HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » imagine2015 » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Home country: USA
Current location: Merica!
Member since: Wed Sep 16, 2015, 02:36 PM
Number of posts: 2,054

Journal Archives

Trump, Clinton and Cruz are "party candidates disliked by a majority of the American people."

An Unpopularity Contest for the Ages
By Ruth Marcus
April 20, 2016

WASHINGTON -- The 2016 presidential election is shaping up as an unpopularity contest of unprecedented proportions.

Assuming, that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination and that either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz becomes the Republican nominee, the general-election ballot is set to feature a choice between two candidates more negatively viewed than any major-party nominee in the history of polling.

Trump is, by far, the furthest underwater: The latest Wall Street Journal-NBC poll puts his net favorability rating at minus-41. A breathtaking 65 percent of registered voters see him negatively, versus 24 percent with a positive view, making him the most unpopular major party presidential candidate ever recorded. Cruz is at minus-23, with 49 percent viewing him negatively, 26 percent in a positive light.

Clinton, by contrast, has a healthier (and more volatile) history with voters. Polls showed her favorables slightly ahead of her negatives when she formally launched her campaign last April. But her trajectory is unnerving. The new NBC-WSJ numbers have Clinton minus-24 (with 56 percent viewing her unfavorably and 32 percent favorably), almost double the gap just one month earlier.

"This is unprecedented," said Democratic pollster Mark Mellman. "It will be the first time in the history of polling that we'll have both major party candidates disliked by a majority of the American people going into the election."


"Sanders has a path to victory. His campaign is not but all done." Clinton campaign is offended

Sanders Campaign’s Commitment To Victory Irritates Media, Offends Clinton Campaign
by Kevin Gosztola
April21, 2016

Once again, for the umpteenth time in the Democratic presidential primary, there is a dominant narrative in the establishment news media that it is over for Bernie Sanders. News outlets have crunched the numbers, again, and after the loss to Hillary Clinton in New York, conventional wisdom is Sanders cannot win.

Such harping is presented as if it is a neutral perspective solely based on mathematics that is not driven by any influence the Clinton campaign may have over media institutions. However, the fact is there are 1,400 pledged delegates left to win in contests. Clinton has 1,442 pledged delegates while Sanders has 1,209 pledged delegates. It’s a lead of 233 pledged delegates, which he could still overcome in June, especially if he continues to surge in California—a state with 475 delegates to be won.

To put it more concisely, Sanders has a path to victory. His campaign is not all but done. It would be all but done if there weren’t over a thousand pledged delegates to be awarded. That is not the case.

Sanders and his campaign have no interest in playing the part of protest candidate, especially because talking like Sanders does not mean Clinton will follow through on the rhetoric she deploys to prevent her campaign from dwindling. It also is premature to grapple with how the movement around the campaign can continue after the campaign is over when it frankly is not over yet. The Sanders campaign is in the midst of a war for a nomination that will give voters a viable alternative to two oligarchs in November, and it is not about to quit now.


A Look at the Presidential Candidates’ Tax Returns

A Look at the Presidential Candidates’ Tax Returns
Posted on April 19, 2016

Monday was the deadline for filing federal tax returns. The presidential candidates are also making tax-related headlines, as four of the five have already released their 2014 tax returns to the public. The takeaways? Bernie Sanders (who has made headlines for his low income compared to the rest of the 2016 candidates) pays the least, thanks to significant deductions. The Clintons, on the other hand, pay a 35.7 percent tax rate (compared to the average national rate of 14.7 percent).

Yahoo Finance reports:

Many taxpayers lower their payments to Uncle Sam through a variety of deductions, which is why almost everybody pays a lower effective tax rate than the tax bracket they fall into based on their gross income. The most popular deductions are the ones for mortgage interest, real-estate taxes, state and local income taxes and charitable donations. Those are listed on Schedule A of the candidates’ tax returns as itemized deductions; we’ve provided the overall total in the table above. There are lots of other types of possible deductions as well. Bill and Hillary Clinton operate at least two incorporated entities that are included on their personal returns, with many business expenses that are deductible. It’s harder to tell what deductions Ted Cruz and John Kasich claim, since they’ve only released the first two summary pages of their returns and not a breakout of the details.

It also breaks down the Clintons’ gross income, noting that Hillary received $10.5 million in 2014 for speeches alone. They also “donated $3 million to the Clinton Foundation.” That donation is tax-deductible because the foundation is nonprofit. Interestingly, the Kasichs “earned twice as much as Bernie and Jane Sanders in 2014, while paying nearly three times as much in federal taxes.”

Donald Trump has yet to release his own tax returns because they are being audited by the IRS. Yahoo Finance notes that nothing “prevents Trump from releasing pre-audited returns” but that he may choose not to do so because he benefits from certain tax breaks.


Hillary Clinton beats Trump in poll! Voters believe she is more dishonest than Trump!

That's not easy to do!

Hillary now has 1,094 elected delegates short of securing the 2,383 needed to win the nomination!

According to The Associated Press tally, Clinton has 1,289 elected delegates to Sanders's 1,045. To win requires 2,383 delegates.

It is extremely unlikely Hillary will pick up over 1,000 more elected (pledged) delegates in the remaining primaries.

So it is still probable that it will be an "Open" Democratic convention.

In that case, the "super delegates" will decide who wins the nomination.

And if Hillary continues to do so badly in the polls and among the youth and independent voters, many super delegates will abandon her, just as they did at the 2008 convention when hundreds switched to Obama.

As I wrote back on Mach 24th:

"If Hillary can't get the number of elected (pledged) delegates needed to win the nomination and the polls continue to show Sanders is doing much better against the Republican presidential candidate, the super delegates will abandon her in droves.

Especially those in states that Sanders won in primaries.

Democratic office holders don't want to go down with her in defeat in the General Election. They will get off that sinking ship and get
on the Bernie lifeboat."

And, other unpledged Hillary super delegates will follow the wishes of their voters and support Bernie if he won their state primary.

It will be and should be an "open" convention if either candidate fails to win enough elected delegates to secure the nomination.

Democrats March Toward Cliff: Hillary's negative ratings continue to soar. People don't like her.

Democrats March Toward Cliff
19 April 2016
By Robert Parry, Consortium News | Op-Ed

As Democratic-insider "super-delegates" give Hillary Clinton a seemingly insurmountable lead for the presidential nomination, the former Secretary of State's negative ratings continue to soar to stunning levels, hitting a net 24-point unfavorable in the new NBC-Wall Street Journal poll.

It is hard to imagine someone who is viewed unfavorably by a clear majority of voters (56 percent) and with a net-negative of 24 points winning the White House, except that most voters also don't like the top Republican choices either. Donald Trump sports a 41-point net-negative and Sen. Ted Cruz is at minus-23 points. (By contrast, of the two trailing candidates, Sen. Bernie Sanders gets a net-positive 9 points and Gov. John Kasich a net-positive 12 points.)

While Clinton's dismal approval ratings haven't seemed to have shaken the Democratic establishment, which continues to line up behind her long-anticipated coronation, some outside analysts see the party leaders blindly marching toward a cliff. But a major difference between Trump and Clinton in the latest poll is that Trump's numbers haven't moved much while Clinton's net-negative has almost doubled in the last month. In other words, the more Americans get to see of Clinton the more they don't want her.

So, if Clinton's eventual nomination is inevitable, the Democrats will be putting up a candidate who is broadly disliked by the American people. That means a Clinton candidacy will require massive spending on negative ads to make the Republican candidate so frightening in the eyes of most Americans that they will vote for Clinton out of fear, not hope.

If neither Clinton nor Sanders could clinch the nomination on the first ballot, that could open the process to allow the party to select an alternative who has not been in the race, someone such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren, an economic populist who is beloved by Sanders's backers and a woman who might be acceptable to Clinton supporters wanting the first female President.

The full article is at:

Hillary Speaks Her Mind to Wall Street

Obama Administration Publicly Declares Their Opposition to Hillary Clinton's Syria Plan!

Obama adviser explains why Clinton's Syria plan won't work
By Matthew Jaffe, University of Chicago Institute of Politics
April 18, 2016

Chicago (CNN) — The no-fly zone in Syria proposed by Democratic front-runner and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would be both ineffective and a poor use of resources, according to White House deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes.

"A no fly zone in Syria would not solve the problem," Rhodes told David Axelrod on "The Axe Files," a podcast produced by CNN and the University of Chicago Institute of Politics. "If you had an area of geography in Syria where planes couldn't fly over it, people would still be killing each other on the ground. ISIL doesn't have planes, so that doesn't solve the ISIL problem. They would still be able to massacre people on the ground. And we would have to devote an enormous amount of our resources -- which are currently devoted to finding ISIL and killing them wherever they are -- to maintaining this no-fly zone. So it's just not a good use of resources."

Clinton, who served under President Obama as Secretary of State, has argued in favor of a no-fly zone. At a CNN/NY1 Democratic debate last Thursday, with Sen. Bernie Sanders, Clinton reiterated her support for such a move. "I do still support a no-fly zone because I think we need to put in safe havens for those poor Syrians who are fleeing both Assad and ISIS and so they have some place they can be safe," she said.

In an hour-long interview with Axelrod, Rhodes reiterated the administration's opposition to Clinton's stance.


Hillary Is the Candidate of the War Machine

Published on
Friday, February 05, 2016
by Common Dreams

Hillary Is the Candidate of the War Machine
by Jeffrey D. Sachs

There's no doubt that Hillary is the candidate of Wall Street. Even more dangerous, though, is that she is the candidate of the military-industrial complex. The idea that she is bad on the corporate issues but good on national security has it wrong. Her so-called foreign policy "experience" has been to support every war demanded by the US deep security state run by the military and the CIA.

Hillary and Bill Clinton's close relations with Wall Street helped to stoke two financial bubbles (1999-2000 and 2005-8) and the Great Recession that followed Lehman's collapse. In the 1990s they pushed financial deregulation for their campaign backers that in turn let loose the worst demons of financial manipulation, toxic assets, financial fraud, and eventually collapse. In the process they won elections and got mighty rich.

Yet Hillary's connections with the military-industrial complex are also alarming. It is often believed that the Republicans are the neocons and the Democrats act as restraints on the warmongering. This is not correct. Both parties are divided between neocon hawks and cautious realists who don't want the US in unending war. Hillary is a staunch neocon whose record of favoring American war adventures explains much of our current security danger.

Just as the last Clinton presidency set the stage for financial collapse, it also set the stage for unending war. On October 31, 1998 President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act that made it official US policy to support "regime change" in Iraq.


Please read the full article exposing her militaristic pro-war record at:


Wall Street isn't worried about Hillary Clinton's plan


Election 2016: Your money, your vote

Wall Street isn't worried about Hillary Clinton's plan
by Heather Long
October 8, 2015

Hillary Clinton unveiled her big plan to curb the worst of Wall Street's excesses on Thursday. The reaction from the banking community was a shrug, if not relief.

While Clinton proposes some harsher regulations, she stops far short of what more populist Democrats like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren want to do to Wall Street.

"We continue to believe Clinton would be one of the better candidates for financial firms," wrote Jaret Seiberg of Guggenheim Partners in a note to clients analyzing her plan.

Wall Street is comfortable with Clinton approach

"To us, [Clinton's] overall plan demonstrates an understanding of the financial system that we have not previously seen on the campaign trail," Seiberg wrote.

Part of the reason Wall Street has some comfort with Clinton is because of her advisers. When it comes to financial issues, she has often turned to Gary Gensler, a former Commodity Futures Trading Commission chair, and former Congressman Barney Frank, the co-author of Dodd-Frank. The financial world knows both of them well.

Wall Street also takes comfort because of the record of President Bill Clinton.


Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next »