Mediaboss Marketing

Advertiser Disclosure

Theres almost no way to avoid car insurance, but you do have a choice when it comes to which car insurance company you use. Two providers that most everyone has heard of are household names Progressive and Geico.

Both leaders in the auto insurance industry, Progressive and Geico are known across the country for a reason. But each has its own advantages and disadvantages, so today we are going to evaluate Geico vs Progressive by comparing the providers car insurance rates, coverage, and customer satisfaction scores. Depending on what your individual needs are, you will likely find that one company is more appealing than the other.

In this article:

Competitive rates

Numerous discounts, including for federal employees

Mechanical breakdown coverage

Some customers complain about poor communication

Easy quotes process

Comprehensive roadside assistance

Snapshot usage-based program

Average customer satisfaction scores

Both of these companies have a reputation for entertaining advertisements with the Geico Gecko and Progressives Flo as mascot and spokeswoman for the companies. But what do industry experts think? Heres a quick look at Progressive vs Geico ratings from the Better Business Bureau (BBB), AM Best, and J.D. Power.

When it comes to customer satisfaction, Geico definitely shines. Geicos strong BBB rating shows that the company is able to handle complaints in a timely and efficient manner, while Progressive seems to struggle with the BBB. J.D. Powers Auto Claims Satisfaction Study placed Geico near the top of the list (in fourth place), while Progressive was near the bottom of the 24 providers in the study. The Insurance Shopping Study, which ranked 20 providers, saw Geico near the middle of the pack and Progressive in second-to-last place.

However, both companies showed strong financial strength, proving that they are able to fulfill claims for customers.

When you compare online reviews for Geico vs Progressive, you can find positive and negative reviews for both providers. Lets take a look at a negative review for each to see what unhappy customers have reported:

I ended up sliding on ice and hitting a wall. I contacted Geico, and the adjuster checked out my car and determined the damage was fresh. Geico decides to put an investigator on my case, who then asked me for the tow companys information, the person that picked me up, the location of the accident, my coworkers numbers, neighbors numbers, my [bosss] numbers, and all of this I provided Then he tells me he will email me forms to sign. I [received] the email, and its a consent for my cell phone tower records and my car infotainment information, which I thought was ridiculous after almost two months dealing with this and no rental provided... I was furious and decided I wont deal with a company that treats a customer in a way as if hes a criminal.

-Justin J. via BBB

They are not there for you when you need them the most. I switched to Progressive from [another] company that was great for a lower premium. I paid my premiums in full, and then an accident happened. Their claims adjuster tries to find a reason not to cover me instead of giving me that warm feeling of being covered. Now things will need to go to arbitration just to try to get them to cover me.

-Nathan S. via BBB

Both Geico and Progressive provide standard coverage in all 50 states. These coverages include:

Most auto insurance companies offer standard coverage. What you really want to look at when comparing Progressive vs Geico is the additional car insurance coverage and other insurance options for your home, rental property, and more.

In our research, we found that Geico generally offers lower rates than Progressive. However, this may not always be the case depending on your details and driving history. The only way to know for sure how much a policy from one of these providers will cost is to obtain quotes from each. Thats because premiums are affected by the following factors.

The next step in shopping is to look at available car insurance discounts. You could have a higher base premium with one company but then get a lower cost in the end because of your discount eligibility. Lets compare Progressive vs Geico by looking at discounts for students, military, and more.

Roadside assistance is an important consideration for many drivers. After all, who wants to be stranded on the side of the road after an accident or breakdown? Both Geico and Progressive provide this coverage as an add-on. While the plans cost about the same amount of money, the exact services can vary. Heres a closer comparison of Progressive vs Geico.

Winching service

From this chart, we can see that Progressive offers more comprehensive roadside assistance plan than Geico.

Both Progressive and Geico have mobile-friendly websites and mobile apps. Through these avenues, you can manage your auto insurance policy online, pay your premiums, get access to ID cards, upload damage photos for claims, and call for roadside assistance. In addition, each company provides some extra digital tools to make insurance policy management easier.

After looking closely at the breakdowns between Progressive vs Geico, we have to declare the latter the winner, but not by much.

Overall, Geico scores higher in customer satisfaction and tends to have lower rates. With that said, you dont want to overlook Progressive. The company provides great gap coverage and some additional perks with its roadside assistance program.

To figure out which policy would be best for you, we highly recommend getting quotes from both companies. Like we mentioned, each persons premium will be different, so we wouldnt be surprised if you found better coverage with one provider than your neighbor did.

Best Company Overall

Compare Policies

Best for those ineligible for USAA: Offers competitive pricing and great coverage.

Great for Discount Bundles

Compare Policies

Offers a number of ways to get a discount, including the Snapshot tool or bundle options.

After comparing Geico vs Progressive, we highly recommend both auto insurance companies. However, there are a couple of other providers out there that you might consider while you shop. It doesnt take long to get a few quotes from competing insurance providers. Spending this time could save you money on your premiums. Just make sure the provider you choose also supplies great customer service and claims processing, or you could end up frustrated in your time of need.

We recently reviewed the best car insurance companies in the nation, and USAA was the only provider that we awarded five stars. That being said, USAA car insurance is only available to military service members and their families. But if you qualify, the company tends to have low rates, plenty of discounts, and the option to add on roadside assistance. Additionally, USAA excels in customer satisfaction studies, including both J.D. Power studies discussed above.

Like Progressive and Geico, we gave State Farm a 4.5-star rating. The provider has great ratings from industry leaders and offers an extensive list of discounts. If you have younger drivers on your policy, you might find more competitive rates with State Farm auto insurance.

Follow this link:
Geico Vs Progressive: Which Provider Is Best In 2020? - Motor1

The reason John Judis exploredwhy the radical left of the 1960s failed is because he wanted to issue a warning to the progressive movement that is forming today. Here is how he defines that movement.

For nearly a decade now, arguably dating to the Occupy movement of 2011, a new generation of left-wing activism has been stirring. A host of organizations (Indivisible, the Sunrise Movement, 350.org, Peoples Action, the Working Families Party, Black Lives Matter, the Justice Democrats, a revived Democratic Socialists of America) and new publications (Jacobin, the Intercept, Current Affairs) are doing what groups like SDS did in the 60s: elevating left-wing causes and promising dramatic societal change.

Judis goes on to specifically align those efforts with the presidential candidacies of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. He notes that Sanders is advocating for a political revolution and Warren is running on a platform of big, structural change.

While he points out that todays radical left is positioned to fare better than their predecessors, Judis warns that they are making some of the same mistakes that he identified as the reason the movement failed in the 1960s. But before he articulates those, Judis catalogues the conditions that led young people to be more amenable to radical ideas. In doing so, he points to things such as instability in the workforce, the cost of housing, and the decline of unions. Those were coupled with the disasters of the Iraq War and the Great Depression, followed by the threat of climate change and Donald Trumps presidency.

What stands out is that, even though Judis listed Black Lives Matter (but not organizations like United We Dream) as part of the new progressive movement, his list doesnt include anything about the racism of police shootings or nativist immigration policies. That becomes even more critical when his warning to todays progressives echos what he identified as the failure of their predecessors: identity politics.

[T]odays left has become fond of a political strategy that discounts the importance altogether of winning over the white working class. Such a strategy assumes Democrats can gain majorities simply by winning over people of color (a term that groups people of wildly varying backgrounds, incomes and worldviews), single women and the youngthe left is again dividing into identity groups, each of which feels justified in elevating its concerns above others

While activists focused on identity politics have, like their predecessors from the 60s, made perfectly reasonable demandsfor instance, an end to police brutality, or equal wages for men and womenthey have also made extreme demands that display an indifference to building a political majority. Some have backed reparations for slaveryan idea rejected by broad majorities of the electorate, most of whom are descended from immigrants who came to America after the Civil War. Other groups have demanded open borders, defying a majority of Americans who think the country should be able to decide who to admit as citizens and who will be able to enjoy the rights and benefits of being an American.

In the context of talking about the presidential candidacy of Bernie Sanders, the idea that todays left has discounted the importance of winning over the white working class is simply not factual. Sanders has made that the cornerstone of his entire political career, including his current run for president. Back in 2014, Simon Van Zuylen-Wood interviewed Sanders for an article in the National Journal. Here is how Sanders described his efforts to spark a political revolution.

Let me ask you, he says, his gangly frame struggling to contain itself to our couch, what is the largest voting bloc in America? Is it gay people? No. Is it African-Americans? No. Hispanics? No. What? Answer: White working-class people. Bring them back into the liberal fold, he figures, and youve got your revolution

How do you have a party that created Social Security lose the senior vote? Sanders asks me. The answer, he believes, is that seniors have been distracted from the pocketbook issues that should matter most in politics. The Left, in turn, can win them back, along with other white working-class voters, by downplaying the culture warswhat Ralph Nader once called gonadal issuesand instead focusing on economic populism.

Here is Sanders expressing that same view at a campaign stop in Georgia last year.

As you can see from that tweet, the criticism of Sanders is often that he attempts to appeal to white working-class voters at the expense of acknowledging racism as a factor.

Judis goes on to suggest that the current left is failing because they have made extreme demands when it comes to dealing with racism. But he ignores the possibility that white working-class voters might find that a Democratic socialist advocating for political revolution is equally extreme. In a subtle way, Judis seems to be acknowledging the fact that racism is a factor when it comes to appealing to white working-class voters by calling for moderation on racial issues while embracing extremism on those related to economics.

There is a case to be made that most Americansincluding white working-class votersare not prepared to support extremism on either front. The real test when it comes to building a progressive majority is the challenge of bringing together a coalition of voters. As Stacey Abrams suggested, that doesnt mean eschewing identity politics, it means letting voters know that we see all of you.

If that message is articulated clearly and some white working-class voters continue to object, it is very likely that racism is involved and they are never going to join a progressive coalition.

If you enjoyed this article, consider making a donation to help us produce more like it. The Washington Monthly was founded in 1969 to tell the stories of how government really worksand how to make it work better. Fifty years later, the need for incisive analysis and new, progressive policy ideas is clearer than ever. As a nonprofit, we rely on support from readers like you.

Yes, Ill make a donation

Read more from the original source:
Are Identity Politics Hampering the Current Progressive Movement? - Washington Monthly

BBC Question Time made a brief foray onto the national news agenda recently after panellist Laurence Fox accused an audience member of racism when she described him as a white, privileged male during a discussion about the medias treatment of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. The exchange set in motion a predictable chain of events: Fox began a tour of Britains TV and podcast studios, making a series of increasingly reactionary and attention-seeking statements. Across left-leaning social media, meanwhile, Fox was mocked with a mix of amusement, disdain and pity.

But focusing on the shallowness of Foxs opinions elides the most important element of the Question Time spectacle: the fact that a significant chunk of the audience groaned as soon as the phrase white privilege was uttered. Fox was not the only person in that studio who was weary of contemporary antiracist discourse, and he wasnt the only person willing to show it.

Indeed his Question Time performance is part of a trend for anti-woke celebrities, such as Piers Morgan (examples of his attention-grabbing antipathy to wokeness are too numerous to list here), the comedian Geoff Norcott, who complains about lifestyle prefects, and the Twitter parodist Andrew Doyle, who argues that woke bullies must be resisted.

It was therefore intriguing to see how many progressives regarded Foxs outburst as a surprising event as if the actor was a foreign object that suddenly crashed into our harmonious world of social liberalism. Not least because recent political developments suggest that there are millions of Laurence Foxes up and down the country, and that their views are mainstream. Note, for example, how David Walliams joke about Fox went down at the National Television Awards. Walliams implied that Fox would find himself friendless following his appearance on Question Time, presumably expecting laughter and not the chorus of oohs that came instead. Among liberals, Fox may be the object of mocking scorn but his sudden notoriety is just one symptom of a growing anti-woke backlash that deserves closer examination.

The progressive tendency to regard anti-woke crusaders as aberrations is a hangover from the liberal consensus established in the late 90s. New Labours landslide victory in 1997 didnt signal just a change in government, but an ostensible change in our nations culture. Exhausted and demoralised by the polarising Thatcher years, British people were apparently ready for a more liberal and tolerant era.

The new received wisdom dictated that women and LGBT+ people were equal (sort of), and racism was to be condemned (unless you were a Muslim). The reason liberals still believe this consensus holds is that the politics New Labour ushered in was so dominant and all-encompassing that almost every opinion that existed outside of it was dismissed as the view of cranks.

The most salient example of this is the Conservative party, which under the leadership of David Cameron recognised it would have to lean in to socially liberal values in order to gain a hearing. The culmination of this was that the Tories historically the party of homophobic legislation would eventually outflank New Labour by overseeing the introduction of equal marriage. In 2006, the Conservative and Blair critic Matthew Parris conceded in the Times: Britain is a nicer place than when [Blair] entered Downing Street. Something tolerant, something amiable...has left its mark upon the country.

In other words, social liberalism was not merely a popular point of view: it was the new normal. It was also fundamentally modernising. The idea of these newly founded values being contested would have seemed like time going backwards.

Now that same political consensus is collapsing across the world wherever it had been established. In its place is a new, young left that is more radical on issues of social liberalism, understanding that gender, sexuality and race are bound up with questions about power and privilege, and that these intersecting identities can produce significantly different life experiences. But as the tide of 90s social liberalism has ebbed, it has also revealed another group of people (primarily older, white homeowners and pensioners) who had never bought into the consensus in the first place, and are aggressively hostile to its newer, more radical iteration.

We all know a member of this demographic: alienated by the modern world and displeased by change, they are fond of complaining that You cant say anything any more! even as their opinions are widely reproduced in the nations print media. Perhaps they spent the 2000s retreating into the Daily Mail columns of Richard Littlejohn and his contemporaries, or simply feeling lost altogether. They are the people that have enabled Brexit and Donald Trump to succeed, and have since transformed themselves into the base of a potent political movement.

Having spent so long feeling silenced by the liberal consensus, people in this group have been given a new lease of life by the rights new insurgents. Not only were they correct all along; they were actually victims, zealously persecuted by an oversensitive and censorious society. It is this righteous indignation that lends their antipathy to wokeness a defiant and almost celebratory quality. As a friend of mine puts it, we are living in bigot Christmas.

On the right, it is common to argue that the backlash to wokeness has arisen because identity politics has gone too far and rendered itself impenetrable to the majority. (This is an argument sometimes echoed in parts of the left and centre.) This argument is usually accompanied by outlandish examples of identity politics, such as a paper that suggested Greek yoghurt has been culturally appropriated, or a blogpost decrying white veganism.

Theres no doubt that these examples would indeed be incomprehensible to the majority of people. But the idea that ordinary people are being driven into the arms of authoritarianism because of an excitable article they read on the internet is facile and any progressives adopting it should ask themselves why they are parroting arguments that are largely advanced by the far right. Indeed, if the political claims of people of colour and women really had gone too far, the distribution of power and wealth in the world would look very different.

Ultimately, Laurence Fox and others like him dont want to hear about white privilege because it makes visible what has always been hidden their power and forces them to justify it. Power is nice, and liberating, and those who have it tend not to give it up without a fight.

Progressives need to wise up to the fact that they are losing this argument and decide what they are going to do in response. If they dont, they may soon find that the future they always assumed was theirs is being made without them. Or as Florian Philippot, senior strategist to Marine Le Pen, tweeted after Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton: Their world is collapsing. Ours is being built.

Ellie Mae OHagan is a journalist and author

See the rest here:
The anti-woke backlash is no joke and progressives are going to lose if they dont wise up - The Guardian

As the ever-interesting potentials of a new year begin, it might be a good time to rethink habituation as a functional approach to politics. Nowhere is this soul train to misery more evident than among Ashevilles progressives.

Mr. Webster offers clarity through his definition of liberalism: Willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from ones own; open to new ideas. Progressives arent liberal anymore they simply want their way.

Wanting what we want, when, where and how we want it, flags addiction. That affliction, regardless of what one is addicted to, comes packaged with three partners denial, anger and depression. Todays progressive movement is inconveniently mired in all three.

Regrettably, its not possible to get to good places through bad means. As the world grows crazier and more dangerous, habit will, of necessity, give way to a more authentic version of liberalism open to new or different thinking.

Dont be afraid, Asheville. In contrast to left-leaning propaganda, your conservative opposition is rarely dull, ignorant, indifferent or rich. As with all political movements, there are notable exceptions, but most right-thinking folks operate out of the root word of conservativism: Conserve [v. kuh n-surv] to use or manage wisely; preserve; save.

Its revealing that Ashevilles progressive community literally cringes at diversity of thought exposures found in conservative thinking. Dont believe it? Ask the diversity-loving administrators at UNC Asheville and A-B Tech how many conservative faculty members they have. Ask yourself why a diversity-loving city like ours would have a 7-0 locked-in blue City Council. Finally, whens the last time you heard of a local progressive political group suggesting a debate between opposing sides? This good guys/bad guys approach to politics is not remotely up the challenges of a 21st century world.

Contrary to the two-headed coin most mainstream outlets use to secure the liberal view, a simple penny reveals there are always two sides. Anyone believing that only their angle of view matters is nave and dangerous.

Its easy to see why conservatism is not the winner in todays political popularity contest. In contrast to the lefts any way you like it seductions promising the downhill run, conservatism is hard. It commands the energy, courage and perseverance of an uphill climb. We get it that most things in life that are good are also hard.

Open-minded versus addicted progressives still receptive to new ideas might consider a simple truism. Mental masturbation has as much productive connection to reason as coyotes have to newborn winter calves. Culturists who get that distinction are needed more than ever on both sides of the coin.

Carl MumpowerAsheville

See the rest here:
Letter: Asheville's progressive addiction is growing old - Mountain Xpress

Supporters of Italys centre-left Democratic party (PD) breathed a sigh of relief on Sunday evening as their candidate in Emilia-Romagna saw-off competition from Matteo Salvinis far-right League to win the regional elections. That defeat here was even a prospect, though, shows just how much Italys political geography has changed.

Historically Emilia-Romagna, in the north of the country, is a bedrock of communism and has had an unbroken string of leftist governments since the second world war. But the left has been losing ground since the financial crisis of 2008 as in so much of the continent with austerity-stricken rural communities and provincial towns in particular drifting rightwards. Winning in the region would have been a real coup for Salvini, who took personal control of the local campaign.

His plans may have been thwarted, but there is little to suggest that Salvini is losing momentum. While the League may have failed to win over the region as a whole, it has consolidated support in some of Emilias major cities. Similarly, at a national level the polls still suggest Salvinis party is well-positioned to form a majority government in coalition with other rightwing parties, including the far-right Brothers of Italy and Silvio Berlusconis Forza Italia when the opportunity arises. Such a scenario was reinforced by the results of another vote on Sunday in the poor southern region of Calabria: while the League won just 12%, it also oversaw collaboration among the other rightwing parties to snatch the territory from the incumbent PD governor.

If the left has been able to weather the storm at all, this is despite rather than because of the PDs own campaigning. Instead, it was up to an autonomous social movement called the Sardines to secure the result. Formed last November by a group of twentysomethings in Emilia-Romagnas capital Bologna, the independent initiative called on citizens to congregate in their local piazzas with homemade placards of the eponymous fish, to symbolise solidarity, pacifism and opposition to divisive and violent politics. It might sound gimmicky, but the Sardines struck a chord. In just three months, the movement succeeded in organising demonstrations in 90 cities, the largest mobilisation of civil society in the history of the Italian republic. Their efforts were vindicated. In 2014 turnout in Emilia-Romagnas regional election was 37.7%. This year it jumped to 67.7%. This spike is almost certainly down to the Sardines, without whom the PD may well have lost control.

The most immediate implication of Sundays result will be to prop-up the current government, which now looks set to endure for the foreseeable future. Again, this has less to do with the virtues of the PD itself than the comparatively dire straits of their lead coalition partners, the Five Star Movement (M5S) which was happily partnered with the League before Salvini broke ranks in a botched attempt to grab power for his own party last August.

In the 2018 national elections, the self-styled anti-establishment populists M5S won 33% of the vote, making it the countrys largest single political force. Since that peak, however, its support has been in freefall. On Sunday the M5S won 7.4% of the vote in Calabria, and a meagre 3.5% in Emilia-Romagna. Its attempt to court both left- and rightwing voters, and failure to deliver on key policy pledges, has seen a steady haemorrhage of its largely liberal base. Even before the weekends vote the partys leader, Luigi Di Maio, stepped down from his position, recognising the need for the movement to adopt a more consistent ideological stance this is most likely to mean a move to the left.

With the M5S in chaos, and left-leaning voters swinging to PD, Sundays elections have confirmed a shift in the power balance inside the coalition government. Having picked up leftwing swing voters from its senior partners, the PD, the junior partners, will now dictate the political agenda. In a potential sign of the changes ahead, government ministers have already suggested abolishing the security decree, a piece of legislation passed by the League-M5S coalition to criminalise NGOs and individuals who aid refugees. Overturning this law is one of very few explicit policy proposals supported by participants in the Sardines movement the PD is trying to send a message to the congregations in the piazzas that the party is taking their concerns seriously. Meanwhile, the M5S remains the only Italian party that consistently emphasises the climate emergency, and is still working towards some kind of green new deal for Italy. Committing to this in more concrete terms now seems its best chance at avoiding a further collapse in support.

Whats most interesting about these elections, then, is the extent of the Sardines sudden influence. By manipulating the main parties fears of Salvini this makeshift movement has not only blocked the right: it has effectively made the ruling coalition dependent on their endorsement. For now, the organisers are playing down the possibility of forming their own party. This seems wise. While being outsiders has its drawbacks, it has enabled them to avoid self-defeating echo chambers and foster a remarkable pluralism that has been key to their success.

The Sardines are not here to save the old left. Instead their task is more foundational: to rebuild a culture of political participation, and demonstrate to Italys sceptical population that grassroots politics and activism can yield results especially so soon after the M5Ss own failed experiment in direct democracy. That theyve succeeded in this to some degree, in a country where pessimism has become so deeply ingrained is already a minor miracle. If this belief in collective action can be maintained, the Leagues road to power may not be as smooth as the pollsters would have it.

Jamie Mackay is a writer and translator based in Florence

Read this article:
Italys progressives had lost hope. The Sardines movement is starting to restore it - The Guardian