> Democrats support the Jones Act because their core constituents do.

I bet 99% of their constituents don't even know what the Jones act is or would be perfectly willing to change it.

> I bet 99% of their constituents don't even know what the Jones act is or would be perfectly willing to change it.

That's a bold claim. On what are you basing the assumption that many or most Democrats would be willing to change the Jones Act, if they knew what it was?

No more bold than their constituents support it. I suspect that neither of us has viscerally satisfactory direct evidence for their respective positions.

> No more bold than their constituents support it. I suspect that neither of us has viscerally satisfactory direct evidence for their respective positions.

It's not particularly bold to assume that convincing Democratic voters to repeal an obscure law that the AFL-CIO vehemently supports is an uphill battle.

Leadership in many old-line unions and democratic groups is been in sharp contrast with the wants and needs of constituent representation. The most obvious example of this is the recent teachers strikes which were 'wildcat' in that they occurred without formal union leadership blessing.

> Leadership in many old-line unions and democratic groups is been in sharp contrast with the wants and needs of constituent representation. The most obvious example of this is the recent teachers strikes which were 'wildcat' in that they occurred without formal union leadership blessing.

There is literally zero evidence that members of AFL-CIO unions oppose the AFL-CIO's persistent lobbying in favor of the Jones Act. There's plenty of evidence to the contrary, namely (1) the fact that it serves their own interests, and (2) the fact that there has been zero opposition to it over the last century that the AFL-CIO has supported it (in contrast to the example you site).