Hillary is NOT a Republican: The Minimum Wage

(Originally written March 8, 2016)
I'm quite tired of people calling Hillary a "Republican".

I'm tired of people saying that there is no difference between Trump and Hillary Clinton.  I'm tired of these same people whining when someone calls them on their idiocy and calls them... an idiot.

From Media Matters

For the record, Hillary Clinton voted right down the middle with the Democrats when she was a Senator.  According to various measures, she was either the 5th, 9th, 11th, or 32nd most progressive Senator when she was in the Senate.

She received very low ratings from the right-wing/Republican raters such as the US Chamber of Commerce and the Koch Brother's Americans for Prosperity.  In fact, in 2007, her rating from the "corporate" US Chamber of Commerce was lower than that of Bernie Sanders (which should be considered a good thing.)

And, to top it off, she and Bernie voted the same way 93% of the time when they were in the Senate together.

But, despite all of this, I just came across an article in the Huffington post (not surprising) in which the author, a man named Russ Belville, lists 25 reasons why he doesn't vote for Republicans.. and then complains that he won't vote for Hillary (assuming she is the Democratic nominee) because she fits his profile of a "Republican" and he hits her with his 25 reasons.

Hillary isn't as progressive as the author insists a Democrat should be. 

On the whole, his list is absurd.  Hillary isn't as progressive as he wants a candidate to be on these items, so he lumps her in with people who are Regressives, namely Republicans and conservatives.  It's pretty clear that Hillary is probably with the majority of the Democrats on his list of 25.  I would take this to mean that he doesn't vote for Democrats either.  Then the guy complains when Chet Panieza of the Daily Banter calls him an "idiot".

I never think of progressives as, by definition, being close minded, but after seeing so many senseless complaints about Hillary Clinton, I've had to change my mind.

The Minimum Wage

So let's look at just one of his 25 points.  Perhaps I will examine the rest later, one by one, or a few at a time.

9) I don't vote Republican because they think a $15 minimum wage is too high and at best it ought to only be $12.

Umm.... Most Republicans don't think the minimum wage should be anything close to $12.

CNBC summarizes:  One of the clearest distinctions to come out of the presidential debates so far has been around the minimum wage – specifically, the Democratic candidates' support for, and the Republican candidates' opposition to, raising the federal minimum wage.

And yet the "author" at Huffington Post thinks that not supporting raising the minimum wage as much as he thinks it should be raised is the same as being against the minimum wage, the same as being against raising it at all.

Now what do those Republicans.. real Republicans, not people that some silly "progressives" want to call "Republicans" like Hillary Clinton, want to do with the minimum wage?  (The following comments are from this link at OurFuture.)

Donald Trump says raising the minimum wage creates “a lot of problems.” (Like reducing poverty and creating jobs?) Trump supports creating two minimum wages, one for high school students and a slightly higher one for adults.In one of the debates, the moderator referenced  "Fight for $15" protests outside the debate venue and asked Donald Trump if he was sympathetic to the cause. Trump responded that he was not. He said, "…[with] wages too high, we're not going to be able to compete against the world. I hate to say it, but we have to leave it the way it is." 

Here's what Marco Rubio thought about the minimum wage before he dropped out of the Republican race: 

Marco Rubio believes a focus on the minimum wage is “a waste of time.”
“My problem with raising the minimum wage is not that I want to deny someone $10.10. I’m worried about the people whose wages are going to go down to zero because you’ve made them more expensive than a machine.” (Actually the minimum wage is so low, a boost would likely create jobs.)
But he has said “I’m not for repealing the minimum wage.”  (How charitable of him.)  He also called raising the minimum wage "a disaster."

Ted Cruz says:

"I think the minimum wage consistently hurts the most vulnerable.” (If you mean “hurt” as in “lift 5 million out of poverty.”) He has said $0 is the “real Obama minimum wage.”“If you raise the minimum wage, the inevitable effect will be, number one, young people will lose their jobs or not be able to get their first jobs.”“Unemployment among young people will go up if the minimum wage goes up as President Obama says. Unemployment among Hispanics, among African Americans, among those struggling to get their first job to climb the economic ladder, will go up.”

But Russ Belville believes that opposing a raise in the minimum wage or opposing the minimum wage period is the same as saying that the minimum wage should be raised to $12.00 (a 60% hike) instead of $15.00 (a 100% raise.)

What Democrats proposed in 2014

Most Democrats want the federal minimum wage to be raised, but not all of them are calling for it to be raised to 15 bucks.  The Fair Minimum Wage Act introduced by Democrats in the House of Representatives in 2014 proposed raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 in three steps and then indexing the minimum wage to the rate of inflation.

$10.10?  So, according to the great "progressive" Russ Belville, that must mean that most Democrats are also Republicans.  And that bill not only didn't pass, but the REAL Republicans now in control of the House of Representatives (Thanks in part to "progressives" who didn't vote in 2010 because they were "mad at Obama" for not being able to get the public option into the Affordable Care Act.) didn't even bother to pull it out of committee. 

Yes, Belville, Chet Panieza is quite right to call you an idiot.

"You Don't Think $10/hour is good enough so she gets nothing."

Here's another take on the minimum wage; unfortunately I can't immediately find the source:

Think of it this way: Some Progressives are not happy with the $10.10 minimum wage that the Dems have proposed. They think it is not enough, and that it brings no real change to the whole corporate system. (I actually agree that it is not enough and doesn't impact the basic problem of inequality and control.)  But... would you tell a woman trying to raise her kids on minimum wage that, because the proposed increase isn't good enough, you will oppose it? 

"Miss, you really deserve a raise, but your raise should be at least $15/hour and all of the workers need some part of ownership of this corporation. Because I so strongly believe that $10.10 is not enough of a raise for you, I'm going to oppose it. Both these parties suck; $10.10 sucks. So because $10.10 is such a lousy deal, you can continue to work for $7.25/hour. How does that sound?" 

Because, friend, when you say that neither party is good enough, that's exactly what you are telling that young Mom trying to raise her kids on $7.25: You don't think $10/hr is good enough, so she gets nothing. 

That is unfortunately the way many "progressives" think these days.  So we are all stuck with less.

No More #RepublicanHell !

I will Vote Blue No Matter Who...  

I will vote for whoever is the nominee of the Democratic party. 

If you hate your fellow Americans, particularly those who depend on the government in any way, then vote Republican. Or don't vote. Or vote third party. Or write in a candidate who can't win. It's all the same.  But don't try to say that you are a liberal, a progressive, or someone who cares about people as you prepare to vote to send the country back to #RepublicanHell.   

I pledge that I will not send my country back into #RepublicanHell.

Let me explain my personal reasons for this:  My husband is on SSDI, the Social Security disability program for people who were sidelined by disease or injury after spending mostly decades in the workforce.  The median age of someone on the SSDI program is about 57.  One third of people on SSDI are age 60 or older.

No Republican Hell!  Found at Playbuzz.

My husband has spinal problems that started up in 2007, and two years later, he was in a serious motor vehicle accident. He did manage to get SSDI after he was tossed out of his long-time job. What does this have to do with the question?

Well, we struggle financially. Between the injuries, the accident, the recession, and the unemployment we were pretty well cleaned out. And as we are both older and both have health problems, we don't see any turn around in terms of a nice, comfy job.. or even an uncomfortable job.  We will be counting our pennies on Social Security for the rest of our days.

In January 2015, Republicans cut SSDI by 20%.  They really did.

Now, in January 2015, the Republicans in Congress passed a "rule" (didn't need to be approved by the Prez) to cut SSDI by 20%.. I'm not going to get into how they were able to do this, but it was REPUBLICANS who did it. All of the Republicans running for President have talked about cutting benefits, raising the retirement age, etc. etc. John Kasich, the guy who seems the most moderate of the bunch, even told people they would have to "get over" cuts in their benefits. (More about that HERE.)   The Democrats running for President have talked about protecting SS and perhaps even expanding benefits, perhaps raising the cap. The difference is glaring.

But with a Republican Congress....

Now, there is always a limit to what a Democratic President can do with a Republican Congress. But in the last budget deal, the leadership of the Democrats in Congress along with the Democratic President were able to roll back those SSDI cuts. They had to make some smelly compromises in terms of ending a couple of Social Security "strategy" that allowed some people to have more money in retirement, particularly one called "file and suspend".   But my husband and 11 million other people who are unfortunate enough to have to rely on SSDI will continue to receive all expected benefits.  This means that hundreds of thousands or perhaps even millions of families will be able to keep their homes; others will not have to worry about rent or utilities any more than they do now.  

Now if we didn't have a Democratic president, there's a good chance this deal would never have been made. And if we don't have a Democratic president, no matter who, in January 2017, life will start to be less and less pleasant for many of us, not to mention that there is a good chance that the Republicans will come up with another war.

No, the Democrats are NOT perfect!

I know that the Democrats are not perfect, and everybody will be disappointed in some way with whichever one might wind up as the nominee and then President. But I will put my future in the hands of Bernie Sanders OR Hillary Clinton before I will ever put my future in the hands of ANY Republican. And anyone who refuses to vote for the Democratic candidate, no matter which, is, in my opinion, personally sentencing me and many millions of people who are not in a great financial situation to spend the rest of our days in misery and poverty in another round of Republican Hell, such as what we experienced in the mid 2000's.

If you hate your fellow Americans, don't vote or vote third party.

If you hate your fellow Americans, particularly those who depend on the government in any way, particularly those who aren't well off, students, children living in near-poverty level homes, people who are sick and disabled, the elderly, etc. etc. then vote Republican. Or don't vote. Or vote third party. Or write in a candidate who can't win. It's all the same.  But don't try to say that you are a liberal, a progressive, or someone who cares about people.

Because you don't.  If you did, you would do your darnedest to keep Republicans as far away from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as you possibly could.  And that goes for celebrities as well. 

If you care about people; if you care about environmental issues...

If you care about those people, if you care about environmental issues, if you care about reproductive rights, GLBT rights, if you care about the future of this country, vote Democratic, no matter who the candidate is. Even if you have to hold your nose, you can pat yourself on the back that you are not helping the despicable, hateful Republicans take over the very powerful controls of the Executive Branch of the government of the United States of American. You can pat yourself on the back that you aren't helping to put more and more dangerous conservatives on the Supreme Court.

Democrats are not Republicans.

Let me repeat this one more time: The Democrats are not perfect, and we all have our reasons for preferring this one or that one. But they aren't Republicans. The difference is huge. If you don't see the difference, you either aren't looking hard enough.. or you have been brainwashed.

It's that simple.

Trump: Bring back waterboarding. "He would talk a lot faster with torture."

Donald Trump feels that we need to bring back waterboarding which he considers a "minimal form of tortore". He also took a shot at the "eggheads" that wrote these laws against torture. He was on CNN about a half an hour ago talking to Wolf Blitzer about the explosions in Belgium.

He called into Wolf Blitzer's show.. (CNN may have put him on their air for ratings).

My thoughts: We can never let this loose cannon become the President. He is dangerous and scary.

Here are my notes from his conversation with Wolf Blitzer..... They may be a bit hard to follow as I was just typing as Trump was talking. Italics and emphasis mine.

Wolf: If you were Prez, what steps would you take to keep this stuff from happening here? 

Trump: Immediately strengthen our borders. Be very tough on visas and end a lot of them from certain parts of the world. This is a problem. Radical Islamic terrorism is a major problem and we have a President who won't even mention the term. Won't mention the words and he's making a terrible mistake. 

Wolf: Support a temporary ban on all Muslims coming into the US? 

Trump: We have no choice. There will be exceptions. We have a real problem and people don't know what's going on. We have a government that is impotent; a government that doesn't understand what's happening. 

Wolf: (About) NYC.. Should there be added levels of security in place right now? In baggage claims centers?  

Trump: Yes... Mayor (DeBlasio) is doing a terrible job. A disaster as a mayor. He knocked out surveillance. We had the finest surveillance of the whole radical islam situation in the (NY) police department. Amazing department. And he (deBlasio) knocked it out. 

Wolf: About this temporary ban (on Muslims coming into the country):  A lot of law enforcement say you need the cooperation of Muslims to find the radical ones. Without their cooperation, the situation would be whole lot worse. 

Trump: The low life that they got (in Belgium last Friday) was seen shopping in grocery stores. His community didn't turn him in. Maybe they are going by Sharia law. We have a real problem. We can't continue to be the stupid people. Sweden.... (Sweden now has problems.)  

We can be nice, politically correct. We are being absolute fools. There is something going on, we unless we get to the bottom of it. We have to be very vigilant, very strong., we won't have a country left. 

Brussels was such a beautiful place. Everybody talked about it. Nobody talks about it now. I talked about how bad Brussels was a few months ago, I got heat. Now they are all saying that Trump was right. Brussels is a disaster. There are areas of Brussels that the police wouldn't even go into those areas. So dangerous, so radicalized.  

Wolf: If you were Prez, how would you question (terrorist caught last week) .  

Trump: He was arrested in an area everybody knew he was there. They didn't turn him in. He may have led this attack or it was retribution. We have to change our law on waterboarding thing where they can chop off heads, and they can drown people in heavy steel cages, and we can't waterboard. So we have to change our laws.  We have to fight at least on an almost equal basis.  We have laws we have to obey in terms of torture.  They have no laws whatsoever that they have to obey.  

Wolf: Would you start torturing him right away? They say he has been talking.  

Trump: Well, he would talk a lot faster with torture. I would bet that he knew about this bombing. We have to be smart. We can't waterboard. Nothing is nice about it, but It is a minimal form of torture.  

Wolf: Waterboarding is torture .. you would go further? 

Trump: I'd go further; I'd listen to military people.  

Wolf:  Military people say they oppose torture.

Trump: I disagree. I don't believe they do. (Wolf mentions the "military code of conduct") . Trump goes on: They are told to say that politically. I think they believe in torture 100%. You talk about Patton, about Douglas MacArthur, these were real generals, I would guarantee you they would be laughing. They are spinning in their graves as they watch this stupidity go on.  

We can't ... 

Wolf: It was the CIA who was engaged in waterboarding after 9/11. The military said they did not want to have any part of the waterboarding cause it was part of their military code of conduct. That's why it was left to civilians working in the CIA with the author of justi and bush adm.   . with the authorization.. 

Trump:  It was a political decision, not a real decision, not a military decision, it was a political decision. The problem that we have, Wolf, and it's a very big problem. We are fighting by different sets of rules. They are fighting with no rules. They can blow people up in shopping centers, they can have bombs that are so vicious in the nails and glass, blinding and killing people. And we have rules and regulations we can't waterboard because it is a little bit on the tough side. We have to get smart, Wolf.  

Wolf: They say that it (waterboarding) is a violation of international law. The US has signed on to various international treaties banning torture.  

Trump: I would say that the eggheads that came up with this international law should turn on their television. I'm looking at scenes that are absolutely atrocious, bodies laying all over the floor, including young, beautiful children.. Maybe if they watch that, they will approve waterboard and other things.  

Wolf: Ted Cruz believes the US should step up going into Muslim neighborhoods in the US and looking for potential terrorists. Would you support that?  

Trump: Yes, I would support 100%.  

Wolf: How would you do it? How do you find out where Muslim neighborhoods are? 

Trump: "You do it, you do it. Let me tell you, I bet you the local police know much about what is going on than anyone would understand.. If they were given their hand, they would stop the gang problems in Chicago and various other places... They know the gang members. They know everything. The local police know plenty about the Muslims too.

But the police have been so hurt, so left out, so discouraged buy what's happening. , they lose their jobs, their pensions. We have a very soft country. In many countries, we have a very soft world. It's going to get a lot tougher, You watch. Because people can't take it. These acts, these horrible violent acts. 

Now the man who was caught I'm sure knew about this. If they were strong, and strong like I mean strong, he would have given them up before this act happened. He knew about this act. This act was an act of retribution because they got him. A lot of people are saying that. He probably knew about it. He probably planned it. He probably is sitting there with lawyers telling him (mocking voice).. You don't have to talk, don't worry about it., ,the trial will start in ten years. " 

Wolf: What do you say to the millions of patriotic Muslim Americans? People who feel that they would be discriminated against. 

Trump: "We have a problem. We have a radical Islamic terrorist problem. We have a problem like we've never had before. 

General Pershing had the problem in 1919 in the Phillipes with radical Islamic terrorism. I think you know that story. It was a gruesome story. (Snopes says the story to which Trump refers is False.)  The problem didn't exist for 48 years after. They look at us as weak, soft, stupid people.  

Trump's final comment:  I see the scene on CNN with bodies all over the floor and we are having a conversation about waterboarding.

Hillary Was a Conservative Goldwater Girl?

Come on, people, please stop with the silly "Hillary was a conservative and a racist" rhetoric. She was a teenager!

I was also a teen-aged supporter of Goldwater. We both grew up in conservative families in conservative Chicago suburbs. I remember standing on a corner in 1964 waving Goldwater signs with a few of my friends.  (I did not grow up in the same suburb in which Hillary lived.  She lived in a northwest suburb and I was living in a southwest suburb.  Hillary is also 4 years older than I am, so her experiences preceded mine.)

We both got out into the world and opened our eyes as to what was really going on out there. That's admirable. It's hard to go against the politics of your upbringing, of your family, when you are a teen-ager.  I know.

Hillary Clinton, age 11, in grade school.  From NPR.

Don't any of us get to change and grow?  

Here is my question to all of the people who keep repeating this "Hillary supported Goldwater" crap and claiming that Hillary was a racist: 

Are you saying that NOBODY you know has changed their ideas and opinions about political and social issues as they have moved through life?  Are you saying that you yourself have never changed your ideas and opinions about things as you moved out of your parents' sphere of influence and actually started making your own decisions about things?  Do you really believe that we are all stuck with whatever opinions we had when we were 13, 15, 17?

Unfortunately, I know people that I grew up with in that conservative Chicago suburb who have NOT changed their opinions on political or social issues!  I consider that much more problematic than those of us (like Hillary, like myself) who actually looked out into the world and saw something different as we passed from our middle teens to our upper teens or 20's. 

Make sure your disagreements make sense.

Look, there are legitimate reasons to disagree with Clinton, as there are legitimate reasons to disagree with Bernie Sanders. But Clinton's political leanings as a teenager are not among them. I'm stunned that this crap is STILL being passed around out there by right-wingers and by Bernie Sanders supporters.  

Where was Bernie as a young man?

Now Hillary Clinton was 16 and 17 when she was supporting Goldwater. Bernie Sanders was 31 when he was writing about women (plural) enjoying fantasies about being raped by three men.  But somehow Bernie Sanders supporters accept and excuse his rape fantasy writing (which really sounds dodgy to many feminists out there) but don't accept and excuse Hillary's support of Goldwater when she was MUCH younger and still living at home in the conservative Chicago suburbs.  Someone please explain that hypocrisy to me.

More about Hillary in high school:  

One of Hillary's high school classmates talked about how Hillary tried to make a small change while in high school in THIS article from NPR: 

"I think there were still differences," she said. "The president was always a boy and the secretary was always a girl."

A young Hillary Rodham tried to change that, her friends say — not to make some big political or feminist statement, but because she thought she could. Ebeling, her good friend, says that Rodham ran for student council president and lost.

"I was her campaign manager," she said. "So I advised her — that, probably, that one didn't turn out so well."

Hillary Clinton in the Civil Rights era:

This article at the Daily Kos "Hillary Clinton in the Civil Rights era" makes these observations:

Factless gossip that is sometimes believed though easily disproven is never good to hear. Like the gossip coming from those who say Hillary Clinton’s 1964 canvassing for Barry Goldwater shows that she is racist. (Goldwater voted no on the Civil Rights Bill.) ...

Those who still, against all reason, insist that canvassing at age 16 for the Republican her father supported in 1964 somehow made Clinton a racist, need to know who she met between the 1960 election and the 1964 election.

The article then goes on to discuss Goldwater's views on race, Hillary's attendance at a speech by Martin Luther King, and Hillary Clinton's development of ideas on race as a young girl then a young woman.  

The article is worth a read, but it did get a few things wrong: The Rodhams moved out of Chicago proper in 1950; therefore, when Hillary was canvassing for Goldwater as a 16 year old (not a 12 year old as the article states), she was NOT living in Chicago and it is doubtful she was canvassing in a CHICAGO neighborhood.  She was most likely canvassing in the conservative suburb in which she lived.

But, people.. Let's cut the crap, OK?  This stuff about Hillary being a racist and a lifelong conservative because she supported Goldwater when she was 16 and 17 is just plain bogus.

Debunking this article: "5 Reasons the Clinton-Sanders Race Is Much, Much Closer Than You Think"

Much Closer?  Not really.  Not really at all.

From the article at the Huffington Post found HERE. 

As I scrolled through my Facebook newsfeed last night, I saw many Bernie Sanders supporters sharing this article by Seth Abramson at the Huffington Post which presents five reasons that the Clinton-Sanders race is "much, much closer than you think." This article was giving quite a number of Sanders supporters quite a bit of hope.    

Unfortunately, at least some of those five reasons are quite spurious and just don't add up.  So let's take them one at a time, starting with Number 5.. Why am I starting at the end?  Because that one is based on numbers, delegate math, and it's easier (though not quicker) to rebut.

Here's number 5, and before you copy it and share it, remember that it doesn't add up: 

5. It's much earlier in the nominating process than news media coverage of the Democratic primaries would lead you to believe.

Right now Hillary has only 28.4% of the pledged delegates she needs (677 of 2,378) to win the Democratic presidential nomination. Twenty-eight states still have to vote, and nearly all of these rank among the worst twenty-eight states for Clinton from a demographic standpoint. Sanders, with 478 pledged delegates, is only 14% off his delegate target -- that is, where he'd need to be at the present moment if he were "on track" to win the Democratic nomination -- and can breathe a sigh of relief that all ten of the worst states for him demographically are behind him.

Well, that certainly is some number mumbo jumbo.  Let's take it apart one sentence at a time:  

Right now Hillary has only 28.4% of the pledged delegates she needs (677 of 2,378) to win the Democratic presidential nomination.

Hillary has 38%, not 28%, of the PLEDGED delegates she needs to get the nomination.  

First, all of my numbers are coming from Nate Silver's 538 website, particularly this article entitled "Who is on Track for the Nomination?"

The nominee, either Hillary (or Bernie), needs 2,383 (not 2378) delegates IN TOTAL to win the Democratic presidential nomination, but that total includes superdelegates.  Since we would hope that any Democratic candidate would be the choice of the majority of pledged delegates as well as superdelegates, let's just look at the numbers for pledged delegates; that is, those pledged based on the results of Democratic primaries or caucuses.  

There are 4051 pledged delegates altogether.  That means that a candidate needs 2,026 PLEDGED delegates to get a majority of PLEDGED delegates.  Right now, including the results of yesterday's caucuses in Northern Marianas, Hillary has 776 (not 677) pledged delegates.  That's 38.3% of  the number of pledged delegates that she needs to cement that nomination.  (10% more than the author at Huffington Post calculated.)  Bernie has 551 pledged delegates now.  That's 27.2% of the pledged delegates needed to get the nomination. Altogether, 1,327 pledged delegates (or about 33% of the eventual total of pledged delegates) have been apportioned as of late Saturday, March 12th. 

How many more delegates do the two candidates need?

So (again not counting superdelegates) let's see how many more delegates the two candidates would need to nab the nomination.

Twenty-eight states still have to vote, and nearly all of these rank among the worst twenty-eight states for Clinton from a demographic standpoint. 

The author at HuffPo is close when he mentions that there are 28 states still to choose delegates.  There are actually 29 more states as of now, Sunday, March 13th. There are also 3 territories plus Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia left to vote, with a total of 107 delegates in those territories yet to be pledged.  The territory of the Northern Marianas voted yesterday and will be sending 4 delegates for Hillary Clinton and 2 for Bernie Sanders. (Even on a Saturday when not much is happening, Bernie Sanders has fallen a bit farther behind.) That leaves a total of 2,724 pledged delegates yet to be determined.  (4,051 total pledged delegates minus 1,327 already pledged equals 2,724.)    

To repeat, 1,327 have already been pledged and chosen and 2,724 have yet to be pledged by primaries and caucuses.  Yes, there are about two delegates TO BE pledged for every one pledged delegate that has ALREADY been pledged.  Yep, there are a LOT of delegates still be apportioned.  But does this really mean that Bernie could realistically get enough of those remaining delegates to take this nomination from Hillary, even with supposedly pro-Bernie favorable demographics?

Again, we are not counting superdelegates.  How many more delegates (and voters) of those 2,724 yet to be pledged delegates would Bernie or Hillary need to clench the nomination?

Here's where we get into the percentages:

Bernie has 551 pledged delegates.  He needs 1,475 more pledged delegates.  Hillary has 776.  She needs 1,250 more pledged delegates  It doesn't seem like a big difference, but there are no winner-take-all primaries on the Democratic side.  He would need those "pro-Bernie favorable demographics" and a lot more to overtake her.  

Hillary needs 46% of pledged delegates to win by that proverbial fingernail.  (That's 1250 divided by 2724.) Bernie needs about 54% of outstanding yet-to-be-pledged delegates to win by a fingernail.  (That's 1475 divided by 2724.).  

That 54% may sound very doable to Bernie Sanders supporters.. but the reality is that, in national polls and in various state polls, there is really no path for Bernie to get that AVERAGE of an extra 8% of the pledged delegates. There is some evidence that Bernie did so well (and demolished the polls) in Michigan due to independents and cross-over voting.  But few of the remaining primaries are open primaries which allow people to easily choose their party as they walk into the voting place.

Even in Michigan, Bernie Sanders only won by about 1.5% with 52% of Michigan's pledged delegates.  That was not even enough to crack that important 54% window, especially while Hillary was winning Mississippi with 89% of Mississippi's pledged delegates.   (Yes, I know that there were over three times as many delegates at stake in Michigan as there were in Mississippi.)

The Ides of March
 

Almost 700 delegates are on tap to be apportioned and pledged for five states on Tuesday, March 15th.  (That means that, after March 15th, there will be about 2024 delegates yet to be pledged.)  Remember that Hillary leads in all the polls, though some of those races are close.  And we can't count on polls, of course, as we saw what happened in Michigan.

But if Hillary wins about half of the March 15th delegates, or about 350, she would still need only about 44% (about 900) of the remaining 2024.  If Bernie wins half of those March 15th delegates, or about 350, he would still need about 56% (about 1124) of the remaining 2024.  Not much difference other than Hillary would be even closer to the nomination. 

Let's take a step back and just look at the Tuesday March 15 primaries:  Could Bernie win 54% or more of the delegates in all of those states that show Hillary so far ahead in the polls?   Well, anything is possible.  People still have a few days to vote.  But that means, as he is now behind in every one of those five states, he would have to beat the average of the Tuesday polls by an AVERAGE of 26%.  Now, he beat the Michigan polls by about 22%, and that was considered astounding.  Nobody has beat the polls by that much. Well.. not really.  Clinton beat the Mississippi polls by 22%.  But what are the chances that Bernie would beat the five March 15th primaries by an AVERAGE of 26%?  I have no answer to that one.  

Sanders is really not that far behind?  Only 14% "off"?

Sanders, with 478 pledged delegates, is only 14% off his delegate target -- that is, where he'd need to be at the present moment if he were "on track" to win the Democratic nomination -- and can breathe a sigh of relief that all ten of the worst states for him demographically are behind him.

As we mentioned above, Sanders actually has 551 pledged delegates.  The author at HuffPost says that Bernie is "only" 14% OFF his targets as established by Nate Silver's 538 blog.  But he neglects to mention that Hillary is 13% ABOVE all of her targets according to the same 538 analysis!  As we have shown above, the 14% that Bernie is down is BIG.

Let's remember that, even though Bernie won Michigan, he won Michigan by a percent and a half.. about 18,000 votes in over 1.2 million cast.  And he got a lot of help from cross over voters and independents who were able to vote in Michigan's open primary.

Three More Months!

The Huffpost author finishes:  

To put things in perspective, we're still three months -- yes, a quarter of a year -- from the most important primary in the Democratic nominating season (California). In fact, June 7th is as Super a Tuesday as any other we've experienced so far, with six states going to the polls. Those six states account for more than 800 delegates in total; so more than a third of all the delegates one needs to win the Democratic nomination will be awarded three months from now.

The author AGAIN appears to be mixing pledged and unpledged delegates.  There are 694 PLEDGED delegates up for voting on June 7th.  The key difference between June 7th as a Super Tuesday and March 1st as a Super Tuesday is that (aside from the fact that there were about 900 pledged delegates up for grabs on the March 1st super Tuesday) 3357 delegates will have already been pledged by June 7th.

If Bernie Sanders is within 700 delegates of Hillary Clinton on June 7th, even if he wins ALL 700 Super June Tuesday delegates, Hillary will already have had enough pledged delegates by that time to win.  If the difference between Hillary Clinton and Bernie is anything less than 500 delegates of Hillary Clinton on June 7th and if he wins at least 86% of the pledged delegates on June 7th, he could pull it out. 

A Slight Hope..

But I will leave the Bernie people with a slight hope:  There is a very narrow path to victory for Sanders on June 7th:  If the difference between Hillary Clinton and Bernie is anything less than 300 delegates on June 7th AND if Hillary wins LESS than 200 delegates (about 28%) on Super June Tuesday, he could pull it out.  That would mean, of course, that he has matched Hillary delegate for delegate in all of the 22 primaries and caucuses still to be determined between now and June 7th.   

So Super June Tuesday will probably not be as super as the Huffpost author hopes that it will. 

A lot can happen in three months, a fact that seems impossible to dispute when you consider that, thus far, Americans have only been voting in primaries for five weeks. In five weeks, Sanders went from a curiosity sharing a stage with the likes of Lincoln Chafee and Jim Webb to a legitimate contender for the Democratic nomination who's already won nine states. So yes, this thing is close -- very close.

Bernie was always farther along than Lincoln Chafee and Jim Webb.  He's been an active Senator and he's been active on social media for a long time.  I've always admired his activity on social media and I had shared many of his memes over the past few years.. even though I saw that he played often played fast and loose with the facts and the numbers.  He also went this far with a lot of help from Republicans who would much rather face him than face Hillary Clinton.

And his supporters have helped him go this far by buying into the villainization of Hillary Clinton.  Funny, I remember Hillary Clinton as the "hippie chick" who might derail her Democratic moderate husband Bill's chances at the Presidency.  Now Bernie people try to portray her as as "corporate" and "evil" as Carly Fiorina.

Back to the numbers..

But, despite all of the playing with numbers by Bernie supporters, this thing is not close.  Not unless there is a major shift in the next two to three weeks... A major shift in which Bernie doesn't just pull even but actually pulls quite a bit ahead of Hillary in the next 5 to 10 primary states.

(As I was finalizing this, I just came across an article by Andrew Prokop at VOX which covers some of these same numbers and issues.  He provides a more detailed path to victory for Sanders here.)

83% of Ben Carson's Statements are false... or worse!

Politifact, the non-partisan fact-checking service, has rated 23 of Republican Presidential candidate Ben Carson's statements for accuracy.

Found at politifact.com

It found only one of those 23 statements to be "mostly true", 3 to be only "half true" and the other 19 to be either mostly false, false, or "pants on fire". 

Not only that, but the only "mostly true" statement involves Carson's assertion that he was offered a "full scholarship" to West Point, the veracity of which was discussed ad nauseum in hundreds of articles a few weeks back, including my article HERE at Both Parties are NOT the Same.  Politifact, however, looks at whether or not West Point offers "full scholarships", not whether or not Carson in particular was offered admission or a scholarship to West Point. So even his most truthful statement invites skepticism.

His Pants-a-fire ratings:

Politifact believes that Carson's most egregious lies include a comment on vaccines, claiming that doctors don't agree on a vaccine schedule and "have cut back on vaccines", his claim that "every signer of the Declaration of Independence had no elected federal government experience" (despite the fact that the Declaration was draft and signed by the first elected federal government in this country), and his claim that Vladimir Putin, the head of the Palestinian government, Mahmoud Abbas, and Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, all knew each other at a school in the Soviet Union in 1968.

Those and more can be found here at Politifact.

But Republicans as a whole are not known for honesty by the Politifact fact-checkers, so Carson should fit right in.  And I'm not going to get into Trump.  74% of his comments are false .. or worse.

Ben Carson and West Point: When is an Offer not an Offer?

Was it an "offer" or an "offer"?

Dozens of articles published at reputable sites and not so reputable sites have deliberated about Ben Carson's latest story over the last couple of days: Carson claimed that he was "offered a full scholarship to West Point" in his 1995 book Gifted Hands.  Most liberal and moderate sites are skewering Carson over this; some right-leaning sites are also saying he is "done". 

But several right-leaning sites, including one called the Daily Wire News, have published articles claiming that the mean old press was lying about that nice Ben Carson man. Ben Shapiro's article at the Daily Wire News is titled:

No, Ben Carson Didn't Lie About West Point. It's Another Media Hit Job.

Ben Carson from Politico

The Liberal Media Strikes Again!

The article starts with a rant about the liberal media, in this case, Politico, which I have never considered specifically  "liberal".   Politico's article about the West Point scholarship included this comment:

Ben Carson’s campaign on Friday admitted, in a response to an inquiry from POLITICO, that a central point in his inspirational personal story was fabricated: his application and acceptance into the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

(Later Politico changed the introductory paragraph to read as follows:

Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson on Friday conceded that he never applied nor was granted admission to West Point and attempted to recast his previous claims of a full scholarship to the military academy — despite numerous public and written statements to the contrary over the last few decades. West Point has occupied a central place in Carson’s personal story for years.)

Shapiro in the Daily Wire takes issue with the word "fabricated".

Here's the deal: Carson wrote in his 1995 book Gifted Hands that he was "offered a full scholarship to West Point" after meeting with General William Westmoreland and other military officials at a Memorial Day dinner when he was a ROTC leader in high school:

"I was offered a full scholarship to West Point."

What does it mean to get an "offer" from a school?

Now... What would you assume if your neighbor told you that her college-bound kid had received an offer of a full scholarship to a prestigious university?    

I know what "being offered a full scholarship" would mean to me:  I would assume that the kid filled out various forms and applications, submitted the necessary recommendations or "nominations", went through the interview process, and then eventually got an official letter of acceptance in the mail saying that he/she was being offered a slot and that he/she didn't have to pay anything.  Even back in the Stone Ages of 1968/9, you weren't accepted to a college or university until you had an acceptance letter in hand, and that letter came in the US mail. 

The procedure to get into West Point today is easily found online, and it is long and involved.  I'm sure the application process has changed somewhat since 1968 or 1969, but I am also sure that there was a formal application and acceptance process "offer" back then.  A nod from even General Westmoreland would not constitute an "offer" unless the individual applied to West Point and followed up on the process and went through the necessary vetting.  

From what I have read, all West Point appointments are completely free to those who are accepted, so there would not be a separate procedure for getting a scholarship if the school in question was West Point.

It just didn't happen!

In any event, this procedure did not happen with Carson. He went to the Memorial Day dinner after a parade when he was in high school and a ROTC leader. So far, that hasn't been debunked. But the "offer of a full scholarship to West Point"?  Either Westmoreland or some other military person at that gathering talked to Carson and told him that they could get him an appointment to West Point if he was interested.

Carson says that he doesn't remember exactly who said what to him.  It's unclear if the person who talked to Carson had the authority to "promise" him a nomination. It's highly unlikely that Carson was told that he didn't  have to go through the application process; that, if he would just show up in New York in September 1969, he would be in. He might have been told that, if he were interested, so-and-so would nominate him and help him with the process.

Apparently he decided he was not interested and later told someone (again, not sure whom) that he wasn't interested.

Now to me, that was NOT the same as "being offered a full scholarship to West Point". He never went through an application process and he never received any offer of acceptance.  He never went through any vetting process in terms of his physical condition and never submitted any test scores to West Point.  

The situation as it is now being described, the conversation at the dinner, is NOT what he alluded to in his book.

What does the "offer of a scholarship" mean to you?

I'll repeat that: To me, an "offer of a full scholarship" means that you have gone through the application process and have received an official acceptance and scholarship. Period. This is what I assumed that Carson had gone through when I first heard of the "offer of the West Point scholarship" a few months back.  However, Carson did NOT go through that application process and he did NOT receive any official acceptance; therefore, no "offer".

What if Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Bernie Sanders wrote in a book that they had been "offered" admission to a prestigious school or institution?  How would the same right-leaning press, including Ben Shapiro, respond if it turned out that some important official merely promised them that they would be admitted to that prestigious school or institution if they wished, but that they had never actually applied or been accepted?  Well, we should all know the answer to that.  They would be assaulted by the right, just as they are all assaulted by the right about anything and everything as it is.

Truth of Consequences?

Did Carson lie or did he stretch the truth? Was Politico wrong in highlighting this "serious question" about Carson?   Considering that most people reading or skimming through Carson's book would assume from its wording, as I did,  that he actually had been officially "offered" an appointment to West Point, it sounds like a lie.