Sanders vs Trump

Written By: - Date published: 1:21 pm, January 20th, 2016 - 132 comments
Categories: us politics - Tags: , , , ,

In July last year I wrote a post pondering a hypothetical Sanders vs Trump American presidential election. It seemed pretty far fetched.

Today, Sanders leads Clinton in New Hampshire and Iowa. The lead is growing:

CNN/WMUR Poll: Sanders trouncing Clinton in New Hampshire

Bernie Sanders’ lead over Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire is on the rise, with the Vermont senator leading the former secretary of state by 27 points, 60% to 33%, a new CNN/WMUR poll has found.

The new poll, mostly conducted before Sunday night’s debate, found Sanders’ support has grown by 10 points since a late-November/early December CNN/WMUR poll, which found Sanders holding 50% to Clinton’s 40%. …

According to FiveThirtyEight.Com’s Nate Silver: “Bernie Sanders is the only candidate in either party with a net-positive favorability rating”. Let’s not party too soon though, the indispensable Gordon Campbell is still betting on Clinton.

On the other side of the fence, Trump’s dominance of the Republican field is as total as it is terrifying. His recent endorsement by the equally sane Sarah Palin will solidify his lead. (This satirical headline from the New Yorker pulls no punches: Palin Endorsement Widens Trump’s Lead Among Idiots.)

And that’s the current state of play. Keep in mind Campbell’s points, but a Sanders vs Trump face off doesn’t seem as unlikely as it used to. Feel the Bern!

132 comments on “Sanders vs Trump ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Matthew Hooton 1
    20 January 2016 at 1:59 pm

    In such a race, there would be no choice for sane people but to vote for Sanders.

    • Sabine 1.1
      20 January 2016 at 2:09 pm

      Why would you say such a thing.
      Clearly all the business people will vote for Trump, the self made millionaire, he who was born with a mind for business and profit and free market will, he who will make the US great again and defend it from the immigrants. Don’t you think that he is inspirational a person enough to get the heart land to vote for him? Clearly only loosers and government moochers and those that want a free school lunch would vote for the reckless spender that is the socialist Bernie Sanders.

      Vote for the socialist, really? – did you have too much hot chocolate today?

      And oh my gosh, what would Sanders do to the TPPA …..he might not even wanna go there, and then what would you do to earn your money Matthew Hooton? Write little screeds on how you always knew that Sanders was gonna be the anointed one?

      Pathetic.

      • alwyn 1.1.1
        20 January 2016 at 2:35 pm

        You have been reading far to much of the things Trump says about himself than is good for your mental health Sabine. The self made millionaire you say?
        He inherited millions and, if he had just put it into an index fund he would be richer than he is today.
        http://www.nationaljournal.com/twentysixteen/2015/09/02/1-easy-way-donald-trump-could-have-been-even-richer-doing-nothing

        There are a fair number of the Tea-Party types who probably would vote for him. However there aren’t really that many in the general population and they were the people perfectly described by President Eisenhower 60 years ago.

        “Should any political party attempt to abolish social security unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group of course that believes you can do these things. Among them are a few other Texas oil millionaires and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”

        Matthew Hooton is absolutely right. I have previously described a possible contest between Sanders and Trump as being a choice between the bad (as in not really up to the job), and the mad. Trump is the mad one and the world really wouldn’t be safe with him around. Sanders would merely be another Carter.

        Just what do you find “pathetic” in someone able to recognize reality?

        • Sabine 1.1.1.1
          20 January 2016 at 3:06 pm

          I find it pathetic, that some one like Mike Hooton would jump ship in case Donald Trump wins the nomination and would elevate a self described Socialist above the Republican Candidate. Free Market and stuff. Where have you been lately?

          http://www.salon.com/2015/06/18/we_must_take_donald_trump_seriously_enough_of_the_fkface_von_clownstick/

          http://www.salon.com/2015/11/25/the_unprecedented_nightmare_of_donald_trumps_campaign_weve_openly_begun_using_the_f_word_in_american_politics/

          Donald Trump is the logical conclusion to the chances whit in the Republican Party, or better called the Evangelic Party that promotes a certain sense of might and riches make right. http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/18/politics/donald-trump-liberty-two-corinthians/

          http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_08/donald_trump_and_the_republica056886.php

          http://buchanan.org/blog/124610-124610

          So suddenly the 1% comes up, and says all the stuff that the pleps suck up in great gulps, and he might gets to win, and the establishment clutches their pearls and breaks out in hives.?

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-nomination-would-rip-the-heart-out-of-the-republican-party/2016/01/07/c9cb3f08-b49b-11e5-a842-0feb51d1d124_story.html

          That is what i find pathetic.

          Donald Trump is the logical conclusion to what the right aspires too. He is the baby of the right, Tax Cuts, easy access to credit, and adulation by the many i.e. The Apprentice, private schooling, cheap labor, overseas manufacturing, serial cheater, bully, sexist, etc etc etc . That in fact he even got so far as to be in the running just shows how pathetic the establishment and its water carriers the press, the journos, the PR Man like Hooton are.

          And now that it all comes to an end – and he might be the anointed one, they (the US “Hootons” ) realise that in fact they too are people of the country, the planet and when shit hits the fan (and believe me this is gonna hit the fan) they too will get their share.

          Because at the end of the day, Man like Hooton and you and your rightwing mates are not rich enough, not connected enough to just survive on their own. And usually they just get by, comfortably doing the establishments biding for pay and maybe it works for a while. But not this time, no this time the guy they would usually support is just a bit too crazy, or too ‘uncontrolled’ and that makes them think about their well being.
          So suddenly the Socialist, the one that everyone says can’t do it, cause socialism, or communism, or libtard’ism, or nutty left’ism is suddenly going to be palatable, and if only for three years. Cause maybe then the republican establishment has some better then Trump.

          Question: Who is NZ ‘s Trump? And when will we meet that person, because if anything has been shown over the last 8 years it is that there are a lot of people in NZ that would have no issue voting for someone like Trump – and if it is only the fearful white minority that is worried in loosing its privileges.

          So yes, I find man like Matthew Hooton and yourself and your rightwing mates rather pathetic. You have no principles.

          • alwyn 1.1.1.1.1
            20 January 2016 at 3:29 pm

            You know something Sabine. I think that Trump is quite, quite mad.
            I am scared that he will get the US into a major war. He might even think that he could get away with using nuclear weapons.

            I give you another quote from Eisenhower in 1956
            “We are in the era of the thermonuclear bomb that can obliterate cities and can be delivered across continents. With such weapons, war has become, not just tragic, but preposterous.”

            My fears might be exaggerated but I really wouldn’t be willing to take the chance.

            It is your views that are pathetic. Would you really be loyal to a left wing party, regardless of the sanity or otherwise of it’s candidate? Suppose the candidate of the left, and he is of the left, was Kim Jong-Un? Would you seriously vote for him rather than someone like, say, Jim Bolger? Would you really be that loyal to your creed?

            Have no principles the woman says? What a strange world you appear to inhabit. I can’t of course speak for Hooton but my principles wouldn’t allow me to vote for a nut case.

            And by the way. You suggest that “nutty left’ism is suddenly going to be palatable, and if only for three years”. You are aware, I hope, that a Presidential term is FOUR years.

            • Sabine 1.1.1.1.1.1
              20 January 2016 at 3:37 pm

              Alwyn, the US is already at war, and one could argue majorly so and what is worth they are in wars they can not win, and what even be worse’er they (powers that be) might not even want to win.

              Fact is that once a country only produces weapons, and has nothing else to offer, War is a major earner. Dick Cheney would agree with me.

              Yep, typed to fast, 3 years NZ, 4 Years Us.

              And that little snipe about women and principles. Again, pathetic.

              • alwyn …
                20 January 2016 at 6:21 pm

                I’m sorry if you took the rhetorical question “Have no principles the woman says?” as a snipe. It wasn’t meant to be. I was just trying to use words other than “you” or “your” to make the wording a little less stereotyped.

                As far as being in a “major” war I regard that as one between nuclear armed powers. We have managed to avoid those thank god. Trump just might decide he should teach someone like Pakistan a lesson and we could find ourselves in such a nightmare. Non-nuclear is safe enough, but it could easily escalate.

                As for the question of “Who is NZ ‘s Trump? “. It doesn’t really matter does it? The world wouldn’t notice if we had a nut case as a Prime Minister. We might be a bit miserable but the world would continue blissfully uncaring.

                By the way. You use phrases like “yourself and your rightwing mates”.
                I am in fact the epitome of a swinging voter. In the 12 elections since 1981 I have voted 6 times for National, 5 times for Labour and didn’t vote in the 12th.
                I vote for the people I think will make up the best Government, not because I am a dyed in the wool party serf.

                • Sabine …
                  21 January 2016 at 3:37 pm

                  You and Your are gender neutral. but what evs

                  Trump is the Republcian Party now. he represents the largest group of repbulican voters (around 30%), that horse has bolted an the right in the states needs to start asking themselves if they can survive a presnit Trump.

                  NZ’s Trump will matter to NZ, unless really you care no longer about your country, or have another passport that would allow you to get the heck out of dodge when it happens here.

                  Swing voter is generally speaking – in my books- are right wing voters that very much like Hooton or yourself would vote for Sanders rather then Trump, cause Trump is just a bit too far out for you, and might hurt business. – No principles. Really. Oh….look our candidate has gone to far, is insulting “us” now instead of just the mexicans and muslims, and I might not be as well off as I am now and as secure as I am now if he/she comes to the Power, so i will vote Sanders. – that is the selfish opportunistic vote of someone who is on the right (and by right i don’t mean the right from yesteryear, fiscally responsible, and pious, conservative in believes and actions – and I don’t think that right ever existed – but the right of today that has no problems starving the poor, throwing people into homelessness by negligence, starving the countries infrastructure of funds, starving education of funds, poisoning the water supply of a town to ‘safe’ money, polluting the rivers and waterways of a country to make money etc etc etc, and this is what is happening in the red states of the US, and it is also what is happening every single time in NZ when the right gets hold.

                  But thank you for confirming that you are that opportunist, at least you vote with your bank account in mind, something that can not be said of a lot of people. AS i said in another thread, sometimes it seems as if you were looking for a reason to vote left. 🙂

          • acrophobic 1.1.1.1.2
            20 January 2016 at 3:39 pm

            “Donald Trump is the logical conclusion to what the right aspires too. ”

            Only if you have a particularly narrow understanding of what it means to be ‘right’ on the political spectrum.

            In traditional political thinking, ‘right wing’ is equated with conservatism/traditionalism, social and economic. There is a strong ‘collectivist’ vein within some sections of the right, belying the notion that advocates of right wing politics are necessarily neo-liberals.

            Trump is an enigma; he’s all over the place on a range of issues. He was pro-choice, now he’s pro-life. At times he sounds neo-liberal, then he advocates an asset tax and opposes flat tax, and opposes trade deals.

            Donald Trump is most certainly not what I consider the right aspires to.

            • Pascals bookie 1.1.1.1.2.1
              20 January 2016 at 9:04 pm

              “Donald Trump is most certainly not what I consider the right aspires to.”

              Fair enough, but within the US context I think it’s fair to say that he is the point they have been heading to for a long time. Cruz is not really any better, he just speaks well.
              the flip flops of trump can be seen in the GOP more broadly, Obamacare is basically the GOP position on health care from only a few years prior, for example.

              • acrophobic …
                20 January 2016 at 9:13 pm

                If Trump is the ‘direction’ the right in the US has been heading in, then they will end up just like Labour in NZ, unelectable.

                • Henry Filth …
                  20 January 2016 at 10:06 pm

                  Is either case a catastrophe?

                • Pascals bookie …
                  21 January 2016 at 7:44 am

                  lol.

                  What is the govt’s majority again? MMP acro, it’s a thing.

                  But Trump could well signal a reverse of what happened in the 50s, when the establshment conservative movement (National Review etc) banished the hard right.

                  • acrophobic …
                    21 January 2016 at 9:06 am

                    …that wouldn’t be such a bad thing.

                  • Lanthanide …
                    21 January 2016 at 9:13 am

                    Yeah, most likely outcome of Trump winning the nomination (still don’t think it will happen) is him losing the general election, and the republican party swerving hard to center.

                    The democrats have been going left, and Sanders is certainly helping that. Meanwhile the Republicans have been going hard-right and promoting moonbats.

                    If it ends up being Sanders vs Trump, Sanders will win, the Republicans will re-group and beat him in 2020, and likely follow it up in 2024 as well.

      • Enough is Enough 1.1.2
        20 January 2016 at 2:43 pm

        Pathetic?

      • Ovid 1.1.3
        20 January 2016 at 4:58 pm

        Sanders’ breed of socialism is really not much different from what other developed nations enjoy even under conservative governments. I haven’t been looking at the congressional races, but I haven’t heard any mention that it might flip from Republican to Democrat. If Sanders wins, it’s very likely he’d be stymied at every turn by a recalcitrant Congress.

        • Matthew Whitehead 1.1.3.1
          22 January 2016 at 11:46 am

          Sanders would easily fit in within the NZ Labour Party, for instance. He’s only “radical left” by US standards.

          It’s also probably a lot better to have a leader that actually tries to do something sensible and shifts the debate in the right direction in the USA, rather than simply giving up.

          There’s also a large amount a president can on a temporary basis without congress using executive orders and other executive powers, and by appointing liberals to the Supreme Court, which is currently captured by moronic conservative judges like Alito.

    • joe90 1.2
      20 January 2016 at 2:13 pm

      heh

      JustJanis
      ‏@jsavite

      Please let it be Palin please let it be Palin please let it be Palin please let
      #TrumpAnnouncement #DumbAndDumber

      https://twitter.com/jsavite/status/689467999535792129

    • Paul 1.3
      20 January 2016 at 2:14 pm

      We agree on something.
      But I am puzzled.
      Why would you support a presidential candidate whose views oppose much of what you support in NZ?

      • Matthew Hooton 1.3.1
        20 January 2016 at 2:16 pm

        I didn’t say I would support him. I said there would be no choice but to vote for him. Difference.

        • Paul 1.3.1.1
          20 January 2016 at 2:17 pm

          You mean he is better than Clinton.
          Then again we agree.

          • alwyn 1.3.1.1.1
            20 January 2016 at 7:04 pm

            He never said that did he Paul.
            He said only that in a choice between Sanders and Trump he would have to choose Sanders.
            That doesn’t imply any opinion about Sanders vs Clinton. To be polite you are making that up. In your vernacular I suppose I would have to say you are lying about what Hooton said.

        • Sabine 1.3.1.2
          20 January 2016 at 2:19 pm

          no the choice is

          Trump
          vs
          ……

          or

          Cruz
          vs
          ……

          or
          Rubio (and I don’t think he gets it.)
          vs
          …..

          and you know what, they are all bad choices for the US and for the rest of the world.

          I do hope that you have insulated yourself enough to live well the next few years, cause its gonna be bumpy.

          TPPA TPPA hip hip hurray, and it won’t be with that good republican presnit called Obama Barack. It will be with one of the above. Don’t you feel special, living in such interesting times.
          edit. I consider Hillary Clinton to be a republican as much as her husband was one. Dino’s only.

          • Colonial Viper 1.3.1.2.1
            20 January 2016 at 3:24 pm

            Trump is the best Republican candidate, and the one least likely to start WWIII (or any new foreign wars) out of almost all the candidates on offer.

            • Paul 1.3.1.2.1.1
              20 January 2016 at 3:31 pm

              I am interested to know why you think this.
              Can you explain why?

            • Sabine 1.3.1.2.1.2
              20 January 2016 at 3:34 pm

              We have started World War 3 in 2003 in my humble opinion.

              • Colonial Viper …
                20 January 2016 at 3:54 pm

                Yes there is a logic to that thought.

              • AmaKiwi …
                20 January 2016 at 5:25 pm

                I’ve seen this movie before.

                Germany in the early 1930’s was a Nazi party with no program except racism, hate, and fear versus the socialists and communists.

                The center could not hold.

                • Magisterium …
                  21 January 2016 at 3:03 pm

                  On the contrary, Germany in the early 1930s was a country of optimism, of rejuvenation, of excitement. The bad times were over. People were back in employment. The economy was booming. Large public works were being undertaken. Being German was once again something to be proud of. You think people followed Hitler just because he gave a good speech? They followed him because everything got better when they did.

                  • lurgee …
                    21 January 2016 at 4:52 pm

                    If I remember correctly, Hitler and the Nazis never won a majority in a free and fair election.

                    If the centre and the left had united, Nazism might have been stopped.

                    But the fear of the left and the misguided perception that they could ‘handle’ Hitler lead Papen and Hindenberg to make a rather significant error.

                    • swordfish …
                      21 January 2016 at 10:18 pm

                      Correct on all counts.

                      Nazis electoral apex was 37% (July 1932).
                      SPD (Social Democrats) + KDP (Communists) received a combined vote of 36%. Catholic Centre Party (Zentrum) 12%.
                      14 million Germans voted Nazi / 23 million did not.

                      Worth noting that the Nazis’ aggressive anti-semitism was not widely popular with the German public at this time and Hitler was forced to tone it down. Hence, the consensus of the scholarly literature is that anti-semitism did not figure centrally in the Nazis’ electoral appeal in the early 30s. The anti-Bolshevik message, on the other hand, resonated strongly with voters of the mainstream Right (who defected en masse to the Nazis through the early 30s). Communists and Social Democrats served as the Nazis’ prime scapegoats.

                      Nazis fell to 33% in Nov 1932. Hence, their (quasi) coup d’etat.

              • Macro …
                20 January 2016 at 7:21 pm

                And in MHO the Chumps comments so far have just inflamed it. I’m sure Muslims everywhere would be disheartened, to say the least, if he is elevated to the Presidency.
                Diplomatic relations would be on a knife edge.
                Maybe he might just ignore the middle east, but I can’t see that happening, after all that is where most of USA’s energy originates.

            • Chooky 1.3.1.2.1.3
              20 January 2016 at 3:56 pm

              +100…I have to agree with you CV…while he does say a few mad things..on the plus side

              …Trump is not beholden to the corporates or the lobbyists ( he has his own money)

              …Trump is against the TPP

              …Trump is for detente with Russia ( if a third world war starts, it will most likely be between Russia and the USA). He and Putin seem to have a mutual admiration society.

              I would say Trump is a nightmare for the Republican Party and the neocons…and the corporates and lobbyists eg Israel..he is not their man, he is not in their pockets…like Saunders …and unlike Hilary Clinton

              • Colonial Viper …
                20 January 2016 at 4:50 pm

                The Republican establishment hate Trump with a passion…IMO they would regard Hilary Clinton as being far more reliably establishment than Trump is.

                • AmaKiwi …
                  20 January 2016 at 5:26 pm

                  Trump better have excellent bodyguards.

                • Macro …
                  20 January 2016 at 6:46 pm

                  yep! Did you hear the Chump and Palin dissing the Establishment on JC this evening? – definitely a way to “win friends and influence” people. The two of them together shrilling away – what a disaster.

                  • Chooky …
                    21 January 2016 at 8:30 am

                    yes I heard Palin…and she sounds crazy…however Trump needs her support and her voters support to win the nomination…they are a direct challenge to the neocon Republican establishment, who must be shitting themselves

                    • Macro …
                      21 January 2016 at 9:31 pm

                      She is crazy – and so is the Chump – and the people who support them are idiots. They are bringing the GOP into disrepute – not that that was hard. But if the Chump gets his hands on the reins of power you can rest assured that there will be all hell to pay. The poor, black americans, latinos, etc will carry the can – literally. I would not be surprised if there was a major revolt.

            • Liberal Realist 1.3.1.2.1.4
              20 January 2016 at 6:53 pm

              100% agree with your assessment CV.

              IMO (of the forerunners) Clinton is by far the most dangerous (when compared to Sanders or Trump). Clinton is a hawk, a warmonger. Clinton advocates dnagerous confrontation with Russia. Clinton is also an unashamed Israel supporter.

              Sanders on the other hand, looks like the best option by far. One major issue I have with Sanders is, that he will not look at the issue of Israel and it’s insidious apartheid policies.

              See Sanders reaction to being heckled re: Israel during a town hall meeting, as an example.

              https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/wp/2014/08/20/answering-question-on-israel-bernie-sanders-tells-townhall-hecklers-to-shut-up/

              • Chooky …
                21 January 2016 at 8:26 am

                +100 Liberal Realist …agree about Clinton and Sanders

                imo… any USA politician that does not reign in Israel agenda and have detente with Iran and Assad in Syria …is not a peace maker but is carrying on with the neocon agenda…which is a precursor to WW3 and direct conflict with Russia

        • Pascals bookie 1.3.1.3
          21 January 2016 at 7:48 am

          “I didn’t say I would support him. I said there would be no choice but to vote for him. Difference.”

          I think this would better phrased as ‘supporting but agreeing with’ There *is* a difference there; voting for a politician is absolutely ‘supporting’ them.

          And there is always a choice. You just mean that the choice is clear. If the choice is between Sanders and Trump, you would clearly support Sanders. That’s not forced on you, and it’s nothing to be ashamed of, so own it.

          • Lanthanide 1.3.1.3.1
            21 January 2016 at 9:14 am

            +1

          • Matthew Hooton 1.3.1.3.2
            21 January 2016 at 9:21 am

            Yep, I accept there would be a choice and I would be making it. But “support” to me means a bit more than “vote for”. For example, many Epsom or Ohariu National voters “vote for” David Seymour or Peter Dunne, but they are really supporting John Key. By voting for Sanders, I’d be supporting the notion of not having an absolute lunatic with no government experience and no real record of creating wealth in business in the White House. But I accept your perspective too.

            • Sabine 1.3.1.3.2.1
              21 January 2016 at 3:24 pm

              Actually the republicans in the US don’t have to vote for either candidate as they have the option for a write in Candidate.

              So essentially Republicans could write in Kasich, or Jeb!, Jedi or Humpty Dumpty.

              • alwyn …
                21 January 2016 at 4:07 pm

                This intrigued me but you appear to be technically correct. I hadn’t really thought it was possible.
                The material I referenced was actually for 2008 and may have been a bit out of date but I couldn’t find a current reference.

                In most states it appears that the prospect has to register that they wish to be a write-in candidate for the votes to be counted. That would get more than a little messy.
                Here is an example of the state rules, for Illinois.
                http://writein2008.blogspot.co.nz/search/label/Illinois
                In some states you don’t have to do anything. Alabama is one.
                http://writein2008.blogspot.co.nz/search/label/Alabama
                Some forbid them, including Nevada.
                http://writein2008.blogspot.co.nz/search/label/Nevada

                Can’t see anyone getting many votes but.

                However the system is basically first past the post. If the prime candidates were Sanders and Trump I would vote for the one I least feared. Doesn’t mean I would want him but the alternative is appalling

              • lurgee …
                21 January 2016 at 4:55 pm

                If you want to influence the out-come, writing in some so-and-so’s name who isn’t going to win is not likely to help anyone other than the candidate you want to stop.

                The US system forces tactical voting on the electorate.

                • sabine …
                  21 January 2016 at 10:23 pm

                  that is true,
                  but it gives one at least the chance or option if you like this better to be able to say later on “I did not vote for this guy, or that guy, or the establishment’.

                  this might be of little value, but could keep the heart quiet. Nothing worse then the regrets of the generation of my grandparents that paid their choice with ruins and blood.

        • Matthew Whitehead 1.3.1.4
          22 January 2016 at 11:47 am

          Not sure why you consider Trump so unacceptable when the National Party have so often in the past tried to be trump-lite.

          (Granted, it’s to your credit that you do, but you should extend that logic to racist, and stupidly conservative politics in NZ, too, and to our own millionaire lightweights like the PM)

    • Stuff the Politicians 1.4
      20 January 2016 at 2:52 pm

      Matthew, don’t forget you talking about Americans.

      And comparing Americans with sanity is not that straight forward.

    • Andre 1.5
      20 January 2016 at 7:15 pm

      Matthew, I’m honestly curious which of the current crop of Republicans you think would be a better choice than Trump.

      Sure, Trump is a turd. And he’s loud and proud about being a vile reeking steaming pile. Whereas the others feel the need to go roll in some glitter and spray a bit of Glade around. But get a long stick (and a respirator) and carefully scrape away the surface on any of the others and its all faeces underneath, too.

      So, Matthew, in your expert scatological judgement, which Republican would be a less of an atrocity than Trump, and why?

      • Magisterium 1.5.1
        21 January 2016 at 3:09 pm

        The Republican Party candidates tend to be people who believe things that are repugnant. Carson, Cruz, Rubio, all those religious crazies – at least they believe things that you can disagree with.

        I have no idea what Trump believes. I’m not even sure he believes anything. He’ll say “one plus one is two” on Monday, “one plus one is three” on Tuesday, deny ever having spoken on the subject of maths on Wednesday, and on Thursday he’ll laugh at his opponents and the political pundits all picking over what he said three days previously when he has already completely forgotten that it ever happened and is on to a new topic and dominating the headlines with it.

        • Andre 1.5.1.1
          21 January 2016 at 8:27 pm

          Their religious views are the least of the things that scare me about the rest of the Republicans. Fiscal views, immigration, views about minorities and women, the militarisation of police, foreign military adventures,… pretty much everything in all of their views about the role of government.

    • fender 1.6
      20 January 2016 at 7:24 pm

      Oh come on Matthew, you’re a Judith fan aren’t you?

      Judith would back Donald I reckon. She would likely say Sanders was some kind of radio Albania commie bastard. She’s quite Palinesque at times.

    • North 1.7
      21 January 2016 at 8:41 am

      Matthew, care to venture how your kindred spirits in the Republican Party would counter this rush to sanity ?

  2. savenz 2
    20 January 2016 at 2:03 pm

    +1 Matthew Hooton

  3. tinfoilhat 3
    20 January 2016 at 2:03 pm

    People I know in the US suggest that you should put your money on a Clinton vs Rubio race with Clinton to win the presidency reasonably comfortably.

    • Matthew Hooton 3.1
      20 January 2016 at 2:07 pm

      I think it will be Clinton v Trump and Clinton will win, and the party of Lincoln and Reagan will have some thinking to do.

      • Paul 3.1.1
        20 January 2016 at 2:15 pm

        If it is Clinton over Sanders, then money will trump democracy.
        Pun intended.

      • Ad 3.1.2
        20 January 2016 at 2:29 pm

        Though it would take the new US census and full redistricting to really alter Senate or Congress numbers.

        Hilary Clinton would I think struggle against Cruz.

        My pick is still Hilary v Cruz.

        • happynz 3.1.2.1
          20 January 2016 at 3:45 pm

          Cruz is a nasty piece of work. His relationship to truthtelling is on par with Key. Cruz makes Key look like a fluffy progressive bunny.

          Yeesh.

        • alwyn 3.1.2.2
          21 January 2016 at 6:47 pm

          You say “take the new US census and full redistricting to really alter Senate or Congress numbers”
          Why would both these be really necessary?

          The senators are all elected by state-wide elections and there are two per state.
          Nothing is going to change that except creating a new state.

          The census can make minor differences in the number of congressmen a state can have but the effect is usually pretty minor. A few states can gain a couple and a state may lose one that that is about all.

          Redistricting is the biggie. Both parties have rigged the boundaries in the states to make most electorates single party. It is that that leads to extreme viewpoint congressmen, as winning the party primary means winning the election. That is why they all appeal to the far right or the far left. An evenly balanced electorate is almost unknown in many states.
          Redistricting doesn’t require a census, as far as I know, to shift the boundaries within the state. It also probably wouldn’t affect the number of congressmen from each party. It would simply make them more amenable to being in the centre of the road and allow for electorates to shift between the parties more readily.

      • millsy 3.1.3
        20 January 2016 at 5:12 pm

        Reagan would be way too left wing for today’s GOP.

        • Matthew Hooton 3.1.3.1
          21 January 2016 at 9:04 am

          He would also be seen as having too much government experience, having been governor of California for eight years. And he had been a union boss for 18 years!

          • Phil 3.1.3.1.1
            21 January 2016 at 3:22 pm

            a union boss for 18 years!

            Yeah, but the union he was the head of was the Screen Actors Guild (“SAG”) in the 40’s and 50’s.

            At the time, SAG certainly wasn’t a union like we would think of them today, and definitely not a hotbed of left-wing ideology like Hollywood acting is now.

            The appropriate comparison to today’s unions would be the Formula 1 ‘Grand Prix Drivers’ Association’ or the English football ‘Professional Footballers’ Association’.

            • millsy 3.1.3.1.1.1
              21 January 2016 at 7:41 pm

              Protecting the class interests of the oppressed millionaires against the billionaires.

    • swordfish 3.2
      21 January 2016 at 10:28 pm

      Rubio was the Republican Establishment’s last ditch hope … but he’s going nowhere.

  4. Henry Filth 4
    20 January 2016 at 2:06 pm

    They’ll vote for whoever they want to. Isn’t it great to see democracy at work?

  5. savenz 5
    20 January 2016 at 2:18 pm

    “Sanders refuses to take money from corporations, immediately making it an uphill battle for him in a field awash with corporate cash. In the meantime, Sanders continues to break records with millions in donations from working-class Americans.

    Moreover, leading media outlets have consistently failed to give Sanders proportionate coverage — devoting exponentially more time to far-right Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. And yet, despite the adversity, Sanders’ message is clearly resonating with people.

    Chait concedes that “Sanders is earnest and widely liked.” He also admits that Sanders “has tugged the terms of the political debate leftward in a way both moderates and left-wingers could appreciate,” at a time in which the Democratic Party has been moving further and further to the right for years. And he acknowledges that “Sanders’s rapid rise, in both early states and national polling, has made him a plausible threat to defeat Hillary Clinton.”

    http://www.salon.com/2016/01/20/debunking_the_case_against_sanders_bernies_liberal_critics_like_jonathan_chait_resort_to_fatalism_and_blind_trust_in_the_status_quo/

  6. mickysavage 6
    20 January 2016 at 2:21 pm

    That New Yorker piece is amazing. The camp Trump cynicism is wow …

    “That’s why Palin supporting Trump and not Cruz is such a win for us,” the Trump aide said. “She’s been out of politics for awhile, but she still has idiot cred.”

    The aide said that no one should be surprised by the bond between Palin and Trump. “They’re both reality-show hosts,” he said. “And by lowering the bar in 2008, Palin singlehandedly made Trump’s candidacy possible.”

    But even as the Trump campaign staffers celebrate the Palin endorsement, they recognize that they still have their work cut out for them to secure victory in Iowa. “Getting the idiots to support Trump is only half the battle,” the aide said. “Now we have to make sure that they make it to the caucuses without getting lost on the way.””

  7. CA Bound 7
    20 January 2016 at 3:34 pm

    Make no mistake…we need to watch this.

    If Sanders landslides into the presidency, it has HUGE implications the world at large. America is forcing itself down the throats of all of us, and corporate money is the driver of this sick pill.
    Sanders’ number one pledge is to get the money out of [American] politics. Of course, with the TPPA ratified this may not have much effect on little old NZ…in which case the greedy bastards will simply go offshore looking for their trough.

    But Sanders…wow. I mean, when was the last time you saw such articulate and relatable passion from a politician?! He’s resonating with American’s fed up with the establishment, and that is a HUGE percentage of the population. Tie in the unelectable Trump, and the impending 2016 market woes, and you’ve got one hell of a race.

    • RedLogix 7.1
      20 January 2016 at 6:00 pm

      This. The choice could not be more stark.

      In one sense it also represents a race between two populists; one chaotic good, the other chaotic bad. Both represent a resounding rejection of the establishment elites.

      That’s why I’ve not rated Clinton’s chances from the outset.

  8. happynz 8
    20 January 2016 at 3:37 pm

    In reply to Stuff the Politicians…

    Sadly this seems to be the default position here in New Zealand. I’ve lost count of the times where interacting with New Zealanders they assume by my North American accent that I’m Canadian (I suppose because I don’t fit their notion, whatever it is, of what an American is supposed to be). Things go swimmingly until…
    “Where in Canada ya from?”
    “Uh, I’m not Canadian. I’m from California.”
    “Oh…uh…” Kiwi drifts away.

    Next time I’m asked if I’m Canadian I should just fart. I’d get the same reaction.

    • Sabine 8.1
      20 January 2016 at 4:03 pm

      might have to do with the fact that quite a few US Americans travel as ‘canadians’ as it makes it easier for them?

      and Canada just got themselves a new PM that seems to be a bit more attractive (and yes he is nice to look at 🙂 ) in attitude and policies.

    • weka 8.2
      20 January 2016 at 4:16 pm

      There is a pretty strong anti-American feeling in NZ. I wouldn’t have picked it at the ‘where are you from, what do you do’ level though, more it’s a political thing. Bloody yanks kind of thing. Are you saying that the reaction to you being American/Californian is disinterest or antipathy to the US?

      There are many connections between NZ and Canada that don’t exist between the NZ and the US, that migh explain disinterest a bit.

      • Colonial Viper 8.2.1
        20 January 2016 at 4:52 pm

        A lot of American servicemen visiting NZ in the 50s 60s and 70s did not distinguish themselves with the locals in a positive way

        • happynz 8.2.1.1
          20 January 2016 at 5:39 pm

          Yeah, I see what you mean. My great-great grandfather once farted in church and for four generations my clan has born the shame.

        • AmaKiwi 8.2.1.2
          20 January 2016 at 5:49 pm

          True story.

          Visiting a friend in hospital. A person with an American accent was asked, “Are you an American.”

          Yank replied: “If you were an American, would you admit it?”

          Reaction in the room: Pakehas grinned. The brown skinned people (diverse races) were rolling on the floor with laughter.

      • Rodel 8.2.2
        20 January 2016 at 10:00 pm

        Heard Palin endorsing Trump. She’s batshit crazy (i.e insane) and he’s a bit nuts too but he knows how to get a few like minded nutters to vote for him.

        The Americans I know are normal nice people and while they might select another Clinton, sadly not Sanders, I have faith (not a word I like) that the ordinary citizens of America will reject loonies like Trump and Cruz just as they in spite of the media frenzies last time told Palin, ‘We’re not stupid enough to elect you so F*** off you idiot’.

        • Pat 8.2.2.1
          20 January 2016 at 10:05 pm

          amazing performance by Palin (in the worst possible way) …..and yet it’s said her endorsement is a positive for Trump…..at least in the Iowa primary….mind numbing

  9. McGrath 9
    20 January 2016 at 5:04 pm

    Armerca’s confidence with “normal” politicians ( if there is such a thing as normal in the United States) has nosedived. That is why we’re seeing Sanders (the socialist) and Trump (the unhinged) as leading contenders.

  10. One Anonymous Bloke 10
    20 January 2016 at 5:25 pm

    Ironically, if Sanders somehow found himself with Congress and the Senate behind him, it’s likely Trump’s US investments would yield better returns.

    • Stuart Munro 10.1
      20 January 2016 at 5:48 pm

      Yeah but Trump wouldn’t notice – bullshits his way into trouble & blusters his way out of it – not much of a businessman.

  11. millsy 11
    20 January 2016 at 10:28 pm

    As much as I want to think it, Sanders will not win the nomination. Sure, he will win some of the primaries, but I think the Democratic establishment will make sure Hilary wins.

    I am picking that there will be a few women who worked for him while he was mayor of Burlington, VT in the 1980’s coming out saying he had wandering hands, followed up by council credit card statements with dodgy purchases, leading to poor old Bernie having to withdraw from the race.

    We all know what it is like in the US. You have to have a squeaky clean past to win office there, your opponents will use anything dodgy to nail you with.

    • Whispering Kate 11.1
      21 January 2016 at 8:13 am

      And Hilary’s got a squeaky clean past – I think not.

      • Lanthanide 11.1.1
        21 January 2016 at 8:49 am

        Sure, but her past has been so thoroughly investigated now that there’s very little in the way of ‘new’ scandals that can be found against her.

        The most troubling thing she has to worry about on that front is the ’email scandal’ – there’s a small undercurrent of Americans that simply won’t vote for her because of what has been revealed so far. But the issue appears to have died down for now, and assuming there aren’t any further developments by investigators, it’s unlikely to play any significant part in the campaign period.

        The problem is predicting whether the investigators are going to find more dodginess / press charges.

  12. Lanthanide 12
    21 January 2016 at 8:46 am

    Pity you didn’t look any further to FiveThirtyEight’s other coverage of Bernie vs Clinton:
    their more advanced “polls+” model gives Clinton an 80% chance of winning Iowa, and Sanders a 63% chance of winning NH (two days ago it had Clinton at 60%).

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/iowa-democratic/

    Iowa and New Hampshire are both very white-heavy states, which is Bernie’s core constituency. He does very poorly with non-whites, which are actually the majority of Democrat voters. Clinton does very well with blacks and other non-whites. She’s polling at 66% in South Carolina, vs Sander’s 22%.

    The recent chat between the political editors of the site basically gave Sanders a 5% chance to win the nomination, with the assumption that he needs to win both Iowa and New Hampshire and build up a lot of momentum to do it, and broaden his popularity among non-whites.

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-the-bernie-sanders-surge-real/

    It’s very tempting to just look at poll numbers, but as this analysis shows, in the US there are so many additional factors that need to be – and can be thanks to a rich body of data – taken into account when making predictions about who will win. It’s not like NZ where polling and ad-hoc ‘rules of thumb’ seems to be the depth of the data that we can use to make predictions.

  13. Sabine 13
    21 January 2016 at 4:03 pm

    look what i found! from 2011

    You are fired! I quit!
    Trump/Palin 2012

    hahahahahahahahha gotta love politics.

    https://tonsofwash.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/trumppalin-bumper-sticker-is-classic/

    soon to be true?

    https://twitter.com/strangedejim/status/636248560271409152

  15. Cantabrian 15
    21 January 2016 at 10:12 pm

    Clinton (with the support of the BBC it seems) is trying to tarnish Sanders on the issue of gun control.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35364868
    Although Sanders may have been on the wrong side in the past on this issue there is no evidence that he is soft on gun control in the present or will be if he is elected.

  16. Pat 16
    21 January 2016 at 11:11 pm

    “Let us never forget that almost 60 million Americans voted for John McCain in 2008. That’s 60 million people in a nation of over 300 million that had no qualms about having Sarah Palin a breath away from the nuclear codes. To them, there was nothing wrong with her speech yesterday. It probably made perfect sense.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/20/sarah-palin-donald-trump-endorsement-speech-quotes

  17. joe90 17
    21 January 2016 at 11:47 pm

    Anyhoo, Trump supporters….

    If anyone was wondering what the GOP establishment really thinks of Donald Trump and his supporters, well, here you go. Here’s GOP strategist Rick Wilson on this Tuesday’s All In with Chris Hayes, responding to Hayes asking him about Trump’s white supremacist following, and an article just published in The Week titled How an obscure adviser to Pat Buchanan predicted the wild Trump campaign in 1996.

    WILSON: Well, first off, I think that’s absurd. I think that there is definitely still a very significant portion of the party that is a limited government conservatism based faction of the overall coalition. Now the screamers and the crazy people on the all-right as they call it, you know, who love Donald Trump, who have plenty of Hitler iconography in their Twitter icons and names…

    HAYES: They sure do. I can back that up.

    WILSON: … who think Donald Trump is the greatest thing. Oh, it’s something. But the fact of the matter is most of them are childless, single men who masturbate to Anime. They’re not real political players. These are not people who matter in the overall course of humanity.

    http://crooksandliars.com/2016/01/gop-strategist-calls-trump-supporters

  18. Sabine 18
    22 January 2016 at 7:37 am

    Trump preferralble to Cruz? Say it ain’t so

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429864/house-gop-retreat-sweeping-agenda-cruz-fears-dominate-baltimore

    The developing feeling among House Republicans? Donald Trump is preferable to Ted Cruz. “If you look at Trump’s actual policies, they’re pretty thin. There’s not a lot of meat there,” says one Republican member in Ryan’s inner circle, who requested anonymity to speak frankly about the two front-runners as leadership has carefully avoided doing all week. If Trump were to get the nomination, he would “be looking to answer the question: ‘Where’s the beef?’ And we will have that for him,” says the member.

    Bob Dole – remember him? One of the disicplined yesteryear Repbulicans that just simply does not care anymore and says it like it is.

    Quote: I question his allegiance to the party,” Mr. Dole said of Mr. Cruz. “I don’t know how often you’ve heard him say the word ‘Republican’ — not very often.” Instead, Mr. Cruz uses the word “conservative,” Mr. Dole said, before offering up a different word for Mr. Cruz: “extremist.”

    “I don’t know how he’s going to deal with Congress,” he said. “Nobody likes him.”

    But Mr. Dole said he thought Mr. Trump could “probably work with Congress, because he’s, you know, he’s got the right personality and he’s kind of a deal-maker.” Quote End.

    https://twitter.com/NateSilver538?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

    and some other persons musing on Trump and the GOP Establishment that thinks he will be controlled by them.

    http://www.salon.com/2016/01/21/the_gops_terrifying_trump_plan_why_the_partys_establishment_thinks_it_can_control_the_donald_and_why_its_wrong/

    Quote: “It’s important to note that that Trump has expressed admiration for only two leaders during this campaign: Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-Un. It’s highly unlikely if Trump becomes the most powerful man in the world he’ll be humbly asking the House GOP Weenie Caucus to hold his hand and tell him what to do.” Quote End.

    Personally the best that the ‘principled republican’ can do at this moment is to vote for Hillary should she get the nomination. She, as much as her Husband and Obama Barrack have been, will make a great Republican President.
    Bernie Sanders would do well to remember Paul Wellstone and stay away from small airplanes.

    Johann Wolfgang von Goethe comes to mind:

    The Ghosts I’ve Called

    My fate was a blank sheet
    Paper can be so patient
    I’ve had enough of this waiting,
    For weeks could remember nothing more.
    I stared* in the dark of my room
    After hours I finally fell asleep
    They came from the bottom of my dream
    And crawled into my heart

    Suddenly they were in my mind
    But they had a price

    Do you not see the ghosts I’ve called?
    Came in the night when I was asleep.
    Here in the dark far too big.
    The ghosts I’ve called won’t let me go.

    I was offered a trade before,
    I reluctantly agreed.
    Even when I lost my mind
    I wanted to be known.

    For that they gave me this melody
    But they had a price.

    Do you not see the ghosts I’ve called?
    Came in the night when I was asleep.
    Here in the dark far too big.
    The ghosts I’ve called won’t let me go

    More new gushes they bring in
    Thousand black rivers crash around me
    Listen to me, oh master, my need is great
    The ghosts I’ve called, I won’t go back

    Do you not see the ghosts I’ve called?
    Came in the night when I was asleep.
    Here in the dark far too big.
    The ghosts I’ve called won’t let me go
    The ghosts I’ve called won’t let me go

  19. Tautoko Mangō Mata 19
    22 January 2016 at 7:49 am

    Excellent article from Glenn Greenwald-

    I have abbreviated- you need to read the article to see the examples given to illustrate.
    1.Polite condensation
    2.Light casual mockery
    3.Self pity and angry etiquette measures
    4.Smears with inuendos of sexism and racism
    5.Brazen invocation of Right wing attacks
    6.Issuance of grave and hysterical warnings about the pending apocalypse
    7.Full-scale and unrestrained meltdown, panic, lashing-out, threats, recriminations, self-important foot-stomping, overt union with the Right,

    https://theintercept.com/2016/01/21/the-seven-stages-of-establishment-backlash-corbynsanders-edition/