Edwards: Likely to be endorsed by the Steelworkers, the Transport Workers Union, the Carpenters and, most importantly, UNITE-HERE. The latter is key because it is a huge union in Nevada, which also happens to the early state with the highest union density in the country. It is possible that over 30% of Democratic caucus participants in Nevada will be union members, and none with a larger presence than UNITE-HERE. Edwards is also strongly in the running for the Firefighters, which would be huge in Iowa (The firefighters bucked all other unions in 2004, for example, and endorsed John Kerry in the primaries). He also seems to be competitive among every other union in the country, with the exception of the American Federation of Teachers.
Clinton: Hillary Clinton is likely to win the endorsement of the American Federation of Teachers (my former union). She is also in the running for AFSCME, the Firefighters, and the Teamsters. It is worth noting that SEIU looks very unlikely for Clinton.
Obama: He appears to be in the running for AFSCME , SEIU and the Teamsters. Not many unions, but they certainly are all big ones.
Others: Other candidates are in the running from unions in their home state or region, but generally speaking do not appear to be in the running for any major national endorsements.
Without question, unions provide an influx of volunteers to make phone calls, knock on doors and otherwise assist in some of the nuts and bolts of voter identification, GOTV and general field. Now, how much union endorsements mean in terms of votes low union density states like Iowa and New Hampshire is certainly debatable. This issue is compounded by the difficulty unions have in “keeping” their membership, and actually having them vote for the candidate they endorse. While 68% of union members broke for Democrats in 2006, that also means 31% of union members are already off the table for the candidate they endorse in the primaries. Many more members will simply end up voting for other Democratic candidates in primaries than the ones who are endorsed, especially since, I believe, internal membership voter education programs are far more heavily directed toward the general election in most unions. In the end, this probably does not translate into many votes.
Perhaps just as importantly, aside from field, money and votes, union endorsements also have an impact on the image of the candidates. This image impact will play differently among different groups. The established media will take union endorsements as an indication of how “serious” a candidate is, and how much of a chance her or she has to win the nomination (which will help Edwards out). For other progressives, some will take union endorsements as a sign of a candidate’s cred on “kitchen table” issues that focus on working families and the poor. This is certainly an image for which Edwards is pushing hard, as one can see in this new video:
However, for still other progressives, there could even be negative connotations to union endorsements. Some, especially those in the younger generations, will see union endorsements and view a candidate as “too old school,” or even “anti-environment.” Also, endorsements from teacher’s unions will have different meaning for people than, say, endorsements from industrial unions.
Considering the downfall of both Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt in 2004, union endorsements in primaries do not seem to mean as much as they once did. However, they still will have an impact on the campaign, and as such are worth discussing. How do you view the impact of unions in the primary campaign?
Update: I want to add that in 2004, when I was working for the AFT in Illinois, we endorsed Obama for US Senate in the Democratic primary. Ah, memories of leafleting for Obama when he was in a distant third in that primary. I think that SEIU and AFSCME were the only other two unions to do so.
\Update 2: Got this from a source over email:
FWIW, it's my understanding that both the Machinists and Boilermakers are pretty much committed to Edwards, and that Hoffa wants Edwards badly enough to get it done for IBT over any Chicago objections.
STATE BLOGS
