Nonpublic figure super ds: If Chelsea Clinton can pick up the phone and call, why can't I? (0.00 / 0)

From the SF Chron:

While the public's eye is on Hillary Rodham Clinton's primary win Tuesday in California, a second, behind-the-scenes fight is being waged in the Democratic ranks over "superdelegates" - party insiders who make up 71 of the state's 441 delegates.
These delegates answer to no one, but they could well tip the balance in a tight national race. And in this contest, most give Clinton the edge.
Thirty-one of the superdelegates are members of Congress and the rest are members of the Democratic National Committee. Being insiders, most have long ties to the Clintons.
So far, the Clinton campaign counts 34 superdelegates in their camp - including Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Bay Area Reps. Ellen Tauscher, Lynn Woolsey, Mike Thompson and Tom Lantos, and 12 other House members.
Barack Obama counts seven congressional superdelegates, including Bay Area Reps. Barbara Lee, George Miller, Zoe Lofgren and Anna Eshoo. He counts another five national committee delegates.
That leaves 25 up for grabs.
"Obviously, there is a lot of lobbying going on," said state party chair Art Torres.
One superdelegate got a call from Hillary's college roommate, then Chelsea Clinton - then Hillary herself.
Still, many of the undecided may wait for the dust to settle - at least to see how their home districts voted before committing to one candidate or the other.

The list of who supports who among the CA superdelegates speaks for itself.

So if Chelsea Clinton can pick up the phones and call the superdelegates, why can't I? I'm interested in what the brain trust around here thinks about that idea. I've posted a link in quick hits to a list of super delegates, committed and uncommitted.

Many of the DNC committee members aren't really public figures, but they have their phone numbers listed.

Given the attention superdelegates are going to receive, they will now be public figures (in the journalistic sense of the word) thrust into the limelight, which I would think would make them fair game for our calls of advocacy.  

Since I suspect this thread will get deep-sixed pretty quick with 2nd-day big picture analysis, I'm going to cross-post this in the diaries. Matt and Chris, interested in your opinion if this kind of people power (phone campaign aimed at the super ds) would be productive or counter-productive.

---

by: johnalive @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:16:36 AM UTC

Matt .... (4.00 / 1)

How exactly is yesterday's results a loss for the Kennedys?  Wasn't Zogby the only one who had Obama in the lead in CA?  Did Obama outperform most of the legit polls in both MA and CA?  If so, that's a win for Obama.  Also, is there going to be a look at what happened with Mark Pera?  Why was Lipinski able to get over 50% on his own?  It sounds like the Chicago machine made sure Pera had no shot.

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:23:37 AM UTC

Great night for Obama (0.00 / 0)

The Obama campaign more than achieved what it needed to achieve last night.  Super Tuesday was a set of contests that were biased against Obama and the type of campaign he is running.  There were several large states that Clinton was more popular than the national average and a schedule that made it difficult for him to introduce himself to the voters.  Even so he made up huge deficits compared to the polls a week ago much less a month ago.

Obama came away with more states, and it seems more delegates.  Dramatic wins in Red states and facing a schedule that is well suited to his messages and campaign style.  When Obama has time to introduce himself to the voters he wins.

It may take time and it will take work, but after last night I am confident for the first time that Obama will be our nominee and after that our next President.

My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
Philly for Obama

---

by: Luam @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:56:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"consensus"? (0.00 / 0)

"The consensus seems to be that Obama took a slight edge last night, and has something of a path to the the nomination."

The consensus in the media? I saw descriptions like "tied", "split", "no loser", but can't remember seeing anywhere 'slight edge for Obama'. And the blogosphere, as usual, is divided. So I understand it's the consensus between you and Chris? Well, it still may become a not-self-fulfilling prophecy. Afaics, the delegate count for California isn't published yet. And with this heavyweight state missing, all calculations can only be preliminary. Hmm, really, maybe instead of writing "the consensus" it would have been better to use "our forecast"...
:-/

---

by: Gray @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:11:42 AM UTC

Wait til tonight (0.00 / 0)

As the dust settles the Obama win will be more apparent on the tee vee.

---

by: aiko @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:49:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Dem Turnout Edge Is Also Worth Noting (0.00 / 0)

A nearly 25% edge in Oklahoma, and almost 40% in Arkansas--that's something that the GOP should be really scared of.

But, fortunately, they're devoting more attention to being scared of--and angry with--one another.

Who knew their hate- and fear-mongering could be put to such positive uses.  Think of it: Limbaugh and McCain in the TerrorDome--two men simalacra enter, one (or less) leaves.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:16:20 AM UTC

2 cents (0.00 / 0)

Went to causus in MN last night - (Minneapolis 11-3, DFL,for clarity).  Interesting experience.  Practically no Clinton "presence" at the polls - not a single placard, sticker, or button did we see for her.  Obama was much more prominent - placards on the road - folks handing out stickers and talking him up as we stood in line to cast the vote.  Same deal with the Franken supporters - they dominated visually.  

The most disconcerting part of the evening was the mechanism for voting in the presidential preference poll.  There were no ballots in view at all (we were there about 45 minutes after the polls opened - parking and directions were atrocious!  We actually arrived near 6:30PM when polls opened for the prez. race, but it took almost 25 minutes to park and find the proper place - then the wait).  Any way, once we finally made it to the front of the line - they handed us tiny pieces of yellow card-stock that had obviously been made from some other document.  On these pieces of paper we were told to write the name of the candidate we wanted to vote for, then put them in the "genie box" (that's what they called it) that was held by a poll worker.  Now, I don't want to be mean or anything, but in an era where a lot of discussion goes down about "paper trails" and "the integrity of the vote" - this mechanism seemed archaic and ripe for fraud.  The chaos was so intense at the "genie box", I firmly believe that anyone could have dropped in 2, or 3 "votes" without any major problem.  Not to mention that a few, dedicated and morally challenged supporters of either candidate could have easily stuffed "genie box".  Disconcerting to say the least - but hey, its not like an actual election, right?

I don't know if you consider it "down-ticket" - but once the prez. vote was finished, we were directed to a more sedate room where advocates were shilling for their candidates in the state and local races.  There were roughly 150-200 people in the room - and far fewer candidate stickers in view.  The talks were mostly dull and related very personal reasons for supporting one candidate or another.  This overall tone slowly drained the room of participants, as did the reminders that one could leave after voting in the Prez. race.  When a discussion about whether the delegates chosen for the Senate race were "bound" by any of the preference polls, or not ensued - we left.  I wasn't planning on voting in anything other than the Prez. race, anyway (because I don't consider myself a DFLer and its their deal - not mine) , so I was not surprised to see the "true" DFLers try to minimize the influence of the "Dems for a Day" types.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:35:58 AM UTC

Impact on Down-Ticket Races (0.00 / 0)

Most of the local and state-level politicos are a little bitter about the presidential race dragging on so long.  They're frustrated because they can't get activists and donors to focus on important local and state races.

In Chicago, there are going to be some important congressional races in November.  There are lots of important Senate races across the country.

So far fundraising hasn't been a problem, but we don't want those state-level candidates too starved for attention.

One Million Strong --- Join up!

---

by: psericks @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:41:13 AM UTC

I meant of course the politicos that I talk to. (0.00 / 0)

Just in my own experience.

One Million Strong --- Join up!

---

by: psericks @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:42:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good Outcomes All Around (0.00 / 0)

The most interesting thing about the Super Tuesday primary results is the emergence of McCain as the likely Republican presidential candidate.

This means that the Republicans will be running as the war party with a nominee who has already announced his willingness to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for 100 years.

Whatever attraction McCain may have for Independent voters is going to be weakened by the fact that even Independents want the U.S. to get its troops out of Iraq in the near term.

Not only is McCain going to be weakened among Independents and moderate Republicans by his Iraq stance, but he is also going to be weakened vis-a-vis the Republican base of voters by his estrangement from the extreme right-wing of the GOP by his maverick stances on their favorite issues.

For these reasons, the emergence of McCain as the probable nominee greatly enhances chances for a resounding Democratic victory.

In this light, as Matt suggests, the on-going contention between Obama and Clinton is going to build a stronger ticket, especially if both are on it. I suspect that Clinton has a higher probability of being the nominee in terms of capturing super delegate votes than Obama, and that he would accept the VP slot if it is offered unless he cannot transcend the bruises of the primary campaign.

A woman and an African-American on the Democratic ticket both advocating a progressive universal health care policy and a speedy withdrawal from Iraq is going to be vastly more popular with the large majority of voters than a Republican pro-war party led by McCain that lacks a universal health coverage policy.

A Democratic Clinton/Obama ticket is also going to be more attractive going forward because Clinton is going to hammer Obama into reframing aspects of his health insurance proposal that have surfaced regarding the "mandate" issue, and Obama is going to hammer her into backtracking on certain aspects of herforeign policy hawkishness starting with her vote to authorize the war in Iraq.

The longer the voters hold their feet to the fire, the more likely it is that Obama will have to shape up his health care proposal and Clinton is going to have to eat more humble pie on her original Iraq authorization vote.

All this bodes well for a Democratic victory in November.  

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:48:07 AM UTC