2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary Clinton racks up another union endorsement
Hillary Clinton is cornering the union vote ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
The Democratic presidential front-runner now has at least two dozen union endorsements, according to her campaign, after the Office and Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU) backed her on Wednesday.
The OPEIU represents 103,000 workers across North America. It called Clinton by far the most qualified to lead our nation.
Our countrys chief executive should be someone who is experienced in both domestic and foreign affairs and someone who understands and prioritizes the needs of working families, OPEIU President Richard Lanigan said in a statement. Hillary Clinton has this experience, and [we have] determined that of all the candidates, she is by far the most qualified to lead our nation.
We urge our members to make sure to vote in all primaries and to work as volunteers on her historic campaign to get out the vote, he added.
The most important campaign issues for OPEIU include the minimum wage, income inequality and the protection of workers right to organize, the union said.
read: http://thehill.com/regulation/labor/272392-clinton-picks-up-two-dozen-union-endorsements
revbones
(3,660 posts)TCJ70
(4,387 posts)Broward
(1,976 posts)SamKnause
(13,110 posts)bigtree
(86,008 posts)...Sanders supporters aren't going to reinvent the union nominating processes to suit their narrative about their second-place candidate.
Besides, following this false standard you set, your own candidate would forfeit several endorsements from several sources.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nor by consensus among the locals. It is their process and not one that would be accepted by the membership of my Unions ever. I vastly prefer Unions which have strong, predetermined endorsement protocols that involve as much input from working membership and vested retirees as possible. I prefer democracy.
The same goes for advocacy groups like HRC. 30 board members made that endorsement and then they tried to assign it to people they don't even respect enough to ask for an opinion, not even an opinion to ignore. They just get together for a smart cocktail and a quick 'vote'. I prefer membership driven decisions, community based advocacy.
Beacool
(30,253 posts)KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)Lone_Wolf
(1,603 posts)by far the most qualified to lead our nation.
Did they take into account how often she's been wrong?
bigtree
(86,008 posts)...and apparently found him lacking.
For all of the faults you attribute to Hillary, they thought your candidate was worse.
union endorsements meant a lot to the people of Michigan..
bigtree
(86,008 posts)...where Hillary received just 2% less votes than Sanders?
After being up by 20+ points. Deal with it...
bigtree
(86,008 posts)...already ahead and with a net gain of delegates.
Deal with that.
Umbral18
(105 posts)Lucinda
(31,170 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)The list contained (1) the organization, (2) the candidate they endorsed and (3) the methodology. This is a BIG difference and also astonishing.
In every organization that endorsed Hillary it was the LEADERSHIP that endorsed her.
In every organization that endorsed Bernie, it was done by polling the MEMBERSHIP.
Do you get that? The PEOPLE in the organization want Bernie but the few 1% leadership were persuaded or threatened or promised something to endorse Hillary.
The corporate management is for her, the corporate media is for her, because she is THEIR corporate candidate.
The people want Bernie.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Good luck with that.
So much for "cornering" the union vote.
All she ever gets is some union leaders that support her. The rank and file are overwhelmingly with Bernie.
bigtree
(86,008 posts)...can't credibly claim a majority of support.