The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Bernie Sanders is now even with Clinton in Reuters Tracking Poll

44.6 for Hillary. 44.3 for Bernie. Statistical dead heat.

More interesting is that a month ago Sanders was at 30.7% vs. Clinton’s 50.3%.

Internals show men do more go for Bernie.  Under 30s go massively for Bernie, women are only slightly for Clinton.  Blacks are -20 for Bernie, so that’s a major challenge for him.

But this is why Clinton’s campaign is lashing out.  Bernie is now officially a threat

I agree with Pachacutec that Bernie looks stronger in a general than Clinton.  The more people hear of his message, the more they like it, and Clinton has high fixed negatives.

Trump vs. Sanders. Socialist v. Nativist Populist,  looks likely.

(I am fundraising to determine how much I’ll write this year.  If you value my writing, and want more of it, please consider donating.)


Henry Kissinger Is a War Criminal, Hillary Clinton Is a War Criminal


Supreme Court Justice Scalia Is Dead


  1. EmilianoZ

    Funnily it’s pretty much the same choice as on the 30ies:

    Front Populaire vs Fascism

  2. Tom

    Well hopefully we get to that point.

    Erdogan has begun shelling YPG and SAA Targets and his forces are stockpiling ammo and SAM missiles on the border to have air parity. Saudis sent troops to prep the ground for their own deployment. This can’t end well.

  3. Ivory Bill Woodpecker

    More off-topic but important news:

    Justice Scalia has died.

  4. Bruce Wilder

    Early on, the DNC conspicuously tried to help Clinton by hiding her behind deliberately obscure scheduling of Democratic debates, so the political professionals have apparently known for a while now that Clinton was unlikely to wear well when exposed to the public.

    It makes one wonder, not for the first time, about the judgment of the professionals — did they really think she would sneak by in the early primaries on name recognition and then she’d be OK, because it would be the usual lesser evil comparison with a Republican clown or truly evil prick?

    If it is Trump v Sanders (and I am not convinced Trump will care enough to stay the course, or that the establishment won’t find a way to displace him when Sanders begins to seem inevitable), it represents a political revolution of sorts in both Parties, as the electorate forces change as best they can. The political establishment in both Parties includes both politicians and operatives, but also a visible media punditry. It would be interesting if this tremor sends shockwaves thru the Media, completing that phase of the internet revolution.

  5. Ivory Bill Woodpecker


    Before I start taking the prospect of a Sanders nomination seriously, I need to see him win a state which is neither low-population nor a Paleface Bantustan.

  6. Ivory Bill Woodpecker

    Besides, Sanders is a GOP opposition researcher’s dream opponent.

  7. Katiebird

    I can’t turn my back on a man with a plan for tax supported (not free but a hell of a lot better than the 20% of our take home pay we’re currently paying …. And UppityWoman doesn’t know anything about why I support him) medicare for everyone

  8. Peter*

    It’s hard to tell if this isn’t just more Kabuki to draw the Liberal rubes to the voting pens but it certainly will enhance the spectacle.

    Bernie isn’t offering much more than raw Hopium but if he can drive a wooden stake into the heart of the Clinton Dynasty that will be enough to bring a smile to my face.

    I doubt Trump will even have to raise a sweat nailing Sanders’ faux Socialist hide to a wall because too many people already think Obama is a Socialist and only a disillusioned Liberal minority follow this diluted European version of a better kinder Capitalism. Make America Great Again may be a vague slogan but it beats Make America Europe!

  9. Hugh

    Hillary Clinton jumped the shark when she declared she is a progressive. Talk about cognitive dissonance. I mean is there a progressive anywhere whom she convinced, one who said, “All right then, let’s move on”? So why did she do it? Because she has an incredible tin ear when it comes to politics. It’s not so much that she’s disconnected from ordinary Americans. It is that she has an ill-concealed contempt for them. I would say most politicians nowadays do, including husband Bill, but the difference is that while Bill knew how to smooth talk the rubes and feel your pain, Hillary’s brand of phoniness is just jarring, and made even more so with the inevitable comparisons to her husband. Say what you will but Bill was a consumate con man. The perfect con is not where you don’t even know you’ve been conned. It is where you know you’re being conned, but you are so charmed by the con man that you allow yourself to be taken anyway. Bill Clinton was that kind of guy. Hillary isn’t. She always gives the impression that she would rather be some place else, and that she is only where she is as long as she absolutely needs to be and then she’s gone. You see that in the debates but also recently when she left a crowd waiting for hours, arrived, gave a five minute canned speech, and left, leaving people gaping. And this is how she treats her supporters. If it had been Bill, you get the feeling he would have made of point of spending extra time with them, feeling their pain, and with that extra effort turning out a great news story and turning them and a lot of others into diehard partisans. With Hillary, the thought never even occurred. Those people were just something on a checklist. She checked them off and moved on.

    Her handlers want to cast this as a “perception” problem. But it’s really the message, and hers is thoroughly incoherent. She is the candidate who can get things done. It’s not a question of whether this is true or not, but rather what does it even mean? What “things”? Done ??? as in what? You can almost hear the ghost of Bill whispering, “It depends upon what you mean by ‘done’.”

    She called the TPP the gold standard, then under pressure she came out against it “in its present form”. Again what does this non-rejecting rejection mean?

    She is the feminist candidate. But would a feminist stay with, even out of political calculation, or maybe because it is so calculating, a sexaholic husband who preys on women? Would a feminist candidate trot out a couple of antiquated warhorses like Madeleine Albright and Gloria Steinem to insult young women voters, a demographic Hillary Clinton has clearly lost. I mean if essentially calling them emptyheaded, sex starved traitors doesn’t entice them back, what will? Along these lines, Bill Clinton was asked why younger voters (of both sexes) were supporting Sanders and he reeled off a list of proposals that Sanders had made addressing issues of concern to young people. I suppose he was trying to make these sound pie in the sky but the effect was glaringly the opposite. It just underlined that Hillary had not even bothered to think about, let alone address, what was important to this group.

    Hillary has played the experience card, but this is ironic for all kinds of reasons. As I have pointed out before, husband Bill’s “experience” before becoming President was that of being the Governor of a state with less than one percent of the US population. She was an undistinguished Senator from New York, and given her name recognition, her tenure was thoroughly forgettable. She then ran a bitter campaign against Barack Obama whom she now so tightly embraces. So was she wrong then to disagree with him or wrong now to agree with him? And if Obama can now (or until the South Carolina primary is over) do no wrong, how does she rationalize her supposed rejection of one of Obama’s signature legacies, the TPP? As for her time as Secretary of State, it was noteworthy principally for self-inflicted disasters like Libya.

    Hillary Clinton criticizes Sanders as a one issue candidate: he’s against Wall Street. But Bill Clinton ran on “It’s the economy, stupid.” Meanwhile she takes millions from Wall Street all the while she maintains she is somehow exempt from its influence. How to square all this? Well, you can’t. It’s more incoherence.

    And that’s the problem. Voters want to have some idea where a candidate stands, even if as with all the Republican candidates, where they stand are on corners of Goofyville. But Hillary is all about triangulation. And triangulation is not about where you stand but where you are willing to move to. What Hillary can’t say because it would be taken negatively, that is accurately, is that in a country hungry for change, she is very much a candidate of the status quo. And running on a platform of the status quo, ONLY BETTER is as uninspiring as it gets. It’s not what the country wants. She’s not what the country wants. So she has to dress it up differently. She’s just not very good at it is all.

    Finally, there is the issue of corruption, which infects our entire political system and which the Clintons epitomize. They have always had an obvious, and deeply pathological, love of money. Remember Hillary’s “luck” way back when in her short, but very lucrative stint trading commodity futures? Or her incredible statement about how she and Bill were nearly bankrupt leaving the White House as some kind of a justification for their making over a hundred million giving “speeches”? Or their funky foundation with its billions and influence peddling? Or Bill Clinton’s in your face, you rubes, assertion that he was going to keep giving his “speeches” because he had to pay the bills (Well, at least one Bill, anyway).

    You see it’s not about Hillary Clinton’s campaign strategy, it’s not about whether her handlers are doing a good job, it’s not about perceptions. Hillary’s problem is with reality. No matter how much she tries to tamp it down, it continues to leak out from every pore of her campaign and every statement she makes. We have a political, electoral, and financial system that is endlessly corrupt, and she is an avatar of that system. Although I do not support Sanders (I do identify as progressive), he has turned out somewhat better than I thought, but the truth is that even a ham sandwich would have more integrity than Hillary Clinton. That’s why national polls are narrowing. I think the Democratic party machine has 3 positions. They would prefer Clinton to Sanders. If despite their rigging Sanders became the nominee, they would hope he loses in the general. If he wins the general, then they will obstruct his Presidency.

  10. highrpm

    and her programmed smile just amplifies her flatlined voice. the woman is without genuine empathy. rather, she exudes from her pores “high maintenance b**ch.” that’s my transference.

  11. Jerome

    Pipe dreams.

    Sanders would get demolished in a general election, not by Trump, but the mainstream media.

    But he’s not even going to get that far. Clinton leads strongly outside the ultra white states. Anyway, I think that’s what Bloomberg is hoping for too.

  12. Hugh

    Jerome, both Sanders and Trump are getting demolished every day by the mainstream media –to very little effect.

    As for Bloomberg, someone explain to me how a guy whose main message is he’s out to defend the corporations is going to get any significant numer of votes anywhere or have any effect at all on this election.

  13. Ivory Bill Woodpecker

    Sanders is getting attacked by the mainstream media?

    Where? In the Mirror Universe?

    As for the GOP, they’re treating him with kid gloves. They want him to win the nomination. See the Uppity Woman link I posted above for why.

  14. Ivory Bill Woodpecker

    Oh, and I see some neo-Ratzi riffraff has managed to sneak in again. Yuck.

  15. sglover

    @Ivory Bill Woodpecker —

    I suspect Republicans are rather more eager to face off against HRC. She’s a lousy candidate who practically guarantees that, with just a little digging, an election-hobbling scandal can emerge right around the end of October, 2016.

    Anyway, given that Republican “strategists” have been and still are totally blindsided by Trump, maybe possibly they’re not exactly clairvoyant. So it’s stupid (and cowardly) to rely on their (imagined) insights for assessing the Dem candidate.

  16. Ivory Bill Woodpecker

    True Believers are so cute. 😆

  17. Jeff W

    Hugh, I agree with your assessment completely.

    Hillary Clinton manages to be her own worst enemy when it comes to campaigning: her status quo policies seem astonishingly out-of-sync with what the public seems to want and to the extent that she has aligned herself with what the public wants (e.g., her changed stance on the TPP), she seems completely inauthentic. Bernie Sanders, whatever one thinks of the chances of getting his proposals enacted, at least has properly gauged the mood of the public and has consistency and authenticity on his side.

    given that Republican “strategists” have been and still are totally blindsided by Trump…

    True…and also we haven’t had a candidate on the Democratic ticket who was anything but a neoliberal in the past 20 years. The entire debate during that time has been framed in neoliberal terms. Sanders doesn’t do that—he actually makes the argument on other bases (e.g., liberal/progressive bases, historical bases, etc.), something that recent Presidents have not done. Whether that argument is enough to persuade US voters, we don’t know—it’s been persuasive for some of those responding to the Reuters poll, apparently—but we do know that it’s something that the GOP hasn’t seen, much argued less against, in a long time. So the GOP strategists might be overestimating the GOP’s ability to win in a presidential contest in which Sanders is the Democratic party nominee. (It’s similar to the media overestimating Hillary Clinton’s performance so far—they’re undervaluing the arguments and policy choices that Sanders is making and overvaluing his supposed weaknesses (e.g., the “socialist” label).)

  18. Jerome

    Hugh, I have not read a but one or two, really obscure, and not well publicized, hits on Sanders. I would say nothing, but I am sure it is out there, but no where near the center of media attention. I know a little bit about him, from my days in VT, and his past, haha, well, it’d be a fun throwback. He’s got a small minority of the populace that is full of hope about his chances. I don’t want to be a part in tearing it down, I will just point out that others will, fairly easily.

    I am pretty shocked at how terrible Clinton is; really is in some sort of time warp and needs to get shook up hard to get it going. I think she could win still, but Trump is unpredictable.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén