Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MrWendel

MrWendel's Journal
MrWendel's Journal
December 9, 2015

"Nightly Show" Correspondents Stage Walkout on Donald Trump Coverage: ‘F*ck Trump!’

(Video In Link)

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/nightly-show%E2%80%8B-correspondents-stage-walkout-on-donald-trump-coverage-fck-trump/

Almost all of late night has had a chance to tackle Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump‘s proposed ban on Muslim immigrants. So by the time Larry Wilmore‘s Nightly Show got around to covering the story, the Comedy Central show had to make something new out of the mess. So they staged a walkout.

Or at least Wilmore’s correspondents did. For in segment after segment, affiliated comedians like Mike Yard and Ricky Velez began then abruptly stopped their attempts to make humor out of Trump’s egregious plan.

“It’s just not funny anymore,” said Yard. “This man is an abomination of a human being.”

“Trump is a cancer eating away at our national dignity,” added Velez. “F*ck Trump!”

Obviously, the correspondents’ walkouts were scripted and staged for the show’s opening number. It also served as a launching platform for Wilmore’s own coverage of the proposed ban and the reaction of Trump fans.

“This has got to be it for Trump,” he said. “There can’t be any more real support for him, right? Right? RIGHT?”

Cue the familiar montage of Trump supporters lauding their candidate for his “very wise decision.” Wilmore then ranted against other GOP candidates and conservatives who were publicly condemning Trump’s proposed ban.

“Trump’s been saying this sh*t since the day he announced back in June and called Mexicans rapists. That’s how he began his campaign.”

December 9, 2015

Philadelphia Mayor on Trump: ‘He’s an Asshole’



(Video in Link)

http://www.mediaite.com/online/philadelphia-mayor-on-trump-hes-an-asshole/

Earlier today a Pennsylvania mayor called Donald Trump a “jagoff.” Well, now the mayor of Philadelphia has spoken out about Trump’s Muslim entry ban and his response was a little more pointed.

“He’s an asshole.”

Yep, Philly Mayor Michael Nutter went there at a press conference earlier today. And he happened to say that in front of religious leaders, so he then followed up by saying, “I apologize reverends, people of the religious community, I apologize.”

Nutter continued, “How can I take seriously any foreign policy idea from someone like him? It’s impossible. He has no idea what he’s talking about.”

December 9, 2015

America Does NOT Deserve Donald Trump as President

By Gaius Septimus

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/12/8/1458285/-America-Does-NOT-Deserve-Donald-Trump-as-President



This was supposed to be the year of Republican dominance. Early on, the talking points from the GOP had to do with how deep the GOP presidential bench was. So much talent! So many options! By contrast, the Democrats, decimated by the 2014 midterm elections could barely muster 6 candidates, and 3 of them barely had any name recognition.

But, even if you are done with the past, as the old adage goes, the past may not be done with you. The simple truth is that the GOP has become heavily invested in disinformation, anti-intellectualism, and racial baiting. The simple truth is that in the wake of Citizens United, the way money is used in politics has become a major factor in who wins elections and how.

First and foremost, the FOX News channel has made common cause with the GOP and has engaged in not merely sympathetic reporting but outright advocacy. As the analysis offered in The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism indicates, FOX has been instrumental in creating the Tea Party and also in obfuscating important, crucial issues in order to provide a counterpoint to the Democratic Party. However, that counterpoint is not based on serious debate, based on information, or facts, but, rather on opinion (often divorced from facts) peddled by popular FOX News personalities like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, or Bill O’Reilly.

It has been a decade and a half since George W Bush first run for president. So … considering that the hardcore base of GOP supporters gets its information from FOX News, are we to be surprised that they believe climate change is a liberal invention, are we to be surprised that most GOP supporters know nothing of Islam except that it is based on the Quran (a vile book that needs to be burned!) and that Muslims engage in jihad? Are we to be surprised that GOP supporters believe that the ACA (also known as Obamacare) contains “death panels” or that most of them think (contrary to facts) that their taxes have gone up under President Barack Obama?

In short. It was nice going at first. FOX advocated for the GOP and FOX carried water on so many issues. But. FOX also created, much to the GOP’s dismay, a misinformed, bigoted, and angry base. A base that believes opinion over fact. A base that cannot understand why the GOP’s Congressional majorities need to engage in some sort of compromise in order to govern the country. A base, moreover, that believes things are already so much on the brink that a default on the government’s debt (as in the GOP refusing to raise the debt ceiling) is nothing to be scared of. Again, I will bring up the excellent The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism– according to the conclusions of the authors, members of the Tea Party invested substantial time and effort in learning about procedure and election rules, but are, in fact, woefully misinformed about the issues.

So here we are. 2015. Unfortunately, the misinformation being spouted by FOX for over a decade now has caught up with the party. Rationality? It can only be based on facts, on correct information. Having to fight for the votes of people who believe Obama and Clinton intended to kill Americans so they conspired to let Benghazi happen (did they high-five each other as the reports of American deaths came in? … we don’t know).

Why do I bring up all this, before even mentioning Trump’s name once? Because this is the environment in which GOP contenders are now running. This is the environment that has enabled the best showman to capture the imagination of the GOP base… after all, much like the FOX News personalities, he creates his own facts, engages in name calling and can turn any issue to his advantage because he appeals to fear, to basest instincts, and to a form of lowest common denominator that rests on the assuredness of the ignoramus and the pride of the bully.

Have you visited the Free Republic website lately? Trump supporters revel in what they see as the “downfall” of the establishment. Of course, their heroes are the most uncompromising members of Congress… anyone who votes for anything associated even vaguely with Obama or the Democrats is a RINO (Republican in Name Only) who deserves anything from a primary challenge to a death by lightning from the sky.

Trump reared his head in 2012 as well… Do you remember? He created media frenzy by claiming that he had “new information” regarding Obama’s birth certificate. And then that turned out to be nothing. Romney, according to the classic account of the 2012 election, Double Down, needed Trump’s endorsement but tried to make sure he is never photographed with him, or anywhere near him.

So. Contrary to what many pundits think, I believe Trump’s run is for real. That is, I do not think he is doing this just to enhance his trademark and improve his visibility. Because, in many ways, the GOP base can identify with him. He is not especially well-spoken or especially brilliant… Which plays into the hands of the anti-intellectual core of the GOP – he is like them. And, he behaves like the GOP has behaved in the last 15 years or so – a dumb bully, who throws his weight around and prevails by sheer force of will, facts be damned.

Here is the problem, though. The business wing of the GOP is, I believe, becoming seriously alarmed by the know-nothing blitheness of the base, who are willing to go for broke just to score points. Time was, national interests reigned supreme. But now, it appears that the fact-based, scientific, reality-grounded business wing of the GOP is freaking out about what they see at the socially conservative end of the spectrum. Could this split the GOP? Not if Trump is the nominee. Because here is the danger. The base loves his unabashed and unapologetic bombast and in-your-face fight. But… Because he himself is a part of the GOP business wing, he may be the last person ever who can unify the Tea Party loyalists and the business wing “adults” … because most of the business wing know him personally, because they will think that his crazy pronouncements are just meant to energize the base, because they will assume that once in office he will be a pragmatic – that he will do what is necessary for the country.

No… America does not deserve such a president. Trump has no experience with politics… he has no history of advocacy for issues that matter to most voters. His claims that he is “the best negotiator” or that he is a “strong leader” contradict facts – he has at least 5 bankruptcies, when he was bailed out by the federal government. He is one of the beneficiaries of the “high taxes” he wants to slash. And… merely as an aside … is he even aware that his biggest Atlantic City casino, the Taj Mahal, is named after the monument built by an inconsolable young MUSLIM prince for the love of his life? Probably not.

Will America survive such a presidency? What is to “survive”? When Reagan defeated Carter, he began a conservative revolution, and an experiment called “trickle-down economics” whose consequences we are still battling today. When George W Bush prevailed against Al Gore (by Supreme Court fiat), he took the country down the disastrous path of the Iraq War… and further deregulation that resulted in the 2007 financial meltdown. What is to survive? To merely continue to exist? Reagan and Bush 43 both hijacked the trajectory of America’s path. Reagan pioneered outsourcing… And look where we are today!!! George W Bush enacted unreasonable, ruinous tax cuts… and we still cannot get rid of them… What is to “survive”? Bill Clinton’s presidency was a period of prosperity and growth… Obama’s presidency finally achieved a more egalitarian health care system… and marriage equality.

What is to “survive”? Can we begin to countenance even 4 years of a Trump’s presidency? More tax cuts, more deregulation… a possible gutting of ACA? The appointment to the Supreme Court of more judges in the mold of Alito or Scalia? More offshore drilling… no commonsense action on guns… and more uninformed engagement in the Middle East where Trump has promised more bombing and more violence? And, … more bigotry and Islamophobia at home.

I write this on December 8. Today is the sad anniversary of John Lennon’s death. Killed by a guy who bought his gun legally in Hawaii and brought it to New York for this. Yesterday was the anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack. Lives lost in Japan’s attack on Hawaii and, sadly, the end of America’s innocence. So, I ask again. What is it like, to “survive”? To betray who we are, as people and individuals? To settle? To miss an opportunity to counteract climate change? To “survive”…

No, America does not deserve a Trump presidency. Do you say a cigarette smoker “deserves” cancer? I, for one, empathize with the GOP base. They have been lied to from so many quarters. They have been taken for granted and exploited. And, like many of the rest of us, they are not especially rich, or more enlightened... they do not have better safety networks. And yet they are the ones who want the repeal of ACA, who favor the privatization of Social Security, when their elderly parents will surely suffer, they are the ones whose children will die in all the wars (against Iran or Daeah) that GOP contenders are itching to start.

No… America cannot afford a Trump presidency. It may “survive” … But with each Nixon, or Reagan or GW Bush, it is diminished, it is simply forced to betray its origins and its ideals. I wish this on no one. So Trump cannot be allowed to become president. For the sake of our country, and our children, and our future…

December 9, 2015

Hillary Clinton likens other GOP proposals to Trump’s



http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-likens-gop-proposals-trump

By Monica Alba
Hillary Clinton on Tuesday denounced in an online post Donald Trump’s call for “a total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the United States, saying the Republican presidential front-runner is “playing right into” the hands of terrorists.

“It’s a shameful idea. It’s also dangerous,” Clinton said of the idea Trump proposed Monday in a written statement, adding, “At a time when America should be doing everything we can to fight radical jihadists, Mr. Trump is supplying them with new propaganda.”

Trump is capitalizing on the growing fear of terrorism in the U.S. following the mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, in which a couple killed 14 people and injured 21 more. The FBI said Monday the two had been radicalized “for quite some time.”

Though most of the GOP presidential candidates have condemned Trump’s proposal, Clinton argued that Republicans – including Ben Carson, Sen. Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Sen. Ted Cruz and Gov. Chris Christie – have proposed similarly inflammatory ideas and said “extreme things” about the Muslim people.

“When you take a step back and see what the Republican field as a whole says about Muslims — not just one or two candidates for President, but nearly all of them — it’s hard to take seriously their attempts to distance themselves from Mr. Trump. He’s just articulating the logical conclusion of what the rest of them have been saying,” she said. “That should concern all of us.”

In months past, Clinton hasn’t hesitated to blast Trump on his controversial comments, often referring to the rest of the Republican field as Trump “without the pizzazz or the hair.”

On Tuesday, she had a specific message for Muslim-Americans: “What you’re hearing from Trump and other Republicans is absolutely, unequivocally wrong. It’s inconsistent with our values as a nation — a nation which you are helping to build. This is your country, too. I’m proud to be your fellow American. And many, many other Americans feel the same way.”

Many Democrats were quick to fundraise off of Trump’s comments. Top Clinton aide Huma Abedin sent a fundraising email Monday night saying, “We have to be ready to stop him.”

“I’m a proud Muslim – but you don’t have to share my faith to share my disgust,” Abedin said. “Trump wants to literally write racism into our law books. His Islamophobia doesn’t reflect our nation’s values – it goes far enough to damage our country’s reputation and could even threaten our national security.”
The Democratic field is united in its disapproval of Trump’s proposal. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley called Trump “a fascist demagogue” and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said, “We are a weak nation when we allow racism and xenophobia to divide us.”

On Tuesday, Clinton’s social media accounts featured a new motto, “Love trumps hate,” which is now being sold as a sticker on the campaign’s official website.
December 9, 2015

Hillary Clinton likens other GOP proposals to Trump’s

?itok=nfaH6o_Y

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-likens-gop-proposals-trump

By Monica Alba
Hillary Clinton on Tuesday denounced in an online post Donald Trump’s call for “a total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the United States, saying the Republican presidential front-runner is “playing right into” the hands of terrorists.

“It’s a shameful idea. It’s also dangerous,” Clinton said of the idea Trump proposed Monday in a written statement, adding, “At a time when America should be doing everything we can to fight radical jihadists, Mr. Trump is supplying them with new propaganda.”

Trump is capitalizing on the growing fear of terrorism in the U.S. following the mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, in which a couple killed 14 people and injured 21 more. The FBI said Monday the two had been radicalized “for quite some time.”

Though most of the GOP presidential candidates have condemned Trump’s proposal, Clinton argued that Republicans – including Ben Carson, Sen. Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Sen. Ted Cruz and Gov. Chris Christie – have proposed similarly inflammatory ideas and said “extreme things” about the Muslim people.

“When you take a step back and see what the Republican field as a whole says about Muslims — not just one or two candidates for President, but nearly all of them — it’s hard to take seriously their attempts to distance themselves from Mr. Trump. He’s just articulating the logical conclusion of what the rest of them have been saying,” she said. “That should concern all of us.”

In months past, Clinton hasn’t hesitated to blast Trump on his controversial comments, often referring to the rest of the Republican field as Trump “without the pizzazz or the hair.”

On Tuesday, she had a specific message for Muslim-Americans: “What you’re hearing from Trump and other Republicans is absolutely, unequivocally wrong. It’s inconsistent with our values as a nation — a nation which you are helping to build. This is your country, too. I’m proud to be your fellow American. And many, many other Americans feel the same way.”

Many Democrats were quick to fundraise off of Trump’s comments. Top Clinton aide Huma Abedin sent a fundraising email Monday night saying, “We have to be ready to stop him.”

“I’m a proud Muslim – but you don’t have to share my faith to share my disgust,” Abedin said. “Trump wants to literally write racism into our law books. His Islamophobia doesn’t reflect our nation’s values – it goes far enough to damage our country’s reputation and could even threaten our national security.”
The Democratic field is united in its disapproval of Trump’s proposal. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley called Trump “a fascist demagogue” and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said, “We are a weak nation when we allow racism and xenophobia to divide us.”

On Tuesday, Clinton’s social media accounts featured a new motto, “Love trumps hate,” which is now being sold as a sticker on the campaign’s official website.
December 9, 2015

Hillary Clinton likens other GOP proposals to Trump’s



http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-likens-gop-proposals-trump

By Monica Alba
Hillary Clinton on Tuesday denounced in an online post Donald Trump’s call for “a total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the United States, saying the Republican presidential front-runner is “playing right into” the hands of terrorists.

“It’s a shameful idea. It’s also dangerous,” Clinton said of the idea Trump proposed Monday in a written statement, adding, “At a time when America should be doing everything we can to fight radical jihadists, Mr. Trump is supplying them with new propaganda.”

Trump is capitalizing on the growing fear of terrorism in the U.S. following the mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, in which a couple killed 14 people and injured 21 more. The FBI said Monday the two had been radicalized “for quite some time.”

Though most of the GOP presidential candidates have condemned Trump’s proposal, Clinton argued that Republicans – including Ben Carson, Sen. Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Sen. Ted Cruz and Gov. Chris Christie – have proposed similarly inflammatory ideas and said “extreme things” about the Muslim people.

“When you take a step back and see what the Republican field as a whole says about Muslims — not just one or two candidates for President, but nearly all of them — it’s hard to take seriously their attempts to distance themselves from Mr. Trump. He’s just articulating the logical conclusion of what the rest of them have been saying,” she said. “That should concern all of us.”

In months past, Clinton hasn’t hesitated to blast Trump on his controversial comments, often referring to the rest of the Republican field as Trump “without the pizzazz or the hair.”

On Tuesday, she had a specific message for Muslim-Americans: “What you’re hearing from Trump and other Republicans is absolutely, unequivocally wrong. It’s inconsistent with our values as a nation — a nation which you are helping to build. This is your country, too. I’m proud to be your fellow American. And many, many other Americans feel the same way.”

Many Democrats were quick to fundraise off of Trump’s comments. Top Clinton aide Huma Abedin sent a fundraising email Monday night saying, “We have to be ready to stop him.”

“I’m a proud Muslim – but you don’t have to share my faith to share my disgust,” Abedin said. “Trump wants to literally write racism into our law books. His Islamophobia doesn’t reflect our nation’s values – it goes far enough to damage our country’s reputation and could even threaten our national security.”
The Democratic field is united in its disapproval of Trump’s proposal. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley called Trump “a fascist demagogue” and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said, “We are a weak nation when we allow racism and xenophobia to divide us.”

On Tuesday, Clinton’s social media accounts featured a new motto, “Love trumps hate,” which is now being sold as a sticker on the campaign’s official website.
December 8, 2015

A More Serious Rebuttal Than Salon's Latest Hillary-Hating Dudebro Deserves

By Steve M.

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/12/more-serious-rebuttal-salons-latest



Salon is now making a regular habit of publishing long, self-righteous essays in which Bernie Sanders fanboys explaining why it would be an awesome idea not to vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election.

Here's the latest one: Shane Ryan's "Just Let the Republicans Win: Maybe Things Need to Get Really Bad Before America Wakes Up." This has already been well rebutted by Scott Lemieux at Lawyers, Guns & Money and Allison Hantschel at First Draft, but I'll add to the pile-on.

Ryan writes:

If Hillary lost because progressives abstained from voting, it’s possible that Republican incompetence would be laid bare, and that they’d run the country into the ground over the next four years. If that’s what it takes to show the people that a leftist political revolution is the only viable way forward, it will have been worth watching Hillary bite the political dust. Come 2020, we could be looking at a landscape where progressive politics can finally gather enough momentum to sweep the country, and usher in a new era of FDR-esque reforms.


It isn't merely that a lot of irreversible bad stuff happened after 2000, when we also heard this (or 1980, when Your Aging Correspondent first heard that a bad right-winger's election might fan the flames of lefty revolution in Heartland America). It's that, when the disgust with the GOP finally reached critical mass six years after Bush won the presidency, the Democrats elected in response were, in many cases, from the centrist wing folks like Ryan abhor. The Democratic winners n 2006 included Blue Dogs like Heath Shuler in the House and Claire McCaskill in the Senate, not to mention the rejected-but-reelected Joe Lieberman. The large Democratic majorities elected in 2006 and 2008 included the folks progressives (understandably) railed against when they watered down President Obama's stimulus plan and rejected a public option on healthcare. Sorry, years of GOP awfulness may eventually lead to the election of Democrats, but those Democrats aren't necessarily going to live up to the progressive ideal. And in the interim, Republicans can do a hell of a lot of damage.

Ryan thinks Republicans are showing Democrats the way:

There’s an analogy here to the far-right conservative movement, which has become so influential in the Republican party that establishment candidates are finding no traction in their own circus of a primary contest. Unlike progressives, the conservative far right has realized the extent of its power -- they had a certain psychological advantage in the early days, propelled as they were by religious fervor -- and for Sanders supporters to do the same, it’s imperative that we don’t capitulate to the Democratic party’s big money wing. If we do, we’ll never be taken seriously.


But the way "the conservative far right" has asserted its power in recent years is not by getting its candidate nominated for president -- it's by winning primaries in races for the House and Senate (and contests even further downballot). I don't see any evidence that the Hillary-haters are doing the hard work of insinuating themselves into state and local Democratic parties in order to wield influence in non-glamorous off-year races.

Ryan has contempt for Hillary Clinton's attempts to embrace progressivism in this campaign:

... she has tacked leftward merely to combat Sanders’ progressive momentum -- going against a lifetime of pro-Wall Street, pro-business action ... not because she actually espouses any of her shiny new positions....


if Ryan envies the success of Republican ideologues, he should recognize that a great deal of that success has come precisely because GOP Establishment hacks -- most notably, Mitch McConnell and, until recently, John Boehner -- have saved their seats by imitating their party's zealots just the way Hillary is trying to imitate progressives. See also Lindsey Graham and John McCain. They've allied themselves with ideologues in order to save their own political necks -- and that's helped their party move rightward. Clinton's newfound progressivism, sincere or not, might be doing the same thing for her party, in the other direction.

However, zealots don't automatically start winning every battle when they decide to fight. Look at what's happened in the GOP in the Tea Party years: The zealots got a lot of their people into office in 2010 and 2012, and yes, they intimidated Establishment figures, who moved to the right -- but the Establishment fought back, suppressing Tea Party insurgencies in a lot of races in 2014. And now the zealots are striking back in this year's presidential primaries. To some extent, it's a conservative crackup. Zealots have had a lot of success, but they're still fighting with the Establishment, and the party, as a result, could be about to lose its third straight presidential election -- something that's happened only once to one of the major parties since Harry Truman left office. Ongoing intramural war is a potential consequence of a revolt of the zealots. How would that be good for progressivism? And who suffers in the interim? Wouldn't it better to do the best we can this coming November, and inject a little more progressivism into the party from the bottom up now and in the future?

Crossposted at No More Mr. Nice Blog
December 8, 2015

Hillary Clinton Leads in 2016 Match-Ups as Ben Carson, Marco Rubio Run Close

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/clinton-leads-2016-match-ups-carson-rubio-run-closest-n474591

Hillary Clinton leads the Republican presidential field in hypothetical general-election match-ups, with Ben Carson and Marco Rubio running the closest to her, according to a new national MSNBC/Telemundo/Marist poll.

And with just one exception, the margin of Clinton's lead among Latino voters determines just how competitive each match-up is.

Clinton's biggest lead is against current GOP frontrunner Donald Trump: She's ahead of him by 11 points among all voters, 52 percent to 41 percent, and a whopping 42 points among Latino voters, 69 percent to 27 percent.

The former Democratic secretary of state leads Ted Cruz by seven points nationally, 51 percent to 44 percent, and by 27 points among Latinos, 61 percent to 34 percent.

Clinton holds a four-point advantage over Jeb Bush, 49 percent to 45 percent, and a 26-point lead among Latinos, 61 percent to 35 percent.

She's ahead of Marco Rubio by three points among all voters, 48 percent to 45 percent, and 19 points among Latinos, 57 percent to 38 percent.

And Clinton leads Ben Carson by just one point, 48 percent to 47 percent, and she holds a 26-point edge among Latinos, 61 percent to 35 percent.



The MSNBC/Telemundo/Marist poll also finds that a generic Democratic presidential is tied with a generic Republican at 45 percent to 45 percent, while that lead expands to 20 points among Latino voters, 56 percent to 36 percent.

To put these Latino poll numbers into perspective, Barack Obama defeated John McCain among Latinos by 36 points in 2008, 67 percent to 31 percent.

And he beat Mitt Romney by 44 points in 2012, 71 percent to 27 percent.
December 8, 2015

Clinton With a Strong Steady Iowa Lead, Tennessee Weighs In, & National #s-Today in Primary Poll

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/12/7/1457695/-Clinton-With-a-Strong-Steady-Iowa-Lead-Tennessee-Weighs-In-National-s-Today-in-Primary-Polling

THE STATES

Iowa

CNN/ORC

Clinton 54

Sanders 36

O’Malley 4
The poll is almost identical to CNN’s poll a month ago, which pegged the race at 55-37. Clinton’s 18 point lead here is unchanged, and matches pretty well with her 17 point lead in the Pollster aggregate (which does not yet include this poll).

If you take a look at the history section below, you will see that two months out from the caucuses Clinton’s lead in Iowa had almost evaporated and by December Obama had taken the lead. This year, Clinton’s lead in the Pollster and RCP aggregates has not dropped below 10 points in a few months.

Tennessee

Vanderbilt University (11/11-11/23)

Clinton 48

Sanders 28

O’Malley 3

This is the first poll out of Tennessee, who goes to the polls on Super Tuesday, that I’ve been able to track down, but the results aren’t too surprising. Clinton posts a big lead but not an overwhelming one like we’ve seen in some of the other Southern states like South Carolina, Virginia, and Texas.

The Democratic sample is too small to be broken out by demographics, but we can fairly safely assume that the same dynamic is playing out in Tennessee that we’ve seen elsewhere- Tennessee is just whiter than some of the other states in the region.

There is also the possibility of fairly soft support for Sanders here- in states that have had less campaigning, Sanders has tended to score better with moderate and conservative Democrats who feel Hillary is too liberal. He might shed support as he becomes better known.

The question will likely be one of resources (perhaps time more than money). Where are the candidates going to focus their time between today and the March 1st Super Tuesday contests. Clinton has campaigned in Tennessee, but I cannot find any times Sanders has gone there.

NATIONAL

IBD/TIPP

Clinton 51

Sanders 33

O’Malley 1

While this poll shows a closer race than what we’ve seen in most other recent polling, this actually represents a slight improvement for Clinton over their last poll at the end of October, when she led 48-33. This particular poll has shown a larger pool of undecided voters fairly consistently. Given the other data available, this poll could fairly be called an outlier, but we will add it to the pile and see if it is seeing something changing before other pollsters do.

DISCLAIMER: I don’t have a lot of faith in the Ipsos/Reuters tracking poll, but they do occasionally release the daily results as well as their weekly releases, so I will include the numbers as they are available.

Ipsos/Reuters

Clinton 56

Sanders 32

O’Malley 4

A pretty dramatic one day shift from the 52-36 margin the tracker showed just a day before, turning a 16 point lead for Clinton into a 24 point lead. Did the race shift by 8 points in a day? Probably not. As a rolling tracking poll, Ipsos averages the past five days of interviews to come up with their number. This poll has been subject to fairly wild swings, as we discussed last Thursday, and the jump here is a result of a very bad day for Clinton rolling off as a very good one rolled in, while the opposite happened to Sanders.

Ipsos does not provide the daily results directly, but they do provide the high and the low marks each candidate got in that five day sample.

On Thursday, Clinton’s range was between 47 and 56, while Sanders was between 31 and 40. On Friday that had shifted to a 52-59 range for Clinton while Sanders dropped to 29-35. We can tell by watching the previous days’ ranges that the sample on that day was Clinton 59 to Sanders 29. We will have to wait and see what happens in their next release.

THE AVERAGES:

Tennessee does not have enough polling for an average. All reports are Clinton-Sanders-O’Malley

Iowa:

The aggregators do not yet have this poll included

National:

RCP: 56-31-3 (+25)

Pollster: 55-33-3 (+22)


THE HISTORY:

Iowa

The average of the five most recent polls starting on November 7th, 2007 (about two months before the Iowa caucuses)

Clinton 28

Obama 24 (Clinton +4)

The average of the five most recent polls starting today (about two months before the Iowa caucuses)

Clinton 52

Sanders 38 (Clinton +14)

There’s no doubt that Clinton is in a much stronger position two months out from the Iowa caucuses. She remains over 50% and with a much wider margin than she enjoyed in 2007. What’s more, Edwards was also averaging 20% at this point in 2007. All together, the three major candidates added up to just 72% of the vote, leaving a sizeable chunk of undecided voters or people supporting the more marginal candidates.

This time around, 90% of the voters are supporting one of the major candidates, leaving significantly less room for growth.

For comparison- the average of the five most recent polls starting on DECEMBER 7th, 2007-

Clinton 27

Obama 29

Edwards 22

By December 7th of 2007 (about a month out from the caucuses) Obama had taken a slim lead going into the holidays.

National

The average of the five most recent polls starting on November 7th, 2007 (about two months before the Iowa caucuses)

Clinton 45

Obama 23 (Clinton +22)

The average of the five most recent polls starting today (about two months before the Iowa caucuses)

Clinton 57

Sanders 30 (Clinton +27)

Once again we see a nominally stronger lead for Clinton, and much better positioning as she sits closer to 60 than she was to 50 eight years ago.

For comparison- the average of the five most recent polls starting on DECEMBER 7th, 2007-

Clinton 43

Obama 25 (Clinton +18)
December 6, 2015

Hillary Clinton Was Discussing Gun Control Just as the San Bernardino Shooting Happened

There was a mass shooting on Wednesday afternoon in San Bernardino, California, at Inland Regional Services, a center for people with developmental disabilities. Details are still sparse hours after the attack, with at least one suspect still at large, according to the police. Fatalities have been confirmed, though no exact figure has been released by the police so far. Check here for the latest updates.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton responded quickly to the breaking news on Twitter, pushing the need for further gun control in light of the latest in a long string of mass shootings.

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/672149874046083072

Clinton happened to be speaking about the need for gun control at a campaign stop in Florida just as the attack was unfolding, per ABC News' Liz Kreutz. In a tweet, Kreutz quoted Clinton as saying that "90 americans a day die from gun violence, homicide, suicides, tragic avoidable accidents. 33 thousand Americans a year die. It is time for us to say we are going to have comprehensive background checks, we are gonna close the gun show loopholes."



http://twitter.com/ABCLiz/status/672155546506518528/photo/1

Profile Information

Member since: Wed Jul 22, 2015, 01:19 PM
Number of posts: 1,881
Latest Discussions»MrWendel's Journal