Mediaboss Marketing

Sorry to break the bad news to all you dreamy-eyed liberals, but it's time to stop wishin' and hopin': Elizabeth Warren isn't running for president. Really and truly.

Progressive Democrats have bombarded her office with postcards, signed online petitions and stood in the snow waving signs to get the junior senator from Massachusetts to run.

Warren didn't do much to encourage all this attention. Last fall when People magazine asked whether she would run, the senator wrinkled her nose, the magazine reported, and said, nondefinitively: I don't think so.... She then added, If there's any lesson I've learned in the last five years, it's don't be so sure about what lies ahead.... There are amazing doors that could open.

Since then, though, Warren repeatedly has slammed one door shut. I am not running for president, she's said over and over. She's pledged to serve her full term in the Senate through 2018. Of course, hardly anybody believes what a politician says, especially on the subject of career ambition. When Barack Obama arrived in the Senate in 2005, he too said he had no plans to run for president.

But over the last few months, Democrats who do politics for a living have concluded Warren really means it based not on what she's said, but on what she's done or, more precisely, left undone. She isn't traveling to Iowa or New Hampshire, Democratic strategist Tad Devine noted. She isn't putting together a team of people to build an organization. This is a case where no means no.

Why won't Warren run?

A challenge to Hillary Rodham Clinton would be a grueling battle against tall odds. In national polls, Clinton wins the support of about 60% of Democrats, against only 11% for Warren. A face-off also would pit the Democrats' two most prominent women against each other. It would be a bad day for Emily's List, said one Democratic operative.

Warren is fiery about her favorite causes such as reducing the influence of Wall Street banks and yet that's not the same fire in the belly required to run for president. She describes herself as an outside agitator, not a deal-maker, and you can't be an outsider in the Oval Office.

Last year she fought the Obama administration and her own party's Senate leadership to block the nomination of a former investment banker as undersecretary of the Treasury, and won although the nominee, Antonio Weiss, got a job that didn't require Senate confirmation. She's already signaled her opposition to President Obama's desired trade agreement with 11 countries around the Pacific.

That's why Warren is not running. But why has she been less than definitive? I suspect it's because being considered a potential presidential candidate is a surefire way to get attention from the media for her causes and ideas. When Warren gave a speech to the AFL-CIO last month demanding legislation to break up the Wall Street banks, it won far more coverage because she might some day run for president.

More:
Forget it, liberals: Elizabeth Warren is not running for president

The wintry chill over Ottawa has been accompanied by a freeze innational voting intentions, as the Liberals and Conservatives remain stuck in a close race, according to recent polls.

Justin Trudeau's Liberals continue to hold a narrow lead over the Conservatives, with the support of about 34 per cent of Canadians against 33 per cent for the Tories, according to ThreeHundredEight.com's latest poll averages. The New Democrats stand in third place with 19 per cent support.

The Greens and Bloc Qubcois follow with seven and five per cent support, respectively.

The Liberals and Conservatives have been steady in the polls, with the Liberals averaging between 33 and 34 per cent since the beginning of January and the Conservatives between 32 and 34 per cent since the beginning of December. In the last 15 polls conducted in the country, the Liberals and Conservatives have each led in seven, with one putting the two parties in a tie.

Thomas Mulcair's New Democrats have been slipping, as the party had been polling at 21 to 23 per cent between November and January. In particular, the NDP has lost support among male voters in recent weeksto the benefit of the Liberals.

With these levels of support, the Conservatives could win between 126 and 164 seats, putting them still below the majority target of 170 seats, if an election were held today. The Liberals could win between 107 and 145 seats. Because there is a fair degree of overlap between the two parties, both could reasonably expect to win in a snap vote, but Stephen Harper's Conservatives would be narrowly favoured to come out ahead in the seat count.

The New Democrats could win between 47 and 77 seats, with the Greens on pace to capture two and the Bloc winning between one and eight seats.

The Conservatives continue to hold substantial leads in their traditional strongholds, with 53 per cent support in Alberta and 43 per cent in the Prairie provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The Liberals are in second place in both regionswith 23 and 31 per cent, respectively. The New Democrats are polling in third with 14 per cent in Alberta and 17 per cent in the Prairies.

The Liberals have a comfortable lead of their own in Atlantic Canada, where they are polling at around 51 per cent support. The Conservatives trailwith 22 per cent, with the NDP not far behind at 18 per cent.

The contests in the battleground provinces of Ontario, Quebecand British Columbia appear much more heated.

Link:
Polls suggest Liberals, Conservatives still neck and neck: ric Grenier

Liberals and Isis sitting in a tree
U.S marine who went AWOL is sentenced cop wassef hassoun deserted his post in iraq in 2004 and fled to lebenon a year later, I guess we #39;re gonna start out wi...

By: Hector Lobotomy

Continue reading here:
Liberals and Isis sitting in a tree - Video

Stefan Molyneux Liberals Leftists Are Disgusting
If You Enjoyed This Video Like Subscribe To My Channel Support Me Here In Patreon https://www.patreon.com/PeteTsim Stefan Molyneux https://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot ...

By: PETE TSIM

Read more:
Stefan Molyneux Liberals Leftists Are Disgusting - Video

February 23, 2015|5:17 pm

Protesters meet up in front of City Hall before an anti-fracking march and demonstration in Oakland, California, February 7, 2015. Thousands attended the march, urging Governor Jerry Brown to ban the controversial oil extraction procedure in the state.

Liberals can be just as anti-science as conservatives, a study finds, when the science challenges their politics.

"The Partisan Brain: How Dissonant Science Messages Lead Conservatives and Liberals to (Dis)Trust Science," was posted online and will be published in the March issue of The Annals of the American Acadamy of Political and Social Science, which contains several articles of the theme of politics and science. The Ohio State authors are Erik Nisbet, associate professor of communication and political science, Kathryn Cooper, a doctoral student in communication, and R. Kelly Garrett, associate professor of communication.

The findings challenge previous research reporting that the brains of conservatives are different than the brains of liberals and "are fundamentally less capable of rationally processing scientific evidence."

The study's sample of 1,518 adults were divided into three groups. Group one was asked about scientific research related to climate change and evolution that challenged the views of many conservatives; group two was asked about scientific research related to fracking (a natural gas extraction method) and nuclear power that challenged the views of many liberals; and group three was asked about politically neutral scientific research related to astronomy or geology.

Both liberals and conservatives were less likely to trust the scientific results in the groups where those results were out of sync with their own ideology.

Interestingly, liberals, moderates and conservatives were all less trustful of the science that was related to political debates compared to the ideologically neutral science. In other words, conservatives were less trustful of science related to fracking and nuclear power, though not as distrustful as liberals, compared to science related to ideologically-neutral astronomy and geology findings. And liberals were less trustful of science related to climate change and evolution, though not as distrusful as conservatives, compared to the ideologically neutral science.

Conservatives and liberals were not equally likely to reject the science that was dissonant with their ideology. Conservatives were more likely than liberals to be distrustful. The authors attribute this to media coverage of the debates.

There has been much coverage of the scientific debates over climate change and evolution. By comparison, there has been little coverage of the scientific debates over fracking and nuclear power. Respondents, therefore, would be much more aware of controversies over climate change and evolution than fracking and nuclear power.

The rest is here:
Liberals Are as Anti-Science as Conservatives, Study Finds