How's everyone leaning now? I think Biden is going to just barely pull it out, unfortunately. Second place goes to Bernie, but it'll be close.

Why should it be massive? Or what do you define massive?

Would you say in Switzerland the state intervention is massive? — ssu

Yes.

In my opinion, libertarian ideas of "free markets" is pure fantasy. They've never existed.

Another win.

If Bernie can win Iowa, his momentum will be hard to stop. Only 4 more days...

but basically many times what is called a mixed economy is actually a market economy with working institutions. — ssu

If by "working institutions" you mean massive state intervention, I agree. That's as "mixed" as you're going to find.

And so it has been when the markets work. They work far better than centralized planning of the economy. — ssu

When do markets work, in your view? Any examples? I see mixed economies, all over the world and throughout history. All involve a very strong state intervention.

No kidding? I'm not familiar with either of them, but it makes perfect sense now.

Fine. He's the all American boy. He's still dividing the Democratic party. — frank

As did Trump with the Republicans. Now it's the Trump Party. In three years. Things can change rapidly if the voters are behind a candidate. Yes, Bernie is splitting the Democratic establishment. His policies are also supported by majorities of Americans (which is often forgotten).

Taxing the wealthy makes perfect sense. We've done it before (in the US) and we had much better growth and better quality of life. Mainly the corporate sector and the wealthiest Americans should pay more. Close the loopholes and the tax havens, etc.

Also -- and this rarely gets mentioned -- tax INTANGIBLE ASSESTS. Which we don't do. We tax the interest made on them, that's all. So if you own 1 million in stocks you pay 0 dollars, 1 million dollar house you pay taxes on it. It's insane, and we know the reasons why this is the case.

Given the level of income inequality in this country (and the world), it's time to give up on these neoliberal fantasies, the fantasies of Ayn Rand, free markets, libertarianism, etc.

Tax the wealthy. It's been done before and it works. There are no alternatives, unless we can snap our fingers and change the entire economic system.

What do you actually think about how Bernie presents himself? Does he appear strong to you? — frank

About as strong as Trump does -- 70-somethings with a lot of bluster. Sure, Trump wears more makeup and is fatter -- plus he talks a good game. But all he's ever done is hide behind his money, his lawyers, and his bodyguards. Bernie knows far more about foreign policy, and he talks forcefully and with true conviction.

If you're asking who'd win in a fight -- who knows? Who cares? I suppose people do care about stuff like that, but back in 2000 it was all about "who you'd have a beer with." How'd that turn out? It's true people vote for all kinds of emotional reasons, but the point is that we have no way of figuring that out.

It reminds me of playing poker. Plenty of people play poker and make decisions based on all kinds of weird beliefs. In the long run, they're losers, and all you can do if you're a good player is make mathematically correct choices.

Bernie is the right choice, regardless of what cards come. Let's just try a non neo-liberal candidate for the first time in 50 years.

This is the one that had me laughing out loud:

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/01/bernie-sanders-electable-trump-2020-nomination-popular-socialism.html

Good. The more they push, the more Clinton talks up how unlikable he is, etc., the more he'll gain.

Frank, I'm listening. You might be right of course -- but you might be wrong, too. That's why we have to go on the only evidence we have. Just asserting "Bernie doesn't even slightly seem like 'one of us'" isn't an argument. He's done fine outside of New England, and as I've mentioned before is one of the most popular politicians in America AND was polling better than Clinton was in '16 versus Trump.

If Bernie isn't one of you, who is? Biden? Warren? Bloomberg? The argument can be made they're not one of you either, in fact more so.

Let's face it: for some people, a (D) next to your name is all it takes to be counted as an outsider. It's not like there's a magic candidate that will make people like this start looking closely at the issues and suddenly become rational.

Here come all the hit pieces now that Bernie is surging in the polls. The establishment is nervous. Articles like "Bernie Can't Win," "Running Bernie against Trump is Insane" etc. How predictable.

Two...if you were, you would be terrified of Biden...JUST AS TRUMP IS. — Frank Apisa

There's no evidence of this at all. Again, gut feelings isn't political analysis.

Biden would be a terrible candidate. Just more establishment Democrat bullshit -- exactly like Hillary.

Maybe Trump fears him, maybe not. We have no idea. Trump's an imbecile anyway, so who cares?

The rich want a very strong welfare state -- for themselves. Thus they can take huge risks and have the taxpayers bail them out, get huge subsidies at taxpayer expense, tax breaks, favorable trade legislation, etc.

Of course that isn't socialism. My point is that the people who decry "socialism" as just giving money away to poor people who don't work (the "welfare queen"), all at taxpayer expense, never seem to turn around and accuse the government of being a "welfare state" for the rich -- which in reality is what it is. So if we're calling social welfare programs for the poor "socialist", why not for the rich? That's the point. I'm not confused about the US: it's a state capitalist system.

Good enough for me. Biden will be my guy...although I'll have to wait for the General Election, because I am a registered Independent. I get no vote in the Primary Election. But at this point, I would vote for Satan rather than Trump...so I will be voting for the Democratic Party candidate no matter what.

I acknowledge that Trump will very likely win a second term. — Frank Apisa

Very likely? I don't see strong evidence for this. I'd say he has a 50/50 shot.

It's the definition of capitalism: where those who have greater wealth than others (specifically in the form of capital) use that difference to extract further wealth from those who have less than them (with which to acquire further capital and accelerate the process). — Pfhorrest

You're getting hung up on definitions, which is the point I was making: no one in this country has any idea about these terms. Regarding your definitions, yes I roughly agree with interpreting socialism that way, but your presentation of capitalism (while true) is a minority view. Most say something about a profit-based system and private ownership. But it's all hair-splitting anyway, and really wasn't my point.

Correct, which is why I think he would have been a libertarian socialist, had he lived to see socialism become a thing at all. The libertarian socialists who came after him have long been proposing solutions to the problem of why markets in practice haven't lived up to that theoretical ideal. (Spoiler warning: it's because states, including private armies bought by capitalist robber-barons, enforcing unlimited claims to property and power to contract, undermines the actual freedom of the market, so the solution is to stop the enforcement of those illegitimate claims and powers and let the market be truly free). — Pfhorrest

I'm skeptical about the concept of "free markets" as well. A lot of fantasies about them, but very little evidence that they exist, have existed, or can exist.

Because it’s not at all socialist? — Pfhorrest

It is if you listen to Fox News. It's a welfare system. What they leave out is that it's mainly welfare for the corporate world, not the welfare queens.

Instead wealth is being concentrated in the hands of those who already have more of it, which is the opposite of socialism: capitalism. — Pfhorrest

That's not even fair to capitalism, either.

f so, that’s a product of Cold War era propaganda conflating them with command economies and free markets, respectively. — Pfhorrest

Absolutely right.

Adam Smith never advocated capitalism, just free markets. — Pfhorrest

He did give an argument for markets, but the argument was that under conditions of perfect liberty, markets will lead to perfect equality. That’s the argument for them, because he thought that equality of condition (not just opportunity) is what you should be aiming at.

That's a kind of capitalism, it's just state capitalism, which is the worst of both worlds. — Pfhorrest

Why not call it state socialism? You see my point -- "capitalism" and "socialism" are almost completely devoid of meaning at this point. The reality is that our economy is designed to favor concentrations of power -- whatever you call it, it's not what Adam Smith had in mind.

Of course, they're also equally unenthusiastic about Bernie, yet another old white man, despite the drastic policy differences between them. Sigh. Tribalism makes me sad. — Pfhorrest

Fair enough. My thing is -- it's so early, let Bernie ride his enthusiastic core of supporters and then win over the rest once they learn a LITTLE more than "he's a socialist." I think many will like the policies.

This is purely anecdotal, but I don't know ONE person voting for Biden. I don't see anyone online, on radio or on television who's "excited" by Biden's running, either. It's a lot like Clinton in '16. I remember all the celebrities coming out trying to stoke the crowds, pushing the "first woman president" thing, and from what I saw it nearly always fell flat or else looked so contrived as to be embarrassing.

That's why it's shocking to me that he's leading in the polls, and does very well in key swing states. Fine, so be it -- I go with the polls over my own extremely limited sample size, but yet I wonder where these people are, how enthused they are, and why they aren't more vocal.

Here in New Hampshire, I'm seeing lots of signs for Bernie, for example. A few for Pete, Yang, plenty of Tulsi, a couple for Warren...I have yet to see ONE for Joe Biden. Here or in Massachusetts, where I work. Again, not going to claim there's some conspiracy out there -- I believe the polls -- but it does leave me wondering. Anyone else relate to this?

We can borrow from them...to the betterment of capitalism...and at no significant cost to the underling capitalistic system. — Frank Apisa

It would help if we had a capitalist system to begin with, but we don't. In any meaningful sense. It's a corporate nanny state economy. Friedman and others loved to use Hong Kong and the Asian tigers as examples of capitalism improving lives, but it's a complete joke.

None of my posts get deleted, because I don't name-call. As far as expressing myself too strongly -- perhaps. Others certainly have pointed that out. But it's because these issues are important.

But I think you missed the point.

I'm sure he does appear strong in some places. It's a big country, though. I don't see him connecting with swing voters, especially after the promise to legalize pot with an executive order IIRC.

I love the guy. I'd love to have him as president. On the national level, he's a weak candidate. — frank

And, again, that's nonsense. It's your own "gut-feeling" analysis, which is useless to me. Look at the facts: he beats Trump in national polls, he's been the most popular politician in America (according to even a Fox News poll take a while back), he's doing very well in Iowa and New Hampshire (both fairly independent-minded states - more so NH), even better in California. Yes, 48% of the country will probably vote conservative no matter what -- that's not saying anything.

If he's weak, then what's Trump? Trump who lost by 3 million votes. Trump who's approval rating is consistently lower than most presidents. And on and on. So if Bernie is still "weak," then who the hell is "strong"?

Stick with your condescending attitude about your fellow citizens. If you are an American, that is.

And insanity? People have believed in silly things (like the Soviet Union), but that doesn't make them insane. And calling them insane won't help. On the contrary. Your inability to notice (or understand) my or Bitter Cranks point about this just shows how deep this problem goes.

People like you simply show that the polarization is real. And it will not go away. — ssu

Cry me a river. Sue me for believing I was talking to an adult.

I'm talking on a philosophy forum. This isn't a media junket. If you can't see my point here, you're just deluding yourself so you can make the same tired, fatuous points people want to make all the time about the perils of name-calling.

Even still, I'm not insulting people, nor would I use the choice of words like "insane" when dealing in most social contexts. But it's a description of reality, made to seemingly rational adults on an online forum. There's no other way to describe voting for utter environmental catastrophe than utter insanity, ignorance, or complete irrationality.

So sorry if that's harsh to your virgin ears. Grow up, Peter Pan.

The Democratic field is obviously weak. — frank

"Obviously"? Not really. The simple fact that we have a candidate (Sanders) breaking a century of American political history, since the late 19th century, running on individual contributions -- also without establishment support or media support, and labeling himself with the scare word "socialist," -- this is a remarkable fact indeed.

Massive enthusiasm, huge popularity. All grassroots. And now he's leading or within the margin of error in the polls, including general election polls.

That's "weak"? Nonsense.

Yes. Not only that, but they are totally insane if they don't disagree Xtrix. Those climate deniers! — ssu

So judging from your attempt at sarcasm, we can conclude climate denial is NOT insane? Fine. How about completely irrational.

Eh, you're a waste of time. Stick with your battles against the dystopia of Sweden.

That "voters are stupid" is something of a class smear. Most voters are working class, by virtue of their composing by far the largest segment of potential voters. Dismissing most people as stupid leaves you with the narcissists, lunatics, megalomaniacs, and manipulating creeps who want to run things. — Bitter Crank

I actually agree with you. I didn't say stupid, I said ignorant. Ignorant about science, ignorant really even about politics. They're ignorant of history and geography. People are ignorant about all kinds of things. I don't necessarily blame them, especially when the educational system is designed to fail and the media system is designed to brainwash (or else distract them from anything meaningful).

Point well taken.

BTW, how do you happen to be exempt from your sweeping generalization? — Bitter Crank

Because I've educated myself. The ability to do so in this country isn't impossible, but you have to be willing to make the effort.

Again, I don't fault people for having busy lives, having to work several jobs, etc. I wouldn't expect them to come home and do a research project, assuming they even had the interest.

So anyone voting GOP is insane. — ssu

Correct. For the reasons I mentioned, which you continue to ignore.

Even if it's insane, we need some from the "insane" party to join in a coalition to make meaningful change. — Relativist

Their denial of climate change is what makes them insane. If they suddenly become interested in acknowledging the threat and make good faith efforts to help mitigate it, then they're no longer insane and those voting for them have more of a case. But I don't see that happening.

Voters themselves are, unfortunately, rather ignorant -- republican or democrat. They're not necessarily voting based on informed reasoning anyway.

But I agree the more people who join in, the better.

Yes, Xtrix, how can thinking people vote Republican? — ssu

Exactly, when they're the party who's literally pushing us to the precipice of destruction. To say it's the party of Eisenhower or even Bush is a joke. They're now off the spectrum.

Not ALL Republicans deny anthropogenic global warming. This article mentions some (somewhat) positive things put forward by Republicans. The tone of the article is negative toward what they're doing, but it does at least show that they're accepting that its occuring. — Relativist

The article's headline is the Republican plan is Big Oil's plan. Yes, they're been bullshitting for years about "clean coal" and other myths of that nature. They intend to do nothing, as the planet burns. For those who identify as Republicans who aren't outright deniers, to vote Republican at this point is simply insane. Either vote third party or don't vote at all if you can't stomach a (D) next to a name -- anything short of that, at this point, is voting the party who simply dismisses climatology as a hoax because their donors tell them to, and is thus insane.

At least here it's not so bad as in Sweden, but it could go there. — ssu

Of all the countries in Europe, you choose as an example of political ugliness Sweden?

Baffling.

It's all just a big "wash." So let's just throw up our hands and give up. This is just superficial analysis.

Yes, there's plenty of lying, corruption, bribery, and hypocrisy in both major political parties. But they're not equivalent. To take just one example, and the most important: climate change. One party says nice things about what they'll do about it, the other party denies it's happening altogether. How anyone "independently" minded can look at that alone and not at least "caucus" with the Democrats is continually baffling to me.

Absolutely! Beyond question. Why? Because I'm rational. Any Sanders supporter who doesn't vote for the democratic non-Sanders nominee is an imbecile, in my view. Sanders essentially says this himself.

Fuck the swing voters, then. If they're going to stay home, let them. I'd rather a candidate that energizes the people with new ideas than to have someone bland but who appeals to a few bland people.

Please. The argument that one candidate will be less of a target for Trump and the right-wing media is absurd. To worry about it is a waste of time. It's exactly the mistake the Republican establishment made in '16 with Trump. The difference is: his win was a long shot. Bernie's (or anyone's candidacy not dubbed "moderate") chances are far greater, as nearly every proposal of his is supported by majorities.

Don't you get tired of doing this when confronted with a better argument?

True. It's frustrating.

I don't think we do have the numbers in the swing states, and it's probable Republicans will be fired up if a "socialist" runs. — Relativist

They're fired up anyway. There is no ideal candidate. The Trump people will vote Trump. The swing voters, if there are any, greatly dislike this president. After four years, I think they've given him "a chance" and will now vote blue, regardless of the candidate -- like your wife.

Will anything change for me personally? No. — Noah Te Stroete

Are you sure about that? I didn't think so either, but things have changed. They're minor compared to others -- but my taxes have changed; I've had to pay money back for the first time in my life thanks to the tax scam, the company I work for has had to make changes, etc. I agree with you that it may not effect us individually that much, but seeing things you mentioned happening and not even doing the bare minimum is just a mistake. If you're out there organizing, protesting, engaging collaboratively with others on a local level, and things like that, and then decide not to vote....OK, in that case I suppose I could understand. Although it'd be strange. But if you're like me (and many others) who barely have enough time for anything, we've got to at least push a button against the worst.

I may even sit out the General due to another fact, viz. if voting really made a difference, they would make it illegal. — Noah Te Stroete

Don't be ridiculous. They're trying to make it as hard as possible to vote in some states. Republicans are doing all they can to suppress the votes and gerrymander because they see the trends.

I used to think as you do, and not vote. I hated all the propaganda trying like "Vote or Die" and the like. But I was wrong. Especially in swing states, you most certainly should vote. It's not the only thing that matters -- we can do much more than voting -- but in a country as powerful as ours, it matters and should be the minimum.

The pro-Bernie/Warren folks suggest they'll energize the base and bring more people out. IMO, this will result in them winning Blue states by a bigger margin than Hillary did in 2016 (which doesn't garner any more electoral votes), but it raises the risk of losing the swing states. — Relativist

I think this misses an important point: we already have the numbers in this country. All we need is to get the vote out. We need organization and enthusiasm. I don't buy the fact that Obama won because he was moderate -- it's because people turned out for him, they were excited about his candidacy (foolishly, in my view, but that's irrelevant).

So you may be correct, but honestly if Bernie or Warren are "too radical" for people to the point that they vote for Trump or 3rd party, or even stay home, then we deserve Trump another 4 years. But I don't think that will happen. Person after person I talk to cares about one thing: electing anyone but Trump -- they don't care who it is. We saw the turnout in the midterm elections in '18 -- it'll happen again in 20.

The NYT "endorsement" is so spineless and pathetic they play right into Trump's hands.

Bernie. Was just at a rally Saturday in New Hampshire -- lots of enthusiasm, lots of young people, the most consistent candidate out there.

For all those worried about Trump being re-elected, which is definitely possible, remember that he won Michigan by about 11 thousand votes, Pennsylvania by 44 thousand, and Wisconsin by 24 thousand. That's not a lot. His approval rating in all three states is low.

There's also no guarantee he wins Florida. And if Florida goes blue, it's over. Biden seems to poll better there than anyone else -- but it's so early the polling is essentially meaningless.

I really hope it's Bernie, and we do not make the same mistake we made with Clinton. Nominate someone decent this time, with real ideas and a campaign funded entirely by real people.