November 15, 2015

Last night, I'd say she answered at least four of them:

1) HRC, will you reduce US military spending by 10% each year of your first term? NO - implied by her answers not explicit
2) HRC, will you reign in Wall Street power by reinstating Glass-Steagall? NO - has other ideas
3) HRC, will you break up too big to fail big-banks? NO - not automatically
4) HRC, will you actively support repeal of Citizen's United?
5) HRC, will you denounce the TPP and work to repeal the legislation?
6) HRC, will you use the bully pulpit to support and lobby for single-payer health care? NO - improve Obamacare

November 15, 2015

I felt that for a second time last night

I suspect this has something to do with it:

The internet has hurt media companies financially. For example, lower print media subscriptions which lead to lower ad buys (their key revenue stream) and lower TV ratings which lead to lower ad buys. Simple concept.

Most media are companies trying to make money and many would describe this as a business "opportunity":
http://www.thedeal.com/content/tmt/as-hillary-clinton-opens-her-presidential-bid-tv-companies-anticipate-an-avalanche-of-ad-dollars.php

Tribune CEO Peter Liguori suggested in a fourth-quarter call that political ad spending will hit $4 billion in 2016 and cited projections that the sum could approach $5 billion. "We own and operate stations in areas where the 2016 Presidency will ultimately be decided," he boasted, citing 13 swing states in Tribune's portfolio.

$4-5 billion in ad revenue is on the table. Currently, out of all the ad spending done by the roughly 20 candidates of both parties, Hillary has bought 25% of the ads so far and there's no sign she's slowing down. And right now, she has the best odds of becoming the next President - she'd help ratings with the odd interview. So a media company might not want to piss someone like that off right now with bad reviews - they'd probably want to do a little sucking up.

Maybe husband Bill has a few media power levers to pull. ....

There's something going on - I feel it. The above might explain some of it.

November 15, 2015

I was kind of proud of him tonight

It is a David vs Goliath fight and he slung and landed a few good stones tonight

November 15, 2015

A point of order

That poll was commissioned by Correct The Record = a strategic research and rapid response team designed to defend Hillary Clinton from baseless attacks
http://correctrecord.org/about/

Respectfully, it smells of Hillary money trying to buy a result she didn't earn.

All the other polls, although mostly informal & online, are a landslide for Bernie:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=810456

November 15, 2015

Finger on the scale ...

http://correctrecord.org/about/

Correct The Record is a strategic research and rapid response team designed to defend Hillary Clinton from baseless attacks.

Ok. Now it makes sense on why it's so out of line with the other polls.

November 15, 2015

How could that poll say she won it handily and all these polls say the opposite?

Straw Poll from Drake Univesity in Iowa

Sanders 116 (67%)
Clinton 36 (21%)
O'Malley 20 (12%)

TIME
http://time.com/4110860/democratic-debate-poll-who-won/
Sanders 81%
Clinton 14%
O'Malley 5%

CBS Local
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2015/11/14/poll-who-do-you-think-won-the-second-democratic-presidential-debate/
Sanders 94%
Clinton 4%
O'Malley 2%

http://www.enstarz.com/articles/119894/20151114/who-won-democratic-debate-did-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-or-martin-omalley-impress-you-poll.htm
Sanders 90%
Clinton 6%
O'Malley 4%

Slate
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/11/democratic_presidential_debate_who_won_vote_in_our_poll.html
Sanders 80%
Clinton 14%
O'Malley 3%

Syracuse.com
http://www.syracuse.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/11/poll_who_won_saturdays_democratic_2016_presidential_debate.html
Sanders 92%
Clinton 5%
O'Malley 3%

Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/polls/2015/nov/14/who-won-2nd-democratic-debate/
Sanders 95%
Clinton 4%
O'Malley 3%

Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/democrats/11996604/Democratic-debate-who-won.html
Sanders 87%
Clinton 7%
O'Malley 5%

FOX
http://fox5sandiego.com/2015/11/14/poll-who-won-the-2nd-democratic-debate/
Sanders 88%
Clinton 9%
O'Malley 3%

CSPAN
https://www.facebook.com/CSPAN?_rdr=p
Sanders 80%
Clinton 16%
O'Malley 4%

I realize the above are online and not scientific but that far off? I have my doubts

(updated all poll results above at 12:35am Nov 15 - nothing materially changed)

November 15, 2015

Here's some more online polls

Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/polls/2015/nov/14/who-won-2nd-democratic-debate/
Sanders 95%
Clinton 4%
O'Malley 3%

Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/democrats/11996604/Democratic-debate-who-won.html
Sanders 87%
Clinton 7%
O'Malley 5%

FOX
http://fox5sandiego.com/2015/11/14/poll-who-won-the-2nd-democratic-debate/
Sanders 88%
Clinton 9%
O'Malley 3%

CSPAN
https://www.facebook.com/CSPAN?_rdr=p
Sanders 79%
Clinton 16%
O'Malley 5%

Sanders has clobbered her in every online poll but print media & PPP say/imply he lost? I've never seen anything quite like it. He's fighting a machine we can't see.

November 15, 2015

I'm a little shocked

The online polls are the opposite

I just simply didn't get that feeling that she handily won. I thought Bernie handily won.

November 15, 2015

Maybe this kind of describes it

https://twitter.com/MMFlint/status/665731532342956032

Michael Moore tweet ?@MMFlint
Hillary keeps sending me messages thru the TV machine: "Michael, don't vote for me...don't vote for me...don't vote for me" Stop! #DemDebate

10:22 PM - 14 Nov 2015

November 15, 2015

Polls I gathered here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=809691
are similar.

Bernie didn't just win. Hillary reminded me of why she bugs me some. I don't hate her but I don't trust her. She simply can't be reliably honest and she's not that great a hiding it. Got the same feelings in 2008