Despite being ignored by msm – Bernie could win Democratic nomination: Will 2017 be Trump vs Sanders?



Despite getting a mere 1-23rd of the media coverage Trump has, Bernie Sanders is according to HuffPost going to win Iowa and New Hampshire and be positioned to take South Carolina as well…

Sanders has once again surpassed Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire, and when he wins both, could easily take South Carolina. With three initial losses, Clinton’s Southern “firewall” and hopes at a big Super Tuesday would be done, and the positive media coverage alone would propel Sanders throughout the primaries. 

Then of course, wins in Iowa and New Hampshire would focus attention on the reasons non-white Democrats throughout the South and the nation would vote for Clinton. When more attention is paid to Clinton’s 3 a.m. ad against Obama, use of race and Islamophobia against Obama, and Congressman James Clyburn’srecollection of how both Clintons treated Obama in 2008, South Carolina will easily shift to Sanders.

…if Sanders wins the Democratic nomination from Hillary Clinton, it will be righteous. Clinton’s record is barely liberal. That could set in motion the most fascinating election in American history if Sanders faces off against Donald Trump. No where could the very best of America come up against the very worst of America.




  1. Sanders for President, now that would be very good.
    The USA may at last get a President who can think for himself.

    Obama came into power full of promise, but the system got at him and he has ended up no different to GW Bush or Willie Clinton.

  2. Or ? Or is Bernie Sanders a clever plant to head off the rising tide of young , disenchanted USA intelligentsia types set on seeking revenge for being plundered like fools with money by the 1%ers?
    Just askin’.
    Is the GoP really just using trump to draft the Thinker into a Machiavellian trap using sanders as bait?
    See, that’s the way my mind works . No wonder I don’t have many friends 🙁
    Based upon my own observations of our own political history I’ve watched a lot of wind bags make haughty promises and all I’ve seen is our country be dragged ever further down into the shitter.

    • I’m with you. I blame too much watching of House of Cards, where pretty much everything politicians do (good and bad) is actually cynically designed to manipulate whoever to forward some unsavoury agenda. Sanders and/or Trump (neither of which are traditional presidential material) could easily be a ploy so they can put some hitherto unelectable Hitler type into the Oval Office.

  3. Of all significant US Politicians Hillary Clinton’s real political position is the most difficult to assess. Its totally guarded, she has massive staff her ever statement and speech is a masterwork of qualification. Her recent book, a sort of global tour and reflection on her work as secretary of state was massively intelligent, but who actually wrote it.
    Some, most notoriously the drunken mass entertainment scribe Christopher Hitchens always dismissed Hillary and the Clintons as a fraud and sell out, for Bills military strike, the stain on the Lewinski dress and most of all the hard line Clinton moves ‘to end welfare as we know it’ which he promised and did. In my view the liberal left in the US or at least the establishment part of it no longer gives primacy to the welfare level poor as they no longer vote in most cases and the primary mainstream issues are gender, sex, war and international issues. The real US debate has been about, conflicting policy on pharmacuticals and military spending, in the 2000 election on both issues W43 Bush actually ran to the left of Gore with Bush seeming to offer a return to 1930s non interventionist America.
    What Hillary Clinton is offering is much higher minimum wages, and hourly pay rates which seems to me a very left wing policy as her figures are not the token gifts of Bill English but would very significantly lift ordinary peoples wage and is pretty radical for a US Politicians.
    In terms of foreign affairs, Hillary Clinton has always been at the side of the gung ho militarist John McCain and was called an enthusiast for striking Iran, during her term of secretary of state. Obama has in fact become less and less enthusiastic about military interventions as President and significantly reduced and the US military, size and fighting powers, and the policy of putting women in front line combat roles in the Army is a very stupid disarmament measure. Modern war is inclined to be inherently genocidal and fought with cocks as much as guns and as the military officer Christopher Pugsley said in his lengthy army career in NZ and UK and as a Sanhurst lecturer he had seen only 4 women soldiers who really had the physical capability to be serious infantry officers.
    So for me the choice would be between Trump, Ted Cruz ( the modern Nixon- marvellouly dishonest but very bright) or Jeb.
    The real point about the Clintons is I dont think they ever had anymore support the McGovern outside a few Southern States. Bill won in 1992 and 1996 because Bush and Dole lost about 15% due to Ross Perots third Party support. The McGovern enthusiasts always blamed McGoverns VP choice, Eagleton, revealed mental hospital treatment as the cause of the loss but Eagleton was reelected to the senatre from Missouri.
    In 1992 Jerry Brown with no real money for a campaign and written off by the Press and basically blacked out by the democratic establishment won many of the key primaries and might have taken the nomination, but for his mistake of announcing the anti semitic Jesse Jackson as his running rate, shortly before the NY Primary. So biased were the media against Brown that the consistent practice when Brown won a primary, the Press even the BBC would declare it an abberation of no significance. If on the first count Clinton sneaked home, Clinton would be declared in the NY Times to have won a smashing victory and the fact the final count three days gave the state to Brown would be reported in Pravda style in two lines on the bottom of page 14. So what I’m saying is that the Clintons never had that much support and have won in the past by accident and media manipulation. Both Clinton and Sanders are much weaker candidates than thought and Ted Cruz would probably easily beat either , even Trump or Jeb would probably take them.

    • Ted Cruz was born in Canada – not on Sacred Soil. And Trump is doing the ‘birther’ thing with him, too.

      (Yeah, yeah. His mom IS American but the faithless wench was working in Canada. Some sort of commie, perhaps?)

  4. Is Hillary Clinton or Sanders really likely to prevail against Ted Cruz, Trump or even Jeb. Support for the Clintons has always been exaggerated and Bill won in 1992 and 1996 because of the 3rd Party intervention of Ross Perot. The real support for the Clintons was probably no greater than for McGovern, outside a few southern states. In 1992 Bill Clinton struggled against even the unfinanced Jerry Brown who actually won many primaries without money. High Tory.

  5. I’ve no idea if he will actually be elected but it is interesting to see the ground swell of political engagement from everyday folk that is happening. I think he does have a chance – & to be honest our own politicians should have a good think about this (each small, individual donation is not just money but a vote and an advocate).

    The Young Turks have had some good info on this:

Comments are closed.