I don't buy the AFL-CIO's explanation that the switch was based entirely on Kuhl's voting record and Massa's position on the issues. If this were a district with a weak Democratic candidate in a year where voters didn't have a "throw the bums out" attitude, I doubt that the AFL-CIO would have switched.
In any case, the Massa campaign can be justifiably proud of getting these unions to switch -- it's an indicator of the strength of their campaign. Over the years, the unions have changed from supporting candidates who are pro-labor to picking and supporting winners. Their endorsements show that Massa is a potential winner.
The Swing State Project's coverage of the union switch includes this rah-rah statement:
With labor coming onside, Eric is well-positioned to take advantage of the deadly Democratic wave sweeping from Buffalo to Long Island under the Spitzer-Clinton banner.
This echoes an earlier Gannett News Service piece on turnout that speculated that Spitzer and Clinton's popularity would increase Democratic turnout in the 29th. As I posted yesterday, I think their popularity is relevant only if their races are close. This year, they aren't.
The reason that candidates for Senator or Governor don't have coattails, especially in off-year elections, is that sometime voters are energized to vote only if they think their votes will make a difference. If you're not a regular voter and your heroes Elliot or Hillary are ahead by 20 points in the polls, why bother voting? They're going to win anyway. The same is true if your hero is losing by 20 points. In this voter's mind, his or her vote won't affect the outcome.
The sometime voter -- in the 29th, that's one of the ~100K who turned out in '04 but not in '02 -- is going to have be energized to vote by Massa or Kuhl in this race. Spitzer, Clinton or their weak opponents will not draw marginal voters to the polls.
]]>I don't buy the AFL-CIO's explanation that the switch was based entirely on Kuhl's voting record and Massa's position on the issues. If this were a district with a weak Democratic candidate in a year where voters didn't have a "throw the bums out" attitude, I doubt that the AFL-CIO would have switched.
In any case, the Massa campaign can be justifiably proud of getting these unions to switch -- it's an indicator of the strength of their campaign. Over the years, the unions have changed from supporting candidates who are pro-labor to picking and supporting winners. Their endorsements show that Massa is a potential winner.
The Swing State Project's coverage of the union switch includes this rah-rah statement:
With labor coming onside, Eric is well-positioned to take advantage of the deadly Democratic wave sweeping from Buffalo to Long Island under the Spitzer-Clinton banner.
This echoes an earlier Gannett News Service piece on turnout that speculated that Spitzer and Clinton's popularity would increase Democratic turnout in the 29th. As I posted yesterday, I think their popularity is relevant only if their races are close. This year, they aren't.
The reason that candidates for Senator or Governor don't have coattails, especially in off-year elections, is that sometime voters are energized to vote only if they think their votes will make a difference. If you're not a regular voter and your heroes Elliot or Hillary are ahead by 20 points in the polls, why bother voting? They're going to win anyway. The same is true if your hero is losing by 20 points. In this voter's mind, his or her vote won't affect the outcome.
The sometime voter -- in the 29th, that's one of the ~100K who turned out in '04 but not in '02 -- is going to have be energized to vote by Massa or Kuhl in this race. Spitzer, Clinton or their weak opponents will not draw marginal voters to the polls.
]]>