While I agree with Barab's comments generally, I don't know about the wait and see approach he offers in the last paragraph. That, of course, was the old "wait until the Convention nominates a candidate" position that the AFL-CIO used to take. I think you can't start organizing too early and that being out there early will force candidates to respect working people's agendas. I don't know any other way, especially since the candidates who are closest ideologically to labor [Gephardt] may not be able to cut it.

For a slightly updated version, check out Confined Space.

Henry makes a good point. It's likely that the possibility of receiving an early endorsement encouraged all the candidates to stake out clear pro-worker positions at the start of the process -- and once they've taken those positions, they can't back out. Of course in the future this will only work if the payoff (getting union endorsements in the primary) is seen as valuable, which it isn't if it doesn't help you win. The real bind it puts unions in is if they end up fighting for a candidate they've endorsed simply to defend the power of their union's endorsement, not because that candidate personally is essential to member/worker power.

"23% of Iowa caucus attendees were members of unions -- a disproportionately high figure compared with the 13.6% of Iowa workers who belong to unions."

But what % of Iowa Democrats are members of unions, and isn't that the more intellectually honest point of comparison in a closed caucus?

I bet there is a slight effect on turnout from being a member of a union, but no more than that. And I write as a very pro-union lefty... but the surprising facts are the suprising facts.

There also ought to be some difficult adjustments made to reflect the relative age of union members over 18 compared to those who are non-union and over 18. Not sure how that adjustment would work, but assuming turnout followed the traditional "the older vote more frequently" model....

Anyway, the key point from Iowa is that no one should *rely* on non-traditional voters for victory, even while Dems should pursue every additional voter vigorously.

My sardonic view is this-- you had two groups of unions who each set out to destroy an opposing candidacy. And both groups succeeded brilliantly :)