I worked for the Treasury Dept out of college as a bank regulator and always thought that would have been a good place to have that sort of program. I chose it over making more money in finance initially because I knew quality of life would be better, and I could move into the private sector down the road (which I did). But it's hard for the regulatory agencies to compete with the banks in luring and keeping talent, and this would be one way to even the playing field a bit.

When I got hired, I was at orientation and the top dog in our district was giving a talk. One of the other new hires asked him if the agency had any sort of student loan assistance program and his response was "yes we do, it will show up in your bank account every two weeks".

These thoughts are sort of half-baked, but I'm going to dump them here anyways in the interest of discussion, not necessarily because I want to stand behind them with conviction. That said...

I guess as a society we need to decide why we want people going to university and then incentivize appropriately. If the answer is simply "companies want degrees before they will hire now, so we need to get people degrees so they can get jobs and pay taxes" then I think the answer is to put less money into funding universities, not more. Take that money and find ways to incentivize companies to train people themselves, on the job or otherwise.

However if the answer is that we feel sending people to university creates a better society through higher levels of education, grander life experiences, etc then funnel the money into the institutions and place the burden on the general tax payer, not the student themselves (just like K-12).

One problem with this approach is grade inflation. Which began in the '70s when male students had to maintain a certain average to avoid the draft.

If kids have to maintain a GPA and universities are in the business of getting all that free assistance from the taxpayers, universities will give them a GPA.

The latest round of inflation is due mainly to massive increases in tuition in the last 10-15 years. To compete, universities have to present a feel-good, less diverse experience.

I think reform is necessary, but more along the lines of getting rid of this country-club creep, more limited liberal arts courses, and an elimination of the administrative gains of the last couple of decades. Since the '90s, administration has doubled, and more and more courses are being taught by adjunct professors, who make a fraction of what a public school teacher makes.

Returning to a focus on education rather than administration and the country-club feel will lower costs (and improve the quality of education).

This should go in concert with more vocational training. Many places in Europe do provide free universities, but far fewer kids go to university and vocational training is encouraged.

As for employers, they'll adjust to the job market.

It is pretty telling that the U.S., with its crazy-expensive college tuition, still has a higher rate of college graduates than a bunch of countries with free or almost-free college tuition, like Germany, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland.

Edit: Most Americans, and most citizens in those countries, aren't "competing with China". It is important that we have a secondary educational system good enough to identify the very best and brightest and to make sure they have access to higher education. But for the rest of us, it's really more of a case-by-case basis thing whether it benefits us, or the economy.

Germany has (or had 15 years ago when I was an exchange student) the best approach I'm aware of. Get good grades in high school, we will prepare you for and heavily subsidize you to go to college? Are you halfway through HS and either goofing off or not smart enough to keep up with the top of the class? Then we will prepare you to go to vocational school and get a job or an apprenticeship at 18

Like Jim says we just coddle people. Everyone is a special snowflake and deserves to get awesome grades and to go to college. And of course lots of people getting rich while convincing people they will be the next Steve Jobs with their associate information technology degree from ITT Tech and saddling young people with massive debt that they will spend 20 years getting out of doesn't hurt either. I have no idea where the sweet spot is for the percentage of young people who go to college but I'm pretty sure we passed it a long time ago.

Totally right. During the mythical period when a high school degree still meant something, the United States did not have a manufacturing-based economy.

So Bernie just flipped Nevada apparently. Wisconsin will be interesting, that's for sure.

Here's one projection of how Sanders could win enough delegates (not including super-delegates).

It’s Really Hard To Get Bernie Sanders 988 More Delegates | FiveThirtyEight

He'd need to be +16 in Wisconsin, +4 in New York, and +57 in Wyoming to keep pace with this.

I have a hunch Bernie is going to do quite well in Wisconsin. Not saying he'll get the +16 Silver mentions, but I don't see Hillary winning the state.

The polling seems to indicate a 5-10 point win for Sanders in Wisconsin.

+14
The polling in Pennsylvania and New York currently indicate that Hillary is in the lead by 7-15 points but that Sanders is slowly gaining, I expect that will continue as we get closer to their primaries in a few weeks.

It will be interesting to see how much Bernie starts to get on the offense with attacking Hillary. It will only get easier to attack her with all the ammo he has. If she ever gets connected to Panama Papers, that would be uh, bad.

I'm in the boat that would be fine with either candidate, Hillary or Bernie, but I lean a little more towards Bernie.

A quick update:

Wins: Clinton 20, Sanders 16 (18-15 in states).
Caucus Wins, in states: Sanders 10, Clinton 2.
Primary Wins, in states: Clinton 16, Sanders 5.

Total Vote, estimated by RCP: Clinton 9.35m, Sanders 6.95m.

Pledged Delegates: Clinton 1302, Sanders 1088, 1668 remaining.
Unpledged Superdelegates: Clinton 474, Sanders 32, 208 remaining.

Estimated Total: Clinton 1776, Sanders 1120. Clinton needs 32.6% of remaining delegates to clinch the nomination.

Total if superdelegates were assigned WTA: Clinton 1562, Sanders 1222. Clinton would need 41.5%.

Total if superdelegates were assigned proportionately based on vote: Clinton 1505, Sanders 1279. Clinton would need 44.4%.

Coming soon:

4/9: Wyoming Caucus (14). This is the last state caucus.
4/19: New York Primary (247). RCP Average: Clinton +11.
4/26: Maryland Primary (95). RCP Average: Clinton +31.
4/26: Connecticut Primary (55)
4/26: Delaware Primary (21)
4/26: Pennsylvania Primary (189). RCP Average: Clinton +18.
4/26: Rhode Island Primary (24)

Sanders was +3 in Wisconsin, according to the RCP average. He won by 13.

Remember that all Democratic primaries assign delegates proportionately.

Yes, Sanders has momentum, but it's largely geographic and based on strength in caucuses. Clinton is still probably 98-99% likely to win this outright - no nonsense about contested conventions.* We can revisit this if he's 55-45 or better in New York, which seems highly unlikely.

* - standard disclaimer about FBI stuff - you've heard it before.

Pretty good article about Bernie's lack of coattails for downballot races and the fact that (unlike Hillary) he's not assisting congressional candidates. That's a pretty big deal, since he needs a majority way more than she does.

Bernie Voters Not Very Interested in Non-Bernie Democrats | Mother Jones

Bernie hanging around is a function of Dems' overconfidence that Hillary will beat Trump or Cruz.

If the GOP had settled early on a mainstream pick like Bush or Rubio, I think that the Dems would have already kicked Bernie to the curb so Hillary could start the general.

The Mother Jones article makes a good point too, that while Sanders may say he's for certain downballot people, his anti-Democratic party rhetoric results in his supporters just voting for him and basically treating Democrats the same as Republicans in all downballot races. It couldn't be further from the truth in, especially, this Wisconsin Supreme Court election. I remember seeing a few things on Facebook about how crazy this justice was the day after - well, if the Bernie votes voted for her opponent, that likely wouldn't have happened! But, of course, the parties are all the same except for special snowflake Bernie... gaaah!

That's also why I feel little sympathy for those whining about superdelegates. Bernie hasn't and isn't doing anything for the party folks, so of course they aren't jumping in to support him.

Bernie is probably *starting* to do some of that, or at least pledging to do so. However, if you are a sitting Democratic governor, senator or House member from a tough seat--superdelegates, all--a Clinton has probably campaigned for you at least once. That's another reason why I don't think Bernie will flip many superdelegates, even if he can somehow find a way to significantly close the gap in pledged delegates.

So, this stuck out:

That's disingenuous. Caucuses don't count votes like primaries. If we applied his percentages in the caucuses he's won to average voter turnout in the states he's won, we'd have much closer vote totals.

For example, he won 72.7% in Washington, which has a population of seven million. There's no way that wouldn't be at least a twenty point win even if WA had run a primary. WA has averaged about a 60% voter turnout over the past few decades. How many more votes would he have than the 20,000 listed for winning the caucus in a landslide? He's won all but two caucuses. That's a quirk in the system-- not an actual representation of voter sentiment.

I wouldn't combine the vote totals, either, except as the roughest of measures. But the other factor here is that caucuses and primaries are completely different animals. With a caucus, you have to be some place at a specific time, often (especially with the Democrats) for a long time.

In some states, and Washington is the perfect example, there's no caucus tradition. There's no fanfare. Only 26,000 people attended Democratic caucuses in Washington. They meet at someone's private home, and it's largely word of mouth. So you naturally get a less diverse spread of voters. To extrapolate a vote percentage to the entire voting population isn't a sound statistical hypothesis.

Secondly, caucuses are linked to regions. It's mostly big states with smaller populations and mostly states west of the Mississippi. The demographics happen to favor Cruz and Sanders.

So it turns out Sanders won more Missouri delegates after all, and Clinton's lead is cut back down to 204.

Yet Sanders people are all ranting that the process is rigged because Sanders won Wyoming and they split the pledged delegates.

Actually, to be fair, looks like Sanders won 56-44 of the popular vote but Clinton has an 11-7 advantage in delegates.

I believe that WY only had 14 delegates at stake for the vote itself (the others superdelegates, likely). And they were split 7-7.

It appears their rule does have a tendency toward an even split in this situation. To get an 8-6 split, your candidate must reach at least that implied percentage... 8-6 represents a bit more than 57%. Since Sanders won around 56%, he was just short.

Personally, I think I'd prefer a system that apportions the delegates most closely to the actual result (and here, 8-6 seems intuitively closer) but the "at least" rule is not completely unfounded.

.

I see 18. 7 for both and 4 soft commits to Hillary.

Right, but the additional 4 are not awarded based on the primary result.

The issue was just that there's three categories of Democrat delegates in Wyoming, 8 are allocated "by congressional district", 4 are allocated as "at large" regular delegates, and 2 are allocated as "at large" Party Leader & Elected Official delegates." Proportionally, Sanders got 4.4 of the congressional district delegates, which rounds down to 4, 2.2 of the at-large delegates, which rounds down to 2, and 1.1 of the PLEO delegates, which rounds down to 1.

Or, it was a conspiracy set in motion by the "crooks on wall street", one or the other.

Wyoming Democratic Delegation 2016

I guess I need lay assistance, what does the above website refer to when it says there are 18 delegate votes and that Hillary won 11 of them, while Sanders only won 7? And what are these guys upset about here?



I'm just among the masses of lowly uneducated citizens.

This is the old pledged delegate/superdelegate difference. Pledged delegates are what are up for grabs in primaries and caucuses. Superdelegates are nominally attached to states, but are really party people (elected officials, important persons, etc.) who are free agents. So in the pledged delegate count, it split 7-7 as Quik explained above. Bernie just missed the threshold to pick up an extra delegate. All four superdelegates have committed to HRC, but they are not bound by that commitment and can switch at any time. They are also not bound by the state vote. HRC holds a massive superdelegate lead. Again the superdelegates are nominally assigned to states, but they're really free agents in the process.

14 delegates.


4 delegates

Despite winning the popular vote 56%-44%...
And with no regard for the popular vote, 4 Wyoming delegates voted for HRC......but they haven't...so currently they are listed as 4 votes for HRC.


Right, these are buffer votes...are they paid-for votes? Establishment votes?

Bottom Line: Pledged Delegates (14) + Super Delegates (4) = Delegates (18)

Sanders - 56%
Clinton - 44%

Sanders - 7 delegates
Clinton - 11 delegates

Now I get it. Thanks for the clarification.

Probably been said before but he was never part of/supported the Democrats before this election. There's no reason for Bernie to expect the Democrat super delegates to suddenly support him now.

So, the answer is....don't win over the people...be a part of the Establishment/Insider clique if you want to be the Democratic nominee.

It's not a conspiracy, but the rules do provide a hefty "home field advantage" so the parties nominee beats the people's nominee....if they are different but close.

Not sure what
The ratio is between pledge and super delegates....

Clinton had the same SuperDel advantage over Senator Obama. But then he got a lead in pledged delegates. And the Supers came over. Superdelegates are politicians. They will follow the will of the people by and large because that tends to be in their own interest.

If Sanders were leading Clinton in pledged delegates, we would be having a very very different conversation now. He'd have a legitimate argument that the supers should come over to him.

As it is, she leads him in pledged delegates, and she will lead him when the voting is all done. And she beat him in most of the purple states. Other than "I did a lot better than people thought I would," I can see no argument for Bernie deserving the nomination. Clinton beat him.

Ahh, okay, well that makes sense and is much more palatable. Thanks!

It makes sense that actually being a member of the party should help one win that party's nomination. Sanders was free to run as an independent, but he's never been a part of the club he's trying to take over now.

That also makes sense. Fair.

I get that. And it applies to Trump as well. But why, then, should we as taxpayers fund these primaries? These are clubs, and if elite membership is some sort of seniority thing, which makes sense, they should fund their own damned nominating contests.

I'm fine with that. I'm also very much in favor of closing all primaries to party members (like they do in Europe), but some states mandate open primaries as well.

The other upside is that you wouldn't have all these states climb over each other to get a plumb primary date.

BTW, that link to the Morning Joe that Dutch linked just makes me realize how stupid that show actually is. Scarborough just wants to yell rather than actually figure things out. We broke it down and explained it at FOFC FAAAAAR quicker than they would have.

We should have our own political cable show.

It might just be me being more willing to understand now that I do t have anybody to root for. :)

Wait, how does closing the primaries change the mad rush to be "first"?
What am I not following here?

(I don't disagree with you or Jim on either point in that sequence fwiw, I'm just not following how either change would eliminate the whole firstfirstfirst madness. That's all about attention grabbing by the states, hoping to feel important)

:withstupid:

Compare Frontline ratings to Fox/MSNBC/CNN (and also realize how much saner and more valuable talking about stuff for one hour a day instead of 24 is). Rational explanations and compromise do not get idiots to watch you for 8 hours a day.
Disagree with this part. Nobody would campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire if they weren't first. Now, whether we want any states to have outsize importance, or if those are the states we want to be the epicenter of the early debate is a bigger question, but clearly under the current system making yourself unique or early does increase the amount your constituents are heard/pandered to.

So you agree with me then, not disagree.

Because that what I was saying, it's attention grabbing in order to feel important. I meant (primarily) to the candidates/campaigns who will give them 15-18 minutes of pandering to & pretending to give a shit about whatever interests(s) the voters in IA, NH, or whomever else jumps into a key date early happen to have.

It was in response to this:


If States aren't involved, that means the Democratic Party decides everything, including dates of primaries. They can say "this is when the primaries are" and the State legislatures would have no input.

Okay, it was that extra step (assuming the national party offices would decide dates) that I hadn't taken along with you.

Effectively, then, Jim just described/proposed a caucus system run entirely by the parties be the method in every state. Because the expense of voting machines, etc. pretty much makes traditional voting (as we think of it) a non-starter.

I was thinking of the change being more along the lines of states remaining involved for the reason of practical realities but with the parties being responsible for picking up at least portions of the costs.

Sorry for the confusion, it was completely legit (and apparently got Ben too) & I appreciate the patient clarification.

No worries... I realized in re-reading that the second paragraph could have been seen as a continuation of the first rather than referencing back up to the quoted.

Do States that go early have additional primaries later in the year? Cause that's kind of silly if they do.

PA has an interesting (D)Senate primary race. Everyone in the establishment is hoping this McGinty lady will win but Joe Sestak is ahead by about 10 points.

Yes, it got me, and yes, now I'm with you with the clarification.