At what point would a state have gone so far in restricting abortions that the courts just overturn the restrictions under Roe v. Wade?
They really want another bite at that apple. Unless they really press on Abortion laws to create new cases the Supreme Court can't really hear it to over turn it. So gotta give the SC the opportunities to say "Yes".
At what point would a state have gone so far in restricting abortions that the courts just overturn the restrictions under Roe v. Wade?
They really want another bite at that apple. Unless they really press on Abortion laws to create new cases the Supreme Court can't really hear it to over turn it. So gotta give the SC the opportunities to say "Yes".
If a Republican wins the next Presidential race, there is a pretty much guaranteed Supreme Court replacement, and once the new judge is in place, an abortion case will be heard (and struck down) within a year.
Proposal One - Revising State's Redistricting Procedure
This proposal would create a redistricting commission to establish state senate, assembly and congressional districts. The commission would be established every 10 years, beginning in 2020, with two members appointed by each of the four legislative leaders and two members selected by the eight legislative appointees prohibits legislators and other elected officials from serving as commissioners; establishes principles to be used in creating districts; requires the commission to hold public hearings on proposed redistricting plans; subjects the commission’s redistricting plan to legislative enactment; provides that the legislature may only amend the redistricting plan according to the established principles if the commission’s plan is rejected twice by the legislature; provides for expedited court review of a challenged redistricting plan; and provides for funding and bipartisan staff to work for the commission. Shall the proposed amendment be approved?
___ Yes
___ No
Proposal Two - Permitting Electronic Distribution of State Legislative Bills
The proposed amendment to section 14 of Article 3 of the State Constitution would allow electronic distribution of a state legislative bill to satisfy the constitutional requirement that a bill be printed and on the desks of state legislators at least three days before the Legislature votes on it. It would establish the following requirements for electronic distribution: first, legislators must be able to review the electronically-sent bill at their desks; second, legislators must be able to print the bill if they choose; and third, the bill cannot be changed electronically without leaving a record of the changes. Shall the proposed amendment be approved?
___Yes
___ No
Proposal Three - The SMART SCHOOLS BOND ACT OF 2014
The SMART SCHOOLS BOND ACT OF 2014, as set forth in section one of part B of chapter 56 of the laws of 2014, authorizes the sale of state bonds of up to two billion dollars ($2,000,000,000) to provide access to classroom technology and high-speed internet connectivity to equalize opportunities for children to learn, to add classroom space to expand high-quality pre-kindergarten programs, to replace classroom trailers with permanent instructional space, and to install high-tech smart security features in schools. Shall the SMART SCHOOLS BOND ACT OF 2014 be approved
___Yes
___No
So....two seems like an automatic yes. Three supposedly contains a bunch of non-education related spending as well in that bond but I think I'm generally okay with it.
One is troubling. I'm not sure how setting up an "Independent" commission that is hand picked by the guys we are trying to get the fuck out of the process doesn't seem like a good idea. While it might be better than what we currently have it is still pretty shitty. I don't think I want to give it any kind of weight to discourage the courts from smacking the shit out of it's inevitably stupid results.
The polarization of SCOTUS is kind of depressing. I don't expect a lack of ideology influencing decisions (the kind of cases that they hear often depend on philosophical details like proper role of government), but some of the "reasoning" to come down in this courts rulings has gone beyond philosophical preference and into willful ignorance and abandonment of anything resembling logic.
The statement that money in politics does not even give rise to the appearance of corruption was a particularly telling example. After all, thats the reason gift rules are so damned restrictive - because money corrupts, period.
That's a difficult decision. Do you vote against it and worry about sending a message that you're "happy" with the system as it stands, or vote for it and worry that it'll be equally as corrupt/shitty and you'll be stuck with it because "look, we just fixed this problem last election, we don't need to re-fix it".
At what point would a state have gone so far in restricting abortions that the courts just overturn the restrictions under Roe v. Wade?
They really want another bite at that apple. Unless they really press on Abortion laws to create new cases the Supreme Court can't really hear it to over turn it. So gotta give the SC the opportunities to say "Yes".
If a Republican wins the next Presidential race, there is a pretty much guaranteed Supreme Court replacement, and once the new judge is in place, an abortion case will be heard (and struck down) within a year.
This is what I fear as well, and then only a new amendment could really do anything about it.
And sadly, I'd be able to change into a T-Rex, grow wings, and fly to the moon before that would ever pass 38 states, let alone the federal government.
Veevee on
0
Options
BigWillieStylesExpert flipper of tablesInside my mind...Registered Userregular
The polarization of SCOTUS is kind of depressing. I don't expect a lack of ideology influencing decisions (the kind of cases that they hear often depend on philosophical details like proper role of government), but some of the "reasoning" to come down in this courts rulings has gone beyond philosophical preference and into willful ignorance and abandonment of anything resembling logic.
The statement that money in politics does not even give rise to the appearance of corruption was a particularly telling example. After all, thats the reason gift rules are so damned restrictive - because money corrupts, period.
It has been politicized since at least the New Deal era. That one really stupid SCOTUS case that said a farmer's wheat grown just to feed him and his family counts as interstate commerce was just ridiculous.
The '60s and '70s decisions many could say didn't have that solid of a constitutional foundation were not the first in politicized/rubberstamping-policies-the-current-administration-is-doing happenings on.
3DS Friend Code: 1006 - 0121 - 6969
PM me with yours if you add me
That's a difficult decision. Do you vote against it and worry about sending a message that you're "happy" with the system as it stands, or vote for it and worry that it'll be equally as corrupt/shitty and you'll be stuck with it because "look, we just fixed this problem last election, we don't need to re-fix it".
This is pretty much it exactly.
So I have that to decide on the ballot. My assemblyman has an opponent and so it matters that I vote for him. My state senator is unopposed and one of the fucking independent democrat bullshit so no choice there. Congressman is unopposed. Takes us to the Governor's race...where I can vote against Coumo because fuck him but not for Astorino because double fuck him.
Woa. New York State has a Sapient Party. Did not know that.
Reading their positions they seem to really favor simplistic solutions that have no chance of working. Wise my ass.
Proposal One - Revising State's Redistricting Procedure
This proposal would create a redistricting commission to establish state senate, assembly and congressional districts. The commission would be established every 10 years, beginning in 2020, with two members appointed by each of the four legislative leaders and two members selected by the eight legislative appointees prohibits legislators and other elected officials from serving as commissioners; establishes principles to be used in creating districts; requires the commission to hold public hearings on proposed redistricting plans; subjects the commission’s redistricting plan to legislative enactment; provides that the legislature may only amend the redistricting plan according to the established principles if the commission’s plan is rejected twice by the legislature; provides for expedited court review of a challenged redistricting plan; and provides for funding and bipartisan staff to work for the commission. Shall the proposed amendment be approved?
___ Yes
___ No
Proposal Two - Permitting Electronic Distribution of State Legislative Bills
The proposed amendment to section 14 of Article 3 of the State Constitution would allow electronic distribution of a state legislative bill to satisfy the constitutional requirement that a bill be printed and on the desks of state legislators at least three days before the Legislature votes on it. It would establish the following requirements for electronic distribution: first, legislators must be able to review the electronically-sent bill at their desks; second, legislators must be able to print the bill if they choose; and third, the bill cannot be changed electronically without leaving a record of the changes. Shall the proposed amendment be approved?
___Yes
___ No
Proposal Three - The SMART SCHOOLS BOND ACT OF 2014
The SMART SCHOOLS BOND ACT OF 2014, as set forth in section one of part B of chapter 56 of the laws of 2014, authorizes the sale of state bonds of up to two billion dollars ($2,000,000,000) to provide access to classroom technology and high-speed internet connectivity to equalize opportunities for children to learn, to add classroom space to expand high-quality pre-kindergarten programs, to replace classroom trailers with permanent instructional space, and to install high-tech smart security features in schools. Shall the SMART SCHOOLS BOND ACT OF 2014 be approved
___Yes
___No
So....two seems like an automatic yes. Three supposedly contains a bunch of non-education related spending as well in that bond but I think I'm generally okay with it.
One is troubling. I'm not sure how setting up an "Independent" commission that is hand picked by the guys we are trying to get the fuck out of the process doesn't seem like a good idea. While it might be better than what we currently have it is still pretty shitty. I don't think I want to give it any kind of weight to discourage the courts from smacking the shit out of it's inevitably stupid results.
I'm voting yes on all three.
Independent commissions are about the best you're going to get without switching to statewide votes and getting rid of districts entirely (which I believe is currently banned by Congress).
(no, algorithmic methods are not the answer argghhh))
Independent commissions are about the best you're going to get without switching to statewide votes and getting rid of districts entirely (which I believe is currently banned by Congress).
(no, algorithmic methods are not the answer argghhh))
I'd be completely on board if the commission wasn't so obviously not independent. Honestly the only thing it seems to do is let the elected people have a firewall between them and the shitty decisions they oh so obviously want.
Still not sure though. It may be better than what we have.
At what point would a state have gone so far in restricting abortions that the courts just overturn the restrictions under Roe v. Wade?
They really want another bite at that apple. Unless they really press on Abortion laws to create new cases the Supreme Court can't really hear it to over turn it. So gotta give the SC the opportunities to say "Yes".
If a Republican wins the next Presidential race, there is a pretty much guaranteed Supreme Court replacement, and once the new judge is in place, an abortion case will be heard (and struck down) within a year.
This is what I fear as well, and then only a new amendment could really do anything about it.
And sadly, I'd be able to change into a T-Rex, grow wings, and fly to the moon before that would ever pass 38 states, let alone the federal government.
Doesnt have to pass the federal government at all.
This is what I fear as well, and then only a new amendment could really do anything about it.
And sadly, I'd be able to change into a T-Rex, grow wings, and fly to the moon before that would ever pass 38 states, let alone the federal government.
Abortion is the most divisive and strained social issue out there. That Amendment would never pass the federal legislature to begin with to get to the states for ratification.
Just remember your history. The ERA fight ended with a loss for the ERA side. (No matter the merits of it, but it is an interesting test case.)
BigWillieStyles on
3DS Friend Code: 1006 - 0121 - 6969
PM me with yours if you add me
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
coakley seems to have closed the gap a little, but baker maintains a narrow lead and what npr considers "momentum"
i hope baker isn't a terrible governor. he's been a lot more cozy with the national party than previous republican governors and that's cause for concern. if, as per his campaign, he dedicated himself to streamlining state bureaucracies and demanding accountability etc then that would be super, but i have a feeling that it's mostly going to be about grinding ideological axes.
Proposal One - Revising State's Redistricting Procedure
This proposal would create a redistricting commission to establish state senate, assembly and congressional districts. The commission would be established every 10 years, beginning in 2020, with two members appointed by each of the four legislative leaders and two members selected by the eight legislative appointees prohibits legislators and other elected officials from serving as commissioners; establishes principles to be used in creating districts; requires the commission to hold public hearings on proposed redistricting plans; subjects the commission’s redistricting plan to legislative enactment; provides that the legislature may only amend the redistricting plan according to the established principles if the commission’s plan is rejected twice by the legislature; provides for expedited court review of a challenged redistricting plan; and provides for funding and bipartisan staff to work for the commission. Shall the proposed amendment be approved?
___ Yes
___ No
Proposal Two - Permitting Electronic Distribution of State Legislative Bills
The proposed amendment to section 14 of Article 3 of the State Constitution would allow electronic distribution of a state legislative bill to satisfy the constitutional requirement that a bill be printed and on the desks of state legislators at least three days before the Legislature votes on it. It would establish the following requirements for electronic distribution: first, legislators must be able to review the electronically-sent bill at their desks; second, legislators must be able to print the bill if they choose; and third, the bill cannot be changed electronically without leaving a record of the changes. Shall the proposed amendment be approved?
___Yes
___ No
Proposal Three - The SMART SCHOOLS BOND ACT OF 2014
The SMART SCHOOLS BOND ACT OF 2014, as set forth in section one of part B of chapter 56 of the laws of 2014, authorizes the sale of state bonds of up to two billion dollars ($2,000,000,000) to provide access to classroom technology and high-speed internet connectivity to equalize opportunities for children to learn, to add classroom space to expand high-quality pre-kindergarten programs, to replace classroom trailers with permanent instructional space, and to install high-tech smart security features in schools. Shall the SMART SCHOOLS BOND ACT OF 2014 be approved
___Yes
___No
So....two seems like an automatic yes. Three supposedly contains a bunch of non-education related spending as well in that bond but I think I'm generally okay with it.
One is troubling. I'm not sure how setting up an "Independent" commission that is hand picked by the guys we are trying to get the fuck out of the process doesn't seem like a good idea. While it might be better than what we currently have it is still pretty shitty. I don't think I want to give it any kind of weight to discourage the courts from smacking the shit out of it's inevitably stupid results.
Question 3 I would be a little skeptical about. Broadband internet, and computers/smart boards etc can be worthwhile investments, but are these things that schools have been constantly, and regularly clamoring for? I heard (on the upstate NY NPR program), that this wasn't necessarily the case, and that when it comes to funding things with something like a state bond, I wonder if it should be going towards something like critical infrastructure investment.
Also how is all this technology going to be implemented? Is the state just going to dump it all on the schools and let them sort it out (hint this didnt turn out so well when Maine tried 1:1 computing back in '06/'07)? Are they going to provide funding for staff to help integrate all of that tech by instructing students and teachers (full disclosure I did something like this with schools in VT a few years ago)? What type of technology are they specifically going to be buying? They only list smart boards, and it's not uncommon for many education tech initiatives to basically shower schools with technology which will become outdated within the year. Even the smart boards, which while nice, are not necessarily game-changing or urgent for classrooms.
Really the only slam dunks I see there are broadband internet, and replacing trailers with classroom space. Of course, given the vague wording of the question otherwise, and Cuomo's less than stellar reputation, it still leaves me skeptical at best.
Independent commissions are about the best you're going to get without switching to statewide votes and getting rid of districts entirely (which I believe is currently banned by Congress).
(no, algorithmic methods are not the answer argghhh))
I'd be completely on board if the commission wasn't so obviously not independent. Honestly the only thing it seems to do is let the elected people have a firewall between them and the shitty decisions they oh so obviously want.
Still not sure though. It may be better than what we have.
How would you create the commission? The proposed system forces it to be at least bipartisan, which is the main thing I'm concerned with. It adds a lot of potential for the legislative leaders to appoint party stalwarts who draw the map to protect the jobs of everyone involved, and that's definitely a concern. But any kind of districting is going to be lousy. If you set up an organization truly independent from the legislature (ie, independently elected), then you remove the bipartisan nature and create the risk of it being hijacked by one party.
Independent commissions are about the best you're going to get without switching to statewide votes and getting rid of districts entirely (which I believe is currently banned by Congress).
(no, algorithmic methods are not the answer argghhh))
I'd be completely on board if the commission wasn't so obviously not independent. Honestly the only thing it seems to do is let the elected people have a firewall between them and the shitty decisions they oh so obviously want.
Still not sure though. It may be better than what we have.
Good, enemy of perfect, etc. If what you have right now is simply "controlling party sets boundaries", I'd at least take this as a step away from tragically awful. I don't follow precisely what your "four legislative leaders" and "eight legislative appointees" are, but if the system is having forced distribution where control ends up split between parties in some fashion rather than all in one bucket or the other, I'd take that as better than nothing.
Proposal One - Revising State's Redistricting Procedure
This proposal would create a redistricting commission to establish state senate, assembly and congressional districts. The commission would be established every 10 years, beginning in 2020, with two members appointed by each of the four legislative leaders and two members selected by the eight legislative appointees prohibits legislators and other elected officials from serving as commissioners; establishes principles to be used in creating districts; requires the commission to hold public hearings on proposed redistricting plans; subjects the commission’s redistricting plan to legislative enactment; provides that the legislature may only amend the redistricting plan according to the established principles if the commission’s plan is rejected twice by the legislature; provides for expedited court review of a challenged redistricting plan; and provides for funding and bipartisan staff to work for the commission. Shall the proposed amendment be approved?
___ Yes
___ No
Proposal Two - Permitting Electronic Distribution of State Legislative Bills
The proposed amendment to section 14 of Article 3 of the State Constitution would allow electronic distribution of a state legislative bill to satisfy the constitutional requirement that a bill be printed and on the desks of state legislators at least three days before the Legislature votes on it. It would establish the following requirements for electronic distribution: first, legislators must be able to review the electronically-sent bill at their desks; second, legislators must be able to print the bill if they choose; and third, the bill cannot be changed electronically without leaving a record of the changes. Shall the proposed amendment be approved?
___Yes
___ No
Proposal Three - The SMART SCHOOLS BOND ACT OF 2014
The SMART SCHOOLS BOND ACT OF 2014, as set forth in section one of part B of chapter 56 of the laws of 2014, authorizes the sale of state bonds of up to two billion dollars ($2,000,000,000) to provide access to classroom technology and high-speed internet connectivity to equalize opportunities for children to learn, to add classroom space to expand high-quality pre-kindergarten programs, to replace classroom trailers with permanent instructional space, and to install high-tech smart security features in schools. Shall the SMART SCHOOLS BOND ACT OF 2014 be approved
___Yes
___No
So....two seems like an automatic yes. Three supposedly contains a bunch of non-education related spending as well in that bond but I think I'm generally okay with it.
One is troubling. I'm not sure how setting up an "Independent" commission that is hand picked by the guys we are trying to get the fuck out of the process doesn't seem like a good idea. While it might be better than what we currently have it is still pretty shitty. I don't think I want to give it any kind of weight to discourage the courts from smacking the shit out of it's inevitably stupid results.
Question 3 I would be a little skeptical about. Broadband internet, and computers/smart boards etc can be worthwhile investments, but are these things that schools have been constantly, and regularly clamoring for? I heard (on the upstate NY NPR program), that this wasn't necessarily the case, and that when it comes to funding things with something like a state bond, I wonder if it should be going towards something like critical infrastructure investment.
Also how is all this technology going to be implemented? Is the state just going to dump it all on the schools and let them sort it out (hint this didnt turn out so well when Maine tried 1:1 computing back in '06/'07)? Are they going to provide funding for staff to help integrate all of that tech by instructing students and teachers (full disclosure I did something like this with schools in VT a few years ago)? What type of technology are they specifically going to be buying? They only list smart boards, and it's not uncommon for many education tech initiatives to basically shower schools with technology which will become outdated within the year. Even the smart boards, which while nice, are not necessarily game-changing or urgent for classrooms.
Really the only slam dunks I see there are broadband internet, and replacing trailers with classroom space. Of course, given the vague wording of the question otherwise, and Cuomo's less than stellar reputation, it still leaves me skeptical at best.
Part of my job is teaching an after school program at Albany (read: by far one of the worst performing high schools in the state) and having better tech available would help a lot. The shitty half-infrastructure they have now hampers my ability to attract and teach students.
Our goal is to just get a handful of at-risk students interested in the program, and one of the big strikes against us is that the best we can do is teach theory on a whiteboard. The kids who respond well to that are the ones we don't really need to reach in the first place. Showing students how, for example, computer code is involved with video games is usually pretty popular, except I can't do that because the tech infrastructure is so poor.
Maybe it means bids will be awarded to Cuomo's friends (I don't like him either), maybe kickbacks will be involved, but it's still going to be a net good thing. Most importantly, this isn't taking away from other priorities. It's in addition to other education spending, not in place of.
Independent commissions are about the best you're going to get without switching to statewide votes and getting rid of districts entirely (which I believe is currently banned by Congress).
(no, algorithmic methods are not the answer argghhh))
I'd be completely on board if the commission wasn't so obviously not independent. Honestly the only thing it seems to do is let the elected people have a firewall between them and the shitty decisions they oh so obviously want.
Still not sure though. It may be better than what we have.
Good, enemy of perfect, etc. If what you have right now is simply "controlling party sets boundaries", I'd at least take this as a step away from tragically awful. I don't follow precisely what your "four legislative leaders" and "eight legislative appointees" are, but if the system is having forced distribution where control ends up split between parties in some fashion rather than all in one bucket or the other, I'd take that as better than nothing.
The four legislative leaders are the Majority and Minority leader of the Senate and Assembly. They choose eight appointees (two each). Those eight appointees then choose another two.
Didn't California already move to the system in the first ballot initiative? How does that work?
A number of states do it. It varies from state to state, and it ranges from either pretty good maps to maps designed to make as many districts from either party as safe as possible.
Independent commissions are about the best you're going to get without switching to statewide votes and getting rid of districts entirely (which I believe is currently banned by Congress).
(no, algorithmic methods are not the answer argghhh))
I'd be completely on board if the commission wasn't so obviously not independent. Honestly the only thing it seems to do is let the elected people have a firewall between them and the shitty decisions they oh so obviously want.
Still not sure though. It may be better than what we have.
Good, enemy of perfect, etc. If what you have right now is simply "controlling party sets boundaries", I'd at least take this as a step away from tragically awful. I don't follow precisely what your "four legislative leaders" and "eight legislative appointees" are, but if the system is having forced distribution where control ends up split between parties in some fashion rather than all in one bucket or the other, I'd take that as better than nothing.
Four legislative leaders: Assembly Leader, Assembly Minority Leader, State Senate Leader, State Senate Minority Leader. Essential the head foxes that we would like to keep out of the hen houses.
coakley seems to have closed the gap a little, but baker maintains a narrow lead and what npr considers "momentum"
i hope baker isn't a terrible governor. he's been a lot more cozy with the national party than previous republican governors and that's cause for concern. if, as per his campaign, he dedicated himself to streamlining state bureaucracies and demanding accountability etc then that would be super, but i have a feeling that it's mostly going to be about grinding ideological axes.
All the polling I've seen suggests it's neck and neck.
I was undecided, possibly leaning Baker, until watching the debate last Tuesday. He kind of failed to impress me on numerous fronts. His economic plans are more detailed and actionable than Coakley's (who instead wants to rely on education reform to supply economic strength), but I don't think I agreed with him on practically any other issue.
SUSA has Gardner up 2 over Udall. As always, their minority crosstabs are fucking insane, with Udall up 3 points among Hispanics.
EDIT: PPP has it tied.
*warning useless anecdotal data ahoy*
I was making calls to a cell phone only list last night to people with predominantly Hispanic last names and I was actually shocked at the number of people who said they were supporting Gardner. Even given that experience I would guess that Udall has a much greater margin than 3% with Hispanics in Colorado.
Also, 538 added a "Math" tab to their senate forecast which has a nice explanation of the state breakdowns with graphics.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
0
Options
BigWillieStylesExpert flipper of tablesInside my mind...Registered Userregular
SUSA has Gardner up 2 over Udall. As always, their minority crosstabs are fucking insane, with Udall up 3 points among Hispanics.
EDIT: PPP has it tied.
*warning useless anecdotal data ahoy*
I was making calls to a cell phone only list last night to people with predominantly Hispanic last names and I was actually shocked at the number of people who said they were supporting Gardner. Even given that experience I would guess that Udall has a much greater margin than 3% with Hispanics in Colorado.
Also, 538 added a "Math" tab to their senate forecast which has a nice explanation of the state breakdowns with graphics.
Well, Udall has basically run a one-issue campaign. It's not surprising people soured on him.
3DS Friend Code: 1006 - 0121 - 6969
PM me with yours if you add me
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
SUSA has Gardner up 2 over Udall. As always, their minority crosstabs are fucking insane, with Udall up 3 points among Hispanics.
EDIT: PPP has it tied.
the udalls have a really long history in colorado and new mexico of being champions of hispanic people. if udall is only up by 3 then either something has really changed in the southwestern hispanic community or else he's running a monumentally shitty campaign.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
coakley seems to have closed the gap a little, but baker maintains a narrow lead and what npr considers "momentum"
i hope baker isn't a terrible governor. he's been a lot more cozy with the national party than previous republican governors and that's cause for concern. if, as per his campaign, he dedicated himself to streamlining state bureaucracies and demanding accountability etc then that would be super, but i have a feeling that it's mostly going to be about grinding ideological axes.
All the polling I've seen suggests it's neck and neck.
I was undecided, possibly leaning Baker, until watching the debate last Tuesday. He kind of failed to impress me on numerous fronts. His economic plans are more detailed and actionable than Coakley's (who instead wants to rely on education reform to supply economic strength), but I don't think I agreed with him on practically any other issue.
i am not super impressed with coakley in general and am distinctly unimpressed with candidate coakley but i think she'd be a competent, if unexciting governor, like how she was as AG.
and that's okay.
i don't trust baker, though. if you look at his campaign against patrick 4 years ago, i think it exposes a lot more about that dude than his much slicker/ more capable campaign this time around.
SUSA has Gardner up 2 over Udall. As always, their minority crosstabs are fucking insane, with Udall up 3 points among Hispanics.
EDIT: PPP has it tied.
the udalls have a really long history in colorado and new mexico of being champions of hispanic people. if udall is only up by 3 then either something has really changed in the southwestern hispanic community or else he's running a monumentally shitty campaign.
Or SUSA has issues polling minorities, like they've had going all the way back to the 2008 Democratic primaries when Clinton was totally winning black voters in the South, you guys.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
coakley seems to have closed the gap a little, but baker maintains a narrow lead and what npr considers "momentum"
i hope baker isn't a terrible governor. he's been a lot more cozy with the national party than previous republican governors and that's cause for concern. if, as per his campaign, he dedicated himself to streamlining state bureaucracies and demanding accountability etc then that would be super, but i have a feeling that it's mostly going to be about grinding ideological axes.
All the polling I've seen suggests it's neck and neck.
I was undecided, possibly leaning Baker, until watching the debate last Tuesday. He kind of failed to impress me on numerous fronts. His economic plans are more detailed and actionable than Coakley's (who instead wants to rely on education reform to supply economic strength), but I don't think I agreed with him on practically any other issue.
i am not super impressed with coakley in general and am distinctly unimpressed with candidate coakley but i think she'd be a competent, if unexciting governor, like how she was as AG.
and that's okay.
i don't trust baker, though. if you look at his campaign against patrick 4 years ago, i think it exposes a lot more about that dude than his much slicker/ more capable campaign this time around.
Yeah, that's definitely fair. I voted Patrick back then, but I respected Baker's acumen (purely because I've had great experience with Harvard Pilgrim for so many years). That said, he seems bizarrely noncommittal on so many issues that would make sense for the state. Coakley at least bothers to say she's in favor of stuff like Driver's Licenses for undocumented workers, for instance. Baker is just sort of like "I, uh, don't think I like that, maybe."
Forty-three percent of young Americans who say they are "definitely voting" identify as Republicans. Yet among all young people polled, regardless of whether or not they plan to vote, far fewer identified with the party -- 29 percent of all young people considered themselves Republicans.
...
The Tea Party in particular has a distinct advantage among young voters--while only 9 percent of all young Americans favor the Tea Party, 19 percent of likely young voters showed support, according to the poll.
...
Slightly more young voters hope Republicans wrest the Senate majority from Democrats in the final days of the tight race for control of Congress. Fifty-one percent of likely voters prefer Republicans to take over Congress, while 47 percent prefer Democrats. Again, this Republican tilt among likely voters is highly disproportional when compared to all young Americans. Significantly more young Americans prefer a Democrat-controlled Congress--43 percent prefer Republicans to control Congress and 50 percent prefer Democrats.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Which 1) is the problem and 2) maybe the Democrats should do more for young voters. Make Warren's student loan reform a priority, for example.
That idea is bad economically. It can be good politically, but the federal government getting involved in student loans on a massive scale is largely blamed for tuition inflation (I'm not talking the G.I. Bill.)
Warren isn't really a scholar of economic knowledge. She peddles feel-good "solutions" that don't really work. Even Colbert couldn't take it when she came on his show to stump for the CFPB during the Dodd-Frank debate.
BigWillieStyles on
3DS Friend Code: 1006 - 0121 - 6969
PM me with yours if you add me
Which 1) is the problem and 2) maybe the Democrats should do more for young voters. Make Warren's student loan reform a priority, for example.
That idea is bad economically. It can be good politically, but the federal government getting involved in student loans on a massive scale is largely blamed for tuition inflation (I'm not talking the G.I. Bill.)
So the status-quo is somehow better than reform? She didn't create the Federal Loan programs, did she?
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Which 1) is the problem and 2) maybe the Democrats should do more for young voters. Make Warren's student loan reform a priority, for example.
That idea is bad economically. It can be good politically, but the federal government getting involved in student loans on a massive scale is largely blamed for tuition inflation (I'm not talking the G.I. Bill.)
Warren isn't really a scholar of economic knowledge. She peddles feel-good "solutions" that don't really work. Even Colbert couldn't take it when she came on his show to stump for the CFPB during the Dodd-Frank debate.
...That is basically completely wrong. What is to blame for tuition inflation is states cutting budgets to the bone and beyond.
+8
Options
BigWillieStylesExpert flipper of tablesInside my mind...Registered Userregular
So the status-quo is somehow better than reform? She didn't create the Federal Loan programs, did she?
The solution, as it were, without the ballooning Higher Education Bubble bursting massively would be reform of the clear imbalance between the number of administrators and the number of professors/instructors at colleges (both private and public.) The government should also get out of the student loan business as much as possible. Obama expanded the government's role. I don't know why he thought that was a good idea.
BigWillieStyles on
3DS Friend Code: 1006 - 0121 - 6969
PM me with yours if you add me
So the status-quo is somehow better than reform? She didn't create the Federal Loan programs, did she?
The solution, as it were, without the ballooning Higher Education Bubble bursting massively would be reform of the clear imbalance between the number of administrators and the number of professors/instructors at colleges (both private and public.) The government should also get out of the student loan business as much as possible. Obama expanded the government's role. I don't know why he thought that was a good idea.
So you're pro permanent underclass without access to education thread derailment?
EDIT: FREAKIN MIDTERM THREAD.
We are a week away, we should have lots of not off topic stuff to talk about!
I ask about Warrens' position on loans and then you talk about the organizational structure of colleges and then Obama's position. Can't answer a question without moving the goalposts, eh?
DisruptedCapitalist on
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
So the status-quo is somehow better than reform? She didn't create the Federal Loan programs, did she?
The solution, as it were, without the ballooning Higher Education Bubble bursting massively would be reform of the clear imbalance between the number of administrators and the number of professors/instructors at colleges (both private and public.) The government should also get out of the student loan business as much as possible. Obama expanded the government's role. I don't know why he thought that was a good idea.
So you're pro permanent underclass without access to education thread derailment?
EDIT: FREAKIN MIDTERM THREAD.
We are a week away, we should have lots of not off topic stuff to talk about!
You would think. Interest seems SUPER low; here, in the country at large, and in the media. To me, that's the worst sign for Democrats.
PPP's publishing polls for like every battleground by the weekend, so that'll give us something.
For example: they have Hagan +1 in NC. Which is pretty much consistent throughout all polls in that race. Hagan with a small lead within the margin of error.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Which 1) is the problem and 2) maybe the Democrats should do more for young voters. Make Warren's student loan reform a priority, for example.
In Colorado the auto-dialer we are using does not call cell phones. (I think this not allowed for some legal reason) Last night was the first time I was given a paper list to call cell phone only voters. :bigfrown:
Personally, that scares me a bit. I know that the elderly are a much more consistent voting block, but I wish we would have put in more effort early on in this election to contact the young people who are cell phone only.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Posts
That's the plan!
They really want another bite at that apple. Unless they really press on Abortion laws to create new cases the Supreme Court can't really hear it to over turn it. So gotta give the SC the opportunities to say "Yes".
If a Republican wins the next Presidential race, there is a pretty much guaranteed Supreme Court replacement, and once the new judge is in place, an abortion case will be heard (and struck down) within a year.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
So....two seems like an automatic yes. Three supposedly contains a bunch of non-education related spending as well in that bond but I think I'm generally okay with it.
One is troubling. I'm not sure how setting up an "Independent" commission that is hand picked by the guys we are trying to get the fuck out of the process doesn't seem like a good idea. While it might be better than what we currently have it is still pretty shitty. I don't think I want to give it any kind of weight to discourage the courts from smacking the shit out of it's inevitably stupid results.
The statement that money in politics does not even give rise to the appearance of corruption was a particularly telling example. After all, thats the reason gift rules are so damned restrictive - because money corrupts, period.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
This is what I fear as well, and then only a new amendment could really do anything about it.
And sadly, I'd be able to change into a T-Rex, grow wings, and fly to the moon before that would ever pass 38 states, let alone the federal government.
The '60s and '70s decisions many could say didn't have that solid of a constitutional foundation were not the first in politicized/rubberstamping-policies-the-current-administration-is-doing happenings on.
PM me with yours if you add me
This is pretty much it exactly.
So I have that to decide on the ballot. My assemblyman has an opponent and so it matters that I vote for him. My state senator is unopposed and one of the fucking independent democrat bullshit so no choice there. Congressman is unopposed. Takes us to the Governor's race...where I can vote against Coumo because fuck him but not for Astorino because double fuck him.
Woa. New York State has a Sapient Party. Did not know that.
Reading their positions they seem to really favor simplistic solutions that have no chance of working. Wise my ass.
I'm voting yes on all three.
Independent commissions are about the best you're going to get without switching to statewide votes and getting rid of districts entirely (which I believe is currently banned by Congress).
(no, algorithmic methods are not the answer argghhh))
I'd be completely on board if the commission wasn't so obviously not independent. Honestly the only thing it seems to do is let the elected people have a firewall between them and the shitty decisions they oh so obviously want.
Still not sure though. It may be better than what we have.
Doesnt have to pass the federal government at all.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Just remember your history. The ERA fight ended with a loss for the ERA side. (No matter the merits of it, but it is an interesting test case.)
PM me with yours if you add me
i hope baker isn't a terrible governor. he's been a lot more cozy with the national party than previous republican governors and that's cause for concern. if, as per his campaign, he dedicated himself to streamlining state bureaucracies and demanding accountability etc then that would be super, but i have a feeling that it's mostly going to be about grinding ideological axes.
Question 3 I would be a little skeptical about. Broadband internet, and computers/smart boards etc can be worthwhile investments, but are these things that schools have been constantly, and regularly clamoring for? I heard (on the upstate NY NPR program), that this wasn't necessarily the case, and that when it comes to funding things with something like a state bond, I wonder if it should be going towards something like critical infrastructure investment.
Also how is all this technology going to be implemented? Is the state just going to dump it all on the schools and let them sort it out (hint this didnt turn out so well when Maine tried 1:1 computing back in '06/'07)? Are they going to provide funding for staff to help integrate all of that tech by instructing students and teachers (full disclosure I did something like this with schools in VT a few years ago)? What type of technology are they specifically going to be buying? They only list smart boards, and it's not uncommon for many education tech initiatives to basically shower schools with technology which will become outdated within the year. Even the smart boards, which while nice, are not necessarily game-changing or urgent for classrooms.
Really the only slam dunks I see there are broadband internet, and replacing trailers with classroom space. Of course, given the vague wording of the question otherwise, and Cuomo's less than stellar reputation, it still leaves me skeptical at best.
How would you create the commission? The proposed system forces it to be at least bipartisan, which is the main thing I'm concerned with. It adds a lot of potential for the legislative leaders to appoint party stalwarts who draw the map to protect the jobs of everyone involved, and that's definitely a concern. But any kind of districting is going to be lousy. If you set up an organization truly independent from the legislature (ie, independently elected), then you remove the bipartisan nature and create the risk of it being hijacked by one party.
Good, enemy of perfect, etc. If what you have right now is simply "controlling party sets boundaries", I'd at least take this as a step away from tragically awful. I don't follow precisely what your "four legislative leaders" and "eight legislative appointees" are, but if the system is having forced distribution where control ends up split between parties in some fashion rather than all in one bucket or the other, I'd take that as better than nothing.
Part of my job is teaching an after school program at Albany (read: by far one of the worst performing high schools in the state) and having better tech available would help a lot. The shitty half-infrastructure they have now hampers my ability to attract and teach students.
Our goal is to just get a handful of at-risk students interested in the program, and one of the big strikes against us is that the best we can do is teach theory on a whiteboard. The kids who respond well to that are the ones we don't really need to reach in the first place. Showing students how, for example, computer code is involved with video games is usually pretty popular, except I can't do that because the tech infrastructure is so poor.
Maybe it means bids will be awarded to Cuomo's friends (I don't like him either), maybe kickbacks will be involved, but it's still going to be a net good thing. Most importantly, this isn't taking away from other priorities. It's in addition to other education spending, not in place of.
EDIT: PPP has it tied.
The four legislative leaders are the Majority and Minority leader of the Senate and Assembly. They choose eight appointees (two each). Those eight appointees then choose another two.
A number of states do it. It varies from state to state, and it ranges from either pretty good maps to maps designed to make as many districts from either party as safe as possible.
Four legislative leaders: Assembly Leader, Assembly Minority Leader, State Senate Leader, State Senate Minority Leader. Essential the head foxes that we would like to keep out of the hen houses.
All the polling I've seen suggests it's neck and neck.
I was undecided, possibly leaning Baker, until watching the debate last Tuesday. He kind of failed to impress me on numerous fronts. His economic plans are more detailed and actionable than Coakley's (who instead wants to rely on education reform to supply economic strength), but I don't think I agreed with him on practically any other issue.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
*warning useless anecdotal data ahoy*
I was making calls to a cell phone only list last night to people with predominantly Hispanic last names and I was actually shocked at the number of people who said they were supporting Gardner. Even given that experience I would guess that Udall has a much greater margin than 3% with Hispanics in Colorado.
Also, 538 added a "Math" tab to their senate forecast which has a nice explanation of the state breakdowns with graphics.
PM me with yours if you add me
the udalls have a really long history in colorado and new mexico of being champions of hispanic people. if udall is only up by 3 then either something has really changed in the southwestern hispanic community or else he's running a monumentally shitty campaign.
i am not super impressed with coakley in general and am distinctly unimpressed with candidate coakley but i think she'd be a competent, if unexciting governor, like how she was as AG.
and that's okay.
i don't trust baker, though. if you look at his campaign against patrick 4 years ago, i think it exposes a lot more about that dude than his much slicker/ more capable campaign this time around.
Or SUSA has issues polling minorities, like they've had going all the way back to the 2008 Democratic primaries when Clinton was totally winning black voters in the South, you guys.
It's generally will recieved thus far. I'm happy to not be in a gerrymandered district anymore.
http://cavotes.org/redistrictingreport
Yeah, that's definitely fair. I voted Patrick back then, but I respected Baker's acumen (purely because I've had great experience with Harvard Pilgrim for so many years). That said, he seems bizarrely noncommittal on so many issues that would make sense for the state. Coakley at least bothers to say she's in favor of stuff like Driver's Licenses for undocumented workers, for instance. Baker is just sort of like "I, uh, don't think I like that, maybe."
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
Warren isn't really a scholar of economic knowledge. She peddles feel-good "solutions" that don't really work. Even Colbert couldn't take it when she came on his show to stump for the CFPB during the Dodd-Frank debate.
PM me with yours if you add me
So the status-quo is somehow better than reform? She didn't create the Federal Loan programs, did she?
...That is basically completely wrong. What is to blame for tuition inflation is states cutting budgets to the bone and beyond.
PM me with yours if you add me
So you're pro permanent underclass without access to education thread derailment?
EDIT: FREAKIN MIDTERM THREAD.
We are a week away, we should have lots of not off topic stuff to talk about!
You would think. Interest seems SUPER low; here, in the country at large, and in the media. To me, that's the worst sign for Democrats.
PPP's publishing polls for like every battleground by the weekend, so that'll give us something.
For example: they have Hagan +1 in NC. Which is pretty much consistent throughout all polls in that race. Hagan with a small lead within the margin of error.
In Colorado the auto-dialer we are using does not call cell phones. (I think this not allowed for some legal reason) Last night was the first time I was given a paper list to call cell phone only voters. :bigfrown:
Personally, that scares me a bit. I know that the elderly are a much more consistent voting block, but I wish we would have put in more effort early on in this election to contact the young people who are cell phone only.