So frustrated with the Democrats

I think you're awfully hung up on the word "free." When Baby Boomers went to college, state schools were in fact very close to free. When I applied to Rutgers a full year of in-state tuition was around $1500. Would you be OK with "nearly free" state tuition? Or "debt free" public college?

If it’s not “free”, then Democrats have a message problem, because the guy who finished 2nd in 2016 and is the presumed frontrunner in 2020 is all about “free”:

https://berniesanders.com/issues/its-time-to-make-college-tuition-free-and-debt-free/

"Free" is the starting point.  Does any proposal ever make it through Congress unchanged?  If you start at proposing "affordable," you get nothing.  If you start with "free" maybe you make it to "affordable."

ml1 said:
"Free" is the starting point.  Does any proposal ever make it through Congress unchanged?  If you start at proposing "affordable," you get nothing.  If you start with "free" maybe you make it to "affordable."

I think smedley is hung up on the technical meaning of the word free.

Here's what free is to me.

Every paycheck, money is taken for taxes.  That has no effect on me, because my lifestyle is based on what I earn after taxes.

However, I get to send my child to college without having to pay tuition.

That's as close to free as you can get.

p.s. I also get to ride around on almost every road without paying anything. Free, or not?

In a capitalist-ish society, is it really possible for any material good to be free in the purest sense of the word? Maybe we should just get rid of the word.

It's a silly, pedantic point.

And Kevin Drum comes up with a timely post:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

A conversation:

Q: How do you pay for all these programs?
A: Well, that’s going to be a big negotiation with a lot of people in Congress. We have more than a trillion dollars worth of what are called “tax expenditures” that both liberals and conservatives think have gotten out of hand.¹ More than two-thirds of these expenditures are effectively handouts to the affluent.² We also pay enormous subsidies to multinational corporations every year,³ including the appalling $20 billion we pay year after year to the oil and coal industries.⁴
There’s spending on defense that could be rationalized: even lots of Republicans agree that there’s billions in wasted earmark spending in the latest Pentagon budget.⁵ Kirsten Gillibrand represents Wall Street, and she thinks a tiny financial transaction fee—tenths of a cent per trade—could be a win-win by raising money and reducing the chance of another financial meltdown.⁶ Bernie Sanders suggests we should crack down on offshore tax havens⁷ and reduce the capital gains breaks that millionaires enjoy.⁸ Top marginal rates on the super rich have been cut in half since the Reagan era⁹ and Elizabeth Warren has pointed out that America was a pretty prosperous place under the higher rates of the 50s and 60s.¹⁰ There are lots of creative ideas for carbon charges that would reduce wasteful energy use and raise money for research into solar and wind and other renewable resources.¹¹
But that’s what negotiations are all about. The press fixates on adding up a bunch of numbers in Column A and then “fact checking” whether they match another bunch in Column B. That’s pointless. Every committee in Congress is going to have its own ideas about revenue and spending, and so does the president. But elections aren’t about spreadsheets. They’re about telling people what we believe in. The hundred-page white papers and blue-pencil markups come later, after you’ve won an election. Right now, people just want to know what we’re going to fight for once we get there.

That’s it. That’s really all you need. Just repeat some version of “it’s a negotiation” until everyone finally gets tired and decides to move on.

¹Congressional Budget Office: “Tax Expenditures” ²Tax Policy Center: “Who Benefits From Tax Expenditures?” ³New York Times: “Why Are Your State Tax Dollars Subsidizing Corporations?” ⁴Vox: “Friendly policies keep US oil and coal afloat far more than we thought” ⁵Citizens Against Government Waste: “2018 Congressional Pig Book Summary” ⁶Rolling Stone: “We Need a Financial Transactions Tax Before It’s Too Late” ⁷The Guardian: “Bernie Sanders warns of ‘international oligarchy’ after Paradise Papers leak” ⁸berniesanders.com: “Making the Wealthy, Wall Street, and Large Corporations Pay their Fair Share” ⁹Tax Policy Center: “Top Individual Income Tax Rate: 1946-2017” ¹⁰CNBC: “Sen. Elizabeth Warren wants to roll back the GOP tax cuts” ¹¹Motherboard: “Majority of US Supports a Carbon Tax and Wants to Spend the Money on Renewable Energy”

Someone above said:  "When Baby Boomers went to college, state schools were in fact very close to free."

Case in point, University of California, an ornament to the state, I think most would agree, tuition-free, fees of $80.67 per quarter (mid-60s, early 70s, so yes you have to adjust for inflation).

Then Reagan was elected governor.  Same guy who said "you've seen one redwood, you've seen them all," cared just about that much for UC and CSU too. 

One state university rep said more recently (approx., and not sure what state):  The state universities used to be part of the state, later they were supported in part by the state, now they're just located in the state.

This is not progress.

Seems appropriate for this thread.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/25/us/politics/superdelegates-democrats-dnc.html

I just read that article in print. Let's see how it all plays out in 2020.

ridski said:
Seems appropriate for this thread.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/25/us/politics/superdelegates-democrats-dnc.html

 If it makes them happy.  Superdelegates didn't decide the 2016 nomination (Secretary Clinton had the most elected delegates).  At one point, Bernie & Co. were trying to get the superdelegates to switch to him (thereby overturning the will of the majority of the primary electorate) with assorted trash talking ("Her emails!"  "She's sick" etc.).  That would have been the first time the superdelegates would have made a difference.

nohero said:

ridski said:
Seems appropriate for this thread.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/25/us/politics/superdelegates-democrats-dnc.html

 If it makes them happy.  Superdelegates didn't decide the 2016 nomination (Secretary Clinton had the most elected delegates).  At one point, Bernie & Co. were trying to get the superdelegates to switch to him (thereby overturning the will of the majority of the primary electorate) with assorted trash talking ("Her emails!"  "She's sick" etc.).  That would have been the first time the superdelegates would have made a difference.

To restate this - super-delegates have never overturned the decision of the primary electorate. So one wonders what all of the stink is about. 

The idea of the super-delegate is sound - and if (when?) the Dems ever elect a Trump-like character as their candidate, we'll all be wishing for the SD's to be back. We'd all certainly be a lot better off if the Repubs had a fail-safe system like super delegates in place.

It eliminates the 350-plus delegate head start — one-sixth of the way to the total —that can help cement a candidate’s status, and advantages, as the favorite before the first caucus or primary is held.

DaveSchmidt said:
It eliminates the 350-plus delegate head start — one-sixth of the way to the total —that can help cement a candidate’s status, and advantages, as the favorite before the first caucus or primary is held.

maybe - but I just don't think that the average primary voter really gives a hoot about super-delegates, so it's unlikely that the SD's preferences actually affect many votes. The favorite, if there is a clear one, is usually determined by the media. 

And In 2008, Clinton's early lead in SD's certainly didn't give her the nod.

It's complicated. Some polling/research on that would be useful.

drummerboy said:

And In 2008, Clinton's early lead in SD's certainly didn't give her the nod.

At the same point in late 2007, Clinton had half as many superdelegates as she did in 2015, leading Obama by about 100 rather than 350.

drummerboy said:

DaveSchmidt said:
It eliminates the 350-plus delegate head start — one-sixth of the way to the total —that can help cement a candidate’s status, and advantages, as the favorite before the first caucus or primary is held.

maybe - but I just don't think that the average primary voter really gives a hoot about super-delegates, so it's unlikely that the SD's preferences actually affect many votes. The favorite, if there is a clear one, is usually determined by the media. 
And In 2008, Clinton's early lead in SD's certainly didn't give her the nod.

It's complicated. Some polling/research on that would be useful.

 Agreed, I’d like to see some polling, but I have to believe the SD’s candidate already being known has to have some effect.  It’s kind of like thinking:  NJ is a blue state, so I as a D don’t have to bother voting in the general.  

drummerboy said:

DaveSchmidt said:
It eliminates the 350-plus delegate head start — one-sixth of the way to the total —that can help cement a candidate’s status, and advantages, as the favorite before the first caucus or primary is held.

maybe - but I just don't think that the average primary voter really gives a hoot about super-delegates, so it's unlikely that the SD's preferences actually affect many votes. The favorite, if there is a clear one, is usually determined by the media. 
And In 2008, Clinton's early lead in SD's certainly didn't give her the nod.

It's complicated. Some polling/research on that would be useful.

it's not possible to conduct a poll about a reality that didn't occur.  We won't know what would have happened had super delegates waited until after primary season to commit to a candidate.  

It's not outlandish to think that the 1/6 head start and the lack of any serious opponent to Clinton at the outset (and Bernie doesn't count, since the party and the media never took him to be a serious opponent, which is a separate issue) may have deterred a lot of people from voting in primaries at all.

I'm a Democrat, I voted for Hillary and I even did some GOTV for her.  So there is NO WAY that I'm some embittered Bernie supporter.  But the notion that the DNC didn't pave the way for the presidential nomination to be handed to Clinton is not believable.  They may have done so simply because they believed she was the strongest potential candidate in the party.  It may not have been especially nefarious beyond that they thought she was the ticket to victory.  But to ignore the fact that no other strong challenger ever stepped forward to compete for the nomination -- and to ignore that the DNC scheduled fewer debates than the RNC, and scheduled them when they were certain fewer people would be available to watch, is to be willfully blind to what went on.  It's a political party, not a democracy, so as long as they stay within their own bylaws, the DNC can do essentially whatever they want to choose a candidate for office.  So I'm not accusing them of fraud or "rigging" or whatever else people are saying.  I'm only observing what was fairly obvious, and what in retrospect looks like a mistake.

I'm glad the DNC is deemphasizing super delegates.  I think in past years, and especially in 2015-16, the super delegates were used as a means of scaring off other competitors by giving a sense of inevitability about the chosen candidate's nomination.  And I think that's not helpful compared to a rigorous series of debates and primaries.  

The problem I have with the DNC/Hillary story is that I've yet to see any strong evidence of what the DNC actually did. Granted, she was the DNC favorite, but apart from that, what exactly did they do to "pave the way"?

e.g. for the life of me, I can't think of a Dem that would have been a strong candidate in 2016. So I'm not sure who they actually kept out of the race, and how.

If anyone understands the ramifications of the SD's , it would have been a potential candidate - and they would be well aware that SD's historically have never overturned the popular vote. Consequently, I would think that a serious candidate would just discount them, and focus on winning the primaries, as they would absent the SD's. Super Delegates are a way, way insider politics thing. Us laypeople give it way too much importance, I think.

drummerboy said:
The problem I have with the DNC/Hillary story is that I've yet to see any strong evidence of what the DNC actually did. Granted, she was the DNC favorite, but apart from that, what exactly did they do to "pave the way"?

e.g. for the life of me, I can't think of a Dem that would have been a strong candidate in 2016. So I'm not sure who they actually kept out of the race, and how.
If anyone understands the ramifications of the SD's , it would have been a potential candidate - and they would be well aware that SD's historically have never overturned the popular vote. Consequently, I would think that a serious candidate would just discount them, and focus on winning the primaries, as they would absent the SD's. Super Delegates are a way, way insider politics thing. Us laypeople give it way too much importance, I think.

If you were watching cable news in late '15 and early '16, they showed Clinton with an imposing delegate lead, which included the super delegates.  I doubt the average voter realized that, and just saw that Clinton was a dominant front runner.  

And again, we don't know about alternate realities that didn't happen.  Barack Obama was something of a long shot challenger to Hillary in '08.  But he won the nomination. Someone with more Democratic Party cred than Bernie who ran to Clinton's left might have done well in '16.  

I just now believe that a more vigorous competition is going to be a good thing.  And having super delegates out of the early part of the process will be an improvement.  

Here is a logical way a Political Party should operate.

https://www.liberal.org.au/our-structure

Of course Australia has a Parliamentary system. The US is unique.