The Iowa Caucus: The first major voting step for any Presidential candidate on a path to the nomination of their political party.
It is a grueling trek that initially had U.S. Senator and Democratic Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders an over 60-point underdog against former Secretary of State and Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton, his much more ‘publicly familiar’ opponent.
Clinton won by only .3% (yes, point-3-percent), a virtual statistical tie.
The morning after the Iowa Caucuses, a piece about current U.S. Senator and Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanderswas posted on a familiar website. It was entitled “Bernie Sanders Needs More Than The Tie He Got In Iowa”.
At first glance, that title was my first incline of into what I was about to run. However, I looked at the name of the site that posted it and it was FiveThirtyEight.com.
“That’s weird,” I thought, as I felt myself about to click on the link to read the piece.
You see, FiveThirtyEight.com is a website that is known for its statistical and probability analysis, especially political.
So to see a headline that seemed to be dismissing Bernie Sanders’ historic and absolutely amazing 60-to-.3 Iowa Caucus comeback performance seemed outside of that normal math-based analysis.
I dismissed my thought, clicked on the link, and began reading the piece. Unfortunately, the irony of my initial thought dismissal was immediately apparent:
“Sometimes votes have clear outcomes and sometimes they don’t. Monday’s Iowa Democratic caucuses are an example of the latter. Hillary Clinton seems to have barely beaten Bernie Sanders in the closest Iowa Democratic caucus ever after holding a small lead in most Iowa polls before the caucuses.
That means Iowa probably hasn’t reshaped the Democratic race for president and Clinton remains the favorite. But neither Clinton nor Sanders did so well as to make me think either candidate will gain momentum heading into the New Hampshire primary next week.
Sanders is likely to win in the Granite State — he has either an 89 percent chance or a 96 percent chance of winning there, depending on whether you look at FiveThirtyEight’s polls-plus forecast or polls-only forecast.
Still, the results in Iowa suggest that polls in New Hampshire may tighten. That’s because the states look similar demographically.
Even taking into account that Sanders lives next door in Vermont, Clinton probably shouldn’t be behind by 17 percentage points in the New Hampshire polling average right now.“
Did you see that? I know you saw it, right? If you didn’t, let me break down what they seemingly just blatantly did.
“Sometimes votes have clear outcomes and sometimes they don’t. Monday’s Iowa Democratic caucuses are an example of the latter. Hillary Clinton seems to have barely beaten Bernie Sanders in the closest Iowa Democratic caucus ever after holding a small lead in most Iowa polls before the caucuses…”
Again, a dismissal of the fact that Sanders was down up-to 60 points initially.
Now I know what you’re thinking: “Come on, Tim. It’s FiveThirtyEight. It’s mathematical analysis. Math isn’t bias toward any particular person. You’re reading too much into this.“
You think so? Ok, let’s continue. Then they said:
“That means Iowa probably hasn’t reshaped the Democratic race for president and Clinton remains the favorite.”
Again, a dismissal of the fact that Sanders was down up-to 60 points initially and also attempting to make him coming back to tie from that far down her is insignificant.
Now you’re probably saying, “I mean, she did win, so it’s an easy argument to make that she remains the favorite, seeing as though she was the favorite before the caucuses.“
Very legitimate argument. But then, look at what they said in the next paragraph:
But neither Clinton nor Sanders did so well as to make me think either candidate will gain momentum heading into the New Hampshire primary next week. Sanders is likely to win in the Granite State — he has either an 89 percent chance or a 96 percent chance of winning there, depending on whether you look at FiveThirtyEight’s polls-plus forecast or polls-only forecast.
Still, the results in Iowa suggest that polls in New Hampshire may tighten. That’s because the states look similar demographically. Even taking into account that Sanders lives next door in Vermont, Clinton probably shouldn’t be behind by 17 percentage points in the New Hampshire polling average right now.“
I was pretty much done then. I couldn’t read much more and stopped at the beginning of the next paragraph of the piece.
Now, again, I know what you’re probably thinking: ‘Just because the piece is on the page doesn’t mean they are necessarily connected to the website. They can be a contributing writer who just does op-eds.’
For those of you who don’t know, op-eds are opinion editorials; the writings of an individual whose views don’t reflect those of the actual company…necessarily.
Ok, that’s a good point. So I looked at who actual wrote the piece. His name is Harry Enten.
So who is Harry Enten?
He’s a senior political writer and analyst for FiverThirtyEight.com. So I guess the contributing writer “op-ed” theory is out the window.
MY ASSESSMENT: The establishment and its preordained narratives have now even corrupted mathematics-based companies.
This is the current problem that people have with the establishment and mainstream media; a problem which has fueled the rise and presidential hopes of the likes of businessman Donald Trump, current Republican U.S. Senator and Tea Party darling Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Independent U.S. Senator and self-proclaimed Democratic SocialistBernie Sanders:
People no longer believe what those establishment and mainstream entities say.
Fast-forward from Iowa caucus, to thepurposely super-closed New York primary, and all the way to last night’s Pennsylvania primary, and lying, skewing information, and even manipulating outside companies like FiveThirtyEight.com to protect those in power who help make these companies massive amounts of money has become part of the daily business of these organizations.
This is what current presidential candidate and all-around political phenom Bernie Sanders is, and possibly was, up against.
Sanders has broken campaign rally attendance records that President Obama formerly held. Sanders has broken campaign fundraising records that President Obama formerly held, and did it with no corporate donations.
That’s beyond astonishing, especially in this now oligarchic-leaning country we call “The land of the free.” Yet, he’s received less mainstream media coverage than almost every major presidential candidate this election cycle, and the coverage he does get is purposely skewed toward the negative.
Here’s an example of this:
Why do you think that these news outlets do this?
It’s definitely not because of their laughable corporation taglines…or is it? It may not be just because of them, but it’s definitely partially because of them.
Fox ‘News’: “Fair and Balanced.”
One of the most laughable taglines-to-services I’ve ever seen for a company. How can you be “fair and balanced” when you distort information and contradict yourself on a daily basis?
• You don’t want the government strong-arming you…unless “you” is a group of Black people who haven’t committed any crimes.
• Police shoot an unarmed minority who “looked like” they were reaching in their clothes for “possibly” a weapon, but you’re Ok with the supporters of Cliven Bundy pointing actual, visible guns at Federal Marshals.
• You talk about “personal responsibility”; paying your dues and debts and not wanting handouts…unless you’re Cliven Bundy who owes over $1M to the federal government for his cows grazing on federal land for years.
Then all of a sudden you’re defending lack of personal responsibility, not paying your dues and debts, and taking handouts.
Makes you look rather “Unfair and Unbalanced,” doesn’t it Fox “News”?
That’s exactly the same type of skewed bias they have against Bernie Sanders, and their tagline helps people to believe that they wouldn’t skew the facts or be bias.
Then there’s CNN®: “The most trusted name in news.”
I don’t even have to use a specific example with this corporate news titan. Seemingly every time they have guests on their show, the host doesn’t tell the audience which guest, with the facts, is correct.
They just let both guests argue and then they thank them both for coming on. Almost every time the audience watches one of those segments on CNN®, they leave with more questions than answers.
Why is that?
It’s because:
1.) Telling the truth will actually inform the people, and the truth doesn’t fair well for their future profits.
2.) CNN® doesn’t want to offend any guest so that they don’t lose access to having them on again. So, the more powerful the guest, the less news you are likely to get out of an interview.
How can you be the most trusted name in news when you don’t even tell the people watching the truth on a 100% basis?
In essence, CNN® is an umpire in a professional baseball game who no longer calls “Ball” or “Striiiiiike!” They now say, “The batter said it’s a ball. The pitcher said it’s a strike. Crowd, you decide.”
No. YOU’RE supposed to decide based on the facts of your research. Isn’t that what the umpire is supposed to do? Isn’t that about
what journalism is supposed to be?
And every time CNN® doesn’t call the game correctly, a false equivalency in information is purposely being shared through their network. And, by definition, purposeful false equivalency is actually a lie.
So when Bernie Sanders’ opponent (to whose campaign CNN’s parent company has donated over $400,000) says that her and Senator Sanders are the same, and they don’t correct her, they’re spreading false equivalency through the guise of journalism.
When they simply go on to another question, leaving the audience to think that the statement she just made was equivalent to the truth, when it wasn’t, they’re again spreading false equivalency under the guise of journalistic integrity and trust.
Makes you look rather untrustworthy, doesn’t it CNN®?
That’s exactly the same type of skewed bias through false equivalency that they use against Bernie Sanders, and, just like Fox “News,” their tagline helps people to believe that they wouldn’t skew the facts or be bias as well.
Do you understand the corporate establishment media game now?
Until a significant amount of private money, if not all private money, is removed from politics, nothing will change, at least not significantly.
Unfortunately, with the establishment and their echo-chamber repeating pro-establishment narratives-with-agendas like they’re late-night infomercials, that has become as close to ‘not likely’ as I’ve ever seen.
The power of the establishment’s echo-chamber is that they have such a big voice to where they can literally sway public opinion with lies and skewed narratives.
They simply repeat and repeat those lies and skewed narratives through the power of coded “repetitious suggestion.” Unfortunately, this is the propaganda juggernaut against which the Sanders campaign has to compete.
Until the people put legal barricades into place to help slow down and even possibly stop the lies from being spread by changing the monetary and political incentives for lying, then stories pushing pre-determined narratives from the establishment echo-chamber to benefit their political candidates will never cease to exist.
Robert Reich, former Labor Secretary under former President of the United States Bill Clinton’s Administration, penned a social media post about the increasing vitriol among Presidential Candidates Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton supporters after the New York primary for the 2016 Democrat Presidential nomination:
What do we think, Mr. Secretary?
We think that you are a great man with an understanding of what’s going on in this country economically that most will never have.
We are huge fans of yours and use examples from you in paid entrepreneurial workshops and economic enlightenment seminars that we do around the country.
We truly believe that you love this country and the people in it and want nothing but the best for both.
However…
…We also think that you have to understand something about these individuals who are on Bernie Sanders’ side and are angry and feel we have to seriously do something about the Clinton Machine; a prime representation of all that is wrong with politics in America today.
The Anger Justification of Bernie Sanders Supporters:
Think about what it is about which they’re angry when it comes to the chain-reactions of all of those problems that were helped to come to come to fruition by Hillary Clinton. People are:
• Savings-less…
• Physically and mentally exhausted… • Working MANDATORY overtime… • Working multiple jobs, yet still have no money… • Moving back in with their parents, which we believe has helped raise the bed bug infestation… • Living with roommates just to be able to pay rent… • Barely holding onto their jobs because the companies who donate to Hillary don’t care about the actual workers more than they do profits…
…and Progressives don’t believe that she is going to do anything except continue the working-class down this stressful, uphill road.
When Clinton helped create all of these problems, and then (before and during the Democratic Presidential primary)…
…yeah, we can see why Bernie Sanders supporters are angry. Even more so than that, what they’re saying about Hillary Clinton is not a “characterization.” It’s factual.
They’re not making things up, unlike the things the Clinton Campaign are skewing and fabricating about Bernie Sanders and his record.
So although you are one of the Progressive’s champions, even you telling them to calm down is only going to make them angrier because you, in essence, are telling them to stop speaking the truth.
People tend to think that only people who don’t have a reason to be mad should be told to calm down, not the ones who do. At least that’s what the Sanders supporters seem to feel, and, in our opinion, with much validity.
The Democratic Left’s Diagnosis of Hillary Clinton
So what is Hillary Clinton to true Progressives?
She’s untrustworthy.
She’s corrupt.
She’s bought.
She’s a chameleon.
She’s a blue-dog Democrat.
TRANSLATION: Not Progressive.
Bernie Sanders supporters, made up of Democrats, Independents, moderate Republicans, and true Progressives, don’t believe Hillary Clinton when she speaks, especially in populist rhetoric, not because of her current words, but because of the history of her actions.
They don’t believe she will act on Progressive values. Hell, they barely think she’s a Democrat, and we agree with that assessment based on historical facts, not feelings.
She’s a center-right corporatist who will sell out to corporations before she defends the ones the corporations are oppressing, and Bernie Sanders supporters know this.
They are just utterly and completely sick of individuals like her selfishly co-opting their message for votes-only from the very people who she will, based on her history, immediately sell out.
So, with all due respect Secretary Reich, no, they won’t stop their truthful, fact-based “characterizations” of her, period, and we agree that they shouldn’t.
It’s not “excessive divisiveness.” It’s both necessary, long-time-coming outrage and the outright truth. And, as one former Ohio Senator, the great Nina Turner, always says, we should always speak truth to power.
During this election cycle, we always hear about how U.S. Democrat Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has a problem with the black vote. On the surface, that definitely looks true.
Against his current Democratic opponent, Sanders seems to have run into the same problem with African-Americans which his opponent ran into against current President Barack Obama back in 2008.
That problem is a seeming vice-grip on African-Americans voters.
How bad is it? Let’s just say that, in one state, his 2016 Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, won African-American voters under 30 years of age by a 96-3 margin.
That victory was a landslide of epic proportions.
However, how it looks is not quite as simple as it looks.
Just as European-Americans in the United States of America had a few centuries worth of a head start on ‘minorities’ in the same country economically, Clinton started the campaign with a 15 year ‘national spotlight’ head start on Sanders.
Ironically, he’s been in politics for 15 years longer than her and has been fighting for the rights of African-Americans in the racial trenches for a half century. However…
…he hasn’t sought the spotlight, something that has become both virtue and vice in this election cycle.
Virtue: The virtuousness of his selflessness shows a history of caring more about the cause than what the cause could do personally for him.
Vice: The vice of his selflessness has caused him to not be able to start on an even footing on a national recognition scale with minorities, particularly African-Americans, against his Democratic opponent.
That is how one can muster up a 96-3 demographic victory against a candidate with such an amazing civil rights resume as Bernie Sanders.
It is because that margin of victory was cemented before there was mass knowledge about who Sanders was and is, let alone even the existence of him, specially in the African-American community.
There is a silver lining, though.
The more Bernie Sanders talks and is found out about, the more African-Americans turn his way, especially young people, particularly of average college age.
Here are some of those college Students, African-American specifically, speaking up about their support of him:
Bernie Sanders’ voice is strong, his message powerful and resonating, and it is reaching more and more African-Americans every day that passes. However…
…one can imagine that Hillary Clinton is hoping the clock runs out before most African-Americans wake up, turn over, and potentially start feeling the Bern.
Will it be in time for Sanders to make a historic come back? Only time will tell, and there’s not much of it left.
Bernie Sanders has been a civil rights activist since the last 1950’s and has been in mainstream politics since 1981 when he became the mayor of Burlington, the biggest city in Virginia (U.S.A.).
He later became a member of the United States Congress via the U.S. House of Representatives and is now a U.S. Senator poised for possibly the biggest upset in U.S. political history:
The defeat of Hillary Clinton for President. However…
…Hillary Clinton, her political surrogates (who are vying for a job in her administration by trying to stay on the good end of her political ‘Hit List’), and the corporate media that funds her…excuse me…’who’ funds her (seeing as the Supreme Court of the United States has deemed corporations ‘humans’) are doing everything in their legal and immoral power to stop him…and we do mean everything.
Hmmm, we wonder why? Maybe this explains it:
From his record to fear by association, check out these four (4) things that her and her establishment “friends” have been doing in an attempt to smear Bernie Sanders at virtually every turn and the two (2) reasons why:
1.) Skew His Record
One of the funniest things Bernie Sanders’ well-funded opponent and his job-angling detractors are trying to do is smear him using his record. Unfortunately for them, his record is virtually flawless on all of the key issues;Civil/Human Rights, Women’s Issues, Income and Wealth Inequality, andForeign Policy,so that didn’t stick.
2.) Use “Socialism” to Demonize Democratic Socialism
They then try to smear him using “Socialism” as dirt and throwing it onto him, but it didn’t stick because America is already a quazi-socialist country (military, museums, national parks, police, fire fighters, teachers, etc.) and Bernie explained that he is a “Democratic Socialist,” which is very different than Socialism alone.
3.) Guns
Since he’s not beholden to any corporation or the establishment, his Democratic opponent, who is getting hammered constantly for the hundreds of millions her and her husband, former U.S. President Bill Clinton, have received from corporations for speaking engagements since 2000, tried to say that he was soft on guns.
She used agun safety billwhich Senator Sanders voted for to try and tie him to the NRA; a controversial group which is the firewall between the citizens and the manufacturers of the weapons the citizens use, some of which to kill people in cold blood. However…
…this tactic didn’t stick either because:
A.) The bill they tried to use was voted for by Bernie Sanders because people were trying to hold store owners (who’d done a 100% legal gun sale) accountable for the deaths of people from the use of the gun that was legally sold at their store.
Senator Bernie Sanders disagrees with that being Ok, and we agree with him.
B.) Bernie Sanders has a D- rating from the NRA. How can the NRA be for you, but also hate you?
They can’t, which means that he’s for stronger gun safety laws, and we are as well.
4.) Fear By Association
When none of that stuck, they AMENDED their strategy to preying on the ‘English language ignorance’ of American citizens.
They started negatively tying Bernie Sanders to communists, Marxists, and fascists on all of their networks (Remember: 90% of the so-called news networks are now only owned by only 6 companies), with all of the establishment surrogates, and in all of the debates and town halls, all in hopes that voters won’t know the difference between communist, Marxist, fascist, and Democratic Socialist.
They know that it won’t “fully” work, but it might scare voters “enough” for Sanders to lose enough votes for their candidate to win.
This is what the right-wing attempted to do to now President Obama back in 2007-2008 with the Pastor Jeremiah Wright ‘controversy.’
Why Are They Spewing These Falsehoods?
If you’ve been paying any attention to the political and economic systems from this past 35 years, you will understand that this is all happening for two specific reasons:
Money and control.
Money
Half of the smearing is because of the money the rich, corporate donors are making through unfair and excessive wealth extraction from the middle-class, which Bernie Sanders is trying vigorously to stop.
In the revolutionary movie The Matrix, humans were harvested like crops and used as batteries to fuel machines.
So the humans found a champion who they felt was “The One” and sent him to save the human race from those machines (Some argue, and a strong argument it is, that Agent Smith is ‘The One,’ but I’m fanboying right now).
Ironically, in the post-President Carter real world, humans are now used as cash spigots for the massive corporate capitalism machine.
The people have chosen their causes’ champion to save the true American way, and it is Bernie Sanders.
He’s “The One.”
Unfortunately, the massive corporate capitalism machine is attacking him vigorously because it does not want to lose the cash spigots…the American people.
Control
The other half of the smearing is because of the control that can be seized from the working-class masses through propaganda and fear, which Bernie Sanders is also trying vigorously to stop.
How many times have you heard, “I saw it on the news“? And why did the person say that? It’s because we’ve been conditioned to believe the word “news” as fact, hence why Fox’s propaganda arm named their channel “Fox “News.”
It gives you a false sense of security that what you’re seeing or hearing on that channel is the truth. Why? Because you “…saw it on the news.“
If the massive corporate capitalism machine can control what you repeatedly see and hear, then they can get you to defend their talking points even if those talking points are propping up policies that actually hurt you and feed their obscene profits.
As Tim Carthon always says: “Repetition breeds remembrance.”
Unfortunately, Bernie Sanders’ Democratic colleague and opponent Hillary Clinton is the machine’s “The One,” and, in this world, the Clinton Machine is The Source.
We wonder: Does Bernie Sanders think on a daily basis, “With friends like Dems, who needs machines?“
CONFESSION: I have been thinking about how to write an article about you, but have found myself torn. And yes, it is probably for the reasons you would think.
We, in this country, are generally taught that one should not speak ill of the dead nor revel in their life being extinguished. Yet, I find myself more gleeful than in mourning, and I feel bad about that.
I feel bad because the happiness that I feel should not be stemming from the death of another human being. Yet…
…I then wonder if the happiness is really coming from that or from knowing that you can no longer do any damage to the United States, its citizens, and the world by chain-reaction of SCOTUS events (Bush v. Gore anyone)?
Could the two (2) be synonymous?
Even in disagreement, no one can deny your intelligence, nor could they your wit. You wrote some of themost memorable lines in SCOTUS history, many of which I wouldn’t dare ever wish to have my name associated. However…
…they can also not deny the damage that you and your four (4) ‘Conservative’ colleagues have done to this country, the world, and the credibility of an increasingly and now obviously-activist Supreme Court through corporate-friendly, personal bias-based rulings.
Your Affirmative Action and Citizens United arguments, for instance, are two (2) of the most unbelievably Constitutionally-tone-deaf and democracy-destroying arguments that stand out.
‘It is deeply disturbing to hear a Supreme Court justice endorse racist ideas from the bench of the nation’s highest court. The only difference between the ideas endorsed by Donald Trump and Scalia is that Scalia has a robe and a lifetime appointment.’
There are also so many examples of your blatant Constitutional hypocrisy to where I felt that only video would do you, a Justice, justice in showing your true legacy.
So I’ll let the Young Turks® and the people’s court try your record in the Court of Public Facts. With that being said:
The case of Scalia’s Principles v. We, The People’s Constitution is now in session. The People’s Chief Justice Cenk Uygur presiding:
As a Christian, I feel bad for the elatedness I feel for your SCOTUS seat opening up because these types of thoughts and feelings are not supposed to be or even remain in my head, but it just won’t leave.
I keep thinking that one of the best things to happen to the American people in the past seven (7) years is your passing.
Gosh, that sounds so harsh.
I am so, so sorry. I’m not trying to be harsh. I’m really not. I just find myself often throughout the day ironically being about to thank God for this happening, but then catch myself and just shake my head.
God is not pleased with my thoughts. This, I know.
How can I find even the slightest joy in a wife losing her husband? How can I find even the slightest comfort in nine (9) children losing their father?
Am I some sort of monster? What is wrong with me? Is there something wrong with me?
I ask God to forgive me, but then I think about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi families who lost their husbands.
I think of the tens of thousands of killed and injured American Iraq War veterans.
I think about their families who will never be the same because you and your colleagues handed the election over to the man who took us to an unnecessary war and virtually bankrupted this good, but once great, nation.
And, unfortunately, you did it not because the Constitution said for you to do so, but because your ideology, through hypocrisy, said so. Then I ask myself, do I need to be forgiven for those warranted thoughts?
I am torn between my spirituality and my humanity. Your family, friends, and corporations will mourn your death.
Yet, I fear that the American people have been so disenfranchised, so hurt, so pained by you and your colleagues’ decisions that the tears that the American people are currently shedding are only of joy.
My apologies for the harshness of my feelings, but I wanted to be honest with you…both things I’ve seen in your writings, even if honesty in you purposely showing your hypocrisy through your harshness toward the American people in your rulings…and, out of at least sheer respect for the position you legally held, ironically, that is the least I can do.
With that being said, We, The People, are ready to rule on your life as a Supreme Court Justice:
WE, THE PEOPLE’S, FINDINGS: Justice Antonin Scalia, We, The People, find that almost everything you did as a member of the esteemed Supreme Court of the United States of America was about your personal beliefs, not Constitutional consistency.
We find that you even went against what you wrote in your own book, but with no history of subtle shifts in your understanding of the supposed incorrectness of your previous positions in order to justify such a shift.
We find that it was because you, having a lifetime appointment, didn’t need to care about hypocrisy because the chances of that hypocrisy causing you to lose your seat was non-existent.
And, unfortunately, we find that you exploited that to the detriment of the very people who you were, for a lifetime, charged to serve.
WE, THE PEOPLE’S, RULING: We, The People, in accordance with the Constitution of the United States of America, OUR Constitution, rule that your judicial writings, especially your dissents, were purely political, not principled; that virtually everything you did was about your religious-and-corporate-based belief systems and not about what was actually Constitutionally consistent.
Therefore, be it known that We, The People, deem you, in finality, a judicial hypocrite. So determine and submit We, The People, accordingly and respectfully.