Why Hillary is the only candidate to beat Donald Trump

104 comments on “Why Hillary is the only candidate to beat Donald Trump ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Andre 1

   3 March 2016 at 7:51 am

   Ad, it’s not nice to bait CV like this.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1

     3 March 2016 at 8:49 am

     😆
2. Colonial Viper 2

   3 March 2016 at 8:24 am

   To be concise: Hillary Clinton is the one remaining option the bankster run, military industrial congressional, regime-changing Russia/China fearing oligarchic establishment have left for holding on to the status quo.
   • te reo putake 2.1

     3 March 2016 at 8:59 am

     Except all the republican candidates, obviously.
     • Colonial Viper 2.1.1

       3 March 2016 at 10:07 am

       Rubio and Cruz are not viable candidates.
       • Lanthanide 2.1.1.1

         3 March 2016 at 10:58 am

         Rubio is a viable candidate but it seems he won’t get the chance because the republican party dropped the ball.
   • Chooky 2.2

     3 March 2016 at 12:44 pm

     +100 CV
   • Paul 2.3

     3 March 2016 at 5:04 pm

     Totally agree
3. Nic the NZer 3

   3 March 2016 at 8:30 am

   US politics sure is a FU place.

   Hilary was in the whitehouse during ‘reforms’ which have subsequently devistated the poor (including largely african american communities). Never the less she polls well and far better than ex civil rights activist Sanders in these communities.

   She also helped through changes like the removal of Glass-Stegall which was already riddled with holes. The US sorely needs to prosecute the leaders of fraud schemes run by the largest US banks. Instead the US system is fining the banks (shareholders of banks) which barely touches the officers in the banks who comitted the frauds. This provides no disincentive against these events recurring.

   One reason the banks are so politically untouchable is because the largest ones are so large that their collapse is likely to result in the freezing of the US financial system (again). Rather than breaking them up they are left in this position of immense power however.

   Hilary will at best do nothing about this massive risk to the US and world economy and politics.
   • Ad 3.1

     3 March 2016 at 8:41 am

     What was her role in the repeal of Glass-Seagal?
     • Nic the NZer 3.1.1

       3 March 2016 at 11:19 am

       http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2015/04/hillary-remains-clueless-about-regulation-on-the-28th-anniversary-of-the-keating-five-meeting.html

       And her husband signed the repeal into law.
       • Ad 3.1.1.1

         3 March 2016 at 6:54 pm

         Her 2016 view, as distinct from the one when her husband enacted that law, is to:

         “Impose accountability on Wall Street. Nowhere will the shift from short-term to long-term thinking be more important than on Wall Street. Hillary will defend the Wall Street reforms put in place after the financial crisis—and she’ll go further. She’ll tackle dangerous risks in the financial sector, and she’ll appoint and empower tough, independent regulators and prosecute individuals and firms when they commit fraud or other criminal wrong-doing.”

         You can se the statement in context here:

         https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/plan-raise-american-incomes/
         • Nic the NZer 3.1.1.1.1

           3 March 2016 at 7:15 pm

           http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2016/02/hillary-banksters-committed-fraud-not-shenanigans.html

           She must have shifted position since a month ago?
         • Nic the NZer 3.1.1.1.2

           4 March 2016 at 7:38 pm

           http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2016/03/clintons-not-changed-clintonian-war-igs.html

           Oh dear, hope nobody really believes clinton has reformed.
4. Colonial Viper 4

   3 March 2016 at 8:34 am

   Let’s not ignore the track record of reality here.

   US intervention in the middle east and in Afghanistan, and especially the US unflinching support of Saudi Arabia, for the last 50 years, right up to the modern day, has been absolutely central to the rise of extremist militant Islamism.

   Ad, you complain about the Taleban. So let me ask you:

   Who trained Osama Bin Laden and the Afghanistan mujahadeen?

   Who funded Osama Bin Laden and the Afghanistan mujahadeen?

   Who armed Osama Bin Laden and the Afghanistan mujahadeen?

   Who got Islamic militants from Saudi Arabia to travel and fight with the Afghanistan mujahadeen?

   These people eventually became the Taleban and the 9/11 hijackers of course.

   Hillary Clinton represents a continuation of this short sighted Deep State status quo.
   • Ad 4.1

     3 March 2016 at 8:40 am

     Hillary did those things?

     I heard Bill had Blackhawks flying in drugs.
     • Colonial Viper 4.1.1

       3 March 2016 at 8:51 am

       Hmmmm, talk about looking away from the obvious Ad.

       The American Deep State military industrial complex did those things. And Clinton is a continuation and enablement of more of the same.

       But let’s address your point more directly.

       Hillary was directly involved in the regime change programme in Libya. Libya subsequently became a destroyed state, Gaddafi’s arms caches all went to Islamic militants, and Libya has become a breeding ground for Islamic extremists.

       That’s Clinton’s legacy. One with her signature under it as Sec State. Wake up mate.
       • Ad 4.1.1.1

         3 March 2016 at 9:37 am

         That one’s definitely on her.
       • Crashcart 4.1.1.2

         3 March 2016 at 10:48 am

         She was also directly involved in pushing Bill’s justice reforms that heavily contributed to increased incarceration rates for young African Americans. She was so good as to trot out the Super Predator line that was so popular amongst Republicans at the time when describing those same young African American men.

         She may not be directly linked to her husband removing Glass-Seagal but nor has she committed to reintroducing it or similar legislation.
         • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.2.1

           3 March 2016 at 1:21 pm

           Yep the Omnibus Bill that Bill Clinton signed into law. Amongst other things, it made minor drug offences imprisonable.

           Since then, the prison population in the US – predominantly Black – has shot up.
   • Roflcopter 4.2

     3 March 2016 at 9:01 am

     These people eventually became the Taleban and the 9/11 hijackers of course.

     The Taleban were already established and rolling across Afghanistan against the Northern Alliance well before Bin Laden showed up. In fact there was a huge amount of distrust between the Taleban and OBL when they allowed OBL to set up shop after being booted out of the Sudan.
     • Colonial Viper 4.2.1

       3 March 2016 at 9:31 am

       Northern Alliance?

       I’m talking about the CIA funded Mujahadeen insurgency against Soviet forces in Afghanistan.
   • Liberal Realist 4.3

     3 March 2016 at 6:31 pm

     +1

     HRC is an interventionist whom will continue to spread misery, pain, death and injustice in the name of profit, empire and exceptionalism.
5. Crashcart 5

   3 March 2016 at 9:53 am

   I couldn’t tell if this was satire or not.

   Just to point out that Hillary has far from locked things up. On super Tuesday she won all the states she was expected to and so did Burney. There were four states that were a toss up and Burney won three of those and Hilary won the other by 1.5%.
   Many of the states she has won are southern red states that the democrat’s lose any way and most of the remaining states have demographics that are more favourable to Burney than those recent primaries.

   I think Hillary will still win but this is far from over. If anything is going to lead to her losing it will be her showing the same hubris she did against Obama in 2008 and assuming she will win.

   Meetings have already been organised between her campaign and lobbyists for Energy, banks, and the NRA in preparation for a move to the right for a general election.

   The key question of course is can she beat Trump. Polls indicate that it would be close and if she moves right she may lose some of her support from the left. She already performs poorly with independents. She may pick up some right establishment voters but its not like she will win red states with those.

   All in all she is still a long way from a lock in in the Primary and from there the oval office is by no means assured.
   • Colonial Viper 5.1

     3 March 2016 at 9:57 am

     Hillary got at least 10x more “Super Delegates” than Bernie did. The vote of a “Super Delegate” is worth thousands of ordinary Democratic voters.

     It’s a completely un-democratic system and one designed to ensure that the establishment candidate wins.
     • Crashcart 5.1.1

       3 March 2016 at 10:40 am

       This is true however the same was the case in 2008. She had the vast majority of super delegates at the start. However the key thing about a super delegate is that they can change their vote up to the end of the primaries and most did after it was seen that things swung in Obama’s favour.

       I don’t think this will happen with Burney because he is not establishment like Obama is and that is the whole point of super delegates.
       • Colonial Viper 5.1.1.1

         3 March 2016 at 11:03 am

         Cheers, didn’t know that the Super Delegates can change their votes right up to the last minute.
         • weka 5.1.1.1.1

           3 March 2016 at 5:33 pm

           Here’s the consolation, however. Unlike elected delegates, superdelegates are unbound to any candidate even on the first ballot. They can switch whenever they like, and some of them probably will switch to Sanders if he extends his winning streak into more diverse states and eventually appears to have more of a mandate than Clinton among Democratic voters.

           Clinton knows this all too well; it’s exactly what happened to her in 2008 during her loss to Barack Obama. According to the website Democratic Convention Watch,1 Clinton began with a substantial advantage in superdelegates, leading Obama 154 to 50 when New Hampshire voted on Jan. 8, 2008. Obama narrowed his deficit in February and March, however, and overtook Clinton in superdelegates in mid-May. By the time Clinton ended her campaign on June 7, 2008, Obama had nearly a 2-to-1 superdelegate advantage over her.

           http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/superdelegates-might-not-save-hillary-clinton/

           Which is why predictions designed to make the future happen in a certain way annoy me.
   • Lanthanide 5.2

     3 March 2016 at 11:02 am

     “I think Hillary will still win but this is far from over. If anything is going to lead to her losing it will be her showing the same hubris she did against Obama in 2008 and assuming she will win.”

     Mathematically, she has won.

     The democrats have:
     1. Super delegates, of which Hillary has almost all of them
     2. Proportional primaries (not winner-take-all, like many republican ones)

     Hillary has a lead of 200 declared delegates. For Sanders to beat her, he’ll have to win states at levels of 60-70% vs her 20-30%. That just isn’t going to happen.

     The reason Hillary lost in 2008 is that Obama racked up big wins in the southern states on Super Tuesday (which Hillary has just repeated), and in 2008 Hillary was simply unable to win the remaining states with a large enough margin to overcome that delegate lead – she won many states, but not by enough. Then, the super delegates that Hillary had pledged to her, saw the wind changing and switched to Obama.

     Edit: the only thing that can really stop her now, is the email scandal turning red-hot, or some other massive scandal that comes out of nowhere. Both are unlikely.
     • Crashcart 5.2.1

       3 March 2016 at 11:20 am

       Again as I stated above the super delegates will carry this. They could theoretically swing behind Burney if he dominates in the remaining states but we all know that won’t happen.
       • Lanthanide 5.2.1.1

         3 March 2016 at 12:24 pm

         He would have to win the popular vote, and probably by a reasonable margin, for the superdelegates to swing in behind him.
   • saveNZ 5.3

     3 March 2016 at 11:43 am

     @ Crashcart +1 – I also was not sure is this satire???

     Clinton is not a better future for Americans.
     • Jones 5.3.1

       3 March 2016 at 12:32 pm

       Or the world.
   • Phil 5.4

     3 March 2016 at 1:37 pm

     Many of the states she has won are southern red states that the democrat’s lose any way

     I pointed out in another thread that this does not matter AT ALL. In ’08 the vast majority of Obama’s primary victories came in the mid-west and South – both areas of very strong Republican support. There’s basically no evidence in the modern primary era (mid-70’s to today) that support in states that lean to one party or another matters in the slightest.

     most of the remaining states have demographics that are more favourable to Burney [sic] than those recent primaries.

     That’s wishful thinking, Crash.
     Hillary’s doing well enough right across the map that even in states she’s losing to Sanders, it’s by small enough margins that her delegate count isn’t damaged significantly. Looking ahead to the next big-delegate states (Florida, Ohio, Illinois) Clinton leads by huge margins.

     The key question of course is can she beat Trump. Polls indicate that it would be close and if she moves right she may lose some of her support from the left.

     Among democrats, Clinton and Sanders are, basically, equally well liked. The idea that she’s going to shed bucket-loads of white, young, urban liberals to either non-voting or to Trump (if he’s the other presidential candidate) is woefully myopic.
     • Crashcart 5.4.1

       3 March 2016 at 2:40 pm

       Really the reports I have read have Burney considerably ahead amongst young voters of all ethnicities and white democrats across the board. He out performed his polling amongst Hispanics. The area of course where he performs poorly is older voters and in general African American voters. In the south I believe (don’t have the numbers) democratic voters are predominantly black. It is a big contributor to Obama’s success at the start of the 2008 primary. Remember in almost all states Hillary lead by huge numbers not that long ago. She has had those leads cut by large amounts.

       Once again I think she will win but I am not egotistical enough to call it yet. Crazy shit can happen in politics.

       Not sure who said she would shed bucket loads of support if she moves centre. I think it could hurt her amongst young voters who she will need to turn out if she wants to win. However you can’t deny that nationwide polling only shows her having a slim lead over Trump in a general election where as Burney would thrash him by I believe the last poll said 17 points. this is largely due to the fact that he performs far better with independents. The states he has won so far are usually the ones that allow independents to vote in primaries. Unless she can get those independents on board she will have a hard run against Trump.
       • Phil 5.4.1.1

         3 March 2016 at 5:55 pm

         Really the reports I have read have Burney considerably ahead amongst young voters of all ethnicities and white democrats across the board.

         Then you’re reading bad reports. In the early states (esp. Iowa and New Hamp) the voter turnout is overwhelmingly white. Young white democrats are definitely pro-Bernie. We’ve got a lot more data now from Super Tuesday and it’s pointing to Clinton having a massive lead in the Black/minority vote across all age groups. To be frank, I think Sanders’ appeal is not to young people generally, but to a specific segment of young white democrats that are disproportionately vocal on social media and sound a lot more voluminous than they actually are.

         He out performed his polling amongst Hispanics.
         There is some evidence Sanders outperformed his polling among Hispanics in Nevada… which has (even for primary election season) a quirky and not-at-all-representative caucus process. On the other hand, Sanders got absolutely smashed in southern Texas counties, which have a much larger Hispanic population to make polling performance conclusions from.
6. Westninster 6

   3 March 2016 at 9:56 am

   Hilary is a cynical, reluctant pick. She’s deeply embedded in the Establishment a place where politics and expediency trumps democracy and vision.

   But on balance, she’s preferable to any of the Republican candidates. But let’s not kid ourselves; Clinton is not a step-change for struggling, working Americans.

   She may help advance a vaguely progressive domestic policy – but her shameless shilling for the financial and health sector inevitably mean she’ll be heavily compromised in these areas.

   Her foreign policy will probably be as repulsive as Obama’s where illegal war is waged against innocents and enemies with barely any differentiation.

   Civil and political rights are likely to continue to be eroded and America will continue its (perhaps inevitable) slip towards its ultimate demise.

   So, for any progressives in America she’s a reluctant choice. She’s stronger than Bernie (electorally speaking) and in many ways she’s better than the toxic trio of Drumpf, Cruz, and Rubio. But let’s not pretend that she’s a progressive choice. She’s a cynical, political choice.
7. Colonial Viper 7

   3 March 2016 at 10:04 am

   The undemocratic Democratic “super delegates” system

   TL/DR: it exists to ensure that establishment people like Hilary Clinton can’t be beaten by grassroots activism

   Because of this system, the Washington Post points out, Sanders could technically win the primary election, earning a majority of the 1,670 delegates determined by actual voting, but still lose the Democratic Party’s nomination, if Clinton gets most of the party’s 712 unelected unpledged delegates.

   Critics have begun to ask why this undemocratic system exists. CNN’s Jake Tapper posed precisely this question to Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, an ally of Hillary Clinton who co-chaired her former presidential; campaign, in a Feb. 11 interview. She responded with shockingly blunt honesty.

   “What do you tell voters who are new to the process who say this makes them feel like it’s all rigged?” Tapper asked the DNC chair.

   “Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists,” Wasserman Schultz calmly explained.

   http://www.salon.com/2016/02/13/un_democratic_party_dnc_chair_says_superdelegates_ensure_elites_dont_have_to_run_against_grassroots_activists/
   • alwyn 7.1

     3 March 2016 at 10:16 am

     Having seen how the Republican primaries have been going, I am beginning to think it might be a good idea to get rid of all primaries.
     Trump, for God’s sake. Can anyone really see him as being President without getting the shakes?
     Bring back the smoke-filled rooms and candidates like Roosevelt and Eisenhower.
     http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2010/06/origin-of-political-smoke-filled-room.html
     Actually, rereading how it started I may rethink my position. Warren Harding wasn’t the greatest of Presidents was he?
     • Lanthanide 7.1.1

       3 March 2016 at 12:28 pm

       538’s argument about the primaries is that they exist to let the public select amongst a small coterie of candidates selected by the party machinery. In other words the primary is for fine-tuning the party selection.

       The other prong is of course to ‘test’ candidates, and also to explore various policy positions within the party.

       The republicans fucked up by not taking Trump seriously, and now it looks like they’re regretting it (stand by for Mitt Romney’s press conference tomorrow, seems like he’s probably going to denounce Trump).
   • Pasupial 7.2

     3 March 2016 at 10:21 am

     Clinton could still be beaten by Sanders even with most superdelegates, but he’d need to get 55%+ of the vote (I think Nate Silver had it at; 58% against or just 42% needed with all superdelegates, but you have to figure that some would go with the voters). The problem is that Sanders is only on about 40%, which means he’ll have start getting an average of 60%+ from now on. I just can’t see that happening.

     But neither can I see the host of independents who favour Sanders (but who aren’t eligible to vote in primaries) voting for Clinton. They may not vote for Trump, but staying home on election day won’t stop him. I guess that’s a lesson about the importance of voting and political engagement right there.
     • Colonial Viper 7.2.1

       3 March 2016 at 11:00 am

       And oddly, the establishment has been notably fine with driving down both voting and political engagement…
     • Lanthanide 7.2.2

       3 March 2016 at 12:32 pm

       “But neither can I see the host of independents who favour Sanders … voting for Clinton. They may not vote for Trump, but staying home on election day won’t stop him. ”

       If they are *scared* of a Trump presidency (which everyone should be), they will vote for the opposition.

       That’s why Trump being the nominee rather than Rubio may actually be a big benefit for the Democrats.
8. weka 8

   3 March 2016 at 10:11 am

   “Sanders would have been the perfect post GFC 2008 candidate: hate the rich, blame the banks, close the world, melt the tanks.”

   If that’s what you characterise Sanders as why should the rest of your analysis be trusted?
   • Pasupial 8.1

     3 March 2016 at 10:47 am

     Weka
     It rhymes so it must be true!
     • weka 8.1.1

       3 March 2016 at 3:42 pm

       True blue!
   • aerobubble 8.2

     3 March 2016 at 10:49 am

     Was Trump tapped to run because of Sanders, to soak up the anger vote, Sanders was liable to pick up. i.e Repulician anger. So arguably Clinton may be doing well amongst Democrats, but come the playoff Sanders may just split Republicians. It takes time for society to recognize what 2008 means. Clinton may rekindle Republician unity.

     Anyway its how the Congress gets hitched, rather more than whose President to my mind. More years of gridlock.

     Another day of analysis from a pre2008 prespective, really. What do you think Trump is tapping into? Loathing of nutty analysus from people like you?
     • weka 8.2.1

       3 March 2016 at 1:01 pm

       Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about or why you are addressing that to me.
9. One Two 9

   3 March 2016 at 10:14 am

   Quite the selection of debased human beings on offer….

   ‘Good Dirty”

   Some great articles get authored on this site….

   This is not one of them!
   • saveNZ 9.1

     3 March 2016 at 2:38 pm

     Is that the new strategy for Labour, by the NZ Labour Blairites????

     ‘Good Dirty”?

     “Keep gearing the military up. The Deep State gets to surface again.”

     “Next, very importantly, she knows how to get paid. In any world I know of, if you want some money, you go to the bank, and you ask.”

     Will NOT work in NZ – it’s not even working that well in the USA for the brand name Clinton – the public are tired of neoliberalism and dirty politicians.

     please no, no, no
     • saveNZ 9.1.1

       3 March 2016 at 4:23 pm

       It may be a cliche, but I think a lot of voters are now wanting honesty and integrity…. even Trump has his own version of honesty – you may not like it, but he says what he thinks without a minder. Corbyn and Sanders do as well. These days, that is refreshing from a politician….. Too much double speak is tiring. Get to the point. Yes, NO etc

       TPPA is an example – keep it simple, yes or no! Not giving a straight answer comes across as dishonest and confusing, even if it not intended to be.
       • Chooky 9.1.1.1

         3 March 2016 at 4:30 pm

         +100…and this is a very interesting analysis of Donald Trump from Alex Jones in the second half of the Keiser Report

         … also why Sanders has not made traction against Hillary Clinton in the results , despite having the majority of grassroots support ( Democratic Party result rigging with preferential voting..as CV has pointed out the “undemocratic Democratic “super delegates” system”…?)

         https://www.rt.com/shows/keiser-report/333806-episode-max-keiser-881/

         In the second half, Max interviews alternative media star Alex Jones about his first-of-its-kind interview with Republican frontrunner Donald Trump and what role the mainstream media has played in Trump’s rise by refusing to cover certain stories important to Americans outside the Beltway.
         • saveNZ 9.1.1.1.1

           3 March 2016 at 5:09 pm

           Winston Peters has gained from this too. He is a maverick like Trump. He can take votes from Key, who seems to have peaked and passed his used by date.

           The Greens I think have lost a bit – having a co leader approach and maybe they are too similar as leaders and don’t appear revolutionary enough. I don’t know. I mean they just don’t seem like direct action types which the Greens are known for, the types to spent a night in jail for protesting like Bradford or getting roughed up by the Chinese with a Tibetan Flag like Norman. More like working on speeches together over a Green tea and Coke.

           Norman and Cunliffe are revolutionaries – that is why people are still very supportive of them personally. Maybe the are right, maybe they are wrong but ultimately you trust them more, because they say what they think and their instincts are consistent and big world view. They take you with them.

           Labour should be using Cunliffe to get the Labour revolutionary votes, while maybe Little can loosen up a bit and aim for the centre. But if Labour keep going centre right into Nat Lite, they will loose all their Labour brand support and still not get much Nat lite vote who listen to MSM and will go with the safe and predictable King Key while losing core Brand Labour voters.
           • Chooky 9.1.1.1.1.1

             3 March 2016 at 9:17 pm

             +100 …good advice to Labour Party
10. arkie 10

    3 March 2016 at 10:41 am

    The lack of analysis and the desperation for the people give up and side with the “winner” in this article remind me of a certain PM and a flag debate…
11. Olwyn 11

    3 March 2016 at 10:42 am

    The person who wrote this is rather more optimistic for Sanders than this post is:
    http://usuncut.com/news/sanders-wins-4-super-tuesday-states/

    Following on what Weka said at 7, the tone of this piece upsets me. We know that throughout the western hemisphere, the working class are no longer needed, and hence given as little consideration as possible. Jobs are off-shored, and even service jobs like waiting on tables are cheaper if they are done by transients from elsewhere. They don’t need the overvalued housing, and can be slept 10 to a room, so they don’t get in the way of the cashed-up having everything. Moreover, in a so-called socially liberal time, the prisons have never been more full. And further, not content with destroying their own people, the elites from the US and UK are determined to inflict their scheme on everyone else, even if it involves bombing them to the stone age. Anger at all this is justified. Hope when one has a public champion standing up against it is justified. Crying, “ha ha, never going to happen” seems glib and short sighted.
    • aerobubble 11.1

      3 March 2016 at 11:08 am

      Markets like lower wages, longer hours managing less workforce, and for a long time the growth in the economy from cheap oil obliged. Prisons were profitable when govt had positive growing balance sheets, nowadays growing a generation of deliquients while population ageing and medium wages drop is even effecting the mindset if rich people. Its not good economics to run a class war against the poorest, they may just get mad and vote Trump or Sanders president just to show how angry they are. When a father comes home after working two jobs, hits his kids because he cant handle the low status lost of control and his kids take a different view of tv violence as a result, well its not like there us any civil society on tv, no docs, no hard hiting attacks on neolib do nothing its alright markets will deliver.

      Trump will win if he goes up against Clinton, less of course a third of republician sit it out and concerned moderate reps switch horses. But Clinton gets up the nose of fundamentists and moderates alike.
      • Colonial Viper 11.1.1

        3 March 2016 at 11:46 am

        Markets like lower wages, longer hours managing less workforce, and for a long time the growth in the economy from cheap oil obliged.

        Worth bearing in mind that financial “markets” are only a tool.

        The individuals behind them are the financial capitalist class. The system is driven by, and benefits, the top 0.1%.
    • Colonial Viper 11.2

      3 March 2016 at 11:42 am

      The top 20% of US society is heavily shielded from how the bottom 80% has been screwed over.

      But as the rot spreads up into the once comfortable middle classes, a few more are getting it.
      • saveNZ 11.2.1

        3 March 2016 at 4:32 pm

        I think you might find it is more unequal than that!

        “The top 20% of US society is heavily shielded from how the bottom 80% has been screwed over.”

        As for the middle classes.

        As someone once told me, the middle class is where historically the revolutionaries are coming from. From Kate Sheppard to Nelson Mandela, the middle classes are the ones to watch!

        So don’t be so keen to knock them!
12. Stuart Munro 12

    3 March 2016 at 12:23 pm

    I still like Bernie. Hillary could still be very useful though – but she has a health reform she never got to finish – better she finishes it than gets involved in dubious foreign policy quagmires.

    Trump is an interesting phenomenon but I don’t think he’d turn out to be a good president. It’s the Mother Theresa metric – I don’t know if she was a saint (I’m not that well connected) – but a community of strangers decided on her performance that she was a good and trustworthy person. What do communities who have experienced Trump say about him? The Scots are not atypical in thinking he’s a gobshite.
    • Ad 12.1

      3 March 2016 at 1:42 pm

      Sanders as VP would be awesome.
13. Anno1701 13

    3 March 2016 at 12:33 pm

    I put down my bong for NO man ( or woman ) !
    • Ad 13.1

      3 March 2016 at 1:42 pm

      😉
14. Draco T Bastard 14

    3 March 2016 at 12:43 pm

    Imagine what he could have done with actual governance experience.

    The governance experience is what’s getting in the way. The problem is that that experience is across a lot of people and one person has difficulty changing it.

    Now, I’m a whole bunch more an LBJ fan than a Kennedy person;

    Sent the West to wage an unjust war against Vietnam.

    Secondly, she’s going to keep gearing the military up.

    Yeah, and probably keep sending them to kill people.

    Next, very importantly, she knows how to get paid. In any world I know of, if you want some money, you go to the bank, and you ask.

    And that’s what caused the GFC.

    Unfortunately, you don’t seem to be being sarcastic.
15. rhinocrates 15

    3 March 2016 at 1:18 pm

    Guy reads quotes from the fellow with the Chaplin moustache to Trump supporters. Guess what they say. My favourite quote is “They’d be good lies.” followed by “If Trump said them I’d support them.”
    • joe90 15.1

      3 March 2016 at 2:06 pm

      Similar to and supported by actual N*z’s.

      Jon Ostrower Verified account
      ‏@jonostrower

      Out of curiosity, I found the first NYT reference to Adolf Hitler. Nov. 21, 1922. Amazing last three paragraphs.

      https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/705171149022433280

      Matthew Heimbach
      ‏@MatthewHeimbach

      Donald Trump has basically officially gone full “Keep America White.” This man is your friend, he fights for freedom

      (no link for obvious reasons)
      • joe90 15.1.1

        3 March 2016 at 2:57 pm

        He’s popular.

        http://blog.adl.org/anti-semitism/louis-farrakhan-joins-list-of-extremists-praising-donald-trump
      • Colonial Viper 15.1.2

        3 March 2016 at 3:00 pm

        Just remember that the US establishment was frequently pro-Hitler in the 1930s.

        In the 30’s Henry Ford was given a high German honour for services to German industry.

        How did that work out for Europe.
16. Magisterium 16

    3 March 2016 at 2:20 pm

    I don’t think Clinton can beat Trump, but sadly I don’t think Sanders can beat Clinton.
    • pat 16.1

      3 March 2016 at 2:23 pm

      Both Sanders and Clinton would beat Trump….if the GOP don’t do it first
      • Ad 16.1.1

        3 March 2016 at 3:17 pm

        Hopefully a brokered Republican conference
    • pat 16.2

      3 March 2016 at 2:55 pm

      http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/01/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-poll/
      • Puddleglum 16.2.1

        3 March 2016 at 3:26 pm

        And from that link:

        “In the scenario that appears most likely to emerge from the primary contests, Clinton tops Trump 52% to 44% among registered voters. That result has tilted in Clinton’s favor since the last CNN/ORC Poll on the match-up in January.

        But when the former secretary of state faces off with either of the other two top Republicans, things are much tighter and roughly the same as they were in January. Clinton trails against Rubio, with 50% choosing the Florida senator compared to 47% for Clinton, identical to the results in January. Against Cruz, Clinton holds 48% to his 49%, a slight tightening from a 3-point race in January to a 1-point match-up now.”

        And …

        “Sanders — who enjoys the most positive favorable rating of any presidential candidate in the field, according to the poll — tops all three Republicans by wide margins: 57% to 40% against Cruz, 55% to 43% against Trump, and 53% to 45% against Rubio. Sanders fares better than Clinton in each match-up among men, younger voters and independents.”

        If this is borne out in other data, and if the main aim is to defeat Trump (or any Republican Candidate) and if selection processes were rational, then Democratic supporters would swing behind Sanders.

        A lot of ‘ifs’ but it is a sequence of ‘ifs’ that seems to underpin the logic of the post despite the post coming to the opposite conclusion (without referencing polling data).

        Of course, if the main aim is to give Hilary Clinton a go at being President then the arguments in the post may be valid.
        • pat 16.2.1.1

          3 March 2016 at 3:39 pm

          but i think you are as aware as anyone that “the establishment”will have a preference for Clinton over Sanders so the publics wishes will be ignored, or at least “modified’
          The fact that Clinton will mean more of the same is no reason to hand the keys over to a head case, and despite what many may think of the US,its inhabitants (voters) are (generally) people like you and me….except for the Kardashians, of course.
        • Ad 16.2.1.2

          3 March 2016 at 6:47 pm

          The point cited in the first line of the post was that it was about the actual SuperTuesday results.
          • weka 16.2.1.2.1

            3 March 2016 at 6:54 pm

            Do SuperTuesday results always predict election outcomes?
          • Puddleglum 16.2.1.2.2

            3 March 2016 at 10:20 pm

            I’m not sure what your response is saying.

            The Super Tuesday results – as weka’s question above implies – are unlikely to be representative of the United States electoral population. First, they involve democratic supporters. Second, they were overwhelmingly (in population terms) in the Southern states.

            So I presume you mean something other than that these results show that Hillary Clinton has a better chance of beating Donald Trump than does Bernie Sanders?

            My point was simply that if, as the post title suggests, the concern is over beating Trump, then a rational response based on statistically representative samples (assuming other polling shows the same trend) would suggest that Sanders has a better chance of beating Trump than does Hillary Clinton.

            The title of the post is ‘Why Hillary is the only candidate to beat Trump’. If what that actually meant was ‘because of Super Tuesday results she is the only candidate now able to be nominated in the democratic primaries’ then what was the aim of deploying all the arguments in praise of Clinton as a candidate? Was that to convince some American supporters of Bernie Sanders in New Zealand that she’ll be alright as their second pick when it comes to voting in November?

            Let me put it another way. That Sanders seems unlikely to win the nomination after Super Tuesday is beside the point when it comes to deciding which – still ‘live’ – democratic candidates can beat Trump. It’s clear that there is a ‘live’ candidate (Sanders) who, along with Hillary Clinton, also appears, from the polling evidence, to have a pretty good chance of beating Trump – perhaps even better than Clinton’s chances of beating Trump.

            An added bonus for the rational voter of swinging in behind Sanders is that he also appears to have a better chance (considerably better) of beating the other two potential Republican candidates should, for example, attempts to undermine Trump’s bid by Republican grandees prove successful.

            Perhaps I was reading the wrong thing into the title of the post?
        • happynz 16.2.1.3

          3 March 2016 at 7:15 pm

          Electoral maths over national polls. Take for instance Wyoming. The state has 3 electoral votes. Population in the Cowboy State is around half-a-million. California has 55 electoral votes. The Golden State has nearly 39 million people. Wyoming has 133,000 voters for each elector. In California it is nearly 710,000 voters per elector.

          Outside of Maine and Nebraska it is winner take all.

          What does it all mean? Well, in 2000 Bush received fewer votes nationally than Gore, but he squeezed enough votes out of Florida to grab their 29 electoral votes and the rest is a sad chapter in American history.
          • Puddleglum 16.2.1.3.1

            3 March 2016 at 10:23 pm

            Very true.

            The question then becomes which of the two candidates (Clinton or Sanders) is likely to take those states away from Trump that have disproportionate representation in the Electoral College and are also ‘swing states’?

            I don’t know enough about the US electorate to answer that question.
            • Ad 16.2.1.3.1.1

              4 March 2016 at 10:41 pm

              Florida, Illinois, California and New York.

              If the Dems get those, they could even cope without Texas.
            • Andre 16.2.1.3.1.2

              5 March 2016 at 8:37 am

              The two biggest swing states are Florida (29 electors) and Ohio (20)

              Caifornia, Illinois and New York are pretty solid Dem, Texas hasn’t gone Dem since 1976.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_election_results_by_state

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

              I’d guess Trump wouldn’t be that popular in Florida overall, since it’s got a fairly high Hispanic population. But he is polling well there for the primary.
              Clinton would be a lot more popular than Sanders. Maybe it’s all those retirees.

              Ohio being a Rust Belt state would likely be good to Trump (for the nationalistic keep jobs in the US sentiment), but it’s Kasich’s home state so isn’t polling that well. Bernie is closer to Hillary (51-43 by HuffPo). I’d expect Bernie to do a lot better against Trump in Ohio than Hillary would.
17. Michael 17

    3 March 2016 at 3:15 pm

    Is that why, in the averages of general election polls, Sanders beats every Republican candidate by larger margins than Hillary?

    The *evidence* shows Sanders is more electable, and he has the highest net favourability of any Presidential candidate. Trump and Hillary each have horrible net unfavourability.
18. Grindlebottom 18

    3 March 2016 at 5:33 pm

    Damn. Open Mike‘s gone troppo on me again…can’t open it. 🙁
19. Ad 19

    3 March 2016 at 6:44 pm

    Nice story this one, on why one person is voting Hillary:

    http://www.salon.com/2016/03/03/my_gen_x_hillary_problem_i_know_why_we_dont_like_clinton/
20. BM 20

    3 March 2016 at 7:03 pm

    Thought this was interesting

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/03/02/republicans-outnumber-democrats-for-the-2016-presidential-primary-turnout/

    Clintons pro choice views keeping away the Catholics?
    • pat 20.1

      3 March 2016 at 7:10 pm

      assume you not Catholic?

      “Views on abortion are more mixed, with combined surveys from 2011 through 2013 showing opinion is split among U.S. Catholics. About half (53%) of white Catholics say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 41% say it should be illegal in all or most cases; among Hispanic Catholics, 43% say it should be legal in all or most cases, while 52% say it should be illegal in all or most cases.”

      http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/19/majority-of-u-s-catholics-opinions-run-counter-to-church-on-contraception-homosexuality/
      • BM 20.1.1

        3 March 2016 at 8:10 pm

        No

        Just basing it on what I heard from a American Democrat over the weekend, the article might tie in with what she said.
        • pat 20.1.1.1

          3 March 2016 at 8:34 pm

          I would suggest that of those 52% who oppose in all/most circumstances the majority would not impose their view on others (it would be a personal standard)…that be fundamentalist territory…not something catholics are renowned for (though they do exist)
        • Sabine 20.1.1.2

          4 March 2016 at 10:36 am

          are you sure he was talking about Catholics, cause the ones that are really good at restricting abortion rights, closing down womens health centres, and handing out religious opt out clauses for pharmacists and the likes are generally speaking evangelic christian, southern baptists, or the re-born type. Have a look here at the states in the US that have enacted legislations to ‘protect the wimminz from themselves and help them make good choices’ http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2015/01/05/
          currently in front of the court is this dozy courtesy of the ‘christian protectors to help women by not providing the access to medical care they need”
          http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/us/politics/supreme-court-abortion-texas.html?_r=0

          Catholics in the US are still not trusted, and of course, while the Pope may be against the pill and abortion, the ladies still take the pill and have abortions. The bishops may rant and rave, but considering the child abuse scandals over the last few decades they don’t really have enough respect left in the community to dictate how people can control their fertility.
          To boot only about 20% identify as catholic, vs, about 45+% identify as protestants.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

          The only place were the catholic church is influential enough to actually have a grip on the politicians are some Countries in South America where abortion is illegal in all cases, and women get arrested for having miscarriages, and doctors not terminating pregnancies even in the case of sepsis, lest they be accused of having facilitated an abortion.

          The catholics of the US do not have that influence, and while Cruz was a catholic he is now a re-born Southern Baptist, and Rubio was a catholic, then ‘explored’ the mormon faith, and then ‘explored’ the southern babtist faith, to now be catholic again. Turn Coats or opportunists you might call them.

          So no, your “American Democrat” has fed you a load of incorrect Data. The anti abortionist stance in teh US comes from Evangelic Fundamentalists and not from Catholics.
    • b waghorn 20.2

      3 March 2016 at 7:40 pm

      If I was a democrat I’d be worried that the low turnout is due to voters that have decided they will switch to Republican if trump gets to run for president..
      • pat 20.2.1

        3 March 2016 at 7:58 pm

        small percentage may as an anti establishment vote, but even those will be holding their noses as they tick the ballot….suspect more concerned republicans would switch and vote status quo with Hilary
      • BM 20.2.2

        3 March 2016 at 8:16 pm

        Trump certainly is energizing the non- voter.
        Lots of dissatisfaction in the states and it runs across party lines.
21. Penny Bright 21

    3 March 2016 at 8:41 pm

    It ain’t over – till it’s over …..

    http://usuncut.com/news/how-tonights-bernie-sanders-rally-compared-to-hillary-clintons/

    When doing a side-by-side comparison of the crowds attending a Hillary Clinton rally and a Bernie Sanders rally, a picture really does say a thousand words.

    The day after Super Tuesday, which saw Hillary Clinton unable to bury the Bernie Sanders campaign, both candidates were back out on the trail to revel in their respective victories and drum up support for the next wave of primaries.

    In Michigan, Sanders spoke to a packed house at the Breslin Student Events Center at Michigan State University, where thousands of supporters lined up in the snow for hours to hear his energetic speech.
    ……..
    ___________________________

    Penny Bright
    2016 Auckland Mayoral candidate.
22. Stuart Munro 22

    3 March 2016 at 9:20 pm

    Robert Reich is still calling it for Bernie – & he’s a pretty good numbers man.
    • pat 22.1

      3 March 2016 at 9:42 pm

      his open letter is on the money
23. joe90 23

    3 March 2016 at 9:40 pm

    Elizabeth Warren huh,

    Another group that styles itself as representative of liberal Democrats, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, said Sanders had made Clinton a stronger candidate. The characterization seemed to imply that Sanders’ challenge had served its purpose by putting Clinton clearly on record in support of the issues that motivate their activist base.

    Adam Green, co-founder of the committee, said Sanders had helped ensure that “the center for gravity in the Democratic Party has shifted” to the left — to what he called its Elizabeth Warren wing, after the Massachusetts senator. He said Sanders’ challenge pushed Clinton to take more definitive positions on issues like Wall Street reform than she might have otherwise.

    […]

    “If the net effect of Bernie Sanders staying in is that Hillary Clinton is speaking even more convincingly on the need to hold Wall Street accountable, that only helps her in the general election,” he said.

    Green suggested that Warren herself might soon be ready to make an endorsement – one Clinton would very much like to have. Groups on the left have joined Warren in calling on the eventual nominee to commit to naming strong progressive figures to key posts on the Securities and Exchange Commission and elsewhere. “Personnel is policy,” Warren wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed.

    “Her eventual support will be so important that she has the ability to make concessions particularly on Wall Street issues,” Green said. “Elizabeth Warren is very good at picking her battles and picking her timing.

    http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-democrats-sanders-20160302-story.html
    • Ad 23.1

      4 March 2016 at 9:15 am

      Agreed.

      Sanders’ presence has pushed Hillary leftwards.

      The risk is once he folds, she reverts to the centre.

      Warren’s endorsement could be a further shunt to the left.
24. William Smith 24

    4 March 2016 at 9:13 am

    Clinton’s attitude to foreign policy is a reckless to say the least as is her attitude towards climate change. Oh by the by where is her climate change agenda?Oh that’s right its been filed “somewhere” in a forgotten PDF. How about her err, sort of, maybe, rejection of the TPPA which she earlier warmly endorsed………

    I’d say anyone hoping for any good from her as President of anything is really deluding themselves. As Jill Stein said the only thing she has in common with Clinton is ovaries…….
    • Ad 24.1

      4 March 2016 at 1:21 pm

      Hillary will be an awesome President, just you wait and see.
25. mosa 25

    4 March 2016 at 12:08 pm

    One of Bernies greatest assets is his support base.
    He has energised young people to come out and support the cause and
    more importantly donate to his campaign.
    He has successfuly sold his message and his ideas to future voters .
    And how they would benefit from a change of direction in policy .
    If he fails to win the nomination but gets Hillary to publicly endorse some of his ideas then he has accomplished what he set out to do if Hillary wins the general election
    Bringing real change to America and more importantly showing young people that its worth comming out and participating in the electoral process.
    • Ad 25.1

      4 March 2016 at 1:21 pm

      That’s the optimum outcome now.
26. The Chairman 26

    4 March 2016 at 1:44 pm

    There’s still hope for Sanders yet.

    https://youtu.be/PdWd0wV44mk

Links to post

1. The destruction of the Republican Party « The Standard: posted on 5 March 2016 at 8:42 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS