San Francisco’s CBS affiliate, KPIX, commissioned a rather meaningless poll last week about the primary election gone by. (Full poll info (PDF)). The results now show Obama leading Clinton 49-43. I guess there’s always more room on the bandwagon. I’m not sure this poll has any real meaning at all, but perhaps it does kind of put a dent in the “Obama can’t win the big states” logic.  Not that anybody could have credibly said that Obama was going to lose CA before, but this might pull one more arrow from Senator Clinton’s quiver.

What’s kind of fun here, is that the “presumptive nominees” do substantially better in the “who did you vote for” than the actual vote.  In the real vote, the result was an approximate 10 point win for Clinton. In the poll, it was only a 2 point win.  On the GOP side, it seems there was a 22 point victory for McCain instead of the 8 point actual margin.  Funny how everybody wants to back a winner, huh?

On Thursday the House of Representatives passed legislation that would provide federal underwriting for new loans to 500,000 homeowners at risk of foreclosures, as well as increase the limit on FHA loans to $729,750, include tax credits (which are loans to be paid back over 15 years) for first-time home buyers, tighten oversight of the lending industry and provide billions in grants to the states to buy and repair foreclosed homes for resale.  Every California Republican voted against it except one – Diamond Bar’s Gary Miller, not known as any kind of moderate squish (he voted with the majority of House Republicans 96% of the time last year).  The housing crisis is playing out in districts like his, and Miller can’t afford to ignore it.

…Miller, a land developer, called the housing downturn the most serious one he had seen in more than 30 years. “I really wish I could support my Republican colleagues,” he said. “But I’m very concerned about the marketplace.

“A lot of people are losing their homes,” he added. “That not only hurts them, but the neighbors around them because of foreclosure. Their home value drops.” […]

Miller, whose district includes parts of Los Angeles, San Bernardino and Orange counties, disputes the Republican portrayal of the bill as a bailout. Under the measure, lenders must agree to take a significant loss on a homeowner’s debt in return for a federal guarantee that the reduced loan will be repaid.

“I’m not in any way supporting the concept of bailing people out who made bad decisions,” Miller said. “But things happen in life. . . . There are a lot of innocent people out there.”

Here’s why this is notable.  Miller is one of the greediest and most unscrupulous developers out there.  In fact, part of his calculus may just be that it’ll help bail out homeowners who can stay in the developments from which he profits.  However, his concern for “innocent people” hasn’t been borne out by his prior voting record.  What’s different here is that he ran unopposed last year, even as the FBI was investigating him for tax evasion and shady land deals.  This year, three opponents have stepped up to challenge him, and if nothing else, they have forced him to at least pretend his district exists.  This is going to be true in every district we’re contesting in November.  The twin victories by Democrats in special elections in Illinois and Louisiana (and possibly another in Mississippi next Tuesday) has House Republicans ranging from mildly nervous to scared out of their gourds.  And as more swing seats open up (buh-bye, Vito Fossella), there’s no way the NRCC, the campaign arm of the Republicans in the House, can step in with any cash infusion to bail out an incumbent.  Tom Cole, the head of the NRCC (for now), has basically told lawmakers that they’re on their own.  So you’re going to see more out-of-character votes like this for the rest of the year.  And you will be able to tell who’s more nervous by their positions on these votes.  I’d say Gary Miller has a few beads of perspiration on the forehead.

You can also see which issues these lawmakers think will resonate in their particular districts.  Obviously the housing crisis is hitting CA-42 hard.

(yes, I do some netroots work for Ron Shepston, who’s one of the Democrats running in CA-42 to replace Miller)

To hear the big media folks frame it, you'd think Steve was also requesting a mansion in St. Moritz as well. But, in fact, Steve Ybarra's got a pretty good eye for good tactics, and this is just that: a tactical request. Ybarra wants the campaigns to spend $20 million on registering Latino voters in the Southwest.  From the Comedy Central Blog:

Well, that's kind of, um, honorable. It's kinda not fair the way the article was written; it didn't mention his intentions until midway through and tricked me into thinking he was being greedy. …

Still, it seems unlikely that Ybarra will get $20 million dollars out of the candidates, who need to spend that money ads calling each other names and accusing each other of being unAmerican.

Plus, I'm sure they can find ten or twenty superdelegates from below the border who will register and educate eligible Mexican-American voters for $2 million and a mattress to sleep on.

Well, obviously the last part was Daily Show-esque satire, but the campaigns are just not that likely to give up control of their precious dollars. I agree with Steve that such an investment would pay off quite handsomely in both the short and long term.  But given the Obama campaign's tendency to move power inward, I wouldn't expect them to start taking orders from external sources.

I’m getting slightly conflicting reports about exactly where the decision to “prune” the delegate list came from. One report put it the decision in Chicago’s hands, another says that it was a California decision. But at this point, the most reliable information that I have was that this was a decision made by the California staff, and a decision that perhaps even angered the Chicago staff.

I don’t want to make a huge deal of this because I’m only 90% sure of this, but the signs are pointing to a case of overzealousness.  They wanted to a) make it easier on themselves for the running of the caucus and b) ensure that there weren’t any hidden Clinton fans.  I think they now understand the reaction that this decision has caused and the reasons for that reaction, and even that they made a mistake.

I think we can chalk this up to a more decentralized campaign than we are used to.  That’s generally a good thing in that it empowers local activists if the local campaign staff has some authority and flexibility. It is nice to be able to talk to a decision maker.  But, the down-side of this is that occasionally you get some rookie mistakes.  Look, it didn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that you would cause more problems than you would solve by pruning the list so dramatically. It’s a double-edged sword, but I think I’m ok with that.

As Dave pointed out, it is a good thing that the campaign corrected itself.  It is a good thing that the campaign heard the grassroots speaking. Mistakes happen, and for the last seven plus years we had a president who wouldn’t admit mistakes and wouldn’t correct mistakes.  I’ll be glad to have a an administration who knows and acknowledges that they are fallible.

One thing I’ve noticed about the Obama campaign is that it reflects the candidate, in that they actually bother to listen and respond.

And so:

David Plouffe just sent out this email…

There has been an extraordinary outpouring of grassroots support for Senator Obama among Democrats and Independents in all 53 California Congressional districts.

In recognition of this tremendous enthusiasm, our campaign has asked the California Democratic Party to allow all persons who have filed to be a district delegate candidate for Senator Obama at the Democratic National Convention to participate in the caucuses this Sunday, April 13, 2008.

We are confident that delegates elected from this pool will reflect the Senator’s commitment to a diverse and unified delegation at the National Convention.

An overwhelming number of supporters have signed up to run for delegate, so there will likely be lines and tight space at the caucus locations. We ask for everyone’s patience and cooperation.

Most of all, please enjoy this opportunity to meet other Obama supporters and elect delegate candidates to the Convention in Denver.

If you have any questions, please contact Daryl Sprague at [email protected].

Thanks for your interest and active participation in Barack’s campaign to change politics and change America.

David

David Plouffe

Campaign Manager

Obama for America

In the end, the weird randomness of the pruning and anger from sections of the grassroots necessitated this.  I didn’t have as big a problem with it as everyone else, but I’m glad it reached a good resolution… until Sunday, that is 🙂

Well, I guess it’s down to me to take the contrarian view of this whole list purge business.

The short answer is that activists aren’t owed seats in Denver just because they’re activists.  It’s perfectly legitimate for the Obama campaign to reward supporters who walked precincts, made phone calls, dropped lit, stayed up late at the campaign office, and generally did anything and everything logistically to help the candidate win California (confidentially, I was told by someone high-up on the campaign last night that they did indeed tie on Election Day; it was the absentees that swung the race to Clinton).  Just being a good activist is not enough.  You’re actually not going to the convention to represent the party, you’d be going as an Obama or Clinton delegate, representing the candidate.  Honestly, considering that there were about 1,000 precinct captains in California, if you weren’t one, you shouldn’t be an Obama delegate.  Bottom line.

What I and many of us object to is the haphazard, seemingly random standard applied here, where delegates with little or no ground experience remained on the ballot, while those with a lot didn’t (like the guy in CA-36 who was a paid Richardson staffer who remains on the Obama list).  Because you’re talking about 1,700 delegates, there are lots of arguments you can make for why the campaign chose one candidate or another, but they’re all unprovable and contradicted by the group in the next district over.  The people still in the race range from bundlers to people who never gave a dime, those who worked their hearts out to those who didn’t lift a finger, progressive antiwar activists to those who aren’t as vocal.  When you’re talking about 1,700 for 108 slots, there’s not going to be any one reason, and anyone who says otherwise is being extremely myopic.  In addition, there are the well-established CDP demographic rules and needs, so compiling a list that will fit those needs is probably a great puzzle.  And also, practically everyone on the Obama campaign is in Pennsylvania or North Carolina and Indiana by now, so the vetting process had to be undertaken by a very small number of people.

Over…

I’m not defending the Obama campaign at all, but I have to say that there are those in the grassroots that need to, and this is where the flame war might begin, grow up.  You don’t just automatically get to be a delegate to the DNC because of who you are or what you advocate, even.  You ought to get it because of what you’ve done, real work on a personal level.  If you did and you were culled, that’s wrong.  If you didn’t and you’re still on that list, that’s wrong.  But it’s a huge undertaking and you have one or two staffers making value judgments on 1,700 people based on all sorts of criteria, and there’s bound to be slippage and “my activism is better than your activism” arguments.

What’s more, if you actually think your activism is better than someone else’s activism, you can actually appeal to a higher power!  From an email:

It is actually Brent Messenger in Northern California that vetted the candidates.

brent.messenger-at-gmail-dot-com

What they are asking for is evidence like “you were a precinct captain for Obama”

They are purging all people besides those that worked heavily on the campaign.  

They want FOR SURE Obama delegates.  

I spoke with Laura of LAgrassroots4obama and they are rewarding people that have spent the last year of their lives on planes and in the volunteer office.

If you are in Southern California and truly worked on the Obama Campaign prior to the Feb 5 Primary and were cut from the candidate list contact Laura:

laura-at-LAgrassroots4obama-dot-com

I do think the Obama people are a little paranoid from Clinton’s whole “there’s no such thing as a pledged delegate” shtick, and they let it get inside their heads.  But people who did the time should get the prize.  So if you did the work, don’t mourn, send an email and organize.  If you didn’t work and you’re pissed, all politics is local so go talk to your neighbors instead of deciding you’re entitled to a trip to Denver.

Well, I guess it’s down to me to take the contrarian view of this whole list purge business.

The short answer is that activists aren’t owed seats in Denver just because they’re activists.  It’s perfectly legitimate for the Obama campaign to reward supporters who walked precincts, made phone calls, dropped lit, stayed up late at the campaign office, and generally did anything and everything logistically to help the candidate win California (confidentially, I was told by someone high-up on the campaign last night that they did indeed tie on Election Day; it was the absentees that swung the race to Clinton).  Just being a good activist is not enough.  You’re actually not going to the convention to represent the party, you’d be going as an Obama or Clinton delegate, representing the candidate.  Honestly, considering that there were about 1,000 precinct captains in California, if you weren’t one, you shouldn’t be an Obama delegate.  Bottom line.

What I and many of us object to is the haphazard, seemingly random standard applied here, where delegates with little or no ground experience remained on the ballot, while those with a lot didn’t (like the guy in CA-36 who was a paid Richardson staffer who remains on the Obama list).  Because you’re talking about 1,700 delegates, there are lots of arguments you can make for why the campaign chose one candidate or another, but they’re all unprovable and contradicted by the group in the next district over.  The people still in the race range from bundlers to people who never gave a dime, those who worked their hearts out to those who didn’t lift a finger, progressive antiwar activists to those who aren’t as vocal.  When you’re talking about 1,700 for 108 slots, there’s not going to be any one reason, and anyone who says otherwise is being extremely myopic.  In addition, there are the well-established CDP demographic rules and needs, so compiling a list that will fit those needs is probably a great puzzle.  And also, practically everyone on the Obama campaign is in Pennsylvania or North Carolina and Indiana by now, so the vetting process had to be undertaken by a very small number of people.

Over…

I’m not defending the Obama campaign at all, but I have to say that there are those in the grassroots that need to, and this is where the flame war might begin, grow up.  You don’t just automatically get to be a delegate to the DNC because of who you are or what you advocate, even.  You ought to get it because of what you’ve done, real work on a personal level.  If you did and you were culled, that’s wrong.  If you didn’t and you’re still on that list, that’s wrong.  But it’s a huge undertaking and you have one or two staffers making value judgments on 1,700 people based on all sorts of criteria, and there’s bound to be slippage and “my activism is better than your activism” arguments.

What’s more, if you actually think your activism is better than someone else’s activism, you can actually appeal to a higher power!  From an email:

It is actually Brent Messenger in Northern California that vetted the candidates.

brent.messenger-at-gmail-dot-com

What they are asking for is evidence like “you were a precinct captain for Obama”

They are purging all people besides those that worked heavily on the campaign.  

They want FOR SURE Obama delegates.  

I spoke with Laura of LAgrassroots4obama and they are rewarding people that have spent the last year of their lives on planes and in the volunteer office.

If you are in Southern California and truly worked on the Obama Campaign prior to the Feb 5 Primary and were cut from the candidate list contact Laura:

laura-at-LAgrassroots4obama-dot-com

I do think the Obama people are a little paranoid from Clinton’s whole “there’s no such thing as a pledged delegate” shtick, and they let it get inside their heads.  But people who did the time should get the prize.  So if you did the work, don’t mourn, send an email and organize.  If you didn’t work and you’re pissed, all politics is local so go talk to your neighbors instead of deciding you’re entitled to a trip to Denver.

…I would also say that a part of the problem was having post-primary delegate elections in the first place.  Before the primary it would have been very clear to the candidate who the supporters and activists were and there wouldn’t have been so many mistakes.  Susie Shannon’s delegate selection proposal was far more reasoned and thought-out than what we ended up with.  Her letter from July 10 of last year is prescient.

July 10, 2007

Dear Delegate Selection Committee,

At the Los Angeles Delegate Selection Plan Hearing I testified that my

main concern regarding holding delegate elections post-primary is that it

encourages opportunism over loyalty to a candidate. The plan, as

presented, opens the door for supporters of candidates receiving low votes

in the primary to take over the delegate elections of candidates receiving

high votes.

It is my strong opinion that delegates of presidential candidates to the

Democratic National Convention should be representatives of that candidate

and should, to the best extent possible, be loyal supporters.

How are we to stay unified through the 2008 general election if we create

a process that risks fracturing California Democrats between those who

work hard and are loyal supporters of a particular candidate and those

looking to become delegates any way possible? The delegate selection

plan as presented also raises basic issues of fair play and can be

disheartening for hard working democrats who we hope will maintain a

strong will to work through the 2008 general election.

After the Los Angeles hearing I spoke to Eric Bauman about the possibility

of having elections post-primary but setting the delegate filing deadline

prior to the California primary. I also mentioned this plan to the 42nd

AD delegates at our meeting last month and to various other delegates and

E-Board members of the CDP. I believe that some of them have already

submitted testimony to your committee. This seems to me the only fair and

logical compromise. It would allow candidates more time to locate venues

and arrange for elections post-Iowa Caucus, but also create a more fair

delegate selection process in California.

My proposal is to set the delegate application deadline for January 31,

2008 (pre-California primary) and hold elections the weekend of March 1,

2008 – 30 days from the application deadline.

I hope that this proposal will be given serious consideration by the

Delegate Selection committee.