future electoral map?

[bushforever]

"in IL Chicago retains its ability to outvote the rest of the state but growing republican strength in the “burbs” mean the states is trending to the right and becoming ever more of a tossup."

Actually that is wrong, the Chicago suburbs are leaning more and more Democratic, in DuPage County one of the supposed GOP strongholds Bush only got 54% of the vote.  It used to be that it was unheard of for a GOP presidential candidate to get less than 60% of the vote in DuPage, the only times since 1952 that was not the case was in 1992 and 1996 (because of Perot no doubt) and 2000. The other collar counties which lean GOP were also in the low 50% range, Bush barely carried Lake and Will Counties. 

Actually, I doubt IL will change much.  If anything, yes it will swing slightly GOP.  The GOP will continue to gain votes in growth-heavy McHenry, Kane, DeKalb, Boone, Kendall, Grundy, LaSalle, Will, and Kankakee, even a few in Lake (but overall Lake won't change much), while losing more and more votes in Cook and DuPage.  We'll also have to watch for Rockford, Peoria, Champaign and see how these toss-up counties change.  It all depends on growth.  Little growth is likely in democratic heavy E. St. Louis or Rock Island-Moline.  However, the GOP is gaining in democratic Madison Co., thanks to growth in the Metro East suburbs (Collinsville, Edwardsville, Glen Carbon, etc.)

Suburban growth does *not* always favor Republicans, my friend.

It does around here, pal.

Okay. It doesn't around Philly. That was my point.

OK.  Same with frickin' San Francisco bay, Seattle, Boston, Broward/Palm Beach Co., etc., etc.  Chicagoland and Milwaukee are very unique though that the burbs, esp. the growing ones, are heavily republican while the city and some inner burbs are heavily democrat.

[danwxman]

"in IL Chicago retains its ability to outvote the rest of the state but growing republican strength in the “burbs” mean the states is trending to the right and becoming ever more of a tossup."

Actually that is wrong, the Chicago suburbs are leaning more and more Democratic, in DuPage County one of the supposed GOP strongholds Bush only got 54% of the vote.  It used to be that it was unheard of for a GOP presidential candidate to get less than 60% of the vote in DuPage, the only times since 1952 that was not the case was in 1992 and 1996 (because of Perot no doubt) and 2000. The other collar counties which lean GOP were also in the low 50% range, Bush barely carried Lake and Will Counties. 

Actually, I doubt IL will change much.  If anything, yes it will swing slightly GOP.  The GOP will continue to gain votes in growth-heavy McHenry, Kane, DeKalb, Boone, Kendall, Grundy, LaSalle, Will, and Kankakee, even a few in Lake (but overall Lake won't change much), while losing more and more votes in Cook and DuPage.  We'll also have to watch for Rockford, Peoria, Champaign and see how these toss-up counties change.  It all depends on growth.  Little growth is likely in democratic heavy E. St. Louis or Rock Island-Moline.  However, the GOP is gaining in democratic Madison Co., thanks to growth in the Metro East suburbs (Collinsville, Edwardsville, Glen Carbon, etc.)

Suburban growth does *not* always favor Republicans, my friend.

It does around here, pal.

Okay. It doesn't around Philly. That was my point.

OK.  Same with frickin' San Francisco bay, Seattle, Boston, Broward/Palm Beach Co., etc., etc.  Chicagoland and Milwaukee are very unique though that the burbs, esp. the growing ones, are heavily republican while the city and some inner burbs are heavily democrat.

So what the hell are you arguing with me for?

[bushforever]

"in IL Chicago retains its ability to outvote the rest of the state but growing republican strength in the “burbs” mean the states is trending to the right and becoming ever more of a tossup."

Actually that is wrong, the Chicago suburbs are leaning more and more Democratic, in DuPage County one of the supposed GOP strongholds Bush only got 54% of the vote.  It used to be that it was unheard of for a GOP presidential candidate to get less than 60% of the vote in DuPage, the only times since 1952 that was not the case was in 1992 and 1996 (because of Perot no doubt) and 2000. The other collar counties which lean GOP were also in the low 50% range, Bush barely carried Lake and Will Counties. 

Actually, I doubt IL will change much.  If anything, yes it will swing slightly GOP.  The GOP will continue to gain votes in growth-heavy McHenry, Kane, DeKalb, Boone, Kendall, Grundy, LaSalle, Will, and Kankakee, even a few in Lake (but overall Lake won't change much), while losing more and more votes in Cook and DuPage.  We'll also have to watch for Rockford, Peoria, Champaign and see how these toss-up counties change.  It all depends on growth.  Little growth is likely in democratic heavy E. St. Louis or Rock Island-Moline.  However, the GOP is gaining in democratic Madison Co., thanks to growth in the Metro East suburbs (Collinsville, Edwardsville, Glen Carbon, etc.)

Suburban growth does *not* always favor Republicans, my friend.

It does around here, pal.

Okay. It doesn't around Philly. That was my point.

OK.  Same with frickin' San Francisco bay, Seattle, Boston, Broward/Palm Beach Co., etc., etc.  Chicagoland and Milwaukee are very unique though that the burbs, esp. the growing ones, are heavily republican while the city and some inner burbs are heavily democrat.

So what the hell are you arguing with me for?

I ended the argument with OK, i don't know about you.  I'm just providing more examples of demorcatic suburbs and enhancing the fact that Chicago's suburbs are growing which I believe is helping the GOP very slightly in IL.  As Al Gore would say, "You don't have to get snippy about it!"

[Alcon]

Richardson/Bayh vs. someone from a non-helpful region (i.e. TX/WY):



Richardson 352
Some Republican 186

Well, I can always hope.

Ummmmm... see this is the problem with your thinking, they aren't going to be up against "some Republican".  They are going to facing a real person who has a record of accomplishment and will probably be somewhat likeable.

Yes, which is why I mean to say that this is a baseline. The Republican would probably be able to flip a few states. This is, basically, what I think this ticket would have done vs. a Republican unknown who was as good, say, as Bush was in 2000.

"Flip a few states"

And Kerry was going to win in a landslide too, right?

Yes. Flip a few states. I consider 5 states to be a "few." I'm not going overboard here. This is the landslide situation, yes, and assumes a mediocre candidate. I do not expect that. It was just a baseline.

In any case, South Dakota was an accidental. My EV is accurate - I just hit SD by mistake.

[danwxman]

"in IL Chicago retains its ability to outvote the rest of the state but growing republican strength in the “burbs” mean the states is trending to the right and becoming ever more of a tossup."

Actually that is wrong, the Chicago suburbs are leaning more and more Democratic, in DuPage County one of the supposed GOP strongholds Bush only got 54% of the vote.  It used to be that it was unheard of for a GOP presidential candidate to get less than 60% of the vote in DuPage, the only times since 1952 that was not the case was in 1992 and 1996 (because of Perot no doubt) and 2000. The other collar counties which lean GOP were also in the low 50% range, Bush barely carried Lake and Will Counties. 

Actually, I doubt IL will change much.  If anything, yes it will swing slightly GOP.  The GOP will continue to gain votes in growth-heavy McHenry, Kane, DeKalb, Boone, Kendall, Grundy, LaSalle, Will, and Kankakee, even a few in Lake (but overall Lake won't change much), while losing more and more votes in Cook and DuPage.  We'll also have to watch for Rockford, Peoria, Champaign and see how these toss-up counties change.  It all depends on growth.  Little growth is likely in democratic heavy E. St. Louis or Rock Island-Moline.  However, the GOP is gaining in democratic Madison Co., thanks to growth in the Metro East suburbs (Collinsville, Edwardsville, Glen Carbon, etc.)

Suburban growth does *not* always favor Republicans, my friend.

It does around here, pal.

Okay. It doesn't around Philly. That was my point.

OK.  Same with frickin' San Francisco bay, Seattle, Boston, Broward/Palm Beach Co., etc., etc.  Chicagoland and Milwaukee are very unique though that the burbs, esp. the growing ones, are heavily republican while the city and some inner burbs are heavily democrat.

So what the hell are you arguing with me for?

I ended the argument with OK, i don't know about you.  I'm just providing more examples of demorcatic suburbs and enhancing the fact that Chicago's suburbs are growing which I believe is helping the GOP very slightly in IL.  As Al Gore would say, "You don't have to get snippy about it!"

Right. So we agree. Some suburbs are trending Democrat, others are trending Republican. Wow, sometimes you are dense.  

[bushforever]

"in IL Chicago retains its ability to outvote the rest of the state but growing republican strength in the “burbs” mean the states is trending to the right and becoming ever more of a tossup."

Actually that is wrong, the Chicago suburbs are leaning more and more Democratic, in DuPage County one of the supposed GOP strongholds Bush only got 54% of the vote.  It used to be that it was unheard of for a GOP presidential candidate to get less than 60% of the vote in DuPage, the only times since 1952 that was not the case was in 1992 and 1996 (because of Perot no doubt) and 2000. The other collar counties which lean GOP were also in the low 50% range, Bush barely carried Lake and Will Counties. 

Actually, I doubt IL will change much.  If anything, yes it will swing slightly GOP.  The GOP will continue to gain votes in growth-heavy McHenry, Kane, DeKalb, Boone, Kendall, Grundy, LaSalle, Will, and Kankakee, even a few in Lake (but overall Lake won't change much), while losing more and more votes in Cook and DuPage.  We'll also have to watch for Rockford, Peoria, Champaign and see how these toss-up counties change.  It all depends on growth.  Little growth is likely in democratic heavy E. St. Louis or Rock Island-Moline.  However, the GOP is gaining in democratic Madison Co., thanks to growth in the Metro East suburbs (Collinsville, Edwardsville, Glen Carbon, etc.)

Suburban growth does *not* always favor Republicans, my friend.

It does around here, pal.

Okay. It doesn't around Philly. That was my point.

OK.  Same with frickin' San Francisco bay, Seattle, Boston, Broward/Palm Beach Co., etc., etc.  Chicagoland and Milwaukee are very unique though that the burbs, esp. the growing ones, are heavily republican while the city and some inner burbs are heavily democrat.

So what the hell are you arguing with me for?

I ended the argument with OK, i don't know about you.  I'm just providing more examples of demorcatic suburbs and enhancing the fact that Chicago's suburbs are growing which I believe is helping the GOP very slightly in IL.  As Al Gore would say, "You don't have to get snippy about it!"

Right. So we agree. Some suburbs are trending Democrat, others are trending Republican. Wow, sometimes you are dense.  

I knew we agreed after "That was my point."  You just took my elaboration the wrong way.  I also hope you meant dense as in "complicated."

[danwxman]

"in IL Chicago retains its ability to outvote the rest of the state but growing republican strength in the “burbs” mean the states is trending to the right and becoming ever more of a tossup."

Actually that is wrong, the Chicago suburbs are leaning more and more Democratic, in DuPage County one of the supposed GOP strongholds Bush only got 54% of the vote.  It used to be that it was unheard of for a GOP presidential candidate to get less than 60% of the vote in DuPage, the only times since 1952 that was not the case was in 1992 and 1996 (because of Perot no doubt) and 2000. The other collar counties which lean GOP were also in the low 50% range, Bush barely carried Lake and Will Counties. 

Actually, I doubt IL will change much.  If anything, yes it will swing slightly GOP.  The GOP will continue to gain votes in growth-heavy McHenry, Kane, DeKalb, Boone, Kendall, Grundy, LaSalle, Will, and Kankakee, even a few in Lake (but overall Lake won't change much), while losing more and more votes in Cook and DuPage.  We'll also have to watch for Rockford, Peoria, Champaign and see how these toss-up counties change.  It all depends on growth.  Little growth is likely in democratic heavy E. St. Louis or Rock Island-Moline.  However, the GOP is gaining in democratic Madison Co., thanks to growth in the Metro East suburbs (Collinsville, Edwardsville, Glen Carbon, etc.)

Suburban growth does *not* always favor Republicans, my friend.

It does around here, pal.

Okay. It doesn't around Philly. That was my point.

OK.  Same with frickin' San Francisco bay, Seattle, Boston, Broward/Palm Beach Co., etc., etc.  Chicagoland and Milwaukee are very unique though that the burbs, esp. the growing ones, are heavily republican while the city and some inner burbs are heavily democrat.

So what the hell are you arguing with me for?

I ended the argument with OK, i don't know about you.  I'm just providing more examples of demorcatic suburbs and enhancing the fact that Chicago's suburbs are growing which I believe is helping the GOP very slightly in IL.  As Al Gore would say, "You don't have to get snippy about it!"

Right. So we agree. Some suburbs are trending Democrat, others are trending Republican. Wow, sometimes you are dense.  

You just took my elaboration the wrong way. 

No....You just elaborated on the same thing we had already decided was a fact. BTW, you are dense AND complicated. But we are not married. Enough.

[bushforever]

"in IL Chicago retains its ability to outvote the rest of the state but growing republican strength in the “burbs” mean the states is trending to the right and becoming ever more of a tossup."

Actually that is wrong, the Chicago suburbs are leaning more and more Democratic, in DuPage County one of the supposed GOP strongholds Bush only got 54% of the vote.  It used to be that it was unheard of for a GOP presidential candidate to get less than 60% of the vote in DuPage, the only times since 1952 that was not the case was in 1992 and 1996 (because of Perot no doubt) and 2000. The other collar counties which lean GOP were also in the low 50% range, Bush barely carried Lake and Will Counties. 

Actually, I doubt IL will change much.  If anything, yes it will swing slightly GOP.  The GOP will continue to gain votes in growth-heavy McHenry, Kane, DeKalb, Boone, Kendall, Grundy, LaSalle, Will, and Kankakee, even a few in Lake (but overall Lake won't change much), while losing more and more votes in Cook and DuPage.  We'll also have to watch for Rockford, Peoria, Champaign and see how these toss-up counties change.  It all depends on growth.  Little growth is likely in democratic heavy E. St. Louis or Rock Island-Moline.  However, the GOP is gaining in democratic Madison Co., thanks to growth in the Metro East suburbs (Collinsville, Edwardsville, Glen Carbon, etc.)

Suburban growth does *not* always favor Republicans, my friend.

It does around here, pal.

Okay. It doesn't around Philly. That was my point.

OK.  Same with frickin' San Francisco bay, Seattle, Boston, Broward/Palm Beach Co., etc., etc.  Chicagoland and Milwaukee are very unique though that the burbs, esp. the growing ones, are heavily republican while the city and some inner burbs are heavily democrat.

So what the hell are you arguing with me for?

I ended the argument with OK, i don't know about you.  I'm just providing more examples of demorcatic suburbs and enhancing the fact that Chicago's suburbs are growing which I believe is helping the GOP very slightly in IL.  As Al Gore would say, "You don't have to get snippy about it!"

Right. So we agree. Some suburbs are trending Democrat, others are trending Republican. Wow, sometimes you are dense.  

You just took my elaboration the wrong way. 

No....You just elaborated on the same thing we had already decided was a fact. BTW, you are dense AND complicated. But we are not married. Enough.

Wow, more namecalling..."dense and complicated".  So, "dense" in the context of unintelligent and "complicated" in the context of difficult to understand.  I guess, it's either namecalling or arguing with you.  Excuse me for elaborating.

[danwxman]

"in IL Chicago retains its ability to outvote the rest of the state but growing republican strength in the “burbs” mean the states is trending to the right and becoming ever more of a tossup."

Actually that is wrong, the Chicago suburbs are leaning more and more Democratic, in DuPage County one of the supposed GOP strongholds Bush only got 54% of the vote.  It used to be that it was unheard of for a GOP presidential candidate to get less than 60% of the vote in DuPage, the only times since 1952 that was not the case was in 1992 and 1996 (because of Perot no doubt) and 2000. The other collar counties which lean GOP were also in the low 50% range, Bush barely carried Lake and Will Counties. 

Actually, I doubt IL will change much.  If anything, yes it will swing slightly GOP.  The GOP will continue to gain votes in growth-heavy McHenry, Kane, DeKalb, Boone, Kendall, Grundy, LaSalle, Will, and Kankakee, even a few in Lake (but overall Lake won't change much), while losing more and more votes in Cook and DuPage.  We'll also have to watch for Rockford, Peoria, Champaign and see how these toss-up counties change.  It all depends on growth.  Little growth is likely in democratic heavy E. St. Louis or Rock Island-Moline.  However, the GOP is gaining in democratic Madison Co., thanks to growth in the Metro East suburbs (Collinsville, Edwardsville, Glen Carbon, etc.)

Suburban growth does *not* always favor Republicans, my friend.

It does around here, pal.

Okay. It doesn't around Philly. That was my point.

OK.  Same with frickin' San Francisco bay, Seattle, Boston, Broward/Palm Beach Co., etc., etc.  Chicagoland and Milwaukee are very unique though that the burbs, esp. the growing ones, are heavily republican while the city and some inner burbs are heavily democrat.

So what the hell are you arguing with me for?

I ended the argument with OK, i don't know about you.  I'm just providing more examples of demorcatic suburbs and enhancing the fact that Chicago's suburbs are growing which I believe is helping the GOP very slightly in IL.  As Al Gore would say, "You don't have to get snippy about it!"

Right. So we agree. Some suburbs are trending Democrat, others are trending Republican. Wow, sometimes you are dense.  

You just took my elaboration the wrong way. 

No....You just elaborated on the same thing we had already decided was a fact. BTW, you are dense AND complicated. But we are not married. Enough.

Wow, more namecalling..."dense and complicated".  So, "dense" in the context of unintelligent and "complicated" in the context of difficult to understand.  I guess, it's either namecalling or arguing with you.  Excuse me for elaborating.

No, it's just that you go on and on and on. You're more long-winded then John Kerry talking about Iraq. So with that this is over. Have a good night.

[bushforever]

Longwinded is better than immature comments.

[12th Doctor]

"in IL Chicago retains its ability to outvote the rest of the state but growing republican strength in the “burbs” mean the states is trending to the right and becoming ever more of a tossup."

Actually that is wrong, the Chicago suburbs are leaning more and more Democratic, in DuPage County one of the supposed GOP strongholds Bush only got 54% of the vote.  It used to be that it was unheard of for a GOP presidential candidate to get less than 60% of the vote in DuPage, the only times since 1952 that was not the case was in 1992 and 1996 (because of Perot no doubt) and 2000. The other collar counties which lean GOP were also in the low 50% range, Bush barely carried Lake and Will Counties. 

Actually, I doubt IL will change much.  If anything, yes it will swing slightly GOP.  The GOP will continue to gain votes in growth-heavy McHenry, Kane, DeKalb, Boone, Kendall, Grundy, LaSalle, Will, and Kankakee, even a few in Lake (but overall Lake won't change much), while losing more and more votes in Cook and DuPage.  We'll also have to watch for Rockford, Peoria, Champaign and see how these toss-up counties change.  It all depends on growth.  Little growth is likely in democratic heavy E. St. Louis or Rock Island-Moline.  However, the GOP is gaining in democratic Madison Co., thanks to growth in the Metro East suburbs (Collinsville, Edwardsville, Glen Carbon, etc.)

Suburban growth does *not* always favor Republicans, my friend.

It does around here, pal.

Okay. It doesn't around Philly. That was my point.

Generally speaking, northeastern suburban growth favors Dems, while southern suburban growth favors Republicans.  The midwest is a mixed bag.

[TeePee4Prez]

danwxman, thank God for Philly's suburban growth.  Otherwise I think PA would have gone GOP.

[khirkhib]

Shut up with the bickering, God.  You guys fuc#ing agree already.  So any body want to opine on what a Richardon?Bayh (or maybe Warner) vs Santorum/Rice race would look like.  There are so many factors.

Santorum is hated by the left almost as much as Bush is.  Rice is a women and black, are there any inroads.
Richardson is hispanic and castro might be dead what would the hispanic vote look like. 
Would white racists sit the election out, go third party.
Bayh and Warner are pretty moderate.  Does that hurt the ticket or make an opening on the left.

What would the map look like.  Would Santorum grab Pennyslvania.  Richardson would nail New Mexico but their is talk that he could grab Coloradio and Nevada and even pull Arizona.  Warner (trends) could deliver Virginia and some people on this site think that Bayh could get away with Indiana (Warner and Virginia is much more likely I think)  What EVs does Rice deliver, would she make the enough enroads wtih female voters in the midwest, Wisconsin and  Minnesota to get those votes.

I think that this would be a very exciting and interesting race and it would really bring up a lot of issues and bring us forward as a nation.

[Hitchabrut]

Bayh could help in his region by winning OH and some other midwestern states, but IN couldn't go Democratic, even with Bayh running.

The Democrats' best chances at winning are with Bayh and Richardson. If they choose Richardson, (was he born in America?), the Republicans would need a miracle. They'd lose at least NM, NV, CO, and FL and possibly IA, AZ, and OH.

[khirkhib]

Richardson was born in Pasedena California.
His mother Maria Luisa Lopez-Collada is Mexican and his father was from Boston working with Citibank is Mexico.
He was raised in Mexico City and went to High School in Boston.
He wents to Tufts (BA French and Poli Sci) {oh oh he knows French does that hurt his chances} and went on to get his Masters at Tufts Fletcher Schoo and Diplomacy.
After College he worked for the State Department

He moved to New Mexico in 78 and that year lost his first attempt at the house. On his second attempt he won.
He was in the House for NM's 3rd district from 83-97
US ambasador to the UN 97-98
Sec of Energy 98-01  (because of all the intelligence scandels in the Bush admin. I don't think that this will hurt him.  But it was smart to move to govenor)
He got elected Gov. in 02.  So he'll have an election in 06.  No contest.

I just want to see this guy destroy Santorum.  The Democrats need to have candidtaes to represent who we really are not caricatures of what Republicans like to label us.

[Derek]

http://

Yes I made Michigan Republican because I think that by 2020 it will have realized what democrat economic ideas have done to their state.

[Oakvale]

This thread is rich in the lulz.

[izixs]

Map of election 2036...

Party	EV vote	Pop vote
Dem-Union Candidate:	153	34%
Republican Candidate

:

234	33%
Union Revolution Candidate:	147	24%
Conservative Unity Candidate:	0	9%

In the late 2020s the democrats had had a major division between the high tech group, who supported high tech industries, and the union group, whom pushed for a more industrialized policy. The division was not halted at the time by the normal dynamics of the two party system as the tea party movement of the early 2010s had by then blossomed into several legitimate region conservative third parties after the republican party's attempt to become more moderate after the 2012 election, which made gaining electoral majorities for the republicans difficult. The division exploded in 2030 with a number of democratic senators joining the 'Union Revolution' movement, a policy and by then, cultural populist flag. The Republican win in 2032 signaled and end to democratic dominance as their vote was split heavily across the country. When the dust had settled, the Democratic party opted to adopt some of the policy goals of the URP to try to regain their votes. This only half worked, with regional divisions resulting in western URP folks moving back to the dems while those in the upper midwest and east coast still holding with their faction. At the same time, the Republican 3rd parties realized they were suddenly no longer relevant and thus formed a Conservative Unity ticket for the 2036 election. It ended poorly for them as the Republican party had become what they sought to be.

Once the battle lines had been drawn in congress, as a sign of good faith, the Democrats tried to undercut the URP by having a Dem-Union ticket (P: Dem, VP:URP). This however was rejected by the URP hold outs in some states resulting in a strong URP presence in the rust belt.


Just a thought :-D

[Derek]

This thread is rich in the lulz.

Where is your map?

[Derek]

Map of election 2036...

Party	EV vote	Pop vote
Dem-Union Candidate:	153	34%
Republican Candidate

:

234	33%
Union Revolution Candidate:	147	24%
Conservative Unity Candidate:	0	9%

In the late 2020s the democrats had had a major division between the high tech group, who supported high tech industries, and the union group, whom pushed for a more industrialized policy. The division was not halted at the time by the normal dynamics of the two party system as the tea party movement of the early 2010s had by then blossomed into several legitimate region conservative third parties after the republican party's attempt to become more moderate after the 2012 election, which made gaining electoral majorities for the republicans difficult. The division exploded in 2030 with a number of democratic senators joining the 'Union Revolution' movement, a policy and by then, cultural populist flag. The Republican win in 2032 signaled and end to democratic dominance as their vote was split heavily across the country. When the dust had settled, the Democratic party opted to adopt some of the policy goals of the URP to try to regain their votes. This only half worked, with regional divisions resulting in western URP folks moving back to the dems while those in the upper midwest and east coast still holding with their faction. At the same time, the Republican 3rd parties realized they were suddenly no longer relevant and thus formed a Conservative Unity ticket for the 2036 election. It ended poorly for them as the Republican party had become what they sought to be.

Once the battle lines had been drawn in congress, as a sign of good faith, the Democrats tried to undercut the URP by having a Dem-Union ticket (P: Dem, VP:URP). This however was rejected by the URP hold outs in some states resulting in a strong URP presence in the rust belt.


Just a thought :-D

I think the conflict between unions and today's democrats is alot closer than the late 2020's. More like 2016 or 2012. Obama almost sent the unions to the GOP before adding another 500 pages to the healthcare bill stating that if you're in a union you have special privileges that second class citizens who aren't in unions don't have.