Nicole Sandler of RadioOrNot here, your trusty guest host for this Friday edition of The BradCast!
Although Brad strives to objectivity regarding the Democratic candidates — necessary to do the great reporting he does regarding voter suppression and other nefarious election-time practices — I am not a journalist. I do a fact-based opinion show, and in that capacity, I support Bernie Sanders candidacy. But, I have noticed the level of vitriol rising among Democrats lately, and it worries me.
Democratic consultant and strategist Mike Lux wrote about some new polling data his firm commissioned, and it shows a great divide in the Democratic party. He wrote about it at Crooks and Liars, and joined me on today’s BradCast to discuss the data and the implications.
Meanwhile, while watching the MSNBC Democratic town hall/forum on Thursday night, I noticed an ad attacking Bernie Sanders, the first one I’ve seen this election season. It was paid for by a SuperPAC called Future 45. A little sleuthing confirmed that one of the biggest contributors to this group is hedge-fund billionaire Paul “The Vulture” Singer. Investigative journalist Greg Palast has been writing about that guy’s sleazy dealings for years now. The minute I saw his name, I knew I had to invite Palast to tell us what he knows about this vulture.
And, as you might imagine, Palast also had a few words about the death of Antonin Scalia…and they weren’t “rest in peace.”
Download MP3 or listen online below…
[audio:http://bradblog.com/audio/BradCast_NicoleSandler_MikeLux_GregPalast_021916.mp3]
Sorry Nicole, this election is not a game, or a civilized boxing match. This is a street brawl for the future of democracy and the future of the planet. One of them is nowhere near the equivalent of the other. As someone of the hard left, I’m giving the Democratic Party one more chance to get it right, by allowing the people to take back the party for average Americans, and away from elites. That means rejecting, once and for all, the Clintons and the DLC machine that put them in power and seized control of the party nearly 30 years ago.
I never voted for Obama. I’ve voted Green Party three of the last four elections (including 2000). I gave up doing the “smart” thing in voting a long-time ago, after Bill Clinton spent eight years selling the American public down the river. I will NEVER, EVER vote for Hillary. She is totally unacceptable and not a choice at all. Getting rid of that family from American political life and taking back the party for The People is far, far more important than one election – even about the Court – and I wish progressives would quit swallowing the “OMG, The Court, The Court, the sky is falling if the Republicans get control of the Court”. Yeah, it would be no picnic, but not the end of the World (maybe abortions rights, but it’s time to bite the bullet). No, I am not convertible to Hillary. In fact, if she is the nominee I will join the “Stop Hillary” campaign. Defeating her is far more important than more of the same oligarchy in control of the the Democratic Party. As long as the people she represents continues to run BOTH parties, nothing will change.
please support this crowd sourcing project for transparency
http://opencaucus.org/
Is the repeatedly occurring contradiction between entrance/exit poll results and election results during elections something that began with electronic voting systems?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/upshot/why-clinton-not-sanders-probably-won-the-hispanic-vote-in-nevada.html?_r=0
Adam @3 –
The contradictions with EXIT polling is fairly new since modern e-voting systems as of 2004.
Not sure about ENTRANCE polling, since those are used for Caucuses and not nearly as reliable as EXIT polls because, for one thing, folks can change their minds inside the caucuses (where they are convinced to vote for other candidates, etc.)
An EXIT poll, however, by its nature, asks people who they just voted for, which should be far more reliable than both ENTRANCE polls and standard pre-election polls — if they are done properly, anyway.
GeneDebs @1:
Couldn’t disagree with you more in regards your comment about the Supreme Court…
While, yes, Democrats (and Republicans) and progressives have played that card for years, it has never been more appropriately played than in this election.
Depending on who is elected to the White House this year, the Court may well end up with either a 7 to 2 “conservative” majority or 6 to 3 non-Rightwing majority.
That WILL effect this nation for generations and on far more than abortion (though I see no reason why anybody should be asked to “bite the bullet” on such an important fundamental right.)
While your argument might have had some legitimacy in the past, it has none this year. And, if you haven’t noticed how much a bare 5 to 4 rightwing majority has been willing to do to harm both this nation and the planet, (much less a 7 to 2 majority!) then, frankly, you haven’t been paying attention.