Though I thought I recall him explicitly saying he wasn’t interested in the presidency, I could be wrong. Plus, a lot of people say that who end up running. If he does run, and this is the worst thing that can be imputed to him, he’ll be in good shape. I’d be interested in watching that campaign.
Wow, my first post on Straight Dope and I’ve managed to trigger a curmudgeon? I didn’t know I could be so calculating and conniving.
I suppose I’ll play “elucidator” for today. According to WaPo, which I’m sure you read regularly, Arizona locked out three of the top ten best high schools in the country. BASIS Scottsdale placed in second, BASIS Tuscon North in third, and BASIS Oro Valley in sixth.
And I would have hoped, given your username, that you would have researched BASIS some on your own before forming an opinion. Sad!
Oh, no, you said, “sad.” Now he’s gonna—make a bad joke. That’s what he does.
’
Welcome to the SDMB, I see you’ve met elucidator.
Thanks for providing the link. Couldn’t help but wonder how they come up with the score and according to them on their website:
[QUOTE=ProgressivePunch]
Using publicly published data from Congressional Quarterly, we averaged a couple of different types of scores that they published, looking at all votes going back to January 1, 1991. After going through a number of steps and gyrations, we came up with a list of eleven hard-core progressive United States Senators (11% of that body) and 37 hard-core progressive United States Representatives (about 9% of that body). The algorithm that we’ve used to come up with these progressive scores is as follows: We take ANY VOTE in which a majority of the progressives we’ve identified–so in the House say, if there were no absences, it would be 19 of 37–voted in opposition to a majority of the Republican caucus and have that vote qualify for the database. The same process is used in the Senate. So, non-ideological votes such as National Groundhog Day: 429-0 with 6 absences, do not qualify for the database. ANY vote in which a majority of progressives in the progressive cohort listed just below here votes against a majority of Republicans qualifies for the database and is included in the Overall % scores.
[/QUOTE]
Progressive scores are purely based on when a politician vote against the republicans on an issue, which a majority of a “hard-core” group of progressives they have identified, has voted against. ProgressivePunch selects this group “through a number of steps and gyrations” and here is the list of their 11 hard-core progressive control group for the senate:
WI Tammy Baldwin
OH Sherrod Brown
IL Richard Durbin
MN Al Franken
NJ Cory Booker
HI Mazie Hirono
MA Ed Markey
OR Jeff Merkley
RI Jack Reed
VT Bernie Sanders
MA Elizabeth Warren
Interesting, Cory Booker is on the list. What exactly were the numerous steps and gyrations to come up with this list?
And why score only on votes in which the majority of the above voted against Republicans? Doesn’t even identify if the the vote was for or against a progressive issue at all.
Scoring on this website seems a bit flawed.
Here’s a scorecard with a different methodology, based on sponsorship and cosponsorship of bills.
Booker is shown ranking about in the middle of the pack for Democrats.
Note that what govtrack is calling “ideology” in their chart corresponds more closely to intra-caucus coordination, which is certainly an indicator for ideological fidelity, but may not be a decisive one. It is certainly possible in a heavily partisan Congress to work entirely within your own party and yet moderate the product away from your ideological extreme. It’s also possible to coordinate more broadly between groups as a strong advocate for a political principle.
In any case, I think it would be difficult to make the argument that Booker is not reliably Democratic in his legislative activities.
That’s all very well, but what does that have to do with the topic at hand, the value of BASIS in Arizona?
Yo ‘luc’, Imma let you finish but ronam posted one a the best charter school posts of all time!
Updating this thread:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/01/politics/cory-booker-announces-presidential-run-2020/index.html
He isn’t a paragon of virtue…but who is? I’m going to vote the lesser of the Democratic evils in the primary, then the lesser of two evils come November.
That “lesser of two evils” line always grates on me, as if it falsely implies that some people aren’t evil at all, but especially that whatever the winner does will be some sort of evil. That’s not just unwarrantedly cynical, it’s depressing.
How about voting for the person who will make the country, and the world, closer to what you think it should be? I plan to vote for “the better candidate” (of two, dammit).
Same thing-different words.
I am so SICK of hearing about lesser of two evils! Life is complicated. Who has an absolutely 100% perfect spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend? Who lives in a 100% perfect house or apartment? Who has a 100% job? No one, of course? So why do we demand that a politician live up to some magical unicorn fantasy?
Realism vs. cynicism. Not the same.
Well, now Spartacus is in the race. Wonder if the second black President will generate the same enthusiasm as the first.
Not that black people who get out and vote won’t vote for him almost no matter what. More, will they get out and vote.
As I have said about other candidates, at least he’s not 70.
Regards,
Shodan
I can’t speak for “black people,” but as a white guy, I had plenty of enthusiasm for Obama unrelated to his race. I’ll take a look at Booker, but even on his best day, I doubt he can rise up to the level of Obama. I don’t think it’s fair to set the goalposts that high.
Of course not, but that would be a *good *thing. It would help mean that having a black anything, including a President, is just normal. It would help put the hard racists that your party has allowed to feel comfortable back under their rocks, and encourage its soft racists just drop it and move on.
I mention it because one of the reasons we don’t hear much about President Hillary is that black people didn’t turn out to vote for her the way they did for Obama. So maybe it’s not fair to set the goalposts that high, but they’re there anyway.
If people voted for Obama because he had a high level of charisma, and because he was black, and Booker has a lower level of charisma and is black, will voters, particularly black voters, react to him as they did to Obama, or to Hillary?
Same answer. If it’s perfectly normal, then he doesn’t get any bonus points for being the second black President, and blacks turn out for him the same way they would for any other Democrat. Hillary was any other Democrat.
Early days, of course, and we’ll see if he gets any traction against Kamala Harris or Joe Biden or Bernie or whoever else.
Regards,
Shodan
I was referring to *white *attitudes. The white vote is much larger than the black vote, as you may know, and their views matter more electorally. Dissipating the racist vote means more to the final numbers than increasing black turnout.
Evidently Booker has an imaginary friend named T-Bone. I guess that’s one way to stand out as unique in a crowded field.
I tend to agree, he’s just another person jumping out of the clown car.
Meanwhile Howard Shultz is getting the limelight, and the face of the Democratic party for now, at least in the media is Ralph Northam.