Attorney in Texas
Attorney in Texas's JournalThousands show up to support Sanders in Vado, New Mexico Many say they won't support Hillary Clinton
Source: KVIA (New Mexico ABC Affiliate)
VADO, NM - The elementary school in this farming community in between El Paso, Texas and Las Cruces, New Mexico resembled an arena ready to host a rock concert Saturday.
Thousands of people waited in line for hours to see Bernie Sanders. Among them was a smattering of hipsters, teenagers who can't vote, and old fashioned hippies.... Sarah Hammonds and Zachary Ortega of Las Cruces said they will not vote for Hillary Clinton in the fall if Sanders does not win the nomination.
"There is no chance anyone here will vote for Clinton. Never," Ortega said.... "The two-party system is broken," Ortega said. "That's what the DNC should have thought about before rigging the process in favor of Hillary."... "He's the only one talking about how money corrupts politics," Matthew Aguilar of Las Cruces said.... "It's going to take a lot of fighting with Democrats and Republicans," Aguilar said, "But as long as someone is willing to fight, I will support them."
Richard McDonald drove to Vado from Silver City, New Mexico. He supports Sanders' opposition to free trade agreements. "They are no good. They drive down wages and Bernie has been against them from the start," McDonald said.
Read more: http://www.kvia.com/news/thousands-show-up-to-support-sanders-in-vado-new-mexico/39661042
We need to work harder to earn the vote of people who feel left out of the political and economic systems.
"The Sanders Panic -- Democrats are loath to face their real problem"
Link to The Sanders Panic -- Democrats are loath to face their real problem; excerpt:
One of the few liberal pundits not in a full-blown panic is Jeet Heer of the New Republic. “There is no reason to panic,” he insists. “After all, the Democratic primaries were much nastier in 2008, and yet the party won the White House.” Of course no one remembers that far back, so Heer offers a history lesson:The problem in 2008 was the racial tinge to [Mrs.] Clinton’s last-ditch defense: that Obama was a doomed candidate because of his alleged inability to win over white voters. On May 8, she argued that “I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” and cited an article whose findings she summarized thus: “Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.” The contrast between Obama’s base of black voters with the “hard-working” white Americans supporting Clinton, made on the eve of a primary in West Virginia, carried clear racial overtones. . . .{Mrs.} Clinton’s rhetorical strategy of insinuating that Obama was too black to be president was echoed by her campaign. . . . Perhaps the most disturbing comment . . . came from Hillary Clinton herself, who in late May 2008 justified staying in the race by saying, “We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.” This came after months of worry that Obama, as the first black candidate with a serious shot at the presidency, would be a target for assassination. Two weeks later, on June 7, she finally suspended her campaign.There’s no reason to panic at all. After all, it’s not as if the Democrats are about to nominate a candidate with a history of saying racist and disturbing things. Oh, wait. Uh-oh . . . To be sure, nobody will remember the things Mrs. Clinton said in 2008, unless perhaps Trump uses them in a campaign ad. True, Heer just reminded us of them, but who reads the New Republic anymore?
The trouble is that Mrs. Clinton is, was and ever will be a dismal candidate. “The conventional wisdom holds that Trump’s astronomically high disapproval numbers should make him unelectable,” Robinson writes. “On paper, this should be a cakewalk for any Democrat with a pulse” (metaphor alert). ... Still, if any Democrat is poorly positioned to beat Trump, Mrs. Clinton is. ... As the Weekly Standard’s Chris Deaton sums up:The former secretary of state is viewed negatively by 61 percent of registered voters in a new Fox News poll, up from 58 percent in March. Donald Trump, on the other hand, has a 56 percent unfavorable rating—dramatically better than his 65 percent measure in March—and a 41 percent favorable rating, the first time he’s cracked 40 percent in that measure. . . .If the election were held today, a large number of voters would regard it as a contest between evils—a contest that, according to the poll, Trump would win narrowly, 45% to 42%. Of course voters could come to see one or the other candidate more favorably—likelier Trump than Mrs. Clinton, we’d venture, since they’ve known her for decades but are still getting used to the idea of him as a politician.
Other highlights from the poll include:• {Mrs.} Clinton is viewed as more corrupt than Trump, 49 percent to 37 percent;
• Two-thirds of registered voters think Clinton (71 percent) and Trump (65) percent will say “anything to get elected”;
• and more registered voters say Trump is a strong leader than they do {Mrs.} Clinton, with 59 percent saying the designation describes Trump and only 49 percent saying it describes {Mrs.} Clinton.
"The Hidden Importance Of The Sanders Voter"
link to The Hidden Importance Of The Sanders Voter; excerpt:
Donald Trump has gained on Hillary Clinton in recent national polls after becoming the presumptive GOP nominee this month. But ... her lack of support from Sanders voters is harming her general election numbers.
According to the most recent YouGov poll, 61 percent of Sanders voters have an unfavorable view of Clinton, against just 38 percent with a favorable one. YouGov has been tracking these numbers for several months, and they’ve gradually gotten worse for Clinton:
... In the YouGov poll, just 55 percent of Sanders supporters said they’d vote for Clinton over Trump in November. However, only 15 percent said they’d vote for Trump. That leaves 30 percent of Sanders voters who say they are undecided, would vote for a third-party candidate or would sit out the election.... Clinton is beating Sanders by 27 percentage points among self-identified Democrats but losing to Sanders by 31 points among voters who call themselves independents but voted in the Democratic primaries..... If Clinton wins over those voters, she’ll gain a few percentage points on Trump in national and swing state polls, and the race will potentially look more like it did in March and April, with Clinton having a fairly comfortable lead over Trump. If not, the general election could come down to the wire.
Party unity is important in only a handful of states - we should still work harder on shared goals
I am not a "Bernie-or-Bust" Democrat, but I have reservations about Hillary that I have not had about any past front runner for the nomination. I have never failed to vote for the Democratic nominee, but I'm on the fence this year.
Let's get this out of the way at the front: This is not a loyalty pledge request. I would encourage party unity in Ohio, Florida, and possibly a few other battleground states, but I think that the party unity arguments ring hollow in the vast majority of states that are immovably blue or immovably red.
This is -- instead -- a suggestion that Hillary and Sanders should work harder on shared goals.
1. Winning Back the Senate
Winning back the Senate has got to be our top goal (of such significance that neither candidate should even consider any VP candidate who would hamstring the efforts to take back the Senate). There are a number of key Senate races:Kelly Ayotte vs. Maggie Hassan in New Hampshire,
Ron Johnson vs. Russ Feingold in Wisconsin, and
Michael Bennet vs. Darryl Glenn in Colorado.
Sanders and his supporters proved to be much stronger in New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Colorado than Hillary's network. It would be foolish not to facilitate Sanders' efforts to bring his supporters and their enthusiasm to the Hassan, Feingold, and Bennet campaigns. But when the Democratic Party seems to be perpetually picking fights with Sanders supporters, this frustrates the process of cooperation on a shared goal. The Party should -- instead -- be above picking sides in the primary and should be coordinating with the Sanders campaign infrastructures in New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Colorado. We also have key battles in Nevada (Catherine Cortez Masto vs. Joe Heck), Illinois (Mark Kirk vs. Tammy Duckworth), Missouri (Roy Blunt vs. Jason Kander), and Ohio (Rob Portman vs. Ted Strickland), and Sanders tapped into strong communities in these states -- different communities than Hillary appealed to -- and it is counterproductive in our struggle to win back the Senate to go to war with Sanders supporters in Nevada and elsewhere. All Democrats should do what they can with the party rules and platform to make it easy for Sanders to motivate his supporters in these key Senate races to "feel the Bern" for our Democratic Senate candidates. From what I have seen in the past week, the Democratic Party seems bug-eyed with glee as the prospect of writing off Sanders supporters in Nevada and -- in effect -- handing that seat to Joe Heck. This stupidity should stop immediately.
2. A Progressive Platform
If Hillary holds onto her lead and wins the nomination, she will need help with young Democrats and populist/independent Democratic-leaning voters. One way to help with these voters would be to ensure that Hillary and Sanders supporters are proportionately represented on the party platform committee. In fact, it would probably buy Hillary more credit that it would cost her to go out of her way to propose a 50%-50% split between Hillary supporters and Sanders supporters. A progressive aspirational platform would help with the lack of enthusiasm, and getting buy-in from Sanders supporters would be wise. Shutting Sanders out or minimizing his in-put in the platform will only result is party division and a widespread complaint that the platform was shoved down the throats of the grassroots progressive party base. Avoiding this problem is virtually cost-free.
3. Party Rules
I have met Sanders supporters, O'Malley supporters, Hillary supporters, and even a Lessig supporter, but I have still never met a single Democrat who said "I love the super delegate process for installing a wall of lobbyists to keep grassroots Democrats from having their voices heard fully in the nomination process," and I have not heard anyone say, "wow, if I didn't already love Debbie Wasserman Schultz for her passionate support of America's vital payday-loan industry, I'd still want her running the show because a smaller Democratic party with fewer elected officials is so much easier to manage!" Let's reform the Democratic Party (and the DNC while we are at it) to do away with the super delegates, to take the lobbyists out of the DNC and out of the nomination process, and to revitalize the democratic nature of the Democratic Party. This should be something we can all agree upon. Hillary and Sanders should work together on these goals. Seeing Hillary work with her rival would do massive good for her image, for party unity, and for the next generation of our party.
Clinton team looking for a VP who will be fighter, excite Sanders supporters
Source: USA Today
Hillary Clinton is considering a running mate who could make a direct appeal to supporters of Bernie Sanders, bridging a generational and political divide, according to four people close to the campaign.... The campaign’s vetting also prioritizes demographics over someone from a key swing state as she seeks to unify the Democratic voting base, said the individuals coordinating with the campaign, who were not authorized to speak on the record about early deliberations.... One obvious candidate who would fit the Sanders anti-Wall Street populist profile is Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts senator who’s been in a Twitter war with Republican Donald Trump. Her tweetstorm during the past week shows she’s capable of being the kind of scrappy surrogate Clinton needs to take him on.... If Warren is not the pick, the hope is to choose someone who would both appeal to a younger demographic of the party that is identifying as independent and to the left of Clinton.
“We’re no longer playing the Bill Clinton-era win-the-middle, win-the-Reagan-Democrats presidential election politics,” said Jamal Simmons, a Democratic strategist who worked in Bill Clinton’s administration. “People have gone to their corners, and you’re wearing a red jersey or a blue jersey. The question is, can you get enough blue jerseys to show up? That’s your first test.”
“I don’t think she’s going to pick anybody who isn’t progressive,” said Bob Shrum, who has served as a senior aide to Democratic presidential candidates Al Gore and John Kerry. ...Others who may be interested include:
-- Rep. Xavier Becerra, the highest-ranking Latino in Congress and House Democratic Caucus Chairman, campaigned for Clinton in a dozen states and is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
-- Sen. Chris Murphy, of Connecticut, billed himself during his campaign as a "fresh, progressive voice."
-- Labor Secretary Tom Perez is popular with labor unions and spent years working on voting and civil rights issues.
Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/05/15/hillary-clinton-running-mate-democrat-vice-president/84288814/
I'm still hopeful of Sanders' performance in the remaining contests, but if it is Hillary, please don't pick a 2016 version of Joe Lieberman. Please show that you have learned from the Carter-Reagan, Gore-Bush, and Kerry-Bush campaign fiascoes.
Bernie Sanders Is Already President Of Liberals and Populists
Link to Bernie Sanders Is Already President: Of Liberals and Populists | Because of Sanders a great progressive movement is rising; excerpt:
Against this tide of progressive populism is the counter-revolution of the political establishment, the Wall Street and financial establishments, and the corporate-owned media establishment. ... The winner of the public battle of ideas in this historic battle that has only begun is the Democratic candidate for president who, according to the average of all polling on Real Clear Politics, would defeat Mr. Trump by an average of 13 percent—and who runs significantly stronger than Hillary Clinton against all candidates in match-up polling. That candidate is Mr. Sanders... When the television cameras scan across the floor of the Democratic convention viewers will see a huge number of Sanders delegates who will be cheering wildly for their champion and for other progressive leaders who will be addressing the convention, and challenging the Democratic Party to enact a platform that stands for the things that Democrats are supposed to stand for.
...
In another sense Mr. Sanders has already become the president. He may not be inaugurated in January 2017 as president of the United States, but he has already been inaugurated by the people as the president of the progressives, the president of the populists, and the president of men and women who believe politics should be an honorable profession of ideas and ideals and not a get-rich-quick scheme for greedy and selfish insiders! ... When Mr. Sanders make his case against Mr. Trump at the convention and beyond he will have a moral and political credibility unmatched in American political life.
When Mr. Sanders takes his case to the people in November on behalf of the issues and ideas and values and candidates whose visions and dreams he shares he will be the single most powerful voice on the American political stage.
When Mr. Sanders continues his quest for the revolution he seeks in 2017, and 2018 and beyond, he will mobilize even more people to great causes worthy of the battle that will never end until our country becomes everything it can be.... Think about this: the more Mr. Sanders campaigns the more progressive Ms. Clinton becomes. And the stronger Ms. Clinton appears the more Mr. Trump will move left of where he was the day before, which is why he is already showing signs of backing off his plan to bar all Muslims from entering the United States.
Do you agree or disagree that Hillary Clinton is honest and truthful?
As of May 10, 2016, more than three times as may people find Hillary dishonest and untruthful as find her to be honest.
Do you agree or disagree that Hillary Clinton is honest and truthful?
Disagree 62.1%
Agree 20.3%
Sanders: We're 'fighting for the soul of the Democratic Party'
link to Sanders: We're 'fighting for the soul of the Democratic Party'; excerpt:
“We’re also fighting for the soul of the Democratic Party, whether the Democratic Party remains dependent on Wall Street contributions or whether we move in the direction" of the Sanders campaign, he said Wednesday evening on WABC Radio's "Election Central with Rita Cosby," touting his more than 7 million individual contributions.
Members of Democratic establishment, he said, are "not enthusiastic about my candidacy and are certainly not overjoyed by the fact that we have now won 19 states and are poised to win even more."... Sanders remarked upon "a philosophical difference of opinion, a strong difference of opinion" within the party as its superdelegates decide between him and Clinton. "Do we fight for working families, do we work with working families, do we bring them into the Democratic Party or do we remain more dependent than we should on big-money interests?” he said.
Hillary demanded a Secretary of State appointment in exchange for calling off her PUMAs.
Sanders is not making any similar demand.
If Hillary is nominated, party unity should not be hard to achieve for three reasons:
1. Party rules and platform issues mean a lot to Sanders and his supporters. I have not ever run across a single Hillary supporter who has said "I LOVE the super delegate process for installing a wall of lobbyists to keep grassroots Democrats out of the nomination process," and I have not heard anyone say, "wow, if I didn't already love Debbie Wasserman Schultz for her passionate support of America's vital payday-loan industry, I'd still want her running the show because a smaller Democratic party with fewer elected officials is SO much easier to manage!" Likewise, I think I'll puke if I hear Hillary say I'm in "vigorous agreement with Senator Sanders on this issue" one more time. Let's document all of these vigorous agreements in out platform and adopt a plan that more Democrats are proud to stand upon. If fixing the party rules and platform ares good for the party and important to Sanders and his supporters and not a thing that Hillary and her supporters oppose, that is an easy compromise.
2. We all benefit from re-taking the Senate. Hillary is not universally liked, and her appeal is weakest in many states where Sanders did very well and there are key Senate battles looming. Key races include Colorado, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin where Sanders is beloved and they are not Hillary friendly (these are also important battleground states). Sanders also has a different, but comparably strong, base of supporters in Illinois and Missouri and Nevada and Ohio, venues for four more key senate races. Hillary should do what she can with the party rules and platform to make it easy for Sanders to motivate his supporters in these key eight senate races to feel the Bern for our Democratic candidates. If our platform sucks, if our top-of-the-ballot candidates include no one to excite independents and millennial Democrats, if the rules of the Democratic Party are not even remotely democratic, Sanders job of motivating his supporters down ballot is much tougher (and maybe unachievable). Put Sanders to work in those eight states AND MAKE HIS JOB EASIER.
3. A progressive running mate will help in the general election and would help Sanders get his supporters to support the ticket. Gore-Lieberman, The Sequel will not sell. Consider John Hickenlooper. Consider Elizabeth Warren. Consider Tulsi Gabbard (the ultimate party unity choice). Avoid picking some centrist white male just because he comes from a swing state. Please.
Can we agree that the Deep South is a unique region within our country and shares many issues?
The Old South is an important but unique part of America, and some people nevertheless seem to balk at the idea that the states of the Old South tend to operate more or less as a solid voting block.
Don't we agree that the Old South is a fairly unique region religiously:
Don't we agree that the Old South is a fairly unique region in its slowness to accept LGBT equality (possibly because of its religious uniqueness):
Don't we agree that the Old South is a fairly unique region in its reluctance to acknowledge collective bargaining rights:
Don't we agree that the Old South is a fairly unique region both in terms of its historical approach to education and it current approach:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PevJxpViUcE/U2mmb0OzPYI/AAAAAAAAHCU/0aWhygBX5gk/s1600/high+school+graduation+rates.png
Don't we agree that the Old South is a fairly unique region in terms of its poor access to health care and poor transportation to health care facilities and resulting obesity and diabetes and teen pregnancy:
http://notunlikeresearch.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f1fb8812970b014e89d296b1970d-pi
If we do not agree that the Old South is a unique region with special gifts and special needs, we are fooling ourselves.
We need to address the Old South as a political region that has unique strengths and unique requirements, but we also need to accept that political ideas that are suited to the Deep South will not necessarily carry the same weight outside of the Deep South:
Profile Information
Member since: Sun Aug 2, 2015, 11:10 AMNumber of posts: 3,373
