In 2016, Bernie Sanders Will Defeat Clinton and Dominate Trump to Become President

 

Trump. Already, Sanders defeats Trump in the polls by a wider margin than Hillary Clinton, as illustrated in a December 22, 2015 Hill article titled "In blockbuster poll, Sanders destroys Trump by 13 points":

Stop the presses! According to a new poll by Quinnipiac University on Tuesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) destroys Republican candidate Donald Trump in a general election by 13 percentage points. In this new poll, Sanders has 51 percent to Trump's 38 percent.

If this margin held in a general election, Democrats would almost certainly regain control of the United States Senate and very possibly the House of Representatives.

It is noteworthy that in this Quinnipiac poll, Sanders runs so much stronger than Clinton against Trump...

In the December 22 poll, Bernie Sanders defeats Trump by 13 points, while Clinton beats Trump by 7 points.

There are numerous reasons Bernie Sanders will achieve this dominant victory over a billionaire xenophobe who panders to the fears and base passions of conservatives. First, Bernie Sanders warns against the influence of money and power in politics, and "welcomes the hatred" of the billionaire class that Trump personifies. Sanders won the Congressional Award from the Veterans of Foreign Wars, while Trump insulted Vietnam Veteran and former POW John McCain. There are a great many other reasons that I'll highlight in the future, when Sanders becomes the Democratic nominee. Overall, Bernie Sanders genuinely cares about ending wealth inequality and perpetual wars, while Trump is a buffoon who's spent most of his time making headlines for outrageous statements.

Most importantly, Sanders is the antithesis of Trump and gives voters a stark contrast in choice; not so with Hillary. POLITICO writes that Clinton "received donations from both him and son Donald Trump Jr. on separate occasions in 2002, 2005, 2006 and 2007, according to state and federal disclosure records." You'll never get a Clinton supporter to address these donations, or why Trump once felt it would be advantageous to become one of Clinton's donors.

Trump also gave $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation, in either a moment of pure altruism, or another campaign donation akin to Clinton's foreign donor scandal.

While the recent Quinnipiac poll shows Clinton defeating Trump, the underlying data shows that generally, Americans don't trust the former Secretary of State. 59 percent of American voters believe Clinton is "not honest and trustworthy." 55 percent of American voters say "she does not share their values." 50 percent of American voters feel Clinton "does not care about their needs and problems." Like every other poll in 2008 and 2015 illustrating Clinton's wide lead over a challenger, voters say they'll vote for a candidate they don't trust, or feel doesn't care about their problems.

If you view polls as gospel and place a premium on recent polls, then Quinnipiac also states 72 percent of Independents don't believe Clinton is honest and trustworthy. This is a dangerous number for Democrats since 43 percent of Americans according to Gallup are independent.

Also, 49 percent (compared to 44 percent) of American women don't view Clinton as honest or trustworthy, while over 62% of voters ages 35-64 don't find Clinton honest or trustworthy.

From ages 18 to over 65, there was no age group that found Clinton honest or trustworthy, and 59 percent of Americans age 18-34 don't find Clinton to be honest or trustworthy.

51 percent of registered voters have an unfavorable view of Clinton (compared to 43 percent), while Bernie Sanders has a positive net favorability of 9 points.

Again, this Quinnipiac poll is from December 22, 2015. Most polls, like this one, contradict their findings; Americans will never vote for a candidate they don't like and don't trust, linked to an FBI investigation.

On December 18, 2007 Gallup stated that Clinton Maintains Large Lead Over Obama Nationally. It never lasted, and I explain why Clinton is unelectable due to negative favorability ratings in this YouTube segment.

Bernie Sanders will win the Democratic nomination because if Clinton was ever going to win, it would have been in 2008, not during an investigation of her emails by the FBI. On December 11, POLITICO explained why the FBI's investigation is just getting started in a piece titled "State Department can't find emails of top Clinton IT staffer":

The FBI has taken possession of Bryan Pagliano's computer system...

Clinton had personally paid Pagliano to maintain her home-made server, which is also currently in the FBI's possession. The agency has been investigating whether classified material was ever put at risk because she used her own server instead of the standard State email system. The State Department has designated about 1,000 of her emails as classified documents, which would never have been allowed on such a private system.

Considering that hackers from various countries already tried to access Clinton's server, Pagliano pleaded the Fifth, and two computer systems are in the FBI's custody, this story won't end before Election Day.

As for the belief that African American voters and other non-white Democrats will overwhelmingly vote for Clinton in South Carolina and throughout the South, people aren't poll numbers. A Daily Beast article on December 29, 2015 titled "Hillary Clinton's Tone-Deaf Racial Pandering" explains why poll numbers might not equate to votes:

Hillary Clinton's minority outreach over the last week has rekindled the idea that she is a candidate who is out of touch, particularly when it comes to minorities. To many of us, her campaign's insistence that she is an abuela for Latinos and the changing of her Twitter logo to represent Kwanzaa came across as pandering at its worst...

If more of Clinton's outreach attempts seem tone deaf or overly reliant on her previous successes than her present rapport with today's voters, it will be difficult for her to shake the image of being out of touch.

It's important to also note that Clinton's attempt at pandering comes months after progressive groups pressured her to stop taking money from prison lobbyists. The Intercept writes "As immigration and incarceration issues become central to the 2016 presidential campaign, lobbyists for two major prison companies are serving as top fundraisers for Hillary Clinton."

Finally, I find it bizarre that certain people still brand me as a Paul supporter, even though I'm a lifelong Democrat against perpetual war (I only wrote the piece because Obama had sent more Americans back to the Middle East and I'm vehemently opposed to more Americans dying in quagmires), and I now view the Paul article last year as a mistake.

I'm also only voting for Bernie Sanders.

Conversely, Hillary Clinton views Iraq as a "mistake," yet her supporters have no problem seeing the former New York Senator as president. The Iraq war destabilized the Middle East, I simply angered fellow progressives.

If you hear any wild conspiracy theories about me, or ridiculous accusations, simply send my detractors this YouTube segment. As for why I'm writing non-stop about Bernie Sanders, nothing epitomizes my desire to see Sanders as the Democratic nominee and president than this POLITIFACT article titled "Yes, Clinton used the Bush administration line":

"President Bush and Dick Cheney insisted there was a connection. Senator Clinton on the floor of the Senate suggested that there was such a connection," Obama said in an interview on MSNBC's Hardball on March 11, 2008.

In that speech, Clinton explained her reasoning... "He [Saddam] has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members..."

Sanders opposed Iraq and foreshadowed its tragic consequences, going against establishment Democrats and neoconservative Republicans; both would become even more intertwined with a Clinton presidency.

In contrast, Clinton echoed Bush and Cheney talking points about al Qaeda in Saddam's Iraq. If you vote for anyone other than Bernie Sanders in 2016, you're simply not a progressive, especially knowing that Trump is a racist xenophobe and Clinton utilized the same tactics against Obama in 2008. You're also voting for endless wars with Trump or Clinton, while Bernie Sanders says "I'll be dammed" to more quagmires.

This year, it's Bernie Sanders against an establishment upheld by Trump and Clinton. I explain why Bernie Sanders will become president during an appearance on The Thom Hartmann Program. If you listen to the segment, you'll understand exactly why Bernie Sanders will become president in 2016.

Above is from:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/in-2016-bernie-sanders-defeat-clinton-trump_b_8902400.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

The Koch brothers don't need to take over the Republican party, they're building their own

Mr. Vogel’s article referenced by Ms. Mc Carter  is available at:  http://boonecountywatchdog.blogspot.com/2015/12/how-koch-network-rivals-gop.html and http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/koch-brothers-network-gop-david-charles-217124#ixzz3vuOqsy4d

The Koch brothers don't need to take over the Republican party, they're building their own

By Joan McCarter

Wednesday Dec 30, 2015 12:57 PM CST

Ken Vogel at Politico has another massive, important story in his series about the "Koch Machine," this time looking at the brothers' party-building apparatus which is increasingly looking like an effort not to take over the Republican party, but to bury it. 

Koch and his brother David Koch have quietly assembled, piece by piece, a privatized political and policy advocacy operation like no other in American history that today includes hundreds of donors and employs 1,200 full-time, year-round staffers in 107 offices nationwide. That’s about 3½ times as many employees as the Republican National Committee and its congressional campaign arms had on their main payrolls last month, according to POLITICO’s analysis of tax and campaign documents and interviews with sources familiar with the network. And the staggering sum the network plans to spend in the 2016 election run-up―$889 million―is more than double what the RNC spent in the previous presidential cycle. […]

The Koch network’s data operation is now regarded by many candidates and campaigns as superior to the party’s, and it has invested in efforts to become the leading force on the right for training activists and registering voters. Its biggest group, Americans for Prosperity, plans to place full-time staff in all but eight states by late 2016 and aspires to copy the National Rifle Association’s broad-based membership plan for longevity, according to a POLITICO investigation. It found that the group has even discussed expanding its influence by writing and pushing model state budgets, a technique similar to the one used by the American Legislative Exchange Council to push various state legislative initiatives. […]

In the post-Citizens United era of relaxed campaign finance laws, the Kochs and their megadonor allies, more than any other group of affluent political partisans recruit like-minded candidates, collect intelligence on rivals and win converts among the disadvantaged.

On the upside, this is pretty clearly a well-staffed astroturf organization, as its own audits have proven. According to what Politico reports, an "assessment found an 'overwhelming' percentage of the 2 million members claimed by the group were not actually involved and 'do not self-identify as being volunteers.'" Where they came up with their 2 million member names isn't clear, and thus they don't have the kind of grassroots ground force they like to claim. The downside is they don't really need it—they've got all the money in the world and a Republican party running scared.

That's because the Kochs are increasingly willing to take on Republicans they find insufficiently loyal to their corporatist ideals and replace them with their handpicked lackeys. That's not just in federal elections, but all the way down to state and local offices. They're at the point that they don't really need to take over the Republican party, though it's proven handy to have for the past several years. 

All this means we're moving toward an actual three-party system, and not in a good way, with the advent of the Koch Billionaires' Party. But there is always hope. Charles Koch—the brother seen as the linchpin to massive fundraising—is 80 and little brother David is 75. There's the possibility that the political empire they've built will self-destruct once they're dead.

Above is from:  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/12/30/1464827/-The-Koch-brothers-don-t-need-to-take-over-the-Republican-party-they-re-building-their-own