Dear Friends,
The mainstream American press (including MSNBC) is obsessed with Donald Trump and is covering him while ignoring Bernie Sanders and even reducing its coverage of Hillary Clinton. In the meantime, media outlets and people outside of the establishment are actually watching and reporting on what is going on.
Aljazeera just published an article (here) entitled: "Polls: Sanders has more potential to beat Trump" with a subtitle, "Recent data show Sanders has double-digit lead in support over Republican candidate while Clinton would face tight race."
It is a well researched and written article worth your time to read. I am not saying that just because it agrees with my prior post. The article focuses on the fact that independents heavily favor Bernie Sanders and that the polls tend to underrepresent independents. This fact helps to explain why in open primary states Bernie Sanders has quite frequently outperformed the polls. Donald Trump also gets support from independents which is why some experts feel the race between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is much closer than the polls show. Of course the polls already show that Hillary Clinton will have trouble beating Donald Trump.
It is really sad that you will never see any of this in the mainstream American press.
Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal
Sunday, May 15, 2016
Wednesday, May 11, 2016
Which candidate beats Trump?
Dear Friends,
The mainstream media continues to proclaim that the Presidential race will be between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. These same media giants and their pundits, all of whom failed to recognize that Donald Trump was a real candidate regardless of his lack of qualifications and personality and who were certain that he would never be the Republican nominee and that Bernie Sanders would never pose a real threat to Hillary Clinton, are now saying that Hillary Clinton will beat Donald Trump by a landslide.
They continue to fail to understand that the American people are angry and scared. Many Republicans are angry because they are finally figuring out that the Republican Party establishment has been using them for years. People are angry because the establishment including big corporations, Wall Street, the mainstream media and the two major political parties have created a political and financial system that has concentrated all of the wealth and power in the hands of the few at the top of the economic heap. They are scared for a variety of reasons and not all reasons apply to all the people. Old white men are scared because they are losing their privilege. Most everybody is scared about their financial futures. Thoughtful ones are scared for the lives their children and grandchildren will live because of climate change. Those who have fallen for the Republican fear mongering are afraid of Muslims, blacks, hispanics and GLBT people. The establishment types in the mainstream media do not understand that the American electorate is ready for real and significant change, and they are looking for leaders who agree with them and can lead them in achieving that change.
I cannot imagine anything worse for the world and our future than Donald Trump beating the Democratic nominee and becoming President of the United States. In addition to all the reasons that I have put forth in prior posts demonstrating why I think that Bernie Sanders is the best candidate to effectuate the real and radical changes that we need, I now want to make the case for why Bernie Sanders is the best candidate to beat Donald Trump.
I have created my own spreadsheet of the Electoral College results by State for 2000 through 2012 and my predictions based on history and the polls to date. Under my analysis, there are 10 states that are up for grabs this year. I have given the electoral votes from the others to either Donald Trump or the Democratic candidate. The result being
Donald Trump 180
Democrat 226
Undecided 132
Keep in mind that a candidate needs 270 votes to win. Under my analysis and virtually all the others I found online, the Democrat has a big lead but does not get to 270 without some of the undecided states.
Here is what I have gleaned from the polls about the undecided states.
In three states there is no worthwhile polling: Colorado (9 votes), Nevada (6 votes) and New Mexico (5 votes).
In one state, Indiana (11 votes) both Democratic candidates lose to Donald Trump in recent polls but Hillary Clinton loses by 7.5 percentage points while Bernie Sanders loses by only 1 percentage point indicating that he might win Indiana.
Florida (29 votes) is the only state where the polls indicate that both Democratic candidates would beat Donald Trump where Hillary Clinton wins by more than Bernie Sanders. Hillary Clinton wins by 4.3 percentage points and Bernie Sanders wins by 0.5 percentage points.
In all the other states Bernie Sanders beats Donald Trump by wider margins than Hillary Clinton.
Iowa (6 votes) Sanders +9 Clinton +4
North Carolina (15 votes) Sanders +7.3 Clinton +3.3
Ohio (18 votes) Sanders +5 Clinton +3
Pennsylvania (20 votes) Sanders +12.7 Clinton +7
Based on the current polling numbers, Bernie Sanders is a much better bet to beat Donald Trump than Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton and her surrogates claim that Bernie Sanders has not been fully vetted and attacked they way that Donald Trump will attack him. The Clinton Campaign has attacked Bernie Sanders repeatedly, and his campaign gets stronger. The more people know Bernie Sanders the more they like him. The more people are exposed to Hillary Clinton the less they like her. The Huffington Post tracks the trends for the favorable and unfavorable ratings of both Bernie Sanders (here) and Hillary Clinton (here).
According to the Huffington Post analysis, Bernie Sanders currently has a 51.6% favorable rating and a 41.1% unfavorable rating, a net 10.5% positive. Since July 2015, both his favorable and unfavorable ratings have gone up as people have been exposed to him, but his net positive rating has steadily increased since that time.
Conversely, the Huffington Post analysis shows that Hillary Clinton currently has a 41.5% favorable rating and 54.6% unfavorable rating, a net 13.1% negative. Except for a small bump up in February 2011, Hillary Clinton's favorability rating has declined since October 2010 and her unfavorable ratings have steadily increased since February 2011. The last time she had a net positive favorable/unfavorable rating was in April 2015 and her net negative rating has continued to grow since then. The Clinton campaign likes to say that her bad ratings are the result of decades of unfair treatment by the Republicans, but just over a year ago she had a net positive rating which during the campaign has rapidly become a really significant 13.1% net negative rating.
Of course Donald Trump has worse ratings than Hillary Clinton. The Huffington Post analysis (here) shows that Donald Trump currently has a 58.6% unfavorable rating and a 36.5% favorable rating for a net negative rating of 21.1% which is worse than Hillary Clinton's net negative rating of 13.1%. If you only read the mainstream media you would not believe that Donald Trump's favorability ratings have been increasing and his unfavorability ratings have been decreasing since April when he had a net negative of 31.3%. If the trends of Hillary Clinton's net ratings getting worse and Donald Trump's net ratings getting better continue, Hillary Clinton's chances of winning would be further diminished.
While I understand that Bernie Sanders has a narrow chance of winning the Democratic nomination, if he continues to win the primaries/caucuses between now and the convention and the polling numbers and favorable/unfavorable numbers continue their present trends, I would hope that the Super Delegates would do their job for the good of the world, country and party and nominate Bernie Sanders.
Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal
The mainstream media continues to proclaim that the Presidential race will be between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. These same media giants and their pundits, all of whom failed to recognize that Donald Trump was a real candidate regardless of his lack of qualifications and personality and who were certain that he would never be the Republican nominee and that Bernie Sanders would never pose a real threat to Hillary Clinton, are now saying that Hillary Clinton will beat Donald Trump by a landslide.
They continue to fail to understand that the American people are angry and scared. Many Republicans are angry because they are finally figuring out that the Republican Party establishment has been using them for years. People are angry because the establishment including big corporations, Wall Street, the mainstream media and the two major political parties have created a political and financial system that has concentrated all of the wealth and power in the hands of the few at the top of the economic heap. They are scared for a variety of reasons and not all reasons apply to all the people. Old white men are scared because they are losing their privilege. Most everybody is scared about their financial futures. Thoughtful ones are scared for the lives their children and grandchildren will live because of climate change. Those who have fallen for the Republican fear mongering are afraid of Muslims, blacks, hispanics and GLBT people. The establishment types in the mainstream media do not understand that the American electorate is ready for real and significant change, and they are looking for leaders who agree with them and can lead them in achieving that change.
I cannot imagine anything worse for the world and our future than Donald Trump beating the Democratic nominee and becoming President of the United States. In addition to all the reasons that I have put forth in prior posts demonstrating why I think that Bernie Sanders is the best candidate to effectuate the real and radical changes that we need, I now want to make the case for why Bernie Sanders is the best candidate to beat Donald Trump.
I have created my own spreadsheet of the Electoral College results by State for 2000 through 2012 and my predictions based on history and the polls to date. Under my analysis, there are 10 states that are up for grabs this year. I have given the electoral votes from the others to either Donald Trump or the Democratic candidate. The result being
Donald Trump 180
Democrat 226
Undecided 132
Keep in mind that a candidate needs 270 votes to win. Under my analysis and virtually all the others I found online, the Democrat has a big lead but does not get to 270 without some of the undecided states.
Here is what I have gleaned from the polls about the undecided states.
In three states there is no worthwhile polling: Colorado (9 votes), Nevada (6 votes) and New Mexico (5 votes).
In one state, Indiana (11 votes) both Democratic candidates lose to Donald Trump in recent polls but Hillary Clinton loses by 7.5 percentage points while Bernie Sanders loses by only 1 percentage point indicating that he might win Indiana.
Florida (29 votes) is the only state where the polls indicate that both Democratic candidates would beat Donald Trump where Hillary Clinton wins by more than Bernie Sanders. Hillary Clinton wins by 4.3 percentage points and Bernie Sanders wins by 0.5 percentage points.
In all the other states Bernie Sanders beats Donald Trump by wider margins than Hillary Clinton.
Iowa (6 votes) Sanders +9 Clinton +4
North Carolina (15 votes) Sanders +7.3 Clinton +3.3
Ohio (18 votes) Sanders +5 Clinton +3
Pennsylvania (20 votes) Sanders +12.7 Clinton +7
Based on the current polling numbers, Bernie Sanders is a much better bet to beat Donald Trump than Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton and her surrogates claim that Bernie Sanders has not been fully vetted and attacked they way that Donald Trump will attack him. The Clinton Campaign has attacked Bernie Sanders repeatedly, and his campaign gets stronger. The more people know Bernie Sanders the more they like him. The more people are exposed to Hillary Clinton the less they like her. The Huffington Post tracks the trends for the favorable and unfavorable ratings of both Bernie Sanders (here) and Hillary Clinton (here).
According to the Huffington Post analysis, Bernie Sanders currently has a 51.6% favorable rating and a 41.1% unfavorable rating, a net 10.5% positive. Since July 2015, both his favorable and unfavorable ratings have gone up as people have been exposed to him, but his net positive rating has steadily increased since that time.
Conversely, the Huffington Post analysis shows that Hillary Clinton currently has a 41.5% favorable rating and 54.6% unfavorable rating, a net 13.1% negative. Except for a small bump up in February 2011, Hillary Clinton's favorability rating has declined since October 2010 and her unfavorable ratings have steadily increased since February 2011. The last time she had a net positive favorable/unfavorable rating was in April 2015 and her net negative rating has continued to grow since then. The Clinton campaign likes to say that her bad ratings are the result of decades of unfair treatment by the Republicans, but just over a year ago she had a net positive rating which during the campaign has rapidly become a really significant 13.1% net negative rating.
Of course Donald Trump has worse ratings than Hillary Clinton. The Huffington Post analysis (here) shows that Donald Trump currently has a 58.6% unfavorable rating and a 36.5% favorable rating for a net negative rating of 21.1% which is worse than Hillary Clinton's net negative rating of 13.1%. If you only read the mainstream media you would not believe that Donald Trump's favorability ratings have been increasing and his unfavorability ratings have been decreasing since April when he had a net negative of 31.3%. If the trends of Hillary Clinton's net ratings getting worse and Donald Trump's net ratings getting better continue, Hillary Clinton's chances of winning would be further diminished.
While I understand that Bernie Sanders has a narrow chance of winning the Democratic nomination, if he continues to win the primaries/caucuses between now and the convention and the polling numbers and favorable/unfavorable numbers continue their present trends, I would hope that the Super Delegates would do their job for the good of the world, country and party and nominate Bernie Sanders.
Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal
Friday, April 15, 2016
War v. Peace, Status Quo v. Real Change and Obfuscation v. Transparency
Dear Friends,
The debate between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders last night could not have done a better job of highlighting the choice that we have between these two candidates and their policies, opinions and positions.
War v. Peace
On foreign policy, except for a short discussion about NATO where the candidates are in basic agreement, the Middle East was the focus. Senator Sanders laid out a very clear and articulate position that acknowledged the right of Israel to exist in peace and security, but also acknowledged the same right for the Palestinian people. Senator Sanders made it clear that the Israeli response to the latest conflict in Gaza was an over-reaction by Israel. Secretary Clinton refused to acknowledge that Israel over-reacted. You cannot achieve peace between Israel and Palestine until you acknowledge the atrocities on both sides. Senator Sanders' approach is the only one that has any chance of bringing peace.
With respect to Syria, Secretary Clinton, who has frequently chastised Senator Sanders for criticizing President Obama, laid the blame for the Syrian situation on President Obama because he did not take her advice to more aggressively arm the "friendly forces" fighting against Assad and establishing a no-fly zone which virtually all experts say would lead to more US troops fighting in Syria. She also refused to take any responsibility for the debacle in Libya. President Obama has said that one of the biggest mistakes of his Administration was not planning for what happens after Gaddafi is deposed. Secretary Clinton refused to accept any responsibility even though she was a strong proponent within the Obama Administration for regime change in Libya. She blamed the Libyan people for failing to take her advice and accept American troops in Libya.
We have a clear choice - Secretary Clinton, a clear hawk or Senator Sanders, a thoughtful person who will acknowledge reality, seek peace and use force only as a last resort.
Status Quo v. Real Change
On issue after issue, it is clear that Secretary Clinton supports the status quo, with only incremental changes, and it is equally clear that Senator Sanders believes we need big and substantive changes now. This difference represents a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party. When Secretary Clinton says that Senator Sanders is not a real Democrat, what she means is that he is not part of the move to the right, Republican light, Democratic Party establishment founded by her husband. There is a great sentence going around the internet - "There is only one moderate Republican running in this election, and she is running as a Democrat." I have said before that President Obama is about as far right as President Eisenhower was. Secretary Clinton is clearly to the right of President Eisenhower particularly on the use of force. President Bill Clinton formed an unholy alliance with big business. Secretary Clinton will continue that alliance. Senator Sanders will break up that alliance.
Secretary Clinton claims that she wants to get to universal healthcare coverage but has only plans to add an incremental number of people and attacks Senator Sanders' plan for Medicare for all. She says he would throw out Obamacare which is not true. He would keep Obamacare until the Medicare for all was in place. She wants incremental change and calls it pragmatism. She says she supports the movement for a $15 minimum wage, yet she refuses to support Senator Sanders' bill to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 instead she supports a competing bill to raise the federal minimum wage to $12 an hour. She claims that she wants to protect the economy from another melt down but continues to fight against breaking up the big banks even though they are bigger now than before the great recession and the Fed and FDIC have recently called them too big. She continues to say we should regulate them but, in an implicit criticism of President Obama, says that she would be tougher. However, she fails to acknowledge that the big banks have successfully stalled on developing "living wills" for more than five years. She says that she stood up to the big banks before the great recession but fails to acknowledge that she completely failed in changing their behavior. The time has come to stop coddling the big banks and break them up.
She uses the overturning of the Citizens United case as one of her two litmus tests for any Supreme Court nominee and states that big money is corrupting our political system but refuses to acknowledge that it has any impact on her. Apparently she is immune to all the pressures that other politicians are not immune to. She cannot answer the simple question of why she will not release the transcripts of her paid speeches to Wall Street. Her only response is that she will not release them unless everybody does, obviously including all Republican candidates. Senator Sanders has not made closed door speeches to Wall Street. The only logical conclusion that I can reach is that she would be embarrassed by those speeches if the transcripts became public.
The most important area where Secretary Clinton's incremental only approach to change cannot be accepted is with respect to climate change. With every new report we are closer to a cataclysmic tipping point than was previously thought. The time for incremental action has passed. We need big change now. Senator Sanders would ban fracking, would ban further drilling on federal lands, would place a tax on carbon and would focus completely on moving to sustainable, renewable energy. Secretary Clinton promoted fracking around the world as Secretary of State, she refuses to say she would ban fracking, she refuses to say she would stop drilling on federal lands, and she refuses to say that she would support a carbon tax. She says we need to move to sustainable energy but will do it in a "practical" and "possible" way, which is to say with small incremental steps. That approach will destroy the earth for my grandchildren and is unacceptable.
Of course the debate was full of moments when Secretary Clinton obfuscated the facts while Senator Sanders was transparent about his positions. While saying she would fight climate change, she refused to indicate immediate actions she would take that would have a significant impact, while saying she supports a $15 per hour federal minimum wage, she actually supports a move to $12 per hour, while claiming she supports Senator Sanders' policy of extending the life of the social security trust fund she refuses to support raising the income cap on social security taxes or endorsing any other particular approach, while saying she would be tough on the big banks, she refuses to support doing anything more than have the regulators be "tough" which has failed miserably so far and while saying she will work for peace between Israel and Palestine, she refuses to acknowledge the Israeli atrocities only the Palestinian ones.
She also continues to distort Senator Sanders' record. She claimed that most of the gun deaths in New York resulted from guns from Vermont which is absurd. While acknowledging that her statement was incorrect, she refused to apologize. Instead she made the even more absurd statement that Senator Sanders does the bidding of the NRA in the Senate. That statement is blatantly false as everyone including the NRA knows since it gives him a D- rating.
She claims that Senator Sanders could not answer the questions in the New York Daily News interview correctly even about breaking up the big banks. I have actually read that interview in total and either Secretary Clinton is lying or she has not read the interview. But you do not have to believe me, you can listen to this segment of Democracy Now today (here), it is entitled, "Juan González: Clinton Has 'Really Distorted' What Happened When NY Daily News Interviewed Sanders". Senator Sanders answered the questions of the interviewer precisely and accurately. The question to which he answered that he didn't know was whether the Fed has the right to break up the banks. That is a correct statement, nobody knows for sure if the Fed does have that authority. When asked about the President's authority to break up the banks, he correctly stated the process under Dodd-Frank by which the President can break up the big banks including that in the end the banks themselves determine exactly what assets to shed, etc.
We have a clear choice and in my opinion Senator Sanders is by far the better choice.
I should also point out that Senator Sanders will win a general election against any Republican while Secretary Clinton is quite vulnerable against any Republican other than Trump. In the most recent polls reported by RealClearPolitics (here), both Clinton and Sanders beat Trump although Sanders beats him by quite a bit more. The interesting results are that Clinton is in a statistical tie with Cruz beating him by 1 point in one poll and 3 points in another poll. Sanders on the other hand defeats Cruz by 12 points in both those polls. With respect to Kasich, Clinton loses to him by 9 and 6 points while Sanders beats him by 4 and 5 points.
Sanders is by far the better candidate both because of his positions and because of his electability.
Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal
The debate between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders last night could not have done a better job of highlighting the choice that we have between these two candidates and their policies, opinions and positions.
War v. Peace
On foreign policy, except for a short discussion about NATO where the candidates are in basic agreement, the Middle East was the focus. Senator Sanders laid out a very clear and articulate position that acknowledged the right of Israel to exist in peace and security, but also acknowledged the same right for the Palestinian people. Senator Sanders made it clear that the Israeli response to the latest conflict in Gaza was an over-reaction by Israel. Secretary Clinton refused to acknowledge that Israel over-reacted. You cannot achieve peace between Israel and Palestine until you acknowledge the atrocities on both sides. Senator Sanders' approach is the only one that has any chance of bringing peace.
With respect to Syria, Secretary Clinton, who has frequently chastised Senator Sanders for criticizing President Obama, laid the blame for the Syrian situation on President Obama because he did not take her advice to more aggressively arm the "friendly forces" fighting against Assad and establishing a no-fly zone which virtually all experts say would lead to more US troops fighting in Syria. She also refused to take any responsibility for the debacle in Libya. President Obama has said that one of the biggest mistakes of his Administration was not planning for what happens after Gaddafi is deposed. Secretary Clinton refused to accept any responsibility even though she was a strong proponent within the Obama Administration for regime change in Libya. She blamed the Libyan people for failing to take her advice and accept American troops in Libya.
We have a clear choice - Secretary Clinton, a clear hawk or Senator Sanders, a thoughtful person who will acknowledge reality, seek peace and use force only as a last resort.
Status Quo v. Real Change
On issue after issue, it is clear that Secretary Clinton supports the status quo, with only incremental changes, and it is equally clear that Senator Sanders believes we need big and substantive changes now. This difference represents a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party. When Secretary Clinton says that Senator Sanders is not a real Democrat, what she means is that he is not part of the move to the right, Republican light, Democratic Party establishment founded by her husband. There is a great sentence going around the internet - "There is only one moderate Republican running in this election, and she is running as a Democrat." I have said before that President Obama is about as far right as President Eisenhower was. Secretary Clinton is clearly to the right of President Eisenhower particularly on the use of force. President Bill Clinton formed an unholy alliance with big business. Secretary Clinton will continue that alliance. Senator Sanders will break up that alliance.
Secretary Clinton claims that she wants to get to universal healthcare coverage but has only plans to add an incremental number of people and attacks Senator Sanders' plan for Medicare for all. She says he would throw out Obamacare which is not true. He would keep Obamacare until the Medicare for all was in place. She wants incremental change and calls it pragmatism. She says she supports the movement for a $15 minimum wage, yet she refuses to support Senator Sanders' bill to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 instead she supports a competing bill to raise the federal minimum wage to $12 an hour. She claims that she wants to protect the economy from another melt down but continues to fight against breaking up the big banks even though they are bigger now than before the great recession and the Fed and FDIC have recently called them too big. She continues to say we should regulate them but, in an implicit criticism of President Obama, says that she would be tougher. However, she fails to acknowledge that the big banks have successfully stalled on developing "living wills" for more than five years. She says that she stood up to the big banks before the great recession but fails to acknowledge that she completely failed in changing their behavior. The time has come to stop coddling the big banks and break them up.
She uses the overturning of the Citizens United case as one of her two litmus tests for any Supreme Court nominee and states that big money is corrupting our political system but refuses to acknowledge that it has any impact on her. Apparently she is immune to all the pressures that other politicians are not immune to. She cannot answer the simple question of why she will not release the transcripts of her paid speeches to Wall Street. Her only response is that she will not release them unless everybody does, obviously including all Republican candidates. Senator Sanders has not made closed door speeches to Wall Street. The only logical conclusion that I can reach is that she would be embarrassed by those speeches if the transcripts became public.
The most important area where Secretary Clinton's incremental only approach to change cannot be accepted is with respect to climate change. With every new report we are closer to a cataclysmic tipping point than was previously thought. The time for incremental action has passed. We need big change now. Senator Sanders would ban fracking, would ban further drilling on federal lands, would place a tax on carbon and would focus completely on moving to sustainable, renewable energy. Secretary Clinton promoted fracking around the world as Secretary of State, she refuses to say she would ban fracking, she refuses to say she would stop drilling on federal lands, and she refuses to say that she would support a carbon tax. She says we need to move to sustainable energy but will do it in a "practical" and "possible" way, which is to say with small incremental steps. That approach will destroy the earth for my grandchildren and is unacceptable.
Of course the debate was full of moments when Secretary Clinton obfuscated the facts while Senator Sanders was transparent about his positions. While saying she would fight climate change, she refused to indicate immediate actions she would take that would have a significant impact, while saying she supports a $15 per hour federal minimum wage, she actually supports a move to $12 per hour, while claiming she supports Senator Sanders' policy of extending the life of the social security trust fund she refuses to support raising the income cap on social security taxes or endorsing any other particular approach, while saying she would be tough on the big banks, she refuses to support doing anything more than have the regulators be "tough" which has failed miserably so far and while saying she will work for peace between Israel and Palestine, she refuses to acknowledge the Israeli atrocities only the Palestinian ones.
She also continues to distort Senator Sanders' record. She claimed that most of the gun deaths in New York resulted from guns from Vermont which is absurd. While acknowledging that her statement was incorrect, she refused to apologize. Instead she made the even more absurd statement that Senator Sanders does the bidding of the NRA in the Senate. That statement is blatantly false as everyone including the NRA knows since it gives him a D- rating.
She claims that Senator Sanders could not answer the questions in the New York Daily News interview correctly even about breaking up the big banks. I have actually read that interview in total and either Secretary Clinton is lying or she has not read the interview. But you do not have to believe me, you can listen to this segment of Democracy Now today (here), it is entitled, "Juan González: Clinton Has 'Really Distorted' What Happened When NY Daily News Interviewed Sanders". Senator Sanders answered the questions of the interviewer precisely and accurately. The question to which he answered that he didn't know was whether the Fed has the right to break up the banks. That is a correct statement, nobody knows for sure if the Fed does have that authority. When asked about the President's authority to break up the banks, he correctly stated the process under Dodd-Frank by which the President can break up the big banks including that in the end the banks themselves determine exactly what assets to shed, etc.
We have a clear choice and in my opinion Senator Sanders is by far the better choice.
I should also point out that Senator Sanders will win a general election against any Republican while Secretary Clinton is quite vulnerable against any Republican other than Trump. In the most recent polls reported by RealClearPolitics (here), both Clinton and Sanders beat Trump although Sanders beats him by quite a bit more. The interesting results are that Clinton is in a statistical tie with Cruz beating him by 1 point in one poll and 3 points in another poll. Sanders on the other hand defeats Cruz by 12 points in both those polls. With respect to Kasich, Clinton loses to him by 9 and 6 points while Sanders beats him by 4 and 5 points.
Sanders is by far the better candidate both because of his positions and because of his electability.
Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
