Showing posts with label Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 22, 2020

Who says nobody likes Bernie Sanders?

Hillary Clinton statement "Nobody likes Bernie Sanders" backfires

Here is Newsweek's headline: "#ILIKEBERNIE TRENDS AFTER HILLARY CLINTON SAYS 'NOBODY LIKES' BERNIE SANDERS." This sent Bernie's supporters to the Internet in the thousands to show just how much they do like Bernie Sanders. And you would think someone as disliked as Clinton was in 2016, when she and Debbie Wasserman Schultz colluded to secretly give the Democratic nomination to Hillary, would keep her mouth shut. But she didn't, and now it is clear who the most liked of the two is.

Clinton even indicated the possibility that she might not support Sanders if he receives the nomination for this November's election. This at a time when Bernie is surging in the polls...
"Overall, 27% of registered voters who are Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents back Sanders, while 24% favor Biden."
It is clear moderate Democrats are hell-bound to knock Bernie Sanders out of the race simply because he is both Progressive and an Independent. It isn't working because there are 57.7 million Progressives out there and of the 137.4 million Independents, 52% are Progressive, Get used to it old line Democrats.   READ MORE...

Monday, April 29, 2019

Wake up Democrats...Bernie Sanders can win

Bernie has the ball(s)
I cannot believe that major donors, party operatives, senior lawmakers and rival candidate Pete Buttigieg would conspire against another liberal who has shown that he can not only raise big funds but also spark a huge lineup of contributors and loyal volunteers. But they did. Is there jealousy on the part of these lawmakers and fellow candidates, the fact that they may have dismal track records? Or do they simply wish they had the balls to do what Bernie is doing?

I am not completely sold on the Bern yet, and won't be until he gets much more aggressive on gun control. One of his volunteers called me recently since my wife and I had supported him in 2016, and I told him my concern over the gun control issue. So, I have to look at Joe Biden, who, although middle of the road, seems more inclined to get solidly behind the gun violence issue. But let's just assume Bernie does come out solid in this area.

Some say the Vermont Senator isn't electable, but then he didn't get the chance to challenge Trump in 2016 thanks to Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Democratic National Committee. Few can claim the favorability ratings that Sanders has maintained since coming on the presidential scene. Right now he is outperforming Trump in the polling. The Guardian says there's infighting and bad blood left from his run against Hillary Clinton. Here's a point of view...
"social psychology research tells us that people who have different ideas about politics than us are not generally bad people – they’re mostly good people with different convictions."
Bernie Sanders' convictions are definitely different than establishment Democrats, but in my eyes they are also definitely better. That's why I am an Independent.

Please give me your COMMENTS on this issue.

Monday, June 4, 2018

Trump to beat in 2020...if he's still around

And here is the left's voting problem
Now these are opinions based on the statements of political experts that were involved in past and current elections. They take into consideration the election of Barack Obama in 2012, and the fact that in 2016, "Voters were looking for something more "strident" than Obama’s "incrementalist agenda." In other words, they wanted a faster track than Clinton was exhibiting. Something like Bernie Sanders. Not sure, though, they wanted the ignorant bluster of a Donald Trump, but he was elected; they wanted action not promises. Trump was a mover and shaker and he excited people.

That's all proven to be big mouthed bullshit, but those who still support the Oval Office lunatic are solid in their backing. The last I heard they were around 30%, an easily beatable figure. The Democratic candidate was all wrong in 2016; it should have been Bernie Sanders but the fraud of DNC head, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, nominated Hillary Clinton. Maybe Sanders will run again, or perhaps the left could convince someone like James Comey, former FBI Director, to run as a Democrat. Think about that...James Comey running against Donald Trump. More on this later.

One of the main items on the Progressives/Democrats agenda is getting out the vote. According to Nate Silver's 538, the Republicans were able to get their voters to the polls much more aggressively than Democrats. Progressives naturally rejected Hillary Clinton because of the DNC fiasco, and the fact that it was this that beat their candidate, Bernie Sanders. If Sanders plans to run in 2020, and his age will be a factor, he must throw his hat in now. We also cannot rule out Joe Biden, or Elizabeth Warren or New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker. Whoever it is, the youth vote must be considered.

The Progressive/Democratic candidate must enthusiastically go after social media to spread its message to all ages and over all political persuasions. The Russia probe of Donald Trump should be a great handle for the left. If a Progressive candidate is nominated, the Democrats must get behind him or her. Many political pundits talk of the potential success of a Sanders/Warren ticket in 2020 winning big on the Progressive side, combining experience with youth, two people who seem to excite their followers to action, meaning voting.

If Trump does last, the candidates on the left will have the most corrupt administration that this country has ever experienced to run against. There are the Donald Trump daily lies, his Stormy Daniels and similar escapades, firing of FBI Director Jim Comey in obvious obstruction of justice in the Russian investigation, the scandal over Michael Cohen's consulting, more obstruction of justice, again, involving Comey, in defending Michael Flynn, and the list goes on and on. Never in the history of American elections has there been this kind of ammunition for a political party.

But...will the Progressives/Democrats be able to pull it off???

Read more: How Hillary Clinton blew it
                   How Trump won the election: volatility and a common touch
                   How did Trump win? Here are 24 theories

Thursday, May 24, 2018

How young voters will determine 2018 elections

49% of Millennials (ages 18 to 35) cast votes in 2016 along with 63% of Gen Xers (ages 36 to 51), comprising a slight majority of total votes cast. However, it was Millennials who favored Democrats in a big way while Gen Xers went for the GOP. But the popular vote didn't matter since Hillary Clinton received almost 3 million votes more than Donald Trump. The latter won the presidency through the vote of the Electoral College, a result of congressional districts nationwide gerrymandered for years by Republicans.

The above took place thanks to a sloven DNC head, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

But Millennials have overtaken Babyboomers now and Pew Research says, "It is likely, though not certain, that the size of the Millennial vote will surpass the Gen X vote in the 2020 presidential election." Democrats got 55% of the youth vote in 2016, compared to Republican's 37%, and Rock the Vote, a group that is focused on increasing young registered voters, is predicting Millennials will be the largest voting bloc in 2018. This group doubled the size of its vote from 2008 to 2016, with 34 million votes cast in the latter.

In a recent Florida poll, where the Parkland gun massacre took place, it showed that immigration topped gun control in the November election; Florida is 22.5% Hispanic. But according to the younger population, stricter gun laws are a major issue with them that will no doubt reflect on Millennials in November; this high school group voted 67% for stronger gun control laws and 55% against teachers carrying guns in school. The age group here is just below the Millennial age, but some are already old enough to vote and thousands more will be soon, even before November.

There are over 71 million Millennials living in the United States today, and a lot of them are mad as hell. Since they lean heavily toward the left, it is safe to say that Democrats are heading into November with optimism. Although gun control is fading as an issue for the election, "46 percent say a candidate's position on gun policy will be a major factor in deciding whom to vote for." That's down 13 points from February," right after the Florida shooting. It will be incumbent now on David Hogg, and the other survivors from the Parkland, Florida gun massacre to carry the ball from here.

Saturday, November 4, 2017

Hllary Clinton sabotaged Bernie Sanders' 2016 Primary run, Donna Brazile says

Didn't happen
Donna Brazile says she has proof that Hillary Clinton "rigged the race against Bernie Sanders. I blogged in agreement several times in 2016, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren also acknowledges the fact. Brazile promised Sanders she'd get to the bottom of the then mystery after replacing Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Brazile talks about how Hillary compromised the party’s integrity, and "alleges that an unethical agreement was signed between Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and the DNC to keep the party financially afloat." My question is, with Elizabeth Warren so vocal now, 'Where was she in 2016 when Bernie needed her?'

Donna Brazile has proof Hillary Clinton rigged 2016 Primary...

Elizabeth Warren acknowledges Hillary Clinton guilt...

Donna Brazile goes to work at DNC uncovering scam...

Hillary Clinton compromised Democratic Party's integrity...

Donna Brazile acknowledges Hillary Clinton 2016 unethical agreement...

Friday, May 5, 2017

DNC convinced it has right to rig Democratic primary

Not only are they convinced of this but the Democratic National Committee is using this premise as the basis for their defense in a lawsuit against the organization for Debbie Wasserman Schultz's bias toward Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic primary. The DNC said in a court of law that the party is not obligated to run a fair and impartial primary election implying, "We rigged primaries. So what." Wasserman Schultz agreed, apparently, being the ringleader in the rigging and being fired in disgrace as a result. The losers, the American voters and Bernie Sanders.

The charges against the DNC and Wasserman Schultz include fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and negligence. According to RT, "The suit has three different classes of plaintiffs - those who donated to the DNC, those who donated to the Bernie Sanders campaign and all members of the Democratic Party." I fit into the second class, those who contributed generously to Bernie Sander's campaign. It would be comforting to see Wasserman Schultz and whoever was in this with her go to jail. I am sure Bernie Sanders will agree.

It doesn't appear the DNC defense has much of a chance based on a comment by Tom Perez, the current chair. reports while campaigning to become the DNC chairman, he even admitted in February that the Democratic Party primaries were rigged in favor of Clinton. And on top of all this, Democratic influential Donna Brazile admitted she used her position at CNN to pass on debate questions to the Clinton campaign. It's beginning to become apparent why many in the Democratic establishment are trying to distance themselves from the Clintons.

Take a look at the following and then wonder with me just how this man was ever admitted to the bar. Here is DNC attorney Bruce Spiva's argument...
"...where you have a party that’s saying, ‘We’re gonna, you know, choose our standard bearer, and we’re gonna follow these general rules of the road,’ which we are voluntarily deciding, we could have – and we could have voluntarily decided that, ‘Look, we’re gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way.'”
God forbid. The man sounds like Donald Trump. This brings up once again my suggestion that we dump the Democratic Party and start all over for the liberals. This time we'll get it right because we'll populate Washington with Progressives and get rid of the McConnells and Ryans and the rest of the Republican riff raff. 2018!

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

We need to say goodbye to the Democratic Party

I have been a Democrat all my life; yes, even as a very young boy I remember my father talking about the Democrats and FDR, his New Deal. My dad came from a well-off family in the South, a family at one time I am almost sure had slaves. But the South was Democratic then, all the way, and it was just the right thing to be left leaning. That's changed in the last few years and the Republicans have taken over the South and turned the people there into a conservative stronghold that had a major effect on the 2016 Democratic Primary, particularly for Bernie Sanders.

Did you know Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a Democratic Socialist?

But the Democrats today hardly resemble those of FDR's era; in fact you can't even draw a close parallel these days between what they call the Party and what the Dems started out to be. FDR wasn't a Party starter for Democrats, Andrew Jackson has that honor, but Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the epitome of the Democratic Party, having served four terms in office until his death in 1945. This man set the tone for what the term liberal meant, and followed through with actions that give him a place in history as one of the greatest Presidents of all time.

Here are snippets from the democratic Platform of 1936, three years into FDR's presidency...

  • Protection of the family and the home.
  • Establishment of a democracy of opportunity for all the people
  • Aid to those overtaken by disaster
  • Safeguard the thrift of our citizens by restraining those who would gamble with other peoples savings
  • Early formation of the Social Security concept
  • Expansion of consumer electricity through creation of Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
  • Making homes available to people of meagre incomes 
  • Just treatment of war veterans and their dependents

There are other issues like taking farmers off the road to ruin, worker's pay was increased and hours shortened, actually saved banks and paved the way for a better financial foundation, gave youth the opportunity to stay in school and get an education, which 12 years of Republican neglect had closed, and help for the unemployed. There's more and you can read the complete 1936 Democratic Party Platform here. I want to point out that in every case but one, above, the programs are for the average person, not corporations or the wealthy.

FDR, although born into a wealthy New York family, was a president of the people and his programs substantiated this, but considering the 1929 stock-market crash, some feel he could have paid more attention to a struggling economy; The Great depression lasted until 1939. It is worth noting that the Dow Jones industrial average didn't return to its summer 1929 high until 1954. But as a catalyst, Roosevelt combined a stimulus project with his goals for social equity and created the Rural Electrification Administration to wire the countryside. Perhaps FDR could have used Janet Yellen.

And why take you back all these years down the reminiscing trail to a time some 84 years ago when many of you weren't born or were too young to care what politics was all about? Well, dang it, to illustrate the stark differences in that period, that I might remind you was closer in time to that of the Founding Fathers of this country, that FDR based a lot of his concepts on. As an example, when it comes to corporations...
"To say that the founding fathers supported corporations is very absurd. Its quite the opposite in fact. Corporations like the East India Trading Company were despised by the founding fathers and they were just one reason why they chose to revolt against England. Corporations represented the moneyed interests much like they do today and they often wielded political power, sometimes to the point of governing a colony all by themselves like the Massachusetts Bay Company did."
We've come a long way from Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the journey has ended in a disjointed, confused, and divided Democratic Party that seems not to know how to repair itself. Well, it is my opinion that the Democratic Party is irreparable, therefore, dump it and start over. Progressives, in number, passed liberals a few years ago and seems to be the real new face of the Party. It appears that hard party liners like the Clintons, even Obama, do not want to accept this fact and continue to stick to ideology that just doesn't work anymore with a new generation.

It is a fact that Democrats lost more than 1,030 seats in state legislatures, governor's mansions and Congress during Barack Obama's presidency. It can't all be blamed on the man because it was Debbie Wasserman Schultz who neglected the Party as DNC head for five years, until she was recently fired, and these losses finally added up to a catastrophe for Democrats. But it is still hard to understand how the upper echelons of the Party could sit by and watch over 1,000 of their legislative and governor's seats just evaporate. To me, this is the ultimate of political incompetence.

Bernie Sanders, a Vermont Independent, ran for President as a Democrat in 2016, but lost in the Primary due to the killing machine of Debbie Wasserman Schultz as DNC chair. There were many of us who were supporters of the Bern, and many of us believe today that, until he is given the reins of the Democratic Party, it will remain in its quagmire. Bernie was asked by New York Times Magazine what the Party stands for. His response...
"You’re asking a good question, and I can’t give you a definitive answer. Certainly there are some people in the Democratic Party who want to maintain the status quo. They would rather go down with the Titanic so long as they have first-class seats."
The article indicates that his answer is partially for effect, since he does have his own liberal values for what he thinks the left should stand for. And Sen. Elizabeth Warren joins Sanders in a call for revamping the Party, but one still wonders why she didn't swallow what establishment pride she had during the Primary and throw her backing behind the Bern. It could have turned everything around, but she didn't and it didn't. And the 2018 midterms will only be a fight against the Trump administration and for congressional seats to block his legislation. First things first.

Thursday, February 2, 2017

Political Satire: The adventures of Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Debbie Wasserman Schultz was sitting in her Sunrise, Florida, office thinking about how she could revive her political career by switching to the Republican Party and becoming Donald Trump's Secretary of Holocaust Education. At least it would be a Cabinet post after she was deprived of her DNC chair. That brought back memories of how she had led her staff through the arduous task of disparaging Bernie Sanders with emails and word of mouth so Hillary Clinton would win the Primary. She did but was beaten by Donald Trump in the 2016 Election. Then she got caught.

Wasserman Schultz couldn't understand why the Democrats were so pissed. During her tenure as the DNC Chairman, they had lost only 10.2% of the Senate, 19.3% of the House, 20.3% of State Legislatures and 35.7% of Governors' offices. But, it might've been worse. Hell, Joni Ernst could have been elected President. Hey, if I had switched Parties, she might have chosen me for Vice President, she thought. And then looking at a mirror she took from her purse, she said to herself, 'Maybe it's my hair.' Then the phone rang and she had to pick it up since everyone else was gone.


On the other end, "I want my campaign data back."

To which she replied, "C'mon, Bernie, you know I can't do that. Besides, Hillary still has it...whoops!"


Tuesday, December 20, 2016

What do Republicans have that Democrats don't?

PASSION. It's very simple, you can see it in all factions of the conservatives; when the vote is critical, they turn out. The Democrats, or at least most of them, put their tails between their legs and just stay home when the heat is on. it's pathetic and God knows how many elections we've lost in the last few years. On the bright side, Bernie Sanders brought out the Progressives, and think they did their part in the primaries but Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Democratic National Committee had the whole thing rigged from the start. Bernie should have won.

On the other hand, President Obama said on Monday that the reason for Democratic voters not showing up was the fault of the Clinton campaign for not hitting the Dems' strongholds. He cited an instance where, in his support of Clinton, he wanted to go to Iowa where he had won handily but the Clinton people felt he was better needed elsewhere. He also added, "...candidates in the future should ignore at their own peril the places Democrats haven't traditionally performed well." Further...
"...some Democrats have accused Clinton of maintaining a relaxed campaign schedule, bypassing states like Wisconsin and Iowa where Obama won in 2012."
The blame game is, of course, easy to play with hindsight, but the real question here is what brought out more Republican voters than Democrats? We know there was a huge wave of demand for change, to get rid of the Washington that has only performed for the politicians and given us the same crap year after year. Donald Trump seemed to fill that bill and was elected, but we still have a Congress that has an approval rating of 13% and can't seem to get rid of them. Much of this can be attributed to the GOP gerrymandering that Wasserman and the DNC saw fit to do nothing about over the years.

Reports are that the Republican turnout surged this year while Democrats were just dormant. With Obama the Dems' stronghold was the college educated, young and non-white. Bernie Sanders had two of these categories, could have possibly gotten the other, and one must wonder, if he had won the primary, would the election outcome have been different. There is one bit of difference in Democrats that is recently becoming obvious; the Progressive faction of the party...Bernie's people. I am a Progressive, passionate about those beliefs and a firm supporter of the Democratic Party.

I wouldn't even consider not voting and frankly don't understand those who stayed home from the polls on November 8, and let what happened come about. Donald Trump. Here's the kicker, Gallup reports that as of October 2014, polling found that 43% of Americans identified as Democrats and 39% as Republicans. There are 4% more of us than them and we still can't win an election. It's a disgrace and something that should make those slackers sit up and take notice. The big question is, can we expect them to turn out in 2018.

Tuesday, December 6, 2016

Nancy Pelosi should have gone down with Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Nancy Pelosi
I have been an adamant supporter of Nancy Pelosi since she was Speaker of the House. There have been moments when she shined, like standing up to George W. Bush when he wanted to privatize Social Security. But the downside is the spot the democrats are in now and have been for the last several years. The GOP focused on states to build a base of Republican legislatures and governor's offices that have allowed them to control state governments for some time.

Pelosi isn't the only one responsible, however, Debbie Wasserman Schultz , chairperson of the Democratic National Committee, was in the trenches while all this was going on but did nothing. After helping to throw the Democratic nomination for President in the 2016 Primaries to Hillary Clinton, thus, defeating Bernie Sanders, she has been sent to the showers, disgraced for pulling the rotten shenanigans against Bernie.

W.S. is gone but Nancy Pelosi remains, with the hope that at least Keith Ellison will be the newly elected DNC chair, with a Progressive agenda that Pelosi can at least follow. Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan did challenge the reelected leader of House Democrats but lost. Ryan, 43, who represents the blue-collar town of Youngstown, Ohio, promised a new vision with a new generation of leadership. Ryan was even accused of pulling a publicity stunt to elevate his position.

A fellow Californian, Rep. Adam Schiff said, "We need the very best to lead us ... No one is a better tactician than Nancy Pelosi." If Pelosi was that good a tactician, she would have seen the Republican take-over of state legislatures and governor's offices. This move occurred over years and will take the Dems years to overcome the deficit. Or maybe the left is giving in to the fact that we are currently in a "Republican" cycle with, in fact, no strategy to fight back.

With both Houses of Congress and the White House firmly under GOP control, the outlook is dim. But you should never underestimate a Progressive and with all this Republican power and self-assurance, that might just work for the left.   

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Which side of the nation are you on?

A nation divided
The results of the 2016 election have spawned a huge game of 'Who do you like?' In the cases of the high-profile politicians, nobody's winning, except Barack Obama. In a recent CNN/ORC poll the results were dismal for at least three:
For all Americans 
  • Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, 47% favorable, 35% Unfavorable
  • Hillary Clinton, 40% Favorable, 57% Unfavorable
  • Mitch McConnell, Sen.Majority Leader, 25% Favorable, 39% Unfavorable
Real Clear Politics rates Donald Trump currently, 39.5% Favorable, 56% Unfavorable. All of this is out in left field compared to Barack Obama's rating following his 2008 election, 70% Favorable, 25% Unfavorable. His current, Favorable 56%, Unfavorable 40%. In another Republican comparison, when George W. Bush left office, his Favorable was 27%, Unfavorable 66%. The key is the Dems needed someone like Obama in 2016...think Bernie Sanders.

We just experienced the most obnoxious election in recent history, perhaps ever.
"...more than 8-in-10 Americans say the country is more deeply divided on major issues this year than in the past several years."
"And more than half say they are dissatisfied with the way democracy is working in the US."
But here's hope for Progressives, "...nearly 8-in-10 overall hope to see the GOP-controlled government incorporate some Democratic policies into its agenda." CNN interprets the poll saying
"...'most' say they would like to see President-elect Donald Trump, who won with an Electoral College majority despite trailing in the popular vote nationwide, pursue policies that could draw in new supporters rather than appeal solely to those who backed him during the campaign."
Not sure who CNN's "most" is, but I do not see Progressives wanting new supporters in any Republican form, certainly not the Donald Trump ilk. But the feelings are unanimous that we are a split nation, "...with 85% saying so overall, including 86% of independents, 85% of Republicans and 84% of Democrats." And even though Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, the general public still feels ill about her following the election.

As Progressives, we can only hope that Trump will do the right thing. If not, there is 2008. Unfortunately, thanks to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrats/Progressives have been saying that too much in the last few years.

Tuesday, November 22, 2016

"Bernie Mafia" has a request Democrats can't refuse

Bernie Sanders appeals to masses
First it was Elvis' mafia, now Bernie Sanders has his and they plan to capitalize on the strength of his popularity, which is still growing since Clinton won the primary and lost the election. Bernie has just been promoted to the Democratic leadership in the Senate and his colleague, Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, is a favorite to be the next chairman of the Democratic Party. He replaces Debbie Wasserman Schultz who brought the party down to where it is.

In effect, it is a decapitated party, as put by Alex-Seitz Wald of NBC News, that Ellison will inherit, if elected. Thanks to Debbie Wasserman Schultz. But as an example of Bernie Sander's popularity, his Facebook page grew by 100,000 followers in the 24 hours after Clinton's defeat. Which indicates to me the fact that, had the primaries not been rigged to elect Clinton, with Bernie running against Trump, we would have a different President-elect right now.

Sanders laments the fact that the Democratic Party has all but deserted the working class in the search for a moderate identity that didn't work. But he's even reached out to Clinton to the heal the wounds of a primary the latter's supporters feel did her in. What really did Clinton in was her favorability rating: 41.1% favorable, 55.3 unfavorable. For Bernie Sanders: 54.1% favorable, 37.5% unfavorable. A Bernie quote to end this on:
"I'm not here to blame anybody, not to criticize anybody, but facts are facts," When you lose the White House to the least popular candidate in the history of America, when you lose the Senate, when you lose the House, and when two-thirds of governors in this country are Republicans, it is time for a new direction for the Democratic Party."

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

Young vote helped elect Donald Trump

2016 election protesters
Obviously a nation is pissed with Donald Trump as the newly elected President. Protests are going on across the country, but one thing bothers me about the reports. Apparently the demonstrations include a lot of young people, which raises the question of where they were last Tuesday...when Trump was elected. The Atlantic reports:
A national exit poll suggests more young adults in 2016 than in 2012 “supported a third-party candidate, did not vote for a presidential candidate, or specifically chose not to answer this poll question,” according to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE).
 Further, the article provides that 37% of ages 18 to 29 voted for Donald Trump. When you add that figure to those voting for third-party candidates plus those who didn't vote, the numbers become significant. A new DNC chair will be welcomed since Debbie Wasserman Schultz has allowed the Democratic Party to weaken to the point where everything from local councils to the presidency is now controlled by Republicans.

We are not so much a conservative nation as we are a nation controlled by conservatives. This did happen on Schultz's watch and now that she is gone and new blood is coming on--perhaps Keith Ellison--the new head must work vigorously to develop the youth, Hispanic and black vote. It took years for the GOP to lay the groundwork for their success and I am afraid it will take some time for the Democrats to catch up.

Rudy Giuliani called the protesters “spoiled crybabies.” Trump thinks they may not know him. The uprisings stretched all the way from Maryland to Oregon and several states in between and you can bet these "spoiled crybabies" knew exactly what they were doing and who it was about. Donald Trump as President is bad enough but looking forward to a GOP controlled Congress and overall Republican domination for the next few years really sucks.

Friday, April 22, 2016

Why Clinton should not be Democratic nominee

Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Huff Post has come up with a list of a 10-point plan being executed by the Democratic Party to lose the 2016 Presidential election. I would like to cover them a couple at a time.

Number one: Assume that Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee, when it is clear he will not. There's some pretty good reasoning and not too shabby math in this conclusion but Trump, like Bernie Sanders, has had his share of surprises in this race that has kept the former in the lead and the latter in a very strong contender's position.

Number two: The Dems attempt to nominate the only one of the two Democratic candidates who is almost guaranteed to reunite the Republican Party. You think Mitch McConnell hates Barack Obama, there is nothing that will bring the GOP together quicker than its hatred of the Clintons. Huff Post says, "Hillary Clinton is one of the least popular major-party politicians in America, and her disapproval rating is not just sky-high among Republicans..."

We can thank Debbie Wasserman Schultz for the direction of the Democratic nominating process, something she has clearly steered to favor Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. Sanders ratings against Trump and Cruz are better than Clinton's but due to Schultz' close ties with her and the fact that the Bern is an Independent, the DNC Chair is hell-bent on pushing him out of the race. 

Sunday, December 20, 2015

Curious? First NGP VAN data breach and it was Bernie Sanders

Dec. 18, 2015 Democratic debate
I am still the cynic and I cannot fathom a company that professed a perfect record until this breach in a Politico article claiming this whole thing was just a glitch, an accident. As I reported yesterday, NGP VAN founder, Nathaniel Pearlman, also served as chief technology officer for Hillary Clinton's 2008 Presidential campaign.

There are just too many factors involved, one of which is DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz who had complete control over the whole fiasco. Now there is no doubt that these doofuses in the Sanders campaign should not have looked at Clinton's data; they should have simply reported the incident and this whole episode wouldn't have happened.

Based on my knowledge of campaign political data from 35 years in the junk mail business, my gut tells me Sanders had very similar info and didn't really need Hillary's.

But let's examine the timeline here. The data breach occurred sometime late Thursday or early Friday morning, December 18. The Sanders people noticed the breach but what is not true in the reporting is that the data was accessed over a period of time, that it was exported or retrieved. And much of it was probably already known by the Bernie folks, as I mentioned earlier. But they did what they did, which was wrong, and the shit hit the fan.

Keep in mind that this happened conveniently the day before the December 19, Democratic debate, scheduled (again conveniently?) by Wasserman Schultz on a Saturday when even the most loyal of the voting public is doing just about anything other than watching politicians. Call me a cynic, but the whole debacle is full of intrigue that is long from over and far from being explained.

Saturday, December 19, 2015

Call me a cynic but the next question is did Clinton people view Bernie Sanders data?

Jeff Weaver, Sanders Campaign Mgr.
The shit has hit the fan over Bernie Sanders' staffers viewing of Clinton information in the now infamous data breach at NGP VAN. First of all, former Sanders' National data Director Josh Uretsky said, “We didn’t use [the data] for anything valuable and we didn’t take custodianship of it.” Tempting as that might have been, my second point is, just how revealing was the data they looked at? In other words, did they see something that could have brought down the Clinton campaign, or was it just general info like who voted, for whom etc.?

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a close friend and staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton, has been screaming bad boy, bad boy to the high heavens, when, in fact, she has neither confirmed nor denied whether Clinton's team were also bad guys and looked at Bernie's data. And the whole data breach incident is about as suspicious as it can get occurring just before tonight's debate.
In keeping with that thought, it is very interesting that one of the NGP VAN founders, Nathaniel Pearlman, also served as chief technology officer for Hillary Clinton's 2008 Presidential campaign.
I don't want to scream conspiracy--I just did didn't I?--but the Democratic Party has tried to ostracize Bernie Sanders from this race since the beginning, just because he is an Independent. That, when he has always caucused with the Dems. Independents are here to stay but right now the Democratic Party, namely Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her DNC are on trial. We have not heard the last of this.

Call me a cynic but the question is, why did NGP VAN Data Co. firewall drop?

Debbie Wasserman Schultz in driver's seat

The Observer News counts Debbie Wasserman Schultz's support of Hillary Clinton back to the 2008 election, which has mushroomed into the backing we have experienced recently where she personally cut off the life-blood of the Bernie Sanders campaign by shutting down access to their voter data. NGP VAN is the data co. holding the information in question. The publication called for her resignation immediately. The Observer also recounted other incidents of favorability and mismanagement.

  • "Schultz’s decision to limit the debate schedule of the 2016 presidential primaries to six sanctioned debates favors Hillary Clinton." 26 debates were held in 2008, possibly important in Obama's win over Clinton.
  • "Debbie Wasserman Schultz is depending on Hillary Clinton winning the Democratic nomination to further her own political career," after having fallen out of favor with Obama administration.
  • Her leadership led to catastrophic losses for the Democrats during the 2014 midterm elections. She directly assisted in losses by refusing to support three Democrats, Miami-Dade Democratic Party chair Joe Garcia, former Hialeah Mayor Raul Martinez and businesswoman Annette Taddeo.

There are others but these are the most obvious. 

The Observer closes with:  

"Ms. Wasserman Schultz has often favored her own agenda and political considerations over what would be best for the Democratic Party. If Hillary loses, she will lose one of her last remaining allies in the Democratic Party and the career benefits that are normally inherent with serving as the Chair of the DNC.

Now you decide why she, as DNC head, is holding Bernie Sander's campaign data hostage. Sander's Campaign Mgr. Jeff Weaver, has threatened to sue the DNC in Federal Court.

(As a P.S. the two sides have now settled the matter)

Donald Trump Says He Will Be Indicted On Tuesday

  THAT'S TODAY... Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has brought the case to this point, now looking at a possible indictment. Trum...