2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Valmy]

You bet that I don't see something that I just said I don't see?

What can we say? Spicey is a mad gambler.

[KRonn]

My take from what I understand, is that the US has to import some uranium for its own use, doesn't have enough of its own so selling access to Russia gives a non-friendly government control of what is labeled a strategic resource. The deal was made that the US mined uranium can't be moved out of the country, which would seem to be fine, but some Congress members are saying that it does get transported out. Use of shell companies, etc. This may give the Russkie government control of more of the resource, which means Putin will have that control.  Putin wants to get more control of the world market. As a strategic resource I'd think it would be assumed that strict control would be kept over it and that may not be the case. I think that's what the stink is about. On top of the Clinton Foundation involvement in the whole dealings in it all and the massive mega million contributions, etc. The NY Times has been running articles on it all, as well as other news outlets.

Yes, the US probably imports.  My guess is that it imports from a notoriously unstable country plagued by internal unrest and separatism.

Canada.

Sure, no problem, but one of the first companies in the dealings was a Canadian uranium mining firm, now owned by a Mutha Russian or Kazakh corp, aka Putin's control. I'm sure it isn't all that bad and the US will have first access on that US mined uranium, and that Putin could never exercise control because of agreements supposedly made otherwise that the uranium can only be sold with the US. But Congress members say otherwise is happening. Besides, I think the US imports from  other countries besides Canada, probably some of those same firms are being looked at by Russia to take control, so should we worry?

[Admiral Yi]

Is your concern that the US will be unable to obtain uranium?

[KRonn]

Is your concern that the US will be unable to obtain uranium?

Somewhat, and also that a nation like Russia corners the market, but I assume the US will be able to get what it needs. Mostly the original issue was about the shady dealings of the Clinton foundation in this whole thing, which is very ugly.

[Admiral Yi]

Somewhat, and also that a nation like Russia corners the market, but I assume the US will be able to get what it needs. Mostly the original issue was about the shady dealings of the Clinton foundation in this whole thing, which is very ugly.

I thought it was Cisco that was shady, since they donated a bunch to the Clinton foundation in exchange for a State Department prize.  How does shadiness factor into the Canadian uranium company deal?

[KRonn]

Somewhat, and also that a nation like Russia corners the market, but I assume the US will be able to get what it needs. Mostly the original issue was about the shady dealings of the Clinton foundation in this whole thing, which is very ugly.

I thought it was Cisco that was shady, since they donated a bunch to the Clinton foundation in exchange for a State Department prize.  How does shadiness factor into the Canadian uranium company deal?

You have to read about it, there's a lot to it. NY Times and other mags and news papers have laid it out, working with the book's author. For instance, part of it is that donors on that deal went to a Canadian charity which doesn't report on its donors for tax reports, and those funds made their way to the Clinton foundation. Last week when this came out the Foundation said they made a mistake, but it's now being found that over a thousand "mistakes" may have emanated from the Canadian foundation. More about the major players and deal makers working with Bill, meeting at the Clinton home which was denied until they saw video of it. Bill giving a speech in Kazakhstan praising their President and the people's rights, when it's just the opposite. For that plum he received about twice his usual speech fees, the Kazakh govt. okayed a deal by a Kazakh firm on the uranium deal with donations to the Clinton Foundation. The players tried to claim the govt wasn't part of it so Bill's speech had no effect, but it was shown to be otherwise. And a lot more that's just worse and ugly.

[crazy canuck]

My take from what I understand, is that the US has to import some uranium for its own use, doesn't have enough of its own so selling access to Russia gives a non-friendly government control of what is labeled a strategic resource. The deal was made that the US mined uranium can't be moved out of the country, which would seem to be fine, but some Congress members are saying that it does get transported out. Use of shell companies, etc. This may give the Russkie government control of more of the resource, which means Putin will have that control.  Putin wants to get more control of the world market. As a strategic resource I'd think it would be assumed that strict control would be kept over it and that may not be the case. I think that's what the stink is about. On top of the Clinton Foundation involvement in the whole dealings in it all and the massive mega million contributions, etc. The NY Times has been running articles on it all, as well as other news outlets.

Yes, the US probably imports.  My guess is that it imports from a notoriously unstable country plagued by internal unrest and separatism.

Canada.

Sure, no problem, but one of the first companies in the dealings was a Canadian uranium mining firm, now owned by a Mutha Russian or Kazakh corp, aka Putin's control. I'm sure it isn't all that bad and the US will have first access on that US mined uranium, and that Putin could never exercise control because of agreements supposedly made otherwise that the uranium can only be sold with the US. But Congress members say otherwise is happening. Besides, I think the US imports from  other countries besides Canada, probably some of those same firms are being looked at by Russia to take control, so should we worry?

When was this Canadian mining company taken over by Putin friendly interests?

[jimmy olsen]

Sounds like a good idea to me.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2015/0429/Is-Hillary-Clinton-backing-off-her-husband-s-legacy-on-crime

Is Hillary Clinton backing off her husband's legacy on crime?

In a speech Wednesday, Hillary Clinton emphasized that events in places like Ferguson, Mo., and Baltimore show that the US has allowed its justice system 'to get out of balance.'

By Patrik Jonsson, Staff writer  April 29, 2015   

Hillary Clinton's call Wednesday for an end to "the era of mass incarceration" in the wake of riots in Baltimore not only amounts to a critique of her own past views on fighting crime, but is also suggestive of a broader cultural and political evolution in America's attitudes toward aggressive policing and prison building – efforts to deal with urban crime and blight.

Mrs. Clinton's speech, at Columbia University in New York, represented the first major policy address of her nascent presidential campaign, and it set down a marker for what is emerging as an indelible issue for presidential candidates from both parties.

In an at-times impassioned speech, Clinton's key point was that events in places like Ferguson, Mo., and Baltimore show that the United States has allowed its justice system "to get out of balance" – with policies enacted decades ago now having negative consequences. Recent tragedies involving police and young black men, she added, "should galvanize us ... to find our balance again."

We have to come to terms with some hard truths about race and justice in America," she said.

The words represent a viewpoint shift for Clinton, at least considering the stance the White House took when her husband, Bill Clinton, was president. In 1994, Mr. Clinton signed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which outlined tougher sentences for drug offenders and included funding to build new prisons.

Now, critics will look askance at what may seem a convenient shift for Mrs. Clinton at a time when racial grievances have exploded into protests in the US.

Yet Clinton's apparent evolution also seems to suggest a building bipartisan momentum in the US public toward reassessing whether the policies created to deal with high violent crime rates in the cities are appropriate in an era where those rates have sunk to historic lows.

"The fact is, the American public is complicit in the ways in which our police act in the inner city," says Robert Kane, author of the upcoming book "No Justice, No Peace: Smart Crowds, 'Dumb' Policing and #FergusonRebellion." "But I think that since Ferguson, it's clear that [events throughout the country] have brought issues of police [and justice system] accountability into the public discourse, and one reason is these events where police can be seen treading on the dignity of people they're supposed to be serving," said Mr. Kane, who is head of the Criminology and Justice Studies Program at Drexel University in Philadelphia.

Many of the get-tough policies, including the 1994 crime bill, were aimed at quelling the most glaring violence in society – black-on-black crime, including killings, in the nation's toughest neighborhoods. But as the violent crime rate has been halved since 1992, aggressive police tactics such as broken windows and zero tolerance have gone from solution to problem, critics say, creating urban zones where people can hardly walk, bike, or drive without being suspected of wrongdoing.

According to Clinton, the effects of such aggressive policing, as well as mass incarceration for nonviolent offenders, continue to devastate black neighborhoods. She referenced a recent New York Times data analysis that found that for every 100 black women, there are only 83 black men who aren't in jail or who haven't faced early death, meaning that 17 black men are, in essence, "missing." In contrast, only one white man is missing for every 100 white women due to incarceration or early death.

"Keeping [low-level offenders] behind bars does little to reduce crime, but it does a lot to tear apart families and communities," Clinton said. "When we talk about 1-1/2 million African-American men, we're talking about missing husbands, missing fathers, missing brothers: They're not there to bring home a paycheck, and the consequences are profound."

On Wednesday, Clinton also called for all police departments in the US to use body cameras.

Republican candidates for president have not had as much to say about the conflagrations in Baltimore, with Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who has in the past criticized policing policies that disproportionately affect black neighborhoods, noting awkwardly that he was glad the train he was on, which pulled through Baltimore, "didn't stop" Monday.

Yet in a notable momentum shift, calls for justice system reform are coming as much from conservatives as liberals. Conservative states like South Carolina, Texas, and South Dakota have all recently passed criminal justice reforms aimed at reducing prison populations and making it easier for ex-convicts to reenter society.

According to a Texas Public Policy Foundation poll in March, 73 percent of Lone Star residents want to see low-level drug offenders sent to treatment instead of jail, and 61 percent want the state to spend more on treatment than the building of new prisons.

"I think there used to be a view that for a legislator to vote to reduce penalties, for example, that would mean they'd be accused of being soft on crime and they'd lose an election," says Marc Levin, director of the Center for Effective Justice in Austin, Texas. "But after a lot of these votes in the states, legislators are getting positive feedback, and some are even campaigning on criminal justice reform."

[jimmy olsen]

Lol, good luck with that, he's gonna need it.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/29/politics/bernie-sanders-announces-presidential-run/

Bernie Sanders is running for president

By Dan Merica, CNN

Updated 0125 GMT (0825 HKT) April 30, 2015


Washington (CNN)—Bernie Sanders is in.

The independent Vermont senator told the Associated Press in a story published Wednesday that he plans to run for the Democrats' 2016 presidential nomination. The news was confirmed by multiple Sanders aides.

"I am running for president," he told The Associated Press.

"People should not underestimate me," Sanders told the AP. "I've run outside of the two-party system, defeating Democrats and Republicans, taking on big-money candidates and, you know, I think the message that has resonated in Vermont is a message that can resonate all over this country."

Sanders caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate but is an unlikely candidate for the Democratic nomination, primarily because he has never been a registered member of the party and calls himself a "democratic socialist."

Yet many of his views fit with the Democratic left, a constituency in which Sanders has found a small yet devout following. Sanders and his top advisers hope that group of voters will propel his dark horse candidacy. Though Hillary Clinton is the dominant frontrunner, many in the progressive left of the party think she's too moderate and are clamoring for a different candidate to support.

Sanders will outline his presidential plans further on Thursday when he holds a press conference in Washington. Sanders' campaign advisers said that while their candidate has announced his plans to run, he won't hold his first campaign rally until May. That event is expected to be in Vermont.

Sanders is an outspoken critic of Wall Street banks and the outsized influence of money in politics and is a supporter of universal health care. He regularly talks about the need to rebuild the middle class and raise taxes on America's highest earners.

"At a time of massive wealth and income inequality, we need a progressive tax system in this country which is based on ability to pay," Sanders said last month in Washington. "It is not acceptable that a number of major profitable corporations have paid zero in federal income taxes in recent years, and that millionaire hedge fund managers often enjoy an effective tax rate which is lower than the truck drivers or nurses."

In interviews before his campaign announcement, Sanders said trade, income inequality and health care would be key tenants of his run. But despite having vocal liberal supporters on these issues, Sanders is a dark horse candidate and has acknowledged that his run will be uphill. A CNN/ORC poll in March found that Sanders has the support of only 3% of Democratic voters.

Born in Brooklyn, New York, Sanders moved to Vermont after graduating from the University of Chicago. His first successful run for office came in 1981 when he was elected Burlington's mayor by a mere 10 votes. He was elected as Vermont's at-large member of Congress in 1990 and jumped to the Senate in 2007. Sanders is the longest-serving independent in congressional history.

Sanders does not have the personality of a typical politician. He is sometimes gruff and blunt, dispensing with social niceties and usually getting right to the point. He has come to be known as much for his fly-away hair as his passionate speeches in the Senate -- and has bluntly lamented the way political journalism in the United States focuses on personality.

"I think this is not about personality," Sanders told CNN earlier this year, raising his Vermonter-by-way-of-New York voice. "I am not a singer, I am not a dancer, I am not an entertainer."

He also starts with a small campaign infrastructure, largely the remnants of his past Senate runs, and is primarily being advised by Tad Devine, a Democratic political consultant who worked on the presidential campaign for Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. At an event this month in New Hampshire where Sanders leaned heavily into a presidential bid, the signs outside the house party touted his 2012 Senate re-election bid.

From the outset of his campaign, it appears money will be Sander's biggest issue. The senator has regularly conceded in the last month that he would not be able to raise near the money Clinton will bring in.

"To run a credible campaign in this day and age, you do need a whole lot of money," Sanders said. "Whether the magic number is $200 million, it is $150 million, it is a lot of money, but even with that, you would be enormously outspent by the Koch Brother candidates and the other candidates who will likely spend, in the final analysis, over $1 billion, if not two."

Despite being a champion for many on the left, Sanders has been somewhat left out in the cold by big liberal organizations like MoveOn.org and Democracy for America, who have spent the last few months unsuccessfully urging Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren to run for president.

"Obviously one would hope one would have as much support as possible from all walks of life," Sanders said on Tuesday when asked why he thinks those groups aren't rallying around him. "I am a great fan of Elizabeth and as for what people do and why they don't do it, I am not going to speculate."

Anna Galland, executive director of MoveOn.org Civic Action, even mentioned Warren in touting Sanders' jump into the race.

"MoveOn members welcome Sen. Bernie Sanders to the presidential race," said Galland. "The Democratic Party is made stronger by each additional voice who enters the race and commits to being a strong advocate for everyday, hardworking Americans and not just the wealthy few. That's why we and our allies continue to call on Sen. Elizabeth Warren to also bring her tireless advocacy for middle-class and working Americans to the race. Our country will be stronger if she runs."

Sanders enters a race that has so far been dominated by Clinton, the former secretary of state and Democrats' prohibitive favorite for the nomination. For most of 2015, Sanders has been reticent to attack Clinton, but he recently has issued statements calling on her to change her policy positions.

[jimmy olsen]

If you want to read the chart, follow the link

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/jeb-bush-has-the-cash-but-not-the-gop-support/

Jeb Bush Has The Cash, But Not The GOP Support   

12:02 PMApr 28, 2015 By Nate Silver and Harry Enten

Jeb Bush is expected to declare a fundraising total in the "high tens of millions of dollars," The New York Times reported on Monday. Any talk of record fundraising totals ought to account for inflation — as well as the fact that it's easier to raise big dollars since the Citizens United decision (most of the contributions to Bush will go to his Super PAC). Nonetheless, Bush's haul should be an impressive figure.

But money is unlikely to be Bush's problem in this campaign, and cash may be a less valuable resource than another sort of currency in which he is lacking: the support of influential Republicans, like current senators and governors, especially those who publicly endorse a candidate. Historically, these endorsements have been the best proxy for support in the "invisible primary" and a leading indicator for which candidates may emerge victorious through the rough-and-tumble nomination race.

So far, Bush has won very few endorsements. No current Republican senators or governors have endorsed him, and only five members of the House of Representatives have done so, all from his home state of Florida.

Fortunately for Bush, none of his rivals are doing much better. Rand Paul, with seven endorsements from the House along one from a senator — his Kentucky colleague, Mitch McConnell — is nominally the endorsement leader.1. But the overwhelming majority of Republican officials have stayed on the sidelines, at least publicly.

Isn't it a little early to worry about the endorsement count? We're still 265 days away from the projected date of the Iowa Caucus, Jan. 18, 2016.

But in some campaigns in the past, there had been plenty of endorsements at this stage of the cycle. For instance, Jeb Bush's brother, George W. Bush, had been endorsed by 16 governors, six Senators, and 64 members of the House by the end of April 1999, according to data from the political scientist Marty Cohen.

We've compiled this data2 for each open3 nomination campaign since 1980, based on endorsements through April 30 in the year before the election.4 We give each candidate "endorsement points" based on endorsements received from governors and members of Congress, which work like this: 10 points for each governor who endorses you, 5 points for each senator, and one point for each member of the House.5

Republicans have a reputation for "falling in line" and consolidating their support behind one or two establishment-backed candidates early in the race. And you can see evidence of that in the chart. The 2000 campaign was the signature example: George W. Bush had accumulated 254 endorsement points through April 30, 1999, far outdistancing Lamar Alexander's 33 points.

Bob Dole also had a substantial early lead in endorsements in the 1996 campaign, as Ronald Reagan did in 1980, and both won their nominations with comparative ease.

The other Republican races have been tighter. In the 1988 race, there was a virtual tie atop the endorsement scoreboard at this date in the cycle, with Dole at 32 endorsement points and George H.W. Bush at 31. Bush won the nomination.

GOP endorsements came fairly early in the 2008 campaign, but they were spread across several candidates. Still, the early leader in endorsements, John McCain, went on to win the nomination.

Meanwhile, the paltry endorsement total for Rudy Giuliani that year — at a time he was riding high in the polls and raising plenty of money — was an early sign of trouble for his campaign. If influential Republicans decide Jeb Bush is too liberal — that he's more like Giuliani than Mitt Romney or McCain — he'll have little shot at the nomination.

The 2012 campaign is a more favorable precedent for Jeb Bush. Few endorsements of any kind had been made through April 30, 2011, although Romney did lead among those who had endorsed and maintained that lead throughout the race.

Are campaigns simply getting off to a later start now? That's hard to say. There hasn't been much of a pattern (other than that the Democratic nominations in 1972 and 1992 got off to especially slow starts). The 2012 Republican campaign began relatively late, based on when candidates either officially announced for the race or opened an exploratory commission with the FEC. But with the advent of Super PACs, which allow a candidate to raise money without filing with the FEC, the official announcement date has become less important. And candidates don't need to officially announce their bids to win press attention: Plenty of news outlets, including FiveThirtyEight, will cover them whether or not they've gone through the pretense of declaring their bids officially.

What's clearer is that this remains a very active Republican campaign. Bush didn't deter his fellow Floridian, Sen. Marco Rubio, from running. Nor has he intimidated other moderates from considering a bid. Gov. John Kasich of Ohio is thinking about a run, as is Chris Christie of New Jersey. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, the sort of establishment Republican whose endorsement Bush might hope for, is instead running for president himself. Gov. Rick Snyder of Michigan, another moderate, is the latest to consider a bid.

Some of these candidates have more realistic hopes of winning the nomination than others. And some will drop out before Iowa (or will never officially declare). But the sheer volume of credible candidates stands in contrast to 2012, when Romney was able to keep candidates like Christie, Mitch Daniels, and Paul Ryan — along with Jeb Bush himself — mostly on the sidelines.

So is Bush losing the invisible primary? Not exactly. Let's consider a few points in his defense:

◾Unlike Giuliani in 2008 or Phil Gramm in 1996 — other candidates who raised lots of money early on but received relatively few endorsements — no other candidate is doing much better in securing endorsements.

◾Fundraising can be one sign of invisible primary support. Data geeks tend to downplay it because of cases like Giuliani and Gramm. But usually, endorsements and fundraising are highly correlated. There aren't that many useful examples of candidates analogous to Bush who raised money well without winning many endorsements, or vice versa.

◾Perhaps Bush has some endorsements in his pocket, which he'll roll out once he declares officially. (Endorsements can precede an official announcement, however. Hillary Clinton had been endorsed by 27 Democratic senators before officially launching her bid earlier this month.)

But if Bush isn't losing the invisible primary, he isn't winning it either. This Republican campaign is not following the trajectory of races like the Republican nominations of 1980, 1996 and 2000, or the Democratic nomination of 2000, where one candidate was a clear invisible primary leader (and went on to easily win his nomination). Furthermore, establishment Republicans have some reasons to prefer candidates like Rubio, Kasich and Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin to Bush. Not only are they more conservative — they can make a case for being more "electable" too.

[MadImmortalMan]

Why can Bernie run in the Dem primary without joining the party?

[jimmy olsen]

Why can Bernie run in the Dem primary without joining the party?

I think anyone can get on the ballot if they get the right number of signatures.

I could see him having an effect on the race. Winning New Hampshire due to proximity should be possible. That makes Iowa important to Clinton and the caucus can always produce surprising results. If someone other than her wins it the race would be wide open.

[Admiral Yi]

Why can Bernie run in the Dem primary without joining the party?

We don't have party memberships in America.

[celedhring]

Yay, Huckabee is running again.

[Sheilbh]

Alas, his time has passed (probably)