The US has a Democratic (well, actually representative republic) political system, and through regulatory requirements, social programs (welfare, social security, ACA to name a few), and through government contracts in numerous industries (defense, construction/infrastructure), not to mention the existing scaling tax system which recovers a portion of incomes for both businesses and personal, we do technically have a somewhat defined Democratic Socialism that also runs on a Capitalist model. Socialism, Communism, and Capitalism are not necessarily exclusive, and I don't believe any country (even the USSR) has had a 100% model of either.

IMO hybrid models are the best systems. The key is targeting each industry individually and producing the laws that produces the best results for the most of the citizenry.

Party and usher in President Trump.

Voter database had him as an independent, which is significant, as Sanders has so far gotten 70% of the Independent vote. They are now 40% of the electorate as opposed to just under 30% for Democrats.

earth. Time for party unity.

Invariably, they're not the ones who will suffer the most under a GOP presidency.

So the poor people living on the streets, with no health care or social safety net will somehow be worst off under Trump? What's trump going to do? Make their concrete beds harder? Make the rain colder? Or do you really mean that you are afraid that you will be joining them? So afraid that instead of voting for someone better, you will vote for someone who will just delay your trip to the poor house a few months?

who came of age in the great recession and the time of their parents jobs being shipped overseas.

That is their reality so it's up to us to talk them down from the barricades by urging the reasonable Sanders supporters to, once Bernie suspends his campaign, appeal to him to get on the stump for the party and bring his young supporters and independents over to vote blue.

Who exactly will be hurt the most with a Trump presidency?

The poor living on the street? The poor over in the middle/far east constantly living in constant fear and being droned while waiting for the next American approved dictator to make their lives more miserable?

Or maybe what you really mean is that the comfortable selfish middle class westerners, people like yourself maybe, might find themselves living closer to the reality for the 3rd world, that is the American Status-quo?

I have no doubt that a Trump presidency would be bad for some people ... but we have options: 1) Trump = bad but mostly for the people that were comfortable before. 2) Clinton = same old same old, bad for most of the world but keeps the corporate world happy; 3) Bernie = good for everyone.

I said they don't have much more to lose.

Centrist Democrats have always been promising to look after these very same people, yet there they are ... at the back of the line while centrists make up excuse after excuse as to why there are priorities ahead of them that need to be addressed first, but don't worry, once we deal with the needs of corporations we'll get right on it.

The only people who are being kept 'comfortable' by centrist Democrats are centrist Democrats .... "Oh we can't afford big change right now. It's unrealistic to address the needs of the really poor at the moment. First we need to deal with this deficit/debt/terrorism/war/under-equiped military/inner city crime/ too high gas prices/inflation/deflation/bear market/and so on and so forth."

If Sanders were to get in the people who would actually have the most to lose are centrist Democrats and Republican corporatists.


The only thing Centrist Democrats do are talk a good game, but they always have a 'priority' that gets in the way .. even now, that's the argument, we can't address the core problems because "there are priorities".

Sanders is only a threat to an Establishment candidate without a better message.

I would guarantee that Clinton herself isn't really worried at this point, and I fail to see why any of her supporters should be.

He was a Marx/Lenin style socialist early in his career -- he wrote about public ownership of the means of production, idolized Eugene V Debs, and so on. Outward appearances are that he's evolved to a European style social democrat. But who knows.

In the bin you go.

The more he falls behind in the delegate count, the more the real man comes to the fore.

After seeing him on Rachel last night, I am convinced that he really does want to over ride the Democratic process. He doesn't care if Hillary has the popular vote or more pledged delegates. He wants it his way or the highway. Bernie's problem is that it won't work. Pledged delegates allocated by states are bound and he can't over ride state rules. Super delegates are not going to switch to someone who became a Democrat a few months ago. It just isn't going to happen.

Many Americans are really dumb.

Latinos, blacks, Asians, gays, many women and progressive whites — the Obama Coalition — will vote for Clinton just as they did for Obama, and Trump, the neo-fascist, racist, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-women, penis-size arguer, handicapped person mocker will be destroyed in November.

Plus, Bernie will campaign for Clinton and bring in some independents and young voters, plus there just aren't enough right-leaning whites in the country anymore to win a national election. The demographics of the country has changed and is getting even browner as we speak.

The racist party can't win the White House anymore until they change — and a sea change is most likely on the way as that party will splinter once they try to steal their nomination from Trump at a brokered convention.

Are you actually trying to tell us that whoever comes out of two or more factions of a splintered party is going to beat the dem nominee?

Nah. That makes no sense.

But some posts are so stupid, they don't merit a serious response.

and they're the happiest places on earth.

Social Democracy is the European Model. Democratic socialism is a socialist centralized economy under democratic rule. It's never existed at least not for any length of time on any significant scale, because democracies don't vote for outright socialism.

He can call himself Mud for all I care, it's a better model for those of us not born with a silver spoon in our mouths.

The thing is, back in the day, he was an outright socialist -- he preached public control of the means of production, idolized Eugene V Debs, and so on. He claims he's evolved. But now that he's close to power, his disdain for the Democratic process is becoming clearer. And his rhetoric and actions are showing signs of old school Marxist crisis theory. How much has he really evolved from his Liberty Union days?

Ergo, since your opening statement is incorrect, the rest of the post which depends on that opening statement is just so much balderdash.

Communism has a socialist economy, but under authoritarian control. And the reason there aren't any democratic socialist nations is because when people vote, they don't vote for a government run economy.

It was established by Edouard Bernstein. Look it up.

between social democracy, democratic socialism, and communism?

That'd be a Marxist revolution - nothing to do with democratic socialism whatsoever. Red baiting is so last century. Try shouting "terrorism!" next time.

means of production, but under democratic control rather than authoritarian control. Bernie's been mis-using the term -- the policies he's been advocating are actually "social democracy" not "democratic socialism". He used to me a Marx style socialist, but since goign mainstream, he's evolved. Or so he claims. His recently disclosed disdain for democracy calls that all into question.

1) I don't think I can add any more value to the well thought out OP that DanTex has offered us.

2) He has struck such a nerve that the opposition's response speaks volumes.

Thanks DanTex for summarizing the strange nuances that make up Bernie Sanders and his followers.

but I definitely see it being a huge attack point for republicans if Bernie were the nominee. I'm sure he polls so highly against republicans currently mostly because Hillary can't attack him on that front.

I do find it a bit troubling though that Bernie supporters don't seem to recognize that most democrats are to the right of Bernie (which is why he's only running as a democrat for this particular election).

the political system. The problem is, historically it's proven difficult, if not impossible, to combine a socialist economy with democratic governance. For the simple reason that people don't vote for socialism. So democratic socialism is basically a theoretical concept.

What's odd is that Bernie hasn't been preaching "democratic socialism," at least not for decades. He's been preaching social democracy, but he's been using the wrong term for it. And I'm not sure why. He used to actually be a democratic socialist -- talking about public ownership of the means of production and all that -- back in his Liberty Union days, but his views have mellowed, at least outwardly, as he's gone mainstream. I guess he decided to change his views but keep the "democratic socialist" title for old time's sake.

will understand a position that's extremely nuanced. Whether he could get everyone to understand that he's advocating Scandinavian socialism and dodge being associated with cuba/china/russia/NK would remain to be seen.

It's extremely understandable for the democratic party to run from the socialist label. Both the extreme left and right are dangerous... and you have to be careful not to be associated with the far left.

that Democratic Socialism is the predominant economic/political system throughout western Europe. And, yes, it is both. I lived for 12 years in West Berlin during the Cold War, and I was there when The Wall fell. I know very well the difference between Communist Socialism (which is more of what you are referring to) and Democratic Socialism.

but the fact of the matter is that "democratic socialism" is a well defined and understood concept.

in political theory knows the difference. Or you can just stick with "I heard something about that in the MSM."

Aside from this being almost total bullshit, you must think his ideas are a real threat, otherwise why resort to red-baiting? Because what you describe bears no actual resemblance to what Bernie Sanders is proposing.

You are completely blinded by what is truly going on. The Democratic Party has sold itself to the highest corporate bidders, at the expense of working people and the middle class. Things have gotten worse since Reagan, but Bill Clinton, who had no principles whatsoever except winning at all costs, made it infinitely worse. And Obama, though more principled than both of the Clintons combined, has not really been much better.

So what exactly is your objection to making the 1% pay their fair share of taxes? Why shouldn't universities be cheaper, if not free? Is there some actual reason (besides cost) why that shouldn't be?

The thing is, if those ideas were espoused by, say, Paul Wellstone, if he were still alive, everyone on this fucking website, including Hillary fans, would be jumping for joy. A new New Deal, that's all it is, and not very many people here object to the New Deal, as it existed back then.

I don't want the Democratic Party burned to the ground; I want actual progressives at the helm. I want it be less in debt to corporations. I want it to represent the people (you know, the "demos" part of democratic), and be led by people of principle, rather than the Frank Underwoods of this world, who will do ANYTHING to get and stay in power. That is the only thing motivating most Democrats these days.

We can't afford a Trump presidency.

It's also bizarre that instead of trying to mount a cogent response, you accuse me of "red-baiting" despite the fact that I didn't mention the word "communism" even once in the OP. I pointed out correctly that there are no historical examples of democratic socialism on any significant scale or length of time.

What Bernie has been preaching for the last few decades is not actually democratic socialism, but social democracy, which is not the same thing. I have no idea why he uses the wrong term, but he does. However, in his earlier career, back in the Liberty Union days and even as mayor of Burlington, he was an actual socialist, in the sense of public ownership of the means of production.

It seems to me, that now that he has declared his intent to go scorched earth to overturn the electorate of the Democratic party, and that his words and actions are beginning to resemble Marxist crisis theory, asking how much has he actually transitioned from socialist to social democrat. Does he, like some of his online supporters, actually think that a Trump presidency would be preferable to Hillary in order to "wake people up"?

To soften "Socialist" once he started thinking about running for office to make it more palatable to the electorate.

on first hearing it associates him with the Democratic Party instead socialism as Social Democrat might.

The economy is swell or good enough for lots of us. But it is not swell for more and more people.

Some of us doing well seem to have blinders on. We are fine, our circle of friends are fine, the status quo is just peachy.

In my local paper this morning one story caught my eye, about the percentage of Columbus area students who qualify for subsidized lunches/breakfast. 44 per cent of our local kids qualify. The same article pointed out that the number of qualifiers in our well to do suburbs is rising rapidly, most of them have food banks located close to McMansions.

So many have been joining the economically challenged thanks in large part to all the free trade deals. Your job is lost to someone in the Carribean or wherever who will do it for peanuts so your cushy middle class existence is gone. Or your pension vanishes, sorry. Big winners, more big losers.

It is what just does not register with the Neo democrats and their fans.

We need a big shot of democratic socialism, much like FDR brought about, we need to deep six NAFTA and all the other lousy trade deals.

Empathy and perspective is in short supply among the corporate democratic wing and it is disheartening.