Post #407,990
2/10/16 1:04:51 PM
2/10/16 1:04:51 PM
|
I think it's probably an exposure thing
South Carolina will be the proof one way or the other.
How'd you like last night's results? Bernie outperformed his polling by 9 points, which is amazing.
Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
|
Post #407,992
2/10/16 2:00:23 PM
2/10/16 2:00:23 PM
|
That's what you call a whoopin' :0)
I actually feel a little guilty for not being able to feel sorry for Hillary. That's probably some latent residue of my old Southern upbringing (not being unkind to a lady and so forth). But I swear, she (and increasingly her husband) make almost impossible for me to have any sympathy for them. I mean, the absolute pass she gets from the media is reminiscent of Reagan's Reign of Error that, too, went unchecked by major media. Here's a classic example: Hillary is veering from the truth when she suggests her $225,000 per speech fee, paid three times by Goldman Sachs, was "what they offered."
It was not what they offered -- it was what Team Hillary demanded.
A review of her 2014 tax return posted on her website shows that $225,000 was her minimum fee.
She received $225,000 for 34 of the 41 speeches listed on her tax return. Of the remaining 7 speeches, two were for 250,000 and the others for $265,000, $275,000, $285,000, $305,000 and $400,000. In total she received $9,680,000 for these speaking engagements in 2013.
Wall Street firms funded 14 of her 41 talks. In addition to Goldman Sachs, the list includes Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Fidelity Investments UBS and Bank of America. Her benefactors also include hedge funds and private equity firms like Apollo Management and Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/les-leopold/hillary-not-truthful-abou_b_9185412.htmlI heard Bernstein saying that she had to release the transcripts of those speeches and do it quickly because if she stonewalled, whether or not there's anything incriminating in them, people will begin to view those speeches as analogous to Nixon's tapes. She and her husband have always been Wall Street Shills (how many Progressives can you name who sat on the board of directors at Walmart?) but sheesh, man, she is really coming off as dishonest. As big a Bernie supporter as I am, I'm not certain how much he won NH and how many voted for him as a no-confidence vote for Hillary.
|
Post #407,993
2/10/16 2:18:15 PM
2/10/16 2:18:15 PM
|
actually no, in delegates won it was a tie
she had 6 superdelegates locked up going in
always look out for number one and don't step in number two
|
Post #407,997
2/10/16 3:39:31 PM
2/10/16 3:39:31 PM
|
SC and NV should be interesting.
It would have been surprising if Bernie hadn't done well in NH. AFAIK, the margin was about what was expected (especially considering most D voters made up their minds a month ago according to some exit polls), but as Box says, she's still way, way ahead in delegates (and that's what matters). She and her team learned how to count after 2008. ;-)
HRC locked up lots of minority endorsements early. But people can change their minds...
I still expect her to win the nomination relatively easily, and I expect that these bumps in the road will force her to be better at getting her message out, and force her to lock up her troglodyte old lady supporters...
We'll see.
Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #407,999
2/10/16 3:44:52 PM
2/10/16 3:44:52 PM
|
It's the content of her character that's her trouble.
Briefly, it's "I'm with Goldwaterman!" ;0)
|
Post #408,002
2/10/16 4:09:39 PM
2/10/16 4:09:39 PM
|
Ancient, really ancient history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton#Wellesley_College_yearsIn her junior year, Rodham became a supporter of the antiwar presidential nomination campaign of Democrat Eugene McCarthy.[26] In early 1968, she was elected president of the Wellesley College Government Association and served through early 1969.[24][27] Following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., Rodham organized a two-day student strike and worked with Wellesley's black students to recruit more black students and faculty.[26] In her student government role, she played a role in keeping Wellesley from being embroiled in the student disruptions common to other colleges.[24][28] A number of her fellow students thought she might some day become the first female President of the United States.[24]
To help her better understand her changing political views, Professor Alan Schechter assigned Rodham to intern at the House Republican Conference, and she attended the "Wellesley in Washington" summer program.[26] Rodham was invited by moderate New York Republican Representative Charles Goodell to help Governor Nelson Rockefeller's late-entry campaign for the Republican nomination.[26] Rodham attended the 1968 Republican National Convention in Miami. However, she was upset by the way Richard Nixon's campaign portrayed Rockefeller and by what she perceived as the convention's "veiled" racist messages, and left the Republican Party for good.[26] Rodham wrote her senior thesis, a critique of the tactics of radical community organizer Saul Alinsky, under Professor Schechter.[29] (Years later, while she was First Lady, access to her thesis was restricted at the request of the White House and it became the subject of some speculation.[29])
In 1969, she graduated with a Bachelor of Arts,[30] with departmental honors in political science.[29] Following pressure from some fellow students,[31] she became the first student in Wellesley College history to deliver its commencement address.[27] Her speech received a standing ovation lasting seven minutes.[24][32][33] She was featured in an article published in Life magazine,[34] due to the response to a part of her speech that criticized Senator Brooke, who had spoken before her at the commencement.[31] She also appeared on Irv Kupcinet's nationally syndicated television talk show as well as in Illinois and New England newspapers.[35] That summer, she worked her way across Alaska, washing dishes in Mount McKinley National Park and sliming salmon in a fish processing cannery in Valdez (which fired her and shut down overnight when she complained about unhealthful conditions).[36] Given the attacks she's suffered for decades, it's surprising that she doesn't poll lower than she does... FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #408,003
2/10/16 4:26:51 PM
2/10/16 4:26:51 PM
|
So, when she was more "idealistic" she was more right wing?
The point stands. Bernie's *always* been on the side of the angels. Can you say that about her? Heck, even Biden said that the "poor" were a new thing for her.
|
Post #408,007
2/10/16 5:13:44 PM
2/10/16 5:13:44 PM
|
People don't pick their parents. She ended up on the right side.
Bernie and HRC are both good candidates who both have a lot of baggage. Neither one will be able to do much on their own - they need coat-tails.
Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #408,014
2/11/16 2:15:14 AM
2/11/16 2:15:14 AM
|
You said the magic word..
Coat-tails. An LP by Melvin Van Peebles &, of course, several by Gil Scott Heron, contemporaneous to early Last Poets LP's, open this range of poetry. I vividly recall Gwendolyn Brooks insisting that we pay close attention to Van Peeble's poem/LP cut "Lily Do the Zampougi Every Time I Pull Her Coattails." I can come up with the LP title if you're in need of this detail. Is there a CD or LP of Haki Mahadbuti/Don Lee reading work from the "Don't Cry, Scream" era? JL As saved for posterity here. Somehow this rendition (which I recall from way-back) must have some cosmic connection to the huge Elephant-in-the-Room that is the Murican daily fantasy: that ours is a democracy ... and if we'll all just 'vote' ... ... why, the entire hegemony will just Obey. The. Public. Will.(Cheney will simply sign-over all his military investment proceeds from the WMD confabulation; the other multibillionaires will thereafter do likewise. Because they all be honorable men.) And there are Unicorns.
|
Post #408,000
2/10/16 3:50:15 PM
2/10/16 3:50:15 PM
|
NV comes first due to a quirk of Democrat scheduling
I was a little off in my memory: Sanders outperformed by 5.5%. He was expected to get 54.5% of the vote.
Sanders mainly has an exposure problem. Winning NH by a blowout and tying in Iowa is fixing that.
Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
|
Post #408,001
2/10/16 4:06:37 PM
2/10/16 4:06:37 PM
|
538 says he was expected to win by 17%
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-needs-more-than-the-tie-he-got-in-iowa/ from February 2: But neither Clinton nor Sanders did so well as to make me think either candidate will gain momentum heading into the New Hampshire primary next week. Sanders is likely to win in the Granite State — he has either an 89 percent chance or a 96 percent chance of winning there, depending on whether you look at FiveThirtyEight’s polls-plus forecast or polls-only forecast. Still, the results in Iowa suggest that polls in New Hampshire may tighten. That’s because the states look similar demographically. Even taking into account that Sanders lives next door in Vermont, Clinton probably shouldn’t be behind by 17 percentage points in the New Hampshire polling average right now.
Assuming Sanders holds on to win in New Hampshire, would that be bad news for Clinton? Although I’m not sure that anyone wants to lose a primary, how she frames a loss in New Hampshire will matter a lot. If she is seen as doing better than expected, she could get a bump (something she is now unlikely to get coming out of Iowa). If, however, Sanders gets good press, he may improve his chances despite the demographic challenges facing him in other states.
We’ve said for months that Iowa and New Hampshire are two of the best states for Sanders demographically. You can see why in the entrance poll taken in Iowa. Sanders won very liberal voters over Clinton by 19 percentage points, but he lost self-identified somewhat liberals and moderates to Clinton by 6 percentage points and 23 percentage points, respectively. That’s bad for Sanders because even though 68 percent of Iowa Democratic caucus-goers identified as liberal this year, only 47 percent of Democratic primary voters nationwide did so in 2008. We’ll need to see if Sanders can do better in a state that is more moderate than Iowa before thinking he can win the nomination. AFAICS, that analysis is still holding. :-) Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #408,004
2/10/16 4:32:42 PM
2/10/16 4:32:42 PM
|
Things have changed *a lot* since 2008.
|
Post #408,005
2/10/16 5:03:56 PM
2/10/16 5:03:56 PM
|
And he won by 22.5%
Which is what I said, no? He outperformed the polls by 5.5%. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/09/us/elections/new-hampshire-democrat-poll.htmlStill, the results in Iowa suggest that polls in New Hampshire may tighten. That’s because the states look similar demographically. Even taking into account that Sanders lives next door in Vermont, Clinton probably shouldn’t be behind by 17 percentage points in the New Hampshire polling average right now. See above. They didn't tighten, Sanders outperformed. Sanders won very liberal voters over Clinton by 19 percentage points, but he lost self-identified somewhat liberals and moderates to Clinton by 6 percentage points and 23 percentage points, respectively. That’s bad for Sanders because even though 68 percent of Iowa Democratic caucus-goers identified as liberal this year, only 47 percent of Democratic primary voters nationwide did so in 2008. Sanders won every demographic group in NH except > 65 and > $200K/yr. He also won every category of very liberal, somewhat liberal, and moderate by at least 14 points, 20 points in the case of moderate voters. I'm sure it's my fault (eh, Peter? ;-), but I'm not quite sure what you're trying to point out here. I don't think that analysis was very accurate. :-)
Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
|
Post #408,006
2/10/16 5:12:24 PM
2/10/16 5:12:24 PM
|
Ok. I misread or mis-remembered some things. Too much multitasking. :-) Sorry.
|