JMG: The Decline and Fall of Hillary Clinton

Written By: - Date published: 2:35 pm, February 27th, 2016 - 74 comments
Categories: democratic participation, International, politicans, Politics, us politics - Tags: , , , ,

John Michael Greer, of the Archdruid Report, has just written a fascinating post on why Hilary Clinton and Jeb Bush, once the two ‘favourites‘ for the 2016 Presidential campaign, have fallen, and fallen hard.

JMG says that Jeb Bush did everything right, by the conventional establishment book:

When (Jeb Bush) launched his campaign last year, it was a letter-perfect copy of the successful presidential campaigns of the last three decades. He lined up plenty of big-money sponsors; he assembled a team of ghostwriters, spin doctors, and door-to-door salesmen to run his campaign; he had a PR firm design a catchy logo; he practiced spouting the kind of empty rhetoric that sounds meaningful so long as you don’t think about it for two minutes; he took carefully calculated stands on a handful of hot-button topics, mouthed the conventional wisdom on every other issue, and set out to convince the voters that their interests would be harmed just a little bit less by putting him in the White House than by any of the alternatives.

That sort of content-free campaign is what got George Bush I, Bill Clinton, George Bush II, and Barack Obama onto the list of US presidents. What it got Jeb Bush, though, was a string of humiliating defeats.

So it appears that the ‘rules of the game’ have suddenly been changed on the establishment oligarchy, and they’ve been caught flatfooted. JMG continues to make this point via Hilary Clinton:

She’s got a whopping case of that weird mental blind spot I labeled, in a post that appeared here last year, “the delusion of control”—the notion, as pervasive as it is preposterous, that when a member of America’s privileged classes does something, the rest of the cosmos is obliged to respond to that action in a wholly passive, wholly mechanical manner. For a world-class example, watch the way Clinton’s handlers simply look blank each time they find out that most of the American people loathe and distrust their candidate, and try repeatedly to “reintroduce” her, as though they think they can just hit a reset button…

For that matter, Clinton’s own attitude during the campaign so far reminds me of nothing so much as what happens when someone puts money into a defective vending machine. She’s fed the thing her quarters and pushed the right button, but the desired product hasn’t dropped to the bottom where she can get it. Now she’s jabbing the button over and over again, and in due time she’ll be pounding her fists on the thing and screaming at it because it won’t give her what she’s paid for.

JMG makes the point that plutocracy has corrupted democracy as it was always going to do, the difference now being that ordinary people are no longer accepting the fancy arguments and spin that they should continue to vote for the ‘least bad’ political party and the ‘least bad’ candidates pushing for the ‘least bad’ version of “realistic” “serious” status quo neoliberal policies.

What the insurgent candidacies of Trump and Sanders show conclusively, in turn, is that the lesser-evil rhetoric and its fixation on “realistic” politics have just passed their pull date. There are very good reasons for this. The pursuit of the lesser evil means that the best the American people are supposed to hope for is the continuation of the current state of things—that’s what you get, after all, if your only talking points fixate on stopping things from getting worse—and for most Americans today, the current state of things is unbearable.

JMG makes many other pertinent political points, including some derived from Spengler’s Decline of the West. Read the full blog post here.

74 comments on “JMG: The Decline and Fall of Hillary Clinton ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. ianmac 1
    27 February 2016 at 2:59 pm

    “…he assembled a team of ghostwriters, spin doctors, and door-to-door salesmen to run his campaign; he had a PR firm design a catchy logo; he practiced spouting the kind of empty rhetoric that sounds meaningful so long as you don’t think about it for two minutes; he took carefully calculated stands on a handful of hot-button topics, mouthed the conventional wisdom on every other issue,…”
    By using Keys’s style in this passage it is futile and yet, maybe, just maybe some will stop to listen and consider and next year….

    • Keith 1.1
      27 February 2016 at 6:17 pm

      Do you mean “The Brighter Future” was just a meaningless slogan promoted by a bunch of dishonest smarmy rich pricks?

  2. marty mars 2
    27 February 2016 at 3:00 pm

    Thanks cv just posted a link on OM but good to see a full post. Man JMG is just so insightful and knowledgeable – I learn so much from reading his articles.

    For me I expect trump to trump but as JMG says, “None of those veerings matter in any broader sense, because Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have already demonstrated that rejecting the consensus of America’s dominant minority is a ticket to electoral success. It’s possible—indeed, I think it’s likely—that Clinton will manage to squeeze past Sanders and get the Democratic nomination by fair means or foul; it’s considerably less likely that she’ll be able to overcome Trump in the general election; but even if she does, others will follow where Trump and Sanders lead, and sooner or later one of them will triumph.”

    also worth noting that JMG’s title was “the decline and fall…”

  3. Paul 3
    27 February 2016 at 3:32 pm

    Another brilliant entry, cv.
    Have you considered running for parliament as an independent?
    You would be dynamite.

    • Colonial Viper 3.1
      27 February 2016 at 4:00 pm

      Hi Paul, there would need to be sufficient interest in an alternative approach to politics to bring together 500-600 financial members of a new political party.

      This approach begins with the assumption that the status quo is both physically and spiritually unsustainable.

      It is founded on the knowledge that major disruption driven by energy depletion, climate change, crony capitalism and financial instability is going to happen and going to get worse, whether or not we prepare for it.

      It continues with the realisation that the two big parties in NZ today are parties of establishment rule and two sides of the same pro-status quo neoliberal coin. One solution there is to increase democracy and a diversity of democratic activity in every sphere of NZ life.

      Finally the belief that we only have a few years to get ahead of the coming storm is key.

      Wasting time arguing about bullshit political trivia is irrelevant.

      To get ahead of the now steeply rising curve, we must place people: their welfare, their development, their freedom, their responsibility and their life choices, at the centre of every decision made to ready the nation for this challenging future.

      • weka 3.1.1
        27 February 2016 at 4:07 pm

        Now when you put it like that I want to support you. I keep telling you CV, put your energies into the constructive, because it’s a way better use of your talents.

        Good to see the posts of late 🙂

        • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1
          27 February 2016 at 4:10 pm

          Heh thanks, I have been listening to you on and off weka, even when it seems like I haven’t 😛

      • chris73 3.1.2
        27 February 2016 at 4:31 pm

        Seriously dude, go hard…you never know what might happen

      • Stuart Munro 3.1.3
        27 February 2016 at 4:57 pm

        I can support that too – did you ever run across Unger’s ‘Democracy Realised”?

        http://robertounger.com/english/pdfs/demore.pdf

        You might find it very like what you’re talking about.

        • Jones 3.1.3.1
          28 February 2016 at 2:30 pm

          Thanks for the link SM…

          “Confusion and disappointment are not confined to the left;
          they have become the common stigmata of the politically conscious.”

          That resonated… this is way beyond a left-right paradigm… it’s about being human. And politics is central to humans being.

          • Stuart Munro 3.1.3.1.1
            28 February 2016 at 2:40 pm

            Unger can be heavy going – but in this, and in the Boutwood Lectures he hits the nail squarely on the head. It’s not Marxism the Left require – democracy will do the job.

      • The Chairman 3.1.4
        27 February 2016 at 5:13 pm

        “It continues with the realisation that the two big parties in NZ today are parties of establishment rule and two sides of the same pro-status quo neoliberal coin. One solution there is to increase democracy…”

        This (below) is one way can.

        https://youtu.be/QdiG9tCq-BU

      • Kevin 3.1.5
        27 February 2016 at 6:01 pm

        Count me in.

      • Matthew Whitehead 3.1.6
        28 February 2016 at 11:36 am

        You really sound like you could be a Green MP when you talk about the problems with the big parties you know. 🙂

      • Jones 3.1.7
        28 February 2016 at 1:22 pm

        Well said CV. And great post. JMG’s perspective is always intelligent and grounded in reality.

    • millsy 3.2
      27 February 2016 at 8:09 pm

      I find ironic that CV posesses all the qualites that the likes of Josie Pagani and Phil Quin want in the NZLP (ie small business owner, understands the need to attract swing voters, etc.)

  4. Penny Bright 4
    27 February 2016 at 3:42 pm

    Hillary Clinton is NOT my ‘sister’.

    GO Bernie Sanders!

    Penny Bright
    2016 Auckland Mayoral candidate.

  5. Bill 5
    27 February 2016 at 3:47 pm

    Back to the same old, same old though, innit?

    New Zealand’s, politically, wafer thin. Us poor buggers are going to have to wait until something politically useful percolates from elsewhere. Maybe it’d be different if Hone Harawira was pakeha. But he isn’t, and New Zealand is what it is…

    • marty mars 5.1
      27 February 2016 at 3:57 pm

      The whole point of JMG’s article is that it ISN’T the same old.

      It isn’t nz being what it is imo it is that the people who should know and do better don’t – too scared of losing their privilege and too scared of difference.

      • Bill 5.1.1
        27 February 2016 at 6:53 pm

        I do get the point of JMG’s article marty. It definitely applies to the US and the UK (both Corbyn in England and Wales and Sturgeon in Scotland), as well as to a lesser degree, Canada.

        And the individual politicians who have acted as conduits for the public’s dis-satisfaction have been in their respective parliaments for a long time. As suggested before, no such politician exists in NZ. I do kinda reckon Hone could have been the conduit that Sanders, Corbyn, Sturgeon and who-ever have been if either a) NZ wasn’t so fucking racist or b) [ and this is essentially the same thing] Hone wasn’t Māori.

        There are relatively privileged people aplenty, in both the US and the UK, who view any political shift with horror – just go back and read how the Guardian reported on Corbyn’s bid for leadership of the UK Labour Party if you have any doubts on that front.

        • Colonial Viper 5.1.1.1
          27 February 2016 at 7:18 pm

          Yep…and also notable is the change where people outright ignored the MSM when they were rolling out their standard demonising tactics against anti-establishment candidates such as Trump, Sanders and Corbyn.

          In Trump’s case, the more Fox News and the Republocrat establishment slam him, the more his ratings spike up.

        • marty mars 5.1.1.2
          27 February 2016 at 8:56 pm

          yep bill good points – it will be interesting to see who comes out of the woodwork when trump gets in – I suspect it will someone we don’t hardly know yet

  6. Grantoc 6
    27 February 2016 at 4:05 pm

    Very interesting.

    However its worth noting that Hilary is a shoe in in the South Carolina primary this weekend.

    Its also worth noting that Nate Silver (fivethirtyeight), probably the most accurate pollster in the US, predicts that Hilary is the overwhelming favourite to win all of the primaries on Super Tuesday in early March, including Massachusetts, and except for Vermont.

    Blacks and Latinos are coming in heavily behind her as well.

    Bernie is picking up the middle class white liberals, but I don’t think that will do it for him

    So, not at all sure that Hilary is going the same way as Jeb Bush.

    • Colonial Viper 6.1
      27 February 2016 at 4:12 pm

      JMG admits that Hilary is still most likely to win the Democratic nomination, but unlike what she thought a year ago, she is having to fight hard for every inch of ground, and spend every one of the millions of dollars that she has raised.

      • Grantoc 6.1.1
        27 February 2016 at 4:21 pm

        This is true CV.

        If she does win the nomination, it’ll be interesting to watch how she’ll adjust (if she’ll adjust) to campaigning against Trump, the great disruptor and the Sanders of the right, given that its increasingly likely that he’ll win the Republican nomination.

      • Olwyn 6.1.2
        27 February 2016 at 4:47 pm

        More importantly he thinks that… it’s likely—that Clinton will manage to squeeze past Sanders and get the Democratic nomination by fair means or foul; it’s considerably less likely that she’ll be able to overcome Trump in the general election; but even if she does, others will follow where Trump and Sanders lead, and sooner or later one of them will triumph.

        What he is saying is that even if she does win the nomination, the game’s effectively up. People are no longer buying what she’s selling, and even if she ends up beating Trump, that will remain so. Ordinary people now see that the corporate-cross party political consensus has no plan that does not involve shafting them, and they mind.

      • The Chairman 6.1.3
        27 February 2016 at 4:49 pm

        The question is, if it comes down to Hilary and Trump, who will Sanders supporters support?

        • gsays 6.1.3.1
          27 February 2016 at 4:59 pm

          i realise its kinda of irrelevant but this sanders fan would go trump.
          the logic being it would move the states towards a tipping point where change/revolution will occur.

          • Colonial Viper 6.1.3.1.1
            27 February 2016 at 5:07 pm

            I reckon a Trump/Sanders ticket. Let the President sort out international affairs, let VP Sanders sort out stuff at home.

            • Phil 6.1.3.1.1.1
              29 February 2016 at 10:11 am

              I reckon a Trump/Sanders ticket. Let the President sort out international affairs, let VP Sanders sort out stuff at home.

              This is the dumbest thing you have ever written.

        • Colonial Viper 6.1.3.2
          27 February 2016 at 5:02 pm

          Wait until Trump turns on his charm and his messages for the wider electorate. At the moment he is only speaking to Republican primary voters.

        • millsy 6.1.3.3
          27 February 2016 at 8:05 pm

          I actually prefer Trump to Clintin TBH.

          Trump is probably the only candidate who doesnt come across as an Ayn Rand-reading Bible basher. I actually think that he will win the GOP nomination.

  7. Incognito 7
    27 February 2016 at 4:52 pm

    An interesting blogpost by JMG.

    Two things came to mind when I read it.

    He thrice referred to “mechanical”, a term which Graeme Wheeler coincidentally also used in his recent annual speech.

    I think it is a most interesting observation that the (voting) public does not seem to adhere any longer to the old rules of predictability and almost effortless manipulation. This opens up the political (and economical!) game to new outcomes and offers hope for real change.

    Here at home, I think it would be a positive change if National could not rely as much anymore on cynical manipulation of the NZ public through daily polls and focus groups, etc. At the same time it would be a huge improvement if the NZ public would cease to exhibit its conditioned behaviour in relation to the usual spin and BS spouted around.

    People are waking up from their slumber because their blankets of comfort have become threadbare. They are becoming increasingly aware that all is not well in our society.

    My motto: vigilo ergo sum

  8. Incognito 8
    27 February 2016 at 4:59 pm

    The second thing that came to mind when reading JMG was the reference to the rise of charismatic leaders.

    Recently, somebody mentioned raised this here on TS as if such leader would bring hope and a brighter future.

    In the light of JMG’s blog this may need a re-think at least; history of war and violence is intimately associated with ‘charismatic leaders’.

  9. Chooky 9
    27 February 2016 at 6:25 pm

    both Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton are establishment Republican and Democrat candidates with very serious baggage ….it is great Jeb Bush is out and Hillary Clinton seems to be going out of the race…time for new blood

  10. RedLogix 10
    27 February 2016 at 8:42 pm

    An excellent post CV. And given this:

    THE Republican presidential race exploded overnight, as frontrunner Donald Trump countered an onslaught of attacks with the bombshell endorsement of a former rival.

    New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who ended his own presidential campaign after the New Hampshire primary earlier this month, joined Trump at a press conference to announce his support for the real estate magnate, saying “there is no better fighter” and no candidate more likely to defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton in November’s general election.

    “We need a strong, tough leader to restore America’s greatness,” Christie said. “I guarantee you that the one person that Hillary and Bill Clinton do not want to see on that stage is Donald Trump.”

    Christie is an influential governor who was once viewed as a potential president himself. His endorsement is a major coup for Trump, who has virtually no support among figures in the mainstream Republican Party, despite his dominance in the polls.

    http://www.news.com.au/

    It’s now a virtual certainty the GOP will acknowledge it’s own bastard child because no other candidate stands the slightest chance.

    And Clinton will fail just as Bush did, but disastrously more slowly. She’ll fall at the moment when it counts … the actual election. And the DNC establishment will never accept Sanders, who is the only candidate capable of defeating Trump. Indeed many Democrats being so disillusioned with the status quo, would prefer to vote for Trump than Clinton.

    Now given that Trump is another fascist demagogue who’ll play the same role as Hitler did … we now face the absolute certainty of a catastrophic global calamity within five years. We often wondered how it would happen; and now it unfolds before our eyes.

    If you think this dramatic, recall how many people in the 1930’s also understood what was coming down the road at them. Many knew quite well that WW2 was about to happen.

    • marty mars 10.1
      27 February 2016 at 8:52 pm

      “We often wondered how it would happen; and now it unfolds before our eyes.”

      yep – these days will be talked about often in the future

    • Anne 10.2
      27 February 2016 at 8:57 pm

      …recall how many people in the 1930’s also understood what was coming down the road at them. Many knew quite well that WW2 was about to happen.

      Yep. My father took his young family (not me, I was an afterthought who came later) away from England in 1937. He and my mother went to Sydney first then on to NZ shortly before war broke out. Family and friends back in England laughed at him when they left and told him he was mad.

    • Colonial Viper 10.3
      27 February 2016 at 11:59 pm

      NB Trump hails from the tradition of US isolationism which prevailed at the start of the 20th Century.

      He is not interested in militarily intervening against Russia, for instance. He has stated many times that the US needs to stop spending on foreign wars and needs to start spending on America’s broken infrastructure.

      Now, when compared with Hilarys warmongering/genocidal/murderous track record I honestly think the world will have more peace with Trump.

      • RedLogix 10.3.1
        28 February 2016 at 1:26 am

        Or you might allow me to re-frame isolationism as nationalism. This is his core theme “Making America Great Again”.

        Yes the plutocrat imperialists have meddled in endless foreign misadventures, but all they’ve delivered is humiliations and body-bags. Trump is not another Hitler redux; he’ll enter office more focused on a domestic agenda to deal with illegal immigrants. On this front he’s committed to deporting unwanted Hispanics and building a wall. This staggeringly racist confrontation will set the tone; and legal or illegal, millions will be caught up in it.

        Either he wins it with all the immense practical, humanitarian and moral consequences to the USA, or he loses it and he’ll instinctively seek to double down. As does any dominant alpha male.

        Nor will Putin and Jinping stay passive in the face of a US President who is neglecting his empire. Putin will play the long game on Ukraine and at the point of least resistance, he’ll move in to clean up that nest of vermin. Assad will remain in power at his behest. The tables will turn on Israel.

        Jinping too will judge his moment to assert total military control over the South China Sea. Taiwan, South Korea and maybe even Japan will be invaded and taken over. At some point in this uncertain chain of chaotic events Trump’s isolationism will mutate into a nationalistic virulence. Trump does not tolerate losing.

        There will be no conventional military expeditions. He will play to win.

        But one thing may cheer you up. Afterwards us white people may be so hated that the remnants will likely be hunted down and exterminated.

        • Colonial Viper 10.3.1.1
          28 February 2016 at 1:54 am

          Or, Trump will help the US make a more successful transition in its inevitable (and already in progress) decline from pre-eminent global hyper-power to being just another major world power operating with other major world powers.

          That is, the transition to a multi-polar world without trying to hold on to the status of hegemon at all costs, even nuclear ones.

          As for Trump and his wish to get rid of all illegal immigrants and get the famous wall with Mexico built (at Mexico’s expense)…I think Trump is smart enough to know what the demographics trends of the US look like.

          He’ll make a show of deporting a few bad illegals, while providing pathways for most to become legal: hence “getting rid” of illegals.

          This is exactly like his ban on Muslims entering the USA…until there is a plan to deal with Muslim extremism.

          NB Obama and the US deep state signed the nuclear agreement with Iran, against Tel Aviv’s strenuous objections.

          Something in that relationship has already qualitatively changed, and not in Israel’s favour.

          BTW I recognise that Trump may finally turn out to be some kind of dictatorial demagogue. But I suspect his vision of a “great America ” has more to do with fixing roads at home and doing good business deals internationally, rather than maintaining a thousand military bases overseas and playing dangerous games of brinksmanship against Putin.

          • RedLogix 10.3.1.1.1
            28 February 2016 at 9:34 am

            He’ll make a show of deporting a few bad illegals, while providing pathways for most to become legal: hence “getting rid” of illegals.

            That is certainly the more rational, plausible alternative. But Trumps appeal is none of these things.

            The question I ask myself is, will his supporters be satisfied with a weasel worded outcome like that? Somehow I think the powerfully racist underbelly of the USA will not. Not now Trump has explicitly been poking at it in order to win power.

          • marty mars 10.3.1.1.2
            28 February 2016 at 9:51 am

            My call is that he will start being all internal but the frustrations of bureaucracy and process will ensure changes – that could be more powers to the ‘office’, it could be misadventures against other countries – probably small ones nearby, it could be tighter controls inside the boarders. Obviously the anti Hispanic rhetoric and actions will ramp up and the ‘wall’ will begin.

            The really scary thing for me is that he will get votes across the board – on fbook – “he is the only candidate against the TPP”, on here “better him than clinton”, above “good business deals internationally” – that really scares me because IF enough people vote for him he WILL be able to do what he wants and the Don wants a lot, for himself.

            • Matthew Whitehead 10.3.1.1.2.1
              28 February 2016 at 3:46 pm

              Your second paragraph is why we should all hope that if the Trump card does win the primary, so does Bernie. He can sweep the populist ground right out from under Trump’s feet, while still retaining the sensible upper ground as well, and polling to date suggests a significant win for Bernie, even though he has a huge name recognition problem compared to both Hillary and the Trump card.

          • Matthew Whitehead 10.3.1.1.3
            28 February 2016 at 3:44 pm

            I’m not sure you can call “not letting Israel get in the way of peacefully preventing an Iranian nuke” a qualitative change in the US’s relationship with Israel. I’d say it was more that we finally found the limit to how much the US would kowtow to Israel, and that limit is letting countries the US views as dangerous acquire nuclear weapons. (which is virtually the highest limit anything can ever have, granted, but it’s nice to know a limit exists when previously you never ever saw it)

  11. Ad 11
    27 February 2016 at 10:02 pm

    The Archdruid never met a potential apocalypse he didn’t like.

    Archdruid should put the bong down and listen up.

    Anyone who doesn’t think there’s a spectacular electoral machine behind Trump or Sanders also thinks unicorns shit rainbows.

    Anyone who thinks Trump and Sanders don’t practise their lines and messaging with little focus groups like everyone else, and wonders why Corbyn keeps getting spanked, should just cut their losses and graduate to heroin.

    Sanders will lose, Trump will not become President.
    Nate Silver ain’t wrong too often. There’s some kind of confusion that we’re still stuck in the West wing Season Seven and Matt Santos is going to pull an upset against Arnie Vinnick. News: the West Wing is not reality.

    We may get some renewal in the way politics is messaged. That’s it.

    No funding reform.
    No media reform.
    No major policy reform.
    No monopoly breakups.
    Non-MSM media influence is interesting but actually mild.

    Same fine US balance of governance between campaign finance, media, Congress, Senate, and President.
    And the next President will make useful but gradual reforms, just like the current one.

    All go home now.

    • RedLogix 11.1
      27 February 2016 at 11:04 pm

      The Archdruid never met a potential apocalypse he didn’t like.

      On that you really are flat out wrong Ad. For some years now he devoted considerable space and time to debunking an enormous list of ‘potential apocalypse’ memes. A whole bunch of them I bet neither your nor I have heard of. Indeed one of his most consistent themes is that belief in the good magic fairy of endless progress, AND belief in apocalyptic bad magic fairy … are BOTH merely futile attempts to deny or avoid the consequences of our actions.

      As for the USA, my logic is simple. At this stage the GOP machine has realises that regardless of how much it might loath him, now that Bush has been knocked out, Trump is their only chance of winning power. Just as National feared and loathed Muldoon, they will back him if he looks like winning elections. And Trump’s policies are really only more of what they want anyhow.

      On the other side of the coin, the DRC machine will back Clinton because while they know Sanders is the more viable candidate … crucially they cannot abide his socialist policies. (Just like here in NZ Labour could not abide Cunliffe for much the same reasons.)

      Therefore it will be a Trump vs Clinton election. At that point two things will happen; the Trump machine will bare-knuckle Clinton to a bloody heap. Americans cannot stomach losers. And a huge number of Sander’s supporters who backed him primarily because he was an outsider … will switch to Trump because he too is the outsider.

      • The Chairman 11.1.1
        27 February 2016 at 11:28 pm

        Any chance of Sanders running as an independent?

        • RedLogix 11.1.1.1
          27 February 2016 at 11:50 pm

          Would only split the anti-Trump vote and make the outcome even more certain.

          • The Chairman 11.1.1.1.1
            28 February 2016 at 11:38 am

            As they (Sanders and Trump) are both considered anti-establishment, you don’t see any possibility of Sanders (running as an independent) taking votes off Trump?

            Moreover, with Trump expected to surpass Hillary, wouldn’t a number of her supporters change allegiance to keep Trump out?

            • weka 11.1.1.1.1.1
              28 February 2016 at 11:49 am

              risky though.

              • The Chairman …
                28 February 2016 at 12:35 pm

                If Hillary wins the Party nomination, Sanders will have nothing to lose (and potentially a lot to gain) standing against her as an independent.

            • RedLogix 11.1.1.1.1.2
              28 February 2016 at 12:21 pm

              I can follow your logic. But as weka says … risky as hell.

              It would come down to this bit of calculus; would Sanders take more votes off Clinton or Trump?

              I don’t know the answer to that.

              • The Chairman …
                28 February 2016 at 12:41 pm

                If Hillary wins the Party nomination, it would be worth rolling the dice to find out.

                • weka …
                  28 February 2016 at 1:15 pm

                  it’s the age old dilemma for lefties. Risk a right wing govt to try and get a real left wing govt that is against the odds, or settle for Clinton because better the leftie devil you know than the right devil you know. Back in the day in the US it was should people vote Nader or not. Because I’m a pragmatic voter, I think the issue of risk assessment is crucial. Gut hunch dice rolling is not my thing when it comes to issues this serious.

                  btw, this is the same argument we’ve been having about Labour pulling out of the TPPA (or the GP). The risk assessment hasn’t been done yet.

                  • The Chairman …
                    28 February 2016 at 1:52 pm

                    It’s not quite the same argument.

                    The public sentiment in the US differs from here. Thus, the odds in this case are largely in favour of an anti establishment win (Trump or Sanders).

                    Hillary is the establishment devil voters know and largely dislike, thus is highly unlikely to win the presidency.

                    Therefore, in all likelihood (if Sanders doesn’t run as an independent) Trump will win. Hence, in this case the risk is minimal, thus it’s certainly worth rolling that dice.

                    As for the TPP, surely maintaining our sovereignty overrides the consequences?

                    • RedLogix …
                      28 February 2016 at 2:38 pm

                      That’s a fair argument TC. Can’t say I’m quite ready to embrace it fully, but I can’t really quibble with it either.

                      Edit:

                      Christ on a bike.

                      John Howard says he “trembles” at the thought of Donald Trump becoming the president of the United States – but he understands why the voluble billionaire is cutting through with the voters of America, because Trump “seems to call it as it is”.

                      The conservative former Australian prime minister told Sky News on Sunday he believed if Trump secured the nomination of the Republican party for the presidency he would ultimately lose to the likely Democrat candidate, Hillary Clinton.

                    • Phil …
                      29 February 2016 at 6:52 pm

                      Trump “seems to call it as it is”.

                      I;ve found that when people talk about a politician and they say s/he “call’s it as it is” there is a better than even chance they really mean the politician “says some awful shit that I would like to say in public and secretly support, but know is wrong”.

              • nadis …
                1 March 2016 at 9:00 am

                head to head polls are here.

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

                Bear in mid that these are popular vote and dont show what the electoral college outcome would be. Any democrat including Clinton is unlikely to lose the election. It all comes down to who wins states like Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

      • Phil 11.1.2
        29 February 2016 at 6:34 pm

        At this stage the GOP machine has realised that regardless of how much it might loath him, now that Bush has been knocked out, Trump is their only chance of winning power.

        Nope, completely wrong.

        Firstly, both Rubio and Kasich have significant leads over Trump in head-to-head hypothetical polling against Clinton. Bush was also a poor performer in those head-to-head match ups before he departed. Those polls are not great predictors this far out from the Presidential election, but they are consistent with my next point…

        Secondly, Trump is LOATHED by independents and registered democrats. He is almost literally the most unpopular presidential candidate this century. His net approval rating is lower than any other Republican contender.

        http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-really-unpopular-with-general-election-voters/

      • Phil 11.1.3
        29 February 2016 at 6:46 pm

        a huge number of Sander’s supporters who backed him primarily because he was an outsider … will switch to Trump because he too is the outsider.

        Again, this is going to be wrong. Hilariously, overwhelmingly, comically, wrong.
        Like YUUUGE wrong.

        Sanders is polling and performing (relatively) well because he’s aligned with the more motivated and further-left base of the Democrat party. Sanders has been a member of congress and/or senate for a quarter of a century. He’s not an ‘outsider’. Sanders is picking up a decent chunk of the younger, digital, generation that Obama won in ’08 and Dean cultivated in ’04.

        How many of those people are going to support a candidate that favors building a 2000 mile wall? How many of those people are going to support a candidate with a track record of vile comments against women, the disabled, immigrants, muslims, mexicans, and other presidential candidates? How many of those people are going to support a candidate with less policy positions than you could write on a gum wrapper?

        The answer is: virtually none of them.

    • marty mars 11.2
      27 February 2016 at 11:17 pm

      JMG understands much more than little old you ad – hard to take I’m sure but your view is clouded and inaccurate. Your insults against him and his view show your inadequacies. You know nothing, add nothing, and help no one – but you are not alone in your jaundice and that may comfort you somewhat as the future unfolds.

  12. saveNZ 12
    28 February 2016 at 7:56 am

    Excellent post CV. I especially liked

    “JMG makes the point that plutocracy has corrupted democracy as it was always going to do, the difference now being that ordinary people are no longer accepting the fancy arguments and spin that they should continue to vote for the ‘least bad’ political party and the ‘least bad’ candidates pushing for the ‘least bad’ version of “realistic” “serious” status quo neoliberal policies.”

    Labour and Greens need to think about this!

    • Matthew Whitehead 12.1
      28 February 2016 at 3:52 pm

      The Greens are already well onboard with that train of thought. It’s a constant refrain inside the Green Party that Labour, seeking to be “not as bad as National”, has become much closer to the National Party than they are to the Green Party. The Greens have never seriously took a turn to the right, they’ve just been painted that way by outsiders as they’ve sought to control their message and be taken seriously.

      Labour, however, has shown in its treatment of Cunliffe that it was not ready for this lesson, and won’t be until some serious cleaning of house takes place.

  14. lurgee 14
    2 March 2016 at 6:32 am

    Hillary seems to be doing okay and inspite of comments upthread is not having to “fight hard for every inch of ground.” She’s lost ONE primary so far. That happens. It’s what the primary process is all about. The media is presenting it as a “OMG! Subverive Underground Deomocratic Revolt Afoot” because that is more interesting than “Primary Race Like Every Other One.” The media thrive on conflict and where there isn’t one they create one – a lesson that goes right back to Hearst (or possibly Citizen Kane).

    In 48 hours time we’ll (probably) be looking back on all those headlines about Sanders and shaking our heads ruefully at the foolishness of youth.

    • Colonial Viper 14.1
      2 March 2016 at 7:33 am

      Clinton’s victories are the result of her lock over the un-democratic Democratic primaries process, particularly the Democrats use of “super delegate” as the bulwark of the establishment player, herself.

      Also, don’t mistake victories in the majority of the States this super Tuesday as a lack of popular support for Sanders versus Clinton.

      In reality a Clinton victory will sound the death knell of irrelevance for the Democratic Party, now a party of banksters and billionaires as much as the GOP is.

      • lurgee 14.1.1
        2 March 2016 at 3:55 pm

        “Now”? You think this is something that has only just happened?

        You can be touchingly naive when it suits you.

        And your attitude to the choices of the voters is a bit patronising. Black voters overwhelmingly voted for Clinton. Are they naive dupes?

        • Colonial Viper 14.1.1.1
          2 March 2016 at 7:17 pm

          The easiest way to answer your proposition “Are Black voters naive dupes” is to say that (IMO) they are going with the devil they know, and they are going with the instructions from the Democratic Party hierarchy in their districts.

          Now let me ask you – since you believe that the Democratic Party was compromised by big money and big bankers quite a while ago, and of course you will know that it was (Bill) Clinton who really moved it far along this road – is it you who believe that Black voters are naive dupes for voting for more of the same?

      • lurgee 14.1.2
        2 March 2016 at 6:47 pm

        A closer look at the results shows Sanders doing a bit better than I anticipated.

        Certainly not eating my words, but I might nibble on the serifs.