Clinton wins but O'Malley hits Hillary where it hurts at Democratic debate

DEMOCRATS

Clinton wins but O'Malley hits Hillary where it hurts at Democratic debate

By Douglas E. Schoen

Published December 20, 2015

FoxNews.com

Facebook Twitter livefyre Email

Hillary Clinton speaks during a Democratic presidential primary debate Saturday, Dec. 19, 2015, at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, N.H. (AP Photo/Jim Cole)

It was Hillary’s night

“Should corporate American love Hillary Clinton?” David Muir asked.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Everybody should,” Clinton responded without missing a beat.

This will undoubtedly be one of the most memorable moments of Saturday night’s Democratic debate at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire, which showcased just three candidates but managed to cover a lot of ground.

Though buried on a Saturday night right before Christmas and up against NFL football no less, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley combined substance with showmanship that made the debate worth watching. It’s a shame that, without even seeing the ratings, I know that many Americans will have missed it.

Hillary Clinton executed a masterful strategy Saturday night. She managed to handily beat the two men on either side of her who represent the progressive left of the Democratic party and at the same time position herself as a leader for the entire country, including a significant portion of Republicans who fear a Donald Trump presidency as much as any Democrat. In fact, her one- liner about Donald Trump turning into perhaps the biggest recruiting tool for ISIS gave everyone pause – as it should.

Clinton showed herself to be the most experienced candidate the Democrats are offering. While Bernie Sanders related almost every issue back to income inequality and the billionaire class in America – his cornerstone issue – Clinton was able to focus on each topic with precision and specifics. Her strategy to combat ISIS, which is an extension of Obama’s plan with a no-fly zone, is the right approach to combating this threat. On the issue of technology companies working with government to help combat terror, Clinton showed that she is a candidate of balance: there is a way to avoid compromising our civil liberties while still giving law enforcement the tools they need to fight terror.

She was the most balanced candidate on how she’d manage the economy. Instead of promising everything for free through increased taxes on Wall Street, Clinton’s plan to offer debt free college instead of freecollege is right on the money. She understands that we can’t raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour without hurting the economy and costing jobs, but that we can bring it up to twelve dollars an hour. And her notion of incentivizing profit sharing is a worthwhile one.

Sanders supporters got a great performance from the Vermont senator. He was completely sincere and passionate, showcasing his major selling points.

Sanders began the night by apologizing to Clinton for his campaign’s mishandling of a donor breach, which set the tone for an evening in which he did criticize her at times – notably on her handling of Middle East foreign policy – but also praised her work and went so far as to thank her for transforming the role of first lady. We saw no surprises from him: he wants to raise taxes and fundamentally redistribute wealth in the country. And he wants to fight ISIS through coalitions, but is opposed to any American boots on the ground, even special forces.

As for O’Malley, he did his best, but flopped on a number of issues. He took swipes at both Clinton and Sanders that won’t resonate with viewers and voters.

He surely has the experience and has notably implemented gun safety reform and raised the minimum wage in Maryland, but he just doesn’t appeal to voters. And in an election where Americans want outsider politicians, they’re never going to choose O’Malley over Clinton as the establishment candidate.

That said, O’Malley did bring up an issue that may haunt Clinton the most: Benghazi. In a veiled swipe at her, he noted how Ambassador Christ Stevens was not provided the proper support and tools to help Libya transition into a thriving democracy – a clear reminder of his untimely death. No doubt this foreshadows what will be in all likelihood a major line of attack from the Republicans and stands to really hurt her going forward.

Even with Hillary Clinton’s strong attempt at bipartisan appeal on Saturday evening, the question remains whether she’ll be able to pull it out if the Republicans nominate a strong, establishment candidate who doesn’t have her baggage.

In recent polling she’s been competitive with each GOP contender – and ahead of some – but we know that Obama’s low approval, American anxiety over ISIS and concerns about the economy could hurt her.

As for the Democratic battle, Hillary Clinton came into Saturday night with a big lead and she leaves with a big lead. Neither Sanders nor O’Malley hurt themselves, but her dominance was clear and it explains why she has her eyes focused on the prize: beating the Republicans come next November.

Douglas E. Schoen has served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton. He has more than 30 years experience as a pollster and political consultant. He is also a Fox News contributor and co-host of "Fox News Insiders" Sundays on Fox News Channel and Mondays at 10:30 am ET on FoxNews.com Live. He is the author of 11 books. His latest, co-authored with Malik Kaylan is "The Russia-China Axis: The New Cold War and America's Crisis of Leadership (Encounter Books, September 2014). Follow Doug on Twitter@DouglasESchoen.

+ FollowFoxNewsOpinion on 

Leonardo Talks about bear rape scene

The Revenant: Leonardo DiCaprio 'not at liberty' to speak about filming of bear attack that involves 'intimacy of both man and beast'

www.abc.net.au

 

Hollywood star Leonardo DiCaprio has told the ABC's 7.30 program a "ground-breaking" bear attack scene in his latest film The Revenant involved the director watching 100 different attacks.

But the actor stopped short of discussing the sequence in detail, despite some online outlets claiming it depicts DiCaprio's character Hugh Glass being raped by the bear.

Fox Studios was this month forced to deny The Drudge Report's story that claimed the film features "a shocking scene of a wild bear raping Leo DiCaprio".

The studio told US entertainment bulletin Entertainment Weekly the bear in the film is female, and attacks DiCaprio's character "because she feels he might be threatening her cubs".

DiCaprio was coy with the details, but praised director Alejandro Inarritu's approach to directing the scene.

"I'm not at real liberty to speak to you about exactly how [the director] pulled this off," DiCaprio told 7.30's Leigh Sales.

"So much of the director's technique is something that he wants to keep to himself because he loves the idea of audiences submerging themselves in something that is almost like virtual reality.

"But I will say that it involved months of rehearsal and it involved him watching 100 different bear attacks.

DiCaprio says scene is 'very raw, violent, savage'

"What he achieves cinematically is something that I think is very ground-breaking, and that is the ability for an audience to be in a sort of very raw, violent, savage bear attack, yet feel the intimacy of both man and beast."

DiCaprio said the sequence was a visceral one for the viewing audience.

"You feel the sweat, and the heat coming off the animal," he said.

"It's almost like he awakens other senses within you as an audience member, and you feel like you're some voyeuristic animal watching something that you shouldn't be watching.

"But most of that is achieved in a lot of the silent moments that he creates in that sequence."

DiCaprio said he was glad it had started a conversation about the film, which tells the story of a legendary 1800s frontiersman who must utilise his survival skills after the bear attack.

"People are talking about it because it's something incredibly ground-breaking," DiCaprio said.

"People have responded to it because it's unlike anything that they've ever seen in cinema ever, really."

External Link: The Revenant trailer

Cruz Opens Big Lead in Iowa, Trump Tops in New Hampshire, South Carolina

Listen To Military Veteran Talk Radio

iHeart.SmythRadio.com

Facebook.com/SmythRadio

Reuters

by MIKE FLYNN20 Dec 20154,325

A new CBS poll shows TexasSen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has opened a strong 9 point lead over Donald Trump in Iowa, the first state to vote in the 2016 nominating contest.

Cruz has the support of 40 percent of likely caucus goers, followed by Trump with 31 percent.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is a distant third, with 12 percent support. Neurosurgeon Ben Carson is fourth with just 6 percent support. All other Republican candidates are at 2 percent or less, including Jeb Bush, whose allied super PAC, Right to Rise, has spent millions on advertising in the caucus state.

Together, Trump and Cruz draw more than 70 percent support from likely caucus-goers in Iowa.

Trump, meanwhile, dominates the Republican race in New Hampshire, earning 32 percent support from likely primary voters. Trump’s vote, in fact, is double the support of Ted Cruz who, with 14 percent support, is in second place. Rubio is in third, with 13 percent, followed closely by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie at 11 percent and Ohio Governor John Kasich at 8 percent.

Jeb Bush is sixth in New Hampshire, with just 6 percent support. Bush, Christie and Kasich have all spent considerable sums advertising in New Hampshire. All three campaigns, or super PACs affiliated with them, have spent several million dollars advertising in the first primary state. Christie and Kasich have clearly gained from the spending, while Bush has lost ground in the Granite State.

Trump also dominates the field in South Carolina, which votes on February 20th, soon after Iowa and New Hampshire. Trump leads with 38 percent, followed again by Cruz with 23 percent. Rubio is 3rd, with 12 percent, followed by Carson with 9 percent and Bush with 7 percent.

In all three states, one issue dominates the political discussion; national security and terrorism. In each state, at least 70 percent of all voters believe America is becoming “more dangerous and insecure.” More than 60 percent of Republicans in each state list national security as the most important issue in 2016.

While the first votes are still several weeks away, voters’ preferences in all three contests are solidifying. More than 60 percent for Republicans in all three states say their minds are made up and are unlikely to change their support. In Iowa, just 25 percent of Republicans say they might still change their minds. In South Carolina and New Hampshire, only about a third of Republicans say they may still change their minds.

After 5 debates and months of intense campaigning, the Republican field is nearing the final turn before voting begins in early February. Trump and Cruz are separating from the pack, with Rubio running a distant third. In New Hampshire, though, the middle of the pack is becoming more crowded.

The race in New Hampshire, in fact, is a reversal of recent political history. Traditionally, several conservative candidates have fought for a clear shot at the establishment frontrunner. This year, however, the establishment candidates are clawing at each other to take on anti-establishment frontrunners.

History may not repeat itself, but it does rhyme. This year, the rhythm is playing a conservative tune.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, 2016 Presidential Race,Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina

Sarah Palin Warns ‘GOP Machine': Do Not ‘Marginalize Evangelicals’

by PAM KEY20 Dec 201590

Friday on Newmax TV’s “Newsmax Prime,” former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK), the 2008 GOP vice-presidential nominee, warned the “GOP machine” not to “marginalize evangelicals.”

Palin said, “We make a difference in the political arena by exercising that sacred right that we have to vote, to elect Godly leaders who will reflect our values, the Judeo-Christian foundation of our nation.”

She added, “GOP well when it comes to the establishment, the GOP kind of machine that seems to want to run everything, they need to not marginalize evangelicals and those who really rely on faith and believe so strongly in those time-tested truths that are in scripture.”

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN

Read More Stories About:

Breitbart TV, 2016 Presidential Race, Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin

Establishment to Trump: You Can’t Afford to Run For President

Getty Images

by JOHN HAYWARD20 Dec 20153,080

Holman Jenkins at the Wall Street Journal took a look at Donald Trump’s finances over the weekend, and suggested the outspoken billionaire might not be able to afford to keep a serious national campaign going past the first few states:

None of his offenses against propriety seem to have dinged the support that, in a crowded race, keeps Donald Trump atop the GOP primary polls.

Republicans are now talking about a brokered convention, which could be a disaster for the country, and for the GOP, and quite possibly hand the election to Hillary Clinton without a real contest or even critique of her agenda.

So goes the fear. But unless we miss our guess, our long national nightmare-cum-sketch comedy show actually has a termination date. It will end the moment campaigning begins to threaten Mr. Trump’s finances and business interests.

Actually, as Jenkins notes further in his piece, Trump’s campaign already has already damaged his business interests:

In any case, his comments have become an opening. Already Mr. Trump’s Middle Eastern business interests are under assault. He lost a few U.S. deals early on due to his slurs on Mexican-Americans. Now a handful of Silicon Valley biggies—the CEOs of Apple, Facebook and Google—have ventured criticism without mustering quite the courage to mention him by name.

What happens when important business partners start letting Mr. Trump know, publicly and noisily, they think he’s doing serious damage to the country? By Mr. Trump’s own inflated reckoning, most of his net worth resides in the value of his name.

Our guess is that Mr. Trump has always planned on being satisfied with making a splash and ventilating his high opinion of himself. He will rightly be able to claim that he gave neglected voters a voice and transformed the debate. Notice that he manages to maintain his jolly equanimity even when being vilified. He is not grimly “on a mission” as so many candidates are whose self-image is wrapped up in electoral success.

As a direct result of his presidential campaign, Trump ended up in a $10 million lawsuit with chef Jose Andres, who was supposed to be a part of the Trump International Hotel project in Washington; lost a battle against a wind farm in Scotland; lost a merchandising relationship with Macy’s department stores; and might end up losing business at some of his properties, although the actual damage from loudly-declared boycotts is open to debate.

Jenkins makes some shrewd observations about the realities of campaign financing, especially the need to win the support of big donors.  A network of deep-pocketed special interests will shower Hillary Clinton with the kind of cash Trump simply cannot provide by tapping into his own assets.

Also, the many political assets the Republican Party would bring to the table for most other nominees won’t be there for Trump if the Establishment makes good on its threats to sit out in 2016, dumping the nation into Clinton’s claws, if Trump is the standard-bearer.  The old fear was that a frustrated Trump would run third-party and dynamite the race after failing to secure the nomination; now we’ve got Trump cheerfully assuring Republican voters in the last debate that he’ll keep his promise to stay with the party no matter what, and it’s Jeb Bush talking about signing up with Team Clinton as an unofficial junior partner if Trump’s the GOP nominee.

The enormous national polling success Trump has achieved through earned media – summoning a swarm of microphones and cameras every time he feels like making a statement – will go down in the political history books, but once primary voting begins in earnest, targeted paid advertising will matter more than the kind of media pandemonium that keeps Trump on top of national polls.

Of course, the conventional wisdom about the limits of earned media could be wrong, just as every other confident prediction about Trump has been wrong so far.

Articles like the WSJ post on Trump’s finances could be one more attempt to apply conventional political analysis to a campaign that routinely defies it… or it might be taken as a shot across the bow, a warning to Trump that he ought to deliver what Jenkins envisions as “a glorious ‘I’ve got better things to do than hang around with you losers’ exit” before he suffers the kind of financial loss he can’t recover from.

The Wall Street Journal analysis backs into an aspect of Trump’s success that our political culture has a hard time accepting: his supporters think he’s immune to the corruption sickening D.C., the Big Government corruption that Hillary Clinton is the living, breathing, influence-peddling avatar of.  At this point, everyone gets the idea that Trump is taking a serious financial hit from this campaign – they hear all the stories about boycotts and busted business deals, and it only reinforces their sense of Trump’s sincerity.

They grasp that it’s not very likely he is running for President to pad his pockets, and when they hear other billionaires are furious with Trump and scrambling to fund his competitors, it reinforces their sense that whatever else the outrageous Trump might be planning to do with the Oval Office, he won’t be using government power to enrich a network of cronies the way Obama did, and Clinton absolutely would.

Democrats are, of course, institutionally oblivious to rising public anger at corruption – they think they can manage it by spending ad money on lavish campaigns to convince their gullible voters that each new socialist figurehead is motivated by nothing but compassion.  A few Republicans understand that corruption is a ripe issue – it’s been a major theme for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) – but perhaps even fewer understand just how incandescently angry taxpayers have become.

It’s easy to scoff at Donald Trump as an unlikely crusader against corruption – he was downright cheerful when he reminisced about buying influence in the first GOP debate, and never quite got around to explaining why it’s a bad thing that he needed to grease the right palms to get what he wanted.  But there is a real sense among his supporters that, whether his ideas are right or wrong, he’s enduring great personal expense to stay in the race and express them.  Just about every candidate talks about being a “fighter,” but Trump has real bruises.  Political analysts seem to be underestimating how much credit people give him for staying in the race when it’s obviously hurting him.

As for whether it will be prohibitively expensive for Trump to run a full-boat campaign, the Wall Street Journal figures he might have as little as $70 million in liquid assets, which is “less than what several candidates in the race (Bush, Clinton, Cruz) and their super PACs already have raised.”  But how much does that $70 million count for, when it’s mixed with Trump’s proven ability to hold the media spotlight?

If, as some have suggested, the transition to local political organizations and likely primary voters prevents Trump from winning any of the early primary states, it’s doubtful any amount of campaign cash would be enough to turn an implosion narrative around.  But if he does score some strategic early victories and keep his frontrunner narrative alive, he might be able to stretch a dollar further than anyone ever has.  Meanwhile, the Democrats stash their candidates in Saturday-night cellars to keep voters from getting a good look at them.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, 2016 Presidential Race,Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton,2016 campaign, GOP primary, campaign finance

Trump: Hillary Is a Liar — 'She Lies Like Crazy About Everything' - Breitbart

www.breitbart.com

Please enable Javascript to watch this video

by Pam Key20 Dec 20150

20 Dec, 201520 Dec, 2015

Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” while responding to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton saying in the debate last night that he is “becoming ISIS’s best recruiter,” Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump declared that to be “just another Hillary lie.”

Trump said, “Nobody has been able to back that up. It’s nonsense. Just another Hillary lie. She lies like crazy about everything. Whether it’s trips where she was being gunned down in a helicopter or an airplane, she’s a liar and everybody knows that. But she just made this up in thin air.”

He continued, “I think my words represent toughness and strength. Hillary’s not strength. Hillary’s weak, frankly, she’s got no stamina, she’s got nothing….she couldn’t even get back on the stage. Nobody even knows what happened to her. It’s like she went home and went to sleep….She couldn’t get back on the stage last night I’ll tell you why. Because we need a president with great strength and stamina and Hillary doesn’t have that. We can not have another bad president like we have right now. We need a president with tremendous intelligence, smarts, cunning, strength, and stamina.”

He added, “She may have traveled a lot but she didn’t do the job because the entire world blew up around her. So she wasted a lot of time and energy and money and frankly she wasted a lot of lives because her policies were disaster for the world. The Middle East has blown up around her. Her decisions were horrible. and hundreds of thousands of people have been killed because of her faulty decisions.”

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN

Read More Stories About:

Breitbart TV, 2016 Presidential Race,Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Cliinton

Merkel: Nations Must Give Up Sovereignty On Migrant Crisis

AFP

by AFP16 Dec 20152,587

German Chancellor Angela Merkel Wednesday warned European partners against resorting to national action to deal with the current migrant crisis, rather than working towards a common solution.

“Sealing oneself off is not a sensible option in the 21st century,” she told parliament on the eve of an EU summit at which leaders will discuss issues surrounding post-war Europe’s biggest migrant influx.

“That’s why we must resist the temptation to fall back on national solutions,” she said.

Instead, the 28 members of the bloc should work together toward a “common European and international answer to sustainably reduce the number of refugees,” she said.

Despite opposition from some nations, including Hungary and Poland, Merkel insisted however that the EU must agree on a compulsory “fair distribution of refugees to member states of the EU”.

Germany is expecting to register one million asylum seekers this year alone, and Merkel’s open-door policy for people fleeing war has divided both her country and the EU.

Under pressure, Merkel has pledged to reduce the numbers of new arrivals although she has refused to put a cap on the figures.

Merkel’s promise to staunch the flow of refugees rests on medium-to-long term goals, such as tackling the root causes of the mass exodus from crisis zones, increased European solidarity in sharing the refugee burden, and greater cooperation with Turkey, the main launchpad for migrant crossings to Europe.

As part of the joint action with Ankara, Berlin wants EU members to help resettle 400,000 asylum seekers currently hosted by Turkey, German media reported.

Austrian Chancellor Werner Faymann has however cited a far smaller number of between 40,000 and 50,000 Syrians who could be resettled in Europe from Turkey.

In exchange, Turkey would do more to secure its border and allow “very few refugees” into the EU, Faymann said in comments to Germany’s Die Welt newspaper.

Read More Stories About:

Breitbart London, Germany, Europe Migrant Crisis, Angela Merkel