“The citation I provided previously includes public college polls in some of the states.”
No, it does not. Go to the page you cited. Search that page for the word ‘tuition’; you’ll get zero hits. Search that page for ‘college’. You’ll get eleven hits, ten of which refer to the education of the respondent and one of which refers to ‘college football’. There is nothing whatsoever on that page about college tuition.
The page I linked was for Washington exit polls. You can filter at the top of the page by different states. For example, here’s a link to the California exit polls where the question was included. Note I said “includes public college polls in SOME of the states”: https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/entrance-and-exit-polls/california/democratic
I cannot address whether any of the 1100 community colleges charge no tuition. However, land-grant colleges and universities in the United States did not charge any tuition until the 1960s. In other words, Mr. Sanders’ proposal was actually in effect for a century in this country.
Yes! Which was a very good thing, but sadly no longer exists. Sanders has actually pointed out on several occasions that public colleges used to be tuition-free. Your assertion that “publicly funded colleges have been around since the Morrill Act of 1862” obscures the fact that public colleges are no longer tuition free, and have not been for over 50 years. So yes, Sanders’ ideas have been put into practice historically, which was part of his campaign pitch. Sanders’ ideas are ‘new’ in the sense that making public colleges tuition free has not been on the table for the past half-century.
The fact that people support something that they are ignorant of does not make it a good idea. I have actually read Mr. Sanders’ GND proposals on his website, and they are nonsensical.
That is your opinion on Sanders’ GND program. The fact remains that the majority of Democratic voters support a GND when the question is posed to them. Voters by and large don’t know the ins and of all kinds of almost every kind of policy you can think of. By your reasoning, we can’t take voters’ policy preferences on anything seriously, and therefore polling is useless altogether. Even Republican voters who are more ‘aware’ of the GND are likely totally ignorant (or deliberately misinformed) on the details.
I object to mendacity. I deny falsehoods. That puts me at odds with Mr. Sanders and his supporters.
And yet you consistently use rhetorical subterfuge to support your own beliefs. I’m glad you retracted your statements on the M4A question, but your claim that Sanders’ free tuition proposals are not “new or original” is an example of this. First, you say publicly funded colleges have been around since the 1860s (technically true) and that because of this, Sanders’ plans are not ‘new’ (also technically true). But here you leave out that all public colleges in the university system have not been tuition free since at least the 1960s, which is the crux of Sanders’ proposal. So the trick here is to conflate the existence of some publicly funded colleges with a tuition-free university system in order to make the rhetorical point that Sanders’ proposal is banal, when in fact it is a massive departure from the past 50 years of higher education financing. I’ve noticed this tactic from you repeated again and again, and it’s quite annoying to deal with because I think you *know better* but do it anyway.