Can a Democrat or even Hillary win without Union Support?

[Savannahmann]

It seems we are going to find out. One of the problems that comes with a nomination for Hillary is the baggage of additional support for the TPP. Hillary Clinton has long supported Free Trade despite the fact that it costs jobs to American Workers, especially Union workers. http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Free_Trade.htm

Now, Unions have been very vocal in their opposition to the TPP and especially Fast Track Authority. The AFL-CIO has told Senator Wyden of Oregon that if he supports the TPP or Fast Track that his re-election effort is in serious jeopardy come 2016. 2016 of course, is a Presidential Election year.

So how much support normally comes from Unions to help Democratic Candidates get elected? SEIU has donated more than $220 million dollars to Democratic Candidates and Campaigns. https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php In 2012 alone the SEIU donated more than $25 million dollars to Democrats. But their support does not stop with cash, and votes. Union members show up to rallies, they show up and volunteer, they show up and man phone banks to help GOTV. You know, that massive defense against weak campaigns on our side is to shout GOTV, well the Unions are instrumental in GOTV efforts.

35% of Public Employees, and more than 6% of private employees are union. That translates to tens of millions of votes, supporters, and people we have traditionally counted on. For example, If Unions had sat out the election in 2012, President Obama would have won by one percent of the vote. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/supreme-court-ruling-wounds-both-democrats-and-unions-neither-fatally/

Let's look at 2008 and 2012 again. President Obama won in 2008 with 69,498,516 votes. That was a hair shy of 53% of the vote. In 2012 however, he won with 65,915,796 votes, or 51% of the vote. By contrast, the Republicans picked up a million votes in 2012 from their showing in 2008. While President Obama lost four million votes, the Republicans picked up a million. So three million voters for our side stayed home, and a million switched sides.

There is always some bleeding where Union members vote against their own interests. That's going to happen. Unions don't march in lock step by any stretch of the imagination. However, one thing is apparent. Democratic party chances without Union Support would be reduced to a coin toss. Even if you ignore the risk to the vote totals, you would have to forego not only the money, but the support in manpower of the Unions at events, phone banks, and organization of GOTV efforts.

In short, I don't believe we can win without support from the Unions. Now, will the Unions turn out and throw their money, time, and encourage people to volunteer for a candidate that hopes to gut their members? For the Unions, this is literally both parties being the same. You can now begin to pound on your keyboard about Choice, GLBT rights, horrid records on minorities, and the evil of the Koch machine. But to the Union, it won't matter who is cutting their throat. Is it supposed to make the Union members feel better that their factories are shut down by a treaty signed by Democrats as opposed to a treaty signed by Republicans? Will the Democratic Party position on Gay Marriage somehow keep the Union members employed?

The Unions are telling us that they have a Litmus test this election cycle. It is the TPP. They've warned Senator Wyden, they can't stand by and say oh well the Republicans would be worse. For them, anyone passing the TPP, especially through Fast Track is suicide. Because without the Unions, we are down to risking the election on a roll of the dice. Do the die come up Lucky 7? Or will it be Snake Eyes? If we nominate someone who has supported the TPP and Fast Track with a long history of Free Trade support, the throw of the dice ends up hurting the Unions no matter who wins the election.

This my friends, is one of those Issues that is not reflected in your polling, and one that anyone with a modicum of intelligence is able to see will hamstring us and make even the narrowest of victories uncertain at best. Ok Hillary Supporters, start posting your poll results now and shouting that issues don't matter because it's too early in the election season but the Polls are the only thing that do matter this early.

[OKNancy]

1. I read that very first link and 99% of it debunks everything in your thread

Not only that but her ratings by unions are very high.
She will get union support... count on it.

[glasshouses]

2. If she supports TPP you can bet she will lose all union support

I'm in a union and that is a critical issue

[William769]

3. You seem to be in a lot of things!

[Katashi_itto]

8. She was an architect of TPP

[Savannahmann]

4. So the Union is willing to pull their support from Senator Wyden over the TPP

They are willing to risk a Democratic Seat in the Senate, but they would never pull their support from Hillary on the same issue? Um, there is a word for that kind of theory. Instead, let me ask you this. By any chance is Harry Potter going to be the campaign manager for Hillary? Because it will take some serious magic to pull that one off.

[BklnDem75]

5. Unions will die under republican rule...

Especially if Walker's the nominee. As a union employee, I'll vote for whoever we nominate.

[old guy]

6. As will the vast majority of union members IMO.

[hrmjustin]

7. Unions will support our nominee.

If Walker is the nominee Unions will come out in droves for our nominee.

[Savannahmann]

17. So our plan is to hope the Republicans screw up.

We keep trying that plan. Sometimes the Republicans are willing to accommodate us. Sometimes they run a smart campaign with only a few errors. Are you willing to gamble that the Republicans will accommodate us and give voters someone to vote against?

I've never been comfortable with plans that require my opponent to be dumb and make mistakes.

[hrmjustin]

18. Well the strongest democratic candidate will win the primary.

[William769]

9. Can a union survive without a Democrat? Let's ask them in Wisconsin. nt

[LWolf]

10. But they get Union support even when they shouldn't.

For example, my union endorsed Barack Obama, even after he told people quite clearly that he and teachers didn't always get along, and even though he didn't show up in person to speak to them.

When union leadership endorses a candidate, it doesn't really seem to matter how many of the union members themselves don't. I remember it being pointed out to me repeatedly that, since my union endorsed him, I ought to be supporting him.

And then he was elected and appointed Arne Duncan, and put his own steroid enhanced version of NCLB on the table: RTTT and the waivers from NCLB that require, among many other things, an increased presence of high-stakes testing.

The bottom line? My union ought to have a bottom line this time around: no more privatization of education, no more high-stakes testing. If my union leadership won't draw that line in the sand and stand on it, I sure as fuck will. If they expect me to support their endorsement, they'd better endorse a candidate that will, as well.

Oh, the TPP...that one is a deal-breaker, as well, although I really think that a union of educators ought to be putting education policy first.

[Bluenorthwest]

11. Because you see Union members as a bunch of white straight factory workers, I have to assume

you are not a Union member yourself. As a gay Union member for decades, I'm here to tell you that Unions are strong supporters of the rights you dismiss and understand that issues of equality for all minorities are issues of labor.

[Savannahmann]

13. No, I don't see them as a bunch of white straight workers.

However let me ask you this. How many jobs would your union sacrifice to get Gay Marriage? How many factories and job sites would the unions accept being idled so a woman's right to choose is defended? What benefits are the Unions willing to forgo for the pleasure of a knife in the back from the politician they worked hard to elect? Why would the AFL-CIO warn Senator Wyden about supporting the TPP but ignore that support in a Presidential candidate?

Or is the Union smart enough to see that taking back the Senate and stopping the TPP there would be a better use of money and influence than backing one of two bad choices in the White House?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Willard Romney got 40% of the union vote, ergo:

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_12.html


I suspect there was some implicit bias in that vote and that HRC will do a tad bit better among union members.

[Savannahmann]

14. Ok. I understand.

You feel that the union members who voted Republican did so because of racism. But you aren't worried that these racists are also sexists. Because closed minded people regarding race are usually pretty open minded about gender.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. Not many but a few as I suggested.

And as I said, we all have biases we aren't even aware of.

[mcar]

16. Hilary is a Democrat

Please correct your thread title.

So sick of the smears. If you disagree with a politician, fine. State your case. But this ridiculous smearing of people who are not holier than thou has gotten old. Don't smear, state your case.