Sanders will not win the nomination with 40% of the delegates.
Sanders will not win the nomination with 40% of the delegates.
What crystal ball is giving you that number?Sanders will not win the nomination with 40% of the delegates.
No. You need a majority. That's why there are often many rounds of balloting. If you assume that Bernie is seen as different, because he' the only socialist, it's plausible that those who aren't socialists would drop out one by one, and the one remaining would get all of the votes that weren't initially Sanders'. This is surely an oversimplification, but maybe not too much of one.If someone else had twenty percent, while another had thirty percent, then Bernie could win with forty percent, couldn't he?
While I agree with your characterization, he calls himself a socialist. I think that will be a big issue in the election, even if he's not actually a socialist in the sense in which the term is used internationally and historically.Bernie Sanders is NOT a socialist. He is a Democratic socialist and member of the Liberty Union Party, not the Socialist Party (which never existed here). If he was a socailst we would have to call Elizabeth Warren one too becaues of their similaries. They are just farther left than most Democrats.
Bernie Sanders is NOT a socialist. He is a Democratic socialist and member of the Liberty Union Party, not the Socialist Party (which never existed here). If he was a socailst we would have to call Elizabeth Warren one too becaues of their similaries. They are just farther left than most Democrats.
Democratic Socialism is socialism. They wish for a democratic transition to a socialistic economy rather than a violent revolution, but the endgame is replacing capitalism.
Warren favors a regulated free market economy
Sanders, in contrast, has in the past advocated for the nationalization of most major industries, which would put him squarely in the socialist category.
In the 1970s Sanders called for nationalizing many major industries, although not the whole economy. I don't think it's clear how far he would currently take that. However his plan for green energy did call for the government to own the next generation of power.
Right. You can argue that there's no loss to free enterprise in nationalizing industries that are already monopolies. I'm not sure what I think of that argument. At least in the US, governments have a history of being pretty inefficient. It may be that careful regulation is the better approach, but our regulators have a history of being "captured" by the industries they regulate. No really great solution, I'm afraid.YIKES! Imagine if you didn't have a free selection of utility companies when you move to a new town???
That's definitely what has happened in most of western Europe! Those "democrat socialist" countries seem to have COMPLETELY forgotten how to make money or run corporations! I had a friend who worked with some folks in Finland at some of their papermills. You couldn't pay me enough to give up my freedom of choice with regards to healthcare and school and stuff.
Regulations???? Whoa! We can't afford THAT kind of craziness. It will crater the economy. We should really just stick with the pure free market capitalism we have thrived under for the past many generations.
That sounds scary. Which industries? You mean like utility companies? One of the things I like when I move is taking the time to select my favorite electric company, my favorite gas company and my favorite cable company from the selections. I can't imagine how horrible it would be if we were just stuck with a pre-selected "monopoly" in an area! Yikes!
I'm a free-marketeer til the day I die! Laissez-Faire Capitalism (I think Laissez-Faire was a famous economist from France)
While I agree with your characterization, he calls himself a socialist. I think that will be a big issue in the election, even if he's not actually a socialist in the sense in which the term is used internationally and historically.
YIKES! Imagine if you didn't have a free selection of utility companies when you move to a new town?
If this is true, you need to read more about 19th century labor.
If it isn't true, I really have no idea how you interpreted a post about the differences between Sanders and Warren as a defense of laissez-faire capitalism.
There's only one thing I need to read: The Art of the Deal.
I just think that ANY mention of ANYONE who wants to put controls of ANY sort on ANY industry or corporation is threatening the very core of America. We've never had that kind of over-regulated economy. We are pure free-market and it's worked so well for us!
As for the difference between Sanders and Warren, well, it's all angels dancing on the head of a pin because Trump is going to win no matter what. He has the stronger message and the best leadership skills.