SEARCH
Union Voters Made Up One-Third of Ohio, Rhode Island Voters
 |
|
Union voters made up 34 percent of Ohio’s voters in last night’s Democratic primary, according to exit polls, and 31 percent of the vote in Rhode Island’s Democratic primary.
More than 3 million voters came out in Ohio, of whom more than 2 million voted in the Democratic primary. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) won Ohio 54–44 over Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). Union voters supported Clinton by a 55–43 margin over Obama.
In Rhode Island, Clinton won a strong 58–40 victory over Obama, with union voters breaking for her 59–40.
The strong union turnout helped fuel another record-breaking night in yesterday’s primaries, which included Texas and Vermont, where exit polls did not include questions about union membership.
In Texas, more than 2.8 million came out to vote in the Democratic primary, in which Clinton won a 51–48 victory over Obama. The participation in the Texas Democratic primary, notes Ed Sills of the Texas AFL-CIO, is near or above the total Democratic vote in the 2004 general election, and both Clinton and Obama individually earned more votes than all Republicans combined.
As of this morning, Obama was ahead in the Texas caucus, which was held after polls closed. Texas appoints some delegates through its primary and some through the caucus. He won a 60–38 victory in Vermont.
With both candidates winning delegates, the Democratic race is expected to continue for at least six more weeks. The next contests are set for Wyoming this Saturday, March 8, and in Mississippi on March 11.
Meanwhile, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) clinched the Republican presidential nominations yesterday with landslide wins over former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. Huckabee dropped out of the race last night. McCain will accept the official endorsement of President Bush today.
Earlier this week, McCain said in a Wall Street Journal interview he strongly supports Bush’s proposals to privatize Social Security. AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said this is another reason McCain is the wrong candidate to turn America around for working families.
Just yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported Sen. McCain favors taking another stab at Bush’s failed plan to privatize Social Security funds, even though working families roundly rejected plans to risk their Social Security checks on privatization schemes. Sen. McCain’s proposal to gamble with Social Security is evidence that he’s dangerously out of touch with working people’s everyday lives. Sen. McCain’s Social Security privatization scheme was a bad deal for America’s workers when he pushed it in 2000 and it’s an even worse deal now. Working families need fresh vision and a new economic direction, not more of the same failed Bush-McCain economic agenda.
Twelve unions affiliated with the AFL-CIO have endorsed Clinton: AFSCME, AFT, Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU), Bricklayers (BAC), Letter Carriers (NALC), Machinists (IAM), Office and Professional Employees (OPEIU), Painters and Allied Trades (IUPAT), Sheet Metal Workers (SMWIA), TCU/IAM, Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE) and United Transportation Union (UTU).
Obama has been endorsed by the Boilermakers (IBB), the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU), the Plumbers and Pipe Fitters (UA), the Transport Workers (TWU) and the Utility Workers (UWUA).
Huckabee received the Republican primary endorsement of the IAM and IUPAT.
The Communications Workers of America (CWA) and the UAW have announced they will not make endorsements during the primary season. The Fire Fighters (IAFF) union, which endorsed Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), has not announced a new endorsement, nor have the Mine Workers (UMWA) and United Steelworkers (USW), who endorsed former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.).
In August, the AFL-CIO Executive Council said it would not yet make an endorsement for a 2008 presidential candidate, freeing AFL-CIO unions to endorse candidates for the caucuses and primaries. The AFL-CIO will continue the Working Families Vote 2008 campaign to help elect a worker-friendly Congress and president.
______________________________
Paid for by AFL-CIO Committee on Political Education Political Contributions Committee, www.aflcio.org, and not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.
 |
Become a Fan on Facebook |  |
Follow Us on Twitter |  |
Subscribe to YouTube |  |
Subscribe to Blog RSS | ||||
1 Comment
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Just call me an average Joe.
After working on the same job for 37 years I retired in 2003.
The work I did was usually outdoors. It was heavy-duty; lots of lifting, climbing, bending and stooping…and it was dangerous.
My job was insulated from the menace of NAFTA and other phony so-called “free” trade agreements. My union negotiated good health care and pension benefits and I now live in relative security. Thank God I had a union to protect me!
All around us, however, in state after state we see the devastating effects of anti-worker trade schemes. When it comes to employment security too many workers have dropped like flies. They have been abandoned by a mentality that values profits over people. We are told it is inevitable…that globalization cannot be stopped.
Who wants to stop it? International trade is good. But let someone – anyone – try to tell you that the well-being of workers has to be sacrificed in the process and you can bet everything you still own that that person is on the take.
Which brings me to the gist of my letter: There are myths of the Clinton Administration that often conflict with reality. The realities are more evident with each passing day. They show themselves every time corporate America sends another job to a country where workers are exploited as a matter of routine.
Thanks to NAFTA, WTO, CAFTA, and all the other horribly-flawed trade schemes that were jammed down our throats by horribly-flawed Members of Congress, and thanks to generous corporate financing of political campaigns, U.S. workers have been sold out. Our necks are on the chopping block. Who is responsible for our precarious position? The very Congress that is sworn to promote the general welfare of we the people, that’s who! Bill and Hillary pushed NAFTA and Bill and Hillary have defended NAFTA…until recently. Now Hillary is saying NAFTA has to be changed. Talk about a day late and a dollar short! (Or should that be millions of jobs short?)
There’s more, there’s more. As of the Texas debate with Obama she has finally seen the error of her ways for voting yes on the war on Iraq. Several years late and a good excuse short!
Then there is the so-called “welfare to workfare partnership” she heralds as one of her hubby’s crowning achievements. While the phrase “welfare to workfare” may appeal to anti-welfare antagonists (and it should be noted that no mention is made about the billions and billions of dollars in corporate welfare) what is the reality? Well, for one thing, the “partnership” provided a steady stream of subjugated, low wage workers to businesses. Because they are ripe for exploitation they are being exploited!
The whole “welfare fix” that began with Republicans – but soon spread to Republicrats – carries with it societal implications that have proven less than “family values” friendly. (More information on this issue is available in the book “The Missing Class” by Katherine S. Newman and Victor Tan Chen.)
Lastly, let’s examine the immigration issue. Since the passage of NAFTA, workers in Mexico have been devastated. Out of need to feed their families, Mexican workers migrate north.
Wham! They are immediately scapegoated! And there is no end to claims about the drain immigrants are on our economy. Almost without exception those claims lack merit. They are little more than a “divide and conquer” strategy that bosses have used to pit worker against worker for eons. Sadly, far too many workers fall prey to those lies. It is a clear case of workers turning their backs on fellow workers. While doing so they allow themselves to become the dupes – wittingly or unwittingly – of pro-NAFTA corporate moguls and their apologists in Congress.
What, exactly, have the Clintons done that benefits any segment of the working class? I’ve wracked my brain but could not think of one thing.
Why, then, are some working class people enamored with Hillary?
Unfortunately, the color of skin still divides people. Racism is alive and well in the U.S. It is both immoral and self-defeating. (Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face!) Frankly, I cannot understand why any worker would give Hillary as much as a second thought. (Please don’t interpret that to mean I would vote for McCain. I wouldn’t vote for him even if they were giving away $1000 per vote.)
Having turned 67 yesterday you might say I’ve been around the block a time or two. I’ve heard so many political platitudes, broken promises, and other hokie-doke that I now have cauliflower ears. Give me a break!
Should there be a doubting-Thomas in the audience, you are encouraged to visit the Democratic Leadership Council’s website. Read the program the DLC espouses. Follow the link to the Progressive Policy Institute. Read its stuff too. You’ll discover an agenda that promises much but delivers little. The DLC is Hillary and Bill’s neoliberal think tank.
A final thought: Labor fakers who support Clinton are part of the problem. They would rather be invited to an inaugural ball instead of representing their ranks and file. They are the same fakers who stood by when the Clintons were shafting American workers with NAFTA.