Edwards Gets Ten SEIU Endorsements

Here is how John Edwards's careful courtship of the Service Employees has paid off: not only will Edwards get the endorsement of the relatively small, nurse-heavy Iowa SEIU affiliate today, he'll receive the support of nine other state affiliates, Democratic sources say.

Endorsements like this are momentum-drivers; they help caucus turnout on the margins, only, but provide campaigns with a fresh supply of volunteers and endless surrogates.

The two biggest: California, which has 656,000 members and Washington State, which has 103,000 members.

Other states include: Michigan (70,000 members), Idaho (400 members), Montana (500 members), Minnesota (28,000 members), Ohio (22,000 members), West Virginia (4,000 members) and Oregon (46,000 members).

The Edwards campaign interprets the SEIU rules to allow these SEIU affiliates to help them turn out caucus goers in Iowa, although they are limited largely to making telephone calls.

Also today, Barack Obama was endorsed by the Illinois State Council of the SEIU and the Indiana State Council, representing a total of 170,000 members.

And Hillary Clinton... has yet to be endorsed by New York's 1199, the largest local union in the world, which claims more than 300,000 members. That won't happen today.

Comments

Is the part about them being limited to phone calling your interpretation or that of the Edwards campaign?

Posted by Geek, Esq. | October 15, 2007 3:54 PM

Fantastic News for Edwards!

I hope the Cable political shows cover this news but I won't hold my breath.

Posted by Patty Morlan | October 15, 2007 3:58 PM

Excellent news for the Edwards campaign.

Posted by Will | October 15, 2007 4:01 PM

Great news for Edwards! There will be SEIU members from several states ready to head on over to Iowa to help with the canvassing, etc. and more than enough to write personal notes and make phone calls.

Union support is all about momentum and grassroots support - and with 10 state SEIU councils today, I'd say we've gone a long way to tipping the scales for Edwards in the early states today!

Posted by edgery | October 15, 2007 4:09 PM

Great, now I'm just waiting on New Hampshire and Kentucky.

He really needs that NH SEIU endorsement.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/14/410514.aspx

Posted by framecop | October 15, 2007 4:23 PM

According to Tasini who ran against Clinton in the Democratic primary last time, the NY SEIU is not too enthused with Hillary Clinton, so they may remain neutral.

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.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/10/8100/9178

Nevada and New Hampshire are the two I'm waiting for. Supposedly, they were leaning towards Edwards, but the Clinton and Obama campaigns may be trying to strong arm them away from endorsing Edwards.

Posted by framecop | October 15, 2007 4:34 PM

For those who don't know, this is important because SEIU rules say that if a state SEIU endorses a candidate, another State SEIU cannot send in SEIU members to help another candidate on election day.

What that means is, with Iowa SEIU backing Edwards, Obama cannot send in his 170,000 Illinois & Indiana SEIU footsoldiers on caucus night to help get out the vote.

It provides an operational advantage for John Edwards, who has much less "money" than Obama does.

Posted by framecop | October 15, 2007 4:41 PM

BTW how can NY be the biggest if Ca has 665,000 and Ny only has 300K

Also Il seiu has 170k by itself not including IN

Congrat...John...you desrve some good news..not that it will. help since you have no money.

Posted by Tonya | October 15, 2007 4:46 PM

Yea Montana! There were a bunch of SEIU guys at the event in Missoula. I feel proud today of the state I've lived in for the past 15 years. Sometimes it gets lonely out here. But today I'm proud of this union. I can feel the start of a new labor movement.

Posted by MontanaMaven | October 15, 2007 4:49 PM

"Congrat...John...you desrve some good news..not that it will. help since you have no money."

You live in an odd world indeed if you think $22 million cash on hand = no money.

Posted by Petey | October 15, 2007 6:04 PM

Posted by Tonya | October 15, 2007 4:46 PM

BTW how can NY be the biggest if Ca has 665,000 and Ny only has 300K

Tonya, NY's 1199 is a the world's largest local ... the 650,000 under the California council are distributed across a number of locals.

Posted by BruceMcF | October 15, 2007 6:39 PM

I used to work for ll99 when I lived in CT. They will not endsorse HRC.

Posted by sonya | October 15, 2007 6:43 PM

Dont be misled by all the Edwards blogging, claiming that the ten SEIU endorsements from small local SEIUs somehow adds up to mana from heaven for Edwards. The "careful courtship of the Service Employees" has not paid off at all: For anyone who missed the news, or any Edwards staffers or true believers pretending otherwise, the end came last week when the 1.9 million member union withheld their support. Failing to get the big SEIU endorsement cannot be made up by picking up support from small locals -- its a consolation prize at best.

Posted by One foot in, one foot.. | October 15, 2007 7:40 PM

Lets revisit Tonya's prediction that a politically savvy NY-based union will turn a cold shoulder to a candidate who is currently a powerful United States Senator from New York, twenty points up nationally, and the odds on favorite to become the next President of the United States. What do people think of that prediction?

Posted by One foot in, one foot | October 15, 2007 7:52 PM

Well, thanks for your clueless analysis one foot. I'm sure the Edwards camp is crying themselves to sleep knowing they had to settle for "small locals" which add up to one million members. The important thing about this development is that other states will not be allowed to help any other candidate in Iowa besides Edwards. This means that the other states that endorsed Edwards today can use resources in Iowa, while the Illinois and Indiana locals cannot help Obama there.

Posted by Brett | October 15, 2007 8:56 PM

"Well, thanks for your clueless analysis one foot. I'm sure the Edwards camp is crying themselves to sleep knowing they had to settle for "small locals" which add up to one million members."

The fascinating thing to me is how Team Hillary's only argument against John Edwards is that he has a "flagging campaign", and that their only argument in favor of Senator Clinton is that she is the "inevitable nominee".

Let's see how that kind of logic works out for them once they start losing actual votes to Edwards in January, shall we?

If Clinton loses Iowa to Edwards, Team Hillary is going to find that they've backed themselves into a rather nasty strategic corner with their decision to base their campaign message on their current front-running position in the national polls.

Posted by Petey | October 15, 2007 9:07 PM

re: "If Clinton loses Iowa to Edwards, Team Hillary is going to find that they've backed themselves into a rather nasty strategic corner with their decision to base their campaign message on their current front-running position in the national polls."

And if Edwards loses Iowa to anybody, he's the only Democratic candidate who is TOAST. I'd say that's an even nastier "strategic corner" to be backed into, since Iowa is not even safely tucked away yet for Team Edwards.

Having said that, I DO wish John Edwards sincere congratulations.

Posted by Jan | October 16, 2007 8:51 AM