Edwards Gets Iconic Union Endorsements w/Analysis

John Edwards just formally accepted the endorsement of two big industrial unions, the United Steelworkers (USW) and the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) at a labor day rally in Pittsburgh PA.  The USW is a BIG one with 1.2 million members and is the largest private industrial union, and the UMWA is a good size one too, with over 100,000 members.

Edwards statement and my analysis over the break.

Edwards released this statement:

"I am especially honored to receive the support of the Steelworkers and Mine Workers unions," said Edwards, "These are the workers who built the middle class in America, and they are the backbone of the American labor movement. They understand how important it is to fight back when jobs, safety, standards and our values are at risk--and they know what's at stake in this election."

"These workers have felt the negative impact of a broken system in Washington that is rigged against America's working families for far too long--whether it's the tragic lack of oversight in mine safety, trade agreements written to benefit multinational corporations while they ship American jobs overseas, or the millions of working Americans who still can't afford health insurance," added Edwards. "As president, I will proudly lead the fight on behalf of working families with their support--and together we will win."

(Emphasis Mine).

This means that Edwards has the largest bloc of union support to endorse so far, which ought to quiet the 'Edwards isn't closing the deal,' concern.  More than that these are two strong unions with symbolic importance as representatives of America's working class.  Steel workers are a group most American's recognize as hard working productive workers who have been hurt, but are unbowed, by unfair trade practices such as dumping.

We all know what a dangerous job mine workers do.  A job too often made more dangerous than it needs to be by inadequate safety measures by employers and lax safety regulation by the government (currently in the pocket of management).

Both the President of the USW and UMWA released statements praising John Edwards, here's UNMA President Cecil Roberts:

"Senator Edwards' positions on the issues of importance to UMWA members make him the best fit of all the candidates for president," UMWA International President Cecil E. Roberts said. "We need a president who cares about ordinary working people instead of the richest Americans and the big multinational corporations. We believe John Edwards is that person, and we will work as hard as we know how on his behalf anywhere and everywhere we can."

The Steelworkers and Mine workers join Carpenters and joiners in endorsing Edwards.  The Steel workers and UMWA tend to be geographically concentrated in the industrial Midwest and the Mid-Atlantic, and so may not aid as much directly in the early states, but these big unions give Edwards organizational strength in some of the big February Five states, such as Pennsylvania and Ohio.  This puts him in a great position to be able to springboard out of of Iowa.  

No candidate believes more in the value of work and the need for us to place more value on workers than John Edwards.  With these endorsements, it's a great Labor day for John Edwards and a great opportunity for American workers.

[Ed] Cross posted at Boston for Edwards

Display:


Re: Edwards GetsUnion Endorsements (2.00 / 3)

This is great news!

I think Edwards will get the vast amount of union support.

A couple unions may be afraid of Clinton, but most will go with the man who walks picket lines with workers.

Great diary!


by TomP on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 09:40:51 AM EST

Re: Edwards GetsUnion Endorsements (2.00 / 3)

Hopefully these early adopters will help some of the others come out in face of the Clinton establishment.


by MassEyesandEars on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 09:46:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards GetsUnion Endorsements (none / 0)

"A couple unions may be afraid of Clinton"

That is not really a fair comment, Tom.  Clinton has been good with labor, has built good relationships with many of the labor unions in her state.   Her endorsements are certainly not made out of "fear," whether you want to believe that or not.  All it shows me is that you are not aware of the work she put in with organized labor.  Do you REALLY think, for example, that Edwards should be getting the Teacher's Union endorsement?   Maybe you do, but there is no way the case can be made by an impartial source.   If/when Clinton picks up that huge endorsement, it will be because of her work on the issues of education and fighting for teacher pay, class sizes, etc. over many years.  No "fear" at all but just agreement with her and trusting her to work for them once in the White House.  


by georgep on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 09:51:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The Machinists talked about (none / 0)

how she was going to win.

"Fear" may be a little too strong, but hasn't the Clinton campaign told contributors you or with us or against us?  Yes, I think they use subtle intimidation, with the implication that you better get on board now or it will cost you later.

That's politics.

While Clinton is not anti-union, I think she is less a friend of labor than John Edwards.  Bill Clinton brought us NAFTA.

Just my view.  Obviously, we differ.


by TomP on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 10:38:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Machinists talked about (none / 0)

No, the Clinton campaign has not told contributors "you are with us or against us."   I don't know where you are getting this from.  I know Bush has made that statement verbatim about the Iraq war, though.  

I don't mind your view being different, that's why we are here.   Just let it be based on reality.  Real quotes, real statements.

Clinton has worked dilligently with unions and has a very good relationship with many of them.  The endorsements are explained by that, not "fear."  Mark Penn may be enough to take some well-deserved union support away from Clinton (as progressive made a good point about below,) but that, too, is just part of reality.   Most of them are perfectly fine with Clinton as the nominee and would strongly rally behind her if she is the nominee because of her overall strong record and built relationships with organized labor.  


by georgep on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 10:57:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Machinists talked about (none / 0)

again choice of assocation. actions speak louder than words as i mention below


by bruh21 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 12:37:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Machinists talked about (none / 0)

by the way, i don't think maybe you understand how much such associations matter in the world of labor. i didn't either. but, i've got friends who are labor attorneys. they could never get a job working for management or vice versa (for those who work on management side). its not that they might not want to do so. its simply not done.  


by bruh21 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 12:40:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary has signaled her support (none / 0)

for anti-union Big Business with her pic on the cover of Fortune Magazine.
The corporate media and their corporate sponsors are also anti-union. Oh - they don't mind candidates TALKING about workers' rights - but candidates WALKING picket lines and miles with union workers to place minimum wage on ballots in 6 states results in smearing John Edwards.
Some voters get the media's Big Business scam - some never will.
Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 02:13:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Machinists talked about (2.00 / 1)

It was widely reported that Hillary's campaign was calling big donors and telling them they were either with them or against them. That changed after a while when it became clear Obama was going to outraise her so the changed their tactics to instead saying they'd love to also get support from people who had already donated to Obama or others.


by Quinton on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 03:46:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards GetsUnion Endorsements (2.00 / 2)

I would agree, George.  Hillary has worked hard on education and will likely, and deservedly, win those endorsements.

As for the other industrial and service unions, I think her record is not nearly as strong.  

Schools don't have nearly the problem with union busters that other types of organizations do, so they will be less sensitive to Penn playing a lead role with Hillary's campaign.  And school unions don't organize get out the vote efforts nearly to the extent that other unions do.

Unions who have to fight to organize in non-school settings will be more likely to be wary of Hillary and her team.

She won transportation as we saw this week.  I'll be curious to see how many more non-education related unions she may win.

As you may guess, I'm personally hopeful that Edwards continues to win more union endorsements and I do think these 3 early wins may give others courage to back him as well.  Time will tell.


Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
by passionateprogressive on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 10:39:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: teacher's union (none / 0)

The Biden folks seem to think their guy is going to get that endorsement. I have no idea, though.


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 11:46:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: teacher's union (none / 0)

You never know. I was surprised that Dodd got the International fire fighters endorsement. He's got no chance at all and no greater friend to unions or to them that I'm aware of than say Edwards or Kucicinich perhaps who has probably equal chances to Dodd.


by Quinton on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 03:50:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards GetsUnion Endorsements (2.00 / 1)

Look, it's hard to believe that Clinton will be strong on union issues with her involvement with Mark Penn- that alone concerns me, and also her views on free trade. If she got rid of him and made it clear that she will promise to make free trade fair trade then maybe, but otherwise whatever she gives with one hand, she's taking away with another.


by bruh21 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 12:35:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards GetsUnion Endorsements (none / 0)

George, do you know what Clinton's position on permanent normalized trade relations with China is? Does she still think it was a good idea?


by adamterando on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 02:47:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards GetsUnion Endorsements (2.00 / 0)

When unions like UTU say they are endorsing Clinton because "she will win [the nomination]" that is code for, we are afraid to endorse someone else as long as it looks like the Clintons will win, because if they do, and we stood against them, there'll be hell to pay.


by OE on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 03:23:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Mine workers endorsement (2.00 / 6)

should not be undersestimated in light of all the mining disasters this country has seen in recent months and years and the continuing relectance of Bush's government and the mining corps to put in real safety steps. It says a lot that they thought Edwards was the one who could best fight for their interests.

They will have a huge voice disproportionate to their numbers especially in a lot of red/ purple states and in rural areas.


by okamichan13 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 10:22:30 AM EST

Good day for (2.00 / 4)

John Edwards, great announcements!


Check out the New Progressive Blog EENRBLOG
by dk2 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 10:36:27 AM EST

Mine Workers in Nevada (2.00 / 4)

While most of us think of miners in the eastern part of our country. But there are mines of one type or another in almost every state in the union. The coal mine in Utah, for example, is just one of many Nevada mines and is non-union -- at least for now.

If there is any single industry most in need of the union challenge to corporate profit interests on behalf of workers' safety and health issues it is mining.  Take the Crandall Canyon mine in Utah, the site of the tragic death of 6 workers and 3 rescuers.  This mine was engaged in one of the most dangerous forms of mining, even though the owner initially denied it--retreat mining where columns of coal supporting the roof of a chamber are pulled down to enable extraction of that additional amount of ore.


by edgery on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 10:38:49 AM EST

Re: Mine Workers in NOT Nevada, should be Utah (none / 0)

sorry, I got my states in a jumble


by edgery on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 11:48:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

For what it's worth ... (2.00 / 2)

...in our Labor Day parade today in Dubuque, IA, the largest group was the Edwards group. And Joe Biden was actually walking in the parade.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 01:20:45 PM EST

Re: Edwards Gets Iconic Union Endorsements (2.00 / 2)

Here's some more analysis.

The main thing that John Edwards' folks need to be doing is stressing to unions the fact that he is the most likely Democrat to win a General Election, and definitely that he'd have the strongest coattails in order to increase numbers of Democrats in the House and Senate.

Gallup

Newsweek
In two Newsweek Polls, Edwards beat the Republican field on average by larger margins.  Larger "averages" over the GOP field = stronger electability.  In the one that the meme-stream media touted as a sign of "Obama's strength", John Edwards was actually on top:

Edwards 17.63%
Obama 16.33%
Clinton 11.25%

In the June Newsweek Poll, the numbers were:

Edwards 11.25% (mainly because he trounced Romney)
Obama 11.25%
Clinton 9.5%

This was after Obama had been hyped by the media for months, and Edwards had been bludgeoned over the bloggers, house, hedge fund, and hair, and he was still on top, which should embarass the other two.

Rasmussen Reports
His polls always show Edwards outperforming Clinton and Obama against the Republicans.

Latest matchups against Giuliani (JRE 49 - RG 41) and Thompson (JRE 49 - FT 35).

Clinton and Obama weren't even close to those margins.

John Edwards has a larger "margin of error" to work with in a general election, more options as far as battleground states go.

I maintain that an Edwards nomination would provide the Democrats with a filibuster-proof Senate, whereas Hillary Clinton's divisive candidacy would motivate Republicans, demotivate the most politically active Democrats, and destroy Congressional Democrats.

That's the message for the Edwards campaign.  Electability.

If Hillary's last name was "Cline" and she had the same thing on her resumé as she does now, except for 1st Lady (wife of Bill Clinton), would they still think Hillary Cline was as electable as Bill Clinton's wife, even though the numbers don't bear it out?

When 40 to 51%, depending on what survey you look at, say they will definitely vote against you, you don't have a good chance of winning a general election, regardless of what your last name is.


by OE on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 03:21:50 PM EST

Re: Edwards Gets Iconic Union Endorsements (none / 0)

One more thing.

This poll is code for "we'd welcome another Democrat being President other than Hillary Clinton, and more open to the idea of voting for them."


by OE on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 03:26:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Gets Iconic Union Endorsements (none / 0)

In that poll, the most important sign that HRC would struggle in the General Election is here:

Among unaffiliated voters, there is a 23-point gap--65% likely for a generic Democrat and 42% likely for Clinton.

What that really means is 23% more are "open to the idea" of a Democratic President, as long as it's not Hillary Clinton, which also means that more unaffiliated voters are more likely to vote Democratic as long as Clinton isn't the nominee.


by OE on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 03:31:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Gets Iconic Union Endorsements (none / 0)

"This was after Obama had been hyped by the media for months"

You seem to forget that Edwards is the most recent VP candidate for the Democratic party and received plenty of national attention and exposure that comes with  it.

"he is the most likely Democrat to win a General Election,"

I know the deep chasms in Edwards war record in great detail, and I am 100% certain that Republicans will run against him on those if we make the mistake of nominating him, and turn his general election candidacy to shambles within 2 weeks after the Democratic convention, I predict. There so much ammunition they can use from his own record/rhetoric that has wild flip-flops and contradictions fron one extreme  to the other and very clear contradictions.

Based on this, Edwards is the riskiest GE candidate that we can nominate.

I congratulate Edwards and his campaign for the endorsement, but those endorsers likely are not aware of his record that is highly vulnerable to Republican attacks with actual basis in fact.

I expect to be attacked by Edwards supporters for this, but obfuscation of facts by them in doing so doesn't change the fact that the Democratic party faces a great risk at polls in 2008 if we nominate John Edwards.


Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 06:56:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Gets Iconic Union Endorsements (2.00 / 1)

But you don't apparently think they can run against Obama for voting for funding a war you claim you are against? You know-  contradiction has a new friend in your post.


by bruh21 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 08:37:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Gets Iconic Union Endorsements (none / 0)

The Repugs will be hard on Obama for several reasons. First, his middle name is Hussein. The right wing nuts will have a field day. Lets remember that they specialize in using fear to get votes. Second, his support and non-support of the war. Yes, he was against the war from the start but in fairness he did not have the opportunity to vote for it. Once he was in the senate, he continued to fund it up until last May. The repugs will say he has flip flop on the issue by being against it, for it, and against it. Trust me, the repugs will spin it to make Obama look bad. What concerns me about Obama is that he has never been in a hard strong campaign against the neo-cons. Edwards and in some respect Clinton have been attacked by the right wing. Obama US senate run was pretty easy without the right wing attacks. Of the top 3, I think Edwards is the best shot to win the general election. If the democrats believe we can win without the south, then we deserve to lose. Winning without the south is pure stuipidity. Edwards won a US senate race in a red state. He was a political novice and still was able to win. Especially is Romney or Rudy is the repug nominee, then Edwards has a shot of winning alot of states in the south. The South prefers to root for one of their own.


by johanna94 on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 10:21:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Gets Iconic Union Endorsements (none / 0)

Being the most recent VP nominee doesn't mean nearly as much as it has in the past.  I didn't get past that part of your post.

Clinton is still viewed as the "rightful heir", not the most recent VP nominee.

Obama is still "fresher," not the still relatively young, John Edwards.

John Edwards didn't get nearly enough face time as the #2 on Kerry's ticket, and why in most polls he has had LESS NAME IDENTIFICATION than both Clinton and Obama.  

Americans have short memories, and when they are bombarded with headlines screaming CLINTON V. OBAMA, that's where they gravitate towards.

You seem to be unaware of these factors.


by OE on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 07:47:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The endorsement in Pittsburgh (none / 0)

I was there and let me tell you that UNMA President Cecil Roberts was a fantastic speaker. Unfortunately don't have video, but do have some pictures I'll try to get online later. I'm sure the video will be floating about on Youtube sometime soon too.


by Quinton on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 04:07:46 PM EST

Re: The endorsement in Pittsburgh (none / 0)

Some of it is here.


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 04:15:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The endorsement in Pittsburgh (none / 0)

It was good to see Steve Skvara's introduction of John Edwards.

Steve is the guy who asked the health care question at the AFL-CIO debate.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=46UyndYoNsU


by OE on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 07:43:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Gets Iconic Union (1.50 / 2)

I'll be truthful, this is the first thing I've seen that actually seems to put him in the "race"- so far, I think many have seen it as a Hillary/Obama race, I would say this raises his profile quite a bit.  Unfortunately, I think it comes at Obama's expense, who I like.  The Obama suporters seem to have left, I noticed there was not one diary on the front diary page headlining him- some are so busy, it seems, writing anti-Hillary diaries, they have forgotten to write ones about him and now Edwards seems in position to take his 2nd place position in the race.

These union endorsements are impressive, it would be false for me to say they aren't.  He now seems like he is actually in the "race."


by reasonwarrior on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 04:38:01 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.