Thursday, February 11, 2016

Final NH Results (Bye-Bye Christie, Fiorina - But Not Hillary - Yet)  Bernie Scores Black Endorsements Galore

Jeb Hopes to Woo Voters with Ad Featuring Worst President in U.S. History (humor?)

So Christie and Fiorina recognized the futility of further efforts (but not Carson?). Also, Hillary, even after losing Cornel West, Killer Mike, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Ben Jealous, Harry Belafonte, OH state senator Nina Turner, and being outed by Michelle Alexander (author of The New Jim Crow) in the "Nation," trudges on with a new but still tone-deaf campaign speech all about her (still), but with even more new kinda/sorta/maybe true but provably false progressive initiatives added to her making-me-relevant-again campaigning strategy.

I apologize for running so much of our friend at Down With Tyranny's incisive reporterism, but he's just too inclusively superb to leave more than a very little bit out. (Click on the link for the original.)

February 10, 2016

Last Night's Final New Hampshire Results - And Bye-Bye Fiorina

In New Hampshire yesterday Herr Trumpf brought out more voters to the Republican primary - both to vote for him (35.3%) and to vote against him (64.7%) - than had ever voted in a New Hampshire Republican primary in before (almost as many as the Democrats' record turnout in 2008). And Democratic turnout Tuesday - primarily for Bernie obviously - was also much higher than expected. In 2008, the record-holder 'til yesterday, 287,542 Democrats voted and 238,979 Republicans voted. Hillary beat Obama that night:

 Hillary- 112,404 (39.1%)
 Obama- 104,815 (36.5%)
 Edwards- 48,699 (16.9%)
And McCain, who, unlike Hillary, went on to win his party's nomination, beat Romney that year: 

 McCain 88,571 (37.1%)
 Romney 75,546 (31.6%)
 Huckabee 26,859 (11.2%)
This time 246,815 Democrats and 278,442 Republicans voted in the primary. Bernie won more votes Tuesday than Hillary won in 2008, making him the biggest Democratic primary vote winner in New Hampshire history (as well as the first Jew to ever win a presidential primary there or anywhere else). Not only did Bernie beat Herr Trumpf and John Kasich combined, but even the Democratic loser, Hillary Clinton, almost tied the Republican winner! This is how the votes broke down: 
 Bernie- 151,573 (60.4%)
 Hillary- 95,242- (38.0%)
And because the Democratic Establishment has instituted an anti-democratic mechanism to keep control for itself - unelected super-delegates- Clinton walks away with 15 delegates and Bernie gets 15, even though he led by 22.3%.

Yes, the party that pretends to care about voting rights! Between the 8pm and midnight, Bernie grassroots donors contributed just over $2.5 million to his campaign. (You can add to that here.) And in her concession speech last night Hillary - who won two demographic groups, people over 65 years old and people making over $200,000 - pretended that she stands for the same agenda Bernie does.

"Senator Sanders and I," she said, "both want to get secret, unaccountable money out of politics." Really? Who knew? It certainly hasn't been a theme of her campaign, the way it has been of Bernie's. And her campaign is widely funded by multimillionaires, billionaires and special interests (some good and some horrible).

And over on the right: 
 Herr Trumpf- 100,127 (35.3%)
 Kasich- 44,776 (15.8%)
 Cruz- 33,105 (11.7%)
 Jeb- 31,220 (11.0%)
 Rubio- 29,947 (10.6%)
 Christie- 21,010 (7.4%)
 Fiorina- 11,671 (4.1%)
 Dr. Ben- 6,483 (2.3%)
In this video from last night, Bill Maher tells Jimmy Kimmel why he endorsed Bernie and why he thinks Ted Cruz is the worst Republican of the whole mealy lot:

Bill Maher may think Ted Cruz is Satan - he isn't alone there - but Ezra Klein made the case for why Herr Trumpf is worse a few hours after the polls closed. And it wasn't just because the politically-correct Ezra was offended by the word "pussy." He wrote, "I'm not here to clutch my pearls over Trump's vulgarity; what was telling, rather, was the immaturity of the moment, the glee Trump took in his 'she-said-it-I-didn't' game.

The media, which has grown used to covering Trump as a sideshow, delighted in the moment along with him - it was funny, and it meant clicks, takes, traffic. But it was more than that. It was the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for president showing off the demagogue's instinct for amplifying the angriest voice in the mob."

Trump is the most dangerous major candidate for president in memory. He pairs terrible ideas with an alarming temperament; he's a racist, a sexist, and a demagogue, but he's also a narcissist, a bully, and a dilettante. He lies so constantly and so fluently that it's hard to know if he even realizes he's lying. He delights in schoolyard taunts and luxuriates in backlash... He's not a joke and he's not a clown. He's a man who could soon be making decisions of war and peace, who would decide which regulations are enforced and which are lifted, who would be responsible for nominating Supreme Court Justices and representing America in the community of nations. This is not political entertainment.

...Behind Trump's success is an unerring instinct for harnessing anger, resentment, and fear. His view of the economy is entirely zero-sum - for Americans to win, others must lose. "We're going to make America great again," he said in his New Hampshire victory speech, "but we're going to do it the old fashioned way. We're going to beat China, Japan, beat Mexico at trade. We're going to beat all of these countries that are taking so much of our money away from us on a daily basis. It's not going to happen anymore."

Trump answers America's rage with more rage. As the journalist Molly Ball observed, "All the other candidates say 'Americans are angry, and I understand.' Trump says, 'I’M angry.'" Trump doesn't offer solutions so much as he offers villains. His message isn't so much that he'll help you as he'll hurt them.

Trump's other gift - the one that gets less attention, but is perhaps more important - is his complete lack of shame. It's easy to underestimate how important shame is in American politics. But shame is our most powerful restraint on politicians who would find success through demagoguery. Most people feel shame when they're exposed as liars, when they're seen as uninformed, when their behavior is thought cruel, when respected figures in their party condemn their actions, when experts dismiss their proposals, when they are mocked and booed and protested.

Trump doesn't. He has the reality television star's ability to operate entirely without shame, and that permits him to operate entirely without restraint. It is the single scariest facet of his personality. It is the one that allows him to go where others won't, to say what others can't, to do what others wouldn't.

By the way, the Republicans spent their donors' money like their lives depended on it. So far Fiorina had dropped out and Christie is supposedly negotiating with several campaigns to see who will give him the best deal to drop out and endorse them. Jeb is most likely to absorb his campaign debts, although he admitted he spent a lot of time talking with Herr today. Fiorina's exit from the race is likely to have little impact on anything, except the nerves of people who watch their wretched debates, since her incessant lying was pissing off so many people all the time. Anyway, good riddance; I'm sure the entire nation hopes it will never hear of you again. These figures account for New Hampshire campaign spending and SuperPAC spending: 
 Jeb- $36 million - $1,236/vote
 Christie- $18.5 million - $933/vote
 Rubio- $15.2 million - $547/vote
 Kasich- $12.1 million - $289/vote
 Herr Trumpf- $3.7 million - $40/vote
 Fiorina- $1.8 million
 Cruz- $0.6 million
Hillary spent $121/vote and Bernie spent $58/vote. Funny how the two winners - Bernie (151,573 votes) and Herr Trumpf (100,127 votes) also spent their campaign money most effectively.

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Sanders LANDSLIDE - SANDSLIDE!  (Hillary Campaign Implodes Dreading Rest of Primary Letdowns?)  The Message Is Never Give Up Fighting Evil  (It's Your Life!)

Looks like it's a Sanders landslide (Sandslide?) (60% - 38% at 6:00 AM).

Trump has gained 35% of the vote over the rest of the candidates by capturing the majority of the evangelical vote, which occurred as the Republicans were registering a record-breaking voter turnout. Kasich is second with 16%, Cruz has 12%, Bush and Rubio have about 11% each. (Fiorina doubled Carson's votes as the bottom two vote getters.) So, Rubio lost to Jebbie? That's a cold slap.

Mrs. Clinton, who won the primary here in 2008, planned to huddle with her advisers on Wednesday to discuss possible changes in political strategy and additions of staff members, according to Democrats close to the Clintons. She also plans to discuss whether to mount new lines of attack against Mr. Sanders on Thursday night at their next debate.

Clinton advisers gritted their teeth Tuesday night as they dissected exit polls and other data to determine if Mrs. Clinton’s political vulnerabilities stemmed from the particular demographics of New Hampshire, which is overwhelmingly white, or if they reflected deeper unease. One troubling sign:  Mr. Sanders was the choice, by a lopsided margin, among voters who said it was most important to have a candidate who is “honest and trustworthy.”

Several advisers to Mrs. Clinton said they were especially concerned about her support among women — the group that provided her margin for victory in the 2008 New Hampshire primary. The Clinton strategy depends on her beating Mr. Sanders among women and attracting large numbers of minority voters, like Hispanics in Nevada and African-Americans in South Carolina. Those states hold the next Democratic contests, later this month.

“A big win in Nevada is really important for her to show she represents the changing face of America and can build on that,” said Jim Manley, a Clinton backer and a former senior aide to Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader. “Nevada and South Carolina are where she needs to regain her footing after New Hampshire.”

Both the Sanders and Clinton campaigns have built robust political operations in those next states, but Sanders advisers say momentum is on their side after the New Hampshire victory and a near-tie in the Iowa caucuses. Mr. Sanders is also hoping that his proposals for a $15 minimum wage and a breakup of big banks will find support in vote-rich Las Vegas and Reno, where many people earn low wages and lost homes to banks after the 2008 financial crisis.

. . . Mrs. Clinton and her husband must shake off the New Hampshire loss, one of the most stinging of their long political careers.

The couple have been unusually attached to this state for decades:  Bill Clinton stabilized his scandal-plagued presidential bid in 1992 with a second-place finish in the primary, and Mrs. Clinton made her own comeback in 2008 by winning here with 39 percent of the vote after losing the Iowa caucuses to Barack Obama.

This time around, the Clintons tried to diminish the state’s importance by arguing that Mr. Sanders had an advantage because he was from a neighboring state. But they campaigned vigorously all the same, and Mr. Clinton himself unleashed a lengthy, pointed attack on Mr. Sanders at an appearance on Sunday evening.

And if you needed any further info or urging to get out the vote for Bernie, join the rest of the inspired crowd:

I saw Macklemore and Ryan on Stephen Colbert last night do an extremely courageous performance of a song that although it seemed still rough around the edges and in need of some smart touches, was very appropriate at this time in history.

What do you think?

It's an exciting time with lots of information from very differing perspectives coming out of the usually suspect MSM and our generally trusted internet sources, but have many of the previously dispirited already given up? New Hampshire says "not really!"

A political revolution within the Democratic Party has undermined Hillary Clinton's powerful political machine
Do you want to make a difference in your and everyone else's economic/political life? (Yes, it's just a start at changing the makeup of the Congress . . . but over 40% of the Republicans who won House offices in the last election have already decided not to return . . . so it's a pretty good start.

Then it's time to get involved.

. . . here’s the problem. There’s no way to reform the system without rocking the boat. There’s no way to get to where America should be without aiming high.

Progressive change has never happened without bold ideas championed by bold idealists.

Some thought it was quixotic to try for civil rights and voting rights. Some viewed it as naïve to think we could end the Vietnam War. Some said it was unrealistic to push for the Environmental Protection Act.

But time and again we’ve learned that important public goals can be achieved – if the public is mobilized behind them. And time and again such mobilization has depended on the energies and enthusiasm of young people combined with the determination and tenacity of the rest.

If we don’t aim high we have no chance of hitting the target, and no hope of mobilizing that enthusiasm and determination.

The situation we’re in now demands such mobilization. Wealth and income are more concentrated at the top than in over a century. And that wealth has translated into political power.

The result is an economy rigged in favor of those at the top – which further compounds wealth and power at the top, in a vicious cycle that will only get worse unless reversed.

Americans pay more for pharmaceuticals than the citizens of any other advanced nation, for example. We also pay more for Internet service. And far more for health care.

We pay high prices for airline tickets even though fuel costs have tumbled. And high prices for food even though crop prices have declined.

That’s because giant companies have accumulated vast market power. Yet the nation’s antitrust laws are barely enforced.

Meanwhile, the biggest Wall Street banks have more of the nation’s banking assets than they did in 2008, when they were judged too big to fail.

Hedge-fund partners get tax loopholes, oil companies get tax subsidies, and big agriculture gets paid off.

Bankruptcy laws protect the fortunes of billionaires like Donald Trump but not the homes of underwater homeowners or the savings of graduates burdened with student loans.

A low minimum wage enhances the profits of big-box retailers like Walmart, but requires the rest of us provide its employees and their families with food stamps and Medicaid in order to avoid poverty – an indirect subsidy of Walmart.

Trade treaties protect the assets and intellectual property of big corporations but not the jobs and wages of ordinary workers.

At the same time, countervailing power is disappearing. Labor union membership has plummeted from a third of all private-sector workers in the 1950s to fewer than 7 percent today. Small banks have been absorbed into global financial behemoths. Small retailers don’t stand a chance against Walmart and Amazon.

And the pay of top corporate executives continues to skyrocket, even as most peoples’ real wages drop and their job security vanishes.

This system is not sustainable.

We must get big money out of our democracy, end crony capitalism, and make our economy and democracy work for the many, not just the few.

But change on this scale requires political mobilization.

It won’t be easy. It has never been easy. As before, it will require the energies and commitments of large numbers of Americans.

Which is why you shouldn’t listen to the “we-must-not-try” brigade. They’ve lost faith in the rest of us.

We must try. We have no choice.

And here's a very pertinent look into the reasons why there is no choice.

Several years before Bernie Sanders zoomed towards a virtual tie in national polls with Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren began the discussion about Wall Street’s influence in American politics. Warren even declared in 2014 that a portion of President Obama’s Omnibus bill “was written by Citigroup lobbyists.” Few politicians have directly accused investment banks of writing U.S. laws.

The Massachusetts Senator was able to introduce the topic on a national stage, and even though Sanders has spent his entire career championing the same message, she succeeded in publicizing a sense of urgency. Warren paved the way for Bernie, and in doing so, helped the Sanders campaign undermine Hillary Clinton’s enormous political machine; a monstrosity that benefits from the status quo. I explain why Bernie Sanders has already made Clinton’s political machine implode in the following YouTube segment.

The Atlantic has a provocative piece 
by Conor Friedersdorf that all Americans should read titled “Hillary Helps a Bank–and Then It Funnels Millions to the Clintons.” Let’s just say the article gives some insight into why Hillary Clinton is paid millions for speaking engagements. If you haven’t read Friedersdorf’s article, then you won’t know why there’s so much desire to read Clinton’s speech transcripts.

Hillary Clinton’s political machine, which runs on a peculiar form of 
honest graft,” as stated by Walter Russel Mead, has been undermined by a political revolution within the Democratic Party, and within American politics.

Nobody has been able to highlight why Bernie Sanders is needed by African Americans, Latinos, and all Democratic voters better than Tim Black in this powerful segment  of Tim Black TV. Only Bernie Sanders has harnessed the full power of an electorate disgusted with politicians yet to disclose the transcripts of million dollar speeches. Nothing defines establishment politics better than a Democrat who takes money from the same interest that harm core constituencies of the Democratic Party.

Hillary Clinton has accepted campaign contributions from two major prison lobbyists, Wall Street, and the oil and gas industry, yet promises progressive stances against all these interests.

In fact, Marco Rubio and Clinton take almost the same amount of money from prison lobbyists, as stated in "Vice" article titled How Private Prisons Are Profiting From Locking Up US Immigrants:

"Vice" reviewed federal campaign disclosures and found that lobbying firms linked to GEO and CCA have already contributed more than $288,300 to three of the leading candidates. Clinton’s Ready for Hillary PAC received $133,246 from lobbying firms linked to GEO and CCA. Rubio’s PACs and campaign have taken a total of $133,450 from private prison companies or groups that lobby on their behalf. Bush’s campaign and his Right to Rise Super PAC have received $21,700 from lobbying groups affiliated with GEO and CCA.

When Marco Rubio and Hillary Clinton take essentially the same funding from GEO and CCA, and Jeb Bush actually receives less money than Clinton and Rubio, establishment politics proves ideology takes a back seat to cash.

Like rival prison gangs, Republicans and Democrats will glare at each other across the yard, but cut lucrative deals when the guards (the American people, in this case) aren’t looking.

. . . As for idealism versus pragmatism, it’s not pragmatic to use a private server (“It was sitting there in the basement” for “convenience.” Pragmatism, and “getting things done” to both Sanders and Warren means breaking up Too Big to Fail Banks, reinstating Glass-Steagall, ensuring we never again rescue failed corporations (socialist George W. Bush forced nine major banks to “accept partial nationalization” and urged government to own private business in 2008), and solving the conundrum of massive wealth inequality.

. . . While Hillary Clinton advocated sending U.S. ground troops back to the Middle East after the Paris attacks, Bernie Sanders warns against perpetual wars and says “I’ll be damned” to more quagmires.

Yes, progressive Hillary Clinton called for “greater use of American ground troops.”

As for Marco Rubio, Cruz, and Trump, their foreign policy will be similar to Clinton’s, especially since the former secretary of state will have a “neocon” foreign policy (and neoconservative advisers, aiming to regain influence) according to leading historians. Also, actress and feminist icon Susan Sarandon highlighted on Twitter the scandal few people are talking about. This controversy is explained in a Mother Jones article titled “Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deals to Clinton Foundation Donors”:

In 2011, the State Department cleared an enormous arms deal: Led by Boeing, a consortium of American defense contractors would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, despite concerns over the kingdom’s troublesome human rights record. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, Saudi Arabia had contributed $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, and just two months before the jet deal was finalized, Boeing donated $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to an International Business Times investigation released Tuesday.

First, why is Clinton accepting money from foreign governments? Second, your answer will explain whether you’re voting for Clinton, a Republican, or Bernie Sanders in 2016.

In contrast to Clinton’s Republican-style foreign policy, Bernie’s more rational approach is explained in a CNN article titled “Sen. Bernie Sanders: ‘I’ll be damned’ if Americans lead ISIS fight”:

“I’m sitting here wondering where Saudi Arabia is, where Kuwait is, where Qatar is,” Sanders said on CNN’s “New Day.” “I’ll be damned if kids in the state of Vermont — or taxpayers in the state of Vermont — have to defend the royal Saudi family, which is worth hundreds of billions of dollars.”
Remember the program opposed by Bernie to arm Syrian rebels? Well, it cost $500 million and according to Time, “…the program, which cost $500 million, has not been found to be effective in combating the terrorist group.”

During his Congressional speech protesting the Iraq War (while establishment Democrats sided with Bush), Bernie Sanders presciently stated “Mr. Speaker, in the brief time I have, let me give five reasons why I am opposed to giving the President a blank check to launch a unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq and why I will vote against this resolution.”

Sanders passed the biggest foreign policy test of our generation, voting against the Iraq War.

Hillary Clinton failed this test.

Over 500,000 have died from the Iraq War, something that Clinton failed to predict when siding with the Bush administration. She then repeated the same mistake in Libya, advocating a bombing that resulted in civil war and a country becoming a “massive safe haven” for ISIS.

While Sanders correctly foreshadowed the rise of unintended consequences like ISIS, Clinton now simply refers to her Iraq vote as a “mistake.”

Certain people, however, simply never learn from their mistakes. Even with the knowledge that arming the Syrian rebels “has not been found to be effective” and cost $500 million, CBS News writes that Hillary Clinton still wouldn’t give up on training Syrian rebels.

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

The #feelthebern Hashtag Mushrooms - JEB Making Comeback - Lucky Hillary Fades to Gray?  (Aren't Payroll Jobs Reports Just Propaganda Until Doomsday?)  Global Economic Turmoil Continues to Worsen in 2016

He never really went away.

You just thought he did.

Is JEB Making a Comeback? One Pollster Is Much More Convinced Than the Others.

I've felt from the first that it will be Bush v. ? (probably Clinton due to strength of campaign propaganda versus relatively ignorant camp followers).

They don't give up, you know.

No matter how foolish they look.

That's the perspective of the entitled.

And don't forget that he was the original Bush league choice.

His father, who may now be starting his last campaign (against death), deserves some serious attention as we enter yet another Bush political campaign season. Remember when all his sins were said (by his courtiers) to be canceled by his unfailing courtesy and attention to decorum?

It was the economy, stupid … and he was the stupid one. After the stock market crashed in 1989, HW sat on his hands, waiting for the recession to magically go away. As the invisible hand of the marketplace dithered and dawdled, the housing market crashed too. Millions lost their jobs. Countless businesses went under. Lots of misery, much of it avoidable. Much of which could have been mitigated with a little action from the Fed and a Keynesian stimulus package. He did little.

By the time he left, everyone, not least Wall Street traders, breathed a sigh of relief that there was going to be someone at the wheel going forward.
There were, of course, the wars. There’s his good war against Iraq, for which he gets credit for merely slaughtering Saddam’s army as they retreated down the “highway of death” and not going on to kill everyone in Baghdad, as his stupid bloodthirsty son tried to do. Mainly, the Gulf War is a plus because few Americans died in combat (some “war” dead were killed in forklift accidents). Still, it was a war that needn’t have been fought in the first place.

In a now largely forgotten episode, the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein — then a U.S. buddy — asked permission to invade Kuwait, which was “slant drilling” into Iraqi oilfields and undercutting OPEC cartel prices. It being August, all the big names were away on vacation, so Saddam took the word of a low-level drone at the State Department that everything was cool.

It wasn’t.

If Bush had been a decent manager — the kind of guy who arranges the deck chairs — he would have had better people handling his pet tyrants.

Then there’s the truly sorry invasion of Panama. No one remembers now, but this was Bush’s first personnel dispute with a dictator. General Manuel Noriega was getting uppity, HW decided to put him in his place, the Marines slaughtered thousands of Panamanians. Really, for no reason.

Certainly without justification. Noriega is still in a US prison, having spent more than two decades on trumped-up cocaine charges. Which you might care about. Noriega wasn’t a nice guy, right?

The trouble is, treating a sovereign head of state like a common criminal scumbag sets some bad precedents.

Now, when the US approaches guys like Syria’s Bashar Al-Assad to suggest that he leave office, he digs in his heels for fear of winding up in prison or worse. Back in the pre-Panama days, you could convince a guy like the Philippines’ Ferdinand Marcos to fly to Hawaii with a duffel bag full of bullion, so everyone could move on.

There’s the goose-gander thing. Why shouldn’t Assad be able to argue that Obama ought to be imprisoned for breaking Syrian law, like those against funding terrorist groups like ISIS?

Bush’s biggest boner may have been his hands-off approach to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Rather than help Russia and the other former Soviet republics come in for a soft post-socialist landing, as in China after Mao, Bush’s guys quietly rejoiced in the mayhem.

Clinton gave us “shock economics,” Yeltsin, mass starvation, the destruction of Grozny and the oligarchs — but Bush set the stage for a mess with which we, and more importantly the Russians, are dealing today.

Any way you look at it, George Bush Senior left the world worse off than it was.

The possibility that he may have been courteous to his minions and henchmen doesn’t change that.

And as for the real campaign (like how I turned that into funtime there?) . . . .

The #feelthebern hashtag has mushroomed online and even the Clinton juggernaut is beginning to get jittery and rather tetchy regarding its current status within the primary race. Now it is more important than ever to revisit Bernie Sanders and ask who it is that is being held up as the savior of the country, the counterweight to the lite or not-so-lite fascism of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz and the neoliberal corporate-marinated Clinton Dynasty. 
For Sanders supporters, of which there are many at this point, he is, however, the outsider who will bring decency back to the Democrats – a bastion of opposition to Hillary Clinton. For how can we hope and change the world if we would support Hillary Clinton? According to Bernie Sanders back in September (at the least), he would not consider an independent run for the presidency and will support whoever the eventual Democratic nominee is – which would be himself, or, obviously, Hillary Clinton.  
This is a rather aborted “political revolution” that Sanders calls for if the very forces he delivers campaign jeremiads against – the “billionaire class” and “Wall Street” and “the banks” – are the very ones who have bought and paid for the candidate that Sanders will support in the event of his primary loss.

What revolution is based on the foundation of “Defeat the enemy but support them when they defeat us”? Bernie Sanders fashionably uses the terms “revolution” and “socialist” before practically smashing any relevance these terms have ever held. For Sanders is not a socialist nor pushing “political revolution”. As BlackAgenda Report has continuously noted, he is merely “sheepdogging” left-progressive votes for the Democratic Party. He is not an independent nor beyond the accepted limits of a neoliberal Democratic Party, employing language that registers at “John Edwards” on the progressive-populism scale. 
. . . Obama’s famous 2008 slight that Hillary was “likeable enough” turns out not to be so true. On the campaign trail and on TV, Hillary is charmless. Which is why, the more Americans get to know her, the more of her supporters migrate to other candidates. She can’t up her personality game.
With the liberal/progressive base of Hillary’s party agitated at 1960s levels, she can’t explain away her conservative record. She’s never met a free trade deal or a war she didn’t like (See Diana Johnstone’s Queen of Chaos for the goods on HRC’s foreign policy blunders); millions of jobs and people are dead as a result.
She says she’s been fighting for progressive causes for years, but when? Where? Even on the micro-bore social “wedge” issues that her husband relied upon as president, she’s in trouble. Gays won’t forget her support of the Defense of Marriage Act. Straights think she’s a reed in the political wind.
But Hillary’s biggest flaw as a candidate isn’t policy. It’s her failure to internalize two truisms of politics 
Number one:  Candidates win by projecting an optimistic vision of the future. When she criticizes Bernie Sanders for advocating changes that would be hard to get through Congress and expensive to pay for — free college tuition, Medicare for everybody — she projects a radical pessimism that makes many ask, why not? Why can’t the country that invades everyone, that sent a man to the moon, provide the same social benefits as most other nations?
And number two:  Elections aren’t about the candidate. They’re about the people. This goes back to when tribes elected chiefs. Vote for me, and buffalo will rain from the sky! We’ll be fat! Water everywhere! That’s a winning campaign — not, hey, as the first elder from the Whatever Clan to become chief, I’d make tribal history and wouldn’t that be cool.
Obama didn’t win in 2008 by running as Future First Black President. He projected a sunny, winning disposition and a sense of the future we could buy into. Hope! Change! Yes We Can! Hillary’s campaign is all about her, not us.
That’s political suicide. 
(Ted Rall, syndicated writer and the cartoonist for, is the author of the book “Snowden,” the biography of the NSA whistleblower.)

As bad as things have been for those without good jobs (or good sources of income other than low-pay part-time/contract jobs), the statistics have just gotten worse.

Much worse.

I fear that no one will be able to dig us out without some type of major mischief going on at the lowest victim level.

Bernie will try at least.

If he gets the chance.

Against the incredibly lucky candidate who won 6 coin tosses on the same evening.


Hillary Clinton “won” the Iowa caucuses, in part because of 6 coin tosses all of which she won! Six precincts, at least, ended up with a dead tie between the two candidates. The tie was broken and a winner declared based on a coin toss in each case.
What are the odds of one of two candidates winning all six coin tosses if the outcomes are random, that is, if the tosses are fair, unbiased and with honest coins?
The calculation is so simple that a schoolboy or schoolgirl can do it. The formula is simply 1/2 raised to the power of 6 – that is, 1/2 taken six times and multiplied.
The probability of winning all six tosses by chance alone is 1/64. That is 0.016 or 1.6 in 100 or 1.6%. Not even 2%! In many areas of science including many areas of biology, one must demonstrate that the result of one’s experiments is unlikely to happen by chance alone. If the probability of getting the results by chance alone is less than 5%, the result reported is considered to be “significant,’ that is, not likely to be a chance finding. Such a result is publishable in highly respected journals.
Since the probability of the outcome in Iowa was 1.6%, it is quite unlikely, highly improbable that the coin tosses resulted from chance and were honest. And if the results did not occur by chance alone, then the coin tosses were manipulated, fixed! Why has no one in the mainstream media looked into this?
It is not unusual for results of an election to be questioned based on what the facts of the matter really are. For example some may claim that voting machines are rigged but others will say no. However, everyone agrees on the fact of the six coin tosses, and the simple calculation above is based on the fundamental laws of probability, i.e., counting. That gives the conclusion that the results were rigged very strong standing. At the very least, the probabilities demand a thorough investigation.

And what about those other questionable Iowa Results?*
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

February 6, 2016

Are The Payroll Jobs Reports Merely Propaganda Statements?

Paul Craig Roberts

US economics statistics are so screwed up that they do not provide an accurate picture.
Consider the latest monthly payroll jobs report. According to the report, in January 151,000 new jobs were created. Where are these jobs? According to the report, 69% of the new jobs are accounted for by retail employment and waitresses and bartenders. If we add in health care and social assistance, the entirety of the new jobs are accounted for. This is not the employment picture of a First World economy.

According to the report, in January the retail sector added 57,700 jobs. Considering that January is the month that followed a disappointing Christmas December, do you think retailers added 57,700 employees? Such a large increase in retail employment suggests an expected rise in sales, but transportation and warehousing lost 20,300 jobs and wholesale trade added only 8,800.

Perhaps it is mistaken to think that employment in these sectors should move together. Possibly the retail jobs, if they are real, are part-time jobs replacing a smaller number of terminated full-time jobs in order that employers can avoid benefits costs. If this is the case, then the retail jobs are bad news, not good news.

The reported unemployment rate of 4.9% is misleading as it does not count discouraged workers. When discouraged workers are added, the actual rate of US unemployment is about 23%, a number more consistent with the decline in the labor force participation rate. In January 2006 the labor force participation rate was 66%. In January 2016 the labor force participation rate is 62.7%.

The government has a second official unemployment rate that counts short-term discouraged workers (discouraged for less than one year). That rate, known as U-6, is 10%, twice the “headline rate” which is always the U-3 measure that excludes all discouraged workers not currently looking for a job.

In his reports John Williams ( explains that the jobs reported can be an artifact of seasonal adjustments. Perhaps a simple way of seeing the influence of seasonal adjustments is to compare the not seasonally adjusted jobs numbers for December 2015 and January 2016. These numbers are 144,112,000 jobs in December and 141,123,000 jobs in January, a decline of 2,989,000. However, with seasonal adjustments the January number rises to 143,288,000 and the December number falls to 143,137,000, producing a January jobs gain of 151,000.

Payroll jobs are the number of jobs, not the number of employed people. Many of the payroll jobs are part-time. In order to make ends meet, some people hold two or more part-time jobs. In contrast to the 143,288,000 reported payroll jobs, civilian full-time employment is about 123,000,000.

Another factor that distorts the jobs reports is the birth-death model. Based on John Williams’ expertise, I have often reported on this effort by the BLS to estimate the net of unreported jobs losses from business closures and the unreported jobs gains of new start-ups. Here is John Williams in his latest report on the January payroll jobs:

“Historically, an upside-bias process was created for payroll-employment reporting simply by adding in a monthly “bias factor,” so as to prevent the otherwise potential political embarrassment to the BLS of understating monthly jobs growth. The “bias factor” process resulted from such an actual reporting embarrassment, with the underestimation of jobs growth coming out of the 1983 recession.

“That process eventually was recast as the now infamous Birth-Death Model (BDM), which purportedly models the relative effects on payroll employment of jobs creation due to new businesses starting up, versus jobs lost due to bankruptcies or closings of existing businesses.

“Separately there is a preset upside bias, plus a presumed net additional “surplus” of jobs added
on to the payroll estimates each month as a special add-factor. In current reporting, the aggregate average overstatement of monthly employment change easily exceeds 200,000 jobs per month. These details and section shall be updated fully in the pending Supplement.”

The assertion that the US economy has been in recovery since June of 2009 is not consistent with the quantity and quality of the jobs reflected in the payroll jobs reports. The number of new jobs is not sufficient to prevent the labor force participation rate from declining, and the pay associated with the jobs is not sufficient to leave consumers with enough discretionary income to drive an economy based on consumption.

The financial presstitutes do not explore these issues. They merely report the numbers that the official releases emphasize and ask no questions about them. Therefore, the decline in American economic prospects receives no attention. The Federal Reserve can even report that half of American 25 year-olds live at home with their parents without causing alarm. They do this not from choice but from necessity. They simply cannot find jobs that pay enough to support an independent existence. You would think that this would be an issue of national concern.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

22 Signs That The Global Economic Turmoil We Have Seen So Far In 2016 Is Just The Beginning

By Michael Snyder
February 4th, 2016
As bad as the month of January was for the global economy, the truth is that the rest of 2016 promises to be much worse. Layoffs are increasing at a pace that we haven’t seen since the last recession, major retailers are shutting down hundreds of locations, corporate profit margins are plunging, global trade is slowing down dramatically, and several major European banks are in the process of completely imploding. I am about to share some numbers with you that are truly eye-popping. Each one by itself would be reason for concern, but when you put all of the pieces together it creates a picture that is hard to deny. The global economy is in crisis, and this is going to have very serious implications for the financial markets moving forward. U.S. stocks just had their worst January in seven years, and if I am right, much worse is still yet to come this year. The following are 22 signs that the global economic turmoil that we have seen so far in 2016 is just the beginning…
1. The number of job cuts in the United States skyrocketed 218 percent during the month of January according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas.
2. The Baltic Dry Index just hit yet another brand new all-time record low.  As I write this article, it is sitting at 303.
3. U.S. factory orders have now dropped for 14 months in a row.
4. In the U.S., the Restaurant Performance Index just fell to the lowest level that we have seen since 2008.
5. In January, orders for class 8 trucks (the big trucks that you see shipping stuff around the country on our highways) declined a whopping 48 percent from a year ago.
6. Rail traffic is also slowing down substantially.  In Colorado, there are hundreds of train engines that are just sitting on the tracks with nothing to do.
7. Corporate profit margins peaked during the third quarter of 2014 and have been declining steadily since then.This usually happens when we are heading into a recession.
8. A series of extremely disappointing corporate quarterly reports is sending stock after stock plummeting.  Here is a summary from Zero Hedge of a few examples that we have just witnessed…
9. Junk bonds continue to crash on Wall Street.  On Monday, JNK was down to32.60 and HYG was down to 77.99.
10. On Thursday, a major British news source publicly named five large European banks that are considered to be in very serious danger
Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse, Santander, Barclays and RBS are among the stocks that are falling sharply sending shockwaves through the financial world, according to former hedge fund manager and ex Goldman Sachs employee Raoul Pal.
11. Deutsche Bank is the biggest bank in Germany and it has more exposure to derivatives than any other bank in the world.  Unfortunately, Deutsche Bank credit default swaps are now telling us that there is deep turmoil at the bank and that a complete implosion may be imminent.
12. Last week, we learned that Deutsche Bank had lost a staggering 6.8 billioneuros in 2015.  If you will recall, I warned about massive problems at Deutsche Bank all the way back in September.  The most important bank in Germany is exceedingly troubled, and it could end up being for the EU what Lehman Brothers was for the United States.
13. Credit Suisse just announced that it will be eliminating 4,000 jobs.
14. Royal Dutch Shell has announced that it is going to be eliminating 10,000 jobs.
15. Caterpillar has announced that it will be closing 5 plants and getting rid of 670 workers.
16. Yahoo has announced that it is going to be getting rid of 15 percent of its total workforce.
17. Johnson & Johnson has announced that it is slashing its workforce by 3,000 jobs.
18. Sprint just laid off 8 percent of its workforce and GoPro is letting go 7 percent of its workers.
19. All over America, retail stores are shutting down at a staggering pace.  The following list comes from one of my previous articles
-Wal-Mart is closing 269 stores, including 154 inside the United States.
-K-Mart is closing down more than two dozen stores over the next several months.
-J.C. Penney will be permanently shutting down 47 more stores after closing a total of 40 stores in 2015.
-Macy’s has decided that it needs to shutter 36 stores and lay off approximately 2,500 employees.
-The Gap is in the process of closing 175 stores in North America.
-Aeropostale is in the process of closing 84 stores all across America.
-Finish Line has announced that 150 stores will be shutting down over the next few years.
-Sears has shut down about 600 stores over the past year or so, but sales at the stores that remain open continue to fall precipitously.
20. According to the "York Times," the Chinese economy is facing a mountain of bad loans that "could exceed $5 trillion."
21. Japan has implemented a negative interest rate program in a desperate attempt to try to get banks to make more loans.
22. The global economy desperately needs the price of oil to go back up, but Morgan Stanley says that we will not see $80 oil again until 2018.
It is not difficult to see where the numbers are trending.
Last week, I told my wife that I thought that Marco Rubio was going to do better than expected in Iowa.
How did I come to that conclusion?
It was simply based on how his poll numbers were trending.
And when you look at where global economic numbers are trending, they tell us that 2016 is going to be a year that is going to get progressively worse as it goes along.
So many of the exact same things that we saw happen in 2008 are happening again right now, and you would have to be blind not to see it.
Hopefully I am wrong about what is coming in our immediate future, because millions upon millions of Americans are not prepared for what is ahead, and most of them are going to get absolutely blindsided by the coming crisis.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

*  A good scientist would, however, not rest with simply one set of results that satisfied the probability criteria outlined above. He or she would look for other observations that would shore up the conclusion and make it more convincing. Similarly we may ask whether there were other indications of cheating in the Iowa Dem primary. And indeed there were. As Justin Raimondo of pointed out in his essay, “The Establishment’s Last Stand,” Democratic results went missing from nearly 100 precincts, which accounted for 5% of the vote according to the Sanders campaign. That 5% was more than enough to hand the race to Sanders. This led the Sanders to lament that the real results may never be known. And we should note that ballots have gone missing before in Iowa, notably in the 2012 Republican caucuses where Mitt Romney was falsely declared the winner.

Is it not strange that Hillary was so very lucky? It was very clear going into the polling that Sanders and Clinton were in a dead heat. Might we conclude that she and her supporters anticipating a tie in some precincts were prepared for a coin toss or to disappear some ballots, the latter having happened before in Iowa. Is Hillary’s reputation for honesty so sterling that we cannot possibly suspect that? You can answer that for yourself, dear reader.

But I will give you odds that Bernie won.