Trump In, Bern Out, Hillary Home and Hosed?

Written By: - Date published: 11:18 am, May 27th, 2016 - 196 comments
Categories: climate change, International, us politics - Tags: , ,

It appears that Donald Trump has finally secured the Republican Party nomination, with the latest estimate of delegate numbers confirming he has achieved an outright majority. Bernie Sanders appears to be on the brink of defeat, with Hillary Clinton only a handful of delegates short of confirmation as the Democrat’s candidate.

It’s been a fascinating campaign in many respects, with the highlight being Bernie Sanders re-introducing socialism to the American people. Mind you, his version of socialism wouldn’t be ground breaking in most western countries and should probably be regarded as traditional centre left positioning. It’s unusual in America only because the States are so out of step with what is normal in Europe, South America and the Commonwealth.

I hope Sanders is offered, and accepts, a role in the Clinton campaign and then takes up a post in the Clinton administration. It would be sad indeed if he simply fades away as previous left contenders have done. It would be an disaster if he considered running as an independent.

With Sanders gone, that leaves the two establishment figures to fight it out. On one hand, Hillary Rodham Clinton, from the political establishment, who can point to the practical success of her fight to improve health cover for the poorest in America. On the other, Donald Trump, from the business establishment, a racist, sexist buffoon who likes to claim he is independent and not in thrall to the Washington elite, but who actually enjoys cosy ties with the very people he publicly lambasts.

Overnight, President Obama has described European leaders as being rattled by the possibility of a Trump election win. That’ll be music to Trump’s ears obviously. As a confirmed xenophobe, he’ll love the thought that Johnny Foreigner is worried that he might make it to the White House. Obama’s words unintentionally give Trump more gravitas than he deserves.

Speaking of deserving, does America deserve Trump?

The answer is no. He is a despot in the making and his pompous pronouncements and vague campaign platform suggests he hasn’t got a clue how he would actually do the job. But the likelihood is he would do it as badly as he has done most of his business deals. He’s not just a serial financial bankrupt, he is morally bankrupt as well.

I’m confident that Hillary Clinton will win comfortably, probably by 2-3 %. She’ll campaign to the middle class and the aspiring young workers. She’ll frame herself as a steady pair of hands in a world of uncertainty. There is good reason to think that many Republican voters will back her, or just not vote, whereas Trump will have limited cross party appeal. The Republican Party will endorse Trump through gritted teeth and it’s hard to see their more liberal activists being interested in helping a regressive bigot win.

Having said that, Trump has a couple of months to build a policy platform. I think he’ll probably try to mould himself as a modern Ronald Reagan and talk about the need to secure jobs at home, fight war abroad and be tough on crime, but soft on guns. That strategy worked for Reagan to the point where even parts of the union movement endorsed him. But Trump lacks the one card Reagan really had in his favour; the desire for change.

In 1980, the American public were well and truly over the Democrats. Defeats abroad, petrol price rises, job losses and more misery under Jimmy Carter left the Democratic Party looking tired and bereft of ideas. That’s not the case now. America likes Obama and they like his legacy. They associate Clinton with him and most will vote for continuity.

One final word. I’ve heard it suggested in some quarters that the left, having lost Sanders, should embrace Trump. Well, bollocks to that. The man is awful. The world needs leadership and understanding from the American president.

We are not going to mitigate climate change with a leader who denies it exists.

We are not going to end religious radicalism with a racist in charge and we are not going to improve the lot of the poor with a leader who despises workers and those on welfare.

The lesson of the Reagan years for the left is straightforward. The Republicans are no friend of the American people and an enemy to progress, peace and liberty worldwide. The world’s best hope for the next four years is a woman in the White House.

Hillary Rodham Clinton will make history and she might just make America great again.

 

 

 

https://tereoputake.wordpress.com/

twitter.com/tereoputake

tereoputake@gmail.com

196 comments on “Trump In, Bern Out, Hillary Home and Hosed? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Lanthanide 1
    27 May 2016 at 11:22 am

    Both calls are premature. They are only the presumptive nominee until the conventions.

    The party’s retain the right to change the rules before the convention, and even during the convention. Sanders has claimed that he is going to try and change the rules in his favour during the convention.

    • Grantoc 1.1
      27 May 2016 at 1:24 pm

      Sanders may try to, which is his right, but I’d be very surprised if he is successful in any meaningful way.

      The reasons for this are twofold:

      1. Clinton will have the larger number of delegates; including most of the super delegates who are the Democrat establishment;

      2. Sander’s people have antagonised the Democrat establishment and they are hardly likely to concede much to him. And they will be able to outvote him

    • Raff 1.2
      27 May 2016 at 10:24 pm

      Moreover Sanders consistently polls much better than Clinton in a head-to-head with Trump, with the most recent polls having Trump actually beating Clinton. And even moreover – while only a week ago Sanders was 20points behind Clinton in California polls, they are now neck and neck, while Clinton’s popularity is dipping steeply just as Sanders’ keeps on rising. And then there are those pesky emails which are causing trouble again …

      All of this must have the Dems seriously worried. If I were them I would be taking a long hard look at those “rules”.

      • Grantoc 1.2.1
        28 May 2016 at 3:59 pm

        Raff

        National head to head polls in the US are unreliable at this stage; circumstances will change between now and the build up to the presidential election. It is suggested that the variation between these current polls and the actual election outcome is as great as 10%. Moreover, after the major party conventions it will be a one on one competition between Trump and the Democrat nominee (likely to be Clinton). This will change the dynamic significantly, which will reflect in later polls.

        Re California I think you’re referring to one recent poll which does suggest that the gap between Sanders and Clinton has narrowed. However it is one poll. Nate Silver, the statistician who operates the 358 website, and who weights and analysises all polling date (in the case currently of California, upward of 10 polls), as recently as a day or so ago, had the probability of Clinton winning California at above 90%. Of course things may change between now and the primary on the 7th June.

  2. Enough is Enough 2
    27 May 2016 at 11:51 am

    Do not rule out American workers really coming in behind Trump.

    Trump is against trade deals that allow foreign “sweatshops” to steal American jobs. He backs “prevailing wages” for U.S. positions filled by foreigners with special visas. He supports universal health-care coverage and an “individual mandate.” And he says he’s the guy to rebuild America, a job that could cost hundreds of billions of tax dollars.

    He has a message that unfortunately may appeal to large constituency

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-is-the-most-liberal-republican-on-economics-since-nixon-2015-12-14

  3. Tiger Mountain 3
    27 May 2016 at 12:09 pm

    this Presidential contest is the perfect storm of what happens when public participation in political affairs is low, the corporate media bs sprayer is on full turbo boost, when candidate budgets are obscenely bloated and the Party machines are bent

    Bernie will give it a last push in California, through to the convention, what happens next is still to be written, to me a new movement that continues outside of the election cycle would be a victory “in the situation”

    the “lesser of two evils” approach is rather redundant here, the US military/corporate machine will eat either of the two candidates for breakfast just as they largely did Mr Obama

    • Dennis Merwood 3.1
      27 May 2016 at 8:40 pm

      You are 100% on the money Tiger.
      Sadly you Kiwi’s have the same challenge.
      Did I read that over a million Kiwi’s did not vote in the last election?

      Why, because people are sick of the shit status quo.
      The US Democratic Party process to pick their Presidential candidate is not democratic. A charade. How can Bernie be toast before a single Californian gets a vote? A state with a GDP bigger than most countries. It’s rubbish.
      It’s rigged. The war-monger HRC was anointed before any American citizen had a vote. Bernie did, and does not, have a chance.

      History will read that Bernie’s run under the Democratic Party was doomed from day one. The 1% , the banks, and the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex do not want him.

      Only one things for sure. Just like in New Zealand, the will of the majority of the people will be thrown under the bus by the Deep State to benefit the 1%.

      And Yes….. I’m a bitter old lefty peacenik!
      Free Chelsea Manning.
      Free Julian Assange.
      Free Edward Snowden.
      Not going to happen eh?

      • Rocco Siffredi 3.1.1
        30 May 2016 at 10:42 am

        “Did I read that over a million Kiwi’s did not vote in the last election?
        Why, because people are sick of the shit status quo.”

        Or they are comfortable enough with the status quo that they don’t see the effort to vote as being worthwhile.

    • dukeofurl 4.1
      27 May 2016 at 12:41 pm

      Ah , the networks love to portray conflict.
      Doesnt make sense for Trump to do this, unless he has a big ego that needs the bright lights

  5. Puckish Rogue 5
    27 May 2016 at 12:55 pm

    Trump vs Clinton, Key vs Little…I’d say NZs got the better deal of the candidates

  6. roy cartland 6
    27 May 2016 at 1:16 pm

    That article you cite about it being such “an disaster” if Sanders went independent bases its argument on:
    • He’s too old (ageist much)
    • He’d just do a Nader and clear the way for Don (that old myth again: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/6/1260721/-The-Nader-Myth)
    • Trump is too strong for Sanders to take any votes away (when he is preferred to Trump, here’s one: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-sanders)

    All pap.

    And trying to imply that Clinton actually represents “progress, peace and liberty worldwide” is just being disingenuous:
    https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/pink-slipping-hillary-for-the-iraq-war-the-faux-feminism-of-hillary-clinton/

    https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/want-endless-war-love-the-u-s-empire-well-clintons-your-choice/

    http://www.taxjusticeblog.org/archive/2015/04/what_we_know_about_hillary_cli.php#.V0efRdcjlA9

    https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/clinton-sanders-and-us/

    • te reo putake 6.1
      27 May 2016 at 2:34 pm

      I didn’t imply anything about Hillary Clinton. She is, however, going to be the candidate of the party that is least worst of the two available choices. She has also delivered health care to the poorest people in her country and enjoys wide support amongst voters there. I’m optimistic she will be at least as good as Obama (a pretty low bar, admittedly) and she will clearly be better than Trump. And having a woman as a president will be a step forward for the States. Having her work with a woman head of the UN would be a step forward for all of us.

      Given that it is a two horse race, if Sanders stands, Trump will win. That would be a disaster for that country. I don’t think it will happen, because Sanders does not appear to be an egotist or a sore loser. I’m hopeful he’ll settle for having an influence in a Clinton administration.

      Thanks for putting up the links, I always appreciate commenters who put time and effort into backing up their opinions. It’s good form.

      • roy cartland 6.1.1
        27 May 2016 at 2:59 pm

        ….mmmmmm ok then. If it’s more of a lesser-of-two-evils-but-still-pretty-poor scenario, I agree.

        What do you think of the argument that Trump is preferable as he’s so outrageous he’d cause a bigger backlash next time around and set a better stage for a Sanders-esque candidate? (You know, if the world is still here by then.)

      • alwyn 6.1.2
        27 May 2016 at 4:12 pm

        ” She has also delivered health care to the poorest people in her country”.
        How do you come to this conclusion?
        Her attempts at medical care reform seemed to have been a total failure, and I wouldn’t say she deserved any credit for the Obamacare improvements.

        • dukeofurl 6.1.2.1
          27 May 2016 at 5:46 pm

          They were a failure because there were too many competing proposals from other democrats for ‘Hilarycare’ to be the clear favourite.
          lessons were learned about uniting on a single plan ( much the same as Hilarys)with some flexibility years later under the Obamacare proposals which succeed in becoming law.
          Of course Clinton was a senator when Obamacare was passed and you could say she started the movement and later helped pass the legislation which led around a type of universal health insurance the US now has. Its not ideal by our standards but you have to work within their crazy political system.

          • Dennis Merwood 6.1.2.1.1
            27 May 2016 at 7:45 pm

            Dukeofurl, sadly you do not have the slightest clue about the American Healthcare system if you are of the opinion that the ACA..” led around a type of universal health insurance the US now has”.
            When was the last time you tried to buy Health Insurance in the US? When?
            I live in Seattle. I know what it’s like to have my healthcare Insurance premium go up by 57%, and my wife and I now have a US$12,500 deductible.
            I also know many of my fellow citizens who have NO health Insurance coverage. Can’t afford it.
            You Kiwi’s don’t know how good you have it!

            ”Of course Clinton was a senator when Obamacare was passed and you could say she started the movement and later helped pass the legislation which led around a type of universal health insurance the US now has”.
            Total unmitigated nonsense.

            • dukeofurl 6.1.2.1.1.1
              28 May 2016 at 1:16 pm

              I made no claims that the US system under Obamacare is affordable

          • alwyn 6.1.2.1.2
            27 May 2016 at 8:33 pm

            “Of course Clinton was a senator when Obamacare was passed”.

            I fear your knowledge of US history is very faulty.
            Obamacare, as it is often referred to, was passed in March 2010.
            Hillary Clinton resigned from the Senate on January 31, 2009.
            Good try but no banana I’m afraid. The Secretary of State, as she was then, doesn’t have a vote in Congress and can’t really be said to have “helped pass the legislation” can she?

            • te reo putake 6.1.2.1.2.1
              27 May 2016 at 8:42 pm

              My understanding is that the legislation was constructed on the foundations she built. Whether she got a vote on it isn’t the issue. That she did the legwork that led to Obamacare is far more relevant.

      • Raff 6.1.3
        27 May 2016 at 10:30 pm

        “…if Sanders stands, Trump will win”? Not according to the polls, which say with increasing certainty that Sanders would beat Trump, while Clinton may very well lose to him, just slipping behind him on points in the last few days.
        And if you think Sanders would ‘settle’ to have influence on Clinton’s administration, I think you may have somewhat misunderstood his mission. It doesn’t end with this election.

        • Colonial Viper 6.1.3.1
          28 May 2016 at 7:22 am

          the US financial and military industrial surveillance complex would never back Trump or Sanders, so out come all the pro-establishment pro-status quo loyalists pushing for Hillary.

  7. Aaron 7
    27 May 2016 at 1:54 pm

    Hilary make great America great again? You’ve got to be kidding. Like you say, she’s an establishment candidate and just look what the establishment has delivered to date: Internally the US is in a mess and externally involved in several wars and clandestine actions in other countries.

    While Trump says horrendous things the reality is that the US is already a horrendous entity and Hilary Clinton is proposing business as usual. I can’t believe this is an article on the Standard.

    • McFlock 7.1
      27 May 2016 at 2:19 pm

      lol

      “Business as usual” is still better than “even worse”.

      • Colonial Viper 7.1.1
        27 May 2016 at 2:22 pm

        Bullshit

        Business as usual is about life getting worse for the majority in the USA, let alone around the world.

        • McFlock 7.1.1.1
          27 May 2016 at 2:25 pm

          Whereas the best we can hope for from trump is that he’s lying about make life even worse for damned near everyone.

          If they stay alive

          • Colonial Viper 7.1.1.1.1
            27 May 2016 at 2:57 pm

            We seem to be recycling our comments on this. Bottom line, Clinton and her neocon mates want to go toe to toe in nuclear brinksmanship against Russia and China; Trump does not.

            • weka 7.1.1.1.1.1
              27 May 2016 at 3:19 pm

              What I don’t understand is why lefties believe that about Trump. He can whatever rhetoric he likes, but when the crunch comes do you really believe he wouldn’t misuse US foreign policy? What would Trump have done post-911?

              • marty mars …
                27 May 2016 at 3:41 pm

                I agree – willful blindness – how anyone could believe anything the man says is beyond me – he is opportunistic, he’ll do whatever, including lying and then when caught, shrugging like key to say “So what? What did you expect”.

                • Dennis Merwood …
                  27 May 2016 at 8:47 pm

                  Just like Hillary. Exactly identical modus operandi
                  She was for the TPP , before Bernie was against it.
                  A political chameleon extraordinaire.
                  Feel the Bern….its far from over.

              • Colonial Viper …
                28 May 2016 at 7:16 am

                Wow try and think historically for a moment. Without Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz in charge plus the rest of the neocon 7 countries in 7 years crowd, the US reaction post 9/11 could have been very different.

            • dukeofurl 7.1.1.1.1.2
              27 May 2016 at 5:49 pm

              Have you seen who are Trumps foreign policy ad visors and those waiting in the wings. It will be same warmongers from the Reagan and Bush years. Yes shes a defence hawk compared to Obama, but hes not as clean skin as we would like to see

              • Dennis Merwood …
                27 May 2016 at 8:51 pm

                So who are these Trump foreign policy advisors waiting in the wings?
                Where can I read about them?
                Who?
                Hillary already has Kissinger wrapped up!
                Did I miss them in The NZ Herald, Seven Sharpe(?), and on Talkback ZB?

                • dukeofurl …
                  28 May 2016 at 1:19 pm

                  “Donald Trump on Monday finally named several members of his team of foreign policy advisers in a meeting ”

                  It was on CNN, have you heard of it

            • Stuart Munro 7.1.1.1.1.3
              28 May 2016 at 2:13 am

              There are two problems with this assumption. One is that anybody knows what Trump will do if he actually gets his trotters on the football. Two is that peace with Russia will be achieved by letting Putin give free reign to his imperialist ambitions – the bugger would cheerfully destabilise Europe, which ‘might not be a good thing’.

              • Colonial Viper …
                28 May 2016 at 7:05 am

                the “Putin destabilising Russia” meme is bullshit. The west has marched NATO troops to Russia’s borders then started bitching that Russia has aggressively placed its country too provocatively close to NATO bases.

                Second, no one knows what Trump will actually do, but given the Clintons track record of destroying Yugoslavia, deregulating Wall St, imploding Libya, colour revolutioning a democratic government in Ukraine, rearming Israel as it pulverised half of Gaza, arming ISIS in “Syraq”, and supporting an Islamic terrorist regime change programme against Damascus on behalf of Tel Aviv, Riyadh and Ankara, its real easy to tell what Clinton is going to keep doing.

                • gsays …
                  28 May 2016 at 8:20 am

                  Hi CV, re Clinton’s track record: the bombing of a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory. It equated to 7x 9/11 in an impoverished country.

    • te reo putake 7.2
      27 May 2016 at 2:51 pm

      Aaron, I’m surprised at your surprise at seeing this post on TS. There are a variety of authors here whose leanings span the whole of the political spectrum. And each of us writers can carry opinions on specific issues that might conflict with how we feel about other issues. I imagine that applies to yourself as well, as it likely does for all the readers.

      My position on Clinton vs Trump is straightforward. Clinton is a better choice than her opponent.

      • Aaron 7.2.1
        28 May 2016 at 2:16 pm

        I don’t mean to imply you shouldn’t be allowed to post your views – I’m just surprised to see the mainstream take on the situation being published here. Especially when the mainstream view is dominated by US war propaganda.

    • Hennie van der Merwe 7.3
      27 May 2016 at 4:01 pm

      Hillary making America great again?

      https://scontent-syd1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13239885_1334218736589101_1039150830099178049_n.png?oh=bef5399b9f6a7a0f3cc41a20f5399bc7&oe=579A1A5A

      Sorry could not post the pic. but well worth looking at.

    • Dennis Merwood 7.4
      27 May 2016 at 7:47 pm

      Thanks Aaron. I also can’t believe it. I was under the impression that this was a progressive blog.

    • WILD KATIPO 7.5
      27 May 2016 at 9:02 pm

      Meh… Clinton Shcminton , Trump Slump , Key Pee…

      They’re all just boys and girls in the great scheme of things … and they all answer to these mugs… have a wee listen.

    • WILD KATIPO 7.6
      29 May 2016 at 12:53 am

      Isn’t there indictments coming for Hilary soon?…according to this guy there is :

  8. Colonial Viper 8
    27 May 2016 at 2:24 pm

    BTW I predict a decisive win to Trump come November.

    • grumpy 8.1
      27 May 2016 at 2:34 pm

      I think you are right CV. Trump has already announced he will rebrand the GoP as “the worker’s party”. A good number of Bernie’s supporters will switch to Trump. They are not worried about Climate Change or Identity Politics, they just want to keep their jobs!
      Clinton offers nothing.

      • dukeofurl 8.1.1
        27 May 2016 at 5:54 pm

        Why do you think she wont have focus groups and polls and will more to shore up the democratic base amoung wage earners.
        Shes already against TPA and will probably out Trump Trump in that area. You have projected your wishes on Trump because of his non political background, underneath hes still a republican billionaire, who stifs the workers in business he has made go under.
        The voters will reminded like they were with Romney, this guy is super rich and doesnt care about you

      • bg 8.1.2
        28 May 2016 at 4:07 pm

        Correction. Hillary is offering the status quo.
        I think most sane people believe the US political system is broken. Clinton has been the centre of that same broken system. The feeling I get is both sides of the political fence want things to change.
        If Bernie is a no show, then as amazing as it sounds Trump is the next cab of the rank to tell Washington to clean it’s act up. The GOP didn’t get it and they got Trump, I wonder if the Democrats are starting to get it but are blinded by Clinton’s name and money.

    • happynz 8.2
      28 May 2016 at 2:50 am

      You really think Trump can flip the Obama states in November? Trump has become so toxic to the AA community, Latinos, and women, that I can’t see Trump coming anywhere near to flipping enough blue states to make it to 270. Even Arizona and Georgia may go blue this year. There is no way, other than a massive Clinton fuck-up, that Trump will win enough electoral votes to claim the presidency.

      • Colonial Viper 8.2.1
        28 May 2016 at 7:12 am

        the numbers are well against him, for sure. Neither him nor Bernie should have survived past Super Tuesday months ago.

  9. save nz 9
    27 May 2016 at 2:31 pm

    Like many others i was hoping Sanders could make it. He should be offered a key role for the democrats and it will be sour grapes and more likely a Trump victory if they don’t.

    I personally hate Clinton as much as I hate Trump. At least Trump does his politics in a transparent way, Clinton stands for nothing but neoliberalism which is killing the planet and morality.

  10. adam 10
    27 May 2016 at 2:42 pm

    I think this post shows a poor understand of independents.

    It also jumps the gun a bit, as the election in Cali is this weekend. At that point I’m sure the set the record straight brigade will crow. But if Bernie wins by 8 points or more, my guess – it’s on.

    I’m also not sure how anyone can call themselves left and support Hillary. Her voting record alone, let alone her speaking fees and what boards she has sat on – should send shivers up anyone with a modicum of belief in the rights of workers.

    • Colonial Viper 10.1
      27 May 2016 at 2:51 pm

      Or how absurd it is to consider one self a socialist and to support Clinton (and hence the elite establishment) ahead of Bernie.

      • te reo putake 10.1.1
        27 May 2016 at 3:10 pm

        I don’t support Clinton. I prefer her over Trump. Sanders would have been great, but he never really stood a chance because Clinton is more popular in the party. That’s how democracy works.

        Being a socialist does not mean I should automatically support the “democratic socialist” Sanders. Over here, his politics would align ok with that of most Labour party members, nothing particularly revolutionary. But, as you acknowledge, you’re not left wing, so these finer points may pass you by.

        • weka 10.1.1.1
          27 May 2016 at 3:25 pm

          “Sanders would have been great, but he never really stood a chance because Clinton is more popular in the party. That’s how democracy works.”

          That’s how pretend democracy works in the US. While I think that generally political parties are entitled to choose their own rules and processes for choosing nominees or leaders, it’s pretty obvious that in the US that process is open to abuse, is being undermined actively and passively by denying people the right to vote, and that the delegate process itself is by default anti-democratic and being used in the worst way possible to deny people who aren’t rich the chance to change things ie they’re being denied representation. Pretty hard to argue that that is democracy in any real sense of the word.

          • te reo putake 10.1.1.1.1
            27 May 2016 at 3:44 pm

            I totally agree, weka. It’s a very limited democracy, not least because of the two party system. What would be best for the voters would be state funded elections with a cap on spending. That would remove a lot of the distortions.

            Having said that, the yanks vote on everything from dog catcher on up. They value their democratic traditions in a way that makes us seem like slackers.

            While I think the internal rules for the Democrats seem a little odd, they might look at our Labour Party 3 way voting structure and say the same thing. I don’t think the Democratic Party system is undemocratic or unrepresentative. All the delegates, super or not, have to be elected at some point. And I don’t think there is any doubt that Clinton enjoys more support inside the party than Sanders so it’s a result that reflects the will of the party members.

            • Dennis Merwood 10.1.1.1.1.1
              27 May 2016 at 9:00 pm

              The question then te reo uptake….
              Is the Will of the Party, to over-ride the Will of the people?
              Our founding fathers seemed to think it was about “we the people”.
              ..and The Democratic Party system IS UNDEMOCRATIC. No doubt about that.

              BTW, in Seattle, we the people voted on dog catcher, and that we did not want our taxpayer money to fund a huge new baseball Stadium. We won. They built the stadium with our $$$$ any way.

              • Colonial Viper …
                28 May 2016 at 7:36 am

                several of the Founding Fathers got filthy rich off the back of slaves working the land of genocided Indians, so…

              • Lanthanide …
                28 May 2016 at 8:36 am

                Clinton has more votes than Bernie – she is the will of the people.

            • Wayne 10.1.1.1.1.2
              28 May 2016 at 8:10 am

              On selection of candidates the US democracy is vastly more participatory than ours. There is no general franchise in NZ which allows the general public to choose the candidates for each party.

              Admittedly that means that in the US you have to say whether you are a Democrat, Republican orIndependent when you enroll. That does not bind you on your vote, but does allow you to participate in a primary.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                28 May 2016 at 8:17 am

                Whereas in New Zealand, the National Party just suspends elections and appoints crony commissioners.

    • Enough is Enough 10.2
      27 May 2016 at 2:52 pm

      I agree

      Hillary reminds me of a Judith Collins

    • Lanthanide 10.3
      27 May 2016 at 3:24 pm

      Among true independents, Sanders is favoured 35%, Clinton 34% and Trump is only favoured by 16%.

      True independents, who sit in the political centre, are the ones that (ultimately) determine which party wins the presidency.

      Doesn’t look good for Trump at all, but clearly Hillary is doing well amongst them. Once Sanders drops out, it’s highly likely HIllary will hoover up much more of his support than Trump will.

      http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/sanders-isnt-doing-well-with-true-independents/

      I expect you’ll brand me as a “set the record straight” crewmember because you reflexively reject any evidence that goes against your pre-formed viewpoint. I really wish someone *would* pay me money for simply reporting facts like these ones.

      • adam 10.3.1
        27 May 2016 at 4:24 pm

        LOL, going for the so called centrist independents, nothing about you now surprises me Lanthanide. – Just nothing at all.

        • Lanthanide 10.3.1.1
          27 May 2016 at 4:55 pm

          So no actual intelligent rebuttal of the evidence. Not surprised.

          • adam 10.3.1.1.1
            27 May 2016 at 9:13 pm

            When you go find information to back your point why bother arguing with you? Plus Lanthanide what you said was stupid. Yes their are centrist independents, but you show your ignorance by you post – there is no majority of independents. There is independents, of all political ilks.

            Or – there are independents of all persuasion, ever wondered how the new deal got through? Because the Democratic party did not do it alone, (Actually after the disaster that was Woodrow Wilson, it’s a minor miracle they could get unity at all) they needed the left independents, and some independents from the centre. These people we a interesting mix, some left over from the old popular movement, communists, socialist, African Americans, Mexicans and the Christian left, just to name some of the left independents.

            • Lanthanide 10.3.1.1.1.1
              28 May 2016 at 11:17 am

              I can only assume you didn’t actually read me comment, because the link to the “information to back your point” is already there.

              Bernie supporters, such as yourself, like to bring up ‘independents’ and saying that Bernie has more support amongst them, hence he will be better in the general election.

              538 dug deeper and discovered that a lot of people that call themselves ‘independents’ actually routinely vote for 1 party or another. Amongst these biased independents, Bernie does have a lead over Clinton.

              However among true independents – the people who actually decide the outcome of the election and who don’t consistently vote one way or another – Clinton has about as much support as Sanders, and they are both well ahead of trump.

              The article on 538 concludes that Clinton is on a path to beat Trump by about 2% in the national polls – but if she can win over the biased independents who currently favour Sanders, she should be able to increase her lead over Trump to as much as 5%.

              If it is true that there are biased independents who really will not vote for Clinton, then by choosing to not vote for her, they are in effect casting vote for Trump. Personally it seems unlikely that many Sanders supporters would truly support Trump, and once they get into the polling booth they’ll vote for Clinton.

      • Dennis Merwood 10.3.2
        27 May 2016 at 9:02 pm

        …”Once Sanders drops out, it’s highly likely HIllary will hoover up much more of his support than Trump will”….. is not a fact. You pulled that out of your arse!

        • te reo putake 10.3.2.1
          27 May 2016 at 9:16 pm

          Arse? Funny spelling for a seppo, Dennis. My bullshit detector is twitching.

          • adam 10.3.2.1.1
            27 May 2016 at 10:04 pm

            That is an auto correct spelling of ass te reo putake, so nothing to wrap you nickers in a twist over.

            [lprent: You are running up against my limits between what I’ll allow with legitimate disagreement with authors and what I won’t allow. I suggest you make a decision. And TRP, it’d be a interesting decision on provoking as well.

            Personally, I’d suggest that agreeing to dislike is sufficient. I really couldn’t give a shit on what either of you think. It reads more like a religious discussion than anything I would be interested in.

            If either of you want to continue it, then either move it to OpenMike, or convince my cynicism that it is worth reading through the droning. ]

            • te reo putake 10.3.2.1.1.1
              28 May 2016 at 9:15 am

              Cheers, Adam. And kudos to the auto-correct programmers for having a sense of humour. Seppo is (or was) used all the time in the surfing scene, which is where I picked it up.

          • Dennis Merwood 10.3.2.1.2
            27 May 2016 at 10:13 pm

            I’m sitting in my caravan I bought a few weeks ago in a Holiday Park. Along with all John Key’s homeless families in their tents!
            I’ve changed my spell checker over to “New Zealand”…just to do you Kiwi’s a favor, eeerr, favour. Thought you Kiwi’s might think an “ass” was a donkey.
            What’s a seppo?
            I take it by your name that you are an Aotearoa (spelling?) native?

    • Grantoc 10.4
      27 May 2016 at 3:32 pm

      Pretty sure the California primary is June 7th; along with New Jersey and a few minor states.

      Current analysis of polling (see 358 website) gives Clinton a 90%+ probability of winning both California and NJ – hence a strong finish by her to the primary season, if this scenario plays out.

  11. marty mars 11
    27 May 2016 at 2:49 pm

    trump is not going to change a thing – policy platform – nah, be another ronnie – nah. He will do what he has done, say what he has to say and he will smash hillary unless she goes for those tiny chimp hands of his.

    • Colonial Viper 11.1
      27 May 2016 at 2:54 pm

      His attack ad featuring the voices of women claiming that they were sexually attacked by Bill is only the start.

      • joe90 11.1.1
        27 May 2016 at 3:22 pm

        Just to get things out in the open here’s the big fat list of all the bad things HRC has done.
        //

        .

        So today I’m performing a public service on behalf of all the voters. I went back and re-read all the criticisms and attacks and best-selling “exposés” leveled at Hillary Rodham Clinton over the past quarter-century. And I’ve compiled a list of all her High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

        Here they are:

        1. When she was first lady, she murdered White House lawyer Vince Foster and then dumped his body in a park.

        2. She drove Vince Foster to commit suicide through her temper tantrums.

        3. She was having an affair with Vince Foster.

        4. She’s a lesbian.

        5. Chelsea isn’t Bill Clinton’s child.

        6. She murdered Vince Foster to cover up that she once bought a tract of undeveloped land in Arkansas and lost money.

        7. She murdered Vince Foster to cover up her role in firing the White House travel department.

        8. After she murdered Vince Foster, she ransacked his office in the middle of the night and stole all the documents proving her guilt.

        9. When Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas, she was a partner in the state’s top law firm, and it sometimes did work involving the state government.

        10. She once invested in commodities futures on the advice of a friend and made $100,000, proving she’s a crook.

        11. She once invested in real estate on the advice of another friend and lost $100,000, also proving she’s a crook.

        […]

        57. She insulted Tammy Wynette.

        58. When they left the White House, she and Bill bought a big house in New York that they couldn’t afford.

        59. She sometimes calls her staff during dinner, even when they’re out at a restaurant.

        60. She claimed there was a “vast right-wing conspiracy” against her husband, and it turned out there was nothing but a bunch of tycoons financing private investigators, and some fake think tanks and books and news sites and stuff.

        61. When she got married, she didn’t “stay at home and bake cookies.”

        62. She supported the Iraq war because she’s a secret foreign-policy conservative.

        63. She’s a secret foreign-policy radical with a plan to impose worldwide “radical social experimentation” through the World Bank.

        64. She is secretly plotting to let children sue their parents for making them take out the garbage.

        65. She looked bored during the Benghazi hearings.

        66. Oh, yeah — and she totally has a vagina.

        It’s clear: Hillary must be stopped. Hearings now!

        http://www.marketwatch.com/story/all-the-terrible-things-hillary-clinton-has-done-in-one-big-list-2016-02-04?mod=mw_share_facebook

        • alwyn 11.1.1.1
          27 May 2016 at 4:21 pm

          I read all this and it was a case of uttering, to the alternate statements, “so what” or “who cares”.

          Then I came to number 57
          “She insulted Tammy Wynette”.
          Surely not? That has to be classed as High Treason. Insulting that truly great artist who told us to “Stand by your man”.
          We should reopen Alcatraz and send Hillary there to serve her life sentence.

        • Colonial Viper 11.1.1.2
          27 May 2016 at 4:31 pm

          Oh look, the pro Wall St marketwatch.com website favours Hillary the bankster shill ahead of Trump the anti-establishment candidate.

          Surprise.

          BTW Hillary knows if Benghazi was a routing point for weapons from Libya to islamic terrorists supported by thE US in Syria

          • joe90 11.1.1.2.1
            27 May 2016 at 4:44 pm

            Trump the anti-establishment candidate.

            A man who’s spent his entire life hobnobbing with the top end of town and the political elites getting what he wants by writing cheques to office holders no matter their stripe is part of the establishment.

      • marty mars 11.1.2
        27 May 2016 at 3:23 pm

        trump has no shame/morals, sure hillary doesn’t either but trump is dirtier and as hillary tries to out dirty him she will find his dirty is much dirtier than anything dirty she or her team can dig up. The ONLY thing she can do is pick on those hands and get him to lose his cool constantly – and that is a real long shot imo.

        • Colonial Viper 11.1.2.1
          27 May 2016 at 8:23 pm

          Hillary has the NSA and deep state on her side. If it becomes perfectly necessary her office will receive a Fed Ex package full of everything she needs to know about Trump.

        • Dennis Merwood 11.1.2.2
          27 May 2016 at 9:06 pm

          Sorry marty… Trump does not have the blood on his hands of millions killed in Hillary’s State Department Regime Change wars…….in my book, that makes her much dirtier. Sorry.

  12. seeker 12
    27 May 2016 at 3:22 pm

    TE REO PUTAKE

    “most entertaining election in a generation”

    Entertaining is the last word I’d use, more like ‘terrifying.’
    Thankyou for posting though.

    • te reo putake 12.1
      27 May 2016 at 4:36 pm

      Cheers! In hindsight, I have to agree with you, though I also like Ricky Gervais’s way of seeing Trump’s campaign like a TV reality show:

      “It’s like in Big Brother, when you want the villain to be punished but you don’t want him to leave”.

  13. Ad 13
    27 May 2016 at 4:18 pm

    It’s good to see reality sink in across the commenters here. Slowly. After many many months.

    Today, Sanders confirmed by Twitter that he accepts the challenge from Donald Trump to a debate, before the June 7 California Primary. Won’t do his credibility any good, or gain him any votes. His poor judgement again.

    I would agree that saving Hillary is not Bernie’s problem. But saving the Democratic Party is. His electrification of young and Democrat-marginal voters has been outstanding political leadership, but it will be a democratic crime if he doesn’t show that extra ounce of leadership by directing them into a further grouping that is positive for the progressive cause. A progressive Tea Party if you will. Or even a decent SuperPac would be good. Otherwise there’s a good risk of Chicago Convention 1968.

    But he’s well overdue to stop campaigning. He’s won less than 43% in a two-person race. So he will not get 51% of the delegates.

    He’s down by 13 points, 3 million votes, five contests, and about 300 delegates.

    His opponent has won more primaries than he has.

    And regrettably, the United States has never awarded the presidency by ability to draw a crowd. Just ask Sarah Palin, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, and George McGovern.

    Time to protect your movement, Bernie, by standing down.

    • Colonial Viper 13.1
      27 May 2016 at 4:25 pm

      Except the (anti) Democratic Banksters Party isn’t worth saving.

    • alwyn 13.2
      27 May 2016 at 4:28 pm

      “Just ask Sarah Palin, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, and George McGovern. ”
      Just reading that list of poseurs who never made it, and in Palin’s case never even got to try, has helped renew a little of my faith in the American people.
      They will never be foolish enough to elect Trump.
      Please. Please let my faith in their common sense be rewarded. “Dump the Trump”

      • lprent 13.2.1
        27 May 2016 at 7:07 pm

        One should never overestimate the way that the ‘democracy’ of the American voting system works on filtering out the dickheads. After all we all remember the rationales used by George W Bush to pursue the second Gulf war and the obvious benefits we have realised from it worldwide.

    • adam 13.3
      27 May 2016 at 4:34 pm

      Wow Ad – now nothing surprises me. Just a whole lot of pig swill served up as common sense.

      I like the idea you recommend a SuperPac for Bernie – shows you how much you actually took an interest in what he said.

      So I’ll assume everything else you wrote is a spin from the MSM as well. Who by the way have funded the Clinton campaign.

      Ah the world of defeatist and no hopes, the killers of dreams and the old telling the young what to think and do “no point having aspirations they will only make you bitter” – is this your world Ad?

      • Ad 13.3.1
        27 May 2016 at 5:00 pm

        All I want is something just slightly better.
        After being in the activist left for 30 years,
        It’s best to keep your horizon really, really low.
        Hope only wakes up for the wise when it’s likely.

        If you really want citations for the points, I can generate them.

        Unfortunately it won’t be this evening as we have just won one of the largest contracts in the southern hemisphere in my field and we are going to go out and get trashed.

        • lprent 13.3.1.1
          27 May 2016 at 6:59 pm

          Oh dear. Taxis I hope.

          • Ad 13.3.1.1.1
            27 May 2016 at 7:16 pm

            All good I have a Muslim colleague who’ll take me home.

            • lprent 13.3.1.1.1.1
              27 May 2016 at 7:27 pm

              Ah yes. The really really good feature of a strict devotee of Islam, Sikhs, and Jainists is how good their driving is when you go out to be trashed. You really can’t rely on those damn Christians, Buddhist, Hindus, Wiccans, Communists, and Shintoists (especially the latter).

              Of course my religion is agnostic and to use taxis. I tend to find all religions tend to relax at the most inopportune times – usually when I already have enough impaired judgement that I can’t detect theirs 😈

              That is why I consider taxis to be divine.

        • adam 13.3.1.2
          27 May 2016 at 9:23 pm

          Why don’t you just admit you have just given up there Ad?

          And what is worse, you are so smug with it. Condescending, bitter, no way to embrace good, a heart bereft?

        • Jenny 13.3.1.3
          28 May 2016 at 10:24 am

          “After being in the activist left for 30 years,
          It’s best to keep your horizon really, really low.”
          Ad

          I wonder what kind of left activist that would be?

          Another of a long line of so called left activists who tell us, political activism doesn’t work?

          I have been a political activist for longer than Ad. And have never known anything but success. Starting with protesting the Vietnam War. New Zealand reportedly had the highest number of protesters per head of population against that war of any nation including the US.

          Actions included blocking the tracks of the trains taking compulsory military training conscripts to the Papakura military camp. Which saw compulsory military training scrapped when the conscripts sided with the anti-war activists. Many rightly feared that compulsory military training was a precursor to full conscription for the war.

          Compare this to Australia where under US pressure, and with a less powerful protest movement, compulsory military training was upgraded to full conscription for those selected in the ballot.

          http://vietnam-war.commemoration.gov.au/conscription/

          Not to mention the invasion and symbolic protest occupations of US warships, here ostensibly for R&R, but really here to whip up NZ support for the War. The activists drove them out of the main ports and the last ever Vietnam era warship visit was to Whangarei, I well remember the long drive to Whangarei where we took over the deck of that warship as well.

          Not to mention the huge Agnew Demonstrations, which were something to behold, and which before the age of the internet took us weeks of preparation to build into a mass movement of many thousands. (Contrary to traditional Herald under-reporting)

          http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/anti-vietnam-war-protestors-greet-us-vice-president-spiro-agnew

          All and all a win for the activists and a defeat for the government and the warmongers. Time has long proven that we were on the right side of History.

          I participated in the Maori Land march all the way from Te Hapua to Wellington under the banner of Te Matakiti Te Aotearoa with the political demand of “Not One More Acre” to stop the continuing alienation of Maori land under the Public Works Act and other unjust methods. Ironically I remember marching beside Witi McMath an ex Vietnam War Veteran and the Land March Captain as he took the racist abuse of NZ soldiers in uniform who buzzed the march in jeeps who called him a commie and a gook.



          The Maori Land March achieved the setting up of the Waitangi Tribunal with the power to investigate and rule on all current acts of Maori Land confiscation.

          I participated in the Bastion Pt. Land occupation with Joe Hawk, initially set up just to stop the subdivision of this piece of Ngati Whatua land by the Muldoon government but actually eventually achieved the return of the whole lot to Ngati Whatua ownership, under a ruling from the Waitangi Tribunal in its first ever investigation of a past historical grievance. A widening of the Tribunal’s Powers that had been achieved by the actions of the activists.

          And another win.

          I could go on, anti nuclear, anti apartheid, Raglan, the movement to overturn market rents for state house tenants. And lots of other smaller actions.

          So never believe People claiming to be “Left” who say, “It’s best to keep your horizon really, really low.”

          All Power to Bernie Sanders and the millions of American citizens who have rallied to his cause.

          • marty mars 13.3.1.3.1
            28 May 2016 at 10:44 am

            +1 good comment. The activist left reshuffles as some go and some arrive. The fight for equality continues and ever will. Give up? Sure when death-day occurs, plenty of time for rest then.

    • Dennis Merwood 13.4
      27 May 2016 at 7:05 pm

      …”He’s won less than 43% in a two-person race. So he will not get 51% of the delegates.

      He’s down by 13 points, 3 million votes, five contests, and about 300 delegates.

      His opponent has won more primaries than he has”.

      If only you knew the truth Ad.
      The corrupt Democratic National Committee, and the Democratic Party rigged the system before one Primary was held…by giving the “Queen of Chaos” 400+ super delegates who don’t need to take any notice of any democratic vote count. Totally corrupt. Bernie, and the American people are being screwed. Without intercourse.
      The American people are waking up to this. The war-mongering, Wall Street sock puppet, pseudo left, slimey politician, is in for a rude shock.
      See my post below.

      • Ad 13.4.1
        27 May 2016 at 7:20 pm

        Let me take you through the full Elizabeth Kubler-Ross cycle of grief.
        First, denial. Which is where you and Uncle Bernie are.

        Then, bargaiNing. For which he has to be an actual player.

        Then, weeping. You’ll get there.

        Then, ah …… just look it up.

        You’ll get to acceptance once you have to keep pleading with Trump”s piggy little eyes.

        My round see ya.

      • Lanthanide 13.4.2
        27 May 2016 at 8:18 pm

        Hey Dennis, you know those super-delegates you decry so much, are Bernies *only* chance of winning the nomination, right?

        If they weren’t there, then Clinton would win.

        But as it stands, she won’t be able to get 50% of all delegates onto her side before the convention, opening a very tiny crack of a window for the superdelegates to back Bernie instead, giving him the nomination.

        Even though, of course, he’s won fewer votes than Hillary, fewer states and fewer delegates.

        • Dennis Merwood 13.4.2.1
          27 May 2016 at 9:17 pm

          Sadly Lanthanide, you have little knowledge of why “he’s won fewer votes than Hillary, fewer states and fewer delegates”.
          The system is rigged. Each state has it’s own arcane methods, mostly rigged against a challenger. In the states with open primaries, and no voter suppression, Bernie killed the ‘Queen of Chaos” every time. The clusterfuck in Nevada was a blatant demonstration of rigging the system for HRC. On television for everybody to see.
          You are right, the bought and paid for so-called ‘Super delegates” are going to have their nuts in a vice at the convention. Hold onto your hats folks. It’s going to be nasty!

          • Lanthanide 13.4.2.1.1
            28 May 2016 at 11:10 am

            Actually, I have quite a lot of knowledge. You shouldn’t assert things about other people who you don’t know anything about.

            This article on 538 shows that in the closed caucus states that Bernie won by large margins: 46 points in Washington and 14 points in Nebraska. Both states have now held ‘beauty-contest’ mail-in open primaries, where Clinton is ahead by 6 points and 7 points respectively.

            The kicker: in the Washington caucus there were only 230,000 participants, but in the Washington mail-in primary there have been over 700,000 votes.

            So when more people vote in the more democratic ‘vote-and-you’re-done’ primary, rather than the caucus systems that require hours of dedication and personal attendance (something that favours well-to-do Sanders supporters and penalises poorer Clinton supporters), Clinton comes out ahead.

            538 have done modelling that suggests that if all of the caucus states had instead held primaries, that instead of Clinton winning only 5 out of 16, she would have won 10 out of 16.

            So, if anything, the ‘system is rigged’ against Hillary.

            http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-system-isnt-rigged-against-sanders/

      • dukeofurl 13.4.3
        27 May 2016 at 9:56 pm

        Clinton 13.1 mill votes so far Sanders 10.1 mill votes so far. It is what it is.

        Super delegates are used by labour party here too, thats how Little won. Is that corrupt ?

    • lprent 13.5
      27 May 2016 at 7:19 pm

      I’d have to say that the best thing about a Trump-Hillary race is that Trump makes every other candidate (apart from Cruz) look way way better.

      But that it really highlights how broken the american “democracy” is.

    • Jenny 13.6
      28 May 2016 at 8:41 am

      Trump first challenged Clinton to a debate and she turned him down. Trump, as he so often does, impetuously extended the invitation to Sanders in tweet. Sanders accepted.

      Sanders will make mincemeat of Trump.

      The Trump Sanders debate may never come off as Trump has yet to confirm.

      It is not unlikely that Trump will cancel out.

      • Colonial Viper 13.6.1
        28 May 2016 at 8:50 am

        this will be very interesting to watch. the first question is: are the staff on both sides having serious discussions with each other on venue and format.

      • Colonial Viper 13.6.2
        28 May 2016 at 8:52 am

        before the Ca. primary would be awesome for Sanders and would kill the Clinton campaign there.

      • gsays 13.6.3
        28 May 2016 at 1:09 pm

        hi jenny,
        well done re your activism above.

        i heard on the radio this morn that trump has backed out of a debate with sanders.
        as opposed to ad’s assertion that sanders had made an unwise decision in accepting the offer to debate.
        my gut tells me sanders would have wiped the floor with trump.

        • Jenny 13.6.3.1
          29 May 2016 at 8:37 am

          “my gut tells me sanders would have wiped the floor with trump.”
          gsays

          Your gut would have been on the money, gsays. Clinton on the other hand wisely backed down from Trump’s challenge to debate with him.

          Unfortunately Clinton will not have the luxury of avoiding debate with Trump if she becomes the nominee.

          A beltway politician used to delivering carefully prepared speeches, and responding to patsy questions.
          Clinton who uses speech notes, can be easily silenced or knocked out of her train of thought by Trump, who never uses speech notes, (or even facts), who is the master of the ad lib. and the sound bite.
          Will Clinton be able to respond to Trumps shoot from the hip style of debate?

          How will Clinton respond to Trump’s goading of his opponents with outrageous personal comments?

          No good finding a measured response the next day.

          It’s the first response that matters.

          Clinton’s strategy, is her hope that she is perceived as the lesser of two evils.
          Fortunately; this is a passive strategy where she won’t have to do or say much, or promise much.
          Unfortunately; this is a strategy that can’t account for the many variables and changing moods in the US electorate, or the unknowable twists and turns and vicissitudes that may be thrown up on the election trail.

          Bernie Sanders is the only candidate who can really match Trump in debate, easily able to puncture Trump’s arrogant complacency, sure of his ground and unlikely to get ruffled by Trump’s outrageous ad lib comments and insults, and still get straight to the point. With a clear program diametrically opposed to Trump’s. It is the match up that America wants to see, and deserves to get.

          What they will likely get instead will be a circus, and we all know who looks most like the ring master, all he needs is the top hat.

          Go Bernie, don’t stand down. Give it all you’ve got!

          • Jenny 13.6.3.1.1
            30 May 2016 at 3:13 am

            ‘

            “Let’s do it in the biggest stadium possible”

            According to Common Dreams Trump has agreed to debate with Sanders if the money raised from ticket sales goes to charity and the amount is not less than $10 million dollars.

            Sanders whose campaign has been backed by mostly small donors was not intimidated by this huge amount of money and responded by saying, “Let’s do it in the biggest stadium possible”.

            Donald Trump has doubled down on his challenge to debate Bernie Sanders, telling reporters in Bismarck, North Dakota on Thursday that he would agree to a one-on-one with the Vermont senator for “something over $10 million.”

            “If we can raise for maybe women’s health issues or something, if we can raise $10 or $15 million for charity,” he said. “We have had a couple of calls from the networks already and we’ll see.”

            http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/05/26/sanders-trump-lets-debate-biggest-stadium-possible

            (Hilarly Clinton having previously declined Trump’s challenge to a debate)

  14. DS 14
    27 May 2016 at 4:23 pm

    What makes life difficult for Trump is the existence of the Democratic Blue Wall. In the last six elections (so 24 years), states who have only voted Democratic total 242 Electoral Votes. You only need 270 to win – essentially a Republican has to basically win all the swing states.

    What exactly is Trump’s route to victory? Let’s give him Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and Iowa in addition to the Romney 2012 states… Clinton still wins. Trump’s hostility to minorities screws him in Florida, and well-educated, rich, northern Virginia is the least Trumpish place imaginable. Michigan is one of those Blue Wall states – and the Republican brand is in the toilet there, courtesy of the toxic water scandal. And all this is before considering Clinton making a play for North Carolina and Indiana (which voted for Obama in 2008), Georgia and Arizona (demographics), and Arkansas (Bill’s old stomping ground).

    In short: Hillary Clinton will be the next US President.

    • dukeofurl 14.1
      27 May 2016 at 5:57 pm

      Thank you DS for knocking the stars out of some peoples eyes.

      • Colonial Viper 14.1.1
        27 May 2016 at 8:19 pm

        this is only the start. The continuation of a powerful momentum from Occupy and before.

        • dukeofurl 14.1.1.1
          27 May 2016 at 9:59 pm

          Who remembers Occupy, who will remember Sanders in 1 month. The senate will be full of ‘only if’ candidates for President, and hes just another.

          • Dennis Merwood 14.1.1.1.1
            27 May 2016 at 11:25 pm

            Come on dukeofurl…. a shit pot of American’s remember Occupy.
            Where do you think this whole 1% vs 99% meme came from?
            You think that American’s that saw on their nightly news these peaceful rallies brutally broken up by the thug New York cops have forgotten about this?
            You think that me, a retiree who lost 40% of my hard earned retirement savings in 2008, is going to forget being screwed by Merrill Lynch?
            What about all the poor families that lost their homes in Nevada to the corrupt bank lenders?
            Or the GE workers who lost their jobs when their factories were shipped to Vietnam?
            Or the too-big-too-fail banks who borrow $$$ at 0% from the Feds, and lend it out at 5%, and pay me 0.0025% on my savings?
            And charge poor broke families 20%on their credit cards?
            You think that millions of African Americans will forget the shameful behavior of the armed to the teeth cops at Ferguson are going to forget this?
            Or that they see on the nightly business reports that Apple, Google, and GE pay no tax, and have billions in off shore accounts?
            Or that the Aussies are going to spend $50billion(!) on submarines, and cut the workers healthcare benefits?
            Or the Panama Papers reporting Tax havens for the rich in the Cayman Islands and in New Zealand?
            Or the CEO of Fonterra being paid $4.6million per year, while cow farmers can’t pay their bills?
            The revolution is starting my man. Better get on the train.
            Feel the Bern.

            • dukeofurl 14.1.1.1.1.1
              28 May 2016 at 1:25 pm

              Where are the very left wing congress members being elected by these ‘hard done by’ voters ?

              A handful if that. Im not saying you dont have a point just that the US isnt moving noticebly left since then.
              the opposite seems true from the other side of the pacific.
              The Us senate lost a whole sawg of newly elected democrats last time, giving the republicans control along with the house.
              Does that sound like the ‘occupy’ has had a lasting effect.

          • Colonial Viper 14.1.1.1.2
            28 May 2016 at 12:48 am

            Thorndon Bubble types pretend to care during election cycles and forget immediately after, that is true.

    • Jenny 14.2
      30 May 2016 at 3:22 am

      “In short: Hillary Clinton will be the next US President.”
      DS

      DS I wonder if Clinton will even be the Democratic nominee, if the Trump vs. Sanders debate comes off?

      http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/05/26/sanders-trump-lets-debate-biggest-stadium-possible

      What’s your take on this DS?

      • DS 14.2.1
        30 May 2016 at 5:42 pm

        Clinton could lose California in a landslide and still end up as nominee. The Democrats operate proportional allocation of delegates – so Bernie getting 66% won’t do him any good, since he is that far behind.

  15. Dennis Merwood 15
    27 May 2016 at 5:54 pm

    Te Reo Putakare, I am an American citizen enjoying an extended vacation in your beautiful, albeit atrociously governed, country.
    I cannot believe that I am reading such sycophantic support on a progressive blog for the war-mongering, Wall Street sock puppet, “Queen of Chaos”, Hillary Rodham Clinton, to be the next President of my country.
    Her atrocious record as First lady, Senator, and Secretary of State is disqualifying.
    I am a huge “lefty” and voted for Obama twice. More fool me. He has not done ANY of the things I wanted him to do. He has been Bush II. And the status quo candidate, Hillary Clinton will be Bush III on steroids.
    ….”She has also delivered health care to the poorest people in her country”. What total rubbish. If you are referring to the ACA, first of all she had very little to do with it. Secondly, it has been a disaster for poor Americans. This 3,000 page atrocity, written by Insurance Company lobbyists, has left poor Americans with no improved access to “healthcare”, with bloated Insurance Premiums, and bankrupting deductibles. A disaster. Believe me, I live in the United States.
    …..(she) enjoys wide support amongst voters there”. More total rubbish. She is utterly despised across the political spectrum. Polls are showing her with the most unfavorable ratings of any politician in history. I don’t know how you can make this claim.
    …”I’m optimistic she will be at least as good as Obama”. You are probably right here. She will probably start more foreign wars, and demand more Regime changes, than Obama. He’s been good at that.
    …..”And having a woman as a president will be a step forward”. I can’t believe I am reading that from an educated person! WTF does having a vagina have to do with it? Was Maggy Thatcher better for the English people because she was a women? I don’t think so.
    ….”Having her work with a woman head of the UN would be a step forward for all of us.” Helen Clarkes appointment is not pre-ordained. Neither is Hillary’s. And this statement is based on what, pray tell?
    ….”if Sanders stands, Trump will win.” Rubbish. Sanders polls excellently against Trump. Clinton polls poorly against Trump. You are just pulling this out of your behind!
    ….. I’m hopeful he’ll settle for having an influence in a Clinton administration.” No. No. No. Millions of progressive Americans will not settle for this. We don’t want Bernie to end up as a door greeter at the White House. Like the insipid Uncle Joe.
    We have six-months to get behind Bernie’s revolution, and vote for a real progressive candidate. Not the least worst of two terrible candidates. He desperately needs to dump the corrupt DNC, and Democratic Party, and run as an independent. And we don’t need your advice. You concentrate on getting rid of your “Donald Trump. Thank you very much.
    This progressive voter will vote for the non-imperialist Donald Trump if Hillary Rodham Clinton is the Democratic Party candidate.

    [lprent: re your email. Looks like some other mod has lower standards than I do. I would have classed that as a focus driven rant from a astroturfer concern troll.

    I also forgot to mention that mods are human. They enjoy a beer on friday nights. If you need human attention on this site from mods, then you have to wait for it. ]

    • Ad 15.1
      27 May 2016 at 7:23 pm

      Jesus inhale man, and hold it, it’s ok.
      Exhale, learn to lose gracefully.

      Losing is a big part of being Left.

      • Dennis Merwood 15.1.1
        27 May 2016 at 7:30 pm

        Ad, I’m sorry that the facts don’t mean anything to you.
        Trust me, If the Queen of Chaos becomes the president of the United States.
        You Kiwi Hillary sycophants are in for a rude comeuppance.

      • Jenny 15.1.2
        30 May 2016 at 3:33 am

        “Losing is a big part of being Left.”
        Ad

        Ad gives us his accepted wisdom. Ha ha ha.

        Speaking personally just the opposite is my experience of being Left. (See above).

        http://thestandard.org.nz/trump-in-bern-out-hillary-home-and-hosed/#comment-1180060

        Victory, after victory, after victory, after victory.

        To which list I forgot to add my recent participation in the victory against the starting of a new coal field open cast mine development at Mangatangi South of Auckland.

    • te reo putake 15.2
      27 May 2016 at 7:41 pm

      Cheers, duder. I respect the position you’re in. I respect the position Bernie Sanders is in. If he stands as an independent, he will come third, just as Nader and Perot did. He will also confirm the candidate furthest from his own political beliefs as President, just as Nader and Perot did.

      So, is Bernie Sanders an egotist? Is he willing to chauffeur Donald Trump to the White House out of spite? I say no. Sanders seems to have both brains and ticker. So he’ll stand aside for the greater good. That’s what a socialist would do, if the numbers didn’t stack up. Worked for Lenin. Will work for Bernie. too.

      So, here’s the real question. Would you vote for Sanders knowing you’re really endorsing Trump?

      • Dennis Merwood 15.2.1
        27 May 2016 at 8:06 pm

        Evening Te reo putake…sorry I spent your name wrong.

        Firstly, you need to understand that the “Nadar gave us W” meme is just bunk.” Al Gore ran a terrible campaign; not even winning his home state. And the SCOTUS gave W Florida. Total corruption at the highest level.

        Secondly, there is no way I can have it on my conscience to vote for the serial war-monger Hillary Clinton. I don’t want to see the young kids in my Seattle neighborhood being sent off to imperial wars for the 1%, and the Anglo/Zionists.

        Totally done with that.

        I’m in a quandary. I sadly agree with 40% of what the arsehole Trump says. Especially on Foreign Policy. Not that he will have a chance in hell to convince the bought and paid for Congress to change America’s role as the greatest terrorist Nation in the World.
        I also like that he is anti TPP, and wants to enact sane trade policies so that Americans can actually make things in Americas again. My guess is that his domestic policies are just to be more of the same old shit…..screw the middle class. It’s been going on since Reagan. ( and Roger Douglas,eh?)

        If Hillary is my choice, I guess I will vote for Jill Stein. There are plenty of commentators in the US who proffer that voting is a waste of ones time in any case. ( See George Carlins great sketch on YouTube. hahah)
        It’s the shits.

        Thanks for hearing me out.
        Dennis

        • lprent 15.2.1.1
          27 May 2016 at 8:09 pm

          Not voting or voting or an independent is a great American tradition.

          As far as I can see it favours the more extreme nutters and actors like Trump or Reagan.

          I have to say that it doesn’t seem to work out as a strategy?

          • adam 15.2.1.1.1
            27 May 2016 at 9:42 pm

            Where has voting for the establishment candidate ever helped working people in the USA history? Never, is the short answer.

            The voting or not voting or an independent vote meant the New Deal was viable.

            Also New Deal was not establishment politics – but an alliance between left independents and the Democratic party. And that is the only strategy that works.The Square deal was the same, an alliance of progressives and populists.

            But I suppose you vote for what you deserve.

            I’d vote Jill Stein, as she is the only sane one amongst them.

            • lprent 15.2.1.1.1.1
              27 May 2016 at 11:30 pm

              When was the last time a ‘independent’ candidate ever won in the US presidential elections?

              It may make your moral centre feel like it’d had it pleasure centres touched by the right type of electric charge. However when the current is off your wirehead fantasy, this is just another US ‘election’. Votes for non-establishment candidates are only useful for making sure the worst candidate (for your perspective) will win.

              • adam …
                28 May 2016 at 1:28 am

                That’s not how it works, like I said, alliances work. Just putting up candidates and demanding people vote for them does not work. Long history of people just not voting when that the case. Which is what I’m suspecting will happen to the democrats. They need to build bridges, they had a chance with the Greens and others to pull in the socialists and other left independents, they have not done so, so my guess – they will lose.

                This is not like our elections at all. Most people don’t vote when they don’t like the party candidate or how they preforming – for example the last election, huge parts of the Democratic voter base, just did not turn up. My guess damage done with Hilary and the DOC with their behaviour towards left voters, and the young in the USA.

                The last great independent victory, the Tea party. Admittedly not how we see independents, but an independent victory all the same. Back to the alliance argument. Yes it’s a two party system, but the game is be good to your base, or lose.

                And degree, how much worse is Donald than Hilary? Seriously, you may think he is bad, but a good part – about 35% of the democratic base think she is as bad, if not worse. Maybe my math is bad, but that is a lot of democrats, who will just not vote.

          • Dennis Merwood 15.2.1.1.2
            27 May 2016 at 10:17 pm

            Oh boy…..I hope this blog is not read by too many American’s.
            Saint Ronnie was a nutter….. phew!
            Your little old blog site would be crashed in hours.

            [lprent: Unlikely. It handles surprising loads because it is run by a computer programmer. ]

        • te reo putake 15.2.1.2
          27 May 2016 at 8:25 pm

          No worries, Dennis. You’re living it, the rest of it are just looking on trying to make sense of it. I count numbers for a living, so I disagree with your position on Ralph Nader. Nader cost Gore the election, even if it wasn’t as emphatic a result as Ross Perot’s intervention caused. Sanders will cost Clinton this election, in the unlikely event he runs. No escaping that, I’m afraid. If I was advising him, I’d be saying cut a deal before the California vote.

          The problem is your vote is designed for a binary result. The addition of a third candidate merely skews the result.

          Just as an aside, I propose a moratorium on male candidates standing for any election, anywhere. Lets have a decade where only women can be chosen for leadership roles in politics and business. Lets give it a crack and see where it leads, shall we?

          • Dennis Merwood 15.2.1.2.1
            27 May 2016 at 9:39 pm

            Man, my old wrinkled senior citizen fingers are getting worn to a nub (?) here tonite debating with you Kiwi’s! LOL

            You are flat out wrong on your understanding of the Nader/W fiasco. Its been proven by numerous political science experts in the US that its invalid that Nader’s votes cost Al Gore the election. Tomorrow I will try to find you the links. Help you with your number counting skills. Sorry, I’m not up to speed with the Ross “Giant Sucking Sound” Perot. LOL. Other than he was dead right on NAFTA.

            Your arguing against the run of a third party candidate to break the two-party duopoly in the US is strange to me. Isn’t that what your MMP was about? Allowing other parties to participate in the parliamentary system. Kiwi’s tell me that’s good. Winston Peters likes it.

            I’m holding out that Bernie can dump the corrupt neo-liberal Democrat Party cabal, and put together a run as an independent. For my kids and grandkids sake. You gotta’ have hope.

            I always counter the vagina’s in power argument by pointing out Samatha Powell, the current US ambassador to the UN. She was a senior adviser to Senator Barack Obama until March 2008, when she resigned from his presidential campaign after apologizing for referring to then-Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as “a monster”. She is now a key figure in the Obama administration and persuaded the US to intervene militarily in Libya.
            That is: a certified war-monger. So not all women are for all sweetness and light. And then there was Margaret Thatcher…..Off to bed now!

            • Colonial Viper 15.2.1.2.1.1
              28 May 2016 at 7:26 am

              its not that strange, in NZ certain people are also well pissed off that these pretender third parties would try and usurp the pre-eminence of the Labour Party and the National Party.

      • Olwyn 15.2.2
        27 May 2016 at 8:45 pm

        So, is Bernie Sanders an egotist? Is he willing to chauffeur Donald Trump to the White House out of spite?

        I read Sanders and the movement supporting him so differently than you that the above sentence almost lacks meaning to me. As I read him, his central aim is to create a grass roots movement strong enough to have real political influence. He is not merely another presidential candidate making a bid from the left, and ready to start horse-trading once his prospects look less than promising. He will do whatever he thinks has the best chance of furthering the aims of the movement, which means not making things easy for Hillary while there’s a chance, however slight, to press on. And I would not vote for Hillary if I were American, because I think that a person who publicly giggles about the death of an opponent, whose body was subsequently defiled, is not fit for public office in a democracy.

      • Jenny 15.2.3
        28 May 2016 at 3:09 am

        Sanders is not finished.

        Sanders will not stand aside as Clinton supporters want.

        He has pledged to make a fight of it at the Democratic Conference, where the final decision will be made, and he has the constitutional and moral right to do so.

        http://thestandard.org.nz/love-trump/#comment-1177342

        “We must also give our convention more flexibility to respond to changing circumstances and, in cases where the voters’ mandate is less than clear, to make a reasoned choice.” Governor Jim Hunt, Chairman of the Hunt Commission, December 15, 1981

        If there was ever a case where the voters mandate was less than clear then this is it. Proven by the millions of small donations given by grass roots Democratic Party voters to the Sanders Campaign.

        If Bernie Sanders loses the Democratic Nomination at the convention, he will not stand as an independent. For Clinton supporters to keep raising this, and demand that he stand down is a red herring and a smear, one which was first proposed by Trump.

        http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/277676-jane-sanders-bernie-will-not-be-running-as-an-independent

  16. Dennis Merwood 16
    27 May 2016 at 6:46 pm

    …And, we Americans want the same Universal socialized healthcare as the marvelous system you lucky Kiwi’s have…and that your National Government is trying to destroy.
    If I hear one more Kiwi proudly telling me about he now has private Health Insurance, I will surely scream! You are setting yourself up to get a royal screwing! The US spends about 17% of its GDP on healthcare. You guys, less than 10%. And with better outcomes than the exceptional nation.
    These parasitic healthcare Insurance companies will take 20cents of your premium dollars for gold plated faucets in the CEO rest room…and contribute not a goddam thing to providing you “healthcare”. Wake up Kiwi’s!

    [lprent: Now that sounded like a human… Congratulations 😈

    see the about and the policy. ]

    • dukeofurl 16.1
      27 May 2016 at 10:10 pm

      The private insurance available here only covers non acute care, and specifically excludes situations where you can be treated publicly. That is if you are put on a waiting list here , that is ‘possible’ to be covered by private hospital. many of those treatments are now excluded as well.
      Indeed most private hospitals will send their patients to the nearest public hospital at the first sign of complications.

    • Raff 16.2
      27 May 2016 at 10:51 pm

      YES Mr Merwood; more sense. Thanks for this thread, pulling us all into a more informed space. I too am extremely puzzled at the number of ? what shall I call them – right of centre? – commenters on this site. Unbelieveable.

    • Stuart Munro 16.3
      28 May 2016 at 2:24 am

      We should be copying Taiwan, not the US on health. 0.5% of GDP on health & first world outcomes. Mixed model – but not sweetheart private sector corruption like everything the Gnats do.

  17. Infused 17
    27 May 2016 at 7:06 pm

    Trump had this a months ago.

  18. RedBaronCV 18
    27 May 2016 at 9:23 pm

    At the moment it is extremely unlikely either Bernie or Hillary will get the necessary pledged delegates to arrive at the convention with a majority ( either would need to win the all the remaining states by 60% plus). This means the super delegates will decide and they can switch right up to the last minute.

    A decent win by Bernie in California may mean they have to think hard. Despite the numbers above Bernie will have won the bulk of the states in the lead up to the convention, he has handily won most of the states (apart from NY which has very restrictive primary rules) which actually vote for the democrats in the Presidential election, and he attracts a share of the blue collar vote , where a very small shift in the presidential election would bring to the democrats states they haven’t won in years. He is popular among the independent voters. He is also endorsing some senate/ house candidates.

    So , it depends on how future focused the democrat super delegates are. Most of Saunders supporters are on the young side so if the Democrats move towards them now they are likely to stay with the party.
    Personally I think the party should move to the voters not expect the voters to move back to Hillary.
    I also see rumours that some of the DNC are thinking of throwing the chair Debbie W-S under the bus – someone is worried much ?? and that the Californians have been enrolling in droves.

    Yes its an outside chance but it still may be Bernie. I’d put a few dollars on it except I don’t know who is taking the bets on this.

    • dukeofurl 18.1
      27 May 2016 at 9:44 pm

      Has he won the caucus states or the ones where the voters choose not party activists ?
      Recently Clinton has won New York, Conneticut, Delaware, Pensylvania,Maryland , all usual democrat states. The big swing state is Florida, Clinton won that

      So far votes for Clinton 13.1 mill
      Votes for Sanders 10.1 mill

    • Dennis Merwood 18.2
      27 May 2016 at 9:59 pm

      Great post Red Baron.
      Debbie Wasserman Shultz has been a Clinton sycophant from day one.
      She has to go. Totally destructive to the already corrupt Democratic Party machine.
      I think she’s toast.

      And I think that it’s not a fact that “Most of Sanders supporters are on the young side.” I’m 68.
      As are a lot of my friends, and commenters on the various blog sites.
      Bernie will be picking up more and more of the older voters.
      Retiree’s in the US are shit scared that their Social Security retirement checks and Medicare Healthcare plans will be toasted by these neo-liberal crazies. They know that Bill and Hillary shafted poor people on welfare. They are not trusted.
      And older voters can be counted to show up on election day.

      The independent voters are going to be the key.
      Their voices have not been heard yet in any of these phony 2-party primaries.

      Today, the ding bat announced that she would not debate Bernie in California.
      She has decided she has won with still a hundred yards (meters) to go.
      A huge mistake. What’s she got to hide?
      Bernie will have the masses eating out of his hands.
      The MSM just will not be able to continue their charade of ignoring him.
      It will be all over for the “it’s my turn Queen of Chaos”.
      I sure hope I am right.

      • RedBaronCV 18.2.1
        27 May 2016 at 10:18 pm

        Sorry -Poor English by me not attempted ageism . Perhaps something like Bernie leads among younger voters compared to Hillary?? BTW I’m not so young either.

    • Grantoc 18.3
      28 May 2016 at 4:19 pm

      RBCV

      Clinton needs about 60 delegates (including super delegates) to achieve the numbers necessary to become the nominee. She will do this easily in the June 7th primaries, even if she loses in California and New Jersey (which is unlikely) because of the proportional way in which pledged delegates are allocated..

      The super delegates are overwhelmingly Democrat establishment, and are overwhelmingly in favour of Clinton. I can’t see many, or any, shifting their vote to the anti establishment Sanders at the convention.

      In any event Clinton will also come to the convention with greater voter support than Sanders.

      Its a done deal; Clinton will be the nominee.

      • RedBaronCV 18.3.1
        30 May 2016 at 9:23 pm

        I’m not saying that the super delegates “will” shift but if Bernie does well over the last states then it might be a good idea if they sat down and thought about how the future democrat party is going to be shaped.

        Essentially super delegates have the choice of going to a lot of voters ” stuff you you have to move towards the Clinton idea of Democrats” or “does our party future lie where Bernie is projecting it so we need to move the party towards the voters”. Future proofing ?
        It’s not hard to suggest that the support for Bernie and Trump means a substantial part of the US electorate is fed up with the prevailing status quo and can you blame them?

  19. RedLogix 19
    27 May 2016 at 9:27 pm

    Let’s think of it like this; regardless of what happens now Bernie Sanders has been the outstanding winner of this electoral cycle.

    He’s stood for an openly socialist platform that just a few short years ago conventional wisdom would have insisted stood no chance at all in the USA.

    He’s been a huge success with young voters; and these people are the future.

    He’s come from nowhere and would have easily won the Democrat nomination if it were not for their corrupt election system and exposed it for all to see.

    He’s ensured that regardless of who wins the Presidency, BOTH the Repugs and Dems are dead parties walking. The end is in sight for both of them. Here is the extraordinary symmetry at work:

    The Republican Party loathes the outsider candidate standing in their name; even though it is far more likely he will win the Presidency than any of the candidates the Party endorsed. Trump has demolished their candidates and destroyed their credibility for a generation. In the event Trump wins he will end it permanently.

    The Democrat Party is committed to a candidate so unpopular there is a real chance she will loose to Trump. Yet they’ve rejected the one outsider candidate who is almost certain to beat Trump. The reasons are obvious; the DNC is utterly in the thrall of interests that have nothing to do with democracy. If Clinton wins she will just as surely, albeit more slowly, corrode away the last vestiges of Democrat credibility just as Trump will nuke the Republicans.

    And as every month goes by all this will become blindingly obvious to most Americans. For several generations now they’ve compromised with the ‘lesser of two evils’ doctrine and now the destination it has led them to is plain before their eyes. Now they are faced with a choice of two blunt evils, metaphorically a choice between Vlad the Impaler and Attila the Hun. This is the plain, unpalatable and undeniable end point of their democracy as they have known it up until now.

    • dukeofurl 19.1
      27 May 2016 at 9:53 pm

      projecting your wishes much ? He will be forgotten like all the other democratic outsiders ( technically he isnt even a registered democrat).
      Their system doesnt make space for runners up. It hasnt even been a month and hardly a mention of Cruz from the other side, it was back to the senate. Such will be the same for Sanders.
      The pollsters have asked ‘Bernie supporters’ what of his policies they support and there is very little real following of his democratic socialism.

      • RedBaronCV 19.1.1
        27 May 2016 at 10:16 pm

        I’m talking about Bernie winning the states in the candidate vote where the Democrats win in The US presidential elections .
        Overall votes don’t really count $13m to $10m , it’s how the votes are distributed over the various states that matters more.
        Hillary won a lot of votes in some of the red southern states but these states will vote republican in the main election

        • dukeofurl 19.1.1.1
          28 May 2016 at 9:57 am

          What Democratic states were those ? Tiny things with hardly any votes in electoral college.
          Ive given you some of the more recent contests. You are just making it up

          Just look up any competent site showing the contest so far and show me larger states that are democratic AND have a voters primary not a caucus

          eg washington, runs caucuses and are strongly for Bernie and he won
          http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/WA-D

          Unusually they also had a mail vote primary for the voters which Hilary won

          “Washington voters delivered a bit of bad news for Bernie Sanders’s political revolution on Tuesday. Hillary Clinton won the state’s Democratic primary, symbolically reversing the outcome of the state’s Democratic caucus in March where Sanders prevailed as the victor.
          http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/washington-primary-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton/484313/

          So Clinton won this democratic state when you look at primary voters ( which dont count for delegates- which Sanders won in caucuses)

      • Dennis Merwood 19.1.2
        27 May 2016 at 10:54 pm

        dukeofurl, seriously man, you need to start reading other websites and newspapers other than the Herald, and stop watching CNN and FOX and listening to Mike Hoskings.
        Start hanging out with a better class of loser my Man!
        Where the heck did you come up with that last sentence from? Which pollsters? Where can I read about these polls? And any respondent who had “very little real following of his democratic socialism” certainly was not a “Bernie supporter”. By definition, eh?
        Cruz…don’t make me laugh! A nut job. Comparing him to Bernie Sanders…never mind! Talk about projecting ones wishes.
        You better start feeling the Bern my old antipodean friend.

        • dukeofurl 19.1.2.1
          28 May 2016 at 9:43 am

          “Exit polls conducted in two dozen primary and caucus states from early February through the end of April reveal only modest evidence of ideological structure in Democratic voting patterns, but ample evidence of the importance of group loyalties.”
          These are exit polls my friend, people who did vote, not some automated system for those at home by the phone.

          “However, they were less likely than Mrs. Clinton’s supporters to favor concrete policies that Mr. Sanders has offered as remedies for these ills, including a higher minimum wage, increasing government spending on health care and an expansion of government services financed by higher taxes. It is quite a stretch to view these people as the vanguard of a new, social-democratic-trending Democratic Party.”

          fancy that , they are just business as usual democrats after all.

          “For example, young Democrats were less likely than older Democrats to support increased government funding of health care, substantially less likely to favor a higher minimum wage and less likely to support expanding government services. Their distinctive liberalism is mostly a matter of adopting campaign labels, not policy preferences.”
          http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/opinion/campaign-stops/do-sanders-supporters-favor-his-policies.html?_r=0

          It would be great if Sanders had done something, anything in his long political career to show he both had the leadership skills and the energy to change anything outside his privileged white voters in Vermont.
          It is possible, Lyndon Johnson was a corrupt, deceitful politician from rural Texas, but he showed leadership skills before he became President and when in the Whitehouse stared down the white segregationists in the Democratic party to get the Civil Rights bills passed.
          Sanders no sign of any leadership ability.

      • Raff 19.1.3
        27 May 2016 at 10:58 pm

        Oh, you funny old thing, dukeofurl. The Dems have “No space for runners up”, eh? Well then, what do you make of all the polls which show that when it comes to beating Trump, Sanders would beat him handily, and Clinton would not only be the runner up, but would LOSE? How do you think the Dems might be processing this information?

    • lprent 19.2
      27 May 2016 at 11:35 pm

      Agreed. The problem is that it isn’t hard to look back in US political history over the last couple of centuries and see exactly the same thing happen. It doesn’t matter if it is the populism of a Theodore Roosevelt challenge or any of the other “independent” challengers since. The effect is the same.

      They allow the other sides candidate to win, and next election or two the establishment candidate grabs the same electorate in part.

      The US election system is pretty damn flexible when it comes to getting votes from voters.

    • Draco T Bastard 19.3
      28 May 2016 at 12:36 am

      If Clinton wins she will just as surely, albeit more slowly, corrode away the last vestiges of Democrat credibility just as Trump will nuke the Republicans.

      Nope. Obama’s already done that. Clinton will just be the final nail in the coffin.

      Don’t know what the USians will do after that but they’re going to have to do something about their aristocrats.

      This is the plain, unpalatable and undeniable end point of their democracy as they have known it up until now.

      This is where the USians realise that they don’t have a democracy and that their Founding Fathers never intended for them to have one. That it was always intended that the rich rule.

  20. Richard@Down South 20
    27 May 2016 at 9:57 pm

    Hillary still has 12 FBI agents investigating her… and

    …”This use of a private email server did not go unnoticed within the Department of State’s IT department. Two IT staff members who raised concerns about Clinton’s use of a private server were told not to speak of it. Clinton was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013 and during that period she used a private email server in her New York home. This report by the Department of State’s Inspector General about Clinton’s use of a private server makes clear that rules and regulations were not followed. It says that Clinton would not have received approval for this server had she sought it.”

    http://www.computerworld.com/article/3075347/government-it/state-dept-it-staff-told-to-keep-quiet-about-clinton-s-server.html?nsdr=true

    • RedBaronCV 20.1
      27 May 2016 at 10:21 pm

      My take on this is that the deep state prefers Hillary to Bernie . No point in throwing Hillary under the server if Bernie gets the nod.

      • Colonial Viper 20.1.1
        28 May 2016 at 1:02 am

        the major elements of the deep state being the big banks, and the military industrial surveillance complex.

  21. Muttonbird 21
    27 May 2016 at 10:04 pm

    Can’t understand why so much energy is spent on this subject.

    We have a bigger enemy right here in New Zealand and that is the current government.

    What happens in America right now leaves me cold…just like the families sleeping in cars in South Auckland tonight. They are not concerned with Hilary or Donald so why are you?

    • Dennis Merwood 21.1
      27 May 2016 at 10:31 pm

      Exactly muttonbird,
      I started this little vacation to far away little ole New Zealand this January to get away from the crazy saturation of Hillary/Trump 24/7 in the States.
      To my dismay…you can’t escape this shit……help!!!!

      Sadly, I’m finding out that the “Mike Hoskings” syndrome is alive and well in good ole New Zeelind! “I’ve got my Ferrari, so stuff you!” He does have a Ferrari doesn’t he? And your Prime Minister is his best buddy right? And the Labor,,,eeer Labour Party is useless…and Kiwi’s moan a lot about their gubmit…..but can’t be bothered voting.

      Its all as “good as gold” as they say in Palmerston North.

      [lprent: Maserati. Do you need a week to familiarise yourself with NZ? Should I donate this boon to you?. Should I point out the obvious and tell you, this may not be an option. Lets demonstrate it. ]

      • Raff 21.1.1
        27 May 2016 at 11:05 pm

        Unfortunately, NZers’ lack of confidence (especially under a right wing gubmint) means we are inordinately affected by wot goes on in USA. Our dear leaders look to their dear leaders for guidance; they holiday in Hawaii and discuss spying and whistleblowers over rounds of golf. So if it were Bernie Sanders – oh boy, what a glorious cat among the pigeons that would mean for us! So it’s hard not to be obsessed.

    • Draco T Bastard 21.2
      28 May 2016 at 12:40 am

      We have a bigger enemy right here in New Zealand and that is the current government.

      They’re the same enemy.

  22. RedBaronCV 22
    27 May 2016 at 10:26 pm

    I care about what happens in SA but what happens in the US elections , given how much time the current govt spends with them matters a great deal too. We’ve had US people here “helping ” write our laws and there has been a little blue plane with united States of America out at Wellington Airport recently. With Bernie TPPA would stand a greater chance of being dead in the water which will help all of us.

  23. gnomic 23
    28 May 2016 at 1:11 am

    “Hillary Rodham Clinton will make history and she might just make America great again.”

    Let me fix that for you. Hillary may possibly be the first female president of the USA. An event in history if so. As to the history she may make in that position, given her record so far, no reason for optimism.

    America great again? What does that even mean? And isn’t that a Trump slogan anyway? Definitely a task way beyond Hillary’s reach.

    Jaded political hack vs a crazed demagogue. It seems dubious this could possibly end well either way.

    Sadly the whole proceedings are a sad farce.

    “It is a tale
    Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
    Signifying nothing.”

    • Colonial Viper 23.1
      28 May 2016 at 1:17 am

      in any case, the big banks, corporate lobbyists and military industrial surveillance complex remain firmly in charge

  24. Jenny 24
    28 May 2016 at 2:39 am

    As George Orwell once said; words are often used to give an appearance of solidity to what is pure wind.

    Te Reo Putake repeats the the wishful thinking of the US establishment beltway politicians as if it was fact.

    Coming from a conservative Labour Party supporter who thinks climate change is about as important as the condition of the footpaths outside his house. Tells you why I am not all that surprised.

    http://thestandard.org.nz/andrew-littles-pre-budget-speech-2/#comment-1178155

    Bernie Sanders is not finished as conservative commentators around the world are rushing to parrot. Bernie Sanders could still win the democratic nomination, and has every right to try. This is a fact. (no need for any rule changes).

    http://thestandard.org.nz/love-trump/#comment-1177342

    While Hilary Clinton has secured the majority votes of all the pledged Democratic Party delegates she cannot win the nomination without the support of the unpledged, (so called,) Super Delegates. This also is a fact.

    And though the Super Delegates would on the surface be more likely to Support Clinton, there are many reasons why this decision should give them reason to think carefully before making it.

    Not least the tens of millions of dollars raised by grass roots rank and file democrat supporters for the Sanders campaign. Historically and completely without precedent, Sanders has raised the largest ever campaign fund made up mostly of many small donations. This gives an indication that many of the Pledged Delegates are seriously out of touch with the rank and file.

    The other main reason; It is not unfeasible that Clinton could lose to Trump. In that case the Super Delegates would have wear it, for not choosing a sure winner.

    No matter how conservative the Super Delegates might be, this ghastly possible outcome would give anyone pause for thought.

    Why Bernie Sanders Still Can — and Should — Win the Nomination

    05/26/2016 07:01 pm ET | Updated 11 hours ago

    The Clinton and media narrative is that Sanders polls better against Trump than Clinton because he hasn’t been subject to attacks. Really? That’s what the major media, especially in the New York to Washington DC corridor, have done for months.

    Oceans of ink have been devoted to publicizing one-sided “studies” vilifying Sanders’ proposals on Medicare for all and free tuition at public colleges, and to attacking Sanders political philosophy, record in Congress, and ability to pass his program, all while veering between trying to marginalize Sanders or mock him.

    Additionally, the Clinton Super Pac, headed by David Brock, notorious for his demonization of Anita Hill, has planted unfavorable stories on Sanders in the media and hired trolls to malign Sanders and Sanders supporters on social media platforms.

    None of that has caused Sanders standing against Trump to fall (especially compared to how Trump has steadily gained on Clinton).

    Huffington Post, Yesterday

    • te reo putake 24.1
      28 May 2016 at 9:25 am

      Hi, Jenny. I didn’t equate climate change with a hole in the ground, I equated your deliberate twisting of Andrew Little’s budget speech with said hole. To make it clear, I was taking the piss out of your beautifully crafted strawman argument.

      I’m not conservative, and generally, I’m well to the left of the party. But I can count and I don’t waste time on lost causes. In others words, I’m pragmatic. Which is why I can spot the bleeding obvious, which is that it’s over for Sanders. He’s not going to be the Democratic Party’s candidate.

      And, as I said in the post, Sanders doesn’t seem like someone who is motivated by ego, so I think he will either withdraw entirely, or preferably, do a deal in the next week or two to get a post with Clinton’s team. Probably not the VP, but something of substance. If he and Hillary can work together, they will royally stuff Trump .

    • dukeofurl 24.2
      28 May 2016 at 1:38 pm

      If Sanders is so great why cant he even win in the numbers race against Clinton.She is at 13 mill to his 10 mill.
      And yet he is supposed to do better with republicans and independents ?

      Its laughable. There is some seriously deluded thinking here. Im not projecting my wishes on a situation that I cant even vote for.
      if Sanders was my local senator I would certainly vote for him, but even in his own state they cant get a universal single payer system ( like NZ)

      “In 2011, the Vermont state government enacted a law functionally establishing the first state-level single-payer health care system in the United States. Green Mountain Care, established by the passage of H.202, creates a system in the state where Vermonters receive universal health care coverage as well as technological improvements to the existing system.
      On December 17, 2014, Vermont Democrats abandoned their plan for universal health care, citing the taxes required of smaller businesses within the state.”

      Howard dean a former vermont govenor was supposed tolead a left wing ( which I think is a good thing) shift in democratic party.
      never happened either, and for a short time he was a possible Dem president candidate

  25. Adrian Thornton 25
    28 May 2016 at 9:37 am

    Domestically, sure Clinton is of course better than Trump, undisputed.
    Internationally, Clinton is a super war hawk, who has never seen a war she doesn’t like. It is exactly people in power like her, who have helped directly cause the wars, destruction, displacement,death, wounded rape,and world crisis in refugees in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya,Syria, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen the list goes on…
    So just remember we are part of this International community, not part of America.
    I am not saying Trump is any better, no one knows the answer to that, but Hillary Clinton is without doubt, very very dangerous internationally.
    Oh and she is also pro fracking, pro Wall, pro Israel expansions St and pro free trade…etc etc.
    So just be very careful what you wish for, even if you think it is the lesser of two evils.

    • dukeofurl 25.1
      28 May 2016 at 10:01 am

      Its not a 3 way choice. It will only be between Clinton and Trump.

    • dukeofurl 25.2
      28 May 2016 at 4:44 pm

      Oh please Obama has been President while the war in Libya and Syria occur ed . The ongoing war in Afghanistan, including the attack on MSF hospital in Kunduz.
      these are on his account. yet you dont mention his name. Liberal guilt much for a nobel peace prize winner ?

      You need to get it through your head that the only choice is Clinton or Trump. Speculation otherwise is meaningless.

      • Colonial Viper 25.2.1
        30 May 2016 at 7:26 am

        As always thanks for the establishment perspective. Labour is NZs version of the modern Democratic Party.

  26. Sabine 26
    28 May 2016 at 5:43 pm

    nothing to worry, the man is a good guy, not like that evil women who shall not be named, or the geezer who will never win cause the status quo.

    there here goes the champion of many.

    https://twitter.com/LaurenWern/status/736044495654014976

  27. Draco T Bastard 27
    29 May 2016 at 12:07 pm

    Quoted from Facebook:

    MSNBC just ADMITTED on LIVE TV that they plan to suppress the vote in California and fraudulently declare Hillary Clinton the winner!

    http://yt2fb.com/msnbc-just-admitted-they-plan-to-suppress-voting-i/

    • Phil 27.1
      30 May 2016 at 1:45 pm

      … and people wonder why ‘conspiracy theorist’ is used as a term of derision.

  28. Jenny 28
    30 May 2016 at 3:59 am

    What’s Donald Trump’s take on Bernie’s chance of taking the Democratic nomination at this late stage?

    On Thursday looking decidedly uncomfortable about it, Trump in his trade mark style

    @ 1:08 minutes

    “it could be, that we have to run against crazy Bernie.
    Crazy Bernie, he’s a crazy man.”

    “It’s OK, we like crazy people.”

    Donald Trump

  29. Jenny 29
    30 May 2016 at 5:11 am

    Hey! hey! LBJ
    How many kids did you kill Today?

    The Democratic Party may have need to be reminded of history, and the possible cost of supporting a war candidate like Clinton, over a peace candidate like Sanders. The result was Nixon.

    The peace candidate vs. the war candidate

    The 1968 Democratic Party Convention

    Support within the party was divided between Senator McCarthy, who ran a decidedly anti-war campaign and was seen as the peace candidate,[8] and Vice President Humphrey, who was seen as the candidate representing the Johnson point of view.[9]

    In the end, the Democratic Party nominated Humphrey. Even though 80 percent of the primary voters had been for anti-war candidates, the delegates had defeated the peace plank by 1,567¾ to 1,041¼.[10] The loss was perceived to be the result of President Johnson and Chicago Mayor Richard Daley influencing behind the scenes.[10] Humphrey, who had not entered any of 13 state primary elections, won the Democratic nomination, and went on to lose the election to the Republican Richard Nixon.[11]

    Wikipedia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_National_Convention

    The lesson of 1968 is that if you have a candidate who supports the current US wars overseas, as Hillary does, and Humphrey did. Then the debate becomes who will prosecute these wars the best?

    A debate that favours the most violent, racist, jingoistic, triumphalist, rhetoric.

    “If I am elected, we will have so much winning, you will get bored with winning.”

    Donald Trump

  30. Jenny 30
    30 May 2016 at 7:13 am

    TV One news, this morning Trump backs out of debate with Sanders.

    http://static1.grsites.com/archive/sounds/farm/farm003.wav

  31. Jenny 31
    30 May 2016 at 7:21 am

    If Clinton had any heart for the fight with Trump, she should pick up Trump’s original challenge, but on the same terms that Trump offered Sanders, that all the money go to Women’s Charities.

    But would anyone pay to see such a debate?

    Who would help Assad drop the most bombs on Syria?

    Who would spread the drone war to Pakistan?

    Who could launch even more drone attacks on Yemen?