I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

Charter schools are very popular with Rs, and are generally vehemently opposed by Democrats and teacher's unions. Most every voucher program I can recall has been geared towards low-income communities with failing schools. Remind me who it was that wanted to withhold funding from the DC voucher program that significantly increased high school graduation rates?

The opponents of charter school programs typically are Democrats, but that does not mean that Democrats oppose charter schools. Voucher programs are geared towards low-income schools because high-income schools use residential requirements to keep low-income kids out of their schools, and politicians like to keep their jobs and thus do not propose to give low-income kids the chance to go to schools in more affluent communities. Teachers unions oppose charter schools because the people who promote charter schools see them as an opportunity to take away the rights for which teachers have bargained. (I'm not defending the unions, just describing the dynamic.) Charters schools don't have to be designed in a way to take away those rights, so the facts that they are suggests that their advocates have an agenda that is more complex than simply improving education. Likewise, teachers unions have an agenda that seems to revolve more around protecting teachers than improving education.

I'm not sure what DC program you have in mind. I lived there during fights between Democratic administrators and Democratic teachers unions over all sorts of issues. Republicans weren't involved because there aren't many in DC, and those who are don't have kids in the public schools, either because they don't have kids or because they have the money for private schools.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

What do you think of the idea that Trump may establish his own network post-campaign, to the right of Fox?

Trump is truly a shrewd businessman to be thinking, now, of going after the Boomer segment...

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It's bloated, yes, but it's still an excellent distillation of the deep-seated mindsets fighting one another right now.

I don't see a chip on the writer's shoulder. He's being a bit harsh, and there's some bias, but his generalizations are limited, and supported.

If you care to, please share this single most useful paragraph in that piece. I thought it was a vast wasteland of resentment and agitprop.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

And the GOP could win in the future, if only it'd tack toward a populist message. But it won't.

It won't, because that's not who its leadership, elected members and major donors are. Those groups are made up of (1) small government movement conservatives (and their libertarian varietal), and (2) rich people who want lower taxes.

It's hard to assess who's dumber or more deluded - Trump, or the GOP?

Clearly, the GOP. I mean, he might be getting exactly what he wanted.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Good luck with that. From the NYT:

William H. Frey, a demographics expert with the Brookings Institution, a nonpartisan think tank, conducted several simulations that tried to determine how much the turnout among white men without college educations would have to increase for Mr. Trump to win. He used the most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll of registered voters that had Mrs. Clinton beating Mr. Trump in a nationwide two-way race, 50 percent to 42 percent. It was among the better polls for Mr. Trump lately.
Mr. Frey tested different turnout assumptions, including improbably optimistic ones, like if 99 percent of white, non-college-educated men turned out to vote. None of the chain of events produced a Trump victory.
In fact, even if virtually all of the white, non-college-educated men eligible to vote did so, Mr. Frey found, Mrs. Clinton would still win the popular vote by 1.1 million.
And Mr. Frey said he did not account for the expected growth in Hispanic turnout. “Once you build that in,” he said, “it’s even worse for Trump.”

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Adder

Nope. The number one determinant of educational success is parental engagement.

Everything after that only matters on the margin.

I believe the best determinant is in fact the educational level of the mother, but same difference. It's been pretty well established that throwing money at schools doesn't make them better (see Newark). The fact is a lot of problems in lower income areas of all types would be solved if parents didn't suck, which is one of the major themes in the Hillbilly Elegy book. It's been long established that the way to get out of poverty is to finish high school and to not have kids until you are at least 20 and married, but it's not like people base their actions on the empirical evidence that would make their lives better.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

Nope. The number one determinant of educational success is parental engagement.

Everything after that only matters on the margin.

That is indeed way up there.

The funny thing is, for most of the charter schools, they by definition have more parental engagement, since parents must engage to get them into the schools, yet their outcomes are only marginally better, even with more available cash (they often get the average per-student costs for educating students with a below average cost; the highest cost kids, kids with English as a second language or learning or physical disabilities, are almost always disproportionately left in the public schools).

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

What do you think of the idea that Trump may establish his own network post-campaign, to the right of Fox?

Cruz had a national campaign, but was realistic about where he would play well and not so well (so Iowa yes, New Hampshire no). And he mistakenly believed that Evangelicals in the south would not be stupid enough to vote for Trump.

I am not surprised at all that Ailes/Hannity/Trump/Ingraham may start their own network, but I think it is a mistake to call it to the right of Fox. The pandering of Fox to Trump, who is not on the right at all, was outdone only by Breitbart. It's been reported that before his run, Trump started offering a lot of conservative media comped stays at his hotels, etc. He bought and paid for Hannity and others in advance of his run. I don't know how big the audience is for a populist slant news network, but it's obviously a lot bigger than I would have thought possible. He dragged all the worst people in America out of the shadows, and they will absolutely stick with him past a rigged election.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

Cruz had a national campaign, but was realistic about where he would play well and not so well (so Iowa yes, New Hampshire no). And he mistakenly believed that Evangelicals in the south would not be stupid enough to vote for Trump.

I am not surprised at all that Ailes/Hannity/Trump/Ingraham may start their own network, but I think it is a mistake to call it to the right of Fox. The pandering of Fox to Trump, who is not on the right at all, was outdone only by Breitbart. It's been reported that before his run, Trump started offering a lot of conservative media comped stays at his hotels, etc. He bought and paid for Hannity and others in advance of his run. I don't know how big the audience is for a populist slant news network, but it's obviously a lot bigger than I would have thought possible. He dragged all the worst people in America out of the shadows, and they will absolutely stick with him past a rigged election.

I know you've got an ineffable effing Ted-love, but the guy got clobbered by a buffoon.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The opponents of charter school programs typically are Democrats, but that does not mean that Democrats oppose charter schools. Voucher programs are geared towards low-income schools because high-income schools use residential requirements to keep low-income kids out of their schools, and politicians like to keep their jobs and thus do not propose to give low-income kids the chance to go to schools in more affluent communities. Teachers unions oppose charter schools because the people who promote charter schools see them as an opportunity to take away the rights for which teachers have bargained. (I'm not defending the unions, just describing the dynamic.) Charters schools don't have to be designed in a way to take away those rights, so the facts that they are suggests that their advocates have an agenda that is more complex than simply improving education. Likewise, teachers unions have an agenda that seems to revolve more around protecting teachers than improving education.

I'm not sure what DC program you have in mind. I lived there during fights between Democratic administrators and Democratic teachers unions over all sorts of issues. Republicans weren't involved because there aren't many in DC, and those who are don't have kids in the public schools, either because they don't have kids or because they have the money for private schools.

exactly.

There has been a lot of educational innovation in most of the deep blue areas, negotiating with all the necessary constituencies, often with better results than the red areas, but none of its still good enough.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I know you've got an ineffable effing Ted-love, but the guy got clobbered by a buffoon.

I wouldn't be so smug. Your candidate is Hillary Clinton.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The funny thing is, for most of the charter schools, they by definition have more parental engagement, since parents must engage to get them into the schools, yet their outcomes are only marginally better, even with more available cash (they often get the average per-student costs for educating students with a below average cost; the highest cost kids, kids with English as a second language or learning or physical disabilities, are almost always disproportionately left in the public schools).

Yup. Thus undermining the case for charter schools. And look, no evil union required!

Vouchers, charter schools, or whatever the right wants now are certainly a leg up for some kids in difficult circumstances, but only some, and probably those who were most likely to find success anyway.

Maybe that's worth doing, but doesn't appear to be scalable and thus isn't really a solution. ETA: And, as you suggest, may be actively harmful to those left behind.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Adder

Yup. Thus undermining the case for charter schools. And look, no evil union required!

Vouchers, charter schools, or whatever the right wants now are certainly a leg up for some kids in difficult circumstances, but only some, and probably those who were most likely to find success anyway.

Maybe that's worth doing, but doesn't appear to be scalable and thus isn't really a solution. ETA: And, as you suggest, may be actively harmful to those left behind.

Democrats also seem satisfied to pander to teacher's unions rather than take actions that improve student outcomes. And Democrats seem to be the most likely to just propose throwing more tax dollars down the toilet of a failing system than make any changes opposed by the unions.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

... Hillary....

(But she is still no friend to women.)

Like she has been in the last 40 years. She may have been an ardent feminist at Yale, but these days, Hillary is a friend to Hillary.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Adder

You realize that this person will not get elected, right?

If voters are remotely rational (arguable), they will know that you can't hand someone power and then expect them not to use it because they promised. A rational voter would likely also realize that their fellow voters are not sufficiently informed to be the best way to decide.

If voter are irrational (also arguable), this person gives then next to zero emotional appeal.

And then there's the logistical problem that you don't know about lots of votes - e.g., amendments - three days in advance.

Plus, quite honestly, I have no desire to be represented by a person (not in the legal sense, but used as the word is used by people who speak English) who doesn't have the sense, the backbone, and the stones to vote against the desires of the majority of voters because they're just plain wrong, if it comes down to it.