Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
January 28, 2016

My First Take On The Presidential Election

Say what you will about Donald Trump but he knows how to market himself. Staging a feud with Fox News and abstaining from tonight's Republican candidate debate gives him more media coverage than taking part. He is already the front runner of the Republican candidates. More debating could only endanger that position. Staying away and making a fuzz about it gives him a bigger lead.

That Trump knows marketing well gives me some doubt about his real positions. Who owns him? Who pays his campaign? Answers to these questions are likely more revealing than the fascist dog-whistle politics he publicly emphasizes. He seems to favor neither neoconservative nor liberal interventionist foreign policy. That would be welcome change.

On the democratic side I do not see a chance for Clinton to win. I believe that the American people have had enough of the Clintons. If she would win the nomination she would lose in the presidential election as many voters would abstain. Her policy record is abysmal. Yes she has experience - of misjudgement and not learning from it. In interior policies she is clearly in the hands of Wall Street and the big banks. Her "liberal" image is all fake. In foreign policy she is "the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes":

“If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue,” [top neocon Robert Kagan] added, “it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”

Sanders is hard to see as president. His domestic policies are somewhat comparable to middle-of-the-road European social-democrats. His foreign policy stand isn't clear. While not an interventionist he supports the colonists in Palestine. The people obviously favor him over Clinton but he will need big money for the big campaign should he get the nomination. To whom would he sell out?

The Republican party is coming around in favor of Trump. The party big-wigs believe he has no real positions, that they can manipulate him. That is probably wrong. The Democratic party machine is clearly in favor of Clinton. Would it try to sabotage Sanders if he wins primary after primary? Could they throw in another plausible candidate?

My gut instinct say it will be Sanders against Trump with a voter turnout advantage for Sanders. What is your take?

Posted by b on January 28, 2016 at 17:57 UTC | Permalink

Comments
next page »

agree. Clinton will be decimated by Trump. Is there any special interest on the planet that doesn't own part of her/Clinton Democrats? The level of apathy of her winning the nomination would be monumental vs "high energy" of Trump supporters. So, love to see Bernie vs Trump election. It would certainly settle a lot of issues in the US including whether or not special interests can still buy US elections/Politicos/policy

sk

Posted by: Steve | Jan 28 2016 18:04 utc | 1

thanks b... they are all 'fake' as i see it.. the whole system of greater inequality breeds an absence of any type of democracy.. the usa is now living proof of it.. i think trump has a good chance so long as he doesn't get shot.

Posted by: james | Jan 28 2016 18:08 utc | 2

Trump and the Clintons go way back. Best analysis I've heard is that she put him up to it - he's a businessman & a entertainer; he's never had any interest in becoming president. Trump fractures the Republican party, runs as an independent, splits the Republican vote and hands the presidency over to Clinton. Sanders is a fraud and always has been. He'll step down and take a position in Clinton's administration. It's all been predetermined. Meanwhile, Americans think they're participating in a democracy.

Posted by: Mark | Jan 28 2016 18:10 utc | 3

I agree that it might be Sanders against Trump and agree that Sanders may have a turnout advantage. What Trump will have as an advantage, if the global plutocrats deem it so, is a recession and domestic/international violence that will call into question ongoing Dem reign in the White house.

And none see or question control of the situation by the global plutocrats and private finance so their hegemony continues. If they let Sanders win, there will be method to their madness which will show in time. All this said, I still think that an outside wild card winner could be injected into the race in the next couple of months before that window of opportunity closes.

Go long popcorn.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Jan 28 2016 18:32 utc | 4

Sounds plausible, Mark. Yeah, Sanders is like that patsyguy Hannity(?) would have on his TV show featuring a "debate" between a "Conservative" and a "Liberal".

Where have you been hearing this?

Posted by: ruralito | Jan 28 2016 18:39 utc | 5

I think Sanders would struggle in the general election and the repugs would have a propaganda field day with things he said and did in the past. As a Brooklyn Jew, he's already got that against him. How would he govern? largely at loggerheads with Congress. Foreign policy? An R2P interventionist and Netanyahoo would have (as LBJ liked to say) his pecker in his pocket.
Trump is a Trojan Horse in the Repug party. A social liberal, notwithstanding all his nativist demagoguery. And probably averse to foreign policy interventionism, as it's bad for business (in the sense that it ultimately fails to promote the long term national interest). I think if he gain the White House he will be a bitter pill to most establishment repugs who will see him as a betrayer.

Posted by: adrian | Jan 28 2016 18:40 utc | 6

As a registered independent I don't get to participate in the primaries of the duopoly. I also haven't voted for the duopoly in decades. And in any case my state's primary is only late in the season so we don't count. My observations on the campaign so far and how I see the primary unfolding to Super Tuesday.

On the Republican side, when Trump launched everyone thought he was a buffoon. Jeb Bush had amassed $100 million and had all the support of the elites. Ted Cruz was aiming to consolidate the evangelical & Tea Party supporters. As it has so far turned out Trump and his amazing media skills and his excellent reading of the current psyche of working class middle America has overturned the apple cart. When he launched he did the unPC thing by calling the illegal immigrants "rapists" and claiming he would build a wall to staunch the inflow of illegal, mostly unskilled economic immigrants. This resonated strongly with the working class, white, non-coastal Republican (and also as you will see later many Democrat of that ilk). His campaign has continued on that vein taking advantage of the terrorist attack in California by being extremely provocative and capturing all the media cycles. Now, by picking a fight with Fox, the big dog, the sole source of mainstream TV information for Republicans, he is showing his supporters that he is dominant and that he will fight for them and America as he is fighting Fox. This all appeals to the working class segment of the Republicans at an emotional and visceral level. Using his incredible media skills he has eviscerated the Bush dynasty by labeling Jeb as "low energy" and ridiculing him in his tweets and in the debates. His take down of Cruz at the last debate by pulling the 9/11 card and standing up for NY was something to behold. IMO, he is going to run away with the Republican nomination by Super Tuesday.

On the Democratic side, while Sanders has a great message and personal integrity, he does not have the charisma of a great retail politician to overcome Hillary's support by the Democratic party establishment, unions, blacks, latinos, seniors and Wall St. This is best exemplified by the demographic distribution of support for each candidate. Sanders wins with 70% support of those under 45. Hillary wins with 70% support of those over 65 and she also has majority support of those between 45-65. Unfortunately for Sanders, the under 45 are the least likely to vote and over 65 most likely. Hillary also has majority support of blacks and latinos. Second, the primary calendar after New Hampshire does not favor Sanders - with South Carolina, Nevada and many southern states in Super Tuesday. So, Sanders has to win both Iowa and New Hampshire to be even in the race and then he gets into states where unions, seniors, blacks make a huge difference and they support Hillary overwhelmingly. Sanders support is primarily among the millennial generation and white liberals on the coasts. His only choice is to take down Hillary hard on her ethics, judgment and most importantly the potential to be indicted on felony charges. But, Sanders does not have the personality to engage in hard scrabble politics like Hillary does. IMO consequently, Hillary wins the Democratic party nomination.

The presidential contest will then contrast an uninspired Hillary campaign using the same old political triangulation and a maverick, unPC, media savvy Trump campaign. At the end it will come to the same swing states of Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina to decide the outcome. Although, I would not be surprised at all if Trump thumps Hillary!

Posted by: ab initio | Jan 28 2016 18:49 utc | 7

Most americans want a tough and successful businessman to care about the weak economy. They don't trust the cheated wife of a ex-president and a failed secretary of state as a president.
If he plays like he did until now, Trump is very probably the next president

Posted by: virgile | Jan 28 2016 18:54 utc | 8

Plan B: The establishment will attempt to "occupy" Bernie

Posted by: nmb | Jan 28 2016 18:59 utc | 9

Based on their campaigns, it appears that neither Trump nor Sanders (some stuff here to clear up his stance on foreign policy) wants to be president. Early on, I figured Trump was there to help Jeb win the nomination and Hillary the presidency (while Bernie was playing the sheepdog from day 1) but I didn't realize just how disliked Hillary is among democrats (that Bernie could beat her without even trying). Who knows? One thing to remember is how early it is (in December 2007, McCain was polling between single digits and mid-teens and was considered to have "no chance").

Posted by: James | Jan 28 2016 19:10 utc | 10

it is starting to look as though it might well be Sanders v Trump
and polls show that Sanders will wipe the floor with Trump if it were a one on one race
BUT
for that reason, a third candidate typified by Bloomberg will jump in and split the non-Trump vote to guarantee Trump wins

which is really an acceleration of what Sanders portends
the split of the Dem & a Rep parties
into a rump extreme right wing, a majority Center right (Clintonesque) and a more lefty party representing the `Sanderistas` and fellow travelers - democratic socialitic redistributionists

Posted by: David C Mace | Jan 28 2016 19:14 utc | 11

Hillary is neocon agent and greedy, Trump is egomaniac but shrewd, Sanders don't know foreign policy, Cruz is good for Vatican, Rubio bashes Obama very well, Bush has no chance and none of them are worthy of my vote. Staying home is the only choice. Whoever wins, neocons have everything lined up for Iran invasion. We will go back to Afghan, Libya and Iraq to make more money and plunder the remaining living beings. PNAC is in full action, where is Wolfowitz, Rumsefeld and Cheney?

Posted by: Santa | Jan 28 2016 19:15 utc | 12

The big questions now:

1) Is Bloomberg serious about entering the race?

I think he is. And I think his participation would be more to counter/weaken Trump than Sanders.

2) Who will be Sanders running mate?

Sanders will be 75 on election day. Ronald Reagan was nearly 74 when began his first term and his age was an issue in his re-election - but everyone knew by then who his advisors and appointees were.

It would be very good if all 'outsider' candidates provided more info on who they would consider as VP and appointees.

<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

Sanders campaign slogan is: "A Future to Believe In" (emphasis is the campaign's), eerily reminiscent of "Change You Can Believe In".

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 28 2016 19:19 utc | 13

The oligarchy/deep state will not give up power willingly. If Trump and Sanders present a genuine threat, they'll be neutralized in one way or another, even if one makes it into office. But it's telling that the two main deep state candidates, Clinton and Bush, are failing. The deep state's control is slipping, not least because they've gotten lazy and arrogant. Why are they relying on candidates with so much baggage?

I wonder if Sanders' refusal to present a serious foreign policy is an acknowledgment that the president no longer has real control over foreign policy. Certainly Obama doesn't seem to.

As for Trump, he may have started out as a cat's paw, but don't underestimate the need of the narcissist for attention and power. Frankenstein's monster may have escaped.

Posted by: NoOneYouKnow | Jan 28 2016 19:21 utc | 14

Trump doesn't favour a different dominationist policy at all, he simply use that as a criticism of his opponents.
He said he will create biggest military ever seen.
And if shithead Trump gets to be president, when confronted by the CIA, the Pentagon, NSA etc, will fold like the spineless coward he always has been.
Trump is just a rich, big mouth, self-aggredizing, spineless, cowardly tv personality, who has next to zero leadership qualities.
There are far worse convincing and competent fascist leaders yet to come in the US. Trump will be looked back in 5,10 years from now, as a astounding joke. Setting up far worse to come.

This election shows how closer to fascism the US hasbeen in a long time, as well as how sick of the federal establishment the US people are.

And Sanders is not a socialist in the slightest. He would willingly sacrifice the rest of the world to US domination just so in the US there can be some more social focused programs in the US. Despicable.
Sanders came out to announce no change to US foreign domination policy, exactly at the time when he was popular enough to make a serious challenge to Hillary Clinton. Go back and check for yourself, the timing is obvious and his decision atrocious.
Sanders would fold just like Trump would in front of the Pentagon in the CIA.

Anyone who would sacrifice the rest of the world so they can have better social policies in their own country can eat shit, because that is exactly what these a lot of foreign people will be doing.

Posted by: tom | Jan 28 2016 19:27 utc | 15

The last election that offered any non-machine hope was jimmy carter. As
an outsider, every one that was anyone cratered his chances of an agenda,
leading to our only ex-president becoming a success, after leaving office.

Trump, being apolitical, and not exactly a dark horse, could ignite and in-
flame the disappointments of all that is corrupt and forsaken in America.
He is a shoo-in to win ..... but if he is either bumped off, or sells out, U.S.
will continue toward implosion.

Posted by: sevenleagueboots | Jan 28 2016 19:50 utc | 16

Re Bloomberg impact
I am not so sure (as another stated above) that Bllomberg would hurt Sanders more than he would hurt Trump. There are many GOPs who would vote for Bloomberg over Trump, but none who would vote for Sanders over anyone.
I have not seen any real analysis of this.

Posted by: mauisurfer | Jan 28 2016 19:57 utc | 17

David C Mace | Jan 28, 2016 2:14:32 PM | @11
a third candidate typified by Bloomberg will jump in and split the non-Trump vote to guarantee Trump wins

Jackrabbit | Jan 28, 2016 2:19:56 PM | @13
And I think [Bloomberg's] participation would be more to counter/weaken Trump than Sanders.

I don't think any sigificant number of Sanders supporters or Trump supporters will jump to Bloomberg. It seems to me that Bloomberg is big money's fallback in case Clinton fails.

Posted by: PhilK | Jan 28 2016 19:58 utc | 18

My gut instinct say it will be Sanders against Trump with a voter turnout advantage for Sanders. What is your take?

Your overall assessments are good, however it dependent partly on people like me who are diehard against the Democrats and may switch sides and votes for Trump. I'm for Jill Stein in Nov. May vote for Donald Trump to punish apologists who have destroys the middle-class.

I am fully aware what Trump will do if elected and he mean it. But the Democrats lied repeatedly and will do anything to win even with Sanders. Not forcing Israel to free the millions of Palestinians in West Banks and Gaza, I cannot see how Sanders can avoid endless wars... and continue apartheid.

BTW Tom Murphy, don't fool us with "Forcing Sanders to pick Jill Stein VP after the primaries. I an't born yesterday even if you believe I'm "Stupid".

Posted by: Jack Smith | Jan 28 2016 19:59 utc | 19

Before Sanders is allowed by the Dems to win, O'Malley will quit the race (maybe a VPOTUS slot?) and endorse a new comer -- Biden? Bloomberg?
No way Sanders can win the general election ... nor can Hillary.

If Clinton's is charged, then it will be Biden. Otherwise, Bloomberg.

One thing for sure, I am stocked up on pop corn.

Posted by: JaimeInTexas | Jan 28 2016 20:00 utc | 20

@tom

Trump attacks the establishment. Even people in his own Party. It's a big part of his appeal - saying things that others wouldn't dare to. And unlike Sanders, he has reserved the right to run as an independent (even if I question whether he would actually do so - most of the wealth he claims to have is apparently estimates of the value of the 'Trump' brand - his true net worth may be only hundreds of millions, not billions, of dollars).

Sanders seems more about divvying-up the spoils, not making a more just world. And he doesn't talk truth about the establishment, like Trump.

I'm not a fan of either. We need a third party. We need a movement. A two-Party system is inherently flawed as described here: Truth-Out: How Two-Party Political Systems Bolster Capitalism.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 28 2016 20:03 utc | 21

Accusations of Communism will run amok.

This may turn the election in Clinton's favor -

It may also turn the election into a much harder-fought win for Sanders -

Trump may surprise us all, and just be running blocker for anyone except those candidates he despises.

"Communism" is going to become the new dirty word, again - but this will cast an entire generation (younger-than-30) in an anti-60s cynicism that will color the next election far more deeply than it colors this one.

It's a toss-up, right now, whether Sanders, Clinton, or some GOP candidate will emerge victorious.

Strangely, we still expect elections to be a surprise - even though we know now that if Sanders gets the nomination, he will likely be the winner. And if Clinton gets the nomination, she will likely be the loser.

On the GOP side - as always, it's whoever has the mostest money for the biggest ads will win.

Nobody is under any illusions, now: that will be Trump.

Posted by: Kyle Pearson | Jan 28 2016 20:05 utc | 22

There are many GOPs who would vote for Trump over Sanders, but they would vote for Bloomberg over Trump.
Trump polls higher than anyone else in GOP, but his support is only perhaps 40% of GOP, leaving a majority of GOPs to decide between Trump and Bloomberg.
On the other hand, if Sanders wins nomination, most Dems would probably choose Sanders over Bloomberg.
So I suspect that Bloomberg entry would hurt Trump more than hurt Sanders.

Posted by: mauisurfer | Jan 28 2016 20:06 utc | 23

@ james @ 10: thank you for the links. Mr. wd and I have wondered if Sanders might not be the perfect Trojan Horse for the MIC/NATO/deep state war machine (another Obomba?). Has he been more nuanced since this interview? (I've heard about snarky cards he's handing out at rallies that hint at it.)

https://youtu.be/8qRN2OvILIo?t=3m52s

'America should have the strongest military in the world!' Almost sound like the revamped post-Cold War NATO: it created it's own mission, and now with AFRICOM, it walks where it pleases.

Posted by: wendy davis | Jan 28 2016 20:14 utc | 24

What's the differences Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders (Hillary+Obomo's transplant)?

After elected we damn well know what Trump will do but Sanders will do exactly opposite what he promised now and endless wars continue...

Proofs... Obomo in 2008 and 2013, also Trudeau in Canada and Greece Alexis Tsipras.

Posted by: Jack Smith | Jan 28 2016 20:14 utc | 25

A Clinton loss is possibly the only thing that will save the Democratic party ... as the back-to-back McCain and then -- I had to look it up to make sure I was remembering the correct loser -- Romney loss set the stage for 2016. Did Romney's crushing defeat set the stage for Trump? I think there's an argument there ... the establishment choice (see Gore) failed, then see Kerry ...

I'd love to think that the debacle I see in my mind's eye would either kill or re-invent the Democratic party ... but they're never letting go. Bloomberg could be a hail-mary-pass if he would run as a Democrat, if he could get the nomination (both cold-day-in-hell likelihoods).

I guess I'm too weary to think Sanders could/will win. Knowing he's ruled out a thrid-party run and pledged support to Hillary if he "fails to get the nomination" ... feh. His willingness to keep alive the illusion that "change is possible" via the Democratic party could make me despise him ... but I'm hoping that his run is instructive to some veterans of the 2008 Obama army.

Funny, Jesse Jackson's win in South Carolina (1984, 1988) were probably the most radical national primary victories ever ... and look how mention of that was considered in 2008, by Obama.

And I though Bush's reelection was the low-point ...

Posted by: Susan Sunflower | Jan 28 2016 20:14 utc | 26

In Trum's mind he has already won, and this is the victory rally.

Posted by: Shyaku | Jan 28 2016 20:34 utc | 27

In Trump's mind he has already won, and this is the victory rally.

Posted by: Shyaku | Jan 28 2016 20:35 utc | 28

I look mainly at the candidates' records in the area of Foreign Policy. What they say they will do is unverifiable.
Saunders:
Voted Yea for force in the Balkans
Voted Nay for first Gulf War
Voted Yea after 9 11 to go into Afghanistan
Voted Nay to attack Iraq

Defense Authorization Vote:
2008 Nay
2009 Yea
2010 Yea
2012 Nay
2013 Nay
2016 Nay

In my opinion Saunders has virtually no inside info regarding the powers of the Mil Industrial Complex. His voting show a good faith effort to do the right thing.

Posted by: Linda Amick | Jan 28 2016 20:43 utc | 29

I'm expecting it to be Trump v Hillary

Posted by: Refocus | Jan 28 2016 20:49 utc | 30

Posted by: Susan Sunflower | Jan 28, 2016 3:14:58 PM | 26

I've since avoids using third-part, after Bloomberg announced may get into the race. If I vote third-party, it must Green party and someone I know and not a Trojan-horse.

There are only two African Americans I respect - Dr. Cornel West and Tavis Smiley. These are the only Black, dares to speak out against the liar in the White House. Jesse Jackson and the rest of the Blacks are crooks serve to enrich themselves by the color of their skin. Dun judge people by the color of their skins or how they talk but by their actions and results.

Posted by: Jack Smith | Jan 28 2016 20:49 utc | 31

rather convincing article the foreign policy rarely has any effect on election results ... yes, Americans do not care ... it's the economy ... I-me-mine

WaPo.

Posted by: Susan Sunflower | Jan 28 2016 20:57 utc | 32

Millenials + Coastal white liberals < Mid-America Boomers + Wall St + Blacks + Latinos + Democrat party establishment

Sanders has to change above equation to win primary.

Posted by: ab initio | Jan 28 2016 21:01 utc | 33

Maintaining its sideshow show business motif Celebrity Apprentice Season 8 will feature none other than Arnold Schwarzenegger. Warren Buffet will be there too. After all C A is a proven Presidential/Political Career springboard. President 'never mind where he was born' Schwarzenegger.

http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/celebrity-apprentice-season-8-warren-buffett-nbc-arnold-schwarzenegger-1201689140/

Posted by: Alberto | Jan 28 2016 21:01 utc | 34

Clinton for the win...She will get her loyality dues paid back to her from the tribe/cartel. She wants to be the first woman president of the U.S. for historical purposes as well as to quench the bottomless pit of her ego. She will also symbolize Mystery Babylon, the great whore and abomination of the earth from biblical literature. Perfect for the end-timers. Another four years of a "democrat", and the right and many others will welcome with open arms their much desired authoritarian figure in 2020 to bury the rotting corpse of The New Deal in order give us the birth of The Raw Deal to make America great again.

Sanders had a meeting yesterday with Obama....wonder what veiled threats were discussed then. What dark suits were in there to "explain" to Sanders the reality behind the curtain? How will the Bern come out in the coming weeks? Will he play the part or be a sacrificial lamb?

Trump is playing with the angry white folks. Bloomberg will probably bow out if another Republican candidate climbs in the polling or not, but Bloomberg seems like his role will be that of a Perot in order to spread the R/I vote on (s)election day to throw it to Clinton.

Posted by: Ray Sunshine | Jan 28 2016 21:04 utc | 35

Billmon pointed out a lot of similarities between Trump and Berlusconi. For that reason I hope that Sanders will beat him. Although I would take Berlusconi over Clinton.

Posted by: Cresty | Jan 28 2016 21:15 utc | 36

I see Bloomberg as independent absorbing "moderate" Republicans who cannot stomach Trump or Clinton -- take away from Trump, but also from Clinton ... can she win without registered Republican cross-over votes? Particularly if there's a boycott or people just stay home...
Voter turnout may well be absymal -- the fear mongering will be deafening. Some Sanders voters would probably vote for Bloomberg to register an anyone-but-clinton vote. I doubt the greens can figure out how to capitalize on the situation ... but I'll vote Stein unless some better 3rd party candidate emerges.

Posted by: Susan Sunflower | Jan 28 2016 21:15 utc | 37

There is very good thing that author so far ignored the so-called electoral complain which is and always was an abstract media event recurring periodically as many media productions, abstract from reality of average american, and instead focused his attention to the Imperial brutal aggression of the US within and all over the world that will not change regarding of outcome of this electoral charade.

One must be so gullible to believe the word Sanders, Trump or other political puppets are saying especially that Trump and others do not even know what they are saying themselves as long as money is pouring in. Trump topped them all by just picking up buzzwords from recent polls to get him ahead in the American Idiot TV popularity contest called electoral campaign.

In his life Trump denounced his own positions on any social or political issue hundreds of times, depending how political wind affected his business, and it did many times forcing him into shadowy dealings and numerous bankruptcies of businesses he ran, controlled or owned. He has no political spine but his own interests and profit so it would take no time to bribe him, to steal taxpayer money covered by his celebrated ignorance in public eyes.

All of those so-called candidates are candidates vetted by oligarchic ruling elite. All of them, from including Sanders and Trump, both election time populists aimed to extort the vote from gullible and desperate Americans only to betray them. But Trump case as Trump himself needs special care and explanation.

What Taibbi actually wrote about Trump in Rolling Stone some weeks ago sounded like a confidential patient log of a psychiatrist attempting to diagnose Trump’s a mental disorder. It’s true that watching TV makes you insane after daily dosage of the hypnotic trance of suppressed higher brain activity and stimulation of the pleasure centers on never quenched desires in the world of cartoonish reality and Trump is watching to much TV featuring himself.

Trump is an artificial phenomenon. He is a media phenomenon only. He himself is irrelevant and could have been just a cartoon character; it would have made no difference. He is uploaded with misconceived populist ideas that he has no interest in, no understanding about or any intention to follow.

What he is actually used for is to galvanize desperate public, who finds his ignorance appealing and refreshing on such a calcified political stage as well as moves those who see in him a danger of fascist narcissistic megalomaniac taking power. All the political commotion is aimed to insidiously entice Americans to rush to voting booths thinking that they could make any slightest difference in their own lives and life of the nation by supporting or denouncing a puppet of the ruling elite.

This trick is repeated every election for sheeple electorate, nervously awaiting to be entertained anew like children before movie begins.

Remember those fake stories. Last time we had a black guy who mobilized racists, blacks and leftist humanists insidiously employed to legitimate continuation of the murderous US regime that acted against their vital interests and ultimately wanted to destroy them.

Or reborn Christian alcoholic who brought a God fearing evangelical sheeple to voting booths in millions and still lost. And more, again and again. Maybe somebody should diagnose the US voters as insane, falling for the same lies over and over again.

This is all about a new, flat TV, two dimensional personality, new thrilling theme, new awesome trick, new exiting enticement to herd people into legitimizing this abhorrent regime, a new campaign of lies and fabrications that feel good, a sedative product for sale that advertising Ages would be proud of.

Below excepts from:

https://contrarianopinion.wordpress.com/notes-on-buddy-politics/


“The act of voting in the current political system is nothing but morally corrupting tool that extorts from us an approval for the meaningless political puppets of the calcified regime, in a surrealistic act of utter futility aimed just to break us down, to break our sense of dignity, our individual will and self-determination since no true choice is ever being offered to us and never will.

Idea of political boycott and alternative political process is the only viable idea to express our political views that are absent from official candidates’ agendas and from the ballots. Let’s not be afraid, it was already successfully done in the past. It works.”

Posted by: Kalen | Jan 28 2016 21:17 utc | 38

Since I will use simple score voting instead of single-selection voting, I can strategically give up to 20 candidates no vote at all (ignore them as if the did not exist), or give from five to ten votes to any number of candidates up to 20. At the moment, my strategy would be:

(Ignore, nothing) Hillary Clinton

( 8) Bernie Sanders

( 9) Jill Stein

( 7) Donald Trump

(10) Jesse Ventura, Governor (Write in)

( 9) Jim Webb, U.S. Senator (Write in)

This is, of course subject to change.

Posted by: blues | Jan 28 2016 21:24 utc | 39

I love that we keep hearing Sanders cannot win the general because he hasn't faced the right-wing attack machine.

It's hilarious.

The voices that keep saying that, of course, are a part of the truly massive attack machine -- the mainstream (the NYT, the WaPo; what the right would call "liberal media") attack machine, one much bigger and louder than anything the right has, and which is already going full-throttle against Sanders.

A key, spectacularly disingenuous, point of this attack is that Sander's stated policy wishes could never be enacted, it's all dream stuff. The mainstream attack machine readily concedes that the positions are popular -- one must still oppose Sanders they say however, because one must live in the world of reality where those policies would founder on GOP (& Dem!) opposition. Clinton is the realist you must choose, they say.

Sanders' policies couldn't be enacted? Well, duh! He knows that too. He's got a long track record of pragmatic changes to legislation to get done what CAN be done. More of a record than Clinton, for certain. Take a look a his fingerprints on ACA, for a start.

The real reason for mainstream opposition to Sanders must go unacknowledged:

He's feared because even though he'd ultimately be forced to govern as a moderate pragmatic liberal, he would nevertheless drag the national conversation leftward. There is no outcome more unacceptable to our liberal ruling class.

Posted by: Earwig | Jan 28 2016 21:25 utc | 40

Remember how McGovern emerged the winner at the Chicago Democratic convention 1968 instead of Humphrey?
Anyone really think that's gonna happen again?
I can't even imagine a millennial puppet show reenactment.
You think Sander's supporters are gonna put up a fight or that Sanders would condone such a thing
or that the Party/designated free-speech-zones/Philadelphia PD would permit it?
Did you miss how golden-child Obama's surge erased not only the candidate but also the platform of the as-yet unsullied John Edwards?
(and neatly prevented both a Clinton and a party loss)?
(Those DNC folks know how to play dirty ... and they will, already have started)
Fight like hell ... but my days of "perish the thought" are long past

Posted by: Susan Sunflower | Jan 28 2016 21:48 utc | 41

Sanders as president would be able to throw sand in the eyes again of the world populace just like Obama did and might be able to keep the vassals at bay while destroying one nation after the other, just like Obama.
Trump as president would mean an aggressive foreign policy just like Clinton would do with the difference that the world populace would see the US for what it really is: a purveyor of global terror. Thus the vassals might revolt. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump would go for "shock and awe" with Iran and even use nuclear missiles, à la "mini nukes" or so. He has no conscience although neither has Clinton.

I think the plutacrats will favor Sanders in the 4 yearly bipartisan circus show called a democratic election.

Posted by: crusty | Jan 28 2016 21:50 utc | 42

The Russian Intervention in Syria has turned the Middle East upside down. In order to survive the EU is going have to reach an accommodation with Russia to rebuild Syria to return the refugees and to assure a stable supply of energy. The Western ruling elite have shot themselves in the foot. It is America that is collapsing. A Sanders/Trump campaign will be as revolutionary as the 1860 election except none of them is Abraham Lincoln.

Donald Trump was auditioning for a new reality show when he recognized that he has a calling to restore America’s disenfranchised middle class. The question is can he survive challenging Rupert Murdoch. The other question is will the elites who control voting machine servers allow Bernie Sanders to get enough votes to defeat Hillary Clinton. In the end, the plutocrats will allow Donald Trump to the star if he gets the most votes. He is one of them. Michael Bloomberg will only get involve if there is a possibility of Bernie Sanders becoming President.

Posted by: VietnamVet | Jan 28 2016 21:50 utc | 43

my bad -- got my dates / elections mixed up ... Wikipedia made me think my memory of Humphrey's victory in 1968 was a brain-fart ... I'd delete if it were an option ... but my points still stand ... The party will not allow ...

Posted by: Susan Sunflower | Jan 28 2016 21:51 utc | 44

Say, what different does it make?

Its just a matter of style but the essence will remain the same.

America will begin to change only after a nuclear war. Then it will be far too late. And even then, I am not sure the people will have a voice or a choice.

Posted by: CarlD | Jan 28 2016 21:54 utc | 45

What difference. Sorry abt the mistake

Posted by: CarlD | Jan 28 2016 21:57 utc | 46

Mostly agree with your analysis, but why would Sanders need big money if people are ignoring the places where such money is spent and instead helping out in kind? The anti-Establishmentarianism is fairly thick over here, at least on the interwebs; "moderate" pundits are getting tomatoes lobbed at them in comment sections more than twice as hard as their supporters are stroking their oh-so-savvy gamesmanship and petulantly complaining that Bernie "bots" don't love the Corporation.

I don't know whether anyone caught Bernie announcing his non-involvement with organized religion, but that's, as the other party's leading candidate would say, "HUUUUGE" for a fantasy-addled, priest-infested nation like the USA. I'm not pleased with his stance on Palestine, and I wish he would speak more to foreign policy now than in the general. That said, if I hear one more word from him about "Assad's" CW -- he could have known and should have known that's bunk -- it's time to get a boat.

Posted by: Jonathan | Jan 28 2016 22:21 utc | 47

Mark @ #3;

I've said that from the begininng, lots of people have hypothesized this.

Walking offstage after his first large public appearance, Trump said something to the affect of "I've always thought this would be so fun... it was on my bucket list". He's having a good old gas, and it's not a huge step further to see him being compensated for it or at least encouraged to do it by a competing party.

And Clinton may be a "fake Liberal", but that's EXACTLY her voter base, and there are plenty of them let me tell you.

Posted by: L Bean | Jan 28 2016 22:22 utc | 48

I'm not buying the Sanders conspiracy theories. He has a long track record and WYSIWYG. The only way forward is to reform the Democratic party. Sanders is the current best choice. Best outcome is that large crowds vote Sanders a la Truman. FDR saved democracy from fascists and communists, we need another round of that.

Posted by: Jake Bodhi | Jan 28 2016 22:27 utc | 49

What difference? Not much. Military power, including (or especially?) nukes, is not something politicians have much influence over. The power of folks like Lockheed's Bruce Jackson and Norm Anderson have power that dwarfs that of elected folk. see eg, Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex.

Ditto for the
other components that matter.

Posted by: erichwwk | Jan 28 2016 22:34 utc | 50

I've been seeing Internet news that the FBI is ready to hit Hillary Rodham Clinton with criminal charges over her use of a private email server during the time she served as US Secretary of State (2009 - 2013) and over the use of financial donations received by the Clinton Foundation while she was State Secretary and whether the monies were deployed into Department of State contracts.

She surely cannot continue campaigning for the Presidency if she is facing criminal charges, can she?

Well I guess in theory (if not in practice) she can if Leonard Peltier could do it in 2004.

" ... Peltier was the candidate for the Peace and Freedom Party in the 2004 Presidential race. While numerous states have laws that prohibit prison inmates convicted of felonies from voting (Maine and Vermont are exceptions) ... the United States Constitution has no prohibition against felons being elected to Federal offices, including President. The Peace and Freedom Party secured ballot status for Peltier only in California, where his presidential candidacy received 27,607 votes ... approximately 0.2% of the vote in that state ..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Peltier#Presidential_candidate

Posted by: Jen | Jan 28 2016 22:35 utc | 51

Bloomberg would not make the slightest difference to this Presidential race.

The only reason he would jump in is if Hillary Clinton was to be soundly rejected by Democrat voters in the primaries.

Which she will be, because there will not be a single voter who does not see her for what she is i.e. a 100% owned puppet of the Deep State who would expend all of her energies promoting the interest of the 1%ers.

So how does Bloomberg expect to appeal to that same voting popln i.e. voters who will have just rejected a candidate for representing nothing but Wall Street, Big Banks, Big Pharma, and assorted other Big Money?

He can't, because he also cut from that same cloth no matter how impeccable his tailor.

Posted by: Yeah, Right | Jan 28 2016 22:58 utc | 52

I put money on Trump many months ago at 25-1. Trump will trounce either Hillary or Sanders. As in the British election the polls will underestimate the strength of the right. A lot needs to happen - such as a major depression - for real progressive politics to make a comeback. Neoliberalism has to be smashed and thoroughly discredited. The people will vote for Trump because he is not beholden to Wall Street, therefore to Israel(as Obama has been), and because he has talked about getting on with Russia. Folks (using Obama's favourite word) are terrified of a nuclear war and rightly so. Lastly, Trump's bustup with Fox was a masterstroke, painting him as the rebel, especially with the young. And talking about reinvigorating manufacturing is the way to go. What he will turn out to be as President is anybody's guess.

Posted by: Lochearn | Jan 28 2016 23:12 utc | 53

@53

I think you're right. If tonight Fox's ratings tank, Trump will be perceived as strong by middle America. If he can then knock Cruz in Iowa where the polls show Cruz in the lead and wins NH, SC and NV as the polls show, he'll cement his dominance of the Republican primary. His takin the fight to Roger Ailes is brilliant. His interview with Bill O'Reilly was amazing with blowhard Bill pleading with Trump to attend the debate. Humiliating for Fox. Trump's point that Fox can't make money off him and he's the star bringing them 24 million viewers. Watch the spin tomorrow. Trump will be in the center of the news cycle.

Posted by: ab initio | Jan 28 2016 23:33 utc | 54

Who would make a better Sec of State - Sarah Palin or Vicky Nuland?

Posted by: mike | Jan 28 2016 23:57 utc | 55

The man Trump has named as his potential foreign policy advisor applauds his decision to skip the debate.

http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/01/26/foxs-john-bolton-cheers-donald-trumps-decision/208188

If Trump and Clinton are opposing candidates, I don't see much of a choice between the two.

Posted by: Les | Jan 29 2016 0:09 utc | 56

@53 I think you're right. We're going to get President Trump.

Pretty scary though.....remember how Iran abused the US sailors...

http://www.mediaite.com/online/donald-trump-demands-iran-release-sailors-hours-after-they-were-already-released/

Posted by: dh | Jan 29 2016 0:12 utc | 57

I agree this is a wise move by Trump. The RNC is absolutely beside itself - this is a stunning repudiation of CIA-Bushism that has ruled the party since the mid-1980s. Trump seems to be in place to really upend the party. Part of me thinks he really ought to fear for his life. The other part of me thinks he's just a party-building place holder for some scumbag like Paul Ryan (I don't think Cruz is acceptable to the RNC either).

I can't imagine in a million years that Sanders can take down the machine of Hillary and the Clintonite DNC. I think he'll be in good position to be Vice President though. And that, possibly, has been the plan all along.

I pick, shuddering as I do, "We came, we saw, he died, I cackled like the cannibalistic neo-liberal neo-conservative blood drunk witch I am" as the next President of the United States.

I think the Democrats have their hands on all the levers of power at this point. Bush/Cheney built up the new National Security State after 9/11, but I get the impression that the changes they made to - especially their making the Israel lobby a key component of it - mostly benefitted the Democrats who have been driving it for the last 8 years.

The failures of Iraq and the crash of the economy under Bush are going to haunt the GOP for long time. For another eight years at least.

Posted by: guest77 | Jan 29 2016 0:16 utc | 58

Now, what do I want?

I don't care at this point. There is no one on the field I can see righting the ship of state. The GOP has gerrymandered in control over domestic policy, and the National Security State is so completely detached from governance that we just have to live with (and pay for) their wars to maintain their grip on the US Empire.

Trying to imagine the state of the USA in 2024 is not an easy exercise.

Posted by: guest77 | Jan 29 2016 0:26 utc | 59

by "I pick" - I don't want to leave the impression that means "I choose". That's "I pick" as in "I guess".

Posted by: guest77 | Jan 29 2016 0:27 utc | 60

And in the 'you can't make this stuff up' category we have ...

Intercepted in an unprofessional and unsafe manner. Apparently the Pentagramagon has collectively wet its own self ...

United States European Command just released details on an extremely dangerous aerial encounter that occurred over the Black Sea.

video ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OX75lcrVKM

Posted by: Alberto | Jan 29 2016 0:40 utc | 61

@59 -- Clinton will pick Sanders as veep?

Never and a day from now.

Posted by: Earwig | Jan 29 2016 0:45 utc | 62

I think that most commentators are missing the bigger picture here. The success of Sanders nor Trump has nothing to do with their respective "qualities", and everything to do with the simple fact that both are standing against the "anointed" candidates of their respective parties.

The American voting public understands that US politics is now a battle between the neocons and the neoliberals, and that as far as those two groups are concerned the wellbeing of Mr and Mrs Joe Average counts for less than nothing.

That's why Obama came out of nowhere and trounced both Plastic Hillary and Shouting McCain - he promised Change You Can Believe In.

Sure, he ended up being a huge, huge disappointment. Literally, unbelievable.

But that's the very reason why this time around the voters are attracted to those who are even more Way-Out-There than Obama.

As in: the great unwashed know that the system is obscenely rigged against them, and they don't like it. They tried effecting that change by electing Obama, only to find out that they hadn't really picked a radical choice at all.

Their choice now is to Go Big Or Go Home:
1) Pick the most way-out-there anti-establishment candidates in the field and vote for them (Sanders and Trump)
2) Resign themselves to eternal servitude by going back to voting for the cardboard cutouts (Bush, Hillary, Cruz, et al.).

It has everything to do with the voters demanding change.

They thought that's what they were voting for last time, and they didn't get it.
But they still want it, so they are not willing to vote for Business As Usual.

That leaves Sanders. That leaves Trump. Everyone else may as well go home now.

Posted by: Yeah, Right | Jan 29 2016 0:52 utc | 63

Your insight is excellent, in just a few words. I share your take.

Posted by: Enrique Ferro | Jan 29 2016 1:40 utc | 64


Are black folks going to stand in line for 14 hours in that handful of urban precincts that are key for a Democratic win for either Hillary the Horrible or Bernie the jewish old folks home escapee? I don't think so, the turnout advantage is clearly on the Republican side. Just like a Republican could not win after 8 years of Bush II a Democrat cannot win after 8 years of Obama.

Posted by: mad1 | Jan 29 2016 1:41 utc | 65

It sure looks like the Donald has gone and chosen George W. Bush's warmongering United States Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton as one of his top three foreign policy advisers. Damn. Maybe all those claims of Trump being a Hitler redux may be valid. I guess I will have to drastically reduce or eliminate his simple score/ multiple bid rating. See:

Donald Trump's Curious Relationship With an Iraq War Hawk
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/08/donald-trump-john-bolton-iraq-war

See above:

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/01/my-first-take-on-the-presidential-election.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef01bb08b2de1d970d

It goes down from:
( 7) Donald Trump
To:

( 5) Donald Trump

Or maybe just:

(Ignore, nothing) Donald Trump

He's just entered the full retard zone.

Posted by: blues | Jan 29 2016 1:59 utc | 66

b, "He's just entered the full retard zone."

GOOD! I'll vote for this retard, my gift to apologists and clueless Democrats. All politicians are liars and warmongers so why not Donald Trump? We are screws regardless who we vote, right?

....the endless wars continue.

Posted by: Jack Smith | Jan 29 2016 2:12 utc | 67

@67 John Bolton for Defense Secretary?

Posted by: dh | Jan 29 2016 2:20 utc | 68

Sanders isn't having any trouble raising money. Record numbers of donations resulting in a significant amount of money (at least 33 million to Clinton's 55 million in the last four months) and his spending is a lot more efficient than Clinton's.

Posted by: Plenue | Jan 29 2016 2:26 utc | 69

If it's these three, I see no real difference between bernie and the hill imperially, and choosing the empire determines all subsequent choices so I see no real difference between them.

Trump ... 'What he will turn out to be as President is anybody's guess.' @53 Lochearn.

The question on Trump seems to me to be

1) can they buy him? or
2) do they kill him?

The Donald 'Art of the Deal' Trump ... are you kidding? He'll deal.

If it's one of these ... not a bona fide dime's worth of difference.

Posted by: jfl | Jan 29 2016 2:34 utc | 70

I don't think Trump can win against ANY democrat. What we are seeing is a candidate that is being given undue attention from the media every day. He is a buffoon.

Perhaps 40% of the 25% of the people who call themselves GOP would vote for him now. Thats about 12% of the electorate. Maybe he can pull another 5% of independents.

My guess is that nobody wants this guy to win - least of all the GOP. It will be a landslide in both the presidental race and state races for democrats.

Lets not forget that 30% of the electorate may be minority. Latino/black, etc. They and the Jewish vote will go to the democrat.

I was gonna vote Jill Stein as last election. But i think that Sanders has proven he is an honest broker to help the middle and lower classes. I am for him.

I think he wins the nomination. Because i think the economy is a lot worse off then the media (which has masked Trump as a real contender) lets on. Bernie is probably saying the right things.

I saw only clips of the democratic debates. I wonder if anyone noticed that when Clinton talked --- there was raucous applause. The place was pre-packed with Clinton clappers. I think Hillary and Debby Wasserman Schultz should be shipped off to Jupiter to see if there is life on that planet.

Posted by: bernie | Jan 29 2016 3:15 utc | 71

Everything depends on MASSIVE voter turnout, otherwise, the US gets the Empire's candidate.

Best of luck America, enjoy the theater.

Posted by: ben | Jan 29 2016 3:38 utc | 72

Bloomberg might throw his hat in the ring as an independent to give the election victory to Clinton. But I think that Clinton is finished and is gathering as much interest as yesterday's news.

Posted by: Mischi | Jan 29 2016 4:09 utc | 73

Heard a statement on Radio today:" HRC is the most qualified politician to run the system we have today, Bernie Sanders is the most qualified to run the system we should have."

Posted by: ben | Jan 29 2016 4:17 utc | 74

Kalen@38

In the end, we must all choose a course of action that reflects our perception of the truth about the central government. For me, Washington, DC has evolved into the dark repository of Satan's palace on the Potomac. It is a maelstrom of evil; it cannot be cleansed of corruption nor changed by public vote.

The federal government must be destroyed, not by violence but by the conscience of individuals who see through the veil of lies and gluttony to choose the one act of defiance that will end this horrible nightmare.

The citizenry must not raise its right hand of political tribute but keep it still to the side. To vote in the presidential election is to give approval and willingness to continue to bear the yoke of oppression around our necks and burden our children and grandchildren with suffering debt on their backs.

We are free men born with natural rights to decide for ourselves when to deny the scepter of power and the royal cloak of leadership to all those who are wholly undeserving of such high office. The American people must allow Washington to collapse by ignoring the trumpet's call to participate in our own culling of the nation's future.

On November 8, I am withholding my consent because my personal code of conduct requires it of me a a moral man. By no act, I take a measure of trust and cast it into the realm of faith and belief in true justice. I am prepared to endure the pains of material loss because it is the correct path to follow. I am not afraid any longer to shout, "dissolve it, start over."

I believe in the, "land of the free and the home of the brave." I am an American.

Posted by: PokeTheTruth | Jan 29 2016 4:23 utc | 75

I put money on Trump many months ago at 25-1. Trump will trounce either Hillary or Sanders.
...
Posted by: Lochearn | Jan 28, 2016 6:12:30 PM | 53

Money well-spent, imo.
Something which seems to have escaped everyone except Trump's attention is that US politics is all about buying politicians with "campaign funds". As an established celebrity with expertise in media manipulation, Trump doesn't need to pay for publicity which, in theory at least, makes him immune from the demands of powerful sponsors. He has a virtual hotline to the "News" Media because what he says is News.
Fortunately, this US Presidential Election will prove to be as irrelevant to Humanity and the World as the World's Second ex-Superpower, AmeriKKKa, has made itself.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 29 2016 4:24 utc | 76

Looks like Trump on the Repub side.

Clinton certainly has the Dem establishment lined up, but that may not be enough. The chances are better than even that the FBI will find her in violation of the law for putting classified stuff in her unclassified email, and possibly corrupt confluence of Sec State, her foundation and Bill. Sanders is who he is while she's got no beliefs beyond what's best for her.

It is hard to overstate how ripped the left end of the Dems are. Obama took a mandate and veto proof majority in Congress and turned a campaign of Change into 8 years of Same. She is running as a third term of Same. It's been a disaster for the Dems. If she wins the nomination it is hard to see them pulling together for the election. More than half the country doesn't like Hillary, so without huge Dem enthusiasm she's toast in the general, if she gets there.

Looks like Biden is hanging around to be available if they get to the convention and implore him to "save the party".

Sanders is strong in Iowa, 50% +/-3%. Delegates are proportional there so they split no matter who "wins". He will win New Hampshire. Between them that will be enough to spook the party big time and open up the rest of the primaries. Everywhere he has to turn enthusiasm into turnout, and after the first two primaries convince minority voters to trust him.

Sanders and Trump are plowing a lot of the same fields. They are asking the country "Are you better off than you were 8, 16, 24, or 36 years ago?" For 90% or more the answer is 'no'. People are angry as hell and tired of real wages stagnant since 1978. Bloomberg can't touch that, but if he draws enough centrist weenies to win a couple of states he could throw the election into the House. That could give us president Ryan.

I go for Trump vs Sanders, and it's a tossup. Glad I'm getting old, this handbasket we're in is going way too fast.

Posted by: Lefty | Jan 29 2016 4:31 utc | 77

Sanders is "mopping the floor" with Trump in national poling. That will continue. Trump is entertaining but that's what gameshow hosts are paid to be. If Sanders can defeat Killary he will probably win...However...I do not believe he will be allowed to defeat Killary..Whatever it takes from that mob -from an accusation of rape by a campaign volunteer to a "lone gunman" - we know they are ready willing and able..A contest between Killary and Trump will be closer and more amusing, but I think Killary comes out on top of that too, because Wal Street. Finance capital owns the world and they only hire their loyal servants

Posted by: Osrelo Tsinilats | Jan 29 2016 4:36 utc | 78

There are three active players possibly our next warmonger-in-chief - Hillary, Trump and Bernie.

Who gonna be? They are the same not a dime different. Regardless who, endless wars more or less the same continue.

Only one candidate (Sanders) hid his obsess supporting Israel and will defend Israel at all cost even as Israel continues to murder teenagers and children throwing stones. Israeli soldiers shot to kills with real live bullets and bulldozed Palestinians home to rubbles with America made Caterpillar tractors.

Maybe, many have not heard Israel even sprayed Palestinians crops with unknown chemicals something that the US doing widespread use of Agent Orange in Vietnam and Cambodia in the 60s - 70's. more than 19 million gallons of herbicides over 4.5 million acres of land in Vietnam from 1961 to 1972.

http://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/agent-orange

....and the endless wars continue...

Posted by: Jack Smith | Jan 29 2016 4:38 utc | 79

Next round of Hillary's e-mails are due just before Super Tuesday, which occurs on March 1st. There's a FOIA request to have them released earlier but I wouldn't count on it. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the e-mail release is delayed for some technical reason.

The e-mails appear to be a real problem for Hillary. But that hasn't yet had much impact on the race.

State Primaries
February . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Super Tuesday (3/1) . . . . . . . . . . 11
March (after Super Tuesday) . . . 17

By the end of Super Tuesday, 15 states will have voted. By the end of March, 32 states will have voted.

A Candidate needs 2,171 delegates to win the Democratic Primary. Hillary already has 342 super-delegates (according to Wikipedia). That is 15.75% of what she needs to win.

In 2 months, the election could be over. Hillary's greatest challenge is her e-mail problem. She 'red-baits' Sanders, but Sanders refuses to use the e-mail scandal against her (as a question of electability)??

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 29 2016 5:12 utc | 80

@Earwig - "never and a day from now"

No on the Sanders for Veep thing. I'm just opining of course, no argument, but consider these (rather flimsy) reasons:

1. It would be a huge nod to the left of the Democrats, which I'm not sure they can continue to ignore
2. Its a powerless position - or, a position whose power is no more or no less than what the President decides it is
3. It brings in the independents
4. Like Al Gore choosing Lieberman, its brings in the "first" factor and goes for the Jewish vote - first woman President, first Jewish VP.

Why are you so firmly convinced otherwise?

Posted by: guest77 | Jan 29 2016 5:18 utc | 81

"It sure looks like the Donald has gone and chosen George W. Bush's warmongering United States Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton as one of his top three foreign policy advisers."

This kind of shit though bodes very, very ill in terms of "what would a Trump Presidency look like?" Bolton is one of the most vile warmongering fiends around. And he's so tied into the power structure, certainly not an "outsider" like Trump affects.

Its one thing for Trump to be a big, dangerous, unpredictable loud mouth, but if he tries to also fill his cabinet with similar personalities, it truly will be a shit show. A dangerous, dangerous shit show.

Posted by: guest77 | Jan 29 2016 5:23 utc | 82

PS Sanders has 11 super-delegates (according to Wikipedia).

Why doesn't Sanders make the Democratic Party preference for Hillary an issue? As well as media bias?

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 29 2016 5:27 utc | 83

#79 Jack Smith

I think your comment that the three candidates foreign policy is largely identical misses the critical point. It's true that all three want to maintain and expand the American Empire. But it's also true that Gorbachev never intended to destroy the Soviet Union. In some ways the current situation in America reminds me of the Soviet Union in its last decades. The whole system seems corrupt and hypocritical to millions of people. But the power system seems so entrenched and resistant to change that it's hard for many people to see any way that things can change. Most of the potential leaders are really old. The economy is terrible for structural reasons. Foreign countries are increasingly competitive in both military and economic terms. And then, in response to all this, a "reformer" comes along.
Clinton is a tool of the oligarchy to the bone. If she's elected, nothing will change, and things will keep getting worse and worse. But both Trump and Sanders do seem to want to change some things. (Different things) Neither is completely controlled or trusted by the deep state because they are both just a little out of the mainstream. Trump is a narcissistic megalomaniac. Sanders may think he could be the next FDR. Both would, if elected, find it hard to do the things they would like to do. But either one might unintentionally disrupt the existing power structure enough to unleash much greater changes then they originally intended.

Posted by: Glenn Brown | Jan 29 2016 6:12 utc | 84

What? Have gone all PC here on MoA?

Bernie is a sewer-socialist Jew. Do you think white middle 'Murica is going to buy that? And by middle I'm talkin' geographically and ideologically. If he runs v. trump, everybody will stay home. The Donald Duck write-in will win.

Interesting how Joe is subtly keeping his name in play. When Loretta drops the hammer on Hil, he'll be back in. Loretta is the one who will pick the next president by what she does or doesn't do. Currently she is the most powerful woman in the world.

Posted by: Denis | Jan 29 2016 14:15 utc | 85

Jackrabbit | Jan 28, 2016 2:19:56 PM | 13

"Sanders will be 75 on election day. Ronald Reagan was nearly 74 when began his first term and his age was an issue in his re-election - but everyone knew by then who his advisors and appointees were"

Ronald Reagan was 69 years, 349 days at the time of his first inauguration.

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

Posted by: notlurking | Jan 29 2016 14:24 utc | 86

54;Haha.that just illuminates the zionist hatred for Trump,and america regaining our sovereignty from Zion.
Bernie hopefully will beat the hell bitch and then america will have a real choice.
The Zionists are attacking Bernie also,he's too much of a human for them.
Paul Kantner died.Damn. the Airplane was one of my favorites.Saw them at the Fillmore in 69.Saw Starship last summer at Great South Bay Music festival in Patchogue LI.Damn.Dropping like flies.Someone at the Graun asked,what killed the 60s.
It's obvious;Zionism.Celebration of the lizard.

Posted by: dahoit | Jan 29 2016 15:58 utc | 87

So Pentagon may demote both Hillary Clinton and David Petraeus for violating national secrets. She can now be the four-star general she always wanted.

Posted by: Les | Jan 29 2016 16:01 utc | 88

64;Yes,obomba was the Muslim socialist(of course not)and we still voted for him.The people of America are pissed,but haven't figured out who is behind our demise,which of course is Zionism.
Guest 77:The failures of Iraq,Afghanistan Libya Somalia and where ever have been totally bipartisan and no Trump will not pay for Bushes and Obombas idiocy.

Posted by: dahoit | Jan 29 2016 16:04 utc | 89

If Trump actually listens to Bolton we are in for big trouble indeed,and so is his campaign.Bolton is emblematic of a true wacko.It might be just a slur to weaken him,that report.
Trump had better jettison all the warmongering ziowhore idiots or he won't be elected,its that simple.

Posted by: dahoit | Jan 29 2016 16:20 utc | 90

I can't see bernie going anywhere. He might 'win' Iowa, but his brand will not carry over, no matter what the polls currently say. It will be Howard Dean all over again, with all the older voters flooding in to vote for safety.

I suppose Trump could suffer a similar fate, but republicans are far more decisive in their voting preferences imho.

Trump v Hillary and I think it will be a very close fight..
Of course, there's also the potential for bloomberg to enter as 3rd party, presumably to undercut Trump

Posted by: aaaaaa | Jan 29 2016 16:52 utc | 91

Hillary Bernie and Jill

And then there is the argument that a vote for a third-party candidate is wasted, a throwaway that accomplishes nothing. No, the throwaway is voting to perpetuate the two-party, Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee system that currently exists. Real change will not come from the Republicans or the Democrats; one wonders how much more evidence of that fact is required before it is painfully clear to everyone. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders may not be cut from the exact same mold, but they are slight variations of the same tired old model. The real waste is voting for them, and this writer will not do it.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 29 2016 16:53 utc | 92

I only differ from b in his assessment that if elected Trump would turn out to be more unmanipulatable than one would think. I think if Trump wins the general (at this point I think it is a foregone conclusion that the GOP primary is his; possibly the party's power elite could attempt some sort of hocus pocus at the convention; there are rumors of such a move with Paul Ryan acting as the savior), Trump toes the Establishment line in the White House. He is an ego-driven candidate who has made his mountain of gold selling high-end real estate to other rich people. He has no ideological principles. But he has shrewdly diagnosed the citizenry's appetite for destruction of the D.C. status quo.

I think the $64K question at this point is does Hillary collapse after Iowa and New Hampshire or will her Dixie firewall hold. If she collapses I think commentators here are correct. Bloomberg will run a third-party bid, which will be much harder to do than people understand. Bloomberg can't win, and it is not clear to me who his candidacy would advantage more, Sanders or Trump. One thing I think a Bloomberg third-party run would do -- and hallelujah! -- it would shatter the Democratic Party because it would "out" the party leaders, people like Ed Rendell and Rahm Emanuel, as being more loyal to class, the 1%, than the organization.

Posted by: Mike Maloney | Jan 29 2016 17:00 utc | 93

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 29, 2016 11:53:27 AM | 93

Thank Jackrabbit. You have enforce my thinking

One must look again at the candidacy of Dr. Jill Stein. Beholden to no one but the voters, Dr. Stein appears to be a no-nonsense candidate. Let us look at contributions to her 2016 campaign; ......

* Individual Contributor: $177,351
* PAC Contributions: $0
* Self-financing: $40,000
* Federal Funds: $3075
TOTAL: $220,426......

We must rethink Jill Stein and hopefully she may able win.....
nd write-in Jill Stein.

Posted by: Jack Smith | Jan 29 2016 17:25 utc | 94

For people outside the US only Trump can make a change.
Because MAYBE he stops the Russia/Putin-bashing.

With respect to Hitlary, how many americans sympathize -THEY MUST- with 'Hillary for Prison 2016'?

Posted by: From The Hague | Jan 29 2016 18:01 utc | 95

It's possible that there could be a "brokered convention" on the Republican side.

The Republican establishment doesn't like Trump, and if he doesn't get a majority of delegates, other candidate delegates could rally around a non-Trump candidate.

The danger in doing so, of course, is that Trump might run as a third-party candidate.

<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

There is also a chance of a brokered Democratic convention. But that chance is much smaller. IMO it all hinges on how Hillary's e-mail troubles play out.

Sanders is not well known in middle-America and there is much suspicion about "socialism". Sanders needs to make the e-mails an issue (and, by extension, Hillary's character) or lose the race. But Sanders doesn't seem interested in doing so - he seems to value Party and personal relationships over winning.

Many Democrats seem to be in denial about the e-mail scandal and/or think it is merely partisan politics until/unless there is an official action.

But even if Sanders won't attack Hillary, he would benefit if the FBI makes a recommendation of legal action against Hillary. It's unclear when or if that might happen, but it would cause voters to see Hillary as non-viable, and result in a switch to Sanders or O'Malley. In the end, it's possible ( though unlikely at this point) that no candidate would have a majority of delegates.

AFAIK, after the first ballot, delegates are free from their obligation to a candidate so - at the urging of Hillary/Obama/other Party leaders - they could choose Biden or someone else (Bloomberg? if he has become a Democrat by then).

Also note that "super-delegates" makes the delegate count tricky. Even though many have publicly vowed support for Hillary, they may not be bound to that choice like an ordinary delegate.

<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

In considering the possibilities of a brokered convention for one or both parties, the order of Convention's becomes important:

Republican Convention: Cleveland - July 18-21

Democratic Convention: Philadelphia - July 25-28

If a brokered Republican convention is likely, the Republican Party would make a choice between Trump and a traditional Republican knowing that they face one of the following:

1) Hillary as nominee;

2) Sanders as nominee;

3) No clear nominee
Biden is the likely nominee (though another choice is possible).

Who would the Republican choose in each scenario?

1) Traditional Republican Hillary's e-mail problems make her weak. No need to resort to populism.

2) Unclear, but a traditional Republican seems more likely;
Anti-Trump sentiment plus Bloomberg's threat to join the race if it is Trump vs. Sanders

3) Trump
Difficult to overcome Biden's experience - so resort to populist candidate.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 29 2016 18:20 utc | 96

The more that the Presidential election is a free-for-all, the more a third-Party Candidate has a chance.

Jill Stein, in particular has a better chance if Sanders is NOT the Democratic nominee and if Trump decides to run as an independent (because Republicans nominate someone else).

Just appearing in a Presidential Debate would be huge for Stein (and for America). She was arrested just trying to attend one in 2008.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 29 2016 18:45 utc | 97

I know I'm old, and I will just say -

These people are TOO OLD!

For crying out loud.

Posted by: juliania | Jan 29 2016 19:06 utc | 98

They pull a Howard Dean on Bernie Sanders.
Then an Al Gore on Donald Trump. After
Clinton is appointed president, the Republican Congress
impeaches her for Benghazi.

Posted by: Zool | Jan 29 2016 19:09 utc | 99

TPTB are selling the illusion that the US is a normal state in pursuit of "Western values." Neither Hillary's scolding fishwife nor Trump's two-year old having a tantrum fills this image. I still think it's Biden's if he takes a step forward-- or if he should get in by a more direct method; then TPTB could take advantage of a Black unrest crisis.

On the other hand, Trump could play the Netanyahu role of a US so unpredictable that she better be obeyed abroad. At home he's an ideal candidate to rile up identity politics to split any arising consensus among the citizenry. Whoever the next president is, the power structure is going to have to pay more attention to targeting the American people.

They may drop a fresh candidate in. It is intriguing that the FBI still publicly threatens Clinton-- somebody powerful doesn't want her. Does this somebody powerful still think they can push Jeb Bush forward if he doesn't run against the fishwife?

Does it matter who's going to be the new mouthpiece of TPTB? Only if it's the fishwife because then I'm in peril of terminal nausea.

Posted by: Penelope | Jan 29 2016 19:17 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.