Wednesday, 12/9/15:

New Hampshire 2016 Democratic Primary (CNN/WMUR) Sanders 50, Clinton 40, O'Malley 1 Sanders +10

Tuesday, 12/8/15:

Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus (Monmouth) Clinton 55, Sanders 33, O'Malley 6
Clinton +22

North Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary (PPP) Clinton 60, Sanders 21, O'Malley 10
Clinton +39

Monday, 12/7/15:

Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus (CNN/ORC) Clinton 54, Sanders 36, O'Malley 4
Clinton +18

2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination (IBD/TIPP) Clinton 51, Sanders 33, O'Malley 1
Clinton +18

Friday, 12/4/15

2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination (CNN/ORC) Clinton 58, Sanders 30, O'Malley 2
Clinton +28

Thursday, 12/3/15:

New Hampshire 2016 Democratic Primary (PPP) Sanders 42, Clinton 44, O'Malley 8
Clinton +2

Wednesday, 12/2/15:

2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination (Quinnipiac) Clinton 60, Sanders 30, O'Malley 2
Clinton +30

Tuesday, 12/8/15:

Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus (Monmouth) Clinton 55, Sanders 33, O'Malley 6
Clinton +22

North Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary (PPP) Clinton 60, Sanders 21, O'Malley 10
Clinton +39

Monday, 12/7/15:

Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus (CNN/ORC) Clinton 54, Sanders 36, O'Malley 4
Clinton +18

2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination (IBD/TIPP) Clinton 51, Sanders 33, O'Malley 1
Clinton +18

Friday, 12/4/15

2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination (CNN/ORC) Clinton 58, Sanders 30, O'Malley 2
Clinton +28

Thursday, 12/3/15:

New Hampshire 2016 Democratic Primary (PPP) Sanders 42, Clinton 44, O'Malley 8
Clinton +2

Wednesday, 12/2/15:

2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination (Quinnipiac) Clinton 60, Sanders 30, O'Malley 2
Clinton +30

I was reading our local newspaper this morning when I came across a few lines buried in a news article which made my jaw drop. I rubbed my eyes and read it again. The print was the same and I had read it right the first time. It essentially said that Senate Republicans had voted down by a 45-54 mostly party line vote a bill offered by Dianne Feinstein (D-California) which would have denied individuals on the terror watch list the right to buy firearms. (One Republican and one Democrat crossed party lines and voted with the other side.) Senate Republicans also voted down another bill by one of their own, John Cornyn (R-Texas), by a similar margin which would have delayed for 72 hours the sale of firearms to those on the terror watch list - for due process.

Did Republicans really protect the rights of potential terrorists to buy weapons which they might be used to murder us? They can’t fly in airplanes with us, but they can buy guns? Now that is hard to believe. Thinking perhaps there was a misprint in the newspaper, I checked several news websites. Nope, the story was accurate. Wow! You would think that passing such bills would be a no brainer. I would have predicted they would have been approved by the Senate by a 99-0 margin. Shows what I know.

If you need further proof that the National Rifle Association owns Congressional Republicans, you need look no further that this stupidity because it follows the NRA’s party line: Allow no legislation to pass (no matter how reasonable) which in any way infringes on the right of individuals to own and operate firearms because once you do that it is a slippery slope to total gun control. The phrase in parenthesis is mine.

However, this is not a great deal more outrageous than failures by Congress to pass a requirement for universal background checks on all gun sales. .......

More > Republicans Allow Potential Terrorist Buy Guns Legally?!?!

Some of us here on DU are normally more passionate than analytic. Others are more analytic than passionate. Some are more idealists, others insist on practicality over idealism. This can and often does affect our choice of candidates. That doesn’t make one side or the other inherently “evil”, much as we might be tempted to paint them as such. We simply find ourselves on at slightly different places on the liberal/conservative continuum which runs from pure socialism on one end to totalitarian on the other. Basically, we all advocate for many of the same liberal causes. Some of us are more moderate than others; that’s all, and some are more progressive. However, in the big scheme of things we are not that far apart ideologically; we often make the gaps between our positions seem much larger than they are.

For instance, we may differ on how much to regulate businesses. But none of us here wants to see big corporations be run roughshod over its workers, destroy the environment, destroy their competition and charge monopoly prices for their goods and services. No one on UD wants to experience the results of such a system where a few people are rich and everyone else is poor. On the other hand I haven’t read one post on UD where someone has advocated that the people of this country, through our government. take over all means of production. That would be true socialism, not Bernie’s “Democratic Socialism”.

I’m sure that your can think of many other examples using both the fiscal and social issues, but the truth of the matter is that we and our candidates are all to the left of center to one extent or another on the political continuum. However, few if any of us are as moderate or as far to the left as perhaps we would like to believe. And that goes for our candidates as well. We are far more alike in our political views than different.

I think it is important that we remember that we are all quite different in our political beliefs than most of those who belong to the Republican Party. It is a widely recognized fact that the base of the GOP has pulled their party much further to the right than the Democratic Party has moved to the left. Even their most centralist candidates espouse views which are diametrically opposite of our own. They are not evil either, but we must do what we can within our political system to ensure that their views are not those which will govern our country.

No! I am not demanding, insisting, or even asking that you support the ultimate Democratic nominee, as much as I would like to see you do so. As many have correctly pointed out, your vote is yours to cast as you see fit. Each of us has to live with whatever decision we make. What I am asking each of us is recognize and remember we are all on the same side and to remember who our opposition really is. Then it goes without saying that we should treat one another accordingly. And yes, I need to remember to live up to those standards as well and I will try to do so.

The are premature:

This is Sander's first time out of the box and the Republican properganda machine is still paying very little attention to him. Go back and look at Hillary's favorability numbers before it was clear she was running and the Republicans made their first attempts to slander her.

If the Republicans ever start thinking Bernie has even a remote chance of winning the nomination, they will hit him with both properganda barrels. The Republican hit machine will turn Bernie's socialist thing inside out and spread stories that the got his early political ideas from reading Karl Marks and Friedrick Engles, whether that is true or not. As we have see so many times before, the truth has no meaning to thes people. They know would be playing into existing bias. Polls have consistently shown that Americans would rather vote for a Muslim or an atheist for president than a socialist.

They will use anything and everything imaginable against him. Bernie is a very good man, but after the Republican hit team is done with him he will be toast long before the general election.

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/ ‎