Gadfly blog tells how AFT process supposedly worked. Makes no sense.

[madfloridian]

https://gadflyonthewallblog.wordpress.com/2015/07/12/did-aft-rank-and-file-really-endorse-hillary-clinton-for-president-if-so-release-the-raw-data/

But the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) endorsement of the former First Lady is strange in many ways.

First, it’s awfully early. The initial Democratic primaries aren’t scheduled for half a year yet – February of 2015 to be exact. And the general election isn’t until Nov. 8, 2016 – more than a year away.

Second, the manner in which this endorsement was reached is somewhat mysterious.

This much seems certain:

1) The AFT executive board invited all of the candidates to meet with them and submit to an interview. No Republican candidates responded.

2) Democrats including Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley and Clinton were interviewed in private.

3) The executive committee voted to endorse Clinton.

4) NOW the interviews are scheduled to be released to the public.

This is a perplexing timetable. Why would the AFT endorse BEFORE releasing the interviews? Ostensibly, the executive council used these interviews to help make its decision. Shouldn’t that same information have been available to rank and file members of the union before an endorsement was made?

[bigtree]

1. did they follow bylaws already voted and agreed on?

...that's what governs their procedures and conduct.

[wyldwolf]

42. My guess is yes.

Bernie supporters and trying to find issue with standard operating procedures because Bernie didn't get the endorsement.

WHEREAS, traditionally, the endorsement is decided in two phases: For the primaries, the AFT executive council, which is elected by the convention delegates to represent the full membership, makes endorsement recommendations. For the general election, our convention chooses our candidate;

http://www.aft.org/resolution/endorsement-hillary-clinton

Sorry, folks. It's how it's always been done. Now back to the poutrage.

[Comrade Grumpy]

51. Ah, the union bosses make the call. Got it.

[bigtree]

55. that's what they're elected to do

...doesn't mean they always get it right, but that's the way unions work. Silly to suggest there's anything less democratic about the process than any other elected body or board with the same mandate.

[SoapBox]

2. It just sounds sleazy.

[bigtree]

3. Bernie's major donors have been unions

...is he saying the process is unfair? I doubt you'll hear that from him.

But here at DU some are apparently compelled and free to call union actions 'sleazy.'

[madfloridian]

4. If they release the data AFTER their endorsement...that seems peculiar.

[bigtree]

5. again, is that their standard procedure?

...or did they divert from that?

[madfloridian]

6. Still trying to find out. I doubt it's standard procedure.

[bigtree]

7. Endorsements are normally made by leaders of unions, chapter leaders

...not directly from the rank and file. In order for rank and file to effectively influence those leaders, there would need to be another election of the leadership. That doesn't make sense to me that revealing the contents of the discussions would make much difference in their votes.

The rank and file elect these leaders to make the endorsement decisions (small 'd' in that process). They collect all of the info on these candidates they can manage and offer their vote in executive committee. I'm not sure how they would project rank and file opinion of the meetings onto those leadership votes for endorsements.

[udbcrzy2]

8. Their 2007 endorsement

It looks like they endorsed her in October 2007. Seems strange that it's sooo early this time.

WHEREAS, just 10 weeks before the first primary of the 2008 campaign, in October 2007, on the basis of this lengthy information-gathering and listening process, the executive council endorsed Sen. Clinton for the Democratic nomination, now

http://www.aft.org/resolution/resolution-presidential-endorsements

[bigtree]

9. they're familiar enough with this candidate?

...nothing more to discern apart from their earlier support?

[udbcrzy2]

11. That seems to be the case n/t

[BrotherIvan]

12. Do you think it would be a good idea for a president of a union

who is on the board of a super pac for a candidate to recuse herself from the voting?

AFT President Randi Weingarten and Clinton have been longtime friends, dating back to Clinton’s time as a New York senator, when Weingarten was head of the state’s United Federation of Teachers. Weingarten is also on the board of Priorities USA Action, a super PAC supporting Clinton’s White House campaign.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/aft-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president-119988.html#ixzz3ff32jnse

How about the fact that the union itself donates to and invests in the Clinton Global Initiative. Should that not be disclosed?

[bigtree]

14. I'd ask the membership by way of elections and other membership input to determine that

...that's where action on disputes like that should take place.

Do you have a problem with the former communications union leader joining Sanders campaign? That conflict of interest is more clear. Donating to the Clinton Foundation may well be in that union's interest. Can you decide that from outside the union?

[BrotherIvan]

15. Cohen is retiring

He no longer represents the union. He is doing this on his own.

And there are lots of comments right now on the AFT Facebook page and on Diane Ravitch's blog where members are saying they were never consulted or polled, even though the press release says that is how they came to this decision. The release says 1 million of its members were polled. But the commenters are refuting this and saying they never heard of a poll nor were they given the answers from the candidate's questionnaires to even make that decision, even though it was stated from the beginning that the questionnaires would be shared. The endorsement shocked them.

The president herself has a very clear conflict of interest. She did not consult the membership and did not recuse herself. She is on the board of a super pac and part of the group that started Ready for Hillary. She is representing her own interests, not those of her members.

You're ok with that? I'm actually really surprised. In my industry, the union leadership sold its members out to the producers and all of the leadership was voted out the next time. Corruption in a union leader undermines the entire purpose of a union.

This isn't about Sanders vs Hillary to be honest. Everyone knows the teacher's unions will endorse her. But the way this was done gives a hint to how the rest of the race is going to go. Corruption will win most likely.

[bigtree]

26. I'm not a fan of railing against unions. That shouldn't be surprising

...what suprises me (or maybe not) is the clatter from Sanders supporters here at DU insinuating this union or the other is corrupt because they chose Hillary. More important to critics of the union is that they failed to choose Sanders. I'm not so naive to believe that nothing at all would be said about any practice of this union or the others if Sanders was their choice, as if that, in and of itself, would make them a-okay.

This is lousy politics in defense of a politician and it's little more than union-bashing. I'm not a fan of that having been a union member (UFCW Local 400 and Local 27) for 30 years.

[BrotherIvan]

68. I don't think questioning the leadership of a union is union bashing

Not in the least. Even though I am not a union member, many of my co-workers are and they have been sold out time and again. They despise their leadership and are always angry that they have no say in where their dues go. If the leadership did not consult the members and is lying about polling them, then the leadership should be criticized. If their dues are being used to invest in the Clinton Global Initiative in the tune of $1 Billion without their consent because the president is friends with Mrs. Clinton, then they should know about that too.

For my part, as I have said, I am not surprised by this at all. The NEA will endorse Clinton as well. What is surprising is the level of collusion that is going on. This kind of corrupt politics is exactly why the country is so messed up and why money out of politics is a very urgent issue.

[bigtree]

69. reports say polling among members who said the union should endorse a candidate

...were 3-1 Hillary.

AFT said it conducted a long, thoughtful process before making its decision. Members had multiple opportunities to weigh in on the decision. Some 79 percent who vote in Democratic primaries said the union should endorse a candidate, and Clinton was the favorite by a three-to-one margin.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/aft-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president-119988.html

That may or not be accurate polling, but I've seen nothing equivalent as a measure of membership support. Certainly a handful of blog posts out of a 1.6 million membership don't indicate anything different.

[BrotherIvan]

72. That is the reason for the controversy

Members on their facebook, Diane Ravitch's blog, comments on articles, and even here on DU are saying they were never polled. No one in their school was polled. The town hall phonecalls the press release refers to did not discuss the endorsement at all. The results of the questionnaire was not distributed and requests to see the answers were denied to members. Members are saying the press release contains false information and they are angry about it.

So this isn't just a concoction of Sanders supporters on DU. What you see in this very thread are teachers and people who care about education discussing the issue. I myself am also a former teacher and the child of a teacher who taught for 40 years, so I have been familiar with these issues my whole life. Madfloridian has been the most dedicated poster on education issues since I have come to DU and a lot of the people posting in this thread read and comment consistently on her articles. We're all tired of public education being sold out by neoliberals posing as champions, and the Obama administration is a shameful example of that. So are most of America's teachers who are being hounded out of their jobs and demonized in the name of profit.

It's time to look past the DU bickering and the idea that Sanders supporters are just vindictive meanies. This current discussion is about money in politics and the corruption that comes with it.

[bigtree]

73. that's true of most polling

...doesn't invalidate polls.

It certainly doesn't make the opposite true because of some posts on a blog. You'd make those representative of the million plus membership, but discount the union's own polling? I'd say that was pretty dodgy reasoning.

[BrotherIvan]

76. The polling is what this debate is about

Did they actually poll the membership? They use that as the reason for their endorsement. If the press release had stated that union leadership voted to endorse Clinton on their own, this would be a different argument. But they claim to be representing the wishes of their members. Are they?

If the leadership can produce the polling data that shows 1 million members responded, then this point will be put to rest. Simple.

[bigtree]

80. no poll works that way

...and it's a ridiculous expectation which isn't practiced by any union.

http://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/memo_presidentialsurvey2015.pdf

1,150 AFT members who are registered to vote. The survey explored members’attitudes toward AFT’sissue agenda and the 2016 presidential election.

Interviewing was conducted by telephone from June 22 to 27. The survey’s margin of error is ±3.3 percentage points among all voters, and ±4.1 percentage points for Democratic primary voters

Peter Hart conducted the poll. He also polls for Sanders.

[BrotherIvan]

95. But this is not the impression the press release gave

I would have given up this argument a long time ago, but I am very disappointed in the claim that I am "union bashing." That is almost as hurtful as the suggestion that because I support a certain candidate, I don't care about people of color which is just as absurd. So my personal point is discussing honesty and transparency in the actions of the leadership, not the membership. If the membership agrees with the decision, then fine.

This is the press release which gives the impression that union members were able to vote.

The AFT has conducted a long, deliberative process to assess which candidate would best champion the issues of importance to our members, their families and communities. Members have been engaged online, through the “You Decide” website, through several telephone town halls, and through multiple surveys—reaching more than 1 million members.

Additionally, over the past few weeks, the AFT has conducted a scientific poll of our membership on the candidates and key issues. The top issues members raised were jobs and the economy and public education. Seventy-nine percent of our members who vote in Democratic primaries said we should endorse a candidate. And by more than a 3-to-1 margin, these members said the AFT should endorse Clinton.

At the comments on the article linked in the OP, there are union members commenting

Evan Lowenthal
July 12, 2015 at 6:29 pm
I am on every union email list, and nobody asked me

Jon Parker
July 12, 2015 at 11:40 am
I’m AFT. I got a robocall asking me which candidate I wanted them to interview. I said Sanders. That wasn’t too long ago. Then I didn’t get any other calls, surveys, etc. next time I’ll know about the website.

Carla
July 12, 2015 at 1:08 pm
I agree wholeheartedly with all of your statements.
I am an AFT member and a UFT member and I’ve not ever been polled by the AFT.

These comments are being echoed all over the internet. The members themselves are speaking up.

[bigtree]

96. you're parsing that explanation

...what the union leadership did was normal procedure for endorsements. They solicited the opinion of members by at least 5 different methods, including polling. That may not be enough for you, but you're second-guessing the process of this union from the outside. It appears to me that the leadership made their decision based on the totality of the information they gathered from their membership. That's not something that I believe was unfair to anyone.

The repetition of posts about this endorsement and the accusations against the union's leadership amount to bashing, in my view. Smearing, really, without any proof at all of any wrongdoing. It's clear the leadership made an effort to gauge the opinion of their membership. Not enough for Sanders supporters here, but I'd bet it would be if they chose him. Not a word has been spoken here about the endorsement process until Sanders lost out to Hillary in this one bid. This is just ugly.

[BrotherIvan]

97. If I am wrong, I will be the first to apologize

You have my word on that.

But the other thing that is now being discussed by AFT members is that they have lost all leverage against the candidate they support. Clinton has not made any policy proposals regarding education and the answers to her questionnaire were vague, including that she would answer in the future. They could have negotiated stances on testing, charter schools and tenure. Now they have nothing. How will the teachers benefit?

[Chan790]

81. In most NPOs...

which is the closest non-union organizational-structure I can think of and have specific knowledge of, it would be grounds for summary dismissal without recourse under standard bylaws for any director-level staffer to not only vote but also to fail to recuse themselves from discussion or interviews in the making of a policy decision in which they had a vested specific personal or economic interest external to the work of the organization. Professional societies for specializations of director-level staff in that field generally consider it to be an ethical violation sufficient for revocation of membership as-well.

So yeah...I'm going to go with that.

If Ms. Weingarten voted or allowed herself to be involved in the process in any decisioning manner, then she should be fired (with prejudice so that no subsequent board may rehire her) for the mere appearance of impropriety and the material harm to the organization that appearance does. It's not a small breach of professional ethics or conduct but rather one that brings into question the legitimacy of the process and the organization.

[BrotherIvan]

94. I agree

If she wanted to keep a sense of integrity to the process, she should have kept out of it. This firestorm is one of her own making. Members pay dues and the leadership is supposed to represent them. If some of the accusations that they did not in fact poll 1 million members as stated is true, then that is a serious breach of ethics.

[HooptieWagon]

27. AFT President is on the board of Hillarys Super PAC.

It probably didn't matter what positions the candidates held or what members wishes were...the endorsement was predetermined based solely on Weingartners political ambition. Everything leading up to the endorsement was just a charade.

[bigtree]

29. does Sanders have any old allies in labor leadership?

...if he did, I'm doubting you'd be calling for them to recuse themselves in response to a complaint from the Hillary camp.

Will Larry Cohen, outgoing president of the Communications Workers of America who just joined Sanders' campaign put undue influence on his former union?

Union leadership is a political position and their conduct in their role is governed by a process of elections. Most of the clatter and union bashing here at DU from outside of that process concerns me more than whatever influence an elected leader of a union has on endorsements.

[HooptieWagon]

54. Cohen resigned his position with Union.

Is Weingartner going to do the same?

[bigtree]

56. she's one vote among 36 other members

...why should she resign if members support her leadership with their votes?

[madfloridian]

13. Not teachers' unions. They are having like the stockholm syndrome.

They are going with the privatization folks.

[sabrina 1]

30. I don't see anyone calling Unions sleazy, I see the opposite. The process should be public and

decisions made based on interviews by just a few people, how many we don't know, on behalf of over one million members seems grossly unfair to the Union Members, which many of them are saying. So it is in DEFENSE of Unions that people are questioning the way this done.

However, as Cohen said, it doesn't matter what a Union Leader decides, especially one with close ties to a candidate and who is part of a Pac for that candidate.

What counts is the membership. And considering a majority of teachers in this country are extremely angry right now about how they have been treated, how the Public School funds are being handed over to Private Corps, I am not worried about this endorsement.

Bernie already has the endorsement of Vt's Teachers Union and will be getting lots of endorsements from other Unions.

Political endorsements such as this, so blatantly biased, are really not worth much.

[bigtree]

34. second post on this thread

...and why, if 'political endorsements such as this, so blatantly biased, are really not worth much,' is Sanders seeking them?

Ex-CWA President Larry Cohen officially resigned from his post Monday, and on Friday he’ll announce formally his latest gig: Bernie Sanders volunteer. Cohen will appear alongside Sanders in Council Bluffs, Ia. to endorse Sanders for president, alongside other labor leaders and rank-and-file Sanders supporters. Cohen also told Morning Shift that he was disappointed that Hillary Clinton didn’t oppose granting President Obama fast track authority. “I’m not just endorsing [Sanders], I’m gonna volunteer and play a significant role,” Cohen told Morning Shift. “And that’s because I think issues like fast track matter.”

Friday’s event appears designed, at least in part, to pressure union leaders to push for a Sanders endorsement at the national level, or, alternatively, to delay or withhold any Democratic primary season endorsement. The Iowa AFL-CIO will hold a convention in August at which some members hope to pass a resolution in support of Sanders like that recently passed by the South Carolina AFL-CIO.

Do Sanders supporters want union endorsements, or not? Seems to me that all DU supporters want is to keep unions from endorsing Hillary in favor of their own candidate.

Unions have their own processes for working questions like these out and its pretty bogus for non-members to be railing against elected leadership just to defend a political candidate and pretending that its all in the interest of the union.

[sabrina 1]

36. Cohen retired this year and is now a VOLUNTEER for Bernie's campaign. He is free to campaign

now, not as the head of a Union, but as an individual. That is different from what we are talking about here. Cohen has stated that it is the membership that is important, not the leader of a Union, but he is not campaigning in an official capacity.

So how does Cohen, now retired with no ability to endorse Bernie on behalf of his Union's membership, compare to the current leader of the Teacher's Union who made an OFFICIAL endorsement using the power of her position to do so?

Bad analogy frankly.

[bigtree]

38. did you even read my post?

...influence is influence.

That teacher's union official didn't make that decision on her own. She's an ELECTED leader with ONE vote in the union council for endorsements. All of the smearing of her because the leadership chose Hillary over your candidate, Sanders, is transparently bogus. If Sanders had friend in union leadership, I know well there wouldn't be a peep from his supporters about corruption.

This argument amounts to little more than union bashing, like many of the people responding on that Facebook post highlighted as teachers disagreeing with this decision are doing. I get what's going on here. People here outside the union with political motivations are smearing the leadership because their candidate didn't get chosen. You can go blue in the face talking around that, but this is just sour grapes at best; union bashing at worst.

[sabrina 1]

39. Influence as an individual is very different from influence with the weight of an official

position to use that influence. What about that do you not understand? Cohen cannot make a decision on behalf of his former Union. He is a private individual who no doubt has some influence, but can only use that influence the way any other private individual can.

Personally I don't care much about this, since I know so many teachers and know that they will be endorsing and voting for the candidate who has ALWAYS represented their interests.

[bigtree]

43. what about ONE vote on a 36-member executive council don't you understand?

...that union voted for Hillary in 2007, so to think they'd make a different choice this time around is assuming something about your candidate they obviously didn't agree with.

Members vote for these leaders, including the one you take issue with and the surprise expressed that this decision went to Hillary is probably not shared by most members who follow the activities and conduct of their leadership more closely than DUers.

[bigtree]

70. 'The national union’s 36-member executive council voted overwhelmingly to support Clinton'

here's my link: http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/big_tent/Teachers-union-endorses-Hillary-for-president.html

...where's that 4-1 number coming from? I'd guess it represents the percentage of votes.

[arely staircase]

93. You realize who we are, right? The AFT?

Do you understand how our ( or any) union functions.

[BooScout]

23. Why?

Because Sanders didn't get an endorsement? This is nothing new that the AFT empowers it's executive committee to make endorsements. The rules were not changed....they were followed.

[sabrina 1]

31. Sanders will get the votes of many of the members of AFT. We know that already. So

this is not significant at all. He already has the endorsement of Vt's Teachers Union most of whose members are in agreement with the decision. AND who will now be campaigning for him across the country.

[99Forever]

46. It IS sleazy.

Typically neoliberal sleazy. It's their kind of ethics on display. Do anything at all to grab power. ANYTHING.

[Kalidurga]

10. I'm not really surprised.

They probably feel safer with the establishment rather than going out on a limb and endorsing someone with a more radical reputation.

[Ford_Prefect]

17. Good old reliable establishment that got them where they are now...BULLSHIT they do!

[rock]

21. Yeah! Why not go with

Good old unknown and take a crap-shoot!?

[sabrina 1]

32. Actually, as a teacher, I can say without a doubt that you could not be more incorrect.

What is radical is what has been done to the Public Schools and to teachers, which is why the first Teachers Union endorsement went to Mainstream Candidate Bernie Sanders. And why the MEMBERSHIP of all unions are currently signing up to support Mainstream Candidate, Bernie Sanders. Thousand have now already done so.

I am not concerned about one leader of one union making a politically biased decision, if anything that will only help the candidate teachers prefer.

The Radical policies that are handing over Public Education funds to Private Corporations are one of the main issues for Teachers and Parents and the Mainstream Candidate who is opposed to the destruction of our Public Schools, and the dipping into the Public School Funds for Corporate Profit, not to mention the failure of these policies, will be a driving force for Teachers across the country to stand by the Candidate who represents them and our Public Schools, Bernie Sanders.

[Kalidurga]

33. Just letting you know I read your post.

I am not getting what you are saying exactly, probably too tired. I think I got the gist of it though and it's more teachers support Bernie and that a single union leaders preference is not necessarily the preference of the majority of teachers who are not union leaders.

[sabrina 1]

37. I didn't really get what you were saying either. You used the word 'radical' to describe what

data shows, is a mainstream candidate. Unless the opinions of the American people don't count anymore, but I might have misunderstood, it's certainly happened before so no problem.

[Enthusiast]

40. Huge +1!

[Historic NY]

16. The interviews are on the web site in form of the questionnaires....

Its sure sounds like some people are saying the Union had some deep seated underhanded motives. I'd imagine they have a listing of all the respondent union locals that voted.

[Ford_Prefect]

19. If they do it seems that you cannot presently get to that information on the site.

One part of the presentation gives the impression that this was a reasoned process with meaningful participation leading to the announced outcome. However for outside viewers it is difficult to assess the depth of the interviews or their impact on the approval.

It is impossible to ignore the relationship of HRC campaign to the AFT leadership which leads one to doubt transparency in the AFT process. While I am not saying they were lead by the nose I have some genuine doubts about timing on this one. 16 months prior to a vote is a bit early for such a significant endorsement. I add that he process seems to ignore actual performance in favor of presumed goals statements.

[Historic NY]

20. Here is the link it still works....

http://www.aft.org/election2016/candidate-questionnaire-hillary-rodham-clinton

there was one for Sanders & Malloy too.

[udbcrzy2]

41. To the right-side of the page

Here they are to the far right-side of the page.
http://www.aft.org/election2016/

[Doctor_J]

18. The union leaders are probably 1% ers, and at least one is a Clinton operative

as described above.

[dsc]

24. no the union leaders are not 1% ers

teachers unions do not pay their leadership millions of dollars a year.

[Agony]

25. AFT President makes over 1/2 million dollars year

top 6 AFT employees make over 1/4 million dollars year (2013)

by some measures that makes them 1%er's, not many teachers would argue with that point.

http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/360/360725240/360725240_201306_990O.pdf

[Doctor_J]

44. you don't have to make millions per year to be in the 1%

IMO the union leaders should make somewhere near the median of their membership. Anyway it's already been documented that the aft rank and file don't necessarily agree with this endorsement

[fed-up]

22. sort of like Jeb collecting millions before he announced his candidacy-dirty politics...

[Exilednight]

28. I'm curious to see how long Randi sticks around now. I have an

Uneasy feeling that this was done for self gain.

[cherokeeprogressive]

35. Are you thinking Cabinet position? Sec. of Ed. maybe? Smart money says that'll be the result.

Business as usual.

[Doctor_J]

45. That would make sense.

I hadn't thought of that. I suppose you need to hitch your wagon to the horse that's going to make it to the end

[cherokeeprogressive]

49. Before a single word is spoken in debate, and before all possible candidates have declared.

Odd, that.

[bigtree]

52. was it 'odd' that the Vermont NEA endorsed Sanders already?

[cherokeeprogressive]

61. Yup.

Next question.

[Jefferson23]

47. When you read the comments at Diane Ravitch blog, some of the more compelling ones

questioning this are posted by people stating their first and last names.

The response seems less than enthusiastic on many levels.

[djean111]

48. What this tells me is that the AFT endorsement does not mean that Hillary has those votes in the

bag. She just has the executive council in the bag. I would not be getting all complacent and such.
I am trying, and failing, to imagine myself voting gor someone just because of an endorsement. That does not seem like Democracy.

[bigtree]

50. is that just true for Hillary?

"I am trying, and failing, to imagine myself voting for someone just because of an endorsement. That does not seem like Democracy."

...or are Sanders' endorsements by other union leaders (both obtained and sought after) similarly meaningless to you?

[djean111]

59. I am happy to see them. I hope it means Bernie will get the votes. But votes are not "bound"

to him. If that is what an endorsement really meant, then, IMO, that would not be Democracy. One person, one vote. In private. Personally, if I belonged to an organisation that endorsed a politician, I would not consider that endorsement as binding, as far as my own vote goes. I have learned to look at anything political with great cynicism. I voted for Hillary in the Florida primary, last time. This time, I will be voting for Bernie. Literally no endorsement by anyone could change that - in fact, that would not be at all possible.

And it has already been very dismissively explained that of course Liz Warren would endorse Hillary because she has to, because of the "D". So that explanation has rendered all politicians' endorsements of Hillary pointless, for me.

[HooptieWagon]

58. Not only not getting the union member votes...

But also not getting the campaign volunteers that a union endorsement usually brings.
It's apparent the endorsement isn't for the benefit of the Union members, but rather for the benefit of the Union president's political ambitions.

[djean111]

60. Yup. I bet an awful lot of politicians just really hate this internet thingy. Forced transparency.

It's a GOOD thing. Information can no longer be easily controlled and dribbled out or hidden. Or at least it is a lot more difficult.

[cantbeserious]

53. One Has To Wonder If Quid Pro Quo Is In Play

eom

[bigtree]

57. so all members of the 36-seat board who voted for Hillary are corrupt?

...because they didn't vote for your candidate?

Good luck with that.

[HooptieWagon]

62. They rushed through an endorsement opposed by their members.

So Clinton gets 36 paid votes. Sanders gets a million plus votes and a few hundred thousand volunteers.
Once again Clinton steps in a pile and has it blow up in her face. She never learns...

[bigtree]

64. she'll also get whatever gotv efforts

...the union offers.

[HooptieWagon]

66. Not if 90% of members are supporting her opponent.

Sanders has potential of a million plus canvassing, phone-banking, and GOTV volunteers from the Union membership. Clinton has 36 executive council members.

[bigtree]

71. that 90% number is from where?

'AFT said it conducted a long, thoughtful process before making its decision. Members had multiple opportunities to weigh in on the decision. Some 79 percent who vote in Democratic primaries said the union should endorse a candidate, and Clinton was the favorite by a three-to-one margin.'

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/aft-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president-119988.html

That doesn't sound like 90% opposed to me. Where does your figure come from?

[zappaman]

74. Oops.

Looks like someone made up that 90%.
I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you!

[HooptieWagon]

75. Where does AFT 3:1 come from?

Not any transparent poll anyone is aware of.

[bigtree]

77. Survey of AFT members on 2016 election.

June 30, 2015 - http://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/memo_presidentialsurvey2015.pdf

67-19% in support of Hillary

[HooptieWagon]

79. The survey no members are aware of?

Ahhh, it was just a vote of the Executive Council.
http://www.aft.org/press-release/american-federation-teachers-endorses-hillary-clinton-president
Their claim of a poll seems to be a lie.

[bigtree]

82. Sanders pollster is lying?

http://hartresearch.com/clients/

...good luck with that.

[HooptieWagon]

84. Did they conduct the "poll"?

Post your evidence they did.

[bigtree]

85. Peter Hart's organization ran the poll

...you're out of straws.

Thanks for playing.

[HooptieWagon]

86. Where is it stated they conducted a poll?

Merely stating a list of past and present clients doesn't prove they conducted a specific poll. Why are the detailed results kept secret?

[bigtree]

87. try to keep up

http://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/memo_presidentialsurvey2015.pdf

[HooptieWagon]

89. Where's the 1million members surveyed that AfT claims?

Your link says just over 1000 surveyed...AFT said a million were surveyed in their endorsement. Who's lying? Where's the raw data?

[bigtree]

90. you produced nothing at all to back up your nonsense about 90% opposed

...Hillary was endorsed by this union. Polling says members approve of her by a wide margin.

Deal with that.

[99Forever]

63. I don't wonder at all. n/t

[HooptieWagon]

67. Nope. It's pretty obvious. nt

[arcane1]

78. The AFT President works for a pro-Clinton Super-PAC

Surely a coincidence.


http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/aft-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president-119988.html#ixzz3fhj4UtHD

[HooptieWagon]

83. Surely.

No possibility of a back-room deal.

[LWolf]

88. THAT's the "strangest" thing about it,

if "strangest" means "stinks to high heaven."

[arcane1]

91. It would definitely be awkward for this campaign employee's organization to endorse her opponent.

I can't help but wonder what would have happened if the majority of the membership had voted for Sanders instead.

[LWolf]

92. You mean the majority

of the fraction polled.

It would be interesting if the poll and other efforts to "engage our members in a variety of ways" had not begun a couple of months before Sanders even declared his candidacy.