Attorney in Texas
Attorney in Texas's JournalCNBC: "Trump-Sanders debate would be Hillary Clinton's worst nightmare" (It's not too late Hillary!)
Before linking and excerpting the article, I want to point out that if Hillary simply un-reneges on the agreed upon debate schedule, she reaps these benefits:
* she gets primetime access to a huge audience for free
* she has a perfectly timed platform to give her general election message
* she gets a chance to show herself more centrist than Sanders
* she avoids the Trump-Sanders debate that makes her look scared to debate
Link to Trump-Sanders debate would be Hillary Clinton's worst nightmare; excerpt:
Just when you thought the 2016 election was starting to get a little predictable, a big wrench has been thrown into the works.
A Donald Trump vs. Bernie Sanders debate in the coming days before the June 7th California primary is getting closer to becoming a reality. If this happens, it will likely be a huge boost for Sanders.... He was given no chance to even make a dent in Mrs. Clinton's inevitable coronation, er presidential nomination, by the Democrats. ... Needless to say, if Sanders wins this primary it will wound Mrs. Clinton greatly. ... For a campaign that's been suffering a number of failures lately, its refusal to debate Sanders and setting off this alternative contest vs. Trump is perhaps the biggest failure yet. ... It's also not wise for Clinton to allow any major campaign event to occur without her participation.
Senate Dems Fighting for Traction on SCOTUS Nominee
Source: Real Clear Politics
Senate Democrats have thrown everything they have at Republicans in recent weeks to force action on President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, but their GOP counterparts haven’t budged an inch.
As senators prepare to spend a week in their home states for Memorial Day and as the end of the Supreme Court session approaches next month, Democrats hope to keep their foot on the gas by seizing any opportunity to highlight the court vacancy. They’re convinced they’ve got a winning issue in both the near and long term, and that their actions so far have been effective.
But despite Democrats’ varied tactics, not a single Republican senator has switched his position on the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland. ... Both sides insist public opinion is on their side. Democrats point to polls showing independents and even some Republicans favoring hearings for Garland, while Republicans insist that Americans who vote based on the makeup of the court are staunchly opposed to the confirmation.
Democrats have turned to increasingly creative strategies in recent weeks to draw attention to the vacancy. Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland joined the president of the American Federation of Teachers and other education groups at a press conference last week to highlight the anniversary of the famous Brown v. Board of Education decision and the need for a fully functioning court. Later in the week, Sens. Cory Booker and Al Franken joined national youth organizations for an event on the steps of the Supreme Court calling for Republicans to take up the nomination.... “{Republicans{ were betting on two things: One, that we would just let it go because there’s so much going on, and we haven’t,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota. “Two, they were betting that the public wouldn’t care, and I guess we’ll find that out in November, but overall {polling} still shows the public does care."... Sen. Dianne Feinstein admitted that Democrats probably haven’t raised as much attention for the court vacancy as they would like, but insisted they are exhausting all ways to highlight the issue. ... “We’re doing what we can do and I think that’s important. Everybody’s got a job to do and it’s now out there and people are understanding. Some care more than others, but that’s the way it goes. We can only do what we can do."
Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/05/25/senate_dems_fighting_for_traction_on_scotus_nominee_130666.html
The best way to push this confirmation forward would be for a rising voice in the Democratic Party to urge Garland to withdraw if not given a hearing and vote by Labor Day.
The truth is that Garland is a decent guy, but he is (1) WAY too old to be a smart pick and (2) too centrist to make a real mark on the court.
If the Republicans only understood how truly ambivalent progressives are about Garland, and how much stronger (and younger) the replacement nominee will be, they would shut up and eat their peas. By allowing for the possibility of a lame duck appointment, the Republicans believe that they can have their cake and eat it too (not appoint Garland in the hope Trump will win but appoint him during the lame duck period if the Democrat wins). We need to kick that crutch out from under the Republicans in the Senate so they realize that we are going to move on to a younger and more progressive candidate if they don't act over the summer.
Everyone understands the purpose of the State Department's report on Hillary's email server, right?
The State Department is on Hillary's side. In fact, the State Department is Hillary's side. The State Department is controlled pretty directly (not as directly as the DoJ but more directly than the FBI) by Obama, and Obama is on Hillary's side.
The State Department report and especially the timing of the report would not happen without a reason.
The only reason for State Department report and for the timing of the report is to get out ahead of the FBI recommendation. Whatever you think of the State Department report, you can bet that the FBI recommendation is on its heels and the State Department report will offer a better spin than wherever can be spun out of the forthcoming FBI recommendation.
Buckle up.
It is advantageous for Hillary and for the Democratic Party that Sanders continue his campaign.
How does the continuation of the Sanders' campaign help Hillary? Several ways:
The ongoing Sanders campaign gives Hillary an avenue to dominate news cycles with a story other than her email server problem or whatever bullshit twitter post Trump launched the previous day - this prolongs Hillary's opportunity to discuss how her platform will help the middle class and those aspiring to join the middle class;
The ongoing Sanders campaign gives Hillary a foil against which she can cast herself as the Goldilocks "middle choice" between Trump on her right (at least on domestic issues) and Sanders on her left;
The ongoing Sanders campaign gives Hillary a prime time event to make her general election pitch in a forum worth more than tens of millions of dollars in TV ads - it is crazy to pass up on the California debate, which is a golden opportunity in the Golden State to hit a huge audience with her general election message.
How does the continuation of the Sanders' campaign help the Democratic Party? Several ways:
The ongoing Sanders campaign gives the Democratic Party an opportunity to restore the enthusiasm we will need in the Fall if we are going to have a chance at avoiding a Trump administration - the party would hugely benefit from a vigorous debate about party rules (who wouldn't have some of their faith restored by the reform of a process where lobbyists super-delegates are installed to impose their will over grassroots voters?), the party platform (wouldn't it help with Hillary's key weakness by fighting the perception that Hillary is rudderless to adopt a platform that enshrines her shift to the left during the primary?), and the best role for the FDR-Sanders-Warren wing of the party (imagine how much easier it would be to retake the Senate if we empowered the Sanders-led movement to tap its energy on behalf of our Senate candidates in New Hampshire, Colorado, and Wisconsin?);
The ongoing Sanders campaign gives the Democratic Party an opportunity to find common ground - while Sanders continues to get push-back from the party and from Hillary on important progressive issue, of course he will continue to fight for these goals, but you hear more and more Sanders (and Warren) attacks on Trump, and this helps unite the party by reminding us of our common goals and so we do ourselves a disservice by cutting this process short;
The ongoing Sanders campaign gives the Democratic Party an opportunity to rebut the widely held perception that the party has done everything in its power (and resorted to some means that should have been beyond its power) to mutate the primary into a coronation - democracy is a good thing and the debate between the progressive wing of the party and the establishment wing is a natural part of the democratic process that we should embrace.
We are Democrats and this is democracy. Democrats should not fear democracy.
Was Hillary's bigger mistake underestimating Sanders' strength or overestimating her own strength?
What evidence is there that she is not in the process of making a parallel error with regard to Trump in preparation for the general election she assumes she will win?
Thousands 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.
Profile Information
Member since: Sun Aug 2, 2015, 10:10 AMNumber of posts: 3,373