Bernie Sanders continues to cut into Hillary Clinton’s once-commanding lead among Iowa Democrats, closing to just 7 points of the party front-runner in the first-in-the-nation caucus state, a new poll has found.
A survey released late Saturday afternoon by the Des Moines Register and Bloomberg Politics finds that Sanders, the fiery progressive senator from Vermont, trails Clinton 37% to 30%. The former secretary of state has lost one-third of her supporters since May.
Sanders’ support owes more to voters’ enthusiasm for his candidacy than opposition to Clinton, the poll found. A whopping 96% of his backers say they support him and his ideas, with just 2% saying their vote is motivated by a desire to stop a Clinton candidacy. As for the controversy surrounding Clinton’s use of email while leading the State Department, 61% of likely Democratic caucusgoers say the issue is not important to them.
Sanders has a deeper reservoir of support, the poll found. Thirty-nine percent of likely caucusgoers say their feelings about Sanders are very favorable, with just 8% having a negative view of him. That’s a sharp contrast to Clinton: 27% view her very favorably, but 19% view her negatively.
Saturday’s poll marks a remarkable eight-month climb for the self-proclaimed Democratic socialist from Vermont, who is garnering support in part from his anti-establishment rhetoric. Back in January, half of likely Democratic caucusgoers were unfamiliar with Sanders, and he was pulling in just 5% of support.
“What this new poll shows is that the more Iowans get to know Bernie, the better they like him and what he stands for. We’ve seen the same thing in New Hampshire and across the country,” Sanders campaign spokesman Michael Briggs said in a statement.
Meanwhile, Vice President Joe Biden, who has not declared whether he’ll seek the Oval Office next year, captured 14% of the vote, easily distancing himself from former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (3%), former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb (2%) and former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee (1%).
Speculation has heated up in recent weeks about whether Biden, 72, will join the race. He faces several obstacles in a potential run, including the need to raise enough campaign cash to compete with the Clinton machine and carving out enough support among key Democratic voting blocs. And he’s still grieving over the loss of his son, Beau Biden, who died of brain cancer three months ago; in a conference call with Democrats this week, Biden said he was still determining whether he had the “emotional fuel” to run.
But the vice president’s hesitation didn’t prevent his supporters from responding enthusiastically to Saturday’s poll.
“These results are the latest sign that voters respect and trust the Vice President and are looking for a candidate who speaks authentically and openly about the issues important to them,” according to a statement from “Draft Biden.” “They make clear the Vice President would have the support needed to mount a strong, competitive campaign.”
Bernie Sanders leads Hillary Clinton in a new poll of “usual” New Hampshire Democratic primary voters. According to Public Policy polling, a Democratic firm, Sanders has 42 percent support to Clinton’s 35 percent support.
The Vermont senator also has great favorability ratings among New Hampshire Democrats, with 78 percent viewing him favorably and just 12 percent viewing him unfavorably. Compare that to just 63 percent who say they have a favorable view of Clinton and 25 percent who say they have an unfavorable view.
PPP notes that Democrats of different ideological groups appear somewhat evenly split between Sanders and Clinton, but the former secretary of state is hurting among Democrats under the age of 65. Clinton leads with seniors, 51 percent to Sanders’s 34 percent, but Sanders does much better with younger voters, 45 percent to Clinton’s 29 percent.
This isn’t the first poll to show Sanders leading in New Hampshire, and according to the Real Clear Politics average of polls, Clinton’s lead in the Granite State has shrunk to just one point.
Here they come folks, the tragedy pimps, using the Oklahoma tornado to push their global warming BS. As Limbaugh said on his show today, global warming, or climate change, is not at all about science, it is all about politics. And to moral retards like Barbara Boxer, all is fair in politics
Via Daily Caller:
California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer blamed the tornado that devastated Oklahoma on global warming during a Senate floor speech Tuesday, using the opportunity to push her own plan to tax carbon dioxide emissions.
“This is climate change,” Boxer said. “This is climate change. We were warned about extreme weather: Not just hot weather, but extreme weather. When I had my hearings, when I had the gavel years ago — it’s been a while — the scientists all agreed that what we’d start to see was extreme weather.”
Of course, wild fires, hurricanes, and tornadoes are not new, they have been happening for a long long time, but, I guess these cretins will say anything as long as they can raise more revenue.
“Carbon could cost us the planet,” Boxer added, plugging her own carbon tax bill, co-sponsored by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. “The least we could do is put a little charge on it so people move to clean energy.”
See! Tornadoes will be sweeter and kinder if we all pay more for “clean energy”. Horse shit!
Speaking of great piles of feces, David Sirota is blaming the GOP for the tornado
With GOP-backed cuts to forecasting agency, experts warn future storms will go undetected and more lives lost.
Was the severe weather system culminating in yesterday’s Oklahoma City tornado intensified – or even created – by climate change? That question will almost certainly bebatted back and forth in the media over the next few days. After all, there is plenty of scientific evidence that climate change intensifies weather in general, but there remainlegitimate questions about how – and even if – it intensifies tornadoes in specific.
One thing, however, that shouldn’t be up for debate is whether or not we should be as prepared as possible for inevitable weather events like tornadoes. We obviously should be – but there’s an increasing chance that we will not be thanks to the manufactured crisis known as sequestration.
As the Federal Times recently reported, sequestration includes an 8.2 percent cut to the National Weather Service. According to the organization representing weather service employees, that means there is “no way for the agency to maintain around-the-clock operations at its 122 forecasting offices” and also means “people are going to be overworked, they’re going to be tired, they’re going to miss warnings.”
Summarizing the problem, the American Institute of Physics put it bluntly: “The government runs the risk of significantly increasing forecast error and, the government’s ability to warn Americans across the country about high impact weather events, such as hurricanes and tornadoes, will be compromised.”
See, it is all fair game for playing politics. EVERYTHING is to be blamed on your political opposites. No wonder ass hats like Sirota are always so nasty.
Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday that he will not include California Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s assault weapons ban in his gun control legislation.
Reid said that an assault weapons ban, which would be able to pass with a simple majority, would have less than 40 votes in the Senate.
Democrats control 53 Senate seats and also count independents Bernie Sanders and Angus King in their caucus, meaning that at least 15 members of the Democratic caucus did not get on board with the assault weapons ban.
Heartache for a Leftist
Democratic Sens. Bernie Sanders and Barbara Boxer will hold a news conference on Thursday to announce new legislation that would put a fee on carbon dioxide emissions to help fund green-energy projects such as wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass.
The legislation would also compensate consumers for higher energy bills.In his State of the Union address on Tuesday night, President Obama threatened to use his executive authority if Congress failed to act on climate change.
“But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will,” Obama added. “I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.”
I wonder where these geniuses think they will get the money to help us with the higher energy bills? The higher taxes ALWAYS soak the middle class and poor the most
Amid the chaos of war, economic hardship, moral decay, crony capitalism, graft and corruption, is there any more refreshing way to kick off a weekend than by finding out that there are still at least a half dozen members of the US Senate who haven’t lost track of the real problem? I’m of course referring to a scourge that is ripping apart the fabric of this nation: fake maple syrup:
Six senators introduced legislation that would make selling fake maple syrup a felony offense leading to fines and up to five years in prison.
The Maple Agriculture Protection and Law Enforcement (MAPLE) Act is a response to what chief sponsor Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and others say is the increasing practice of cheating Vermont, Upstate New York and other maple syrup regions by selling inferior, fake syrup.
“I have been alarmed by the growing number of individuals and businesses claiming to sell genuine Vermont maple syrup when they are in fact selling an inferior product that is not maple syrup at all,” Leahy said Thursday. “This is fraud, plain and simple, and it undermines a key part of Vermont’s economy and reputation for quality that has been hard-earned through Vermonters’ hard work.”
He added that others in the syrup-producing regions of Maine, New York and other states also have been hurt. Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) are all co-sponsors.
Good Freaking Grief! Is there any end to the stupidity of these clowns?
A proposal that rich Americans and corporations bear the brunt of paying off much of the federal deficit is catching fire as liberals and progressives are urging President Obama not to give in to GOP demands that no taxes be considered in the talks to boost the deficit ceiling. [Read the U.S. News debate: Should Congress raise the debt limit?]
“Mr. President, please listen to the overwhelming majority of the American people who believe that deficit reduction must be about shared sacrifice. The wealthiest Americans and the most profitable corporations in this country must pay their fair share,” the Vermont Independent urges.
“At least 50 percent of any deficit reduction package must come from revenue raised by ending tax breaks for the wealthy and eliminating tax loopholes that benefit large, profitable corporations and Wall Street financial institutions. A sensible deficit reduction package must also include significant cuts to unnecessary and wasteful Pentagon spending.”
Republicans have rejected new taxes as part of an agreement to trim the deficit and offset the $2.4 trillion boost in the national debt ceiling.
The whole letter is at the link, read it if you have the time, and a desire to pull your hair out in clumps.
Good grief, is he stoned? Stupid? Both?
CENK UYGUR: How are you going to rally progressives? I’m not putting it all on you. I know you’re a great progressive. How do you . . . how do we get the president on our side?
BERNIE SANDERS: It’s millions of people saying, Mr. President, we voted for you because you told us you were going to defend working Americans. Now is the time to stand up to the big-money interests, ask for shared sacrifice, don’t balance the budget on the backs of the elderly, the poor and the sick. If you do that, you’re going to have tremendous popular support. I would like to see a couple of hundred thousand people come here to Washington, say hello to the president, say hello to the Republicans, say do not balance the budget on the middle class, the working families in this country, when the richest people are getting richer. They have not contributed one nickel to deficit reduction.
Nine senators tied for most liberal in National Journal’s 2010 Vote Ratings issue. Here’s a look at the 10 most-liberal senators:
For the 10 most-liberal representatives head to the end of the gallery.
Tied for first—Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio
Although he could face a tough reelection battle in 2012, Brown shows no signs of trimming his sails. He was tied as the most-liberal senator in 2009, making it two years straight he’s been tied for most liberal.
Tied for first—Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md.
Both Maryland senators tied most-liberal senator in the 2010 vote ratings. Cardin also tied for most-liberal senator in 2009.
Tied for first—Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.
Leahy was the 29th most-liberal senator in 2009 with a composite score of 73.8.
Tied for first—Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.
Levin tied for 11th most liberal in the 2009 vote ratings with a composite score of 84.3.
Tied for first—Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md.
Mikulski ranked eighth most liberal in 2009 with a composite score of 85.2, which was a more-liberal score then the 83.3 that tied her for most liberal in 2010.
Tied for first—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
Reid made a big jump to tie as the most-liberal senator in the 2010 ratings. He was 22nd most liberal in 2009 and the 25th most liberal in 2008.
Tied for first—Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.
Sanders is the only independent senator with a most-liberal vote rating in 2010.
Tied for first—Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich.
Stabenow ranked the 21st most-liberal senator in 2009 with a composite score of 78.3.
Tied for first—Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.
Whitehouse also tied for the title of most-liberal senator in 2009.
Tied for 10th—(left to right) Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Jack Reed, D-R.I.
Senators from seven states had identical liberal scores. Gillibrand and Schumer are one set of the pairs.
TOP TEN LIBERAL REPRESENTATIVES
Tied for first—Reps. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., Judy Chu, D-Calif., John Lewis, D-Ga., Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., John Olver, D-Mass., Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., and Linda Sanchez, D-Calif.
In 2010, four of the 10 most-liberal members of the House were women (pictured above). Rep. Niki Tsongas, D-Mass., almost made the list as the 11th most-liberal member in 2010, a big jump from the 51st most liberal in 2009.
Tied for eighth—(left to right) Reps. Edward Markey, D-Mass., George Miller, D-Calif., and Jim McGovern, D-Mass.
With composite scores of 95.3, Markey, Miller, and McGovern round out the 10 most-liberal members of the House. All three members had a composite score in the 80s in the 2009 vote ratings.