Are unions that don't support Obama really just "special interest" groups?

[Clintonista2]

Poll question: Are unions that don't support Obama really just "special interest" groups?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Push-poll much?

[sniffa]

3. another day, another push poll

i think i'll go start one. :think:

[Occam Bandage]

2. Present. Unions are special-interest groups.

Not all special interests are malign interests.

To select either answer would be misleading. Unions are not evil, but they are special interest groups. Therefore, I vote 'present.'

It's kind of interesting how the anti-Obama push polls actually tend to demonstrate how "present" is often the best vote.

[Andy823]

4. No they are not

The same as the "special interest" groups that run D.C., and I think this whole thing Obama has started will come back to bite him in the butt! I don't know who's idea this was to go after Edwards and make such a stink out of the two 527's that have come out, but it was a terrible idea. I keep hearing about the "negative" ads, but have yet to see one Obama supporter post a link to anything negative. These unins have a right to do what they are doing, and just becuase they don't support Obama does not make them some kind of "special interest" group!

[Igel]

5. They may not be a corporate "special interest" or "Israeli special interest",

but they represent their members, or, rather, a plurality of their membership (perhaps a majority, but that's not necessarily a valid claim)--not all Americans.

They are all special interest groups. AIPAC is one. Greenpeace is another. So's PETA and the American Enterprise Institute, the AFL-CIO and the lobbyists that represent ATT and Exxon. The University of California Students Association is yet another special interest group, as are the UC Regents.

Each group represents a subset of the American population, sometimes a very small one--the Exxon lobbyists presumably represent a plurality of Exxon shareholders, no more than that, while Greenpeace represents a plurality of its membership. They may claim to represent everybody, but if a group goes to Pelosi and says, "We represent the burgeoning membership of the XYZ organization, currently at 18 people," Pelosi will find some pressing papercut issue to deal with. The graduate teaching assistant union I paid dues to in '89 and '90 represented not me per se, but a plurality of the people that voted for the union's officers; it did not represent the students that we taught, nor the graduate students that weren't currently teaching--in fact, a couple of the positions it took worked against the majority of the grad students.

[madrchsod]

6. that`s one of the most obnoxious polls i have seen on du

just because the illinois 31 does`t support hillary you cast dispersions on it`s membership which my wife is a member of and much to my dismay is voting for hillary.

[Clintonista2]

8. actually, this has nothing to do with Hillary

This is about the Obama-Edwards thing. Edwards is in the right on this one.

[oasis]

7. Unions back Hillary because they see a winner. The clock punching class

have little patience with candidates who try to sell them "pie-in-the-sky".

[Freddie Stubbs]

9. Every group is a 'special interest,' regardless of who they support

[n2doc]

14. Bingo! n/t

[Beacool]

10. I find it interesting that of the three front-runners,

Obama wins the least union support. While Edwards and Clinton receive the most support from working class people and those in unions, Obama's main demographic are college kids and the upper middle class. Man of the people? I think not...........

[TeamJordan23]

11. What are unions down to, like 7-9% now? nm

[calteacherguy]

12. It's not about the unions, it's about the union members.

I am often at odds with my union on political choices.

[MNDemNY]

13. And racist, to boot!!

[Hippo_Tron]

15. All unions are special interest groups

And I have no problem with special interest groups. Just don't think that they should be allowed to contribute to candidates.