AFSCME Official Vows To Put "Real Money" Into Hillary Ads In Remaining States
AFSCME is going to put "real money" behind independent expenditures for ads on Hillary's behalf in remaining Democratic primary states, a union official just confirmed to me.
On Friday I noted that one good gauge of Hillary's continuing support would be to see whether the big third-party groups backing her continue to put money into ads on her behalf -- or whether they suspend such efforts.
An AFSCME official tells me that the union's leadership remains committed to pouring more money into the remaining states.
"Our independent expenditure campaign is going forward, just as our member education efforts are going forward -- full steam ahead," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
"We are going to be knocking on doors and making phone calls and doing direct mail and contacting our members in Kentucky and Oregon and Puerto Rico," the official said.
As for ad spending, the official added: "The efforts will be similar to those made in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. We're gonna spend real money." The official declined to say whether real numbers had been agreed upon.
To be sure, it's easy to imagine that these plans might fizzle as super-dels continue to flock to Obama. And it's also easy to imagine AFSCME talking tough in this manner in order to avoid offending the Hillary campaign.
Nonetheless, this is what they're saying now. Bears watching.
Why is AFSCME flushing union members money down the toilet to work against the Democratic parties chances in November?
May 12, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Praise God. Clinton is the only candidate with a prayer in hell to
win this election.
Obama has the racial voters, and the academic cult sliver, and
the Republicans who will turn and vote for McCain in November.
Clinton has the common sense, meat and potatoes dems.
May 12, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly my feeling. While I'm assuming this is coming out of their PAC, since they're talking about an independent expenditure campaign, just think of how many good, deserving Democratic candidates for the Senate and House with an actual, real-life chance to win, won't be getting campaign donations they need from AFSCME because they're throwing down the Hillary campaign toilet.
May 12, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure the union members are going to be thrilled with this wise expenditure of money.
By the way, does anyone outside the Clinton campaign believe that the popular vote in Puerto Rico should be the deciding factor?
May 12, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
If their delegates should count towards the pledged delegate total, why should their votes not count towards popular vote total? What am I missing?
Should we discount Guam while we're at it?
May 12, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Politics 101
Neither Guam nor Puerto Rico can vote for President.
..but we'll throw you a bone. Count all of FL, all of MI, all of PR...
...it still doesn't matter. IT'S A DELEGATE-BASED PRIMARY!!!
Hillary, McCauliffe and Wolfson can think they're clever by TRYING to change the metric by which this election is decided, but nobody is buying it (outside the aforementioned Clinton Camp, of course).
Vote Obama/Captain America '08
May 12, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Neither Guam nor Puerto Rico can vote for President.
Once again, I fail to see the point. They can vote in the primaries. So, accordingly, their votes should go towards the primary popular vote total.
Also, yes, as everyone knows it is a delegate race. Pledged delegates and superdelegates. If Hillary somehow could (I'm not much of a believer anymore, but she's free to keep trying) win the popular vote, she's free to take her case to the superdelegates. "The will of the people" is not a very clear phrase, which is the metric Obama wants superdelegates to decide upon. She is free to argue that the popular vote is the will of the people.
May 12, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, no reason for the PR popular vote not to be included in popular vote totals. Plenty of reason not to consider it to be "the deciding factor" as das2003 put it.
May 12, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely agree with you. She's free to make the case to the Supers.
Unfortunately, the Supers are speaking already.
But the last thing I want to do is continue the Clinton/Obama feud. We're ultimately wanting the same team for America, we just support different quarterbacks.
So I'll leave you with this. May both of our political futures be filled with many successes and as little turmoil as possible.
Vote Democrat/Captain America '08
May 12, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
If not, I'm sure that McAuliffe will come up with some justification to count the votes of South Korea.
"The election isn't over until all of the voices of Seoul have been heard! Why should democracy be limited to the American soldiers in S. Korea, shouldn't ALL Korean voices count???
Whatevah...
It can end today, next week, on June 3, but don't for a moment think that it's not gonna end...and badly for the Clinton Campaign.
Vote Obama/Capt. America '08
May 12, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently AFSCME isn't very pro-Democrat, given that they are on the same side as McCain and Limbaugh (and Hillary) here.
May 12, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 12, 2008
'Elitist' Tag Knocks Education
By Stanley Crouch
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/elitist_tag_knocks_education.html
Here is a small extract. Read the entire article.
It is a great read.
"The presidency is not an Academy Award for Best Performance as a bowler, a fast food gobbler, a whisky and beer guzzler, a hard-hat-wearer or a hunter. We ought to know how far leadership capabilities are from surfaces, slogans and costumes.
And we should be ever suspicious of anyone or any group that scorns education, that pretends to believe that only the simple and the uncomplicated can express the national ethos."
May 12, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stan is a cranky hard-ass -- I know, because I took a class he instructed. But he's an independent thinker. And I'm glad he's seeing reality here.
"Ethnic Gong Show" indeed!
May 12, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. I guess we will have to wait to see whether this actually pans out or not.
May 12, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
A fool and his money are - oh whatever nevermind.
May 12, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
In that anything that helps Hillary continue to do well may further pressure Obama to put her on the ticket, this is a good thing. Without Hillary I don't want to think about our chances in November.
May 12, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
another-reader - The population of Puerto Rico is a mere 3 million. Many US cities are larger.
That such a small semi-autonomous territory of the United States, should decide the nomination, seems a bit bizarre, if not inappropriate.
May 12, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
How would Puerto Rico alone decide the election? Their votes will be added to the total of all the other states/territories that voted.
May 12, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
another_reader,
I am a staunch Obama supporter and I agree that PR's delegates should be given the same weight as the first ones cast in Iowa. And since they decided to do a primary and it is approved by the DNC, their votes count just as much as a primary vote in say Texas, or Ohio. In fact, they have mre legitimacy in this primary than the rogue votes from FL or MI.
But as you point out though, there is no such metric as a popular vote, other than to convinvce super delegates. So while the Clinton camp suggests thes votes matter more than the Iowa caucusese, or the Texas caucus. Or any of the other caucuses, their arguments fall on deaf ears, becasue the Clinton camp only counts what suites it's argument and not the metrics agreed upon for this race.
May 12, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon and Puerto Rico are going to be in hillary clinton's win column. When all primary's are finished she is going to be winning the popular vote with or without michigan & florida.... the popular vote will cause lots of super delegates to vote for hillary clinton:)
Tomorrow is going to be a huge ass win for hillary clinton in west virginia.... Look for a 40 to 60 point win over Barack Obama.
Even "IF" Obama wins... he is going to pick Clinton as his VP:)
May 12, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You forgot South Dakota and Montana. She's going to win those too, right? Because saying it out loud makes it true.
May 12, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish I shared your sense of optimism. If Hillary does overtake the popular vote total not counting MI, I will strongly support her again. Unfortunately, it seems so far from likely that it's nearly impossible. In the meantime, I'm trying to clear my head of bad thoughts about Obama. Wish I hadn't seen his continued support of "clean coal" today...
May 12, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, on this much you and I can agree.
May 12, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama were to select Clinton as his V.P. thereby abdicating his priciples for political expedience, why then, would I want to continue to support him? Why would I want to reward Clinton's blackmail with a vote?
May 12, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dream on.
May 12, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this a test to see how many predictions you can be wrong about in four sentences?
May 12, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL... she is not going to even come close here in Oregon.
May 12, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet to find money that's not real.
They better help her pay off some of her $20 million debt. Hard working blue collars of this country owe her for her service.
May 12, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about instead of a gas tax refund, she actually pays off her debts to the small vendors she's stiffed up to now?
Has Mr. or Ms. Dunkin Donuts in Iowa collected on that $1200 bill yet??
May 12, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
she will lose south dakota and montana jladd...that is why i did not say them... i only stated the ones that she was going to win dude:)
May 12, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama will kick her ass in Oregon.
Book it.
May 12, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
No surprise here.
AFSCME has a horrible track record in consistently backing losers in elections.
May 12, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain Of The Panderosa.
For a Gas Tax Holiday, but does nothing to enact it.
Acknowledges the reality of Climate Change, but wants to do nothing to halt it.
Against Torture, then is against a ban on Torture.
Against Lobbyists having special influence, but hires the most influential Lobbyists to control his campaign.
Pleads for civility and tolerance, while courting Christo Fascist Hagee.
Opposed George W. Bush's $1.35 trillion tax cut for the super rich, but now wants to make it permanent.
Praises the Troops while denying them their hard earned care and rewards.
Folks; please contribute additional examples of the Profiles In Blurage of McCain Of The Panderosa.
The little Maverick has roamed the range, covering it with cow shite, so that a million Turdblossoms may bloom.
Time to define the true nature of that Wee Bovine dispenser of Manure.
May 12, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has a 12 point lead in Oregon. Since Kentucky and Oregon have the same number of delegates, (51) they cancel each other out. That leaves a net gain for Hillary of 28, for her W. Virginia win.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_upcoming_states.html
May 12, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
While they have the same number of delegates, OR is expected to turn out about 100K more votes than is KY. As such, while they will likely cancel each other out in dleegate terms, he will emerge from that Tuesday's elections with a large lead in the popular vote race, for whatever little that is worth.
May 12, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't Obama expected to win OR by around 10 points, while Hillary is expected to win KY by 30 points? I expect her to come out of next Tuesday with about +100k in popular vote.
May 12, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed, your calculations match my own. I was using Agrippina's numbers to do my calculation, but when I use RCP's instead, I arrive at the same conclusion as yourself (see my other comment below).
May 12, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
And her gains from WV barely cancel out the losses from superdelegates this week.
May 12, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only way she gets 28 delegates out of WV is if Obama isn't viable in the state (reaching at least 15%).
The more realistic outcome for WV is that she picks up 21 delegates, he picks up 7, netting her 14 total.
The Popular vote argument is an entire farce however, because it discounts any state that held a caucus.
NOBODY can tell me that the popular vote of Puerto Rico is going to have more relevance to this selection than Washington, Iowa, NV, etc.
It's a crock.
May 12, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops! I've really got the Monday afternoon spacies - my assumptions were based on winner take all, which is so not happening.
Even so, Hillary won't net all that many delegates.
May 12, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, in that case, the "cancel each other out in delegate terms" part of my earlier post must be scrapped. Nonetheless, according to the numbers that Greg Sargent gives, KY is only expected to see about 500 thousand voters turn out in the democratic primary there. If you assume that she wins by the 33 pt margin she currently enjoys in the polls there, that amounts to a 167 thousand vote advantage to her. Meanwhile, Oregon expects to receive ~600 thousand votes in the mail by election day. If you figure that he wins by the 10 pts that he currently leads, then this amounts to a 60 thousand vote pick up for him. So she comes out 107 thousand votes ahead on the day. This should be enough to put her back on top of "the popular vote" race if you count MI, but not enough to put her ahead with FL but without MI.
May 12, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
But the popular vote is still bull because it doesn't account for caucus states. It's a race for delegates and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. I hate the notion that Obama not only has to win in delegates but win in every metric dreamed up by the Clinton camp so they'll be no longer able to argue the point.
May 12, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Real Clear politics has the vote spread if you include FL and project the caucuses at Obama +552,029. I don't know how Hillary could overcome that unless she scored a massive win in Puerto Rico. Some have speculated that up to 1 million people will vote there.
May 12, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Accordint to this US News projection, Hillary could stand to gain up to 300,000 votes in Puerto Rico. Does anyone know whether this is remotely accurate? Anyone seen recent polling out of PR?
May 12, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no recent polling out of PR. Only one poll has been taken there and it was taken from Mar 31 to Apr 5. It is, in other words, a month stale by now. I am not sure whether anyone is going to poll there again or whether the chips will just fall as they may without such predictions. That one poll showed Clinton 50, Obama 37, Undecided 13.
May 12, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
AFSCME hasn't filed a late independent expenditure report regarding support for Clinton since the beginning of March. Emily's List hasn't since mid-April. They might say they're still supporting Hillary, but for some reason they aren't showing any cash on the table.
We'll know more when April expenditure reports come out, but if any independent group was making buys for Clinton in WV/KY/PR right now, it'd be on FEC.gov, and it's not. TPM should push harder on this; there's no reason to take promises of "real money" at their face when there's no evidence of anything like campaigns in earlier states a week out from KY and a day before WV.
May 12, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Time to move on folks. It is now Obama versus McCain. That is what I am now concentrating on. Time to stop looking in your rear view mirrors at the lady by the side of the road holding up the Fantasy popular vote count sign.
Time to define McCain Of The Panderosa.
May 12, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wonder how the union members feel about that? Of course, in my experience in unions, that isn't always tops on the leadership's mind.
May 12, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I bet my wife, who is a member of an affiliated AFSCME union, is pissed.
May 12, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your wife and probably a majority the union's other members. Don't forget there are large AFSCME state councils, local unions and other affiliates that broke with McEntee and enthusiastically endorsed Obama.
May 12, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's mind-boggling what lengths AFSCME President Gerald McEntee will go to in order to suck up to the Clintons. This could be seen as a personal quirk, except for the fact that now he's choosing Hillary's self-interest over his members' self-interest, which is to marshall all of the union's political resources to win the general election and expand our majorities in the House and Senate.
He probably wakes up in the middle of the night with nightmares of Andy Stern being invited to the White House to watch the Super Bowl with the president of the United States, while McEntee has to watch it at home.
May 12, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the AFSCME leadership's mission to prove that it is a detriment to society continues. This is the sort of thing that gives labor unions a bad name -- machines scratching other machines' backs and in the process flushing resources down the toilet in the name of an intra-party squabble whose outcome is no longer in doubt.
May 12, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
AFSCME President Gerald McEntee should be voted out of office. Why would they spend their money now instead of the General Election. It seems foolish at this late date.
May 12, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure if anyone pointed this out yet to the national but Oregon AFSCME Council 75 has endorsed Obama. I know a few members and they are pretty upset with their national and have been doing a lot of GOTV for Barack and other local Dem's.
You can see all their endorsements here.
http://www.oregonafscme.com/?zone=/unionactive/view_article.cfm&HomeID=87334
May 12, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
No everyone knows what the acronym AFSCME stands for. Including me. But if I was a member of that union, I'd want the leadership's head on a platter for wasting my dues money.
May 12, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's "American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees."
And I'm 99 percent sure it's not dues money they're wasting (dues $ can be used for membership mobilization but not for normal campaign activity) but PAC money which is from voluntary contributions by members. That said, as I noted above, it's still money that would be far better spent on Democratic House and Senate candidates that actually have a real-life chance to win than on a candidate who has basically lost and whose opponent has the support of many AFSCME state councils (including Oregon), local unions and members.
May 12, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I say this as an Obama supporter: everyone here needs to chill. AFSCME is NOT "wasting" the money of any union members; unions are not allowed to use their treasury funds for campaign expenditures so all money must come as voluntary donations made from members. Also, does anyone remember McEntee's mess in 2004 and how he jumped from the Dean ship faster than anyone? He HAS to stick this one out for Hillary, if only to prove that he isn't fickle and won't always jump ship at the first sign of a candidate's weakness. In my opinion, he's just trying to preserve his own and his union's own political capital the only way he can: by fighting to the end.
May 12, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
A very plausible explanation.
May 12, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except of course that she has lost the primary to Obama who is going to be officially elected our parties nominee in August, and will win the general election in November against McCain.
May 12, 2008 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Crap. This was supposed to be in response to "Present" at the top of the thread. When oh when will TPM get a real comment and content management system?
May 12, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll never understand why unions would support Hillary.
She was pro-NAFTA; like her husband.
She was a member of the board of Wal-Mart for 6 years. Praised union-busting Wal-Mart.
She was a corporate attorney for 12 years; part of her "35 years of experience" she always leaves out.
What has she done for unions?
May 13, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink