Why Ted Cruz sucks on the issue of net neutrality

Mother Jones: "Hillary Clinton's Trust Gap Is Killing Her With Millennials"

[link:http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/03/hillary-clintons-trust-gap-killing-her-millennials|
Hillary Clinton's Trust Gap Is Killing Her With Millennials]

Bernie Sanders didn't win 80 percent of the millennial vote in Michigan just because he's an idealistic liberal. The only way you get to a number like that is against an opponent who's pretty seriously disliked.

But why? The most obvious reason millennials dislike Hillary so strongly is that they think she's too slippery. "I feel like Clinton lies a lot," a college student told PBS a few weeks ago. "She changes her views for every group she speaks to. I can't trust her." Quotes like that litter the internet, and in tonight's debate Karen Tumulty asked about it yet again. "Is there anything in your own actions and the decisions that you yourself have made that would foster this kind of mistrust?"...Unfortunately, Hillary has fostered a lot of this mistrust herself....Tonight, Jorge Ramos brought up allegations by the Benghazi families that Hillary had deceived them, and asked, "Secretary Clinton, did you lie to them?" The only answer to this question is "Of course not." But Hillary started by expressing her sympathy for the Benghazi families and only then said of her accuser, "She's wrong." Maybe this seems like nitpicking, but it's not. Unless the very first words out of her mouth are "Of course not," she's going to leave an immediate impression that she's about to tap dance around the whole thing. I like Hillary, and even I sighed when she began delivering that answer.. ..People my age might forgive Hillary a bit of this lawyerlyness because we remember the 90s and understand the damage that even a slightly misplaced word can cause. But millennials don't. They just see another tired establishment pol who never gives a straight answer about anything.... especially this year, when her competition is a guy like Bernie Sanders, this just makes her look evasive and insincere.

After 40 years in the public eye, I don't know why Hillary is still so bad at this. But she is. For a long time, liberals mostly forgave her wary speaking style because they were keenly aware of the Republican smear campaign that birthed it. Now, for the first time, there's a generation of liberals who don't care about any of that. And an awful lot of them loathe her.

Stop scapegoating African Americans for Hillary's failure to connect with Progressive grassroots

within our party!

Progressive African Americans support Sanders while older, centrist white voters support Hillary so it is NOT a racial divide but an ideological rift!

Sanders is winning states (both Democratic states and states that lean Republican in the general election) where the Democrats in that state are more progressive, more enthusiastic, and younger.

Hillary is winning in states where the Democrats are less progressive. End of story. Stop scapegoating African American Democrats as if they all think, vote, and act as a homogenous collective!

Sanders Wins Nebraska on Top of His Earlier Win in Kansas! MSNBC calls it!

Sanders Wins Kansas!

MSNBC has called it!

Help me win a debate with a Republican co-worker. Do Hillary's emails show she told Chelsea a

different explanation for Bengazhi than what Hillary told the public?

Although I'm a Sanders supporter, I think Bengazhi is 100% Republican-manufactured phony outrage bullshit, but I don't know anything about the emails to Chelsea.

True or false: Sanders speaks with the exact same accent regardless of where he is campaigning?

Gathering some comparative data to follow up on an earlier discussion. A one-word answer in the subject line is all I need. Thanks for your help.

True or false: Hillary seems to speak with more of an accent when she campaigns in the South?

Some criticisms against Hillary are complete bullshit (Benghazi) some attacks seem fair to me (Bosnia "sniper fire&quot .

Do you think the suggestion that Hillary speaks with more of a Southern accent when she campaigns in the South is true or false?

One word response in the title is all I need. Thanks for your help.

Clinton announcing "escaping New Hampshire without formal indictment will be a win" for her

If Clinton is going to play off her impending loss in New Hampshire as a ridiculous "expectations game," she ought to play it to win.

Dear Bill and Hillary Clinton:

Let's talk candidly about what you ought to consider changing as part of your post-New Hampshire shakeup.

The number one change needs to be how you interact with the voters and the media: you need to say what you mean and mean what you say.

The shake up is yet another example of this. There are widely reported quotes from campaign insiders that “the Clintons are not happy, and have been letting all of us know that ... we need a more forward-looking message, for the primary — but also for the general election too," and "there is an urgency to fix these problems right now.”

With this report in the news headlines, Hillary went into a super-softball interview from a supporter who was lobbing her easy pitches and instead of showing some humility and taking some responsibility (this would improve your image which would benefit from some more humility and responsibility taking), Hillary literally responded "I don't know what you're talking about." John Podesta doubled down on this story: "There is zero truth to what you may be reading."

Try to take this point as helpful advice which is how it is intended: No one on the face of the globe believes Hillary or Podesta when they make such statements (frankly, Hillary and Podesta are too smart and too experienced not to be planning a shake up of the horribly under-performing campaign). When Hillary goes out there and tells everyone stuff that is not even remotely plausible, it isn't fooling anyone and it isn't helping. Plus, Podesta has his own credibility problem and he is not a good messenger for the Clinton campaign. I'm not questioning whether Podesta's advice is good or not or questioning whether he should be fired, but I am suggesting that he's the campaign's third worst surrogate after Madeleine Albright and Gloria Steinem.

Which brings up the next change you should consider.

The number two change involves how you communicate with millennials. It is beyond bad.

The Clinton campaign started in a hole and so far everything the campaign has tried has just made the hole deeper. Millennials do not want to be told that their choice is the result of stupidity, immaturity, gender treason, or a desire to hook up with anyone. No more scolding, no more shaming, no more condescending, no more Albright, no more Steinem, and pull Jennifer Granholm and Claire McCaskill off the trail for a while (they are great surrogates, but they've been pushing too hard lately so give them two weeks off from the national tour and have Granholm tone down a bit and work exclusively in Michigan until after that primary). Scolding millennials is neither helpful nor even neutral -- it is actively harmful to your cause and exacerbates the problem. Moreover, campaigning directly to target the millennials only makes the campaign look insincere and suck-upy, which -- again -- does harm rather than good. Win over millennials the same way John Kasich is winning them over. Don't overtly suck up to the "youth vote" -- campaign with ideas that you are genuinely enthusiastic about and when another candidate offers a contrary plan, don't attack the opponent's plan but -- instead -- tout the advantages of your own plan. Optimistically emphasize what you have to offer rather than pessimistically attacking why your opponents' plans are too good to be true (millennials hate it when you do that).

Finally, own yourself.

Stop pretending you're Elizabeth Warren in disguise. You're not. You are a bad Warren impersonator but your the best Hillary Clinton ever (well maybe not as good as Amy Poehler but better than Kate McKinnon). Be the best Hillary and not a half-assed Warren. Lots of people may prefer Warren over Hilary Clinton, but Warren isn't running, and everyone (including us Sanders supporters) prefers real Hillary over phony Hillary. Bury phony Hillary (next to pessimistic Hillary, attack Hillary, implausible Hillary, and not-my-fault Hillary).

Dust yourself off, retool your campaign, and let's get back to the policy debate between you and Sanders because, even though you might not be my first choice in the primary, it remains important that you -- as a Democratic front-runner -- must seem capable of beating Rubio or Kasich or whoever wins the Republican nomination. Without a course correction, you run the risk of beating Sanders due to your super-delegate advantage and going into the general election without a prayer of winning, and no one (even us Sanders supporters) wants that.

Sincerely