If the election turns out to be Trump vs. Clinton, it will be a referendum on the "globalization" that began after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and is personified by the Clintons.

This could be a dramatic realignment. If you were a supporter of Bernie Sanders, or part of the dwindling middle or working class base of the Democratic Party, given the choice between Trump and Clinton, would you not be tempted to vote for Trump? And would the left-leaning members of the Republican elite not be tempted to vote for Clinton (some have publicly said they are)?

This is the choice that will be offered: "protectionism" vs. an economy where a handful of super rich, "progressive" elites fund welfare subsistence for "the masses" (many imported from foreign countries) to buy cheap Chinese goods at Wal Mart.

The Democratic Party will then have completed its transition from the party of the working class to the party of Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Wall Street and Washington, the party of "gentry liberals", college professors, and those with post-graduate degrees, and welfare recipients. The Republicans will become (at least as long as Trump is around) a new form of the FDR coalition, in support of a different set of policies.

Trump would make us more like other developed countries on trade and immigration, while Clinton would take us one step closer to permanently becoming Venezuela.

All of the other issues that people care about are being subsumed into that division.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

If the election turns out to be Trump vs. Clinton, it will be a referendum on the "globalization" that began after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and is personified by the Clintons.

This could be a dramatic realignment. If you were a supporter of Bernie Sanders, or part of the dwindling middle or working class base of the Democratic Party, given the choice between Trump and Clinton, would you not be tempted to vote for Trump? And would the left-leaning members of the Republican elite not be tempted to vote for Clinton (some have publicly said they are)?

This is the choice that will be offered: "protectionism" vs. an economy where a handful of super rich, "progressive" elites fund welfare subsistence for "the masses" (many imported from foreign countries) to buy cheap Chinese goods at Wal Mart.

The Democratic Party will then have completed its transition from the party of the working class to the party of Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Wall Street and Washington, the party of "gentry liberals", college professors, and those with post-graduate degrees, and welfare recipients. The Republicans will become (at least as long as Trump is around) a new form of the FDR coalition, in support of a different set of policies.

Trump would make us more like other developed countries on trade and immigration, while Clinton would take us one step closer to permanently becoming Venezuela.

All of the other issues that people care about are being subsumed into that division.

This makes good sense to me. The US has had wave elections over free trade vs protectionism before. 1860 was such a wave election. So was 1896. Free trade became an aspirational goal after WWII because of the belief that the Hawley-Smoot protectionist tariff of 1931 helped prolong the Great Depression and led to WWII. With distance from WWII this belief is now being re-evaluated.

I agree. Nationalism v globalism seems the theme of this election.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

If the election turns out to be Trump vs. Clinton, it will be a referendum on the "globalization" that began after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and is personified by the Clintons.

This could be a dramatic realignment. If you were a supporter of Bernie Sanders, or part of the dwindling middle or working class base of the Democratic Party, given the choice between Trump and Clinton, would you not be tempted to vote for Trump? And would the left-leaning members of the Republican elite not be tempted to vote for Clinton (some have publicly said they are)?

This is the choice that will be offered: "protectionism" vs. an economy where a handful of super rich, "progressive" elites fund welfare subsistence for "the masses" (many imported from foreign countries) to buy cheap Chinese goods at Wal Mart.

The Democratic Party will then have completed its transition from the party of the working class to the party of Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Wall Street and Washington, the party of "gentry liberals", college professors, and those with post-graduate degrees, and welfare recipients. The Republicans will become (at least as long as Trump is around) a new form of the FDR coalition, in support of a different set of policies.

Trump would make us more like other developed countries on trade and immigration, while Clinton would take us one step closer to permanently becoming Venezuela.

All of the other issues that people care about are being subsumed into that division.

I'm not sure that Hillary is on board with the "globalist" agenda, as far as trade is concerned. She has come out against the TPP, and the many in her party who voted for Sanders could make it stick. Meanwhile, trade is the only issue where Trump's rhetoric coincides with the real concerns of the working class. "Welfare" remains an outdated whipping boy used by Republicans to divide and conquer them, without any basis at all. Supporters of Sanders obviously would not support Trump's program of un-paid, massive tax cuts and government cutbacks, plus a huge military build-up to "make America great again" and ruin progress for peace with such loony ideas as deserting Syria and tearing up the Iran deal, and scapegoating ethnic groups for our economic problems.

The handful of wealthy elites, as the poll I posted earlier revealed clearly, do not support Democratic Party policies, but Republican policies exclusively. They are not progressives. Those who are educated, YES, they tend to be liberals, because they KNOW MORE. People who know more obviously are better informed, and thus support the Democratic Party. The less educated, who support Trump, or else support the candidates that appeal to evangelicals like Cruz and Rubio, are more easily deceived by the free market memes and racist dog whistles, and succumb to the 1%'s Republican program of divide and conquer.

The choice is to be more like Scandinavia or more like Central America. It is Honduras that is the model of the elites, not Venezuela. The Republican program is to turn the USA into a banana republic. We've been headed that way now for 35 years. It's time to reverse course. Past time.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

If you were a supporter of Bernie Sanders, or part of the dwindling middle or working class base of the Democratic Party, given the choice between Trump and Clinton, would you not be tempted to vote for Trump?

Probably not. This would make sense only from a non-liberal white male perspective, the vast majority of whom already vote Republican. Most of the working class white men who still vote Democratic are liberals of one sort of another. A childhood friend of mine is a working class, secular, divorced white man, a prime Trump voter. But he was a union steward for decades. He is an old-fashioned Democrat who hates Republicans because they are the party of management (and Trump is very much management). Republicans have extolled businessmen and called investors (i.e. Wall Street) "job creators" for years and years. If you are labor, Republicans hate you and want to destroy you. I doubt my religiously conservative in-laws will vote for Trump, hell they couldn't even bring themselves to vote for McCain (they voted 3rd party) while they loved Bush. Those white working class people who still vote Democratic do so for reasons that a single candidate is not going to change. The rest long ago went over the the GOP.

Besides Trump will change nothing. One guy talking up protectionism will not make the GOP a protectionist party. He will just be one egotist in a sea of egotists who have no intention of working with him. Think of Carter on steroids. He is term-limited; they can outlast him. Remember, Democratic presidents are GOOD for Republican political pros. Look at how many are in office, not just in Washington, but at the state level too. Under a GOP president many of them will lose their seats in 2018 (they are pros, they know this).

If he tries to unilaterally do stuff the GOP donors don't like, out he goes. Since the guy is a walking scandal factory, they won't have to wait long to get a pretext.
Recall Nixon resigned before he could even be impeached because he had lost the support of his party leadership. Clinton did not resign because his party leadership stood with him. He was impeached, but remained safely in office. Trump has no such support, if Christie is VP, there is an enormous incentive to boot Trump and go with president Christie. Trump might decide to protect himself by picking Cruz, a guy they hate even more, but do you see a Trump-Cruz ticket winning? All of Trumps campaign pros will oppose Cruz. Trump's ego demands he do everything he can to win, so he will probably choose an acceptable running mate.

I can think of worse things than a Prez Trump & Mikebert named 2 of them. The 3rd would be a Prez Rubio, who apparently sees bogeymen under the bed (& he wants to run with the nuclear football?) That said, if Bernie does not run in the general, I'll probably vote Jill Stein.

At the moment, we have four economic models we can choose to emulate:

If you want to emulate the Soviet Union, vote for Bernie Sanders.

If you want to emulate Canada, Australia etc., vote for Hillary.

If you want to emulate Japan, vote for Donald Trump.

And if you want to emulate the America that existed in the 1920s or earlier, vote for Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio.

Conceivably, at least three, or even all four, options might still be available in the general election, depending upon who wins the respective primaries, and how sore the losers get.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

At the moment, we have four economic models we can choose to emulate:

If you want to emulate the Soviet Union, vote for Bernie Sanders.
.

Tony, you know better than that. You are better than that.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

At the moment, we have four economic models we can choose to emulate:

If you want to emulate the Soviet Union, vote for Bernie Sanders.

If you want to emulate Canada, Australia etc., vote for Hillary.

If you want to emulate Japan, vote for Donald Trump.

And if you want to emulate the America that existed in the 1920s or earlier, vote for Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio.

Conceivably, at least three, or even all four, options might still be available in the general election, depending upon who wins the respective primaries, and how sore the losers get.

There is this mind-set among Americans, that is surprisingly prevalent ... that one person, the President, somehow has the ability to turn the country on a dime. I just don't get it.

There are literally thousands of people involved in the day-to-day governing of the country that supply more than enough momentum, obstructionism and stubborness to make the Titanic look as maneuverable as a speedboat.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

At the moment, we have four economic models we can choose to emulate:

If you want to emulate the Scandanavian countries, vote for Bernie Sanders.

If you want to emulate banana republics, vote for Hillary.

There fixed it 4 ya

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Tony, you know better than that. You are better than that.

Anyone who is familiar with the story of William Tell will understand this:

Our economy is his son's head - and Bernie Sanders would use a cannon to shoot the (admittedly, rotten) apple off of his head.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

At the moment, we have four economic models we can choose to emulate:

If you want to emulate the Soviet Union, vote for Bernie Sanders.

Come on Flat; even you can do better than that.

I see others have already fixed it fer ya

Originally Posted by marypoza

There fixed it 4 ya

"If you want to emulate banana republics, vote for Hillary."

Well, even Flat had it correct over you on that one.

But Jill Stein, yeah.

I've got the perfect campaign slogan for Hillary:

"Capitalism: Mend it - don't end it."

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

I've got the perfect campaign slogan for Hillary:

"Capitalism: Mend it - don't end it."

Actually, Bernie is the one pushing that agenda. Hillary is still pushing" more of the same".

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

At the moment, we have four economic models we can choose to emulate:

If you want to emulate the Soviet Union, vote for Bernie Sanders.

If you want to emulate Canada, Australia etc., vote for Hillary.

If you want to emulate Japan, vote for Donald Trump.

And if you want to emulate the America that existed in the 1920s or earlier, vote for Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio.

Conceivably, at least three, or even all four, options might still be available in the general election, depending upon who wins the respective primaries, and how sore the losers get.

Trump and Japan -- do you mean post-WWII Japan, or do you mean the thug regime of the 1930s and early 1940s?

Sanders is not a Communist. I think he would more likely imitate Finland, one of the best countries to imitate except for climate and language.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Trump and Japan -- do you mean post-WWII Japan, or do you mean the thug regime of the 1930s and early 1940s?

Or third option -- stagnant Japan from 1990 -- today.

Originally Posted by Marypoza

"If you want to emulate banana republics, vote Cruz, Trump or Rubio."

Fixed your statement.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Or third option -- stagnant Japan from 1990 -- today.

That may be the reality for countries fully through the era of factory-driven productivity. We may be there, for all practical purposes, no matter what we do.

Now how do we adjust? The post-industrial world has its own benefits (the ability to live better on fewer inputs of material and toil) but also its harm (disappearing jobs suited to large parts of the populace).

We need at the least to learn how to use leisure wisely.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Actually, Bernie is the one pushing that agenda. Hillary is still pushing" more of the same".

More of the same Obamatalism

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

If the election turns out to be Trump vs. Clinton, it will be a referendum on the "globalization" that began after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and is personified by the Clintons.

This could be a dramatic realignment. If you were a supporter of Bernie Sanders, or part of the dwindling middle or working class base of the Democratic Party, given the choice between Trump and Clinton, would you not be tempted to vote for Trump? And would the left-leaning members of the Republican elite not be tempted to vote for Clinton (some have publicly said they are)?

This is the choice that will be offered: "protectionism" vs. an economy where a handful of super rich, "progressive" elites fund welfare subsistence for "the masses" (many imported from foreign countries) to buy cheap Chinese goods at Wal Mart.

The Democratic Party will then have completed its transition from the party of the working class to the party of Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Wall Street and Washington, the party of "gentry liberals", college professors, and those with post-graduate degrees, and welfare recipients. The Republicans will become (at least as long as Trump is around) a new form of the FDR coalition, in support of a different set of policies.

Trump would make us more like other developed countries on trade and immigration, while Clinton would take us one step closer to permanently becoming Venezuela.

All of the other issues that people care about are being subsumed into that division.

If Trump was a credible protectionist instead of an employer of illegals and buyer of Chinese hats, he might have a leg to stand on with Leftist Antiglobalists. His other problem is his overt bully / Fascist personality. Bad mojo there.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

If the election turns out to be Trump vs. Clinton, it will be a referendum on the "globalization" that began after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and is personified by the Clintons.

This could be a dramatic realignment. If you were a supporter of Bernie Sanders, or part of the dwindling middle or working class base of the Democratic Party, given the choice between Trump and Clinton, would you not be tempted to vote for Trump? And would the left-leaning members of the Republican elite not be tempted to vote for Clinton (some have publicly said they are)?

This is the choice that will be offered: "protectionism" vs. an economy where a handful of super rich, "progressive" elites fund welfare subsistence for "the masses" (many imported from foreign countries) to buy cheap Chinese goods at Wal Mart.

The Democratic Party will then have completed its transition from the party of the working class to the party of Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Wall Street and Washington, the party of "gentry liberals", college professors, and those with post-graduate degrees, and welfare recipients. The Republicans will become (at least as long as Trump is around) a new form of the FDR coalition, in support of a different set of policies.

Trump would make us more like other developed countries on trade and immigration, while Clinton would take us one step closer to permanently becoming Venezuela.

All of the other issues that people care about are being subsumed into that division.

I'm sure this comical meme is going to be one of the desperate attempts by the Right to hold onto the angry White working class vote. But fortunately, the ones in that cohort with brains are already Sanders supporters and your horse pucky isn't going to square with Bernie's eventual endorsement of Clinton and his turning his well-honed economic hammering rhetoric on the vastly easier target of Trump and what the Right actually has to offer.

The problem with all the protectionist arguments is that even if we build all those protectionist walls, and it miraculously doesn't come with all the negative consequences for our own exports and prices paid, it would come nowhere near the quantity AND QUALITY of job creation of the federal government just spending more money on infrastructure, education, research and development, environmental protection. Just a serious effort to develop and build out the infrastructure for electric driverless cars on a computerized grid would make this country's economy boom - worrying about tariffs and protectionism would be some other nations' problem.

America is already great, but we can make it much greater by simply taking the next step after the election of shipping you tools off to Greenland.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

If the election turns out to be Trump vs. Clinton, it will be a referendum on the "globalization" that began after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and is personified by the Clintons.

This could be a dramatic realignment. If you were a supporter of Bernie Sanders, or part of the dwindling middle or working class base of the Democratic Party, given the choice between Trump and Clinton, would you not be tempted to vote for Trump? And would the left-leaning members of the Republican elite not be tempted to vote for Clinton (some have publicly said they are)?

This is the choice that will be offered: "protectionism" vs. an economy where a handful of super rich, "progressive" elites fund welfare subsistence for "the masses" (many imported from foreign countries) to buy cheap Chinese goods at Wal Mart.

The Democratic Party will then have completed its transition from the party of the working class to the party of Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Wall Street and Washington, the party of "gentry liberals", college professors, and those with post-graduate degrees, and welfare recipients. The Republicans will become (at least as long as Trump is around) a new form of the FDR coalition, in support of a different set of policies.

Trump would make us more like other developed countries on trade and immigration, while Clinton would take us one step closer to permanently becoming Venezuela.

All of the other issues that people care about are being subsumed into that division.

Only idiots would consider Trump a credible Anti Globalist. They ignore facts such as, he's a speculator / raider, he employs illegals, he buys his swag from China. A complete con artist.

An educated Leftist Anti Globalist would really be a complete dupe if they voted for Trump.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Probably not. This would make sense only from a non-liberal white male perspective, the vast majority of whom already vote Republican. Most of the working class white men who still vote Democratic are liberals of one sort of another. A childhood friend of mine is a working class, secular, divorced white man, a prime Trump voter. But he was a union steward for decades. He is an old-fashioned Democrat who hates Republicans because they are the party of management (and Trump is very much management). Republicans have extolled businessmen and called investors (i.e. Wall Street) "job creators" for years and years. If you are labor, Republicans hate you and want to destroy you. I doubt my religiously conservative in-laws will vote for Trump, hell they couldn't even bring themselves to vote for McCain (they voted 3rd party) while they loved Bush. Those white working class people who still vote Democratic do so for reasons that a single candidate is not going to change. The rest long ago went over the the GOP.

Besides Trump will change nothing. One guy talking up protectionism will not make the GOP a protectionist party. He will just be one egotist in a sea of egotists who have no intention of working with him. Think of Carter on steroids. He is term-limited; they can outlast him. Remember, Democratic presidents are GOOD for Republican political pros. Look at how many are in office, not just in Washington, but at the state level too. Under a GOP president many of them will lose their seats in 2018 (they are pros, they know this).

If he tries to unilaterally do stuff the GOP donors don't like, out he goes. Since the guy is a walking scandal factory, they won't have to wait long to get a pretext.
Recall Nixon resigned before he could even be impeached because he had lost the support of his party leadership. Clinton did not resign because his party leadership stood with him. He was impeached, but remained safely in office. Trump has no such support, if Christie is VP, there is an enormous incentive to boot Trump and go with president Christie. Trump might decide to protect himself by picking Cruz, a guy they hate even more, but do you see a Trump-Cruz ticket winning? All of Trumps campaign pros will oppose Cruz. Trump's ego demands he do everything he can to win, so he will probably choose an acceptable running mate.

Plus Trump is not even true corporate management. He's something far worse. He's a speculator / raider type. The type who does a hostile take over then bleeds it dry for investors to cut and run. He's the working person's worst nightmare. He's also management's worst nightmare because he wouldn't know how to run a lemonade stand. Zero operations skills.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I'm sure this comical meme is going to be one of the desperate attempts by the Right to hold onto the angry White working class vote. But fortunately, the ones in that cohort with brains are already Sanders supporters and your horse pucky isn't going to square with Bernie's eventual endorsement of Clinton and his turning his well-honed economic hammering rhetoric on the vastly easier target of Trump and what the Right actually has to offer.

My 85-year-old Mom, who "has the Bern", is counting on Sanders to do just what you anticipate. I certainly hope that you both are right.