- But the election is a long way from joined. Lots more unfavorable data at the actual poll, but Quinnipiac doesn't run Republican favorable polls.
- Colorado: Bush 41, Clinton 36
Quinnipiac Poll is not good news for Mrs.Clinton
- Thread starter Ladoga
- Start date
I volunteered for Hillary in 2008 but I just don't feel the excitement this time. She's lost the appeal for me. I really like O'Malley but he's getting no traction at all. Seems that others don't like him like I do for President. I don't think Sanders can win but if he did at least he'd push for single payer healthcare and replace Obamacare which I'm still not sold on. I'd love to see Howard Dean get in. I was a big fan of his in 2004 and I'd love to see him run again. Or how about Al Gore? He might stir up some excitement for us. A lot of the Republicans running are sort of crazy. Trump is a real nutcake.
Walker and Rubio are both really good options for Republicans. There's an interesting piece in Politico recently about the impact and influence that Mitch Daniels (whom I regard as one of the most competent and successful political leaders in recent times) has had on GOP governors -- none more so than Scott Walker.
If that's true, then I think Walker is...well, not crazy.
I don't understand this at all . . . .
All the political pundit heavyweights had an absolute freak out over Rubio taking that sip of water from a bottle claiming that his career was over. Now here he is leading Mrs. Clinton in the polls. Either the pundits don't know squat or Clinton must really really be a bad candidate.
Walker and "good" can't be in the same sentence. Another Koch Brothers crony who was let off the hook by WI Supreme Court justices who are also Koch Brothers cronies. How many people associated with Walker went to jail before the investigation was ordered stopped?
The mere fact that he elicits such rabid consternation from people like you suggests he's been doing something right.
I still think that Walker will probably end up the Republican nominee and he'll be formidable.
As for Hillary, I've never bought much into her supposed strength. And 2008 showed just how glass her jaw really is. Her husband was a phenomenal politician. She isn't her husband.
As such, she's even having to worry about a backbencher who looks like everybody's crazy uncle, hails from one of the country's smallest states, and proudly calls himself a socialist.
LOL!!! Yeah, that's exactly what it is. As for Hillary, I don't really care. I probably loathe the Clinton's more than most republicans.
The teachers in Wisconsin will work extremely hard to defeat Walker and get the word out about his education mandates. And as Tony Bennett can attest, you don't want to galvanize teachers against you.
They couldn't defeat him in Wisconsin any of the three elections for Governor that he won, counting the recall, how are they going to do it this time? He's done what needed to be done in Wisconsin With the public unions. He'd be a very strong candidate.
Even if the GOP nominee wins all three states, it won't be enough. He'll also need to win states like Florida and North Carolina, plus sweep the mountain states.
The rise in numbers of the top GOP candidates in Colorado is disturbing, but it's not the end of the world.
The rise in numbers of the top GOP candidates in Colorado is disturbing, but it's not the end of the world.
Has anyone done a recent head-to-head poll in Wisconsin? Back in April, Clinton led Walker 52-40. I think if Walker is going to win the general, he absolutely has to carry his home state.
Gore or Dean? They would be blasts from the past, but so is Hillary in a way. Maybe they'd seem kind of new since we haven't heard much about them lately. I think you're likely to be stuck with Hillary and I don't think she'll be as tough to beat as some do. We agree on Trump. He's a clown and he has no chance. There are some good GOP candidates though.
I don't think this is so much about a "rise" for the GOP candidates, but Hillary's numbers reverting closer to reality.
I've never understood why some think she'd be such a strong candidate. I really think they confuse her for Bill. He was undeniably a very talented politician. Her, not so much.
If he wins Wisconsin he'll win the Presidency. it's solidly blue for Presidential elections lately, isn't it?
Just glancing at the numbers without using a calculator, it looks like you're right when it comes to Virginia and Iowa, but in Colorado, her drop has also been accompanied by a rise for her competition. For example, since February, she's lost 4 points against Walker, while he's gained 7, for a total 11-point swing.
I never thought she was an unbeatable candidate. I do, however, think that the Electoral College is structurally biased toward electing Democrats, and so even a moderately talented Democrat will win against all but the best GOP juggernauts. Sort of the reverse of the way the House works.
Yeah. But even if he does win Wisconsin, he could still lose. To put it in perspective, if you assign the following swing states to the GOP candidate:
NV, AZ, NM, CO, IA, WI, GA, NC, VA, NH
You get 259 votes.
That leaves Ohio and Florida. Even by winning his home state and sweeping virtually everything else, Walker would still need to win at least one of those two to eke out a victory.
Hillary (or whoever) could literally concede every purple state, put all of their time and money into winning Florida and Ohio, and walk away with a win.
It's going to be a severe uphill climb for any Republican, no matter who they are running against.
We will see. I sincerely doubt it. They will do it the same way that Indiana teachers defeated Tony Bennett. What exactly do you know about education in Wisconsin, besidethe fact that you are anti union?
What I know is that pissed off Union people couldn't beat Walker. I also know I totally agree with his position on tenure in the Wisconsin university system. As an Associate Professor at OSU I saw how some, not all of course, basically abused their tenure and did little to contribute to the primary purpose of any university, educating students. Tenure is fine, but there needs to be a way to correct or fire tenured educators that aren't really contributing to the education mission.
True, but I think if he won Wisconsin he's going to win the states necessary to win. Walker-Rubio might be a strong ticket.
I think you and Walker are mistaken about the purpose of tenure. Tenure isn't meant to be a reward (i.e., for good teachers). It's meant to be a protection of academic freedom for those who might go against the administration or prevailing opinion, or study things that might be frowned upon, depending on the whims of his superiors. To give some Indiana-centric examples, it's meant to protect people like, say, Alfred Kinsey and Murray Sperber (although, I think in both cases, they had the strong support of the administration, you can easily imagine how they might not have).
You might be right. That would be a strong ticket. Damaging for America, of course, but strong in the election.
No, but seriously folks, my point is that the EC makes it so that a Democratic candidate merely has to show up and not shoot himself or herself in the foot. The GOP candidate is forced to win almost every winnable state to even get a small victory. Part of this is due to there being so many more Democrats than Republicans, but most of it is due to the fact that there are more EC votes concentrated in firm blue states than firm red ones.
I don't think so. Yes, it does that and I have no issue at all with protection of academic freedom. I don't care if I agree with them or not. However, I've seen abuse of tenure by Professors that essentially checked out of the classroom and devoted their time to personal academic projects or even nothing but concentrating on personal things. It was eye opening stuff.
Last edited:
I get that. But what if we make tenure revokable? How do we do it objectively so that we can be sure that it is only being revoked for not fulfilling obligations and not because someone has a problem with their research?
Academic review boards. Tenure shouldn't mean lifetime tenure. It should be awarded as recognition for their contribution to the academic mission over a considerable period of time. Once it's awarded that shouldn't be the end of it, they need to reaffirm their value to the academic mission periodically. Maybe every 3 to 5 years. There needs to be a process that reaffirms that tenured Professors deserve to keep their tenure status. This does exist in many universities across the country already. There is resistance to this in some public university systems in several states.
So how do the boards avoid punishing someone for academic disagreements? For example, how can we be sure a skeptic climatologist won't find himself without tenure on flimsy grounds?
Can't. You don't like reviewing an employee's performance and taking appropriate action? What is so special about academics that they shouldn't be subject to review and dismissal when warranted?
I have no problem with dismissing them "when warranted." I want it to be done in a way that protects academic freedom by ensuring that it's not used as a cover for getting rid of people for other reasons.
But they are even more pissed off now, because he has done even more recently to decimate public education in Wisconsin. Just spent a week with several student and professors at University of Wisconsin. He once again slashed budgets, giving more money to charter schools and private schools, he cut $250 million from U of W budget, removed all of state tenure ( and surely you know you can get rid of tenured professors if you have cause), more vouchers. He is basically taking everything he possibly can from public schools and giving them to charter schools, more and more of which we see failing. The university is planning on getting involved in a big way in his campaign. And probably not the way he would like.
Tenure doesn't mean you can't get fired. It means you must make a trail of paperwork , let the professor know the complaints, give them an opportunity to fix it, and if they don't, they can be fired. Like many other jobs. Every year tenured teachers and professors are fired. If those teachers or professors are abusing tenure, it's likely they have a lazy administrator.
This is why I don't think we need to replace the tenure system. There are ways around it if someone violates the duties of their position. Getting rid of tenure - or just weakening it - to me is just a back door to firing professors for the wrong reasons.
"Education Reform", broadly understood, is happening. It's happening differently, and at different paces, in different places. But it's still happening. The days of the traditional public education model are in the rear view mirror.
As for the money aspect of it, particuarly as regards higher Ed, well...as Daniels puts it, if you're a university that doesn't have billions in endowment, you'd better have a Plan B. The cost of a college education has diverged from the benefit.
This is absolutely true, but if faculty compensation only accounts for about a quarter of expenses, perhaps there are other places we should be looking to make it more affordable?
If you want to make college more affordable you get the government out of the student loan business. Why do you think you paid 4-5X more for law school than what our baby boomer parents would've paid? Yes, that is adjusted for inflation.
Of course it's possible, but it's far more difficult than it ought to be. So difficult in some places that it's practically impossible. Those that abuse it know this. I also agree that Professors should have an opportunity to fix their issues. A good tenure review system would have that built in.
How about THIS system Goat and Zeke?
The Rubber Room: Teachers Accused of Crimes, Sexual Harassment Are Being Paid Not to Teach
Greg Markle on April 21, 2015
Aryeh Eller, a former music teacher in New York City, was removed from the classroom way back in 1999 after he confessed to repeated sexual harassment of female students. Since then, he’s earned over $1 million of taxpayer money for not working.
The amount of time he’s been paid not to work is longer than most, but his story is far from unique. At least two other New York City teachers have made over $1 million not working. Another teacher made $100,049 in 2014 and hasn’t been in a classroom since 2010.
Across the country, there are hundreds of teachers, if not thousands, being paid to sit in a room or to stay home. These teachers, accused of offenses ranging from drug abuse to sexual harassment, still receive a full salary and benefits.
Released in 2010, the film The Rubber Room brought attention to what New York City teachers called the “rubber room.” The “reassignment centers” were supposed to be temporary holding facilities, but the average wait time was three years, with some cases lasting as long as ten years. At the time, the 550 teachers were being paid not to work, costing the city $30 million per year.
Los Angeles had a similar problem, with 161 teachers assigned to sit in various offices around the city. Leonard Isenberg, one of the teachers in a rubber room said:
Several of the people I know in rubber rooms have been there two years, some people as long as five years. You don’t just sit there. You can’t do anything. Think of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo, with a paycheck.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced an end to the rubber rooms in 2010, by assigning the teachers to administrative or other non-classroom tasks and hiring more arbitrators to speed up the process, but the fact remains that it’s nearly impossible to fire the worst teachers, and the process often takes years.
Los Angeles didn’t get rid of its rubber rooms until May 27 last year. Now, teachers that can’t be near students will get their full salary and benefits while staying home.
Dan Weisberg, the former labor chief of the Department of Education, commented on the new policies:
[It’s] a positive step, but the problem we should be trying to solve is that there are huge barriers that still exist to terminate chronically ineffective teachers. This agreement doesn’t appear to address that at all.
I am not going to defend the tenure system. It certainly can be modified. If one Googles, one will see that conservatives are more likely than liberals to accept tradition as a reason for continuing with a policy. I don't have any reason to continue it myself IF it isn't serving a good purpose. I do think the concept serves a purpose as Goat points out, sometimes we need research into areas that may not be popular. Tenure allows that. Now maybe it has side effects that make tenure worse than the alternative. If so, we need to change or eliminate it. I'll leave that up to people who actually know.
But as always we are discussing something that isn't the real problem. Someone points out how the people that work in the system may be abusing the system and we all look that way. Meanwhile we ignore the total explosion of administrators and administrator salaries at universities. See story. From that link:
Administrators are not only well staffed, they are also well paid. Vice presidents at the University of Maryland, for example, earn well over $200,000, and deans earn nearly as much. Both groups saw their salaries increase as much as 50 percent between 1998 and 2003, a period of financial retrenchment and sharp tuition increases at the university. The University of Maryland at College Park—which employs six vice presidents, six associate vice presidents, five assistant vice presidents, six assistants to the president, and six assistants to the vice presidents—has long been noted for its bloated and extortionate bureaucracy, but it actually does not seem to be much of an exception. Administrative salaries are on the rise everywhere in the nation. By 2007, the median salary paid to the president of a doctoral degree-granting institution was $325,000. Eighty-one presidents earned more than $500,000, and twelve earned over $1 million. Presidents, at least, might perform important services for their schools. Somewhat more difficult to explain is the fact that by 2010 even some of the ubiquitous and largely interchangeable deanlets and deanlings earned six-figure salaries.
If you have any remaining doubt about where colleges and universities have been spending their increasing tuition and other revenues, consider this: between 1947 and 1995 (the last year for which the relevant data was published), administrative costs increased from barely 9 percent to nearly 15 percent of college and university budgets. More recent data, though not strictly comparable, follows a similar pattern. During this same time period, stated in constant dollars, overall university spending increased 148 percent. Instructional spending increased only 128 percent, 20 points less than the overall rate of spending increase. Administrative spending, though, increased by a whopping 235 percent.
But as always we are discussing something that isn't the real problem. Someone points out how the people that work in the system may be abusing the system and we all look that way. Meanwhile we ignore the total explosion of administrators and administrator salaries at universities. See story. From that link:
Administrators are not only well staffed, they are also well paid. Vice presidents at the University of Maryland, for example, earn well over $200,000, and deans earn nearly as much. Both groups saw their salaries increase as much as 50 percent between 1998 and 2003, a period of financial retrenchment and sharp tuition increases at the university. The University of Maryland at College Park—which employs six vice presidents, six associate vice presidents, five assistant vice presidents, six assistants to the president, and six assistants to the vice presidents—has long been noted for its bloated and extortionate bureaucracy, but it actually does not seem to be much of an exception. Administrative salaries are on the rise everywhere in the nation. By 2007, the median salary paid to the president of a doctoral degree-granting institution was $325,000. Eighty-one presidents earned more than $500,000, and twelve earned over $1 million. Presidents, at least, might perform important services for their schools. Somewhat more difficult to explain is the fact that by 2010 even some of the ubiquitous and largely interchangeable deanlets and deanlings earned six-figure salaries.
If you have any remaining doubt about where colleges and universities have been spending their increasing tuition and other revenues, consider this: between 1947 and 1995 (the last year for which the relevant data was published), administrative costs increased from barely 9 percent to nearly 15 percent of college and university budgets. More recent data, though not strictly comparable, follows a similar pattern. During this same time period, stated in constant dollars, overall university spending increased 148 percent. Instructional spending increased only 128 percent, 20 points less than the overall rate of spending increase. Administrative spending, though, increased by a whopping 235 percent.
