Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Her Sister

Her Sister's Journal
Her Sister's Journal
March 23, 2016

Nate Silver on Math


Sanders’s Tough Math ~There are 131 pledged delegates at stake tonight for Democrats. It’s going to be hard for Sanders to win a majority of those given that Arizona has most of the delegates and Clinton is winning big there, but it’s not impossible if he crushes it in Utah and Idaho. So let’s say he almost does it. Clinton gets 66 delegates on the night and Sanders gets 65.

That would get Sanders up to 920 pledged delegates, while Clinton would have 1,242, with 1,889 pledged delegates still outstanding. Skipping a little bit of math, but Sanders would need 59 percent of the remaining total to tie Clinton in pledged delegates. That’s really difficult to do; it would be equivalent to beating Clinton by 18 percentage points the rest of the way out. Merely breaking even in delegates isn’t nowhere near enough for Sanders at this point.



March 22, 2016

Leading journalists make fun of conspiracy theorists who insist they’re all “paid Hillary shills”

Leading journalists make fun of conspiracy theorists who insist they’re all “paid Hillary shills”


The pattern never fails for journalists: if you write anything positive or even non-negative about Hillary Clinton, even if it’s something as basic and factual as pointing out that she won a state that she won, the paranoid conspiracy theorists across the internet will rise up out of their cauldrons and accuse you of being a “paid Hillary shill.” The implication, of course, is that no one could possibly be inclined to report positive things about Clinton unless they were being paid to do so. Today a number of prominent journalists from various major publications came together to make fun of such lunatic accusations.

After a hapless conspiracy theorist tweeted CBS News political analyst Jamelle Bouie with the familiar and now-tired accusation of “Are you getting paid by the Clinton campaign,” she sarcastically fired back with “I just cashed my check this afternoon.” That led Nate Cohn of the New York Times to get in on the action, tweeting that “I was given half of my payment before she announced, the other half to be received once she clinches.” Finally, Harry Enten of FiveThirtyEight tweeted “I get my checks on Wednesdays.”

The round of jokes came squarely at the expense of the paranoid anti-Hillary fanatics who appear to honestly believe that the entire world is one big conspiracy for her, or against them. These are the same loons who like to falsely accuse our publication Daily News Bin of being “secretly owned” (false) or “secretly funded” (also false) by the Hillary campaign on a daily basis. Now that our detractors are throwing the same insane false accusations at the likes of CBS and the New York Times, we feel we’re in good company.
March 22, 2016

Bernie 2016 Returns Donations to Remedy Campaign Finance Issues


Over 200 contributors to the Bernie Sanders campaign will have their money refunded as a result of irregularities with its campaign fund-raising committee during 2015. The refunds are detailed in a response to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) sent by Susan Jackson, Treasurer of Bernie 2016 and dated March 17, 2016. Jackson was answering a FEC notice regarding the 2015 Year End Report of Bernie 2015.

See FEC Finds $23 Million Unitemized Contributions in Bernie 2016 PAC for details on the FEC notice.

In her electronically-filed response, Jackson covers the ten items noted in the FEC letter, including $23 million in unitemized contributions, various accounting discrepancies, excessive campaign contributions and prohibited donations from Foreign Nationals.

The response by Susan Jackson can be accessed at this page on the FEC website under “View Miscellaneous Document.”

Jackson stated that “the excess portion of each contribution has been refunded” for over 100 contributors who were allowed to donate over the limits of campaign law. Each contributor’s name and the amount returned is itemized. These amounts range from a few dollars to several hundred to highs of over $2000 each.

The issue of prohibited contributions from foreign nationals was not entirely resolved. While Jackson listed a number as verified U.S. Citizens or Permanent Resident Aliens, another 106 contributors were not verified. The Bernie 2016 committee has returned these donations as well, although refund amounts will not be itemized until its April 2016 report to the FEC.

Jackson noted that amended reports would be supplied to remedy campaign finance problems in a number of other areas.

As for the $23 million in Unitemized Contributions spotted by the FEC , Jackson responded with this brief statement:

Regarding the un-itemized receipts listed on Line 17(a)(ii) of the Detailed Summary Page, the Committee hereby confirms that the aggregate total for the election cycle for each un-itemized contribution included in the Line 17(a)(ii) total is under the applicable $200 threshold.

The returned contributions will have some impact on the Bernie Sanders campaign, which spent heavily on operations as it closed out 2015. Its $96 million in receipts was reduced to just $14 million at the start of February 2016.

The fund-raising committee is also facing another round of possible refunds from its January 2016 report. The FEC found similar irregularities with unitemized receipts and donations from Foreign Nationals.

March 22, 2016

Saul Alinsky ~ Rules for Radicals ~ Sanders

Redux Revolution: Alinsky, Sanders and the False Campaign

Activists from the 1970s will feel a sense of familiarity with the Bernie Sanders’ campaign. It’s more than loaded words like “revolution” and “establishment,” those hot coins of counter culture. It’s more than the scent of socialism with the bugaboo Marxist roots. No. If you look closely and follow chronologically, it’s the very structure of the campaign that rings a bell.

Bernie Sanders is incorporating the power tactics of Saul Alinsky, author of Rules for Radicals, into his campaign operations.

Saul Alinsky was an outside agitator par excellence, whose Rules was first published in 1971. His influence stretches from civil and workers rights’ movements of the time to community organizers and political coalitions of this era, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and right wingsters.

That Sanders would adopt Alinksy’s Rules is no surprise, considering its popularity during his youthful days. It also befits a campaign with small numbers, and in its perception, in a struggle against an evil machine (Hillary Clinton’s campaign).

Below are the first of Alinsky’s power tactics as described in his handbook. There are 13 altogether, most inter-related to form a modis operadi for activism.

I have selected ten which are most closely aligned to Sanders’ campaign techniques. Online users will recognize the similarity between these and the noise coming from the online organization of the redux revolution known as “Bernie




Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.


Never go outside the experience of your people.


Whenever possible go outside the experience of your enemy.


Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.


Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.


A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.


A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.


Keep the pressure on.


The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.


The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.


If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.


The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.


Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.



March 22, 2016

Buying the Revolution ~ Revolution Messaging (RM)

Buying the Revolution


"What is all that money buying? In simplest terms, the answer is a digital presence. Revolution Messaging is pricey but it offers everything from the all-important fundraising (online and off) to technical know-how to fast response applications. It bills itself as a full service digital campaign workhorse and details its services as such:

Revolution Messaging develops fully responsive custom technology. These new technologies provide our clients with tools to message thousands of supporters instantly and to more effectively engage them. Our development team designs and builds websites, landing pages and custom applications that work on all mobile phones, tablets and desktops. (SOURCE: Revolution Messaging)

With the preponderance of Bernie supporters clogging social media, the company is obviously effective in creating visibility. One hopes they are not also skilled in the development of troll accounts.

The Sanders campaign is paying big bucks for this internet campaign machine yet there is one thing it cannot do – scratch a box on a ballot. The next set of primaries is just around the corner. Will Revolution Messaging be worth its millions to the Sanders campaign?"


March 21, 2016


"Start by turning a candidate's strength into a weakness.

This strategy is often employed in politics when a candidate is going up against someone who has a clear advantage. However, in the year 2016 we've seen this strategy employed not by a particular candidate but rather by a media obsessed in creating competition where this is none. In the field as it stands, we currently have one candidate who is his own foreign policy adviser, another candidate who can't name his foreign policy team, another candidate who wants to carpet bomb the entire Middle East, and a final candidate who contradicts himself constantly. The only candidate left is the one who served as Secretary of State, one who consistently demonstrates a superior knowledge and understanding of foreign policy that none of the other candidates can come close to matching.
So the media attempts to smear this candidate's record to bring her down on a level playing field with everybody else. "


"Funny how that works.

Because people like Bernie Sanders, Jorge Ramos, and Chris Matthews know that to question Hillary Clinton's foreign policy credentials is to attack her strength. They are leery of both her worldview and her understanding of the world and the pragmatic approach she takes to various situations. When she responds openly and honestly at a town hall event that she can't promise not to use the American military they see this as an indication of a warlike mentality rather than one of brutal sincerity where she knows that the world is unpredictable in a way that military intervention should always be a last resort but at the same time it should always be an option. This is the same view that Barack Obama has taken and he has wound down two disastrous wars and has avoided additional quagmires despite the consistent beating of the drums of war from both congressional Republicans as well as our mainstream media.

But don't take my word for it."""

and more......

March 21, 2016

Hillary Clinton’s handling of Caitlyn Jenner shows her level-headed political brilliance

Hillary Clinton’s handling of Caitlyn Jenner shows her level-headed political brilliance

When the week began, longtime conservative Caitlyn Jenner was voicing her support for the republicans, while launching personal attacks at Hillary Clinton. By the time the week ended, Jenner was posting a selfie she’d just taken with Clinton. It wasn’t a complete reversal of Jenner’s position, but it was a remarkably quick softening of her views. For all the talk of Hillary Clinton not being a naturally gifted politician in front of the cameras, the incident revealed just how adept she is behind the scenes – and how little she cares about getting her feelings hurt.

Hillary quickly seized on what many of us had recognized: Caitlyn Jenner is in a tricky position. She still holds many of the same conservative republican views that she always has. But now that she’s become one of the de facto faces of the LGBT movement, she’s struggling with the fact that most of her own party leaders hold distinctly anti-LGBT views. She’s also facing backlash from the LGBT community, and from her fellow transgender people, for trying to cling to her longtime conservative beliefs. That means Hillary was in a position to help out Caitlyn while helping herself.

We don’t know exactly what happened behind the scenes, but the end result was Caitlyn Jenner posting a picture of herself with her arm around Hillary Clinton, along with the hashtag “willing to listen.” Presumably, Hillary asked for a meeting between the two. Whatever they discussed, the end result is that Caitlyn’s public posts about Hillary are suddenly a whole lot softer and less damaging than they were when she was using phrases like “political hack” when the week began.

In the end, the public and the LGBT community will decide the fate of Caitlyn Jenner, whether or not she gets to be a leader of the community while she’s endorsing republicans, and whether or not being seen with Hillary will help her in that regard. But either way it’s not Hillary’s problem. Her problem was that a famous woman was running around saying terrible things about her. Instead of sulking over hurt feelings, or trying to publicly face off with the accusations that Caitlyn was hurling at her, Hillary simply decided to tamp things down with her behind the scenes.

And so now a prominent figure who was working against Hillary’s election effort has been turned into someone who, at worst, is taking a more neutral and conciliatory position toward her. No one should be holding their breath for a Caitlyn Jenner endorsement of Hillary Clinton any time soon. But that part doesn’t matter, and it wasn’t the point anyway. Hillary knew that Caitlyn was in need of a life raft, threw her one, and took an enemy off the board. It’s how diplomacy works. And it’s a small example of why Hillary is so capable of getting things done behind the scenes in general.

March 21, 2016

Corey Robin- What the real goal is...

Corey Robin ~A political science professor and journalist. Main goal: gut the Democratic party!?


March 20, 2016

New York group in DU


registration til March 25th!!! We are voting on April 19th!!

with HER!!


March 20, 2016

Sanders did polling before running

to know what millennials wanted to hear. Like finding their catnip and running with it. He made this his platform.


Pollsters for Sanders last year saw indications that the under-25 set would embrace the 74-year-old Vermonter if he pushed issues they cared about—free college tuition, same-sex marriage, legalized marijuana—and those projections were right. Ask young Sanders supporters what they like about him and the responses often echo what was said about a certain former Illinois senator whose Iowa victory over Hillary Clinton in 2008 served as an opening springboard to the White House.

What do you think of this?

Profile Information

Member since: Sun Feb 28, 2016, 03:34 PM
Number of posts: 6,444
Latest Discussions»Her Sister's Journal