2020 Elections

[dismalist]

Profit, non-profit, whatever. There is no difference except that the cash can be taken home by a profit company but not by a non-profit company. It has to stay in the building for a non-profit. This explains why the administration has thick carpets on its floors and faculty have linoleum.

Anyway, I said profits are bad, just like choice and competition. :-)

[kaysixteen]

This is America, land of laissez-faire capitalism.   You want to run a for-profit private school, have at it.   Just do not ask the taxpayers to pay for it.

[marshwiggle]

Except that minorities are not evenly dispersed around the country. 
Regions with larger proportions of minorities tend to be more Democrat.  Larger urban centres, with very different policing challenges are also more likely to be Democrat.  You make several assumptions that are flawed.

Studies show that people who live in areas with a lot of diversity (ethnic, religious, etc) tend to be more liberal. And exposure to diversity tends to increase support for liberal policies such as immigration, equity in education, religious tolerance and so forth. Once your neighbors turn out to be nice people, it's hard to support closed borders, school choice for-profit charter schools, and Islamophobia.

If the liberal party tends to be Democratic, then it makes sense.

This is the kind of thing a person who has been a lifelong urban dweller would say. The fact that urban people tend to be more liberal and rural people tend to be more conservative isn't because one group is more morally bankrupt or stupid than the other. It's because the realities of the two situations lead to different priorities.

A lot if it comes down to consequences in different population density.

• Big money spent on education, healthcare, etc. is going to be concentrated where the population density is highest, since that means more tax money and more people to serve. It's not going to happen in rural areas, and they won't get much benefit, so it's not a priority for them.
• Programs like minimum wage are entirely irrelevant in resource based industries, such as agriculture. Farmers have to work as much as it takes, and if bad weather ruins crops, tough noogies; their big concern is not going bankrupt and losing their livlihood and their home. The "effective wage" they get is almost entirely beyond their control.
• Rural areas have less pollution, noise, crime, etc. That's why lots of city people have vacation properties in rural areas.

People who want to live only around people like themselves would have to live in a rural area just to reduce the chance that someone would be different from them.

That's exactly right. Rural dwellers never have disagreements with neighbours, debates about politics or anything of the sort. (If they never leave their houses....)

[mahagonny]

I am thinking now of a State University President who used to be a state legislator. With his combined salary benefits and pension, housing allowance, etc. he's all set up for  a $10,000/week income for life. Yeah those, for-profits surely are fleecing us.

[ciao_yall]

Except that minorities are not evenly dispersed around the country. 
Regions with larger proportions of minorities tend to be more Democrat.  Larger urban centres, with very different policing challenges are also more likely to be Democrat.  You make several assumptions that are flawed.

Studies show that people who live in areas with a lot of diversity (ethnic, religious, etc) tend to be more liberal. And exposure to diversity tends to increase support for liberal policies such as immigration, equity in education, religious tolerance and so forth. Once your neighbors turn out to be nice people, it's hard to support closed borders, school choice for-profit charter schools, and Islamophobia.

If the liberal party tends to be Democratic, then it makes sense.

This is the kind of thing a person who has been a lifelong urban dweller would say. The fact that urban people tend to be more liberal and rural people tend to be more conservative isn't because one group is more morally bankrupt or stupid than the other. It's because the realities of the two situations lead to different priorities.

A lot if it comes down to consequences in different population density.

• Big money spent on education, healthcare, etc. is going to be concentrated where the population density is highest, since that means more tax money and more people to serve. It's not going to happen in rural areas, and they won't get much benefit, so it's not a priority for them.

Rural people don't have schools? Healthcare? Roads?

• Programs like minimum wage are entirely irrelevant in resource based industries, such as agriculture. Farmers have to work as much as it takes, and if bad weather ruins crops, tough noogies; their big concern is not going bankrupt and losing their livlihood and their home. The "effective wage" they get is almost entirely beyond their control.

Hence all the government programs like farm subsidies designed to maintain the supply and prices of food by protecting farmers' livelihoods.

• Rural areas have less pollution, noise, crime, etc. That's why lots of city people have vacation properties in rural areas.

Nice places to visit, and all of that...

People who want to live only around people like themselves would have to live in a rural area just to reduce the chance that someone would be different from them.

That's exactly right. Rural dwellers never have disagreements with neighbours, debates about politics or anything of the sort. (If they never leave their houses....)

[Kron3007]

Except that minorities are not evenly dispersed around the country. 
Regions with larger proportions of minorities tend to be more Democrat.  Larger urban centres, with very different policing challenges are also more likely to be Democrat.  You make several assumptions that are flawed.

Studies show that people who live in areas with a lot of diversity (ethnic, religious, etc) tend to be more liberal. And exposure to diversity tends to increase support for liberal policies such as immigration, equity in education, religious tolerance and so forth. Once your neighbors turn out to be nice people, it's hard to support closed borders, school choice for-profit charter schools, and Islamophobia.

If the liberal party tends to be Democratic, then it makes sense.

This is the kind of thing a person who has been a lifelong urban dweller would say. The fact that urban people tend to be more liberal and rural people tend to be more conservative isn't because one group is more morally bankrupt or stupid than the other. It's because the realities of the two situations lead to different priorities.

A lot if it comes down to consequences in different population density.

• Big money spent on education, healthcare, etc. is going to be concentrated where the population density is highest, since that means more tax money and more people to serve. It's not going to happen in rural areas, and they won't get much benefit, so it's not a priority for them.
• Programs like minimum wage are entirely irrelevant in resource based industries, such as agriculture. Farmers have to work as much as it takes, and if bad weather ruins crops, tough noogies; their big concern is not going bankrupt and losing their livlihood and their home. The "effective wage" they get is almost entirely beyond their control.
• Rural areas have less pollution, noise, crime, etc. That's why lots of city people have vacation properties in rural areas.

People who want to live only around people like themselves would have to live in a rural area just to reduce the chance that someone would be different from them.

That's exactly right. Rural dwellers never have disagreements with neighbours, debates about politics or anything of the sort. (If they never leave their houses....)

I don't think you actually know what you are talking about. 

Farmers in N. America generally have crop insurance, so they are not as vulnerable to a bad year as you may think.  Further, most farmers are not the romanticized family farm you seem to have in your head where they are doing all their own work and self reliant.  Most of them are actually employers and savey business operators.  While agriculture is often exempt from some labor laws, these things are important to them as much as anyone else.

Not everyone in small towns work in Agriculture.  In fact, where I grew up and live, there are a lot of minimum wage jobs.  Minimum wage and worker regulations matter just as much to them as people working similar jobs in the city.

When people in rural areas get sick, they still go to the hospital.  When people in rural areas get really sick and need a heart transplant, they go to urban centers for the surgery.  So, they benefit just as much from most of these things.

I dont know why this divide exists, but both urban and rural populations are effected by these policies in a similar manner. 
   

[marshwiggle]

Farmers in N. America generally have crop insurance, so they are not as vulnerable to a bad year as you may think.  Further, most farmers are not the romanticized family farm you seem to have in your head where they are doing all their own work and self reliant.  Most of them are actually employers and savey business operators.  While agriculture is often exempt from some labor laws, these things are important to them as much as anyone else.

Not everyone in small towns work in Agriculture.  In fact, where I grew up and live, there are a lot of minimum wage jobs.  Minimum wage and worker regulations matter just as much to them as people working similar jobs in the city.

When people in rural areas get sick, they still go to the hospital.  When people in rural areas get really sick and need a heart transplant, they go to urban centers for the surgery.  So, they benefit just as much from most of these things.

I dont know why this divide exists, but both urban and rural populations are effected by these policies in a similar manner. 

If I change the weightings of the different elements of a course that I reach, the grade distribution will change, even if I don't change how I grade individual items. Some peoples' grades will go up, and some will go down.

Unless you believe that the only issue determining how someone voted in November was whether they loved or hated Trump, (and that everyone fit exactly into one category or the other), then you have to consider a scenario like this:

Voter A; on issue 1, likes D position, on issue 2 likes R position
Voter B; on issue 1, likes R position, on issue 2 likes D position

Which way each one votes will potentially come down to which issue they think is most important.

If Voter A thinks issue 1 is most important, vote D. If Voter A thinks issue 2 is most important, vote R.
If Voter B thinks issue 1 is most important, vote R. If Voter B thinks issue 2 is most important, vote D.

The point is that all that is required for different outcomes is the relative importance different voters place on issues. So it doesn't require urban and rural voters to have drastically different views on issues; simply prioritizing the issues differently can lead to different voting outcomes.

[mahagonny]

 

Studies show that people who live in areas with a lot of diversity (ethnic, religious, etc) tend to be more liberal. And exposure to diversity tends to increase support for liberal policies such as immigration, equity in education,

Some of the liberals I know hate diversity. For example, they may like the company of people of different colors and from different parts of the world or the USA but only or primarily when those companions also hold liberal views.

For example, too, you apparently think liberals are notably are in favor of equity (fairness) in education, whereas conservatives are in favor of inequity (unfairness) in education. But conservatives believe the opposite and will give you reasons.

Being in favor of immigration, also, is something you think liberals deserve credit for whereas, conservatives believe the opposite, as they believe legal, regulated immigration is what works despite liberals having little interest in it.

Your characterization is diversity-cratic, not what I'd called plain old observing.

[Kron3007]

Farmers in N. America generally have crop insurance, so they are not as vulnerable to a bad year as you may think.  Further, most farmers are not the romanticized family farm you seem to have in your head where they are doing all their own work and self reliant.  Most of them are actually employers and savey business operators.  While agriculture is often exempt from some labor laws, these things are important to them as much as anyone else.

Not everyone in small towns work in Agriculture.  In fact, where I grew up and live, there are a lot of minimum wage jobs.  Minimum wage and worker regulations matter just as much to them as people working similar jobs in the city.

When people in rural areas get sick, they still go to the hospital.  When people in rural areas get really sick and need a heart transplant, they go to urban centers for the surgery.  So, they benefit just as much from most of these things.

I dont know why this divide exists, but both urban and rural populations are effected by these policies in a similar manner. 

If I change the weightings of the different elements of a course that I reach, the grade distribution will change, even if I don't change how I grade individual items. Some peoples' grades will go up, and some will go down.

Unless you believe that the only issue determining how someone voted in November was whether they loved or hated Trump, (and that everyone fit exactly into one category or the other), then you have to consider a scenario like this:

Voter A; on issue 1, likes D position, on issue 2 likes R position
Voter B; on issue 1, likes R position, on issue 2 likes D position

Which way each one votes will potentially come down to which issue they think is most important.

If Voter A thinks issue 1 is most important, vote D. If Voter A thinks issue 2 is most important, vote R.
If Voter B thinks issue 1 is most important, vote R. If Voter B thinks issue 2 is most important, vote D.

The point is that all that is required for different outcomes is the relative importance different voters place on issues. So it doesn't require urban and rural voters to have drastically different views on issues; simply prioritizing the issues differently can lead to different voting outcomes.

True, and I think that a major driving force behind this comes down to social issues and religion, but this has also bled into fiscal issues. 
I have met many farmers in the US that disliked trump, but still voted for him because they bought into some of his rhetoric (especially related to China). 

[Kron3007]

Studies show that people who live in areas with a lot of diversity (ethnic, religious, etc) tend to be more liberal. And exposure to diversity tends to increase support for liberal policies such as immigration, equity in education,

Some of the liberals I know hate diversity. For example, they may like the company of people of different colors and from different parts of the world or the USA but only or primarily when those companions also hold liberal views.

For example, too, you apparently think liberals are notably are in favor of equity (fairness) in education, whereas conservatives are in favor of inequity (unfairness) in education. But conservatives believe the opposite and will give you reasons.

Being in favor of immigration, also, is something you think liberals deserve credit for whereas, conservatives believe the opposite, as they believe legal, regulated immigration is what works despite liberals having little interest in it.

Your characterization is diversity-cratic, not what I'd called plain old observing.

I think that people from the left and the right often want similar outcomes, but disagree on how to get there.

A good example is sex education.  Both sides want to avoid the spread of STDs and rate of unwanted teenage pregnancy.  The right often thinks abstinence is the right approach, while the left believes in education.  In the end, they both want the same thing.  Obviously I have my opinion on which approach is better but I think it is valuable to acknowledge that we all want to see the same outcome.   

However, there are areas where the desired outcome is also different. 

In the case of immigration, many on the right literally want less immigration, legal or not.  I'm sure this is not universal, but there is a segment of the right that simply dosnt want this many immigrants and conservative parties often end up embracing these views to bring them in, as long as it will not push too many other voters away.  It is also false that the left wants to encourage illegal immigration and many on the left would also like to see lower levels of immigration.  How you deal with it is obviously a point of contention.  It is also important to note that asylum seekers are not actually illegal immigrants since seeking asylum is not illegal.

Anyway, I think it is important to recognize that for many subjects both sides have the same desire.  It is not helpful to say the left wants open borders as most don't, or that the right hates immigrants since that is also not true across the board.       

[marshwiggle]

In the case of immigration, many on the right literally want less immigration, legal or not.  I'm sure this is not universal, but there is a segment of the right that simply dosnt want this many immigrants and conservative parties often end up embracing these views to bring them in, as long as it will not push too many other voters away.  It is also false that the left wants to encourage illegal immigration and many on the left would also like to see lower levels of immigration.  How you deal with it is obviously a point of contention.  It is also important to note that asylum seekers are not actually illegal immigrants since seeking asylum is not illegal.

Anyway, I think it is important to recognize that for many subjects both sides have the same desire.  It is not helpful to say the left wants open borders as most don't, or that the right hates immigrants since that is also not true across the board.     

I think this is an important point. Regarding immigration specifically, in Canada most people are pretty content with immigration, since the points system means that immigrants can integrate fairly smoothly into society and the economy. (Refugees don't come in under the points system, and so need a lot more support, training, etc.)

[mahagonny]

I think that people from the left and the right often want similar outcomes, but disagree on how to get there.

A good example is sex education.  Both sides want to avoid the spread of STDs and rate of unwanted teenage pregnancy.  The right often thinks abstinence is the right approach, while the left believes in education.  In the end, they both want the same thing.  Obviously I have my opinion on which approach is better but I think it is valuable to acknowledge that we all want to see the same outcome.   

Well, for those who still haven't grasped how pregnancy occurs, the word 'abstinence' is education.

Is anyone actually using the word 'abstinence' lately? I thought the last one was Ronald Reagan.

[mamselle]

Whew. He's sworn in.

I hadn't realized how tightly I was holding my breath.

Now may he please remain alive amidst all the threats and turmoil, so we can get this ship righted and underway again.

Four years of listing, dipping, and being steered in circles may have bewildered the gyrocompass a bit, but I hope we can pull out of the doldrums, get past the Bermuda Triangle of filibusters, and get some positive energy moving.

M.

[evil_physics_witchcraft]

Whew. He's sworn in.

I hadn't realized how tightly I was holding my breath.

Now may he please remain alive amidst all the threats and turmoil, so we can get this ship righted and underway again.

Four years of listing, dipping, and being steered in circles may have bewildered the gyrocompass a bit, but I hope we can pull out of the doldrums, get past the Bermuda Triangle of filibusters, and get some positive energy moving.

M.

I wasn't sure if it would happen. In a way, I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop.

[mamselle]

Yes. In a sense, awful as last week was, it served as a wake-up call to the need to set things up carefully and not allow for anything seriously wrong to happen.

We're not through the swamp yet, by a long shot, but at least we're not in that leaky boat anymore (don't know why the water analogies, but there we are).

M.