Saturday, September 26, 2015
Friday, September 25, 2015
Texas Is Clinton (And Trump) Territory
It's been a while, but we finally have a new poll on Texas preferences for the party nominations. It is the Texas Pulse / Crosswind Poll. It was done between September 11th and 14th of a random sample of 1,000 Texas voters, and has a margin of error of 3 points overall. No margin of error was given for just Democrats or Republicans.
For the Democrats, Hillary Clinton has a big lead of 32 points over Bernie Sanders -- besting him by 53% to 21%. And that's with Joe Biden considered to be a candidate. The lead for Clinton would most likely increase (as it does elsewhere) if Biden is taken out of the mix.
On the Republican side, Donald Trump has a 7 point lead over Ben Carson. The real story here is how poorly Jeb Bush is doing, considering his family's strong ties to the state.
Trump And Clinton Have Significant Leads In Two New Polls
Two new national polls have been released on the presidential race for each party's nomination. First is the Fox News Poll (done between September 20th and 22nd of a national sample of 381 Democrats and 398 Republicans -- with no margin of error given for these individual groups), and the second is the Quinnipiac University Poll that was done between September 17th and 21st of a national sample of 587 Democrats (moe 4 points) and 737 Republicans (moe 3.6 points).
Both show about the same as other recent polls have shown, and are rather remarkable in their general agreement. Both show Trump continues to lead for the Republicans, with Carson in second place. They do seem to show that Trump may have leveled off, and is no longer gaining support. I don't know if that's true, but I believe it could be. If so, then other candidates might gain on him as candidates continue to drop out.
On the Democratic side, Clinton continues to maintain a large lead -- and that large lead becomes a majority when Biden is taken out of the mix. The significant factor here is that Sanders also seems to have leveled off. He quickly shot up to around 25%, but can't seem to increase that percentage.
Privatization Increases Inequality In Our Justice System
There is a trend that has been going on for quite a while now -- and it bothers me a great deal. It is the privatization of our criminal justice system. This is happening in many ways -- from creating private for-profit prisons, to the services provided to the system by many different companies (like electronic monitoring, food services, etc.).
The idea is to cover (or at least reduce) the costs of administering criminal justice, and if possible, even turn it into a profitable venture for government. This may sound good, but it is a very bad idea. Taking the cost to the taxpayer out of administering criminal justice means the taxpayer (i.e., the ordinary citizen) will care less about what happens in that system. If citizens are going to arrest, convict, and incarcerate people, then the state (the taxpayer) should be the one paying for that -- because then they will keep an eye on that system and attempt to make it work right.
Privatization does the opposite. By turning criminal justice into a profit-making business, we lessen oversight of citizens and increase the possibility of abuse (especially if that abuse results in more profit). And it increases the inequality in our system of justice. When justice is "for sale", the poor are left out, and don't get the same quality of justice that the rich can afford. Don't we already have enough of an equality problem already, without creating more so someone can make a profit (off a system that should never be used for profit, but for justice)?
The following post (written by Josie Duffy for Daily Kos) illustrates one way this privatization is creating an unfair system of justice (but there are many more). I would ask -- is this the kind of justice we want? Does fairness no longer matter?
Rampant privatization is leading to collateral consequences. In almost every possible part of the criminal justice process, privatization results in a system that disproportionately punishes the indigent. Now the International Business Times reports there is a new way that for-profit justice is ruining the lives of the poor: GPS tracking.
In South Carolina, a traffic violation resulted in the arrest and $2,100 bail of Antonio Green, a father of five. One of the conditions of his bail was being forced to wear an electronic monitoring device. And not only did have to wear it—he had to pay for it. According to the article, "In Richland County, South Carolina, any person ordered to wear the ankle monitor as a condition of their bail must lease the bracelet from a private, for-profit company called Offender Management Services (OMS)."
Green was living on $900 a month, but was charged a $179.50 set-up fee, plus $9.25 a day to wear the device. In other words, the device ended up costing him half his monthly income that first month, and a third of his income every month after.
He didn't have much of a choice. After all, those that can't pay go back to jail.
Green paid a total of about $2,500 for the device over nine months, during which he "had gone broke, racked up debt from overdraft fees, and spiraled into anxiety over his finances." And it looked like he'd have to wait another year before trial, which would have cost another $3,600 at least.
He couldn't afford that money. Slowly, it became an untenable burden on him and his family. So last month, he turned himself in.
When Green got to the courthouse, he found out some interesting news: His case had actually been thrown out two months earlier.
No one had thought to let him know. Surprising, as they knew where he was every moment and were still managing to collect his money.
This is not an isolated incident. Counties and states across the nation are not only tracking individuals but forcing them to pay for it. For someone like Antonio Green, a traffic violation turned into an unbearable financial burden.
What's more, the actual monitoring of defendants, especially those who have not committed serious crimes, is in itself terrifying. People are paying significant money for the complete loss of their privacy.
For more on this story, see the International Business Times article here.
Thursday, September 24, 2015
Hillary Clinton Comes Out Against Building The XL Pipeline
Found the end of July of this year, Hillary Clinton refused to answer a question about whether she supported the building of the XL pipeline (which would transport a filthy sludge-type of oil across much of this country). At that time, even though I am a die-hard Clinton supporter, I said she had made a mistake -- and should have answered the question.
Thankfully, she has now remedied that mistake -- and revealed her position on the building of the pipeline. She opposes it. Here is what she said:
"I have been waiting for the administration to make a decision. I thought I owed them that. I worked in the administration. I started the process that is supposed to lead to a decision. I can't wait too much longer. And I am putting the White House on notice. I'm gonna tell you what I think soon because I can't wait. I thought they would have it decided way, you know, way by now and they haven't."
"I think it is imperative that we look at the Keystone XL pipeline as what I believe it is: A distraction from the important work we have to do to combat climate change, and, unfortunately from my perspective, one that interferes with our ability to move forward and deal with other issues."
"Therefore, I oppose it. I oppose it because I don't think it's in the best interest of what we need to do to combat climate change."
New Survey Shows Hillary Clinton With A Big Lead In Iowa
Polls about Iowa have been all over the place lately. A recent Quinnipiac University Poll showed Sanders with a 1 point lead (meaning the race is tied in Iowa), while other polls show Clinton with a lead ranging from 7 points to 34 points.
Now we have a new poll. It is the Public Policy Polling survey -- done between September 18th and 20th of a random sample of 494 Iowa Democratic voters, with a margin of error of 4.4 points.
This survey shows Clinton with a 21 point lead over Sanders in Iowa (43% to 22%) -- and that's with Joe Biden in the race (which he isn't). If you take Biden out, things get even better for Clinton. She would get 43% of the Biden voters, while Sanders would get 15% (and O'Malley would get 8%, Webb would get 2%, and Lessig would get 1%).
The debates could always change this, but for now, it looks to me like Iowa is pretty solidly in the Clinton column.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)