February 5, 2016

Clinton: "We can only do what Paul Ryan lets us do." Sanders: "We can do what the people demand."

That is the difference. Clinton is campaigning so she can run the status quo, and Sanders is running so he can campaign for the ascendancy of the people's will over the status quo.

The reason Obama was a rock star in the 2008 campaign and the first 18 months of his presidency is that he campaigned directly to the people and he began running his administration through that direct link to the people.

This is what Teddy Roosevelt did, and what FDR did, and it was through the Kennedy family's direct connection with the people that LBJ was empowered to pass the progressive JFK-LBJ legacy in the wake of JFK's assassination.

After a mid-term set back in 2010, Obama stopped governing directly to the people and began governing to Congress. This is where Obama's presidency stalled, and this is where Clinton wants to pick up the reigns of the Presidency.

If Obama had kept nonstop campaigning from 2008 through 2016, he could have taken his best ideas directly to the public which -- in many cases -- overwhelmingly favors those ideas. This would put the naysayers in Congress in the position of (a) passing Obama's most popular ideas or (2) defying the will of the voters. Either the Obama's most popular idea gets passed or those who frustrate the will of the people face repercussions at the ballot box. This is the power of the bully pulpit.

Imagine if Obama dedicated 2011 to campaigning for a livable minimum wage with the same intensity that he campaigned to be elected in 2008. Imagine the pressure Congress would have felt. Imagine the backlash if they drew their line in the sand to resist a daily presidential rally in support of legislation that was supported by a majority of Republicans as well as large majorities of Democrats and independents.

Imagine if Occupy Wall Street was not a protest against the inadequate financial regulations passed by the Democrats and the Republicans, and -- instead -- Occupy Wall Street was led by the sitting President against those in either party who would defy the will of the people at the behest of the 1% Wall Street banksters.

Clinton frets that Paul Ryan will not pass a progressive agenda, but FDR's Congress didn't want to pass the New Deal, either. Those "fireside chats" weren't because FDR was chatty by nature; they were FDR campaigning for his agenda even AFTER he won his election. FDR went AROUND Congress to the people who elect Congress and he made the electorate into a body capable of enforcing the will of the majority (instead of capitulating to the naysayers in Congress who do the bidding of lobbyists for the 1%).

This is what the Sanders campaign is all about. It's not about Sanders; it's about transforming the electorate into a political body empowered to accomplish the progressive goals that large majorities of voters favor.

February 4, 2016

Clinton supporters: Note how fighting to a draw in Iowa and settling in for a fight in New Hampshire

is a cure for the "coronation" theme which was one of Clinton's greatest vulnerabilities.

Please see how this primary and the expanded schedule of debates is good for Clinton in the long run (and good for both "big D" and "little d" democrats).

Tonight's debate is Clinton's best opportunity of the whole campaign -- she's in a battleground primary fight where she is predicted to lose and so if she has an off night, she can say "I was so far down in the New Hampshire poll everyone already knew I could never have won that state," and if she wins, she can say "I'm the comeback kid in New Hampshire." This is a no lose event for Clinton.

Tonight is Clinton's spotlight dance: step away from the petty back and forth and embrace the policy debate tonight!

February 4, 2016

Three things the Clinton campaign needs to do now (please, just in case you win the nomination)

I hope Sanders wins the nomination and spares us from pitting a status quo establishment Democrat against a Republican who promises change (that match up looks horrible for us Democrats). If Clinton can stop the hemorrhaging and use her cache of un-democratically allotted super-delegates to win the nomination that is so famously "inevitably" hers, then she needs to be ready for a general election. Sanders' campaign has been flawless (whether you are in Clinton's camp or Sanders', we should all agree that his campaign is very well run), but Clinton's campaign seems hellbent on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Here is what the Clinton campaign needs to do to get back on track (none of us wants a wounded general election candidate whose weakness opens a door for a radical right-wing presidency, and -- on this point at least -- supporters of Sanders and Clinton are united):

1. Stop the bleeding on the lack of trustworthiness.

Clinton's most vulnerable weakest is her history of self-aggrandizement and making up implausible excuses for her own errors (don't make me list them). This has cost her dearly in the eyes of young Democrats and Independents of all demographics and potential cross-over Republicans. Any Democrat needs strong and enthusiastic support from young Democrats, Independents, and cross-over Republicans, and Clinton has never polled strongly among these groups, and her campaign seems calculated to widen this trust gap.

Clinton needs to campaign as who she is, not as who she thinks she needs to pretend to be in order to compete for Sanders' supporters. When Clinton pretends to be the "progressive" choice between herself and Sanders, she sounds unauthentic and it gives anyone who has been paying any attention to the campaign the clear impression that Clinton assumes we are idiots. If this were a fight between Jim Webb and Clinton, she gets to wear the progressive mantle, but in a contest with Sanders, Clinton magnifies her problematic lack of authenticity and trustworthiness by pretending we primary voters cannot figure out for ourselves who is -- by far -- the progressive choice.

On September 10 in Columbus, Ohio, Clinton accepted the role of centrist moderate, and she only further damages her wounded credibility by attempting to crawfish back from that (rare) candid admission.

2. Begin the general election campaign on the issues now.

If you google "political triangulation," then you had better be prepared to read a lot about the Clintons. They own political triangulation. It is not a tactic that I'm fond of, but it is a real thing that has served some candidates well over the decades, and no one does it better than the Clintons. We all know that Clinton is going to pivot rightward if she can fix her campaign and pull off the nomination. Clinton needs to make her general election case now. If the Clinton campaign truly believes Sanders is too liberal and progressive to win the nomination, then they shouldn't be trying to position Clinton to his left.

On foreign policy, she's a hawk. She should own it. She should be campaigning as she plans to govern (i.e., as a hawk who is well to the right of Sanders but to the left of Rubio with more experience and with better judgement than Trump or Cruz). On foreign policy, she is the American Maggie Thatcher, and while that isn't a great model for the primary, it's not a bad model for the general election (especially if the choice is between America's Thatcher versus an equally bellicose Republican without any experience or judgment to guide that hawkishness).

On domestic policy, she is status quo (basically a third Obama term). While I yearn for a president who governs more like 2009 Obama rather than 2011-2015 Obama, there are Democrats and Independents and potential cross-over Republicans who do not want a more progressive America and who are more scared that we will actually tip backward than hopeful that we can push forward. {{{Spoiler alert: Clinton's general election campaign theme will be about incremental "fixes" to the current system plus loud public pronouncements on a few issues like gun control and immigration where polling indicates her view is more widely accepted than the Republican view}}}. She should change her stump speech to begin the process of touting her general election domestic agenda now, and she should begin the process of contrasting her domestic agenda from the Rubio-Trump-Cruz agenda (and not worry about contrasting her domestic agenda to Sanders').

3. Stop thinking of Sanders as a rival and see that he is an opportunity.

The whining that Sanders is running a negative campaign is silly (and it exacerbates the problem of dis-ingenuousness discussed above). If you compare the tone of the Sanders campaign with the Clinton 2008 campaign against Obama, you would almost wonder if Sanders is a Clinton plant based on how gentle he has been with Clinton. If you compare the tone of the Sanders campaign with the entire Republican field, you would have to come to the conclusion that either Sanders or each and every Republican is not calibrating their campaign correctly because the contrast in tone toward the primary opponents is so striking.

A campaign that truly believes it is winning either ignores its opponent or goes out of its way to be nice to its opponent. Clinton and her surrogates betray their lack of confidence in her campaign by the manner in which they go after Sanders. It's an obvious tell.

So where does that leave Clinton? She (1) needs to show some authenticity; (2) intends to triangulate rightward for the general election; and (3) has an opponent who is going easy on her as compared to nearly every objective metric. All three circumstances point to the conclusion that she needs to stop treating Sanders as a rival and start treating Sanders as a foil to reflect that her policy positions have centrist appeal to moderates. She needs to begin her general electric campaign now by selling herself as the sane alternative to Rubio-Trump-Cruz. If Sanders calls her a moderate and a centrist, she needs to look straight into the camera and say "damn right!" She needs to own who she is because, if she doesn't, she will never have a hope as a general election candidate.

Clinton cannot win me over in the primary because I agree with Sanders on every issue where he and Clinton differ and because I think we need a Democratic change candidate like Sanders to beat the Republican change candidate in what is shaping up to be a change election of epic proportions.

Clinton can, however, mitigate the sleeplessness I feel as a result of her running a campaign that seems calculated to doom any chances she might have in the general election. I support Sanders, but I acknowledge that Clinton is the favorite and he is the underdog. I will vote for Sanders in my primary, but I expect that Clinton has a better than 50%-50% chance at winning my state and the nomination.

For the sake of the party, get your shit together because I don't want to lose the primary and then also lose the general election!

February 4, 2016

Why the Coin Flips Matter (and Why Clinton's Inability to Understand the Significance Echoes 2008)

Perhaps there are some who are confused about the effect on the national delegate count as a result of the Iowa coin flips to decide several tied precincts, but only a very few are confused about that topic.

The Clinton campaign (and some of her supporters) seem to think that the coin flip issue disappears upon the explanation that it did not change the national delegate allocation. The Sanders campaign (and some of his supporters) don't see the issue that way, and Sanders is right.

First, the coin flip is an idea covered by the media and embedded in the public psyche (in part because of the unlikelihood that Clinton would win all of the coin tosses):





The coin toss is not important as effecting the delegate allocation, but the coin toss is very important as a tremendously powerful metaphor for a close election.

Regardless of whether you are a Clinton supporter or a Sanders supporter, you ought to know that it was an historically close caucus that was too close to call when America went to bed on February 1. It was a tiny fraction of one percent that separated the candidates, and in America's mind, that's close enough where a coin toss is an apt metaphor.

Second, while America believes this is an historically close caucus that was too close to call as February 2 crept onto the calendar, Clinton prematurely declared herself the victor when all the main networks were saying the race was too close to call and her morning interviews on February 2 downplayed the closeness of the caucus and skirted around her earlier predictions that Iowa wouldn't be a competitive race.

Clinton's efforts to declare victory before the votes were in and to exaggerate the results highlight one of her key weaknesses as a candidate: her propensity for counter-factual self-aggrandizement the voters' consequent mistrust.

The coin toss is the key metaphor from the Iowa caucus and Clinton's awkward attempt to dispute the extraordinary closeness of this result in a state where Clinton held herself out as inevitable will only reinforce voter distrust as another example of her penchant for self-aggrandizement.

February 3, 2016

Hillary Clinton's General Election Campaign Strategy LEAKED!

A lot of Democrats have been concerned about Clinton's general election campaign strategy because she has consistently overestimated her own appeal in the Democratic primary election:



This is a very important demographic because young Democratic voters turn out when they are excited about the Democratic candidate and do not turnout in nearly as high numbers when they are not as enthusiastic about the candidate, and this often correlates to a Democratic win in a non-incumbent election with high younger voter turnout and a Democratic loss in non-incumbent races in the absence of such enthusiasm:



In this context, the Clinton campaign has caused many Democrats great concern. This concern has grown as Clinton first promised a 50 state sweep in the race for the nomination, and then began to promise a 49 state win when her likeability polling plummeted in New Hampshire, and now she is promising that Iowa and New Hampshire are "exceptional" states and she'll perform better in the latter 48 state races.

The Clinton campaign has developed a general election strategy to combat these weaknesses in her candidacy, and the memo setting forth her two-part strategy has been leaked by insiders within her campaign:


PART 1

Battle Trump (or Cruz or Rubio) to a virtual tie in the general election.



PART 2

Win all coin tosses to decide tied elections.

February 3, 2016

The Iowa results confirm that the methodology used by PPP, Gravis, and Emerson is deeply flawed

Now that we have some actual results to grade the pollsters, it is worth considering which polls were close and which polls were ridiculously off the mark so we can discount the junk polls as we go forward.

Which polls were closest to the target according to the data at Pollster and Real Clear Politics?

CBS/YouGov predicted a 1% gap between Sanders and Clinton within the margin of error.

Quinnipiac predicted a 3% gap between Sanders and Clinton within the margin of error.

Iowa State predicted a 2% gap between Sanders and Clinton within the margin of error (but the data was gathered over an unusually long 17 day period).

Des Moines Register predicted a 3% gap between Sanders and Clinton within the margin of error.

ARG predicted a 3% gap between Sanders and Clinton within the margin of error.

NBC/WSJ/Marist College predicted a 3% gap between Sanders and Clinton within the margin of error.

Fox predicted a 3% gap between Sanders and Clinton within the margin of error.

Which poll missed the mark, but was not too far outside its margin of error:

Monmouth predicted a 5% gap between Sanders and Clinton outside its 4.4% margin of error.

Which pollsters were full of shit?

Gravis predicted an 11% Clinton lead with a 3% margin of error.

PPP predicted an 8% Clinton lead with a 3.4% margin of error.

Emerson predicted an 8% Clinton lead with a 5.6% margin of error.

What separates the bullshit polls from the most accurate polls?

All of the bullshit polls use a dubious robo-call polling method.

The more accurate polls use a live landline and call phone polling method (except CBS/YouGov, which uses a on-line model).

What does this tell us going forward?

Here is the race in New Hampshire according to all polls:



Here is the race in New Hampshire according to the robo-call polls:



Here is the race in New Hampshire according to all polls except the robo-call polls:



The robo-call polling is untrustworthy and when it is included in a poll aggregation, it skews the aggregation.

BEWARE THE COMING ONSLAUGHT OF NEVADA ROBO-CALL POLLS!

February 2, 2016

The Guardian: "Iowa proved Bernie Sanders can win – and that Hillary Clinton is beatable"

Iowa proved Bernie Sanders can win – and that Hillary Clinton is beatable

On Tuesday, the race in which pundits long-ago declared Hillary Clinton the presumptive victor will begin in earnest; sit tight, it’s going to be a very long, bumpy ride.

The margin between Sanders and Clinton was razor thin all of Monday night – certainly thinner than anyone would have imagined possible last spring, when he was down by 42 points in a national poll. Coming in anywhere near close to Clinton in the Iowa caucus would’ve been a significant victory for Sanders; the near-tie showed the deep resonance of his message.... Monday night proved that he could win and, in proving it, he’s weakened Clinton by exposing her as something other than the inevitable candidate we had all but assumed her to be. Some Sanders staffers have argued Sanders definitely did win if you count raw totals and not state delegates; given the geographical layout of Iowa, that claim is likely if unproven. ... Numbers aside, by sheer momentum Iowa was a win for Sanders – and that’s how progressive groups were framing it before the race was called. Democracy for America’s Charles Chamberlain – which had endorsed Sanders weeks ago – was calling the night’s results are “a huge win for Bernie” and “a major upset” for Clinton before Sanders even took the stage.

“Together, the people of Iowa and millions of grassroots progressives all across the country, turned a candidate who was polling in the single digits just six months ago into a race-altering force of nature in the Democratic primary and national conversation,” he said in a statement.... When Sanders finally spoke on Monday night, he drove home the message behind their virtual tie. “What Iowa has begun tonight is a political revolution”, he said, as the crowd erupted in screams. “When young people and working people and seniors begin to stand up and say loudly and clearly enough is enough ... that the government of our great country belongs to all of us and not just billionaires, when that happens, we will transform this country.”

It was textbook Bernie: inspirational, focused on class inequality and mad as hell. And every time he got fired up about a moral point – like his assertion that healthcare is a right not a privilege – the crowd returned his fire with shouts and calls of “Bernie!

“You guys ready for a radical idea?” Sanders asked his ecstatic audience tonight. “Well, so is America.”

February 2, 2016

Fiorina Is A No-Show At Her Own Iowa Caucus Party

link; photo:

http://twitter.com/rogerriley/status/694383994264272896/photo/1

February 2, 2016

PoliticusUSA: "Here Are The Winners And Losers Of The Democratic and Republican Iowa Caucuses"

link; excerpt:

Winners:

1). Bernie Sanders – No matter who is officially declared the winner in Iowa, by running 50/50 with Clinton in the Hawkeye State makes Bernie Sanders a winner. Sanders now moves on to some nearby home turf of New Hampshire where he has a huge lead. Bernie Sanders delivered big in Iowa.

2). Ted Cruz...

3). Marco Rubio...

Losers:

1). Donald Trump- Trump promised major wins to his supporters then came out and fell flat on his face. Trump’s whole campaign was built on bluster, and that hot air has been proven to be empty. The reality television star became what he hates the most. Donald Trump is a now a loser.

2). Hillary Clinton- Even if Clinton is declared the winner, she split the caucuses with Bernie Sanders. The idea that Clinton will have an easy ride to the nomination has been shattered. Bernie Sanders brought out the younger and new voters in droves. Clinton relied on traditional Democratic voters, and it wasn’t enough to deliver her a clear win.

3). Jeb Bush...

4). Martin O’Malley and Mike Huckabee...

5). Sarah Palin- Palin was supposed to be the big gun endorsement that put Trump over the top in Iowa. Instead, Trump lost to the candidate that Palin threw to the curb. The idea that Palin is a kingmaker has been crushed. Sarah Palin is old news, and her endorsement might have hurt instead of helped Trump.

February 2, 2016

The two Democratic parties fight to a draw in Iowa

Source: Washington Post

Entrance polling showed the Democratic party of Bernie Sanders is younger (he earned about six times as much support as Clinton from those under 30), more liberal (he got 6 in 10 of the vote from those who called themselves “very liberal”) and slightly more male, according to preliminary entrance polls. ... Their motivations were different. Sanders voters wanted honesty and empathy. Clinton voters wanted experience and the ability to win in November.

In 2008, Barack Obama’s caucus win was powered by a surge of new voters in Iowa who accounted for a majority of the electorate. Had Sanders seen a similar surge, he’d have been the clear winner, as he got the vote of about 6 in 10 of those who’d never caucused before. But most voters in this year’s caucuses had done so before, and a majority of them favored Clinton. ...Sanders, though, was strongly preferred by those looking for someone that cares about people like them, getting support from 3 out of 4 voters citing that quality. Among voters looking for an honest candidate, Sanders did even better, earning the support of about 4 in 5 Democrats prioritizing that trait.



Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/01/what-we-can-learn-from-the-iowa-democratic-entrance-poll/