February 15, 2016

The Atlantic: "The Pragmatic Case for Bernie Sanders" (MUST READ ANALYSIS!)

The Pragmatic Case for Bernie Sanders - Political and social change emanate from persistent pressure for a just world, not settling for what is “realistic” before even getting to the negotiating table; here is an excerpt from this great analysis:

As Bernie Sanders defies expectations with a resounding New Hampshire victory and a virtual tie in Iowa, ... On the pragmatics of electability, nearly every major national poll consistently shows Sanders equaling or bettering Clinton against all Republicans. Polls show Sanders nearly tied with Clinton nationally and rising. On electability, if anything, Sanders has the edge right now. There is nothing empirical to suggest Clinton’s superior electability—quite the contrary given her loss to Barack Obama in 2008 and her flagging campaign this year. ... Sanders can inspire massive Democratic and liberal Independent turnout and likely win over many white working-class swing voters.

Clinton’s most persistent attack—parroted by mainstream media—claims that Sanders’s agenda is perhaps laudable but unrealistic. Moderation is more effective, she claims. However, this is a misreading of American politics and factual comparisons of the candidates’ track records.

The Clinton pragmatism frame is a strangely naïve and fatalistic misjudging of political culture and dynamics. During most of his eight years in office, President Obama has tacked to the center in hopes of bipartisan compromise on everything from gun control to the budget, only to be met by relentless Republican obstruction, even labeled a “socialist dictator.” Republicans did much the same during Bill Clinton’s first term—pushing him more deeply into the political center, where, with plenty of support from Hillary, Preisdent Clinton and the Gingrich Congress gutted welfare, enacted a deeply compromised crime bill, and reversed bank regulations (something Hillary is OK with even after the financial crisis).

No matter where a Democratic president is on the spectrum, Republicans block and push rightward. In her campaign, as in the past, Hillary Clinton has compromised her agenda before the political battle even begins.

Based on her record and political positions, it is not credible for Democrats to hope that a Clinton presidency can deliver progressive change. It is not pragmatic to hope that Clinton, by dint of her centrist leanings, can work with Congress on anything other than a centrist agenda—at best. To the extent that she gets things done with a Republican legislature, based on an electoral mandate of centrism, there is zero prospect of progressive reform on Wall Street, corporate accountability, wealth inequality, or campaign finance. In politics, if you demand a mile, you get a foot; demand a moderate inch, and at best, you get a centimeter.

On the other side of the ledger, history shows that political and social change emanate from persistent pressure—organizing and arguing for a more just world, not settling for what is deemed “realistic” before getting to the negotiating table. Remember when gay rights and gay marriage were “unrealistic”? Remember when voting rights, desegregation, and other basic justice were far from “pragmatic”? They became real through years of dedicated, principled, idealism... Clinton’s brand of pragmatism surrenders progressive change to centrism. If liberals and progressives support a $15 per-hour minimum wage, universally accessible health care, fair taxes on corporations and wealth, and meaningful reforms of Wall Street and campaign finance, they should elect a president who actually fights for these things. Sanders has spent his whole political life in pursuit of these ideals, and his campaign has moved these conversations to the fore; Clinton’s record on the other hand shows a consistent pattern of following, not leading on these issues. Clinton’s brand of pragmatism surrenders progressive change to centrism even before negotiations begin.

The whole article is well worth a full read!

February 15, 2016

"Settle for Hillary"!

From another thread, but deserving of its own thread. Thanks DiehardLiberal for the best Valentine's Day present ever!

February 15, 2016

Nevada tied; South Carolina closing:

Most recent CBS poll of South Carolina likely voters had Clinton's lead cut in half since CBS's November polling:



In Nevada, it's now tied:



"Inevitable" in the new "Mission Accomplished."

February 14, 2016

"Grim Tidings for Hillary -- They don't like her. They really don't like her."

Anyone who thinks the moderate Republicans (i.e., the establishment, non-evangelicals and non-Tea Partiers) will not be motivated to turn out in record numbers to vote against Hillary has not been reading the news; excerpt:

Hillary Clinton’s loss to Bernie Sanders in the New Hampshire primary wasn't as bad as she'd feared. It was worse. Sanders's margin of victory — 60 percent to 39 percent — was the largest ever by a Democrat who wasn't a sitting president. It was a come-from-behind win: Eight months ago, Sanders was at 9 percent and Clinton held a 46-point advantage. And Sanders overperformed the polls. Only 1 of the last 15 polls had him above 60 percent; the Real Clear Politics average in New Hampshire had him at 54.5 percent going into the vote.... The exit polling for Clinton was brutal. Sanders won men by 35 points; he won women by 11. He won voters under the age of 30 by 67 points. People expect that of Sanders and his children's crusade. Clinton took home senior citizens, 54 percent to 45 percent. People expect that of Clinton's boomers. But in the big band of middle-aged Democrats, ages 45 to 64 (who made up 42 percent of the electorate), Sanders beat Clinton 54 percent to 45 percent. He beat her among Democrats with a high school diploma or less; he beat her among Democrats with postgraduate degrees. Among people who'd voted in a Democratic primary before, Sanders won by 16 points; among first-time voters, he won by 57. He won self-identified "moderate" voters by 20 points.... Sanders won voters who own guns by 40 points. But he won voters who don't own guns by 14. He even won voters who said that terrorism was their number one concern.

The biggest problem for Clinton, however, came in the candidate-perception categories. The second-most important quality voters said they wanted in a candidate was someone who "cares." Sanders won these voters by 65 points. The most important quality people said they wanted was "honesty." Sanders took those people home 92 to 6. Look at that again. When asked "Is Clinton honest and trustworthy?" 53 percent of all voters — not just Sanders voters, but everyone casting a Democratic ballot — said "no."

The final insult came from the raw vote totals. The hardest thing to do in politics is convert a new voter. The easiest thing is to retain an old one. A voter who has previously pulled the lever for a candidate is the easiest person to get back on your side. In 2008, Hillary Clinton got 112,404 votes in New Hampshire. If she had brought all of those voters with her, she still would have lost to Sanders this time around. But this year she got just 95,242. That's 17,000 voters — 1 out of every 7! — who refused to come back and vote for Clinton again.... Her campaign is offering eight years of trench warfare. Everything is about "fighting." ... But her entire pitch is like a recruiting poster for World War I: Vote for me and we'll take this country back one trench at a time, whatever the cost! ... Sanders, on the other hand, is offering a revolutionary vision: ... once The People are engaged, they'll impose their will on the handful of corporate oligarchs who have set up the current, corrupt system. In Sanders's view, outside of a tiny number of super-elites, we're all brothers and sisters. And no matter how conservative you might be, the truth is that Scandinavia is lovely. Who among us wouldn't want paid maternity leave, shorter work weeks, free state-college tuition, and locally sourced dairy products?

In the face of this, the Clinton campaign has pinned its hopes on two theories. The first is that Democrats will eventually settle for her. Literally: At an event in Hudson, New Hampshire, a guy on the stage behind Clinton wore a T-shirt saying "Settle for Hillary." ... The other theory of the Clinton campaign is salvation at the hands of black and Hispanic voters. ... But the numbers from Iowa and New Hampshire suggest Clinton has lost a great deal of support from 2008. Gone are her "moderate" supporters— the Jacksonian Democrats of Kentucky and Pennsylvania who powered her to victories in Appalachia. Splitting minority voters with Sanders won't be enough for Clinton; she'll have to win them decisively.

February 13, 2016

"Parsing Hillary Clinton's Disingenuous Foreign Policy Record"

link; excerpt:

In their most recent debate in Wisconsin, ... Senator Sanders questioned Secretary Clinton's judgment in voting in support of a war with Iraq back in 2002, and furthered the issue of poor judgement by highlighting her support of policies promoting regime change in Libya and Syria since then, noting that such policies, while playing well to public sentiment, often have unintended consequences that prove to be far worse than the problem they ostensibly sought to resolve. ... A closer examination of the issues raised during the debate, in particular the decision to bomb Libya and remove the regime of President Muammar Gaddafi, the ongoing debacle unfolding inside Syria, and the recently concluded Iranian nuclear agreement, only underscore the reality that Senator Sanders, far from being weak on foreign policy matters, was right to question both the judgement of Hillary Clinton when it came to foreign policy and national security issues and her record as Secretary of State.

The decision by the Obama administration to intervene in Libya was both indefensible as policy and legally questionable in terms of international law. ... Even if one accepts the morally unsupportable notion that the ends justify the means, the rapid decline of Libya from a relatively stable nation state run by a repressive yet containable dictator (Gaddafi) to the chaotic morass of Islamist-infused anarchy that exists today makes even that contention moot -- there can be no doubt that Libya and the world was better off with Gaddafi in charge.

Senator Bernie Sanders is quite right to question the historic error of judgement on the part of both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama in using -- or abusing -- a United Nations mandate for the creation of a humanitarian "no fly" zone as cover for large-scale military intervention, void of express authority under international law, to achieve regime change in Libya.

Compounding this error is the decision that followed -- to capitalize upon the significant stocks of arms and munitions existing inside Libya in order to supply Islamist groups in Syria, intended to facilitate yet another round of regime change, this time targeting Syria's President Bashar al-Assad. ... Clinton ... representative in Libya, Ambassador Christopher Stevens (who tragically died in an attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi on September 11, 2012), was at the center of a massive arms smuggling operation that saw hundreds of millions of dollars worth of guns and ammunition shipped from Libya to Turkey and Qatar (both of these nations were, and are, key supporters and suppliers for the anti-Assad Islamist militants fighting in Syria). Stevens was personally involved in getting US Government approval of a $200 million contract to ship weapons and munitions from Libya to Qatar (which then flew the weapons into Turkey for further transshipment to Syria)... The notion that a US Ambassador would engage in such action without the express knowledge and permission of the Secretary of State is ludicrous. ... The larger issue of Hillary Clinton's addiction to "regime change" as a cornerstone of American foreign policy still looms. It manifests itself in the legally questionable covert policy to acquire weapons and ammunition in Libya and deliver them, through proxies, to Islamist militants in Syria. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has a clear record of advocating for "regime change" in Damascus, and in doing so has sold the American people a bill of goods regarding the true state of affairs in that nation. The role played by the United States in facilitating the rise of Muslim extremism inside Syria is a dark chapter in the history of American foreign policy, and while Hillary Clinton was not the originator of that policy, she inherited it and helped sustain and grow it, promoting the very violence that plagues that nation to this day.... When one incorporates into this already unseemly narrative the illicit gun-running scheme Hillary Clinton's State Department was facilitating out of Libya, the result was like pouring gasoline on a fire -- catastrophic. The fact that the former Secretary of State continues to support the creation of a no-fly zone over northern Syria that would serve to protect the last remaining strongholds of the Islamist militants her State Department helped create, train, and equip is indicative of the kind of alternate reality she and her supporters seem to live in -- one where the sins of Secretary Clinton's past (in Iraq, Libya and Syria) are forgotten amid a largely fabricated narrative that, while self-serving for Hillary Clinton, is a massive disservice to the American people and the millions of innocent civilians in the Middle East and elsewhere whose lives were turned upside down as a result. ... But the real issue is whether or not Americans should entrust someone who helped facilitate the rise of ISIS with a plan to counter that threat. Secretary Clinton played a vital role in the formulation and implementation of policies that, in the end, helped create, empower, and sustain ISIS. Bernie Sanders is right to point out the reality of unintended consequences, and to question whether or not Secretary Clinton is the right person for the job of fixing the very same problems she helped create. ... Hillary Clinton has likewise sought to spin the Iranian nuclear deal to her political advantage. According to her account, she initiated the engagement with Iran that, thanks to the pressure exerted by economic sanctions her State Department helped strengthen, drove Iran to the negotiating table, where the United States was able to "put a lid" on Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. ... It wasn't economic sanctions that drove Iran to the negotiating table, but rather the reality of 20,000 spinning centrifuges inside Iran that drove the United States to the negotiating table. And far from capping a non-existent nuclear weapons program, the Obama administration had to surrender to the reality that Iran got what it always wanted -- the ability to exercise its rights under the nonproliferation treaty to enrich uranium for peaceful nuclear energy.

The false narrative of an Iran bowing under the pressure of American-led economic sanctions might play well among a largely ignorant American electorate, but the fact is any future president, whether it be Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders or one of the Republican contenders, will have to deal with the reality that Iran has emerged from the nuclear negotiations with everything it wanted thanks in large part to an internally consistent policy that proved unyielding to the pressures of economic sanctions. Hillary Clinton's approach to telling the truth about her record as Secretary of State is every bit as disingenuous as her claims that millions of dollars of campaign contributions do not influence her policy formulations. During their debate in Wisconsin, Senator Sanders chastised the presumptuous Hillary Clinton, declaring that "you're not in the White House yet." Nor should she ever be, given what we know about her real record on foreign policy.

February 13, 2016

538: "Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton both have a 50% chance of winning the Nevada caucuses"

link.

February 13, 2016

CNN: "Clinton's 'me' versus Sanders' 'us'"

link; excerpt:

(CNN)Two speeches, two candidates and a markedly different focus when it comes to pronouns.... Clinton may be one of the most experienced presidential candidates in recent history, and yet a pitch based on that might be a drawback on a campaign. She used the pronouns "I" or "me" in that speech 44 times. She used the words "we" or "us" less than half that amount -- 21 times.

For Sanders, it was the exact opposite. Sanders used the words "I" or "me" 26 times. "We" or "us" was used more than twice as much -- 54 times.... Clinton's pitch to voters is all about her, they said. ... Sanders' experience is about them. What they all can do together.

"It's a big problem," says former Obama adviser David Axelrod. "When you make experience your message, by definition, you're going to be talking about yourself more than you're going to be talking about others. It's a great contrast with Bernie, who rarely talks about himself. So his message is about something larger.... winning campaigns and they have messages of empowerment -- they're inclusive," said Axelrod, a CNN contributor. "'Yes, we can' was a great example of that."... On Monday, New Hampshire voter Donna Manion told National Public Radio, "I can, in my mind, think I'm pro-Hillary all the way, and then Bernie Sanders' ideas that he exposes me to really cause me to think in ways I hadn't thought before. I think in terms of 'us' a lot when I listen to Bernie talk. Whereas, when I listen to Hillary, even though I respect so much of what she has done and the person that she is, I hear the word 'I,' 'I,' 'I' a lot."

Analyses of other speeches showed that Sanders did use "we" or "us" more than the first-person pronouns, while Clinton said "I" or "me" more than she used the more inclusive pronouns, though the ratio was less stark. The pattern did not repeat itself in debates or town halls, where the candidates had less control of their messages. We will be taking a more comprehensive look at these speeches in the future.

February 11, 2016

Tonight's Debate is Clinton's One-Question Test: Has She Figured Out What's Wrong with Her Campaign

This is a very important test. Failing this test casts further doubt on whether the Clinton campaign has the strength and foundation to win either the primary or general election (and it is definitely not enough to win just one of these two contests).

Clinton must be able to identify the defect is her campaign if she can correct her course, and a course correction is absolutely necessary because even if her super-delegate booster chair can help her squeak by the primary with a broken campaign, she cannot win the general election with a "good enough" campaign.

So what's wrong with the Clinton campaign? Hint: if Clinton cannot answer that question without using the names "Bernie" or "Sanders," then she's in big trouble.

Also, if she's cannot admit she has a problem, then the problem has grown beyond her ability to manage it, which is a fatal condition.

Here are the symptoms of the problem:

The Clinton campaign fumbled Iowa.

A year before the caucus, Clinton had a 54% lead in Iowa, and she had a 12% lead a month before the caucus and a 3% lead on the day of the caucus:



Clinton spent the most on advertising in Iowa's Democratic caucus by $2,000,000, and she had the most field offices and paid staff.

Still, Clinton performed under her polling despite her huge investment.

The Clinton campaign completely blew it in New Hampshire.

A year before the primary, Clinton had a 39% lead in New Hampshire, and she was only behind by 3% six weeks before the primary and was behind by 14% on the day of the primary:



Again, Clinton performed far under her polling when Sanders blew her out by 22%.

Clinton needs to diagnose her campaign's problem, and if she thinks the problem with her campaign is Sanders, she's not going to be able to correct her course. And if Clinton is having problems in the primary, where she has the DNC and the entire Democratic Party establishment pushing her and fighting to tip the scales against Sanders, then she won't have a prayer if she makes it to the general election where the tables will not be tilted in her favor.

February 10, 2016

Poor Jim Gilmore. Doing worse than ex-candidates Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum

February 9, 2016

Exit poll: "Far more New Hampshire voters see Sanders as honest and trustworthy than Clinton"

Great news for Sanders! Not so much for Clinton...