Unless it's changed dramatically since I lived there, socialism is anathema. Sanders may have garnered support amongst a portion of the electorate, but push comes to shove, the vast majority would never vote for a socialist. Just as the U.K. you need the swing voters to win. They'd never vote for Sanders. Trump would win comfortably.
Younger voters don't see it as anything too dramatic, as they've not grown up with it being some demonic trait. There aren't enough of them and they don't vote reliably enough, though. Sanders got a large group of people motivated, but he'd alienate an even bigger one. There are similarities with Corbyn over here, though I much prefer Sanders. Winning the candidacy is one thing, but winning an election is something else entirely. Poor old Jezzer has absolutely no chance, I'm afraid. I wouldn't vote for him and I'm pretty left-wing about most things.
The sooner May calls an election, the sooner the Labour Party can hopefully get rid of the old dinosaur. I've got more chance of being PM than Corbyn....
He'd lose, refuse to quick, call for another vote and get voted back in as leader again, unfortunately. The Labour Party are totally ****ed at the moment. We've got no real opposition party and the whole thing's a shambles right now. All of the major parties appear to be infighting, so I can see a split and a new centrist party forming. I've said this before, but a new SDP or something wouldn't surprise me at all. People are already quitting a party that's in government and would comfortably win an election. The opposition are split down the middle and the leader's pulling left all day.
Yeah that looks likely, I've thought it for a while. And TBH, if run properly, with sensible centre left policies, I think they'd present real threat to the Tories right now. I thought that if Corbyn was absolutely wiped off the political map in a GE, he'd be forced to resign - It's what any decent leader would do. Accept that they've been rejected completely by the electorate and bow out gracefully. But, yes, it's very possible that the old dinosaur wouldn't accept total electoral rejection and he certainly doesn't do bowing out gracefullly!...
As opposed to the Tories who are split down the middle and the leader's trying to become a literal dictator every day. This is the issue with the press throwing around the word "unelectable" for Corbyn and Sanders, it completely (and deliberately) overlooks the fact the term applies to both sides of the political spectrum. For example, you never see people describe the BNP or Britain First as "unelectable" even though they're on the ballot are usually lucky to get their deposit back. More importantly, how is Theresa may considered "electable" in any way? She couldn't even win a leadership election, and her Premiership has mainly consisted of her incompetence coupled with the same tiresome dead cat tactics that Cameron displayed for six years. The only thing that makes her "electable" is being the incumbent Prime Minister, a position she did not win in any way.
The media can deem people electable as it's basically them that elects them. Corbyn gets slaughtered by them on a regular basis, including by the left-leaning papers, so he actually is unelectable. Some of his positions would automatically disqualify him to quite a large section of the public, but that's secondary.
Unfortunately there's no such thing as sensible centre left any more. Anything left of the current "accepted" tenets of neoliberalism would be branded as socialist in many quarters, no matter how sensible. The centre has moved right and anything considered moderate 20 years ago would be regarded as left wing now. And people who lose out vote for this crap because they have got cheaper TVs and phones, not noticing that they are far worse off and the top 1% have got what they've lost. Bread and circuses indeed.
Fair points - and whilst I agree that the 'Socialist' issue would alienate a large section of the electorate, they would at least have had to do some work to discredit him otherwise. They (Reps and FBI) have been shooting fish in a barrel as far as Clinton is concerned and personally think that at least there would have been fewer people opting for Trump as the least worst candidate. Once upon a time (having also lived in the US) I would have followed up with a comment like 'you can never underestimate the ignorance of the US electorate' as a country that twice elected Dubya, but then the U.K. twice elected Blair and voted for Brexit .....
And the FBI show their hand again..... http://www.npr.org/2016/11/01/50029...es-files-on-bill-clintons-pardon-of-marc-rich
I disagree. In the states, maybe. But in the UK I'm convinced that a centre left party with policies that are business friendly, but socially aware too, would gain great acceptance. In my view the throwback policies of the current Labour Party and the right wing machinations of parts of the Tory party are turning people away from both main parties. The current Lib-Dems are in disarray ( no change there). A coalition of the best of the Labour Party, the Left of the Tories, and some of the better Lib-Dems would have great voter appeal, IMO.
This FBI stuff is quite extraordinary. Unbelievable that they could be doing something so political, regardless of what they say. At best it's incompetence at worst it is straight politically motivated. I can't see a third option, well "routine" isn't it anyway. That is a difference with this election - I believe they haven't got involved before, and indeed they have no right to. I anticipate some FBI careers being at an end should Hilary win.
I hope you're right, and I would vote for that. However I'm worried that the damage has been done. A larger and larger proportion of the electorate hasn't even experienced or remembered a political centre that is further left than it is now. To them, "privatised" industry (massively subsidised by the Government as required) and demonisation of the workforce is perfectly normal and the way it has always been. Earlier versions of the status quo are effectively history, not living memory.
I think the vast majority of the British electorate is moderate by nature. It's the British way, and all that. However, they haven't so far been presented with a credible political alternative that they both feel comfortable voting for, and who they believe can actually win if they did vote for them.
What scares me most about Trump is his potential dealings with Putin - here's a piece from a magazine which sums it up: "Putin is more likely to pocket concessions and will keep pushing & testing the orange haired deal maker at every opportunity leaving Trump dangerously poised, between overreaction and his least favourite position......looking weak".
Sounds about right. Trump recognises, and I think admires, a fellow autocrat. His problem is he's nowhere near as savvy as Putin, who's playing him for a mug. As you say, Trump can't resist biting when he thinks he's been bettered or insulted. He always swallows the bait. A president that is easily baited is a dangerous president. That worries me, a lot!
Did you know Steven Segal has been a deputy sheriff "down south" for about 20 years when he's not making movies. There's a series of dvd's of him at work actually catching real criminals with citizens being "knocked out" seeing who it is. Anyone got a copy.......?
