Clinton’s underperformance among union households came after labor groups launched a massive campaign to fight Trump. | Getty | Getty Unions investigate their poor showing for Clinton

Organized labor is searching for answers after union households failed to turn out for Hillary Clinton despite a massive voter mobilization effort -- a sharp departure from decades of union support for Democratic presidential candidates.

The assumption is that Donald Trump's positions on trade resonated strongly with union members, particularly those in blue-collar jobs. But union leaders are looking at exit polls for a deeper dive into the reasons.


Nationally, Clinton outperformed Trump among union households by just 8 percent, the smallest Democratic advantage since Walter Mondale’s failed campaign against Ronald Reagan in 1984. For a more recent perspective, President Barack Obama won union households by 18 percent in 2012.

Clinton’s poor performance among union households appeared to especially damage her in crucial Midwestern states. Obama won Ohio in 2012, besting Romney in those households by 23 percentage points. Clinton actually lost Ohio’s union households to Trump by 9 points, according to exit polls. The state went to Trump.

Michigan would have been an easy victory any other year — Democrats had won the state since 1992 — but it’s currently still too close to call. Exit polls show Clinton holds only a 13 percent advantage among union households there. Obama beat Romney in union households by a whopping 33 percent in 2012. A similar scenario played out in Wisconsin this year, another state that went to Trump.

The AFL-CIO’s political director, Michael Podhorzer, told POLITICO that Clinton “ran a really good campaign” but appears to have lost votes to third-party candidates. Indeed, exit polls showed Trump’s share of union households only rose by 3 percent compared with Romney in 2012.

As for the broader reasons why union households might have spurned Clinton, Podhorzer said, “We’re still digging into that.” He also noted that the AFL-CIO’s internal polling of union members (versus the “union households” surveyed in exit polling data) showed Clinton with a wider lead. Union households have at least one union member. Support for Republican presidential candidates is typically lower among union members than among union households.

.

Podhorzer didn’t think the hacked emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta — filled with labor-related policy gossip — had much of an impact. “I would be surprised if WikiLeaks made it out to rank-and-file union members,” he said.

One person familiar with labor’s ground game speculated the election was more of a “personality contest,” adding, “I would argue that this was not an election that was won or lost on issues and policies.”

But even unions acknowledge that Trump’s message resonated with some members.

Steve Rosenthal, interim political director at SEIU, said Trump’s opposition to trade deals like TPP appealed to voters in the Midwest. “People want somebody in there who is going to be fighting for them on those issues,” Rosenthal said. “We’ll see what he does, whether he’s willing to take a stand and fight for middle class jobs and union jobs.”

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said Trump appealed to some union households with blunt attacks on trade deals, while Clinton used “more nuanced” language. Clinton confronted the same sort of populist rhetoric during her primary election battle with Bernie Sanders. While Sanders ultimately joined hands with Clinton, Weingarten said, “any tough campaign is going to hurt.”

Clinton’s underperformance among union households came after labor groups launched a massive campaign to fight Trump. For Our Future, a super PAC funded by the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of Teachers, AFSCME, the National Education Association and various other labor unions, had nearly 4,000 canvassers and knocked on 9.5 million doors. UNITE HERE spent more than $4 million to register and turnout both union and nonunion members. SEIU reportedly had a budget of $70 million, a good chunk of which went to voter outreach.

The cash-fueled campaign seemed to be working until Tuesday’s astonishing election results. Trump’s support among union members in Florida, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin dropped from 41 percent to 33 percent between June and October, according to the AFL-CIO’s internal polling data.

Richard Berman, executive director of the anti-union Center for Union Facts, said Tuesday’s results demonstrate that “just because someone is in a union doesn’t mean they are a Democrat.” He added that there was more “anti-Democrat voting this year” compared to 2012 “because of the economy and because Obama has screwed it up.”

Michael Saltsman, research director at the conservative Employment Policies Institute, said that “the reduced enthusiasm for Sen. Clinton is emblematic of the disconnect between union leaders and the rank-and-file.”

Clinton faced a number of issues that might have hurt her with union voters throughout the election, from her stance on the Trans-Pacific Partnership to Wall Street ties. Matthew Haller, a senior vice president at the International Franchise Association, said she might have left voters unsure of her positions.

“I think she was trying to have it both ways and ultimately that’s going to muddy your message,” he said.

Larry Cohen, former president of the Communications Workers of America, said union members needed to hear a better core message from Democrats.

“ It is clear that the Democratic party needs to more clearly offer an alternative to corporate power as the basis for their funding and for their economic policy,” he said.