MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Democrats 2016
- Thread starter Michael Scally MD
- Start date
Huge Head Start for Hillary Clinton, but the Big Race Is Far From Won
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/u...clinton-but-the-big-race-is-far-from-won.html
In the modern era, every major-party nominee who was not a sitting president has faced a primary fight. All except Al Gore, a sitting vice president, lost at least one state — and Mr. Gore came within four percentage points of losing the crucial early state of New Hampshire.
Hillary Clinton, whose widely expected presidential bid was announced on Sunday, enters the fray with a better chance to win without a serious contest than any of her predecessors. Her strength heading into the primary has little precedent; if a primary candidate ever deserved the distinction of “inevitable,” it is Mrs. Clinton today. Yet nothing would be inevitable about her chances in the general election.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/u...clinton-but-the-big-race-is-far-from-won.html
In the modern era, every major-party nominee who was not a sitting president has faced a primary fight. All except Al Gore, a sitting vice president, lost at least one state — and Mr. Gore came within four percentage points of losing the crucial early state of New Hampshire.
Hillary Clinton, whose widely expected presidential bid was announced on Sunday, enters the fray with a better chance to win without a serious contest than any of her predecessors. Her strength heading into the primary has little precedent; if a primary candidate ever deserved the distinction of “inevitable,” it is Mrs. Clinton today. Yet nothing would be inevitable about her chances in the general election.
Why Hillary Clinton Is Probably Going to Win the 2016 Election
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/04/why-hillary-clinton-is-probably-going-to-win.html
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/04/why-hillary-clinton-is-probably-going-to-win.html
Hillary’s $2.5 billion obscene fundraising goal
http://nypost.com/2015/04/14/hillarys-2-5-billion-obscene-fundraising-goal/
Hillary Clinton’s newly minted presidential campaign plans on raising — and spending — as much as $2.5 billion. That was the mind-blowing datum that accompanied Sunday’s announcement of Clinton’s candidacy.
To give you a sense of just how mind-blowing, consider the fact that in 2012, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney together spent $2.14 billion.
Right now that money is the political equivalent of what computer techies call vaporware: She doesn’t have the $2.5 billion yet, it’s more of an aspiration than a reality and it might not ever really happen.
But the claim seems somewhat credible.
If you think there’s too much money in politics, which Democrats claim to think, then what the Hillary team is doing should be alarming to her own side.
Don’t worry, though; liberals really do only claim to despise the way money is raised in politics.
It’s Republican fundraising they consider illegitimate, not their own, especially if they can attach a named boogeyman to it — Adelson and Koch are the popular ones these days, but others might yet spring up just for novelty’s sake.
Look, the fact is that Coca-Cola spent $3.3 billion selling its soda in the United States in 2013.
Arguably the job of president of the United States is rather more important than a delicious caffeinated beverage, so it’s far from clear why spending less to elect a president is a moral stain upon the nation.
That doesn’t mean it’s a smart use of money for Democrats and their hopes for governance after 2016.
Think about the national results of the last four presidential elections. In 2000, Al Gore and George W. Bush effectively tied, with 48 percent each. In 2004, George W. Bush won re-election over John Kerry 51 percent to 48 percent. In 2008, Barack Obama beat John McCain 53 to 46 percent. In 2012, Obama defeated Mitt Romney 51 to 47.
These numbers suggest a universe in which Democrats have a modest historical advantage, but not too much of one, in that they seem to have a floor around 48 percent, while Republicans have a floor around 46 percent.
In other words, it doesn’t really matter how much money the campaigns spend. From the get-go, Democrats right now have reason to believe they will automatically get around 48 percent, while Republicans at worst will get 46 percent.
Take 2008 (please). Obama literally spent twice what McCain spent — but does anyone think the money won it for him?
Given the financial meltdown, the national disappointment with the war in Iraq, Bush fatigue and Obama’s dominating performances in the debates, the fundraising was more a mark of Obama’s natural electoral strength in 2008 than it was the cause of it.
But even that commanding victory was not on the scale of the victories of recent elections past. Richard Nixon won by 23 points in 1972, Ronald Reagan won by margins of 10 and 18 points in 1980 and 1984, and Bill Clinton (who didn’t win an outright majority) prevailed by 9 over Bob Dole in 1996.
What all this suggests is that both parties at present know a great deal about how to generate the tallies necessary to keep them from getting wiped out in an old-fashioned landslide.
Indeed, much of this spending might well be defensive; it’s there to cancel the other team’s out.
And money can generate money in response: The Republican challenging her (if the primaries are not too ruinous and don’t last forever) might use her big number as a scare tactic to get alarmed conservative donors to pony up big-time.
What all this can do is drain the coffers for other candidates running down-ticket — in Senate and House races. And that’s more of a problem for Democrats than Republicans.
After the 2014 GOP tsunami, the Republicans now hold an eight-seat majority in the Senate and a 61-seat majority in the House.
Democrats have an uphill climb to regain control of the Senate. And if they are to improve their fortunes in the House of Representatives in the future, they need to regain some ground by at least chipping away at the GOP’s colossal advantage there.
There are real potential costs to Hillary’s mammoth goal, and it might not do her all that much good.
http://nypost.com/2015/04/14/hillarys-2-5-billion-obscene-fundraising-goal/
Hillary Clinton’s newly minted presidential campaign plans on raising — and spending — as much as $2.5 billion. That was the mind-blowing datum that accompanied Sunday’s announcement of Clinton’s candidacy.
To give you a sense of just how mind-blowing, consider the fact that in 2012, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney together spent $2.14 billion.
Right now that money is the political equivalent of what computer techies call vaporware: She doesn’t have the $2.5 billion yet, it’s more of an aspiration than a reality and it might not ever really happen.
But the claim seems somewhat credible.
If you think there’s too much money in politics, which Democrats claim to think, then what the Hillary team is doing should be alarming to her own side.
Don’t worry, though; liberals really do only claim to despise the way money is raised in politics.
It’s Republican fundraising they consider illegitimate, not their own, especially if they can attach a named boogeyman to it — Adelson and Koch are the popular ones these days, but others might yet spring up just for novelty’s sake.
Look, the fact is that Coca-Cola spent $3.3 billion selling its soda in the United States in 2013.
Arguably the job of president of the United States is rather more important than a delicious caffeinated beverage, so it’s far from clear why spending less to elect a president is a moral stain upon the nation.
That doesn’t mean it’s a smart use of money for Democrats and their hopes for governance after 2016.
Think about the national results of the last four presidential elections. In 2000, Al Gore and George W. Bush effectively tied, with 48 percent each. In 2004, George W. Bush won re-election over John Kerry 51 percent to 48 percent. In 2008, Barack Obama beat John McCain 53 to 46 percent. In 2012, Obama defeated Mitt Romney 51 to 47.
These numbers suggest a universe in which Democrats have a modest historical advantage, but not too much of one, in that they seem to have a floor around 48 percent, while Republicans have a floor around 46 percent.
In other words, it doesn’t really matter how much money the campaigns spend. From the get-go, Democrats right now have reason to believe they will automatically get around 48 percent, while Republicans at worst will get 46 percent.
Take 2008 (please). Obama literally spent twice what McCain spent — but does anyone think the money won it for him?
Given the financial meltdown, the national disappointment with the war in Iraq, Bush fatigue and Obama’s dominating performances in the debates, the fundraising was more a mark of Obama’s natural electoral strength in 2008 than it was the cause of it.
But even that commanding victory was not on the scale of the victories of recent elections past. Richard Nixon won by 23 points in 1972, Ronald Reagan won by margins of 10 and 18 points in 1980 and 1984, and Bill Clinton (who didn’t win an outright majority) prevailed by 9 over Bob Dole in 1996.
What all this suggests is that both parties at present know a great deal about how to generate the tallies necessary to keep them from getting wiped out in an old-fashioned landslide.
Indeed, much of this spending might well be defensive; it’s there to cancel the other team’s out.
And money can generate money in response: The Republican challenging her (if the primaries are not too ruinous and don’t last forever) might use her big number as a scare tactic to get alarmed conservative donors to pony up big-time.
What all this can do is drain the coffers for other candidates running down-ticket — in Senate and House races. And that’s more of a problem for Democrats than Republicans.
After the 2014 GOP tsunami, the Republicans now hold an eight-seat majority in the Senate and a 61-seat majority in the House.
Democrats have an uphill climb to regain control of the Senate. And if they are to improve their fortunes in the House of Representatives in the future, they need to regain some ground by at least chipping away at the GOP’s colossal advantage there.
There are real potential costs to Hillary’s mammoth goal, and it might not do her all that much good.
Bernie Sanders Announces Campaign for President
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/u...ers-campaign-for-president.html?smid=tw-share
Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, announced Thursday that he was running for president as a Democrat, injecting a progressive voice into the contest and providing Hillary Rodham Clinton with her first official challenger for the party’s nomination.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/u...ers-campaign-for-president.html?smid=tw-share
Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, announced Thursday that he was running for president as a Democrat, injecting a progressive voice into the contest and providing Hillary Rodham Clinton with her first official challenger for the party’s nomination.
Give 'Em Hell, Bernie
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/give-em-hell-bernie-20150429#ixzz3YmIWup5G
Many years ago I pitched a magazine editor on a story about Bernie Sanders, then a congressman from Vermont, who'd agreed to something extraordinary – he agreed to let me, a reporter, http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/four-amendments-a-funeral-20050825 over the course of a month in congress.
"People need to know how this place works. It's absurd," he'd said. (Bernie often uses the word absurd,his Brooklyn roots coming through in his pronunciation – ob-zert.)
Bernie wasn't quite so famous at the time and the editor scratched his head. "Bernie Sanders," he said. "That's the one who cares, right?"
"Right, that's the guy," I said.
I got the go-ahead and the resulting story was a wild journey through the tortuous bureaucratic maze of our national legislature. I didn't write this at the time, but I was struck every day by what a strange and interesting figure Sanders was.
Many of the battles he brought me along to witness, he lost. And no normal politician would be comfortable with the optics of bringing a Rolling Stone reporter to a Rules Committee hearing.
But Sanders genuinely, sincerely, does not care about optics. He is the rarest of Washington animals, a completely honest person. If he's motivated by anything other than a desire to use his influence to protect people who can't protect themselves, I've never seen it. Bernie Sanders is the kind of person who goes to bed at night thinking about how to increase the http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/sen-sanders-fights-to-reverse-liheap-cuts for the poor.
This is why his entrance into the 2016 presidential race is a great thing and not a mere footnote to the inevitable coronation of Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee. If the press is smart enough to grasp it, his entrance into the race makes for a profound storyline that could force all of us to ask some very uncomfortable questions.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/give-em-hell-bernie-20150429#ixzz3YmIWup5G
Many years ago I pitched a magazine editor on a story about Bernie Sanders, then a congressman from Vermont, who'd agreed to something extraordinary – he agreed to let me, a reporter, http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/four-amendments-a-funeral-20050825 over the course of a month in congress.
"People need to know how this place works. It's absurd," he'd said. (Bernie often uses the word absurd,his Brooklyn roots coming through in his pronunciation – ob-zert.)
Bernie wasn't quite so famous at the time and the editor scratched his head. "Bernie Sanders," he said. "That's the one who cares, right?"
"Right, that's the guy," I said.
I got the go-ahead and the resulting story was a wild journey through the tortuous bureaucratic maze of our national legislature. I didn't write this at the time, but I was struck every day by what a strange and interesting figure Sanders was.
Many of the battles he brought me along to witness, he lost. And no normal politician would be comfortable with the optics of bringing a Rolling Stone reporter to a Rules Committee hearing.
But Sanders genuinely, sincerely, does not care about optics. He is the rarest of Washington animals, a completely honest person. If he's motivated by anything other than a desire to use his influence to protect people who can't protect themselves, I've never seen it. Bernie Sanders is the kind of person who goes to bed at night thinking about how to increase the http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/sen-sanders-fights-to-reverse-liheap-cuts for the poor.
This is why his entrance into the 2016 presidential race is a great thing and not a mere footnote to the inevitable coronation of Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee. If the press is smart enough to grasp it, his entrance into the race makes for a profound storyline that could force all of us to ask some very uncomfortable questions.
Hillary Clinton and the Winning Strategy on Contraception
https://verdict.justia.com/2015/05/04/hillary-clinton-and-the-winning-strategy-on-contraception
https://verdict.justia.com/2015/05/04/hillary-clinton-and-the-winning-strategy-on-contraception
At This Point, Voters May Be Fed Up with All the Clintons’ Scandals
By Michael Barone — May 5, 2015
Some of Hillary Clinton’s defenders have taken to saying that voters shouldn’t pay attention to the latest Clinton scandals — the gushing of often undisclosed millions to the Clintons and their organizations by characters seeking official favors — because the charges are just one more in a long series: Whitewater, the Rose law firm billing records, the Buddhist temple fundraising, the Lippo Group.
So, the theory goes, because the Clintons have been accused of so many scandalous doings before, people shouldn’t be concerned now about Secretary Clinton’s actions that helped certain donors turn over 20 percent of U.S. uranium reserves to a state-run Russian company.
Common sense might tend to make you more suspicious of those who attract many accusations. But the Clintons’ defenders expect and hope in their case that you will instead be suspicious of those who make so many accusations. After all, they’re always saying nasty things! In this view, even charges advanced and amplified by the New York Times may be summarily dismissed as the products of a vast right-wing conspiracy.
Of course, for some voters, the just-one-more-scandal argument may cut the other way. They may decide that they’ve endured enough Clinton scandals.
Still, Clinton defenders have some basis for thinking that the just-one-more-scandal argument has worked for the Clintons before. Bill Clinton may have been interrogated and impeached, but he wasn’t removed from office. Instead, Newt Gingrich was knocked off the speaker’s chair days after Republicans lost seats in the midterm election.
But there’s a big difference between then and now. Bill Clinton was the incumbent president when he was impeached. Hillary Clinton is a private citizen who is running for president.
Most voters wanted Clinton to remain in office. He was re-elected in 1996 by an eight-point margin over Bob Dole. Before the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke, his job approval was in the high 50s. Once he was threatened with removal, that bounced up to 70 percent.
In effect, a crucial number of Americans were saying not to boot him from office. He’s been elected to two terms; he’s been performing tolerably well — so what if he lies under oath about conduct that is personal and outside his official duties?
(That doesn’t mean that Clinton’s conduct didn’t have political consequences. The Lewinsky revelations put an end to negotiations between Clinton and Gingrich on serious entitlement reforms. They’ve been delayed now going on 20 years.)
But that doesn’t mean voters were necessarily buying the Clintons’ defenses. Even as his job approval rose, Clinton’s favorable/unfavorable ratings declined. People thought less of him personally, but they also couldn’t accept the idea of pushing him aside.
Hillary Clinton is in a different position. She is a candidate, not an incumbent. Candidates are easily dispensed with, as former senator Gary Hart learned when the photos of him sailing on the Monkey Business appeared in May 1987 when he was seeking the Democratic nomination for president. His staffers vowed he would hold onto his support, but it wasn’t his to hold on to. He quickly withdrew and faded from view.
Hart’s position in 1987 was weaker than Clinton’s position today. His lead in Democratic primary polls was not overwhelming, and there were other serious active or potential candidates in the field or just over the horizon. That’s because even in Ronald Reagan’s 1980s, Democrats of varying ideological stripes were winning major offices around the country. Democrats had reason to think they had a good chance of nominating a strong ticket without Hart.
Today’s Democrats fear they are not in this comfortable position. They’ve been losing most elections lately in constituencies beyond those where their core constituencies — blacks, some Hispanics, gentry liberals — are clustered. They don’t have many prominent plausible alternative candidates.
Absent Hillary Clinton, they would be faced with a choice of tax-raiser Martin O’Malley, socialist Bernie Sanders, Reagan appointee Jim Webb, former Republican scion Lincoln Chafee, or the gaffe-prone Joe Biden. None run as well as Clinton in general-election polls.
But how strong is Clinton? Her numbers have been declining, and she runs under 50 percent against lesser-known Republicans in most national and target-state polls. All voters know her, and most don’t favor her. She runs stronger in polls of all adults, not just registered voters. That gap suggests she could have a hard time inspiring maximizing turnout.
The argument that the Clintons have always faced scandal charges is intended to shore up her support. But it may have the opposite effect.
— Michael Barone is senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner. © 2015 The Washington Examiner. Distributed by Creators.com.
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...y-be-fed-all-clintons-scandals-michael-barone
By Michael Barone — May 5, 2015
Some of Hillary Clinton’s defenders have taken to saying that voters shouldn’t pay attention to the latest Clinton scandals — the gushing of often undisclosed millions to the Clintons and their organizations by characters seeking official favors — because the charges are just one more in a long series: Whitewater, the Rose law firm billing records, the Buddhist temple fundraising, the Lippo Group.
So, the theory goes, because the Clintons have been accused of so many scandalous doings before, people shouldn’t be concerned now about Secretary Clinton’s actions that helped certain donors turn over 20 percent of U.S. uranium reserves to a state-run Russian company.
Common sense might tend to make you more suspicious of those who attract many accusations. But the Clintons’ defenders expect and hope in their case that you will instead be suspicious of those who make so many accusations. After all, they’re always saying nasty things! In this view, even charges advanced and amplified by the New York Times may be summarily dismissed as the products of a vast right-wing conspiracy.
Of course, for some voters, the just-one-more-scandal argument may cut the other way. They may decide that they’ve endured enough Clinton scandals.
Still, Clinton defenders have some basis for thinking that the just-one-more-scandal argument has worked for the Clintons before. Bill Clinton may have been interrogated and impeached, but he wasn’t removed from office. Instead, Newt Gingrich was knocked off the speaker’s chair days after Republicans lost seats in the midterm election.
But there’s a big difference between then and now. Bill Clinton was the incumbent president when he was impeached. Hillary Clinton is a private citizen who is running for president.
Most voters wanted Clinton to remain in office. He was re-elected in 1996 by an eight-point margin over Bob Dole. Before the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke, his job approval was in the high 50s. Once he was threatened with removal, that bounced up to 70 percent.
In effect, a crucial number of Americans were saying not to boot him from office. He’s been elected to two terms; he’s been performing tolerably well — so what if he lies under oath about conduct that is personal and outside his official duties?
(That doesn’t mean that Clinton’s conduct didn’t have political consequences. The Lewinsky revelations put an end to negotiations between Clinton and Gingrich on serious entitlement reforms. They’ve been delayed now going on 20 years.)
But that doesn’t mean voters were necessarily buying the Clintons’ defenses. Even as his job approval rose, Clinton’s favorable/unfavorable ratings declined. People thought less of him personally, but they also couldn’t accept the idea of pushing him aside.
Hillary Clinton is in a different position. She is a candidate, not an incumbent. Candidates are easily dispensed with, as former senator Gary Hart learned when the photos of him sailing on the Monkey Business appeared in May 1987 when he was seeking the Democratic nomination for president. His staffers vowed he would hold onto his support, but it wasn’t his to hold on to. He quickly withdrew and faded from view.
Hart’s position in 1987 was weaker than Clinton’s position today. His lead in Democratic primary polls was not overwhelming, and there were other serious active or potential candidates in the field or just over the horizon. That’s because even in Ronald Reagan’s 1980s, Democrats of varying ideological stripes were winning major offices around the country. Democrats had reason to think they had a good chance of nominating a strong ticket without Hart.
Today’s Democrats fear they are not in this comfortable position. They’ve been losing most elections lately in constituencies beyond those where their core constituencies — blacks, some Hispanics, gentry liberals — are clustered. They don’t have many prominent plausible alternative candidates.
Absent Hillary Clinton, they would be faced with a choice of tax-raiser Martin O’Malley, socialist Bernie Sanders, Reagan appointee Jim Webb, former Republican scion Lincoln Chafee, or the gaffe-prone Joe Biden. None run as well as Clinton in general-election polls.
But how strong is Clinton? Her numbers have been declining, and she runs under 50 percent against lesser-known Republicans in most national and target-state polls. All voters know her, and most don’t favor her. She runs stronger in polls of all adults, not just registered voters. That gap suggests she could have a hard time inspiring maximizing turnout.
The argument that the Clintons have always faced scandal charges is intended to shore up her support. But it may have the opposite effect.
— Michael Barone is senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner. © 2015 The Washington Examiner. Distributed by Creators.com.
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...y-be-fed-all-clintons-scandals-michael-barone
How about Bernie Sanders?
Killary...
Hey, a candidate I actually respect...
Jim Webb announces 2016 Democratic bid
http://www.politico.com/reporters/GabrielDebenedetti.html 7/2/15
Democrat Jim Webb, the former Virginia senator, jumped into the presidential race with an email announcing his candidacy on Thursday afternoon.
“I understand the odds, particularly in today’s political climate where fair debate is so often drowned out by huge sums of money,” Webb wrote in the roughly 2,000-word email. “I know that more than one candidate in this process intends to raise at least a billion dollars – some estimates run as high as two billion dollars – in direct and indirect financial support.”
Webb is a long-shot for the nomination in a field dominated by Hillary Clinton, and which also features a surging Bernie Sanders — not to mention Martin O’Malley and Lincoln Chafee. While Webb has traveled to early-voting states and begun to build a bare-bones political operation, he remains near the bottom of Democratic polls in Iowa, New Hampshire, and nationwide.
“Our country needs a fresh approach to solving the problems that confront us and too often unnecessarily divide us. We need to shake the hold of these shadow elites on our political process,” Webb wrote. “And at the same time our fellow Americans need proven, experienced leadership that can be trusted to move us forward from a new President’s first days in office. I believe I can offer both.”
Jim Webb announces 2016 Democratic bid
http://www.politico.com/reporters/GabrielDebenedetti.html 7/2/15
Democrat Jim Webb, the former Virginia senator, jumped into the presidential race with an email announcing his candidacy on Thursday afternoon.
“I understand the odds, particularly in today’s political climate where fair debate is so often drowned out by huge sums of money,” Webb wrote in the roughly 2,000-word email. “I know that more than one candidate in this process intends to raise at least a billion dollars – some estimates run as high as two billion dollars – in direct and indirect financial support.”
Webb is a long-shot for the nomination in a field dominated by Hillary Clinton, and which also features a surging Bernie Sanders — not to mention Martin O’Malley and Lincoln Chafee. While Webb has traveled to early-voting states and begun to build a bare-bones political operation, he remains near the bottom of Democratic polls in Iowa, New Hampshire, and nationwide.
“Our country needs a fresh approach to solving the problems that confront us and too often unnecessarily divide us. We need to shake the hold of these shadow elites on our political process,” Webb wrote. “And at the same time our fellow Americans need proven, experienced leadership that can be trusted to move us forward from a new President’s first days in office. I believe I can offer both.”
Politics don't really interest me anymore, and I haven't a clue who Jim Web is, nor do I really care. But I would like to say that if Hillary Clinton, knowing at least what I know and have seen of her over the last 37 years could run for and possibly become the president of this country, then I'm afraid that we are far more gone than I feared. We would certainly be, without doubt, the ultimate symbol of "the ship of fools".
My sentiments exactly!!! I often wonder how people cant see the absolute corruption that goes on right in front of their faces.
No one can beat Killary, no one.
Similar threads
