Attorney in Texas
Attorney in Texas's JournalU.S. ELECTION WRAP: Focus on Hawkeye State Week Before Caucuses
Source: Bloomberg
ARG finds Sanders ahead of Clinton in Iowa by 3 ppts; same margin as in poll earlier this month
Poll has Sanders at 48%, Clinton at 45%, Martin O’Malley at 3%
Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/trackers/2016-01-25/u-s-election-wrap-focus-on-hawkeye-state-week-before-caucuses
here is a link to the ARG polling data:
48% - Sanders
45% - Clinton
3% - O'Malley
Interesting internal numbers on 18-49 year olds:
55% - Sanders
38% - Clinton
3% - O'Malley
Also, look at the split among those (regardless of age) who were polled by cell phone (versus landline):
53% - Sanders
38% - Clinton
3% - O'Malley
First Read: Get Ready for a Long Fight for the Democratic Nod
Source: NBC News
How Michael Bloomberg creates a statistical tie between Trump and Sanders (or Trump and Clinton)
On Saturday, as much of the East Coast was snowed in by a historic blizzard, we learned that former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg is seriously preparing for a third-party run -- if Donald Trump and Ted Cruz look like your GOP nominee, and if Bernie Sanders is ahead in the Democratic contest. When Hillary Clinton was asked about a possible Bloomberg run on "Meet the Press" yesterday, she responded, per NBC's Monica Alba: "He's a good friend of mine. The way I read what he said is if I didn't get the nomination, he might consider it. Well, I'm going to relieve him of that and get the nomination so he doesn't have to." Here was Sanders' reaction on "Meet": "If Donald Trump wins and Mr. Bloomberg gets in, you're going to have two multi-billionaires running for president of the United States against me. And I think the American people do not want to see our nation move toward an oligarchy where billionaires control the political process. I think we'll win that election." But per an online Morning Consult poll (conducted Jan. 21-24), a Trump-Sanders-Bloomberg three-way race gets you a statistical tie -- Sanders 35%, Trump 34%, and Bloomberg 12%. That's almost identical to what the same poll (conducted Jan. 14-17) found in a Trump-Clinton-Bloomberg matchup -- Trump 37%, Clinton 36%, Bloomberg 13%.
Read more: http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/first-read-get-ready-long-fight-democratic-nod-n503696
Sorta buried the headline:
Sanders does better than Clinton in a three-way race:
Sanders 35%, Trump 34%, and Bloomberg 12%
Trump 37%, Clinton 36%, Bloomberg 13%
EDITED to add Morning Consult's poll numbers for independents (Clinton does worse) and with Cruz instead of Trump (Sanders wins even bigger).
Among Independents:
Sanders 31%, Trump 33%, Bloomberg 11%
Trump 37%, Clinton 24%, Bloomberg 18%
excerpt:
"Sanders gets a boost in poll numbers when competing with Bloomberg and a different Republican nominee, like Texas Sen. Ted Cruz or Florida Sen. Marco Rubio. Sanders gets 36 percent of voters against Cruz, who gets 28 percent of voters and Bloomberg, who gets 11 percent of voters. The Vermont senator gets 38 percent of voters when he’s up against Rubio, who gets 33 percent of voters, and Bloomberg, who gets 10 percent of voters. Clinton similarly held larger leads in potential match-ups with Cruz and Rubio."
MUST READ discussion of Clinton's 2013 courting of Wall Street: "Lament of the Plutocrats"
Note: This article is from 2013, before all eyes were on Clinton's ties to Wall Street.
link; excerpt:
On a recent afternoon, executives at Goldman Sachs invited a few hundred major investors to the Conrad Hotel in lower Manhattan. The bankers and their guests filed into a large room and turned their eyes to Hillary Clinton.
Ordinarily these masters of the universe might have groaned at the idea of a politician taking the microphone. In the contentious years since the crash of 2008, they’ve grown wearily accustomed to being called names—labeled “ fat cats" by President Obama and worse by those on the left—and gotten used to being largely shunned by Tea Party Republicans for their association with the Washington establishment. And of course there are all those infuriating new rules and regulations, culminating this week with the imposition of the so-called Volcker Rule to make risky trades by big banks illegal.
But Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish. Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience, in effect: We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it. What the bankers heard her to say was just what they would hope for from a prospective presidential candidate: Beating up the finance industry isn’t going to improve the economy—it needs to stop. And indeed Goldman’s Tim O’Neill, who heads the bank’s asset management business, introduced Clinton by saying how courageous she was for speaking at the bank. (Brave, perhaps, but also well-compensated: Clinton’s minimum fee for paid remarks is $200,000).
Certainly, Clinton offered the money men—and, yes, they are mostly men—at Goldman’s HQ a bit of a morale boost. “It was like, ‘Here’s someone who doesn’t want to vilify us but wants to get business back in the game,’” said an attendee. “Like, maybe here’s someone who can lead us out of the wilderness.”
...
The fundraisers who are starting to circle their preferred 2016 presidential hopefuls are doing so tentatively—just beginning the ritual dance between candidate and benefactor that will shape the financial race for the White House. With presidential contenders looking to collect north of a billion dollars, here are check-writers on the Republican side that could soon matter most.
...
if the Democratic nominee is local favorite Hillary Clinton—and the former New York senator has been shrewdly tending to would-be donors for much of the last year, whether in the form of speaking engagements like the one at Goldman this fall, or by glad-handing as she helps to raise $250 million for her family’s foundation...Lasry, fresh off a fundraising tour of duty on the Terry McAuliffe campaign for governor in Virginia, figures to be a critical component of an expected Clinton run...
The worry on Wall Street is about how far to the left Clinton might have to drift to appease what’s been proclaimed the “Warren wing of the Democratic Party”—the vocal populists buoyed by Elizabeth Warren’s tough critiques of Wall Street greed, as well as by the recent election of liberal Mayor Bill de Blasio on their New York home turf. According to people in Clinton’s extended circle, John Podesta—the former White House chief of staff under her husband who this week joined the Obama White House for a year-long stint—was poised to work with Hillary Clinton on her messaging on income inequality, a role he seems less likely to fill while he's in government. Still, some say fears that Clinton will end up alienating financial sector donors the way Obama has, even if she tacks left, are overblown. “Wall Street folks are so happy about {having Clinton run} that they won’t care what she says,” says one well-placed Democrat.
And if the banking class is delighted with Clinton lately, the feeling appears mutual. In Manhattan last week, Clinton sat down with the Carlyle Group’s David Rubenstein for their second question-and-answer session in the last two months. Unlike the first one, held for his private equity firm’s investor conference, this was a more public appearance, part of a program honoring the late diplomat Richard Holbrooke at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Clinton easily regaled the well-heeled crowd with stories from her past before Rubenstein ended their half-hour chat with a joke about her future: Would she be interested in joining a private equity firm?
“Is that an offer?” Clinton asked, laughing as the audience knowingly joined in. She may soon need many things from the titans of finance, but a job is probably not one of them.
MSNBC: "CLINTON’S CONNECTIONS TO BANKS ‘HIGHLIGHT’ HER ‘ELIZABETH WARREN PROBLEM’"
BRZEZINSKI: “The banks issue highlight what is some might call Hillary Clinton’s Elizabeth Warren problem. Her speeches and connections to the big banks leave her open the criticism maybe even more than that. Is logic, here, in terms of what has happened about special interests demonstrated by this story from Elizabeth Warren back in 2004.”
WARREN: “She said “Professor Elizabeth Warren, we’ve got to stop that awful bill.” Referring to this bankruptcy bill that’s sponsored by the credit card companies. So I left, she went back to Washington and I heard later from someone who was a white House staffer that there were skid marks in the hallways when Mrs. Clinton got back as people reversed direction on that bankruptcy bill. And in her autobiography, Mrs. Clinton took that veto and she rightly should. She turned a whole administration on the subject of bankruptcy....One of the first bills that came up after she was senator Clinton was the bankruptcy bill.... She voted in favor of it.... As Senator Clinton, the pressures are very different. It’s a well-financed industry. A lot of people don’t realize that the industry that gave the most money to Washington over the past few years was not the oil industry, was not pharmaceuticals, it was consumer credit products. Those are the people, the credit card companies have been giving money and they have influence.... She has taken money from the groups and, more to the point, she worries about them as a constituency.””
link to video clip
BRZEZINSKI: “Well, Hillary Clinton hasn’t released transcripts of her paid speeches to Wall Street. Back in December, 2013, politico reported the following on a speech she made to Goldman Sachs. “On a recent afternoon, executives at Goldman Sachs invited a few hundred major investors to the Conrad hotel in lower Manhattan. The bankers and their guests filed into a large room and turned their eyes to hunk. Ordinarily, these masters of the universe might have groaned at the idea of a politician taking to the microphone but Clinton offered a message that plutocrats found reassuring. Declaring that the banker bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish. Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience in effect “We all got into this mess together and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it.” What the bankers heard her say was just what they would hope for from a prospective presidential candidate. Beating up the finance industry isn’t going to help improve the economy, it needs to stop. And, indeed, Tim o’neil who heads the bank’s asset management business introduced Clinton by saying how courageous she was by speaking at the bank. Brave, perhaps, but also well compensated. Clinton’s minimum fee for paid remarks is $200,000.”
Why does Clinton do better in some polls and Sanders in others? House effect and bad methodology.
House effect is where some pollsters consistently favor one candidate by more than the margin of error for the other contemporaneous polls.
For example, the most recent poll that had Clinton way up in Iowa was by Loras, which has a HUGE pro-Clinton house effect.
Here is how the race in Iowa has developed over the past year according to Loras polling:
Here is how the race in Iowa has developed over the past year according to EVERY OTHER LIVE PHONE pollster:
Clinton and her supporters set the bar of expectations based on Loras polling at their own risk (remember the fate of those who have won Iowa but fell short of expectations -- Harkin '92, Gephardt '88, etc.)
Also, all campaign season there has been an odd phenomenon that robo-call polls have consistently shown a large pro-Trump and pro-Clinton effect (I have not seen a convincing explanation for this, but the effect is well documented).
This explains why you see most traditional polls according to well-proven polling methods show Sanders leads in Iowa and New Hampshire with contemporaneous robo-call polls from Gravis and Monmouth that show Clinton ahead in Iowa and a tighter race in New Hampshire.
If you do nothing other than exclude robo-call polls from the Pollster aggregator, Sanders is ahead in Iowa and Sanders is comfortably up by double-digits in New Hampshire:
It does Clinton no favors to set her expectations in Iowa based on robo-call polls because, historically, falling short of expectations is almost worse than losing in Iowa.
CBS News Polling Trend (spoiler alert: "Sanders edges Clinton in Iowa, leads big in New Hampshire")
CBS just released their current polling:
Here is the CBS polling trend in Iowa:
Here is the CBS polling trend in New Hampshire:
Here is reporting on the internal and cross tab numbers:
There is a big gap between the two on who better understands what voters are feeling, and to whom each would listen as president. In Iowa, 91 percent of Democratic voters believe Sanders would pick regular people over big donors. But a majority -- 57 percent -- of Democrats feel that Hillary Clinton would do what big donors want instead of what regular people want, if forced to choose.
The race has seen more critical back-and-forth between the two in recent weeks, and Democratic voters marginally see Clinton's critiques are the more unfair of the two. Twenty-eight percent of Iowa Democrats feel Clinton's critiques on Sanders have been unfair, while 16 percent say the same of Sanders' critiques on Clinton.
Sanders is more widely seen in Iowa and New Hampshire as the candidate who "gets it" -- that is, understands how people feel. Eighty-five percent say that of Sanders in Iowa and an enormous 95 percent say that of him in New Hampshire. Sixty-five percent describe Clinton that way in Iowa and 60 percent in New Hampshire -- majorities, but nowhere near the numbers Sanders put up.
Poll: Sanders edges Clinton in Iowa, leads big in New Hampshire
Source: CBS News
One week before the caucuses, Iowa is effectively a tossup, as Bernie Sanders has taken a one-point edge over Hillary Clinton after trailing last month. That puts Sanders in position to potentially win both early states as he continues to hold a very large lead in New Hampshire.
...
There is a big gap between the two on who better understands what voters are feeling, and to whom each would listen as president. In Iowa, 91 percent of Democratic voters believe Sanders would pick regular people over big donors. But a majority -- 57 percent -- of Democrats feel that Hillary Clinton would do what big donors want instead of what regular people want, if forced to choose.
The race has seen more critical back-and-forth between the two in recent weeks, and Democratic voters marginally see Clinton's critiques are the more unfair of the two. Twenty-eight percent of Iowa Democrats feel Clinton's critiques on Sanders have been unfair, while 16 percent say the same of Sanders' critiques on Clinton.
Sanders is more widely seen in Iowa and New Hampshire as the candidate who "gets it" -- that is, understands how people feel. Eighty-five percent say that of Sanders in Iowa and an enormous 95 percent say that of him in New Hampshire. Sixty-five percent describe Clinton that way in Iowa and 60 percent in New Hampshire -- majorities, but nowhere near the numbers Sanders put up.
Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-sanders-catches-clinton-in-iowa-leads-big-in-new-hampshire/
Shane Bauer: "When I Was a Prisoner in Iran, I Came to Fear the Sound of Hillary Clinton's Voice"
link; excerpt:
I rarely think about being a prisoner in Iran anymore. I've been free for more than four years. It's been a long time since the sounds of hard soles on a cement floor would remind me of my interrogator .... Last Saturday, I was dripping coffee on myself during an early morning drive when I heard that four Americans were being released from Iran as part of a prisoner swap. Suddenly, my eyes welled up. I could feel the knot of excitement and confusion that had turned in my gut when my plane from Tehran hit the tarmac in Muscat, Oman, in September 2011. ... I was elated for these men and their families.... While scouring the internet for updates on the four Americans, I read that shortly after their release, Hillary Clinton called for new sanctions on Iran for testing two ballistic missiles last year. I was shocked. The prisoners had not yet been let out of the country. Why would she provoke Iran when their freedom was still on the line?
I remembered sitting in my cell in 2009...when I heard then-Secretary of State Clinton's voice from a television in a neighboring cell. I ran to the door and pressed my ear into its little window. She was commanding Iran to release us immediately. My heart sank. ... I came to fear the sound of Clinton's voice. Whenever I heard her publicly slam Iran about something, I would mentally prepare for at least another couple of months in prison.
Though I didn't know it at the time, I wasn't the only one who felt that way. Many of our family members grew frustrated with their meetings with her and White House officials. My wife, Sarah, who was released a year before Josh and I were, shared this frustration. Once, during a meeting with us in the prison, Swiss Ambassador Livia Leu, who represented American interests in Iran, broke from her usual reassuring demeanor and said, "They will never respond to your government demanding they release you. They need to talk to the Iranians."... Our freedom was part of a larger calculus for Oman. Sitting at the mouth of the Persian Gulf just a couple hundred miles from Iran, Oman's government believed that if tensions between Iran and the United States escalated to the point of military conflict, it would damage its economy—or worse. Salem believed that if he could get the two countries to negotiate over our case, it would provide an opening for talks on Iran's nuclear program. ...During Salem's efforts to free us, he was repeatedly frustrated by Clinton. "Why can't your Hillary just keep quiet?" he blurted to me once, in a break of his characteristic poise, on a visit to Evin Prison. It was a paternalistic sounding outburst, but the stakes were high. He believed he was going to be bringing us home with him on that occasion. He said he was so close to convincing the Iranians, but they backed out at the last minute after another blustery statement by Clinton.
So far as we know, the extent of Clinton's role in our ordeal was limited to making public demands and speaking to our families. In fact, there isn't evidence of much action from the US government on our case. Two years ago, I filed Freedom of Information Act requests with the State Department, CIA, and FBI for records on our case. I received some records only after suing. The lawsuit is ongoing, but the records I have received over the last year indicate State Department officials did little beyond meeting with our families and receiving news reports from staffers.
Sanders Attracting Voters Who Seek More Than Protest Vote
Source: ABC News
Yes, Sanders' backers say, they're frustrated with a system they believe is rigged for the wealthy. But many say their support for the Vermont senator in the Democratic presidential race is also driven by real hope in his promise of a political revolution and a belief that his ideas are bold enough to bring economic security to the middle class.... Emmett Lahr... had planned to vote for Hillary Clinton, but says he's now "90 percent switched" to Sanders, largely because of what Sanders wants to do for the economy.... Sanders' growing legion of supporters has him positioned for possible victories in the Iowa caucuses Feb. 1 and New Hampshire's primary Feb. 9. The solid underpinnings of Sanders' support also make it more difficult for Clinton to cast him simply as unelectable and impractical.
"I look at Bernie's opponents and I say, you know, these guys are in it for themselves," said Robert Digrazia, 72, of Hollis, New Hampshire. "My sense is that Bernie is on my side."... "It's just a question of trying to get momentum," said Tad Devine, a Sanders adviser.... "It's his consistent record that I really like," said Hunter Hansen, a 22-year-old recent college graduate from Fort Dodge, Iowa. "And the fact that he's not bought by big lobbyists, big corporate interests. His opinion isn't bought."
Sanders is a fierce opponent of super political action committee, which can collect unlimited donations. He mentions at every campaign event that his average campaign contribution is $27. He also has become increasingly critical of the high-dollar speaking fees Clinton received from the same Wall Street firms that Sanders wants to break up.... But those backing Sanders or leaning his way give the senator credit for thinking big and being willing to upend a system they no longer believe is working for the middle class.
"Bernie's got the gumption and the persistence to win and be a good president," said Dick Champagne, 74, an independent New Hampshire voter who is backing Sanders .... Most of Sanders' supporters who were interviewed backed Obama and remain generally supportive of the president. But there's frustration over the Asia-Pacific trade deal and the president's years of dawdling over the Keystone XL oil pipeline. There also is concern that while Wall Street banks have only gotten bigger after the 2008 financial crisis, the economic recovery doesn't always feel real for the middle class.
Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/sanders-attracting-voters-seeking-protest-vote-36468147
The Nation: "Start Making Sense: Why We’ve Endorsed Bernie Sanders"
Link to "Start Making Sense: Why We’ve Endorsed Bernie Sanders" (access podcast at link).
Here is an excerpt from the original endorsement:
A year ago, concerned that ordinary citizens would be locked out of the presidential nominating process, The Nation argued that a vigorously contested primary would be good for the candidates, for the Democratic Party, and for democracy. Two months later, Senator Bernie Sanders formally launched a campaign that has already transformed the politics of the 2016 presidential race. Galvanized by his demands for economic and social justice, hundreds of thousands of Americans have packed his rallies, and over 1 million small donors have helped his campaign shatter fund-raising records while breaking the stranglehold of corporate money. Sanders’s clarion call for fundamental reform—single-payer healthcare, tuition-free college, a $15-an-hour minimum wage, the breaking up of the big banks, ensuring that the rich pay their fair share of taxes—have inspired working people across the country. His bold response to the climate crisis has attracted legions of young voters, and his foreign policy, which emphasizes diplomacy over regime change, speaks powerfully to war-weary citizens. Most important, Sanders has used his insurgent campaign to tell Americans the truth about the challenges that confront us. He has summoned the people to a “political revolution,” arguing that the changes our country so desperately needs can only happen when we wrest our democracy from the corrupt grip of Wall Street bankers and billionaires.
We believe such a revolution is not only possible but necessary—and that’s why we’re endorsing Bernie Sanders for president. This magazine rarely makes endorsements in the Democratic primary (we’ve done so only twice: for Jesse Jackson in 1988, and for Barack Obama in 2008). We do so now impelled by the awareness that our rigged system works for the few and not for the many. Americans are waking up to this reality, and they are demanding change. This understanding animates both the Republican and Democratic primaries, though it has taken those two contests in fundamentally different directions.
At the core of this crisis is inequality, both economic and political. The United States has become a plutocracy—one in which, as Sanders puts it, “we not only have massive wealth and income inequality, but a power structure which protects that inequality.” America’s middle class has melted away, while the gap between rich and poor has reached Gilded Age extremes. The recovery that followed the 2008 economic collapse has not been shared. Indeed, in the United States it seems that nothing is shared these days—not prosperity, nor security, nor even responsibility. While millions of Americans grapple with the consequences of catastrophic climate change, fossil-fuel companies promote climate skeptics so that they can continue to profit from the planet’s destruction. While Americans have tired of endless war, the military-industrial complex and its cheerleaders continue to champion the reckless interventions that have drained our country, damaged our reputation abroad, and created a perfect storm of Pentagon waste, fraud, and abuse. While Americans of every ideological stripe recognize the need for criminal-justice reform, African-American men, women, and children continue to be gunned down by police officers on the streets, and mass incarceration continues largely unabated.
Americans are fed up and fighting back. Seen in isolation, the Fight for $15, Black Lives Matter, the climate-justice movement, the immigrant-rights movement, the campaign for a financial-transactions tax, and the renewed push for single-payer healthcare may seem like unrelated causes. Taken together, they form a rising chorus of outrage over a government that caters to the demands of the super-wealthy, while failing to meet the needs of the many. They share a fury at a politics captured by special interests and big money, where pervasive corruption mocks the very notion of democracy.
Senator Sanders alone has the potential to unite the movements emerging across the country.
Profile Information
Member since: Sun Aug 2, 2015, 11:10 AMNumber of posts: 3,373
