He had no idea who the liberal white guy block would vote for.

I’m more interested in where Edwards’ more conservative/blue-collar white guys will go.

I know that most people in blogland think of Edwards as the most progressive/liberal, but many of his supporters were those who supported him back when he was the a Southern Conservative running against a Massachusetts Liberal.

[…] UPDATE: Case in point. […]

A lot of this seems to be projection.

I’ve long argued that class envy is the only aspect in which many Democrats are “Liberal”. Ironically, Edwards had taken up that standard in this election.

I’m more interested in where Edwards’ more conservative/blue-collar white guys will go.

That’s his union support. They’ll go wherever the union goes.

Aunt B. had the best quote on this yesterday: Now, “white Democratic men will be in the unprecedented position, for the first time in American history, of choosing between their race and their gender!”

Be sure to keep the sarcasm shaker handy BTW ….

Not necessarily, there are many White moderate-to-Conservative Democrats who don’t belong to a Union. And the notion that people will vote for whomever their union tells them seems to have been debunked in the last few contests.

SB, tell me you’re joking!???

There are people that let a central authority tell them how to vote?

I was raised in a blue collar, non-union household, so this world of unionized labor is quite foreign to me.

Slarti, no, there are no marching orders. There are endorsements. Sometimes there’s preferred access to one candidate’s message in the form of one candidate gets invited to speak at the union hall and the other doesn’t. But after forty years of being in and around unions of all sorts, I’ve yet to meet the mythical blue-collar man or woman who mindlessly pulls the lever because some shop steward or Business Agent said to do so. (No more than you vote the way your church tells you to vote or your boss or your neighbor…)

On the other hand, it’s like any other kind of endorsement. “This person who I trust has checked this candidate out and says that he or she holds policy positions that will favor me. This group that I belong to is advancing a strong argument for this candidate aimed at what they know will interest me.” Does it influence union voters? Yeah, sure. But please remember that the number of unionized voters has been dropping for the last forty years with a corresponding lack of influence for courting the “labor vote.”

Government workers unions are doing quite well though.

I belong to a trade union myself, due to necessity, and I disagree with about every one of their “call to action” emails I get. I imagine there are a lot of people like me in other fields. My mom never voted for the candidate that the social workers union told her to and I imagine many teachers don’t listen to the teachers union. Great thing about primaries is that you can lie about who you voted for. Caucuses are a little different though.

Thanks, bridgett. That makes a little more sense.

The mandatory campaign contributions, er, dues are the biggest factor, I’d say.

Exactly, Ned. I don’t give a damn about the union telling me to vote Democrat, but I do give a damn about them blowing millions of dollars of union dues in bribes… err, ‘campaign contributions’.

Ron, Ned: You have the option of joining a union?
.

“I belong to a trade union myself, due to necessity, and I disagree with about every one of their “call to action” emails I get. I imagine there are a lot of people like me in other fields.”

Nobody “has” to join a union, unless the law has changed. Perhaps joining a union gives you some benefits you might not otherwise receive. Perhaps joining a union gets you access to a better array of jobs at the company (or whatever organization you’re working for). But, then again, you could always move, do other work or in some cases, pay the dues but not be a member (not always an option).

Unions have been the focus of KKKonservatives’ rage for years. Whether it’s because of their “stealing money” from their employers, engaging in unfair labor practices (wanting a 40 hour work week, paid vacations and a living wage–for example) or fomenting class war by “calls to action”, unions are viewed as enemies of capitalism.

I repeat you do not have to join the union. You also do not have to lie about how you vote–you might choose to, but you certainly don’t have to.

JP,
No, how about you?

Dc,
Boy, that was a brilliant comment (but of course that’s not news to you). Anyway, it is kind of entertaining to see a Lib get all Laissez faire-ish about workplace freedoms and access to opportunities.

JP,
No, how about you?

Never had the opportunity. I’m a technical/paraprofessional-type guy, usually means great salary and phat bennies… ‘cept for this Bush Boom job I have, now.
.

Oh, Nedwilliams:

You have such a droll sense of humor. Mr. Dean is, I think, fairly consistent in his dismissal of lib/progressive thinking. What I said is not about being laissez-faire, it’s about personal integrity. When I was in the union I hardly marched in lock-step but I was keenly aware of, and grateful for, the job protections and benefits that accrued from membership. Many, many people (including non-unionized “associates” and low to mid-level managers can thank union activity for their job benefits, as well. Very few employers absent a union contract or threat of organization will pay their employees what union employees are paid.

I’m hardly laissez-faire.

If Glen Dean doesn’t want to be in a union, he should get out of it. If he has to lie about how he votes–for any reason–I pity him.