Do Endorsements Matter?

In an interesting article, Michael Powell of the New York Times wonders if political endorsements really make a difference -- a question we've asked recently.

Powell recalls that Mayor Ed Koch endorsed Al Gore's presidential bid in 1988. Gore went from 7% in the polls in New York to 10% in actual votes on primary day and promptly dropped out of the race.

Koch, who is often sought for his endorsement, says, “I tell them: ‘I’ll be happy to do so, but I’m telling you, it doesn’t mean a thing.’ ”

That's not necessarily true, as Powell goes on to point out. But, in spite of "reporters who tend to type breathlessly about which candidate has taken the lead in 'the endorsements race,' ” endorsements really seem to be more important for the surprise value than volume.

Don't discount the numeric impact, however. As one Republican consultant told Powell, a flock of endorsements "creates a sense of momentum,” and Hillary Clinton can testify to the importance of that -- assuming she wins the nomination.

But if Clinton doesn't win the nomination, political pundits may be more inclined to talk about the surprise value of certain endorsements, such as Pat Robertson's endorsement of Rudy Giuliani.

Powell begins his article with a reference to Robertson's endorsement:

"So the most unlikely pairing of the presidential campaign is unveiled, with the Rev. Pat Robertson flashing a television-practiced smile at Rudolph W. Giuliani, the thrice-married, pro-abortion-rights former mayor of New York. This same preacher once said that the terror attacks of Sept. 11 proved that God was lifting his protection from an abortion-giving, gay-loving nation."

Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune says Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani says a lot about the nature of politics in 2008.

Maybe this is the latest twist on the old "opposites attract" adage.

Or perhaps "politics makes strange bedfellows" is due for another revival.