March 10, 2016

As Rubio Falters, Will Neocons Bolt to Clinton?

link; excerpt:

That this is even a possibility strikes some as newsworthy. It shouldn’t. Hillary Clinton agrees with the neoconservatives on a number of foreign policy issues and, as Michael Lind points out, a lot else. Neocons were never fully onboard with the fiscal conservatism of traditional conservatives and libertarians, and they merely tolerated the social conservatism of the Religious Right, chiefly because that movement provided the necessary foot soldiers to help elect their preferred candidates.

The real mystery isn’t why the neocons would return to the Democratic Party if the GOP were to nominate a skeptic of foreign intervention. Given the profound tensions on the right between the statist neoconservatives, and the small-government movement conservatives, the wonder is that they stayed in the GOP so long.

If the neoconservatives do bolt the GOP, a new conservative foreign policy might congeal around prudence, self-reliance and restraint. And if the neocons seek to fasten themselves once again to the GOP in four or eight years, after having helped elevate Hillary Clinton to the presidency, no one should be surprised if Republicans aren’t anxious to let them back in.

March 10, 2016

The debate results: 1st Bernie Sanders; 2nd Jill Stein; 3rd Ted Cruz; distant 4th Hillary Clinton

Hillary LOST votes tonight.

March 9, 2016

"Hillary Clinton holding narrowing lead over Bernie Sanders in Ohio, new poll finds"

Link; excerpt:

CLEVELAND, Ohio — With the Ohio primary less than a week away, ... A Quinnipiac University poll, released Wednesday, of likely Ohio voters found Clinton led Sanders 52 percent percent to 43 percent. The university's last poll, released Feb. 23, had shown Clinton with a 55 percent to 40 percent lead, and with the exception of a Feb. 24 Baldwin Wallace survey showing the race as a virtual tie, polling in Ohio generally has shown Clinton leading by double digits.
...
It's worth noting that Sanders on Tuesday night narrowly won the Democratic primary in neighboring Michigan, even though polling there consistently had shown Clinton with a double-digit lead. Some political observers have asked whether this raises questions about the accuracy of polls in other Midwestern states with open primaries, including Ohio and Illinois, which along with Florida, are among the states that will hold elections on March 15.

Here is a link and graph for the February 24 Baldwin Wallace poll mentioned in today's article, above (in light of the polling discrepancies in Michigan, the Baldwin Wallace poll is likely more accurate):

March 9, 2016

Hillary Clinton holding narrowing lead over Bernie Sanders in Ohio, new poll finds

Source: Cleveland Plain Dealer

CLEVELAND, Ohio — With the Ohio primary less than a week away, ... A Quinnipiac University poll, released Wednesday, of likely Ohio voters found Clinton led Sanders 52 percent percent to 43 percent. The university's last poll, released Feb. 23, had shown Clinton with a 55 percent to 40 percent lead, and with the exception of a Feb. 24 Baldwin Wallace survey showing the race as a virtual tie, polling in Ohio generally has shown Clinton leading by double digits.
...
It's worth noting that Sanders on Tuesday night narrowly won the Democratic primary in neighboring Michigan, even though polling there consistently had shown Clinton with a double-digit lead. Some political observers have asked whether this raises questions about the accuracy of polls in other Midwestern states with open primaries, including Ohio and Illinois, which along with Florida, are among the states that will hold elections on March 15.


Read more: http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2016/03/hillary_clinton_holding_narrow.html

---

Here is a link and graph for the earlier Baldwin Wallace poll mentioned in today's article, above:



I'd include a graphic from today's 52% to 43% poll, but the article does not have one.

March 9, 2016

As a Sanders supporter who thinks Clinton is the favorite and who will vote for the nominee, please

get your campaign on course!

Hillary is the favorite. Her path to the nomination is clear, and yet she seems unwilling to pilot that course.

Please, for the sake of the party, just consider this:

1. Address your greatest weakness - the widespread perception of untrustworthiness. When you withhold the transcripts from paid speeches to Wall Street, it makes it look like you are hiding something. Have you not learned anything from the phony email-"scandal" manufactured by the Republicans? The drip-drip-drip of trying to hide it is worse than whatever you are wanting to hide. Eventually, the drip-drip-drip will get so bad that you will HAVE to disclose the transcripts (either now in the primary or in the general election) or WORSE YET they will be leaked while you are still hiding them. Get out in front of this issue! Pull the band-aid off now during the primary. Similarly, stop making factually disputable attacks on Sanders (like the auto bailout bullshit). If you cannot beat Sanders honestly, you aren't going to win in November even if you win dirty in the primary. This sort strategy is beneath a front-runner and it feeds the pre-conception that you aren't very honest. Stop it (for your own sake).

2. Repair your second greatest weakness - the low favorability among independents. People like it when someone acknowledges another person's success and when someone shares the credit, especially when they give the compliment or share the credit with someone unexpectedly. Start complementing people more. Rubio is a dead man walking. Find something nice to say about him and his campaign. Build bridges with O'Malley and Chafee and Webb. Pick something they did that was a highlight for them, and toss them a gratuitous "attaboy" the next time you're on Meet the Press. Give Sanders credit for a couple of your flip flops. If you pretend that you haven't changed your opinions, you look dishonest and insecure to independent voters and your changes in position are easily percieved as flip flops. On the other hand, if you say "I got to thinking about Bernie's position on fracking (or whatever flip flop you want to justify) and I started to come around to the view that he's making a pretty good point." Independent voters love a candidate who is persuadable to reconsidering a poorly considered position, but they don't like a flip flopper. The only difference between those two is the confidence and humility of person who admits to being persuaded by an opponent.

3. Bridge the enthusiasm gap - fire up your supporters by embracing who you are - You are campaigning like a basketball team trying to hold on to a lead during the final ten minutes of the game. It seems like a safe tactic, but it's not actually all that good of a strategy, and -- for good or for bad -- it's hellaboring for the fans to watch that run-out-the-clock bullshit. Pick some interesting issues that speak to you and get out there on those issues. When picking these issues, ask your focus group guys for 10 suggestions and then cross them off the list. When you repeat over and over that you have been a life long advocate for children, that's just eye-roll inducing. Of course you support children. Everyone fucking supports children. You may as well come out in favor of puppies and Tom Hanks movies. The only thing this tells us about you is that you are overly focus grouped. Pick some issue (like guns, but an issue where you are to the right of Sanders) and just engage that debate. Pick something that affects everyday Americans which you are passionate about and where you have a genuine disagreement with Sanders and where the fight will position you well for the general election, and then make that a fight. If you picked some domestic policy issue where you disagree with Sanders and you showed some passion -- maybe enough passion that one of your endorsers said "I agree with Sanders about this and break with Hillary over this issue" -- you would generate much enthusiasm and get more credit as a result of taking a stand for what you believe in than it would cost you in losing one or two (of your 1,000) endorsements.

This race is yours to lose, and it seems to me that you are doing your damnedest to lose it.

March 9, 2016

Sanders is right on target! Don't buy into the "Hillary's Winning by Losing" Fable

The argument that Hillary is winning even when she is losing is nonsense.

The primary calendar has been front-loaded to maximize Hillary's chance to win the nomination, and Sanders has survived this political death row.

Next week is the end of Hillary's advantage, and it looks like she would win the Presidency of the Confederacy by a landslide but Sanders is winning the Presidency of the Rest of Us where Sanders has won 9 out of 12 states:





Beginning on March 21 and running through April 9, the primary calendar turns toward the contests where the Democrats and Democrat-voting independents are much more receptive to Sanders' progressive message:

March 21: Democrats Abroad

March 22: Arizona, Idaho, Utah

March 26: Alaska, Hawaii, Washington

April 5: Wisconsin

April 9: Wyoming

Sanders will win most or all of these contests and could quite probably go 9 for 9 if we can get out the vote in Arizona!

This section of the primary calendar will add to the wins Sanders has already banked:

New Hampshire - Sanders won by a wide 22.4% margin

Colorado - Sanders won by a wide 18.5% margin

Minnesota - Sanders won by a wide 23.2% margin

Oklahoma - Sanders won by a wide 10.4% margin

Vermont - Sanders won by a wide 72.5% margin

Kansas - Sanders won by a wide 35.4% margin

Nebraska - Sanders won by a wide 14.2% margin

Maine - Sanders won by a wide 28.8% margin

Michigan - Sanders won by a 2% margin

Sanders has not only won, but when we win, he has set turnout records in Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska (which had a huge turnout despite switching from a primary in 2008 to a caucus in 2016), Maine, and Michigan.

Now that Hillary's run of states is coming to a close and the worm is turning on March 21, Sanders will make up lost ground from March 21 through April 9. Beginning on April 10, we enter the stretch of states which will decide the race (including New York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Indiana, West Virginia, Oregon, California, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, etc.). We are already ahead in many of these states and the others are in reach when you consider that Sanders will be building YUGE momentum from the contests from March 21 through April 9!

Keep donating! Keep phone banking! Keep winning!

March 9, 2016

Hillary's a regional candidate who appeals to the Evangelical South. Sanders wins everywhere else!

Hillary is winning in the Evangelical South states. These 13 states compose one of the most anti-Progressive regions in the US (the Evangelical South is the region that is least supportive of reproductive health liberties, collective bargaining rights, GLBT equality, etc.). Hillary has so far put together a clean sweep of these states because the Clintons rose to power in the Evangelical South, which is ideologically inclined against the Progressive message of Sanders.

BUT SANDERS HAS WON 9 OUT OF 12 STATES IN THE REST OF AMERICA!

Even if Hillary is preferred in the 13 Evangelical South states, Hillary is weaker than dishwater outside of the Evangelical South. What evidence is there that Hillary has the sort of appeal beyond the Evangelical South that gives her any hope of winning a general election?

This is a problem we need to discuss before we consider her as a nominee.

Look at the data behind Sanders' 9 generally big wins versus Clinton's 3 narrow wins outside the Evangelical South:

Iowa - Clinton won by 0.3% in a dirty, close race (closest in Iowa's history)

New Hampshire - Sanders won by a wide 22.4% margin

Nevada - Clinton won by 5.3% in a narrower win than her win over Obama in 2008

Colorado - Sanders won by a wide 18.5% margin

Massachusetts - Clinton won dirty by a very narrow 1.4% margin

Minnesota - Sanders won by a wide 23.2% margin

Oklahoma - Sanders won by a wide 10.4% margin

Vermont - Sanders won by a wide 72.5% margin

Kansas - Sanders won by a wide 35.4% margin

Nebraska - Sanders won by a wide 14.2% margin

Maine - Sanders won by a wide 28.8% margin

Michigan - Sanders won by a narrow 2% margin

In a year when the Republican race is setting turnout records, all of Hillary's wins have come in states where Democratic turnout is way down.

In contrast, Sanders has won setting turnout records in Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska (which had a huge turnout despite switching from a primary in 2008 to a caucus in 2016), Maine, and Michigan.

How many states does Hillary have to lose outside of the Evangelical South and how many races she can win with anemic turnout before we can have an adult discussion about the implications of these results for her electability prospects?

March 9, 2016

How many robo-call polls have to miss the mark by a mile before people stop posting them?

The Mitchell Research poll said Clinton would win Michigan by 37% (66% to 29%) - it was a robo-call poll.

The Target-Insyght poll said Clinton would win Michigan by 32% (62% to 30%) - it was a robo-call poll.

If you graph these robo-call polls, you would think this is how the race would play out:



If you believed the robo-call polls, here is what you would have expected in Iowa:



and New Hampshire:



and Nevada:



and Oklahoma:



and Massachusetts:



These robo-call polls are horribly inaccurate (and they always seem to err in favor of Clinton).

The Hillary crowd is going to continue to post robo-call polls. Just remember how inaccurate they have been in Hillary's favor and don't give those polls any attention.

Likewise, when you see the Hillary crowd blathering about Nate Silver's forecasts, remember that 358 is basing its forecasts on robo-call polls mixed in with the other polling so they have this bias built into the forecast model. Remember, Silver's 538 gave Hillary a 99% chance of winning Michigan. Garbage in, garbage out.

March 9, 2016

Exit poll: "In Michigan, only about six in 10 today say she’s honest and trustworthy"

This may be bad news for Hillary tonight, but -- win, lose, or draw tonight -- this is a problem that she needs to fix if she is going to hold herself out as a viable general election candidate. link:

Emerging Themes ... turnout among Democrats in Michigan down (and turnout among independents up) from 2008.
...
Honest and Trustworthy

Clinton continues to have some problems with perceptions of her honesty. In Michigan, only about six in 10 today say she’s honest and trustworthy, vs. eight in 10 who say so about Sanders.

...
Voter Turnout

Turnout among liberals is up from 2008 in Mississippi and Michigan – and could end up as highs in both states.
...
Roughly four in 10 voters in Michigan say electability or experience are most important to their vote, a group among which Clinton’s dominated in the past. But six in 10 say honesty or empathy are most important, voters who’ve been more likely to support Sanders (especially “honesty” voters) to date. In Mississippi, honesty/empathy was closer in importance to electability/experience.

Seven in 10 Democratic primary voters in Michigan would be satisfied with Sanders as the nominee, as would two-thirds with Clinton.

March 8, 2016

Sanders does better than Clinton in Michigan head-to-head polling against Cruz and Trump. Does this

bode well for Sanders tonight?








This Michigan polling mirrors the national polling showing that Sanders is a much stronger general election nominee: