Big-name backers not pulling in votes

e-mail this story Dan Hoover • Latest switch puts damper on Dems (03/21/04) • Sanford's call for change at critical juncture (03/07/04) • Political ties never seem to be permanent (02/28/04) • Income tax plan faces Senate ire (02/22/04) • Big-name backers not pulling in votes (02/15/04)

Al Gore endorsed Howard Dean.

He lost.

Big Labor endorsed Dick Gephardt and Dean.

They lost.

Old Clintonistas backed Wesley Clark. Bill fawned over him.

He lost.

And, closer to home, in South Carolina's Feb. 3 Democratic presidential primary:

Jim Hodges backed Clark.

He lost.

John West backed Dean.

He lost.

Jim Clyburn and Bob McNair backed Gephardt.

He was gone before South Carolina voted.

Later, Clyburn and "Fritz" Hollings backed John Kerry.

He lost in South Carolina.

Do they matter?

What's going on here?

First, an endorsement at the presidential primary level has evolved into a matter of respectability for a candidate, an introduction by a local (read that as state) official, rather than a commitment to deliver X amount of votes. It says, "In my eyes, this guy's OK." That's about as far as it goes.

"The rule is endorse early — and deliver," said Republican consultant Bruce Haynes.

But without the storied political machines of old, endorsers are hard-pressed to turn out votes for someone else when they're not on the ballot.

Mayor Richard Daley I of Chicago could deliver and his son carries on the machine's tradition to a lesser extent; New York's Tammany Hall did, but no longer. Kansas City's Pendergast machine, gone and unlamented, was up there, too.

What's clear about the 2004 presidential primary cycle is that an inordinate number of bigwigs, in horse racing parlance, picked nags, not winners.

It also — again — showed the transparency of the theory of transference, that one politico's vote-getting ability and, for those who have them, organizations, can be transferred to another candidate.

Voters filter out

"When you're talking about the highest-profile office in the land, particularly in the candidate selection process, people are judging them directly," said Jack Bass, a College of Charleston political science professor and former political journalist.

Bass says the overriding importance of the office makes a presidential decision, either in a multi-candidate primary or a general election field of two, so intensely personal that outside forces are less likely to intrude.

Peer down the ballot for where endorsements matter, he suggests.

"Endorsements mean a lot more for positions of lesser prominence, where people are looking for guidance," he said.

It works like this:

Presidential candidates saturate the airwaves, phone lines and mailboxes; people see them via paid and free media. Combine that with the importance of the office, and they're far less inclined to be swayed by politicians they don't know any more than they do the candidates.

But when Joe Doaks is running for dogcatcher, those folks who don't know him are more inclined to accept the recommendation of a public figure they know or are familiar with.

That's where endorsements can work, analysts say. They also work if the endorser is on the ballot, too; that way, his or her organizations are going to turn out. Of course, incumbents are more skittish of endorsements in those years. Why tick off the other guy's friends?

No big deal

Curtis Gans of Washington's Center for the Study of the American Electorate says presidential endorsements have never mattered, except where the endorser has an organization that can actually deliver votes.

"An individual endorsement has never meant a lot," Gans said.

The endorsement of first Gephardt, then Kerry, by Clyburn is a case in point.

Clyburn is a sitting congressman, influential statewide, the top elected black official in South Carolina with a strong organization, too, but he didn't deliver. Even his 6th Congressional District went for Edwards.

His was a highly sought endorsement, but he deliberately waited until late to endorse Gephardt, a friend and House mentor. When Gephardt bombed in Iowa and dropped out, he jumped on Kerry's bandwagon, one that was looking a lot better nationally than in South Carolina. Kerry has since all but nailed down the nomination, but lost by 15 points to Sen. John Edwards in South Carolina.

Clyburn said his support for Kerry wasn't geared toward a first-place finish, just assurance of a solid second.

"I never thought for one moment that Kerry would carry this state," he said, "but I knew he'd be in good shape for the nomination."

Endorsements have value, Clyburn said, but "absolutely, it's very difficult" for elected officials to turn out their organizations unless they, too, are on the ballot.

Clyburn: I helped

Clyburn said pre-primary polling showed black civil rights activist Al Sharpton at 24 percent of the African-American vote, but that dropped to 17 percent at the ballot box.

"I don't have any doubt in my mind that my endorsement made the difference in key counties in the black vote that Kerry got," he said.

If endorsements are becoming as irrelevant as the national nominating conventions, the cyber world may accelerate the process.

New technologies are at work that undermine the practical value of endorsements and traditional concepts of campaigning and fund-raising.

The Internet, for instance. PDAs. Cell phones.

For a minimal investment, a candidate can reach untold numbers of potential voters through the Internet, essentially direct candidate-to-voter outreach. If you can get their hearts, you can get their money, too, as Dean proved in the now vanished heyday of his campaign.

And, on the negative side, they can also reach a jaded electorate that just tunes it all out. That's why they make "Delete" buttons.