Sanders is down but not out

66 comments on “Sanders is down but not out ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Andre 1

   3 April 2016 at 8:40 am

   One possible upside for having such a freak show for a primary, it seems voters are paying a lot more attention than usual.

   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/voter-attention-2016-race_us_56fe6c1ae4b083f5c6076331?utm_hp_ref=politics
2. Chooky 2

   3 April 2016 at 8:41 am

   Trump is a fool …to alienate the women vote!

   Bernie Raises $44 Million in March

   https://www.rt.com/shows/big-picture/338107-gop-democracy-abortion-law/

   “Tonight’s Rumble discusses why the GOP establishment only likes democracy when the voters pick the right candidate, how the federal minimum wage hasn’t been raised since 2009, and how the Texas abortion law forced a woman to give birth to a stillborn baby.

   Thom discusses the latest job numbers and New York and California raising their minimum wages to $15 with economist Marshall Auerback, and Hillary Clinton’s defensive response when asked if she would remove fossil fuel money from her campaign with Greenpeace USA’s Molly Dorozenski.”
3. miravox 3

   3 April 2016 at 8:52 am

   Despite the fun and games, it looks to be business as usual with Clinton and Cruz. Gotta go for Clinton with that match-up. She’s at least halfway rational compared to Cruz.

   If there is a problem with her emails please let it be out in the open before the end of the primaries.
4. sabine 4

   3 April 2016 at 9:22 am

   well, MS, its only the women this good Gentlemen would punish for having an abortion. The men that helped father the child, or inseminate the women or what ever you want to call it, of course would bear no responsibility at all.

   “The MSNBC host followed up wondering if a man should bear responsibility for abortions as well, to which Trump said “no” he didn’t think so.”

   http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/trump-advocates-abortion-ban-walks-back-punishment-women-remark

   so its all good for the fearful, white, conservative, fundamentalist religious patriarchal nutcase that would support Trump.
   It;s also all good for the ‘anybody but Hilary’ men cause they too will never have to live the other 50% rules and regulations and lack of health care that these republicans write for women.
   And of course, once all abortion is illegal in the US, its going to be the time of septic wards and death by coat hanger or back alley abortion. Cause that never happened, and history does not repeat itself.
   For the ‘forced-birther adherents” it is of course unpleasant that Trump should utter such nonsense, after all women are all victims and deranged and as such only choose abortion out of depression and should not be punished, but this is a stance that once abortion is illegal, and back where it belongs in some butchers shop in a dark alley, would be reversed and would be handled as murder first degree.
   Women in the states that have all but ‘outlawed abortion’ due to restrictive legislation, long waiting periods of up to 72 hours before receiving an abortion, long travel, forced ultrasounds, forced listening to heart beat, forced descriptions of the foetus by the doctor, etc etc have already taken to ordering ‘abortion pills’ online, and are prosecuted and jailed for murder. Or are charged with murder, when they attempt suicide for what ever reasons when they are pregnant.

   In fact, i can think of nothing more scary than being a women in the US that needs medical attention for a typical women issues that maybe has substance use issues, lives in a somewhat violent households, lives in a medical wasteland where pharmacists can refuse to full prescription due to their religious believes, where women who have a miscarriage can be send home as no doctor would attempt to ‘abort’ the still born as long as there is still a heart beat, no matter how much it would put the live of the mother in danger, where a catholic hospital can refuse care or transfer to a hospital that would care due to their ‘life begins at male ejaculation’ stance.

   http://www.thenation.com/article/women-are-being-arrested-and-jailed-self-abortion/

   https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/the-new-reality-women-charged-for-murder-after-self-inducing-abortions

   http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/15/tennessee-woman-charged-attempted-murder-failed-self-induced-abortion

   http://www.buzzfeed.com/azeenghorayshi/pregnant-woman-sues-catholic-hospital

   http://www.pharmacytimes.com/contributor/alex-barker-pharmd/2015/08/pharmacists-refusing-to-fill-spark-national-controversy

   This whole election has turned into some sort of Kabuki play. An Kasich, Rubio, Cruz would all do the same.

   But according to some even here, any of these gentlemen would be better then Hillary.
   Could any of the resident blokes give the women one reason to vote for a man in the US?
5. Tautuhi 5

   3 April 2016 at 9:44 am

   Sanders will be a lot better for the long term prospects of the USA than Billary Hinton or Donald Trump.
   • sabine 5.1

     3 April 2016 at 10:03 am

     i agree with you, however I am not sure the ‘establishment’ would allow for a Sanders win.
     Heck, i am surprised he has not yet had an accident like Paul Wellstone.
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wellstone
   • Colonial Viper 5.2

     3 April 2016 at 10:09 am

     That’s exactly why it won’t be allowed.

     It’s the short to medium term financial prospects of the transnational corporations which is the priority.
     • Olwyn 5.2.1

       3 April 2016 at 11:30 am

       That is why it is crucial that the movement behind Bernie continues to build momentum whether he wins the nomination (which is still possible) or not. Under current conditions, anyone who gains public office with excellent ideas but no movement behind them is in roughly the same position as the queen of one of those small states (I’ve forgotten which) who, faced with an advancing German army, drove to the border and told them to go away. They didn’t because there was nothing she could do to stop them. Bernie has stated that he is not there merely to win, but to change the way politics is done. The growth and development of the movement behind his candidacy is more crucial to his achieving this than the immediate success of his candidacy.
       • Bill 5.2.1.1

         3 April 2016 at 12:49 pm

         Indeed.

         And…it’s just possible that it would be better for Sander’s and the US if he loses.

         Clinton knows that stuff like mere name recognition got her through those early contests. And she knows Bernie now has the votes of those who actually do want him to win and who believe he can win, allied with the probably not insubstantial number of votes cast as a protest against what she represents.

         All of that adds up to headache for a Clinton presidency. She’d maybe cede to demands contained within Sander’s ticket to take the heat off. And if (when) it goes arse over, then it slates back to Clinton and the third way wallahs, leaving the field clear for a Bernie Mk II.

         If she brass necks it with the same old same old, she’ll be a one term disaster and leave the field clear for a Bernie Mk II.

         On the other hand, if Sanders becomes president and, not that vested interests aren’t going to be out to monkey wrench him at every turn or anything like that, fails to deliver…well, the whole political discourse he has initiated in the mainstream dies.
         • Olwyn 5.2.1.1.1

           3 April 2016 at 1:22 pm

           …if Sanders becomes president and…fails to deliver…well, the whole political discourse he has initiated in the mainstream dies.

           Well, could die, depending on the persistence of those looking for change, but it would at least suffer a very serious setback if that were to happen. Defenders of the status quo want us to forget the struggles, setbacks and bloody minded persistence that lie behind significant change, inviting us instead to regard elections as analogous to the Euro-vision song contest, saying e.g. “your guy can’t win because this, because that…” – as if that were the end of it. It is not “the end of it” until a movement for change either burns out or gains some significant victories.
           • Bill 5.2.1.1.1.1

             3 April 2016 at 2:05 pm

             Yes, I should have said ‘could die’.

             I guess I’d be tempted to suggest ‘more likely to die’ (if Sanders wins and fails), the reason being that ‘the movement’ may be (or have become) nothing more than a part of the party political process. I mean…a movement must be far larger, amorphous and ‘all- encompassing’ than any political party or political party process, or else, rather than being a movement, it’s best described as a convenient, if large supporter base, that’s essentially existing as a tool to be directed and wielded by those who seek party political power.

             That, by the way, was always my bug bear with Mana; that it professed to be a movement. It wasn’t. And should never, ever have presented itself as anything other than a political party.

             Anyway, none of that (badly expressed by a brain that isn’t firing on all cylinders atm) should be taken to suggest that a political party can’t or shouldn’t tap into some narrower aspects of a movement and give those aspects (let’s say) a parliamentary expression.
             • RedLogix …

               3 April 2016 at 2:28 pm

               While I understand your analysis, it kind of assumes there is a Bernie MkII waiting in the wings somewhere.

               That is always the challenge with long-term strategy, it inherently has more risks because as time goes on more uncertainties come into play.
               • Bill …

                 3 April 2016 at 2:57 pm

                 Maybe the first comment involves that hope or assumption (Bernie mk II). The second, being more concerned with a movement that exists ‘beyond’ party politics and that, essentially, consumes party politics and so diminishes the primacy of party politics, doesn’t.
             • Olwyn …

               3 April 2016 at 4:00 pm

               By the way Bill, I forgot to say that I agree that even if Bernie loses, Hillary Clinton will still be under pressure whichever way she goes, which will hopefully augur well for whoever next takes up Bernie’s baton.
       • weka 5.2.1.2

         3 April 2016 at 12:54 pm

         “The growth and development of the movement behind his candidacy is more crucial to his achieving this than the immediate success of his candidacy.”

         This.

         We give our power away far too easily when we frame it simply as Clinton is the pragmatic choice, or the evil empire won’t let Sanders win.
6. Colonial Viper 6

   3 April 2016 at 10:08 am

   The Goldman Sachs funded Democratic establishment won’t allow Sanders to get near the nomination.

   And now that Sanders has run out of caucuses, the format where he does the best, he’s truly over.

   As for those people supporting Clinton over XYZ Republican nutcase, sure, as long as you are aware that you are supporting conventional waterboarding of innocent civilians versus the waterboarding of innocent civilians using a truck battery.

   Maybe you should be supporting neither.
   • Andre 6.1

     3 April 2016 at 10:36 am

     “Maybe you should be supporting neither”

     The problem is illustrated by the starry-eyed individuals in 2000 who said I won’t support either Tweedledum or Tweedledee and voted Nader. Which delivered us Bush instead of Gore.
     • Colonial Viper 6.1.1

       3 April 2016 at 11:06 am

       That’s a popular Democratic Party lie which has spread around over time.

       It comes from the Democratic Party assumption that Nader stole votes which naturally belonged to the Democratic Party. (NZ Labour has this same attitude about the NZ Greens).

       This is bullshit of course.

       In Florida, CNN’s exit polling showed Nader taking the same amount of votes from both Republicans and Democrats: 1 percent. Nader also took 4 percent of the independent vote.
       …
       Had Nader not run, Bush would have won by more in Florida. CNN’s exit poll showed Bush at 49 percent and Gore at 47 percent, with 2 percent not voting in a hypothetical Nader-less Florida race.

       Also

       Gore lost 191,000 self-described liberals to Bush, compared to less than 34,000 who voted for Nader.

       Also

       there are two other Florida constituencies that cost them more votes than Nader did. First, Democrats. Yes, Democrats! Nader only drew 24,000 Democrats to his cause, yet 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush.

       And most damning of all, in an act which Chris Hedges has also separately confirmed, the Democratic Party screwed up/gave up on the legal recount fight against Bush in Florida:

       Bush also probably would have won had the state conducted the limited recount of only four heavily Democratic counties that Al Gore asked for, the study found.
       On the other hand, the study also found that Gore probably would have won, by a range of 42 to 171 votes out of 6 million cast, had there been a broad recount of all disputed ballots statewide. However, Gore never asked for such a recount. The Florida Supreme Court ordered only a recount of so-called “undervotes,” about 62,000 ballots where voting machines didn’t detect any vote for a presidential candidate.

       http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/6/1260721/-The-Nader-Myth
       • Andre 6.1.1.1

         3 April 2016 at 11:30 am

         Sure you can find websites to put up good arguments that claim what you want. Here’s one for the other side. I’m sure we could trade links all year long.

         http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html

         It’s not just Florida, New Hampshire is relevant too.

         The simple issue is that Gore’s positions were much closer to Nader’s on almost everything of importance to a likely Nader voter. The few Nader voters I know did so out of disgust and protest at the “establishment”, without considering the likely real-world consequences of assisting a Bush win. Fortunately for their subsequent peace of mind they were in states that Gore won easily.
         • Colonial Viper 6.1.1.1.1

           3 April 2016 at 11:37 am

           Gore screwed up in Florida. Far more registered democrats went with Bush than with Nader. Etc.

           The Democrats then conveniently scapegoated Nader for their loss.

           Basically the Democratic Party view point is that Nader took votes which belonged to them. As I said, same as how Labour views the Greens.

           You haven’t mentioned the extraordinary lengths the Democratic Party went to in order to impede Nader’s campaign. Challenging his voter lists etc.

           They hated that he showed them up for the faux progressives that they were.
           • Andre 6.1.1.1.1.1

             3 April 2016 at 1:11 pm

             The broader point I’m trying to make is there are many times in politics where, if you want to move forward, you go for the best actually achievable rather than the ideal. Saying “they’re both as bad” and going for a third totally unachievable option, when one is really truly much closer to your goals, only opens the door for the really bad option to come through and take things backwards. Sneering at Democrats (or Labour) as “faux progressives” when by any rational assessment they are much more progressive than the alternative, simply delivers another term to the RWNJs.
   • Bill 6.2

     3 April 2016 at 11:04 am

     And now that Sanders has run out of caucuses, the format where he does the best, he’s truly over.

     You don’t think you’re being a bit hasty there? Latest polling in Wisconsin has him leading Clinton and latest polling in New York has Clinton’s lead imploding. A month ago, she was 40% ahead. Now she’s about 12% ahead and there’s still two weeks to go.

     So what’s the story if Sanders runs Clinton close in New York – her ‘home state’ that was meant to be a shoo-in? He’s ahead in other states, and California, one of the largest states, is one of the last to go.

     Not saying he’ll do it. Not writing him off either.
     • Colonial Viper 6.2.1

       3 April 2016 at 11:22 am

       Did the math with a couple of mates and its seriously against Sanders right now. OK, he might still pull it out of the fire. Maybe.
     • Phil 6.2.2

       4 April 2016 at 1:01 pm

       Latest polling in Wisconsin has him leading Clinton
       Wisconsin is a state where the demographics favour Sanders and the latest polling has the two candidates neck-and-neck. The Democrat delegate allocation for each state is, basically, fully proportional, so a tied race does not help Sanders narrow the lead to Clinton.

       and latest polling in New York has Clinton’s lead imploding.
       That’s some heroic levels of cherry picking you’re doing there. There have been four polls of NY democrats in 2016. Four of them show Hillary in the mid-50%’s and Sanders around 40%… The one outlier you’ve chosen to call ‘imploding’ had her at 71% and was never realistic.

       So what’s the story if Sanders runs Clinton close in New York – her ‘home state’ that was meant to be a shoo-in?
       The demographic makeup of NY democrats suggest, if the national race was tied, Sanders would just squeek home in NY by a point or two.

       Bottom line is: Less than half of all pledged delegates remain available. Sanders is behind by the kind of numbers where he can’t just narrowly win states where he was/is expected to win. He has to win big somewhere on the map that doesn’t favour him…. and there aren’t any states left where that looks likely.
   • weka 6.3

     3 April 2016 at 11:12 am

     As for those people supporting Clinton over XYZ Republican nutcase, sure, as long as you are aware that you are supporting conventional waterboarding of innocent civilians versus the waterboarding of innocent civilians using a truck battery

     Of course. But so long as you realise that those aren’t the only differences.
   • sabine 6.4

     3 April 2016 at 4:12 pm

     CV, you comment was spoken with true male privilege.

     I have listed several reasons why for women the voting of the any of the male nut cases is simply a no go. Especially those in their fertile years, or younger.
     Now i can to an extend understand man who will gloss over the ‘female issues’ as if it would not touch them, but let me ask you a question or three? .

     First. Do you like sex?
     Second. Do you like sex without procreation.
     Third. Do you like your wifes, daughters, mothers and other females in general?

     if you do, then any of the republican candidates is a no go, (and all of them would waterboard btw), as they will have no issue cutting and gutting female health in order to save the unborn, fuck the mothers life, her needs, her wants, or anything.

     So for the sake of the women, you know over 50% of the population in the US, maybe voting for the nutcase, just so you don’t have to vote for the women who will be like Clinton the Man, Bush the Elder or the Younger, Obama, Nixon, Carter heck any and all of the other previous presidents is the only solution – as sad as it is.

     So maybe look at some of the issues from the point of view of the womens.

     My grandmother had her first child with 16, her last at 46. That is 30 years of childbearing possibilities, leading to 9 that ‘lived’, and an equal number that were ‘miscarried’ and subsequently ‘scraped’ out at the hospitals. My mother had a child every 18 month until the pill arrived in 1974. By the age of 24, she had three that lived, and one that died and needed to be scraped out, she also got married at 18, pregnant i might add. Just in case people had forgotten just how fucked up society is and was and will be if men like Cruz, Kasich, Rubio and even your champion Trump has a say.

     So frankly, maybe the men on this board and just in general want to view the issues that affect us humans with more of an open mind that includes those that they are not.
     • Colonial Viper 6.4.1

       3 April 2016 at 4:42 pm

       Hilary Clinton is a bankster, oligarch and nation destroyer on an equal footing with any man in the US Gov, past or present.

       Nice to see a woman reach the top, isn’t it. Must be such a thrill. For some.
       • sabine 6.4.1.1

         3 April 2016 at 5:04 pm

         NO this has nothing to do with a women reaching the top. In fact there are many women who have been there, done that, Helen Clark, Andrea Merkel, Bhenazir Bhutto, Indira Ghandi and Golda Meir just to name a few and that alone should give you something to think about your dumb arsed comment just there. A women reaching the top? Pathetic little men……owing their lifes to women all of them.

         However there is a big difference in regards to reproductive rights and access to Female centric Healthcare in the US among their politicians.
         As some poster above has listed a link to a couple in Texas that could not have their miscarriage terminated by ‘approved health care officials’ as the legislature in Texas decided that the ‘pain a foetus – even one who is dying’ is more worthy of consideration than the pain of the mother who is undergoing a miscarriage. And this is an issue that many women will end up voting for. And sadly for the men currently running, especially that hairpiece that you think will do so much better the Hillary – based I guess on your fantasies – none of them would think twice about throwing women under the bus if it would get them elected. Bernie Sanders being the exception.

         Now i understand that you will never suffer such a fate, what being a man and not a women. I do however expect you to not be so happy to throw away rights women have only gotten less then 4 decades ago, just so that your champion will win over the horned one eyed devil Hilary Clinton.

         So take your glib comment and shove it. And I say this with all the respect that I can muster.
         • Colonial Viper 6.4.1.1.1

           3 April 2016 at 5:14 pm

           Hilary Clinton was at the heart of decision making to destroy stable secular states in the Middle East and North Africa.

           States ruled by harsh dictators like Saddam and Gaddafi yes, but dictators who had created social welfare systems, free education and healthcare, who allowed women to drive cars, serve in their Ministerial Cabinets and teach as university professors in universities and other centres of advanced learning.

           Those states are now all ruined, run by religious zealots and islamists, where men who want the Sharia law run riot with AK47s and women have lost virtually every governmental position of power.

           That’s the real legacy of Hilary Clinton and the status of women around the world.

           You know, outside pockets of white western colonial privilege that is.
           • Lara 6.4.1.1.1.1

             4 April 2016 at 8:03 am

             Oh wow…

             So you’re resorted to the “women have it worse in the Middle East” argument.

             So because women have it worse over there they should just STFU and stop complaining?

             Sabine has a point CV. Maybe you could try thinking of what it might be like to be a woman in the US and how that might affect who you may be prepared to vote for?

             I agree. Clinton is a horrible choice. Trump the worse. Cruz doesn’t look much better. Sanders is the best choice by far. But the reality is he probably won’t win.

             From a woman’s perspective Clinton would be much preferred over Trump. If you have to choose between bad and worse.
   • Phil 6.5

     4 April 2016 at 2:47 pm

     Democratic establishment won’t allow Sanders to get near the nomination.

     You’re forgetting that, before the establishment can block a Sanders nomination, Sander must win the majority of delegates by obtaining more votes than Clinton… and that hasn’t happened.

     Or, to put it more bluntly:
     Voters gon’ vote. Deal with it, b—-.
7. Wayne 7

   3 April 2016 at 10:32 am

   CV,

   Where exactly is your evidence that Hillary Clinton supports water boarding, or did you just make it up?
   • Poission 7.1

     3 April 2016 at 10:50 am

     Well active service members of the US military prefer Sanders,as opposed to Mad Maddie Albrights apprentice Clinton ,who in turn is entrenched with wall street.

     http://vetsforbernie.org/2016/03/military-supports-bernie-sanders/
   • Colonial Viper 7.2

     3 April 2016 at 11:18 am

     Wayne, did you know that extraordinary rendition to countries conducting torture continued on under Hilary Clinton’s reign as Sec State?

     Did you also know that required her state department co-ordinating with dozens of different countries on a frequent basis, given that thousands of international extraordinary rendition flights had been conducted since 2002?

     Did you know that her husband Bill Clinton, was the first US President to OK extraordinary rendition to countries conducting torture (“torture by proxy”)?

     If you didn’t, please look up Presidential Decision Directive 39.

     Did you know that on top of all this, Hilary Clinton is a major pro-neocon warmonger and supporter of targeted/drone killings (assassinations)?
     • sabine 7.2.1

       3 April 2016 at 4:15 pm

       CV did you know that it was President Obama who would have given the Secretary of State the marching orders?

       or are you saying that as Sec of State Hilary Clinton operated on her own and ignored the White House?

       so are you saying that Hilary Clinton is worse then Obama or just the same?
       • Colonial Viper 7.2.1.1

         3 April 2016 at 4:45 pm

         They’re the same. Part of the oligarchy and the power elite.
         • sabine 7.2.1.1.1

           3 April 2016 at 4:56 pm

           Good that you have that one cleared up, you started sounding like she is the horned devil yet she is no different to any of the men before her, and she will be no different to any of the men that will come after her.
           • Colonial Viper 7.2.1.1.1.1

             3 April 2016 at 5:04 pm

             As I’ve said before, for me it is Trump before Clinton any day of the week.

             Clinton is a proven destroyer of nations; Trump has yet to demonstrate that he will do the same.
             • sabine …

               3 April 2016 at 5:09 pm

               no CV, Bush 1 and 2 are proven destroyer of nations. Obama is a destroyer of Nations.

               Hilary Clinton will be a destroyer of Nations once she is president and starts giving orders instead of receiving them.

               And if you think that Trump or Sanders will not destroy nations i have several bridges in Northland to sell to you.

               But i thank you for assuring us that you care not one bit about women rights in the US. As that is what you have done just there.

               Would/Will you do the same to the women in NZ?
               • Colonial Viper …

                 3 April 2016 at 5:17 pm

                 “We came, we saw, he died” – a gleeful Hilary Clinton interviewed on TV.
                 • sabine …

                   3 April 2016 at 5:27 pm

                   Mission Accomplished,

                   Bush the younger with Codpiece on a destroyer after teh shock and awe of Bhagdad.

                   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4odmtUBtfeU

                   dick fucking Cheney, Water boarding is no torture

                   http://www.westernjournalism.com/dick-cheney-chuck-todd-waterboarding-not-torture/

                   some more dick fucking Cheney

                   http://thinkprogress.org/security/2008/12/18/33880/cheney-morality-of-torture/

                   seriously dude, you need to get a grip.

                   I don’t like her much more then that, but the one thing that you refuse to talk about is the fact that Hilary Clinton for women is the better choice. Simple as that. For women to vote for any of the Christian fundamentalist nut cases is equivalent to a vote for the Taliban, a time to go back to the kitchen, barefeet and pregnant. In her place so to speak. And that is what I am talking about, care to address that issue? And that maybe the hairpiece is not the best solution.
                   And again, I ask you why you think that Trump will not be exactly like Hilary. Fuck they golf together, they dine together, they belong to the same club. And you expect him to act differently? Based on whAT?

                   and yes, in a sane world Bernie Sanders would not only get the nomination, but win the election.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     3 April 2016 at 5:41 pm

                     Vote for who you want to in the Democratic Primaries, Sabine, I ain’t telling you what to do.
                 • sabine …

                   3 April 2016 at 5:49 pm

                   Colonial Viper …
                   3 April 2016 at 5:41 pm
                   Vote for who you want to in the Democratic Primaries, Sabine, I ain’t telling you what to do.

                   no reply button.

                   I don’t vote in the Democratic Primaries, I am not a US American.

                   i have asked you a valid question. You don’t answer. Why?

                   do you think that a President Trump will be better for the world then say a Presdent Clinton, why is that so? and what do you base it on.

                   Trump has been around for a while now. I think that it is possible to have an idea about who he may be based on his TV shows, the way he makes his money, his statements and teh likes.

                   I base my ‘hypothetical’ support of Clinton – should Sanders drop out for what ever reason on the fact that in regards to women she has a proven track record. This might not be good enough for you, but it is still better then what the Men of the republican party will do if they get to the presidency and to the supreme court, especially in regards to women and their children.

                   Really just for once, answer the damn question. It would be the polite thing to do. Why do you think Trump would be better, and will he be better for the women of the US?
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     3 April 2016 at 6:15 pm

                     For the good of NZ, I think that the chances of a catastrophic American military confrontation against Russia or China, or Russia and China, in the Pacific will be far lower with Trump than with Clinton.

                     As for the status of women in the USA. They’ll get poorer, less happy, more unemployed, with shorter life expectancies and increasing use of alcohol, antidepressants and pain killers, under both Trump and Clinton.
                   • Wayne …

                     4 April 2016 at 8:14 am

                     I don’t think there is any prospect of a catastrophic military conflict with Russia and China with any of the presidential candidates. There are simply too many checks (and real world nous) for that to happen.

                     It seems that one of the real world objections to Clinton is that under the Obama administration there have many drone strikes in dealing with terrorists.

                     In reality these would continue under a Sanders presidency as well. No matter how isolationist Sanders is, he is hardly going to give ISIS free rein.

                     Even Sanders is not going to say to the Europeans that the problems they have with ISIS terrorism are their problems and that the US has no interest in such issues. So far as I am aware Sanders has not said the US would leave NATO, not that he could, given that Congress would have the final say on such an issue.

                     So under a Sanders presidency the likes of Jihadi John will be killed by a drone strike just as he actually was under the Obama administration.

                     The special defence funding for Israel will also continue, it being mandated primarily by Congress and not by the Executive.
                   • Lanthanide …

                     4 April 2016 at 8:51 am

                     @ Wayne:
                     Sure, I don’t for a moment believe that any candidate would stop using drone strikes.

                     However it is reasonable to suggest that Bernie might use fewer drone strikes than other candidates. For example if he calls for an investigation into the current use of drone strikes, or comes up with new rules that limit under the circumstances in which they can be used etc.
8. vto 8

   3 April 2016 at 10:35 am

   Sanders needs a good haircut and better shirts.

   Or rather, by not cutting his hair and by wearing such shirts, he instantly loses some unnecessarily …..
9. One Two 9

   3 April 2016 at 10:56 am

   Trump is clearing the path for Hillary, it can’t be any more transparent that it is

   The choice of running mate will be telling, when it is announced by Trump

   Those who want to believe Sanders is not ‘establishment’ , are clutching at straws
   • Bill 9.1

     3 April 2016 at 11:11 am

     Sanders isn’t ‘anti-establishment’, but he is anti- status quo.

     He’d swing the political norm back to conversations and policies informed by statism – which is still very much establishment. But that set of affairs is a hell of a lot better for most people than market driven politics.

     Same deal goes for Corbyn.
10. Ad 10

    3 April 2016 at 11:19 am

    Take a long deep toke and hold it Mickey.

    Sanders has pulled the Dems as far left as they can go, and Trump has pulled the Republicans as far as they can go. They’ve done their job.

    Sanders however is in a far weaker position than Trump because he’s not as good a politician.

    If decades of leftie activism has taught you anything, it’s that you always have to settle.

    Sanders is gone. Now we back Hillary.

    Exhale.
    • RedLogix 10.1

      3 April 2016 at 11:33 am

      Yet Sanders remains the ONLY candidate in the race with net positive poll ratings across the board.

      It’s hard to have any respect for a ‘democratic’ process that throws up a choice between Cruz, about whom the less said the better, and a frankly weak, polarising and controversial person like Hillary.

      If nothing else, imagine the scenario where she wins the candidacy, and is then indicted by the Justice Dept … which hands the Presidency to Trump/Cruz? Why is anyone contemplating that still live risk?
      • Ad 10.1.1

        3 April 2016 at 1:30 pm

        Oh you guys
      • Phil 10.1.2

        4 April 2016 at 9:54 am

        Yet Sanders remains the ONLY candidate in the race with net positive poll ratings across the board.

        John Kasich also has net-favourable polling, but you’d be forgiven for forgetting he’s still in the race.
      • Phil 10.1.3

        4 April 2016 at 2:56 pm

        the scenario where she wins the candidacy, and is then indicted by the Justice Dept … which hands the Presidency to Trump/Cruz

        One does not follow from the other.

        If Hillary was indicted before the Democratic Convention, then her pledged delegates would be free to vote for whomever they please at the convention (within the rules of their state and the convention). It’s probable someone like Biden would be pressured to step up, or Sanders could get the nod.

        If the indictment was after the convention, then whomever was the VP running mate would step up. I, personally, like the idea of a Clinton-Sanders campaign, but who’s to say what the Clinton team will decide.

        Either way, the Democrats still get a candidate in the race and, frankly speaking, a punnet of blueberries with the Donkey sticker on top would still beat out Trump.
    • weka 10.2

      3 April 2016 at 12:51 pm

      get the gin bottle out Ad, take a long deep drink.

      What’s the purpose of backing Clinton now? Shouldn’t the time to back her be after she wins the nomination?

      There are many good reasons to continue backing Sanders, basically for as long as he’s still working. Democracy is far far bigger than this primary or this election.
11. Penny Bright 11

    3 April 2016 at 11:34 am

    It ain’t over until it’s over ….

    This time last year – had the public even heard of Bernie Sanders?

    Penny Bright
    2016 Auckland Mayoral candidate.
    • Chooky 11.1

      3 April 2016 at 3:48 pm

      +100 Penny
12. Kevin 12

    3 April 2016 at 1:05 pm

    330 Million people and Trump and Clinton are the best the establishment can come up with?
    • Andre 12.1

      3 April 2016 at 1:18 pm

      The establishment didn’t come up with Trump. The establishment threw up Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, Bush, Christie, Walker, Santorum…. Who were so mediocre that Trump looks appealing by comparison. If you’re into that kind of thang.
13. adam 13

    3 April 2016 at 2:49 pm

    This won’t help.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nZIlQzTaoQ
    • Lara 13.1

      4 April 2016 at 8:13 am

      Democracy in the USA is a complete joke.

      And they keep sending guns and bombs to other countries* to spread “democracy”. Ugh. I do wish they’d stay at home and STFU.

      *I do realise they’re not really spreading “democracy”. Just sayin’. It’s their excuse, often trotted out, not the reason
14. Jenny 14

    3 April 2016 at 3:45 pm

    “We are trying to change a system that resists change.” Hone Harawira, speech prior to the 2014 election.
15. Penny Bright 15

    3 April 2016 at 4:37 pm

    Seen this?

    http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-wins-nevada-democratic-caucus/

    POLITICS Bernie Sanders Wins the Nevada Caucus After All
    Tom Cahill | April 3, 2016

    Penny Bright
    2016 Auckland Mayoral candidate.
16. Jenny 16

    3 April 2016 at 4:42 pm

    ….the former secretary of state said she was “sick of” the Bernie Sanders campaign claiming she has taken fossil fuel money to fund her presidential campaign.

    “I do not have—I have money from people who work for fossil fuel companies,” Clinton said after being confronted by Greenpeace activist Eva Resnick-Day at a campaign rally in New York. “I am so sick—I am so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me. I’m sick of it.”

    http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/04/01/greenpeace-sanders-hold-ground-against-clinton-fossil-fuel-feud

    So what is the truth?

    As the Huffington Post reported last year, Clinton’s biggest campaign bundlers are fossil fuel lobbyists. Reporters Kate Sheppard and Paul Blumenthal wrote in July that “fossil fuel interests have pumped $3.25 million into the largest super PAC supporting Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election cycle. The Clinton campaign has received donations from industry lobbyists including ExxonMobil’s Theresa Fariello.”

    http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/04/01/greenpeace-sanders-hold-ground-against-clinton-fossil-fuel-feud

    The discrepancy in Clinton’s claim that she had not received $1 dollar from the oil companies and the Huffington Post report, was that she had received the money from “oil company lobbyists” a very fine distinction, that would have eluded most people.

    What is yet to be revealed, is if the oil company “Bribe Factory”, Unaoil, is one of Clinton’s benefactors.

    Unaoil was set up and heavily funded by the oil companies, specifically for the purpose of buying off politicians and government officials around the globe.

    Because Clinton courts money from the oil companies, particularly from oil company lobbyists, Clinton needs to be asked: “Have you ever knowingly, (or even unknowingly), met with officials of Unaoil?”

    And; “Has Unaoil ever directly on indirectly contributed, or facilitated funding of your campaign?”

    “The Company that Bribed the World”

    The leaked files reveal that some people in these firms believed they were hiring a genuine lobbyist, and others who knew or suspected they were funding bribery simply turned a blind eye.

    http://www.theage.com.au/interactive/2016/the-bribe-factory/day-1/the-company-that-bribed-the-world.html

    “….the Monaco-based oil company Unaoil at the centre of worldwide bribery scandal.

    The Unaoil company at the centre of a global oil industry bribery network appears to be owned by a New Zealand shell company.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/78436709/new-zealand-shell-company-linked-to-unaoil-global-oil-industry-bribery-scandal

    …..the Monaco-based firm Unaoil was at the centre of the inquiry and that officials had acted after an urgent request for assistance from the UK’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO).

    “These searches and interviews were carried out in the presence of British officials as part of a vast, international corruption scandal implicating numerous foreign oil industry firms. The information collected is going to be examined by the British authorities as part of their investigation,” the statement said.

    It said that the executives had been interviewed over the course of Tuesday and Wednesday this week.

    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/01/authorities-monaco-raid-oil-firm-unaoil-hq-corruption-investigation
17. Lanthanide 17

    4 April 2016 at 8:59 am

    It’s unfortunate that Bernie seems to be deliberately lying to his own supporters, in order to rile up anger at ‘Wall street’ and ‘bankers’. In other words, he’s not much better than the republicans in the way he deliberately manipulates low-information voters.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/dear-bernie-red-flags-frequent_b_9289954.html
    • Galeandra 17.1

      4 April 2016 at 10:05 am

      If you accept the premises of the article you link to. Many commentators take issue with the writer.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS