AR-Sen: Lincoln gets an opponent

[War on Want]

A Republican is the same thing as that terrible DINO Lincoln and no one's going to primary her.

  Lincoln's a great Senator, despite because of her vote on EFCA.

Your hate against unions really is creepy. Wanting to ban them is very fascist.

     But it's not fascist that unless a state passes a law to protect its workers that they can be cut loose for not paying union dues? I guess only people who oppose the sacred union boss can be fascist.

That really isn't fascist but certainly banning institutions is. I think unions can be very corrupt and idiotic too but big business is just as bad and I think you only hate unions because they push leftist policies and have popular support of the people which is inherently against American Libertarianism

[Associate Justice PiT]

A Republican is the same thing as that terrible DINO Lincoln and no one's going to primary her.

  Lincoln's a great Senator, despite because of her vote on EFCA.

Your hate against unions really is creepy. Wanting to ban them is very fascist.

     But it's not fascist that unless a state passes a law to protect its workers that they can be cut loose for not paying union dues? I guess only people who oppose the sacred union boss can be fascist.

That really isn't fascist but certainly banning institutions is. I think unions can be very corrupt and idiotic too but big business is just as bad and I think you only hate unions because they push leftist policies and have popular support of the people which is inherently against American Libertarianism

     I hate them because they appeal to people's (sometimes incorrect) notions of what is good for their self-preservation, obstructing sensible economic policy. I exaggerated somewhat when I said I wanted them banned, but I have no sympathy for unions & have no desire to ever aid them in their collectivistic objectives.

[War on Want]

A Republican is the same thing as that terrible DINO Lincoln and no one's going to primary her.

  Lincoln's a great Senator, despite because of her vote on EFCA.

Your hate against unions really is creepy. Wanting to ban them is very fascist.

     But it's not fascist that unless a state passes a law to protect its workers that they can be cut loose for not paying union dues? I guess only people who oppose the sacred union boss can be fascist.

That really isn't fascist but certainly banning institutions is. I think unions can be very corrupt and idiotic too but big business is just as bad and I think you only hate unions because they push leftist policies and have popular support of the people which is inherently against American Libertarianism

     I hate them because they appeal to people's (sometimes incorrect) notions of what is good for their self-preservation, obstructing sensible economic policy. I exaggerated somewhat when I said I wanted them banned, but I have no sympathy for unions & have no desire to ever aid them in their collectivistic objectives.

Ahhh but in many ways sensible economic policy is not sensible to some classes. This goes both ways. What "sensible economic policy" is, is very subjective. In some instances going against free trade or wanting higher wages is sensible in some communities. I don't see how a "liberatarian" could hate people for sticking up for their own interests. It is part of human nature in the same way how corporations operate is part of human nature.

[Associate Justice PiT]

A Republican is the same thing as that terrible DINO Lincoln and no one's going to primary her.

  Lincoln's a great Senator, despite because of her vote on EFCA.

Your hate against unions really is creepy. Wanting to ban them is very fascist.

     But it's not fascist that unless a state passes a law to protect its workers that they can be cut loose for not paying union dues? I guess only people who oppose the sacred union boss can be fascist.

That really isn't fascist but certainly banning institutions is. I think unions can be very corrupt and idiotic too but big business is just as bad and I think you only hate unions because they push leftist policies and have popular support of the people which is inherently against American Libertarianism

     I hate them because they appeal to people's (sometimes incorrect) notions of what is good for their self-preservation, obstructing sensible economic policy. I exaggerated somewhat when I said I wanted them banned, but I have no sympathy for unions & have no desire to ever aid them in their collectivistic objectives.

Ahhh but in many ways sensible economic policy is not sensible to some classes. This goes both ways. What "sensible economic policy" is, is very subjective. In some instances going against free trade or wanting higher wages is sensible in some communities. I don't see how a "liberatarian" could hate people for sticking up for their own interests. It is part of human nature in the same way how corporations operate is part of human nature.

     Oh? Opposing free trade is sensible for nobody, but people do it anyway. Demanding higher & higher wages until your employer goes out of business is not sensible either (not to say all unionists do that). When people stick up for things that hurt them without understanding the risks, problems arise. Not to say that people should never stick up for self-destructive principles. I do that myself all the time.

[Lunar]

PiT, it is sensible for lots of people.  The entire premise behind free trade is that it has winners and losers, but a net gain.

While I could see a libertarian argument that allows people to form whatever bargaining collectives they want (and compete with other such groups), I couldn't see one for government-enforced coalitions whenever 50.1% sign a contract in face-to-face confrontations/requests by union organizers.  A libertarian might also be inclined to point out that unions held a historically far more important role than they do today, since the government regulates a lot of the issues that keep the workplace humanely safe.  There might be some difference between a group of people deciding to organize through a representative and whatnot, and EFCA.

As PiT alluded to, my own biggest beef with unions is their efforts to hurt the majority of the country in exchange for protecting a small segment ... aka opposing free trade.  I have the same opinion about agribusiness and whatnot.  Also, the union organizers are unilaterally rejecting compromises which push for quicker elections (so that employers are less able to interfere) and higher than 50.1% margins for card check votes but 50.1% for anonymous votes... so I'm not too sympathetic.  There are legitimate beefs with the way the status quo is set up, as I understand them, although I haven't been following the debate too closely because EFCA as-is is obviously DOA.  There aren't 60 votes there for it, and thus you're  seeing Senators in low-unionization states up for reelection in 2010 bailing on it because there's not too much gain in backing legislation that's not going to happen in its current form.

[Lunar]

anyone, my point is that EFCA isn't merely a vote on whether unions should exist or not, it's a bill increasing government involvement in the unionization process in order to reverse the trend of less unionization over the past decades, and make it harder for employers to affect the vote... it's specific policy legislation and not a referendum on the vague idea of "unions=good"

[Associate Justice PiT]

PiT, it is sensible for lots of people.  The entire premise behind free trade is that it has winners and losers, but a net gain.

While I could see a libertarian argument that allows people to form whatever bargaining collectives they want (and compete with other such groups), I couldn't see one for government-enforced coalitions whenever 50.1% sign a contract in face-to-face confrontations/requests by union organizers.  A libertarian might also be inclined to point out that unions held a historically far more important role than they do today, since the government regulates a lot of the issues that keep the workplace humanely safe.  There might be some difference between a group of people deciding to organize through a representative and whatnot, and EFCA.

As PiT alluded to, my own biggest beef with unions is their efforts to hurt the majority of the country in exchange for protecting a small segment ... aka opposing free trade.  I have the same opinion about agribusiness and whatnot.  Also, the union organizers are unilaterally rejecting compromises which push for quicker elections (so that employers are less able to interfere) and higher than 50.1% margins for card check votes but 50.1% for anonymous votes... so I'm not too sympathetic.  There are legitimate beefs with the way the status quo is set up, as I understand them, although I haven't been following the debate too closely because EFCA as-is is obviously DOA.  There aren't 60 votes there for it, and thus you're  seeing Senators in low-unionization states up for reelection in 2010 bailing on it because there's not too much gain in backing legislation that's not going to happen in its current form.

     You make a really good point. I tend to get really angry when arguing against protectionist positions, & I wasn't able to articulate my point as clearly as I wanted to because of that.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I would also like to say that while unions themselves are inoffensive, their supporters generally tick me off. I'll just leave it at the observation that I've never seen a labor supporter applaud the Taft-Hartley Act for increasing the freedom of workers to not join unions.

[justfollowingtheelections]

It's become increasingly likely that the Unions will support the Green candidate.  While that probably doesn't mean anything in most states, in the 2008 elections, the Green candidate Rebekah Kennedy won 20.5% of the vote against Pryor.

[Holmes]

Having a hard time to believe that a Green candidate can get >5% in a serious race in... Arkansas.

[Verily]

It's become increasingly likely that the Unions will support the Green candidate.  While that probably doesn't mean anything in most states, in the 2008 elections, the Green candidate Rebekah Kennedy won 20.5% of the vote against Pryor.

Only when there's no Republican running. Look at where Kennedy did her best: in the most intensely, partisanly Republican areas of the state. There are just a fair number of very partisan Republicans in Arkansas who would rather vote for a Green (who stands no chance at winning) than a Democrat.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Having a hard time to believe that a Green candidate can get >5% in a serious race in... Arkansas.

Arkansas actually has a relatively strong Green party because the state Democratic party is so conservative.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Tim Griffin is not running:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"keep a close eye on the race", whatever that means.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Battle of the third-tier challengers:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Illegal immigrant-hiring businessman or anti-semitic septuagenarian State Senator? Choices, choices...

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Lincoln isn't going to have trouble; I say she easily breaks 60%.

[pogo stick]

Lincoln will only lose if Huck runs. So hopefully Huckabee runs.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Lincoln will only lose if Huck runs. So hopefully Huckabee runs.

Huckabee would barely have a 50/50 chance of beating Lincoln.

[Rowan]

She was only up 8 and 11 points respectively against no-name opponents. Also she had a 45/40 split in approval. To say she's a lock is a bit premature.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_AR_325.pdf

[SamInTheSouth]

Lincoln will only lose if Huck runs. So hopefully Huckabee runs.

Huckabee would barely have a 50/50 chance of beating Lincoln.

I disagree.  Huckabee is popular in Arkansas.  I think his chances would be better than 50/50.  I don't think he'll run though anyway.  If he is looking to be President he won't for Senate.

[Rob]

Not a credible candidate yet.  This will guy will do well in NW AR

And what Republican doesn't?

[hcallega]

I really hope Huckabee runs. I despise Lincoln on so many issues, namely the EFCA (the biggest issue for me along with health care in this congress). Lincoln's opposition to it, along with her support for CAFTA and her pro-choice views leave very little for me to like about her. In many ways she is the worst of both worlds (socially liberal, pro-business in the wrong way), like an old New England republican. Plus I like Huckabee and would be ok if we don't get to 60 because of it. maybe.

[DemocratsVictory2008]

I'm concerned about this race because the state is moving in the GOPs direction. Lincolns early poll numbers arent terribly strong

[Хahar 🤔]

I'm concerned about this race because the state is moving in the GOPs direction. Lincolns early poll numbers arent terribly strong

Save your concern.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I'm concerned about this race because the state is moving in the GOPs direction. Lincolns early poll numbers arent terribly strong

No need to be worried; Lincoln isn't in any real danger.

[The Illinoisian]

Lincoln will win easily, assuming a certain ex-Governor does not jump into the race, and even then she would probably not get below 47% of the vote.