For me personally, where I see endorsements as most relevant is for races where there are either multiple candidates who are (or purport to be) the same party, or where parties aren’t specified. For those races, if I see a bunch of local Democrats all endorsing the same candidate, I can be confident that that one’s probably the real Democrat.
It’s also relevant where there’s some particular expertise. For instance, for school board elections, I look for the endorsement of the teachers’ union, because I want a school board that’s good for teachers, and the union is the best-qualified entity for determining what that is.
Apologies (and to puzzlegal). Here’s a summary and key quote from yet a third piece. Mayors aren’t presidents; and, endorsements probably mean less than they once did…but this does suggest they still have some power.
One data point from this: For presidential primaries since 1972, the non-incumbent candidate with the clear endorsement lead* going into the Iowa caucuses ended up winning the nomination each time except 1972 (Dems - Muskie over McGovern) and 2008 (Dems - H. Clinton over Obama).
*Usually, the establishment favorite of the party bigwigs.
How about pre-Iowa-caucus polling vs. endorsements? “In the five cases where polls and endorsements differed, endorsements were right twice (Romney in 2012 and McCain in 2008), polls were right once (Trump in 2016), and in the final two instances (the Democratic nominations in 1976 and 1988) a third candidate who was neither the polling nor the endorsement leader won [the eventual candidacy]. Given the small sample size, I wouldn’t call that a “win” for endorsements over polls, but I would say it’s at least a draw.”
One more quote from a different article: “In Democratic primaries for governor and Congress in 2018, establishment-backed candidates prevailed a high percentage of the time, despite the media’s fixation on exceptions such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York’s 14th Congressional District.”
I’d considered opening a new thread on this topic but seeing that this one already exists, I’ll ask my question here:
Why should we (those who live outside NYC) care about the mayor’s race? More specifically, why does Trump care so much that he’s blatantly meddling? And should Democrats outside NY cry “foul”, or just shrug?
My read is that the NYC race is a microcosm of a larger battle going on amongst the Democrats (voters and leaders), where the Schumerite factions want the good old corporatist status quo to continue and if they have to keep moving the party to the right to do it, that’s okay; and the actual leftists, growing larger because of that rightward movement and the general inertia of Democratic Party leadership, are increasingly willing to embrace various flavors of progressivism and socialism which are proving far less monstrous (despite the long history of strawmanning) than the current alternatives.
I stated my opinion somewhere above. Basically I don’t think politically it matters much to the rest of the country. What happens in NYC isn’t really an indication of what will happen across the country. This is a very off year for elections. Very few big ones happening. Two states have governor races. NYC has the mayor election. Just because there isn’t much going on election wise there is a spotlight on it.
For practical purposes it’s important how the largest city in the country does. How much power the mayor has to affect that is up for debate.
Thinking of NYC as a political microcosm of the country is a huge mistake. If the party thinks what works in NYC is going to play across the country, hello President Vance.
The “actual leftists” call AOC a neoliberal sellout. Mark my words, if Mamdani wins this election, they’ll turn on him before the end of his term, and decide that he’s in the so-called “Schumerite, corporatist faction” (obviously, I disagree with that characterization, hence the scare quotes).
If Republicans/Trump really think this is the case, then you would think they’d be working hard on behalf of Mamdani. They need a boogeyman to scare their voters now that Nancy Pelosi has aged out of that role,
Yeah, really, see also: record of Mayors of NY running for President. But I suppose part of what worries the Establishment Dems is that whatever happens in NYC will be used by the Reps to scare Middle America… which as any Doper will tell you is what they will do ANYWAY. Jesus Himself could walk across the East River, miraculously multiply bagels and kebabs and free parking spots for the masses, and Fox would report that He is not asking for proof of citizenship and was seen turning mineral water into cosmos at a known lesbian bar so that’s proof that it’s a War Zone.
It’s not a microcosm of the country, but NYC Democratic primary voters probably aren’t that different from national Democratic primary voters. So a Mamdani victory, especially a big one, could show the rest of the party that Mamdani politics are a way to the nomination for Democratic primaries.
I’m sure Schumer agrees. Old Democrats aren’t always right. In 2015 most of us were sure Trump could never win.
You might be right, but you’re guessing. So am I. That’s all we can do at this point. Overt bigotry and corruption, ala Trump, was a losing strategy until it wasn’t. Maybe progressive populism, up to and including some socialist policies, could be the same.
I continue to be shocked that anyone can confidently make a political prediction these days. IMO anyone confident they can predict elections years from now is deluded.