What happens in Vegas...

...doesn't stay in Vegas. In fact, it could change the course of the presidential race.

Culinary Workers Local 226, the 60,000-strong union of casino and hotel workers that could hold the key to victory ni the January 19 Nevada Democratic caucuses, will announce its crucial, coveted endorsement at 2:00 PM EST today. It had been widely assumed that, out of a desire to "back the winner," Culinary would endorse Obama after his big win in New Hampshire last night. But of course, Obama didn't win New Hampshire (well, unless you're counting delegates), and now there's a lot more suspense about the union's announcement. Some sources say Obama is still likely to get the nod, but even those folks acknowledge it's not a done deal.

Whatever Culinary decides, it will have a major effect on today's media spin cycle, either boosting Hillary's newfound momentum, reviving Obama-mania, or giving Edwards an unexpected shot in the arm. The media needs a new storyline, after all; New Hampshire is so yesterday.

By the way, don't confuse the Culinary Workers with the less important SEIU Nevada chapter, which backed Obama last night. I'm sure he's very happy to have that endorsement, but in Nevada, it's the Culinary Workers union that everybody wants to have in their corner.

P.S. NRO's John Hood -- whose post has the same title as this one, though I swear I didn't see his till I'd already written mine :) -- writes: "Long ago, ... the plan was apparently for this critical union to back Edwards. ... Now, with the sentimental favorite essentially out of contention, Obama is the fall-back. This segment of the labor movement really doesn't like Hillary."

UPDATE: Politico reports that Obama is "expected" to get the Culinary endorsement.

Meanwhile, a day after the a National Review columnist hailed Hillary Clinton as an "insurgent against the liberal MSM," a Clinton adviser is joining the WTF parade by praising George W. Bush: "George Bush gets the credit [for the high turnout and interest in this election]: He has done more than anyone to get the people of this country involved again in politics. They now realize it is important who the president is." Heh. NRO praising the Clintons! The Clintons praising Bush! Cats and dogs, living together! Mass hysteria!

UPDATE 2: Obama got the nod.

Comments

[Derek]

Brendan, your link indicates that the endorsement is "coveted" (as all endorsements are, except, perhaps, some limited endorsements that may result in a public backlash, like David Duke or George Clooney, though each for different reasons), but where does it call it "crucial"? Indeed, I think union endorsements are among the least "crucial" simply because they can't force members to vote in a particular way (though they can mobilize voters). They're less influential than a newspaper endorsement, where non-endorsed candidates can expect sizeable negative media coverage in the days preceding an election.

Perhaps it'll be larger than anticipated, but the article you cite certainly does not stand for that proposition. And Clinton pulled out here own "major" endorsement today, Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.).

...or maybe this post is just a long way of saying, don't let your Obamafatuation cloud your citation of sources.

[Drive-By Media]

Is that praise or is that tongue-in-cheek? Maybe they are talking about Bush and the interest in politics like most people would talk about Bonds and interest in sterioids and MLB.

[Brendan]

Derek, the linked article is not the only thing I've read or heard about the Culinary union's endorsement, and my link to that one article certainly was not intended to suggest that it is the only article in existence on the topic, or that it is the sole basis for my opinion on the matter. I don't have time to go digging back into my Google history for eveyrthing I've read, or searching my TiVo for all the references I've heard on the news. Suffice it to say, however, my statement that it's "crucial" is supported by more than just my "Obamafatuation." The standard conventional wisdom among pundits, analysts, politicos, etc., is that the Culinary endorsement is indeed crucial -- and that's why it's far more "coveted" than any old run-of-the-mill endorsement (and why even the speculation about who the union will endorse has been getting tons of media coverage, which is by no means typical for an endorsement).

Now, conventional wisdom can obviously be wrong (see, e.g., last night's New Hampshire result). But nevertheless, that's the CW; I didn't make it up, I'm just referencing it. Presumably, the thinking is that, particularly in a caucus state like Nevada, unions' ability to organize voters -- to get them out to the caucuses -- is incredibly important. That's something that newspapers and Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) do not offer.

I also question your offhanded assertion that newspaper endorsements are especially influential because "non-endorsed candidates can expect sizeable negative media coverage in the days preceding an election." The people who run a newspaper's editorial board, and who determine what goes on its editorial pages, are usually not the same people who make the day-to-day decisions about what articles the news section runs, or where those articles are placed -- and they certainly are not the same people who write the news articles (which is where bias is most likely to seep in). I've never seen this studied in detail, but my suspicion is that there is far less correlation than you'd think between a newspaper's endorsements and the bias, if any, in that newspaper's news coverage.

Is that praise or is that tongue-in-cheek?

Of course it's tongue-in-cheek, or at least double-edge, just as the NRO comment about Hillary was intentionally loaded with irony. I'm not making a serious point; I just think it's funny.

[yea]

derek,

the union support was essential in winning nh for hillary. unlike woman and senior voters, its the one voting block that can pick up quickly with some endorsements. unions.

you are absolutely wrong about them being less influential than a newspaper endorsement. just wayyyy off. unions, especially strong unions, are all about their unions and will and do make a different on election day. look at the exit polls from last night, hillary was largely helped by unions. obama picking up an endorsement like this is essentially handing him votes on a platter.

[Derek]

First, to Brendan.

You misstated me twice and made other factual errors.

A. I never called newspapers "especially influential." I merely called union endorsements "less influential." Overall, I don't think either are very influential, but I think newspapers are relatively more influential.

B. I never said that there would be an uptick in negative "news coverage," only negative "media coverage." That is, newspapers are more likely to run negative opinions regarding non-endorsed candidates.

C. A Google news search reveals no use of the word "critical" to describe the culinary endorsement. For being such "standard conventional wisdom among pundits, analysts, politicos, etc.," it is curious no such statement could be found in any news search. (I don't deny that such a statement may exist somewhere on the Web, but it certainly would not be "standard conventional wisdom.")

D. You note that "the speculation about who the union will endorse has been getting tons of media coverage, which is by no means typical for an endorsement." That's demonstrably false if you attribute high media coverage as proof for the proposition that "it's far more 'coveted.'" The Steelworkers, Firefighters, and Carpenters unions all had speculation preceeding them, too, but under extremely different circumstances: (1) Obama's name was never in the mix, media phenom that he is; (2) the endorsements occurred earlier in the season, and later endorsements always receive greater coverage; (3) the union is local to an upcoming caucus State, which increased media attention heeds in relation to that State.

Second, to yea.

You note that "unions, especially strong unions, are all about their unions and will and do make a different on election day." But consider, for instance, the Iowa entrance polls, which showed that Obama and Clinton each captured 30% of the union vote, but Edwards only 24%. Edwards has received nearly all of the most prestigious union endorsements thus far, and Iowa is heavily influenced by unions; yet he still captured a disproportionately small percentage of the union vote. But then again, Clinton captured 26% of the non-union vote, somewhat close to the union total; Edwards 23%, also relatively close; and Obama 36%, noticeably more than the union total. Unions did little to help either Edwards or Clinton in Iowa.

In New Hampshire, she captured, 40% of the union vote to Obama's 31% and Edwards's 21%. But then she captured 38% of the non-union vote, virtually indistinguishable from the union total (40%) and flatly undermining your vacuous claim that "the union support was essential in winning nh for hillary," and, even worse, that "look at the exit polls from last night, hillary was largely helped by unions." Instead, it was Edwards who lost 5 points in the non-union vote (16%), and Obama who gained 8 points in the non-union vote (39%).

Now, of course, it's entirely possible that this union, unlike all the ones that endorsed Edwards, has a tighter grip on its members than other unions. But to say that a union endorsement is like a "silver platter" of votes is utterly unsupported by the voting patterns thus far.

[I R A Darth Aggie]

Cats and dogs, living together! Mass hysteria!

Lemme guess: Becky sleeps above the sheets.

Four FEET above the sheets.

[CORNHUSKERS 94 95 & 97]

Wow, he picked up both unions for endorsement. does any know if this usually leads to winning the states delegation?

[Derek]

The Culinary Workers rarely endorse before the caucus. The last time they did was '92, when Jerry Brown, and who won the Nevada caucus (in part, too, because he picketed with striking casino workers).

[yea]

derek,

if that 40-31% nh split with union voters goes the other way then obama might be cruising to a nomination right now. i think a few key union endorsements in nh couldve made the difference. i dont think you are really being fair by saying that edwards got "nearly all" of the "most" "prestigious" unions.

im also failing to see how non-union support undermines my claim. obama did worse with non-union voters, that somehow proves my point wrong that union voters propelled hillary to victory? maybe im missing something (definetely possible).

[Jay Johnson]

Drudge had a link to the union endorsing Obama a while ago, but I didn't think to actually link back here to it. Then again, I didn't read the entire post or the comments, so someone else may have already said this.

I seem to remember there being a picture of the union-y types having a "Yay, Obama!" style presser.

[Derek]

Let me try again, yea. Clinton got 40% of union member households, 38% of non-union member households. They're proportionally identical, suggesting that the "union vote" didn't turn out in any numbers, greater or smaller, than the non-union vote.

[Derek]

For the record, per the excellent National Journal:

But D. Taylor, secretary and treasurer of the union, told On Call today that if overall state turnout is between 25k and 30k, about three times the number who voted in 2004, Nevadans should count the primary a success.

"I think that would be tremendous," he said.

But whoa, wait a minute. Taylor's projection inherently suggests that the impact of the union vote could be modest at best.

With 60K members, the highly coveted Culinary Workers endorsement was thought to have the potential to tip things to the candidate of choice. We'll see if that happens. At this point, it's anyone's guess.