HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » pnwmom » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 74 75 76 77 78 79

pnwmom

Profile Information

Member since: Mon Jan 30, 2006, 06:07 PM
Number of posts: 81,588

Journal Archives

Post debate, Sanders net-favorability with black people dropped; Clinton's substantially increased.

Clinton is also doing better with self-identified liberals.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/11/11/hillary-clintons-favorable-rating-soars-bernie-sanders-is-stagnant

The front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination has seen her net favorable rating jump 14 points among Democrats and those who lean to the left since the first Democratic debate in October, while her top competitor – Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont – has seen his own rating stay fairly stagnant, according to Gallup polling released this week. Both candidates, along with former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, will take the stage again Saturday in Iowa for the second official debate of the Democratic primary.

SNIP

According to Gallup, Clinton now has a 63 percent net favorable rating among those on the left, up from 49 percent just before the debate. Her current tally is her highest since Gallup began tracking views of the candidates in July.

SNIP

Clinton has a nearly 90 percent net favorable rating among non-Hispanic blacks, according to Gallup, compared with Sanders' meager rating of 21 percent. That gap has gotten even worse since before the last debate, when the difference was a lower – but still substantial – 55 percentage points.


SNIP

Still, the Gallup polling showed Clinton is even more well-liked among liberals than Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, with Clinton holding an 11-point lead in favorability among the sector.

Beware of "Hillary not electable" pieces written by supporters of Rand Paul and other Rethugs,

like H. A. Goodman.

H. A. Goodman is a Rand Paul supporter who poses as a "liberal Democrat." And he says that if you're worried about Rand Paul's economic policies, you shouldn't, because Congress can rein him in.

Yeah, right.

Paul, who considers himself a tea party member, opposes abortion, opposes Federal LGBT rights (because he didn’t “believe in rights based on your behavior”), voted against the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, opposes all gun control legislation, thinks vaccines should be voluntary, opposes the ACA, opposes campaign finance reform. Among other things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Rand_Paul



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/im-a-liberal-democrat-im_b_6169542.html

Rand Paul is my candidate in 2016, even though the Tea Party would consider me Joseph Stalin's love child. I'm for immigration reform and believe that illegal immigrants benefit this country. I've written many articles criticizing Tea Party paranoia. I'm against demagoguery from people like Paul Ryan who unfairly target inner city citizens and I'm for the federal legalization of gay marriage and marijuana. I think Ted Cruz is a buffoon and that we should listen to Stephen Hawking over Senator "Green Eggs and Ham" on climate change. Finally, I've also written two novels about the evils of religious fundamentalism and political demagoguery.

On all these possible points of contention with Rand Paul, the reality is that he isn't Ted Cruz or Lou Dobbs on these matters. Sen. Paul is a self-described "moderate" on immigration, much to the dismay of Tea Party Republicans. Paul's recent Bill Maher interview shows he's open to cleaner energy alternatives. Most importantly, Paul doesn't abide by the right-wing rhetoric blaming poor people for their predicament, or claiming God wants people to do this or that. Congress at the end of the day has the power of the purse, so if President Rand Paul scares you on economic matters, simply remember that only Congress can repeal or alter government programs and decide on budgets.

Meet the gay couple who were first ever to be featured in a Presidential campaign ad.

Except for the lesbian couple who were featured in the same ad of Hillary's.

http://www.out.com/popnography/2015/4/13/meet-gay-couple-hillary-campaign-video

On Sunday, Hillary Rodham Clinton announced her candidacy for president in 2016 via a 2-plus minute video that featured a montage of middle-class Americans, including a same-sex couple holding hands with a voiceover about getting married this summer as a centerpiece — what one Times reporter wrote "would have been unimaginable even in the President Obama re-elect in 2012."

That gay Chicago couple, Jared Milrad (31) and Nathan Johnson (30), told the Washington Blade that they didn't know exactly what they were getting involved with three weeks ago when they agreed to participate in a video for the HRC campaign. As Johnson told the Blade on Sunday during a telephone interview:

SNIP

"We were really excited to see that our interview was featured in the campaign announcement. It was particularly moving to see Secretary Clinton feature a gay couple engaged to be legally married, the first of any major presidential candidate. To us, this decision demonstrates Secretary Clinton’s commitment to LGBT equality and the type of inclusive leader she would be as president.”

SNIP

So maybe I'm totally off the wall here and/or this is a relatively trivial issue, but

what do you think?

With regard to cheerleader teams of 11 year olds, is it wrong and racially discriminatory to impose a straight hair standard on everyone? Or should this girl be happy with the option to put her non-straight hair in a tight bun and hang a straight pony tail extension off of it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027329871#post30

12 reasons it would be crazy not to vote for the Democratic Presidential nominee in Nov:

Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
Obamacare/health care
Climate change
Black lives matter
Women’s rights,
including right to control their own bodies
LGBT rights
Voting and civil rights
Prison reform
Union rights
Immigration reform

Someone has already mentioned Supreme Court nominations should be on the list. Anything else?

Ronald Reagan was elected TWICE even though he strongly pushed to end Social Security

Medicaid, and Medicare. Based on some comments here lately, I think many here don't realize that.

That wasn't a policy the majority of Americans supported, but they voted for Reagan anyway. Because they thought he was a nice guy -- and he told a nice story about America in a comforting way. Apparently, they trusted Congress to rein him in on the "policy" issues -- and Congress did.

Now we face another genial candidate , Dr. Ben Carson, who is also pushing to end Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. But this nice guy, if he gets elected, will probably have a GOP Congress backing him up.

We need to fight Dr. Ben Carson (and anyone else who wants to end Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) with every tool at our disposal. And that means we and the media should not be putting all the focus on policy details, which most Americans don't follow -- till it's too late.

We have to show the kind of snakes who are lurking behind these pleasant faces.

Thanks to the WSJ, the WAPost, and other media sources who are starting to expose Dr. Ben Carson for the lying, self-serving, narcissistic creep that he is.

Sanders is "blasting" the media for calling out Carson for his lies about his life.

He believes the media should only be considering Carson's policies, not his lies.

I disagree. Much of Carson's biography is made up crap, and that is very relevant to his qualifications to being President of the United States. It isn't only about policy.

The book containing all the lies is recent -- not 30 or 40 years ago. And it says something significant about the man. So does the ridiculous temple to himself that he lives in.

And why does Sanders now say that the Hillary email situation reflects on her character -- but he doesn't appear to care about what Carson's lies say about HIS character?

ON EDIT:

Sanders thinks everything should be focused on policy , but voters instinctively understand that character is just as important. When a President is elected, no one can predict all the events that can happen in the next four years -- or what policies or policy changes might prove to be necessary. We have to rely on having a President who is trustworthy. Carson is NOT such a man and no one should help him pretend that he might be, including Sanders. It isn't all about Carson's policies. It's also about who he is as a human being.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-ben-carson-story_563fafaee4b0411d307169b6

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) called out the media on Sunday for scrutinizing GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson's personal story, thereby diverting attention away from his policy positions.

“I think it might be a better idea, I know it's a crazy idea, but maybe we focus on the issues impacting the American people and what candidates are saying, rather than just spending so much time exploring their lives of 30 or 40 years ago,” Sanders, who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “And I think the reason that so many people are turned off to the political process has a lot to do with the fact that we're not talking about the real issues impacting real people.”
Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 74 75 76 77 78 79