| |
Discussion: U.S. Election 2016: Primary Season
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 26,488
|
Kasich 49, Clinton 38? 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/21/2012
Posts: 28,099
|
Quote:
Originally posted by alexanderao
Hypothetical general election matchups (USA Today/Suffolk University) released today.
Take these with a very large amount of salt.
Trump 45, Clinton 43
Trump 44, Sanders 43
Cruz 45, Clinton 44
Sanders 44, Cruz 42
Rubio 48, Clinton 42
Rubio 46, Sanders 42
Kasich 49, Clinton 38
Kasich 44, Sanders 41
|
I know we say this about most GE polls, but this one is really tragic and very inaccurate. It doesn't even seem real.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 23,857
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mickey
Super Tuesday polls from PPP:
Alabama - Clinton +28
Arkansas - Clinton +25
Georgia - Clinton +34
Louisiana - Clinton +31
Massachusetts - Sanders +7
Michigan - Clinton +10
Mississippi - Clinton +34
Oklahoma - Clinton +2
Tennessee - Clinton +26
Texas - Clinton +23
Virginia - Clinton +22
Vermont - Sanders +76 (lol)
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/m...k-support.html
EDIT: made copying mistake from Massachusetts, sorry |
This race would look over before it even reach my state
Quote:
Originally posted by alexanderao
Hypothetical general election matchups (USA Today/Suffolk University) released today.
Take these with a very large amount of salt.
Trump 45, Clinton 43
Trump 44, Sanders 43
Cruz 45, Clinton 44
Sanders 44, Cruz 42
Rubio 48, Clinton 42
Rubio 46, Sanders 42
Kasich 49, Clinton 38
Kasich 44, Sanders 41
|
I refuse
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/20/2012
Posts: 27,830
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 39,650
|
Quote:
|
Massachusetts - Sanders +7
|
n this doesn't shock me
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/4/2012
Posts: 7,329
|
Quote:
Originally posted by alexanderao
Hypothetical general election matchups (USA Today/Suffolk University) released today.
Take these with a very large amount of salt.
Trump 45, Clinton 43
Trump 44, Sanders 43
Cruz 45, Clinton 44
Sanders 44, Cruz 42
Rubio 48, Clinton 42
Rubio 46, Sanders 42
Kasich 49, Clinton 38
Kasich 44, Sanders 41
|
Lol yeah, no.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Marvin
|
Probably because it's not that much of an issue and because, despite his controversy, Kissinger is known as a highly influential and overall very good Secretsry of State, and perhaps the most significant in recent history.
Additionally, Hillary was her own Secretary of State and lived in the White House for eight years. It's obvious she doesn't need to do or say as Kissinger would and can form her own intellectual thoughts on foreign policy based on experience, whereas Bernie doesn't have that experience. This, who he listens to is a significant issue (notice he still failed to clarify), and who she "listens to" is much less so.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/5/2011
Posts: 15,589
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Marvin
He's not a socialist.
The estate tax would only be for the richest people. Only a few thousand would be affected.
He doesn't want to kill Wall Street. He wants to get rid of the loopholes and break up the big banks that are controlling the country. His plan would actually make the stock market safer and more stable.
What?
His tax plan:
Where are you getting your information from? |
This chart isn't helping your case tho.
"Punishing the rich" and making them pay for everything has never solved a single problem in any country. Ever. 52% tax is crazy (and unfair), for anyone, regardless of how wealthy they are.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/28/2008
Posts: 4,530
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Damien M
This chart isn't helping your case tho.
"Punishing the rich" and making them pay for everything has never solved a single problem in any country. Ever. 52% tax is crazy (and unfair), for anyone, regardless of how wealthy they are.
|
Why is 39.6% okay but 52% not? I actually think that adding brackets for income above 460k is a good idea
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 5,905
|
Quote:
Originally posted by alexanderao
Hypothetical general election matchups (USA Today/Suffolk University) released today.
Take these with a very large amount of salt.
Trump 45, Clinton 43
Trump 44, Sanders 43
Cruz 45, Clinton 44
Sanders 44, Cruz 42
Rubio 48, Clinton 42
Rubio 46, Sanders 42
Kasich 49, Clinton 38
Kasich 44, Sanders 41
|
Margin?  This is tragic, but I wouldn't be shocked -- I've been thinking that a republican has a really good chance to win this election given the complete oversaturation of the GOP race in the media, softball questions they routinely get compared to the democrats, etc. If you just watch the news or a debate, the republicans seem SO much more appealing, and you're also seeing a lot more of them in general.
Quote:
Originally posted by Buddha!
n this doesn't shock me
|
Well that's in the Northeast & Elizabeth Warren is the senator from Massachusetts, so yeah, I expected Bernie to do well there.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Quote:
Originally posted by alexanderao
Hypothetical general election matchups (USA Today/Suffolk University) released today.
Take these with a very large amount of salt.
Trump 45, Clinton 43
Trump 44, Sanders 43
Cruz 45, Clinton 44
Sanders 44, Cruz 42
Rubio 48, Clinton 42
Rubio 46, Sanders 42
Kasich 49, Clinton 38
Kasich 44, Sanders 41
|
As many of us proven before, these polls mean absolutely nothing for the moment. Nice to see but don't think too much of it
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/17/2013
Posts: 19,066
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
As many of us proven before, these polls mean absolutely nothing for the moment. Nice to see but don't think too much of it
|
Trump/Clinton is the only one with any real weight
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/6/2011
Posts: 31,849
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mickey
|
 Hillary Queen of Call Girls 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Quote:
Originally posted by BlueTimberwolf
Trump/Clinton is the only one with any real weight
|
Well if they both become the nominee then maybe but even then those numbers will change drastically
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/31/2012
Posts: 13,110
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Marvin
The size doesn't matter. We're a much bigger country with a much bigger economy with way more jobs. It doesn't how matter how many people live in Canada.
What fast food chains have thin margins? McDonald's and Walmart make BILLIONS of dollars  Sure they might increase prices but people will have more money to spend on this. It's not like they're going to HIKE up the prices. They'd lose more money because people would stop eating there and go to other places that are cheaper.
There's literally no reason why some jobs aren't "worthy" of $15. If someone is working 40 hours a week then they should not have to worry about being below the poverty line. FDR agreed with this. Obviously other jobs would have a wage increase also. It wouldn't make people lazier; they would just get simply get paid more. |
They make billions because economies of scale and (in the case of McDonald's) real estate. On any individual item, Walmart and McDonald's are more often barely above breaking even or even losing money when it comes to big discounted items.
Also, the argument that $15/hr should be the minimum wage across the board is ridiculous for many reasons. The first is that different localities/states have different standards of living. $15/hr in New York City will barely afford you a comfortable life in a studio in Queens, NY, while $15/hr in West Virginia could afford you a very comfortable upper-middle-class-esque lifestyle. The second is that increased minimum wage is simply going to make big businesses and small businesses alike think hard about efficiency and cost cutting. When labor is cheap, having 10 out of 50 employees being extraneous is not such a bad thing to provide extra service/comfort. When labor is expensive, every employee counts, so 50 employee operations might become 40 or 30. The employees who are fired have no form of work, and the ones who stay on the job become overworked and more stressed. On top of this, there are a lot of jobs that will be going the way of machines in the next few years, and whereas before, a $1 million system to automatically do this or do that might seem like a heavy burden, the potential to cut those equivalent costs in wage hikes is going to make companies heavily push towards automation.
TLDR: you can't just raise wages to the extremes unilaterally and not expect across the board pushback from the private sector.
Oh, and you know that $15/hr min wage will also mean that federal and state/local employees are going to get pay raises? So that means an even bigger government expense. And guess who pays their salaries? Tax payers. As in, all of us.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Based on the extensive research we have done, and our reading of the research done by others, we arrive at the following four main conclusions regarding the outcomes that are central to policy debate about minimum wages. First, minimum wages reduce employment opportunities for less-skilled workers, especially those who are most directly affected by the minimum wage. Second, although minimum wages compress the wage distribution, because of employment and hours declines among those whose wages are most affected by minimum wage increases, a higher minimum wage tends to reduce rather than to increase the earnings of the lowest-skilled individuals. Third, minimum wages do not, on net, reduce poverty or otherwise help low-income families, but primarily redistribute income among low-income families and may increase poverty. Fourth, minimum wages appear to have adverse longer-run effects on wages and earnings, in part because they hinder the acquisition of human capital.
Researchers often summarize the existing literature by citing one or two studies claiming positive effects, along with a couple of studies reporting negative effects, which can give the impression that labor economics research is roughly equally balanced on the two sides of the question, and that, therefore, one should not confidently hold the view that minimum wages reduce employment. However, as we have discussed, it is simply not the case that the research literature stacks up so evenly. Rather, the research leans heavily toward the finding of disemployment effects.
|
https://books.google.com/books?id=DG...page&q&f=false
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/17/2011
Posts: 9,051
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
|
not to mention that increasing minimum wage would also increase the price of consumer products
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2012
Posts: 8,593
|
Everyone knows very well that Bernie will have to compromise the $15 figure and lower it down eventually after vigorous negotiation in order to get it passed, not to mention that the amount of time it would take to pass it would be enough for his research community to take serious steps into figuring out many negative effects that increasing the minimum wage might cause. The minimum wage will not become $15 the second he's elected.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Marvin
|
Oh I was looking for this. I actually saw the context of the comment. It looks no better imo and Slate agrees
The Uterus Comment Doesn't Sound Better In Context
I'm surprised at Mike for this he should know better as a fan of Nina Turner
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 7,726
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Damien M
This chart isn't helping your case tho.
"Punishing the rich" and making them pay for everything has never solved a single problem in any country. Ever. 52% tax is crazy (and unfair), for anyone, regardless of how wealthy they are.
|
45-52% is a common tax rate for the rich in a lot of European countries. It's 52% in the Netherlands. It's fair. Since they earn more, they can contribute more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
