US Politics/Biden Presidency (Trump-free zone)

[Cornish Steve]

In the US, there's much misuse of the term socialism. 99% of the time, people mean democratic socialist (as per the Nordic countries). Conservative outlets, though, immediately equate that with Venezuela. It's crass dishonesty.

These outlets then go the next step. Offering healthcare for all is a step toward socialism, so we'd be like Venezuela this time next year!

I know this sounds obviously stupid to observers in Europe, but this happens all the time here the US. It's raw scare tactics, and it keeps wavering independents from crossing from right to left. Marketing (or some might say propaganda) works.

[Sibdane]

10 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

In the US, there's much misuse of the term socialism. 99% of the time, people mean democratic socialist (as per the Nordic countries). Conservative outlets, though, immediately equate that with Venezuela. It's crass dishonesty.

These outlets then go the next step. Offering healthcare for all is a step toward socialism, so we'd be like Venezuela this time next year!

I know this sounds obviously stupid to observers in Europe, but this happens all the time here the US. It's raw scare tactics, and it keeps wavering independents from crossing from right to left. Marketing (or some might say propaganda) works.

The part in bold is exactly correct. "Socialism" is a scary word to a lot of Americans, and it's usually the same Americans who associate it with Venezuela, Russia, etc. (irony here being now that a lot of conservatives have favorable opinions of Russia). At the same time, these people honestly have no idea what type of government the Nordic countries operate under or realize how high the quality of life is either.

[pete0]

Unsure if I watched this here or on Facebook, apologies if I've done a Louis 

 

[markjazzbassist]

i don't think current Pure Socialist economies have been implemented the way they should (venezuela, cuba, etc) but that doesn't mean the romantic notion of true socialism is a bad one in my eyes, just that well they got it wrong. Yes i get that true socialism is mostly theoretical due to the inability of humans to not be greedy and corrupt and power hungry especially when it comes to government, but i'm a glass half full romantic positive person, so i believe if somehow implemented correctly it could (in theory) work great. currently democratic socialism is kinda straddling both worlds, trying to make capitalsim less drastic and more equal, and trying to make government a mix of both "of the people" and "of the institution".  That sounds great to me.  Will it work out?  Who knows?  Democracy in the USA has turned out to be government of the big corporations, so it's not really working well in my eyes, i'd like to give something else a chance.

 

Lastly, socialism and capitalism are forms of economies, not a form of government.  So i can be a socialist and not a communist or pro-dictator.  they are mutually exclusive.  you can have a socialist economy ruled by the people (democratic socialist), state (communist), or person (dictator) or many other iterations in my opinion.

[nyblue23]

13 hours ago, Chach said:

That's not actually what happened, Mark declared he wanted a Socialist candidate. Socialism in practice is just another form of authoritarianism as is/was communism which has time and time again actually proved itself to be a bad thing.

As demonstrated in Mark’s post above here, Chach, I think it’s you who are reaching here and who are appealing to emotion as you did previously in reacting sarcastically to my opinion of Warren’s mixed bag political record.

Historically, socialism has, in the capital W Western world, always turned into a form of authoritarianism. That’s not what the theory of socialism actually is, however, and the socialism you speak of is so far out of bounds from what any American would tolerate based on leftovers from McCarthyism that it’s not within the realm of possibility to have an authoritarian socialist candidate here (an authoritarian populist, sure, as that’s what we have on our hands now).

Additionally, you discussed how socialism, communism and capitalism are all academic theories to be tested and judged on their merits essentially. Mark and I would argue that we’ve seen the effects of unfettered capitalism (the kind that allows lobbyists to influence elections to the degree that the government has just become another cog in the capitalist machine) and judged it to be a pretty terrible thing to many of the people with whom we share this country.

[nyblue23]

On 08/01/2019 at 11:41, sibdane said:

I think a more moderate candidate would be preferred in order to win the swing voters. "True leftists" will still vote for a Democrat regardless of if they're far enough left or not, as long as it's not Trump and the DNC doesn't screw up again (Hillary vs. Bernie). 

I've said O'Rourke is my early choice before. He reminds me the most Obama with his policy and charisma.

As much as I will do and vote for whoever it takes to get this mockery out of office, I hate the appeals to moderation in order to coax a middle ground to vote another neoliberal capitalist democrat into office. Republicans won the last presidential election year because they have been ruthlessly unafraid of alienating groups, focused on the sole goal of retaining power and thus retaining privilege.

If Democrats truly want to be the party of justice, it’s time to stop pandering and time to be equally unapologetic about fighting for justice in all its forms - economic, environmental, racial, sexual, etc. Sadly, I don’t see many candidates making that kind of statement with the exception of a few in our recently minted class of freshman representatives.

[Sibdane]

1 minute ago, nyblue23 said:

As much as I will do and vote for whoever it takes to get this mockery out of office, I hate the appeals to moderation in order to coax a middle ground to vote another neoliberal capitalist democrat into office. Republicans won the last presidential election year because they have been ruthlessly unafraid of alienating groups, focused on the sole goal of retaining power and thus retaining privilege.

If Democrats truly want to be the party of justice, it’s time to stop pandering and time to be equally unapologetic about fighting for justice in all its forms - economic, environmental, racial, sexual, etc. Sadly, I don’t see many candidates making that kind of statement with the exception of a few in our recently minted class of freshman representatives.

Right. Lesser of the two evils, as they say.

Bingo, on the second part in bold.

[Matt]

13 hours ago, Chach said:

That's not actually what happened, Mark declared he wanted a Socialist candidate. Socialism in practice is just another form of authoritarianism as is/was communism which has time and time again actually proved itself to be a bad thing.

Socialism is a brilliant concept until you bring humans into the equation  

[nyblue23]

On 08/01/2019 at 11:34, Matt said:

Didn’t trump win by capitalising on a polarised nation? It would only make things worse, no?

Trump won by capitalizing on xenophobia and fear. There’s nothing we can do to conquer those concepts politically except for help the targets of that xenophobia and fear become valued. The moderate and bipartisan nature of the Clinton and Obama presidencies helped foster an environment where Trump became a possibility, or in other words, the nation became polarized in a time of relative moderation. I fail to see how electing another moderate will help fix that.

[Matt]

3 minutes ago, nyblue23 said:

Trump won by capitalizing on xenophobia and fear. There’s nothing we can do to conquer those concepts politically except for help the targets of that xenophobia and fear become valued. The moderate and bipartisan nature of the Clinton and Obama presidencies helped foster an environment where Trump became a possibility, or in other words, the nation became polarized in a time of relative moderation. I fail to see how electing another moderate will help fix that.

Absolutely, but xenophobia and fear are extremes. 

I agree with helping the targets of that, but you also have to educate those you perpetuate it. 

I’ve used the pendulum analogy before, and it’s still true now. The swing has gone further one way than it should, and to address it you need an equal an opposite reaction to bring it even halfway back. Once that momentum swings back the other way, then moderates are the solution; people who compromise and address the differences between the extremes. 

1 term of a Sanders and then someone to lay the moderate is the ideal solution. I fear though that Trump will get a second term and civil unrest will be the outcome. 

[nyblue23]

5 minutes ago, Matt said:

Absolutely, but xenophobia and fear are extremes. 

I agree with helping the targets of that, but you also have to educate those you perpetuate it. 

I’ve used the pendulum analogy before, and it’s still true now. The swing has gone further one way than it should, and to address it you need an equal an opposite reaction to bring it even halfway back. Once that momentum swings back the other way, then moderates are the solution; people who compromise and address the differences between the extremes. 

1 term of a Sanders and then someone to lay the moderate is the ideal solution. I fear though that Trump will get a second term and civil unrest will be the outcome. 

Heard. I guess I missed that you were also advocating for an opposite extreme. The problem is that in this country, like in yours, the morality of the two sides (not parties - sides) are not at all equal. Instead of envisioning the term moderate on a political spectrum, all I see is the pure evil that is in office currently and the evil with a little moderation that has been in office for the last 30 years of my life (I’m 30).

The term moderate in the context of U.S. politics equates, at least to me, to mean a neoliberal who is willing to work across the aisle to preserve the status quo in terms of a barely functioning, highly predatory brand of government-sponsored capitalism that does not work for the majority of Americans.

[StevO]

14 hours ago, Chach said:

That's not actually what happened, Mark declared he wanted a Socialist candidate. Socialism in practice is just another form of authoritarianism as is/was communism which has time and time again actually proved itself to be a bad thing.

I didn’t mean you Chach, I didn’t mean Mark either. Just people like him as I put, I’m only speaking about things I’ve seen and heard in the flesh. 

[Matt]

1 hour ago, nyblue23 said:

Heard. I guess I missed that you were also advocating for an opposite extreme. The problem is that in this country, like in yours, the morality of the two sides (not parties - sides) are not at all equal. Instead of envisioning the term moderate on a political spectrum, all I see is the pure evil that is in office currently and the evil with a little moderation that has been in office for the last 30 years of my life (I’m 30).

The term moderate in the context of U.S. politics equates, at least to me, to mean a neoliberal who is willing to work across the aisle to preserve the status quo in terms of a barely functioning, highly predatory brand of government-sponsored capitalism that does not work for the majority of Americans.

I’m not necessarily advocating it, more recognising that it’s a necessity to get back on track. The evil, as you correctly put it, absolutely needs putting down, but unless you understand why it got to where it is, you can never really correct things. 

[Bailey]

9 hours ago, sibdane said:

The part in bold is exactly correct. "Socialism" is a scary word to a lot of Americans, and it's usually the same Americans who associate it with Venezuela, Russia, etc. (irony here being now that a lot of conservatives have favorable opinions of Russia). At the same time, these people honestly have no idea what type of government the Nordic countries operate under or realize how high the quality of life is either.

Whilst the theory of moving to a Nordic way of life is all well and good, there is absolutely no way either of our countries could do it. Their political system has evolved over hundreds of years based on their culture. What works in those countries wouldn't even necessarily work in the USA or UK even if it was accepted by the people.

7 hours ago, markjazzbassist said:

i don't think current Pure Socialist economies have been implemented the way they should (venezuela, cuba, etc) but that doesn't mean the romantic notion of true socialism is a bad one in my eyes, just that well they got it wrong. Yes i get that true socialism is mostly theoretical due to the inability of humans to not be greedy and corrupt and power hungry especially when it comes to government, but i'm a glass half full romantic positive person, so i believe if somehow implemented correctly it could (in theory) work great. currently democratic socialism is kinda straddling both worlds, trying to make capitalsim less drastic and more equal, and trying to make government a mix of both "of the people" and "of the institution".  That sounds great to me.  Will it work out?  Who knows?  Democracy in the USA has turned out to be government of the big corporations, so it's not really working well in my eyes, i'd like to give something else a chance.

 

Lastly, socialism and capitalism are forms of economies, not a form of government.  So i can be a socialist and not a communist or pro-dictator.  they are mutually exclusive.  you can have a socialist economy ruled by the people (democratic socialist), state (communist), or person (dictator) or many other iterations in my opinion.

 

6 hours ago, Matt said:

Socialism is a brilliant concept until you bring humans into the equation  

Matt is spot on. I would expect that a "true romantic socialist" would never make it into mainstream politics, at least in our countries, because it takes a certain type of person to get into politics in the first place, but then its unlikely that such a candidate would never make it to the top of their respective party.

Many people consider Corbyn to be this guy in the UK but nepotism is rife, trade union leaders are on fat pay packets and are mostly white males and he has an aggressive and quite combative following. True socialism doesn't work because of human nature and then as MJB says you need to balance aspects of capitalism with aspects of socialism.

[Matt]

2 minutes ago, Bailey said:

Whilst the theory of moving to a Nordic way of life is all well and good, there is absolutely no way either of our countries could do it. Their political system has evolved over hundreds of years based on their culture. What works in those countries wouldn't even necessarily work in the USA or UK even if it was accepted by the people.

 

Matt is spot on. I would expect that a "true romantic socialist" would never make it into mainstream politics, at least in our countries, because it takes a certain type of person to get into politics in the first place, but then its unlikely that such a candidate would never make it to the top of their respective party.

Many people consider Corbyn to be this guy in the UK but nepotism is rife, trade union leaders are on fat pay packets and are mostly white males and he has an aggressive and quite combative following. True socialism doesn't work because of human nature and then as MJB says you need to balance aspects of capitalism with aspects of socialism.

It can’t take a certain type of person for one sole reason; human nature. That is, survival. It’s a beautiful ideal, but at the end of the day you will always protect your own. 

[Chach]

19 hours ago, sibdane said:

The part in bold is exactly correct. "Socialism" is a scary word to a lot of Americans, and it's usually the same Americans who associate it with Venezuela, Russia, etc. (irony here being now that a lot of conservatives have favorable opinions of Russia). At the same time, these people honestly have no idea what type of government the Nordic countries operate under or realize how high the quality of life is either.

True that, Zepps could be spot on here.

[nyblue23]

6 hours ago, Chach said:

True that, Zepps could be spot on here.

A country with a tax rate that high cannot be called simply a capitalist country. It’s a mixed economy. When your highest income tax rate is over 60% and kicks in if you make 1.2x the average income, you are controlling a large portion of goods and determining how they should be allocated - not allowing them to re-enter the market as in strict laissez-faire capitalism.

Further, in repeatedly pointing to Venezuela as the model of socialism, you’re again conflating the word with its worst outcomes and ignoring that free-market capitalism has also been unkind to a very large sector of the population that is subject to it. Socialism in theory does not necessarily mean that the government owns the means of production - it means that the collective owns the means of production. While it’s hard to conceive of an organized body that could control means and distribute goods outside of a system of government, it’s not impossible on a small scale and to consistently demonize all aspects of a theory because of its worst possible outcomes is pretty dishonest.

That said, I’ll concede that in some aspects, Scandinavian countries follow a capitalist model more closely than does the U.S., as they interfere little with specific economies and do very little to prop up their corporations with government subsidies. The American government cannot say the same, as it is constantly unnecessarily subsidizing underperforming markets (i.e. American farming and specifically the corn and dairy markets) at the expense of the health of its own citizens. We also infamously like to massively reward banks for indiscretion while still limiting the amount of oversight we give them.

Pure socialism would almost definitely never work on the scale of a country as large as the U.S., and would likely never work in even a much smaller country due to the greed that has been mentioned in this thread. Nor, though, does pure oligarchical capitalism where a few wealthy elites are allowed to essentially control an entire economy through their perpetuating monetary influence.

Economies are not so black and white. Socialism is no more a dirty word than capitalism.

[Chach]

17 hours ago, nyblue23 said:

A country with a tax rate that high cannot be called simply a capitalist country. It’s a mixed economy. When your highest income tax rate is over 60% and kicks in if you make 1.2x the average income, you are controlling a large portion of goods and determining how they should be allocated - not allowing them to re-enter the market as in strict laissez-faire capitalism.

Further, in repeatedly pointing to Venezuela as the model of socialism, you’re again conflating the word with its worst outcomes and ignoring that free-market capitalism has also been unkind to a very large sector of the population that is subject to it. Socialism in theory does not necessarily mean that the government owns the means of production - it means that the collective owns the means of production. While it’s hard to conceive of an organized body that could control means and distribute goods outside of a system of government, it’s not impossible on a small scale and to consistently demonize all aspects of a theory because of its worst possible outcomes is pretty dishonest.

That said, I’ll concede that in some aspects, Scandinavian countries follow a capitalist model more closely than does the U.S., as they interfere little with specific economies and do very little to prop up their corporations with government subsidies. The American government cannot say the same, as it is constantly unnecessarily subsidizing underperforming markets (i.e. American farming and specifically the corn and dairy markets) at the expense of the health of its own citizens. We also infamously like to massively reward banks for indiscretion while still limiting the amount of oversight we give them.

Pure socialism would almost definitely never work on the scale of a country as large as the U.S., and would likely never work in even a much smaller country due to the greed that has been mentioned in this thread. Nor, though, does pure oligarchical capitalism where a few wealthy elites are allowed to essentially control an entire economy through their perpetuating monetary influence.

Economies are not so black and white. Socialism is no more a dirty word than capitalism.

You've literally proved Zepp's point there.

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/31/9650030/denmark-prime-minister-bernie-sanders

I have never said that economies were black and white, you can read the post above where I said they were academic theories and we keep the parts the work (redistribution/welfare state) and we discard what doesn't.

 

 

[nyblue23]

8 hours ago, Chach said:

You've literally proved Zepp's point there.

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/31/9650030/denmark-prime-minister-bernie-sanders

I have never said that economies were black and white, you can read the post above where I said they were academic theories and we keep the parts the work (redistribution/welfare state) and we discard what doesn't.

 

 

I don’t know what point I’ve proved other than demonstrating that you, Vox, Zepp and the prime minister of Denmark are all irrationally afraid of the word socialism. A welfare state is far from a capitalist principle. It’s a socialist one. All of those sources are unnecessarily splitting hairs over what kind of system a free market with loads of government sponsored-redistribution is/should be called.

[Palfy]

16 minutes ago, nyblue23 said:

I don’t know what point I’ve proved other than demonstrating that you, Vox, Zepp and the prime minister of Denmark are all irrationally afraid of the word socialism. A welfare state is far from a capitalist principle. It’s a socialist one. All of those sources are unnecessarily splitting hairs over what kind of system a free market with loads of government sponsored-redistribution is/should be called.

I agree with your sentiment on socialism, for me socialism  gets tarred with communism which it isn'tt. I class my self as a socialist even though from the outside I have the look and trappings of a so say Capitalist. For me Socialism doesn't mean you can't be successful or better yourself and enjoy the finer things in life, but you should never forget that there will always be people who are less fortunate than you and will need the help of a welfare state which is supported by your taxes, I have no problem paying my personal and company income tax but I would rather it was to a socialist Labour government than a Capitalist Conservative government and the reasons are to numerous to go into.

[Chach]

4 hours ago, nyblue23 said:

I don’t know what point I’ve proved other than demonstrating that you, Vox, Zepp and the prime minister of Denmark are all irrationally afraid of the word socialism. A welfare state is far from a capitalist principle. It’s a socialist one. All of those sources are unnecessarily splitting hairs over what kind of system a free market with loads of government sponsored-redistribution is/should be called.

Thats the point, its not one or the other. Marx's theories were a result of directly of observing what was wrong with capitalism, which I agree with.

Communism and Socialism are by definition the exclusion of the free market, there is no getting away from that, theres no irrational fear I just think its important that you don't rebadge failed ideologies in a manner that could hand victory to the people who would easily demonstrate that and use those failures against you.

The key take away from the Zepps post was not that Denmark was capitalist but that those on the left need a better marketing strategy to win than referring to redistributive and social policies as Socialism, especially in America.

 

[StevO]

I don’t know what half of these theories are, which I guess is because our country generally has it right. 

[Palfy]

20 hours ago, Chach said:

Thats the point, its not one or the other. Marx's theories were a result of directly of observing what was wrong with capitalism, which I agree with.

Communism and Socialism are by definition the exclusion of the free market, there is no getting away from that, theres no irrational fear I just think its important that you don't rebadge failed ideologies in a manner that could hand victory to the people who would easily demonstrate that and use those failures against you.

The key take away from the Zepps post was not that Denmark was capitalist but that those on the left need a better marketing strategy to win than referring to redistributive and social policies as Socialism, especially in America.

 

You have two good examples in the USA of in my eyes of the difference between what defines let's say a social capitalist and an unsocial capitalist in Bill Gates and Donald Trump.

Bill has a social conscience and is not only willing pays his taxes he then gives vast amounts of his wealth to charities and other organisations to improve the lives of those in need. Then you have Donald who tries every trick in the book to avoid paying tax so he can keep more for himself and doesn't want anyone to benefit from his fortune.

For me Bill embodies the meaning of a socialist in this era and Donald embodies a Capitalist.

[nyblue23]

On 12/01/2019 at 18:10, Chach said:

Thats the point, its not one or the other. Marx's theories were a result of directly of observing what was wrong with capitalism, which I agree with.

Communism and Socialism are by definition the exclusion of the free market, there is no getting away from that, theres no irrational fear I just think its important that you don't rebadge failed ideologies in a manner that could hand victory to the people who would easily demonstrate that and use those failures against you.

The key take away from the Zepps post was not that Denmark was capitalist but that those on the left need a better marketing strategy to win than referring to redistributive and social policies as Socialism, especially in America.

 

Once again, unfettered capitalism is an equally failed ideology, and the younger generations in the U.S. understand this. Sanders calls himself a Democratic Socialist. There are similar parties throughout Europe who are not opposed to a somewhat-controlled but still free market who favor strong regulation, high tax rates and an abundant social safety net. The only danger in branding that as socialism is the fear of the baggage that word brings to older generations.

[Chach]

10 hours ago, nyblue23 said:

The only danger in branding that as socialism is the fear of the baggage that word brings to older generations, plus people who read and study political theory and its manifestations through history.

Bingo, obviously I added the bold but those people are also likely to take a less post modernist interpretation of Socialism and both groups are influential and vote.

So to get back on topic and the original point because as far as I can tell there isn'ttt a single poster who is a Trump fan and we'd all like to see him gone.

We currently have a right wing populist administration and the Democrats are starting the process of choosing a candidate, would you rater a Democrat that appeals to the broad centre or a left wing populist?

And which one in your opinion has the best chance of success?

[nyblue23]

2 hours ago, Chach said:

Bingo, obviously I added the bold but those people are also likely to take a less post modernist interpretation of Socialism and both groups are influential and vote.

So to get back on topic and the original point because as far as I can tell there isn'tttt a single poster who is a Trump fan and we'd all like to see him gone.

We currently have a right wing populist administration and the Democrats are starting the process of choosing a candidate, would you rater a Democrat that appeals to the broad centre or a left wing populist?

And which one in your opinion has the best chance of success?

Quite a lot of arrogance and pretense there. It’s late; I’ll respond to the non-pretentious part in the morning.

[Chach]

7 minutes ago, nyblue23 said:

arrogance and pretense

?

Mate, I'm not sure you're cut out for debating politics hey.

[nyblue23]

10 hours ago, Chach said:

?

Mate, I'm not sure you're cut out for debating politics hey.

Nice one there.

I’m sure your years of studying political theory and its manifestations throughout history would tell you as much, but the theories you’ve been discussing have themselves only been defined for just over two hundred years. You’re conveniently ignoring a lot of history and a lot of people groups if you say that socialism is a failed economic theory and that capitalism is not.

Beyond that, I’m not sure you have the best understanding of how pervasive populism is in America. Clinton lost in no small part because of her gender and in part because she was seen as part of an entrenched political establishment, but she also lost because she was seen as a hypocritical member of a wealthy elite who earned millions for speeches given to investment bankers, who voted for a $700 billion bailout as a senator and whose husband’s deregulation of the financial sector was likely a large catalyst of the recession in the first place.

If you’re asking me personally, I would vastly prefer a candidate who wants to raise taxes, cut defense spending, institute a program of single-payer health care, focus on fixing American infrastructure, fight racial injustice with deeper criminal justice reform and help states with their public housing crises, re-enter the Paris Climate Agreement and make environmental regulation a massive priority, and improve education with a number of policy changes. If that sounds like a populist candidate to you, I guess I prefer the populist candidate.

I also think it’s a bit short-sighted to cynically ask whether that candidate would be more successful than a moderate candidate, as Sanders consistently outperformed Clinton in head to head polling against Trump while the DNC simultaneously made damn sure that Sanders wouldn’t win the nomination. I’m no Bernie bro, and believe he has his faults, but I also believe Americans are more ready to elect a candidate to the far left than most would have people believe. I don’t believe there is the broad center that you speak of.

[Matt]

Will be interesting to see what Trump does to steal the limelight back...

im also scared that my prediction from 2 years ago where we could have Trump and Johnson as respective leaders of their countries is close to coming true  

[Chach]

6 hours ago, nyblue23 said:

Nice one there.

I’m sure your years of studying political theory and its manifestations throughout history would tell you as much, but the theories you’ve been discussing have themselves only been defined for just over two hundred years. You’re conveniently ignoring a lot of history and a lot of people groups if you say that socialism is a failed economic theory and that capitalism is not.

Beyond that, I’m not sure you have the best understanding of how pervasive populism is in America. Clinton lost in no small part because of her gender and in part because she was seen as part of an entrenched political establishment, but she also lost because she was seen as a hypocritical member of a wealthy elite who earned millions for speeches given to investment bankers, who voted for a $700 billion bailout as a senator and whose husband’s deregulation of the financial sector was likely a large catalyst of the recession in the first place.

If you’re asking me personally, I would vastly prefer a candidate who wants to raise taxes, cut defense spending, institute a program of single-payer health care, focus on fixing American infrastructure, fight racial injustice with deeper criminal justice reform and help states with their public housing crises, re-enter the Paris Climate Agreement and make environmental regulation a massive priority, and improve education with a number of policy changes. If that sounds like a populist candidate to you, I guess I prefer the populist candidate.

I also think it’s a bit short-sighted to cynically ask whether that candidate would be more successful than a moderate candidate, as Sanders consistently outperformed Clinton in head to head polling against Trump while the DNC simultaneously made damn sure that Sanders wouldn’t win the nomination. I’m no Bernie bro, and believe he has his faults, but I also believe Americans are more ready to elect a candidate to the far left than most would have people believe. I don’t believe there is the broad center that you speak of.

I'm going to have to call you on the capitalism strawman, its the second or third time you've done it and I haven't mentioned or advocated capitalism once, otherwise I agree with pretty much everything you've posted which is why it's such a conundrum. 

Hillary ran on a platform of raising taxes, infrastructure spending and had what seems to be a pretty cogent plan to get to universal healthcare coverage which she sees as the first stage of getting to single payer, so the question is was it just the sexism/anti establishment vibe or was that not enough?

I don't think any of the aspirations you mentioned above are particularly populist, they're all things that should be at the heart of any good centre left or centre right government, it never ceases to amaze me that things like the environment, education and healthcare are seen as left wing issues. Bonkers.