AFL-CIO Endorses Merkley
US Senate candidate Jeff Merkley received a major endorsement today from the Oregon AFL-CIO, which voted to make an early endorsement in the Democratic primary to challenge Gordon Smith.
From the Oregonian:
Jeff Merkley's campaign for the U.S. Senate received a major boost Tuesday when he won an early endorsement from the the Oregon AFL-CIO.The 145,000-member labor federation will now go to work promoting Merkley, the Oregon House speaker, as it does political outreach to more than 200,000 voters in AFL-CIO households.
Although some union officials have wanted to sit out the Democratic primary race - which features a spirited contest between Merkley and Portland lawyer and activist Steve Novick - Oregon AFL-CIO President Tom Chamberlain said members of the federation's political committee strongly felt an early endorsement was the best way to build up a candidate to defeat Republican incumbent Gordon Smith.
"For us to be as effective as we can be, we need to be united, start early and build toward November," said Chamberlain. "....I think there is a good parallel between what labor did for Ted Kulongoski in 2001 and what labor will do for Jeff Merkley in 2008."
In 2001, the labor federation endorsed Kulongoski over two other candidates with strong union credentials in the belief he would be the strongest candidate. Kulongoski easily won the primary and went on to win the general election.
Merkley and Novick's campaigns had different takes on the endorsement:
"I feel it gives the campaign a lot of momentum," said Merkley. "I've been fighting for workers and fighting for families that have been getting the short end of the stick for decades...This endorsement really, I think, creates that connection that says, 'Jeff was really with us fighting for workers.'"Novick's campaign manager, Jake Weigler, charged that the endorsement process was "driven by D.C.," where the national unions are headquartered. He added: "It's sad that the AFL-CIO would tell rank-and-file workers across Oregon to turn their backs on someone who has been shoulder to shoulder with them on the front lines and picket lines for more than a decade."
Chamberlain said the endorsement "was absolutely a local decision" and that both Merkley and Novick worked hard to sway officials from the member unions. In the end, Merkley won more than two-thirds of the votes of the roughly 35 union representatives who attended the endorsement meeting in Portland, Chamberlain said.
Weigler said Novick, who has worked with the unions on several political campaigns, will continue to compete for labor support. The state's two largest unions - Service Employees Union International and the Oregon Education Association - are not affiliated with the AFL-CIO and will make their endorsements later in the campaign season.
Read the rest. Discuss.
|
Dec. 11, 2007
Posted in in the news 2007. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Dec 11, '07
Merkley has the primary won at this point.
With no real reason to choose Novick over Merkley, and plenty of institutional support for Merkley, Jeff has got this wrapped up. Novick is a good guy, but if his heart is really set on running for something as big as the US Senate, he should try to get some legislative experience beforehand in order to shore up labor's support, who runs the show in Democratic primaries.
10:52 p.m.
Dec 11, '07
Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that Merkley as "won" at this point. After all, there's not a single vote been cast yet.
As they say in football - especially this season - there's a reason they play the games.
Of course, to continue the unfortunate metaphor... this is looking less like the New England Patriots vs. the Dallas Cowboys - and more like the Patriots vs. Hofstra.
Dec 11, '07
Yes, the AFL-CIO endorsement is important to people who pay attention to such things.
But I'm guessing that E. of the Cascades this sort of thing could be equally important.
[Editor's note: Please don't copy and paste other people's blog posts. And if you must, please provide a link to the original source.]
Dec 11, '07
We have 2 very bright, very experienced men from Portland running for the US Senate nomination. But how many people know that?
There is a quote from Matt. 5 in the New Testament which begins, "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works.....".
Jeff and Steve are full of good works and about as intelligent a couple of candidates as we have seen--full of knowledge and "street smarts" or they wouldn't have built the careers they have built.
But what percentage of the people who are registered Democrats or might be inclined to register that way to vote in an exciting primary know anything about them? It will be interesting to see how many times they appear in front of live audiences of any size (house party to auditorium) between now and May, and what kind of reception they get.
Don't forget, Hillary Clinton was the inevitable candidate until very recently. There was a story I read online in the NY Times saying she had misjudged and people had to tell her things like "just because you spent 40 minutes with that party leader doesn't mean you have his endorsement" and the importance of gathering signed cards of support from people who came to her events.
No election is over until the votes are counted.
12:12 a.m.
Dec 12, '07
Yes, the AFL-CIO endorsement is important to people who pay attention to such things.
In particular, I would think, the 145,000 members of that particular organization - and the 55,000 additional members of their households. And especially, the thousands of grassroots volunteers that will now swing into action behind Jeff Merkley.
The AFL-CIO endorsement is HUGE, which is obvious by the gusto with which both candidates went after it. It is especially big because - unlike the way some organizations do endorsements - the AFL-CIO's is entirely bottom-up and democratic. The individual unions' members vote their endorsements, and then bring those endorsements to the state federation, and they vote. It takes a two-thirds vote to do anything, and the "safe" move would have been to stay out completely (as they did with AG and SOS) so this is a strong vote of confidence in Jeff Merkley.
[I neglected to disclaim above. My company hosts the websites for both Jeff Merkley for Senate and the Oregon AFL-CIO. We did not participate in the endorsement process in any way (not that they would have let us). As always, I speak here only for myself.]
12:14 a.m.
Dec 12, '07
No he hasn't, not even close to it.
As Kari correctly pointed out, not a single vote has been cast in the primary (and won't be for months). Does this help Merkley? Of course. Is this a blow to Novick? Some, but not a mortal one. Should anyone think this race is over? Only the foolish.
Dec 12, '07
AFL-CIO also endorsed Bradbury last time around, IIRC.
Dec 12, '07
I agree with those who equate Merkley's position with that of Hillary. Yes, they're the front runners. Yes, they have the most support among the party machine. But they are running against charismatic opponents, and when "the people" take a look at the two candidates in the flesh -- and not just on paper -- these races will get tighter and tighter.
So Merkley backers, just check out what's happening in Iowa before you cue the balloons quite yet.
Dec 12, '07
Kari, your post suggest each of the 145,000 union members are polled and their votes dictate the AFL CIO endorsement. The members of my local have never been asked who the AFL CIO should endorse. Novick, like Kucinich and Wellstone refuses to go along with the big money folks in Washington. Andy Stern of SEIU rails about the influence of big money in politics; it will be interesting to see who his union endorses.
8:14 a.m.
Dec 12, '07
Daniel,
Would you be less dismissive/contemptuous if it were Novick who was the front runner at this point? And if he was then wouldn't he then be the one to be equated with Hillary?
8:29 a.m.
Dec 12, '07
Kari's being absurd, of course. This was a top down endorsement, made by 35 people at the behest of one--tom Chamberlain. And I think it shows the opposite oif confidence; they're endorsing early to give Merkley a boost--because he needs one. Otherwise why rush it?
Not enough 4Q money coming in, perhaps?
8:43 a.m.
Dec 12, '07
If that's true then think how much less confidence they have in Novick's chances.
Dec 12, '07
and more like the Patriots vs. Hofstra.
Actually no. This going to be a three-way race, remember? And since we're talking about Smith here, did anybody see today's article in The Hill?
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obey-earmark-propsal-stirs-opposition-from-both-parties-2007-12-12.html
Sen. Gordon Smith, the Oregon Republican whom Democrats believe they can knock off in 2008, said he was “enormously frustrated” with how the spending fight and other legislative battles have played out.
“Earmarks are unpopular in a media sense, [but] it’s one of the ways Congress exercises its purse strings under the Constitution,” said Smith, who racked up over $68 million in earmarks in the fiscal 2008 energy and water bill this Congress. “The [president’s domestic spending] number is a good goal, but the president doesn’t run the legislative branch. We do. We’re an equal branch of government.”
Hey Smith - I thought you were a fiscal conservative!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
9:43 a.m.
Dec 12, '07
TJ, is there any news about Merkley that, under your reading, doesn't actually indicate his weakness? I'm just wondering here. When Les AuCoin endorsed Novick, I thought it was a nice boost for Steve. But somehow a labor union's endorsement of Merkley indicates weakness? You can't have it both ways. And in this case, this is clearly a big deal.
10:06 a.m.
Dec 12, '07
Next thing you know TJ, it will be May, and you are going to try to be spinning how the Secretary of State saying that Merkley has more votes is really a bad thing for his campaign.
This endorsement is huge. Jeff Mapes said that all Merkley needed to do to shrug off Novick was win the labor endorsements and raise more money, both of which are happening.
For a look at the AFL-CIO endorsement's implications for the race, check out this post at Forward Oregon
Dec 12, '07
Of course this is good news for Merkley, but I also don't think it's unreasonable to look at this endorsement and wonder why, after statements on KPOJ and elsewhere that they'd be sitting out he primary, the union has decided Jeff needs their help now.
Armchair pundits would have to be pretty naive for that thought to NOT even cross their minds.
this is looking less like the New England Patriots vs. the Dallas Cowboys - and more like the Patriots vs. Hofstra.
Thanks, Kari. Who doesn't love a good politics-to-sports analogy.
This one is muddied a bit because Merkley attended Stanford, but I'd say this is more like USC V. Stanford game. The top dawg vs. the underdawg. And even with sideline support from superstars like Snoop Dog and Will Ferrell for USC, Stanford out-smarted, out-worked and out-played the front-running Trojans for the victory.
11:29 a.m.
Dec 12, '07
The answer is they know Novick has no shot and moved on to the general.
11:35 a.m.
Dec 12, '07
Why would a union want to wait out a primary contest if not to be reasonably assured of backing the strongest candidate?
Seems self-evident to me that Occam's Razor indicates that the AFL-CIO first decided to wait until a stronger candidate emerged and then once they felt one had emerged they then proceeded to endorse him for the very reasons that they cited - taking their cue from the proverbial Tortoise, to get an early start to building up a full head of steam.
It makes no sense for a union to jump the gun to back what they see as the weaker candidate. They have no self-interest in backing a weak candidate.
Dec 12, '07
Here's a novel idea: Maybe those in the endorsement process (the way these things work, as I understand it, a representative group--maybe delegates to something?-- does the endorsing, not a poll of all the rank and file) thought Jeff had more experience as Speaker and was speaking more specifically to the issues which concern them in 2007-2008.
A very dear friend of mine who died this summer was once an AFL-CIO officer. My guess is that if she had been part of the endorsement process, she would have cared more about labor issues (min. wage, NLRB membership under a Republican president, working conditions in unionized and non-unionized work places, for instance) than about issues not directly labor related. (Unions were not always friendly to anti-war protesters in the Vietnam War years, for instance.)
Which is why the sentiment behind this from Loaded Orygun might not have made much of an impression:
"Or, better, as House Minority Leader, Jeff could have out-maneuvered Republicans by engineering a Democratic Minority Report supporting the troops without glorifying Bush. "
Those who were in the capitol building in 2003 might know if 2003 was the year that Minns outlawed/refused to allow minority reports in the House--there was a big stink at one point during her time as Speaker where she flat out didn't allow minority reports. The Oregon House of 2003 was not the same sort of congenial, open process legislative body it was when St. Rep. AuCoin served there.
But people of all stripes who care about a Democrat winning the Senate seat in 2008 might think any minute debating whether a minority report would have been practical in the days of the "yellow ribbon brigade" (any member not wearing a yellow ribbon was subject to peer pressure for "not supporting the troops") is a minute not being used to discuss issues of 2007-2008.
And whatever one thinks about that 2003 resolution, I found Merkley's discussion of health care on his website to be more detailed than Steve's discussion of the issue. Is it possible a union group would care more about 2008 health care than about a 2003 legislative resolution on the Iraq war?
There are people who feel as strongly about Steve winning the 2008 primary as they felt about Les AuCoin winning the 1992 primary. More power to them! That doesn't mean I have made my decision yet--I may wait until May to make my decision in this primary.
12:14 p.m.
Dec 12, '07
Of course they do. Not necessarily in this particular case, but overall, any organization's endorsement is about backing a candidate they think will effectively represent their positions.
If there were two different candidates in the Democratic race and one was overtly pro-labor and the other had some issues with unions but more of a chance of winning, there's definitely a possibility that unions would support the seemingly weaker candidate.
And, of course, sometimes they make mistakes about who is weaker and who would better represent them. Just as we all do.
Dec 12, '07
Not only that, darrelplant, but there have been dumb endorsements in the past like endorsing Republicans who voted the "right" way on PERS and discouraging support of Democrats running against them, or things like insider politics, hoping to show they are "balanced" (some anti-union people got endorsed that way like the legislators who won after such endorsements and then co-authored an end to teacher tenure in Oregon), etc.
Union endorsements are union endorsements, and in these days of technology, someone could do a real public service compiling statistics on which unions endorsed which candidates over the years, their win/loss record, etc.
In 1986, if memory serves, AFLCIO endorsed Packwood in the general election.
1:13 p.m.
Dec 12, '07
"For us to be as effective as we can be, we need to be united, start early and build toward November," said Chamberlain
If I was a cynical person, I might take that as, "shut up, and hop on the bandwagon Novick supporters"
...if I was a cynical person.
1:42 p.m.
Dec 12, '07
jeff, there's a difference between the impact of an endorsement, and the rationale behind it. I didn't question how it will help Merkley; I wondered why they suddenly decided on this timing. Chamberlin doesn't say "we picked the best candidate"; he says it's best to unite behind one candidate now. That presupposes there is not the requisite uniting already taking place, and that the endorsement is esigned to increase that unity. Which means Tom was seeking to influence the race with the timing of the endorsement, to "build support." Simply put, you don't build something that's already built.
LT, that wasn't LO bringing up minority reports; I was quoting AuCoin.
Dec 12, '07
It's great for the Merkley campaign that the Oregon AFL-CIO has given their endorsement. It's widely known that the general election is going to be a tough one, and this endorsment only helps the Merkley campaign get things going. Starting early and offering support now will put Merkley in a stronger position to unseat Gordon Smith.
3:13 p.m.
Dec 12, '07
Annon in Roseburg wrote Kari, your post suggest each of the 145,000 union members are polled and their votes dictate the AFL CIO endorsement. The members of my local have never been asked who the AFL CIO should endorse.
Sorry, didn't mean to imply that. Here's how it works. Members at individual locals elect delegates to their state organizations. Then, those state organizations elect delegates to the AFL-CIO state federation. Then they vote to endorse or not endorse.
Just like in America. The people don't vote on every bill. We elect leaders to represent our interests and values.
That doesn't mean it isn't a democratic process.
As for TJ's complaint that Tom Chamberlain is driving the process, I suggest you check in with Steve on that one. On Outlook Portland (sorry no video online), Tom was pretty clear that Steve is a close and personal friend (I think he said "family friend").
TJ's comment also betrays a lack of knowledge about the politics inside the AFL-CIO. That's a room filled with hard-core ass-kickers that don't take instructions from anybody - least of all someone outside their own union. The fastest way to get deposed as a union leader is to go against the interests of your members.
If the member unions of the AFL-CIO decided that Jeff Merkley is the right guy to beat Gordon Smith, I suggest you assume that that's what they believe - rather than some bizarre conspiracy theory.
They might be wrong, sure. But it's unlikely that they're doing something other than what they believe in their hearts and minds.
Dec 12, '07
Thanks for the post. Now that I know who the AFL-CIO is backing I'll know who to vote against. I've found that big labor is usually dead wrong on most every issue so it is a quick shortcut to just do the opposite of anything they endorse.
Dec 12, '07
It's a bad idea to say anything like "Candidate X has this election sewn up". First of all, there is no such thing as a sure thing in politics. But, even more important, its frankly insulting to Candidate Y and the supporters of Candidate Y.
Elections are not decided by who endorses who (otherwise Dean would have been the nominee in 2004) but by who votes for who.
4:57 p.m.
Dec 12, '07
Once again TJ you are flat lying Chamberlain certainly said that Merkley was the best candidate.
It amazes me that anybody believes anything that you say anymore with this kind of dishonesty. It isn't spinning or trying to put your candidate in the best light anymore, now it is just out and out lies.
4:58 p.m.
Dec 12, '07
You forgot the part where "big labor" eats babies.
Dec 12, '07
This can be a very benefitial endorsement-- or not-- depending on the circumstances. I remember in the 1994 5th CD congressioanl primary the state AFL-CIO endorsed Jeff Anderson, who finished 4th with 10% of the vote. In '96 they endorsed Lane Co. State Sen. Bill Dwyer for Senate, and he finsihed well behind Bruggere and Lonsdale. Support from labor sure doesn't hurt, and it can help a lot, as it did Kulongoski in '02, but it's up to the candidates to win.
Dec 12, '07
I think that most of the folks around here need to take a chill pill. Good grief we're all trying to get a democrat elected aren't we?
Whether Merkley wins or Novick (my personal pick) wins, either would make a great Senator wouldn't they?
I just don't get where all this venom against fellow democrats comes from in regards to an election that we all want to win very badly. We do don't we?
Come on people, go back to your high school debate classes and remember how to be civil and try very very hard to unlearn the bad habits that have been imprinted on us by the neo-cons.
6:02 p.m.
Dec 12, '07
ROFL
I'm reminded of a proverb:
"A man finds joy in giving an apt reply - and how good is a timely word!" Proverbs 15:23 (NIV)
6:26 p.m.
Dec 12, '07
I just think it's a bit funny that when about 15 or so people voted to endorse in Mult Co on the governor's race, people threw a fit (and in that process all members had the opportunity to vote if they wanted to come to the meeting). But when 35 make the endorsement for an organization that covers the state, no problem?
7:30 p.m.
Dec 12, '07
Do you also have a problem when only 535 people get to write the laws for an entire country of 300 million?
Representative democracy, it's a beautiful thing.
Dec 12, '07
Grant, thanks for injecting the dose of reality. In the 5th District example, Jeff Anderson worked for a labor union and worked very hard for the AFL-CIO endorsement.
And with all due respect to bdunn, if there is a large organization endorsing and many of the rank and file members don't understand the endorsement process (sometimes as clear as mud as opposed to how members of the legislature or Congress are elected), that is not representative democracy. As I understand it, there must be over 60% for a union to make an endorsement, and the representatives who vote on the endorsement are not necessarily voted on by all who are dues paying members.
Maybe someone can tell us how a union member gets a vote on endorsement--elected official of a union? Delegate to some statewide group?
9:03 p.m.
Dec 12, '07
Eventually, one of these fine candidates was going to have to lose. Politics is a little brutal that way. And it's even more brutal when people start falling behind the candidate who looks like the winner. Obviously, this is huge for Jeff. TJ's analysis notwithstanding, the most powerful labor organization in the state--perhaps the most powerful liberal organization--doesn't lightly back candidates the membership regards as weak. They want results, not friends.
If Steve goes on to win the primary, I've no doubt they'll back him in the general. But to spin this as anything but a coup for Jeff is crazy. And while no one commented on Jake Weigler's response--I think it was a little off-base:
This is demeaning to the union and its membership. If union members want to say they feel this was a poor decision, that's one thing--it's not Weigler's place to lecture them about how their supposed masters in DC are calling the shots.
Dec 12, '07
"It's sad," Weigler added, "that the AFL-CIO would tell rank-and-file workers across Oregon to turn their backs on someone who has been shoulder to shoulder with them on the front lines and picket lines for more than a decade."
This is demeaning to the union and its membership. If union members want to say they feel this was a poor decision, that's one thing--it's not Weigler's place to lecture them about how their supposed masters in DC are calling the shots. ~~~~~~~~ Well said. Not only that, I was involved in both the 5th District and US Senate primaries listed above---and NOT on the campaigns of Anderson or Dwyer.
The difference was that back then there were no blogs, and the people I talked with about these elections were talking about how they supported their candidate (or were undecided between a couple of candidates in races with several interesting candidates with their own strengths and weaknesses) or talking about the substance of issues.
The winners of those primaries were not Anderson or Dwyer. Perhaps the Novick supporters who are angry about the endorsement of Jeff Merkley would be wise to seek out people who worked on the campaigns of the winners and find out how it was done.
Hint: in the US Senate primary, the DSCC-favored candidate was not Dwyer. There were people who said of Jeff Anderson after hearing him speak at an event I attended that he gave great speeches, the trouble was they had jousted with him over issues/candidates in the past and looked seriously at the other candidates because of that.
In the 5th District campaign, the primary was won by a candidate whose friends were very strongly saying "we support our candidate because...". Perhaps Jake is unfamiliar with campaigns where the candidate's friends vouch for their candidate positively rather than using the tone of Jake's remarks quoted here.
9:41 p.m.
Dec 12, '07
"Sorry, didn't mean to imply that. Here's how it works. Members at individual locals elect delegates to their state organizations. Then, those state organizations elect delegates to the AFL-CIO state federation. Then they vote to endorse or not endorse."
Uh, are you sure about that? That's not how it was described to me. The leaders of the individual unions in AFL form the COPE committee, where everybody has one vote. There are 49 of them, but not all necessarily attended or voted--in this case, there were 35.
Those leaders are free to vote however they like. There was no vote at the local level at any of the unions to inform their decision, certainly none that were binding on leadership.
If 2/3 of those 35 do not come up with the same candidate (and that's well possible in this case), the votes are then reapportioned based on the member strength of each union. So it's kind of like going from a popular ballot to an electoral ballot, without another vote.
Any way you slice it, 35 decided for 145,000. There's nothing inherently wrong with that--and the impact as I said is that people will work for whoever was endorsed, but to attempt to establish that the endorsement reflects a widespread approval of Merkley by "labor"--or even by the rank and file of AFL-CIO--is spurious.
10:01 p.m.
Dec 12, '07
"And it's even more brutal when people start falling behind the candidate who looks like the winner. Obviously, this is huge for Jeff. TJ's analysis notwithstanding, the most powerful labor organization in the state--perhaps the most powerful liberal organization--doesn't lightly back candidates the membership regards as weak. They want results, not friends."
I think SEIU and certainly OEA would have a significant beef with you on the idea that AFLCIO is more powerful in Oregon. But they are a force in politics, no doubt.
Jeff's analysis notwithstanding, what happened here based on Tom's comments is that the candidate was NOT currently looking like the winner, which necessitated the sudden endorsement. And I agree they don't go out of their way to necessarily back a weak candidate--they go out of their way to pay back those who put money in their pockets the last go-round.
"But to spin this as anything but a coup for Jeff is crazy. "
I don't know who did that, certainly not me. It's obviously a coup when you continually get intervention to help prop up your campaign's lackluster efforts. And if you think the Beltway Boys aren't finding Merkley's frontrunner rollout lackluster, you're not listening.
10:11 p.m.
Dec 12, '07
Do you also have a problem when only 535 people get to write the laws for an entire country of 300 million?
Representative democracy, it's a beautiful thing.
No, I just think it's funny that people who bashed the Mult Dems for making an endorsement for a county party on a small number of votes see nothing wrong with this vote.
For endorsements from an organization, I honestly think all members should have the option of voting. In Mult Dems, all members of the central committee had the option to vote - only some did. And never was that vote used to say that the 180,000+ Dems in the county endorsed the candidates we voted on, even though we are elected to represent them.
10:14 p.m.
Dec 12, '07
I'd also like to point out that there is a difference between making laws/rules for the greater good of society and making endorsements. It's a huge difference.
If the union wanted to endorse Merkley, fine by me. I just wish organizations would open up the process to its members and give them a say in the process instead of a few members choosing based on personal preferences and locking the members into that choice.
10:15 p.m.
Dec 12, '07
From the Eugene Register Guard:
10:27 p.m.
Dec 12, '07
Jake's comments confirm for me why I am no longer actively supporting Novick's campaign (though I think highly of Steve's accomplishments). I think Novick would make an outstanding Senator, just as Merkley will as well (both are a night and day improvement over Smith) but this negative sniping that it is all some D.C. conspiracy against Steve, combined with the almost laughable assertion by TJ that the AFL-CIO was endorsing because Merkley is looking like a loser and need an intervention is spin. Lame spin at that.
That said, TJ does earn props for fairly accurately describing the endorsement process. From what I gather 49 representatives of the locals which are elected by the locals to the political committee vote on whether to endorse and whom, and requiring a 2/3rds vote to win an endorsement for a candidate.
11:03 p.m.
Dec 12, '07
Steve had to know coming into this process that his lack of a legislative record handicapped him significantly. Stacking campaign promises, however sincere, against a verifiable record of achievment is always going to be a nearly insurmountable task. And for good reason. The best predictor of future success is past success.
12:40 a.m.
Dec 13, '07
TJ wrote... Uh, are you sure about that? That's not how it was described to me. The leaders of the individual unions in AFL form the COPE committee, where everybody has one vote. ... There was no vote at the local level at any of the unions to inform their decision, certainly none that were binding on leadership.
TJ, I suggest going back and re-reading the paragraph of mine that you cited. I did NOT suggest that the individual union memberships cast a vote on which candidate to endorse. Rather, I said -- and you aptly restated -- that the unions elect representatives. I said "to the state fed", you said "to the COPE committee". Same thing, just a bit more specific on your part.
Jenni wrote.. No, I just think it's funny that people who bashed the Mult Dems for making an endorsement for a county party on a small number of votes see nothing wrong with this vote.
No, Jenni. No, no, no. There was absolutely NOTHING wrong with the number of people who showed up at the Multnomah Democratic Party meeting that decided to endorse Jim Hill before the primary election.
The problem was that it was the DEMOCRATIC PARTY endorsing a candidate before the primary election. I think you would agree -- right? -- that the Party should not be endorsing before the vote. Right? Right?
In all the pro-Novick yammering over the DSCC, there's been an underlying assumption that the Party should stay the hell out before voters get a chance to have their say.
Right?
(Noting once again, of course, that the DSCC is not the Party. But let's not re-open that can of worms.)
1:10 a.m.
Dec 13, '07
No, Jenni. No, no, no. There was absolutely NOTHING wrong with the number of people who showed up at the Multnomah Democratic Party meeting that decided to endorse Jim Hill before the primary election.
Actually, there were plenty of complaints regarding the number of people who voted on the endorsements for governor. This "controversy" was covered in the papers, on the news, and on many blogs. Not to mention a large number of e-mails that came in (which I received and then directed to the correct officers), and I was shortly thereafter hired as the field director and I heard plenty about it while working in that position.
I'm actually fine with the local party making an endorsement in the primary.
Even Neel Pender, who was DPO Exec Dir at the time and was frustrated about what he perceived as problems with the notification, said:
"For the record, I actually think that endorsements, when done well, are an effective organizing tool for the party. MCDCC's initiative was right, but the execution merits some introspection."
I've been involved in the party in two states, and in both I've always lived in counties where the local party made primary endorsements. A few times it was done badly, but overall it was beneficial to the party and the candidates.
It also helps in races where you have two Democrats running, but only one actually walks the talk (such as the Dem we have running in my HD that thinks Minnis did a great job as our legislator). When you have more than one good candidate, the ability to make joint endorsements is a great tool.
But there is a big difference in the local party and an organization that is made up of members who for the most part don't even live in Oregon. Every single person who voted in the endorsements in the governor's race (which was for Hill and Sorenson) lived in Oregon and are represented by the governor.
...the Party should stay the hell out before voters get a chance to have their say.
Ah, but the local party are some of the voters - that's the difference between the county party and the DSCC. One is an organization in Washington looking at what they think is best for Oregon. The other is a local organization deciding what they think would be best for themselves and their neighbors. There's no comparison.
2:10 a.m.
Dec 13, '07
I don't really want to rehash the DSCC discussion, so I'll leave that alone.
We'll also have to agree to disagree on whether the Democratic Party - either at the local level or the state level - should endorse candidates before a primary election.
I was just chatting with a colleague in Minnesota about how they ALWAYS go through a full endorsement process before the primary - so I know it's done in other places. Just not usually in Oregon.
I think our nominees should be chosen by voters, not party officials. Endorsements by the actual county or state party just seems too much to me like trying to short-circuit the process, rather than letting voters have their say.
After all, in states where there is a formal and traditional party endorsement, like Minnesota, the candidates usually agree to abide by the party endorsement - and get out if they lose. Which means that voters don't actually get a say at all.
(That is, unless a candidate rejects the process and stays on the ballot anyway. Which happens sometimes.)
Say what you want about endorsements by major political figures or organizations... so far, none of them have come with the proviso that the non-endorsed candidate has to get off the ballot.
Dec 13, '07
Endorsements -- whether for Merkeley or Novick -- are, of course, feathers in the cap of whichever candidate receives them. But people tend to exaggerate their importance. Whether the endorser is Les AuCoin or a union, you can assume that the voters of Oregon will end up deciding for themselves who to vote for, rather than taking someone else's word for it.
Here we are in December, MONTHS before the primary, and I suspect that neither candidate has become known to the voters at large. When the candidates start spending their money and making connections not just to insiders but to Ma and Pa Oregon, we're likely to see some polling. And then, for the first time, we'll begin to get a hint of who might prevail. Before then, it's like predicting the outcome of a football game when it's not even halftime yet.
Dec 13, '07
Kari, in case it slipped your mind, and, in an effort to avoid historical revision, I would like to point out that the Multnomah County Democrats in 2006 endorsed both Jim Hill and Pete Sorenson for Governor.
Dec 13, '07
"Winning the Oregon AFL-CIO endorsement requires a vote of more than two-thirds support from its member representatives."
And this is the problem with the endorsement process. Years ago I heard a story about a retired union man working as a volunteer in a Common Cause office just as databases were starting to be used. The person putting together the contributions database was showing it off and asked "What was the name of your union? Would you like to see their contribution history?". The retired volunteer was shocked that in some cases he had not known his union had endorsed people he wouldn't have voted for(why would he know endorsements in districts where he didn't vote unless he was really active in politics instead of just working, coming home, and spending time with family and hobbies?).
This is the classic insider vs. outsider problem. One primary year, I went to the OEA convention when it was held in a local hotel ballroom. It was a great experience for delegates teaching in schools outside of big cities as they had a chance to meet teachers across the state. They stayed in the hotel and had lots of time to socialize.
But substance in endorsements? I watched a couple of the endorsement votes. In one case there was a dynamite candidate who gave a speech full of substance, and was endorsed. But in another case, the "outsider" candidate who hadn't been around forever gave an excellent speech full of substance, while the old timer basically said "You know me, you know what I have done in the past, you know what I stand for" and won.
I took a statistics class in college. I know that even if the delegate selection process was easy for every teacher to understand (and some teachers I have known didn't think it was--something about contributions to a PAC by a date not well publicized or something else unclear like that), by no stretch of the imagination do a hotel ballroom full of teachers speak for every teacher in the state. The sample is not large enough to be significant--more like pushing chess pieces around than anything representing the wishes of the membership.
A friend of mine who was a union activist for many years said she wouldn't advise anyone believe someone who said "I speak for my union" unless of their own knowledge they knew that there had been an advisory vote or other communication from the rank and file to the person speaking (lobbyist, union president, etc.) within the last week. Too many times people speak for themselves while claiming to speak for their organization. (Can also happen in lobbying contexts, not just campaign endorsements.)
Which is why I don't trust organizational endorsements all that much. I can recall times when a teacher didn't get the OEA endorsement because of internal politics, a carpenter had to struggle to get union endorsements against a well known politician, etc.
That said, Steve's campaign needs to deal with that bump in the road and move on. No one is entitled to win a primary, they must do the hard work, talk the detailed substance, and above all inspire people to support them rather than "Jake's comments confirm for me why I am no longer actively supporting Novick's campaign (though I think highly of Steve's accomplishments)."
And local party endorsements in a primary are just stupid for this reason: Suppose the primary ends in a recount (has happened more than once) and feelings among the various campaigns are as raw as the statements here between Merkley and Novick supporters. The day after the recount results are announced as final, it is a lot easier to organize the county party to mobilize for ALL the general election contests (from president on down) if there isn't bad feeling by the people whose candidate was not endorsed by then local party. What if Multnomah endorsed their Speaker (first Democratic Speaker in a decade and a half) and Clackamas endorsed Steve Novick. What exactly would that accomplish? And would Novick be able to mobilize all Mult. Co. Democrats (or Merkley all Clackamas Co. Democrats) to fall in line and take orders for the general election, or would some relationship building need to be done? Steve should realize more than anyone that the 1996 "well, the primary is over and if you worked for a candidate who lost the primary you owe Bruggere your unquestioning support" (an attitude of many rank and file Democrats never contradicted by the Bruggere campaign) nonsense just drove people to 3rd party campaigns or to work on a campaign other than US Senate. Maybe some of his supporters don't remember that far back or weren't involved then.
One of the smartest county chairs I ever knew refused to endorse or even make her vote known in the 1992 US Senate primary, and the result was that after the recount it was a lot easier to mobilize the party for President, statewide offices, local contests.
Dec 13, '07
Has it ever occured to anyone that "legislative experience" may be a negative; i.e., such people usually do it the "way its always been done" even though their experience should tell them there's got to be a better way. This is particulatly true where there's political debts to be paid. There's a lot of "experience" in Congress right now but what has it accomplished?
Democrats interested in trying to break away from "more of same" will be better served by Steve Novick.
1:45 p.m.
Dec 13, '07
Kari:
Oh, I definitely don't agree with a process where the candidates are expected to leave the race because they didn't get an endorsement. That's definitely not letting the voters have a say.
The local party making an endorsement definitely doesn't short circuit the process here. A good portion of the time the endorsed candidate doesn't even win.
Dec 13, '07
Currently at the top of their websites, Steve has a message saying Democrats should stand up to Bush and not pass anything relating to Iraq just because Bush is pressuring them.
Jeff has a message about the need to have prteotections against price gouging in the storm-devasted areas of NW Oregon.
Maybe that makes it as clear as anything else has: Vote for Steve if ideology matters and you want to stand strong against those awful Bush Republicans, vote for Jeff if you think the concerns of ordinary people affected by current events are what a US Senate candidate should be talking about.
In what way do either of those messages reflect "there's political debts to be paid"?
Ron Wyden was not the first Democrat to be elected to the US Senate from Oregon because he focused on abstract principals. He ran a positive campaign (against "we're all real tired of career politicians"--has Gordon been in politics long enough to qualify for that label?) which engaged in dialogue with ordinary folks.
2:17 p.m.
Dec 13, '07
Ron Wyden was not the first Democrat to be elected to the US Senate from Oregon because...
Actually, Ron Wyden was not the first Democrat to be elected to the US Senate from Oregon because that distinction belongs to Joseph Lane. Senator Lane, a Democrat, served from 1857 to 1861.
Or, if you wanted to be a stickler on the definition of "elected", you would point out that Oregon was the first state to popularly elect a U.S. Senator - in 1906. In that case, the first Democrat elected would be Senator George Chamberlain, who served from 1909 to 1921.
Dec 13, '07
Proofreading error: Meant to say that Ron was not the first Democrat to be elected from Oregon SINCE Wayne Morse. Which is about 28 years, roughly the first one in a generation.
4:31 p.m.
Dec 13, '07
Interesting comment, Jenni. I happen to agree with you but the interesting part is that Steve apparently takes a different view. Or at least he apparently did just a few years ago. Maybe he's had a change of heart now that he's a candidate himself.
5:11 p.m.
Dec 13, '07
I have to admit that I have in the past in all honestly told a candidate who didn't have a shot that, when asked for my opinion, I told them I thought they should drop out. I said it nicely, though, and had been asked for my opinion on the race. It's not an uncommon of a conversation to come up between a candidate and someone who has done professional campaign work.
I don't know the situation behind Steve telling a candidate they didn't have a chance and should drop out, so I can't give an opinion on what happened there. I try to stay out of the "he said, she said" type things since I don't know what was said, the circumstances, etc.
But that's different than expecting all candidates who don't get the party's endorsement to drop out of the race. That puts too much importance on a candidate wooing the party instead of wooing the voters.
If Novick were to get a bunch of big endorsements, I wouldn't expect Merkley to drop out of the race. I think having two major candidates in the primary helps to strengthen whoever eventually runs against Smith.
Dec 13, '07
As for the OEA and SEIU:
Five bucks says Merkley wins the SEIU endorsement, especially if the members feel as enthusiastic about him as Art Towers:
And the OEA seemed very pleased by Jeff Merkley's leadership of his caucus:
It'll probably end up that the big union triumvirate (AF of L, OEA, SEIU) all back Merkley for Senate in the primary.
Dec 13, '07
Jenni, this would be true if the US Senate campaign were being operated in the spirit of the AG and Sec. of State campaigns:
If Novick were to get a bunch of big endorsements, I wouldn't expect Merkley to drop out of the race. I think having two major candidates in the primary helps to strengthen whoever eventually runs against Smith.
But so far, that isn't happening. Instead, the AG and Sec. of State candidates get complimented (at least among people I know) on their substance, candor and tone. Then as an aside, sometimes a comment is made that these candidates are refreshing compared to the US Senate candidates who are turning into a lesson in how to turn people off from politics.
EJ Dionne worries about such a thing on the national level.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/13/AR2007121301457.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Here's a guarantee: If the Democrats fail to pass AMT relief, they will be blamed for raising taxes on the middle class. If they pass it without the tax increase, deficit hawks will accuse them of selling out.
What's the alternative to internecine Democratic finger-pointing of the sort that made the front page of yesterday's Post? The party's congressional leaders need to do whatever they have to do to put this year behind them. Then they need to stop whining. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should put aside any ill feelings and use the Christmas break to come up with a joint program for 2008.
They could start with the best ideas from their presidential candidates in areas such as health care, education, cures for the ailing economy and poverty reduction. Agree to bring the same bills to a vote in both houses. Try one more time to change the direction of Iraq policy. If Bush and the Republicans block their efforts, bring all these issues into the campaign. Let the voters break the gridlock.
If Democrats don't make the 2008 election about the Do-Nothing Republicans, the GOP has its own ideas about whom to hold responsible for Washington's paralysis. And if House and Senate Democrats waste their time attacking each other, they will deserve any blame they get next fall.
`````````````` Seems to me that Democrats have a choice. Jeff and Steve could start addressing the above concerns publicly. They can talk about substance (Kroger and Macpherson talking about the Mannix measure, the Sec. of State candidates talking about ballot security and campaign finance reform, for instance) in a tone which respects their opponents and the intelligence of the audience.
Or else they risk making the mistake of Bill Shaheen saying Obama shouldn't have said he used drugs as a young man (not even to say "don't make my mistakes"?) and creating such a firestorm the candidate he worked for ends up apologizing to the candidate attacked, and Bill Shaheen ends up leaving the campaign.
Years ago in Oregon a strong feminist was campaign manager for the only female in a multi-candidate primary. That would have been fine except that she got caught asking "why are these men running against my candidate?" and ended up leaving the campaign.
It is just possible that such judgement issues enter into organizational endorsement decisions, as well as the decisions of ordinary voters.
2:04 a.m.
Dec 14, '07
Some people up thread referred to the AFL-CIO as "the union." It's not a union, it's a federation of unions. Its endorsements are not binding on member unions, never mind individual union members.
TJ's focus on COPE is useful for understanding why the state fed's endorsement matters more than individual endorsement. The Committee on Political Education above all conducts internal political education or persuasion & mobilization. So the point is not that 145,000 members of AFL-CIO unions in Oregon have endorsed Merkley, but that they will be getting communications from the state fed about why it endorsed Merkley and thinks union members should vote for him. The endorsement frees the state fed to use other resources to back Merkley, including money and personpower. But the fed's own money should not be confused with the resources of the member unions.
The state fed's endorsement does not preclude individual unions from making different endorsements, though it might make them less likely to do so. Jeff Mapes in discussing the run-up to this endorsement points out that Tom Chamberlain's home union, the International Association of Fire Fighters, endorses Gordon Smith
I am not sure how much autonomy local/regional Labor Councils have, if any.
Thanks to Jack Murray for pointing out where SEIU (which includes OPEU under Local 503's umbrella) and the OEA, which are outside of the AFL-CIO, are leaning. SEIU is the biggest single union in the state with about 51,000 members, or more than a third of the entire AFL-CIO membership. OEA is nearly as big with 47,000 members.
TJ, neither Jeff nor Steve has very consolidated backing yet, and this endorsement clearly is a piece of Merkley consolidating backing that is significant and reflects perceived strength or an electability judgment by the COPE, not weakness on Merkley's part. We're not going to get Steve elected if we refuse to face hard facts when they face us.