Not all endorsements are helpful. Using an extreme example, does any candidate actually want the Communist Party’s endorsement? That one may be common sense, but it’s not always that black and white. After all, what about more reputable organizations like the Lincoln Club? It is unquestionably one of the best endorsements a center-right candidate can pick-up, but I doubt a Democrat in a contested primary would want an “anti-worker” (as my progressive friends would say) endorsement attached to them.
Recently, Nathan Fletcher announced two fairly controversial endorsements: the San Diego Police Officers Association and Log Cabin Republicans.
Lets take the POA first. Not too long ago, there wouldn’t have been anything controversial about the POA endorsement; times have changed. The city is broke and because of that fiscal issues, including pension reform, are the top issues in the campaign for mayor. The POA is a union that is adamantly opposed to pension reform.
After months of refusing to take a stand on the pension reform ballot measure and plenty of rumors as to why Fletcher was avoiding taking a stand, Fletcher eventually announced his support for the measure. Despite his formal endorsement, there has been controversy regarding his lack of involvement in tangibly supporting the qualification campaign. At best, he limped in.
So what does the POA endorsement really mean? What does it say about Fletcher? More importantly why was he endorsed?
The answer to the last question is fairly simple. No union would ever endorse DeMaio and to Dumanis’ credit, she has taken the same position of DeMaio and refuses to solicit or accept an endorsement of a labor union that she would have to negotiate with if she were elected mayor. Both she and DeMaio believe it is a conflict; I completely agree. Clearly Fletcher does not see it as a conflict or he believes the positives outweigh the negatives.
So why not Filner? Simple. Why would they endorse Filner? Unless another Democrat gets into the race, Filner has a free pass into the runoff. From the POA’s perspective, getting two candidates into the runoff that they feel will be favorable to them makes a lot more sense then supporting Filner from the onset when he will be pro-labor regardless.
So is Fletcher pro-labor, or pro-taxpayer? Or will he be truly “fair” to both (if that is possible), the next “post-partisan” candidate who will provide the “next generation of leadership”. Or is he just merely the beneficiary of labor’s Anyone But Carl campaign? The answer: Who knows? But none of those are helpful to Fletcher.
The knock on Fletcher is he tries to be everything to everyone. That he is willing to say one thing to one group and something different to another to get their support. That he has to have everyone in his coalition. And that ultimately, nobody really knows where the guy stands.
The reality is it is impossible to please everyone. This isn’t just a truth in campaigns, its a truth in life. Sure you can offer everyone a nugget that they may like, but does it actually get you closer to earning their support when they have so many other options?
Fletcher is cementing himself as the candidate that everyone can live with and that most people “like” but as of right now he is very few voters’ first choice. That works if he were to magically appear in a runoff, but not in the current 4+ person race. Fletcher simply does not stand out as someone who takes firm stances. This dynamic serves to further emphasize that in the race for San Diego’s top executive spot, he is the only Republican candidate who does not have executive leadership.
I don’t think voters believe a candidate can be pro taxpayer and pro-labor. I do believe they will view this endorsement as a conflict of interest, and cause them to question whether he is truly a fiscal reformer or just another generation of the status quo. Bottom Line:At the end of the day, I don’t think this endorsement gets him any closer to the 25 to 35 percent he will likely need to have any shot at making the runoff.
Comments 15
Wrong! The SDPD is not responsible for San Diego’s financial problems and the people know it. The Firemen and other city employees and ridiculous city council votes (Like those of Scott Peters, for example) and Susan Golding whose fantasy of being a U.S. Senator were and are the roots of the problem.
Police are generally admired, though their union makes ridiculous demands from time to time.
DeMaio can never get solid support south of I-8 and west of 163; as for Dumanis, she couldn’t get the police endorsement in a million years. The DA’s office appears to have ressurected the Ed Miller regime. Filner is not a friend of police.
Accusations that Fletcher limped into supporting DeMaio’s pension reform scheme don’t hold water when one considers Republican Fletcher’s public office record at the state level with a legislature dominated by Democrats. DeMaio has accomplished little on the council and would never win election if he didn’t fund his campaigns with his own money.
DeMaio’s pension scheme is not a litmus test for the mayor’s race. Remember, the Central Labor Council’s campaign against Fletcher is highlighted by it’s director Lorena Gonzalez’ statement that Labor must fight Fletcher — not Dumanis or DeMaio.
Well Owen we will see:
One the one hand we have all these questions and concerns about who is pro-labor/pro-taxpayers and all the musing that must occupy COUNTLESS of sleepless hours for the political class in San Diego.
One the other we have THOUSANDS of yard signs that say “Nathan is Law Enforcement’s Choice for Mayor” all over the city. The mailer with Chelsea’s law just writes itself. Can’t wait for the one from POA in an IE that says “DeMaio’s plan Will Put your Child at Risk”
I am going with the other hand. It is a huge get for Nathan. A massive one as Dumanis’s campaign continues to muddle along.
We assume every commenter here knows the difference between a PD and a POA? Even though the public may not. Just asking.
Agree with Owen. I consider any public employee union endorsement the kiss of death. Sometimes, when I’m not sure about issues on the ballot or the candidates, I look up the teachers’ union position and vote the opposite way. I have never regretted it.
“No union would ever endorse DeMaio and to Dumanis’ credit, she has taken the same position of DeMaio and refuses to solicit or accept an endorsement of a labor union that she would have to negotiate with if she were elected mayor. Both she and DeMaio believe it is a conflict; I completely agree.”
This entire article doesn’t pass the whiff test and is clearly a propaganda piece for Demaio. But, the specific statement above stands out as monumental BS.
If he’s going to avoid seeking endorsements from anyone he would have to negotiate with as Mayor, then he should decline all endorsements and donations now and return the ones already received. By the sheer fact that these groups are endorsing means they have an interest in the city and the Mayor, as the top executive, has oversight over all city interests. Every donation and endorsement is a potential conflict. But that’s ok, because that’s the system and the state/city have near draconian rules to prevent conflict and expose the potential conflicts.
Carl is a typical candidate and is not holier than thou when it comes to political ethics. Like many others, he walks a very fine line with his council office staff, mail, events and how he uses taxpayers dollars. Again, I’m ok with that. However, if you’re gonna walk that line, don’t brag about being the overly ethical candidate.
This whole thread reads like a bunch of propaganda from both sides, which probably means the truth is somewhere in the middle.
I’ll throw this out there though… i would be curious to see how the public safety UNION poll as opposed to public safety. You can’t just assume that the public views a union the same as they do police or fire as individuals. I think where Owen may have a point is that it has become increasingly clear in recent years that public opinion has turned strongly against labor, public safety included (Prop D for example).
Does POA “hurt” Fletcher? That’s probably an overstatement. Is it some sort of big deal that will have a bit of difference on the outcome of the election? No.
Roger,
While I continue to like Fletcher more each day, especially when I see that Carl is skipping another debate at the Clairmont Town Council (at least Bonnie’s participating), I’m not a shill for his campaign. I’m a typical Republican voter who calls BS when I see it.
Agree with you on the answer is likely in the middle. Although, I think voters who name unions as their primary concern will support Carl pretty hard and I doubt they would break for anyone at this point.
Interesting commentary. While these endorsements might hurt Nathan in some circles, they certainly help him overall. It shows he appeals to a broad base, a position Dumanis regularly touts.
The POA’s decision to ignore Bonnie’s neutrality request is definitely interesting, but the Log Cabin Republican endorsement is fascinating. Would love to learn more about this group, its relationship/history with each of the candidates and how it reached its decision.
BDaddy I tend to agree with you re: the teachers union, but there is a massive, monumental difference between the POA and the CTA. Not all unions are alike.
Most endorsements matter either way. I don’t see either of these as much of anything.
Thor’s Assistant: I’d think Rostra readers know the difference between PD and POA, but most voters DON’T. And when they see Police Officers Association among Fletcher’s supporters as they fill out their ballot, in his commercials and in yard signs, it’s going to mean a lot. To suggest otherwise is pretty naive.
Rachel- Yeah, that worked great for Prop D too.
Rachel:
Agree, which is why we noted “Even though the public may not” (as in understand the difference). And, we certainly agree that it translates for many into being supported by the police. Thus, not insignificant.
Our comment was not to suggest otherwise. It was directed sideways to the commenter above who wrote, “The SDPD is not responsible for San Diego’s financial problems…,” when the author of this post doesn’t once appear to mention the SDPD.
Our overall point was that on this blog, we would hope that commenters know the difference, regardless of how significantly “the same” a department and a union (errr…association) may be in the eyes of the public.
So, we hope you don’t think we little Thorettes were being naive … although we can be at times. 😉
Roger – Ghandi, Martin Luther King and Ronald Reagan could have all risen from the grave to endorse Prop D, and it probably would have failed.
Exactly my point. Voters these days base their vote on issues, not endorsements (union endorsements especially). I think it’s naive to assume that voters don’t realize it’s a union when the context is a political campaign.
Not to mention that both of his opponents are likely to highlight that they aren’t endorsed by city public employee unions and Nathan Fletcher is. There is no requirement that you specify which unions. You can just say “Nathan Fletcher is endorsed by the same public employee unions that got us into this mess.”