Unions are spending resources in Ohio. SEIU for example has a major organizing drive in Cinncinnati among janitors and its health care divisions are doing major organizing among health care workers. To quote your own Monthly Review:
"District 1199 in particular has an unmatched record of new organizing in Ohio, winning almost all of the many union elections it files for and devoting more of its resources to organizing (some 50 percent) than almost any other union."
So you think SEIU should divert resources from those organizing campaigns to a single payer campaign that is likely to lose, given that voters rejected previous initiatives in California and Oregon and Ohio is not presently known as a radically more progressive place than California?
Or should unions in general divert resources from the Ohio minimum wage initiative that is moving toward the ballot this fall? Unions and groups like ACORN are plannign to target working class communities in Ohio this election, but they are choosing a vehicle like minimum wage that has a documented history of succeeding.
Politics is about choices in use of resources. Unions and their allies have made the judgement that minimum wage and fair share health care are two of the best strategies to make advances for working people this year. And there are campaigns supporting both of them in states across the country.
Do the single payer advocates really think it would be better to drop resources for those two campaigns and divert them to a single payer fight that has little chance of success?
Nathan Newman