Reply With Quote
Bernie needs to buck the trend of not talking veep and offer it to Warren, right now.
http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/d...er_to_CFTC.pdfGiven the pro-industry composition of the EEMAC and its slipshod process for drafting
and adopting the final report, it is hardly surprising that the report reflects very little real analysis
of the position limits rule.
My staff reviewed all 467 pages of transcripts of the EEMAC's two meetings on the
position limits rule. Instead of do enting a rigorous effort to analyze the need and impact of
CFTC position limits, these transcripts detail meetings that appear to be self-congratulatory,
back-slapping sessions of like-minded industry officials and their close allies who fancy
themselves "in the business of providing modern civilization"-an actual quote from the
proceedings. 15
The Committee failed to conduct a robust discussion or to delve deeply into even the
most critical issues before it. For example, in support of the final report's first finding that the
proposed position limits rule is "not necessary," the report cites information from only two nonindustry
witnesses - Dr. Pirrong and Energy Information Agency (EIA) Administrator Adam
Sieminski.
I have already described my concerns with the committee's reliance on Dr. Pirrong's
views. As for Dr. Sieminski, the EEMAC report appears to dramatically mischaracterize his
presentation." 17 A review of the presentation and transcript indicates that Dr. Sieminski made a
straightforward discussion of current oil prices, current supply and demand levels, estimated
changes in consumption and production, and economic impacts of oil prices. His presentation
did not address or identify potential speculation, nor did it address or identify the potential need
for position limits. Indeed, Dr. Sieminski was never asked about the risks of speculation or the
costs and benefits of the position limits rule.
In fact, as Dr. Sieminski noted quite clearly in his statement before the Committee, he
was speaking on behalf of EIA in its capacity as "a statistical organization," and he noted that an
entirely different set of EIA experts - the office of energy and financial markets - was
responsible for "looking at ... position limits ... speculation, and manipulation."18 The EEMAC
might have turned to these experts for their views about such issues, but they were not
questioned by the Committee. It is simply not credible for the Committee to reach a conclusion
about the need for the position limits rule based on an EIA presentation that does not address the
issue and testimony that explicitly disclaims any ability to speak directly about this critical issue.
Be happy that she is the chair of senate oversight committee.
Bernie needs to buck the trend of not talking veep and offer it to Warren, right now.
I prefer her where she is and apparently she does too. VP is a dead fish.
Not going to matter much when Shillary, TresSec Summers, and their band of Wall Streeters are running the exec.
Warren by using the bully pulpit in primary season has Shillary actually speaking against banking deregulation riders that were amended to the budget and other things. As VP she basically does the same thing she does now as senate chair as is the VPs role but she loses the bully pulpit. VP does her no good.
Getting Bernie elected instead of Shillary >>>> anything she could do from the banking committee.
I don't really care about her political aspirations.
I'm talking about her political power. I'm just saying I doubt she does it because of that reason whether or not you care is besides the point.
Hillary says she is going to be hard on Wall st, the hand that fed her and Bill $10Ms.
G M A F B
You still fantasizing about Bernie?
He is unelectable toast and will be politically dead after Tuesday.
i like bernie, but it would be funny to see booboo pull a 180 and start sucking hillary's balls
Maybe but you are not any more objective than boutox. As for the general it depends on who the GOP comes out with. If it's Cruz or Trump their polls with independents --what really matter not blustering dip s-- are what they are.
won't happen, but if I have to vote for her, it will be as the anti-Repug, none of whom are anything but silly Klowns.
Bernie's got all the right programs, values, policies, so supporting him is easy. Hillary won't try to do , and will probably sign lots of ty laws and regs just like Bill did. She's total establishment. The establishment is why America sucks for the 99%.
It'd be more productive to vote against Hillary with a 3rd party candidate. If enough people did that the Democratic party would know that its base isn't going to tolerate center right wing corporate pros utes anymore just because the candidate might be a cunt hair better than the Republican he/she is running against.
maybe in texas where the EC is a foregone conclusion but as a national idea that just gets the GOP candidate in. There is no nationally viable progressive third party anyway.
Getting the GOP candidate in is what it's going to take for Dems to stop nominating ty center right candidate who have nothing going for them other than being "less crazy than the Republican!"
you're most likely right, but you said Obama was unelectable in 2008 and we all see how that turned out.
Clinton, Kerry, and Gore all have huge money behind them. That is what gets them the nomination. Romney and the Bushes all meet the same standard. The dynamic isn't being NOT GOP outside of policy. Dems also don't use puritan DINO rhetoric nearly as much although certain fools like boutox do.
Electing the GOP isn't going to change that. That is reductio ad absurdum nonsense. The demographics of the electorate in terms of minorities emerging and the boomers dying off on the other hand is very real.
I aint going anytime soon, junior.
I'm not singling out any individual and am not advocating Logan's Run. It is what it is though.I aint going anytime soon, junior.
?With Donald Trump Looming, Should Dems Take a Huge Electability Gamble by Nominating Hillary Clinton?
Many Democrats will tell you that there has rarely, if ever, been a more menacing or evil presidential candidate than Donald Trump. “Trump is the most dangerous major candidate for president in memory,” pronouncedVox’s Ezra Klein two weeks ago. With a consensus now emerging that the real estate mogul is the likely GOP nominee, it would stand to reason that the most important factor for many Democrats in choosing their own nominee is electability: meaning, who has the best chance of defeating the GOP Satan in the general election? In light of that, can Democrats really afford to take such a risky gamble by nominating Hillary Clinton?In virtually every poll, her rival, Bernie Sanders, does better, often much better, in head-to-head match-ups against every possible GOP candidate. Here, for instance, is a compilation of how Clinton does against Ted Cruz in recent polls: She trails the Texas senator in all but one poll, and in the one poll she leads, it is by a paltry 2 points:
By stark contrast, Sanders leads Cruz in every poll, including by substantial margins in some:
A similar story is seen in their match-ups against Trump. Although they both end up ahead in most polls, Sanders’ margin over Trump is generally very comfortable, while Clinton’s is smaller. Clinton’s average lead over Trump is just 2.8 percent, while Sanders’ lead is a full 6 points:
Then there’s the data about how each candidate is perceived. Put simply, Hillary Clinton is an extremely unpopular political figure. By contrast, even after enduring months of attacks from the Clinton camp and its large number of media surrogates, Sanders remains a popular figure.
A Gallup poll released this week reported that “29 percent of Americans offer a positive observation about Clinton while 51 percent express something negative.” As Gallup rather starkly put it: “Unfortunately for Clinton, the negative associations currently outnumber the positive ones by a sizable margin, and even among Democrats, the negatives are fairly high.” Sanders is, of course, a more unknown quan y, but “the public’s comments about Sanders can be summarized as 26 percent positive and 20 percent negative, with the rest categorized as neutral, other or no opinion.”
In fact, the more the public gets to see of both candidates, the more popular Sanders becomes, and the more unpopular Clinton becomes. Here’s Quinnipiac explaining that dynamic in one graph just a few days ago:
This Huffington Post chart, compiling recent polls, shows not only that Clinton is deeply unpopular among the electorate, but becomes increasingly unpopular the more the public is exposed to her during this campaign:
Or look at the same metric for critical states. In Ohio, for example, Sanders’ favorability rating is +3 (44-41 percent), while Clinton’s isnegative 20 (37-57 percent).
Then there’s the particular climate of the electorate. While it’s undoubtedly true that racism and ethno-nationalism are significant factors in Trump’s appeal, also quite significant is a pervasive, long-standing contempt for the political establishment, combined with enduring rage at Wall Street and corporate America, which — along with the bipartisan agenda of globalization and free trade — have spawned intense economic suffering and deprivation among a huge number of Americans. This articleby the conservative writer Michael Brendan Dougherty is the best I’ve read explaining the sustained success of Trump’s candidacy, and it very convincingly do ents those factors: “There are a number of Americans who are losers from a process of economic globalization that enriches a transnational global elite.”
In this type of climate, why would anyone assume that a candidate who is the very embodiment of Globalist Establishment Power (see her new, shiny endorsement from Tony Blair), who is virtually drowning both personally and politically in Wall Street cash, has “electability” in her favor? Maybe one can find reasons to support a candidate like that. But in this environment, “electability” is most certainly not one of them. Has anyone made a convincing case why someone with those attributes would be a strong candidate in 2016?
Despite this mountain of data, the pundit consensus — which has been wrong about essentially everything — is that Hillary Clinton is electable and Bernie Sanders is not. There’s virtually no data to support this assertion. All of the relevant data compels the opposite conclusion. Rather than data, the assertion relies on highly speculative, evidence-free claims: Sanders will also become unpopular once he’s the target of GOP attacks; nobody who self-identifies as a “socialist” can win a national election; he’s too old or too ethnic to win, etc. The very same supporters of Hillary Clinton were saying very similar things just eight years ago about an unknown African-American first-term senator with the name Barack Hussein Obama.
Perhaps those claims are true this time. But given the stakes we’re being told are at play if Trump is nominated, wouldn’t one want to base one’s assessment in empirical evidence rather than pundit assertions, no matter how authoritative the tone used to express them?
It’s possible to argue that electability should not be the primary factor. That’s certainly reasonable: Elections often are and should be about aspirations, ideology, and opinion-changing leaders. But given the lurking possibility of a Trump presidency, is now really the time to gamble on such a risky general election candidate as Hillary Clinton?
If you truly believe that Hillary is establishment and that the establishment is why America sucks for the 99%, then you should vote for Trump in a Trump/Hillary contest.
Logan's Run!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
