Political Discussion

One other thing— it seems to me (based off people I know, what I see on places like r/politics, and the convos I have while door knocking), that the way the 65+ crowd feels about socialism is sort of how the under 35 crowd feels about money in politics. Which is why Warren / Sanders maintain the majority of our support.

I don’t think that gap is bridgable (as evidenced by Bloomberg’s rise), so the question is... which group is less likely to stay home if they don’t like the nominee.


Also, this Chris Hayes piece is pretty solid:

 
Last edited:
the way the 65+ crowd feels about socialism is sort of how the under 35 crowd feels about money in politics.
🤔

One of these things is understandable that they’d have that view point given everything they’ve experienced, but still not an accurate viewpoint. The other is bad all around.

edit: I don’t mean to imply that you support money in politics. If you do... well...
 
Latest polling from South Carolina shows Biden's lead has widely expanded over Bernie Sanders.

Even worse, there is a chance that Michael Bloomberg could come in second.

Joe Biden is at 36%. Bernie at 16% in second place. And then the next 4 candidates are all around 13%.
 
Last edited:
Latest polling from South Carolina shows Biden's lead has widely expanded over Bernie Sanders.

Even worse, there is a chance that Michael Bloomberg could come in second.

Joe Biden is at 36%. Bernie at 16% in second place. And then the next 4 candidates are all around 13%.

Another one just dropped that has Bernie only 4 pts back. The pollster you mentioned also has been way off thus far. Had Biden winning Iowa and NH. Believe they are landline based.

I’ll be dumbfounded if Bernie wins SC. But I’m hopping he can keep it under 10 points while hitting the 15% threshold. Lot of this will depend on Steyer I think.
 
Last edited:
Long post incoming. TLDR: kid learns about local politics with a little moment of civic engagement gone awry.


My stepdaughter goes to an IB school, and one of the requirements is that 8th graders have to complete a "Community Project" that involves an act of direct engagement, public advocacy, or research about a public policy issue. Our kid teamed up with a couple of other girls to tackle issues related to the wage gap. They have a teacher who recently had a baby, and they happened to discover that this teacher had been saving up sick time over the last two years in order to take a paid maternity leave, which is not a benefit that our school system offers. The girls were genuinely pretty horrified to learn that even the physical recovery from childbirth is not a covered event separate from regular sick time, so they decided to make it the focus of their project. They learned through additional research that the lack of this benefit is frequently cited by young teachers as a reason for leaving the district, or the profession altogether, and that on average it costs the school district $50,000 to replace a teacher. Last night they attended the school board meeting with the intention of making a 3 minute public comment suggesting what they thought was a reasonable pitch: a 2-week paid leave for new mothers. 2 weeks. That was the most they thought they could argue for. (BTW they recognized that family leave > maternity leave but decided that since the focus of their work was the gender wage gap that they would restrict their request to women only.)

Anyway, they got to the meeting and it turns out that it was one of the most highly attended school board meetings ever, as the district is in the middle of trying to regain oversight of a state-controlled school whose administration was turned over to a charter company after poor performance years. The charter company is refusing to comply with any of the district's requests about, well, anything. The district plans to re-open the school *after* closing it for one full school year. As you might imagine, the families at that school are freaking out a little because no one seems to know what's going on and the charter company has essentially gone radio silent.

Oh, AND the district is in the middle of changing bus vendors without any input from the drivers' union. The savings derived from the change, expected to be in the range of a few million, are expected to come largely from cuts to drivers' benefits. The drivers staged a sick-out this morning, on a scale large enough to cause the district to cancel all busing for all schools, district-wide.

So tensions are high, attendance is high, and suddenly more people want to utilize public comment time than ever before, so our girls, who have been prepping for three minutes, are now told they will have 90 seconds. My kid, who is the third speaker in her group, ends up having time only to say "thank you" before their time is up.

On the way home, she cried. "My first chance to get to speak up for women's rights and all I got the chance to say was 'thank you.' They didn't even let me speak."

It gave us an opportunity to talk a little bit about why the other people had shown up in such large numbers. Some kids' educations are being tossed around by the whims of bureaucrats and a private business because of the arbitrary mess that has been made of standardized testing and privatization agendas. It's also no coincidence that this other school (the charter that will be shut down for a year) is mostly attended by minority students from poorer neighborhoods. Meanwhile, bus drivers are demonstrating the power of organized labor, which is good, and yet families who rely on that transportation will suffer for it. And meanwhile, 3 kids with good intentions showed up in an effort to fulfill the requirements of their district-mandated assignment, and were unable to complete it BECAUSE OF that same district's messy issues.

It's a tough lesson for a kid, and even a tough thing for an adult to untangle when you see such a confluence of problems all at once. This is one school district in one county of one state. If this one institution can have so many problems, it can seem impossible to fix them at a larger scale. Seeing how power is leveraged in different ways, how opposing parties must negotiate, how significant problems get ignored in favor of others, it's all valuable information, but certainly a little disheartening when it's your first experience.

Anyway -- the girls are now working on writing a letter to the editor of the city paper as their next step. As one of them said, "If the school board doesn't have time to listen, then we'll just tell the whole city." I'm too cynical to think it will make much of a dent (not to mention that they understandably don't know the first thing about labor contract negotiations), but I respect the defiant attitude.
 
Last edited:
Long post incoming. TLDR: kid learns about local politics with a little moment of civic engagement gone awry.


My stepdaughter goes to an IB school, and one of the requirements is that 8th graders have to complete a "Community Project" that involves an act of direct engagement, public advocacy, or research about a public policy issue. Our kid teamed up with a couple of other girls to tackle issues related to the wage gap. They have a teacher who recently had a baby, and they happened to discover that this teacher had been saving up sick time over the last two years in order to take a paid maternity leave, which is not a benefit that our school system offers. The girls were genuinely pretty horrified to learn that even the physical recovery from childbirth is not a covered event separate from regular sick time, so they decided to make it the focus of their project. They learned through additional research that the lack of this benefit is frequently cited by young teachers as a reason for leaving the district, or the profession altogether, and that on average it costs the school district $50,000 to replace a teacher. Last night they attended the school board meeting with the intention of making a 3 minute public comment suggesting what they thought was a reasonable pitch: a 2-week paid leave for new mothers. 2 weeks. That was the most they thought they could argue for. (BTW they recognized that family leave > maternity leave but decided that since the focus of their work was the gender wage gap that they would restrict their request to women only.)

Anyway, they got to the meeting and it turns out that it was one of the most highly attended school board meetings ever, as the district is in the middle of trying to regain oversight of a state-controlled school whose administration was turned over to a charter company after poor performance years. The charter company is refusing to comply with any of the district's requests about, well, anything. The district plans to re-open the school *after* closing it for one full school year. As you might imagine, the families at that school are freaking out a little because no one seems to know what's going on and the charter company has essentially gone radio silent.

Oh, AND the district is in the middle of changing bus vendors without any input from the drivers' union. The savings derived from the change, expected to be in the range of a few million, are expected to come largely from cuts to drivers' benefits. The drivers staged a sick-out this morning, on a scale large enough to cause the district to cancel all busing for all schools, district-wide.

So tensions are high, attendance is high, and suddenly more people want to utilize public comment time than ever before, so our girls, who have been prepping for three minutes, are now told they will have 90 seconds. My kid, who is the third speaker in her group, ends up having time only to say "thank you" before their time is up.

On the way home, she cried. "My first chance to get to speak up for women's rights and all I got the chance to say was 'thank you.' They didn't even let me speak."

It gave us an opportunity to talk a little bit about why the other people had shown up in such large numbers. Some kids' educations are being tossed around by the whims of bureaucrats and a private business because of the arbitrary mess that has been made of standardized testing and privatization agendas. It's also no coincidence that this school is mostly attended by minority students from poorer neighborhoods. Meanwhile, bus drivers are demonstrating the power of organized labor, which is good, and yet families who rely on that transportation will suffer for it. And meanwhile, 3 kids with good intentions showed up in an effort to fulfill the requirements of their district-mandated assignment, and were unable to complete it BECAUSE OF that same district's messy issues.

It's a tough lesson for a kid, and even a tough thing for an adult to untangle when you see such a confluence of problems all at once. This is one school district in one county of one state. If this one institution can have so many problems, it can seem impossible to fix them at a larger scale. Seeing how power is leveraged in different ways, how opposing parties must negotiate, how significant problems get ignored in favor of others, it's all valuable information, but certainly a little disheartening when it's your first experience.

Anyway -- the girls are now working on writing a letter to the editor of the city paper as their next step. As one of them said, "If the school board doesn't have time to listen, then we'll just tell the whole city." I'm too cynical to think it will make much of a dent (not to mention that they understandably don't know the first thing about labor contract negotiations), but I respect the defiant attitude.
is an IB school like a Charter School?
 
is an IB school like a Charter School?
IB stands for International Baccalaureate. It's basically a modified curriculum and teaching method based on ideas of global citizenry and inquiry-based learning. This school in particular is part of the public school district, but is part of the district's "innovation schools" model, in that it is labeled as a "Center for Inquiry" school that happens to use the IB curriculum. Totally simple and straightforward, right? It's sort of like a subset of magnet schools within the school district; students who live close to it go there automatically, but other students can also get in if they want to participate in this curriculum. In this district there are currently, I think, 4 IB elementary/middle schools that feed into 3 high schools that offer the IB diploma track (as well as conventional diploma tracks).

Short version, it's a little complicated, but my understanding is that the IB program is simply a curriculum that any school, public/private/charter/otherwise can adopt. I believe it's generally seen as being academically rigorous, sort of equivalent to the concept of AP courses, but without the focus on exams/college credits.

Edit: maybe an even simpler explanation is to say that I see it as being like the liberal arts version of a public school education.
 
IB stands for International Baccalaureate. It's basically a modified curriculum and teaching method based on ideas of global citizenry and inquiry-based learning. This school in particular is part of the public school district, but is part of the district's "innovation schools" model, in that it is labeled as a "Center for Inquiry" school that happens to use the IB curriculum. Totally simple and straightforward, right? It's sort of like a subset of magnet schools within the school district; students who live close to it go there automatically, but other students can also get in if they want to participate in this curriculum. In this district there are currently, I think, 4 IB elementary/middle schools that feed into 3 high schools that offer the IB diploma track (as well as conventional diploma tracks).

Short version, it's a little complicated, but my understanding is that the IB program is simply a curriculum that any school, public/private/charter/otherwise can adopt. I believe it's generally seen as being academically rigorous, sort of equivalent to the concept of AP courses, but without the focus on exams/college credits.
Gotcha. I've never heard of IB before but I'm familiar with Magnet Schools. I had thought that maybe your post was about a Charter School with the cuts.
 
Gotcha. I've never heard of IB before but I'm familiar with Magnet Schools. I had thought that maybe your post was about a Charter School with the cuts.
There are definitely charter schools in the mix, and all the jargon of "innovation schools" and "shared resource charters" and blah blah blah doesn't make it any easier to understand/explain. Our kid is going to one of the high schools next year that offers the IB diploma but she hasn't decided yet whether she's going to continue on that track or move into the more conventional diploma program. From what I understand, the big difference is that in the IB, sophomores have one more big project that they have to complete, and it often comes down to whether students want to deal with that or not.

I know we have some educators in the forum, so maybe they have a better way of explaining the IB, but this is one somewhat competent parent's stab at it.
 
(BTW they recognized that family leave > maternity leave but decided that since the focus of their work was the gender wage gap that they would restrict their request to women only.)


We get family leave at my district. It was great when I took it. Just a counter point to their conclusion. I would argue that family leave makes it so the mother could possibly earn more, because the father could take off. It makes the family unit more flexible and egalitarian. I see more mothers than fathers in meetings for kids at school. For some reason its the cultural norm that fathers do not deal with schools. Flexibility with a father's schedule removes some of the responsibilities that are typically thought of as the mother's.

I'll comment late on school bard politics and charter/magnet stuff.
 
We get family leave at my district. It was great when I took it. Just a counter point to their conclusion. I would argue that family leave makes it so the mother could possibly earn more, because the father could take off. It makes the family unit more flexible and egalitarian. I see more mothers than fathers in meetings for kids at school. For some reason its the cultural norm that fathers do not deal with schools. Flexibility with a father's schedule removes some of the responsibilities that are typically thought of as the mother's.

I'll comment late on school bard politics and charter/magnet stuff.
Their thinking, which I think has some validity, is that women who give birth have an immediate, physical need for recovery. In order to be able to take that as paid time off, these teachers have to plan ahead with a bank of sick days, which their male counterparts do not.

This school really flogs the message of equity over equality for students, and these girls are turning that scrutiny back on the school. Yes, the teachers have equality with respect to PTO policies; but, so this argument goes, they do not have equity, because the female teachers must use their sick time more judiciously than the men should they ever wish to become parents.

They agree family leave is good (for all kinds of families, and including new foster/adoption scenarios). But the basic, entry-level price of admission here is agreement that physical recovery from childbirth and the first few days with a newborn shouldn't require banked sick days.

Even more progressive companies with what I consider (by American standards) generous family leave policies tend to acknowledge this. My own company gives 18 paid weeks for new mothers, but only 10 for new fathers (and only 10 max for mothers/fathers alike in the event of a new foster/adoption).

"Only 10." That's still 10 more than my kid's teacher got. She managed to bank 20 sick days over the last several years so that she could take 4 weeks off after giving birth. How many days did she work in those years at a level of illness that her male colleagues would have taken off because they don't have the same family planning requirements? If the answer is >1, then the policy should be changed.
 
As a resident of South Carolina, I just want to say that hearing Jim Clyburn on the radio basically say the main reason he endorsed Biden over Sanders is because he is scared that Sanders using the word socialist would hurt his reelction chances is really depressing. Not surprising, but depressing. I know it's old news that the most important thing to all politicians is getting reelected, but it shouldn't be.

I'm sure it's more complicated than that, and maybe it is NPRs editing, but it wasn't like they were trying to paint him in a negative light or anything. That was just the only thing he said to defend not supporting Sanders in the brief interview they aired.

Edit:Maybe it is mischaracterizing to say it is the reason he endorsed Bide . But it is making him scared of Sanders and it shouldn't have anything to do with it.
 
As a resident of South Carolina, I just want to say that hearing Jim Clyburn on the radio basically say the main reason he endorsed Biden over Sanders is because he is scared that Sanders using the word socialist would hurt his reelction chances is really depressing. Not surprising, but depressing. I know it's old news that the most important thing to all politicians is getting reelected, but it shouldn't be.

I'm sure it's more complicated than that, and maybe it is NPRs editing, but it wasn't like they were trying to paint him in a negative light or anything. That was just the only thing he said to defend not supporting Sanders in the brief interview they aired.
I didn't hear it, so I can't defend how he did or didn't articulate it, but it's a valid concern. The president is not the only office up for grabs in November, and if having a socialist at the top of the ticket depresses turnout, or causes voters to split their votes, a lot of downticket candidates might suffer.

The Center for Politics at UVA released this projection today of an electoral map if Sanders is the nominee:


These projections all come down to, once again, PA and WI. And the chances of retaking the Senate dwindle. Are these projections correct? I don't know. I don't know how to cut through the noise of enthusiasm for Sanders on the one hand and abject terror on the other, but if the concerns of the latter are valid, then the potential impact to non-presidential races can't be overstated.

It's not just about staying in office: if Clyburn loses, the other guy wins.
 
Their thinking, which I think has some validity, is that women who give birth have an immediate, physical need for recovery. In order to be able to take that as paid time off, these teachers have to plan ahead with a bank of sick days, which their male counterparts do not.

This school really flogs the message of equity over equality for students, and these girls are turning that scrutiny back on the school. Yes, the teachers have equality with respect to PTO policies; but, so this argument goes, they do not have equity, because the female teachers must use their sick time more judiciously than the men should they ever wish to become parents.

They agree family leave is good (for all kinds of families, and including new foster/adoption scenarios). But the basic, entry-level price of admission here is agreement that physical recovery from childbirth and the first few days with a newborn shouldn't require banked sick days.

Even more progressive companies with what I consider (by American standards) generous family leave policies tend to acknowledge this. My own company gives 18 paid weeks for new mothers, but only 10 for new fathers (and only 10 max for mothers/fathers alike in the event of a new foster/adoption).

"Only 10." That's still 10 more than my kid's teacher got. She managed to bank 20 sick days over the last several years so that she could take 4 weeks off after giving birth. How many days did she work in those years at a level of illness that her male colleagues would have taken off because they don't have the same family planning requirements? If the answer is >1, then the policy should be changed.


I'm not gonna deny its a shitty policy.
 
As a resident of South Carolina, I just want to say that hearing Jim Clyburn on the radio basically say the main reason he endorsed Biden over Sanders is because he is scared that Sanders using the word socialist would hurt his reelction chances is really depressing. Not surprising, but depressing. I know it's old news that the most important thing to all politicians is getting reelected, but it shouldn't be.

I'm sure it's more complicated than that, and maybe it is NPRs editing, but it wasn't like they were trying to paint him in a negative light or anything. That was just the only thing he said to defend not supporting Sanders in the brief interview they aired.

Edit:Maybe it is mischaracterizing to say it is the reason he endorsed Bide . But it is making him scared of Sanders and it shouldn't have anything to do with it.
Folks should be less concerned with the idea Democratic Socialism and more concerned with the idea of White Nationalism.
 
I didn't hear it, so I can't defend how he did or didn't articulate it, but it's a valid concern. The president is not the only office up for grabs in November, and if having a socialist at the top of the ticket depresses turnout, or causes voters to split their votes, a lot of downticket candidates might suffer.

The Center for Politics at UVA released this projection today of an electoral map if Sanders is the nominee:


These projections all come down to, once again, PA and WI. And the chances of retaking the Senate dwindle. Are these projections correct? I don't know. I don't know how to cut through the noise of enthusiasm for Sanders on the one hand and abject terror on the other, but if the concerns of the latter are valid, then the potential impact to non-presidential races can't be overstated.

It's not just about staying in office: if Clyburn loses, the other guy wins.
Considering he regularly gets greater than 70% in his district, I don't think there is any real chance of him losing.

I don't disagree that they are valid concerns I guess I'm just being idealistic and wishing we were talking more about making things better than electability. I think it's fair to say that this year above others electability is more important, however, I think the last election proved that we don't understand how to accurately gauge electability.
 
Back
Top