Mediaboss Marketing

Bernie Sanders is poised to score a big win in one of the nation's deepest red states.

Sanders, 78, has a double-digit advantage in socially conservative Utah, according to a new poll by the Salt Lake Tribune and Suffolk University. The Vermont senator, a socialist, has 26.5% of the vote among Democrats likely to vote in the state's primary on March 3 surveyed, trailed by his Massachusetts counterpart and ideological ally Elizabeth Warren's 14.4%.

Meanwhile, the Democratic race for the 2020 presidential nomination's top center-left candidate, former Vice President Joe Biden, has 12.1% support, the poll found. He's followed by a rival for the moderate lane, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is at 9.9%. Bloomberg entered the contest late and is forgoing the early-voting states in favor of Super Tuesday ones. The other contender for center-left votes, former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg, was further behind with 5%.

Sanders won Utah's 2016 Democratic caucuses, trouncing then-opponent former first lady and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by almost 60 percentage points.

[Also read: Sanders campaign predicting victory in Iowa caucuses]

While Utah, this election cycle, will host a primary election, Sanders, a former Vermont congressman and the mayor of Burlington, is still boosted by young people and liberals, despite Republicans controlling the governor's mansion and the state House. Then-candidate Donald Trump also walloped Clinton in Utah during the 2016 general election by 45 percentage points.

No Democrat has won Utah in a general election since President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964.

The Utah poll coincides with other Super Tuesday surveys providing a shot in the arm to Sanders surging second bid for the White House. On Wednesday, a Texas poll put Sanders in front of Biden, endangering the 36-year Delaware senator's Southern strategy. This week a separate California poll had Sanders ahead in a state he also carried last time in vied to become the Democratic Party's standard-bearer.

Sanders's lead in Utah, however, may be overstated. Researchers for the Salt Lake Tribune and Suffolk University poll only surveyed 132 likely Democratic primary voters via the telephone between Jan. 18 and Jan. 22. Their findings have a margin of error of plus or minus 8.5 percentage points.

Read the original here:
Sanders set to crush 2020 Democratic rivals in primary in deeply conservative state - Washington Examiner

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to ourTerms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sentvia e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

Read more from the original source:
Letter to the editor: Pelosi, Democrats fear Trump - TribLIVE

With the Iowa caucuses less than one week away, the 2020 Democratic primary is beginning to come into focus six new polls paint a vivid picture of whos in good shape before the first contest.

Nationally, former Vice President Joe Biden has been the frontrunner since before he announced his candidacy last April, and the latest national polls show him still topping the field, with a January Fox News poll finding he has 26 percent support, and a January ABC News/Washington Post poll showing 28 percent support.

But both polls found this lead to be threatened by Sen. Bernie Sanders, who has remained in second place in national polling averages since last November.

For much of late 2019, RealClearPolitics polling average showed Biden and Sanders separated by about 10 percentage points, but the former vice presidents lead has begun to narrow. Fox News latest poll puts Sanders directly below Biden at 23 percent support within that surveys 3 percentage point margin of error. Similarly, the ABC poll finds Sanders enjoying 24 percent support, again making Bidens lead within the polls 3.5 percentage point margin of error.

These polls give good insight into how voters outside the early states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada are thinking about the candidates right now, but those opinions may change dramatically after the results of the first contests, particularly if the margins are stark in the final results.

Biden and Sanderss strong national showings dont mean they will win the nomination. At this point in 2016, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had a commanding lead on Sanders in polling averages, but only narrowly won Iowa and was defeated by the senator in Vermont. And President Trump, who had a nearly 15 percentage point lead on Sen. Ted Cruz, narrowly lost Iowa to the senator.

So while these national polls are somewhat instructive, it is important to remember that before Biden and Sanders can worry about Super Tuesday states, they and all their fellow candidates have to first make it out of Iowa.

In Iowa, the latest polls reveal momentum for Sanders, but also suggest the race is still very open, with Biden, Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg forming a clear top tier, one that Sen. Amy Klobuchar could be poised to join.

Three of the four latest Iowa polls have Sanders as the caucuses frontrunner: An Emerson College poll puts his support at 30 percent; a New York Times/Siena College poll places him at 25 percent, and a CBS News/YouGov poll puts him at 26 percent. Biden leads in the fourth poll, from Suffolk University/USA Today, with 25.4 percent.

Biden is second in two of the polls led by Sanders (21 percent in Emerson College, and 25 percent in the CBS survey); Buttigieg is second in the Times poll, with 18 percent support. The CBS and Suffolk polls put the former mayor in third place; the Emerson poll in fourth. Warren is fourth in every poll, except for the Emerson survey, in which she is essentially tied with Buttigieg.

That tie is a telling one, as are most of the gaps between the candidates. Take the New York Times/Siena college poll for example, which has a margin of error of 3.9.

When that margin of error is taken into account, the frontrunner becomes less clear. Sanderss 25 percent support could be more like 21.1 percent support, and if thats the case, it could make Biden or Buttigieg the true frontrunner, and leave Klobuchar who was found to have 8 percent support ending the caucuses with backing that is more like 11.9 percent.

This isnt to say that Sienas pollsters or any others who have recently released results are wrong, but that the race is still very close.

Adding to the uncertainty are three things: the fact that many respondents told pollsters their choices arent set in stone, that second choices can be as (or more) important as first choices in Iowa, and that three key candidates Sanders, Warren, and Klobuchar havent been able to campaign recently.

Emersons pollsters found 38 percent of Iowa Democrats and independents arent yet sure how theyll caucus, a number large enough that could make or break someones campaign. Suffolks survey found similar results, with 45 percent saying they have a candidate they favor, but that they could still change their minds; and 13 percent said that, with days to go before the caucuses, they still arent even leaning toward one person in particular.

The good news for Sanders and Warren is that their supporters seem to be relatively locked in: Suffolk found about 60 percent of their current supporters said they are sure to caucus for them. About half 53 percent of Bidens supporters said they are committed to him. Buttigieg had a 48 percent commitment rate, and Klobuchar, 42 percent. The other polls showed similar results, with Warren and Sanders supporters being the most steadfast.

Iowas system of assessing candidate viability makes Iowans second choices of great importance essentially, Iowans who caucus for any candidate who does not receive at least 15 percent support in a given district are asked to caucus for their second choice.

Warren was the top second choice in the New York Times poll; Biden in the CBS survey. But its important to look at where that second choice support is coming from for instance, many of the polls found that Sanders supporters overwhelmingly said Warren is their second choice. But given recent polls, it seems unlikely that Sanders will fail to clear the 15 percent mark, meaning his caucusgoers will not be required to throw their support elsewhere.

Instead, the backers of candidates like entrepreneur Andrew Yang (whose support polled between 1 and 5 percent in these most recent surveys), or even Klobuchar, could make all the difference.

The New York Times and Emerson surveys found that most Klobuchar backers like Biden as a second choice which makes sense, given both occupy a moderate lane in the race. Emerson found 39 percent of Klobuchar supporters have Biden as their second choice; the New York Times put that number at 55 percent.

As is the case with the candidates in general, however, it isnt clear how set in stone these second choices really are. Suffolks pollsters asked likely caucusgoers who said they dont support any of that surveys top five candidates Biden, Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar who they would support if they had to choose from one of those five. And 75 percent said they had no idea.

They have less than a week to figure it out. And theyll have to do so without the benefit of direct interactions with the candidates all the sitting senators currently running are taking part in the Senate impeachment trial. Some candidates have expressed concern that the fact they cant do any last-minute campaigning will hurt them Sanders, for instance has told reporters, I would rather be in Iowa today. ... Id rather be in New Hampshire and Nevada and so forth.

But Suffolks work found the senators might not have anything to worry about: 88 percent of likely caucusgoers said the senators not being on the ground wont affect how they caucus; only 5.2 percent said, I expect candidates to be in Iowa to earn my vote.

All this means that no one candidate at least among those in the top tier has a clear overall advantage against the others in Iowa. Any one of them could win. Or a number of them could win, with one taking home the most delegates, another taking the popular vote, and a third dominating headlines for doing far better than expected. But for whoever does come out on top, Iowa will only be step one: A close race means every early contest matters in developing an electability narrative, and New Hampshires primary is up next.

Polls show Sanders as the current strongest candidate in Iowa and New Hampshire, and he seems to be closing in on Biden nationally. But Biden isnt exactly polling poorly in either of those first two states, and he has habitually topped polls in South Carolina, where voters will go to the polls at the end of February.

Warren has fallen from her perch atop the polls, but is a popular second choice and she is racking up endorsements, like the coveted Des Moines Register endorsement she received Saturday. Buttigieg has also seen his support shrink from its late 2019 heights, but he is holding on particularly in New Hampshire. And Klobuchar is making late gains in both Iowa and New Hampshire, now nearly cracking double digits in poll averages in each state.

Yang is also seeing something of a late rise not enough to break into the top tier, but one that will put him back on the Democratic debate stage ahead of the New Hampshire primary. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is eschewing the early states in the hopes of raking in a massive delegate haul on Super Tuesday, is showing signs his strategy may be working: The latest national polls had favorable results, pushing the relative newcomer to the race up to a polling average of 8 percent.

All of this is to say, as primary season gets underway, that the race could still shake out in a number of unexpected ways.

Original post:
Iowa caucuses: Whos leading the polls ahead of the first Democratic primary contest - Vox.com

Fox News correspondent Geraldo Rivera said Democrats allegations against President Trump in the impeachment trial are probably true but dont amount to a crime.

I believe that everything the Democrats allege is probably true. Everything they allege. I concede everything that the Democrats allege, except the hunting of the ambassador, Rivera told Mediaite in an interview published Tuesday.

I believe that the whole effort to get Ukraine to investigate Biden was seedy. None of it was criminal. If there was a crime, they would have spelled it out. I firmly believe no crime, no conviction in the impeachment trial, he added.

Still, Rivera, who has known Trump for decades, echoed the presidents attacks on impeachment, referring to it as a witch hunt.

I didnt vote for him last time, and I may not vote for [him] this time. But Ill be damned if Im going to let the Democrats get away with what I consider to be a very lame and hypocritical and partisan witch hunt, he said.

I totally agree with him that he is being and has been from the first second of his tenure hounded and harangued and harassed and hunted by the hypocritical Democrats who all assume high ground that they dont deserve because they had it out for him since the second he won the election, Rivera continued.

The House impeached Trump in December, alleging he abused his power when he sought to press Ukraine to investigate his political rival, Joe Biden.

Amid the Senate trial, Trumps former national security adviser John Boltons forthcoming book sent shock waves through Washington. A manuscript of the book said Trump made security aid to Ukraine conditional on an investigation into Biden.

Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz argued Monday that the president did nothing wrong.

"If the president, any president, were to have done what the Times reported about the content of the Bolton manuscript, that would not constitute an impeachable offense," he said.

See original here:
Geraldo Rivera: 'Everything the Democrats allege' about Trump 'is probably true' - Washington Examiner

Over the course of the last two years, I've traveled across the country meeting with some of the biggest donors in Democratic politics. As the leader of an organization working to win Democratic control of statehouses ahead of redistricting, it has been my job to urge our party's biggest funders to not fall into the same trap Democrats that fell into in 2010.

That year Democrats collectively sat on our hands while Republicans invested roughly $30 million into down ballot races, won control of two-thirds of state legislatures across the country, and gerrymandered themselves into dozens of congressional seats for the next decade.

Nevertheless, many of our party's biggest funders have repeatedly told me that they are singularly focused on defeating Trump this election and won't invest in other efforts. That's a major problem for the future of the Democratic Party, the future of our democracy and the future of our country.

One would think after experiencing the decade-long effects of Republican gerrymandering from the last round of redistricting, Democratic donors would be jumping at the opportunity to prevent this from happening all over again. One might even assume that the Supreme Court's decision earlier this year, effectively giving a greenlight for partisan gerrymandering, might further raise the alarm. Sadly, that's been far from the case.

But there's an important point that has been largely overlooked in this discussion: For donors on the Democratic side, it doesn't have to be a zero-sum choice between fueling efforts to defeat Trump or supporting Democratic state legislative campaigns.

That's because the data makes clear that putting a relatively small amount of money into a key selection of battleground states could ensure Democrats are not gerrymandered out of power in Congress for decades to come.

Winning Democratic majorities in just three strategic state legislatures - specifically, Texas, Florida and North Carolina - would significantly boost Democrats' long-term power nationally and provide a crucial check on GOP gerrymandering ahead of redistricting.

Based on estimates of population growth, Texas, Florida and North Carolina are expected to have more than 80 U.S. Congressional seats following the 2020 Census. These three states have been ground zero for some of the most extreme cases of Republican gerrymandering and voter suppression over the last decade.

For those motivated to support Democratic politicians at the national level, helping Democrats flip these state legislatures is vital to preventing further Republican gerrymandering, which could lock Democrats out of power at the Congressional level for the next decade.

Our organization, Forward Majority, has analyzed the data and landscape to identify 60 races that are prime targets across these three states. We estimate that competitive campaigns with a good chance of securing Democratic majorities would cost about $30 million dollars in total.

Donations to these efforts power campaigns, ensuring all voters in a competitive district have the chance to hear messages and learn about the Democratic challenger.

It seems with each passing day, more Democratic donors are promising to spend massive amounts of money to defeat Trump in 2020.

Just the billionaires vying for the nomination, Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer, have promised to spend hundreds of millions to defeat Trump and fuel their campaigns. The $30 million needed to win power in key state legislatures is well below the $47.6 million from Tom Steyer and a fraction of the nearly $160 million and counting from Michael Bloomberg in their efforts to secure the Democratic nomination.

Defeating Trump is an essential, existential fight; both the stakes and costs are extremely high. But, Trump is a symptom of the rot and corruption in our political system, not the root cause. If Democrats defeat Trump but fail to counter the voter suppression and gerrymandering that tear at the heart of fairness, representation and accountability in our democracy, we will be all the more vulnerable to the next aspirational authoritarian who rises after him.

The good news is that, by investing in winning Democratic majorities in legislatures in a handful of states, billionaire White House hopefuls can also make a far-reaching impact in politics and in the lives of thousands of Americans over the next decade for pennies on the dollar.

The reality is that if just one of them put a small fraction of those funds, $30 million, behind targeted legislative races in these three states, we would mitigate the greatest risks of voter suppression and gerrymandering that impact the balance of power nationally for the decade to come. It's time for Democratic donors to wake up - before it's too late.

Vicky Hausman is the co-founder and co-CEO of Forward Majority, an organization focused on winning power for Democrats in state legislatures to address voter suppression and gerrymandering. Prior to Forward Majority, she was a Partner with Dalberg, where she led the firm's Americas business and Global Health Practice. Vicky started her career as a Peace Corps Volunteer, and was previously a consultant with the Boston Consulting Group.

Read the original post:
Democrats need to spend money to win state houses, not just beat Trump - INSIDER