So, as a short follow up to yesterday’s post on the decision by SEIU to be neutral at a national level and let its state-level organizations make up their own minds, here’s some intel on where at least one insider believes states might go. Some of this is probably obvious–and feel free to disagree if you have other information or opinions:

   New Hampshire–leaning strongly towards Edwards.

   Iowa and Nevada–Edwards

   So, at least in early states, Edwards would appear to have the advantage.

   Illinois–Obama (duh)

   California–Edwards (this is not particularly new information–that’s been rumored before)

   New York–neutral

   I’m not sure I believe that New York will remain neutral but it’s possible. Sen. Clinton does have ties to the major locals here–particularly, 1199 and 32BJ–but I’m told there is no great love for her among key players. It’s also not clear that it matters–she will likely overwhelmingly win the primary here (assuming she is still in the race by Feb 5th…that’s somewhat an attempt at humor) so it’s not a huge blow in this state for SEIU to remain on the sidelines. But, I’m still skeptical.

    And here is one thing to underscore: as I understand it, if Illinois, for example, supports Obama, its resources–money and activists–can only be used for work inside that state. That’s not insignificant support within a state but Obama–and the same is true for the other candidates–cannot export money and activists from Illinois, where he is the overwhelming home-state favorite and probably won’t need to expend as much effort, to other states like Iowa or New Hampshire.

   A final note: a few people asked whether the SEIU decision was done to avoid conflict with candidates and some suggested this was the union "caving in" to pressure. To be honest, I don’t see it that way. Long-term, SEIU, and in any union, cares about maintaining some internal unity to carry out its mission, whether that is political or organizing. Even though John Edwards was the strong favorite among the political delegate activists who voted at the union’s recent political gathering, there were key differences among the executive board leaders. If there is the sentiment at the rank-and-file or state level to endorse one candidate or another, why not kick it back to the state level and let the decisions shake out there–rather than potentially leave the national leadership with an internal divide that might fester?