2020 Elections

[Kron3007]

Minority voters voting republican more often is a good thing. It puts more diversity in their population. Diversity, do we remember that idea?

Both parties should be trying to get black votes and blacks should have real reasons to choose either one over the other.

It would be a healthier democracy if both parties attracted minority voters. But it is up to GOP to earn minority votes and part of doing that will require them to disavow and eliminate the racisms that is central to their politics.

Another Nostradamus

Democrats were, once again, astonished to find (1) the expected blue wave never came and (2) although Trump lost, he almost didn't, and (3) the party continues to make progress with minority votes.

Not sure what this has to do with my comment. But in general GOP/Trump did not do well with minorities and in fact Black turnout in a few key cities was key to his defeat.

I believe the arithmetic problem is this: if only 8% of black people who vote vote for Trump, then a high turnout of black voters is good for Biden. Stacey Abrams and some others probably accomplished a lot in getting voters in her region registered and to the polls. Which is legal, and good for democracy, I guess. It's legitimate, not cheating or fraud. But having increasing proportions of minority votes go to the candidate who has been consistently lampooned as the 'racist' 'xenophobe' etc. is something the democrats cannot figure out, and particularly when individual minorities identify reasons for choosing Trump that actually, broadside, defy the left's characterization of him and his aims point by point.
They couldn't figure out Bush over Kerry in 2004, or Trump over Clinton in 2016 either.
The 'Nostradamus' wisecrack meant I include you in the group of left leaning academics who think you have your finger on the pulse of the American electorate, but keep getting surprised by what happens.
And in fact, one forumite revealed in a moment of candor recently that's it's not important to him to persuade others of his worldview, fervent though he is in holding it, because he doesn't run for office. He has tenure. And I think that anecdote is a piece of what's going on.
Jimmy Carter said in 2016 'both candidates this time are unpopular, but of the two I'll vote for Hillary.' He had a better idea what was going on than this forum did.

I assume you are referring to my comment about not caring about changing people's minds.  In case anyone cares, which I doubt, it is in part that I am not in politics but also that I don't feel that I have the ability.  I know that my opinion is not going to make you come to some epiphany and change sides, nor are your arguments going to flip me to join the dark side.  I do have strong opinions about a lot of things, as most people do, but what we have discussed here is not my top priority by any means.  I am also not exceptionally enthusiastic about any political party (I am in Canada anyway, so...).

What I do find interesting about you though, is that most of your posts are all about unions and improving labour conditions.  Yet, you seem to be a fervent supporter of the "right to work" party.  It reminds me of when I lived in the deep South and everyone there was so strongly against social programs when they were the ones in need of them.

[dismalist]

Why, oh why, is there still all this talk about Trump? It's clear he lost the election, even to him, as he said he would quit when the electoral college decides against him.

It may be that the Democratic Party has nothing else but Trump.

[Sun_Worshiper]

that there are good people on both sides of the racist vs. anti-racist movements

As far as I'm aware, the most condoning thing Trump has said about racist movements is 'I don't know these people you're asking me about.' In the brouhaha over the confederate statues he was taken out of context.

I didn't vote for Trump. I think the birtherism thing was an embarrassment.

He has often said 'I'm the least racist person you'll meet' which is off putting by being boastful, but the stated intent to be a non-racist presence has not been approached with good faith.
I hope you don't start with the 'wanting to make a dent in illegal immigration is racist' thing that they all do.

Trump has gone out of his way to court racists and to stoke racism in the electorate. He has said any number of hateful things about individual minorities and about minority groups. Even if one or two of his comments were taken out of context by the media, there are plenty of other examples of racism from Trump, including Birtherism, which is a racist conspiracy theory that only an idiot would believe, and his calls for minority members of the "Squad" to go back to their countries.

Trump's rudeness has so many targets that it's not racism that jumps out at me. More like a propensity for antagonistic speech that's as ready to go as budweiser on tap at an 1970's sports bar.
The 'squad' going away would be good for the democrats' future I believe (as long as we can all get into the telling-the-future business with no penalty other than embarrassment later.)

Well you are right that Trump is awful all around. He is hateful and rude to many people, and he is also racist, sexist, corrupt, authoritarian, and I could go on.

Biden's win in the primary and in the general constitute a loss for the squad, Bernie, and Warren, and that is fine with me. None of that, however, excuses telling minorities to go back to their countries, particularly when they were born in the US.

[ciao_yall]

that there are good people on both sides of the racist vs. anti-racist movements

As far as I'm aware, the most condoning thing Trump has said about racist movements is 'I don't know these people you're asking me about.' In the brouhaha over the confederate statues he was taken out of context.

I didn't vote for Trump. I think the birtherism thing was an embarrassment.

He has often said 'I'm the least racist person you'll meet' which is off putting by being boastful, but the stated intent to be a non-racist presence has not been approached with good faith.
I hope you don't start with the 'wanting to make a dent in illegal immigration is racist' thing that they all do.

Trump has gone out of his way to court racists and to stoke racism in the electorate. He has said any number of hateful things about individual minorities and about minority groups. Even if one or two of his comments were taken out of context by the media, there are plenty of other examples of racism from Trump, including Birtherism, which is a racist conspiracy theory that only an idiot would believe, and his calls for minority members of the "Squad" to go back to their countries.

One thing I have noticed among Black and Latino friends is a certain level of inurement to racist comments, just like women become inured to sexist comments.

Not that these comments are not noticed, it's just that they are so used to it that they assume all whites, males, or whomevers think that way. Some just say it out loud, that's all. So these comments aren't always a deal breaker. People look at other issues. What do they think about... guns, abortions, education, religion, taxes, immigration, etc etc etc?

[Sun_Worshiper]

Why, oh why, is there still all this talk about Trump? It's clear he lost the election, even to him, as he said he would quit when the electoral college decides against him.

It may be that the Democratic Party has nothing else but Trump.

Democratic party has lots of things on its agenda, including expanding healthcare coverage, addressing climate change, trying to rebuild alliances that Trump trampled over, and of course dealing with the crises of COVID and the economy.

Trump is still in the news because of his never ending lies about the election, which he now claims to have lost only because of fraud (hardly demonstrating that he has a clear understanding that he lost - although I assume he knows and is just trying to delegitimize American democracy on his way out the door).

that there are good people on both sides of the racist vs. anti-racist movements

As far as I'm aware, the most condoning thing Trump has said about racist movements is 'I don't know these people you're asking me about.' In the brouhaha over the confederate statues he was taken out of context.

I didn't vote for Trump. I think the birtherism thing was an embarrassment.

He has often said 'I'm the least racist person you'll meet' which is off putting by being boastful, but the stated intent to be a non-racist presence has not been approached with good faith.
I hope you don't start with the 'wanting to make a dent in illegal immigration is racist' thing that they all do.

Trump has gone out of his way to court racists and to stoke racism in the electorate. He has said any number of hateful things about individual minorities and about minority groups. Even if one or two of his comments were taken out of context by the media, there are plenty of other examples of racism from Trump, including Birtherism, which is a racist conspiracy theory that only an idiot would believe, and his calls for minority members of the "Squad" to go back to their countries.

One thing I have noticed among Black and Latino friends is a certain level of inurement to racist comments, just like women become inured to sexist comments.

Not that these comments are not noticed, it's just that they are so used to it that they assume all whites, males, or whomevers think that way. Some just say it out loud, that's all. So these comments aren't always a deal breaker. People look at other issues. What do they think about... guns, abortions, education, religion, taxes, immigration, etc etc etc?

Yes, I could see that being the case.

[Kron3007]

that there are good people on both sides of the racist vs. anti-racist movements

As far as I'm aware, the most condoning thing Trump has said about racist movements is 'I don't know these people you're asking me about.' In the brouhaha over the confederate statues he was taken out of context.

I didn't vote for Trump. I think the birtherism thing was an embarrassment.

He has often said 'I'm the least racist person you'll meet' which is off putting by being boastful, but the stated intent to be a non-racist presence has not been approached with good faith.
I hope you don't start with the 'wanting to make a dent in illegal immigration is racist' thing that they all do.

Trump has gone out of his way to court racists and to stoke racism in the electorate. He has said any number of hateful things about individual minorities and about minority groups. Even if one or two of his comments were taken out of context by the media, there are plenty of other examples of racism from Trump, including Birtherism, which is a racist conspiracy theory that only an idiot would believe, and his calls for minority members of the "Squad" to go back to their countries.

Trump's rudeness has so many targets that it's not racism that jumps out at me. More like a propensity for antagonistic speech that's as ready to go as budweiser on tap at an 1970's sports bar.
The 'squad' going away would be good for the democrats' future I believe (as long as we can all get into the telling-the-future business with no penalty other than embarrassment later.)

Well you are right that Trump is awful all around. He is hateful and rude to many people, and he is also racist, sexist, corrupt, authoritarian, and I could go on.

Biden's win in the primary and in the general constitute a loss for the squad, Bernie, and Warren, and that is fine with me. None of that, however, excuses telling minorities to go back to their countries, particularly when they were born in the US.

Or calling Warren Pocahontas....
Or telling the proud boys to stand back and stand ready.....
Or to "liberate" Michigan....
Or........

[ciao_yall]

Why, oh why, is there still all this talk about Trump? It's clear he lost the election, even to him, as he said he would quit when the electoral college decides against him.

It may be that the Democratic Party has nothing else but Trump.

Because he is still the President.

Soledad O'Brien, on The Daily Show, said the problem the media has is because DJT is President, his actions and even his words are newsworthy. Once he is no longer an elected official, the media won't be obligated to report on him. Let's hope they stop with the clickbait-like-actions of whatever ridiculous thing he does/says and go on to more attention-worthy topics.

[mahagonny]

What I do find interesting about you though, is that most of your posts are all about unions and improving labour conditions.  Yet, you seem to be a fervent supporter of the "right to work" party.  It reminds me of when I lived in the deep South and everyone there was so strongly against social programs when they were the ones in need of them.

Unions are a mixed bag of course. You should see what some of the State Police Troopers have gotten away with in terms of phony overtime and assorted wrongs. I do prefer a functioning NLRB rather than one stacked with anti-labor attorneys, but even on a good day, the NLRB can't help adjunct faculty much. Adjunct faculty are disposable day laborers in a system designed and implemented by liberals who go around crowing about academic freedom, social injustice, wage inequity. The high ranking officials in the universities are often liberal politicians who rode to fame on union endorsements. then when the adjuncts want a union, he has the provost harass them with emails did=ssuading them from collective bargaining. That's why I find Writingprof's voice a refreshing piece of honesty. It's not that it's lovable. It's just real.

[Kron3007]

What I do find interesting about you though, is that most of your posts are all about unions and improving labour conditions.  Yet, you seem to be a fervent supporter of the "right to work" party.  It reminds me of when I lived in the deep South and everyone there was so strongly against social programs when they were the ones in need of them.

Unions are a mixed bag of course. You should see what some of the State Police Troopers have gotten away with in terms of phony overtime and assorted wrongs. I do prefer a functioning NLRB rather than one stacked with anti-labor attorneys, but even on a good day, the NLRB can't help adjunct faculty much. Adjunct faculty are disposable day laborers in a system designed and implemented by liberals who go around crowing about academic freedom, social injustice, wage inequity. The high ranking officials in the universities are often liberal politicians who rode to fame on union endorsements. then when the adjuncts want a union, he has the provost harass them with emails did=ssuading them from collective bargaining. That's why I find Writingprof's voice a refreshing piece of honesty. It's not that it's lovable. It's just real.

They are definitely a mixed bag, but from a quick look it seems to me that adjuncts generally have better conditions in democratic states (not universal).  So despite your contention that university administration is full of hypocritical lefties, it still seems that you are voting against yourself (on this particular topic).  Ultimately, many of the more liberal ideologies would benefit adjuncts and other precarious jobs.

[mahagonny]

What I do find interesting about you though, is that most of your posts are all about unions and improving labour conditions.  Yet, you seem to be a fervent supporter of the "right to work" party.  It reminds me of when I lived in the deep South and everyone there was so strongly against social programs when they were the ones in need of them.

Unions are a mixed bag of course. You should see what some of the State Police Troopers have gotten away with in terms of phony overtime and assorted wrongs. I do prefer a functioning NLRB rather than one stacked with anti-labor attorneys, but even on a good day, the NLRB can't help adjunct faculty much. Adjunct faculty are disposable day laborers in a system designed and implemented by liberals who go around crowing about academic freedom, social injustice, wage inequity. The high ranking officials in the universities are often liberal politicians who rode to fame on union endorsements. then when the adjuncts want a union, he has the provost harass them with emails did=ssuading them from collective bargaining. That's why I find Writingprof's voice a refreshing piece of honesty. It's not that it's lovable. It's just real.

They are definitely a mixed bag, but from a quick look it seems to me that adjuncts generally have better conditions in democratic states (not universal).  So despite your contention that university administration is full of hypocritical lefties, it still seems that you are voting against yourself (on this particular topic).  Ultimately, many of the more liberal ideologies would benefit adjuncts and other precarious jobs.

I actually did not vote this time. I was staying out of state state and couldn't get home. It kind of let me off the hook. I couldn't bring myself to vote for the pussy grabber and I couldn't bring myself to vote for the Iraq invasion.
There is no way to vote against the mess that is academia today, which is fortunate for the people who are OK with it. If adjuncts were numerous enough to be interesting to politicians, either party could try and grab them.

[dismalist]

The reason adjuncts are paid so little is because there are so many adjuncts. Must be a lucrative occupation, for otherwise fewer would pursue it.

Raising wages through unionization, if effective, merely makes some or many adjuncts unemployed.

[Hegemony]

Raising wages through unionization, if effective, merely makes some or many adjuncts unemployed.

How did it work then, before adjuncts became so ubiquitous in universities? Because if there were fewer adjuncts, there would still be the same number of students to teach. And universities can't raise their class sizes indefinitely because they simply don't have enough rooms to teach most classes at 100 or 150 students. How did the universities afford to pay all their tenure-track faculty living wages and not employ adjuncts?  I suspect it has something to do with having less luxurious physical plant (no fancy gyms with climbing walls), less on athletics, etc., although the necessity of great numbers of frequently outdated computers is also a drain on a university. But if paying adjuncts a good wage means fewer adjuncts but adjuncts who are compensated well, I think the profession would vote for that, including the adjuncts.

[mahagonny]

The reason adjuncts are paid so little is because there are so many adjuncts. Must be a lucrative occupation, for otherwise fewer would pursue it.

It's easy to get the jobs. And compared with getting on the tenure track, it's extremely easy. There isn't much pursuit.

Raising wages through unionization, if effective, merely makes some or many adjuncts unemployed.

It takes a lot of wage raising before adjunct hiring isn't still a good deal. Some of the resulting growth of the full time non- TT positions is done out of spite, and also to staff your operation where there more often isn't a union.  Adjunct unions are considered subversive while tenure track unions are accepted. Plutocracy. We are the last to unionize. Way after the guys who rake your leaves. By the time we get up and running the organization is very grumpy about unions.

[dismalist]

How did it work then, before adjuncts became so ubiquitous in universities?

Because there was no large supply of adjuncts! Look, universities do it because they can.

Adjuncts will remain a good deal with union wage raising, but fewer of them.

[mahagonny]

How did it work then, before adjuncts became so ubiquitous in universities?

Because there was no large supply of adjuncts! Look, universities do it because they can.

Adjuncts will remain a good deal with union wage raising, but fewer of them.

So you are in favor of this, right?

Tenure track faculty claim they don't like adjunct hiring because competition for the jobs is lightweight and standards are low. So higher pay would mean more competition and better options in hiring and better teaching.
Except in reality, they don't seem to want this at all. If they did, there would be much more partnering of tenure track and adjunct unions for increased clout. More often they let us twist in the wind.
Because if wages rise they don't have a second-rate professoriate with whom they easily compare advantageously?

...and you appear to be dissuading us from unionizing here. Or do I read too much into your remarks?