The Democratic Presidential Nomination 2020

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by stone hands

2 things
2) I agree the class you're born into shouldn't dictate what careers you can choose from, but I would say that if Timmy Jones has never gotten higher than 60% in any math class in his life, he should probably be steered towards something he might be good at instead of trying to square peg into round hole him into an engineering degree because its not his fault his parents were poor

Do you not think that the class someone is born into could have an effect on their academic performance, whether it be from undiagnosed disabilities/health issues, lack of access to resources, or general hopelessness? Anecdotally-speaking I'm a prime example of this. I grew up in a single-parent household, with undiagnosed ADHD and depression and the belief that college was unaffordable. As a result, I performed poorly in high school. I always grade well on the test and assignments I completed, but I often cut classes and didn't bother with homework because I thought it was pointless. Once I got to university, got a proper diagnosis and was provided some additional resources, my grades flourished and I parlayed one of those "useless" social science degrees into a pretty good career.

I personally don't believe I'm all that unique or special, so I'm sure there are other kids out there like me.

[peter12]

As I've said before, I really do believe that the liberal arts should be universalized as much as possible for the benefits of students, but that university is often a poor medium for teaching them until you get to advanced undergraduate and graduate school classes where the numbers of students are small enough to facilitate adequate reflection and discussion between the teacher and a student's peers.

The public school system is such a failure on every level - concerned more with the industrial churning of students out to graduation to fulfill funding metrics instead of actual education.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

As I've said before, I really do believe that the liberal arts should be universalized as much as possible for the benefits of students, but that university is often a poor medium for teaching them until you get to advanced undergraduate and graduate school classes where the numbers of students are small enough to facilitate adequate reflection and discussion between the teacher and a student's peers.

The public school system is such a failure on every level - concerned more with the industrial churning of students out to graduation to fulfill funding metrics instead of actual education.

Yeah, I agree with this wholeheartedly.

[peter12]

I think the issue I have with "free" or "lowest possible cost" post-secondary is that it really does just subsidize the upper-middle classes who already enjoy all of the connections, advantages, and aspirations to attend university.

What I think would be an effective policy solution is to create government-backed bursasries to students coming from low-income bracket families.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Do you not think that the class someone is born into could have an effect on their academic performance, whether it be from undiagnosed disabilities/health issues, lack of access to resources, or general hopelessness? Anecdotally-speaking I'm a prime example of this. I grew up in a single-parent household, with undiagnosed ADHD and depression and the belief that college was unaffordable. As a result, I performed poorly in high school. I always grade well on the test and assignments I completed, but I often cut classes and didn't bother with homework because I thought it was pointless. Once I got to university, got a proper diagnosis and was provided some additional resources, my grades flourished and I parlayed one of those "useless" social science degrees into a pretty good career.

I personally don't believe I'm all that unique or special, so I'm sure there are other kids out there like me.

we should be identifying those problems and giving students the resources to succeed before they hit college then instead of educating kids for 12+ years only to actually give a #### about them once they're out of the public system

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Do you not think that the class someone is born into could have an effect on their academic performance, whether it be from undiagnosed disabilities/health issues, lack of access to resources, or general hopelessness? Anecdotally-speaking I'm a prime example of this. I grew up in a single-parent household, with undiagnosed ADHD and depression and the belief that college was unaffordable. As a result, I performed poorly in high school. I always grade well on the test and assignments I completed, but I often cut classes and didn't bother with homework because I thought it was pointless. Once I got to university, got a proper diagnosis and was provided some additional resources, my grades flourished and I parlayed one of those "useless" social science degrees into a pretty good career.

I personally don't believe I'm all that unique or special, so I'm sure there are other kids out there like me.

I also came from a poor family, hated high school, barely got into university, but was so enlivened by what I studied that I graduated on the Dean's List and went on to do a graduate degree. I now also have a successful career doing exactly what I love doing.

What you have described is the magic of post-secondary education and by any metric, it should be available to everyone. How we get there is another discussion.

[CliffFletcher]

Wait, so pointing out that on a dollar-by-dollar basis, free college would mostly benefit the children of the upper middle class is right-wing?

I suppose the comments in this review are a right-wing screed also?

...It is not obvious what the “right” levels of economic equality and mobility are, much less how to achieve them. But the idea that government policy should not disproportionately benefit affluent families should be uncontroversial. Reeves’s most significant contribution in this book is his condemnation of such policies and practices, including exclusionary zoning policies that drive up housing prices; advantages in college admissions for children of alumni (“legacy” preferences); favored tax treatment for 529 college savings plans; unpaid internships; and the mortgage-interest tax deduction.

Reeves’s list is far too short. First, I’d add neighborhood-based school attendance policies, which, coupled with exclusionary zoning, keep poor children from attending better-funded schools with higher-achieving peers. Second, I’d include higher-education tax credits, which are regressive and have failed to increase educational attainment. Third, I’d throw in student loan–forgiveness plans, which are likely to disproportionately benefit upper-middle-class families who borrow heavily to attend graduate school...

Reeves sometimes falls into this trap, such as when he praises President Barack Obama’s short-lived proposal to trade a highly regressive policy (the tax break for 529 plans) for a somewhat less regressive one (expanded higher-education tax credits available to families with annual incomes of up to $180,000). But he does call out free-college proposals as “yet another boondoggle for the upper middle class,”

- From an EducationNext review of Dream Hoarders: How the American Upper Middle Class Is Leaving Everyone Else in the Dust, Why That Is a Problem, and What to Do About It by Richard V. Reeves

https://www.educationnext.org/the-ri...hard-v-reeves/

[Senator Clay Davis]

I mean kids pretty much suck, so more free daycare for dogs instead.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Wait, so pointing out that on a dollar-by-dollar basis, free college would mostly benefit the children of the upper middle class is right-wing?

I suppose the comments in this review are a right-wing screed also?

Who is this directed at? No one has said anything resembling this since your previous post.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

This conversation reminds me of a right wing coworker I had who hated habitat for humanity because she believed the home in her area lowered her property value. “If you can’t afford to buy a home you shouldn’t be given one. They won’t keep it nice enough. Some people are just meant to live in apartments” she said. She was a crappy person.

I'm going to try to be Fair and Balanced™ here. I don't think this is the intent of what the people who are opposed to universal post-secondary are arguing, but it comes off that way. There's also some bizarre stereotyping and disenfranchising of the poor going on in here (e.g. "the poor would be better served being fast-tracked into trades/technical programs) that I'm going to be charitable and suggest is a result of people not bothering to add the "some" qualifier to, rather than anything malicious.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Wait, so pointing out that on a dollar-by-dollar basis, free college would mostly benefit the children of the upper middle class is right-wing?

Sure, if you completely ignore how it's going to be paid for. Have you seen how Sanders plans to raise the $16 trillion in revenue to pay for health care and post-secondary education?

Using that logic, you might as well argue that universal health care is a subsidization of the upper middle class because the 75 million poorest Americans already receive government health care through Medicaid.

[rubecube]

Here we go again.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...a-ZZfO8CbwORDU

DES MOINES, Iowa — A small group of Democratic National Committee members has privately begun gauging support for a plan to potentially weaken Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign and head off a brokered convention.

In conversations on the sidelines of a DNC executive committee meeting and in telephone calls and texts in recent days, about a half-dozen members have discussed the possibility of a policy reversal to ensure that so-called superdelegates can vote on the first ballot at the party’s national convention. Such a move would increase the influence of DNC members, members of Congress and other top party officials, who now must wait until the second ballot to have their say if the convention is contested.

[ResAlien]

New Hampshire debate rules changed, making it easier for Bloomberg to make the stage. With Biden fading and Bernie looking like the presumptive favourite I wouldn’t be shocked to see the weight of the DNC put behind Bloomberg.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...oomberg-110017

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

New Hampshire debate rules changed, making it easier for Bloomberg to make the stage. With Biden fading and Bernie looking like the presumptive favourite I wouldn’t be shocked to see the weight of the DNC put behind Bloomberg.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...oomberg-110017

Similar to the Republicans, the Democrats aren't even trying to hide it any more.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Similar to the Republicans, the Democrats aren't even trying to hide it any more.

It's gonna be morbidly hilarious to see all of the shocked Democrats after they nominate their establishment candidate and then lose in November.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by rubecube

It's gonna be morbidly hilarious to see all of the shocked Democrats after they nominate their establishment candidate and then lose in November.

Sanders is not a viable candidate. Accept it and move on. You think the racists that rallied around Trump would not come pouring out of the woodwork to vote against an old self-professing socialist Jew? Democrats know this and will do the pragmatic thing. I still believe the ticket will be Biden/Klobuchar. Appeals to the base of the Democrats quite well, and should draw the independents like a moth to a flame.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by New Era

Sanders is not a viable candidate. Accept it and move on. You think the racists that rallied around Trump would not come pouring out of the woodwork to vote against an old self-professing socialist Jew? Democrats know this and will do the pragmatic thing. I still believe the ticket will be Biden/Klobuchar. Appeals to the base of the Democrats quite well, and should draw the independents like a moth to a flame.

Really, we're worrying about catering to the racists now? Those people are going to vote for Trump regardless of who the candidate. By rigging the nomination process like this, the Democrats risk alienating the type of people they need to turnout to win.

[rubecube]

Not to mention that if Bernie is winning the delegate race and the DNC puts their finger on the scale with superdelegates at the convention, we could very likely be looking at Chicago '68 situation.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Really, we're worrying about catering to the racists now? Those people are going to vote for Trump regardless of who the candidate. By rigging the nomination process like this, the Democrats risk alienating the type of people they need to turnout to win.

It was never intended to be a fully democratic process. Like it or not the party maintains some control of what nominee they move forward. New era is right, Bernie is not a viable candidate.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

It was never intended to be a fully democratic process. Like it or not the party maintains some control of what nominee they move forward. New era is right, Bernie is not a viable candidate.

Neither is Biden. If Yang, Steyer, or Warren get the nomination, I think you'll still see a good turnout (Warren is debatable), but if it's Biden of Bloomberg, you can kiss the youth and disaffected leftist votes goodbye.