Who will win the Democratic nomination for president?

[fromderinside]

In europe especially northern europe conservative has a meaning almost impossible to reconcile with american conservatism.

From wiki

Ideology:
Høyre is considered a reform party profess to the moderately conservative political tradition, adhering to the thoughts of Edmund Burke. The party is committed to fiscal free-market policies, including tax cuts and relatively little government involvement in the economy. However, it does support the continued existence of the Norwegian welfare state.Høyre is also the only party in the Storting which proposes a reduction in public spending. The party is often associated with wealth and has historically been attacked by the left for defending the country's richest, although this argument is rarely presented any more.^{[citation needed]}
The Conservative Party's social policies are socially liberal and the party voted in 2008 for a law that recognised same-sex marriage and gay adoption rights.^[19]
It is also in favour of Norwegian membership of the European Union, although have stated that this is not a priority, nor realistic in the short term, as Norwegians have rejected membership in two referendums, while opinion polls show that two-thirds of Norwegians oppose membership

 

[Derec]

In europe especially northern europe conservative has a meaning almost impossible to reconcile with american conservatism.

True, but note that Elixir labors under the misconception that Norway is "socialist".

 

[Elixir]

In europe especially northern europe conservative has a meaning almost impossible to reconcile with american conservatism.

True, but note that Elixir labors under the misconception that Norway is "socialist".

They (the nordic countries - Norway, Finland, Denmark) are what I'd call "more democratic than the US", not particularly socialist. Bernie gets a rise out of the right wing snowflakes by calling himself a socialist, but the result of a Sanders presidency would likely leave the US still far to the right of any of those countries. That would hold even if he got free public education (incl college) and some form of uhc.

 

[Gospel]

For those checking which selection users chose, the question is who will win not who you want to win. Just speaking for myself as I'm sure at least one person voted based on who they want to win.

 

[Harry Bosch]

In europe especially northern europe conservative has a meaning almost impossible to reconcile with american conservatism.

True, but note that Elixir labors under the misconception that Norway is "socialist".

They (the nordic countries - Norway, Finland, Denmark) are what I'd call "more democratic than the US", not particularly socialist. Bernie gets a rise out of the right wing snowflakes by calling himself a socialist, but the result of a Sanders presidency would likely leave the US still far to the right of any of those countries. That would hold even if he got free public education (incl college) and some form of uhc.

I generally don't care about language usage. But the problem here is that Bernie using the conservative definition of socialist (safety net) will cost some democrats their office. The fact is that most democrats need a few of the "right wing snowflakes" to win their election. These are generally middle class white voters in the central part of the US whose vote tetters towards voting republican for social issues, voting democratic for economic issues. And these guys are generally scared shitless of socialism. So Bernie hurts the democrat in a conservative district from getting elected due to blurring the definition. Thanks Bernie...

 

[Elixir]

They (the nordic countries - Norway, Finland, Denmark) are what I'd call "more democratic than the US", not particularly socialist. Bernie gets a rise out of the right wing snowflakes by calling himself a socialist, but the result of a Sanders presidency would likely leave the US still far to the right of any of those countries. That would hold even if he got free public education (incl college) and some form of uhc.

I generally don't care about language usage. But the problem here is that Bernie using the conservative definition of socialist (safety net) will cost some democrats their office. The fact is that most democrats need a few of the "right wing snowflakes" to win their election. These are generally middle class white voters in the central part of the US whose vote tetters towards voting republican for social issues, voting democratic for economic issues. And these guys are generally scared shitless of socialism. So Bernie hurts the democrat in a conservative district from getting elected due to blurring the definition. Thanks Bernie...

Lol! You can apparently avoid triggering sociophobes by simply leaving the word "socialist" out of the conversation. Derec advises instead referring to "higher levels of public services". I'll try to take that to heart, even though it's really hard to keep track of the myriad alt-right snowflake sensitivities. It probably wouldn't hurt if Bernie did the same.

 

[Harry Bosch]

They (the nordic countries - Norway, Finland, Denmark) are what I'd call "more democratic than the US", not particularly socialist. Bernie gets a rise out of the right wing snowflakes by calling himself a socialist, but the result of a Sanders presidency would likely leave the US still far to the right of any of those countries. That would hold even if he got free public education (incl college) and some form of uhc.

I generally don't care about language usage. But the problem here is that Bernie using the conservative definition of socialist (safety net) will cost some democrats their office. The fact is that most democrats need a few of the "right wing snowflakes" to win their election. These are generally middle class white voters in the central part of the US whose vote tetters towards voting republican for social issues, voting democratic for economic issues. And these guys are generally scared shitless of socialism. So Bernie hurts the democrat in a conservative district from getting elected due to blurring the definition. Thanks Bernie...

Lol! You can apparently avoid triggering sociophobes by simply leaving the word "socialist" out of the conversation. Derec advises instead referring to "higher levels of public services". I'll try to take that to heart, even though it's really hard to keep track of the myriad alt-right snowflake sensitivities. It probably wouldn't hurt if Bernie did the same.

I agree with you, it's maddening. It's frustrating but a truth: republicans can win elections with 5 or 6 percent less votes due to EC. Secondly, the right is more committed and doesn't get offended. They vote. On the left, we need a larger tent to win. We need to attract some voters who are on fence. A lot of these voters are very religious, love guns, are pro-life, anti-science. Yea, and some of these people are prejudice. These are the people who left the fence when the Russian bots sent out invitations to attend "repatriations rally" and/or "black people matter" in the mid west states. These people contain many opinions that I find revolting. And they don't understand the difference between a socialist and social democrat. However, we need a tiny sliver of this faction to win a national election. That's just reality.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

They (the nordic countries - Norway, Finland, Denmark) are what I'd call "more democratic than the US", not particularly socialist. Bernie gets a rise out of the right wing snowflakes by calling himself a socialist, but the result of a Sanders presidency would likely leave the US still far to the right of any of those countries. That would hold even if he got free public education (incl college) and some form of uhc.

I generally don't care about language usage. But the problem here is that Bernie using the conservative definition of socialist (safety net) will cost some democrats their office. The fact is that most democrats need a few of the "right wing snowflakes" to win their election. These are generally middle class white voters in the central part of the US whose vote tetters towards voting republican for social issues, voting democratic for economic issues. And these guys are generally scared shitless of socialism. So Bernie hurts the democrat in a conservative district from getting elected due to blurring the definition. Thanks Bernie...

Lol! You can apparently avoid triggering sociophobes by simply leaving the word "socialist" out of the conversation. Derec advises instead referring to "higher levels of public services". I'll try to take that to heart, even though it's really hard to keep track of the myriad alt-right snowflake sensitivities. It probably wouldn't hurt if Bernie did the same.

Well, in this Derec is right. "Higher level of services" != "collectivized ownership of the means of production".

 

[Elixir]

Lol! You can apparently avoid triggering sociophobes by simply leaving the word "socialist" out of the conversation. Derec advises instead referring to "higher levels of public services". I'll try to take that to heart, even though it's really hard to keep track of the myriad alt-right snowflake sensitivities. It probably wouldn't hurt if Bernie did the same.

"Higher level of services" != "collectivized ownership of the means of production".

So what? The point remains. "Higher level of services" != necessarily socialism, but any proposal to provide higher levels of services, is dubbed "socialist" by the fearmongering right.
Semantic weaseling doesn't absolve the right of their dishonesty.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Lol! You can apparently avoid triggering sociophobes by simply leaving the word "socialist" out of the conversation. Derec advises instead referring to "higher levels of public services". I'll try to take that to heart, even though it's really hard to keep track of the myriad alt-right snowflake sensitivities. It probably wouldn't hurt if Bernie did the same.

"Higher level of services" != "collectivized ownership of the means of production".

So what? The point remains. "Higher level of services" != necessarily socialism, but any proposal to provide higher levels of services, is dubbed "socialist" by the fearmongering right.
Semantic weaseling doesn't absolve the right of their dishonesty.

You aiding and abetting their abuse of the English language does no service to anyone who actually wants to have a fact based conversation.

You say they are using it wrong, and then you go and use it the same way. What does that make you?

 

[Elixir]

So what? The point remains. "Higher level of services" != necessarily socialism, but any proposal to provide higher levels of services, is dubbed "socialist" by the fearmongering right.
Semantic weaseling doesn't absolve the right of their dishonesty.

You aiding and abetting their abuse of the English language does no service to anyone ...

Call me the Waaambulance! I feel so guilty of causing the demise of semantic conformance, I might just lay down and die!
Nevermore shall I use English make a point in the presence of language abusers, lest I share in their felonious guilt.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So what? The point remains. "Higher level of services" != necessarily socialism, but any proposal to provide higher levels of services, is dubbed "socialist" by the fearmongering right.
Semantic weaseling doesn't absolve the right of their dishonesty.

You aiding and abetting their abuse of the English language does no service to anyone who actually wants to have a fact based conversation.

You say they are using it wrong, and then you go and use it the same way. What does that make you?

Call me the Waaambulance! I feel so guilty of causing the demise of semantic conformance, I might just lay down and die!
Nevermore shall I use English make a point in the presence of language abusers, lest I share in their felonious guilt.

It should be noted that this is an English language board. Is it the "English language" part or the "fact based" part you object to? Given your politics it could be either. Maybe both.

 

[Elixir]

It should be noted that this is an English language board. Is it the "English language" part or the "fact based" part you object to?

Pedantry.
Get over it Jason. Nobody is requiring you to actually get nuance, but it's not your place to forbid it. In fact that would be pretty hypocritical given some of your own hyperbolic BS.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It should be noted that this is an English language board. Is it the "English language" part or the "fact based" part you object to?

Pedantry.
Get over it Jason. Nobody is requiring you to actually get nuance, but it's not your place to forbid it. In fact that would be pretty hypocritical given some of your own hyperbolic BS.

So you object to the "fact based" part.

 

[ZiprHead]

It should be noted that this is an English language board. Is it the "English language" part or the "fact based" part you object to?

Pedantry.
Get over it Jason. Nobody is requiring you to actually get nuance, but it's not your place to forbid it. In fact that would be pretty hypocritical given some of your own hyperbolic BS.

So you object to the "fact based" part.

The fact is that the lines of what is socialism have been blurred starting many, many years ago, by the conservatives.That's a fact you seem to fail to acknowledge.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So you object to the "fact based" part.

The fact is that the lines of what is socialism have been blurred starting many, many years ago, by the conservatives.That's a fact you seem to fail to acknowledge.

They're not the only ones guilty of blurring the lines. It has been a bipartisan effort. Then again, this is the politics sub-forum where we are supposed to use the terminology more correctly than the average person. It is akin in a way to the scientific versus colloquial usages of the word "theory". To the common person theory means "good guess" and socialism means "welfare state". To the person who is knowledgeable in the field theory means "a well supported explanation of the evidence with predictive power" and socialism means "collective ownership of the means of production."

Where you you fall on this? To me you sound like a creationist trying to explain to a scientist what "theory" means.

 

[Patooka]

So you object to the "fact based" part.

The fact is that the lines of what is socialism have been blurred starting many, many years ago, by the conservatives.That's a fact you seem to fail to acknowledge.

They're not the only ones guilty of blurring the lines. It has been a bipartisan effort. Then again, this is the politics sub-forum where we are supposed to use the terminology more correctly than the average person. It is akin in a way to the scientific versus colloquial usages of the word "theory". To the common person theory means "good guess" and socialism means "welfare state". To the person who is knowledgeable in the field theory means "a well supported explanation of the evidence with predictive power" and socialism means "collective ownership of the means of production."

Where you you fall on this? To me you sound like a creationist trying to explain to a scientist what "theory" means.

If your arguments are so esoteric they require excessively precise definitions of commonly used words in order to be relevant, then they are pretty piss-weak arguments.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

When a scientist tells a creationist what a "theory" is, that scientist is piss-weak. Got it.

 

[Patooka]

When a scientist tells a creationist what a "theory" is, that scientist is piss-weak. Got it.

Pretty certain you don't.

 

[Elixir]

They're not the only ones guilty of blurring the lines. It has been a bipartisan effort. Then again, this is the politics sub-forum where we are supposed to use the terminology more correctly than the average person. It is akin in a way to the scientific versus colloquial usages of the word "theory". To the common person theory means "good guess" and socialism means "welfare state". To the person who is knowledgeable in the field theory means "a well supported explanation of the evidence with predictive power" and socialism means "collective ownership of the means of production."

Where you you fall on this? To me you sound like a creationist trying to explain to a scientist what "theory" means.

If your arguments are so esoteric they require excessively precise definitions of commonly used words in order to be relevant, then they are pretty piss-weak arguments.

Jason needs to take his case to the republicans whose habit it has long been to call any policy or program they don't like "socialism".
But he doesn't mind that so much as he minds when things are bent in the other direction, with "socialist" programs like medicare, social security etc. being called "democratic socialism" by democrats. I call that hypocrisy, but perhaps that's too precise a term...