Ted Kennedy is a “super delegate” which comprise nearly 20% of the delegates needed to win the nomination. Super delegates are not bound by caucauses and primaries.
So, if the state belonging to a super delegate (let’s say Mass.) goes to Clinton, the super delegate from that state can still cast his vote for Obama.
So, the opinion of superdelegates is important becuase it’s relevant to the final counting of delegates that is not affected by primaries/caucases.
How Ted Kennedy’s opinion affects other voters and delegates is up in teh air, but knowing where these wild cards stand is not irrelevant.
[QUOTE=Engineer Dude]
I agree. By election day, it’ll all be water under the bridge.
[/QUOTE]
Obama has to get through nominating season to get to election day. That’s what this is about in my opinion. They’re not getting it “out of the way,” they’re trying to get a lift before Super Tuesday to convince people that he is for real and has a real chance to win. And there’s always the money issue.
[QUOTE=Bobotheoptimist]
And amazingly useless. From the site - “Barack Obama has voted with a majority of his Democratic colleagues 96.4% of the time during the current Congress.”
Wow, valuable information indeed. Certainly sets him apart from Clinton with 97.1%. There’s a full .7% difference!
Since they’re nearly identical, maybe things such as apparent sincerity, background, politicians with whom they associate, etc. could be used to differentiate.
Honestly, that old drunk alone isn’t going to change my intentions (unless he signs on as a running mate), but it does give pause.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, a refreshing kneejerk when Ted Kennedy comes up! How surprising!
Ummm… did you note that the link will allow you to look at individual votes or are you too lax to look? Is that some back handed ad hom on a site that MIGHT educate people away from your asinine ad hom, correllation=causation argument?
[QUOTE=Otto]
Assuming that this is in any way intended as a serious statement of Kennedy’s record of public service, did you have some cite that Ted Kennedy has spent the last 45 years in the Senate engaged in a mission to destroy the United States?
I don’t care if any particular person endorses a candidate, but sort of like what other people have said, if a broad swath of people with a range of political opinions and viewpoints all endorse the same person it may spark me to look more closely into why s/he is attracting the broad support base.
[/QUOTE]
Kennedy did a lot to bring about ou decline, to wit:
-voted to keep mandatory school busing-resulting in the destruction of inner-citie schools
-voted against off-shore oil drilling, and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve
-actively fights a windmill proposal on Cape Cod (the windmills would spoil his view); while he spews nonsense about fighting “global warming”
[QUOTE=ralph124c]
-actively fights a windmill proposal on Cape Cod (the windmills would spoil his view); while he spews nonsense about fighting “global warming”
[/QUOTE]
The first two - and oh yes, the whole idea of “our decline” - are your opinion, but Kennedy dropped his opposition to the windmills a couple of years ago.
Like **BobLibDem ** said, it’s the Latinos. In fact, Ted has said (according to a spokesman for him on MSNBC) that he has never been so excited about an endorsement, and he’s preparing now to go to Nevada, Arizona, and California to campaign actively for Obama in the Latino community. It could make a huge difference.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
Obama has to get through nominating season to get to election day. That’s what this is about in my opinion. They’re not getting it “out of the way,” they’re trying to get a lift before Super Tuesday to convince people that he is for real and has a real chance to win. And there’s always the money issue.
[/QUOTE]
Uh…yeah…“water under the bridge”? Ted Kennedy thread? I think you’ve been splooshed.
[QUOTE=Engineer Dude]
I agree. By election day, it’ll all be water under the bridge.
[/QUOTE]
I see what you did there…
Fortunately for Obama he’s running against Hillary, because if there had been a candidate of equal stature that I could have voted for I likely would have gone for him. If Ted Kennedy tells me that water is wet I’ll check. However, I’ll get out of the car first.
I sometimes wonder if Obama-mania isn’t just a more virulent form of Ron Paul-mania. More credible, more infectious, and I wonder (but hope not) as blinding.
The polls for Super Tuesday all seem to point to Hillary. And I think that’s likely to be what happens. But that won’t stop my vote when it finally gets to Texas in March.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Helps him the primaries, hurts him the general.
[/QUOTE]
Oh please. Ted Kennedy would and will give the thumbs up to however is ultimately nominated. No one who disliked Kennedy enough to care about an endorsement would vote for a Democrat with Obama’s stances anyway.
For those questioning why bob would not vote for Obama based on Kennedy’s endorsement, isn’t that just the flip side of the coin from the hoped-for effect? How is choosing against a candidate based on an endorsement any different or worse than choosing to support a candidate based on an endorsement?
For the record, I think the endorsement is unequivocally good for Obama, if only because it has dominated the news for the last two days. Free publicity is a good thing for the underdog.
[QUOTE=MilTan]
For those questioning why bob would not vote for Obama based on Kennedy’s endorsement, isn’t that just the flip side of the coin from the hoped-for effect? How is choosing against a candidate based on an endorsement any different or worse than choosing to support a candidate based on an endorsement?
[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily. Many have noted that Kennedy’s endorsement might have the effect of pushing people to educate themselves about Obama and his various stances. That’s not the flip side of a knee-jerk reaction.
As an aside, I don’t think either Democratic candidate is going to fight really hard to get votes from the various bobtheoptimists of the world (he’s not exactly fond of the Democratic party), so I don’t think his reaction is going to carry much weight.
[QUOTE=DMC]
As an aside, I don’t think either Democratic candidate is going to fight really hard to get votes from the various bobtheoptimists of the world (he’s not exactly fond of the Democratic party), so I don’t think his reaction is going to carry much weight.
[/QUOTE]
It’s possible you have me confused with someone else. I’m an independent in a purple state and I’m disgusted with the Republican party. Pretty much exactly the demographic both parties are courting. Hardcore Lefties and Righties are going to vote the party ticket regardless of who’s nominated, independents and moderates could be the deciding factor in November.
[QUOTE=Bobotheoptimist]
It’s possible you have me confused with someone else. I’m an independent in a purple state and I’m disgusted with the Republican party. Pretty much exactly the demographic both parties are courting. Hardcore Lefties and Righties are going to vote the party ticket regardless of who’s nominated, independents and moderates could be the deciding factor in November.
[/QUOTE]
No, I don’t have you confused, as I remember you being libertarian. What probably threw me was the fact that a lot of self-proclaimed libertarians have been little more than Republicans in sheep’s clothing over the past 10-15 years or so, which always seemed stupid (or dishonest) to me. Socially conservative and fiscally liberal? Oh yeah, that’s a match.
I still don’t think you’re at the top of their target list at this time (although likely more so in the general election than now), but I was wrong to assume you were a libertarian with a big “R.” I’m sorry about that.
I’m still confused why the endorsement would actually sway you away from a candidate. The most it would do for me would be to get me to look closer, for good or bad.
Note: This isn’t coming from an Obama (nor Clinton) backer, as I still haven’t made up my mind yet. I will admit to be looking a lot closer at Obama than I was a month ago, but that change happened long before this endorsement came.
[QUOTE=MilTan]
For those questioning why bob would not vote for Obama based on Kennedy’s endorsement, isn’t that just the flip side of the coin from the hoped-for effect? How is choosing against a candidate based on an endorsement any different or worse than choosing to support a candidate based on an endorsement?
[/QUOTE]
Because someone who dislikes Kennedy enough to have it negatively impact his views on Obama is less likely to vote in a Democratic primary. Someone who dislikes Kennedy enough to still care about this in *November *is unlikely to vote for a Democrat.
I think it’s a wash. It’s certainly not a bad thing, but this idea that Latinos will flock to BO because of the endorsement makes little sense to me. Not when HRC has Richard Chavez (brother of Cesar), Dolores Huerta of the UFW, and the UFW themselves. Add in Henry Cisneros, Antonio Villaraigosa, and a number of less nationally-known Latino leaders who are behind Clinton, for those folks who care about endorsements, she’s got this pretty much in the bag.
Is there any evidence that Latinos pay attention to endorsements from national figures who are not Latinos themselves?
Richardson could be a big get and he might endorse this weekend. I think it’s fair to say that his endorsement, if it comes, will be a boon for whomever gets it.
I agree that campaigning with Teddy won’t play well in the national election, but neither candidate would have told him to go to hell if he offered the endorsement. But HRC can go on the stump solo or with BC - no surprises there. Every photo op BO has with Kerry and Kennedy won’t play well considering the appeal he’s making to Republicans. But it’s not like he shouldn’t, or even has an option to tell these guys to stay home. (Though I would distance myself from the Kerry endorsement as much as possible. That guy is political kryptonite outside of the base of the Dem Party, and even that’s debatable.)
(My analysis comes from my friends and colleagues, primarily Mexican-American. Several were Clinton administration appointees.)