Hillary Clinton is Done

[Trakar]

Marijuana And The Death Penalty: Sanders and Clinton

...While the Democrats could not actually debate, as this would violate Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s rules, they had a far more interesting disagreement on the issues. Marijuana barely came up at the Republican debate in Colorado, where recreational use has been legalized, but Bernie Sanders did make major news on the issue. He took a position quite different from the pro-drug war views of Hillary Clinton, and far more significant than Martin O’Malley’s position:

Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders announced his support Wednesday for removing marijuana from a list of the most dangerous drugs outlawed by the federal government — a move that would free states to legalize it without impediments from Washington…

“Too many Americans have seen their lives destroyed because they have criminal records as a result of marijuana use,” Sanders told a live audience of more than 1,700 students, which erupted with applause. “That’s wrong. That has got to change.”...

...Sanders and Clinton also disagreed on the death penalty this week:


Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) stood by his long-standing opposition to the death penalty on Thursday, calling for an end to the policy during a Senate speech on criminal justice.

“When we talk about criminal justice reform, I believe it is time for the United States of America to join almost every other Western, industrialized country on Earth in saying no to the death penalty,” Sanders said during his speech on the Senate floor. “We are all shocked and disgusted by some of the horrific murders that we see in this country, seemingly every week. And that is precisely why we should abolish the death penalty. At a time of rampant violence and murder, the state should not be part of that process.”

Sanders’ remarks come one day after former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is also running for president, came out against ending capital punishment, adding that she believes the use of the death penalty should be “very limited and rare.”...

http://themoderatevoice.com/210149/...tage-debate-than-the-republicans-in-colorado/

Policy choices, which ones are important, and which, not so much.

 

[Trakar]

Hillary Clinton’s Tweets About Prison Reforms Not Enough, Activists Say

Hillary Clinton is moving closer to the left on issues of criminal justice reform, but it may not be enough for activists in the Black Lives Matter movement who say they want more than rhetoric from the presidential candidate.

Clinton took to Twitter on Friday to post quotes from a speech she had given to kick off an “African Americans for Hillary” event at Clark Atlanta University, where she called for reforms including a end to private prisons “Protecting public safety…should never be outsourced or left to unaccountable corporations.” Clinton tweeted.

Racial justice advocates had criticized Clinton’s campaign after it had been accused of accepting contributions from private prison lobbyists. Aurielle Marie, a black activist and founder of the racial justice group #ItsBiggerThanYou, said activists raised the issue at a private meeting with Clinton earlier this month. Clinton’s campaign has agreed to stop accepting such contributions.

On Friday, stocks for Corrections Corporation of America and Geo Group, two of the largest private prison companies in the United States took a tumble.

Clinton’s announcement came one month after Bernie Sanders and other Democratic leaders in the House introduced a bill to ban private prisons all together...

“Rhetoric does not save my life. Rhetoric does not protect our children from being assaulted in the school system,” Marie said. “What we need from Hillary Clinton is a dedication to the issues that Black Lives Matter has brought to her feet.”...

Johnetta Elzie, an activist with the group Campaign Zero, said that many of the issues Clinton spoke about, including racial profiling and ending private prisons, had already been addressed by other candidates. On Friday, Elzie tweeted that Clinton’s “baby steps towards addressing racial justice in a real way aren’t working. She’s lagging behind her competition, Sanders.”...

A lot can happen between now and S. Carolina.

 

[Loss Leader]

Just a reminder: the most recent poll averages has Clinton at 49%, Sanders at 25%, and that was with 16% still supporting Biden.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep..._democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

Sanders is only barely ahead in New Hampshire and Biden has 12% yet to be redistributed.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ire_democratic_presidential_primary-3351.html

I wouldn't be surprised if Sanders took New Hampshire. He may even get the Iowa and Nevada caucuses. But that's as far as he gets.

March 1 will go overwhelmingly to Clinton and Sanders will declare that he's proven his point and quit shortly thereafter.

If I were advising Clinton, I'd tell her to skip NH entirely and work on the Southern states where, sadly, Sanders' religion will work against him. As a Jew, I'd like to think one of us could be President, but I don't really believe the flyover states would vote for us.

 

[Trakar]

I wouldn't be surprised if Sanders took New Hampshire. He may even get the Iowa and Nevada caucuses. But that's as far as he gets.

March 1 will go overwhelmingly to Clinton and Sanders will declare that he's proven his point and quit shortly thereafter.

If I were advising Clinton, I'd tell her to skip NH entirely and work on the Southern states where, sadly, Sanders' religion will work against him. As a Jew, I'd like to think one of us could be President, but I don't really believe the flyover states would vote for us.

That's the way a lot of Democratic party members felt in 2007 about a black candidate for president.

 

[kellyb]

I live in TN, in an overwhelmingly black city (which is home to COGIC), and our house rep is Jewish and wins by a landslide every election.

 

[SezMe]

I live in TN, in an overwhelmingly black city (which is home to COGIC), and our house rep is Jewish and wins by a landslide every election.

 

[KDLarsen]

I live in TN, in an overwhelmingly black city (which is home to COGIC), and our house rep is Jewish and wins by a landslide every election.

COGIC^WP

 

[Meadmaker]

I wouldn't be surprised if Sanders took New Hampshire. He may even get the Iowa and Nevada caucuses. But that's as far as he gets.

March 1 will go overwhelmingly to Clinton and Sanders will declare that he's proven his point and quit shortly thereafter.

If I were advising Clinton, I'd tell her to skip NH entirely and work on the Southern states where, sadly, Sanders' religion will work against him. As a Jew, I'd like to think one of us could be President, but I don't really believe the flyover states would vote for us.

One already won* the election for VP, so I don't think it's a big deal.


*The Gore-Liebermann ticket won the election. They lost the vote count due to butterfly ballots, caterpillar ballots, and hanging chads. They got more votes than the other guys, and if everyone who intended to vote for Gore had actually managed to read the instructions on the ballot, they would have had more electoral votes, and a Jew would have been VP.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Now that Hillary's breaking the 50% barrier in the polls again, where are all the poll worshippers? She was over 60% in a completely uncontested race and dropped into the 40s and that was supposed to be the grim reaper we heard getting closer. She's up 8/10% in about six weeks and now topping 50%.

Need more smarmy innuendos!

 

[Loss Leader]

One already won* the election for VP, so I don't think it's a big deal.

I'd love to believe you're right. There's a big difference between the Presidential nominee and the running mate. I just get this feeling that Larry David's "old, cranky, New York Jew" probably will be the image most people have in their mind on primary day.

It hardly matters. Sanders will be out of money after Super Tuesday.

 

[Trakar]

Now that Hillary's breaking the 50% barrier in the polls again, where are all the poll worshippers? She was over 60% in a completely uncontested race and dropped into the 40s and that was supposed to be the grim reaper we heard getting closer. She's up 8/10% in about six weeks and now topping 50%.

Need more smarmy innuendos!

Polls are a good indication of how people feel with what they know and believe at the minute they are polled. The first primaries are a long way off, still Hillary goes up and down. So far Sanders' trend has been (with only minor variation) upward. If Clinton can keep up the momentum of the last 2 weeks for 3 months, she'll likely get the Democratic nod (regardless of what that means for the country as a whole). If she stays true to her form, however, only time can tell us what we want to know.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

In Hillary's case, it's been more that she's establishment among the limited candidate pool and in contrast to the Republican side of things there's fewer people to distribute votes between and the polls numbers generally reflect name recognition among other things more strongly. If there were a more significant candidate selection it Sander's current standing might could have put him closer to the lead, but I don't see many events in which her candidacy absolutely crashes barring an upset

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Polls are a good indication of how people feel with what they know and believe at the minute they are polled. The first primaries are a long way off, still Hillary goes up and down. So far Sanders' trend has been (with only minor variation) upward. If Clinton can keep up the momentum of the last 2 weeks for 3 months, she'll likely get the Democratic nod (regardless of what that means for the country as a whole). If she stays true to her form, however, only time can tell us what we want to know.

Your confirmation bias is doing contortions.

 

[Trakar]

In Hillary's case, it's been more that she's establishment among the limited candidate pool and in contrast to the Republican side of things there's fewer people to distribute votes between and the polls numbers generally reflect name recognition among other things more strongly. If there were a more significant candidate selection it Sander's current standing might could have put him closer to the lead, but I don't see many events in which her candidacy absolutely crashes barring an upset

I agree with everything you say, though I suspect that we regard the term "establishment" with some differences of consideration. Ultimately, it will be up to the hoi polloi.

 

[The Big Dog]

Your confirmation bias is doing contortions.

When Hillary's numbers were plummeting, you told us early polls didn't matter...

 

[Loss Leader]

So far Sanders' trend has been (with only minor variation) upward.

Sanders has trended upward as he gained name recognition. At some point, that source will be completely tapped out. Then he'll be carried a few points by Millennials who plan to vote and really, really mean it this time. Once those sources are gone, he doesn't have many routes to the top.

When Hillary's numbers were plummeting, you told us early polls didn't matter...

Plummeting?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Plummeting?

Proving precisely the reason point data early in an election is unreliable for predicting outcomes vs comparing trends in polls.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Polls are a good indication of how people feel with what they know and believe at the minute they are polled. The first primaries are a long way off, still Hillary goes up and down. So far Sanders' trend has been (with only minor variation) upward. If Clinton can keep up the momentum of the last 2 weeks for 3 months, she'll likely get the Democratic nod (regardless of what that means for the country as a whole). If she stays true to her form, however, only time can tell us what we want to know.

Yet, two days ago you were citing an article about how well Bernie tracked in the polls in the GE, compared to Hillary. I've been watching the long-line trend and reporting on it. I'm looking at the numbers as a snapshot; I'm just curious where the "Done!" crowd is as they were delighted to report the 50% drop in Virginia (pre-announcement to heat-of-phony-scandal) as some big indication. As they were jumping all over the "around 40%" level. Those snapshots were indications that "She's Done!", these last few are "just snapshots"?

Let's be consistent.

And Bernie's only trended upwards? Are you sure? Seems he was at 27.7% on the national scale back at the end of September, went down by several points and is still not that high, yet.

 

[Trakar]

Proving precisely the reason point data early in an election is unreliable for predicting outcomes vs comparing trends in polls.

And it is still early.

We'll see how it looks in Jan.

Lots of opportunities for people to get fully acquainted with the candidates between now and then, If the people are there, things can happen, if they aren't ready, they/we don't deserve it.

 

[Meadmaker]

I think hardly anyone has payed any attention to the candidates so far, and so polls mean pretty close to nothing at this point. The people being polled are just reacting to things they heard on the news, but haven't really been paying attention.

As the primaries and caucuses get near, people actually start thinking about their vote, and then things start to matter.

Of course, having good numbers is still better than bad, even at this stage