The 2016 US Election (Part I)

[Crossroads Inc.]

My conclusion is that, when it comes to the Presidential election, the Right Wing has insured that it will be all but Impossible to win the Presidency, for perhaps the next 20 years, or more.
The reason for this is that, while "Nutjobs" and wackos keep winning at the local level, when it comes to the "national" level, they actually have to get support from NON-Nutjobs. And, in the current climate, the ONLY people (IMHO) who can make it through the nomination process, are the "Nutjobs"

Basically in the current climate, the only people who become the Republican nominee, will by Default, be too radical to win the Presidency itself.

Might that be a valid long-term strategy? Get as many people elected as possible, but non-blatantly avoid the Presidency. Do whatever dickery they want, deadlock Congress, etc. Piss and moan about how all the bad stuff that happens is the President's fault, because "everyone knows" that the President is ultimately responsible for everything. Force the President and the rest of Congress to compromise in their favor in order to get anything done. And quietly do as much of what they wanted to do as possible while everyone's looking at the President, so most of the blame doesn't stick to them.

Even if they don't deliberately follow that strategy, it might get them more of what they want in the long term than getting a moderate Republican President and having to deal with the fallout of their policies would.

That is an, interesting, conclusion to draw.. I highly doubt that the current GOP make up would ever consciously decided such a thing... But it does have a Sort of twisted logic to it...
The Presidency is only ONE elected position after all... And typically whoever the President is, gets blamed for ANY trouble in the country, but almost NEVER gets credit for when things are running smoothly... If you are a party bent on personal power and individual gain (GOP) then getting the Presidency doesn't actually have a lot of upsides, only downsides.
If however you have a Lock on the Congress and the Senate, you can do whatever the hell you want, regardless of who is President. You can effectively (as we have seen for 7 years) keep the President in a state of perpetual deadlock, ensuring nothing of his gets passed, or at least not without getting gutted first...

Of course it doesn't change the fact that the country as a whole IS becoming less socially conservative and more socially Liberal... But such things really do not concern these people

[Gandalf]

Ohio Gov. John Kasich continued to signal his increasing interest in running for president Sunday, saying he’s waiting for a signal from God before making the call.

“My family is a consideration,” the Republican governor said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “Number two, the most important thing is, what does the Lord want me to do with my life?”

While he awaits that clarity, Kasich said he’s been active on the trail just in case. “I’m not going to figure [it] out laying in bed, hoping lightning strikes,” he said.

The governor made waves in New Hampshire over the weekend when he told activists to hold off on committing to any candidates until he made up his mind. He’s one of five Republican governors seriously considering a bid for the GOP presidential nomination, including Wisconsin’s Scott Walker, New Jersey’s Chris Christie, Michigan’s Rick Snyder and Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal.

Kasich has been barnstorming the country to promote a federal Constitutional amendment to balance the budget, and he recently stepped up his activity in the early GOP nominating states.

Kasich for President. God wills it!

[General Mung Beans]

Kasich will basically be the Pawlenty of this cycle since Establishment Republicans tend to prefer to coalesce around one candidate (ie Jeb this cycle), although he might get a place on the VP spot if he's lucky.

[TheHammer]

My conclusion is that, when it comes to the Presidential election, the Right Wing has insured that it will be all but Impossible to win the Presidency, for perhaps the next 20 years, or more.
The reason for this is that, while "Nutjobs" and wackos keep winning at the local level, when it comes to the "national" level, they actually have to get support from NON-Nutjobs. And, in the current climate, the ONLY people (IMHO) who can make it through the nomination process, are the "Nutjobs"

Basically in the current climate, the only people who become the Republican nominee, will by Default, be too radical to win the Presidency itself.

Might that be a valid long-term strategy? Get as many people elected as possible, but non-blatantly avoid the Presidency. Do whatever dickery they want, deadlock Congress, etc. Piss and moan about how all the bad stuff that happens is the President's fault, because "everyone knows" that the President is ultimately responsible for everything. Force the President and the rest of Congress to compromise in their favor in order to get anything done. And quietly do as much of what they wanted to do as possible while everyone's looking at the President, so most of the blame doesn't stick to them.

Even if they don't deliberately follow that strategy, it might get them more of what they want in the long term than getting a moderate Republican President and having to deal with the fallout of their policies would.

That is an, interesting, conclusion to draw.. I highly doubt that the current GOP make up would ever consciously decided such a thing... But it does have a Sort of twisted logic to it...
The Presidency is only ONE elected position after all... And typically whoever the President is, gets blamed for ANY trouble in the country, but almost NEVER gets credit for when things are running smoothly... If you are a party bent on personal power and individual gain (GOP) then getting the Presidency doesn't actually have a lot of upsides, only downsides.
If however you have a Lock on the Congress and the Senate, you can do whatever the hell you want, regardless of who is President. You can effectively (as we have seen for 7 years) keep the President in a state of perpetual deadlock, ensuring nothing of his gets passed, or at least not without getting gutted first...

Of course it doesn't change the fact that the country as a whole IS becoming less socially conservative and more socially Liberal... But such things really do not concern these people

I don't agree that the President gets all the blame. Congress' popularity is in the toilet and they can only dream of the approval numbers the President has. If everyone were really blaming the president those numbers would be reversed. The reality is the blame will go to the party you didn't vote for/don't affiliate with. Among independents the more educated will see the congressional charade for what it is, the less educated will believe whatever their more intelligent friends tell them to believe. Besides, now that Obama is in full "Eff you" mode and doing things via executive order he's showing that the President can actually do quite a bit without congressional approval. Congress is then forced to do something or look utterly impotent.

[Elheru Aran]

On the other hand, Congress can, has, and will happily make much hay of the President using executive orders to circumvent it, all very visibly and loudly, regardless of which party is in office. There's plenty of dirty tricks they can pull as well-- look at how long they managed to string out Loretta Lynch's nomination to AG (which still hasn't been resolved, even).

Politics has become a game of publicity and volume as much, or far more, as getting things done. It's all about serving the interests.

[TimothyC]

Kasich will basically be the Pawlenty of this cycle since Establishment Republicans tend to prefer to coalesce around one candidate (ie Jeb this cycle), although he might get a place on the VP spot if he's lucky.

Kasich has two advantages over Jeb:

1. His last name isn't Bush
2. He's a sitting governor. Bush has been out of office for over eight years.

He also doesn't have the national negative press exposure that Governors Walker and Christy have, which should help him out.

[Elheru Aran]

Walker, especially, is getting a lot of attention for his atrocious budgeting in Wisconsin. Shit like trying to cut down the University System, gank public-sector unions even more, killing public assistance for seniors, and so forth. Christy, well... he's basically a walking PR disaster. Seems like every other day he's saying something stupid, yelling at a reporter, or something turns up like he got free vacations or big corporations slipping him money under the table to give them some perks or whatever.

For all that Walker is probably going to be a contender. I doubt he'll get very far... but he's going to get further than Christy, who's one blistering media expose away from full public humiliation.

[Mr Bean]

Really interesting story about Jeb's campaign strategy and a "first" in the sense that no one has been crazy enough to try it yet.

Super-Pac Camapign

When we speculated last fall that a campaign run by political action committees was on the horizon -- an electoral system that operates completely separately from the candidate -- it seemed a bit like political science fiction, a rise-of-the-robots future to contemplate.

Well, the robots are here.

Jeb Bush's imminent presidential campaign is expected to outsource a great deal of its campaign efforts to Right to Rise PAC, according to the Associated Press. The report, which cites several unnamed confidantes of the Bush organization, outlines how Right to Rise will function as Bush's campaign exoskeleton. It will reportedly run television spots and direct mail, and may also operate the campaign's field program -- that is, voter contact -- up to and including Bush's get-out-the-vote efforts.

There are enormous advantages to a strategy like this, and only one real -- if significant -- downside. The advantages:

The PAC can raise much more money than the candidate. Federal campaign contribution limits apply only to Bush, not Right to Rise. Donors can only give Bush $2,700, maximum per primary and general election. They can give Right to Rise as much as their little hearts desire.
The PAC can coordinate with other PACs. Right to Rise can share information and strategy with any other PAC that might want to weigh in on behalf of Bush. Let's say he gets the endorsement of the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity. Once we clear the skies of flying pigs, AFP and Right to Rise could work together to figure out where to send AFP's battalions of grass-roots volunteers or how to divvy up spending on mail. They can do this now, of course, but usually PACs are working to compliment a campaign structure, not to compose it.
Right to Rise can have Bush help fundraise. In March, the Post's Matea Gold wrote about the rise of PACs in political campaigns, noting that candidates can still appear at fundraisers for affiliated PACs, although they can't ask for more than $5,000.
It frees up Bush to spend a lot less time on the exhausting process of raising money. That said, Bush will have to spend far less time trying to raise money into his own campaign. He'll need some, of course -- he needs to travel and so on -- but far less than if he were also buying TV spots and running scores of field offices and so on.

And that one downside? Bush can't coordinate with Right to Rise. At all. Once Bush is a candidate, he and Right to Rise cannot strategize about what each is doing. Right to Rise could put out a mail piece making an argument that Bush objects to, in theory, and Bush can't prevent that from happening. Of course, it will help that, as the National Journal reports, a top Bush strategist appears to be moving over to Right to Rise.

This downside, by the way, is replete with loopholes. The boundaries of what counts as coordination are constantly being tested by campaigns and by PACs. You might remember Mitch McConnell releasing that weird footage of himself in various campaign-friendly locales; that was so PACs had B-roll footage of him for their ads. Or maybe you remember the Republican strategy to share poll numbers by posting cryptic tweets -- an effort to get around the stipulation that poll numbers not be shared between campaign organizations and PACs unless the numbers are made public.

There's also the loophole that Bush can't coordinate with Right to Rise once he's a candidate. Right now, while he's still "deciding" whether he'll run, he can talk to Right to Rise all he wants. It's only once he makes his official declaration that the (gauzy) wall goes up. So right now, Bush and the PAC could be talking about, oh, having the PAC run TV and what the messages will be and so on -- the toplines of which are exactly what the AP reported.

I have to say, the way WP explains it... it makes a great deal of sense, espcially if Jeb takes the 1950's route and has spent the time to work out a few hundred contingency plans. If he spends the time now to storyboard out lets say 30 commercials on "The economy" and forty on "heath care" and puts someone he absolutely trusts in charge of the Superpac then yes this could work and prove the new model going forward.

*Edit
In essence what Jeb is going to do is take the time and effort to plan lets say 80% of his general campaign out and let the Superpac raise a billion dollars to run that campaign. These are the positive ads for Jeb, these are the negative ads VS Hillary, these are the negative ads against Rand Paul. Put all that stuff out before the campaign kicks off so the Superpac has the plan of what's going to happen six months from now or a year. It's not like you can't spent two months and come up with enough Hillary attack ads to last a three year campaign.

Then while the Superpac is spending billionaire money to run what is essence a background campaign, the rest of his time can be sent saving money for reactions to campaign developments.

[jwl]

What about the other major downside that the FEC or whatever could decide to pull itself together and start a clampdown between now and the election?

[Mr Bean]

What about the other major downside that the FEC or whatever could decide to pull itself together and start a clampdown between now and the election?

Tradition, election laws now don't affect anything till the next election. Also any lawsuit not instantly throw out would likely hold things up for enough time for 2016 to pass... and said lawsuit would still end up before the Court that said yes to Citizens united.

[Elheru Aran]

On the lighter side of politics: A fashionista gives style tips to the candidates



Goes right along with Wacka Flocka Flame putting himself up for candidacy, doesn't it? (That actually is happening, by the way)

On a more serious note: The predictable consequences of Citizens United come home to roost

It's a bit involved, but the short version is that by waiting around to declare candidacy, people can get away with working out all the details with their various PAC's, which can then put a game plan into action after the candidate puts his name into the game and is legally forbidden from coordinating with the PACs. Jeb Bush is the most obvious guy doing this right now. I'm sure there are plenty more; the Kochs may be leaning towards Scott Walker.

[The Romulan Republic]

Word is that Bernie Sanders will announce a campaign for the Democratic Party's nomination on Thursday.

ABC News

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, is planning to announce on Thursday that he will run for president in 2016 and will enter primary and caucus contests as a Democrat, a senior Sanders adviser told ABC News.

The announcement will indicate that Sanders will launch his campaign in May, most likely in his home state of Vermont.

Sanders' entry in the race gives Democrats at least one liberal alternative to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who declared her candidacy earlier this month. Sanders will also be Clinton's first formal Democratic challenger.

Sanders is a self-described independent socialist and will enter the race as a definite long shot.

The expected announcement comes at a time of growing liberal unease over President Obama's agenda and amid angst that Clinton won't be pushed sufficiently leftward with Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, taking a pass on the race.

Sanders, 73, currently serves as the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and previously served as the chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Sanders has proudly noted he's the longest-serving independent member of Congress in U.S. history.

He's currently my top choice out of those who are definitely running. Barring any really unpleasant discovery, I look forward to voting for him in the primary, even if I expect I'll grudgingly support Clinton once she gets the nomination. Though I admit that Sanders is rather old to be running for President.

Edit: For some reason the link doesn't work if you click on it, but when I type it in and search on my computer it does work.

[The Romulan Republic]

Now its official:

Bernie Sanders immediately distanced himself from Hillary Clinton on trade, foreign policy and the environment as he announced a bid for the Democratic presidential nomination that represents her first serious challenge from the left.

In a low-key press conference outside the US Capitol building, the Vermont senator acknowledged his run for the White House was a quixotic one, but insisted he was “in this race to win” and not just raise the profile of progressive causes.

Analysis Rise of progressive policies signals Democrats' embrace of Bernie Sanders' ideals
As Hillary Clinton begins to focus on income inequality and policing reforms, the cautiously optimistic political left wonders: ‘Do we go big?’
Read more
“I seriously wonder ... whether in this day and age it is possible for any candidate, who is not a billionaire or who is not beholden to the billionaire class, to be able to run successful campaigns,” said the 73-year-old independent senator. “And if that is the case, I want you all to recognise what a sad state of affairs that is for American democracy.”

But Sanders claimed his focus on tackling economic inequality and the political power of corporate America would resonate with the US public: “If you raise the issues that are on the hearts and minds of the American people, if you are trying to put together a movement which says we have got to stand together and say this beautiful Capitol, our country, belongs to all of us and not the billionaire class – that’s not raising an issue, that’s winning an election, that’s where the American people are.”

Asked how he would differ from Clinton, Sanders claimed he would not run a negative campaign but highlighted three issues where the former secretary of state has been vague since announcing her frontrunner bid earlier this month – and more conservative since long before then.


“I voted against the war in Iraq, and not only did I vote against it, I helped lead the effort,” he said. “I am helping right now to lead the effort about the trans-pacific partnership because I believe it continues a trend of horrendous trade policies which have cost us millions of decent paying jobs.”

So-called 'free trade' policies hurt US workers every time we pass them
Bernie Sanders
Read more
“I helped lead the effort against the Keystone pipeline, because I don’t think we should be transporting some of the dirtiest fuel in the world and have got to be really vigorous in terms of transforming our energy system,” he added. “Those are some of my views and we will see where secretary Clinton comes back.”

Advertisement

With a bold program of economic populism and a fierce rejection of the corporate money now seemingly required by candidates, Sanders is considered a long-shot to secure the Democratic nomination. But he may further encourage Clinton to tack to the left during the primary race.

Until a few weeks ago, close aides predicted Sanders would decline to the enter the race at all, deterred by the mountain of money that increases national exposure.

But growing interest among activists who may provide enough small donations for a credible campaign have encouraged a rethink, aides said, especially as fellow senator Elizabeth Warren has so far resisted pressure to run against Clinton.

Sanders is likely to be joined on the left by former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley, although his still nascent campaign has been tarnished by criticism during this week’s riots in Baltimore of his policing record while mayor of the city.

As expected, Sanders outlined a more full-throated progressive agenda, focusing heavily on economic equality, climate change and campaign finance reform.

“This country today has more serious crises than at any time since the great depression,” Sanders said. “But most Americans, their reality is that they’re working longer hours and for lower wages.”

“All over this country I’ve been talking to people,” Sanders continued. “Ninety-nine percent of all new income generated in this country is going to the top 1%. How does it happen that the top 1% owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 99%.”

“My conclusion is is that that type of economics is not only immoral is not only wrong it is unsustainable. How do we create an economy that works for all of our people rather than a small number of millionaires?”

Sanders also directly addressed climate change: “I want to see this nation lead the world” in revolutionizing its energy sources, as well as campaign finance.

“As a result of the disastrous supreme court Citizens United decision,” Sanders said, “billionaires are literally able to buy elections and candidates.”

He also appealed for a campaigns without “gossip”, saying: “I’ve never run a negative ad in my life … I believe that in a democracy what elections are about are serious debates over serious issues.”

“This is not the Red Sox versus the Yankees.”

Progressive activists welcomed his entry into the race but continued to urge Warren, who is seen as a more polished performer, to compete against Clinton as well.

“Democracy for America members are excited to have progressive champion Senator Bernie Sanders join the 2016 presidential race. Senator Sanders has a long history of fighting the wealthy and powerful interests that dominate the political process and his presence in the race continues to ensure that income inequality will be at the very center of the 2016 debate,” said Charles Chamberlain, executive director of Democracy of America, which had been leading the so-called “draft Warren” campaign.

“We continue to encourage Senator Elizabeth Warren to join the race for president, because we’ve seen the massive outpouring of grassroots support she has across the country and we know that having her in the race would only increase the odds of having a Democratic nominee committed to the bold, populist progressive reforms our country desperately needs.”

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015 ... ry-clinton

Best of luck, Senator Sanders.

[Soontir C'boath]

Hm, I may switch back my political affiliation back to Democrat. Kind of wish he stayed Independent, but if in the end, he can be a thorn on Clinton's side, I am up for it.

[The Romulan Republic]

Apparently he is still an independent because, believe it or not, you don't have to be a member of the Democratic Party to run for the Democratic nomination.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/five-things ... e-sanders/

Last Updated Apr 30, 2015 2:18 PM EDT

Hillary Clinton has her first official competitor for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination now that Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has formally declared his bid for the White House.

Sanders, 73, is the oldest declared candidate thus far this cycle, and he's trekked a long path to his announcement: Born and raised in Brooklyn, he moved to Vermont in 1964 after college. He became mayor of Burlington, Vermont's largest city in 1981, and he held that post until 1989. He won a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1990, and served in the lower chamber for a decade and a half. In 2006, he sought and won Vermont's open Senate seat, a perch he still occupies today.


Play VIDEO
Breaking down the 2016 presidential field
Sanders has visited most of the early voting states in recent months, including Vermont's neighbor, New Hampshire, as well as Iowa and South Carolina.

The senator released a statement on his website early Thursday morning making his candidacy official, and he will hold a press conference Thursday unveiling his "Agenda for America."

Later in the day, Clinton officially welcomed him to the race with a tweet.


Here are five things to know about Bernie Sanders:

1. He's not officially a Democrat: Sanders caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate, and he's preparing to jump into the 2016 race as a Democrat, but he's not officially a member of the Democratic Party.

Sanders identifies as a "democratic socialist," and since a 1981 bid for Burlington mayor, he has actually campaigned as an independent in his political races. He ran as an independent for the U.S. House in 1990 and won, becoming the first U.S. House member with no party affiliation since Ohio's Frazier Reams retired 40 years earlier. When he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2006, he again ran as an independent.

"I am the longest serving independent in the history of the US Congress and I'm very proud of it," Sanders, who caucuses with the Democrats, told CBS News Congressional Correspondent Nancy Cordes in an interview.


Play VIDEO
Why Bernie Sanders is running for president
Still, it doesn't appear that Sanders' lack of formal affiliation with the Democratic Party would prevent him from seeking the party's nomination. A senior Democratic National Committee aide explained to CBS News that Vermont does not allow voters (or candidates) to register by party. Moreover, the aide added, DNC rules do not require a presidential candidate to register as a Democrat to run in the primary - they only require a candidate to demonstrate "a commitment to the goals and objectives of the Democratic Party."

"If you're good with us, we're good with you," the aide explained. "If you can demonstrate that you share our principles, then you can legitimately be a candidate as long as you meet the other requirements. It would be hard to argue that Sanders does not adhere to the principles of the Democratic Party, considering the fact that he caucuses with them in the Senate."

"The reality is that if you want to engage in debates, if you want to mobilize people, it is very hard to do it outside of the two party system," Sanders told Cordes. But he also said he has no intention of changing his affiliation in Congress to become a member of the party.

"I think it makes it clear that as an Independent I worry very much that the Republican party is now moved very, very, very far to the right, and frankly that there are too many Dems who are also succumbed to corporate pressure and big money interests," he said.

2. He's trying to pull Democrats to the left: Sanders is one of the most liberal members of the U.S. Senate, and he's staked out numerous positions over the years that are considerably more progressive than those embraced by more mainstream Democrats.

He was one of the founding members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. He's warned colleagues against being too friendly to the interests of corporate America, criticizing the close ties between some Democrats and Wall Street. He supports Obamacare but would elect to go further and institute a single-payer healthcare system. He's proposed a $1 trillion infrastructure funding bill. He's called for a $15 dollar an hour minimum wage, far exceeding President Obama's proposal to hike the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. He's proposed expanding Social Security benefits and paying for it by raising taxes.


Play VIDEO
Sanders: Food stamp cuts "devastating"
Recently, Sanders has been fiercely critical of the Transpacific Trade Partnership, a massive free trade agreement involving 12 nations that's currently under negotiation. He's concerned that the agreement could undermine international labor and environmental standards. In a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman in January, Sanders argued that corporations who stand to gain from the agreement have been involved in its development while members of Congress, and the citizens they represent, have "little or no knowledge as to what is in it."

"The people who will suffer the consequences of this treaty have been shut out of this process," he wrote. "In my view, this is unacceptable."

Ask him if he's too far to the left to be a viable candidate, though, and he says absolutely not.

"I don't believe that," he told Cordes. "I believe the vast majority of people on issue after issue are supportive. Should we raise the minimum wage to a living wage? The American people say yes. Should we create millions of decent paying jobs in this country, rebuilding crumbling infrastructure? American people say yes. Should we overturn Citizens United and big money in politics? American people say yes. I think on all of the key issues that are out there, frankly we have a whole lot of people on our side."

3. He's a champion for veterans: Sanders was one of the architects of the bipartisan legislation that passed last summer to address problems at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Lawmakers were spurred to action last year after reports of chronic treatment delays at VA facilities had been linked to the deaths of dozens of veterans. An internal audit of the department's health care facilities determined that officials had used improper scheduling practices, including the falsification of waiting lists, designed to understate the amount of time veterans had been waiting for treatment.


Play VIDEO
Sen. Bernie Sanders: VA problems must "never happen again"
At the time, Sanders was the chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs, and he championed the cause of giving the VA additional funding to hire more doctors, nurses, and medical staff. He proposed infusing the agency with $25 billion over three years. The compromise agreement he helped negotiate included $10 billion to allow veterans who are unable to receive a timely appointment within the VA system to seek care from outside providers as well as $5 billion for the VA to hire more doctors and nurses.

4. He's "not a spoiler": Sanders has been saying that if he runs for the White House, it won't be to run a "futile" campaign that he can't actually win.

"If I run, I want to run to win," he has said. "I will not be a spoiler...There are ways to do this, but let me make it very clear. I will not be a spoiler and elect some Republican."

Sanders has also promised he wouldn't run any negative campaign ads against Hillary Clinton. "It is not my style to trash people," he said. "It is not my style to run ugly, negative ads. Never have, never will."

The senator would, however, like to have "a real serious debate" with Clinton -- "a very intelligent person who I think is interested in issues, by the way," he said.

"I think we would have a debate about how you rebuild the crumbling middle class," Sanders continued. "A debate about how you reverse climate change. A debate about the foreign policy and the wisdom of the war in Iraq, and how we deal with what we deal with. A debate about trade policy. A debate about Wall Street. And that would be I think good for the American people, to be honest with you."

He told Cordes that they differ on their approach to free-trade agreements -- Sanders also opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement, which Clinton championed when it passed during her husband's presidency -- and noted that he voted against the Iraq War.

"The media's got to get away from personality. The question is, what we stand for, and I think the issues that I am fighting for are in fact the issues that need to be fought for," he said.


Play VIDEO
CBS News poll asks what Americans think of 2016's potential candidates

5. He's still a long-shot candidate: Although he is well known in his home state of Vermont, Sanders still has a limited national footprint. In a recent CBS News poll, 68 percent of voters said they didn't know enough about him to say whether they would consider supporting him or not. Among those who had an opinion, 14 percent said they would consider voting for him and 18 percent said they would not - the second highest percentage for a potential Democratic nominee (the highest was Joe Biden, whom 26 percent of people said they would not support).

He's faring a bit better in Iowa, where just half of voters, 51 percent, say they're not sure of him. But 37 percent of voters in the state have a favorable view of him, according to a poll earlier this year by the Des Moines Register. Unfortunately, he's only the top choice of 5 percent of people who say they are likely to participate in the Democratic caucus in Iowa.

Bonus Bernie Sanders fact: He has a brother in politics: Sanders' brother, Larry, is also running for office...across the Atlantic. Larry Sanders moved to Britain in 1969 and became active in politics there. He is the Green Party candidate for Parliament in Oxford West and Abingdon, challenging an incumbent from the Conservative Party, and his platform sounds notably similar to his brother's.


Play VIDEO
Bernie Sanders wishes good luck to his brother running for U.K. Parliament
"Labour Party and Coalition Governments have led the UK to an astonishing degree of inequality," Sanders wrote in a statement about his candidacy. "There has been a large increase in the wealth and earnings of the very rich, a sharp growth in the number of people living in poverty and increasing pressure on the Middle Classes...Only one Party, the Green Party, has policies to correct these stupidities and injustices. And, our policies are popular - once people get a chance to consider them. I want to use my role as a Parliamentary candidate to attempt to get those policies across to the largest number of people."

Asked about his brother's political career Thursday, Bernie Sanders said, "I owe my brother an enormous amount."

"I grew up in a family that did not have a lot of money. My dad came to this country at the age of 17, dropped out of high school, never made any money. my mother graduated high school. We didn't have a whole lot of books in the house. it was my brother who actually introduced me to a lot of my ideas," he said. "So I hope my brother does very well in his race for parliament in the U.K."

[Soontir C'boath]

Huh ok, though it still will not help on my end since New York's Primary voters must be registered to the party.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Wait... So he's running for the DEMOCRATIC Nomination... As an INDEPENDENT.. OK, didn't know THAT could happen.
I have no problem with him running, Hillary NEED to go a bit more to the left. As it is she's, well, she's not a republican I'll say that. But if he gets traction Im hoping she'll respond with a bit more progressive "red meat"

Good lord I just hope he doesn't go all 'Ross Peroit' when he looses to Hillary in the nomination process.

[The Romulan Republic]

I doubt it. He's actually addressed this sort of concern already:

From the last article I posted:

"I will not be a spoiler... There are ways to do this, but let me make it very clear. I will not be a spoiler and elect some Republican."

[Soontir C'boath]

Even then, Ross Perot may not have affected the outcome of the 1992 election as much as people believe he had done due to Bush's existing stagnating position. I for one probably will still not vote for Hillary in the general election and write-in Sanders regardless of what he does.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Things getting more "interesting" on the Right, 'Famous' Right Wing pundit Ben Carson says he's is Running for the GOP Nomination

WASHINGTON (AP) — Ben Carson, retired neurosurgeon turned conservative star, has confirmed that he will seek the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.

Carson, who has never run for public office, is expected to be the only high-profile African-American to enter the GOP's presidential primary as he tries to parlay his success as an author and speaker into a competitive campaign against established politicians.

"I'm willing to be part of the equation and therefore, I'm announcing my candidacy for president of the United States of America," he said in an interview aired Sunday night by Ohio's WKRC television station.

He is set to make a more formal announcement during a speech from his native Detroit on Monday.

Carson earned national acclaim during 29 years leading the pediatric neurosurgery unit of Johns Hopkins Children's Center in Baltimore, where he still lives. He directed the first surgery to separate twins connected at the back of the head. His career was notable enough to inspire the 2009 movie, "Gifted Hands," with actor Cuba Gooding Jr. depicting Carson.

"I see myself as a member of 'we the people,'" he told the Associated Press in an interview earlier this year, arguing that his lack of experience is an asset.

"I see myself as a logical American who has common sense," he continued, "and I think that's going to resonate with a lot of American, regardless of their political party."

The 63-year-old Detroit native remains largely unknown outside of conservative activists who have embraced him since his address at the 2013 National Prayer Breakfast, where he offered a withering critique of the modern welfare state and the nation's overall direction.

The speech restated themes from Carson's 2012 book "America the Beautiful," but he excited conservatives by doing so with President Barack Obama sitting just feet away.

Carson has since become a forceful critic of the nation's first black president on everything from health care to foreign policy. Carson also offers himself as a counter to other notable African-American commentators with more liberal views.

Most recently, Carson has spoken out on the unrest in the city where he lived for many years, where residents have protested and rioted in the wake of Freddie Gray dying while in custody of the Baltimore Police Department. In a Time op-ed, Carson decried the protests and related vandalism as "gross misconduct."

Carson moved to Palm Beach, Florida, after his retirement from Johns Hopkins, but he is announcing his campaign in his hometown of Detroit, where his mother raised him and his brother in poverty.

He attributes his politics to his upbringing, often describing his neighborhood culture as one where residents celebrating any new announcement of government support. Still, he acknowledges that his mother received welfare aid, and he insists that he supports "a safety net for the people who need a safety net."

Carson is a staunch social conservative, opposing abortion rights and same-sex marriage, views he attributes to his personal faith as a practicing Christian.

He has more complex views on health care and foreign policy, including statements that could put him at odds with the most conservative branches of his party.

He has compared the Affordable Care Act, Obama's signature legislative achievement, to slavery. Yet Carson also has blasted for-profit insurance companies; called for stricter regulations — including of prices — of health care services; and said government should offer a nationalized insurance program for catastrophic care.

Carson pitches himself as a staunch supporter of Israel in its disputes with other Middle Eastern nations, and he has hammered Obama on his dealings in the region. But in his earlier writings, Carson criticized the U.S. for historically being too eager to wage war.

Basically your bog standard Right Ring social extremist, except.. He's Black!!!
It is both sad and amusing the amount of conservatives going "SEE! We are TOTALLY not Racist! We have a black man running for President, so that Proves we are not racist in ANY way!"

[Pelranius]

This should be entertaining, considering that he has more support in Iowa than the likes of Ted Cruz (at least since the last time I checked the polls).

If Cruz has to shout about his crazy shit, makes you wonder if Walker is going to have to shift right a bit more.

[Mr Bean]

I'll also note Carly Fiorina former of HP failure fame has also announced her run.

I won't dignify it by posting the news story because to be blunt she has half the chance that Ben Carson has. But as the only woman and the only African American both of them will get invites to every debate. So there is that.

[Pelranius]

I'll also note Carly Fiorina former of HP failure fame has also announced her run.

I won't dignify it by posting the news story because to be blunt she has half the chance that Ben Carson has. But as the only woman and the only African American both of them will get invites to every debate. So there is that.

I'm wondering if Fiorina is in it only for her ego?

I doubt she has any chance of securing a Cabinet position or ambassadorship.

[Terralthra]

Fiorina has zero chance of securing anything. Her business record is trash, and her record since then was to be on McCain's election team and then lose to Boxer in the 2010 Senate election by 10 points.

[Zaune]

New York Times

F.E.C. Can’t Curb 2016 Election Abuse, Commission Chief Says

WASHINGTON — The leader of the Federal Election Commission, the agency charged with regulating the way political money is raised and spent, says she has largely given up hope of reining in abuses in the 2016 presidential campaign, which could generate a record $10 billion in spending.

“The likelihood of the laws being enforced is slim,” Ann M. Ravel, the chairwoman, said in an interview. “I never want to give up, but I’m not under any illusions. People think the F.E.C. is dysfunctional. It’s worse than dysfunctional.”

Her unusually frank assessment reflects a worsening stalemate among the agency’s six commissioners. They are perpetually locked in 3-to-3 ties along party lines on key votes because of a fundamental disagreement over the mandate of the commission, which was created 40 years ago in response to the political corruption of Watergate.

Some commissioners are barely on speaking terms, cross-aisle negotiations are infrequent, and with no consensus on which rules to enforce, the caseload against violators has plummeted.

The F.E.C.’s paralysis comes at a particularly critical time because of the sea change brought about by the Supreme Court’s decision in 2010 in the Citizens United case, which freed corporations and unions to spend unlimited funds in support of political candidates. Billionaire donors and “super PACs” are already gaining an outsize role in the 2016 campaign, and the lines have become increasingly stretched and blurred over what presidential candidates and political groups are allowed to do.

Watchdog groups have gone to the F.E.C. with complaints that probable presidential candidates like Jeb Bush and Martin O’Malley are skirting finance laws by raising millions without officially declaring that they are considering running.

Ms. Ravel, who led California’s state ethics panel before her appointment as a Democratic member of the commission in 2013, said that when she became chairwoman in December, she was determined to “bridge the partisan gap” and see that the F.E.C. confronted such problems. But after five months, she said she had essentially abandoned efforts to work out agreements on what she saw as much-needed enforcement measures.

Now, she said, she plans on concentrating on getting information out publicly, rather than continuing what she sees as a futile attempt to take action against major violations. She said she was resigned to the fact that “there is not going to be any real enforcement” in the coming election.

“The few rules that are left, people feel free to ignore,” said Ellen L. Weintraub, a Democratic commissioner.

Republican members of the commission see no such crisis. They say they are comfortable with how things are working under the structure that gives each party three votes. No action at all, they say, is better than overly aggressive steps that could chill political speech.

“Congress set this place up to gridlock,” Lee E. Goodman, a Republican commissioner, said in an interview. “This agency is functioning as Congress intended. The democracy isn’t collapsing around us.”

Experts predict that the 2016 race could produce a record fund-raising haul of as much as $10 billion, with the growth fueled by well-financed outside groups. On their own, the conservative billionaires Charles G. and David H. Koch have promised to spend $889 million through their political network.

With the rise of the super PACs and the loosening of legal restrictions on corporate spending, campaigns and groups are turning to creative new methods of raising money. Writing in March in The Washington Post, Ms. Ravel charged that some candidates — she did not name names — appeared to have been amassing large war chests at fund-raisers this year without acknowledging that they were at least considering a presidential run, which would trigger campaign finance limits and disclosure.

She said it was “absurd” to think that such politicians were not at least considering a White House run under federal law.

“It’s the Wild West out there in some ways,” said Kate A. Belinski, a former lawyer at the commission who now works on campaign finance at a law firm. Candidates and political groups are increasingly willing to push the limits, she said, and the F.E.C.’s inaction means that “there’s very little threat of getting caught.”

As a lawyer in Silicon Valley who went after ethics violators in California during her time there, Ms. Ravel brought to Washington both a reformer’s mentality and a tech-savvy background, and she has used Twitter and other media to try to attract young people and women to politics.

But her aggressive efforts have angered some Republicans, who charged that an F.E.C. hearing she scheduled for next week on challenges facing women in politics was not only outside the commission’s jurisdiction but a thinly veiled attempt to help the presidential bid of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Ms. Ravel called the accusations “crazy.”

Some disputes between the commissioners have gotten personal.

A disagreement over how to treat online political ads, for instance, turned tense when Ms. Ravel received anonymous online threats over charges that she was trying to “regulate” the Internet. She angrily confronted Mr. Goodman, charging that he had unfairly “fanned the flames” against her by mischaracterizing her position in an interview he did on Fox News. But Mr. Goodman said he had no regrets about challenging her position, which he saw as opening the door to greater regulation of Internet activities.

Relations between the two have been difficult ever since.

Last fall, Ms. Ravel did join Republicans on the commission — and took some criticism from the left — in a 4-to-2 decision that eased rules growing out of the Citizens United decision and a related case. But she has had little success in persuading Republicans to vote with her on enforcement measures.

She said she was particularly frustrated that Republican commissioners would not support cases against four nonprofit groups — including Crossroads GPS, founded by Karl Rove — accused of improperly using their tax-exempt status for massive and well-financed political campaigns.

A surge in this so-called “dark money” in politics — hundreds of millions of dollars raised by nonprofits, trade associations and other groups that can keep their donations secret — has alarmed campaign-finance reformers who are pushing to make such funding public.

But Mr. Goodman said the problem was exaggerated. He and other Republicans defend their decisions to block many investigations, saying Democrats have pushed cases beyond what the law allows.

“We’re not interested in going after people unless the law is fairly clear, and we’re not willing to take the law beyond where it’s written,” said Caroline C. Hunter, a Republican commissioner. Democrats view the law “more broadly,” she said.

The commission has not always been so hamstrung. In 2006, it unanimously imposed major fines against high-profile groups — liberal and conservative — for breaking campaign finance laws two years earlier by misusing their tax-exempt status for political fund-raising and campaigning. The penalties put political groups on notice, and experts credited them with helping curb similar abuses in the 2008 campaign.

These days, the six commissioners hardly ever rule unanimously on major cases, or even on some of the most minor matters. Last month at an event commemorating the commission’s 40th anniversary, even the ceremony proved controversial. Democrats and Republicans skirmished over where to hold it, whom to include and even whether to serve bagels or doughnuts. In a rare compromise, they ended up serving both.

Standing in front of a montage of photos from the F.E.C.’s history, Ms. Ravel told staff members and guests that there was a “crisis” in public confidence, and she stressed the F.E.C.’s mandate for “enforcing the law.” But the ranking Republican, Matthew S. Petersen, made no mention of enforcement in his remarks a few minutes later, focusing instead on defending political speech under the First Amendment.

As guests mingled, Ms. Weintraub — the commission’s longest-serving member at 12 years — lamented to a reporter that the days when the panel could work together on important issues were essentially over.

She pointed to a former Republican commissioner standing nearby — Bradley A. Smith, who left the agency in 2005 — and said she used to be able to work with commissioners like him even when they disagreed on ideology.

Laughing, Mr. Smith assumed a fighting stance and yelled at Ms. Weintraub: “Let’s go right now, you speech-hating enemy of the First Amendment!”

A few feet away, Mr. Goodman was not laughing. As Ms. Weintraub condemned the F.E.C.’s inertia, he whispered a point-by-point rebuttal to show that things were not as bad as she made them sound.

With the commission so often deadlocked, the major fines assessed by the commission dropped precipitously last year to $135,813 from $627,408 in 2013. But like most things at the F.E.C., commissioners differ over how to interpret those numbers.

Republicans say they believe the commission’s efforts to work with political groups on training and compliance have kept campaigns within the legal lines and helped to bring down fines.

The drop in fines “could easily be read as a signal that people are following the law,” said Ms. Hunter, the Republican commissioner.

Ms. Ravel scoffed at that explanation.

“What’s really going on,” she said, “is that the Republican commissioners don’t want to enforce the law, except in the most obvious cases. The rules aren’t being followed, and that’s destructive to the political process.”

Fucking hell.