It seems like presidential endorsements are now my beat here in our humble shop.

Last Friday, I argued celebrity endorsements matter even when many of us would prefer that they didn’t. Then, on Tuesday, I made the case that some endorsements completely destroy the credibility of the endorser.

Today, it’s the Teamsters and the 1.5 million-member union’s non-endorsement.

The union promised “the most inclusive, democratic, and transparent Presidential endorsement process in the history of our 121-year-old organization.” Instead, we got a couple of polls and a refusal to issue an endorsement.

Being the first Democrat presidential candidate in the last three decades to lose the Teamsters is quite the, er, accomplishment for Kamala Harris. In fact, it’s worse than just losing the endorsement. In the two polls of Teamsters members, Harris won 34% and 31% support, respectively.

Oof.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, won 59.6% and 58%.

How did the union interpret that nearly two-to-one landslide? “The union’s extensive member polling showed no majority support for Vice President Harris and no universal support among the membership for President Trump.”

Notice the different standards and thresholds for the two candidates. Also, calling a third of respondents “no majority” is hilariously understated.

Remember, two months ago, Teamsters President Sean O'Brien spoke at the Republican National Convention — a historic first. Democrats didn’t invite him to the DNC. However, he also told the RNC attendees all about unions’ favored left-wing economic policies, like opposition to right-to-work laws.

It turns out that Trump’s refusal to campaign against such laws, on the books in 26 states, was the “red line” that cost him the Teamsters endorsement. So be it.

As National Review’s Dominic Pino notes, “Right-to-work laws, currently in force in 26 states, simply say that joining or financially supporting a union is voluntary. If guaranteeing that membership is voluntary kills unions, that says more about the unions than it does about the law.” Indeed, such laws are overwhelmingly popular with the public — for good reason.

We’ve noted often over the years that unions are generally heavily Democrat. They conscript workers, take dues money, and, in terms of political giving, spend it on electing Democrats. No wonder workers prefer right-to-work.

As for the Teamsters, Pino essentially says that Trump doesn’t want their endorsement anyway: “The Teamsters have a decades-long record of criminality and corruption. It took 25 years of federal-government oversight, which concluded only in 2015, before the union met the bare-minimum standard of not being integrated with organized crime.”

On the flip side, the problem is largely the union bosses, not the rank and file. The latter greatly favor Trump, and they don’t need an official endorsement to go vote for the blue-collar billionaire.

In summary, as Mark Alexander notes: “Joe Biden has repeatedly declared that he was ‘the most pro-union President in history, leading the most pro-union administration in American history.’ Kamala Harris frequently parrots that ‘most pro-union Administration in American history’ line. But the failure of the Harris/Walz ticket to get the coveted Teamsters Union endorsement is the result of two catastrophic administration failures, which impact every labor union in the nation.”

He continues: “First, Biden and Harris dropped an unprecedented inflation bomb on our nation. The major incendiary factor was the combined $5.1 trillion in government spending allocated by their grossly misnamed $1.9 trillion ‘American Rescue Plan,’ their $2.4 trillion ‘Build Back Better’ bumper sticker boondoggle, and their $800 billion ’Inflation Reduction Act.‘ They filled a $300 billion economic hole created by the ChiCom Virus pandemic with $4.8 trillion in excess government spending. The direct result of that excess flood of money chasing too few goods and services was inflation. Economics 101: Limited supply of goods and services and excess demand results in higher prices.”

He adds, “Second, ’Border Czar Harris’ also dropped an immigration bomb on the American labor market — more than 10 million illegal immigrants competing for jobs and putting downward pressure on wages. Again, Economics 101: Limited supply of jobs and excess supply of labor results in lower wages.”

Follow Nate Jackson on X/Twitter.

(Updated)