DSB

DSB

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Bernie Sanders, on Thursday, welcomed the endorsement of the Communications Workers of America. CWA's endorsement comes after tens of thousands of members participated in an online vote that lasted six weeks.
http://www.opednews.com/populum/page.php?f=Communications-Workers-of-by-Press-Release-Bernie-Sanders-2016-Presidential-Candidate_Campaign-Endorsements_Union-Endorsement-151217-983.html

Many unions traditionally support candidates during Democratic primaries, but not all of them poll their members the way CWA did.

nor for that matter what power was exerted by the leadership of the Communication workers. The fact is the very same thing happened in both cases, in one we heard how awful and unqualfied the person who was hired must have been DESPITE HER DOING THE VERY SAME JOB FOR TWO DEMOCRATIC SENATORS and in the other we heard crickets.

I'm not sure if PP has literal members. The point is CWA did poll its members. they didn't have to back leadership on this - they were specifically asked. Much like Democracy For America. Howard Dean asked the group he started to endorse Hillary - but members voted otherwise.

...impacted them most in their everyday lives."

Those would be the issues that Hillary Bernie and Martin all care deeply about also I believe. Whether or not you believe that Hillary cares about them more strongly than do Bernie or Martin (I don't but that is in the realm of opinion) there is nothing in what you posted that suggest that those grassroots forums directly sought direction from those grassroots attendees as to whether PP should endorse one Democratic contender over the others, breaking 100 years of precedent, and if so which one.

I get emails all the time because I give money, and I got the email announcing the choice.

the announcement.

Hat off to you.

A tip of the hat for you sir.

1) Resigned from position to work for a new cause he believed in. His former organization followed up by polling its members who chose to endorse Bernie.

2) Hired an organization's President's daughter, followed by subsequent endorsement by the organization's President. No member polling was done.

It takes a special brand of partisan blinders to think there is any reasonable comparison between the two.

just happened to run an endorsement process that rebounded to the candidate paying him money and that is so different, give me an ever loving break.

There was a membership poll.

and there was no conflict with haliburton either, after all, cheney resigned.

There was no significant number of people in the CWA who'd have preferred HRC. She isn't the automatic choice of anyone who happens to be female.

What possible reason would HRC, the much more conservative overall(and therefore automatically much less pro-labor)candidate have deserved the CWA endorsement? She has never been there for labor.

+1 for exposing the hypocrisy.

Sanders and how the "corporate media" was part of the vast conspiracy to make him lose, the freaking COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA endorsed him. I guess I was the only person that caught that.

...and being an ABC executive who decides if "World News Tonight" will run stories about Bernie Sanders.

Executives don't belong to unions.

The people who decide what stories will be run on the flagship TV news shows are managers.

And everyone in a newsroom contributes to what stories are aired.

Edit: I just went to one of the associated groups and it completely disproves your point:

Don't know what else I can do.

you could repost it and bold those who are in supervisory roles.

in my post to that other poster, the fact that you "cannot see them" is pretty precious.

and calling them facts. There are plenty of editors and correspondents who are not in managerial positions.

In fact, the small press where I work has only one managing editor, any of the other employees whose duties include editing are not in supervisory positions.

And there are plenty of editors and correspondents who ARE managers. Many top level correspondents assign stories to themselves.

Please be forewarned, as absolutely stimulating as this conversation is, you won't be getting any more of my time on it. So I hope this was worth the trouble for you.

- Unions have endorsed in the primaries before. Planned Parenthood never before endorsed in a primary in its 100 year history.

- Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State called the TPP "the gold standard." Unions oppose the TPP. Bernie Sanders didn't endorse a policy which Planned Parenthood opposes.

You have to understand, the kind of folks who will throw BLM under the bus and call them every name in the book (an organization trying to save the lives of black people inappropriately killed by police) and then reverse course without missing a beat when one BLM leader endorsed Bernie and who also attacked Planned Parenthood, one of the greatest pro-women organizations in the country, for the sin of not endorsing Bernie, well, they aren't level headed enough to take in what you are saying.

All in one, near intelligible, poorly constructed run-on hyperbolic sentence.

a telephone town hall.

Members, like online polling, not scientific.

He is a man. If it had been a female I would have written led by a woman. The fact is the union was led by Cohen's hand picked successor. Then the union endorses the candidate who hired Cohen. I honestly don't care about either endorsement but I do care about hypocrites who are raking PP over the coals and wishing for them to lose funding over this (which would literally kill women BTW) while having no words to say about this endorsement.

I might even partially agree with you about double standards regarding endorsements.

aspect of that. Somehow I think if it were a group that favored an issue that these Bernie voters cared about there would be no call for defunding.

That's one reason many are upset or at keast annoyed by it. They support PP and resent that an organization they support thumbed its nose at them in terms of the election.

Newsflash -- Many of those Sanders supporters are females who actually do care deeply about women's issues

again, not one word about this endorsement but go ahead and let woman die, and god forbid we mention gender.

I would actually agree that there is some element of a double standard of any candidate' support getting upset by an endorsement of the opponent while welcoming an endorsement of their own candidate.

I'll also admit that in this case I plead guilty to that. The PP endorsement pisses me off. I like to think I have an objective reason for that. I don't think a public issue organization should choose sides in races where all of the candidates support their positions. ...But yeah, I might not feel the same if they had endorsed Sanders....Or I'd probably would have mixed feelings.

But equating that with sexism or apathy about women's health or even condoning murder is just pure unadulterated bullshit. That has far less credibility than your claim about caring about the hypocrisy.

Thios argument makes me wonder how some Clinton supporters might respond if PP had endorsed Sanders....under the bus I suspect.

I haven't complained about a single, solitary endorsement of Sanders, Kerry, Obama, or anyone else. It should be noted, I posted not one word about this endorsement until the utter rank hypocrisy of the PP endorsement came up. BTW PP has endorsed in every single election for President since at least 2000.

It's cowshit to imply that only a female president would passionately fight for choice. No centrists ever passionately fight for anything, as far as that goes. Being a centrist means not caring deeply about things.

There is no gender gap among CWA members...they all want the most progressive candidate possible.

Since HRC has never been pro-labor(you can't be pro-labor if you defend NAFTA) there was never any possibility that CWA would endorse HRC.

There was never any strong pro-HRC feeling in the CWA rank-and-file.

because reasons. BTW Hillary has more union endorsements than Bernie does.

Never in the history has PP been involved in endorsing a candidate in a Primary. Why did they chose to do so in this one?
Because HRC is falling in the Polls. She barley beats the Republican candidates and has huge negative rating even among Democrats.
When people have a chance to hear and see Sanders they favor him over HRC. The only reason Hillary leads nationally is because of name recognition. She has been running for President since 2006.

PP did this to boost HRC period. It clearly shows the Clinton Camp is panicking.

DSB

Correcting the record.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2004#Dean_emerges_as_front-runner

In Super Tuesday, March 2, Kerry won decisive victories in the California, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, and Rhode Island primaries and the Minnesota caucuses. Dean, despite having withdrawn from the race two weeks earlier, won his home state of Vermont. Edwards finished only slightly behind Kerry in Georgia but, failing to win a single state, chose to withdraw, making Kerry the presumptive nominee. President Bush called Senator Kerry to congratulate him that evening.

On March 11, after meetings with Democratic superdelegates in Washington, D.C., and former primary election opponents, Kerry accumulated the 2,162 delegates required to clinch the nomination. The DNC's website acknowledged him as the party's nominee at that time, four and a half months prior to the Convention.

It claimed that never in history had PP endorsed someone during primary season.

That's not true. And somehow concluding that because they endorsed Clinton early it is a sign of desperation is simply speculation.

Technically PP endorsed Kerry while there were still some Primaries, Kerry was already nominated so the Primaries were technically over.

declared the candidate. Once a candidate has been endorsed by the DNC, primary season ins over.

So yes. PP has never, in its history, endorsed a candidate prior to the end of primaries.

PP endorsed Kerry after he was the Democratic Nomination for President. Please pay attention to history. We all can learn from it.

the endorsement was the presumptive nominee.

I said in a Primary.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/265112-planned-parenthood-picks-hillary-for-dem-race


They gave Kerry the endorsement after Super Tuesday when it was clear Kerry was the nomination. March 11, 2004 there was a meeting with the super delegates and the candidates and when it was presented that Kerry had the delegates to nominate him, the DNC made the announcement that Kerry was the Democratic nomination.

PP didn't endorse Kerry until April 24, 2004 more than a month later.

http://www.lifenews.com/2004/04/24/nat-469/


Try again.

Wonder why one is so bad and the other one good?