Skip to main content

I will be the first to admit that I am not the most politically-savvy person in the world Big Grin But, I really don't get this endorsement thing! Can someone please explain why it is such a big deal for someone to say 'I am behind so-and-so'? I mean for me, I really don't care who someone else is voting for ... I am going to vote my own conscious and mind. Is it really true that if, say, the leader of a labor union says 'You should vote for this or that person' that he can really be expected to deliver the votes of that union? To me, every person's vote is a matter of that individual person's opinion .... but am I wrong about that?

I mean, when Gore endorsed Dean ... what really did that mean? In terms of the general public? Or whatever or whoever it's supposed to benefit? I mean, who cares? Or maybe my question is, who is supposed to care? Confused

I know I probably haven't phrased this question right, but I'm just really confused and don't understand this whole concept!! Help? Confused

BLACK by NATURE, PROUD by CHOICE.
Free your mind, and the rest will follow.
 
 BLACK by NATURE, PROUD by CHOICE.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

[QUOTE]Originally posted by EbonyRose:
I will be the first to admit that I am not the most politically-savvy person in the world Big Grin

JWC: Me neither. Maybe others will join in and raise everyone.

But, I really don't get this endorsement thing! Can someone please explain why it is such a big deal for someone to say 'I am behind so-and-so'? I mean for me, I really don't care who someone else is voting for ... I am going to vote my own conscious and mind.

JWC: I see this political game as a contest of, and for power. This endorsement exercise stikes as being like "picking up sides" like we used to do in the "hood" to get a ball team. Only in this case, the players do the "picking." The exercise them is to woo the powerbrokers in the game. Endorsement enables the powerbroker to "speak with the voice" of his membership. All members will not agree, but for the fight, they speak as a block.

I also think that is why there is always an "eagerness" to "name" the voice of African America.


Is it really true that if, say, the leader of a labor union says 'You should vote for this or that person' that he can really be expected to deliver the votes of that union?

JWC: No. But some significant number will, because they, in turn, want the reputation of having power as a unit. Have you ever noticed, candidates don't go to the bishops of the various Catholic dioseses for an endorsement. You don't see them speaking to congregatons of churches, except of course for churches serving the African American-American population. The African American-American population is considered a "controllable power." Like unions.

To me, every person's vote is a matter of that individual person's opinion .... but am I wrong about that?

JWC: Of course, you are not wrong. But, enough of a given group will vote supporting the endorsement simply for the sake of demonstrating the power of their group. History tells us this is what will happen.

I mean, when Gore endorsed Dean ... what really did that mean?

JWC: Gore has a following. Whatever the number, there are those who will follow Gore's lead, and for the same reason, to demonstrate power.

In terms of the general public? Or whatever or whoever it's supposed to benefit? I mean, who cares? Or maybe my question is, who is supposed to care? Confused

JWC: All of the candidates care. Every endorsement someone else gets is an endorsement they don't get. Each now has to argue against that endorsement to gather/save as many votes out of the group as possible. They cannot simply claim it.

I know I probably haven't phrased this question right, but I'm just really confused and don't understand this whole concept!! Help? Confused

JWC: I think you did. Endorsements are demonstations-of-power. The more you get the better off you are. The worse of is you opponents(s).

PEADE

Jim Chester

You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are.
Thank you, JWC!!

Your explanation helps a lot!! If I'm digesting it right, it's loosely kind of a matter of one candidate being able to say "I've got more (or bigger or better) toys than you do!" The "toys" being the endorsements. (?)

But it's all within the crazy, half-baked, semi-logical realm of politics! So I guess it's only supposed to make a little bit of sense anyway!

But, thanks again! It's an explanation I can work with! Big Grin

BLACK by NATURE, PROUD by CHOICE.
Free your mind, and the rest will follow.
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:

Can someone please explain why it is such a big deal for someone to say 'I am behind so-and-so'?


I'll answer at a couple of different levels. First, psychologically, humans are social animals. We look to what others are thinking to help shape our own opinions. If someone that we trust supports a candidate - then that has an impact on what we think of that candidate.

At an organizational level, when candidates get the endorsement of certain leaders, the organization behind the leader often follows in contributing money and human support. Remember the leader will not do anything to compromise his/her power base, so the decision of who they support has a lot to do with what their organization thinks.

Over-all, political endorsements also indicate the over-all momentum of a candidate. First Dean got Gore. Now he has Bradley. What does that do? If nothing else, it tells the Democratic base that they are starting to align behind Dean, that despite what is said in the media about him being "unelectable", that it is "safe" to vote for him, etc. People want to be with a winner. People also pile on the winning "band wagon". Endorsements, at this point, serve the purpose of helping to demonstrate the support that Dean has - which is hugely important going into the primary season starting in a few weeks. Once the primaries start, endorsements for the winner will be somewhat less valuable - because the people will be endorsing candidates.


There is no passion to be found playing small, in settling for a life
that is less than the one you are capable of living. - Mandela
E.R.

I wouldn't call myself SAVVY either but here goes...

With Unions... the whole endorsement deal has a little more meaning and hope for influence or recognition for its members than perhaps the constituents of another endorsing Politician...
Nevertheless, it's all about voters of a particular persuasion having influence with a Front Runner.

Unions definitely want an administration that will favor policies to help increase and at least maintain the benefits its members have, if not push through important pending/standing agendas. Unions are activist organizations by nature, more or less, so having their support is like money in the bank - instant campaign office - and the type of lobbying Unions do would to some degree give its membership a greater sense of influence than the avg. voter.

Any endorsement is symbolic of giving the seal of approval to the endorsed candidate and perhaps a sense of accountability to the endorsers. When it comes to fellow Politicians endorsing a candidate, I guess the thinking is that that Politician not only agrees with the direction and policies of the candidate but will have his/her ear and a first-name basis type of influence.

That's all I can think of.
It's all a crap shoot but considering again the organizational influence of Unions, if a candidate wants to continue to run for office (and I hear all politicians always want to stay in office) then It Will Be Hell To Pay If He/She Double Crosses a Union and/or a mobilized constituiency under a pissed off fellow Politician.

That's like the Power of the Word Of Mouth with a megaphone! Eek
Okay guys!! Thanks a lot!! That all makes a lot of sense and I can now begin to comprehend it a lot more!

I guess I never really thought all into the inner workings and the $$ factor (i.e. the real political power) and just how it actually effects things. I know that lobbying stuff is a &$*@%^ and a half ... but it's so big and so corrupted, that I only know the half of it, if that!! I know it's "power" (there goes that word again! lol) And I guess that's the concept I really need to wrap my mind around.

Y'all know (if nobody else does) that I don't exactly think like everybody else! lol And I've never belonged to a union ... and really could care less who Gore votes for in this primary election! Big Grin But, your explanations help me to figure out how vast numbers of the public think ... And I thank you very much! Big Grin Big Grin

BLACK by NATURE, PROUD by CHOICE.
Free your mind, and the rest will follow.
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
Okay guys!! Thanks a lot!! That all makes a lot of sense and I can now begin to comprehend it a lot more!
No problem...

Like I said, I'm not savvy but I am in a Union of sorts and come from a Union family so to speak. Can't say that I'm active in it or politics in general (on a personal/campaign level)... but it doesn't take much to see how the word gets around in an avg. work, school or church enviroment.

The more organized perhaps the more potential to expect reasonable influence and of course greater expectations for votes (in a bloc). People join organizations, campaigns (unions) for a reason and on some level all think alike...
quote:
Originally posted by LES(s) APT:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/elec04.s.mo.farmer.clinton.ap/index.html
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:

What does this have to do with the topic of the thread?

MBM,

LES(s) is like Sgt. (if they are not one in the same)... He functions under some delusion that we give a F@CK about Clinton, the he or the she! When it comes down to it, even the most Democratically loyal - of which there are very few members here if any - have ever stated their admiration for the Clinton's, much less the Democratic party.

Les needs to snap out of that BS. That BS may have some relevance on some White (political) sites but it damn sure don't here!

In all the strength I can muster, my oft repeated refrain (*redundant isn't it. Big Grin Well, it's just like this irrelevant Petty Party BS! RE-f@cking-DUNDANT!) remains:
    F@CK BUSH!!! and... (since ya'll keep bringing them up) DOUBLE F@CK THE CLINTONs!!!
Though I think it was very generous of MBM to give Les some kind of an out ... an excuse for posting that link ... I find it hard to believe it was posted as a "potential downside of endorsements" as the word "endorsement" is not used once in that story!! Eek Eek

It was about Hillary raising money for a fellow Democrat, perhaps a type of endorsement, but that would be a twist. I'm sure he is thankful for the addition of some form of intelligence to be associated with something he has said or done. Probably a first for him.

So therefore, it appears to me that Les posted that story because he is stupid and obviously does not know how to read a title to a post and respond to the subject at hand. Roll Eyes

BLACK by NATURE, PROUD by CHOICE.
Free your mind, and the rest will follow.
I believe that "endorsing" is to suppose that a particular person has a following of constituants in some ideological, geographical, or demographic arena/area that follows him/her devoutly...in that by endorsing another candidate his/her constituants will throw their support in that new direction thus creating more support which = votes.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×