Speaker by Various Artists

Read Post

Speaker: Data Love or: How I learnt to stop worrying and love Donald Trump

51 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last

  • Alastair Thompson,

    Phew!

    Well I will stop worrying about that then.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 220 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Alastair Thompson,

    Dr Kirk is here to make you feel better.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22754 posts Report Reply

  • bob daktari, in reply to Russell Brown,

    Dr Kirk

    is that what the kids are calling it these days?

    Political predictions always seem to make sense until proved wrong by the actual voters

    auckland • Since Dec 2006 • 537 posts Report Reply

  • Nik Dirga,

    Excellent post mate. It's so difficult to explain the niggly differences between parliamentary and US politics that it's hard to get the message across that Trump has a lot less chance than the constant barrage of coverage tells us. And while I like a lot of Bernie Sanders' ideas, I have yet to see a single sentence from him that acknowledges how he's going to make them happen against a congressional firewall that would be even stronger than the one Obama's faced.

    Auckland • Since Jan 2009 • 24 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen,

    I thought this analysis complete with all its caveats was interesting.

    TLDR Trumps loses to any candidate Sanders beats any candidate.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4451 posts Report Reply

  • David Hood, in reply to Nik Dirga,

    And while I like a lot of Bernie Sanders’ ideas, I have yet to see a single sentence from him that acknowledges how he’s going to make them happen against a congressional firewall that would be even stronger than the one Obama’s faced.

    As far as I can see from this distance, Hillary Clinton would face just as much resistance for her approach, and has explained how she would make it happen either.

    In both cases, against a Republican congress, it would boil down to veto + appointments + willingness to engage in military action + directives to federal agencies.

    Dunedin • Since May 2007 • 1443 posts Report Reply

  • Fen Tex,

    I absolutely agree with you on every point. Trump cannot win the Presidency, Clinton is a more robust politician who will advance the Democratic party and policies more than Sanders could.

    I expect Sanders would be a perfectly fine executive and there are plenty of positives in his having the role, but he couldn't deliver much more beyond performing the executives duties.

    This by the way is why the Republicans are going to confirm Obama's Supreme Court nominee - he'll pick someone who isn't on an extreme and they'll have to confirm them because Hillary isn't going to be doing them the favour of picking non-partisans for any of her nominees.

    Christchurch • Since Oct 2014 • 18 posts Report Reply

  • Rob Stowell,

    The energy that’s behind Sanders right now needs to be channelled into more regional and local battles.

    Sanders is unlikely to win the nomination (it's a long-shot, but watch Michigan today, and on the 15th, Ohio - if he does well in both, and wins one - he's back in the game.)
    But I think you're dead wrong in saying he's failed to address the current road-block from the GOP controlled house and senate.
    He says it all the time: electing him is not going to change anything. It takes a massive and long-term movement of people getting behind progressive ideas at every level.
    He's also been far more upfront condemning GOP efforts to halt the demographic tide: the gerrymandering of congressional districts, and the many fraudulent attempts to 'reduce voter fraud' (there is no significant voter fraud) by requiring voters to carry specific ID.
    (I also think you're optimistic about Trump having no chance at all. Hilary could hit hurdles - she's not immediately 'likeable'. Trump has a certain (horrible) charisma. While he's throwing his own obnoxious ideas around, he's relatively unburdened by the standard GOP obnoxious ideas.
    So far he's advocated very little policy - making it fairly easy for him to 'pivot the centre' on a lot of issues in a general election. He's likely to push major infrastructure work in the US (like Sanders); an aversion to foreign wars (like Sanders) and a strong push for tariffs and against free trade - all potentially popular. He would probably perform disastrously - and win or lose, it's unlikely the GOP will ever be quite the same again, post Trump - but sadly, it does seem possible he might beat Hilary.)

    Whakaraupo • Since Nov 2006 • 2091 posts Report Reply

  • Rob Stowell, in reply to Fen Tex,

    the Republicans are going to confirm Obama’s Supreme Court nominee

    That's a bold prediction! You should put a bet on it :) https://www.predictit.org/Contract/2091/Will-the-Senate-confirm-any-SCOTUS-nominee-before-Obama-leaves-office#data

    Whakaraupo • Since Nov 2006 • 2091 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen,

    There is another factor in this. There is the possibility that Trump does so badly in the presidential race that he drags the republican party down with him. That could have serious impacts on republican senates races occurring at the same time. There also could be serious issues with internal fractures in the republican party.

    In short, Trump could do so much damage to the republican party that they could lose both houses.

    While from the distance of left wing socialist NZ that might seem like a good thing, the fact is the US system works only because of balance. A democrat party dominated congress senate president and supreme court is possible if still unlikely. I don't think anyone knows where that might lead.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4451 posts Report Reply

  • David Hood, in reply to Bart Janssen,

    While from the distance of left wing socialist NZ that might seem like a good thing, the fact is the US system works only because of balance. A democrat party dominated congress senate president and supreme court is possible if still unlikely. I don't think anyone knows where that might lead.

    They used to say that about California State- That the gridlock between republicans and democrats and binding referendum kept things in balance. Then the democrats got a supermajority so could actually sort out stupidities in the tax system brought on by the binding referenda, and the state has done much better since.

    Dunedin • Since May 2007 • 1443 posts Report Reply

  • David Hood,

    I do not think Sanders can win against the Democratic Party establishment.

    But on the getting things done, I would note that when he headed the Senate's Veteran Affairs committee, he got a lot more bipartisan legislation passed (including new spending) than was typical for veteran affairs committees in other sessions, in a congress that got much less legislation overall successfully passed than other congresses.

    Dunedin • Since May 2007 • 1443 posts Report Reply

  • John Farrell,

    Dunedin • Since Nov 2006 • 486 posts Report Reply

  • Kirk Serpes, in reply to bob daktari,

    Yeah that def true. It's a LONG time to November and a lot can happen to upset everyone's predictions. Another terrorist attack would change things dramatically, as would significant economic troubles... or the usual political scandals. This is less a prediction and more a tactical response from a left wing perspective based on current information and trends.

    Auckland • Since May 2015 • 20 posts Report Reply

  • David Hood,

    Sanders won the Michigan primary this afternoon. Which was remarkable for two reasons : he had been 20% behind in the polls a few days ago, and (equally unheard of) apparently more 18-25 year olds voted than 65+ year olds..

    Dunedin • Since May 2007 • 1443 posts Report Reply

  • John Palethorpe, in reply to David Hood,

    There's been some absolute shockers from the pollsters in the last 12 months. They completely failed to see the Conservative majority in the UK coming and they'd marked Hillary so far up it seemed like victory was inevitable.

    There's not enough data to draw a grand conclusion, but there's some interesting hiccups in politics at the minute.

    Auckland • Since May 2015 • 83 posts Report Reply

  • mccx,

    I dunno, this argument puts a lot of faith in the ability of progressive movements to make long-term electoral and structural changes might eventually get to a progressive (or at least Democratic) Congress and President.

    The Executive branch is incredibly powerful even by itself and I think there would be a substantial difference in how Sanders and Clinton would use the executive and its powers (including the Environmental Protection Agency, Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of National Drug Control Policy, Customs and Immigration, National Labor Relations Board, not to mention the military and foreign policy, appointing federal judges, etc.)

    Wellington • Since Jan 2012 • 36 posts Report Reply

  • Grant McDougall,

    Fascinating read, cheers. However, does Hillary have an Achille's heel ?
    I was talking about her chances the other day with a friend and he pointed out that she may still be arrested over the Libyan embassy fiasco. Therefore, this would prevent her from running.

    My friend may be wrong and have the wrong of the stick, but it'd be horrible if that was to happen, or even the threat of it.

    As for Trump, I would so love to be a fly on the wall when he either loses the nomination or the election just to watch the humungous tanty he'd throw.

    Dunedin • Since Dec 2006 • 759 posts Report Reply

  • Rob Stowell, in reply to Grant McDougall,

    she may still be arrested over the Libyan embassy fiasco

    On some other planet.
    In the end, leading (since dumped!) GOP congressional republicans described the committee they set up to ‘investigate’ the State Depts role in ‘Benghazi’ as just a smear campaign.
    The ‘email scandal’ is just as trumped up. Republicans have been smearing Hilary since forever, in anticipation of running against her one day (and in a continuation of their relentless attacks on Bill.)
    (Edited: McCarthy was running for the speaker's job - the top job in congress- when he made the comments - just checked and he was not on the committee)

    Whakaraupo • Since Nov 2006 • 2091 posts Report Reply

  • Grant McDougall,

    Ok, cheers, good to have that clarified. Whew !

    Dunedin • Since Dec 2006 • 759 posts Report Reply

  • tony j ricketts,

    Actually there is a very important implied message for us here this year: in our quasi-presidential local elections the most attention by far is paid to the mayoral contest, yet the make-up of the council is really important. Don't know what to do about this, local news is owned by the realityTV businesses and nationwide media have neither resources nor space to much more than glance at Auckland most of the time.

    wellington • Since Aug 2012 • 41 posts Report Reply

  • James Littlewood*,

    Hang on a sec. Are you saying that progressive Americans should vote Clinton because she's the least progressive option available to them, for the reason that - being hostile to their views - she will ipso facto increase their engagement and therefore allow them to sway her policy agenda?

    Long bow. Because it's Friday, I'm just gonna say it: never in a million years.

    Although if you were to say that Clinton's the one because she's the more electable candidate, I'd say yeah.

    I've got some sympathy for the idea that progressive Americans promote Trump's Republican nomination, on the basis that he's got no chance of taking the Whitehouse.

    But I gather that this same tactic was attempted during Reagan's nomination race against Bush Sr. Own goal. Epic own goal.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2008 • 410 posts Report Reply

  • Graham Dunster,

    I found this article illuminating in (partially) explaining Trump's appeal to his electorate - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/07/donald-trump-why-americans-support

    Auckland • Since Nov 2009 • 184 posts Report Reply

  • Graham Dunster, in reply to tony j ricketts,

    So true. At least the right wing right is being nicely split with all the wingnuts.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2009 • 184 posts Report Reply

  • Winifred Kiddle,

    What a load of bollocks and why I NEVER READ MAINSTREAM MEDIA. Here's something about Hilary you appear to have missed and how easily you use the word fascist without fully explaining what it means. Who's a fascist?
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/10/hillary-clinton-the-queen-of-chaos-and-the-threat-of-world-war-iii/. I could find some more less than flattering articles. Oh wait a minute;https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

    Havelock North • Since Mar 2016 • 1 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.