AUGUST 13, 2019

NEWS AND VIEWS

I DO LOOK AT STORIES ABOUT POLLS, BUT I CARE LESS ABOUT THEM THAN I DO ABOUT CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES, SANDERS’ AND OTHERS’ SPECIFIC COMMENTS, AND HIS NEW OR DEVELOPING IDEAS; IN SPITE OF NEGATIVE RHETORIC AGAINST HIM, HE IS HOLDING STEADILY TO HIS COURSE. THE BAD GUYS’ GOAL IS TO WEAKEN HIM BIT BY BIT, AND HE IS PERSISTENTLY SHORING HIMSELF UP RATHER THAN LOSING HOPE OR GIVING UP. WOULDN’T THE ADVERSARIES JUST LOVE IT IF HE WERE TO ANNOUNCE THAT HE IS DROPPING OUT OF THE RACE? WELL, HE ISN’T GOING TO DO THAT BEFORE THE CONVENTION. I KNOW BECAUSE HIS TEMPERAMENT IS LIKE THAT OF A SNAPPING TURTLE. IT IS SAID IN THE SOUTHERN COUNTRYSIDE THAT A SNAPPING TURTLE “WON’T TURN LOOSE UNTIL IT THUNDERS.” HE HAS AGAIN PROMISED THAT HE WILL SUPPORT THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE IF HE LOSES, SO I’M SURE HE WILL. HE IS OPERATING WITHIN A FRAMEWORK OF HONOR, WHILE CONTINUING A CAMPAIGN OF STRENGTH. I ALSO FEEL SURE THAT HE WILL FOSTER PROGRESSIVE POLITICS WHOEVER WINS. THAT’S WHO HE IS.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/08/13/sanders_campaign_accuses_press_of_bernie_write-off_140997.html

Sanders Campaign Accuses Press of 'Bernie Write-Off'

By Philip Wegmann - RCP Staff

August 13, 2019

PHOTOGRAPH – BERNIE SANDERS SPEAKING   AP Photo/John Locher

The Bernie Sanders campaign is frustrated. Some might even go so far as to say they have had it with all the fake news about the electoral chances of the current runner-up in the Democratic primary race.

At least that was the tone of campaign officials’ most recent press call.

Jeff Weaver said Sanders has gained momentum in the presidential race but he complained that the Vermont senator hasn’t received the coverage he deserves after a strong showing in the second primary debate. The senior campaign adviser told reporters Monday that the imbalance isn’t fair.

“We also wanted to have this call just to encapsulate some of the thinking of the campaign. Last time there was this experience -- which has now been well-documented but wasn’t recognized by some at the time -- called the ‘Bernie blackout,’” Weaver said of Sanders’ 2016 bid for president.

“Now,” he continued, “we are sort of in the phase that I call the ‘Bernie write-off.’”

When Sanders ran and lost to Hillary Clinton, his campaign grumbled that the candidate was only given token coverage. The press was guilty of making a premature judgment, supporters argued at the time. Sure, reporters covered that narrowing race on the trail, but his team seemed convinced that “the corporately owned media” had written Sanders off as a sideshow.

The campaign now fears a repeat in the 2020 race.

“There seems to be a direct correlation between the media coverage of polls and Bernie Sanders’ specific standing in those polls,” Weaver said. In his telling, “the better the number is in the poll, the less coverage it receives. And the worse he does, the more it receives.”

Weaver wondered, for instance, why a recent Quinnipiac University poll showing Sanders trailing former Vice President Joe Biden 32% to 14% received extensive coverage; 47 stories were published about that survey, he said.

But another poll, this one conducted by the left-leaning Democracy Corps, was largely overlooked. It showed Sanders trailing Biden just 31% to 22%. Only two stories were written about it, according to Weaver.

This led to headlines such as “Is Iowa no longer feelin’ the Bern?” and “Bernie Sanders 2020 is in big trouble,” and it was clear during the call that frustration with the press is growing inside the campaign. “The undiscriminating acceptance of polls that fit existing narratives is certainly an issue that all of us need to be aware of,” Weaver warned.

Those comments come at a moment when candidates appear to have become more comfortable criticizing coverage and even confronting reporters.

The New York Times was on the receiving end of this kind of censure recently when a chorus of Democratic candidates complained that the paper was too charitable with its front-page coverage of President Trump. After a speech mourning the victim of the El Paso shooting, the Times headlined its story “Trump Urges Unity vs. Racism.”

“Not the truth,” New York Mayor Bill de Blasio tweeted. “That’s not what happened,” complainedSen. Kirsten Gillibrand. “Lives literally depend on you doing better,” Sen. Cory Booker wrote.

The paper quickly swapped the original headline for “Assailing Hate but Not Guns.”

Earlier, when a reporter asked if there was anything that Trump could do to make the situation better, an exasperated Beto O’Rourke erupted: “What do you think? You know the s--- he has been saying. He’s been calling Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals. Members of the press, what the f---?”

The Sanders campaign was responding to stories about polling, not a mass shooting that left 22 dead, and there was measured frustration, but no profanity, on the call. All the same, Weaver took the opportunity to knock prominent news outlets — by name.

“MSNBC repeatedly puts polling statistics on the air that are not accurate,” he said, asserting also that CNN ran an unfair story about Sanders’ appeal slowing. Negativity at the Washington Post, he added, “is legion.” 

The campaign is rolling out evidence to support an alternative narrative. “The polling data clearly shows that Bernie’s campaign is doing very well in a solid second place and has momentum and has made up ground especially after the second debate,” pollster Ben Tulchin insisted. “There is a lot of data to verify that, as opposed to cherry-picking a couple polls that don’t have Bernie doing as well, which are outliers.”

The campaign believes Sanders won the last debate and has gained the most momentum afterward. In a memo circulated among reporters, officials point to a FiveThirtyEight analysis showing the bump and to the RealClearPolitics average, which has Sanders gaining 2 percentage points after the Detroit contest.

“The FiveThirtyEight’s analysis was bolstered by 11 out of 13 publicly released national polls conducted since August 1st that show Sanders in second place to Biden,” Tulchin wrote in the memo.

The self-professed Democratic socialist might not approve of his current coverage, but other observers see a different set of facts.

“We've been tracking press coverage all primary long and Sanders has consistently been at or near the top of the field in terms of the volume of news coverage he's received,” Nate Silver, the editor-in-chief of FiveThirtyEight*, responded on Twitter before the press call was over. 

It isn’t unusual for campaign flacks* and reporters to go back and forth over coverage. Increasingly, though, that bickering now happens out in the open.

President Trump made attacking the press a hallmark of his campaign, and continues to do so. Democratic candidates are a long way off from matching his animus. However, at a moment when trust in the media has plummeted -- a July survey by Pew Research found that six in 10 Americans think the media intentionally ignores stories that are important -- they may soon find it beneficial to follow suit.

Related Topics: The Media, Election 2020

WHAT IS A “FLACK?” ACCORDING TO MERRIAM-WEBSTER, IT IS A PUBLICITY AGENT.

ABOUT FiveThirtyEight*

For TYT versus FiveThirtyEight commentary, SEE THIS TYT PODCAST:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U86DBPoIqus&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ&index=22.

FiveThirtyEight’s NATE SILVER HAS ATTACKED SANDERS SEVERAL TIMES SINCE THIS YEAR’S CAMPAIGN BEGAN THAT I PERSONALLY HAVE READ, BY THE METHOD OF , HINTING THAT “PEOPLE” “BELIEVE” HE CAN’T WIN, AND GENERALLY “THROWING SHADE” ON SANDERS IN HIS PERSONAL COMMENTS. THE GROUP IS DEFINITELY NOT AS UNBIASED AS THEY ARE REPUTED TO BE. THAT HAS BEEN THE FORM OF MOST PRESS ATTACKS ON SANDERS THAT I HAVE SEEN AS WELL, HIDING IN THE COVER OF A NON-BIASED SOURCE WHILE TRYING TO DESTROY A CANDIDATE’S CONFIDENCE AND THAT OF HIS FOLLOWERS. SO I THINK FIVETHIRTYEIGHT’S COMMENTARY SHOULD BE DOUBTED OR AT ANY RATE FACT-CHECKED ITEM BY ITEM. FIVETHIRTYEIGHT HAS RECENTLY BEEN IN AN OPEN CONFLICT WITH CENK UYGUR’S TYT ON THEIR ACCURACY AND PRESENTATION, AND I REALLY LIKE CENK.

SOME UNDOUBTEDLY THINK THAT TYT ARE RADICAL IN WHAT THEY SAY, BUT TO ME THEY ARE SIMPLY VERY GOOD AT HOW THEY PRESENT THEIR ADMITTEDLY PROGRESSIVE VIEWS. THE SAME, I BELIEVE, IS TRUE OF RACHEL MADDOW OF TRMS. AN ACQUAINTANCE OF MINE, WHO WON’T DISCUSS WHO SHE VOTED FOR IN 2016, CALLED MADDOW “ABRASIVE.” RIGHT. I LIKE MADDOW MORE THAN MOST, BECAUSE SHE CUTS THROUGH THE ANTI-HUMANITY TREND OF THE CURRENT GROUP OF RIGHT-LEANING PEOPLE IN BOTH PARTIES, WITH HER DRAMATIC HALF COMIC AND HALF DEADLY SERIOUS TALKS ON THE NEWS. 

SHE HAS NOT SPOKEN IN EITHER DIRECTION ABOUT THE ISSUE OF DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM, THAT I HAVE HEARD ANYWAY, AND SHE HAS HAD SANDERS ON HER SHOW SEVERAL TIMES. THE MSNBC NETWORK ITSELF HAS BEEN CRITICIZED FROM THE LEFT FOR BEING BIASED AGAINST SANDERS, BUT I DON’T BELIEVE THAT SHE HERSELF IS IN THAT CATEGORY.

THERE ARE SEVERAL OPINION-BASED POWER MOVEMENTS THAT ARE RELATED TO, BUT DO NOT ENTIRELY FOLLOW, THE TWO MAIN POLITICAL PARTIES, DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS; BOTH, OF COURSE, ARE VYING FOR POSITION, AND TO THEM IT IS NO GAME OR GOOD NATURED COMPETITION, BUT A WAR -- WITHOUT BLOODSHED SO FAR. THAT  GROUP HAVE BEEN PRESENT IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY FOR YEARS, FOR THE OLD DIXIECRAT RACIAL BIGOTS BEGAN THERE. 

WHEN THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS OF THE LATE 1960S WERE PASSED MAINLY BY LIBERAL DEMOCRATS, THEY TOOK THEIR MARBLES AND WENT HOME – TO THE OPEN ARMS OF THE FORMERLY MORE LIBERAL REPUBLICANS; SO THE USE OF RACIST “DOG WHISTLES” ARE NOT NEW. THEY’RE JUST BACK OUT IN THE OPEN AGAIN. NOW, THE TWO GROUPS USUALLY CALL THEMSELVES CONSERVATIVE AND LIBERALS, BUT THEY INCLUDE A FRINGE AREA AS WELL ON BOTH SIDES. I CONSIDER THE ANTIFA MOVEMENT TO BE TOO FAR LEFT FOR A SAFE SOCIETY. VIOLENCE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO ME EXCEPT IN TRUE SELF-DEFENSE, WHICH IS A RARE SITUATION. THEN ON THE FAR LEFT ARE THE HARD-CORE COMMUNISTS, WHOM I NEVER HEAR MENTIONED IN THE NEWS ANYMORE, THOUGH I DID AS A CHILD.

SANDERS IS NOT ON THAT FRINGE, BUT IS RATHER DEMOCRATIC AND PROGRESSIVE, A TRUE FDR DEMOCRAT. FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY TO FORSAKE THOSE HUMANE IDEALS IS TO BECOME A SHELL WITH NO GUTS OR HONOR. THEY ARE ALMOST JUST A NAME, THESE DAYS, AND THAT IS WHY SO MANY OF US WENT FOR SANDERS. HE SPEAKS THE RIGHT WORDS, DOES THE RIGHT DEEDS, AND HAS THE RIGHT EMOTIONS AND BELIEFS. 

TO FIND WHO IS TRULY DANGEROUS, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT ANYONE WHO WANTS TO FOLLOW THIS UP SHOULD GO TO THE WEBSITE OF THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER RATHER THAN BELIEVING WHAT FOX NEWS SAYS. THE FBI MAY ALSO KEEP LISTINGS WHICH CAN BE VIEWED BY THE PUBLIC. READING THE SPLC LIST OF DANGEROUSLY FANATIC GROUPS IS AN EYE-OPENER.

ON THE RIGHT, IT INCLUDES WHITE SUPREMACISTS AND TRULY “ANTI-GOVERNMENT” PEOPLE, I.E. MILITIAS, ANTI-ABORTION BOMB-THROWERS, AND OTHER “NUT JOBS;” ON SUSPECTED COMMUNISTS, I REMEMBER THE “RED SCARE,” AND THE TRIAL AND EXECUTION OF THE JEWISH COUPLE WHO WERE RUSSIAN SPIES, THE ROSENBERGS. I REMEMBER FEELING SORRY FOR THEM. I DIDN’T THEN AND DON’T NOW BELIEVE THAT POLITICAL BELIEF OR EVEN ACTIVE SPYING, UNLESS A LIFE HAS BEEN LOST AS A RESULT OF IT, SHOULD BE PUNISHABLE BY DEATH. THE COMMUNIST PARTY IS A LEGAL ENTITY IN THE USA TODAY, AS IT SHOULD BE IF ALL MANNER OF FASCISTS ARE ALLOWED TO BE. 

ON THE LEFT, OR LEANING THAT WAY, THERE ARE ALSO SOME RACIALLY BASED GROUPS LIKE THE NEW BLACK LIVES MATTER PROTESTORS. I HAVE READ THEIR "ABOUT" STATEMENT ON THEIR WEBSITE, AND I DON’T BELIEVE THEY ARE TOO RADICAL, PERSONALLY, BUT THEY ARE PRETTY AGGRESSIVE IN THEIR ACTIONS. OF COURSE THESE ARE AGGRESSIVE TIMES. IF THERE SHOULD COME A TIME WHEN STREET WARFARE IS A PHYSICAL REALITY, THEN THERE ARE THE BLACK BLOC FIGHTERS CALLED “ANTIFA,” WHO ARE ACTUALLY I BELIEVE MILITANT LEFTISTS. AT ANY RATE, THEY GO AFTER THE WHITE SUPREMECIST AND FASCIST GROUPS (THE “FA” IN THE NAME REFERS TO THAT). FOR A GOOD ARTICLE ON BLACK BLOC FIGHTERS, SEE: https://www.occupy.com/article/unmasking-black-bloc-who-they-are-what-they-do-how-they-work#sthash.2NTCfext.dpbs]

ALL OF THIS REMINDS ME OF THE WARRING PARTIES IN THE BROTHER CAEDFAEL MYSTERY NOVELS SET IN THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES OR DARK AGES (EMPRESS MATILDA). BUT THE REAL WAR THAT WE ARE ALL FIGHTING IS THAT OF THE ECONOMICALLY AND POLITICALLY POWERFUL AGAINST THE LESS PRIVILEGED PARTS OF THE POPULATION, WITH THE ETHNICITY ISSUES BEING USED AS A STIMULUS TO KILL, IN MY OPINION. COVER UP OR NOT, THAT’S WHERE THE REAL BLOODSHED HAS BEEN SO FAR, PREDICTABLY, BUT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT IT WON'T BE THAT WAY FOREVER. I WANT TO SEE TRUMP OUT OF OFFICE AND LONG-NEEDED REFORM IN ELECTION LAW IN PLACE. HOW FAR CAN WE DEGENERATE AS A SOCIETY IF WE LET OURSELVES?

[NOTE: WHO IS EMPRESS MATILDA? SEE  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empress_Matilda --
 “... c. 7 February 1102 – 10 September 1167), also known as the Empress Maude,^{[nb 1]} was one of the claimants to the English throne during the civil war known as the Anarchy....]

OF COURSE, ALL POLITICS ARE, AFTER ALL, A LEGALLY BASED AND SUPPOSEDLY CONTROLLED WAR BEING WAGED OVER THE FORM AND NATURE OF EVERY DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL STRUCTURE, STARTING AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. THE GOAL OF ELECTIONS IS TO KEEP IT FROM BECOMING LETHAL. IN COMPLETELY AUTHORITARIAN NATIONS, SUCH THINGS DON’T MATTER AT ALL, OF COURSE. SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST RULES THERE, AS DEFINED BY THE INDIVIDUAL HEADS OF STATE. THAT IS WHAT IS SO INTERESTING AND IMPORTANT ABOUT POLITICS, AND WHY I DO CARE ABOUT THIS SUBJECT TO THE DEGREE THAT I DO. 

IT ISN’T BECAUSE I HAVE A HORRIBLE PERSONAL ATTITUDE. PERHAPS I DO, BUT THAT ISN’T WHY I DO LEAN TO THE LEFT NOW. THE “MIDDLE” HAS NOT WORKED FOR MY GROUP (WHITE WORKING CLASS) SINCE THE 1980’S IN MY WAY OF LOOKING AT THINGS, NOR FOR THE USA AS A WHOLE; AND AFTER HAVING BELIEVED STRONGLY IN THE IDEALS OF MY HOMELAND ALL MY LIFE, I AM NOW BOTH AFRAID AND SIMPLY ANGRY ABOUT WHERE WE WILL GO AS A CULTURE AND A NATION FROM HERE. 

WHAT BERNIE SANDERS AND SOME OTHERS ARE DOING IS TRYING TO RESTORE SOME OF WHAT WE HAD DURING THE BOOM AFTER WWII, AND OF COURSE SET UP A BETTER SOCIAL SAFETY NET THAT WILL BENEFIT ALL WHO HAVE NEED OF HELP, WHILE MORE CLOSELY APPROACHING A STATE OF ECONOMIC PARITY ACROSS THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE. I CONSIDER THAT TO BE WORTH TRYING TO ACHIEVE, AND I DON’T CONSIDER MAKING THE EFFORT TO BE “FOOLISH.” IT’S HEROIC, IN MY VIEW.

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS ABOUT A PROGRESSIVE PAC BEGUN BY CENK UYGUR (TYT) TO PRODUCE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_PAC 

Wolf PAC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wolf PAC is an American nonpartisan political action committee formed in 2011 with the goal of adding an amendment to the United States Constitution to ensure balance, integrity, and transparency to our national system of campaign finance.^[2]

Wolf-PAC argues that Congress is too corrupted by big money and special interests to adequately address campaign finance reform, citing sources ranging from personal experience to a well known Princeton study.^[3][4] The organization works nationwide with state legislators using the state initiated convention procedure in Article V of the Constitution to propose an amendment to fix the influence that big money and special interests have over our government. Wolf-PAC asserts that applying for a convention will either directly result in the desired amendment or pressure Congress to act.

Overview[edit]

Wolf-PAC was founded in October, 2011 in response to the idea that big money interests had bought influence over American politics at the Federal level and that this corrupt system had been entrenched by Supreme Court cases dating back decades that ruled many bipartisan campaign finance laws unconstitutional.^[5] The name was intended to be a strong response to the aggressive tactics of the special interests the group was fighting against, as explained by Wolf-PAC founder Cenk Uygur, “from now on, they’re not coming for us, we’re coming for them.”^[6]

Wolf-PAC introduced its first Convention call in Texas in 2013^[7] and passed its first call in Vermont in 2014.^[8] As of 2019, five states have passed Wolf-PAC’s call for a convention to propose an amendment to reform the U.S. campaign finance system, and 24 more introduced the resolution for consideration in 2019.^[9] Wolf-PAC boasts an active chapter in every state in the U.S. and has a membership that includes more than 50,000 volunteer sign ups. These volunteers rely on the guidance of just four (4) full-time staffers funded overwhelmingly by small-dollar donors.^[10]

Early History[edit]

Supreme Court Cases[edit]

The catalyst behind much of the modern campaign finance reform effort is Citizens United v. FEC, which overturned the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2003, commonly known as McCain-Feingold.^[11] Uygur, though, says he was motivated principally by the major precedents that lead to Citizens United, like Buckley v. Valeo (1976), which equated campaign spending with free speech and First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978), which allowed independent expenditures by corporations to influence elections.^[12] Wolf-PAC has also cited subsequent cases as further demonstrating the need for a Constitutional Amendment, such American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock (2012), which overthrew a century of effective campaign finance law in Montana, and McCutcheon v. FEC (2015) which overthrew the cap on aggregate individual donations.^[13]

Research into the Article V Convention Process[edit]

The inspiration for Wolf-PAC’s plan comes from previous efforts to call for a limited Article V convention that ultimately pressured Congress to propose an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution themselves. The group frequently cites the Bill of Rights, which was proposed after New York and Virginia called for a convention^[14] and the Seventeenth Amendment, which was proposed after 29 states called for a convention for direct election of senators.^[15] The Congressional Research Service refers to this as the “prodding effect.”^[16]

In addition to three contemporary Congressional Research Service reports, Wolf-PAC also heavily relies on primary source reports from the Department of Justice and American Bar Association.^[17] These studies readily examined the Article V process as applied to the states, and found multiple, well-maintained safety nets to assure an amendment called by convention could stay focused and effective.^{[18][19][20][21][22]}

Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard Professor and Constitutional Law Scholar, provided his expertise on the amendment process in the founding of Wolf-PAC.^[23]

Launch of Wolf-PAC[edit]

Uygur announced the formation and launch of Wolf-PAC on October 19, 2011 in New York City’s Zuccotti Park in the midst of the Occupy Wall Street movement.^[24] He expressed that the frustration motivating the liberal Wall Street protest mirrored that which motivated the formation of the conservative Tea Party, saying “I think the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street have a lot of similarities. You know, on the fringes, and when you get to the issues they may have a lot of disagreements. I believe this on health care and I believe that on health care. But the core of both movements is, we’re tired of our corrupt government.”^[25] Through Wolf-PAC, Uygur hoped to address the root-cause of this mutual anger: an errant campaign finance system.

Early Organization[edit]

Following the announcement of its founding, the foundations for Wolf-PAC including its website and its messaging were laid out by a handful of extremely committed volunteers.^[26]Among the first volunteers of Wolf-PAC was current National Director, Michael Monetta, who signed up within hours of the announced launch. The first National Director, Christopher Campbell, was hired shortly after the official announcement.^[27]

By 2013, a handful of States introduced resolutions for an Article V Convention to restore free and fair elections without being asked by Wolf-PAC, including Minnesota^[28], Massachusetts^[29], and California^[30].^[31] Representative Burnam of Texas was the first to introduce Wolf-PAC’s Free and Fair Elections resolution on February 21, 2013. That resolution included a “daisy chain,” listing other convention calls on the same subject matter in order to ensure there could be no question about which ones were intended to count as part of the same application.^[32]

Passed Resolutions[edit]

Map showing states which have called for an Article V convention as advocated by Wolf PAC.

As a national group, Wolf PAC is working in all 50 states and reports over 20,000 volunteers.^[33][34] Note that it is not uncommon for an introduced resolution to be left to a committee where it dies after the legislative session of that state ends without any voting or sufficient votes to move the motion forward (a death in committee). Such resolutions can simply be reintroduced in current legislative sessions until a vote is called. Only when bill(s) have passed in both legislative chambers would the state be listed as calling a limited convention of the states.

SANDERS AND BIDEN ARE POLLING SO CLOSE TOGETHER THAT THESE UPS AND DOWNS WILL HAPPEN. STILL, IT IS A HAPPY SIGN OF PROGRESS ON BERNIE'S PART. 

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign-polls/457235-sanders-overtakes-biden-in-new-hampshire-poll

Sanders overtakes Biden in New Hampshire poll

BY ZACK BUDRYK - 08/13/19 11:37 AM EDT

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) leads the Democratic presidential field in New Hampshire with 21 percent in a Gravis Marketing poll released Tuesday.

Sanders is followed by former Vice President Joe Biden with 15 percent and by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) at 12 percent.

The poll stands in contrast from the most recent polls in New Hampshire compiled by RealClearPolitics, which have showed Biden leading in the critical primary state, followed by Sanders.

Gravis Marketing polled 250 Democratic primary voters on Aug. 2-6 using interactive voice responses and an online panel of cell phone users. The primary question had a margin of error of 6.2 percentage points.

“It is important to note that Sen. Sanders won the New Hampshire Democratic Primary in 2016,” Doug Kaplan, president of Gravis Marketing, said in a statement.

“However, it is unlikely that Sen. Sanders will have a repeat of his 2016 performance in the state due to the number of candidates in the race this time.”

The Gravis poll found South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) rounding out the top five, with 8 percent and 7 percent, respectively. 

The poll also found President Trump losing to every candidate in the top five in the Granite State in a hypothetical match-up among registered voters, with Biden beating him 53 percent to 40 percent and Sanders beating him 51 percent to 41 percent.

Warren, meanwhile, leads Trump 49 percent to 44 percent, while Buttigieg beats him 49 percent to 42 percent and Harris leads him 47 percent to 44 percent. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton beat Trump by fewer than 0.5 points in the 2016 presidential election.

The poll for the general questions on Trump was conducted through a random survey of 505 individuals in New Hampshire and has a margin of error of 4.4 percentage points. 

I HAVE OFTEN WONDERED WHY SOME BLACK PEOPLE WHOM I HAVE KNOWN WELL ENOUGH TO ASK DON’T HAVE BANK ACCOUNTS, AND THE IMPORTANCE BERNIE SANDERS MADE BETWEEN THE POST OFFICES AROUND THE COUNTRY HAVING BANKING SERVICES FOR THOSE WHO WANT THEM. NOW I KNOW. ONE MORE THING I WASN’T TAUGHT IN SCHOOL.

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/457213-study-african-americans-underserved-overcharged-by-us-banks

Study: African Americans underserved, overcharged by US banks

BY ZACK BUDRYK - 08/13/19 09:29 AM EDT

The relative rarity of banks in nonwhite neighborhoods is exacerbating the racial wealth gap by leaving African Americans more reliant on expensive financial services such as payday lending institutions, according to Reuters, citing research by McKinsey & Co.

The study found that majority-white counties have an average of 41 financial institutions per 100,000 people, compared to 27 in nonwhite majority neighborhoods.

It also found banks in majority-black neighborhoods tend to require a higher minimum account balance, with an average minimum of $871 in black neighborhoods compared to $626 in white neighborhoods.

“Black families are being underserved and overcharged by institutions that can provide the best channels for saving,” McKinsey partners Shelley Stewart and Jason Wright wrote in the report.

Racial wealth disparities have widened in recent decades, according to Reuters. In 2016, the average white family had a net worth of $171,000, more than 10 times the median net worth of $17,600 among black families.

Closing the gap would bring a spike in investments and consumption that could increase gross domestic product as much as 6 percent by 2028, according to McKinsey.

The wealth gap has become an issue in the presidential race as well, with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) publishing a plan to give $7 billion to minority entrepreneurs and expand the Community Reinvestment Act.

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), meanwhile, issued a plan in July to invest $100 billion in black homeownership.

“We must right the wrong and, after generations of discrimination, give black families a real shot at homeownership, historically one of the most powerful drivers of wealth,” Harris said at the Essence Festival in New Orleans.

TAGS ELIZABETH WARREN KAMALA HARRIS 

DOING THIS ISN’T AS HARD AS IT MAY SOUND. I REMEMBER ONE YEAR SOME TWENTY YEARS AGO WHEN MY BROTHER-IN-LAW DECIDED TO PLANT CHRISTMAS TREES. HE HAD PROCURED THE TREES, FREE OF CHARGE AS I REMEMBER IT, FROM THE COUNTY. THEIR GOAL WAS TO PRODUCE MORE FOREST AREA FOR HABITAT, I’M SURE. WE MANAGED TO BRING TOGETHER FIVE OR SIX PEOPLE TO PLANT TREES. STEVE DUG THE HOLES, DUMPING THE SOIL BESIDE THEM, AND WE CAME ALONG INSERTING THEM, COVERING THE ROOTS AND ADDING WATER FROM A PLASTIC PITCHER. IT ONLY TOOK A FEW HOURS WITH SO MANY HANDS TO GET THE JOB DONE.

HE NEVER GOT AROUND TO HARVESTING THE TREES, BUT THEY VERY QUICKLY, COMPARATIVELY SPEAKING, BECAME 6, 8, 10 FEET TALL, FULFILLING THE ECOLOGICAL GOAL. I WALKED IN THERE SOMETIMES, AND SAVORED THE COOL QUIET SPACE. ONCE I SAW A GROUP OF THREE DEER. THEY SAW ME AT THE SAME TIME I SAW THEM, AND WE BOTH INSTANTLY FROZE, STARING AT EACH OTHER. I DID THE SAME FOR SEVERAL MINUTES, UNTIL FINALLY I LOOKED AWAY FOR NO MORE THAN TWO OR THREE SECONDS. WHEN I LOOKED BACK, THEY HAD ALL MANAGED TO HIDE THEMSELVES, AGAIN WITHOUT A SOUND. THAT WAS A BEAUTIFUL MOMENT IN MY LIFE. I STILL REMEMBER IT. SO, IF YOU OWN ONE ACRE OF LAND, GO OUT AND BUY AT LEAST A FEW TREES. THEY’LL PROVIDE A COOL SPOT TO SIT UNDER IN THE SUMMER AND RELEASE VALUABLE OXYGEN WHILE BREATHING IN THAT PERNICIOUS CO2. BIRDS AND SQUIRRELS MAY COME TO VISIT YOU WHILE YOU’RE THERE AS WELL, SO BRING SOME PEANUTS OR BIRDSEED.

TO READ THE ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC STUDY OR MAKE CONTACT WITH SOMEONE ABOUT DOING THIS, GO TO https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6448/76/tab-pdf. 

https://news.yahoo.com/study-climate-change-can-be-reversed-by-planting-a-forest-nearly-double-the-size-of-the-us-180000751.html 

Study: Climate change can be reversed by planting a forest nearly double the size of the U.S.

David Knowles

Editor       

Yahoo News•July 4, 2019

VIDEO – CALIFORNIA FARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE  1:47

FOR PHOTOS AND OTHER IMAGES, GO TO YAHOO WEBSITE.

A new study suggests that human beings could save themselves from the worst ravages of climate change by planting a forest nearly double the size of the United States.

Compiled by the Crowther Lab at ETH University in Zurich, and published Thursday in the journal Science, the study is the first undertaken to map the areas where trees can flourish despite rising temperatures, and calculate how much carbon they could store through photosynthesis. It concludes that a global reforestation effort on up to 6.9 million square miles of land not currently utilized could produce forests capable of storing about 205 tonnes of carbon, which is roughly two-thirds of the excess carbon human beings have added to the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution.

PHOTOGRAPH -- A new study finds that planting upward of 1.3 trillion trees could turn back global warming. (Photo: Getty Images)

More

“We’ve modeled, with very high accuracy, where trees can exist on the planet,” Thomas Crowther, the study’s senior author, told Yahoo News. “Essentially, by making that map, we can then get an understanding of where, under today’s climate, trees can exist.”

PHOTOGRAPH -- Aerial view of summer trees in a forest in Finland. (Photo: Getty Images)

More

Because global temperatures have risen by nearly 1.8°F since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, dense equatorial forests have become less optimal for growing trees, Crowther said, while areas once too cold for tree growth have become viable. The problem is that new forests don’t naturally spring up fast enough to compensate for the habitat lost to climate change. With an eye toward speeding the process along, Crowther’s study identifies the available land where trees can now flourish. In the United States, for instance, new forest could be planted over approximately 400,000 square miles. The catch, however, is that even if a massive effort were undertaken immediately, it would take between 40 and 100 years to realize peak carbon intake.

“It’s certainly not an immediate-fix situation, but it is, by far, the biggest solution that we’ve got,” Crowther said. “There’s no other technology that would be faster.”

The world’s leading climate scientists have warned that at the current pace of warming due to greenhouse gases, humanity has just 12 years to roll back carbon dioxide emissions if there is any hope of keeping global temperatures from rising above 2.7°F. That marker, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned in its October report, would drastically raise the risk of drought, catastrophic flooding and death by heat exposure.

The Crowther Lab study also warns that on our current trajectory, the global tree canopy cover could shrink by approximately 550 million acres by 2050, with most of those losses occurring in the tropics.

PHOTOGRAPH -- Icebergs are melting due to global warming. (Photo: Getty Images)

More

Noting that carbon emissions reached an all-time high in 2018, Crowther stresses that the time it takes forests to grow makes it imperative that people not only immediately embark on a global reforestation project, but also cut back on carbon emissions. In May, the Scripps Institution of Oceanography measured atmospheric concentrations of CO2 at a record 415 parts per million, far above levels measured in ice core readings dating back 800,000 years. If mankind continues to pump carbon into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels at its current rate, that number is sure to grow, causing temperatures to rise along with it.

While technologists often posit that humans will come up with carbon capture inventions that will ultimately save mankind, Crowther said the solution is already here.

“There’s about 800 gigatons of carbon in the atmosphere. Before humans were around, it would have been about 500,” he said. “Restoration would take it down to about 600 gigatons, so that would be sort of taking the current 400 ppm of CO2 down to almost 300 ppm, which is right about where we were at the start of the Industrial Revolution, so it’s a pretty big chunk.”

Crowther is hardly the first person to propose reforestation as the solution to climate change. Numerous countries have undertaken efforts to encourage citizens to either plant new forests or replant those that mankind has degraded in order to lower the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. Yet programs like the one that launched in China in the late 1990s backfired when local residents seeking subsidies turned croplands into monoculture tree plantations that, when they failed or were cut down, ended up increasing carbon emissions.

“There are examples from all across China and the Northern Hemisphere where trees have been restored in the wrong ecosystems, and it can be devastating,” Crowther said. “The blanket argument that ‘trees are good,’’ well, it can’t be that. It has to be ‘trees are good when they’re restored in the right ecosystem.’”

PHOTOGRAPH -- Smokestacks at a coal-burning power plant. (Photo: Getty Images)

More

To help people understand what they can plant and where, Crowther Labs has set up a web page in conjunction with its study that maps the entire globe and provides information on the native trees that thrive in a given location, as well as the soil pH and so on.

“We’d like the public to get involved by either planting trees themselves or donating to restoration organizations,” Crowther said.

If Crowther’s proposal sounds wildly optimistic, consider the example of Brazilian photojournalist Sebastião Ribeiro Salgado, who, along with his wife, took it upon himself to oversee the replanting of 2.7 million trees on deforested land in his home country. After founding the Instituto Terra in 1998, Salgado was able to restore the barren, degraded landscape to its natural state.

There’s also Felix Finkbeiner, who at the age of 9 set off on a campaign to plant 1 million trees in Germany to combat climate change. Three years later, with help from other students, he achieved his goal and founded Plant-for-the-Planet, a group that now aims to plant 1 trillion trees globally.

For Crowther, it’s those kinds of efforts that give him hope. While his study has estimated that it may ultimately require planting upward of 1.3 trillion new trees before the carbon in the atmosphere begins to significantly dissipate, it is one of the few scientific papers on climate change in recent years that can be cast as hopeful.

“I hope it will inspire a lot more engagement by the general public to go, ‘Oh, my God, there’s something we can do to affect climate change,’” he said. 

I THINK THIS ARTICLE FROM THEWEEK.COM IS PROBABLY AN OBLIQUE ANSWER TO THE SANDERS/WASHINGTON POST CONFLICT OF THE MOMENT. SANDERS SAYS THEY ARE TREATING HIM BADLY, AS THEY CLEARLY HAVE BEEN, AND THAT THEY ARE DOING IT BECAUSE HE CROSSED HORNS WITH AMAZON’ JEFF BEZOS, WHICH I DON’T DOUBT FOR A MOMENT. IT ALMOST SOUNDS AS THOUGH JOE RAEDLE WANTED TO HELP BERNIE OUT WITH AN “HONEST POSITIVE,” WHICH CAN NEVER GO AMISS. I THINK I’LL GO TO THIS WEEKLY MAGAZINE MORE OFTEN TO SEE WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY.

“PUNDIT BRAIN” VERSUS COMMON SENSE IN A TIME OF GREAT NEED -- SEE THE LAST PARAGRAPH. I REALLY LIKE THAT REFERENCE TO “PUNDIT BRAIN.” AS READERS MAY HAVE GUESSED ALREADY, I AM NOT EVEN VAGUELY TRYING TO BE “FAIR AND BALANCED” IN MY SELECTIONS, THOUGH I DO TRY TO MAKE SENSE IN MY WRITING, SO 90% OF MY ARTICLES ARE ABOUT BERNIE SANDERS OR OTHER SEEMINGLY GOOD PROGRESSIVES – NOW THAT POOR BERNIE SACRIFICED HIMSELF TO MAKE THE CASE, THAT IS. IT’S EASIER FOR THEM TO DO THAT, NOW THAT HE TOOK THE HEAT, AND IT GIVES REPUBLICANS SOME GOOD LINES TO MAKE THEMSELVES SEEM MORE ATTRACTIVE AS WELL.

THIS “NEWSMAKER” FROM A WEEKLY NEWS MAGAZINE, JOE RAEDLE, STATES BELOW THAT HE IS A LIBERTARIAN, A MIXED BAG, FROM MY MEMORY OF THEM DOWN THROUGH THE YEARS; BUT THAT IS WHAT BILL MAHER USED TO CALL HIMSELF, AND HE IS MY IDEA OF A PROGRESSIVE ON SOCIAL ISSUES, ANYWAY. ALSO, I HAVE NOTICED THAT LIBERTARIANS ARE MORE LIKELY TO SPEAK THE TRUTH SOMETIMES, WHEN THEY COULD HAVE DONE LIKE TOO MANY OTHER POLITICIANS AND JUST LIE, AND I DO LIKE THAT. BESIDES, THIS ARTICLE WHILE SHARPLY EFFECTIVE – MEANT TO WAKE THE MAINSTREAM CORPORATE DEMOCRATS OUT OF THEIR DANGEROUS STUPOR – IS VERY FUNNY IN SPOTS AND EXTREMELY COGENT ALL THE WAY THROUGH TO THE END. I AM FORWARDING IT ON TO FACEBOOK, AND MAYBE TO THE BERNIE SANDERS WEBSITES FOR THEIR ENJOYMENT.

https://theweek.com/articles/858705/bernie-sanders-beat-trump

August 14, 2019

Illustration | Alex Wong/Newsmakers, Joe Raedle/Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

When trying to guess which candidate will be strongest against Donald Trump in 2020, you would be equally well-served by a dowsing rod, Ouija board, tea leaves, or deck of tarot cards as you would by the informed judgment of cable news pundits or political reporters. Yet polls show the Democratic primary electorate, apparently still scarred by Trump's surprise win in 2016, are attempting cast their own political yarrow stalks by lining up whoever has the best chance to win next year.

Only God knows which Democratic candidate will be the strongest in 14 months' time. However, we can say one thing with as much confidence as can be mustered in this fallen world: Bernie Sanders could beat Donald Trump.

Polls are obviously rather fluid at this early stage in the election cycle, but they're also the only data we have on how candidates would stack up against Trump in a head-to-head race. They have consistently shown Sanders ahead of Trump by about 5 points (while former vice president Joe Biden is ahead by about 8 points). Sanders' approval rating has also been consistently in the mid-50s, with disapproval in the high 30s. That is far, far better than either Trump's or Hillary Clinton's numbers in 2016.

More importantly, given how he dominates media coverage, Donald Trump is quite unpopular. His disapproval rating is rock-solidly in the low 50s, and his approval rating hasn't exceeded the low 40s since the very first days of his term (only Charlottesville and the government shutdown briefly worsened his position). Given all the incredible chaos of his administration, it seems fair to conclude that attitudes are pretty well baked in — and broadly speaking, the American people are not fans of Trump.

It's also important to remember that the eventual Democratic nominee does not need any Trump voters to win. Indeed, Trump got a smaller fraction of the vote than Mitt Romney did in 2012 — Hillary Clinton just lost a ton of support from Obama voters in critical regions who either voted for third-party candidates or didn't vote at all in 2016. Just repeating Obama's 2012 performance would surely do the trick — indeed, even performing just slightly better than Clinton in the three key swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania (in none of which did Trump get a majority) would do it.

The point is that despite his shocking come-from-behind victory and awful carnage he has inflicted as president, Donald Trump is eminently beatable. Yet the Democratic base seems to be stuck in a terrified crouch, desperately playing amateur pundit to deny Trump a second term by any means necessary — as Biden supporters tell reporters. (Why anybody would trust pundit-style prognosticating, professional or otherwise, after that backfired disastrously in 2016 is beyond me, but that's a topic for another article.)

Now on the other hand, Sanders is certainly not a shoe-in. Trump is an incumbent president, and winning reelection is generally much easier than taking office in the first place — plus the economy is doing generally well, at least for the moment. Moreover, you never know what could come up in the course of the campaign, whether it's opposition research, some international development, or what.

But that is true of every candidate. The arrogant, fickle big-shot political press could decide that they will prove their even-handedness by blasting Elizabeth Warren's dumb DNA controversy every single day of the campaign, creating the impression she was somehow illegally cloned from the remains of Crazy Horse and driving down her popularity. FBI Director Christopher Wray could decide to abuse his position to help Trump defeat Biden for fear of criticism from the conservative rank-and-file at the agency.

The risk of a third-party splitter candidate also goes both ways. Sanders might draw a billionaire challenger like Howard Schultz who cynically tries to help Trump win to protect his tax cuts. But a centrist nominee like Biden might draw a left-wing challenger from the Green Party. Either might draw some loopy crank from the Libertarians. Indeed, that's precisely what happened to Clinton, with Jill Stein and Gary Johnson respectively.

In sum, there is no simple, guaranteed way for Democrats to win in 2020 — but it definitely could be done, by Sanders and by others. A recent poll found both Sanders and Biden equally ahead of Trump in Texas, for crying out loud.

Donald Trump is tearing hell out of this country — grossly harming both the people and the land, and soiling its most decent and honorable traditions. On Monday his administration announced it was sharply scaling back enforcement of the Endangered Species Act, and opening up a pristine Alaskan wilderness that is home to one of the biggest salmon runs on Earth to a filthy gold-mining operation. On Tuesday Ken Cuccinelli, acting director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, twisted the meaning of the famous poem "The New Colossus" emblazoned on the Statue of Liberty on its head to justify Trump's plan to slash legal immigration — where the poem very obviously celebrates America as a land for desperate refugees, Cuccinelli suggested it should be altered to include only those "who can stand on their own two feet and who will not become a public charge." (Mysteriously, he failed to include people who claim subsidies for the rich like the carried interest loophole.)

America very badly needs a president who is not just another establishment stooge in thrall to plutocrats to undo the damage of Trump and 30 years of neoliberal corrosion. Turning back the clock to 2015 is not remotely good enough. America needs a stubborn, aggressive fighter, someone who will be as determined in protecting immigrants, minorities, and the poor as Trump is in harming them. Bernie Sanders could be that president — and all available data suggests he would be basically as strong as Biden against Trump. All Democratic voters have to do is shake off the Pundit Brain and go with the candidate whose record matches the party's stated values.

THE ONLY STATEMENT I CAN MAKE HERE IS AMEN!!

LUCY WARNER