I like this article. It does a very good job of explaining the Super-delegates purpose and why they should not be counted until the convention. Their vote is suppose to be fluid. It also explains the scenarios by which it would make sense for the Super-delegates to get on the Sanders’ bandwagon.
What makes 2016 very different from 2008 is that the following items are presently true:
Sanders has dramatically higher favorable ratings than Clinton, despite months of attacks from his Democratic opponent and Trump and GOP super-PACs generally laying off both Sanders and Clinton;
Sanders beats Donald Trump nationally by much more than does Clinton (12 points, as opposed to 6 for Clinton, in an average of all national polls);
Sanders beats Donald Trump in every battleground state by more than does Clinton; and
Sanders beats Trump by 22 points among independents, while Clinton loses independents to Trump by 2 points.
As we sit here today, the Clinton-Trump match-up in the three biggest battleground states — Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania, the loss of all three of which would lose the Democrats the general election — is a dead heat.
I do not have a lot of confidence in Sanders becoming the Democratic nominee. I also don’t have a lot of confidence in Clinton being able to beat Trump in the general election. It seems that the DNC has signed a suicide pact with Clinton.
If Trump continues tacking towards the economic center, how will Clinton react to distinguish herself? Especially if she’s trying to please both her party’s urban professional vote, while trying to woo anti-Trump Republican voters at the same time?
Trump has been all over the place with his positions in the primaries and hasn’t been afraid to contradict himself. If he beats Clinton back to the center where does she go to differentiate her policy from his?
Of course she could just forget all of that and run on the “I’m not Trump” platform.
People in West Virginia are angry with Sec. Clinton. Why? Those people are coal miners and while discussing plans to create jobs in the renewable energy industry during a CNN town hall in March, Clinton said, “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”
Yeah, if I’m a coal miner that’s the way to get my vote, tell me you are going to put me out of business. West Virginia, and all of Appalachia is an area that put Bill Clinton in the White House and
“What I said was totally out of context from what I meant because I have been talking about helping coal country for a very long time,” Clinton said, according to NBC News. “What I was saying is that the way things are going now, we will continue to lose jobs. That’s what I meant to say.”
Yeah, there isn’t much of a way taking “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business” out of context.
Now to be fair, I agree with her about putting coal companies out of business and miners out of work until they can be retrained as something else. Her problem is in the way she said it.
And that’s one of the many problems I have with her, she says stuff the wrong way all the time and finds herself having to apologize for her misstatements. In this case it wasn’t a misstatement, she said what she meant. It would have been nice if she had thought about how coal miners, many of them living in impoverished areas with little else paying a living wage.
Nate Robinson brings up a great point in his article:
Trump’s political dominance is highly dependent on his idiosyncratic, audacious method of campaigning. He deals almost entirely in amusing, outrageous, below-the-belt personal attacks, and is skilled at turning public discussions away from the issues and toward personalities (He/she’s a “loser,” “phony,” “nervous,” “hypocrite,” “incompetent.”) If Trump does have to speak about the issues, he makes himself sound foolish, because he doesn’t know very much. Thus he requires the media not to ask him difficult questions, and depends on his opponents’ having personal weaknesses and scandals that he can merrily, mercilessly exploit.
This campaigning style makes Hillary Clinton Donald Trump’s dream opponent. She gives him an endless amount to work with. The emails, Benghazi, Whitewater, Iraq, the Lewinsky scandal, Chinagate, Travelgate, the missing law firm records, Jeffrey Epstein, Kissinger, Marc Rich, Haiti, Clinton Foundation tax errors, Clinton Foundation conflicts of interest, “We were broke when we left the White House,” Goldman Sachs… There is enough material in Hillary Clinton’s background for Donald Trump to run with six times over.
Peter Daou has a problem seeing where the problem really is. Well, that’s to be expected he’s been advising Sec. Clinton for a while and you don’t maintain that job without polishing her image.
Why on earth would Bernie Sanders run a campaign premised on the destruction of Hillary’s public image?
As we’ve written: Hillary let Bernie off the hook in the last debate. She could have asked him a simple question: Does he believe President Obama is corrupt because of financial industry contributions? It’s a yes or no question that is central to the 2016 race.
Does Bernie think President Obama is compromised by Wall Street contributions? If so, he should have the courage to say it. If not, he shouldn’t imply that a female candidate would be influenced by donations or speaking fees. There’s a word for that.
First, Bernie isn’t running a campaign premised on the destruction of Hillary’s public image. He’s running a campaign premised on the fact that Wall Street is running amok and compromising our political system with campaign contributions and lobbying for special treatment. This is also a premise that Sec. Clinton claims to accept but only after millions of Wall Street dollars have poured into her family’s foundation and into Super PACs created to put her into the presidency.
Sanders has built his campaign on fighting Wall Street and and its corrupting influence. Are you, Mr. Daou, suggesting that the Sanders campaign should change their tune just because Sec. Clinton appears to have been corrupted by Wall Streets influence? By the way, that is my question, not Sen. Sanders.
Maybe had she not taken millions of dollars from Wall Street she wouldn’t be in this predicament. Don’t blame Sen. Sanders for Sec. Clinton’s apparent corruption.
My friend, Rick, keeps pointing out to me how the Democratic establishment isn’t going to allow Sanders, a party outsider, to win the Democratic nomination for president. He points out that even if he does he will be powerless to implement any of his platform programs and he knows that. This makes him dishonest in his campaign. Chris Hedges thinks he’s dishonest because he won’t speak the truth about his adversary, Hillary Clinton, and in not doing so is duplicitous in the con game she and the Democratic Party is running.
The Democratic Party is a full partner in the corporate state. Yet Sanders, while critical of Hillary Clinton’s exorbitant speaking fees from firms such as Goldman Sachs, refuses to call out the party and—as Robert Scheer pointed out in a column in October—the Clintons for their role as handmaidens of Wall Street. For Sanders, it is a lie of omission, which is still a lie. And it is a lie that makes the Vermont senator complicit in the con game being played on the American electorate by the Democratic Party establishment.
I’ve been trying to explain to people that Hillary Clinton is not the person to nominate as a fire break against the Republicans. Hillary is not the electable candidate. She will not get out the vote like Bernie Sanders will in the general election and she fares worse than Sanders in head to head polling against Republicans.
On the pragmatics of electability, nearly every major national poll consistently shows Sanders equaling or bettering Clinton against all Republicans. Polls show Sanders nearly tied with Clinton nationally and rising. On electability, if anything, Sanders has the edge right now. There is nothing empirical to suggest Clinton’s superior electability—quite the contrary given her loss to Barack Obama in 2008 and her flagging campaign this year. While Clinton might gain more moderate Independents (particularly against a polarizing Republican nominee), Sanders can inspire massive Democratic and liberal Independent turnout and likely win over many white working-class swing voters.
Sanders is attracting young people to the primaries and caucuses in numbers not seen since Kennedy ran for the Democratic nod in ’59. Young people are notorious for not showing up at the polls unless there is someone running who excites them. Hillary Clinton may be married to the most charismatic president since Reagan but she isn’t the charismatic one and she doesn’t excite young people to get out to vote unless those young people are young Republicans and their vote is against her.
The Clinton campaign is being sick and tired of all the scrutiny they are facing and the evidence of hypocrisy, ties to the banking industry and other ethical issues this is bringing forward. So they are pointing their fingers at the Sanders campaign and saying, “what about him?”
“There’s a lot of stuff that comes out about Hillary. She’s been scrutinized, scrutinized, scrutinized. I don’t see any of that about Bernie coming out—and there are things,” said Barbara Marzelli, who runs a gardening business in New Hampshire. “It’s like everybody’s throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks. They haven’t started to fling spaghetti at Bernie.”
That’s all well and good but what happens when you scrutinize someone and all you can find is extremely minor stuff like accepting campaign money from the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, which accepted money from Wall Street, while claiming not to have received money from Wall Street.
I think he can stand up to the scrutiny but I wonder about the spin.
Every one of Bloomberg’s gun control groups state that they are for reasonable gun control but doesn’t reasonable connote a willingness to compromise? Everytown for Gun Safety, formerly known as Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Mom’s Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, was a huge endorser of Governor Terry McAuliffe when he ran for office in Virginia on a pro gun control platform until he worked out a deal with pro gun rights Republicans to get the guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and encourage background checks on private sales at gun shows.
Last week, Everytown unleashed Facebook and Twitter ads against McAuliffe, posting his photo side-by-side with that of the National Rifle Association chief Wayne LaPierre.
Okay, I understand that people can change their position after reconsidering everything but she seems to reconsider her positions an awfully lot and waivers between those positions as it’s convenient. She swings from week to week between being a moderate and being a progressive.
Hillary Clinton is pushing real hard to be recognized as a progressive while she battles against Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination for President. She’s also trying to keep hold of the “moderate” label as well so she can move into that should she win the nomination. However, that progressive label is hard to apply to someone who has taken so much money from Wall Street.
In fact, only Jeb Bush has accepted more donations from the financial sector than Sec. Clinton during this election cycle and those donations have fallen off in favor of Marco Rubio. Rubio still lags Clinton in donations from the bankers.
When we look at the latest FEC reports we find out the following interesting facts:
“In all, donors from Wall Street and other financial-services firms have given $44.1 million to support Hillary Clinton’s campaigns and allied super PACs, compared with $39.7 million in backing that former president Bill Clinton received from the industry.”
“Only about $75,000 of the $75 million Sanders has raised for his 2016 campaign has come from donors in the finance sector.”
“With the $21.4 million that Wall Street has given for her current White House bid, Clinton is on track to quickly exceed the nearly $23 million that she raised in her three previous campaigns combined from the PACs and employees of banks, hedge funds, securities firms and insurance companies.” (Read the full story here.)
So now Hillary Clinton is saying that she and Donald Trump were never friends. While Chelsea jumps on the bandwagon and denies any friendship with Donald Trump but affirms her friendship with his daughter, Ivanka.
In ‘People’ interview, Democratic presidential candidate denies billionaire’s previous claims of friendship and denounces ‘mean-spiritedness’ in campaign
Here’s an excellent essay on why we shouldn’t run from the label “socialist”. I honestly believe that smaller government is best but with both the Ds and Rs doing nothing but increasing the size of government I’d like to see this government juggernaut we are creating work more for us, the people, than giant corporations and billionaire political donors.
Although Sanders says that America needs a “grassroots political revolution,” he is actually a reformer, not a revolutionary. His version of democratic socialism is akin to what most people around the world call “social democracy,” which seeks to make capitalism more humane.
Sanders supporters see the announcement of Mike Bloomberg putting in an Independent bid for the presidency should Sec. Clinton not become the Democratic nominee a sign that people fear the Sanders campaign juggernaut.
With Sanders now leading some polls in both Iowa and New Hampshire I can understand the enthusiasm in the Sanders camp but their might be another reason Mike Bloomberg is considering throwing his hat in the ring.
Another explanation is that he sees trouble ahead for Hillary Clinton. Because of his close relationship with former NYC police Chief Ray Kelly and others in the law enforcement community, he might have the inside track on the FBI investigation into the former Secretary of State’s handling of classified documents and questionable foundation-related activities. Democrats have done a fine job of completely dismissing the FBI inquiry, but the possibility that Clinton could face serious legal hurdles may be encouraging Bloomberg’s ambitions.