Bernie Sanders is a Good Man but He's not a Saint

The more I think about it, this is the race. He is running as a Saint. someone who is pure.

He's pure whereas HRC is, while a good public servant, compromised.

So this race is about purity on Bernie's end.

A big objective for her then is to show that while he too is a good public servant, he's not a Saint.

Bernie runs against super PACs as if they are the root of all evil itself. Yet:

"Senator Sanders is right of course, but what is likely not right is that accompanying him through Iowa was a group of nurses whose “super PAC” has doled out close to $1 million on ads and other kinds of campaign support for Sanders. What should raise a “hypocrisy alert” is that this is the same candidate who incites liberal and EmoProg supporters with persistent calls to eradicate such outside groups from political campaigns. Out of deference to ‘feeltheBern’ acolytes’ sensibilities, it is better to raise an “inconsistency alert” to avoid being accused of being a Clinton, Wall Street, and Koch paid shill."

"As a matter of pure uncontested fact, there has been more super PAC money spent thus far in express support of the Sanders campaign than for either one of his Democratic rivals. Let that sink in. That includes, by the way, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) records. And no, the FEC is not paid by the Clinton campaign, or Koch brothers, or Wall Street any more than this column is. Their job is to report who is contributing to the Sanders’ campaign based on information provided by the Sanders’ campaign and the super PAC according to FEC campaign finance reporting requirements."

"The super PAC and group following the Sanders’ campaign in and around Iowa is National Nurses United. The group’s executive director, RoseAnn DeMoro said, regarding the super PAC’s largesse for Sanders, that “I do appreciate the irony. All things being equal, we would rather not be doing this. On the other hand, we want to see Bernie as president.”

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/01/bernie-sanders-super-pac-money-democratic-rivals.html

But that irony is the same for all Democrats. All Dems-including President Obama and Hillary Clinton-abhorred the CU ruling.

Yet Dems have had to use them for now-short of having the decision reversed which may well come once Hillary is in the WH to appoint better SJC Justices!

But as HRC has said, when you are in a world of nuclear weapons, you can't just unilaterally disarm. Now when she says it, the Bernie Bros are thick with disgust. Weasel words in their minds. She should practice pacifism in a world where the Koch Brothers are spending close to $1 billion dollars just to destroy her-there are many other groups doing likewise.

Now, though, Bernie-out of necessity-is also having to use a super PAC.

But Bernie is the Saint, the Pure One, who is above all necessity. The purists insist that all cries of necessity are just alibis for corruption.

Until the Pure One was running. Now he's allowed to act out of necessity.

I sure hope Hillary doesn't let him get away with his usual soap box claim that he doesn't take a dime of super PAC money on Thursday. 

They Don't Want Us to be Enthusiastic About HRC but We Are

I'm still having fun with this meme of the rapper DJ Khaled.

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/01/more-proof-they-dont-want-you-to-vote.html

Krugman has a great piece that frames the Democratic race perfectly.

"The appeal of the Sanders campaign, at least to people I know, is that it brings a sense of possibility. For those who were joyful and uplifted on inauguration day 2009, the years that followed have been a vast letdown: American politics got even uglier, policy progress always fell short of dreams. Now comes Sanders — very different in personal style from Obama 2008, but again someone who seems different and offers the hope of transformation. And some people really want to hear that message, and don’t want to hear that they’re being unrealistic."

"But there’s something else, which I keep encountering, and which I’m sure I’m not the only one to notice: even among progressives, the two-decade-plus smear campaign against the Clintons has had its effect. I keep being told about terrible things the Clintons did that never actually happened, but were carefully fomented right-wing legends — except I’m hearing them from people on the left. The sense that where there’s smoke there must be fire — when the reality was nothing but Richard Mellon Scaife with a smoke machine — is very much out there, still."

"Unfortunately, that underlying Foxification of perceptions marries all too well with the tendency of some — only some — Sanders supporters to assume that any skepticism about their hero’s proposals or prospects must reflect personal corruption. Something like that was probably inevitable in a campaign whose premise is that everything is rigged by the oligarchy, but it interacts with the vague perception, the product of all those years of right-wing smearing, that there’s a lot of Clinton dirt."

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/pre-iowa-notes/?module=BlogPost-ReadMore&version=Blog%20Main&action=Click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body#more-39512

Yes, I have encountered many Bernie supporters on Twitter repeating the vilest of lies from Fox and friends that have made their rounds for 24 years nationally.

The Emoprogs who repeat these smears-Bernie himself now seems to want to talk about emails-had similar levels of opprobrium against President Obama. I recall feverished comments that he was 'pure evil'-on Jane Hamsher's old site that was not uncommon.

But Krugman also gets the inverse of this. Many Hillary supporters see this as something that she has wrongfully been subjected to for 24 years and are very disappointed to see Bernie folks repeating these same lies.

I think Bernie will regret trying to use this email thing as a way to get votes.

"On the other hand, that history is, I think, one factor behind a phenomenon we saw in 2008 and will see again this year: there’s a lot more passionate support for Clinton than either Sanders supporters or the news media imagine. There are a lot of Democrats who see her as someone who has been subjected to character assassination, to vicious attacks, on a scale few women and no men in politics have ever encountered — yet she’s still standing, still capable of remarkable grace under fire. If you didn’t see something heroic about her performance in the Benghazi hearing, you’re missing something essential."

"And Clinton’s dogged realism, while it doesn’t inspire the same kind of uplift as Sanders’s promise of change, can be inspiring in its own way."

I certainly find it inspiring.

Krugman then points out that the DMR poll showed her with even higher levels of enthusiasm than the Bern. 

Yes, we are enthusiastic over her, Bernie, and we won't forget you trying to hit her with the emails. 

Trump, Bernie and Does the Party Still Decide?

There has been a lot of discussion of this theory in light of Trump's dominance and the rise of Bernie.

Nate Silver has finally given up his Trump skepticism when it became clear that the GOP has decided not to try to sink him.

Is the theory itself now in tatters? Good question.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/01/trump-wins-do-parties-still-decide-nominees.html#

I think it can still be salvaged with a Trump win, though not with a Bernie win. With Trump you can argue plausibly, that the GOP is not a strong party this year. 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-republican-party-may-be-failing/

The Dems on the other hand are clearly a strong party this year so if Bernie were the nominee this would show that 2016 was a year when the party no longer decides. 

The Dems as a party are incredibly unified. She has 464 endorsements from within the party. On the GOP side, there is only about 130 endorsements divided among 5 different candidates. 

How does a party decide when they don't even agree among themselves?

What's more, Chris Hayes, argued recently that most Democrats like their party's establishment which is certainly true when you think of folks like Planned Parenthood, etc. 

What's more most Democrats love Hillary. It's not like the GOP where the base rightfully can't stand it's own leaders. 

She is getting basically unanimous support from black Democrats. 

Here was a very powerful speech for her by civil rights pioneer, John Lewis. 

https://t.co/AQhIPEp0X6

https://www.instagram.com/p/BBNyPgdMRou/

What's at Stake in Iowa Tonight?

No matter how you want to frame it or spin it, obviously winning is better than losing. Both Bernie and Hillary would rather win tonight than lose.

Bernie, though, has been suggesting that a close loss would be a moral victory.

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/02/why-is-bernie-trying-to-lower.html
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/02/bernie-is-kidding-himself-if-he-thinks.html

This suggests to me he thinks it's likely that he won't win. Ok, you want to manage expectations so he's right to do so in any case.

But it also seems likely that his own internal polls are showing this-as we know her's do.

You don't hear her saying a close loss would be fine.

It looks like Hillary will win-though it's not a sure thing. Nate Silver has her at 76 percent likelihood to win.

It's more important that he wins than she does however,

No doubt, she wants to win. It is better for her that she wins. If she loses, the media feeding frenzy will get even more extreme than it already is.

The Beltway press hates Hillary Clinton, has always done so, and it would love to see her taken down here.

They don't want the Democratic party to nominate Hillary Clinton.

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/01/more-proof-they-dont-want-you-to-vote.html

Still, if she were to lose a close loss this would still not give Bernie enough delegates. For this reason, Sam Wang argues that he needs a 10 point win to really put himself on the right track.

http://election.princeton.edu/2016/01/29/iowa-caucus-what-to-look-for/#more-13633

Even then, though she is in very strong shape to win the South and many other states. And she still has that huge super delegate lead.

People forget that her race with Obama was very competitive. As he himself says, if a few states had gone first she would have won.

The key for the Obama team is they had done the delegate math. This is what the Hillary team is not forgetting this time.

For him to lose Iowa outright would be very tough to come back from as this is an optimum state for him.

So it's more important that he win than she does but it would definitely help her a lot to get a win to shut down all the bedwetting from the media who is floating more Biden talk now. 

Why is Bernie Trying to Lower Expectations in Iowa?

In party this is only smart. But he has said again and again that he can lose Iowa 'by a few points' and it still be a big moral victory.

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/02/bernie-is-kidding-himself-if-he-thinks.html

It's debatable that this is a moral victory. In such a white, rural state he's supposed to win. Listen, it's a given he's expected to win NH-is this a news flash?

But if he loses Iowa, then wins NH, we then go to two much more diverse, Hillary friendly states-SC and Nevada.

In any case, Hillary is talking in such a way that sounds confident that she has Iowa.

"Hillary is talking right now in Des Moines like someone who's seen private polling telling her she will win. Laying down policy markers.../"

"Forget what it looks like, we know her private polling has shown her winning "

https://twitter.com/Peggynoonannyc/status/693997775378341888

This is a big difference between now and 2008. Then she was trying to give as many speeches as possible till the end. Now she has Bill and Chelsea out more and she hardly seems panicked.

This time, it's Bernie who is trying to get in as many speeches as possible till the end.

But the reason Bernie may be saying a 2 point loss is ok is as he's seen these internal polls as well.

"On a call with supporters Monday, the campaign shared internal polls that showed it up by 5 points in Iowa, trailing Sen. Bernie Sanders by 8 to 9 points in New Hampshire, but with large leads in the next two states with large Hispanic and black populations: up 25 points in Nevada and 35 points in South Carolina."

"At the finance meeting, Podesta said the campaign is going to win Iowa, attendees said."

"And they said it was a welcome opportunity to raise more specific questions on Latino outreach with senior leadership, where the focus was entirely on the primary, and the general election was barely mentioned."

"The campaign was asked if it had, for example, began planning Florida outreach to the growing Puerto Rican population, separate from the engagement it might have with Cuban voters. Donors also said they want to see more Spanish-language ads from the campaign, like radio ads in Nevada."

"Campaign officials said the campaign is focused on the four early states at the moment, but the donors mentioned Colorado and Texas, which have their primaries on March 1, as well as Florida and Illinois on March 15. With Sanders looking more competitive, supporters want to make sure Clinton isn’t leaving Latino votes on the table."

http://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarrasquillo/clinton-campaign-wants-latino-donors-to-step-up-as-it-eyes-5#.yxRMg6mK2W

C'mon Iowa, show You're With Her.

How Do You Win the Obama Coalition Being so Critical of Obama?

It doesn't seem that Bernie's attempted outreach to African-Americans is coming too much if you look at Charles Blow's description of things on the ground in Iowa. 

"Also, the preference for Clinton over Bernie Sanders was a two-pronged assessment; it was a sophisticated weighing of comfort and of policy without an absolutism of good vs. bad, but rather a matter of degrees better or worse, more real or more fantasy."

"On the policy front, many simply found Sanders’s policies unrealistically ambitious, an over-promising of giveaways. As one woman put it, “He sounds like Oprah: ‘You get a car! And you get a car! And you get a car!’ How is he going to pay for all that?”

"Clinton’s ambitions seemed to be judged more realistic."

"Then, there was the problem of comfort."

"The Clintons seem to intuitively understand the value of retail politics, particularly when doing outreach to marginalized groups. I can’t tell you how many stories I’ve heard from black people about the time that one of the Clintons — most often Bill Clinton — spoke at or showed up at an event important to the black community."

"This means something. It adds to an aura of familiarity that doesn’t extend to Sanders."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/01/opinion/iowas-black-caucusgoers.html?_r=0

If you don't have the black vote, you aren't close to the Obama coalition. And hanging out with Cornell West isn't the way to close the gap. 

It''s clear who Bernie's real base is. The white Emoprogs that hated Obama for years and wanted to primary him. 

Now a new book about Emoprogs by Bill Press is out-with Bernie endorsing the book. 

"Press' book, which is out a day after the Iowa caucuses on February 2, is about "the many ways President Obama has failed to live up to either his promises or his progressive potential," according to promotional materials."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/30/politics/bernie-sanders-democrats-obama-progressives-hillary-clinton/index.html

So this primary is shaping up as a referendum on the Obama years. Those Democrats who see the President as a successful, transformational President-as most Dems do-are all in for Hillary. Those who don't-the Emoprogs-are for Bernie.

So Bernie's coalition is not the Obama coalition but more a coalition of those unsatisfied with the President.

Bernie is Kidding Himself if He Thinks He Doesn't Need Iowa

Yesterday in his interview on Chris Hayes he claimed he could lose Iowa and it would still be a big win based on how far he's come since he entered the race-60 points down.

This moral victory, though, won't be enough. 

He needs to win Iowa. Actually Sam Wang argues, he really needs a 10 point win in Iowa. 

"After the mindnumbing levels of coverage over the last year…the first actual voting of the primary season finally starts on Monday, with the Iowa caucuses. To answer the simple horserace question, Donald Trump will probably come out on top on the Republican side, as will Hillary Clinton on the Democratic side. Although neither of these outcomes is absolutely certain, neither are these the right questions to ask for the long term."

"For the long term, a better question to ask is: can we get clues about who will eventually get the Republican and Democratic nominations? (For a hint, mouse over the image.) To get a sense of where things might be headed, here’s what I will be thinking about on Monday night."

"Iowa is a must-win state for Bernie Sanders. Neither Trump or Clinton needs it, and what other GOP candidates need, Iowa won’t deliver."

http://election.princeton.edu/2016/01/29/iowa-caucus-what-to-look-for/#more-13633

How you view the Democrat race right now depends on how you want to frame it. Right now the media is framing it as this is 2008 all over again-she's in trouble. This was never supposed to be a competitive race.

On the other hand, the HRC team has insisted that there hasn't been much surprise on their end-Eric Boehlert a year ago had said she needs a competitive primary. 

If Bernie can't win Iowa as one of the whitest and most rural states in the nation other than Vermont and NH, then he's got a problem. 

"However, I estimate that Sanders doesn’t just have to win Iowa. He has to win by a fairly large margin. Why is that? Clinton runs stronger in states with fewer whites than Iowa, which is almost everywhere else. So Iowa is a high-water mark for Sanders, at least for now. My guess is that Sanders has to win by 5 to 10 percentage points in Iowa to be competitive for the nomination. Exactly what he needs is hard to estimate, since a win will also get him more media attention. This could boost him further."

Right now, it's true, he has a considerable lead in NH evidently. There were a few polls that he him up 20 points in the Granite states yesterday.

https://cola.unh.edu/sites/cola.unh.edu/files/research_publications/primary2016_demprimary013116.pdf

But then again, was there ever a belief he wouldn't win NH? He has to win NH or it's game over pure and simple.

While he has a big lead in these polls-some other recent polls show it still within single digits and 40 percent of respondents still say they haven't made up their mind.

In addition, if she wins tonight, she could get some momentum on top of a good debate Thursday night and at least make this close-or who knows?

Then she's on to SC and the South where she will do very well.

No question the media loves the Hillary is in trouble narrative right now. But she remains in very good shape.

Just remember to caucus if you're in Iowa and if you have friends or family in Iowa remind them to caucus for her.

P.S. Last night I donated another $50 to Hillary. This was in response to all the talk about how much Bernie raised last month. 

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/

If you can spare a few bucks it could be a good time to consider it. We can't assume she has all the money she needs or that she has all the votes she needs!