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.

2 comments:

TONY @oakroyd said...

'Sandslide' hahahaha. I'll steal that one. Go Bernie!

Cirze said...

You're welcome!