Mediaboss Marketing

By Harold Clarke and Marianne Stewart By Harold Clarke and Marianne Stewart June 12

On May 2, during the Women for Women Internationals annual luncheon,CNNs Christiane Amanpourasked Hillary Clinton whether misogyny contributed to her defeat in the 2016 presidential election. The Democratic nominee replied: Yes. I do think that it played a role. On May 31, Clinton reiterated the claim in a widely publicized interview at Recodes Code Conference 2017 event.

In making this claim, Clinton asserted what many political commentators, and no doubt millions of Americans also believe: Negative attitudes toward women affected voters in 2016, and the impact of these attitudes influenced the outcome of the election.

We bring fresh data, and a surprising finding, to this topic.

In the fall of 2016, we asked six questions about the role and status of women on a national survey called the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES). Respondents could agree or disagree with these six statements:

These questions are intended to capture whether survey respondents have progressive or traditionalist attitudes toward womens roles and statuses, without any reference to Clinton, Donald Trump, political parties or the election.

As the graph below shows, for the most part, progressive attitudes are more prevalent than traditionalist ones, but sizable minorities of those answering the survey expressed traditionalist attitudes, especially among men.

But even after accounting for other factors, attitudes toward womens roles were still correlated with how people voted. For example, if we imagine that the index runs from zero(most progressive) to 100 (most traditional) the average voter scores roughly a 40. Holding other factors equal, a shift from a relatively progressive position (20) to a relatively traditional position (60) would reduce the chance of voting for Clinton from 57percent to 17 percent. The finding is robust the impact of attitudes toward womens roles was consistent in statistical models with many different combinations of factors that might influence how people voted.

One interesting question is whether attitudes about womens roles were more strongly related to the votes of men or women. We didnt find evidence of any difference. These attitudes mattered similarly for both men and women.

Another important question is whether attitudes about womens roles mattered more in 2016 than in 2012? If so, this suggests that there really was something distinctive about 2016, when a female candidate ran against a male candidate who had made many crude comments about women.

The 2016 CCES asked respondents whether they supported Obama or Romney in 2012. If we apply the same statistical model to peoples 2012 vote choice, we find that attitudes toward women did not have a meaningful association with whether people supported Obama and Romney, despite the Obama campaigns attacks on Romney and Republicans for waging a war on women. Attitudes toward womens roles and statuses did not have the same traction in 2012 that they did in 2016.

In short, our analysis suggests that Hillary Clinton is correct: Attitudes toward womens roles and statuses influenced presidential voting in 2016. If fewer voters had held traditionalist attitudes toward womens roles and statuses, Clintons national popular vote total (already a plurality) would have increased. Even small shifts in these attitudes could have affected the outcomes in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio, where Clinton lost by an average of only 0.57percent.

That said, there is another important implication of our findings one more surprising and actually more favorable to the Clinton campaign. Our survey clearly shows that attitudes toward womens roles and statuses were tilted in a progressive direction, so the salience of womens roles in voter decision-making likely helped Clinton more than it hurt her. She had more votes to gain from people with progressive attitudes than she had votes to lose from those with traditionalist views.

Thus, playing what some observers might call the woman card may have been good politics for Clinton in 2016 even if it was not enough to bring her to the White House.

Harold Clarke and Marianne Stewart are professors in the school of economic, political and policy sciences at the University of Texas at Dallas.

Link:
How attitudes about gender may have helped Hillary Clinton in 2016 ... - Washington Post

Three members of Special Counsel Robert Muellers team made the donations to Democrats, including to Hillary Clintons presidential campaign, according to a CNN analysis using Federal Election Commission records. CNN reported:

More than half of the more than $56,000 came from just one lawyer and more than half of it was donated before the 2016 election, but two of the lawyers gave the maximum $2,700 donation to Hillary Clinton last year. Over the weekend, news outlets including CNN identified five attorneys that Mueller has already brought on board to help investigate potential collusion between associates of President Donald Trumps campaign and Russia.

The attorneys on the team have worked on other high-profile cases,including Watergate and the Enron fraud scandal, as well asrepresenting U.S. companies in legal dealings, according to CNN.

Three of the five lawyers gave overwhelmingly to Democrats, totaling more than $53,000 since 1988, and more than half of those donations came from just one lawyer, James Quarles, who works at the same firm where Mueller worked, WilmerHale.

Quarles gave nearly $33,000 to political campaigns, including presidential candidates Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.

Quarles also gave more than $10,000 to help Democrats running for the House and another $10,000 to candidates running for Senate seats, including money to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, CNN reported.

Ironically, Quarles is also the only lawyer among Muellers team who donated to Republicans, giving $2,500 to Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) in 2015 and $250 to then-Sen. George Allen (R-VA) back in 2005.

Only about 30 percent of the donations were for 2016 elections, according to CNN, including Quarless and Jeannie Rhees, who both gave the maximum $2,700 contribution to Clintons campaign last year.

Rhee has donated more than $16,000 since 2008, all to Democrats, including the maximum allowed contribution to the Clinton campaign in 2016 and 2015, totaling $5,400. She also gave $7,300 to both of Obamas presidential campaigns.

Perhaps more importantly, Rhee hasalready been in the spotlight for representing the Clinton Foundation in a racketeering lawsuit brought by a conservative advocacy group, and also representing Clinton herself in a lawsuit seeking access to her private emails.

Mueller, who was FBI director under by President George W. Bush, also hired Andrew Weissmann, who led the Enron investigation, gave $2,300 to Obamas first presidential campaign in 2008, and $2,000 to the Democratic National Committee in 2006.

FEC records do not show any donations by Weissman in the 2016 election cycle, according to CNN. There also are no FEC records for Aaron Zebley, who left WilmerHale to work on the Russia investigation.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who endorsed Trump, said on Monday that Muellers team cant be impartial given their political activism.

Republicans are delusional if they think the special counsel is going to be fair, Gingrich tweeted. Look who he is hiring. Check FEC reports. Time to rethink.

There arent any records of political donations from Mueller himself, CNN reported. A spokesman for Mueller declined to comment Monday afternoon about the political donations from his legal team and the criticism some of the team were partisan.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

View post:
Report: 3 Members of Special Counsel Mueller's Team Donated to Dems, Including Hillary, Obama - Breitbart News

President Donald Trump alleged Tuesday -- without offering any proof -- that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch broke the law by giving former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton a free pass.

A.G. Lynch made law enforcement decisions for political purposes...gave Hillary Clinton a free pass and protection. Totally illegal! Trump said on Twitter.

Trumps allegation that Lynch committed a crime comes as Trumps own attorney general, Jeff Sessions, prepares to testify at an open hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee at 2:30 p.m. Tuesday.

Former FBI Director James Comey testified to the same panel last week that he decided to speak publicly about the probe of Clintons use of private email to conduct public business after concluding that Lynch had the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Comey said Lynch lost credibility to discuss closing the email investigation because she met with former President Bill Clinton on a plane on the tarmac in Phoenix in June 2016. Lynch had said they didnt discuss the email probe.

Comeys comments on the Clinton email probe were overshadowed by his descriptions of meetings with Trump over the Federal Bureau of Investigations probe of Russias meddling in the U.S. presidential election.

Read more:
Trump Says Lynch Gave Hillary Clinton 'Free Pass,' 'Protection' - Bloomberg

Contrary to popular belief, slavery was never outlawed in the United States. This statement is not a debatable, half-twisted analysis or a cynical opinion. It is a fact.

The 13th Amendment to the Constitution does not outlaw slavery; it only prohibits slavery in certain situations. It is entirely constitutional to turn drug dealers, gangbangers and thugs into slaves. It is perfectly legal for corporations to use legions of slaves to increase their profit and pass them along to shareholders. Even though it seems like the opposite of freedom, America is totally cool with it.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

When Hillary Clinton stood at Keene University and called black men superpredators in January 1996, it was only a few days after the New Years Day release of her book It Takes a Village. In the book, Clinton spoke about her days in the Arkansas governors mansion and the long-standing tradition of using convicted felons as free labor.

Clinton could relax and have her dark-skinned dishwashers clean the mayonnaise residue off her finger-sandwich plates because Arkansas is one of the few states that still use prison labor without compensating the prisoners. She was cool with it, thoughexcept when she was forced to send back to prison any inmate who broke a rule. Clinton lovingly referred to the felons as emotional illiterates, which is a little demeaning, but apparently not as much as the ones she hadnt locked up yet, whose powers allowed them to grow into superpredators.

America has the largest prison population in the world. According to the Washington Post, about half of the 1.6 million people in state or federal prisons are black, even though African Americans make up roughly 13 percent of the population. Black Americans were incarcerated in state prisons at an average rate of 5.1 times that of white Americans, The Guardian reported last year, and in some states that rate was 10 times or more. Even when convicted of the same crime as whites, black convicts, according to a 2014 study (pdf), were even more likely to serve time in private prisons.

The untold, secret story of Americas criminal-justice system is that there are large corporations benefiting from free black labor, and under the Trump administration, business is booming.

In August 2016, former President Barack Obama announced a push by his administration to end the federal use of private prisons. This directive sent private-prison stocks into a downward spiral. One of the first decisions Jeff Sessions made as the current attorney general under President Donald Trump was to reverse this order. The second move by the Sessions-led Department of Justice was to end the Obama administrations practice of not seeking mandatory minimums for nonviolent drug offenses. When the DOJ released the memo rescinding this policy, private-prison stocks soared to an all-time high.

In the final months of the Obama administration (August 2016), the Justice Department announced it

Perhaps Sessions decision was based on Republican ideals of law and order. Maybe it was because all conservatives believe that private companies do a better job running prisons than the government (data shows they dont).

However, it might be because Sessions investment portfolio is filled with thousands of dollars in private-prison stock. Its likely because GEO Group Inc. and CoreCivic, two of the nations largest private-prison operators, gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to Trumps fundraising efforts.

There are prisons and companies all across the country who use free or barely paid prison labor to make a profit. According to the Prison Policy Initiative, these prisoners make between 12 cents and $1.14 an hour. The products and companies that benefit from this slave labor include the following:

This list doesnt include the states, like Mississippi, Louisiana and Arkansas, that dont pay prisoners at all for labor. Places like Angola State Prison are known for the cruel and inhumane treatment of their prisoners, forcing them to live in tents and work for free.

In February, immigration-detention-center detainees filed a lawsuit against GEO, the private-prison operator that made it rain on the Trump campaign. According to the lawsuit, the corporation used as many as 50,000 federal detainees to work for free, or for as little as $1 a day, even threatening some with solitary confinement for refusing to work as a slave.

As many as 60,000 current and former detainees may join a class-action suit against one of the

As harsh as this sounds, there will be more. With the DOJs directive to use mandatory minimums and the renewal of the war on drugs, slavery will make a comeback under the Trump administration.

But this is all legal and constitutional. No one argues that these prisoners arent slavesor even that blacks are more likely to endure this indentured servitude. The only argument for this system of slavery is that it is profitable. It remains a stain on the American flag because we live in an oligarchy. The only reason it exists is that without it, the multibillionaires at Honda, Microsoft and McDonalds might have to live life as regular, run-of-the-mill billionaires. How else is Jeff Sessions supposed to line his pockets with the bloody dollar bills hes earned off the backs of the oppressed?

Slavery is still legal in the U.S. because there is apparently one thing that has always trumped freedom, equality and justice: white peoples money.

... and to the Republic, for which it stands, with liberty and justice for all.

Go here to read the rest:
Hillary Clinton, Jeff Sessions and America's Secret Slave System - The Root

Kevin Spacey took his job hosting the Tony Awards in an unexpected direction into former Secretary of State Hillary Clintons secret email server scandal.

Netflixs House of Cards star used his time in the limelight on Sunday night to show off his impression of former President Bill Clinton and a willingness to poke fun of Ms. Clinton. The moment came during commentary on actor Ben Platt becoming one of Time magazines 100 most influential people.

Ben, you know who you bumped off that list? My wife, Mr. Spacey said while mimicking Mr Clinton. Between you and me, you might be a better singer, but after seeing your show, theres no doubt Hillary is much better at creating fake email accounts than you!

Mr. Platt, who went on to win Best Performance by a Leading Actor for his work on Dear Evan Hansen, slid into his chair after the punchline.

I just wanted to do a joke nobody would ever think Id do, the host continued, The Daily Caller reported. That was fun, but Im gonna get in trouble when I get home.

Ms. Clinton told an audience at the 2017 Code Conference on May 31 that the FBIs investigation into her handing of the governments most secretive documents was the biggest nothing-burger ever.

There was no law against it. There was no rule, nothing of that sort. So I didnt break any rule. Nobody said, dont do this, and I was very responsible and not at all careless, she said in Rancho Palos Verdes, California, The Washington Times reported at the time.

The Department of Justice under former U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch closed the agencys case on July 7, 2016.

Read more from the original source:
Kevin Spacey zings Hillary Clinton on 'fake email accounts' at Tony Awards: 'That was fun' - Washington Times