So, as a short follow up to yesterday’s post on the decision by SEIU to be neutral at a national level and let its state-level organizations make up their own minds, here’s some intel on where at least one insider believes states might go. Some of this is probably obvious–and feel free to disagree if you have other information or opinions:
New Hampshire–leaning strongly towards Edwards.
Iowa and Nevada–Edwards
So, at least in early states, Edwards would appear to have the advantage.
Illinois–Obama (duh)
California–Edwards (this is not particularly new information–that’s been rumored before)
New York–neutral
I’m not sure I believe that New York will remain neutral but it’s possible. Sen. Clinton does have ties to the major locals here–particularly, 1199 and 32BJ–but I’m told there is no great love for her among key players. It’s also not clear that it matters–she will likely overwhelmingly win the primary here (assuming she is still in the race by Feb 5th…that’s somewhat an attempt at humor) so it’s not a huge blow in this state for SEIU to remain on the sidelines. But, I’m still skeptical.
Here’s my analysis; obviously Edwards would have rather had the national union’s endorsement, it would have meant more support and a bigger media slpash nationally. On the other hand having each of these endorsements will garner him local media events in each of the early states, where it matters most, and a good deal of resources and organization.
Another feature of the compromise makes Obama’s Illinois support less useful than it might otherwise be. From Tasini again:
And here is one thing to underscore: as I understand it, if Illinois, for example, supports Obama, its resources–money and activists–can only be used for work inside that state. That’s not insignificant support within a state but Obama–and the same is true for the other candidates–cannot export money and activists from Illinois, where he is the overwhelming home-state favorite and probably won’t need to expend as much effort, to other states like Iowa or New Hampshire.
Now, how enforceable this is remains an open question, there certainly won’t be Iowa SEIU members posted at the border checking for union cards. On the other hand, given what must of have been a close compromise the Illinois SEIU locals are likely to keep a fairly low profile on the Union brothers’ and sisters’ home turf.
The possible lack of a home state endorsement would be a big blow to Clinton, given her inevitability meme. It’s the one part of Tasini’s predictions I have a tough time believing, but it would be a nice touch.
In the end, this is the next best thing to a national endorsement for Edwards. For Obama the compromise seems to be neutral. He was able to stop Edwards from getting the full advantage of the endorsement but not all advantage, and picks up only a little strength himself.
Cross Posted at Boston for Edwards
Clinton has national union endorsements from the Bricklayers International Union and the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC).
<
p>
Dodd has the International Association of Fire Fighters
mystery to me based on policies. I’m not talking about Dodd here, I don’t know enough about his history or policies to determine whether he’s a free trade at any cost kind of a Democrat.