DomeGuy

Nbcnews linked to a report by the college board, that look like it tracls the relative cost of college all the way back to 1994 - - ten years after Regan's fuckery, and at least 20 yeara too short to show a real drop. And the drop they show is over only about 4 years.

Today's students were raised by a generation who lived through crippling debt, and see no reason not to expect tuition to skyrocket over the nexr few years.

Not to mention "tuition and fees" ignores the absurd cost of housing.

Ignoring Bernie for the moment, "against the working class" is usually a dogwhistle for "poor whites have racial nervousness and i want to exacerbate that for political gain.". You wont find real examples because, generally, professional democrats arent against anyone. (even nazis, apparently.)

Bernie's specific crtique was a slightly tone-deaf critique that the dems were largely silent on the economic nervousness of the working class, and instead spend political capital fighting for racial and gender equality. Since the white male working class is not oppressed by race or gender, or in a position to really oppress anyone, they often feel unrepresented.

What's your alternative?

Do you have a ready-built national organization that can be successfully co-opted to supplant the DNC i dont know about?

DNC isnt just a sunk cost, its an established civic investment. Unless you think the whole system is going to collapse overnight, a takeover of an existing party is the quickest way to get real change. And if the DNC is rotten and needs to go, we can best do that from the inside.

Every "third party" either merges into a major party or devolves into a vanity party, because the only positions that matter electorally in a winner-take-all system are "i suooort the current person" or "i want them out of office."

Do you show uo at your local DNC meetings? Did you endorse, donate, primary, or run for anything?

If not, PLEASE DO. The smart dems are reeling, and the ones who arent deserve to be primaried.

To rephrase this: they take the time to block out labels to ensure there is a reason for the brands to pay.

Nancy Pelosi also said that we have enough votes to take the house.

I'll consider listening to her again if and only if Hakeem Jeffries is Speaker.

I think you're underestimating how deep the pay gap goes.

"women's work" jobs are so consistently paid less that mere career choice is a huge part of the pay gap.

Please understand that "nothing" means the built up surplus runs out and there will be not enough money to pay all benefits.

The smart and easy fix would be to raise the cap on ss taxes while flattening the "you deserve more money because you made more money when you were working" weirdness.

Instead, they'll likely either do nothing and force the dems to fix it in four years, play with benefits to make the poor suffer, or try and replace it with a phased in 401k style stock market scam.

(that last option, btw, is killing social security.)

If you can figure out how to have anonymous and secure ANYTHING over the internet you'd win a nobel prize.

For the moment, claims to do all three either lie about one part or are as sci-fi magic as sapient AI or faster than light communication.

Depending on your state that's probably true... Unless, like Georgia (or maybe Texas soon) you have an even where a Red-controlled state goes Blue by a thin majority and the NPV keeps special attention away from them.

I can honestly see Texas republicans joining the NPV if they go POTUS-blue just once. Especially if there's any downballot effect.

Politics doesn't happen in a vacuum.

When the NPVC goes into effect, both major parties will run whole-country campaigns and swaths of the nation that are currently ignored will get actual attention. While some states may have pullback campaigns, its also likely that other states will react by joining the compact to preserve the new status quo of not being ignored.

(the compact itself does allow for states leaving, and even sets a nice 6-month time offset. )

There isnt a debate.

One of the major parties in the USA knows that they are able to get power only because the 1929 Apportionment act artificially buouys the power of less populous states in the House and by extension the electoral college. The other one is just fine with actual proportional representation.

Not t metion that the EC doesn't encourage presidential candidates to campaign nationwide: most states are ignored, and focus is on the minority of swing states.

(and Lincoln had a clear plurality of the popular vote. He woukd have won a national vote too.)