Big wins for Bernie

76 comments on “Big wins for Bernie ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Bill 1

   27 March 2016 at 1:57 pm

   🙂 Another few of these and the establishment press’ll pop a vein. Mind how they jumped on the ‘Bernie stand down’ bandwagon a week or so back? And notice how they are still trying to minimise his gains by continually referring to those ‘superdelegates’, as though their position was immutable?
   • Steve Withers 1.1

     27 March 2016 at 2:45 pm

     The banksters and weapons makers don’t want a President they don’t collectively own.
2. Dot 2

   27 March 2016 at 2:11 pm

   Ho Hum===
3. AmaKiwi 3

   27 March 2016 at 2:16 pm

   “The times, they are a changin”

   I think this is politically the most interesting period since the Great Depression. The causes are the same.

   The Great Depression ended with WW 2. Brace yourselves. WW 3 is well underway.
   • Chooky 3.1

     27 March 2016 at 2:24 pm

     if Hillary Clinton gets to be President I really do fear for WW3….but if Bernie Sanders gets in maybe it will be averted…even Trump would be better than Clinton.

     ‘Hillary Clinton’s record is a monument to mendacity’

     https://www.rt.com/op-edge/337291-hillary-clintons-record-monument-mendacity/
     • joe90 3.1.1

       27 March 2016 at 2:35 pm

       Of course, The Bern will chastise Israel for their overreaction, but it’s still all the fault of Hamas, and promise to be more selective and effective when he drones folk in the Middle East.
       /

       http://www.mediaite.com/online/excuse-me-shut-up-bernie-sanders-defends-israel-from-town-hall-hecklers/

       http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/08/31/3697175/bernie-sanders-wouldnt-end-obamas-drone-program-promises-to-use-it-very-selectively/
       • Tim 3.1.1.1

         28 March 2016 at 2:16 pm

         That’s actually quite reassuring to hear that he supports Israel against terrorism
     • sabine 3.1.2

       27 March 2016 at 3:24 pm

       A write up about ‘gendered dominance’.

       it is an interesting read, about Trump, his use of people, his overt mysoginy, his need to ‘trump’ all others…and such.

       “nd here’s the final point. It now seems very likely that Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee and that he will face Hillary Clinton, the first woman ever to be the presidential nominee of a major US political party. If Trump is driven by a contempt and anger at female power at his core that is a pretty big thing in itself. Of course, Hillary Clinton since the early 90s has been a focus of, a symbol of empowered women not just for her many political supporters but even more for her political enemies. This is, to put it mildly, a highly combustible situation. I’ve said before that I don’t think Trump can just etch-a-sketch it and become a totally different candidate for the general election. The primaries will come with him and because the psychodrama and resentment operating within his supporters is operating within him. In this case, the need to dominate or knock down powerful women is clearly something that transcends political calculation for Trump. So, yes, there’s going to be racial and religious bigotry but it will be a woman battling Trump and standing between him and the presidency. That will bring out in him something of a different order entirely. That means the general election will be very ugly but in all likelihood lead to Trump’s devastating defeat.

       I have a question for those that believe that Trump is not as dangerous or at even more dangerous then Cruz, Clinton or any of the other stooges? Why would anyone think that he would not strong arm or bomb someone into submission? And why would anyone think that he could not do it, once he hast the red button at his disposal. After all, if Trump wins, that is what he was voted in for. Put the wimminz in their place, whip the pussies, and show everyone just how big his schlong is. Boooom!
       • Mike S 3.1.2.1

         29 March 2016 at 2:40 am

         “I have a question for those that believe that Trump is not as dangerous or at even more dangerous then Cruz, Clinton or any of the other stooges? Why would anyone think that he would not strong arm or bomb someone into submission? And why would anyone think that he could not do it, once he hast the red button at his disposal.”

         Because he wouldn’t get to make any decisions. The president is a figurehead. Do you really think those with the political power in the USA would let one person make really important decisions that could affect their control?
     • happynz 3.1.3

       27 March 2016 at 4:38 pm

       …even Trump would be better than Clinton

       I have no love for the Clintons, Hillary or Bill. However, if it comes down to it I’ll wear a clothespin on my nose and carry a barf-bag and vote for Hillary rather than Trump. It comes down to two or three appointments for the Supreme Court and having Trump with the power to nominate justices…no, don’t want to go there.

       I hope the Momentum stays with Sanders and he rolls up big wins in the coming state contests. I would be pleased if the Republicans continue burning down their own house.
     • AmaKiwi 3.1.4

       27 March 2016 at 7:38 pm

       As Sec. of State she was the queen of American exceptionalism. I.e., God has ordained the USA is the world’s police, judge, and jury.

       There’s no chance of compromise and world peace with Hillary in the oval office.
       • happynz 3.1.4.1

         27 March 2016 at 8:39 pm

         As I’ve written earlier I am no fan of Hillary or Bill. Yet, if she is the Democratic Party’s choice for the GE, then vote for Hillary would be for a better Supreme Court. The vote for Hillary would at least help women have control of their bodies. As for getting rid of Citizen’s United with a more “liberal” court there is a chance of getting rid of that decision. With Hillary though, she loves her some Wall Street dough, so I’m not holding my breath there. Her recent statements about revisiting TPP I think are bunk. She was on board with Obama regarding the TPP, but Bernie has forced her to the left on that issue. She will, as most candidates do, shift to the middle more moderate ground for the GE.

         As for her foreign policy chops…meh. More of the same shit — bum-kissing of Netanyahu, meddling in other countries affairs, and the war in Afghanistan dragging on for another generation.
   • Steve Withers 3.2

     27 March 2016 at 2:47 pm

     I don’t think so. No one wants to fight a WW III. All the propaganda in the world won’t work and is more likely to see the people calling for more war be rejected rather than embraced.
     • maui 3.2.1

       27 March 2016 at 2:57 pm

       I think so too, the question is how does the establishment keep a lid on the masses without a war distraction and growing unrest. Or do they just start to crumble.
     • AmaKiwi 3.2.2

       27 March 2016 at 7:42 pm

       @ Steve Withers

       “No one wants to fight WW III.”

       We may not want it, but look at the Middle East. It’s here and if you can see a way to end it please tell us because I can’t see it.
       • Lloyd 3.2.2.1

         27 March 2016 at 11:59 pm

         First step out of the middle east morass is the creation of an independent Palestine nation with enough military might to guarantee its own borders, the second step would be the creation of Kurdistan out of parts of Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran, and again with sufficient military might to keep those borders.
         If you get both those going, then a dismantling of the Saudi feudal state would be a third useful step towards a peaceful world.
       • Psycho Milt 3.2.2.2

         28 March 2016 at 8:24 am

         …look at the Middle East.

         Well, yeah, look at it. There’s the odd country having a civil war or that’s become a failed state. Big whoop – happens in Africa all the time, and no-one starts freaking out about the end of days. The major powers aren’t going to fight each other over Syria any more than they might over Congo or Sudan. They may have caused the problems by drawing completely senseless borders across other people’s countries, but that doesn’t mean they’re going to fight each other over it now.
4. Paul 4

   27 March 2016 at 2:57 pm

   The only problem for Sanders is that the ‘Democratic’ Party has very undemocratic super delegates.
   • joe90 4.1

     27 March 2016 at 3:20 pm

     Sanders’ (985) problem is Clinton (1,703) needs 680 delegates, less than a third of the remaining 2,077, to get across the line.

     http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/delegate-count-tracker
     • Andre 4.1.1

       27 March 2016 at 4:50 pm

       Yeah, most years that would mean game over. However, imagine Bernie really pulls it out of the bag in the remaining primaries and goes to the convention with a majority of the pledged delegates. And something smelly crawls out of the FBI investigation into Hillary’s e-mail servers. That might be enough for a bunch of superdelegates to change their minds.

       I don’t think this one’s fully done and dusted until Hillary wins a majority of pledged delegates and the FBI announce they’ve concluded their investigation and there’s no indictments coming.
       • joe90 4.1.1.1

         27 March 2016 at 5:40 pm

         Early days.

         Hillary Clinton is starting to lose her overwhelming lead in superdelegates, the Democratic party officials whose votes she is counting on to help her close the gap with Barack Obama. He has received a steady flow of backers in recent days while building a streak of 11 straight primary victories. After once leading Obama by a 2 to 1 ratio in the superdelegate chase, Clinton now has 241 to his 181, according to the latest Associated Press tally.

         Most unnerving for Clinton is the trickle of superdelegates who have defected from her corner to Obama’s. The shift comes as she failed to deliver a telling blow on him in their penultimate TV debate before the Texas and Ohio primaries on March 4.

         http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/23/uselections2008.barackobama
         • RedLogix 4.1.1.1.1

           27 March 2016 at 9:18 pm

           I think there will be a lot of supers looking at the crowds Bernie is pulling, and looking at those ‘favourability rating’ polls such as in the OP, and may well be re-thinking their original pledges.

           That after all was one of the reasons WHY they were created in the first place, to moderate the vagaries of a somewhat peculiar primary process. And you have to certain that right now there will be a few saner GOP seniors who wish THEY had a super-delegate system in place.

           There’s every reason for Sanders to fight on. If he can reach the Convention, behind on absolute numbers, but with the popular polls and momentum, there is reason to think he stands a chance of getting the super-delegates he needs.
     • Bill 4.1.2

       27 March 2016 at 6:16 pm

       Clinton has 1234 pledged delegates and Sanders has 956 pledged delegates. That’s not a huge gap (238 with over 2000 delegates still up for grabs) and Clinton will struggle in most of the remaining states.

       The ‘super delegates’ aren’t pledged. What’s the odds they merely said they’d go with Clinton when Sanders was still being viewed as an ‘also ran’ in the same way Corbyn was in the UK Labour leadership race? They can change sides. And if Sanders keeps notching up the kinds of wins he’s having, they will change sides.
       • happynz 4.1.2.1

         27 March 2016 at 8:30 pm

         Yes, they are uncommitted until the actual floor vote. Past performance shows that they will go with the candidate that has the most delegates from the state contests. However, this looks like an exceptional year, so if I were betting man I’d not put my money on a winner until the convention.

         As for the Republicans, I’m hoping for a brokered convention. The ugliness that would result may not increase America’s already low standing in much of the world, but hey, the death spiral of the Republican Party would be delicious.
       • Phil 4.1.2.2

         28 March 2016 at 12:47 am

         Clinton has 1234 pledged delegates and Sanders has 956 pledged delegates. That’s not a huge gap (238 with over 2000 delegates still up for grabs)

         It is a huge gap, when you look at the rest of the electoral calendar for the big-haul delegate states.

         247 in NY, Clinton heavily favoured.
         189 in Pennsylvania, Clinton heavily favoured.
         475 in California, Clinton favoured
         126 in New Jersey, Clinton favoured.

         That’s 1000 delegates in four contests, which are likely to hand out far more delegates to Clinton. the rest of the electoral map does favour sanders a little bit, but to turn around the pledged delegate gap would take every state to be as big a blow-out as Washington, and I just don’t see it happening.
       • Lanthanide 4.1.2.3

         28 March 2016 at 10:26 am

         “Clinton will struggle in most of the remaining states.”

         Not according to fivethirtyeight:

         All five of Sanders’s wins this week came in caucuses. The problem for the Sanders campaign is that there are only two caucuses left on the Democratic primary calendar.

         Sanders had a strong week, and this has been a crazy year in politics. But there’s nothing in the recent results to suggest that the overall trajectory of the Democratic race has changed. Clinton was and is a prohibitive favorite to win the nomination.

         http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-continues-to-dominate-caucuses-but-hes-about-to-run-out-of-them/
   • happynz 4.2

     27 March 2016 at 4:43 pm

     They were instituted to prevent another “McGovern”. That’s why there are super-delegates.

     I agree that it isn’t particularly democratic (but very Democratic Leadership Council stylee) .
     • Lanthanide 4.2.1

       27 March 2016 at 6:42 pm

       The Republicans wish they had superdelegates right about now.
       • Andre 4.2.1.1

         27 March 2016 at 7:35 pm

         Well, they do have uncommitted delegates. All of Colorado’s delegates, and most of Pennsylvania’s delegates are unbound. Probably some others as well.

         http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28700919/colorado-republicans-cancel-2016-presidential-caucus-vote

         http://www.npr.org/2016/03/24/471685045/in-this-gop-primary-you-can-win-the-state-but-only-get-a-few-delegates
5. Lanthanide 5

   27 March 2016 at 6:46 pm

   To put this in perspective, fivethirtyeight.com didn’t bother having a live primary blog for these contests, which they have done for almost every other night, because:
   1. Sanders was already projected to win these states by large margins (it appears he’s slightly outperformed 538’s targets however)
   2. The results don’t change his chances of winning the nomination in any material fashion: he still needs a disaster to befall Clinton’s campaign.
   • One Two 5.1

     27 March 2016 at 8:57 pm

     Because the Clintons history is not enough of a documented disaster…
     • Lanthanide 5.1.1

       27 March 2016 at 8:58 pm

       No, it’s not, speaking purely factually.

       I know that some people on this site are caught up in the emotion of Sander’s campaign, but the fact is, he isn’t going to win, unless a disaster befalls Clinton’s campaign.
       • RedLogix 5.1.1.1

         27 March 2016 at 9:41 pm

         All the same, how do you explain the ONLY candidate left in the race with a net positive favourability rating getting knocked out like this.

         Because here is my gut feeling; Sanders would utterly and totally wipe Trump off the map. Clinton however … anything could happen.
         • Lanthanide 5.1.1.1.1

           27 March 2016 at 10:41 pm

           I explain it with one word: politics.
6. Ad 6

   27 March 2016 at 8:23 pm

   Bernie is like Cruz – just a different fundamentalist base, waiting for Utopian Rapture, and won’t graciously accept the inevitable. Net result of both set of supporters is they either give up or accept the blame for King Trump.
   • happynz 6.1

     27 March 2016 at 8:54 pm

     Rubbish. Cruz is a Dominionist dead-ender. I don’t know what you think Bernie’s supporters are but fundie rapture types they are not. Bernie even said during one of the debates that at the end of the primaries whoever the Democratic Party nominates he or she would be a hundred times better than what the Republicans have to offer.

     Bernie has to win the remaining contests by better than 60%. The results in Washington, Alaska, and Hawai’i were encouraging as he won nearly 80% in Alaska and over 70% in Washington. The results in Hawai’i I don’t know, but indications are positive for the Sander’s camp. He will need to be competitive in NY and NJ and hope like hell California goes his way big in June.
     • Ad 6.1.1

       27 March 2016 at 9:59 pm

       Socialist America: hail Jesus, you’ve made it.

       Why not have a brokered Democratic Conference so the Dems can look as incoherent as the Republicans? What could go wrong?
       • AB 6.1.1.1

         29 March 2016 at 9:34 pm

         Sanders isn’t socialist – he’s an old-style ‘New Dealer’. 50 years ago he would have been pretty mainstream, even in America.
   • Lanthanide 6.2

     27 March 2016 at 9:00 pm

     Cruz still has a slim chance at a contested convention, which is likely in the republican parties best interests so they can avoid Trump.

     Note that even if Trump does reach the delegate count, the party reserves the right to change the rules on the day of the convention. That, of course, makes them look like even worse sore losers than if they manage to spike Trump’s campaign.

     But ultimately it seems that picking a sensible candidate (even with the public ill-will from dumping Trump) would give them a better result than sticking with Trump – and as I’ve said elsewhere, the bigger key for Republicans may be in the house and senate races, this year and in 2018.
7. millsy 7

   27 March 2016 at 8:52 pm

   In 2004 and 08, Dennis Kunsich ran for the nomination on a similar platform to Sanders and never got beyond single digits in the primaries and caucuses.

   Sanders is winning full states. He won’t win the nomination, but he is putting a lot of issues on the agenda. He may even get to sit in Hilary’s cabinet.
   • happynz 7.1

     27 March 2016 at 9:00 pm

     I really liked Kucinich. I would have preferred him as president.

     Bernie is likely gaining ground because many in the States have been hammered by the GFC. They don’t see incrementalism and compromise as the way forward. In short, there are a lot of angry voters. Obama was elected with high hopes as being a transformative president, and though he did accomplish some good things in office, many felt he compromised too much with an intransigent Congress. Obama’s toying with a chained CPI as a way to address the perceived shortfall in the Social Security fund was a real clanger.
   • Lanthanide 7.2

     27 March 2016 at 9:06 pm

     “He won’t win the nomination, but he is putting a lot of issues on the agenda.”

     And that likely has always been his intention, to shift the Overton Window for the democrats.

     This is also a very good aspect of the American primary system – it lets a variety of viewpoints from each party get put on the big stage for national attention. Something that never happens with the National Party leadership change process for example, and that Labour has only recently implemented a weak form of (since really all of the candidates have been pretty anodyne and interchangeable while on the campaign trail, except for maybe Nanaia).
   • NZJester 7.3

     27 March 2016 at 9:12 pm

     If he does not win the nomination it is only due to all the legal bribe money in US politics.
     He has been taking a lot of the Muslim votes from Hilary.
     That is because he has been willing to talk with their community and he has been critical in the past of the Israeli governments treatment of the Palestinians. He is also immune to their biggest weapon they use against their critics by calling them antisemitic. Calling a Jewish man antisemitic just does not work.
   • Ad 7.4

     27 March 2016 at 10:01 pm

     Sit on her knee more like it.
     He can have a consoling little weep.
8. NZJester 8

   27 March 2016 at 9:00 pm

   He also knows how to reach the people that are the most likely to vote for him also. The half hour interview on The Young Turks YouTube show was very revealing.
   Someone started a petition online to try and get the Democrats to have TYT host one of their debates. TYT are all for it, but it will be interesting to see if the leaders of the party will even consider it.
9. joe90 9

   28 March 2016 at 12:02 am

   Sanders’ has a problem.

   http://m.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/02/bernie-sanders-core-university-chicago

   http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/17/vermont-s-black-leaders-we-were-invisible-to-bernie-sanders.html

   And then there’s his Latino problem.

   http://www.univision.com/noticias/opinion/luis-gutierrez-sanders-voted-with-republicans
10. Nick 10

    28 March 2016 at 9:22 am

    I predict Sanders will be President. So many here seem adamant Clinton will win, but the blurb that comes out of the US is warped and manipulated, depending on who is putting it out, which is mostly media outlets who back Clinton. Whoever the Republicans end up with is damaged goods, so it’s a Democrat win. Feel the Bern…. That will stop tppa dead.
11. Wayne 11

    28 March 2016 at 10:29 am

    Bernie is mostly winning the primaries that are caucus based. He is much less competitive in general voter based primaries. This last weekend’s were all caucus based.
    From hereon out virtually all primaries are of registered voters, with a key one in New York on April 19. Hillary was a NY senator. I would expect her to win with at least a 55/45 result.
    Mind you I prefer Hiliary in any event as I have said in the past, though naturally I understand that Standardnistas back Bernie, just as they back Jeremy Corbynites.
    But Standardnistas (on average) are among the 10 to 20% most left wing voters in New Zealand.
    Party activists, especially in left wing parties, seem much more radical than those who generally vote left. The same is not quite as true on the right, since right wing party activists seem to be fundamentally more pragmatic, and pay more attention to the overall electability of their leaders. They are much less interested in making an ideological statement, irrespective of electability, than activists in left parties. Part of that is because they are not constantly railing against the “establishment”. The broad political “settlement” of the last thirty years is broadly acceptable to activists on the right. Conservatives, by definition are not constantly seeking a radical overthrow of the broad status quo. In constrast I get the impression that many left activists are still seeking a socialist nirvana as an expression of justice and equality.
    • RedLogix 11.1

      28 March 2016 at 10:45 am

      since right wing party activists seem to be fundamentally more pragmatic, and pay more attention to the overall electability of their leaders.

      The polls consistently suggest Sanders is indeed the ONLY candidate left in the race with positive approval across the board. So exactly what are we doing wrong here?

      In constrast I get the impression that many left activists are still seeking a socialist nirvana as an expression of justice and equality.

      Yeah sorry about that. Must try harder to leave the world poorer than I found it.
      • Wayne 11.1.1

        28 March 2016 at 11:05 am

        Red logix,
        For those of us on the right it is obvious the world would be worse off if a socialist nirvana came about. And we reckon the evidence is more than abundant. All socialist nirvana’s rely on a single party dictatorship, since in democratic societies people consistently vote for free choice, whether that be a right option or a centre right option. Socialist nirvana’s rely on compulsion beyond what people consistently would choose. For instance a top tax rate of 60% plus never lasts more than a few years before it is voted out.
        • Stuart Munro 11.1.1.1

          28 March 2016 at 11:27 am

          I suppose when one is as old as Wayne the period between 1940 and 1980 when UK top tax rates exceeded 80%, and the US 70% is indeed ‘a few years’.
          So he’s not exactly lying – he’s just stretching the truth – as usual.

          http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/en/pdf/F14.1.pdf
        • RedLogix 11.1.1.2

          28 March 2016 at 11:37 am

          I find it weird you should direct that to someone who’s consistently argued for almost a decade here, for a mixed public/private sector democratic socialist model. Just yesterday I posted on the merits of the public and private sectors working together:

          http://thestandard.org.nz/aussies-may-be-bastards-but-the-believe-in-themselves/#comment-1152615

          And nowhere have I ever argued for a single party state, nor a top tax rate of 60%. By contrast I’ve been banging on about a UBI with a flat 30-40% rate for years.

          Reducing your opponents to narrow caricatures isn’t smart Wayne.
          • Wayne 11.1.1.2.1

            28 March 2016 at 11:56 am

            Red Logix
            A full level UBI at $15,000 to $20,000 require a flat tax of at least 40% with GST of 20%. The reason being that a UBI at that level requires a govt of about 50% of GDP. After all the govt still has to provide health, education, justice, police, defence, DOC, etc. Together with a ful UBI that means 50% of GDP. And in any event is a 40% flat tax fair in low income earners with families?
            In short a UBI at levels of $15,000 is impracticable. And at lower levels does it fulfil the fundamental purposes that justify a UBI.
            Perhaps in a future when there really are only jobs for around 30% of the population due to advanced robotic and IT technology (compared to 65% employment at present) a UBI would make sense.
            • Andre 11.1.1.2.1.1

              28 March 2016 at 12:05 pm

              Ya know Wayne, deliberately misrepresenting your opponent’s position really trashes your credibility. It was just yesterday that RedLogix was arguing for a UBI at a somewhat lower amount, in a long thread starting here:

              http://thestandard.org.nz/hickey-on-the-ubi/#comment-1152624
            • dv 11.1.1.2.1.2

              28 March 2016 at 12:08 pm

              You assume that they are the only taxes in the mix

              Add a tobin tax
              add a capital investment tax for non resident house purchases
            • gsays 11.1.1.2.1.3

              28 March 2016 at 12:12 pm

              hi wayne,
              i am curious, have you seen the lecture by prof guy standing on the precariat and a ubi?
              it isnt a left/right thing, unless reducing inequality aint a right thing.

              to be fair, there are far more ways to fund a decent level ubi than the few you mentioned.

              “A full level UBI at $15,000 to $20,000 require a flat tax of at least 40% with GST of 20%.”

              i feel your comments reflect either a conservative mindset (status quo, status quo), or an attempt to scare the horses re a ubi.

              we could have a financial transaction tax, a capital tax or another option i am not aware of.

              also there are so many benefits to a ubi that have nothing to do with $

              ahh.. snap, i see dv beat me to this.
              clearly a ubi is a hot topic..
            • KJT 11.1.1.2.1.4

              29 March 2016 at 10:03 am

              Interesting that the most successful countries in the world have Government expenditure around 50 to 60% of the economy, or more.
              The Laffer curve is called the “Laughter curve for a reason. Up to a certain amount (Going by the evidence up to 70 + %, Government investment in people and the economy makes the private sector successful also.

              The ones that have been reducing taxes, like New Zealand, are failing, even by the right wings favourite measure. GDP.
              As confirmed by Bill English. “GDP per capita has been falling”.

              The economic stimulus within New Zealand of a UBI at the super rate will increase private business. The poor spend all their income.
              Most likely, after time, reducing Government share of the economy.

              And. A UBI does not require a flat tax.

              In the 80’s and 90’s tax was rebalanced from taxes on higher income earners to the lower paid with regressive taxes like GST. The total tax take wasn’t decreased much, just shifted to poorer people to give the well off more. (The trickle down myth).

              No reason why it cannot be rebalanced again to treat ALL income fairly including capital gains and hoarded wealth.
        • DoublePlusGood 11.1.1.3

          28 March 2016 at 11:45 am

          Nirvana….you use that word…I do not think it means what you think it means.
          “Rely on a single party dictatorship” – nonsense. How the hell did you get to be a cabinet minister with that level of thought?
          • left for dead 11.1.1.3.1

            28 March 2016 at 12:57 pm

            My thinking also DPG, but alas that is only too prevalent.
            As i suggested to Dr Mapp just the other day, he is a good example of being educated beyond is intellect.
          • Incognito 11.1.1.3.2

            28 March 2016 at 3:37 pm

            If I’m not mistaken I believe Wayne meant to write “socialist Utopia”, but the mix-up is understandable given the ‘spiritual’ influence of Easter.
          • KJT 11.1.1.3.3

            29 March 2016 at 12:44 pm

            The really scary thing is they really believe their own bullshit.
        • Bill 11.1.1.4

          28 March 2016 at 12:39 pm

          All socialist nirvana’s rely on a single party dictatorship..

          Guessing that’s a reference to the USSR of old – a set up that socialists quite rightly dismissed and condemned from the outset. There’s nothing socialist about state control (representative or dictatorial) and there’s nothing socialist about command economies (ie – state capitalism).

          Funny thing is, the examples of so-called socialisms and communisms that get bandied about by some like yourself Wayne, bear a remarkable resemblance to more extreme examples of market or capitalist governance (eg – Mussolini’s Italy) and none at all to any expression of socialism.

          I’d pick that the same type of person who mis-represents Boshevik Russia as communist or socialist in order to condemn socialism and communism, would be the same type of person who would have lauded Mussolini in the 30’s. And like I say, the differences between Mussolini’s set-up and the Bolshevik’s set-up was…well, the Bolshevik’s took the strands that Mussolini and others left hanging as external justification for their political ideology, and folded them into state/party control. (Kinda loosely – church replaced by The Party, God replaced by The Party, corporate dominance folded into state monopoly…The Party again.)

          And all of those dictatorial states, from Mussolini to Franco to the Bolsheviks to Salazar and so on, had a fine old time suppressing socialism and repressing socialists.
          • Wayne 11.1.1.4.1

            28 March 2016 at 6:38 pm

            And none of these were democracies. Recall the hero for the right from that era is Churchill. Liberalism is the foundation stone of modern conservative parties as exist in Australia, Canada, and the UK to which National has its most closest relationships (just as Labour had its own fraternal relationships in those countries).
            And given we (though not me) have just voted to retain the Union Jack in our flag we might just as well continue celebrating those ties. After all it seems highly unlikely that New Zealand will vote to become a republic in the next twenty years, though a more democratic way with a parliamentary vote of choosing the GG seems likely.
            • Stuart Munro 11.1.1.4.1.1

              28 March 2016 at 7:25 pm

              The current National party owes nothing to Churchill – it’s a tawdry copy of Cameron’s disgracefully failing government. No growth, no hope, no brains whatsoever- National ™.
            • Anne 11.1.1.4.1.2

              28 March 2016 at 7:48 pm

              Well, it was Churchill who said and I quote:

              “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”

              In NZ the modern conservative party, National pays lip service to democracy but only practices it when it’s thought to be in the interest of themselves. Labour, on the other hand, not only pays lip service to democracy it also practices it in all it’s manifestations.
              • Colonial Viper …

                28 March 2016 at 10:34 pm

                Labour, on the other hand, not only pays lip service to democracy it also practices it in all it’s manifestations.

                A tad hyperbolic? Especially as the general membership seems way more left wing than caucus and the hierarchy, who pride themselves as being more “realistic” and “practical” than the “hardcore” left.
            • left for dead 11.1.1.4.1.3

              28 March 2016 at 8:39 pm

              Churchill was a murderer way back in the 1910 or so, and continued to send people too their death,for the rest of his sorry life.
            • DS 11.1.1.4.1.4

              28 March 2016 at 10:20 pm

              The Churchill who was a pre-war fan of Mussolini, sent tanks in against strikers, advocated for the use of gas warfare, and whose monstrous attitude towards the people of the Indian sub-continent beggars belief?

              The Churchill who famously accused Clement Attlee (who had loyally served in the War Cabinet) of needing a Gestapo to carry out his policies during the 1945 election campaign?

              The Churchill who was the author of Gallipoli?

              Yeah, mate. You can have him.
              • Stuart Munro …

                28 March 2016 at 11:05 pm

                Give him his due – he was just the man to fight Hitler. But no-one wanted him to govern after the war.
        • KJT 11.1.1.5

          28 March 2016 at 8:13 pm

          Yeah right.

          Right wing low tax rate countries with total freedom of choice are the ones people emigrate from!
          Their leaders often tend to be executed.

          And the proponents of lower tax rates, and small Government have to lie and cheat their way into power. Like our present Government.
    • Stuart Munro 11.2

      28 March 2016 at 11:03 am

      The left votes for a better world – the right want us back in caves hunting mammoths with pointed sticks.
    • Sacha 11.3

      28 March 2016 at 11:42 am

      Part of that is because they are not constantly railing against the “establishment”.

      Rather easier when you *are* the establishment, wouldn’t you say?
    • Puddleglum 11.4

      29 March 2016 at 2:34 pm

      Hi Wayne,

      I think you are correct that ‘activists’ on the right are more pragmatic about electability. That’s largely because, as you also argue, they are happier with the status quo – their material and cultural interests are generally served very well by it.

      By contrast, the status quo does not serve the interests of those the left represents and so making substantive change is of the essence of the left.

      Much of the internecine conflict on the left comes from a group of relatively privileged liberals whose interests are, similarly, largely well-served by the status quo. And therefore, just like the pragmatists on the right, they tend to prefer ‘business as usual’ candidates like Clinton to someone who potentially threatens their interests.

      They also tend to belittle what they characterise as immature, naive idealism in those who are more committed to substantive social and economic change. It’s a charge that’s relatively easy to level when your own life prospects are actually quite rosie under current arrangements.

      History shows, however, that liberal incrementalism is little more than the conservative establishment’s institutionalised brake applied to progressive, popular movements. Paradoxically, the greatest obstacle to progressive social change is not the right but the liberal left which, when push comes to shove, invariably sides with the right to ensure ‘stability’ – which is to say, to ensure the continuance of the fundamental basis of the status quo from which they benefit.

      The Whig (essentially liberal) party in England, for example, was instrumental in delaying the abolition of the slave trade for decades for ‘pragmatic’ political reasons (Wilberforce’s insipid parliamentary efforts on this are testament enough). The injustice of the historical record on this and other progressive changes is that ‘liberals’ have traditionally taken the credit for them despite (or, probably, because of) their role in delaying social change.

      That someone like you from the right feels quite comfortable with a Clinton presidency should indicate to those on the left just how ‘progressive’ she is likely to be.

      Never mind ‘socialist nirvana’, the best prospect is that her rhetoric during her presidency will be a soothing balm to liberal sentiments and consciences while her ‘actions’ will leave established power structures firmly in place and, likely, enhanced and more thoroughly embedded.
      • KJT 11.4.1

        29 March 2016 at 2:43 pm

        I agree.

        “Free University” seems to be a preoccupation of the “Liberal” entitled left.

        Whereas it is irrelevant to the majority with lesser incomes who are blocked from getting tertiary education at all, including apprenticeships, by the present system.
12. redherring 12

    29 March 2016 at 11:45 pm

    In that image, is that Rubio or Kasich? And if Rubio, what is Kasich’s net approval? Don’t polls show he would defeat Clinton and be close to Sanders?
    • Phil 12.1

      30 March 2016 at 1:31 pm

      Kasich and Sanders are basically neck-and-neck in hypothetical matchups, but we’re still far too far out from the election to put a lot of stock in them as predictive results.
      http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

      Kasich’s favorability ratings are positive and, depending on the survey, around about the same net favorability as Sanders.
      http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/john-kasich-favorable-rating

      But, keep in mind one important fact:
      Kasich has absolutely no chance of winning the republican nomination.

      He, statistically, cannot win enough delegates to be the nominee before the GOP convention, and he doesn’t have the support of enough party activists to win a contested convention on the floor.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS