Corporate Media's best kept secret.

I find it amusing that the CCM (Corporate Controlled Media) are so afraid of Bernie. On both election night speeches (Iowa and NH), Bernie has made a point of declaring the CCM antipathy for him. What is even funnier, in NH not only did he lambast the CCM, but then used them as a conduit to do a fundraiser yielding about $7M in 24 hours.

They keep pretending he didn't say those unflattering things about them because his favorability ratings are so much higher than theirs and so they don't want to draw attention to a media attack from the left-very embarrassing and not good for business.

The truth about health care.

Hillary's attack on universal healthcare based on unicorn analysis.

"It's indisputable that single-payer systems in other countries cover everyone for virtually everything, and at much lower cost than our health care system," Woolhandler said. "Experience in countries with single-payer systems, such as Canada, Scotland, and Taiwan, proves that we can have more, better and cheaper care."

For example, "if the U.S. moved to a single-payer system as efficient as Canada's, we'd save $430 billion on useless paperwork and insurance companies' outrageous profits, more than enough to cover the 31 million Americans who remain uninsured, and to eliminate co-payments and deductibles for everyone," she said.

In January, Woolhandler and her colleague Dr. David Himmelstein authored a response to Thorpe's analysis that found it to be based on "several incorrect, and occasionally outlandish, assumptions," including "administrative savings of only 4.7 percent of expenditures" and "huge increases in the utilization of care, increases far beyond those that were seen when national health insurance was implemented in Canada, and much larger than is possible given the supply of doctors and hospital beds."

"Moreover, it is at odds with analyses of the costs of single-payer programs that he produced in the past, which projected large savings from such reform," the professors wrote.

Bookmarking for flip-flops and distortions. n/t

Please consider my prediction about race in this primary.

In case of a jury deciding whether to hide this OP, which is likely, I would ask jurors to consider the following. This post is an opinion, but it is presented respectfully and without unfair labels of characterization. It is an attempt to counteract some attacks which will almost certainly be forthcoming on this site and elsewhere. If we can’t engage in honest and respectful dialog on this site, then what does that say about the state of the Democratic Party, at least on DU?

I am a lifelong Democrat. I have been aware of every Democratic nominee since 1960, but the first time I had some political consciousness was in 1968, when I was 13. Here is what I can say about every GOP primary from 1968. Each one has used race as a wedge issue to divide people and set them against each other. It was part of Nixon’s “Southern Strategy.” It remains part of the ugliness of the GOP.

Here is what I can tell you about Democratic primaries: usually when race plays a high profile in the campaign, it is an attempt at coalition building and inclusion, rather than as a wedge issue to divide people. Campaigns that come to mind in that regard are Shirley Chisholm in 1972, Jesse Jackson in 1988, Bill Bradley in 2000 and John Edwards in 2008.

The only two Democratic primaries, at least as far back as 1968, where race has been used as a wedge issue, i.e. divisively, is in 2008 and 2016. The only common denominator in those two primaries is Secretary Clinton.

I am raising this issue because of the following prediction: I believe this problem is going to get more and more ugly until the nomination is resolved. I hope that once it is resolved we can pick up the pieces and move forward. In the mean time, if you see a racial political attack, please consider my prediction.

I call extreme bullshit!

Based on examining wiki and other data and adding up tabulated Dem NH votes for individuals here are the rounded counts I get for Dem votes cast in NH since 1992.

1992 168k
1996 65k (rough estimate)
2000 147k
2004 220k
2008 287k
2012 49k
2016 251k

Important trends to note: voter turnout has generally been on the decline since at least 1972.

http://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Voter-Turnout-in-Presidential-Primaries-and-Caucuses_Patterson.pdf

This uptick in voter turnout in 2004 and 2008 (record year) has a clear major determinant: historically extreme Dem voter antipathy for George W. Bush.

Another determinant for high turnout in 2008 was young voter appeal for President Obama. Another factor in 2008 was that after eight years of GOP occupation of the WH, history indicated a change to a Dem president, which led to a vast number of Dem candidates, all with tail-wind GOTV efforts. But clearly the biggest factor was George W. Bush. In 2008, HRC won NH, so high turnout can in no way be completely attributed to Obama, but rather the over-arching determinant was the historically rare repugnance of Dem voters for Bush.

The 2016 turnout is second only to the anomalous 2008 turnout and DESPITE eight years of a very popular (for registered Dems) Dem president in the WH. The most obvious reasons for high Dem voter turnout in 2016 are a feeling that America has been on the wrong track for decades, in terms of a corrupt electoral system, a quagmire foreign policy in the Middle East and most importantly stagnant wages and wealth inequality. The 2016 result indicates a paradox: while Dem popularity of President Obama is very high, a great number of independent, Dem (and indeed GOP) voters are angry and dissatisfied with the American status quo.

So by any objective standard, a Dem turnout of 251k in NH is fairly characterized as “huge.” Rachel is often very good, but she also plays it fast and loose on occasion, as does every other pundit and “journalist” in the corporate media, almost without exception. To claim that the record turnout of 2008 somehow diminishes the historic result in 2016 is not supported by reasonable analysis. If she said what you claim she said, I give her a big Pinocchio on this one.

I voted to hide a post for the first time.

It was a post claiming that John Lewis lied. The author of the OP was on "my tribe," i.e. a Bernie supporter. Nobody needs to accuse John Lewis of lying on this website. It is wrong, counter-productive and Bernie would denounce it, imo. I don't care what Mr. Lewis said in advocating for Hillary, Bernie supporters, please just leave it alone.

I have had a consistent jury policy of voting for free speech on juries, i.e. I always vote for "Leave it alone." So this vote tonite was unprecedented for me. But be advised my fellow Bernie supporters, if you accuse a civil rights hero of lying, etc, I will vote to hide it again. Rebutting false attacks is one thing, but this kind of thing is way over the line in my view.

Marking for DLC Superdelegate bullshit. n/t

Marking against "No we can't" defeatism, for reference. n/t

Clinton push polling also reported in NH.

Clinton's Campaign

Clinton has also brought in many supporters as well. I don't know the exact figures on the numbers both campaigns are bringing in but it's pretty large for both campaigns. I'm sure many of you are wondering if Clinton is trying any dirty tactics or trying to undermine Bernie's campaign in any way and here's the answer to that question. YES! 100% YES! I've been a victim of push polling 5 times already by the Clinton campaign in the last 2 days. I'd hate to see anyone fall prey to this type of predatory campaigning because it's literally skewing every question to make it seem anti-Bernie even on issues that Bernie has been outspoken about. For example one of the questions I got was "If I told you that Bernie plans on massive tax increases for middle-class Americans are you more or less likely to vote for Bernie"? After a couple of these phone calls I started metaphorically giving them the middle finger by saying "FEEL THE BERN" and then hanging up the phone.