proclaiming you the nominee not as a result of a bunch of party fat cats coming out of the closet for you, but rather because thousands of Just Plain Folks in places like Billings and Sioux Falls pulled the lever for you.
Such an unfolding of events would undercut any potential plans on the part of Hillary to mount a last stand, because the heart of any potential ressentiment strategy rests on branding the process as undemocratic. Several dozen party hacks formalizing your opponent's presumptive status looks undemocratic in a way getting the same thing from thousands of ordinary voters does not.
So, the non-existence of the much talked about "bank" (a big pool of unannounced Obama-supporting SDs) seems clear; the real question is why doesn't this bank exist, given Obama's strength, and the near certitude of his eventual nomination. One supposes this points to the residual strength of the Clinton brand in Democratic circles -- kind of a last vestige of their once ironclad hold on the party.
I've grown weary of the near impossible task of trying to keep up with intricacies (and changes) of the delegate math, but, given Obama's likely haul today and Tuesday, he would probably need, what, not much more than a dozen or so SDs to put him over the top (right? does that jive with anybody else's understanding?). So, maybe we will hear of a mediumish clutch of new SDs pledging for Obama tonight, tomorrow and Tuesday morning.
Good post Jasper.
I think Obama doesn't have a bank because the superdelegates are individuals and they (understandably) want to control their own announcements. He might have a 'bank' in the much more limited sense that a number of supers have privately told him he will (eventually) get their vote.
The optics are unarguable. It is better for Obama if a primary pushes him over the hump.
However, a lot of superdelegates are from areas that broke Clinton. Others owe favors to the Clinton machine. Still others are afraid that Obama may implode. No one wants to be the delegate that pushes Dukakis part II over the top. Certainly this is the story HRC has been peddling. The fact that superdelegates are waiting is understandable. They are not heroes; they do not like risk.
If I was a superdelegate I like to imagine I would go for Obama now, because at this point that is in the Party's best interest. I am not sure I would have the courage.
Voters will choose someone that reflects their values and interests. By nominating Obama, the superdelegates and the party will lose in November.
He has more Scarlet Letters than Demi Moore. With friends like Wright, Phleger, Farrakhan, Ayers, and Rezko, it is the gift that keeps on giving. The "swiftboat" campaign against Obama is just beginning.
"The "swiftboat" campaign against Obama is just beginning." nobama
If it is so easy to swiftboat Obama why wasn't the Clinton machine able to do it?
You think McCain doesn't have problems?
His campaign manager is a lobbyist who represented low-life dictators!!! He is buds with a pastor who says the Nazis were sent by God to murder the Jews!!!
Beyond that, McCain periodically turns purple with rage. He actually said it is OK to stay in Iraq for 100 years. He was one of the Keating 5. He is a cheater whose political career was bankrolled by his drug-addicted beer heiress 2nd wife. He isn't raising big money because the base doesn't like him.
You think a loudmouth pastor, a shady but small-time real estate deal, a non-relationship with Farrakhan, and a brush with Ayers plays big outside the right wing noise machine? Only Wright has legs, and people have pretty much come to terms with it. He was, after all, only his pastor.
I like McCain, and I think the Republicans picked their best guy. But anyone who thinks Obama is the damaged goods in this race is blind.
Ayers is not just someone that lives in the neighborhood. They have been professional and social colleagues and have served on foundation boards and panels.
The problems for Obama and the DNC go beyond Republicans. This campaign has turned away many loyal Democrats. It is the DNC and Obama that are the bad guys. In essence, they are looking at Obama's record and not McCain's.
I think Jasper nails it.
Nobama, how has the Obama campaign turned away "loyal Democrats"
Really, How?
It's like a trust with a lot of individual accout owners, which he has no actual control over. They have all privately committed, but will not come out and be known until their cowardly little political selves feel safe form Clintonian retaliation. Collectivce action problem: none wants to be among those few who really do pound in the final nail, for fear that it turns into a non-final nail. Which is rational, since there is no way to make committments binding until the convention. If egregious facts emerge about Obama on August 27th to pick a day at random, every single one of his committed supers and his pledged dels can immediately go for Clinton (or anyone else who throws his or her hat in the ring). Or they can just do it for no reason whatsoever. (In other words, the primary process is a total mirage.) Which means she can very easily still be Prez, so the supers are still skittish.
But they have privately committed, or at least, that is what I believe is behind the superdels in the bank rumors.
BHO
I'd complain about this obvious, sleazy, infantile reference to Obama's middle name, but I suppose if you change it to "BO" it's not any better.
Comments closed June 15, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Unless the superdelegates are not prepared to endorse until mid-week, after the final primary. Like a 5 day hold on a check deposit, I suppose.
Posted by Chris C | June 1, 2008 10:18 AM