Firefighters for Dodd
I'm a pretty big Chris Dodd fan, so I of course enjoy it when good news--however rare--befalls his campaign. But this fire fighter business is a little odd, no? Dodd has pure union blood, yes, and has longstanding ties to the IAFF, but he's also really, really far back in the field. Much farther back than John Kerry was when he won IAFF endorsement in 2004. True, Kerry had similar ties, but he also a good shot at the nomination.
Two guesses: One is that the union thinks Hillary is going to win. They don't like her, but they also want to show that they still have clout, so they've endorsed Dodd in the hope that his poll numbers double and will take credit for the bounce. More likely, though, is that, by backing Dodd, the union is endorsing somebody with a good record on fire fighters--not endorsing Hillary but also not endorsing either Obama or Edwards, watching them lose, and then dealing with the consequences.
Comments
I grown to hate the word 'endorsement' in the political campaign environment. (Now, I love the word when you are signing your check over to me just for being a nice guy).
Endorsement has had a really bad name since Gore endorsed Howard Dean, and other debacles of recent memory.
Dodd is a 'safe' endorsement since none of the major Dem. candidates should feel they've been badly hurt - which is what I think you are implying. But why endorse at all at this stage, and save their funds and troops for when the fat is in the fire after a primary or two - when it might swing things just enough to make a difference?
The problem is 'de-endorsing' when the opportune time comes to maybe make a difference - which is almost never done. Early endorsements sometimes work for people who are job hunting, but hardly ever for political/economic interest groups.
Withholding a committment is as old as courtship for marriage (or something!). Make them work for it! No ring, no nooky - it doesn't matter whether virginity is at play, as even a a well-trod path can be off limits when things get to the serious stage.
Why are political movements so dumb about using their clout?
That's the one reason why I like that first possibility. If they prove they have an impact, then maybe, their thinking goes, they don't have to make anybody work for anything. Everyone will work for the firefighters (or whomever) as a standard practice.
Come on, Brian, I KNOW you don't believe: they've endorsed Dodd in the hope that his poll numbers double and will take credit for the bounce.
Chris Dodd is a nice man, a good man, even a Good Senator. But the chance his poll numbers will do more than ripple because of an endorsement? Is there something less than nil?
If the firefighters (instead of B. Beutler) believe that Dodds chances (or poll numbers) will improve, they've been inhaling too much (special) smoke. I don't know why they did this endorsement, but I'd guess they are pretty realistic appraisers of their political clout. More is likely at work here than short-term Dodd-prospects enhancement.
My guess (and not a good one) is that there's some kind of message-sending here by labor that they are being ignored and don't like it - which is true and they should do something.
But an endorsement? I'd bet they know that spitting against the wind is kinda typical of inexperienced spitters.
Here's an opportunity for you: find an insider in the political apparatus of the union who will deep throat some info on why they did this.
Maybe so. Is it really impossible though, that the post-9.11 firefighters union (of 200,000+ people) couldn't help Dodd bounce from 2 to 4 percent?
Post A Comment