http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/iowa-bernie-sanders_us_56aa3483e4b0d82286d51290?utm_hp_ref=politics

CHARLESTON, S.C. -- In the fall of 2007, Hillary Clinton held a 24-point lead over Barack Obama among black voters in a CNN national poll. By Jan. 18, 10 days after the New Hampshire primary, Obama was winning blacks by 28 points in the same poll, a 52-point swing.

This time around, Clinton again holds a commanding lead among black voters headed into Iowa. She boasts a roughly 45-point lead nationally, which her campaign refers to as a firewall.
...
What changed? His viability.
...
"The reality is, if Mrs. Clinton loses Iowa and New Hampshire, that could create new and real problems for her here(South Carolina)." S.C. Rep. Jim Clyburn

I don't think Bernie has to win. It would be nice and send Clinton's campaign into a tailspin but Bernie doesn't have to have it.

He'll become more viable in many people's eyes by how close he's come.

When blacks find out what Bernie is about, which these primaries will help to do, he's going to pull a bunch of them on board, tighten up SC and win some delegates.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/insiders-trump-and-clinton-will-carry-iowa-218492

Democratic insiders believe overwhelmingly that Clinton will win.
Democratic insiders weren’t nearly as divided as their GOP counterparts: They said by a wide margin that Clinton will defeat Bernie Sanders on Monday night, crediting what they say is her vastly superior organization.

“Hands down, Clinton has the best operation,” one Iowa Democrat said. “It doesn't matter who I speak to — whether it's in a big county or small, on the western side of the state or eastern — they all say the same thing: They see no evidence of Sanders organizing. They have a lot of people, but none of them are trained or prepared for what will happen on Monday. The lesson they took from Obama’s 2008 win was that big crowds equate [to] support in a caucus room. They seem to [forget] that Obama also had the best caucus campaign Iowa had seen up to that point. Unfortunately for them, Clinton has a stronger operation than even Obama did then, and her supporters are more committed than theirs.”
...
But while Democrats overwhelmingly say Clinton will win, Republicans disagreed. A majority of GOP insiders insist Sanders’ energized supporters will carry him to victory.

“My friends on the [Democratic] side tell me that Hillary will win due to organization,” one Iowa Republican said, “but it will be close and damaging.”

Bernie's in tough. Go Bernie's team Go!

https://cola.unh.edu/sites/cola.unh.edu/files/research_publications/primary2016_demprimary013116.pdf

CNN/WMUR Sanders 57, Clinton 34, O'Malley 1 Sanders +23


http://www.bostonherald.com/sites/default/files/media/2016/01/31/FPU-BH-Jan26-30-Dem.pdf

Boston Herald/FPU Sanders 57, Clinton 37, O'Malley 2 Sanders +20


Something is happening folks

Debate is there next week I think so Hillary can check it out for herself on live TV

In Iowa, Hillary Clinton Defends A System Everyone Else Is Trashing
Her pitch: Bernie Sanders is a pie-in-the-sky, tax-raising radical and she is a battle-tested leader and defender of Obamacare.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-iowa-campaign_us_56ae969de4b077d4fe8e970f


Direction of Country
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html

Right Direction: 29.7% Wrong Track: 63%

Look at the graph for how long people have felt that way.

This is what you call an out of touch politician.

People keep telling me she is smart but I cannot say I agree.

Trump (much as I can't stand him) and Sanders represent the different direction people (or Trump's loonies) want. Hillary doesn't.

Hillary is closer to "Leave everything alone. It's fine. We don't want a big squabble in Washington. I'll tweak a few policies to the right and we'll carry on."

"Mr. Sanders’s story continues with fantastical claims about how he would make the European social model work in the United States. He admits that he would have to raise taxes on the middle class in order to pay for his universal, Medicare-for-all health-care plan, and he promises massive savings on health-care costs that would translate into generous benefits for ordinary people, putting them well ahead, on net. But he does not adequately explain where those massive savings would come from. Getting rid of corporate advertising and overhead would only yield so much. Savings would also have to come from slashing payments to doctors and hospitals and denying benefits that people want."

Washington Post Editorial January 27, 2015

In protest, I refuse to link to lies for quoting a paragraph.

It's not a matter of Bernie admitting "he would have to raise taxes on the middle class in order to pay for his universal, Medicare-for-all health-care plan"

That line for heath spending per capita in the US in the graph below is much longer than any other country


Who do you think pays for those costs? Americans -every single over priced dime. Some of it was collected as Americans paid into social programs while they worked. Some of it was paid by Americans employers as a part of their compensation. Some of is paid with tax dollars collected from Americans or American companies. Some of it paid for by health premiums Americans pay for. etc.

The most expensive health care on the planet by far is already paid for by Americans. Bernie doesn't "HAVE raise taxes" on anyone to get this healthcare.

The problem that chart shows you is that Americans are being ripped off.

It's been trending that way for a long time.

And you're not getting your money's worth:


Republicans and corporate America whine about "big government" all the time. Everything that ails us is due to BIG incompetent government. But you know what that chart shows and proves? That's not true - certainty not true in this case. And it hasn't been true for decades. It shows that single payer or universal care provided by governments kicks the crap out of corporate America private health care as a better bang for the buck - because that's where a big chunk of these excessive costs come from - corporate administration, profits, overheads, CEOs, etc. It's certainly not all of the problem. there's much to be done with other drug costs, doctors costs, etc But it's 31% of private healthcare cost that do not add value to the well being of a patient. These are corporate opportunist leeches sucking the financial blood out of the afflicted.

Americans are paying about $1.5 trillion dollars a year extra in part to satisfy to these corporate parasites in significant part because America got sucked into this "big government is bad" GOP nonsense that's proven to be BS. And these companies are stuffing politicians pockets and campaigns with six figure speaking fees or contributions because that's peanuts in the bigger scheme of $1.5 trillion in excess annual healthcare business.

When a country is spending that much on healthcare, that country doesn't have to raise another dime. They're already spending 2.5 times the average of everyone else and way more than anyone else. So there is lots of money to do whatever they want with healthcare. Money available for healthcare at the country level is not the problem. So no taxes "have" to be raised. The Washington Post is full of shit on some of their arguments and too stupid to realize it.

The problem is: Bernie would like to get Americans a better deal. Bernie doesn't want to see the average American get ripped off on excessive health insurance costs any more. They've been doing it for years and cleaned out the savings of a lot of Americans.

Bernie's plans can be adjusted. But more money isn't the issue. He wants Americans to get a fair shake in what they're paying for their healthcare. Hillary has stated in effect, she's staying the course and will nibble at the problem through the ACA.

The GOP is always whining about the debt. But they never seem to whine about private heathcare costs:




We have to fix this for America's fiscal survival:



So corporate owned America don't want Bernie or the Americans he represents to fix this. They do not want to stop collecting the growing $1.5 trillion in excess healthcare costs. Hillary is on the record as saying it's "too hard" and "never, ever". She's going to tinker with the ACA.

Bernie is trying to do more that fix healthcare with his plan. He's trying to also make an adjustment for income inequality. The average person doesn't have to pay $5,000 in health insurance any more but they have to give back $500 of that savings in taxes (probably to shut the GOP up about it being a freebee/entitlement). He gets employers to largely pick up the balance. And he saves a bunch on much of the 31% in overhead, admin, CEO, profits of private heathcare to pay for those who don't have any healthcare.

That doesn't have to be the final plan. If there are issues with it, it can be adjusted.
But it is not a stupid pipe dream financially. And it has to be done.

I'm not sure any of the above helps but I thought I'd take a shot.

It up to you to decide which of those candidates you think is right.

Elizabeth Warren: One Way to Rebuild Our Institutions
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/opinion/elizabeth-warren-one-way-to-rebuild-our-institutions.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — WHILE presidential candidates from both parties feverishly pitch their legislative agendas, voters should also consider what presidents can do without Congress. Agency rules, executive actions and decisions about how vigorously to enforce certain laws will have an impact on every American, without a single new bill introduced in Congress.

The Obama administration has a substantial track record on agency rules and executive actions. It has used these tools to protect retirement savings, expand overtime pay, prohibit discrimination against L.G.B.T. employees who work for the government and federal contractors, and rein in carbon pollution. These accomplishments matter.

Whether the next president will build on them, or reverse them, is a central issue in the 2016 election. But the administration’s record on enforcement falls short — and federal enforcement of laws that already exist has received far too little attention on the campaign trail.
...
Legislative agendas matter, but voters should also ask which presidential candidates they trust with the extraordinary power to choose who will fight on the front lines to enforce the laws. The next president can rebuild faith in our institutions by honoring the simple notion that nobody is above the law, but it will happen only if voters demand it.

It didn't change my mind because I already think I've picked the right horse but it may help those on the fence

Source: Las Vegas Sun

A bullet hole was discovered in a storefront window at the Bernie Sanders campaign headquarters in northwest Las Vegas on Thursday morning, the same day the Democratic presidential candidate was on site, Metro Police said today.

Officers responded just before noon to the campaign office at 815 South Rainbow Blvd., near Alta Drive, authorities said. Police said it appears a bullet went through the window but declined to comment on whether a shot had been fired.

...

The Sanders campaign on Monday called the bullet hole “an issue of serious concern” but did not elaborate on specifics of the situation.

"It is being investigated by the appropriate authorities,” said Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ campaign manager. "Beyond that, we generally don’t like to talk about security matters. We’ll just leave it there — just to say that it’s a serious concern."

Read more: http://lasvegassun.com/news/2016/jan/08/bullet-hole-found-at-sanders-campaign-hq-on-day-ca/

---

So that might explain why the Secret Service has finally been called in ...


I will be devastated and beyond boiling outrage if they hurt him

Source: BuzzFeed

Hillary Clinton’s campaign for president is instructing its Iowa caucus leaders to — in certain cases — throw support to former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, with the goal blocking her main opponent, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, from securing additional delegates.

The tactical move is rooted in the complex math of the Iowa caucuses Monday night, where the campaign is looking to defeat Sanders in a state whose caucus-goers have historically backed progressive challengers.
...
The goal, in the caucuses’ complex terms, is to cost Clinton no delegates in the state’s 1,681 caucuses while ensuring stray O’Malley supporters don’t defect to Sanders.
..
“It’s sad and telling that their campaign doesn’t think they can win without these kinds of tactics,” said Rania Batrice, Sanders’s Iowa spokesperson. “At the end of the day though, we believe in the caucus process and know it’s in the very capable hands of Iowans.”

Read more: http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/hillary-bernie-math#.hg45E8zrJE

---

I was limited by the number of paragraphs.

There is a history of this sort of thing at the Iowa caucuses that the article explains

http://www.thegazette.com/subject/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/iowa-group-endorses-bernie-sanders-20160129

To the editor:

Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement Action Fund’s vision for changing business-as-usual politics starts and stops with people. So when we consider which presidential candidate will challenge the political establishment and lift up our People and Planet First values, Bernie Sanders is the clear choice.

He’s the only candidate with a proven track record on issues critically important to regular folks:

• Running a people-funded campaign, refusing a Super PAC, while fighting big money in politics.

• Standing up to Big Oil by opposing the Bakken pipeline and championing climate justice in Congress.

• Pushing to bust up Big Banks and make corporations pay for their fare share of taxes.

• Fighting to expand Social Security and increase access to health care through a “Medicare for all” single-payer system.

• Calling for unity among people of all races and religions to combat racial injustices and the racist rhetoric of the Republican candidates.

What’s most promising about Sanders is his call for a political revolution. To win on issues that matter most to us, we need a grass roots movement fighting for justice and democracy 365 days a year, not just during elections. Caucus for Sanders on Monday.

Barb Kalbach
President

Since the Clinton machine seems to have been kind of buying up endorsements I thought I'd make an effort to even the playing field a bit. I was just checking out other papers in Iowa to see what was going on and if I could help out when I came across this.

Source: Politico

An official overseeing State Department investigations stemming from Hillary Clinton's email practices had a greater role than previously acknowledged in a probe of Clinton's first Senate campaign, according to a subpoena reviewed by POLITICO.
...
However, a grand jury subpoena issued to Clinton's Senate campaign committee in January 2003 which bears Seide's name and title as an assistant U.S. Attorney and appears to have been hand-initialed by him made sweeping demands for the campaign's financial and fund-raising records. The materials covered by the subpoena are so wide-ranging that they do not appear consistent with a probe focused on the financial dealings of a single donor or company.
...
In December 2003, a grand jury in Los Angeles indicted Clinton's national finance director David Rosen on four felony charges of intentionally underreporting in-kind donations by Paul for the gala by more than $700,000. After a three-week trial in 2005, a jury acquitted Rosen of all the pending counts. The joint fundraising committee subsequently paid a civil penalty to the Federal Election Commission and updated its finance reports to reflect the in-kind gifts. The law in force at the time permitted unlimited "soft money" gifts to such fundraisers.

Clinton allies have raised questions about the impartiality of the leadership of the State inspector general's office. Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) said the probe of the 2000 campaign "amounted to nothing" and that Seide's role raised in the prior inquiry and the current ones raised "all sorts of questions."



Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/01/clinton-email-prober-had-deeper-role-in-inquiry-into-2000-clinton-campaign-218407

---

There's more and there's a link of a previous story that would give you some useful background on this.

I haven't fully digested the significance of the report (many probably won't be interested) because the email story has gotten complex.

Maybe folks would like to chime in and see how this fits or doesn't fit with what is going on.