[eagleseven]

“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service…The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations.”

FDR, 1937


---

Public sector unions are clearly dysfunctional, bankrupting entire states. It's now a matter of national survival to limit their power.

---------- Post added 06-07-2012 at 11:39 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by ischuldt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	As long as the state has essentially a monopoly on hiring teachers, teachers have no choice but to unionize to protect themselves.

False. Public school systems are managed by public-sector employees no different from the teachers themselves, so we've had decades of public-sector unions asking other public-sector employees for ever-increasing benefits. Benefits that are blatantly unsustainable. An unending public-sector circle jerk at the taxpayer's expense.

Until someone like Governor Walker is elected, the actual public is NEVER represented in public-sector-union negotiations. Critical flaw of the system recognized for nearly a century.

This is also why we have way more people trying to become public school teachers, than there are openings...the pay and benefits are the best most will find for the hours involved.

[Fishism]

Originally Posted by eagleseven To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

False. Public school systems are managed by public-sector employees no different from the teachers, so we've had decades of public-sector unions asking other public-sector employees for ever-increasing benefits. Benefits that are blatantly unsustainable. An unending public-sector circle jerk at the taxpayer's expense. Until someone like Governor Walker is elected, the actual public is NEVER represented in public-sector-union negotiations. Critical flaw of the system recognized for nearly a century. This is also why we have way more people trying to become public school teachers, than there are openings...the pay and benefits are the best most will find for the hours involved.

I think this also goes back to what Ghostwheel was saying. The non-unionized worker, found in the private sector, the "actual public" referred to above, may be also completely confused as well as jealous and envious of the cushy public sector job simply by asking the question "why are there two sets of rules?" The private sector in Canada contributes 80% of GDP, and yet the public sector and their collectively bargained for "perks" contribute 20% of GDP and they have the jobs everyone wants. Unions were necessary when there were no labour codes and corporations exploited and unfairly treated workers. But the early 1900's are gone and there simply is no need for two sets of employment rules. The government and it's employees should abide by the same labour laws they themselves dictate that the private sector, non-unionized workplace must abide by. It's a double standard.

[Ghostwheel]

	Originally Posted by eagleseven To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Public sector unions are clearly dysfunctional, bankrupting entire states. It's now a matter of national survival to limit their power.

What has bankrupted the states is the outsourcing of US manufacturing. The plan to "drown government in a bathtub" is working like a charm. Of course, it also means crushing the working class. Public sector unions being fairly much the last working class bastion that makes a secure living, they're currently in the targeting scope. Wisconsin is a test case for this.

	Originally Posted by Fishism To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But the early 1900's are gone and there simply is no need for two sets of employment rules.

The plan of the elite is to return to those days. Outsourcing and union-breaking are two facets of that plan.

[Arcanist]

Hey, Ghostwheel? Are you ever going to address the morality of looting the poplulace to fund public union parasites and their master, which holds a monopoly on violence?

What's your worldview? Any morality? Any ethical framework? Or is it just RAWR ENTITLED TO X, Y, Z JUST 'CUZ?

[Ghostwheel]

	Originally Posted by Arcanist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Hey, Ghostwheel? Are you ever going to address the morality of looting the poplulace to fund public union parasites and their master, which holds a monopoly on violence? What's your worldview? Any morality? Any ethical framework? Or is it just RAWR ENTITLED TO X, Y, Z JUST 'CUZ?

Parasites, looting... could you be any less question-begging?

Instead of tearing down those members of the working class who are actually making comfortable and secure middle-class livings, we should be trying to bring the rest of the poor and working class up to that level.

What's life for anyway? For the super-rich to screw the rest of us down harder and harder until we've no choice but to sign up for military service or sleep in boxes?

If you want to know where all the money is going that could be doing that, look to the military-industrial complex and the antics of our outsourcing corporate elites. (Not to mention our printing-press bankers; see
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
).

They play us against one another. Here it is again:

Originally Posted by Common Dreams

In the recall election, Walker swept Milwaukee's suburbs by huge margins and dominated the countryside. McCabe says in 2010, "Walker carried the 10 poorest counties in the state by a 13% margin"; these counties used to be reliably Democratic. He elaborates: "Republicans use powerful economic wedge issues to great impact. They go into rural counties and say, do you have pensions? 'No.' Well, you're paying for theirs, referring to public sector workers. Do you have healthcare? 'No.' Well, you're paying for theirs? Do you get wage increases? 'No.' Well, you're paying for theirs." To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. .

This is really the crux of it. Divide and conquer. And unfortunately, it works.

[Arcanist]

The problem is the state and it's legitimacy. These people willingly serve, and therefore should be ground into dust. They are guilty. Guilty of perpetuating the government monstrosity.

You never answered my other questions.

[BobtheINTJ]

	Originally Posted by Arcanist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. The problem is the state and it's legitimacy. These people willingly serve, and therefore should be ground into dust. They are guilty. Guilty of perpetuating the government monstrosity. You never answered my other questions.

I can't help but think you are Dick Cheney in disguise. Same state, same philosophy. As the white male population fades into minority status in this country you can't handle the reality that a new day is dawning.

I used to worry that any revolution that might occur in this country will be a right wing revolution, but it is more than likely going to be a progressive revolution. As demographics slowly change in Texas, those 155 Electoral votes will swing from the red side to the blue side.

Those fringe elements like you will eventually be forced futher into the fringe - hell, maybe you'll have to emigrate to that socialist nation North of our border.

If any change to the Constitution needs to be made, it is the assignment of 2 Senators for each State. Why should a State with less than 600,000 population have 2 Senators the same as a state like California with a populatio of 37,000,000? Don't see you arguing about balance of power there, but you can bitch about some public employee getting a meager pension of $23,000 a year after working 25 years. Meanwhile corporations and the Koch brothers are free to spend unlimited amounts of money to protect and further their interests. Sad that you can't see that you have much more in common with the public employees you loath than any of the multi-millionaires whose agenda you blindly advcate.

Have a nice day!
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Ghostwheel]

"In the great days of the USA, Henry Ford stated that he wanted to pay high wages to his employees so that they could become his customers and buy his cars. Today we are proud of the fact that we pay low wages. We have forgotten that the economy is a tool to serve the needs of society. The ultimate purpose of the economy is to create prosperity ... and not the reverse. The ultimate purpose of the economy is to create prosperity with stability."

Originally Posted by Roger Bybee

Walker's Wisconsin Approach: Forsaking the Economy by Forsaking Workers [....] As Business Week (5/23/94) accurately reported, "US industry has conducted one of the most successful antiunion wars ever, illegally firing thousands of workers for exercising their right to organize." Moreover, the wave of "offshoring" jobs to low-wage, high-repression nations like Mexico and China has both directly caused the loss of millions of union jobs and provided management with leverage to drive down wages through the threat of relocation at remaining plants in the US. Second, enlightened corporate leaders since Henry Ford have recognized that paying their own workers decent wages is a strategically-sound business strategy to build up the US domestic market. Family-supporting wages increase the total buying power of the working class and thus raise product sales and profits. In contrast, the cuts in pay and benefits which Gov. Walker seeks to unilaterally impose would deprive Wisconsin businesses of between $900 million and $1.2 billion in spending by public employees, according to a Institute for Wisconsin's Future study. Instead of injecting a stimulus into Wisconsin's still-suffering economy, Walker's package of destroyed labor rights and pay cuts would seriously drain the state of economic vitality. But the Walker approach does have its advantages for favored constituencies. Namely, the Walker approach shields Wisconsin's large corporations--about 60% of whom paid no corporate income taxes in recent years--and Wisconsin's richest 1%--who haul in about 24% of all income--from tax increases that would demonstrate their commitment to share in the vast sacrifices the recession has imposed on less-fortunate citizens of the state. Further, Walker has been expanding corporate tax breaks while proclaiming that the budget deficit is the state's chief problem. [....] Tragically, Gov. Walker and his cheerleaders like Prof. Esenberg seek to return the state and the nation to the dog-eat-dog world of 19th-century capitalism, where wealth and economic rights are the exclusive province of the super-rich and their allies and where workers' isolated voices can easily be ignored. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. .

[SarcasticVlad]

I was under the impression that his victory was a bad thing seeing how he won thanks to the massive amount of money he had to spend on his campaign.

Lobbying should definitely be criminalized. And something should be done about huge campaign spending as well. There should be a reasonable limit. The current situation kinda messes up this democracy thing people tend to talk so much about.

[INTelliJent]

	Originally Posted by Ghostwheel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	We have forgotten that the economy is a tool to serve the needs of society. The ultimate purpose of the economy is to create prosperity ... and not the reverse. The ultimate purpose of the economy is to create prosperity with stability."

The economy (or rather, the market) should be comprised of voluntary transactions between consenting and free individuals.

The economy is not a "tool" to be manipulated and directed. Any attempt to treat it as such leads to the problems we see today (and have seen over and over and over throughout history).

[Arcanist]

Originally Posted by BobtheINTJ To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I can't help but think you are Dick Cheney in disguise. Same state, same philosophy. As the white male population fades into minority status in this country you can't handle the reality that a new day is dawning. I used to worry that any revolution that might occur in this country will be a right wing revolution, but it is more than likely going to be a progressive revolution. As demographics slowly change in Texas, those 155 Electoral votes will swing from the red side to the blue side. Those fringe elements like you will eventually be forced futher into the fringe - hell, maybe you'll have to emigrate to that socialist nation North of our border. If any change to the Constitution needs to be made, it is the assignment of 2 Senators for each State. Why should a State with less than 600,000 population have 2 Senators the same as a state like California with a populatio of 37,000,000? Don't see you arguing about balance of power there, but you can bitch about some public employee getting a meager pension of $23,000 a year after working 25 years. Meanwhile corporations and the Koch brothers are free to spend unlimited amounts of money to protect and further their interests. Sad that you can't see that you have much more in common with the public employees you loath than any of the multi-millionaires whose agenda you blindly advcate. Have a nice day! To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm not a Republican.

Many wealthy people buy politicians and political influence to perpetuate their own wealth and power and to keep out competitors. I'm against that. I'm also against things like corporate personhood. There are a host of political viewpoints which stretch beyond democrat/republican.

BTW, why should I have to pay for another person's retirement on top of SS, while at the same time, saving for my own?

[Eridal]

	Originally Posted by BobtheINTJ To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If any change to the Constitution needs to be made, it is the assignment of 2 Senators for each State. Why should a State with less than 600,000 population have 2 Senators the same as a state like California with a populatio of 37,000,000?

You mean aside from the fact that the system is based on federalism not fairness and all that pixie dust crap? And if you want to do that why bother with the senate at all then we already have a proportionally elected body which is designed to represent the people; The senate on the other hand was designed to represent the states interests and is a compromise between the smaller and larger states. It was to designed so that the smaller states at least had some power in how the federal government was ran rather than being perpetually sidelined by the bigger states. Of course the reality is that an amendment like the one you propose will never happen thankfully since it would require the smaller states to weaken their own power willingly.

[eagleseven]

	Originally Posted by Ghostwheel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What has bankrupted the states is the outsourcing of US manufacturing.

That battle was lost 40 years ago...unless you have some miraculous plan to tax China to pay for US public employee pensions, this does nothing to avoid the coming crisis.

	Originally Posted by Ghostwheel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The plan to "drown government in a bathtub" is working like a charm. Of course, it also means crushing the working class. Public sector unions being fairly much the last working class bastion that makes a secure living, they're currently in the targeting scope. Wisconsin is a test case for this.

You don't seem to understand that the money doesn't exist.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


How do you plan to raise the $4.43 trillion to cover the public pension deficit? Or, how do you plan to quell the riots when you tell public school teachers that they won't receive their pension payments?

If you'll recall, this is happening in Greece as we speak, where public pensions are being paid with German bailout money.

---

Ignoring basic economics to shout the tired talking points of union bosses is the path to ruin.

	Originally Posted by Ghostwheel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This is really the crux of it. Divide and conquer. And unfortunately, it works.

Because public-sector-unions are blatantly unjust to anyone not on the union payroll.

[Ray9]

Scott Walker showed genuine courage in standing up to public sector unions. Incredibly many just don't seem to grasp the importance of what he has accomplished. All the states were watching and most have budgets that are in the red. Unemployment has decimated tax revenues and many business properties are vacant. Citizens in every major city are losing their jobs and their homes. There is no money. Public sector employees want to just keep riding the gravy train in spite of the misery that's everywhere in the rest of the economy because they were promised gifts from the fairy dust of state coffers based on good times that were never supposed to end. Enter reality. Enter Scott walker. Watch what happens now.

[BobtheINTJ]

	Originally Posted by Arcanist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm not a Republican.

I wasn't thinking of Dick Cheney as a Republican in that context. I'm no fan of either party so party affliation of a politician doesn't matter to me.

	Many wealthy people buy politicians and political influence to perpetuate their own wealth and power and to keep out competitors. I'm against that. I'm also against things like corporate personhood. There are a host of political viewpoints which stretch beyond democrat/republican.

I'm glad to hear you say that.

	BTW, why should I have to pay for another person's retirement on top of SS, while at the same time, saving for my own?

Pensions are deferred compensation so if you are willing to pay a public employee a salary, just think of their pension as deferred compensation. The sad part is the declining standard of living of both public an private sector employees (unless you are in the 1%). Someone just paid $18,000 for an old pair of Queen Elizabeth's underwear and the founder of Google, Larry Page, just paid $45 million for his second yacht. Something is wrong with that picture while working men and women go without a pension or health benefits.

[Doggzilla]

Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

In a resolute rejection of onerous taxation to finance special interests and cadillac public sector union benefits Wisconsin voters went to the polls and handed Gov. Scott Walker a victory in the state's bid to recall him from office. The unprecedented victory sends a clear message to the Obama administration that Americans are in no mood for a fiscal policy based on income redistribution, unemployment and food stamp benefits. This is huge. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Ya, except they lost the only authority that controls all that shit. The state senate.

[Ghostwheel]

	Originally Posted by eagleseven To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You don't seem to understand that the money doesn't exist.

But there's plenty of money to fight non-existent terrorists, bail out Wall Street, and provide big corporations with subsidies and tax breaks, right?

According to the right, there's never enough money for workers. They're just so greedy, what with their wanting to make a decent living and all!

Here's your money, absent right-wing alarmism:

Originally Posted by ZeroHedge

[....] [T]he Wisconsin pension fund is simply not in fiscal trouble. Its managers weren't burned by subprime mortgage assets or mortgage-backed securities as the housing bubble collapsed. The fund also relies on an automated dividend system, which pays out benefits in years the system is making gains while restricting payouts in years when it takes losses. And while the pension fund had a rough year during 2008 due to stock market losses, it remains robust, both in terms of fundamental financial stability and in comparison to other state pension programs. According to the Pew study, Wisconsin had about $77 billion in total pension liabilities in 2008. But according to that same Pew study, those liabilities were 99.67 percent "funded," giving Wisconsin one of the four-highest of such ratios in the nation. Other states had funding ratios as low as 54 percent. For comparison, expert analysts and the Government Accountability Office consider an 80 percent level to be a good benchmark for pension fund stability, while Fitch Ratings considers 70 percent adequate. Pension accounting relies on a very long-term outlook. When the state calculates its pension liabilities, it adds up the total expected pension expenditures for the entire lifetimes of everybody currently receiving a pension and all employees expected to receive pensions. That outlook routinely eclipses 30 years, depending on the ages of state employees. A $77 billion liability is only a problem if the state has no realistic way of meeting those expenses over that 30-plus year timeframe. But the Wisconsin pension system actually does have the vast majority of that money -- in fact, in 2008, the pension fund had 99.67 percent percent of that $77 billion total on hand. If all of the assets in the fund had simply been sold at market values on June 30, the resulting cash would have been enough to pay 99.67 percent of the state's total pension payouts for decades to come. According to the Wisconsin pension fund's own 2010 annual report, the system had $69.1 billion in total assets at June 30, 2010, while paying out $3.7 billion in benefits over the course of the previous year. The value of those assets has since risen. According to Dave Stella, secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Employee Trust Funds, the retirement system's assets were worth $79.8 billion at the end of last month. The most recent solvency test for the fund was conducted for the fund's operations at Dec. 31, 2009. At the time, the funding ratio was 99.8 percent. The next solvency test is scheduled for June of this year. So while Wisconsin does face a $137 million budget shortfall this year, the source of that fiscal trouble is not the state's pension fund. Under the current plan, Walker hopes to generate $30 million this year by raising taxes on public employees -- the governor refers to this as increasing the "contribution" that state employees make to their pension funds. [....] To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. .

Looks like that money exists after all.

[Daoist]

Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

No one is saying that teachers shouldn't be paid a fair wage for what they do. Earlier threads on this have pointed out that the collective bargaining aparatus which consists of local governments bargaining on behalf of taxpayers and public sector union representatives bargaining on behalf of teachers tend not to act in the best interests of the actual taxpayers. Whenever you have a first party (government) bargaining with a second party (teachers) with money extracted for a third party (taxpayers) the actual paying party is never adequately represented. This is because they are not physically involved in the process and have no direct involvement or personal relationship with either of the other two parties. Even though the taxpayer is the payor he has only a phantom presence and in time is regarded not as the represented paying party but simply as a bottomless source of revenue. This is the fatal flaw in public sector unions and the primary reason why they should not exist.

	Originally Posted by Arcanist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Try and get this through your fucking head. I have nothing against workers organizing and bargaining. In the private sector, both the union and the company has it's representatives and both are free to reject offers. In this case, there are three parties involved and the people who pay taxes are NOT represented. ...

In corporate negotiations, do shareholders directly interact with the unions?

[Ray9]

	Originally Posted by Daoist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In corporate negotiations, do shareholders directly interact with the unions?

Comparing a shareholder to a taxpayer is weak. A shareholder has embarked on a voluntary financial venture with the expectation of capitalizing on a personal investment. In addition a shareholder has the ability to leverage its representitives to steer negotiations. A taxpayer on the other hand is involved in an arrangement that is anything but voluntary. Taxpayers unlike shareholders are required by law to engage in a contract with government be it local, state or federal and they face severe consequences for not complying. So even in negotiations where the interests of the taxpayer are ostensibly considered, the powerlessness and anoniminity of the taxpayer are a disadvantage not faced by a shareholder. Once again this is why the public sector should never be allowed to bargain collectively for benefits provided by taxpayers.

[JTG]

	Originally Posted by BobtheINTJ To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If any change to the Constitution needs to be made, it is the assignment of 2 Senators for each State. Why should a State with less than 600,000 population have 2 Senators the same as a state like California with a populatio of 37,000,000?

There's a reason for this, and in Congress, the system works out more or less.

The problem is that congressional seats are used to determine electoral votes, and that electoral votes are an all-or-nothing affair, making everybody's vote null except for those who live in swing states.

I'm not even sure how important swing states will be this election cycle. We'll see how the presidential marketing campaigns go, but i don't imagine this election being decided by a narrow enough margin that we have to worry about swing-state nailbiting.

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Comparing a shareholder to a taxpayer is weak.

Except that when you get down to the essence of what they are, they're essentially the same thing. They both contribute to a system and cast votes. The taxpayer's voting right is not contingent upon payment of taxes as the shareholder's vote is contingent on holding shares, but both categories (should) have a vested interest in seeing their respective organizations do well and should cast their votes with this in mind.

To me, the biggest functional difference is that shareholders get more votes as they become more "wealthy" (in terms of shares held). We're all* fucked if this becomes law for the taxpayer though.

*80-99% of us anyway

[Ray9]

	Originally Posted by JTG To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm not even sure how important swing states will be this election cycle. We'll see how the presidential marketing campaigns go, but i don't imagine this election being decided by a narrow enough margin that we have to worry about swing-state nailbiting.

It's very important because it clearly indicates that the political wind is beginning to blow in Mitt Romney's direction. Obama is like a rookie on a pro baseball team that had great expectations but failed to live up to the hype. In fact it is becoming clear to all, both Republicans and Democrats, that he was nothing but hype. He is no Clinton and he is no Bush. He was never in their league and Wisconsin points demonstrably to a one-term presidency.

[JTG]

Uhh... i kinda meant that i don't see Romney standing up to scrutiny this year, because of all the
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

Pardon the crazy gloom and doom tone of the video. That part is really unnecessary, but the man speaks for himself, except when he doesn't.

[Fecal McAngry]

Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

In a resolute rejection of onerous taxation to finance special interests and cadillac public sector union benefits Wisconsin voters went to the polls and handed Gov. Scott Walker a victory in the state's bid to recall him from office. The unprecedented victory sends a clear message to the Obama administration that Americans are in no mood for a fiscal policy based on income redistribution, unemployment and food stamp benefits. This is huge. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It is, but Obama has been a Dead President Walking for a very long time; the big "death knell" being the
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

The notion--popular among some Democrats--that the economy would recover by 2012 was Fantasy Land Stuff; it simply demonstrated how clueless they are about economics.

The economy isn't going to recover in 2012, 2013, 2014 or any time in the foreseeable future. The short-to-medium term projection is for more-to-much-more poverty and privation.

As I have been saying for years, all the GOP nominee has to do is avoid being caught with a dead girl or live boy and the presidency is his.

[BobtheINTJ]

Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It's very important because it clearly indicates that the political wind is beginning to blow in Mitt Romney's direction. Obama is like a rookie on a pro baseball team that had great expectations but failed to live up to the hype. In fact it is becoming clear to all, both Republicans and Democrats, that he was nothing but hype. He is no Clinton and he is no Bush. He was never in their league and Wisconsin points demonstrably to a one-term presidency.

Hate to burst your bubble, but right now, the electoral map doesn't look to hot for Mitt.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Fecal McAngry]

	Originally Posted by BobtheINTJ To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Hate to burst your bubble, but right now, the electoral map doesn't look to hot for Mitt. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

As they say, GIGO--Garbage In, Garbage Out.
The assumptions used in the creation of that map are worthless and silly. State polls are (almost entirely simply) a subset of national polls. National polls are meaningless until after the convention of the challenger, and are only really meaningful after both conventions.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.