Obama or Clinton: Down-Ballot Implications

So today there's been a lot of talk about Howard Dean's comments about avoiding a floor fight at the Democratic Convention.

All of this seems a bit of a moot point, though, if the nominee is decided well before that.  And there's good reason to believe that it will.  Why?  Well, most of the pundits are doing the money math.  They believe that Hillary's empty bank account and Obama's overflowing one pretty much gives the big 'mo to the Big O.  And they could be right.  But there's another factor that hasn't been talked about much.  The fight for superdelegates and more specifically, the implications of the presidential race on the down-ballot races.

Allow me to explain.  A presidential campaign is the height of voter participation in America.  TV coverage is everywhere, campaign events, rallies, articles in the paper, campaign visits - all of it out in full force to elect the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet.

But something else happens during a Presidential campaign:  people vote on congressional, state, and local races.  These folks don't get the attention, the money, or the volunteers that the Presidential campaigns get, but they are massively important in determining not just local and state policies, but also how Congressional districts are allocated.

And remember that in the Democratic Party, nearly all Congressional officeholders and Governors serve as superdelegates.  And as officeholders and party leaders in their respective states, they have a direct stake on who is at the top of the ballot.

Are you with me so far?  Superdelegates are hypersensitive about who the Presidential nominee is because it affects them personally; the turnout in their district and the "face" that the nominee puts on the Democratic Party brand as seen by a national audience.

Now, ask yourself.  If you're a Congressman in a swing district or any Democratic Governor, which candidate - Obama or Clinton - helps you and your state candidates get elected or re-elected in November?

Suddenly, it's not so clear about who the Superdelegates - those bastions of the "Democratic Establishment" - would prefer in this election, is it?

Is it Clinton or Obama who is turning out the Democratic base?

Is it Clinton or Obama who is bringing Republicans and Independents into the Party and can possibly bolster down-ballot Democratic candidates?

Is it Clinton or Obama who will ensure a broad Democratic majority for many years to come?

Still think that Hillary has the Superdelegates wrapped up?

Never underestimate a politician's instinct for survival.

As this race goes on and Obama shows that he's for real, that he's not a fad, and that he is continuing to bring new voters into the Democratic Party, you will see Hillary's support among the Superdelegates evaporate.  Why?  Because what's good for Obama is good for them.

That's how the game is played and that's why this race will not go all the way to the Convention.

•  I have always thought

  that no matter who the nominee is Hillary herself or someone else they will painted as a Hillarycrat no matter what.

  by bten on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:07:55 PM PDT

•  Local Democratic candidates ? What's that? n/t

  by Abra Crabcakeya on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:08:08 PM PDT

  •  Snarking me?

    If not:

    *  State Representatives *  State Senators *  Constitutional Officers (Sec. of State, Treasurer, etc.) *  Municipal Officeholders (City Council, County Commissioners, Judges, etc.)

    by The Crusader on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:12:13 PM PDT

    •  As your poll suggests

      Some of us don't have many local Dem candidates.

      by Catte Nappe on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:16:44 PM PDT

      •  Thanks - you weren't caught napping ;>} n/t

        by Abra Crabcakeya on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:19:18 PM PDT

      •  Then do something about it!

        Start fielding candidates for every possible office on the ballot, if for no other reason than to peel off local GOP dollars that would be used to help promote their Presidential candidate (and their candidates for US House and Senate races).

        by Randall Sherman on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:24:29 PM PDT

        •  LOL! Yes -I Kingmaker , right to work on that.n/t

          by Abra Crabcakeya on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:32:10 PM PDT

        •  Don't have any candidates in my tool chest

          But I happily cheer on and support anyone who does.

          by Catte Nappe on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:38:21 PM PDT

    •  Not at all - ain't nairn 'round herebouts n/t

      by Abra Crabcakeya on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:20:27 PM PDT

•  Nice thoughtful diary

  Thank you for a balanced look.  I am very confused by the weird mood in dkos today.  Obama is in a very good position.  

  by crazyshirley2100 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:08:28 PM PDT

•  Dean's comment is goofy.

  Why avoid a floor fight at the convention?
  That's like saying let's avoid democracy at the convention!
  Yeah, let's fix the vote before it happens so we don't have to show the world that Democrats believe in democracy!

  How stupid and goofy can you get?

  by Gregory Wonderwheel on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:08:53 PM PDT

  •  Floor fights are awful

    No one wins.   It would be like candidate wars around here, but played out on the nightly news.  It hurts, it doesn't help.  It's goofy to want a floor fight.

    by kamosa on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:13:48 PM PDT

    •  This primary saeason , so far -

      reminds me of nothing so much as the food fight in Animal House.

      by Abra Crabcakeya on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:27:55 PM PDT

  •  The problem with a floor fight

    is that today, Romney virtually coronated McCain.  Getting rid of Huckabee is now just process.  So, the repubs know their nominee TODAY, and McCain can start campaigning and fundraising for the general.  

    If this goes to the convention in AUGUST, from June (last primary, I think) till August, the dems are going to be able to .... twiddle their thumbs meanwhile McCain campaigns hard, fund raises hard, etc.

    We need a nominee ASAP so s/he can raise money, and be in the face of the electorate.

    by pvlb on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:57:57 PM PDT

•  Of course you forget

  For years the Clintons have gone around and helped local politicans get elected by showing up for rallies and helping with fund raising.  Not that Obama is against such activities, but the Clintons have had years and years of it to build up personal ties and friends.

  by kamosa on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:10:06 PM PDT

  •  That was then, this is now

    Politics, like most things in life are: What have you done for me lately?

    I think Hillary may have cashed in all her favors.

    by The Crusader on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:13:23 PM PDT

    •  This is why Obama is dangerous

      You guys would sell years of personal relationships down the river for today's new teen candidate idol.  In fact you would exault people to sell their years of personal contacts just to help your current crusade.  It's like the Naderwits have taken over the Obama campaign around here.

      by kamosa on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:16:35 PM PDT

      •  What personal relationships does Hillary have...

        ...in Kansas, Nebraska, Idaho?

        That's the problem.  She will ignore these states, killing any chance to grow our party.

        Gotta give credit to Obama... he's using the 50 state strategy and its working!

        Thanks,

        Mike

        by LordMike on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:35:58 PM PDT

      •  Save the drama - vote Obama!

        No one is suggesting that anyone "throw away" years of personal relationships.  Those are essential and people at DKos who don't respect that system have a lot to learn about how politics (and life) work.

        But you know that personal relationships have a limit.  Let's say you're a Democratic Congressman or Governor who ran for office to make genuine change for your state.  You've worked hard, you've learned the system, and you've even worked hard with people on the other side of the aisle to get things done.

        Now here comes Hillary leading the Democratic ticket.  She is one of the most polarizing political figures in the country right now and has been for many years.  Unfairly, I might add, but nonetheless - it is what it is.

        Why should all your hard work, alliances, and political career have to end because of a down-ballot backlash against Hillary?  

        Maybe it won't happen.  Maybe your constituents know better and are able to make the distinction - I suspect that most voters are capable of that.  But do you want to take that chance and see your political career end or do you want to see the person who is not divisive and is reaching new voters that can offset the wingnuts in your district?

        Again, never underestimate a politician's instinct for self-preservation.

        by The Crusader on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:36:59 PM PDT

    •  Hillary Hoarded Her Cash

      and helped very few last time around--far fewer than Obama...

      by serrano on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:36:57 PM PDT

  •  Some good that did us...

    We lost governorships, we lost congressional seats, we lost our nationwide majority in the state legislatures.

    Hell of a good job building the party.

    by PsiFighter37 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:14:26 PM PDT

  •  Lucky for us

    during his senate campaign, Obama was so far ahead in the polls here in IL, he went around all over the country to help democrats get elected in 04 and again in 06, sent HIS volunteers out to work for other candidates, etc.  He built up plenty of political capital on a national level.

    by pvlb on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:59:39 PM PDT

•  One question might help Clinton?

  Is it Clinton or Obama who is bringing Republicans and Independents into the Party and can possibly bolster down-ballot Democratic candidates?

  Put in this way, the question seems to help Clinton becasue if Obama brings in Republicans to vote for him that will hurt the down ticket.
  But since Clinton may bring in Republicans to vote against her, it is probably a wash.

  by Gregory Wonderwheel on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:11:53 PM PDT

  •  It's more likely

    That those Republicans are switching parties entirely because of Obama and there's a decent chance they'll keep hitting the D lever the rest of the way down.

    You lose that chance entirely if the nominee is Hillary - whom they all HATE.

    by The Crusader on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:17:55 PM PDT

    •  Isn't it more likely that -

      8 years of the worst president in history is the force driving Republicans into Democratic voting frames of mind?

      by Abra Crabcakeya on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:23:38 PM PDT

      •  Touche'

        But will they follow through in November if it's between Hillary and McCain?

        Don't hold your breath.

        by The Crusader on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:38:05 PM PDT

        •  None of us really know. Why I'll go vote. n/t

          by Abra Crabcakeya on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:39:27 PM PDT

    •  Why do you think they won't split ballots

      depending on the individual candidates?

      They might want to give a Dem president a governing majority, but then again many would want enough Republicans ion  congress to block, for one example, gungrabbing measures.

      by ben masel on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:25:00 PM PDT

      •  In Virginia Clinton Kills Mark Warner's Turnover

        I wanted Mark for prez but I'm helping all I can for his senate bid. Polling here in Virginia makes it crystal clear. Warner is now a 6% winner and actually gains 3% with Obama at the top; but with Clinton at the top he drops an entire 10%. I suspect other swing states are the same.

        by reformdem on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:40:01 PM PDT

        •  This is what I'm talking about

          Don't think that the Superdelegates aren't keeping a VERY close eye on numbers like this as they're deciding who to support for President.

          by The Crusader on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:47:58 PM PDT

    •  People in Idaho

      Love Obama, dislike McCain and loathe Hillary. I don't understand it. It's just the way it is. Seems to be a bi-partisan thing as well. I think Grant's a shoe for Sali's congressional seat if Obama gets the nomination. Larry LaRocca has a good shot at Larry Craig's senate seat as well. If Hillary is the nominee, I doubt either have a chance.

      by crystalboy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:28:11 PM PDT

•  Here in Wyoming,

  if Clinton is the nominee, expect a lot of yards to have both Trauner and McCain signs.

  Supporting candidates from both parties isn't rare at all here.

  by Fishgrease on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:12:02 PM PDT

  •  Fair enough.

    There are several states that practically pride themselves on ticket-splitting.

    Wyoming I believe.  Arkansas and Louisiana are known to do this and so are New Hampshire and Pennsylvania.

    I am not suggesting this is a hard and fast rule.  Only that the appearance of such a phenomenon may be enough to convince the Superdelegates to abandon Hillary.

    by The Crusader on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:21:01 PM PDT

    •  Oh, you've a good point there

      I actually wrote what I did in support of it.

      by Fishgrease on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:22:19 PM PDT

•  If Obama can bring male indepdendents ...

  ... to the polls to vote for him then there will certainly be down-ballot gains for Democrats throughout the American West.

  I know that's certainly true in my congressional district - an open seat this time around. If Obama tops the ticket I'd say it's a 50/50 Democratic gain. If Clinton tops the ticket it will remain Republican.

  by Callimaco on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:12:18 PM PDT

  •  I expect Obama is more liberal than Hillary ads

    That wont help any western democrat.

    by bten on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:15:27 PM PDT

    •  The problem in the West is much less ...

      some "liberal" label than it is the Clinton name.

      I take it seriously when Western indies and GOPers talk about liking Obama's "tone". I don't know exactly what it is they see or hear, but he clearly puts them at ease in a way that liberal Democratic politicians rarely do. And with that ease they are much more willing to listen to him, and often enough they end up realizing they like what he's saying. I've seen it. I know it happens. And it might very well prove a boom for Western Democrats.

      by Callimaco on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:24:01 PM PDT

•  I don't care anymore

  because the president of the United States admits to violating international law . . . and there's nothing about it on the "most important progressive Democratic blog."  No advocacy, no outrage, no action.

  It's not only the "Democratic Congress" that's forfeited the moral right to lead . . .

  by prodigal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:14:46 PM PDT

  •  Actually there was a diary

    on it and I was a diary on the Mukasey hearing -- well done as a matter of fact and I was sorry it got so little traffic considering the number of total crap diaries today.

    by gchaucer2 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:31:53 PM PDT

    •  You noticed that too??? n/t

      by Abra Crabcakeya on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:38:08 PM PDT

      •  I've seen a number

        of diaries that constitute a comment and interminable repeat diaries on fundraising and basically stoopid candidate bashing diaries.  This one was the only one worthy of note for hours.

        by gchaucer2 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:50:56 PM PDT

        •  try -

          GernBlantzen's - i liked it ; really good source of some wonderful speech quotes by some Golden Oldie Dems.

          by Abra Crabcakeya on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:57:23 PM PDT

•  Answers

  Is it Clinton or Obama who is turning out the Democratic base?

  The only truthful answer is both.

  Is it Clinton or Obama who is bringing Republicans and Independents into the Party and can possibly bolster down-ballot Democratic candidates?

  Definitely Obama on this one.

  Is it Clinton or Obama who will ensure a broad Democratic majority for many years to come?

  I'd personally say neither. I think Obama will get a bigger democratic majority, but neither one is going to give us 60% power.

  Finally,

  They believe that Hillary's empty bank account and Obama's overflowing one pretty much gives the big 'mo to the Big O.

  Rumors of her money problems, it would seem, have been greatly exaggerated.

  by greatn on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:14:59 PM PDT

•  In Alaska

  The most likely down ticket challenger to lone Congressman Don Young (R) is Ethan Berkowitz. Ethan endorsed Barack. There is no question we need Barack at the top of the ticket to pick up many of these seats that are now in play.

  by mattk on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:16:52 PM PDT

•  Wishful Thinking .......

  This thought may be a little presumptuous considering that as different as states are , so goes their politics . Take my state for instance . I have researched and found that the majority of super delegates have already endorsed Senator Clinton ( which is not to say they couldn't change their minds ), and those people are pretty much the campy old school , been there are while , kind of folks with allegiance . So as much as I would like to see the slide tilt toward Obama I still have some trepidation over the outcome . Having said that we are reminded that there are still some strong caucuses ahead .

  by ArtfromMI on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:20:03 PM PDT

•  Rush Limbaugh

  is raising money for Clinton, which could explain a lot of her newly found money.

  by IhateBush on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:21:16 PM PDT

•  Both are problems for WI legislative races

  thanks to their positions on gun control as expressed at the Nevada debate.

  by ben masel on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:21:37 PM PDT

  •  I agree

    The gun control issue could be a ticking time bomb for either Democrat in a lot of states during the GE.

    They should've stuck with Howard Dean's rap on it:

    "Owning a gun in Montana means something different from owning a gun in New York.  Let states decide."

    by The Crusader on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:42:39 PM PDT

•  Who can unite Repigs behind McCane

  Hillary. I've made this point many times before the primary's started. I listen to c-span and that billion dollar unfair/disgusting marketing campaign against the Clintons has deep roots.
  I still don't want Hillary on the ticket because I have yet to hear her talk about campaign finance reform. Now that the shoe is on the other foot maybe she will. It takes alot of energy sometimes but she is still one of the good guys.

  by ghett on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:22:01 PM PDT

•  I don't think Hillary has the superdelegates

  wrapped up at all - and you've hit on the many reasons why.

  There is also the Clinton fatigue factor. what we see in the electorate (with 40-70% of voters choosing someone other than clinton) is more acute among elected officeholders, IMO.

  by Chrispy67 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:24:29 PM PDT

•  The real question...

  ...isn't Clinton v. Obama per se; in the longer term, it's 50-state v. 50+1.  Which approach at the national level is more beneficial to down-ballot Democrats:  throwing resources and money only to races in "blue" and "swing" states, or taking the fight to the Republicans everywhere we can field viable candidates.

  Which brings things back to the question of which campaign is using which approach, and why, of course.

  by Progressive Witness on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:29:51 PM PDT

  •  We'd love the help...

    Here in Georgia.  A viable campaign, with our large African American population, would be a HUGE help here.

    by cl30030 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:56:39 PM PDT

    •  I really hope you get it.

      I believe that Georgia has tremendous potential to contribute to a new, more progressive Democratic consensus.

      But not if the McAuliffes, Carvilles, and Begalas of the party get their way.  Let's not forget that essentially the first thing James Carville did in the wake of our victory in 2006 was call for the head of Howard Dean.  Never mind that if we'd followed the old guard's 50+1 strategy in 2006, the Republicans would still control Congress, and we'd be looking down the long, dangerous barrel of President Macaca.

      I was never really on board for Dean as a presidential candidate, and sometimes he just needs to know when to shut his mouth, but on balance, his term as DNC chair has gone a long way towards leading our party back out of the wilderness.  Down-ballot matters, and the 50-state strategy addresses that.  50+1 considers it irrelevant, as history has shown.

      by Progressive Witness on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:13:15 PM PDT

•  Obama will help in parts of the South

  He will help in NC by increasing African-American Dem turnout enormously.

  Usually here, the Pres. race is a GOP lock, so we do not get as much mileage as we could. With Obama atop the ticket, that would change.

  It would help us keep our slight edge in state government and would definitely help in some close counties like mine.

  The correct poll answer would be "it depends on where you are."

  by demondeac on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:50:16 PM PDT

•  the superdelegates will also ask themselfs...

  whom do my ground troops support. And will they work for me as hard, if I choos the other one.

  to be honest. Most Superdelegates still come from quite strong democratic areas. It's the American system to have few undecided districts. And most still rely more on there own democtratic base in GOTV than on independants. Independents are to be won and got out every election - the base is (just) to get out to vote as long you don't loose them. And once lost your valuable to an inside the party race - this meens doubble money raising, doubble the stress. I doubt many Supers like having that either.

  And they will have to fight 2010 again, when most grassroots (not those here on daily kos) won't show up again by the same margins to campain and mobilise the independent vote for them. The old ladies in the precicts will do the work even then.

  So superdelegets can't only look on electiblity down the ticket now. They also have to look, who does the hard camapainig work for them. Who goes door to door for them.

  by Hexmex on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:57:45 PM PDT

  •  Hmmm

    Most Superdelegates still come from quite strong democratic areas.

    Maybe where you live.  I'm in the South and the few Dems we have in office are holding on for dear life every cycle.  They know that a Hillary candidacy will bring every GOP nutbag out on Election Day to beat up on them too.  Obama keeps the Cons at home.

    So superdelegates can't only look on electability down the ticket now. They also have to look, who does the hard campaigning work for them. Who goes door to door for them.

    And you think somehow that the grassroots, "ground troops" are leaning towards Hillary?!?  Either I'm misunderstanding you or you just fell out of the Stupid Tree.

    by The Crusader on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:09:37 PM PDT

    •  you misunderstand me

      when I see a state or congrassional campains working, the "ground troops" are more likely nice old ladies. They do most of the phone banking, the door to door visits, and so on.

      Obama has brought a lot of new young people into the game. But no one can tell, how persitant there involment will be, when the heat is gone and things are going bad for Dems again. And if they will campain in the mid-terms again, for example.

      by Hexmex on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:22:44 PM PDT

      •  Newsflash

        A lot of Obama's ground troops are Howard Dean's supporters and Democracy for America members.  Only now they're trained and hold leadership positions in the campaign instead of just being "orange hats".  A lot of these folks have gotten elected to their county parties too over the last few years.  Now they hold pieces of the Party machinery across the states that Hillary would normally have all to herself.

        I don't know why people can't see this -- Obama is running the same campaign Howard Dean did.  The only difference is that Obama is the better messenger and he has dialed down Dean's partisan rhetoric because that is the mood this election cycle (it wasn't in '04 though).

        by The Crusader on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:59:06 PM PDT

•  I live in Ann Arbor

  I'm represented by John Dingell, who endorsed Clinton yesterday. So unfortunately, it looks like he feels more comfortable with Clinton on the top of the ballot.

  by Michiganliberal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:00:27 PM PDT