home

Obama Parties to Flood the TX Caucuses

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:00:00 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Move-On just sent its Denver members an e-mail asking them to host an Obama party on Sunday where everyone brings a cell phone:

On Sunday, March 2, we're holding the biggest phone bank in presidential primary history. Folks everywhere will come to parties armed with cell phones—ready to call thousands of Texas MoveOn members whose votes could put Obama over the top on March 4.

...."we'll make sure folks know about the unusual primary-plus-caucus system in Texas, which allows voters to double their impact. If we can get our 125,000 MoveOn members in Texas to flood primary and caucus locations, Obama will win.

And the disclaimer: "PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee."

900 people have already signed up to host parties across the country. Their goal is 1,000 parties. And Obama complains about a 527 PAC for Hillary in Ohio?

< Electability | Accusation: Rove Targeted Siegelman >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama Parties to Flood the TX Caucuses | 169 comments (169 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Surely not (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:06:33 PM EST
    Move On is a legally incorporated entity formed to raise money for specific causes, or to use your parlance, create a slush fund.

    One is people powered, meaning that they are people working for Obama now, or lobbyist powered, which mean they are people working for Hillary.

    Just as when reaching out to the GOP is pure and goodness unity when done by Obama and dirty and evil DLC triangulation when done by Hillary.

    Just thought your comment need some amplification.

    BTW Jeralyn, I am not going to further participate in this thread and if you are not going to monitor it, I suggest you close commentsd immediately.

    Nothing but lies and nonsense comes form this topiv.

    I agree with you (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:21:02 PM EST
    I always thought that Move On was the group of people who supported Democratic causes and candidates. When Move On endorsed a specific Democratic candidate in a PRIMARY, I felt it no longer was representing all Democrats belonging in its organization. To me, it was just another personal lobbying group using it power not against the Republicans but against other Democrats. In as much as I did not feel that they should have done this, I choose to leave their pact. I doubt that they missed me at all as they have so many that believe they did the right thing. I wonder how right it would have been if they had endorsed Hillary or John.  

    [ Parent ]
    BarnBabe (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:26:47 PM EST
    I agree--and I think others here felt betrayed by MoveOn for the endorsement as well.  It was meant to be an arm of the democratic party, not a knife that slices it apart.  If they are going to claim to support democratic candidates and democratic values, then they should help ALL candidates.  There is no reason for them to endorse anyone but the dem party.

    The endorsement, for me, really crossed the line.  It also reflected a tone that I've read on certain blogs where they say they want to support democrats, but only "their" democrats.  To borrow some language from the Chimp in Chief: you are either for us or against us.

    Unity, indeed.

    [ Parent ]

    I left move on too, 'cz of the same thing. (none / 0) (#167)
    by mexboy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:35:18 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I deleted the comment you are replying to (none / 0) (#18)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:22:56 PM EST
    it contained a dubious personal opinion presented as fact and was misleading. That commenter is warned.

    [ Parent ]
    you STILL don't understand what triangulation is? (none / 0) (#121)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:43:36 PM EST
    Triangulation is an exercise in political positioning. It means you take positions that co-opt your opponent on particular issues, by being, as in the case of Bill, more Republican than Republicans. It is Bill Clinton proclaiming that the "era of big government is over", or championing NAFTA and welfare reform.

    Obama is doing none of that, as should be obvious when you see that his platform is almost identical to Hillary's. His outreach to independents and Republicans is not about adopting their policies, it is about not declaring them evil enemies, its about showing them some respect, trying to charm and disarm them to facilitate their acceptance of our ideas.

    It is an outreach to Republican VOTERS as people who have the same kind of underlying concerns as anyone else, seeking their support, not to Republican IDEAS or POLS, as was the case with Bill.

    Maybe you don't recall how dispirited so many of us were when, at the moment of the greatest progressive triumph in a generation, the reelection of Democratic president, we found ourselves voting for a guy whose platform was all about supporting school uniforms, and crap like that. Bill Clinton had no real vision after a while. That was the origin of the view of the Clintons as people interested in power for its own sake.

    [ Parent ]

    uniforms? (5.00 / 0) (#137)
    by eric on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:54:19 PM EST
    Maybe you don't recall how dispirited so many of us were when, at the moment of the greatest progressive triumph in a generation, the reelection of Democratic president, we found ourselves voting for a guy whose platform was all about supporting school uniforms, and crap like that.

    School uniforms?  Do you remember this because you were in school in 1996?  Reelecting Bill Clinton surely wasn't a "progressive triumph" but it wasn't about school uniforms, either.

    [ Parent ]

    no (none / 0) (#151)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:08:33 PM EST
    I remember it because, having grown up in the sixties and having come to associate progressive Democratic leadership as being about civil rights, women's rights, the beginnings of support for gay rights, support for the environmental movement, and efforts to dislodge the corrupt establishment of the time, just to name a few, I thought that the moment, 1996, when the nation reaffirmed its support for a new generation of Democratic leadership, might actually move the ball forward in our society in some significant way. Or at least aspire to.

    [ Parent ]
    Moving the ball forward (5.00 / 0) (#163)
    by eric on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:24:04 PM EST
    This is getting a bit off topic, but I have to ask, why the mention of school uniforms?  I remember 1996 differently, I guess.  Bill Clinton was never my idea of a progressive, but he did do many great things as president.  The "ball" was moved forward.

    Specifically, I remember the campaign theme that year - "Building a Bridge to the 21st Century".  Plenty of vision there.  And practically what the 1996 election meant was 4 more years of peace and prosperity.

    [ Parent ]

    Moveon (5.00 / 7) (#16)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:19:46 PM EST
    has gotten their last dime from me which I told them after they endorsed Obama...What is stupid, is that Hillary supported them in Congress with the condemn vote and Obama avoided it...For that Loyalty, this is how she is repaid...I am not impressed...

    Yup (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by ineedalife on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:28:21 PM EST
    I quit too that day. For the same reason.

    [ Parent ]
    Endorsing Obama was a tactical error (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by tigercourse on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:29:09 PM EST
    on their part. They are screwed no matter what. Obama now knows he can count on their support even if he does not support them. And Clinton has no reason to support them in the future, because she knows they might just stab her in the back.

    [ Parent ]
    You realize (none / 0) (#43)
    by andrewwm on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:37:04 PM EST
    that it was a vote by their membership to endorse. It had to pass a 66% threshold. It wasn't just decided by some secret cabal at the top. If their members want them to support Obama, they support Obama. Just like any other membership organization.

    [ Parent ]
    That is a lie. (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by dk on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:42:54 PM EST
    I was a MoveOn member and voted.  The email I received from MoveOn announcing the Obama endorsement stated that they received about 300,000 total votes.  MoveOn claimed a membership of 3.2 million.  Therefore, by my math, less than 10% of MoveOn members voted.

    [ Parent ]
    Are you saying that (none / 0) (#134)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:53:48 PM EST
    a low turnout delegitimizes an election?

    Clearly the point being made was that all memebers had an opportunity to vote, and the endorsement went to the candidate that won the vote, if and only they garnered 2/3 of the vote.

    Just like any other democratic election.

    [ Parent ]

    Polls open for one hour would be (none / 0) (#181)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:49:46 PM EST
    a democratic election?  Not in my precinct, I hope.  It took pollworkers 20 minutes to find my daughter on the list, with one guy so hard of hearing, and then he dropped the list and forgot the first letter of her last name and had to have it yelled out again so he could start over. . . .

    [ Parent ]
    they held the "elections" (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:42:55 PM EST
    within an hour of sending out the emails asking for votes.

    If we are going to hold voters to a specific time in order to have their vote counted, then I suppose you are arguing to throw out caucuses?

    [ Parent ]

    My beef (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by muffie on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:51:21 PM EST
    was that there was no option to not endorse.  If there had been such an choice, I would have opted for that rather than Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Why would this bias it toward Obama? (1.00 / 1) (#53)
    by andrewwm on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:44:47 PM EST
    I don't get why this would change the outcome at all. Unless you want to argue that Obama people are faster at checking their email?

    What makes you think if they'd opened the voting for a longer period of time there would have been any real shift?

    [ Parent ]

    Looking at the demographics (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by Practically Lactating on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:55:29 PM EST
    that typically support these candidates, that could very well be the case.

    Clinton: Older, lower socioeconomic status
    Obama: Younger, higher socioeconomic status

    I'd be willing to bet that one of these group checks their email more frequently, has a blackberry, etc.

    [ Parent ]

    I'd bet most of her demographic support (none / 0) (#70)
    by andrewwm on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:00:40 PM EST
    isn't even a member of MoveOn. One has to be pretty plugged into the whole netroots thing to even know what it is, and the netroots (rightly or wrongly) has broken strongly for Obama. So I'm sort of surprised it was as close as it was.

    [ Parent ]
    MoveOn is hardly netroots (5.00 / 0) (#132)
    by Practically Lactating on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:51:37 PM EST
    at this stage.  Using the internet for organization is not netroots.

    And my point was that Obama supporters, if I had to guess, check their email more often, not that Clinton supporters don't know how to use the internet. I just want to be clear on that.

    I would not be surprised if there are a significant amount of people that are technically members, but are not active, and if a lot of Clinton supporters fall in this group.

    I don't fit the demographics I listed, but I stopped paying attention to Moveon when the spam got out of control.

    [ Parent ]

    One hour to vote.....like a caucus? (none / 0) (#78)
    by hairspray on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:04:17 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    That's more democratic (none / 0) (#52)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:43:12 PM EST
    than my labor union. The national officers chose to support H. Clinton without asking the membership.

    [ Parent ]
    I was just responding to the lie (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by dk on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:47:58 PM EST
    that 66% of MoveOn members voted for Obama.  In fact, about 6% did.

    [ Parent ]
    Most of MoveOn's members aren't really active (none / 0) (#61)
    by andrewwm on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:49:24 PM EST
    This is the trouble with a loosely affiliated group like MoveOn. If they required a true supermajority of all their listed members to do anything important, they'd never ever get it. 300,000 is a pretty amazing turnout in that light (about the same as turnouts in primaries this year actually).

    [ Parent ]
    So you're admitting you agree with me (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by dk on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:51:43 PM EST
    that Obama only got about 6% of the vote?  Then why did you even bring up that bogus 66% threshold number and try to pass it off as truth, when it isn't?

    [ Parent ]
    66% of those that voted (none / 0) (#75)
    by andrewwm on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    Given the general demographics of Obama's support and the general demographics of MoveOn, I really doubt that if they'd actually polled every member the result would have been materially different.

    Again, it was a member-driven decision. No one at the top made a decision and forced everyone else to follow it.

    [ Parent ]

    That makes absolutely no sense. (none / 0) (#170)
    by dk on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:45:41 PM EST
    On what basis was it a member-driven decision?  I was a member, and I didn't drive it.  The decision to have the poll was made by someone, and I assume that was the leadership.  And just because you personally doubt that the result would have been different if more than 6% of MoveOn members actually had voted, why does that make it true?

    [ Parent ]
    The Obama Rule (5.00 / 8) (#27)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:30:19 PM EST
    I thought the Obama rule on outside participation was already clear from his treatment of union support for Edwards.  

    Outside groups who spend money on behalf of democrats not named Obama are special interests interfering in an election.  Outside groups who support Obama are only doing what is good and right.

    that was my point (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:32:16 PM EST
    Outside groups who spend money on behalf of democrats not named Obama are special interests interfering in an election.  Outside groups who support Obama are only doing what is good and right.

    thanks

    [ Parent ]

    The optics are really bad for the 527 (none / 0) (#47)
    by andrewwm on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:39:48 PM EST
    It's a small group of Clinton's maxed out donors seeking a way around the $2300 primary donation rule. I really doubt that most of the MoveOn people are maxed out Obama supporters.

    Somehow big donations to a slush fund from probably corporate interests are somewhat more concerning than a couple thousand people volunteering their time.

    [ Parent ]

    are you a tad concerned (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:41:58 PM EST
    that of all the senators reviewed, Obama had the third largest PAC fund of any of them?

    Why does a first term senator who has no challengers in his district need a PAC fund at all?

    [ Parent ]

    Well... (1.00 / 0) (#55)
    by andrewwm on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:46:34 PM EST
    What did Senator Clinton need the $40 million senate reelection campaign funds for in 2006, when she creamed the token Republican? If I recall correctly, she was pretty miserly about donating it to other Democrats in need that year, as opposed to Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    What does Clinton have to do with (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:56:38 PM EST
    my question, which you still did not answer?

    To continually respond to questions about Obama with, "well, Clinton did---" (fill in the blank) does not work for me.  My question was about Obama and it remains: why did a first term senator need so much money in his PAC, and--more importantly--where were those millions coming from?

    (As for Clinton being miserly: that statement strikes me as incredibly petty.  Both she and her husband have given their time and their money to help raise millions for fellow democrats, Obama included)

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry about that (none / 0) (#79)
    by andrewwm on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:07:03 PM EST
    To reformulate. Obama's PAC gave out most of its money to Dems in closely contested races. (Before anyone brings up the bribery thing, someone did a study and it turns out that most of the people he gave money to ended up endorsing Clinton). He could have saved that money for his presidential campaign, but did not. I think that's a reasonable use of a PAC - giving to Democrats in closely contested races to help engender a Democratic majority.

    Clinton, on the other hand, sucked up a huge amount of resources for her reelection bid and gave out almost none to Democratic challengers in need (presumably saving it for her presidential bid).

    Kos, MyDD, and others were quite upset about this in 2006 and there was a lot written about it then.

    [ Parent ]

    You still did not answer my question (none / 0) (#87)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:14:38 PM EST
    Why did he need that much money in a PAC and who gave it to him?

    (and try to leave Clinton out of your answer)

    [ Parent ]

    Well (none / 0) (#97)
    by andrewwm on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:24:07 PM EST
    1. Your point in bringing up Obama's PAC wasn't relevant to my post to begin with.

    2. It's all here: link

    You have to do a pulldown tab for the 2008 election cycle, as most of the money was raised and spent in 2006.

    The total amount pretty much pales in comparison to the $40 million Clinton raised, and almost all of the money Obama raised was given to Democrats in close races that year.

    [ Parent ]

    he could not use it for his presidential campaign (none / 0) (#88)
    by nycvoter on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:16:01 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    What does his presidential campaign have to do (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:20:36 PM EST
    with ANYTHING?

    The question is simple: why does a first term senator in an uncontested seat have the third largest PAC in the senate and where did the money come from?

    I have asked this question three times now and only gotten excuses and "Well, Clinton did X" as a response.  This is an issue that speaks to the core of his message, and NO ONE CAN ANSWER IT.

    [ Parent ]

    The largest donation (none / 0) (#102)
    by andrewwm on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:29:46 PM EST
    Was from some Goldman employee for $5000; most of the rest above $250 (mandatory reporting limit) was from random individuals and is a small chunk of the total.

    Almost all the money raised, it seems, was from small donors. Which isn't surprising, given the base of support he has now.

    [ Parent ]

    Whoops (none / 0) (#113)
    by andrewwm on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:37:06 PM EST
    Was reading the wrong disclosure form. There are lots of $5000 donors (the max donation); but good luck if you can find a pattern in the givers. About 1/2 the total take for the fund was raised by less than $250 donors.

    [ Parent ]
    and-a-one-and-a-two-and-a-five... (none / 0) (#116)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:39:31 PM EST
    Why were they giving him money for a PAC when he was uncontested in his seat?

    Why would someone in NY give a first term IL senator money for his PAC?

    Why would someone in CA give a first term IL senator money for his PAC?

    Why would so many people outside of a first term senator's district give money to his PAC?

    Why did he even have a PAC?

    [ Parent ]

    Uh (none / 0) (#124)
    by andrewwm on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:44:24 PM EST
    because he became a Democratic celebrity after the 2004 speech, and wanted to use that celebrity to raise money to get Democrats into office? That was the stated purpose of the PAC, and people gave to it with the idea that this is what the money would be used for.

    Occam's razor and all.

    [ Parent ]

    oh... (5.00 / 0) (#131)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:50:07 PM EST
    because he wanted to use his power for good?

    Boy, I wish I were a celebrity and lots of folks gave me money because they liked me and not because they expected anything back or wanted me to do anything.  Way cool.  Hope.  Unity.  Change.

    [ Parent ]

    So what did all those (none / 0) (#138)
    by andrewwm on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:54:48 PM EST
    who donated the $40 million to Clinton for her reelection expect, given the fact that it was clear she didn't really need it for it's stated purpose? For comparison, Obama's PAC raised only $4 million. That's practically chump change in politics.

    And yes, I do think some people are altruistic. I think some chunk of Clinton's max donors are altruistic (and, of course, some aren't). But Clinton's got a lot more of them than Obama has.

    [ Parent ]

    and so it comes back to Clinton (none / 0) (#153)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:08:58 PM EST
    when I ask a perfectly valid question about Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    My original point was about Clinton (none / 0) (#157)
    by andrewwm on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:12:05 PM EST
    that you took the opportunity to sidestep into this PAC thing.

    [ Parent ]
    so... (none / 0) (#164)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:25:02 PM EST
    now it is my fault for not sticking to your original point?

    [ Parent ]
    Get elected and give a well-received speech (none / 0) (#148)
    by JJE on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:03:59 PM EST
    And maybe you can have your own PAC.

    [ Parent ]
    Am I the only one who (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:31:30 PM EST
    hates getting phone calls from strangers? I find it incredibly intrusive. I hang up the minute I get one. It's like a telemarketer call to me.

    No! (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by AF on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:33:23 PM EST
    You are not!  I hate it too.  And making cold calls I hate it even more.  It's why I dislike volunteering for campaigns.

    [ Parent ]
    I have gotten calls from both camps (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:37:43 PM EST
    I have to admit I am more amenable to the Clinton folks, but the Obama folks are very energetic and polite, and when I say that I am firmly in the Clinton camp, they'll say, "She's a great candidate, isn't she?"  Which impressed me the first time--and kind of did the second--but the fifth time, I was like, "get a new script."

    But, these exchanges are the sorts that I think of when I hear about telephone polling.  I'm sure there are folks out there who game it just for fun.

    [ Parent ]

    Most phone banking (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by andrewwm on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:35:15 PM EST
    isn't to persuade undecideds. It's to make sure those in favor of you actually come out and vote. Would you hang up on a Clinton supporter informing you of where your polling place is and confirming that you will vote?

    [ Parent ]
    I asked them to stop calling me (none / 0) (#56)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:46:47 PM EST
    when I got two calls in one night.

    [ Parent ]
    Fair enough (none / 0) (#81)
    by andrewwm on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:09:18 PM EST
    I just suspect that most people feel that phone banking from the friendly side is usually much less annoying than other types of unsolicited calls.

    [ Parent ]
    No, you're not. (none / 0) (#100)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:29:14 PM EST
    Yesterday I got a call from a defense of marriage robocaller. Me, I'm living in sin with a woman but if my girlfriend's daughter wants to marry her girlfriend I want her to have that right.

    A couple years ago people used to call across the room, "Bob, you've got another call from Bill Clinton." That was actually funny. Like maybe he wanted to play a round of golf with me or go out clubbing.

    Clearly, a MoveOn activist will be more likely to take a call from MoveOn than the average person will be motivated by a robocall.

    [ Parent ]

    jeralyn maybe you should be nicer (none / 0) (#147)
    by nycvoter on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:03:56 PM EST
    it's tough enough being a volunteer trying to do this work, it wouldn't hurt to take a minute to say you aren't interested in a nice tone, take is from a volunteer.  I don't even hang up rudely on telemarketers, I'm just firm, direct and get off the phone

    [ Parent ]
    point taken (none / 0) (#158)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:12:06 PM EST
    thanks.

    [ Parent ]
    Influencing the Dem Nomination (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:12:38 PM EST
    ******************

    It troubles me that MoveOn is this invested in influencing the nomination process. Is there any polling as to whether MoveOn represents the opinions or interests of most registered Democrats?

    Also, is anybody out there concerned about the fact that so-called independents and Republican shills are 'helping' select the Democratic nominee in states with open or semi-open primaries/caucuses?  

    I think (none / 0) (#122)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:43:57 PM EST
    I think that any group that supports a candidate in a political race runs the risk of losing the support and goodwill of the followers of other candidates. That's the nature of the game.

    MoveOn doesn't have to represent the opinions and interests of most registered Democrats. Supporting Obama, however, does represent two-thirds of its members.

    Towards your greater question, about Republicans and independents, no President has been elected without votes from people outside of their party. As far as open primaries and same-day voter registration, those are issues that you and people of like mind can argue against, state by state, between now and 2012. Good luck. Right now, as with the question of caucuses, it just sounds like whining.

    [ Parent ]

    two-thirds? (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:45:37 PM EST
    300K out of 3.2MM equals two-thirds?

    [ Parent ]
    registered democrats (none / 0) (#154)
    by nycvoter on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:10:53 PM EST
    that are newly registered voters who choose to be registered as democrats or have been registered democrats for at least one primary. In NY, if you registered n the last few weeks you could vote in the primary, if you wanted to switch parties you were not able to vote as a Dem but had to wait until the next primary election

    [ Parent ]
    See Reply Downstream, under comment by tek (none / 0) (#169)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:44:54 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Divide and conquer (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:27:26 PM EST
    is not good for any "participant" group in the Democratic party...

    It's not good for Moveon.
    It's not good for the Netroots.

    It's being done, and I think the end result will be an implosion, or at least a severe cratering of their charters.  Those left picking up the pieces will have to start all over again.

    There needs to be a voice of reason on the Obama side -- someone to say, hey, this isn't good for Democrats.  Until there is?  well IMHO, he's taking advantage of an implosion, and I consider it greedy, self-centered, and bordering on corrupt.

    And BTW, that Moveon "vote" was more like a caucus than like a fair election.  And the whole notion that 66% of Moveon members chose to endose Obama is simply bogus.

    voice of reason? from whom? (5.00 / 0) (#112)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:36:31 PM EST
    michelle, nah! obama,nah. axelrod? not in a million years! so there is no one. and put the democratic party first? i have seen no evidence that the campaign does.

    [ Parent ]
    Given the demographics of MoveOn (none / 0) (#105)
    by andrewwm on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:31:19 PM EST
    are very similar to the blogosphere in general (which, like it or not, has broken hard for Obama), what makes you think that if they polled every single member of MoveOn the results would have been different?

    [ Parent ]
    BTW: (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:59:10 PM EST
    Several of the A-list bloggers were actually Republicans when the Clintons were elected.  They don't know how to quit (hating) the Clintons.

    [ Parent ]
    which ones (none / 0) (#150)
    by eric on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:08:11 PM EST
    I am not being snarky - which ones?  I am curious.  I think Aravosis used to be a repub.

    [ Parent ]
    Wikipedia links (none / 0) (#161)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:21:10 PM EST
    (and BTW, my notion that they don't now how to quit (hating) the Clintons is simply my opinion based on observation and knowing when they were  Republican and switched to being Democrats.  But I believe it bears out with the anti-Clinton stuff they tolerate, even while IMHO, I think it's harmful to their cause.)

    Yes, there's Aravosis.  In addition:

    Markos

    Huffington

    [ Parent ]

    We'll never know, will we ;-). (none / 0) (#128)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:46:34 PM EST
    All I know is that I never received an voter's email from them.....

    Besides, I don't think the vast blogosphere is behind Obama, contrary to KOS' very unscientific polling.  I think that the rest of us have just scattered to other parts.

    [ Parent ]

    Um (none / 0) (#1)
    by Cycloptichorn on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:54:04 AM EST
    What's wrong with holding house parties in support of a candidate?  Specifically.

    I don't understand how you can compare thousands of people getting involved with the political process, legally, to a 527 funded by about a hundred very rich people?

    Not that it will matter in the slightest, though.  Ground game like this can't be bought with 527 money and it is light-years more effective then crappy commercials.

    Still here trolling for dKos diary topics? (none / 0) (#76)
    by Jim J on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:03:34 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Interesting (none / 0) (#2)
    by scribe on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:54:05 AM EST
    His campaign seems to have, if not invented new ways for the ground game to work, then seriously updated the old ones.  That alone is, IMHO, likely to win him the nomination.

    If that comes to pass, let us hope he can keep the machine working through the general, so it can do the same kind of work there.

    This is the key (none / 0) (#8)
    by jcsf on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:03:13 PM EST
    And it would be nice if Jeralyn or BTD acknowledged it.

    The ground game that Obama has run - both online, and in the states - has been phenomenal, amazing.  Really, just incredible.

    That GOTV - it's ESSENTIAL for the November contest, especially if it can be focused down-ticket as well.

    The campaign he has run IS a people-powered campaign, IS the campaign that we as the internet left, have been hoping for.

    Yes, we would prefer that it be more in OPPOSITION to the repubs - but opposition doesn't inspire.

    Given the nature of the campaign - the topdown nature of the Clinton campaigning, versus the 'build a coalition' of the Obama campaign, get out there, meet people, etc - can't you see that Obama is our most effective candidate?

    [ Parent ]

    No, to me the key is whether (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:07:54 PM EST
    the candidate has the tactics to win not just the nomination but the tactics to win change in Congress.  I'm trying to imagine house parties to march on Congressional offices. . . .

    [ Parent ]
    I am programming (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Practically Lactating on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:30:26 PM EST
    a Change™ Facebook application in preparation for this new politics.  I am also setting up a Change™ group on Myspace if anyone is interested. It's as easy as clicking "Join."  I can't wait to leverage these tools to achieve transcendent and meaningful change. I am tired of the old politics. /sarcasm

    [ Parent ]
    Cream City (none / 0) (#67)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:58:03 PM EST
    That's what the Democrats need to do. We need to think outside the box. The way Clinton ran this campaign was by the old book, and it didn't work. That's why people are turning to Obama.

    Maybe not house parties, but there are ways to get representatives and senators to bend to the will of the people and Obama and his people have repeatedly shown that they can more effectively can things done, specifically so far, to get Obama the nomination.

    [ Parent ]

    Nope, not my members of Congress (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:20:57 PM EST
    or any I've ever seen.  Dave Obey really took it well when one soldier's mother marched on him, huh?  And just try these tactics even with a Kerry or Kennedy.  

    Members of Congress are in the box, they built the box, and they really like the box they built.

    I've talked with a lot of "people turning to Obama," and many are dear souls with wonderful wishlists, but I have found very few with previous political experience.  They are going to get their hearts as well as their souls broken, thinking they can change Congress.

    The only way to change it even incrementally for us is to get a solid Dem hold on it, and I've looked closely at returns in my state, and the coattails aren't going to be there.  And I think that means that even if nominated, and even if elected (I think that is very chancy), Obama probably would be a one-term president.

    Fine if we can run Clinton again in 2012, if she would be willing to go up against him for us --  but the Kerry-Kennedy box won't allow that . . . so then I see several terms of the GOP again, goddess help us all.  It's just not about all-0bama-all-the-time; it's not just about the executive branch; and long-term, larger-picture thinking is needed.  And it's looking dismal.


    [ Parent ]

    He's upgraded HoDean's Net-wise ways ... (none / 0) (#156)
    by Ellie on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:11:12 PM EST
    ... and is speaking directly to the Text-Messaging / FlashMob / Got This Multi-Function iPhone That's been A Purposeless Waste of Time & Money Till Now generation.

    How many times can they text deep'n'meaningful stuff like "Dude, I'm 3 rows behind U [at a screening of, say, Juno] and your laugh is totally recognizable."

    My generation's version was the cellphone call: "You'll never guess where I'm calling from ... " for the umpteenth time of the freakin' day.

    Which predates the jerk behind homeplate at ballgames waving at the camera for three hours or the tropic camera critters jumping behind the nightly newshound doing a standup at Some Event.

    It's always about how one of the monkeys in 2001: A Space Odyssey hits that bone, isn't it?

    [ Parent ]

    Moveon.org (none / 0) (#4)
    by AF on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:58:43 AM EST
    Was not formed to support Obama's candidacy.  The American Leadership Project was formed to support Hillary's candidacy.  That's the difference.  Here's the campaign's memo and the ALP's response.  

    That is not a legally significant difference (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:02:52 PM EST
    and it certainly is not a morally significant difference.

    The legal issue is whether Move On is doing CANDIDATE advocacy or ISSUES advocacy.

    [ Parent ]

    People powered versus topdown (none / 0) (#9)
    by jcsf on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:05:06 PM EST
    If you can't see the difference - and want to stay within your definitions ("it's not a legal difference"), well, you are missing the forest for the trees.

    [ Parent ]
    Please do not present (none / 0) (#21)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:26:38 PM EST
    your opinions as fact. Please present them as the opinions they are and without denigrating another's views. Thank you.

    [ Parent ]
    with all due respect (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:59:41 PM EST
    I think he's saying what seems to be intuitively obvious to many people.  One is a grass-roots organization with gobs of members, and they voted by over 2/3's to go with Obama.

    The other is a couple of guys agreeing to chip in $100K each in order to help a candidate.

    The former existed long before the election.  The latter was created solely in order to help a candidate in this election.

    Seems kinda intuitive to me.

    [ Parent ]

    While I don't disagree (none / 0) (#152)
    by standingup on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:08:51 PM EST
    with the context of your statement, stating that 2/3's of Moveon's membership voted to endorse Obama is not accurate.  There was a discussion on this at Dkos shortly after Moveon announced their endorsement.  Several members expressed discontent objecting to the methodology and subsequent claims by Moveon following the vote.  This comment explained the problem  

    Actually ltrs, 7% WOULD be meaningfulif it was systematically drawn to represent a random sub-set of the entire MoveOn membership.  Tens of millions of voters are sample this way in sizes of sometimes 1,000 to 2,000 and their results are (mostly, depending on other underlying methods) highly representative and predictive of the total population being surveyed.

    However, there is no indication from MoveOn that this was anything but a self-selected sample.  Perhaps MoveOn could provide its methodology and disprove concerns about its poll being shoddily self-selective.

    To me, there is a bigger problem and it is the way MoveOn presented its information.  Many of us have now read the entire press release, here...

    http://moveon.org/...

    That document uses two key numbers -- total size of MoveOn membership (3.2M) and the proportion who selected the winner (70%). It clearly implies that 70% of 3.2M MoveOn members selected that winner.  The fact is that only 280,528 MoveOn members participated in that poll -- that's only 8.8% of their claimed total members.  They failed to do what EVERY poll does -- cite their sample size.  Which also makes me suspect their methodology, for had they used a professional methodology, they would have been thrilled to cite 280,000 as sample size.

    For those who doubt my use of the 280,528 sample size, I got that from a direct-to-member email that I received after I voted in that poll.  I believe all of you who voted got that email too.  So, we could examine the email and see the total vote, but MoveOn would not cite it in their press release, which will become (absent some public stink about this) the final record of how MoveOn members feel.

    It was for this reason (objecting to deceptive practices) that I too left MoveOn earlier this evening.

     

    [ Parent ]

    I agree (5.00 / 0) (#177)
    by superjude on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:17:28 PM EST
    I was a Move-On monthly contributor. I was totally taken by surprise when I heard we had voted to endorse Obama. I emailed them that I did not approve and subsequently stopped the monthly contribution. As a Hillary supporter I am dismayed to hear how shoddy their poll and how deceptive their announcement was.

    [ Parent ]
    Opinions (none / 0) (#86)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:14:36 PM EST
    not welcomed here?

    I thought that last night Big Tent D said that Hillary whupped Obama. No footnotes. No proof. A NAKED OPINION. Followed by a few hundred more naked opinions in the comments section.

    I understand the need for Clinton supporters to rally around a failing campaign, but if that's the function of this website, how about just banning everyone with an alternate position? That way we know officially that we're not welcome.

    Not sure about the grass roots nature of The American Leadership Project, but I'm sure, Jeralyn, you or BTD can fill us in. MoveOn.org has been around for a few years now, and was not formed for the purpose of getting Obama elected.

    Jeralyn, if you go back and look at all the opinions posted here you will find that there are almost only opinions here. Comments = Opinions.

    Telling someone that if he can't tell the difference between MoveOn.org and the American Leadership Project he's missing the forest for the trees is not exactly fighting words. Jeez.


    [ Parent ]

    Funny Bob (none / 0) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:19:35 PM EST
    Do NOT present your opinion AS FACT was Jeralyn's quote.

    As for the rest of your comment, do you think Obama can tell the difference between AFSCME and Change To Win? Can you?

    What is your OPINION on that?

    [ Parent ]

    That is incorrect (none / 0) (#20)
    by AF on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:26:28 PM EST
    The "major purpose" of a 527 and the nature of its fundraising pitch are legally significant.

    But the distinction matters even more morally than legally.  There is a huge difference between an existing organization with an existing constituency choosing to support you versus a group of your rich friends creating an organization to support you.  Otherwise you get the silly conclusion that there's no distinction between union 527s and ALP.

    [ Parent ]

    I believe that you are accepting (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:31:52 PM EST
    characterizatons of the Obama campaign.

    FWIW, this whole thing is a joke, as is most campaign finance law, but I am positive that the new
    "Clinton" 527 is not stating that its express purpose is to help Clinton. No candidate supporting 527 EVER DOES. That is what makes it a joke.

    As for your moral distinction,I strongly disagree. IF the law is intended to prevent independent expenditures, then it does not matter if the independent expenditure comes from a preexisting group of individuals or not.

    The issue is not who the indepenedent expenditure is from, it is what is the independent expenditure FOR.

    This is all so much stuff and nonsense. I really do hate discussing this issue because, no offense, people who are unfamiliar with "campaign finance reform" spout things that are simply not correct.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually (none / 0) (#48)
    by AF on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:41:45 PM EST
    I'm accepting the characterizations of Rick Hasen.  And note that I said it's "significant" not decisive.  But I agree, this is not the place to debate campaign finance law.  If you think the SEIU and the American Leadership Project are morally equivalent with respect to campaign finance, I respectfully disagree.

    [ Parent ]
    Rick Hasen (none / 0) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:47:15 PM EST
    does not speak for the organization.

    And with due respect to him, if he is pretending that 527s are not basically a joke, then he is not being honest.

    And as a matter of fact, I do not believe there is something sacrosanct about union money.

    I LOVE that it is all for the Dems, but that does not make it purer.

    BTW, did you think Obama was wrong to attack union spending by say AFSCME? Or was it immoral of Obama to do so?

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (none / 0) (#74)
    by AF on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:02:22 PM EST
    I think there is a contradiction between attacking 527s like AFSCME and accepting the support of 527s like Moveon and the unions.  

    [ Parent ]
    You are wrong (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:12:31 PM EST
    AFSCME has a PAC.

    Move On has a PAC.

    A 5237 is completely different and operate under different restrictions.

    It so happens OBAMA hypocritically attacked ALL outside expenditures while benfitting fromt hem himself.

    The entire campaign finance discussion is a morass of nonsense.

    [ Parent ]

    AFSCME and MoveOn (none / 0) (#98)
    by AF on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:24:39 PM EST
    spend money on elections outside their PACs.  Those expenditures are similar to 527s in they purport not to be subject to contribution limits.

    I agree that it was hypocritical for Obama to attack all outside expenditures.  However, it is legitimate for him to attack ALP.  

    [ Parent ]

    And it is legitimate because? (none / 0) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:33:39 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    For the reasons stated above (none / 0) (#110)
    by AF on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:35:38 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Restate them please (none / 0) (#115)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:38:21 PM EST
    Surely not because it is illegal.

    Anything else?

    [ Parent ]

    Here (none / 0) (#129)
    by AF on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:47:21 PM EST
    "But the distinction matters even more morally than legally.  There is a huge difference between an existing organization with an existing constituency choosing to support you versus a group of your rich friends creating an organization to support you."


    [ Parent ]
    Why is there such a moral difference? (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:53:16 PM EST
    Explain what you find morally questionable in that please.

    Is it the fact that they are, by your account, Hillary's friends?

    Is it that they are rich? And if so, what was your view of  the funding for America Coming Together in 2004? What is your view of the 527s organized RIGHT NOW by RICH FOLKS to support Democrats in the 2008 general election?

    You are going to have a LOT of criticizing to do.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Ironically one of the biggest (none / 0) (#136)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:54:01 PM EST
    will be run by Tom Mattzie, the former political director for Move On. Guess he is not so moral now.

    [ Parent ]
    Yup (none / 0) (#145)
    by AF on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:02:39 PM EST
    I don't like any of 'em.  But it's worse in a primary campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    Oops (none / 0) (#108)
    by AF on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:34:39 PM EST
    I was wrong about MoveOn.  

    [ Parent ]
    Moveon.org (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by huzzlewhat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:24:06 PM EST
    I find Move On's status is a bit questionable at the moment... I regularly donated money to them, and then was rather taken aback when they endorsed Obama and started working for him before the primary was over. As a supporter of another candidate -- and a regular donor to Move On -- I felt betrayed by it, and quickly dropped my name from their mailings. As long as they were a general democratic/left organization, all was well and good, but they made a specific choice, and are now campaigning and organizing on behalf of one candidate. They may not be over the line, legally, but to me, it looks like they're skirting dangerously close.

    And... hello everyone! My first reply to the site, ever!

    [ Parent ]

    And why does that distinction matter? (none / 0) (#5)
    by demschmem on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:02:18 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Didn't I learn recently MoveOn (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:02:35 PM EST
    endorsed Obama?

    [ Parent ]
    something that's often overlooked... (none / 0) (#14)
    by frankly0 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:16:30 PM EST
    Well, the one thing that people aren't counting on here is the near certainty of a huge discrepancy between the results of an actual, standard vote in the familiar voting booth, and the results of the caucus.

    Suppose that Obama gets, say, 10 or 15% more votes relatively in the caucus than in the polling booths? What does that say about how much of his advantage throughout the nation is based on the anti-democratic process of caucuses, as opposed to the real will of the people.

    It's going to be a pretty clear indictment of the caucus system if there are enormous discrepancies.

    My sentiments exactly (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by hairspray on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:19:58 PM EST
    So far Obama's strength has been in the caucuses and mostly in states that are red.  This may be people power, but it is CERTAIN people power and like MovOn doesn't really reflect an honest assessment of the democratic voter.

    [ Parent ]
    And (none / 0) (#96)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:23:25 PM EST
    And I thought he was also leading in the national popular vote? Does that count? And he certainly has gotten more votes more recently, which would suggest more people now support him.

    Or maybe there's yet another determining factor.

    I thought the determining factor has been delegates.

    [ Parent ]