2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy the Weingarten (AFT) endorsement is a good thing for Bernie Sanders
The scurrilous endorsement of Ms. Clinton by her close friend and head of the AFT, Randi Weingarten appears to be creating quite a stir among the AFT rank and file. Weingarten's "coup" endorsement of Clinton by the executive committee she controls will likely energize Sanders supporters while casting a negative light on the Clinton campaign's tactics.
http://thewashingtonteacher.blogspot.com/2015/07/teachers-say-no-freaking-way-to-aft.html
Teachers aren't dumb and many more of them may take a closer look at Sanders.
Keep up the good work Randi!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Just for clarity's sake, that blog entry was written in Sunday 12th. It cited 1100+ petitioners...as of yesterday the number was 3700+.
Impedimentus
(898 posts)Thank you for the update.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)It's actually less than 0.5%.
When that number gets to 16,000 lets me know then you'll have 1% of the "AFT"
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)It exposes the underbelly of the ruling AFT clique.
That union COULD have been a firewall against privatization, profiteering, de-professionalization of the workforce and corporate "reform" in all its manifestations over the last 10 years.
Under Weingarten and the crew, it chose not to get in the way.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)They were installed specifically to push for privatization, etc. So their role was much more active than staying out of the way.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I admit, I haven't really seen a path to victory for him up to now, but the sheer brilliance of losing endorsement after endorsement, it all makes sense now.
iandhr
(6,852 posts)... then why does this poll say that AFT members favor Clinton to Sanders 67-19.
http://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/memo_presidentialsurvey2015.pdf
Sorry about entering facts into your anti-Clinton rants.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)My sister's boyfriend's cousin says he didn't get called or polled so it must be faked.
iandhr
(6,852 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)a phone survey that sought to reach better than 50% of the membership and a poll using standard research methods are less reliable because 3,000 people (of questionable membership ... See the profiles of some of the signers) sign a petition?
This is sad ... and doubly so for "educators."
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Dues paying members have a right to have a say in who supports them. The press release gave the impression that 1 million members weighed in and that is false. Therein lies the *actual* problem.
iandhr
(6,852 posts)done by a leading Democratic polling firm. If there was a vote by the more than 1 million members you think it would have been different. You think the poll had a 48% margin of error?
Oh by the way, Hart Research the company that conducted the poll on behalf of the AFT lists none other than Bernie Sanders as one of its clients.
http://hartresearch.com/clients/
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)A) The questionnaires had not been shared with the membership as promised.
B) The membership was not notified that they could reply on a website as the press release stated.
C) The convention of AFT is later this month I understand, why not wait to discuss it then?
D) The president also sits on the board of TWO Clinton superpacs and did not recuse herself
E) The candidate did not answer all the questions on the questionnaire and no promises were elicited in return for the endorsement so the union actually got zip.
F) The press release itself contained false information that 1 million members had responded. It did NOT state that the endorsement was based solely upon the pol.
There is plenty of reason for dues-paying members to speak up if they did not get a chance to participate in the decision-making. And they are.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)..that would summarize their positions. Hillary did not completely fill hers out, nor where the questionnaires delivered to membership prior to the poll (and still haven't). So the poll was pretty much on name recognition.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)I find that an odd request.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)...from the candidate that they will support the union's issues? Without that, the endorsement is meaningless.
What we know in this case, is that union leadership asked for nothing, and Clinton promised nothing. We know from past history that Weingartner and Clinton both support CommonCore, NCLB, Charter schools, and privatization. I think the vast majority of members oppose that.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)We aren't judging based on that anymore?
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)If the candidate supports my positions, they get my vote.
Unions as an entity don't vote, they endorse. But of course they're going to endorse based on what candidate is going to deliver for them.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Or are you just trying to Correct the Record?
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Everyone wants it both ways...
You seem to be holding a grudge eh?
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)They don't seem to do that. Nor do they seem to hold them to the same standard.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)People are objecting to a process that lacks transparency and verifiable input from the dues paying members. No one is surprised that AFT (and eventually NEA) has endorsed Clinton. NO ONE.
But what all the Bernie detractors on DU are blinding themselves to is that the outcry is over the fact that the press release is not just slightly untrue, it is false. And that the executive board gave away the endorsement to a candidate who not only will not clarify her position, but in fact is intimately linked the reform movement that is killing public education.
This is about teachers who are mad about dirty politics. And Hillary supporters are saying, as usual, "Shut up and get over it." So I would say the standards in your group are not very high.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Yet where is my quid pro quo?
I think you and I just don't agree on much. It's not a big deal.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)But corporations who hire someone for hundreds of thousands of dollars per hour and make gigantic donations to super pacs A-OK?
And to be honest, I assume we disagree, but I can't tell. You never state what you actually stand for. One can only deduce from your actions. That's true of many people here, so you're not alone.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Individuals/unions/corporations should be allowed to advocate for policies they support. Now when you get down to actually donating money through campaign donations and PAC donations I think the system should be re-worked.
- I do not support Citizens United.
- I do not support PACs.
- I do feel that individuals should be allowed to contribute to campaigns and they there should be nothing wrong with "maxing out"... Why are individual people judged for donating to a campaign if they have the money let them.
- I do not like the idea of quid pro quo (one of the reasons I support Sanders) but I also don't think that any politician is in the free and clear here, I don't trust them enough.
Maybe we are more aligned than I thought?
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)We disagree on some points, but not all
- I think all elections should be publicly financed and the election should be limited to less than six months as it is in some countries. The fact that politicians are constantly raising money means they can't do their job. Our system is totally corrupt and will remain so until money is out of politics. That is one of my main issues for the election.
- Until that point, individuals "maxing out" is ok with me but that is why we have limits.
- I do not agree with super pacs in any form. All donations should be made by individuals to candidates and adhere to limits.
- I do not agree with corporations having any say whatsoever. They are business entities and should have no status other than that.
- I think that (in theory) the sole purpose of a union is to represent the interests of the members and is different than a corporation. I think in the political process, workers should have a say over and above any corporation.
- I think that securing the union's interests, in this case teachers, is exactly what union endorsements are supposed to be about. I have no idea why people think that endorsements are somehow owed and are just fundraising efforts. When a candidate supports the issues of the unions and its members, the union endorses them. That is not pay for play. Though of course abuse does happen.
- I think any union that is 100% paid for by the dues of its members cannot act without their input. This is a point of contention on DU because there is some kind of comparison to corporations or even government that elected leaders can make unilateral decisions. Apparently the members of AFT don't agree. Many are arguing against the lack of transparency and honesty in the endorsement, and of course being accused of "union bashing" and sour grapes.
So I'm sure there is a lot more I could say and that if you made it this far into my screed, I thank you. I appreciate open discussion, even though I am wholly guilty of snark on this site.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)You explain that 35 points behind isn't surging. "But Obama was this far behind at this point in the campaign"
You show the polls from this point in the campaign showing Obama was only 9 points behind and had raised competitive anmounts of money. "Doesnt matter! A grass roots movement is going to carry Bernie to victory!"
A union endorses Hillary and not Bernie - "there is something wrong with the endorsement!!!!!11!!11!!11"
You show that a perfectly good scientific poll with random sampling was used to make the endorsement - "But I know a teacher who wasn't polled!!!!!11!!11!!"
Bernie can't raise enough money to be competitive? "Doesnt matter! A grass roots movement is going to carry Bernie to victory!"
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Their going to Twitter the campaign ... there will be OWS-style flash mobs, everywhere!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)there were two discrete activities: a telephone survey (that called 1,000,00 members) and a poll conducted by a recognized and reputable polling firm ... both of which demonstrated consistent results.
It seems many are, intentionally or unwittingly, conflating the two query activities.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)The press release that states that 1 million members were surveyed is false.
AFT has not provided any evidence of that and teachers are calling them out on it. Union members were never asked other than the poll, never notified there was going to be an endorsement, and never given the results of the questionnaires. They are angry that the executive board made a decision without their input. The endorsement is extremely premature and questionable because of the false information.
The argument is about the process, not the outcome. It's been rumored for awhile that both AFT and NEA would endorse Clinton. No one is surprised by that. What is causing all the outcry is the appearance of the president serving her own interests, not the interests of the dues paying members.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)How is the press release false?
Yeah ... OKay.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)All that did was piss off the rank-and-file and when you piss off the rank-and-file union members you're in DEEP shit.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that is the same union that has elected her to represent them as their head ... by wide margins ... since 1990.
I think what you are seeing is what the internet has brought about ... a relatively small group of pi$$ed off folks get attention because those in the majority don't feel the need to take to the internet to express an opinion ... then, another minority group takes that noise as a sign of general disagreement.
iandhr
(6,852 posts)Are you suggesting people whining on the internet doesn't actually translate to political support?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)confuse that whining for anything more than whining ... especially when that whining, after doubling, represents about 2% of the membership ... AND, does not necessary include a single member of the union.
ancianita
(36,064 posts)professionals should sit down now any more than in the past for capitulations to Big Money pressures to transfer tax monies to break professionals through the establishing of non-union charter schools.
There will always be whiners. There will be hand wringers. There will be fighters. But before anyone decides what this largest teachers' union is, let's at least let the issues get clarified, not be too dismissive with some monolithic characterization of the national rank and file.
I reject your interpretation teacher opposition as nothing more than whiners.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)You, clearly, accept the online "whining" of small fraction of the (presumed) membership, over a phone survey of verified members, and the polling of a reputable polling firm.
What possibly can be said? It seems that you are comfortable rejecting opinions that differ from your own based on nothing more than your own opinion.
ancianita
(36,064 posts)for Chicago Teachers in the very well known "Substance," a teacher newspaper by, for and about unionism. I thought I speak from knowing several IFT members who attended this past week's AFT convention, and who also took the temperature of Local Leaders there.
I don't just accept the online "whining," I accept the legitimate online analysis and criticism of rank and file of my union. The whining is actually from the leadership who don't want to fight for the interests of public school funding, expert professional staffing, budgeting or any other factors that affect state and local union contract struggles of teachers. Weingarten's endorsement is the Big Sellout Whine. Weingarten betrayed the very soul of this union.
I'm comfortable rejecting a monolithic portrayal of millions of teachers as "whiners...nothing more." But remember, "comfortable" is the worst label for people who've been, and continue to be, blown around by political winds across this country for over a hundred years. Teachers whine for more support, if anything, as they fight against ignorance from above in Washington, to tax misspending below from sold out corporate boards to dismissive online namecallers of their struggle for fair and productive representation.
You, clearly, accept a convenient blame-the-victim stance over this issue.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)No. I accept verifiable data over the anecdotal and on-line proclamations.
ancianita
(36,064 posts)And yet most teachers know how well paid pollsters' proclamations used for political ends often hugely err -- through precision without accuracy -- in favor of their paymasters.
We all know this, as Karl Rove learned on election night.
Thus, teachers' online proclamations may rightly challenge their leadership. Momentum of adverse opinion is building.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)If I told you that the polling outfit the AFT used ... is, also, under contract with Bernie?
London Lover Man
(371 posts)When the polling represents 0.007% of the union, you know something is not right here.
ancianita
(36,064 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I suspect you know little about polling ... except you accept the results you like and reject those you don't.
ancianita
(36,064 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)ancianita
(36,064 posts)because of the cost and difficulty of getting good random sampling, there have been and will continue to be polling problems. I'm speaking from my graduate experience with statistics and having done social research as an educator.
Millennials are entering adulthood with a whole other mindset than old school two party politics. We can get Nate Silvers and Sam Wangs out-counting Big poll outfits like Gallup and the rest, but not early enough to count teachers.
It's not as if the country's not rich enough -- even union federations -- to afford good sampling development, though. Lower than 1% sample of 1.6 million teachers just isn't acceptable.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Nate and Sam aren't polling...They are aggregating polls performed by others using The Law Of Large Numbers as their guide and coming up with amazingly accurate results.
ancianita
(36,064 posts)I'm aware about their aggregating.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)May I have a citation please?
I couldn't care less about the endorsement. As someone who has done post grad work in political science I do care about the undermining of social science.
The American electorate in a presidential year is around 140,000,000. No pollster is going to contact 14,000,000 people. It's impossible.
ancianita
(36,064 posts)contradict my grad memory.
Every campaign year people get into the representativeness debate. Yet, once leaders gain office, they somehow also fail to represent. Our purpose in understanding and needing representative stats isn't the same as the purposes of stats for those intent on winning.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)We are conflating the empirical with the normative, the "is" "versus the ought to be"...
All I am suggesting is a random sample of 1,000 people using universally recognized controls will yield a rough approximation of what you are trying to measure. The hallmark of the scientific process is that it if an experiment is repeated with the same methodology an experiment will yield the same results. According to the AFT poll Hillary led Bernie 67% -19% with a 4.1% Margin Of Error at a 95% confidence interval. That means if the poll was repeated twenty times it would show in nineteen of them that Hillary Clinton is polling within a range of 63% -71% and Bernie is polling between 15% -23%.
Any pollster using using universally recognized controls should duplicate these finding. If not we can conclude something isn't right...
I would add if you double the sample in this current instance you could have cut the Margin Of Error from about 4% to 2% but given the large gap between the candidates such specificity isn't necessary...
As I said in a previous thread if Senator Sanders believes the poll is flawed he should commission a poll of his own.
ancianita
(36,064 posts)hasn't asked for and doesn't need a separate poll. He's got the list of working class unions that show his support. It's Hillary who needed that rough approximation in order to bolster her working class cred.
I'm the one who WANTS to know the decisions of 1% of the 1.6 million members to be represented in my union's endorsement. I don't want the rough approximations of a politically biased leader telling the nation that my union's rank and file want a pro-charter president.
Representation of the civic mind is what the public 99% want from polls.
Representation of the corporate mind is what the 1% want from polls.
The conflicts about poll processes and results revolve around those unspoken assumptions.
Thanks a lot for your input. 
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)would accept the word of The National Council on Public Polls (http://ncpp.org/?q=node/1)
Here's what they say about sample sizes (and more): http://www.pollingreport.com/ncpp.htm
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)As i have said, ad nauseum and ad infinitum, I wish HRC would just gift BS the AFT endorsement. It would boost the self esteem of BS and his supporters. It would come at the risk of them surrendering their feigned martyrdom though.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)quarrelling with the results by denouncing the standard and universally accepted methodology.
That seems dishonest.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)In the battle between passion and reason bet on passion.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But rather, for it to appear and dominate the discussion.
ancianita
(36,064 posts)I'm aware that he uses them, that they're a big deal. Still, it's such a big country that it's hard to accurately map new movements with accuracy.
I'd trust Pew more as a better polling outfit that does better sampling; but I haven't seen them do political polling.
ancianita
(36,064 posts)This particular membership has every right to question her representation of their interests. They've voted for her, thinking that she'd stay in touch with their interests, but this move shows that they need a new leader now, so let's not go there by saying "they get the leadership they deserve."
I'll let the "noise" comment pass with just this: teachers don't make noise.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)ancianita
(36,064 posts)And where are you going with this?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)As I know nothing about this union.
So ... am I to understand, she has stood for election, twice, in 15 years?
That seems inplausible. I will research it 9n my own.
ancianita
(36,064 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I wonder how that endorsement was issued ... and why there was no apparent out cry of unfairness.
No ... I think we both know what this is all about ... Bernie supporters are having an internet sad, loudly.
ancianita
(36,064 posts)endorsement means that union leadership play into the charter transition to eventual privatizing -- outsourcing of state tax money, if you will -- of the last publicly run institution, much as the military has been since WWII.
We need better union leadership. Weingarten had good fight cred for class size but has capitulated to a pro-corporate, fake populist candidate. Even if Hillary is most qualified, she will abandon teachers' unions to their 50 ongoing state fights for union contract negotiation standing and every other ALEC-based trick governors and their corporate owners will use to break unions.
I wonder if there's a whisper promise to make her buddy Secretary of Education.
If teachers unions go, America officially becomes a company town.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)when the AFT endorsed her in 2008 ... yet, there was no perceivable objection to the union's endorsement.
ancianita
(36,064 posts)and for probably the same reasons they should have reserved endorsements for Hillary now.
But Weingarten has hung with big money spenders who want to throw out rank and file control of national education issues. She's benignly looked on at rank and file's state battles for bargaining rights and barely heard criticisms of charter school creep.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)ancianita
(36,064 posts)ancianita
(36,064 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Regards,
TWM
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)away any leverage it might have had over Clinton's education policy. The NEA did the same thing for Obama and got in return exactly what AFT will get from Clinton. In both cases the fix was in at the top and the membership was irrelevant. The financial elite, the leadership of the teacher's unions, and both political parties have sold public education out. Fuck all of them.
ancianita
(36,064 posts)Their abdication of responsibility to represent at the national level makes tens of thousands of teachers despair when they're not exhausted from doing their jobs.
One hardly ever sees Weingarten appear to visibly support state legislature or locals' contract struggles.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)A huge factor in their endorsement process is making the safest bet on which candidate has the best chance to defeat the regressive Republican party who is foaming at the mouth to dismantle public schools? I'm sure they love Bernie too, but they see the poll numbers and they jump to save their own asses from republican extinction. Which is completely understandable.
ancianita
(36,064 posts)They could have given their party's opponents time to prove themselves to those who are at the heart of public schools.
If you and others here think that a pro-charter corporatist has public schools' or teaching professionals' union interests at heart, you are out of touch with what the issues are for both the public and unions in this election.
No fair hearing was given to Bernie for his plans for public education or teaching professionals' unions. This is an attempt to secure more of the women's vote, women who look at Bernie as at least as solid a feminist as Hillary.
This is a desperate move for BFF's Randi an Hillary, and this endorsement is to bolster populist credibility in Hill's donor list.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Yes, there were hearings, all candidates had an individual meeting.
ancianita
(36,064 posts)Weingarten's people reported that when they asked 1150 people on the telephone, about 400 respondents said they would vote for Hillary, then their official statement claims a 3-1 vote for Hillary.
Add the fact of Weingarten being on the board of Hill's campaign superPAC with the fact that out of
1.6 million members, and the sampling was bullshit.
Take a look at samples of media responses closer to teacher opinion.
http://badassteachers.blogspot.com/2015/07/did-aft-rank-and-file-really-endorse.html
http://www.substancenews.net/sections.php?section=459
https://www.the74million.org/article/dissent-in-the-ranks-aft-rushes-to-endorse-hillary-clinton-then-endures-online-backlash
ancianita
(36,064 posts)