Bernie Sanders Is Damn Electable

This election's democratic presidential race has been fraught with decision anxiety. With 27 candidates to choose from at one point, most of those interested in voting for a democrat have been offered at least a few candidates they'd consider, and probably one that came very close to matching their political preferences exactly. And with a cretinous miscreant as our current president, many of us have naturally thought that our main choice—or second or third choice—candidate was surely likeable enough to win the general election.

But the policies, behaviors, and fortunes of the candidates have been in a state of constant flux. Establishment candidates have started acting more progressive; progressive candidates have been adopting establishment policies; candidates have been announcing late or dropping out of the race early; and the racial, financial, and generational diversity of the candidates has been rapidly diminishing. So from one moment to the next, people have been saying "Wait a minute, I'm not sure I like so-and-so as much as I thought!" or "Well, I guess it's down to my fourth choice."

But, Really, Is That Candidate "Electable"?

In the meantime, just when you think you've finally settled on a candidate or two, the mass media, the pundits, and the democratic establishment in general feel they must constantly interject the question, "But is so-and-so candidate "electable"?" It's maddening. They act as if the ill-defined characteristic of "electability" is the only one that matters, and they insinuate that voters who consider anything other than electability in making their decision are betraying their party and their country, and are both stupid and naive. And one thing that this insistence implies is that the candidate with the best ideas logically can't also be the most electable—somehow the two are mutually exclusive.

So here voters are, stuck with the idea that "I like so-and-so, but I have to vote for this candidate I totally disagree with, or I'll be held personally responsible for destroying the country." This situation might not be so extreme and discordant, if it weren't for the fact that most of the mass media quite often is either misrepresenting or concealing the truth.

Ever Heard of Bernie Sanders?

One prime example of this deception is what is being called The Bernie Blackout. As Nolan Higdon and Mickey Huff reported in their recent arcticle for Truthout entitled "The Bernie Blackout Is Real, and These Screenshots Prove It," with regard to the previous democratic presidential primary, "CNN, Washington Post and The New York Times  tacitly admitted their reporting on the 2016 election was inadequate and flawed." Such behavior extended far beyond a refusal to give Bernie Sanders news coverage, even to helping Hilary Clinton cheat in a debate by providing her with the debate questions in advance and to Clinton campaign staff and members of the democratic party leadership actively telling news outlets to kill specific news stories and take or keep certain pundits off the air.

With more candidates in the mix, in some ways the situation has only gotten worse. Not only has Bernie Sanders received less coverage than other candidates, but he has been purposely removed from headlines and lists of top candidates, even when he has topped most or all of the candidates who are listed. For far more detail on the subject, and, believe me, it's downright insidious, I seriously recommend you read Higdon and Huff's article. The amount of misinformation that has occurred is mind-boggling.

The Media's Electability Bugaboo

In a situation that's part and parcel of the blackout I've mentioned, the criteria of "electability" that has been put on such a pedestal by the establishment and the media has been manipulated and even falsified. Throughout the 2016 election, poll after poll showed Bernie Sanders with a higher likelihood of beating Drumpf than Hilary Clinton, but news outlets insisted that it was Clinton who led in that respect.

The current primary has been panning out in a similar way. Up until quite recently, the party line was that Biden was by far the most electable of all the candidates versus the incumbent, and in the end, everyone would have to fall in line behind Biden and vote for him, regardless of his policy proposals and his record. The polls didn't disagree entirely, but they showed Biden as having not a wide margin but only a one or two percent advantage over his closest competitors, a number of whom, including Bernie Sanders in every case, were also projected to defeat Drumpf. Now, however, Biden is falling behind, and the latest poll from Newsweek shows Sanders on top. I haven't seen the response to this poll yet, but will it be accepted by other news outlets, or will they point to previous polls or invent their own polls to say that Sanders is definitely not the most electable?

And what is this vaunted "electability" that they talk about? Is it the nationwide popularity of a candidate and the likelihood that all different types of voters will vote for the candidate? By and large, no. "Electability" for the mass media is the amount of support a candidate will get from the democratic establishment in Washington and other strongholds, who the superdelegates would vote for, or who the DNC wouldn't try to undermine in the primary.

I don't know much about Vox, but based on their articles I've read in the past, I haven't considered them an establishment news outlet. However, in their three-article series on "the best case for each of the top Democratic contenders" in which they state "Vox does not endorse individual candidates," they seem to deal in the same sort of misdirection you might see on MSNBC. In their article "Joe Biden is the only candidate with a real shot at getting things done," Laura McGann gushes for page after page about Biden, sounding more like the president of the Joe Biden fan club than a journalist. In the course of that gushing, she cites endorsements by a number of democratic officeholders and opines that having these endorsements, and other support, in swing states gives Biden the best chance to win.

In stark contrast, one can only surmise from Matthew Yglesias's tepid Vox piece "Bernie Sanders can unify Democrats and beat Trump in 2020" that Yglesias picked the short straw, then reluctantly ground out a piece that contained a small percentage more positive comments than negative ones...though even that seems up for debate. Giving Vox the benefit of the doubt for a moment, beyond the writer's obvious lack of enthusiasm, perhaps one issue is that these articles were written in a series rather than all at once, and maybe that's why they're not comparable. Still, you'd think that in such a series, you'd have easy points of comparison between the articles to help readers compare the candidates (by the way, the second article in the series was on Elizabeth Warren), but in at least one major respect, that's not the case: Yglesias doesn't write a single word about Sanders' performance in the 2016 primary.

The media is always talking about the swing states and citing them as the key to winning an election against Drumpf. If they're so important, then Yglesias seriously dropped the ball. McGann, who also seems a bit culpable, claims "Biden [the current establishment democrat] consistently holds the highest margin in swing states" such as Michigan and Wisconsin, but she fails to mention the fact that Bernie Sanders (the progressive democrat) beat Hilary Clinton (the establishment democrat) in those two states, both of which Trump won when pitted against Clinton. Yglesias, on the other hand, doesn't even mention the concept of a swing state or any of Sanders' wins in 2016, despite the fact that he won the 2016 democratic primary in five of the swing states—Michigan, Wisconsin, Colorado, Minnesota, and New Hampshire.

I always approve of online articles when they include notes about revisions and corrections that were made based on new information that came to light—that bespeaks a certain amount of journalistic integrity. Given that the Vox series is supposed to provide direct comparison between what have been the top three candidates, I would think that the gushing in the Biden piece would prompt a similarly enthusiastic revision of the Sanders and Warren pieces. That hasn't happened. But, now playing devil's advocate, or perhaps just being realistic, with Biden falling in the polls, one might come to the conclusion that the excessive enthusiasm in the Biden article—and its timing just before the Iowa caucus—is there because the article is meant to boost his candidacy, rather than to objectively describe his chances in the election or his "electability."

Electability for the People

Ask the average person on the street what electability means, and their first answer is likely to be "whoever will beat Trump," given what they've been force-fed by the media, but if you allow them to continue, they're likely to talk about someone they can trust, someone they like, someone who has good policies, or someone who's looking out for them.

If we're to believe Hilary Clinton, no one likes Bernie Sanders, but if we're to believe the primary results from 2016, at least 13 million Americans who voted in that election might kinda like him...at least more than they like Hilary. Even right after the 2016 election, when some democrats were blaming Sanders for Hilary's losing, polling showed that Sanders was the most trusted politician in the country. All other polls on that topic since then have echoed that sentiment, such as the 2017 Harvard-Harris poll discussed in Mother Jones that "found almost 60 percent of Americans view the Vermont senator favorably. Among certain demographics, the progressive politician’s ratings are even higher: 80 percent of Democratic voters, 73 percent of registered black voters, and 68 percent of registered Hispanic voters view Sanders favorably.

At the same time, signature programs that Sanders is driving are supported by the majority of Americans. For example, a new poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation reaffirms its findings starting in 2016 that most Americans are in favor of Medicare For All. The poll shows that 56% overall are in favor, and, more importantly in this primary, 77% of democrats are in favor. Making public colleges free and eliminating student debt garnered 58% support overall in a Hill-Harris poll in September, and 72% of democrats were on board.

And what about the Green New Deal? It seems that people might kind of like that idea too, based on the poll discussed in the Grist article "Poll: The Green New Deal is as popular as legalizing weed." According to writer Zoya Teirstein, "The plan enjoys wide popularity among almost all demographics.... 63 percent of national adults think the climate proposal is a good idea, while 60 percent of registered voters (the folks who are capable of actually putting politicians in office who will make the green dream a reality) support it. A whopping 86 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Independents are in favor of the plan."

I don't know about you, but if a presidential candidate is the most trusted politician in the entire country, is viewed favorably by the majority of the people in the country, and has based their campaign on policies that are overwhelmingly popular with members of their political party, I would tend to think that candidate is pretty damn electable.

A Really Informal Ranking of the Democratic Presidential Candidates

You’ve probably heard a lot of people say that we have to be careful in this presidential campaign, because there’s a definite risk that if it gets too heated or dirty, it could cause a rift in the party or, even worse, could reduce voter turnout and easily hand the election over to 45 for another term. That is definitely a legitimate concern, and the risk is already there even without considering the election, thanks to Nancy Pelosi and her old guard’s insistence on attempting to quash the progressive movement, which threatens to, heaven forbid, actually revitalize the democratic party.

Watching the NBC debates on June 26 and 27 made the risk more palpable for me and got me thinking that I needed to do something. Like in other states, Massachusetts has recently seen some lobbying by activist groups to establish ranked-choice voting for elections. I started to think that maybe that concept could help us out in this situation. If it would be possible to bring democratic voters around from thinking “this person or no one” to “I’d prefer this person, but I’d be willing to consider the others in this order,” we would be much more likely to maintain party unity and also present a unified face to the rest of the population. Such a stance would not only increase the likelihood of good democratic voter turnout, it would create a more attractive option for independents, the undecided, and even people who voted for 45 before but are having second thoughts this time around.

To help encourage this way of thinking, I’d like to set an example by providing my own ranking. Although I’m electing to do so, I should issue the caveat that I’m not super knowledgeable about all of the candidates, so, for example, at this point I can’t judge them about a policy decision they made 10 years ago or a vote they made in 2000. My ranking is based just on what I happen to know about the candidates already from news reports and knowledgeable friends, and more so on how the candidates comported themselves and what they expressed in the two debates in June.

I urge others to follow my example and make up your own lists to help try to minimize the divisiveness and perhaps hone your own thinking a little. And feel free to tell me why you think I should change my ranking. I could definitely use more information.

Hopefully we’ll all get a little more information from the upcoming CNN debates on July 30th and 31st.* Maybe after that my rankings will see some revision.

*Note: I’m only going to rank the candidates who qualified for the July debates, although I’m leaving out that Bullock guy, whoever he is.

My Ranking:

1. Bernie Sanders
2. Julian Castro
3. Corey Booker
4. Kirsten Gillibrand
5. Andrew Yang
6. Elizabeth Warren
7. Kamala Harris
8. Beto O’Rourke
9. Pete Buttigieg
10. Marianne Williamson
11. Bill De Blasio
12. Michael Bennett
13. Jay Inslee
14. Tulsi Gabbard
15. Joe Biden
16. Tim Ryan
17. John Delaney
18. Amy Klobuchar
19. John Hickenlooper

For More Information:

July 26 Debate
Participants: New Jersey Senator Cory Booker. Former Housing Secretary Julian Castro. New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio. Former Maryland Congressman John Delaney. Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard. Washington Governor Jay Inslee. Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar. Former Texas Congressman Beto O'Rourke. Ohio Congressman Tim Ryan. And Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren.
Video: https://www.nbcnews.com/video/full-video-democratic-presidential-debate-night-1-62758981769
Full Transcript: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/full-transcript-first-democratic-primary-debate-2019-n1022816

July 27 Debate
Participants: Colorado Senator Michael Bennet. Former Vice President Joe Biden. South Bend Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg. New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. California Senator Kamala Harris. Former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. California Congressman Eric Swalwell. Author Marianne Williamson. And former tech executive Andrew Yang.
Video: https://www.nbcnews.com/video/full-video-democratic-presidential-debate-night-2-62848069759
Full Transcript: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/full-transcript-2019-democratic-debate-night-two-sortable-topic-n1023601?icid=canonical_related

A Christmas Card for the Apocalypse

Before this year (and hopefully after it, too), I was pretty dedicated in my efforts to send out as many holiday cards as possible at the end of each year. For me, during most of my adult life, the holidays have been a time to acknowledge my gratitude to the friends I've seen that year, apologize to those I couldn't see, and wish everyone well for the coming year, usually with an optimism that the upcoming year really could be pretty good for just about everyone I was sending a card to. However, this year has had me in a quandary. Yes I want to thank the friends I saw for the great times we had together, yes I want to apologize to those I wasn't able to see, and yes I really do want to wish everyone the best. But I'm having a problem with that last item. Oh, the wish part is there, I guarantee that, but the optimism that the year really could be pretty good for most people? Not this time.

When I thought about having cards printed up with a smiling photo of my girlfriend and I on some vacation somewhere, and then opening card after card and having to sincerely wish each person well, when I was uncertain that wellness would be likely for any number of us, I just couldn't bear the thought. I felt like anything I could possibly write would be at least A) hypocritical, or B) totally unfestive. How much bad karma would I accumulate in writing a hundred or so unfelt sentiments or dirgelike prophecies? And when they received my cards, how many recipients would be searching for the Unfriend button, so to speak, either online or in the real world?

The fact is that this year the holiday season for me has been overshadowed with a foreboding, a feeling that after that ball drops on New Year's Eve comes the beginning of the end, at worst, or, at best, challenging changes and a lot of struggle. This comes only a few months after a daydream I had, in which I was thinking how great it will be to retire early, go live on a farm and spend all day digging in the dirt, and finally relax and just not have to worry about anything. Well, so much for that. Sure, there have been elections during my lifetime that have left me disappointed, disgusted, or disillusioned, but none of them has ever made me think I have to consider the possibility of life as we know it ending...until now. It's not safe to assume the best without preparing for the worst—or something to that effect—and the worst case scenario given the most recent election is one that is difficult to contemplate.

Science Fiction

A good friend of mine once told me that the purpose of science fiction is to prepare people for what is to come, and I can't help feeling that my most useful frame of reference here is the future depicted in The Terminator. Far from digging in the dirt and relaxing, the future I can't help seeing now will mean donning protective gear every day before I walk out the front door, being constantly alert to every possible threat from every direction, not trusting those who are supposedly sworn to protect me, desperately trying to read between the lines of the propaganda to try to uncover the truth, and eking out a meager existence unless someone decides I should be one of the privileged few. Man, this is not what I signed up for when I turned 50! (Okay, I haven't just described being hunted by robots amid total decimation, so that world is not identical to the Terminator world, but close enough.)

That pretty much coincides with the worst case scenario, although I guess the worst-er scenario would involve all of us—poof—up in smoke. Nothing to worry about after that I guess.

The prospect of the best case scenario certainly is not encouraging. In the best case scenario, pretty much all of our civil rights will be under threat, our right to healthcare will be in danger, our ability to feed and house ourselves will be challenged, our planet will be baked and poisoned, resources we have taken for granted will be cut off or privatized for profit, we won't know which news media we can trust.... Oh wait, that's the world we live in right now. So I guess the best case scenario is that things won't get any worse than they are already, at least as they have been outlined by those who are about to take control of the country I live in, the ol’ U.S. of A.

Of course, I don’t know what’s going to happen—none of us do. Sure there are infinite possible scenarios: the president succeeds and completes our conversion into a corpocracy (or a coprocracy, which would be something altogether different...or perhaps exactly the same); the president is impeached, and the vice president completes our conversion into a theocracy; the democrats figure out some way to hamstring the republicans, and we spend another four or eight years with a government that can’t accomplish anything except finding more undeclared wars to fight to feed the companies in the military-industrial complex; so many people take to the streets that it starts shutting down the normal daily operation of the country; the country has its first military coup; everyone from Latin America leaves the country, and it collapses; aliens invade from outer space!

Deck the Halls...

Whatever the prospect, I have been unable to muster up any “holiday spirit” this year, beyond my ingrained need to constantly sing Christmas songs to myself during the entire month of December, and that has meant not sending out holiday cards. I feel like I’ve let down the people who had gotten used to seeing our smiling mugs once a year on a piece of cardstock, and I regret missing the chance to make an annual connection with people in a time when connecting is becoming of dire importance.

But perhaps some people will read this, and to those people I say: I wish you strength in the coming year, I wish you courage, I hope you don’t get totally screwed over, I hope you can eke out some happiness even if things get hellishly crappy, and I encourage you to connect with and stay close to your friends, family, and community. Hopefully we’ll all get through this together and not feel like we should have joined Bowie, Prince, and all those other folks who checked out in 2016.

Clinton’s Conflict of Interest: The Proof Is Not the Point

Another special guest post by H. Flannery

In the recent Democratic debate on April 14th in New York, CNN reporter Dana Bash posed this question to Senator Bernie Sanders:

“Senator Sanders, you have consistently criticized Secretary Clinton for accepting money from Wall Street. Can you name one decision that she made as senator that shows that [s]he favored banks because of the money she received?” 

After Sanders’ response, in which he talked about how the giant banks still aren’t broken up after the crash of 2007 even though they are actually larger and even more heavily invested in derivatives now than they were then, Hillary Clinton said, “Well, you can tell, Dana, he cannot come up with any example, because there is no example.”

This argument has come up time and time again during the past few months of the Democratic campaign, in which Clinton asserts that if you can’t prove conclusively that the gigantic contributions made by corporations to her campaign have influenced her past actions, then they must not have had any corrupting influence on her.

And something has been bothering me about the ineffective responses that Sanders and his supporters have been providing to answer that assertion.

Corruption is a sneaky animal. When your eyes are open to it, it is easy to see. But it is notoriously hard to prove, either logically or legally. Finding a direct, causal link between gifts of money and the actions of the recipients of that money is very difficult. When attorneys want to charge corporate officials for bribery, for example, they often have to resort to charging them for violating accounting laws by improperly labeling transactions for the money received, since they can’t prove where the money came from or went to, or whether it was used to influence a decision.

This difficulty was experienced by federal prosecutors, for example, when they tried unsuccessfully to prosecute former President Bill Clinton for bribery after he pardoned commodities trader Marc Rich on the president’s last day in office in 2001. Rich had been indicted on 65 criminal counts, including tax evasion, wire fraud, and racketeering. Clinton pardoned him not long after his wife, Denise Rich, had given a million dollars to the Democratic Party—including $100,000 for Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign and $450,000 for the Clinton presidential library. But, as the Wall Street Journal reported at the time:

“In the case of Mr. Clinton's pardon of fugitive tax-evader Marc Rich, prosecutors already have proof of a “quo” (the pardon) and a “quid” (huge contributions to the Clinton presidential library by ex-wife Denise Rich). Their challenge is proving the elusive “pro”—that the pardon was given in exchange for those contributions, or other things of value.”

And when it comes to political campaigns, the fact that it is difficult to provide direct proof of corruption is precisely why enormous campaign contributions are so dangerous. They create an inherent conflict of interest, whether or not the politician immediately acts to do something their donors ask for. And they should be limited precisely because they are so insidious, and because their effects are not necessarily identifiable in terms of a direct quid pro quo.

No one knows this better than John Paul Stevens, the Supreme Court justice who wrote the dissenting opinion in the now infamous Citizens United decision. In his opinion, he wrote (the bolding is mine):

“On numerous occasions we have recognized Congress’ legitimate interest in preventing the money that is spent on elections from exerting an ‘undue influence on an officeholder’s judgment’ and from creating ‘the appearance of such influence’, beyond the sphere of quid pro quo relationships... 

“Corruption can take many forms. Bribery may be the paradigm case. But the difference between selling a vote and selling access is a matter of degree, not kind. And selling access is not qualitatively different from giving special preference to those who spent money on one’s behalf. Corruption operates along a spectrum, and the majority’s apparent belief that quid pro quo arrangements can be neatly demarcated from other improper influences does not accord with the theory or reality of politics. It certainly does not accord with the record Congress developed in passing BCRA, a record that stands as a remarkable testament to the energy and ingenuity with which corporations, unions, lobbyists, and politicians may go about scratching each other’s backs—and which amply supported Congress’ determination to target a limited set of especially destructive practices.”

Glenn Greenwald recently wrote an article for The Intercept in which he came closer to explaining this than anyone I have seen or heard recently. In his article, “To Protect Hillary Clinton, Democrats Wage War on Their Own Core Citizens United Argument,” Greenwald talks about how Democrats had formerly been arguing against the Citizens United decision because they understood that the presence of large sums of special interest money in campaigns inherently created the potential for malfeasance:

“The crux of the Citizens United ruling was that a legal ban on independent corporate campaign expenditures constituted a limit on political speech without sufficient justification, and thus violated the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee. A primary argument of the Obama Justice Department and Democrats generally in order to uphold that campaign finance law was that corporate expenditures are so corrupting of the political process that limits are justified even if they infringe free speech.”

Now, he says, Clinton’s campaign is arguing the opposite: that campaign contributions do not inherently corrupt the process, and that even if you receive large contributions from special interests, there is no reason to think that your actions will be affected by those gifts. This is the opposite of what the Obama campaign and much of the Democratic base have been accepting as understood since the court’s decision in 2010.

But the more important point here is that the Clinton campaign’s “prove it!” argument is deliberately trying to derail our natural suspicion of the corrupting influence of big money. They are trying to make us forget that the most dangerous aspects of corruption are its insidiousness and its subtlety; that in politics there is not necessarily a direct, identifiable link between money and action; that, as Justice Stevens said, corruption operates along a spectrum—from small advantages such as greater access, to large advantages such as helping to write legislation.

The reason that we are justifiably suspicious about large sums of money influencing the actions of politicians is not always because we can point to a specific action taken (or not taken) by a politician directly because of contributions made to them by outside interests. It is because the very act of accepting large sums of money from outside interests creates a conflict of interest that is inherently corrupting. And the outside interests certainly hope that their gifts do affect politicians’ behavior; that is, after all, why they are giving the money in the first place.

Transcript of the debate:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/14/politics/transcript-democratic-debate-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders/

Difficulty of proving corruption in public officials: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_prosecution_of_public_corruption_in_the_United_States

WSJ article about Marc Rich:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB983494389378921301

Justice Stevens’ dissenting opinion:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/08-205P.ZX

Greenwald’s article:
https://theintercept.com/2016/04/14/to-protect-clinton-democrats-wage-war-on-their-own-core-citizens-united-argument/

Which Presidential Candidate Is Most Like Jesus?

I’m not a religious type of guy, but when I was out running today, I started thinking about some religious people I know and some of the comments they’ve made about the different candidates for president in this election. I know that for some of them, in some way I may not understand, their religion may be a major factor in who they will vote for or have voted for. One big reason why I don’t understand is because the candidates they like, either by their acts or by what they say, seem to not display the characteristics that one would normally consider to be exemplary of a person of faith. But I guess the people I know are willing to overlook this situation because those candidates say they’re religious or mention god periodically whenever they speak publicly.

Well I don’t think it’s a good idea to vote for a candidate just because they say they’re religious; I think the candidate should actually personify the ideals of your religion. For Christian religions, which we would be made to believe represent a large portion of the United States, the standard that is held above all others, the standard by which one can really judge a person, would be Jesus, right? As I’ve heard people, and seen T-shirts, say, “What would Jesus do?” The implication is that if you are in a situation and act in the same way Jesus would, then you are AOK.

So I thought to myself, “Well, which candidate is most like Jesus?” The answer seemed pretty clear to me. Let me give you a few hints:
1. He wants to kick usurers out of the temple.
2. He wants sick people—all sick people—to have access to healing.
3. He preaches acceptance of all types of people and welcomes them to his movement.
4. He’s rebelling against an unpopular, some say oppressive, establishment.
5. The Pope likes him.
6. He’s Jewish.

The Arizona Democratic Primary Debacle

A letter to President Barrack Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch:

The recent failed election process for the Democratic Primary in Arizona suggests the possibility of either massive computer or user error or deliberate sabotage of voter databases. I am writing to request a federal investigation be conducted immediately into the extent and causes of the errors in the voter databases and that corrective action be taken as soon as any preliminary results have been produced. I would also recommend prosecution of anyone found responsible for database sabotage.

Aside from the issues with the voter databases, there can be no question that the state of Arizona, and specifically Maricopa County, where Phoenix is located, is deliberately limiting the ability for even registered, confirmed voters to vote. As I'm sure you've heard at this point, as noted in The Nation, "election officials in Phoenix’s Maricopa County...reduced the number of polling places by 70 percent from 2012 to 2016, from 200 to just 60—one polling place per every 21,000 voters." This resulted in voting lines that were so long that the sheer waiting time prevented numerous people from being able to vote, and for those who actually were able to wait, numerous others found that their voting registration had been erroneously changed or misrecorded such that they could not even officially vote and at best could only file a "provisional ballot" that wouldn't be counted in the election results.

The long lines may have disproportionately affected certain groups, such as lower income workers, who could not afford to risk losing their jobs or being docked their pay for being away from work for four or more hours, or students, who could not afford to miss classes or exams. On the other hand, the impact would likely have been less on retired persons or higher wage earners with more leeway in their work schedules, but even they likely had their limits, and many of them may not have been able to vote in the end. Any disproportionate effect could have changed the results of the election, depending on whose constituency was actually able to vote.

Along with any investigation, and perhaps much more importantly, I would request that the results of the Arizona Democratic Primary be declared invalid and that a new primary with federal observers present at polling places be scheduled to occur before the Democratic National Convention convenes in late July.

The issue of voting malfeasance in Arizona is an incredibly serious one that strikes at the very core of our democratic way of life, and it demands immediate attention.

Thank you very much for considering my request.

Arguing the Case for Bernie Sanders Over Hillary Clinton: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bern

Whatever the issues, and whatever the candidates’ actual or seeming positions on them, what it comes down to for me is their focus. When I look at Bernie Sanders, I see one of the most honest politicians we’ve known in decades and a person who deeply cares for people, to the point of making sacrifices for them. He is focused on the needs of the people. When I look at Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, I see someone who often doesn’t seem to care about people, even to the point of sacrificing the interests of the people for the sake of earning more money or ensuring her political future. She is focused on saying what she needs to say to get elected.

As a person who plans to vote for Bernie Sanders, I have found it concerning that people are not really getting the full story about Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, mainly because standard media outlets seem to be focusing for the most part on repeating what Hillary says, without question.

A Campaign of Conflicts

The conventional wisdom is that there's only one democratic candidate for president who is electable and would be effective in office. The problem is, the conventional wisdom is set by the establishment, and in this case, the establishment is Hillary Clinton herself. Whatever she says is treated as fact by those with similar vested interests, otherwise known as conflicts of interest.

For example, several Democratic Party pundits who have been making appearances as guest commentators on network news shows work for companies that are employed by the Hillary Clinton campaign or by PACs that back Hillary Clinton. That might not be a problem, except that they don’t disclose the fact that they are employed by the current Clinton campaign. Instead, they are treated as independent observers, with no or very peripheral mention that they may have been associated with Hillary at some time. This is a classic conflict of interest, when you purport to provide unbiased observations although you’ve actually been paid by the person who you are talking positively about.

Although Hillary herself probably didn’t tell these people exactly what to say, there is an obvious risk of bias, these people are being quoted by the media, and those quotes are being picked up and repeated by the public without knowing the full story. You can find more information on this situation in Lee Fang’s article in The Intercept (https://theintercept.com/2016/02/25/tv-pundits-praise-hillary-clinton-on-air-fail-to-disclose-financial-ties-to-her-campaign/).

This is the same sort of issue that arises around Bernie’s supposed “smear campaign,” as Hillary describes it, regarding the potential for bias in her political statements, decisions, and policies. As Bernie very fairly points out, Hillary has received large amounts of money from various companies, industries, and other special interests, most significantly the finance industry—the top industry donor for her in this campaign. Based on data from the Center for Responsive Politics (https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/indus.php?cycle=2016&id=N00000019&type=f), as of February 22, 2016, Hillary’s campaign has received more than $18.7 million from the securities and investment industry during this presidential campaign. That amounts to nearly 10% of all the campaign funding she’s received (about $188 million, https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/).

In the eyes of the law and business ethics, when you are receiving money from an outside interest—regardless of how saintlike you may make yourself out to be—there is a substantial risk that you will make, or have made, decisions in your own interest (that is, your bank account) and/or that of your benefactor, rather than in the interest of your employer—in this case the American people. It is not a “smear,” as Hillary calls it, but the usual assumption in this kind of situation. It’s also one aspect of the law in which the person is, essentially, considered guilty until proven innocent. That is, if you can’t actively show that you consistently make decisions in the public’s interest even when someone else is essentially paying you to make decisions to the contrary, then the courts have to assume the worst.

In stark contrast, Bernie’s largest supporters are in the retirement, education, and health professionals “industries” (https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/indus.php?cycle=2016&id=N00000528&type=f), and I don’t know if one could “smear” him too heavily for looking out for the interests of retired people, teachers, and doctors and nurses.

Remember the Environment?

In all the hubbub, the media, and many voters, have lost sight of the issue of the environment, an issue important enough that it could render pretty much all other issues irrelevant.

Hearkening back to the CBS democratic debate on Tuesday, October 13, 2015, is one way to bring this issue back to the forefront. According to the New York Times transcript (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/us/politics/democratic-debate-transcript.html?_r=1), when asked “What is the greatest national security threat to the United States,” Bernie Sanders was the one who replied:

The scientific community is telling us that if we do not address the global crisis of climate change, transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to sustainable energy, the planet that we’re going to be leaving our kids and our grandchildren may well not be habitable. That is a major crisis.

I’m not saying that Chafee’s (remember him?), O’Malley’s, and Clinton’s responses about the Middle East, Iran, and nuclear weapons were inappropriate, but the fact that Bernie chose one of his first debate appearances to focus on the environment suggests that maybe he considers the environment a priority.

Looking at their overall voting records and statements they’ve made, Bernie and Hillary come out looking fairly similar on the issue of the environment. But, again, looking a little deeper and considering the possibility of there being conflicts of interest in Hillary’s decisions can cast doubt on an otherwise seemingly strong record regarding the environment.

An exposé by Mariah Blake in Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron#disqus_thread) reveals that during her term as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton “worked closely with energy companies to spread fracking around the globe,” even including sending “a cable to US diplomats, asking them to collect information on the potential for fracking in their host countries.”

The other day, I received an e-mail from the Bernie Sanders campaign stating his position against fracking and mentioning that Hillary is still actively associated with pro-fracking firms. Looking a little deeper, Brad Johnson’s Daily Kos article (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/26/1491970/-Bernie-Sanders-Hillary-Clinton-Supports-Fracking-I-Do-Not) reveals that Hillary is still encouraging the expansion of natural gas extraction, while Bernie is busy working on initiatives against it, such as the Keep It in the Ground Bill (http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/11/04/introducing-keep-it-ground-bill-sanders-goes-big-climate).

Flip-Flopping

People make jokes about it—http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/hillary-expected-to-adopt-all-of-sanderss-positions-by-noon—but one of the many stark contrasts between Hillary and Bernie is that Bernie has been consistent in his message, focus, progressive policies, and commitment to social justice for decades. Hillary, on the other hand, has tended to adjust her message for whatever audience she happened to be talking to, or whatever she thinks people want to hear, or whatever she finds out is winning votes away from her and for Bernie, or, one could conjecture, the corporate special interests that pour money into her campaigns or pay for her speaking engagements.

Just during the course of this campaign, Hillary has flip-flopped on several issues, but she has done so in the longer term as well. Usually the difference has boiled down to this: how she voted/acted when she was a senator or secretary of state, and the position she claims now that she’s running for president. Researchers for the “Hillary or Bernie Quiz” (http://www.bernievshillary.org/#/home) have found that, among other examples, Hillary has switched sides on the TPP, the Keystone Pipeline, drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, the deceptively named “No Child Left Behind” Act, the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, and same sex marriage. So far, the biggest inconsistency I’ve noted in Bernie’s position is that, in response to one of the debate questions about gun control, he said “we’re going to have to look into that” instead of stating his previous position.

The Bottom Line

As I said at the beginning, whatever the issues, and whatever the candidates’ actual or seeming positions on them, what it comes down to for me is their focus. Bernie Sanders is focused on the needs of the people. Hillary Clinton is focused on saying what she needs to say to get elected.

Given this disparity, I would be reluctant to vote for Hillary Clinton but confident in voting for Bernie Sanders. I’m confident that when it comes time for any decision to be made as president, Bernie Sanders will always have the best interests of the people of America—not the corporations of America...or the Cayman Islands—in mind, regardless of his level of experience with the particular topic. I’m also confident that he will choose the right advisors to advise him in making important decisions when it comes to things like military action, since he’s not the hawk that Hillary is.

Extra Links List

This post focuses on just a few select issues, but there’s a lot more good information out there, including on the most recent guest post in this blog. To learn more, please check out some of the following links.

Summaries of Bernie’s Strengths vs. Hillary
http://simpleserial.blogspot.com/2016/02/cataloging-bern-reasoned-and-also.html
http://senatorpatjehlen.cmail20.com/t/ViewEmail/r/B81B1E1E49DFBA782540EF23F30FEDED/006C6EEF495CCB742540EF23F30FEDED

Foreign Policy
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/bernie-sanders-foreign-poicy-213619
https://theintercept.com/2016/02/12/henry-kissingers-war-crimes-are-central-to-the-divide-between-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders/

Electability Against Republicans
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/poll-against-bernie-sanders-donald-trump-would-get-schlonged-20151223
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-destroys-donald-trump-by-13-points-6-more-than-clinton-_b_8936840.html
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/poll-sanders-outperforms-clinton-matchup-against-trump-n498076

Working Across the Aisle
https://www.quora.com/Who-would-be-most-able-to-work-with-Republicans-Bernie-Sanders-or-Hillary-Clinton https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/32guj6/how_would_sanders_reach_across_the_aisle_if_he/

The Environment
https://newrepublic.com/article/124381/2016-presidential-candidates-view-climate-change
http://www.thomhartmann.com/users/telliottmbamsc/blog/2015/04/one-women-climate-killer-how-hillary-clintons-state-department-sol

Race
https://berniesanders.com/issues/racial-justice/

Chelsea Clinton’s Connection to Corruption and the Finance Industry
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/mezvinsky.asp

A Reminder of Just How Much Money We Throw Away on Military Spending
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/military-spending-united-states/