2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[Solecismic]

I thought we could use items dedicated to the primary issues. Candidacies, polls, issues, attitudes.

As always, let's try to keep these items pleasant.

Candidates...

Donald Trump, former host of Celebrity Apprentice, formerly in Reform Party and Democratic Party, now Republican. Now the presumptive Republican nominee.

John Kasich, former Congressman from Ohio, current Governor of Ohio. Withdrew on Star Wars Day (May the 4th be with him).

Ted Cruz, current Senator from Texas. Withdrew on 5/3/16.

Marco Rubio, current Senator from Florida. Withdrew on 3/22/16.

Dr. Ben Carson, neurosurgeon, M.D. from The University of Michigan. Withdrew on 3/2/16. Endorsed Donald Trump.

Jeb Bush, former Governor of Florida, former President's Brother, former President's Son. Withdrew on Freedom Day, 2016. Endorsed Ted Cruz.

Jim Gilmore, former Virginia Attorney General, former Governor of Virginia. Withdrew on 2/12/2016.

Chris Christie, current Governor of New Jersey. Withdrew on 2/10/16. Endorsed Donald Trump.

Carly Fiorina, former CEO of HP. Withdrew on 2/10/16. Endorsed Ted Cruz. Became his VP candidate.

Rand Paul, current Senator from Kentucky. Withdrew on 2/3/16.

Rick Santorum, former Senator from Pennsylvania. Withdrew on 2/3/16. Endorsed Marco Rubio.

Mike Huckabee, television host, former Governor of Arkansas. Withdrew on 2/1/16.

George Pataki, former Mayor of Peekskill, former Governor of New York. Withdrew on 12/29/15. Endorsed Marco Rubio.

Lindsey Graham, current Senator from South Carolina. Withdrew on 12/21/15. Endorsed Ted Cruz.

Bobby Jindal, former Congressman from Louisiana, current Governor of Louisiana. Withdrew on 11/17/15. Endorsed Marco Rubio.

Scott Walker, current Governor of Wisconsin. Withdrew on 9/21/15. Endorsed Ted Cruz.

Rick Perry, former Governor of Texas, former Democrat. Withdrew on 9/11/15. Endorsed Ted Cruz.

Cruz won Iowa on February 1, with Trump second and Rubio a close third. Carson was a distant fourth and Paul was fifth.

Trump won New Hampshire on February 9 by a wide margin. Kasich was second, Cruz edged out Bush for third. Rubio was a close fifth and Christie was sixth (prompting his exit from the race).

Trump won South Carolina on February 20 by a wide margin. Rubio and Cruz were pretty much tied for second. Bush edged Kasich for fourth and Carson was sixth. Bush left the race that evening.

Trump won Nevada on February 23 by a wide margin. Rubio was second and Cruz a close third.

On Super Tuesday, March 1, Trump won Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Vermont and Virginia. Cruz won the big prize of the night, Texas, by a wide margin. He also won Oklahoma and Alaska. Rubio won Minnesota. Carson scored about 3 of the 595 delegates for the evening, and left the race the next day.

On March 5, Trump won Kentucky and Louisana, while Cruz won Kansas and Maine.

On March 6, Rubio won Puerto Rico.

On March 8, Trump won Hawai'i, Michigan and Mississippi, while Cruz won Idaho.

On March 12, Rubio won the District of Columbia.

On March 15, Trump won Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina and the Northern Marianas while Kasich won Ohio. Rubio dropped out of the race.

On March 22, Trump won Arizona while Cruz won Utah.

Since then, Cruz has been winning the caucuses while Trump wins the primaries. Trump will have at least a large plurality entering the convention, though it's still up in the air whether he'll have a majority of the delegates.

The first round of debates was August 6, in Cleveland, on Fox News.

The second round of debates was September 16, in Simi Valley, CA., on CNN.

There have been ten debates since. Notably, Trump skipped the seventh debate in Des Moines on Fox News as part of his long-running feud with Megyn Kelly. Trump was also responsible for the cancellation of the 13th debate, also presumably part of this feud.

On May 3, Trump led in the delegate count with 1057 to Cruz's 570. Rubio had 173 and Kasich 157. Control of 1,237 delegates is needed to win.

With a strong win in Indiana and Cruz's withdrawal, Trump became the presumptive nominee on May 3, almost exactly nine months after the race began.

[molson]

I think Trump could have hung in the race for a while if he ran about 15 years ago, at the height of American society's acceptance of him.

[Solecismic]

What's weird about this is that all 16 of these candidates (assuming they all declare, and my guess is that Christie and Jindal won't) have a legitimate claim to participation in a serious debate.

How do you arrange 14 candidates and 90 minutes of air time? It's going to look like a circus. I'd imagine there's a lot of pressure going on behind the scenes to weed people out.

However, when you do that, the more extreme one-issue candidates (like Santorum) or the ones who know they can't win but want to influence the platform (like Huckabee) stay firm.

I think there's a high probability the Republicans self-destruct a little going into Iowa. The Democrat will remain a favorite in polling (Clinton leads everyone just about everywhere in head-to-head) for a while.

I don't have a good sense yet of how the General will shape up in 2016. I think this is Walker's to lose right now, but Walker will struggle in New Hampshire - he's not the type they prefer.

[JPhillips]

I think it's going to be a lot like 2012 where a number of candidates have their time as the frontrunner. The question is who will be left standing at the end? I think it will be one of Bush, Walker or Rubio.

[ISiddiqui]

Though, interestingly enough Walker still hasn't thrown his hat into the ring. I wonder why.

[Kodos]

We need Newt Gingrich to get in the race!

[revrew]

I'm in Iowa, working with an organization that gets a real, front-row seat to GOP politics. I have already met or interviewed or sat in strategy discussions with several of these candidates. I've been to handful events with these candidates present, will go to a few more, and I've got ears on the ground here in Iowa, where the political process is unlike any other state in the union.

There's a lot of questions I cannot answer, but I'm happy to share perspective on my personal opinions of what we're seeing here.

[NobodyHere]

What's weird about this is that all 16 of these candidates (assuming they all declare, and my guess is that Christie and Jindal won't) have a legitimate claim to participation in a serious debate.

How do you arrange 14 candidates and 90 minutes of air time? It's going to look like a circus. I'd imagine there's a lot of pressure going on behind the scenes to weed people out.

However, when you do that, the more extreme one-issue candidates (like Santorum) or the ones who know they can't win but want to influence the platform (like Huckabee) stay firm.

I think there's a high probability the Republicans self-destruct a little going into Iowa. The Democrat will remain a favorite in polling (Clinton leads everyone just about everywhere in head-to-head) for a while.

I don't have a good sense yet of how the General will shape up in 2016. I think this is Walker's to lose right now, but Walker will struggle in New Hampshire - he's not the type they prefer.

I think Fox News has announced that they're only going to invite the top 8 candidates to their debate, so that'll whittle down the numbers right there.

[Thomkal]

well as I told my twin brother long ago-if Hilary runs she wins. Well she's running, but I'm not 100% convinced she wins yet-she's taken some blows lately like the stupid personal email account stuff that was just a horrible decision. I think the Repubs I worry about are the ones that are sure to take some of her sure votes away like Hispanics to Rubio or women to Fiorina. I've not heard Fiorina speak before so not sure how compentent she would sound as President. Walker has no chance against Hilary-isn't he big anti-union? Bush making too many mistakes early, will have to recover from those if he wants any real chance of beating her.

[Thomkal]

I think Fox News has announced that they're only going to invite the top 8 candidates to their debate, so that'll whittle down the numbers right there.

and they will have some public forum or event for the others to attend.

[NobodyHere]

dola, it's top 10, not 8.

[Izulde]

Walker is anti-union and anti-education. He'll get destroyed in the general. Since Jim said to keep this pleasant, I'm not going to say anything further. Those of y'all who are my FB friends know my opinion of Walker, however.

[BillJasper]

I can see the Carly Fiorina slogans now...

"See what she did to Hewlitt-Packerd, imagine what she'll do to America!" :lol:

[Dutch]

I think its Rubio. Best of that bunch.

[tarcone]

I hope there is a real strong independent candidate if it ends up Bush/Clinton.

[lungs]

Walker is anti-union and anti-education. He'll get destroyed in the general. Since Jim said to keep this pleasant, I'm not going to say anything further. Those of y'all who are my FB friends know my opinion of Walker, however.

+1

I am rabidly opposed to Walker but I still can't see how he is considered to be even mildly Presidential. Republican opponents should conceivably have a lot of fodder to lob at him especially with some of the latest stuff on his big Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation idea that was supposed to bring all these jobs to the state.

Then again, I can't conceive how Wisconsin has elected him three times (though his s Dem opponents were so uninspiring)

[RainMaker]

Wisconsin is doing well fiscally. On the other side of the coin, Illinois has given unions whatever they wanted and is in a complete and utter financial mess. That's probably why he's gotten elected. Teachers are well paid in Wisconsin despite what some people want you to think.

I do think he stands no chance in a general election. However, he has to be a top choice for a VP.

[lungs]

Wisconsin is doing well fiscally. On the other side of the coin, Illinois has given unions whatever they wanted and is in a complete and utter financial mess. That's probably why he's gotten elected. Teachers are well paid in Wisconsin despite what some people want you to think.

I do think he stands no chance in a general election. However, he has to be a top choice for a VP.

This hasn't exactly been an easy budget because revenues aren't meeting expectations. It's not just the teacher stuff, that was four years ago, Walker has been utilizing Kansas style trickle down economics and predictably it's not working. (From by biased lenses anyway).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Walker is a wonderful (hypothetical) cabinet member. Not sure that he's Presidential yet.

Then again, how many of the hopefuls are?

My intent for entering the thread was actually this quote

What's weird about this is that all 16 of these candidates (assuming they all declare, and my guess is that Christie and Jindal won't) have a legitimate claim to participation in a serious debate.

Which prompted me to consider the alternate notion that if there's 16 candidates then perhaps virtually none of them belong in a serious debate.

[revrew]

There are some very gifted communicators in that bunch; folks who may have an ugly or tainted image in the wider media, but when given a microphone and a stage or a handshake and an honest question are very winsome. If said folks actually get their time in the spotlight, they will shine. They will surprise people if they can emerge from the pack and the wider U.S. gets to take a more genuine look at them.

I wonder if most folks' opinions of these candidates right now are shaped too heavily by news stories instead of actually seeing them deliver speeches or answer questions. As an Iowan that aggravates me, because we do get to see these people up close and get to know them comparatively well, and it's evident the national media is really spinning some yarns about who is what and who isn't.

On the flipside, there are some in that bunch who may be well-liked in general or are faring well in polls, but put the spotlight on them ... and they wilt. Badly.

[BillJasper]

Pretty uninspiring bunch, from both parties. I'd rather have George W. Bush back (or keep Obama) than hand the country to any of the candidates currently running.

[JPhillips]

I'd rather have George W. Bush back

No.

[stevew]

I might vote for Kasich if he declares. He'd be wise to let all the dreck fight it out and then swoop in as the great hope. Most of these guys are so completely unelectable.

[JPhillips]

Kasich accepted Medicaid expansion through the ACA. He has no shot of winning the primary.

[NobodyHere]

Kasich accepted Medicaid expansion through the ACA. He has no shot of winning the primary.

He also won re-election as governor of Ohio with 64% of the vote. Many Republicans drool at that number.

[Solecismic]

Everybody has something unpalatable to a wide number of people. Momentum is a funny thing. There was a time when Howard Dean looked like a presumptive nominee. People loved him - he had that doctor thing going for him. They said his wife was reluctant, but she gave a national interview with him and seemed quite nice. He was getting the full anointment.

John Kerry was struggling in New Hampshire, where Dean had a 30-point lead. Then Dean had his scream when losing in Iowa (everyone knew he would lose in Iowa anyway), and plummeted in New Hampshire. It wasn't about the issues. He simply didn't look presidential. Would Bush 43 have won his second term against Dean? One scream may have changed history.

The media has tried to downplay all the attention the scream received, but I remember watching it live and simply staring at the television in astonishment. The roll call of states was funny, but the scream was one of those things that simply defied logic. It defined Dean.

Someone is going to emerge from this morass. It may be a retread, but the Republicans keep losing with retreads. Really, both sides lose with retreads. Once we've had a candidate out there for the beauty pageant, and he or she loses, the ennui sets in. GOTV for the General seems less effective.

Right now, what's interesting is that there aren't many retreads. And the ones who are out there aren't polling well at all. Does Bush count as a retread? Probably. I'm hoping he doesn't gain traction.

Revrew, I would be interested in your assessment of the candidates' speaking skills. I enjoyed my years in New Hampshire, where candidates are seemingly everywhere from the summer before the mid-term onward. I felt much more aware then. It's a lot of fun being in one of the early states and getting that opportunity. The bottom line is that only a handful of states matter when it comes to electing a president - the primary/caucus states that draw the candidates and the few mid-to-large purple states that decide the General.

[SackAttack]

My (perhaps wishful) hope is that Walker's GOP rivals destroy him in the primary. He's given them no shortage of fodder; the question is whether any of his rivals can use it effectively.

I would take literally any other Republican in the race as President if it meant Scott Walker had to buy a tour ticket to get anywhere near the Oval Office.

Hell, there aren't many Republicans *not* in the race I wouldn't take over Scott Walker. There are a few I'd rank him above, but you're scraping the bottom of the barrel.

[stevew]

President Santorum?

[SackAttack]

I have some issues with Santorum, but I'd still put him ahead of Walker, yeah.

[Solecismic]

My wife's family is mostly in Wisconsin. And in education. Their feelings about Walker are fairly similar. So negative that they would prefer, barely, a candidate like Santorum. When I first told her, a few months ago, that I felt Walker was emerging as a favorite to win the nomination, I could almost literally see the five stages of grief. It would be like telling a Libertarian that Obama had just issued an executive order allowing a third term as President.

[JonInMiddleGA]

My (perhaps wishful) hope is that Walker's GOP rivals destroy him in the primary. He's given them no shortage of fodder; the question is whether any of his rivals can use it effectively.

Why would anyone go after him though ... unless they want to lose the conservative vote almost entirely?

Gallup polling, as of March (latest version of it I could find), Walker had the lowest disapproval rating of ANY candidate in the GOP field not named Ben Carson. Second lowest amongst moderate/liberal GOP voters as well.

Yeah, you could target him & try to drive that number up but, well ... why?
His positive numbers aren't strong enough to make him a threat yet.

[Butter]

What's weird about this is that all 16 of these candidates (assuming they all declare, and my guess is that Christie and Jindal won't)

Looks like you were wrong about Jindal, he's set to declare today.

[Dutch]

He's a good speaker. I'd be curious to know more about him. I remember when he was up and coming in La politics...seemed pretty good.

[albionmoonlight]

He's a good speaker. I'd be curious to know more about him. I remember when he was up and coming in La politics...seemed pretty good.

I was just home in NOLA for a vacation. Jindal is getting no love down there. Not really his fault. When oil prices are high, the state has money, everyone is happy, and the governor is a genius. When oil prices are low (like now), the state has a deficit, and the governor is an idiot.

Jindal's GOP rivals will have no problem finding local political leaders (on both sides) who will go on record as saying Jindal has failed Louisiana. That will make it hard for him to get momentum.

And, if gas were $5/gallon right now, he'd have 65% approval in Louisiana and probably win the nomination.

[JPhillips]

He also won re-election as governor of Ohio with 64% of the vote. Many Republicans drool at that number.

But that's not as impressive when you look at the numbers for 2014. All but one statewide office went GOP with 60% or more and eleven of twelve GOP congressmen were elected with 60% or more. Unlike Christie, Kasich didn't outperform the rest of his party.

[tarcone]

Ted Cruz is on my radar. I like what I've read and heard, but that has been limited.
Can you guys give me the positives and negatives, in your opinion, of Cruz and his politics.

[revrew]

Everybody has something unpalatable to a wide number of people. Momentum is a funny thing ...

QFT !

When it comes to understanding what REALLY goes on in Iowa (the pundits on national TV are shockingly clueless. I work with the media, including the NYT, WaPo and other publications, who send their reporters out here every four years, and every four years we have to correct so many of their misunderstandings), I've rarely found a better "mythbuster" article than this one, written by an Iowa talk radio firebrand: STEVE DEACE: Lies, clever myths and the Iowa caucuses - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/23/steve-deace-lies-clever-myths-and-iowa-caucuses/)


Revrew, I would be interested in your assessment of the candidates' speaking skills.

Some of the candidates - Bush, Rubio, Christie, Kasich, Walker, Graham, Pataki, etc. - really haven't made a major play in Iowa yet (outside of a couple of appearances and whatever organizing they're doing in the background). Shoot, Rand Paul hasn't really made a splash here yet, so I don't have any more insight on them than what we all see on the news. Yet.

Some of the candidates have shown they need some serious polishing - Carson and Trump come to mind. They have a lot of goodwill with voters, but in both private and on stage (I've interviewed them both personally and seen them deliver speeches), they haven't shown a depth and breadth of understanding to speak well and connect beyond their specialty issues.

Some are better in folksy meetings than they are on stage. Santorum comes to mind here, as people love to shake his hand, but he's a bit ho-hum on stage. That worked in the last Iowa caucus, but this time around, it may not be enough, and it may not be sustainable when people are primarying Santorum in multiple states at once.

When Ted Cruz enters a room, he's a rock star, meaning, he has a lot of charisma and people are excited to hear him, but it sometimes comes off too polished and showy. In one-on-one meetings, however, this guy is charming, persuasive and professional. There's a good reason he's raising a lot of money. He's definitely one to watch.

Fiorina I haven't seen in person, though she is a scathing and capable attack dog who can score points even in hostile interviews.

Perry would be fine in a typical cycle, but he's getting overshadowed right now by Cruz, the anticipated (if unfulfilled) excitement about Carson and Trump, and the these other two charmers:

Huckabee is very smooth, very well spoken, charming and intelligent. His time at Fox may have sharpened his oratory skills. He's the most "Reaganesque" in delivery, and every time he gets on stage, he's in the running to have left the best impression. As a candidate, he carries some baggage, but if people aren't aware of that and they simply hear Huckabee for the first time, he's very persuasive.

But the real stud in waiting is Jindal. I've interviewed him, seen him on stage multiple times and was in the room watching him handle a hostile reporter's interview. He is a masterful and brilliant communicator. I'm not talking about his policies or track record here now, just his communication skills. I've watched him walk into a room with Cruz's light show and Huckabee's down-home charm and smoke them both, winning the audience. Every time he gets a chance to speak, Jindal wins supporters. The only question is, can he rise from his relative obscurity fast enough to be a real contender?

[spleen1015]

I don't care who the candidate is as long as the win so that this country can be saved.

[bob]

Its still weird to me that we have a system in which the local politics of a few states drastically narrow down the candidates for a national office.

[cartman]

Bobby Jindal Should Have Run In 2012, Not 2016 | FiveThirtyEight (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bobby-jindal-should-have-run-in-2012-not-2016/)

[SackAttack]

Why would anyone go after him though ... unless they want to lose the conservative vote almost entirely?

Gallup polling, as of March (latest version of it I could find), Walker had the lowest disapproval rating of ANY candidate in the GOP field not named Ben Carson. Second lowest amongst moderate/liberal GOP voters as well.

Yeah, you could target him & try to drive that number up but, well ... why?
His positive numbers aren't strong enough to make him a threat yet.

Walker is the conservative Bill Clinton, and I mean that in more ways than one.

He's charismatic enough to get away with shit. He's calculating, by which I mean whatever position he holds on a particular subject is less about core values and more about "how will this get me what I want?" This has led to him holding multiple opposing viewpoints on the same issue - just in the last four years, in some cases. You want to know why Scott Walker is popular among the base? It's not because he's "conservative." He isn't. Not unless your definition of conservative is "we should cut school funding every year so we can give that money back to the wealthiest taxpayers." Not unless your definition of conservative is "the best way to handle infrastructure spending is to cut it and then have to pay triple OT for a rush repair job when a bridge needs emergency repair work." Not unless your definition of conservative is "taking out $250 million in bonds (which will cost more than that over the life of those bonds) for corporate welfare is good for the state but spending $250 million on higher education isn't."

And his charisma makes him a threat to win the nomination because otherwise reasonably smart people will be seduced by what he has to sell them. Those are all traits Clinton embodied. Clinton was charismatic, he was calculating, and he was able to present himself as a "New Democrat," claiming to represent liberal thought while governing closer to the center.

His popularity with the base isn't because he's Presidential material (he's not). It's because what most of the GOP base knows about is Act 10. FUCK YEAH HE PISSED OFF THE LIEBRULS.

Popularity with the "anything that pisses off the Democrat Party works for me" mouthbreathers doesn't make you a conservative. And there are at least three or four candidates in the GOP primaries more closely aligned with conservative principles (and less likely to be a walking disaster) than Scott Walker. If pointing out that the emperor has no clothes would cost a GOP candidate the "conservative" vote in the primaries, the GOP is fucked next November anyway.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Like I said, Walker strikes me as a perfect Sec of Labor, a cabinet guy.

As Presidential candidates go at the moment he runs somewhere around 5th or 6th with me (something like 75% agreement on some 30-40 issues, compared to the high 90s scores for Rubio & Santorum)

[NobodyHere]

You want to know why Scott Walker is popular among the base? It's not because he's "conservative." He isn't. Not unless your definition of conservative is "we should cut school funding every year so we can give that money back to the wealthiest taxpayers."

That's pretty much the textbook definition of conservative by anyone on the left.

[SackAttack]

That's pretty much the textbook definition of conservative by anyone on the left.

Only if you want to caricaturize the left as all being raging ideologues. Simply ain't the truth.

Hell, I'm probably 'left' by modern standards. Not very far left, but left all the same.

I do not consider any of those to be conservative positions.

I consider them to be asshole positions; whether or not assholery is equivalent with conservatism I leave entirely as an exercise to the reader.

[Bisbo]

I don't care who the candidate is as long as the win so that this country can be saved.

LOL

[Solecismic]

Sack, that's the kind of character assassination I want to avoid here. I understand your politics. That doesn't make most people who disagree with you mouth-breathers or assholes.

[Neuqua]

I'm fascinated by the extents Jindal has gone through to shy away/hide from his Indian heritage.

Not that I imagine that demographic is a huge influence in voting, but his reluctance to acknowledge any connection has frustrated the majority of the community.

[Dutch]

I'm fascinated by the extents Jindal has gone through to shy away/hide from his Indian heritage.

Not that I imagine that demographic is a huge influence in voting, but his reluctance to acknowledge any connection has frustrated the majority of the community.

I'm gonna guess most of the frustration comes from his political opponents, so take it with a grain of salt. Here's the non-pol entries in the wiki page on him.

Early life and professional career

Jindal was born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to Amar and Raj Jindal, immigrants from Punjab, India, who came to the U.S. six months before he was born.[5] Jindal attended Baton Rouge Magnet High School, graduating in 1988 at the top of his class. While in high school, he competed in tennis tournaments, and started a computer newsletter, a retail candy business, and a mail-order software company. He spent his free time working in the stands at LSU football games.[6] Jindal was one of 50 students nationwide admitted to the Program in Liberal Medical Education (PLME) at Brown University, guaranteeing him a place in medical school. Jindal completed majors in biology and public policy. He graduated in 1991 at the age of 20, with honors in both majors.[6][7] Jindal was named to the 1992 USA Today All-USA Academic Team. He applied to and was accepted by both Harvard Medical School and Yale Law School, but studied at New College, Oxford, as a Rhodes Scholar. He received an M.Litt. degree in political science with an emphasis in health policy from the University of Oxford in 1994, where the subject of his thesis was "A needs-based approach to health care".[6] He turned down an offer to study for a D.Phil. in politics, instead joining the consulting firm McKinsey & Company.[8] He then interned in the office of Rep. Jim McCrery of Louisiana, where McCrery assigned him to work on healthcare policy; Jindal spent two weeks studying Medicare to compile an extensive report on possible solutions to Medicare's financial problems, which he presented to McCrery.[9]

As a young convert to Christianity, Jindal wrote several articles about his spiritual journey that were published in the New Oxford Review.[8]

Jindal was raised in a Hindu household. He converted to Christianity while in Baton Rouge Magnet High School. During his first year at Brown University, he was received into the Roman Catholic Church. His family attends weekly Mass at Saint Aloysius Parish in Baton Rouge.[35]

Jindal's father, Amar Jindal, received a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering from Guru Nanak Dev University.[159][160] Jindal's mother, Raj (Pal) Jindal,[159] is an information technology director for the Louisiana Workforce Commission (formerly the Louisiana Department of Labor) and served as Assistant Secretary to former State Labor Secretary Garey Forster during the administration of Gov. Murphy J. "Mike" Foster, Jr.[161] Prior to immigrating to the United States, both his parents were lecturers at an Indian engineering college.[162] According to Jindal, his mother was already four months pregnant with him when they arrived from India.[163] Jindal has a younger brother, Nikesh, who is a registered Republican and supported his brother's campaign for governor.[164][165] Nikesh went to Dartmouth College, where he graduated with honors, and then Yale Law School. Nikesh is now a lawyer in Washington, D.C.[160]

Jindal's nickname dates to his childhood identification with an ABC sitcom character. He has said, "Every day after school, I'd come home and I'd watch The Brady Bunch. And I identified with Bobby, you know? He was about my age, and 'Bobby' stuck."[166] He has been known by his nickname ever since, though his legal name remains Piyush Jindal.[167]

In 1997, Jindal married Supriya Jolly who was born in New Delhi, India and moved to Baton Rouge with her parents when she was four years old.[168] They attended the same high school, but Supriya's family moved from Baton Rouge to New Orleans after her freshman year and they did not begin dating until later, when Jindal invited her to a Mardi Gras party after another friend had canceled. Supriya Jindal earned a bachelor's degree in chemical engineering and an M.B.A. degree from Tulane University.[169] She is working on a PhD in marketing at Louisiana State University.[170] She created The Supriya Jindal Foundation for Louisiana's Children, a non-profit organization aimed at improving math and science education in grade schools.[171] They have three children: Selia Elizabeth, Shaan Robert, and Slade Ryan. Shaan was born with a congenital heart defect and had surgery as an infant. The Jindals have been outspoken advocates for children with congenital defects, particularly those without insurance. In 2006, Jindal and his wife delivered their third child at home. Barely able to call 911 before the delivery, Jindal received medical coaching by phone to deliver their eight-pound, 2.5-ounce boy.[172]

[tarcone]

Nothing on Cruz?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Nothing on Cruz?

Not much more than my gut reaction to him, but if you want that ...

He's a marvelous thorn in some sides that I enjoy seeing punctured. On the issues where I've found indications of his positions (reviewed via this link (http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Ted_Cruz.htm)) I'm generally happy & on the ones where we disagree he benefits from them being relatively minor concerns for me.

But I haven't yet gotten past the nagging feeling there's something -- some fatal flaw -- that I've either missed or that hasn't yet been revealed.

He's a candidate I'm open to considering for my vote if he wins the nomination -- and there's quite a few I can't say that about -- but he's not really a frontrunner for my primary vote at this point.

[SackAttack]

Sack, that's the kind of character assassination I want to avoid here. I understand your politics. That doesn't make most people who disagree with you mouth-breathers or assholes.

And if you'll point to where I said that all people who disagree with me are either one, I will cheerfully concede the point. I feel I was pretty narrow in my definitions. I did not characterize all or even most conservative positions as "asshole." I characterized Scott Walker's politics as such. I said explicitly that his politics are not conservative, except to the extent one considers assholery to be a defining trait of conservatism. I don't consider Scott Walker a conservative. I consider him an asshole.

Likewise, I didn't say Republicans are mouth-breathers or that conservatives are mouth-breathers. I said that people who judge the quality of a politician first or mainly on whether he "pisses off the Democrat Party" fall into that camp. Because supporting a candidate on that basis is explicitly not about values. That's about straight up being willing to be an asshole to other people if it pisses off people whose politics you don't like.

And, I'd argue, it's important to remember the context in which I utilitized those terms: we're talking about Jon's assertion that a Republican going negative on Scott Walker's record would be tantamount to losing the "conservative vote." What I objected to then, and object to now, is the assertion that Walker's politics so embody the soul of conservatism that there is no space for any Republican candidate to run to his right. Jon's assertion is that any Republican challenging Walker on those terms is committing political suicide. Mine is that Walker's most rabid support right now comes from people who don't know anything about him beyond "anybody who pisses off the Democrats must be doing something right." I'm not sure you could make the same claim about other Republican candidates who are attempting to carve out space as conservatives right now. Rand Paul? I disagree with him in several places, but he hasn't embraced "asshole politics" to prove his bona fides. Ditto Jeb Bush.

I think that either of those candidates, and possibly others, could make the case to primary voters that Scott Walker is not the Republican who best portrays conservative values, and I say that as somebody who - as I noted earlier - is probably left-of-center by contemporary definitions, and as somebody who is being charitable about what constitutes conservatism.

If I equivocated mouth-breathing assholery with Republicans and conservative ideals, I'd be calling Walker a standard bearer for the party, rather than drawing a distinction between Walker's politics and conservative politics as I understand them.

[JonInMiddleGA]

we're talking about Jon's assertion that a Republican going negative on Scott Walker's record would be tantamount to losing the "conservative vote." What I objected to then, and object to now, is the assertion that Walker's politics so embody the soul of conservatism that there is no space for any Republican candidate to run to his right. Jon's assertion is that any Republican challenging Walker on those terms is committing political suicide. Mine is that Walker's most rabid support right now comes from people who don't know anything about him beyond "anybody who pisses off the Democrats must be doing something right."

Well, let's keep my comments in that regard in some perspective as well.

Never mind who the candidate is, going all negative attack dog on someone that has only 4% negative reaction within the party core sounds like a pretty bad idea, especially when few candidates have a strong core of their own.

I mean, if there was something (or if something emerges) to provide some traction to get a running start on such a move, maybe it makes more sense. But to invest time & energy into trying to villianize a guy who really has none of that taint yet? That just seems ... well it just seems like a bad play. That's a move for a spoiler with a grudge, not a move for someone who actually wants to win anything themselves.

Also, I'd say the average voter DOES know at least one thing more about Walker than "he pisses off Dems" (although Lord knows that's worth quite a bit for a lot of us): we know he took the fight to unions, especially public-sector unions. These days, as hard as genuine conservatives are to come by, that's pretty much the stuff of which icons are made.

[SackAttack]

Well, let's keep my comments in that regard in some perspective as well.

Never mind who the candidate is, going all negative attack dog on someone that has only 4% negative reaction within the party core sounds like a pretty bad idea, especially when few candidates have a strong core of their own.

I mean, if there was something (or if something emerges) to provide some traction to get a running start on such a move, maybe it makes more sense. But to invest time & energy into trying to villianize a guy who really has none of that taint yet? That just seems ... well it just seems like a bad play. That's a move for a spoiler with a grudge, not a move for someone who actually wants to win anything themselves.

Also, I'd say the average voter DOES know at least one thing more about Walker than "he pisses off Dems" (although Lord knows that's worth quite a bit for a lot of us): we know he took the fight to unions, especially public-sector unions. These days, as hard as genuine conservatives are to come by, that's pretty much the stuff of which icons are made.

Jon, do you know what constituted "taking the fight to the unions"?

Walker: "Hey we need a bunch of concessions from the teachers to pay for these tax breaks I gave out, let's bust the public unions; oh but leave the fire and police unions alone because they donated to my campaign."

Teachers: "Hey, the economy sucks and we all have to sacrifice. That's cool, we're willing to do that. We're willing to take the pay cut, the change in pension contributions, etc. But we think your proposal to remove collective bargaining rights for everything except COLA goes too far."

Walker: "Sorry, you giving up everything else isn't enough. We need to break the unions because of reasons."

That's it. That's what "taking the fight to the unions" consisted of. Break the ability of "liberal" public unions to bargain for anything, ever. It's coincidence that the firefighters' and police unions, which backed Walker in his election campaigns were exempted.

It's even MORE coincidental that the state troopers' union, one of those that supported Walker, is getting around a 17% pay increase this year. The public unions whose collective bargaining rights were stripped? ~1% in 2013 and 2014, nothing budgeted for 2015 and 2016.

Remember, the state was allegedly in dire fiscal straits. That's what made Act 10 supposedly necessary. Where did the money come from for a 17% pay raise for a group that happened to be political supporters?

This is the problem, Jon. When you pick candidates - I really don't care which party - solely or primarily based on whether or not they "piss off" people whose politics you don't like, you open the door for cronyism. Maybe it's cronyism you like, where if it were the other party handing out those favors you would be appalled, but it's still cronyism.

I'll agree with you on one thing, though. Should a Republican get elected, I would LOVE to see Walker serve in the Cabinet. I mean that honestly.

We'd finally be rid of him in Wisconsin.

[Solecismic]

I feel I was pretty narrow in my definitions... I don't consider Scott Walker a conservative. I consider him an asshole.
...
Likewise, I didn't say Republicans are mouth-breathers or that conservatives are mouth-breathers. I said that people who judge the quality of a politician first or mainly on whether he "pisses off the Democrat Party" fall into that camp. Because supporting a candidate on that basis is explicitly not about values. That's about straight up being willing to be an asshole to other people if it pisses off people whose politics you don't like.


More it's a general lack of respect for the "other" side. I'd like these items to be an island where we all respect that people may feel passionately about some issues - issues we feel just as passionately about in a different way.

When you put forth the straw man that there are stupid people out there who choose their candidates based on who pisses off their own version of a straw man, it's not showing respect.

To many in the Mid-West, someone who goes after the teacher unions is a hero. You may feel that's awful. Many in my family feel that's awful. But to others, unions, rightly or not, are blamed for severe job loss, home values plummeting, unemployment, crime...

Many look at Illinois, which has been generous with public-sector unions, and see an impending bankruptcy that the federal government may not rescue.

Walker is a hero to them. The image of him surviving a recall after those protests in Madison is a strong one. That doesn't make them mouth-breathers or bad people or people who make decisions based on how much they upset others.

Walker's popularity right now may be partially based on his image as a strong foil to bogeymen, real or imaginary. But he's done enough for a lot of intelligent Republicans to want to hear him out.

[Solecismic]

I've rarely found a better "mythbuster" article than this one, written by an Iowa talk radio firebrand: [/url]

Interesting article. Maybe overplaying a small sample size. I'd like to hear more about how candidates get voters into caucuses. I'd also like to read a solid report about corn subsidies and what would happen if someone like Paul challenged them.


But the real stud in waiting is Jindal. I've interviewed him, seen him on stage multiple times and was in the room watching him handle a hostile reporter's interview. He is a masterful and brilliant communicator. I'm not talking about his policies or track record here now, just his communication skills. I've watched him walk into a room with Cruz's light show and Huckabee's down-home charm and smoke them both, winning the audience. Every time he gets a chance to speak, Jindal wins supporters. The only question is, can he rise from his relative obscurity fast enough to be a real contender?

Ever since he became Louisiana Governor at such a young age, and given his background in medicine, I've wanted to like Jindal. But his emphasis on religion rules him out for me. I'm always going to hope that somewhere out there, there's a guy like Huntsman or Chaffee who also just happens to be ridiculously charismatic and a strong leader as well as an aisle-crosser.

I suspect the Republicans feel the Democrats are badly wounded, and likely to come out unenthusiastically behind a flawed, somewhat-entitled Hillary Clinton - like the Republicans did with Bob Dole in the '90s. So that may encourage them to embrace the evangelical side of the party and shoot for the moon. I hope that's not the case, but if so, Jindal might not be the end of the world.

[Dutch]

IRT Walker, I've heard a bit about him generating a surplus in the state and producing a lot of new jobs. Have this things had a positive impact in WI?

[Clark]

IRT Walker, I've heard a bit about him generating a surplus in the state and producing a lot of new jobs. Have this things had a positive impact in WI?

Wisconsin is last in Midwest job creation. Walkers first term promise was to create 250,000 private sector jobs. He ended up creating 127,549 jobs.

In order not to increase taxes Walker borrowed, $500 million in 2011, $2.05 billion in 2013 and wants to borrow an additional $1.3 billion over the next two years.

[Dutch]

Wisconsin is last in Midwest job creation. Walkers first term promise was to create 250,000 private sector jobs. He ended up creating 127,549 jobs.

In order not to increase taxes Walker borrowed, $500 million in 2011, $2.05 billion in 2013 and wants to borrow an additional $1.3 billion over the next two years.

Well, those are the positives I've heard. Stupid on my part for asking this one, but how does one borrow money and not increase taxes?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Jon, do you know what constituted "taking the fight to the unions"? ...
That's it. That's what "taking the fight to the unions" consisted of. Break the ability of "liberal" public unions to bargain for anything, ever.

And you wonder why he's a hero? I don't want them crushed, I want them extinct. And that he targeted one that I consider the most deserving of all ... Walker was lucky I didn't show up on his doorstep to either volunteer for the campaign or to offer to have his children.

Seriously, what he managed there was one of the most beautiful political sights I've ever seen in nearly 50 years.

Maybe it's cronyism you like, where if it were the other party handing out those favors you would be appalled, but it's still cronyism.


You say that as though it doesn't already happen. Or has ever not happened. Once in a while it's just nice to see the shoe be on the other foot.

[Shkspr]

Well, those are the positives I've heard. Stupid on my part for asking this one, but how does one borrow money and not increase taxes?

Simple. You cut spending by the amount of the debt payment and plan to not be in office when most of the debt comes due. You get the benefit of a $4 billion windfall now and your political opponents have to choke down $200 million payments every year over the next quarter century. Extra bonus points if you can convince the banks to donate part of the interest off the loans to your Presidential campaign.

[Dutch]

So it will just be added to the national debt then.

[Kodos]

So business as usual then.

[Dutch]

Is our national debt an actual long term problem? What difference does it make if its 10 trillion or 30 trillion?

[path12]

I have very little business being in this thread since my personal wish is for a Scandinavian style social democracy and I mourn the fact that there really isn't a true liberal party in this country.

This isn't about policy though. I have one question for my conservative/Republican friends on the board: With so many candidates and such a conservative base that participates in the primaries/caucuses, how do you see a candidate getting the nod who doesn't have to tack so far right for the nomination that they can't pivot back to the center for the general election?

[JonInMiddleGA]

I have very little business being in this thread since my personal wish is for a Scandinavian style social democracy and I mourn the fact that there really isn't a true liberal party in this country.

This isn't about policy though. I have one question for my conservative/Republican friends on the board: With so many candidates and such a conservative base that participates in the primaries/caucuses, how do you see a candidate getting the nod who doesn't have to tack so far right for the nomination that they can't pivot back to the center for the general election?

Honestly? I don't see the WH coming back on anything short of a miracle right now.

And if they do turn back to the middle for the general (and actually mean it) then {shrug} not really a big concern for me if they win or not. Not the least bit interested in a RINO in the oval office, especially not one that would have just shown themselves to have all the ethics of ... well, of a politician.

Barring a genuine miracle (or several of them), I believe the nation is largely lost & doomed to continue to spiral down the proverbial drain. Already dead most likely, the body is just still twitching.

[Kodos]

This reminds me. We should get together for a Left 4 Dead session at some point. ;)

[NobodyHere]

Is our national debt an actual long term problem? What difference does it make if its 10 trillion or 30 trillion?

It's not a crisis until investors decide the US is unable to pay its debt.

However we are currently paying 229 billion dollars in interest payments which anyone could agree that money could be spent on better purposes.

[revrew]

How do you see a candidate getting the nod who doesn't have to tack so far right for the nomination that they can't pivot back to the center for the general election?

There are many within the conservative base who would argue this isn't an effective campaign strategy. It didn't work for Dole, McCain, or Romney. In fact, candidates playing right to the base, then running to the middle, smacks the conservative wing of the party as hypocrisy and duplicity. Hence, Romney and McCain, while succeeding somewhat in grabbing middle voters, saw their GOP base stay home on election night in record numbers.

This debate is representative of one of the major divides in the party, with the establishment trying to play the game you mention above, and the conservative wing saying, "Screw that! Give us a real conservative and watch how we show up on election night to give the GOP the victory!"

And contrary to the misinformed narrative of East Coast media outlets, the GOP primary isn't about who can "out-conservative" the next guy, or who can tack so "far to the right," although a bunch of candidates do in fact try to do that. What it's REALLY about, at least in Iowa, is who says they believe what we believe ... and then is actually trustworthy/honest/principled enough to actually BELIEVE it? To act on it?

We'll actually accept and support a more centrist candidate in the primaries, IF we can actually trust them on the issues we agree upon. The Mitt McDoles of the world may be more centrist, but by playing the very game you suggest, they shoot themselves in the foot with their own base.

[AENeuman]

There are many within the conservative base who would argue this isn't an effective campaign strategy. It didn't work for Dole, McCain, or Romney. In fact, candidates playing right to the base, then running to the middle, smacks the conservative wing of the party as hypocrisy and duplicity. Hence, Romney and McCain, while succeeding somewhat in grabbing middle voters, saw their GOP base stay home on election night in record numbers.

This debate is representative of one of the major divides in the party, with the establishment trying to play the game you mention above, and the conservative wing saying, "Screw that! Give us a real conservative and watch how we show up on election night to give the GOP the victory!"

And contrary to the misinformed narrative of East Coast media outlets, the GOP primary isn't about who can "out-conservative" the next guy, or who can tack so "far to the right," although a bunch of candidates do in fact try to do that. What it's REALLY about, at least in Iowa, is who says they believe what we believe ... and then is actually trustworthy/honest/principled enough to actually BELIEVE it? To act on it?

We'll actually accept and support a more centrist candidate in the primaries, IF we can actually trust them on the issues we agree upon. The Mitt McDoles of the world may be more centrist, but by playing the very game you suggest, they shoot themselves in the foot with their own base.

This notion fascinates me so much. Of the three candidates you mentioned, Mitt McDole, they seemed to be center first, then pander right, then return to center.

Your trust thing is interesting because the way the field is shaping up it seems it will be a far right first, then some sort of movement towards mass appeal. I wonder how that will come across as far as trust. My guess is as long as they stay socially conservative they can venture into more fiscally moderate waters...Bush

[rowech]

Jon, do you know what constituted "taking the fight to the unions"?

Walker: "Hey we need a bunch of concessions from the teachers to pay for these tax breaks I gave out, let's bust the public unions; oh but leave the fire and police unions alone because they donated to my campaign."

Teachers: "Hey, the economy sucks and we all have to sacrifice. That's cool, we're willing to do that. We're willing to take the pay cut, the change in pension contributions, etc. But we think your proposal to remove collective bargaining rights for everything except COLA goes too far."

Walker: "Sorry, you giving up everything else isn't enough. We need to break the unions because of reasons."

That's it. That's what "taking the fight to the unions" consisted of. Break the ability of "liberal" public unions to bargain for anything, ever. It's coincidence that the firefighters' and police unions, which backed Walker in his election campaigns were exempted.

It's even MORE coincidental that the state troopers' union, one of those that supported Walker, is getting around a 17% pay increase this year. The public unions whose collective bargaining rights were stripped? ~1% in 2013 and 2014, nothing budgeted for 2015 and 2016.

Remember, the state was allegedly in dire fiscal straits. That's what made Act 10 supposedly necessary. Where did the money come from for a 17% pay raise for a group that happened to be political supporters?

This is the problem, Jon. When you pick candidates - I really don't care which party - solely or primarily based on whether or not they "piss off" people whose politics you don't like, you open the door for cronyism. Maybe it's cronyism you like, where if it were the other party handing out those favors you would be appalled, but it's still cronyism.

I'll agree with you on one thing, though. Should a Republican get elected, I would LOVE to see Walker serve in the Cabinet. I mean that honestly.

We'd finally be rid of him in Wisconsin.

Same thing was tried in Ohio and rejected because police and fire was not separated from teachers. It will be interesting when Kasich and Walker debate the topic how they spin their own work as well as the work of the other person.

[Dutch]

It's not a crisis until investors decide the US is unable to pay its debt.

However we are currently paying 229 billion dollars in interest payments which anyone could agree that money could be spent on better purposes.

We just get a loan to pay that? I am really starting to wonder if it matters enough to care. Does $10T or $30T or any number get us to a breaking point?

If not, I can see why things like religion or gay marriage (for or against) are key voting considerations for so many people.

[cartman]

We just get a loan to pay that? I am really starting to wonder if it matters enough to care. Does $10T or $30T or any number get us to a breaking point?

If not, I can see why things like religion or gay marriage (for or against) are key voting considerations for so many people.

It isn't a finite number. It is more of a ratio to what the amount of debt is in relation to GDP. The IMF considers above 90% as dangerous. The US currently is at 72.5% according to the IMF.

[JAG]

We just get a loan to pay that? I am really starting to wonder if it matters enough to care. Does $10T or $30T or any number get us to a breaking point?

If not, I can see why things like religion or gay marriage (for or against) are key voting considerations for so many people.

I'm no expert, but why don't people just rack up tons of debt of credit cards, then apply for more credit cards to pay the interest on the ones that are maxed, then keep the cycle going indefinitely? I would assume there's a point where they say, "Uh, I don't think you can pay this back, no more cards for you."

[Solecismic]

There's always the argument that we've spent all our money, we've spent all our children's money, and we're starting to work on our grandchildren.

Then we look at Greece and we realize that their grandchildren are unemployed, and they have absolutely no way to support themselves in their old age.

So they appeal to people in other countries, and they hope someone is willing to support them in the lifestyle they budgeted. And when the bigger countries say they're tired of it, they're left with Alexis Tsipras. It may still work, but it's a rough ride right now.

Money is, of course, just paper. The question is how much you can purchase with paper.

Sweden and Norway are wonderful places. But they're very small, they don't need much of a military, and they haven't had to face many of the challenges we face.

Greece was once a paradise, too, and then corrupt politicians realized that they could borrow nearly limitless amounts of cash to buy votes, and pass that bill on to future generations.

And once you start borrowing recklessly, it becomes addictive. No one starts out wanting to take his grandchildren's future away.

[rowech]

I've said this before at various times/places...the United States is too big to fail. If Greece goes down, the global economies are not devestated. If the United States fails, we are taking a lot of other countries with us. They won't allow it to happen.

Not saying you can just go about things as reckless as possible but comparing the United States economy failing and how it impacts the world to Greece failing isn't a fair comparison at all. Really, there is no fair comparison to what it would be like but I believe it would be bad for a couple of years but ultimately, unless the world decides they want to go down with the United States consumerism then it won't be as bad as pepole believe it will be.

[chesapeake]

We just get a loan to pay that? I am really starting to wonder if it matters enough to care. Does $10T or $30T or any number get us to a breaking point?

Simply put, the US sells bonds to finance its debt. As long as the interest rate it has to offer to entice buyers to purchase those bonds remains ridiculously low, it can carry a large debt. When interest rates rise back up to more historical averages, it becomes a much bigger portion of the Federal budget. So, despite what others might tell you, size does matter.

[JPhillips]

The U.S. can literally never default because we print our own currency. That doesn't mean high inflation would be painless, but we have the capability to print enough money to pay off debts if we had to. Greece, as a part of the EU, can't do that. I think you can make an argument that if they would have been able to go the Argentina route that they would be in better shape now. Continuing to cut and tax and shrink the economy isn't helping.

[Solecismic]

Since we seem to be going down that road (doubling the national debt in the last decade), we might get to find this out for ourselves in not-too-distant future.

For now, we're getting away with it. Let's not forget that China and India combined have three billion people, and we have 320 million. At some point, one or both may emerge as the world's dominant economies and will no longer see propping us up as mutually beneficial. It will hurt them for a couple of years. It will have a bigger effect on us.

This isn't going to happen tomorrow. We are not faced with Greece's fate based on what we do next November. This is quite a distance down the road.

For now, we see the effects when we see our infrastructure crumbling. We have a power grid that's dangerously unprotected - and it's estimated that if the power grid goes down for a full year, 90% of us will die.

Wisconsin, like most states, has a state mandate to provide education for gifted and talented students. Walker made that an unfunded mandate. Already, states are starting to make uncomfortable decisions, and they're making them in ways that won't cause visible protest (who protests a bridge crumbling, or a kid who's so bored in school that he loses his love for learning).

I'm not claiming doom and gloom is on the way (though the power grid thing makes me nervous). It's just our quality of life is declining in subtle ways that can't easily be recovered.

[cartman]

Simply put, the US sells bonds to finance its debt. As long as the interest rate it has to offer to entice buyers to purchase those bonds remains ridiculously low, it can carry a large debt. When interest rates rise back up to more historical averages, it becomes a much bigger portion of the Federal budget. So, despite what others might tell you, size does matter.

But that is for new debt, not existing debt. The interest rate on bonds is what it is set at when they are bought. (Note: there are a limited amount of Floating Rate Notes issued, but they are a very small amount, with a 2 year term)

[mckerney]

IRT Walker, I've heard a bit about him generating a surplus in the state and producing a lot of new jobs. Have this things had a positive impact in WI?

He's claimed that, but in reality he's run a deficit every year he's been in office and is facing another $2 billion deficit over the next biennium. On new jobs Wisconsin has been behind neighboring states and in his first term saw about half the job growth he said his policies would create. His main jobs program, aside from putting Open for Business on state signs, the WEDC has been a complete failure.

[JPhillips]

Since we seem to be going down that road (doubling the national debt in the last decade), we might get to find this out for ourselves in not-too-distant future.

For now, we're getting away with it. Let's not forget that China and India combined have three billion people, and we have 320 million. At some point, one or both may emerge as the world's dominant economies and will no longer see propping us up as mutually beneficial. It will hurt them for a couple of years. It will have a bigger effect on us.

This isn't going to happen tomorrow. We are not faced with Greece's fate based on what we do next November. This is quite a distance down the road.

For now, we see the effects when we see our infrastructure crumbling. We have a power grid that's dangerously unprotected - and it's estimated that if the power grid goes down for a full year, 90% of us will die.

Wisconsin, like most states, has a state mandate to provide education for gifted and talented students. Walker made that an unfunded mandate. Already, states are starting to make uncomfortable decisions, and they're making them in ways that won't cause visible protest (who protests a bridge crumbling, or a kid who's so bored in school that he loses his love for learning).

I'm not claiming doom and gloom is on the way (though the power grid thing makes me nervous). It's just our quality of life is declining in subtle ways that can't easily be recovered.

All of those are political decisions that can be changed with different political decisions. Just going back to the Clinton tax rates would largely take care of the deficit and obviously not threaten the economy.

[ISiddiqui]

Looks like Christie in jumping in on Tuesday:

NJ Gov. Chris Christie To Announce 2016 Presidential Run Next Week « CBS New York (http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/06/25/christie-president/)

[Solecismic]

All of those are political decisions that can be changed with different political decisions. Just going back to the Clinton tax rates would largely take care of the deficit and obviously not threaten the economy.

Raising taxes has risks. I wouldn't say obviously there. Discussion of the Laffer Curve is certainly controversial with the left, but there are valid arguments to be considered.

I think the biggest long-term threat to our standard of living is the real unemployment rate (not the sanitized version produced by our politicians). We don't necessarily solve our problems with higher taxes, we solve them by putting more people in a position where they can pay taxes.

[JPhillips]

Except we spent nearly a decade under those tax rates and experienced a booming economy. I'm not arguing causation, but we obviously can get along with taxes at that level, we've done it.

[Dutch]

He's claimed that, but in reality he's run a deficit every year he's been in office and is facing another $2 billion deficit over the next biennium. On new jobs Wisconsin has been behind neighboring states and in his first term saw about half the job growth he said his policies would create. His main jobs program, aside from putting Open for Business on state signs, the WEDC has been a complete failure.

I only read it on Wikipedia, I have no real knowledge of this dude. Sounds to me like he has done absolutely nothing right. At least from my second source of info...FOFC. :)

[Dutch]

So what would be the larger concern...the national debt or global warming. Provided we had to spend equal amounts on both to reverse course?

[Coffee Warlord]

Except we spent nearly a decade under those tax rates and experienced a booming economy. I'm not arguing causation, but we obviously can get along with taxes at that level, we've done it.

Using the dot-com boom era as a point of economic comparison is not a good idea. That was a point of absurdity that we won't see again for a long, long time. Its rise and fall had absolutely nothing to do with anybody's economic or taxation policies.

[JPhillips]

But it, and the post-war boom, at least tell us that current taxes can be raised without an economic meltdown.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Looks like Christie in jumping in on Tuesday:


Well there's some horrifying imagery for the day ;)

[Solecismic]

The top federal tax rate right now is 43.4%. In the '90s, it peaked at 39.6%. So I'm not sure this is an easy assessment. The lowest quintile is paying less than 2% now, which is one-fourth of what it was a decade ago. Are you arguing that we should focus tax increases on the lower half? Seems fairer in some ways, but I think even a die-hard Republican would blanche a little at that approach.

[kcchief19]

My question is when do candidates start dropping out. The money simply isn't there to support this many candidates. There is a Mendoza line here somewhere ... I think by the time January rolls around we'll be down to 10 candidates or fewer.

To get the nomination, you almost have to win either Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina. Right now, the leaders in recent polls in those states are Walker, Bush and Graham. Graham's only shot really seems to be to stay relevant until the South Carolina primary and hope for home cooking to keep him alive. Bush and Walker seem to the best positioned to be the top two coming out of South Carolina.

I'm just having a hard time seeing anyone else playing a role other than spoiler.

Given the role of Americans for Prosperity and the Koch family in this part of the country, I'm interested to see at what point they jump in to the race. The Kochs have already stated they plan to spend $1 billion on the 2016 election cycle. So far they say they won't pick a horse in the primary. But Walker has been their guy. If it looks like someone less aligned with AFP goals such as Bush starts pulling away, will they step in?

[Solecismic]

Around this time four years ago, there was a lot of polling in Iowa. The only one during the summer with more than 1,000 likely voters was the Magellan poll in early July.

Bachmann 29%, Romney 16%, Cain 8%, Gingrich 5%, Paul 5%, Santorum 3%. Rick Perry entered the race in August and immediately took the lead. And then we learned more about Rick Perry and he placed fifth in the actual Iowa caucus. Bachmann finished sixth. Cain was out of the race by then and Santorum won the caucus.

Right now, we really know nothing - even about Iowa.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The top federal tax rate right now is 43.4%. In the '90s, it peaked at 39.6%. So I'm not sure this is an easy assessment. The lowest quintile is paying less than 2% now, which is one-fourth of what it was a decade ago. Are you arguing that we should focus tax increases on the lower half? Seems fairer in some ways, but I think even a die-hard Republican would blanche a little at that approach.

I don't think that question was for me but, uh ... Flatten it.

Lots of die-hard conservatives don't blanche at that approach at all.

[revrew]

Around this time four years ago, there was a lot of polling in Iowa. The only one during the summer with more than 1,000 likely voters was the Magellan poll in early July.

Bachmann 29%, Romney 16%, Cain 8%, Gingrich 5%, Paul 5%, Santorum 3%. Rick Perry entered the race in August and immediately took the lead. And then we learned more about Rick Perry and he placed fifth in the actual Iowa caucus. Bachmann finished sixth. Cain was out of the race by then and Santorum won the caucus.

Right now, we really know nothing - even about Iowa.

QFT

[kcchief19]

The top federal tax rate right now is 43.4%. In the '90s, it peaked at 39.6%. So I'm not sure this is an easy assessment. The lowest quintile is paying less than 2% now, which is one-fourth of what it was a decade ago. Are you arguing that we should focus tax increases on the lower half? Seems fairer in some ways, but I think even a die-hard Republican would blanche a little at that approach.
You're mixing rates in a confusing way there. The top marginal tax rate is 39.6%, but some self-employed taxpayers may have an additional Medicare surcharge and there could be an additional investment surcharge. But the number of people subject to the 43.4% marginal rate is extremely limited -- a fraction of 1 percent.

The lowest marginal rate is 10%, but the 2% rate you quote is an effective tax rate. No one facing a 43.4% marginal rate pays that much.

In fact, it's entirely possible that you could be in the 43.4% marginal tax bracket and pay less than 2% effective tax. This is where the Buffet proposal comes in -- that his effective tax rate is lower than the effective tax rate of the people who work for him.

[Solecismic]

It would be interesting to run for office on the platform that restoring the Clinton tax rates (where they were when he upped the top rate to 39.6%) is best for everyone. It would play well until the media figured out what that actually meant.

For conservatives, Romney's unpopular "47%" assertion probably still resonates. If people aren't financially invested in the system, do they still respect it?

I'm not sure anything matters even close to as much as the real unemployment level. Our economy is stagnant because millions are leaving the job market and not searching for new work.

[JPhillips]

I think Obama made a big mistake in placing the entire increase in taxes on the upper bracket. It wasn't the right time due to the recession, but he should have pushed for a short term extension of cuts and then allowed them to expire. That probably isn't good politics, but it would be better policy.

[Dutch]

In a system where we spend 20+working years trying to make it to the top, its a bullshit "reward" to penalize those who sacrifice so much to make it. Tax cuts and raises should be a community effort.

[JPhillips]

We're not going to make significant cuts to defense, SS, or healthcare, so taxes need to be at a level to pay for those things. There was a time when that was considered fiscal conservatism.

[Solecismic]

Absolutely. So what constitutes a "fair share" of financing these necessities? Should we ask people to pay for their own health care? If not, should we penalize people for poor choices, like bad nutrition or obesity or smoking or reckless behavior? Should we ask people to pay for infrastructure based on how much they consume (a gas tax, for example)?

We can all agree that the abuses chronicled about the 1% of the 1% of the 1% (like Buffett) who can afford extraordinary tax shelters aren't good. But for the rest, the relatively wealthier are paying a heck of a lot more for the same services. Do they deserve all that vitriol? By most measures they are already paying considerably more than a fair share.

I think many people are tired of adding entitlements to government. There's always a worthy entitlement. But when we complain because the schools no longer fund gifted education and the roads are falling apart, people who aren't paying much, if any, taxes tell us we should be paying more taxes.

And if we try, responsibly, to save for our retirements rather than trying to buy bigger and bigger houses or boats or cars or other toys, then we're told that the hyper-inflation we'll endure sooner or later because our government refuses to stay within its budget is no big deal. Of course it's no big deal if you have nothing saved for the future.

[SackAttack]

IRT Walker, I've heard a bit about him generating a surplus in the state and producing a lot of new jobs. Have this things had a positive impact in WI?

No sir. Even ignoring the job market (which has grown steadily worse over the last four years), he keeps blowing the surplus on tax cuts and then claiming we need spending cuts to compensate for the deficits he creates...and targets education to do that.

You know where employers don't want to move their operations? To a state where they can't count on a pool of educated workers.

You know what Wisconsin hasn't spent the last four years doing? Supporting education.

Do the math. Scott Walker can't.

He's claimed that, but in reality he's run a deficit every year he's been in office and is facing another $2 billion deficit over the next biennium. On new jobs Wisconsin has been behind neighboring states and in his first term saw about half the job growth he said his policies would create. His main jobs program, aside from putting Open for Business on state signs, the WEDC has been a complete failure.

~40k jobs added the last four months of 2014. ~146k estimated added for his entire first four years. That means we spent 3 years, 8 months with thumb-in-ass disease attributable in no small part to his policies.

But it, and the post-war boom, at least tell us that current taxes can be raised without an economic meltdown.

Difficulty: the post-war boom was fueled in large part by the devastation in Europe during the war. The American economy was the only Western economy not in an absolute shambles. When you're producing things for the entire world to consume, income growth is going to be strong enough to sustain 1950s-level marginal rates.

Comparing the current economic climate with that of the post-war era and concluding that the top marginal rate has room to go up as a result is kind of a specious comparison. Do I think that the economy could sustain Clinton-era tax rates? Yes.

But Eisenhower-era rates are another question, and I don't think we can rely on past performance as an indicator of future results there.

[SackAttack]

~40k jobs added the last four months of 2014. ~146k estimated added for his entire first four years. That means we spent 3 years, 8 months with thumb-in-ass disease attributable in no small part to his policies.

Something else I'd point out also is that leading up to the recall election, Walker and the state DWD began reporting job creation/unemployment data using a completely different method than that used by literally every other state in the nation to make the picture look better.

That accounting change let him claim 23k jobs created for all of 2011 rather than the 30k or so lost that were being reported by other numbers.

So that 146k, does that include his handwavery (which represents a 50k job swing by itself), or is that using the more traditional numbers that the other 49 states use?

[Dutch]

Not saying I'm interested in this dude, but I didn't feel like I was getting the whole story on him. So back to Wikipedia! I'm sure there are better places for information, but I don't know where and depending on it's layout, probably wouldn't care enough to research. Wiki is nice and succinct...albeit very tricky to determine the intent of the writer's tone.

Anyway, cliff notes.

Re-reading the Wiki page....more on Walker...He boosted state health care by $1.3B to account for increases in Medicaid costs at one point. $400M increase in the transportation budget. He saved nearly $1B by turning down federal money for a high speed railway that wasn't expected to make money. In 2012, after 10%-20% of all Democrat recall signatures were suspected to be fraudulent, he still won the recall more handily than the election. Following the Democrat corruption of signatures demanding his recall, he implemented Voter ID requirements which the Democrats sued him for saying that wasn't legal. Kind of ironic. :) He did in fact eliminate $800M from education budget. It doesn't mention a $4B loan, but it does say he wiped a $3.6B deficit left to him from the previous governor.

[lungs]

but it does say he wiped a $3.6B deficit left to him from the previous governor.

He likes to say he wiped it out but it's another instance of Walker moving the goalposts. My understanding of this may not be perfect but from the way I do understand it, the $3.6 billion deficit was based on an accrual accounting system instead of cash. During his campaign, Walker talked about using the accrual method of accounting, but once he realized he couldn't close the deficit based on the accrual method, the cash accounting method was once again good enough for him. Yet he'll still cite the $3.6 billion deficit that he closed (using two different accounting systems).

Doyle never had a cash deficit because Wisconsin has a balanced budget law. So really, Walker may have reduced the accrual deficit but he certainly hasn't wiped it out or even come close. But he likes to claim he did.

[Dutch]

I am sure he loves to say it. I only was referencing the wiki article, though. I guess its possible he wrote it, though! Its Wiki, after all!

[Shkspr]

If you can't trust the puffery and/or vitriol of a Wikipedia political page, what can you trust?

[SackAttack]

Not saying I'm interested in this dude, but I didn't feel like I was getting the whole story on him.

Quite possibly. That cuts both ways.

So back to Wikipedia! I'm sure there are better places for information, but I don't know where and depending on it's layout, probably wouldn't care enough to research. Wiki is nice and succinct...albeit very tricky to determine the intent of the writer's tone.

If you're basing it off of the writer's tone rather than examining the sources cited by the article, you're doing it wrong.

Anyway, cliff notes.

Re-reading the Wiki page....more on Walker...He boosted state health care by $1.3B to account for increases in Medicaid costs at one point.

You want "the whole story"? Yeah, he boosted spending on Medicaid by $1.2 billion. He also drastically overhauled the state's "BadgerCare" program. Cliffs notes on THAT: BadgerCare was the state's low-income health insurance program; you had to be at or below 200% of the federal poverty line to qualify, and benefits differed between childless adults and parents. If you were between 200-300% of the poverty line, your children could qualify (although their parents would not) as long as you paid some of the premium.

The change? Reduce eligibility to those between 0-100% of the federal poverty line, but eliminate the waiting list for those who met those requirements. Everybody from 101%-300% who previously qualified no longer does.

Gov. Scott Walker says he didn’t cut Medicaid, but instead added $1.2 billion | PolitiFact Wisconsin (http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/jun/24/scott-walker/governor-scott-walker-says-critics-are-wrong-he-cu/)

Walker's Medicaid gamble: Shrinking BadgerCare could cost Wisconsin in the long run - Isthmus | Madison, Wisconsin (http://www.isthmus.com/news/news/walkers-medicaid-gamble-shrinking-badgercare-could-cost-wisconsin-in-the-long-run/)

$400M increase in the transportation budget. He saved nearly $1B by turning down federal money for a high speed railway that wasn't expected to make money.

Walker bypasses gas tax hike, wants $1.3 billion in transportation bonds (http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/walker-bypasses-gas-tax-hike-wants-13-billion-in-transportation-bonds-b99436196z1-290377171.html)

From the article:

Paying past debt takes up about 19% of the state money that flows into the transportation fund each year. That percentage would rise under Walker's plan, though his office did not provide specifics.

If you fund a department at an increase but borrow all the money that's going to the budget increase, which results in a greater percentage of that budget being used for debt service, are you really increasing spending?

In 2012, after 10%-20% of all Democrat recall signatures were suspected to be fraudulent, he still won the recall more handily than the election. Following the Democrat corruption of signatures demanding his recall, he implemented Voter ID requirements which the Democrats sued him for saying that wasn't legal. Kind of ironic. :) He did in fact eliminate $800M from education budget. It doesn't mention a $4B loan, but it does say he wiped a $3.6B deficit left to him from the previous governor.

Three things:

1) Used as an adjective rather than an appellation, it's "Democratic," not "Democrat." That's what the party calls itself: "The Democratic Party." They don't, and never have, called themselves "The Democrat Party." Using the pejorative variant pushed by conservative talk radio doesn't do much to make anybody think that you're just an open-minded bloke looking for the truth.

2) You know what the thing is about petition/recall signatures? There's a difference between "fraudulent" and "unverifiable." If I, John Doe, sign a petition naming myself as John Doe, living at 123 Deer Hunt Drive in Podunk, WI, but I'm renting a room from a homeowner or something like that and my name doesn't show up on any kind of paper trail (utility bills, home ownership deeds, that sort of thing), that doesn't mean my signature is fraudulent. It means it's unverifiable.
2a) that 10-20% was of a limited sample, and STILL wasn't remotely close enough to head off the recall. Think about that. They still needed valid signatures accounting for at least 1% of the voter base from the previous general election to trigger a recall, and that threshold was easily crossed, even with the irregular signatures.
2b) Revisionist history. Scott Walker signed the voter ID bill in May of 2011, just a few scant months after he took office. The gubernatorial recall was in June of 2012. That's not ironic, that is a flat out lie.

3) He eliminated more than that. You're looking only at the K-12 aid. Technical schools and the state university system lost another $250 million each. And that was just the funding cut under Act 10, and ignores later funding cuts (including the $300 million he wanted to cut from the state university system in this year's biennial budget).

Recall candidate Kathleen Falk says Governor Scott Walker enacted "the biggest cuts to education in our state's history" | PolitiFact Wisconsin (http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/feb/19/kathleen-falk/recall-candidate-kathleen-falk-says-governor-scott/)

Scott Walker cut school funding more than any governor, Greater Wisconsin Committee claims | PolitiFact Wisconsin (http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2014/sep/07/greater-wisconsin-political-fund/scott-walker-cut-school-funding-more-any-governor-/)

[Dutch]

If you can't trust the puffery and/or vitriol of a Wikipedia political page, what can you trust?

:). Oh, trust me, I agree.

[albionmoonlight]

What am I missing about Rubio? I know that it is very early, but it seems to me like he should be the pretty clear favorite. Conservative enough for the base. Has not been portrayed by the media as crazy conservative (a'la Ted Cruz), so he has mainstream appeal. Charismatic. Establishment (he's a senator after all). Hispanic. Has a political machine in one of the most important swing states. Freshness and youth that seems like it would play well against Clinton.

What am I missing? Where are his warts?

[Kodos]

On his genitals.

[revrew]

What am I missing about Rubio? I know that it is very early, but it seems to me like he should be the pretty clear favorite. Conservative enough for the base. Has not been portrayed by the media as crazy conservative (a'la Ted Cruz), so he has mainstream appeal. Charismatic. Establishment (he's a senator after all). Hispanic. Has a political machine in one of the most important swing states. Freshness and youth that seems like it would play well against Clinton.

What am I missing? Where are his warts?

Were it not for the uproar over his participation with the Gang of 8 on immigration reform, he would be the clear favorite. He was clearly moving that direction, then shot himself in the foot over immigration.

But every candidate in this primary has his trouble spots. If Rubio can recover from that political blunder, he could become a favorite again. Definitely one to watch.

[Solecismic]

The apparent word is Walker declares in a couple of weeks, Kasich a little later. Making this a full field of 16.

Going to 16 marked the end of the Big West, but at least it entitled them to a conference championship game.

Sideshow Trump has declared war on Univision. Perhaps Omarosa will agree to be his VP candidate.

[SackAttack]

Maybe I'll get super lucky and Walker/Kasich will cannibalize one another's support in Iowa and one of the other 14 will carry momentum to New Hampshire.

[bob]

Let's just go 16 candidate tournament.... Debate and feats of strength.

Would be more entertaining than what we'll really have.

[Dutch]

They should do It on ESPN. First round is a one on one basketball tourney. Then a homerun derby, then a two on two football game and end it with a 5 round MMA cage match.

[NobodyHere]

Chris Christie officially joins the race.

[tarcone]

The mafia trying to get back into the White House. I guess if the Chicago political machine can get there, why not the mafia in a more pronounced position

[JonInMiddleGA]

Chris Christie officially joins the race.

Well that oughta ... tip the scales.

[Coffee Warlord]

Ba dum ching.

[Dutch]

Hehe

[stevew]

The polling is pretty bizarre looking. 16+ candidates and nobody has much individual support.

[albionmoonlight]

Just read an excerpt of Cruz's book talking about his time clerking on the Supreme Court. I think that I would like Cruz as a person, even though I disagree with pretty much all of his platform as a candidate.

[lighthousekeeper]

The polling is pretty bizarre looking. 16 canidates and nobody has much individual support.

Aren't there more than 16 who have formally filed for candidacy?

[sabotai]

Well that oughta ... tip the scales.

(•_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)

YEEEEAAAHHHHH!!!!!

[SackAttack]

Aren't there more than 16 who have formally filed for candidacy?

Don't think so, at least not with any name recognition.

There are a bunch who have made noises and are expected to run, but by waiting to formally declare, they can do some fundraising that doesn't run afoul of FEC guidelines for declared candidates.

Walker is one of those, and I know there are others, though names escape me.

[Desnudo]

Can we just eliminate the dumb native born requirement and let Arnold run? Trump is native born for gods sake. That doesn't say much for the requirement. I would bet that an immigrant who is grateful for his citizenship would be a hell of lot more reliable than some silver spooned buffoon.

[Coffee Warlord]

Can we just eliminate the dumb native born requirement and let Arnold run? Trump is native born for gods sake. That doesn't say much for the requirement. I would bet that an immigrant who is grateful for his citizenship would be a hell of lot more reliable than some silver spooned buffoon.

Go for it, Arnie. Hell, we elected Obama twice, and he's not a citizen. :D

[NobodyHere]

Can we just eliminate the dumb native born requirement and let Arnold run? Trump is native born for gods sake. That doesn't say much for the requirement. I would bet that an immigrant who is grateful for his citizenship would be a hell of lot more reliable than some silver spooned buffoon.

Just redefine "Natural Born Citizen". It worked for Ted Cruz after all.

[Solecismic]

So... Trump is still a "birther" and he proposes bombing Iraq's oil fields in order to strike at ISIS.

And he's gaining in the polls.

It's past time to get him off the stage. Though he's threatening to run as a third party.

I'm beginning to wonder if he's Hillary's secret campaign manager.

[Dutch]

:)

Agreed, he's almost single-handedly making people vote for Hillary...or not vote...thats for sure.

[lungs]

Scott Walker is official.

[ISiddiqui]

15 in!

We need a reality show for this!

[albionmoonlight]

So... Trump is still a "birther" and he proposes bombing Iraq's oil fields in order to strike at ISIS.

And he's gaining in the polls.

It's past time to get him off the stage. Though he's threatening to run as a third party.

I'm beginning to wonder if he's Hillary's secret campaign manager.

Do you think he's really hurting the GOP, though? The serious candidates can criticize him as needed. And he sucks up a lot of the media spotlight at a time when attention would mostly be bad. I do not get the sense that moderate voters are going to hold it against Bush/Walker/Rubio that they happen to be in the same party as Trump.

I guess if I were a GOP longshot, I would be mad at Trump because he is taking up a lot of the free media that I would hope to use at this time to get propelled into the higher tier of candidates.

[ISiddiqui]

I actually think Jeb Bush doesn't mind, because while Trump is being a blowhard, Bush is amassing a massive war chest - his PAC raised a ridiculous amount of money last quarter.

[albionmoonlight]

dola:

I think that Trump will be a distant memory by the time the conventions roll around. It is one thing to run for President and give some fire and brimstone speeches as a vanity project. It is another to actually go through the grind of running for President. He's going to get bored soon enough.

And even if he runs as a third party, I think that the Nader experience will keep conservative-leaning voters from choosing him.

[JPhillips]

I'm not sure he'll last to the financial disclosure forms.

[NobodyHere]

Well now that Donald Trump has alienated veterans as well as Hispanics, what group will he piss off next?

[JPhillips]

This is astounding:

In a Monmouth poll released a month ago, Trump had the worst favorability rating of any Republican candidate among Republican voters, 20 percent favorable to 55 percent unfavorable, a fact cited by many political observers in pooh-poohing his viability. In the poll out this week, Trump’s favorability has pulled nearly even at 41-40. The swing was even more dramatic among self-identified tea party voters, who went from viewing him unfavorably, 55 percent to 20 percent, to viewing him favorably 56 percent to 26 percent.

[Solecismic]

We're in a new age of polling, though. I wouldn't discount his popularity entirely, but he does have enormous name recognition while most do not. If you're reading a list of 16 people (maybe 15 - Pataki has all but disappeared), that name will stand out.

On the favorability issue, interesting. I'd have to see more. Because the more Trump speaks, the less presidential he seems to me - and he started fairly low on that scale as it is. I find it hard to believe that his negatives are going down. If that really is the case, then he will have opportunity to make a real move if he tones it down and finds a message other than grumpy old real estate mogul.

[Dutch]

...Bush is amassing a massive war chest - his PAC raised a ridiculous amount of money last quarter.


How much?


Presidential Campaign Finance Reports: A Data Visualization - Bloomberg Politics (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-16/presidential-campaign-finance-reports-a-data-visualization)


Bloomberg's got Clinton at $48M to date and Bush at $11M.

[JPhillips]

We're in a new age of polling, though. I wouldn't discount his popularity entirely, but he does have enormous name recognition while most do not. If you're reading a list of 16 people (maybe 15 - Pataki has all but disappeared), that name will stand out.

On the favorability issue, interesting. I'd have to see more. Because the more Trump speaks, the less presidential he seems to me - and he started fairly low on that scale as it is. I find it hard to believe that his negatives are going down. If that really is the case, then he will have opportunity to make a real move if he tones it down and finds a message other than grumpy old real estate mogul.

It's the favorability that I find amazing. With that high name recognition, favorables just don't move much. I'm not sure I've ever seen a flip like that.

[JPhillips]

How much?


Presidential Campaign Finance Reports: A Data Visualization - Bloomberg Politics (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-16/presidential-campaign-finance-reports-a-data-visualization)


Bloomberg's got Clinton at $48M to date and Bush at $11M.

Most of Bush's money has gone to his PAC. He reported 103 million for the first six months of 2015.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I think that the Nader experience will keep conservative-leaning voters from choosing him.

Depends upon the nominee.

If you froze Trump's popularity & imagine where it is right this second & put him as the third man in a race that involved Dem X and a pseudo-con R, he'd pull at least 1/3rd of the non-Dem vote.

[AENeuman]

dola:


And even if he runs as a third party, I think that the Nader experience will keep conservative-leaning voters from choosing him.

Or maybe he is Perot and once again will split the Bush vote and hand Clinton a victory.

[NobodyHere]

Courtesy of the Trump campaign:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k251/linszoid/trump_pow_small.jpg?t=1437167290

[mckerney]

Courtesy of the Trump campaign:

Doesn't appear to have any NAZIs in it, should work for the campaign.

[stevew]

I think the bar for a good president is set pretty low. I find Trump somewhat intriguing. But I'd never vote for him. He can basically run as right as he wants to but actually governing that way would be pretty unsustainable. He'd fracture the GOP caucus. In many ways he's the right man in a time where a nation that pines for superhero movies and he certainly has that Tony Stark element. Guys like Bush are pretty boring.

[cuervo72]

It's the favorability that I find amazing. With that high name recognition, favorables just don't move much. I'm not sure I've ever seen a flip like that.

Is he basically playing to the "rebel" vote? One that may have mistrusted him initially for his big city, New York veneer but love that he is pulling no punches and attacking targets they're not particularly fond of? And doing so while other candidates might be seen as tiptoeing around things?

[stevew]

I had no idea Trump wasn't still married to Martha maples.

Also I think we know where he stands on immigration from Eastern Europe, guys amirite.

[bhlloy]

Good to see he has at least one policy in line with Stalin

[SackAttack]

It's the favorability that I find amazing. With that high name recognition, favorables just don't move much. I'm not sure I've ever seen a flip like that.

There's, uh...I'm not going to open that can of worms here, but you don't have to think real hard to come up with exactly what the reason for that might be.

Of course, the attack on veterans might be corrosive enough to eat the bottom out of that boat he's in.

[Abe Sargent]

Well there's some horrifying imagery for the day ;)

I know the guy might have some luggage. But I have to tell you, living in Philadelphia, and seeing how he ran his state, and how well he did post-Katrina when other mayors, governors, and other folks were well, not doing a very good job, Christie is my default candidate to vote for when the primaries come around unless someone else convinces me otherwise.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Is he basically playing to the "rebel" vote? One that may have mistrusted him initially for his big city, New York veneer but love that he is pulling no punches and attacking targets they're not particularly fond of? And doing so while other candidates might be seen as tiptoeing around things?

I'd say right now that's virtually the ONLY thing he has going for him. Well that & by and large saying the right things when he speak. Not sure how today's will play overall, can certainly be used to bludgeon him but for as hamfisted as it was I certainly have no problem at all with him calling out a p.o.s. RINO like McCain.

Appreciate the service but as politicians go McCain ain't worth a damn. (and after hearing him speak about FCC deregulation a few years back, I became convinced that he's one genuinely ignorant -- if not outright stupid -- son of a bitch).

The OTHER thing Trump has in his favor is that he -- pending the outcome of today -- hasn't utterly botched anything he's said thus far. The more he talks, the higher the odds become however (true for anybody, politician or otherwise).

[cuervo72]

Appreciate the service but as politicians go McCain ain't worth a damn. (and after hearing him speak about FCC deregulation a few years back, I became convinced that he's one genuinely ignorant -- if not outright stupid -- son of a bitch).

You know, you'd think I'd have been more aware of the politics involved there over the past 15 years...

(McCain was for deregulation, yes? That seems like a generally Republican stance.)

As for Trump, part of me wonders to what extent he knows seemingly "outrageous" things he says will fly. I mean, he has to realize that quite a few Republicans (as opposed to Republican office holders, or what they can say publicly) weren't exactly thrilled with McCain, right? He seems crazy but there has to be some strategy here, though I can't imagine what he's doing would lead to him winning a general election. Pick up enough steam to gain inclusion in the debates (he loves being on the TV) and/or outlast other candidates? Perot got pretty far being crazy and spouting whatever the heck came to mind. Or maybe he's just looking to cash in on attention to feed his ego and figures this is a good way to do it.

[BillJasper]

Trump wants to disagree with McCain on the issues? More power to him. But he's a douchebag attacking McCain's military service. I doubt the pompous ass could've lasted a day in a Vietnam prison camp.

[RainMaker]

Trump is great for the guys who are farther to the right like Cruz. He makes everyone in the race look more compassionate. If he didn't have a track record for being a thin-skinned weirdo, I'd have thought he was purposely in the race to make the others look good to moderates.

[JonInMiddleGA]

You know, you'd think I'd have been more aware of the politics involved there over the past 15 years...

(McCain was for deregulation, yes? That seems like a generally Republican stance.)

McCain was the patron of FCC deregulation chief Michael Powell (going so far as to unseat a sitting GOP member of the board in order to get Powell in place) but eventually ended up, IIRC, voting against the final bill. Yes, that's as contradictory as it sounds.

My problem with McCain vis a vis broadcast deregulation isn't with his position(s) but rather specifically with hearing him give one of the THE worst interviews in the history of politics.

He was talking to Sean Hannity as I recall, and it was the most bewildering 20 minutes I've ever heard from any politician. Think along the lines of the guy (name escapes me) who described the internet as "a series of tubes" ... except worse.

The longer McCain babbled on the more I realized that he -- the man described at the time as the "lynchpin of deregulation" -- had less understanding of ANYTHING he was talking about than (insert random person) my mother. It was frightening & spellbinding at the same time, it was a chilling combination of doubletalk and nonsense. The average person would have just glazed over but for anyone with any experience in the industry at all, the contradictions and misuse of terms were glaring. Someone taught him to pronounce various words, nobody bothered to teach him the meanings of them nor how they interacted with each other.

It was to the extent that, on that day, I realized the man was a complete charlatan, utterly out of his depth ... but trying to fake it for all he was worth.

[cuervo72]

Oh, well that's how I assume at least half of Congress to be like. I mean, it's impossible to have a grasp on every subject, but I bet most members of committees don't know jack about the subject matter of the committee past what their lobbyists tell them. Especially for matters of science and technology. That or they're just in their pockets. Or there are the ones who are just flat out not very bright.

[Dutch]

I am still waiting to the Trump thing to go away so we can start getting after the real candidates.

[revrew]

I am still waiting to the Trump thing to go away so we can start getting after the real candidates.

Along those lines, here's an intriguing Top 10 read from the event Trump was at yesterday. Trump is only one of the top 10, so the other 9 give you a glimpse of what's going on here in Iowa:

STEVE DEACE: 2016 Iowa caucuses: Did Trump implode, has Jindal arrived? - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/20/steve-deace-2016-iowa-caucuses-did-trump-implode-h/)

[Kodos]

From Rev's article:


"They were helping to stage a pro-life demonstration outside the auditorium demanding the defunding of death merchant Planned Parenthood."

Shakes head.

[NobodyHere]

I am still waiting to the Trump thing to go away so we can start getting after the real candidates.

Let me know if you ever find one

[Dutch]

Let me know if you ever find one

Heh, I mean, serious threats to landing the gig. :)

(and yes...I've already come to the realization that re-animating Reagan is still centuries away.)

[ISiddiqui]

So Kasich is apparently going to it make it 16 in the clown car this week. So if Jindal declares... that's 17. Yikes!

[Dutch]

The Democratics still have room in their clown car...so far its just Hillary and her limo driver.

[rowech]

So Kasich is apparently going to it make it 16 in the clown car this week. So if Jindal declares... that's 17. Yikes!

Kasich's got a brewing scandal about charter schools that I'm not sure he's going to be able to survive.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Kasich's got a brewing scandal about charter schools that I'm not sure he's going to be able to survive.

His candidacy isn't going to survive his position on amnesty for illegals. Charter schools won't be nearly as important.

He's a guy running in the wrong party.

[Solecismic]

Kasich's got a brewing scandal about charter schools that I'm not sure he's going to be able to survive.

I don't know if it's related, but my wife (a professor of Education at an Ohio university) had discovered some really disturbing things about a conglomerate operating a bunch of Charters in Ohio. If that's the direct result of lobbying Kasich, it should finish him. The sad thing is that the same company is trying to gain a foothold in nearby states.

I like the idea of Charters. But it's very tricky in practice.

[Clark]

Today Scott Walker signed a bill banning abortions after 20-weeks. No exemptions for rape, incest or the health of the mother.

Also, he signed a contract with the State Patrol giving them a 6% pay raise over the next two years. All other State employees will receive 0% over that time period. The State Troopers Association supported Walker when he ran for governor. They are still allowed to collectively bargain.

[Dutch]

I'm not up to speed on charter schools, but the one my daughter won a lottery to attend is awesome.

[ISiddiqui]

Today Scott Walker signed a bill banning abortions after 20-weeks. No exemptions for rape, incest or the health of the mother.

That sort of stuff is seriously going to kill him in this race at some point.

[Dutch]

That sort of stuff is seriously going to kill him in this race at some point.

Agreed we should go with the scientific number on how late in the game we can coat-hanger "non-baby but damn near a baby!" fetuses.

[Izulde]

I'm still inclined to think Trump is the greatest troll in American political history.

[albionmoonlight]

I'm still inclined to think Trump is the greatest troll in American political history.

I think that he lacks the self-awareness to be a traditional troll. He is just in this for the attention, but I think that that's all on a subconscious level.

So, I guess he is a troll. But he's also trolling himself, if that makes any sense.

I still think that he'll be a distant memory by the time the caucuses roll around.

[SackAttack]

Today Scott Walker signed a bill banning abortions after 20-weeks. No exemptions for rape, incest or the health of the mother.

Also, he signed a contract with the State Patrol giving them a 6% pay raise over the next two years. All other State employees will receive 0% over that time period. The State Troopers Association supported Walker when he ran for governor. They are still allowed to collectively bargain.

The bolded point is relevant, and just one example of crony government from the guy.

To be fair, however, a lot of the raise involved is retroactive - they haven't seen an increase at all since before Walker took office, so it's not like this is coming out of nowhere. It's also a raise about 1/3 the size of what Walker wanted (he wanted 17%, the Legislature gave him 6%), so I guess bully for the Legislature for standing up to him?

But, yeah. I mean, I get not asking public safety workers like the state troopers or other first responders to pay more towards health costs or what-have-you the way he did for the teachers. Whether or not I agree with it, I can understand carving out an exception for "look, these folks do a dangerous job and we should take care of them for that."

It's the "teachers being allowed to collectively bargain harms the state's financial health but fire and police workers should totally have collective bargaining rights" BS I object to.

[SackAttack]

Also, Kasich formally running.

That's gonna be a weird contrast with Walker. Both guys went after the public unions, but Ohio structurally gives citizens the ability to say 'oh no you fucking didn't,' and Ohio's law got repealed by an overwhelming margin.

Wisconsin voters can't do that. So Walker has continued to hammer the unions because there's literally nobody who's going to balk him on it. The Legislature has been a rubber stamp for most of his governorship, and the only way for Wisconsin voters to put a stop to it is either to recall Walker (he already survived that challenge) or to somehow overcome the post-2010 gerrymandering that sees Democrats get about 60% of the votes for Assembly seats while walking away with about 40% of the actual seats.

So Kasich is taking the kinder, gentler approach with unions these days after having his nose bloodied the first time, and Walker is just blithely doing whatever the shit he feels like.

[Dutch]

So I guess the Democratics bow to unions non-stop just from the threat of getting bloodied?

[mckerney]

I'm still inclined to think Trump is the greatest troll in American political history.

Uhh, I think I'm becoming more convinced that you're right.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">.<a href="https://twitter.com/CBSNews">@CBSNews</a> can confirm that the number Trump just read out on stage in South Carolina is Lindsey Graham's cell number.</p>&mdash; DJ Judd (@juddzeez) <a href="https://twitter.com/juddzeez/status/623532952497090560">July 21, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[cartman]

I'm still inclined to think Trump is the greatest troll in American political history.

538 doesn't limit it to politics

Donald Trump Is The World’s Greatest Troll | FiveThirtyEight (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-the-worlds-greatest-troll/)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Anything that discomfits a p.o.s. RINO like Graham is only going to add to Trump's momentum at this point.

The harder Trump goes at these characters, the more I'm starting to wonder if he isn't going to make himself a legitimate threat for the nomination.

Personality, a willingness to call out characters that many feel are sorely deserving of it AND simply showing a set of actual balls instead of the capitulation that we see from too many others ... well, that definitely has a lot of appeal. And it's generating legitimate enthusiasm, something that relatively few of his primary opponents have shown an ability to do (and certainly something that the recent nominees have utterly failed at).

I STILL don't believe he's got the portfolio to be the best choice for President ... but with every passing day it's starting to look as though he might at least have the right attitude to put himself in the conversation.

[albionmoonlight]

Anything that discomfits a p.o.s. RINO like Graham is only going to add to Trump's momentum at this point.

The harder Trump goes at these characters, the more I'm starting to wonder if he isn't going to make himself a legitimate threat for the nomination.

Personality, a willingness to call out characters that many feel are sorely deserving of it AND simply showing a set of actual balls instead of the capitulation that we see from too many others ... well, that definitely has a lot of appeal. And it's generating legitimate enthusiasm, something that relatively few of his primary opponents have shown an ability to do (and certainly something that the recent nominees have utterly failed at).

I STILL don't believe he's got the portfolio to be the best choice for President ... but with every passing day it's starting to look as though he might at least have the right attitude to put himself in the conversation.

The problem is that the traits tend to be mutually exclusive. People with the passionate feelings and willingness and what-the-fuck-attitude to speak the base's truth to the establishment tend not to have the portfolio/experience/temperament to actually run a successful serious campaign. And vice-versa.

The last guy who was able to combine both beat Carter 489-49 and Mondale 525-13.

[NobodyHere]

I have to admit, the idea of a Trump presidency just seems awesome right now, just to get a change from politicians who give over polished speeches but accomplish nothing.

At least Trump is interesting to listen to.

[Solecismic]

I have to admit, the idea of a Trump presidency just seems awesome right now, just to get a change from politicians who give over polished speeches but accomplish nothing.

At least Trump is interesting to listen to.

Sure. He says what politicians don't say.

However, this includes a foreign policy that would make the mess Bush started and Obama exacerbated so much worse. His idea of handling ISIS is, again, to bomb Iraq's oil fields. There's the genesis of an idea that cutting off ISIS' access to money is a good thing, but it's not really where ISIS gets its money and it would cause a dozen other problems.

He seems to approach foreign policy like it's an episode of The Apprentice. He pretends to listen for ten minutes, then he cuts off discussion and fires someone for some arbitrary small-picture reason.

Trump is divisive. And in a political world that's already far too divisive, I think he's too destructive to be worth the novelty he brings to the field.

However, he won't win.

[EagleFan]

I have to admit, the idea of a Trump presidency just seems awesome right now, just to get a change from politicians who give over polished speeches but accomplish nothing.

At least Trump is interesting to listen to.

Oh hell no. If he or governor fat ass get anywhere near the nomination I may have to get a rifle.

[RainMaker]

Also, Kasich formally running.

That's gonna be a weird contrast with Walker. Both guys went after the public unions, but Ohio structurally gives citizens the ability to say 'oh no you fucking didn't,' and Ohio's law got repealed by an overwhelming margin.

Wisconsin voters can't do that. So Walker has continued to hammer the unions because there's literally nobody who's going to balk him on it. The Legislature has been a rubber stamp for most of his governorship, and the only way for Wisconsin voters to put a stop to it is either to recall Walker (he already survived that challenge) or to somehow overcome the post-2010 gerrymandering that sees Democrats get about 60% of the votes for Assembly seats while walking away with about 40% of the actual seats.

So Kasich is taking the kinder, gentler approach with unions these days after having his nose bloodied the first time, and Walker is just blithely doing whatever the shit he feels like.

Governor is supposed to represent the taxpayers best interest. And the people of Wisconsin seem to agree with his approach.

Why are people so upset when the person in charge of their tax dollars tries to find the best deal?

[JPhillips]

If the GOP had six candidates instead of sixteen I don't think Trump would be close to the lead, but it doesn't take much to lead a field so fractured. In the end I bet his ceiling is the Crazification Factor(27%).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Oh hell no. If he or governor fat ass get anywhere near the nomination I may have to get a rifle.

SINCE you went there ... I might possibly perhaps could hypothetically say something vaguely similar to that about a significant number of declared candidates in both parties.

Somewhat ironically, the relative size of the GOP field means there's probably more of them than there are of the D's.

[NobodyHere]

Oh hell no. If he or governor fat ass get anywhere near the nomination I may have to get a rifle.

But consider this: today Trump gave out Lindsey Graham's personal number.

How awesome would it be if Trump gave out Putin's phone number? Imagine calling up the leader of China and ordering some take-out. The possibilities are endless!

[JonInMiddleGA]

But consider this: today Trump have out Lindsey Graham's personal number.

How awesome would it be if Trump gave out Putin's phone number? Imagine calling up the leader of China and ordering some take-out. The possibilities are endless!

I don't despise Putin or any Chinese politician nearly as much as I loathe Graham. There really isn't anything Trump could do to Graham -- or any other RINO -- that could make me so much as twitch an eyelash.

So, honestly, do you really think a hypothetical is going to have any bearing there?

[lungs]

Governor is supposed to represent the taxpayers best interest. And the people of Wisconsin seem to agree with his approach.

Why are people so upset when the person in charge of their tax dollars tries to find the best deal?

That $67 he saved my family on property taxes was sold to us as something that will jumpstart the state's economy.... Still waiting for that to happen.

[EagleFan]

But consider this: today Trump have out Lindsey Graham's personal number.

How awesome would it be if Trump gave out Putin's phone number? Imagine calling up the leader of China and ordering some take-out. The possibilities are endless!

I saw what he did to many businesses in Atlantic City. Signing contracts, getting million dollars worth of products and services, not paying and then going bankrupt, paying out pennies on the dollar. Many businesses went under because of him, including his own.

[RainMaker]

That $67 he saved my family on property taxes was sold to us as something that will jumpstart the state's economy.... Still waiting for that to happen.

That's a fair complaint. I think complaining that he won't overpay for services is kind of silly though.

[ISiddiqui]

If the GOP had six candidates instead of sixteen I don't think Trump would be close to the lead, but it doesn't take much to lead a field so fractured. In the end I bet his ceiling is the Crazification Factor(27%).

Agreed. I think for a lot of backers of those on the lower end of the 16, their second (or third or fourth) choice would definitely not be Trump.

[ISiddiqui]

I saw what he did to many businesses in Atlantic City. Signing contracts, getting million dollars worth of products and services, not paying and then going bankrupt, paying out pennies on the dollar. Many businesses went under because of him, including his own.

Which, btw, is going to make a debate exchange between Trump and Christie quite fantastic to watch.

[BillJasper]

I saw what he did to many businesses in Atlantic City. Signing contracts, getting million dollars worth of products and services, not paying and then going bankrupt, paying out pennies on the dollar. Many businesses went under because of him, including his own.

Right now, no one is really paying attention to Trump in a detailed way. He barks loudly but what is going to happen when people start bringing up all the shady shit he's done over the years?

I don't think he has a real shot at the nomination. He's entertainment right now.

[ISiddiqui]

An idea - now that we have 16, can we have a debate tournament? Maybe 4 debates of 4 and then have 2 winners in each debate, and have semifinal debates of 4 each and then a Final with 4? We can seed them and everything!

[RainMaker]

Trump doesn't stand a chance. He riles up the most entrenched supporters because most people don't care about the election yet. When people start to care he'll fall off a cliff. This happens every election cycle.

[SackAttack]

So I guess the Democratics bow to unions non-stop just from the threat of getting bloodied?

Dutch, I don't know what you think you're accomplishing with "Democrat Party" and "Democratics," but every time you open your mouth that way, I take you less seriously.

Is that your goal? Or is this some kind of passive-aggressive trolling so that you can get your digs in without crossing Jim's "don't get personal" line?

[BillJasper]

Trump doesn't stand a chance. He riles up the most entrenched supporters because most people don't care about the election yet. When people start to care he'll fall off a cliff. This happens every election cycle.

Howard Dean - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDwODbl3muE)

Yeah!!!

[SackAttack]

Governor is supposed to represent the taxpayers best interest. And the people of Wisconsin seem to agree with his approach.

Why are people so upset when the person in charge of their tax dollars tries to find the best deal?

Because the thing is, he's not acting in the best interest of the taxpayers. To the extent THAT'S a thing, it's superficial.

Look, he enacts Act 10 to bust the public unions, especially the teachers. He pushes for repeated cuts to education spending. You know what REALLY drives employers wild and makes them want to move to a state? Hint: It's not attacking the education system. They want an educated workforce that can do the shit they need done. So, yay, people save a median of 70 bucks on property taxes, but the damage done to the rest of the state infrastructure is incalculable.

Additionally, and this bears repeating with a loud fucking megaphone, the teachers' union AGREED TO EVERY FINANCIAL CONCESSION WALKER ASKED FOR. The ONE thing they disagreed with was the complete neutering of their collective bargaining rights. They have no rights, in the state of Wisconsin, to bargain for ANYTHING outside of cost-of-living raises anymore. Not one. Damned. Thing. The financial concessions the governor said were essential to saving the state, the teachers agreed to. But that wasn't enough for him.

Now, moving forward five years, you talk about him acting in the best interests of the taxpayers?

Just what do you call it when the governor proposes cutting higher education funding by $300 million and taking out $300 million in loans that the state won't begin to repay for 13 years, to pay for a new basketball arena for billionaire ownership that doesn't want to fund it themselves? The state will be incurring interest for THIRTEEN YEARS before the first check is written to pay down that debt, and it's to build the Bucks a new arena. Sports facilities are a shell game. They don't ever return the kind of economic benefits sports franchise owners claim they will when they insist cities should foot the bill.

That's what he is fiscally. He's not fiscally conservative, and he CERTAINLY doesn't give a shit about getting "taxpayers" the best deal.

That's a fair complaint. I think complaining that he won't overpay for services is kind of silly though.

Except in his zeal to cut services, he DID end up overpaying for them. Funding was reduced for things like bridge repair/construction. A bridge here in Green Bay sagged, had to be shut down, and needed emergency repairs conducted at greater cost than what normal maintenance would have been in the first place.

Why? He had tax cuts to hand out, dummy. Who needs things like infrastructure when you can be a tax cut champion?

[ISiddiqui]

Dutch, I don't know what you think you're accomplishing with "Democrat Party" and "Democratics," but every time you open your mouth that way, I take you less seriously.

Is that your goal? Or is this some kind of passive-aggressive trolling so that you can get your digs in without crossing Jim's "don't get personal" line?

I think he's trying to Trump-like troll us ;). I agree with SackAttack's sentiments btw.

[BillJasper]

Because the thing is, he's not acting in the best interest of the taxpayers. To the extent THAT'S a thing, it's superficial.

Look, he enacts Act 10 to bust the public unions, especially the teachers. He pushes for repeated cuts to education spending. You know what REALLY drives employers wild and makes them want to move to a state? Hint: It's not attacking the education system. They want an educated workforce that can do the shit they need done. So, yay, people save a median of 70 bucks on property taxes, but the damage done to the rest of the state infrastructure is incalculable.

Additionally, and this bears repeating with a loud fucking megaphone, the teachers' union AGREED TO EVERY FINANCIAL CONCESSION WALKER ASKED FOR. The ONE thing they disagreed with was the complete neutering of their collective bargaining rights. They have no rights, in the state of Wisconsin, to bargain for ANYTHING outside of cost-of-living raises anymore. Not one. Damned. Thing. The financial concessions the governor said were essential to saving the state, the teachers agreed to. But that wasn't enough for him.

Now, moving forward five years, you talk about him acting in the best interests of the taxpayers?

Just what do you call it when the governor proposes cutting higher education funding by $300 million and taking out $300 million in loans that the state won't begin to repay for 13 years, to pay for a new basketball arena for billionaire ownership that doesn't want to fund it themselves? The state will be incurring interest for THIRTEEN YEARS before the first check is written to pay down that debt, and it's to build the Bucks a new arena. Sports facilities are a shell game. They don't ever return the kind of economic benefits sports franchise owners claim they will when they insist cities should foot the bill.

That's what he is fiscally. He's not fiscally conservative, and he CERTAINLY doesn't give a shit about getting "taxpayers" the best deal.



Except in his zeal to cut services, he DID end up overpaying for them. Funding was reduced for things like bridge repair/construction. A bridge here in Green Bay sagged, had to be shut down, and needed emergency repairs conducted at greater cost than what normal maintenance would have been in the first place.

Why? He had tax cuts to hand out, dummy. Who needs things like infrastructure when you can be a tax cut champion?

A big +1.

[Dutch]

I think he's trying to Trump-like troll us ;). I agree with SackAttack's sentiments btw.

I didn't start this game. I was ask to call them Democratics.

[SackAttack]

1) Used as an adjective rather than an appellation, it's "Democratic," not "Democrat." That's what the party calls itself: "The Democratic Party." They don't, and never have, called themselves "The Democrat Party." Using the pejorative variant pushed by conservative talk radio doesn't do much to make anybody think that you're just an open-minded bloke looking for the truth.

I didn't start this game. I was ask to call them Democratics.

You're either deliberately obtuse (ergo: trolling) or you have a pile of rocks for brains.

"Used as an adjective rather than an appellation." I'm sorry, I appear to have used words bigger than your capacity for mental processing. I'll dumb it down, just in case you really aren't trolling.

"Democratic" is an adjective for the larger collective, the Party. Thus, it is the "Democratic Party." The appellation - to use a smaller word, the name - for an individual member of that party is a "Democrat." A Democrat belongs to the Democratic Party.

Nowhere in there were you asked to refer to individual constituent members of the Party as Democratics. That was your deliberate misreading of the chastisement originally given.

Now, are we done here? Are you ready to use proper words like a big boy, or should I just assume that you're a worthless troll and not worth taking seriously? Because really, those are the options. If you insist on using the petty "Democrat Party" and "Democratics" pejoratives (I'm sorry, that word may be too big for you: insults) to refer to your political rivals, I can't take anything you have to say, no matter how much common sense it does or does not contain, seriously.

[Dutch]

You are a wordy, wordy, bird. :)

[SackAttack]

Now, are we done here? Are you ready to use proper words like a big boy, or should I just assume that you're a worthless troll and not worth taking seriously? Because really, those are the options. If you insist on using the petty "Democrat Party" and "Democratics" pejoratives (I'm sorry, that word may be too big for you: insults) to refer to your political rivals, I can't take anything you have to say, no matter how much common sense it does or does not contain, seriously.

You are a wordy, wordy, bird. :)

Moron, troll, or willing to be a big boy? C'mon, Dutch. It's not hard. All you have to do is lay claim to one.

[Dutch]

Moron, troll, or willing to be a big boy? C'mon, Dutch. It's not hard. All you have to do is lay claim to one.

Sometimes I feel like we are at two totally different emotional levels when chatting.

[RainMaker]

Because the thing is, he's not acting in the best interest of the taxpayers. To the extent THAT'S a thing, it's superficial.

Actually he is. He removed something that could be used to leverage more money out of taxpayers. It was shrewd, but if you want your representatives to find the best value for your tax dollars, it was a good move long term.

Just what do you call it when the governor proposes cutting higher education funding by $300 million and taking out $300 million in loans that the state won't begin to repay for 13 years, to pay for a new basketball arena for billionaire ownership that doesn't want to fund it themselves? The state will be incurring interest for THIRTEEN YEARS before the first check is written to pay down that debt, and it's to build the Bucks a new arena. Sports facilities are a shell game. They don't ever return the kind of economic benefits sports franchise owners claim they will when they insist cities should foot the bill.

The State of Wisconsin even after cuts still spends thousands more per student each year than most OECD countries. Wisconsin remains in the top half of the country in education spending per student. Teacher salaries remain in the top half of the country too.

I don't think adding more money to teacher's salaries and benefits packages somehow translates to better students these days.

Why? He had tax cuts to hand out, dummy. Who needs things like infrastructure when you can be a tax cut champion?

I don't necessarily agree with the tax cuts. But Wisconsin was heading in a bad direction years ago. Enormous structural deficit and struggling to pay off outstanding debt. That has for the most part turned around.

Maybe I'm sensitive to it because I live in a state that did the exact opposite. Unions got whatever they wanted and the state is now in a position where it can't be fixed.

[cartman]

Maybe I'm sensitive to it because I live in a state that did the exact opposite. Unions got whatever they wanted and the state is now in a position where it can't be fixed.

Is that because of unions, or maybe the fact that four of the previous seven governors went to prison might also have something to do with it? Lots of other states have unions that aren't a crippling problem.

[SackAttack]

Maybe I'm sensitive to it because I live in a state that did the exact opposite. Unions got whatever they wanted and the state is now in a position where it can't be fixed.

And, once again, the unions he insisted on breaking were amenable to literally every one of the financial concessions he sought to extract. This was not the unions trying to walk all over the state and the state just doing what it had to do to keep costs under control.

Scott Walker set after the unions to break them for political purposes, and spared the ones who were friendly to him politically. There was no need for what he did. It was about breaking groups he saw as being friendly to his political opposition and painting it in terms of "well, the state needs this to control costs," while obfuscating the actual truth of the matter.

[SackAttack]

Sometimes I feel like we are at two totally different emotional levels when chatting.

Well, you're acting like a child with your petty, needless pejoratives, so does that mean you're putting me in the role of the exasperated parent?

[cuervo72]

You know, if there are 16 entrants we shouldn't have huge debates or even primaries.

We should have a bracket.

[SackAttack]

You know, if there are 16 entrants we shouldn't have huge debates or even primaries.

We should have a bracket.

Had a snarky reply to that post, but the more I think about it...how WOULD you seed the 16 official contenders?

I'm fascinated by the idea. Trump seems like a 16 or maybe a 15 seed in terms of viability, but he has wealth behind him.

Hmm. I'm going to have to give this some thought.

[RainMaker]

Is that because of unions, or maybe the fact that four of the previous seven governors went to prison might also have something to do with it? Lots of other states have unions that aren't a crippling problem.

I don't blame unions at all. They used their leverage and political posturing to get what they could. Everyone would do the same.

[RainMaker]

And, once again, the unions he insisted on breaking were amenable to literally every one of the financial concessions he sought to extract. This was not the unions trying to walk all over the state and the state just doing what it had to do to keep costs under control.

Scott Walker set after the unions to break them for political purposes, and spared the ones who were friendly to him politically. There was no need for what he did. It was about breaking groups he saw as being friendly to his political opposition and painting it in terms of "well, the state needs this to control costs," while obfuscating the actual truth of the matter.

I don't know what his personal reasons for it were, but it removed the leverage that unions had over the state. The state is now in a significantly better position to negotiate new contracts with their employees than they were before.

The unions agreeing to the financial concessions didn't matter. That's a short term solution. This is a long term one. If the union could have gotten that kind of leverage over the state long term, they would do the exact same thing. It's just business.

[Solecismic]

Sack, I'd like you to take a couple of weeks away from this thread, if it's OK with you.

[SackAttack]

I don't know what his personal reasons for it were, but it removed the leverage that unions had over the state. The state is now in a significantly better position to negotiate new contracts with their employees than they were before.

It's not negotiation, dude. There IS no "position to negotiate new contracts." There is no leverage. The state dictates terms. The union has no statutory authority any longer to negotiate anything but cost of living adjustments. They can't negotiate pension payments, they can't negotiate health contributions, they can't negotiate working conditions (for whatever value of "working conditions" would ordinarily be in a public union's contract), they can't negotiate vacation time (remember, this is all public unions except first responders, so it's not just a teachers thing), they can't negotiate entry level pay, any of it. Literally the only thing they can bargain for is cost-of-living adjustments. They can't bargain for working conditions, entry level pay, or anything else you can think of. They can bargain for COLA and state law places limits on how much of a COL adjustment can happen in a contract.

Sack, I'd like you to take a couple of weeks away from this thread, if it's OK with you.

It isn't, really.

But if you want to PM me and discuss it privately so we don't pollute the thread, I'm willing to have that discussion, and I'll stay out of the thread while that discussion is ongoing out of respect for you. But when I see you asking me to step away, there are only two reasons I can think of for that, and one is a complete nonstarter.

[Solecismic]

I'm not a moderator, so it's only a request. Your choice.

[RainMaker]

It's not negotiation, dude. There IS no "position to negotiate new contracts." There is no leverage. The state dictates terms. The union has no statutory authority any longer to negotiate anything but cost of living adjustments. They can't negotiate pension payments, they can't negotiate health contributions, they can't negotiate working conditions (for whatever value of "working conditions" would ordinarily be in a public union's contract), they can't negotiate vacation time (remember, this is all public unions except first responders, so it's not just a teachers thing), they can't negotiate entry level pay, any of it. Literally the only thing they can bargain for is cost-of-living adjustments. They can't bargain for working conditions, entry level pay, or anything else you can think of. They can bargain for COLA and state law places limits on how much of a COL adjustment can happen in a contract.


That seems like a pretty good position to be in if you're the state. Why are you upset about this? Why would you root for a position where you're spending more tax dollars than you need to for a service?

[Izulde]

That seems like a pretty good position to be in if you're the state. Why are you upset about this? Why would you root for a position where you're spending more tax dollars than you need to for a service?

Let's see... it might be because of the following:

1) Killing the unions will result in a decline of teacher quality, both in terms of retaining talent and attracting it in the first place?

2) It's part of Walker's systematic attack on education in the state. $200 million in cuts to the UW system *and* elimination of many tenure protections that are going to make the top researchers and teaching faculty go elsewhere? It's difficult enough to attract top talent in a flyover state - aggressively going after the very things that have made Wisconsin a strong state educationally pre-Walker isn't going to help matters.

3) When you bomb away at a state's education system, you're trading away the future of the state. A less educated state population is one whose work performance sharply declines.

4) Remember the Wisconsin Idea? That was a driving force behind the state being one of the better places to live in the Midwest from an overall quality of life standpoint. Walker has taken a hatchet job to that with his scorched earth tactics.

Essentially, all Walker has done in his governorship is turn Wisconsin into Mississippi North. And that's not a good thing.

[SackAttack]

That seems like a pretty good position to be in if you're the state. Why are you upset about this? Why would you root for a position where you're spending more tax dollars than you need to for a service?

Because you often get what you pay for? Just a thought. As I mentioned upthread, Skimping on bridge maintenance cost the state more than it saved. Spending as little as possible isn't always the best route.

Let's see... it might be because of the following:

1) Killing the unions will result in a decline of teacher quality, both in terms of retaining talent and attracting it in the first place?

Especially the higher up the ladder you go, yes.

2) It's part of Walker's systematic attack on education in the state. $200 million in cuts to the UW system *and* elimination of many tenure protections that are going to make the top researchers and teaching faculty go elsewhere? It's difficult enough to attract top talent in a flyover state - aggressively going after the very things that have made Wisconsin a strong state educationally pre-Walker isn't going to help matters.

And those are just this year's cuts. It isn't like the UW cuts are the first time he's ever cut education spending at any level. It's part of an ongoing pattern.

3) When you bomb away at a state's education system, you're trading away the future of the state. A less educated state population is one whose work performance sharply declines.

And it can take a generation or more to undo the damage done in a very short time. Structural changes like these aren't like slapping a coat of paint on a building. It's not like the next Democratic governor can just undo all of Walker's infrastructure mistakes, and that's assuming she has a sympathetic Legislature to work with (which she ain't gonna if Democrats don't turn out in enough force in 2020 to overcome the fact that 60% of ballots cast went for Democrats in WI last term, but only 40% of Assembly and Senate seats went to Democrats).

[Izulde]

And those are just this year's cuts. It isn't like the UW cuts are the first time he's ever cut education spending at any level. It's part of an ongoing pattern.



Believe me, I'm well aware. I still follow Wisconsin state-level politics (Nevada's isn't very interesting - because of the sheer stupidity of term limits, the state is completely owned by the casinos and the mining companies.)

[RainMaker]

Little heavy on the hyperbole. Like I said, Wisconsin is still in the top half of the country in terms of spending per student and teacher salaries. This in a field that is over-saturated. The state is nothing like Mississippi and if that's the argument teachers are making, perhaps it's best if they found some new teachers.

As for the UW system, Madison hovers between 3rd or 4th in the country when it comes to research funding. In fact, when you just account for state funding there, they dwarf almost everyone. This includes their Big 10 brethren and all the big state schools in California. Tuition wise the school is also on the lower end compared to those with similar profiles.

I get if you feel teachers should get paid a bunch more just because you like them. That the market shouldn't play a role. But the hyperbole that Wisconsin is becoming Mississippi is ridiculous. Your state still funds education at high levels and that includes at it's highest.

[RainMaker]

Because you often get what you pay for? Just a thought. As I mentioned upthread, Skimping on bridge maintenance cost the state more than it saved. Spending as little as possible isn't always the best route.


Not when one side had leverage on you. This removed that leverage they had. There isn't a shortage of teachers out there either. They are still being paid well above market value.

And if this is about having the best teachers, why would you be against a measure that removed things like binding arbitration which made it near impossible to fire a bad teacher?

[SackAttack]

Not when one side had leverage on you. This removed that leverage they had.

If all it was was removing leverage, you'd have an even negotiating position. You don't have that now. The ability of public servants to influence their bargaining position was taken away, and the result has been an increase in teacher retirements to preserve the benefits they had earned under previous contracts. Why? They have no bargaining power any longer to ensure those benefits aren't eroded. They are literally, by law, not allowed to bargain those things. That isn't good for the state, when you have an exodus of experienced teachers.

There isn't a shortage of teachers out there either. They are still being paid well above market value.

1) That's not a term that has any meaning when the labor involved has no ability to bargain for its own worth. And, remember, this isn't just about teachers. ALL public servants, save for the first responders' unions (who also supported Walker) were impacted by this. Market forces aren't a one-way entity.

2) You say "Wisconsin is still in the top half of the country" as if that's something to be proud of. "Yay, we're average"? Wisconsin had a top-5 educational system in the country when I moved here, and by most metrics, that has slipped under Governor Walker. Education has been his favorite punching bag, and that's after declaring the state "open for business."

Define your terms, though. When you talk about rankings, are you using the mean? The median? I can tell you that new teachers in my school district make about as much as I would make working part time at a major retailer over the course of a year. State law has previously been fairly specific about requirements to be a licensed teacher, as well, so most of these people also aren't going to have a bachelor's and call it a day. Advanced degrees and they make about what they might make in retail. Oh, it might be different in Milwaukee, just like it's probably different in LA proper compared to rural northern California, but that skews the numbers.

And if this is about having the best teachers, why would you be against a measure that removed things like binding arbitration which made it near impossible to fire a bad teacher?

Why is it necessary to completely excise bargaining rights in order to be able to fire a bad teacher? That's a little bit "we had to destroy the village in order to save it." Whatever issues you have with the teaching profession, completely removing the right of public employees to bargain anything related to their employment because "we can't fire bad public employees under the current contracts" is ludicrous.

[Solecismic]

This is an interesting take on the teacher tenure/performance argument:

Most Likely to Succeed - The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/12/15/most-likely-to-succeed-2)

We're conditioned in America to throw money at problems. Throw enough money, and maybe they get solved. But I don't think that always works very well.

That's not to say that Walker necessarily has any better answers. Funding for gifted and talented education in Wisconsin is $0 now, maybe thanks to him. I can't support that.

The football analogies in the article above are a bit weak. I've found, for instance, that quarterback scouting is greatly improved in recent years - and it wasn't all that bad 15 years ago. Obviously, Chase Daniel is not a success story in the NFL. He was not drafted.

But I think teacher tenure needs a hard look. The solutions the authors suggest would do the most good are completely impossible in today's political arena. Not even a Republican would suggest them.

[SackAttack]

But I think teacher tenure needs a hard look. The solutions the authors suggest would do the most good are completely impossible in today's political arena. Not even a Republican would suggest them.

If one of the solutions you're referring to is the "hire anybody with a bachelor's and a pulse," that basically WAS a proposal for this year's state budget - to allow anybody to teach certain non-core subjects, and to require only a bachelor's degree for those core subjects.

The outcry shouted it down, but it was proposed.

[RainMaker]

If all it was was removing leverage, you'd have an even negotiating position. You don't have that now. The ability of public servants to influence their bargaining position was taken away, and the result has been an increase in teacher retirements to preserve the benefits they had earned under previous contracts. Why? They have no bargaining power any longer to ensure those benefits aren't eroded. They are literally, by law, not allowed to bargain those things. That isn't good for the state, when you have an exodus of experienced teachers.

You're making this more complicated than it needs to be. The state is purchasing a service (teaching). It is in the states interest to fill that service by providing the best value for the taxpayers. Why would the state purposely put themselves at a disadvantage in doing so? Your entire argument is that the state should give the side they are purchasing the service from an advantage out of the kindness of their heart.

And teachers do have the ultimate bargaining power. They can choose not to work as a teacher in that state. And if the state feels they can't bring in the talent they want, they can raise the salaries and benefits till they reach their goal. This is something the taxpayers should be deciding with their vote.

You say "Wisconsin is still in the top half of the country" as if that's something to be proud of. "Yay, we're average"? Wisconsin had a top-5 educational system in the country when I moved here, and by most metrics, that has slipped under Governor Walker. Education has been his favorite punching bag, and that's after declaring the state "open for business."

What metric is that? You're still #2 in ACT test scores. Been at #2 for years with no signs of dropping (you're even up a little from last year!). So where are you seeing this drop?

Define your terms, though. When you talk about rankings, are you using the mean? The median? I can tell you that new teachers in my school district make about as much as I would make working part time at a major retailer over the course of a year. State law has previously been fairly specific about requirements to be a licensed teacher, as well, so most of these people also aren't going to have a bachelor's and call it a day. Advanced degrees and they make about what they might make in retail. Oh, it might be different in Milwaukee, just like it's probably different in LA proper compared to rural northern California, but that skews the numbers.

The average teacher salary in Wisconsin was right around $55,000 a year. That was 19th or 21st in the country depending on who's estimates you go with. That doesn't account for the average of $23,000 in benefits that are also included in their compensation package. That's $78,000 in compensation for your average teacher in the state of Wisconsin. And remember, Wisconsin has a lower cost of living than most states making that money stretch even more.

Please let me know where the part-time retail jobs are that are offering up compensation packages in the $78,000 a year range.

I'm also not arguing that the state should nickel and dime teachers. I'm simply saying that neutering the union is a benefit for the state and it's taxpayers. It eliminates and obstacle and increases their flexibility. Sucks if you're a union employee, but not if you're a taxpayer. Walker represents the taxpayer.

[Izulde]

If one of the solutions you're referring to is the "hire anybody with a bachelor's and a pulse," that basically WAS a proposal for this year's state budget - to allow anybody to teach certain non-core subjects, and to require only a bachelor's degree for those core subjects.

The outcry shouted it down, but it was proposed.

Similar things are in place with a lot of states that have poor educational systems/a shortage of teachers, under the heading of Alternate Routes to Licensing.

Clark County, for example, which is one of the worst school districts in the country, relies heavily on this because they can't keep faculty.

[SackAttack]

You're making this more complicated than it needs to be. The state is purchasing a service (teaching). It is in the states interest to fill that service by providing the best value for the taxpayers. Why would the state purposely put themselves at a disadvantage in doing so? Your entire argument is that the state should give the side they are purchasing the service from an advantage out of the kindness of their heart.

It has nothing to do with the kindness of their hearts. It has everything to do with the fact that the actions of the State of Wisconsin do not happen in a vacuum. Wisconsin can strip bargaining rights from teachers, but it cannot inhibit their mobility - and especially not the mobility of the best teachers. They will be in demand anywhere they choose to go. The ones who get stuck holding the bill are the ones that, allegedly, the state should most be seeking to get rid of. The ones who will roll over and take it are the ones who don't have the same options.

The state should be seeking to maximize the utility of tax dollars spent, but that is not the same thing as "spend the least amount possible" on whatever it happens to be. I already illustrated upthread one area where trying to skimp ultimately cost the state more than the savings it thought it realized. A drought of quality teachers is not something you can just hire a construction firm to work overtime for six weeks to fix.

You want to get the best bang for your buck, but that is not the same thing as 'spend the absolute minimum necessary to do the job.'

And teachers do have the ultimate bargaining power. They can choose not to work as a teacher in that state. And if the state feels they can't bring in the talent they want, they can raise the salaries and benefits till they reach their goal. This is something the taxpayers should be deciding with their vote.

You just made my point. The teachers who are in demand can leave, and will leave. The ones left behind will be of inferior quality, and the state's education system will suffer. The damage may not be immediately noticeable. But it will be cumulative. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say it's a generational fix. If those of us who oppose(d) Act 10 are correct and this is bad for Wisconsin's educational system, you cannot fix this overnight. This is the ultimate in high-stakes poker with the state's educational system. Giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming that they really believe this will improve the educational system, Walker and the GOP are betting big that these changes won't have the negative impact opponents of Act 10 believe. There's no soft landing here. Either Walker et al are right, and 20 years from now they get to say "we told you so," or they're wrong, and repairing the damage will take a generation or more. "Throwing money at" the schools at some point down the road won't repair the loss of quality teachers the state has had in the interim, or the decision by students entering college not to enter the teaching profession because of the state's adversarial attitude towards teachers. This is not as simple as "push a button, get a response."

But in the meantime, yes, the best teachers can, and will, seek other opportunities. Maybe those will be in states that value education. Maybe those opportunities will be in other countries. And once you lose them, you're not getting them back. It's the same on the national level with science funding. If you cut funding, scientists will go where the funding is, and that's a generational loss.

What metric is that? You're still #2 in ACT test scores. Been at #2 for years with no signs of dropping (you're even up a little from last year!). So where are you seeing this drop?

I compared the NEA's most recent ranking data with that available the year Walker took office. In 2011, the ranking data available had 952,000 school-aged children in Wisconsin. and about 872,000 enrolled in public schools. 66,603 students graduated from Wisconsin public high schools. If you divide 872k by 13 (K-12), you get about 67,070 students who would be expected to be of age to graduate. You can't assume even distribution across all grades, but we're simplifying here. That's about a 99% graduation rate.

The most recent data from the NEA has 967k school-aged children in Wisconsin. Public school enrollment was about 874k, or essentially static despite the growth in the school-age population (Governor Walker and his allies in the Legislature have been pushing for vouchers for religious and charter education, and while I don't have data as to how popular that's been, that is one possible explanation for why public school enrollment has remained effectively flat despite population growth).

The number of public high school graduates? 60,687. If you divide 874k by 13, you get ~67,230 students you would expect to be high school seniors.

ACT scores are the ultimate in self-selected samples. There are various ACT exams applied throughout high school in Wisconsin, but the scores reported for the averages are generally going to be those scores from the exams taken by prospective college students. Thus, that's not the best example of a healthy educational system. The kids who are going to college are going to take the ACT or SAT regardless, and so you would expect scores to remain reasonably high in that subset. Kids who drop out or who otherwise are not on a graduation track don't necessarily take those exams. If there is greater distress there, it won't show up in ACT scores.

15,000 additional school-age children in Wisconsin, so this (probably) isn't a case of the most recent senior year just being a blip in birthrates. 17 years ago would be 1998, when the economy was still strong. That's not a candidate for a year when parents would go "gosh, we can't afford to have children."

This probably isn't a case of this year's senior class being 10% smaller in size than four years ago. If anything, any reduction in graduating class sizes would come from children born since 2008, who haven't yet matriculated high enough to where we would expect to see a drop in the number of eligible high school seniors. But we HAVE seen a 9% drop in the number of eligible high school seniors who actually graduated. There could be any number of factors in play here, and they may be interlocking, but that number speaks much more loudly to me about the health of Wisconsin's educational system than ACT scores remaining static.

The average teacher salary in Wisconsin was right around $55,000 a year. That was 19th or 21st in the country depending on who's estimates you go with. That doesn't account for the average of $23,000 in benefits that are also included in their compensation package. That's $78,000 in compensation for your average teacher in the state of Wisconsin. And remember, Wisconsin has a lower cost of living than most states making that money stretch even more.

Please let me know where the part-time retail jobs are that are offering up compensation packages in the $78,000 a year range.

This is why I asked you to define your terms. "Average" is misleading, because it will account for teachers in places like Madison and Milwaukee, where the cost of living is higher.

That includes administrators, who are paid somewhat better than regular teachers; that includes experienced teachers, who will not necessarily be reflective of the "usual" experience in a district; and even if they're getting $23k in benefits universally (benefits presumably being one area we might expect some level of equality of experience), there are districts in Wisconsin where total compensation is around $50k once you add those $23k in benefits. That's...about what you'd expect in terms of take-home from full-time retail work.

Anecdotally, the offered pay I've seen for teacher openings in Ashwaubenon, when made public, has been in the $19,000/year range for new teachers. How long do they have to teach to get from $19k to the total compensation package of $78k you cite? Good question.

I'm also not arguing that the state should nickel and dime teachers. I'm simply saying that neutering the union is a benefit for the state and it's taxpayers. It eliminates and obstacle and increases their flexibility. Sucks if you're a union employee, but not if you're a taxpayer. Walker represents the taxpayer.

Union employees don't also pay taxes? Their taxes are somehow less equal than the taxes non-public employees pay?

Is this where I should point out that exempting the first responders from the affected public employee unions affected by Act 10 could be considered a 14th Amendment issue?

[RainMaker]

It has nothing to do with the kindness of their hearts. It has everything to do with the fact that the actions of the State of Wisconsin do not happen in a vacuum. Wisconsin can strip bargaining rights from teachers, but it cannot inhibit their mobility - and especially not the mobility of the best teachers. They will be in demand anywhere they choose to go. The ones who get stuck holding the bill are the ones that, allegedly, the state should most be seeking to get rid of. The ones who will roll over and take it are the ones who don't have the same options.

What does this have to do with unions? You want the state to hire and pay for the best teachers they can. That's great. Push for that. You don't need a union to accomplish that.

A union represents all teachers. The good and the bad ones. You seem to be implying that a union is somehow responsible for teachers becoming better. Their job is to get their members paid the most amount of money possible and make it difficult for them to be fired.

I compared the NEA's most recent ranking data with that available the year Walker took office. In 2011, the ranking data available had 952,000 school-aged children in Wisconsin. and about 872,000 enrolled in public schools. 66,603 students graduated from Wisconsin public high schools. If you divide 872k by 13 (K-12), you get about 67,070 students who would be expected to be of age to graduate. You can't assume even distribution across all grades, but we're simplifying here. That's about a 99% graduation rate.

You're data is wrong. No state has had or has anywhere close to a 99% graduation rate. I don't know why you're trying estimate it from other raw data and not just use the data on it that is readily available.

The 4-year graduation rate in Wisconsin is currently at 88%. This puts you 2nd in the country behind Iowa (who coincidentally spends much less on education per student than Wisconsin). Wisconsin's 4-year graduation rate is actually up from 85.7% it was in 2010 right before Walker took over. If you're trying to peg educational problems on Walker, graduation rate is not the route I'd take.

Also worth pointing out that Milwaukee Public Schools is dragging down the state's overall graduation rate (it's one of the few areas in the state that saw a drop). It also has some of the highest paid teachers in the state.

ACT scores are the ultimate in self-selected samples. There are various ACT exams applied throughout high school in Wisconsin, but the scores reported for the averages are generally going to be those scores from the exams taken by prospective college students. Thus, that's not the best example of a healthy educational system. The kids who are going to college are going to take the ACT or SAT regardless, and so you would expect scores to remain reasonably high in that subset. Kids who drop out or who otherwise are not on a graduation track don't necessarily take those exams. If there is greater distress there, it won't show up in ACT scores.

It's one of the few ways of comparing success from students in one state to another. Worth noting that Wisconsin has a large number of their students take the ACT compared to other states. So your scores are not a result of a handful of smart kids inflating it.

Either way, your state is seeing improvements in test scores and graduation rates but you keep telling me the educational system is going in the toilet.

That includes administrators, who are paid somewhat better than regular teachers; that includes experienced teachers, who will not necessarily be reflective of the "usual" experience in a district; and even if they're getting $23k in benefits universally (benefits presumably being one area we might expect some level of equality of experience), there are districts in Wisconsin where total compensation is around $50k once you add those $23k in benefits. That's...about what you'd expect in terms of take-home from full-time retail work.

I can't find any district in the state where salary for full-time teachers is under $30,000. I don't know where you are pulling it from but I'm looking through the actual database of public school employees.

Anecdotally, the offered pay I've seen for teacher openings in Ashwaubenon, when made public, has been in the $19,000/year range for new teachers. How long do they have to teach to get from $19k to the total compensation package of $78k you cite? Good question.

These people are lying to you. No full-time teacher in that district makes under $30,000. The low end in that district is $36,250 for starting salary with just over $13,500 in benefits added on if they are single (much more if they are married). That's right at $50,000 in total compensation as the absolute low end in that district with the vast majority of teachers making significantly more. This data is all publicly available.

Union employees don't also pay taxes? Their taxes are somehow less equal than the taxes non-public employees pay?


So do construction workers. I still don't want to pay over market value for construction projects.

[RainMaker]

Also worth adding that Wisconsin teachers are contracted for around 191 days. The rest of the population with full-time jobs are probably working 230-250 days a year. Makes that compensation package even nicer.

[BillJasper]

Has Trump actually declared? His signage says 'Donald Trump Exploratory Committee' still.

[SackAttack]

These people are lying to you.

No, you're right. School districts are in the habit of posting employment notices with false figures to lie to me.

No full-time teacher in that district makes under $30,000.

The notice didn't specify full-time. Maybe they were hiring substitutes, I don't know. That would seem weird, though, advertising for substitutes at the rate I cited without specifying that it wasn't full-time work. Doesn't seem like a great way to get bites to me.

So do construction workers. I still don't want to pay over market value for construction projects.

Once again, "market value" is established by a contract between buyers and selers. If the buyers of a good or service can force their desired price, that isn't "market value." Teachers and other public servants are not in a place where they have any influence over the contract beyond a straight yes or no. That's not market forces at work, and the compensation you pay the teachers under that model is not in any way reflective of market forces.

Construction is a little different. You can put out bids for a contract to do construction work, but you aren't necessarily going to pick the lowest bid, either. You're looking for the best bang for your buck, and that includes history of work quality - is this work just going to have to get done all over later and drive up the aggregate cost? - ability to get the job done on time, history of cost overruns, that sort of thing. Even in construction it's not as simple as "pay the minimum you can get away with and everything will be fine." If you do, you might get bit in the ass by hidden costs and end up paying more than you would have with a different company, or paying another company to fix the screwups made by the lowest bidder.

What Walker did was say "we're just not going to bother with this construction project right now and save money that way" and then, oops, his gamble didn't pay off, and the state had to contract a rush fix that cost more than just doing the maintenance in the first place would have.

[RainMaker]

If the buyers of a good or service can force their desired price, that isn't "market value." Teachers and other public servants are not in a place where they have any influence over the contract beyond a straight yes or no. That's not market forces at work, and the compensation you pay the teachers under that model is not in any way reflective of market forces.

They aren't forcing anything on anyone. You are not required to work as a public school teacher in the state of Wisconsin. It is not the only job on the planet.

[Chief Rum]

Well, you're acting like a child with your petty, needless pejoratives, so does that mean you're putting me in the role of the exasperated parent?

Okay, I totally admit I only clicked on this thread page. So I might be completely missing things. But did Sack really throw a hissy fit over Democrat versus Democratic?

[Izulde]

Also worth adding that Wisconsin teachers are contracted for around 191 days. The rest of the population with full-time jobs are probably working 230-250 days a year. Makes that compensation package even nicer.

When you factor in the total number of hours worked per week during the school year, the actual number of work hours is about the same, potentially more for teachers.

Remember, it's not just the in-class instruction. It's the class prep, grading, responding to parent and student emails, having conferences, etc. During the school year, even when they're at home, teachers are still at work.

You seem to have a lot of scorn for teachers, and I feel sorry for you that you have this mentality.

[cartman]

Okay, I totally admit I only clicked on this thread page. So I might be completely missing things. But did Sack really throw a hissy fit over Democrat versus Democratic?

I think that was just the straw that broke the camel's back. Dutch had been pulling his Forrest Gump-wannabe shtick.

[JonInMiddleGA]

You seem to have a lot of scorn for teachers, and I feel sorry for you that you have this mentality.

Well go ahead & pity me too.

I really can't think of a group -- collectively -- that I trust less. I find politicians,doctors and even lawyers overall to be more trustworthy and less inclined toward self-interest. And there is absolutely positively no group on the planet I trust to self-regulate/self-monitor less. And that's before we even get to capabilities or competence concerns.

Fair to note that living in Georgia my entire life has most definitely influenced my opinion on the subject.

[NobodyHere]

Okay, I totally admit I only clicked on this thread page. So I might be completely missing things. But did Sack really throw a hissy fit over Democrat versus Democratic?

Well using the term "Democrat Party" is generally an insult. It's often pushed by people like Rush Limbaugh.

[ISiddiqui]

Well using the term "Democrat Party" is generally an insult. It's often pushed by people like Rush Limbaugh.

This. It has been generally seen as deliberately mis-saying the name of the party. IIRC, Rush also tends to pronounce it as "democ-RAT Party".

[JPhillips]

Okay, I totally admit I only clicked on this thread page. So I might be completely missing things. But did Sack really throw a hissy fit over Democrat versus Democratic?

It isn't that big of a deal, but his repeated misuse shows that he's being deliberately asshatish. Calling that out is sort of the broken windows theory of board behavior.

[RainMaker]

You seem to have a lot of scorn for teachers, and I feel sorry for you that you have this mentality.

Not at all. I just think the state should get the best value they can for their services. And people trying to portray anyone who doesn't want to pay over market value for a service as having scorn for that profession is doing so for political motives.

[Dutch]

To be fair...to myself, I guess...Ive never used the term Democrat as an insult until I got flamed for it. Didn't realize it was, honestly. But yeah, I switched to Democratic to follow a request from SA (I think) and apparently I used it wrong. I really don't give a shit, after all there are more serious insults slung around that don't get that much attention.

[JonInMiddleGA]

To be fair...to myself, I guess...Ive never used the term Democrat as an insult until I got flamed for it. Didn't realize it was, honestly. But yeah, I switched to Democratic to follow a request from SA (I think) and apparently I used it wrong. I really don't give a shit, after all there are more serious insults slung around that don't get that much attention.


See what happens when you don't just stick with Demoncrat?

[Chief Rum]

Hmm, it seems clear from the Dems on the board that that is an insult. It just seems like a silly one to me.

But then I don't listen to asshats like Limbaugh, as I am a fiscal/Libertarian Republican with leftish social views. And I avoid political radio or TV in all forms if I can help it.

I actually can't recall a time when Dems weren't called Democrats, and that it wasn't perfectly acceptable. I thought that was just a nod to how awkward and weird "Democratic" sounds when you say it.

[JPhillips]

Democrats = correct

Democratic Party = correct

Democrat Party = asshatish

Democratics = asshatish

edit: It really isn't a big deal, but like being called John after repeatedly requesting Jonathan, it's just asshatish.

[molson]

I'm sure the people offended by all that would never insult Republicans as a group.

[NobodyHere]

"Democrats" by itself is fine. But "Democrat Party" is the insult being push by right wing media.

ETA: Or what JPhillips said

[Chief Rum]

"Democrats" by itself is fine. But "Democrat Party" is the insult being push by right wing media.

ETA: Or what JPhillips said

Okay, thanks.

It's all weird to me. If left leaning commentators started exclusively dropping the "an" in Republican or something like that ("Republic Party") as some sort of an insult, I would seriously shrug my shoulders at their idiocy and move on. Life's too short to get upset about crap like that.