This is based on the December 23 CNN/ORC poll (1). First of all, why am I ignoring question #14 which directly asks a question about the gun issue? The answer is that I don't trust the data in question #14 at all, as I have mentioned before on DU (see source (5)):
A very suspicious thing was that for question #13 the directive was to read candidate's names in a random order, but not for #14. That makes the results of #14 suspect, don't you think? See sources (2), (3), (4).
So I turn to the favorability numbers which don't have the same methodology errors. I created the following table so you can easily compare favorability amongst registered democrats:
Interesting indeed! Sanders has the numbers you would expect of a candidate tougher on gun control, and by margins that exceed his overall favorability advantage (registered democrats think more of Bernie than Hillary). I found this result from the crosstabs surprising, since the popular narrative is that Bernie is "weak" on guns to democratic voters. But that may be false. Perhaps.
I look forward to constructive discussion about my reasoning and what this means. I will not respond to posters I consider as trolling. This is a serious post meant to raise the petty level of bickering on DU's GDP forum. There has been entirely too much sniping of late.
P.S. Personally I am pro-RKBA so I find Clinton unsatisfactory for other reasons on this issue; but I am not a typical registered dem voter so I left my own feelings out of the discussion.
Sources & Links:
To rein in Wall Street, we should begin by reforming the Federal Reserve, which oversees financial institutions and which uses monetary policy to maintain price stability and full employment. Unfortunately, an institution that was created to serve all Americans has been hijacked by the very bankers it regulates.
What went wrong at the Fed? The chief executives of some of the largest banks in America are allowed to serve on its boards. During the Wall Street crisis of 2007, Jamie Dimon, the chief executive and chairman of JPMorgan Chase, served on the New York Feds board of directors while his bank received more than $390 billion in financial assistance from the Fed. Next year, four of the 12 presidents at the regional Federal Reserve Banks will be former executives from one firm: Goldman Sachs.
These are clear conflicts of interest, the kind that would not be allowed at other agencies. We would not tolerate the head of Exxon Mobil running the Environmental Protection Agency. We dont allow the Federal Communications Commission to be dominated by Verizon executives. And we should not allow big bank executives to serve on the boards of the main agency in charge of regulating financial institutions.
Much much more in the full article.
Full opinion piece link: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/opinion/bernie-sanders-to-rein-in-wall-street-fix-the-fed.html
Go Bernie Go!
Let me add the oath below to remind (I expect most of us don't know the oath by memory), and the emphasis is mine:
We now have a primary candidate (two actually, Trump as well) who is openly dismissive of the First Amendment, specifically the Freedom of Speech. How can we as Americans in good conscience vote to nominate and elect anyone who is unrepentantly defiant of, and opposed to protecting, the bill of rights to the constitution, yet still seeks to take the oath of office of These United States?
This is a serious question to all my fellow Democratic voters who plan to vote in these upcoming primaries and caucuses. I await serious answers.
Sanders has spoken before, 30 years ago, about the media intentionally leading him off topic to pursue a story they see as more sensational rather than the substantive topic he has been working on and discussing with others.
See the following link at 1h17m0s, 1h00m0s, and the big one is at 54m20s. I highly recommend watching this because it completely informs the media's perspective on the ISIS questions (and puts the Hillary supporter's whining into perspective).
Perhaps a GD OP is in order? I think I'll let someone else wade into that unhappy place.
For instance they backed candidates who show blatant anti-semitism, including this actual ad (yes, from the 2008 election, not 100 years ago; shocking):
More at: http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2014/06/oh-please-not-more-emilys-list-anti.html
Or in Hawaii:
When Stephanie Schriock described Kim as pro-choice in the groups endorsement statement, it was more than a desperate stretch; many in Hawaii were shocked. That term has rarely, if ever, been used to describe to Kim, a state senator who's been in various elected offices for 30 years. Kim has never been endorsed by the Patsy T. Mink PAC, which supports pro-choice women seeking election to the Hawaii state legislature. Kim regularly campaigns at vehemently anti-Choice fundamentalist churches, and even partners with them in her official capacity.
Indeed, it hasn't been clear Kim is even pro-contraception. In 2012, when seeking the endorsement of the anti-choice Hawaii Family Forum, she described herself as undecided on whether rape victims should be entitled to emergency contraception. She very pointedly hasnt commented on the Hobby Lobby decision.
Or how about when they ran this ad backing a candidate who Elizabeth Warren publicly opposed:
Quite the record indeed.