Hats off to Randi Weingarten and Lily Eskelsen Garcia for organizing today’s MSNBC Public Education Forum!
It was a wonderful event, and it was thrilling to see all of the major Democratic candidates competing to win the support of America’s millions of teachers, vowing their love for teachers and their dedication to public schools.
Best of all was that they all recognized that the United States has been underinvesting in education for years, and they pledged to reverse that policy.
It was wonderful to hear the candidates speak about the importance of public education.
It was good to hear Joe Biden attack standardized testing (he forgot all about Race to the Top, as did everyone else).
I was disappointed that Rehema Ellis of NBC asked almost every candidate about NAEP scores, distorting what they meant. She said that only 1/3 of American students are “proficient” in reading, which is true, but NAEP proficiency is not grade level, it represents mastery. It would be wonderful if every student reached mastery, but that has never happened. As long as she threw it out there, she should have followed it up (or candidates should have followed up) by saying, “Doesn’t this statistic show the failure of No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, and Common Core? Doesn’t it show that two decades of federally mandated reforms have failed? Where do we go from here?”
But the follow-up never happened.
What did happen, though, was that every candidate vied to demonstrate their love for public schools and for teachers and their determination to establish equal opportunity and excellent schools for all.
This was a wonderful balm for the soul after years of nay-saying, nitpicking, and teacher-bashing.
No teacher-bashing today.
Just teacher love.
Respect for the mission of public schools.
R-E-S-P-E-C-T.
And it sounded wonderful.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Did everyone notice that Biden gave a cheer for “community schools” and said they do a “terrific job”? As defined, a Community School, can be a parochial, a charter, or other form of non traditional public school…so I guess he still likes the Obama/Duncan values re charters. Would love to know who your faves were? Mine is still Amy Klobuchar…she is a natural is so many ways. Academically, and with a golden vita, and her sincere ease in talking with the many different questioners. I did think the woman interviewer left much to be desired…she was entranced with Biden, but really nasty to Amy. Unfortunately did not hear all the candidates for I expected to see the Forum on CNN and or MSNBC…not the case…and only found it finally online.
Thanks for the tip, Ellen, I didn’t realize this. I found in wiki “Community schools are generally public, i.e. government and tax-payer funded, though many private and charter schools have also adopted the model. One of the difficulties the movement has encountered is the sheer diversity of institutions claiming to be community schools.” Four of the five candidates I watched praised community schools [bennett, steyer, buttigieg, biden – but not Warren]. Do you suspect they all use it as a weaselly way of sounding progressive without mentioning charters/ vouchers?
Yes, I would guess that is the case with those you mention, and have all supported charters..Bennett, as Diane has reminded us, encouraged them in Denver when he was Supt of Schools.
Bennet spoke about “public charters,” but he tried to sound as though he was supportive of public schools. He may have been talking about both public schools and charters as nobody asked him to define his terms.
bethree5,
When I heard the phrase “community schools” I immediately thought of Bill de Blasio’s Community Schools in NYC, which I felt was a terrific idea that got unfairly bashed for supposedly wasting money because the initial implementation had the same issues that every single initial implementation has.
In that program, the schools serving the most disadvantaged children — not simply those kids living in poverty but the kids living in poverty with the most extreme needs — were given lots of extra resources to provide wraparound services like medical care, vision care, dental care, mental health services, parenting programs, etc.
The roll out of that initiative did not work perfectly in some schools. There were unforeseen complications and people made mistakes. However, it was clear that this enormous investment of money was helping in some schools, even if in others there were improvements to make.
Unfortunately, de Blasio had a rabidly pro-charter NY Times and NY Daily News looking to emphasize any de Blasio failures and their journalists turned a study that pointed out this initiative helped in some schools and failed in others into hit jobs that said it was a huge waste of money (the subtext was always that those public schools should be closed because charters could come in and turn every child in that school into high performing scholars for less money). Thus what started as a good idea that — without a media that wanted to undermine public schools — would have been improved by people who wanted it to succeed instead was attacked by those who were cheering its failure.
Perhaps that isn’t what the politicians meant by supporting community schools, but I was hoping it was. The most vulnerable school children in America need more than no-excuses charters. Making sure their needs — and the needs of their families — are met is the first step to providing them with the best chance to learn.
The interviewer also played that role for “Education Nation” and sang the praises of Rhee, Gates, Klein, but then Gates footed the bill.
Diane…which interviewer, the man or the woman, sang Rhee’s praises?
Education Nation celebrated the brand new, exciting, Gates-funded “reform movement” and its heroes. The same heroes featured in “Waiting for Superman.” At one point, Brian Williams said that “we rely on the facts we got from the Gates Foundation,” because he’s funding the show. Reheema Ellis was one of the producers of Education Nation.
Kombuchar sounds like an overall pragmatist which is not necessarily bad in politics. She seems to propose things in her program that she believes are achievable in finite time.
Personally, I resonate with Sanders most, but his presidency would make way too many Americans unhappy. Kombuchar could be much better in this sense, but she is trailing way behind in he polls.
Klobuchar
“It was good to hear Joe Biden attack standardized testing….”
Yes, it’s good that even a raging neolib like Biden has to pretend to be opposed to standardized testing. It means the population is waking up. But don’t believe Biden further than you can throw him. As you allude to, he was Obama’s VP after all.
Dienne77
Even a raging neo-lib would be better than Trump or any of the other corrupt in every possible way, racist, fascist Republicans that might one day run for president after Trump is out of the political arena.
Of course, for Trump to be out of politics, he’d have to be in a coffin.
Trump’s next faux reality show will be called something like “Presidential, Making America Great”.
“don’t believe Biden further than you can throw him…he was Obama’s VP after all”
Say what? I don’t believe TRUMP further than I can throw him. Do you?
Since you said Biden shouldn’t be believed since he was Obama’s VP, what you seem to be saying is “don’t believe Obama further than you can throw him”. And when people make that kind of unprovoked outrageous attack on Obama, I assume they are a right wing Trump supporter who defends Trump against the “terrible” Democrats who those Trump defenders claim are the real evil doers in America. After all, that sounds like many of the ugly slurs that right wingers say about Obama.
There is a way that people who are not right wing Trump supporters make useful and important critiques of Obama’s policies. They sound very different than the people you hear at Trump rallies bashing Obama. So when I hear people making the same bashing attacks that Trump supporters do — “don’t believe Obama further than you can throw him” — they reveal who they really are.
“raging neolib” — there it is
“raging neolib” is a gratuitous slam. I am always reminded of the Republicans who say “raging Communist” or “crazy socialist” about politicians offering the policies of LBJ and FDR.
I’ve never heard Bernie Sanders call another Democrat a “raging neolib” — likely because he is a very smart and honorable man and does not have the capability to throw out dishonest attacks the way Trump does.
It seemed like the issue of accountability, the NAEP or PISA scores was where all the candidates were the weakest. Politicians are not the most informed on the issues associated with testing. Most of these candidates are wise enough to appoint people that would have the scope of knowledge needed to draft a reasonable plan that would at the very least take us out of test and punish syndrome. However, if any of these candidates win, the charter lobby and TFA will descend on him or her like locusts. Some of these candidates would likely start waffling.
I also was disappointed that no one talked about the impact of privatization on their public schools. While they mentioned the lack of funding and many of the young people that asked questions were from urban schools, nobody discussed charter drain. They talked about charter waste from the NPE report, but not charter drain specifically.
I was happy to see Bernie get a deserved standing “O.” It was also mentioned that he voted against No Child Left Behind. We have to give him credit for always seeming to be on the right side of social justice.
Klobuchar repeatedly spoke of the real public schools both she and her daughter attended. I did not hear her make sneaky ‘community school’ comments. She also was the most direct about funding.
I also found her to be very direct in her answers.
I liked what Klubuchar said, but I was left completely in the dark about her position on charters. I thought for sure she would have to make it clear and then defend it, but instead I heard a lot of love for public schools without having a clue if that meant she wanted charter to proliferate as long as they are so-called “non-profit”.
I feel the same about Tom Steyer who impressed me with what he said. I still don’t know if he supports charters and what he says to defend his position.
“nobody discussed charter drain.” It is overwhelming that this is true in yet another campaign cycle
It was overwhelming (and depressing) that it wasn’t discussed in a 6+ hour long forum devoted only to public education!
It is comforting to hear that the future representatives are supporting Public Education. It bodes good for our Nation, its young and their future.
It means less of leaders like Trump who oppose climate change and environmental concerns.
Correction. Our future leaders are saying they support public education while they are speaking to a public education supporting crowd. Look to their actions, not their words.
I looked at Betsy DeVos’ actions. No thanks. Even if Bernie wins, it is going to a very long time to recover from all the harm done. Another 4 years of DeVos or another Trump appointee may see the end of public education. Schools will be fighting for crumbs.
Another four years of Trump, Moscow Mitch, and Besty “the Brutal” DeVos will see the United States Constitution burned and its ashes thrown to the winds.
“Another four years of Trump, Moscow Mitch, and Besty “the Brutal” DeVos will see the United States Constitution burned and its ashes thrown to the winds.”
Yes, but I hear there is no need for any FISA laws in a country run by an oligarch, so I imagine some Trump defenders would focus on how great it is that our “new” America got rid of that terrible FISA law. (Of course, there is no need for FISA when Trump simply orders whoever he wants imprisoned or wiretapped anyway but at least those terrible Democrats no longer exist and FISA is gone and I’m sure that’s what certain Trump defenders will demand we focus on rather than criticize Trump)
It’s easy to declare “I love teachers!” Hard to find any candidate who will declare “I hate teachers!” Love and hate are beside the point. The two teacher union presidents sponsoring the forum have not insisted that the Democratic Party must face its own complicity in demolishing public education by partnering with the GOP in a two-party wrecking ball called NCLB/RTTT/CCSS/ESSA, etc. Timid doubts about standardized testing are pathetically too little when such testing and enormous tech buys have conquered school budgets and classroom teaching time. Mainstream Dems evade the gravity of the crisis in public situation as well as their own role in this unaddressed calamity. Only Bernie’s education plan with Warren nearby are on record with ideas that have some bite. Public education advocates face the prospect that the Dems will use the need to beat the creature Trump as an excuse to evade serious debate on the school crisis.
I know already that I am not the only one who thinks this: a major point driven home today was that discussion of public education issues are not ready for the important venues. They just are too complicated and nobody cares enough about them. That, of course, is not true…..but the point was made. But it is a step closer than usual.
I was pleased to see Warren take control of the narrative in the face of the charter-leaning moderator’s attempts to distort her plans. She was assertive about public funds for public schools, informed by data, and strong in her resolve. She does not equivocate in the face of targeted antipathy. She and Bernie are the only ones without guile.
IMO, Laurie, the least guile and the most incisive, realistic, detailed plans were offered by Amy Klobuchar. She is not the showboat that Warren and some others are, but her long tenure as a unique legislator proves her ability. She has written more bills than anyone else…and her ‘paper ballot’ bill, which we desperately need to keep our next election legit, a bill which passed the House over a year ago, still sits in limbo on Moscow Mitch’s desk. She has never changed her well studied and well conceived opinions, nor her laid back heartland style, in order to please media or polls. Please give her serious consideration. My son was in her law school class at U of Chicago and he remembers her as being as brilliant a pretty young woman and head of prestigious Law Review (he earned a JD/MBA with honors says his proud mom), and she was even then, driven to create positive change, and hard worker…she was and is a stand out. Jim Comey was also in their class…but despite his height, he was not a stand out. After teaching higher ed public policy for over 4 decades, I think in my dotage that it is a good idea for a presidential candidate to be a lawyer, a legislator who comes to the job ready to hit the track running…and now, a mother who understands real life.
Does Kobuchar endorse the NAACP’s moratorium on charters? What is her position on so-called “non-profit” charters, anyway? I was hoping to learn more and I agree with you that what she did say was good and I liked her more today than I had at the debates.
(FYI, if your son happens to know her, can he pass along my one complaint: I watched Amy Klobuchar at one of the earlier debates using right wing talking points to bash another Democrat and she lost my vote at that moment. I’m willing to give her a second look, but if I hear her using right wing talking points again to bash Democratic policies that happen to be different than hers, or to mischaracterize other Democrats in the negative way that Republicans get the media to do, I will never support her. She should campaign by convincing voters she will be a good President fighting for the right things. I really don’t care all that much if her position is different than mine on a few policy issues. But I do care that she stands up for the Democratic Party and doesn’t frame debates in a way that seriously undermines ALL Democrats and only helps Trump. So if she starts doing more of what I saw at the debate and using right wing talking points to bash other Democrats, she has lost my vote in the primary)
When did Amy K use rightwing talking points?
I don’t recall that.
Ah so…you have not changed. This bashing of Klobuchar sounds so much like your bashing Bernie in the last election when you lovingly supported Hillary. I listen very carefully and have never heard Klobuchar “bash” other Dems or use Repub talking points. I have heard her always tell the truth about transitioning in the areas of health care and education and to explain clearly what has to happen to the budget that will allow funding to be line itemed to public schools….and I think to determine steadfast loyalty re your positions on charters is dictatorial and single minded. I want a Dem to beat Trump. Amy is the only person who has had the guts to stop fights between her colleagues on the stage, and to ask Warren about her 2 Cents plan which IMO is a big pile of muerde and is not viable as determined by Nobelist economists like Stiglitz and others. I also am bored to tears to hear her again recite her 2nd grade desire to be a teacher…but in reality she became a famous power lawyer. Amy is not a show boater. She spoke as a human to each questioner in real language, not sticking to a script like the others. Her life has always been directed to the law and to fostering a better society. She was not a corporate lawyer.
She has always worked for the public good.. Warren keeps repeating her script about her 2 cents plan…it has been disproven roundly by many professionals. Read the economists like Stiglitz who do explain why it cannot work. I don’t fall in love with politicians who just keep repeating their pie in the sky plans. Amy said in the first minutes of her presidency she would FIRE deVos…that is most meaningful to me. I don’t want to hold her feet to the fire to get her to parrot others.
Diane,
I am really flummoxed by Ellen Lubic’s attacks on me. I thought I made it clear that I was impressed by Amy Klobuchar’s performance at the forum yesterday, and I wanted to give her a second look.
I think that Ellen Lubic pretty much repeated the right wing talking points that reminded me of the kinds of things that Klobuchar said at earlier debates that I felt were dishonest right wing talking point attacks on progressive Democrats.
(As I said, I LIKED what Klobuchar said at yesterday’s forum when she stuck with explaining what she stood for and that’s why I want her to stop attacking progressives with right wing talking points in other places).
explaining what has to happen with “the budget”. This is what Republicans always do — immediately attack Democrats and get the media to repeat their talking points that the progressive is lying to the American people because none of their ideas are possible or affordable and the candidates are simply dishonest and should not be trusted.
Have you ever heard a Republican attack another Republican because giving huge tax cuts to the wealthy and creating an enormous deficit is a pie in the sky proposal that will never happen so that Republican is lying? Of course not. And those outrageous proposals become law all the time and our country has to deal with a huge deficit because of it.
Using right wing talking points achieves only one goal: Getting voters to believe the other candidate is dishonest and untrustworthy and even if you like his/her policies you should reject them outright because they are lying to you.
“Warren keeps repeating her script about her 2 cents plan…it has been disproven roundly by many professionals. Read the economists like Stiglitz who do explain why it cannot work. I don’t fall in love with politicians who just keep repeating their pie in the sky plans”
This is a right wing talking point that is used against all progressives. “Pie in the sky”, “it cannot work”, imply there isn’t a right thinking “economist” in this country who doesn’t know that Warren is a liar offering “her 2 Cents plan which IMO is a big pile of muerde and is not viable as determined by Nobelist economists like Stiglitz and others.”
That kind of mischaracterizations where right wing talking points are repeated by Democrats is what hurts Democrats the most. The media jumps on it because when “even the Democrats” know that Warren is offering up a “big pile of muerde” and should not be trusted, then no wonder so many Democrats decide their candidate is just as bad as Trump so why even bother to vote.
I am not a one issue voter so I have no idea why Ellen Lubic is lecturing to me about a candidate not needing to pass a litmus test to get my support. I am very willing to compromise on policies. But I find it odd that the expectation that a candidate might make her view on charter schools and the NAACP moratorium clear and be asked to explain those views and defend them is somehow an outrageous personal attack on her because she would fire Betsy DeVos.
Using that logic, we can stop talking about education in this campaign right now. Just stop. Every single one of the candidates in the Democratic primary will fire DeVos. If we expect to know anything else about their education views, we are simply attacking them.
I will say for the record that I would compromise on education. I would vote for a candidate that likes “good public charters” just like I voted for Bernie in the 2016 primary.
But I will not compromise on a candidate using dishonest right wing talking points because they are mentally unable to make a case for their preferred policy without claiming that the progressive candidate is an untrustworthy liar offering policies that are “a big pile of muerde” and all those candidates do is repeat sky in the pie plans. The fact that we have Democrats using the right wing innuendo that Medicare for All is “sky in the pie” is more dangerous that people realize.
Using right wing talking points to trash other candidates is not a policy difference. It is something that is dangerous to democracy and candidates doing that need to stop. I have no problem with candidates making the case for why their vision of public education is better and I hope Klobuchar will do that with whatever she believes. Maybe she will read posts like this or someone will tell her that she will get votes by explaining why her positions are BETTER. She will lose a lot of credibility if she repeats right wing talking points to mischaracterize other candidates plans as dishonest, false, and a bunch of baloney. And if I hear any candidate saying that Klobuchar has been lying to the public because she knows there is plenty of money to have Medicare for All in our budget and she keeps lying and saying that there is not, then they should also be criticized and told to defend their plans on their merits. When the best defense of your plan being better is that it is “more affordable and the other guy is lying to you so don’t trust him”, then something is wrong with the debate.
“We can’t afford that” is the worst excuse for a Democrat to bash another Democrat. We can afford to do anything as the Republicans have proved over and over again. While the hapless Dems eat their own and convincing the public that those ideas are “pie and the sky” and “unaffordable”, the Republicans are simply turning their pie in the sky ideas into law to benefit the rich. Let’s turn those supposedly impossible ideas into law to benefit the rest of us. And keep the debate about what kinds of ideas are better, not which meet the Republican definition of “affordable” (since whatever pleases the right wing is “affordable” and whatever doesn’t is not.)
According to Politico, Klobuchar supports charter schools (at least with accountability)
https://www.politico.com/2020-election/candidates-views-on-the-issues/amy-klobuchar/
NYC PSP,
I don’t think it is a “rightwing talking point” to question whether a proposal is feasible or will ever be funded.
Candidates don’t have to abandon their views or pander to audiences by promising things they know won’t happen.
Amy is a pragmatist. That’s not a slur.
Diane,
The Democrats always lose when the debate is not whether the proposals they are offering will help the most people in the best way, but whether they are “feasible” and make the debate about “will they be funded”.
We would never have had Medicare or Social Security if FDR and LBJ had been forced to endlessly hear members of their own party telling the public they were offering ideas that were never going to be funded and were a bunch of baloney.
Have you ever heard the Republicans accusing one another of offering plans that aren’t going to be funded? Never. There is no mention of the deficit when Republicans push through their “non-feasible” plans. Every plan Trump enacted blew up the deficit.
When Bill Clinton campaigned on a terrific idea — giving a tax increase to the WEALTHY only — there was a lot of criticism from the Republicans and the right. But as far as I can remember, there weren’t a lot of Democrats working to undermine Clinton by insisting that his plan was “not feasible” and would cause a huge deficit. Sure there were some voices, but those were clearly marked as partisan.
It’s the mistake Obama did — he compromised even before he offered a plan in the hopes of pleasing those who demanded that anything offered by a Democrat must be affordable. When Democrats do that, that are governing from a perspective in which they have embraced all the right wing talking points as valid when every bit of evidence demonstrates that Republicans always push through plans that are not feasible and they happen. We don’t need politicians ready to compromise even before they are elected.
I actually think that there are good issues to discuss regarding Medicare for All in terms of how do you convince people who are satisfied with their health insurance that they have to give it up. Discussing those is very valid.
But I heard Klobuchar instead attacking progressives by implying they were dishonest and offering policies that could never happen period. I have seen that attack on every progressive politician and if one of them is the Democratic nominee, that attack is going to be what is heard non-stop to defeat them.
I like lots of what Amy Klobuchar offers. That is why I hope she understands how dangerous the kinds of smears she makes about other candidates’ policies are. It is perfectly reasonable to have a policy difference. It is not reasonable when you secretly probably like the candidate’s ideas but are worried that with a right wing Congress it won’t go through. If that is the case, then say THAT! “Your ideas are terrific and I really hope we do eventually have a Congress that works for the American people and not the top .01% but since I am worried that we don’t, I am offering up a proposal that I think we might be more likely to pass.”
Saying that is a far cry from simply repeating right wing talking points that a plan is “pie in the sky” and “this plan can never work”.
Voters like politicians who offer aspirational plans that they believe will help them. They don’t like politicians who are characterized as dishonest liars who will say and do anything to get elected and so they are offering a plan that is terrible and will never work because they will say any lie to win.
I’m here in Pittsburgh. I tried very hard to ask Biden about Race to the Top, as well as Arne privatizing NOLA, but MSNBC wouldn’t hear of it. Evidently it was not relevant that 7,000 teachers lost their jobs, that union was made a thing of the past, or that none of this privatization had actually helped the remaining children of New Orleans.
I had a feeling they pre-screened audience questions. Some questions were rather insipid. They seemed to try to avoid some of the more controversial aspects of education. Even the girl from NOLA asked a bland question considering what the city has been through.
I thought it not only deserved a follow-up, but that a question like that ought to have been asked of multiple candidates. There was grilling about how we pay for higher ed for all, about test scores, but no challenges whatsoever about supporting privatization. I think it was Michael Bennett who announced he didn’t favor privatization, but what he must have meant was that charters weren’t private. You know, they’re public schools, because they take our money before doing whatever they golly gosh darn please with it.
Carol Burris came prepared to ask a question about whether the candidates would eliminate the $440 million federal Charter Schools Program, and the organizers threw the question out.
“The organizers threw the questions out”
To me, that is evidence that there “was” some rigging and manipulation involved explaining why the moderator has an alleged history with the charter school industry and its paid-off disrupters.
I was wrong. The organizers did not throw the questions about charters out. I checked with Carol Burris and she said there were other dynamics at work.
I wonder what those “other dynamics” were.
For instance: a limited number of questions that could be asked that required the askers to prioritize/rank the questions they thought were more important and go with those first in order of importance.
I agree! I was shocked that there was a debate specifically about public education without candidates having to make their view on charters clear!
It is clear from the Governor’s race in Virginia and Kentucky that the privatization of public ed and charter proliferation is a winning issue. So why isn’t it talked about?
The emphasis was on what the candidates would do for public schools, not what privatization has done to them. Everybody talked about the under funding in a robust economy, but nobody was allowed to address the cause and political agenda behind a lot of it.
I agree with your assessment. Privatization and its effects were ignored. I blame the producers, who decided which topics would be addressed by questioners.
Thank you for being present. I look forward to more of your astute observations. It was a marathon.
As of yesterday, the Dem leaders are in national polls (in order) are Biden, Sanders, Warren, and a distant fourth, Buttigieg. Klobuchar is in 7th place. Bennett is not even a 1 percent.
In late November, the Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom Iowa Poll had Buttigieg first, Warren second, and Sanders and Biden tied for third.
Five days ago, FiveThirtyEight has Iowa like this: Buttigieg 20.8 percent, Biden 19.7 percent, Sanders 17.4 percent, Warren 12.3 percent, Klobuchar 8 percent (though other polls have her inn double digits). Bennett has a half percent.
ANY of them would be better than the Traitor-on-Chief.
But polls also show this: Trump’s popularity “has never been higher among registered Republicans.”
And 82 year-old put it like this to pollsters: “I think he’s doing a tremendous job, really, as far as I’m concerned…. I’ve been a Democrat all my life, but when he ran for office, when I could see what he was standing up for — for the borders and the different solutions he brought forth — I felt that I definitely needed to vote for him.”
And a 30-something conservative mom said, “I really do not believe America could be in a better place at all.”
Pretty scary, huh?
Certainly illustrates the dire need for a robust public education system, which, I’d argue, should be focused on a core mission of citizenship education that embraces the core democratic values on which the Republic is based: popular sovereignty, equality, justice, freedoms for all citizens, tolerance, and promoting the general welfare.
How many candidates are talking about that?
Thank you to those who said something—-it can get lonely when anyone tries to actually come to grips with the history of charters…….and a good president who made terrible mistakes with choices of Bill Gates and Arne Duncan…..which need to be dealt with, no matter how much the democrat centrist mantra demands that we all shut up. Devos has been a joke…..they were and are still being taken seriously……which is actually worse?
I worry about the one-issue politics. The majority of people in this country did not vote for Trump and do not want him to be re-elected. And they are being joined by a growing chorus of disaffected “true” Republicans and Conservatives. Of course education is important, I agree. But let’s be sure we don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Our collective focus should be nominating a candidate who can beat Trump. Step 1: take our country back. Step 2: fix education. If Trump wins again, you can be sure Betsy DeVos will continue to burn public education to the ground. ANY Democratic candidate is better than having that for four more years. Keep the focus on the bigger picture. Please.
Agree with you, Deborah…cutting out a candidate because of a single issue is self defeating, even the vital issue some of us have been ‘boots on the ground’ activists for many years to protect our public schools from privatization. Pete has fooled us, Biden is iffy, Warren is a self proclaimed capitalist, Bernie is old and just had a heart attack…so please consider Amy Klobuchar, first female Senator ever elected in Minn…and she was a leader in her challenging class at U. of Chicago Law School. She has always worked in service to the public, and was re elected in every legislative seat she has held, and she is a long term experienced legislator in DC with a reputation as one of the hardest working Senators. She proves she is honorable and consistent every day, not wavering to please gadflys, only to serve her constituents. Her plans for governing are real.
Deborah B,
I absolutely agree with you about the one-issue politics.
But I feel that you are conflating two separate things. One is whether the Democrats enthusiastically embrace whoever wins the primary knowing that the most important thing is that every one of those candidates are far better than Trump and will start getting our country back to a better future. That is absolutely necessary and I plan to fight hard for that candidate’s victory no matter who it is.
But the primary is about choosing the candidate who you want to be President, not the candidate who can “win”.
If Republican primary voters in 2016 had followed that advice, John Kasich would have been the nominee and likely ended up where John McCain, Mitt Romney and Bob Dole did. Defeated.
The Democrats have won the Presidency when they nominated two candidates that voters liked but the “experts” said could never win. A barely known African-American Senator with very little experience (I remember voting for Obama in the primary thinking “I am going to vote for this guy even though I suspect our country is too racist to elect him”).
The Democrats won the Presidency when they nominated a Governor from a low-population state few barely knew on the map – Arkansas – who no one heard of except he had a reputation for being a philanderer. (I think I voted for a different candidate in the primary but enthusiastically supported the primary winner to defeat George HW Bush.)
If Trump voters had listened to the “experts” they would not have voted for Trump in the primary.
If everyone votes for the candidate they prefer in the primary — not the one experts are telling them will win — and then gets behind whoever gets the majority of the votes, that candidate will win.
It could be Klobuchar. I’m newly intrigued by Tom Steyer after Saturday’s education forum. It could be Biden or Bloomberg. But don’t vote for a primary candidate because someone else told you that your candidate can’t win. Just ignore the experts and vote for whichever candidate speaks to the ideas you want a candidate to speak to. Whoever comes out on top will be an excellent substitute if it turns out that it isn’t who you preferred, but Democrats should ignore those who tell them which primary candidate can win as they are usually wrong.
Here is something interesting from GALLUP (dated 2004):
“History Shows January Front-runner Often Does Not Win Democratic Nomination
Only 4 out of 10 January leaders over last half-century have won nomination”
https://news.gallup.com/poll/10120/history-shows-january-frontrunner-often-does-win-democratic-nomination.aspx
The forum as a whole was a positive for all ed reformers. That said, I will point out that Sanders seems to be climbing in the polls. Even Nate silver on ABC today pointed out that Sanders is in a good position to win, admitting that he has suffered from media bias.
A friend of mine worked for Sanders in the 90’s and tells me in office Sanders would be more pragmatic than some think, but wont compromise on key values.
I was strongly behind a centrist but now beginning to think that someone like Sanders would be the best choice.
Deborah B……. talk about one issue politics……good to know one issue to you, education, is analagous to bathwater. The case still needs to be made, despite the screams of horror that it be made. Obama’s mistakes in education should not be a free excuse to abandon the subject.
It’s encouraging that education is getting more attention. Here is Hasan Minhaj talking about Zuckerberg’s and Gates’ and work in education. The excuse is the book by
Anand Giridharadas on philanthropists titled “Winners Take All”