Sanders was polling at 4% a year ago, now 42%

[dunksby]

Bernie pulling the rug from under Hillary's feet

[Im Still Ballin]

He'll never get there

The Hilldog takes no prisoners

The middle age women demographic is sternly in her corner

[dunksby]

Pressure grows on Hillary Clinton to release Goldman Sachs speeches

Hillary Clinton continued to resist calls to release her transcripts of paid speeches she gave to Goldman Sachs and other banks, saying she would hold onto them until Bernie Sanders and other rivals for the U.S. presidency released theirs.

Sanders, her populist rival for the Democratic presidential nomination who has surged in polls with his furious rebukes of Wall Street and its role in the 2008 recession, said on Friday he had none to release because he does not give paid speeches to banks.

Clinton's reluctance to reveal what she privately told banks and other organizations has become an increasingly heated issue ahead of the election this November as she fights suggestions by Sanders and others from their party's more liberal wing that she is too cozy with the U.S. financial industry.

"I am happy to release anything I have whenever everybody else does the same, because everybody in this race, including Senator Sanders, has given speeches to private groups," she said on Thursday night in a televised 'town hall' event with voters in Nevada. Nevada is the third state to vote for the Democratic Party's nominee in caucuses to be held on Saturday.

Clinton has earned more than $20 million for 92 paid speeches since leaving her job as U.S. secretary of state in 2013, according to records disclosed by her campaign, including $675,000 for three closed-door speeches to New York-based investment bank Goldman Sachs. Her husband, Bill Clinton, has earned even more since he stepped down as president in 2001. She says this income has no influence on her policies and that she would increase Wall Street regulation.

Sanders, a U.S. senator from Vermont, last gave a paid speech in 2004, according to his Senate financial disclosures, when he spoke about social activism at the California Institute of Technology in an event that was open to the public. He earned $2,000, according to his disclosures.

On Friday, Sanders' spokesman said the senator "accepts Clinton's challenge."

"He will release all of the transcripts of all of his Wall Street speeches," Michael Briggs said in a statement. "That's easy. The fact is, there weren't any."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...ZSAPEC2JTJJ9EH

[IcanzIIravor]

Bernie pulling the rug from under Hillary's feet

Won't matter if he can't break her hold on her southern firewall. He needs to clean her clock in all the caucus states and hope the momentum grows in leaps and bounds. I don't think he can do it and she will win. It will be Hillary vs Trump or Rubio short of a brokered GOP convention. It's too bad the Libertarian party is run by idiots. This is the year they could have made significant inroads.

[Nanners]

bernie sanders betting odds have been getting a lot more favorable lately, he was at 20/1 a month ago and now hes at 7/1. if the bookies think he has a chance thats a really good sign imo.


http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/...on-2016/winner

[Im Still Ballin]

Hilldog is reeling Bernie in before she locks in the rear naked choke

Then it's game over

She cannot be stopped

There's so much dirt on her but nothing sticks because she's a lethal killing machine of destruction

Trump's pretty SOB

But Hilldog is covertly "in yo face" SOB

[DonDadda59]

Joe Biden must be kicking himself.

[Jameerthefear]

Joe Biden must be kicking himself.

maybe he just really didn't want to be president

[Dresta]

Hilary's numbers are still too high for my liking. Can't believe the Dem Party basically let her run alone, expecting the primaries to be a formal victory lap or something, only opposed by a little old socialist.

And she still might not win

[DonDadda59]

maybe he just really didn't want to be president

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...right-decision

[BoutPractice]

This Sanders moment (whether or not he wins, which remains unlikely) could go down as one of the most consequential political changes in the past 40 years.

Reagonomics have finally found a credible competitors... and it is the unlikeliest of competitors - that good old enemy within, socialism.

Of course, Sanders' socialism is really nothing more than a return to the managed capitalism of the mid 20th century (the kind that most European conservatives never dared abandon), but the idea that you could bring back FDR style policies, call them socialism, and somehow be viable electorally in America would've been unthinkable 8 years ago.

(If you don't like this development, blame the financial crisis for creating the right economic conditions, Obama for laying the ideological groundwork, but also Republicans whose grotesque overreaction to his election completely backfired on them)

Sanders represents the ultimate slap in the face to the idea that political history somehow ended in the 1990s, with Reagan's America crowned victor for all eternity. His success will probably inspire many followers, and cause a number of establishment politicians to co-opt his ideas (you can already see this happening with Hillary).

[Dresta]

This Sanders moment (whether or not he wins, which remains unlikely) could go down as one of the most consequential political changes in the past 40 years.

Reagonomics have finally found a credible competitors... and it is the unlikeliest of competitors - that good old enemy within, socialism.

Of course, Sanders' socialism is really nothing more than a return to the managed capitalism of the mid 20th century (the kind that most European conservatives never dared abandon), but the idea that you could bring back FDR style policies, call them socialism, and somehow be viable electorally in America would've been unthinkable 8 years ago.

(If you don't like this development, blame the financial crisis for creating the right economic conditions, Obama for laying the ideological groundwork, but also Republicans whose grotesque overreaction to his election completely backfired on them)

Sanders represents the ultimate slap in the face to the idea that political history somehow ended in the 1990s, with Reagan's America crowned victor for all eternity. His success will probably inspire many followers, and cause a number of establishment politicians to co-opt his ideas (you can already see this happening with Hillary).

Sorry, but this is complete mythology. It doesn't square with the facts. I know people like peddling this myth that America's tax-rates (which nobody paid) were indicative of it being more "socialist"--but again, that's simply not true.

Government spending and government receipts, both went up under Reagan. The guy didn't even cut spending (which actually only went down under Clinton); i've never understood why so many conservatives regard him as being a hero, though i guess the uselessness of Carter might have something to do with it. Catering to big business and the financial sector (which continued under Clinton, Bush and Obama) is not the same as reigning in Federal Government spending--it is not an absence of regulation, but simply regulation to better suit different interests (i.e. the financial sector, as under Thatcher/Major/Blair in the UK). Just like people think Thatcher was a conservative, even when she brought in the GCSE (a severe levelling in education standards), and was far more of an old school liberal than a conservative (a conservative would not say 'there's no such thing as society'--society and community, especially local ones, are extremely important to conservatives). Ever since Reagan and Thatcher, therefore, people have foolishly conflated neoliberalism with conservatism, which makes no sense, because the former is both radical and transformative.

When things changed fundamentally was under FDR, and the precedents and expectations created by his 5 New Deals and a very destructive war (which increased the size of government all over the world, like war always does). After him, it was a continuous development in the same direction, as more and more was needed to fulfil the needs he unleashed.



The same graph closer up: http://blogs-images.forbes.com/joshb...GDP-chart1.png

Nobody ever seriously opposed or tried to reverse the policies of FDR, and the vast government bureaucracies (and the Executive patronage powers that come along with) it created (well, except Barry Goldwater, who lost to someone who massively expanded the welfare state--the consequences of which we are living with today). This idea that Reagan came in and swept away all former restraints, ushering in a period of "supercapitalism" (to use the silly and cliched argument of Robert Reich) is completely untrue; it's history for those that need to be fed a convenient and easily understandable narrative.

[west_tip]

Won't matter if he can't break her hold on her southern firewall.

So, from what I understand southern, black democrats are staunch Hillary supporters and that is what is gonna cost Bernie the nomination.

How exactly are the Clinton's good for Black America? I've never read anything that persuades me that they will address any of the needs or grievances of the black community with specific regard to criminal justice, poverty, education etc.

What is it about the Clinton's that makes southern blacks such unwavering supporters?

[knickballer]

Honestly, people are just fed up with the BS in politics and all the corruption behind it(yes all the PACs, funding, donors, etc, is corruption).

It's clear in this election majority Americans just want an honest president who'll fight for them not for the banks and the wealthy. The establishment are trying so hard to prevent this by raising hundreds of millions to have an Hilary and Cuck Bush election but there's a good chance of it not happening. Jeb! has received nearly $200million in funding yet is in last place and polling around 3-5%. Furthermore, he's getting absolutely neutered by Trump who ran for the lulz and has no experience in politics.

And that's why people are supporting Trump too. I sense alot of Americans deep down think he's fascinating and secretly admire him even though they'll say he's racist and dumb in public. Media/Establishment ****ed up on this on big time too because they cover Trump 24/7 and if they would have took a neutral stance he'd probably have died off. But instead they just complain about him 24/7 which gives him more support. He's playing jedi mind tricks on them.

[knickballer]

So, from what I understand southern, black democrats are staunch Hillary supporters and that is what is gonna cost Bernie the nomination.

How exactly are the Clinton's good for Black America? I've never read anything that persuades me that they will address any of the needs or grievances of the black community with specific regard to criminal justice, poverty, education etc.

What is it about the Clinton's that makes southern blacks such unwavering supporters?

Probably more because of Bill's reputation among blacks. He's labeled the first "black" president by many. Also, Hilary is someone who'll say whatever and make any promises to get elected. Bernie makes more sense and his policies will help out lower income communities more significantly but I sense Hilary's donors are bribing these black community leaders.

Hilary is the type of person who'll be at a BLM rally for speech then she'll be at a police lives matter rally a few hours later..