Disclaimer: Content on the YP4 blog does not necessarily reflect the views of Young People For or People For the American Way Foundation. The views, ideas, statements or claims posted on this site by members of the public cannot in any way be attributed to either Young People For or People For the American Way Foundation.
Edwards Endorsement BIG
Yesterday former Democratic Presidential nominee John Edwards endorsed Barack Obama for President. This recent development is particularly meaningful in sending the message to Hillary Clinton that it is time to throw in the towel. The continuing Primary race is bad for everyone in very real ways. First off, Democratic polticians cannot publically berate each other and expect the public to believe later that they will function smoothly when this is all over. The nature of debates thus far has made it impossible for an Obama-Clinton ticket to seem at all good for the country. On the same note, I would entertain the idea of an Obama-Edwards ticket which I've been calling for since the start of the race in 2007.
Furthermore, extending the party nomination race only gives other parties a chance to note key arguements against either Democratic nominee, mainly from the Clinton campaign against Obama's. Some argue that throwing everything against Obama now will only strengthen him as a Candidate for the general election but I do not agree. That analogy focuses too much on Obama and not the image being created of Clinton, which turns many voters off. In addition, the McCain campaign is resting, refreshing its finances, and regrouping before Party conventions.
In all, I would want the Clinton campaign to take the Edwards endorsement to heart. Obama is the best candidate to create change in America and more of the same kind of politics is not what will benefit Americans at this time. It is my hope to see superdelegates continue to allign with voters and affirm the strength of Obama's successes thus far. The argument that swing state victories for the Clinton campaign would spill over to the general election is simply untrue since Obama and McCain are such different candidates. Honestly, it is impossible tell if Clinton can match the experience argument over McCain, which has been the main point gaining her victories over Obama in swing states.
- Nekpen Osuan's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Not so fast...
1. The Edwards endorsement doesn't really mean a whole lot in actuality. His popularity among the American electorate is questionable. And it doesn't solve Obama's obvious problem with the blue collar vote. Clinton performed better than Edwards among those making less than 50,000 dollars and those in rural areas in almost all of the primaries in which Edwards took part. Obama and Edwards performed about the same in those demographics. So the glaring problem of Obama's elitism and inability to connect with the crucial white working class vote still remains.
2. Why should Hillary throw in the towel? We all know that MI and FL will be sat in some form or another, though the delegate count will probably not reflect the actual votes in the states (even though Obama removed his name in MI despite his allies encouragements to remain on the ballot, AND Obama campaigned in Florida, unlike Clinton, against the Florida pact that the candidates agreed to.) Regardless of how the delegates are sat, those popular votes are still legitimate. The DNC rules state that those two states will be stripped of delegates, not their popular vote.
To date, Hillary LEADS Obama in the popular vote my over 20,000 votes cast. She just won WV by 41%, polls show her up in Kentucky by 35% and only losing Oregon by 5% (Down from 20% just weeks ago). This race is SO CLOSE! Out of millions of votes cast, they are separated by 20,000 votes! Out of thousands of delegates they are separated by less than 200!
3. The democratic electorate wants this to continue. Recent polls show that an OVERWHELMING majority of democrats want this race to continue. Our party has not made up its mind.
4. After over 45 primaries and caucuses (aka caucuses- those undemocratic procedures that underrepresent the elderly and working class vote and over represent the youth vote), why can we not wait less than a month for just a few more to take place? Let's hear from the people of Kentucky, oregon, south dakota, montana, and puerto rico. Why don't they get a say in who will be the nominee for our party?
5. Largely, superdelegates remain undecided. There is a growing uneasiness with Obama as our nominee. He is losing to McCain in head-to-head hypothetical match-ups, while Hillary is winning. In polls he is losing to McCain in CRUCIAL states like Ohio, Michigan, Florida, and PA. Not to mention he is losing Mass, and barely winning democratic strongholds like NY and Cali. If you really want what is best for our party, you'll want the candidate who has the best chance of winning. Go to mydd.com and you'll see that, on the electoral map projections, Obama is not faring so well, while Hillary is carrying it easily.
4. New politics? Best candidate to affect change? Obama? Those are some nice promises, but where is the substance? He voted "present" the SECOND MOST amount of times out of any senator in the Ill Legislature. We don't have a record of "change" from Obama. We don't have a record of political service to substantiate your assumptions that he is the best candidate to affect change. As to new politics, that sounds like an empty talking point from Axelrod. He has engaged in the same sexist, lying, negative, empty politics as everyone else, he has taken millions from lobbyists and affiliates of lobbyists, he has associated with some shady characters including two known terrorists, a pro-soviet communist, a racist pastor, and a slum lord who is about to be in prison. That's new politics? No, that's the politics of corruption. A rose by any other name..
Simply put, this thing is far from over.
"Obama campaigned in
"Obama campaigned in Florida, unlike Clinton, against the Florida pact that the candidates agreed to.)" Sorry Shayne, but can't let that one pass. Obama bought a regional (or was it national? I can't remember) ad-buy that HAD to include Florida.
"(aka caucuses- those undemocratic procedures that underrepresent the elderly and working class vote and over represent the youth vote)"
Actually, the procedure itself is far more democratic than primaries, its simply that the folks who show up is slightly skewed towards the activist base. However, I gotta question where you're getting that the youth vote is over-represented. Despite enormous gains, we're still not quite up to the levels we should be.
I'm not doing these in order, but as to 5, I'd invite you to check out fivethirtyeight.com which takes a slightly different approach to gathering the polls, they weigh the more accurate ones slightly more and then add them together.
Response to daniel
I don't see how a regional ad-buy encompassing florida excuses the fact that his ads were aired in florida. Axelrod isn't an idiot, he knew what he was doing. If Obama really is the "new politics" that he advertises, he should have found another ad-package that didn't blatantly violate the agreement. You can't make excuses for violating the agreement.
Obama's behavior towards Florida and Mighigan have been enormeously damaging to the Democratic Party in the long term. Even after the money was raised for a re-vote in both states, Obama turned it down. Probably because he realized that he didn't stand a chance in either state. A recent Survey USA poll shows him losing to McCain by 10% in Florida. He can win states like colorado all he wants to, but the fact is that the states Obama puts into play don't come close to making up for the states that he will lose in the general.
Disenfranchising 2.5 million voters in two key states is not a tactical move on the part of the DNC. Then again, neither was the proportional vote primary system which drags out the primary process and fails in reflecting the winner-take-all method of the general election.
As far as the caucuses, the reason they over represent the youth vote is because they tend to be too taxing for elderly voters (and the rest of clinton's demographic). It does key in on activists, and that is dangerous because the general plays more towards the entirety of the electorate. Just look at washington and texas, where Obama did much better in the caucus vote than he did the primary. Which is more democratic? Which is more representative?
There are astonishing negatives to obama's candidacy. Hopefully I'll get around to writing a blog about it soon. But I think kentucky and wv really showed his continuing inability to unify the party, to connect to white working class voters, to pull in reagan democrats, or to appease the female vote (note the full page ad in the NY Times).
What more can our Party do to lose this thing?
As I understand it, the
As I understand it, the Georgian media market, which Clinton ignored, spills into northern Florida.
I agree that either way Clinton would have won Southern New Yo... Florida, sorry. But Michigan? Michigan has a 15% black population, plus a whole lot of universities. Last MI poll I saw had Obama winning MI against McCain and Clinton... not doing so well.
I think it's funny that you talk about disenfranchising MI and FL voters (although I really hold Carl Levin, who I normally like, responsible for MI at least) but than attack the proportional voting system. When you do winner-take-all you disenfranchise ALL of the losers votes as worthless. Sure it's "faster" and reflects the general election (which needs to be tweaked anyway), but there's no way it's more democratic, which is apparently (I have doubts) what this debate is about.
I do have a question I was wondering about earlier. If Obama was to change his mind now and seat the entire Florida/Michigan delegation (with him getting all the uncommitted delegates in Michigan) and still won the nomination, do you think that could mend things?
Dan Klein
Communications Intern
Young People For
People For the American Way Foundation
149 5th Avenue, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10010
212.420.0440 x25
To debate, or not to debate
I like a lot of the numerated points, but simply have to say the votes speak to the strength of the candidate. I'm really looking forward to what the end of the day will bring...probably a reality check.
Not that big of a deal
Mmm...there are just so many things I could say about a lot of the stuff that has been posted...but I'll just say this:
Edwards endorsement=not a big deal at all
First, not many Americans care who is endorsing the candidate, unless they have some deep-seeded love for that individual. The individuals who know enough about Edwards to care about his endorsement probably also know enough about Clinton and Obama to not be affected by the endorsement. And the average American is probably more swayed by the recent support of Tom Hanks than by Edwards.
Edwards' endorsement could have been a big deal if he would have made it a while ago, fresh off his campaign. Instead he made it after most of the states had been decided, including his home state. Edwards could have campaigned with Obama, drew in the white working votes and set up an attractive two for one deal.
Instead- he waited and waited and became just another in a long line of political endorsements.
There are arguments to be made for Hillary dropping out, but an endorsement just isn't one of them.
Much Love
Beverly