US elections 2021-2022

clairecloutier

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,564
This long New Yorker article about the craziness happening in Republican state legislatures (especially Ohio) is really disturbing :eek::


It's definitely a warning to all Democrats to make sure and vote in your state legislature elections.
 

Artistic Skaters

Drawing Figures
Messages
8,147
This long New Yorker article about the craziness happening in Republican state legislatures (especially Ohio) is really disturbing :eek::


It's definitely a warning to all Democrats to make sure and vote in your state legislature elections.
It is not nearly enough in OH to warn all Democrats to vote. As noted by David Pepper, the Democratic leadership in the state is a very big part of the problem. They leave the gerrymandering issues to Common Cause and The League of Women Voters, focus on the wrong things, waste money in areas where they can't afford to waste it, and snub many who would be strong leaders, like Morgan Harper, rather than using them effectively in more creative ways to advance critical causes.

What would really make a difference would be coalition building including independents, swinging suburban women, etc like they did in KS, because Democrats will never get it done on their own in OH. Or figuring out creative ways to hold idiotic legislators accountable when they waste taxpayer money pushing malpractice legislation, such as "surgical correction of ectopic pregnancies," "personhood bill," or forcing doctors to grope girls genitals so they can play sports. Likewise there needs to be a push for more timely consequences when it comes to corrupt politicians lying and taking kickbacks considering it's right up there with gerrymandering as the #1 problem and they commit acts with total impunity.

The only plus is that Common Cause and The League of Women Voters will at some point get state initiatives for some of these issues on the ballot with the necessary modifications (independent committee for redrawing maps, etc.) and OH Democratic leadership will stand by and watch them do it while they negligently do things like take on projects using corrupt companies to get out their vote and do voter registration. It's really so discouraging, but it's going to take a whole lot more than just Democrats voting to get the job done in OH.
 
Last edited:

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
18,022
Ohio is a unique case. They voted for Obama twice but throughout that time there was more and more relentless focus on more and more naftas. They were actually waiting for a trump. Some republican who matched their general social conservatism with economic populism. They could never vote for. A Romney. There was no economic populism there. Not even any care for blue collar jobs lost
 

Allskate

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,687
I am donating and working for only state legislature candidates this year..

Local legislatures are important, especially where abortion laws are on the line. State secretaries of state, who will be in charge of elections, are important - many of the candidates are still claiming that Trump won. There are some very key governors that up for grabs this year. And U.S. Senators are incredibly important. We saw that this week. We saw that with Dobbs. If a Justice dies, I don't want McConnell pulling another stunt like he did with Garland. There are a number of very tight senate races. I've gone over my budget for contributions, but I'm going to continue to do that. I think the November election is so critical.
 

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
13,194
Meanwhile Fetterman returns to the PA campaign trail at a packed rally

This observer sees Fetterman signs now where there never were Hilary signs in 2016 in the reddest parts of PA:

And in his most recent troll of Dr. Oz:

Most recently, the campaign paid to run a billboard on the New Jersey side of the Betsy Ross Bridge, outside of Philadelphia. "Now leaving New Jersey for Pennsylvania ... just like Dr. Oz," the billboard reads.
 

clairecloutier

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,564
Interesting interview here with Daniel Goldman, a candidate for the Dem nomination to be a U.S. House member for a district in NYC. Goldman was the lead prosecutor in Congress for the first Trump impeachment and formerly worked at DOJ.

His take on various political issues is interesting, even if I don't agree with him on everything, and I appreciate getting longer-form responses in this format.


One particular point ... Goldman supports healthcare that is as universal as possible, but does not support Medicare for All, because he thinks (along with Biden and other centrists) that it is more "realistic" to build off Obamacare.

An issue that I see with this approach is that I feel we have at least 2, and possibly 3, main battles going on right now with healthcare in this country, which are, in my mind:

1. Make sure all Americans actually have health insurance.

2. Set new requirements for health insurance to require coverage of more stuff, basically. Simply having health insurance is the baseline, but there are huge (and in my opinion, growing) issues with insurance companies not actually covering enough of reasonable expenses. Out-of-pocket expenses are way too high. Insurance company profits are correspondingly high.

3. Address growing issues of burnout, understaffing, and harmful politicization within healthcare industry itself. We don't have enough healthcare professionals, and the ones we do have need more institutional and public support, or we will all suffer.

So, my issue with Goldman and other centrists on healthcare is that they are addressing only issue #1. Although, to be fair, not many people in government are really seriously talking about issues #2/#3, because we are still battling out #1, which is the baseline.
 

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,479
Interesting interview here with Daniel Goldman, a candidate for the Dem nomination to be a U.S. House member for a district in NYC. Goldman was the lead prosecutor in Congress for the first Trump impeachment and formerly worked at DOJ.

His take on various political issues is interesting, even if I don't agree with him on everything, and I appreciate getting longer-form responses in this format.


One particular point ... Goldman supports healthcare that is as universal as possible, but does not support Medicare for All, because he thinks (along with Biden and other centrists) that it is more "realistic" to build off Obamacare.

An issue that I see with this approach is that I feel we have at least 2, and possibly 3, main battles going on right now with healthcare in this country, which are, in my mind:

1. Make sure all Americans actually have health insurance.

2. Set new requirements for health insurance to require coverage of more stuff, basically. Simply having health insurance is the baseline, but there are huge (and in my opinion, growing) issues with insurance companies not actually covering enough of reasonable expenses. Out-of-pocket expenses are way too high. Insurance company profits are correspondingly high.

3. Address growing issues of burnout, understaffing, and harmful politicization within healthcare industry itself. We don't have enough healthcare professionals, and the ones we do have need more institutional and public support, or we will all suffer.

So, my issue with Goldman and other centrists on healthcare is that they are addressing only issue #1. Although, to be fair, not many people in government are really seriously talking about issues #2/#3, because we are still battling out #1, which is the baseline.
I totally agree. The issue with many more progressive policies I support that tend to get passed after a major event (think of Eric Garner in NYC), is that only one necessary but insufficient step is dealt with but in order for these policies to really work, there are follow ups steps that need to be done to reshape the way everything is done to make these policies work.

Like right now, the prosecutor’s offices passed what I felt were necessary changes to ensure much better and conscientious prosecution and to prevent more Brady violations and other civil rights violations from happening. However, those prosecutor’s offices were not well-equipped to actually follow the rule-of-law and the prosecutors did not have enough support staff and fellow attorneys to do all the work that was required to actually follow procedures that better complied with Constitutional protections. This all was exacerbated by the COVID world where people seem to have collectively lost their minds in all areas (and no, it’s not an urban/rural or Red/blue thing as crime has risen significantly everywhere). This led to a mass resignation of prosecutors and now people are blaming everything on these “progressive” policies and want the old status quo (that most were unhappy with at the time) back. I wish people could take a step and just look at the bigger picture and see “hey…why are these offices so ill-equipped and non-functional when we order them to better follow the Constitution?”
 

Allskate

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,687
One particular point ... Goldman supports healthcare that is as universal as possible, but does not support Medicare for All, because he thinks (along with Biden and other centrists) that it is more "realistic" to build off Obamacare.

An issue that I see with this approach is that I feel we have at least 2, and possibly 3, main battles going on right now with healthcare in this country, which are, in my mind:

1. Make sure all Americans actually have health insurance.

2. Set new requirements for health insurance to require coverage of more stuff, basically. Simply having health insurance is the baseline, but there are huge (and in my opinion, growing) issues with insurance companies not actually covering enough of reasonable expenses. Out-of-pocket expenses are way too high. Insurance company profits are correspondingly high.

3. Address growing issues of burnout, understaffing, and harmful politicization within healthcare industry itself. We don't have enough healthcare professionals, and the ones we do have need more institutional and public support, or we will all suffer.

So, my issue with Goldman and other centrists on healthcare is that they are addressing only issue #1. Although, to be fair, not many people in government are really seriously talking about issues #2/#3, because we are still battling out #1, which is the baseline.

This was an interview, not a comprehensive platform addressing all issues facing Americans.

The interviewer asked why Goldman supports feasible efforts to expand Obamacare rather than calling for "Medicare for All." Those are the questions he answered. IMO, he answered well. He was not asked about burnout, understaffing, etc. You seem to be going out of your way to criticize him and "centrist" Democrats in a context where it doesn't make much sense.

You say that your issue with Goldman and other "centrists" on healthcare is that they are addressing only issue #1."
My issue with those who are blithely calling for "Medicare for All" is that most of them aren't really addressing issue #1. I think most politicians calling for "Medicare for All" or "single payer" are being lazy and just acting in their political self-interest, not to mention being entirely ineffective (other than being politically self-serving) when they promise single payer or "Medicare for All." I've seen debates and interviews where it was apparent that the politicians didn't even understand the basics of our current health care system, including not having any real stance on what they meant by single payer or Medicare for All. IMO, most politicians who claim to support "Medicare for All" know that there is no way that it is going to be enacted even if Democrats retain control of the House, Senate, and Presidency, and I suspect that many of them don't even really support it. Most of them don't focus on what they would do in the real world where Medicare for All is not going to be enacted.

As Goldman very correctly points out, even at the height of their power, Democrats had to give up things to get Obamacare passed. Obama could not even get the public option he wanted, but there are a bunch of politicians who make politically craven promises of "Medicare for All" knowing that it is not going to be passed. They need to focus on doing things that have a decent change of happening. The Democrats couldn't even get caps on insulin prices passed!

You say that your problem with Goldman and other "centrists" is that they aren't talking about #2 and #3, but even you seem to realize that those complaints apply just as much to those further on the left as well as to those on the right. So, why play into Republican hands by focusing on Goldman and those you consider to be centrist Democrats? These kinds of attacks are what Republicans love. And you are focusing your criticism for Goldman and centrist Democrats (at a time when Democratic turnout at the polls is critical) in a context where it makes no sense, especially given the questions posed by the interviewer.
 

clairecloutier

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,564

Vash01

Fan of Yuzuru, T&M, P&C
Messages
53,569
Liz Cheney is almost certainly going to lose her House seat. It's a shame that she cannot even hold public meetings due to threats to her life.
 
Last edited:

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
18,022
More perspectives today on Goldman and the interesting Dem primary race that he is part of in the 10th District in NY:

NY Times endorses Goldman

The Times Sticks It to Progressives

The Many Congressional Candidates in the 10th
All white men?! Is that allowed?! Lol
 

Dobre

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,836
I'm seeing a number of online posts about schools "falling" to 4 days a week in various rural areas in various states. I've got to tell politicians that treating this as a bad thing is not a winning strategy. While parents definitely want their kids to have in-person school, and that was true during covid here in my rural region, parents also LOVE 4-day school weeks. They like having 3-day weekends to travel with their families. It's very popular here. It also helps small schools recruit teachers, as teachers LOVE 4-day school weeks and the large school districts don't do them so it gives small schools a competitive advantage. I know at least four districts that switched to 4-day school weeks over a decade ago, and no one wants to switch back. A lot of rural high schools, in particular, didn't really have school on Friday afternoons before because most of the school & staff attended sporting events. I do think it's more of an academic loss at the elementary level, but the teachers stay healthier; and the 4-day week is not going anywhere because it's popular with everyone. Anyway, running for office by advocating for more money for rural schools--very popular. (Having both a music & a P.E. teacher at the same time, for example). Advocating for 5-day school weeks in rural school districts. Losing issue, IMO.
 
Last edited:

clairecloutier

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,564
Obviously I'm not rural, but 4-day schoolweeks would be a nightmare for me and are definitely something I would never support. Yeah it might be nice for the occasional 3-day travel weekend ... but what about the rest of the weeks?? I mean, it's less learning time for kids, it's an extra day of daycare costs for kids 10 and under, and, let's be honest, an extra day of wasted time probably spent on phones/devices for kids over 10. Obviously, just my perspective here, one individual.

In other news, a poll in Florida has Val Demings up 4 points over Marco Rubio:


I definitely don't feel like we can rely on polls this year. But, hopeful poll results DO make me feel a little bit more fired up about volunteering for campaigns this fall. :D
 
Last edited:

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,479
A lot of rural high schools, in particular, didn't really have school on Friday afternoons before because most of the school & staff attended sporting events.
Is that true? Like every Friday afternoon?
 

Vagabond

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,292
I read that the RNC has stopped funding the PA, AZ and WI senate races.
Also Nevada, apparently. And yet they are pumping money into the Colorado and Washington Senate races.


I would have thought that Nevada was far more winnable for them than Washington, where Patty Murray has a huge lead in the polls. 🤷‍♂️
 

MacMadame

Doing all the things
Messages
49,913
Obviously I'm not rural, but 4-day schoolweeks would be a nightmare for me and are definitely something I would never support. Yeah it might be nice for the occasional 3-day travel weekend ... but what about the rest of the weeks?? I mean, it's less learning time for kids, it's an extra day of daycare costs for kids 10 and under, and, let's be honest, an extra day of wasted time probably spent on phones/devices for kids over 10. Obviously, just my perspective here, one individual.
Don't they increase the school day on the 4 days they are in? That was my understanding.
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
18,022
I read that the RNC has stopped funding the PA, AZ and WI senate races.
They say this is wrong that people are not understanding the accounting of rnc. What they say is basically that they are taking control of messaging

there is money being moved from the I.E. side” — independent expenditures that cannot be coordinated with campaigns — “back to the N.R.S.C. side of the wall.

It’s Still not good! I mean republicans in DC are so scared they want to control the candidates more. They think they know best. So they are not cutting Oz off they are taking control of Oz
 
Last edited:

Allskate

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,687
I would have thought that Nevada was far more winnable for them than Washington, where Patty Murray has a huge lead in the polls.
Nevada doesn't get a lot of attention, but it probably has the Senate seat most likely to flip from Democrat to Republican. Biden edged out Trump, but Democrats in Nevada have lost support since then. The Republican nominee, Adam Laxalt, has so much money from other sources, including a lot of PAC support. His political life was born from being the hand-picked pawn of very rich and powerful men and special interests and it pretty much has continued that way. And he's totally in the Trump camp, being one of the attorneys who brought a baseless suit challenging the Nevada presidential results. It would not surprise me if the RNC has determined that Laxalt is likely to win or at least that he has plenty of money from other sources.

I have donated more to Senator Catherine Cortez Masto than any other candidate. It is horrifying to think of her seat flipping to a Republican and especially to Laxalt. Laxalt is as Trumpian as they come, and he has called the right to an abortion a joke, while Cortez Masto has been working to try to ensure that people have the right to interstate travel to obtain abortion in states where it is legal.
 

Dobre

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,836

With fast-food bill, California could help all essential workers​


Interesting.

"Amid what looks like the largest labor organizing movement since the Great Depression, California lawmakers are considering legislation that would bolster protections for hundreds of thousands of the state’s front-line workers — and set a national standard for how our government advocates for the working class.

The Fast Food Accountability and Standards Recovery Act, or the Fast Recovery Act, would create a state-appointed council of workers, employers and state agencies that would collaborate to improve working conditions, benefits and wages for California’s 550,000 fast-food workers. The measure passed the state Assembly earlier this year (by one vote!), and appears likely to clear the Senate and reach Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) desk.

Led by the Service Employees International Union and Fight for $15 and a Union, more than 100 organizations and unions have endorsed the legislation. So have five cities and counties, including Los Angeles and San Francisco. Earlier this month, Rep. Ro Khanna (D) and seven of his colleagues in the California delegation in the U.S. House urged Newsom to support the act."


"The Fast Recovery Act would grant California’s fast-food workers a long overdue seat at the table. The biannual public hearings required by the measure would provide space for workers’ concerns to be addressed. Corporate franchisers would be accountable for violations that occur under their brands. And larger cities and counties would be allowed to establish their own fast-food sector councils, which could engage when a given challenge might not rise to the state level.

If enacted by California, as Khanna remarked, the measure could promote sectoral councils in other states, able to advance worker protections and establish and enforce industry-wide wage standards — which could help to close racial and gender pay gaps and reduce economic inequality. In fact, a comparable board appointed in New York state helped pass the state’s $15 minimum wage for fast-food workers in 2015.

Opponents of the California bill, including the International Franchise Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have attempted to pit workers against small businesses to derail the bill. In truth, however, small businesses could also benefit from being at the table. The process would allow both franchisees and workers to help set policy that works for them — not just their corporate franchisors."
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
17,599
Don't they increase the school day on the 4 days they are in? That was my understanding.
If true, so much for (GOP) concerns about learning deficits: the brain is capable of retaining only so much information, so the majority of students will (likely) not be able to absorb and retain the information they receive at the end of a longer day. 5 shorter days are better than 4 longer days learning wise.

From what I read, the reason for the 4-day weeks is teacher shortages. If they have longer days, won't they need as many teachers as if they had 5-day weeks?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information