Note: These polls were taken before Joe Biden announced he would not run. In these polls Joe averaged 16.8%. Poll questions indicate that Clinton will benefit more from Joe's announcement than Sanders so the differential between the two candidates is likely to grow on future polls.

Polls Taken between 10/4 - 10/18,

Clinton - 47.8%

Sanders - 25.7%

Differential - Clinton +22.1%

Link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

I've read the posts that some of the Sanders supporters say they wouldn't vote for her. Here's why they should rethink those statements.

Never let perfect be the enemy of good. If you live in a non completive state you are free to do as you please without affecting the outcome. However, f you live in a competitive state and are forced to choose between Clinton and Rubio (or Trump, or Cruz, or Bush, or ....) or just not voting, you would be a fool to choose the latter option. Then consider that if a Republican takes the White House, they are also likely to remain in control the House and take even more seats in the Senate - yep I'm sure you would like living under absolute Republican rule for the next 4 or 8 years while they pack the Supreme Court with the most conservative Justices imaginable for the next 20 or so years. Yep that would really help your cause

Just for the record - I don't think anyone here is a fool.

And there is no doubt that they are the most passionate. And there is also little doubt that Sanders is absolutely committed to the support of his issues; that is indubitably why his supporters love him. However, I am afraid that Bernie's supporters are going to be disappointed if his debate performance, which they loved, doesn't translate to big boosts in the national polls or votes on election days.

I was a on a very good debate team in high school, so I have an natural inclination to judge these events from that perspective. If you were already a Bernie supporter, you have every reason to love his performance. He hit the the high points of his message hard and repeatedly. However, from a more objective point of view, Hillary did very commendable job and won the debate hands down. I thought that Bernie's performance was a little rough in spots - I think his lack of thorough preparation showed at times. On the other hand, Hillary was nearly flawless.

If you are a Sanders supporter you had to be hope that Clinton would stumble. She didn't. You had to be counting on her to appear contrived as she has sometimes appeared in the past. That simply didn't happen - I don't think that I have seen a more fluid performance.

Sander's supporters also have to be hoping that Joe Biden will enter the race because there is no doubt that Joe would be running in Clinton's lane and would pull more votes from Hillary than Bernie however, I no longer see that as a possibility. Joe' best bet was that he was the fall back candidate if Clinton crashed and burned. I am sure now that he knows that is not going to happen. If and when Biden announces that he isn't gong to run, expect most of Joe's support in the polls to flow to Clinton's side of the ledger.

Regardless of who you support for the Democratic nomination, you can be very proud all of the Democratic candidates who participated in very professional and substantive event. Compared to the Republican adolescent food fight, it was very easy to spot the adults in the room.

John Boehner will soon be 66 years old and after 24 years in Congress it is likely that he would have retired after the completion of his current term in the House of Representatives. However, not long ago he made a surprise announcement that he will be resigning from Congress in mid term as soon as the House Republicans can persuade someone (decent) to replace him as Speaker of the House. There is no doubt that Boehner’s early retirement can be traced to his inability to control the 40 or so rowdy Tea Party zealots who call themselves the Freedom Caucus.

The Republicans own a large majority in the House with 247 members. However, without the support of the Freedom Caucus, whoever becomes the next Speaker of the House will probably be unable to muster the 218 Republican votes necessary to pass legislation without making a deal with the House Democrats - something no Republican Speaker can afford to do in the current environment without losing the respect of his caucus and the voters back home. While they make up less than 10% of the House members, the intransigence of the rowdy Freedom Caucus continues to give them a stranglehold on their chamber’s legislative agenda.

Elected by their ultra conservative home districts, the Tea Party Representatives view politics through heavily distorted ideological lenses. They are not afraid to shut down the government .......

More: http://www.cajunscomments.com/no-one-wants-t…he-rowdy-bunch/

It might sound odd, but I think that had Abraham Lincoln not been assassinated we might not have gridlock in Washington today. I have come to believe that the Southern state politics is the key to understanding how we inherited our current deadlocked political situation and how the assassination of Lincoln had a huge affect on how Southern politics developed after the Civil War. The following is my brief interpretation of the history that lead to the political gridlock prevalent in Washington DC today

As you can imagine Lincoln, the first Republican President, was not universally beloved in the South after the Civil War. John Wilkes Booth believed that he was striking a blow to revive the Southern cause by killing Lincoln five days after Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox Court House. In reality he did the South a huge disservice. For you see, Lincoln’s first priority was preserving the union and his plans called for swift and orderly re-assimilation of the Southern states back into the union fold. Had he not died when he did, it quite possible that Lincoln could have supervised the relatively peaceful and orderly reunification of the nation, but that was not to be.

More: http://www.cajunscomments.com/washington-gri…ow-we-got-here/ ‎

Recently a 32 year old punk named Martin Shkreli called the nation’s attention to persistent and blatant price gouging by pharmaceutical companies. Shkreli, an ex-hedge fund manager and CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals – a company he formed in February of 2015 - took drug price gauging to a whole new level. In August he bought the rights manufacture Daraprin, a 62 year old drug use to treat Toxoplasmosis that no other company markets. The drug is used to cure a parasitic infection which usually doesn’t bother healthy people, but is a dangerous problem for people with compromised immune systems resulting for diseases such as AIDS and cancer. In September Shkreli abruptly raised price of the medication by 5,455 percent (from $13.50 to $750 per tablet). Those who most affected by this blatant act of medical thievery are generally in very poor health and often unable to afford expensive medication.

If you would like to read about the details of this outrageous crime against the public good, I would refer you to this excellent article: Drug Company CEOs Acting More Like Drug Dealing Thugs

Among those who have publicly criticized Shkreli are several medical organizations; the HIV Medicine Association and the Infectious Diseases Society of America both issued statements condemning the price increase. I found it most interesting that the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufactures of America also joined in on the attack on Shkreli. They are a lobbying group representing the major pharmaceutical companies. I suspect that that they were afraid that Shkreli’s actions will bring a lot of unwanted attention to similar, though perhaps not quite as blatant, price gauging by the major pharmaceutical companies the trade association represents.

Big pharmaceutical companies have a great deal they would not want brought to the attention of the American public. They don’t want anyone else to notice....

more: http://www.cajunscomments.com/shkrelis-drug-…of-the-iceberg/ ‎

It is amazing when you consider that when the Republican Party was formed in the late 1850’s, its one unifying theme was abolition, the banning of slavery in the United States. By any measure, at the time the elimination of slavery was a very liberal concept. Gradually over time the party of Lincoln moved further and further to the right. That process was greatly accelerated by the defections of very conservative Southern Democrats to the Republican ranks. As the GOP shifted ever further to the right, ultra conservative groups began targeting the most moderate prominent Republicans and drove them one by one from office. The public face of the Republican Party became more and more stridently conservative.

However, throughout this process the Republican establishment remained in control. While voicing the message of social conservatism sacred to many of its rank and file, most of the party leaders concentrated on achieving conservative economic goals and, most importantly, winning control of Presidency and both Houses of Congress. Backed by the big business campaign funding required to win major elections, Republican leaders have been able to keep the radical right extremists at the core of their party centered on nominating electable candidates for national office. Now, however, infuriated by the lack of success of Republican leaders in pushing conservative agendas through Congress and the failures of past establishment Republican Presidential candidates, the rabble rousers of the far right are now in full rebellion.

more....http://www.cajunscomments.com/republican-chances-in-2016-on-suicide-watch/

to ask which of the Democratic candidates people favor - or would that be considered "disruptive"?

to ask which of the Democratic candidates people favor - or would that be considered "disruptive"?