January 9, 2016

Politico: "Planned Parenthood gears up for 2016 offensive" me: "by shooting itself in the foot"

link to the Politico article; excerpt:

Planned Parenthood, facing attacks from conservatives in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail, is ramping up its election-year political efforts in key battleground states, adding senior staff and preparing to spend more than $20 million. ... The moves follow a months-long campaign by conservatives to vilify the group over videos of Planned Parenthood executives allegedly discussing fetal tissue sales and activity at the state level to try and cut off Medicaid reimbursements to the organization.

On Wednesday, House Republicans kicked off the 2016 legislative session with a vote to strip federal funding for the group. Though President Barack Obama has said he will veto the bill, it shows Republicans are willing to engage on abortion after several Senate candidates stumbled in recent elections when talking about women's health, and a GOP pledge after the 2012 election to avoid antagonizing female voters.

This is an important issue.

On the eve of this battle, Planned Parenthood made a decision that ruins a 100-year policy of not endorsing candidates in primary elections:

The endorsement marks the first time in the organization's 100-year history that Planned Parenthood Action Fund has endorsed a candidate in a primary.

This unprecedented endorsement has broken the heart and trust of countless (now former) Planned Parenthood supporters:

I'm just astonished at your endorsement of Hillary Clinton! You no longer have my monthly donation. You have been purchased by the Clintons.
...
I love and support Planned Parenthood full-heartedly, but I do not support or cosign your endorsement of Hillary Clinton. I won't say that Hillary hasn't made a lot of efforts and improvements in the realm of reproductive rights, but I will say that as a queer, atheist, working class, college student, she does not support me in any other way. She did not support gay marriage or equal rights until it was politically beneficial to her to do so. She pandors to big businesses and... See More
...
My "Shower Thought" for today regarding the public backlash of Planned Parenthood Action breaking their 100 year tradition of not endorsing a presidential candidate by endorsing Hillary Clinton. (If you want to see the responses click the link above):
I think for many women (and men), Planned Parenthood has long been a safe haven during sensitive and/or difficult situations. People go to them for family planning and health services. Condoms. STD screenings. Abortions. Birth control pills. Pregnancy. Etc. For many, Planned Parenthood has been a major part of their lives.
And let's face it, not everyone is happy about that. Planned Parenthood is always under attack, often by white Republican men in suits telling women (and men) what's best for them.
So now, instead of white Republican men in suits telling them what's best for them, it's Planned Parenthood itself. "Dear little lady, Hillary Clinton is what you need." As if women aren't capable of coming to their choice for president themselves (even if it IS Hillary). And the reasons Planned Parenthood gives only focus on women's health issues, nothing else, as if people only vote on that one issue alone. People are smarter than that.
My take is that a lot of the emotional backlash is in having an organization that used to be many people's "safe space" be the place that turns on them and tells them what's best for them. It brings up way too many issues.
...
PP you should've never endorsed a candidate before the Primary elections. All you did was piss off a lot of your donors. Bad move.
...
Hillary is a life time supporter of Monsanto one of her major contributers who manufactueres glyppsophate a toxin which has fully saturated the fiber markets. They are present in every box of feminnine hygene products you buy increasing exponentially the gynocological cancers. They've denied for years but the U.N and a French court have found this true that Monsanto has soaked the Americans in carcinogens. Think of Hillary every time you get a pap, she took money for your right to be toxified. I won't ever vote for her nor support PP again.

On what planet is it a good idea to begin this important fight by dividing your base by making an unprecedented primary endorsement that alienates a huge portion of (now former) supporters?

We ALL support Planned Parenthood's goals. For the sake of Planned Parenthood's continued well being, it needs to walk back this shockingly bad judgment.

I will continue to support Planned Parenthood and its goals, but I cannot do so in the same way that I used support those goals. At a time when Planned Parenthood is under attack by the far right, it should not have broken a 100 year old policy to pick a fight with those who supported Planned Parenthood for years right up until this week.

Those of us who value Planned Parenthood and who have tirelessly defended Planned Parenthood against unfair attacks should be united in telling Planned Parenthood that now is the time to unite your allies and fight our common foe, and it is not a time to push away those of us who wholeheartedly supported Planned Parenthood for decades until this week but who must now put a big asterisk mark on any continued support.

January 9, 2016

Comparing these Sanders' and Clinton's favorability/unfavorability charts shows why Clinton loses

the general election, but we eliminate that risk by nominating Sanders:

January 9, 2016

Why do Clinton and Trump do better in robo-call polls and worse in live cell/landline phone polling?

This is a documentable phenomenon.

Here is the New Hampshire polling according to ALL the robo-call polls considered by either RCP or Huffington Post's Pollster:



Here is the New Hampshire polling according to ALL polling considered by either RCP or Huffington Post's Pollster except with the robo-call polls excluded:



The inclusion of robo-call polling in the pollster aggregation models makes the New Hampshire race seem like a closer race than the impression you would draw from all the other polling. The phenomenon also holds true in Iowa, where the robo-call polls make Clinton's lead seem bigger than other polling indicates. This same phenomenon also favors Trump in Iowa and New Hampshire in the similar manner that it favors Clinton.

Any thoughts about the cause of this phenomenon?

January 9, 2016

NYT - Crowd enthusiasm photo in article about Sanders' "Big Lead in New Hampshire"

Photo accompanying NYT article Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders Hold Big Leads in New Hampshire Poll:

January 9, 2016

Poll gives Trump, Sanders huge leads in New Hampshire

Source: The Hill

Meanwhile, in the Democratic contest, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is the favorite of 50 percent of primary voters in the state, which is a 5-point increase since November. Hillary Clinton, the front-runner nationally, saw a 7 point drop in the same amount of time, down to 37 percent.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/265300-poll-trump-sanders-maintain-leads-in-nh

January 8, 2016

Breaking New Hampshire Poll - Sanders 50%, Clinton 37%, O'Malley 3%

Link to today's Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) live cell and landline telephone poll of 800 likely New Hampshire primary voters sponsored by Fox.

Even more revealing poll question: How would you feel if Clinton/Sanders wins the Democratic presidential nomination?

Very satisfied:

51% - Sanders
37% - Clinton

Somewhat satisfied:

34% - Sanders
31% - Clinton

Not at All satisfied:

8% - Sanders
17% - Clinton

January 5, 2016

Washington Post: "Hillary Clinton is the most miscast figure on the 2016 political stage"

link; excerpt:

Hillary Clinton is the most miscast character in the 2016 race. This is shaping up to be a change election, and nothing about a Clinton candidacy offers change. Period.... Her campaign will only feed the malaise that many voters feel and won’t do anything to create the enthusiastic wave to turn out Democrats in the numbers she will need to repeat President Obama’s 2008 and 2012 victories.

Poll after poll indicates voter dissatisfaction, with a vast majority of voters believing our country is headed in the wrong direction, and a sense that anger at the governing establishment is the prevailing emotion. It looks like the forces of change are gathering — and among today’s presidential candidates, on either side, Clinton is the biggest mismatch for today’s zeitgeist. That is particularly true among Republican and independent voters, but even some Democrats are questioning Clinton’s suitability.... Ron Burkle, a billionaire Democrat and Hillary ’08 supporter, has abandoned Clinton for John Kasich’s presidential campaign.... When you think about the state of the economy, the dysfunction of our foreign policy and the growing partisanship in our country, it’s not hard to see why Clinton appears so out of step. On our anemic economy, Clinton would be an Obama 2.0; she doesn’t even pretend to be something different or new. She is promising more of the usual Democratic freebies to more people. Nothing about her policies would stimulate robust growth; she barely even uses the word “growth.” Obama’s weakening of America’s place in the world has caused anxiety about our national security, and Clinton can’t disassociate herself from our foreign policy debacles. And in the specific instance of Libya, where Clinton was in charge, look what that got us. No one on the left or right thinks U.S. involvement in Libya is a formula for success in the future. Not to mention, at home, like Obama, Clinton is a divisive figure. She regularly calls Republicans her enemies, even comparing Republicans to “terrorist groups”; she buys into conspiracy theories that allow her to blame others for her mistakes; and she surrounds herself with partisan sycophants.

There is no case to be made that Clinton is a refreshing change, that she has the answers and the leadership abilities to not only bring the country together but also to reverse the chaos abroad that threatens the United States today. If Washington doesn’t work now, Clinton is not going to bring a new leadership style, energy or fresh appeal to the White House to change anything. At least when Bill Clinton ran for president, he was credible as a “New Democrat.” Clinton can’t try to make the claim that she is a “new” anything.... Instead of allowing voters to determine for themselves that she is a woman, oddly, she seems to constantly need to remind everyone of that fact. ... The bottom line is that if voters are looking for change, there is no affirmative case to be made for electing Hillary Clinton as president. So what is she to do? Simple. She will need to attack the Republican nominee. 2016 may be the most vicious campaign ever, as Clinton has to make the Republican candidate unacceptable. Arguably, Republicans could do their part by nominating a candidate who will be hard to swallow. But the Clinton forces don’t have a choice. And actually, given her limited presentation skills, it is a campaign strategy that will suit her.

The Empire will go negative and do so early. So while Americans are looking for peace, prosperity, a booming economy, a robust and assertive national security, a return to competent governing and to be given confidence about the future, all they will get from Clinton and the Democrats are scare tactics, crocodile tears and outright lies about Republicans. Welcome to the 2016 campaign.

January 5, 2016

In Wall Street speech, Sanders will pledge to break up big banks within first year in office

Source: Washington Post

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders will pledge Tuesday that if elected president he would act within his first year to break up banks deemed “too big to fail.”

The promise is included in a speech that the Vermont senator is scheduled to deliver in Manhattan on Wall Street reform, one of the pillars of his upstart campaign for the Democratic nomination against Hillary Clinton.

In the address, Sanders plans to assert that “a handful of huge financial institutions simply have too much economic and political power over this country.”

“If a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to exist,” Sanders will say, according to excerpts released by his campaign. “When it comes to Wall Street reform, that must be our bottom line.”

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/04/in-wall-street-speech-sanders-will-pledge-to-break-up-big-banks-within-first-year-in-office/

---

Here is an excerpt from a related news report from The US News & World Report, The Latest: Bernie Sanders to roll out plan to hold Wall Street banks accountable:

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is rolling out a plan to hold Wall Street banks accountable. In a reference to Oliver Stone's 1980s film, "Wall Street," Sanders plans to say Tuesday that "greed is not good."

The Sanders campaign says he will note that the federal government bailed out several financial institutions in 2008 but now three of the four largest financial institutions — JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America and Wells Fargo — are nearly 80 percent bigger than before the bailout.

Sanders is pledging to require the Treasury secretary to establish a "Too Big to Fail" list of commercial banks, shadow banks and insurance companies whose failure would pose a "catastrophic risk" to the U.S. economy.

He says within a year he will break up those financial institutions on the list and push for legislation to separate commercial and investment banking.

January 5, 2016

Sanders is changing America

Link to Politico analysis; excerpt:

Sanders has proudly not backed down from the “socialist” label, and in doing so forced the most leftist political discussion in modern times.... Sanders appeals to what used to be known as the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd, especially mostly middle-class citizens, who believe America is being taken over by Wall Street and other pernicious traditional powers. ... Sanders supporters voice opinions that yesterday they may have been unsure of or publically afraid to knowledge for fear of being alone and called a “socialist."

January 4, 2016

freespeech- Yes We CAN Win Without Billionaires: Bernie Sanders’ Stunning $33 Million Haul Proves It

link to some great analysis; excerpt:

Bernie Sanders Campaign sets political fundraising record with $33 million in small contributions.

Tired of Big Money in politics? The Bernie Sanders Campaign raked in a staggering $33 million for the last quarter of 2016: This comes just $4 million short of the $37 million Hillary Clinton's political fundraising juggernaut raised in the same time period, and it all came from ordinary people like us making modest donations. For the

On Saturday Jeff Weaver, manager for the Bernie Sanders Campaign, told CBS this bucks the outsized influence of Big Money in politics that set in after the Supreme Court's fateful ruling on Citizens United vs. FEC opened the floodgates to unlimited paid "free speech" back in 2010.

"This people-powered campaign is revolutionizing American politics. What we are showing is that we can run a strong, national campaign without a super PAC and without depending on millionaires and billionaires for their support."

In a triumph of political fundraising, the Bernie Sanders campaign received record-breaking 2.5 million donations from over one million people. The average contribution to Sanders for the last fiscal quarter of 2015 came to a modest $27.16. Compare and contrast that with an October report from The New York Times, which revealed an alarming fact: Over half the political spending on 2016 presidential primaries for both parties - $176 million - came from just 158 well-heeled, mostly white families and the corporations they run.

Take that Citizens United!