Support NeoGAF

[Yellowtail]

That level of confidence is the exact same that had all liberals saying Hilary is a shoe-in. Suddenly when it's used for a real liberal you guys shudder, for no reason at all except brand loyalty (a brand that is toxic to anyone aware of who she actually is and the things she's said/done).

I haven't heard this much. She's a shoe in for the nomination, and she's on balance favored in the general, but she's certainly not a lock. A lot can happen in 18 months.

Biden are Warren are trailing GOP candidates nationally and in swing states - Clinton is the one person that is making this a Lean D election instead of a tossup right now.

Since so many people seem to be paranoid about voter turnout in post-Obama 2016, do the people who legitimately think that Sanders should win the nomination really think that he'll bring more voters to the polls than Hillary?

Because I sincerely doubt it.

The logic is that millions of liberals who otherwise stay at home will flood to the polls, in the same way many Republicans believe if they nominate a True Conservative like Ted Cruz millions of evangelicals who sat out recent elections will vote. There's no evidence to bare this out though.

Clinton is very popular with every single demographic and ideological constituency of the Democratic party that turn out to vote. It remains to be seen what appeal Sanders has outside of primarily young white men.

 

[KingK]

Bernie Sanders, like Warren, supports GMO labeling. (Sherrod Brown, thankfully, does not.) As someone who grew up in agriculture and who also has little tolerance for anti-science crusades of any sort, that's enough for me not to enthusiastically support him.

I'm not going to be a dick and ostentatiously oppose him, since I think he'll play a very important role in the primary process, but if my two choices are Sanders and Clinton, I'll vote for Clinton.

This just seems ridiculous to me. I think the anti GMO movement is dumb too and think labeling is unnecessary, but it's just labels. I don't see how requiring labels is so bad that it automatically disqualifies him for you. Especially when the person you support instead voted for the Iraq war.

I mean, if that's your top issue, everyone is entitled to their own views and priorities, it just seems bizarre to me.

Since so many people seem to be paranoid about voter turnout in post-Obama 2016, do the people who legitimately think that Sanders should win the nomination really think that he'll bring more voters to the polls than Hillary?

Because I sincerely doubt it.

If he was a bit younger i could see him energizing a whole host of disinterested voters who usually don't show up. His rhetoric certainly speaks to those types in my experience.

Look, i don't have a huge problem voting for Hilary in the general, but i don't see any reason for someone who's as liberal as most in this thread are to support her over Sanders in the primary. He stands no chance against her anyway, so how does it hurt anything to vote for your principals? Shit, poliGAF had been saying for ages "if you want more liberal candidates vote in primaries." Save the strategic voting for the general.

Most likely positive outcome is Sanders has a stronger than expected showing and Hilary carries some of his policies into the general. If by some miracle he beat Hilary, he'd certainly be weaker than her in the general, but I'd say simply by beating Hilary and winning the primary he'd have already proved himself much more electable than people give him credit for. I don't think he'd be D.O.A in the general, but he'd be far from the sure bet Hilary is.

 

[BertramCooper]

This just seems ridiculous to me. I think the anti GMO movement is dumb too and think labeling is unnecessary, but it's just labels. I don't see how requiring labels is so bad that it automatically disqualifies him for you. Especially when the person you support instead voted for the Iraq war.

It's not "just labels." It's labeling with the intent to fear-monger, not to inform. If people are going to push for mandatory labeling, there needs to be scientific proof that foods made from GM crops pose a health risk. There is ZERO proof of it.

I mean, if that's your top issue, everyone is entitled to their own views and priorities, it just seems bizarre to me.

When did I ever say it was my top issue? It's not. But it's still an important issue to me.

 

[Jackson50]

Ehhh, I don't think Dukakis ever had a chance, despite what the huge post-convention polling bump said.



Economically Bush '88 was forecasted to get ~54% of the vote on both GDP growth and per capital income growth measures. Reagan wasn't unpopular. A better candidate than Dukakis might could've lost by less, but Bush had a nearly 8 point margin and electoral college advantage that was rather insurmountable.

Correct. Dukakis was at a considerable disadvantage largely because of the strong economy. Like the model you cited, the numbers for Erikson and Wlezien's model, the most accurate model cycle-to-cycle, indicated that Bush had a decisive advantage.The notion that Dukakis ineptly squandered his lead is specious. Not that he wasn't inept, but that's not what caused his decline in the polls. Rather, the polls eventually converged with Bush's advantage in the fundamentals. King and Gelman have a paper on this election because of the divergence between early polling and the fundamentals.

Yeah this never happened.

Honestly the thing I'm most looking forward to next year in this race is the end to bullshit 2008 revisionism. Although it will probably continue for years to come judging by Republicans who still espouse 1980 folklore that they just need a true conservative like Reagan to landslide everywhere.

The reason why Sanders can't win and why even Warren would struggle massively in the primary is that there simply isn't a broad enough coalition of Democrats that will vote for them. Progressive insurgents historically never win - look at Hart, Bradley, Dean - and the only reason Obama managed it (aside from being a once in a generation political talent running the best primary campaign in modern history) is that he could add traditionally moderate African Americans to his support among upscale white liberals. All polling data shows Sanders and Warren's support utterly craters among minorities.

True. Clinton might have had an early advantage, but Obama was not chopped liver. His performance in endorsements indicates that Democrats viewed him as a viable contender. Although Clinton had a slight lead, Obama was not far behind. Clinton's nomination was far from inevitable. And I believe the race only tightened after this point. Apropos to this cycle, consider Clinton's performance if you think she is even remotely vulnerable. Her current lead is far ahead of her performance in the 2008 primary. When a nominee has this large of an advantage in the invisible primary, they don't lose. The best one can hope for is a bit of excitement like McCain vs Bush in 2000. And the Republican field is wide open. It's been a long time since we had a primary this wide open.

It's not "just labels." It's labeling with the intent to fear-monger, not to inform. If people are going to push for mandatory labeling, there needs to be scientific proof that foods made from GM crops pose a health risk. There is ZERO proof of it.

That's why I oppose them. Labels would only amplify the notion that GMOs are hazardous. They would generate confusion instead of clarity.

 

[KingK]

It's not "just labels." It's labeling with the intent to fear-monger, not to inform. If people are going to push for mandatory labeling, there needs to be scientific proof that foods made from GM crops pose a health risk. There is ZERO proof of it.



When did I ever say it was my top issue? It's not. But it's still an important issue to me.

I agree and have always been opposed to labeling for GMOs. Still seems like a tiny small issue compared to taxation, social safety net, and foreign policy, all of which I'm assuming you agree with Sanders on more than Clinton (if that's an incorrect assumption then my bad. Carry on).

I was just commenting on how weird it is to me that that issue is so important that you can't support Sanders, whereas Hilary voted for the Iraq war (and had been more hawkish in general than a lot of democrats).

 

[Third Strike]

Since so many people seem to be paranoid about voter turnout in post-Obama 2016, do the people who legitimately think that Sanders should win the nomination really think that he'll bring more voters to the polls than Hillary?

Because I sincerely doubt it.

Probably not. Though, I was looking at the politics board on Reddit, and it seems like he is pretty popular over there. Probably has a lot to do with Warren's base rallying around him. He might be what Ron Paul is to Republicans/Libertarians.

 

[B-Dubs]

Probably not. Though, I was looking at the politics board on Reddit, and it seems like he is pretty popular over there. Probably has a lot to do with Warren's base rallying around him. He might be what Ron Paul is to Republicans/Libertarians.

So more popular online than in reality?

 

[Aaron Strife]

PPP takes a trip to Arizona:

Chris Christie's favorability rating with Republicans in Arizona on our poll over the weekend- 22%

Ouch.

Bernie Sanders polling at 16% in Arizona with 3rd place at 5%...the clear #2 in the Dem field now for what it's worth

Bernmentum

 

[Yellowtail]

Poor Biden.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Probably not. Though, I was looking at the politics board on Reddit, and it seems like he is pretty popular over there. Probably has a lot to do with Warren's base rallying around him. He might be what Ron Paul is to Republicans/Libertarians.

lol that is the smallest slice of the democratic base. Few of of us here are actually the base of the party which is women, minorities, the white working class who haven't defected yet.

Liberal middle class white kids which is most of reddit and neogaf isn't what drives the democratic party and its why sanders won't win and Hillary will.

Hell, liberals aren't even the majority of the democratic party

 

[NYCmetsfan]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/595304360248225793

 

[kingkitty]

C'mon Trump, do it for America.

 

[Teggy]

Really no story behind this photo, I just thought it was quite scary looking.

 

[Fenderputty]

Guess who forgot to register their domain this time?

Everything about this is amazing.

Really no story behind this photo, I just thought it was quite scary looking.

Looks like lighting from a 1950's horror flick or something. Just color.

 

[NeoXChaos]

So more popular online than in reality?

lol that is the smallest slice of the democratic base. Few of of us here are actually the base of the party which is women, minorities, the white working class who haven't defected yet.

Liberal middle class white kids which is most of reddit and neogaf isn't what drives the democratic party and its why sanders won't win and Hillary will.

Hell, liberals aren't even the majority of the democratic party

Thank You. Polling shows otherwise Bernie supporters and unless you guys can show us Bernie doing well against ANY of the likely nominees(Walker, Bush, Rubio or Paul) your case for him right now is very weak.

 

[thepotatoman]

Thank You. Polling shows otherwise Bernie supporters and unless you guys can show us Bernie doing well against ANY of the likely nominees(Walker, Bush, Rubio or Paul) your case for him right now is very weak.

There's just no reason to write him off this early for the reason of head to head polling when there's no chance for him to even win the primary.

If you're going to take a strict realistic and strategic stance based on today's polls, then you should know he'll probably never close to winning the primary, but he might have a chance at creating a discussion on full on progressive values that hasn't happened in the mainstream in a very long time. The more support he gets, the more likely he'll be put in positions to promote those values.

To strategically rally against him, you basically have to assume he's an actual threat against Hillary, which as delusional as the Sanders supporters thinking he has a decent chance to become president.

 

[B-Dubs]

There's just no reason to write him off this early for the reason of head to head polling when there's no chance for him to even win the primary.

If you're going to take a strict realistic and strategic stance based on today's polls, then you should know he'll probably never close to winning the primary, but he might have a chance at creating a discussion on full on progressive values that hasn't happened in the mainstream in a very long time. The more support he gets, the more likely he'll be put in positions to promote those values.

To strategically rally against him, you basically have to assume he's an actual threat against Hillary, which as delusional as the Sanders supporters thinking he has a decent chance to become president.

This. At best he'll move Hilary to the left, which is probably his goal in all of this anyway. I love him for doing it, I really do, but we shouldn't pretend he's got a real shot. If Hilary goes down early there's a bunch of people with far better name recognition just waiting to jump in.

Also the head to head polling for the general is useless right now, the GOP candidates have next to no name recognition right now. Those numbers are worse than pointless until after the first GOP debate. Then they'll start showing us some useful trends.

 

[NeoXChaos]

There's just no reason to write him off this early for the reason of head to head polling when there's no chance for him to even win the primary.

If you're going to take a strict realistic and strategic stance based on today's polls, then you should know he'll probably never close to winning the primary, but he might have a chance at creating a discussion on full on progressive values that hasn't happened in the mainstream in a very long time. The more support he gets, the more likely he'll be put in positions to promote those values.

To strategically rally against him, you basically have to assume he's an actual threat against Hillary, which as delusional as the Sanders supporters thinking he has a decent chance to become president.

That is fantastic and I am happy that he will do just but his chances of winning the primary are slim.

 

[NeoXChaos]

This. At best he'll move Hilary to the left, which is probably his goal in all of this anyway. I love him for doing it, I really do, but we shouldn't pretend he's got a real shot. If Hilary goes down early there's a bunch of people with far better name recognition just waiting to jump in.

Also the head to head polling for the general is useless right now, the GOP candidates have next to no name recognition right now. Those numbers are worse than pointless until after the first GOP debate. Then they'll start showing us some useful trends.

Your right on that one. We probably will get some trends leading into the primary season. Besides why do we want to push Hillary left? We criticized the Republicans for pushing Romney too far to the right and we want to do the same with our own nominee? That makes no sense.

 

[B-Dubs]

Your right on that one. We probably will get some trends leading into the primary season. Besides why do we want to push Hillary left? We criticized the Republicans for pushing Romney too far to the right and we want to do the same with our own nominee? That makes no sense.

The fear is that Hilary is far too corporate and one of the major issues facing the country is corporations holding too much power. The idea is that people want her to move a bit to the left on that, it's a popular position among pretty much everyone not in the Tea Party so it's not going to hurt her in the general and if anything it will help. No one wants to turn her into a communist or a socialist or anything too extreme, just a nudge to the left on this one issue is all anyone really wants or expects. In that way it's vastly different than what the Tea Party is doing.

 

[thepotatoman]

That is fantastic and I am happy that he will do just but his chances of winning the primary are slim.

Except you're apparently not into his progressive experiment since you've already said you're voting against him because you think Hillary has a better chance in the general election.

Cool. I am voting for Hillary in the primary.

Bernie Sanders is running an experiment on things like if you can you say "we should be more like Scandinavia when it comes to poverty" on national TV without the public rioting against you for being a communist traitor, so that maybe future democrats wouldn't be so afraid of saying these things.

So by voting against him, strategically your actions only serve to help that experiment become a failure.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Except you're apparently not into his progressive experiment since you've already said you're voting against him because you think Hillary has a better chance in the general election.


Bernie Sanders is running an experiment on things like if you can you say "we should be more like Scandinavia when it comes to poverty" on national TV without the public rioting against you for being a communist traitor, so that maybe future democrats wouldn't be so afraid of saying these things.

So by voting against him, strategically your actions only serve to help that experiment become a failure.

With the Supreme Court on the line and a likely Republican House come 2017, I'd rather the experiment die than to take any chance on him. Push Hillary more to the left if you must but not so much that her chances of winning are diminished.

The Democratic Party have far more problems to worry about than what just progressives are concerned about IMO. Its gonna take more than rhetoric, demographics, words and possibly years to get anything done in Congress again.

 

[jamesinclair]

If I head to Costco to pick up some crow now, will it still be good when I prepare to serve it after Bernie destroys Hillary in the first debate?

That is, when do the debates start?

 

[JesseEwiak]

If I head to Costco to pick up some crow now, will it still be good when I prepare to serve it after Bernie destroys Hillary in the first debate?

That is, when do the debates start?

He might, he might not. So, he might knock Hillary down to 65% instead of 70% in Iowa.

 

[BertramCooper]

I really hope we don't have to endure a full year of Bernie Sanders supporters nagging anyone who dares to vote for Hillary.

 

[thepotatoman]

With the Supreme Court on the line and a likely Republican House come 2017, I'd rather the experiment die than to take any chance on him. Push Hillary more to the left if you must but not so much that her chances of winning are diminished.

The Democratic Party have far more problems to worry about than what just progressives are concerned about IMO. Its gonna take more than rhetoric, demographics, words and possibly years to get anything done in Congress again.

Which just brings me back around to how odd it is for you to argue so much about wanting people to be realistic about Sander's shot, while still thinking he has a chance in the primary, but not chance in the general, all at the same time, before there's enough data to prove any of that.

You were asking for head to head polls earlier, and we don't have head to heads for Sanders yet, but we have Warren at a -2 against Jeb, and -4 against Walker. If she theoretically ran, do you think she could overcome the 50+ point gap against Hillary while staying in the exact same spot or lower in the head to head polls? The only way that would happen is if Hillary fell on her face herself, which would probably bring her head to head numbers down to where Warren's numbers are.

And what unpopular positions do you think Sanders is going to force her to take? We don't even know yet what positions the general public finds too far with Bernie yet. Even if Sanders is somehow too far left while still finding himself actually threatening Hillary, she has such a huge lead she should easily be able to focus test Sander's statements to find where the line of too far left actually is and take a stance that doesn't hurt her in the general, and satisfies progressives. It's been so long since the line of "too far left" has even been tested, that it seems impossible to believe Sanders could come out of no where to force Hillary past that line.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

There's just no reason to write him off this early for the reason of head to head polling when there's no chance for him to even win the primary.

If you're going to take a strict realistic and strategic stance based on today's polls, then you should know he'll probably never close to winning the primary, but he might have a chance at creating a discussion on full on progressive values that hasn't happened in the mainstream in a very long time. The more support he gets, the more likely he'll be put in positions to promote those values.

To strategically rally against him, you basically have to assume he's an actual threat against Hillary, which as delusional as the Sanders supporters thinking he has a decent chance to become president.

I don't think anyone said that. I didn't at least. But if he does become a danger to hillary (he won't) I'll work to rally support against him and for her

 

[Yellowtail]

The fear is that Hilary is far too corporate and one of the major issues facing the country is corporations holding too much power. The idea is that people want her to move a bit to the left on that, it's a popular position among pretty much everyone not in the Tea Party so it's not going to hurt her in the general and if anything it will help. No one wants to turn her into a communist or a socialist or anything too extreme, just a nudge to the left on this one issue is all anyone really wants or expects. In that way it's vastly different than what the Tea Party is doing.

Eh, I don't think Bernie is going to have much effect on Hillary. She's already spent the first three months of this year crafting her policies with hundreds of economists and advisers which will be steadily rolled out. There were articles written saying her criminal justice reform speech was an example of her moving left because of Bernie, which was ludicrous considering she'd been planning it for weeks. Plus it's clear she's more concerned by the specter of Elizabeth Warren (who she reached out to in these policy discussions) looming on the sidelines than the reality of Bernie Sanders challenging her. Warren criticizing her publicly would be more damaging than anything Sanders could say. She's already speaking a more populist language and she's not going to start changing the details of her platform half way through the primaries. Bernie Sanders can offer as many pie in the sky progressive promises as he wants but Hillary actually has to offer a policy agenda she could realistically implement as POTUS. I think voters will realize that.

But it is really important that Sanders is in the race to give a loud voice to progressive issues and ideas. We'll have a chorus of 20+ Republican candidates spewing right wing talking points that the media will happily promote for the next year and there needs to be several Democrats willing to fight back and shift the terms of the debate. Hillary can't do everything by herself. And it doesn't help her image or energize grassroots volunteers and activists who will be key in November if it appears she's receiving a coronation.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Clinton is really going to crystallize what Obama started but could never do

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/hillary-clinton-rebuild-democrats-state-117381.html

 

[thepotatoman]

I don't think anyone said that. I didn't at least. But if he does become a danger to hillary (he won't) I'll work to rally support against him and for her

Yeah, I know what you were saying, and that you weren't arguing that. I was talking about NeoXChaos, who certainly has argued it in the past, and I read it as him doing so again by saying the "case for sanders is weak" because of head to head polling, but maybe I was wrong to do so.

And I might do the same if he somehow becomes a danger to Hillary while still somehow polling much worse than her in the general.

I really hope we don't have to endure a full year of Bernie Sanders supporters nagging anyone who dares to vote for Hillary.

Yeah, I'm sorry if bringing up his intentions to vote Hillary was off topic. It's not my intent to nag him about it, and it's fine if he chooses to vote for her. I just wanted to bring context to the way I read his post and why I responded like that.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Clinton is really going to crystallize what Obama started but could never do

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/hillary-clinton-rebuild-democrats-state-117381.html

One of the biggest Obama mistakes was letting OFA die after the 2008. The obvious next step would have been a state based grassroots machine to take over state level shit from school boards to local elections. A lot of people got really good campaigning training throughout that election, others were more than capable enough of getting elected locally.

Instead Obama revived OFA to send me emails about supporting the president's plan to cut entitlements.

 

[ivysaur12]

The Associated Press ‏@AP
BREAKING: Obama to nominate Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford Jr. as next Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman.

.

 

[Third Strike]

Clinton is really going to crystallize what Obama started but could never do

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/hillary-clinton-rebuild-democrats-state-117381.html

Man, I hope so. I'm in NC, but it feels like the Dems were completely terminated after 2010. Right now, there isn't even a clear runner for the Senate seat in 2016. I also think it might hamper NC's moving shift to the left. We do have Cooper running against McCrory for Governor, but even he is an establishment Dem who has been around for more than a decade. Democrats need to rev up their fifty-state strategy, even on the county level, for the upcoming 2016 election, and especially for the 2020 election, which will determine the redistricting results.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Clinton's taking a few hits but still leads Republicans by considerable margins

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-pre...inton-remains-formidable-2016-nbc-wsj-n353386

+6 over Bush and Rubio, +10 over Walker, +4 over Paul. She's also the only candidate without a negative approval rating

Obama's approval is the highest it's been in 2 years

 

[Yellowtail]

If her strategy has been to get all the "scandals" out there early and that's the worst she's been hit, that's pretty good. Her favorable numbers among Democrats haven't changed statistically either (81/6).

Frightening to see Biden running 8% behind Bush, when both are known figures. Democrats really don't have a lock on the White House, but Clinton is a particularly formidable candidate.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Hillary is the only reason this election is a tossup tilt D and not a tossup tilt R.

 

[ivysaur12]

If her strategy has been to get all the "scandals" out there early and that's the worst she's been hit, that's pretty good. Her favorable numbers among Democrats haven't changed statistically either (81/6).

Frightening to see Biden running 8% behind Bush, when both are known figures. Democrats really don't have a lock on the White House, but Clinton is a particularly formidable candidate.

To be fair to Biden, he's not actively campaigning. If he were running a legitimate campaign, I'd imagine those numbers would be tighter, though this election would definitely be closer (at this point) without Hilary.

and lol at those Obama numbers. Good for him.

 

[PhoenixDark]

To be fair to Biden, he's not actively campaigning. If he were running a legitimate campaign, I'd imagine those numbers would be tighter, though this election would definitely be closer (at this point) without Hilary.

I doubt it. Bush isn't really actively campaigning either.

 

[B-Dubs]

I doubt it. Bush isn't really actively campaigning either.

He's been getting far more attention than Biden though.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Fuck scott walker, screw right-to-work the most misnamed thing in the world.

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2...whats-left-american-unions-elected-president/

Though he has yet to officially declare his bid for president, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is frequenting early primary states and hinting at what he would do if elected to the White House. In a recent interview with Radio Iowa, Walker said he would champion a federal version of the controversial ‘right-to-work’ law he signed earlier this year.

“As much as I think the federal government should get out of most of what it’s in right now, I think establishing fundamental freedoms for the American people is a legitimate thing and that would be something that would provide that opportunity in the other half of America to people who don’t have those opportunities today,” he said.

We should get out of things but stick big governments nose right up the ass of the ability of employees to dictates how their workplaces are run.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Fuck scott walker, screw right-to-work the most misnamed thing in the world.

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2...whats-left-american-unions-elected-president/



We should get out of things but stick big governments nose right up the ass of the ability of employees to dictates how their workplaces are run.

Right to work is the biggest bait and switch Republicans pulled in 2010 and fuck the American people/media for falling for it.

"Don't worry, if I'm elected Wisconsin won't become a right-to-work state"

(it totally does)

 

[NeoXChaos]

Which just brings me back around to how odd it is for you to argue so much about wanting people to be realistic about Sander's shot, while still thinking he has a chance in the primary, but not chance in the general, all at the same time, before there's enough data to prove any of that.

You were asking for head to head polls earlier, and we don't have head to heads for Sanders yet, but we have Warren at a -2 against Jeb, and -4 against Walker. If she theoretically ran, do you think she could overcome the 50+ point gap against Hillary while staying in the exact same spot or lower in the head to head polls? The only way that would happen is if Hillary fell on her face herself, which would probably bring her head to head numbers down to where Warren's numbers are.

And what unpopular positions do you think Sanders is going to force her to take? We don't even know yet what positions the general public finds too far with Bernie yet. Even if Sanders is somehow too far left while still finding himself actually threatening Hillary, she has such a huge lead she should easily be able to focus test Sander's statements to find where the line of too far left actually is and take a stance that doesn't hurt her in the general, and satisfies progressives. It's been so long since the line of "too far left" has even been tested, that it seems impossible to believe Sanders could come out of no where to force Hillary past that line.

Well all we can do ultimately is wait and see. I will withold further analysis until we see polls and match ups in 6+ months if the media even bothers polling Bernie Vs Republican candidates.

 

[PhoenixDark]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczy...n-almost-no-capital-gains-in-15-ye#.spyD0AnJ2

It's pretty amazing how effortlessly both Clintons lie (or make out of touch statements), often about stuff that no one would question or think about if they didn't lie in the first place.

 

[Yellowtail]

Bill Clinton has made $100 million since leaving the White House. $400,000 is indeed barely anything.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Bill Clinton has made $100 million since leaving the White House. $400,000 is indeed barely anything.

.4% of income no?

It highlights how stupid the "we were poor" is though

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

Fuck scott walker, screw right-to-work the most misnamed thing in the world.

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2...whats-left-american-unions-elected-president/



We should get out of things but stick big governments nose right up the ass of the ability of employees to dictates how their workplaces are run.

Right to work is the biggest bait and switch Republicans pulled in 2010 and fuck the American people/media for falling for it.

"Don't worry, if I'm elected Wisconsin won't become a right-to-work state"

(it totally does)

Could you guys clarify something for me? Is a "right to work" law a law that allows people to work during union strikes or is it a law that prevents unions from taking dues from non-union-members paychecks?

 

[B-Dubs]

Could you guys clarify something for me? Is a "right to work" law a law that allows people to work during union strikes or is it a law that prevents unions from taking dues from non-union-members paychecks?

It's the latter.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

It's the latter.

I don't really have a problem with that then, unless someone can explain to me why it's a bad thing? I don't think it's right that unions should get a cut of people's paychecks if someone chooses not to join. Maybe someone can enlighten me?

 

[Dominican Power]

I don't really have a problem with that then, unless someone can explain to me why it's a bad thing? I don't think it's right that unions should get a cut of people's paychecks if someone chooses not to join. Maybe someone can enlighten me?

I think it's more than that.

 

[B-Dubs]

I don't really have a problem with that then, unless someone can explain to me why it's a bad thing? I don't think it's right that unions should get a cut of people's paychecks if someone chooses not to join. Maybe someone can enlighten me?

The non-union employees benefit from the union's negotiations as well. If the union's employees gain a benefit, like dental, then the non-union employees also gain that benefit as well just by virtue of being part of the same company. So they benefit from the union's negotiations but they don't put anything in so the union's power weakens due to the fact that people think they don't need to be part of the union to gain the benefits and can make slightly more as non-union. Eventually it reaches the point where there aren't enough members, the union collapses and everyone suffers.

The law is designed to destroy unions already in place by slowly weakening them over time.

I think it's more than that.

It's also a little more complicated than I made it sound.