The McClatchy-Marist poll released last week finds some instructive results in among voters’ preferences for the remaining Presidential candidates.
25% of Bernie Sanders voters say they will not vote for Hillary Clinton in the fall. 14% of Clinton voters refuse to support Sanders on the November ballot. Such refusal may simply be primary-season cheering: it’s one thing to boo the White Sox when they play at Target Field; it’s another when the White Sox are the last defense on October 31 against the Yankees winning the Series.
Such refusal is certainly foolish, of course, because if you’re really voting for the policies of either Sanders or Clinton, and your preferred candidate doesn’t win the Democratic nomination, there’s no one on the Republican side who gets you closer to your policy objectives than your sub-optimal Democratic nominee.
These numbers reflect not policy analysis but a much stronger personal animus among voters for the current delegate leaders. The only head-to-head match-up Clinton wins is against Donald Trump (50% to 41%), and that’s only because more people dislike Trump than dislike her. 53% of those who pick Clinton over Trump say they’re voting against Trump; 61% of Trump’s “supporters” (including 60% of Trump Republicans) are really just anti-Clinton. (Oof—what kind of mandate to govern does one have when a majority of one’s voters are simply voting against the other candidate?)
Taking Trump out of the picture unleashes the Clinton hatred: Ted Cruz ties her, and John Kasich beats her.
Take Clinton out of the picture, and Democrats are guaranteed a win in November:
Consider: Hillary Clinton has apparently accumulated so much negative public sentiment over 25 years that she is less popular and viable as a general election candidate than a self-professed socialist.
Sanders swings the needle most among Independents, winning majorities among that electoral segment against all three Republican prospects while Clinton loses among Independents against Cruz and Kasich and musters a meager plurality win against Trump 44% to 41%.
But Indies don’t matter in a majority of the remaining primaries. Of the eighteen remaining primaries and caucuses, I count ten closed contests, four open, and four “semi” (including South Dakota, where Indies can vote on the Dem side but not on the GOP side). Clinton doesn’t need to win lots of Indy votes right now. She needs to press her case with those who can vote. Once she has climbed that hill, she can turn to convincing those Indies that she really does stink less than Trump, Cruz, Kasich or (worst-case scenario for Clinton?) whatever fresh face emerges from a brokered GOP convention.
Bernie exudes genuineness. Hillary, not so much. You don’t get the idea that Bernie is triangulating. You don’t get the idea that Bernie is flip flopping. The Bernie of today is the same as the Bernie of yesterday. Both Hillary and Trump have changed their positions on issues for obviously opportunistic reasons. Both Hillary and Trump seem to believe they are unaccountable to anyone for anything.
I think it is still possible for Bernie to get the Democratic nomination, and if he is nominated he will win. Trump won’t get the GOP party nomination unless he has enough delegates for the first ballot – and then it’s not even a given. The GOP party might try to bypass both Trump and Cruz at the convention, and then even the nomination of a popular person won’t be enough for a win – against either Bernie or Hillary.
I don’t much care for HRC,but, I wonder how much of her negatives is the constant barage of Whitewater, Vince Foster’s suicide, filegate, Benghazigate etc,etc? Clinton has been cleared of wrongdoing over and over again. While the real crooks-dumbass dubya and Cheney have yet to see the inside of a courtroom.
I have heard of 60 year old white guys who say if Bernie wins they are going to college
and join a fraternity.
Ed Arndt
I love it when you talk dirty 8675309
Remember too that Trump is stil rattling the GOP birdcage with a third party run if they attempt any political move against him or a brokered convention.
Trump’s ego is largest enough that he would make that 3rd party leap.
Given the uncertainty of the GOP nomination that Ror describes, a gambling Democrat should back Sanders.
Mike, as you suggest, a lot of Clinton’s negatives are unwarranted. But warranted or not, all those negatives create a higher hill for her to climb with more voters.
Jenny, that is an interesting phenomenon, another aspect, I suspect, of the negatives identified in the McClatchy-Marist poll. Strange that those conservative Dems in Wyoming would feel so negatively about Clinton that they would throw in with the more liberal Sanders. Again, personality trumps policy.
Roger, if Trump goes third party, does he have the organizational skills and the time to get on the ballot in 270-electoral-votes-worth of states in the few weeks after the July 18–21 convention? And what would the outcome of a three-way race? I assume Republicans would mostly (80%+?) stick with their nominee. Democrats would stick with Clinton 90%+. But Indies? Would they split in thirds: one third to Clinton, one third anti-Clinton to the GOP nominee, and one-third anti-Clinton and anti-GOP-convention-rigging to Trump?
Ed, college might do those 60-year-old men some good. :-D
Here’s my problem with Bernie: he has said the same thing over and over for thirty years. Is consistency over thirty years a sign of genuineness, or is it something else? I’ve seen Bernie for fifteen years. He comes to Wisconsin about every summer for progressive meetings here. He never has much of anything new to impart. Oh, there are a few current events to throw into the same old speech. Is it intellectual laziness? I don’t know. I like what he says, but there just isn’t much there. Bernie’s got a nice stump speech honed over decades, complete with all the Bernie gestures, but it’s about as old and tired as vaudeville schtick to anyone who has followed him for any amount of time.
Hillary may seem a bit disingenuous, but you get the impression that she learns new things and is willing to change based on both political calculation and on genuine thought. I’ve come to respect that kind of leadership, even though it can be frustrating. You do feel uneasy just trusting her. On the other hand, purist politicians can’t accomplish much in our system of government.
I find it interesting that the people who distrust Hillary the most are the younger folks, who really don’t know much about her. The younger folks, of course, didn’t come out to vote in 2010 and 2014, thus giving us the Republican Congress and gridlock, gerrymandered legislative districts, and a slew of Republican Governors. They supposedly supported Obama, too, except they couldn’t bother to go vote to provide him a Congress that would work with him. The people who we need to distrust are the young Bernie supporters, who will vote for the top of the ticket and not bother with real citizesnship.
Donald, can you name me even one “purist politician”?
Cory,
That is a pretty thorough analysis of Trump and a 3rd party run, but do you think it really matters to him.
As you are well aware, Trump is a complete unorthodox politician where nothing applies to him.
Maybe one of the questions should be does he make that 3rd party run before the convention.
Republicans are saying that if Trump makes that run it will destroy the republican party for decades. That sounds like pretty good news for either Hillary or Bernie, I can live with either one if that is the case.
A lot of people make parallels to this election year with 1968. Most of the comparisons have to do with perceiving Trump as a blend of Dick Nixon and George Wallace all wrapped into one.
Although, that claim may be true, I think it also fair to say that many Democrats, especially those who do not identify with Camp HIllary, yet, need to see Hillary as more than the HHH of ’68 and that unlike many of their predecessors of the past, whom I will call the Eugene McCarthy, Bobby Kennedy, and George McGovern crowd of ’68, need to support Hillary in the fall regardless of any distain for her do to a lack of authenticity and/or her “New Democrats” baggage (That is if she gets the nomination instead of Bernie…) to make sure “The Donald” does not end up in the White House after this is all over with – a reality that was not appreciated nor learned in time in ’68 by the Democratic left of the Party, but needs to be heeded this time around before it is too late….
Donald Pay, you have an interesting take on things that’s worth considering. Could it also be that Bernie is just ahead of his time, and public opinion is just now beginning to see things his way? For instance, is the person who favored same sex marriage for the past 30 years intellectually lazy for sounding like a broken record all that time, or is that person a visionary whose vision has come to pass?
When Bernie says that one must start any negotiation asking for a full loaf and compromise from there, rather than starting by asking for a half a loaf, I can see the merit to that tactic. Hillary looks at the GOP party and starts negotiating with them by asking for 3/4 of a loaf.
I get the sense that all of the Democrats and Republicans running for President are very smart people. (Yes, even Donald Trump.) Bernie is thoughtful enough and self aware enough, I believe, that he will compromise when a goal is achievable. Sometimes achieving goals involves long-term persistence and a shift in public opinion.
MFI and Cory, Here are some of Hillary’s negatives that have not been disproven. She voted for the War in Iraq, She voted for both Bush Tax cuts, (all three of those votes were matched by our then two US Senators both Dems.) She talked the President into going into Libya with NATO, when there was absolutely no reason for us to be involved. She talked him into his position on Syria as well. The emails.
And then the two that really affect us here in SD, She was SOS when the Keystone I was approved. I didn’t know and I doubt that many South Dakotans did know at that time, that it required State Department approval. Also at the last minute, the cheaper pipe from India, was approved by the State Dept. And finally she was for the Keystone XL before she just recently changed her tune and is against it.
Home run, Lanny!
I have heard that Hillary and Bernie have voted the same 93% of the time (which I find hard to believe).
True liberals just can’t support a Democrat that voted for the Iraq War mess. We just can’t do that, it goes against everything we stand for.
Don’t forget Hillary was anti-LGBT just a few years ago also.
I am an independent and will be voting for Bernie. Clinton and Johnson got us into the mess in the Mid East for political gain and money as they had to know that they were being fed bull puckey. The rest of us certainly did and we could just see the reporting on the facts. There was no there there, the senators were reading the same reports we were on what Hans Blixt and Scott Ritter were reporting on, only in more detail. The Downing Papers are the smoking gun on the deception and how it was going to be played out. The emails Clinton is being investigated on are not so much about national security, but about corruption. Yeah, we know that Condi Rice and Powell both had private email servers that really were on the boundary of being outside of the law, but the three amigos did, so there is that. What authorities know is that huge amounts of money were injected into the Clinton Foundation from countries like Saudi Arabia after the help of the sales of military hardware to them. Follow the money and you will find it in the 6 degrees of Hillary Clinton. With Bernie, we do have a chance to bring democracy back to our failing democracy.
Lanny, on Keystone, see this morning’s post on how that thinner steel is at the heart of the Freeman leak.
Donald, your observation is reasonable. Could it be that Sanders, having been in the same position for the last several years, has been fighting the same fight and thus has not needed to change his position as much? Of course, one could say that Sanders has been fighting the same fight and saying the same things this long because he has not been effective at making progress on his issues. I like Ror’s point that Bernie could just be ahead of his time, driving public opinion toward a bigger change than anything Clinton proposes, but I’m open to the argument Clinton people could offer that’s she’s been more on the front line of making change happen. Have at it, partisans!
You’re right Jenny. We start our democracy with the Iowa Caucuses, which are so undemocratic and then after three primaries in which they practically tie in Iowa, Bernie trounces her in New Hampshire by nearly twenty points, she wins Nevada by 4 points and she has over 500 delegates and Bernie has 70. Does this picture stink or what?
By the way, I talked to a friend, a caucus goer down in Iowa and a few weeks after the caucuses, the delegates were polled and given a chance to change their allegiance and some did to Hillary. Go figure.
These head-to-heads aren’t very predictive this far out, especially when picking a single poll to evaluate. At the moment, its hard to reject the hypothesis that Bernie does better in these match-ups because voters don’t know him as well as Hillary, who has been in the public eye for decades. Essentially, the argument is that many people might be evaluating Sanders as essentially a ‘typical standard Democrat with no name’ versus who-ever, rather than a validation of Bernie’s platform.
We also need to realize how weird the world is today: part of the reason that Sanders is still not very well-known is because he’s received very little media attention due to Trump eating all the oxygen in the room. This means the Democratic race hasn’t received as much attention at the GOP race, which is probably a mixed blessing for both candidates.
And yes, Bernie and Hilary voted the same 93% of the time in the Senate:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/06/the-rare-times-that-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-disagreed-in-the-senate/
Overall, Hilary is *quantifiably* quite liberal:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/
What I’m really curious about is who is the 44% of Wyoming democrats that went for Hilary, and why was Sander’s margin so much lower there than in next-door Utah. Its a real shocker, demographics wise. Maybe SD will go for Clinton after all…
The charges against the Clintons were part of a plan started before Clinton was President. It was a plan by Richard Melon Scaife and others. It was partly part of the GOP. The same kind of plan was initiated by GOP senator Mc Connell when he announced that no policy Obama pushed would be approved. We are now seeing the same kind of crap regarding Obama’s court appointment.
All these things have some impact on Hillary, both fairly and unfairly. But, she seems to often first wrong and almost always too late right…or both right and wrong for the wrong reasons. But, mostly, I just find her personality disagreeable. I suspect that is more of a factor than her old or new policy positions and probable capability.
I long for the pragmatic, take the best ideas and move the country forward days of Bill Clinton. He had a way of working with a divided Congress while making his case to the American people about what was important. Hillary is a lot closer to Bill than Bernie in that regard. How would Bernie get anything done? Other than through revolution, how do you change the system if you can’t work with the powers that be? Bernie has never had to work with Republicans.
Hillary has been vilified by the right continuously for twenty-five years which takes a toll even with regard to the perception of people who might otherwise agree with her policies. Combine Bernie’s fresh old face, low negatives, and a populist message railing against the big money interests rigging the system and he has done surprisingly well. But that does not mean he will do well in a general election where moderates carry the day. Just wait until the attack ads start rolling painting Bernie as an out of touch tax and spend liberal with wild hair and wild socialist ideas. The Republicans are loving the Bernie candidacy because he will be a far easier opponent to destroy in the general election than Hillary. If the Republicans were scared of Bernie in the general election, where are the attacks on him?
Hillary has been fighting the good fight for much of her life. She has paid her dues and been wounded in political battle. If we let Hillary go down in flames because of the political attacks from the right, we just encourage the partisan vitriol that is consuming this country. It is time for a lady to lead this country. The men have screwed it up enough.
CH,
Head to Head polls by themselves are poor predictors of election day. At this stage, Carter was crushing Reagan and Bush was crushing the field. And, as late as the summer of 2008 (before the financial meltdown), McCain was beating Obama (and big in swing states).
But, in all cases, there was underlying information that said the opposite outcome was more than possible but almost likely. Those of us who are on blogs think issue position is everything and we expect it to be consistent. The great middle in America have other factors which impact their choice and at this stage it is Favorable/Unfavorable. Favorable/Unfavorable doesn’t change as much during the campaign as issues don’t necessarily affect Favorable/Unfavorable. Voters Unfavorable locks in early while Favorable is more volatile.
If our respective parties nominate Clinton and Trump, there will be a very large percentage of the middle who will make a choice they have never made before (usually they are choosing among two they actually have Favorable opinions on)- choosing between two they have an unfavorable impression.
CNN just emailed me a Breaking News alert saying that Paul Ryan will be holding a press conference later today in which he will announce that he is NOT or will he be a candidate for president in 2016.
Now, what would provoke Ryan to make a statement like that?
It is like reverse psychology. The more Ryan denies that he is a candidate, the more he is considered by people to be a good candidate.
Whenever his name starts disappearing from the conversation, hold another press conference.
Agreed, Mr. Pay. Mr. Sander’s inability to explain how he plans to break up the big banks when finally questioned on this claim was flabbergasting. He’s been pushing that issue for years and has no plan, yet?
The only thing that is flabbergasting Mr. Lansing is your inability to understand what Sanders said. He has already introduced legislation to do just that. What is astonishing to me is the slick way you go about saying that Sanders does not know what he is talking about. Look, we get it that you support Clinton and as a Clinton supporter you may want to ask her about her own damn taxes that she has reported. Take a look at them and see where her money is being hidden, Delaware, Columbia just to name a few. Clinton does not want to break up the banks as that is where her moolah is stashed.
Here is Robert Reich to mansplain Bernie so that you can understand what the breakup of the banks is really all about and why the banks are soiling their pants about. http://www.salon.com/2016/04/12/robert_reich_of_course_bernie_has_a_plan_to_break_up_the_big_banks_hes_introduced_legislation_to_do_just_that_partner/
When Robert Reich writes something it’s worth reading. You’ve been served, Porter.
That was a wasted 3 minutes. Reich listed no specifics and what? Bernie can’t explain it either. As far as an inability to understand what he said, he didn’t answer the questions. The reporters didn’t let him coast through, this time and kept going back to the original question and Sanders got more and more vague and rattled. A President hasn’t the authority to break up anything. He can urge and nudge legislation to alter the procedures of a bank but unless a crime is being committed Chase Bank has every right to be in business.
You’ve been over-served, Rschach.
Here is a gal who make $93.00 for the year in wages in 2014. Hillary and Bill Clinton’s fully disclosed 2014 tax return. – See more at: http://caucus99percent.com/content/bernies-tax-return#sthash.tqIht9PP.MFBj5vtU.dpuf See if you can spot the difference between someone who works for the people and someone who takes from the people.
Mr. Lansing would argue with a sign. Nothing new here.
Here ya go Mr. Lansing, http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-files-bill-to-break-up-big-banks
And if you are still flabbergasted (I know you are) Here is Salon http://www.salon.com/2016/04/09/bernie_really_does_have_a_plan_to_break_up_the_banks_enough_with_the_handwringing_over_that_daily_news_interview_partner/
Also Mr. Porter, if you really are curiously flabbergasted, check out who owns the Daily News and their connection with Mrs. Clinton. Then you will know how these kinds of reports are meant to flabbergast.
It is so funny read all of the Clinton defenders come out after one points out her flaws. Calling Hillary, “quite liberal” is like calling the Pope a Catholic. Look at the difference in the Popes over the last 80 years. Some have been very liberal, i.e John XXIII, John Paul I and Francis. Others have been very right wing, i.e. Pius XII, Paul VI and Benedict XVI.
I used to think Hillary was liberal, you know, “it takes a village”, Healthcare for all as first lady and correct on most women’s issues. But then the shortcomings that I pointed out yesterday on this blog at 22:12.
Her husband also always appeared liberal, until you get a chance to see what happened with the repeal of Glass Steagall, NAFTA and CAFTA and his pushing of the various trade agreements. There was more harm to the small farmers of the world and to the working people than anything else since the Great Depression.
“liberal” is a term that gets tossed around like a dishrag, to label anyone that the right doesn’t agree with because they haven’t gone far enough right. I have said this on this blog before, but it bears repeating. There has not been a President since Richard Nixon, that was not to the right of Richard Nixon, all Democrats included.
My sweet Jesus. No wonder he won’t explain this wild proposal. He’d be pilloried. Rhymes with Hillaried. He says that an agency will determine if a bank would be a hardship on USA if it failed and then all the bank’s depositors would no longer have the protection of the FDIC. Even a 50/50 Supreme Court would throw that out and chastise the lawyers for insolence. Go down the list of Fortune 500 corporations and Blue Chips and see which others would present a hardship to USA if they failed, hmmm? Darn near half of them.
PS … I made my opinion and YOU started the argument. Rather “Trumpy” in your approach to differing opinions, I’d say.
Your Sweet Jesus has done a face palm after reading what you wrote Mr. Porter.
Lanny, I don’t know for certain,but, I believe much of what Clinton did as Potus was an attempt to stop wingnuts from impeachment proceedings. Former wingnut Sinator Alan Simpson wondered years later why they impeached a president wingnuts could work with.
It has been pretty well documented that wingnuts and their hired guns were willing to say and do anything-legal or otherwise- to nail Clinton. The original independent prisecutor, Robert Fiske, was a moderate Republican with impeccable credentials. Wingnuts removed him for a conflict of interest. He had,at one time, represented a timber company that sold a parcel of land to Whitewater (MacGougal and Clintons), according to Joe Conason and Gene Lyons. Ken Starr was a partisan wingnut who had filed a friend of the court brief in the Paula Jones case against WJC, was known to intensely dislike Clinton. Among a host of other peculiarities.
You’re flipping and flopping like Hillary, Porter. It took you less than an hour to go from Bernie has no plan to admitting that Bernie has a plan. Next time do your research first so you don’t come off looking stupid again.
I’m going leave you alone with this issue, Jenny. It’s of little value to me, currently. My state had it’s primary (Bernie won) and I as a UA (unaffiliated) voter didn’t get to vote. When there’re two candidates on the Nat’l ballot the argument will be more focused. Not that I know but I’d predict Sanders will win SoDak primary just because most women voters don’t vote in primaries. Chew on that, ‘baca.
Mr. Stricherz, that is about as close to the facts as you can get regarding Nixon. He may have been a little crooked and certainly did not have the luck of a good VP, but he did give us the EPA and without that, real crooks and liars like Transcanada can sort of be held in check. Right wingers hate the EPA with a passion so you know it was left thinking. Obama did okay until he put Clinton in charge of the trauma in Syria and Libya, she failed miserably and we are gonna keep paying for that mistake. He even admits that there was no game plan on how to get out once she got us in there.
Don’t get into an insult contest with me, R-Shed. You’ll go away crying just like the last time. That’s not a plan and that’s why he won’t discuss the details. It’s just cosmetic legislation to bolster his lack of depth on the subject.
Bernie’s concept has merit to the degree it focuses on reducing the systemic risk of banks to big to fail.
Where it falls short is it institutionalizes Dodd-Frank (a poorly designed response to Gramm-Leach).
Alternatively, a better solution would be to scrap both Dodd-Frank and Gramm-Leach and return to the pre-Gramm-Leach (substantially re-enact Glass-Steagal but keeping the 1984 reforms). To do this does a couple of things:
1) Reduces the regulatory cost of operating a bank (especially smaller banks). If you want an alternative to pay day lenders, this would help as community banks could better afford to make smaller, shorter term loans.
2) Removes the competitive disadvantage currently experienced by smaller banks and will add greater competition in the market place.
3) Adds competition in non-bank activities (currently done by banks) because they are prohibited in using their FDIC/Fed Reserve advantage against non-bank competitors.
You should lance that boil, port wine.
If your idea does what you claim it does I like it, Troy.
Troy, with your number 1, would that also eliminate the need for payday lenders?
Whoops, sorry Troy, I didn’t read your comment closely enough.
mfi, The timelines of Bill Clinton’s disasters with Glass-Steagall and the 1994 crime bill do not factor in with the impeachment. Clinton did these all on his own with no outside pressure. If you follow how Dennis Hastert was chosen to be the Speaker, you then can see where the impeachment is a factor. Before then, the damage was done. The two Clinton’s share the blame equally if you believe in what they themselves have said. Citibank’s 1998 affiliation with Salomon Smith Barney was born and Clinton’s treasury secretary Rubin became a multi multi millionaire as its fearless leader. The fix was in before the impeachment.
No Jerry, MFI is right. Repeal of Glass Steagall was in 1999 and promptly set off the merger of Citigroup with Travelers Insurance.
Sanders is a win- win for democrats. He both wins the election and he is a democrat and not a middle of he roader like the Clintons. They were for nafta and ttp trade agreements that cut our wages by sending jobs overseas. Hopefully the super delegates see this before it is to late. Democracy is about what the people want and SAnders is what the people want. Also he is honest enough that the younger generation may actually come out to vote. THis would unify our country and not just keep alienating a whole generation. Actually some of us older folks would like some honesty in politics as well.
Sorry Porter. Shouldn’t have taken that cheap shot, though you made it too easy this time.
I agree with Darin’s comment that it’s time for a lady to lead. Bernie’s too liberal for my liking, though I do like his populism a lot. Hillary grates on me for the reasons I wrote before. I didn’t always favor Bernie, but I’m warming to him.
Going back to Donald Pay’s comments, here’s why. I like the realism he brings to the Israeli/Palestinian issue. Bernie is saying things that only a Jewish candidate can say without being slapped with the “anti-semitic” label.
There’s a proverb that only Nixon could go to China, which stands for the proposition that only a politician or leader with an impeccable reputation of upholding particular political values could perform an action in seeming defiance of them without jeopardizing his support or credibility.
It might take a Jewish president giving some tough love to Israel to solve the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict. Hillary as Secretary of State or as a presidential candidate shows no promise of being anything more than an appeaser to Netanyahu. “We don’t like your settlement building Mr. Netanyahu, but here’s your $2 billion handout for this year. Carry on.” I don’t think we’ll see that from Bernie.
Citi and Travellers proposed to merge in 1998 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/citicorp-and-travelers-in-155bn-merger-1155012.html That was before the 1999 impeachment. Bill Clinton had given his “blessing” to it in early April of 1998. So he was not under pressure of impeachment when this was hatched.
And on a brighter (and way off topic) note-the indicted AG of Texas-indicted for securities fraud- was indicted by the feds for securities fraud as well. He is still in office.
And all the while, Kenny Boy Starr was leaking confidential info to right wing outlets about his independent???? and non-political investigation.
Understood Jerry, but they could not complete the transaction until Glass Steagall was repealed. The Republicans started talking about impeachment shortly after the ’96 election.
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/clinton.htm
On Friday, January 16, 1998, Starr’s investigators had Tripp lure Lewinsky to a Washington hotel where Lewinsky was intercepted by FBI agents, brought to a hotel room, and pressured for hours by Starr’s deputies toward cooperating with their Clinton probe. Tripp then departed the hotel and went home where she secretly met with one of Jones’s lawyers and briefed him on the entire Clinton-Lewinsky affair.
The next morning, Saturday, January 17, President Clinton, in compliance with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, arrived at his lawyer’s office two blocks from the White House to give a pretrial deposition in the Jones case, with the procedure also videotaped. Sitting across the table from Paula Jones, the President was questioned for six hours by her lawyers and was quite surprised when they asked whether he ever had “sexual relations” with Monica Lewinsky along with other detailed questions. Clinton, somber and hesitant, denied under oath having sexual relations with Lewinsky, according to the definition provided by Jones’s lawyers. Clinton also said he could not recall ever being alone with her in the White House. The President’s denials would later be used as the basis of an article of impeachment. (Deposition Excerpts)
Mr. Troy, I agree with you on clearing the deck with glass-stegall and bringing it back would solve many problems. Your list looks good and I would add, if I may, small loans from post offices like was done some years back for the communities they serve.
You are correct in that Clinton is a serial bed jumper and the republicans knew that about him and how they were going to get him, those are facts. They had tried since his election to implicate him between the sheets and really could not get the job done. After much effort ” on Friday, December 18, 1998, the full House of Representatives gathered for the first time in 130 years to consider the impeachment of a President. Thirteen hours of fiery partisan oratory followed in which over 200 members of Congress arose to speak their minds, quoting everyone from Abraham Lincoln to Martin Luther King Jr” This date is when his impeachment started and continued until 1999 when it was voided. The Glass-Stegall act had already been approved before this in early 1998.
TRAVELERS, CITICORP MERGE
To almost everyone’s surprise, Reed liked the idea. In April 1998 Weill and Reed announced plans to combine Travelers and Citicorp in the biggest merger in history. According to Time, the newly created company, dubbed Citigroup, offered a full range of financial services to roughly 100 million customers in one hundred countries through a network of more than three thousand offices staffed by 162,600 employees. At the time of the merger the new company’s assets were estimated at $700 billion, a figure that topped $1 trillion by early 2004. The megamerger was officially finalized on October 8, 1998.
two big partys = big moolah corupt!!!!! jill stein green party mabe gary johnson libs party
Jerry,
That merger added fuel to the fire to burn down Glass Steagall (result was Gramm-Leach). In 1984/1985, the law was passed to allow banks to do insurance. There were merits then still are but there is another side. I vacillate. The intent though was to enhance the ability of small rural banks to remain viable and not for a major money center bank to do so. I don’t recall if it was mission creep, the 1984 law allowed it, or it was a regulatory decision later (level playing field). if there is a way for the broader powers to only apply to smaller banks, I’m for it. Otherwise, probably against it.
Anyway, that is a distraction to some degree. With that merger, suddenly there was a bi-partisan rush to allow mergers without regard to financial product resulting in Gramm-Leach. If that merger had never occurred, I’m not sure Gramm-Leach ever would have gotten passed.
Mother says that rural banks could be as important today as they were in the not so distant past. As I recall, the state banks in South Dakota, for the most part, managed to stay solvent when the rest failed during the Depression. Glass-Steagall seemed to have seen the merit in these types of stand alone institutions, in my opinion. Great article about our neighbors to the North. http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/03/how-nation%E2%80%99s-only-state-owned-bank-became-envy-wall-street
In the meantime, Clinton’s approval numbers continue to tank. http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/276078-clintons-dismal-approval-ratings-prompt-dem-fears With Bernie, we have a good chance on taking the White House, with Clinton, not so much. The people in general are pretty clear about this.
When you put on a shirt or some other clothing that has Haiti as the country of origin. Think of the wage paid to make that garment and thank Clinton for cutting it in half. http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-suppressed-haitis-minimum-wage/
Jerry,
I don’t doubt your information is correct but it does conflict with my memory. I thought the Citi merger drew from previously granted authority but was the stimulus for Gramm-Leach. There must have been something else and I have forgotten what it was.
But the issue remains: Gramm-Leach had unintended consequences, we had a financial meltdown (causes relegated to Gramm-Leach but not GL alone), and we passed an ill-designed response (Dodd-Frank). Putting the genie back in the bottle will take work and time. Unwinding this requires a scalpel and not a hammer.
Jerry, the supposition and innuendo in your post about Haiti is far from damning proof that Hillary wanted to suppress wages in Haiti. But don’t let that stop you from believing it. Feel the Bern!
By the way, I’m sure there was a state department employee that shot somebody when Hillary was Secretary of State. She probably should have taken responsibility for that as well.
Politifact says that your memory is pretty good Troy. Whether it is a defense of Bill Clinton, one cannot be sure.
http://tinyurl.com/nhh5a27
Jerry, if you think Bernie Sanders has a better shot at being President than Hillary because of some poll numbers, I strongly disagree. The Donald has the worst unfavorable numbers of any candidate and he is the clear leader for the Republican nomination. Bernie has good favorable numbers because he is a relative newcomer to the national political stage.
For all the hoopla over Bernie, he has received 2.4 million votes less than Hillary in the primaries and he would need to receive 60% of the remaining vote to overtake Hillary. It isn’t going to happen. Sorry to burst your bubble.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-is-even-further-behind-in-votes-than-he-is-in-delegates/
I seriously doubt Gramm-Leach had unintended consequences. Wingnuts kiss the arse of korporate amerika for kampaign kontributions. I also believe Gramm’s wife is a slimeball for her policy kontributions.
As for impeachment talk for Clinton, Citizen’s United started the ball rolling in 1995. Later Georgia congressweasel and former iowa reject,Bob Barr started to work on Henry Hyde to look into impeachment proceedings.
Sorry to burst your bubble Darin, but disregarding the caucus states just because they are undemocratic doesn’t work. Sure there are less votes cast in a caucus state but those are the rules by which the game was set up to be played.
What is really undemocratic is the super delegates selected by the party to do the party’s bidding as to whom the candidate will be, to make sure that they don’t get someone as liberal as say George McGovern, ever again.
Ror-HRC has a Jewish Granny. Or so she claimed.
Lanny, the superdelegates are part of the “rules by which the game was set up to be played” as you say. I don’t want a super-liberal coming out of the Democratic primary.
If the Republicans had the Democratic primary system, Trump would not be the disrupting force that is going to tear the Republicans apart. I just saw a poll that 58% of Republicans think that the presidential candidate with the most delegates should get the nomination at a contested convention. Only 40% disagreed with this sentiment. Thus, if they don’t allow Trump to get the nomination, he is going to run a third party campaign and split the Republican vote. That means that Hillary is a shoe-in. If Trump is the nominee, Hillary will look like the sane choice and the definite choice for women voters. Hillary wins in either case.
So why do we call it a democracy, Darin? If the party is going to choose the candidate, why waste all of this time and money on primaries and caucuses?
A few decades out from the Depression, starting in earnest in the 1970s, there was a push to roll back financial regulations that continued throughout the administrations of former presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. lanny’s tinyurl
I recall significant market losses in the late 60s I think and will have to resurrect that history. Frontline (summarized last year here-somewhere) however made a big deal of relating GLASS-STEAGALL demise to Clinton. and i’m not sure I agree w/ troy’s spin on DODD-FRANK.
also the scalpel/hammer analogy may be more correct for bush’s shock and awe war on Iraq, if surgery was required in the 1st place. troy is just echoing round’s continued party-line gibberish about protecting corporations from CEO disclosures and his other financial monkey-business as we are hearing about SD’s role in hiding wealth from taxes, and the multi-trillion dollar BVI, Panama, Caymans ect. redistribution of the world’s wealth and resources to a relative few billionaire-class membership via these secret of-shore tax havens.
using this to taint Hillary and burnish Sanders is probably illegitimate. i will have to dig into it. I am certainly no expert.
Technically Lanny its representative democracy. We also have an electoral college. But this is all beside the point. Hillary is ahead of Bernie by 2.4 million votes. There’s your democracy in action.
though 6 years younger than Bernie, Hillary has been politically active since the beginning. Sanders ran as candidate for governor of Vermont in 1972 and for mayor in 1980.
Hillary helped canvass Chicago’s South Side at age thirteen following the very close 1960 U.S. presidential election, where she found evidence of electoral fraud against Republican candidate Richard Nixon. in 1969, she graduated with a bachelor of arts,[30] with departmental honors in political science.[29] ***That summer, she worked her way across Alaska, washing dishes in Mount McKinley National Park and sliming salmon in a fish processing cannery in Valdez (which fired her and shut down overnight when she complained about unhealthful conditions).[36]
Rodham while at Yale Law School served on the editorial board of the Yale Review of Law.[37] In 1974 she was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal.[58] Under Chief Counsel John Doar and Bernard Nussbaum,[39] she helped research procedures, historical grounds and standards for impeachment.[58] The committee’s work culminated in the resignation of President Richard Nixon in August 1974.[58]
Heady stuff in her 20s, so much so perhaps that she failed the DC bar exam[62] but after passing the Arkansas exam, she followed Bill Clinton to Arkansas.
I too took two state bar exams and passed them both so her failure may or may not have been a crushing defeat. She resumed her own career 16 years later running for the US Senate for NY in 2000. Meanwhile, after mayoral duties, Bernie ran for house in 1990. After 9.11.01 we all know their recent roles.
Lanny,
Of course, the devil is in the details and hard to articulate. My central premise is simple which is why I said there is part of Sanders plan that has merit (not all but part):
Banks are critical to the economic health and prosperity of a nation and all its citizens. Because they are critical, they both enjoy privileges (depositor guarantees through FDIC) and bear burdens (regulation). Over time, changes were made that had the effect of favoring large banks vs. small banks. Contrary to the statement above, I don’t believe those effects were intended by anyone in the White House or Congress. Glass Steagall served a great purpose post Great Depression when EVERY bank was primarily local (local depositors and local loans).
Beginning with the 50’s and 60’s, “local” expanded first within State’s, then beyond State’s and untimately across national borders. It was and is unrealistic to expect rules and regulations of the past to be appropriate forever. Unfortunately, the reaction to the change led to forgetting some basic principles (what I said above about banks central place in our economy) and the reforms became “deforms” (I believe unintentionally). And we reacted poorly in several specific responses (all with the direct support of Congress, sometimes in opposition to the White House). Gramm-Leach, Congresses failure to accept White House proposed reforms with Fannie and Freddie in the early 2000’s, and Dodd-Frank.
What we need to do is go back to the basics and apply them in the modern world. In a way, every add-on from the basics has merits by the self but collectively creates a labyrinth of complexity that only the largest banks can navigate. They all need to be thrown out or all efforts to reform (including Sanders) will fail with even worse unintended consequences.
You’re preaching to the choir, Troy. In 1977, I had gone into business for myself, in the food industry, pedaling if you will, off a truck to grocery stores and restaurants. I needed 10 grand and so I went to the bank that I had chosen as my bank when I moved back to Sioux Falls from Cedar Rapids Ia.
The banker, then younger than myself, had gotten word from on high in Minneapolis that they would not accept my loan application. Not because I did not qualify, mind you but because they would have to do the same amount of paperwork on my 10k loan as on a 100k or 500k loan to a farmer, who was borrowing money like crazy at that time.
Remember this was the late 70s. South Dakota had no usury rate, so the rate was 15%. Now I could turn my money in my business, 30 to 40 times a year, while a farmer at best could turn his money 2 or three times. There was no way that he could make enough to pay 15% unless he got extremely lucky. I on the other hand with that many turns of capital could easily pay the 15%.
The result of course was that a lot of farmers went bankrupt, while, I through hard work and borrowing money from my children and my Father, was able to build my business into a million dollar a year operation.
I guess that I should consider myself lucky in several ways, but particularly in the fact that there were no pay day lenders around at that time.
Lanny, Congrats on your business success and proven acumen. Luck falls on those who work hard and are smart. I always respect business success because it requires perseverance few understand until they have been there. Just the other night, I woke up at 3am and couldn’t sleep so I wrote an email to a client. Before I got to bed, he responded. Having the responsibility of the livelihood of your employees on your shoulders is not 8-5.
Ruh oh, Big banks are failing. Bernie is correcto mundo and the Fed and FDIC agree. This is yuuuuuge http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-banks-idUSKCN0XA1B4
Thanks Troy. Those were my best years, but I shortchanged my family by long hours of work, and then not including them enough in the time that I played, (fishing and golfing).
Jerry, read it again. The banks are not failing. They don’t all have a plan in case of failure to wind down that meets the government’s requirements.
Darin, I did read it and then I posted it. They must comply with section 165 of Dodd-Frank and they have not. Citi did, but these guys have not. They are too damn big and the Fed and FDIC know it as well. Hide and watch, by October 1, they will have to make a move to streamline (an old fellers talk of breaking up) to comply. They were supposed to begin implementing this when it first came up in 2014.
“Bernie would be winning big over Hillary if the US was a true Democracy.”
But we are not a democracy. So the race in November will be Hillary vs Cruz, meaning the global authoritative elite liberal corporate capitalists win either way.
Mr. Sibson, you may be correct on this as you seem to understand that the idea of “winning” by Bernie Sanders may not be at the ballot box completely, but by the nomination. Bernie will and must stay in the race until the very end to be the most effective.
And on the banking issue. Dodd-Frank may have put an end to bail outs, so the only option left is bail ins, such as what happened in Cyprus. That means your deposits will be used instead of taxpayers dollars:
http://sandiegofreepress.org/2015/01/the-bail-in-how-you-and-your-money-will-be-parted-during-the-next-banking-crisis/
Jerry,
That is not what has occurred. These banks pre-packaged plans in the event of a meltdown is unsatisfactory (they have to go back to the drawing board.
What it does say is:
1). If we didn’t have such large banks so systemically critical, we wouldn’t need Dodd-Frank or their bankruptcy plan.
2). Unwinding the current situation is extremely difficult and complex. We can’t just waive a wand and think everything is hunky dory (I am not saying that is what you said but making my point about needing a scalpel).
Darin, I apologize for not posting the 2014 “Living Will” float. I assumed that you may have read it but, in case you forgot http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-08-05/biggest-u-s-banks-told-to-simplify-their-living-wills-
Here is my favorite from the article, right up ol Bernie’s alley from the 2014 ass chewing.
“Too Big to Fail is alive and well,” Senator Sherrod Brown, a Democrat of Ohio, said in an e-mail. “The FDIC’s statement that these living wills are not credible means that megabanks will live on taxpayer life support in the event of a crash.”
At a congressional hearing last month, Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, pressed Fed Chair Janet Yellen to make the living wills convincing.
“Can you honestly say that JPMorgan could be resolved in a rapid and orderly fashion as described in its plans with no threats to the economy and no need for a taxpayer bailout?” Warren asked at the July 15 hearing.
“I think what we need to do is to give them a road map for where we see obstacles to orderly resolution under the bankruptcy code,” Yellen said in response.
They got the road map and as you can see with the Reuters report, the dummies got lost again. October 1 is not so long as to continue being stupid.
Troy, Here is section 165 of Dodd-Frank https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/reform/dfa_selections.html
This is the road map that will need to be followed to protect taxpayers from the failure of being to damned big. Some of the institutions followed it and passed the muster, the ones listed by Reuters did not. The article and I are not saying that all the big banks are failing, what it does say is that some have not complied and if you look closely at what is going on, you can see that some are shedding what they deem are excesses.
What do you think of Post Offices handling community loans like in the recent past? Your opinion
The importance of Bernie Sanders staying in the race, means so very much to the financial stability of the United States that it is critical he remains.
as I said about rounds:
http://theconstantcommoner.blogspot.com/2016/04/why-doesnt-senator-rounds-like-new.html
the bigger issue is who is the better choice for the future, excluding already vetted and lacking republican candidates?
Bernie has to trip up Hillary on her past but the long line of red herring white-water, vince foster, rose law firm billings, “stand up for my man”, health care round 1, bengazhi and emails has yielded nothing to republican investigations so, unless there is another 2008 melt down or “SHTF” revolution preppers love, what will Hillary need to guide us through?
Climate change, north korea/Pakistan nukes, Israel/Palestine, fossil fuel transition, income inequality, china/india growth issues impacting world resources, finishing Bush’s mess in Iraq/Iran/Syria/Afgahnistan, other “third world” needs, jobs, infrastructure, civil liberty and health care.
None except Hillary seem to have the experience to face these next 8 years. imo, so far.
Jerry,
Besides the challenge of the Post Office performing its primary mission, not needing a second mission, and its tottering on the verge of bankruptcy, the viability of the such a concept has gone the same way signing on account at the grocery store and drug store. These types of personal direct lending depended on direct and intimate knowledge of the person to whom credit was given. In today’s world, that insular “everyone knows their neighbor” is gone.
It is only a good idea if one’s goal was to break the Post Office in three years.
more on rounds financial shenanigans in the senate:
http://theconstantcommoner.blogspot.com/2016/04/why-doesnt-senator-rounds-like-new.html
the Benghazi report is on track to drop by mid-July, just before Congress recesses for the conventions and at a time when Republicans will be in need of a distraction from the Trump-Cruz standoff. wapo today
this would confirm what critics of the panel have said all along — that the panel is a political exercise designed to damage Clinton.
Third leg of GOP strategy to hold onto power 2016.
1st is to refuse SCOTUS nominee by Obama.
If Hillary loses, we lose.
omo
Expect a lot of findings questioning Clinton’s honesty (she told her family the Benghazi attack was the work of terrorists but misled the American public), judgment (her policy led to the Libya attack) and humanity (she was indifferent to diplomats’ security). These themes dovetail nicely with the general-election campaign Republicans plan to run against Clinton.
id.
Uh, Troy-is it not a fact that wingnuts forced the Post Office to prepay several years of pensions and other costs which helped push the P.O. billions of dollars into debt? Or am I a monkey’s uncle?
As much as I dislike HRC, she has been vetted nearly as much as Syrian refugees that wingnuts won’t allow in country. Of course she has associations with criminals-they(wingnuts) continue to use every dirty trick to find her guilty of something/anything.
MFI,
Not prepay. Fund their unfunded pension liabilities. Make their balance sheet reflect its true condition.
Sounds like 6 of one and half dozen of the other. The intent was to force bankruptcy so the Postal Service could be privatized.
Troy, maybe you can answer this- where are all the bigwig voices on the dilbit spill? Maybe they all have laryngitis.