Reply With Quote
LOL - Bernie gets all the democrat gun owners.
Among New Hampshire Democrats, the biggest win ever for a non-in bent was Michael Dukakis’ 16-point victory in 1988. Sanders defeated that record easily. In fact – here’s the really amazing part – Sanders’ 22-point win is actually larger than some of the Democratic primaries in which an in bent Dem president faced a challenger: Jimmy Carter won by 10 points in 1980 and Lyndon Johnson won by 8 points in 1968.
Exit polls offer us some sense of how the Vermont independent pulled it off.
Values and demographics shaped the strong support Bernie Sanders received Tuesday in New Hampshire, according to the NBC News Exit Poll of Granite State Democrats.
The Vermont senator won 83 percent of millennial voters under the age of 30. He also won 66 percent of voters who describe themselves as very liberal, and at the same time took 72 percent of self-described independents.
That last point is of particular interest. Among New Hampshire Democrats, Clinton and Sanders actually tied, but independents voted in the primary and propelled Sanders to his record victory.
Having set the stage, let’s now consider the What It All Means question.
For Sanders’ supporters, it’s quite simple: the senator’s easy win in New Hampshire, coupled with a strong, second-place showing in Iowa, means Sanders has the momentum he’ll need to win the Democratic nomination.
And that may yet happen. But some caution is in order.
Following up on our post-Iowa coverage, FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver published a piece back in July noting that Sanders is strongest in states where the universe of Democratic voters is very white and very liberal. Based on previous performance, that means the three best states in the Union for the senator are, in order, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Iowa.
This is no small detail. It means that, other than his own home state, Iowa and New Hampshire are quite literally the two strongest states in the nation for Sanders.
Sanders and his capable campaign team know exactly what they have to do as the race shifts to less-friendly terrain – expand the senator’s base of support, connect with cons uencies that have not yet been as receptive to his message, etc. – but pulling it off is much easier said than done.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow
LOL - Bernie gets all the democrat gun owners.
When push comes to shove his stance on gun rights and small business is not typical of 'liberals.'
CarLIE drops out
"Sit Down And Shut Up" Christie supposedly next out.
Guess not. Not surprising but sticking your head in the sand is not a good way to uncover the truth, fattie.
after all that you still claim he won't raise taxes on the middle class?
Right now, 1.9% paid off pay-slip for Medicare by employee and by employer
Employer kills his bull group plan. The money skimmed before tax is now given to employees to pay for their Medicare 1.9% to go up to 8% - 10% BEFORE TAX.
everybody's covered, NOT FREE, can change jobs w/o fear of losing health insurance increasing labor mobility, etc, etc, etc, etc.
no more BigInsurance network cartels, PPO, etc bull , no complexity, not even any annual signups. Lots of insurance companies to fail, good ing riddance.
If you want 5-star coverage, you can go signup for private "top up" supplementary insurance (if you can find an insurer) just like Medicare people do now.
Medicare sets drug, device prices, treatment prices, etc, bringing down the cost of care.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 02-10-2016 at 06:27 PM.
Through my work I have met several hospital administrators and members of their boards. Good riddance indeed.
How Bernie pays for his proposals
https://berniesanders.com/issues/how...his-proposals/
cool, but kinda misleading on some of them...
"allows billionaire hedge fund managers"
implying its only billionaires that will be hit by this... there are an approximated 536 billionaires in the US
only billionaires are getting a ing free ride avoiding, evading taxes. A lot of those billionaires bought up foreclosed homes, Ms of which the billionaires caused to be foreclosed on, and now renting them back at high prices. Some people are paying up to 50% of the income for rent.cool, but kinda misleading on some of them
"allows billionaire hedge fund managers"
implying its only billionaires that will be hit by this
all the billionaires hard and fast in every orifice. They do much more damage to Americans than all the domestic and foreign terrorists combined.
my point is that it's not just "billionaires" who benefit from tax evading strategies
millionaires, too.
40M Americans on public assistance, retirees sucked dry with nothing saved, household debt cc debt of $15K, etc, etc.
nearly ALL American income is going to the top, top people playing with their money to make money, not investing in the real economy. And STILL they want their taxes cut even more.
Sanders won all demographic groups that were supposed to be easy wins for Clinton
according to New York Times exit polls, Sanders swept nearly everydemographic on the way to his 22-point rout over Hillary Clinton.
In New Hampshire, Sanders won 83 percent of young voters ages 18 to 29, a virtually identical showing to his support among young voters in Iowa. Perhaps even more significantly, Sanders won 55 percent of women, to Clinton's 45 percent. But he also won the next two age brackets, finishing 8 points ahead of Clinton among voters ages 45 to 64. This age range is Clinton’s sweet spot, and losing it really bruises her mantle of popularity. Clinton did win among one generation, though – voters ages 65 and up swung 11 points in her favor.
Sanders scored strongly among men (66 percent), an unremarkable outcome given repeated polls showing men warming to him more than to Clinton. But he also won women handily, 55 percent to Clinton’s 45, taking the demographic that formed the corepitch of Clinton’s campaign.
And, perhaps most remarkably for Sanders, he swept the ideological spectrum, winning over voters who called themselves "very liberal" as well as "moderate." He won the latter category by 21 points, despite pitching his campaign as one that would not bend to the forces of moderation.
The fact that Sanders won nearly every demographic so handily lends credence to his idea that by riling up the populace with an economics-focused call to arms, he can turn out droves of voters who will help turn his radical ideas into reality. To his credit, Democratic turnout in New Hampshire was projected to top the previous record, set in 2008.
"Let us never forget, Democrats and progressives win when voter turnout is high," Sanders said in his victory speech." Republicans win when people are demoralized and voter turnout is low."
Clinton did win among one demographic: people with incomes above $200,000. Those people, who made up 8 percent of voters, voted 53 percent in her favor to Sanders’s 46 percent. But given the themes of the night, this is probably not a victory that Clinton is eager to advertise.
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/10/1095821...bernie-sanders
Why is it tax "evasion" when you follow the law and legally plan to minimize your taxes?
tax avoidance is legal, except the wealthy and BigCorp follow/abuse their own private tax regime with maximum bad faith, and of course they PAID to have the tax laws rigged for big money
tax evasion is illegal.
Because the fact that's legal doesn't automatically mean it's perceived as just. The fact that socioeconomic status can greatly influence what shortcuts you can take with your taxes is plainly indicative of an uneven field.
I understand the vast majority of people want to keep their money and pay the absolute minimum in taxes, but if we're to apply the supposed fact that we're all the same under the law, then the law should apply evenly (and this doesn't mean we should all pay the same, it means that if loopholes and tax credits that distort the tax burden are available to one contributor, then they should be available to all contributors).
"perceived as just."
come on, man, you know damn well the "law" isn't about truth and justice, but about "lawyering" the legal texts, technicalities, amorally ignoring truth, justice, fairness, ethics, with lawyers lawyering what the ever they're paid to lawyer.
And in the case of right wing extremist SCOTUS, trashing stare decisis whenever their paymasters are disadvantaged or needing more advantages.
That's exactly what I was pointing out. I'm fully aware how the sausage is made, I'm pointing out why it can be perceived as just/unjust, despite the legality.
Sounds like a flat tax - we all pay the same percentage - no deductions, no tax credits, no loopholes. Is that what you mean?
I'm not him but he was specific and explicit about saying loopholes and deductions and not base rate.
I guess evenly doesn't mean equally.
No it just means that we should go by what he says and not infer universalities like that when he is explicit and specific in the very next sentence.
Was the bolded not clear enough?
The advantages or disadvantages of a progressive tax system can certainly be debated, but regardless of the system in place, it's simply unfair if certain people, because they have connections, money or power, can simply skirt the law or write their own exceptions.
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)
Posting Permissions
