[an]

You’re right, public school teachers does get paid a lot more than private school teachers:

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=55

yet, private school class size is smaller and private school on average tend to perform better than public school. With the advantage economy of scale for public school, we should be able to afford to pay more for public school and still spend the same per student and have similar class size. Yet, we’re not.

[an]

You’re right, public school teachers does get paid a lot more than private school teachers:

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=55

yet, private school class size is smaller and private school on average tend to perform better than public school. With the advantage economy of scale for public school, we should be able to afford to pay more for public school and still spend the same per student and have similar class size. Yet, we’re not.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]It’s a complicated issue, largely because public employment has a political component that doesn’t exist in the private sector. As a teacher, you’re subject to the changing winds of state and local politics, and public perception. People in the public sector — especially administrators — tend to have more “dictatorial” traits (for lack of a better word), and with every change in administration or in other, political positions, teachers have to deal with new dictates, opinions, and pedagogy.[/quote]
Private corporation have similar environment. The public determine whether your product is desirable or not and you will have to change your projects to meet market demands. There are corporate politics, not that dissimilar to public politics.

[quote=CA renter]For example, at one elementary school, one of the principals would walk down the hallway, listening to teachers to see if anyone was using phonics instruction. This principal felt strongly about the “whole language” approach, and would write-up anyone who was using phonics, even if it was just a component of their teaching. The next principal was just the opposite, and demanded that all teachers use phonics, instead. The teachers not only have to deal with these VERY opinionated administrators, they also have new materials, techniques, and mandates that come from the state or federal level.

Teachers tend to feel pretty strongly, themselves, about what to teach and how to teach. Some teachers have many decade’s worth of classroom experience, and have seen all these methods come in and out of vogue over the years. They know what works for their students, and many feel that they have to stand their ground in order to teach, as opposed to promoting someone’s political agenda (as is often the case when people from outside of the classroom try to change things).

As you can imagine, things can get pretty heated when teachers oppose administrators and/or politicians regarding these topics, and this is one of the reasons for tenure. You really have to understand the personalities involved in education. It’s like a collection of kingdoms, where everyone wants to tell those below them what to do. Teachers need to be able to fight back, if it’s in the students’ best interests. While a few bad apples might be protected, I think it’s still a better system than one where there is constant teacher turnover and low morale.[/quote]
How is this any different from private companies? Especially publicly traded companies where CEO changes probably just as often if not more than principals. Some CEO might want to micromanage while other give their troops more free reign. Some CEO might want to enforce a certain type of developmental style while others have a different style and if you have a change of the guards, you’ll get the same type of problem you just specified above. Yet, not every company have high turnover and low morale. Some are the totally opposite. For that matter, what’s your definition of high turn over? If the school have too high of a turnover rate, good teachers will not want to work there. If we have a voucher system and parents get to decide where to send their kids, then parents will pull their kids out of that school. Which will force the school to change to keep the good teachers happy. You seem to give parents way too little credit.

[quote=CA renter]BTW, it’s not like teachers can’t be fired. I’ve personally seen it happen on a couple of occasions. It’s just that teachers, once tenured, cannot be fired without cause. Principals simply have to follow certain procedures in order to substantiate their reasons for firing someone. Personally, I think it’s a better system because the administrators cannot simply fill a school with people who agree with them. They might have political motivations — many public administrators want to move into politics. Teachers need to be able to withstand the ever-changing fads and trends of the day, so they can focus on teaching the students, instead.[/quote]
If it’s really that easy to fire teachers, then why is there a need for the rubber room? Every documentaries and articles/blogs I’ve seen/read regarding schools mentioned how hard it is to fire teacher. Some interview teachers in the rubber rooms while other give students cameras to record the bad teachers they have. Some try to prove that some teachers gets lazier after they get tenure. Here are some links: http://thinkfree.freedomblogging.com/2009/05/05/34-things-that-will-get-a-teacher-fired/975/
http://www.teachersunionexposed.com/protecting.cfm
There are many others, just Google “how hard is it to fire a teacher”. If you try to search this same thing for different profession, you don’t get the same results.

[quote=CA renter]As for higher pay…nice in theory, but will probably never happen. School districts are hurting even in the best of times. California’s #1 expenditure is education, and we all know the state’s finances probably aren’t going to recover in the near future. We’re stuck with over-crowded classrooms and under-paid teachers, at least for now.[/quote]SDUSD is spending more per pupil than I am on my son’s private school. Yet, the class size for my son’s private school is MUCH smaller. So, we’re definitely not getting our money’s worth with public school. Especially when public school supposed to have the better purchasing power due to size and many of the administrative jobs can be shared between schools to reduce cost. So, there’s waste somewhere.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]It’s a complicated issue, largely because public employment has a political component that doesn’t exist in the private sector. As a teacher, you’re subject to the changing winds of state and local politics, and public perception. People in the public sector — especially administrators — tend to have more “dictatorial” traits (for lack of a better word), and with every change in administration or in other, political positions, teachers have to deal with new dictates, opinions, and pedagogy.[/quote]
Private corporation have similar environment. The public determine whether your product is desirable or not and you will have to change your projects to meet market demands. There are corporate politics, not that dissimilar to public politics.

[quote=CA renter]For example, at one elementary school, one of the principals would walk down the hallway, listening to teachers to see if anyone was using phonics instruction. This principal felt strongly about the “whole language” approach, and would write-up anyone who was using phonics, even if it was just a component of their teaching. The next principal was just the opposite, and demanded that all teachers use phonics, instead. The teachers not only have to deal with these VERY opinionated administrators, they also have new materials, techniques, and mandates that come from the state or federal level.

Teachers tend to feel pretty strongly, themselves, about what to teach and how to teach. Some teachers have many decade’s worth of classroom experience, and have seen all these methods come in and out of vogue over the years. They know what works for their students, and many feel that they have to stand their ground in order to teach, as opposed to promoting someone’s political agenda (as is often the case when people from outside of the classroom try to change things).

As you can imagine, things can get pretty heated when teachers oppose administrators and/or politicians regarding these topics, and this is one of the reasons for tenure. You really have to understand the personalities involved in education. It’s like a collection of kingdoms, where everyone wants to tell those below them what to do. Teachers need to be able to fight back, if it’s in the students’ best interests. While a few bad apples might be protected, I think it’s still a better system than one where there is constant teacher turnover and low morale.[/quote]
How is this any different from private companies? Especially publicly traded companies where CEO changes probably just as often if not more than principals. Some CEO might want to micromanage while other give their troops more free reign. Some CEO might want to enforce a certain type of developmental style while others have a different style and if you have a change of the guards, you’ll get the same type of problem you just specified above. Yet, not every company have high turnover and low morale. Some are the totally opposite. For that matter, what’s your definition of high turn over? If the school have too high of a turnover rate, good teachers will not want to work there. If we have a voucher system and parents get to decide where to send their kids, then parents will pull their kids out of that school. Which will force the school to change to keep the good teachers happy. You seem to give parents way too little credit.

[quote=CA renter]BTW, it’s not like teachers can’t be fired. I’ve personally seen it happen on a couple of occasions. It’s just that teachers, once tenured, cannot be fired without cause. Principals simply have to follow certain procedures in order to substantiate their reasons for firing someone. Personally, I think it’s a better system because the administrators cannot simply fill a school with people who agree with them. They might have political motivations — many public administrators want to move into politics. Teachers need to be able to withstand the ever-changing fads and trends of the day, so they can focus on teaching the students, instead.[/quote]
If it’s really that easy to fire teachers, then why is there a need for the rubber room? Every documentaries and articles/blogs I’ve seen/read regarding schools mentioned how hard it is to fire teacher. Some interview teachers in the rubber rooms while other give students cameras to record the bad teachers they have. Some try to prove that some teachers gets lazier after they get tenure. Here are some links: http://thinkfree.freedomblogging.com/2009/05/05/34-things-that-will-get-a-teacher-fired/975/
http://www.teachersunionexposed.com/protecting.cfm
There are many others, just Google “how hard is it to fire a teacher”. If you try to search this same thing for different profession, you don’t get the same results.

[quote=CA renter]As for higher pay…nice in theory, but will probably never happen. School districts are hurting even in the best of times. California’s #1 expenditure is education, and we all know the state’s finances probably aren’t going to recover in the near future. We’re stuck with over-crowded classrooms and under-paid teachers, at least for now.[/quote]SDUSD is spending more per pupil than I am on my son’s private school. Yet, the class size for my son’s private school is MUCH smaller. So, we’re definitely not getting our money’s worth with public school. Especially when public school supposed to have the better purchasing power due to size and many of the administrative jobs can be shared between schools to reduce cost. So, there’s waste somewhere.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]It’s a complicated issue, largely because public employment has a political component that doesn’t exist in the private sector. As a teacher, you’re subject to the changing winds of state and local politics, and public perception. People in the public sector — especially administrators — tend to have more “dictatorial” traits (for lack of a better word), and with every change in administration or in other, political positions, teachers have to deal with new dictates, opinions, and pedagogy.[/quote]
Private corporation have similar environment. The public determine whether your product is desirable or not and you will have to change your projects to meet market demands. There are corporate politics, not that dissimilar to public politics.

[quote=CA renter]For example, at one elementary school, one of the principals would walk down the hallway, listening to teachers to see if anyone was using phonics instruction. This principal felt strongly about the “whole language” approach, and would write-up anyone who was using phonics, even if it was just a component of their teaching. The next principal was just the opposite, and demanded that all teachers use phonics, instead. The teachers not only have to deal with these VERY opinionated administrators, they also have new materials, techniques, and mandates that come from the state or federal level.

Teachers tend to feel pretty strongly, themselves, about what to teach and how to teach. Some teachers have many decade’s worth of classroom experience, and have seen all these methods come in and out of vogue over the years. They know what works for their students, and many feel that they have to stand their ground in order to teach, as opposed to promoting someone’s political agenda (as is often the case when people from outside of the classroom try to change things).

As you can imagine, things can get pretty heated when teachers oppose administrators and/or politicians regarding these topics, and this is one of the reasons for tenure. You really have to understand the personalities involved in education. It’s like a collection of kingdoms, where everyone wants to tell those below them what to do. Teachers need to be able to fight back, if it’s in the students’ best interests. While a few bad apples might be protected, I think it’s still a better system than one where there is constant teacher turnover and low morale.[/quote]
How is this any different from private companies? Especially publicly traded companies where CEO changes probably just as often if not more than principals. Some CEO might want to micromanage while other give their troops more free reign. Some CEO might want to enforce a certain type of developmental style while others have a different style and if you have a change of the guards, you’ll get the same type of problem you just specified above. Yet, not every company have high turnover and low morale. Some are the totally opposite. For that matter, what’s your definition of high turn over? If the school have too high of a turnover rate, good teachers will not want to work there. If we have a voucher system and parents get to decide where to send their kids, then parents will pull their kids out of that school. Which will force the school to change to keep the good teachers happy. You seem to give parents way too little credit.

[quote=CA renter]BTW, it’s not like teachers can’t be fired. I’ve personally seen it happen on a couple of occasions. It’s just that teachers, once tenured, cannot be fired without cause. Principals simply have to follow certain procedures in order to substantiate their reasons for firing someone. Personally, I think it’s a better system because the administrators cannot simply fill a school with people who agree with them. They might have political motivations — many public administrators want to move into politics. Teachers need to be able to withstand the ever-changing fads and trends of the day, so they can focus on teaching the students, instead.[/quote]
If it’s really that easy to fire teachers, then why is there a need for the rubber room? Every documentaries and articles/blogs I’ve seen/read regarding schools mentioned how hard it is to fire teacher. Some interview teachers in the rubber rooms while other give students cameras to record the bad teachers they have. Some try to prove that some teachers gets lazier after they get tenure. Here are some links: http://thinkfree.freedomblogging.com/2009/05/05/34-things-that-will-get-a-teacher-fired/975/
http://www.teachersunionexposed.com/protecting.cfm
There are many others, just Google “how hard is it to fire a teacher”. If you try to search this same thing for different profession, you don’t get the same results.

[quote=CA renter]As for higher pay…nice in theory, but will probably never happen. School districts are hurting even in the best of times. California’s #1 expenditure is education, and we all know the state’s finances probably aren’t going to recover in the near future. We’re stuck with over-crowded classrooms and under-paid teachers, at least for now.[/quote]SDUSD is spending more per pupil than I am on my son’s private school. Yet, the class size for my son’s private school is MUCH smaller. So, we’re definitely not getting our money’s worth with public school. Especially when public school supposed to have the better purchasing power due to size and many of the administrative jobs can be shared between schools to reduce cost. So, there’s waste somewhere.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]It’s a complicated issue, largely because public employment has a political component that doesn’t exist in the private sector. As a teacher, you’re subject to the changing winds of state and local politics, and public perception. People in the public sector — especially administrators — tend to have more “dictatorial” traits (for lack of a better word), and with every change in administration or in other, political positions, teachers have to deal with new dictates, opinions, and pedagogy.[/quote]
Private corporation have similar environment. The public determine whether your product is desirable or not and you will have to change your projects to meet market demands. There are corporate politics, not that dissimilar to public politics.

[quote=CA renter]For example, at one elementary school, one of the principals would walk down the hallway, listening to teachers to see if anyone was using phonics instruction. This principal felt strongly about the “whole language” approach, and would write-up anyone who was using phonics, even if it was just a component of their teaching. The next principal was just the opposite, and demanded that all teachers use phonics, instead. The teachers not only have to deal with these VERY opinionated administrators, they also have new materials, techniques, and mandates that come from the state or federal level.

Teachers tend to feel pretty strongly, themselves, about what to teach and how to teach. Some teachers have many decade’s worth of classroom experience, and have seen all these methods come in and out of vogue over the years. They know what works for their students, and many feel that they have to stand their ground in order to teach, as opposed to promoting someone’s political agenda (as is often the case when people from outside of the classroom try to change things).

As you can imagine, things can get pretty heated when teachers oppose administrators and/or politicians regarding these topics, and this is one of the reasons for tenure. You really have to understand the personalities involved in education. It’s like a collection of kingdoms, where everyone wants to tell those below them what to do. Teachers need to be able to fight back, if it’s in the students’ best interests. While a few bad apples might be protected, I think it’s still a better system than one where there is constant teacher turnover and low morale.[/quote]
How is this any different from private companies? Especially publicly traded companies where CEO changes probably just as often if not more than principals. Some CEO might want to micromanage while other give their troops more free reign. Some CEO might want to enforce a certain type of developmental style while others have a different style and if you have a change of the guards, you’ll get the same type of problem you just specified above. Yet, not every company have high turnover and low morale. Some are the totally opposite. For that matter, what’s your definition of high turn over? If the school have too high of a turnover rate, good teachers will not want to work there. If we have a voucher system and parents get to decide where to send their kids, then parents will pull their kids out of that school. Which will force the school to change to keep the good teachers happy. You seem to give parents way too little credit.

[quote=CA renter]BTW, it’s not like teachers can’t be fired. I’ve personally seen it happen on a couple of occasions. It’s just that teachers, once tenured, cannot be fired without cause. Principals simply have to follow certain procedures in order to substantiate their reasons for firing someone. Personally, I think it’s a better system because the administrators cannot simply fill a school with people who agree with them. They might have political motivations — many public administrators want to move into politics. Teachers need to be able to withstand the ever-changing fads and trends of the day, so they can focus on teaching the students, instead.[/quote]
If it’s really that easy to fire teachers, then why is there a need for the rubber room? Every documentaries and articles/blogs I’ve seen/read regarding schools mentioned how hard it is to fire teacher. Some interview teachers in the rubber rooms while other give students cameras to record the bad teachers they have. Some try to prove that some teachers gets lazier after they get tenure. Here are some links: http://thinkfree.freedomblogging.com/2009/05/05/34-things-that-will-get-a-teacher-fired/975/
http://www.teachersunionexposed.com/protecting.cfm
There are many others, just Google “how hard is it to fire a teacher”. If you try to search this same thing for different profession, you don’t get the same results.

[quote=CA renter]As for higher pay…nice in theory, but will probably never happen. School districts are hurting even in the best of times. California’s #1 expenditure is education, and we all know the state’s finances probably aren’t going to recover in the near future. We’re stuck with over-crowded classrooms and under-paid teachers, at least for now.[/quote]SDUSD is spending more per pupil than I am on my son’s private school. Yet, the class size for my son’s private school is MUCH smaller. So, we’re definitely not getting our money’s worth with public school. Especially when public school supposed to have the better purchasing power due to size and many of the administrative jobs can be shared between schools to reduce cost. So, there’s waste somewhere.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]It’s a complicated issue, largely because public employment has a political component that doesn’t exist in the private sector. As a teacher, you’re subject to the changing winds of state and local politics, and public perception. People in the public sector — especially administrators — tend to have more “dictatorial” traits (for lack of a better word), and with every change in administration or in other, political positions, teachers have to deal with new dictates, opinions, and pedagogy.[/quote]
Private corporation have similar environment. The public determine whether your product is desirable or not and you will have to change your projects to meet market demands. There are corporate politics, not that dissimilar to public politics.

[quote=CA renter]For example, at one elementary school, one of the principals would walk down the hallway, listening to teachers to see if anyone was using phonics instruction. This principal felt strongly about the “whole language” approach, and would write-up anyone who was using phonics, even if it was just a component of their teaching. The next principal was just the opposite, and demanded that all teachers use phonics, instead. The teachers not only have to deal with these VERY opinionated administrators, they also have new materials, techniques, and mandates that come from the state or federal level.

Teachers tend to feel pretty strongly, themselves, about what to teach and how to teach. Some teachers have many decade’s worth of classroom experience, and have seen all these methods come in and out of vogue over the years. They know what works for their students, and many feel that they have to stand their ground in order to teach, as opposed to promoting someone’s political agenda (as is often the case when people from outside of the classroom try to change things).

As you can imagine, things can get pretty heated when teachers oppose administrators and/or politicians regarding these topics, and this is one of the reasons for tenure. You really have to understand the personalities involved in education. It’s like a collection of kingdoms, where everyone wants to tell those below them what to do. Teachers need to be able to fight back, if it’s in the students’ best interests. While a few bad apples might be protected, I think it’s still a better system than one where there is constant teacher turnover and low morale.[/quote]
How is this any different from private companies? Especially publicly traded companies where CEO changes probably just as often if not more than principals. Some CEO might want to micromanage while other give their troops more free reign. Some CEO might want to enforce a certain type of developmental style while others have a different style and if you have a change of the guards, you’ll get the same type of problem you just specified above. Yet, not every company have high turnover and low morale. Some are the totally opposite. For that matter, what’s your definition of high turn over? If the school have too high of a turnover rate, good teachers will not want to work there. If we have a voucher system and parents get to decide where to send their kids, then parents will pull their kids out of that school. Which will force the school to change to keep the good teachers happy. You seem to give parents way too little credit.

[quote=CA renter]BTW, it’s not like teachers can’t be fired. I’ve personally seen it happen on a couple of occasions. It’s just that teachers, once tenured, cannot be fired without cause. Principals simply have to follow certain procedures in order to substantiate their reasons for firing someone. Personally, I think it’s a better system because the administrators cannot simply fill a school with people who agree with them. They might have political motivations — many public administrators want to move into politics. Teachers need to be able to withstand the ever-changing fads and trends of the day, so they can focus on teaching the students, instead.[/quote]
If it’s really that easy to fire teachers, then why is there a need for the rubber room? Every documentaries and articles/blogs I’ve seen/read regarding schools mentioned how hard it is to fire teacher. Some interview teachers in the rubber rooms while other give students cameras to record the bad teachers they have. Some try to prove that some teachers gets lazier after they get tenure. Here are some links: http://thinkfree.freedomblogging.com/2009/05/05/34-things-that-will-get-a-teacher-fired/975/
http://www.teachersunionexposed.com/protecting.cfm
There are many others, just Google “how hard is it to fire a teacher”. If you try to search this same thing for different profession, you don’t get the same results.

[quote=CA renter]As for higher pay…nice in theory, but will probably never happen. School districts are hurting even in the best of times. California’s #1 expenditure is education, and we all know the state’s finances probably aren’t going to recover in the near future. We’re stuck with over-crowded classrooms and under-paid teachers, at least for now.[/quote]SDUSD is spending more per pupil than I am on my son’s private school. Yet, the class size for my son’s private school is MUCH smaller. So, we’re definitely not getting our money’s worth with public school. Especially when public school supposed to have the better purchasing power due to size and many of the administrative jobs can be shared between schools to reduce cost. So, there’s waste somewhere.

[an]

[quote=briansd1][quote=AN]
That’s like saying, Democrats would never ever win presidential elections with the low-income Hispanic and Black votes. Obama win 96% of the Black vote and 67% of the Hispanic vote. [/quote]

Absolutely. That’s why Democrats support policies that help their base of voters.

I just wonder how Republican economic policies help the poor White folks who live in Mississippi, Missouri, Alabama, etc….[/quote]
You’ve heard of the term “bible thumper” right? Need I say more? I can guarantee you that if a democrat say he’s pro life and anti gay marriage, he/she will get a big vote there too.

[an]

[quote=briansd1][quote=AN]
That’s like saying, Democrats would never ever win presidential elections with the low-income Hispanic and Black votes. Obama win 96% of the Black vote and 67% of the Hispanic vote. [/quote]

Absolutely. That’s why Democrats support policies that help their base of voters.

I just wonder how Republican economic policies help the poor White folks who live in Mississippi, Missouri, Alabama, etc….[/quote]
You’ve heard of the term “bible thumper” right? Need I say more? I can guarantee you that if a democrat say he’s pro life and anti gay marriage, he/she will get a big vote there too.

[an]

[quote=briansd1][quote=AN]
That’s like saying, Democrats would never ever win presidential elections with the low-income Hispanic and Black votes. Obama win 96% of the Black vote and 67% of the Hispanic vote. [/quote]

Absolutely. That’s why Democrats support policies that help their base of voters.

I just wonder how Republican economic policies help the poor White folks who live in Mississippi, Missouri, Alabama, etc….[/quote]
You’ve heard of the term “bible thumper” right? Need I say more? I can guarantee you that if a democrat say he’s pro life and anti gay marriage, he/she will get a big vote there too.

[an]

[quote=briansd1][quote=AN]
That’s like saying, Democrats would never ever win presidential elections with the low-income Hispanic and Black votes. Obama win 96% of the Black vote and 67% of the Hispanic vote. [/quote]

Absolutely. That’s why Democrats support policies that help their base of voters.

I just wonder how Republican economic policies help the poor White folks who live in Mississippi, Missouri, Alabama, etc….[/quote]
You’ve heard of the term “bible thumper” right? Need I say more? I can guarantee you that if a democrat say he’s pro life and anti gay marriage, he/she will get a big vote there too.

[an]

[quote=briansd1][quote=AN]
That’s like saying, Democrats would never ever win presidential elections with the low-income Hispanic and Black votes. Obama win 96% of the Black vote and 67% of the Hispanic vote. [/quote]

Absolutely. That’s why Democrats support policies that help their base of voters.

I just wonder how Republican economic policies help the poor White folks who live in Mississippi, Missouri, Alabama, etc….[/quote]
You’ve heard of the term “bible thumper” right? Need I say more? I can guarantee you that if a democrat say he’s pro life and anti gay marriage, he/she will get a big vote there too.

[an]

[quote=briansd1]
More generally, it’s clear that Republicans would never, ever, win presidential elections without the low-income Whites in the Red States. That’s why George Bush won the electoral votes and became President, whereas Al Gore got the popular vote but lost.

Those last two items are facts hard to deny.[/quote]
That’s like saying, Democrats would never ever win presidential elections with the low-income Hispanic and Black votes. Obama win 96% of the Black vote and 67% of the Hispanic vote. If Hispanic and Black votes were more statistically evenly divided, and more in line with Americans in general…

[an]

[quote=briansd1]
More generally, it’s clear that Republicans would never, ever, win presidential elections without the low-income Whites in the Red States. That’s why George Bush won the electoral votes and became President, whereas Al Gore got the popular vote but lost.

Those last two items are facts hard to deny.[/quote]
That’s like saying, Democrats would never ever win presidential elections with the low-income Hispanic and Black votes. Obama win 96% of the Black vote and 67% of the Hispanic vote. If Hispanic and Black votes were more statistically evenly divided, and more in line with Americans in general…

[an]

[quote=briansd1]
More generally, it’s clear that Republicans would never, ever, win presidential elections without the low-income Whites in the Red States. That’s why George Bush won the electoral votes and became President, whereas Al Gore got the popular vote but lost.

Those last two items are facts hard to deny.[/quote]
That’s like saying, Democrats would never ever win presidential elections with the low-income Hispanic and Black votes. Obama win 96% of the Black vote and 67% of the Hispanic vote. If Hispanic and Black votes were more statistically evenly divided, and more in line with Americans in general…

[Author]

Posts