What a picture’s worth…

73 comments on “What a picture’s worth… ”

• Comments are now closed

1. ropata 1

   3 March 2016 at 11:01 pm

   Sanders’ “rent a crowd” must be giving the Washington DC troughers nightmares
   • weka 1.1

     3 March 2016 at 11:08 pm

     Yep. Even if he loses, he wins and we do too.

     POST ‘SUPER TUESDAY’ THOUGHTS. I find it amusing that I just got two messages from respected pundits. One claims Bernie really ‘won’ and argues a neat line of speculation. The other that Bernie should hang it up today and surrender to the ‘Third Way’ Clintonistas.

     As you might expect, I have a different take.

     First, the future is open. Lots can happen, even in weeks or a month. Just keep in mind that the Clinton history has lots of problems a gentleman wouldn’t dig into, but Trump is no gentleman. And yes, I know quite well that Bernie has always been the long shot. But as my late Dad, a friend of the ponies who did well with them, was know to quip: Don’t ignore the long shots. Now and then, they will come in.’

     Second, I have no intention of surrendering to Clinton and the ‘Third Way’ platform of crumbs and incrementalism, even though I would vote for her over Trump in a heartbeat. People who engage in long battles with just one eye open on half the battlefield will find themselves in trouble or irrelevant. Here’s one thing to keep in mind, Save for Massachusetts, all the states Hillary won in last night are likely going GOP in the Electoral College. It’s long been a complaint of Blacks in the South that their votes only have weight in one primary, not the general, ever since the Dixiecrats moved to the GOP, which then became the new party of the ‘Solid South.’

     Third, I like to view elections as organizing opportunities rather than horse races. For that perspective, your forces can win even if your candidate doesn’t make it. You simply use all the activity to increase your strength to end with something greater than you started with, a notion that’s not original with me, but comes from a master campaign manager named Lenin.

     Finally, the conventional wisdom holds that Bernie is the weaker candidate vs Trump because of ‘socialism.’ I turn that around. Bernie’s honesty about what he is and what he stands for is his strength, and it’s all an open book. Clinton, on the other hand, does indeed have scads of experience, but it’s also like an iceberg, most of it is unseen, and who knows what might pop up.

     It ain’t over till it’s over folks. It’s going to be a bumpy ride. Keep your eyes on the prizes–no Trump/Cruz./Rubio White House, and a much stronger and better organized socialist left. As Jean-Luc Picard would say, ‘Make it so, engage!’

     https://www.facebook.com/carl.davidson.7773/posts/10153631959838821
     • Pasupial 1.1.1

       4 March 2016 at 12:07 am

       Speaking of Clinton’s history, this doesn’t look good:

       The Justice Department has granted immunity to a former State Department staffer, who worked on Hillary Clinton’s private email server, as part of a criminal investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information, according to a senior law enforcement official.

       The official said the FBI had secured the cooperation of Bryan Pagliano, who worked on Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign before setting up the server in her New York home in 2009…

       The Clinton campaign has described the probe as a security review. But current and former officials in the FBI and at the Justice Department have said investigators are trying to determine whether a crime was committed.

       https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-clinton-email-investigation-justice-department-grants-immunity-to-former-state-department-staffer/2016/03/02/e421e39e-e0a0-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html?wpisrc=al_alert-COMBO-politics%252Bnation
       • joe90 1.1.1.1

         4 March 2016 at 12:38 am

         The FBI can investigate all they like but on the eve of a once in a generation opportunity to influence the judiciary the Obama justice department ain’t going to indict.
         • Pasupial 1.1.1.1.1

           4 March 2016 at 10:13 am

           joe90
           There doesn’t have to be an indictment for Clinton’s campaign to be concerned about what Pagliano information coughed up to get personal immunity. Also; when it comes to raking Trump over the coals about his “Trump University” (and other scams), Clinton’s own criminal investigation will give him an easy out.
     • pat 1.1.2

       4 March 2016 at 8:25 am

       like horse racing, politics is not a level playing field and as well backed as Bernie is the *trainers* will milkshake Hillary
2. Austere Icon 2

   3 March 2016 at 11:29 pm

   That’s the most words I’ve read in the comments without vitriol or conspiracy I was compelled to acknowledge the occasion.
3. Colonial Viper 3

   3 March 2016 at 11:58 pm

   Unfortunately the few dozen super delegates in Clinton’s New York crowd have more voting power in the rigged Democratic primaries than the 50,000 people at Sander’s Michigan rally.
   • Sanctuary 3.1

     4 March 2016 at 9:50 am

     I have heard this “rigged” accusation a fair bit from the CDS (Clinton Derangement Syndrome) crowd so I looked into it. The Democrat system is weighted to give the winner an advantage. They came up with the system voluntarily, to avoid the mess the Republican process is. Everyone knows the rules. It is hardly “rigged”, unless you are a moron who can’t tell the difference.
   • Bob 3.2

     4 March 2016 at 12:28 pm

     Sort of like the Labour leadership voting structure?
     • Enough is Enough 3.2.1

       4 March 2016 at 2:39 pm

       Similar concept but not quite the same
       • Phil 3.2.1.1

         4 March 2016 at 3:09 pm

         Exactly. The Democrats are up-front about the role of Super Delegates. They don’t hide behind the union vote.
         😛
         • RedLogix 3.2.1.1.1

           4 March 2016 at 7:45 pm

           The Super Delegates have an influence, but it’s not absolute. It operates within about a +/-8% range of 50%.

           In other words if Sanders was over 58% of the ordinary delegates, the Super’s would make no difference.

           Also there is the very real consideration that the Supers are NOT actually tied to vote either way. It is entirely possible for them to switch to Sanders en-mass if they come to believe that is the best strategic decision for the Party.
4. te reo putake 4

   4 March 2016 at 5:48 am

   The nice thing is that Sanders supporters will get behind Hillary. Over in the Republican party, if Trump wins, there’s no guarantee that conservatives will vote for him, let alone support him.

   http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2016/mar/03/campaign-updates-us-presidential-election-2016-gop-debate-romney-trump-clinton
   • Lanthanide 4.1

     4 March 2016 at 7:23 am

     Many conservatives will get behind Hillary if Trump wins. It’s not so easy to see the same happening if it were Bernie vs Trump.
     • Pascals bookie 4.1.1

       4 March 2016 at 7:40 am

       I’m not sure about the ‘#neverTrump’ people on the right Lanth. It’s early days yet and they think they can still stop him. If they don’t and he gets the nom, and picks a running mate the blowhards can say will ‘guide him’, they’ll get on board.
       • Lanthanide 4.1.1.1

         4 March 2016 at 9:45 am

         Mitt Romney doesn’t share your sentiment.
         • Pascals bookie 4.1.1.1.1

           4 March 2016 at 2:41 pm

           Right now he is saying stuff, sure.

           ‘It’s terrible Trump is terrible really awful he;s a conman who couldn’t beat Clinton, Clinton will beat him and It’s very important we nominate someone who can beat Clinton’

           Obvs that’s not a quote, but it’s a paraphrase of the argument I heard.

           the thing I’m listening for is:

           ‘Trump would be worse than Clinton and if we nominate him, I will vote for Clinton and suggest you do likewise for the sake of our Republic’
           • Lanthanide 4.1.1.1.1.1

             4 March 2016 at 3:37 pm

             That’s true. Given the tone of his speech, I do find it slightly surprising that he didn’t say that.
     • Puddleglum 4.1.2

       4 March 2016 at 8:31 am

       Possibly, yet the polling data on one-on-one match ups suggests, if anyhting, that the overall effect of nominating Sanders over Clinton would be to increase the chance that Trump would be defeated. (That recent CNN/ORC poll linked to on Ad’s post yesterday.)
       • Lanthanide 4.1.2.1

         4 March 2016 at 10:08 am

         538 says that those sorts of polls this early in the election cycle, for the general election, are pretty much worthless at predicting anything.

         Also if anyone is a strong supporter of Sanders, they will be politically motivated to say they would vote for Sanders vs Trump, but that they would vote for Trump and not Clinton.
         • Puddleglum 4.1.2.1.1

           4 March 2016 at 3:28 pm

           Fair enough about the early polling.

           So then the arguments become ones based on assumptions and trying to work out which assumptions make more sense in relation to the general political context.

           On that basis, I’d still argue that there is a good chance that Sanders may well outperform Clinton in a runoff with Trump. That’s because Sanders – as even liberal and right wing commenters have suggested – appears to be tapping a similar disillusionment with establishment politics.

           On the assumption that Clinton-backing liberals would not vote for Trump (or simply not vote) in order to spite Sanders, that may well mean that Sanders could ‘steal’ a few percent of Trump’s supporters – e.g., working class conservatives who are suspicious of establishment politics, corporations, ‘big money’, etc. and so had been supporting Trump who they perceived to be ‘independent’ of all of that.

           Also, I think you overestimate the extent to which Republican supporters who are currently supportive of Trump’s rivals such as Cruz and Rubio find Trump a no-go zone. Unlike Republican grandees like Romney I suspect that the worldview of Cruz and Rubio supporters is far closer to the worldview they perceive Trump has than the worldview of Hillary Clinton.

           In fact, I’ve heard the odd ‘vox pop’ during the primaries where Republican voters have talked about how they were tossing up between Cruz and Trump.

           The East Coast patrician Republican worldview (represented by people like Romney) is not in the ascendancy in the Republican party voter base. That’s why the Republican elite is now in this position of openly splitting the party for the sake of their own dominance.

           They are up against a populist insurgency. And populism actually has a strong history in US politics.
           • Lanthanide 4.1.2.1.1.1

             4 March 2016 at 3:42 pm

             538 has been trying to gauge Trumps popularity.

             There are 3 salient points they’ve found so far:
             1. People who vote Trump have typically made up their mind a long time ago. People who make up their mind in the few days before or day of voting are going for Rubio / Trump at a much higher rate than they go for Trump. This suggests Trump has a large floor of support, but also that he may have a low ceiling.
             2. When asking for second-preference, Rubio and Cruz get a lot more of the votes than Trump does.
             3. Trump has largely gotten around the 35% mark in the Super Tuesday vote, another indication that he may have a ceiling on support. In their model for how each candidate can reach the nomination, Trump is only running at 113% of his required delegate count right now – they thought anything around 250 delegates on ST would have been ‘not great’ for Trump and he only got 263.
             • Puddleglum …

               4 March 2016 at 3:57 pm

               Also interesting points. Thanks.

               I think you meant “Rubio/Cruz …”?

               The question for November seems wide open, then.

               If the ‘late deciders’ are going for Cruz/Rubio rather than Trump the question remains whether that is because they would never go anywhere near Trump (even if they had to vote Democrat or not vote in order not to vote for him) and so were only tossing up between Cruz and Rubio (or one of the other candidates) as part of their late decision making or, alternatively, that Trump was still a live option for them up until polling day/week.

               Interesting stuff.
               • Lanthanide …

                 4 March 2016 at 4:41 pm

                 Given the other point further down the thread that only 49% of those exit-polled in Republican primaries would be supportive of Trump, it suggests that they’re actively deciding against Trump.

                 I think the main thing if Trump wins the nomination, is that we’re in unchartered waters. He’s not a politician, and he would be the first non-politician to win the nomination of the 2 parties. He’s also a demagogue, an obvious racist and a self-aggrandizing pathological liar etc.

                 It’s quite possible that he could win on a wave of high-turnout from those who are fed-up with the establishment, but equally he could lose with a lot of republican voters staying home, or switching to Hillary.
               • Pascals bookie …

                 4 March 2016 at 6:58 pm

                 Whatever people do though the basic maths on the clock is running out

                 http://www.vox.com/2016/3/3/11159470/republican-disaster

                 Goes into detail, but takeaway is that to stop Trump the GOP now needs to deny him a majority at the convention. To do that, Rubio needs to win Florida (99 delgates winner takes all). For him to win, Kasich and Cruz need to tell their voters in Florida to vote Rubio.

                 Same story for Kasich in Ohio, etc.

                 But they aren’t doing that.
     • Crashcart 4.1.3

       4 March 2016 at 8:41 am

       Have you got polling data to back that up? I honestly hope you are right as I agree she will probably be the nominee. However all the polls I have seen reported recently show her as performing far worse than Bernie in 1v1’s with all the possible Republican candidates.
   • The Chairman 4.2

     4 March 2016 at 8:08 am

     The movement is called “Bernie or Bust,” and it means just that:

     If Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont loses the Democratic presidential nomination, a group of his supporters will either write in his name in the general election or consider casting their ballot for a Republican.

     The one thing they certainly won’t do: Vote for Hillary Clinton.

     http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/1/hillary-clinton-cant-count-on-bernie-sanders-suppo/
     • pat 4.2.1

       4 March 2016 at 8:39 am

       while the establishment is busy making sure they get an acceptable candidate into the Oval Office the mood that has supported Bernie may well turn the House and Senate on their heads a wee way down the track…so it may all be for nought
     • Pascals bookie 4.2.2

       4 March 2016 at 9:39 am

       That reminds me of the PUMAs who refused to support Obama in 08 after he defeated their Candidiate, Hillary, in the primaries and thus handing the Whitehouse to President McCain.
       • The Chairman 4.2.2.1

         4 March 2016 at 11:37 am

         It comes back to the undemocratic voting structure of the Democratic Party.
     • Lanthanide 4.2.3

       4 March 2016 at 10:10 am

       Yeah, it’s quite easy to make up those sorts of movements at the moment.

       But when it comes the 1st of November, and there’s a looming Trump presidency on the horizon, they’ll stick with the devil they know and vote Clinton.
       • The Chairman 4.2.3.1

         4 March 2016 at 11:31 am

         Those supporting Sanders are generally supporting his anti establishment stance, thus most would rather support Trump opposed to letting Clinton in.
         • Lanthanide 4.2.3.1.1

           4 March 2016 at 12:45 pm

           Except there’s a reasonable chance that the next president is going to appoint 2 SCOTUS judges, and letting Trump do the appointment is hardly going to help those who are supporting Sanders.
           • The Chairman 4.2.3.1.1.1

             4 March 2016 at 1:01 pm

             As Trump is also anti establishment, I don’t see why not. It’s still better than allowing Clinton to call the shots.
             • Lanthanide …

               4 March 2016 at 1:13 pm

               Because Trump wouldn’t be appointing “anti-establishment” SCOTUS judges (whatever that would even be). He’d appoint conservatives who would only give stronger powers to corporations and crack down even further on civil liberties.
               • The Chairman …

                 4 March 2016 at 1:33 pm

                 That goes against his anti establishment stance.

                 Moreover, Clinton is expected do similar. She is part of the establishment.

                 If she becomes the Party nomination, she will split the Democratic vote, thus most likely cost them the election.
                 • Lanthanide …

                   4 March 2016 at 1:38 pm

                   🙄
               • Andre …

                 4 March 2016 at 1:45 pm

                 Trump’s already basically said he’s going to throw the First Amendment out the window. That’s free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble peacefully gone right there, if he gets enough justices on side.
                 • The Chairman …

                   4 March 2016 at 1:48 pm

                   Citation, thanks.
                   • Andre …

                     4 March 2016 at 1:56 pm

                     Haven’t you been paying any attention to what Trump has actually been saying?

                     http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/26/trump-pledges-curb-press-freedom-libel-laws-first-amendment

                     http://www.salon.com/2015/12/14/who_needs_a_constitution_anyway_donald_trump_sets_the_first_amendment_on_fire/

                     How many do you need?
                 • The Chairman …

                   4 March 2016 at 2:22 pm

                   Yes, I have been paying attention thanks, thus I questioned your extreme assertion.

                   “Trump pledged if elected president to “open up our libel laws so when [newspapers] write purposely negative stories … we can sue them “

                   That’s not putting an end to free speech. The truth will remain a defense.

                   Moreover, considering the negative reports about him, one can see where he is coming from.
                   • McFlock …

                     4 March 2016 at 2:33 pm

                     You’re confusing “negative” with “untrue”.
                   • One Anonymous Bloke …

                     4 March 2016 at 8:57 pm

                     The truth will remain a defense.

                     Yes, because independent media outlets can totes afford more lawyers.
                 • Lanthanide …

                   4 March 2016 at 2:27 pm

                   Trump can’t overturn the constitution, or it’s amendments.

                   He can try and pass laws that go against the constitution; they might be enforcible for a short period of time, but the SCOTUS will make short work of that.
                   • Andre …

                     4 March 2016 at 2:41 pm

                     There’s quite a lot of latitude in how the Supreme Court can choose to interpret the Constitution.

                     For instance, the Second Amendment was not widely considered to guarantee an individual right to weapons until Heller 2008.

                     Corporations were not held to have the same rights to free speech as individuals, until Citizens United.

                     As Scalia showed (with assistance), there’s considerable opportunity for the Supreme Court to radically change what the effective meaning actually is, without going to the extent of a Constitutional Amendment.
                   • Lanthanide …

                     4 March 2016 at 3:45 pm

                     The last ruling on freedom of the press by the SCOTUS in 1964 was a unanimous 9-0 ruling.

                     Any new ruling to support the sort of things Trump is saying would need to reverse that previous SCOTUS decision. That seems very unlikely.

                     There’s a difference between finding a new angle on a particular question that hasn’t been addressed before. That’s quite different to reversing a ruling that the court previously made on the same (or almost the same) question.
         • Phil 4.2.3.1.2

           4 March 2016 at 2:52 pm

           Those supporting Sanders are generally supporting his anti establishment stance, thus most would rather support Trump opposed to letting Clinton in.

           This is arguably the most untrue thing ever written in a comment on The Standard.

           Sanders has been a member of Congress and/or Senate for the last 25 years. Sanders’ supporters are overwhelmingly white, young, and (most importantly) liberal – they’re socially aware and hold almost zero opinions consistent with Trump (TPP being the one notable exception).

           Exit polls of candidate satisfaction (i.e. “Would you be satisfied if candidate X was the democrat nominee) show that supporters of Both Clinton and Sanders would be about 75% supportive of the other candidate. These results are in line with the ’08 results for Clinton and Obama. On the other hand, only 49% of republicans would be satisfied with Trump as the GOP nominee.
           • The Chairman 4.2.3.1.2.1

             4 March 2016 at 3:14 pm

             “This is arguably the most untrue thing ever written in a comment on The Standard”

             Rubbish.

             From his funding structure to his stance on Wall Street. Sanders is largely considered the anti establishment nominee on the left.
             • Lanthanide …

               4 March 2016 at 3:47 pm

               You missed the second part of your statement:
               “thus most would rather support Trump opposed to letting Clinton in.”

               Sanders is clearly much more anti-establishment than Clinton – she’s practically the definition.

               But your next clause is, as Phil says, arguably the most untrue thing written in a comment on The Standard.
               • The Chairman …

                 4 March 2016 at 4:26 pm

                 Yes, Sanders is clearly much more anti-establishment than Clinton, which is why a number support him. Therefore, most (of the those that support his anti establishment stance) would have little problem voting for Trump opposed to Clinton.
                 • Lanthanide …

                   16 March 2016 at 6:30 pm

                   A Guardian survey found only 7% of Sanders supporters would vote for Trump over Clinton, so much for “most” of them doing so as you claimed.

                   http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/13/bernie-sanders-supporters-consider-donald-trump-no-hillary-clinton
           • Puddleglum 4.2.3.1.2.2

             4 March 2016 at 3:34 pm

             “ On the other hand, only 49% of republicans would be satisfied with Trump as the GOP nominee.”

             That’s interesting – though as Lanthanide said earlier when I was quoting current polling, it may not be at all indicative of voting behaviour in November.

             Do you have any links to those exit polls? Genuinely interested to read more about them.
             • Lanthanide …

               4 March 2016 at 3:51 pm

               “That’s interesting – though as Lanthanide said earlier when I was quoting current polling, it may not be at all indicative of voting behaviour in November.”

               538 specifically addressed the question of “head to head polls between candidates of each party in the general election”.

               That’s not the same as “who is your preferred nominee”.

               The main difference is time: the general election is many months away, and the majority of the American public just aren’t interested in it. But the primaries are underway right now, so anyone who is interested in the primary, is likely to give an indicative answer to that question.

               Remember that primaries are typically attended by the political geeks; I’m mostly just guessing here but I’d suspect less than 2 million Americans are involved in any of the primaries at all. Asking questions to people who *have just voted* is very different than trying to poll random Americans and whom they might theoretically vote for in November. And if your sample is politically active voters, then as I noted before those who support Sanders over Clinton have a political motive to lie to the pollster and said they’d vote for Trump over Clinton in order to make her numbers look bad and thereby give additional support to Sanders.
         • Mike S 4.2.3.1.3

           4 March 2016 at 10:58 pm

           “supporting his anti establishment stance”

           Do they really think he’s going to be anti establishment if he’s ever appointed to the white house?

           No matter what Trump says now, if he were to become president, he wouldn’t be the one making any important decisions. The President is a figurehead, put in place to give the masses a ‘face’ in charge.
     • Grantoc 4.2.4

       4 March 2016 at 8:11 pm

       TC

       Presented with the choice of Clinton or Trump, I’d expect them to support Clinton, if only to keep the far worse option (Trump) out of the white house.
5. miravox 5

   4 March 2016 at 7:42 am

   I’m loving my “make Donald Drumpf again” extension. This person you’re talking about just doesn’t exist in a way that makes me angry anymore.
   • nzsage 5.1

     4 March 2016 at 10:49 am

     Me too!
6. Penny Bright 6

   4 March 2016 at 8:35 am

   Why the rush to ratify the TPPA in NZ – if it may never be ratified in the USA?

   And if the TPPA is not ratified in the USA – is that not the end of it?

   https://berniesanders.com/press-release/hillary-clinton-outsourcer-in-chief/

   Hillary Clinton: Outsourcer-in-Chief
   MARCH 3, 2016

   BURLINGTON, Vt. – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ Campaign Manager Jeff Weaver on Wednesday released the following statement in response to Secretary Clinton’s comments on trade at a rally in New York City:

   “At a rally on Wednesday former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told those gathered, ‘Don’t let anybody tell you we can’t make anything in America anymore.’

   “What she failed to tell the audience is that she has been a consistent advocate of the job-killing trade deals that have contributed to the loss of nearly 60,000 factories in the United States and almost 5 million manufacturing jobs over the last 15 years.

   “Hillary Clinton supported NAFTA. NAFTA cost 850,000 U.S. jobs. 43,000 jobs alone in Michigan. 35,000 jobs in Ohio. 35,000 in Illinois.

   “Hillary Clinton supported Permanent Normalized Trade Relations with China. That deal cost the country 3.2 million jobs.

   “The free trade agreement with Panama? Guess what, Hillary Clinton supported that one too.

   “Now, American jobs are threatened by the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Hillary Clinton spoke favorably about the TPP 45 times. She called it the ‘Gold Standard.’ Now she says she ‘has reservations about it.’

   “Tom Donohue, head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and strong supporter of these job-crushing trade deals, is not worried about Clinton getting in the way of this deal. He said he knows that if she’s elected she’ll flip back to support it.

   “Election year conversions won’t bring back American jobs. Bernie Sanders believes that the top priority of any trade deal should be to help American workers and he’s the only candidate who has consistently fought against job-killing trade deals.”
   ______________________________________

   Penny Bright
   2016 Auckland Mayoral candidate.

   (The only 2016 Auckland Mayoral candidate who is actively opposed to the TPPA)
   • Pasupial 6.1

     4 March 2016 at 9:46 am

     http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/15/politics/45-times-secretary-clinton-pushed-the-trade-bill-she-now-opposes/
   • Chooky 6.2

     4 March 2016 at 9:48 am

     +100 Penny
7. Ovid 7

   4 March 2016 at 9:11 am

   On Super Tuesday, Clinton gained 3,564,892 votes. Sanders gained 2,293,273. Pictures may be worth a thousand words, but numbers are a different thing altogether and by any measure Sanders suffered a shellacking. I like Sanders, I would prefer him to gain the nomination, but we can’t ignore the 3:2 vote disadvantage he’s suffering.
   • mosa 7.1

     4 March 2016 at 9:54 am

     yeah i like Bernie too but the numbers dont lie.
   • Lanthanide 7.2

     4 March 2016 at 10:11 am

     Also if you consider that Bernie is typically supported by the more affluent white voters (who would have time and resources to go to rallies), whereas Clinton has much stronger support amongst poor blacks…
8. Kevin 8

   4 March 2016 at 12:41 pm

   There is also another potential angle to this.

   If Trumps support continues to gather momentum, to the point where he is the overwhelming choice of voters on the right, what is to stop him refusing the Republican nomination and running as an independent?

   He has the money and the backing of a lot of money but wouldn’t be beholden to anyone.
   • Lanthanide 8.1

     4 March 2016 at 12:48 pm

     He wouldn’t run as an independent as long as he could be the Republican candidate.

     The partys in the US should be thought more of as campaign machines. They have the staff, the technology and the experience to get out the vote and advertise for the candidate.

     A better question is really – would the GOP machinery refuse to fully co-operate with Trump? How many key personnel would resign?
   • Andre 8.2

     4 March 2016 at 1:00 pm

     He’s already pretty good at selling his “not beholden to anyone” pitch even running within the Republican party.

     The window for getting on the ballot nationwide as an independent for November is actually closing fairly soon. Although the deadlines generally aren’t until July or so, for each state there needs to be thousands of signatures collected and verified. Effectively the decision needs to be made probably by early April. It definitely can’t wait until after the convention.
9. Tony Veitch (not the partner-bashing 3rd rate broadcaster) 9

   4 March 2016 at 2:11 pm

   I still think that Bernie will get the nomination and go on to be the next president of the USA – with Elizabeth Warren as his VP – now wouldn’t that be a dream outcome!

   But, more importantly, even if he doesn’t, the rocks Bernie’s tossing into the political pool in America will create ripples which will circle the world and be felt even here in NZ.

   There is light at the end of the tunnel – the unravelling of the neoliberal cobweb has begun!
   • Andre 9.1

     4 March 2016 at 2:23 pm

     The usual logic for VP is you pick a complement, both geographic and interests. Since Warren is from the Northeast and shares Sanders’ interests in inequality, healthcare, breaking up Wall St, by conventional wisdom she would be a poor choice. Someone from the western half or south of the US, with foreign policy cred would tick more of the usual boxes.
     • Tony Veitch (not the partner-bashing 3rd rate broadcaster) 9.1.1

       4 March 2016 at 2:46 pm

       Yes, I am aware of the ‘conventional wisdom’ and really just raising an idea (or an ideal?).

       More importantly, even if he loses, the rest of us stand to gain. A world-wide questioning of the neoliberal logic has begun!
       • Stuart Munro 9.1.1.1

         4 March 2016 at 4:23 pm

         It’s true – but if he’s defeated the defeat will be used to create a “but of course that wouldn’t work” meme before you could say “Blairism”.
10. Ad 10

    4 March 2016 at 6:16 pm

    The Trump shot taken with the crowd, the Clinton shot taken from behind the stage.
    The pictures may say a lot, but they also lie.
    You just fell for the usual tricks.
    • arkie 10.1

      4 March 2016 at 7:46 pm

      Trump? You’re confused. It’s a Sanders rally.

      The Clinton shot can’t be from behind the stage, otherwise the audience are showing her their backs. The organisers are lighting the wrong end of the hall too.

      But don’t believe your lying eyes, Clinton is clearly the most electable.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS