Rep. Ryan is an Ayn Rand libertarian who is working for the Koch brothers to redefine what conservatism is; their golden boy as others have described him. It is pretty obvious the Koch Brothers want this guy to be the standard bearer of conservatism. Most people who pay attention to what is going on in the political arena are well aware the Koch Brothers are longtime libertarians, who were not able to gain traction with their Libertarian Party so they resorted to buying out the Republican Party via the tea party challenge to advance their libertarian agenda.
Intended as a discussion group, the blog has evolved to be more of a reading list of current issues affecting our county, its government and people. All reasonable comments and submissions welcomed. Email us at: bill.pysson@gmail.com REMEMBER: To view our sister blog for education issues: www.district100watchdog.blogspot.com
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
Voters define party, what it stands for
Rep. Ryan is an Ayn Rand libertarian who is working for the Koch brothers to redefine what conservatism is; their golden boy as others have described him. It is pretty obvious the Koch Brothers want this guy to be the standard bearer of conservatism. Most people who pay attention to what is going on in the political arena are well aware the Koch Brothers are longtime libertarians, who were not able to gain traction with their Libertarian Party so they resorted to buying out the Republican Party via the tea party challenge to advance their libertarian agenda.
Friday, December 4, 2015
Really rich people aren't actually that good at buying their way into political office - Vox
Bruce Rauner is the first Republican governor of Illinois in more than a decade — but his victory didn't come cheap. As Nick Confessore details in the New York Times, Rauner, a wealthy financier, spent $27.5 million of his own money to get elected, and raised millions more from a few wealthy families. Now that he's in office, he's proposed sweeping tax cuts and restrictions on public unions — a surprisingly conservative agenda for such a blue state.
But when it comes to wealthy individuals who "self-fund" their campaigns for office, Rauner's success is very much the exception rather than the rule.
In fact, study after study has found that self-funders like Rauner have a really hard time winning — even if they spend truly massive sums (which, according to the Supreme Court, they have the right to do).
The failure of self-funders was particularly glaring in 2010, the year the infamous Citizens United decision. Out of the eight Senate and House candidates who spent the most of their own money on their campaigns in 2010, just one ended up winning. The losers — most of whom were unsuccessful Republicans in a year their party swept a majority of congressional races — included Linda McMahon, who spent $46 million running for Senate in Connecticut, and Carly Fiorina, who spent $5.5 million running for Senate in California. Most impressive of all was Meg Whitman's losing campaign for governor of California — she spent around $144 million of her own money and lost by 13 percentage points.
Their losses are nothing new. Political scientist Adam Brown found that self-funders in gubernatorial races had poor showings in a 2009 research presentation titled "What Money Can't Buy." And political scientist Jennifer Steen reviewed congressional self-funders in a 2006 book on self-financing and found that, amazingly enough, "a candidate's chance of winning a primary or general election tends to decrease as the amount of personal funds invested in their campaigns increases."
Traditional political fundraising is about more than just getting money
You might think self-funders' struggles are explained by inexperience. Many self-funders have little or no experience in elected office, so it makes sense to expect that they'd naturally have a hard time on the campaign trail and end up losing.
But for Steen's book Self-Financed Candidates in Congressional Elections, she separated out self-funders who did have political experience from those who didn't — and even once that was controlled for, ordinary fundraising was much more closely correlated with success than self-financing was.
Ordinary political fundraising entails building a networkIndeed, Steen wrote that her evidence suggests the marginal impact of "a dollar self-financed does not equal a dollar raised." That may seem weird, since these dollars tend to be spent on the same sorts of things.
But traditional political fundraising necessarily involves building a network of some sort. Whether it's big-dollar black-tie events or small online donations, the candidate has convinced actual people to fork over some of their hard-earned cash.
And, Steen argued, the effects from that network-building can ripple outward in several ways. The most obvious is that the donors themselves will presumably vote for the candidate they're giving to. Donations from groups, which usually come with endorsements, could bring in even more votes.
Beyond that, contributions can be a signal of a candidate's political strength to other political players like "potential opponents, opinion leaders, reporters, strategic campaign contributors," Steen wrote. If you raise a lot of money, you look like a winner whose candidacy is "catching on" among actual people.
But if you just spend your own money — well, any rich person can do that. Indeed, a candidate's very willingness to spend millions and millions of his or her own money might be compensating for an inability to build a network of supporters, or a lack of interest in doing that difficult work.
Campaign donations often follow political strength. Self-funding doesn't.
In addition to all this, there's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem in disentangling how money's influence on elections actually works.
Ordinarily, it is true that the candidate who raises more money usually ends up winning. However, that candidate may have been able to raise that money because he or she was already believed to be likely to win. Nobody wants to waste money donating to a loser, after all. So outside fundraising often correlates with political strength — and can perhaps amplify it.
Could self-funding actually be a sign of weakness?And in races with self-funders, there's another confounding factor — if they're facing a really tough race, they're likely to spend even more money on it. So when you eyeball the list of candidates who spent the most money on their own campaigns, they naturally tend to be embroiled in difficult races. "Self-financing may be as much a sign of weakness as a sign of strength," political science professor John Sides wrote in 2010.
Look at Linda McMahon of Connecticut, the top self-funding congressional candidate of the 2010 cycle. Connecticut is a blue state, and the Democratic nominee that year, then–Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, was generally considered to be a strong contender (though not perfect). So, trailing in polls and trying to make the race competitive, McMahon poured in millions. (She never got close, losing by 12 points in a Republican wave year. She ran for Senate again two years later and lost again, and spent $100 million in the two losing races combined.)
Conversely, if the self-funder were in a really strong political position, we might even expect him or her to spend less. Candidates certain to be elected may be happy to throw away their donors' money anyway — that's why the money was given in the first place, after all. But a self-funder may be more reluctant to part with his or her own cash unless it seems truly necessary.
Conditions were favorable for a Rauner victory
None of this is to say that self-financing is meaningless. It can certainly elevate a candidate from obscurity to the top tier. Steen found that in open primaries, if a self-funder enters the race, other potential opponents are often deterred from jumping in themselves. And of course, there have been some notable self-financed success stories — like former New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and, of course, Bruce Rauner.
But even though a rich Republican like Rauner managed to win blue state Illinois, it's worth remembering a couple things. First, his opponent, incumbent governor, Pat Quinn, was one of the most unpopular governors in the country. And second, Rauner won in a nationwide GOP wave year in which Republicans also won governor's races in blue states like Maryland and Massachusetts — and he won by less than 4 percentage points.
It's certainly possible — even likely — that Rauner's massive spending helped him overcome his own weaknesses as a candidate. But it certainly didn't create the conditions for future Republican success in Illinois. So overall, while there are many, many ways in which money influences our politics, the track record of self-funders suggests this isn't a particularly effective one.
What does this mean for Donald Trump?
Surprisingly enough, all this may not actually have too many implications for this year's highest-profile "self-funder" — Donald Trump.
That's because despite his claims that he's financing his own campaign, Trump has actually relied quite a bit on what his campaign has called "unsolicited" donations.
According to the latest campaign finance filings, Trump had put a little less than $2 million into his campaign. But he raised twice that amount — $4 million — from others, particularly those buying his merchandise (like his "Make America Great Again" hat). The Sunlight Foundation's Drew Doggett has a good rundown of this here.
Trump constantly brags about his vast wealth, and has said he'd spend more than $100 million to win the GOP primary, if necessary. But considering how cheap he's been so far, there's a lot of skepticism about whether he actually will.
For instance, so far Jeb Bush's operation has spent over 100 times more on ads this year than Trump's operation has — $30 million to $217,000, according to NBC/SMG Delta.
Trump, of course, is leading the polls despite this lack of spending. So if he starts to lose his lead, maybe he'll spend big to try to take it back. But for now, we don't yet know whether he'll join the ranks of the historic self-funders like McMahon.
Really rich people aren't actually that good at buying their way into political office - Vox
Thursday, October 22, 2015
Ben Carson leads in new Iowa poll. Trump toppling? - CSMonitor.com
Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson now leads Donald Trump in the crucial early caucus state of Iowa.
That’s what a new Quinnipiac University poll shows, at least. It puts Mr. Carson ahead of Mr. Trump by 28 to 20 percent among likely Republican caucus participants. That’s a near-reversal of their positions from September, when the real estate mogul/reality star led Carson, 27 to 21.
The only other GOP hopefuls to crack double digits in the new Quinnipiac numbers were Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, at 13 percent, and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz with 10 percent.
Ben Carson leads in new Iowa poll. Trump toppling? - CSMonitor.com
First Read: 'We Don't Like Our Candidates Very Much' - NBC News
by Chuck Todd, Mark Murray and Carrie Dann
First Read is a morning briefing from Meet the Press and the NBC Political Unit on the day's most important political stories and why they matter.
Voters in the NBC/WSJ poll: "We don't like our candidates very much"
Beyond the horserace numbers, the approval ratings, and opinions about tomorrow's Benghazi committee testimony, maybe the biggest finding in our new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll is how the American electorate -- at large -- doesn't care for the 2016 field. Every major candidate in the poll, including non-candidate Joe Biden (at least for now), gets a majority of voters saying they are uncertain/pessimistic about their ability to do a good job as president vs. optimistic/satisfied. According to our pollsters, there is no precedent for that level of negativity for the ENTIRE FIELD in the history of the NBC/WSJ poll on this question. "We don't like our candidates very much," co-pollster Bill McInturff (R) said in summing up the finding here. "There is no single candidate who got a net-positive rating [on this question]. There is simply no precedent for that." The numbers:
- Biden: 46% optimistic/satisfied, 52% uncertain/pessimistic (-6)
- Sanders: 43% optimistic/satisfied, 50% uncertain/pessimistic (-7)
- Carson: 42% optimistic/satisfied, 50% uncertain/pessimistic (-8)
- Clinton: 43% optimistic/satisfied, 56% uncertain/pessimistic (-13)
- Rubio: 39% optimistic/satisfied, 52% uncertain/pessimistic (-13)
- Fiorina: 31% optimistic/satisfied, 55% uncertain/pessimistic (-24)
- Bush: 36% optimistic/satisfied, 62% uncertain/pessimistic (-26)
- Cruz: 29% optimistic/satisfied, 61% uncertain/pessimistic (-32)
- Trump: 32% optimistic/satisfied, 67% uncertain/pessimistic (-35)
Comparing with past winners and losers
By contrast, here are some of the numbers from past elections (asked of likely voters in October of an election year):
- Bill Clinton (1996): 59% optimistic/satisfied, 40% uncertain/pessimistic (+19)
- George W. Bush (2000): 56% optimistic/satisfied, 43% uncertain/pessimistic (+13)
- Barack Obama (2008): 56% optimistic/satisfied, 43% uncertain/pessimistic (+13)
- Al Gore (2000): 52% optimistic/satisfied, 47% uncertain/pessimistic (+5)
- George W. Bush (2004): 51% optimistic/satisfied, 48% uncertain/pessimistic (+3)
- John Kerry (2004): 48% optimistic/satisfied, 51% uncertain/pessimistic (-3)
Take a look at the fav/unfav scores
The current level of negativity about the entire 2016 field also is reflected in the fav/unfav scores (read: popularity ratings) for the candidates, although some of them have net-positive scores:
- Carson: 38%-24% (+14)
- Biden: 42%-31% (+11)
- Sanders: 38%-27% (+11)
- Rubio: 31%-25% (+6)
- Fiorina: 26%-22% (+4)
- Clinton: 39%-48% (-9)
- Cruz: 21%-34% (-13)
- Bush: 24%-40% (-16)
- Trump: 30%-53% (-23)
First Read: 'We Don't Like Our Candidates Very Much' - NBC News
How the GOP Took Biden Out of the Race -- and Gave the Election to Clinton - Yahoo Finance
By Rob Garver 18 hours ago
- Vice President Joe Biden said Wednesday that the “window” had closed on his opportunity to run for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. What he didn’t mention is that it was House Republicans – and in particular the Select Committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi attacks – that slammed it shut.
Biden was seen by most as the only Democrat with a plausible path to victory over Clinton in a Democratic primary. Her current top challenger, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, has gained more traction than many expected. But few view Sanders – a self-described socialist – as a viable candidate in the general election. The conventional wisdom is that the party will eventually gravitate toward someone with the ability to actually win the White House.
The question of whether Clinton could actually win in the general election was likely a major factor in Biden’s decision-making. A politically damaged Clinton might lose supporters to Biden if the Democratic electorate started worrying about her electability. But the Republicans in the House, despite their best efforts, made a Clinton victory much more likely over the past month.
The biggest stumbling block between Clinton and the White House was never her declared opponents, but rather the public perception that she is untrustworthy and insincere. Republicans have been using the controversy over the September 2012 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, to reinforce that perception. More than half a dozen congressional investigations were launched, keeping the attack in which four Americans lost their lives in the public eye for more than three years, and generating allegations of cover-ups, conspiracies, and other wrongdoing.
The former secretary of state even helped them out, by deciding not to use an official State Department email account during her four years as the country’s top diplomat, opting instead for a private server located in her own home.
However, in a series of missteps over the past month, members of the House GOP have managed to make Clinton look more like a victim than an untrustworthy politician.
The House Select Committee on Benghazi, chaired by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) was meant to deliver the final word on the attacks, and to do so without seeming like a political witch hunt. Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor, presented a diligent, just-the-facts-ma’am persona in his public statements, and generally succeeded in keeping the committee out of the swamp of partisan politics for most of its first year.
Last month, though, things started to go south for the Select Committee. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, speaking to Fox News, credited the committee for driving down Clinton’s poll numbers, and did so in terms suggesting that had been the point of the exercise all along.
McCarthy later backtracked, but Democrats had their opening and they jumped at the chance to characterize the Select Committee as a politically-driven fishing expedition created specifically to damage Clinton.
Gowdy found himself playing defense, and wasn’t helped when, a few weeks later, another House Republican said essentially the same thing as McCarthy.
Related: Gowdy’s Dream of an Unsullied Committee Dashed
In a radio interview, Rep. Richard Hanna (R-NY) said, “Kevin McCarthy basically blew himself up with that comment over the Benghazi committee.… Sometimes the biggest sin you can commit in D.C. is to tell the truth.”
“This may not be politically correct,” Hanna said, “but I think there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after an individual, Hillary Clinton.”
“After what Kevin McCarthy said, it’s difficult to accept at least a part of it was not,” he said. “I think that’s the way Washington works. But you’d like to expect more from a committee that’s spent millions of dollars and tons of time.”
Gowdy was reduced to going on the Sunday talk shows and telling his fellow Republicans to just shut up.
Related: Sensing an Advantage, Clinton Skewers GOP on Benghazi Probe
“I have told my Republican colleagues and friends, ‘Shut up talking about things that you don’t know anything about,’” Gowdy said on Face the Nation. “Unless you’re on the committee, you have no idea what we’ve done, why we’ve done it, and what new facts we have found. We have found new facts, John that have absolutely nothing to do with her. I get that people don’t want to talk about that, but the seven members of my committee are much more focused on the four dead Americans than we are on anyone’s presidential aspirations.”
All of Gowdy’s protestations, however, failed to stop the flood of stories making the committee look more and more like a political attack operation. Democrats on the committee released excerpts from witness interviews that they claimed prove that many of the allegations that GOP lawmakers have raised are untrue.
The CIA announced that it was not opposed to the public release of some of the material from Clinton’s emails that the committee had described as classified.
Related: 14 Facts About Joe Biden You Should Know
Gowdy himself, after making headlines with a claim that Clinton herself had put a CIA informant at risk by forwarding an email with his name on it through her personal account, apparently released the man’s name inadvertently in an email.
Clinton will appear before the committee tomorrow to testify. But much of the anticipation surrounding her testimony is no longer rooted in uncertainty about how tough and damaging the questioning will be, but rather about how the Republicans on the panel will avoid making themselves look like they are involved in a partisan persecution of the other party’s presidential frontrunner.
There were, no doubt, many factors that played into Joe Biden’s decision regarding a presidential run. Chief among them, as he said in his announcement Wednesday, was making sure that his family was sufficiently recovered from the death of his son, Beau, who died of cancer over the summer.
Biden on Wednesday suggested that the grieving process had simply taken too long, and that, as he put it, the window had closed. But the first primaries are still months away, and a politician with Biden’s name recognition would have, at least, a fighting chance to gain a foothold between now and then. That’s why, when he talks about windows closing, Biden might be referring more to Clinton’s overall electability than to the calendar.
How the GOP Took Biden Out of the Race -- and Gave the Election to Clinton - Yahoo Finance
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
Biden Won’t Seek Democratic Nomination, Clearing Clinton's Path - Yahoo Finance
Vice President Joe Biden won’t seek the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, ending months of deliberation and speculation and clearing the path for Hillary Clinton.
The grieving process over the death of his son Beau has closed the window on any chance of mounting a presidential campaign, Biden said in a hastily arranged announcement from the White House Rose Garden with President Barack Obama and his wife, Jill Biden, at his side.
Biden’s decision clarifies the choice before the party’s voters even as Clinton faces a challenge from Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and two other Democrats in the race who are trying to position themselves as an alternative to the former secretary of state.
More from Bloomberg.com: OPEC Is About to Crush the U.S. Oil Boom
At 72, Biden has likely run his last campaign for elected office, while he could be in play for secretary of state or other presidential nominations or appointments should Democrats prevail in next year’s general election. Biden served as a U.S. senator for 36 years and unsuccessfully sought the Democratic nomination for president in 1988 and 2008 before becoming Barack Obama’s running mate.
Biden Won’t Seek Democratic Nomination, Clearing Clinton's Path - Yahoo Finance
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
Jim Webb plans to drop out of Democratic primary race: reports
Former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb reportedly will drop out of the Democratic presidential primary race Tuesday afternoon.
Webb, a Vietnam veteran and former Navy secretary, is expected to make the announcement during a news conference at 1 p.m. ET in Washington, D.C.
Fox News, which broke the story of Webb’s decision to withdraw his candidacy, reports that he has become disillusioned by how campaign financing, in his view, has pushed both major political parties to extreme positions.
Webb, 69, stood out as noticeably more moderate than his main competition for the party’s nod, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, during the Democratic primary debate on Oct. 13 in Las Vegas.
Citing an op-ed in which Webb called affirmative action “state-sponsored racism,” CNN anchor and debate moderator Anderson Cooper asked Webb if he is out of step with where the Democratic Party is now.
SLIDESHOW – Jim Webb through the years >>>
His debate performance did not make a considerable impact on his poll numbers and many liberal viewers ended the night feeling he came across as simply too conservative to win the party’s nod.
On Monday, Webb’s campaign said that he is considering an independent run.
In early June, when Webb announced his candidacy, he argued that fair debate is often drowned out by the huge sums of money funneled to candidates – both directly and indirectly.
“We need to shake the hold of these shadow elites on our political process,” he said at the time. “Our elected officials need to get back to the basics of good governance and to remember that their principal obligations are to protect our national interests abroad and to ensure a level playing field here at home, especially for those who otherwise have no voice in the corridors of power.”
This electoral ailment, to which Webb apparently hoped to be the antidote, appears to have been death knell to his campaign.
He has had trouble raising enough money to pose a legitimate threat to either Clinton or Sanders. A recent filing, reported by Politico, revealed that he had only raised $696,972.18 and had $316,765.34 cash-on-hand. Contrast that with the $29,921,653.91 raised by Clinton or the $26,216,430.38 raised by Sanders, according to the report.
Jim Webb plans to drop out of Democratic primary race: reports
Thursday, October 15, 2015
Did Bernie Sanders win the Democratic debate? - CSMonitor.com
Did Bernie Sanders win the Democratic debate?
Bernie Sanders scored big on social media, fundraising, and in a post-debate focus group and instapolls. He came in well ahead of Hillary Clinton.
By Linda Feldmann, Staff writer October 15, 2015
![]()
A Washington — There’s no doubt that Hillary Clinton had a good debate Tuesday night. She was poised, prepared, presidential, even funny. She commanded the room.
Many pundits (including Donald Trump) declared her the winner, creating an echo chamber of affirmation for the Democratic front-runner. Mrs. Clinton won the “after debate,” as the Monitor’s Peter Grier puts it.
But is there a more scientific way to determine the winner of a debate, and does it even matter? After all, President Obama was skunked by Republican nominee Mitt Romney in their first debate in 2012, and we all know how that election turned out.
The biggest measure of who “won” Tuesday’s debate won’t truly be known until next week, after major pollsters have had several days to gauge Democratic voter opinion. But in the meantime, there are signs that, in fact, Bernie Sanders scored big Tuesday night.
First, Senator Sanders of Vermont raised $1.3 million online in the four hours after the debate began. The Clinton campaign has not released fundraising numbers for that period.
The Sanders campaign also organized debate viewing parties around the country, 4,000 of them, an indication of the grass-roots energy behind his populist message on income inequality and big money in politics.
On Facebook and Twitter, Sanders was the most-talked-about candidate around the debate, and he picked up far more Twitter followers than Clinton did: 42,730 vs. 25,475. According to Brandwatch, 69 percent of tweets about Sanders were positive, versus just 56 percent for Clinton.
Instapolls gave Sanders a big win (though those results are less than reliable). Ditto the Fox News focus group organized by Frank Luntz. The same caveat applies: The focus group Mr. Luntz conducted after the first Republican debate showed a mass exodus of support for Mr. Trump, a result not borne out by actual polling data a week later.
Former top Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer even saw fit to tweet about Sanders’s victories in the focus group and online polls, and said that “losing the pundits is reminiscent of Obama in 07-08.”
When others pushed back, arguing that Sanders is not another Obama, Mr. Pfeiffer agreed.
But his points about Sanders’s strength Tuesday night added to the counter-narrative that the debate wasn’t an unalloyed victory for Clinton.
MSNBC host Chris Matthews also pushed the line that Sanders won in his day-after interviews.
“I don’t care who gets declared the winner,” said Mr. Matthews, the host of “Hardball.” “I think he won because he’s built up his troops, and he’s going to have a lot more numbers coming up in the next week or two in the polling.”
Also, let’s not forget that Sanders has drawn massive crowds, some upwards of 10,000 and 20,000 people, another sign of the grass-roots energy Sanders is attracting and Clinton isn’t.
In pre-debate polls, Clinton still had a significant lead for the Democratic nomination, 18 percentage points ahead of Sanders. If Vice President Joe Biden decides not to run, polls show more of his support will go to Clinton than Sanders. And it’s looking late for Mr. Biden to be starting a campaign.
So Clinton probably has nothing major to worry about with Sanders’s strong debate showing. The five-way boxing match in Las Vegas wasn’t a game-changer. And the only winner that really counts won’t be determined until voters start attending caucuses and primaries in February, and candidates start accruing convention delegates.
The challenge, then, for Clinton may be how to harness the energy of the Sanders supporters when and if he drops out. She’s already been shifting leftward on key issues, such as trade and climate change. But she’s a hawk on Syria and is playing the big-money game with campaign donations, both positions that are anathema to Sanders followers. If she can’t get liberal voters excited about her in November of 2016, she could have a real problem on her hands
SEE THE ENTIRE CHRISTAIN SCIENCE ARTICLE: Did Bernie Sanders win the Democratic debate? - CSMonitor.com
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Letter: Bernie Sanders explains democratic socialism - Opinion - Rockford Register Star - Rockford, IL
Leave it to the 74-year-old, self-proclaimed “democratic socialist” to capture the support of millennials across the nation. So what’s a democratic socialist, and how could this happen with the word “socialism” being so taboo in America? Well, people often fear what they don’t understand, and with mainstream media controlling a large portion of our information, things get misrepresented for obvious reasons.In 2006, Bernie explained in an interview with Democracy Now!: “I think [democratic socialism] means the government has got to play a very important role in making sure that as a right of citizenship, all of our people have health care; that as a right, all of our kids, regardless of income, have quality child care, are able to go to college without going deeply into debt; that it means we do not allow large corporations and moneyed interests to destroy our environment; that we create a government in which it is not dominated by big money interest. I mean, to me, it means democracy, frankly. That’s all it means.”What Bernie Sanders is proposing isn't at all “fringe” or “radical” by any means, but rather true progressive ideals, or at least what used to be defined as progressive — it’s basic human decency.— Courtney Baldwin, South Beloit, Northern Illinois for Bernie Sanders
Sunday, October 11, 2015
Ex-Benghazi investigator: ‘This has become a partisan investigation’ hyper-focused on Hillary Clinton
A former investigator with the congressional Select Committee on Benghazi says the probe into the Sept. 11, 2012, terror attacks that killed four Americans — including Ambassador Chris Stevens — morphed into a politically motivated mission targeting Hillary Clinton after the revelation that she used a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state.
“This has become a partisan investigation,” Maj. Bradley Podliska, an intelligence officer in the Air Force Reserve, told CNN. “I do not know the reason for the hyper-focus on Hillary Clinton.”
Podliska, who spent 10 months as an investigator for the Republican-led panel, says he was fired in June for resisting pressure to focus his efforts on Clinton.
“I was fired for trying to conduct an objective, nonpartisan, thorough investigation,” Podliska said in an interview with Jake Tapper that aired on “State of the Union” Sunday.
Podliska said he is planning to file a lawsuit against the committee over the firing next month.
In a statement, a spokesperson for the committee refuted Podliska’s claims.
“We are confident that the facts and evidence give no support to the wild imagination fueling these and any future allegations, and the committee will vigorously defend itself against such allegations,” the statement reads. “The committee will not be blackmailed into a monetary settlement for a false allegation made by a properly terminated former employee.”
Clinton speaks at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute’s annual awards gala in Washington, D.C., Oct. 8, 2015. (Photo: Yuri Gripas/Reuters)
Podliska’s comments come amid mounting calls from Clinton and other Democrats to shut down the committee.
“This committee was set up, as they have admitted, for the purpose of making a partisan political issue out of the deaths of four Americans,” an angry Clinton said on the “Today” show last week. “I would never have done that, and if I were president and there were Republicans or Democrats thinking about that, I would have done everything to shut it down.”
Clinton is scheduled to testify before the committee on Oct. 22.
Last month, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy suggested that the committee was summoned to derail the former secretary of state’s 2016 presidential bid.
“Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?” McCarthy said on Fox News. “But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers Friday? What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened had we not fought.”
But Podliska insists his motivation to come forward has nothing to do with Clinton’s candidacy.
“I do not support Hillary Clinton for president,” Podliska, who describes himself as a libertarian-leaning Republican, said. “I am going to vote for the Republican nominee in 2016.”
He said he decided to speak out because the families of the Benghazi victims deserve it.
“I knew that we needed to get the truth to the victims’ families. And the victims’ families, they deserve the truth — whether or not Hillary Clinton was involved, whether or not other individuals were involved,” he said. “The victims’ families are not going to get the truth, and that’s the most unfortunate thing about this.”
Wednesday, October 7, 2015
These People Are the Secret to Bernie Sanders’s Success | The Nation
Manchester, New Hampshire—“There is no secret formula to winning in New Hampshire,” says Julia Barnes. “Volunteers recruited plus tactics equals the win number.” A native of Hollis, a town about 25 miles south of here, Barnes is the state director for Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign. By “tactics,” she means boots on the ground: the slow, unglamorous, persistent work of contacting likely primary voters and identifying Sanders supporters—and then making sure all of them actually vote.
By “volunteers,” she means people like Elizabeth Ropp. “I watched Bernie filibuster against tax cuts for the wealthy, and I really hoped that someday he’d run for president,” Ropp tells me. A community acupuncturist in Manchester—“We provide affordable acupuncture on a sliding-fee scale”—Ropp, with her husband, hosted the first Sanders house party in the state earlier this year. “I live in a small bungalow, and our living room, dining room, and kitchen were crammed,” she says. “We had about 130 people, and some of them had to stand outside.”
Or Janice Kelble, a post-office employee for 29 years who now works for the New Hampshire Postal Workers union. Last month, when it became the first union in the state to endorse Sanders, Kelble almost missed the announcement. “My husband has pretty advanced Parkinson’s disease,” she says, “and I didn’t think he could sit through the whole event. So I had to run home and then hurry back to Manchester. It’s kind of hard to juggle, but Bernie has been there for us, and I really wanted to be there for him.”
Or Bob Friedlander, a doctor who practiced clinical oncology for 27 years before switching to palliative medicine. Back in 2003, Friedlander founded Doctors for Dean in support of his fellow physician’s short-lived campaign for the presidency. This August, he heard Sanders in person for the first time, at a Friends of the Earth meeting in Concord. “Afterwards I thought, ‘I really want to work for him,’” Friedlander says. “In a way, this feels like an extension of my work in palliative care. That was about seeing the patient as a whole person and helping them to vocalize what mattered most to them. Here, too, we’re focusing on what really matters.”
Presidential campaigns are like icebergs. There’s the part you see: the candidate, making speeches or appearing on television, and the supporters, cheering at rallies, wearing buttons, knocking on doors. Then there’s the much larger part you can’t see: the tables at campaign headquarters piled high with leaflets and lawn signs, the paid staff—and the army of volunteers with clipboards working phone banks, keeping track of voter preferences, and making sure “leaners” and undecideds get plenty of follow-up.
New Hampshire’s primary is currently scheduled for February 9, 2016. Bernie Sanders has no path to the White House that doesn’t begin with a win here. In May, he trailed Hillary Clinton among likely voters in the state by 38 points. At the beginning of the summer, he was still 10 points behind. The latest poll puts Sanders ahead of Clinton 42 percent to 28 percent— a margin traditionally described as a “comfortable lead.” In another sign of his surge, in late September, a Sanders rally at the University of New Hampshire drew over 3,000 supporters; a Clinton event two days earlier at the same place attracted just 600.
How did Sanders pull ahead? His supporters in New Hampshire were happy to talk about what motivated them. But the more I heard, the more I realized that the Sanders campaign really was different—and not just because it had less money. As anyone who has ever watched The War Room can tell you, maintaining message discipline is crucial to a winning campaign. (Remember “It’s the economy, stupid”?) Which in turn means a tight, top-down command structure to keep everyone “on message.”
The Sanders campaign is nothing like that. Look below the waterline and instead of a single streamlined operation, you find twin hulls. One is a professionally run, locally focused effort where the candidate’s position on the Northern Pass (a controversial plan to build a high-voltage power line through the state) is as important as his views on immigration and taxes. The other is a parallel structure, a volunteer-based reservoir of energy, talent, and enthusiasm that propelled a senator from a tiny state into a national figure. I’ve come to think of this operation as the Sanders second shift.
* * *
Aidan King graduated from the University of New Hampshire in 2014. But I met him back home in Montpelier, Vermont, a two-hour drive up I-89. Well over six feet tall, with a boyish face framed by blond fuzz, King is the digital-marketing coordinator for a local winemaker—which, as it’s harvest season, also means he picks his share of grapes. Since December 2013, when he founded Grassroots for Sanders with David Frederick (“a stranger I met on the Internet who lives in San Jose”), King has spent most of his nights “glued to my computer…. Sometimes my girlfriend says, ‘Dude, you’re on the computer too much!’, and I take a break.”
“I put a lot of stake in authenticity. And I’ve been exposed to Bernie’s honesty since I was in diapers.” — Aidan King
King, who turns 24 this month, is the group’s senior digital organizer. Among other things, he runs the San- ders for President forum on Reddit, the massively popular news and social-networking website. King’s subreddit— a place for the online discussion of all things Bernie—has amassed over 113,000 subscribers to date. If that sounds inconsequential, you probably weren’t paying attention on April 30, when Sanders used Reddit to announce his candidacy. Or to the AMA—“Ask Me Anything”—he did on the site in May. Or to the news on October 1, when the Sanders campaign announced it had raised a whopping $26 million, largely from small donors online. That put the Vermont socialist within touching distance of Clinton’s $28 million for the quarter.
In an age when social media have been credited—or blamed—for everything from the Arab Spring to the decline of Western civilization, it’s important to be clear: Facebook “likes” won’t get anyone elected. But social media’s low entry costs have allowed what, at least at this point, remains a decentralized, volunteer-driven guerrilla campaign to challenge the Clinton machine. “You need a lot of people doing stuff for free,” says King, whose earliest political memory is of “when my mom took me to Washington to protest against the Iraq War.”
Aidan King’s Sanders for President forum on Reddit has amassed over 113,000 subscribers.
“I was so excited about Obama. And I still think he’s done amazing things. But I wanted more follow-through,” says King, listing “drone strikes, kill lists, NSA spying on Americans, the expansion of Bush-administration policies, a failed drug war, failed foreign policy,” and the increasing influence of money in politics as his main concerns. “I put a lot of stake in authenticity,” he says. “And I’ve been exposed to Bernie’s politics and his honesty since I was in diapers.”
Get a FREE PDF copy of our 150th anniversary issue.
Sign UpHillary Clinton, adds King, “is obviously a smart and powerful woman. I consider myself a liberal, and would of course prefer her to Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush. But I get $20 haircuts, and I don’t feel represented by someone who was on the board of Wal-Mart. If we can do better—and I think we can—why not try for it?”
Although he’s in regular contact with Kenneth Pennington, the Sanders campaign’s digital director, King and his fellow volunteers “don’t take orders. They don’t dictate the content, although if they want to promote an event or a particular issue, they’ll ask. We’re here to help, not to compete,” he says.
* * *
Daniela Perdomo’s relationship with the Sanders campaign is even more detached. “I’ve never even been to Vermont,” she laughs. The US-born daughter of an Israeli mother and a Guatemalan father, Perdomo spent most of her childhood in Brazil, returning to the United States for college, where she volunteered as a community organizer. After a stint as a staff writer for the Los Angeles Times—“because I spoke Spanish, they put me on what I call the ‘structural inequality’ beat. Basically, I was writing about brown people”—she took a series of tech jobs on the West Coast and wrote for Alternet. Then the recession hit.
Following the job market back to New York, Perdomo worked for a couple of start-ups before founding her own company, goTenna, which lets mobile-phone users send texts and share location data even in areas with no phone service. Her personal trajectory may be unusual, but the political impulse that spurred Perdomo to also work a second unpaid shift is beginning to sound familiar.
“I first came across Bernie Sanders during the Obama- care debate, when it seemed like there was a real chance for universal healthcare. I was on board with Obama from the first day, but when he took the public option off the table, I was pretty disappointed,” she says.
Daniela Perdomo. (Jane Hu)
“When Sanders first talked about running, I thought, ‘He can’t win.’ I donated, because that’s how democracy should work: You should put your money behind a candidate who represents your views. I still couldn’t convince any of my friends.”
Until she found her way to the Sanders subreddit. “Suddenly, I heard conversations no one in my office was talking about,” she says. But when she tried to research Sanders’s record, “all I found were dismissive news stories. So I decided to build a website optimized for search and social media.” Before she knew it, Perdomo had 125 volunteers, and in 32 days had made FeeltheBern.org. “This is support you cannot buy. It can only be free,” Perdomo says. Since its launch on August 12, the website has garnered over 2 million views.
What does the Sanders campaign make of her effort? “I wasn’t even in touch with them until we launched,” Perdomo says. “They trust what we’re doing.” Sanders’s headquarters in Burlington, Vermont, “may be the sun, but there are a lot of planets. And here’s why it’s so easy to coordinate: because we don’t have to.
“What are you going to do? Stay home because you’re afraid of heart- break?” — Elizabeth Ropp
“Getting out the vote, meeting people face-to-face—those are still crucial,” Perdomo says. “But it’s so exciting seeing what can be done with the new tools available.”
Another example of the new tool kit is the Bernie Post, a news website devoted to covering the campaign. Unlike the Reddit page, its look is slick and fairly traditional. Launched in August, the Bernie Post attracted 40,000 readers in its first three weeks. When I contacted editor Torin Peel to request an interview, he told me he lives in Geelong, Australia—and that he’s still in high school.
“I’m really interested in political campaigns because I’m a strong believer in grassroots politics. I want to make sure that everyone’s treated equally, that the planet is looked after,” he tells me via Twitter. “I don’t like being 16. It’s something I don’t tout around, because it draws interest right away. Also, I don’t think it’s all that unusual anymore for people my age to be getting involved with stuff like this. Perhaps in previous election cycles, but I’ve seen so many young people fired up by this campaign.”
* * *
Back in New Hampshire, Julia Barnes says that with eight offices spread out across the state, the Sanders campaign is still “in the middle of Act I. We’ve got our stage sets, and we know who our actors are.”
So what happens next? “A ton of voter contact,” she says. “Folks sit down with you and talk about their issues. Healthcare. Student loans. Campaign finance. The environment. And you have to reach out to all kinds of groups. Issue groups. Neighborhood associations. Knitting circles. Plus there’s a fundamental independent streak that runs through this state, which also keeps things interesting.” …
Read more: These People Are the Secret to Bernie Sanders’s Success | The Nation
Education Week: Teachers Endorse Hillary or did they really?
Behind the Scenes of NEA's Endorsement: Which Affiliates Backed Clinton?
By Stephen Sawchuk Oct. 6, 2015
There has been a great deal of media interest in the National Education Association's decision to endorse Hillary Clinton in the primary campaign. On paper, it joins its sister union, the American Federation of Teachers, and increases pressure on other on-the-fence labor groups to make up their own minds.
Behind the scenes, the NEA's endorsement process was a lot more complicated, and even contested, than it looks. Let's dig in.
Hillary Clinton spoke to the NEA Board of Directors before it voted. I tweeted this a day before it happened, and although it's hard to tell what effect it had, it certainly shows how badly Clinton wanted the nod.
The union's PAC Council took a roll-call vote. Remember how I said this was unlikely? I was wrong. Usually, the union's endorsements are pretty pro-forma.This time, apparently, there was sufficient disagreement that someone demanded a roll-call vote. Kudos to Mike Antonucci, who posted the results on his blog. As he notes, the PAC Council approval came by a margin of 85 percent of votes cast, but there were a significant number of abstentions—more than 1,100 or 41 percent of available votes! Note also that certain states gain power because of the council's weighted voting structure. The Delaware affiliate has only 4 percent of the membership of NEA's largest affiliate, California, but it has 32 percent of California's PAC Council votes. That's because it raises a lot of cash per head for the NEA's PAC.
The NEA's Board of Directors split over the vote. As expected, the board of directors approved a Clinton vote, with a 75 percent margin of votes cast. But the actual vote tally, which got passed to me today, is fascinating. (See it below.)
- Board members from Vermont, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, as expected, voted against the recommendation. But so did Arkansas, Alaska, Connecticut, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Oklahoma, and Rhode Island;
- Board members in California, Nebraska, Ohio, Iowa, and Washington split their votes;
- Nevada and Delaware abstained; and Alabama, Calfornia, and New Jersey also had at least one abstention.
It's hard to know how this is all going to play out in the future, but two things are for sure. For one, should she win, Clinton will owe the teachers' unions more than than Obama did. Second, in pushing so hard for Clinton, NEA President Lily Eskelsen-Garcia has used up a lot of political capital in her union. Expect to hear some dissent about how this all went down at next year's Representative Assembly.
Saturday, October 3, 2015
Alabama Will Close 31 DMVs — All In Counties With 75% Black Electorate «
If Alabama is trying to do something about its racist image, they’re sure doing a piss-poor job. It has been reported that the state will close 31 DMV offices, all of which are located in counties where 75 percent of the electorate is African-American. Further, this announcement comes just as the 2016 election season is heating up, and only a year after they passed a strict law that requires government-issued identification– such as a driver’s license– to vote.
Reporter John Archibald of AL.com wrote a blistering missive against the proposed DMV shutdowns and called for a Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation into the motives behind this drastic move. Archibald said:
“Because Alabama just took a giant step backward. Take a look at the 10 Alabama counties with the highest percentage of non-white registered voters. That’s Macon, Greene, Sumter, Lowndes, Bullock, Perry, Wilcox, Dallas, Hale, and Montgomery, according to the Alabama Secretary of State’s office. Alabama, thanks to its budgetary insanity and inanity, just opted to close driver license bureaus in eight of them.”
“Every single county in which blacks make up more than 75 percent of registered voters will see their driver license office closed. Every one. But maybe it’s not racial at all, right? Maybe it’s just political. And let’s face it, it may not be either… But no matter the intent, the consequence is the same.”
Alabama Will Close 31 DMVs — All In Counties With 75% Black Electorate «
Thursday, October 1, 2015
If Edward Snowden Is Right About Clinton's Emails, Bernie Sanders Will Win a Landslide Victory | H. A. Goodman
Perhaps nobody on the planet knows more about intelligence protocol than Edward Snowden. If Snowden says it's "completely ridiculous" to believe that Clinton's emails were safe, then yes, it's fair to include his viewpoint in any critique of Hillary Clinton's latest controversy. In addition, since I believe Senator Bernie Sanders is desperately needed at this point in U.S. history, and electing Clinton or a Republican would essentially be nominating the same president on war and foreign policy, it's important to address relevant analysis of the email controversy.
There seems to be a bizarre paradigm of thought among some Democrats that prevents any scandal associated with Hillary Clinton from being a part of debate or discussion. When Anthony Weiner questioned the legitimacy of Sanders running as a Democrat, or when Senator Claire McCaskill attacked Bernie for being "too liberal" and "extreme," ironically there was never any uproar or indignation among those who claim to support unity among progressives.
Just recently, a pro-Clinton super PAC tried to link controversial statements made by Hugo Chavez to Bernie Sanders. Also, let's not bring up Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign against Barack Obama. If you don't think Clinton's 3 AM ad in 2008 contained a "racist sub-message," then read the analysis of a Harvard sociologist and remember the viewpoint ("black people are incensed over all of this") of South Carolina's James Clyburn.
Therefore, since we know that some Clinton supporters have no qualms about comparing Bernie Sanders to a Fox News socialist or even linking him to Hugo Chavez, let's simply address reality while others genuinely "go negative." The reality is that other intelligence experts have come to the same conclusion as Snowden.
However, even before the email issue, it's important to note why Sanders will defeat Clinton even without a breakthrough from the FBI or CIA.
One look at the Huffpost Pollster interactive chart shows why Sanders will win the Democratic nomination and the presidency. This election will be about polling trajectory and nothing else, when it comes to analyzing public opinion. Without billionaire donors and simply with a grass roots effort, Bernie Sanders has gone from 4% support on January 12, 2015 to 27.5% on September 27, 2015. No, Sanders doesn't need to go negative on anyone. Stating the obvious, however, isn't negative. If Bernie Sanders can get to 7 points within Clinton, without an official statement from the FBI about Clinton's emails being a threat to national security, then imagine if Snowden is correct.
What if Edward Snowden is correct to believe that it's "completely ridiculous" to think Clinton's emails were safe? If this is true, then it's feasible to foresee a breakthrough in the FBI investigation. Yes, it's logical to assume that national security was jeopardized if Snowden and others feel Clinton was reckless with her intelligence protocol. We're then looking at a Bernie Sanders landslide victory in the Democratic primaries.
Edward Snowden isn't part of a GOP conspiracy and has no incentive other than to illustrate a relevant viewpoint, when he addressed Clinton's private emails and server. I have no incentive to write this piece other than to highlight a key distinction between two Democratic candidates. Also, I am voting only for Senator Bernie Sanders and nobody else.
In addition, the person weighing in on this topic is more than just an expert on intelligence and national security issues. First, Snowden is a whistleblower who fostered a national discussion about domestic spying. His actions weren't treason, resulted in "needed transparency" and we've had a national debate about civil liberties and the Bill of Rights because of his actions. Furthermore, if Clinton can store classified and "Top Secret" emails (whether or not many were retroactively classified is irrelevant, there were also "born classified" emails) and the FBI owns the server of a presidential candidate, then as I've advocated, bring Snowden home.
Yes, Bernie Sanders will win the presidency because of his bold message and policies, but since Clinton's PAC's and supporters will inevitably fabricate a narrative about Sanders, the least any writer can do is simply state the facts. A POLITICO article titled Snowden: No way Hillary's private server was secure highlights why the Democratic Party should be concerned about Hillary Clinton in a general election:
Edward Snowden blasted Hillary Clinton's assertion that her State Department emails were secure on a private server, calling the notion "completely ridiculous" in excerpts of an interview with Al Jazeera English published Thursday.
"When the unclassified systems of the United States government, which has a full-time information security staff regularly gets hacked, the idea that someone keeping a private server in the renovated bathroom of a server farm in Colorado, is more secure is completely ridiculous," Snowden said, referring to the physical location of the server hosted by Denver-based Platte River Networks.
Simply claiming something is legal doesn't make it right, and Snowden goes on to say that if anyone acted like Clinton, "they would not only lose their jobs and lose their clearance, they would very likely face prosecution for it."
In my analysis of 2016, I've tried my best to make relevant distinctions between Sanders and Clinton. In my recent appearances on Ring of Fire and The Benjamin Dixon Show, I highlight why Clinton had essentially been a Republican on issues ranging from war and foreign policy to gay marriage, Keystone XL, the TPP, and other topics. As for my views on foreign policy, I've also appeared on Ring of Fire to discuss my thoughts on Dick Cheney and Jeb Bush.
With Snowden's commentary of Hillary Clinton's email practices, however, my opinions on politics take a backseat to the potential of a president who can't type an email without a nationwide scandal. You might think Hillary Clinton would make a fine president, but you can't say Edward Snowden doesn't know anything about intelligence protocol.
Another article in The Hill titled Snowden: Clinton's email server 'a problem', highlights Snowden's belief of why Clinton failed to keep intelligence secure:
"This is a problem because anyone who has the clearances that the secretary of State has, or the director of any top level agency has, knows how classified information should be handled," he said, according to excerpts of an Al Jazeera interviewairing Friday.
"If an ordinary worker at the State Department or the Central Intelligence Agency ... were sending details about the security of the embassies, which is alleged to be in her email, meetings with private government officials, foreign government officials and the statements that were made to them in confidence over unclassified email systems, they would not only lose their jobs and lose their clearance, they would very likely face prosecution for it," he added.
Therefore, Clinton's email server, at least according to one of the top experts on the planet pertaining to intelligence protocol, is "a problem." It's also an issues because unlike the excuse of "convenience," top officials know exactly how "classified information should be handled."
As for Snowden's comments, don't think Democratic superdelegates and party officials aren't worried about the email issue. A New York Times article titled Hillary Clinton's Handling of Email Issue Frustrates Democratic Leaders explains why the DNC is already worried:
Democratic leaders are increasingly frustrated by Hillary Rodham Clinton's failure to put to rest questions about her State Department email practices...
Interviews with more than 75 Democratic governors, lawmakers, candidates and party members have laid bare a widespread bewilderment that Mrs. Clinton has allowed a cloud to settle over her candidacy -- by using a private email server in the first place, since it was likely to raise questions about her judgment, and by not defusing those questions once and for all when the issue first emerged in March.
To simply say that nobody is concerned about this ignores the reality that leaders within the Democratic Party know that deleted emails could doom a general election.
Not everything is "Benghazi." Hillary Clinton is competing against Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination and a genuine distinction should be made, not just on issues, but on character. If you feel that Clinton's stances on war, foreign policy, and gay marriage warrant the presidency, then you might be a "Facebook liberal." As for me, I'm voting for Bernie Sanders. He doesn't need a Clinton scandal to win the Democratic nomination, but he will win the nomination in a landslide of Edward Snowden is correct.
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
Bernie Sanders acknowledges a possible area of agreement with the Koch brothers - The Washington Post
As he rails against the political power of the “billionaire class,” there is no fatter target for the scorn of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) than the Koch brothers.
In his stump speeches, Sanders, the surging Democratic presidential hopeful, decries the hundreds of millions of dollars that the Kochs are spending to influence U.S. elections and, in Sanders’s view, turning the country into “an oligarchy.”
On Monday, however, the Vermont senator, a self-described “democratic socialist,” acknowledged that maybe, just maybe, there is one issue on which he can work with the Republican benefactors: criminal justice reform.
“I am prepared to work with anybody who is working in good faith on that very, very important issue,” Sanders said during an appearance hosted by the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics.
Sanders’s assessment came in response to a student questioner who noted that the Koch brothers have been spending money to advocate prison reforms. Among the concerns they’ve expressed are the high levels of incarceration in the country and sentencing disparities that affect the least well off.
On the campaign trail, Sanders devotes a section of his stump speech to the country’s “broken criminal justice system,” calling it an outrage that the United States imprisons more people than China, a country with several times the population.
On Monday, Sanders said policymakers need to address the “huge number of nonviolent people in jail” and abolish so-called “mandatory minimums,” which take away the discretion of judges to be more lenient in sentencing based on individual circumstances.
The senator also made very clear that his overarching view of the Koch brothers remains unchanged. Sanders branded them “extremist right wing” and questioned their efforts to lobby for tax breaks benefiting the wealthy.
“They are a very destructive force in American society,” Sanders said.
His visit to the University of Chicago was a homecoming. Sanders’s graduated from there in 1964, a fact noted by the host of Monday’s event, David Axelrod, the former senior adviser to President Obama who now serves as director of the Institute of Politics.
“Every once in awhile, we like to bring back an alumnus to talk about what they’re doing,” Axelrod joked when introducing Sanders during an event that was live-streamed over the Internet.
Sanders, 74, also reminisced about college years, saying he had not been a stellar student but “learned a lot from off-campus activities” and discovered democratic socialism, the philosophy that continues to guide his political career.
While a student, Sanders was also active in the civil rights movement, and his activities included leading a protest of a segregated campus housing policy. He was also charged with resisting arrest during a demonstration against segregation in Chicago’s public schools.
On Monday, he praised "young people who pick up the torch," urging students to be involved in pressing for societal changes.
Friday, July 3, 2015
Why Bernie Sanders Will Become the Democratic Nominee and Defeat Any Republican in 2016 | H. A. Goodman
Bernie Sanders is down by just 8 points in New Hampshire and has gained tremendous momentum in Iowa. If the Vermont senator wins both the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary, the odds will favor him getting the Democratic nomination. What was once thought of as a long shot is becoming a reality, primarily because Bernie Sanders has energized his base while Hillary Clinton has been forced to defend against email and foreign donor scandals. However, this isn't the first time in recent history that a challenger to Clinton was once thought of as a long shot.
In 2008, Hillary Clinton finished third in Iowabehind Obama and John Edwards and eventually lost the Democratic nomination to the first African-American elected as president. This eventuality was once described as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen" by Bill Clinton, when the former president was asked about Obama's record and chances of winning the presidency. Even Hillary Clinton's "It's 3:00 am" advertisement, described by Harvard Professor of Sociology Orlando Patterson as having a "racist sub-message," couldn't prevent history from taking place and a more progressive electorate from deciding their own destiny at the ballot box.
Therefore, if you're a person who says, "I'd vote for Bernie Sanders, but he can't win," then compare the world in 2015 to another time period in American politics. Imagine in 1972, shortly after Nixon won reelection in a legendary landslide, that in 2015 The New York Times would read, Supreme Court Ruling Makes Same-Sex Marriage a Right Nationwide. Imagine just a decade ago, what you'd think about Strom Thurmond's son calling for the removal of the Confederate flag, or the Supreme Court ruling favorably on a national healthcare program. Even before Caitlyn Jenner, transgender Navy Seal Kristin Beck decided to run for Congress and Barney Frank came out publicly in 1987. Therefore, Bernie Sanders isn't George McGovern and this isn't 1972; Americans are willing to vote for any candidate they feel will make a positive change.
Dwindling symbols of the past and social advancements aren't the only hallmarks of this new era in American politics. In addition to President Obama being our first African-American president, William H. Frey of Brookings published a report titled Minority Turnout Determined the 2012 Election, highlighting profound demographic changes in the electorate:
What this tells me is that turnout will be less important for Democratic victory as demography changes in their favor, though they must maintain their strong voting margins among blacks, Hispanics and Asians. For Republicans, the latter projections show that they cannot count primarily on white support to take the White House. Even assuming high 2004 turnout rates and 2012 Republican voting margins for whites, they cannot win unless they also peel off more votes among minorities. In this regard, demography indeed becomes destiny.
Therefore, even if minorities vote at the same rate for any Democratic nominee, including Bernie Sanders, Republicans will still have an uphill battle for the White House in 2016.
He voted against the Iraq War, championed gay rights and other issues before they were popular, and works against unfair trade deals and Wall Street greed, so there's no denying the appeal of Vermont's senator to millions of voters. As for his appeal to minority voters, Professor Cornell West posted a message on Facebook stating, "Senator Bernie Sanders is one of the few elected officials who is fundamentally devoted to dealing with the plight of poor & working people." In contrast, Twitter grilled Hillary Clinton for waiting close to three weeks to address Ferguson, and Ebony published a piece titled, Is Hillary 'Ready' for Black Voters?.
As for the Electoral College and Bernie Sanders, a closer look at the numbers and the electoral map shows that Vermont's senator is indeed a pragmatic choice (no email scandals, voted consistently on progressive issues before they were popular, energized a base of Democratic supporters) for Democratic nominee. Also, Sanders has a better chance than Hillary of defeating Jeb Bush or any other GOP challenger. According to a POLITICO piece titled The 2016 Results We Can Already Predict, Democrats across the nation simply have to vote in a similar manner to 2012 for Sanders to win:
That leaves just seven super-swingy states: Colorado, Florida, Nevada, Ohio, and Virginia, all of which backed Bush and Obama twice each, and Iowa and New Hampshire, which have voted Democratic in three of the last four elections.
For the Democrats, a victory in 2016 entails zero expansion of the blue map, merely the limiting of blue-to-red transformations. Assuming the lean, likely, and safe Democratic states remain loyal to the party, the nominee need only win 23 of the 85 toss-up electoral votes. And if a lean Democratic state such as Wisconsin turns red, it is relatively easy to replace those votes with one or two toss-ups.
On the other hand, Republicans must hold all their usual states plus find a way to stitch together an additional 64 electoral votes, or 79 if they can't hold North Carolina. To do this, the GOP candidate will have to come close to sweeping the toss-ups under most scenarios--a difficult task...
What gives Hillary Clinton a better chance of winning states like Ohio (Brookings has a study titled Did Manufacturing Job Losses Hold the Midwest Back) than Bernie Sanders? Unlike Sanders, Hillary was for the TPP and voters weary of China and Vietnam taking jobs away from Americans will think twice about Hillary Clinton.
Also, communities around the country hit by the repercussions of American counterinsurgency wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where close to 7,000 Americans died, over 50,000 wounded in combat, and over 900,000 injured, will think twice about voting for Hillary Clinton after her Iraq War vote. Bernie Sanders, however, was on the right side of history with Iraq and Afghanistan, he's always against horrible trade agreements, supported gay marriage and marijuana legalization (Hillary was against even the decriminalization of marijuana not long ago) and championed a range of other issues.
In other words, the electoral map shows that Bernie Sanders is not only a realistic candidate for president, but his record on a number of issues speaks to a wide range of voters. If Democrats simply vote based on their value system (considering demographic shifts favor Democrats), Bernie Sanders can easily win the presidency. If they nominate Hillary Clinton out of despair, thinking this is still 1999, then email scandals and an Iraq War vote could mitigate any advantages a Democratic challenger has over Jeb Bush or another Republican.
These aren't the days where Karl Rove can tap into a well of homophobia (Hillary was also against gay marriage at the time, stating "I don't support gay marriages, but I do support extending benefits to couples...") and gain millions of GOP votes by pushing for an amendment banning gay marriage. While "Moral Values" once carried GOP candidates into the White House, our outlook on social issues has changed as a nation. Americans care more about wealth inequality nowadays than marching with Mike Huckabee against the recent Supreme Court decision on gay marriage.
Ultimately, the only way for the GOP to win the White House in 2016 would be to campaign against a Democratic candidate who most resembles the Republican platforms on Wall Street, war, trade, and other issues. Hillary Clinton voted for Iraq, she's amassed $328,759,064 over the years (three of her top five donors are Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and JP Morgan), and she was against gay marriage up until recently. Bernie Sanders is actually the only hope Democrats have of winning the White House without a controversial email showing up days before people line up at the voting booths. While the GOP is ready for Hillary Clinton, Sanders represents a real challenge to union busting Scott Walker and Jeb Bush's support for the Iraq War. In today's political environment, Hillary Clinton winning the presidency is the "fairy tale," while Senator Bernie Sanders is the most realistic choice for president in 2016.