home
Gore: No Need For "Party Elder" Intervention In Dem Race | 134 comments (134 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

There's no benefit in endorsing (none / 0) (#126)
by spit on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:08:02 PM EST
to the work Gore is doing now. In fact, for furthering his work on global warming, he's likely going to stay the hell out of it until the very end -- he probably wants to retain influence in either administration. Given the importance of what he's doing, I think that's a wise move.

Anyway, I disagree with you on endorsements in general. I don't think they do a whole lot, except generate some media buzz, maybe lend some perceived legitimacy to a relatively unknown candidate, that's about it. Unless they can provide actual ground game resources -- union endorsements can be helpful in that regard, say -- but even there, they're not necessarily totally game-changing anymore.

[ Parent ]

Richardson's endorsement (none / 0) (#127)
by diogenes on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:18:14 PM EST
Bill Richardson's endorsement sure seemed to swing the momentum, and it sure got under James Carville's "Judas" goat.  Why would Carville make such a big deal about what doesn't matter?

[ Parent ]
IMO that was about timing (5.00 / 2) (#129)
by spit on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:30:51 PM EST
Everybody was waiting to see what the next thing after the Wright mess and his speech would be. Richardson stepped in and gave the media another story to report, one that helped end the "is Obama collapsing?" stuff.

As I said, endorsements can help the media buzz. Obama needed good media buzz at that moment, badly.

Otherwise, I don't think it moved anybody in itself. Most of the people I know barely know who Richardson is, and of those who do, most are like "wasn't he that lame guy in the debates?"

FWIW, I think Obama helped himself far more with his speech than Richardson helped him, though both were helpful given the timing, I expect. I've been observing the polls all season, and there's been a surprisingly significant lag for most events to really show up in the polls -- bloggers hyperventilate the second an event occurs, but it often takes at least a few days for stuff to even trickle out into broader public awareness, and it seems to then usually take a few more days for opinions on it to congeal. I can think of a few exceptions, but very few.

There are plenty of counterexamples to yours, too. Did Kerry's or Kennedy's endorsement matter much, other than the storyline the media got to play up for days?

[ Parent ]

According to a Huff Post link, (5.00 / 1) (#130)
by oculus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:40:09 PM EST
carville says that up to a month before he endorsed Obama, Richardson was telling Clinton big donors that he would endorse Clinton.  

[ Parent ]
It was obvious for a long time (none / 0) (#131)
by MKS on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:11:44 PM EST
and not to just big donors....Bill looked a little deflated when watching the Super Bowl with Richardson.  As if he knew that Richardson would not endorse Hillary....

When he dropped out, Richardson said he might endorse because he had gotten to know the candidates on the campaign trail.  He had obviously known Hillary for years, so he was talking about Obama....

Bill kept Richardson on the sidelines for a long time....The timing of the endorsement was key...and a big help.  

[ Parent ]

Gore: No Need For "Party Elder" Intervention In Dem Race | 134 comments (134 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft