These polls were conducted by Bloomberg and the Des Moines Register. The Republican poll shows Trump leading at 23% followed by a surprising showing by Carson at 18%. All the rest have single digits.
In the Democratic poll, Hillary still leads with 37% with Sanders getting close with 30% and the unannounced Biden at 14%.
Link - (
New Window )
I find it hilarious that only when conservative groups sued for the right for political speech that liberals are in a snit about it. As if they haven't been getting money from unions forever.
I love this false equivalency narrative that is always pushed by the right about Unions. Every dollar spent by unions is so dwarfed by the amount spent by corporations each cycle it's scary. Not to mention its hard to get a handle on just how much money is even being spent by these corporate entities because they set up shadow organizations and Pacs where the donors are not disclosed. At least Unions are up front in reporting what they spend.
And a strong moderate would help with independents by countering the perception that the Republican Party has moved too far right in a country edging more center/left at the national level on social issues.
I agree and think Romney would have been a "good" choice. But he is a two time loser...
More than anything a change in congress is needed. The gridlock has to stop. Problem is a "weak" Speaker. I like John Boehner, think he is a good man, but he just cannot reign in the Repubs like Pelosi did with the Dems. Pelosi is a loathsome person whom I despise, but she could twist arms. Where is Tip O'Neill when you need him?
Nothing wrong with that. How much money comes from corporate America? Whether you like it or not, unions are there to protect their members.
Quote:
the AFL-CIO really puts into political campaigns...
Nothing wrong with that. How much money comes from corporate America? Whether you like it or not, unions are there to protect their members.
Their numbers look big on their own, but are kinda small compared to what others do. It's all relative.
Quote:
the AFL-CIO really puts into political campaigns...
Nothing wrong with that. How much money comes from corporate America? Whether you like it or not, unions are there to protect their members.
So unions (different than union members) are "people"?
Quote:
the AFL-CIO really puts into political campaigns...
Nothing wrong with that. How much money comes from corporate America? Whether you like it or not, unions are there to protect their members.
That was my point. It is a rather small figure of their total expenditures.
This is what interests me. I mean, Obama had a light resume but is clearly charismatic. Rubio has a light resume but is clearly charismatic. Even Cruz has a light resume but is kinda charismatic (he's fun to listen to on TV). Why do people support Carson? I just don't see why anyone would be interested in the guy one way or the other. Can't be his policy ideas either. Maybe in the slew of bombast and bumbling, the boring guy is gaining support?
Quote:
In comment 12444799 kicker said:
Quote:
the AFL-CIO really puts into political campaigns...
Nothing wrong with that. How much money comes from corporate America? Whether you like it or not, unions are there to protect their members.
That was my point. It is a rather small figure of their total expenditures.
But there's another point. Should union members be required to pay compulsory dues, a part of which can be donated to candidates whom the member may not support? Unions and corporations, either they are both "people" or neither are "people".
That is far from the main reason why corporations exist.
Quote:
I have to be thrilled at the numbers he's doing, given how little media coverage he receives, and how uncharismatic he is. He doesn't just lack the political knowledge and experience for the job he's running for, he also lacks the ability to perform on camera (which, say what you want about Trump, is definitely not a problem he has).
This is what interests me. I mean, Obama had a light resume but is clearly charismatic. Rubio has a light resume but is clearly charismatic. Even Cruz has a light resume but is kinda charismatic (he's fun to listen to on TV). Why do people support Carson? I just don't see why anyone would be interested in the guy one way or the other. Can't be his policy ideas either. Maybe in the slew of bombast and bumbling, the boring guy is gaining support?
I'm not a supporter of Carson's but compared to Obama and Clinton, he has actually accomplished much in the world prior to entering into politics, is a great story, and I think that everybody (but the idiots on both sides) can agree that a strong minority republican candidate is a good thing.)
That is far from the main reason why corporations exist.
Irrespective of who has greater power, not all states are "right to work" so there is the fact that compulsory dues can be used for political contributions. Either both are "people" or neither are "people". If "right to work" is extended to 50 states and the District we can revisit this.
To my knowledge and believe it is the law, no dues money is used for political donations - that is a separate, voluntary fund. Nobody can force you to donate to the PACs. Some unions do use some form of retribution for not donating.
And BTW, unions have an unimaginable burden of proving where every dollar is used.
Corporations mission is to make money/build capital, so any expenditure should be assessed by its potential return. In politics, this amounts to bibery.
Unions mission are to represent workers interests for the purpose of labor negotiators. When making a political donation, interests could be met by material or non-material benefit. So its got a grey area.
But there's another point. Should union members be required to pay compulsory dues, a part of which can be donated to candidates whom the member may not support? Unions and corporations, either they are both "people" or neither are "people".
NJM once again you are spewing another talking point from the right that has literally no basis in reality. I am in a union and in virtually every union not one dollar of "cumpolsory union dues" goes towards a political candidate. Dues go towards the every day running of the union. The union sets up a pac where they solicit separate donations that go towards lobbying. Those donations are 100% voluntary.
To my knowledge and believe it is the law, no dues money is used for political donations - that is a separate, voluntary fund. Nobody can force you to donate to the PACs. Some unions do use some form of retribution for not donating.
And BTW, unions have an unimaginable burden of proving where every dollar is used.
Actually, I believe you're spelling out the rules that applied to corporations prior to Citizen's United. My understanding is that union dues could be used for political contributions.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
I have to be thrilled at the numbers he's doing, given how little media coverage he receives, and how uncharismatic he is. He doesn't just lack the political knowledge and experience for the job he's running for, he also lacks the ability to perform on camera (which, say what you want about Trump, is definitely not a problem he has).
This is what interests me. I mean, Obama had a light resume but is clearly charismatic. Rubio has a light resume but is clearly charismatic. Even Cruz has a light resume but is kinda charismatic (he's fun to listen to on TV). Why do people support Carson? I just don't see why anyone would be interested in the guy one way or the other. Can't be his policy ideas either. Maybe in the slew of bombast and bumbling, the boring guy is gaining support?
Fridge, Carson is a brilliant man, but I don't know what he brings, either. Conservative, African American and renowned surgeon from Johns Hopkins.
Cruz - good heavens please, I think he has a screw loose.
Rubio is charismatic, but even though I live in Florida, I haven't a clue as to what he's done. His speech in April was excellent. But do we want charisma as the most important aspect a candidate has? In reality he has a lot more experience than President Obama had in 2008. Just not sure he has Obama's brilliance(?).
Quote:
If you think that unions and corporations have equal power, you are sorely mistaken. Unions organize to eliminate some of the negotiating disadvantage employees have with employers.
That is far from the main reason why corporations exist.
Irrespective of who has greater power, not all states are "right to work" so there is the fact that compulsory dues can be used for political contributions. Either both are "people" or neither are "people". If "right to work" is extended to 50 states and the District we can revisit this.
Incorrect interpretation. Two distinctly different entities should be lumped together?
And, as to the point as to what union dues should be used for, the use of regular dues for political contributions is the outlier, not the norm. And, of course, you can opt out of the full union coverage and only pay to be included as part of the bargaining unit, paying a reduced fee, where those dues CANNOT be used for political contributions.
Convenient how you stopped at 6, when the next two are not unions are contribute to conservative pols (#7 slightly, #8 overwhelmingly.
Quote:
But there's another point. Should union members be required to pay compulsory dues, a part of which can be donated to candidates whom the member may not support? Unions and corporations, either they are both "people" or neither are "people".
NJM once again you are spewing another talking point from the right that has literally no basis in reality. I am in a union and in virtually every union not one dollar of "cumpolsory union dues" goes towards a political candidate. Dues go towards the every day running of the union. The union sets up a pac where they solicit separate donations that go towards lobbying. Those donations are 100% voluntary.
Well we can look at Knox v. SEIU(2012) where non-union members in a shop that had voted to be an "agency shop" had been subject to a surcharge that was used for political purposes. They weren't even given an "opt out" right which I believe was required even at that time under earlier precedent. It didn't pass muster with the court which changed the requirement to an opt in. My question is whether union members have the same right to opt out.
Union members who have a different political point of view?
People who think that it their influence offsets the influence of corporations.
Seriously, that guy is so far right (and anybody that kowtows to Evangelicals as he does) that even I wouldn't consider him. He is like the second coming of Rick Perry.
Quote:
give to Democrats?
Union members who have a different political point of view?
Then they can run to be part of union leadership. Or vote the union out of existence. Or opt out (if in a public union) of paying the full dues.
Perhaps unions have been created, in the U.S., to mimic a political system where individual votes matter but representatives are put into place to guide the will of the majority? Or, should this aggrieved minority give back all its benefits from unionization?
Quote:
give to Democrats?
Union members who have a different political point of view?
You take the good with the bad. Unions are throwing their money to politicians that back workers rights, etc. I don't agree with where all the donations go, but by and large they are used to the benefit of the majority of the members.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
four of the top six are unions and all of the to 6 contribute to Dems Link - ( New Window )
Convenient how you stopped at 6, when the next two are not unions are contribute to conservative pols (#7 slightly, #8 overwhelmingly.
Oh please, the top 6 dwarf all the others.
I do believe that the way it works for us is that they use normal dues (required of every employee) for political campaigns but then there is some kind of legislative act that enables you to request that the portion of your dues used for politics is returned to you. The default is they use the dues and you have to specifically make the refund request. There is a very narrow window for it and the union is not obligated (or at least they don't do it for us) to tell you about your rights or the deadline for exercising them. The few people that I know who filed the refund request got a ton of grief from the union. They said it was a miserable, almost intimidating, experience.
I think one of the recent (failed) campaign finance reform bills had a requirement that the union inform people of their rights and there was a fair amount of opposition to that.
The teachers union is having issues because the management has come out to support Hillary. Well the rank and file is a bit upset, because they want to endorse Bernie Sanders. But they are not given a voice. Also, when you see fast food workers protesting, most of them are union workers protesting, not actual fast food workers.
Link - ( New Window )
There may be some of that. It's a lot easier to second guess an executive, be it governmental (e.g. governor) or business (e.g. CEO). But on the other hand, you cant give people a free pass. If the argument is that "I ran a company so I know how to put people to work etc." then you need to test the theory. Romney's Bain was not about putting people to work -- it was a model of borrow, bleed cash for immediate guaranteed profit, effectively turning the acquired company into a sick patient. Bain would then take steps to make the patient better -- with no $$ to invest, the course of treatment was almost always to cut costs including jobs. The model was not about taking struggling companies and running them "better"; it was about using cheap borrowed money to gamble smartly. We could get into why Romney lost, but I dont think it was anything directly having to do with Bain (he was in a terrible spot running against an incumbent; as a relative moderate, he had to stay to the right because his "base" didnt trust him; he seems like a really decent guy but every time he opened his mouth we got a C. Montgomery Burns type answer).
Fiorina ran HP poorly. There is no one out there arguing that she did a good job (and her spin about her tenue and firing is ridiculous). It would be one thing if she did 30k layoffs as the white knight. I literally have no idea how she could run on her HP record.
There are tens of thousands of Republicans who ran/run businesses that overall have a good record of success on job creation. But not Romney and Fiorina.
OTOH, there have been tons of candidates who have had less or have never been tested at all and were voted for because they could articulate a plan for the country going forward. I find her very credible as a candidate.
Could be. There are two major employee unions in NYS (not counting specialized teachers or prison guard unions) and mine is the smaller of the two.
A “super PAC” supporting Carly Fiorina is defending her record as chief executive of Hewlett-Packard in a full-page ad in The New York Times that promotes her strength as a leader of the technology company.
Tom Perkins, the founder of the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and a member of the board that ultimately ousted Ms. Fiorina in 2005, described the Republican presidential candidate as a visionary executive who helped to revive the company during hard times.
“Not only did she save the company from the dire straits it was in, she laid the foundation for HP’s future growth,” Mr. Perkins wrote, pointing to an increase in revenues and patents during her time there.
The endorsement from Mr. Perkins comes a week after The Times’s Andrew Ross Sorkin wrote a column detailing Mrs. Fiorina’s woes at Hewlett-Packard and calling her business record “not so sterling.”
Mr. Perkins said that the much maligned merger with Compaq turned out to be a good thing, and that Mrs. Fiorina was the victim of board members — some of whom were family members of the company’s founders — who were protecting their own interests.
“While Carly fought to save the company and the employees within, some board members fought for their own power or advancement,” Mr. Perkins wrote.
While Mr. Perkins was one of the board members who voted to fire Mrs. Fiorina, he now calls that move a mistake.
Link - ( New Window )
The teachers union is having issues because the management has come out to support Hillary. Well the rank and file is a bit upset, because they want to endorse Bernie Sanders. But they are not given a voice. Also, when you see fast food workers protesting, most of them are union workers protesting, not actual fast food workers. Link - ( New Window )
You are right that SOME union donations are not what the majority would like and if my union backs Hillary I'll scream bloody murder.
But I can tell you that the vast majority of union officials are looking out for their members which IS the union's best interest.(And it extends to many non union employees because companies are willing to give better pay and benefits to keep unions out.)
Quote:
In comment 12444922 buford said:
Quote:
four of the top six are unions and all of the to 6 contribute to Dems Link - ( New Window )
Convenient how you stopped at 6, when the next two are not unions are contribute to conservative pols (#7 slightly, #8 overwhelmingly.
Oh please, the top 6 dwarf all the others.
Do think that this shows that Unions spend more on elections than conservative PACs?