Indiana vote

151 comments on “Indiana vote ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Nick 1

   4 May 2016 at 12:40 pm

   Feel the Bern…..perhaps that email scandal will knock her off in time
   • Nick 1.1

     4 May 2016 at 12:51 pm

     Cruz out…..wow…. Trump !?!
2. Sabine 2

   4 May 2016 at 12:48 pm

   this planet is fucked.
   • stunnedmullet 2.1

     4 May 2016 at 1:13 pm

     Agreed – although the rest of the GOPs candidates are arguably just as crazy.
   • Draco T Bastard 2.2

     4 May 2016 at 4:54 pm

     That’s what happens when society caters solely to the psychopathic rump known as capitalists.
     • AmaKiwi 2.2.1

       4 May 2016 at 9:17 pm

       It’s also what happens when the election officials are ALL political party functionaries. Each state governor (Republican or Democrat) appoints everyone from the state’s commissioner of elections down to the people counting the votes! That’s why Al Gore didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of beating George Bush in Florida. Florida’s governor was Jeb Bush.

       America’s illustrious Founding Fathers designed their voting system for fraud!
       • Draco T Bastard 2.2.1.1

         5 May 2016 at 1:28 am

         The US’s Founding Fathers designed the system to prevent democracy. Indications are that they wanted to implement an aristocracy similar to the English/European model but the heavily armed citizenship actually wanted democracy. So, they came up with a system that could be called democracy but would leave the power in the hands of the rich.

         That system is called representative democracy and is in use right across the world preventing democracy.
3. NZJester 3

   4 May 2016 at 12:50 pm

   It is amazing how they have manipulated the votes to help Hillary win in some states.
   With record numbers of voters expected to turn out they decided that they would only open a limited number of poling booths in some places and people found they had been dropped from their party roles and so could not vote.
   A lot of people who thought they where registered as independent also found out they where registered with the Independence party. A party that apparently has some very polarizing ideas and 90% of the people the press checked with about being registered with them found the parties policies abhorrent to them and they thought they where listed as independent.
   • Lanthanide 3.1

     4 May 2016 at 1:03 pm

     🙄
     • Colonial Viper 3.1.1

       4 May 2016 at 2:58 pm

       Very many media reports of this kind of thing going on in the New York primary.
       • NZJester 3.1.1.1

         4 May 2016 at 4:20 pm

         The Young Turks is basically the only real media voice a lot of the young Democrats have in the US. Cenk Uygur is also not all talk but was willing to be arrested for what he believes in.
4. Nick 4

   4 May 2016 at 1:15 pm

   Looks like Sanders wins Indiana !
5. Phil 5

   4 May 2016 at 1:18 pm

   Bernie is going to pull off an upset win.

   I wouldn’t be so quick to call this a Bernie victory just yet. As of 1.15pm NZT CNN has just called for Sanders, but there’s still a big chunk of vote outstanding in populous counties like Lake and Vanderburgh that appear to be going in favour of Clinton. Meanwhile, the big counties in favour of Sanders have mostly tallied their votes.
6. Macro 6

   4 May 2016 at 1:33 pm

   Meanwhile in Idiotsville HC says she “misspoke” when vowing to put coal companies out of business. Remaniscent of a PM not far from you and me.
   • Nick 6.1

     4 May 2016 at 2:01 pm

     HC meant we misinterpreted her and we were sloppy and used shorthand
7. save NZ 7

   4 May 2016 at 1:54 pm

   Why he is winning….

   Bernie vs. billionaires: Sanders jokingly supports telling the 1% to “f**k off”
   “I can’t quite phrase it like that, but… I like it,” Sanders said when a supporter told the ruling class “f off!”

   http://www.salon.com/2016/05/03/bernie_vs_billionaires_sanders_jokingly_supports_telling_the_1_to_fk_off/
8. Michael 8

   4 May 2016 at 2:42 pm

   Victory for Bernie!

   538 predicted Hillary would win with 90% probability.

   Bernie beat the polls by an average of 13 points.
   • Lanthanide 8.1

     4 May 2016 at 4:13 pm

     Yeah, so this is the 1 in 10 universes where Hillary lost.
     • Colonial Viper 8.1.1

       5 May 2016 at 12:50 am

       Nate also predicted that Trump had a less than 2% chance of winning the nomination.

       This is a one in five hundred combo according to these experts.
       • Lanthanide 8.1.1.1

         5 May 2016 at 9:19 am

         That ‘prediction’ was based on the assumption that the Republican party would do everything possible to stop Trump. They utterly failed and didn’t really do anything about Trump until he’d already won about 4 states.

         The 90% chance for Hillary winning was based on polling in Indiana. Garbage-in, garbage-out.

         It doesn’t make any sense that 538 would ignore all the polls they saw, and say “actually we think Sanders will win”.
       • Phil 8.1.1.2

         5 May 2016 at 10:22 am

         Nate also predicted that Trump had a less than 2% chance of winning the nomination.

         Nate Silver and his team made that assessment almost a year ago. His assessment changed as the information and data changed.

         How come you don’t do the same thing?
         • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.2.1

           5 May 2016 at 10:44 am

           I made my call on Trump just under a year ago, and it panned out nicely.
           • Phil 8.1.1.2.1.1

             5 May 2016 at 1:03 pm

             Yep, and sometimes Turkeys do vote for Christmas.
9. Andre 9

   4 May 2016 at 2:44 pm

   If Trump loses in November, that would leave Cruz well positioned for 2020 to claim Trump wasn’t conservative and Republican enough.

   Hillary might even have a chance of two terms.
   • Lanthanide 9.1

     4 May 2016 at 4:14 pm

     Trump is very likely to lose in November.

     When he does, the Republican party are going to have a lot of soul-searching to do. I doubt Cruz is the answer to their problems. None of the current ring-leaders are likely to be the answer to their problems.
     • Ben 9.1.1

       4 May 2016 at 5:07 pm

       Sounds familiar.
       • Lanthanide 9.1.1.1

         4 May 2016 at 5:59 pm

         Yes.
     • AmaKiwi 9.1.2

       4 May 2016 at 9:27 pm

       “the Republican party are going to have a lot of soul-searching to do”

       Problem is the Republicans can only win white states and the demographics of the USA are increasingly every other color of the rainbow.
       • Magisterium 9.1.2.1

         4 May 2016 at 11:34 pm

         Also “only win white states with lots of old people”. The thing about old people is they don’t have as many elections left to vote in as young people.
10. Colonial Viper 10

    4 May 2016 at 3:00 pm

    Trump ahead of warmongering bankster donating Clinton any day.
    • Lanthanide 10.1

      4 May 2016 at 4:14 pm

      I’d take a sane criminal over an insane clown.
      • Andre 10.1.1

        4 May 2016 at 4:17 pm

        Blofeld over The Joker?
        • McFlock 10.1.1.1

          4 May 2016 at 5:30 pm

          Definitely.
          The person who wants to rule the world needs at least some modicum of world to rule.

          The joker just wants to watch it all burn.
    • McFlock 10.2

      4 May 2016 at 4:15 pm

      Why?

      Trump isn’t any better, and that’s if he’s even bullshitting on most of his policy claims and has no intention of following through.
      • Colonial Viper 10.2.1

        4 May 2016 at 4:40 pm

        Why? My comment explained quite fully why.
        • McFlock 10.2.1.1

          4 May 2016 at 5:01 pm

          Ah, yes, ok.

          Your reflexive hatred of Clinton blinds you to Trump’s attitudes to nukes, carpet bombing, putting 20-30,000 more troops in iraq and syria, banning people based on their religion, and stealing cross-border transfers in order to build a $20billion wall.
          • Colonial Viper 10.2.1.1.1

            4 May 2016 at 6:15 pm

            Odd. I am pretty sure that Trump has said over and over again that Bush and Obama’s foreign military adventures have been an utter disaster.
            • McFlock 10.2.1.1.1.1

              4 May 2016 at 10:33 pm

              Oh yes, he’s very good about saying where other people went wrong. Like how he might be ok with sending SF troops to Syria, but the US shouldn’t tell anyone they’re doing it. Because that worked so well with Cambodia. And only a few weeks ago he was talking about 30,000 troops in Iraq and Syria.

              And that’s before you google his comments about nuclear weapons and global warming.
              • Colonial Viper …

                4 May 2016 at 10:40 pm

                Or you could listen to the US State Dept laughably deny that Obama never promised “no boots on the ground in Syria.”

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W55jEdgLzyQ

                I have no vote in the US elections, but I’ve made it clear, Clinton is the warmonger, Trump will stop US military adventurism.
              • Colonial Viper …

                4 May 2016 at 10:43 pm

                Anyways, despite your doubts, Trump won the nomination, and he deserved to.

                Clinton doesn’t stand a chance against him, IMO.
              • Colonial Viper …

                4 May 2016 at 10:46 pm

                Trump’s recently foreign policy speech:

                How America has made bad mistakes in the Middle East, destroying institutions, destabilising the region and creating the conditions and space for ISIS to grow.

                Not to mention the disastrous foolishness of trying to make countries with no democratic inclinations into western democracies.

                https://youtu.be/ePlopVAV6Hc?t=134
                • McFlock …

                  4 May 2016 at 11:15 pm

                  Like I said, he’s good at pointing out the mistakes of others.

                  You saw the praise he heaped on Israel in that speech, right? How did that rock your boat?

                  Stability over democracy – so he’ll support Saudi Arabia.

                  Rebuild the military, promise economic success, talk about an enemy within based on their religion – yeah, that’s never gone wrong before.

                  Did he mention how he was going to defeat ISIS by letting exxon take the oil? Google it.

                  The dude said that japan and south korea should have nukes, ffs. Google it.

                  Lol, and you reckon that he’s better than Clinton.
                • Phil …

                  5 May 2016 at 10:25 am

                  Literally everyone with even a passing knowledge of foreign policy has panned Trump’s speech as nonsense covered in bullshit – an inconsistent and contradictory set of statements with no supporting evidence and a complete lack of real world understanding.

                  The guy is a f**king joke.
                  • Colonial Viper …

                    5 May 2016 at 10:48 am

                    So the US foreign policy establishment doesn’t think much of Donald Trump?

                    Well since those guys have been so good at doing US foreign policy on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Egypt, Ukraine, I suppose we should really listen to their expert opinion now.
                    • McFlock …

                      5 May 2016 at 12:12 pm

                      OK, so let’s say NATO countries boost defense spending to levels aimed at fighting the cold war – you reckon there’ll be no push-back from Putin on that, or will Putin want to do something about it?

                      How about tearing up the non-proliferation treaty by inducing Japan and South Korea to make their own nukes? No chance that China might give Zimbabwe or Uganda a couple of bombs as part of an aid package (alongside drones, roads and military tech) once that door is open?

                      Just because things are shit it doesn’t mean that the can’t get much, much worse. And only a blinkered fool can’t see that after a moment’s thought.

                      Hillary might not be a peacemaker, but I’m pretty sure that she won’t nuke Syria just to double-down on some damned fool comment she yelled on the spur of the moment.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      5 May 2016 at 1:19 pm

                      OK, so let’s say NATO countries boost defense spending to levels aimed at fighting the cold war – you reckon there’ll be no push-back from Putin on that, or will Putin want to do something about it?

                      NATO insists on moving its bases closer and closer to Russia, so yeah, there’s definitely going to be push back.

                      https://www.rt.com/news/341756-russia-divisions-nato-threat/

                      Hillary might not be a peacemaker, but I’m pretty sure that she won’t nuke Syria just to double-down on some damned fool comment she yelled on the spur of the moment.

                      Hilary’s direct hand in the debacles in both Syria and Libya leave me with less confidence in her than you have.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      5 May 2016 at 1:23 pm

                      How about tearing up the non-proliferation treaty by inducing Japan and South Korea to make their own nukes?

                      The US only cares about non-proliferation when its people they don’t like. Israel? No worries. Japan – who is probably only a week away from building a bomb – no worries.
                    • McFlock …

                      5 May 2016 at 1:26 pm

                      In the speech you pasted, Trump wants 24 of 28 NATO nations to increase their defense spending.

                      Not just bases, actual military spending.

                      You know, money for bombers, missile batteries, tanks and shit. Distributed all over Europe, particularly Eastern Europe.
                    • Phil …

                      5 May 2016 at 1:26 pm

                      So the US foreign policy establishment doesn’t think much of Donald Trump?

                      Here’s the Guardian, that well known pro-republican hawk of a newspaper:
                      http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/27/trump-inconsistencies-foreign-policy
                    • McFlock …

                      5 May 2016 at 1:33 pm

                      The US only cares about non-proliferation when its people they don’t like. Israel? No worries. Japan – who is probably only a week away from building a bomb – no worries.

                      [headdesk]
                      The NPT stops the US spreading nukes in exchange for China and Russia not spreading nukes. And France needs to keep its shit on the down-low before the Israelis blow it up.

                      The problem with tearing up the NPT isn’t Japan. It’s “who’s next?”

                      The more countries that have it, the higher the likelihood that one of them will eventually be run by a leader who’ll use it.
                    • Andre …

                      5 May 2016 at 1:45 pm

                      Or here’s what Trump was in the habit of saying back when he didn’t have an obvious ulterior motive to bullshit anyone.

                      https://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/trump-supported-iraq-war?utm_term=.sfrjwnQNe5#.oyb8Q5RgXB
11. MATAI 11

    4 May 2016 at 3:22 pm

    “Too little too late, but Go Bernie!”

    No it’s not.
    https://johnlaurits.com/2016/04/28/this-is-what-will-happen-at-the-democratic-convention/
    • Lanthanide 11.1

      4 May 2016 at 4:23 pm

      The argument boils down to:
      1. Hillary, through winning pledged delegates alone, is very unlikely to meet the required 2,383 minimum to clinch the nomination
      2. Therefore Hillary therefore must rely on super delegates to win
      3. Even though Hillary is practically certain to win a super-majority of the pledged delegates, somehow almost all of the super delegates are going to side with Bernie, even though he has won less than half of the pledged delegates
      4. ???
      5. Bernie is the Nominee.
      • adam 11.1.1

        4 May 2016 at 11:24 pm

        You are a paid Hillary Troll yes? Setting the record straight?
        • Lanthanide 11.1.1.1

          5 May 2016 at 9:53 am

          Classic ad-hominem from someone who doesn’t have an argument.
          • adam 11.1.1.1.1

            5 May 2016 at 10:07 am

            My argument is below, feel free to watch the very short video’s.

            And I think I put up this link before, http://correctrecord.org/

            If a Super PAC is willing to spend this type of money to shrill for Hilary on line – I’m sure you could put your hand out Lanthanide, and ask for some.
      • adam 11.1.2

        4 May 2016 at 11:51 pm
      • adam 11.1.3

        4 May 2016 at 11:53 pm
      • Phil 11.1.4

        5 May 2016 at 10:30 am

        1. Hillary, through winning pledged delegates alone, is very unlikely to meet the required 2,383 minimum to clinch the nomination
        2. Therefore Hillary therefore must rely on super delegates to win

        Side note: in ’08, Obama did not win the nomination through pledged delegates alone. He won more pledged delegates than Clinton, but still needed super-delegates to get him over the top. It’s exactly the same boat Clinton is in today.
        • Lanthanide 11.1.4.1

          5 May 2016 at 11:11 am

          “It’s exactly the same boat Clinton is in today.”

          Yes. And since Obama won in 2008, we should assume Hillary should win this year, since she’s in the same boat.
          • Bill 11.1.4.1.1

            5 May 2016 at 11:43 am

            Yes Lanthanide….if you forget about momentum and the clear desire for change that is being expressed by the electorate. Wise superdelegates would vote for Sanders in a closely contested convention.
            • Phil 11.1.4.1.1.1

              5 May 2016 at 1:31 pm

              and the clear desire for change that is being expressed by the electorate.

              You mean that clear desire for change which has Sanders vs Clinton down by about 44% to 56% of the vote thus far?

              Lets be real about one thing: By voting record, public statements, and voter perception, Hillary Clinton looks like the average voting democrat person. Sanders sits as the far left of the party. He is not, nor ever has been, remotely close to the ‘average democrat’ and his results bear this out.
              • Bill …

                5 May 2016 at 1:37 pm

                I’ve no idea what you’re referring to with those percentages. Either my brain’s a bit jumbled or your comment is.

                Anyway. As for Bernie Sander’s political positioning, he’s essentially old school democrat…in much the same vein as Corbyn is old school Labour.
                • Phil …

                  5 May 2016 at 2:01 pm

                  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html

                  12.4 million people have voted for Clinton.
                  9.3 million have voted for Sanders.

                  That’s 57% Clinton to 43% Sanders. This is not a “clear desire for change”. This is a clear desire for the establishment candidate.
                  • Bill …

                    5 May 2016 at 2:13 pm

                    k thanks for clarifying. I disagree with you on the momentum and call for change front, but whatever. Any idea why no figures are presented for seven of the contests that have already been held?
                    • Phil …

                      5 May 2016 at 2:25 pm

                      They’re caucus states. Votes at individual locations are not tallied in the same way.

                      disagree with you on the momentum and call for change front, but whatever.

                      After the last election here, plenty of commentary on The Standard called National’s 47% insufficient for a clear mandate to govern. But, like you say, whatever.

                      😛
                    • Bill …

                      5 May 2016 at 2:35 pm

                      ‘plenty of commentary’ and me are two different things, yes? 😉
                    • Phil …

                      5 May 2016 at 4:26 pm

                      It was a ‘compare and contrast’ kind of comment.
    • Phil 11.2

      5 May 2016 at 1:21 pm

      “Too little too late, but Go Bernie!”

      No it’s not.
      https://johnlaurits.com/2016/04/28/this-is-what-will-happen-at-the-democratic-convention/

      This is, quite literally, the worst application of math I have ever seen.

      Laurits’ sets two completely different sets of goalposts which Clinton and Sanders are supposed to attain, makes some entirely unfounded observations about Sanders’ poling trajectory and results thus far, and then uses magical thinking to hand wave away the role super delegates play.

      Regardless of peoples preferences for either Democratic candidate, this is just pathetic.
      • Andre 11.2.1

        5 May 2016 at 1:39 pm

        “This is, quite literally, the worst application of math I have ever seen.”

        Ummm, I’ve seen worse. In successful corporates, no less. But yeah, the only way Bernie gets the nomination is if something really really smelly crawls out of the FBI investigation, and it’s hard to see what that might be. Or only slightly less likely, a meteorite crashes into her plane killing all aboard.
      • Bill 11.2.2

        5 May 2016 at 2:33 pm

        From my reading, all that Laurits is pointing out is that neither candidate will achieve the 2 383 pledged delegates that would be necessary to avoid a contested convention….that if Sanders averages 60 odd percent in the remaining contests, (or secures 665 of the remaining 1016 remaining delegates up for grabs prior to the convention) then he’ll be one pledged delegate ahead of Clinton going into the unpledged ‘superdelegate’ voting phase.

        Why’s that bad maths or arithmetic?

        Those superdelegates haven’t voted and won’t be voting until the convention, and no superdelegate is bound by any voting preference they might have indicated prior to the convention taking place.

        If you’re suggesting that the superdelegates will ‘stick to their guns’ regardless of pledged delegate counts come the convention, then that’s one opinion and valid enough. But it doesn’t reflect on the validity of the number crunching done by Laurits.
        • Lanthanide 11.2.2.1

          5 May 2016 at 2:45 pm

          “Why’s that bad maths or arithmetic?”

          Because he goes about it in such a long-winded, confusing way. Deliberately, I’m sure, to make his argument look much more sophisticated and complex than it really is. Which I summed up at 11.1.

          “If you’re suggesting that the superdelegates will ‘stick to their guns’ regardless of pledged delegate counts come the convention”

          Since Hillary will have the clear advantage in pledged delegates, the superdelegates don’t have to “stick to their guns”, they just have to follow the will of the people. Which is democracy, eh?
          • Bill 11.2.2.1.1

            5 May 2016 at 3:00 pm

            Lanth. All Laurits is saying is that if Sanders secures 665 of the remaining 1016 delegates pre convention, then he’ll have more pledged delegates than Clinton. Which, by your reasoning would mean all the unpledged delegates (superdelegates) follow the will of the people and give their vote to Sanders. If you think they could justify giving their vote to Clinton in that scenario, then you have to legitimately allow for Sanders seeking to swing them if he’s only a percentage or two behind Clinton come the convention.

            Bar the immediate aftermath of New York, I’ve commented that I’m neither writing Sanders off or writing him in. I think things will be close. I don’t get a vote. I prefer Sanders’ politics and I see no point in wading into ideological posturing (or taking up the cries of tribal affiliations) on a blog in NZ that probably doesn’t have any eligible voters reading it.

            The ‘Bernie maths’ thing you’ve posted a few times, as I commented the first time it came up, is two not very bright sparks trying to be smart (and funny) – and failing.
            • Lanthanide 11.2.2.1.1.1

              5 May 2016 at 3:36 pm

              If that’s all he’s saying, he could have said that in one or two sentences. Like you just did.

              “I think things will be close.”

              They’re very unlikely to be, given current polling. The only way to think otherwise, is to imagine that all the current polling has massive errors, like it did in Michigan. 538 has said it’s the 2nd largest polling error ever, so hoping that to be repeated over and over again for each remaining state – which is what is required for Sanders to win – is just so incredibly unlikely.
              • Bill …

                5 May 2016 at 3:41 pm

                He couldn’t have said it in a sentence or two. He was showing his calculations – that takes space.

                Oddly, for all the calls about how rubbish those calculations are, no-one has actually challenged the arithmetic.

                So 64% average over the remaining contests or 665 delegates. Pissing in the wind? Maybe.
                • Phil …

                  5 May 2016 at 4:34 pm

                  Oddly, for all the calls about how rubbish those calculations are, no-one has actually challenged the arithmetic.

                  http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-sanders-comeback-would-be-unprecedented/

                  Boom.
                  • Bill …

                    5 May 2016 at 4:53 pm

                    Boom? There’s not a single sentence in that piece that has anything to do with Laurits calculations – Nothing. is there something wrong with Laurits arithmetic? Is it flawed?

                    To be clear, we’re talking about the actual calculations and his workings, not the likelihood of those numbers being re-created in the up coming contests based either on wishful thinking or precedents.

                    Is it true or not true that Sanders would be one pledged delegate ahead of Clinton if he secured 665 of the remaining 1016 delegates? Is the ‘working out’ – the arithmetic – behind those numbers sound? Is it true or false that bar securing 90 odd percent across remaining contests, that neither candidate can secure the required 2 383 pledged delegates before the convention? Are the calculations sound on that front?
                    • Phil …

                      5 May 2016 at 5:38 pm

                      Is it true or not true that Sanders would be one pledged delegate ahead of Clinton if he secured 665 of the remaining 1016 delegates? Is the ‘working out’ – the arithmetic – behind those numbers sound? Is it true or false that bar securing 90 odd percent across remaining contests, that neither candidate can secure the required 2 383 pledged delegates before the convention? Are the calculations sound on that front?.

                      Come on, Bill. This is weak sauce. Here’s an analogy for you.

                      The Black Caps are 251-8 at the end of the 49th over, chasing 280. To win, they need to score 30 runs in the last over.

                      Laurits would look at the equation and say “The Black Caps only need to hit five sixes, from the next six balls, to win. That’s not impossible! We’ll all chant Trent Boult’s name even more loudly and it’ll be sure to happen.”

                      Bottom line is this: given the remaining states to vote and the demographics of likely Democratic voters in those states, Sanders has an enormous mountain to climb if he is to beat Clinton to the nomination.

                      The much more likely scenario is that Clinton will lead in pledged delegates. She will lead in raw primary-vote numbers and, by the time the convention in Philadelphia rolls around, she’ll have the overwhelming majority of superdelegates in her camp for the first vote.
                    • Bill …

                      5 May 2016 at 5:57 pm

                      So there is nothing wrong with his sums or calculations. That’s the sole point I was trying to clarify. I don’t give a shit about the likelihoods or prospects or whatever. He was being accused of presenting shonky arithmetic – a false accusation.
                    • Phil …

                      6 May 2016 at 11:43 am

                      So there is nothing wrong with his sums or calculations…. He was being accused of presenting shonky arithmetic – a false accusation.

                      Even this is still a stretch.

                      I mean, he’s not presenting arithmetic in isolation. The WHOLE POINT of his work is to make the case that (1) Hillary Clinton is unable to win the nomination before the convention, and (2) Bernie will win the remaining primaries and then sweep super delegates at the convention.

                      Like I said right at the beginning of the thread, this is a terrible application of math. It’s little better than slashfic with a random number generator.
                • Lanthanide …

                  5 May 2016 at 7:12 pm

                  “He couldn’t have said it in a sentence or two. He was showing his calculations – that takes space.”

                  You certainly can say it in far far less space than he took. Look:
                  In order to take the majority of pledged delegates, candidates need X pledged delegates.

                  Bernie has Y delegates. He needs to win X – Y = Z delegates. There are A delegates left in the remaining races. Z/A = B%.

                  If Bernie wins B% of the delegates, then he will have the majority of pledged delegates.

                  Then, he will be in a position to win the superdelegates at the convention, because the nomination will be ‘wide open’ and Clinton won’t be able to claim a lead in pledged delegates for why the super delegates need to side with her.

                  See, it really wasn’t that hard. All the stuffing around with 2383 is unnecessary, and everything else just bloated it and made it more complex and mystifying than it needed to be. Classic case of bullshit baffles brains.
      • Lanthanide 11.2.3

        5 May 2016 at 2:43 pm

        I think my video at 11.1 summed it up pretty well. And adam’s response.
12. Peter 12

    4 May 2016 at 4:20 pm

    Trump wins. Fantastic! That pretty much destroys the Republican presidential chances now.

    At the moment Trump is a novelty. Once the real race starts, his idiocy will increasingly become apparent and the media attention turns serious. Especially if that even greater idiotic airhead Palin gets airtime.
    • Paul 12.1

      4 May 2016 at 4:28 pm

      Sadly not fantastic.
      Clinton is the epitome of neoliberalism. She is funded by the banking, finance, fossil fuel, armaments and pharmaceutical industries. She also has voted for every war she could.
      So expect more of the same: more inequality, more wars and more destruction of planet Earth.
      Fantastic, huh?
    • Colonial Viper 12.2

      4 May 2016 at 4:44 pm

      Oh look. A slow learner. Calling Trump a joke candidate is so first half 2015.

      IMO Clinton doesn’t stand a chance against Trump.
      • Pat 12.2.1

        4 May 2016 at 7:34 pm

        contrarian for effect or by nature?
        • Colonial Viper 12.2.1.1

          4 May 2016 at 7:39 pm

          Peter’s cheerleading seems very disingenuous.
          • Pat 12.2.1.1.1

            4 May 2016 at 7:48 pm

            I see….my first thought was the end part of Monbiot’s talk that was posted the other day
    • b waghorn 12.3

      4 May 2016 at 5:39 pm

      I wish I was a confidant as you, no one thought trump would get this far, yet here we are.
      I reckon he’ll beat clinton .
      Edit I see below CV thinks the same, if I was in the Democrats I’d want Sanders up against trump.
      • Colonial Viper 12.3.1

        4 May 2016 at 6:14 pm

        Agree. Bernie would be the best President for the USA by far.
        • b waghorn 12.3.1.1

          4 May 2016 at 6:17 pm

          I wouldn’t know if Sanders is the best but trump is getting the anti establishment vote, and clinton is carrying a ship load of establishment luggage.
        • Richard McGrath 12.3.1.2

          4 May 2016 at 9:49 pm

          If Bernie doesn’t get them Dem nomination, Trump should invite him to be his running mate. Now THAT would make things interesting!
          • Colonial Viper 12.3.1.2.1

            4 May 2016 at 10:34 pm

            IMO that would guarantee the win for Trump.
            • Hanswurst 12.3.1.2.1.1

              4 May 2016 at 10:38 pm

              Assuming that Sanders accepted, of course.
              • Phil …

                5 May 2016 at 1:35 pm

                Which he (Sanders) never would, because Sanders and Trump have literally nothing in common aside from being anti gun-control and opposed to the TPP*.

                * Trump opposes the TPP because he says it takes power away from the US compared to its trading partners. Sanders’ opposes it because he says it gives too much power to US corporations. Their proposed solutions to the TPP would be in direct opposition to each other.
                • Colonial Viper …

                  5 May 2016 at 2:54 pm

                  Both Trump and Sanders are for bringing US jobs back to the USA.
                  • Phil …

                    5 May 2016 at 5:41 pm

                    Fair point, they have three things in common. Four, if you accept they’re both white men.

                    But, I think you’ll find every Democrat and Republican who ran for President in ’15/’16 would have said exactly the same thing at some point during the campaign season.

                    Side note: How do you bring back a job that simply doesn’t exist anymore?
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      5 May 2016 at 6:24 pm

                      Side note: How do you bring back a job that simply doesn’t exist anymore?

                      Start work on the US$5 trillion in infrastructure underinvestment over the last 40 years.
13. Peter 13

    4 May 2016 at 6:06 pm

    Until now Trump has been given a lot of novelty publicity. It made good shock/horror/outsider headlines.

    When the real race begins, the media will treat that cretin very differently, as they did with Palin previously.

    And Clinton sure as heck preferable to a racist nutter like Trump. Lesser of two evils.
    • Colonial Viper 13.1

      4 May 2016 at 6:13 pm

      Oh look, the early 2015 narrative that Trump is not a serious contender. Get with the times mate, you are a year out of date.

      By the way, I hear the FBI investigation of Hilary is ongoing. Any opinions on her lackadaisical approach to national security?
      • Peter 13.1.1

        4 May 2016 at 6:22 pm

        If the FBI were going to take action, they would have done so by now.

        And the ‘2015 narrative’ was that of the media, few others. Any idiot could have seen back in 2015 that at the very least Trump would have been a close run thing. He has the experience and lessons learned from his last attempt, the resources and the lack of rivals with a personality that is emphatic and projects well in the media. Anyone who could not see this in 2015 was wilfully blind.

        I am surprised that you so easily bought into the garbage that the msm presented back then. The msm only ever predicts the past. And their attention span is that of a fly.
        • Colonial Viper 13.1.1.1

          4 May 2016 at 6:41 pm

          If the FBI were going to take action, they would have done so by now.

          Why? I think they could lay charges a month before election day.
14. Peter 14

    4 May 2016 at 6:50 pm

    Yes they could, but the FBI would then face very real accusations of interfering in and trying to maniputae the presidential elections. It inconceivable that a body like the FBI would do that. They are not after all politically ignorant or stupid.

    If they intended to take action, for political reasons they would do it sooner rather than later. The FBI angle is just so 2015 narrative. Get with the play CV!
    • Colonial Viper 14.1

      4 May 2016 at 7:36 pm

      Oh dear. You have just talked about how the FBI should not take political considerations into account in their investigation while simultaneously saying that they need to take political considerations into account.

      My bet is Hilary is politically fragged. She won’t survive the first month of campaigning by Trump.
      • Peter 14.1.1

        4 May 2016 at 7:54 pm

        No, that’s not what I said at all. I said they WILL take political considerations into account. The FBI will not risk accusations of political bias. No where did I say this is good or bad, only said will be so.

        Clinton being fragged? Guess once again you buying into the msm superficial reporting and their attempt to over compensate for their ignorance about Trumps chances so far.

        Trump has few policies in any real sense. Abusing and threatening and off the cuff bs is what he does best. That has worked so far, but will not when the real race is on. Clinton will not just get her Democrats support, but many who would otherwise vote Republican but whose sanity suggests a Clinton is way better than Trump. Politics has been Clinton’s entire life, her sole identity. Trump has no meaningful political experience and will fail when the real pressure is applied.
        • Colonial Viper 14.1.1.1

          4 May 2016 at 8:16 pm

          You don’t seem to know shit about the modern FBI. It’s like the old FBI.

          Clinton is gone before she even starts.
15. Jenny 15

    4 May 2016 at 7:18 pm

    ‘

    Could Trump beat Clinton?

    Fact Check: Sanders consistently beats Trump,”True”

    Trump, Clinton, Both Unloved by voters

    “Clinton Vs Trump race will be close”

    While polls show that; While Hilary Clinton would struggle to contain Trump, Bernie Sanders would annihilate him.

    Will the Democratic Super Delegates take the risk that Hilary Clinton could lose against Trump?

    …, the late-in-the-game win by the Vermont senator creates an odd split-screen for the Democrats, with the Clinton campaign increasingly focused on Republican Donald Trump even as Mr. Sanders lays bare her weakness with a large slice of Democrats. Exit polls showed he again beat her among young people, white voters, political independents and people who most value honesty in a candidate.

    Mr. Sanders and his aides acknowledged it was virtually impossible for him to overtake her lead in pledged delegates, the type chosen by voters. Instead, they said he would work to win over super delegates, party leaders who can vote for whomever they like and who currently favor Mrs. Clinton by a wide margin.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/bernie-sanders-seeks-indiana-win-as-hillary-clinton-looks-to-november-1462317357#:0HYyPRZsIiTj7A

    (To paraphrase Chris Trotter on the NZLP)
    Is it more important for the conservative side of the Democratic Party to keep control of the losing side, than risk losing control of the winning side?
    • Colonial Viper 15.1

      4 May 2016 at 7:31 pm

      Bernie would toast the rest of the candidates because Americans are sick of the oligarchy and the banksters.
      • Peter 15.1.1

        4 May 2016 at 7:57 pm

        Strange then that he is likely to bomb out before he even has a chance to.
        • Colonial Viper 15.1.1.1

          4 May 2016 at 8:08 pm

          Not strange, just a reflection of how undemocratic and bought out the Democratic establishment and super delegates are.
      • swordfish 15.1.2

        4 May 2016 at 10:09 pm

        At the crucial State-by-State level, polling shows “Sanders beating Trump without question while Trump remains competitive with Clinton … Most importantly, for seventeen possible swing or purple states, Sanders is polling better than Clinton in fifteen of them. “ ( and the other two haven’t had any extensive polling carried out yet)

        http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/03/electoral-votes-matter-hillary-clinton-or-bernie-sanders-vs-donald-trump/
        • swordfish 15.1.2.1

          4 May 2016 at 10:24 pm

          At the national level, poll averages suggest both Democrats ahead in a one-on-one with Trump … but … a Sanders candidacy doing far better ….

          Percentage Point Lead over Trump
          Sanders + 14
          Clinton + 6
          • Phil 15.1.2.1.1

            5 May 2016 at 1:43 pm

            Head to head polls this far out from the presidential election are good for storytelling narrative, but very poor at indicating who is likely to win.
            • swordfish 15.1.2.1.1.1

              5 May 2016 at 7:36 pm

              Democrats mildly prefer Clinton over Sanders, the all-important Independents significantly favour Sanders over Clinton (both in the polls and in the primaries). Detailed State-by-State polls suggest Sanders doing far better than Clinton in the crucial swing states.

              Clinton has high Unfavourability ratings – not as high as Trump’s, but still much higher than any former Presidential Candidate in Election Year – Sanders doesn’t.

              The polls I’ve seen over recent weeks suggest Clinton-Democrats are far more favourable to Sanders (and willing to vote for him if he were the Democratic nominee) than visa versa. Sanders-Democrats – as well as the huge swathe of Independent voters – don’t much care for Clinton. She’s unpopular and seen as untrustworthy in a way that Bernie just isn’t.

              I’d suggest that these negative views of Clinton ain’t gonna disappear any time soon, in fact, if anything, they’ll deteriorate.

              (None of which is to argue that Sanders now has any kind of realistic chance of becoming the Democrat nominee, he doesn’t)

              (Response to both your comment above and some of your earlier comments)
              • Phil …

                6 May 2016 at 12:06 pm

                In exit polling, a common question is asked that usually goes along these lines “If your preferred candidate, , does not become the party nominee, will you vote for in the general election?”

                For Democrats this year, the number is about the same for both Sanders and Clinton; around 85%. That is to say, 85% of Sanders supporters say they would vote for Clinton in the general election, and vice versa. That 85% is in-line with the same results from 2008, and is roughly where the number has sat, for both parties, over the last couple of decades.

                Now contrast this with the republican party: about half of republican voters who did not vote for Trump say they would be dissatisfied if he was the nominee and would not vote for him. Trump has won about 45% of the vote in republican primaries.

                So you’ve got something in the realm of 7% (15% of 45%) of Democrat primary-voters saying they will not vote for the presumptive nominee, compared to 28% (50% of 55%) of Republicans saying the same thing.

                Even accounting for Clinton’s unfavourable ratings (which are very favourable compared to Trump) she still begins with a massive headstart.
                • swordfish …

                  7 May 2016 at 9:39 am

                  I would agree Clinton is odds on favourite to become the next US President (hence my earlier comment Sanders + 14 points / Clinton + 6 over Trump in one-on-one Poll averages). My comments have focussed more on Sanders poll advantage over Clinton vis-à-vis Trump.

                  Having said that, I’d agree with CV to the extent that I think it could potentially be a lot tighter than many mainstream pundits assume.

                  I’d take issue with you on a couple of points – both of which I think you exaggerate.

                  (1) You argue that Clinton has a Partisan Loyalty advantage over Trump of about 21 percentage points (7% Democrat Disloyalty vs 28% GOP Disloyalty). You appear to base this on Polls of Primary voters only.

                  The Clinton vs Trump polls I’ve looked at (conducted over the last 3 or 4 weeks – random sample of voters in general) suggest that, while Clinton certainly has a loyalty advantage, it’s significantly smaller than the one you’ve set out. One poll, for instance, suggested a 10 point advantage to Clinton among Core voters (ie Core Republican disloyalty 10 points higher than Core Dem disloyalty) and an 8 point Clinton advantage among Dem/Rep Leaners.
                  (Sanders, incidentally, held a greater advantage over Trump than Clinton did)

                  Another poll suggested Clinton’s partisan loyalty advantage was just 3-5 points (depending on how you define Democrat / Republican = Identification vs Usual Voter)

                  (2) You suggest that Clinton’s Unfavourable ratings are “very favourable” compared to Trump’s.

                  But, again, looking through recent polls, I’d suggest this is an exaggeration. Generally, Trump’s Unfavourability rating is less than 10 points higher than Clinton’s. (whereas Clinton’s unfavourability ratings are usually more than 10 points higher than Sanders’)

                  What really stands out is just how Unpopular both presumptive nominees are. They both have far higher Unfavourability ratings than previous Presidential candidates in Election year.

                  In more than one poll, incidentally, Clinton has a higher Unfavourability rating than Trump among both White voters and the all-important Independents (albeit only marginally so).

                  Interestingly, the proportion who hold a Favourable view of Sanders but an Unfavourable view of Clinton is much larger than vice versa.

                  (3) While most polls have Clinton winning the majority of Independents in a one-on-one with Trump, there a number of polls that put Trump mildly ahead among this crucial group of voters. In most polls, a majority of Independents view Clinton unfavourably (in stark contrast to how they perceive Sanders).
              • Phil …

                6 May 2016 at 12:13 pm

                Sanders-Democrats – as well as the huge swathe of Independent voters – don’t much care for Clinton.

                There’s an implicit ‘threat’ to Clinton in this statement: Independents who voted for Sanders in the primary will choose to not vote, or will vote for Trump, in the general.

                But here’s the rub: ‘Independent voter’ is not a synonym for ‘moderate voter’ or ‘swing voter’. And, this is especially true for Sanders voters.

                Sanders supporters, whether registered democrat or independent, overwhelmingly self-identify as liberal (by the US definition). The independents might not want to call themselves democrats, but their voting record and political views makes them dark blue.

                Those independents may not care for Clinton, but when it comes down to a choice between Clinton and Trump, it’s hard to see them doing anything other than voting Clinton, albeit through gritted teeth.
16. Foreign waka 16

    4 May 2016 at 7:58 pm

    If Trump wins than I feel that US citizens deserve what they get. So much stupidity must get their just rewards.
    More concerning is Mr Trumps indicative foreign policy. I hope that there will be someone in the hierarchy to prevent an all out war as it is not inconceivable that this man will press the red button just to show chest bounding: ‘who is the man’.
    • Colonial Viper 16.1

      4 May 2016 at 8:12 pm

      Oh fuck off mate your ignorance of Trumps approach to American foreign policy is gobsmacking. As is your certainty that you know better than the American people what is best for them.

      Look at all the wars and illegal assassinations that Clinton has supported FFS.
      • swordfish 16.1.1

        4 May 2016 at 10:13 pm

        A few analyses to back that up … http://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-04052016/#comment-1168420
        • Colonial Viper 16.1.1.1

          4 May 2016 at 10:29 pm

          Dude it frustrates the hell out of me all these “Lefties” who are supporting a candidate (Clinton) who is clearly going to be starting wars and colour revolutions (the new code word for regime change) all over the world.

          And who keep dissing Trump – the one candidate who might actually not turn our Pacific into a dangerous game of military brinksmanship between China, Russia and the US.
          • Lanthanide 16.1.1.1.1

            4 May 2016 at 11:30 pm

            You know he said that he’d pull American troops out of South Korea and Japan, and tell those countries to build their own nuclear weapons as deterrents for China and/or North Korea, right?

            Do you think if he actually followed through on that, that it would be stabilising or de-stabilising for the region?

            Do you think he would actually follow through on the crap that he spouts?
            • adam 16.1.1.1.1.1

              4 May 2016 at 11:34 pm

              Setting the record straight again?
            • Colonial Viper 16.1.1.1.1.2

              4 May 2016 at 11:45 pm

              Do you think if he actually followed through on that, that it would be stabilising or de-stabilising for the region?

              As opposed to the US bringing more carrier groups into the Pacific in order to both contain China and to maintain the US military supremacy in Asia which has existed since the Americans moved in during WWII and never left?

              I’ll tell you where Trump has struck a nerve with American voters – and I believe you ain’t seen nothing yet.

              Trump is telling American voters that he is going to quit spending blood and treasure looking after far away countries which refuse to spend to look after themselves.

              And he is saying that he is going to instead spend that money on hospitals, schools and roads in the US.

              That’s an election winner right there

              Do you think he would actually follow through on the crap that he spouts?

              I think the Deep State is going to push back against him every step of the way.
              • Lanthanide …

                5 May 2016 at 9:55 am

                So you didn’t actually answer the question, and just deflected to other reasons why Trump is so great.

                You’re the one that seems to think that Trump has great foreign policy / anti-warmonger credentials, but when presented with a small piece of evidence that he has no idea what the hell he’s talking about, you refuse to address the criticism.
                • Colonial Viper …

                  5 May 2016 at 10:55 am

                  I really don’t believe that you can’t see through Trump’s populist trash talk.

                  He is shilling to conservative red neck voters in conservative red neck counties.

                  That’s what he has had to do in this recent stage of the game.

                  We’re on to the next stage of the game now.
                  • Lanthanide …

                    5 May 2016 at 11:12 am

                    I can see through it, and what I see through it is a trash-talk generating machine that is running on pure populism.

                    Somehow you see through it to find an amazing statesman with all the answers.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      5 May 2016 at 11:55 am

                      Trump’s not going to be an “amazing statesman”. But he ain’t a proven tool of the neocons and the banksters, either.
                    • Lanthanide …

                      5 May 2016 at 2:47 pm

                      “But he ain’t a proven tool of the neocons and the banksters, either.”

                      He’s just a proven inveterate liar and “say-anything-for-publicity” demagogue.

                      Also suggesting that someone who has a personal wealth of at least $5B doesn’t have strong ties to the banking industry… well, really?
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      5 May 2016 at 2:52 pm

                      Also suggesting that someone who has a personal wealth of at least $5B doesn’t have strong ties to the banking industry… well, really?

                      I’m sure you can tell the difference between being a banking client, which you are, and being a bankster lobbyist, which Clinton is.
                    • Lanthanide …

                      5 May 2016 at 3:32 pm

                      Sure, I’m a banking client.

                      But I also don’t have tens or hundreds of millions saved in banks.

                      Remember that line? When you owe the bank a million dollars, you have a problem. When you owe the bank a billion dollars, the bank has a problem.

                      To suggest that Trump is squeeky-clean and above-board and doesn’t have a corrupt or malicious bone in his body is silly.

                      I’m sure Trump has all sorts of shady dealings (his numerous bankruptcies rather prove it, actually). The difference between Trump and Clinton is that her’s are all out in the open.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      5 May 2016 at 7:55 pm

                      Sure, Trump has all kinds of shady dealings for the sake of money.

                      But not the kind of Clinton shady killings where heads of state have been killed and entire countries and peoples imploded, for the sake of money.
                    • Lanthanide …

                      5 May 2016 at 8:16 pm

                      That might be because Clinton has actually had political power, and Trump hasn’t?
                • Peter …

                  5 May 2016 at 10:58 am

                  Yeah Lan, but then CV personifies just what a typical Trump supporter looks like: totally ignores facts and just follows whatever direction the herd is moving in, all the while screaming abuse at all who have an opposing view.
                  • Colonial Viper …

                    5 May 2016 at 10:59 am

                    Kasich gone now. About time.
            • Bill 16.1.1.1.1.3

              5 May 2016 at 11:17 am

              The thumb screws being removed from N. Korea – stabilising.
              No more ring-fencing of China in the Pacific – stabilising.
              No more ring-fencing of Russia – stabilising.

              Unless that is, you believe these political entities are akin to snarling dogs that will rip you apart if the big stick is put down.
              • McFlock …

                5 May 2016 at 4:17 pm

                As the US loses global influence both China and Russia have been expanding theirs. The king is dead, long live the king.

                Nuclear proliferation: destabilising
                Upping NATO military expenditure: destabilising
                Supporting dictators in the Middle East in the interests of “stability”: yes, there has been no blowback to the US from its support for the Saudi monarchy or Mubarak in the last 20 years /sarc
                Funding an invasion explicitly with oil production from the area invaded: points for honesty, but still destabilisng.
                Supporting Israel: destabilising
                Saying the US won’t “allow” China or Russia to do this or that: destabilising.
                • Colonial Viper …

                  5 May 2016 at 8:20 pm

                  As the US loses global influence both China and Russia have been expanding theirs. The king is dead, long live the king.

                  You don’t seem to recognise the fundamental differences between those countries and their vision for international relations.

                  You also use the phrase “destabilising” a hell of a lot without thinking it through.

                  Let’s say what it really means: “destabilising to the current Anglo-American-Israeli hierarchy of the world.”
                  • McFlock …

                    5 May 2016 at 8:35 pm

                    You don’t seem to recognise the fundamental differences between those countries and their vision for international relations.

                    The Chinese build better roads, and the Russians have better assassins. That’s about it.

                    Let’s say what it really means: “destabilising to the current Anglo-American-Israeli hierarchy of the world.”

                    No, it means “even more civilians being killed in a variety of proxy wars and greater likelihood of those wars resulting in non-proxy wars and even nuclear exchanges”.

                    For example, supporting Israel (you saw that bit in the speech where Trump said Obama wasn’t doing enought to help “the only true democracy in the Middle East”, right?) gives it more things to blow people up with. Maybe they’ll use that shit to take on Hezbollah again, or finally clear out Gaza into Jordan. Or maybe they’ll just on-ship crates of those weapons to other parties in the Levant and Egyption opposition groups. That’s supporting the “Anglo-American-Israeli hierarchy of the world” while actually destabilising the world. More guns, more war, more nations counter-rattling their sabres. That’s what you’re campaigning for.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      5 May 2016 at 8:41 pm

                      Pffft you think that Trump is going to make a bigger mess of the Middle East than Clinton’s regime changing neocon set?

                      Laughable mate.

                      The Chinese build better roads, and the Russians have better assassins. That’s about it.

                      I always figured you as another culturally dumb Anglo wearing a superficial mask of diversity and multiculturalism.
                    • McFlock …

                      5 May 2016 at 9:14 pm

                      No matter how big the mess, it can always get worse. And irradiated.

                      I always figured you as another culturally dumb Anglo wearing a superficial mask of diversity and multiculturalism.

                      Meanwhile, non-hegemonic benevolence is being demonstrated in the South China Sea. Not to mention military tech exported to Africa by all powers.
17. Nick 17

    4 May 2016 at 9:55 pm

    I am a total Bernie Sanders fan and hope he sneaks in, but if Hillary gets the D nomination, I think I would vote Trump. I think he would back away from war and he seems to be heavily anti TPP. Clinton is pro war, pro TPP, pro climate disaster, pro wall St, a neoliberal.
    • Colonial Viper 17.1

      4 May 2016 at 10:31 pm

      I’m in exactly the same mindset. Bernie first. Then frak Clinton, it’s got to be Trump.

      Clinton is not merely a “neoliberal” she is totally neocon friendly and a pet of the billion dollar banksters.
      • millsy 17.1.1

        4 May 2016 at 11:06 pm

        Me as well. I would seriously consider voting Trump if I were in the USA.

        Hilary is just another establishment figure who toes the neo-liberal line, same with her husband.
    • Phil 17.2

      5 May 2016 at 1:47 pm

      Trump…seems to be heavily anti TPP.

      Trump is on the record as being anti-TPP because he says it takes power away from the US (i.e. US corporations and companies).

      That’s not the kind of anti-TPP I expect many on the left will be supporting.
      • RedLogix 17.2.1

        5 May 2016 at 10:00 pm

        But as I said a while back, it is not a given that Sanders supporters will automatically switch to Clinton in the event he loses the Dem primary. Many people are looking to vote against the establishment status quo regardless.

        Both Trump and Clinton are deeply flawed individuals, and but my reading is that Clinton is the more vulnerable at the moment. Six months ago Clinton had an enormous lead, now it’s likely the race with Sanders will go down to a contested convention. She’s done nothing but go backwards.

        By contrast Trump has come from nowhere and taken the Repug race easily.

        And while the polls look ok for Clinton right now, November is a long way off in political terms. Clinton has everything to lose, Trump everything to win.

        Sanders vs Trump was a dead cert; Trump vs Clinton … anything is possible.
        • Phil 17.2.1.1

          6 May 2016 at 12:37 pm

          it is not a given that Sanders supporters will automatically switch to Clinton in the event he loses the Dem primary. Many people are looking to vote against the establishment status quo regardless.

          There’s a definite anti-establishment feel to both parties primary campaigns, but lets be real: the ‘establishment’ in the mind of a Trump supporter is a very different ‘establishment’ to that of a Sanders supporter.

          As I’ve said earlier in this thread, exit polling shows Sanders supporters in 2016 find Clinton as tolerable as Clinton supporters found Obama in 2008 – about 85% of Sanders primary voters say they would vote for Clinton in the general. Trump starts with a massive disadvantage on the same issue for republican voters.

          Six months ago Clinton had an enormous lead, now it’s likely the race with Sanders will go down to a contested convention. She’s done nothing but go backwards.

          You’re misusing the term contested? I think you mean ‘neither candidate will have won enough pledged delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot without the support of at least some superdelegates’.

          This is EXACTLY the same situation Obama was in in 2008, and it seems nobody had a problem with that.
18. Pat 18

    5 May 2016 at 8:19 pm

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/04/donald-trumps-election-will-derail-paris-climate-deal-warns-its-architect
    • Colonial Viper 18.1

      5 May 2016 at 8:27 pm

      Check out where many of Trump’s most valuable properties are:

      This is a man who can get climate change because it hits him where it hurts – in the pocket.

      http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/in-maps-trump-properties-around-the-world-1.2693887
      • Pat 18.1.1

        5 May 2016 at 8:33 pm

        lol….well of course they are there….he is a denier after all….probably expecting to buy a whole lot of Miami waterfront properties cheap.
      • Phil 18.1.2

        6 May 2016 at 4:46 pm

        John Key has more beachfront property in Hawaii than anyone in the Labour or Green parties, but I seriously doubt you’d say he was the best person to ‘get climate change because it hits him where it hurts – in the pocket.’

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS