beginning of the end for Hillary.There are a lot of voters who do indeed take endorsements seriously,especially if it comes from a politician they like.

Was more of a passing of a generational torch along with invoking his brother's beliefes.

I have to admit I don't follow my city councilors that closely, so I generally ask my parents who to vote for there, since they usual;ly know who's who at that level.

sometimes shocked or disappointed but never influenced .

He endorsed Bernie, so I follow Bernie.

Disclosure: Endorsements has no effect on who I vote for. I have been a Bernie supporter since he announced. I did my homework beforehand on Clinton and wasn't enthused about her second run.

City council positions and the like. But that's about it. State and National politics I can sort out pretty easily.

There is one DUer who lives in my voting district, and in the last election I asked her for her endorsements for municipal and county candidates because she knew them better than I did and from her posts on DU I knew that she was sincere.

Endorsements usually come with perks.... financial supports of the endorser typically will throw their weight behind the endorsee. Organizing staff usually lends support too. It's about building a large integrated organization, not just convincing the voters directly.

n/t

about folks they have worked with for decades? Of course not.

definitely helped me make up my then undecided mind.

Where usually the first, and last I read about the candidate is in the voters guide. In national, or even statewide elections, there is generally enough info available to me to make up my own mind.

I don't think it is narcissistic for them to give their opinion.

only in local elections. Never at a state wide or national level. And it's impossible for me to imagine any endorsement ever changing my mind about who I'd vote for at that level.

Same with the VP choice. That is so unlikely to make me switch my vote at the top of the ticket, that I honestly cannot imagine any VP choice that would win my vote. The selection of Lieberman almost lost my vote, however. And that could potentially happen, although I'd probably still not switch to the Republican, just not cast a vote for President at all.

For instance if former VP Richard Q Cheney endorsed a candidate I'd probably automatically oppose that person.

Otherwise I'm skeptical of most endorsements. There has to be a quid pro quo, the quid is the endorsement itself, but we never know what the quo is.

And it depends upon the endorser as well.

I'm sure political endorsements might matter to some of the asshats that refuse to pay attention and allow our country to continue to be exploited.

Endorsements are a useful resource. Like icing on the cake, or the seal of approval from people and organisations whom I respect, trust or admire, an endorsement is another informational tool that expands our knowledge about the candidates and their positions. Some carry more weight than others, some are valuable as part of an overall picture, another piece of the puzzle, or a bit of information. Non-endorsements are perhaps even more instructive. I would be foolish, indeed, to ignore that information.

In either case, endorsements or non-endorsements, are a needful resource to have available in the face of cleverly misleading ads, manipulative polling questions, partisan pundits, and the not so fair and balanced journalistic fiction that permeates the new media.

You know, voters who don't bother to take the time to look into issues, policy positions, etc.

but not for Presidential candidates, no.

at least not on the national level. I sometimes rely on endorsements for local elections when I'm not personally familiar with the candidates.

It has in local elections.

At most it gets my attention.

Judges, water commissioner, that sort of thing.

Best tell the people posting about Spike Lee and the guy down under's support for Sanders that they are narcissists too, or does that just apply to people who respond to hostile OPs about themselves with a positive endorsement of Clinton?

It sucks when real human beings don't let strangers use them as foils for their own mercenarian purposes, doesn't it? Imagine what a "narcissist" actually responds to that to clear the record rather than allowing people who regularly treat him like shit to use him against someone he supports? Now, if only there could be a way to muzzle everyone, including journalists, who doesn't consider Bernie Sanders infallible, the world might become a fair place where only the superior people are allowed to speak in public.

It's funny, but endorsements have prompted me to think that the endorser takes credit for having done homework on the subject, when in fact, they just protrude their megalomania on the subject.

Newspapers do this, and they're wrong much of the time... Why? Because it isn't objective, for one, and another reason, it gets them "read".

it gives her credibility and provides assurance to her supporters to not jump ship to other candidates.

Fiji and Timber FTW

I think he is politically astute and he works in the immigration field helping people stay.

and I also don't let annoying supporters of any candidate influence my vote.

Even though I'm a lawyer, I'm not familiar with the dozens, literally dozens, of candidates throwing their hats in the ring for election or retention as trial level of judges in my county, as well as candidates for Pennsylvania's 3 state appellate courts (Commonwealth, Superior and Supreme courts). The first level of endorsements would be by the county and state bar associations. If they rate someone as not qualified, that lets me narrow down the field. Then I check with other lawyers who have personal experience with any of the candidates. I have a lot of friends and neighbors who always ask me whom they should vote for in the judicial races, because they know I either know the candidates personally or will have checked them out.

I once voted against a candidate in a primary for a US Senate seat because a number of prominent Democrats I loathe (including the Clintons and Chuck Schumer) endorsed and stumped for the establishment incumbent. That was enough to convince me that I liked the other guy better...it turned out so did most Democratic voters as the incumbent lost the primary and only held onto their seat running as an Independent.

It's really hard to figure out who to vote for for judge, without endorsements.

Also I put a lot of weight on scorecards of environmental organizations like League of Conservation Voters. But I normally don't need to look that up for presidential candidates. And anymore all I need to know is D or R. There hasn't been a repuke I would vote for in over a decade at least.

They show that a particular candidate has support and has enough in common with other elected officials that they can work together. It shows that they have been part of the structures that help determine who gets elected in other downstream offices. And it demonstrates that the endorser is saying that I think this person is better (for any number of reasons) in that election.

For whatever reason, Sanders has decided to not be part of the Democratic party and all that entails whether it's fundraising for other candidates or campaigning for them. That stuff actually matters to get enough people elected who share your views that you can actually get stuff done.

This practice was far more influential than an endorsement of a politician by some actor or by some other politician.

Now that I'm older and wiser, my vote could only be swayed by some really good beer and high-quality all-beef hotdogs.

Leaning toward Hilary, but if Bernie rolls out the barrel ...

Kamala Harris, who will be running for Boxer's seat in the Senate, lost my vote when she proved she's nothing more than a corporate shill and DNC puppet when she needlessly came out early for Hillary. That tells me everything I need to know about her character, or lack thereof.

Taylor Swift would be a coveted endorsement, for example.