HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Jarqui » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 74 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Sun Aug 23, 2015, 02:58 PM
Number of posts: 6,410

Journal Archives

AP-GfK Poll: Voters increasingly see Sanders as electable

WASHINGTON (AP) — The more Democrats learn about Bernie Sanders, the more they appear to like him.

A greater percentage of Democratic registered voters view the Vermont senator as likable, honest, competent and compassionate than they did just two months ago, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll. Seventy-two percent now believe he could win the general election, a 21 percentage point increase from the last time the survey was conducted in December.

The findings underscore the challenge facing Hillary Clinton as she enters the Democratic contest's pivotal spring stretch, when primaries across the country mean that many of the party's voters will finally get their say on her candidacy.

Clinton's campaign has argued that as voters learned more about his record, Sanders will begin to lose support. Instead, it seems that as Sanders has gotten more scrutiny, support for him has only grown. While Clinton continues to be the Democratic candidate who's most well-liked within her own party, Sanders is gaining on her.

I've seen that improving with other pollsters as well.

I'm now feeling pretty comfortable saying if Bernie had more time, he would beat Hillary.

Right now, they have a lot of states between now and March 1 they have to catch up in. I don't think SC is one of them. If Bernie wins Nevada, Hillary has a real problem. Close would be ok as Nate Silver said but win and he goes up in the Super Tuesday polls - which I think he needs.

Bernie is within 4.3 pts of Hillary Nationally in RealClear Poll of Polls


Arguably, it might be a statistical tie, as he may be within the margin of error.

Before New Hampshire, Hillary was +13.7. In less than a week, he's really closed the gap.

Time. The only question now seems to be if he has enough time. Because he's still winning people over.

Here's part of Bernie's plan

1: If nothing else is done to healthcare and rates and everything else remained the same and they just remove the insurance companies admin and their profits, they would save:
- somewhere between $120 - $280 billion saved of the $1 trillion private heath care dollars
(estimates vary from 15%-31% but 3% would be needed for Medicare admin)
Economists just love the ten year figure so over ten years that is:
$1.2 Trillion to $2.8 Trillion dollars saved.

2: Other things Bernie wants to do like:
Progressive income tax rates.
- Revenue raised: $110 billion a year
Taxing capital gains and dividends the same as income from work.
- Revenue raised: $92 billion per year.
Limit tax deductions for rich.

- Revenue raised: $15 billion per year.
The Responsible Estate Tax.
- Revenue raised: $21 billion per year.
$ 2.38 Trillion in additional revenue over 10 years

3: Negotiate lower drug prices because we have the hammer.
$2.9 Trillion will be spent on drugs over the next 10 years if unchecked. Canada pays 60% less. Over the next decade, conservatively, they would save
between $230 billion (8%) and $541 billion (19%).

4: Doctors cost around 20% of healthcare or $5.8 Trillion over the next 10 years. US doctors are paid way more than any other country. Bernie says we can reduce doctors salaries by 10%. To be conservative, I'd suggest a range of 5%-10% through single payer negotiation. So over 10 years that would be $290 billion to $580 billion saved

Those four things add up to a range of $4.1 Trillion to $6.3 Trillion financial improvement in health care with single payer.

So here's the point: at this juncture, nothing else has changed. Everybody is paying their premiums and deductibles to the government instead of the insurance companies.

Bernie has $400-600 million/yr right there to improve healthcare. And he has other areas he can go for revenue or recovery or savings.

This bickering with the economists is smoke. You can argue about the percentages I used or the figures. But it doesn't change the overall story in a big way. Single payer saves Trillions of dollars. The argument is what to do with that money and how much will it cost.

No matter what those economists say, single payer is a no brainer.

They're nitpicking over the other numbers.

Hillary Clinton’s Pay-for-Play Reality

But perhaps the most interesting part of Lloyd’s (Goldman Sachs CEO) warning centered on his concerns about the post-election political landscape and his sense that the real danger is not people with pitchforks taking to the street. Rather, Lloyd is worried that Washington’s political machine could stall if all that public anger hampers politicians by turning a demonstrated willingness to “compromise” into a political liability. And when Wall Streeters talk about “compromise,” they are referring to their seemingly innate ability to manufacture bipartisan consent in spite of the often-bemoaned acrimony that locks up Republicans and Democrats.

while other issues get inexorably stuck in Washington’s infamous gridlock. It’s the cash that lubricates the system, much like oil lubricates American foreign policy. And it’s exactly the kind of “willing to compromise” political pliability that Blankfein told Squawk Box he is afraid of losing if recalcitrant politicians like Bernie Sanders take over the system.

But that’s the problem with the speaking fees and, truth be told, it’s the most vexing part of what passes for payola in the two-party political racket. Most of the juiciest rewards come after service is rendered, not before. Although campaign donations and Super PAC slush funds are a great way for corporate interests to open doors to access and reward a candidate’s family and friends and ancillary business interests, the real action happens in-between stints of public service or, even better, after a seasoned pro leaves “public service” to utilize those “special insider skills” on the other side of one of a dozen revolving doors between the Beltway and a bevy of businesses and lobbying firms.

The system is not really pay for play. It’s you’ll get paid for how you played when you dutifully collected a “low” six-figure salary while toiling away in Congress or in the Executive branch. So, technically speaking, Hillary may be telling the truth. Maybe she never once changed a vote in exchange for the titanic sums of cash which, according to a new report on CNN, amounted to “$153 million in paid speeches [to her and former President Bill Clinton] from 2001 until Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign last spring.”

I'm not very familiar with that site.

It's a long article and my clips do not fairly represent it.

I thought the article was an interesting read. I don't how much stock to put in it but there was some food for thought on how Wall Street might be thinking about this.

Or make the case that his actions didn't pose a risk

In this case, it got him arrested. In another case, it had the cops tailing him and taking his flyers on police brutality down right after he was putting them up. It had the dean of his school asking him to take a year off.

If you attended one of these demonstrations, like the March on Washington in 1963 that Sanders did, you risked tear gas, night sticks, arrest or worse.

Aug. 28, 1963 Military police line up at the Washington Monument prior to the March on Washington. Fearing violence from the event, 30 Army helicopters patrolled the skies, swooping low over the Reflecting Pool. Four thousand troops stood ready in the Washington suburbs, and 15,000 paratroopers were placed on standby in North Carolina.

John Lewis was told he had to tone his March on Washington speech down because it was too militant. They feared he'd spark a riot.

Despite the event being organized to be a nonviolent protest, authorities had set up crowd control measures out of fear of a riot breaking out. Military police lined the National Mall and dozens of Army helicopters patrolled the skies over the march. Nearly 6,000 police officers were on duty, as well as 2,000 men from the National Guard. Four thousand soldiers stood at the ready in the D.C. suburbs alone, and 15,000 paratroopers were on standby. The march took place without major incident, however.

Partly due to mistrust and partly due to risk in business or socially, there were not a lot of whites really standing up for blacks in 1962-3. The movement was growing but not there yet. So supporting them got you labeled things like "nigger-lover". About 1/4 of the people in the March on Washington were white. But I bet the vast majority didn't go to work the next day bragging about being at the demonstration. There were still a lot of prejudice people having trouble accepting it.

Actions have consequences. If you protest darn near anything, you're taking some sort of risk - particularly in the early 60s. To suggest Bernie didn't take risks is inaccurate and unfair. John Lewis and MLK took much bigger risks. It got MLK killed and for example, John Lewis was beaten by mobs as a Freedom Rider and in a protest for voting rights at Selma, the cops attacked them and fractured Lewis's skull here:

So to maintain perspective, Bernie actions were not as risky as the ones John Lewis took but he did take some risks standing up for the same cause.

I believe that if minorities knew the whole story about Bernie and Hillary,

the majority would handily support Bernie.

Yes, he fought for civil rights. But his fight for economic equality or fairness for minorities and those with low income or in poverty has been sincere and relentless his whole adult life.

Someone recently criticized Sanders for talking so much about criminal justice with respect to blacks. So I won't dwell on that here.

The top problems that blacks saw facing the country in the latest quarter were race relations (13%) and unemployment (13%)

Other issues that are more glaring for blacks than for whites are crime and violence as well as poverty, homelessness and hunger. The latter may reflect that blacks have lower average incomes than whites and are more likely to be living in poverty. This is also consistent with a Gallup and Healthways finding that blacks are twice as likely as whites to report having struggled to afford food at least once in the previous 12 months.

Poverty in the US
Blacks 27%
Hispanic/Latino 25%
Other 15%
Whites 10%

Mean Household Income by Ethnicity
Asian alone $90,752
White alone $79,340
Hispanic or Latino $54,644
Black $49,629

Who is getting the short end of the deal in the above charts?

A key to Sanders single payer is that it cover the 10% of Americans who do not have healthcare insurance. It is an economic benefit to those in poverty or with low income.

A key to Sanders free tuition for college is to give those students in poverty or with low family income hope that if they get through high school, they'll have a much better shot at a college education.

A key to Sanders $15/hr minimum wage is to reach out to those who cannot make ends meet because they're not being paid a living wage.

Sanders has complained that 51% of blacks who have graduated from high school do not have a job. He has talked about stimulating jobs by rebuilding infrastructure and efforts to develop clean energy. His plan to improve income inequality will also stimulate the economy and deliver more jobs because many more Americans will have more disposable income.

The race that benefits from Sanders policies most are blacks because they're the most in poverty and have the lowest average income. Latinos are next.

The next thing that needs some discussion is beyond that, for example, when jobs come available, how do we reach these unemployed black high school graduates and get them employed? Maybe some outreach to let them know there is help. Maybe training programs are needed to help finish the job of making them more employable. Maybe some career counseling, resume preparation or helping them sell themselves to the job market. I don't know as I'm not an expert in that area. Something like that to close the deal and help salvage the lives of those in need now - to meet the problem head on is needed.

Not only would Bernie be approachable on that, I think he'd do it.

No he wasn't arrested from this

This sit in was about segregation and discrimination in student living quarters that prohibited blacks living with whites (something like that)

I think it helped lead to the dean asking him to take time off school

Sanders was arrested while demonstrating for desegregated public schools in Chicago in 1962. (a different cause and protest related to civil rights)

Five of those photos in his second post


have him wearing a sweater/top and pants that look the same in the disputed photo.

The different shades are development or lighting

... a little more evidence ...

Bernie Sanders Civil Rights Photographer was Danny Lyons - more Bernie pics

Looks like John Lewis can't ignore Danny. This is what he said about him:

“This young white New Yorker came South with a camera and a keen eye for history. And he used these simple, elegant gifts to capture the story of one of the most inspiring periods in America’s twentieth century.” — John Lewis, US congressman

From a blurb on Danny's book:

Memories of the Southern Civil Rights Movement
In the summer of 1962, Danny Lyon packed a Nikon Reflex and an old Leica in an army bag and hitchhiked south. Within a week he was in jail in Albany, Georgia, looking through the bars at another prisoner, Martin Luther King Jr. Lyon soon became the first staff photographer for the Atlanta-based Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), which already had a reputation as one of the most committed and confrontational groups fighting for civil rights.

This is Dann'y blog and on the blog he has two entries:
Posted on January 30, 2016
where he identifies the two photographs he took of Berrnie that have been widely published

And a second blog that he did yesterday:
Posted on February 11, 2016

The slander that Bernie was not a very early leader for African American civil rights got so outrageous that persons went into the archives of the University of Chicago and changed captions on Danny Lyon’s 1962 photos, claiming it was Bruce Rappaport standing in Bernie’s clothing leading the demonstration in the Ad Building. These newly discovered pictures, including close up photographs of the student activists show us exactly what Bernie was and what he remains.

He posts more photos of the sit-in and then says:
Here at the University of Chicago, in the winter of 1962, students led by Bernie Sanders and others have occupied the hallway of the Administration Building, spending the night inside. The Chancellor cannot get into or leave his office. Bernie is leading a protest against the discrimination practiced by the University of Chicago against African Americans in it’s extensive housing. This protest for equal rights for African Americans is the first sit-in to be held in the north as part of the great 1960’s civil rights movement. Bernie is the real deal. And voters, all voters know it. Feel the Bern.

I think Danny makes a pretty solid case given who he was: a civil rights photographer and John Lewis of all people attests to his work.

John Lewis would know Danny because:
Lyon soon became the first staff photographer for the Atlanta-based Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC)

and John Lewis headed up the SNCC from 1963 to 1966.

Maybe how he's wrapped it isn't appetizing

Maybe that it's not written by a black leader or someone that was close to MLK hurts it's perceived credibility.

Maybe saying "King himself supported democratic socialism" goes too far trying to put that label on it.

But there is no escaping MLK was very concerned with economic unfairness for blacks. Here's a quote of his that stuck with me:

"We cannot be satisfied as long as the negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one."
MLK "I Have A Dream" speech 1963

At least, 27% of blacks, if not more, are still in that ghetto.

The one candidate who has been consistently against that and for getting people out of poverty since before he heard the above quote in 1963 is Bernie Sanders.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 74 Next »