How Iowa went wrong for Hillary Clinton
Iowa wasn’t just supposed to be a tentative first step in Clinton’s inevitable march to the Democratic nomination, it was meant to be the cornerstone of a rebuilt political persona – and her national team was built from Iowa outward, with a foundational goal of winning here, and winning big.
her inability to ride a first-class ground organization to triumph underscores the candidate’s weakness and the lack of a message that resonates with primary voters.
there is nothing more dangerous than Hillary Clinton as a candidate with her back against the wall. You're going to see two energized campaigns
How Clinton squandered such a commanding advantage in Iowa is an all-too familiar tale with echoes of 2008, of grit and a top-dollar organization undercut by the candidate’s flaws, the stubborn ambivalence of a state that has now delivered two embarrassments – but above all her inability to capture the zeitgeist of her own party.
Clinton suffered from the same structural disadvantage here that hurt her in 2008. Her appeal was limited, mostly, to older frequent caucus goers – with a goal of maximizing turnout and pulling from a poll of about 20,000 Democratic voters who never participate in the labor-intensive caucus process. Sanders, who attracted big crowds on college campuses and high schools, had a much larger reservoir of young people to draw from – and he apparently did just that on caucus night,
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...ormance-218607
The race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in Iowa was so close that six precincts had to resort to coin tosses to decide who won.
The situation came in precincts where both candidates received close to the same amount of voters, but had an odd number of delegates so they couldn’t be evenly split.
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1956...owa-precincts/
one guy is reporting that 3 caucus coin tosses were all won by Hillary
LOL that stupid cunt won 6/6 coin tosses. Heads I win, tails you lose.
Yeah that's bull ; Typical lying, cheating Hillary. Those coin tosses still wasn't enough to offset her terrible night. She sucks as a candidate.
1/64 chance of that happening.
Sounds legit.
185K caucus-ed, 50% from 2012
-- WaPo
You can't win national elections by running against the establishment - not with the level of misinformation / propaganda that envelops American voters. Unless Sanders cuts a deal with the DNC and their donors, he has a snowball's chance in of beating Clinton. Look at Obama as a prime example, he campaigned like Sanders on a platform of change, but accepted huge amounts of corporate money and governed pretty much like Clinton/Bush.
That's the formula that Cruz is going for - pose as an unbending conservative while accepting money from corporate donors. If he hadn't mocked and alienated half his Senate colleagues, he'd have been a real contender. Trump has figured out how to manipulate the uninformed, but again doesn't have enough backing to pull off a full-scale revolt. He might still try and cut a deal with the establishment though if he's playing this game for more than just media exposure and fame.
As it stands, the only thing left to see is which establishment figurehead (Clinton/Rubio being the most likely ones) solemnly informs the public about the next war in the middle-east sometime in 2017/18.
^^ thats exactly what we are trying to avoid. Why act helpless when youve identified the issue and know we need real change?
Spot On.
I've seen exactly two presidential ads here in Pa. (primary isn't until April 26). One anti-Rubio, one pro-Rubio.
Weird.
In my case because the standard bearers of that change in this particular election are undesirable. Not that I'm not pulling for a Trump/Bernie ballot choice in November, but please, either of them is pretty much a disaster. Any of the others, however, is more of the same.
Hillary or Bernie won't get any progressive done due to scorched-earth, all-fronts obstructionist Repug Congress and SCOTUS.
The risk with Hillary is that she will sign (some) regressive Repug bills that continue to America into un ability.
The risk with Sanders is he is unelectable and President Rubio will sign all of those bills.
He was, though. (The fee.org article). He used the Laffer curve as matter-of-factly to explain that after certain percentage, tax receipts from the rich will dwindle, pushing the collection burden towards the middle. But that's not really empirical at all, it's highly dependent on a lot of factors.
I would generally agree that people don't want to pay more taxes, but it's just as much true that people want the free (especially when it comes the time to cut it).
But that's true though. You can only tax one demographic so much before having to move on to another.
Agreed.
It isn't true though if your rate does bring the revenue you need, even if it's less efficient than whatever the theoretical "maximized revenue rate" is. What's normally left untold about this stuff is that this "maximized revenue rate" is a moving target that's heavily dependent on a lot of other factors (tax law loopholes, recession, stagflation, etc). But, you see this kind of dogmatic assumptions all the time. ie: "Tax cuts always bring growth" is another one. You compound that with people that don't understand anything about sovereign money, etc, and think a household economy is the same as a country economy and you end up with really dumbed down articles that pass as informative.
Honestly just dont understand your POV. Bernie is the furthest thing from a disaster - he is the only non PAC owned politician running on either side. Perhaps more importantly, he is addressing the real issues and not distracting from them. You may not agree with his solutions, fine, but it is beyond sa that youd rather say oh he is just not my guy and forget or worse, ignore about the impact an actual HONEST politician could have on the whole process. Hes breaking records raising money and it is on average, 15 dollars a contribution. You, like the previous poster, act helpless when you have already identified the issue. You act helpless and blame the ignorance of the voting electorate when that is EXACTLY what Bernie is calling BS on.
I actually prefer fiscal conservatism in general as an economic policy, because I hate inflation, but I am for single-payor healthcare with a government tight grip on cost. I always found profit motive not being compatible with the government mandate of it's citizen's well-being.
But it's true that at a certain point, you reach a rate beyond which you can't tax -- whether that be 50, 60, or 70 percent. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't read anything suggesting that Bernie can pay for all his free simply by taxing the out of the rich -- he's got to move to the middle class at some point.
The majority of Bernie Sanders supporters, including youths around my age, understand higher taxes is necessary if we want to climb out of the enormous hole we are currently in. The baby boome4s, by and large, passed us the bill.
AFAIK, from some of what I read, he's also doing away from companies paying into the employee's health plan, so that's a tax credit. I'm not claiming his numbers are sound, but there's more to it than just 'tax, tax, tax', AFAIK.
How old are these youths?
From what I've read, Bernie's estimates are too low, meaning that you can't have a single payer system supported by a 6.2% payroll tax AND do away with employers paying for their employee's health insurance
http://prospect.org/article/false-lu...gle-payer-planSanders doesn’t just call for incremental steps toward single-payer. He’s proposing to shift all of health care to federal taxes in one fell swoop. That’s one reason for the enormous, sudden increase in taxes the plan would require—$1.38 trillion on top of existing federal spending, according to Sanders’ own estimates. As Harold Pollack has pointed out, that $1.38 trillion is just about equal to total federal income and estate tax collections in 2014—in other words, the plan would require doubling that revenue. Sanders insists that he’s shown how he would pay for it through a 6.2 increase in payroll taxes (which he calls an “income-based premium paid by employers,” though the cost will fall on employees); a 2.2 percent increase in income taxes on everyone; higher estate taxes; taxing capital gains and interest as ordinary income; limiting tax deductions for the rich; and higher income-tax rates on the upper brackets (which, combined with other increased taxes he’s also calling for, would bring the top marginal federal rate to 77 percent, as Dylan Matthews shows at Vox).
But Sanders’s estimate of the needed increase in taxation, despite its whopping size, is too low. The plan would actually cost another $1.1 trillion a year, according to an analysis by Kenneth Thorpe, a health-care economist at Emory University, who has long experience working with single-payer proponents. In 2006, the Vermont legislature hired Thorpe to cost out a single-payer proposal, and in 2014 progressive legislators in Vermont hired him again. So this is not an estimate from an economist generally opposed to universal health care or to single-payer. Thorpe’s estimates indicate that workers would have to pay an additional 20 percent of compensation to pay for Sanders’s plan.
the usual upper limit is 35
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
