On endorsements and superdelegates: a personal story

[crispini]

Two years after I became a precinct chair, it was time for State House elections. One guy stepped up and decided to run for our district. He got in early, was well-liked among the local activists, raised a little money, was a decent candidate, and had many endorsements. He asked me for my endorsement, and I decided to go ahead and endorse him. After all, I couldn't see that anyone else was getting in, and he was a good candidate. Most of the local Democratic establishment (precinct chairs) did the same.

Flash forward a couple of months, and a another candidate came along. Whoa! A contested primary. This was not a usual thing for us. Furthermore, although the first guy was good, this guy was even better. Raised a LOT of money (trial lawyer), was very informed on the issues, an Iraq war vet, great listener, cute little family, etc. I was very impressed. And, he met with me and asked me to switch my endorsement.

I really considered it, but I felt that I could not in good faith withdraw my endorsement. I really wanted to, but I felt it was a dishonorable thing to do. Furthermore, many of my fellow precinct chairs were sticking with their endorsements, and I was concerned about the reaction I might get within the party. Instead, I sat back and watched the race unfold. I didn't give either candidate support in terms of money or work. I sent out my usual "reminder" to my precinct, but I didn't advocate for either candidate. And, when the rubber met the road, I sat down and voted for the guy who I had NOT endorsed.

He ran a great campaign, by the way, and he won the Democratic primary and subsequently beat the Republican for his State House seat. He was clearly the right choice.

So I think about what I went through with regards to the early superdelegates in this race and a couple of things occurred to me.

First, did they never have something similar occur to them? I know for damn sure I myself have learned why you should NEVER endorse early. But that's neither here nor there.

Second, they are now, in all likelihood, feeling caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place, and are mostly trying to keep their heads down and see what way the wind blows. Pelosi's statement and Richardson's endorsement -- blows one way. Carville's statement -- blowing back the other way. This goes for the undecideds and it goes doubly for those who have already decided and are feeling pressured to rescind their endorsement. I suspect that because of this, we are NOT going to see any movement of superdelegates until after PA and perhaps not even then. Depending on how the race goes, they might wait until June.

Anyway, just my two cents. I thought the parallel was amusing. And, true story!

[babylonsister]

1. Thanks for sharing, crispini. It might be a difficult spot to be in,

but this is hardball politics. Emotions hopefully won't enter into this for the majority of people when they have to make that choice or switch; there's a lot riding on these votes.

[Beregond2]

2. Comparable?

I'm not sure the situations are comparable. Were most of the superdelegates pledges given when there was only one candidate? No. So they should have been prepared for the possibility that they would need to switch their support at some point, as the field narrowed and the eventual winner became clear. Of course it is personally embarrasing to retract an endorsement, but the good of the party and the country should override that.

[crispini]

3. .

:kick: