Search This Blog

Translate

Blog Archive

Middleboro Review 2

NEW CONTENT MOVED TO MIDDLEBORO REVIEW 2

Toyota

Since the Dilly, Dally, Delay & Stall Law Firms are adding their billable hours, the Toyota U.S.A. and Route 44 Toyota posts have been separated here:

Route 44 Toyota Sold Me A Lemon



Showing posts with label Democratic Candidates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democratic Candidates. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 22, 2020

FOCUS | Poll: Bernie Sanders Surges to Top of Democratic Presidential Pack, Passing Biden




Reader Supported News
22 January 20

That is what makes fundraising so difficult. This kind of day we are having right now.
If just "30" of you stop what you are doing for just a moment and toss something in the hat, this bad day will be a good one. 30.
Be the one.
Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News


If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts, CA 95611


Reader Supported News
22 January 20
It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News


FOCUS | Poll: Bernie Sanders Surges to Top of Democratic Presidential Pack, Passing Biden
Sen. Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden held a significant lead over the rest of the Democratic field in the new poll. (photo: Sean Rayford/Getty Images)
Jennifer Agiesta, CNN
Agiesta writes: "Sanders is most often seen as the candidate who agrees with voters on the issues that matter most to them." 

ermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has improved his standing in the national Democratic race for president, joining former Vice President Joe Biden in a two-person top tier above the rest of the field, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS.
The poll marks the first time Biden has not held a solo lead in CNN's national polling on the race.
Overall, 27% of registered voters who are Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents back Sanders, while 24% favor Biden. The margin between the two is within the poll's margin of sampling error, meaning there is no clear leader in this poll. Both, however, are significantly ahead of the rest of the field, including Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren at 14% and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg at 11%. Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg lands at 5% in the poll, while Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and businessman Andrew Yang each hold 4% support. Businessman Tom Steyer has 2%. No other candidate reaches 1% support.
Sanders has gained 7 points since the last CNN poll on the race in December. Since that survey, the Vermont senator has also made gains in early-state polling, including CNN's survey with the Des Moines Register in Iowa, where the first caucuses of the cycle will be held in less than two weeks. 
Sanders has made gains nearly across the board, clearly pulling away from Warren among liberals (33% back Sanders, while 19% support Warren in the new poll), a group where the two had been running closely through much of the fall. Sanders has also pulled about even with Biden among voters of color (30% for Sanders, 27% for Biden).
As the campaign has taken a more negative turn, Democratic voters remain about as enthusiastic about a potential Sanders nomination as they were earlier this fall (38% say they would be enthusiastic should he win the nomination, on par with the 39% who felt that way in October), while his chief rivals have seen enthusiasm waning (enthusiasm for a Biden nomination has dipped 9 points to 34%; for Warren, it's fallen 12 points to 29%).
Sanders is also most often seen as the candidate who agrees with voters on the issues that matter most to them (30% say that's Sanders compared with 20% for Biden, 15% for Warren and 10% for Buttigieg), and as the candidate who best understands the problems facing people like you (29% name Sanders as best on that measure, 18% Biden, 17% Warren and 9% Buttigieg).
Electability and unity 
Biden remains the candidate a plurality of Democrats say has the best chance to defeat Trump (45% say so of Biden, compared with 24% for Sanders, 8% for Warren, 7% for Bloomberg and 4% for Buttigieg), but Sanders has made gains here too, rising from 16% on this question in December to 24% now. 
The share of Democrats who say nominating a candidate who can defeat Trump is more important than choosing one who agrees with them on the issues has rebounded to 57%, according to the poll. Sanders has made gains as the preferred choice of potential Democratic voters who prioritize defeating the president as well: In December, 14% in this group backed him; now, 20% do so. That gain appears to have come at Warren's expense.Her share within this group dipped from 21% to 14%. Biden has held about even among this group, from 28% in December to 30% now.
There's a similar dynamic between Sanders and Biden at play over uniting the country, with 39% saying Biden has the best shot at that while 22% name Sanders, but with Sanders gaining ground since December (14% named him in the December poll). 
Fewer think Sanders has the best shot to unite the Democratic Party, however, as just 16% name him, compared with 41% naming Biden.
The general election
Looking ahead to the general election, the poll finds Biden, Bloomberg, Sanders and Warren each holding significant leads over Donald Trump, with the support of 50% or more of registered voters nationwide. Buttigieg tops Trump with 49% to the president's 45%, and Klobuchar and Trump are near even, 48% for Klobuchar to 45% for Trump.
Enthusiasm for voting in the 2020 election appears to have dipped a bit from its December high point in the new poll, with the numbers declining by double digits among both Democrats and Republicans. Enthusiasm for voting has bounced a bit throughout CNN's polling this past fall, but has consistently remained at a higher level than is typical even for the fall of an election year.
The drop in deep enthusiasm among Democrats was sharper than the one among Republicans, and the current poll finds the most enthusiastic voters leaning in Trump's direction in just about every matchup.
The poll included an oversample of those living in 15 battleground states, defined as those where the race between Clinton and Trump in 2016 was decided by 8 points or fewer. In those states, the poll finds consistently tight races regardless of the nominees, with Democrats ranging from 46% to 49% support and Trump from 47% to 50%. In none of the six tested matchups does either candidate hold a significant advantage.
Asked whether a woman can win the US presidency, a whopping 84% of voters say yes, but there is a notable gender divide here. While only 9% of men say a women could not win the U.S. presidency, that figure about doubles among women, 20% of whom say no, a woman cannot win the presidency. That figure stands at roughly 20% among women regardless of age, party, education level or race.
The poll finds there continues to be a chasm between Democratic-leaning and Republican-leaning voters over the most important issues in their votes for president.
For Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, health care (55% extremely important) and climate change (50%) dominate, with gun policy third (37%) while the economy (32%), immigration (32%) and foreign policy (31%) lag behind. For Republicans and Republican-leaners, just 27% cite health care as extremely important and only 8% consider climate change that important. At the top of their list is the economy (49% extremely important), followed by gun policy (41%) and immigration (36%).
The CNN Poll was conducted by SSRS January 16 through 19 among a random national sample of 1,156 adults reached on landlines or cellphones by a live interviewer. Results for the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points. For the sample of 500 registered voters who are Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents, it is 5.3 percentage points.







 

Thursday, December 12, 2019

RSN: Norman Solomon | Will the Democratic Presidential Nomination Be Bought?





Reader Supported News
11 December 19

We do not need very much money to run RSN at a high level. That’s the good news. The bad news is that we are talking to people who are pretty reluctant to donate.
The problem begins and ends with the difference between how many people we serve and how many contribute.
The difference is huge.
Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News


If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts
CA 95611





Reader Supported News
11 December 19
It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News


RSN: Norman Solomon | Will the Democratic Presidential Nomination Be Bought?
Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, and Michael Bloomberg. (photo: AP)
Norman Solomon, Reader Supported News
Solomon writes: "From three different vectors, the oligarchy is on the march to capture the Democratic presidential nomination."

rom three different vectors, the oligarchy is on the march to capture the Democratic presidential nomination. Pete Buttigieg has made big gains. A timeworn ally of corporate power, Joe Biden, is on a campaign for his last hurrah. And Michael Bloomberg is swooping down from plutocratic heights.
Those three men are a team of rivals — each fiercely competitive for an individual triumph, yet arrayed against common ideological foes named Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
The obvious differences between Buttigieg, Biden and Bloomberg are apt to distract from their underlying political similarities. Fundamentally, they’re all aligned with the nation’s economic power structure — two as corporate servants, one as a corporate master.
For Buttigieg, the gaps between current rhetoric and career realities are now gaping. On Tuesday, hours after the collapse of the “nondisclosure agreement” that had concealed key information about his work for McKinsey & Company, The New York Times concluded that “the most politically troubling element of his client list” might be what he did a dozen years ago for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan — “a health care firm that at the time was in the process of reducing its work force.”
The newspaper reported that “his work appeared to come at about the same time the insurer announced that it would cut up to 1,000 jobs — or nearly 10 percent of its work force — and request rate increases.”
This year, Buttigieg’s vaguely progressive rhetoric has become more and more unreliable, most notably with his U-turn away from supporting Medicare for All. Meanwhile, wealthy donors have flocked to him. Forbes reports that 39 billionaires have donated to the Buttigieg campaign, thus providing ultra-elite seals of approval. (Meanwhile, Biden has 44 billionaire donors and Warren has six. Forbes couldn’t find any billionaires who’ve donated to Sanders; he did receive one contribution from a billionaire’s spouse.)
Not surprisingly, the political orientations of the leading candidates match up with the spread of average donations. The latest figures reflect candidates’ proximity to the class interests of donors, with wealthier ones naturally tending to give more sizable amounts. Nearly two-thirds (64.9 percent) of Biden’s donations were upwards of $200 each, while such donations accounted for a bit more than half (52.5 percent) of the contributions to Buttigieg. Compare those numbers to 29.6 percent for Elizabeth Warren and 24.9 percent for Bernie Sanders.
Buttigieg’s affinity for corporate Democrats — and how it tracks with his donor base — should get a lot more critical scrutiny. For example, Washington Post reporter David Weigel tweeted in early November: “Asked Buttigieg if he agreed w Pelosi that PAYGO should stay in place if a Dem wins. ‘We might want to look at a modification to the rules, but the philosophical premise, I think, does need to be there… we’ve got to be able to balance the revenue of what we’re proposing.’”
But the entire “philosophical premise” of PAYGO amounts to a straightjacket for constraining progressive options. To support it is to endorse the ongoing grip of corporate power on the Democratic Party. As Buttigieg surely knows, PAYGO — requiring budget cuts to offset any spending increases — is a beloved cause for the farthest-right congressional Democrats. The 26 House members of the corporatist Blue Dog Coalition continue to be enthralled with PAYGO.
As for Joe Biden, since the launch of his campaign almost eight months ago, progressives have increasingly learned that his five-decade political record is filled with one repugnant aspect after another after another after another. Any support for him from progressives in the primaries and caucuses next year will likely come from low-information voters.
In sharp contrast to Sanders and Warren, who refuse to do high-dollar fundraising events, Biden routinely speaks at private gatherings where wealthy admirers donate large sums. His campaign outreach consists largely of making beelines to audiences of extraordinarily rich people around the country — as if to underscore his declaration in May 2018 that “I don’t think 500 billionaires are the reason why we’re in trouble… The folks at the top aren’t bad guys.”
One of those folks who presumably isn’t a “bad guy” is Bloomberg, who — with an estimated net worth of $54 billion — has chosen to pursue a presidential quest by spending an astronomical amount of money on advertisements. Writing for The Nation magazine this week, Jeet Heer aptly noted that Bloomberg “is utterly devoid of charisma, has no real organic base in the Democratic Party, and is a viable candidate only because he’s filthy rich and is willing to inundate the race by opening up his nearly limitless money pit.”
More powerfully than any words, Bloomberg’s brandishing of vast amounts of ad dollars is conveying his belief that enormous wealth is an entitlement to rule. The former New York mayor’s campaign is now an extreme effort to buy the presidency. Yet what he’s doing tracks with more standard assumptions about the legitimacy of allowing very rich people to dominate the political process.
Earlier this week, Bernie Sanders’s campaign manager Faiz Shakir summed up the BBB approach this way: “Today, Joe Biden’s super PAC went on the air with a massive television ad buy. Mike Bloomberg is blanketing the airwaves almost everywhere with the largest ad buy in primary history. And Pete Buttigieg is taking time off the trail for a trio of private, high-dollar fundraisers in New York City.”
Thanks to grassroots low-dollar donations, Warren and Sanders (whom I support) have been able to shatter the corrupt paradigm that gave presidential campaign dominance to candidates bankrolled by the rich. That’s why Bloomberg has stepped in to save oligarchy from democracy.
As Frederick Douglass said with timeless truth, “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” Continual denunciations of anti-democratic power are necessary and insufficient. It’s far from enough to assert endlessly that the system is rigged and always will be.
Power concedes nothing. Fatalism is a poison that gets us nowhere. Constant organizing — outside and inside the electoral arena — is the antidote to powerlessness.
With the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination up for grabs, this chance will not come again.


Norman Solomon is co-founder and national coordinator of RootsAction.org. He was a Bernie Sanders delegate from California to the 2016 Democratic National Convention and is currently a coordinator of the relaunched independent Bernie Delegates Network. Solomon is the author of a dozen books including War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.







Monday, December 9, 2019

FOCUS: Kamala Harris Wasn't Allowed to Fail Up Like a White Boy




Reader Supported News
08 December 19

Where RSN Gets Killed
Today as of 10:am: 14,507 visitors - “0” donations.
You know that can’t work. What will you do?
Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News
Sure, I'll make a donation!

Update My Monthly Donation

If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts
CA 95611





Reader Supported News
08 December 19
It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News


FOCUS: Kamala Harris Wasn't Allowed to Fail Up Like a White Boy
Former presidential candidate U.S. Senator Kamala Harris at the Democratic Presidential Debate at Tyler Perry Studios November 20, 2019 in Atlanta, Georgia. (photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Terrell Jermaine Starr, The Root
Starr writes: "A lot led to Kamala Harris' campaign collapsing before the first ballot was cast in the Iowa caucuses. But what arguably doomed her chances was her struggle to disprove she was not the lock 'em up prosecutor many critics accused her of being."

EXCERPTS:

If we are holding Harris to such a high threshold on criminal justice, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg and Michael Bloomberg shouldn’t be in the race, either.
All of the aforementioned men have a poor record with black voters, but what is particularly startling is that neither of them endured the interrogation of their record with black voters as long and vigorously as Harris. Immediately after the senator entered the race, the columns critiquing her time as a prosecutor followed and never really stopped. The Root also covered Harris’ criminal justice record and asked her about how some of her decisions are viewed in a post-Ferguson America.

I’ve written about how former Vice President Joe Biden is leading the pack despite his history of fuckery on issues that impact black people disproportionately, like criminal justice and segregation . He enjoys a huge lead in the polls with black voters despite voicing opposition to busing and calling on segregationists to support his legislative goals. He authored the 1994 crime bill that reinforced state-level policies that made it easier to lock black and brown people up. The ACLU notes that the 1996 Democratic Party platform was inspired by the law and Biden “encouraged states to pass truth-in-sentencing laws, bragged about instituting the death penalty for nearly 60 more crimes, and even encouraged the prosecution of young people as adults. This platform remained largely in place until 12 years later, when in 2008, the tone and substance began to change under new leadership in the party. Coincidentally, incarceration rates peaked in 2008.”
It is unfair to have such a laser focus on Harris being a cop when Biden literally authored the 1994 crime bill that some experts say emboldened prosecutors to rack up arrests. She has been forced to atone for her decisions as a prosecutor, but Biden is the frontrunner without having to apologize for the 1994 crime bill.
And, of course, he has genuinely refused to atone for his treatment of Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings.
If Harris is a cop, Biden is the police chief.
Michael Bloomberg, a billionaire, locked up so many black and brown men behind “stop and frisk” in New York City, one has to seriously wonder what type of white male arrogance he has to feel he can actually enter the race late and think he has a shot at winning.
We can pick apart Harris’ record all we want, but Bloomberg has thousands of black men and women in New York City who have their own “Bloomberg is a cop” stories. Ultimately, Harris didn’t have the funds to sustain her campaign, but it doesn’t feel right that she was dogged by narratives of being a cop while arguably bigger cops—if that is how you view her—are allowed to buy their way into the 2020 race.
Then there is South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg.
Chief executive in a town of 101,000 people, Buttigieg is being covered as a frontrunner but has an abysmal show of support from black people. What’s more, the critiques of his viability are predicated on his Midwestern roots, military service and moderate messaging that are all perceived as safe for white, blue-collar voters. But he is presiding over a city in which his black and brown constituents feel he is leading a gentrification of South Bend that’s displacing them.
Black residents were 4.3 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana arrests in Buttigieg’s South Bend than white residents between 2012 and 2018. He messed up when he fired the city’s first black police chief. His police force killed a black man this year and he lost black support during his reelection.
Yet, Buttigieg is still in the race with his record? Something ain’t right.
Dr. Avis Jones-DeWeever, a political commentator, summarized the power of Buttigieg’s white privilege this way: “I could not imagine a scenario where a black woman, who is mayor of a small town, woke up one day and said, ‘’I’m running for president’ and anybody would give her a dime.”
White men are able to wade through news cycles and not have their flaws interrogated with the same intensity as black women, L. Joy Williams, chair of the Higher Heights PAC, said.
“They’re allowed to be flawed if they have that ‘it’ factor,” she said. “We can write glowingly about them and put their flaws aside because we have a history with them. We don’t have a history with people being comfortable with the flaws of people of color and still being in leadership positions. The expectation is that in order for us to succeed, we must be perfect. And that’s not just from other people voting for us. That’s (black people) voting for us as well.”
Kamala Harris had many issues with her campaign, but so does everyone else running for president. Failing up is common in American politics—especially for white men. Everyone has something in their personal and professional pasts they’d take back if they could, a vote they’d reverse or a more progressive outlook they wish they would have embraced sooner. But no one can reverse time. We’re often left with candidates to whom we have to extend some grace.
They are allowed to fail up.
Because, in politics, you will fail and do things that hurt and anger people, no matter how unintentional. Every white man who has run for office failed and was given space to grow through it. One could also argue that the more white boys fail, the higher they rise.
Without question, Kamala Harris should still be in this race. On paper, Harris checks all the boxes: California attorney general, U.S. senator, Howard graduate, trailblazer. All things considered, she was amongst the cream of the crop.
But, sometimes, the cream doesn’t always rise to the top—especially the black kind.









Tuesday, December 3, 2019

RSN: Norman Solomon | For Corporate Media, It's 'Anybody But Sanders or Warren'







Reader Supported News
03 December 19
It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News

RSN: Norman Solomon | For Corporate Media, It's 'Anybody But Sanders or Warren'
Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren greets Vermont senator Bernie Sanders at a 2017 Our Revolution rally in Boston. (photo: Steven Senne/AP)
Norman Solomon, Reader Supported News
Solomon writes: "Anyone who's been paying attention should get the picture by now. Overall, in subtle and sledgehammer ways, the mass media of the United States - owned and sponsored by corporate giants - are in the midst of a siege against the two progressive Democratic candidates who have a real chance to be elected president in 2020."

Some of the prevalent media bias has taken the form of protracted swoons for numerous “center lane” opponents of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. The recent entry of Michael Bloomberg has further jammed that lane, adding a plutocrat “worth” upwards of $50 billion to a bevy of corporate politicians.
The mainline media are generally quite warm toward so-called “moderates,” without bothering to question what’s so moderate about such positions as bowing to corporate plunder, backing rampant militarism, and refusing to seriously confront the climate emergency.
Critical reporting on debate performances and campaign operations has certainly been common. But the core of the “moderate” agenda routinely gets affirmation from elite journalists who told us in no uncertain terms four years ago that Hillary Clinton was obviously the nominee who could defeat Donald Trump.
This year, Sanders has taken most of the flak from reporters and pundits (often virtually indistinguishable), serving as a kind of “heat shield” for Warren. But as Warren gained ground in polling this fall, the attacks on her escalated — to the point that she now has a corporate media bullseye on her political back.
The disconnect between voters and corporate media is often huge. Meanwhile, with fly-on-the-wall pretenses, media outlets that have powerfully distorted proposals like Medicare for All are now reporting (with thinly veiled satisfaction) that voters are cool to those proposals.
The Washington Post, owned by the world’s richest person, Jeff Bezos, has routinely spun Medicare for All as some sort of government takeover. In a prominent November 30 news story that largely attributed Warren’s recent dip in polls to her positioning on healthcare, the Post matter-of-factly — and falsely — referred to Medicare for All as “government-run healthcare” and “a government-run health plan.”
Such pervasive mass-media reporting smoothed the way for deceptions that have elevated Pete Buttigieg in polls during recent weeks with his deceptive “Medicare for all who want it” slogan. That rhetoric springboards from the false premises that Medicare for All would deprive people of meaningful choice and would somehow reduce coverage.
In late September, with scant media scrutiny, Buttigieg launched an ad campaign against Medicare for All that has continued. Using insurance-industry talking points, he is deliberately confusing the current “choice” of predatory for-profit insurance plans with the genuine full choice of healthcare providers that top-quality Medicare for everyone would offer.
Mainstream media outlets are ill-positioned to refute such distortions since they’re routinely purveying such distortions themselves. Warren’s backtracking step on Medicare for All in mid-November was a tribute to media pressure in tandem with attacks from centrist opponents.
The idea of implementing some form of a substantial “wealth tax” has also been denigrated by many corporate-employed journalists. Countless pundits and political beat reporters have warned that proposals like a wealth tax, from Warren and Sanders, risk dragging Democrats down with voters. The truth is that such proposals are unpopular with the punditocracy and the extremely wealthy — while it’s a very different matter for most voters, who strongly favor a wealth tax.
On the same day this fall, The New York Times and The Washington Post published stories on Democratic elites’ “anxiety” about the presidential election. The Post wrote that Democrats “fret” Warren and Sanders “are too liberal to win a general election.” (With disdain, the article made a matter-of-fact reference to “the push for liberal purity.”) The Times similarly wrote of “persistent questions about Senator Elizabeth Warren’s viability in the general election.” Contrary voices were absent in both news stories.
Assessing those articles, FAIR.org media analyst Julie Hollar pointed out: “The pieces interviewed a number of big donors and centrist party leaders, who fretted about their preferred candidate’s struggles and expressed hope for someone more corporate-friendly than Warren to enter the race and challenge her rise.”
Hollar added: “The thinking of powerful people in the Democratic Party is worth writing about. But it’s crucial not to just take their claims at face value…. What establishment Democrats are really worried about, of course, is their own power in the party, which is threatened by a surging left wing. Don’t look to their establishment media counterparts to report on that transparently.”
Part of the problem is the TV network that many Democrats (mistakenly) trust. MSNBC is becoming notorious for its hostility to Bernie Sanders, often expressed through egregious omission or mathematical fib if not direct antipathy.
Ongoing media analysis is crucial, but even more important is activist pushback against the 24/7 onslaught of corporate-minded propaganda, often couched as common sense and incontrovertible reality. Among the needed counterpunches are these:
  • Support progressive media outlets as they provide independent coverage of the presidential campaign.

  • Widely share, via email forwarding and social media, online pieces that you like. (Hopefully including this one.)

  • Recognize, challenge, and organize against the corporate-media echo chamber that affects so many voters.
You shouldn’t have to be an active supporter of Bernie Sanders (as I am) or of Elizabeth Warren to voice outrage about corporate media biases. What’s at stake includes democracy — the informed consent of the governed — and so much more.
History is unfolding in real time. It’s not a product on the media shelf, to be passively bought and consumed. As Bernie 2020 campaign co-chair Nina Turner says, “All that we love is on the line.”


Norman Solomon is co-founder and national coordinator of RootsAction.org. He was a Bernie Sanders delegate from California to the 2016 Democratic National Convention and is currently a coordinator of the relaunched independent Bernie Delegates Network. Solomon is the author of a dozen books including War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.