How does one go about becoming such a delegate, CrystalSeas?
It's actually blazingly simple.
Go to the clerk's office for your voting jurisdiction (usually the city/township clerk). Ask for the paperwork to run for the seat.
In my state, it requires the signatures of 15 people in your precinct to get on the ballot.
Once you are on the ballot, get people in your precinct to vote for you. The last time I ran, there were more seats than candidates. And the last time I ran with competition, I won with 25 votes.
The clerk will be able to show you where to find the data for the past few elections.
If you PM me where you are registered to vote, I can help you find the exact details. I"m not sure if this is the exact process in every state, but it's never much more complicated. Or just get in touch with Our Revolution which is the organization that is the follow-on for the Sanders campaign
Will do! Virginia's primary is coming up fast on 13th June, with the candidates speaking the following week in Richmond on the 21st to a gaggle of real estate critters.
Even if you aren't an elected delegate for your precinct (some states only have those elections every 4 years), if you show up at the county convention and ask to be seated as an alternate, you can usually do so.
Really, it's pretty much as simple as showing up and following the process.
How does one go about becoming such a delegate, CrystalSeas?
Show up to caucus.
County, city and state delegate seats are pretty much open to whoever wants one. National delegate seats, which only happen during a presidential election year, are contested.
Hennepin county in Minnesota had 74% turnout last year, with a 0% change from 2012. It's a fairly high turnout county. When I went to vote in the caucus/primary, there were 5 precincts voting at the same high school (a fairly large school) and the line was 10 people thick and went waaaaaaay down the block.
My precinct had empty seats to the city, county and state conventions. People just didn't volunteer.
When they asked who wanted to be the precinct vice-chair, they asked like 5-6 times to the room if there was a volunteer. I was interested in the spot, but more for the free education on how things worked than anything else, so I waited to see if anyone's hand went up. After 30-40 seconds with no volunteers, I put my hand up and got the spot uncontested.
If you show up and aren't obviously drunk or high, odds are likely that you can get some sort of official position within the party at the local level. The further up you move, the more contested it gets, but being a local/state delegate is pretty much a gimmie.
National delegate seats are more contested though. Even though I didn't have a vote (I could have if I had wanted), I had 5-6 people contact me asking for my vote to send them to the national convention.
Things might be different in New Hampshire, Iowa or South Carolina, since they're very early and have a lot of spot light shined on their process. But I've heard stories that are basically the same as mine from around the rest of the country.
Show up sober and raise your hand. You'll be given some sort of responsibility. In some places, the sober requirement might be negotiable.
edit: ninja'd as I wrote.
Yeah, the process varies from state to state, since each state had different laws, and each state party has different rules (note, this is why 50 pages ago I pointed out that the DNC chair isn't a very important position, they don't control state parties).
How does one go about becoming such a delegate, CrystalSeas?Show up to caucus.
County, city and state delegate seats are pretty much open to whoever wants one. National delegate seats, which only happen during a presidential election year, are contested.
Yep, that's my experience too. Show up and follow the process for filling vacant positions.
They've already held the caucus (22 Apr) and I narrowly missed on the local conventions by a fortnight (13 May). That taught me to not drag my feet.
Primary voting is easy enough, so I suppose there is that.
They've already held the caucus (22 Apr) and I narrowly missed on the local conventions by a fortnight (23 May). That taught me to not drag my feet.
Primary voting is easy enough, so I suppose there is that.
Vote this time, and then keep an eye on your local city/county party announcements. (website/Facebook). And if nothing happens this year, be ready to start being active in Jan '18. The sooner you start participating, the more influence you will have and the more allies you'll be able to identify
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Over 40% of your country doesn't feel strongly enough about either party to claim they're a member. Over 40% don't vote. I'm suggesting that there's likely some overlap and I'm also saying that some of those people don't think there's a significant enough of a difference between the two parties to join either side. Also, why do you keep resorting to the straw man of saying "the same", that's not my position. I've repeatedly said that people see them as not dissimilar. Not dissimilar or similar are not the same as saying they're the same.
I think the thing is...It's a pretty big assumption that the 40% consists of Progressive leaning voters. I'd hazard that an appreciable percentage of that are people so disengaged that you won't get them into a polling booth no matter what you do. Some of that 40% won't ever vote progressive because they are untapped voters that lean to the right (Hardcore libertarians, Ultraconservatives, Nationalists of all stripes), or have odd politics/beliefs that don't really fit into any one party. And some voters very strongly identify with minority parties with a large degree of loyalty that no matter what direction you move, your never going to get them to sign on (Comrade Goblin would probably agree with me if I state it will be a cold day in the Hell before he ever gets excited about a democrat candidate). Add on all the other layers of factors that can cause people to show up or not show up (race, gender, religion, education level, charisma, etc) and figuring out your viable untapped voters is really tough.
Dems can do better...there is certainly a large number of available votes out there that are viable targets. In some regions going progressive is definitely the smart move (New York, New England, the Pacific States). In some areas, especially in deep red states, different messages might be needed. What this means is that Party is going to have to take a very nuanced approach on how it operates at the local level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What this means is that Party is going to have to take a very nuanced approach on how it operates at the local level.
Well, no. At the local level, it is local people running the local party. The question is whether or not the national funding apparatus will support the Democratic candidates that run at the local level.
We saw the national outrage when Sanders suggested that the national party support a local Democratic candidate who was pro-life. When most of the money is donated by coastal elites, and they get upset when locals select viable local candidates, then it's not the national party operating on a local level. It's the corporatists trying to decide whether or not to support grass-roots candidates.
As long as the people who fund the national party feel like their funds allow them to vet local candidates for 'corporatist purity' then there's going to be a problem. It's not a 'national versus local' issue. If it were, Sanders would not have been campaigning for Mello. It's a 'corporatist versus liberal' issue. And when the local liberals choose someone the corporatists don't like, the national party withholds support.
What this means is that Party is going to have to take a very nuanced approach on how it operates at the local level.Well, no. At the local level, it is local people running the local party. The question is whether or not the national funding apparatus will support the Democratic candidates that run at the local level.
We saw the national outrage when Sanders suggested that the national party support a local Democratic candidate who was pro-life. When most of the money is donated by coastal elites, and they get upset when locals select viable local candidates, then it's not the national party operating on a local level. It's the corporatists trying to decide whether or not to support grass-roots candidates.
Is it the "corporatists" upset about supporting grassroots pro-life candidates?
Or is it more national grass roots?And is there where we go to win locally? A "pro-life" candidate* here? Maybe a racist one here? A climate change denier? A "hate the sin, love the sinner" type? Are there any lines we draw? Just the anti-corporate ones?
*There's actually debate about exactly how pro-life the candidate was, but the theoretical point still holds.
This theoretical point is why people got bent out of shape over the "bernie bros" who wouldn't line up.
Are there any lines we draw? Just the anti-corporate ones?
And that circles right back to the "well, one of those two people is going to be sitting in that seat after the election" issue.
If it is true that any candidate who crosses a particular line is then morally equivalent to the other candidate, does that mean that the national party never supports someone who fails that test? That we always decide that "they're both evil so we won't play" is the kindest, most humane stance to take?
Remember that these elections have real consequences for the local people. Flint council members and mayor were making life and death decisions for Flint residents. Which candidate becomes mayor of Omaha has life-and-death impact on local police policies and extra-judicial murders committed by police officers. Is it truly in the country's best interest to refuse to participate in those elections?
This theoretical point is why people got bent out of shape over the "bernie bros" who wouldn't line up.What this means is that Party is going to have to take a very nuanced approach on how it operates at the local level.Well, no. At the local level, it is local people running the local party. The question is whether or not the national funding apparatus will support the Democratic candidates that run at the local level.
We saw the national outrage when Sanders suggested that the national party support a local Democratic candidate who was pro-life. When most of the money is donated by coastal elites, and they get upset when locals select viable local candidates, then it's not the national party operating on a local level. It's the corporatists trying to decide whether or not to support grass-roots candidates.
Is it the "corporatists" upset about supporting grassroots pro-life candidates?
Or is it more national grass roots?And is there where we go to win locally? A "pro-life" candidate* here? Maybe a racist one here? A climate change denier? A "hate the sin, love the sinner" type? Are there any lines we draw? Just the anti-corporate ones?
*There's actually debate about exactly how pro-life the candidate was, but the theoretical point still holds.
Is that somehow an answer? Because I don't understand you.
I'm saying its pretty hypocritical that party members got so outraged over people who wouldn't vote for HRC because they couldn't get behind her positions since "you have to pick someone electable" but are willing to turn up their noses at democratic candidates who hold ideals that could win in non westcoast/northeast/urban areas.
but then these characters you compromise on work their way to the national stage.
Of course they do. I'd much rather have people on the national stage who have experience running local political systems than rank amateurs who haven't ever been in politics before.
So, your local politician gets on the national stage. And you compare your local person to all the other politicians who want to be senator or president and you decide whose voting history most aligns with your values.
And then you participate in the local and state and national conventions to try to get the person you admire the most nominated. And when that decision is made you work your butt off trying to elect the person you think will make the best decisions.
That's how democracy works. You select among flawed humans and chose the one whose flaws you can most tolerate because you think their other attributes will be best for the people you care about.
There's never going to be a human candidate who doesn't have flaws. There's probably never going to be a human candidate that doesn't believe things that I think are simply wrong. But I still think its sensible to spend money and donate time to elect the ones who come closest.
Vote this time, and then keep an eye on your local city/county party announcements. (website/Facebook). And if nothing happens this year, be ready to start being active in Jan '18. The sooner you start participating, the more influence you will have and the more allies you'll be able to identifyThey've already held the caucus (22 Apr) and I narrowly missed on the local conventions by a fortnight (23 May). That taught me to not drag my feet.
Primary voting is easy enough, so I suppose there is that.
This upcoming 13th of June 2017 is primary day (after public schools are closed for summer, before summer school starts), settling out candidate X for Y party. Come November, we do governor, butter bar governor and attorney general along with a smattering of other items. Only Virginia and I think New Jersey vote on these this year.
Virginia is a very "purple" state with the western D.C. suburbs (aka Northern Virginia), Tidewater/Norfolk/VA Beach/Williamsburg and IIRC about half of Richmond leaning "blue" whilst the rest of the state leans "red". The blue parts generate the lions' share of the tax revenue for the state, making actions taken/laws passed in Richmond a balancing act with addressing the needs of the rest of the state.
I'll do my part here at home, but one wonders about how many "blue voters" are going to get off their butts and vote this year...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Mad Comrade: Well, for what it's worth (i.e. exactly one vote), I always vote - however large or small the election is. I sorta feel like it's my civic duty, and I'm a bit too stubborn to let it go. XD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Mad Comrade: Well, for what it's worth (i.e. exactly one vote), I always vote - however large or small the election is. I sorta feel like it's my civic duty, and I'm a bit too stubborn to let it go. XD
Same here, Rednal. I always manage to vote in the stuff that comes up in November.
What I've been sadly unaware of until the 2016 election cycle and its aftermath are the other items to participate in leading up to a given round of items/candidates in the November elections.
We may individually be just one vote ... but given the eye opening statements on assorted threads here since 2016, it gives some measure of hope that it is possible, however unlikely, to effect something more substantial than hashtag slacktivism.
but then these characters you compromise on work their way to the national stage.Of course they do. I'd much rather have people on the national stage who have experience running local political systems than rank amateurs who haven't ever been in politics before.
So, your local politician gets on the national stage. And you compare your local person to all the other politicians who want to be senator or president and you decide whose voting history most aligns with your values.
And then you participate in the local and state and national conventions to try to get the person you admire the most nominated. And when that decision is made you work your butt off trying to elect the person you think will make the best decisions.
That's how democracy works. You select among flawed humans and chose the one whose flaws you can most tolerate because you think their other attributes will be best for the people you care about.
There's never going to be a human candidate who doesn't have flaws. There's probably never going to be a human candidate that doesn't believe things that I think are simply wrong. But I still think its sensible to spend money and donate time to elect the ones who come closest.
I might be entirely misreading TheJeff on this, but I assumed by character he didn't mean "Individual candidate" but rather the characteristics of the candidates stances, which end up revising the national platform.
Say you have some southern candidates who run on a largely democrat platform, but endorse Pro-life viewpoints. If that becomes a successful strategy, does that mean in the long-run do the democrats ignore that topic at the national stage, or even worse for some folks, actually join up with republicans on decreasing access? We could take the same angle with gun control, immigration policy, police violence, etc. How do these local differences feed into the national rhetoric on topics.
I mean I don't think there is really any solution to these questions...it's all a balancing act at trying to grow your voter base while still keeping the existing one.
Stuff too long to quote...
I'm not saying that overall Dems need to move to the right, what I am saying is that the number of left-leaning voters that the dems can grab is not 40%, but might be closer to 10% or something. And the party needs to be very careful when it does that. Younger voters tend to lean the most progressive, but the youth vote is often the most fickle. So you have to consider older voters, who more reliably turn out.
Basically this stuff is complicated
As for the voters on the right, I know conservative voters who didn't turn out last election for religious issues. They have specific beliefs on a variety of issues that basically means they will never ever vote democrat. At the same time, they couldn't stand voting for Trump because his overall life and personality conflicted with their values.
As for successful dems in red states, I think you will see that many elected democrats in the mountain states are pro-fracking, which has been a huge boon for the local economy. That is the first example that comes to mind, although I am sure others exist.
On another note, you keep quoting Bernie as being the most popular politician in America. Keep in mind that the methodology of the poll doesn't show that. When I looked up the information on that, Bernie was most popular, but the poll only covered 8 politicians (Only Warren, Schumer, Pelosi, and Hillary were democrats in that poll). So really it's "The most popular of these 8 politicians")
On another note, you keep quoting Bernie as being the most popular politician in America. Keep in mind that the methodology of the poll doesn't show that. When I looked up the information on that, Bernie was most popular, but the poll only covered 8 politicians (Only Warren, Schumer, Pelosi, and Hillary were democrats in that poll). So really it's "The most popular of these 8 politicians")
Well, I probably deserve to be struck by lightning for posting something from Faux News, but there is this poll. Page 4 has the different politicians and items listed. Note that the poll asks fav/unfav for each individual, not in relation to the others.
Then there is this poll. Page 28.
Bernie is around 57%, while the next closest is 44%. Note that the poll asks fav/unfav for each individual, not in relation to the others.
Can you find anyone other then Bernie who cracks the 50% approval rating?
EDIT: Looks like Politifact has examined this already.
EDIT II: Found this on Public Policy Polling
"We took an early look ahead to 2020 and how Trump would match up right now against some hypothetical Democratic opponents for reelection. He trails Joe Biden 54/40, Bernie Sanders 52/41, Elizabeth Warren 48/43, Al Franken 46/41, and Cory Booker 45/42 in head to head match ups. Biden (56/33 favorability) and Sanders (53/36) are among the most popular political figures in the country. Voters are more divided on Warren (42/39) and Franken (34/34). Booker is not as well known nationally as the rest of this group yet, coming in at 27/24."
I don't know anything about the PPP.
EDIT III: Here is a list of how Senators rank, (I think in their respective states)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it has any larger implications, nor is it anything new (as i was pointing out with the caning incident). Its one pushy reporter and one hot headed politician, nothing more.
Yeah, 'just one incident' of a congressman assaulting someone for being a reporter.
Of course, there was also that false arrest of a man for... being a reporter. Which you also dismissed... and the Texas governor joking about shooting reporters... and the President of the United States calling reporters enemies of the people.
Yep, 'isolated incident'. Absolutely no cause and effect pattern to be seen here.
Oi!
Warren/Franken or Franken/Warren would be about the best Democratic party ticket I could ask for. I'm not really sold on Warren, but she is better then almost anyone else in the party that I can think of.
I love Bernie, but he (and a few other potentials like Biden) are just a little too old to be campaigning for president in 2020.
I really like Warren of currently possible candidates, but I worry the age/gender thing could be a problem.
We really need a much bigger pool of potential candidates, which is in part why winning the non-president elections is so important.
|
Guy, Franken is barley qualified to be a senator. He is the perfect example of what Caligula said when he made a horse a senator. Warren is a least intelligent though I disagree with all of what she stands for.
The more left the Democratic party goes the less chance they have a winning a national race. IMO what really needs to happen is the two parties is to split into three parties the establishment of both parties form one party and the left and the right of both parties form their own parties. How much difference is there between Nancy Pelosi and John Kashich not a lick of difference IMO.
Guy I would like to ask your opinion on the Israeli Palestinian situation. Do you think there can be peace between the two sides? I do not. Many Palestinian Christians would like to become Israeli citizens and a like number of Palestinian arabs also would like to be Israeli Citizens and even serve in the IDF. While the Militant groups like the PLO, Hammas and Hezbollah want to kill all Jews and Christians because they think it says so in the Koran. What do you think about the Settlement issue? I always thought the Settlements were just small tracts of homes or apartments built in Judea and Samaria. I just saw a you tube video on one of the settlement blocks out side of Jerusalem and it was no different than any small town in the US.
Some Communist Propaganda Before I Go Watch Netflix
(I just found Hoffa in the streaming options.)
Seattle:
Established Labor Is Pissed At Seattle’s New Left
Guest Editorial: Seattle's Union Members Don't Have to Settle for Democrats by Kshama Sawant
Minneapolis:
ON THE VERGE OF VICTORY – HOW $15 WAS WON IN MINNEAPOLIS
I haven't really been following along, but I don't know if I like how the article title tempts fate.
But, I guess, "jinxing" is probably anti-materialist.
Guy I would like to ask your opinion on the Israeli Palestinian situation. Do you think there can be peace between the two sides? I do not. Many Palestinian Christians would like to become Israeli citizens and a like number of Palestinian arabs also would like to be Israeli Citizens and even serve in the IDF. While the Militant groups like the PLO, Hammas and Hezbollah want to kill all Jews and Christians because they think it says so in the Koran. What do you think about the Settlement issue? I always thought the Settlements were just small tracts of homes or apartments built in Judea and Samaria. I just saw a you tube video on one of the settlement blocks out side of Jerusalem and it was no different than any small town in the US.
Might be worth starting your own thread about this...seems pretty far afield from the topic discussion.
There is also The Left Forum coming up June 2-4th in NYC.
A panel at Left Forum making the FB rounds. It's probably a prank, but if it isn't, it will be one hell of a panel.
Posadas was a Latin American Trotskyist who is famous for a) his followers were thrown in jail by Castro and Guevara after they tried to organize to drive the Yanquis out of Guantanamo during the Cuban Revolution; and b) after seeing a UFO, Posadas developed a theory that space aliens must be communist and looked forward to them being allies in the Earthly proletariat's seizure of power.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guy I would like to ask your opinion on the Israeli Palestinian situation.
As Jawa said, I would take this to another thread.
Also, the staff is busy with Paizocon, so this would be a bad time for any of us to start a controversial thread, or engage in furious debate. Let's all keep it extra agreeable for the next 48 hours.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guy, Franken is barley qualified to be a senator. He is the perfect example of what Caligula said when he made a horse a senator. Warren is a least intelligent though I disagree with all of what she stands for.
For the record, Franken graduated cum laude from Harvard.
Im really enjoying Al Franken these days. Nobody riles the right media and politicians like that guy.
Not to mention, as Lou has just demonstrated, right wing citizens.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guy, Franken is barley qualified to be a senator. He is the perfect example of what Caligula said when he made a horse a senator. Warren is a least intelligent though I disagree with all of what she stands for.
The more left the Democratic party goes the less chance they have a winning a national race. IMO what really needs to happen is the two parties is to split into three parties the establishment of both parties form one party and the left and the right of both parties form their own parties. How much difference is there between Nancy Pelosi and John Kashich not a lick of difference IMO.
Quite a lot of difference on a large number of policy issues such as women's health issues, reproductive rights, climate change, environmental issues, the proper role of religion in government, criminal justice, to name just a few. I'm unsure exactly how one can view the two and come away that there's "not a lick of difference."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm unsure exactly how one can view the two and come away that there's "not a lick of difference."
I'd imagine because they're both prominent critics of Trump who have been on CNN lately (Kasich on Medicaid expansions and ICE raids, e.g.) and while I'm not sure exactly what Citizen Diamond's politics are, some of the talking points that he repeats indicates that he's much further to the right than your average Future of the Democratic Party thread poster.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guy, Franken is barley qualified to be a senator. He is the perfect example of what Caligula said when he made a horse a senator. Warren is a least intelligent though I disagree with all of what she stands for.
He graduated cum laude from harvard with a major in government. He is literally more qualified to be a senator than like 50% of the people sitting in the senate right now.
Minneapolis:ON THE VERGE OF VICTORY – HOW $15 WAS WON IN MINNEAPOLIS
I haven't really been following along, but I don't know if I like how the article title tempts fate.
But, I guess, "jinxing" is probably anti-materialist.
Yeah, that article is definitely tempting fate and works really hard to pat itself on the back.
A really big hurdle I didn't notice mentioned in the article (read first half, skimmed after that) is the state legislature. Republicans have put a bill forward that takes away the cities ability to set it's own minimum wage. Versions of the bill have already pass the house and senate, but I think still need to be reconciled. The governor has promised to veto, and the vote totals right now aren't high enough to override (I think). We've got a governor's race in 2018 though, so if Republican's win that and maintain their senate/house majorities, I'd expect the issue to be revisited.
I'm glad the city is trending the way it's going, but the fight is far from over. Plus even if it's won, we'll have to fight it again in 10, 20 and 30 years.
At the caucus last year, when someone put forward a motion to include $15 minimum wage on the party platform, I asked them why weren't we tying the figure to some increasing number (CPI, inflation, something else I'm not aware of) and I just got blank stares. I then pointed out that we wouldn't have to keep fighting this fight, or would only have to do so less often. There were general murmurs of that being a good idea, but we didn't change the resolution.
Not to mention, as Lou has just demonstrated, right wing citizens.
:)
Minneapolis:ON THE VERGE OF VICTORY – HOW $15 WAS WON IN MINNEAPOLIS
I haven't really been following along, but I don't know if I like how the article title tempts fate.
But, I guess, "jinxing" is probably anti-materialist.
Yeah, that article is definitely tempting fate and works really hard to pat itself on the back.
A really big hurdle I didn't notice mentioned in the article (read first half, skimmed after that) is the state legislature. Republicans have put a bill forward that takes away the cities ability to set it's own minimum wage. Versions of the bill have already pass the house and senate, but I think still need to be reconciled. The governor has promised to veto, and the vote totals right now aren't high enough to override (I think). We've got a governor's race in 2018 though, so if Republican's win that and maintain their senate/house majorities, I'd expect the issue to be revisited.
I'm glad the city is trending the way it's going, but the fight is far from over. Plus even if it's won, we'll have to fight it again in 10, 20 and 30 years.
At the caucus last year, when someone put forward a motion to include $15 minimum wage on the party platform, I asked them why weren't we tying the figure to some increasing number (CPI, inflation, something else I'm not aware of) and I just got blank stares. I then pointed out that we wouldn't have to keep fighting this fight, or would only have to do so less often. There were general murmurs of that being a good idea, but we didn't change the resolution.
Yeah, IIRC, that was the proposal of Ellison and the other Bernie-appointees to the Democratic Platform Committee that all the Hillary-appointees voted against (except Lee, IIRC).
Off-topic, but I wasn't sure what Caligula said when he made his horse a senator, so I looked it up:
Did Caligula Really Make His Horse Consul?
Answer seems to be: no, but Suetonius reports that it was said that he planned to and Cassius Dio, a generation later, dropped the hedging and reported that he had promised to do so but was killed before carrying out his ambition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Answer seems to be: no, but Suetonius reports that it was said that he planned to and Cassius Dio, a generation later, dropped the hedging and reported that he had promised to do so but was killed before carrying out his ambition.
... that horse REALLY didn't want the job.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guy, Franken is barley qualified to be a senator.
He (Franken) attended Harvard College where he majored in government, graduating cum laude (top 25% of the class) with a Bachelor of Arts in 1973.- wiki
You complain about nothing but washington insiders, but your main objections seem to be that he isn't a career politician or businessman.
I think he'd be great to run. Trump does not handle humor well, and his only tactic seems to be bullying people about minor nitpicks loudly and angrily. That doesn't work as well on someone you don't expect to be perfect.
Yeah, IIRC, that was the proposal of Ellison and the other Bernie-appointees to the Democratic Platform Committee that all the Hillary-appointees voted against (except Lee, IIRC).
No, his was just a $15 wage too. The bill that was introduced during this session was also just a flat wage with no mechanism for increasing.
The Clinton-moderates pushed it down to $10.10 in hopes that that would be easier to pass.
I think there is some small amount of merit to the Republican objection of a significantly higher national minimum wage. The cost of living in NYC is not the same as rural Louisiana. The current national minimum wage isn't sufficient for either location.
NYC Living wage:
1 adult - $14.45/hour
1 adult + 1 child - $29.24/hour
Louisiana living wage (rural north-central)
1 adult - $10.58/hour
1 adult + 1 child - $21.40/hour
A worker in Louisiana doesn't deserve to make less, but they don't require as much assistance/protection in order to survive because the cost of living is lower. Of course, even within a state those numbers can change quite a bit.
NY Herkimer county living wage:
1 adult - $10.66/hour
1 adult + 1 child - $24.16/hour
I'm more worried that everyone has a living wage, than everyone having the exact same wage. Which also gets to my idea of tying the minimum wage to some sort of price index, or poverty levels. I also want a solution that requires us to debate whether it should be raised or not and move the debate to how it should be calculated (by shifting the debate, I mean nationally, not necessarily just in this thread). But "tie the minimum wage to the consumer price index" isn't as sexy as "fight for $15".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, I was talking about the Democratic Platform Committee, or whatever it was called. The one with Cornel West.
EDIT 1: I'd have to go look through my posts and I'm out the door to work, but, as I recall, back when Sawant was first elected, Bernie called to congratulate her and said, "Don't you think $15 is too high?"
As the article says, from a demand of the far left to mainstream in four years. Not too bad.
[Pats back]
EDIT 2: We have raised the demand for tying to inflation on occasion (I think we mention it less as we focused on fighting against the "carve-outs"); more importantly we couple it with the demand to form a union. If we have to have the same fight in 10, 20, 30 years, we'll be in a better position if the low-wage workers can strike.
Organize the unorganized!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm fully in favor of unions.