Bernie Sanders on Electoral College: Examine now

Rep. Keith Ellison, (D-MN)

As you know, when Bernie speaks we progressives listen. He spoke, and this time he thinks it's time to "...re-examine the Electoral College..." Bernie Sanders bases his premise on the fact that Hillary Clinton is now over 2 million votes ahead of Donald Trump in the popular vote. Could there be something wrong with this out-of-date institution that has been questioned for years and also stole the vote from Al Gore in 2000. Here's what Bernie said:

"We have one candidate who had two million more votes than the other candidate but she is not going to be sworn in as president, and I think on the surface that's a little bit weird."

Many agree, including Sen. Barbara Boxer from California who has introduced a bill to scrap the Electoral College, which most think has no chance of getting anywhere in a Republican Congress. Progressives have to face this fact head on that liberal issues are going to be on the back burner for four years or at least to when Trump is impeached or resigns. That is, as far as the GOP is concerned. But the hip Democrats and Independents know this is the fight of our lives.

There's plenty of common sense to this thinking if this is a country of "We the people..." Damn the additional efforts to use the popular vote. If our technology will get us to the moon, it certainly should be able to count the votes quickly and accurately following an election. Bernie thinks all this falls in line with where the Democratic Party is going in the future and how it should be led. The Vermont Senator thinks US Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota can do the job.

How many more guns does this country need? REALLY

Apparently Donald Trump's gun lovers don't believe what he said about the 2nd Amendment, the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) and protecting their guns. They headed out in droves on Black Friday for the 10% to 50% discounts that were available on weapons like a $500 Sig Sauer and various assault rifles like an AR-15. Featured in many articles as the "go-to weapon for mass shooters," the average, reasonable individual wonders why any normal citizen needs one.

Because these people are not normal; they are obsessed with guns. And like some car enthusiasts who want the fastest vehicle they can drive, gun worshippers go for the gun with the biggest capacity. Like the Sig Sauer MCX .223 used in the LGBT nightclub massacre with a magazine of thirty. Omar Mateen killed 49 people with a gun that belongs only with the military and law enforcement, but is available to a majority of the U.S. population.

So, the fact that Hillary Clinton, an avowed gun control advocate, didn't win the election, had no effect on the Black Friday surge in gun buying, why are these enslaved individuals rushing out to buy more of what they probably already have at least one of at home? Because Wayne LaPierre, NRA Head, told them to and he did that because the gun manufacturers told him to. There are almost well over 300 million guns on the street, very near to one per household.

Since only one-third of U.S. households own a weapon, approximately 101 million, that's over 3 guns per household. Here are some obscene gun statistics to close:

• Total number of gun incidents-51,720
• Number of deaths-13,367
• Number of injuries-27,560
• Number of children killed or injured-3,418
• Mass shootings-351

The problem is, since we have a cowardly Congress, a newly elected President who favors gun rights, the future looks dismal.

YES, there are valid reasons for an election recount

Hanging chads Florida 2000

First, there are a number of top computer scientists that feel recounts are justified in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, because they "believe they have found evidence that vote totals in the three states could have been manipulated or hacked."

Second, Jill Stein, Green Party nominee, calls for recounts in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, due to the possibility of hacks in key counties in those states.

Three, enough of the American public wants it justified by the fact that Jill Stein has already raised $4 million; the cost is only $1.1 million.

Actually, I could stop right there but there is more. The Guardian says:

"...the recount process is intensive, expensive and unlikely to change the outcome of the election unless widespread voter fraud is proven. Experts have been skeptical that is the case."

CNET says we should breathe since there is the chance the election was hacked. When's the last time a computer hacking was a positive thing? The answer is before Donald Trump was elected President. Nate Cohn, reporter for polling and demographics for the NY Times along with Nate Silver, who runs the polling statistics website FiveThirtyEight, both say "the differences between the polls and the results don't point to any irregularities."

The Atlantic thinks that many voters who cast their votes elsewhere want to be convinced the election was rigged, thus, calling for a recount. With Clinton leading the popular vote by 2 million+, it's hard not to accept a hypothetical representation of what should have been. So the controversy goes on and on. The process for recounting is long, tedious and very expensive, but the latter is covered so all that is left is the extended effort. Question is, should we do it?

"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."

Amen! 

Trump honed incendiary style from National Rifle Assn.

For years the National Rifle Assn., led by Wayne LaPierre, has railed against a government that suppresses its people and denies them their constitutional rights. Of course, the opposition has always been designed to protect their precious 2nd Amendment, a part of the Constitution that should have been done away with or at least modified significantly. Something that obviously could never happen under a Donald Trump presidency or Republican controlled Congress.

A recent post on this subject pointed out how the emphasis on state elections will probably increase in the next four years, while pointing out the high amount of gun violence the U.S. suffers annually from too many guns. At one point Trump said, “I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun.” The Trace article also said that during the election, "...Trump adopted an incendiary message that matched the NRA’s own."

When the NRA heard Trump's repeated rhetoric that the 2nd Amendment was sacred, something that must be protected at all costs, the decision was made to pump $30- million into ads that supported Trump. It started with 5-million NRA members, then picked a rural population the NRA has been appealing to for years, all ramrodded by the huge ad campaign both for Donald Trump and against Hillary Clinton. It worked. Trump was elected but can the NRA really depend on his fickle nature?




The fact is that almost all of the Republican hierarchy shunned Trump in the early stages, as well as further into the campaign. Special interest groups ignored him; do the Koch brothers come to mind? Even the conservative press was caught off guard by his zany antics. Sociologist Scott Melzer, author of the 2012 book "Gun Crusaders: The NRA’s Culture War," told The Trace:

"The gun group and its candidate speak to 'this white rural conservative population that feels left behind by economic shifts and cultural shifts. These changes pose a threat to their identity.'”

Wayne Lapierre wasn't able to beat Barack Obama but he was successful defeating Hillary Clinton. I continue to wonder how long a gullible American public will buy the NRA's bullshit. Meanwhile, it accepts 12,000+ gun deaths a
year, over 3,000 of them children. Thank you America.

Real reason Donald Trump won

Is this reason for the low turnout?

All things considered, anger at Washington insiders, people didn't like Hillary Clinton, and on and on, the real reason Donald Trump won this election was the low turnout. Almost 5% less votes were cast in 2016 than 2012, and the latter was 3.7% less than 2008. The Bernie bunch let us down. The blacks let us down. And once again the Hispanics let us down. So in comes a stampeding group of Trump do willies who stumble through the process of electing...him.

A low turnout by lazy Democrats has always favored a Republican base, which at least rises to the occasion when it is important.

The outcome is that we are stuck with Donald Trump for the next four years--but maybe not says Michael Moore--as the President of the most powerful country in the world. More than scary, right? In case you are interested, this is the profile of the gang that elected your President. By "your," think you know what I'm talking about. Here is how Allen Clifton of Forward Progressive describes the supporters for the new President-elect:

1. They’re not very well-educated
2.They have delusional visions about how wealthy they might be
3. They really don’t know a damn thing about politics
4. They’re highly misinformed about nearly everything and extremely gullible
 5. They think they’re a whole lot smarter than what they actually are and tend to be extremely stubborn, if not outright arrogant

Now here is one I've never heard before, #2: They have delusional visions about how wealthy they might be. You mean even the dimmest of the Donald dimwits think they can do what he did? Take a million dollars from your father and turn it into four bankruptcies? Well, they would. And more power to them. But meanwhile we're stuck with, well you know what. But like I said earlier, maybe there is hope when Trump starts again with his bizarre antics.

Let me finish with a question. Can we surmise from the above plus other recent articles on Donald Trump's election; are his followers simply uneducated rednecks? Shades of the Tea Party.

Bernie Sanders: Stay healthy for 2020

Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Michael Moore and Allan Lichtman predicted Donald Trump won't survive a full four years as President. As encouraging as that is, we need a backup just in case for 2020. I read a comment yesterday on an Internet site covering the Trump demonstrations across the country. It said, eat right and get plenty of exercise, Bernie, for 2020. Not being anything close to a Constitutional Law expert, or even layman, not sure if he could fill in for an impeached Donald Trump.

I harken back to the unethical antics of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, disgraced former head of the Democratic National Committee, who repeatedly showed overwhelming favor for Hillary Clinton in the primaries. She was fired for her actions, things Bernie Sanders frequently exposed during the campaign, but only to the deaf ears of demented Democrats. Who, obviously, got what they deserved, Donald Trump.

Here's one such email from Brad Marshall suggesting that they use religion against a certain possible atheist with a Jewish heritage:

From:MARSHALL@dnc.org To: MirandaL@dnc.org, PaustenbachM@dnc.org, DaceyA@dnc.org Date: 2016-05-05 03:31 Subject: No shit

It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.

Marshall was chief financial officer of the DNC, who later tried to claim his message did not refer to Bernie Sanders. Bernie beat Donald Trump consistently in the polls leading up to Clinton's nomination. But the election results were a complete turnaround from what all the polls were predicting between Clinton and Trump. I would like to think this:

When Bernie Sanders lost the primaries, the force of his following was so let down and discouraged that the majority fractured completely away from the Democratic Party and with no direction or leadership either didn't vote at all or simply looking for change from the typical Washington insider, Hillary Clinton, they misguidedly voted for Donald Trump. This added to Trump's rural support put him over the top.

But, of course, we'll probably never know. 

Protesters against Donald Trump election everywhere

Donald Trump election protesters

Thousands hit the streets from San Francisco to Washington, DC, as well as Atlanta; Austin, Texas; Boston; Chicago; Denver; Philadelphia; Portland, Oregon; Seattle. And, it's not letting up, entering the fourth day of demonstrations. CNN reported, "One college student showed CNN a sign that said, 'I still can't believe I have to protest for civil rights.'" Is it fair to say that we have a relatively large proportion of the public unhappy with Donald Trump?

It's bad enough that we have a flawed election process where several people are chosen as electors by the two political parties--but not Independents--sometimes with no relationship to the will of the public. Electoral votes put George W. Bush in office in 2000, and Donald Trump in 2016. In both cases the popular vote elected Al Gore and Hillary Clinton. If you're interested an Electoral College explanation here, why we don't get rid of it here.

On the other hand, Donald Trump talked in extremes during his candidacy saying he would repeal Obamacare, put Hillary Clinton in jail, and send all of the illegals back home. Just to garner the votes of the racists, bigots and radicals in general. It worked. And he added a few others who voted simply for change. I would like to know the percentage of his supporters who voted blind, with no clue to the issues of the Trump campaign.

Had they looked, they still wouldn't have found any. And now these poor souls have learned that that their idol for change is already reversing himself on Obamacare, Hillary Clinton and immigration. One might wonder if these people will have the gumption to stand up to the man who is letting them down. I've said it before and will say it again, it is this kind of profile that rushes to the voting booth with their double-digit IQs, voting accordingly.

The election outcome protesters of the last few days knew the issues of their candidate, Hillary Clinton, and even though many had rather have had Bernie Sanders on the ticket, they voted in protest to keep Donald Trump out of the White House. It didn't work. Or rather it did, but the Electoral College undercut their efforts. Progressives have a lot to do to get this country back in shape.

Latino Chants of "¡Si se puede!" as Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio loses big

The Hispanic community of Arizona can rest easier after the decisive defeat of Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Tuesday's election, at least until January 20, 1917. I talked to one Latino as he finished grooming our yard, ready to ask him if he voted but he asked me first. I said, "Yes, did you?" His answer was a quick "Yes." I didn't ask him who he voted for but I'm betting as far as the Sheriff's race is concerned, it was probably Paul Penzone, Arpaio's opposition.

Don't know how my guy voted in the Presidential election either but Hispanics accounted for 11% of the total vote and favored Clinton by better than two to one. In 2008 Obama received 67% of the vote but the Latino turnout was only 9%. Once again this ethnic group did not step up to the plate. They also offered no help in the Arizona legislature where the stupid laws like the 2010 immigration bill that was eventually gutted.

I am more inclined to believe the white population of Arizona was finally fed up with Joe Arpaio, sick of the grandstanding to feed his ego, and at least $55 million in lawsuits against him and his department. And recently he was personally indicted on contempt of court charges he will have answer without his shield to back him up. Not sure what state's position will be on paying future legal bills. Knowing this state, anything is possible.

Hillary Clinton was supposed to ace the Hispanic vote but she barely held on to Obama's 2008 numbers. Either the Dems just aren't approaching the Latino community right, the latter just don't give a shit about their future, or it's all Hillary's fault. The future of the Democratic Party is significantly in question right now. Where are you Bernie?

Opinion to chill out over Trump only partially right

Timothy Stanley's headline, "Liberals, chill out about Trump victory," sounds comforting but he goes way too far. He's right about the courts holding Donald Trump in line and the fact that the 2018 election will certainly take into consideration how the President-elect fares in his first two years. And also the rights of the LGBT community. But he is dead wrong about him cutting taxes, repealing Obamacare, and his choice of Supreme Court justices.

Good God man, have you forgotten the disaster of the Geo. W. Bush fiasco, a fact that 20 million people are now covered by health care plans that weren't before the ACA? And for my money, we are only headed for some disastrous years with the addition of Trump's Court nominees. Conservatives won't admit it but the Citizens United decision has made a mockery of the election process and there is no way we will repeal that under Trump.

There is some contradiction to the above, considering that all of Hillary Clinton's massive ad buys in the millions didn't help her. But in the end it only proves that the Democrats nominated the wrong candidate. Most of us knew all along that it should have been Bernie Sanders.

Bernie Sanders will be a thorn in Donald Trump's behind

Bernie Sanders

It isn't sour grapes since Bernie Sanders didn't have a chance at beating Donald Trump. Had he, he would have. It's just that Bernie recognizes and isn't afraid to verbalize his concerns about the potential of a Trump administration. One of the last major politicians to release a statement, this is what he said:

"Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media. People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids — all while the very rich become much richer."

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but it is almost as if the inference is that Donald Trump's rants of change may have picked up some of the Revolution's supporters when Bernie was beaten by Hillary Clinton. He added this to the above:

"To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him. To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environmental policies, we will vigorously oppose him."

It is obvious that Bernie Sanders, The Revolution, and staunch Progressives will cautiously eye the movements of the President-elect. This blog will be devoted to that mandate in the future.

Hillary Clinton baggage lost the election for her

Thank God it's over and it's time for us Progressives to face the facts and regroup to make sure the Donald Trump administration doesn't wreak havoc. It will be hard with the WH and Congress in the control of the GOP.


Hillary Clinton carried the baggage that obviously defeated her on Nov. 8, spawning a situation we will have to live with for the next four years. Has everyone forgotten all the things Trump said over the period of the campaign? Things like:

"undocumented immigrants will be deported en masse, Arab Americans will be racially profiled and the United States will "bomb the s--- out of ISIS."

 There's more:

"In Trump's America, foreign Muslims will be banned from the US, Syrian refugees sent back to their war-torn country and free trade agreements torn to shreds. And, of course, the US will build a 'great wall' on the US-Mexico border, which Mexico will have to pay for."

And even more in the article underlined above. These are not Presidential comments and it is hopeful that the tone of the President-elect reported by Pres. Obama, in their personal conversation today, will prevail in Trump's governing of this country. I am not yet ready to predict a George W. Bush comeback but the next few months will determine that.

Hillary Clinton Issues: Equal Pay

"Fighting for equal pay."

Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton Issues: Overturn Citizens United

"We will do everything we can to overturn Citizens United."

Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton Issues: Health Care/ACA

"Stand up to Republican-led attacks on this landmark (health care) law—and build on its success to bring the promise of affordable health care to more people and make a ‘public option’ possible."

Hillary Clinton Issues: Immigration

"Pass comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship that keeps families together."

Hillary Clinton Issues: College Tuition

ON COLLEGE TUITION

"For families making less than $125,000 a year, we will eliminate tuition" for in-state students at public colleges.

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. 

Clinton campaign whines on and on and on...

Hillary Clinton had just won 58% of the New York Primary vote to Bernie Sanders 42% when the Clinton talking heads started grumbling over the fact that Bernie is not playing fair. Seems that at the time exit polls gleaned from respondents that 46% felt the Clinton campaign was more unfair, only 34% for Sanders. In added comments, "...66% of Democrats said the primary contest is 'energizing' the party," according to CNN.

Chief whiner, Jennifer Palmieri, Clinton's communications director, says that "...the Sanders campaign 'has been destructive' to that point that he is 'not productive to Democrats' and is 'not productive for the country.'" What she is really saying is that the Bern is an Independent, not a Democrat, and the fact that he has won so many primaries against Hillary is embarrassing the party. What she fails to mention is the fact that Bernie Sanders is consistently committed.

But the numbers are that Sanders won 106 delegates in New York to Clinton's 139 for a total of 1,199 pledged to 1,452 respectively. Clinton has 489 superdelegates to Sanders 41, a hefty lead that could be whittled down with the upcoming primaries. Bernie's position, and it is a reasonable one, is that superdelegates will start changing their mind if he continues strong in future primaries, starting with Connecticut on April 26.

Another superdelegate factor includes states whose delegates have voted for Clinton where Sanders was the choice of the popular vote. Sanders adviser Tad Devine said, referring to the Clinton campaign whining, "I hear what they're saying, but what they're saying is being refuted by the voters themselves." One thing is clear, Bernie Sanders has started a revolution that the American public has connected with, and it has upset the Democratic Party process.

Clinton favorability the pits and polls show it

The latest Huff Pollster national poll shows Bernie Sanders has shot northward to 45.4% while Hillary Clinton has gone south to 48.3%. She was at 52.2% on March 6, Bernie at 39.7%. And on April 9, Ipsos/Reuters found the Bern ahead at 49%, Clinton 48%. Go figure, because these differences prove that polling hasn't yet reached a scientific or technological level where it can't be challenged. But there is one poll that should be confusing to any Bernie Sanders supporter.

Favorability. How is it that Hillary Clinton with a net favorability rating of -24--higher than Ted Cruz at -23--is ahead in national polls when Bernie Sanders' net favorability is a +9? That's a spread of 32 points and a significant number which may turn  superdelegate heads even more toward the Bern, especially if he does well in New York. A lot of people don't like the candidate they vote for but do so because he or she is best qualified. Bernie is well liked and he's qualified.

I detest mentioning the name but a Republican candidate with the initials DT is a poll of another color. Since these pollsters are the same ones that do all the polls, you have to wonder if the whole thing is actually a colossal sham...or could it just be  the stupidity of the American conservative public?