February 13, 2016

538: "Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton both have a 50% chance of winning the Nevada caucuses"

link.

February 13, 2016

CNN: "Clinton's 'me' versus Sanders' 'us'"

link; excerpt:

(CNN)Two speeches, two candidates and a markedly different focus when it comes to pronouns.... Clinton may be one of the most experienced presidential candidates in recent history, and yet a pitch based on that might be a drawback on a campaign. She used the pronouns "I" or "me" in that speech 44 times. She used the words "we" or "us" less than half that amount -- 21 times.

For Sanders, it was the exact opposite. Sanders used the words "I" or "me" 26 times. "We" or "us" was used more than twice as much -- 54 times.... Clinton's pitch to voters is all about her, they said. ... Sanders' experience is about them. What they all can do together.

"It's a big problem," says former Obama adviser David Axelrod. "When you make experience your message, by definition, you're going to be talking about yourself more than you're going to be talking about others. It's a great contrast with Bernie, who rarely talks about himself. So his message is about something larger.... winning campaigns and they have messages of empowerment -- they're inclusive," said Axelrod, a CNN contributor. "'Yes, we can' was a great example of that."... On Monday, New Hampshire voter Donna Manion told National Public Radio, "I can, in my mind, think I'm pro-Hillary all the way, and then Bernie Sanders' ideas that he exposes me to really cause me to think in ways I hadn't thought before. I think in terms of 'us' a lot when I listen to Bernie talk. Whereas, when I listen to Hillary, even though I respect so much of what she has done and the person that she is, I hear the word 'I,' 'I,' 'I' a lot."

Analyses of other speeches showed that Sanders did use "we" or "us" more than the first-person pronouns, while Clinton said "I" or "me" more than she used the more inclusive pronouns, though the ratio was less stark. The pattern did not repeat itself in debates or town halls, where the candidates had less control of their messages. We will be taking a more comprehensive look at these speeches in the future.

February 11, 2016

Tonight's Debate is Clinton's One-Question Test: Has She Figured Out What's Wrong with Her Campaign

This is a very important test. Failing this test casts further doubt on whether the Clinton campaign has the strength and foundation to win either the primary or general election (and it is definitely not enough to win just one of these two contests).

Clinton must be able to identify the defect is her campaign if she can correct her course, and a course correction is absolutely necessary because even if her super-delegate booster chair can help her squeak by the primary with a broken campaign, she cannot win the general election with a "good enough" campaign.

So what's wrong with the Clinton campaign? Hint: if Clinton cannot answer that question without using the names "Bernie" or "Sanders," then she's in big trouble.

Also, if she's cannot admit she has a problem, then the problem has grown beyond her ability to manage it, which is a fatal condition.

Here are the symptoms of the problem:

The Clinton campaign fumbled Iowa.

A year before the caucus, Clinton had a 54% lead in Iowa, and she had a 12% lead a month before the caucus and a 3% lead on the day of the caucus:



Clinton spent the most on advertising in Iowa's Democratic caucus by $2,000,000, and she had the most field offices and paid staff.

Still, Clinton performed under her polling despite her huge investment.

The Clinton campaign completely blew it in New Hampshire.

A year before the primary, Clinton had a 39% lead in New Hampshire, and she was only behind by 3% six weeks before the primary and was behind by 14% on the day of the primary:



Again, Clinton performed far under her polling when Sanders blew her out by 22%.

Clinton needs to diagnose her campaign's problem, and if she thinks the problem with her campaign is Sanders, she's not going to be able to correct her course. And if Clinton is having problems in the primary, where she has the DNC and the entire Democratic Party establishment pushing her and fighting to tip the scales against Sanders, then she won't have a prayer if she makes it to the general election where the tables will not be tilted in her favor.

February 10, 2016

Poor Jim Gilmore. Doing worse than ex-candidates Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum

February 9, 2016

Exit poll: "Far more New Hampshire voters see Sanders as honest and trustworthy than Clinton"

Great news for Sanders! Not so much for Clinton...

February 9, 2016

Exit poll - "overwhelming 9 in 10 voters say the U.S. economic system generally favors the wealthy"

This is deadly deadly bad news for Clinton.

February 9, 2016

Slate:"Why Do Young People Have Such Visceral Dislike for Hillary?"

link; excerpt:

That Democrats have a generational split in their presidential primary isn’t a surprise. Young Democrats flocked to Barack Obama in 2008, to Howard Dean in 2004, to Bill Clinton in 1992, and in one of the most famous examples, to George McGovern in 1972. What’s different about this primary is the size of the gulf between young Democrats and the rest of the party. Eighty-four percent of voters between 17 and 29 backed Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Iowa caucus, and in the latest New Hampshire polls, he leads Clinton by an almost 9-to-1 margin.... I asked ... young participants in presidential politics, what was the problem with Hillary Rodham Clinton? What was so off-putting?

Speaking to students attending a Clinton event at Manchester Community College, the big answer was Wall Street. “I’m concerned with her talks with Goldman Sachs—the big money that is behind her,” said Sarah Kocher, who was there with a group from Hofstra University in New York. By contrast, she admired Sanders’ stance against “the big money and the banks.” “Bernie is very honest,” she said.... “I get the impression from Hillary that as soon as she gets in office … she wouldn’t be an effective president,” said Michael Hathaway, “and if she was effective, it wouldn’t be for me, it would be for her banker friends who were giving her millions of dollars.”

Sitting next to Michael was Lexis, who had less to say about Clinton’s ties to Wall Street, and more to say about her campaign appeals. “I have a very large problem with the fact that a very large part of her campaign is riding on the fact that she’s a woman, and expects people like me—women—to vote for her,” she said. She continued: “All I have heard so far is ‘I’m a woman vote for me, because we need a woman president.’ We’ll have plenty of time in the future for women to run, for qualified, worthy women to run. We need to get over this concept of immediate gratification that’s driving this campaign.”... Hillary... backed the corporate-friendly policies that young Democrats are rebelling against, but she isn’t responsible for them.

I don’t have an explanation here, but I have a theory. It’s obvious that the left turn among young voters is a product of the Great Recession. For Americans who left high school or finished college in 2008, 2009 and 2010 (I’m part of this group, for the record), the economy was a wasteland, with little opportunity and tremendous competition. Young people—and especially college graduates—were promised a pathway into the middle-class and received, instead, a dead end.... What matters is that to these young voters Hillary Clinton was on the wrong side when it mattered. And that Bernie Sanders, as flawed as he might be, wasn’t.

SEC. CLINTON, PLEASE RELEASE YOUR WALL STREET SPEECH TRANSCRIPTS TO CURB THE GROWING MISTRUST. RECALL HOW POORLY THE OSTRICH DEFENSE WORKED ON THE E-MAIL SCANDAL. PLEASE SHOW US YOU HAVE LEARNED FROM THAT MISTAKE.

February 7, 2016

Iowans claim instances when Sanders was shorted delegates

Source: Des Moines Register

Keane Schwarz is certain he knows the outcome of the vote in his precinct: He was the lone caucusgoer in Woodbury County No. 43.

But the Iowa Democratic Party's final results state that Hillary Clinton won one county delegate and Bernie Sanders received zero.

"I voted for Bernie," Schwarz, 36, of Oto, told The Des Moines Register. “It was really suspicious … I’m actually pretty irate about it.”... complaints that Iowa Democrats have shared with the Register about discrepancies in caucus results appear to be valid... Party officials on Friday night were still reviewing reports and correcting errors and hadn’t yet shared candidates' updated totals of state delegate equivalents, which determine the winner of the caucuses.... It also doesn't help the optics that the state party chairwoman drove around for years in a car with “HRC2016” license plates.

Several caucusgoers told the Register they thought Sanders had been shorted county delegates, including in Knoxville No. 3.... A total of 110 people were present for the final vote, and the count was 58 people for Sanders and 52 people for Clinton — which amounted to five county delegates for Sanders and four for Clinton, said Lonnie McCombs, a 59-year-old Knoxville Democrat who is retired from careers in the military and in manufacturing... But when the Knoxville Journal Express newspaper posted the Democratic Party’s official results, it showed Knoxville No. 3 results as Clinton with five county delegates and Sanders with four.... Steve Eck, who was Clinton’s precinct captain for Knoxville No. 3, confirmed: “Somebody transposed those numbers.”... Elsewhere, ... in Cedar Rapids No. 9, ... the precinct’s four delegates split evenly between Sanders and Clinton, who won by just one person's vote.... 131 people signed in at the beginning of the caucus but two separate head counts showed that 136 people voted.... “Who knows if these people were even registered to vote in our district.”


Read more: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/02/06/iowans-claim-instances-when-sanders-shorted-delegates/79902080/

February 5, 2016

Today's Quinnipiac national poll (Sanders 42%, Clinton 44% -- Sanders +9% favorable, Clinton -17%

unfavorable -- only Sanders beats Cruz, Clinton ties -- only Clinton loses to Rubio, Sanders ties -- Sanders beats Trump by 10%, twice the margin for Clinton vs. Trump).

Here is a link; here is a graph showing where today's Quinnipiac national poll fits within the trend of all other national live phone polling:



This is a national poll so it is shouldn't be seen as predictive, but it is a very good report card for the Sanders campaign, and it suggests that Clinton is not making much progress in her favorabilty rating problem or her head-to-head weakness.

February 5, 2016

Clinton's campaign is about HER BEING something. Sanders' campaign is about US DOING something.

Clinton wants to be the first woman president. That is a laudable goal and a grossly overdue milestone that we, as a nation, must pass (in my heart, I hope it will be Elizabeth Warren who first crosses this threshold).

While Clinton's goal is important and commendable, it is a personal goal about Clinton herself, and it is a goal about what she wants to be.

Sanders' goal is also important and commendable, and it is a public goal for us to accomplish rather than a personal goal about Sanders, and his goal is about what he wants us and America to do.

Here is a contrast that highlights the distinction: Sanders would be the first Jewish president, which is also a laudable goal and an overdue milestone, but you never hear Sanders focusing on his desire to BE the first Jewish president -- his focus is relentlessly on US and what we can DO.

Ask yourself, what would Clinton say about the importance of Sanders' campaign as one which could result in the first Jewish president? The fact that this is not a big issue in the election is testament to the fact that Sanders' campaign places us at the center and does not place the candidate as the focus.