Can we just see the end of endorsements forever? Nobody gives a sh*t.

[CreekDog]

The whole idea that I'm going to vote for someone based on what someone higher up than them says is just outmoded. I could see voting on someone's word if they knew the candidate they were endorsing personally AND there were no other good sources of information for me to base my decision upon.

But the idea that it's credible at all that because Obama supported Specter that he was the better candidate --that's ridiculous. I think the last endorsement that mattered was Ted Kennedy's of Barack Obama --but not so much to change anybody's mind, but to send the signal that his was a serious campaign.

I'm not criticizing Obama for supporting Specter...whatever deal they made turned Specter into a more reliable Democrat in 2009/2010 than he ever was as a Republican. But it just rings hollow. Who needs the help to decide which candidate is better? I don't think anybody. And when both candidates are perfectly acceptable politically, are both comparably strong electorally (as both Sestak and Specter would have been)...what's the point of an endorsement? Nothing all that convincing if you ask me.

In terms of the "machine", there is clearly value in the big time endorsement, as it opens checkbooks, but even that isn't what it used to be and it's not going to be even what it is now. Campaigns need money, but the money advantage created by endorsements is never significant enough if it makes a difference. Sestak had the money he needed and the extra money Specter raised from the endorsements wasn't enough to change that.

And fewer and fewer voters are responding to endorsements...for the same reason fewer of them are responding to advertising in general. Nobody thinks these things are very genuine, or that they are done without alterior motive. In the age of Yelp and Amazon reviews, when people see an endorsement, they often think of that Amazon review..."why would a consumer of that product refer to it as 'new and improved'?" and dismiss everything else because it doesn't seem objective.

To my candidates: stop endorsing people. Want to make something viral? Tell us to make up our own minds...now that might just be the most convincing thing you can endorse.

:D

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

1. But even the great Teddy's endorsement didn't matter because he still lost in MA against

Hillary, the Establishment Candidate. Obama should have learned from that.

He needs to stay out of the primaries. Back the Democratic nominee and let that be it. I understand that he wanted to support Specter because he switched parties. But in the end, was it worth it? The president totally embarrassed himself. Local politics is local. No matter how popular the president is in Pennsylvania, he should know that all politics is local.

Didn't Tip teach him anything?!??!?!

[FrenchieCat]

2. But it may have helped in Super Tuesday!

I think it depends on the circumstance....
but in the end, Voters should research the issues
and go with what they know.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

3. 'Tis true. There is no evidence that Sestak is any less of a Democrat than Specter.

The problem was whether or not people could trust Specter. It was nice to see a Democrat stand up against the competition and run an effective campaign. Specter lost me when he ran those "Shitboat Liar" ads attacking Sestak's military record. Didn't Specter learn from Kerry and Murtha? Democrats don't play that shit. We've been through too much with the Republicans going after Gore's, Cleland's, and Kerry's military service. Specter should have known better, especially if he's now a Democrat. He needs to retire and enjoy the rest of his life. Perhaps we can now write that book on his Magic Bullet Theory. ;)

[FrenchieCat]

5. Aye!

LOL!

[karynnj]

7. Kennedy's endorsement did matter in Massachusetts

Until Kerry and Kennedy endorsed Obama, Hillary was likely going to shut Obama out - keeping him below 15%. She would then have gotten all the MA delegates. There was a similar affect in at least CA and NJ. In CA, the ballots cast early were far more heavily for Clinton than those cast on election day. Had these endorsements not happened, the scenario the Clinton's had planned would have happened. She would have been significantly ahead after SuperTuesday. Instead, what happened was that they were tied AFTER the votes were counted. Obama then surged in the Potomac primaries. Had Hillary done as expected on superTuesday, she would have been treated as the likely, inevitable nominee.

I think the Kerry endorsement helped giving Obama an independent surrogate, who was willing to go after (in his polite way) Bill Clinton - a rarity in the Democratic party.

The entire MA party structure in the state was for Clinton. It was Kerry people who joined the Obama volunteers that created the surge that got him to the low 40s.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

12. Hadn't thought of it that way. Guess I'm a victim of the punditry spin. Thanks. n/t

[Cha]

18. And, I don't want

to start any primary hard feelings but..no wonder the Clintons were so unhappy about Teddy's endorsement. I really hadn't thought about that either.

[asphalt.jungle]

14. they got a year and a half of excellent voting from specter

they would do that with the entire caucus if produced those results. i seriously doubt obama is feeling embarrassed. the man is all about legislative results that he can sign and specter helped deliver results.

[Unvanguard]

4. Organization endorsements are useful as heuristics.

Politician endorsements, however, generally are not, and are properly ignored.

[Jennicut]

6. Every President does them, it is nothing new. But I agree, they are pretty useless.

And if "your" candidate goes down, people say you lost something, even in a primary.

Ironically, even FDR liked to interfere....he backed candidates against incumbents that were not pro-New Deal enough.

[Clio the Leo]

8. Works for me. NT

[WeDidIt]

9. Endorsements matter for one thing an one thing only, money

Endorsements by politicians mean donors. The endorsing pol has PACs and donors who will move money to the endorsee.

It is for this reason that endorsements will never end.

[ProSense]

10. If endorsements don't matter, why do people get upset about them?

People need to understand that this is a democracy, and things like endorsements are part of the process.

I bet if President Obama had stayed out of the race, people would have been criticizing his silence. I think the President's endorsement likely inspired Democrats to take the race seriously.

[harun]

11. They matter when everyone votes against them.

[zipplewrath]

13. Obama's support came with the OFA

That's akin to a union providing their phone bank or something. This went beyond an endorsement.

Quite honestly, it was that kind of activity that was so strange, and telling. Almost anyone could have accepted that they wouldn't work for Sestak. And no one would have been surprised if they gave some sort of simple statement of support along the lines of "Specter has been a consistent supporter of POTUS on the issues that mattered most" or some such platitude. It was firing up the phone banks, the emails, the campaign stops, and the personal appearances of BOTH the POTUS and VP that was so over the top.

Especially for a race that was going to be this close. A bit like I think you're saying, in a truly contested primary, I kinda wish the national party would stay out of it. Primaries are the US equivalent of parlimentary traditions of "forming a government" and it is where we get to "vote for the green party guy" even if we think he'll lose. It's a chance to say "hey, I like what this guy has to say". Come to the general election and we all get the "fall in line" speech. It was the part of PUMA, I understood (although I was sympathetic to both sides on that one). The primaries are our chance to participate at very basic level.

As you say, I guess I can accept that a national politician would want to go out and say "I can work with this guy" or some such thang. But I prefer they keep all the distance they can.

[asphalt.jungle]

15. the fact that you were sympathetic to the PUMAs says a lot *nm

nm

[zipplewrath]

16. You'd prefer empathetic?

I don't see the capacity for sympathy as a bad thing. I don't have to agree with someone to be sympathetic. And depending upon exactly what you think they were being asked to do, you might be sympathetic as well.

[asphalt.jungle]

17. there was nothing about the PUMAs worthy of sympathy

shit they started the birther movement and have moved on and joined their tea party brethren since.

[zipplewrath]

19. All of 'em?

I thought there were still some floatin' around here.

[CreekDog]

20. okay, so what if that poster is PUMA...what difference does it make in what they actually said?

is the point made any less valid?

i was as far from PUMA as you can get, but the poster makes a good point.

[treestar]

21. Rec'd, people in a state vote without too much reference to what the President wants

They are voting in a representative of their state!

And this is just the primary too.