As the OEA says they have 47,000 members, and the AFL-CIO says they have 145,000, that puts Merkley up quite a large amount. It'll be interesting to see how much these unions mobilize for their respective candidates considering that they would probably be equally well represented by either one (though I personally think that one, namely Merkley, is the much stronger candidate in the general).

I hope they keep it clean and positive, as both guys are good for labor and there's nothing to disparage either way (e.g. Merkley had a 100% approval rating from OEA).

SEIU-- endorsing Merkley is a total bitch move. Your commitment was once that of organization with the goal of creating a social movement. Merkley is the embodiment of pushover politics. Novick will stand for justice at all costs. This should be obvious to you because Novick has been fighting for justice with SEIU on the ground (not only in Salem) for years. Novick is your boy and your you just turned your back on him. Damn, I am really disappointed by this news.

And why is SEIU endorsing anyone in this primary anyway. I mean you have 2 big supporters of labor, one proved it with his votes and one with proved it with his advocacy work. What good are you getting with an endorsement either way?

We always hear about "boots on the ground" with union endorsements. Does anyone know if unions actually deploy those forces in a contested Democratic primary? This goes for both the OEA and SEIU endorsements -- will either one actually help with organization during the primary, or is it mainly just symbolic until the general election?

Miles, I think unions heavily recruit their members to volunteer, have canvassing Saturdays, phone banks, etc. But if a union member has several kids, a sick family member, etc. the union can't force them to volunteer in a phone bank or go canvassing.

With all the technology we have available these days, I wish someone would do a spreadsheet on the win/loss records of union endorsements.

I know back more than a decade ago when such technology first began to be used widely, there were people who used them to analyze C & E reports. Some people were really startled that a group they belonged to would sometimes endorse and contribute to someone particular individuals had no use for.

And then of course, there was that wonderful comment many years ago in a full page story about a contested primary. The activists all loved it because it was so spot-on and had zingers about all the candidates. The one who collected many endorsements as part of the campaign strategy was described as following "an excellent 19th century strategy". Incidentally, that was a young man who came in 2nd in that primary and later won major office.

The SEIU chickened out because they endorsed the only member of the House that earned straight A+'s from them? Are you kidding TJ? The amount of Steve Novick kool aide you have been drinking puts you in Jonestown territory. SEIU did exactly what it should do endorse the candidate that has delivered time and time again for them in the past, is building the kind of coalition that can win in November, and will stand strong for them once elected.

Plus this is great news for me as now I can do my Willamette Students for Merkley phone banks out of the SEIU building here in Salem.

LT according to the National Journal SEIU had a .714 winning percentage in 06 good for best out of all the interest groups they studied.

As a member of SEIU, I just wanted to comment that I won't be working to help Jeff Merkley in the primary. Instead, I'll be helping Steve Novick. So SEIU's endorsement doesn't necessarily reflect every member's position. Cheers!

I would appreciate it if my fellow Novick supporters don't try to hijack this thread. Let's show more class than Merkley's backers showed to us when our guy got the big union endorsement over the weekend.

Congrats to Jeff for getting an important endorsement. As others have said, it's a race!

My unscientific hunch: the vast majority of us who want Gordon Smith defeated think that both Merkley and Novick are great candidates, each with great (if different) characteristics and records, and when hyperbole against either of them appears in these blogs it just seems petty and self-defeating.

Hear-hear! The primary can't come soon enough for me. Sign me up to go to the mat for the winner the following day.

Stephanie, thank you for showing real class.

For those of you who don't spend your life looking at websites, the top posts on the Novick website are the Kitzhaber and OEA endorsements, and the top post on the Merkley website is the SEIU endorsement. As it should be--that is news.

I applaud Daniel Spiro's first sentence. The second sentence, however, makes this sound more like a team sport than a primary where individuals vote.

Let's be serious for a moment. There are people in this state with real problems--depressed areas like Jackson County where timber dependent communities are looking at the possibility the local library might close, and law enforcement struggles for resources. Anyone who moves because of work and tries to sell a home in such an area has a very difficult time.
There are military families in this state worried about loved ones not only being in harm's way but being worn down by 2 deployments without a year at home in between. Or that a loved one is scheduled to deploy later this year and there seems to be no sense to current policy. And yet, to me Iraq vet St. Rep. Boquist has had more profound and common sense things to say about current Iraq policy than the folks arguing about what should have happened in 2003. So, I quoted a Republican--does that make me unworthy of being a registered Democrat, or just wishing to hear something equally intelligent about CURRENT policy from a Democratic candidate?

And no one seems to want to mention the veterans in speeches or other appearances.

There are people caring for small children or aging parents or a loved one fighting a major illness. There are people without insurance who worry they might get sick (or have vision or dental problems for that matter) and not being able to pay the bills. There is a federal deficit and not a lot of serious discussion about how to deal with that.

But is our US Senate primary campaign providing discussions about that? NO! It is all about endorsements, about who did what several years ago, about generalities which excite political insiders. Why should ordinary voters care about this primary?

Endorsements are great if they provide phone banks, volunteers, etc. But my point is this: suppose you are going door to door or phoning for your favorite candidate. Suppose the person you contact asks specific questions like "What is your plan for health insurance?" or "what has your guy done for veterans?" or "how are we going to start to address the federal deficit-and what is your view on the Concord Coalition's attitude towards the deficit" or "Why is Mt. Hood more important than addresing the problem of timber dependent communities in Oregon?".

"My guy was endorsed by..." or "My guy is better than the other guy...." are not responsive answers to those questions!

Congratulations to anyone who has gotten any endorsement in this race. But now, can we discuss serious issues like the ones mentioned in the previous paragraph? Or is it just going to be "my candidate is better than your candidate" between now and May?

http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1204937730298410.xml&coll=7

is a column in the Oregonian by Dr. John Kitzhaber. Does that mean Steve agrees with everything it says and will be talking about it in campaign appearances because of the Kitzhaber endorsement? Is it a "point for the Novick side" to see that printed?

http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/120485131549060.xml&coll=7

is about veterans in politics. Should the Novick folks be angry and the Merkley folks rejoice because one of the leaders of Veterans for Merkley is quoted in the column about veterans in politics?

Or does the "side" someone is on matter less than open debate on the issues?

Today there is an Oregonian article about the Michigan and Florida Dem. presidential primary situation titled "It's the voters, stupid!".

Good question for this blog. Are we going to have a couple more months of the Jeff vs. Steve show here, or are supporters going to come on this blog and say "my guy is best on this issue because...."? I'd prefer the latter but I think some here are deeply into the former attitude.

And yes, I am undecided. Anyone who says "you don't think my candidate is the greatest thing since sliced bread, therefore you are obviously part of the opposing campaign" is just giving me a reason to vote for someone else. Personally, I think it would be funny if someone major filed for this race at the last minute. That would be the end of the binary "if you're not with us, you must be with the other side" pronouncements.

LT,

I'm happy to stop the Jeff versus Steve show. It should be the "Jeff is great and here's why" versus the "Steve is great and here's why" show. Pat might refer to what I said as innuendo, but I've stayed away from insulting Jeff for some time, and I've also not played the "I was undecided but because of Jeff voters I'm for Steve" card.

I'd like followers of each candidate simply to praise their own candidate, rather than ripping into the other candidate. Ripping into the other candidate's supporters really does little harm as long as you don't hold it against the candidate ... because parties need to be unified if they hope to win.

I am a member of SEIU, and one of those characterized as "a handful of dissenting votes" for Steve. I like Jeff, but he's too tall, and he lacks a hard left hook.

Steve has always worked in the background for us, even though his father works for us, as did his brother before his death last May. Jeff worked closely with members of our union in the last legislative session - many more members knew him personally. But even Jeff's supporters really liked Steve's presentation over Jeff's. It was a hard choice for our union, a choice between two very good friends.