This strikes me as a fairly serious blow to Rep. Lynch and his candidacy. It has long appeared from the outside that he was counting on labor to serve as his ground troops, and yet he failed to earn the endorsement of the state’s largest labor federation.
Anyone else have thoughts on this?
Please share widely!
Markey’s campaign declined to comment, but a spokesman for Lynch’s campaign, Conor Yunits, tweeted that Markey received two votes to Lynch’s 32, an assertion that could not be independently verified.
He noted that Lynch has received, by their count, the endorsement of 44 local unions, while Markey has received the endorsements of two, and he suggested that the outcome of the vote may have been the result of from “pressure” from Washington.
“Too bad DC continues to apply pressure on behalf of chosen nominee, and not let Massachusetts Democratic process prevail,” he tweeted.
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/285825-in-blow-to-lynch-afl-cio-declines-to-endorse-in-mass-senate-primary#ixzz2MLofXGDB
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
Yunits made his candidate come off desperate. He’s got to reel that in.
n/t
I rec’d this diary, just to spite danfromwaltham.
At any given moment, I can be a bad human. :v\
If Markey only received two votes and Lynch received 32 votes, then how could there not be an endorsement? Something here doesn’t make sense. Can anyone give a bona fide explanation of this?
This article, the same one DFW linked I believe says that Lynch got 32 votes out of 72 so nowhere near 2/3. Steve Tolman also pointed out that Markey has a 96% labor rating and that they will work hard for whichever candidate is the Dem nominee.
According to DFW’s link.
thanks for the link, DFW.
What low standards we have, mp. Yet, you brag about Harry Reid’s senatorial campaign endorsing Markey? To me, even more reason to vote for Lynch.
If the state’s largest environmental organization declined to endorse anyone, that would be a victory for Lynch. They’d be saying he’s equally acceptable.
Of course, they wouldn’t, because he’s not.
and comfort to Dan, it really is just an indication that unions are split over the two candidates. the Hill, which he cites, refers to the AFL-CIO as “one of Massachusetts’s most prominent unions.” In point of fact, the AFL-CIO is not a union at all. It’s a coalition of unions. And this is a distinction with a difference. In campaigns, actual unions put boots on the ground to canvass and call. The AFL-CIO provides logistical and organizational support. It also lobbies and educates.
The endorsement of the AFL-CIO would have meant that Lynch had enough unions supporting him to get the endorsement. We now know that’s not the case. It was a good bet before. The MTA, for one, had already endorsed Markey.
And the AFL-CIO vote wouldn’t have affected the MTA support. An endorsement of Markey wouldn’t have affected Lynch’s support with the Iron Workers, etc.
Had Lynch or Markey received the AFL-CIO endorsement (after the primary one of them will), it would have been something to brag about. That’s it. Union endorsements are imporant. Union members vote and union members work for candidates. But the AFL-CIO is not a union.
…isn’t it true that the MTA and their parent organization the NEA are not part of the AFL-CIO, but rather the AFT that is part of that coalition?
Teachers are a huge part of any campaign groundgame. In Lowell, the United Teachers of Lowell (AFT, AFL/CIO) could be very helpful.
I haven’t done a head count, but in MA, I think there are more teachers under the MTA’s umbrella.
105,000
Are both members.
http://www.massaflcio.org/affiliated_locals
At the national level it is only AFT, but the website says certain state NEA chapters are affilated with their respective state AFL-CIOs.
it means. The NEA is different than the AFT, which serves more urban school districts and, I think, has a more assertive attitude. The AFT is the nation’s first teachers union, and they have some great publications at their site. They public research and informative articles, not just happy talk.
The national NEA didn’t even deign to call itself a “union,” thinking of itself as an organization of professionals like the bar association. They have refused to join the AFL-CIO (or any other labor federation) since time immemorial and generally won’t get involved in labor issues outside of teachers/education.
NEA is a national union, don’t kid yourself; and they say that in their handouts. They work with the AFL-CIO, meet with them regularly, and do common-interest projects with them all the time. I was there for MANY of the NEA-AFT merger discussions and votes at NEA conventions and other meetings. The separation came regarding democratic and governance issues, which are serious and ongoing.
The fact is that NEA didn’t get involved with “other trade” issues; but “other trades” don’t typically get involved in NEA (or AFT) issues. During the REeagan years, if unions had stuck together in the traffic controllers strike, things would be different now. But don’t single out NEA.
And to Mark Bail: please don’t fall for the “assertiveness” image of AFT. Shanker and AFT fell for the charter school and testing-is-all baloney well before anyone in NEA did. BOTH national unions for teachers could use a shot of guts from their locals.
made the mistake of many powerful people, that is, thinking that he could control the charter school concept of himself and teachers. It was huge mistake.
I do like their publications more than the NEA’s.
Sympathy strikes in one of the last big labor towns like Chicago were instrumental in getting big numbers for the rallies. The Teamsters came out in full force along with the SEIU. Its one of the reasons Rahm had to fold (even corporate Dems like him and Daley can’t afford to lose labor in Chicago).
You’re probably also talking about union locals, not the national unions. It’s usually union locals that strike, not the national unions. The NEA couldn’t really call a strike anyway. Neither could the MTA. It’s illegal for teachers to strike in Massachusetts.
With that said, the MTA, SEIU, and other unions active in Massachusetts do support each other and work together.
So, the DSCC put pressure on the AFL-CIO, and Lynch did not get the endorsement. That circumstance could actually help Lynch and hurt Markey. After all, Markey wasn’t endorsed either. Members of unions know the score and understand how political decisions are made. This situation could backfire on Markey.
..and I doubt AFL-CIO would bow to that as they have their own interests. I doubt the vast majority of voters even know what the DSCC is. I take the decision at face value involving two candidates with strong labor records.
I spoke about the Senate campaign with a union professional in the UAW chapter that has organized UMass’ grad students. He supported Markey in large part due to gay rights, and was going to the convention hoping to get the actual result — neutrality from the state AFL-CIO. He can’t have been the only union organizer who found Lynch’s social-issue positions unpalatable. And thus you don’t have to posit any hypothetical DSCC pressure to explain this result.
knows something we don’t know and that it can’t be cited.
On the other hand, I’m not sure that union support is a deciding factor in a Democratic Primary. Hard core Democrats tend to be more liberal than they are union members. The voter identification of the 105,000 members in the MTA probably leans Democratic, but their registration probably mirrors the population more closely than anyone thinks. I”m sure that the hard hat unions mirror the rest of the population more closely. A lot of union members will turn out for the general election, but I’m guessing a significant number of them will stay home like everyone else.
Every little bit helps, and don’t underestimate the power of unions in Elizabeth Warren’s victory, but primaries are a crap shoot. This primary is interesting only because Lynch has so much union support.
that the unions will come around to support either man, once things shake out; and not taking any position now is not terribly meaningful.
This is going to be a hotly contested primary, and any organization that wades into it is risking the alienation of many members. While Lynch supporters may be looking for a scapegoat to blame for the fact that the AFL-CIO didn’t simply fall in line, the fact remains that thousands of its members are going to be distanced by support for Lynch. When two powerful persons collide in a tightly-fought primary — and remember, the loser will still have the job title “Congressman” — cooler heads may reasonably decide to sit a contest out. Many organizations sat out Patrick-Gabreili-Reilly, so why would this be any different?
The Democratic nominee. We have clearly heard Striker57 state that he will support Markey over the GOP. I have made the same pledge, and I say this as someone who is closer to Winslow than Lynch on social issues, but I’ll take a Bob Casey over a Susan Collins any day of the week. I don’t see DFW saying the same thing so his whole pro-labor shtick is just that. There are lots of legitimate criticisms against Lynch, but he has been a solid pro-labor vote his whole career. We can’t say that about any of the Republicans.
I’ve seen organizations endorse “the Democratic nominee” even before the primary is over — many groups did that in the 2008 primaries. Don’t know why that wasn’t brought up at the AFL-CIO.