SEIU's Big Win

Marc Ambinder notes that a majority of SEIU members prefer John Edwards, but as Steven Greenhouse reports he looks like he'll have a lot of trouble picking up an SEIU endorsement for the familiar reason that the union doesn't want to back a loser.

In that context, though, it's worth noting that SEIU's already found a way to be extremely influential in this race that further cements its status as probably the most forward-looking major union. Everyone's noted the similarity of the major candidates' health care plans and the fact that Edwards led the way in this regard. But it's worth saying that before there was Edwards, there was SEIU saying it would only consider endorsing candidates who devised a specific plan for universal health insurance. That's what created the conditions for Edwards' bold stroke and also what made it necessary for the other candidates to play catch-up once Edwards' plan was unveiled. So now we're at a point where no matter who wins, SEIU will have made a major advance on one of its key issues, and where by taking up a slightly broader perspective than raw self-interest the union builds further support in the wider progressive movement.

Photo by Flickr user SEIU International used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

"That's what created the conditions for Edwards' bold stroke and also what made it necessary for the other candidates to play catch-up once Edwards' plan was unveiled."

Meh. I'm second to no one in my love for Andy Stern, but I think Edwards still would have issued a UHC plan if SEIU didn't exist. And I think Hillary still would have felt compelled to try to co-opt the Edwards plan if SEIU didn't exist.

That said, SEIU is doing god's work in this campaign. And I fully expect SEIU to endorse Edwards in October.

Posted by Petey | September 25, 2007 10:30 AM

Also, Greenhouse opines:

Many union leaders are wary of endorsing candidate who will flame out the way Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt did in the 2004 primaries, notwithstanding the union endorsements they had.

If "many union leaders" can't figure out that Edwards is nominatable and electable in a way that Gephardt and Dean fundamentally were not, they really deserve to have Mark Penn dictating union policy in this country for the next 8 years, (assuming HRC can actually win a general election.)

Posted by Petey | September 25, 2007 10:33 AM

And finally, GFR correctly notes (?!?):

That said, the Service Employees International Union has said repeatedly that it would not endorse before October, so it shouldn't be seen as a rebuke to Edwards that he was not endorsed this week or last, after high-profile SEIU evaluation events. The union has a process that it is going through, and it's going to take a while. Last cycle, SEIU didn't endorse a candidate (Howard Dean) until November.

What's the world coming to when GFR writes fair-minded pieces about Edwards? She must really be convinced that Hillary is inevitable, so it doesn't matter anymore.

Posted by Petey | September 25, 2007 10:36 AM

And finally, finally:

If HRC ends up as the nominee, I don't think there would be any conceivable way to spin this election cycle as a victory for Stern and SEIU.

Posted by Petey | September 25, 2007 10:45 AM

?If all of these unions are really so afraid of what will happen to them if they don't back Hillary (and that's what they mean when they say back a winner, don't kid yourselves), what does that say about Hillary's commitment to unions and working Americans?

Petey, I don't think GFR has any clue how little credibility she has with most people outside of other reporters at this point. That the folks at tapped have allowed her to continue her anti-edwards , Pro-Hillary crusade despite the papers professed neutrality shows how bankrupt an organization like the American Prospect really is.

Posted by Soullite | September 25, 2007 10:46 AM

"Petey, I don't think GFR has any clue how little credibility she has with most people outside of other reporters at this point."

Minor credit where minor credit is due:

After writing 387 biased anti-Edwards / pro-Clinton hit pieces in a row, she's recently written 2 posts about Edwards & SEIU that have actually been fair-minded and insightful.

Posted by Petey | September 25, 2007 10:49 AM

Just so you know, the push for universal health care is happening across the labor movement. It's a priority for every union.

Posted by SDM | September 25, 2007 10:54 AM

Exactly what % of the SEIU rank and file are legally eligible to vote?

Posted by Steve Sailer | September 25, 2007 11:46 AM

Far be it from me to wish ill-tidings on others, but I'd happily pony up the PPV fees to watch Steve Sailer get ripped limb from limb by Hispanics live on cable TV.

Posted by Petey | September 25, 2007 11:51 AM

Notice the wormy Steve Sailer worminess. What a wormy creep. Racism is us.

Posted by Jennifer | September 25, 2007 12:06 PM

Petey, you're a first round pick, you really are. But you need to get over your Steve Sailer obsession. If you want to dispute a point the guy makes, great, but you don't have to rag on the guy (or wish his disarticulation) every time he posts.

To Steve's point, its true that SEIU has recruited many immigrant service workers in recent years. The only hard number I've seen is 25% of the SEIU is comprised of "Hispanic immigrants".
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20060719/BUSINESS/607190541

However, that number doesn't account for how many have become naturalized citizens or the percentage of non-Hispanic immigrant members.

I don't think it really matters. Because of the common economic interests, I can't imagine non-citizens union members would have very different political preferences than citizen members.

Posted by beowulf | September 25, 2007 12:27 PM

"If you want to dispute a point the guy makes, great, but you don't have to rag on the guy (or wish his disarticulation) every time he posts."

No. No. You misunderstand me.

I don't wish for his disarticulation. I'd just pony up big bucks to watch his racist carcass torn limb from limb live on PPV if it were already on the schedule.

There's a crucial moral distinction here, similar to Neil the Ethical Werewolf's desire to only eat "fallen meats".

Posted by Petey | September 25, 2007 12:52 PM

Matt,

Just a reminder,

Hill & Bill screwed over every liberal advocacy group that ever backed them. Remember, NAFTA went first and was more important than HillaryCare. ADM interests and wealthy Mexican landholders interests in shoving Mexican corn farmers off their land took precedence over providing decent healthcare for Americans.

So I ask, what's the down side of:

"the union doesn't want to back a loser"

I mean...back her or not, history indicates she's going to screw you over.

Posted by S Brennan | September 25, 2007 1:04 PM

"I mean...back her or not, history indicates she's going to screw you over."

For most of the leaders of groups who are endorsing Hillary or are reluctant to endorse a non-Hillary out of fear of the consequences, the interests of the leaders differ dramatically from the interests of the people they claim to represent.

Sure a Hillary administration will screw over organized labor, but I'm sure if she's elected, she'll make sure to take care of the leaders who've endorsed her, even if those leaders' rank and file get screwed.

Posted by Petey | September 25, 2007 1:11 PM

Hey Yglesias, why don't you step into the arena before you start throwing around words like "loser" before anyone has cast a vote?

Criminy. The first primary is four months away. FOUR MONTHS.

President Dean would love to invite you to the next Iowa Primary to show you the scene of his triumphant victory in 2004.

Oops.

Posted by DrFrankLives | September 25, 2007 1:50 PM