Interesting article in the Washington Post about the absence of any serious threat to Hillary Clinton from the left.
Nader sank Al Gore in 2000, but Jill Stein’s support has fallen below 2%.
Bernie Sanders was asked about the nasty comments about him found in hacked emails from the Clinton campaign, and he wisely responded that if they had hacked his campaign emails, there would have been some nasty comments about Clinton.
Sanders knows that Clinton adopted a large part of his campaign themes into the Democratic platform, including the pledge to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. If she is elected, progressives will press her to fulfill her promises.
A site to discuss education and democracy
43 Comments
Leave a comment
-
Diane Ravitch's Blog by Diane Ravitch is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at dianeravitch.net.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
“Sanders knows that Clinton adopted a large part of his campaign themes into the Democratic platform, including the pledge to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. If she is elected, progressives will press her to fulfill her promises.”
Right. And we know how well that worked with the current president. Will we get another apologist like ms pelosi, telling us that ms Clinton has “fulfilled all the promises she intended to keep?”
Why am I not holding my breath??
LikeLike
Rudy,
Could it be because you are a Republican?
LikeLike
Maybe that’s the case with Rudy, but I am most definitely not a Republican (exact opposite, actually) and I too am not holding my breath. If anything, the parts of the platform she’ll enact will come with a huge helping of corporate favoritism. For instance, I wouldn’t be surprised if she does get universal pre-k through, but it will just be Common Core Junior with mandatory testing, both academic and so-called “social emotional” (i.e., “grit”). Probably with a side of so-called “social impact bonds”.
I’m already on record saying if I’m proven wrong I will publicly (and happily) eat a steaming plate of crow. Will you vow the same?
LikeLike
Dienne,
I will not regret not voting for Donald Trump. I won’t eat crow for choosing an intelligent and experienced woman over a racist, greedy, misogynistic, lying, ignorant clown. There is no circumstance in which I will wish I had voted for Trump. There is no other choice: Clinton or Trump. If you don’t vote, or if you vote for Stein, or write in a name, it won’t affect the outcome. Clinton or Trump.
LikeLike
Dienne
Guess what you are not wrong . You are spot on 100% right .
So being that this is an education blog . I suppose your are comfortable with your non vote in Ohio(?) going to the guy who will give you 100% vouchers. And what form will those vouchers be in? Probably a tax credit that is far more useful to the privileged than the under privileged. Hillary may be all you say about her. But Trump is all he says about himself.
Both Bernie and Chomsky who have spent lifetimes on the political extreme left (of this nation) warn.
If we pretend to care about others than we can not let our votes cause irreparable harm to those people and causes that we pretend to care about.
Chuck Todd said this yesterday . “Can you imagine if a populist came along who appealed to working class whites as well as Blacks and Hispanics ” Yes one did, but due to racial divisiveness he lost the primary. If we give it a chance another will come along . However as Bernie warned the other day.
“there are people who will see harm done to them that they will not recover from in their lifetimes”
Let your conscience be your guide
LikeLike
I’m definitely not a Republican either, but I don’t see HRC undoing the systemic damage done by Duncan & King to the Federal DoEd’s policy apparatus. They’ve corrupted the very science of education. By legitimizing TFA, The Milkens, Relay, Western Gov. & any for-profit scheme cooked up in a swing state they’ve laid the ground work for market-based education for generations.
Just one example of DoEd priorities & the weak conclusion from IES:
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/FWW/Results?filters=,Teacher-Excellence
Re: PreK, both Democrats & Republicans are using its expansion to make Wall St wealthier. Instead of direct federally funded Head Start, Duncan/King/ESSA are giving PreK grants to seed Social Impact Bonds (they call them Pay for Success).
The banks get paid twice if kids in PreK loose SPED services. In some arrangements the children are tracked through High School & if they are dropped from SPED or they loose related services the banks get a bonus for every child, every year they are in school.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/23/wall-streets-latest-public-sector-rip-off-five-myths-about-pay-for-success/
LikeLike
JC Grim,
I never said that HRC would undo the damage done by Obama, Duncan, and King.
I do think she will listen while I am certain Trump would have abandoned public education as much as possible for charters and vouchers. He said so.
LikeLike
Duncan “listened” too. And yes, Clinton will “listen…” and then thank you, and forget was was heard- like Duncan. Just like my kids…
LikeLike
Rudy,
Duncan never listened. Never. Talking to Duncan was like talking to a wall. I was there.
LikeLike
Note the ” ” around the “listen.” He stood there, listened – and ignored what he heard. Same with Clinton.
LikeLike
No, Rudy, you are wrong. I have talked to Arne, and I have talked to Hillary.
Hillary listens.
LikeLike
We will know after midnight..
LikeLike
Oh come now, Joel, you discredit yourself when you say that Bernie is on the “extreme” left. You used to be better than that. Bernie is, at best, an FDR liberal. He’s certainly no flaming radical. He is what the Democrats are still shameless enough to pretend to be.
LikeLike
Sheesh, Diane, that was a non-answer worthy of Hillary herself. I didn’t ask if you would regret not voting for Trump. (I won’t regret that either, so, see, we agree.) What I asked is, if and when Hillary turns out to be exactly the kind of president I and others have predicted, will you acknowledge that, or will you continue to deny and deflect like you’ve been doing all along? I think your answer was actually more revealing than you may have intended.
LikeLike
Dienne, I am 78 years old. I have lived through a lot over this life. One thing I know for sure: every presidential race in my life was a choice between two people. Maybe someday there will be a viable third party, especially if the GOP splits between moderates (if there are any left) and the far-right radicals who now control the party. I have voted for Republicans and for Democrats.
The choice today is between Clinton and Trump.
Do I think that Hillary will turn into Bernie? No.
Do I think she walks on water? No.
Is she a flawed human being, like the rest of us? Yes.
Will she reverse the damage done to American education by Obama, zDuncan, and King? Probably not.
Will I be happy with every appointment and policy of hers? No.
LikeLike
Let’s see what Rudy got wrong this time.
How can a President Hillary Clinton fulfill the promises she makes about her agenda if there is no cooperation from both Houses of Congress, especially of Congress is still dominated by a GOP majority that’s already promised to vote no to everything she attempts to achieve?
And how can a President H. Clinton fulfill her campaign promises if the U.S. Supreme Court is deadlocked at 4 to 4 for the next four years? The GOP has also pledged to block her Supreme Court nominations for the next four years unless she appoints a choice the Alt-Right wants, and if she did that, she’d be breaking one of her campaign promises regarding Roe vs Wade.
The President of the United States is not a dictator with total power like tRUMP allegedly thinks when he boasts that only it (I honesty doubt that tRUMP is a human; a psycho, narcissistic, serial lying, racist, biased bully, yes, but not human) can “Make America Strong” again.
A new president is successful once they are in the White House if they support the agenda they promised by attempting to achieve it, but any American that thinks such a promise is broken when the new prescient doesn’t achieve it 100 percent, is an ignorant, biased, dangerous fool.
I suggest Rudy and anyone that agrees with him should continue to educate themselves on how the U.S. Republic and its participatory democracy, guided by the U.S. Constitution that Founding Fathers gave us, actually works. By watching the following video, ignorant Americans might just learn how the power of a U.S. prescient is limited.
A President Hillary Clinton will be successful. even if she fails to achieve all of the goals she alleged she wanted to achieve as president during the campaign, as long as she works to achieve them within the limits of her power as president. The rest is up to the Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court.
In fact, this applies to every president from George Washington to today.
Here’s another educational video on the subject just in case the first one wasn’t enough to teach Rudy, and anyone that agrees with him, how the U.S. government works.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhhYqRjGzBk
Oh, and if a president abuses his/her power, then it is up to the Congress or U.S. Supreme Court to deal with that abuse of power. The U. S. Constitution explains how that’s done too. It’s called impeachment. Here’s a 3rd video to educate Rudy on how the impeachment process works.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRwPqfPFHSw
LikeLike
Rudy,
Don’t hold your breath. Instead, inhale deeply, let out a great sigh, and be glad a crazy man like Trump is losing.
Everyone should move on. There’s a lot of rebuilding necessary before 2020. Clinton is at least a start. Bernie made headway.
LikeLike
“Nader sank Al Gore in 2000”
As I am wont to say: horse manure!
LikeLike
If Gore had won TN he wouldn’t have needed FL. He lost his home state due to neglect & incompetence TN’s state party. It was shameful what happened in TN in 2000.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gore lost the election in Florida. Tennessee was not relevant.
Bush won Florida by 537 votes. Nader received 97,421 votes.
If Gore had won Florida, George W. Bush would not have been president.
LikeLike
But he did won Florida, so it is irrelevant.
Whatever you think about that, it is proof that the system does seem to work.
Yesterday, a local grade school held mock elections. A 4th grade teacher was explaining the value of the freedom to vote, and that the kids should be glad they do not live in a country like England, where “they don’t get to vote, because they have a king or a queen…”
Really??
When I was preparing for my citizenship test, I was also teaching teachers (K-12) how to use some new hardware (Response system). I used questions from the test, like “How long does a Senator serve… Congress…” The number of teachers who did not know that was amazing and frightening…
LikeLike
So if Al Gore had been able to reverse the historical reality of Tennessee, he would have been able to win that state . A little delusional . I hope I don’t have to give you that history lesson .
LikeLike
If Gore had won Florida, he would have been elected President. Don’t forget, Gore won the popular vote. Florida gave George W. the electoral vote.
LikeLike
Tennessee was completely relevant! Your denial is astounding. Again, had Gore been able to win his own home state he WOULD NOT HAVE NEEDED FLORIDA. Sorry for shouting. Sheesh.
LikeLike
Duane,
The Florida case went to the Supreme Court BECAUSE those 537 votes decided the election. Nader won 97,421 votes in Florida.
Tennessee was irrelevant. Florida was the decisive state that made George W. Bush president.
He won because of Florida.
LikeLike
What about the 300,000 registered Democrats who voted for Bush?
LikeLike
The case that went to the Supreme Court was Florida. Tennessee was irrelevant. Nader’s 90,421 votes in Florida put Bush in the White House. Gore asked for a recount, and the Supreme Court turned down the appeal. Was it relevant that Jeb Bush was governor of Florida and appointed the Secretary of State in charge of certifying votes? The difference in Florida was 537 votes.
You can keep repeating that Gore should have won Tennessee, but that doesn’t change the fact that the 2000 election was resolved in Florida.
LikeLike
Ferguson was determined by all investigating agencies to be a justified shooting. Very few people take that in consideration.
The Florida count was confirmed by a number of independent counts. Very few people take that in consideration.
And do history is distorted.
LikeLike
Rudy,
I am not disputing the Florida vote. Maybe Bush did win by 537 votes. But he would not have won had Nader not been in the race and siphoned off 97,421 votes. Most of those votes would have gone to Gore, not Bush, and Nader admits it.
LikeLike
And that shows the value of votes. When people think that neither republican nor democrat is worthy of their vote, they will issue a protest vote. At least it went to a real person rather than Mickey Mouse.
If it wasn’t for Ross Perot, George the elder would have been president rather than bill Clinton.
LikeLike
Dienne, there are always registered Dems who vote for Republicans, and registered Republicans who vote for Dems. Nader took 97,421 votes from the left, most of which would have gone to Gore, not Bush. In the popular vote nationally, Gore won half a million votes more than Bush.
The Supreme Court stopped the recount in Florida by 5-4.
LikeLike
“Nader took 97,421 votes from the left, most of which would have gone to Gore….”
First, “took”? That sort of implies stealing, as if those votes were somehow owed to Gore in the first place. They weren’t. Gore had to earn his votes, just like Hillary has to earn hers.
Second, I don’t think it’s at all conclusive that most of those would have gone to Gore. I think people specifically voted for Nader because they didn’t want Gore (or Bush). Had they not voted for Nader they might have chosen another third party candidate, or just stayed home. These were people who didn’t feel that the Democrats represented them and, hence, didn’t deserve their vote.
Third, interesting how you excuse the 300,000 registered Florida Democrats who voted for Bush, but somehow the fault lies with the <100,000 independents and otherwise who voted for Nader. Don’t you think it’s a bigger betrayal for a registered Democrat to vote Republican than for an Independent to vote, well, independent?
LikeLike
Dienne,
I will make one response then leave this thread to you.
If Nader were not running, Gore would have won Florida.
This is from Wikipedia:
“In the 2000 presidential election in Florida, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes. Nader received 97,421 votes, which led to claims that he was responsible for Gore’s defeat. Nader, both in his book Crashing the Party and on his website, states: “In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all.”[23] (which would net a 13%, 12,665 votes, advantage for Gore over Bush.) When asked about claims of being a spoiler, Nader typically points to the controversial Supreme Court ruling that halted a Florida recount, Gore’s loss in his home state of Tennessee, and the “quarter million Democrats who voted for Bush in Florida.”[9]
As I said before, if Gore had won Florida–and Nader admits that he would have–, Gore would have won the election. Forget Tennessee, it is irrelevant. Forget the crossovers. Bush won by 537 votes.
Finished. Done. No more.
I’m going to vote, as I have in every election since 1960.
LikeLike
So the hypothetical “if Nader hadn’t been running, Gore would have won Florida” is relevant*, but the hypothetical “if 300,000 registered Democrats hadn’t voted for Bush, Gore would have won Florida” is irrelevant. As is the hypothetical “if Gore had won his own home state, Florida would have been irrelevant.” Got it. Only hypotheticals that you deem relevant are.
Again, that hypothetical isn’t necessarily even true – those 97,000 people voted for Nader because THEY DIDN’T WANT TO VOTE FOR GORE.
LikeLike
Dienne,
You may get your wish. Trump is ahead of Clinton. Enjoy the night.
LikeLike
Again, 200,000 registered democratic voters voted for Bush. Who is to blame for that?
LikeLike
I don’t think the best way to frame this issue is “who’s to blame” for Gore’s loss. That’s essentially a causation question. For most events, including the 2000 election, there are many, many “but-for” causes. There is no single cause of Gore’s loss, and there is no one person or even group of people who can blamed for it.
This argument (which thankfully is almost over) isn’t about “who’s to blame” as much as it is “what to do” and “why.”
LikeLike
Concur!
LikeLike
Bill Weld, former MA Republican governor, current VP candidate for the Libertarian Party, called Trump “massively unfit” for the presidency and suggested that folks in swing states give their vote to Clinton.
LikeLike
What I don’t see on social media today is African American women saying in broad numbers they’re gonna wear white today. Understood.
LikeLike
I don’t understand.
LikeLike
Bernie shows us some class. Opposition to Trump is more important than a few emails at DNC. The election won’t solve anything overnight. People on both sides will remain angry. There’s no clear mandate nor clarifying direction from Clinton. Trump will start TrumpTV and funnel alt-right rants at a profit. The underlying anger and dissatisfaction with D.C. that led to Trump remains in full force. The fundamental problems in the economy are still lurking causing wealth inequality.
Let’s get this election over with and rebuild. I am not confident Hillary alone can rebuild. She will need Bernie, Warren, and other progressives on the team. She needs to try and convince the non-deplorable Trump supporters she is on their side.
I was watching a documentary the other day about Jesse Jackson’s effort to protest economic exploitation of poor farmers in the South. Watching white farmers vehemently support Jackson at rallies was quite a contrast from today. Of course, that was before the Republican Southern Strategy which we are paying for in this election.
Time to move on…
LikeLike
. . . and to renew “discussing a better education for all.”
LikeLike