Endorsements are nothing more than a wet finger in the air a lot of the time.

[Bread and Circus]

Didn't know this before but John Lewis turned his back on Clinton back in 2008 when he saw the writing on the wall.

I am not saying endorsements are not helpful because they sometimes are. However they are more of a barometer of who the elite thinks is going to win but not necessarily always a cause of voting shifts.

Personally I like to think for myself rather than have some person from the political elite tell me what to think.

Here is the example of Lewis turning his back on Clinton.


http://articles.latimes.com/2008/feb/28/nation/na-endorse28

This is just but one concrete example of what an "endorsement" really means.

[JaneyVee]

1. Endorsements are much more than that.

If the party members (senators/congress) back your agenda you have a much better chance of enacting your policy. Republicans are going to battle anyone, but being able to fight back with a unified party has huge advantages. Without much party backing you will have party infighting and stagnation, which gives the opposing party huge advantage.

[procon]

2. Candidates must have the endorsements of party VIPs to win the nomination

Superdelegates play by a different set of rules than the state delegates, but those are the votes that count at the nominating convention that selects the winning Dem to run in the GE. Endorsements by celebrities, corporate brands and wealthy donors are good for a couple of photo ops and some free publicity, but not much else.