Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Ferd Berfel
Ferd Berfel's Journal
Ferd Berfel's Journal
April 12, 2016
Survey finds 48 percent of Americans have favorable view of Sanders, contrasting with 55 percent who hold unfavorable view of rival Hillary Clinton
Bernie Sanders is the most-liked presidential candidate in the race—and the more people get to know him, the more they like him, according to a new poll out Tuesday.
The Associated Press-GfK survey found that 48 percent of Americans hold a favorable view of Sanders, compared with 39 percent who view him unfavorably, giving him the best "net-positive" rating in the field, and that his likeability score has increased since previous polls.
Sixty-one percent of registered voters said they would consider voting for him in November. Among Democrats alone, he has a 72 percent favorability rating.
Meanwhile, Sanders' Democratic rival Hillary Clinton got 55 percent unfavorability versus 40 percent favorability ratings among all survey respondents, and Republican frontrunner Donald Trump scored 69 unfavorability to 29 favorability. In addition, 51 percent of respondents said they would never vote for Clinton and 63 percent said the same of Trump.
Sanders is the Most Liked Candidate, and His Popularity is Growing: Poll
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/04/12/sanders-most-liked-candidate-and-his-popularity-growing-pollSurvey finds 48 percent of Americans have favorable view of Sanders, contrasting with 55 percent who hold unfavorable view of rival Hillary Clinton
Bernie Sanders is the most-liked presidential candidate in the race—and the more people get to know him, the more they like him, according to a new poll out Tuesday.
The Associated Press-GfK survey found that 48 percent of Americans hold a favorable view of Sanders, compared with 39 percent who view him unfavorably, giving him the best "net-positive" rating in the field, and that his likeability score has increased since previous polls.
Sixty-one percent of registered voters said they would consider voting for him in November. Among Democrats alone, he has a 72 percent favorability rating.
Meanwhile, Sanders' Democratic rival Hillary Clinton got 55 percent unfavorability versus 40 percent favorability ratings among all survey respondents, and Republican frontrunner Donald Trump scored 69 unfavorability to 29 favorability. In addition, 51 percent of respondents said they would never vote for Clinton and 63 percent said the same of Trump.
April 12, 2016
Democratic Party officials let Hillary Clinton's campaign know five weeks ago, but kept Sanders in the dark
Bernie Sanders supporters cheered when their candidate won the Colorado caucuses by a sizeable margin—59 to 40 percentage points—on Super Tuesday last month, reportedly picking up 38 pledged delegates to rival Hillary Clinton's 28.
Now, they have more to celebrate. An apparent "error" on the part of that state's Democratic Party could widen that lead even further, the Denver Post has revealed, which would hand Sanders the Colorado delegation.
The Post reported Tuesday that the Colorado Democratic Party admitted this week to "misreporting" the March 1 caucus results from 10 precinct locations.
Adding to the controversy, the newspaper notes that the mistake "was shared with rival Hillary Clinton's campaign by party officials but kept from Sanders until the Post told his staff Monday night."
The Post reports:
The mistake is a minor shift with major implications. The new projection now shows the Vermont senator winning 39 delegates in Colorado, compared to 27 for Clinton.
Sanders Did Even Better in Colorado Than Reported, But No One Told Him
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/04/12/sanders-did-even-better-colorado-reported-no-one-told-himDemocratic Party officials let Hillary Clinton's campaign know five weeks ago, but kept Sanders in the dark
Bernie Sanders supporters cheered when their candidate won the Colorado caucuses by a sizeable margin—59 to 40 percentage points—on Super Tuesday last month, reportedly picking up 38 pledged delegates to rival Hillary Clinton's 28.
Now, they have more to celebrate. An apparent "error" on the part of that state's Democratic Party could widen that lead even further, the Denver Post has revealed, which would hand Sanders the Colorado delegation.
The Post reported Tuesday that the Colorado Democratic Party admitted this week to "misreporting" the March 1 caucus results from 10 precinct locations.
Adding to the controversy, the newspaper notes that the mistake "was shared with rival Hillary Clinton's campaign by party officials but kept from Sanders until the Post told his staff Monday night."
The Post reports:
The mistake is a minor shift with major implications. The new projection now shows the Vermont senator winning 39 delegates in Colorado, compared to 27 for Clinton.
April 12, 2016
Clinton is raking in millions from super PACs and fossil fuel lobbyists.
FAIR.org readers took action in response to “Did Sanders Lie About Clinton’s Oil Money? NPR Factchecker Can’t Be Bothered to Check” (4/1/16). They got a response from NPR ombud Elizabeth Jensen (4/5/16) and a do-over from NPR factchecker Peter Overby (4/6/16)—but NPR’s coverage still leaves a lot to be desired in terms of forthrightly addressing the issue of fossil-fuel funding in the Democratic presidential race.
In a column that addressed complaints about NPR’s Trump coverage, Jensen wrote:
My office has also received complaints from dozens of NPR.org readers, many spurred on by a report from FAIR.org, about a “Fact Check” by NPR’s Peter Overby. That piece stemmed from a spat between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton over donations from the fossil fuel industry.
The readers were unhappy that Overby checked out direct donations to each campaign from oil and gas company employees, but did not include those from “lobbyists with fossil-fuel clients,” or money donated to Clinton’s super PAC. (Sanders does not have a super PAC.) Candidates are prohibited by law from coordinating with super PACs that support them, so one could make an argument for that decision.
(snip)
He adds that “there’s a catch or two”: This represents “less than 6 percent” of the money Priorities USA has raised, and the super PAC has spent “not a penny on ads attacking Sanders.” What bearing this has on the question of whether Clinton is influenced by fossil-fuel money is not obviously clear.
Big Oil Is a Major Booster for Clinton’s Campaign
http://www.alternet.org/environment/big-oil-major-booster-clintons-campaignClinton is raking in millions from super PACs and fossil fuel lobbyists.
FAIR.org readers took action in response to “Did Sanders Lie About Clinton’s Oil Money? NPR Factchecker Can’t Be Bothered to Check” (4/1/16). They got a response from NPR ombud Elizabeth Jensen (4/5/16) and a do-over from NPR factchecker Peter Overby (4/6/16)—but NPR’s coverage still leaves a lot to be desired in terms of forthrightly addressing the issue of fossil-fuel funding in the Democratic presidential race.
In a column that addressed complaints about NPR’s Trump coverage, Jensen wrote:
My office has also received complaints from dozens of NPR.org readers, many spurred on by a report from FAIR.org, about a “Fact Check” by NPR’s Peter Overby. That piece stemmed from a spat between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton over donations from the fossil fuel industry.
The readers were unhappy that Overby checked out direct donations to each campaign from oil and gas company employees, but did not include those from “lobbyists with fossil-fuel clients,” or money donated to Clinton’s super PAC. (Sanders does not have a super PAC.) Candidates are prohibited by law from coordinating with super PACs that support them, so one could make an argument for that decision.
(snip)
He adds that “there’s a catch or two”: This represents “less than 6 percent” of the money Priorities USA has raised, and the super PAC has spent “not a penny on ads attacking Sanders.” What bearing this has on the question of whether Clinton is influenced by fossil-fuel money is not obviously clear.
April 10, 2016
(snip)
...We need education budget cuts, no infrastructure repair, no health care reform, because look, see, we're broke.
No, we aren't. We were robbed, and we can get that money back if we choose to act. This is a fiction we live in, cunningly crafted to cover the tracks of those who care only for themselves. Between the bloated "defense" budget and all that untaxed money lying offshore, we have the revenue required to address these pressing issues and chase the "austerity" argument off like a diseased cur.
But will we? There is a distinct possibility that the leading candidates for the highest office in the land, their friends and top donors, are hidden in the pages of the Panama Papers. We may never know, because according to the Guardian, much of the content will remain secret, sealed off, buried.
(snip)
There is another storm coming, rumbling the deep thunder of discontent just over the horizon. Those who stole from our present and future would do well to heed that noise. If and when that storm does come, it will not be my little girl who is afraid. It will be them.
____________________
There is ONLY 1 candidate who is on the correct side of this incredible problem - and always has been.
It is not possible for a Clinton to fix this, even IF they wanted to. They are in too deep.
Panama Papers: The Sham of Austerity and the Storms to Come
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/35559-the-sham-of-austerity-and-the-storms-to-come(snip)
...We need education budget cuts, no infrastructure repair, no health care reform, because look, see, we're broke.
No, we aren't. We were robbed, and we can get that money back if we choose to act. This is a fiction we live in, cunningly crafted to cover the tracks of those who care only for themselves. Between the bloated "defense" budget and all that untaxed money lying offshore, we have the revenue required to address these pressing issues and chase the "austerity" argument off like a diseased cur.
But will we? There is a distinct possibility that the leading candidates for the highest office in the land, their friends and top donors, are hidden in the pages of the Panama Papers. We may never know, because according to the Guardian, much of the content will remain secret, sealed off, buried.
(snip)
There is another storm coming, rumbling the deep thunder of discontent just over the horizon. Those who stole from our present and future would do well to heed that noise. If and when that storm does come, it will not be my little girl who is afraid. It will be them.
____________________
There is ONLY 1 candidate who is on the correct side of this incredible problem - and always has been.
It is not possible for a Clinton to fix this, even IF they wanted to. They are in too deep.
April 10, 2016
He needs a reality check. His screed against Sanders in the NY Times misses the boat completely.
Paul Krugman has been a voice in the wilderness for liberals for decades. But when he issues screeds in the Times against Bernie Sanders’ alleged lack of policy credentials and Sanders’ “petulant self-righteous” followers, he misses the boat completely.
Krugman needs a reality check: Wonkish policy details about economic reform are irrelevant. Sanders isn’t an economist. Neither is Clinton. As president, his economic initiatives will have more to do with whom he surrounds himself, not with whether or not he gets it exactly right about the role of the “big banks” in the 2007 Great Recession.
And Sanders is right enough. Big banks, with their bloated indebtedness and irresponsible lending and support for risky derivatives that even they didn’t always understand contributed greatly to the meltdown. Further, these bankers took the bailout money they received from taxpayers and gave themselves big bonuses the next year (until they were shamed into temporarily rescinding them). So, Sanders, I expect, will surround himself not with Wall Street insiders like Lawrence Summers and Timothy Geithner (these are more likely Hilary supporters and fellow-travelers) but, instead, with progressive economists like Dean Baker, Joseph Stiglitz, Robert Reich, and Krugman, himself. The economic policy details that Krugman now demands will most likely emerge from this Sanders-led brain trust, not from a candidate interview with the N.Y. Daily News.
Furthermore, I think Krugman should quit being a martyr by repeatedly saying that Bernie supporters are out there accusing him and other anti-Sanders ideologues of being “corrupt or even criminal.”....
(snip)
Krugman should get his head out of his “inside-the-academic economics-blogosphere” and think about real world politics for a change.
(snip)
........ we know when we’re being screwed and we resonate when a candidate acknowledges that fact.
Paul Krugman Is Not Making Much Sense
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/paul-krugman-flirting-irrelevanceHe needs a reality check. His screed against Sanders in the NY Times misses the boat completely.
Paul Krugman has been a voice in the wilderness for liberals for decades. But when he issues screeds in the Times against Bernie Sanders’ alleged lack of policy credentials and Sanders’ “petulant self-righteous” followers, he misses the boat completely.
Krugman needs a reality check: Wonkish policy details about economic reform are irrelevant. Sanders isn’t an economist. Neither is Clinton. As president, his economic initiatives will have more to do with whom he surrounds himself, not with whether or not he gets it exactly right about the role of the “big banks” in the 2007 Great Recession.
And Sanders is right enough. Big banks, with their bloated indebtedness and irresponsible lending and support for risky derivatives that even they didn’t always understand contributed greatly to the meltdown. Further, these bankers took the bailout money they received from taxpayers and gave themselves big bonuses the next year (until they were shamed into temporarily rescinding them). So, Sanders, I expect, will surround himself not with Wall Street insiders like Lawrence Summers and Timothy Geithner (these are more likely Hilary supporters and fellow-travelers) but, instead, with progressive economists like Dean Baker, Joseph Stiglitz, Robert Reich, and Krugman, himself. The economic policy details that Krugman now demands will most likely emerge from this Sanders-led brain trust, not from a candidate interview with the N.Y. Daily News.
Furthermore, I think Krugman should quit being a martyr by repeatedly saying that Bernie supporters are out there accusing him and other anti-Sanders ideologues of being “corrupt or even criminal.”....
(snip)
Krugman should get his head out of his “inside-the-academic economics-blogosphere” and think about real world politics for a change.
(snip)
........ we know when we’re being screwed and we resonate when a candidate acknowledges that fact.
April 9, 2016
Somebody is wrong on the Internet, and his name is Paul Krugman.
It is hard for liberal America when Krugman is wrong, because he is liberal America’s best — and most important — economic columnist.
In a column on Friday devoted to hitting Bernie Sanders for a long list of transgressions, Krugman said the financial “crisis itself was centered not on big banks but on ‘shadow banks’ like Lehman Brothers that weren’t necessarily that big.”
You read that correctly: Big banks didn’t cause the financial crisis, and Lehman Brothers, which was a shadow bank, known less creepily as a non-bank financial institution, wasn’t even that big.
Lehman Brothers had a peak market cap of $60 billion just 18 months before it collapsed. When it failed, it was the fourth-largest U.S. investment bank, and with $600 billion in assets became the largest bankruptcy in the country’s history.
But never mind the numbers. Even Paul Krugman can agree that Paul Krugman’s column today is wrong.
Who Has Two Thumbs And Is Wrong About The Financial Crisis? ... This Krug man.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/paul-krugman-is-wrong-about-the-financial-crisis_us_57080537e4b063f854dfa21aSomebody is wrong on the Internet, and his name is Paul Krugman.
It is hard for liberal America when Krugman is wrong, because he is liberal America’s best — and most important — economic columnist.
In a column on Friday devoted to hitting Bernie Sanders for a long list of transgressions, Krugman said the financial “crisis itself was centered not on big banks but on ‘shadow banks’ like Lehman Brothers that weren’t necessarily that big.”
You read that correctly: Big banks didn’t cause the financial crisis, and Lehman Brothers, which was a shadow bank, known less creepily as a non-bank financial institution, wasn’t even that big.
Lehman Brothers had a peak market cap of $60 billion just 18 months before it collapsed. When it failed, it was the fourth-largest U.S. investment bank, and with $600 billion in assets became the largest bankruptcy in the country’s history.
But never mind the numbers. Even Paul Krugman can agree that Paul Krugman’s column today is wrong.
April 8, 2016
Who do you think is more qualified, Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton?
ON M$NBC website. This must be putting a kink in Tweety's colon 
Granted, not scientific but interesting
72,000 votes cast so far
66,000 for Bernie
6,116 for Hillary
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-who-do-you-think-more-qualified
April 8, 2016
Keith Olbermann delivers a special comment about Hillary Clinton and her recent reference to Robert Kennedy's assassination and the inference to why she is continuing her campaign. "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."
---------------------------------------
She's Sorry Again
I'm not saying she literally hopes he dies soon. (Plus, she's apologized, so case closed, right?) But Hillary didn't mean what she said this time just like she wasn't exactly shouting out to hardworking white people, and Bill didn't quite say Jesse equals Barack, and her surrogates never meant to push the whole image of him as a druggie in the 'hood, and she never meant to reanimate the whole highly racial Jeremiah Wright hoo-ha by saying—gosh darn the timing, just as things were dying down—that he woulda never been her pick for pastor. But either Hillary Clinton is one smart, savvy, and occasionally even on-message politician—in which case she is well aware of what it means to reference the possible assassination of a black leader in this country—or she isn't and doesn't. It can't be both.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfa...
No such thing as an accident
I think we know exactly what Hillary meant:
"Nice nominee you got there... sure would be a shame if anything happened to him."
Awfully big-hearted of her to be willing to stick around through August, just in case....
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfa...
Sherman, Set the Wayback - Keith Olbermann Special Comment: Clinton-Obama Assassination
Keith Olbermann delivers a special comment about Hillary Clinton and her recent reference to Robert Kennedy's assassination and the inference to why she is continuing her campaign. "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."
---------------------------------------
She's Sorry Again
I'm not saying she literally hopes he dies soon. (Plus, she's apologized, so case closed, right?) But Hillary didn't mean what she said this time just like she wasn't exactly shouting out to hardworking white people, and Bill didn't quite say Jesse equals Barack, and her surrogates never meant to push the whole image of him as a druggie in the 'hood, and she never meant to reanimate the whole highly racial Jeremiah Wright hoo-ha by saying—gosh darn the timing, just as things were dying down—that he woulda never been her pick for pastor. But either Hillary Clinton is one smart, savvy, and occasionally even on-message politician—in which case she is well aware of what it means to reference the possible assassination of a black leader in this country—or she isn't and doesn't. It can't be both.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfa...
No such thing as an accident
I think we know exactly what Hillary meant:
"Nice nominee you got there... sure would be a shame if anything happened to him."
Awfully big-hearted of her to be willing to stick around through August, just in case....
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfa...
April 8, 2016
Clinton is tone deaf on education debt and young voters are wary.
Establishment politicians running for high office live and breathe elaborate focus group-tested lines. In time, they become those lines. But every now and then, extreme political pressures can force a few unscripted words to slip through. And when that happens, we gain a rare glimpse of the candidate's deeper understanding of their world and our world, and the gap between the two.
Hillary Clinton suffered such a moment on Tuesday afternoon while speaking at Medgar Evers College in Brooklyn. Before taking the podium she already knew from internal polling that Sanders was going to win handily in Wisconsin. That meant she would be a loser in six of the last seven states, and by landslides, no less. Her staff is telling her not to worry; all the math on her size. Her delegate lead is so large Sanders can't possibly overtake her.
But Hillary is not stupid. She saw Sanders draw 18,000 people in the Bronx, virtually all people of color, and that was before his latest Wisconsin victory. She knows that nothing is set in stone if your opponent is clobbering you in primary after primary. Political momentum is something to fear and could infect the big states like New York and California.
On top of that, young people are giving Bernie more than 80% of their votes. Even large majorities of young black and Latino voters are flocking to Sanders. How can that be?
Hillary's Inability to Grapple With Inequality Is Making Her Vulnerable to Bernie in New York
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/hillarys-inability-grapple-inequality-making-her-vulnerable-bernie-new-yorkClinton is tone deaf on education debt and young voters are wary.
Establishment politicians running for high office live and breathe elaborate focus group-tested lines. In time, they become those lines. But every now and then, extreme political pressures can force a few unscripted words to slip through. And when that happens, we gain a rare glimpse of the candidate's deeper understanding of their world and our world, and the gap between the two.
Hillary Clinton suffered such a moment on Tuesday afternoon while speaking at Medgar Evers College in Brooklyn. Before taking the podium she already knew from internal polling that Sanders was going to win handily in Wisconsin. That meant she would be a loser in six of the last seven states, and by landslides, no less. Her staff is telling her not to worry; all the math on her size. Her delegate lead is so large Sanders can't possibly overtake her.
But Hillary is not stupid. She saw Sanders draw 18,000 people in the Bronx, virtually all people of color, and that was before his latest Wisconsin victory. She knows that nothing is set in stone if your opponent is clobbering you in primary after primary. Political momentum is something to fear and could infect the big states like New York and California.
On top of that, young people are giving Bernie more than 80% of their votes. Even large majorities of young black and Latino voters are flocking to Sanders. How can that be?
April 7, 2016
The Washington press corps has gone into one of its great feeding frenzies over Bernie Sanders’ interview with New York Daily News. Sanders avoided specific answers to many of the questions posed, which the DC gang are convinced shows a lack of the knowledge necessary to be president.
Among the frenzied were the Washington Post‘s Chris Cillizza, The Atlantic‘s David Graham and Vanity Fair‘s Tina Nguyen, with CNN‘s Dylan Byers telling about it all. Having read the transcript of the interview, I would say that I certainly would have liked to see more specificity in Sanders’ answers, but I’m an economist. And some of the complaints are just silly.
When asked how he would break up the big banks, Sanders said he would leave that up to the banks. That’s exactly the right answer. The government doesn’t know the most efficient way to break up JP Morgan; JP Morgan does. If the point is to downsize the banks, the way to do it is to give them a size cap and let them figure out the best way to reconfigure themselves to get under it.
(snip)
And the fact that Sanders didn’t know the specific statute—who cares?
(snip)
"The DC press corps that goes nuts because Bernie Sanders doesn’t know the name of the statute under which he would prosecute bank fraud thinks a guy who calls for eliminating most of the federal government (Paul Ryan) is a great budget wonk.
Dean Baker: DC Press Corps Spins Itself Silly Over Sanders’ Specifics
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/04/07/dc-press-corps-spins-itself-silly-over-sanders-specificsThe Washington press corps has gone into one of its great feeding frenzies over Bernie Sanders’ interview with New York Daily News. Sanders avoided specific answers to many of the questions posed, which the DC gang are convinced shows a lack of the knowledge necessary to be president.
Among the frenzied were the Washington Post‘s Chris Cillizza, The Atlantic‘s David Graham and Vanity Fair‘s Tina Nguyen, with CNN‘s Dylan Byers telling about it all. Having read the transcript of the interview, I would say that I certainly would have liked to see more specificity in Sanders’ answers, but I’m an economist. And some of the complaints are just silly.
When asked how he would break up the big banks, Sanders said he would leave that up to the banks. That’s exactly the right answer. The government doesn’t know the most efficient way to break up JP Morgan; JP Morgan does. If the point is to downsize the banks, the way to do it is to give them a size cap and let them figure out the best way to reconfigure themselves to get under it.
(snip)
And the fact that Sanders didn’t know the specific statute—who cares?
(snip)
"The DC press corps that goes nuts because Bernie Sanders doesn’t know the name of the statute under which he would prosecute bank fraud thinks a guy who calls for eliminating most of the federal government (Paul Ryan) is a great budget wonk.
Profile Information
Member since: Sat Jan 3, 2015, 12:39 PMNumber of posts: 3,687
