Attorney in Texas
Attorney in Texas's JournalWere Irish Catholics and Northern Irish Protestants attacking each other fighting over autonomy and
land or were they seeking promote Catholicism and Anglicanism by their bombs and bullets?
Does anyone believe ISIL's beheadings and its blowing up of the Russian passenger plane and its terrorism in Paris were an effort to promote Islam?
The current "war against Radical Islam" phony theme pushed by the Republicans and appropriately rejected by President Obama (and candidates Clinton, Sanders, and O'Malley) is addressed today by the New Republic in The GOP’s Obsession With ‘Radical Islam’:
The deadly attacks in Paris last week, followed by the second Democratic primary debate over the weekend, reignited a Republican obsession, unique to the Obama era, with the claim that U.S. leaders can’t defeat jihadi terrorism unless they identify the perpetrators with highly prescriptive language.
This obsession arose after the George W. Bush presidency precisely because Bush and his security advisers recognized the humane and strategic value in avoiding anti-Muslim incitement. As a Republican, Bush was able to mostly keep a lid on the kind of rhetoric his party now espouses unapologetically.
Republicans specifically claim, without a shred of evidence, that referring to ISIS fighters as “radical Islamic terrorists” isn’t just nomenclature, but a strategic prerequisite to vanquishing them.
Ted Cruz Last Year: We Should Welcome Syrian Refugees, And We Can Do It Safely
Source: Huffington Post
Interviewed in February 2014, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz declared that Syrian refugees should be permitted into the United States and argued that this could be done without jeopardizing national security.
"We have welcomed refugees -- the tired, huddled masses -- for centuries. That’s been the history of the United States," he told Fox News in a video featured on Cruz's website. "We should continue to do so." He added: "We have to continue to be vigilant to make sure those coming are not affiliated with the terrorists, but we can do that."
Since last week's Paris attacks, the GOP presidential candidate has been a fierce critic of the Obama administration's policy to permit some Syrian refugees into the United States.
"It is nothing less than lunacy,” Cruz said on Saturday, citing security concerns. "It makes no sense whatsoever for us to be bringing in refugees who our intelligence cannot determine if they are terrorists here to kill us or not. Those who are fleeing persecution should be resettled in the Middle East in majority Muslim countries."
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ted-cruz-syrian-refugees_564d279ae4b031745cefd25f?utm_hp_ref=politics
Ted Cruz: worst person in the world
Clinton legacy versus Obama legacy: Do we progress forward or retreat back from Obama's legacy?
I like president Obama, and I'd take a third Obama term, but that is not an option.
Since we are going to have to replace Obama, we could either replace him with someone who is more of a pacifist or someone who is more hawkish. I prefer the former (Sanders) and not the later (Clinton).
We could replace Obama with someone who supports more regulation of the financial institutions as compared to Obama's regulatory policy or someone who supports less regulation of financial institutions as compared to Obama. I prefer the former (Sanders) and not the later (Clinton).
We could replace Obama with someone who would be less inclined than Obama to put US labor and manufacturers in unfair competition with foreign products that are cheaper because the foreign companies do not have to comply with worker rights and wages up to US standards of living and environmental protections or someone who would be more inclined than Obama to put US labor and manufacturers in unfair competition with foreign products. I prefer the former (Sanders) and not the later (Clinton).
Since Obama cannot run for a third term, we can either progress past Obama or retreat back from Obama. I prefer the former (Sanders) and not the later (Clinton).
Fox News Poll: Trump, Sanders lead respective primaries in New Hampshire
Source: Fox News
Bernie Sanders.....45%
Hillary Clinton......44%
Martin O’Malley......5%
Donald Trump.......27%
Marco Rubio.........13%
Ted Cruz..............11%
Jeb Bush...............9%
Ben Carson...........9%
John Kasich...........7%
Chris Christie.........6%
Carly Fiorina..........3%
Rand Paul..............3%
Lindsey Graham......1%
Mike Huckabee.......1%
Rick Santorum........1%
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2015/11/18/fox-news-poll-trump-sanders-lead-respective-primaries-in-new-hampshire/
For those who would prefer The Hill's report on the same polling conducted by Anderson Robbins Research (a Democratic pollster) and Shaw & Company Research (a Republican pollster), here's a link:
Sanders ahead of Clinton in New Hampshire poll
Also, this polling is reported by, and included within aggregate polling of, Huffington Post's pollster as well as Real Clear Politics so you can go there to get your polling if you prefer.
Which part of the Clinton legacy would Hillary embrace? DOMA? NAFTA? Welfare "reform"?
I like Bill Clinton; he did many great things. I like Hillary Clinton; she has also accomplished great things. But if the primary is about ideology, the Clintons fall near the mid-point between my views and Jeb Bush's views.
We are entitled to campaign for a more progressive candidate.
Also, we need not have blinders to the fact that Bill Clinton was not a particularly liberal President, and we are right to ask where Hillary Clinton stands on issues where Bill Clinton left a legacy disappointing to progressive and liberal Democrats:
1. the Defense of Marriage Act
2. the North American Free Trade Agreement
3. deregulation of the financial industries
4. a worse welfare system than under Ronald Reagan
5. harsh criminal sentencing without judicial discretion (and the explosion of the private prison industry)
6. expanded use of the death penalty
7. expanded use of drug possession criminalization
If Bill Clinton was disappointing on these issues, why should we expect Hillary Clinton to serve as our standard bearer on issues of key importance to many of us?
2015 isn't 2007. True, in 2007 Clinton had +7% net favorable and now she has -11% net unfavorable
ratings in the polls.
Current favorable/unfavorable polling: Clinton has a 41% favorable poll rating and 52% unfavorable poll rating (for a -11% net unfavorable rating).
Historic favorable/unfavorable polling: Clinton had a 52% favorable poll rating and a 45% unfavorable poll rating (for a +7% net favorable rating) in Nov. 2007.
Meanwhile, Sanders has a net positive favorable rating (+4%) that is 15% better than Clinton's net negative (-11%) rating.
For those who keep insisting 2007 isn't 2015 -- NO SHIT; WE'VE NOTICED.
Gallop: "Clinton Sustains Huge Lead in Democratic Nomination Race"
Wow! Clinton's lead is INSURMOUNTABLE! Here is a great article from November 16:
PRINCETON , NJ -- In the national standings of the Democratic presidential candidates seeking their party's nomination next year, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton continues to hold a strong 27-point lead over second-place rival Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, according to a new Gallup Poll. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards remains further behind in third place.
Of course, this is a Gallop news article from November 16, 2007.
Why do people feel obligated to deny that Clinton was in the same position* in 2007 that she currently occupies?
*When I refer to Clinton being in the "same position" in 2007, I don't mean to imply she is in the identical position. Obviously, Clinton's favorablity polling numbers were MUCH stronger in 2007.
Mid-campaign polling helps the campaign; it does not predict a winner
Is mid-campaign polling important?
Just ask Jeb Bush. Of course it is important because it is a campaign report card and bad poll numbers can lead to fundraising problems and because a campaign that misuses polls is likely to mis-allocate resources and mis-focus its message.
Mid-campaign polls tell you very little about the outcome of an election, but they tel you very much about the current progress of the campaign.
There are a number of reasons for this.
First, national polling is like a mock national election. There is no national primary so national polling is a mock-up for a vote that will never occur. That's not to say national polling isn't important. Biden's entry into the race would have created a ton of chaos, and his decision not to enter the race was no doubt based -- in some part at least -- on national polls. In this sense, the national polling was very significant. In the sense of predicting anything, national polling is almost useless, however, because the actual results in Iowa and New Hampshire will have a profound effect on the perception of the race in 48 other states. If O'Malley were to defy expectations and win or even nearly win Iowa or New Hampshire, it would effect all of the post-New Hampshire races. If Sanders were to win Iowa and New Hampshire, that -- too -- would have a huge impact on the race. Likewise, if Clinton were to win Iowa and New Hampshire, that might signal a near unanimous sweep for her campaign (although such an early win might also inspire a state or two to throw a "buyer's remorse" result to another candidate).
Second, Iowa polling is notoriously a poor predictor of results in that state because it is a caucus state and the caucus process depends almost as much as the intensity of support as it depends on the amount of supporters.
Third, more than a month before the voters in a state come to the polls, most eventual voters either haven't made up their minds at all or their support is soft and they are still willing to change their current preference. This explains why Obama beat Clinton in 2008 despite the fact that she was killing him in the polls throughout 2007.
Look to the polling to see whether your candidate is currently hitting his or her targets and whether they are making progress or losing ground, but stop screaming about polls as if they are an election.
Polls are not a diploma; they are a report card.
Enough bad report cards and you might not get a diploma (so report cards are important), but good report cards during your sophomore year do not mean you are going to earn a diploma.
Unsolicited advice to Clinton from a Sanders voter who anticipates voting for Clinton in the general
I prefer Sanders by a large margin over Clinton because I am a progressive liberal whose values are to the left of Clinton's.
Yet I prefer Clinton over all of the Republicans by an even larger margin.
I consider Sanders the underdog and Clinton the favorite in the primary so I anticipate that I will probably be financially supporting, campaigning for, and voting for Clinton a year from now.
With that said, Clinton and many of her supporters here are missing a great opportunity in this primary.
Many Clinton supporters are pushing the themes that (1) Clinton has an insurmountable lead and the primary is already effectively over, (2) Sanders cannot win because he has chosen to own the socialist label rather than run from it, (3) O'Malley's campaign platform and stump speeches are not always consistent with his past record and actions, etc.
Look at the first argument -- either you believe that Clinton has an insurmountable lead or you don't believe that. If you believe it, then you ought to be focused on the general election and not the primary. If you don't believe it, then you would better serve your preferred candidate's campaign by pushing an argument you really believe. If you truly believe Clinton has already won, then attacking Sanders and O'Malley has a bullying sore-winner tone; what sports team has a press conference after winning a game and berates the team they just beat? No one does that. You know a political candidate has won when he or she starts talking about what a worthy opponent the other side was and now is the time for party unity. The dominant argument from Clinton supporters is the opposite of this worthy-opponent-time-for-unity approach. If you have won the fight, then stop fighting.
Here is why -- even if you all believe in your hearts Clinton has already won -- Clinton supporters should not wish for a premature end to the primary. If the media can report on a vibrant primary campaign, they will. If the media cannot report on a vibrant primary campaign, they will either devote 95% of their interest in the Republican campaign and ignore Clinton or they will report on Republican generated faux-scandals focused on Clinton. Both options are deadly to Clinton's general election prospects. Moreover, if Rubio or some other non-Bush candidate wins the Republican nomination, you can bet a major campaign attack against Clinton will be that she was chosen through the "coronation of the Clinton dynasty candidate." That argument is nonsense, but you know it's coming and you know it will have some greater or lesser impact. If the primary is "over" three months before the first vote is cast, then the coronation argument is a strong one. If the primary contest is hard fought (maybe Sanders and O'Malley win a few states), then the coronation argument is weak. Ask yourself -- why are you promoting the Republicans' coronation argument by prematurely declaring victory?
Look at the second two arguments which contend that Clinton should win because of weaknesses in her opponents. If you believe Clinton is a strong candidate, then you should want her to win because of her strengths and you don't want her to win because of her opponents' weaknesses. If Clinton has the strength to beat her Republican rival, then she should be using the primary campaign to refine her arguments and to exercise her campaign muscles. When a top ranked sports team has an unranked underdog on the schedule, there is no need for smack talk denigrating the outmatched opponent.
Here is why -- even if you all truly believe Sanders and O'Malley are weak opponents -- you should nevertheless focus on Clinton's campaign issues and not your perception of the opposing candidates' flaws. Clinton will be called a socialist in the general election. Clinton will be attacked as "too liberal" in the general election. You will hear Republicans say "Clinton is even more liberal on this issue than socialist Bernie Sanders." Unless you truly believe Clinton cannot win without changing her core beliefs to pander to the progressive Warren-Sanders wing of the Democratic party, then Clinton should be laying the groundwork to run a general election campaign where she distinguishes herself from Sanders and O'Malley (and Obama). Instead of running a campaign that argues "vote Clinton because Sanders is a socialist" or "vote Clinton because O'Malley is really a DLC member who's only pretending to be more liberal than Clinton," the campaign should be "vote Clinton because her plan on this issue is more practical than her Democratic opponents' plans and more sane than the nonsense the Republicans are offering." Every time Clinton or her supporters offer a non-substantive attack on her primary opponents, she wastes an opportunity to distinguish herself from her primary opponents. In the general election, Clinton will wish she had better used these opportunities.
In summary, I prefer Sanders over Clinton, and I will do everything I can to promote his chances in the primary. I hope Sanders wins, but I think Clinton is more likely to be my candidate in the general election so I don't want to see her campaign run in a manner that serves her poorly in the general election if she wins (as I expect she will).
I am concerned that Clinton supporters are doing a very poor job of supporting my probable general election candidate. Please do a better job.
Profile Information
Member since: Sun Aug 2, 2015, 11:10 AMNumber of posts: 3,373
