If you are one of the million plus teachers that were never asked which candidate to endorse for president, you are not alone.
American Federation of Teachers has 1.6 million members and has polled a scant 1150. With this minute poll, they have gone public with a presidential candidate endorsement, over a year before any election.
Their members are furious and demanding a withdrawal of their alleged endorsement of a candidate they were never consulted about.
This is NOT a statistically fair poll.
Gadly on the wall blog states:
“I have nothing against Hillary Clinton.
Heck! I might even vote for her in the coming Presidential race. Maybe…
But the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) endorsement of the former First Lady is strange in many ways.
First, it’s awfully early. The initial Democratic primaries aren’t scheduled for half a year yet – February of 2015 to be exact. And the general election isn’t until Nov. 8, 2016 – more than a year away.
Second, the manner in which this endorsement was reached is somewhat mysterious.
This much seems certain:
1) The AFT executive board invited all of the candidates to meet with them and submit to an interview. No Republican candidates responded.
2) Democrats including Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley and Clinton were interviewed in private.
3) The executive committee voted to endorse Clinton.
4) NOW the interviews are scheduled to be released to the public.
This is a perplexing timetable. Why would the AFT endorse BEFORE releasing the interviews? Ostensibly, the executive council used these interviews to help make its decision. Shouldn’t that same information have been available to rank and file members of the union before an endorsement was made?
Which brings up another question: were AFT members asked AT ALL about who to endorse before the executive council made the final decision?”
Weingarten tries to claim it is an “inclusive” poll. Seriously?
http://www.aft.org/node/10445.
California resident Tina Andres states:
“I need to tell you that I spent four hours of my life searching for one person that actually took the AFT poll. Yes, this is because they surveyed 1150 people. I am fortunate that I found one person. They did everything by the book, the statistical sample represents approximately a margin of error of 4%. I am not certain that the people who took the poll realized what the results of the survey were to be used for. I am also certain that this is NOT the best method for making an endorsement for a union, they have better communication methods than this. I am also certain that there was absolutely no reason at all to endorse this early except for my strongly held belief that Randi assured Hillary of this endorsement in exchange for a Cabinet position. The whole thing stinks to high heaven.”
It sure does stink.
http://sullio.blogspot.com/2015/07/calling-hillary-clinton-question.html?m=1
How did Weingarten do this? A poll of .0007% for a presidential endorsement is an embarrassment.
Want to know how they pulled this off? This sums it up.
http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/archives/entry/op-ed_serving_up_a_preferred_candidate/#.VaGBlqQgGsB.
Did Weingarten think no one would notice this? Does she take teachers for blind sheep?
Guess what? They noticed. Check out their reaction.
And they made a mistake. Weingarten screwed up.
Read here;
http://perdidostreetschool.blogspot.com/2015/07/aft-throws-away-leverage-by-endorsing.html?m=1
When did any policy even remotely resembling a smidgen of democratic fairness get thrown by the wayside for politics?
http://reverbpress.com/politics/aft-endorsement-clinton-shows-lack-democratic-process/
http://bigeducationape.blogspot.com/2015/07/randi-weingarten-survey-of-aft-members.html?m=1
This isn’t a knock on Clinton. What Weingarten did here was wrong and shady, regardless of the candidate.
Education activist Ken Previti states:
“The AFT executive board decided on the endorsement. “Multiple surveys—reaching more than 1 million members” does not mean that they were all asked specifically about endorsing Hillary. The inference is expertly written, as expected of good quality propaganda, and spun. Shame on AFT leadership!”
It is conceivable that teachers would want to pick their own candidate to vote for and endorse.
Isn’t it also conceivable to AFT that teachers will look for a candidate who is against common core and the federal and political control of our schools and their jobs? How can that be discounted?
Where are the public debates and real representative proportions? The mere notion of democracy in politics today has died a painful death.
Kevin Glynn, Lace to the Top, states it best;
“@HillaryClinton may have won an endorsement, but @rweingarten has lost a union.”
While some teachers may vote for Clinton, not one wants to be told they will, and have, endorsed a candidate they have never even been asked about. Shame on Aft. AGAIN.
stopcommoncorenys 