Hillary uncontested

[⛄]

What happens if nobody dares to compete against Hillary?
Will the DNC refuse to hold primaries?

[Antonio the Sixth]

There are always primaries. There were Dem primaries in 2012, Rep primaries in 2004, Dem primaries in 1996, etc. And there's always some joke candidate who will contest them.

[muon2]

Some states use the presidential primary date as the primary for other offices contested in November. It can save the state and counties significant money to consolidate those elections. Based on figures from special elections for Congress, it would cost IL and counties $40-50 million to hold a separate presidential primary from the general primary.

[henster]

I expect at least Schweitzer and O'Malley to run but neither will come close Clinton will likely win every state in the primary no one else will have the organization and money she would have.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Technically, primaries are about selecting delegates to the convention. Even if a candidate is uncontested without fringe opponents, it still have to go on.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

There will be a debate between the two factions of the Dem party. Schweizer v Hillary.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

There will be a debate between the two factions of the Dem party. Schweizer v Hillary.

As in the 1960s with the segregationists and progessive, the progressive Hillary faction will win.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

There will be a debate between the two factions of the Dem party. Schweizer v Hillary.

As in the 1960s with the segregationists and progessive, the progressive Hillary faction will win.

Please explain how Hillary is more progressive than Schweitzer.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

There will be a debate between the two factions of the Dem party. Schweizer v Hillary.

As in the 1960s with the segregationists and progessive, the progressive Hillary faction will win.

Please explain how Hillary is more progressive than Schweitzer.

Quite a few ways, actually. Hillary has toed the party line and has generally done what was in the best interests of the party. Schweitzer, on the other hand, is in many ways a dangerous turncoat. He supports anti-liberal gun laws and environmental laws. His true leftism (useful term) in economics helped to give the US a non-synchonous economy that hurt Obama, and his populism is dangerously anti-intellectual.
In many ways he is like a modern day George Wallace: he is an economic and social populist that could turn out bad.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

There will be a debate between the two factions of the Dem party. Schweizer v Hillary.

As in the 1960s with the segregationists and progessive, the progressive Hillary faction will win.

Please explain how Hillary is more progressive than Schweitzer.

Quite a few ways, actually. Hillary has toed the party line and has generally done what was in the best interests of the party. Schweitzer, on the other hand, is in many ways a dangerous turncoat. He supports anti-liberal gun laws and environmental laws. His true leftism (useful term) in economics helped to give the US a non-synchonous economy that hurt Obama, and his populism is dangerously anti-intellectual.
In many ways he is like a modern day George Wallace: he is an economic and social populist that could turn out bad.

"Non-synchronous economy"? What the hell does that even mean? And why do you add "useful term" after "true leftism"? Is this debate not about who is more liberal?

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

There will be a debate between the two factions of the Dem party. Schweizer v Hillary.

As in the 1960s with the segregationists and progessive, the progressive Hillary faction will win.

Please explain how Hillary is more progressive than Schweitzer.

Quite a few ways, actually. Hillary has toed the party line and has generally done what was in the best interests of the party. Schweitzer, on the other hand, is in many ways a dangerous turncoat. He supports anti-liberal gun laws and environmental laws. His true leftism (useful term) in economics helped to give the US a non-synchonous economy that hurt Obama, and his populism is dangerously anti-intellectual.
In many ways he is like a modern day George Wallace: he is an economic and social populist that could turn out bad.

"Non-synchronous economy"? What the hell does that even mean? And why do you add "useful term" after "true leftism"? Is this debate not about who is more liberal?

I meant that his policies gave the US an uneven ecomonic development. Also, leftism is not liberalism. The horseshoe theory shows that on extreme ends of the spectrum, like with communists and fascists, the two sides converge. Schweitzer, while not that far left, is fairly left wing and is in many ways a modern Wallace.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

There will be a debate between the two factions of the Dem party. Schweizer v Hillary.

As in the 1960s with the segregationists and progessive, the progressive Hillary faction will win.

Please explain how Hillary is more progressive than Schweitzer.

Quite a few ways, actually. Hillary has toed the party line and has generally done what was in the best interests of the party. Schweitzer, on the other hand, is in many ways a dangerous turncoat. He supports anti-liberal gun laws and environmental laws. His true leftism (useful term) in economics helped to give the US a non-synchonous economy that hurt Obama, and his populism is dangerously anti-intellectual.
In many ways he is like a modern day George Wallace: he is an economic and social populist that could turn out bad.

"Non-synchronous economy"? What the hell does that even mean? And why do you add "useful term" after "true leftism"? Is this debate not about who is more liberal?

I meant that his policies gave the US an uneven ecomonic development. Also, leftism is not liberalism. The horseshoe theory shows that on extreme ends of the spectrum, like with communists and fascists, the two sides converge. Schweitzer, while not that far left, is fairly left wing and is in many ways a modern Wallace.

Why is an uneven economic development so important? And what's the difference between leftism and liberalism according to you? And are you actually calling Schweitzer a communist/fascist? What evidence do you have that this "horseshoe theory" is so true that you hold it in high regard as the greatest of political theories? What are the ways in which Schweitzer is a "modern Wallace", assuming you're talking about George and not Henry? I don't recall Schweitzer ever making a stand at a gun shop door.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

snip

Why is an uneven economic development so important? And what's the difference between leftism and liberalism according to you? And are you actually calling Schweitzer a communist/fascist? What evidence do you have that this "horseshoe theory" is so true that you hold it in high regard as the greatest of political theories? What are the ways in which Schweitzer is a "modern Wallace", assuming you're talking about George and not Henry? I don't recall Schweitzer ever making a stand at a gun shop door.

Point by Point:
Uneven economic development often causes lower economic growth and poor economic performance.
"Liberalism" is simply a term used to designate the left-wing portion of classical liberalism with leftism being any ideology, like communism or anarchism, to its left.
I'm not calling Schweitzer a communist, I'm simply saying that because he his fairly left wing he naturally holds some right wing positions. You don't have to be extreme to be affected by the horseshoe factor.
The horseshoe theory is the consensus theory on how politics work in mainstream political science.
I'm just saying that Schweitzer's populism is very unhelpful and unpleasant. While I will admit the Wallace comparison is hyperbolic, they both have similar bases and often use similar debate tactics.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

snip

Why is an uneven economic development so important? And what's the difference between leftism and liberalism according to you? And are you actually calling Schweitzer a communist/fascist? What evidence do you have that this "horseshoe theory" is so true that you hold it in high regard as the greatest of political theories? What are the ways in which Schweitzer is a "modern Wallace", assuming you're talking about George and not Henry? I don't recall Schweitzer ever making a stand at a gun shop door.

Point by Point:
Uneven economic development often causes lower economic growth and poor economic performance.
"Liberalism" is simply a term used to designate the left-wing portion of classical liberalism with leftism being any ideology, like communism or anarchism, to its left.
I'm not calling Schweitzer a communist, I'm simply saying that because he his fairly left wing he naturally holds some right wing positions. You don't have to be extreme to be affected by the horseshoe factor.
The horseshoe theory is the consensus theory on how politics work in mainstream political science.
I'm just saying that Schweitzer's populism is very unhelpful and unpleasant. While I will admit the Wallace comparison is hyperbolic, they both have similar bases and often use similar debate tactics.

Do you have evidence to back up your claim about economic development?
On liberalism, basically what you're saying is that Schweitzer is to the left of laissez-faire supporters?
The horseshoe theory is about extremists - that's the whole point of it, that both kinds of extremists act in the same way. Schweitzer is not an extremist.
In what way is populism "unhelpful and unpleasant"? Isn't that what the Democratic Party is about - the downtrodden have-nots against the elite haves?

[SWE]

There will be a debate between the two factions of the Dem party. Schweizer v Hillary.

As in the 1960s with the segregationists and progessive, the progressive Hillary faction will win.

No

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

snip

Why is an uneven economic development so important? And what's the difference between leftism and liberalism according to you? And are you actually calling Schweitzer a communist/fascist? What evidence do you have that this "horseshoe theory" is so true that you hold it in high regard as the greatest of political theories? What are the ways in which Schweitzer is a "modern Wallace", assuming you're talking about George and not Henry? I don't recall Schweitzer ever making a stand at a gun shop door.

Point by Point:
Uneven economic development often causes lower economic growth and poor economic performance.
"Liberalism" is simply a term used to designate the left-wing portion of classical liberalism with leftism being any ideology, like communism or anarchism, to its left.
I'm not calling Schweitzer a communist, I'm simply saying that because he his fairly left wing he naturally holds some right wing positions. You don't have to be extreme to be affected by the horseshoe factor.
The horseshoe theory is the consensus theory on how politics work in mainstream political science.
I'm just saying that Schweitzer's populism is very unhelpful and unpleasant. While I will admit the Wallace comparison is hyperbolic, they both have similar bases and often use similar debate tactics.

Do you have evidence to back up your claim about economic development?
On liberalism, basically what you're saying is that Schweitzer is to the left of laissez-faire supporters?
The horseshoe theory is about extremists - that's the whole point of it, that both kinds of extremists act in the same way. Schweitzer is not an extremist.
In what way is populism "unhelpful and unpleasant"? Isn't that what the Democratic Party is about - the downtrodden have-nots against the elite haves?

The countries that have uneven development, such as China and Mexico, tend to be poorer and less stable than countries with even development.
Classical Liberalism is simply about believing in capitalist democracy aka democracy. Nothing more. It can shapeshift into anything in any circumstance as long as it still supports democracy.
The final two assertions are simply incorrect. The horseshoe bends just as soon as you start getting away from standard classical liberalism; it doesn't just affect extremists.
The democratic party is about helping the downtrodden through progessivism. Populism leads to anti-intellectualism and radicalism that simply destroys all progess made. An example of this would be Russia.

There will be a debate between the two factions of the Dem party. Schweizer v Hillary.

As in the 1960s with the segregationists and progessive, the progressive Hillary faction will win.

No

Yes.

[Flake]

Hillary is more conservative than Schweitzer on most issues, Schweitzer is pretty much more conservative than her on energy and gun control.

[Cassius]

How accurate is the horseshoe theory though? In my view, it makes sense from in the limited sense that both fascists and communists (or whatever shade of ultra-far-left or right they happen to be) don't believe in any form of liberal democracy, no matter how limited it is. Therefore, if the ends behind the means are stripped away, then yes, the two extremes do have something in common with each other. However, the point is that ends are very important here, and in this sense, they are genuinely polar opposites, since they are not authoritarian purely for the sake of authoritarianism, but rather to achieve the ends as dictated by their ideologies (for Communists, the triumph of the worker, and for fascists, well... The triumph of the nation?). So, in a sense, even if Schweitzer was 'far-left' (which he definitely isn't) he would hardly be close to fascism. This analysis, of course, also assumes that ideology can be fitted into lot's of neat little categories that can be slotted into place on a line like clothes pegs, when in fact 'ideology' is a highly malleable and changeable thing which drifts round and round (again this is just personal opinion, but I do feel that a better way of characterising ideology could be some sort of fish tank rather than a simple left-right axis).

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Did Cassius just make a sensible, correct post? My world is shattered.

[IceSpear]

There will be a debate between the two factions of the Dem party. Schweizer v Hillary.

Schweitzer is trailing both Hillary and Cruz in his own home state.