text:
GameOver Zeus: Cybercrime's Mr Big named by the FBI
6:40 pm, June 2, 2014
There's big news from the front line of the fight against cybercrime today.
The US Department of Justice has filed a criminal complaint, claiming that Russian citizen Evgeniy Mikhailovich Bogachev is the leader of the gang that spread the GameOver Zeus ("GOZ") malware and the notorious Cryptolocker ransomware, and ran botnets that hijacked up to one million computers around the world.
The US Department of Justice claims that since GameOver Zeus first appeared in September 2011, it has resulted in an eye-watering $100 million of losses.
The authorities claim that Bogachev – using the internet handles "Lucky12345", "Slavik" and "Pollingsoon" – wrote the malicious code to compromise Windows PCs and steal banking details and login credentials from innocent users' infected computers.
30-year-old Bogachev, and his alleged partners in crime believed to be based in Russia or Ukraine, are currently still at large.
GameOver Zeus is an extremely sophisticated edition of the familiar Zeus Trojan horse, and used peer-to-peer (P2P) technology to hide its infrastructure, in an attempt to make it harder for law enforcement and security vendors to shut it down.
The great news today is that the authorities, working with ISPs and members of the computer security industry, has seized control of a large amount of the internet infrastructure being used by the GameOver Zeus and CryptoLocker threats.
Unfortunately, if your computer has been compromised by GameOver Zeus you won't be able to tell with the naked eye. You need good security software to clean-up your infection, and remove affected computers from the internet until they are safe to reconnect.
The UK's National Crime Agency has issued a press release which may have scared the bejeezus out of some British internet users, informing them that they had a "two-week opportunity" to sort out infected computers.
The NCA is today urging members of the public to protect themselves against powerful malicious software (malware), which may be costing UK computer users millions of pounds.
Action taken by the NCA to combat the threat will give the UK public a unique, two-week opportunity to rid and safeguard themselves from two distinct but associated forms of malware known as GOZeuS and CryptoLocker.
Quite why users only have a fortnight to resolve security issues with their PCs isn't unfortunately made clear in the press release, which lessens the impact of the message somewhat.
Nevertheless, Andy Archibald, Deputy Director of the NCA's National Cyber Crime Unit, attempted to put a human angle on things to get the message across to the masses:
"Nobody wants their personal financial details, business information or photographs of loved ones to be stolen or held to ransom by criminals. By making use of this two-week window, huge numbers of people in the UK can stop that from happening to them."
"Whether you find online security complicated or confusing, or simply haven't thought about keeping your personal or office computers safe for a while, now is the time to take action. Our message is simple: update your operating system and make this a regular occurrence, update your security software and use it and, think twice before clicking on links or attachments in unsolicited emails."
GetSafeOnline has published links to free tools which should be able to help you check and clean-up your computer on its Facebook and Google Plus pages.
Further reading: FBI press release: US Leads Multi-National Action Against GameOver Zeus Botnet and Cryptolocker Ransomware, Charges Botnet Administrator
#CryptoLocker
#Evegniy Bogachev
#Evgeniy Mikhaylovich Bogachev
#GameOver Zeus
#Malware
#ransomware
#Zeus
CryptoLocker: What is it? And how do you protect against it?
Catch this shaven-headed, boat-loving hacker and earn $3 million
How to recover files from a CryptoLocker attack – for free!
One comment on "GameOver Zeus: Cybercrime's Mr Big named by the FBI"
Hayton says:
The link to the Facebook page of GetSafeOnline appears to be broken. I see this message : "Sorry, this page isn't available. The link you followed may be broken, or the page may have been removed."


Mary Lee (Burt) Glaze, 97, passed away peacefully at home surrounded by her family on March 30, 2019 in Lorena. Mary was born to William Robert and Laura Mae Burt on January 3, 1922 in Gatesville, Texas. Funeral Services will be 1:00 pm, Wednesday, April 3 at Grace Gardens Funeral Home. An Interment will be 3:00 pm at Greenbriar Cemetery, Gatesville. A visitation with the family will be 6:00-8:00 pm, Tuesday, April 2 at Grace Gardens Funeral Home.
Mary Lee graduated from Gatesville High School in 1940. Soon after Rayford returned from WWII, Mary married the love of her life on January 24, 1946. She loved being outdoors tending to her flowerbeds.
Mary Lee is preceded in death by her parents, four brothers, and three sisters.
Left to cherish her memory are her beloved husband of 73 years; Daughters, Glenda Dill, Mary Ann Smiley and special friend Charles Sulak, and Vickie Sparks and husband Danny; Grandchildren, Leann and Jose Villanueva, Kristi and Adam Fuller, Melissa Dill, Elizabeth and Brian Fields, Ashley Ray and Shelly Hill, Lacey Hoffman; Great Grandchildren, Fina Villanueva, Roxanne Del Bosque, Rubin Villanueva, Brittany Ann Thomas, Jorge Dill, Chandler Fuller, Ashlin Fields, Landon Fields, Kobelee Dill, Haden Hill, Dalton Hill, Attison Fuller, GiAna Villanueva, Abigale Fuller, Collin Hill, Hudson Hill, Kaison Hoffman, and Kambrie Hill; Great Great Grandchildren, Izabella Lopez, Harper Thomas, Joselyn Del Bosque, and Julian Villanueva.
Pall Bearers will be Ashley Hill, Brian Fields, Chandler Fuller, Dalton Hill, GiAna Villanueva, Haden Hill, Jose' Villanueva, Kobe Dill, and Landon Fields.
Honorary Pall Bearers are Abigale Fuller, Ashlin Fields, Attison Fuller, Brittany Ann Thomas, Collin Hill, Fina Villanueva, Hudson Hill, Kaison Hoffman, Kambrie Hill, and Roxanne Del Bosque.
The family would like to offer a special thank you to Gwen with Gentle Transitions Hospice, and Patty, the family's care-giver for their loving care of Mary during her illness. The family would also like to recognize and appreciate the day to day love and care that Mary Ann, Mary Lee's daughter, gave to their mother and grandmother.


2.	Dice chicken into cubes. Spread them in a single layer on one side of your baking sheet.
3.	Add broccoli florets to baking sheet in a single layer beside your chicken. Cut any large florets in half or thirds.
4.	Slice red onion into strips. Spread in a single layer on baking sheet beside the broccoli.
6.	Drizzle 1/4 cup balsamic vinegar over the chicken and broccoli.
7.	Add minced garlic to your chicken.
8.	Add salt & pepper to everything on the baking sheet.
9.	Bake for 15 minutes.
10.	Remove from the oven and separate the chicken if it's sticking together. Drizzle 2 additional tablespoons of balsamic vinegar and chopped basil to your chicken. Place back in the oven and bake for 5 additional minutes.
11.	Remove from the oven and make sure your chicken is cooked through. Chicken should have no pink in the middle.
12.	Layer your cauliflower rice, red onions, broccoli, and chicken in bowls. Add a little more balsamic vinegar if you prefer a stronger taste. Enjoy!


For Free Spins player have to wager the Free Spin bonus 45 times to unlock the bonus. The maximum win is £10.
Absolutely nothing good about this casino apart from the Sign up bonus 300% on first deposit.
After finding out the casino has been blacklisted hence the reason it have only allowed to have a few micro gaming slots. Payout extremely low, Vip is pointless, Chips are pointless.
AVOID THIS CASINO! Ignore the 300% dep bonus its false.
I have to admit that the first time I saw this bonus I was really intrigued by it. It's not every day that you see a 300% match bonus with a descent 35 x bonus wager. If you add the fact that this casino offers a few Microgaming slot games you have to admit that this is a very tempting offer.
After looking around the casino I decided to make a deposit just because of this bonus and the fact that they have Immortal Romance which is one of my favorite Microgaming slots. I decided to deposit 20 euros and take this bonus but to my surprise it wasn't added on my first deposit. After the numerous problems I had here which I explained in my review about the casino I finally took the bonus on my second deposit. Even this time it wasn't assigned automatically even though I was assured it would be and it had to be added manually by the live chat support agent.
I started playing Immortal Romance and it was a real dream run. I was getting bonus rounds and big wins all the time, I unlocked the Troy bonus and my balance was at 450 euros. I got another bonus round on a 1.20 bet and as soon as the bonus started it froze on the first spin. I refreshed the page, the bonus was still there and I won something like 5 euros on a 1.20 bet. The previous bonus round paid over 100 euros. I continued to play and again the game was freezing and I was getting disconnected all the time. The same thing was happening again like in my previous session. Win big and the game starts disconnecting and you start losing.My balance was only dropping and I wasn't getting anything descent after my initial success. There is no doubt that this is a cheating casino. These are RNG games. It is enough to get you disconnected a few times on a game while you are winning and you will lose everything if you have a high wager to meet.
My recommendation DON'T play at this casino. You will never win anything descent.


text:
Report: Presidential Primary Debate Audiences
Submitted by Chris Murphy on 5/25/16
Debate debate
Future of Democratic Party
Future of the Democratic Party
Renewing Our Democracy
This memo looks at the audiences the Presidential Primary debates received in 2016 and 2008. The Republicans have completed their full 12 debate schedule for the 2015-2016 cycle. We now have the final numbers for the debate audiences for the Democrats and Republicans. The top line analysis can be found below, and tables of the audiences of each debate which received ratings in both 2016 and 2008 can be found on pages 4 and 5 of the full memo, attached (at bottom). More information about the debate over the 2016 debates can be found in our backgrounder (Updated on Wednesday 5/25/16).
2016, Republicans – 12 debates, 186.3m total viewers, 15.53m viewers per debate.
2016, Democrats – 9 debates, 72.03m total viewers, 8m viewers per debate.
2008, Republicans – 14 debates, 42.87m total viewers, 3.07m viewers per debate.
2008, Democrats – 16 debates, 75.22m total viewers, 4.7m viewers per debate (Dems had another 10 debates which were not rated, so total viewership was higher than 75.22m).
GOP Dramatically Outperforms Dems in 2016 and Rs in 2008 – In 2008, the 16 Democratic debates outperformed the 14 GOP debates by more than 53% per debate (4.7m per debate vs 3.07m). In 2016, the 12 GOP debates have outperformed the 9 Democratic debates by a much larger margin, over 94% per debate (15.53m vs 8m). It is a dramatic reversal.
The 12 GOP debates have produced more than 5 times the audience per debate than their 14 debates produced in 2008, and almost 5 times the total audience. The 9 DNC debates produced almost twice the audience per debate that the 2008 debates produced, but, in aggregate, produced a total audience 3 million less than the 2008 debates produced.
Democratic Debate Schedule Struggles to Match 2008 – Despite very large audiences for the debates this cycle, the smaller number of Democratic debates (9 compared to 12 GOP in 2016 and 26 in 2008) means that the total audience of the Democratic debates in 2016 was 3 million less than the 2008 Democratic total, and 114m less than the 2016 GOP total.
DNC's Original Debate Schedule Audience – The DNC's original six debate schedule produced an audience of 48.4m. After requests from many, including the Clinton and Sanders campaigns, the DNC added four debates on February 3rd. The DNC also smartly brought in CNN to augment its PBS and Univision debates. These improvements in the schedule brought an additional 24m viewers, 8m from the CNN re-broadcasts and 16m from the three additional debates conducted so far. Augmenting the original schedule increased the overall Democratic debate audience by 50%.
The Townhalls – While the audiences for the CNN town halls were not significant, the formats were. Each of these programs gave viewers a window into the candidate the more rigid debate formats have not. They have been an important innovation this cycle by the DNC, and in coming years should be given more prominence. Our guess is if adequately promoted with more time, viewership for these town halls could be far more significant.
Audience Per Debate
Total Audience
Chris Murphy's blog
A Year of Opportunity for Democrats - Looking Ahead to the Fall Elections
Submitted by Simon Rosenberg on 5/2/16
Consent of the Governed
Last week we took a deep dive on what Clinton and Trump have to do to put their parties back together after contentious primaries. This week I look further forward, and offer an early take on what the landscape might be for this fall's election in an admittedly unpredictable year:
Current Polls (all data from the Huffington Post Pollster aggregate) -
Party – Dems lead in Party ID 36/28, and in favorability 46/47 (minus 1) to the GOP's 31/60 (minus 29), a substantial margin. Congress, which is controlled by the GOP, has a historically low approval rating of 14 (14/72).
The President/Party Leaders – President Obama's job approval is 49/47, and his overall approval is 48/46. Vice President Biden's approval is 47/37, and Bernie Sander is 51/40. On the other hand, there are no major GOP political figures with net positive approval ratings – Ryan is 32/39, Kasich is 36/39 and McConnell is 17/43.
Trump vs. Clinton – In the latest Huff Po aggregate, Clinton leads by 7 in direct head to heads with Trump, 47/40. Her approval rating, while low, is far better than Trump's, 41/55 (minus 14) to 33/62 (minus 29).
The Issue Landscape – There isn't an obvious opening on domestic issues for the Republicans this cycle. The economy is vastly improved from where it was, and should continue to do well through the fall. Annual deficits are a 1/3 of what they were. Health inflation has slowed, and tens of millions have insurance who didn't have it before. Energy prices are low, and the US is making real progress is transitioning to a better energy future. On immigration, one of Mr. Trump's signature issues, the country is with the Democrats, and not him. The basket of issues around "security" remain the GOP's one obvious opening, with Obama at 39/48 in his handling of foreign policy, and the Secretary having some lingering issues from her time as Secretary of State. Expect a tremendous level of engagement from the GOP on "security" issues this year.
The Map – As we covered in previous posts (here and here), the map is particularly advantageous for Democrats this year. The significant overlap among the states/districts Democrats need to win for the President, Senate and House both allow Democrats to maximize a Presidential state advantage, and use efficiencies gained through coordinated efforts to go on offense in states like Arizona, California, Georgia, New York and North Carolina, Additionally, Trump's hard line immigration approach will make Democratic success in states with heavily Hispanic populations like Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Nevada, Virginia and perhaps even North Carolina more likely.
Expanding the map to more states and voters is also important for Democrats to not only ensure that they win, but that they can govern effectively. Due to low turnout and only a small number of targeted Presidential states, only about one in three of eligible voters cast their ballot for President Obama in 2012. By expanding the map, Democrats could get that number up, creating more buy-in from the American people, or the "consent of the governed" our founders intended. This extra level of support could make become meaningful in a closely divided Congress next year.
The Choice of Vice President – For Donald Trump there seems to be one really good pick – John Kasich – and lots of less helpful ones. Kasich brings delegates to wrap up the nomination quickly, has as good a favorable rating as any GOPer in the country, has deep governing experience to complement Trump's inexperience, hails from the region of the country where Trump must win, and is the Governor of the state where the GOP Convention is taking place. Kasich's standing inside the Party will grow for "taking one for the team" by joining the ticket. I just don't see how this doesn't happen.
As for the Democrats, my money is still on Tim Kaine of Virginia. He is a former Party chair, governor and is deeply respected by people on both sides of the aisle. He hails from a swing state, speaks fluent Spanish, is Catholic (Rustbelt, Hispanics) and reinforces the "steady hand on the rudder" sensibility that will likely be a core Democratic offering this year. There are other good choices out there – Cory Booker, Julian Castro, Mark Warner, Elizabeth Warren, etc – but I think Kaine just feels like the right choice for this race at this time.
Looking Ahead – Six months out, signs point to this being a year of significant opportunity for the Democrats. The playing field leans Democratic right now, and the map is particularly advantageous to Democrats this year. The Party's leaders are well liked, and it has a strong track record of success in each of the last two Presidencies and in winning national elections. Taken together, all of this gives the Democrats a formidable advantage against an unpopular GOP without well regarded leaders and very little to show for their time in power over the past generation.
While the basic structure of the race favors Secretary Clinton, Trump is only 7 points behind at this point. Clinton's high negatives will give Trump an opportunity to make his case. His even higher negatives and lack of a true campaign at this stage of the race are enormous liabilities for him, ones that will make it very hard for him to turn this into a competitive race in the months ahead. But expect very aggressive attacks around the "security" theme (note 1st major policy speech was on foreign policy), and on her honesty and overall leadership capabilities. Also expect the GOP to come together rapidly around Trump in the months to come, as on may of the major issues – tax cuts, climate denial, Obamacare repeal, hard line immigration policies, interventionist/jingoistic foreign policy – is very much a mainstream Republican. While Trump appears weak today, he has been over-performing expectations for almost a year now, and cannot be written off.
While perhaps playing defense on "security" issues and her own record, there is a real opportunity for the Secretary to go on offense as the next CEO of a party with well liked leaders and a strong track record of success now in two Presidencies. It would be wise for the Clinton campaign to spend the time through the July Convention leading a national effort to tell the story of Democratic governing success (jobs, deficit, health care, energy/climate, equal opportunity for all, political reform, safer world), establishing the basic contrast of D progress/R decline prior to rolling out her closing argument and shifting the focus to her candidacy at the Convention itself. Helping the Democrats understand and own their own success will make every Democrat stronger up no matter where they are on the ticket.
It will also be remarkable to see a very popular set of Democratic leaders – Biden, Bill Clinton, both Obamas, Sanders, the VP – standing alongside and campaigning with Secretary Clinton in the months ahead. That image of a powerful team lead by an experienced leader (and first woman!) will not be easily answered by an unpopular, isolated Trump and a deeply unpopular Party without a single national leader with net positive favorability ratings. An unprecedented "Democratic Team" that includes two former Presidents could end up being an extraordinary advantage for her this fall.
To address her weakness with Millennials, Clinton would be wise to do two things: 1) showcase younger, compelling leaders like Cory Booker, Tulsi Gabbard, Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, Joe Kennedy at the Convention, giving them outsized and very public roles, and showcasing them thru post-broadcast media and forums; 2) adopt a far reaching plan to renew our democracy and reform our politics, along the lines of something I published last week. Whatever the Clinton plan is for bringing along the Sanders world, particularly Millennials, it must be an aggressive and serious effort, and should begin right away.
Conclusion – All signs point to it being a year of opportunity for Democrats. Though Trump should not be underestimated, the hole he and his party have dug for themselves is very deep. It remains to seen if they can make the fall election competitive.
More on the 2016 Election - Be sure to review our deep dive on the 2016 map and the opportunities it offers Democrats; our tally of the Presidential primary debates audiences which finds the GOP far outperforming the Dems; the Democratic bench is stronger than it appears; Clinton should become a champion of political and electoral reform; thoughts on the "children of Reagan;" my in-depth interview with conservative author Matt Lewis on what the GOP can learn from a generation of reform and success on the center-left; my long form magazine piece on the descent of the GOP into a reactionary mess, anticipating the rise of Trump; Rob Shapiro on Trump's economic plan and the crackup of the GOP.
"Monday Musings" is a new column which looks at the national political landscape and is published most Mondays here on the NDN site. You can find previous columns here. It also appears each week on the London-based progressive site, Left Foot Forward.
Full disclosure: I am supporting Hillary Clinton for President, and have given the maximum contribution to her campaign. I am not, however, a consultant to, or paid by, any campaign or party committee.
Simon Rosenberg's blog
Putting Their Parties Back Together
Submitted by Simon Rosenberg on 4/25/16
2016 Overview - With big wins in New York last week fueling them now, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are on track to win their Party's nomination this July. The central story in US politics these next few months will be how each of them puts their parties back together after what has been a contentious primary season. The challenges for Trump and Clinton are different, and perhaps can best be summed up by the national polling aggregate graphs from the Huffington Post below.
Today, Hillary Clinton has an insurmountable lead in delegates and has essentially won her nomination, but Democratic voters remain remarkably split between her and Bernie Sanders. For Clinton, putting her party back together will revolve heavily on the perception of how Sanders and his followers are treated, both at a national level and in every state. Given the success of the Sanders campaign against overwhelming odds, and his very high standing in the polls, many Sanders backers will be expecting to play a meaningful role in the emerging post Obama Democratic Party. Accommodating the Senator, his many delegates and his followers, will be a fundamentally difference process than the successful Obama Clinton rapprochement in 2008. The defeated Senator then was a professional politician with future ambitions, and the Clinton world knew how to fall in line and get on board. We simply cannot expect the same from Sanders and Sandernistas across the country. Many are new to politics, and come at the process with a degree of contempt for the system. For Clinton 2008 was a "loss." For Sanders 2016 will be seen by him and his supporters as a "win." Additionally, that there is such a wide held perception that the DNC and "the Party" improperly intervened on Clinton's behalf in the primary renders the Party, its Chair and the Convention itself a far less effective tool for reconciliation than is usual.
The team around Clinton is a sophisticated bunch, and I am confident they will be able to make all this work. But the constant references to one finds on social media to "we got on board in 2008, your turn," while perhaps comforting to Clinton supporters, is not now, and will not be a compelling argument to the very different sensibility of the Sanders world.
Trump, on the other hand, is in a less advantageous delegate position today than Clinton but does not face the kind of popular alternative Sanders has come to represent. It is possible that if a more attractive and less extreme alternative to Trump had emerged in the primaries than Cruz, Trump could have been beaten. But it didn't happen, and as one can see from the graph above, recent polling has Trump gaining and his two opponents losing ground. In some ways he enters this next phase in a more dominant position than Clinton, as he has doesn't have a real opponent any more. Yet, his party is far more deeply fractured than the Democratic Party, and putting it back together would be an extraordinary challenge for any nominee, let alone one without political experience. What will make Trump's job a bit easier is that he is not really at odds with his party on the big issues, arguing for big tax cuts, an interventionist foreign policy, a hard line immigration agenda, climate denial and rolling back Obamacare. He is perhaps louder, more boorish and less experienced than more establishment Republicans, but the ideological distance between him and Paul Ryan may be closer than the one between Clinton and Sanders today and thus easier to bridge than many realize.
The Pick of Vice President - The choice of Vice President will be an important step in this process of putting the party back together for both Clinton and Trump. I still think Senator Tim Kaine has the edge on the Democratic side – swing state, Spanish speaker, Catholic, former Party Chair, good guy, principled thoughtful national leader. He will help reinforce the "steady hand on the rudder" narrative that will contrast well with Trump this fall. But given my analysis above, will also be interesting to see if a nod to the next generation would be appropriate this time, with folks like Cory Booker and Julian Castro getting an extended look. Regardless of who Clinton picks, it would be wise for her to make a group of emerging, compelling Democrats – Cory Booker, Julian Castro, Tulsi Gabbard, Joe Kennedy, Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom for example – co-chairs of the Democratic Convention this summer. Something significant will have to be done to excite and engage younger Sanders supporters. Celebrating our inspiring next generation of leaders, the ones who will inherit the party after the age of Clinton, Reid and Pelosi, would be one savvy step in this effort.
For Trump, there is one pick that seems to make so much sense that I have to believe it will happen soon – Ohio's John Kasich. He brings delegates to help wrap up the nomination. He brings unparalleled government experience to complement Trump's inexperience. He hails from the swingiest of general election states, and the site of the GOP convention. He will be an effective bridge to the "GOP establishment." Given the events of recent days the cost of this deal clearly has gone up for Trump, but assume these talks are already well underway. There is just no one else who brings more to the ticket now than Kasich, and getting him to come on board will be of the most important tests of whether the Trump makeover has any chance of succeeding.
Further Reading - Two good reads from the last few days on this next phase of the process - The New York Times's Adam Nagourney "Can Clinton Feel the Bern?" and Politico's Gabriel Debenedetti's "Sanders Caught in a Political Trap."
Can the Frontrunners Reassert Control?
2016 Overview – The later part of April provides both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton the opportunity to reassert degrees of control over their nomination battles. Both frontrunners are polling well in the upcoming contests – delegate rich New York on April 19th, and then April's "Super Tuesday" of Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island on April 26th. . This is a welcome stretch of favorable terrain after what has been a tough few weeks for both candidates.
In a recent column, I discussed how Trump's refusal to embrace a modern and complete campaign – fundraising/bid budgets, paid advertising, grassroots organizing, delegate operations, etc – was a potentially fatal mistake. At some point, many have believed, the improvised, impulsive, free media driven Trump start up of 2015 was going to have to mature into a real organization in 2016 if he were to take advantage of the opportunity he had given himself. Over the past few weeks Trump has begun to pay a real price for his stubborn decision to run his effort on the cheap. He gave a series of terribly ill-advised interviews which reinforced how unprepared his was for the Presidency of the most powerful nation in the world. In Colorado this past weekend, he lost every delegate at the statewide convention to Ted Cruz, soon after losing almost all of the delegates in North Dakota and just two months after getting out-organized by Cruz in Iowa. This morning Trump even admitted his own children had missed the registration deadline to vote for him in New York next week. These kind of "can he play this game" mistakes are further driving the GOP establishment/party professional class away from him, a dynamic that is becoming so powerful that it could not only deny him enough delegates at his Convention, but create a sufficient public rationale for finding an alternative to him in Cleveland even if he recovers his standing and ends the primary with a string of victories.
Secretary Clinton faces a different set of challenges. Whereas Trump's problems are largely of his own making, the Clinton campaign is facing a far more spirited challenge from Bernie Sanders than almost anyone could have predicted. The Sanders campaign has dramatically outraised the extraordinary Clinton fundraising machine this quarter, won 8 of the last 9 contests, and appears to have pulled even in national polls with the Secretary. Whether all of this is enough to catch Clinton in the upcoming run of states where she has, according to early polling, meaningful leads, we will find out soon. The Clinton camp can find solace in that many of the remaining states have "closed" primaries, meaning only Democrats can vote. This will blunt the Sanders advantage with independents. Unlike Trump, she is likely to cross the delegate threshold needed to win the nomination in June. Additionally, the Sanders campaign has made a series of significant public missteps in the last few weeks, reminding us, perhaps a bit like Trump, of his own inexperience of playing the game at this level.
The Sanders camp, on the other hand, will find solace in that in many recent contests he has over-performed against the public polls, some by dramatic margins. No colleges are on break this month, unlike March, which is another thumb on the scale for Sanders. And of course he has the momentum from his remarkable wins of late, most notably his 14 point win in Wisconsin last Tuesday. All of this makes the Sanders Clinton debate on CNN this Thursday night the most important debate so far for the Democrats.
Sanders, Cruz closing in national polls - A close read of recent national polling shows a changing race in both parties. On the Democratic side, six new polls found two Sanders' leads, two slight Clinton leads and two with bigger Clinton leads. Four of the six found the race essentially tied. Using the Huffington Post poll aggregator, the Clinton lead is now 2.5 points, 47.8 to 45.3, down from 11-12 points from just a month ago. On the Republican side, Trump now leads Cruz by just 9 points, 41 to 32, down from 18 points, 42 to 24, just a month ago. Looking at the charts below, you can see that in each the slope of the lines indicates that public opinion in the race is moving rapidly right now away from the frontrunners. Will it be enough? Can Trump and Clinton use these coming states to recover their momentum? We will see.
Source: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster
Sanders, Cruz Soldier On; A Year of Opportunity for Democrats?
If current polling holds tomorrow night and Cruz and Sanders prevail in Wisconsin, it will give them a vital boost heading into a very important stretch where the terrain looks less favorable for them – New York on April 19th and then the Northeastern "Super Tuesday" of Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island on April 26th. Polls from the past few days show Trump with large leads in these late April delegate rich contests, while Clinton retains about a 10 point lead in New York. So while each frontrunner may take another hit this week, April could be the month where both Trump and Clinton finally put their race away.
Having said that, these last few weeks have been challenging ones for both frontrunners. Sanders racked up big wins in recent states, and had another impressive record breaking fundraising month in March. Video of Clinton in an angry exchange with a voter got her off message this week, and the campaign has yet to really find its footing again. Recent Trumpian interviews with the Washington Post and New York Times have been disastrous for him, reinforcing not just his radicalism and misogyny but his extraordinary ignorance of global and domestic affairs. Polling showing him slipping behind Cruz in Wisconsin raises questions about whether we are beginning to see evidence of a broader Trump weakening (Tues am - NBC/Survey Monkey finds evidence of some Trump slippage this week). I remain unconvinced that Cruz or Kasich at this point are strong enough or capable enough to take full advantage of a potential Trump stumble, and am keeping my money on the one with the hair to prevail outright on the 1st ballot in Cleveland.
As of press time, the Sanders and Clinton campaigns had not resolved their differences to settle on a date and place for a promised 9th debate. This is an unfortunate occurrence, as people voting in April, May and June deserve their own fresh debates. I put the blame for this debilitating squabble squarely on the DNC (Democratic Party), whose original, inadequate schedule had the last English language debate taking place on February 11th, when only 2 of the 50 states would have voted. Remarkably, when confronted with the inadequacy of the schedule, the DNC repeatedly ruled out adding any additional debate beyond this early February one, suggesting that DNC expected/wanted the primary to end in March not June. The reason these debates are negotiated upfront, long before the voting begins, is to avoid exactly what is happening now – in the heat of battle both the Sanders and Clinton campaigns are having to spend time negotiating with one another (no easy thing), and fighting this out in the media rather than talking about the issues that will drive the fall election. That we are even talking about this at this point is a sign of the extraordinary mismanagement of the debate schedule by the DNC this cycle (Tues am - the two sides agreed to next Thursday, April 14th for a Brooklyn debate).
A Year of Opportunity for Democrats? Several reports this week signaled that the election could be shaping up to be a year of opportunity for Democrats. A new report from Gallup found Party ID starting to break open for Democrats, moving from 42/42 in October to 46/40 today. (see the graph below). Gallup's daily track of the President's approval rating, a key shaper of broader public opinion, has been consistently finding Obama in the low 50s, even hitting 53% this past week. Both the 46% Party ID and 53% Presidential approval are highs for the President's second term, and suggest a very favorable environment for the Democrats this fall.
A new poll by Stan Greenberg's Democracy Corps found similar movement toward Democrats, away from the Republicans and early indications that key elements of the Democrat coalition have begun to become far more engaged in the election. House specific questions yielded similar results, suggesting that the movement towards Democrats we are seeing could extend below the Presidential level. As my own recent analysis of this year's electoral map showed, Presidential success for the Democrats in 2016 is likely to have a disproportionate impact on the battle for the Senate and House, potentially even putting the House in play.
Despite the rancor of this tough political year, it could very well be that these numbers reflect the public giving credit to the President and the Democrats for a job well done. Millions more are working today, and wages have begun to tick up; annual deficits are a third of what they were, and interest rates remain low; the President's health care reform has insured 20m people in just its first few years and health care costs have slowed; the global energy paradigm is changing in ways good for the planet and the United States; and while the world remains a challenging and difficult place, far fewer Americans are dying today than during the previous President's terms, diplomacy has been introduced into the Middle East, the President has advanced a far reaching plan for Asia anchored in his hard fought TPP, etc. Much has gone right these past 7 years, and the country is stronger for it. There can be little doubt that this record of achievement will be used effectively by many Democrats this fall to help draw a stark contrast with a generation of ineffectiveness and ideological extremism on the other side.
So, yes, this data is early, and much can happen. But every election takes on a specific set of characteristics as the cycle unfolds. And at this point, there is a growing body of evidence that this could be a year of enormous opportunity for Democrats to not just win the Presidency but to make up valuable ground lost in the very tough 2010 and 2014 midterms.
Trump and Clinton Look Unstoppable Now; Some Thoughts About the 2016 Map
2016 Overview - Yes, there are scenarios where Clinton and Trump could come up short this summer. But they are increasingly unlikely, even remote. A Trump Clinton match up looks assured now, and what a titanic battle it will be.
Over the next week Democrats will vote in six states, Republicans four. The frontrunners are likely to lose some states in this patch. The nature of the states gives Sanders a bit more of a "comeback" opportunity, so there could be some drama this week. But it is also an opportunity for Trump and Clinton to re-assert their control over their nominating processes.
I spent some time recently looking ahead to a fall Clinton Trump matchup. A lot is unknown at this point but we do know a few important things: Clinton is consistently over 50 percent in the early match ups; Obama's approval rating is now up in the high 40s, low 50s, a critical development in the race; the Electoral College Map still favors the Democrats; and on the big issue – can Trump flip enough white men to put the Rustbelt in play? - there just isn't a lot of evidence yet that he can (and more here). For more on the fall, I recommend these good, early pieces from Dan Balz, Ron Brownstein and Greg Sargent.
The 2016 Electoral Map – New House rankings from the Cook Report now suggest that there is at least a mathematical possibility the Democrats could retake the House (they would need to win 30 of 31 targeted races). A bit surprised by this, I spent some time with the 2016 map and Cook's rankings of all the Federal races. Using the Cook rankings (with one change - I moved AZ Senate into Tossup/Lean GOP), I came up with the following cheat sheet and thoughts about a possible expansion of what has been a very small Presidential map for Democrats:
Presidential 10-15
Dem Hold (10) - CO, FL, IA, NH, MI, NV, OH, PA, VA, WI
Dem PickUp (3) – AZ, GA, NC
Dem Watch (2) – MN, NM
Senate 8-11 (Dems need to pick up 7 seats net for a majority)
Hold (2) – CO, NV
PickUp 1st Tier (8) – AZ, FL, IL, NC, NH, OH, PA, WI
PickUp 2nd Tier (2) – GA, IA
House 37 - (31 Dem PickUps and 6 Holds, 30 net needed for majority)
AZ (2), CO (1), CA (4), FL (5), IL (1), IA (2), ME (1), MI (2), MN (2), NE (1), NH (1), NJ (1), NV (2), NY (6), PA (1), TX (1), UT (1), VA (2), WI (1)
Key Takeaways - In 2016 there is remarkable overlap between the Presidential and Senate target states. 9 of the 10 top tier Presidential states also have priority Senate races (and Dems are trying to make the 10th, Iowa, competitive at the Senate level), whereas only 3 of the Presidential states in 2012 and 2008 also had competitive Senate races. This overlap offers the national Democratic Party coordination opportunities that could produce enough economies of scale to free up resources to expand the national map. Why is this important? It has my belief that in the Obama era the national Party has not taken enough responsibility for winning elections beyond the very small number (10) of states in each of the last two Presidential cycles. Expanding the map as we discuss below will not only help the Democrats win the Senate, but now that the House is mathematically in play, maximize gains in the House (and of course help at the state and local level too).
The counter of course is that it is too risky to spread limited resources too thin. Hunker down, the argument goes, weather the Trumpian storm, win the Presidency, remake the Supreme Court, etc. But this is an unusual electoral map offering unique opportunities this year; Trump as GOP nominee ensures substantial resources allowing Democrats to consider going on offense; and if successful, could allow Democrats to not just win but have a chance of getting some of their agenda through Congress next year. Let's look at two highly leveraged expansion paths:
Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina– Each of these longer shot Presidential targets also have targeted Senate races, and given where the polling is today in the Senate, it would be wise for the Democrats to put more races in play. There are questions whether any Southern state is open to the Democrats with Trump on the top of the ticket, but more will be known about this soon. Arizona looks particularly attractive this time as early polling has both the Presidential and Senate races as toss ups; there are also two Congressional seats in play; and Hispanics could be motivated by a ballot that may have both Arpaio and Trump. It should be noted that in 2008 team Obama ran a serious well funded campaign targeting Hispanics in nearby states with similar Hispanic populations - CO, NM and NV - turnout increased between 30 and 63%. Given where the polling is now, the first ever well funded and sophisticated Hispanic effort lead by the nominee could turn Arizona into a purple, lean blue state, as we've seen in other states with large Hispanic populations where the national party has invested.
Adding these three states would leave only the Illinois Senate race outside the national Democratic Party map and solely up to the DSCC to manage - though Illinois natives Obama and Clinton might have something to say about that.
California and New York - The map also suggests that the national Democratic Party and nominee should consider mounting some kind of coordinated effort in both New York and California. 19 of the 37 targeted House seats fall within the expanded 13 state map. 10 more fall in New York and California. Mounting targeted campaign in NY and CA to drive up turnout – something no national Democratic party has done in decades – could help put 10 more House seats in play. This means 29 of the 37 target House seats would fall under the national coordinated campaign's reach, leaving only 8 of the 37 House races and solely up to the DCCC. This kind of coordination and leverage would be unprecedented in recent national politics, and could make the difference not only in the Democrats winning the White House, but in flipping the Senate and getting the House very very close.
So the national party strategy could look like:
National Party Coordinated Strategy
Pres/Senate (10) – CO, FL, IA, NH, MI, NV, OH, PA, VA, WI.
Expansion 1/Pres P/U and Senate P/U (3) – AZ, GA, NC.
Expansion 2/Maximize House Impact – 17 targets in core 10 Presidential states, 19 in expanded map. 10 more in CA, NY.
Expansion 3/Presidential Watch (2) – MN, NM (states closer than expected in 2012).
Will the nominee and national Party expand the national map, taking advantage of unprecedented economies of scale and highly leveraged opportunities specific to this cycle? I hope so.
Oldie But Goodie - "In this election cycle the Republican's angry war against modernity has escalated and appears to have become institutionalized. It is almost as if the more the world moves away from the simplicity of the Reagan moment the more angry and defiant – and of course wrong – the Republican offering is becoming" - Simon Rosenberg, "Forward, Or Backward?" September, 2012
More on the 2016 Election - Our tally of the Presidential primary debates audiences which finds the GOP far outperforming the Dems; the Democratic bench is stronger than it appears; Clinton should become a champion of political and electoral reform; thoughts on the "children of Reagan;" my in-depth interview with conservative author Matt Lewis on what the GOP can learn from a generation of reform and success on the center-left; my long form magazine piece on the descent of the GOP into a reactionary mess, anticipating the rise of Trump; Rob Shapiro on Trump's economic plan and the crackup of the GOP.
Tuesday May Be The Last Day to Stop Clinton, Trump
Consequential Voting Tomorrow – Both parties face meaningful elections tomorrow, the second "Super" Tuesday of the 2016 race for President. 5 big states vote – Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio. The polls are close in enough states that we really don't know what is going to happen. And after polls missed so badly last Tuesday in Michigan, it would be wise to question whether inexpensive polls of large states can accurately capture a volatile and unpredictable election every time.
Having said that, the likely outcome tomorrow is Trump and Clinton win enough delegates to keep the march to their nominations on track. The big questions tomorrow: can Sanders replicate his big Michigan win, and prevail in the Midwestern states of IL, MO and OH to offset Clinton's likely wins in FL and NC? And can anyone defeat Trump outside of Ohio? A lot of the spin tomorrow night will depend on many states Clinton and Trump win, and whether it appears they are weathering their challenges, or being weakened by them.
As we gather tomorrow night to watch the results come in, keep two stats from Sanders' Michigan win in mind: he won the white vote 57/42, and received 30% of the African-American vote. If he can keep those margins in the coming states, he will do well tomorrow night. If not, will be a good night for Secretary Clinton.
Successful Insurgents - Regardless of what happens tomorrow night, we have to take a moment to reflect on the success of the three insurgent newcomers to the national political stage – Cruz, Sanders and Trump. Running for President is no easy thing, and for the three of them – with very limited national political experience – to get this far against experienced and talented opponents has been remarkable to see. To me it speaks to the power of the "system is broken" narrative each of them are carrying in their own way this election, a narrative so powerful that it is propelling these candidates far beyond where anyone believed they would go. I've discussed the need for Hillary Clinton to adopt a more direct narrative around this sentiment in previous columns, and have several quotes addressing the issue in Ryan Lizza's thoughtful new piece in the New Yorker.
The loss of faith in "establishment politics" here in the US is very similar to what we are seeing in Europe today. Is it a crisis of the "West" itself: an end to 20th century politics here and in Europe?; something passing, something grave? Commentators here and in Europe should be spending more time exploring the similarities of what we are experiencing today, as indeed the challenges appear to be similar in scope and scale. A new piece by the very able Alex Seitz-Wald of MSNBC reminds us that none of the remaining 4 leading candidates for US President support the Trans-Pacific Parternship, an ominous sign for the global order indeed.
No One Should Be Surprised By The Rise of Trump – Over the past few months, I've written a lot about the rise of Trump, even predicting this summer he would win the GOP nomination. I share two recent excerpts from my weekly column which help explain why no one should be surprised by the power of the Trump candidacy with Republicans:
GOP in full freak out over Trump (3/7/16) – While the GOP's attacks on Trump escalated this past week, most notably in Mitt Romney's high profile speech, I find these protestations a bit hard to take. Where exactly does Trump differ from the current GOP "establishment?" He is for large unfunded tax cuts which would drive up deficits and harm the economy; repealing Obama's health care plan; a militaristic foreign policy; and for getting the 11m undocumented immigrants to leave. Even on trade, hard to argue that he is all that different right now from the Washington Republicans refusing to vote on the President's hard fought TPP deal. The differences between the Romney and Trump approaches are far more about style and biography, and far less about their governing agenda. Donald Trump is very much a creation of modern Republican politics, and one can understand how worrisome that is to so many on the right.
But let's be clear about one thing – if you don't think exploitation of racial fear hasn't been at the center of Republican politics for 50 years now, you just haven't being paying attention. So Trump's new found dominance in the GOP, particularly when his two remaining opponents, are, dare we say it – Hispanic! – should be no great surprise to anyone.
Strength of Reactionary Forces in GOP Not News (2/24/16) – Hard to know the exact date when reactionary forces began to truly assert themselves in the modern GOP. You could argue these sentiments were there from the beginning, congealing around Nixon's Southern Strategy and its response to the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts. We could look to Bush's "Willie Horton" ads in the 1988 Presidential campaign, which put a black man who had raped and murdered at the center of the national debate. You could point to 2005 and the emergence of the Minutemen, and the GOP House's passing of the Sensenbrenner Bill, which called for the arrest and forced deportation of all 11m undocumented immigrants in the US. Perhaps it was in Barack Obama's ascent to the Presidency in 2009 and the rise of the Tea Party. Or in 2015 with the forced abdication (self-deportation?) of Speaker Boehner just months after he gave the GOP their biggest House majority in 80 years. As I wrote in my long form magazine article in Letras Libres in late 2012, whatever date you cite you could see this descent of the modern GOP into a reactionary, angry mess coming for years now. What it lacked was a charismatic leader to pull it altogether from an inchoate jumble of grievances into a coherent, compelling argument and movement. Well, in 2015 that leader emerged. Donald Trump.
More on the 2016 Election - Our tally of the Presidential primary debates audiences which finds the GOP far outperforming the Dems; why it is time to take Trump seriously; the Democratic bench is stronger than it appears; Clinton should become a champion of political and electoral reform; thoughts on the "children of Reagan;" my in-depth interview with conservative author Matt Lewis on what the GOP can learn from a generation of reform and success on the center-left; my long form magazine piece on the descent of the GOP into a reactionary mess, anticipating the rise of Trump; Rob Shapiro on Trump's economic plan and the crackup of the GOP.
"Monday Musings" is a new column which looks at the national political landscape and is published most Mondays here on the NDN site. You can find previous columns here. It also appears each week on the U.K. progressive site, Left Foot Forward.
Sanders and Cruz Live to Fight Another Day
Trump, Clinton still lead, but Cruz and Sanders not going away – Both Cruz and Sanders did well enough this weekend (Sanders won 3 states to 2 for Trump and Cruz, 1 for Clinton and Rubio) that their campaigns live to fight another day. Mathematically, however, Clinton is in better shape than Trump at this point; and there is some evidence now that the extraordinary attacks on Trump by Mitt Romney and others these past few weeks have begun to slow his momentum.
"Little Marco" Rubio appears to have missed his window of opportunity, and continues to underperform just about everywhere. John Kasich has picked up important endorsements and impressed on the debate stage. But it just feels too late for him, as the extraordinary investments made by more establishment Rs in Bush and Rubio has left him with very little time, and money. Finally, his "Midwestern nice," low-key demeanor seems ill-suited to in this particular election to allow him to emerge as a legitimate challenger to the more electric Trump and Cruz.
Each party has another debate this week, and there are big, delegate rich states voting between now and March 15th – FL, IL, MI and OH among others. So, we will know an awful lot more about this race on March 16th, and whether Sanders or Cruz can sustain a serious challenge in what amounts to the second half of the primary season that runs from mid-March through June early June. I for one hope the campaigns go on into the spring. If they end in March, almost 40% of the country will not be able to cast a meaningful primary vote this year. And as I've written elsewhere, it is becoming far too common for big chunks of the country to not be able to cast a meaningful vote in our national elections, a contributor no doubt to the distance many are feeling from Washington and our country's politics.
Cruz and Sanders will remain in the race as long as their public rationale for winning the nomination remains convincing enough to keep the money coming in from their supporters. As a Democrat, I remain impressed and surprised by what a strong campaign Sanders has run, and that he has been able to hold his own on the national stage with Secretary Clinton. These long primary fights are important times for parties to regenerate, test messages, revisit old fights, and innovate on tactics and media. A remarkable new ad from the Sanders campaign is one of those bright spots in this long, hard slog, as he and his team are clearly stretching, reaching deep to try to keep up with the formidable Clinton camp. It is well worth watching.
GOP in full freak out over Trump – While the GOP's attacks on Trump escalated this past week, most notably in Mitt Romney's high profile speech, I find these protestations a bit hard to take. Where exactly does Trump differ from the current GOP "establishment?" He is for large unfunded tax cuts which would drive up deficits and harm the economy; repealing Obama's health care plan; a militaristic foreign policy; and for getting the 11m undocumented immigrants to leave. Even on trade, hard to argue that he is all that different right now from the Washington Republicans refusing to vote on the President's hard fought TPP deal. The differences between the Romney and Trump approaches are far more about style and biography, and far less about their governing agenda. Donald Trump is very much a creation of modern Republican politics, and one can understand how worrisome that is to so many on the right.
The establishment, however, should be equally worried about Trump's lack of a traditional campaign as they are about his blustery manner and foul mouth. Building a national campaign in this day and age is like building a start-up company – you grow the company by doing, by trial and error, by learning from what works and what doesn't. It takes time to get it right, to learn the terrain of this particularly year, to adapt the latest media and data techniques in a rapidly changing communications environment, to have your team gel into something bigger than themselves. And it takes time. You are seeing both the Clinton and Sanders campaigns improve and grow as they move into terrain and voting groups beyond the early small states, raise money, do their debates, produce their ads, etc. Trump has in essence yet to start building his campaign. He isn't raising money in large amounts, isn't spending a lot of money, isn't producing a lot of paid media and appears to not have invested a lot on the ground in the states so far. It is hard to me to imagine given the national deficits he has now against Clinton and Sanders for him to win in the fall without a full-on modern campaign. Which means that he will have to start building it from almost the ground up starting in a few months, putting him at a significant organizational disadvantage to a far more experienced and capable Democratic presidential political operative class. He just won't be able to muscle through the general the way he has the primaries. And this is a real problem indeed for the GOP and Trump who are likely to enter the general behind the Democrats and their incumbent President's impressive 51% approval rating.
This theory will be tested over the next ten days. Cruz's strong showing this weekend and some other polls showing signs of Trump slippage in key states could be early signs of Trump beginning to meaningful weaken. A normal, well-funded campaign would respond with a big positive ad buy to maintain their edge and prevent erosion. If the Trump campaign does not do this in the next few days very loud alarm bells should be going off in GOP land about Trump's ability to fund and run a modern campaign.
A new poll of Michigan reinforces how little room for error the GOP has this fall. As I wrote last week, the likely 2016 map for the GOP offers a very narrow path to victory. They will have to flip a few states northern Rustbelt states like PA, MI, OH and WI to have a shot. This new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll (very credible source) of Michigan found both Sanders and Clinton with significant leads:
Clinton 48% Cruz 41% Sanders 54% Cruz 36%
Clinton 52% Trump 36% Sanders 56% Trump 34%
As the demographics of these other Rustbelt states are not that different from Michigan's, these are sobering numbers for the GOP indeed. And for Sanders too - this poll has Clinton leading him in the Democratic primary 57-40.
Heading into Super Tuesday, Trump and Clinton Remain in the Driver's Seat
This week's Monday Musings memo finds Trump and Clinton still in the driver's seat, with each appearing to have a very commanding lead in their Party's fight for the nomination. Both are doing well in the Super Tuesday states, and while neither may win every state it is hard to see how their current path to victory gets dramatically altered tomorrow. Let's drill down a bit:
Democrats – The most important polling we've seen these last few days is in Massachusetts, where two different polls in this Sanders must-win state show Clinton ahead. If Clinton denies Sanders in CO, MA, MN and OK tomorrow very hard to see a path for victory for him, despite what is shaping up to be a record setting fundraising month for his spirited campaign. Clinton continues to improve and grow on the stump, becoming ever more comfortable in the language and terrain of this challenging campaign in an unsettled time.
An issue we've been raising for months – the enthusiasm gap – has gotten a bit more attention this week. See this piece from Zach Carter in the Huffington Post, and this from Rachel Maddow. Our latest debate audience tally has the GOP now at 158m for their ten debates, and the Dems at 55m for six. The difference remains vast, and worrisome.
Republicans – I move on this morning to the general election for a bit of a reality check on the Trump insurgency. Using the 2012 Obama map as a guide, it shows how challenging it will be for Mr. Trump to win. Assuming NY, NJ/New England and all the southwestern heavily Hispanic states remain out of reach for him (and that is without Arizona, which could be in play for Dems this time), he has to take 63 electoral college votes from either the 83 in IA, MI, OH, PA, VA, WI or the 112 if Florida is in play. Of these states if Dems hold PA and FL, they only need to win one other of the five remaining states to win. In some of these states there are 2016 specific winds blowing the Democrats' way: in Michigan, the Flint water scandal has weakened the Governor and his party; in Wisconsin, the incumbent Senator Ron Johnson is being routed by his opponent Russ Feingold, and Scott Walker is no longer the same strong governor after his washout Presidential bid; in Pennsylvania, the Democrats were able to reclaim the governorship in 2014 and will have their convention there; and in Virginia, one knows that the current governor, Terry McAuliffe, one of Hillary Clinton's closest allies, will move heaven, earth and maybe more to get Hillary elected (and there may be a Virginian on the ticket). The path for Mr. Trump is challenging indeed.
It should also come as no surprise that when the choice for Republicans narrowed these three – a nationalistic Anglo and two Hispanics with recent immigrant roots – we discovered that the Hispanic candidates had a very low ceiling and the Anglo started grabbing most of the remaining outstanding votes. Was just too much of a leap for a party that could produce Trump to end up going for Cruz, or Rubio, who has, so closely identified with his Hispanic immigrant roots.
Another worry for the Republicans this fall is the unusual campaign Trump has run. As he hasn't raised money, put folks on the ground and bought television ads, he and his team will not have had the experience of working through all this in the primaries as most campaigns do. It means that he if begins to put on the trappings of a traditional campaign, which one will assume he will need to do against the Democrats this fall, he will be doing it all for the first time, reducing his chances of doing it well. Perhaps he can muscle through the general as he has the primary, but the Democratic Presidential machine has won more votes than the GOP 5 of the last 6 elections, is very modern and sophisticated, and has a built in electorate college advantage. Trump's refusal to learn and build a traditional campaign apparatus means he will have fewer tools at his disposal in what will be a tough election this fall.
Rubio and the "children of Reagan - In a 2014 post-election memo, I discussed the significance of the rise of the "children of Reagan" to national prominence in the GOP. Marco Rubio has started using this phrase in his campaign, and even cut an ad with it last week. Learn more about the idea behind the phrase here.
A note on the coming "GOP crackup"- Last week I wrote about why the rise Trump should be no great surprise. But I want to add one more observation to what is certainly one of the bigger stories in the campaign this year.
Looking back over the past generation of American politics, perhaps the starkest difference between the two parties is that Democrats have produced two successful Presidents, and the GOP have given us what were in essence two failed Bush presidencies (we cover this in a different memo here). There simply is far more reason for Republican voters to be angry at their establishment, for it has been almost 30 years since GOP voters have had a leader who they could be truly proud of; and in that time, the analysis goes, the failures of the GOP allowed the Democrats to bring far too much lasting change to the nation. It is literally astonishing that in the past year the House Republicans deposed a Speaker who had given them their largest majority in almost 80 years, and that the three remaining Republicans in the Presidential have all run explicitly against a failed GOP establishment. The "crack up" is much bigger than Trump, and where it goes and what it means very hard to tell right now.
Frankly, the nominees of both parties this time are going to have a harder time putting it all back together again than is typical in US politics.
More on the2016 Map - The emerging 2016 map makes the Dems choice of Philadelphia for their convention look more prescient now, while strengthening the case for Senators Cory Booker and Tim Kaine for Vice President. On the GOP side, the map suggests a northern Rustbelt or Florida VP strategy for Mr. Trump, putting Governors Christie, Kasich and Walker at the top of the list, with Senator Rubio perhaps a bit of a long shot. Will be talking about this more in the months ahead.
"Monday Musings" is a new column which looks at the national political landscape and is published most Mondays here on the NDN site. You can find previous columns here. It also appears each week on the U.K. progressive site,Left Foot Forward.
Taking Trump Seriously
Southern Strategy
2/26/16 - The Washington Post's Greg Sargent refers to this memo in his very smart new piece on Christie's endorsement of Trump today. It is very much worth a read.
Some hastily tossed together observations the morning after Trump's huge win in Nevada:
Strength of Reactionary Forces in GOP Not News – Hard to know the exact date when reactionary forces began to truly assert themselves in the modern GOP. You could argue these sentiments were there from the beginning, congealing around Nixon's Southern Strategy and its response to the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts. You could point to 2005 and the emergence of the Minutemen, and the GOP House's passing of the Sensenbrenner Bill, which called for the arrest and forced deportation of all 11m undocumented immigrants in the US. Perhaps it was in Barack Obama's ascent to the Presidency in 2009 and the rise of the Tea Party. Or in 2015 with the forced abdication (self-deportation?) of Speaker Boehner just months after he gave the GOP their biggest House majority in 80 years. As I wrote in my long form magazine article in Letras Libres in late 2012, whatever date you cite you could see this descent of the modern GOP into a reactionary, angry mess coming for years now. What it lacked was a charismatic leader to pull it altogether from an inchoate jumble of grievances into a coherent, compelling argument and movement. Well in 2015 that leader emerged. Donald Trump.
The Risks of Trump - The risks for the GOP in embracing Trump are most easily found in the new voter registration numbers in California. Twenty years after Pete Wilson took on the immigrants in California, the Republican Party is on its way to minor party status. Dems hold all statewide offices in California now and large majorities in both houses. By 2020 unaffiliated voters will outnumber Republicans, and for all intents and purposes the GOP will cease to exist in California. That this could be replicated across the country is of course the GOP's nightmare scenario.
Will McConnell and Ryan Act Before the Trump Storm Hits? Will be interesting to see if GOP Congressional leaders move on a few important priorities for them - tax reform and TPP come to mind - prior to Trump assuming total control of the party this summer.
But Can He Win The General? – It is my belief that Democrats should be more worried than they are about Trump. The Rs are putting up big numbers with their debates and with turnout in the early states, indicating their voters are very excited and engaged. Democratic turnout and debate audiences so far are off their 2008 pace, and are trailing the Rs now. While early and not predictive, these are not good signs for Democrats.
Will be possible perhaps for the Democrats to really motivate Hispanic, African-American, women and progressive voters scared of Trump this cycle, and if Obama plays the role Bill Clinton played in 2012, perhaps Millennials too. The Hispanic opening could cause the Democrats to go all out in Arizona and even Texas, and will be interesting to see how Florida breaks given Trump's long presence there (and that many Hispanics there are not of Mexican descent and do not immigrate to the US). But the real demographic question is whether Trump can break through in the Rustbelt states that have been so critical to recent Dem Presidential victories but which have trended significantly towards the GOP in recent years. An early sign of this comes in the new Quinnipiac poll of bellwether Ohio which finds Trump, Rubio, Cruz and Kasich all ahead of Hillary Clinton even while she holds a 15 point lead over Sanders in the Democratic Primary. My assumption is Trump will try to get a Kasich or Walker on the ticket with him, bringing on a well regarded Midwestern/Rustbelt GOP governor to double down on this regional approach, help with managing the government itself while reaching out to the more establishment parts of the GOP (who knows if any reasonable person will take the job).
The Broken System - There are many different things going on with Trump, which is one of the reasons he is growing as he plows through the GOP primary. Trump is no single issue candidate, and his "Make America Great Again" slogan is powerful and artfully integrated into his narrative. One strain of Trump that I think Democrats have to really come to understand better is his basic argument about he has gotten things done in the real world; that political elites are ineffective, corrupt and have left the nation down; and the system is so broken it needs an outsider "do guy" like him to come in and fix it. Democrats should not underestimate the appeal of this argument, and it is one reason I've been so vocal about the Clinton campaign developing a more compelling narrative around how she is going to bring fundamental change to Washington.. The last three Democrats to get to the White House - Obama, Clinton and Carter - all ran against the system. She will have to at some point too (and this does not mean distancing herself from Obama who is still in the high 40s and holding his own).
Put me in the don't keep underestimating Trump camp. My assumption is that he will make a very formidable candidate in the general election, and the demographic impact of his candidacy is not yet well understood. This thing could be a blowout for the Dems, and he could become the Pete Wilson of the national GOP. But sure would be a mistake to assume weakness now from him and not political acumen and strength. Could be that this time it is the Rs are who "fired up and ready to go." For Democrats in 2016, it is far better to plan for the worst rather than hope for the best. Time to take Trump seriously.
Apology to Sanders folks - I've written this piece as if Clinton will become the nominee. I promise to write a new version with Sanders as the nominee after Super Tuesday if he can put up good numbers in CO, MA, MN and OK.
My previous columns on 2016 can be found here.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
OtherTechnical Brief
Elimination of the Cardiac Natriuretic Peptides B-Type Natriuretic Peptide (BNP) and N-Terminal proBNP by Hemodialysis
Hans Günther Wahl, Stephanie Graf, Harald Renz, Winfried Fassbinder
DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2003.030692 Published May 2004
Hans Günther Wahl
Stephanie Graf
Harald Renz
Winfried Fassbinder
The measurement of natriuretic peptides for the diagnosis of heart failure has been a major breakthrough in cardiology (1)(2). B-Type natriuretic peptide (BNP) is synthesized as preproBNP mainly in the ventricular myocardium. On ventricular myocyte stretch, preproBNP is enzymatically cleaved to proBNP and released in the form of the hormonally active BNP and the inactive N-terminal proBNP (NT-proBNP). Both BNP and NT-proBNP have been shown to reflect heart failure severity (1), but studies on their sensitivity and specificity for different degrees of heart failure produced conflicting results (3)(4)(5)(6). Both BNP and NT-proBNP can be used for the diagnosis of heart failure, but there are important differences between the two tests, particularly regarding influence of age and renal function (1). In addition to glomerular filtration, BNP is eliminated from plasma mainly through natriuretic peptide receptors and degraded by neutral endopeptidases (7)(8)(9). In contrast, NT-proBNP possibly is largely eliminated by glomerular filtration only (4). This explains the strong influence of renal function on NT-proBNP concentrations. Because of the normal decrease in glomerular filtration rate with increasing age, the diagnostic cutoff for NT-proBNP depends on age (1). This is also true for BNP(10), but to a much lesser extent. Importantly, both BNP and NT-proBNP concentrations can be increased in the setting of hemodialysis (11)(12)(13)(14). The prevalence of chronic heart failure is significantly increased in dialysis patients and is associated with left ventricular hypertrophy, which may be secondary to volume overload and hypertension (15)(16)(17). Reports on the effect of hemodialysis on plasma concentrations of BNP and NT-proBNP showed significant decreases in BNP (11)(14)(18) and significant increases in NT-proBNP (11). This different behavior was explained (11) by both the different sizes of BNP (3.5 kDa) and NT-proBNP (8.5 kDa) and their different half-lives [∼20 min (19) and 60–120 min (20)(21), respectively]. The decrease in BNP plasma concentrations could be attributable to reduced production/secretion of BNP caused by a reduction in plasma volume, elimination by dialysis, or both of these factors (1)(11).
In this study we investigated the effect of the dialysis procedure on BNP concentrations by hemodialysis, measuring BNP (ADVIA BNP assay; Bayer) and NT-proBNP (Elecsys proBNP; Roche Diagnostics). To address the unanswered question of elimination, we measured the concentrations in both plasma and, for the first time reported, in the corresponding dialysis fluid. Although these assays have not been validated for dialysis fluid, the results can be used to compare the relative effects of different membranes. Pre- and postdialysis samples (EDTA plasma) were drawn from 17 chronic hemodialysis patients [11 men and 6 women; mean (SD) age, 72.3 (6.2) years; mean (SD) duration of hemodialysis treatment, 5.6 (2.9) years]. Patients were treated with the Genius Therapy System (Fresenius Medical Care) and assigned to either low-flux (Polyflux 14 L; Gambro) or high-flux membranes (F 60 S; Fresenius Medical Care). The term high-flux membrane refers to a membrane with a high ultrafiltration rate. Because high-flux membranes tend to have larger pores, clearance of mid-molecular-weight molecules is usually higher than with low-flux membranes. Aliquots of the dialysis fluid were collected in EDTA-containing tubes for plasma preparation. The mean (SD) duration of dialysis was 4.4 (0.5) h, and the mean volume of the ultrafiltration was 2.6 (0.9) L. All samples were centrifuged immediately and stored at −20 °C, and all were analyzed at the same time. Postdialysis samples were adjusted for volume changes by use of the hematocrit.
All patients (n = 17) showed increased mean (SE) concentrations for BNP [738 (120) ng/L] and NT-proBNP [25 366 (9062) ng/L] in predialysis specimens. Even the postdialysis concentrations of both BNP [555 (159) ng/L] and NT-proBNP [24 933 (9828) ng/L] were increased. The approved cutoffs for the diagnosis of heart failure in non-renal-decreased populations (1) are 100 ng/L for BNP, and 125 ng/L (age <75 years) and 450 ng/L (age ≥75 years) for NT-proBNP. Hemodialysis caused mean (SE) decreases of 21.6 (7.1)% for BNP and 10.1 (4.3)% for NT-proBNP (n = 17). The mean BNP decrease in the group of patients treated with the low-flux membrane (n = 4) was 18.5 (1.9)% compared with 22.5 (9.4)% in the group treated with the high-flux membrane (n = 13). Whereas treatment with the high-flux membrane also caused a decrease in NT-proBNP of 18.4 (2.3)%, treatment with the low-flux membrane led to an increase in NT-proBNP of 16.8 (4.9)%. Moreover, each patient treated with the low-flux membrane showed this increase in NT-proBNP plasma concentration after hemodialysis (Fig. 1⇓ ), but none of the patients treated with the high-flux membrane showed this postdialysis increase. With the exception of two patients (both treated with the high-flux membrane), all patients had decreased BNP concentrations after hemodialysis (Fig. 1⇓ ). One of the two patients mentioned above had the lowest predialysis BNP value (92 ng/L). The other patient was the only one with no change in blood volume, as estimated by a hematocrit of 0.35 before and after dialysis. The length of hemodialysis treatment (4 h) for these two patients was within the range for all other patients, as was the ultrafiltrate volume (2.2 L). Without these two cases, the mean decrease of 21.6 (7.1)% for BNP becomes 30.2 (5.8)% for all patients, and for the patients treated with the high-flux membrane (n = 11), it changes from 22.5 (8.1)% to 34.5 (5.5)%.
Natriuretic peptide concentrations in the combined dialysis and ultrafiltrate fluid were 13–183 ng/L (median, 25 g/L) for BNP and 75–846 ng/L (median, 223 ng/L) for NT-proBNP. Mass balances were calculated as the product of these concentrations and the total volume (dialysis fluid and ultrafiltrate). The mean (SE) mass balance for BNP was 3282 (871) ng with higher values for the group treated with the high-flux membrane [3603 (1106) ng] compared with the group treated with the low-flux membrane [2238 (900) ng]. The total amount of NT-proBNP eliminated showed a mean mass balance of 40 382 (14 809) ng with higher values for the group treated with the high-flux membrane [49 910 (18 674) ng] compared with the group treated with the low-flux membrane [9416 (4416) ng].
Recently, Clerico and Emdin (22) published a review on the diagnostic accuracy and prognostic relevance of the measurement of cardiac natriuretic peptides. They pointed out the conflicting results of the few studies published for the clinical relevance of these assays in patients with renal failure. In our study, we therefore investigated the effect of the dialysis procedure on concentrations of BNP and NT-proBNP in hemodialysis patients. Both BNP and NT-proBNP are clearly increased in plasma from hemodialysis patients, with much higher concentrations for NT-proBNP, causing a mean (SE) NT-proBNP:BNP ratio of 28.0 (4.4). After hemodialysis, this ratio increased to a mean value of 36.0 (6.8). The mean NT-proBNP:BNP ratio in ambulatory patients with heart failure was reported to be 8.53 (0.33) (23), but we must emphasize that in the case of dialysis with low-flux membranes, where we observed an increase in plasma NT-proBNP, there is still elimination of NT-proBNP by hemodialysis, as was demonstrated by the results obtained for the dialysis fluid.
Both BNP and NT-proBNP are eliminated during hemodialysis, but they show different behaviors depending on the chosen dialysis membrane. BNP is cleared by both high- and low-flux membranes, with high-flux membranes giving higher clearance (mass balance) and reduction rates. NT-proBNP has clearance and reduction rates similar to BNP when high-flux membranes are used but very low clearance with low-flux membranes, leading to an increase in postdialysis plasma concentrations. This may be explained in part by the different molecular masses of BNP (3.5 kDa) and NT-proBNP (8.5 kDa). Both BNP and NT-proBNP seem to be released into the circulation during the hemodialysis session as shown by increasing postdialysis plasma concentrations in spite of demonstrated clearance. In contrast to NT-proBNP, circulating plasma BNP concentrations seem to be affected by acute intradialytic events. Additional studies are needed to test the influence of dialysis treatment on plasma concentrations of BNP and NT-proBNP and to elucidate the interdependence of the production, release, and elimination of these peptides in dialysis treatment.
BNP and NT-proBNP plasma concentrations in individual patients (n = 17) before and after hemodialysis (HD).
High-flux membrane (solid lines), n = 13; low-flux membrane (dashed lines), n = 4.
We thank B. Scheckel, A. Honig, S. Geis, and B. Metzler for excellent technical assistance.
McCullough PA, Sandberg KR. Sorting out the evidence on natriuretic peptides. Rev Cardiovasc Med 2003;4(Suppl 4):S13-S19.
Clerico A, Del Ry S, Giannessi D. Measurement of cardiac natriuretic hormones (atrial natriuretic peptide, brain natriuretic peptide, and related peptides) in clinical practice: the need for a new generation of immunoassay methods. Clin Chem 2000;46:1529-1534.
Pfister R, Scholz M, Wielckens K, Erdmann E, Schneider CA. The value of natriuretic peptides NT-pro-BNP and BNP for the assessment of left-ventricular volume and function. A prospective study of 150 patients. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2002;127:2605-2609.
Alehagen U, Lindstedt G, Eriksson H, Dahlstrom U. Utility of the amino-terminal fragment of pro-brain natriuretic peptide in plasma for the evaluation of cardiac dysfunction in elderly patients in primary health care. Clin Chem 2003;49:1337-1346.
Hammerer-Lercher A, Neubauer E, Muller S, Pachinger O, Puschendorf B, Mair J. Head-to-head comparison of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, brain natriuretic peptide and N-terminal pro-atrial natriuretic peptide in diagnosing left ventricular dysfunction. Clin Chim Acta 2001;310:193-197.
Cataliotti A, Malatino LS, Jougasaki M, Zoccali C, Castellino P, Giacone G, et al. Circulating natriuretic peptide concentrations in patients with end-stage renal disease: role of brain natriuretic peptide as a biomarker for ventricular remodeling. Mayo Clin Proc 2001;76:1111-1119.
Smith MW, Espiner EA, Yandle TG, Charles CJ, Richards AM. Delayed metabolism of human brain natriuretic peptide reflects resistance to neutral endopeptidase. J Endocrinol 2000;167:239-246.
Espiner EA, Richards AM, Yandle TG, Nicholls MG. Natriuretic hormones. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am 1995;24:481-509.
Kenny AJ, Bourne A, Ingram J. Hydrolysis of human and pig brain natriuretic peptides, urodilatin, C-type natriuretic peptide and some C-receptor ligands by endopeptidase-24.11. Biochem J 1993;291:83-88.
McCullough PA, Duc P, Omland T, McCord J, Nowak RM, Hollander JE, et al. B-type natriuretic peptide and renal function in the diagnosis of heart failure: an analysis from the Breathing Not Properly Multinational Study. Am J Kidney Dis 2003;41:571-579.
Clerico A, Caprioli R, Del Ry S, Giannessi D. Clinical relevance of cardiac natriuretic peptides measured by means of competitive and non-competitive immunoassay methods in patients with renal failure on chronic hemodialysis. J Endocrinol Invest 2001;24:24-30.
Nitta K, Kawashima A, Yumura W, Naruse M, Oba T, Kabaya T, et al. Plasma concentration of brain natriuretic peptide as an indicator of cardiac ventricular function in patients on hemodialysis. Am J Nephrol 1998;18:411-415.
Goto T, Takase H, Toriyama T, Sugiura T, Kurita Y, Tsuru N, et al. Increased circulating levels of natriuretic peptides predict future cardiac event in patients with chronic hemodialysis. Nephron 2002;92:610-615.
Naganuma T, Sugimura K, Wada S, Yasumoto R, Sugimura T, Masuda C, et al. The prognostic role of brain natriuretic peptides in hemodialysis patients. Am J Nephrol 2002;22:437-444.
Parfrey PS. Cardiac disease in dialysis patients: diagnosis, burden of disease, prognosis, risk factors and management. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2000;15(Suppl 5):58-68.
Locatelli F, Pozzoni P, Tentori F, del Vecchio L. Epidemiology of cardiovascular risk in patients with chronic kidney disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2003;18(Suppl 7):vii2-vii9.
Parfrey PS, Foley RN, Harnett JD, Kent GM, Murray DC, Barre PE. Outcome and risk factors for left ventricular disorders in chronic uraemia. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1996;11:1277-1285.
Nishikimi T, Futoo Y, Tamano K, Takahashi M, Suzuki T, Minami J, et al. Plasma brain natriuretic peptide levels in chronic hemodialysis patients: influence of coronary artery disease. Am J Kidney Dis 2001;37:1201-1208.
Holmes SJ, Espiner EA, Richards AM, Yandle TG, Frampton C. Renal, endocrine, and hemodynamic effects of human brain natriuretic peptide in normal man. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1993;76:91-96.
Hammerer-Lercher A, Puschendorf B, Mair J. Cardiac natriuretic peptides: new laboratory parameters in heart failure patients. Clin Lab 2001;47:265-277.
Gegenhuber A, Mueller T, Firlinger F, Lenz K, Poelz W, Haltmayer M. Time course of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal proBNP changes in patients with decompensated heart failure. Clin Chem 2004;50:454-456.
Clerico A, Emdin M. Diagnostic accuracy and prognostic relevance of the measurement of cardiac natriuretic peptides: a review. Clin Chem 2004;50:33-50.
Masson S, Vago T, Baldi G, Salio M, De Angelis N, Nicolis E, et al. Comparative measurement of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide and brain natriuretic peptide in ambulatory patients with heart failure. Clin Chem Lab Med 2002;40:761-763.
Clinical Chemistry Jun 2004, 50 (6) 1071-1074; DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2003.030692
Detection of Factor VIII Gene Mutations by High-Resolution Melting Analysis
Effects of 7 Hemoglobin Variants on the Measurement of Glycohemoglobin by 14 Analytical Methods
Mass Spectrometry–Based Detection of Hemoglobin E Mutation by Allele-Specific Base Extension Reaction
Show more Technical Briefs
Proteomics and Protein Markers


Ebby Olea is from the Dominican Republic and is a graduate of Johnson & Wales University.
Formerly the firm's Senior Legal Assistant, Ebby now works remotely, for the firm. Ebby provides backup and overflow services for the firm's attorneys. She focuses not only on civil litigation, but also real estate, probate, family law, personal injury, estate planning, and corporate law.
Ebby is familiar with the procedures of Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach County Court Systems.
Ebby is also a Notary Public.


text:
Search Victorian Collections
0 Stories found
0 Organisations found
We acknowledge the Traditional Owners of the place now called Victoria, and all First Peoples living and working on this land. We celebrate the history and contemporary creativity of the world's oldest living culture and pay respect to Elders — past, present and future.
Please be aware that this website may contain culturally sensitive material — images, voices and information provided by now deceased persons. Content also may include images and film of places that may cause sorrow.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are advised that this website may contain culturally sensitive material — images, voices and information provided by now deceased persons. Content also may include images and film of places that may cause sorrow.
Some material may contain terms that reflect authors' views, or those of the period in which the item was written or recorded but may not be considered appropriate today. These views are not necessarily the views of Victorian Collections.
Users of this site should be aware that in many areas of Australia, reproduction of the names and photographs of deceased people is restricted during a period of mourning. The length of this time varies and is determined by the community.
Reuse of any Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander material on this site may require cultural clearances. Users are advised to contact the source organisation to discuss appropriate reuse.
From the collection of Gippsland Vehicle Collection
96 Items featured online
The Gippsland Vehicle Collection provides Gippsland with an outstanding rotating display of interesting vehicles: cars, motorbikes, machinery, historic vehicles, carriages, trucks and auto memorabilia.
The motor museum in "The Maffra Shed" is located on the Sale Road in Maffra. The massive Shed is an old vegetable de-hydrating factory built during WW2 and is owned by Murray Goulburn Co-Op. The open-trussed building of around 2200 Square Metres is well worthy of a visit. Features such as Audio-Visual facilities, BBQs and meeting areas are provided for the use of community groups and car-clubs visiting the museum as part of their weekend leisure events.
Our constantly changing range of vehicles ensures a fresh and exciting display for visitors several times a year, year after year. The items on display reflect motoring and transport from horse drawn carriages up to modern racers. Maffra has long been a strong motoring centre and boasts a local hillclimb track run by the 'Maffra & District Car Club', and a Motocross track run by the 'Maffra Sale Motorcycle Club'.
Friday to Monday, 10:00 am - 4:00 pm. All School Holidays. Other times by appointment
Adults - $8, Concession - $6, Children (under 15) - Free, Members - Free
See the Valuations page for information on historical item valuation.
Items featured online
Gippsland Vehicle Collection
driving lights, c 1930's
Optional Automobile accessory lights added to vehicle to improve hight vision.
'Notek' Driving Lights (pair), oval shaped, with clear 'Road Master' circular lens & blue glass centre insert.Chrome plated rim. Stud post mount at base.
notek, driving lights
Commer Hanmdbook, Commer Driver's 1947 Handbook for 2/3, 3/4, and 4/5 Ton
96 pages plus soft cover, saddle stapled with three fold out diagrams in pocket inside back cover.Printed in England by Index Publishers (Dunstable) Ltd., Dunstable, Beds. 11/47
commer, superpoise, commer cars
Austin Handbook 1936, Handbook of the Austin Ten-Four
64 pages plus soft cover, saddle stapled. Printed black only.
Printed Jan., 1936
The Victorian Collections website is developed in partnership by Museums Victoria and Australian Museums and Galleries Association Victoria (AMaGA Victoria). Funding for the program is provided by the Victorian Government through Creative Victoria.
© Copyright 2019 Victorian Collections and content contributors
Victorian Collections API
The Victorian collecting sector
Valuation of historical items
Victorian Collections acknowledges the Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the first inhabitants of the nation and the traditional custodians of the lands where we live, learn and work.