Various web links related to the 2016 primaries and the election of US President.
To start with the simplest case, the pundits, who are all free
traders, get really blank faced when the topic of protectionism
for doctors, dentists, lawyers and other highly paid professionals
comes up. Just as there are hundreds of millions of people in
the developing world who are prepared to do factory labor for a
fraction of the pay of our manufacturing workers, there are tens of
millions of really smart ambitious people in the developing world
(and Europe) who would happily train to U.S. standards and work as
professionals here for a fraction of the pay of our doctors and
lawyers. The difference is that we have designed our trade deals
to subject our manufacturing workers to competition, while we have
maintained or increased the protection for our doctors and lawyers.
...
Then we have our financial sector where the bankers benefit from
"too big to fail" insurance from the government. We also exempt
trades of stocks, bonds, and derivatives from the same sort of sales
tax that applies to clothes, cars, and most other products. Even an
extremely small tax in the financial sector could raise over $100
billion a year, while putting many of the Wall Street high rollers
out of business.
Here's what they said.
Kagan is wrong. Donald Trump is not a fascist. "Fascism" has been an all-purpose insult for many years now, but it has a real definition, and according to scholars of historical fascism, Trump doesn't qualify. Rather, he's a right-wing populist, or perhaps an "apartheid liberal" in the words of Roger Griffin, author of The Nature of Fascism. He doesn't want to overthrow the existing democratic system. He doesn't want to scrap the Constitution. He doesn't romanticize violence itself as a vital cleansing agent of society. He's simply a racist who wants to keep the current system but deny its benefits to groups he's interested in oppressing.
Clinton's winning because more Democrats want her to be the nominee.
Realistically, if you throw everything together, the math suggests that Sanders doesn't have much to complain about. If the Democratic nomination were open to as many Democrats as possible -- through closed primaries -- Clinton would be dominating Sanders. And if the nomination were open to as many voters as possible -- through open primaries -- she'd still be winning.