Endorsements, important or not? (The Next Mayor)

You may have caught this article from the Inquirer a few days ago that questions just how important endorsements are for a campaign.

There seems to be two schools of thought, one that says endorsements are important both for their ability to convince undecided voters that a candidate is worth their vote and because they often come with money and footsoldiers.

The other thinks, endorsements, schmendorsements... or in other words... who cares? Labor unions have back Republican candidates with abysmal voting records on labor issues. The rank-and-file members of the union either put in a half-hearted effort on behalf of that candidate or just flat-out work for the other guy. Really, aside from getting to say in a commercial or fundraising letter, "endorsed by..." these endorsements do little.

I tend to believe the second. Often times the endorsements are done because of considerations made by the leadership of groups or personal deals between those leaders and the candidates. If the candidate or the campaign fails to bring their message effectively to the voters, then no amount of third party cajoling will do it.

That's basically why I haven't paid much attention on this blog to who got the backing of this or that group. I'll be a little interested to see which newspapers endorse which candidates but I could care less who Local 98 (for example) decides to back. Besides, groups like that seem to be most effective at harassing the opponent rather than backing their guy. With 4 opponents to harass, I have a feeling they'll be spread a little thin.

Anyway, that's just my take on it. If you are interested to know where the endorsements are falling, Josh Cornfield at Fight For Room 215, the blog of Metro Philadelphia, has some breaking news about Dwight Evans picking up some pretty big support.

Comments (4)

Dave

Endorsements also allow candidates to "spin the sh*t." Rather than saying in his ads that he was "endorsed by the FOP," Brady apparently chose to say that "Philadelphia's police support him." There's a bit of a difference between those two statements, IMO.

Posted by Dave | March 5, 2007 3:36 PM

Anonymous:

With his current advantage in union endorsements, Brady should have an advantage with the number of volunteers. Doesn't that matter on primary day?

Party loyalty from the Democratic machine certainly seems to be keeping him afloat so far, seeing that the only positions he's articulated to date have been endorsement of the status quo.

Posted by Anonymous | March 5, 2007 3:48 PM

Sbadeau

What worries me about endorsements is that it encourages a go-with-the-crowd mentality among voters. Rather than learning what a candidate believes AND WILL DO about critical issues - particularly those less likely to make the front page headlines - voters can be lulled into voting for a candidate that has been endorsed by their favorite organization. I would rather see voters thinking critically for themselves and asking the really tough questions of each and every candidate at every possible opportunity.

So as for me and my house, we will continue to ask every candidate "And How ARE the children of Philadelphia?" and "And what are YOU going to DO to make life better for them?"

Honest answers to that question will mean more to me than a 100 endorsements any day!

Posted by Sbadeau | March 5, 2007 4:18 PM

More than that, endorsements encourage voters to get on "the winning side." Yes, believe it or not, many people vote for they candidate they find most likely to win, rather than the one they want to win, so that they won't "lose" the election. Endorsements (especially with the help of misleading political advertisements) are often interpreted by voters as a sign of overwhelming support from the members of a particular organization for a candidate when, as Dan pointed out, it's more likely to indicate a political deal between the leaders of that organization and the candidate.

Posted by Dave | March 5, 2007 5:02 PM

Comments (4)

Post a comment