Letters to the Editor
-
Union Efforts in Big State Primaries Mean Nothing in the General Election
Hillary Clinton's basic argument why she, the person with less votes, should be awarded the Democratic nomination is that that she has defeated Barack Obama in obtaining the supposedly key demographic: the white, uneducated vote in large states. But this reasoning is based on a fallacy. Democratic parties in big states have much more potent (read well funded) union political operations than those in small states. One of the main reasons why Clinton has won in these states is that political leaders, who are indebted to the Clintons over the last 16 years, have pulled in the union chips and the unions are out campaigning for Clinton to pay those debts. But after the primaries, the debt is expunged and local political cronies and unions no longer rule the day. At the two California Democratic conventions I attended as a delegate, the numbers, money and juice of the unions for the weak, forgettable Phil Angelides was awesome. But Angelides got annihilated in the general by Arnold Schwarzenegger - including getting killed in the white, uneducated, male union vote.
Hillary's reason to overturn democracy is based on crony intraparty politics that gives virtually no advantage in the general election. For goodness sake, Pennsylvania organizers demand to be paid! That won't happen in the general election and union organizing will mean jack squat for the Democratic nominee. Non-union get out the vote, progressive internet fund raising and organizing and media spin and dominance are much bigger elements of victory in general elections than union efforts. Plus there is a rather obvious aspect to the union/white uneducated advantage - many union members who obey the local and give out flyers in the primaries vote Republican anyway.