Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Winstonm]

I think that any state Trump carries in the national Presidential election should have its statehood rescinded and its status changed to U.S. territory. Not so much because they should not be states but the reaction of being compared to Puerto Rico is bound to be priceless. :P

[cherdano]

Another way to put it: I know a small number of people who will vote for Trump. I know people who may very well not vote. I know many people who will vote for Clinton. I am pretty sure that I do not know anyone who a week ago was not going to vote for Hillary but now, with Bernie's endorsement, will vote for Hillary. Maybe I just don't know the right people.

How many people do you know who voted for Bernie in the primary?

[barmar]

How many people do you know who voted for Bernie in the primary?

He kind of knows me. Although I knew I was throwing my vote away when I did it, and I would eventually end up having to vote for Hillary in the general.

 

A great many of the Bernie supporters who will vote for Clinton will just be doing it to stop Trump, I expect. I don't think a lot of people will be voting FOR anyone this year, just voting AGAINST someone else.

 

Wouldn't it be funny if there were enough people who wanted to vote against both HC and DT that the Libertarians won? But I don't think this is likely enough that I'll waste my vote there, it could backfire.

[kenberg]

How many people do you know who voted for Bernie in the primary?

 

I'm an academic, of course there are many. Except those who think he is too conservative.

 

But of course I have not done a poll. I just try to imagine someone, after Clinton secured the nomination, saying "I just can't be voting for her in November" and then, after the other night, saying "Oh, Bernie has endorsed her, so now I will vote for her". It is hard to imagine that in the abstract, and impossible to imagine that after the nature of his endorsement.

 

It's ok. Just as I would hope many Republicans make it clear that Trump is not their candidate, Sanders has a right to be very lukewarm about Clinton. All I am saying is that the Clinton campaign needs to accept this as reality. She needs, of course, to explain directly to people why she should get their vote, and then let Sanders do as he thinks best. Party unity is fine, but if it is not available then go on without it.

[mycroft]

All I will say is that were I eligible to vote in the U.S. in November, I would be voting FOR the Supreme Court.

 

I also think that voting for Sen. Sanders in the primary, knowing he wasn't going to win, isn't as much of a throwaway as it might be; if you believe the only way to break the Democratic Party from their corporatist, slightly less neoliberal than the opposition strategy is to show how many people are how far to the left of the party that it is safe (and potentially necessary) to actually move that way and not see the only way to win is to "lean on the creeping barrage" that is the Republican "march to freedom". You may not lose the general any more by that strategy, but you might not get to the general...

[mike777]

All I will say is that were I eligible to vote in the U.S. in November, I would be voting FOR the Supreme Court.

 

I also think that voting for Sen. Sanders in the primary, knowing he wasn't going to win, isn't as much of a throwaway as it might be; if you believe the only way to break the Democratic Party from their corporatist, slightly less neoliberal than the opposition strategy is to show how many people are how far to the left of the party that it is safe (and potentially necessary) to actually move that way and not see the only way to win is to "lean on the creeping barrage" that is the Republican "march to freedom". You may not lose the general any more by that strategy, but you might not get to the general...

 

 

What do you mean many people are far left of the party? What does far left of the Democratic party mean and stand for? I mean are they just in general against stuff and want to complain or do they have a specific and detailed and thought out platform?

[olegru]

I'm an academic, of course there are many. Except those who think he is too conservative.

 

As a person who have lived noticeable part of his life in socialistic country I am terrified (not sure if this word is strong enough to express my feelings) by this.

[helene_t]

As a person who have lived noticeable part of his life in socialistic country I am terrified (not sure if this word is strong enough to express my feelings) by this.

But his model countries are the Scandinavian countries, not USSR.

[olegru]

But his model countries are the Scandinavian countries, not USSR.

Theory is sweet.

[cherdano]

Theory is sweet.

Those Scandinavian countries exist in practice, not just in theory. Promise! I just visited one of them a few weeks ago. (It was beautiful, too!)

[mike777]

But his model countries are the Scandinavian countries, not USSR.

 

 

Scandinavian countries are capitalistic not socialist.

 

Socialism is an economic system where the government owns and controls the means of production and the distribution of goods.

[mike777]

Those Scandinavian countries exist in practice, not just in theory. Promise! I just visited one of them a few weeks ago. (It was beautiful, too!)

 

 

Again they are not socialist countries...they are capitalists.

 

The problem with these type of posts are posters dont know what socialism or capitalism is.

[mycroft]

On a side note: why "Bernie", "Hillary" and "Trump"? Similarly, why "Barack" (and poor misspellings of same) and "Romney" or "McCain"? Nobody ever talked about "George", either.

 

Yes, I can see that we need to make clear which Clinton (George, anyone?) but using given, rather than family names, is (among other things) a way to address inferiors.

 

Given the other language games (like always referring to the Democrat Party rather than their preferred, Democratic Party) that it seems the Republicans are very good at getting the media to use, I wonder if this is a deliberate choice.

[mycroft]

What do you mean many people are far left of the party? What does far left of the Democratic party mean and stand for? I mean are they just in general against stuff and want to complain or do they have a specific and detailed and thought out platform?

As always when I point out that U.S. politics is, to the rest of the world, a fight between the hard right and the Republicans, someone comes out with incredulity.

 

By preference (not always, especially when unite against the Right is more important than policy), I vote NDP. Look it up sometime. Boggle. Enjoy.

[mike777]

As far as Sweden goes people forget that Ikea is mainly based in the Netherlands not Sweden. Also in Sweden it is a nonprofit...so it avoids taxes...Also Sweden has a 25% sales tax. Now if you want your companies to avoid paying taxes and want to pay 25% sales tax....we can discuss the Swedish model. :)

 

having actually been in Sweden people may not be aware that it is in the process of selling state companies and opening itself up to more private capitalism. Even the swedes have doubts about the so called swedish model.

[mike777]

As always when I point out that U.S. politics is, to the rest of the world, a fight between the hard right and the Republicans, someone comes out with incredulity.

 

By preference (not always, especially when unite against the Right is more important than policy), I vote NDP. Look it up sometime. Boggle. Enjoy.

 

So avoid the question and dont tell us what the far left is for and what is its policies.

 

If you just want to complain and tell us you are for fairness and justice...equality....great...

[Winstonm]

Again they are not socialist countries...they are capitalists.

 

The problem with these type of posts are posters dont know what socialism or capitalism is.

 

The Nordic countries are neither pure capitalist nor socialist: they might best be called social capitalists.

 

From Wikepedia:

 

Although there are significant differences among the Nordic countries, they all share some common traits. These include support for a "universalist" welfare state aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy and promoting social mobility; a corporatist system involving a tripartite arrangement where representatives of labor and employers negotiate wages and labor market policy mediated by the government; and a commitment to widespread private ownership, free markets and free trade.

 

I cannot imagine any current Republican agreeing that labor and employer negotiations should be mediated by the government, so in that sense the Nordic Model of capitalism is much more liberal than the U.S. version.

[Winstonm]

Again they are not socialist countries...they are capitalists.

 

The problem with these type of posts are posters dont know what socialism or capitalism is.

 

Just as some religious types will claim that all opinion is equal, therefore belief based on faith is equivalent to belief based on evidence, so some will try to claim that all types of capitalism are the same.

[cherdano]

On a side note: why "Bernie", "Hillary" and "Trump"? Similarly, why "Barack" (and poor misspellings of same) and "Romney" or "McCain"? Nobody ever talked about "George", either.

 

Yes, I can see that we need to make clear which Clinton (George, anyone?) but using given, rather than family names, is (among other things) a way to address inferiors.

 

Given the other language games (like always referring to the Democrat Party rather than their preferred, Democratic Party) that it seems the Republicans are very good at getting the media to use, I wonder if this is a deliberate choice.

In the case of Clinton and Sanders, this is a deliberate choice - by Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Just have a look at their official campaign webpages. (I don't see Obama referred to as "Barrack" very often.)

[mike777]

The Nordic countries are neither pure capitalist nor socialist: they might best be called social capitalists.

 

From Wikepedia:

 

 

 

I cannot imagine any current Republican agreeing that labor and employer negotiations should be mediated by the government, so in that sense the Nordic Model of capitalism is much more liberal than the U.S. version.

 

Winston as usual another of your strawman posts...I did not say pure capitalist...I said they are capitalist countries, not socialist. The confusion remains posters dont know what capitalism or socialism means.

 

 

As for social capitalism...it seems to be defined as everything or nothing by people and posters.

 

 

I really dont mind if you or others want to advocate for social capitalism but at the very least if you advocate something then provide:

1) some generally accepted definition.

2) some generally accepted standard of measurement so we can compare and contrast and discuss.

 

What the heck I may even vote for it once posters tell us what exactly it is.

[shyams]

BTW, what is Capitalism in the view of Republican Americans? And does this Republican view differ from that of the "Tea Party"?

[kenberg]

As a person who have lived noticeable part of his life in socialistic country I am terrified (not sure if this word is strong enough to express my feelings) by this.

 

This was Re:

I'm an academic, of course there are many. Except those who think he is too conservative.

 

 

You can relax, I just intended to play a bit off the popular view of academics as crazy lefties. Sort of an inside joke, I didn't mean it to be taken seriously.

 

It is probably true, although I am not certain, that Sanders would have done better if only math profs got to vote. But Republicans do better if only people in the Chamber of Commerce get to vote.

 

You can relax.

[mike777]

BTW, what is Capitalism in the view of Republican Americans? And does this Republican view differ from that of the "Tea Party"?

 

 

Great question, my best guess is American Republican voters know about as much about capitalistic economics as Democrats...in other words...very little.

 

One of the most difficult sub sections is the role, indeed the crucial role, of creative destruction when it comes to jobs, companies and at rare moments the destruction of an entire industry. Voters just hate this and demand the government step in and stop it.

Another big misunderstood issue is trade, global trade and global immigration.

 

 

For example just look at the role of creative destruction, global trade and immigration when it comes to BBO and its history.

[Winstonm]

Winston as usual another of your strawman posts...I did not say pure capitalist...I said they are capitalist countries, not socialist. The confusion remains posters dont know what capitalism or socialism means.

 

 

As for social capitalism...it seems to be defined as everything or nothing by people and posters.

 

 

I really dont mind if you or others want to advocate for social capitalism but at the very least if you advocate something then provide:

1) some generally accepted definition.

2) some generally accepted standard of measurement so we can compare and contrast and discuss.

 

What the heck I may even vote for it once posters tell us what exactly it is.

 

Then by your own definition of socialism (Socialism is an economic system where the government owns and controls the means of production and the distribution of goods), there can be no degrees of socialism - where the government might control some but not all means of production and distribution of goods. But capitalism is allowed to have a high degree of social conscience by your take.

 

I would submit your problem is a faulty premise - that capitalism is a cure-all.

[awm]

The discussion of capitalism is somewhat ridiculous -- basically everyone believes in a mixed economy these days where a few parts of the economy are government controlled and others are private (with varying degrees of government regulation). The arguments are mostly a matter of degree -- for example in the US democrats would like the government to control health insurance and to more heavily regulate energy generation in order to protect the environment. Republicans would like to reduce regulation on energy production and financial firms. But no significant group is endorsing complete government control of the economy (communism) or a complete lack of regulation (sometimes called laissez-faire capitalism).