February 29, 2016

USA Today: "Why Bernie Sanders could win Oklahoma"

link; excerpt:

OKLAHOMA CITY — Oklahoma isn’t where you might normally expect to find Sen. Bernie Sanders spending his time.

It’s one of the reddest states in the nation and a leader in hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” which Sanders calls “a disaster for the planet.”... “On Tuesday, Oklahoma can play a very important role in moving this country forward to a political revolution. Let’s do it,” he told a crowd of more than 6,000.

It seems hard to believe that Oklahoma would even be close on the eve of the primary, but it would be nice for Sanders to get a "bonus" win tomorrow in the South. I'm more curious about Colorado, but I wouldn't say no to Oklahoma.

February 29, 2016

Why Trump and Sanders Were Inevitable-It was only a matter of time before we had a populist backlash

link; excerpt:

There were, in retrospect, clear signs of what was to come—signs that if Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders did not appear on the scene, someone else like them would have. We’ve had decades of forewarnings as the top income earners —the “one percent”—began taking bigger shares of our economy starting in the 1980s: The anti-globalization protests of the late 1990s. The rise of Ross “NAFTA-will-suck-our-jobs-away” Perot and Pat “Pitchforks” Buchanan against the GOP establishment. The brief but intense Occupy Wall Street movement. The adoration of Elizabeth Warren. The warnings from superstar economist Thomas Piketty in recent years that the United States was suffering the worst income inequality in the developed world, worse than anything since the 1920s—and that it was not sustainable.

Above all, there was the drip-drip-drip social acid of stagnating middle-class income... from Washington there was only the all-too-self-confident movement of both political parties toward a full-on embrace of policies that further promoted the brutally unequal society that America is today. First, the Republicans became ardent free traders, then the Democrats under Clinton, with Obama following suit. Even the Democrats—having become deficit-slashing “Eisenhower Republicans,” in Bill Clinton’s tart phrase—responded with mostly harsh trickle-down medicine: “Workfare.” Unfair tax policies, with capital-gains earners (read: plutocrats) getting most of the breaks. Rubinomics. Greenspan worship. And all the while we in the media listened—in hushed awe of their genius—to the economists who told us that of course there were inequities and a lot of people would be left behind, but globalization and ever-freer markets were still good for most of us, overall anyway, sort of, we think. … And besides, what’s the alternative?

The only wonder, perhaps, is that it took Trump and Sanders this long to get here.... The message that Sanders and Trump are bringing to the stump isn’t going away soon, not until the two parties acknowledge the deep flaws in the economic paradigm that got us to this place of inequality, but which neither the Democratic nor the Republican leadership have questioned deeply.... Trump emphasizes shutting down job-stealing immigrants and getting “better” deals from the world; Sanders, imprisoning wealth-gobbling, spoiled Wall Streeters and getting “fairer” deals from the world. Both candidates plainly appeal to people who feel that no one is really standing up for them and what used to be known as their middle class; people who want more of the pie than they’ve been getting for a long time, and people who realize that their political parties are at best half-hearted about doing anything about that.... According to the Federal Reserve, a broad group of Americans loosely defined as the middle class saw its net worth plummet from a median of $126,400 in 2007 to $77,300 in 2010. Thus we came out the other side of the Great Recession a very different economy altogether. “The recovered wealth—most of it from higher stock prices—has flowed mainly to richer Americans,” The Associated Press reported. According to Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez, the wealthiest 1 percent of the country actually made out better, in percentage terms, during Obama’s “recovery” than they did from 2002-07 under George W. Bush.

By 2012, according to Saez, the top 1 percent were earning 23 percent of the nation’s income, almost the same ratio as in 1929. ... The Democratic establishment from Obama to Hillary Clinton has been continually surprised by the anger and sense of betrayal within its progressive wing, which is why so few people took Sanders seriously at first (including the Clintons).... What is not debatable is that growing inequality is a major, society-shaking problem—one that, as Rodrik says, has actually made America less cohesive, and neither Democrats nor Republicans are doing much about it. Here too we’ve had years of warning: Real wages for most U.S. workers have been relatively stagnant since the 1970s, while those for the top 1 percent have increased 156 percent, and those for the top 0.1 percent have increased 362 percent, according to a report by the Economic Policy Institute. Thus, the Harvard Gazette reported earlier in February, the poorest 20 percent of Americans received just 3.6 percent of the national income in 2014, down from 5.7 percent in 1974. The upper 20 percent, meanwhile, received nearly half of U.S. income in 2014, up from about 40 percent in 1974, according to Census Bureau statistics.

February 29, 2016

Bernie Sanders’ Agenda Just Got a YUGE Shout Out at the Oscars (VIDEO)

https://twitter.com/THR/status/704122817273421824

Without even dropping names, Academy Awards screenwriter and director Adam McKay made a political statement that will certainly resonate with the country.

It was a subtle, but clear shot at front-runner establishment candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump and an endorsement of Bernie Sanders.

He simply said “if you don’t want big money to control government, don’t vote for candidates who take money from big banks, oil, or weirdo billionaires — stop.” McKay told the crowd. He made his comment while accepting the award for Best Adapted Screenplay for his work on The Big Short, which satirically covered the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis that sparked a global recession.

Hillary Clinton has been frequently criticized for taking campaign contributions from large corporations, while Sanders has differentiated himself from the former Secretary of State by raising his money through grassroots contributions. He has shattered records for individual contributions to a campaign.

In an interview with The Daily Beast, McKay talked about his ongoing support for Sanders: “I had donated to [Bernie’s] campaign and had talked about doing a fundraiser…when he announced.”... McKay, who is very popular for his positions on climate change, human rights, and economic issues, was also courted by Hillary in Los Angeles but declined her supporters’ invitation to endorse her.”

link

February 29, 2016

Democratic and Native American Leaders Give Support To Bernie Sanders

Source: Inquisitr

The most recent endorsements come from two well-respected and high-ranking officials from the Democratic party. Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich finally came out in full support of Sanders this week after revealing bit by bit his support for the Vermont senator’s policies. And on Sunday, Democratic National Committee vice-chair and Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard resigned her post and threw her support behind Sanders.
...
Most people who support Bernie Sanders are aware of his growing support in the Black community, but many still don’t know that he recently gained an endorsement from a major Native American activist. Winona LaDuke, an indigenous activist, environmentalist, and economist posted a video about why she decided to support Sanders.

“Our lands — as indigenous lands — are the place where most of the oil and gas, and a good portion of the uranium and coal comes from. The easiest answer for the future generations is to keep it in the ground. And we are thankful for Bernie Sanders for saying ‘Let’s keep it in the ground.’ Don’t make a mess we can’t clean up.”



Read more: http://www.inquisitr.com/2838899/democratic-and-native-american-leaders-give-support-to-bernie-sanders/

February 29, 2016

Thousands of supporters turn out for Sanders rally

Source: The Coloradoan



A line formed hours before the doors opened at 4 p.m., and Moby Arena's 8,745 seats were almost full by the time Sanders began speaking just after 7 p.m. — the only empty seats that remained were in the rafters.... Em Boyett, the first in line, arrived at Moby Arena at 7:30 a.m. Her friends joined her later. She is a sophomore at Colorado State University, and she said Sanders engages voters on issues other candidates don’t address.

“I just think he’s the best option for feminists...” Boyett said. “He’s trying to include people of color, trans people, queer people. He’s trying to put our issues in the front line. He’s trying to put this generation’s issues in the front line.”

Karen and Joe Warkentine, a couple from Greeley, said they are fans of many of Sanders' policies, including universal healthcare. Karen Warkentine laughed as she said they were among the only “oldies” waiting in the line.

“I’m choosing not to study history but to participate in it,” Joe Warkentine said.

Read more: http://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/2016/02/28/faces-crowds-line-up-bernie-sanders-csu/81074940/

February 28, 2016

"Voters Say Clinton Is Dishonest and Trump Is Stupid - Why Are They Leading the Race?"

link; excerpt:

Quick. What’s the first thing that springs to mind when you think of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?

According to a new national survey by Gallup of Americans in both parties, the most common responses are “Dishonest” or “liar” or “don’t trust her” or even “belongs in jail.” Ouch.

Clinton’s chief rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, fairs much better on the honesty and integrity front. ... The 2016 presidential campaign may go down as one of the most negative of modern times, with the Democratic frontrunner Clinton running under a black cloud of public suspicion and disdain for her mishandling of sensitive emails during her four years at the State Department and her response to the 2012 Benghazi, Libya, terrorist attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound, while the likely Republican nominee, Donald Trump, has blistered Democratic and Republican candidates alike with charges of lying, incompetence, low energy and even criminality.

Clinton has consistently drawn high negative ratings for her character and honesty since she formally launched her campaign for president last spring. Trump has engendered far more pessimism and negativity among voters across political and ideological lines, even as he continues to rack up impressive showings in the early primaries and caucuses... Americans’ list of negatives about Trump largely focused on the combative billionaire’s obnoxious personality – including generalized feelings that he is arrogant, offensive and rude, ill-tempered, hot-headed and “stupid and idiotic.”... In the case of Clinton, the former first lady and New York senator drew negative ratings from six in ten voters surveyed, with her highest-ever unfavorable rating of 59 percent while just 38 percent were favorable. (Among Democrats alone, not surprisingly, she does much better, with 72 percent favorable an only 26 percent unfavorable. But her negative ratings shoot up significantly among independents, with 65 percent of them saying they are highly critical of her candidacy.)... She has been dogged throughout the campaign by criticisms of her close ties to Wall Street, the tens of millions of dollars that she and her husband, former President Bill Clinton have accepted in speaking fees from special interest groups and universities, and her mishandling of secret documents on her personal email server during her four years as secretary of state.

Sanders, meanwhile, is considered more honest and caring about the needs of average Americans, and a “fresh face” in the national political arena despite his decades of service in the House and Senate.

February 28, 2016

Democrats Should Be Very Nervous About Their Terrible Turnout Numbers-Low turnout equals Pres. Trump

link; excerpt:

Party leaders long ago picked Clinton as their standard-bearer for 2016 and worked to clear the field of potential primary challengers. When Sanders began closing on Clinton in national polls and clobbered her in New Hampshire, the establishment bet was starting to look shaky. ... They should be very, very worried.

In primary after primary this cycle, Democratic voters just aren't showing up. Only 367,491 people cast a ballot for either Clinton or Sanders on Saturday. That's down 16 percent from the 436,219 people who came out in 2008 for Clinton and Obama. Factor in the 93,522 people who voted for John Edwards back in the day, and you can see the scope of the problem. Democrats in 2016 are only getting about two-thirds of the primary votes that they received eight years ago.

Republican turnout in the South Carolina primary, by contrast, was up more than 70 percent from 2008.

South Carolina's turnout numbers are not an anomaly. They're consistent with other primaries to date. Republicans are psyched. Democrats are demoralized.

Presidential elections increasingly hinge on each party's ability to turn out the faithful. There simply are not many truly independent voters who cast their ballots for different parties in different cycles. A big chunk of voters who identify as independents do so not because they cherish a moderate middle ground between two parties, but because they see their own party as insufficiently committed to its ideological principles. In this era, lousy primary turnout spells big trouble for the general election.

The poor Democratic turnout figures are not an indictment of Clinton alone. Maybe the DNC's decision to bury the party's debates on weekends and holidays helped Republicans generate more early enthusiasm with primetime coverage. ... It's always hard to motivate voters for four more years of the same old thing after getting eight years of it -- especially when many of those years were mired in an awful recession, followed by a weak economic recovery. Opposition parties typically have a better hand after eight years. That's why 12-year runs in the presidency by a single party don't happen very often.

If Republicans nominate Donald Trump for president -- and barring a cataclysm or a coup, they will -- ... lots of angry white people will show up to vote for Trump. We know because they're already doing so in the primaries. And a lot of Republican partisans who prefer other candidates still care more about turning the page on the Obama era than they do about Trump's flirtations with fascism (and even, at times, liberal critiques of GOP orthodoxy)... his economic pitch to the white working class holds obvious appeal in traditional Democratic strongholds in the upper Midwest -- communities that have been ravaged by the past three decades of U.S. economic policy. Even if Trump lost every other swing state in the country, turning the Rust Belt red would be enough for him to win the Electoral College... it's time to start worrying about President Trump.

Clinton cannot turn out the base despite all the king's horses and all the king's men.

Imagine if Sanders had the supposedly neutral DNC working for him and not conspiring against him?

Clinton has the establishment; Sanders has the grassroots. Only one of these forces is transferable in the general election.

February 28, 2016

Hillary has lost support 3 of the last 4 months...

If you focus on likely voter polls (drop the polls that survey all adults or all registered voters), the race is tied:

February 28, 2016

"The effect race could have on the race"

link; excerpt:

Racial divisions will shape the Democratic results Super Tuesday. The party’s Southern flank, weak in November but important now, tends to be dominated by African Americans ... In contrast, Clinton did poorly in New Hampshire (94 percent white) and barely earned a tie in Iowa (92 percent white). Generally speaking, the whiter the state, the better things tend to appear for Sanders.

These patterns may well dominate Super Tuesday results. In Texas, Alabama, Georgia and, to a lesser extent, Virginia, minority voters could well propel the former secretary of state ... as Massachusetts (80 percent white), Wyoming, North Dakota, Minnesota (85 percent white) and Sanders’ home state of Vermont (95 percent white) seem most likely to end up “feeling the Bern.”

Less clear-cut is Colorado, which is 80 percent white but with a growing, predominately Democratic Latino population. Clinton may be damaged by the fact that the state is only 3.8 percent African American, with a large millennial population that trends toward Sanders. The Vermont democratic socialist may also do well in other such heavily white states as Kansas and Nebraska, each with populist histories and which hold their caucuses March 5, and he can be expected to win in Maine on March 6.... Already among millennials, Latinos and African American youth – to the consternation of their own racial establishments – are breaking the old racial bounds by joining their white counterparts in supporting Sanders. ... Race may play a large role in the next few weeks of voting but, ultimately, other factors – income, age, geography – will be more determinative of the outcome in November.

February 27, 2016

Election Officials: Turnout 'Light' for Democratic Primary

Source: WLTX (CBS affiliate in South Carolina)

Columbia, SC (AP) - Election officials say the turnout for the South Carolina Democratic presidential primary is light so far.

South Carolina Election Commission spokesman Chris Whitmire says there have not been any reported problems with voting and that the commission usually hears if there have been long lines or other issues.

State Democratic leaders say that between 350,000 and 400,000 voters may go to the polls. Last week, a record 740,000 voters cast ballots in the six-way GOP primary in the state.

Read more: http://www.wltx.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/27/election-officials-turnout-light-democratic-primary/81042276/