January 21, 2016

UPDATED: CNN is a live poll; Gravis and KBUR/Monmouth polling uses the controversial robo-call

polling methodology that has a huge in-house 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 CNN polling that shows Sanders leads in Iowa and New Hampshire with contemporaneous 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.

January 21, 2016

Two Predictions for Monday's Iowa forum: 1st -- Clinton will sound like a Republican on all issues

except 2nd Amendment rights in a transparent effort to cast Sanders as "out-of-the-mainstream" and "unrealistic" in his goals for America;

2nd -- this tactic will backfire on February 1.



It remains true that Clinton is the favorite and Sanders is the underdog. Yet Clinton appears to be doing everything in her power to help Sanders change that dynamic.

If Clinton's campaign was smart, they would stop attacking Sanders and his agenda and simply focus on why they believe their agenda is better for America. If it is true that "Bernie is too liberal" as all of the Clinton surrogates are being programmed to say this cycle, then Clinton should win a straight up debate on the issues and the added benefit to Clinton is that these debates would position her as a relative moderate going into a general election against whichever right-wing nutjob the Republicans nominate.

This debate on the issues is Clinton's pathway to victory. It is also Sanders' pathway to victory (the only difference being that Sanders is betting against the Clinton position that he is too liberal for America).

Such a debate on the issues is also best for the Democratic party in the general election no matter which candidate wins the nomination.

January 20, 2016

Bob Dole Warns of ‘Cataclysmic’ Losses With Ted Cruz, and Says Donald Trump Would Do Better

Source: New York Times

Bob Dole, the former Kansas senator and 1996 Republican presidential nominee, has never been fond of Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. But in an interview Wednesday, Mr. Dole said that the party would suffer “cataclysmic” and “wholesale losses” if Mr. Cruz was the nominee, and that Donald J. Trump would fare better.... “I don’t know how often you’ve heard him say the word ‘Republican’ — not very often.” Instead, Mr. Cruz uses the word “conservative,” Mr. Dole said, before offering up a different word for Mr. Cruz: “extremist.”

“I don’t know how he’s going to deal with Congress,” he said. “Nobody likes him.”... The remarks by Mr. Dole reflect wider unease with Mr. Cruz among members of the Republican establishment, but few leading members of the party have been as candid and cutting.

“If he’s the nominee, we’re going to have wholesale losses in Congress and state offices and governors and legislatures,” said Mr. Dole, who served in the House and Senate for 35 years and won the Iowa caucuses twice. He described Mr. Cruz as having falsely “convinced the Iowa voters that he’s kind of a mainstream conservative.”... He said he had met Mr. Trump only once, 30 years ago. “But he has toned down his rhetoric,” he added. As for Mr. Cruz, he said: “There’ll be wholesale losses if he’s the nominee. Our party is not that far right... We are conservatives, we are traditional Republican conservatives. And then, of course, he doesn’t have any friends in Congress. He called the leader of the Republicans a liar on the Senate floor.”... Mr. Dole’s comments came a day after the governor of Iowa, Terry E. Branstad, said in an interview that Mr. Cruz’s opposition to federal ethanol mandates would erode his lead in polls heading into the state’s caucuses on Feb. 1.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/20/bob-dole-warns-of-cataclysmic-losses-with-ted-cruz-and-says-donald-trump-would-do-better/?_r=0

---

January 20, 2016

Clinton's foreign policy is 'troubling', says everyone who wants to avoid the next war over oil

January 19, 2016

Huffington Post: "CONFEDERACY OF DUNCES"

I know that this story has been broken elsewhere, but you have to love the front page headline CONFEDERACY OF DUNCES:

January 18, 2016

Hillary sounds like the most reasonable Republican running for president

You'd think she was debating with the goal of locking up the endorsement of the chamber of commerce.

January 16, 2016

Bernie Sanders calls on Michigan’s governor to resign over water contamination in Flint

Source: Washington Post

CHARLESTON, S.C. -- Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders on Saturday called for Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) to resign amid mounting criticism of his administration’s slow response to a crisis over lead contamination in Flint’s drinking water.

“There are no excuses,” Sanders said in the statement. “The governor long ago knew about the lead in Flint's water. He did nothing. As a result, hundreds of children were poisoned. Thousands may have been exposed to potential brain damage from lead."

The statement came as the senator from Vermont prepared for a full weekend of political events in South Carolina, including a high-stakes debate Sunday night with former secretary of state Hillary Clinton and former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley.

...

“The people of Flint deserve more than an apology," Sanders said.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/16/bernie-sanders-calls-on-michigans-governor-to-resign-over-water-contamination-in-flint/

January 10, 2016

If Hillary is the nominee, will the people excited about electing the first Jewish prez stay home?

I don't think so.

Nor do I think that people excited about electing first female president will stay home if Sanders is the nominee.

I do, however, think Clinton would draw a historically low number of independent votes and crossover Republican votes and, as a result, would lose against Rubio and (maybe) Cruz.

Sanders would draw more independent votes and crossover Republican votes and would win.

January 10, 2016

Today's good polling in Iowa - Sanders 45%, Clinton 48%, O'Malley 5%

Today's NBC poll is a live cell/landline poll of likely voters.

The overall numbers are good (showing Sanders within 3%) and the trend from the last NBC poll in Iowa is also good:



NBC has not been very active in Iowa so it may be useful to add in the Iowa polling by Quinnipiac (which also uses live cell/landline poll of likely voters and has done the most live phone polling in Iowa) and the Iowa polling by the Des Moines Register (which also uses live cell/landline poll of likely voters and has the best record for accuracy):



The trend still looks very good.

This is really a nice follow up to yesterday's massive polling result in New Hampshire - Sanders 50%, Clinton 37%, O'Malley 3%

A poll is not a vote so we need to keep on working, but this is a good report card for the campaign which tells us we are on the right track.

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!

January 9, 2016

Politico: "Planned Parenthood gears up for 2016 offensive" me: "by shooting itself in the foot"

link to the Politico article; excerpt:

Planned Parenthood, facing attacks from conservatives in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail, is ramping up its election-year political efforts in key battleground states, adding senior staff and preparing to spend more than $20 million. ... The moves follow a months-long campaign by conservatives to vilify the group over videos of Planned Parenthood executives allegedly discussing fetal tissue sales and activity at the state level to try and cut off Medicaid reimbursements to the organization.

On Wednesday, House Republicans kicked off the 2016 legislative session with a vote to strip federal funding for the group. Though President Barack Obama has said he will veto the bill, it shows Republicans are willing to engage on abortion after several Senate candidates stumbled in recent elections when talking about women's health, and a GOP pledge after the 2012 election to avoid antagonizing female voters.

This is an important issue.

On the eve of this battle, Planned Parenthood made a decision that ruins a 100-year policy of not endorsing candidates in primary elections:

The endorsement marks the first time in the organization's 100-year history that Planned Parenthood Action Fund has endorsed a candidate in a primary.

This unprecedented endorsement has broken the heart and trust of countless (now former) Planned Parenthood supporters:

I'm just astonished at your endorsement of Hillary Clinton! You no longer have my monthly donation. You have been purchased by the Clintons.
...
I love and support Planned Parenthood full-heartedly, but I do not support or cosign your endorsement of Hillary Clinton. I won't say that Hillary hasn't made a lot of efforts and improvements in the realm of reproductive rights, but I will say that as a queer, atheist, working class, college student, she does not support me in any other way. She did not support gay marriage or equal rights until it was politically beneficial to her to do so. She pandors to big businesses and... See More
...
My "Shower Thought" for today regarding the public backlash of Planned Parenthood Action breaking their 100 year tradition of not endorsing a presidential candidate by endorsing Hillary Clinton. (If you want to see the responses click the link above):
I think for many women (and men), Planned Parenthood has long been a safe haven during sensitive and/or difficult situations. People go to them for family planning and health services. Condoms. STD screenings. Abortions. Birth control pills. Pregnancy. Etc. For many, Planned Parenthood has been a major part of their lives.
And let's face it, not everyone is happy about that. Planned Parenthood is always under attack, often by white Republican men in suits telling women (and men) what's best for them.
So now, instead of white Republican men in suits telling them what's best for them, it's Planned Parenthood itself. "Dear little lady, Hillary Clinton is what you need." As if women aren't capable of coming to their choice for president themselves (even if it IS Hillary). And the reasons Planned Parenthood gives only focus on women's health issues, nothing else, as if people only vote on that one issue alone. People are smarter than that.
My take is that a lot of the emotional backlash is in having an organization that used to be many people's "safe space" be the place that turns on them and tells them what's best for them. It brings up way too many issues.
...
PP you should've never endorsed a candidate before the Primary elections. All you did was piss off a lot of your donors. Bad move.
...
Hillary is a life time supporter of Monsanto one of her major contributers who manufactueres glyppsophate a toxin which has fully saturated the fiber markets. They are present in every box of feminnine hygene products you buy increasing exponentially the gynocological cancers. They've denied for years but the U.N and a French court have found this true that Monsanto has soaked the Americans in carcinogens. Think of Hillary every time you get a pap, she took money for your right to be toxified. I won't ever vote for her nor support PP again.

On what planet is it a good idea to begin this important fight by dividing your base by making an unprecedented primary endorsement that alienates a huge portion of (now former) supporters?

We ALL support Planned Parenthood's goals. For the sake of Planned Parenthood's continued well being, it needs to walk back this shockingly bad judgment.

I will continue to support Planned Parenthood and its goals, but I cannot do so in the same way that I used support those goals. At a time when Planned Parenthood is under attack by the far right, it should not have broken a 100 year old policy to pick a fight with those who supported Planned Parenthood for years right up until this week.

Those of us who value Planned Parenthood and who have tirelessly defended Planned Parenthood against unfair attacks should be united in telling Planned Parenthood that now is the time to unite your allies and fight our common foe, and it is not a time to push away those of us who wholeheartedly supported Planned Parenthood for decades until this week but who must now put a big asterisk mark on any continued support.