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.