Daily Archives: October 11, 2015

October should be good for Bernie

In this Oct. 3, 2015, photo, Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt, speaks during a campaign rally in Springfield, Mass. Sanders and his campaign team have a relatively simple plan for his debut appearance in a nationally televised debate:

Associated Press photo

The dynamics of the Democratic Party presidential primary race thus far — that the more people get to know Bernie Sanders, the better he does, while the more they get to know Billary Clinton, the worse she does — should be on dramatic display as this month unfolds. (Sanders is shown above at a rally in Springfield, Massachusetts, earlier this month.) Just by being himself, last fundraising quarter Sanders took in $26 million, only $2 million less than did Billary Clinton and more than did any of the many Repugnican Tea Party presidential wannabes.

The first of the too-few Democratic Party presidential debates is on Tuesday.

How is my candidate, Bernie Sanders, doing?

Fairly well.

The polls have been a bit stagnant as of late, although Billary Clinton continues to drop. Consider that nationally, she once led in the 60s, but that as of late nationally she’s in the low 40s (see here too).

She’s still polling ahead of any other candidate for the Democratic Party presidential nomination on the national level, but that she has fallen considerably short of having even half of her party members’ support is, methinks, significant, as is the fact that last fundraising quarter Billary raked in $28 million while her chief opponent, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, took in a very competitive $26 million.

While 77 percent of billionaire-unfriendly Sanders’ donations came from small donors, only 13 percent of billionaire-friendly Billary’s did.

So many people (real people, not corporations) parting with money for Sanders instead of Billary should scare the shit out of Team Billary. These same people who are giving Sanders what they can afford to give him will show up at the caucuses and primaries, whereas Billary’s main “people” — corporations — can give mountains of money but they can’t vote (not yet, anyway).

You need cash to run a presidential campaign, of course, but, in the end, you also have to get the votes.

Polling in first-in-the-nation Iowa, which caucuses on February 1, shows Billary only about 6 percent ahead of Bernie right now. Bernie, who has tied with Clinton in Iowa in past polling, has plenty of time to close that gap.

While I would love Bernie to beat Billary in Iowa — I hope that he does, and if I were to bet money on it, I would bet that he will — I expect him to come in at least at second place in Iowa.

Billary at one time polled at least in the low 60s in Iowa but now doesn’t poll at even 40 percent. Joe-Come-Lately Biden — if he ends up coming at all — polls at about 15 percent in Iowa right now, while Bernie polls around 31 percent. Add Biden’s and Bernie’s support together and that’s 46 percent of likely Iowa caucus-goers who don’t want Billary — to the about-37-percent support that Billary has in Iowa right now.

Should Biden not run after all — and time for him to jump into the race is running out — it will be interesting to see how much of Biden’s support Bernie inherits in Iowa and elsewhere.

I fully expect Bernie Sanders to win New Hampshire (which holds the nation’s first presidential primary election, on February 9), where he has held a significant lead over Billary for some time now. Right now he hovers around a lead of 9 percent over Billary (he’s around 39 percent and she is around 30 percent — she used to approach 60 percent in New Hampshire).

As I have written, if Sanders wins both Iowa and New Hampshire in February, I expect it to be over for Billary. Mathematically, yes, of course she still could win enough delegates from the subsequent states, especially in the South, where she is much more popular than is Sanders (because, as a Democrat in name only, she’s much further to the right than is Sanders; I mean, I wouldn’t brag about being popular among the mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging Southerners).

But the presidential primary election battle isn’t based upon math alone; it’s based upon human nature, and human nature is such that the early winner spirals upward while the early loser spirals downward. As I’ve noted, if all 50 states voted on the same day in February, Billary probably would win, but that’s not how it will play out. The voting will roll out over several weeks, and over those weeks I see Berniementum mounting — and Hillary hemorrhaging.

You can’t quantify human nature, not really, and predicting it can be even more difficult, but, again, should Bernie Sanders win Iowa and New Hampshire — as in come in at first place in both states — I still don’t see Billary recovering from that. (She lost Iowa to Barack Obama in 2008, but at least then went on to beat Obama in New Hampshire.)

We’ll see how the debates go. Thus far Sanders has been fairly cordial to Billary; we’ll see if he continues that tack (I expect him to) and if so, how far it carries him. (And, if Billary actually attacks Bernie in the debates, we’ll see whether that works for her or whether it backfires on her. I would expect that it would backfire on her more than help her, and that even she might realize that and thus tread carefully.)

I don’t expect “Benghazigate” — Billary is scheduled to testify before the Repugnican Tea Party traitors in Congress on the topic of Benghazi on October 22 — to sway very many people.

To those who hate Billary, Benghazi has always been a “scandal” — note that these same “people” pretending to care so very much about the deaths of four Americans in Libya never have given a flying fuck about the more than four thousand (4,000) of our troops who died in the unelected, treasonous Bush regime’s illegal, immoral, unjust and unprovoked Vietraq War — and to those who for some reason wuv Billary, Benghazi has been what it was: an unfortunate incident that happened in a dangerous part of the world, that may or may not have been preventable.

(And, of course, if Billary was a bad secretary of state for having “allowed” Benghazi, what of former “President” George W. Bush, who allowed almost 3,000 Americans to die on September 11, 2001, after the August 6, 2001 presidential daily brief titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US”? Um, yeah. The Repugnican Tea Party traitors, being uber-hypocrites, refuse to acknowledge that their own shit reeks much, much worse than does any Democrat’s.)

We didn’t need wingnutty dipshit Kevin McCarthy to incredibly stupidly admit on television that “Benghazigate” all along has been a political witch hunt meant to bring down Billary Clinton. That was glaringly obvious from the beginning. Again, if these craven traitors of the right actually gave a shit about Americans and our troops, they would have investigated war criminals George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, et. al. by now.

But at the same time it’s hard for anyone who actually has paid attention to Billary Clinton’s political career to feel sorry for her. “Benghazigate” is (mostly) bullshit, but her home-brewed e-mail server is not, and it points to her being a power monger and it points to her character: Queen Billary is to be held accountable to no one.

To me, that Billary voted for the obviously bogus Vietraq War in October 2002 alone disqualifies her for the presidency. Thousands upon thousands of Iraqis and thousands of Americans have died — and the U.S. treasury was emptied — at least in part because then-U.S. Sen. Billary Clinton had calculated on that day in October 2002 that voting for the Vietraq War would be the best thing for her political future.

(The state that she represented as a carpetbagger in the U.S. Senate, New York, had been hit the worst on 9/11, you see, so apparently Billary went along with the Bush regime’s painting of the Vietraq War as Revenge for 9/11!, even though Iraq had had nothing, zip, zero, nil, nada, zilch to do with 9/11.)

Bernie Sanders voted against the Vietraq War when he was in the U.S. House of Representatives. It was an incredibly important vote, and, as he usually does, he got it right. Billary, of course, got it incredibly wrong, and yes, that one vote should have ended her political career by now.

I digress a little — my point is that “Benghazigate” is unlikely to sway a significant chunk of voters to Billary (out of sympathy) or away from Billary (out of stupidly siding with her congressional inquisitors). Again, that Kevin McCarthy so helpfully publicly admitted that it’s a political witch hunt has only confirmed what we’ve long already known. I mean, Mittens Romney tried to make political hay out of Benghazi way back in 2012, for fuck’s sake. This is some stale fucking shit.

Speaking of stale fucking shit, Billary is so inherently unlikable (no, a stint, even a self-deprecating stint, on “Saturday Night Live” isn’t enough to change that fact) that I don’t expect scads of people to run to her side after her appearance before the “Benghazigate” assholes in Congress later this month.

However, Billary’s appearance before the “Benghazigate” assholes in Congress later this month will/would remind us how the Clintons are scandal magnets. That’s not entirely fair, as the Repugnican Tea Party traitors largely have attacked the Clintons grossly unfairly over the past decades (I mean, a blow job?), but scandal fatigue is scandal fatigue, and that fatigue persists within the electorate regardless of who is more at fault for it.

I see nothing on Billary’s horizon to reverse her drop in the polls. It seems safe to conclude that the more people get to know her, the less they like her — thus, her drop in the national polls from the 60s to the low 40s. Therefore, I don’t see the upcoming debates helping her. More exposure is worse for her, which is why the pro-Billary, DINO head of the Democratic National Committee, the God-awful Debbie Wasserman Schultz, rigged the game for Billary by scheduling so few presidential primary debates.

The opposite is true for Bernie Sanders: the more exposure he has, the higher he climbs. He never was supposed to be doing this well, pulling in $26 million to Billary’s $28 million and out-polling her in New Hampshire and being competitive with her in Iowa at this point in the game.

Sanders has nowhere to go but up. I expect even the too-few debates to help him, and he won’t be called to testify before the wingnuts in Congress in any witch hunt. And he has no ongoing e-mail scandal.

By this month’s end, I expect Sanders to overtake Billary decisively in the Iowa polling and I expect his polling in New Hampshire and in the nation as a whole to increase while Billary’s drops.


Filed under Uncategorized