There is an interesting article on The Huffington Post. The premise of the article is that the reason Martha Coakley lost was due to lack of union support, more accurately, the democrats not utilizing the unions to their benefit.
"Data points provided independently to the Huffington Post show that union voters in Massachusetts were 15 percentage points more likely to vote for Attorney General Martha Coakley if they simply had been asked"
They need to be asked? "Coakley won union voters who had heard from their union by 10 points, while losing those who said they had not heard from their union by 5 points."
This is from data collected by the AFL-CIO. I am very surprised that they want to be so open about the fact that the members of these unions are just sheep who don't have minds of their own.
One must also question how they know so much about how their members voted. Are the people volunteering this information? It seems that after every election the unions have detailed data. This raises a very red flag for me. I personally don't have a problem telling someone who I am voting for, but I know plenty of people who do.
The article goes on to say that had Coakley's campaign reached out to the unions they would have mobilized for her. Didn't they know there was an election? It certainly got a great deal of coverage the last two weeks. I can only imagine how many commercials were on television during the last few weeks.
Music for the Electorate
2 minutes ago