Month: June 2015

QOTD: Bernie Sanders

by digby

He went on CNN and talked some real left wing crazy talk:

“You don’t cut Social Security to save Social Security.”

He then said that we should expand it.

What a kook.

Watch the whole thing:

Nancy Pelosi Is Whipping “Almost Daily” for TPP

by Gaius Publius

It looks like this early statement, about which I got some pushback, is proving true. Just as Chuck Schumer was the behind-the-scenes enabler on Fast Track and TPP in the Senate — he voted No but privately organized the Fast Track set of bills so they would pass — Pelosi is the behind-the-scenes enabler of TPP in the House. According to one report (see below), she might even vote No, so long as it passes with votes other than hers.

Publicly, Pelosi has said both (a) she’s neutral and (b) she’s seeking a “path to yes.” Sounds like a contradiction today, and it sounded so at the time. About her supposed neutrality, here’s the New York Times (my emphasis throughout):

Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the minority leader, who has yet to declare her position, has told House Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio that he will have to produce 200 Republican votes to win the 217 he needs. In other words, she is not promising a single new convert.

That’s the spin, and it’s being repeated elsewhere as well. It’s also not true. According to two sources, in private Pelosi is working “almost on a daily basis” to get Fast Track to pass, and with it, TPP. Evidence comes from Greg Sargent at Plumline and from Politico. Let’s start with Sargent and the problems around Fast Track’s associated Trade Assistance bill.

If the Trade Assistance Bill Fails, Fast Track and TPP Will Fail

Everyone knows, though only opponents will say, that it’s mostly Big Money who wants TPP to succeed, because Big Money will make a killing from the deal. Everyone knows, though only opponents will say, that TPP will do what NAFTA did — move jobs abroad and continue to impoverish American workers.

Which means, to get Democratic votes for Fast Track and TPP, they need to enact a so-called Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) bill along with it, to lessen, if only slightly, the damage to American workers. Republicans hate lessening damage to American workers, however — remember all those unemployment compensation fights — so there are a lot of Republicans who don’t want TAA to pass.

And the TAA bill passed by the Senate is “paid for” by cuts to Medicare. (Yes, you read that right — Medicare cuts.) So right now, TAA is in trouble from both the left and the right. Bottom line, no TAA, no TPP. Enter Nancy Pelosi.

Pelosi Is Working to Keep the TAA–plus–Fast Track Deal Alive

Many Democrats hate the Medicare cuts (or can’t afford to seem not to). Many Republicans hate the TAA itself. So the deal is in trouble — remember, no TAA, no TPP. What does Nancy Pelosi do? When it looks like the deal could fail, she goes to bat for the deal.

Greg Sargent:

Pelosi is taking the possibility of a failed TAA vote in the House seriously. A Pelosi aide tells me that she is negotiating with GOP leaders to find a new pay-for to replace the Medicare cuts, since keeping them could end up killing it.

If Pelosi is opposed to Fast Track, she could let it die by letting TAA die. That’s what Alan Grayson would do. After all, if there’s no fast track for a job-killing “trade” bill, there’s no need for worker assistance to mitigate the damage. Pelosi is working to enable the Fast Track and TPP deal, to keep it alive. She obviously wants it to pass.

Nancy Pelosi — The White House “Secret Weapon” on TPP

Now from Politico, this gut-churner on Obama, Pelosi and TPP. It opens with the bottom line:

White House’s secret weapon on trade: Nancy Pelosi

Administration officials have been so impressed by Nancy Pelosi’s approach to negotiations over giving President Barack Obama “fast-track” trade authority that they’ve started to consider a crazy possibility: She could even vote for it herself.

But only if she has to.

“But only if she has to”? If she’s in favor of TPP why should she hide her hand in passing it? Feel free to make your best guess at the answer. Mine is, for the sake of appearances. For more on Pelosi controlling appearances, see the last quote in this piece.

The next few paragraphs are very Pelosi-friendly, but hard to credit once you get to these passages:

Obama aides say they don’t know how Pelosi will vote in the end, but they gush about how hands-on she’s been, how accommodating she’s been in letting them make their case, how critical she’s been in saying nothing about her position to give her fellow Democrats cover to get to yes.

“I applaud the leader for creating enough space to really evaluate this legislation,” said Rep. Ami Bera (D-Calif.), who announced his support for TPA last month and has become the anti-TPA effort’s top target to scare others into voting no. “She’s done a good job creating that space.”

That’s “New Democrat” Ami Bera, who’s being hit hard in his district for his declared Yes on TPP. Ami Bera wants to publicly “applaud” Pelosi for her work with Democrats, to “create that space” so Democrats can “get to yes.”

The White House agrees:

The White House hopes Pelosi’s going to put her thumb on the backs of however many necks she needs, forcing yes votes among the more reluctant but safe members, letting the more endangered members off the hook, finding votes and trading votes until she gets to the 24, or 25, or 26 that she needs. …

“Her position is that she wants to get to yes and she is talking about this almost on a daily basis,” said a senior House Democrat.

Ignore the schizophrenia in the article about how she doesn’t know how she’s going to vote despite everything else it says about her effort. All she cares about, based on her reported behavior, is controlling her own appearance, her brand, as being “pro-worker” — and helping other pro-TPP members control their own appearances, as the above quote makes abundantly clear.

And ignore articles to the contrary; they just report what Pelosi is saying about herself. Sargent and this Politico piece report what Pelosi is doing — working hard to make TPP happen. She’s the lead enabler in the House of the “next NAFTA” trade agreement, someone working almost daily to keep the deal alive in the House.

If she doesn’t want to tag herself that way — and apparently she doesn’t — it falls to us to tag her. Nancy Pelosi, lead House perp on the biggest anti-worker bill of this generation. Considering the damage TPP will do, I’d gladly pay to put that where no one will forget it.

(A version of this piece appeared at DownWithTyranny. GP article archive here.)

GP

.

Clinton “lets rip” on voting rights
by Tom Sullivan

County elections staff met here last night with party officials to discuss recruiting election judges and poll workers for the next two years.** It all went smoothly until a man in the back asked what was being done to prevent people from voting here and then voting absentee in another state. You might as well ask what North Carolina is doing to prevent its 10 million residents from robbing convenience stores in Florida.

The electoral paranoia behind that question — and the Republican-sponsored voting restrictions spawned nationwide by it — was on Hillary Clinton’s mind yesterday when she called for universal, automatic voter registration at a speech in Houston yesterday. Reporters knew the speech would be about voting rights, Rachel Maddow noted last night, but nobody knew Clinton was about to “let rip” on the subject of voting rights:

[W]e have a responsibility to say clearly and directly what’s really going on in our country—because what is happening is a sweeping effort to disempower and disenfranchise people of color, poor people, and young people from one end of our country to the other.

[snip]

North Carolina passed a bill that went after pretty much anything that makes voting more convenient or more accessible. Early voting. Same-day registration. The ability of county election officials to even extend voting hours to accommodate long lines.

Now what possible reason could there be to end pre-registration for 16- and 17-year-olds and eliminate voter outreach in high schools?

Reason had nothing to do with it (as the gentleman’s question last night demonstrated). Clinton went on to criticize the Supreme Court for eviscerating a key provision of the Voting Rights Act in 2013. But she reserved even harsher criticism for her GOP opponents: Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. In the end, she called for modernizing registration nationally on the Oregon model:

And I believe we should go even further to strengthen voting rights in America. So today I am calling for universal, automatic voter registration. Every citizen, every state in the Union. Everyone, every young man or young woman should be automatically registered to vote when they turn 18—unless they actively choose to opt out. But I believe this would have a profound impact on our elections and our democracy. Between a quarter and a third of all eligible Americans remain unregistered and therefore unable to vote.

Greg Sargent at Plum Line writes:

In political terms, Clinton’s call for universal voting registration appears to be a bid to energize millennial voters. As it is, the broader voting access push — like her recent moves leftward on immigration, climate change, and sentencing reform — is partly about mobilizing core Obama coalition groups, including minorities. Today’s proposal is more heavily focused on the young. After all, one of the key unknowns of the cycle is whether Clinton will be able to turn out Obama voters on the same levels he did, and young voters — who were excited by the historical nature of Obama’s candidacy — are key to that.

At the same time, Clinton making voting rights a presidential campaign issue puts Republicans in the position of defending their multitudinous efforts across the country to restrict access to the voting booth. Why do they want to lead they world’s oldest democracy when they seem bent on demolishing it by any means necessary?

As Clinton put it yesterday:

Republicans are systematically and deliberately trying to stop millions of American citizens from voting. What part of democracy are they afraid of?

** This is the behind the scenes of democracy most voters never see. When they go to the polls on Election Day, voters see maybe five or six people working at their precinct. In my county there are 80 precincts. There are 100 counties in the state. The democratic process involves an awful lot of time and manpower (much of it volunteers), and not just during the weeks before general elections. Political parties are more than partisanship and campaign season. They help administer the democratic process itself.

Jim Bob gives it away

by digby

You can tell throughout the Duggar interview with Megyn Kelly that Jim Bob and Michelle really don’t think it’s a big deal that a teen-age boy would fondle a 5 year old girl. I just can’t get past this. It’s all abusive and incestuous behavior, of course, even that which took place between Josh Duggar and the sisters closer to him in age. But this report of him doing that to a very small child is just chilling on a whole other level especially since Josh Duggar now has little kids of his own.

But here’s what Jim Bob said last night that shows how little this concerned him:

KELLY: What about that Jim Bob, as a parent, did you feel guilty when you learned that his behavior had continued and other girls in the house had become victims?

J. B. DUGGAR: Yes. I think as parents, you feel like a failure when one of your kids does something wrong. You feel like if I had done more training or maybe something else that this wouldn’t have happened. But the truth is that kids will make their own choices. And they will make their own decisions even though you’ve taught them what’s right and wrong.

KELLY: I’m asking you more as the father of your girls than as the father of Josh. You know, it must have been very hard to look at your little one and know the behavior had been ongoing, as difficult as your position was.

J. B. DUGGAR: Right. I was so thankful, though, that Josh came and told us. And our girls, even though this was a very bad situation, as we’ve talked to other families who have had, you know, other things happen, a lot of their stories were even worse.

One can only assume then that this behavior is considered normal among these fundamentalist families.

This story certainly confirms that there is a lot of what most of us would consider abnormal behavior in the religious homeschooling cult called the “Advanced Training Institute” to which the Duggars belong. It has a lot of political connections.

Including this fellow who spoke at their conference in 2005:

Quitcher bitchin’ ladies

by digby

After all, it could be worse, amirite?

Thursday, June 4, 2015
For Immediate Release

WASHINGTON, D.C.— The Women’s Media Center (WMC) today released its yearly report on the status of women in U.S. media. The report is based on new and original research that finds that the media landscape is still dominated by male voices and male perspectives.

Taken together, the 49 studies are a snapshot of women in media platforms as diverse as news, literature, broadcast, film, television, radio, online, tech, gaming, and social media.

“Inequality defines our media,” said Julie Burton, president of the Women’s Media Center. “Our research shows that women, who are more than half of the population, write only a third of the stories. Media tells us our roles in society—it tells us who we are and what we can be. This new report shows us who matters and what is important to media—and clearly, as of right now, it is not women.”

As the 2016 presidential campaign takes shape, WMC’s original research shows that in 2014, men reported 65 percent of all U. S. political news stories. In addition, as the summer entertainment television and movie season gets under way, figures documenting all sectors of film and television production find that women still have limited creative input in shaping the characters, images, and depictions on screen. And although women use social media platforms at greater rates than men, the companies that create those platforms are largely white and male.

‘WMC’s Divided 2015: The Media Gender Gap’

For the second consecutive year, the WMC commissioned its own study of how many women were among the nation’s journalists and the issues they were assigned to cover.

Men were more likely to write or report on the topics of politics, criminal justice, science, sports, and technology, according to WMC’s “Divided 2015: The Media Gender Gap,” a three-month analysis released today as part of the Women’s Media Center’s Status of Women in U.S. Media report. This study looked at the nation’s 10 most widely circulated newspapers, the national evening news broadcasts, the most-viewed Internet news sites, and two international wire services.

“With the 2016 presidential election already under way, this is especially problematic,” said Burton. “We hope that one good result of releasing these discouraging numbers will be that media can take a hard look at their newsrooms and make changes to improve the ratios in their reporting. Media companies should establish goals for improving their gender diversity and create both short-term and long-term mechanisms for achieving them. They should ask themselves why their newsrooms aren’t 50 percent women and what steps they need to take to get there. And if they aren’t asking themselves these questions, then that’s a problem.”

WMC’s research examined 27,758 pieces of content produced from October 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014. Only three outlets achieved or exceeded parity: the Chicago Sun-Times, The Huffington Post, and the two anchor chairs at PBS NewsHour.

WMC’s “Divided 2015: The Media Gender Gap” also found that:

Overall, men generated 62.1 percent of news; women generated 37.3 percent.

In evening broadcast news, men were on camera 68 percent of the time. These include appearances by anchors as well as correspondents. Women were on-camera 32 percent of the time.

In print, men wrote 62 percent of all stories in 10 of the most widely circulated newspapers. Women wrote just 37 percent.

On the Internet, men wrote 58 percent of content at four online news sites. Women wrote 42 percent of the content.

On the wires, men wrote 62 percent of the content. Women wrote 38 percent.

WMC’s The Status of Women in U.S. Media 2015 curates the most recent major studies by university-based researchers, nonprofit media-watch groups, professional and trade groups representing various areas of the news industry, entertainment media, and technology. Here are the highlights in film and television; gaming, technology, and social media; and in traditional print and TV.

In film and television entertainment:

The number of women creators, writers, producers, executive producers, photography directors, and editors of prime-time TV entertainment shows slid 1 percentage point between 2012-13 and 2013-14, with women representing only 27 percent of that entire workforce.

In addition, men were 83 percent of all directors, executive producers, producers, writers, cinematographers, and editors for the 250 most profitable films made in the United States in 2014. The figures documenting all sectors of film and television production demonstrate that few women have creative input in what is depicted on television, film, and in the growing offerings of online networks. Moreover, collectively when women characters appear in our entertainment they are given less lines, are younger, and show more skin than male characters.

“The numbers are stark and striking and need to change,” said WMC Co-founder Jane Fonda.
“The fact is that most of our entertainment is directed by white men and most of the stories are told through the eyes of men. The first step in changing the picture is to recognize there is a problem. The Women’s Media Center’s report should demonstrate to everyone how deep the problem goes.”

In gaming, technology, and on social media:

Female social media users are subjected to more online harassment in the form of sexual insults, threats, and stalking. Many online “neighborhoods”—particularly in online gaming, but also the comments sections of websites and online discussion sites—are significantly less welcoming to women than to men.

At Facebook, Google, and Twitter, men accounted for 69 or 70 percent of the rank-and-file workforce in 2014. Among company executives, the percentage of men was even higher.
Women feel less welcome online than men. Of women aged 18-24, 26 percent said they had been stalked online and 25 percent they were sexually harassed online.

In traditional print and TV:

White men made up 56 percent of daily newspaper employees; white women made up 31 percent; black women made up 2.19 percent; Hispanic women, 1.83 percent; Asian women, 1.64 percent; Native American women, 0.16 percent; and multi-racial women, 0.27 percent.

Men accounted for roughly 74 percent of guests on major TV networks’ Sunday morning news shows. Women were 26 percent.

Editorial boards of the 10 largest newspapers in nine regions of the country had, on average, seven men and four women.

And it doesn’t even discuss pay equity which you can be sure doesn’t exist.

But whatevs …

.

This guy is making millions from giving speeches? Really???

by digby

When you hear people complaining about former Senator and Secretary of State Hillary and former president Bill Clinton making too much money from speeches, show them this:

Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson and his wife, Candy, earned between $8.9 million and $27 million in a recent 16-month period, largely fueled by book royalties, speaking engagements and Mr. Carson’s service on the board of directors for two big companies.

The figures were included in Mr. Carson’s personal financial disclosure, a copy of which was viewed by the Wall Street Journal.

From the start of 2014 through May 3 of this year, Mr. Carson delivered 141 paid speeches, earning just over $4 million, according to the disclosure. Since announcing his campaign last month, the retired neurosurgeon has continued to deliver paid speeches that were contracted prior to his candidacy, his spokesman said. Mr. Carson will deliver four more speeches this year, the last one in November.

For Mr. Carson—who has never held elected office and didn’t emerge onto the political scene until 2013, when he rebuked the Affordable Care Act and called for a flat tax at an event where President Barack Obama was sitting just feet away—his speeches have served as a way of introducing himself to American voters. His books have also offered him an outlet: In “One Nation,” published last year, he called for term limits for federal judges and a new constitutional convention.

Mr. Carson earned between $2 million and $10 million over 16 months serving on the boards of Kellogg Co. and Costco Wholesale Corp.—positions he resigned after launching his candidacy. He also earned between $1.1 million and $6 million in book royalties, and drew between $200,000 and $2 million from his positions as a contributor at the Washington Times and Fox News, according to the disclosure.

Candidates report their income in wide ranges on their personal financial disclosure forms. They sometimes also disclose more exact figures, but aren’t required to.

Depending on what end of the range Mr. Carson’s income falls in, his earnings could near the $30 million Hillary and Bill Clinton earned over a similar time period. Following Mrs. Clinton’s disclosure, Republicans seized on that number to paint her as out of touch with average Americans.

Personally, I think these numbers are insane no matter who is getting them. It’s just another sign of the increasingly bizarre distance between ordinary Americans and the 1%. I recently saw an article about some 3rd rate actor who hadn’t had a hit since the 90s (can’t remember who.) And it was said that his net worth was over 20 million. No inheritance, just the spoils of being a 3rd rate actor who happened to make enough money at one time that he could put his money to work making the money for him. The sheer amount of money the 1% is able to accumulate is staggering.

But jayzuz, Ben Carson? I’m perfectly happy for him to be wealthy as a result of his skill as a pediatric neuro-surgeon (which he was.) But this cretinous clap trap he’s selling is making him millions? What a screwed up world we live in.

.

Compassionate conservative Cruz


by digby

So Ted Cruz, Senator, Christian, statesman, presidential candidate, could be bothered to change his canned jokes about Vice President Joe Biden even as he grieves the loss of his oldest son:

You know, Vice President Joe Biden,” he said as a few chuckles emerged from the crowd, setting up the joke for him.

“You know the nice thing. You don’t need a punchline. I promise you it works. At the next party you’re at, just walk up to someone and say, ‘Vice President Joe Biden,’ and just close your mouth. They will crack up laughing.”

Here’s how he reacted when he was confronted about it after the event:

He later apologized.

How do you like your “Real Americans” now?

by digby

At Salon today I put my two cents in about the political establishment’s continued failure to acknowledge that the GOP has become very extreme. I took a look back at the history and how the press is dealing with this reality:

“Look, we saw in Britain, Neville Chamberlain, who told the British people, ‘Accept the Nazis. Yes, they’ll dominate the continent of Europe, but that’s not our problem. Let’s appease them. Why? Because it can’t be done. We can’t possibly stand against them.’”

“In my view, a corporation is not a person. A corporation does not have First Amendment rights to spend as much money as it wants, without disclosure, on a political campaign. Corporations should not be able to go into their treasuries and spend millions and millions of dollars on a campaign in order to buy elections.”

The piece goes on to discuss more recent events referencing this amazing chart from the Washington Post’s wonkblog this week:

I also talk a little bit about how the Republicans distract from this with scandal-mongering. And how the press eagerly plays along. Read on …

.

Histrionic Huckleberry QOTD

by digby

“Well, it’s easier to talk to the North Korean guy than it is [Hillary Clinton].I think it’s the lack of confidence in her ability to distinguish herself from Barack Obama.”

Graham was on message throughout, telling the hosts that he was committed to sending American troops back to Iraq to destroy the Islamic State.

Co-host Steve Doocy had to cut in.

“It’s a tough message,” Doocy said. “A lot of people are just worn out by war.”

“Well, don’t vote for me,” Graham said.

“Don’t vote for me, because I’m telling you what’s coming. Barack Obama’s policies of leading from behind are going to allow another 9/11,” he said.

Runferyerlives yadda, yadda, yadda ….

.

How mainstream is Bernie Sanders?

by Gaius Publius

How mainstream is Bernie Sanders? This question will come up a lot as Sanders gains traction in Iowa and elsewhere. The charge will be that a “socialist” is too far to the left.

Buried in the question is an assumption — that the “mainstream” opinions of those asking the questions and funding the campaigns (the billionaires and their millionaire employees in the media) are also the mainstream opinions of the American voters. That assumption could not be more wrong.

It’s clear that Bernie Sanders, with his message of reversing economic inequality, is to the left of the Chuck Todds and Wolf Blitzers of the world. But where does he stand with respect to the people? I’ll offer two data points of my own, then turn the stage over to Juan Cole.

First, 87% of Republicans want TPP (widely seen as “the next NAFTA”) to fail, for a large variety of reasons, from executive overreach to job loss to loss of sovereignty. Even the new Reuters/Ipsos poll, which TPP proponents are touting, shows Americans solidly against TPP-type deals when American jobs are at stake.

About that poll, Public Citizen reports:

Today’s Reuters/Ipsos poll finds that a majority of the U.S. public “support[s] new trade deals to promote the sale of U.S. goods overseas.”  This is not surprising.  Who would be opposed to trade deals framed as simply boosting sales of U.S. goods?  (Never mind that exports of U.S. goods have actually grown slower, not faster, under existing U.S. trade deals.)

The poll did not ask whether respondents “support new trade deals that could offshore U.S. manufacturing jobs.”  We do not need to rely on hypotheticals to guess how the U.S. public would respond to this question. Just three weeks ago, another Ipsos poll stated: “International trade agreements increase Americans’ access to foreign-made goods and products but at the risk of American jobs being lost. What would you say is more important…?”

Eighty-four percent of the U.S. public said that “protecting American manufacturing jobs” is more important than “getting Americans access to more products.” Based on Ipsos’ own polling, if today’s Reuters/Ipsos poll had presented not just the claimed upsides of trade deals, but the documented downsides, the results likely would have been quite different.

The same Ipsos poll from earlier this month also asked, “If the Obama administration supports an international trade agreement that does not specifically prohibit currency manipulation, do you think the United States Congress should support or oppose that trade deal?”

Seventy-three percent of the U.S. public said that Congress should oppose any trade agreement that does not prohibit currency manipulation. The TPP, of course, fits that bill. The Obama administration has repeatedly dismissed Congress’ bipartisan, bicameral demand for the TPP to include binding disciplines against currency manipulation.

Today’s Reuters/Ipsos poll did not address this fact about the TPP. …

Second, I challenge you to find one Tea Party voter who approves of the Wall Street bailout. Not a Koch- or Wall Street-bought Tea Party office-holder; a Tea Party voter. There are no good words on the right for that atrocity.

Juan Cole makes the same point I do above, that One-Percenters have no use for Sanders’ policy proposals:

How Mainstream is Bernie Sanders?

Sen. Bernie Sanders, the presidential candidate for the Democratic
nomination, has trouble being taken seriously by the corporate media,
what with him being a democratic socialist and all.

If you go to
Google News and put in his name, you get headlines about him being
nothing more than a protest candidate, or having “odd views,” or
promoting “dark age economics.”

But Sanders’s positions are quite
mainstream from the point of view of the stances of the American public
in general. Of course, the 1%, for whom and by whom most mainstream
media report, are appalled and would like to depict him as an outlier.

In Cole’s view (and mine), Sanders is “mainstream” on a variety of issues. For example, the wealth gap:

Sanders is scathing on the increasing wealth gap,
whereby the rich have scooped up most of the increase in our national
wealth in the past twenty years. The average wage of the average worker
in real terms is only a little better than in 1970; the poor are
actually poorer; but the wealth of the top earners has increased several
times over.

Some 63% of Americans agree that the current distribution of wealth is unfair. And in a Gallup poll done earlier this month, a majority, 52%, think
that government taxation on the rich should be used to reduce the wealth
gap. This percentage is historically high, having been only 45% in
1998. But there seems to be a shift going on, because Gallup got the
52% proportion in answer to the question on taxing the rich both in
April and again in May of this year….

On getting money out of politics:

Sanders wants to get big money out of politics.

A majority of Americans oppose
the Supreme Court “Citizens United” ruling, one of a number of such
rulings that have increased the ability of the super-wealthy to
influence politics. A good half of Americans support federally financed political campaigns so as to level the playing field.

On
this issue, Bernie Sanders is the most mainstream of all the
candidates. The others are in a part of the political spectrum that by
the polling represents a tiny lunatic fringe, in opposing significant
campaign finance reform.

On student debt:

Some 79% of Americans believe that education beyond high school is not affordable for everyone. And some 57% of people under 30 believe student debt is a problem for youth.

On global warming and climate change:

According to a very recent Yale/Gallup poll, Some 71% of Americans believe global warming is occurring,
and 57% are sure that human activity (emitting greenhouse gases like
carbon dioxide) is causing it, while another 12 percent think the
warming is at least partly human-caused. That’s 69% who blame human
beings wholly or in part.

And reinforcing my point that like Warren, Sanders could easily pick up votes from traditional Republicans in the general election:

Even among Republicans, 48% say that they are more likely to vote for a candidate who wants to fight climate change.

It would be hard to find an economic issue on which Sanders is not squarely in the mainstream of bipartisan voter thinking.

Is Sanders Too Mainstream for the One Percent?

I’ve argued before that Sanders’ biggest problem may not be that his views are unpopular — his biggest threat is because he’s too popular with ordinary people. Sanders as a dismissible “fringe” candidate is acceptable, even desirable for the One Percent that funds and feeds off our elections.

Dismissible fringe candidates foster the illusion of choice. But actual populists are a danger to the world of insiders who scratch each other’s well-moneyed backs. Even though the New York Times has recently broken radio silence on the Sanders campaign, I still look for the billionaire-owned media to do everything it can to tank the one candidate running against billionaire ownership of the country.

(A version of this piece appeared at DownWithTyranny. GP article archive here.)

GP

.