Pulitzer Prize winning author Tony Kushner appeared on All In with Chris Hayes to enthusiastically support Hillary Clinton’s campaign for President. He is a self labeled socialist that clearly understands how radical change is made in the United States.
If you were watching CNN this morning, you may have seen Bernie Sanders campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, citing a new Reuters poll that he claims shows Bernie Sanders leading Hillary Clinton by 6 points. My first reaction to any poll is to go look at the methodology and the full results. My graduate degree was in communications research. I found the following, which was quite odd and had no explanation.
What in the hell is the category “wouldn’t vote?” I’ve heard of undecided before, but wouldn’t vote? I attempted to dig down in the numbers but could only play around with the filters that let you look at demographic information. Bob Cesca at The Daily Banter had something on this and the fishy results…
Notice that just below the chart, there’s a series of drop-down menus where you can select various demographic filters to narrow the results of the poll. If you choose the standard parameters normally applied in respectable polling results from the “Political” menu, specifically party affiliation and voter registration status, Reuters shows an almost-tied race, with Hillary narrowly leading Bernie.
In other words, among registered Democrats, Hillary is winning by a couple tenths of a percentage point. Still good news for Bernie to be this close.
But here’s where the everything falls apart for Bernie supporters. If we choose the most accurate sample from the Political drop-down menu, specifically “likely Democratic primary voters,” Hillary leads by seven points. Again, it’s less positive news for Bernie and his supporters, but it’s still noteworthy that he’s closed such a wide gap against Hillary. That said, it’s obviously not the runaway shock poll some sites are ballyhooing today.
Personally, I like to use FiveThirtyEight.com for my polling fixes. Whenever I see a breathless reporter or anchor pushing results of a “new poll”, I head over to Nate’s place and see what he has. If you don’t know about Nate, Google him, he knows what he is doing.
What I found at FiveThirtyEight.com was a bit different than the Reuters poll. Nate’s site lead me to the latest NBC News poll which has Clinton leading Sanders by 9 points.
Data from the latest NBC News|SurveyMonkey Weekly Election Tracking poll conducted online from Feb 15-21 shows that nationally, Clinton maintains a double-digit lead over Sanders among black voters — 65 percent to 22 percent. She also maintains her overall national lead 51 percent to 40 percent.
I am still determined to find the full results of the Reuters poll, but my attempts so far have turned up nothing. That is suspicious to me, if a firm hides their methodology, it is a major red flag. I’m off to Google some more.
An audio recording came to light yesterday that was recorded during commercial breaks at a town hall meeting hosted by Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski. The recording caught Joe and Mika fawning over and colluding with Donald Trump on what questions they would ask. There is no other way to describe it besides collusion, but of course, our illustrious media has found other ways.
A Youtube clip with the audio is posted below. Listen for yourself.
Their are several instances in the recording where it becomes very clear that Joe and Mika are taking cues from and actively trying to help Donald Trump.
“You know what I thought was kind of a wow moment, was the guy you brought up on stage,” Brzezinski began by telling Trump.
“We played it several times this morning,” Scarborough put in.
“I watched your show this morning,” Trump responded. “You have me almost as a legendary figure, I like that.”
After that, Brzezinski thanked Trump for agreeing to the interview. “You, you get great ratings and a raise,” he told her. “Me, I get nothing.”
“This will make us all look good,” Trump said, to which Scarborough replied, “Exactly.”
Anyone who thinks that isn’t collusion is out of their mind. How could it be called anything else? Later on in the recording, they discuss what questions to ask and Trump helps them out. Both Joe and Mika just keep gushing over him, almost like they are star struck. They are very serious journalists, you know?
Brzezinski then tried to ask Scarborough about a question she planned to ask Trump, trying to be discreet but eventually giving away the subject. “Do you not want me to do, the um, the ones with, um, deportation?”
“We really do have to go to some questions,” Scarborough responded.
“That’s right,” Trump agreed, before joking, “Nothing too hard, Mika.”
“Okay,” Brzezinski can be heard telling someone. In the end, there were no questions about immigration or deportations during the town hall.
I woke up this morning and decided to break my vow to never watch Morning Joe again and flipped to MSNBC to see if they were still on the air. Sure enough, there they were – Donald Trump’s biggest supporters on my television pretending like they are journalists as they promote their “legendary figure.” As Donald Trump said, “I like that!”
We’ve all seen the memes with the unflattering, angry-looking photo of Hillary Clinton and an incendiary indictment of her entire career in bold type scrolling up our Facebook feed. The caricature they paint, most of the time, is that of a conniving, greedy, evil person that is beholden to Wall Street.
For many young people, this is the only Hillary Clinton they know.
They have grown up with Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Alex Jones and all the rest of the right-wing noise machine. All of those “sources” of news are constantly spreading lies and political propaganda with the prime objective of hurting Democrats and any of our allies. Young people may think this is how it has always been and have just incorporated it into their world view. Many have consciously and/or subconsciously absorbed this purely political, manufactured misinformation. It makes it that much easier for them to believe these memes that cast Hillary Clinton as a villain and worthy of scorn.
I posted a section of Hillary Clinton’s closing at one of the debates and one of the young millennials I am “friends” with on Facebook, a former student, commented that it was “cringe worthy and offensive.” His hatred for her has been shaped by his short life filled with innuendo, direct assaults and many 100’s of millions of dollars worth of misinformation about the Clintons over the last 25 years. He would never admit that, I’m sure. He’s way above that. :)
I wonder if they know about the Hillary Clinton that shook the world in 1995 with a speech she gave on human/women’s rights in Beijing, China? This New York Times article from 1995 is a must read for ALL people who claim to care about women’s rights and human rights. Here are some key passages…(emphasis is mine)
Speaking more forcefully on human rights than any American dignitary has on Chinese soil, Hillary Rodham Clinton catalogued a devastating litany of abuse that has afflicted women around the world today and criticized China for seeking to limit free and open discussion of women’s issues here.
“It is time for us to say here in Beijing, and the world to hear, that it is no longer acceptable to discuss women’s rights as separate from human rights,” Mrs. Clinton told the Fourth World Conference on Women assembled here.
“It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls,” Mrs. Clinton said, or “when women and girls are sold into slavery or prostitution for human greed.
“It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small” she continued, or “when thousands of women are raped in their own communities and when thousands of women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war.”
“Freedom means the right of people to assemble, organize, and debate openly,” Mrs. Clinton admonished her Chinese hosts. “It means respecting the views of those who may disagree with the views of their governments. It means not taking citizens away from their loved ones and jailing them, mistreating them, or denying them their freedom or dignity because of peaceful expression of their ideas and opinions.”
Afterward, Mrs. Clinton said she hoped the Chinese had gotten the message of her speech. “I think it is important that all governments which in any way infringe on human rights know that this conference takes a strong stand and that this conference is trying to move toward the realization of human rights,” she told a news conference.
She said President Clinton’s goal is to remain “engaged” with China in a broad and comprehensive relationship, but added, “we are trying to have an honest relationship.”
“To me, it was important to express how I felt and to do so as clearly as I could,” she said.
So when I talk to a young Bernie supporter who thinks they know who Hillary Clinton is and what she has done with her career in public service, I wonder if they know about the speech Hillary Clinton gave that reverberated around the world.
Women across the entire GLOBE stood up and cheered this courageous, strong woman who stood up for them!
In the age of information, it isn’t hard to find out the truth if you really want to know it. May I suggest Google with a custom time range so you can get past the clutter of all the election/political driven search results.
Go, find the truth!
When I first learned that Bernie Sanders’ voted against the Brady Bill 5 times, I was shocked.
When I dug deeper to find out more about his position, I learned that unlike the reputation he likes to project, he is a politician too.
A few days before Election Day in 1990, the National Rifle Association sent a letter to its 12,000 members in Vermont, with an urgent message about the race for the state’s single House seat.
Vote for the socialist, the gun rights group said. It’s important.
“Bernie Sanders is a more honorable choice for Vermont sportsmen than Peter Smith,” wrote Wayne LaPierre, who was — and still is — a top official at the national NRA, backing Sanders over the Republican incumbent. (emphasis mine)
Yes, you read that right, Wayne LaPierre wrote a letter supporting Bernie Sanders in his race for the House in 1990.
His reasoning was based on the principle of states’ rights.
Sanders was with the gun group on one major issue: he opposed a mandatory waiting period for handguns, saying that was best left to states. But, on assault weapons, his position was the same as the one for which Smith was getting hammered.
“It’s an issue I do not feel comfortable about,” Sanders said after one debate, according to a memoir about the race by a former aide, Steven Rosenfeld.
Sanders couldn’t very well rail against Smith for his views on assault weapons when they were the same as his own. Instead, the aide said, Sanders wanted to let others “do our dirty work for us.”
So not only was Sanders using the “states’ rights” excuse for giving his vote to the NRA, he also showed he is just as political as any other politician. The fact that he wanted to let others do his dirty work, which included the NRA, doesn’t sit very well with this liberal.
With the death of Justice Scalia this weekend, the principle of states’ rights and how each candidate truly feels about it needs to be addressed.
Bernie Sanders kept his word to the NRA.
After he was elected, Sanders stuck to the assurances he had given gun rights groups. In 1991, he voted against a measure that would have required a seven-day waiting period to buy a gun. In 1993, Sanders voted against a broader version of the bill — named for James Brady, the White House press secretary who was shot in the 1981 attempt on President Ronald Reagan’s life — that became law.
That bill set up the national background check system in place today. But Sanders objected because it also included a provision for a temporary waiting period, said Weaver, his longtime aide.
Making people wait 7 days before buying a weapon is just too much to ask for Bernie Sanders.