Unemployment:

Dec, 1992: 7.4%
Dec, 2000: 3.9%

U.S. Deficit (inflation adjusted):

1991: $496B Deficit
2000: $329B Surplus

Median Income (inflation adjusted);

Dec, 1992: $50,421
Dec, 2000: $56,466

With this important caveat though, right?



2000 was en equally good time to exit the white house and the stock market.

Interesting letter from Charles Koch:

Charles Koch: This is the one issue where Bernie Sanders is right - The Washington Post

It's rather telling that the Koch brothers have been relatively quiet during this cycle, though at one point they seemed to be behind Fiorina.

I have heard though (here even maybe?) that his opposition to that might be a little more self-serving than it might appear. He touches upon it with ethanol subsidies, but he's probably also against them for other fledgling industries like solar energy or alternative-fuel cars. Who would benefit from these industries being stifled? Oil. Which the Koch bothers are rather invested in. So yeah, he might well oppose "corporate welfare" if his corporate interests are already at the top of the heap.

They've said for the past year that they are basically neutral in the primary, but will commit to spend around 750 mil in the general.

They had to go back to the drawing board when Scott Walker shot his dick off last year.

Absolutely. But even non-dot-com growth was good.

BLM paid to get a protester (well, probably two, someone was clearly ready to video) into a $500-a-head HRC fundraiser last night in Charleston, and this happened. FWIW, this is being picked up and disseminated by mainstream media outlets in South Carolina. (I first saw it a few minutes ago on the FB feed from the Charleston CBS affiliate, Live 5 News.)

Heh. Checking the online chatter from the far left. Some are claiming that it's Bill's voice at the 1:04 point claiming that she's trespassing at an event where she paid $500 to attend. I don't think it is him, but that'd be pretty funny if so.

haha, no way that's the Prez....he doesn't do $500 per head...

Another national poll has Clinton and Sanders in a dead heat. IBD/Tipp shows it as a 45-43 race in favor of Clinton.

But recent state polling has Clinton with 20%+ leads in Texas, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, Georgia, and a 15% lead in Ohio. What's going on here? There's no way they're tied nationally with those state numbers.

Different polling companies and/or poll methods? Or Sanders is doing really well in other states?

People like him nationally but when asked about their state, slide to Hillary?

Don't really know what IBD/Tipp is, but here it shows IBD/Tipp lead is 50-38. America's Most Accurate Pollster

This just came out today: Clinton, Sanders Are In A Dead Heat; Trump Leads But Rubio Rises | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD

There's almost no way Sanders could have enough of an edge in other states (especially with Hillary's huge lead in the South) to make those numbers work.

The different companies/methods was my thought, but even the same firms can have odd results. Both Fox News and Quinnipiac have tied national results, but give Hillary a big edge in states where she should be drowning if her overall lead is dwindling.

Voice is not scratchy enough. Also, he would've at least had the courtesy to escort her to a separate, private room in the house. You know, where they could be alone and talk about the issues.

I'd guess likely voter screens or lack thereof has a lot to do with the difference.

It's gotta suck when you are on the spot like that. Hillary tried to actually talk to her, but the lady clearly didn't want an actual discussion.

Yeah, the incongruousness makes no sense. Clinton is even expanding her lead in states like Texas, New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania. Maybe people answer differently when you ask who would you want for the Democratic nominee and who are you voting for in your state's primary? Maybe answer with (as the saying goes) with the heart in the national (who do you want) and with the head in the state (who do you think would win/be more effective)? That's the only thing I can think of.


I found that hurt the BLM message - when Clinton actually did say "Let's talk about that issue" and the woman wouldn't let her get two words in. For an effective protest, you let Clinton answer and get the response on video, ask a few more pointed questions, and then tear it apart later.

You can't make this stuff up......

“We’ve got to say to the gun lobby, you know what, there is a constitutional right for people to own guns, but there’s also a constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." - Hillary Clinton

Yeah, what an indefensible gaffe. The Constitution only explicitly mentions a right to life and liberty (5th and 14th Amendements), only the Declaration of Independence mentions happiness. She is doomed. :rolleyes:

I got the impression that he was pointing out her tendency to utter platitudes that try to cover both sides. I don't think anyone questions her understanding of the Constitution.

No one (reasonable) argues that Hillary is stupid. The critique is that she's either dishonest or a shameless panderer.

The gun lobby wouldn't consider that pandering to their side, to try and claim that the 2nd amendment isn't absolute.

Dola,

I'm certain that MBBF was referring to the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" quote from the Declaration of Independence not being in the Constitution, as that discussion is lighting up the conservative websites this evening.

As I've said before, this tendency Bill Clinton had as President to parse his words carefully and always find a rhetorical "middle ground" has dogged Democrats in general since his Presidency. It's not been helped by the fact that the GOP went in the opposite direction with Rove & Luntz applying actual study to the reaction of the public to specific words, and using those words, in the guise of "plain talk" to hammer the Democrats.

Trump is the end state of this strategy, and Clinton is its anti-thesis. Trump does nothing but "straight talk" (form, not function). Sure, it's often contradictory, meaningless or flat out wrong, but the delivery is what is key and, critically, is what the GOP establishment has been cultivating in their base for the past 20+ years.

On the flipside, the way Clinton (H) speaks is simply a problem. As plenty have noted, when you look at her actual positions, she aligns nicely with most Democrats. But this endless parsing and hedging creates the opposite perception. I would hazard that's part of the reason for Sanders' appeal.

Clinton absolutely needs to change this. Become more clear and more genuine.

Eh... I don't think it is in any ungenuine. She's a lawyer (that's not a critique or joke). As a lawyer myself (or at least trained in law), I notice that plenty of times I refrain from making totally definitive statements and 'hedge' and 'parse' - probably because I took to heart the first commandment of law school - "It depends". The notion being that there isn't any one definitive answer; it depends on the facts and circumstances.

Sorry, I'm not saying she isn't genuine. I'm saying her manner makes her seem ungenuine (not a word, but I'm going to use it).

Same for Bill.

It's trying too hard to cover all the bases, instead of saying "I feel this way, if you don't--too bad!"

I got you. I can definitely see that - it's why there are those stereotypes of lawyers in general.

That, and it's really, really big problem if you make a false statement to a court. I try so hard to be prepared enough that I can avoid hedging as much as possible when talking to courts, but if you're not 100% sure on a fact or something a case said, you have to hedge your statement. It's easy for that habit to trickle into regular life.

It appears exit polling has South Carolina an even greater win than expected for Hillary Clinton. I read over a 35 point win according to early exit polls - bolstered by a massive 5-1 win in African-American voters. That's going to really make Super Tuesday difficult for Sanders.

Blacks over 65 went for Clinton 96-3.

Turnout has got to be keeping the DNC up at night. Paradoxically keeping Trump out may be the only way they can get their voters out during the general and allow them to win. Can't help thinking Romney or McCain might have won this in their sleep.

Nate Silver wrote about this after last weekend. There's little correlation to primary turnout and general election results and turnout.

Best way to avoid a burn is to set up a good firewall. South Carolina was perfect timing for Hillary.

Trump & Cruz are hateable enough to get Democrats over their Hillary apathy.

Rubio & Bush are/weren't, which is why they worry/worried strategists more.

Yikes, the updated exit polling is looking even worse for Sanders.

With 57% of the vote in, Clinton is up by 50 points... WOW.

88% in, it looks like Clinton will win by at least 45 points. This is a disaster for Sanders.

He'll stay through Super Tuesday I'm sure, but stick a fork in him I think

74-26 is way more lopsided than I expected. I was thinking 60-40 as a best case for Hillary. Sanders may stay in for a long time, but after Tuesday it will just be a vanity run.

Great to see. Send Sanders to the scrap heap.

I think he'll suspend on the 15th. Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio.

Perfect storm for Sanders. 2/3rd black voters in the primary (per the exit polling sample at leaste), and they went roughly 2/3rds Hilary. And predominantly female, and predominantly older.

I don't know that he could have bought a vote under the circumstances ... but maybe he should tried it.

I dunno why he would suspend. He's not a democrat and he's still doing way better than could have been expected.

Well, maybe not suspend, but the only time he'll be mentioned by the media will be "When will he drop out?" Basically the same coverage he got before October.

He's staying in on the chance the FBI makes a criminal referral. He's going to be so far behind after March 15 that there's no other strong reason.

Actually black voters went 86-14 for Hillary. That's a beating and a half.

Im sorry, but how can you gys be so high on HRC? You know she is a liar. You know she is backed by corporations. Is it because she is a dem? Is it bcause she is Bills wife? What is the draw?

I'll bet anything you like that that won't happen. To do that would mean they'd have to also go after Powell and Rice and God only knows how many other cabinet members/senior advisers. It's a big political problem for Hillary, but it won't be even a hint of a legal problem.